ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, February 24, 2003 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Acting Chairman John Rinaldi called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.
PRESENT: John Rinaldi, Acting Chairman
Edward Furey
Paul Thorogood
David Alexander, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Mr. Rinaldi advised the applicants that only four Zoning Board of Appeals members are present this evening and in order to grant a variance, all four votes must be in favor of the application. He offered the applicants an opportunity to defer their applications until the next regular meeting. The applicants chose to proceed. Mr. Rinaldi discussed the procedure for this evening and when a variance can be granted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZBA 2003-01-01 – John & Judy Norris, 24 S. Maple St., Map 84 / Lot 11, R-33 Zone: Variances for the placement of an accessory structure (shed) forward of the rear building line to the principal street line, and forward of the front yard setbacks of the zoning district on the principal and second streets on a corner lot - EZO Sect. 3.30.7A[ii]
John and Judy Norris, 24 South Maple Street, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Norris stated they purchased a potting shed from Kloter Farms who set it up on their property. They did not realize that a variance was required. They are now requesting a variance to allow this shed to remain because of the uniqueness of their lot. They have two front yards because they are on a corner lot. The setback requirement is 35'. They have installed planting beds, perennial gardens, vegetable gardens and some walkways. They have a swing set on their property, another shed and a wooded area. The purpose for this potting shed is for the garden. It contains a sunroof and windows for potting plants. It requires a southern exposure to be effective at all. Mr. Norris stated they are requesting a variance, even if it means they have to move the shed from its current spot. They also have an in-ground pool that is landscaped with low shrubbery. The shed would have to be almost in the middle of the shrubbery on the side of the pool to meet the rear yard requirements.
Mr. Norris stated their back yard is fenced in. There is also one area where there is access via a gate to the back yard. The spots for the location of this potting shed are very limited. Mr. Norris stated he has checked with everyone in the neighborhood and they are pleased with the appearance of this potting shed. It also does not block the view of anything.
Mr. Norris stated he does have a 10' x 16' storage shed in the back yard for storage of lawn equipment.
Mr. Norris stated the existing potting shed is an expensive shed that they would like to keep and use.
Mr. Thorogood asked if the shed is located on the right hand side on the corner of South Maple Street and Dusthouse Road. Mr. Norris stated behind the shed there are two raised planting beds, a walkway, a fenced in area, and two perennial gardens. There are also stairs up to the pool and a treed area. There's a shed by the treed area and an in ground pool in the back. He pointed out the limit of the setback which would end up on the side of his pool. He also identified the present location of the shed. Mr. Thorogood asked about one area on the site plan. Mr. Norris stated that is an open area but it would mean the second shed would be located in front of the existing shed. The open area is also where his children play.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked that the Board compare both maps because the map that Mr. Norris submitted along with his application is not really to scale. Mr. Alsbaugh drew a map to scale to show the actual location of the shed.
Mr. Norris stated on the other side of the pool that faces that shed and the open area, there is a slope coming down from the pool area. There is probably an eight to ten foot sloped area and there are junipers planted. If they have to move the shed from its current location, they would want to keep the shed and get a variance to move it to a Board approved location on the property. He noted the limited areas available for this shed.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he visually inspected the house and the shed location. He noted if the shed were moved to the back of the garage, still facing the same way, it would still have a southern exposure. However, this is presently not possible because of the 35' setback from Dusthouse Road. Mr. Norris stated they put in some walkways and two perennial gardens. As you start heading more westerly towards the back of his lot, he has two smaller hemlocks that over the years he has topped allowing them to become bushy. This would be the only place to relocate the shed and it would mean cutting down the two hemlock trees. It would be in the fenced back yard but it also still would not be 35' from the road because it is a corner lot having two front yards.
Mr. Rinaldi asked how far the edge of the garage is from Dusthouse Road. Mr. Norris stated they measured it and the distance from the garage to the pavement is approximately 28'. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the base map is based on the 1991 air photos and the property lines are not clear. There really is not a map that exists showing the property line in relation to the right of way. What is shown is a guess. Therefore, all the measurements would have to come off the house.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if this was not a corner lot, what would the side yard setback be. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the side yard requirement would be 10' if it was not a corner lot and the rear setback would be 35'. Mr. Norris stated he is across the street from a light industrial use and the building is not 35' off the road. It is more like 22'.
Mr. Thorogood asked about the amount of the variance requested. Mr. Alsbaugh stated 22' forward of the front yard setback of the second street which is Dusthouse Road.
Mr. Furey stated corner lots have come before this Board many times in the past and they all present unique situations. This is also a unique situation. In his opinion, the request for 22' is not an unreasonable setback for the area in which this home is situated on South Maple and Dusthouse Road.
Mr. Thorogood noted the variance request of 22' would not have any impact on visibility on that corner of Dusthouse Road. Mr. Norris confirmed that the shed would not impact visibility.
Mr. Thorogood asked about the sloping in the yard. Mrs. Norris stated the pool is level with the house but then the yard drops down considerably toward the back of the lot and slopes in two directions down the hill and away from the pool.
Mr. Rinaldi discussed possible areas to relocate the shed. Mr. Norris stated heading south from the pool area, the area suggested by the Chairman includes steps from the pool that go to walkways that head both east/west and north/south to two gates. On each side of these gates are two large perennial flower beds. The area suggested by the Chairman would fall right in the middle of that. There are also two large hemlocks and an entrance gate to the back yard.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the front setback required is 35'. If the Board tried to adhere to that setback and requested that the shed be relocated away from South Maple Street to adhere to this setback, the shed would be against the side of the garage restricting access. Mr. Rinaldi asked if it could be located further back so there could be access. Mr. Norris stated there are two walled semi-circle planter beds. The property slopes from north to south down the hill and the permanent raised planting beds border the full length of the garage. Relocating the shed would require that the walls be taken apart or that trees be removed.
Mr. Furey stated the topography of the area represents a difficulty and it is a corner lot.
Acting Chairperson Rinaldi asked for input from the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
This public hearing was closed.
ZBA 2003-01-02 – Joseph Raschi, 174 Shaker Rd., Map 81 / Lot 126, I-1 Zone: Variance of the side yard setback for steps to a new dwelling – Section 6.10.1Table
Joseph Raschi, 174 Shaker Road, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated he is building a modular home. The area is zoned light industrial and in order to have this home, he had to get all the planning done ahead of time. He has the plans for the house and has talked to an engineer and surveyor. They received approval from the town, located it on the site and all of a sudden, when the final survey was done, they realized the steps were going across the property line. Presently, Mr. Raschi stated he has a four-foot drop off his front entrance. He is requesting a variance of the side yard setback to install new steps. He noted the home sits about 200' off the road. He proposed to install a berm with trees to screen the area. The neighbor next door, Dan Hinckley, and the neighbor to the rear, the Poleks, have no problems with this variance request.
Mr. Thorogood asked how far out the steps go. Mr. Raschi stated it is a five-step drop or about a four-foot area. There is a 26.2' setback and he needs to infringe another four feet into this setback area. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is estimated at approximately five feet to allow for any slight variations.
Mr. Furey felt this is an odd set of circumstances that was not the fault of the applicant. He did not feel the 5' variance request would interfere with the surrounding properties. He also had a concern about safety.
Mr. Thorogood felt 21' seems sufficient and granting the variance would resolve any safety concerns.
Mr. Rinaldi pointed out the wood steps shown in the back. Mr. Raschi stated those are sliders, not a main entrance, and there is no way to access them from the outside. The wood steps were added to access the home during the construction.
Acting Chairperson Rinaldi asked about the main entrance and what room does that door open up into. Mr. Raschi responded the kitchen/living room. It is the front door and will allow access from the kitchen/living room as well as the two bedrooms. Mr. Raschi stated if he had known there were going to be problems, he would have put the entrance where the French doors are located. However, the home is now already built and all the necessary wiring installed.
Acting Chairperson Rinaldi asked for input from the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Acting Chairperson Rinaldi closed this public hearing.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
1. November 25, 2002; no 1/27/03 minutes, no quorum
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of November 25, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Alsbaugh reported Correspondence includes the approval letter to the Hampton Chase Condominiums. The previous packet included the final draft amendment from this Board to the Planning and Zoning Commission about the setbacks for accessory structures around the lakes. At the last meeting, Mr. Alsbaugh reported to the Board that the recommendation from the Director of the department is to put it in the form of an actual overlay zone around each so that it is legally specific to the two lakes. This will be on a future Planning and Zoning Commission agenda.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported Correspondence also includes the meeting dates for 2003 and the communications from the Town Attorney's Office regarding Botticello v. ZBA informing the Board they will be withdrawing their application. There is also an advertisement regarding the Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies. Mr. Alsbaugh requested that any Board member that would like to attend this meeting should let him know. Mr. Rinaldi confirmed that he would like to attend this Annual Meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 2003-01-01 – John & Judy Norris, 24 S. Maple St., Map 84 / Lot 11, R-33 Zone: Variances for the placement of an accessory structure (shed) forward of the rear building line to the principal street line, and forward of the front yard setbacks of the zoning district on the principal and second streets on a corner lot - EZO Sect. 3.30.7A[ii] -
Mr. Thorogood made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for variances for ZBA 2003-01-01 which include:
1. Placement of an accessory structure (shed) 57-ft. forward of the rear building line to the principal street line,
2. 10-ft. forward of the principal street front yard setback,
3. And 22-ft. forward of the front yard setback of the zoning district of the second street, all on the corner lot - EZO Sect. 3.30.7A[ii].
Location, distances, and dimensions are delineated on the site plan submitted by the applicants and as prepared by staff, to the best of their ability.
Reference is made to two site plans marked "Received Planning Office, Enfield, CT 06082 Dec-17-2002" further noted as "Plan #1" (by the applicant) & "Plan #2" (by staff), as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-01-01.
Mr. Furey stated this is a unique situation because it is a corner lot with difficult topography. He is in favor of granting this variance.
Mr. Thorogood stated the applicant does not have much of a choice regarding the location of the shed and removing elements that have been built and located to beautify the property would not be in anyone's best interests.
Mr. Rinaldi had a question about the historic part of this property. He asked if the property is located in a historic district. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is within the National Register District because of archeological sub surface concerns about resources. This lot would not be sensitive for sub surface deposits because it has already been disturbed. The house has been constructed along with the additional development on the property itself. The future concerns for the area are what will be done with any sort of passive development of the powder mill area.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this is a corner lot and the Board has in the past been lenient to applicants with corner lots. His concern is with the front setback. This Board seems to have established a precedent of upholding the front setback. He cited an application a few months ago where the applicant wanted to put a garage closer to the street and this Board denied the application due to a lack of hardship. Mr. Furey stated there was significant neighborhood opposition to that particular variance request.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he visually inspected the property and thinks the shed is attractive. He would not want to see all the trees cut down on the property. He questioned if there is a way of not infringing on the front setback.
Mr. Thorogood stated he feels 22' is sufficient and this area is a difficult area. He would hate to have the shed moved causing a safety issue if it is not properly installed with the area topography.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are:
1. The unique limitations of this corner lot present a sufficient hardship, i.e. topographical limitations relating to slope of available spaces and the permanent stone walls in place already to deal with some of these spaces, and
2. No negative impacts to the general area were disclosed after discussions on that issue, specifically in that there are no sight line impediments to traffic and that no negative comments were made or received from the public.
ZBA 2003-01-02 – Joseph Raschi, 174 Shaker Rd., Map 81 / Lot 126, I-1 Zone: Variance of the side yard setback for steps to a new dwelling – Section 6.10.1Table
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for variance of 5 feet of the side yard setback to 20 feet, 25 feet required, to allow new front access steps on a new dwelling to remain - EZO Sect. 6.10.1Table.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Prepared for Joseph W. Raschi, 176 Shaker Road, Dennis G. Rehmer, Land Surveyor, Sheet No. 1, Date: Dec. 20, 2002", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-01-02.
Mr. Furey cited the unique safety issue that has resulted and needs to be resolved. The solution also does not impact the neighborhood in a negative way.
Mr. Alexander also cited safety concerns since this is the main entrance to the home.
Mr. Thorogood stated the safety concerns outweigh any negative effects of granting this variance.
Mr. Rinaldi stated it is unfortunate it got to this point. He personally does not know of any main entrance that doesn't have at least one step. He stated perhaps there should be another check in the town procedures to avoid such occurrences in the future. He believes there is a safety factor involved and that safety is the main factor to be considered in this application.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are:
1. A legitimate safety concern results from an emergency egress point being blocked causing greater distance to safe escape for occupants, and
2. The situation requiring the variance was the result of the actions of others beyond control of the applicant (installation of the foundation; pre-wired and pre-cut exit locations of pre-fabricated dwelling), and
3. No negative impacts to the general area were disclosed after discussions on that issue, in that, because of the unique configuration and location of the lot, there will be no impact on neighbors as a 20-ft. side yard setback where 25-ft. is required is adequate in this instance.
BOTTICELLO vs. ZBA - Withdrawal of Appeal by applicant; case and site status - discussion and official statement
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Town Attorney's Office would like to cover any legal concerns and requested that a statement from the Board be included in the public record regarding Botticello vs. ZBA. ZBA members confirmed that the ZBA understands that the Zoning Enforcement Officer has declared the Botticello property in compliance, that the applicant has withdrawn the appeal and that the case is now closed.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|