ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A SEPCIAL MEETING
APRIL 13, 2009
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 13, 2009 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Mary Ann Turner
Maurice LaRosa, Alternate
Charles Mastroberti, Alternate
Andrew Urbanowicz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning
Chairman Yarum noted that all three alternates will be voting as regular members for the public hearings this evening.
MINUTES
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the Minutes of September 29, 2008. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT
Mr. Giner stated he passed out Correspondence from the Town Attorney which is related to an application on tonight’s agenda.
Ms. Turner asked if a letter was received from Mr. Robbins to the Building Department. Mr. Giner stated that is for the Regular Meeting Agenda.
Chairman Yarum stated Correspondence includes the Town Attorney’s Report for April, 2009, the time line that the Board requested from the Zoning Enforcement Officer on 33 Second Avenue and the November, 2008 Town Clerk update with meeting dates and relevant statutes.
Chairman Yarum explained to the public the procedure for tonight’s meeting and when a variance can be granted.
VARIANCES –NEW
ZBA 2009-03-01 – Susan Cleary, Applicant and Owner, 22 Arrow St., Map 66 / Lot 226, R33 Zone, requesting a front yard setback variance of 8 ft., 27 ft. requested, 35 ft. required to construct an addition & garage - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Susan Cleary, 22 Arrow Street, appeared before the Board regarding this hearing. She stated they would like to stay in a great neighborhood. She would like to think that the shape of their lot and the position of the house when it was first built would qualify them for a variance to add on a room and a garage. She presented pictures of her house and explained the pictures to the Board.
Ms. Cleary stated they have no other choice of where to add the addition. Chairman Yarum noted receipt of five eight and a half by eleven colored photographs of the applicant’s property.
Ms. Cleary stated they have lived here for twenty-one years and have tried to move elsewhere but they don’t want to leave the neighborhood. Their neighbors volunteered to come forward tonight. Ms. Cleary stated she doesn’t think they would change the nature of the neighborhood based on some other variances that have been granted in the neighborhood. They are looking to add value to the neighborhood and to the properties around them.
Mr. LaRosa asked if Ms. Cleary currently has a building plan. Ms. Cleary stated yes and it should be part of the Board’s packet. Mr. LaRosa stated he would like to see a plan of exactly what is proposed. All he has is lines drawn on a paper. Ms. Cleary presented a plan and stated it is not to scale. It is an exaggerated version that the builder gave to her. Mr. LaRosa asked if there are plans for a building.
Ms. Cleary stated this is a very simple, modest addition. It is not going to be a high ceiling garage or a high ceiling room. Mr. LaRosa stated the word approximate catches his eye on the fourth page of the application. It says 20’ x 16’ approximate.
Chairman Yarum gave some clarification. He stated approximate was put in by Mr. Alsbaugh. The reason that they are saying approximately is because you have a definite front and a definite side. To maintain the square footage, that angle is going to be determined and that is why he is saying it is approximate. Chairman Yarum stated the Board doesn’t need to see a construction plan. The Board is looking at the footprint for the variance. When the construction plans are submitted to the Building Department, they will look at heights and everything else that’s needed. That is not this Board’s function.
Mr. LaRosa stated he would like to be assured that the corner of that garage is going to be fifteen feet away from the property line. He asked if the Board can be sure that it is 27’ from the road to where the corner of that building is going to be without a building plan. He has a hand drawn footprint of what they would like but there is no building plan saying this is what the builder is putting in. Chairman Yarum stated the Board is looking at 20’ x 16’ approximately. If the Board grants the variance, they have to maintain the side yard setback of fifteen feet and they have to maintain the variance of eight feet.
Ms. Turner asked if it is 22’ from the garage to the street or is it supposed to be 27’. Ms. Cleary stated the plan is not to scale and it is what they originally got. Mr. Alsbaugh researched the maps and asked that she have her builder draw a plan to scale. The builder did the plan for her before she knew she needed the variance. Ms. Cleary was advised by Mr. Alsbaugh that the plan presented would be a problem. She wanted to give a bigger picture of things but noted it is not exact. Ms. Turner stated if the variance needs eight feet to get it to the street but it is really only twenty-two feet then the variance is more than eight feet. Chairman Yarum stated if the Board grants the variance, it is very specific that it is eight feet which would give Ms. Cleary 27’ to the road. Ms. Turner stated if it is only 22’, she would rather have her have the proper variance. Ms. Turner stated Ms. Cleary may need a bigger variance. If she is given a variance for eight feet, she could be short. Ms. Turner would like to see the correct variance given. Chairman Yarum stated he is satisfied that the applicant sat with Mr. Alsbaugh and did a scaled drawing.
Mr. LaRosa asked if Ms. Cleary has given any consideration to a garage without a mud room or breezeway which may get her closer to the town regulations. Ms. Cleary stated she has not because of the way their house is positioned on the property, it is angled to their detriment. With just a garage, it would still need a variance. Ms. Cleary stated they would regret putting on a garage without an additional room.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Eric Jenks, 15 Arrow Street, stated he is directly across from the property under consideration. He noted most of the homes in the neighborhood have additions. He thinks the Cleary’s certainly deserve a garage. They keep their property immaculate and he cannot see any reason why the variance would not be granted. Mr. Jenks would have no objection whatsoever and he felt the addition would add to the neighborhood.
Paul and Vicki Fay, 24 Arrow Street which is next door to the Cleary’s, stated they have no objection to them being granted a variance. Without a variance, no one in the neighborhood would be able to add any type of a structure to their property. They hope the variance will be granted.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance of 8 ft., 27 ft. requested, 35 ft. required to construct an addition and garage – EZO Section 4.10.2G,
Reference is made to: (1.) A site plan titled “Southwood Acres, Section 4 of Sheet 3, Vol. 5, Pg. 157 (Enfield Land Records), Revised Map, March 22, 1955, Approved at Previous Meeting”, and filed March 23, 1955, and (2.) An enlargement of the subject property from the former map indicating variance location proposal, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2009-03-01.
Ms. Turner visited the property and the only concern she has is that the frontage be the 27’. She did see that this property had a lot of space and the rest of the neighborhood has additions. This is the only house in the neighborhood like this. There isn’t another one that has such a corner lot.
Mr. LaRosa read from the regulations, Article 19, Section 11-104 under Procedures. It states all appeals and applications made to the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be made on forms prescribed by the Board and accompanied by a scaled descriptive drawing. He stated the problem he has is there is no way for the Board to know if the drawing presented is to scale. He would like to see scaled drawings accompany applications. He doesn’t have a scaled drawing with this application. He has been to the property and they have quite a bit of land. They meet everything but the front requirement and the house itself doesn’t meet that requirement. In the future moving forward Mr. LaRosa would like to see scaled drawings of applications before Board meetings. It will benefit the Board in making a better decision.
Chairman Yarum stated Mr. LaRosa’s comment is noted and it is a good comment. He saw a need for some response from staff in going forward to have scaled drawings. He assumes in this situation because it was changed from 22’ frontage to now 27’ that staff had worked with the applicant and arrived at those numbers. Mr. Giner stated he would assume if Mr. Alsbaugh put down 27’ he thought that was what was needed. That was what the legal notice said. You can always go for less of a variance but for more you would have to come back. Mr. Giner stated staff tries to tell people what they need but it is an expense to go out and get a surveyor to do an accurate plan. Mr. Alsbaugh in this case spent some time researching the land records to come up with a plan that showed the house. Mr. Giner will communicate to applicants about the need for an accurate site plan.
Mr. LaRosa stated he would treat each property the same. He did not feel this is a minor addition and noted the addition is bigger than the house.
Ms. Turner added these folks do not need to get a full blown survey map. They need to get some sticks and they go out in the front yard and they nail them into the ground and they put a line so that Board members can see what they want to build. What she is concerned about is Roger found a map and tried to configure things but didn’t show up at the Cleary house. Ms.
Turner believes that it is 22’ and she doesn’t want the applicant to be caught without the accurate figure. Mr. Giner stated he will advise applicants to stake the corners of what they are proposing to build so Board members can have a visualization of where the building will be. Ms. Turner did not want applicants to spend any more money than they have to.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is given the unique configuration of the property, the variance was granted allowing the applicant the minimum amount needed to improve their property to match others in the neighborhood.
ZBA 2009-04-01 – Thompsonville Fire Dept., Applicant and A. Troiano & Sons, Owner, 26 Pearl Street & 21 Prospect St., Map 24 / Lots 84 & 97, TVC Zone, requesting a maximum front setback variance from 25 ft. to 66 ft., a maximum building height variance from 40 ft. to 65 ft., and a variance to allow a 1-story building where 2 stories are required, all to allow construction of a new fire house - EZO Section 5.10
Dave Ziaks, Chief Frank Alaimo, Assistant Chief Nabors and the project architect, David Pacheko, appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. Ziaks presented a signed affidavit for the signs placed on the property in accordance with the town ordinance. This is a copy of the affidavit. The original was given to staff a few days ago.
Mr. Ziaks stated they are here to discuss the request for three variances. The proposed fire house project would actually involve four parcels and Mr. Ziaks pointed them out on the site plan. One parcel is located on the corner of Asnuntuck Street and Pearl Street which is owned by the town and presently a public parking lot. There is a second lot located to the south owned by Anthony Troiano. This is a utility parcel with electrical easements on it and a town sanitary sewer easement running through it. There are the two parcels which are the subject of this application, the one on Pearl Street and the one on Prospect Street. This is where the fire house would actually be located. The town parking lot would be reconfigured to accommodate the driveway access on to the public road. One parcel at 27 Pearl Street is .47 acres of land. 21 Prospect Street is .3 acres of land. All of the parcels are located in the Thompsonville Center District. There are some specific design requirements that are unique to the village district and there is an appendix of design guidelines which give specific architectural requirements that you need for new buildings and renovated buildings within the district.
Mr. Ziaks stated Mr. Pacheko will review the site plan for the Board.
Mr. Pacheko, Pacheko Ross Architects, presented the floor plan and the site plan and explained why the building is configured the way that it is. Board members stated they did not receive the floor plans in their meeting packet. Mr. Pacheko put the site plan on the screen for the Board to review.
Mr. Pacheko stated the apparatus bays are located with the main response coming out to Pearl Street. That is the main area of response that gives the widest street to allow the vehicles to be able to turn out. The support vehicles end up on the bays heading out towards Prospect Street. Those are smaller vehicles and there is a much steeper slope. Directly off of the bays as is required by proper fire design guidelines are living spaces, a day room, a dining area, a kitchen, an entire suite of bunks and the bathrooms and locker rooms. There is a media training room. There are support spaces that are off the bay and these include everything from the laundry to the work room and the bathroom and a hose tower. There is also a locker area where the personal protective equipment for the fire fighters is stored. The training room is directly accessible from the main entrance. There is space for the Fire Marshal. There are lavatories, a training room and beyond that is an office suite further towards Prospect Street. There is mechanical space and an exercise room and a small office.
Mr. Pacheko stated he does have elevations but they are difficult to see on the screen. He has a three d model which shows what is happening. He showed the east elevation out toward Pearl Street. There are three bays that respond out there. They are quite tall and in essence the height of a two story building or 122’ clear. Beside the apparatus bays, there is a mezzanine space where the support spaces underneath it are only about nine feet tall. Then there is the tower which is the only portion that goes beyond the forty foot height limitation for the TVC area. The hose tower is required for drying the hose and will also be used as a training element. The tower needs to be able to hang a 100’ length of hose and that dictates the height of the tower. Facing out towards Asnuntuck Street, the tower is shown from the other end. There is a main entrance and the office suite is down the far end heading towards Prospect Street. There is a grade difference so on the south side of the building there is a retaining wall that tapers down to a minimal grade differential. This section is behind the Amvets building. Because there is a retaining wall, the windows for the bunk rooms are located in this area. There is a small court yard in the area.
Mr. Pacheko presented an animation of the building as seen from Pearl Street. He noted the mansard roof is a false roof meant to hide all the mechanical equipment that would be both on the apparatus bay portion and the administrative living side. They have taken the design queues from buildings in the area. A lot of the detailing comes from the St. Patrick’s Rectory just up the street and the tower detailing is reminiscent of the Amvets building just behind this property on High Street.
Mr. Pacheko pointed out the mechanical spaces, the exercise room, the bunk areas in the back and the section where the dining and kitchen area are.
Mr. Pacheko noted there is precedent in the area for towers. He showed the Amvets building on High Street and the St. Patrick’s Rectory building. He presented photos showing the current fire station tower and a view of all three towers in the area.
Mr. Pacheko presented a rendering showing the site and noted the streets in the area. He pointed out current parking areas that are existing along Asnuntuck Street. The reason for the setback at the aprons is there is a regulation from FEMA, 168, that says a front apron of a fire station needs to have a 60’ minimum or 15’ larger than the largest piece of apparatus. The largest piece of apparatus nowadays is 45’ to 50’. They are asking for 66’ because it is angled and it narrows down to something less than 60’.
Mr. Pacheko discussed the retaining wall. He noted the building is a two-story building in looks. It is two stories for a portion of the building that is the mezzanine. The regulations from FEMA state this should be a direct line of response on the same level as the response vehicles from living, working and sleeping areas. There is no need functionally for this building to have a second floor.
Mr. Pacheko handed out two shots showing the massing of the building.
Mr. Ziaks stated the first variance is that facade setback on Pearl Street. The Thompsonville design regulations call for a setback of either ten feet or a maximum of twenty-five feet and in order to meet the specific design requirements for this structure, they need to have a minimum of 60’. The angle of the building as it relates to the existing front line along Pearl Street – they are not parallel to each other. By the time you get to the south corner of the building, you need a setback of 66’ in order to accomplish a minimum of 60’.
Mr. Ziaks stated as far as the second variance goes, the height of the building, the actual main building meets the height requirements for the zone. The variance is for the unique tower that is being presented. That’s for operations of the facility. It is a hose drying tower which will also act as a training facility for the facility as well. It gives the opportunity to add a unique feature to the building to complement the different towers that already exist in the Village.
Mr. Ziaks stated the third variance is a variance to allow the construction of a one story building instead of a two story building. The building does present itself as a two-story building along Pearl Street and looking to the north. This is a purely technical variance because it does not look like a one-story building. It has been cleverly designed by the architects to look like a two-story building and the height of the bays are of a two-story building. It’s really dealing with the technical definition of what a story is rather than the actual design of the building.
Mr. Ziaks stated the fire house has been located in Thompsonville since 1839 and Chief Alaimo has given them all the history of the fire station and the area. It is really their desire to stay within the Village. They have been exploring for quite some time alternate locations to construct a new facility. They have studied their existing facility and determined it cannot be refurbished with today’s standards for the building. They would also like to move from the present precarious location which is somewhat lower than the height of the dam for Freshwater Pond. They have been studying the various options but wherever they go within the Village they will have to deal with the rather new design requirements that have been put in in this portion of town. This is a rather special circumstance in dealing with the construction of a new fire house structure that needs to meet the design standards of today and the various codes promulgated by federal agencies.
Mr. Ziaks noted that other than the three variances they are requesting this evening, the new facility would meet all of the design requirements. It does an outstanding job in meeting the guidelines that are in the appendix of the zoning ordinance for this district. Mr. Ziaks stated the proposal before the Board this evening will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise be detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety of the town. This new structure will greatly enhance the public health, welfare and safety for the town for many years to come. This is a public facility and it needs to meet the current design standards for such a facility and at the same time blend into the community that it’s being placed in.
Mr. Ziaks stated the hardship is certainly not self-inflicted or financially motivated in any way. The three variances are specific to this rather unique structure which is a public life safety structure and are required for the fire house to stay within the Village. Mr. Ziaks believes this presents unique circumstances which this Commission can consider in granting the variances. All of the properties that are available present all different types of design challenges. On the southerly side, there is a rather strange notch so the property is not rectangular in shape and there are design challenges for the building. There is also a need to blend in with the neighboring property to the north which is a town owned facility in order to gain access to the public right of way. The small parcel of land between the parking lot and the actual fire house parcels is encumbered with utility easements and a town sanitary sewer easement for a trunk sewer that services the entire Village. You cannot encumber that with building structures and that tightens up the area that is available to actually place the building.
Mr. LaRosa asked why there is such a deep facade on the roof and is it to hide the air conditioning. Mr. Pacheko stated in looking at the regulations specific to the TVC area, they do talk about how all the equipment needs to be screened. In looking at the neighboring buildings, they were trying to take design queues from there. The St. Patrick’s Rectory has a very tall mansard roof. They figured that is something that is very contextual and serves the dual purpose of hiding the equipment on the roof. Mr. Pacheko stated one of the problems with a fire station is the bays can often times look like a big box. This allows them to give some definition to the building and not make it seem like it is just a big box on Main Street.
Mr. LaRosa noted they stated they needed a bay ceiling of 22’ and one of the variances is to allow a single story building. The Board was also given information about FEMA requiring living space on a certain floor. Mr. LaRosa asked if that is a requirement or a recommendation and is that from FEMA or from the governing authority over fire and life safety which is NFPA. Mr. Pacheko stated that particular regulation comes from FEMA and it is a recommendation just from the point of view that they realize if that were a requirement there would be a lot of buildings that just could not be made to comply. They have the ability to make it comply with that. It is also mentioned in OSHA regulations as well in terms of not having a change in level. Traditionally, the existing fire station is a good example of that. Trip and fall injuries are the leading cause of injuries in fire stations and it is usually because of wet floors or people on multi-level response. The recommendation from FEMA is adopted in its entirety.
Mr. LaRosa stated with the recommended 22’ ceiling height to the facade, if you lesson the facade, you are looking at 38’ that you are allowed. He asked if they could put the offices and recreation equipment on the second floor above the apparatus floor so that they would meet the requirement for the area of having two floors. Mr. Pacheko stated that is a possibility but the office area is so much smaller and you would end up with a building down below that is 16,000 square feet and 1,000 square feet on the upper level. Mr. LaRosa noted the Board does not have a floor plan in front of them. Mr. Pacheko stated the majority of spaces in the building are those portions of the building that are required to be on the first floor. You have the apparatus and the rooms that directly support this apparatus on this floor. There are sleeping areas and when people are sleeping, you don’t want people coming down a set of stairs when they’ve just been woken up. It is also the quickest way into the bays – not having to come down the stairs. The remainder of the building has the office space that could come, the training room could go to a second floor but those are all areas the public needs to access. Putting them over in the bay with their proximity to the easement to the north and the property line to the south means they don’t have a place for public entrance in the front of the building. It’s not a place you would want a public entrance because with people coming into the building and the vehicles coming out, you don’t want people crossing those response paths. Where the second floor would end up would be in one particular section. They have intentionally kept this part of the building looking smaller because it is up against the residential portion of the site. Even though it is the town village center, there is a home in the area and their one story space makes that seem big compared to the two-story residential home next door. Their one-story space will be in the range of 14’ high clear to the underside of the structure.
Mr. LaRosa stated in the plans, on one of the variances they go from 60’ to 66’ and he is confused as to what they are asking for. Mr. Pacheko stated they are asking for the 66’ as was requested in the application. That is at the widest portion of it. Mr. LaRosa stated the plans ask for something else. Mr. Pacheko stated it is from 40’ to 65’ and that’s to the mean roof. Mr. LaRosa stated the Board has something that asks for a different height. Mr. Giner stated on the front plan it says 40’ to 60’ where the elevation shows 65’. Mr. Ziaks stated that is a typographical error on Sheet DR-1. The variance is from 40’ to 65’.
Mr. LaRosa stated they mentioned the tower was going to have a dual purpose of training and hose drying. He stated hoses come in a 100’ section and they can be hung over a piece of iron. They are saying that the hose is only allowed to have one fold but other fire stations all over the country and in this town do it with multiple folds. No one has a tower that will accommodate a 100’ hose without doing that. He asked if the code has changed to say you can only do it with one fold and is 65’ actually necessary when you can fold the hose in half and you need 50’. Mr. Pacheko stated 50’ is to the point where the hose would be. The 65’ is to the mean height of the roof. Mr. LaRosa asked if they were given a variance for a 52’ height, would that accommodate the 100’ hose. Mr. Pacheko stated they would need a little more because you have to be able to get the hoist above the hose to be able to hoist it up. The hoist is about ten inches and it has a twelve to eighteen inch chain and it needs to sit on a beam.
Mr. Pacheko stated the height is being pushed up because they are emulating the tower with a witch’s hat type of roof system. Mr. LaRosa stated from the pictures, the actual structure ends at the bottom of the witch’s hat. Mr. Pacheko stated that is correct. Mr. LaRosa asked if they could functionally use this building without the witch’s hat. Mr. Pacheko stated you could use the building that way but he questioned if the tower would look correct. They are trying to do something that looks like other structures in the area. Mr. LaRosa stated there are currently other fire houses in town that would have a flat top on the top of their tower. Mr. Pacheko stated they didn’t feel that the flat top was appropriate here but there’s no functional reason why it could not be flat. The witch’s hat is for aesthetic reasons.
Mr. Ziaks stated if you bring in the requirements of the zoning ordinance which are unique to the Thompsonville district and particularly the appendix B. design standards, he thinks that the treatment that Dave has put on that roof is very consistent with what they are suggesting should be in the village versus a flat roof on that tower. The functional part of the tower is close to what Mr. LaRosa is suggesting which is the 50’ for the 50’ hold. They are asking for the extra feet to allow them to add that architectural element which they believe is consistent with the design goals for Thompsonville. It is the balancing of the technical requirements and the design requirements for this special section of the town.
