ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 29, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, September 29, 2003 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Edward Furey
John Rinaldi
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Planner
Chairman Peter Yarum explained to the audience that only four Board members are present this evening and the granting of a variance will take four affirmative votes. He noted that any applicant this evening may request that their application be tabled to the next Regular Meeting when five Board members will be present. Everyone chose to proceed this evening.
Chairman Yarum stated that Alternate Paul Thorogood will be voting as a Regular Member tonight.
Chairman Yarum apprised the public of the meeting procedure for tonight and when a variance can be granted. He added that all of the applications tonight have been advertised in the Journal Inquirer on September 16, and September 22, 2003.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 2003-09-01 – Carden Enterprises, Inc., 5 Palomba Drive, Map 57/Lot 320, BR Zone: Certificate of Approval, ownership change, General Repairer License – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C.
Denise Evans, 129 Haviland Street, Ludlow, Massachusetts, appeared before the Board and stated this request is for a change of ownership for the Midas Shop located at 5 Palomba Drive. With Ms. Evans was Carlos Cortinas, 38 Gatto Street, Ludlow, Massachusetts.
Chairman Yarum stated in the staff comments it verifies that the 1979 approval was for a limited repairer’s license. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this was originally written as a limited repairer’s license because of the limited repair restrictions that were in the zoning regulations and those were recently removed. This application did go through the general repairers’ process and was signed by the Board.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the applicant is requesting a Certificate of Suitability. He asked if this site was a previously approved dealership. Mr. Cortinas stated it has been a Midas shop for the last twenty years. Ms. Evans stated there is a dealership right next door to Midas and the entire property is owned by Balise.
Chairman Yarum asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak in favor or against this application. There was no public input. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request to grant a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54 & EZO Section 11.00C, for the operation of a General Repairer’s license, under the applicant’s ownership [site lease-hold]. Said operation is to be at the described location [5 Palomba Drive] and as delineated on the two site plan sheets submitted with application ZBA # 2009-09-01. Said plan sheets are titled “ZBA2003-09-01, Sheet 1 of 2” (which shows all current multiple uses on the parent lot) & “ZBA2003-09-01, Sheet 2 of 2" (which shows the original and present lease hold area for this operation).
Mr. Thorogood stated he is in favor of this Certificate of Suitability because it is staying within the same guidelines with no significant changes to the licenses.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is there will be no significant licensing changes and it would be the same type of operation.
ZBA 2003-09-02 – Joseph LaCroix, 117 Hazard Avenue, Map 65/Lot 68, BP Zone: Front yard variance of 33 feet, 47 feet proposed, 51.66 existing, 80 feet required, to build a weatherized entrance to Guido’s Restaurant. – EZO Section 5.10 Table.
Suzanne Lewis, 30 Old Farms Lane, West Suffield, Connecticut appeared before the Board representing her father. What they would like to do is construct a vestibule in order to provide some weather protection to the front of the building. This is being requested in order to conserve energy during the winter and summer months and also to provide protection for the patrons that enter and exit the building.
Mr. Thorogood asked if there will be a front door on the enclosure. Ms. Lewis stated it is her understanding that they are planning to build an enclosure of wood and plexiglass with a roof covering. It would be two-sided coming off the front door. As you enter, there is not a door but you would enter under the enclosure and then go into the existing front door.
Mr. Rinaldi asked how far this structure will protrude toward the street. Ms. Lewis stated the structure itself will be 4’ x 8’ coming off the building, approximately 8’ in front of the building and 47’ from Route 190.
Mr. Furey asked if this enclosure will eliminate some existing parking. Ms. Lewis stated it will not because there is a walkway there now. It would be protection over the existing concrete walkway.
Mr. Thorogood stated the door is located to the left hand side of the restaurant and the wind goes through. Ms. Lewis stated when you open the door, depending upon what time of year it is and the way the winds are blowing, you can get a good gust of wind in and out. Mr. Thorogood asked if it is a safety issue. Ms. Lewis stated she is unaware of anyone being injured by the door in a windy situation.
Chairman Yarum asked about the conservation of energy in the summer. Ms. Lewis stated it would provide some protection or a barrier. Chairman Yarum asked if the applicant is more concerned with heating rather than cooling and she stated that was the case. Chairman Yarum questioned how a two-sided structure would keep cold air out. Ms. Lewis stated when you open and close the main entrance going into the building, there would be a barrier there so that the wind is not blowing in and out of the doorway.
Chairman Yarum noted from the diagram, it indicates the enclosure is to be constructed on the existing walkway. He asked how would patrons coming from the west side access the door. Ms. Lewis stated they would have to walk around the front of it. Chairman Yarum stated they would have two choices. They would have to walk around parked cars or walk into a parking area and then come back up on the sidewalk. Ms. Lewis stated she is not sure if there would still be a walkway.
Mr. Thorogood stated he doesn’t think there is parking directly in front of the door. Ms. Lewis stated that parking space is blocked off and is used as a queuing area for the waitresses.
Chairman Yarum asked that the applicant explain why this request for a variance is not a financial hardship since it appears the applicant wants to save energy and in doing so, save cost. Ms. Lewis stated the proposed enclosure is to provide a covering for the patrons that go in and out. There are also booths right inside the door and people sitting beyond the doorway may get a gust of cold air or heat depending upon the time of year. This would provide protection for those patrons at the restaurant.
Mr. Thorogood asked why this enclosure is a removable one. Ms. Lewis stated this was requested in case there was a need for the enclosure to be taken down at a later date.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for variance of 33 ft. of the front yard setback to 47 ft., 51.66 existing, 80 ft. required, to construct a weather protective entrance over the front door of the structure - EZO Sect. 5.10 Table.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "#117, Existing Building (RESTAURANT), RECEIVED - PLANNING OFFICE, AUGUST 25, 2003", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-09-02.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the concern is protecting this business from the elements. He personally had a problem with the design and he asked if it would be approved by other departments. He noted it would seem to block the sidewalk from one side of the building. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this would have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and granting this variance would allow this applicant to proceed to Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if this variance is granted, can there be an addition on the building in the future to where the front line moved. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board is approving an addition that has the capability of being removed at will. The Board is also defining the extent and area where the variance is being granted. Mr. Alsbaugh added in the five years he has been here, the Board has been completely explicit that what is being requested is specific. Applicants are told they need to inform town staff of the precise measurements and locations of what they are requesting because a variance is only issued for that specific location and not for the entire property line.
Mr. Furey felt the covering is being requested due to a safety issue. In the winter, a safety hazard is created in the immediate interior without such a covering outside the restaurant. Mr. Furey noted since the Board referenced it as a structure that can be removed as conditions might warrant, it could be removed in hurricane or other inclement weather conditions. Such a covering would block some of the wintry blasts and the wind from the restaurant’s patrons.
Chairman Yarum commented that by the applicant’s own admission, they are looking to conserve energy which is conserving dollars. He believes the request is due to a financial consideration.
Mr. Furey stated safety was also a consideration and he did not feel the addition of this covering will save any money. He added that the applicant’s representative may not have explained it as thoroughly as the applicant would have. Mr. Rinaldi also did not feel the purpose was solely financial.
The motion was denied by a 3 – 1 – 0 vote. Board members Ted Furey, John Rinaldi and Paul Thorogood voted in favor; Chairman Yarum voted nay.
ZBA 2003-09-03 – Costco Wholesale Corporation, 130 Elm Street, Map 57/Lot 346, BR Zone: Request for Certificate of Location Approval for new fueling station – CGS Section 14-321 and EZO Sections 5.30.2C and 11.00C.
Attorney Susan Hays, Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, 1 State Street, Hartford, Connecticut appeared before the Board on behalf of Costco Wholesale Corporation seeking a Certificate of Suitability for a gasoline station. They were before the Board previously seeking other variances and most of the Board members are familiar with the site. They are proposing to demolish the Levitz Furniture warehouse facility and replace it with a 140,000 square foot Costco wholesale facility. Part of that facility will be a gasoline station that will be located in the front parking area of Costco facing Freshwater Boulevard.
Attorney Hays stated the statutes require that prior to getting a permit from the State to operate a gasoline station, they require a Certificate of Suitability with respect to the location from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The property is zoned Business Regional, is a planned development and one gasoline station is permitted within a planned development. The distance limitations that apply to the location of gasoline stations do not apply to the types of facilities located within a Business Regional Zone.
Attorney Hays stated they have obtained their Inland Wetlands approval, the variance from this Board, Planning and Zoning Commission approval, and their State Traffic Certificate. This is the final approval they are requesting prior to commencing construction.
Attorney Hays stated Rusty Collins and Leslie Cohen from Costco are present this evening should the Board have any questions.
Chairman Yarum stated even though this proposed Costco wholesale facility is located in a Business Regional Zone, under Connecticut General Statutes, the applicant has to identify what they have done in regard to proximity to schools, places of public gathering, playhouses, etc. Attorney Hays stated the only two places in close proximity to this site would be the Westfield Shopping Town movie theaters which are across the street and the Apple Tree Learning Center. The theaters are part of a larger shopping center and the entire site will be controlled under the State Traffic Commission. The intersection in this area, which will be the primary entrance to Costco, will now be signalized. There should not be any off-site traffic issues or conflict issues. Regarding the Apple Tree Learning Center on Elm Street, the traffic issue should not be an issue. This center is so far away that if there is any issue with respect to the gasoline aspect of it, they can discuss all the various safety measures that will be installed to prevent the gasoline stored in the underground tanks from leaking from those tanks and getting into the ground. They also have safety measures in place so that if someone is filling up their car, there’s no opportunity for the gas to spill out because of the automatic shutoff. With the measures in place, there is very little risk with respect to any type of fire.
Attorney Hays stated the station will not have a facility like a convenience store. There will be a small building for the attendant who will be monitoring the gas pumps.
Chairman Yarum requested that the applicant identify the location of the attendant building on the site plan and Attorney Hays did so. Attorney Hays stated there will be no cash transactions and the payment of gas will be by debit or credit card. The function of the attendant is for safety purposes. The attendant is there to help people who may not be familiar with how the tanks work. Also, if there happens to be a spill, the attendant has all the measures to ensure that the cleanup is done. Should there be something more catastrophic, the attendant is there to hit the emergency buttons to stop the gasoline processing. Whenever the pumps are in operation, this attendant would be on the site.
Chairman Yarum asked if there were any concerns raised by traffic, police or fire. Attorney Hays stated any concerns that were raised by traffic or police were addressed through the STC process so that Lieutenant Boula, the Traffic Safety Officer, and the State Traffic Commission are satisfied both with the external traffic improvements and the internal layout of the site. The Fire Department had some concerns regarding landscaping and the location of signage and all those concerns have been addressed.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request to grant a Certificate of Location Approval for the operation of a new motor vehicle fueling facility under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-321 & EZO Section 11.00C. Said operation is to be at the described location [130 Elm Street, Stateline Plaza] and as delineated on the two site plan sheets submitted with the application ZBA # 2003-09-03. Said plan sheets are titled “PARKING & TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, STATELINE PLAZA, ENFIELD, CONNECTICUT, Carter & Burgess, SHEET C-4 (revised to 8/13/03) and SHEET C-4A (revised to 8/13/03)”.
Mr. Furey felt the presentation tonight addressed the fire and safety concerns for a gas station. He was glad to hear about the attendant being present for emergency purposes during the hours in which the fueling will take place. Also, there will be no cash transactions making it safer for the patrons since people will not be crossing a line of traffic to pay for gas.
Mr. Thorogood stated the Board’s major issue initially was traffic, parking and the loading and unloading of product. He felt the plans have addressed all the Board’s concerns.
Mr. Rinaldi added the State Traffic Commission is involved and it seems everything has been addressed.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are all safety and fire issues have been addressed and are in compliance with what is required.
ZBA 2003-09-04 – George A. Colli, 1 Katie Lane, Map 116/Lot 18, R-44 Zone: Rear yard variance of 5 feet, 55 feet proposed, 60 feet required, to construct new deck and permit existing hatchway. – EZO Section 4.10 Table.
Keith Colli appeared before the Board representing his father who could not be present this evening. He requested a variance of five feet on the back of a house on Katie Lane. The hardship they ran into was that the curve of the road resulted in the dimensions being off on the existing house. It requires a foot for the hatchway and then some footage for the proposed deck on the back of the house to allow reasonable access to the house from the deck area. Mr. Colli noted the lot is an irregular shaped lot and the home is on septic adding to the hardship to try to get an access to the back of the house.
Mr. Rinaldi asked how much the back is off. Mr. Colli stated they are requesting a variance of five feet. He estimated the exact difference is 4’ 6” from the building line in the back. When they drew the building line in relation to the curve in the road, it generated the need to come back for a variance. In response to an additional question, Mr. Colli stated the survey was done by an independent contractor.
Mr. Rinaldi noted the back property is owned by the State of Connecticut and he asked what type of land that is. Mr. Colli stated that is an open space parcel and part of the Scantic River watershed. The property attaches to a piece at the end of Katie Lane that is a pre-existing state-owned parcel.
Chairman Yarum stated on the as built dated June 14, 2002, it shows the front yard setback is 56’ with 50’ required so that they are 6’ deeper than they need to be. Chairman Yarum questioned why the hardship is the curve of the road. Mr. Colli stated after it is drawn with the irregular shaped lot, you come back to the far eastern corner and it brought the house too close to the rear yard. The curve in the road causes that building line to also curve. That is where the house came too close in the back corner. Mr. Colli pointed out on the rear 35’ site line how narrow it is to the right side of the map and how wide it is to the irregular lot. It goes from 132’ on one side of the lot to 240’ on the other side in order to get the appropriate zoning for this lot.
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of the approved foundation plan dated June 14, 2002. Dave Palmer, 210 Turnpike Road, Somers, Connecticut stated he is the builder for this project. He stated regarding the foundation plan, they had an inside perimeter drain put around the inside of the foundation and that may be the plan for that.
Chairman Yarum stated the proposed foundation plan shows the front yard setback is 51’ and it shows the rear hatchway to be within the 60’ rear setback requirement which shows the wood deck not to jut out the additional eight feet. This is a proposed approved plan.
Mr. Palmer stated that was the preliminary plan that they submit before building begins and it was approved. After that plan is submitted, the foundation is installed. Chairman Yarum asked why the foundation is not in the approved location and now located 55’ back. Mr. Palmer stated when they go in for approval for a building permit, they have to submit a blueprint, and a survey that shows the proposed location. When the guy comes out and is surveying it with tape measures, things move a little bit. It could be moved inches or a foot. What happened is it got moved a little bit. The plan before Chairman Yarum was the plan before the foundation was in the ground and Mr. Palmer acknowledged that you are not going to get a foundation in the exact location. That is why they require an as built. Mr. Palmer stated the reason for this is everything is done over dirt piles. He stated in comparing any preliminary approval and the final as built, there are probably not too many home sites that are exactly the same. He has built twenty-five houses in the last five years and none of them have been exact.
Chairman Yarum asked why the deck is now shown larger than what was originally proposed. Mr. Colli stated originally the deck proposed did not have stairs. You had to walk out the back door and you had to walk down steps and then walk up on to the deck again. They connected the deck back to the sliding door. Previously there was no access to the deck from the inside of the house. The inside of the house in this location would be a breakfast nook area.
Mr. Colli stated to get to the exact measurement and to provide the necessary area for the hatchway, with the curve in the road it caused them to request this-five foot variance. Because of the curve in the road and the irregular shape of the lot, the home could possibly have been positioned differently but this is an existing situation requiring the need for the variance.
Mr. Palmer stated has a copy of the original subdivision map showing all nine lots and it shows that with the irregular shape of this lot, there is no room for a house to move on it because of the septic system.
Chairman Yarum asked if that subdivision map is any different than what was previously submitted and Mr. Palmer stated it was not. Chairman Yarum stated the concern this Board has is only with this one particular lot.
Mr. Rinaldi asked regarding the land that is identified as owned by the State of Connecticut that is now open space, does the state own that now. Mr. Colli confirmed that it is owned by the state and there was additional land added to it. The state has owned this property for years. It is open woodland where they permit hunting and there are trails on the property.
Mr. Thorogood noted the map is showing 56’ to the corner of the deck meaning only 4’ is required. Mr. Colli agreed that 4’ is needed and they are asking for 5’.
Chairman Yarum asked if this deck is already built. Mr. Colli stated it is not and they are requesting this variance because of a safety concern. There are sliders from the home and two people could stand on the deck and knock each other off the deck.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Thorogood made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a variance of 5 ft. of the rear yard setback to 55 ft., 60 ft. required, to construct a deck to the rear of the main structure on the residentially zoned property – Section 4.10 Table.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "HOUSE AS--BUILT, PLOT PLAN, LOT 1, KATIE LANE, prepared for Your Home LLC, dated 6-14-02, revised to 7/31/03", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-09-04.
Mr. Thorogood stated he understands the need for this variance as he has a corner lot and when the roads come in, it does affect the lot. From a building standpoint, he has been through this process a couple of times. He noted foundations will move even if they are staked because of the site conditions. He felt the variance being requested is minimal and is necessary for safety because of the location of the slider in the breakfast nook area. Sufficient area to come in and out is needed on the deck and granting this variance will not affect any abutting properties.
Mr. Furey agreed with Mr. Thorogood. He stated these things do happen when you are building homes. The State of Connecticut property is located behind this property and granting this variance will not infringe on anyone else’s property line. He also felt there was a safety issue regarding deck access.
Mr. Rinaldi stated another consideration is the abutting property owner is the State of Connecticut and the applicant is still maintaining 55’ out of the 60’ required.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are it is a safety issue with the sliding door location, it is a minimal request for a variance and it does not hinder any existing boundary lines.
ZBA 2003-09-05 – New England Preschool Academy, 723 Enfield Street, Map 29/Lot 38, R-33 Zone: Variance to allow 2nd sign on freestanding sign. – EZO Section 10.30.3 Table.
Kathy DelGreco with New England Preschool Academy, 607 Taylor Road, and a business address of 1 Foxwood Drive, Windsor Locks appeared before the Board regarding this application. Mr. Ragno was also present.
Ms. DelGreco stated they are planning to renovate the lower level of the church located at 723 Enfield Street. They will be re-opening it as a day care center. It has been a day care use on and off for several years. What they would like to do is put their company sign in front of the building. What they are requesting, and they have submitted photographs with their application, is to install a freestanding sign in close proximity to the church sign already existing. Their sign would be constructed of wood and would stand 24” from the ground, would not be lit and would be 22” wide. They do not believe there will be any obstructions of visibility to traffic in the area.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the comments of Ms. DelGreco are not what he discussed with Mr. Ragno regarding the sign. Mr. Alsbaugh visited the site and informed the applicant there was little to no chance that the Department of Transportation or anyone else would allow a freestanding sign in the proposed location. Mr. Alsbaugh also informed Mr. Ragno if he was willing to go forward with the sign application, it would make the most sense to add the sign to the existing sign on the site. This is what was agreed upon.
Ms. DelGreco stated that would also be an option. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the original request is not an option because it is a request for a sign category that would have been allowed if the zone had been a Business zone. Because it is a residential zone, it is still allowed to be treated as a commercial zone because it is allowed to have more than one special permit use on it under the current regulations.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mr. Ragno and he discussed not having the separate freestanding sign because this Board has previously in one hundred percent of the requests denied second freestanding signs. They have referred such requests back to Planning and Zoning because of the number of such sign requests they were receiving. They requested that Planning and Zoning review the sign regulations. The result was the zoning regulations were changed to deal with second freestanding signs in very specific instances for properties in a commercial zone that were outbuildings with lease hold space and a certain criteria for frontage. If they met the criteria, such signs would be approvable under the special use permit process. However, this is not something this site is eligible for at this time.
Ms. DelGreco stated one of the photographs shows the existing sign on the property.
Chairman Yarum asked if the previous day care uses had signage. Ms. DelGreco stated the center that was there previously did have a sign that was attached to one of the existing church signs.
Mr. Furey stated there appears to be two signs on the property. One is for the church and one is for the Polish festival that is temporary. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the temporary sign is illegal and has been there beyond the maximum thirty-day time period. The legal sign states Holy Cross Parish. He is unsure if the existing sign for the church matches exactly the sign he approved within the last year or two.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the Board chooses to grant the variance, they would be allowing the same criteria to be used in this instance as it is under Section 10.30.5 of the ordinance regarding Business zones.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if there were two signs on this one structure, the Board would be approving their ability to have a second sign and not the sign itself. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they would still have to go to Planning and Zoning and until they have approval from that Commission, Mr. Alsbaugh cannot grant the sign permit. If the variance is granted this evening, it is to go forward in the future when the time is right.
Mr. Rinaldi noted this Board is not considering the lettering or the size of the sign at this point but only the ability to have a second sign on the existing sign.
Mr. Thorogood asked if they can display a temporary message on the sign and is that something being requested. Mr. Alsbaugh stated no, the request is to allow the second entity on the existing Holy Cross Parish sign.
Mr. Furey asked about the sign criteria. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the setup of the sign is what is administered and sign language cannot be administered by state law. If they meet the zoning regulations for area, height and location, the text of such sign is irrelevant to this Board. Mr. Rinaldi stated the state can act on sign text since there is certain wording that is not allowed for signs located within a certain distance from a state right of way in order to prevent safety problems.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a variance of EZO Sect. 10.30.3, Table to allow a directory-type freestanding sign using the following criteria:
i. Maximum sign area not to exceed 1/3 the size of either the existing freestanding sign area or the maximum freestanding sign area allowed by these regulations, whichever is smaller;
(The sign must be attached to the legally existing freestanding church identification sign, and may be no larger than 4-sq. ft per side, as the maximum for the zone for Special Permit uses is 12-sq. ft. per side)
ii. The applicant shall demonstrate that the number of lines of text and height of letters will be easily readable from the adjacent roadways; and
iii. The sign shall be located below the freestanding sign and shall not extend beyond the boundaries formed by the vertical extension of the existing freestanding sign.
In addition, the existing illegal second freestanding sign on the northern front boundary of the property must be removed. This sign does not qualify as a 'Sale, Lease, Rental of Property' sign as it only advertises the hall for rent, not the entire property. Additionally, non-profit, public information signs must be removed after 30 days.
Reference is made to site photographs and one sign elevation submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-09-05.
Mr. Rinaldi stated if this is approved, it should be noted that this Board is approving a second entity on an existing freestanding sign. The Board is not approving a second freestanding sign. Mr. Alsbaugh stated those facts are included in the proposed motion.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the motion also includes a reference to the illegal sign and its removal would be a condition of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the use as a Preschool Academy warrants a sign for the safety of the children. The sign would be compatible with the existing sign already located on the site without causing any problems to traffic. Also, even though the property is zoned R-33, it is surrounded by commercial zones and businesses. A sign would be permitted in a business zone.
ZBA 2003-09-06 – John and Marlene Stauble, 1201 Enfield Street, Map 20/Lot 133, R-33 Zone: Coverage variance, 25.99% proposed, 20.66% existing, 20% allowed, to build an in-ground pool. – EZO Section 4.10 Table.
John and Marlene Stauble appeared before the Board regarding this application. Mr. Stauble presented photographs of his property to the Board.
Mr. Stauble stated they are proposing to install an in-ground pool in their back yard. He has discussed his plans with Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley and based on their plans, they meet or exceed all the zoning requirements. They are 10’ from the property line with the pool and the only area they would exceed is the 20% coverage.
Mr. Stauble identified an error. It states “existing now 20.66’.” He stated when this calculation was done, they added the shed and he confirmed they are presently at 19.66’. With the addition of the shed, it would bring the coverage to 20.66’ and the pool would bring the coverage to 25.99’. The overall total is correct.
Mr. Stauble stated their home sits on a 16,036 square foot parcel and the first 50’ in their front yard is state-owned and is presently a part of their lawn. If that area was included in their lot size, they would be under the 20% coverage overall with everything being done. Unfortunately, it is not and that brings them to the need for a variance.
Mr. Stauble stated in the late 1950’s, the rear parcel of land that was connected to their property was sold. They tried to acquire that lot back but the present owner will not sell it. Regardless, the pool would be positioned in the same spot that they are proposing along with the fence. Because Route 5 is a busy street they are proposing to install a fence for security reasons and because they have a young child. With the installation of the shed, it would keep them under the twenty percent coverage. The pool is proposed to make the best use of their back yard and keep their children safe.
Mr. Stauble stated their entire lot is one hundred percent useable space. They do not have any slopes and will not require any retaining walls. Aesthetically, it will tie in with the yard. Part of their hardship is a little ignorance because they did not realize the pool counted as the footprint. They purchased the home about six years ago and have lived in it for approximately a year and a half. They have totally redone the home and enhanced the property and the value of it. They enjoy their home and would like to stay there and enjoy a pool for some time to come.
Mr. Furey stated he is aware of this property. It was formerly the Simpson property and there were sheep on the property years ago.
Chairman Yarum reported submittal of four photographs dated September 13, 2003. One shows the back yard. The second photograph shows the back yard with a pool. The next two photographs show the front of the house.
Mr. Rinaldi stated in seeking a variance, you have to prove a hardship. He noted for the sake of argument, let’s say Mr. Stauble’s property is already maxed out as far as coverage. He asked what is different about this property from other properties in the neighborhood.
Mr. Stauble stated their property in the late 1950’s was originally about 24,000 square feet. Mr. Alsbaugh informed him the property should have never been split because of the R-33 zone and how that happened is after the fact. Mr. Stauble stated their lot adjoins two properties both of which exceed five acres and it is all wooded and fields in the back that can never be built upon. The difference is that the size of their lot happens to be smaller than the neighborhood lots.
Chairman Yarum stated on the packet that was submitted it shows the proposed plot plan dated September, 2003. It shows the lot size being 12,236 square feet and in the right hand column there is a hand written notation that according to the Assessor’s Map it is 12,066. Mr. Stauble stated by a survey it is 161’ x 76’. Their neighbor had a professional survey done and he has all four pins staked in his yard. He noted there could be an error.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he does not have a certified map and because of this, he is obliged to use what the Assessor’s Office has on their cards. He is not confirming that the Assessor’s Cards are always accurate. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Stauble noted they are still five percent over and they have considered a smaller shed and a smaller pool but they would still be over.
Mr. Thorogood asked if the shed is movable. Mr. Stauble stated it will be on blocks like a prefab shed. Mr. Thorogood questioned if that counts toward the coverage. Mr. Stauble stated he asked the Zoning Enforcement Officer about that. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that accessory buildings are called a structure by the State building code and thus considered the same by the town and to be figured into the coverage.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a coverage variance of 5.99%: 25.99% coverage proposed, 20.66% existing, 20% allowed, to install an in-ground pool to the rear of the main structure on the residentially zoned property - Enfield Zoning Ordinance Sect. 4.10 TABLE
Reference is made to two computer generated site plans marked '#1' & '#2', prepared by the applicants, and submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-09-06.
Mr. Rinaldi requested clarification regarding the hardship.
Chairman Yarum stated the surrounding property owners have larger parcels and somewhere prior to the applicant purchasing the property, the property was divided and a portion sold to another abutting property owner. The existing property owner does not have the original square footage that went with this property.
Mr. Rinaldi had a concern that granting this variance would be precedent setting for the many small lots existing in the Town of Enfield.
Mr. Thorogood noted the amount of land the State owns. Secondly, from a safety standpoint, they bring up a good point. He has reviewed the layout of the site and noted they have kept within the boundaries. If a portion of the property had not been sold off, the variance would not be required.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he does not feel the State property is a factor because if Route 5 was widened, it could be widened up to the property line and paved. The Board should not consider the State property as part of the applicant’s yard and it should not be considered in the coverage. He added that other properties have been subdivided.
Mr. Furey stated the size of this property is unique to the area since the surrounding properties are much larger. He also asked if this application would have to go before the Enfield Historic District Commission.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this application would have to go to Historic. He stated beyond the applicant’s control, the lot was reduced to less than the normal useable area traditionally held within the Historic District. The changes cannot be undone to correct what was done illegally in the reduction of this lot and the applicant was not responsible for this.
Mr. Thorogood stated the abutting property was formerly a bus company and on the other side is a huge house on a good sized lot that runs all the way down. The applicant’s property is an exception to the rule in the area. He also felt the applicant’s layout of the property is a good one and his improvements to the property have enhanced the area.
Mr. Rinaldi felt the key to granting this variance is the property is unique to the area. Previously, the Board had an application off Elm Street and every lot had 50’ for frontage. This is a small lot abutting two larger lots.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has been unable to determine how this lot came into existence because it did not meet the requirements when it was made.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the property is unique in its small size for the residential properties of the area and the proposed pool will not adversely affect the surrounding properties which are much larger.
ZBA 2003-09-07 – Enfield Street Auto Sales, LLC, 148 Enfield Street, Map 35/Lot 23, BL Zone: Certificate of Approval, ownership change, Used Car Sales – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Sections 5.30.2C and 11.00C.
Vincent Bergamini, 10 Old Farms Lane, West Suffield, appeared before the Board requesting a Certificate of Approval for a change of ownership to Enfield Street Auto Sales at 148 Enfield Street.
Chairman Yarum stated this is an existing pre-approved condition and it would be a change in ownership. None of the licenses existing would be changed. Mr. Bergamini confirmed that everything would stay the same.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this is a request for a certificate of suitability, it is solely for a used car dealership and it will not exceed previous conditions set by a previous Board. Mr. Bergamini stated that is correct.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request to grant a Certificate of Suitability under CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Sections 5.30.2C & 11.00C., for the continued operation of a pre-existing, nonconforming used car dealership, lease hold. Said operation to be at the described location and as delineated on the site plan submitted with the application ZBA #2000-02-01 titled “AUTEX INC, 148 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT,[by] SREENATH ASSOCIATES, dated 1/27/2000, Sheet 1, and additionally and subsequently identified as ZBA2003-09-07”.
Mr. Furey felt this was an ownership change only and nothing would be changing regarding the operation’s business.
Mr. Rinaldi agreed and stated the applicant stated it was solely used as car dealership and it would not exceed previous conditions.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the conditions for the business would remain the same, would not exceed previous conditions set by previous boards and would be solely for the use of a used car dealership.
ZBA 2003-09-08 – Artioli, LLC, 543 Enfield Street, Map 33/Lot 267, BG Zone: Landscape setback variance, 0 feet proposed, 25 feet required, 13 feet existing to allow vehicle inventory storage. – EZO Section 10.10.7Aii.
Attorney Thomas Tyler appeared before the Board representing the applicant, Artioli, LLC. Also present was Dana Steele of J. R. Russo and Associates.
Mr. Steele stated the application is for a variance of the parking area setback. This section of the regulations deals with providing a certain parking setback for parking spaces depending on the size of those spaces. The cut-off is three spaces, 25 spaces and 100 spaces for the different cutoffs in terms of the size of the setback.
Mr. Steele stated his involvement with this property began several months ago as the Artioli Dodge facility was looking to develop a parcel of land to the north of their property and on both sides of Freemont Avenue. At that time, the existing facility was an abandoned gas station. Artioli wished to convert that into an inventory storage area. In doing that, there were a number of concerns that the Traffic Safety Officer had regarding the site and the main concern was that there were too many curb cuts on Route 5. He felt this creates congestion and difficulty of access. They attempted to resolve that safety issue by eliminating curb cuts. Mr. Steele offered this history as the Board is now considering this property at 543 Enfield Street to the south of the Artioli Dodge facility at 525 Enfield Street.
Mr. Steele stated they are looking to do the identical situation at this location. This existing facility is an abandoned office building. It was formerly occupied by the Journal Inquirer. The site is nonconforming in a number of ways including the building location. The applicant proposes to demolish the building so there would no longer be that nonconformity. With regard to curb cuts, the applicant is looking to improve the existing situation. The driveway to the south on this property encroaches into the property owner to the south, Moore Rug. They would improve that situation with this application.
Mr. Steele stated the other safety situation that was brought to their attention at Planning and Zoning meetings from the public had to do with safety in terms of the loading and unloading of vehicles. Mr. Steele was asked to come up with a solution where car carriers could be loaded and unloaded on the Artioli Dodge site. Currently, they are not able to be. This proposal addresses that issue as well as reducing the number of curb cuts and other nonconformities.
Mr. Rinaldi stated presently the cars have to be loaded in the travel way and the applicant is trying to eliminate that situation. If this variance is granted, the cars would be unloaded on the property and the spaces immediately in front of the showroom would be eliminated to allow the car carrier. Mr. Steele confirmed that is correct.
Chairman Yarum stated according to the plans there is no buffer. Mr. Steele presented a map which shows the location of the existing building on the site and the green area in the center with the two driveways. Going to the next page, it shows that that area has been reduced in width but increased in length by the removal of this island. There is still a lawn area of 20’ wide from the Route 5 pavement and that is located within the state highway right of way. Chairman Yarum questioned why that width can’t be more than 20’.
Mr. Steele stated the size of it is a function of the use of the property. If a larger area were used, then that site which is currently the Journal Inquirer building would have insufficient space available for it to be a useful site. If a larger buffer were required, the applicant would choose not to develop the property and leave the existing conditions. Mr. Steele did not feel this is advantageous to public safety.
Attorney Tyler stated how this started and culminated tonight is about a year ago Mr. Artioli came before the town with a proposal for the Keller parcel. At the time, Lieutenant Boula suggested that instead of the cars being unloaded on Enfield Street, they are unloaded on Freemont Street. The cars that used to be unloaded by tractor trailer trucks on Enfield Street now were being unloaded on Freemont Street. They came back again to the Planning and Zoning Commission and at that time the residents on Freemont Street were upset because cars were being unloaded on Freemont Street.
Attorney Tyler stated they again had several meetings with Lieutenant Boula and other safety experts and were trying to come up with some manner to make it safe on Freemont Street by eliminating off-site unloading and having on-site unloading of cars on the Artioli property. Attorney Tyler stated there are some sight line issues and other concerns that have been corrected with Artioli’s other applications through the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is one piece of the puzzle on the entire parcel to continue a viable business enterprise and make it substantially safer for the community especially those traveling on Enfield Street.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a variance of the required landscape setback, 0-ft. proposed, 25-ft. required, 13-ft. existing, to allow vehicle inventory storage - EZO Sect. 10.10.7[ii].
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Conversion to Inventory Holding Area, 543 Enfield St., Artioli Dodge, 525 Enfield St., by J. R. & Associates, Sheet 1 of 1, and dated 5/23/03", submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-09-08.
Mr. Furey stated one of the strong points emphasized was the safety issue. He felt that was an important issue because without this variance, eight to ten cars would be unloaded on Enfield Street or Freemont Street. He favored a setback of more than 20’ but that would negatively affect the safety measurements proposed.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this lot in conjunction with the abutting lot warrants a variance to eliminate a hazardous condition. The two lots would be working together. Mr. Rinaldi felt the negative is that this variance stays with the property if it were to be split. However, as long as the two lots are considered to be in conjunction with each other, it would be warranted.
Mr. Alsbaugh did not feel this property was eligible for a subdivision. The intent of the applicant is to join this lot with the other one and make a lot.
Mr. Thorogood stated the proposed plan would be an asset to the community. There is a safety issue along with the concerns of the neighbors on Freemont. The overall expansion would help the area and address the safety issue.
Mr. Rinaldi added addressing the safety issue has been confirmed by the Traffic Safety Officer.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are to address the safety issues and to eliminate a hazardous condition. The Board is looking at the lot to be working in conjunction with the abutting lot.
ZBA 2003-09-09 – Douglas Valley, 4 Ganny Terrace, Map 64/Lot 58, R-33 Zone: Appeal of Zoning Enforcement Officer decision – EZO Sections 4.20.1[3] and 10.10.1G .
Douglas Valley appeared before the Board regarding this application. He is present as part of the appeal process for the cease and desist order dated August 19, 2003.
Mr. Valley stated he currently has two car trailers on the property and they sit within the designated boundary lines as described by those paragraphs referenced in the zoning ordinance if they were camping vehicles or recreational vehicles. Mr. Valley contends that they are not camping or recreational vehicles as described in the definition of the zoning ordinance. They are car trailers. Mr. Valley stated when he found out that there was a setback requirement to the front of the house, he positioned the car trailers so that they sit behind that boundary line. Mr. Valley stated the issue here is the quantity.
Mr. Valley stated one of the two trailers is currently for sale and he accepted a deposit this past Saturday. One of the trailers should be gone by October 4.
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of a picture of the trailer that is for sale. It is a 1989 Case enclosed car trailer that is 44’ long.
Chairman Yarum asked for a description of these trailers. Mr. Valley stated he has a sports car racing hobby like those cars that race at Lime Rock. In order to get the car and equipment there, this car trailer is necessary. He has recently upgraded his car trailer and he received it prior to selling the first trailer. The other trailer arrived in March and he postponed delivery as late as he could. Until June, he still used the first trailer for hauling his race car. At the end of June he completed the transfer process and put the first trailer up for sale. He received a certified check in the mail this past Saturday.
Mr. Valley stated his concern is the reference to recreational vehicles and camping type vehicles. He did not feel either of these vehicles fall into such a category. He does not see a reference to this type of vehicle in the ordinance nor a description that defines this to be one of those types of trailers.
Mr. Rinaldi stated in a letter dated April 22, 2003 to the Town of Enfield, the applicant stated he had two enclosed car trailers used for his racing hobby. He also stated he had a boat and, at times, the boat is stored outside on a registered trailer. Mr. Rinaldi asked if that is still correct. Mr. Valley stated he no longer stores the boat on his property. In the past he had and he was concerned about the rules at the time. It seemed that if you had a boating hobby and a race car hobby, you could not live in Enfield. He currently stores the boat on property in Vermont.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the two vehicles that are in question are the two car racing trailers. Mr. Rinaldi drove by the property and saw both vehicles out there. Mr. Valley confirmed that one vehicle has been sold. He presented a copy of the certified check he received for the second trailer.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record a copy of a money order as a deposit on one of the trailers dated September 26, 2003.
Chairman Yarum asked what type of registration plates are required on these types of trailers. Mr. Valley stated they only have one trailer plate and it is called a camper trailer and they utilize it for all trailers whether it is a utility, boat, motor cycle or car trailer. The plate is not a commercial plate.
Chairman Yarum asked what is on the inside of these trailers. Mr. Valley stated the white trailer that he just sold is completely open except it has a shelf that comes up at the front. The other trailer, the black one, has the rear 30’ of it for the car but the front of it does have a camping area. This area is a secondary purpose and it contains a stove and a refrigerator.
Chairman Yarum asked if the trailer that is for sale can be converted so that it does have a camping area also. Mr. Valley stated any open space could be converted into a camping area.
Mr. Valley stated he has a double width lot which makes it easy to accommodate both per the regulations. However, his intent is to store the trailer in the area he built and he intends to pave it in the near future.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the present problem is there are now two such vehicles on the property. Mr. Valley stated he has no desire to keep two vehicles but he is not aware how it is a problem because the rules only state recreational vehicles.
Mr. Rinaldi stated if these were considered recreational vehicles, the problem would be that there are two of them on the property. Mr. Valley confirmed that is correct.
Mr. Rinaldi saw two issues. First, are they recreational vehicles and, if they are, is there more than one.
Mr. Thorogood stated the applicant is saying that one of the trailers does not have temporary living accommodations. He is fighting the issue that they do not have temporary living areas so they are not really recreational vehicles. Mr. Valley stated he believes one does not come close to being a camping vehicle because it has no living accommodations at all. He also believes the second one does not meet the definition in the ordinance. On page 11, item 72, it states a recreational vehicle is defined as a portable vehicle built on a chassis which can be towed, hauled or driven and primarily designed to be used as temporary living accommodations for travel, camping and recreational purposes. Mr. Valley stated the vehicle’s primary purpose is not to camp but to be a car trailer. It certainly has all of the features of a car trailer, was sold as a car trailer and was built by a car trailer company. It does have a secondary purpose that does have some camping in it. For the purpose of this cease and desist order, he is just fighting one vehicle.
Mr. Thorogood stated the second vehicle will be gone in five days. Mr. Valley stated the buyer is from Florida and intends to pick up the second car trailer by the third week in October.
Mr. Rinaldi noted if the deal does not go through, there would be two vehicles that this Board has to determine whether they are recreational or not. He would feel more comfortable with legal help from the town defining what a recreational vehicle is. He assumes this trailer is used for a hobby. It has a camping trailer plate. However, if the sale of the second trailer does not occur, there would be two such vehicles on the property.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated what is being requested is for someone else to do the job that Board members are qualified to do – to interpret what this regulation says. He stated the Board tonight can agree to a withdrawal with the sale of the second vehicle or make a decision whether or not in the Board’s opinion the Zoning Enforcement Officer has interpreted this regulation correctly. Mr. Alsbaugh did not feel the Board should be going to the Town Attorney’s office for definitions of recreational vehicles. It is not relevant at this point. Additional definitions of recreational vehicles have nothing to do with the wording of this regulation. The Board has to confine themselves to the words within the regulation concerning what is a recreational vehicle.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he is more concerned with Section 10.10.1. It makes no mention of a recreational vehicle. It does make mention of a camping type vehicle. If this is a hobby and they consider this to be a recreational vehicle, is this also a camping type vehicle? Mr. Rinaldi stated the language in the ordinance seems very vague. He would request through the Chairman that the Planning and Zoning Commission review Section 10.10.1 and perhaps add the word “recreational” to that section.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will convey the Board’s concerns regarding the regulation language in order to affect a remedy as quickly as possible. However, he added the Board is charged with dealing with this particular application tonight with the existing wording in the ordinance.
Mr. Rinaldi stated if the Board interprets the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s decision as being correct, the applicant will have to do what. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he can remove one of the vehicles if he wishes to comply or he can take the matter to Superior Court. If the applicant files an appeal with Superior Court, the order will be stayed until the appeal is heard.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the appeal, under Section 11A of the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Enfield, of the Cease & Desist Order of the Enfield Zoning Enforcement Officer dated 19 August 2003 referencing EZO Sections 4.20.1[3] & 10.10.1G, as discussed under ZBA 2003-09-09.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the issue is whether the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer is correct. He believes the vehicle on the property was a recreational vehicle. Mr. Rinaldi stated the vehicle has a license plate that says camping-trailer according to the applicant’s testimony. According to a letter to the Town of Enfield, the applicant states he uses it for his racing hobby. Mr. Rinaldi felt that the word hobby is also recreation. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has cited the applicant for having more than one recreational vehicle. Mr. Rinaldi initially concluded that the applicant has two recreational vehicles on the property.
Mr. Thorogood stated as he reads the response from the applicant, he can see what paragraph 71 was saying versus what this really stipulates because it does not specify trailers or anything like that. Mr. Thorogood felt both trailers are recreational vehicles and they are of sufficient size that they brought a concern to the Zoning Enforcement Officer which he is trying to rectify.
Chairman Yarum disagreed with Mr. Rinaldi’s interpretation of the regulations and specifically the definition. If you look at Section 2.30 under definitions, item 72, it states a recreational vehicle is a portable vehicle primarily designed to be used as temporary living accommodations for travel camping and recreational purposes. Chairman Yarum noted the primary use of this vehicle is not temporary living accommodations. Only one vehicle has temporary living accommodations but that is not the primary use of it. Chairman Yarum believes from the definition itself, you cannot consider the vehicle a recreational vehicle.
Mr. Furey felt the proposed use of the vehicle for moving a racing car is different from a recreational vehicle.
Chairman Yarum stated even if the vehicle is for recreational purposes, it is not primarily designed for temporary living accommodations. It is primarily designed for moving vehicles from one location to another. The definition is very clear.
Mr. Rinaldi had a concern that the definitions were poorly worded. Mr. Furey saw a need for such definitions to be more specific.
Mr. Rinaldi questioned if it is a not recreational vehicle, is it a camping type vehicle. Chairman Yarum read the definition in the ordinance in Section 10.10.1g. Chairman Yarum asked if someone was going camping for the weekend, would they take this trailer.
Mr. Thorogood stated he personally has a trailer which he uses to move brush. He would not want to go camping in it. He does not feel, considering the way the ordinance is written, that the second vehicle is a recreational vehicle. Mr. Rinaldi agreed that it is not a recreational vehicle according to the definitions in the ordinance.
Mr. Alsbaugh questioned if the vehicle would not be a specialized camping vehicle that would take the hobby of the applicant along with it. Mr. Thorogood felt one is but the second trailer is not. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed what the Board is stating is that one of the trailers does not meet the definition under Section 10.10.1 of a camping vehicle.
Chairman Yarum stated if someone were to ask him to describe a camping type vehicle, he doesn’t think anyone would come up with a vehicle that looks like a trailer. Mr. Alsbaugh stated once you understand the specialty type vehicles available, would that mean that the Board does not feel it to be a special category of a camping unit. Mr. Rinaldi stated no, not if temporary living accommodations are not in the vehicle.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated some people go camping to go fishing or boating and some go camping to race cars. He questioned if it isn’t a camping type vehicle.
Mr. Thorogood agreed one of the trailers would fit the definition but the other trailer would not. Mr. Rinaldi agreed with this assessment and stated there is one camping type vehicle on the property and not two camping type vehicles.
Chairman Yarum noted the town is reviewing the regulations on ¾ ton vehicles and he offered as an example a tractor trailer truck. He stated the cab of many of those semis has sleeping quarters and kitchen amenities. He questioned if this is considered a camping type vehicle. Mr. Alsbaugh stated such a vehicle is a commercial vehicle and would not qualify to be parked on a residential property. The trailers in question are registered as other than commercial.
Chairman Yarum emphasized that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to review the language in this regulation to come up with a clearer definition.
Chairman Yarum clarified that if a Board member votes in favor of this application, they are approving the appeal on behalf of the applicant. If they are voting against, they are upholding the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s interpretation of the ordinance.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote and the Board approved the appeal on behalf of the applicant. (It was the conclusion of the Board that the applicant had one camping vehicle on the property and not two camping type vehicles).
The reasons for approval are the Board believes neither vehicle is a recreational vehicle and there is only one camping type vehicle on the property.
Chairman Yarum called a ten-minute recess at 8:45 p.m. The Board recessed and reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Yarum called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:55 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the Minutes of July 28, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 3 – 0 – 1 vote. Mr. Furey abstained.
APPROVAL OF 2004 MEETING DATES
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the 2004 Meeting Dates as submitted. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of a Notice of Decision for ZBA #2003-06-02 along with a request from the applicant for the names and addresses of all Enfield residents who have been granted zoning variances of Sections 4.2.0.1 and 10.10.1 from 1990 to the present. A letter dated August 11, 2003 is the Town of Enfield Planning and Community Development response to that request.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of a Notice of Decision regarding ZBA 2003-06-04. There was a confirmation of a withdrawal regarding ZBA 2003-07-01 and a Notice of Decision on ZBA 2003-07-02.
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of correspondence from the Town of Enfield to the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles regarding the Certificate of Suitability and confirmation of local approvals for Troiano Realty Corporation.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of the Town Attorney’s report for October, 2003.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of a memo from Mark Grants of Grants and Willis LLC. He stated this is an important memorandum. What occurred was there was an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Town of Stonington. They granted that application but were not very specific in granting what they thought was just the application itself and they granted a variance to the entire property. The Zoning Enforcement Officer issued a cease and desist and the case ended up in court. The decision was found in favor of the applicant. Chairman Yarum saw a need for this Board to be careful about being very specific regarding the variances granted.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of numerous correspondence regarding Sections 4.20.1 and Section 10.10.1 regarding commercial vehicles exceeding three-quarter ton.
Correspondence also included the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies quarterly newsletter and a copy of an email regarding Section 10 of PA184 based on local boards of appeals signing off on Department of Motor Vehicle licenses. Chairman Yarum stated it appears the ZBA is the authority that will be signing off on these applications. He added that somewhere down the road, this Board may be able to have the Planning and Zoning Commission review these applications.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated they appealed the public hearing requirements regarding Department of Motor Vehicle licenses but they reinstated, during the budget negotiation process, the Zoning Board of Appeals as the local authority. The preliminary interpretation is at least the Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals will have to sign off on these applications. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is not quite sure what the end result will be but it doesn’t seem to have affected the gas station issues. He added he will be using the review sheet that the subcommittee created and staff may consider making that part of the ZBA application to address the fuel facility issues. This would give the applicant the time to fill out these questionnaires ahead of time so that the Board would have the information for the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
ZBA 2003-06-04 – Michael and Janene Bernier, 150 Bernardino Avenue (a.k.a. Enfield Street, ID #00071080), Map 35/Lot 227, R-33 Zone: Appeal of Zoning Enforcement Order, un-permitted residential structure. – Sections 4.10.2 and 4.20, public hearing closed at 7/28/03 meeting, decision required this evening (63rd day).
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the appeal, under Section 11A of the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Enfield, of the Cease & Desist Order of the Enfield Zoning Enforcement Officer dated 21 May 2003, as discussed under ZBA 2003-06-04.
Chairman Yarum stated staff pointed out that the applicants' attorney stated that in 1958 the location showed on the zoning map as a Residential B zone. The zoning map that was submitted was missing a second page insert of the area and showed Bernardino Avenue was actually a Business A zone. Business A zone properties allowed the permitted uses in Residential A and B zones; however, for only one single-family house in a Residential A zone and a Residential B zone allowed multi-family structures but only one structure. Chairman Yarum stated it is his opinion that a second structure would have been illegal as a residential property.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the Residential was not checked on the particular card and there was no heat indicated on the card. It sounds more like a garage than a residence.
Chairman Yarum apprised the Board that when voting, because this is an appeal to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, voting for an approval will approve the appeal on behalf of the applicant. Voting against would be upholding the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s interpretation of the regulation.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 4 – 0 vote and the Board upheld the interpretation of the ordinance by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
This application was denied because the second structure was not considered a residential structure but an auxiliary garage type structure with no heat, electricity or other items involved in a residence and this was supported by Town records.
NEW BUSINESS
Decisions on the applications heard tonight are included above under the individual public hearing numbers.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Thorogood made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
John H. LeDoux, Jr., Secretary
jmr Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals |