ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 27, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, December 27, 2004, in the Town Hall Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut.
Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi, Vice Chairman
Edward Furey
David Alexander, Alternate
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
Elizabeth Ballard, Alternate
ABSENT: John LeDoux, Secretary
Kevin Kibbe
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Yarum apprised the applicants of when a variance can be granted.
. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Peter Yarum at 7:06 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL:
Present were Chairman Peter Yarum and Board members Rinaldi, Ballard, Thorogood, Furey, and Alexander. Also present were Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner, and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary. Members Ballard and Alexander were seated as regular voting members for this meeting. Mr. Thorogood was appointed as Secretary Pro-Tem for this meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 29, 2004:
A motion was made by Mr. Furey and seconded by Mr. Rinaldi to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 29, 2004 as presented. Vote was 3-0-2 (Ballard & Alexander).
4. CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT:
Mr. Alsbaugh noted that most items of correspondence and Staff Report are addressed as part of the agenda.
5. PUBLIC HEARING(S) / PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN
(Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Enquirer on Monday, December 13, 2004, and Monday, December 20, 2004.)
ZBA 2004-10-01 - Daniel J. Long, Applicant and Owner, 3 Montclair Dr., Map 57 / Lot 137, R-33 Zone, requesting an accessory structure side yard variance of 3 ft. (5 ft. existing, 2 ft. proposed, 5 ft. required) to construct a detached garage - EZO Section 3.30.7A[i]
Daniel J. Long appeared as the applicant. Mr. Long explained his request for a variance in order to build a 3 car garage in the rear of his property.
Because of the angled shape of the lot and proximity of neighbors, he is unable to locate it on the side. Because of his desire not to impede on the play area in the side rear of the house, the location he has chosen requires a 2 foot variance, leaving 3’ to the property line.
Chairman Yarum asked for clarification of the requested variance since the Legal Notice states a 3’ variance but it seems Mr. Long is requesting a 2’ variance. Mr. Long stated that he needs an additional 2’.
In response to chairman Yarum’s concerns, Mr. Alsbaugh recommended that a vote be taken to accept the revision of the legal ad to represent a 2' variance.
A motion was made by Mr. Rinaldi and seconded by Mr. Alexander to recognize the discrepancy in the legal notice. The actual variance request is for 2', not 3'. Vote was 5-0-0.
In response to questions by the members, Mr. Long stated that the tree behind the proposed garage would likely be removed. The removal of the tree would not allow the garage to be moved closer to the house and keep a site line to the play area, again, because of the fact that the lot narrows as it goes back. The north side of the lot angles even more than the 8.45 degree angle on the right side.
He added that there is also a bicycle track in the back yard, which uses up some of the available area.
When asked if he had considered a smaller garage or moving the play area, Mr. Long stated that both of these options were considered but not his preference. The proposed garage will be built on site, not pre-fabricated.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment.
John Jack Kelly of 5 Montclair Drive spoke against the variance, stating concerns of lowered property value, too close to neighbors, existing privacy shrubs will have to be removed, loss of privacy, and he also noted that the children utilizing the play area do not live at the house full time and questioned what the hardship is.
He also presented 5 photos showing landscaping and drainage concerns. No one else came forward to speak for or against this application.
Mr. Long chose not to respond to Mr. Kelly’s concerns.
The public hearing was closed at 7:27 p.m.
A motion was made by Mr. Rinaldi and seconded by Mr. Alexander TO APPROVE the request for a 2' variance of the side yard setback, 3' proposed, 5' required, to allow construction of an accessory structure garage - EZO Section 3.30.7A[i]
Reference is made to a site plan titled "3 Montclair Dr.", stamped "RECEIVED, SEP 29, 2004, PLANNING OFFICE, ENFIELD CT", and showing existing and proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-10-01.
Mr. Rinaldi noted that although the lot tapers from front to back, he was concerned about the building only being 3’ from the property line and shared some of Mr. Kelly’s concerns. Chairman Yarum felt that there is a uniqueness to the property but the applicant admits that the building could be downsized or the play area re-located, making the hardship self-imposed. Mr. Furey visited the site and agreed with that the building could be moved or downsized.
Vote was 0-0-5 Denied.
