|
ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, February 24, 2004 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman John Rinaldi called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: John Rinaldi, Vice Chairman
Kevin Kibbe
Paul Thorogood
Elizabeth Ballard, Alternate
ABSENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John LeDoux
Edward Furey
David Alexander, Alternate
Vice Chairman Rinaldi noted that all those present tonight will be participating in tonight's hearings.
REACT Presentation
Robert Tanguay appeared before the Board and stated he is a member of the REACT Group in Enfield (Recover Enfield's Access to the Connecticut River). He provided the Board with a status report on their efforts.
Mr. Tanguay stated in 2001 Amtrak denied access over the railroad tracks on Fairview Avenue down the ancient Indian trail to the dam and the original falls. That spot has been used for thousands of years by the Indians and there is evidence this use dates back 5,000 to 7,000 years based on artifacts found. He discussed the various artifacts.
Mr. Tanguay stated Amtrak initially would not allow citizens to go over the tracks due to liability concerns. They made no effort to offer an alternate route. The REACT group then talked to former Governor Dukakis who is on the Revitalization Team for Amtrak and learned that Amtrak was willing to assist in these efforts as long as they did not have to pay for it. Mr. Tanguay stated if the funds can be raised, they will allow them to tunnel underneath the track which is the only viable solution to getting to the other side of the track. It will cost $1.75 million to tunnel under the tracks. While this was not REACT's goal, it was either do this or don't do it at all. Mr. Tanguay felt this is unfair to all the people who fish and enjoy the wildlife in the area.
Mr. Tanguay read the project title and description for the Commission's information. The project title is the Enfield Rapids Nature Observation Fishing and Trails Access Complex. He went on to read a detailed project description which includes access to the Connecticut River at the Enfield Falls and Dam, a boardwalk, a staging area, and a biking and wheelchair trail.
Mr. Tanguay discussed what has occurred during the past two years as part of this project. They are working closely with the Connecticut DOT and have received preliminary verbal permission from them to use the property just north of Birch Street. The Connecticut DEP has tentatively agreed to manage the property at the river access. They have also expressed interest in a possible collaboration between the Enfield Rapids Nature Observation Fishing and Trails Access Complex and the proposed Connecticut bike trail planned to cross the Route 190 bridge to the Windsor Locks Canal and beyond.
Mr. Tanguay noted the U. S. Congress will vote on Bill TEA21 in February or later and this was an application for construction funds made with the assistance of the Town Council and Town Manager as well as State representatives.
Mr. Tanguay stated their next step is to raise $60,000 to continue the process. He also presented a layout of the proposed area to the Board and described it.
Mr. Tanguay stated he is before the Board to apprise them of the REACT group's progress. The Board will receive updates in the future.
Mr. Tanguay also presented a view from the river that shows the proposed tunnel and boardwalk.
Mr. Tanguay requested that the Board write to the State's two Senators. He offered an instruction form outlining how this can be accomplished.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the route of the proposed connection from the bridge to Canal Road. Mr. Tanguay stated they do not yet know the answer to that but he felt the route would be to go up Birch Street to a path yet to be constructed from the end of Birch Street up to Pearl Street, then over to the north side of the bridge and down the bridge. Mr. Tanguay stated the bridge path walk has to be extended five additional feet.
Mr. Thorogood asked how long the proposed tunnel will be. Mr. Tanguay estimated sixty feet.
Board members thanked Mr. Tanguay for his presentation.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi informed tonight's applicants of the meeting procedure and also explained when a variance can be granted. He further noted that only four members are present this evening and four affirmative votes are required to pass a variance. Vice Chairman Rinaldi stated any applicants that wish to do so may reschedule their applications for next month when a full Board may be present.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZBA 2004-01-01 - Mark Bujak d.b.a. Mark's Motorsports, 66 Enfield Street, Map 35 / Lot 45), BG Zone: A side yard variance of 16.5 ft., (-6.5) ft. proposed, 3.5 ft. existing, 10 ft. required, handicapped ramp system as required by state building code - Section 5.10 Table
Mark Bujak appeared before the Board regarding this application. He is requesting approval on a handicapped ramp that he is required to have on the outside of his building. His hardship is the property line of the building only extends one and a half feet past the building. The ramp is going to take up about 10'. He has talked to CL&P who owns the approximately 16' wide right of way and they have granted permission to locate the handicapped ramp in the proposed location. The variance is being requested to acquire the additional two feet that they need to construct this ramp.
Mr. Bujak stated he is a renter of the property and he leases it from Robert Nuger, the owner. He added the handicapped accessibility is a necessity and there is no other location for it on the property. At the time the property was initially constructed, there were more lenient building codes which allowed the property to be constructed almost to the building line. They would need an extension of 8.5 feet to meet the ADA code requirements.
In response to a question from Ms. Ballard, Mr. Bujak stated all new construction and renovations must have handicapped accessibility.
Mr. Thorogood asked if the agreement with CL&P is in writing and Mr. Bujak confirmed that it is.
Mr. Bujak stated this property is located right across from the access road of the Radisson Hotel.
Mr. Bujak stated this building previously had a fire escape for the upstairs and a loading dock added to it requiring previous variances.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi stated the proposed handicapped ramp construction meets the requirements of the state. Mr. Bujak stated there were two options for construction but either way they would need a variance because they only have 1.5 feet remaining. The ramp needs to be 3' plus an aisle way and a railing bringing it to approximately 5'. With it wrapping around, they would need a total of 10' off the building.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi closed this public hearing.
REGULAR MEETING
Vice Chairman Rinaldi called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Ms. Ballard, to approve the Minutes of December 29, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 3 - 0 - 1 vote with Mr. Thorogood abstaining.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Vice Chairman Rinaldi noted receipt of a memo to Jose Giner, Director of Planning from the Board (through staff). Mr. Alsbaugh included in the Board's meeting packet a the noted memo asking Mr. Giner for an opinion of whether or not abstaining votes shall be counted with the majority. As four concurring votes are necessary under the statutes to approve a variance or an appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, the Board has doubts that an abstention could be counted as such a concurring vote.
Mr. Rinaldi also stated there was no meeting last month due to a lack of a quorum.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi reported receipt of the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies' quarterly newsletter.
Also received was proposed Bill #5023 - An Act Concerning Municipal Ethics Commissions and Municipal Ethics Codes. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the serious implications to all volunteer board and commission members regarding financial disclosures. The bill requires that you submit a financial disclosure and he noted Page 13, Section 11, Parts A and B, which includes a complete summary of what the legislature is considering. Mr. Alsbaugh stated Board members can contact their state representatives regarding their comments about this proposed bill.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi reported receipt of a copy of the Connecticut Bar Association Planning and Zoning Newsletter dated November, 2003.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi reported receipt of information entitled Crisis in Transportation Policy which includes a summary of the issues.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi noted receipt of various emails along with a copy of the latest Board Bylaws for review during the organizational meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
ZBA 2004-01-01 - Mark Bujak d.b.a. Mark's Motorsports, 66 Enfield Street, Map 35 / Lot 45), BG Zone: A side yard variance of 16.5 ft., (-6.5) ft. proposed, 3.5 ft. existing, 10 ft. required, handicapped ramp system as required by state building code - Section 5.10 Table.
Mr. Thorogood noted this represents a safety issue as well as a requirement by the State. Also, the various approvals are in place to construct this handicapped ramp system.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi stated his only concern was that the ramp cross the property line but any concerns about encroachment are beyond this Board's scope. The applicant has a letter from CL&P granting him permission. Mr. Alsbaugh added not only is this a variance request for the ramp but there are already two previously existing incursions over the line which are delineated on the site plan before the Board. The ramp dimension is exactly what is required to take into account the previously existing nonconformities. This motion will also cover those pre-existing conditions within the variance.
Mrs. Ballard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a variance of 16.5 ft. of the side yard setback to (-6.5) ft., (-3) ft. existing, 10 ft. required, to allow a new handicap ramp system and new awnings over the ramp and the rear side stairs to remain - Enfield Zoning Ordinance Sect. 5.10Table.
Reference is made to a location survey plan titled " Plan I, Survey with ramp and rear awning overlays", dated "Received, Enfield Planning Office Jan-6, 2004", a second plan showing the floor plan, rear awning, and new ramp and awning titled "Plan II, Floor Plan, Ramp, Awnings", dated "Received, Enfield Planning Office Jan-6, 2004", and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-01-01.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
The following reasons for approval were given:
1. The addition of the handicap ramp addresses safety issues, and;
2. The handicap ramp is a requirement under the state building codes, and;
3. The structure was previously approved and expanded in a non-conforming manner close to and, in places, over the side property line, and;
4. The approved plan sheets will address all corrective measures for these safety and incursions in a precise and minimal manner.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 2004-02-01 - L & D Motors d.b.a. Lia Honda, 20 Palomba Drive, Map 57 / Lot 335, BR Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability - new and used car dealership and 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.)
Eric Forish, Forish Construction, representing L&D Motors D.B.A. LIA Auto Group, and Bob Micucci, the General Manager of the Connecticut properties, appeared before the Board regarding this application. Mr. Forish asked that both this application and ZBA 2004-02-02 be considered in the same presentation as they are related. They are owned by the same individual and this involves the swapping of a license back and forth. Per Connecticut Statutes, they are required to come before this Board. Acting Chairman Rinaldi agreed that the situation seemed to be straight forward, just a swap of existing sites and licenses. The Board voted to discharge both reviews concurrently.
Mr. Forish noted what has occurred is at 10 Palomba Drive the existing Honda dealership is relocating to 20 Palomba Drive. The existing dealerships located at 20 Palomba Drive, Lia Nissan and Lia Pontiac, are relocating to 10 Palomba Drive. The building construction is complete and they have been issued a partial certificate of occupancy for this type of business for the property at 20 Palomba Drive. Honda is ready to relocate and take possession of its new home.
Mr. Forish stated 10 Palomba Drive is awaiting the issuance of a building permit which should be received any day so that it can be converted to the new location of the Nissan property.
Bob Micucci stated Lia is requesting a Certificate of Suitability in order to proceed to the Department of Motor Vehicles for the issuance of their dealers' and repairers' license for Nissan at the 10 Palomba Drive address and Honda at the 20 Palomba Drive address. They already have an existing license for both dealerships at the previous address. He requested that the Board sign off on the site maps so they can present their application to the DMV tomorrow.
Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54 & EZO Section 11.00C, for the operation of a new and used car dealership and general repairer license, under the applicant's ownership. Said operation is to be at the described location [20 Palomba Drive] and as delineated on the two site plan sheets submitted with application ZBA # 2004-02-01. Reference is made to two plan sheets titled "As-Built Plan, PH2331, LIA Auto Group, 20 Palomba Drive, J. R. Russo & Associates, Sheet 1 of 1, [dated] 1/14/2004" & "The LIA Group, Floor Plan Overall, Sheet A-1.2 - JOB #02-27, revised to 7/17/03", and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA2004-02-01.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
ZBA 2004-02-02 - Enfield Nissan-Pontiac, Inc. d.b.a. Lia Nissan-Pontiac, 10 Palomba Drive, Map 57 / Lot 334, BR Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability - new and used car dealership and 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.)
Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54 & EZO Section 11.00C, for the operation of a new and used car dealership and general repairer license, under the applicant's ownership. Said operation is to be at the described location [10 Palomba Drive] and as delineated on the two site plan sheets submitted with application ZBA # 2004-02-02. Reference is made to two plan sheets titled "Site Plan, William Lia - Enfield Nissan, 10 Palomba Drive, J. R. Russo & Associates, Sheet 4 of 5, [dated] 5/30/03, revised to 9/10/03" & "The LIA Group, Nissan, Proposed Floor Plan, Sheet A-1, [dated] 10/07/03, revised to 02/06/04, revised to 7/17/03", and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA2004-02-02.
The comments included in ZBA 2004-02-01 also pertain to this public hearing. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board needs to sign both motions and letters will be sent to the applicant.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 0 - 0 vote.
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 11.00C. (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.)
The applicant requested that this application be tabled to the April Regular Meeting.
Discussion on front porches
This discussion was continued until further input from the Board to staff is submitted for an organized discussion. Recommendations and comments are to be forwarded to the Planning & Zoning Commission following the conclusion of those discussions.
Mr. Alsbaugh has not yet received any feedback on the issue of front porches from the Planning and Zoning Commission. He added there will be proposed amendments to the ordinance regarding signage.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
1. Review of Bylaws
Vice Chairman Rinaldi distributed information which included Notes on Variances and the Chairman's statement to the Board on April 29, 2002.
Mr. Thorogood questioned if the organizational meeting should be postponed until the full Board is present. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are sufficient Board members present to do a review if they wish. He also noted that any bylaw changes must be discussed, then scheduled for a public hearing for a vote. That procedure could be begun tonight and voted on at the next Board meeting. The Board voted to begin discussions, and then continue them until the next meeting where more members would be in attendance.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has been considering including in the Bylaws a formalization of the Zoning Board of Appeals process. There were a couple of items during previous discussions that he raised for consideration by the Board. One was the statement from the Chairman regarding the meeting procedures. He suggested that be added as Appendix I to the Bylaws with footnotes within the by-laws referring to the appendix. This would convey the information more clearly to future Board members.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the second issue was the Board had discussed at length the definition of a hardship and when can a variance be granted. That was distilled into the statements that were added to the agenda which the Board members approved previously. The other concept for consideration would be to add some agenda templates within the Bylaws as Appendix II, so that future members and future staff people would have a precise setup of how meetings are conducted. One would be a Regular Meeting Agenda. Another would be the Agenda showing the organizational meeting that is required biennially in even numbered years. Within both of those would be the information included regarding the variances and when and how they can be granted. This would pass the information along to not only Zoning Board of Appeals' members and staff personnel but also to the residents of the town.
Vice Chairman Rinaldi felt a delineation of such information would clarify the aspects of the agenda for all Board members.
Mr. Thorogood asked about the procedure if there were a number of variances this evening versus only one. Mr. Alsbaugh described the process which would include now hearing all variances and acting on them following completion of the last public hearing. Mr. Thorogood asked if the Board could vote on each application following their public hearing in order to improve the process. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the board's traditional procedure has been to hold the public hearings and then the votes are taken during the regular meeting portion.
Ms. Ballard stated she objects to taking a break. She noted Planning and Zoning went through this previously because of the possibility raised by the public of discussing current applications. They have since changed their procedures.
Mr. Thorogood stated it would be more efficient to consider the entire matter, including the vote, and then move on to the next one. He felt concentrating on one application at a time in full would avoid back tracking for Board members and speed the process for applicants.
Mr. Thorogood asked for the process regarding the reading of the legal notice. Mr. Alsbaugh stated traditionally such notices are read before each hearing but it is the Board's choice. Mr. Thorogood stated he would like to read each one at the time of the public hearing and not all at once at the beginning of the hearings.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the present meeting agenda is something that has been in effect during his tenure and he has attempted to modify it to meet the needs of the Board. He noted if the Board is interested in a major change to the agenda format, he will provide the Board with new format suggestions for the next meeting.
Mr. Thorogood asked some questions about the agenda structure and suggested the agenda delineate the individual items including the immediate vote. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the public hearings have to be separated from non-public hearings. Mr. Thorogood stated the agenda should clarify the Board's role to the public. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested Regular Meeting become item five. The break would be deleted. Instead of the meeting divided the way it is at this time into two separate sections, the Regular Meeting would become item five and New Business would become item 5, a., b., and c.
Mr. Thorogood suggested putting all enclosure items at the bottom of the agenda for information to Board members. Mr. Alsbaugh noted that enclosure and correspondence items are already listed on staff general comments for members' information.
Mr. Thorogood stated now when a meeting begins, it doesn't start until the Board reaches item four or five of the present agenda.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town is required by law to maintain Correspondence to the Board. He suggested the agenda read Correspondence/Enclosures in order to meet the legal requirements.
In further discussion, Mr. Alsbaugh suggested leaving Correspondence where it presently is and moving the Old and New Business sections above that. The second Call to Order and Roll Call would disappear. The Regular Meeting would then be divided up into whatever is remaining.
Ms. Ballard stated she personally feels everything included on the agenda should be part of the Regular Meeting. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested having a numbered heading for public hearings and then sequentially dealing with the remaining items afterwards. This would mean the items previously separated into the "Regular Meeting" would be brought forward right after the public hearings. The Regular Meeting within the agenda heading would be removed entirely.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this discussion regarding the agenda has two goals. The first is to save time for applicants, and the second to avoid any appearance of discussion of public hearing items outside the meeting prior to the Board taking action on them.
Mr. Thorogood stated he thought tonight's meeting went pretty well but he offered this comment. He thinks the Board should deal with each variance on the agenda in full from public hearing to action rather than having applicants waiting for two hours before the Board votes on their application.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will research possible agenda scenarios in order to include all necessary items in the proper order.
Mr. Thorogood stated after the roll call there are Minutes and Correspondence prior to the public hearings. He asked if there is a reason why those items are done before the public hearings and action on the applications. In further discussion, Mr. Thorogood withdrew this question because there could be something from a previous meeting that would assist the Board in making a decision. He gave a recent example to demonstrate this.
Mr. Alsbaugh summarized that the Board still wants to keep the public hearings first on the agenda, whether they are old or new, followed by the certificates of suitability, and then Minutes, Correspondence and other discussion items.
Ms. Ballard asked if there should be an opportunity for people to speak on items other than public hearings. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this Board has never requested public input as a regular agenda item. This would mean the people speaking under public hearings would be those people with applications before the Board that particular evening, or those with pertinent comments on those applications.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted if a public hearing is tabled and reopened at another meeting, the public can speak again during that hearing. The criteria set by the Chairman is if you have something new to include in the public hearing, speakers should do so. If not, they do not have to repeat something previously stated and already on the record.
Mr. Thorogood suggested each public hearing consist of the reading of only that hearing's legal notice prior to the start of each hearing. He would also like to see action on each public hearing following the close of that hearing. Each public hearing would have a three-step process of reading the legal notice, holding the public hearing and acting on the public hearing in order to simplify the process.
Ms. Ballard suggested if the agenda change is made, that the Chairman make comments at the start of the meeting informing applicants of the procedure. He should inform those present that each application will be considered and voted on individually in the order they are shown on the agenda.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the Board would like to see information on the agenda regarding when a variance can be granted, what constitutes a legal hardship, and what other issues are that affect the variance consideration procedure. Following that discussion, there would be something formatted to explain the process of each one.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the significant difference would be at the end of each public hearing after it is closed, there would be an immediate vote by the Board on that application.
Mr. Thorogood suggested adding a couple of bullets in the block that talks about the process on the agenda. One bullet would be for members to vote and another bullet for the process (hearing, close of hearing, discussion, vote, end of application). This would be beneficial to whoever is chairing the meeting.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this new format would also make the process clear to applicants and they would not have to be told to either stay or leave after each application.
Mr. Thorogood stated the Board has previously discussed the ethics legislation. Mr. Alsbaugh reminded the Board they need to look at Page 13, Section 11, parts A and B, very closely to determine what that means to each Board member.
Mr. Thorogood stated from a financial privacy standpoint of the Banking Commission, he felt there would be some serious issues regarding this proposed ethics legislation. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there may be but if this legislation passes and becomes effective, Board members will be required to comply regardless of whether it is addressed and revised afterwards. Whatever is disclosed will be public record.
Mr. Alsbaugh urged Board members to contact their legislators regarding this proposed ethics legislation. He added this information has been shared with all town boards and commissions.
Mr. Thorogood stated the only way all the information that is disclosed can be verified is by verification of a social security number. The tendency today is to get away from using social security numbers because of security concerns. From a privacy standpoint, he cannot believe that this is being proposed and he is seriously concerned.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is not affected by the proposed ethics legislation because he is hired personnel rather than an appointed official.
2. Nomination of Officers
3. Election of Officers
Vice Chairman Rinaldi requested that these items be postponed until next month when all Board members may be present. By-laws items discussed tonight will also be reviewed again at the next meeting to update other board members. Once the preliminary discussions are completed, any proposed changes to the bylaws will be placed on the next agenda as a public hearing for final discussion and a vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Thorogood made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
John H. LeDoux, Jr., Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr |