ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, September 29, 2008 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Kevin Kibbe
John Rinaldi
Mary Ann Turner
Maurice LaRosa, Alternate
Charles Mastroberti, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the Minutes of August 25, 2008. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has a handout from the Town Attorney’s Office about the requirements for posting agendas and minutes on the web site. The law has changed. There is also the Town Attorney’s update on the two court cases. The Board also has the updated Board member list reflecting Kevin Kibbe’s decision of the last meeting. There is an update from the Town Manager’s Office on the Forum for the Future which is something that has been organized and overseen by the Mayor.
Chairman Yarum stated in reference to the Town Attorney’s correspondence, he has a copy of the writ that has been filed by Attorney Fader. He assumed the Town Attorney’s Office will respond by October 14, 2008. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the intent is to have the two cases consolidated but the Board won’t know until the court responds to that request.
VARIANCES – NEW
ZBA 2008-09-01 – Reinhard Von Hollander, Applicant, and Kendall Homes, LLC, Owner, 33 Second Avenue, Map 36/Lot 39, R-33 Zone, requesting a front yard setback variance of 2.9 feet, 32.1 feet requested, 35 feet required, and a rear yard setback variance of 10.6 feet, 24.4 feet requested, 35 feet required to be able to gain final approval and Certificate of Occupancy for a newly constructed residential structure. EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reinhard Von Hollander appeared before the Board regarding this application. He presented some hand outs to the Board. Chairman Yarum entered into the record by Kendall Homes a summary page of a brief history of 33 Second Avenue and nine 8and ½ by 11 color photographs of the property. Four pictures are of the property and the remainder includes pictures of the abutters.
Mr. Von Hollander stated his request before the Board tonight is relief from the front and rear yard setback requirements as set forth in the town’s zoning regulations. The encroachments combined equal approximately 140 square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot. The request in no way affects the overall purpose of the town’s zoning regulation and is made due to the unique vegetative on-site and border wetlands, topographical issues and safety issues regarding the second means of egress from the dwelling. All of the on-site issues uniquely impact this parcel and, therefore, the placement of the home. Because of these issues, the variance is sought. The house is a 1,800 square foot raised ranch style dwelling in keeping with the neighborhood. As set forth in the application, due to the topographic limitations, on-site and border wetlands and vegetative site conditions and safety issues regarding this property, it necessitates this request. Without the variance, much of this house’s functionality is unnecessarily impaired.
Mr. Von Hollander clarified the hand outs. One is the abutter to the east. He wanted to show the Board that the raised ranch style dwellings in the neighborhood are all consistent with the dwelling he is seeking a variance on. They all have rear decks and most of the decks have been added on to substantially. There’s a 25’ setback for most of these and they have been added on significantly from 12’ to as much as 18’. Their 25’ rear yard setback now is less than 20’. Mr. Von Hollander stated the area that they are requesting the variance for is indicated on the map in the yellow area. It is 24.4’. The deck area and the front step area combined are about 140 square feet. To the south of the house are wetlands areas making this unique. There is no other way that this house could be placed on the lot.
Mr. Von Hollander stated this is an inland wetlands case that has fourteen conditions and condition fourteen restricted this to a 24’ x 52’ raised ranch which is in keeping with what they built. Regarding whether he could have built smaller, the answer is no because the house would not have been functional. If you subtract three from twenty-four you get to twenty-one and that is three feet for an egress off the back. Houses for safety need an egress from the front and the back in the event of a fire. If you subtract that approximately, that is what you need clear. It is more like forty inches. You subtract that from the twenty-four and you’re down to twenty-one approximately. Then you subtract from that a three foot opening for a hallway in the home and that brings it down to an eighteen foot house in width. You would only have nine foot rooms which are not compliant to code.
Ms. Turner stated she is looking at the inland wetlands map and there are three steps in the front and no deck on the back. She questioned how Mr. Von Hollander got to a deck without coming back to zoning. Mr. Von Hollander stated it was an oversight when the permit was issued that there was an egress. Ms. Turner stated it didn’t need to be a twelve foot deck. Mr. Von Hollander stated even if it was a three foot deck, it would have necessitated a variance. There wasn’t a whole lot of thought put into it other than the fact that there was egress and it was in keeping with the neighborhood design.
Ms. Turner asked if Mr. Von Hollander has ever built in town before. Mr. Von Hollander stated he has but he has never come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. He has gone to Planning and Zoning with his homes. Mr. Von Hollander noted he never built on a lot that had this many on site issues. Ms. Turner stated Mr. Von Hollander might have wanted to come back to see this Board before he built the deck.
Mr. LaRosa stated Mr. Von Hollander brought pictures of other properties that abut this property. The concern would be that some of these properties don’t have variances for their decks. To consider giving a variance against a house that doesn’t have a variance where the deck should have been built to begin with is kind of tough. Mr. LaRosa understands that it is in keeping with the neighborhood but some of these neighbors belonged before the Board before and never did it. He applauded Mr. Von Hollander for coming before this Board. Mr. Von Hollander stated he doesn’t have a choice.
Mr. LaRosa asked if Mr. Von Hollander has been in front of Zoning for this property. Mr. Von Hollander has been before the Wetlands Commission. No one from Wetlands asked him to look into any discrepancies before he built the house.
Mr. LaRosa had a question on the back. He doesn’t see a good view of the back. You’re talking about a second means of egress. There are two means of egress out of this house. There are actually three. Mr. Von Hollander disagreed. In a raised ranch style dwelling, the stairs are split. There’s a riser up and a riser down. If that riser burns between the first and the second floor, there’s no way out of the house. Mr. LaRosa stated he will have to check the codes on that. He discussed his cape. Mr. LaRosa stated if the main concern is means of egress, he questioned why so big. Mr. Von Hollander questioned if there is less harm if it is three feet versus ten feet. Mr. LaRosa is looking to stay within the code. He asked if it is three feet, would he be in violation of the code. Mr. Von Hollander stated he would be. The limitations of the property are that small.
Ms. Turner asked "when did Mr. Von Hollander know he needed an extra egress." Mr. Von Hollander stated he has not built a raised ranch in some time. Ms. Turner asked who told him he needed an egress. Mr. Von Hollander stated it is not uncommon to have this type of deck on the rear of this type of a dwelling. The code requires a second means of egress.
Mr. Von Hollander stated a raised ranch is split. The stairs go down seven or eight risers to a platform and then turn a corner and go down. You can go out the front door. If those set of stairs burn, there is no way out of the house. Chairman Yarum stated if he lives in a cape or colonial and he is on the second floor, he only has one means of egress, the stairs. Mr. LaRosa is not sure the code is being represented correctly.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated when a fire chief looks at a building, if there are bedrooms, is that a different category. Mr. LaRosa stated windows are a means of egress and they have to meet a certain code requirement for size. Further discussion followed on the fire regulations.
Mr. LaRosa asked at what point Mr. Von Hollander know this code existed. Mr. Von Hollander stated it is his understanding that this code has always existed and two means of egress are needed. Mr. LaRosa asked if Mr. Von Hollander thought at some point that he ought to check on this before he started building. Mr. Von Hollander stated his land surveyor called him and told him when he did the as built that he needed a variance.
Chairman Yarum asked when the application was filed and the plot plan submitted was the house built in the exact location that the plan showed. Mr. Von Hollander stated the plot plan was followed.
Mr. LaRosa asked if there are copies of the building permit. Mr. Von Hollander provided a copy of the building permit. Mr. LaRosa asked for a copy of the original blueprint but Mr. Von Hollander did not have a copy of that.
Ms. Turner stated when she visited the neighborhood today she saw that most of the homes have five steps coming off the house.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if you look at the wetlands, the grades prior to the purchase by Kendall Homes complied with the setbacks. So the grade issues must have occurred some time after Kendall Homes purchased the property based on the original site plan. Ms. Turner stated the pictures provided show this lot as a wooded lot.
Ms. Turner asked how many homes Mr. Von Hollander has built in Enfield. He responded more than ten. Ms. Turner stated she doesn’t expect mistakes from professional builders. She noted the saying come in and ask permission and don’t ask forgiveness.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Raymond Cubral, 315 Reed Street, Somerset, Massachusetts stated he is the potential buyer for the home. As far as items not being to code, he wasn’t aware of that. He looks at the home and if it has an issue with the deck not being there, the home really doesn’t serve any purpose for them and they would back out of the deal. He asked that the Board approve this variance. It seems like a nice neighborhood and it will bring up the value of the homes in the area.
Crystal Wenzl, 21 First Avenue, stated her property is to the rear of this property. She has been affected by the building of this home. The land has been filled in to a point resulting in grading issues. This has also affected her regarding drainage. It is wetlands and with this property being raised up the way it was, it actually is sitting significantly higher than her house causing drainage issues to her property. The property is clearly very close to her property. Ms. Wenzl has an issue with the way this house was built. It seems to her the builder should have done this in a more appropriate manner and should have been aware of the issues as far as the setback. The fact that the plot plan didn’t agree with what was built bothers her. Ms. Wenzl felt the builder has conducted deceitful practices from the beginning when the trees started coming down. When the trees started coming down, she had no clue what was happening and the trees fell into her property as well. She has an issue with this gentleman and the way he has conducted his business. Ms. Wenzl doesn’t have any issue with the house itself but it should have been done correctly and she doesn’t feel that it was. She doesn’t feel that any of these practices were in accordance with the zoning laws.
Mr. Von Hollander stated the request for the variance is for safety. The grade difference between what was proposed and the as built varies less than six inches which is less than a riser on the front steps. He doesn’t know where the deceit came from. He believes there was a safety consideration. He is here to tell the Board that he made a mistake. A mistake was made in considering that the safety issues were before the functional aspect of it and that it’s more consistent with the zoning regulations than all the abutters. It is not inconsistent and it doesn’t do harm to any of the abutters. The notion that they’ve all got violations and those are now going to go unnoticed and he is going to somehow suffer from what they thought was a genuine safety issue is a hardship. They have wetlands limitations, they have the functional size of the house and they have safety. The functional aspect of it is really what the Board needs to focus on.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked for the building permit and the associated paperwork so that he can make a copy for the record.
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mastroberti, to approve ZBA2008-09-01, application of Reinhard VonHollander, Applicant, and Kendall Homes, LLC, Owner.
Mr. LaRosa stated looking at the wetlands plan, they’ve got it down to three steps. Mr. VonHollander stated the difference between that map and what he’s currently got is less than a riser. But you need five steps to make it work. So we moved more dirt than we were supposed to move in building the house. You need stairs to get into your house but he had mentioned other people have done this and haven’t complied. Two wrongs don’t make it right. The other thing is most of the properties that he has brought to the Board still make the 35’ feet with the same sized deck he is trying to put in. So even though the neighbors have those decks, they comply with the zoning rules. If it is 35’ and if you take #21, a twenty-four foot structure with a twelve foot deck off the back, and the whole difference to the property is 100’. He still falls within 35’. It is the same thing for #17. They all fall within the zoning regulations. The neighborhood has decks like what he put on but according to the zoning, they are allowed to have them. The other decks in the pictures didn’t get caught. Two wrongs don’t make what another person is trying to do right.
Mr. LaRosa noted as far as a second means of egress, he would have to check the code. He has two means of egress out of the house. He suggested postponing to check the code. Even if the Board wanted to give that a second means of egress, he noted it doesn’t need a 12’ x 11’ deck to do it.
Mr. Rinaldi agreed on the egress. If there is one is it the minimum required or is it 12’? He thinks that would be an issue. Is it the minimum necessary? Part of the application is whether the applicant is looking for the minimum necessary or is it much more than what is necessary.
Mr. LaRosa would like to see a means of egress there. It makes sense to have it whether it is code or not.
Mr. LaRosa asked if that means of egress is code, would the building inspector signing off on this blueprint have picked up on that. There is no deck on the original plan signed off by the zoning officer. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it should have been picked up during inspection. He noted the building department often accepts modifications of plans without referring them back to zoning. Mr. LaRosa stated someone would have said by the way, you need to have an egress.
Mr. LaRosa discussed the fire code noting that Fire Department personnel don’t have a lot of say in single family dwellings.
Ms. Turner asked if the Inland Wetlands was very specific about the topography of this property and when they took the trees down and graded it, isn’t someone sent out at that point to look or was that not done. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town catch all at this point is an as built when the foundation is poured. If the elevation of the floor varies any more or less than six inches then they have to submit something explaining why. He can’t really agree with Mr. LaRosa’s interpretation that more soil was taken out. There are a couple of other possibilities – that the house was built taller than originally planned or that the grading plans as produced by the land surveyor indicate some sort of miscommunication on what actually was being built. Mr. Alsbaugh looks at those grading plans and noted the Wetlands Agency is going to look at grading and drainage because those are important to them when they are considering wetlands. If they see a house that is raised up, then it shouldn’t have been a surprise to anybody that it was going to be that high. What house actually got stuck on top of those grading lines, Mr. Alsbaugh cannot explain. There are at least three scenarios that he can see that we don’t have an answer for. He noted not all of them are the responsibility of the applicant.
Mr. Kibbe noted on the egress if there was code, then it would have been a required item when the house was built and it wasn’t there. It was on the building plan. He doesn’t see it as being a requirement.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are two different time lines. You have the original plot plan submitted for approval by zoning. That shows the setbacks. Then you get the building elevations for the new building that go to the Building Department. Regardless of what is shown on the site plan for zoning to look at, the Building Department is going to respond to the elevation plan. If there was an instance where the Building Department said that it was required, it would be at that point after the initial submittal. There is a disconnect between those two. If the Building Inspector said hey, you have to put something here, it would have been up front with the original approval from the zoning officer. If it didn’t occur to an applicant that it was an issue, there is not always a connect between that point in the building review process and the feedback to the zoning.
Mr. LaRosa stated the other downfall in looking at the pictures of the neighborhood is their decks are not overlooking their neighbor’s property. He would hate to live behind this home. You can’t put a fence that high up for privacy. The grade in the back yard is very steep.
Chairman Yarum stated by the applicant’s own testimony he stated that the deck was not on the original plan. Therefore, it went on at some point either as an additional selling feature or a nice amenity to the home. He does not believe a deck is required or a second means of egress is required off a raised ranch. You have your means of egress plus your windows just like any other home. He thinks the applicant constructed this deck as a nice amenity to having living quarters on the second floor. Therefore, if that is the situation, the hardship would have been self-imposed.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he gets the feeling that no one is approving this deck. It is worth amending that variance for an additional egress so it would only allow a stairwell and not a deck.
Mr. LaRosa noted the Board doesn’t have concrete evidence whether or not the code actually reads that way. He suggested postponing this variance application and checking into this code or the Board could state that it needs to be brought up to compliance with the fire code. If that means that no egress is required or a staircase is required, then that is what has to be done. Those are the two ways of making sure that the Board is not doing something that is violating something else.
Ms. Turner had no problem with postponing this vote.
Mr. LaRosa wants to make sure that the Board doesn’t do something that is going to violate the fire code and have more problems.
Mr. Kibbe stated even if the code is there or not, the way it goes so close to the back neighbor’s yard is an issue. Mr. LaRosa stated if there is a code there and it needs to have a means of egress, then you put in your means of egress. He questioned whether the means of egress is a twelve foot deck. He is pretty sure that is not in the code. Even if the Board worded it to bring it into compliance with the fire code, you would have to put the compliant staircase on. If the code doesn’t exist, then the staircase would not be warranted in his opinion.
Ms. Turner stated if it was meant to be there and she is sure the Building folks have been around a whole lot longer, a flag would have gone up. Mr. LaRosa is trying to make sure it is done right.
Chairman Yarum commented on Mr. LaRosa’s proposal. In the event if it was a secondary means of egress, being a secondary egress on the exterior of a building, it has to have a roof over it. Those stairs have to be covered from ice and snow. That being the case, he questioned if the applicant is going into compliance at this point. Even if the deck was 3’ wide, and the stairs are 3’ wide, there is nothing protecting those stairs for a safe egress.
Chairman Yarum stated the Board has a lot of questions and he would recommend tabling this until the next meeting. Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to table ZBA 20008-09-01 until the next meeting. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate LaRosa voting.
Mr. Alsbaugh reminded the Board that this public hearing is closed and they will be receiving information as indicated by the Board. He asked for clear direction.
Mr. LaRosa would like to find out what the fire code and building code is for a second means of egress on a raised ranch. He would like to know what the requirement is.
Chairman Yarum asked if an exterior egress has to be protected with a cover.
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Board recessed at 8:00 p.m. The Board reconvened at 8:10 p.m.
ZBA 2008-09-02 – Brian Zaine, Applicant and Owner, 464 Enfield Street, Map 33/Lot 157, BL Zone, requesting an accessory building height variance of 1.83 feet, 12 feet required, 13.83 feet existing, 13.83 feet proposed to be able to gain final approval and Certificate of Occupancy for a newly constructed accessory structure. EZO Section 3.30.7H.
Ms. Turner did not participate in this application. Mr. Mastroberti will be a regular member on this application.
Brian Zaine, 464 Enfield Street, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He started this project in February. He came in to the town with his builder and saw the Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley. What he had proposed was to have them remove the old garage and shed and have one structure put in their place in the same footprint. The only distance between the shed and the garage was two feet and now it would be connected. The reason he had to take down the garage and shed was they were deteriorating due to age. His vehicles could not fit in the doors because they were only seven foot doors. Mr. Bickley signed off on the permit and he mentioned to make sure that they did not go over twelve feet. His builder proposed to install eight foot six inch garage doors specifically, not nine foot doors, because he wanted the header to be a certain height and when he had the trusses manufactured, he would be under that twelve foot height. Three days in a row he watched his builder come out and measure and he kept telling him they were under twelve feet or at eleven feet and six-eighths. The foundation and footings were poured. The guys came out and inspected everything. The structure was built and the rough electrical wiring was done. When they came out to inspect the rough electrical is when he received his letter from Virginia Higley stating that they were too high. He asked her what he needed to do and she said that pictures of the existing structure would be helpful. She also said to have his builder have a copy with the name of his company on there stating it was only built to the specifications of being less than twelve feet and have it notarized and he would be all set. He spoke to Ms. Higley a couple of days later and she told him the builder talked to her but that he needed to speak to the builder. When he called the builder that day, he told him that he measured it and it was one foot and ten inches more. Mr. Zaine asked him how that happened and he said it was this and that. He never told him this was going to happen. The project is done. Ms. Higley told him to ask for a variance.
Mr. Zaine stated his hardship is the building is all done and the builder’s paid but there’s no electricity because it is too tall.
Mr. Rinaldi asked who actually measured and where was that measurement taken from. Mr. Zaine stated the builder kept measuring and kept saying from there to the ground had to be less than twelve feet. Mr. Rinaldi noted the measurement was taken directly in front of the garage doors. Mr. Zaine stated in front of the old garage. He watched him come out three days in a row and he spent a lot of time measuring.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if he measured the existing building and at that same point did he measure the front of the garage to that midpoint in the roof. Mr. Zaine stated that is what the builder told him he did. Mr. Rinaldi stated he went out a couple of times to the property and he immediately noticed the change in grade going from Route 5 toward the back of the house. If he is interpreting the definitions of the zoning regulations, grade is a plane representing the average of finished ground level. The height of the building is a vertical distance from the average finished grade within ten feet of the walls. Mr. Rinaldi doesn’t know if this measurement halfway up in front of the garage doors is an accurate representation of the average finished grade. His concern would be if we took this average finished grade and allowed a variance would we be allowing an applicant to build a taller structure than what exists.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the only thing that’s relevant is an accessory building is measured from the mid point. There’s no discussion about different grades and things like that. Mr. Rinaldi stated the height of a building, #42 in definitions, does not apply to an accessory building. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the accessory building ordinance section refers to the twelve foot maximum. It is measured from the mid point. That’s the only rule for measuring the height of the building. Mr. Rinaldi noted height is defined as average finished grade under the regulations. That is his concern – that the height was measured from the absolute lowest point surrounding this structure.
Mr. LaRosa asked if it is possible that it meets zoning. Mr. Rinaldi stated that is where he is going. If the Board did approve a variance, the applicant could be allowed to build something even higher than exists. He asked if a variance is needed.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if Mr. Rinaldi determined what the actual grade was. Mr. Rinaldi did not but it appeared that the right side of the same wall of where the garage doors were was at least three feet higher than where you would drive into the bay.
Chairman Yarum stated Mr. Rinaldi is saying between the right side of the garage and the house. Mr. Rinaldi stated facing the garage on the side walls, the left side wall is at least three feet lower than the right side wall grade. There is a retaining wall to the right and that same grade seems to travel all the way around that building which would weigh the average elevation higher rather than lower. Mr. LaRosa read the definition of grade from the ordinance. Mr. Alsbaugh noted it is not a matter of how much but the average between the highest and the lowest.
Mr. Rinaldi stated it is an even slope from not the face of the main part of the garage but from the part of the structure that’s closest to the house. It seemed like there was an even grade from the back to the lowest point.
Mr. Rinaldi stated part of his business is to be involved in existing and proposed services – digital terrain models that deal with elevations. If you were going to go all out with this thing, which the average homeowner is not going to do, you would take spot shots together, just random elevation shots, all around this building within ten feet. You would take those spot shots and then reduce them to an average elevation per plane. It is Mr. Rinaldi’s opinion looking at this that there are more sections of the grade that are higher than there are lower and the lowest spot is right in front of that bay door where the measurement was taken.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the front is going to be at 13.83 because that’s what they’re asking for. The west side is also going to be because the grade is the same. There are two sides that are at 13.83. Mr. Rinaldi is saying the average of all four sides. We have to add the average of each side. Mr. Rinaldi stated the west side was slightly higher and at least a half a foot. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the west side is higher than the front so 13.5’. The east side is an average three feet higher. That’s going to be 10.83’. The back has a steady drop from a high point of three. Mr. Rinaldi stated the back actually begins where there is an L or a T on the footprint. Mr. Zaine stated that was the shed and it was built on top of an in ground pool. When it was all demolished, the in ground pool was at the same level as the floor of the garage. Mr. Rinaldi noted now this is all one complete structure. Mr. Alsbaugh stated you have to take the average of that back side. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the dimension needed is the midpoint between the highest on the back and the lowest on the back. Following some discussion, Mr. Alsbaugh stated the average is 1.9. That makes it 11.93.
Chairman Yarum stated he believes the Board needs to put this application off until next month until Roger can plead his case to Ms. Higley.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the Board is happy with those numbers. He noted we’re still over 12’ but we’ve dropped it significantly. Mr. Rinaldi stated we haven’t even factored in the old shed part of it which weighs on the higher elevation. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is at least six inches more than 12 feet.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is the possibility that there is a significant difference. Whether it is above or below is not certain but it seems to be above. What the Board needs is a precise measurement to cover Mr. Rinaldi’s concern about what is actually being granted. There is a need to do measurements because a variance is precise. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested tabling this and leaving the public hearing open. He will go out or have someone from Engineering do the measurements and get the average height.
Chairman Yarum stated this public hearing will remain open.
Mr. Mastroberti made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to table ZBA 2008-09-02 until the Board’s next meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if it turns out that a variance is not required, he will deal with all of that. The Board can do the housekeeping at the next meeting. If a variance is not needed, the applicant would withdraw his application.
Mr. Zaine asked if any work can be done. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will find out within the next day or so. If a variance is needed, he will have to wait unless the Board has a special meeting. Mr. LaRosa requested that Mr. Alsbaugh let the Board know about the results.
Mr. Mastroberti stated he doesn’t want to hold up this applicant. If we find out in the next day or so that he needs a variance, Mr. Mastroberti was in favor of a special meeting. Mr. Alsbaugh will email everyone with the decision. He needs a minimum of twenty-four hours to post a special meeting with the Town Clerk.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if he would have been allowed to request those measurements from the applicant. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the applicant is willing to let him on the property and willing to supply you with the information, there is no reason why you can’t. Chairman Yarum stated any information gained would have to be brought to the public hearing.
Chairman Yarum stated when Engineering does go to the property, can they also measure the height of the building. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is not sure who will do the measuring. Chairman Yarum would like to get an accurate number. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the measurements are predicated on a simple twelve foot midway point between the peak and eave, it was probably done from the front. Chairman Yarum would like to make sure that the measurement is accurate.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
John Rinaldi, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr |