ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 30, 2008

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, June 30, 2008 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Scott Hozempa called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

PRESENT: R. Scott Hozempa, Vice Chairman

Mary Ann Turner

John Rinaldi

Peter Yarum

Maurice LaRosa, Alternate

Charles Mastroberti, Alternate (left the meeting at 9:04 p.m.)

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

Peter Yarum was appointed Acting Vice Chairman for this evening’s meeting. Charles Mastroberti was designated as the Voting Alternate.

MINUTES

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of May 19, 2008. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Alsbaugh stated correspondence includes the one mailer.

Vice Chairman Hozempa discussed when a variance can be granted for the benefit of the audience.

ZBA 2008-05-01 – Robert and Ann Marie Coppinger, Applicants and Owners, 22 Copper Drive, Map 53/Lot 437, R-33 zone, requesting an accessory building setback variance of 145-ft. plus or minus to construct a 16’ x 22’ garage – EZO Section 3.30.7i.

Robert and Ann Marie Coppinger and Craig Winchester appeared before the Board regarding this hearing.

Robert Coppinger stated the reason they requested the variance is because of his wife’s health condition. They need the width for a ramp in the future in case a wheelchair is needed. They both have ruptured disks.

Mr. LaRosa stated at the last meeting, the Board had quite a lengthy discussion on the placement of the garage. A suggestion was made about taking the garage and setting it back and over so that a variance would not be required. Mr. LaRosa asked if that was discussed. He noted the plans are identical to last month. Mr. LaRosa questioned why other options were not considered.

Ann Marie Coppinger stated they did discuss it as far as trying to figure out going to the back. If you go to the end of the property towards the back yard, there is a hatchway on the side. There’s no way of trying to maneuver or set up a garage back further or turning it in any way. She cannot extend any more of her kitchen area to make any changes. This is why they automatically thought of having the attached garage going back just so many feet.

Craig Winchester, 34 Copper Drive, stated they have been talking with an architect. He took some notes and the Board discussed at the previous meeting some of the options. He asked the architect what would happen if they took the garage and pushed it over and turned it around so that they wouldn’t have to be here. What he came back with was he felt that most of it was unfavorable because if they turned the garage at a right angle, they wind up with a difficult turning angle radius. There is not enough room to go in and make the turn. There is an existing house basement bulkhead on the back of the building which interferes with any new structures that would have to be built on it. Mr. Winchester stated the kitchen dining room area is limited space at best. Most people are familiar with the Starr ranches. There is a small kitchen and a dining area. They discussed an entryway to the back side of the house. There is a slider there and that slider would have to turn into a fire door for a garage. There’s not a lot of space there. The other point the architect made is there are some significant decks on the back of the house that they use and they would have to be removed to locate a garage. Mr. Winchester summarized there is an entrance issue, a bulkhead issue and if they turned it to a right angle, they would have a radius turning issue.

Mr. Coppinger presented three letters from his neighbors including the neighbor that is on the side. Mr. Hozempa noted receipt of three letters from Richard Ouellette, Mark and Arlene Edwards, and Norman Maciner all in favor of this application.

Mr. LaRosa stated last month the Board spoke extensively on a handicapped ramp which isn’t on the application. Part of the concern after it was mentioned last month was that with the deck dimensions they currently have, if in two years they decide to put the ramp in, the garage would not be big enough to hold the ramp. Mr. Coppinger stated they believe it will not be and that is why they are asking for the variance.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board requested last month to consider going the extra depth so that they don’t have to come back in two years to make the garage bigger.

Mr. Winchester stated they mentioned this to the architect and his feeling was the additional depth would be a benefit for putting the ramp in. They didn’t add any depth at this time. There are certain directions that can optimize a future ramp if required.

Mr. LaRosa stated he is making suggestions to help the Coppinger’s save time and money.

Mrs. Coppinger stated they don’t need any more as far as size.

Mr. Winchester stated it is a twenty to one ratio on ramps. They are looking at two and a half feet. His vision would be to make the existing stairs go away on to a landing heading to the back of the property or in other words, using the back end of the building even though it’s twenty-six or whatever to snake it back and forth.

Mr. Rinaldi stated this Board does take into consideration an applicant’s personal well being but by law, this variance can only be granted if there is a hardship proven to go with the property. The hardship cannot be related to the person. The variance stays with the property. The Board heard a necessity for the two-car garage because of deteriorating health but Mr. Rinaldi asked what the hardship for the property is.

Mr. Winchester stated the hardship is probably property width. Originally he suggested they have the property surveyed because the original plot plan had a colonial instead of a ranch. The problem is that in looking towards the future with this, the question is could they have something that has a likelihood of a need in the future and turning that into some type of plot size. The first part is the special needs of the property. He doesn’t think it affects it in that neighborhood. It is not inconsistent with what has been done in this particular neighborhood.

Ms. Turner stated you can build a one-car or one and a half car garage to get the ramp in and one car. Mr. Winchester stated that would be feasible and would be a choice they would have to make.

Ms. Turner stated the bottom line is they need five feet. Mr. Winchester confirmed that to be the case or a total of 4.7’.

Mrs. Coppinger felt having a garage would be a big help to them as far as making it easier for the winters with snow and everything. The size is mentioned but it is just a convenience, too.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked with the garage what is unique about this property that affects the reason why they need the 4.7’. According to the plot plan, they have a garage on the right side of the house. He asked if there is anything to prohibit them from putting the garage anywhere else other than where it is proposed.

Mr. Coppinger stated they already mentioned about the bulk head. They do not find that being feasible. They are looking for an attached garage similar to what everyone else in the neighborhood has. They are a little less in width but everyone, including the people next door, all have attached garages. Mr. Coppinger stated he has paid taxes for twenty-two years and he is thinking about the welfare of his wife in the future if they need the ramp.

Mr. Yarum asked if the majority of the garages in the neighborhood are single or double. Mr. Coppinger stated the majority are double.

Mr. Rinaldi asked how far out the stairs come in the area of the kitchen door. Mr. Winchester stated you have one step down, the landing and two more steps or approximately five feet. If you were to remove those, he would envision putting in a legal size landing at the proper height. The plan was that these stairs would come out. The thing that is working against them is the fireplace is on that side also.

Mr. LaRosa stated the stairs are approximately five feet wide. Mr. Winchester stated that turn would have to go in the other direction because he cannot come forward because of the fireplace.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked for input from the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this public hearing. Vice Chairman Hozempa closed this public hearing.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the request for a side yard setback variance of 4.7 feet, 5.3 feet requested, 10 feet required, to construct a garage addition – EZO Section 4.10.2H.

Reference is made to a map titled “Plan Prepared for Robert F. and Ann Marie Coppinger, 22 Copper Drive, Enfield, Connecticut”, dated April 11, 2008, and to an air photo marked “#22 Copper Drive”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2008-05-01.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board’s suggestions from last month were answered. He doesn’t see how they can do what was suggested without a lot of extra work. The hatchway is definitely an issue.

Ms. Turner stated she did go out and view the property. There are many two-car garages in the area.

Mr. LaRosa stated he would still have a concern with the ramp. However, going out to the neighborhood he saw one or two single car garages and the rest were all double. The granting of this variance would be bringing the current structure up to meeting the same conformity as the rest of the homes.

Mr. Yarum agreed. All they are looking for is what everyone else has or a two-car garage. He noted that times have changed and it is now common to have three car garages. They are not looking for any more than what is reasonable in their neighborhood. In the event they find that they do need a ramp, it will be their responsibility to come back to this Board.

Mr. LaRosa stated the home could have been shifted a little bit the other way originally which would have given them enough room.

Mr. Yarum doesn’t know what the side yard setback was. On the west side it is ten and a half feet. The intent was a 12’ garage.

Mr. Rinaldi stated the only exception he sees is the elevation. It is not like you can take the steps out and go five feet closer. This is the only hardship he can see. With the side egress there is a difference in elevation between the main floor and the ground. You have to have the existing stairs. You still have to make up that.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Charles Mastroberti voting.

The reason for approval is the property is uniquely situated not allowing for the garage in the space provided. Due to the hatchway in the rear and the side with the stairs on the side, it requires a larger width than normal.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if the appeal should be heard first. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is up to the Board. Appeals are heard first on the agenda format. If they want to take it out of order, there has to be a vote to change the agenda.

APPEALS - NEW

ZBA 2008-06-02 - Robert Robbins, Applicant and Owner, 29 Weymouth Road, Map 17/Lot 53, R-33 Zone, An appeal of an Order or Decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated May 5, 2008, under: - EZO Section 11.00A.

Attorney Bruce Fader appeared before the Commission on behalf of Robert Robbins. Going back to what was suggested about whether to rearrange the order, he would have no problem with that. It may make some sense to hear the variance request first. Attorney Fader suggested postponing Mr. Robbins appeal application until after the application of Sue Raymond is heard. Ms. Turner stated she would like to stay with the present agenda.

Attorney Fader submitted one exhibit. He wishes to make part of the application the affidavit Mr. Robbins had signed regarding 29 Weymouth Road and acknowledging that he did properly post the sign. In having this affidavit signed, Attorney Fader combined the two ZBA matters. If the Board wishes two separate ones, he can do so.

Attorney Fader stated there will be a significant amount of information submitted tonight. The building at issue, which is a farm accessory building, has already been constructed and Mr. Robbins has gone through significant expense in constructing it. Attorney Fader submitted a copy of the application dated June 2, 2008. It relates to two particular matters. The first is the appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s May 5, 2008 letter to Mr. Robbins in which it is claimed that Mr. Robbins is in violation of a particular zoning regulation which indicates that any accessory building cannot exceed twelve feet in height. Knowing that the building that Mr. Robbins has constructed does exceed the height restriction of twelve feet, they have asked for a variance. If the Board upholds the order, they are asking for a variance of eight feet. Attorney Fader stated the reason the letter is so important is because even though the letter indicates there is a height restriction of twelve feet, there have been subsequent discussions with town staff, including Mr. Alsbaugh, where they understand that that zoning regulation at issue, 3.30.7, has been interpreted to mean that it does not apply to farm related buildings such as what Mr. Robbins is constructing.

Attorney Fader presented a map prepared by William Palmberg dated May 8, 2007 and the property at issue is the 7.44 acres although it may be a little bit larger than that. The property also contains Mr. Robbins’ primary residence and in the southeast portion is where the building is that is at issue. Attorney Fader submitted several photographs that Mr. Robbins had taken today and he asked that these be part of the permanent record.

Attorney Fader stated the permanent residents in the surrounding neighborhood have submitted letters in support of the building height which is between 19’ and 20’. There are two other gentlemen in the audience tonight who are supportive of the building height and location. Attorney Fader submitted the originals of the letters in support to be made part of the application. His client also gave to him tonight a letter that is signed by Mrs. Skarbek who lives to the west of the adjacent property. Attorney Fader submitted this letter for the record and stated it points to her support of Mr. Robbins’ effort to build a building with its present height and in its present location.

Attorney Fader submitted five copies of four pictures of the accessory building. Attorney Fader noted the letters are from Melanie Hemanez who lives directly across from the accessory building, a letter from Catherine McKinstry, a letter from Wanda Skarbek, a letter from Joseph Blockwelder, a letter from Barbara Blockwelder, a letter from Barbara Prez who lives further west but in the general area, a letter from her husband Stephen Prez, a letter from Debbie Plumb, 26 Weymouth Road, a letter from James Styre at 24 Weymouth Road and a letter from Mary Shirley, 22 Weymouth Road. All these letters were in support of Mr. Robbins. Attorney Fader stated these are not new but they are just the originals being submitted. There is one additional letter from Mrs. Skarbek.

Attorney Fader stated Mrs. Skarbek was unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to illness.

Attorney Fader stated he made reference to his talks with town staff including Mr. Alsbaugh about the interpretation of the regulation which indicates that there is a height limitation of twelve feet. His understanding, which has been confirmed by town staff, is that that twelve foot height limitation does not apply to farm buildings. What Mr. Robbins has constructed is a farm accessory building. As further proof, Attorney Fader submitted a letter dated August 31, 2007 addressed to Donna and Robert Robbins regarding 29 Weymouth Road indicating that a portion of their property has been classified under Public Act 490 for farm land use. Mr. Robbins is conducting a Christmas tree farm which is just in the beginning stages. Attorney Fader also made part of the record his letter which he sent to Mr. Alsbaugh on June 3, 2008 which does address the issue about the interpretation of the zoning regulation 3.30.7i indicating how the town staff interpreted that regulation. That twelve foot height restriction does not apply to farm outbuildings. Attorney Fader made his letter of June 3 to Mr. Alsbaugh part of the record along with a copy of the June 2 application and a copy of the August 31, 2000 letter indicating that a portion of the seven plus acres is being dedicated for farmland.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the new submission is the confirmation of the legal farm operation. The June 3 letter is already in the file.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated the letter from Mrs. Skarbek is Exhibit 6 and the confirmation of the 490 program is Exhibit 7.

Attorney Fader stated there is a letter dated May 5, 2008 from Virginia Higley, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, in which Ms. Higley specifically states that his client is in violation of 3.30.7 of the Enfield Zoning Ordinance because the building does not comply with the twelve foot height restriction. Attorney Fader stated this letter is in direct opposition to the town staff zoning officials’ interpretation of how that twelve foot zoning regulation is interpreted. Where the bridge between the two may be is that at the time that Mr. Robbins had submitted his building permit application, that was on the heals of an earlier effort by Mr. Robbins to obtain from this very same ZBA in April of last year a variance regarding the location of the building. Attorney Fader stated when Mr. Robbins submitted the application, it really did not count in terms of being a farm out building but classified it as an accessory building. When you look at the narrow framework of that term and you take a look at 3.30.7 and you say it says right there that there is a height restriction of twelve feet. What comes into play is how Mr. Robbins intends to use this building. It was clear from the record of the April, 2007 meeting before this Board that he did intend to use it for farm purposes. As evidence of that, Attorney Fader submitted the notice of decision of this very Board dated May 1, 2007 along with the Minutes of that April 30 meeting where it clearly shows what Mr. Robbins’ intentions were even though in the application it may not have specifically said so.

Attorney Fader stated if you take a look at the zoning regulations, 3.30.7 says that the building height can be no greater than twelve feet. Ms. Turner asked where the Minutes are. Attorney Fader stated he will submit those minutes of the Regular Meeting dated April 30, 2007 along with the Notice of Decision dated May 1, 2007.

Attorney Fader stated one of the difficulties of having to break up this situation between the appeal and the variance applications is that it forces the applicant to be very detailed in the kind of information submitted and it forces the applicant to make as part of the record for the appeal almost the same information that would be submitted as part of the variance. As a result of that, it will come across as being very tedious. Attorney Fader noted he needs to submit as much as he can so that the Board has a complete record.

Attorney Fader stated when taking a look at the May 5, 2008 zoning violation letter, it just is limited to that 3.30.7 about the twelve foot height restriction. What is interesting is when the appeal was made, Attorney Fader sat down with the zoning staff and they said how they interpret that regulation is it does not apply to farm related uses. This is something that Mr. Robbins had indicated to Attorney Fader. How this came about is he submitted the application and the building height was initially ten feet. The original application intended there to be a height of no more then ten to twelve feet. However, what had happened is after the variance was granted in April, 2007, Attorney Fader’s client had submitted the building permit application, had commenced construction and then along the way had found out where he originally intended to locate the building there was a question as to whether it complied with the wetland regulations which state you cannot build within the regulated buffer area. Attorney Fader noted if Mr. Robbins had proceeded with where he intended to put the building according to the first ZBA variance, there was a question of whether that violated wetlands. The Building Official directed Mr. Robbins to then go to the wetland commission and in December of 2007, a decision was made that because Mr. Robbins and his building related to farms, his building is exempt from wetland regulations.

Attorney Fader submitted a letter dated December 19, 2007 entitled Wetland Decisions along with the Inland Wetland Commission Minutes of their meeting of December 18 all of which indicate that Mr. Robbins’ building, from a wetlands perspective, is exempt.

Mr. Rinaldi stated the only concern in the letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer was the violation of 3.30.7. To quote this letter, Mr. Rinaldi read “you did not build according to plans that were submitted.” Mr. Rinaldi asked if that is an accurate statement. Attorney Fader stated it depends. If Ms. Higley is speaking about the original application, then she is correct. However, Attorney Fader’s understanding is that after the initial building permit application was submitted, Mr. Robbins had changed the building height dimensions. The reason why he did that was because of the wetland approval which indicated the property was exempt from wetlands. Mr. Robbins at the end of December had gone into the Town Hall to talk about the wetland decision and wanted to make sure that now that they obtained the exemption that there was no problem with going forward with the building construction and getting a c.o. During that discussion, Attorney Fader believes Mr. Sadlowski, the wetlands agent, had indicated that it is a farm out building and you don’t need to comply with the building height restriction of 3.3.7.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated Mr. Fader submitted the Wetlands decision signed by Stephen Sadlowski to Jose Giner and dated December 19, 2007. Also submitted was a copy of the meeting minutes from December 18, 2007.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if the plans to build the existing building were approved by the town. Attorney Fader stated you have to go agency by agency. With respect to the Building Department, they must have been aware of the changes.

Mr. Robert Robbins, 29 Weymouth Road, stated the plans that were approved by the Building Department and the permit issued as a result had a wall height of twelve feet. The wall that was built – the carpenter used 14’ 2x6’s instead of 12’. It was built two feet higher than what the town Building Inspector had approved.

Attorney Fader stated what had happened was because of the discussion they had with Stephen Sadlowski in December of 2007 where he indicated that 3.30.7, the building height restriction, does not apply to farm buildings, Mr. Robbins took that to mean that he could go higher.

Mr. LaRosa stated on the application it was actually put that it was going to be a garage/workshop. The applicant’s attorney stated a few minutes ago that the intention was always to be a farm building. Mr. LaRosa quoted from the application which states: “I would like to build a garage/workshop 30’ back from the street.” It said nothing about a farm building. If it was a farm building, they would have made the applicant aware that the variance asked for in the application would have been incorrect because a farm building would have to be 100’ from the road not 35’. The other problem would be if the plan in any way in whole or in part were changed after the ZBA had gotten a copy to review for that hearing, then the application would be null and void and would not be able to take part in a hearing that night. It would have to be resubmitted with a new set of plans. If they talked to the Building Department or the Zoning Officer and came up with let’s make it a farm building, Mr. Robbins would have had to change the plans and resubmit an application and come forth. Now the whole rule drastically changes. It goes from 35’ to 100’. Possibly that Board had they known that Mr. Robbins wanted a farm building, which was never stated, they may not have granted the variance. Mr. Robbins never indicated he wanted to put farm equipment in this structure.

Attorney Fader stated the very issue Mr. LaRosa is talking about is why they are here tonight. Now that they are addressing the May 5, 2008 ZEO violation letter they are saying one way to get around that is because Mr. Robbins always intended it to be for a farm related use. What that does is it triggers the regulation about the 100’ setback requirement.

Mr. Rinaldi stated it is his understanding that anything built in this town has to be approved. He asked were these plans approved by the Building Department – the existing structure as it is. Mr. Robbins stated no, it is two feet taller than the one that was approved.

Attorney Fader stated Ms. Higley recognized that what the town had on record about what they approved was different than what was actually constructed and that was the basis for the violation letter. The way to address that is by saying that it is a farm out building. Even though it is not written in the regulations, the town zoning officials are interpreting that to mean that you don’t have to comply with that twelve foot height restriction.

Ms. Turner stated we’re here to talk about the building as it was approved and that was an accessory building of twelve feet high. The plans were submitted to the Building Department. Mr. Robbins spoke to Mr. Bickley and others and plans were submitted for that building. Ms. Turner now understands that there was a mistake by the builder who increased it from twelve to fourteen feet. Ms. Turner questioned how the building got from 14’ to 20’. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it was actually revised twice. It was modified in the Building Department the first time and then again for an additional two feet.

Mr. LaRosa stated an accessory building of 12’ in height was approved yet a subsequent farm building of 14’ was constructed. Attorney Fader stated it was higher than 14’. Mr. LaRosa stated they went from 12’ to the existing height which is in violation of the zoning code.

Attorney Fader stated what they are trying to say is what was approved in April 2007 was showing a building height of 12’. With the construction it rose another two feet and based upon the discussions Mr. Robbins had with Mr. Sadlowski in December, 2007, now knowing that the height restriction doesn’t apply to farm buildings, his client figured he can go even higher.

Ms. Turner asked why they didn’t come back to ZBA. Mr. Robbins stated he didn’t know he needed to because no one told him. When he gave the new plans to the Building Inspector, he didn’t say anything. Attorney Fader stated there was no intention by his client to avoid the regulations.

Ms. Turner would like to hear from the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Ms. Higley passed out her business card with her certification and telephone number. She would like to stay focused on the zoning violation. Mr. Rinaldi was correct in the fact that she looked at the plans and the plans that were originally approved by Mr. Bickley were not what she received. State law mandates in Connecticut that if the building person goes out and observes a zoning violation, he or she is mandated to come back to the ZEO and call it to her attention. As soon as Mr. Gilman came back and called it to her attention, she started her research. She really would not like to go too much into the research. Ms. Higley cited Mr. Robbins for not building the building according to the approved plans and for not sticking to the section of the zoning regulations that mandate her to sign off. Mr. Gilman stated to the top of the building is 29’. Attorney Fader stated it is not 29’. Mr. Alsbaugh referenced the variance and noted it states a variance of eight feet, twelve feet required, 20’ existing. By the applicant’s submittal, the statement is that the building height is 20’.

Ms. Higley stated Mr. Gilman talked about trusses and there were changes in trusses that made it taller.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the actual height being applied for is twenty feet.

Ms. Higley stated farm buildings and other issues don’t factor into her violation letter.

Attorney Fader stated the question was what was actually approved and what was built. As far as what was built, he would like a little discussion about the zoning regulations in Enfield and how to calculate height. His understanding is you take the mid point of the roof. You have the peak of the roof and the lowest eave and then you take the mid point between the two and that determines the height of the building. That is how they arrived at a height of 20’. The peak itself may be higher than 20’ but according to the zoning regulations you define height by the mid point between the peak and the lowest eave.

Mr. LaRosa stated the issue before the Board is Mr. Robbins built a 20’ tall building in a location where he was granted permission to build a twelve foot tall building. Mr. Robbins stated that is correct.

Ms. Turner asked if we are going to close this issue. If they are giving us testimony regarding the other two issues to come forward, can the Board hear one or do they want to hear it all. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is up to the Board. Most Boards and Commissions accept testimony.

Attorney Fader stated he thinks it is important to determine how the zoning officials interpret that regulation that is at issue in Ms. Highley’s May 5 letter – specifically 3.30.7. The issue from their perspective is whether that regulation is interpreted to mean that it does not apply to farm related out buildings such as Mr. Robbins’ building. That’s an important issue because if the answer is yes, that overcomes some of the issues that have been discussed so far.

Mr. LaRosa feels it is an important issue but it would only be an important issue if they ever came to the ZBA in the past to grant permission to build a farm building. That application has never been received by the ZBA, by the zoning office or by the building department. The only thing ever granted permission for was an out building of 12’.

Attorney Fader stated the argument may be more appropriate for the variance portion of the application. However, to him there is a connection between the appeal application and the variance and that is what has happened after the April 30, 2007 ZBA variance. There was a mind set on the part of his client that this is really a farm related activity because that was the basis for the exemption from the wetlands commission. Once his client had that conversation with Mr. Sadlowski in December of 2007, that is when he modified the application. It is not only what the application was at the time it was approved by this Commission but there are the subsequent events that cannot be ignored.

Mr. Yarum stated it is not common practice to go with an application for one board and receive approval and then go in with another application to another board to get approval. Attorney Fader stated when his client came before the ZBA in April, 2007, the height issue really wasn’t anticipated to be a problem. Mr. Yarum stated he was at that meeting and he recalls that meeting. He recalls that it was a garage/workshop and such a building is an accessory building and is not going to exceed twelve feet in height.

Ms. Turner asked if there is a copy of the application for Inland Wetlands. Mr. Alsbaugh referred her to the file and stated it was six months later.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if Attorney Fader had any more testimony regarding the appeal. Attorney Fader stated he does not. When they get to the variance portion, he will make reference to all the documents submitted within this hearing.

Attorney Fader stated taking a look at the regulations, there are certain things that are rather confusing. When he was looking at the area table on page 25 of the zoning regulations, it was 4.10. It states no building or buildings including accessory buildings shall exceed in height the amount in the following table. If you look at R-33, the height is indicated as 35’. On page 25, when reading that it says no buildings (including accessory buildings) – and it goes on to say nor shall they exceed in height the amount on the following table. If you look at the table it is listed as 35’. It is almost as if there is an internal inconsistency in the regulations where on the one end it says accessory buildings shall not be more than 12’ in one section, 3.30.7, but when you take a look at the area table on 4.10, it talks about 35’. The Board may know from their own practice but when the public reads that it gets a little confusing and it adds to controversy.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the reference for the 35’ height is the primary structure. Accessory structures whether they are an accessory structure or a farm building are described in other sections of the regulations. The fact that it includes references in there to other buildings on the property indicates that no building shall exceed 35’ in height. When you have a farm building which is located by other requirements elsewhere on the property, 100’ back from the street and at a certain distance from any residential structure on an abutting property, that then refers to the maximum height of that building also. That reflects the height limitations that are generated by fire apparatus and how they reach them. If it is confusing, they can ask for clarification from staff. If they don’t wish to take staff’s clarification, they are always welcome to ask for clarification from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Attorney Fader stated he has made copies of the pertinent sections of the zoning regulations and he has done that for everyone. He will submit them because he thinks this is an important issue.

Vice Chairman Hozempa reported receipt of six copies of Article 2 interpretation and definitions starting with Section 2.

Attorney Fader stated if you look at page 25, Article 4 residential districts of the zoning regulations, that is the bulk area table at 4.10. If you read the third line down from 4.1 it says in addition, no building or buildings, including accessory buildings as well as any loading docks, decks, porches or steps attached to or otherwise associated with such building or buildings shall encroach upon the minimum front, side and rear yards indicated below nor shall they cover a greater area, nor shall they exceed in height the amount set forth in the following table. Attorney Fader stated this does not relate specifically to dwellings because it talks about loading docks. This refers to all buildings. It says under a height of 35’. What Attorney Fader is trying to say is that there is some ambiguity in the town’s regulations on what the height requirements are. From the public’s point of view, looking at these regulations as guides, it is a little bit less than clear.

Mr. LaRosa stated they have to cover all aspects of what you could install.

Attorney Fader stated Mr. Robbins had no intention of violating anything and now he finds out that it is farm related but in doing so it raises the 100’ setback requirement. So, Mr. Robbins is trying to do the best that he can without intending to avoid any kind of regulations.

Ms. Turner asked if Mr. Robbins has harvested any trees on his property. Mr. Robbins stated he has not. He stated it takes about ten years for them to grow. The trees were planted in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Vice Chairman Hozempa opened this hearing to the audience.

Joe Blackwelder, 25 Weymouth Road, spoke in support of Mr. Robbins. He works hard and has a lot of equipment. He thinks he needs a good place to stay. He is trying to upgrade and he deserves it. Mr. Blackwelder stated he has no issue with the building at all as a neighbor.

Mr. Rinaldi clarified that this is an appeal. Later on will be the variance. Right now what the Board is trying to focus on is if there was an error in the zoning enforcement officer’s decision. The testimony might be better heard during the variance application.

James Tyre, 24 Weymouth Road, spoke in support. He lives across the street. He has no objection to the building. They have cleaned up the field and the trees are growing. The building is for their farm equipment.

Attorney Fader stated there is another map that shows the wetlands and he wants to make reference to it.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the appeal, under Section 11A of the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Enfield, of the notice of violation and order to correct of the Enfield Zoning Enforcement Officer dated 5 May 2008, as discussed under ZBA 2008-06-02.

Mr. Yarum stated by the applicant’s testimony as well as the applicant’s attorney’s testimony, the structure that was approved by this Board was not what was built. Everything else to the Board is moot.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if any building had unrestricted height, would that building still have to be approved and who approves that. If he was allowed to build and there are no restrictions, he would still need the plans for the building approved. Mr. Alsbaugh stated correct and by the Building Department. Mr. Rinaldi stated his plans for construction still have to be approved even if zoning allows him to build an unrestricted height. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they would still need the zoning permit for location and coverage.

Mr. Yarum asked if someone goes in for a building permit to the building department, the building department has to get a sign off from all the other departments. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is correct.

Ms. Higley stated sometimes people go back in and modify their building permit. Now, the Zoning Enforcement Officer sees all modifications but that has not always been the case in the past.

Mr. LaRosa really thinks that the building that was granted permission to be constructed was not the one constructed. It was different as far as what was granted permission.

Previous to the vote, Mr. Alsbaugh stated a no vote would uphold the appeal and yes would uphold the applicant’s request.

The motion was denied by a 0 – 5 – 0 vote.

The reason for upholding the Zoning Enforcement Officer was the approved original application by the Zoning Board of Appeals was not constructed per the plans that were submitted on April, 2007, ZBA 2007-04-03.

Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. The motion was approved 5 – 0 – 0.

Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to recess. Following a 5 – 0 – 0 vote, the Board recessed at 8:50 p.m. The Board reconvened at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Mastroberti left the meeting at this time.

Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to change the order of tonight’s agenda and put ZBA 2008-06-06 as the next item. The remaining order would be ZBA 2008-05-02, ZBA 2008-06-01, ZBA 2008-06-04, ZBA 2008-06-05, and ZBA 2008-06-03. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate LaRosa voting.

VARIANCES – NEW

ZBA2008-06-06 – Keith and Barbara Stanfield, Applicants and Owners, 5 Leon Street, Map 34/Lot 93, R-33 Zone, requesting a rear yard setback variance of 8 feet, 35 feet required, 27 feet existing, 27 feet proposed, and a coverage variance of 0.8%, 20% allowed, 18.85 existing, 20.8% proposed, to extend a nonconforming deck parallel to the house – EZO Section 4.10.2H.

Barbara and Keith Stanfield appeared before the Board regarding this application.

Mr. Stanfield stated they were before the Board on May 19 in regard to building a deck on the back of their house. It was brought to their attention that the deck proposed was probably a little bit bigger than it should have been. After listening to the Board, they went back and redesigned the deck to come out 12’ instead of the 16’ and to go along the side of the house 24’. Mr. Stanfield hopes the Board finds this proposal more acceptable.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if they eliminated the lower level originally proposed. Mr. Stanfield stated they incorporated the lower level directly under the upper level to not have as much of a coverage variance.

Mr. LaRosa thanked the Stanfield’s for listening to what the Board had to say. He does have another recommendation which is to take the shed and put it under the deck. This would completely do away with the coverage variance. Mr. Stanfield stated they considered that but were not quite sure what they had for space under the deck.

Vice Chairman Hozempa opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the request for a rear yard setback variance of 8 feet, 35 feet required, 27 feet existing, 27’ proposed, and a coverage variance of 0.8%, 20% allowed, 18.85% existing, 20.8% proposed, to extend a nonconforming deck parallel to the house – EZO Section 4.10.2H.

Reference is made to a map titled “Prepared for Frank Vono, Enfield, CT 06082, Reino E. Hyppa & Associates, Civil Engineers, and Land Surveyors, Glastonbury, Conn.”, dated 10-12-83 and marked Map No. 161-83-2 and to three air photos marked “#5 (Leon Street)”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2008-06-06.

Mr. LaRosa stated the applicants did what was asked of them.

Mr. Yarum stated he was not here last month but he read the minutes and he understands the application fully and plans to vote on it.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate LaRosa voting.

The reason for approval is the request is the minimum required to make the existing nonconforming deck, which is currently not useable, useable.

ZBA2008-06-01 – Sue Raymond, Applicant and Owner, 42 Lake Drive, Map 97/Lot 49, R-33 Zone, requesting an accessory building setback variance of 145 feet, 175 feet required, 30 ft. proposed to construct a 16 ft. x 22 ft. garage – EZO Section 3.30.7i.

Sue Raymond, 42 Lake Drive, appeared before the Board requesting a variance because she has two bodies of water adjoining her property. She would like to build a 16’ x 22’ oversized one-car garage.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if there are any other bodies of water besides the lake that affect the property. Ms. Raymond stated there is a brook on one side that is pretty much dried up and then the lake to the front.

Mr. Rinaldi asked what restrictions Ms. Raymond is aware of regarding the placement of the garage anywhere else on the property like in the back. Ms. Raymond stated she has a very narrow lot.

Mr. Rinaldi asked about the setback on the lake. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is not a setback but there is a review area which from a body of water would be 100’. It is a wetlands issue of how or if it could occur. It falls under the Wetlands statutes. The issue for suitability of a structure within that review zone is the purview of the Wetlands Agency. Mr. Rinaldi stated if she wants to build the garage in the back, she is going to have wetlands out there. If she wants to put it in the front, here’s the variance for the front setback. Ms. Raymond stated she cannot put it on the front or the lake side because she doesn’t have any room.

Mr. Rinaldi stated Ms. Raymond has no access to put the garage on the back.

Ms. Turner stated she visited the property. The problem she got into was she couldn’t equate either map to the Raymond property. She couldn’t figure out where the property line is and asked if it goes right through the middle of where the mailbox is. Ms. Raymond stated that is basically where and she has a privacy fence between the two houses. Ms. Turner stated Ms. Raymond wants to put the garage approximately the same depth back as the neighbor’s and right where the asphalt drive is now. Ms. Raymond stated that is correct and they plan to remove the existing shed. Ms. Turner asked if the garage is going to be next to the neighbor’s side. Ms. Raymond stated where the driveway is, they won’t go any further than what the driveway is now.

In response to a question from Vice Chairman Hozempa, Ms. Raymond stated the shed will be removed. The garage is not going to be parallel to the shed and the shed is going to be removed. It will not be placed anywhere else on the property.

Mr. LaRosa asked about the height for this building. It was determined that the height is not shown on the site plan. Mr. Alsbaugh stated with a 7’ door and a 2’ header, that is nine feet up to the bottom of the upper wall plate.

Mr. Rinaldi stated the Board is just approving location tonight. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the elevation is part of the application. The Board has to make sure that the elevation submitted with the application is appropriate in size. Mr. Yarum stated it appears that the drawing is to scale. You have 8’ of wall and 4’ to the ridge. The maximum height at the ridge is 12’. Ms. Raymond assured the Board that it wouldn’t be over because she has a very small house. The reason she is going with an oversized one-car garage is because she does not want the garage to look bigger than the house.

Vice Chairman Hozempa opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Vice Chairman Hozempa closed this public hearing.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the request for an accessory building setback variance of 145 feet, 175 feet required, 30 feet proposed to construct a 16 ft. x 22 ft. garage – EZO Section 3.30.7i.

Reference is made to a hand drawn map without title or date submitted by the applicant, and without scale, and to all documentation, site plans, air photos, photographs and discussion under ZBA 2008-06-01.

Mr. Rinaldi stated he has seen lake properties come before the Board in the past. The Board actually has a request in to Planning and Zoning to readdress the lake front properties. Because of the wetlands concern, that particular area of lake front property compared to other lake zones throughout the town is unique because of the lake front property thereby limiting the position of where this garage can be located. It is not unusual in lake front communities that the garage is in front of the house and not behind the house. This seems to be consistent with how the Board approached these in the past.

Mr. LaRosa stated he went out to the property and several homes in the area all have garages in the front of the house. It would be nice if this was addressed through Planning and Zoning to keep this from coming to this Board. He does see the hardship of the property.

Mr. Rinaldi stressed the issue of this particular community compared to other like zoning throughout the town.

Ms. Turner stated she visited the property and saw the same thing.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate LaRosa voting.

The reason for approval is due to the unique lake front issues, the garage is consistent with the neighborhood due to the fact that the garage cannot be built anywhere else but in the front yard.

ZBA2008-06-04 – Reginald Duby, Applicant and Owner, 60 Broad Leaf Lane, Map 18/Lot 154, R-33 Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 4 feet, 5 feet required, 1 foot proposed, to construct a 12 feet x 24 feet accessory garage – EZO Section 3.30.7Ai

Reginald Duby, 60 Broad Leaf Lane, Enfield, and Chris Bernovelli, 37 Terry Lane, Belchertown, Massachusetts appeared before the Board regarding this application.

Mr. Duby stated his application states the property was built with a carport in 1955 in the subdivision in that neighborhood. Going back to construct a carport after twenty-one years, he was led to believe that he could put it back with a setback of approximately a foot off the property line. He found out that it was not grandfathered because it was down since 1982 and he has to come before this Board for a variance to put it back up. The front of the lot is 74’ and the rear end of the lot is 48’. As you narrow down the lot, about midway where it has to go closes in pretty quickly from the house to the steps and the overhang.

Mr. LaRosa asked if Mr. Duby would like to reconstruct the carport. Mr. Duby stated he would like to add a garage. The carport was attached to the house and there would be a need for a 10’ side yard variance.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated submitted into the record is a packet of materials including twelve pages of which ten of the pages are pictures of the lot and also neighboring houses with two pictures per page. The other two pages include a picture of the proposed garage dated June 30, 2008 and a copy of the site plan of the proposed garage. Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the site plan differs from the submitted one. Vice Chairman Hozempa stated the site plan is dated June 30, 2008 and the plan is to scale.

Ms. Turner asked about the wood deck. Mr. Bernovelli stated that it exists.

Vice Chairman Hozempa noted the proposal is not to build within the same footprint. Mr. Duby stated the garage would be going on the same footprint as the carport was. The carport was attached to the house by an overhang. Mr. Bernovelli referred to the pictures submitted. The proposed garage would not have that little attachment.

Ms. Turner stated looking at the 1972 map on file, it shows that it was a 10’ x 20’ carport. Mr. Duby stated he wants to go 12’ x 24’. He is buying a building from the Barnyard. It will be placed within the same boundary line.

