|
ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 29, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, March 29, 2004 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
Edward Furey
Elizabeth Ballard, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Yarum announced that Elizabeth Ballard will be appointed Acting Secretary for tonight's meeting and will also be participating in the public hearings.
Chairman Yarum informed the audience that only four Board members are present tonight and four votes are needed to pass a variance. He offered the applicants the option of having their applications heard at the next meeting when a full quorum of the Board may be present. The applicants opted to proceed this evening.
MINUTES
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Ms. Ballard, to approve the Minutes of February 23, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of the Town Attorney's Report from March and April.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/PROCEDURAL AND POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN
Chairman Yarum informed the public when a variance can be granted and discussed the format for tonight's meeting.
VARIANCES - NEW
ZBA 2004-03-01 - Bellinger, 3 Meadowlark Road, Map 18/Lot 96, R-33 Zone, 4-foot side yard variance, 8 feet existing, 10 feet required to construct addition off rear of house - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Jan Bellinger, 3 Meadowlark Road, appeared before the Board requesting a variance to allow the addition of a laundry facility to the first floor of her home. The home is a small ranch and the side yard property line is skewed. All the homes in the area have such side yards. The house is at an angle and going straight back, you are nearer to the side yard rather than parallel to it.
Fred Bellinger, 3 Meadowlark Road, stated there is only one bathroom in the house. The intent is to put a laundry room addition on the back of the house along with another bathroom. At the same time, they intend to expand their bedroom.
Mr. Rinaldi stated when a variance is granted, it is usually granted because there is something unique about a property. He noted the Board has to determine what is different about this property compared to all the other properties in the neighborhood.
Ms. Bellinger responded the lots are all skewed and hers seems to be more so than the others. The result is her lot is almost pie shaped and it is difficult to put an addition on it without infringing on the side yard.
Mr. Bellinger stated the way this home is built, the front of the house is parallel to the front of the road but the side lines are not perpendicular to the street resulting in all the lots being skewed. The zoning code was not in existence when this house was built and there is only eight feet to the shortest corner. The 20' addition would decrease this to six feet and would not really impact the neighbor's property because of the way the side line goes.
Ms. Bellinger stated she did contact seven neighbors in her immediate neighborhood and all were in support of this request.
Mr. Rinaldi stated another factor the Board looks at is whether it is just the minimum required or is it a little more. He asked if the Bellinger's have considered an addition smaller than 20' x 20' or moving the addition over and away from the property line.
Mr. Bellinger stated the problem is if they moved the addition over, the result would be blocking the kitchen window. This is something they did not want to do. The reason they want the addition is to move the bathroom and laundry room upstairs. His wife fell and broke her wrist going down the stairs and they would like to have these located on the first floor.
Mr. Furey asked if they had the 8' from the line for the addition, would they still need to apply for a variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they would because they would need to meet the current regulations which are reduced for nonconforming lot sizes to 10'.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the maximum footage is a four-foot variance to the back corner.
Mr. Alsbaugh agreed that moving an addition like this over cannot be done because it interferes with other windows and the kitchen layout.
Chairman Yarum asked how will access to the addition be gained from the house. Mr. Bellinger stated the access to the addition would have to go through the existing bedroom. There would be a problem if the addition was moved over because that is where you would have the main access to the room.
Chairman Yarum asked if the northeast corner of the home is now a bedroom. Mr. Bellinger confirmed that it is.
Chairman Yarum asked if access to this addition would be through the bedroom and Mr. Bellinger confirmed that would be the access.
Ms. Bellinger stated that is the present option but they may need to hire an architect to review this. She is learning that smaller homes require more mechanics in terms of making things fit. One possibility is to go through the bedroom and that is probably what they will do. However, if there is another way to do it, they would consider it.
Chairman Yarum stated he viewed this property yesterday. Based upon what is staked out, it appears that the west wall of this addition is approximately two to two and a half feet from the kitchen window. If the addition could be moved two feet to the west, the reduction of four feet would be reduced by two feet. The result would be an 18' x 20' addition and no variance required.
Mr. Bellinger stated they would still have eight feet.
Chairman Yarum reiterated that from the northwest corner of the existing house, if you move that foundation in four feet and went as far as the window, you would pick up an extra two feet ending up with 18'. He asked if that would be an option.
Mr. Bellinger stated this would be more difficult to do and would reduce a lot of space in the room but it is a possibility. Ms. Bellinger stated aesthetically it would not be as good because in looking out the kitchen window, you would be looking at a wall. If the addition was moved over a little bit, there would be a little more space. They are considering French doors but are still considering hearing from an architect.
Chairman Yarum stated it appears that the property at #1 based upon the plot plan submitted has a side yard of 13' to the property line and off the garage which is closer to the Bellinger property. He asked if that is typical of the homes in the neighborhood where there are larger side yards than the 8' at the Bellingers.
Mr. Bellinger stated the property line goes toward the street and cuts into the property. It doesn't really have that big of an impact on the neighbor's property and would have the most impact on the front yard.
Ms. Bellinger was unsure if most homes have larger side yards than she does as it is difficult to tell. All the properties are skewed but she thought that some of the other homes have more space on side yards. She gave as an example 5 Meadowlark which is 11' from her property and has a little more space. She acknowledged that the other houses probably have a little more space to the side line than her home does.
In response to a question from Ms. Ballard, Ms. Bellinger stated there is 65' and then there is another 20'. There is an angle and the total measurement is 85.6'.
Chairman Yarum asked for public input regarding this application. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for a variance of 4 ft. of the side yard setback to 6 ft., 10 ft. required, to permit the construction of an addition to rear of the main structure on the residentially zoned property - Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Map showing lots #1 and #2 (showing lot #2 as the applicant lot), Vol. 1, Page 2 (Enfield Land Records), and dated August 1954", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-03-01.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this house in an existing nonconforming structure. He thinks the hardship is the location of the house on the skewed property line with an 8' side yard. His concern is decreasing this side yard to 6'. He asked if there was an option where they could meet the existing nonconforming 8' side yard or is it necessary to get closer to the property line.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated as long as there have been side yard setbacks, he doesn't ever recall them ever being less than 10' originally. He noted there was something wrong with the location of this house initially and the town in fifty years has not seen fit to bring it up as an issue.
Chairman Yarum stated he drove by the property yesterday and noted it did appear that this home was much closer than the other homes in the area. Ms. Ballard agreed.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his home used to be zoned R-17 and now is zoned R-33. In his following of the zoning ordinance, he has seen the 10' side yard come up occasionally but he has never seen anything less than that.
Mr. Alsbaugh agreed that an 8' side yard is unusual.
Mr. Furey stated what he thinks happened with a lot of these properties was there was a period when there was not a lot of concern regarding home location. He pointed out property #1 on this street and the odd line that it has on the east. During those times, construction people just gauged locations and no one checked on these things. The result is a nonconforming piece of property. Mr. Furey felt if they moved the side line over two feet it might be feasible but he questioned the appearance.
Ms. Ballard stated she considers having the washer and dryer located in the cellar a hardship and they should be located on the first or second floor. While the 20' x 20' addition is a big addition, she noted if the room is made smaller, there will be a problem with access to the room. Ms. Ballard added this is an older neighborhood and it poses problems to the newer owners when the setbacks do not comply with the current zoning ordinance.
Chairman Ballard stated the Board needs to keep in mind the design and/or the use of the addition is not something the Board needs to be concerned about. The Board is looking at the uniqueness of the property and whether or not it is unique and requires a variance.
Mr. Rinaldi stated there are many skewed property lines in the town but he felt there is uniqueness to this property due to the 8' side line that was original to the home and a narrowing even more as you go toward the back property.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the property lines are nonconforming to the rest of the residential area and approval of this variance would not adversely affect the neighboring properties. The existing property is unique in its side yard setback of an existing 8'.
5b. ZBA 2004-03-02 - Hellberg, 101 Till Street, Map 59/Lot 215, R-33 Zone, 14' front yard variance, multiple existing, 35' required to construct new entry porch and 2-car garage - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Randy Hellberg, 101 Till Street, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated a variance would allow him to construct a new entry porch and two-car garage. He would not be making the breezeway any wider than his steps but would just be enclosing it. He and his wife are getting older and near retirement. For safety where they would not have to go out of the house at night, they would like to be able to go through the breezeway and into the garage. During the winter, having the garage would mean they would not have to clean the snow off their cars.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he drove by the property today and the curb cut for this property is on Booth rather than Till Street. Mr. Hellberg confirmed that was correct.
Ms. Ballard asked if the intent is to enclose the porch and Mr. Hellberg stated that would be done.
Mr. Furey felt corner lots always present difficulties.
Chairman Yarum noted the existing stairway sticks out 6' and he asked if the porch will just take the place of the stairway. Mr. Hellberg stated it will be off on an angle to the back of the house.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he knows the variance is not for the garage but if the garage was detached, he asked how close to the property line would the garage be. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the garage would have to meet the current front yard and side yard setbacks and it would have to be located behind the rear building line of the house.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the garage was detached, would it be allowed to be closer to Booth. Mr. Alsbaugh stated no more than the front yard setback.
Chairman Yarum asked for public input regarding this application. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Ms. Ballard, to approve the request for a variance of 14 ft. of the front yard setback to 21 ft., multiple existing, 35 ft. required, to construct and locate a porch / breezeway addition only to the right side of the house within the front yard setback, which will connect to a new garage behind the front yard setback line on the residentially zoned property - Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a site plan titled "MORTGAGE SURVEY, Property of Randy S. & Ann M. Hellberg, showing the location of the main structure, and as amended, the proposed breezeway / porch and garage, and dated August 1977", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-03-02.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he drove by the property today and he did not think closing that side walkway would hinder the sight line.
Ms. Ballard felt because this property is a corner lot, it results in the need for the variance to address the one corner of the porch.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the original application did not include enclosing the existing steps. Otherwise, the applicant would have reduced the variance being requested but it still covers the same location and area which is probably a more important aspect than distances. This is a similar situation to the property lines on the previous application. This house has a peculiar access to the street. It may have been an aesthetic choice but it is not typical when you consider these were built as starter homes with the expectation of being added on to over the years.
Chairman Yarum stated in looking at the footprint of the proposed addition, he does not see how the garage can be attached to the house without obtaining some type of variance. It was his opinion that the proposed footprint takes everything into consideration and has the least impact.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is due to the uniqueness of the existing location of the house. It doesn't appear anything was planned in relation to the street and the home is located on a corner lot. Also, an addition could not be constructed without some type of variance.
OLD BUSINESS - NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
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 - limited repairer license. - CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00 C (NOTE: Amendment Sec. 70 to the state budget affecting suitability of location statutes reinstates the ZBA as 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.)
[This has not been heard yet by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The recommended final date for determining this application will be the 4/16/04 meeting date. It should be tabled this evening to 4/26/04; if not ready for ZBA consideration by then (zoning ordinance requires PZC approval before ZBA approval), it should be denied without prejudice.]
Chairman Yarum reported that during the February 23, 2004 meeting, the applicant requested that this application be tabled until April 26, 2004. He postponed this application until the April 26, 2004 meeting.
ZBA 2004-03-03 - Pacheco & Son, LLC, 157 South Road, Map 55/Lot 82, I-1 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.)
Raymond Pacheco and Raymond Pacheco, Jr. appeared before the Board regarding this application. Mr. Pacheco stated their intent is to reopen this auto body repair garage at 157 South Road. This location was formerly Bill's Auto Body.
Chairman Yarum asked if there will be any changes proposed in the operation of this garage. Mr. Pacheco stated they plan to make no changes and the business would continue exactly as it has in the past.
Mr. Alsbaugh added staff went to considerable lengths to make sure that the Board was aware of what the original approval contained. All those conditions of approval and limitations would appear in any letter of approval to the Department of Motor Vehicles in association with the site plan. The information dates back to 1967 and the changes have been clarified.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54 & EZO Section 11.00C, for the operation of a General Repairer's license under the applicant's ownership. Said operation is to be at the described location [157 South Road] and as delineated on the site plan submitted with the application. Operations and activities are allowed only inside the building, and vehicles waiting for or undergoing repair may only be stored in the existing parking areas on the submitted site plan. No approval has been granted for any vehicle impoundment by contract with any other agency or entity.
Reference is made to a plan sheet titled "PACHECO & SON, LLC, 157 South Road, Design Professionals, Inc., Sheet 1 of 1, [dated] 03/19/2004", and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA2004-03-03.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The Board recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
" Discussion item: Removal of review criteria for location suitability with the deletion of CGS Section 14-55, Public Hearing
Mr. Alsbaugh stated CGS Section 14-55 was the section within which the only criteria for review regarding suitability by the local authority, this Board, existed. At the present time, there are no public hearing requirements for location suitability. However, the legislature reinstated language that the Zoning Board of Appeals is still the local authority.
Chairman Yarum asked if there are future applications similar to Stop and Shop or Costco, how would the Board proceed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Planning and Zoning Commission would take the lead in the process. He added the Board would still have a role in the process. The major intent of changing the statutes was to remove the redundancy and allow applicants to get through the process more efficiently. For some reason, someone added an amendment during the budget negotiations and a rider was added on to return the zoning board of appeals as the local authority. The legislature removed the public hearing requirement but kept the zoning board of appeals as the local authority.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated any new applications would go to Planning and Zoning for Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval. Because of the recent removal of the public hearing requirement, there would be no need for an in depth review by this Board. The criteria was also removed.
" Discussion Item: Membership identification cards
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the staff has shown management that membership identification cards can be done for this Board in a cost effective manner. The last directive Mr. Alsbaugh received was to coordinate the process with Social Services to avoid any duplication of effort. Mr. Alsbaugh noted that their process is not adequate for the Board's purposes and there is a need to spend some money on these identification cards. He outlined the process and noted there would be a minimal cost associated with the lamination and the cards could be done in house.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Ms. Ballard, to move forward with the membership identification process. The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING (January biennial organizational meeting: election of officers and review of bylaws; even numbered years)
Proposed Ethics Legislation
Chairman Yarum reviewed the proposed ethics legislation. In response to questions, Mr. Alsbaugh acknowledged that Board members, while they are volunteers, they are also appointed. Mr. Rinaldi questioned if this Board can make a written statement regarding their position on this ethics legislation. Mr. Alsbaugh noted because of the short time involved, the best alternative would be for Board members to contact their legislators.
Mr. Rinaldi suggested that if this Board was unanimously opposed to the proposed ethics legislation and other boards and commissions in the town took the same position in opposition to this bill, something could be sent confirming this opposition.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested Board members approach the Council about a group position. He was unsure on the voting timetable for this legislation but he was recently informed that action was close. Mr. Rinaldi stated he has heard an October date mentioned.
The consensus of the Board was for Mr. Alsbaugh to make an inquiry to the Town Manager and through him to the Town Council regarding this proposed legislation. Chairman Yarum stated he would like to know where other boards and commissions stand. Mr. Alsbaugh also confirmed the Board would like to know if they should participate in a collective letter to the state representatives along with individual letters.
Discussion re: Front Porches
Chairman Yarum summarized that Mr. Alsbaugh, on this Board's behalf, was going to send a memo to the Director of Planning and was awaiting input from the Board. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed he was still awaiting input from Board members regarding their thoughts on front porches.
Chairman Yarum stated the question was raised regarding front porches because the Board received some applications in regard to front yard setback. These applicants wanted to put on a front porch and Mr. Thorogood did an extensive review regarding front porches. Mr. Alsbaugh stated regulations were also obtained from Hartford.
Chairman Yarum stated Mr. Thorogood wanted to be proactive in the area of front porches. He suggested communicating with the Planning and Zoning Commission that this Board has seen a couple of applications regarding front porches, that they seem to be a modern feature of today's homes and the Board wanted to bring this to the Commission's attention.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is also an incoming application for something forward of the front building line. He stated it would take actual overlay zones to be created for the lakes to deal with this issue. Because most of those properties are located in the R-33 zone, whatever is in effect there would have to be in effect in any other R-33 zone. Mr. Giner reviewed the application and determined the stipulation was not adequate and overlay zones for the lakes would have to be created. Next month when that application comes before the Board, Mr. Alsbaugh will reissue Mr. Giner's memo.
Ms. Ballard suggested this Board meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission for a work session to discuss front porches, the lake properties and any other outstanding concerns.
Mr. Furey asked if any action will be taken regarding the plastic garages that are increasing in use. Mr. Alsbaugh stated such structures are not covered by the state building code.
Mr. Furey asked if there is an ordinance prohibiting the use of trailers. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is and such trailers cannot be used as accessory structures. Chairman Yarum noted the use of such trailers was an issue at the Hartford Courant building.
Chairman Yarum requested that Board members submit their comments to Mr. Alsbaugh regarding front porches. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will forward what he has along with additional comments from the Board to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Review of Bylaws (1) Reformatting the agenda and adding it to the Bylaws as Appendix I; (2) issues raised by members
Mr. Alsbaugh noted Board members have received copies of the reformatted agenda. This format will always be used and will include the organizational meeting requirement every two years. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the Board wants the reformatted agenda to become part of their Bylaws, a public hearing would be necessary.
Chairman Yarum requested input from the Board regarding the use of the new agenda format this evening. Ms. Ballard felt the meeting went smoother. Mr. Rinaldi felt it allowed Board members to stay focused on each application. Mr. Furey agreed the process flows better and there is less waiting time for applicants. Chairman Yarum discussed the need for Board members to sign the necessary paperwork and he noted this could be done after the public hearings by taking a brief recess. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested that the signing of paperwork could be done immediately following each public hearing in order to avoid confusion. Board members were in favor of this procedure.
Mr. Alsbaugh requested comments on the agenda format. Chairman Yarum asked that future agendas include time frames for each application as was shown previously. Mr. Alsbaugh noted that those time frames are included on the staff general comments sheet. He felt this information is something only the Board needs to see.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the new application form. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is still working on the new application format. He added the application will be reformatted and he will address the change in the second paragraph as the reason for granting a variance and not a reason for a hardship.
Chairman Yarum asked if applicants receive a copy of the agenda. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that applicants receive the agenda along with a letter from him. Chairman Yarum felt the new language added to the agenda will be very beneficial for applicants.
Chairman Yarum stated when the Board is getting ready to read the legal notice is an area he did not feel went smoothly. Some discussion followed on whether to read all the legal notices at the beginning of the meeting or to read each one during their individual public hearing. It was the consensus of the Board to read each legal notice prior to the individual public hearing. Ms. Ballard pointed out that at least for the initial public hearing, there should be information provided as to where the legal notice was published. Mr. Alsbaugh stated in the template after #5 on the agenda, he will include a general announcement and final publication dates. The second application would then include only a notice for the individual application and say application only rather than reading of the legal notice.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated reading of the publication date for the applications once would be sufficient or the Board could announce this application and all succeeding ones dated such and such in the Journal Inquirer.
Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed the consensus of the Board was there would be the general announcement regarding the first application and the announcement of the publication dates including the phrase "this application and/or subsequent ones."
Abstentions
Chairman Yarum requested input regarding abstentions. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has not yet received a response from the Town Attorney's Office. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Chairman's statement should be that abstentions have to be brought forward prior to the Board hearing the applications. This would avoid abstentions being used as a tool to manipulate the process. Chairman Yarum brought up a possible situation where a Board member may not know there is a potential conflict until the hearing has begun. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board member would withdraw from the application as soon as they realize there is a conflict. He added this may affect the applicant's ability to be heard on a particular evening. In the event there is a quorum problem, the procedure would be to immediately table the application to the next meeting.
Discussion followed regarding possible scenarios and whether or not Board members should abstain in particular situations. Mr. Rinaldi also read excerpts from "What's Legally Required" regarding abstentions and noted Page 29 of that publication sums it up. Mr. Alsbaugh stated a reason to abstain is a reasonable internal decision based on whether there is a conflict and whether it would pass the muster of a perceived conflict. Ms. Ballard saw a reason for abstaining as a Board member being personally impacted by the vote. A possible situation would be where a vote would affect a Board member's neighbor's property.
Mr. Alsbaugh added the immediate declaration regarding abstentions is necessary because in the past members abstained at the vote and there was no statement of why. The fundamental reason for doing something like this is there is another motive other than personal or financial. There is a secondary agenda to somehow affect the decision process. The statements regarding abstentions were moved to the beginning of the hearing to keep this from occurring.
Mr. Rinaldi brought up situations where he could give good arguments both in favor and against a possible abstention. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested that Mr. Rinaldi's comments be put in writing and given to the Director of Planning. This could be information the Town Attorney's Office needs to take into consideration about the abstention voting going with the majority. Mr. Alsbaugh added it would be up to a Board member to make a decision on whether or not to abstain.
Chairman Yarum brought up a previous situation where a Board member planned to abstain because he did not completely understand the application. Chairman Yarum's statement at the time was if there is something you do not understand, instead of abstaining, let's discuss it. The result was the Board was able to work through it. Chairman Yarum noted that under the new format, he does not see where on the agenda this would occur. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would be under the discussion of the individual application.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if a Board member expresses confusion during or after the public hearing, it makes sense to make sure some sort of understanding is derived rather than leaving that Board member with questions causing an abstention. During the additional discussion that followed regarding particular situations, Mr. Alsbaugh stated the only legitimate reason for abstaining is a legitimate conflict by a Board member since the Board's charge is to uphold the town regulation or waive it.
Ms. Ballard saw a need for work sessions in order to resolve concerns about regulations that may not be meeting the needs of the town. Mr. Alsbaugh and Chairman Yarum noted that over the last two years there has been a concerted effort to communicate with the Planning and Zoning Commission and it has been successful. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the process which he acknowledged may not be as speedy as Board members would like. His first step would be to present a memo to the Director of Planning. Mr. Alsbaugh added that Board members can speak directly to the Director of Planning or the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding potential concerns.
Additional discussion followed regarding the proposed ethics legislation at the state level.
Chairman Yarum noted the lack of a Regular Meeting section on the new agenda format. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that every meeting scheduled in advance by the Board is a regular meeting. Within that regular meeting are public hearings. If there is an issue regarding public participation, the Chairman would inform applicants when they can speak and that after the public hearing is closed, no additional comments are accepted.
Further discussion followed regarding possible abstentions by Board members. Ms. Ballard asked where on the agenda would someone tell the Board they would not be participating in the vote. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the appropriate place may change slightly depending on how many people are seated. If there are only four Board members, the Board member abstaining should do so as soon as possible. If there are more than four Board members present, the Board member could wait until the hearing comes up. Mr. Rinaldi brought up additional possible scenarios for consideration regarding abstentions. Mr. Alsbaugh noted whether to abstain or not would be a personal decision by a Board member. Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Chairman Yarum saw the need to obtain an opinion from the Town Attorney's Office regarding abstentions. He also suggested the Bylaws be re-worded to accurately reflect abstention information. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if there is no reason for this information to be included in the Bylaws and the statute would override it, it would be eliminated from the Bylaws.
Mr. Rinaldi cited Case law CT33 - Connecticut Appellate - 281-1993 which confirmed there have to be four members in favor of an application.
Revision of Board Bylaws
Chairman Yarum offered the following minor corrections to the Board's current Bylaws:
1. There is a need for a change on line 22. The last sentence regarding abstentions should be revised to reflect tonight's discussion that an abstention decision should be made as soon as possible.
2. Lines 26, 27, 28 and 29 can be eliminated (they refer to the Board taking a break.).
3. There was a question about line 31 since no particular portion of the meeting is being referred to as the regular meeting. (During the discussion that followed, Mr. Alsbaugh stated something will be added to the effect that after the public hearing is closed and during discussion, only clarification questions and answers will be addressed.)
4. The agenda template would include the Chairman's Statement as Appendix 1 and the reformatted agenda as Appendix 2.
5. The following punctuation and spelling corrections were cited:
Line 44, page 1, "as alternate" should be "an alternate" with no comma.
Line 27, page 2, the spelling of "election" should be corrected.
Line 1, page 4, should include insertion of the new format.
Line 20, page 4, first sentence should read "applications" (plural form).
The sections on conducting the public hearing on page 5 should be revised in a manner similar to the box included on the agenda.
Nomination and Election of Officers
Mr. Rinaldi nominated Peter Yarum as Chairman of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Furey seconded the nomination. Peter Yarum was elected Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals by a 3 - 0 - 0 vote. Ms. Ballard, an Alternate, did not participate in this vote.
Mr. Furey nominated John Rinaldi as Vice Chairman of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Yarum seconded the nomination. John Rinaldi was elected Vice Chairman of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals by a 3 - 0 - 0 vote. Ms. Ballard, an Alternate, did not participate in this vote.
Mr. Furey nominated John LeDoux as Secretary of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Rinaldi seconded the nomination. John LeDoux was elected Secretary of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals by a 3 - 0 - 0 vote. Ms. Ballard, an Alternate, did not participate in this vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|
|
Last Modified: 1/20/2005 8:50:31 AM
|
|
|