|
ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 26, 2004 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
John LeDoux
Edward Furey
Elizabeth Ballard, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Yarum advised the audience that four affirmative votes are needed for a variance to be approved. He offered applicants the option of postponing their application until next month when additional members may be present. Mr. Thomas Galaske chose to return with his variance application at the May 24, 2004 meeting.
MINUTES
Ms. Ballard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of March 29, 2004. Ms. Ballard made a correction on page 5. "Chairman Ballard" should read "Chairman Yarum." The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh noted the Board received official word from the Town Attorney's Office that an absention is not a vote.
Chairman Yarum reported identification picture taking of Board members will take place this evening following tonight's meeting.
Chairman Yarum brought up the need for discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding front porches. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will keep coordinating this with Mr. Giner to determine an advantageous time when both boards can meet.
Chairman Yarum received correspondence from the Office of Policy and Management of the State of Connecticut informing the town that the state plan is on line and available for review.
VARIANCES - NEW
ZBA 2004-04-01 - Thomas K. & Marie Galaske, 26 Holiday Lane, Map 92 / Lot 104, R33 Zone, Parking an allowed Recreational Vehicle forward of the required setback behind the front building line- EZO Section 4.20.1[3]
Because only four Board members were present this evening and four votes are required to approve a variance, Thomas and Marie Gallaske opted to return with their variance application at the May 24, 2004 meeting.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to take items out of order and consider 2004-02-03 at this time. The motion was approved unanimously.
SUITABILITY OF LOCATION [new or used car sales, general repairer license, limited repairer license, gasoline service stations]
ZBA 2004-02-03 - Enfield Ford d.b.a. Quick Lane, 33 Palomba Drive, Map 57 / Lot 343, BR Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability - General Repairer License. - CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C. (NOTE: Amendment Sec. 70 to the state budget affecting suitability of location statutes reinstates the ZBA as the required approver of a certificate of location. Sec. 10 of the original PA 03-184 remains in effect; that section repealed CGS 14-55 that required a public hearing).
Attorney Richard Cottone, 141 Hazard Avenue, appeared before the Board representing the applicant, Enfield Ford Inc. Also present was James Horigan, the General Manager of the applicant, Enfield Ford, Inc.
Attorney Cottone stated his clients entered into a lease at 33 Palomba Drive, Units 7 and 8. These two units have been used in the past for at least two oil change establishments. The existing licensing is a limited repair. They were before the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 1 and received an approval to convert the limited repair to a general repair license. Attorney Cottone stated his client has been offered by Ford Motor Company the opportunity to do some additional repairs. Some of those repairs would fall under the scope of general rather than limited. They are asking the Commission this evening to approve this application for the conversion from limited to general so that they can then meet with the State Motor Vehicles Department.
Chairman Yarum noted from what he understands, there are other auto body repair shops in the area. Attorney Cottone stated there is a Firestone. In this complex, there is a transmission establishment but no body shops. Attorney Cottone added that is not something they would want to do either.
Mr. Horigan stated the basic difference is in the past there have been oil changes, brake jobs and light repair work done at this location. Ford has now granted them permission to do warranty work on this site. This could involve replacing engines or transmissions or heavier duty work than was previously done. It will not be a different use of the property as far as the disposal of fluids. There are storage tanks to dispose of such fluids and they would then be pumped out and removed from the site.
Ms. Ballard made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54, for the new operation of a General Repairer's License, under the applicant's ownership, where previously a Limited Repairer's license was approved. Said operation is to be at the described location [33 Palomba Drive - units 7 & 8] and as delineated on the 3-page site plan approved on 4/1/02 by the Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission, and as submitted with the application ZBA #2004-02-03, titled (sheet 1) "Layout & Landscaping, Car Care Mall, Manchem Limited Partnership, Palomba Drive, dated 6-1-88, revised 2/19/89", (sheet 2) "Map Showing As-Built Property of Manchem LTD. Partnership, Volume 115 / Page 35, dated 10/10/89", and (sheet 3) "Floor Plan Prepared for Enfield Ford D.B.A. Quick Lane, 33 Palomba Drive, Enfield, CT and dated 3/3/04".
Mr. Furey felt this use would be in compliance with other uses in the area. He does not see any great changes and he noted the necessary precautions are being taken. He felt this would be an acceptable use.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the use is compatible with other uses in the area. Also, the proper precautions have been put in place by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Yarum advised the applicants about the procedure for tonight's meeting and read information on when a variance can be granted.
ZBA 2004-04-02 - Lepak, 32 West Shore Drive, Map 80 / Lot 143, R-33 Zone, variance to allow an accessory structure forward of the rear building line to allow construction of a three car garage - EZO Section 3.30.7A[i]
Mark Lepak, 32 West Shore Drive, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated he is requesting this variance because of the location of the house with the back yard located on the lake side. The parcel is very small and behind the house there is not enough room to construct a garage. There is a 25' existing conservation easement which has been put on all properties on the lake. Mr. Lepak contaced Mr. Lally who did the original plot plan and he notified him that the conservation easement was put in place when the lots were originally divided into parcels. This is the reason he wants to construct the garage on what would be considered his front yard.
Following a question from Ms. Ballard, Chairman Yarum discussed what has transpired in the past. This Board has had similar applications in the past. The regulations state that any accessory structure has to be behind the rear building line. In these lake communities, the homes have no rear yards because of the lake. There also may be wetlands issues.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is one of the issues where the Board feels this may be better dealt with as a legislative issue by Planning and Zoning rather than by variance applications.
Chairman Yarum noted that under the regulations, you are allowed five feet from both rear and side yards. He asked if Mr. Lepak was actually going 10'. Mr. Lepak stated he was speaking with his neighbor and he could even move it in another five feet which would give him a better view of the street. His neighbor has no problem with Mr. Lepak constructing the garage anywhere in the yard.
Chairman Yarum stated the height is at the maximum of 12'. Mr. Lepak confirmed this to be the case and it is according to the building regulations as communicated to him by Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley.
Chairman Yarum noted the regulations state that accessory buildings shall not be more than 12' in height and not cover more than twenty percent of the area of the required rear yard. He asked how site coverage is dealt with in situations like this. Mr. Alsbaugh stated in this instance it is not applicable. When it is, the calculations are done up front by staff. Technically, the rear yard is by the lake and it is not in the rear yard. Mr. Alsbaugh did check for total coverage on the property.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a variance to allow an accessory structure forward of the rear building line to allow construction of a three-car garage - EZO Section 3.30.7A[i].
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Property of Mark & Patricia Lepak, Ed Lally and Associates, dated October 1979", submitted for this application and showing the location of the proposed garage , and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-04-02. This variance is solely for the area indicated on the noted site plan; no other setback incursions are granted or implied.
Mr. LeDoux noted the Board has seen several cases similar to this one and they have been acted on positively because of the unique nature of the lake front properties.
Mr. Furey stated eventually this should be removed from the Board's realm because all the lake properties are in the same position. The lots are never square and there are various easements.
Mr. LeDoux did not feel this structure takes up twenty percent of the front yard and it would meet the present regulations.
Mr. Furey asked if the distance would be changed as the applicant suggested. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the approval motion is phrased to specifically reference the location as shown on the map submitted and no other. This is done to avoid the problem of extending a variance setback along the entire property line which this Board has never done.
Mr. LeDoux explained to the applicant that the variance is for 10'.
Chairman Yarum stated the Board can move forward with this application as written. He asked if the Board could do a revision.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can make a revision to the motion which includes an additional five feet to the side yard setback but they would have to have a reason for doing so. Chairman Yarum stated he cannot think of a reason and the applicant has come before the Board requesting ten feet. The regulations require five feet and it would be Chairman Yarum's opinion that the Board should vote on the application as it is.
Some discussion followed on whether to allow the applicant to move the line five feet inward. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the Board approves one thing and the applicant places it somewhere else and it is never challenged, there is the possibility that the entire setback width is approved under the variance. This is the reason it is very specific. As far as referencing the five foot setback, the appropriate side yard setback in the district would be 10'. It is only 5' behind the rear building line or if there are attached structures that are not conforming, the setback is 10'. This would meet the 10' side yard.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote. Chairman Yarum instructed the applicant that he has to locate the variance according to the site plan submitted.
The reason for approval is the uniqueness of the lake front property does not allow for any structures to be built in the rear yard.
ZBA 2004-04-03 - Jeanne Mango, Applicant/Owner, 34 Glenwood Street., Map 76 / Lot 87, R-33 Zone, requesting a 2.5' variance of the side yard setback for an attached garage - EZO Section 4.10.2 H.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for a 2.5' variance of the side yard setback for an attached 24' x 24' garage - EZO Section 4.10.2 H.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Map showing survey of lot #34 from a 1953 map titled 'Glenwood' Megson & Hyyppa, Civil Engineers, as revised by Hyyppa on 5/3/65", submitted for this application and showing the location of the proposed garage , and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-04-03. This variance will be solely for the area indicated on the noted site plan; no other setback incursions are granted or implied.
Edward Korpusinski, Jr., 34 Glenwood Street, appeared before the Board representing Jeanne Mango who is his mother-in-law. She is looking at a two and a half foot side yard variance due to the nature of the property layout and the positioning of the existing structure. Also, with the change to the front yard footage which has been changed to 35', they would be looking at setting the proposed garage back from the front of the house to accommodate a 24' x 24' attached garage. In speaking with the neighbor, Mr. Korpusinski learned they have had a variance for a shed and pool in the past which is also within that 10' mark.
Mr. Korpusinski stated he did have a copy of a similar situation in another area of town that had the same type of property layout and it was approved in the past. He feels that this particular layout of the house and the property is unique to the area of the town. When the Starr homes were originally built, they were able to accommodate garages. Ms. Mango is the original owner of the house and at the time of the purchase, she had the option of having the garage put on at that time but did not do so. She would now like to add a garage.
Chairman Yarum stated according to the plan that was submitted, the original front yard setback was 33.7'. If they were to keep it in line, they would need a variance for the front yard setback. But to step it back, they are requesting a variance on the rear yard setback.
Mr. Korpusinski stated this home was constructed in 1963. Chairman Yarum noted at that time, if a garage were to be added, it most likely would have been a one-car garage.
Mr. LeDoux questioned why the application is for a side yard variance and not a front yard variance. He asked if there is a reason the applicant chose to move the garage back rather than leaving it with the front structure of the house.
Mr. Korpusinski stated it was recommended when he made the application that they maintain the 35' front yard clearance. Personally, to him, it doesn't make that much difference.
Ms. Ballard noted if the garage was put on line with the 33.7' they would still need a variance for the front and for the rear.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if they were able to put it on the original building line which is 30', then it would be no problem.
Ms. Ballard noted the unique shape of this lot.
Mr. Furey stated viewing the area, a lot of the garages are set back a little bit. Looking at the house to the southwest, there is only about six feet between the garage that they have and the fence of the next door neighbor. He looked at the property and noted it is an odd shaped lot in an area of many odd shaped lots. Mr. Furey also noted the importance of aesthetics in the neighborhood.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the property layout is unique and is in compliance with other properties in the neighborhood.
Some discussion followed regarding sidewalks and house numbering.
REVISIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS BYLAWS
ZBA 2004-04-04 - Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals, revisions to the Bylaws of the board: (1) Chairman's statement regarding procedures, etc. - adding it to the by-laws as APPENDIX I; (2) Re-formatting the agenda and adding it to the Bylaws as APPENDIX II .
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Ms. Ballard, to approve the revisions to the Bylaws of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals which include: (1) the Chairman's statement regarding procedures, etc, and adding it to the Bylaws as Appendix I; and (2) reformatting the agenda and adding it to the Bylaws as Appendix II. The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Chairman's statement is now Appendix I. He has done some minor editing where it was directly repeating what was already in the ordinance to make it clearer. There is also the inclusion of the agenda template which the Board previously discussed adding to the agenda. This would include the explanation of the public hearing procedure in a box at the top of the agenda. The agenda order has changed.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated for the sake of clarity for future Board members, he has also included the organizational meeting setup with an explanation that it is held in January in the even number years. Also included are the current ordinances with the changes.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion item: ZBA inquiry re abstention from voting, and how it affects a decision. Response received from Assistant Town Attorney.
Chairman Yarum noted the correspondence received from the Town Attorney's Office regarding abstentions.
Discussion item: Additional items per any requests of the Board with a 2/3 vote.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted this item is included to inform the Board that they can add items to their agenda at any time by a two-thirds vote of the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a 4 - 0 - 0 vote, the Board adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr |
|
Last Modified: 1/20/2005 8:51:28 AM
|
|
|