ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

JULY 28, 2008

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 28, 2008, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Acting Chairman Hozempa called the meeting to order at 7:24 p.m.

Acting Chairman Scott Hozempa asked for Roll Call:

PRESENT: R. Scott Hozempa, Acting Chairman

John Rinaldi

Maurice Larosa (Alternate, seated)

Mary Ann Turner, Acting Vice Chairman

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

Susan Berube, Recording Secretary

Mr. Larosa was seated as a full voting member for this meeting and Ms. Turner was appointed as vice chair for this meeting by Acting Chairman Hozempa.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 30, 2008:

A motion was made by Mr. Larosa and seconded by Ms. Turner to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 30, 2008 as presented. Vote was 4-0-0.

CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT: None.

PUBLIC HEARING(S) / PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN

PUBLIC HEARINGS – CLOSED & TABLED; DECISION TO BE MADE [Appeals and/or Variances] - ONE

ZBA 2008-06-03 – Robert Robbins, Applicant & Owner, 29 Weymouth Rd., Map 17 / Lot 53, R33 Zone, requesting an accessory building height variance of 8.0 ft., 12 ft. required, 20.0 ft. existing, 20.0 ft. proposed, and a front setback variance of 70’ for a farm building, 100 ft. required, 30 ft. proposed, 30 ft. 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 & 4.30.1A:

Acting Chairman Hozempa explained to the applicant’s representative, Attorney Bruce Fader, that all four members present would need to vote in the affirmative in order for the variance to pass. He gave Mr. Fader the option of waiting until the Board’s next meeting for a vote to be taken, or for the Board to discuss and possibly vote this evening.

Mr. Fader asked if any of the members would be on vacation on the next meeting date.

Acting Chairman Hozempa stated that Mr. Yarum would not likely be on vacation and neither would any of the members that are present at this meeting.

Mr. Larosa asked that if additional members are at the next meeting, would only the 5 members that were at the last meeting (June 30, 2008) be able to vote?

Mr. Fader stated that unless those other members educated themselves through transcripts and minutes, they would not be able to vote.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that it would be up to the Board to decide who would be seated for the vote but all members present could participate in the discussion. A Regular member could waive his or her opportunity to vote in favor of an Alternate member that was present at all of the meetings.

Mr. Fader wondered if having a fifth member present would make a difference and stated that it would be o.k. to vote this evening.

Acting Chairman Hozempa verified this by asking Mr. Fader if he was declining his option to wait on the vote.

Mr. Fader responded “yes”.

Acting Chairman Hozempa also provided the same option to the other applicant on the agenda, Mr. Duby.

Mr. Duby responded that it would acceptable to him for the Board to vote on his application this evening also.

Mr. Rinaldi opened discussion by noting that the legal notice included both the options of “accessory building” and “farm building” and asked which item is being voted upon. The Board upheld the ZEO’s opinion that the accessory building violated the height limits in the regulations.

Mr. Larosa stated that the legal notice had to be worded as it was written in order for the Board to be able to vote on both issues.

Mr. Rinaldi disagreed.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the applicant could not request that the building be considered a farm building and ask for a variance for it at the meeting. It has to be put in a notice as such.

The applicant appealed one thing. The Board’s first decision last month decided what was requested.

Mr. Rinaldi suggested that next month, the applicant could request a farm building.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that he could not, it is already an accessory building.

Mr. Rinaldi asked what if he knocked it down?

Mr. Alsbaugh repeated that, in upholding the ZEO’s decision, the Board considers it to be an accessory structure.

Mr. Rinaldi again asked what the applicant is requesting – a variance of 70’ for a farm building?

Mr. Alsbaugh again stated that the only reason both buildings were mentioned in the legal notice for the variance was to cover the vote on the appeal.

Ms. Turner added that the Board considers it an accessory building. In that case, the appeal is for the height variance. It is not the Board’s decision to decide if it is a farm building.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the applicant could not ask for a farm building variance unless it was legally advertised and only if the ZEO’s decision was not upheld by the Board.

Acting Chairman Hozempa asked if the legal notice should have been under 2 headings.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated to the Board members that he had no other answer than what he had already given. He advertised the application as he believed was required. If the Board does not agree it, it is up to them to make their own decision.

Mr. Rinaldi stated that he only wants clarification.

Mr. Larosa stated that the reason for the “and” in the legal notice was to give the applicant the option to put both types of structures so that he would not be delayed by a month if the ZEO’s decision was not upheld.

Mr. Rinaldi stated that if a farm building is voted on and a neighbor complains in the future, he doesn’t want to be responsible.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the advertisement is not a motion. The motions were crafted to cover both possible outcomes of the vote on the appeal. The second motion was made void because the ZEO’s order was upheld.

Mr. Rinaldi stated that he feels as though he is trying to read the applicant’s mind.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the appeal addresses only what the ZEO’s order addressed – an accessory structure.

At this point, Mr. Fader tried to interrupt the proceedings. Acting Chairman Hozempa reminded him that the public hearing is closed and no additional comments can be made.

Mr. Alsbaugh added that if an appeal is filed, it is on the ZEO’s decision. The order was upheld, so the only issue is on the accessory structure. He stated that he cannot be any clearer than this.

Mr. Rinaldi stated that he feels that the motion is not tied in to the ZEO’s decision.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that he would explain it again. The second legal ad is phrased for a variance. The word ‘and’ was to allow for the appeal being either upheld or denied.

Mr. Rinaldi stated that he still feels the opposite and would like a legal opinion.

Mr. Alsbaugh responded that the Board is compelled to look at it from a point of law, not from the applicant’s point of view.

Acting Chairman Hozempa asked if the Board would like to table further discussion and have the Town attorney present when next discussed.

Mr. Larosa noted that the applicant had permission to build an accessory building but the ZEO said it is too tall. The applicant was appealing the ZEO’s decision that the building is too tall.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if it is too late to go back and change the motion.

Mr. Larosa stated that a farm building was never discussed only an accessory building. Legally, the Board can’t discuss a farm building. He also stated that it was up to Mr. Rinaldi to decide if this item should be tabled.

Acting Chairman Hozempa felt that it should be tabled.

Ms. Turner asked “why”? The Board needs to be specific as to what we are asking the attorney.

At this point, Mr. Rinaldi stated that he would vote on the original motion.

A motion was made by Ms. Turner and seconded by Mr. Larosa to postpone voting on 2008-06-03 until a special meeting to be held on August 25, 2008 in order to obtain clarification by the Town’s Attorney. Vote was 4-0-0.

APPEALS – NEW - NONE

VARIANCES –NEW

READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE

ZBA 2008-07-01 – Reginald Duby, Applicant & Owner, 60 Broad Leaf Lane, Map 18 / Lot 154, R33 Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 3 ft., 5 ft. required, 2 ft. proposed, to construct a 10 ft. x 22 ft. accessory carport- EZO Section 3.30.7Ai:

Mr. Reginald Duby, 60 Broad Leaf Lane, Enfield, and Mr. Chris Bernovelli, 37 Terry Lane, Belchertown, MA, represented the applicant.

Mr. Duby reported that, at the request of the Board at the last meeting, is now requesting a smaller variance for a carport, similar to that of the neighbors’.

He stated that within the neighborhood, 32 homes have carports, 28 homes do not have any garage or carport, and 40 homes have garages. Mr. Bernovelli submitted photos of neighborhood homes to the Board members.

He added that there is a sewer easement on the opposite side of his home so he cannot construct anything there. He owns 15’ and then the Town has an 18’ easement.

Ms. Turner asked why the carport cannot be in the same spot as the original one that was built in 1955. It was attached to the house with a 4 ½’ overhang.

Mr. Duby responded that the pylons were right on the house line. If it goes back to being attached to the house, he would need to request a larger variance, of 10’.

Ms. Turner stated that the Board could grant a variance of 10’.

Mr. Larosa asked how wide the driveway is.

Mr. Duby stated that it is between 16 & 17’ wide; it is a 2-car driveway.

Ms. Turner asked what is the actual size of the property from the chain link fence to the house.

Mr. Alsbaugh responded that it is approximately 15’ from the back corner to the line. He then re-measured the drawing and stated that it is 18’.

Mr. Larosa stated that this would be enough for a 10’ garage, with 3’ leftover.

Mr. Duby stated that the property is wedge shaped. It gets more narrow as you go back. The carport would be crooked if moved.

Mr. Larosa noted that if the diagram that was just submitted is correct, it would make the public hearing null and void because it shows 3’ 2 ½” to the property line.

Mr. Alsbaugh noted that the applicant is requesting 2’; the map in the application is for 2’.

Mr. Larosa requested that the packet that was just received by the Board be stricken. The map is wrong.

Acting Chairman Hozempa stated that it is just additional information.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated that if the Board accepts the packet, it becomes part of the public hearing.

Ms. Turner asked whose property the fence is on.

Mr. Duby responded that it is right on the property line. He said that it has been referred to him as a “line fence”.

Ms. Turner asked if he would be willing to remove the pad in order to square up the carport.

Mr. Duby stated that there are steps to the house there; it is part of the foundation.

Ms. Turner then asked if there is a slope in the yard.

Mr. Duby responded that it is pretty level but it does go down at the extension of the driveway. He is trying to keep the carport in line with the driveway.

Mr. Larosa noted that moving it would only be moving it back 2’.

Members then reviewed and discussed the photos submitted by Mr. Bernovelli this evening.

A motion was made by Mr. Larosa and seconded by Mr. Rinaldi to strike pages 2 & 3 of carport layout plan received this evening. Vote was 4-0-0.

Mr. Larosa suggested moving the carport’s back end 2’.

Mr. Duby replied that it would still be an issue in the front and a variance would be required.

Mr. Larosa countered that he would still have 18’. It would have a jog in the back end but the front end wouldn’t change. It wouldn’t line up perfectly with the driveway but the property line is not straight.

Mr. Duby explained that the lots in his neighborhood don’t comply with current zoning laws. The neighbors just built their carports and garages without variances. His carport was not crooked originally and he would like to put it back the way it originally was. He is trying to make it look decent with the home.

Acting Chairman Hozempa asked how far out the deck extends from the rear of the house.

Mr. Duby replied that it goes out 10’ to the corner of the house. He looked at moving the carport to the back yard but it is impractical and would limit the use of the back yard.

Mr. Bernovelli added that it is 18’ from the corner of the house. The landing comes out 4’ and then it is 10’ to the line.

Mr. Larosa then showed on the Subdivision Map, a way that Mr. Duby could place the carport so that a variance would not be necessary.

Mr. Duby agreed to go home and measure this out to see if it would be feasible.

A motion was made by Mr. Larosa and seconded by Mr. Rinaldi to table discussion on this application to the meeting of August 25, 2008 to give the homeowner time to measure out the Board’s suggested location for the carport. If the location is appropriate, the applicant will withdraw his application. Vote was 4-0-0.

OTHER BUSINESS:

A motion was made by Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Larosa to enter into executive session to discuss personnel matters at 8:37 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.

Executive session ended at 8:54 p.m. Not votes were taken and no decisions were made.

ADJOURNMENT:

A motion was made by Ms. Turner and seconded by Mr. Larosa to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________________

John Rinaldi, Secretary

Enfield Zoning board of Appeals