ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, November 24, 2003 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
John LeDoux
Edward Furey
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Yarum informed the audience when a variance can be granted. He also informed those present of the meeting procedure.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZBA 2003-11-01 – Douglas Miller, 41 Beech Road, Map 65/Lot 41, R-33 Zone: Side yard variance of 1 ft., 9.02 ft. proposed, 10 ft. required, to build an addition – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Douglas Miller, 41 Beech Road, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Chairman Yarum noted there are only four members present for this hearing and four votes are required to pass a variance. He offered Mr. Miller the option of postponing his hearing until next month when a full Board is present. Mr. Miller chose to proceed this evening.
Mr. Miller stated he is adding on to his home and he went through the process and received a building permit. Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley signed off on his application. The bank required that he provide an as built survey. Once the foundation was done, they had the survey done and discovered the house was slightly twisted on the lot. They had no knowledge of this previously. As the survey shows, the back corner of the existing house is nonconforming and the addition compounds the error. Mr. Miller stated the bank required that he get a variance.
Chairman Yarum stated the site plan submitted shows the existing house, the new foundation and an area that says “new foundation built after survey.” Mr. Miller stated that was done after the surveyor was there. They had to do the foundation in two pours because the concrete trucks couldn’t get around. Where it says “new foundation built after survey” was done after the surveyor was there. Mr. Miller stated the surveyor did not want to say he surveyed it when he actually didn’t. The dimension of 21’5” is what Mr. Miller provided to him.
Mr. LeDoux asked if Mr. Miller submitted plans previously to the town and that he assumed his home was located 10’ from the property line. Mr. Miller stated that is correct, and he got that dimension from a previous plan that a previous owner had submitted.
Chairman Yarum asked where the plan submitted with the application came from. Mr. Miller stated his surveyor did that plan and it is engineered and the original is stamped. He presented the original to Chairman Yarum and Chairman Yarum noting the original has a seal on it.
Chairman Yarum stated the concern he has is he does not believe based upon the drawing that was submitted that Mr. Miller is asking for enough variances for this property. The variance being requested falls on the northeast corner of the property with a 9.02’ dimension but if he totals the dimensions that the surveyor has provided, the southeast corner falls short of the ten feet required or a little over 8’. The other dimension is the front yard setback. It should be 35’. Even at the corner of the new addition, Chairman Yarum noted there is 27.5’ on the existing corner and adding another 3’, the total is 30.5’. This would require a variance for the front yard setback. Mr. Miller stated he was not aware of the need for a front yard setback variance.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked Mr. Miller if the Zoning Enforcement Officer approved the position of the front lines for the breezeway and garage. Mr. Miller responded as far as he knows.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked when the building permit was approved for compliance by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, did it include the two items he noted. Mr. Miller responded it did. Mr. Alsbaugh added if the Zoning Enforcement Officer approved this with the dimensions showing where the old house is, where the addition is and where the garage is, he has made a legal decision as a representative of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he needs to verify that that did occur.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if Mr. Miller received a building permit for the addition. Mr. Miller confirmed that he did. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if what Mr. Bickley approved is the proposed plan; it is now a legal nonconforming use in regard to the offset from the street. What Mr. Miller presented to Mr. Bickley met the requirements although the survey confirmed that the home is marginally off. What was shown for the front was already obvious because the dimensions were there. The Zoning Enforcement Officer decided the home was okay. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the dimension would be shown meeting the regulations but the surveyor has not confirmed where that south side is. It would be the same issue as this side on the agenda tonight.
Chairman Yarum asked about the dimensions given to the surveyor. Mr. Miller stated he has checked and rechecked these dimensions and is perfectly confident with them. Mr. Miller stated when the surveyor was out there, he was worried about being too close to that side. He asked that the surveyor give him a mark ten feet off the line, which he did, and then he went 10’2” off the line. Mr. Miller added that unfortunately the 10’2” was somewhere in the first third of the garage and because of the twist and the angle, it did not work.
Chairman Yarum asked Mr. Alsbaugh if the public hearing should remain open if the Board is awaiting information. Mr. Alsbaugh stated not in this application because the Board cannot change what was advertised. If there is another problem later on, Mr. Miller will deal with it with the Zoning Enforcement Officer at that time.
Mr. Miller stated the Board is deciding tonight on the northwest corner. They cannot decide the southeast corner tonight and would have to have the surveyor locate it and then submit another application for another variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the Zoning Enforcement Officer does not issue a c.o. for that part of the project, then it will be known that there is a problem with the setback.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he is confused on the fact that the front is okay but the side would not be. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the dimension is shown on the front. The Zoning Enforcement Officer made a decision and if compliance was granted, he made a legal decision.
Mr. LeDoux asked if the building permit was for the new foundation and the new foundation after the survey. Mr. Miller stated the building permit was issued before the survey. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the building permit was for both additions. He noted if it was shown with 10’ on each side and the numbers that are shown on the front right now, the Zoning Enforcement Officer made a decision and Mr. Miller would now have a legal nonconforming situation.
Mr. LeDoux noted if you add up all the dimensions, it does not total 80’. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there was obviously something out of sync but it was shown with a dimension that allowed the Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue a certificate of zoning compliance and Mr. Miller to receive a building permit. The only area of concern is that the Zoning Enforcement Officer approved the front without asking Mr. Miller for verification.
Mr. Furey stated mistakes like this can happen and someone would not be able to visibly recognize the small amount that is needed.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if Mr. Miller submitted this survey to the Zoning Enforcement Officer for a compliance review or did he have to draw his lot on the building permit. Mr. Miller stated he had to draw it on the building permit. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Chief Building Official insists that applicants draw the site plan on the building permit to avoid having his files filled with "unnecessary" paperwork. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the inaccuracies that may be perpetuated with this process, and the potential for things like this happening in the future.
Mr. Alsbaugh also asked the Board to think of the times in the past where staff had to go back five to twenty years in the files and find a survey in the Building Department files to resolve a concern. Such surveys will no longer be included in a Building file.
Mr. Furey did not feel this is the fault of the applicant. It is the way business is being done and that has to be addressed.
Mr. Miller stated the only reason he had the survey done is because the bank required it. Had the bank not required it, he would never have had the survey done and would not be here.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Building Official is presently determining what the Zoning Enforcement Officer will have available to make decisions about compliance.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if previous to the survey, Mr. Miller believed that he had the 10’. Mr. Miller stated he did and he did have the 10’ on the front corner of the house. Mr. Rinaldi asked how Mr. Miller knew where that line was. Mr. Miller stated the surveyor made a parallel line on the southern property line and then put a nail with a rivet and informed him that is 10’. Mr. Miller stated the concrete wall for the addition was already in. He measured off the concrete wall to the surveyor’s point and added two inches for error room. Mr. Rinaldi noted that at that point the measurements were based on the existing house rather than the property line. Mr. Miller confirmed that to be the case.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Yarum called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of October 27, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Yarum brought up the matter of photo identification for Board members that was raised previously by Mr. Furey. Chairman Yarum stated there is correspondence in the meeting packet addressing such identification.
Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the problems and concerns encountered in the past regarding photo identification. The prime issue was the lack of coordination between Town Hall and the Police Department. Following some discussion on past practices and ways to accomplish such photo identification, it was the consensus of the Board to send a letter to the Town Manager under the Chairman’s signature requesting approval for formal identification for Board members. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the Planning Department has a digital camera that could be used for such identification photos.
Chairman Yarum stated Correspondence also includes notices of decisions for the applications from last month as well as the Town Attorney’s report for October and November.
Chairman Yarum noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission has formulated a new regulation increasing allowable truck sizes and weights which will replace the current ordinance allowing vehicles up to ¾ ton.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 2003-11-01 – Douglas Miller, 41 Beech Road, Map 65/Lot 41, R-33 Zone: Side yard variance of 1ft., 9.02 ft. proposed, 10 ft. required, to build an addition – EZO Section 4.10.2H – Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for a variance of 1 ft. of the side yard setback to 9 ft., 10 ft. required, to permit an existing, new foundation addition to the rear of the main structure on the residentially zoned property – Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Property of Douglas Miller, 41 Beech Road, stamped "RECEIVED, PLANNING OFFICE, ENFIELD, CT 06082 - OCT. 27, 2003, and dated Oct. 13, 2003", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-11-01.
Mr. LeDoux stated the plans were approved and the applicant found out after the fact because of a survey required by the bank that showed a discrepancy. He lauded the applicant for bringing this to the Board’s attention and noted it is a reasonable request due to the placement of the house.
Mr. Furey felt it was no fault of the applicant but a series of circumstances where people assumed dimensions were correct when they were not. He did not feel the applicant caused this.
Mr. Rinaldi noted the applicant stated that he made an attempt to have the surveyor stay within the ten-foot setback.
Mr. Rinaldi discussed A-2 surveys and noted, in his opinion, such surveys should not be required for gazebos or sheds. He questioned the process and had a concern if this was a larger problem. He asked if there is something this Board can do to avoid such problems in the future.
Mr. LeDoux stated if the bank did not require the survey, no one would have known a problem existed that required a variance.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the Board members see a flaw that they would to see addressed.
Mr. LeDoux felt the surveyor’s map should be used instead of redrawing such maps on an application form. It was his opinion that the Board would prefer to work with certified or carefully scaled maps to the best of the applicant’s ability rather than something hand written on a building permit form. Board members agreed that anything other than such a certified or carefully scaled map would be inappropriate and unacceptable.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated staff can produce a pretty decently scaled map from the data available. While it may not be totally accurate, it would be more acceptable than the hand drawn sketch submitted on a building permit form.
Chairman Yarum stated this application should not have gotten this far. Mr. Alsbaugh agreed and noted it should not have gotten past the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the Zoning Enforcement Officer had something more precise to look at, this problem may have been avoided.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is it is the continuation of an existing structure whereas traditional building techniques require a straight line.
Discussion: Variance application form – re-formatting options
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he previously sent the Board the old application and the new one and he noted he is still in the process of re-formatting some individual sections.
Mr. Furey felt answering the questions included will educate applicants and make them take regulations seriously.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated applicants are often steered to the variance procedure by others without knowing the process.
Mr. Rinaldi felt the revised form will result in strengthening the case for someone who deserves it and he felt it is a positive change.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the questions that the Board wants to incorporate into the application do reflect and actually are representations of the legal issues under the statutes and local ordinance. The form will clarify what is specifically required. People who are in a situation who qualify for a variance will qualify.
The consensus of the Board was they were happy with the new application format.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to adjourn. Following a 4 – 0 – 0 vote, the Board adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
John H. LeDoux, Jr., Secretary
jmr Enfield Zoning Board of Appeal |