ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OCTOBER 29, 2007

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, October 29, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman

Edward Furey

Richard Hozempa

John Rinaldi

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

Chairman Yarum offered the applicants this evening the opportunity to defer their application to next month when five members of the Board may be present. He reminded the audience that it takes four votes to approve a variance.

MINUTES

Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hozempa, to approve the Minutes of July 30, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.

CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT

Mr. Hozempa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the 2008 Meeting Dates. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.

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

(Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Enquirer on Monday, October 15, 2007, and Monday, October 22, 2007.)

PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED [Appeals and/or Variances]

ZBA 2007-09-01 – Jerry Gatten, Applicant & Owner, 78 West Shore Dr., Map 96 / Lot 17, R33 Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 10 ft., 10 ft. required, 10 ft. existing, 0 ft. proposed, and a coverage variance of 5.5%, 20% allowed, 21.95 nonconforming existing, 26.5% proposed, to construct a carport - EZO Section 4.10.2H

David Palmberg, a professional land surveyor, appeared before the Board on behalf of Jerry Gatten. He stated in the past year Mr. Gatten has constructed a carport between his house and the abutting property line to the west to store outdoor equipment and ATV’s. He received a violation notice on July 17, 2007 and upon receiving the notice he contacted the appropriate officials in the town to remedy the situation. Since that time he has applied for and received a wetlands agent approval on July 31, 2007 for construction of the carport. Mr. Palmberg stated the carport is basically a roof from the house to an adjoining privacy fence which is right on the westerly property line. This carport is approximately 45’ in length and it varies from ten to eleven feet in width along the side of the house.

Mr. Palmberg stated in 1982 the town acquired an easement for sanitary sewers as well as storm drainage on a portion of the site which is shown in the packet that was submitted. The width of the easement was not designated; however, the lines are there and the easement to maintain those lines goes within eight feet of Mr. Gatten’s house on that side. This leaves the entire south eastern portion of his lot un-buildable due to any potential maintenance or work on the sewer or drainage lines.

Mr. Palmberg stated looking from the street on the right hand side is the direction he is referring to. Easements were acquired which come within approximately eight feet of the existing house and run down toward the lake. The sewer main runs down and then along the lake and there’s a storm drainage outfall at the lake which runs parallel with the sewer line. On the left side of Mr. Gatten’s house, which he is calling west, it sits approximately ten to eleven feet off the property line. Currently there is a privacy fence there, a solid stockade fence, six to eight feet high. What Mr. Gatten did was construct a carport type structure between the house and that fence to store his equipment.

Mr. Palmberg was unsure if he submitted at the last meeting a letter from the abutter to what he is calling the west which is 80 West Shore Drive. That owner stated they have no objection to the construction of the carport. Mr. Alsbaugh stated no hearing was opened last month. Mr. Palmberg submitted the letter to the Board.

Mr. Palmberg stated within the packet there is the town sewer plan showing the storm drainage line as well as the sewer line and a distance of eight feet off the house. Looking from the road on the left side of the house, the space between the existing house and the property line is where Mr. Gatten constructed the carport. In constructing it, he exceeded the side yard setback as well as the coverage for that zone. This is why they are here tonight seeking a variance.

Mr. Furey stated in the photo and on the site plan it shows a garage with a garden next to it. He asked if Mr. Gatten has given any thought to putting the carport where the garden is so that it would not be built next to the property line. That would be on the southeast side of the property.

Mr. Palmberg stated to the right of the house on the extreme front right corner, the drainage line is eight feet from that corner according to the record maps in the town. Maintenance of that consists of ten to twelve feet centered on that line for equipment to excavate the pipe. Anything Mr. Gatten would construct in that area would fall within that easement and could be torn down if maintenance should be required. Down closer to the lake, there may be a few extra feet. However, it falls within an area that would be disturbed if they were to maintain those lines.

Chairman Yarum stated the question is not off the corner of the home but off the garage. From the street facing the garage, to the right of the garage, there is an existing garden.

Mr. Furey asked how far the edge of the garage is to the edge of the porch going southeast. Mr. Palmberg stated looking at the plans and scaling the distance, it looks like there is approximately ten feet available tapering to a smaller distance toward the road because of the angle of the pipes. On the assessor’s card, the dimension is 22’ from the corner of the garage to the property line. You are looking at 22’ x 23’ which could accommodate some of the storage. However, Mr. Palmberg stated he is here after the fact and the carport has been constructed.

Mr. Furey asked if Mr. Palmberg knew how wide the garage is across looking at it from the road or the porch next to it. Mr. Palmberg stated going by the assessor’s card, the garage is twelve feet wide and to the extreme west, to the right side of the house from the road, is 22’. Eight feet as shown on the sewer map would be 16’ from the extreme corner on the west or the right hand side. The extreme corner between the lake and road would have a line pretty near that corner. Its eight feet off the other corner for a total of 22’ of the overall width. The assessor’s card does not give a dimension for the first jog but it’s probably within ten feet of that corner. In response to the question, Mr. Palmberg stated you’re looking at the depth of the garage which is 23’ x 15’ up against the house tapering to a smaller dimension. The owner’s intent was to store his equipment so as to not leave it out. He has spoken with his neighbors and there haven’t been any objections. They have submitted a letter from the immediate abutter who has no problem with the carport. Mr. Palmberg stated it is a tight lot to start with and the easements were acquired so Mr. Gatten is hard pressed to put anything on that side of the house.

Chairman Yarum asked what the existing garage is used for. Mr. Palmberg stated he believes it is still an existing garage and he has photographs. Chairman Yarum asked if the applicant runs a business out of his home. Mr. Palmberg stated he does not. Chairman Yarum added Mr. Palmberg stated Mr. Gatten needed it for his equipment. Mr. Palmberg stated that would be homeowners’ equipment. He presented some photographs of the existing carport and garage.

Mr. Palmberg stated to his knowledge the garage still functions as a garage and there is a garage door on the front of it. His understanding is that the garage is full of materials as well.

Chairman Yarum entered into the record four colored photos, 8 and ½ x 11, depicting the front of the garage, the rear of the garage and the existing carport. Chairman Yarum stated it seems the carport is housing the ATV’s. Mr. Palmberg confirmed there are ATV’s, lawnmowers and other equipment.

Chairman Yarum asked how this request is not self-imposed. Mr. Palmberg stated it is not self-imposed because in 1982 the town acquired the easements making the whole western portion of Mr. Gatten’s lot un-buildable. The town has the right to go in and maintain a storm drainage line and a sanitary sewer line along the right side of the property within eight feet of the front corner of the house. If Mr. Gatten was to construct something there, it would be at his peril because of the easement. With the knowledge of these easements, Mr. Gatten constructed on the side of his house. He was in the wrong to construct it without the proper permits and going through the proper channels. However, in that particular neighborhood, they are tight lots and at least one-third of Mr. Gatten’s property has been excluded from use as far as building by acquisitions of the easements from the town.

Chairman Yarum read question seven of the application and noted the applicant put down there were no effects. Mr. Palmberg stated as far as traffic safety, that is a non-issue. In regard to property values, Mr. Gatten is trying to maintain an orderly property and not have equipment or materials scattered about. In addition, he had spoken with the immediate abutter to which this carport affects and the abutter has replied with a short letter stating he has no objection to the request for a variance. Why Mr. Gatten put no, Mr. Palmberg could not say.

Chairman Yarum stated although the existing abutter says he doesn’t have a problem, at some point that home will be up for sale. Having this structure right on the property line would affect the value of that property. Mr. Palmberg did not agree because prior to the structure being built there was a privacy fence alongside there. Mr. Gatten is not obstructing views or sunlight. It is basically a roof at the top of the fence level. With the fence in place, it’s not that there was a common use or misunderstanding of a common use. It was a fenced off area primarily with an eight foot fence that prevented anyone from accessing it. Mr. Gatten is now utilizing the carport for covered storage and he basically built between the fence and the house.

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

Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hozempa, to approve the request for a side yard setback variance of 10 ft., 10 ft. required, 10 ft. existing, 0 ft. proposed, and a coverage variance of 5.5%, 20% allowed, 21.95 nonconforming existing, 26.5% proposed, to construct a carport - EZO Section 4.10.2H

Reference is made to all maps, site plans, and air photos and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-09-01.

Mr. Hozempa stated because of the sewer easement on the west side of the property, if Mr. Gatten was to put that carport in there, the town would need to come in and dig up that property meaning he would have to remove his carport. The logical place to put the carport is on the east side up against the fence.

Mr. Furey stated if the Board knew exactly what the property looked like with the exact easement and an exact site plan of the house on the property showing the easement it would be an easier decision for the Board to make. The paper says the scale is one inch to ten but it is not correct according to the picture. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the sewer easement map shows the sewer easement and it should be scaled out to the topography which was done from air photos. It is fairly close to what is out there. The width of the easement brackets the property line at the road and then comes back at an angle, does a dog leg and then goes back again.

Mr. Rinaldi stated he thinks the property is very limited to where Mr. Gatten can do anything. The Board has seen this area of the lake coming before them. Limitations with the setback from the lake are a factor. The sewer easement is definitely a factor. The only problem Mr. Rinaldi would have would be this carport being constructed right on the property line. If the owner wasn’t allowed to cross that property line, it would be impossible to maintain or even construct. In the future, yes, the easement runs with the property and not the owner but it is impossible to even put sheathing on it. If tomorrow the next door neighbor says I don’t want you on my property, it would be a problem.

Mr. Furey pointed out the edge of the easement and stated it would be to the southeast where Mr. Gatten could construct a carport area in the area where the garden is now. It would not be infringing upon anyone’s property line.

Chairman Yarum agreed and stated he thinks the applicant has other options available. According to the assessor’s map, the garage width is twelve feet. If you were heading east, the porch area is 22’ and the sewer easement is eight feet off of that. The existing carport is 10’. The applicant would still be 20’ from the sewer easement if he built it to the east of the existing garage. Chairman Yarum stated the present carport will have an effect on the abutting property owner. Being that close to another residence, there’s noise pollution, sounds of ATV vehicles and Chairman Yarum has a concern with the carport being that close to the property line.

Mr. Furey agreed and noted because there are other options on the southeast side where the photograph shows the garden where Mr. Gatten could build an extension to his garage, it would be a better situation than the present one. Mr. Furey looked at other properties and some are built right on the property line but these were built prior to zoning regulations. Now that the town has guidelines, the applicant has other options.

The motion was denied by a 1 – 3 – 0 vote. Mr. Hozempa voted in favor.

Mr. Rinaldi stated the reason for denial is there are other options on the property for the location of a carport. There is also a concern about closeness to the property line, adjacent property’s rights and safety.

VARIANCES -NEW

ZBA 2007-10-01 – Rick & Roberta Bragan, Applicants & Owners, 5 Harding Cir., Map 90 / Lot 169, R44 Zone, requesting a rear yard setback variance of 5 ft., 35 ft. required, 25 ft. existing, 30 ft. proposed, to construct a 3-season room - EZO Section 4.10.2H

Jeremy Grigalot representing Rick and Robert Bragan appeared before the Board regarding this application. They have a preexisting wood sunroom off the back of their home that already falls into the rear yard setback. Anything they would do to replace that room is going to fall into their variance. Mr. Grigalot presented the assessor’s lot maps of the area and some photos of the preexisting room.

Chairman Yarum noted entered into the record are two eight and a half by eleven black and white photos of the existing deck and sunroom as well as the assessor’s map of the property.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if there would be stairs needed for the proposed three season room. Will there be egress going into the area where the variance is needed? Mr. Grigalot stated there will be a staircase coming down off the thirty-six inch swing door. If they need to, they can put the stairs off the side and change it so that it is not going into the setback. Mr. Rinaldi asked if there are steps, is this going to be enough of a variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated a three-quarter vote is needed for an amendment and if it passes, Mr. Alsbaugh would have to provide the Board with a revised copy of the variance to sign.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has to know exactly how much further they are going into the setback. Mr. Grigalot stated the stairs would be four feet wide and four feet out. Looking at the back of the room, they would be to the left side. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the variance change would be 9’, 35’ required, 25’ existing’ and 26’ proposed. This will add four feet to the variance and reduce the setback by four feet.

Chairman Yarum noted the applicant is taking an existing nonconforming use and making it more conforming. He asked what is unique about this property.

Mr. Grigalot stated because it falls right in the corner of the larger area, the depth of the lot is shorter than all the other lots in the neighborhood. Anyone else would be able to put the same size room on their property without falling into the setback. A corner lot cannot.

Mr. Rinaldi asked: looking at the back, would the steps be directly out the back and not to the left? Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is correct but the actual measurement would be to the left of that back façade of the porch. Mr. Grigalot stated they would be exactly where that back door is now.

Chairman Yarum asked for audience input. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.

Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a rear yard setback variance of 5 ft., 35 ft. required, 25 ft. existing, 30 ft. proposed, to construct a 3-season room - EZO Section 4.10.2H

Reference is made to a site plan titled “Rick & Roberta Bragan, 5 Harding Cir., Enfield, CT 06082, Non-conforming R-44 Lot, 1” = 40’” and stamped “Received, Oct. – 4, 2007, Planning Office, Enfield, CT”, and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-10-01.

REVISION TO MOTION:

“Change variance from ‘5’ to ‘9’ and proposed setback from ‘30’ to 26’, to revise proposal to add 4’ x 4’ steps off the back of the proposed 3-season room as discussed and located in the public hearing.”

The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.

The reasons for approval are it replaces an existing nonconforming use with a less nonconforming use and there is a safety requirement due to the egress. Also, the unique geometry of the lot is a hardship.

ZBA 2007-10-02 – CT DOT, Applicant, state road reconstruction project No. 48-186, 223 Abbe Rd., Map 86 / Lot 293, R-44 Zone: Requesting a lot size variance from existing 28,048-sq. ft. [44,000 sq. ft. required] to 26,488± sq. ft. – Section 4.10, Table

Douglas Hummel, a property agent with the Connecticut Department of Transportation, is representing the Commissioner and the Department of Transportation in this application.

Mr. Hummel asked if all four members would be voting tonight. Mr. Rinaldi stated for the record that he does work for the Department of Transportation. Prior to his receiving this package, he had no knowledge that these applications would be before him. To the best of his knowledge, he doesn’t have any association with this project. He will be voting tonight.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated even though this is a state road project, it is actually a town project.

Mr. Hummel stated it is a Town of Enfield project. The Department is handling the rights of way acquisition because the town is not in the position to do so. The state makes no representation about whether granting variances or denying variances are a good or bad idea. They are just following through on a statutory requirement. Mr. Hummel stated he agrees with Mr. Rinaldi that there is no conflicting activity here.

Mr. Hummel was saddened to hear about the passing of Governor Meskill today.

Mr. Hummel gave Mr. Alsbaugh the copy of the affidavit for posting the signs. On this first application, the notice as read by the Secretary states the entire context of what they would like to accomplish. In conjunction with the project, the reconstruction of Post Office Road and Town Farm Road, they find themselves before the Board for this property which is located in an R-44 zone and is already sub-sized for that zone. Their proposed acquisition in conjunction with the project of 1,560 square feet would render it more nonconforming. Under Statute 48-24 it directs the Commissioner to either buy the property in total or ask the local zoning board of appeals for a variance.

Mr. Rinaldi asked why the project is happening. Gus Montori from McGuire Group stated they have been retained by the town to design Post Office Road/Town Farm Road improvements. In 2002 the town did receive a couple of grants for the construction of this project. Safety was a concern because of the width of road. The road does not meet current design standards. In addition, they are adding a 10’ bike path from Raffia Road to Abbe Road, which adds to the safety issues under consideration. They are constructing the roadway 30’ wide with bituminous curbing.

Mr. Montori stated what they tried to do is keep the edge of pavement as close as possible to what it is now at these locations. They tried to keep it the same distance from these particular houses but a few sliver takings were created to improve the intersection sight lines.

Mr. Hummel stated the project also accomplishes an upgraded drainage system and improves the intersections.

Chairman Yarum asked if each intersection on that route will be improved. Mr. Montori stated yes. Chairman Yarum stated as part of this application, a response to one of the questions states that the project to reconstruct Post Office Road/Town Farm Road has been designed to efficiently move traffic and increase public safety. He asked how it will efficiently move the traffic. Mr. Montori stated in reality the existing roadway is a rural road. The width of the road is not the same all the time and in certain areas, the sight distance is very limited. This is designed based on a design of 45 miles per hour and many times they are removing the crest of the vertical curves when you are driving by. The road will have a constant width of 30’ which will address the safety factor.

Chairman Yarum stated along Town Farm Road if you are coming from Abbe Road and just prior to getting to the town dump area there’s a very low spot in the road that collects water. He asked if areas on this roadway are going to be raised. Mr. Montori stated it is going to be a combination of fill areas and cut areas but all the drainage problems that are presently there will be eliminated. A new drainage system is already designed and will be installed. Mr. Montori discussed areas where there is a lack of drainage.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the bike path is still going to be on the north side of the street. Mr. Montori confirmed it will be on the north side.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the bike path will come down Abbe. Mr. Montori stated it will stop at Abbe Road and they are not going to go any farther. Some day it will be extended. Right now it goes from Abbe Road all the way west to the school.

Mr. Alsbaugh noted on this lot this taking brings the lot in and brings the road over to the east. He asked does this line up more with the southern portion of Abbe Road. Mr. Montori stated during the design they moved Abbe Road to the north a little bit and the south of Abbe Road a little so that it aligns a little better. This was done within the guidelines. The alignment of Abbe Road was moved to improve the situation.

Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.

Karen Clark, 30 Folkstone Road, Broad Brook and Ella Flaherty, 210 Abbe Road, appeared before the Board. Ms. Flaherty asked when is this going to take place. Mr. Montori stated it will be going to construction in April, 2008. Ms. Flaherty stated they are taking her trees on Town Farm Road and Abbe Road and part of her driveway. She asked why they are taking part of their driveway. Mr. Hummel stated the application right now is across the street and they haven’t come to the application for Ms. Flaherty’s property. He asked that Ms. Flaherty refer questions to when the Board gets to her application.

Donna Raffia, 203 Abbe Road, stated for this property she would like to see the least amount of change and effect on the Southwood Acres area of Enfield. It is the last area of Enfield that has open farmland. She would like to see the integrity of the area maintained. If the work can be done so that the areas where trees don’t have to be cut down can be utilized rather than cutting into tree lines, that is what Ms. Raffia would support. She saw a need to keep in mind that this area is a farmland and open area.

Chairman Yarum stated if Ms. Raffia had an opportunity to review the plans, she would see that the trees being taken right now only affect visibility. There are a number of trees shown on the plans that will be staying. Each plan before the Board has a different scenario.

Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.

Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a lot size variance from existing 28,048-sq. ft. [44,000 sq. ft. required] to 26,488± sq. ft. – Section 4.10, Table, to proceed with state road reconstruction project No. 48-186.

Reference is made to a site plan titled “RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEY, TOWN OF ENFIELD, MAP SHOWING LAND ACQUIRED FROM STACIA M. FLOREK BY THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Project No. 48-186, Serial No. 3, Sheet 1 of 1”, dated April 2006 and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-10-02.

Mr. Rinaldi stated he is familiar with the intersection. He remembers when the pine trees on the Flaherty property came all the way around and it has always been difficult to pass through this intersection. Mr. Rinaldi sees it as a much needed project to improve the safety of the intersection. It seems to him that the property is being taken in the least amount possible so that the intersection will be aligned and safety improved.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked that the Board restrict their comments to each particular property if they are going to hear the applications individually. He doesn’t have a problem with taking them into consideration all at once.

Chairman Yarum stated Mr. Hummel should state what the square footage is of the taking and give the audience an opportunity to speak.

The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.

The reasons for approval are the request is the minimum required to improve realignment, safety and slope of the existing area.

ZBA 2007-10-03 – CT DOT, Applicant, state road reconstruction project No. 48-186, 97 Town Farm Rd., Map 86 / Lot 291, R-88 Zone: Requesting a lot size variance from existing 44,000± sq. ft. [88,000 sq. ft. required] to 42,550± sq. ft. – Section 4.10, Table

Douglas Hummel, agent for the Department of Transportation, appeared before the Board. Chairman Yarum noted this application is similar to 2007-10-02. He asked Mr. Hummel about the square footage taking.

Mr. Hummel stated in conjunction with the project in an R-88 zone, it contains 44,000 square feet. Their proposed acquisition would reduce it to 42,550 square feet.

Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public.

Tom Hijek, a landowner at 97 Town Farm Road, stated he cannot say he really is speaking against this application because he recognizes the utility of doing this. He did want to bring several issues before the Board. He is concerned about the value of his property after this occurs. His home is a log home and is somewhat unique as to how the property is set. It is pretty isolated from the road. When the trees are taken down and a bike path is put in, it will be a log cabin sitting right on top of a road without that same distinct feel of being out in the country.

Mr. Hijek stated when there have been town meetings talking about the safety of the road, a number of landowners brought up concerns about the straightening and widening of the road and what it will do to traffic. The speed limit in front of Mr. Hijek’s home is 35 miles per hour and he can tell the Board that when people are leaving that intersection, which is only about 200’ from his driveway, they are going much faster than 35 miles per hour. Once the road is straightened and widened, his concern is cars will be traveling faster. When he brought up those concerns, he did not hear a good answer as to how speed control is going to be maintained along Town Farm Road.

Mr. Hijek stated his front yard is where his septic tank and leach fields are. He doesn’t have the distance that those leach fields extend but they are getting very close to the taking line. With the plan to re-grade the area so the slope is going to be different, Mr. Hijek’s concern is heavy equipment will be brought on to the front yard and crush his leach fields. He brought that to the attention of the town meeting as well.

Chairman Yarum asked that the applicant respond to these questions.

Mr. Hummel stated there is no question that the change in the property will change the nature of the property to some degree. That’s the responsibility of the appraiser to ascertain what the change in the property value is based on the acquisition, loss of screening, the bike path and the square footage.

Mr. Hummel stated no one can for sure predict individual behavior. That doesn’t mean if we have safety concerns, we shouldn’t address them. They need to fix the vertical curvature and give proper shoulders to bring the road up to current day standards. There are drainage problems that need to be addressed and those are a safety concern also. If once the project is completed and there appears to be speeding violations in the area that is a matter for the public safety folks. It is an enforcement issue as opposed to a design issue. They are trying to bring the road up to a standard that is safe for the traveling public.

Mr. Hummel stated regarding the leach field, once they get into the valuation phase, an appraiser will address that. He has only talked to Mr. Hijek regarding the variance and they have not started the valuation phase because it is a time consuming and costly activity and they wanted to apply for the variance first. Their appraiser is going to want to meet with Mr. Hijek and go over the property and the impacted area. He will talk about where things are and they may have to do testing to find out where the leach fields are. They cannot adversely impact the property. Mr. Hummel noted the design is only at 40% right now and is not complete. The public hearings in January and last year were at a conceptual stage. Gus and his folks are going forward with the design and concurrently they are acquiring the necessary rights of way. They will be working with the owners and working with Gus continually in order to figure out what needs to be addressed before construction in the summer of 2008.

Mr. Montori stated the plans are not final until the project goes out to bid. Tonight’s hearing is for the variance and not for the impact to the property.

Chairman Yarum asked if there are sewers along Town Farm Road. Mr. Montori responded there are no sewers. There is water and gas. The gas stops at Abbe.

Mr. Hijek stated the feedback given doesn’t necessarily solve his concerns. He wanted to make sure his concerns were adequately addressed.

Mr. Alsbaugh noted this is a town project and the state is merely applying as the statute allows it to happen. He asked if the variance is really something that the town is requesting. Mr. Hummel stated the Department is requesting it because they made an agreement with the town that they would acquire the property. Any right of way that they acquire will eventually be turned over to the town. It is a Town of Enfield project and the state is just helping out.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked if this is an issue of state sovereignty. The reason he is asking is because it would allow the state to impose conditions of approval. If it was a state sovereignty issue, then you could not.

Chairman Yarum stated that raises the question of if the state is acting as an assistant to this and the variance is not approved, within the application it says that the state can come in under eminent domain and take the property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board would then not have the opportunity for conditions.

Chairman Yarum asked if the variance is not approved and this project cannot go forward as intended with the receipt of the variances, what the next step is. Mr. Hummel stated the project as presented and approved is going forward regardless of what happens here tonight. If a variance is denied they have to go back to their office and make one of three decisions. The first decision is to not impact that property with the project, second buy the property in total and three, change the nature of the acquisition to an easement. The town and state prefer to own the property their facilities are on but can make adjustments to allow for an easement so that there is no square footage change in valuation. The impact to the property and how it affects the property would have some weight regarding what decision is made.

Mr. Hummel stated he cannot answer all of Mr. Hijek’s questions yet because they are not into the process yet. The Department is guided by the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as continually amended. This is a lengthy process that helps to protect a property owner’s rights as far as getting just compensation. All they can do is move forward with the decision that this Board makes. Hopefully, they do due diligence in compensating people for their losses. He discussed the compensation process.

Chairman Yarum asked if the variance is denied and they decided to seek an easement, how would that easement vary other than the fact that it was an ownership. In the design or in the area of land, the 1450 square feet - would that change? Mr. Hummel stated it would not. Their experience shows that generally speaking if you go from a fee acquisition to a defined easement for highway purposes, it pretty much gives you the entire bundle of rights to that area except the underlying fee. In their determination, that is in effect very similar to a fee and the value would be very close to the fee value.

Chairman Yarum noted with an easement the property owner would still own the land but have no value of it. Mr. Hummel stated that is correct. The liability issues would be in the hands of the easement holder. Mr. Hummel stated the acquisition versus defined easement is not much different. It gives you all the rights under the fee without owning the actual square footage so to them the value would be the same.

Mr. Furey discussed the taking of some of his property and the fact that the state presented a very positive experience and listened to all landowners. Mr. Hummel noted the public has become much more sophisticated in the twentieth and twenty-first century and they engage in contact sensitive design now where the property owners are a partner in any public improvement projects.

Mr. Rinaldi stated his understanding is this Board is looking at the justification for granting this variance. He sees this project as justifying a variance. As far as the acquisition, he doesn’t see the town being involved in all of the acquisitions. There are other processes and procedures which will happen after this between the state, the town and the homeowners. The Board is not saying go ahead and acquire this property. They are saying yes, this variance is justifiable. He asked that Mr. Hummel comment on what may happen after this.

Mr. Hummel stated it is an ongoing process and a partnership between the town, the property owner, and the state. They are not aware of where some of the items are because they haven’t gotten that far into the process yet. If they were to get the variance, it would allow them to move forward with that process of pursuing the partial acquisition. Any difficulties that they would run into on a property that are essential for it to be safe and sanitary, they would have to address. He discussed previous situations where they ended up acquiring the property in total because there was no other place to put the septic. Mr. Hummel stated unlike the amount that is dedicated to the construction of a project, the acquisition of rights of way funds are open ended. They expend whatever funds are necessary to compensate people appropriately for their losses.

Mr. Hijek stated he is not against this project and it is a good thing overall for the road and the town. He wanted to make sure that his concerns were heard officially in terms of the safety of the road as well as the impact on his property. He is confident that they can work through the process but his issues need to be addressed as the project goes on. He realizes this is a zoning hearing looking for a variance but in terms of the whole project safety was one issue that needed to be addressed as well as the impact on the property.

Donna Raffia, 203 Abbe Road, stated she read a letter to the editor recently about what was done to the Bushnell Park area. It was supposed to be an improvement and it was done in a shoddy manner. She is not saying the town would intentionally affect the homeowner but she thinks it is important to bring up all of these topics right from the beginning. She would like to see if there are any cuttings in to property or trees removed, she would like to see trees replanted and the property re-established to the way it was. To take the trees down and not have the privacy that the property owners have been used to and to remove these really large trees that are in the area would be a loss. She would like to see something re-established there at some point.

Mr. Rinaldi asked Mr. Hummel at what stage of the project cycle would these concerns be best addressed. The concerns include replacing trees, the fact that there may be a septic system that might not support trees or aesthetically you’re trying to make it the way it was.

Mr. Hummel stated there were two design public hearings for the project and that is the forum for that. The problem with planting trees is who is responsible for them in three years when they die. They compensate property owners for the loss of screening and the loss of trees. To plant them again would be compensating twice. The owners could plant the trees or have a landscaper come in and plant the trees. They are in the compensation business and not in the tree planting business though they have had on other projects planting plans. That was for a variety of reasons both ecological and environmental. This is a Town of Enfield project and the two public hearings that they held so far were the places to talk about aesthetics or planting plans. The Department’s job is to compensate people for their losses. He further discussed the appraiser process which is also a forum for people to address particular concerns.

Donna Raffia stated she understands how that works and she is not the property owner. She is speaking to the area where a lot of people live. She would like to see the integrity maintained in the area. She discussed people like Ms. Flaherty not understanding the procedure. She personally missed the two public hearings but she still thinks it is a good time to say she would like to see the integrity of the property maintained.

Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that Mr. Hijek was at the public hearings and made his concerns known. If the subject matter came up at the meeting and the design still reflects what it reflects, he is assuming that the proper time to address the concern has been determined to be at the compensatory stage and that has not yet happened.

Mr. Rinaldi stated this concern could be addressed previous to this and after this between the property owner and the state. Mr. Hummel stated you cannot answer any question one hundred percent. All they can do is work together to try to accomplish this project and meet people’s concerns. Hopefully, everyone is satisfied when it is all done.

Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.

Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for a lot size variance from existing 44,000-sq. ft. [88,000 sq. ft. required] to 42,550± sq. ft. – Section 4.10, Table, to proceed with state road reconstruction project No. 48-186.

Reference is made to a site plan titled “RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEY, TOWN OF ENFIELD, MAP SHOWING LAND ACQUIRED FROM THOMAS W. HIJEK, ET AL BY THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Project No. 48-186, Serial No. 7, Sheet 1 of 1”, dated April 2006 and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-10-03.

The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.

The reasons for approval are the request is the minimum required to improve realignment, safety and slope of the existing area.

ZBA 2007-10-04 – CT DOT, Applicant, state road reconstruction project No. 48-186, 210 Abbe Rd., Map 86 / Lot 156, R-88 Zone: Requesting a lot size variance from existing 34,019± sq. ft. [88,000 sq. ft. required] to 33,304± sq. ft. – Section 4.10, Table

Mr. Douglas Hummel appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated the acquisition of this project totals 715 square feet. It is in an R-88 zone and is a reduction from 34,019 square feet to 33,304 square feet.

Mr. Hummel stated it was not his intention to drive Ms. Flaherty away. He has talked to her extensively by phone. Her biggest concern had less to do with the variance and more to do with the two rows of very large trees that she has both on her frontage on Town Farm Road and on Abbe Road. Her concern was that they were going to be taking them all down. She wanted them down. She didn’t want them down on one side and not on the other side. Mr. Hummel discussed the condition of these trees. Ms. Flaherty thinks the trees are ugly and she wants to make sure they are taken out. Mr. Hummel responded that both rows of pines would be taken out. They are cutting into the property to grade off the property. He pointed out the area on the map. He added they are showing saving the maple tree next to the driveway.

Mr. Hummel stated Ms. Flaherty did not bring up the driveway concern. She is referring to the limit of the proposed driveway reconstruction to match the driveway up to the road. There is no taking of the driveway but it is bringing it back to the degree they need to in order to match it up to the slightly changed elevation of the road.

Mr. Hummel will call Ms. Flaherty tomorrow and address her questions.

Mr. Hummel stated he has sent a letter to every owner advising them to call with any questions. They have been available to meet with everybody. They will be working with the homeowners in the future to get all their questions answered.

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

Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for a lot size variance from existing 34,019-sq. ft. [88,000 sq. ft. required] to 33,304± sq. ft. – Section 4.10, Table, to proceed with state road reconstruction project No. 48-186.

Reference is made to a site plan titled “RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEY, TOWN OF ENFIELD, MAP SHOWING LAND ACQUIRED FROM ELLA R. FLAHERTY BY THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Project No. 48-186, Serial No. 8, Sheet 1 of 1”, dated April 2006 and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-10-04.

The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.

The reasons for approval are the request is the minimum required to improve realignment, safety and slope of the existing area.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hozempa, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________

Richard Hozempa, Acting Secretary

Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals

jmr