Ms. Turner appreciates the package submitted. There is the front of the house and then there is a landing. She asked can’t you remove that deck part. Mr. Duby stated he is removing a foot of that deck. If he removes it altogether, he would have no access to the back door. Mr. Bernovelli stated what is not shown on the drawing is in front of the wood deck, if you go from the wood deck towards the street, there is a concrete step that enters into the front door. That concrete step aligns with the edge of the wood deck. That concrete is approximately four feet out. The new proposed garage would be as close to that concrete step as possible without removing it.

Ms. Turner asked about the depth and how far it sticks out in relation to the concrete pad. Mr. Bernovelli stated he believes it aligns.

Ms. Turner stated if you could remove the wood deck, you could move the whole garage over. Mr. Bernovelli stated it aligns with that bump in the middle of the house which is the living room. Mr. Duby pointed out the front door. Mr. Bernovelli noted even if the step was removed, you would still have the bump.

Ms. Turner asked if the fence is Mr. Duby’s. Mr. Duby stated the stockade fence is his.

Mr. Rinaldi asked on the proposed garage sketch with the hatched area, is that just to indicate the extent of the existing neighbor’s building. Mr. Bernovelli stated the hatched area is the five feet accessory building setback. He is just showing the setback and how the new garage would cut into it at the back corner.

Ms. Turner asked in the packet given to the Board if that is the newest picture on file. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is about two years old. Ms. Turner doesn’t see the concrete pad in the photo. Mr. Duby confirmed it is a photo of his home. The deck did have a landing around it. The concrete step is under the wood deck which he took off.

Mr. Yarum asked what is the building going to be used for. Mr. Duby stated a garage. Mr. Yarum stated the structure proposed from Kloter Farms submitted with the application will not, in his opinion, hold a car. Mr. Duby stated it is made for a garage. It comes with a garage door and they said it meets all the Town of Enfield requirements. It sits on 4 x 4’s. It will go on the ground with four inches of gravel. It meets the 12’ height requirement.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated the front door of the home is right by the wood deck. Mr. Duby confirmed that and stated there is a cement step and then the wood deck.

Mr. Rinaldi asked what evidence Mr. Duby had of an existing carport. Mr. Duby stated it is on the original subdivision plans on file in the Town Hall. Mr. Alsbaugh sees a carport there built with the home but he doesn’t see it after 1982. Mr. Duby stated he bought the home in 1987.

Ms. Turner noted the dip on the property. Mr. Duby confirmed there is a hill behind the home and there is a stream. Mr. Bernovelli stated this is the only location for the garage.

Mr. Yarum stated he is looking at the front right hand corner and he asked if that is within the setback or just on the setback. Mr. Bernovelli stated that would be three feet to the property line.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if there is anything preventing Mr. Duby from moving the garage back. Mr. Duby stated behind the back deck is the back door to the house. He would be putting it right into that space and he wouldn’t be in line with the front driveway. There is a double wide driveway that goes right to that one spot.

Mr. Bernovelli stated also preventing it is the topography of the site which drastically pitches down as it moves back.

Vice Chairman Hozempa opened this hearing to the audience.

Clark Mason, 58 Broadleaf Lane, stated he would not be in favor of a reduction in the side yard requirement because it would bring it much closer to his property. He has had to maintain the side lot and he thinks Mr. Duby should do the same. If the Board does grant it, he would request that it be stipulated that the position of this thing should be surveyed. The stockade fence encroaches on the property line as it is. Ms. Turner asked if Mr. Mason has something to show the pin to pin in his yard. Mr. Mason stated he does not. The chain link fence was professionally installed prior to his purchasing the house and the survey at the time of purchase indicated that it was within the property line. Regarding the positioning of the chain link fence, Mr. Mason stated it is within the line. It was shown within the line on the survey that was done.

Mr. LaRosa asked if the building is within the five feet. Mr. Duby stated it would seem to be.

Mr. Duby stated according to the town they did a survey during the reconstruction of the stream. The lot is very clearly marked with four pins on that lot. The chain link fence is a line fence and runs exactly with the back marker. It is five feet from the side yard structure. The shed next door is not five feet from the property line. It measures three feet. Mr. Duby had a private survey done and everything lines up with the four pins and matches what the town says.

Ms. Turner asked if Mr. Duby has any intention of taking the stockade fence down. Mr. Duby stated if need be. Where this section of shed would be, he would take it down. The shed is about 22’ long on the neighbor’s side and the garage would be in line with that shed. Ms. Turner stated Mr. Duby is planning on taking down a section of fence to let the wall of the garage replace the fence. Mr. Duby stated the stockade fence is clearly on 60 Broadleaf and in from the line approximately six inches to a foot in spots. The fence has been there for approximately eight years and it has never been an issue. Mr. Duby did approach Mr. Mason telling him what he was going to do and he had no issue.

Vice Chairman Hozempa opened this hearing to the audience a second time. No one spoke in favor or against. Vice Chairman Hozempa closed this public hearing.

Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for an accessory building setback variance of 4 ft, 5 ft. required, 1 ft. proposed, to construct a 12 ft. x 24 ft. accessory garage – EZO Section 3.30.7Ai.

Reference is made to a map titled indicating 60 Broad Leaf Lane and marked Reginald A. and Michele A. Duby, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2008-06-04.

Mr. LaRosa stated the matter of the previously constructed carport has been brought up. He did have an existing carport at one point but under Enfield Zoning Regulations 3.40.4, no building structures containing a nonconforming use shall be demolished or replaced by a new building or structure except where its use is changed to a conforming use. Mr. LaRosa stated the Board cannot take the carport into consideration. It was a nonconforming property and it was demolished. Therefore, unless adding this garage changes it to a conforming property, the Board cannot take the carport into consideration.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he doesn’t see where the actual carport was. Mr. LaRosa stated a card from the town shows that in 1972 the home did have a carport. Mr. Alsbaugh stated what is not known at this time is whether or not that carport was conforming or nonconforming.

Ms. Turner asked if it is possible that the garage be moved forward. Mr. LaRosa stated it would have to be 35’ from the road either way.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if the carport is considered demolished since it was part of the main house. Mr. LaRosa stated the only difference given is if it was destroyed by fire or explosion or natural disaster.

Mr. Rinaldi is trying to separate stand alone from attached. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if it was attached, the setback requirement would have been larger. It would have been 10’ instead of 5’.

Ms. Turner asked if the previous Board has had such issues. Mr. Yarum stated the Board has had setback issues. What is bothering him about this application is part of the Board’s function is to look out for safety and he doesn’t feel this is a safe situation. It is too close. If you have to get emergency vehicles in the back, there is just no access.

Ms. Turner stated they cannot make the structure shorter and you can’t pull it forward to solve the problem. She asked if the carport could be put back. Mr. LaRosa stated it cannot be. Ms. Turner asked about a temporary structure. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is still considered a structure and would be treated the same way.

Mr. Rinaldi agreed the property is small and he would have to agree with Mr. Yarum. In the past the Board has never done one foot because it is impossible to maintain the building and there is also a safety issue.

The motion was denied by a 0 – 5 – 0 vote with Alternate LaRosa voting.

The reason for denial is per the regulations, accessory structures are required to be five feet from the property line. This property does not allow a 5’ setback for safety and maintenance issues.

ZBA 2008-06-05 – Pools by Murphy, Applicants and Larry and Judith Robinson, Owners, 10 D’Annunzio Avenue, Map 26/Lot 58, R-33 Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 13 feet, 25 feet required, 12 feet proposed, and a coverage variance of 12.15%, 22.7% allowed, 22.7% existing, 34.85% proposed, to construct an in-ground pool. EZO Sections 4.30.16C and 4.10.2H.

Larry and Judith Robinson, 10 D’Annunzio Avenue, and Kelly Sullivan, 21 Ozick Drive, Durham appeared before the Board regarding this variance request. Vice Chairman Hozempa stated submitted into the record is the request for the variance and the reasons for the request. The material was submitted by Judith and Larry Robinson with an attached letter from Dr. Paul Murray dated June 19, 2008.

Ms. Sullivan stated they purchased the home about a year and a half ago. At the time the builder told them there had been a variance because it is a nonconforming lot. They had to structure the home in such a way that it fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. It is on a corner lot which gives them a lot less room to work with in the back yard. They have done their best to try to plan out the pool and they have removed trees that would allow them to take advantage of the innermost part of the yard. It is largely due to Ms. Sullivan’s medical condition that the pool is needed. They had an above ground pool and it was not helpful to her.

Mr. Robinson stated the house is a lot closer to the road then where the pool is going to be so they were surprised when they said they didn’t have enough room there.

Ms. Sullivan stated the plan for the pool is the pool won’t go past the edge of where the house falls. They are also putting up a quality white vinyl fence so that it will be aesthetically pleasing and safe.

Mr. Rinaldi stated at the time the variance was granted, it was for the proposed house and just for a dimension and not running along the entire property line.

Mr. Robinson stated their lot has two front yards for zoning purposes.

Ms. Turner asked about the above ground pool. Ms. Sullivan stated you still have to use a ladder and it is the twisting to get into it and climbing down the ladder as opposed to walking in to steps with an in ground pool. Ms. Turner stated you can have heat put in an above ground pool. Mr. Robinson stated she has a degenerative disease and she is not going to get better. She has had one hip done and needs to have the other one done.

Mr. LaRosa asked if the pool has to be this size. Ms. Sullivan stated they actually made it smaller. Mr. LaRosa stated the pool itself is 31’ long.

Ms. Sullivan stated they tried to do a curvy shaped pool to manipulate the distance.

Ms. Turner asked if a pool is something they always envisioned to have for the medical issue. Ms. Sullivan stated no but it is something that helps her a great deal from a mobility standpoint.

Mr. LaRosa stated this home was built in 2007. He questioned if there might be a septic tank in the ground that was never removed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he doubts it. Sewers appeared in Enfield at an extremely early time. Mr. LaRosa stated there were some septic tanks in that area and there is no requirement to pull a septic tank. Further discussion followed.

Ms. Sullivan stated the lot was previously a totally wooded lot and they removed all the trees.

Mr. LaRosa stated on the letter submitted, Ms. Sullivan was diagnosed with this condition in 2004. Ms. Sullivan stated she was diagnosed in 1997 but it was not as severe and she did not know that she would be replacing joints.

Mr. Robinson stated they thought the above the ground pool would be okay and never realized that the ladder would be an issue.

Ms. Turner asked if they have a basement. Ms. Sullivan responded yes, but she doesn’t go down there.

Mr. LaRosa asked if they have tried swimming at other locations. Ms. Sullivan stated she has tried everything including getting access to hotel pools. Mr. LaRosa stated Bigelow has a therapeutic pool. Ms. Sullivan has not looked into that pool.

Mr. Yarum stated Ms. Sullivan had the replacement in 2004. He noted the need to find a hardship for the land. Ms. Sullivan stated being a corner lot would be a hardship. Mr. Robinson stated they never owned a home previously and this was their first purchase.

Ms. Robinson asked if the setback needs to meet the property line or the street line. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the street line is the property line.

Ms. Turner noted the covering of the property is going to be almost 35%. Ms. Robinson agreed.

Mr. Yarum stated it says it is necessary to keep joints in motion and you need to do aerobics. Ms. Sullivan stated that would be water aerobics which is different from impact aerobics. Mr. Yarum noted this type of therapy is not swimming distances. Ms. Sullivan stated it is being able to move in the warm water. She does a lot of walking in the water.

Ms. Turner asked what she will do in the winter. Ms. Sullivan stated she works from home so she doesn’t have to go out into the cold which makes her condition worse.

Mr. LaRosa asked if they have thought about the safety issues with most of the back yard covered by this pool. Ms. Sullivan stated they know they need to put an alarm on their back door. They are putting up a six foot vinyl fence. Mr. LaRosa stated if anything were to happen to that house, emergency services would have a difficult time doing anything in the back yard to help with life safety. Mr. Robinson stated there is so much room where the pool wouldn’t be. Mr. LaRosa stated if someone needed to be rescued from the second floor window at the back of that house, he is not sure they could get equipment back there to accomplish that. Mr. Robinson stated there will be a fence around the yard regardless.

Ms. Turner asked about fencing and if there is an issue with fencing. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the fencing cannot be over six feet, the good side has to face out and you can’t create any sight line issues on the street. Ms. Sullivan stated they checked into this and made sure they were conforming regarding the fence. Ms. Higley asked if the fence is just around the pool. Ms. Sullivan stated it would be the yard facing Enfield Avenue. Ms. Higley asked if they would impede any stop signs and Ms. Sullivan responded no.

Ms. Turner asked about the fence location. Mr. Robinson stated the fence is going to come about 8’ up on the side of the house which is much more than 30’ from the corner and that is where the heater was going to be for the pool. It is going to start there and go all the way around the back yard and up over to the other side. Ms. Sullivan stated the neighbor in the back already has a chain link fence going across the back.

Mr. LaRosa stated the builder made them aware that it was a small lot and nonconforming. Ms. Sullivan stated he told them he had to get a variance because of the distance to the Enfield Avenue side and that he built the house in line with the structures that were already on the street. Mr. Robinson stated being this was their first home, they had no idea that this meant anything. They thought they could do what they wanted to do in their yard.

Mr. Robinson stated there are a couple of big trees that represent a safety factor. The pool man told him the trees are on town property. Some discussion followed on the property designated as the town’s.

Ms. Turner asked if their attorney explained this to them. Ms. Sullivan stated no.

Vice Chairman Hozempa opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Vice Chairman Hozempa closed this public hearing.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the request for a side yard setback variance of 13 ft., 25 ft. required, 12 ft. proposed, and a coverage variance of 12.15%, 22.7% allowed, 22.7% existing, 34.85% proposed, to construct an in-ground pool- EZO Sections 4.30.16C & 4.10.2H

Reference is made to a map titled “Plot Plan, Lot 6, D’Annunzio Avenue, Prepared for Carl Nelson, Enfield, Conn” and dated revised to 11-1-05, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2008-06-05.

Mr. LaRosa stated he has an issue with safety. He understands the lots in this area are all small. The previous Board gave them permission to build a house on this lot. Mr. LaRosa felt if you put a pool in the back yard in such a small area, it doesn’t conform to the area. Also, if there was ever an issue in the back of the house, there will be serious problems because you will not be able to get equipment back there.

Ms. Turner stated she has a problem with the total amount of property that is going to be covered. She can understand why this Board granted a variance in the past but this would really be going over the top. It is not a structure that is going to be taken out.

Mr. LaRosa stated this Board is looking at a hardship for the property. These people may not be the homeowners forever.

Ms. Turner brought up the possibility of the pool being removed in the future and a structure added. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that would require Planning and Zoning Commission approval.

Mr. LaRosa stated this would be taking a very small piece of land and making it smaller.

Mr. Rinaldi stated as much as he sympathizes with the medical condition that the owner has, legally this Board is looking at the property and not the owner.

Mr. Yarum stated he agrees that it is a very large pool to put on such a small lot but he heard the applicant say she didn’t need the distance for health reasons. He did not think they needed a 31’ pool and felt it was overkill.

Vice Chairman Hozempa noted that coverage is an issue.

The motion failed by a 0 – 5 – 0 vote.

The reason for denial is due to the lot size and the existing variance for coverage previously granted to 22.7%, the hardship claimed by the applicants is of a medical nature and not of a legal issue.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.

Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to take a five minute break. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote and the Board recessed at 10:45 p.m. The Board reconvened at 10:53 p.m.

ZBA 2008-06-03 – Robert Robbins, Applicant and Owner, 29 Weymouth Road, Map 17/Lot 53, R-33 Zone, requesting an accessory building height variance of 8.0 feet, 12 feet required, 20.0 feet existing, 20.0 feet proposed, and a front setback variance of 70’ for a farm building, 100 feet required, 30 feet proposed, 30 feet existing, to be able to gain final approval and Certificate of Occupancy for a newly constructed accessory structure or farm building – EZO Sections 3.30.7i and 4.30.1A.

Attorney Bruce Fader appeared before the Board on behalf of Robert Robbins and requested that all documents and oral testimony submitted tonight under ZBA 2008-06-02 be made part of the record of this application.

Attorney Fader stated there were questions as to what was part of the original application and so forth. He would like to take a couple of minutes and defer to Mr. Robbins. Attorney Fader stated in trying to prepare for this, there were a lot of issues that came into play. He called Mr. Alsbaugh today and discussed the core issues. The one thing that must be done is to revoke some sense of credibility and note that what they are saying is sincere and not just off the cuff. Mr. Robbins had stated certain things to him during the recess and he thinks that Mr. Robbins should address the Board.

Mr. Robbins stated well over a year ago he wanted to build a building. He came down to see the Building Inspector to find out what was needed to get a building permit. His only previous experience with building a building was in Munson, Massachusetts. He built himself a workshop there and he met with the building inspector, drew a sketch of the building and was granted approval. That is the limit of his experience. When he wanted to build in Enfield, he talked to the Building Inspector and he said bring a site plan. Mr. Robbins drew up a site plan of his property and showed him where he wanted to put the building. The Building Inspector looked at it and said you need to go to zoning for that. Mr. Alsbaugh was very helpful in assisting Mr. Robbins fill out the application.

Mr. Robbins stated they were talking about the building. He did not have any building plans with him at that meeting because he still didn’t know what he was going to build. He was just finding out what he could build and get permission to build. At that first ZBA meeting was the first time he found out there was a 12’ height requirement. He found that out because he was the second applicant that night and the first applicant was looking for a variance for a shed and height came into play. At the ZBA meeting, it was discussed what Mr. Robbins was going to use the building for. He had described it as a garage/workshop because he didn’t know what else to call it. He wasn’t going to park cars in it because there is a garage on the house. It was not going to be a wood shop. It was going to be a place to hang out in retirement away from his wife. He planned to store a tractor in this area so that he could work on it. Was it a farm building? Mr. Robbins doesn’t know how you define a farm building. It would be his hobby shop. The setback variance was granted that night and he met with Mr. Alsbaugh to find out about the 12’ height requirement. From the conversations with him was when he decided he would have to go to a metal building so that he could have a cathedral ceiling and have the height. The metal building was what he submitted to the Building Department for his original building application. The dimensions were 36’ x 40’x12’ at the midpoint of where the peak was. The peak might have been 17’. It had a large overhang and the roof continued way past the side wall so that the mid point of the roof line would be 12’ but still give you plenty of height on the inside.

Mr. Robbins put the $4,000 deposit on the building and ordered it. He scheduled the excavator to come in and the concrete guy on a Thursday. He expected the building permit to show up on Monday and that’s when he found out there was a hold up with the wetlands and the permit wouldn’t be coming through. Mr. Robbins cancelled all of this and came in and talked to the wetlands gentleman. He found out he had to come to another committee. The wetlands agent asked what he was going to use the building for and he explained it. It’s not a garage or workshop but kind of like a catch all for repairing his tractor and other things. A farm use came up in the conversation. Mr. Robbins didn’t mean it was going to be a 100% farm use because he doesn’t do that much. It is a hobby farm. He has 1,000 or so Christmas trees and that’s not a full time thing.

Mr. Robbins stated after the wetlands thing was granted, he came back here a day or two days later and he had to pick up a form to bring to the Building Inspector letting him know that it had been approved and he could proceed. During the course of the conversation with Steve Sadlowski, he mentioned or Mr. Robbins asked if there was still a height issue. He said because it’s a farm building, there is no height issue. Mr. Robbins did not know that he needed to also ask if there is a setback issue. He was not aware of that. He thought the setback thing had been taken care of but he now realizes there is a setback for a workshop and a setback for a farm building. When he was told that by Mr. Sadlowski, he immediately went back across the hall, saw the Building Inspector and told him to stop on those plans. He really didn’t want a metal building and didn’t think it would look good. He would have preferred a wood building with siding to match the house. He went back home and designed different plans and then brought them back about a week later. Those plans did not meet the 12’ height requirement. They were at that mid point on the roof close to 17’. The Building Inspector approved the plans. He went ahead and built the building 36’ x 48’ or 8’ longer than the original building. The reason it is 8’ longer is his excavator came out and said he could squeeze in another eight feet. The second set of plans that he submitted where he changed from a metal building to a wood building were with the nonconforming height and the 36’ x 48’ size. There was also a mistake by the carpenter and instead of using two by six by twelve’s, he used two by six by fourteens for the walls. That’s why the wall was built different than the plans that were submitted. They are two feet higher than the second set of plans that were submitted and the plan that the permit was given on. The actual building is two feet taller than what those plans call for.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if the Board has the original plans in their meeting packet from the Building Inspector. Mr. Alsbaugh stated when a building application is amended, they throw out the original plans. He noted there were three plans submitted, the ones that complied, the first one that did not and the second one that did not. Attorney Fader stated the modifications were dated May 6.

Ms. Turner noted the plan is dated December 19. Mr. Robbins stated that is the one that was approved and the permit was issued upon. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the Board follow his time line and they will see how things fall in.

Mr. LaRosa stated on the application and on the card that the town keeps on record, the property sizes don’t match. Mr. Robbins is saying he has 7.75 acres of useable land and the town is saying that he has 6.79 acres. Attorney Fader stated a lot of times the area that is indicated on an assessor’s card is not accurate. What is accurate is if they have an A-2 survey which is made part of the record. It’s generally known in the profession that a lot of times these property cards with respect to lot area are not accurate.

Mr. LaRosa stated on the card there is A-1 which is agricultural and A-4 which is poultry farming for use of the land. They had mentioned earlier that it falls under the 490. However, there’s a lot more that goes with that statute if that is what is being used. That is you must file tax returns every year showing a sale of something on that farm land. The trees were planted in 2003 and they are not going to be ready for harvest for 10 years so legally if you’re not filing this tax return, it’s not a farm.

Attorney Fader stated what often happens in a situation like this is sometimes it starts out classified as open space and you are given a tax benefit. Once the trees get to the point of harvesting, then they may convert it from open space land to farm land. Towns differ in how they treat this and he can’t sit here and know how the Town of Enfield treats it. His sole purpose of introducing that information about the PA-490 classification for this lot is to try to prove to this Board that he has a client who truly does have a farm activity taking place.

Mr. LaRosa stated he is not sure someone that has ten acres of land can put up a farm building. There are certain things that have to be done in order to classify it as a farm. He asked if they meet those qualifications. Are they filling out tax forms each year to submit in order to keep this agricultural status on the property? Attorney Fader questioned if this is a zoning issue.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is only required to have three acres to be a farm and establishing an acceptable farm use. It has been determined by the Zoning Officer that they have established their use as a farm under the 490. Ms. Higley stated she checked with the assessor’s office. His point is the attorney brought up the section and he is trying to clarify the relevance.

Mr. La Rosa stated they can have three acres and classify it as a farm but if it is not a farm, can the Board just grant a farm building. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town recognizes it as a farm. Whether or not there is an IRS issue is not dealt with by this Board. Further discussion followed on whether the property is classified as a farm.

Mr. Robbins stated he has filed tax returns every year. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town has classified it as a farm. Mr. Robbins stated the IRS realizes it takes ten years to grow Christmas trees so they allow you not to have sales for the first ten years.

Attorney Fader stated some of the information he wishes to introduce is some photographs that were part of the April hearing. They show how the land looked prior to any construction. Also introduced are photographs of the property about a half a mile down the road from Mr. Robbins property showing that there’s a very large farm related out building that is almost right on the road. This shows the flavor of the neighborhood and what Mr. Robbins is doing is not out of character with the neighborhood.

Attorney Fader submitted some information indicating that on the Building Permit application the value of the building was approximately $55,000. Mr. Robbins has probably exceeded that. Attorney Fader submitted invoices and endorsed checks showing that he has incurred considerable expense in order to construct this building. Attorney Fader recognizes that economic hardship does not lay the foundation of the legal hardship.

Attorney Fader discussed what the legal hardship is. With respect to the zoning regulation for the 100’ setback for farm out buildings, their legal hardship is the same hardship that was presented to the ZBA in April, 2007 with respect to the accessory building. Now it gets to the heart of why Attorney Fader submitted the minutes of that meeting. It clearly indicates that what the legal hardship for allowing the variance of the setback for the accessory building is because referring to the map (entitled property of James L. Corcum dated June, 1979), the site is the former site of the town owned pump station. That area was probably back filled to raise the elevation and provide the grading for the pump station. There is almost a raised area that is different from the surrounding area. The map shows the limits of the wetlands and then you have the wetland buffer area. Their site is really the elevated area. What was indicated in the prior application was that this is the only dry spot in the area because there is a very high water table within the wetland regulated areas. Therefore, it made sense to put the building where it presently is because the surrounding area is wetlands. That is the unique feature of their property that was the underlying legal hardship and basis for the earlier variance. Knowing that their building would be in the same spot as the so called accessory building was under the prior variance makes sense that it is the same rationale for this. So if it is good for one, it probably has to be good for the other. It almost is to the point that if the variance with respect to the 100’ setback was denied, the building is still going to be there. They already have it approved as an accessory building.

Attorney Fader discussed the next issue with respect to the height and he felt maybe the height issue has already been clarified because it has already been acknowledged that whenever you have a farm building, there is no height limit. That is telling him that maybe they don’t need a variance regarding the height. He questioned if a variance is needed with respect to the height because they were trying to establish that this is a farm related activity and out building in which case there is an interpretation of 3.30.7, that the 12’ height limitation doesn’t apply to farm related activities. Attorney Fader stated that interpretation is nowhere in the regulations. He likes it and he thinks it helps his client but this is evidence that it is hard for the public to know how these regulations are interpreted.

Attorney Fader stated he is trying to bring up two issues. With respect to the variance for the 100’ setback requirement, they are asking for a variance of 70’. Their legal hardship is the same hardship they had for the variance that this Board had given for the accessory building. With respect to the height situation, Attorney Fader again questioned whether or not they need a variance in light of the zoning official’s interpretation that the 3.30.7 12’ height restriction doesn’t apply to farm related out buildings.

Mr. Rinaldi stated as far as the Minutes that were submitted for the appeal, the Board is passing those around. He asked if that has to be acknowledged.

Attorney Fader submitted a copy as part of his earlier presentation.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board took the Minutes out of the appeal folder. The request has already been made to incorporate any of the documentation from the appeal into this public hearing.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if height is an issue. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has to determine which use this is. Is it an accessory structure since the Board upheld the appeal or is it a farm building? The reason he recommended to Attorney Fader that he include both issues was because depending on what the Board’s decision was going to be, it had to be advertised. If the Board decided one way or the other and both issues were not advertised for the variance, then they could not be heard if the one that was decided to be heard was not advertised.

Ms. Turner stated she has an issue of lumping the two together. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the decision is still the Board’s to make. For this application, the Board must incorporate their decision making process of the appeal into this one and decide what it is you are actually doing. Attorney Fader stated what they are saying is it is a farm related activity.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that doesn’t restrict Attorney Fader from entering things into the record that are of his opinion. But the decision is the Board’s.

Attorney Fader stated they are now establishing that this is a farm related activity. For that reason, they are going forward with the variance request.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated what is actually approved under the previous variance and what has actually been upheld under the zoning officer’s decision is something else. Attorney Fader stated that doesn’t prevent this Board from determining or agreeing with him that this is a farm related building.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he didn’t say that. He said it doesn’t restrict the applicant from entering anything they want into the public record but it will be the Board’s decision of what is actually before this Board.

Ms. Turner stated that is why she asked why the two weren’t separated.

Mr. Rinaldi stated if the Board decides it is an accessory building and not a farm building, then height would be an issue. If the Board decides it is a farm building, then height would not be an issue.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated lumping the two together was an administrative opinion to make sure that whatever the Board decided and whatever that meant as an implication to the applicant, that it would be legally advertised so that the Board could legally entertain the whole thing.

Attorney Fader stated he thinks it forces a review of the regulation on page 28, Table 420, where it talks about agricultural uses which are required by special permit. They are none of those activities and instead they are a farm which is also defined under 4.20. To get a feel about what kind of farm activity they are, it is almost as if they are defined by what they are not under agricultural activities under 4.20.

Ms. Turner felt the problem from her point of view is there seems to be a paper snafu. They came in for an accessory building, they got approved for an accessory building, they got the variance to put it where they put it, and they built a very nice building. However, they made it higher not once but twice and longer and the second time the guy put more concrete down. Then Inland Wetlands gets involved and they say you are a farm. The Board has a quandary. He was approved for an accessory building.

Attorney Fader stated this is the only high point that avoided the high water table and the wetland soils.

Ms. Turner stated when Mr. Robbins retires, the concern she has is if Mr. Robbins moves and a new guy moves in. The building will still be there with a height of 20 plus feet high, forty some odd feet long with a bathroom and plenty of room. Ms. Turner questioned what’s going to happen and what is the restriction on what can happen in that building.

Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to extend the meeting to midnight. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.

Ms. Turner asked if this is something the Board takes into consideration.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he doesn’t think the future use is something the Board needs to consider. What they need to consider is whether or not this is determined to be an accessory structure or a farm building. The Board needs to take in whatever evidence that Attorney Fader wishes to submit at this point. The time for discussion and opinion comes after the public hearing is closed.

Mr. Robbins stated they talked for years about moving to Florida and that’s why he didn’t try to build this building seven years ago. However, grandchildren have started coming and they built the building because they decided they were never moving to Florida.

Vice Chairman Hozempa noted Attorney Fader submitted several pages of receipts of charges for the building, the accessory structure/farm building, and also some wetlands soil reports as well as pictures dated 5/18/2008 of the next building on Weymouth Road and also pictures dated 3/28/2007 which are three copies of the same picture, pictures dated 3/28/07 – there are four per page and two pages.

Mr. LaRosa questioned why the building was built so big. He asked if this building is going to be a garage for a mobile home. Mr. Robbins stated the camper would not fit in the building. It would also be stupid to build an $80,000 building to house a $50,000 camper.

Attorney Fader submitted into the record his June 3 letter where he questioned if the 100’ setback requirement is even relevant. His reading is it only pertains to special permits. Their activities taking place on the property do not demand a special permit. He knows from speaking to Mr. Alsbaugh that he feels that yes, even though their latest activity doesn’t require a special permit, all farm related out buildings still need to comply or conform with it. His argument would be whether it is necessary and, obviously, if this Board determines through their interpretation that their farm related building doesn’t require a special permit, this building does. For that reason, he submitted the variance request and he tried to support that request that their legal hardship is what he stated previously. Given what Mr. Robbins has introduced, Attorney Fader thinks it firmly establishes the legal basis for a variance.

Ms. Turner questioned where the hardship is.

Attorney Fader stated it is the same legal hardship that was articulated in the variance for the accessory building. They are not looking at it as an accessory building but as a farm related building. Farm related buildings have a setback requirement of 100’. They are saying they cannot go 100’ back because of the wetlands. The Wetland Commission had said we don’t want you to put it 100’ back because then you’re going to be invading or encroaching upon the wetland regulations especially the buffer area. Reason number two is that the reason why they constructed the building the way it was is because it is the former site of the pump station owned by the town. It was the town’s own activity that raised the grade and that is the pad that is now dry that allows the construction of the building to now go on it. It is the very kind of unique features of the land and they are providing it to the Board. It is the same rationale for the farm related setback variance as what was used for the accessory building last year. The former pump station site is now part of the applicant’s property.

Attorney Fader noted they need at least four affirmative votes for the variance to pass.

Mr. Robbins stated he presented to the Board letters from eight of his neighbors. Those eight neighbors directly abut him or can see the building from their property. They were all in support of it. Two of them are here tonight. Another lady who is about 85 wanted to be here but she was very ill tonight.

Attorney Fader thinks the neighbors are in support and the activity taking place is in harmony with the neighborhood.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked for input from the audience.

Joe Blackwelder spoke in favor. He lives on the other side of Wanda. He remembers the pump house. The building is in the same place pretty much and is definitely a lot nicer. It gives Mr. Robbins a place to work. He has a lot of equipment and Mr. Blackwelder has no issues with it. All the neighbors feel the same way. It is a good place for it. The back is wet and where the pump house was is raised.

James Dyer, 24 Weymouth Road, stated he is in favor of the variance.

Attorney Fader submitted two maps. Vice Chairman Hozempa stated submitted is a boundary survey prepared for the property at 20 Weymouth Road dated 5/8/07. There is one revision. The second map is approved by Planning and Zoning in 1979 and it is the wetlands map.

Mr. LaRosa saw a need for the Board to figure out what type of structure they are voting on. The Board just had a vote to uphold the zoning officer’s cease and desist for an accessory building. If the Board votes to change it to a farm building, Mr. LaRosa questioned if the Board would be voting against what they just did regarding the appeal.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board upheld the zoning enforcement officer’s ruling for an accessory building. The Board called this an accessory building and that is what he is calling it.

Mr. Rinaldi stated to the best of the zoning enforcement officer’s knowledge, she was going out to observe an accessory building. That is what it was supposed to be. She saw that as not meeting what was supposed to happen and the Board agreed. Now the Board has someone applying for a farm building.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the reason there are two motions was because it was not determined at the time of the appeal which it was. Was the Board going to uphold the zoning enforcement officer for an accessory structure or was the Board going to overturn her decision and accept it as a farm building? That is the only reason there were two things in the variance request – to cover the legal ad and the uncertainty at the time of the submittal regarding what was going to happen under the variance.

Ms. Turner stated a farm building is off the table. The Board will discuss it as an accessory building and decide from that point.

Mr. Rinaldi stated he sees it as something new.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated he violated which was submitted which was an accessory building. Now he has come forward changing it to a farm building.

Ms. Turner stated she sees it as coming in today to get a farm building to cover more of the problems with an existing building that is built than an accessory building and getting the problem solved through the accessory building.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if the Board can consider for a moment that there is not a structure on this property. Now he is approaching the Board asking for a variance for a farm building. He questioned is the structure relevant at this point.

Mr. Yarum stated the Board has already determined what the structure is.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board determined what it was when they upheld the zoning enforcement officer’s ruling.

Further discussion followed regarding accessory versus farm building.

Mr. Rinaldi asked what is to prevent the applicant from changing his request now and requesting it to be a farm building.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has legally established it as an accessory structure by their decision to uphold the decision of the zoning enforcement officer.

Mr. Rinaldi questioned if there was an error in the decision of the zoning enforcement officer. He doesn’t believe there was. He was basing it on what was approved. If that is what was approved, then what was there was not approved. Now here comes a request for a variance.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated you can’t have it both ways. The only reason you have a motion for a farm building is to cover the option that you would overturn the zoning officer.

Mr. Rinaldi did not see it that way.

Mr. LaRosa stated the Board made a motion to uphold. The Zoning Enforcement Officer stated an accessory building was built in violation of the code. The Board upheld that ruling by saying he built an accessory building but he built it too tall.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated nothing prevents the use of the accessory structure as a farm building.

Ms. Turner did not feel you get a variance for a building you already built and change what you call it.

Mr. LaRosa stated the only variance before the Board now is the height variance.

Mr. Rinaldi stated he sees this as an applicant requesting a variance for a farm building. Ms. Turner asked how you plan on picking that building up and moving it seventy feet into the wetlands.

Mr. Yarum stated Mr. Robbins has received approval for an accessory building and under the regulations, an accessory building will not exceed 12’ in height. Now he is saying he needs a variance of 8’ because he has over designed this building.

Vice Chairman Hozempa noted the previous variance approval.

Ms. Turner felt this is semantics. The Board previously granted a variance and it didn’t say farm in the variance.

Mr. Rinaldi stated this is an existing accessory building right now. But now, he wants to put in a farm building.

Ms. Turner stated what’s the point of calling it a farm building. If the Board just leaves it as an accessory building, the argument is not about what you call it. The argument is he has twice changed the height. The accessory building says 12’ and if it is kept at accessory building, the argument is about height. You have to decide if you are going to agree to the twenty plus feet of height versus the twelve feet.

Ms. Turner stated the issue at hand is the two are lumped together and she doesn’t know how to pry them apart.

Mr. LaRosa stated he is looking for an accessory building type variance or a farm building variance. This all depends on what the Board acted on in the violation portion. The Board upheld the zoning officer’s ruling and determined this is an accessory building in violation of the code. Therefore, the bottom line of farm building variance is gone. It was only a legal ploy to get it on the agenda so that if we didn’t uphold the zoning officer’s ruling, then he could come forth and ask for it to be a farm building. The Board upheld the zoning officer as far as a building being constructed as an accessory building.

Vice Chairman Hozempa stated the Board has determined it to be an accessory building. The applicant, at the time when he came to the Board, it was for the height and wetlands determined it to be a farm building.

Ms. Turner stated that is not what he wrote in the application.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated an accessory structure does not preclude a farm use. The use is not precluded by the restrictions of an accessory structure.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if an accessory structure could be changed into an agricultural use building.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated not if it is not properly located. To say that it is a farm building now because we are using it as such and, therefore, we are about to make it higher is not right. It won’t stand up. If it is not located properly, you can’t do that either. But it does not preclude the use of farm building or storing machinery or repairing machinery. It merely means that the structure itself is restricted according to location and height.

Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if eight feet covers what was requested. Mr. Alsbaugh did not know. The Board should act on what is requested in the application. They cannot change it because it was advertised.

Ms. Turner asked if the decision can be postponed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can very carefully request additional information such that it will not harm the fact that the public hearing has been closed.

Following two motions that were made and later withdrawn and due to the hour, Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Yarum, to table action on ZBA 2008-06-03 and extend it to the next meeting on July 28, 2008. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.

The applicant stated he would not be in town on July 28, 2008. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it doesn’t actually require attendance because the Board will be making a decision.

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Turner requested that the Zoning Enforcement Officer be present at the Board’s Regular Meetings in the future.

Mr. Yarum commented that the Board has been in this situation before. The public hearing is closed but any discussion should be saved until the next meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Yarum, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 12:05.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________

John Rinaldi, Secretary

Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals

jmr