ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JULY 26, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, July 26, 2004, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
Kevin Kibbe
Edward Furey
Elizabeth Ballard, Alternate
David Alexander, Alternate
Paul Thorogood, Alternate (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of May 24, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 1 vote. Mr. Alexander abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum stated Correspondence includes the Notice of Decisions for the May meeting.
Chairman Yarum asked about the status of photo identification badges for Board members. Mr. Alsbaugh stated everyone's photos have been taken and a laminator is being purchased to produce the final badges.
Chairman Yarum stated in the near future, this Board will be meeting with Planning and Zoning and he asked that Mr. Alsbaugh coordinate this.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of the Town Attorney’s Report for July, 2004.
Chairman Yarum noted the memo Board members received regarding calling if they are unable to attend a meeting. He emphasized the need to do this in order for this Board to have the necessary quorum.
Chairman Yarum explained tonight’s procedure to the applicants present, as well as when a variance can be granted.
Richard Michalik, 19 Oxford Drive, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He is requesting a 10’ variance of the rear yard setback to construct a garage. He would like to set his garage 10’ to the north and 18’ back per the sketch provided. He stated he collects vehicles and he would like to keep them all at one location. He noted the orientation of the house on the land and the plot of the land itself makes it very difficult for him to enlarge the garage area and stay within the zoning requirements.
Mr. Michalik stated he has discussed this garage construction with a contractor to review various options. He also has talked to his neighbors and he presented signatures from seven neighbors that have confirmed they have no objection to this garage construction. It is his intent to maintain the aesthetics of the house and he would also like to maintain the aesthetics for the neighborhood. Mr. Michalik is therefore looking to keep the garage attached to the house instead of constructing a freestanding garage. It is his intent to minimize the amount of construction time and the size of the construction zone for safety reasons.
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of a letter dated July 20, 2004 containing the signatures of neighbors located at 17, 21, 22, 23, and 18 Oxford Drive and 48 Bell Avenue confirming they have no objections to the construction of this addition.
Mr. Michalik stated the people that signed this petition are those located around his lot and those who would have a visual of the proposed area.
Mr. Michalik stated he has considered looking at a detached garage and because of the amount of construction that would be necessary and the change to the aesthetics of the house, it was not something he wanted to consider. He is an OSHA inspector and he has been trained regarding work site safety. It is his intent to keep the construction work site as small as possible and complete this construction as quickly as possible for safety reasons.
Chairman Yarum asked the applicant why he believes this request for a variance is not self imposed. Mr. Michalik did not have an immediate response to this question.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the applicant is aware of the 75’ building line. He questioned if there was anything special that caused the homes to be constructed so far back. Mr. Michalik stated he only purchased this home about a year and a half ago and this is the plot plan he was provided.
Chairman Yarum asked the applicant without the need to store the six vehicles on this property, does he have reasonable use of the property. Mr. Michalik stated he does.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the distance from where the mud room connects to the garage or from the front point to the back building line. Mr. Michalik estimated this distance to be 45’.
Mr. Rinaldi questioned if it would be possible to locate the garage so that there would be no encroachment on the rear setback. Mr. Michalik stated if he were to use the mud room as part of the garage, it would be possible but the mud room is up higher than the rest of the garage or approximately an 18” difference in the foundation.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the existing slab would be used. Mr. Michalik stated it is his intent to keep the existing slab.
Chairman Yarum opened this application to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a 10’ variance of the rear yard setback, 25’ proposed, 35’ existing, 35’ required, to allow a garage expansion. EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to an untitled site plan identified as “ZBA 2004-06-01, received June 2, 2004, Planning Office, Enfield, CT (and marked) UM 4/22/04,” showing existing and proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-06-01.
Mr. Furey stated it is an odd configuration of property and there is no objection from the neighbors. Also, the applicant has use of the property and would like to develop the property in a way that is complimentary to the existing dwelling and with the least amount of disturbance from construction.
Chairman Yarum stated the problem he is having is without the six vehicles there would be no need for this variance and the six vehicles is a factor that is self-imposed. He believes that the applicant has reasonable use of the land. The garage is already a part of the property and it is no different than any other home in the area. The applicant, in his opinion, is requesting more than what the property can handle. A six-bay garage is a lot of space and Chairman Yarum feels this is entirely self-imposed.
Mr. Rinaldi agreed. The applicant already has an existing 22’ x 22’ garage. The variance request is something he would like which goes beyond the minimum requirement.
The motion was denied by a 1 – 4 – 0 vote. Mr. Furey voted in favor; Chairman Yarum, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Kibbe and Mr. Alexander, Alternate, voted against.
The reason for denial is the applicant stated there was no reason he could give to explain why this variance request was not self-imposed and there are other availabilities to the applicant to place this addition on the property.
5b. ZBA 2004-06-02 (tabled on 6/28/04) - Victoria Kaplan, Applicant/Owner, vacant lot on Bernadino Ave., Map 35 / Lot 232, R-33 Zone, requesting a density and an abutting lot dwelling unit count variance to allow a new 2-family residence - EZO Section 4.30.8B&C.
Attorney Charles Parakilas and Victoria Kaplan appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Attorney Parakilas confirmed to the Board that all public hearing signs have been properly posted in excess of ten days before this hearing. Also, the applicant has prepared and submitted an untitled zoning map showing all properties coming within a radius of 500’ of the subject premises. This map indicates the number of family units per parcel of land and the total area of each parcel by square footage.
Attorney Parakilas stated the subject premises consist of a vacant parcel of land on the north side of Bernardino Avenue or east of Route 5 abutting I-91. It is bounded on the north by Kalish Avenue, 68.63’, northeast by I-91, State of Connecticut, 103.75’, southeasterly by State Street, 92.21’, southeasterly by Bernardino Avenue, 100’, and southwesterly by land owned by Sharky and Nolan, approximately 200’ partly by each. The total parcel contains 21,400 square feet of area and the zoning classification is R-33. The applicant wants to build a two-family residence on this parcel of land.
Attorney Parakilas stated under the current zoning regulations, two large residential parcels of land come within a radius of 500’ of the applicant’s property identified as parcel #8 and parcel #9 on the map. Their contention is these two parcels deprive the applicant of the inherent right to build a two-family residence on her parcel of land by square footage. Attorney Parakilas referred the Board to the calculations made by the surveyor which show this. He noted except for this technical question of density, the applicant would not need a variance from Section 4.30.8 sections b and c of the regulations to build a two-family residence on Bernardino Avenue.
Attorney Parakilas noted the character of the neighborhood falling within the 500’ radius of the applicant’s property. On the north side of Bernardino Avenue, there are two three-family residences, parcels #5 and #4 on the untitled zoning map. Parcel #2 is a two-family residence, Parcel #1 is a single-family residence, Parcel #3 is vacant, and Parcel #11 is vacant. The character of the area also includes at the intersection of Route 5 and Bernardino Avenue the Cloverleaf Bar and Lounge with the motel units along side of it. There is also a string of garages which his client painted for the owner because she could not stand the dilapidated condition of them.
Attorney Parakilas stated the most important complaint about this area is it is generally an eyesore. The subject premises are generous in size and larger than what is needed for a single-family residence in that section. A two-family home would, therefore, easily blend in with the character of the neighborhood.
Chairman Yarum asked the reason for not building a single-family home. Attorney Parakilas stated if you consider all the properties falling within 500’, there are two extra large parcels of land. The construction of a single-family home would not be the most effective use of the property. The applicant would be denied the highest and best use of the property and Attorney Parakilas noted there is more land than is required for a single-family residence.
Chairman Yarum questioned the most effective use by what means. Attorney Parakilas responded by legal means. He added this is not a question of a financial hardship but of a genuine legal hardship. By square footage, if it were not for the two extra large parcels of land, there would be no problem qualifying the applicant for a two-family residence. It is those two large parcels of land that create the injustice and the hardship and it is a legal hardship.
Chairman Yarum asked how the applicant would be addressing item c. which states “at least half of the lots abutting the subject lot shall contain at least one building having at least two dwelling units with certificates of occupancies.”
Attorney Parakilas stated the answer is in the square footage requirements.
Chairman Yarum stated he reads the ordinance as saying one of the two abutting properties has to be a two-family house and he noted neither one is. Attorney Parakilas stated the property abuts I-91.
Chairman Yarum stated lots #11 and #1 abut the applicant’s property and neither one of them is a two-family residence. Attorney Parakilas stated one lot is a vacant lot and the other is a single-family residence.
Chairman Yarum reiterated that in the regulations, Section 4.30.8 regarding duplex residences, item b. has been convincingly addressed and item c. says at least half of the lots abutting the subject lot shall contain at least one building having at least two dwelling units with certificates of occupancy. Attorney Parakilas stated those qualifications are present within the neighborhood. Chairman Yarum noted but not with abutting lots. Attorney Parakilas responded not within the meaning of a legal hardship.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the applicant stated the signs were posted in a timely manner. He drove by the property today and one sign was lying flat and the other sign was tossed in the woods. He asked how long these signs have been down. Attorney Parakilas stated those signs have been up for over a month and a half. He does not know how long they have been down. Following further discussion, Ms. Kaplan stated she posted the signs herself. Attorney Parakilas stated while the signs were properly posted initially, they did not police the property to determine how long the signs had been down.
Mr. Furey noted this property abuts I-91. The two properties that he sees on Enfield Street include one which is smaller than the property where they are proposing to put the two-family home, and that it contains a three-family home. He observed the applicant property, if left vacant is not going to be properly developed and it will be off the tax rolls. He further discussed the signs which may have been pulled up by children in the area.
Attorney Parakilas stated in conclusion, the granting of a variance would only serve to dignify the character of this neighborhood. To deny the application would be denying the applicant the most effective and highest use that this property could be developed under this ordinance.
Mr. Kibbe stated Lots #4 and #5 have three-family homes. Lot #11 is vacant. There is, therefore, a vacant lot between Lot #5 and where this home would be developed. On the other side of this parcel is Route I-91.
Attorney Parakilas stated there are two three-families, a two-family, a two-car garage and two single-family homes in this area. Also in the area are the motel, bar and lounge.
Chairman Yarum asked the purpose of developing this property. Attorney Parakilas stated the intent is to construct a two-family home on a large piece of land. Chairman Yarum asked if it would be for rental reasons or for sale.
Attorney Parakilas stated Ms. Kaplan also owns a piece of property where she conducts her business. She has been there for over thirty years and is a part of the neighborhood. Being part of the neighborhood, there is more of a desire to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Kaplan is intending to dignify the area by putting something there that is a lot more respectable than what is there now. Attorney Parakilas felt the standards should be "if it is reasonable" and consideration should be given to something in between. Attorney Parakilas felt such decisions are not always black and white and the Chairman is saying it is either black or white. He doesn’t think that is right.
Chairman Yarum stated this Board has a responsibility to this town. Attorney Parakilas stated the Board also has a responsibility to the applicant.
Chairman Yarum felt Attorney Parakilas is becoming out of order and if he continues, he will be asked to leave. He again asked what will be the use of the property when it is developed.
Attorney Parakilas stated it will be residential. Chairman Yarum asked for what intent. Attorney Parakilas stated it will be for residences which could be rented or Ms. Kaplan may live there.
Chairman Yarum questioned if a single-family home could be constructed as an alternative. Attorney Parakilas stated it could but it would be an injustice to the property.
Chairman Yarum asked if there is a single-family home on the first lot that abuts this property. Attorney Parakilas stated there is and he noted where the single-family is. Chairman Yarum asked if the lot could be subdivided. Attorney Parakilas stated he doesn’t know whether it can be and that is the subject for another board or commission.
Chairman Yarum stated his duty is to make sure the applicant has a hardship and that the application falls within the requirements of the Town for this Board to grant the variance.
Attorney Parakilas stated under this theory, the Board would not be capable of granting a hardship to anybody. Chairman Yarum asked that Attorney Parakilas leave since he has been out of order. Attorney Parakilas refused to leave. Further discussion followed.
The Board recessed at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve a variance of Section 4.30.8, sub section ‘B’ (density of all the lots) of 2.42 (4.08 proposed), or 2.45 times the existing density of 1.66 (number of actual units on all the lots divided by the actual total acreage of all the lots), and a variance of Section 4.30.8, sub section ‘C’ that requires that ½ the abutting lots (in this case at least one lot) contain at least one two-family house (existing: 0 and 1 units), to allow a new two-family residence – EZO Section 4.30.8 B and C.
Reference is made to an untitled site plan identified as a portion of the Enfield Assessor’s maps, marked “received June 7, 2004, Planning Office, Enfield CT” and showing the ‘site,’ ‘business zoned properties,’ and the residential lots (all within 500’ of the site), and to the calculation sheet accompanying said map for property areas, density, and number of units per property, and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-06-02.
Mr. Thorogood stated he viewed this property today. He noted the two-family across the street and the single-family homes abutting them. He also looked at the size of the lots that are there. While the property may be able to be subdivided, he looked at what may be left. It is a piece of land that if anything can be done with it would add value to the area. Any type of upgrades in this area will help. Also, directly across the street and not abutting this property is a two-family on 13,000 square feet or on 30% less than what they are requesting tonight.
Mr. Furey stated any property next to a major highway presents problems and he speaks from experience since he lives next to a major highway. He thinks this development of the land as proposed is a reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Rinaldi stated lots #1 and #11 are single-family homes. He asked if there are any other single-family homes in this block. Chairman Yarum stated #1, #9, #8 and #10 are single-families.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the road behind this area is a legal road of the Town of Enfield. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is the remaining part of the original State Street and it is a road.
Mr. Rinaldi stated these lots do have frontage on the road labeled as “Town of Enfield.”
Chairman Yarum stated the difficulty he has is when you consider the requirements of Section 4.30.8, b and c. He noted that parcels #8 and #9 do throw the density calculations off. However, when you look at c, neither one of the abutting properties is a two-family unit. The highest and best use of the land doesn’t fall within the regulations. Parcels #8 and #9 have single-family homes on large parcels.
The motion was denied by a 2 – 3 – 0 vote. Mr. Furey and Mr. Kibbe voted in favor; Chairman Yarum, John Rinaldi and David Alexander voted nay. The reason for denial is the applicant did not fulfill the requirements for two-family residences given the density and abutting uses.
5c. ZBA 2004-06-03 (tabled on 6/28/04) - Tri-State Diesel, Applicant and Tri-State Rentals, Owner, 1 Depot Hill Rd., Map 13 / Lot 38, I-2 Zone, requesting a 5' variance of the side yard setback to construct a 120' x 120' cold storage building - EZO Section 6.10.2A, B, & D.
Mr. Rinaldi did not participate in this application. Paul Thorogood and David Alexander are the voting Alternates for this application.
Monte Crow, the CFO of Tri-State Diesel, appeared before the Board along with Scott Palugi, the President and owner of Tri-State Diesel.
Mr. Crow stated they are also known as Tri-State Kenworth with a Kenworth truck dealership located on Depot Hill Road. They have been at this location for nearly three years. They are before the Board tonight seeking a variance from the setback and buffer requirements of Section 6-10-2 a. and b. of the ordinance. The agenda also cites section d. pertaining to the open parking of heavy trucks but Mr. Crow stated they are not seeking a variance on that provision as they are not seeking to openly park any heavy vehicles within 150’ of the residential border.
Mr. Crow stated the last time they were before this Board they were seeking approval of a new vehicle dealership in the Town of Enfield for a heavy duty truck dealership. Mr. Crow informed the Board that the confidence and faith that the Town of Enfield placed in Mr. Palugi has paid off. For 2003, Tri-State Kenworth was named the best dealership for Kenworth trucks in all of North America. This really put the Town of Enfield and the State of Connecticut on the map. Mr. Crow distributed a press release regarding this subject. He also distributed some photographs that are relevant to tonight’s variance application.
Mr. Crow stated the first photo gives an example of the maintenance and equipment they are seeking to house in their cold storage shed. Another photo depicts the area where they are looking to place this shed. Another photo shows an existing shed already on the property that they presently utilize.
Chairman Yarum stated the applicant has submitted four photographs of the proposed site. Three show an existing structure on the site where the proposed shed is to be located and the other shows the type of equipment that will go into the shed. Also entered into the record is a press release dated March 5, 2004 naming Kenworth Dealer of the Year. In total, there were three sheets of photos.
Mr. Crow stated the reason they are requesting this variance is to be able to construct a cold storage equipment shed which will house various types of maintenance and protection equipment for the property. They have approximately twenty acres of land that requires snow removal during the winter and maintenance of the lawn. Their equipment includes lawnmowers, snow plows, fork lifts, and scissor trucks that are stored on their property.
Mr. Crow stated they take great pride in the appearance of their facility and in the safety features of the facility. They have spent endless hours with the emergency personnel in administrative review team meetings before they actually planned the building. They also made a lot of promises to the Police, the Fire Department and the emergency response teams that they would always keep this property freely accessible.
Mr. Crow pointed out the emergency access points shown on the plan which require expensive maintenance. He discussed the snow removal procedures. With tonight’s application, their intent is to consolidate all of these maintenance items in a storage shed to be located in the far corner of the property. Their request will probably require that the existing shed that they use, which is a pre-existing nonconforming use, be removed and they would agree to do that.
Mr. Crow noted three of the four residences that border the part of the property where the shed is to be located are owned by Tri-State. There is an existing use that does violate the provisions of the ordinance but it is a pre-existing nonconforming use. When they built the original building, there was a lot of concern about building a very large detention basin. They were mandated by Planning and Zoning and Inland Wetlands to construct a very large detention basin located to the west of their proposed building and it abuts I-91. Where it was mandated to be placed, it violates the ordinance. It is located within 50’ of a residential border.
Mr. Crow stated he is pointing this out to inform the Board that it is not going to be ground breaking news that they are close to residential properties. They already are and were instructed to do so by other departments within the Town. Mr. Crow noted this property was previously owned by Della Construction and they went out of business in the early 1990’s. The property fell into an incredible state of disrepair and several million dollars were spent to remediate the property by Tri-State.
Mr. Crow stated they are not looking to gain anything financially by the construction of this shed and it will be strictly overhead. They feel the way the land is set up with the slope and contour of the land and the layout, this is the only place the storage shed can go on the property. They feel it will have very little impact on any of the surrounding areas.
Chairman Yarum stated the drawing submitted shows the proposed building and the existing shed and he questioned what else was drawn in. Mr. Crow stated there is an area that used to be a garden and had blueberry bushes and fences. They didn’t remove the fences and that may be what is noted since there is no physical structure in that area.
Chairman Yarum asked about the detention basin. Mr. Crow stated it is for the capture of the storm water runoff from this property. The elevation of the proposed building is higher. Mr. Crow confirmed the detention basin is a highly engineered state of the art three-stage detention basin which has become the model for other facilities.
Chairman Yarum asked about the location of the equipment at this time. Mr. Crow stated they park some of the vehicles in the existing shed and some of it is moved in and out of the dealership facility especially in the winter in order to keep the vehicles warm in anticipation of a snow storm.
Chairman Yarum asked about the maintenance for the detention basin. Mr. Crow stated it has to be looked at once every four years by their hydrologist and this has not yet come up.
Chairman Yarum asked how close to the proposed facility the nearest residence is. Mr. Crow stated the boundary line is only 25’ on either side. The house directly to the east formerly belonged to Nick Dellaquilla and that home is at least 200’ from the building. The only other residence is a small contemporary design directly to the south which is also over 200’ away.
Some discussion followed about deleting Section 3 of the motion. It was the consensus to leave Section 3 in so that the applicant would have the option of dealing with their equipment, some of which may exceed 26,000 pounds.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve:
1. A variance of Section 6.10.2, sub-section 'A' (district setback from Residential zone) of 125 feet, 25 feet proposed, 150 existing, 150 feet required;
2. A variance of Section 6.10.2, sub-section 'B' (district buffer from Residential zone) of 75 feet, 25 feet proposed, 150 existing, 100 feet required; and
3. A variance of Section 6.10.2, sub-section 'C' (parking vehicles -26,000-lbs. less than 150 feet from a Residential zone),
to allow construction of a 120-ft. by 120-ft. 'cold storage' shed - EZO Section 6.10.2A, B, & C.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Prepared for Tri-State Rentals, Depot Hill Road, BSC Group, (dated) 5/18/04", and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-06-03.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Alexander and Thorogood voting. (Mr. Rinaldi did not participate in this application.)
The reason for approval is it is an appropriate and reasonable use of the property. Also, the topography and site development from other agencies prevent the shed from being built on any other location on the property.
5d. ZBA 2004-07-01 - Richard P. Ouellette, Applicant and Owner, 20 Copper Dr., Map 53 / Lot 438, R-33 Zone, requesting a 5' variance of the side yard setback to construct a mud room and 20' x 28' garage - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Richard Ouellette, 20 Copper Drive, appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. Ouellette stated he is seeking a 20’ side yard variance in order to construct a mud room and attached garage. He has talked to the neighbors that abut his property and those across the street and showed them the proposal. No one seemed to have a problem with it being within 5’. He noted all the existing homes in the area have attached garages. It was brought to his attention that maybe he could locate the garage in the back detached from the house. He feels this option would take away about 500 square feet of his back yard and it would not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ouellette added that several of his neighbors have garages with a setback of less than 10’.
Mr. Kibbe asked of the seven signatures Mr. Ouellette obtained from his neighbors, how many have attached garages. Mr. Ouellette stated four of them do and the others don’t have garages.
Mr. Rinaldi stated if Mr. Ouellette were to consider eliminating the mud room and moving the garage closer, would that block an entrance. Mr. Ouellette stated that is the side entrance to the house which would be eliminated and there would be no other access to the home other than going through the front door.
Chairman Yarum noted if the mud room were eliminated, between the chimney and the property line there is still not a distance of 29 and ½’. If the garage were moved over to 20’, a variance of six inches would still be required. Chairman Yarum stated his point is unless Mr. Ouellette adds only a one-car garage, he would need a variance.
Chairman Yarum stated in looking at Copper Drive, the abutting neighbor’s home at 18 Copper Drive follows the radius of the driveway and is parallel to the front radius. Mr. Ouellette stated as far as he can tell, the house is angled on the property. Chairman Yarum asked if they have a 10’ side yard but Mr. Ouellette could not confirm this distance. He noted it looked pretty close to 10’.
Mr. Ouellette stated his existing driveway comes up and fans out into a two-car driveway.
He guessed the driveway is probably within 2’ of the property line.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the request for a 5' variance of the side yard setback, 5' proposed, 29.5' existing, 10' required, to allow an entry/mud room and garage addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Mortgage Survey, Property of Richard & Wanda Ouellette, Jr., 20 Copper Dr., (certified by James P. Murphy), and dated May 1983", showing existing and proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-07-01.
Chairman Yarum stated he viewed this property today. His concern would have been if the neighbor at 18 Copper Drive wanted to add an addition to their side that abuts the applicant’s, would they have enough room. Looking at emergency vehicles and access to the back yard and from the testimony of the applicant, there would be more than enough room because the abutting home is more angled than the applicant’s.
Mr. Rinaldi agreed and stated the curve of the road doesn’t create much of a hardship for the existing house but it does knock the abutting house at an angle. If you put the garage directly against the main house, you do eliminate a main driveway which would be a concern. Mr. Rinaldi added if you were to move the garage back, there would still be a need for a variance.
Chairman Yarum stated the applicant is requesting a 20’ garage even though he is looking for 26’ for the overall length. The minimum standard is about 22’. He is not looking for what would even be the minimum but less than that.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate David Alexander voting.
The reason for approval is only the minimum was requested to construct the addition. There is also the safety issue of blocking the main entrance with other options.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr