ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 30, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 30, 2007, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Edward Furey
Richard Hozempa
Kevin Kibbe
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Yarum notified the applicants present this evening that four affirmative votes are necessary in order for a variance to be granted. He offered the applicants the opportunity to postpone their hearings until the next meeting when a full Board may be present. All applicants chose to go forward this evening.
Chairman Yarum noted for tonight’s public hearings, Mr. Hozempa will be voting as a regular member.
MINUTES
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the Minutes of March 26, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum reported John Rinaldi is absent tonight. He sent an email to Mr. Alsbaugh stating he is traveling on business.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of the Board’s approval of the Notice of Decision for ZBA-2007-03-01 for Pamela Schweitzer. There is also a note from the Pearson’s at 30 Edgewood Drive thanking Roger and John for their support in going forward with the front porch zoning ordinance amendment discussion by pursuing a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the commission taking action resulting in the construction of the Pearson's new porch.
Chairman Yarum explained tonight’s procedure for variance applications and informed applicants when a variance can be granted.
VARIANCES – NEW
ZBA 2007-04-01 – Donald D’Angelo, Applicant & Owner, 7 Lake Dr., Map 98 / Lot 14, R33 Zone, requesting a rear yard setback variance of 5 ft., 35 ft. required, 33.9 ft. legal nonconforming pre-existing, to obtain building permits to construct an attached, 2-story addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Donald D’Angelo, 7 Lake Drive, appeared before the Board regarding this variance request. He would like to build a second story addition above the garage and an additional garage in order to create additional living space for his mother-in-law. They have an existing two-car garage and they plan to build a third car garage with a living area above the garage.
Mr. D’Angelo stated if his property line was straight in the back yard, they would be able to build the addition. However, their property line is curved. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed a couple of options for Mr. D’Angelo to consider. Mr. D’Angelo noted in talking to his neighbor, he pretty much said do whatever you want and that he supported it. The option of a property switch may produce some hardship for Mr. D’Angelo’s neighbor.
Mr. D’Angelo stated the current existing property distance from the existing garage is 33.9’ which is pre-existing nonconforming. This is how it was built in 1987. Going out this additional 20’ will cause a further reduction to 30.5’. In talking to Wayne Bickley, Mr. D’Angelo was informed that he can go out straight along the line of the house as long as he did not make an existing nonconformity worse. This would make it worse because the back property line is diagonal in its shape. Because it is diagonal in shape, it would make it worse by about three feet. Hence the variance request. If Mr. D’Angelo did not have the slant in his lot and the house was built so that it was parallel to the line, he would not have to apply for a variance.
Mr. D’Angelo stated he did not require a variance for the front or side yards and he is within twenty percent. The only variance he needs is for the back corner of the new garage.
Chairman Yarum asked why a side yard variance is not required. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is a lot that is under the 33,000 square foot minimum and Section 4.10.2H of the ordinance allows a side yard of ten feet for the main structure. That section calls out a number of reductions for a pre-existing nonconforming lot size for new construction. The front, side and rear yard requirements are reduced. Mr. D’Angelo confirmed that Mr. Bickley also told him the lot is under the 33,000 square foot threshold.
Chairman Yarum asked where the zoning data figures come from on the site plan. Mr. Alsbaugh stated those come from the current R-33 zone. The top three are from the current R-33 zone requirements. The next three are the reductions allowed under Section 4.10.2H. It is reduced to a 35’ rear yard but even with that because of the lot line angle, it still requires a variance to put on an addition.
Chairman Yarum asked the applicant what will happen for the third garage regarding a curb cut. Mr. D’Angelo stated they were thinking of extending the driveway out further to the left and widening the driveway. Mr. Alsbaugh stated a curb cut would require a permit for a curb cut into a town road from the Engineering Department. Mr. D’Angelo stated the curb cut would be for two cars with pretty much the same design existing. Chairman Yarum stated he was curious how much asphalt would be in front of the building but that is not used in coming to a decision on the variance.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Geraldine Levinio, 7 Robert Drive, Holyoke, Massachusetts spoke in favor of this application. She would be living at 7 Lake Drive upstairs.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Hozempa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a rear yard setback variance of 5 ft., 35 ft. required, 33.9 ft. legal nonconforming pre-existing, to obtain building permits to construct an attached, 2-story addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a location survey titled “...Prepared for Donald & Susan D’Angelo, Assessor’s Map 98, Lot 14, 7 Lake Drive and dated 03-22-07, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-04-01.
Mr. Furey noted the addition would be subject to the old zoning with a 10’ requirement on the side yard. He felt in this case it is very reasonable to do what is proposed.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is
1. The angle of the rear property line does not allow the applicant to meet the 35’ setback regulation. The lot configuration is wider on the east side than the west, and;
2. The applicant is requesting the minimum necessary to remain in line with the existing structure.
ZBA 2007-04-02 – Mark Desrosiers, Applicant & Owner, 12 Leary Rd., Map 109 / Lot 24, R-33 Zone, requesting an accessory building height variance of 15 in., 12 ft. allowed, 13’ 3” requested, to construct a garage - EZO Section 3.30.7Ai
Mark Desrosiers, 12 Leary Road, appeared before the Board regarding this variance application.
Mr. Desrosiers stated he did not realize there was a 12’ maximum height limit on out buildings. He has an existing out building that is falling down and would like to rebuild a garage on that footprint. According to the pitch of the trusses, he is over the 12’ by 13” to 15”. He needs an eight foot door in order to get the necessary equipment in there for his small farm. He needs an 18” LVL to pick up the weight of the roof and that puts him at nine and a half feet just for his side walls.
Mr. Kibbe asked if the replacement garage is right in the middle. Mr. Alsbaugh showed the structures on the site plan. Mr. Kibbe stated he is familiar with the need to put equipment in and the need for a higher structure in other places.
Chairman Yarum asked if farming is Mr. Desrosiers’ profession. He responded it is not his profession. Regarding the equipment that will be placed in the proposed garage, there would be an old tractor used for harrowing for his good sized garden.
In response to a question from Chairman Yarum, Mr. Desrosiers explained what an 18” LVL is. It is a special beam you need to carry a lot of the weight. The way the door is, the roof trusses are going to come down and the weight of the roof trusses are right above where his door is. That needs to pick up a lot of the weight from the roofing.
Chairman Yarum noted the reason for the variance is because of the type of construction that will be used. Mr. Desrosiers stated it is because he needs the eight foot garage door.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the door opening has to be eight feet. The LVL is an engineered laminated product to supply the proper span strength.
Chairman Yarum asked if Mr. Desrosiers had an engineer look at this situation. Mr. Desrosiers stated a friend of his who works for Kelly Fradet that designs houses informed him he should go with the LVL option. Chairman Yarum asked if he has looked at other options. The reason Mr. Desrosiers needs the additional height is because of the height of the beam. In other options, you could use beams with a steel plate. Mr. Desrosiers stated he had opted for a 14” LVL but he was told that he should go with an 18” LVL. He has not looked at any other options.
Mr. Kibbe stated he did not know if a 14” LVL would hold. Mr. Desrosiers stated that is what he was told.
Mr. Hozempa asked about the height of the current building. Mr. Desrosiers stated it is – he would guess – 12’ to the peak. It is a lean-to situation.
Chairman Yarum asked that Mr. Alsbaugh clarify the point where the 12’ is referenced. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is the mid point on the roof between the bottom of the eave and the top of the peak. Chairman Yarum stated the current structure is about 12’. Mr. Desrosiers confirmed that it is 12’ at its highest point because the current structure is a lean-to shed type of structure. While he presently has the height he needs, the present structure is dilapidated.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for an accessory building height variance of 15 in., 12 ft. allowed, 13’ 3” requested, to construct a garage - EZO Section 3.30.7Ai
Reference is made to all documentation and discussion during the public hearing for ZBA 2007-04-02.
Mr. Kibbe felt this is pretty self-explanatory. Having seen so many barns over the years, he saw a need for the eight foot entrance. Otherwise it will last only a few years and then come down. This way you fix the problem once and along with proper maintenance, it will last a long time.
Mr. Furey stated if the door is not done right, there is also the safety factor involved. The vibrations of the machines may cause it to come down.
Chairman Yarum stated he is having difficulty with the application because he thinks there are other options. The applicant is looking for an engineered beam but has not had an engineer design it. He has had a representative at Kelly Fradet do so.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he was merely defining what an LVL was. The applicant was depending on the people that know which was the lumber company. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he was not defining LVL to put the applicant in a position he was not in.
Chairman Yarum stated Kelly Fradet’s primary business is selling lumber and not steel. He believes the combination of lumber and steel would work just as well without needing a variance and without the required depth that an LVL would require.
Mr. Alsbaugh felt the Board needs to discuss what the implications of going with steel and laminate would be and what does that entail. Chairman Yarum stated it would entail having a structural engineer design it, certify it, stamp it, and submit drawings to the town along with a permit. Mr. Alsbaugh noted you would have to have a custom piece of steel work. Mr. Kibbe stated it is still not one hundred percent that that would work and he doesn’t think this would be the best option.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated what the Board is talking about is whether pursuing that more intensive engineered process and specialty custom work is reasonable to expect for a job like this. The Board is looking at whether it is a reasonable option or not or whether the laminate is a sufficient search for a solution to Mr. Desrosiers’ problem.
Mr. Furey felt the laminate would be sufficient because he is not doing factory work where people would be inside.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the issue is whether or not the other options are viable or could reasonably be expected. Chairman Yarum stated not being a structural engineer, he will take into consideration Mr. Kibbe’s comment where a steel plate for the width the applicant would need would, along with engineered plans, would require a larger framing number width wise. They may say that a two-inch steel plate is going to work but you also need other items and now you’ve created a ten-inch wide wall which is not feasible. Since he is not a structural engineer, Chairman Yarum stated he does not know if the applicant would create a bigger problem and whether or not a steel plate would even work. A steel plate may work but instead of 18”, it may require 20”. Since the applicant has had someone who is in the industry look at it and say that an 18” LVL will work, he is satisfied with that.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the twelve-foot requirement cannot be met without using a structural number for the door opening that requires eighteen inches in depth.
ZBA 2007-04-03 – Robert Robbins, Applicant & Owner, 29 Weymouth Rd., Map 17 / Lot 53, R-33 Zone, requesting a front yard setback variance of 5 ft., 30 ft. requested, 35 ft. required, and an accessory building location variance, to construct a garage - EZO Sections 4.10.2H & 3.30.7Ai
Robert Robbins appeared before the Board regarding this variance request.
Mr. Robbins stated he would like to build a garage/workshop on the only dry part of his land. He has almost eight acres and there is only one little square that’s dry. This is a piece of property he bought from the town a couple of years ago. It used to be a pump station. They needed a bigger pump station so they built one across the street. When they built the pump station, they must have brought in a lot of fill which raised up this corner of the yard making it the dry area.
Mr. Robbins stated there is an existing curb cut there already. On the east side, there’s a good three quarter of a mile of trees. He has no neighbors on the east side or in the back. It is just on the south and west sides that he has some neighbors. Mr. Robbins noted the pictures he presented to the Board.
Chairman Yarum asked the size of the structure. Mr. Robbins stated it would be 32’ x 36’. Chairman Yarum asked the size of the pump station. Mr. Robbins stated since he lived there, there was nothing above the ground other than the chain link fence that was around it. Chairman Yarum asked if there was a structure on the property when Mr. Robbins bought it. He responded no and the year before he bought it, there was a chain link fence surrounding it. He discussed some vandalism that took place on the fence at that time and his call to the town. The town officials then took down the chain link fence and filled in the underground cavity. There is no visible foundation.
Chairman Yarum asked when the home was built. Mr. Robbins stated in 1978 or 1979. It is a raised ranch so the floor of the basement is at the same level as the back yard. He has no water problems.
Chairman Yarum asked if it would be possible to add this garage workshop area closer to the home. Mr. Robbins stated no, there is no place to put it. His preference would have been where he dug the hole as shown in the pictures presented but it is too wet in this area.
Chairman Yarum stated because Mr. Robbins is building an accessory building, it has to be built behind the rear building line. Mr. Robbins stated that is what he would prefer but he cannot do so because of the wet conditions.
Mr. Kibbe asked about the yard. Mr. Robbins noted the very wet conditions and the difficulty in mowing the grass. He has talked to the Wetlands Agent and he said he would allow a building back there; however, from a structural and a building point of view, it is not practical. He would think fill would be necessary to build.
Mr. Furey asked about the barn on the property. Mr. Robbins stated the people who originally built the home used to have a horse but the horse would keep getting stuck in the yard. The barn is handy but the area floods in the spring so that it cannot be used for storage.
Chairman Yarum asked if Mr. Robbins was to fill the area where he would like to place the garage, what effect would that have on his abutting neighbors. Mr. Robbins did not feel it would have any effect on them. Chairman Yarum noted he would have to fill the entire back of the property. Mr. Robbins confirmed that to be the case. You would also have to fill for access to the property. It would be like creating a dam in the middle of the yard. Chairman Yarum stated this is what he thought might happen to Mr. Robbins’ neighbors. If he were to raise his property level so that he didn’t dam his own property, Chairman Yarum questioned if it would be damming the neighbors’ property. Mr. Robbins did not think it would affect them. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is something the wetlands agent should answer. Having been one in the past, he stated what Mr. Robbins would be doing is reducing the storage capacity of his property. Whatever water is retained on his property would be reduced by the amount of fill.
Chairman Yarum asked if Mr. Robbins has considered adding on to his home with the garage/workshop. Mr. Robbins stated he considered that along with extending the first floor. He stated it is his choice to get away from the house during retirement and go out to his workshop.
Mr. Hozempa asked if the area of the garage will be right in front of the barn. Mr. Robbins stated the garage would block the view of the barn. The barn is staying.
Mr. Furey asked if the thirty foot distance from the road is the distance Mr. Robbins can go back without running into problems. Mr. Robbins stated the land slopes off quite severely. In order to go past that he would have to bring in a lot of fill. He was hoping to avoid that expense. He would also have to relocate a propane tank and fuel line.
Chairman Yarum noted no audience members are present. He closed this public hearing.
Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hozempa, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance of 5 ft., 30 ft. requested, 35 ft. required, and an accessory building location variance, to construct a garage - EZO Sections 4.10.2H & 3.30.7Ai
Reference is made to a map titled “Property of James L. Corkum ET AL to be conveyed to Gerald R. & Nancy B. Simpkins, Weymouth Road Enfield, CT” and dated June 1979 and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-04-03.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the property has a high water table which limits the area to develop.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Kevin Kibbe, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|