ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, May 24, 2004 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
John LeDoux
Edward Furey
Kevin Kibbe
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the Minutes of April 26, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 1 vote. Mr. Kibbe abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum noted Board members received a copy of the revised Bylaws that were approved last month. There are also approval letters from last month’s hearings, the May Town Attorney’s Report, and copies of memos back and forth from Mr. Alsbaugh in regard to abstention votes and front porches.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED
Chairman Yarum informed the audience of tonight’s meeting procedure and also discussed when a variance can be granted.
Thomas and Marie Galaske appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. Galaske stated he is requesting a variance to allow a recreational vehicle to be parked forward of the required setback behind the front building line at 26 Holiday Lane.
Mr. Galaske presented copies of information to the Board with pictures and supporting documentation to support his variance request. Chairman Yarum entered into the record the exhibits presented; page 1 and page 2, a petition signed by the abutting property owners, and 9 photographs of the property.
Mr. Galaske stated the eleven families on his street have no opposition to this request. He is located on a cul-de-sac and there is no one to the north side or behind his home. The land is wet and spongy and, in his opinion, not suitable to put the weight of a 14,000 pound recreational vehicle on it. He does have a swimming pool in the back but he gave calculations regarding the force that is exerted on the back spongy land. When the pool is full, it is around 9,000 gallons which translates to eight pounds per gallon or 72,000 pounds spread over a 16’ x 32’ area. The result is it only exerts about 140 pounds per square foot. The vehicle is 14,000 pounds with 4,600 pounds exerted on the front and 9,400 pounds exerted on the back. With the calculations and taking into consideration the area of the tire exerted on the ground, the result is 2,300 pounds per square foot. Mr. Galaske stated this is a lot of weight and his concern is the spongy land will give way and result in sink holes. The area to the rear of his home is swampy and a lot of fill has been added over the years. The area is in a continuously wet situation.
Mr. Galaske stated he has had vehicles in his yard for over 16 years and he has never had a problem. He stated the recreational vehicle presently is not visible from any part of the street when coming down it. He noted pictures #3, #4 and #5 show the placement of the vehicle. Mr. Galaske stated the present location of the recreational vehicle doesn’t hinder anyone and many people have commented that they did not know it was there.
Mr. Galaske stated there is plenty of room between the recreational vehicle and their personal car for any type of deliveries. He stated his present driveway was installed about six years ago and he notices the weight of the truck does have an effect on the driveway.
Mr. Galaske stated in the back where the pool is located, there is some washout. When he installed the pool, he wanted to put in a diving bell. He was told by the contractor that this was not recommended because of the high water level. He added when the shrubs were removed to install the pool, the area immediately filled up with water. He stated this confirms the sponginess of the back property. Mr. Galaske stated because occasionally there is wash out in the area underneath the swimming pool, this indicates to him that it would not be advisable to put anything heavy in this area.
Mr. LeDoux asked if there is a structure located in the back. Mr. Galaske stated there is not. The map is a little out of proportion. If you are looking at the garage, between the side of the garage and the property line is about 8’. There is a row of shrubs and a telephone pole at the end making it difficult to locate anything in there. Mr. Galaske noted the house was placed up closer to the property line of his neighbor to avoid the spongy area. This does not allow him to move the recreational vehicle over because he doesn’t have the room. He noted the existing hemlocks in the area are located on his property.
Mr. Galaske referenced the pictures and stated picture #3 shows the telephone pole which is about one foot to the right of his property line.
Chairman Yarum stated even if the hemlocks were not the issue, the property boundary is. Mr. Galaske confirmed this to be the case and noted his only option is to put the vehicle on the north side. The north side has the spongy land Mr. Galaske referred to earlier.
Chairman Yarum asked if the property to the north and east is considered wetlands. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is unsure of the exact identification of this land but it sounds like it has a high water table directly adjacent to wetlands conditions. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he could confirm this with the wetlands mapping.
Some discussion followed regarding the huge tree on the property which was determined to be a swamp maple tree.
Mr. Galaske stated his property is surrounded by property owned by a nursery on the north and east sides.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated his main concern was specifying exactly where on the map the problems associated with wetlands were located and clarifying the location to the south of the house. This concern has been alleviated due to the map not being to scale.
Chairman Yarum thought there has to be wetlands or a high water table in the area because the entire cul-de-sac is not developed and that development has not occurred for a reason.
Chairman Yarum asked about the property diagonal to Mr. Galaske’s property on the northwest side of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Galaske stated that is 21 Holiday Lane, the Zarcaro property located directly across the street. As he is looking out his driveway, Mr. Galaske noted there is no one to the right. It is a cul-de-sac and these are the last two homes on the street.
Mr. Furey asked if the vehicle is proposed to be parked as shown in the pictures presented or in the driveway. Mr. Galaske confirmed that it would be parked in that location unless they were away on a trip.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Sheila Consega, 26 Rockland Drive, stated she is the person that contacted the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Wayne Bickley. She works with many organizations throughout the town and the state including police and fire departments. She did not pinpoint the Galaske’s just out of spite. It came up in one of her jobs and she talked to her branch manager about procedure. In regard to how the Galaske’s park their vehicles, she wanted to offer additional insight. She delivers the Hartford Courant and they were a customer at one time until they found out who initiated this complaint. She questioned if the police or fire department have adequate access to this home in case of an emergency because of the way the vehicles are parked.
Mr. Galaske stated regarding whether someone can get in and out of the property in case of an emergency, he called the Board’s attention to the picture labeled #3. It shows the front view of parking in the driveway. He stated there is sufficient room for walking between the vehicles. He measured the distance and it is a little bigger than the average sidewalk. With respect to getting any type of fire equipment to the property, he stated you can go between the two vehicles or directly across the lawn. They can also go down between the hemlocks and the home.
Chairman Yarum noted the testimony of Mr. Galaske is there is a clearance of approximately four to five feet to get behind the property on the south side.
Mr. Rinaldi confirmed that would be the area between the recreational vehicle and the hemlocks. Mr. Galaske stated no but it would be between the recreational vehicle and the car parked in the yard. Once you go behind that vehicle, there is plenty of room between the hemlocks and the garage.
Chairman Yarum stated Mr. Galaske would back the recreational vehicle in and get out on the driver’s side. Mr. Galaske stated he does exit on the driver’s side and the door that exits does so right on to the driveway. Chairman Yarum asked if Mr. Galaske is the driver, does he have sufficient room to back in and open his door. Mr. Galaske stated he does because the cab is a little narrower by about two and a half feet than the main body. The main body would be eight to ten inches from the hemlocks.
Chairman Yarum stated in the event of an emergency, if there are two vehicles parked in the driveway, access would be gained by going between the vehicles, behind the recreational vehicle and then between the house, the garage and the hemlocks and the path is four to five feet. Mr. Galaske confirmed that to be correct but noted the distance between is three to three and a half feet which gives him plenty of room to walk through. Anyone carrying fire hoses could also access the property that way. They could also come over the patio and go around to the back of the house as a second access.
Chairman Yarum referenced photo#8 which depicts how far these hemlocks go toward the back of the yard. He asked if Mr. Galaske were to go in his neighbor’s back yard, would they have access into the Galaske back yard. Mr. Galaske stated they do at the end of the hemlocks. There is about six or seven feet where the tree line ends and they can come right around the back and in.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a variance to allow parking a Recreational Vehicle forward of the required setback behind the front building line – Section 4.20.1[3]. An evergreen screen similar to the existing hemlock row at least 8’ in height shall be maintained at all times on the property in the existing screening area as identified in the application submitted.
Reference is made to a hand drawn site plan titled "26 HOLIDAY LN - LOT Schematic and Home", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-04-01.
Mr. Furey stated when he first looked at the information and went to look at the property he had some concerns because a variance, if granted, goes with the property permanently. He added at some point in the future the hemlocks may come down and someone else may be there. However, he was not aware of the spongy areas on both sides of the property on the north and east which make it impossible for the parking of this vehicle in any other location. Mr. Furey added that a vehicle of this size has been at this location for sixteen years.
Mr. Rinaldi asked for a professional opinion from Mr. Alsbaugh regarding the safety factor. Mr. Alsbaugh stated in this instance there is a direct conflict between the zoning requirements of keeping a recreational vehicle behind the rear of the front building line which is on the side of the house. This has been in place for the last twenty-five or thirty years and the fire departments have never had a concern with access.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the safety factor has never come up as an issue. The way the ordinance was crafted, he doesn’t understand why it would have been this long if there was a point of contention between any of the safety agencies.
Mr. Furey stated the Hazardville Fire Department reviews streets in the areas where they have to take care of property. They would be the ones that might say something to the property owners if there appeared to be a problem.
Mr. Rinaldi stated with the hemlocks in place, a lot of people were unaware that the recreational vehicle was parked there. He suggested it would be appropriate to impose a condition that the variance is in place as long as there is screening. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that the addition of a vegetative screening condition is something the Board could do. Following some discussion on the type of screening, the consensus was to add a condition that if this variance is approved, an evergreen screening similar to the existing hemlock row at least 8’ in height will be maintained on the property at all times in the existing screening area as identified in the application submitted with PH#2004-04-01.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote. The reason for approval is the existing wetlands on the north and east side and the setback of 8’ on the south side limit the location where the recreational vehicle can be parked. The home is located on a cul-de-sac and the property owner most affected by the variance, the neighbor across the street, was the first one to sign the petition in favor. The cul-de-sac is also partially undeveloped which is supportive of observations regarding the soil conditions.
ZBA 2004-05-01 - John D. Pennell, Applicant/Owner, 170 Jackson Rd., Map 111 / Lot 149, R-33 Zone, requesting a 2' variance of the front yard setback to allow a garage addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
John Pennell, 170 Jackson Road, requested a variance of two feet of the front yard setback to allow a garage addition. He noted the current setback requirement is 35’ from the property line. The proposed addition is a garage with dimensions of 22’ x 24’. The 22’ is the front to back dimension. With this 22’, it would extend two feet in front of the setback requirement. Mr. Pennell stated the 22’ requested is based on consideration of car length. That car dimension has to consider the width of the wall in the front of the garage and the fact that there steps leading from the garage to the existing porch. The porch entrance is the one used on a daily basis. The step dimensions are one and a half feet from the interior wall forward and Mr. Pennell estimated the wall and garage door would be in the neighborhood of five or six inches. That is the 2’ requested which means the useable space for one car on one side is really about 20’. Considering an average size car, that would only leave about three and a half feet total difference which is less than 2’ front to back.
Mr. Thorogood asked about the location of the steps. Mr. Pennell stated they will be inside the garage towards the foundation to the east which is the porch. If he pulled the car into the garage, he would be facing the steps.
Mr. LeDoux asked what the hardship is. Mr. Pennell stated the existing porch has a concrete foundation which is in place. It currently is 20’ in back of that setback limit. Therefore, with a 22’ garage, it would extend 2’ in front of that. The existing foundation prohibits moving it back further. Mr. Pennell stated the only thing in front of the existing foundation is a one-car carport and an asphalt driveway which covers that area and the area to the north. He intent is to add on for a second car garage.
Mr. Thorogood asked about the length of the existing carport. Mr. Pennell stated it is 18’ long. It is set back from the house. The carport is in line with the front of the house,
Mr. LeDoux asked if Mr. Pennell has considered moving the stairs so that they are not inside the garage. If the stairs came into the porch at a different angle, you would not lose the 3’ inside the garage. Mr. Pennell stated it would be necessary to exit the garage on the north side.
Mr. Furey asked if the stairs are existing and Mr. Pennell stated they are. The porch is enclosed but there are thin paneled walls and it is really just a porch.
Mr. Rinaldi asked how far the steps extend from the house. Mr. Pennell stated from the foundation, approximately one and a half feet.
Chairman Yarum asked if the porch addition was there when Mr. Pennell purchased this home. Mr. Pennell stated it was and there are two steps to the outside grade. The concrete for the garage will be at the same level.
Chairman Yarum asked why Mr. Pennell couldn’t raise that to one step. Mr. Pennell stated he does not know what it would take to raise that foundation. The grade of the front of the garage would have to be raised about a foot to allow a car to drive up on to that level. It would not be a quality implementation but it is possible.
Mr. Thorogood suggested an extension of the garage with new steps and additional storage in the back. Mr. Pennell stated that is a better possibility.
Mr. Thorogood asked about the size of the porch. Mr. Pennell stated it is 15’ x 12’. Mr. Thorogood stated with his suggestion, Mr. Pennell would be gaining 15’. The garage size would be increased and no variance would be required. Mr. Pennell asked if the proposal is to push back the northeast corner of the wall all the way down. Mr. Thorogood stated yes. The suggestion would be on the outside of the garage to continue down until it is even with the back of the house and move the stairs. If the stairs are 36” and they are moved back 2’, there will be five feet to move back and all setbacks would be met. If you go back 15’, there would be a gain of additional storage space. Mr. Pennell stated he personally would not take the garage that far. He is still concerned about the other side of the garage where he is still limited with the 20’.
Mr. Thorogood stated the stairs would be removed with his proposal. Mr. Pennell stated Mr. Thorogood is saying push it back to the allowed setback. That means that dimension from the foundation to the front of the porch is 20’. The other side of the garage would be 20’ plus 5’. Mr. Thorogood stated if 22’ is needed, he suggested pushing it back 5’ to 10’. Mr. Pennell stated that is not the side he has the concern about.
Mr. Pennell stated the stairs could be moved around by extending the north side of the garage back four or five feet and putting the stairs there but the major issue is access around the cars, both to the interior of the garage and to the other side of the car for entry into the car with a 20’ limit with less than 2’ from the front to the back. He still does not think it is a quality implementation on that side.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated to Mr. Thorogood that his proposed layout is logical but there is the possibility of an extreme increase in framing costs when dealing with multiple roof lines. If you move the garage back and actually make the porch a part of the garage, you have to tie in all the roof lines.
Chairman Yarum commented that today he measured a number of cars in the parking lot at work. A mid size car is between 15’ and 16’ and a full size car is between 18’ and 19’. A pickup truck with an extended cab runs 20’. If this gentleman owned a pickup with an extended cab, that particular bay of the garage is of no use to him without the variance. And, even then, it’s tight.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this variance application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance of 2', 33' proposed, 37' existing, 35' required, to allow an attached garage addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a computer drawn site plan by the applicant, titled "Plan for a garage addition at 170 Jackson Road, Enfield, CT 06082-4140, John & Karen Pennell", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-05-01.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the applicant is requesting only the minimum required as far as the variance in order to have a functional garage. Safety is a factor regarding the location of the steps and trying to keep them in place to access the house. Also, even if the steps were removed, the applicant stated the steps were approximately a foot and a half. If you pulled that back, he would still be looking for a variance of 6”.
Mr. LeDoux questioned what is unique about this property. This is basically a rectangle and there is nothing unique about the property to grant a variance. Because someone wants a certain size garage, that would be considered a self-imposed hardship. There are other options that are available that are monetarily not feasible. However, you don’t get any more of a standard piece of property than this property is.
Mr. Furey stated it is not the property but the existing building that is unique. This presents a problem to putting in an appropriate and useable garage. The request is only 2’. These homes were built in a time when there were different regulations in effect.
Chairman Yarum agreed. He stated when you look at the definition of what the property means, it means the existing conditions you have with the foundation in place. There have been a number of applications before this Board with existing conditions of a foundation where a variance was required because the foundation was already in place. In order to expand, add on or change, a variance was needed. Chairman Yarum did not see where this application is any different. The uniqueness of this is because the foundation is existing. The homeowner did not put the foundation in but bought the property with the foundation as it is. The request is for the minimum and a 22’ depth for a garage is not a lot. The applicant is only requesting what is necessary.
Mr. Furey stated he feels 22’ is sufficient. He personally has a 21’ car that would not fit in this garage. He noted the request is only for the minimum.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 1 – 0 vote. Mr. LeDoux voted nay.
The reason for granting this variance is the location and shape of the existing foundation limit where a garage can be placed. The applicant is requesting the minimum required for a functional garage. Also, there is a safety factor of keeping an existing main entrance.
ZBA 2004-05-02 - Shelley L. Lampron, Applicant, 2 Hathaway Ave., Map 20 / Lot 214, R-33 Zone, requesting an 18' variance of the front yard setback for a kitchen / family room addition - EZO Section 4.10.2 H
Shelley Lampron appeared before the Board regarding a request for an 18’ variance of the front yard setback for a kitchen/family room addition. Their home is a cape and they would like to put the addition to the west gable end.
Ms. Lampron stated the reason for this request is there is a 50-year-old maple tree in the front yard which they do not want to cut down. Behind the house is a sewer which runs down to Poplar Street in the northwest corner.
Chairman Yarum asked if the proposed addition is going to have a full foundation. Ms. Lampron stated it will be a full foundation.
Tim Lampron stated he measured the foundation of the house to the street and they have 52’ to the curb yet the information states 36’. Chairman Yarum stated the 36’ is to the property line. He asked where the existing sewer to the house comes out. Ms. Lampron identified its location on the plan and stated it is about 5’ out.
Ms. Lampron stated they could do this addition off the back but it would be major construction to do so and the uniqueness of the house would be taken away. They could go to the front of the house and put a gable end in the front of the house but they would lose the appearance of the home. The kitchen is located between two rooms in the middle of the house with a bedroom in the back and a dining room in the front. Ms. Lampron noted she would lose one or both of these rooms.
Chairman Yarum stated within their application, the specific hardship claimed is the location of the large maple tree located directly in front of the house, the sewer line located directly behind the house and the present kitchen location between the front dining room and back bedroom resulting in the loss of a bedroom.
Ms. Lampron explained the kitchen is on the west side in between the front dining room and the back bedroom. She doesn’t want to lose the dining room. In order to have the family room, she would have to go out the back resulting in her bedroom being gone. The house would be reduced to two bedrooms.
Mr. LeDoux stated this applicant has two frontages.
Chairman Yarum asked about the comment in the application that the height in the basement is seven and a half feet. Ms. Lampron stated that was to emphasize that she can’t have a family room down there.
Chairman Yarum stated if they were to expand out the back, even though aesthetically it would look better on the side, that is an option. Ms. Lampron reiterated this would involve major construction.
Chairman Yarum stated the applicant is now saying she would lose a bedroom if she expanded to the back. Ms. Lampron stated she would. Chairman Yarum noted there would be no other option for that bedroom because the basement is too small. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the basement would not be an option for a bedroom due to the regulations in the Town of Enfield where bedrooms are not allowed in the basement.
Mr. Furey asked about the location of the windows and door shown on the site plan.
Mr. Furey asked how far the sewer line comes out. Ms. Lampron stated the sewer line comes out from the middle of the house about three or four feet and then west. Mr. Lampron stated he is unsure of the depth heading north with the sewer line but it is approximately 4’ to 5’ and then it heads toward Popular Street.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance of 18', 17' proposed, 36' existing, 35' required, to allow a kitchen expansion and a family room addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Estate of William E. Savage et al, 2 Hathaway Avenue, John J. Connolly, Jr., Registered Land Surveyor, dated September, 1992", showing proposed and existing conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-05-02.
Mr. LeDoux stated the sewer line, the configuration of the house and the inability to have a bedroom in the basement, as well as the lot having two frontages, all contribute to the request for a variance. The driveway comes from Hathaway. Even with this addition, if this were treated as a side yard, there would still be 18’.
Chairman Yarum stated if they tried to expand to the north, there is the large tree. Mr. Furey stated that tree is not that close to the house and is to the back of the property.
Chairman Yarum stated going to the north, they would have to deal with a sewer line that is not at the base of the foundation but midway on the foundation wall so it would be exposed with the addition. To expand to the east cannot be done because of the lack of room and the garage. With an expansion to the south, there is the existing tree in the front. The most practical use of the property is to expand to the west off the existing building.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is due to the uniqueness of the property having two frontages where only one is used as a frontage as well as the sewer line placement which prohibits building to the north of the home. To the south is not an acceptable choice because it is the true front of the house.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the status of the new application form. Mr. Alsbaugh reported it is in progress.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
John H. LeDoux, Jr., Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr