ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 27, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, October 27, 2003 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Edward Furey
John LeDoux
John Rinaldi
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings this evening.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Yarum called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of September 29, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of the notice of decisions regarding last month’s applications, the withdrawal from Starbuck’s, the meeting dates for October, 2004, and the Town Attorney’s Report for October, 2003,
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of an excerpt from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of October 2. These Minutes note that the commercial vehicle ordinance changes being discussed include language indicating that the Zoning Board of Appeals is prohibited from varying any provisions of this section should this ordinance change go forward. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is unsure about the legal grounds of such a provision. In reading the statute, it is unclear but the Board would continue to act by the direction of Planning and Zoning and would not contest it.
Chairman Yarum brought up last month’s discussion regarding recreational vehicles and noted it was brought up during discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission that this Board did not feel the definitions were properly covered. This will be an item added to the Planning and Zoning Commission to-do list. They will review the ordinance and discuss a change to resolve the matter.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated most of the Planning and Zoning Commission discussion has centered on the commercial vehicle issue and Mr. Giner has not yet drafted any new definitions for recreational vehicles.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 2003-10-01 – Starbuck’s Coffee, 561 Hazard Avenue, Map 45/Lot 1, BR Zone: Variance to allow sign on other than allowed elevation – EZO Section 10.30.5B
Chairman Yarum reiterated that this application has been withdrawn by a written request sent to this Board.
ZBA2003-10-02 – Galena Associates (DBA Valvoline Instant Oil Change), 8 Cranbrook Boulevard, Map 56, Lot 32, BL Zone: Certificate of Approval, ownership change, Limited Repairer License – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C.
Paul John Ferry, one of the owners and operators of Valvoline Instant Oil Change in Connecticut, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He noted his brother is his partner. They purchased the assets of Sanrose Corporation, the previous operators of the In and Out Oil and Lube Center on Cranbrook Boulevard, approximately a month ago. The limited repairer’s licenses do not transfer with the ownership change. Mr. Ferry stated he is present requesting approval for this location which was previously approved in November, 1997, to Sanrose Corporation.
Chairman Yarum noted based upon his review, nothing would be changing other than the name and the ownership. Mr. Ferry stated it is their intent to re-sign the location and he has a set of mock-ups for a sign in the Town Planner’s Office at this time. The facility will be a lube center and include maintenance type service of twenty-five minutes or less.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, , to approve the request to grant a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54 & EZO Section 11.00 C, for the operation of a Limited Repairer’s license, under the applicant’s ownership [site lease-hold]. Said operation is to be at the described location [8 Cranbrook Boulevard] and as delineated on the site plan sheet submitted with the application ZBA #2003-10-02. Said plan sheet is titled “ZBA2003-10-02” (which shows both buildings on the parent lot – 8 & 10 Cranbrook Boulevard) and indicates the proposed Valvoline building as “Existing Building 1, 8 Cranbrook Blvd.”
Mr. Furey stated that the business at this location will remain the same and the only change is the change in the name and ownership.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the use of the property shall remain as existing and no additional activity will take place under the change in ownership and licensing.
ZBA 2003-10-03 – Thomas Saso, DBA T. S. Motorcars, Inc., 767 Enfield Street, Map 29/Lot 53, BG Zone: Request for a Certificate of Suitability for a Used Car Dealer license under CGS Sections 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00 C.
Thomas Saso, 86 Windsor Street, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He is applying for zoning approval to obtain a used car dealer’s license to operate the used car lot located next door to Troiano’s Gas Station and Service Facility. Mr. Saso noted there are currently two licenses approved at this location. He is applying to operate the facility located north of the gas station or the lot that abuts Belmont Avenue.
Mr. LeDoux asked if this would be strictly a used car dealership. Mr. Saso confirmed that it will. They plan to continue doing business the same as the previous operator, Vinnie Bergamini.
Chairman Yarum asked that Mr. Saso describe what is being utilized for parking spaces. Mr. Saso stated there is a divider line where the pavement is different. It has been agreed upon by the landlord and Mr. Saso where that break point is located. Mr. Saso pointed out the divider line on the map.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted with this site, there are two previously approved site maps because there was a slight modification made to the building.
Mr. Saso indicated the divider line would be approximately eleven to thirteen feet north of the office building. He confirmed the location of the asphalt and the parking area on the site plan as designated by a broken line. He also noted there would be no display of rental trucks on this property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the rental truck area is part of Area B that the Troiano’s are retaining.
Mr. Alsbaugh responded to a question from Chairman Yarum about information contained in his staff comments. He stated those comments concern the 2002 approval and have been addressed. The lines that designate Area B can be used for used car sales or the truck rental because there are two approvals for that one area. In Area A, it is another licensed area for which Mr. Saso is requesting the license.
Mr. Rinaldi reminded the applicant that if there is activity that is required to be in the state right of way, he may need a state permit from the Rocky Hill District Office.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is a long standing use that Mr. Saso is inheriting. He asked if this would require a confirmation from the state or a new encroachment permit. Mr. Rinaldi stated he is just giving a friendly reminder because it seems to be a recent topic on a planning list. Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mr. Saso can check with the district office in Rocky Hill but he would suspect that with the long history of use within the right of way on this site, it probably will not be an issue.
Mr. Rinaldi stated at last month’s meeting, a site on Route 5 with something in the state right of way was discussed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that concerned an expansion of a use within the state right of way.
Mr. Alsbaugh felt in this instance if that becomes the case, this Board should make the point that the two approved site plans would be the site plans the applicant would bring to the district office. The state will require two copies of their application form and two copies of any site plans plus whatever fee is assessed.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request to grant a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54 & EZO Section 11.00 C, for the operation of a Used Car Sales license, under the applicant’s ownership [site lease-hold]. Said operation is to be at the described location [767 Enfield Street] and as delineated by ‘Area A’ on the two site plan sheets submitted with the application ZBA#2003-10-03 (ZBA2002-07-02), approved map signed 7-29-2002, and additional revised ZBA2002-07-02 map [bay doors relocated] signed 5-21-2003). Said plan sheets are titled “ZBA2003-10-03” and show the site plan to the left, and the insert of the building to the right.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the use of the property shall remain as existing and no additional activity will take place under the change in ownership and licensing.
DISCUSSION: Variance application form – re-formatting options
Chairman Yarum stated Mr. Alsbaugh has indicated there has been considerable discussion about reasons for granting a variance and whether those reasons are appropriate or defensible. Chairman Yarum stated in order for the Board to maintain consistency, there is a desire to simplify the application. Mr. Rinaldi explained the research he has done regarding possible changes to the present application.
Mr. Rinaldi stated because applicants do not always seem to be aware of the process and because he wanted a personal confirmation that this Board was granting a variance for the right reasons, he researched what other towns have for an application. It was his feeling that if the applicant had some questions to answer, it also might get such an applicant thinking about why a variance could be granted. Mr. Rinaldi saw a streamlining of the process by such an application because the Board would be given the necessary information on the application. He asked what other Board members thought regarding a change to the application.
Chairman Yarum discussed the fact that some applicants are not fully aware of the process and the reasons for which a variance can be granted. He felt by an applicant answering questions such as those contained in the application example from San Marco would not only help the Board but also the applicant. The applicant would more fully understand what the regulations are and why they are before this Board.
Mr. LeDoux felt the proposed example is more user friendly and directs the applicant that if they are proposing a variance for a financial gain, that is a self-imposed hardship. It was his opinion that this application process may give people a better understanding.
Mr. Furey felt an application change would be a good idea because more and more today in all facets of town government, there is a need to educate the general public.
Mr. LeDoux added today people are doing a lot of their own improvements rather than employing a contractor and may not be aware of the town requirements.
Mr. Rinaldi discussed a specific example from a previous meeting and noted an application form such as the one being discussed would have assisted that applicant. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board does not receive the clarity necessary until there is an explanation from staff or a personal knowledge from a Board member. With the proposed application change, it would make it clearer for the applicant. Mr. Alsbaugh stated another advantage is there will be a clear and precise public record.
Mr. Furey noted in case of an appeal, the questions have already been answered. Also, there has always been a need for Board members to view the property that is the subject of the variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if Board members want to visit a property and have not done so by the time of the first meeting, they can always table the application to allow them time to view the property.
Mr. Furey asked if there is still a badge issued by the Police Department for town members that are on various boards and commissions. He stated Board members were previously sent a form to fill out prior to the badge being issued. When Board members went on someone’s property, they had a badge on with their picture taken by the Enfield Police Department and with the seal of the Town of Enfield on it as well as their particular identification information.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that on all land use applications there is a caveat that signing the application shows that the applicant is aware that town staff is allowed on the property. He acknowledged Mr. Furey’s comments about the need for formal identification and stated he will check into the current availability of such identification for Board members.
Mr. Rinaldi distributed additional information he obtained during his research.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town has a small variance book that has never been redone and it contains information similar to the information presented by Mr. Rinaldi. Mr. Rinaldi stated his information comes from different cities and towns and they all ask similar questions.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the application forms that are very precise tend to appear most often in municipalities where it is either allowed or not allowed. There is very little gray area and if you do not meet all the criteria or if you have one area that is obviously wrong, you do not get the variance. It is a self-protection and an effort to separate the variance process from any local political process.
Mr. Rinaldi suggested keeping the application form simple to understand and using just a couple of key points. These would include how does it affect the surrounding property and is this variance request self-created. Mr. Alsbaugh saw a need for the Board to include all the specific points in the issues dealing with what is legally a variance and the additional criteria that he pointed out in the local ordinance. An applicant would have to comply with or not be applicable to all of them.
Mr. Rinaldi would like to see information before hand rather than at the meeting. He stated he counts on Mr. Alsbaugh’s comments for every meeting and he thinks the majority of people that come before this Board may request a variance only once in their lifetime.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is sensing this Board likes the format used in San Marco.
Mr. Furey discussed the changing makeup of this Board and the fact that the consistency also changes. He felt by having specific questions on the application, there won’t be questions regarding others that have received variances and why can’t they receive the same.
Chairman Yarum discussed the variances that were granted allowing three-quarter ton vehicles and the fact that this is no longer the case. This causes questions from applicants. Mr. Alsbaugh recommended the response should be that this Board looks at applications on an individual case-by-case basis.
Mr. Furey stated there has been a rebirth in the Town of Enfield of more stringent guidelines for a number of things.
Mr. Alsbaugh gave credit to the Town Council for the improvement in the town. They are committed to budgets that allow staff to be available to all the boards and commissions which was not always the case in the past.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated boards and commissions change over the years and the more boards in succession that can lay out the process and clarify it for those that come after them, the less likelihood there is of things slipping through the cracks in the future.
Chairman Yarum stated he would like to see an application form that is a combination of the present form and the San Marcos form. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there will be some items that he should not and will not be allowed to delete from the present application.
Chairman Yarum commented regarding the first question of the San Marcos application. He note the Board has had properties before them that deal with lake properties and most of those properties are the same as those in the immediate area. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the lake district is a red flag for this Board, he reminded the Board that there is still a request from Mr. Giner to bring to the Planning and Zoning Commission an overlay district for lake areas. They would then be overlay zones under the regulations and this would allow them to do things differently than the standard R-33, R-44 or R-88 zones.
Chairman Yarum stated regarding the second question of the San Marcos application as to whether the conditions were caused by the property owner or the applicant, he would add “or previous owner or applicant.” He noted there have been situations where someone has bought a property and after they purchased it, realized they were out of compliance with a variance. They have then had to come in and make a change.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked that the Board focus on the case law regarding if a variance is self-created. He did not see a problem with wording it as suggested but he noted the need in making an application longer to also make it simpler.
Mr. Furey stated there have been people in the past who go around looking for pieces of property on which they could build by getting a variance. He stated the attitude has been they are buying these properties because they know they are going to get a variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they most likely would not qualify under the present criteria.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this Board is in need of one member and this application process would also help new Board members.
Chairman Yarum stated question #5 talks about the minimum required. He stated if the Board is going to incorporate this question, his comment is provide the Board with the distances and dimensions. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he requires that. He cited the court case and stated he makes sure that all variances requested are site specific and not for the whole property line or area.
Mr. Furey asked if there is an ordinance in town regarding fences and other items that may adversely affect other properties. Mr. Alsbaugh stated fences are controlled within the ordinance but do not require a permit as long as they meet certain criteria.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will sort through the various samples and make sure all the sections coincide with what is legally required in Connecticut. He felt the issues are fairly consistent across the country.
Mr. Furey complimented Mr. Alsbaugh for his input and guidance to this Board.
Mr. Alsbaugh appreciated the Board’s comments but also advised the Board to communicate with Town Council members because they are the ones that made the budget possible which allows the town business to get done in a more effective manner. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if a proposed application is drafted, should it be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Alsbaugh agreed it should be and he will verify with Mr. Giner what the process should be.
Regarding the applications this evening, Mr. Alsbaugh stated the K-7 forms are new and only the Chairperson needs to sign them along with the maps.
Mr. Rinaldi addressed the proposed application change and stated the overall goal is to be consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development and the Enfield Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated such a change will clarify, will aid applicants and Board members and will ensure a proper public record which is legally defensible. A lot of the uncertainty will be removed from the process and this will allow for a tighter operation.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Ledoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a 4 – 0 – 0 vote, the Board adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
John H. LeDoux, Jr., Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|