ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, November 25, 2002, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John LeDoux
Kevin Kibbe
John Rinaldi
David Alexander, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Peter Yarum explained to the audience how business will be conducted this evening and the criteria for the granting of a variance.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZBA 2002-11-01 - Heritage Farms Condominiums for Hampton Chase Condominiums, 304 Brainard Road, Map 77/Lot 81, R-44 Zone: request for a variance to allow a second Development Identification Sign, a variance to allow a 'directory-type' sign, and a variance of 1.5 square feet of the maximum site sign area to a combined total of 25.5 square feet, 24 square feet allowed - EZO Section 10.30.4, Table
Natalie C. George, 304 Brainard Road, #22, and Mary Landry, 304 Brainard Road, #24, appeared before the Board regarding this application. Ms. George is Treasurer and Ms. Landry is President of the Heritage Farms Condominiums.
Ms. George presented a quick summary of the events that have occurred and why they are requesting a variance. One developer chose to develop a site at 304 Brainard Road. He developed twelve units and then gave the rest of the site back to Fleet Bank in approximately 1992. In 1994, Fleet Bank sold the undeveloped portion of the site to Babylon Enterprises. Babylon returned to the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission and utilized the same road layout that originally had been proposed for the original development of the condominium project. However, they totally changed the structures from the original plan. The first twelve units are attached colonial townhouses with detached garages and known as Heritage Farms. The next twenty-eight units, a reduction in two units from the original plan, became four townhouses and the remainder are ranches attached in clusters of either two, three or four units with internal garages. Heritage Farms had been declared as a condominium and incorporated prior to Hampton Chase coming into existence. The post office only identifies the parcel as 304 Brainard Road. Except for the development sign, where they have painted over the pricing and which is not in good shape, Heritage Farms has no identification.
Ms. George stated they are trying to cross reference emergency numbers for the fire and police department both in Hartford and in Enfield to Heritage Farms, 304 Brainard Road. However, local deliveries have some problems. Hampton Chase already has a regular condominium sign and there is no intention of doing anything with that. Heritage Farms was also marketed at a lower price range to single nesters and retirees. At this point, two-thirds of the units are occupied by single retired individuals on limited incomes.
Ms. George stated Hampton Chase was for many years renters and that has now been changed and the project is all owner occupied. The two condominiums are not at all similar in regard to their documents, in the economic level and in the types of people that occupy the units. Any possibility of attempting to put the two condominiums together makes no sense and would probably never get full agreement of the owners and others involved.
Ms. George stated they need to take down the developer's sign which is in a state of disrepair. When they do that, there will be no identification for Heritage Farms. They went to the Planning Department, met with Jose Giner and discussed the possibility of installing a street identifier sign similar to those at entries to industrial parks. Mr. Giner thought this was a good idea and he suggested a plain white sign identifying the parcel as 304 Brainard Road and then to list Hampton Chase, Units 1-12 and Heritage Farms, Units 13-40. Ms. George stated they are not looking for another large condominium identifier sign within the property and even if they were to install one, it could not be seen from the street.
Ms. George noted the need for some identification at the beginning of the road. She stated this whole thing probably could have been avoided if the private road that was developed was given a name and the post office in turn would have given the first twelve units an address. However, it did not happen that way and they are located to the rear of the property. They do have 150' of frontage on Brainard Road but it is only an emergency exit. The curb is not cut and there is no way of carrying the pavement all the way out to between the units because there is not sufficient spacing between the units to fit a road in to develop another entrance. The Town Planner has also stated the town does not want them to develop another entrance.
Ms. George stated there is a permanent right of use of the road through Hampton Chase for Heritage Farms and this is included in the recorded documents. Their drainage goes into Hampton Chase's wetlands. They also share responsibilities for the various piping systems and electrical lines that go through the area. The problem occurs in getting an identification so that people can find Heritage Farms.
Ms. George stated they are requesting a 30" x 30" simple identification sign to be installed on the island. Hampton Chase had to give their permission because the sign will go on their land. Heritage Farms will record a document with them whereby Heritage Farms will maintain the sign. Heritage Farms will give them a hold harmless agreement in regard to any damages that might occur to the shrubbery in the maintenance of the sign.
Ms. George stated the sign being requested would not be lit and the purpose of the sign is for identification so vehicles coming down the road can find this development.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the existing 2' x 6 and 1/2' sign. Ms. George stated Hampton Chase has a lighted condominium development sign which will remain.
Mr. Kibbe asked if an ambulance needed to access the project, would there be any confusion. Ms. George stated given the age and medical condition of many of the people in Heritage Farms, ambulances are in the area a great deal. The local ambulances do not have a problem and know this location. If there was a need to bring anything in from Hartford, the Police Chief has told her that he is trying to get all the units cross referenced in Hartford so they would also be referenced as 304 Brainard Road.
Chairman Yarum asked if the sign proposed has been reviewed with the Traffic Safety Officer. Ms. George confirmed that it has and there were no concerns in having the sign in this location. There is a developer's sign existing which is 4' x 8' in the island and they are anxious to remove it because it is in disrepair.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Donna Ellis, President of Hampton Chase Condominiums, spoke in favor of this application. She stated she cannot wait for the removal of the existing large sign and the installation of the new sign. Ms. Ellis stated she has her two very sick parents living with her now and it is difficult for people to find this development. The Hampton Chase sign is very small and this Heritage Farms sign will address the current identification problems. Ms. Ellis stated the board of Hampton Chase is also in favor of this sign and would like to see it installed as soon as possible.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Yarum called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the Minutes of October 28, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a 4 - 0 - 1 vote. Kevin Kibbe abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of a memo regarding the meeting dates for 2003.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of a memo to Wayne Bickley from Roger Alsbaugh regarding a possible violation of commercial vehicle storage on West Shore Drive. Mr. Alsbaugh updated the Board and stated Mr. Bickley has visited the site and does not see a violation. He will continue to monitor the site.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of the Town Attorney's Report for November which includes an updated letter regarding Botticello v. Enfield ZBA, CV 00-0595630. Chairman Yarum noted from the correspondence, it appears that they are trying to resolve the matter without having to go to court.
Chairman Yarum reported receipt of the notice of decision on the five applications heard last month.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 2002-11-01 - Heritage Farms Condominiums for Hampton Chase Condominiums, 304 Brainard Road, Map 77/Lot 81, R-44 Zone: request for a variance to allow a second Development Identification Sign, a variance to allow a 'directory-type' sign, and a variance of 1.5 square feet of the maximum site sign area to a combined total of 25.5 square feet, 24 square feet allowed - EZO Section 10.30.4, Table.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the request for variances:
1. To allow a second Development Identification Sign (double sided - 2.5 ft. by 2.5 ft., 12.5-sq. ft. total),
2. To allow it to be a 'directory-type' sign, and
3. To allow a variance of 1.5-sq. ft. of the maximum site sign area to a combined total of 25.5-sq. ft., 24-sq. ft. allowed. - EZO Sect. 10.30.4, Table
Reference is made to three site plans marked "Received Planning Office, Enfield, CT 06082 Oct-21-2002", each marked additionally "Plan #1, #2, or #3", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2002-11-01.
Mr. Rinaldi noted safety is definitely a factor in this application and it seems to be a minor change of 1.5 square feet.
Mr. LeDoux felt the proposed sign would be an improvement over the existing 4' x 8' developer's sign.
Mr. Kibbe stated it is important for ambulances, health personnel and visitors in general to be able to find this address without difficulty. Mr. Rinaldi added that the granting of this variance would clarify a confusing situation.
Chairman Yarum stated when he initially read this application, it appeared to be a self-imposed hardship. With the explanation from the applicant, this is not the case at all. It is a situation where the initial developer for whatever reason did not complete the project and it ended up being taken over by the bank. The condominium project is now two separate projects. Suggestions could have been made at the time the second condominium complex was developed but because this was not done, it is now before this Board.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is safety is a main concern in that the second development has no identification.
Discussion: Recommendation to the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment of the Enfield Zoning Ordinance requirement for accessory structures to be placed behind the rear building line of the main structure, specifically in lake communities. Section 3.30.7A.
Natalie George, a member of the Conservation Commission, also participated in this discussion.
Chairman Yarum stated because of the application heard by this Board last month where there was a lake but no rear yard setbacks, the Board had asked Mr. Alsbaugh to prepare an initiative for discussion on how to resolve this situation. Mr. Alsbaugh proposed an amendment to the ordinance and presented a draft document entitled Discussion: recommendation to the Enfield PZC, amendment of Section 3.30.7.
Ms. George stated one of the concerns in Enfield is the possible erosion of the soils. She spoke to the Town Council and Zoning Commission and suggested they review their ordinance in regard to setbacks related to specific soils on a site. The reason for this is with a lot of the town's major brooks, if you put a structure right at the top of the bank of the brook, there will be a movement of the structure or erosion of the soil underneath. This will occur even if you are 25' from the edge of the wetland. Ms. George suggested if there was some way a recommendation can be made to the Planning Commission at the time they are reviewing any lot in regard to setbacks that they must have a report from the Wetlands Agent on the underlying soils. They should also make a recommendation at that time if there has to be a variance from the standard setback for either side yards or rear yards. This would be particularly true where lake properties are involved. Ms. George stated it would not always come to the Zoning Board of Appeals unless the applicants disagree with the finding on the soils. This would require including something in the zoning ordinance that would allow that kind of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission dependent entirely upon the nature of the soils underneath.
Mr. LeDoux stated this discussion concerns lake front properties. This Board is suggesting that secondary structures be moved to the front of the property. Ms. George suggested also including the soils concept because if you put the secondary structure in the rear of the property, you may be close to a defined wetland. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed this with Mr. Bickley regarding how to define the subject areas with the amendment. They considered the highly erodable terrace soils but in this particular instance, it was Mr. Bickley's suggestion to the Board that the change be narrowly drawn and specific to the two lake areas. He added that Ms. George's suggestion is part of another discussion area and this amendment would be in relation to an accessory structure. While there may be applicability to lots that are located on terrace soils, most of those already exist. Any new lots that would be developed in those areas are going to be overseen with regard to location, setbacks and accessory structures.
Mr. Alsbaugh acknowledged that Ms. George's concerns are important but in this particular instance what the Board is trying to accomplish is better accomplished by being more narrowly defined rather than all encompassing. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can have further discussions on the subject brought up by Ms. George.
Chairman Yarum stated what Mr. Alsbaugh is proposing is identified in item four in the bold underlined print and on the next page there are a number of bullets that are up for discussion.
Chairman Yarum commented that in the third bullet the wording is "with frontage on an approved town road may not be necessary." He stated the Board could possibly run into a situation on a private road where the Board would want this to apply. He suggested dealing with the parcel and not necessarily who owns the road.
Mr. LeDoux noted the application last month was for a home on a lake which was located on a private road.
Mr. Alsbaugh will note this particular item prior to sending it to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He added the Planning and Zoning Commission may want to discuss it further and may have other suggestions.
Chairman Yarum stated the fifth bullet states "limiting the size of the structure to the equal of a garage with two bays." He suggested limiting it to the amount of square footage instead of the size of a garage with two bays. This will more specifically define how large the structure can be. Chairman Yarum noted a previous application where the applicant stated he needed a 28' wide accessory structure.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated his intent was to specify a reasonable maximum limit in the lake communities. Mr. LeDoux stated if the language stating "two bays" is left in the amendment, there may be a need to specifically define the meaning of two bays.
Chairman Yarum stated there is a property in his neighborhood with a two-bay garage with one bay being large enough to house a boat while the other bay is a standard size. Other Board members discussed particular garage situations where the bays are larger than the standard size.
Chairman Yarum saw a need to define the maximum size the bays can be.
Mr. Rinaldi suggested that this Board request a square footage and have the Planning and Zoning Commission define that number.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated his intent is to present this suggestion to the Planning and Zoning Commission as something the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended for review, as the Board and Commission have previously done.
Chairman Yarum had a comment on the last sentence within Section iv ("The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have no authority to vary this provision."). He doesn't know of any place in the regulations where this phrase is used. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the section determining the minimum building lot area allowed (5,000 square feet with 50' of frontage which must be on water and sewer) states specifically these requirements cannot be varied by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This mechanism is in use in the zoning regulations. If a Planning and Zoning Commission does not want something varied, there must be a statement in the section that this cannot be varied. Mr. Alsbaugh stated with the proposed amendment, these applications would not continue to come before this Board. Chairman Yarum stated it is not a problem as long as the minimum size is already somewhere within the regulations. Mr. Alsbaugh referred to the new regulations, page 16, Section 3.20.2 entitled Lot of Record which states "any lot of record having less than 5,000 square feet or having less than 50' of frontage shall be considered not buildable. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have no authority to vary this provision."
Chairman Yarum and Board members thanked Mr. Alsbaugh for this draft proposal.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|