ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 30, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, June 30, 2003, in the Town Hall Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman John Rinaldi called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: John Rinaldi, Vice Chairman
John LeDoux, Secretary
Edward Furey
David Alexander, Alternate
ABSENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Kevin Kibbe
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vice Chairman John Rinaldi gave audience members the option of rescheduling their public hearings to the next Regular Meeting. The reason for this was only four Board members were present and four votes are required to approve a variance. The applicants scheduled for this evening chose to proceed.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi apprised the applicants of when a variance can be granted.
ZBA 2003-06-01 - Craig St. Germain, 130 Brainard Road, Map 58/Lot 169, R-33 Zone: Variance: accessory building height. - Section 3.30.7Ai.
Craig St. Germain appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. St. Germain stated he is present tonight requesting a variance because he has a storage building that exceeds the allowable height. He owns a motor home that is 12' high and it will not fit in a standard size building because the door is not big enough.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi asked what is unique about Mr. St. Germain's situation compared to anyone else with a twelve-foot high recreation vehicle. Mr. St. Germain stated his hardship is he cannot store his motor home for the winter unless he can fit it within a building.
Mr. LeDoux noted that in the Vice Chairman's opening remarks, he read what a variance is and what a hardship could be. Such a hardship cannot be self-imposed. Mr. LeDoux asked how is Mr. St. Germain's property uniquely different from letting everyone else have a structure larger than twelve feet in height.
Mr. St. Germain stated while his property is no different, the building he wants to construct is too high for the ordinance requirements.
Mr. Furey stated Mr. St. Germain is allowed twelve feet and he is asking for four additional feet or to sixteen feet.
Mr. St. Germain acknowledged that if the building was a gable style building, the measurement would be taken from the top of the wall or the peak and go half way. However, with a rounded or flat roof, the measurement is taken from the top to the bottom. The building he proposes to locate on the property has a rounded roof rather than a gable.
Mr. Furey confirmed with Mr. St. Germain that there is no accessory building presently on the property and he wishes to locate one with a rounded top on his property. Mr. St. Germain stated the building is a pre-fab architectural building.
Mr. Furey stated Mr. St. Germain's property goes back 426'. Mr. St. Germain confirmed this and stated on the other side it is 481' deep. The area where he would like to locate the building is at the far end of the property and it would not be visible from the street.
Mr. Furey asked about the location of Mr. St. Germain's property. Mr. St. Germain stated he is on the southern side of Brainard Road. There is a lot on each side of his and one directly behind his lot.
Mr. Furey asked if there are woods in the area. Mr. St. Germain stated the property is lightly wooded with some vacant property.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated on the property to the south, the topographical map shows a house on the next lot. Mr. St. Germain stated there is a neighbor living on the lot directly behind his lot. On the side of his property, he has a right of way consisting of a 500' driveway that goes all the way back to his neighbor's property for access. Mr. St. Germain's address is 130 and his neighbor is 132 Brainard Road. The driveway is between Mr. St. Germain's lot and 134 Brainard Road.
Mr. Furey asked if the back of Mr. St. Germain's property is open or wooded. Mr. St. Germain stated they left a tree line in the back and on each side but most of the other trees have been removed. He talked to the neighbor in the back about installing a fence or adding more trees to the existing tree line.
Mr. Alexander asked how long Mr. St. Germain has had this motor home. Mr. St. Germain stated not that long and it is presently parked up the street on Pine Grove. Regarding winter storage, Mr. St. Germain stated the motor home was purchased after last winter and he has not yet needed winter storage. Mr. Alexander asked if this variance was denied, where would Mr. St. Germain store this motor home. Mr. St. Germain stated he can store it on his property but he would like to store it in an enclosed area.
Mr. Furey asked if there are any other structures like the ones proposed in the town currently. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is one type of hoop house that has become popular over the last five to ten years. There are commercial tarp hoops but this is an actual pre-fab metal structure with metal framing on a slab. It would be a step up in the category of the available hooped buildings.
Mr. Furey asked what style home is on the property. Mr. St. Germain stated his home is a cape. He plans to wood frame the front of the accessory building and side it to match his home.
Mr. Furey noted the Board has heard similar situations. He stated if the applicant has a cape style home and a rounded structure in the back of the property, if a variance is granted, it goes with the property. Mr. Furey added in the future, Mr. St. Germain may have difficulty selling it because it does not match the rest of the property. Mr. Furey asked if there are any other possibilities rather than this rounded building. Mr. St. Germain stated the only other avenue he has is to install much more of a commercial building with steel beams and a gable style roof which would be overkill for his purpose.
Mr. Furey asked about the size of the proposed accessory building. Mr. St. Germain stated the front would be 40' and the depth would be 66.5'.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi asked about motor homes in general and asked if the applicant went with a steel structure, would he still have a problem with the 12' height. Mr. St. Germain stated if he went with the commercial building with the steel beams, that building has a gable and the measurement would be different. He could spend a lot more money and get a building with a peak which would be a lot more than he needs but it would meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Alsbaugh stated measuring the height would be from the peak to the bottom of the eave. You could have a building twenty-foot high to the peak and as long as the half-way point is twelve feet or under, it would be allowed.
Mr. St. Germain stated he has a peak style garage now that exceeds 16' that was there when he purchased the home.
Mr. St. Germain stated in order for him to avoid the variance, he would have to purchase a more commercially styled building that would be allowed but would be more than he needs.
Mr. Furey asked what will be stored in the 40' x 66' structure other than the recreation vehicle. Mr. St. Germain stated he has some antique cars and his father's boat that will also be stored in this structure.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi asked if there is a limit regarding the number of recreational vehicles that can be stored on a property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated recreational vehicles have to be stored behind the front line of the house. The cars have to be registered. As far as the amount, it is not an issue.
Mr. LeDoux asked if the applicant had looked at other sizes of such structures. Mr. St. Germain stated there is another style that comes to a peak but that model would be much narrower and resemble a metal tobacco barn. It would be so deep and narrow, you would have to move everything out to access items in the back. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed there are not a number of in between sizes of these particular structures. Mr. St. Germain stated there is an air conditioner on top of the motor home located above the twelve feet height making the actual height about eighteen inches over the twelve feet.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi opened this public hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this variance application. Vice Chairman Rinaldi closed this public hearing.
ZBA 2003-06-02 – Christopher Cutter, 22 Oxford Drive, Map 58 / Lot 292, R-33 Zone: Variance: commercial vehicle exceeding ¾-ton capacity on residential lot. – Sections 4.20.1(3) & 10.10.1(G)
Christopher Cutter appeared before the Board regarding this variance.
Mr. Cutter stated he is a life-long resident of Enfield and he is self-employed with a mobile tool business. He does business in the Manchester, Vernon and Ellington areas and drives his truck to and from work. He doesn't do any business in the town or at his home. He drives to his customer territory.
Mr. Cutter stated his situation with his tool truck is unique because the view of his driveway, his house and the truck is completely obscured as you are driving up his street from the south. You cannot see the truck, the driveway or any other vehicle until you get right at the foot of the driveway. If you are coming from the north, there is a limited view of the vehicle because of other vehicles in the driveway and other property and tree lines. Mr. Cutter proposed that he could park his truck behind the front property line of the garage to further minimize the view by any neighbors. There is a solid pine tree hedge row on the southern border of his yard.
Mr. Cutter stated he approached his neighbors and asked if anyone objected to his truck parked on his property. No one had any objections and he did obtain quite a few signatures from people on his street. Some of those neighbors are also present to speak for him tonight.
Mr. Cutter stated in the past a variance very similar to the one he is requesting was granted to another tool truck owner living on 17 Sandpiper. It is a similar tool business and the same type of truck. The owner ended up moving it behind the front line of the house.
Mr. Cutter stated he believes the reasoning for the ordinance requirement is so that people are not parking unsightly vehicles all over the town and bringing property values down. Over the last few years that his truck has been parked at this location, he has seen the prices of some of the homes in his neighborhood increase substantially. The vehicle is a 2000 truck and his property is well kept.
Mr. Cutter noted Oxford Drive is a circular road and not a through street. There is limited traffic and with the hedge row, he doesn't see that too many people will be exposed to the truck. He is out of the house at 6:30 a.m. and back home at 6:00 p.m. so during the day the truck is not in view. He has checked into other options in case this variance is not granted. He has talked to friends that own commercial property but because the truck houses over $150,000 worth of tools, they are reluctant to allow the vehicle to be parked on their property. Mr. Cutter stated the truck does have an alarm system but an alarm has to be heard. If he parks the truck a significant distance from his home, the alarm system would not be effective. Mr. Cutter stated he also has an on-board computer that runs off accessory batteries inside the truck. The alternator will charge those batteries during the day but at night the vehicle also needs to be plugged in so that the batteries can be recharged. He questioned where he would find a location that would also provide power to the truck and the computer system. Mr. Cutter stated UPS comes to his home once a day and there are orders that need to be loaded on to the truck. If the vehicle is parked elsewhere, it would be difficult to accomplish this.
Mr. Cutter offered to make a small spur on the southern side of his house next to the garage for the truck. The tree line on one side would shield the view of the truck. The garage would shield the view of the truck on the other side. You would only have a direct nose on view of the truck and the cab of the truck is really a small one. He presented pictures of the truck and where it is parked in the driveway now to show the impact that it is having.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi noted the receipt of five photographs by Mr. Cutter showing the tool truck and/or his residence.
Mr. Cutter stated his first choice would be to continue to park his truck in his driveway as he has been but he would be willing to make some changes to minimize the view of the truck. He reiterated the variance granted to Don Durner of 17 Sandpiper where the circumstances were almost identical.
Mr. Cutter stated his neighbors on either side and across the street are present tonight to voice their support. Most of them are in direct view of the truck. Mr. Cutter stated he presented the petition to his neighbors because he wanted to see how many people were in favor of his parking the truck on his property and also if there was a complaint from someone. Of all the people he spoke to, he could not identify one person that objected to the truck being parked at this location.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi stated the applicant has submitted a list of eighteen signatures stating they have no objection to the vehicle being parked on the applicant's property.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi noted that applications for commercial vehicles in residential areas have been before this Board previously. Some of the concerns are safety, because it is a residential neighborhood, the noise of diesel engines and working hours.
Mr. Cutter stated he has three children and his is very careful in the neighborhood when he is coming in or leaving. The truck has a diesel engine but it is only a four-cylinder and a relatively quiet truck. It is no noisier than the school bus that wakes him up in the morning. Mrs. Cutter added the truck is not kept running.
Mr. Cutter stated he drives safely and he would not consider his truck driving down his street any more dangerous than the UPS truck or the mail truck on the street every day.
Mr. Rinaldi opened this hearing to the audience.
Lorea Joyce, 25 Oxford Drive and directly across the street from the Cutter's, spoke in favor of this application. She stated the Cutter's are great neighbors and there is no issue with this truck. The truck is in their driveway and it is never on the street. She is the only one on the street that sees this truck directly and her family has no problem with it being parked there.
Frank Boyer, 23 Oxford Drive, a resident living across the street, spoke in favor of this variance request. He has no problems with this truck. It does not wake him up in the morning and Mr. Cutter is a safe driver on the street. He confirmed he has no issues with this truck.
Les Munt, 17 Oxford Drive, spoke in favor of this variance request. He has no problem with the truck. Mr. Cutter is a good driver and the truck is quiet and well kept. He noted the dogs in the neighborhood barking keep him awake and there is no ordinance covering this. He noted the eighteen signatures on the petition presented to the Board represent pretty much everyone on the street and all have no problem with this truck.
Gary and Kate Aigley, 18 Oxford Drive, Mr. Cutter's next door neighbors, spoke in support of this variance application. The truck presents no problems on the street visually and is actually a little smaller than Mr. Aigley's Ford Expedition.
Kate Aigley stated the Cutter's are good neighbors and take good care of their property. Safety has never been an issue. Mr. Cutter has always been very careful and there is no noise from his property at night. She is in support of the variance request.
Bob Tkacz, 1300 Enfield Street, spoke in opposition to this variance request. He noted there is a rule in town that trucks above three-quarter ton capacity are not allowed in residential areas. He added this Board has ruled against this type of request in the past. Mr. Tkacz stated there is another such truck on Cornfield that is also being dealt with along with thirty other similar violations. He stated he did not turn this one in but it was done by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Tkacz submitted a picture taken Sunday morning where the truck is in full view from the street. He stated this is a quality of life issue about trucks being parked in residential areas. He pointed out this truck is in full view of the street. He cannot see any hardship to allow this truck to be parked at this location.
Mr. Tkacz stated the applicant has several alternatives. He could park the truck in his garage or he could park it at a storage facility like the one on South Road where there is security and the other amenities needed are available. Mr. Tkacz stated Dome Trucking has moved his truck to Bradley Field.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi noted receipt of a photograph from Bob Tkacz of Mr. Cutter's truck taken Sunday morning.
Mr. Tkacz stated he would hope the Board would continue the pattern they have set in the past.
Mrs. Cutter reiterated this exact variance has been granted on Sandpiper. They are more than willing to work to do whatever would be necessary to make their property more appealing to the eye. She does not see what personal interest Mr. Tkacz has in this request and stated if we wanted to start discussing zoning violations in the town, the Board could be here all night long. Mrs. Cutter stated the truck is not in full view until you get right in front of their home because of the tree lines. Mr. Cutter added the people that view the truck are here tonight stating they are in favor of the variance.
Mrs. Cutter stated the intent of the ordinance is to keep residential neighborhoods looking nice. However, their property is well cared for and secluded. The property values have only continued to increase indicating the truck is not taking away from the neighborhood. She cited three homes that have sold recently.
Mrs. Cutter stated they would be willing to consider any options available. Mr. Cutter stated he could move the truck to the side to minimize the view. He also felt he would have hardships as far as hearing an alarm system going off or being able to work back and forth between the vehicle if it was parked at another location.
Mrs. Cutter stated the height of the truck is higher than a standard garage meaning that the truck cannot be parked in the garage.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi asked about the tonnage capacity of this truck. Mr. Cutter confirmed it is larger than a three-quarter ton (capacity). Vice Chairman Rinaldi noted according to the zoning ordinance, if it is over three-quarter ton (capacity), it cannot be parked in the garage. Mrs. Cutter stated the truck has that capacity because of the weight of the materials in the truck. As far as the actual size, the truck is really not as big as the capacity would lead you to believe it is. Mr. Cutter added it is not a vehicle that could be considered unappealing and he has several neighbors present to voice how they feel about the truck on his property.
Mr. LeDoux asked when the variance on Sandpiper was granted. Mr. Alsbaugh recalled such an approval and he will research the file to confirm the date. Mrs. Cutter stated the truck is the same size truck as Mr. Cutter's and the neighborhood is also similar.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested keeping the hearing open to allow Board members to visit the property and also verify the other variance. It was the consensus of the Board to table action on this variance application until the next Regular Meeting.
Mr. Alsbaugh further stated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer will not continue with any additional enforcement as long as the applicant is pursuing the variance.
Mrs. Cutter asked to see the picture presented by Mr. Tkacz. Mr. LeDoux noted it is the same picture as was submitted by the Cutter's. Mrs. Cutter added that if her husband comes home and the children are playing in the driveway, he will park in the street momentarily until they clear out the bikes and other items.
Mr. Cutter stated his suggested addition of a spur on the side of his home would further conceal the view of the truck.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi asked that Mr. Cutter restate the uniqueness of this particular truck. Mr. Cutter stated the truck is a diesel truck which needs to be plugged in during the winter to maintain the warmth to the engine so it will start correctly. The major concern he has regarding the need for the truck to be plugged in is it has an on-board computer and six batteries inside the cab of the truck which need to be charged overnight. All the accessories, the lighting fixtures, the display racks, the computer, run off the six six-volt batteries. These batteries will recharge during the day while he is running the truck but at night when the truck is shut down, those batteries need to be recharged. There is an outlet where he plugs the truck in and there is an on-board battery charger that charges the batteries up so that everything is fresh and ready to go the next day. If those batteries are not fresh to go the next morning, the alternator does not supply sufficient power to recharge the batteries for the day and they will go dead causing him to lose computer power.
Mrs. Cutter stated a storage area would require a high bay garage which is not available in the storage facilities. In their search for an alternate location, they have been unsuccessful. Also, the concern of Mr. Tkacz regarding such zoning violations has not affected the Oxford Drive neighborhood.
Mr. LeDoux asked how high the vehicle is. Mr. Cutter responded it is approximately ten feet high.
Mr. Alexander asked if all Board members would be able to consider this application. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that to be the case as long as any members not present this evening review the Minutes and other documentation from this meeting.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to table ZBA 1003-06-02 until the July 28, 2003 Regular Meeting. The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
ZBA 2003-06-03 – The Hartford Courant, 103 Phoenix Ave., Map 46 / Lot 27, I-1 Zone: Appeal of Zoning Enforcement Order, storage not in enclosed building. - Sections 2.20 & 2/30.2
Vice Chairperson John Rinaldi announced that ZBA 2003-06-03 has been withdrawn.
ZBA 2003-06-04 – Michael & Janene Bernier, 150 Bernadino Ave. (a.k.a. Enfield St., ID #00071080), Map 35 / Lot 227, R33 Zone: Appeal of Zoning Enforcement Order, un-permitted residential structure. - Sections 4.10.2 & 4.20
At the request of the applicant, this public hearing was rescheduled until the July Regular Meeting.
The Board recessed at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Vice Chairman John Rinaldi called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:17 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the Minutes of May 19, 2003.
The Minutes were approved by a 3 - 0 - 1 vote. Mr. Furey abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Correspondence includes three approval letters from the Board's last meeting. He also informed the Board that the statutes have been amended effective October 1 as far as location for motor vehicle uses and services. This would remove the requirement for the Zoning Board of Appeals to have a separate public hearing for location approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission would have to amend the zoning ordinance which references the ZBA approval of the location. The state is also re-instituting the section that a public hearing will not be required for transfer of the certificate to another officer or for a relative. Mr. Alsbaugh added that the issues of traffic and stacking in the case of motor vehicle uses will be dealt with by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 2003-06-01 – Craig St. Germain, 130 Brainard Road, Map 58 / Lot 169, R-33 Zone: Variance: accessory building height. – Section 3.30.7Ai
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for a variance of 4.23 ft. of the maximum accessory structure height to 16.23 ft., 12 ft. allowed - EZO Sect. 3.30.7A[i]
Reference is made to a site plan of topographical mapping from the applicant identified as "Received Planning Office, Enfield, CT - MAY 19, 2003" and to an elevation and details plan, titled "Steel Master Buildings, Project: Craig W. St. Germain, Enfield, CT, DWG 81-357-22005, dated April 1, 2003", submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-06-01.
Mr. Furey noted while the proposed structure is a big building, Mr. St. Germain's property is also a large site.
Mr. Alexander stated in a review of this application, a structure like this could be built with a gable roof in a way that meets the ordinance. He noted an option is available that does not require a variance that would fit the mobile home into a garage. He also did not hear a compelling argument why a variance needed to be granted to build this structure as opposed to a gabled structure.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi stated this particular structure seems fairly recent as compared to gable type structures. He asked if these structures are recent and has this Board dealt with these types of structures in the past. Mr. Alsbaugh stated as far as he is aware, the particular issue of height has not come up with a structure like this. Most of the similarly shaped buildings that have currently become popular usually fall outside the state building code and do not require a zoning permit. Because of the materials of this structure, it brings it under the state building code and qualifies it as a structure that needs a zoning and building permit.
Mr. LeDoux stated in the past this Board has dealt with buildings like this that were smaller, considered temporary and did not have foundations. Homeowners are allowed as many of those as they want on their property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated those are not classified as structures and if they were, would be required to have a building permit. Such smaller structures are of concern to a number of towns but at this time they do not fall under the state building code.
Mr. LeDoux stated this structure does have a lower profile than an a-frame structure and will not seem as large. With an a-frame, the peak would be around 20' meaning it would be a much larger structure.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the deciding factor is where will that measurement fall between the eave and the roof peak and still be large enough to allow access and storage of the motor home.
Mr. LeDoux noted the motor home is 12' and there would be an issue regarding the size of the doors. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the height of the garage door is below the mid-way point where you measure the twelve feet and if it was wide enough with the peak just high enough and the eave just low enough, you might still get a door high enough to fit an RV in it.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi noted the way these continuous curve structures are measured. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they are measured from the ground to the top of the highest point because there are no eaves and the wall is continuous. There is no point from which you can apply the zoning measurement regulation.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi suggested that the zoning regulations be fine tuned to address these particular arch-type structures. In this case, if the peak was twelve feet, anything offset from that center line has to be less. Mr. Alsbaugh stated such a subjective observation can be made but one of the main reasons why that measurement description is included in the ordinance is Enfield chose to promote gable buildings. While it is not really a design criteria, that was one of the reasoning factors behind the phrasing for measuring included in the ordinance.
Board members did some calculations to determine the minimum requirements regarding the size of the structure. Mr. Alsbaugh advised the Board that they would have to take into consideration whether or not that size of a structure is available.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi stated the air handler on the recreational vehicle is definitely a factor in determining the size because with the height increase of an additional eighteen inches, the entire size of a structure would need to be increased.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi questioned if you could still get a structure like this that would not be as large but that would accommodate the applicant's vehicle. Mr. LeDoux noted granting this variance would allow a structure the size of a home in the applicant's back yard. Because of the size of the footprint, someone could turn this structure into a house. Mr. LeDoux also reiterated the applicant's comments about the option available which would be a structure much larger than he needed.
Mr. Alexander conceded if the Board does not grant this variance, the result could be a much larger structure on the property and this would also concern him.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi agreed and he also considered the comments from staff. The structure is a metal arched structure in a residential neighborhood and he questioned if aesthetics is a factor in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated unless it is in a local historic district or there are design criteria in an overlay district, this is not an issue. The only related issue is one of the reasons for the accessory structure definition phrasing regarding the height was to encourage gable buildings. It does not mean it disallows anything else.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is if this variance was not granted, the applicant would be forced to build a gable style structure that could open up the possibility of a home being located at this location in the future.
A second reason is the property is large enough to effectively minimize the impact on the neighborhood.
ZBA 2003-06-02 – Christopher Cutter, 22 Oxford Drive, Map 58 / Lot 292, R-33 Zone: Variance: commercial vehicle exceeding ¾-ton capacity on residential lot. – Sections 4.20.1(3) & 10.10.1(G)
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to table action on this application until the Board's July 28, 2003 Regular Meeting. The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|