|
ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 29, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, December 29, 2003, in the Town Hall Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut.
Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi, Vice Chairman
David Alexander, Alternate
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
Elizabeth Ballard, Alternate
ABSENT: John LeDoux, Secretary
Edward Furey
Kevin Kibbe
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Yarum apprised the applicants of when a variance can be granted.
Alternate members David Alexander, Paul Thorogood, and Elizabeth Ballard were seated.
David Alexander was appointed as Secretary pro-tem for the evening.
READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE
Mr. Alexander read the legal notices for the public hearings.
ZBA 2003-12-01 - William & Christine O'Hare, 10 Thompson Court, Map 8 / Lot 60, R-33 Zone: Lot coverage variance of 29.2%, 49.2% proposed, 48.04% existing, 20% allowed, new rear porches - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Ms. Christine O'Hare, 23 Bayberry Drive, Holyoke, MA, appeared before the Board members regarding this application.
She explained that the house, built in 1925 has always exceeded the allowed lot coverage. The porches have been condemned by the Building Inspector and in order to be re-built to code must be made 1' larger.
Ms. O'Hare submitted 3 photographs of the existing porches needing to be replaced.
She went on to explain that the building has not been occupied in 2 years because of the porches. She purchased the property in May, 2003 and is making various upgrades to the property.
In response to a question by Mr. Rinaldi, she stated that the property, without the porches, would not have enough exits for a multifamily use and would therefore not receive a Certificate of Occupancy.
The porches were condemned because of the extensive rot of the wood. They need to be replaced and she is requesting the variance of 1' in order to meet the Building Code.
Chairman Yarum opened this public hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing at 7:11 p.m.
ZBA 2003-12-02 - Susan & Paul Pearson, 30 Edgewood Dr., Map 53 / Lot 524, R-33 Zone: Front yard variance of 7 ft., 28 ft. proposed, 35 ft. new front porch - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Susan and Paul Pearson of 30 Edgewood Drive appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mrs. Pearson submitted a notarized statement, dated December 17, 2003 that the required public hearing sign was erected on the property prior to December 18, 2003.
Mrs. Pearson explained that she and her husband are requesting a variance of the front yard setback for the construction of a "wrap around" style front porch on their colonial style home.
In reply to a question by Ms. Ballard, Mrs. Pearson stated that the side yard requirements can be met without a variance. The front and sides currently have grass and shrubs and a sidewalk, a portion of which would be removed in the front.
The request for 7' starts from the front foundation of the existing dwelling. There is no one handicapped living in the home.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what would make this property uniquely different from other homes similar to the Pearsons.
Mrs. Pearson stated that she would like her home to be different from similar ones on her street. The porch would add to her home and neighborhood type street. She felt that the builder created the hardship by placing the home on the building setback line. Her neighbors all have expressed their approval of their proposal.
Mr. Rinaldi agreed that porches encourage social interaction and are aesthetically pleasing, however this application does not present any unique situation that would qualify it for a variance such as topography. He went on to note that perhaps the Planning and Zoning Commission could look into the matter of porch allowances.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to be as restrictive or broad as it feels would be supportable in a court of law. Also, if it so chose, the Board could place conditions of approval on a porch, such as keeping it open.
He went on to explain that the Town of Enfield regulations do not differentiate an open porch from living space as being part of a structure.
Chairman Yarum opened this public hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing at 7:31 p.m.
4. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order
The regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Peter Yarum at 7:32 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Because there was no recess at the end of the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, the Roll Call was not held.
3. Approval of Minutes -November 24, 2003
A motion was made by John Rinaldi and seconded by Paul Thorogood to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 24, 2003 as presented. Vote was 4-0-1(Ballard).
4. Correspondence
Mr. Alsbaugh reported that he received a catalog from the Town Manager's Office for identification badges and found the items to be very expensive. He offered to bring a digital camera to a ZBA meeting so that members could have their picture taken at that time. Any badges would need the Town Manager's signature, so his approval on the program would be necessary.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to send a second memo to the Town Manager regarding the Board's request for identification badges. The badges can be created in-house at a fraction of the cost of that found in a catalog. The memo will also request approval of expenditure of $37.00 from within the Board's budget, over and above the $50 allowed to be approved by Chairman Yarum.
Also included in correspondence was an update from Robert Tanguay of R.E.A.C.T., a group hoping to re-gain access to the Connecticut River over Amtrak railroad tracks. Mr. Tanguay will be invited to speak at ZBA's next regular meeting.
5. Old Business
NONE
6. New Business
ZBA 2003-12-01 - William & Christine O'Hare, 10 Thompson Court, Map 8 / Lot 60, R-33 Zone: Lot coverage variance of 29.2%, 49.2% proposed, 48.04% existing, 20% allowed, new rear porches - EZO Section 4.10.2H
A motion was made by Mr. Rinaldi and seconded by Ms. Ballard to approve the Request for a coverage variance of 29.2%: 49.2% coverage proposed, 48.04% existing, 20% allowed, to allow a new set of replacement porches to be added to the rear of the six-unit residential building on the residentially zoned property - Enfield Zoning Ordinance Sect. 4.10H
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Porch Design, Bill & Christine O'Hara, L.P. Consultants, LLC, 252 Hazard Avenue, Enfield, CT & Architectural Design, James Triba, 20 Sun Street, Enfield, CT", dated 9/29/03, and submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-12-01.
Ms. Ballard stated that she drove by the house and noted that the porches are in "dire straights" and will not meet the building code unless granted the variance. This is a safety factor. Use of 2/3 of the building would be denied without the variance.
Mr. Rinaldi stated that the Town mandates that they be rebuilt to building code but the Zoning regulations do not allow them to be built at the larger size.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted that the Town is enforcing State codes.
Mr. Thorogood agreed that it is a safety issue and that a second means of egress on rental property is very important.
Vote was 5-0-0.
This was a safety issue and use of 2/3 of the property would be impossible without the variance. Approval of the variance provides for improved safety and reasonable use of the property would be denied without variance approval. Additionally, State Building Code requires the variance in order to re- build the porch, which had been condemned, to current code.
ZBA 2003-12-02 - Susan & Paul Pearson, 30 Edgewood Dr., Map 53 / Lot 524, R-33 Zone: Front yard variance of 7 ft., 28 ft. proposed, 35 ft. new front porch - EZO Section 4.10.2H
A motion was made by Ms. Ballard and seconded by Mr. Alexander to approve Request for a front yard setback variance of 7 feet: 28 feet proposed, 35 feet existing, 35 feet required, to allow a new porch system to be added to the front and side of the residential building - Enfield Zoning Ordinance Sect. 4.10H
Reference is made to a location survey plan, with scaled, later additions and proposals, titled "Mortgage Survey Property of Stephen & Linda Perry", dated September 1972, and to three hand-drawn explanatory drawings (#'s 1-3) by the applicants, all submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-12-02.
Mr. Rinaldi noted that there are many favorable reasons for front porches but there is no hardship proven for this particular piece of property.
Ms. Ballard agreed that no hardship was proven and approval of this application could set precedence.
Mr. Thorogood asked if approval with conditions would open amendment to the ZBA rules. An example would be to allow only a certain percentage or footage over the current setback.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that every condition/statement/thought has two sides. Approval at this time could be used against an applicant or the Board in the future. Each case must be decided on its own merits. There will always be an opinion on both sides of the issue.
Mr. Thorogood asked at what detailed level would be needed to approve with conditions, such as design control.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the level would need to be quantity and location only. Discussion of conditions could include percentage of allowable square footage. This could relate to considerations of any future ordinance amendment where the conditions in an amendment must be consistent throughout a particular zone.
Members likened this type of application to that of the recent applications for variance to allow commercial trucks to be parked in residential zones. A previous ZBA board had granted a variance, over ten years ago. The matter was recently of great interest to residents and beyond the authority of the current ZBA to grant.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted that the current board is not bound by a current or previous board decisions. Each case must be based on its own merit and should be supportable in a court of law.
Mr. Yarum noted that this application may be the beginning of other homeowners wishing to do the same thing and suggested that the ZBA ask the Planning and Zoning Board to look into the matter.
Vote was 0-5-0. Denied.
Although there are many favorable reasons for front porches, the applicant did not prove a hardship for this particular piece of property. Reasonable use of property is still possible without granting this variance request.
7. Discussion: Variance application form - re-formatting options - continued:
Mr. Rinaldi asked for clarification of "financial hardship".
Mr. Yarum stated that perhaps a person might not be able to afford to keep a property or sell it without having a variance granted. Each application is unique.
Mr. Alsbaugh went on to state that financial hardships, by case law, have been determined not to be a reason for approval. It should not be the issue to sway the ZBA to grant a variance, although a financial hardship can be in existence. If a financial component exists, the ZBA must find other grounds for granting the variance.
Further discussion took place on the possibility of requesting that the Planning & Zoning Commission look into the matter of porches.
Mr. Rinaldi noted that this was the second application since he began serving on the ZBA. He is interested in "smart growth" especially in conjunction with the Revitalization Committee's work.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested confining the Board's request to Planning & Zoning to specific, common, and logical situations, such as those presented by the many neighborhoods with Starr-built homes that are built up to the front setback line. An amendment could perhaps be drafted that is similar to that of the Hartford ordinance, with main structure setbacks and more lenient 'veranda' setbacks.
Mr. Thorogood agrees this could be an issue and to ask Planning & Zoning to look at the matter now would be pro-active.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested that members provide thoughts by email to him so that he can draft a memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission with the final format approved and signed by Chairman Yarum.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by David Alexander and seconded by Paul Thorogood to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
John H. LeDoux, Jr., Secretary
srs Enfield Zoning Board of Appeal |