ZBA 2004-10-02 - Walter & Dawn Meskell, Applicants and Owners, 7 Sharp St., Map 67 / Lot 409, R33 Zone, requesting a coverage variance of 5% (25% proposed, 20 % existing, 20% allowed, to allow an addition to the main structure - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Mr. & Mrs. Meskell appeared as the applicants.
Mr. Meskell explained his request for a variance. The proposed addition will exceed the allowed 20% lot coverage by approximately 7%, not 5% as the legal notice stated. The lot has an in ground pool, already installed when the property was purchased.
Also, at the rear of the lot, the abutting property is owned by Raffia Farms and leased to CL&P for utility lines. It is unlikely that the property would ever be developed. That open space makes the subject property seem larger than it is.
Mr. Meskell knows of no opposition from the neighbors regarding the variance.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the abutting property line is a ravine and if so, does it carry water.
Mr. Meskell responded that it does hold runoff and has steep slopes.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted that the ravine area may be wetlands; any development would need to be kept away from the area; it may also be escarpment soils, making it paramount to pull development toward the house.
In response to chairman Yarum’s concerns regarding the variance request of 7% in the legal ad versus 5% on the application, Mr. Alsbaugh explained that the actual calculations performed by staff indicated a 7% variance was required. The legal ad was composed with that in mind.
Mr. Alsbaugh recommended that a vote be taken to accept the revision in the legal ad to represent a 7% variance.
A motion was made by Mr. Rinaldi and seconded by Mr. Alexander to accept the change in the legal notice. The actual variance request is for 7%. Vote was 5-0-0.
In response to questions by members, Mr. Meskell stated that the in ground pool makes the property somewhat unique from that of the neighbors. It was in the existing condition when purchased. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the pool was calculated as part of the existing lot coverage.
At this time, the hearing was opened to the public for comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak for or against this application.
The public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m.
A motion was made by Mr. Furey and seconded by Mr. Rinaldi TO APPROVE the request for a lot coverage variance of approximately 7% (27% proposed, 13.15% existing, 20% maximum allowed) to construct an addition (garage, family room, in-law space - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to two maps, both identifying "7 Sharp St."- one 40-scale Assessor's Map section showing existing conditions, and one map of the same lot enlarged 175% showing proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-10-02.
Mr. Furey noted the uniqueness of the property. The possible wetlands in the rear would not allow for moving the pool, since development would have to be well away from the wetlands. Mr. Rinaldi added that the property is unique as compared to a neighborhood with back-to-back houses.
Vote was 5-0-0 Approved.
Mr. Furey stated that the use is appropriate to the area and the placement of the addition is advantageous in relation to the location of the wetlands as the recognized hardship.
ZBA 2004-12-01 - Jane M. Grigsby, Applicant and Owner, 20 Magnolia Dr., Map 61 / Lot 61, R33 Zone, requesting a coverage variance of 5.4% (25.4% proposed, 10.75 % existing, 20% allowed), to allow an eldercare and garage addition to the main structure - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Jane & David Grigsby appeared as the owners. Mr. and Mrs. Grigsby explained their request for a variance.
They would like to add an in-law apartment for Mrs. Grigsby’s father who is in poor health. Because of his medical condition, he is unable to climb stairs and therefore the addition needs to be on the first floor.
Mr. Grigsby also noted that the neighborhood is made up of ranch style homes, not colonials. The lot is small and backs to Longmeadow Mass.
The Grigsbys’ have tried to purchase additional land but have not been successful.
Mr. Grigsby explained that the proposed entrance to the basement will be a ramp; the area will not be living space, it will be for storage only. There is currently only one egress from the basement, through the existing kitchen.
The existing deck and side entrance will be removed to allow more access to the rear.
No one in the audience came forward to speak for or against this application.
The public hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m.
A motion was made by Mr. Rinaldi and seconded by Mr. Furey TO APPROVE the request for a lot coverage variance of approximately 5.4% (25.4% proposed, 10.75% existing, 20% maximum allowed) to construct an addition (in-law/elder-care space, garage, & family room), - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to an un-scaled site plan titled "David & Jane Grigsby, 20 Magnolia Dr., Dibattisto Associates, LLC, (dated) 11/21/04", showing existing and proposed conditions, and one location map (Assessor's Map section) of the same lot and the general area as submitted for this application, and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-12-01.
Mr. Rinaldi noted that the size of the lot is significantly smaller than surrounding lots.
Mr. Furey noted that the lots to the rear are unlikely to be further developed, due to their depth.
Mr. Rinaldi noted the size of the lot compared to the surrounding lots as the recognized hardship.
6. NEW BUSINESS - NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
SUITABILITY OF LOCATION [new or used car sales, general repairer license, limited repairer license, gasoline service stations. NOTE: Amendment Sec. 70 to the state budget affecting suitability of location statutes reinstates the ZBA as the required approver of a certificate of location. Sec. 10 of the original PA 03-184 remains in effect; that section repealed CGS 14-55 that required a public hearing.]
ZBA 2004-12-02 – 809 Enfield Street, LLC dba Enfield Kia, 809 Enfield Street, Map 29 / Lot 72, BG Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability – New Car Dealer. – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C Withdrawn 12/20/04.
ZBA 2004-12-03 – Anthony Troiano & Sons, Inc., 777 Enfield Street, Map 29 / Lot 53, BG Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability – Used Car Dealer. – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C This item was considered in conjunction with ZBA 2004-12-04.
ZBA 2004-12-04 – T. S. Motor Cars, Inc., 767 Enfield Street, Map 29 / Lot 53, BG Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability – Used Car Dealership. – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C
Mr. Frank Troiano of 1747 Enfield Street and Mr. Tom Sasso of 31 Birch Hill Drive, Somers represented the applicants.
Mr. Troiano explained that they are requesting a change of use from a Gas Station to a Used Car Dealer at 777 Enfield Street. The dealership already exists; the gas station will cease to exist and the pumps will be removed.
These variances also come at the request and approval of the Connecticut DMV.
A motion was made by Mr. Rinaldi and seconded by Mr. Furey TO APPROVE the request to approve a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54 & EZO Section 11.00C, for the operation of a Used Car Dealer license under the applicant’s ownership. Said operation is to be at the described location [767-777 Enfield Street] and as delineated on the site plan submitted with the application.
Reference is made to a plan sheet titled “Site Plan, Troiano & Sons Oil Company, 777 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT, D'Onofrio Surveying & Engineering, Sheet No. 1, [dated] Oct/18/2004”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA2004-12-03.
Mr. Rinaldi noted that it is a similar business type, it will have less restrictions than a gas station and is at the request and approval of the DMV for site map configurations.
A motion was made by Mr. Alexander and seconded by Mr. Furey A motion was made by Mr. Alexander and seconded by Mr. Furey TO APPROVE the request to approve a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54 & EZO Section 11.00C, for the operation of a Used Car Dealer license under the applicant’s ownership. Said operation is to be at the described location [767-777 Enfield Street] and as delineated on the site plan submitted with the application.
Reference is made to a plan sheet titled “Site Plan, Troiano & Sons Oil Company, 777 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT, D'Onofrio Surveying & Engineering, Sheet No. 1, [dated] Oct/18/2004”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA2004-12-04.
It was noted that this application is similar to 2004-12-03 - it is a similar business type, it will have less restrictions than a gas station and is at the request and approval of the DMV for site map configurations.
By unanimous consent, a brief recess was called at 8:07 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 8:11 p.m.
Present were: Chairman Peter Yarum and Board members Rinaldi, Ballard, Thorogood, and Alexander. Also present were Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner, and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
· Review of new application form:
Mr. Alsbaugh reported no essential changes. Tabled until January, 2005 meeting.
· Review of Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised or Roberts Rules of Order for Small Assemblies
Mr. Alsbaugh explained that recent revisions to Roberts Rules of Order allow for more informality among smaller groups. Some of the changes are already utilized by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
He added that he sees no particular advantage to utilize all of the changes but also sees no reason not to accept the new version.
Members held lengthy discussion regarding the formality of meetings and especially of the members.
Mrs. Ballard asked Mr. Alsbaugh to check with other chairmen regarding the wearing of hats during meetings.
After some discussion, Chairman Yarum asked that the following be placed on the next agenda for further deliberation: “Discussion: Roberts’ Rules of Order and General Formality of Meetings”.
The current agenda item was tabled from further discussion at this meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Mr. Alexander and seconded by Mrs. Ballard to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals