ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Monday, October 28, 2002, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Edward Furey
John Ledoux
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 2002-10-01 – Bruce Bouchard, 28 West Shore Dr., Map 80 / Lot 144, R33 Zone: Requests for: a variance of the setback from the rear of the main structure for an accessory structure, & a variance of 5.5 ft. of the maximum accessory structure height to 17.5 ft., 12 ft. allowed - EZO Sect. 3.30.7A[i]
Bruce Bouchard appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. Bouchard stated he is attempting to construct a garage in front of his home. He lives on Shaker Pines Lake and has waterfront property. There really is no room in the back of the house to construct a garage. Mr. Bouchard stated everyone in the neighborhood that has built a garage has it on the road side of their house because there is insufficient room on the lake side. He is applying for a variance to allow this and he is also approximately five feet over the allowed height for this structure. He noted everyone else in the area had already built and were grandfathered. He is not building on a previous structure or foundation and therefore needs the requested variances.
Mr. Furey stated lakefront properties carry a unique set of circumstances. Most of them were developed in the 1920's or before zoning. They are usually strange lots that do not conform at all. Mr. Furey stated you would never dream of putting a garage in front of the view of the lake. He does not see what other alternatives Mr. Bouchard has. The Board has seen similar applications in the past dealing with lake property and environmental issues.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the location seems typical in this lake community. He asked about the second variance for additional height and what would be the hardship for this variance. Mr. Bouchard stated if he is not allowed that height, he would have no storage. One of the reasons he is building this garage is for extra storage and the proposal includes a loft area. The garage is shaped similar to an old carriage house style barn with a loft area above the parking area.
Mr. Bouchard added the vehicle he is trying to park in this garage is approximately seven feet tall because it includes a rack. He has to increase the door size to a ten-foot door to get the vehicle inside. By building the loft area and increasing it an extra two feet, he ended up five feet over and in need of a variance.
Chairman Yarum asked what type of vehicle will be parked in the proposed garage. Mr. Bouchard stated it is an F-350 truck with a flat bed on it and a couple of other machines with a rack on it for his ladders.
Chairman Yarum asked about the tonnage of the truck. Mr. Bouchard stated it would be approximately a one and a quarter ton truck.
Chairman Yarum stated along with the application, there were some elevations submitted. These elevations show the scale at 1/4 inch to one foot. In looking at this particular elevation, he asked if that is an exact replication of what Mr. Bouchard plans on building. Mr. Alsbaugh noted these are stock plans from the company.
Chairman Yarum added in scaling it, from the top of the foundation to the top of the ridge on the roof, it scales out at 26'. Accessory buildings can only be 12' in height. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the height of the accessory structure is measured from mid point between the eave and the peak. That is the point that needs to be 12'.
Chairman Yarum asked if this application is denied, what are the applicant's options. Mr. Bouchard responded he doesn't really know.
Chairman Yarum asked where the vehicle is presently stored. Mr. Bouchard stated he presently has a canvas tent right where the vehicle is parked on his property.
Mr. Rinaldi asked the applicant if he is sure about the tonnage of his truck. He thought a 350 was a 3/4 ton. Mr. Bouchard stated he is not exactly sure but he thought it was one ton or one and a quarter ton.
Chairman Yarum asked for input from the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Ledoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the request for a 170-foot variance of the setback from the rear of the main structure for an accessory structure, EZO Sect. 3.30.7A[i].
Reference is made to three site plans created from topographical mapping, sewer mapping, and Assessor mapping from the Enfield Engineering Department, and to five sheets of plans, titled "CIRCLE B INC., FRONT ELEVATION (dated May 11, 2001), SIDE ELEVATION, CROSS SECTION, FOUNDATION PLAN & FLOOR PLAN (the latter four dated September 6, 2002)", submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2002-10-01.
Mr. Ledoux stated he does not have a problem with the location but he does not see a hardship involved regarding the request for increased height.
Chairman Yarum stated as far as the location of the setback, the applicant cannot go back towards the water. Also, in Mr. Alsbaugh's comments there is a suggestion that this may be another item this Board may want to discuss with Planning and Zoning. He suggested that Mr. Alsbaugh include an agenda item for this purpose in the near future.
Mr. Furey stated a truck that is one and a quarter ton is not allowed in a residential area. Chairman Yarum confirmed this was correct and the applicant was not requesting a variance for the truck size. In a residential zone, the maximum size truck allowed is a three-quarter ton.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated at this time he is not aware of any enforcement proceeding regarding the truck size by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. This was an issue brought up by the neighbors although a formal complaint has not been made. This information will be given to Mr. Bickley, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, for resolution. The Board is being requested to act on the request for the setback and height variances.
Chairman Yarum felt the structure proposed is extremely large for an accessory building. He agreed with Mr. Ledoux that a 17 and 1/2 high structure is too high.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he had no problem with the location of the proposed garage because it is a lake community. However, people also enjoy looking at the lake and the proposed height of this structure will prevent people from doing so.
Chairman Yarum asked about procedure should a portion of this application be approved and a portion denied. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can revise the proposed motion to delete the height variance if they feel the location is in harmony but the height is not. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he in turn would have to provide the Board with a new variance document and seek the necessary Board signatures at a later date rather than tonight.
Mr. Ledoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the request for a 170 foot variance of the setback from the rear of the main structure for an accessory structure, EZO Sect. 3.30.7A[i].
Reference is made to three site plans created from topographical mapping, sewer mapping, and Assessor mapping from the Enfield Engineering Department, and to five sheets of plans, titled "CIRCLE B INC., FRONT ELEVATION (dated May 11, 2001), SIDE ELEVATION, CROSS SECTION, FOUNDATION PLAN & FLOOR PLAN (the latter four dated September 6, 2002)", submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2002-10-01.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the structure's location is in conformity with lake shore properties and it is physically impossible to place a garage on the lake side.
ZBA 2002-10-02 – Eileen Figueroa, 258 Hazard Ave., Map 83 / Lot 49, BL & R-33 Zones: Two lot area variance requests to subdivide a single lot of record - proposed BL Zone Parcel A: 30,000-sq. ft. required, 26,305-sq. ft. proposed (EZO Sections 5.10 Table) and proposed R-33 Zone Parcel B: 33,000-sq. ft. required, 20,445-sq. ft. proposed (EZO Section 4.10 Table)
Attorney Robert Berger of Berger, Santi and Barbieri appeared before the Board representing the application. Also present was the engineer who prepared the plans.
Attorney Berger stated they have a lot located in two zones as created by the Town's zoning ordinance. The front lot on Hazard Avenue is in a Business Zone and the back lot is located in a Residential Zone. They are requesting that the Board grant variances regarding size for each lot so that they can be handled separately. This will allow the residential lot on Southview to be used to build a home and the business lot on Hazard Avenue with the medical practice to continue to house a medical practice.
Attorney Berger stated this came about because the Town, in its desire to do some changes in the Middle Road, South Road, Elm Street, and Hazard Avenue intersection also wanted to change the structure of Southview Street. Southview Street opened right up on to Hazard Avenue and the town wanted to close that access. The only way they could do that is if they were able to obtain an easement over Ms. Figueroa's property so that the gentleman who owned the business that had access through Southview could now access the balance of Southview Street. Attorney Berger stated the entrance to Southview from Hazard Avenue is now closed.
Attorney Berger distributed copies of assessor's maps. He noted the map shows that if the Board grants this variance for the business property, it would be the largest sized business lot on Hazard Avenue on that side of the street. They would be in conformance with the area.
Attorney Berger stated if the variance is granted, in looking at Southview Street, the residential lot is smaller than only one other lot on the same side of the street. Attorney Berger added that this area used to be an R-17 zone and some of the existing lots were in existence prior to the R-17 designation.
Attorney Berger stated they are requesting something that everyone else on the street presently has or the right to use the Hazard Avenue property for business and the Southview property for residential.
Mr. Furey stated this is a situation that has developed not because of anything the applicant has done but because of the desire of the town to close an access. He added the lot being created is approximately 59' x 136.5' and it conforms to many lots in the area of these old central districts.
Mr. Rinaldi noted this is one lot now and he questioned if it was ever two lots. Attorney Berger stated he does not know but he is aware that it has been one lot for some time. He has a feeling it might have been at one time but this would require a more extensive title search to determine. Attorney Berger stated Billy Savage drew the initial maps sometime ago and they were at that time shown as separate lots as were practically everything on those two streets.
Mr. Furey stated a lot of the property in this area many years ago was a huge farm and someone would come along and say they wanted to purchase a plot to build a house. This was prior to the zoning regulations and these lots occurred in this central district. They are all nonconforming and are different shapes and sizes. Attorney Berger stated there is not a business lot on Hazard Avenue the same size as this one that conforms to the existing zoning. He does not think there is a lot on Southview Street on this side of the street that conforms to the present zoning. On the other side, there are two lots that do but all the rest of them are nonconforming. This was the zoning when these lots were created or 75' x 150'.
Chairman Yarum asked if the variance is granted, what will become of Parcel B or the proposed lot. Attorney Berger stated in all probability, a house will be built on that lot. The zoning ordinance won't permit them to use it for business and they have to maintain the buffer and they have done so. They have the right of way across it and the engineer has sketched the probable location for a house that would not require additional variances. The only use that could be made of this property is for a residence.
Mr. Rinaldi asked with this easement for the cul-de-sac, is there going to be a setback off the easement. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is a rear yard setback but this lot is actually two side yards and that can be brought back to 25'. The front yard along the cull de sac would be a straight line from the property line because it is an easement and not a taking of the property. However, nothing can be built on an easement. Technically, they could build something up to the edge of the pavement but he did not feel anyone would want to do that.
Attorney Berger stated the town came to them and requested this easement in a hurry. His reaction as counsel was to say if they want the easement, the town has to help them get the variance. They said we understand your position and we will not oppose the variance but we don't have time to do that. They asked for the easement quickly so that they could begin the construction and Attorney Berger noted the easement was granted. This easement was granted after an explanation from the town that the easement that would allow the other business to have access would not interfere with the use of the property.
Chairman Yarum asked for input from the audience. No one spoke in favor or against. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for two lot area variances to subdivide a single lot of record into: proposed BL Zone Parcel 'A': 30,000-sq. ft. required, 26,305-sq. ft. proposed (EZO Section 5.10 Table) and proposed R-33 Zone Parcel 'B': 33,000-sq. ft. required, 20,445-sq. ft. proposed (EZO Section 4.10 Table).
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Property Survey / Proposed Lot Split, Prepared for Eileen Figueroa, J.R. Russo & Associates, Sheet 1 of 1, dated 8/29/02", submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2002-10-02.
Mr. Furey felt this is a unique situation. The properties in the area are all odd sizes and this request was necessitated by the easement request from the Town of Enfield for a cull de sac to close the Hazard Avenue access.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if this cull de sac is going to cause future problems and necessitate other variances because it covers so much area of the property. Chairman Yarum stated building up to the easement is allowed but you cannot build on the easement.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated residential lots do not take into consideration maximum impermeable surface. They only take into consideration coverage which would be the structures. The pavement on the cull de sac would not be calculated into the coverage for this lot. As far as building space, the map is incorrect. It does not have a 50' rear lot but two 25' side yards.
Mr. Ledoux asked if they actually have more of a building lot than is shown on the map. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they would have more buildable area.
Mr. Rinaldi asked why an easement was granted rather than taking the property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he was not involved in the negotiations but he assumes it had to do with time limitations to get the work completed.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the property will conform to the area and it was in consideration of a reconfiguration by an easement granted to the Town of Enfield.
ZBA 2002-10-03 – Town of Enfield, 1264 Enfield St., Map 19 / Lot 68, HR-33 Zone: Variance request for a directory-type freestanding sign, and a maximum sign square footage variance of 7-sq. ft., 19-sq. ft. proposed, 12-sq. ft. allowed - EZO Sect. 10.30.3A, Table.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this application is the result of the Historic District Commission approval last month for the option sign which resulted in a change to the variance initially requested.
Colleen Brand appeared before the Board representing the town in this application. She noted the reason for the change was because of the Historic District Commission approval of one of two options for the identification of the Head Start building under construction. The building is being accessed through the Enfield High School property. The revision to the existing sign is what was preferred by the Enfield Historic District Commission. Ms. Brand also felt it would require less of a variance because they would be replacing the existing sign and not adding a second sign to the property.
Ms. Brand stated they would keep the same design and colors and replace the sign so that there would be an identification for the Head Start address. This is a requirement by both the Police Department and the Fire District.
Chairman Yarum asked for input from the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ledoux, to approve the request for a variance for a directory-type freestanding sign, and a maximum sign square footage variance of 7-sq. ft., 19-sq. ft. proposed, 12-sq. ft. allowed - EZO Sect. 10.30.3A, Table. Reference is made to two site plans and one sign elevation submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2002-10-03.
Mr. Furey thought the sign was appropriate for the area and more attractive than the original sign proposal.
Mr. Rinaldi stated safety is a big factor regarding the need for this sign. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed the emergency vehicle access for safety reasons was a requirement from both the Police and Fire departments. This is a unique situation because the Head Start entrance is actually on another parcel of property and could not be brought through the elementary school which is the property on which Head Start is located.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the sign is appropriate for the area, was requested due to a unique situation and was necessary due to health safety reasons.
ZBA 2002-10-04 – Robie Staples, 1 & 3 Anngina Dr., Map 82 / Lots 26 & 27, I-1 Zone: Request for: #1 Anngina Dr.) A variance of required landscape buffer of 6-ft., 4-ft. proposed, 10-ft. required, and #3 Anngina Dr.) A variance of required landscape buffer of 8-ft., 2-ft. proposed, 10-ft. required, to exchange property and create new parking spaces while reducing buffer requirements on both lots - EZO Sect. 10.10.7A[vi]
Bill Creedon of Creedon Associates and Robie Staples, the applicant, appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. Creedon stated they are before the Board requesting variances of the side yard buffer requirement for parcels 1 and 2 Anngina Drive. Parcel 1 is located on the corner of Moody Road and Anngina Drive. Parcel 2 is directly to the north of Parcel 1 on the west side of Anngina Drive. Both parcels are owned by Mr. Staples. The building on parcel #1 was originally constructed in 1986-87 as a multi-tenant building. The building on parcel 2 was built in 1988 with an addition added to it in 1992. Both these buildings were previously completely occupied by Lego Systems and a driveway was constructed between the two so that Lego had access to both parcels of property. There was also a sidewalk that interconnected the two parcels. Mr. Creedon stated they are two separate parcels designated as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of the Pompillio Park Subdivision.
Mr. Creedon stated due to some changes with the tenant, the building on Parcel 2 is no longer needed and Lego moved out. Parcel 2 has a 13,528 square foot building on it with 22 parking spaces. All the possible tenants who have looked at this property have requested additional parking in order to fully utilize the 13,500 plus square foot building. They have come up with a plan before the Board that shows an additional 26 parking spaces. They have considered various designs to locate these parking spaces on the parcel. In order to come up with a prudent and reasonable plan for parking, Mr. Creedon noted they ended up crossing the property line that separates Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.
Mr. Creedon stated they are proposing to deed a part from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2 designated on the plans before the Board as Parcel 1A. If they deed this parcel from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2, they will be able to develop this parking. They looked at other options with easements being granted between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 for access and egress but found they would not be satisfactory. They propose a reduction in the side line buffer from 10' to 4' which would be a 6' reduction. On Parcel 2 there would be a reduction in the side line buffer from 10' to 2' or an 8' reduction.
Mr. Creedon stated the reduction in the side line buffers will not adversely affect either parcel since they are both owned by Mr. Staples. It would allow for the orderly development of necessary parking for Parcel 2. The hardships they are claiming are first, that the side yard buffer requirements set forth in the zoning regulations are overly restrictive on these particular parcels. Second, the buffer requirements, if waived as requested, would allow the reasonable reuse of the existing 13,500' building once the additional parking is constructed. Finally, the granting of the variances requested will not adversely affect either parcel and would allow a reasonable reuse of the building that exists on Parcel 2.
Mr. Rinaldi asked how many parking spaces are required for the square footage of this building. Mr. Creedon stated it would depend upon the use of the building since parking requirements vary depending upon such use. When this was originally approved, the parking requirements were for a general industrial type of use. The parking requirements at that time were not as restrictive. In business today, a portion is being used for warehouse and the balance for business with employees located in cubicles. No one carpools today and interested clients have not been able to effectively use the building with only twenty-two parking spaces.
Mr. Alsbaugh added the parking requirements are related to use, square footage and number of employees. The employee number in this building is obviously higher than what was projected at the time of approval.
Chairman Yarum noted that in response to what is the hardship on the application, the response is there is a new owner requiring more parking for employees. Mr. Creedon stated there is not a new owner. They have an interested party who has been negotiating with Mr. Staples to buy the parcel of property. However, as of today, Mr. Staples is still the owner.
Mr. Staples confirmed that the property will be sold if this variance to allow the additional parking is granted. The business is from Massachusetts and their parking needs are a minimum of 45 parking places.
Chairman Yarum questioned how this hardship is not self-imposed.
Mr. Creedon responded they feel they are in a rather unique situation. They have two adjacent parcels owned by the same person. If the two parcels were combined into one and they deleted the property line by going to a revision of subdivision or adding the two parcels together, they probably would not be before this Board. They do have a building that has been expanded upon and because it has been expanded to such an extent, the parking is no longer adequate for just about any proposed use. They feel the development of the property since the 1980's has caused the property to develop its own hardships. If they are going to use this proposed buyer, because he wants additional parking, Mr. Creedon would agree that it would be a self-imposed hardship. However, when this property was approved for development, they didn't have the ten-foot side yard buffer requirement. The existing bituminous concrete drive runs from one-foot off the south property line to approximately ten to twelve feet off the property line. There have been changes in the regulations that have had an impact on this piece of property and they feel by coming before the Board with this proposal, that they are addressing the concerns and having the least amount of impact on the subdivision itself. They will still have the same amount of lots and the lot sizes will change slightly. The parking would be reasonable and they would meet the intent of the zoning regulations.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience for their input.
Ray Warren, the Director of Economic Development for the Town of Enfield, spoke in favor of this application. He stated his duties include being involved with business attraction, recruitment and retention. He informed the Board there is a great opportunity at this location. In his conversations with town officials, he heard a labor intensive operation and high technology operation is desirable and that high paying jobs represent a priority. Also, companies with good growth potential are also important and a company eager to hire locally and, particularly, young people with aptitudes and attitudes in a very sophisticated technology field represent a reasonable and desirable use of this property. Mr. Warren has been affiliated with the potential buyer of this property in his work with the town. He has seen that in Enfield there are very few sites that are shovel-ready, and with very few available buildings for industry, it is a problem trying to find facilities for growing businesses in Enfield. Mr. Warren noted the ability of the building that is the subject of this application to have a reasonable use is impaired by the fact that it doesn't have the parking for the labor intensive operation described. Such operation is the one who is under agreement for this property if the variance can be granted. Mr. Warren stated he wanted to make the Board aware that the outcome could be very favorable to the Town of Enfield and he requested that the Board give this some consideration.
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 #1 Anngina Drive) A variance of required landscape buffer of 6 feet, 4 feet proposed, 10 feet required, and #3 Anngina Drive) A variance of required landscape buffer of 8 feet, 2 feet proposed, ten feet required, to exchange property and create new parking spaces on 3 Anngina Drive while reducing buffer requirements on both lots - EZO Section 10.10.7[vi].
Reference is made to two site plans: for 1 Anngina Drive, titled "AS-BUILT, PARCEL 1, POMPILLIO PARK, CREEDON ASSOCIATES, dated 4/22/92, revised to 8/20/02" and for 3 Anngina Drive, titled "AS-BUILT, PARCEL 2, POMPPILIO PARK, CREEDON ASSOCIATES, dated 2/8/88, revised to 8/20/02", submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2002-10-04.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the intent of the landscape buffer. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is to supply a consistent dimension of green space. He added if there are drainage considerations, when this parking lot goes before Planning and Zoning, the Engineering Department will review any drainage issues that may or may not exist because they cannot create something with a net increase of off-site drainage.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is it provides efficient and necessary parking for the use of the property.
ZBA 2002-10-05 – Stephen Travali, 9 O'Hear Dr., Map 41 / Lot 48, R-33 Zone: Request for a front yard variance of 16 ft., 19 ft. proposed, 35 ft. required (proposed lot 'A'), and a side yard variance of 3.3 ft., 6.7 ft. proposed, 10 ft. required (proposed lot 'B', to proceed with unmerging two lots of record - EZO Sect. 4.10.2H.
Dave Fredrick and Stephen Travali, co-applicants, appeared before the Board. Mr. Fredrick stated they are seeking a variance for 9 O'Hear Avenue. Their hardship is they are unable to meet the existing site line that has been established by history and the evolution of zoning in the Town of Enfield.
Mr. Fredrick presented a 1922 map designed by John F. O'Hear in which 50' wide lots by 100' deep lots are shown. Regarding their hardship, they are looking to have the front yard requirement of 19' and the north side yard requirement reduced by 3' to 7.7'. They are in ownership of the home to the north and they are looking to unmerge the lot that has become merged with this lot.
Mr. Fredrick stated one only has to take a look at O'Hear Avenue to see that the homes are approximately 19' from the edge of the road. They are requesting that the front yard requirement be reduced to 19' and the side yard reduced to 7'. When the home is sold next door, the 7'7" side yard requirement variance will be made very clear by way of deed if this variance is granted this evening.
Mr. Fredrick stated the evolution of time and zoning has created this hardship. One of the questions the Board asked earlier is do they have options. They do have options and Mr. Alsbaugh is in possession of a letter requesting Mr. Giner's opinion on this matter. He presented another option they have which is rather intrusive to the neighborhood. They can, by the zoning regulations, put a home in the back of the existing home which would be intrusive and invasive regarding privacy. By doing this option, they would have a lot line coming down, jogging over 3'3", coming down 7'7" and going back over again and coming down which would establish a lot of 7,765 square feet. Mr. Fredrick stated what they are proposing is a lot of 7,894 square feet which is almost the same size as the lot across the street and consistent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the feature identified on the topographical map. Mr. Fredrick stated that at one time was a shrine.
Chairman Yarum asked if they have a rough idea of the front dimension of the homes surrounding this proposed lot. He asked if the 28' front by 30' depth was typical of the existing homes. Mr. Fredrick stated this may be larger than many homes in the area. This home of 28' x 30' is typically the new home that is being built on these original lots that are left over. He has built a number of homes on Park Avenue and Belmont Avenue and this lot size is consistent with those. This lot is at least typical but not exceeding the lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Fredrick noted that a large home cannot be located on a lot that is 50' x 100'.
Mr. Fredrick estimated that 28' would probably be almost the maximum size of a home on the lot proposed. He did not research this question but stated the size would be consistent with the neighborhood. He added if the Board approved the unmerging of this lot, a 28' x 30' home will comfortably fit the neighborhood.
Chairman Yarum stated he can understand the front setback where the typical homes are set back 18' to 20' and all in line. However, he questioned seeking a side yard variance for a home that seems to be larger than what's existing in the neighborhood. If that home was 24', you would have the 10' side yard setback and a variance would not be needed. He asked why that was not taken into consideration.
Mr. Fredrick stated they considered constructing a long and narrow home but the demand these days is for more width and depth as opposed to a school bus looking structure on this land.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if they are seeking a side setback variance for the proposed lot. Chairman Yarum stated they are seeking a variance for the existing home for a side yard variance. Because the second proposed lot has not been established, the property line could be set to the south another four feet and they would not need the variance. Mr. Fredrick stated they would not need the variance if the home were smaller than proposed.
Steve Travali, 9 O'Hear Avenue, Enfield, stated the regulations state they need 50' frontage. Chairman Yarum added with a 10' side yard. Mr. Fredrick stated at the narrowest point they would have to reduce the width of the proposed home by 3'3". Mr. Fredrick questioned building a home 24' wide and 34' long. Mr. Travali stated it would be more consistent with the neighborhood if the home was constructed as proposed with the variance granted.
Mr. Fredrick stated they are requesting a front yard variance of 19' and a second variance for a side yard of 3.3'. They would have to have 800' on the first floor so that they could get both variances with a narrower home.
Regarding the front of the homes in the immediate area, Mr. Alsbaugh stated they range from 25' to 30' and there is a good mix. Mr. Ledoux stated the narrowest one is 15'.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the applicants are talking about two existing lots of record that they are seeking to unmerge. If one lot line is moved, they would have to make a concurrent deduction from the other lot so that they are not changing the size of either of these nonconforming lots. There has to be a concurrent jog somewhere else to make up for the amount lost to gain on the other one.
Chairman Yarum asked prior to the ordinance going into effect on this subdivision, what was the side yard setback. Mr. Alsbaugh stated for at least fifteen to twenty years, the setback has been 10'. For creating new lots, 25' is required. For new construction on lots of record less than the required area for the zone, the setback is 10'.
Mr. Travali stated he believes the original side yard requirement was 5' from his discussions with people within the Town Hall. He tried pulling some of the old maps to show that is what the requirements were. Mr. Travali stated when the existing house was built, they were keeping in mind that 5' side yard requirement. They still kept it 7' off the side line of the existing home knowing that another lot had been purchased for the purpose of building a home and to keep it consistent with the neighborhood. To the best of his knowledge, as far as the sizes of the existing homes, diagonally across the street there are two newer homes that were built in 1994. A lot of the other homes are a mix from 24' wide to 29'. Looking at a lot of the existing homes, a few of them appear to be approximately 5' from the side yard.
Mr. Fredrick presented documentation showing the sizes of the homes in the area.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Ray Somerville, 28 O'Hear Avenue, spoke in opposition. He noted zoning was put in place to protect the quality of life for residents of the town. This neighborhood was established in a whole different generation. Back in the 1920's when this neighborhood was established, there were families with one car. The lots were smaller and the houses were smaller and it made sense to have building lots of that size. Mr. Somerville noted we are in a whole new generation now. Houses are much bigger, people have more cars and these cars have to be parked. On O'Hear Avenue, parking is only allowed on one side of the street. People who have multiple cars have to park their car across the street in front of other people's property. The lot that the realtors are trying to develop is on the side where parking is prohibited. Mr. Somerville stated people that live across from them are going to be directly affected by having their cars parked literally in front of their house.
Mr. Somerville stated he has lived at 28 O'Hear Avenue for about eighteen years. Since then, four houses have been built on these very small lots. One is in the process of being completed. None of these four houses have garages and the people are required to park in their driveway and/or in front on the street. This does affect the quality of life on the street.
Mr. Somerville stated he is against splitting these lots to allow another house to be built. He acknowledged that the proposed lot is a very nice lot for one house. He can understand the realtors' point of view as wanting to maximize their profits. However, he would be very surprised if they planned to live in this neighborhood. Mr. Somerville stated he lives in this neighborhood and it is getting very overcrowded and he is against this variance.
Mr. Somerville stated one thing that has not been brought up about O'Hear Avenue is at the end of the street there is very bad drainage resulting in flooding routinely. There has not been a great deal of rain in the past two years but five years ago the engineers of the town went past the end of the street and down into the stream to try to resolve the problem. It has been taken care of to a certain extent but when there are large quantities of rain, the street does flood and the storm drains cannot handle the runoff. The storm drain that is adjacent to his property routinely gets filled. As more homes are being built on this street, Mr. Somerville stated it could cause problems with the drainage at the end of the street which could cause flooding for the people on the street. The only way he could see a remedy for the flooding issue is for the Mill Pond dam to be lowered to reduce the volume there so that the drainage would benefit.
Mr. Somerville summarized the overcrowding, the limited parking on the street and the potential for flooding which would be disastrous for the residents as reasons he is against this lot being split and having another house built. It is a nice lot for one house but there will be two postage-sized lots by unmerging the property.
Pam Sullivan, 15 O'Hear Avenue and Lisa Vandcroft, 13 O'Hear Avenue, spoke in opposition. Ms. Sullivan stated Mr. Vandcroft's house is right next to the proposed lot. Flooding is definitely an issue since both yards get flooded. Ms. Sullivan stated they feel by building another home, it will cause further flooding into their yards.
Ms. Vandcroft stated they have a lot of water that flows into their yards. The property slopes down and they have a fence between the two properties. The woman that passed away that owned the property had problems with the piece of land they are proposing to build on because the area is like walking on a sponge, even days after it rains.
Ms. Sullivan stated the homes in the neighborhood are not that close together and by this house being built, there will be very limited space. Having a house so close on the other side would affect the value of their property.
Ms. Vandcroft stated as far as the parking, they have a driveway which can barely fit two cars and they do park on the other side of the street. There are also a lot of small children on the street and traffic is already a problem.
Ms. Sullivan stated this street is a dead end street and the only place for the children to play is in the street. Cars park on one side of the road and there have already been various complaints. Ms. Sullivan is also concerned about the value of her property.
Ms. Vandcroft clarified that 9 O'Hear Avenue is the lot the applicant purchased and not across the street as may have been mentioned.
Dave Fredrick stated he was talking about the proposed lot being 7,894 square feet and the lot across the street being 7,891 square feet. The new home they are proposing to build on this existing lot will have a two-car parking area realizing that there is only parking on one side of the street on O'Hear Avenue.
Mr. Travali stated this should not affect anyone's parking since parking is not allowed on this side of the street. As far as the people who are concerned about the value of their homes, he cited the new homes in the area along with the proposed new home as helping to increase the value of their homes.
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 front yard variance of 16 ft., 19 ft. proposed, 35 ft. required (proposed lot 'A'), and a side yard variance of 3.3 ft., 6.7 ft. proposed, 10 ft. required (proposed lot 'B'), to proceed with unmerging two lots of record - EZO Sect. 4.10.2H
Reference is made to one site plan titled "STEPHEN TRAVALI - SPECIAL USE MAP, DENNIS G. REHMER, LAND SURVEYOR, SHEET NO. 1, and dated SEPT. 19, 2002", two sheets of overlapping topographical mapping of O'Hear Avenue from the Enfield Engineering Department date stamped received Oct 9 2002, and to a partial copy of the 1922 development map of O'Hear Avenue titled "Plan of Elmhurst, owned by John F. O'Hear, Merrill & Sears, Civil Engineers, and dated August 19, 1922" date stamped received Oct. 9 2002, all submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2002-10-05.
The above "SPECIAL USE MAP" site plan shall be revised to identify the actual street numbers of the required developed properties to be shown in the 'neighborhood' data under EZO Section 3.20.2F[i], and be submitted to file ZBA 2002-10-05 before this variance may be filed and become valid.
Mr. Rinaldi questioned if this variance is granted, would the subdivision then have to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the final decision would be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission even if this Board approves this variance application.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the Board approves the variances requested and it is found that traffic safety is an issue along with drainage, would the lot be an approved building lot prior to going to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the unmerging process is concurrent with a subdivision. There is a special use permit required and then a subdivision. The issues of traffic or drainage are the domain of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Rinaldi asked for a confirmation that with a variance approval, these applicants would be just taking the next step. This Board would not be creating two lots where if there were a problem with drainage and/or parking, it would not be an unusable lot.
Chairman Yarum stated this Board's function is to determine if they have a unique parcel and if a variance is granted, does that parcel comply with the rest of the neighborhood. The next step is for the applicant to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission who will deal with the other issues mentioned.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there may be other issues that rightly don't come before this Commission and they will be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. This in no manner would create two lots but it moves the process forward.
Chairman Yarum stated the Board has had numerous applications where properties have been rezoned and applicants want to subdivide a lot or add a garage in order to comply with the rest of the neighborhood. However, they are in need of a variance to do so. Chairman Yarum does not see this as any different. This is an existing neighborhood with established lot sizes of 50' frontage and this appears to be no different.
Mr. Ledoux questioned what is the hardship. Chairman Yarum stated the hardship is that they have a piece of unique property that they wish to make comply with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Ledoux felt they are creating their own hardship for financial reasons. Chairman Yarum argued that it may be a financial gain but it is not a financial hardship.
Mr. Furey noted that Planning and Zoning will deal with the other matters concerning setbacks.
Regarding the mapping, Chairman Yarum stated if this motion is approved, the above special use map site plan shall be revised to identify the actual street numbers of the required developed properties to be shown in the neighborhood data under EZO Section 3.20.2fi and be submitted to file ZBA 2002-10-05 before this variance may be filed and become valid.
Mr. Furey stated he would like to abstain from this application.
Chairman Yarum requested that the Board have further discussion because he does not think Mr. Furey can abstain at this point in the hearing. By Mr. Furey abstaining, the Board will be limited to four members and he would have to inform the applicant that they can withdraw and defer the application until five members are present.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the proper grounds for abstaining are if there is a conflict of interest. If there is a question of knowledge needed, the Board needs to discuss the application to the point where everyone understands the request. It is then a matter of whether people agree or disagree on how they vote.
Mr. Rinaldi stated if the property was never two parcels, he would have a problem with unmerging this property since it would clearly be for financial gain. However, because it was two parcels according to the original subdivision map, Mr. Rinaldi thought it conforms to the surrounding parcels.
Mr. Ledoux asked if the house presently there would have been built of the size and shape it is under the guise of having a 50' frontage instead of 100' frontage. He noted the existing house is larger than all the existing homes surrounding it. This home has a larger addition plus two sub structures consisting of a garage and a shed.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the applicant added on to this house or did he buy it as is. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed it was purchased as is and constructed entirely within the previous lot of record. The question the Board is considering is what was the intent. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if you look at the rest of the properties in that neighborhood, they wander all around. Some are close and some are far away. Where the house stands on the lot now is not necessarily out of sync with the way the rest of the buildings were constructed.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town's lot line mapping does not overlay over the topographical maps at all. The topographical maps are done from an air photo and the property lines are from the assessor's map data and are hand drawn from deed descriptions. The Board could find some of the older fence lines indicated on the topographical maps but even those are not guaranteed. Mr. Rinaldi stated his intent was to eliminate the scenario of an owner saying let's add on quickly and then subdivide. That is not the case in this situation.
Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that the existing building in relation to the lot of record line is not self-created. That was a situation that occurred in the past and is not entirely out of character with the way homes are built in any town. In the 1920's through the 1940's, there was no requirement for a location 'as-built'. If there were any pins on these lots, after eighty years most of them are gone. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed the building on this property did not infringe on the second lot of record.
Mr. Furey stated he is now clear on this request and he suggested the Board move forward and act on this application.
The motion was denied by a 3 - 2 - 0 vote. Board Members John Rinaldi, Edward Furey and David Alexander voted in favor; Chairman Peter Yarum and John Ledoux voted nay.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Yarum called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:30 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ledoux, to approve the Minutes of September 30, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Yarum reported one item of correspondence received along with a note from Mr. Alsbaugh that the Stop and Shop fueling facility owners are modifying their plans to include the suggestions made by this Board concerning safety.
Approval of Meeting Dates for 2003
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ledoux, to approve the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals' Meeting Dates for 2003 as presented. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.
NEW BUSINESS
Action on the five applications heard this evening is included previously under the individual public hearings.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Ledoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
|