ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 27, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, March 27, 2006 in the Town Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
Kevin Kibbe
David Alexander, Voting Alternate
Richard Scott Hozempa, Voting Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Yarum appointed Kevin Kibbe as Acting Secretary for this evening’s meeting.
MINUTES
Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of February 27, 2006. Chairman Yarum made a correction to those Minutes on page 2, third paragraph, fourth sentence. Instead of “Lots 14 and 15”, it should read “Lots 15 and 16.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of the Notice of Decision for last month’s public hearings and copies of correspondence that has been sent by this Board to the Town Attorney, Town Manager and Mayor regarding attendance issues.
Also received was a notice of an advertisement that was to be published in the Journal Inquirer on March 18, 2006 regarding Notices of Action from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, one of which is Public Hearing #2544 where they discussed front porches. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Planning and Zoning Commission put the issue of front porches on their agenda and they felt the ZBA made a valid observation regarding the need for an amendment change. The process did not require a meeting with this Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission passed an amendment to the town zoning ordinance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the other issue regarding the overlay zone for the lake areas to allow accessory structures will follow the same procedure.
Chairman Yarum noted Board members have received a copy of the Bylaws and he will defer that item to the organizational meeting later in the agenda.
Chairman Yarum stated he received a copy of the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies quarterly newsletter which includes a section on workshops. Chairman Yarum asked if anyone feels they need a refresher course that they inform him or Mr. Alsbaugh.
Chairman Yarum received a subscription to a Planning and Environmental Law monthly magazine that keeps people updated on changes in the land use laws. Mr. Alsbaugh stated his concern with that publication is the cost. Chairman Yarum felt this Board relies on the Town Attorney’s Office for such information.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)/PROCEDURAL AND POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN
(Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Inquirer on Monday, March 13, 2006 and Monday, March 20, 2006.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED [Appeals and/or Variances]
NONE
APPEALS – NEW
NONE
VARIANCES – NEW
ZBA 2006-03-01 - Linda K. Bridge, Applicant and Owner, 102 Abbe Road, Map 91/Lot 22, R-88 zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 1.3 feet, 35 feet required, 33.7 feet existing, to obtain building permits to complete the structure. – EZO Section 4.10 Table
Linda Bridge appeared before the Board regarding ZBA 2006-03-01 and requested a variance for a side yard setback variance of 1.3 feet in order to obtain building permits to complete the home at 102 Abbe Road. She is presently selling the property which was quit claimed to her by her husband in either 2003 or 2004. Ms. Bridge and her husband purchased this property in 2000. They are now divorced and the property was quit claimed to her. It was left up to her to take care of this partially constructed home her husband had started.
Ms. Bridge stated she decided to sell the home because her husband was the contractor and she could not complete the home. When she put the house on the market, the people that were interested in purchasing it came to the Town Hall to check out the property. They found out at that time that her ex-husband constructed a small v of the home too close to the property line making the setback 33.7’ instead of the required 35’. Ms. Bridge stated when she was told about this, she came to the Town Hall and was informed she needed to apply for a variance. Ms. Bridge has talked to all the neighbors of this property and they have no problem with this variance. She presented a letter from the gentleman who owns the piece of property where the side boundary is. He is the only person that would be affected and he wrote a letter stating he has no problem with the variance. In presenting the letter to the Board, Ms. Bridge stated the gentleman did not initially understand what was occurring and referred to something else.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record a letter from the abutting property owner dated March 23, 2006 confirming that he is aware of the variance request but there was a little misunderstanding. He believes that the foundation is on his property and not in the side yard setback by fourteen inches. However, he doesn’t have any issues with this request.
Ms. Bridge stated all she is asking for is to obtain the variance in order to proceed with the sale of the home. Mr. Rinaldi asked if the property presently includes only a foundation. Ms. Bridge stated there are walls and a roof on the structure. However, none of the interior work has been done and there are no windows. The structure has been up for approximately three years.
Mr. Alexander asked if any further development was done on the property since Ms. Bridge received ownership rights. Ms. Bridge stated nothing has been done and everything that was done was done previously by her ex-husband.
Chairman Yarum requested that Ms. Bridge explain to him why as co-owner, Ms. Bridge does not feel this is a self-imposed hardship. Ms. Bridge stated she really had nothing to do with the construction of the home. Her ex-husband did the work and she was not involved in the particular measurements.
Chairman Yarum asked if the property was properly surveyed. Ms. Bridge stated her husband had a construction loan and permits from the town so the property was properly surveyed. Her husband also did the foundation himself. Chairman Yarum noted in the measurements, either the surveyor was off or her husband was off when measuring. Ms. Bridge stated this error was a complete surprise to her.
Chairman Yarum asked if Ms. Bridge has any options available to her to rectify this without getting a variance. Ms. Bridge did not feel she had any other options. She stated the home is a very unique construction built with Styrofoam blocks filled with concrete. In previous discussions, someone suggested sawing off 14” but she cannot because of the very solid construction.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked for the actual date when the foundation of this home was poured. Ms. Bridge discussed this question with an audience member and they determined the building permit was issued in June, 2003. However, Ms. Bridge could not confirm specifically when the foundation was poured.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the request for a 1.3’ variance of the side yard setback, 33.7’ proposed, 33.7’ existing, 35’ required, to obtain building permits to complete the structure – EZB Section 4.10 TABLE
Reference is made to a site survey titled “Project: JOHN BRIDGE, ABBE, RD, ENFIELD, stamped ‘RECEIVED, FEBRUARY 28, 2006, PLANNING OFFICE, ENFIELD, CT”, showing the existing foundation location and the point at which a variance is requested as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2006-03-01.
Mr. Rinaldi noted the lot is quite irregularly shaped and he could see where it would create a little more difficulty in trying to place the house.
The variance was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Alexander and Hozempa voting.
Some discussion followed regarding the public hearing scheduled by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission in the near future for an amendment to the ordinance that would require the location survey to be done at the time the foundation is done. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this change will generate a higher level of review at the time it is presented so that any errors should be addressed early on in any project.
The reason for approval is the applicant acquired the property through a settlement. The home is constructed and requires interior completion. The applicant is requesting only the minimum side yard variance in order to complete the home.
ZBA 2006-03-02 – Mark R. Lamagna, Applicant and Owner, 48 Cornell Drive, Map 110/Lot 331, R-33 zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 2.5 feet, 10 feet required, 27.5 feet existing, to construct an attached garage – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Mark Lamagna, 48 Cornell Drive, appeared before the Board regarding a side yard setback variance request of 2.5 feet to construct an attached 20’ garage. He cannot locate the garage on other areas of the property and he explained the reasons. On the south side, there is an existing sewer line going from the side of the house down to the road. His back yard has a forty-five degree hill. The garage proposed is on the small side and is 20’ wide in order to have a 16’ door to accommodate two cars.
Mr. Lamagna stated his neighbors all like the idea of the proposed garage. He has not obtained anything in writing from them but could do so if necessary.
Mr. Kibbe stated he lives in this area and he has the same hill in his backyard. Mr. Kibbe asked if Mr. Lamagna could make the garage 18’ instead of 20’ which would not require a variance. Mr. Lamagna stated he was told that the 20’ width was small for two cars.
Mr. Rinaldi noted the in-ground pool located in the backyard and asked if that is a retaining wall around the pool. Mr. Lamagna stated he has two retaining walls. One is 55’ around the pool and then it goes up 4’ and he has another one that goes around to the right side. Mr. Rinaldi asked the reason for this wall. Mr. Lamagna stated it is the only way he could fit the in-ground pool by building it up with a retaining wall. Also, on the left hand side of the pool is all clay. He was able to put the wall in and could not go any further with the wall because there was too much clay. He also has drainage located through that area of the property.
Chairman Yarum noted his explanation of when a variance can be granted and that a hardship exists when the zoning ordinance uniquely affects a parcel of land differently from other properties and where use of the property or reasonable use of the land would be impossible without the variance. He asked that Mr. Lamagna explain what is unique about his property compared to the other properties on the street.
Mr. Lamagna stated he cannot construct the garage on the south side of his property due to the sewer lines. Mr. Lamagna stated what is unique is the way his property is positioned. The neighbor on the south side is only 20’ from his property line and that side would be tight. In response to a question from Chairman Yarum asking if he has reasonable use of his property at this time, Mr. Lamagna stated he does not. He noted the driveway which puts the cars to the side and the fact that the backyard is limited because of the hill.
Chairman Yarum asked if Mr. Lamagna has an existing garage. Mr. Lamagna stated he has what was a carport and is now an enclosed garage. Chairman Yarum stated the majority of homes in the neighborhood have one-car garages. Mr. Lamagna clarified that the majority have carports. The present situation is so tight that Mr. Lamagna only has about eight inches to get out of the car. He stated the existing garage has not been used to put cars in because of its size. Chairman Yarum asked if it was an option for Mr. Lamagna to extend his existing garage and add another garage giving him two full-size garages. Mr. Lamagna stated this is possible but he wanted to add on a room in order to add more space to his existing residence of 980 square feet. Chairman Yarum stated this was not included in the application. Mr. Lamagna stated it was his understanding that that would be the next step.
Chairman Yarum stated he personally does not see a uniqueness to Mr. Lamagna’s property. It is no different than other properties in the area other than the other side of the street does not have the hill in the backyards.
Chairman Yarum stated he can understand that the majority of single-family homes today have two or three car garages. This home has 980 square feet with a one car garage which is an enclosed carport. Mr. Lamagna stated when he moved in, the carport was open and he installed the garage door. He felt the house is under the standard market size.
Mr. Alexander asked if there are other garages in the area. Mr. Lamagna stated there is a three car garage on a similarly sized lot but he has not seen any two car garages. They are pretty much one car garages and carports and no one has upgraded.
Chairman Yarum asked what is the size of his existing garage. Mr. Lamagna stated 10’ x 24’.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the hill beyond the retaining wall. He asked if it is useable property. Mr. Lamagna stated it is very steep. He has used it for his children for a horseshoe pit.
Mr. Hozempa asked if Mr. Lamagna would also be looking to relocate his driveway with the new garage. Mr. Lamagna stated that is correct. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the variance is not required for driveways and the variance would be specifically for the structure.
Mr. Lamagna presented a receipt regarding the sign to Mr. Alsbaugh.
No one was present to speak in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the request for a side yard setback variance of 2.5 feet, 7.5 feet proposed, 10 feet required, 27.5 feet existing, to construct an attached garage – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a topographical site map titled “Map submitted by Owner Mark R. Lamagna – 03/03/06, (scale) 1” = 20’, (and stamped) RECEIVED, MARCH 3, 2006, PLANNING OFFICE, ENFIELD, CT”, showing the existing improvements and the point at which a variance is requested as submitted for this application, and to a site location map partially titled “Subdivision Plan, Green Manorville, Addition No. 1, (and dated) October 31, 1958”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2006-03-02.
Mr. Rinaldi stated looking at the topography, the applicant’s property is split in half. He has installed a retaining wall to try to get some use out of his backyard. Mr. Rinaldi felt one of the reasons for granting this variance is the topography of the land. Although it may not be unique to his neighbor, if you look at other single family residential zoning districts, Mr. Rinaldi felt there is a uniqueness due to the harsh topography.
Mr. Kibbe felt it is unique because on that side of the street, the yards are cut in half due to the hill. He felt the property is very limiting as to what can be done with it.
Mr. Alexander stated he did not hear the applicant discussing the actual uniqueness of the land. If the hill was not there, he felt this would still be an issue because he doesn’t know where else the applicant would put the garage on the property. For this application, he questioned how unique this hill is. Mr. Alexander did not hear too much discussion about how unique this property is for this garage.
Mr. Hozempa stated looking at the property, there is actually no where else to locate the garage. He cannot put it in the back yard because it would encroach on the hill. He cannot put it on the south side because of the sewer line. He doesn’t see any other location for the proposed garage.
Chairman Yarum stated when a developer such as Ledger Starr located homes, they always favored one side of the property and left the other side for expansion. Most of the time, the expansion is limited to only one side. In this particular situation, the applicant is limited to expansion just to one side. The difficulty Chairman Yarum is having is similar to what Mr. Alexander mentioned in that he does not see a uniqueness that has been presented other than the hill which is not unique to that side of the street. He noted the home came with a carport which is only 10’ wide. When such a carport is enclosed, more of the width is lost. He can understand the applicant’s desire to improve the home and add more living space. However, in keeping with the appearance of the neighborhood, in order to obtain a two car garage, the applicant would have another seventeen and a half feet to install another one-bay garage which would give him an overall width for two bays of twenty seven and a half feet without a variance which is a decent sized garage with room for storage.
Mr. Kibbe stated the uniqueness is it is tough in this area. There are folks down the street that have built up without needing a variance. He did not feel the variance is self-imposed and did not think the applicant was looking for a significant side yard setback variance. He noted there would be more than sufficient room on the south side of the home but the sewer line limits construction.
Mr. Rinaldi reiterated the fact about the topography. If the applicant did a detached garage and moved it to the back, it would take up the entire backyard. The applicant is trying to use the flat area that he has by what he did with the retaining wall in order to install the pool. Mr. Rinaldi’s opinion is the harsh topography makes that land unusable.
The variance was denied by a 3 – 2 – 0 vote. Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Kibbe, and Mr. Hozempa voted in favor; Chairman Yarum and Mr. Alexander voted nay.
Board members had some discussion with the applicant following the denial of this variance application.
Mr. Lamagna stated he is confused about the term uniqueness regarding his property. Chairman Yarum stated legally the applicant has to have a uniqueness to a property in order to show a hardship. He noted the property is not unique to the surrounding properties. Chairman Yarum stated by unique he means what is different. Mr. Lamagna stated the right hand side of his property falls off. Everybody in the neighborhood has a little bit on the side to build and he is just trying to upgrade and use his land. His next door neighbor has a carport that was built in and a steeper hill. Mr. Lamagna stated everybody in the area is pretty much the same except for the hill. He owns 290’ but he can only use 90’ to 100’ from the street in. The rest is not useable for building.
Chairman Yarum stated when this property was built in the 1960’s, a one car garage was all that a family needed. Over time, people now need two car garages. The applicant does have a one car garage and so do ninety percent of the homes in the area. He toured the neighborhood and if properties don’t have a carport, they have a converted carport that is now a garage. Chairman Yarum stated he can understand the attempt to expand his living space but that is not what the applicant is saying. The applicant is saying he wants to put on a two car garage in addition to the one car garage that he has and in order to do that he needs the variance. However, now his property is different than anybody else’s and the next thing is that everyone that lives in this development will be coming in because they want what the applicant has. Now, this Board has defeated the purpose of the ordinance. There is a zoning ordinance in place for a reason and it is there to protect the neighborhood.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this Board is dealing with properties that were built to the maximum setback and there is little or no chance for improvement or upgrade. He stated if this continues to occur, this is something that needs to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission because there is not enough agreement regarding the presence of a proper legal hardship and this Board is not able to grant a variance. However, this is not a closed issue. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if there is a problem, the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to look at the issue and, if necessary, change the regulations.
Chairman Yarum described the case of front porches where a number of applications came before this Board from people that wanted front porches on their home but they would have gone into the front yard setback. They required a variance to do such a porch and without a hardship, this Board could not grant the variance. Because this was an issue that the Board saw occurring frequently, Planning and Zoning reviewed it and changed the regulation so that people can now construct such front porches on their homes.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this Board’s job is to try to find what is the exception to the rule. While they may not always agree with the rules, their job is to look at the existing rule and determine what is the exception.
Mr. Montagna stated he would like to upgrade his property and he is sure a lot of people in the neighborhood would also like to do so but it seems like they can’t and the town doesn’t really want them to upgrade. He added he has neighbors that can build a two car garage or a three car garage and he has to stay with a one car garage or have a small home of 980 square feet.
Mr. Rinaldi questioned if a detached garage would be an option. Mr. Alsbaugh stated a detached garage would have to be behind the rear property line.
Mr. Kibbe suggested getting some people together and approaching the Planning and Zoning Commission because they have changed things that were unique to one side of one street in the town. Mr. Montagna discussed his lot and felt he should have bought a different property in 1981.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated at this time the variance is not granted. The applicant can appeal it which means he would go directly to Superior Court and file an appeal within fifteen days of the advertising of the legal action. A second option is the applicant can begin discussions with his neighbors and the Director of Planning to see if there is any way to further amend the ordinance to address these kinds of issues.
Mr. Montagna stated his intent was to upgrade his property with new siding and other improvements. He added he doesn’t feel the two-story home looks like it belongs in the neighborhood. He thanked the Board for their explanation. Chairman Yarum directed this applicant to the Planning and Zoning Commission through the Planning Office.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Discussion item – memo to Planning and Zoning Commission re: zoning ordinance amendment to remove ZBA as Local Authority for Suitability of Location applications per revision to State Statutes.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the proposed zoning ordinance amendment would remove the Zoning Board of Appeals as the local authority for suitability of location application per a revision of the State Statutes. Mr. Alsbaugh reviewed the particular sections of the ZBA Bylaws that would require a revision to address this change.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING [January biennial organizational meeting: election of officers and review of bylaws; even numbered years – postponed to March meeting]
1. Review of Bylaws
a) Amendments to Bylaws re: sections affected by removal of ZBA as local authority
b) Amendments to the ZBA application form re: removal of ZBA as local authority
c) Amendments to ZBA Agenda template re: removal of ZBA as local authority.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported changes to the Bylaws include:
On page 1 of 7, add “amend the Zoning Board of Appeals application form and submit it to the Board for approval as may be necessary from time to time (see APPENDIX III)”.
On page 7 of 7, add “Amended in general: Added Appendix III (Revised application form); Revised Appendix II (Agenda Template revised to delete references to ZBA as Local Authority for Suitability of Location per amendment to CGS); Amended Article III (add Appendix III and periodic amendment process, as required); add here: “Amended in General…”.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there was also a change to the application and that is being added as Appendix III. The application form is revised, taking out all the reference to local authority and suitability, and then added as Appendix III as had been previously discussed during last year’s organizational meeting.
Mr. Alsbaugh added the staff is waiting for the Planning and Zoning Commission to actually amend the zoning ordinance. They will have to formally delete wording in the section regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals referencing local authority and locations and then they will discuss designating their Commission as the local authority.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the required procedure is to discuss all the amendments during this meeting and then to have a formal vote on the changes at the next Board meeting. Chairman Yarum stated all the changes affecting this Board have been noted. He asked that this be an agenda item for action next month.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairman Yarum reminded Board members that only Regular Members can vote in election of officers.
Mr. Kibbe nominated Peter Yarum for Chairman of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Rinaldi seconded the nomination. Peter Yarum was elected Chairman by a 3 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Yarum, John Rinaldi and Kevin Kibbe voting.
Mr. Kibbe nominated John Rinaldi for Vice Chairman of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Yarum seconded the nomination. John Rinaldi was elected Vice Chairman by a 3 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Yarum, John Rinaldi and Kevin Kibbe voting.
Mr. Rinaldi nominated Kevin Kibbe for Secretary of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Yarum seconded the nomination. Kevin Kibbe was elected Secretary by a 3 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Yarum, John Rinaldi and Kevin Kibbe voting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Yarum brought the Board up to date on what has transpired regarding Board concerns about attendance of members. He stated a pattern of absenteeism started to surface on this Board. He sent a letter to the Town Manager’s office on December 6, 2004 with a second letter on April 26, 2005. He did not receive a response. In the interim, the Town Manager had left and the Town Attorney had taken over as the Interim Town Manager. Chairman Yarum sent a letter January 31, 2006 and received a response on February 6, 2006. The response stated that the Chairman of any board cannot enforce a board member to resign and that the Board itself cannot vote a board member off. The Town Council has the only authority to correct any issues since they appointed the members to the Board. Following approval from the Town Attorney, Chairman Yarum sent a letter on January 14, 2006 to the Mayor and the Town Council members, with cc’s to the Town Planner’s Office, the Assistant Town Manager and the Vice Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, requesting that the former look into this and see if there is something they can do to adopt an ordinance regarding absenteeism for all boards and commissions. Chairman Yarum stated he did check the Town Council agenda and minutes to see if there was anything either as an agenda item or discussion in the minutes. There was nothing yet regarding discussion about attendance. Chairman Yarum stated this subject is on the list for a future Town Council agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hozempa, to adjourn. Following a 5 – 0 – 0 vote, the Board adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Kevin Kibbe, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|