ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 24, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, March 24, 2003, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
Edward Furey
David Alexander, Alternate
ABSENT: John LeDoux
Kevin Kibbe
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Yarum appointed Edward Furey at Acting Secretary for this evening's meeting.
Chairman Yarum informed the public when a variance can be granted and how this Board conducts their meetings. He also gave the applicants present an opportunity to defer their application until next month since only four Board members are present this evening and four votes are needed for a variance to be granted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZBA 2003-03-01 - Lia Volkswagen, 144 Elm Street, Map 57/Lot 326, BG Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability - new car dealership. EZO Sections 5.30.2C and 11.00C and CGS Sections 25/14-54 and 14-55 (as amended 10/01/02).
Dana Steele of J. R. Russo & Associates and Robert McCoutchey representing Lia Volkswagen appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. McCoutchey stated they are seeking approval for a Certificate of Suitability in order to obtain a Department of Motor Vehicle license. Their special use permit has already been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. McCoutchey stated he does need a sign off on the as built survey. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town has the documentation that is needed for any signatures this evening if this application is approved.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the request to grant a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes, Sections 14-54 and 14-55 and EZO Section 5.30.2C and 11.00C, for the operation of a New and Used Car Dealership and General Repairer's License, under the applicant's ownership. Said operation is to be at the described location (144 Elm Street) and as delineated on the one-sheet site plan submitted with the application ZBA #2003-03-01. Said plan sheet is titled "Site Layout Plan, LIA Auto Group, 144 Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut 06082, J. R. Russo & Associates, revised to 2/13/2003, Sheet I of 1". Site and use conditions of approval are as found within the Zoning Certificate - Special Use Permit as recorded on the Enfield Town Land Records, Volume 1549, Pages 197, 198 and 199.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern is the construction of LIA Volkswagen is nearing completion and this is before the Board so late in the process. He questioned if this is because of a lack in the procedures in place. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the procedures are in place but it was an oversight on the part of the applicant.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is it conforms to the business zone requirements in the Town of Enfield and the site is suitable.
ZBA 2003-03-02 - North Thompsonville Fire Department, 3 Colony Road, Map 33/Lot 251, R-33 Zone: A lot area variance of 23,925 square feet, 9,075 square feet proposed, 17,073 square feet existing, 33,000 square feet required, to seek re-subdivision approval. EZO Section 4.1 TABLE
Attorney Thomas Arvantely appeared before the Board representing the North Thompsonville Fire Department in regard to this application. He presented a color-coded map along with a survey map and an area map of the site. Chairman Yarum confirmed the receipt of additional maps which are the same as the maps previously submitted for this application with the addition of color coding.
Attorney Arvantely stated this property is owned by the North Thompsonville Fire Department identified as 3 Colony Road, Enfield. It is shown on the color-coded map in pink and yellow. There is also another yellow lot north of the area that Attorney Arvantely will also speak about. The 3 Colony Road property is located southern most on the map and has a frontage of approximately 65' on Colony Road and a depth of about 225'. What they are requesting is an area variance to divide the property approximately in half.
Attorney Arvantely stated the purpose of this application is for the North Thompsonville Fire District to continue a plan of development. The plan of development relates to the North Thompsonville Fire House shown in blue on the map. Surrounding that to the east and to the south is other land owned by the North Thompsonville Fire District which is presently utilized as a parking lot of approximately ten spaces. There are also four handicapped parking spaces a little to the north in the blue area but they are not shown on the map. Attorney Arvantely stated the Fire District has a membership of approximately fifty members. During times of meetings or in an emergency situation, parking is limited to the fourteen spaces immediately east of the Fire Department building. The overflow parking is located across the street, across Brainard Road, at the Enfield Wallpaper and Paint site and also in front of Miller Oil located on the easterly side of Enfield Street. The building was constructed between 1992 and 1993. If there is emergency attendance requiring parking of more than fifteen vehicles, that parking occurs out of the area of the Fire Department. Attorney Arvantely added on the area map, the property is identified as 439 Enfield Street.
Attorney Arvantely stated to the east there is another lot identified on the Assessor's records as 4 Brainard Road. The lot has a frontage on Brainard Road of approximately fifty feet and a depth of about 107'. This lot was purchased by the Fire District in 1996 and there was a single-family house situated on the lot. Between 1996 and October, 2002, that particular house was used as rental property by the Fire District. In October, 2002, the house was damaged by fire and it has been boarded up since. That house on the map is indicated with a notation "house to be razed." Part of the overall plan includes razing this house to make the site part of the parking lot.
Attorney Arvantely summarized the properties include the Fire Department building, a 1996 acquisition of 4 Brainard Road and a further acquisition in January, 2000 of the lot at 3 Colony Road which is to the south of the lot at 4 Brainard Road.
Attorney Arvantely stated there is a house located at 3 Colony Road which is presently rented. The basic plan of the District is to utilize 4 Brainard Road, the northern most yellow coded lot in conjunction with a portion of Lot 3 Colony Road, the center yellow lot on the map. That lot is immediately east of the present North Thompsonville Fire District property. The plan is to convert that area to a parking lot. If this occurs, what they are anticipating is another fifteen to twenty parking spots. They are not certain because the drainage calculations have not yet been completed. That would include an application before another commission.
Attorney Arvantely stated if this property split is approved, the District would then be left with a lot of 9,075 square feet. This is the remainder of the Colony Road property with a house on it. If this occurs and the variance is granted, the house will be refurbished and continue to be used as rental property by the District. Regarding establishing the remaining square footage for this remaining piece of the 3 Colony Road property outlined in pink on the map, they followed the boundary line which exists in eight of the ten house lots immediately to the east of the property in question. The proposed boundary line would be in conformance with the present boundary line of eight out of the ten area properties. With the variance approved, there would be a new parking lot for the Fire District, a house in conformity with the other homes in the area and very little disruption to the neighborhood on Colony Road. Attorney Arvantely noted the alternative would be to raze the house on Colony Road and utilize that for a portion of the parking lot. However, the Commissioners of the Fire District felt this would be too disruptive to the neighborhood. The present proposal includes the house remaining in a refurbished condition.
Attorney Arvantely stated there is practical difficulty experienced by the North Thompsonville Fire District with regard to land use in conjunction with the adjacent properties. The issue is one of establishing additional parking spaces and it also concerns parking by fire personnel which is a public safety issue. Attorney Arvantely stated their position is if a variance is granted, it would be in complete harmony with the zoning ordinance. The variance would have minimal impact on the Colony Road property. The house would not be disturbed but would be refurbished and the rear property line would be in conformity with eighty percent of the other properties in the area.
Attorney Arvantely submitted some additional written material as exhibits. Chairman Yarum entered the following materials into the record:
Three letters dated February 28, 2003 disseminated by the Fire District Commissioners to the neighbors inviting the neighbors to a meeting to be held on March 10, 2003. Attached to these letters are three consent forms by neighbors indicating that they had no objection whatsoever to the granting of this variance. The people have agreed by signature to the Fire District about going forward with this application. They include the residents at 7 Colony Road, 3 Colony Road which is a tenant for the property in question and the Miller's, a property owner on Enfield Street.
A certificate of award to the North Thompsonville Fire Department dated September, 1999.
Copies of the Reminder Directory dated 2003-04 showing a photo of the North Thompsonville Fire Department on the front page.
Attorney Arvantely stated Deputy Chief Douglas Maxellon is present this evening should the Board have any questions.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the created Parcel B which will be paved for a parking lot and if there are plans to merge this parcel with any other property that the Fire District owns. Attorney Arvantely responded the plans would be for the two parcels shown in yellow to be merged with the property to the west which would create the larger parking lot.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mr. Rinaldi is asking if it is a merger legally by deed rather than just by common development. Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern was Parcel B may become a land locked parcel without road frontage. Attorney Arvantely confirmed there would be a merger.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public.
Richard Leno, 9 Colony Road, stated his only concern is if this variance is not approved, the second alternative was to take the whole Lot #3 and demolish the house. He would not want to see an exit out on to Colony Road for those cars. Mr. Leno stated the cars driving down Colony Road now drive at excessive speeds and there is a concern about safety. An unsafe situation would be created with an exit out on to Colony Road. Mr. Leno was in favor of splitting the lot stating it would benefit the homeowners on Colony Road.
Attorney Arvantely stated they are requesting the variance so that the house will not be razed and there will not be a roadway through.
Paul VanEisengrine, 11 Colony Road, asked if this variance is not approved, does the Fire District have the right to pave the whole lot without zoning approval or would that require another application. Chairman Yarum stated it would be another application but not necessarily with this Board. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed it would be an application before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Attorney Arvantely stated they would prefer not to do that. Mr. VanEisengrine stated the residents would also prefer the granting of the variance. He does not have a problem with the concept of additional parking but had a concern about what other activities the parking lot would be used for and how often that would occur.
James Trip, 5 Colony Road, stated his home would be the most affected by the plans presented by the Fire District. He pointed out 5 Colony Road on the map. Mr. Trip stated his concerns are aesthetics and safety. He has a young child and will own the property adjacent to the parking lot where very large vehicles go in and out rapidly. He acknowledged the need for additional parking by the Fire District but he informed the Board about his concerns regarding safety and aesthetics. He stated he was not informed of the volume of the siren prior to purchasing the property and he feels his property is somewhat devalued because of its close proximity to the Fire District. While the Board has letters of consent from others, they are from a business owner whose parking lot is being used by the Fire District, the Millers. Regarding the letter received from 7 Colony Road, the owner does not reside in that property. The final letter was from the tenants who are themselves, firefighters. Mr. Trip stated he is not thrilled about the Fire District's plan but felt the variance they are requesting is definitely preferable to having an entire parking lot next to his home. Mr. Trip added there are definite pluses and minuses to each plan and they want to be good neighbors to the Fire District.
In response to a question from Chairman Yarum, Mr. Trip stated he has a concern if the entire area is paved for a parking lot. He acknowledged that either scenario will not be aesthetically pleasing to his property because they will have a parking lot in their back yard which is not what he envisioned when he purchased this home six months ago.
Chairman Yarum stated he noticed on the property survey plan, there is a wood stockade fence to the west of Parcel B and he asked who owns that fence. The applicant stated that is the Fire District's. To the east of Parcel B is a wood retaining wall and Mr. Maxellon stated that is on the neighbor's parcel.
Chairman Yarum asked how the Fire District will address screening or the aesthetics so that neighbors are not viewing a parking lot. Attorney Arvantely stated that would be the purview of another commission. He answered that the town's Planning and Zoning Commission is very concerned with aesthetics. He submitted the Beautification Award and the cover of the Reminder to confirm that the Fire District is conscious of aesthetics. Attorney Arvantely acknowledged that the Fire Department building is one of the most attractive buildings in the Town of Enfield. He expects that any improvements will involve the stockade fence plus landscaping not only as required by the Commission but probably more so to make it aesthetically pleasing.
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 lot area variance of 23,925 square feet, 9,075 square feet proposed, 17,073 square feet existing, 33,000 square feet required, to seek re-subdivision approval - EZO Section 4.1 Table. Reference is made to:
1. A site plan titled "Property Survey prepared for the North Thompsonville Fire District Showing Lot Split at 3 Colony road, Enfield, CT, Sreenath Associates, Sheet 1 of 1, dated 1/24/2003" (no embossed seal), and
2. A site plan titled "Area Map Prepared for North Thompsonville Fire District Depicting Proposed Zone Use Variance Site, 439 Brainard Road and Colony Road, William W. Symonds, Sr., Land Surveying, Sheet No. 1 of 1, dated 11/29/2002", both submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-03-02.
A condition was also added that Planning and Zoning take into consideration the statement of the applicant and their intent to merge the lots and give particular attention to the screening and lighting during the application process due to the location of the site abutting residential homes.
Mr. Furey stated he viewed the property today and they have a need for parking for the Fire Department personnel. He felt the Board has to keep in mind that this is a serious safety issue because if there was a disaster in a city like Springfield, they would be calling upon the fire departments of this area. This Fire District does not have sufficient parking to allow for temporary parking of larger vehicles from down state. Mr. Furey felt this represents a serious safety issue and the District has done the best with their proposal. They are keeping the property on Colony Road consistent with the neighborhood. The District has received recognition for their beautification efforts. Mr. Furey sympathized with the abutting neighbor's concerns but felt those concerns can be allayed by the fact that they do have a stockade fence and when the final renovations are done, the site will be an asset to the area. Also, when this abutter bought the property, he knew the Fire Department was there. Mr. Furey summarized that the District needs additional parking and he was in favor of their proposal.
Mr. Alexander stated if this variance is not granted and the Fire District goes ahead with their alternate plan, such a plan would be more disruptive to the neighborhood. He felt the Board should consider granting this variance.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he agrees with the previous comments. He noted he drives by during Monday night drill at this Fire District and all the overflow parking is on the Enfield Wallpaper site. He visited the site today and stated fifty feet of parking is not much at all. Mr. Rinaldi had a concern about the rear lot and that the property be merged into one property. He asked the staff if it would be necessary to add a condition to this variance to assure that the property will be merged into one property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if it is a condition of the variance, it would be on the Land Records.
Mr. Rinaldi again questioned if a condition is necessary regarding merging the property into one lot. He stated the applicants have the intention of merging these properties. He asked if something may be overlooked down the road causing the rear lot to remain as a separate property. He would like to avoid such a situation.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the final map submitted for approval and signature by the Planning and Zoning Commission would have to indicate everything that has come before it. Mr. Rinaldi stated he believes the applicant will do their best to merge these lots but he wanted to avoid any future problems.
Chairman Yarum agreed with the consensus of the Board. He would like to see the applicant proceed with the present plan rather than their alternative plan. His only concern is that when this application goes before Planning and Zoning that special attention be paid to screening from the residential neighborhood as well as lighting of the parking lot. He questioned if this could be a condition by this Board since it is under Planning and Zoning's purview but he would like staff to forward these Minutes to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their information.
Mr. Alsbaugh recommended that any concerns by this Board be added as conditions to the motion. This information would then go directly to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the Notice of Action.
Mr. Alexander made an amendment to the motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to add the following condition: that Planning and Zoning take into consideration the statement of the applicant and their intent to merge the lots and give particular attention to the screening and lighting during the application process due to the location of the site abutting residential homes. The amendment was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The motion, as amended, was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is for public safety and welfare. Also, the North Thompsonville Fire District has done their best in trying to maintain the aesthetics and the Board believes they will continue to do so.
ZBA 2003-03-03 - Dave Fredrick, 40 Belmont Avenue, Map 39/Lot 44, R-33 Zone: Request for a front yard variance of 15 feet, 20 feet proposed, 35 feet required (proposed 'new' lot), and a side yard variance of 1.2' feet, 8.8' feet proposed, 10 feet required and coverage variance of 11.5%, 31.5 proposed, 20% allowed (proposed 'old' lot), to proceed with unmerging two lots of record. EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Dave Fredrick, a co-applicant, and Steve White, the property owner, appeared before the Board regarding this application. Mr. Fredrick stated the large map before the Board shows an overlay of the general area.
Chairman Yarum confirmed receipt of the following materials from the applicant:
A topographical survey of the Town of Enfield, Hartford County, Connecticut, Sheet No. G16.
A sheet of addresses and acreage that relates to a number of copies of street cards for 4 Columbus, 13 Belmont, 33 Belmont, 41 Belmont, 12 Summer, 63 Elm, 42 Park, 16 Park, 59 Park, 63 Park, 64 Park, 85 Park, and 87 Park.
Mr. Fredrick stated they are looking for variances regarding the existing lot on the east side of Columbus and the south side of Belmont. Also, if the Board chooses to unmerge these two lots, they would be looking for a frontage variance on the two lots. Mr. Fredrick stated he submitted information to show that their request for the proposed lot coverage is in keeping with the neighborhood.
Mr. Fredrick brought up the street cards which indicate the lot coverage of the various parcels. They also indicate the acreage, total lot coverage and percentage of structural coverage. He noted 4 Columbus has structural coverage of 32% of the total lot as an example. He summarized that the average total lot coverage highlighted in green is 29.3%. He pointed out that it is not unusual in this neighborhood to have structural coverage exceed 20%.
Mr. Fredrick stated the request is for a variance of 16.46 feet on the existing home when he is only looking for 9.8'. He noted if you take the existing home and add up the home and porches and enclosed fire escape, it totals 29.8'.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is a difference of calculation. Mr. Fredrick confirmed this to be the case noting he is looking for a variance of 9.8' on the existing home and not 16.46. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the calculations were based on the area given for the proposed lot and the scaled calculations of the footprint for all the structural coverage.
Mr. Fredrick stated he did not see this difference until this evening but he is only requesting a variance of 9.8'. He asked that the Board look at the schedule submitted and noted it is very common in this neighborhood to have an average of 9.3'.
Mr. Alsbaugh and Board members recalculated the figures during a brief recess by the Board. Chairman Yarum confirmed the actual coverage variance being requested by the applicant is 19.68% with 31.5% proposed and 20% allowed.
Mr. Fredrick stated in 1993, Laurie and Steve White bought this property at 40 Belmont Avenue. In 1995, it was recommended by the Fire Marshal that the enclosed fire escape be put on the property to gain access to the third floor apartment. To be able to reduce the amount of side yard distance between the proposed lot and the stairwell, the White's are prepared to take the fire escape staircase and turn it to the north thus making the side yard 8.8'. The White's are also prepared to establish additional parking in an area shown on the map by Mr. Fredrick. They will also have more parking area along the side yard. Because of the uniqueness of this property, Mr. Fredrick noted any emergency vehicles would be able to approach the property from the west, south and north.
Mr. Fredrick stated when the White's bought this property in 1993, they owned the property that is highlighted in blue on the map. This included one lot, the proposed unmerged lot to the east and another lot that was cut out in 1995. There is an existing new home built on one of the lots. The White's are hoping to be able to unmerge this lot.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the actual variance request is 11.5 and not 19'. It is still the 31.5' total proposed but the actual variance being requested is 11.5'.
Mr. Fredrick stated this is very consistent with the neighborhood. The existing homes do exceed the total lot coverage at approximately 29% and this request would be 31.5%. He further pointed out that the street cards show that this variance request is very consistent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Fredrick presented a schedule showing that the proposed unmerged lot is very consistent with the neighborhood. He referred to the schedule that was done January 14, 2003, which shows that the subject property to the east and west is very consistent with the neighborhood. He pointed out the new unmerged lot of 5,000 square feet and stated the amount of square footage of the subject property is very compatible with the complexion of the existing neighborhood.
Chairman Yarum noted that also entered into the record is a calculation letter dated January 14, 2003 showing the square footages of the lots to the north and south side of Belmont Avenue.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what is happening with the fire escape to the third floor apartment. Mr. Stephen White, 5 School Street, stated the fire escape was mandated and built in 1995. At the time he was going to run the stairs along side the house but he figured they could just run out to the yard. If this is a problem for the 6' side yard requirement, he could turn the steps to the north running along the house which would add a side yard of 8'8" and reduce the footage of the variance needed.
Mr. Furey stated between Harrison and Columbus Avenue fronting on Belmont Avenue, there is a house at the corner of Harrison and Belmont that has been built since the map the Board has was printed. Mr. Fredrick stated the home is colored in blue, the proposed unmerged lot is to the east of it, and to the east of that is a house that was built between 1995 and 1997.
Mr. Furey asked if you divided it equally with the property for number forty, there could have possibly been four lots there. One house is on two lots and the applicant would be creating the other half of the block for two lots. Mr. Fredrick responded at this point there are three existing lots and he presented a revised map. Taking a look at the "e" and "l" under Belmont, that is the proposed unmerged lot. The lot to the south of "m" and "o" exists with the home and the lot on the corner of Harrison and Belmont under "n" and "t" is existing. The only home that is not existing is the one they are going to unmerge under the "e" and "l" on Belmont. That will make four fifty-foot lots running across the area between Columbus to the east and Harrison to the west.
Mr. Furey asked if the lot on Harrison Avenue is built on Lot 75 and not Lots 75 and 76. Mr. Fredrick confirmed that is correct. There is a home existing on Lot 75. There is a home on Lot 76. There is no home on Lot 77 and there is a home on Lot 78.
Mr. Furey asked if the home on Lot 78 is a single-family home. Mr. Fredrick pointed out the existing multi-family home on Lot 78 which contains three families. On Lot 75 and Lot 76, there are one-family homes. Lot 77 is for the proposed house.
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. Alexander, to approve the request for a front yard variance of 15', 20' proposed, 35' required (proposed 'new' lot), and a side yard variance of 1.2', 8.8' proposed, 10' required, and coverage variance of 11.5%, 31.5 proposed, 20% allowed (proposed 'old' lot), to proceed with unmerging two lots of record - EZO Section 4.10.2H. Reference is made to one site plan titled "Lot 77 and 78 Enfield Estates, Prepared for David J. Fredrick, Belmont Avenue, Ed Lally & Associates, Site Plan, and dated/revised 3/11/03)", submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-03-03.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the proposed 50' frontage lot seems to fit in with the surrounding homes. He asked about the sump pump proposed and noted the last time this applicant was before the Board, there was a concern about runoff. He would like this noted for consideration when this application proceeds to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Chairman Yarum stated the applicant has stated they would be willing to move the stairs from the existing home. He felt a revision of this application would be necessary to do this and he proposed that the motion reflect a side yard variance revised to 1.2', where 8'8" is proposed and 10' is required. Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to amend the motion as proposed by Chairman Yarum with the side yard variance request revised to 1.2', where 8'8" is proposed and 10' is required. The amendment was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The main motion, as amended, was denied by a 2 - 2 - 0 vote. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Rinaldi voted in favor; Chairman Yarum and Mr. Furey voted nay.
Mr. Furey stated the reason he voted nay is because of the safety issue. There is a three-family home next to a single-family home and there is only 20'. He felt the area is getting too congested and the granting of this variance is not suitable to the neighborhood and could compromise public safety.
The Board took a ten-minute recess at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of February 24, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 3 - 0 - 1 vote. Chairman Yarum abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of a report from the Town Attorney's Office along with approval letters from last month's meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Action on tonight's public hearings is contained above under each public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to adjourn. Following a 4 - 0 - 0 vote, the Board adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|