ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 27, 2004

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, September 27, 2004 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m. following an Executive Session.

PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman

John LeDoux

Edward Furey

John Rinaldi

Elizabeth Ballard, Alternate

Paul Thorogood, Alternate (Voting as Regular Member tonight)

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

EXECUTIVE SESSION (7:00 P.M.)

Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to go into Executive Session to discuss legal matters, specifically ZBA 2004-06-02 Appeal, Kaplan vs. Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. Following a unanimous vote, the Board went into Executive Session at 7:00 p.m. (Mr. Furey was not present during this Executive Session.)

Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to come out of Executive Session. Following a unanimous vote, Executive Session ended at 7:17 p.m.

Chairman Yarum stated no votes were taken during the Executive Session.

Following a brief recess, Chairman Yarum called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:22 p.m.

MINUTES

Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of July 26, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.

CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT

Chairman Yarum noted receipt of a report from the Town Attorney’s Office dated September, 2004. The ZBA also received a quarterly newsletter from the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies. Chairman Yarum referred to page two of that newsletter.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board also received the October Town Attorney’s Report.

Chairman Yarum noted the staff report contains a note about meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will continue to bring that forward until the P&Z agenda allows scheduling a joint meeting with P&Z, ZBA and the Wetlands Commission to discuss the lake rear yard setbacks, accessory structures, and front porches.

Chairman Yarum discussed the meeting procedure for the benefit of the audience and also read information on when a variance can be granted.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ZBA 2004-09-01 – Bruce D. Lundie, Applicant and Owner, 16 Cedar Street, Map 83/Lot 73, R-33 Zone, requesting lot coverage variance of 5.2% (17.7% existing, 25.2% proposed, 20% maximum allowed) to construct an in-ground pool – EZO Section 4.10.2H.

Bruce and Patricia Lundie, 16 Cedar Street, appeared before the Board regarding this application.

Mr. Lundie stated he is requesting 5.2% additional lot coverage in order to install an in-ground pool. He noted this would be in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. The neighbor right next door has a lot that is smaller with more lot coverage and an in-ground pool. He presented pictures of this residence and Mrs. Lundie further described the pictures submitted. She noted one picture of their lot which shows the area where they previously had a 24’ above ground pool with a deck. They plan to install the in-ground pool in the same area.

Mr. Lundie stated there will be sufficient clearance on each side of the pool and at the back of the lot. There will also be a privacy fence. He presented a survey that was done in 1934 that shows the lot sizes. He stated the next door neighbor at 18 Cedar Street received a permit for the lot coverage to allow their pool in 1977 and the zoning laws have not changed.

Chairman Yarum noted receipt of ten pictures of the property at 18 Cedar Street as well as 4 pictures of 16 Cedar Street, 2 pictures of 17 Cedar and 6 pictures of 13 Cedar. Also submitted was a surveyor’s map dated December 18, 1934 and a building permit dated July 11, 1977.

Chairman Yarum asked how large the neighbor’s in-ground pool is. Mr. Lundie stated it is 20’ x 40’.

Mr. Lundie stated the survey presented shows the neighbor’s lot is smaller than his lot. Theirs is 44’ x 208’ and the Lundie’s lot is 45’ x 208’.

Chairman Yarum asked if the conditions on the survey regarding the homes are the same. Mr. Lundie stated his neighbor’s garage has been added on since the survey. He was unsuccessful in finding permit information regarding the garage.

Mr. Rinaldi asked about the previous above ground pool dimensions. Mr. Lundie stated it was a 24’ above ground pool with a 12’ deck. Mr. Rinaldi asked if both types of pools are considered structures. Mr. Alsbaugh stated both above ground and in-ground pools require building permits and it is his understanding that both count for coverage.

Chairman Yarum questioned the large size of the proposed pool at 18’ x 36’. Mr. Lundie stated they previously had their home on the market but decided to stay at this location. With their decision to stay, it was their intent to improve their home the way they intended. Mrs. Lundie added if they go to a smaller size pool, the price stays the same for the in-ground pool. Mr. Lundie stated with the addition of the pool, he would still have twenty plus feet to the back property line.

Mr. Lundie stated the coverage right now is the issue. The pool is 18’ wide and the lot is 45’ wide. This would leave 13 and ½ feet on each side of the pool. There will still be plenty of room to the back of the lot and plenty off to the garage because of the depth of the lot.

Chairman Yarum stated within the application, the hardship listed is the yard is narrow with no room to expand. Mr. Lundie stated there is no land available around him. These are old homes from the mill days with 45’ lots almost all the way up the street. He did not expect to need a variance because of his neighbor’s pool.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if they chose to go with a 16’ x 32’ pool, how does that affect the coverage. Chairman Yarum stated they are looking for 648 square feet in addition to what they have. In order to meet the twenty percent, they cannot exceed 325 square feet. So they could do a 16’ x 20’ pool, a 14’ x 23’ or 12’ x 27’. Mr. Lundie stated they do not make standard pools that size.

Mr. Lundie stated he removed his above ground pool in July and spent most of the summer with no pool. Mrs. Lundie stated they had three contractors come to their house and the question was asked if they could obtain the permit and they all stated yes.

Mr. Rinaldi asked about the adjoining properties. Mr. Lundie stated 18 Cedar Street has the in-ground pool. 14 Cedar Street has an above ground 24’ pool in the back yard with a deck and a spa built into it. The latter property has a privacy fence enclosing the yard. Mr. Lundie showed the properties on a map. 14 Cedar Street sits sideways on the street.

Mr. Lundie further noted that 18 Cedar Street shares a driveway with 20 Cedar Street.

Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that Cedar Street is known for the worker housing which was built on smaller lots.

Mr. Rinaldi submitted the map provided for the record.

Chairman Yarum asked for input from the audience.

Russell Miller from Juliano Pools, the contractor for the proposed pool, stated the proposed size of 18’ x 36’ is a moderate sized pool and he felt it would be proper for this lot. He stated the Lundie’s would like to go forward with this pool and his company would like to assist in the installation. Following a question from Chairman Yarum, Mr. Miller described the pool. It would have a galvanized steel wall with a vinyl liner. It is delivered in a box truck with steel panels that are bolted together. The procedure is they dig the hole for the pool, install the walls with a concrete collar around it and aprons that are held into the concrete. They then do the bottom and the liner. The bottom is almost a concrete but is more of a porous material that allows water to pass through it if there is a leak or if there is ground water. At Chairman Yarum’s request, Mr. Miller discussed smaller pools which are custom made and not rectangular.

Gary Ray, 20 Cedar Street, stated he shares a driveway with 18 Cedar Street. He sees no reason why the Lundie’s shouldn’t be able to have the pool especially since their neighbor already has one. He further noted that the proposed pool is a little smaller than the existing pool at 18 Cedar Street.

Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.

Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a lot coverage variance of approximately 5.2% (25.2% proposed, 17.7% existing, 20% maximum allowed) to construct an 18' x 36' in-ground pool - EZO Section 4.10.2H.

Reference is made to a hand-drawn, scaled site plan titled "16 Cedar St.", showing existing and proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and stamped "RECEIVED - AUG 27, 2004 - PLANNING OFFICE, ENFIELD, CT", and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-09-01.

Mr. Furey noted there are many odd lots in the town that have been in existence for many years and when people buy them they are constrained by the shape or location of the lots. He thought this was an appropriate use and is similar to what others have in the neighborhood. The homeowner is increasing the tax base by improving his property. Mr. Furey discussed the many odd shaped lots in the town and reiterated this is an appropriate use for the property.

Mr. LeDoux stated the above ground pool was in existence for several years and the proposed in-ground pool would replace it. The proposed pool would also be in continuity with the neighbor’s. Mr. Thorogood added the overall purpose is not being changed.

Mr. Rinaldi agreed that the existing pool makes an argument for the proposed pool. Looking at the property by itself, only this lot and 18 Cedar Street seem to be the narrower lots with the other properties much bigger. This property, therefore, does have uniqueness compared to the surrounding properties.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Mr. Thorogood voting.

The reason for approval is the installation of a pool is appropriate to the existing lots in the neighborhood. There was a pre-existing condition of a pool located on this property. There is a unique geometry to the lot compared to similar properties in the area.

ZBA 2004-09-02 - Lori Longhi, Applicant / John J. Sheehan, Owner, vacant lot on Post Rd. AKA 23B Post Rd., Map 54 / Lot 53, R33 Zone, requesting a frontage variance of 46' 7" to allow a building lot - EZO Section 4.10 TABLE.

Lori Longhi, 1427 Enfield Street, appeared before the Board representing John Sheehan, the owner of the property on Post Road. She noted the property was sold to John and Agnes Sheehan on August 13, 1971. She added the Board has previously received a map dated December 1, 1959 showing the lot was a single lot.

Ms. Longhi stated on May 26, 1972, the Sheehan’s hired John Connolly, Jr., a very well known surveyor, to survey the lot and create two parcels, Lot A and Lot B. A map of this was also supplied to the Board. Reference is made to the zoning at the top of the map stating “existing garage to be removed to conform to zoning regulations prior to constructing on Parcel B.” The property was zoned R-17 at the time and a map presented to the Board verifies that zone.

Ms. Longhi stated the Connolly survey was an A-2 stamped survey and John Connolly filed it at the Town Clerk’s Office. John Sheehan removed the garage that was encroaching on Parcel B. The Town Clerk’s office also sent the Sheehan’s two separate tax bills for the two parcels from that point of the filing and for the next thirty-two years.

Ms. Longhi stated the Town of Enfield had the Sheehan’s pay to hook up the lot to sewers and water on Parcel B. On August 15, 1975, Agnes, John Sheehan’s wife, quit claimed her share of the property to her husband. On July 26, 1990, John Sheehan sold Parcel A to his daughter, Carolyn. John is told that Carolyn can’t get a mortgage until the property is resurveyed to show that the encroachment of the garage has been removed. On July 10, 1990, John Sheehan rehired John Connolly, Jr. to resurvey the property to show the encroachment of the garage had been removed and the house setback on Lot A was nonconforming but prior to the requirements of zoning. Mr. Connolly also notes the zone had been changed from R-17 to R-33 because in that time period, there was a change of zone. He also adds the comment that he certifies the map is substantially correct and that the zoning ordinances of the Town of Enfield have not been violated. He references the early filing of the map and he also stamps this map as an A-2 survey.

Ms. Longhi stated there would be no reason why John Sheehan would ever question the validity of this information. He paid a professional to do it. On April 17, 2003, Carolyn sold Parcel A to her brother, John P. Sheehan. Her brother, John P. Sheehan, sold Parcel A to Michael Mota in April, 2004. Ms. Longhi stated three separate title searches have been done on Parcel A and not one of them found any problem with the lot split.

Ms. Longhi also enclosed in the information to the Board the Assessor’s Map of the surrounding property since these lots were all part of an open space subdivision with a minimum frontage of 90’. The map shows that the property is still in keeping with the neighborhood. The Sheehan’s lot is actually larger than most of the lots in that neighborhood.

Ms. Longhi stated the hardship for John Sheehan is complex. The Sheehan’s hired a professional to split the lots. They did not just do this on their own and file a map. They paid a professional to read the regulations and to do the split. No person would ever question the work product that was stamped an A-2 survey which is certifying it is accurate. Ms. Longhi verified the accuracy of these A-2 surveys and noted such surveys are used in court proceedings. Therefore, why would John Sheehan ever question the accuracy of these maps?

Ms. Longhi stated the Sheehan’s received a separate tax bill for Parcel B from the point of the filing from the Town of Enfield assessing Parcel B as a lot. They received such a tax bill for the next thirty-two years. This was further documentation that the lot split had been done and filed properly in 1972.

Ms. Longhi stated years later the Town of Enfield came through with sewers and John Sheehan was told that they had to pay to hook up to the sewers and to have the sewer lateral put into the lot because this was considered a lot listed as Parcel B. John Sheehan connected to the sewers and water at this time.

Ms. Longhi stated now, thirty-two years later, the Sheehan’s are told when the lot was formed, it did not meet the frontage requirements of the R-17 zone which was 110’. It was oversized but fell short of the frontage.

Ms. Longhi stated Mr. Sheehan is very elderly and recently had periods of ill health. He just cannot understand how this could have happened. He paid a professional and was provided with a stamped A-2 survey. It was filed properly. Mr. Sheehan cannot understand why the Town of Enfield would make him pay for taxes for the lot, make him pay for the hookup to the sewers and now tell him it is not a lot. Ms. Longhi stated the surveyor has since passed away and Mr. Sheehan requested that Ms. Longhi assist him in resolving this matter.

Ms. Longhi stated she reviewed Mr. Sheehan’s map and information and requested a building permit. The building permit was denied based on the frontage requirement that it was short six feet, seven inches back in 1972 when the lot was split.

Ms. Longhi stated her original application to this Board was to request a variance of six feet, seven inches but it was changed to forty-six feet, seven inches because she was told since the zone was now R-33, the frontage requirement was increased to 150’. She was told she needed to request a variance based on today’s standards. Since all of the homes in the area were in an open space subdivision requiring a minimum of ninety feet frontage, Ms. Longhi stated they are not asking for something that is different from the existing neighborhood. She presented an Assessor’s Map of the entire neighborhood for the Board’s review.

Ms. Longhi stated she did have one unanswered question. Why would John Connolly, Jr., a surveyor that worked for the State of Connecticut, make specific zoning comments on both maps and stamp them an A-2 survey if the lots did not meet the zoning requirements. Since John Connolly had passed away and no one at the Town could answer the questions, Ms. Longhi researched this matter in the Town Hall vault and found the answer.

Ms. Longhi entered into the record a packet she will refer to as “Exhibit A” and she distributed a copy to each Board member.

Ms. Longhi stated as shown in the yellow tab of this handout, under Section 3.5 of the 1966 zoning regulations, it states “a lot under separate ownership may be divided into not more than three lots if each of the resulting lots has an area width not less than eighty percent of the area and width required for the district in which it is located.”

Ms. Longhi stated the district was R-17 with the width 110’ and a minimum of eighty percent is 88’ for such a lot. Mr. Sheehan had 103.30’. Ms. Longhi stated the parcel was already oversized. It was 19,000 square feet and Mr. Sheehan only needed 17,000 square feet.

Ms. Longhi checked the zoning regulations for all the years and she enclosed the 1975 regulations and the 1966 regulations. She further noted that the 1966 regulations were in effect until 1975 and Mr. Sheehan did the original lot split in 1972.

Ms. Longhi also checked the subdivision regulations for those years because zoning approval was not required unless the lot split was three or more lots as per Section 10-1.

Ms. Longhi stated the Sheehan’s have been put under tremendous hardship and stress by the Town telling them that they had done something improper. Along with the fact that they hired a professional, they paid taxes on a separate lot for thirty-two years, and the Town required them the extra burden of sewer fees and a water hookup, Ms. Longhi has now provided the Board with the documentation. It shows the lot split was done properly under the zoning regulations of 1972.

Ms. Longhi requested that the Board grant the frontage variance needed on Parcel B to meet the zoning requirements of today.

Chairman Yarum asked for questions from the Board.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if the Town charges for utilities on non-buildable lots and are they taxed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Assessor’s Office does not create tax information on anything other than what they have information on in their system. If a lot is being taxed incorrectly, by state law, it is the property owner’s responsibility to call it to the attention of the Assessor’s Office. Mr. Alsbaugh questioned if this issue is relevant. He suspects that if the Board decides Ms. Longhi is correct, that the issue of the variance is moot and this Board will not be voting for a variance.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is not the Zoning Enforcement Officer and he does not research old regulations on a regular basis. He suggested the Board has a few options. They can look at the information submitted and make a decision about whether there is sufficient information to make a complete decision or the Board can request further clarification and table action tonight.

Ms. Longhi stated the Sheehan’s, she feels, have been under tremendous stress from when this began in the spring. Mr. Sheehan cannot sleep at night and wants this to be over. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is not making a decision but is giving the Board options. Ms. Longhi would like to have the Board vote on this variance so that it would be over for the Sheehan’s. She asked if the Board decides that a variance is not needed and it goes back to the Town, will the Sheehan’s be subjected to a long process again. She is concerned that this is affecting their health and it is of great concern to them.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated making a decision now or later is not related to the stress the Sheehan’s have been under but it is a function of whether or not the Board feels that they have the proper amount of information to make a decision.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if when a lot is split, does the town have any kind of record of whether or not the newly created lots are building lots or non-building lots. Mr. Alsbaugh stated with this matter, a subdivision was not required so there is no filing. This would be when the town would make a determination it was a building lot.

Mr. Furey stated the Sheehan’s had to pay for the sewers for both of the lots and he asked if this would recognize that they were both building lots.

Ms. Longhi stated Mr. Sheehan does not live on that street. The Town found him and told him that he had to hook up to the sewer lateral because it was listed on the town records as a lot and he had been paying taxes on it as a lot. Mr. Alsbaugh stated mistakes can be made by statements made by the Assessor’s Office or Water Pollution Control. He stated the issue here is whether or not the lot was created legally. It seems from the information submitted that it was created legally.

Ms. Longhi stated part of the requirement was to bring proof that she contacted the water company. She verified that she did do that.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is up to the Board to decide whether or not they have enough information to decide whether a variance is even necessary.

Mr. Thorogood brought up the zone change. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the zone change happened after all of this occurred. The lots were divided in 1972.

Ms. Longhi stated the zone did not change until the 1980’s but when Mr. Sheehan went back in the 1990’s to do the second survey, John Connolly, Jr. realized that the zone had changed from when the original lots were split and he needed to put a notation on his other survey. For ten years the zone was R-17 and it was then changed to R-33.

Mr. Rinaldi asked when this lot, split in 1972, was purchased. Ms. Longhi stated the Sheehan’s purchased this property in 1971.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the regulation in effect at the time of the split was the two lots and the eighty percent. Ms. Longhi confirmed that to be the case.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated it seems that the regulations allowed this lot split to be done without a subdivision and with the criteria set forth in the regulations of the eighty percent of the standard.

Mr. Rinaldi stated when it was split, would that split have been allowed if it made one of those properties nonconforming. He noted the shed was required to be removed to comply with the eighty percent. Ms. Longhi stated that is why the shed was moved right away. The matter did not resurface until Mr. Sheehan sold the other parcel to his daughter and they went to the Town Clerk’s Office to look at the maps and they saw a shed encroaching on the property. That is when John Connolly, Jr. was hired for the second time.

Mr. Rinaldi noted Parcels A and B are very similar. Ms. Longhi stated one had a house and one did not.

Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public.

John Sheehan, 42 Loomis Avenue, Windsor, stated he was the homeowner for a short time at 23 Post Road. He purchased the property from his younger sister who was having difficulty at the time with some tenants. Mr. Sheehan stated his father is a senior citizen but he is not in ill health. This is not keeping him from sleeping at night. Mr. Sheehan stated he lived with his father for twenty years and during the time that he purchased the property, he, himself, was considering building a home on the property. That never happened. Regarding the city water and city sewers, that was his father’s choice to do. The Town never told him that was required to be done. Mr. Sheehan stated approximately a year ago, September 2, 2003, he came to the town with the desire to build a new home on the lot. He did not own the lot at the time. He owned the home. He was told by the Town of Enfield that the property did not qualify under the R-33 zone and did not have enough frontage. Mr. Sheehan stated upon his initial visit to the Town Hall, he was given a shuffle and ultimately set up a meeting with Jose Giner on September 2. He came to the Town Hall prior to that meeting to discuss the property’s possibilities since he was told by his father for thirty plus years that it was a buildable property. Mr. Sheehan stated when the day of the meeting with Mr. Giner arrived, Mr. Giner was not available and he was referred to Neil Angus. The plans for building a house were discussed in detail. Mr. Angus later met with Mr. Giner and informed Mr. Sheehan by phone that the property does not qualify under an R-33 zone and that it did not qualify under the R-17 regulations when it was subdivided.

Mr. Sheehan stated his reaction was he was taken aback. However, he was never told there was such a thing as the Zoning Board of Appeals and he was never directed to anyone else. Following that, he decided that the property in Enfield was not where he wanted to be and he sold the property at 23 Post Road. Mr. Sheehan stated he had hoped to build a new home there and rent the property at 23 Post Road.

Mr. Sheehan stated during the time he was preparing to sell the home, his father called an attorney in town and asked what he could do with this property. Mr. Sheehan stated the person before the Board tonight called her father and said let me offer you $20,000 for the property. If she can get it through Planning and Zoning, she will purchase it for $20,000 and she has six months to do that. Mr. Sheehan stated her six-month contract with his father expires on October 1, 2004. It was written up and signed on April 27, 2004.

Mr. Sheehan stated his father is very upset at this point in time that he ever signed this contract. He realizes it is a real estate contract. Mr. Sheehan stated he feels there are too many wrongs with this scenario and he strongly suggested that the Board table this application to the next meeting so that his father has an opportunity to either go forward with it or not go forward with it.

Mr. Sheehan stated his interest in coming before the Board tonight is to tell the Board he has as much of a hardship as the person before the Board tonight. He has nothing against the person that presented the application. While he finds some things wrong with some of the comments, he noted he wished his father had been here tonight to speak for himself. Mr. Sheehan does not feel he was treated fairly by the Town because they could have directed him to others for assistance. He suggested in fairness to everybody that if his father wants to sell a piece of property for $20,000 when in his opinion the value is much more, give him the opportunity to do that. Mr. Sheehan stated while Ms. Longhi knows more about the process, he doesn’t think it makes it any more fair and he is present tonight to let everyone know that.

Gary Tatro, owner of the adjoining property on the west side at 21 Post Road, stated his only objection is he does not see the need if it becomes a variance issue for a variance to be issued on new construction.

Chairman Yarum stated Ms. Longhi can act on behalf of the applicant as long as it is documented in the application. Mr. Tatro stated he objects aesthetically because the lot is small.

Mary LaPointe stated her father is John Sheehan. She is also present to oppose the change if there is a variance to be granted. She felt that the frontage should be at today’s standards in order to keep up the values of the homes in Enfield. She also commented on the remarks made about the health problems of her father. She confirmed there are no health problems. He is elderly but he is not losing sleep over this. Ms. LaPointe agreed with her brother that her father did request the sewers and water to be installed when the town went through because he owned 23 Post Road at that time.

Ms. LaPointe stated regarding the garage that was existing on the lot, that garage was only removed a couple of years ago. It was not taken down immediately and the foundation for the garage is still between those lots.

Ms. LaPointe requested that the Board table this variance application and do additional research. She stated as part of this request for additional information, she would have her parents come before this Board and discuss this property and what has occurred over the years.

John Sheehan added that when he was interested in building a home on the same property, it was for him to live in. The application before the Board tonight is strictly for personal gain. They are purchasing the property at what he thinks is under its value and they will build a home on it and sell it. There is no hardship on the applicant’s part. Mr. Sheehan stated if his father wants $20,000 for the property, he will give him $20,000 for it and he would not be at any loss at all. Mr. Sheehan added the reason they are trying to get this variance tonight is because the contract his father entered into expires on October 1, 2004. If it is not done by then, he has another opportunity to either extend that application or not. He would like his father to have this opportunity.

Attorney Thomas Tyler, 92 High Street, spoke in favor of this application. He was here tonight to observe the proceedings with an interest regarding this particular application. He was the lawyer that Mr. Sheehan initially called in February or March. He called with regard to this particular lot and he went into great detail in terms of the legality over what had happened with regard to it. From what Mr. Sheehan told Attorney Tyler, Attorney Tyler expressed the opinion to him that he should just get a building permit issued because it had striking similarities to a case he had done about twenty years ago involving the Estate of Ledger Starr against the Town of Enfield.

Attorney Tyler elaborated on this particular case which occurred in the late 1950’s. The Town of Enfield had approved a large subdivision Ledger Starr owned in the late 1950’s consisting of approximately 272 lots on Buckhorn. At the time, Ledger Starr built about thirty of those homes and then went into other subdivisions because there were no sewers in this area. The Town continued to assess and collect taxes on each of the remaining two hundred and forty plus building lots for the next twenty plus years. After Ledger Starr passed away, the Town came in and ran a sewer line down the paper streets of the subdivision which irrevocably then committed these lots to residential development. Attorney Tyler stated they then filed suit against the town. The Town at the time as a defense for putting in the sewer line said you actually have a subdivision because we’ve been assessing you and collecting taxes as individual building lots and it is now serviceable by sewers. They agreed and stipulated to a judgment on that basis in approximately 1978. Several years later the Town changed the zone from R-17 to R-33 in an attempt to make the lots unbuildable. This prompted their lawsuit which they won and all the homes were able to be built.

Attorney Tyler stated because there were individual lots that had been assessed a tax for many years and the sewer line was there, these were persuasive to the judge in that case. Attorney Tyler stated regarding this application, he does not know about the health of Mr. Sheehan. He does recall the conversation was that he was frustrated with what had transpired in the Town and was looking to have Attorney Tyler bring the matter to Planning and Zoning or the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Tyler told Mr. Sheehan that he really didn’t need a lawyer for this and he recommended Lori Longhi to him. This was the extent of Attorney Tyler’s involvement in terms of any dealings that they had. He does not represent Mr. Sheehan because he did not charge him. He also does not represent Lori Longhi because she doesn’t really need a lawyer. Attorney Tyler thought he was putting together two people who could put their deal together on their own without a realtor. With regard to the issues that Mr. Alsbaugh brought up regarding whether Ms. Longhi should even be here, Mr. Sheehan must want the variance because he signed this application. Attorney Tyler doesn’t see anything else that states anyone else can speak for him this evening. He respects the right of two of his children for whatever reason to be trying to argue that his variance should be denied and does not understand their rationale for doing so.

Attorney Tyler stated with regard to Mr. Alsbaugh’s comment that there is a permit that should just be issued, then they don’t belong here. He suggested that should have been resolved by the Town staff before they were ever told that they needed a variance. Attorney Tyler took what Lori Longhi was saying here this evening in terms of the taxes and the sewer to be in furtherance of the hardship argument. Mr. Sheehan has owned this property for all these years and he reasonably believed it is a building lot. The legal opinion he received from Attorney Tyler was that it is a building lot and he really doesn’t have to come here. But if the Town is requiring it, a lot of times it is simpler to just go along to get along instead of going through court action. Attorney Tyler stated this is how Lori Longhi gets Mr. Sheehan to this table this evening. She is authorized to speak for him in terms of the application he has made to this Board. Attorney Tyler stated Ms. Longhi has offered evidence regarding Mr. Sheehan’s hardship and the Board has an application before them for action. To table it on the basis of let’s find out if they should even be here is, in Attorney Tyler’s opinion, not part of what the Board would normally be doing. The applicant signed the application and it is before the Board. Attorney Tyler stated he is in favor of the Board approving it on the basis that people are coming before the Board with these types of problems that they have received advice upon that it will cost them to get it done through litigation. Attorney Tyler stated contrary to what a lot of people think, a lot of lawyers, including his firm, don’t encourage litigation and try to resolve matters by getting people to work together.

Attorney Tyler further spoke on behalf of Lori Longhi and noted when she is telling this Board that this is an approved lot or a lot or record for taxes, she also is a licensed real estate appraiser in the State of Connecticut who is trained in determining value based upon whether it is a lot or not and the tax implications are important for that purpose.

Ms. Longhi stated she feels she must address the Board because she talked to the Sheehan’s two weeks ago when she was there putting up the sign on their property. She finds it disturbing that two children would come and speak against their parents to try to deny them the variance so that their lot would be rendered useless. As Mr. Sheehan’s son said, he tried to get it through and he could not. He did not have the resources. Ms. Longhi stated now that she is here presenting the application and trying to get it passed, it appears to her that the son has a vested interest and would like it and is trying to delay this action. Ms. Longhi stated on July 12, 2004 Mr. Sheehan signed the application for the building permit. She can only go forward based upon what the Sheehan’s have told her. She does not live with them but has gone to their home. They have expressed that this whole situation has bothered them. She did not know that there was a problem with the children. However, the Sheehan’s have authorized her to speak for them and not the children. She asked that the Board consider the possibility of a family problem.

At this time, the Board took a brief recess. They recessed at 8:41 p.m. and resumed the hearing at 8:45 p.m.

Mr. Rinaldi had a question for both Mr. Alsbaugh and Attorney Tyler. He asked if this Board looked at this as approved building lots, what would be the procedure. The owner would have to get a building permit and he questioned if the building permit would be denied if they thought there was a question as to whether or not this was a building lot.

Attorney Tyler stated Mr. Sheehan’s son described that he went to apply for a building permit. It goes through a chain of people reviewing it, including the Zoning Enforcement Officer, and it is his understanding that in this circumstance, the Zoning Enforcement Officer initially said that it does not meet the R-33 zoning requirements and, therefore, it is not a legal building lot. Under that premise, if an applicant continued to pursue the application, the application for a building permit would be denied and there is a period of time to file an appeal in Superior Court called a mandamus action seeking the court to order the building official to issue the permit. Attorney Tyler stated Mr. Sheehan’s son described his circumstances and it sounded like he was involved at some point with town staff discouraging him from proceeding with an application. Attorney Tyler stated it is his understanding that Ms. Longhi went to the Town, investigated pulling a building permit based upon the information available at the time and she was told that a permit would not be issued and she could go to seek either Planning and Zoning relief or Zoning Board of Appeals relief. She opted to seek Zoning Board of Appeals relief. After the application was filed in July, she discovered the previous zoning regulations which confirmed why Mr. Connolly signed the lot split map saying there were no zoning violations. Attorney Tyler stated he doesn’t believe Mr. Giner or the younger Mr. Sheehan had gone to that extreme of researching all the information. She had the information but they already had their application pending for a variance and that is why they are here tonight.

Attorney Tyler stated his experience regarding real estate expertise. He is a graduate of Holy Cross College and the University of Connecticut Law School. He has been a member of the bar since 1973. He used to be a trial lawyer and stopped about fifteen years ago. He has spent a lot of his career on real estate and real estate related matters. He has been used as an expert witness in superior courts in Connecticut. He has been used as an expert witness by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U. S. Department of Justice as late as last year with regard to real estate transactions and bank fraud. He has rendered legal opinions on matters under investigation by the FBI and he has awards and certifications in his office. Attorney Tyler stated he has also served as a lecturer in college and before various committees of the bar over the past thirty years.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he appreciates Attorney Tyler’s input. However, Attorney Tyler is not the Board’s legal representation. The Board’s legal representation comes from two sources. For a legal interpretation of the regulations, the Board can depend on the Zoning Enforcement Officer or the Town Attorney. Mr. Rinaldi stated he was not asking for advice but only experience with this type of procedure.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the administrative procedure is not quite what was represented. The building permit was denied based on the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s decision that it did not meet the regulations. The administrative procedure available to an applicant is the appeal of the decision or a variance. An appeal was not requested and the variance was brought forward. Mr. Alsbaugh stated his previous comments referenced information submitted by the applicant and, specifically, that because of the regulations that were in effect at the time, Ms. Longhi stated the lot was legally divided. If that is the case and she is representing that the lot was divided legally, Mr. Alsbaugh was pointing out to the Board that they had new information brought before them. The Board can make a decision tonight if they feel they have enough information and are clear about the regulations that were presented tonight. However, if the Board feels they don’t have enough information or they do not understand the regulations that Ms. Longhi submitted tonight, the Board has an option to table the issue until they receive input from the Town Attorney.

Mr. Rinaldi stated Attorney Tyler’s last statement was very helpful because the Zoning Enforcement Officer was mentioned and that is relevant to how this got before the Board tonight. This is what he was trying to understand.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is not an issue of how it got here tonight. Questions are brought to staff about whether a specific situation is legal or if it is a building lot. In this instance, the issue came to staff on more than one occasion. The first occasion was by Mr. Sheehan’s son. Whether or not the Zoning Enforcement Officer advises that legally under state law he has an option to appeal or to seek a variance, Mr. Alsbaugh cannot address. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is not sure that this is a requirement but it is polite to tell someone that they have legal avenues open to them. If the information level on a piece of property is not brought to staff giving them the full picture, they are not required by law to do a title search. They are required to review the information brought to them. The information is a title search issue and whether or not it is a buildable lot. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they are not insured to do title search and town staff will look into a situation up to a certain point. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the issue here is that the administrative pathway available to the current applicant was to file an appeal of the ZEO's decision, or to apply for a variance. They chose to file for a variance. New testimony was submitted this evening stating that the lot was divided legally. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the main issue for the Board to decide now is whether or not that information is accurate.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can decide that tonight or table the application and request a clarification from the Town Attorney.

Mr. Thorogood added the Board could vote on the variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the Board feels the information submitted by Ms. Longhi is incorrect, they can vote tonight. But he believes Ms. Longhi has submitted information that she feels clearly states that the lot was divided legally.

Mr. Rinaldi asked if the information that the Zoning Enforcement Officer gave is considered the official ruling where an appeal could have been made.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated if a building permit is denied on the basis of the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s decision that it doesn’t comply with the regulations, the next step is to either appeal the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s decision or a variance or both. Both can be done but the appeal has to be heard first.

Ms. Longhi stated she did apply for a building permit and it was denied based upon the zoning regulations in effect at the time. She submitted her application to the Board. Chairman Yarum noted receipt of a July 26, 2004 letter from the Town of Enfield Building Department to J&L Builders that the building permit that they applied for was denied by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Chairman Yarum requested a motion to extend tonight’s time frame. Mr LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 p.m. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Mr. Thorogood voting.

Chairman Yarum asked for any other comment regarding this application.

Mr. Sheehan stated his interest in being here tonight is also on behalf of his father. He understands that he did sign legal documentation but he stated Board members have to know his father to understand why he did this. If he had a choice of ripping up the contract between Ms. Longhi and himself, he would do so at this time. He does not feel that that is something that he has the ability to do and Mr. Sheehan understands that he does have that option not to go through with the sale of the property whether it is approved here tonight or not approved. He would stress to the Board that his father should be given that option and the reasons that he entered into this contract are because of the same reasons Mr. Sheehan, Jr. was given by the town - the town was not going to allow building on this property. His father was thinking that the value of the property was next to nothing and he stated that repeatedly. He entered into this contract to sell the property for $20,000 when Mr. Sheehan, Jr. and everyone he has talked to feels that the value of the property is greater than that. Mr. Sheehan has paid taxes on a piece of property assessed at $27,000 so why sell it for less than that. Mr. Sheehan, Jr. added the real estate market today is far greater than that and anyone as educated as the applicant’s representative should know the value of the property. Mr. Sheehan, Jr. feels that’s why it is being pursued and he urged the Board to give his father to choice to either go ahead and do it or not go ahead and do it. Mr. Sheehan, Jr. stated that he feels given a second opportunity, his father would probably not go through with it.

Mary LaPointe urged the Board to speak to the Town Attorney and get an opinion from him regarding the lot and if it is actually two lots. Her mother told her when she went to the attorney years ago and had the lots divided, it was not divided on paper but it was divided on title. There was no title to the property for separate lots but it was divided there and when they needed a deed, they would have to come and apply for another deed. She asked that the Board research this more with the Town Attorney and determine exactly what is going on.

Ms. Longhi confirmed that the lots were divided by the map. She is amazed that this lot was basically deemed valueless to the family. Mr. Sheehan wanted her to bring this application forward. She incurred all of the expenses of the engineer, she had a house designed for the lot, she brought forth the building permit and paid all the fees. She has a check made out to the Town of Enfield for $1,000 for the building permit with the idea that she would be getting the lot through for the Sheehan’s. Ms. Longhi stated she did the exact same thing for another customer in this town approximately a year ago and paid less for the lot. Because of the time, the expense and all of the zoning meetings she had to attend for the merging and unmerging, there was a cost incurred. The Sheehan’s were told they could not do it. Mr. Sheehan Jr. was told he could not do it. Ms. Longhi stated she researched the information and brought it forth, was denied and followed the procedure. She is here tonight and she thinks the Board has to take the family issue out of this. She is not involved in the family and the Board is not involved. The Sheehan’s are the ones that have the problem within the family. She personally would not want to do anything to her parents that would deny them this opportunity to sell the lot for financial compensation when they, in fact, said it was useless and all that they were doing is paying taxes on it. Ms. Longhi stated they are here for the variance and have followed all the procedures properly. The house has been sold three times and there were three different title searches and they are separate parcels. She has done extensive research on this parcel and is here representing the Sheehan’s. It is in their best interests that she is before this Board.

Chairman Yarum asked for informational purposes about the procedure if the Board decided to table this application until the next meeting but wanted information from the owners and, therefore, wanted to keep the public hearing open. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the procedure would be to continue the hearing to the next meeting. Chairman Yarum asked for a motion to table this application until next month’s meeting.

Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to table this to the next meeting until some of the issues are resolved and the Board receives an opinion from the Town Attorney. Mr. Furey noted any contracts they have could be extended by the Sheehan’s and such action would not impinge on what is already going on if the Sheehan’s chose to do that. Mr. Furey stated he sees no problem tabling this for further clarification.

Mr. Thorogood stated he is looking at a rejection from the Town and the younger Mr. Sheehan’s issue. He also is looking at why the building lot was rejected, R-33, and why everybody is being told that nothing can be done to it – R-33. The hardship is taxes have been paid over several years. Mr. Thorogood feels the Board will be in the same position at the next meeting because it was rejected because it does not meet the current R-33.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is not his recommendation to table this and get input from the Town Attorney. The recommendation is an option and it is up to Mr. Alsbaugh to clearly explain the options for the Board.

Chairman Yarum stated his question is if the Board were to pursue that option, what is the procedure.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the issue goes beyond R-33. The Zoning Enforcement Officer’s research, as he interprets the situation, was that the lot was divided with frontage that did not meet the requirements in place at the time of division. It was assumed they would meet the requirements because it was the same as all the ones around them that met the open space subdivision. The issue was that this lot was not eligible for an open space subdivision and the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s interpretation of the information brought to him was that it was incorrect and the lot frontage was supposed to be 110’. Mr. Alsbaugh stated up to a certain point that is correct but Ms. Longhi has submitted information tonight that she suggests because of the eighty percent rule in the regulations in effect at the time, it goes beyond the 110’ frontage requirement and proves that the lots were divided legally. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the applicant seems to be inferring that the lots were developed legally. The Board needs to decide whether or not that information is correct. It is up to the Board whether they want to act tonight or request more information.

Mr. Rinaldi stated there is a lot of weight finding out that the Zoning Enforcement Officer was involved in this. If the Board assumes that these were two building lots and the ZEO has denied this, that is the reason the applicant is before the Board tonight. The applicant could either have gone for an appeal or for a variance.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are other scenarios. The applicant could have found the information she presented tonight at an earlier time. The Zoning Enforcement Officer could have found that information at an earlier time. He, however, is not required to do that kind of in depth research. He was reacting to information brought forward to him. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this was a decision made based upon information that was incomplete. It is now more complete with the submittal by the applicant of the pertinent information and that is what the Board needs to react to. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is being presented to the Board that a variance is not required. The Board needs to decide whether this is true.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can ask whomever they wish for an interpretation of the regulations brought forward to them. He assumed the Board would ask the Town Attorney and the Town Attorney may ask the Zoning Enforcement Officer for additional input. The point before the Board is whether they feel capable of making a decision tonight and if they do not, Mr. Alsbaugh provided the option of tabling this.

Mr. LeDoux stated he believes that Ms. Longhi provided pertinent information that this is a buildable lot but he would like the Board’s own legal opinion. He suggested continuing this hearing and requesting that legal opinion.

Mr. Rinaldi stated this could have gone through the appeal process and Ms. Longhi could also have asked for a variance if she believed that a variance was required. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if you are told the procedures that are legally available to you, that is one thing. The proper procedure if a permit is denied is to go for either an appeal or a variance and both can be done at the same time. Ms. Longhi made the choice to come for a variance. She had no reason to believe she had a reason for an appeal and it was only subsequent research that brought the information forward that she believes shows that a variance is not required.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked that the Board focus on whether or not they have sufficient information to make a decision tonight.

The motion to table this application to the October Regular Meeting was approved by a 3 – 2 – 0 vote. Chairman Yarum, Mr. Furey and Mr. LeDoux voted in favor; Mr. Rinaldi and Mr. Thorogood voted nay.

Chairman Yarum stated this public hearing will remain open until the October meeting. Chairman Yarum requested an interpretation from the Town Attorney regarding this application.

ZBA 2004-09-03 - Sophie H. Krzys, Applicant/Owner, 6 Dannunzio Ave., Map 26 / Lot 60, R-33 Zone, requesting a rear yard setback variance of 8 ft., 27 ft. proposed, 35 ft. required, to construct a deck - EZO Section 4.2.10H

Sophie Krzys appeared before the Board regarding this application. She is requesting a variance to allow a small deck behind her house. She has been told she doesn’t have sufficient land and a rear yard setback variance is required. Ms. Krzys stated there is an empty lot behind her home and no one will ever be there. She had a deck at one time but when she installed the siding, the deck was affected by termites and was removed.

Janet Tolento, 4 Dannunzio Avenue, stated she has been Sophie’s neighbor for thirteen years. She confirmed that when she first moved to this location, Ms. Krzys did have the deck on her home. She understands that procedures change but noted there is an empty lot that she abuts to the rear. Ms. Tolento’s home is to the right of Ms. Krzys’ home and she has a deck. The neighbor to Ms. Krzys’ left also has a deck. Ms. Tolento stated the back lot activity is the lawn is mowed and the leaves are raked. She also noted that Ms. Krzys’ family is growing and her favorite holiday is Easter and it would be nice if she would be able to extend her Easter dinner to the proposed deck.

Mr. Rinaldi asked about the size of the previous deck. Ms. Krzys stated 12’ x 10’ is what she is requesting and she thought the former deck was a little smaller. The previous deck was up approximately twenty years and was removed about ten years ago.

Chairman Yarum asked Ms. Tolento about her deck. She stated her deck was there when she purchased the home. The neighbor on the other side of the applicant also had the deck on the home when she bought the property. Ms. Tolento stated her own deck is approximately 20’ x 8’.

Ms. Krzys stated the reason the former deck was torn down was because of termite damage which caused structural damage to her home.

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

Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for a rear yard setback variance of 8 ft., 27 ft. proposed, 37' existing, 35 ft. required, to construct a deck - EZO Section 4.2.10H.

Reference is made to three site and zoning maps submitted by the applicant, and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-09-03.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Mr. Thorogood voting.

The reason for the approval is the deck replaces an existing deck which was torn down due to structural damage. The abutting properties also have consistent decks. A 10’ x 12’ deck is a minimally sized deck and not an outrageous size.

ZBA 2004-09-04 - Ly Khen, Applicant/Owner, 18 Bernardino Ave., Map 34 / Lot 88, R33 Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 5 ft., 5 ft. proposed, 10 ft. required, to construct a breezeway and garage addition, and a front yard setback variance of 5 ft., 30 ft. proposed, 35 ft. required, to construct a front porch - EZO Section 4.10.2H

Ly Khen, 18 Bernardino Avenue, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a two-car garage with a breezeway/ mud room similar to the drawing he submitted. Mr. Khen stated his home is located on a corner and this is the only location for the proposed new construction. It is proposed to be located five feet from the line. His neighbor has a driveway on that side and they do not have a problem with this variance request.

Mr. Khen stated the property does not conform to the new zoning. There are some homes on Manning Road that actually have a porch in the front and are closer to the road. He is also requesting a porch.

Mr. Rinaldi stated this is a corner lot and he asked which side the garage would be located. Mr. Khen stated Bouvier is on the chimney side and Bernardino is in the front of his home.

Mr. Alsbaugh noted that on the site plan submitted by Mr. Khen, he shows Bouvier on the opposite side. Mr. Khen confirmed that is the correct location of Bouvier. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is a side yard variance.

Chairman Yarum asked who owns the fence between Mr. Khen’s home and his neighbor’s. Mr. Khen stated that is his fence and it is located one foot in from his property line. Mr. Khen stated a portion of the neighbor’s driveway is on his property. He stated what occurred is 18 and 20 Bernardino was owned by Richard Copeland. His mother lived at 20 and he lived at 18. They installed the driveway and did not care where it was positioned because they were related. Chairman Yarum asked if there is an easement on record. Mr. Khen was unaware of such a document. He added that the pin is located right on the driveway.

Chairman Yarum asked what is the distance from Mr. Khen’s property line on the driveway to their home. Mr. Khen stated it is approximately 15’. Chairman Yarum stated if the neighbor ever wanted to add a garage, they would have to do so on the other side of their house. Mr. Khen stated they can’t because their lot is only 50’ x 100’. They also have an existing garage in the back of the house.

Mr. Thorogood stated the front yard is 30’ now without the porch. The request is to reduce this to 25’. Mr. Khen confirmed that to be the case. Mr. Khen stated he is only going as far as his step with the porch. The step extends out approximately 4’.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the distance away from the front of Mr. Khen’s house that the new porch and steps create is going to be the same amount or less than the existing steps. Mr. Khen stated it would be the same.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is personally aware of a recent decision by the Zoning Enforcement Officer to allow a large wrap around porch on Pearl Street based on the premise that it doesn’t extend any further than the existing stoop. The area of variance here would just be the steps. The Board would reduce the variance request from the full length of the porch to just the stairway beyond the porch.

Mr. Khen asked if it would be okay if he wanted to put stairs in the same depth as his porch. Presently there is only one step. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if it is beyond the distance of the existing stoop and steps, a variance would be needed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if Mr. Khen wanted to construct the porch as shown, he could not locate the stairs in their present location. He would have to rearrange where the stairs are located.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he was surprised about the porch request because this home is very close to the sidewalk but the permit was approved on Mr. Bickley’s premise that it was not going any further than the distance already set by the existing stairs.

Some discussion followed regarding the stairs. Chairman Yarum stated the existing stoop and stairs are out the 3’10” that Mr. Khen is proposing for the porch. Mr. Khen confirmed that. Chairman Yarum stated a variance is not needed for that. Mr. Khen stated he was unsure whether he needed one or not because his neighbor asked for a porch and was denied.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he sees an inconsistency in decisions that have been made and he is not comfortable with his prior statement.

Chairman Yarum stated if Mr. Khen has an existing condition, he is not really changing anything other than the length. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that has never been his interpretation and the general interpretation has been an expansion of a nonconformity is as undesirable as increasing. Mr. Bickley seems to be making an administrative interpretation contrary to the thought that it doesn’t matter if you expand it laterally as long as you don’t increase it forward. Mr. Alsbaugh is not certain that that thinking has been consistently applied. He reiterated that he is aware that the porch on Pearl Street was approved for that reason.

Mr. Rinaldi stated this Board specifies when a new variance is granted, it is just for that portion. He stated there was case law recently about a dock situation. He noted that any new variance that may be granted will not run the entire length of the property but just the portion where the variance is required. Mr. Khen understands that and he has discussed this with the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Mr. Rinaldi stated what this Board considers is the uniqueness of the property and the hardship. He asked the applicant if there is something special about his property to allow the granting of this variance. Mr. Khen discussed his need for a mud room and two-car garage. He is also planning to redo his kitchen. Regarding the two-car garage, he stated there are some homes down the street that do have two-car garages and he questioned why he can’t have one. Mr. Thorogood asked if the homes that have such garages are five feet off the property line. Mr. Khen stated he never measured the distances.

Mr. Rinaldi stated with a one-car garage, Mr. Khen would not need a variance. Some discussion regarding various measurements followed.

Mr. Rinaldi asked what the back yard is like. Mr. Khen stated it is flat.

Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. Since there was no public input, he closed this public hearing.

Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for a side yard setback variance of 4 ft., 6 ft. proposed, 10 ft. required to construct a breezeway and garage addition, and a front yard setback variance of 10 ft., 25 ft. proposed, 30 ft. existing, 35 ft. required to construct a porch and steps - EZO Section 4.2.10H.

Reference is made to a site plan drawn and submitted by the applicant, and to all other documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-09-04.

Mr. Furey stated corner lots have always presented unique situations. The addition of a two-car garage would conform to other properties in the area.

Chairman Yarum stated when he first saw this application, he pictured the intersecting road to be where the addition is going. Looking at it, he thought there was a five-foot setback from where the road would have been. He viewed the property and was relieved to see the intersecting road was on the other side. He also witnessed the neighbor’s driveway with two cars right up against the applicant’s fence. His concern was the abutting neighbor would never be able to add on or do anything to their property. However, he did not know the frontage of that property was 50’ and the applicant’s boundary line was in their pavement. Regarding the front porch, Chairman Yarum stated he has an existing condition with a stoop that is out the distance he is looking for and other porch requests have not been in this scenario.

Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern is a precedent may be set because now there is an addition of a mud room and a two-car garage five feet away from the property line. Chairman Yarum stated the addition would not be five feet away but seven feet. Mr. Alsbaugh requested that the proposed motion be modified by the Board and changed to a 4’ variance, 6’ proposed. Mr. Thorogood noted one foot of the property is located in the driveway pavement. Mr. Rinaldi stated there is five feet from this house to the fence and then from the fence to the edge of the pavement is another foot. Mr. Khen added it is probably over a foot from the pavement to the driveway and he asked for a change in the variance to 6’.

The motion was approved by a 4 – 1 – 0 vote with Mr. Thorogood voting. Mr. Rinaldi voted nay.

The variance was granted due to the uniqueness of this corner lot and the fact that the addition conforms to the area which has other existing properties of similar design.

OTHER BUSINESS

· Approval of 2005 meeting dates

Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the 2005 Meeting Dates. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Mr. Thorogood voting.

· Requests

Mr. Rinaldi requested that Mr. Alsbaugh investigate the purchase of ZBA workshop booklets. He also requested the status of the new application forms.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________

John LeDoux, Secretary

Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals

jmr