ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 28, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 28, 2003 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Edward Furey
Kevin Kibbe
John LeDoux
John Rinaldi
David Alexander, Alternate
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Peter Yarum welcomed the public and explained the procedure for tonight's meeting. He also explained when a variance can be granted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZBA 2003-04-01 – CT DOT, 227 Hazard Avenue (Map 83 / Lot 141), R-33 Zone:
i. Variance for reduction in lot area minimum requirements from existing 10,200 [33,000 sq. ft. required] to 9,242-sq. ft. – Section 4.10, Table
ii. Variance for a reduction in the minimum required Hazard Ave. front yard setback from existing 26 ft. [40 ft. required] to 13 feet. – Section 4.10, Table
Mr. Rinaldi did not participate in this public hearing because of his professional relationship with the applicant. Paul Thorogood will be the Voting Alternate for this application tonight.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record the two affidavits confirming the posting of the public hearing sign which are sealed and signed along with pictures submitted by the applicant.
Christie LaBella and Stephen Deagan appeared before the Board representing the State of Connecticut DOT in this application.
Ms. LaBella stated tonight they are requesting a reduction in the lot area from 10,200 square feet to 9,242 square feet with 33,000 square feet currently required in the zone. They are also requesting a reduction in the front yard setback from 26' to 13' with 40' required in the R-33 zone. The hardship is that the Connecticut Department of Transportation was required to purchase the property in total due to variance denials. The state would like the town to take into consideration that the former owner was not in favor of the variances. Now that the state is in ownership, they are requesting the lot area and setback reduction variances. The state project was for the benefit of the public.
Mr. Stephen Deagan stated in the vicinity of the subject property the front yard setbacks currently range from 18' to 26'. The actual distances from the current front of the building to the front curb line or edge of pavement range from 20' to 30'. The actual distance for the subject in this case from the front of the building to the curb line currently is going to be 23' prior to the realignment of the roadway in that area. The basic purpose for the taking they had on the property was for the sidewalk that was added in the area.
Mr. LeDoux asked what has changed. He was on the Board when the initial variance was denied in 1999. The request now is even smaller going from 15' to 13' for frontage and the lot sizes are even smaller than they were before. He questioned why, if the Board did not pass it previously, they would pass it now with even smaller dimensions.
Mr. Deagan stated when they did the initial application, there is a calculation as to how much area is needed. Now the project is completed and they have actual measurements. That is the basic difference between the former application and this one. It does allow for the distance to the sidewalk as well as an area beyond the sidewalk to be able to do work and keep within the right of way line.
Chairman Yarum questioned what is the hardship. Ms. LaBella stated that the project was for the benefit of the public and the state is now the owner of the property where previously it was the property owner who was not in favor of the variance. The state had to take the property in whole. Now that the state is the owner of the property, they would like to have someone live in the house and be able to do something with the property.
Chairman Yarum asked how would the applicant say this is not self-created. Ms. LaBella stated the construction was for the benefit of the town.
Mr. Deagan stated the state acquired the property and took the excess land that was needed for the roadway and may have self-created the additional nonconformity. The reason for the taking was to benefit the traveling public and for the safety of the traveling public by a realignment of the intersection to allow one traffic light to be operating versus the two lights previously in place. The intent initially was to take a sliver of property and leave the balance of the property intact. The Board previously, with input from the property owner who was against the variance being granted, decided that, in their opinion, that was correct. The state is now back before the Board as the property owner looking to market the property so it will become useable property.
Chairman Yarum stated within their application the question is asked what is the specific hardship that is claimed. In the very last part, the application states return property to the Enfield tax rolls. He asked if that means the property is not on the grand list at this time. Mr. Deagan confirmed it is not because of a state exemption.
Chairman Yarum noted by selling the property to an individual, this property would go back on to the grand list.
Mr. Thorogood questioned the major reason they are requesting this variance is because the parcel is actually going to be smaller due to the sidewalks. Mr. Deagan stated on this property, it was due primarily to the snow shelf and the sidewalk. There was a small portion about one and a half feet at the eastern most portion of the property and the pavement was put to the roadway and tapered back down.
Mr. Furey stated when the State of Connecticut does things for the betterment of the citizens in the area, it presents a unique set of circumstances. He is aware of this because his property was personally affected when they constructed Route 190. He does not see where there is a problem with setbacks because there are some in the area that are closer than what they are requesting. There are also two unique homes that have large back yards. The whole area has been realigned. The house on the triangular section is closer to the state property. Mr. Furey has always felt that when the state has come before the Board previously and they have been granted a variance, they have always worked in total cooperation with the town. Also, this road construction was done for the betterment of the total community and to move traffic through Hazard Avenue at a faster pace. He felt this is a minor glitch in the whole process.
Chairman Yarum asked if the application is denied, what becomes of the property. Ms. LaBella stated they would have some options. They would offer it to their other state agencies or they would offer the home to the town to purchase. A third option would be demolition which would be costly and is not the preferred option.
Chairman Yarum entered a letter into the record sent to Roger Alsbaugh dated April 28, 2003 from Karen LaPlante sent via email in regard to ZBA applications for the State of Connecticut regarding 225 and 227 Hazard Avenue. In the letter, it provides two different options for the Board to consider.
Mr. LeDoux asked if the state has looked into any additional options such as restructuring the two pieces of property plus the one next to it where the property was dismantled. Mr. Deagan stated their intent is to do what they can with the existing lots. Regarding the property at 225, the driveway actually enters on to Martin Terrace. To cut off half of 227 to incorporate the driveway going across to Elm Street for the driveway at 225 would create difficulty getting into the driveway. It could be looked at but the state's intent is these are lots of record currently and the taking areas have already been removed from them. At this time, it was more feasible for the state to request a variance for the properties as they stand today. Should the variance be denied, that may be a future alternative. With the feasibility of how the property lines would arrange out, it would be a totally different scenario. Parcel 225 would be tough to add additional land to and make it a functioning lot. Whatever is done would have to be taken from 227 and realign the property lines. This would be impacting the back yard and it would be a much smaller back yard.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Joan Harrison, 2 Martin Terrace, stated the properties back up to her side yard. There is a stockade fence which the state has not taken care despite her requests to them. She would like to see the state sell or rent the property. She noted the state has not done anything for Martin Terrace and the way they set up the roadway has not been a positive for the street.
Chairman Yarum asked if Ms. Harrison is speaking in favor of this application. Ms. Harrison stated she would like to see something done with it other than remaining vacant. The state did rent the property for some time last year and she would like to see the home occupied.
Chairman Yarum stated if the variance is granted, the state has the opportunity to sell the property. Ms. Harrison stated she would like to see that.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a variance of Section 4.10 / Table of the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Enfield granting a variance for a reduction in lot area minimum requirements from existing 10,200 sq. ft. [33,000 sq. ft. required] to 9,242 sq. ft. and a variance for a reduction in the minimum required Hazard Avenue front yard setback from existing 26 ft. [40 ft. required] to 13 feet. Reference is made to two site plans: the 1st titled "Compilation Plan...Map showing land released...by the State of Connecticut...Project No. 48-172, Serial No. 3A, Sheet 1 of 1, Drawn & Checked dates 10/02 (October 2002)", and 2nd titled "Improvements at the Rte. 190 South Road / Elm Street Intersection, Project 48-172, Sheet 15 of 52, Plotted 9/22/00, United International Corporation (Engineer) approval date of 2/7/01".
Mr. Furey stated when this application came before the Board previously, the property owners were not in favor of the variance because they wanted the state to purchase the property. Now the state owns the property because they have improved the public way. A neighbor stated tonight she is in favor of the state doing something with this property. The setbacks conform to the area both to the east and to the west. Mr. Furey felt there are two suitable houses that can be sold and kept on the tax rolls of the Town of Enfield and he was in favor of this variance.
Mr. Thorogood stated everything that has been done on this corner has added to the public safety, especially with the addition of the sidewalks. It has been a benefit to the public and he was in favor of the variance.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Thorogood voting in place of Mr. Rinaldi who did not participate in this hearing.
The reason for approval is the setback conforms to the properties in the area.
ZBA 2003-04-02 – CT DOT, 225 Hazard Avenue (Map 74 / Lot 204), R-33 Zone:
i. Variance for reduction in lot area minimum requirements from existing 9,000 [33,000 sq. ft. required] to 8,171 sq. ft. – Section 4.10, Table
ii. Variance for a reduction in the minimum required Hazard Ave. front yard setback from existing 24 ft. [40 ft. required] to 11 feet. – Section 4.10, Table
Christie LaBella and Stephen Deagan appeared before the Board regarding this variance request. Ms. LaBella stated they are requesting a reduction in the lot area from 9,000 square feet to 8,171 square feet for 225 Hazard Avenue with 33,000 square feet required in this zone. They are also requesting a reduction in the front yard setback from 24' to 11'. Ms. LaBella stated there was a discrepancy in the information sent out. The agenda notice had stated 14' but she stated she measured it to be 11' and that was on the application. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there was an error on the agenda but the balance of the information has the correct 11'.
Ms. LaBella stated the hardship is the Connecticut DOT was required to purchase the property in total due to a previous variance denial. The state had to take the property in total. The state would now like the town to take into consideration that the former owner was not in favor of the variances for this property. The state is now the owner and they are requesting variances for lot area and setback reductions. The project was for the benefit of the traveling public.
Mr. Deagan added the front yard setbacks in the area range from 18' to 26'. On this particular property, the distance from the house to the curb is approximately 25'. Prior to the state project, it was approximately 28'. There was a portion taken for the roadway and the sidewalk beyond that.
Chairman Yarum questioned for this Board to consider this, is it a fair assumption that they are dealing with two parcels and although different, the applications are pretty much the same for the same reasons. Ms. LaBella and Mr. Deagan 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.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for a variance of Section 4.10 / Table of the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Enfield granting a variance for a reduction in lot area minimum requirements from existing 9,000 sq. ft. [33,000 sq. ft. required] to 8,171 sq. ft. and a variance for a reduction in the minimum required Hazard Avenue front yard setback from existing 24 ft. [40 ft. required] to 11 feet. Reference is made to two site plans: the 1st titled "Compilation Plan...Map showing land released...by the State of Connecticut...Project No. 48-172, Serial No. 3A, Sheet 1 of 1, Drawn & Checked dates 10/02 (October 2002)", and 2nd titled "Improvements at the Rte. 190 South Road / Elm Street Intersection, Project 48-172, Sheet 15 of 52, Plotted 9/22/00, United International Corporation (Engineer) approval date of 2/7/01".
Mr. Kibbe noted the properties are in alignment with each other and the granting of this variance will benefit the town by getting the two properties back on the tax rolls.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Thorogood voting in place of Mr. Rinaldi who did not participate in this hearing.
The reason for approval is the setback conforms to the properties in the area.
ZBA 2003-04-03 - Ronald Lindman, II, 18 Spring Garden Road, Map 57/Lot 257, R-33 Zone: Request for a side yard variance of 3 feet, 7 feet proposed, 10 feet required, to expand nonconforming garage - Section 4.10.2H.
Ronald Lindman appeared before the Board with a simple variance request. He stated when he bought his home, the garage was already, by variance, seven feet from the neighbor's property marker. He now wants to extend the garage forward ten feet because he needs the space. He would maintain that same seven-foot variance to the neighbor's property line.
Chairman Yarum asked if the drawing on the table tonight is any different than what was previously sent to the Board. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is the same but just a clearer version of the copy in the packet.
Chairman Yarum asked why nothing is included in the meeting packet that designates the variance for the three feet was for the 22' of garage. It is his understanding that when someone receives a side yard variance, that it is for the entire side yard. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is a very specific location and dimensional item. When you are requesting a variance, you are receiving that numerical variance but it is specifically for the subject under that variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated previously, in 1972, the side yard was only reviewed for that specific location of the garage addition.
Chairman Alsbaugh asked Mr. Alsbaugh if he is satisfied that the front yard setback is not affected. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed this to be the case.
Chairman Yarum opened this public hearing to the audience.
Bella Simlic, 16 Spring Garden Road, Mr. Lindman's next door neighbor, spoke in favor of this request and stated Mr. Lindman needs the space.
Robert Levo stated he lives across the street from Mr. Lindman and has been his neighbor for fourteen years. Mr. Lindman approached him about moving the garage forward ten feet and he stated he is in favor of this request and has no personal problems with it.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a variance of Sect. 4.10.2H of the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Enfield for a side yard variance of 3 ft., 7 ft. proposed, 10 ft. required, to expand a legal, non-conforming garage. Reference is made to two site plans prepared by the applicant and submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-04-03.
Mr. Furey stated the existing property is seven feet from the line and the garage will extend in the front somewhat but it will still be behind the front of the house. The neighbors have no problem with this variance request. Mr. Furey did not feel the granting of this variance would be a detriment to the property or the neighborhood.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote with all Regular Members voting.
The reason for approval is the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the existing neighborhood.
ZBA 2003-04-04 - John H. Zdebski, Cottage Road, Map 80 / Lot 53, R-33 Zone: Request for variance of required full cellar, new dwelling in flood plain. - Section 4.10.2A
John Zdebski, the applicant and owner of the property on Cottage Road, stated he is requesting a variance to build a house without a cellar. The reason for this request is that he cannot comply with the ordinance in the town code with reference to a lot in the flood plain. The code, which was passed in 1995, Section 4-30, Water Holding Capacity, indicates that the water holding capacity of a flood plain cannot be reduced and any reductions caused by structures, improvements and filling, regrading or any other form of development on land shall be compensated by adding or widening of the flood plain. Also, one of the conditions is that storage shall be provided on site.
Mr. Zdebski stated the elevation of the lot runs between 184' to 184 and 1/2'. The elevation of the 100-year flood elevation is 185'. If the lot was 185', he would have no problems and would not be in the flood plain. In that the whole lot is under 185', there is no area within that lot where he can provide any compensation. This is one of the conditions he just cannot meet. Another option included in the ordinance is if he can provide compensation from another area outside the flood storage comparable to the area they are working in. He gave the example of using another person's lot that was above the 185' figure to borrow fill to bring to his lot. The town did not feel comfortable in doing this and suggested it not be done because it would be difficult to control the future development and/or filling of wherever they took fill from to bring to his lot. The only alternative they had was to build a home without a basement and the structure itself would be built on piers. This is a form of construction that the federal government does allow.
Mr. Zdebski stated if the town had followed FEMA's guidelines, he would have been allowed to build a house. However, the town is more restrictive in that they have this compensation included in their ordinance. Mr. Zdebski gave additional background as to why he is requesting a variance. This property was approved as a building lot in 1975 by the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. They approved the frontage of 56' and the total square footage of the lot at 6,776 square feet. Mr. Zdebski purchased this property in 1979. The flood insurance maps came out in 1980 for the Town of Enfield. In December, 1987, he had a site plan drawn up for this property to build a house. Between 1987 to the early 1990's, Mr. Zdebski was rejected to build a house because he was classified as being in the flood way. The flood way is an area that prohibits any construction because it is the most hazardous area. The federal government and the town do not allow building within the flood way. Mr. Zdebski stated attempts were made as confirmed by a letter dated 1994 to Town Manager Hayward requesting meetings with town officials because Mr. Zdebski was paying taxes on a lot he was not allowed to build on. The ordinance which now prohibits him from building was passed in 1995. Mr. Zdebski confirmed that he was making applications before this ordinance was passed. Since 1995, he has been attempting to do something with this property and he has always been rejected because he was told he was in the flood way and construction was prohibited.
Mr. Zdebski stated with his last attempt, he met with some officials in Town Hall in early 2,000 and, again, the issue of the flood way came up. At that point, he went to the DEP in Hartford and with their assistance, he was able to prove that whoever mapped the area in 1980 for the flood insurance maps did so incorrectly. Mr. Zdebski's property has never been in the flood way and the data as replotted confirmed that. He sent letters to Dewberry and Davis, LLC, the engineering firm which does all the flood mapping for the eastern states and they confirmed that whoever did the mapping for the flood insurance maps in 1980 made an error and Mr. Zdebski's property was never in the flood way. The new flood insurance maps dated 2,002 also confirmed that his property is not in the flood way.
Mr. Zdebski stated what he has been fighting is a situation that was not his doing. It was an error in the mapping by the flood insurance. He made an application to build a house in the early 1990's and he was rejected because of being in the flood way, something which he was never in. In 1995, the town passed an ordinance which Mr. Zdebski must comply with today which is the water holding capacity which he cannot comply with due to lack of fill. His only alternative is to build a house without a basement and build it on piers so that there would be very little obstruction of the flow if it ever occurred down the road. The first floor which calls for being about a foot above the flood plain or 186' would satisfy all the other requirements in terms of building in the flood plain.
Mr. LeDoux asked about the height of the piers. Mr. Zdebski stated the first floor which is livable area has to be about a foot above the flood level. The piers would have to raise the home above the ground about one and a half feet.
Chairman Yarum questioned why this application is not grandfathered if approvals were granted in 1975. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the approval from 1975 is still existing. However, a foundation variance was never requested because the applicant did not need one at that time. Nothing was constructed and any new construction project today has to meet the current regulations unless there is a variance. It was possible to build the house previously with a foundation.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the lot is a negative starting point and there is no compensation area. Mr. Alsbaugh further noted that the information regarding the mapping was not submitted to him with this application.
Mr. Zdebski stated the letter written to the Town Manager is in the file of the Building Department and he has a copy. Mr. Alsbaugh requested that this letter be submitted for this application.
Mr. LeDoux stated an application was made and the reason the application was denied was because Mr. Zdebski's property was determined to be in the flood way. Mr. LeDoux stated this fact has a big impact on this whole situation. If it was not in the flood way previously, Mr. Zdebski would have been able to build a home.
Mr. Furey asked about the properties in the area of this lot. Mr. Zdebski stated there is a piece of land and there is a chain link fence. As he faces the lot, the garage is on the left and the east side contains the chain link fence which defines the property. There is a flat piece of land which is for access by the Fire Department and then there is a stream with a home on the other side of the stream.
Mr. Rinaldi asked when storage is mentioned under the hardship, is that capacity storage. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the requirement is that any reduction in the storage capacity of flood waters must be compensated for on the site. This cannot be done when the entire site is in a negative position.
Mr. Rinaldi stated if the map has changed, would the change allow the applicant to build a basement. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the problem is the town requires a full basement under the living areas of dwellings. It is not that the applicant cannot build according to the town requirements or the FEMA requirements on his property. It is that the specific section of the town's zoning code prohibits him from doing those things that would otherwise be possible. The foundation concern happened after Mr. Zdebski's original variance and that occurred in the 1980's.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if Mr. Zdebski is familiar with what kinds of basements, if any, the neighbors have. Mr. Zdebski stated the one to the west which is with the garage, he formerly owned. It has a five and a half foot dirt cellar. The home to the east has only a crawl space due to flooding and is located about one and a half feet below Mr. Zdebski's property.
Mr. Zdebski submitted the 1994 letter for the file of this application. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he thought Mr. Zdebski had a letter about the flood way and the flood plain indicating that the map finding was not correct. He stated the letter submitted may be irrelevant at this point because the current map delineates the lot as a flood plain. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the wetlands officer has reviewed this. What the town is dealing with is according to the FEMA requirements, it is a voluntary participation on the part of municipalities. Once you participate, you must put together regulations. A town also stands to lose participation if they do not adhere to the town regulations and FEMA requirements.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated FEMA has their own requirements and towns are allowed to create their own ordinances which may be more restrictive. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the intervening history is not necessary for this variance application. The issue is the town's foundation regulation.
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. LeDoux, to approve the request for a variance of Sect. 4.10.2A of the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Enfield of the required full cellar in a new dwelling. Reference is made to two partial copy sheets of one site plan prepared for the applicant and submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-04-04.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this is lake front property and it doesn't make sense to construct a full basement if it will fill with water. He understands the existing homes in the area are cottages and most likely do not have full basements. Mr. Rinaldi did not feel this is anything exceptional to the neighboring properties.
Mr. Furey stated shoreline property always presents unique situations. The present area is all built up and the applicant wants use of his property. Through the changing regulations, the applicant has been prevented from such use.
Chairman Yarum stated of the many applications before this Board, when looking at the definition of when a variance can be granted, this was an application that is most in line with the Board's definition. The applicant has a unique situation that is not self-imposed. Chairman Yarum further noted he agrees with the previous comments of Mr. Rinaldi and Mr. Furey.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote with all Regular Members voting.
The reason for approval is the variance request was not self-imposed and is a unique situation.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Peter called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:10 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of March 24, 2003. Mr. Furey amended the Minutes stating they should read that he was appointed Acting Secretary for that meeting and not David Alexander. The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 4 - 0 - 3 vote. Mr. Kibbe, Mr. LeDoux and Mr. Thorogood abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Yarum stated Correspondence includes three letters sent to last month's applicants regarding the action taken by the Board.
NEW BUSINESS
Action on tonight's applications is included above under the individual public hearings.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|