Ms. Turner asked what the height is of the three towers, the fire house, the old fire house and the Amvets. Mr. Pacheko did not have the measured height of them. He noted the tower will be much shorter than the Amvets tower. The existing fire house is 65’. Ms. Turner stated the Board was given a conceptual east elevation drawing and across the top was noted roof elevation forty feet. The elevation of the witch’s tower is 65’. Ms. Turner stated this is going to be a 40’ elevation and if that was true something could be added on the top. However, they are showing that it is going to be flat. Mr. Pacheko stated that is correct. As you see in all the models, there is a depressed area in the top. It is a bunch of unnecessary space. Mr. Pacheko stated the zoning regulations state that a mansard roof gets measured to the top of the mansard and the witch’s hat because it is a peaked roof gets measured to the mean height. It’s not the mean height but it’s what’s required in terms of measuring that roof height per the zoning regulations.
Ms. Turner asked about the retaining wall which buts right up to the side of the building in one part and then it goes down the side of the building. The retaining wall is in the upper part of the green and then there is a green space to the west. She asked what is the green area. Mr. Pacheko stated that would be a grassed area or a river stone type of area. Ms. Turner asked if someone was to climb on that retaining wall, could they fall in that hole. Mr. Pacheko stated there is a six foot fence on the top. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Giner noted on Sheet L-1 there is a note that says retaining wall with six foot high scale resistant fence on the top.
Ms. Turner asked if there will be access from where the retaining wall ends and the back of the property line. Mr. Pacheko stated you could get there from the back of the Amvets building. You can also get access from the neighbor’s property. Ms. Turner brought up the possibility of graffiti. Chief Alaimo stated he doesn’t foresee any problems with graffiti as they have a good relationship in the neighborhood.
Chief Alaimo stated as it related to FEMA and the other requirements, they have told the other committees that they are going for FEMA money from the stimulus package so they are trying to adhere to all the FEMA suggestions and regulations and requirements. If they ask FEMA for their money, they will have to do what they like. So if they waver from any of their suggestions, it will drop them lower on the totem pole for grant money.
Ms. Turner stated we are building a fire house and variances normally stay with the property. If the Board were to grant these variances, these variances would be granted in relationship to this specific building and only this building. Ms. Turner did not know if anyone actually got a chance to review it but the attorney did write up some language on it and she thinks it is important for the Board to talk about it. In normal variances, the Board always gives them specific to the property. She suggested the Board review that language.
Chairman Yarum stated on the vote, the Board is approving the variance requested and they will add this language to revisions to the text. Mr. Giner stated when the Board makes a motion, they should make it with the language suggested by the Town Attorney. The Town Attorney took the motion Mr. Giner prepared and modified it.
Ms. Turner stated she appreciates the Town Attorney’s quick turn around on this.
Mr. Giner stated the applicants did not submit these pictures. They were attached to his memo.
Chairman Yarum asked within the regulations for TVC, isn’t it the intent on a two-story building to have the lower floor a store front and the second floor residential. Mr. Giner stated in the core area of which this is a part the intent is to preserve a traditional downtown where you would have store fronts on the bottom and there would be residential on the second floor. By having the residential above, you would create some density so the shops would thrive. Mr. Giner noted on the first picture he showed the Board the opposite side of Pearl Street demonstrates a little bit of that where you do have a unified street front. You have a maximum setback. In urban cores and downtown commercial districts, most towns will have a maximum right up to the property line to maintain that facade so that you don’t get strip malls or parking in the front. Mr. Giner stated there is a parking lot on the block and the country store which is currently a one-story building. Also, Diana’s Bakery is a one-story building. On this side of the street, that is not the nature of it and because of the need for parking, you are probably going to see the parking lots remain.
Chairman Yarum stated a number of times when the applicant was explaining the application, they said in order to meet the design requirements of FEMA you need to do this, this and t his. If he buys a parcel of land in an R-33 zone and he wants to put in an R-44 home, is that not something he has created. Chairman Yarum doesn’t understand just because the applicant has to fall within certain guidelines that this is not self-imposed. There is a piece of property that doesn’t work and they are before the Board seeking these variances.
Mr. Ziaks stated you have to employ the uniqueness of the structure that is being discussed. Chairman Yarum noted the regulations call for uniqueness of the property. Mr. Ziaks stated and also the structure. Chairman Yarum argued that it says uniqueness of the land. Mr. Ziaks stated the land is located in the Thompsonville District which has specific guidelines and recommendations. The fire house has been located in Thompsonville since 1839 and it wants to stay there. Chairman Yarum stated he is talking about this particular piece of property. Mr. Ziaks noted anywhere in the Village, the town has put in some design standards but there is also the need for a fire house. It is a public facility. Chairman Yarum asked if the property doesn’t work, why is this not self-imposed. Mr. Ziaks stated it is not self-imposed because the fire house has got to evolve and follow all the regulations and requirements at all levels of government. Mr. Ziaks believes there is enough interpretation of the uniqueness of this facility. Chairman Yarum stated it is not uniqueness of the facility. It is uniqueness of the property. Mr. Ziaks stated the uniqueness of the property is that it is located in a special district in the town. Chairman Yarum stated they don’t meet the requirements and it doesn’t fit within what is needed to build this fire house. Mr. Ziaks stated this evening the Board granted a garage on to a house. Chairman Yarum stated the applicant had a piece of property that was unique. Mr. Ziaks stated that is the Board’s interpretation but other people could argue that you could put the garage on that property in such a way that you don’t need that variance. Chairman Yarum stated that case is closed and we are talking about this one.
Mr. Ziaks stated this is a public facility that needs to go in the Village. These regulations have been added long after the fire house was established. It needs to find a balance between all of the regulations. This property is located within the Village and it is a very restricted piece. It has issues to the north. It is abutting a town parcel that wants to stay as a parking lot and it needs to fit on this specific piece of property and blend in all the requirements all the way up to the federal government on this piece. Mr. Ziaks believes there are plenty of issues here that present a unique situation that this Board can consider.
Mr. Pacheko stated there is another issue relevant to Chairman Yarum’s question and that is that there are a very limited number of sites available for such a facility within the district for a fire department. The fire department did pursue another piece of land and it was something that was not going to be approved by the voters who suggested that the site be near the existing facility. They have looked at a number of properties and he believes the Chief and the Assistant Chief can discuss the process gone through to look for specific sites that will accommodate a facility of this type. Chief Alaimo stated another site that they looked at was Higgins School and it was going to be expensive to knock the building down because of asbestos and other chemicals in the building. There was another parcel at 95 High Street where the strip mall is and that property had some issues. He doesn’t think it would have been favorable to the neighborhood to take down seven retail stores and put up a fire house. They also looked at the Broyhill property and the taxpayers in the district did not like that site and were concerned about them leaving the Village. Chief Alaimo stated the Coronna building was the first fire station and then they moved in 1939 to their current location. The current location has a lot of issues with safety. When they pull the fire trucks out, they are over the public sidewalk and residents have to go out into the road to walk by. The current building doesn’t comply to any of today’s standards. He gave examples for the Board’s information. There is water constantly running in the basement and there are asbestos and mold issues. Chief Alaimo stated they have been in Thompsonville since 1839 and they would like to remain there.
Chairman Yarum asked if this land currently has a reasonable use. Mr. Ziaks stated the current building is in incredibly poor condition. No one has stepped forward for many, many years to even think about doing anything with the building. If you were to tear the building down, you could put something back there. Chairman Yarum stated so the land itself does have a reasonable use. Mr. Ziaks stated it has another use and he doesn’t know what reasonable means. It is a piece of land. Chairman Yarum stated something could be done with that land that most likely wouldn’t require a variance. Mr. Ziaks stated he is sure there is another use that could be put on that land.
Chairman Yarum read something from the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies. This is the quarterly newsletter for winter, 2009. It states “a neighborhood source of water had come from a well located on one of the lots. This arrangement was established when the original parcel had been subdivided creating the residential neighborhood. The lot which housed the well was slightly undersized and served no other purpose than that of the site for the well. After many years, the water from this well was revealed to have a high level of radon leading to its voluntary closure. The owner of the well lot then sought a variance so that a home could be built on it. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the request and this led to an appeal to a court. The court agreed with the board that there was no hardship because the lot still had reasonable use.” Mr. Ziaks stated every single lot that comes before the Board has a use. A homeowner can live in the house that they are in. They don’t need a sun room or a porch or a pool. Chairman Yarum stated they can but what about the rest of their neighborhood. Mr. Ziaks thinks when you are talking about a historic created public facility, it has to go in the Village somewhere. No matter what parcel of land you put it on, it needs to meet the 25’ setback. It needs to meet the height requirements. It needs to meet all these design standards. The fire house needs a new facility and it wants to be in the Village and the Village needs some assistance to do it. This piece is unique. There are dozens of other criteria that this facility needs. Because you have modern day standards and federal standards, you need to have the space in front of the garage door that will accommodate the equipment. You need to have the hose tower height to accommodate the hoses. The one-story is the desirable design of the building from many aspects. The architects have designed this building so that it looks like a two-story building which in Mr. Ziaks’ opinion meets the spirit of the regulations which is to have a two-story building and not a one-story flat roof building. The Board needs to wrestle with all these issues but Mr. Ziaks doesn’t think you can go to the purest interpretation of anything because if that’s the case, then any piece of property in town can be used for something else.
Ms. Turner asked Chief Alaimo if he ever thought about tearing down the existing fire house and building a new one. Chief Alaimo stated they did but the lot is too small to do anything with. They were told by architectural and structural engineers that if they even tried to dig, they are worried about the whole back corner falling into the waterfall. Ms. Turner stated if this building has all the problems stated and they want to vacate it, what will happen to it when it is abandoned. Chief Alaimo stated some of the suggestions were to fill in the basement with concrete. They have had to reinforce the floor and structural engineers have said it is not really safe safe. Chief Alaimo stated there are other uses for the building such as a police precinct with ambulance support. Ms. Turner stated it wouldn’t have anything to do with the existing fire house. Chief Alaimo stated it would be available for other uses. It was built by the WPA after the depression and this next building if allowed will be built by stimulus funds. That building will be there for any kind of public use. It just cannot function as a fire station any longer. Chief Alaimo stated there is a need to provide public safety for the area and there is a lot of chatter about things that are coming down the pipe. A developer is looking at the waterfront. There are a whole bunch of things going on that are positive in Thompsonville and there is a need to take this step forward to be able to provide public safety. The current building just is not adequate.
Ms. Turner stated if the fire house doesn’t move forward and this building is in the state it is in, what will they do. Chief Alaimo stated they don’t know. Eventually they will be forced out of there. He noted the employees have not filed any complaints with the regulatory boards. It will probably be forced upon the community through a court and the community will be forced through legal action on what to do and where to build.
Mr. Pacheko stated there is less than 15’ to the property line. The photo shows the special operation vehicles. Chief Alaimo stated that is a vehicle that the five fire districts bought together. Each district owns it. They cannot have the truck in their building because it doesn’t fit. There are also other vehicles that come to the station that can’t fit in the building as well. Chief Alaimo stated they have some pictures showing the trucks over the public sidewalk. It’s a safety issue for the community.
Ms. Turner stated she is asking about the existing building strictly out of curiosity.
Mr. LaRosa noted the thought process of downtown was to have store front with living space above it. He would be totally against having public living space above any fire house. The design that is there could be altered but they also mentioned that they looked at the Broyhill property and other properties but cost wise the other properties were not valid for the applicant. Mr. LaRosa stated the Board cannot take cost into consideration. He asked if they were going to build on the Broyhill site, did they draw up plans. Chief Alaimo stated they drew up plans but on cost issues, usually this Board doesn’t take that into consideration. Mr. LaRosa stated the state prohibits the Board from taking cost into consideration.
Mr. Ziaks stated the other pieces the fire district has looked at are in the district as well and they would have been before the Board for those parcels.
Mr. LaRosa noted the Broyhill property is much smaller and the building would have been smaller with two floors. They didn’t have the floor plan to spread it out like it is.
Mr. Pacheko stated it was a site with a long side to the bays which makes a big difference. There is a long tube here where we are exiting out one end of the tube. In the previous design, there was a two-story building and it was relatively smaller. It was only about 4,000 square feet upstairs. Because the nature of that site was a long site that allows you to drive through the bays and out the long end, you could have one end of the building that was the two-story portion that made sense out toward Enfield. That was the nature of that site and what it allowed.
Mr. LaRosa stated it was mentioned that at some point you are using taxpayers’ money to build this building. But at some point the taxpayers are not going to have a say in it and they are going to be forced by the court. If the taxpayers don’t have a say and it’s going to be forced by the court, then you could spend more money and make this building look like what the downtown plan is. Even if you’re not giving public living space above the building, you could have a building that looks like that is what it is. This building with this facade doesn’t fit. You have a piece of property that goes against what you’re trying to do but you could spend the money and make the building look like what the downtown area is trying to look like. Even though you are not using it for public living space, it could look like you have all the same means as all the other buildings in the area.
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 p.m. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.
Chief Alaimo stated they tried to achieve that with the architectural design taking into account what the Enfield Revitalization people are going to say about this. He discussed the other buildings in the area which are one-story and noted there is a good mix of all kinds of things in the downtown area. Mr. LaRosa stated there are no fancy facades on anything. If you look at the building next to Diana’s Bakery, it is a two-story with a flat roof and you could make that look like a two-story flat roofed building even if there is no public living space above. Chief Alaimo is not sure the other committees would like that. He is trying to please everybody. He thinks the application gets referred to Enfield Revitalization to see if it fits in the neighborhood.
Mr. LaRosa stated if the plan for downtown is to look like a two-story building with public living space on the second floor, this ought to look like there is public living space on the second floor whether there is or isn’t.
Mr. Pacheko stated he doesn’t know with the 14’ x 14’ doors that you’ll ever be able to achieve that look. You could go that direction to make it seem like it is residential above but it is going to be a building that is not going to be like a store front because it is going to be at a distance of sixty some odd feet from the edge of the road in order to get the vehicles up front. It will not have the appearance of a store front building which is right on the property line.
Mr. LaRosa stated if you were to take this brick line here and come up like this with a square building, it would look like the fire house across the street and other store front buildings. Mr. Pacheko stated the fire district at that point would have a responsibility to the district residents to provide a building that meets the needs. If it is just empty space up there, it is not really doing that. They could put in some windows to make it look like there’s something upstairs. Mr. LaRosa would like them to make it look like it belongs in a downtown area. You have a facade that goes down quite a ways. The roof line drops in. You could get rid of the facade and add windows to make it look like it is housing over storefront. They could make it look like the fire house across the street.
Mr. Pacheko stated the suggestion is to make the building look two-story and that would meet the intent. Mr. LaRosa stated that is correct because the intent of the downtown area is store front with second floor living space.
Chairman Yarum stated it is also 25’ from the curb and they are looking for 60’. Mr. LaRosa stated being a fire house there are aspects that would limit them from following every rule. He is asking why they could not make the building look like what is required downtown. In his mind, they could change the design to make it look like the desired look for the downtown area.
Mr. Pacheko thinks that 60’ back, it would probably be less successful. It could be done but if it were right up against the property line, you would have a really good chance of making that be believable. But now it will be a building that is 60’ back.
Ms. Turner stated they are trying to design a building that will look great in a neighborhood that doesn’t look great yet. She is hearing the Chief say there are possibilities in our future. Her guess is they are trying to upgrade, bring Revitalization in, incorporate what Planning and Zoning has asked and listen to Ray Warren and company. She saw a need to move on to the issue at hand.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Dominick Alaimo, 16 New Street, stated he has been at this location for fifty-five years. The first word he wants to throw into the mix is common sense. He doesn’t believe anyone on the Board lives in Thompsonville. He is strongly in favor of this application because nothing has been done for the past thirty years. This fire department right now spending five million dollars of tax money is the biggest improvement in over thirty years. The Thompsonville Revitalization has been nothing but a loser and it has done nothing for Thompsonville. All the regulations don’t work. Let’s build this fire department with this government money and let’s add jobs to this town and get potential builders. The problem with Thompsonville is no one will spend any money down t here. If someone sees a five million dollar fire department being built, other people are going to follow. The possibility of doing something for the future of Thompsonville rests right here with this fire department. If the Board turns down this application, they are doing nothing. They are wrong if they turn this down.
Mr. Dominick Alaimo stated as far as the graffiti issue, it is Higgins School that the Board should be worried about. He discussed the design of the building and the need to get more investors in the Thompsonville area. A possible police sub station would be a good thing to help clean up Thompsonville. Mr. Alaimo saw a need to approve this application. It is a beautiful building and there is a need for this type of an investment in Thompsonville. He asked that the Board reconsider any objections they have.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the requests for: 1) a maximum front setback variance from 25 feet to 66 feet; 2) a maximum building height variance from 40 feet to 65 feet; and 3) a variance to allow a 1-story building where 2 stories are required, all for the limited purpose of allowing construction of, and use as, a firehouse – EZO Section 5.10.
These variances are strictly limited to the construction of, and use as, a fire house on the subject property in accordance with a plan entitled: “Variance Request Plan Thompsonville Fire Department, Pearl, Prospect and Asnuntuck Streets, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet 1 of 1, Scale 1”=20’, by F. A. Hesketh & Associates, dated 03/30/09.
Ms. Turner stated her questions have been answered and she will be supporting this project for these three variances. She understands the facade put forward and she doesn’t have an issue with the tower or the variance for the way the trucks have to turn. She also doesn’t have an issue with the two-story look.
Chairman Yarum advised Board members not to discuss how they will be voting tonight.
Mr. LaRosa understands a lot of what the variances are for. He agrees with the common sense part of where it needs to be located for the fire apparatus. He doesn’t have a complete understanding yet as to the inability to put a second floor on. He is not trying to make it look like Disney Land in Main Street Thompsonville but they already said there was a way that they could put some of the structure into the second floor. He is not sure why that doesn’t get done. He is struggling with the lack of the second floor. Mr. LaRosa understands they have an agency making a recommendation but nobody’s requiring the footprint of this building to be the way it is.
Ms. Turner stated in looking at the plan, there is an area where it looks like a second story with the additional windows. She thinks they have covered it. They are building a fire house and not a storefront building. Further discussion with Mr. LaRosa followed regarding making the building a two-story building. Ms. Turner felt the building is really long.
Chairman Yarum stated the issues he has with this application is it doesn’t fall within the regulations of the TVC. He believes it is self-imposed. Regardless of whether they have to meet the standards of FEMA or whatever, they are taking a building and putting it on a piece of property that doesn’t work. That’s self-imposed. Chairman Yarum stated it is also financial. Whether it is too costly a project or whatever for another parcel, that is irrelevant. He believes there is reasonable use of the property in its existing condition.
Ms. Turner stated she has to take exception because if they were sitting here telling her they wanted to build another bakery, she would say you are right. We need to build that type of structure, that type of two-story store front. But we are building a fire house for a very unique reason. That is why today she spent the extra time to find out if the Board approves this, these particular variances, then the only thing these variances hold true to is a fire house. If they try to come back and use this property to build a sky rise, she is going to deny it. She is sitting here looking at plans for a fire house and there will never be a place in Thompsonville that this fire house could ever be built because no piece of property will be able to be used unless we go down there with a bulldozer and go back to 1970 and have urban renewal and knock it all down.
Chairman Yarum stated he hears what Ms. Turner is saying but under the letter of the law, the Board needs to take into consideration financial and self-imposed hardships. There is no black and white.
Ms. Turner asked where the financial part is. Chairman Yarum stated there was testimony given that there was other land available but it would be too costly to purchase and construct.
Ms. Turner stated the Higgins School property is also a poor site because of where the trucks would have to exit. Maybe the Board should have asked that question about cost and other reasons why the other properties were not used. The Board didn’t take that into consideration.
The motion failed by a 3 – 2 – 0 vote. Ms. Turner, Mr. LaRosa, and Mr. Mastroberti voted in favor; Chairman Peter Yarum and Andrew Urbanowicz voted nay.
Mr. LaRosa stated the reason he voted in favor was as much as he disagrees with not having a second floor, the other two variances are needed by a fire service. You need the tower and there has to be a way of drying hose. He doesn’t like the witch’s cap on it. The variance of 65’ from the road has to be there for fire apparatus. Those two things he agrees that they need. He doesn’t like the fact that they don’t have a second floor but he does know that they are not going to let public living there anyway. Two out of three of the variances he feels are one hundred percent required by the fire department.
The reason for denial is the applicant’s requested variances were both self-imposed and financially related. The applicants also did not meet the regulations of the Thompsonville Center Zone.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Discussion: 33 Second Avenue, status and process review
Mr. LaRosa stated they were able to keep it detached by a piece of paper. All they did was take a gusset plate off, put in a retaining wall to meet the height requirement and call it an accessory structure at 33 Second Avenue.
Ms. Turner stated the retaining wall was a pile of dirt. They didn’t actually build a retaining wall but brought the existing grade up. Mr. Giner stated they brought the existing grade up to technically meet the requirements.
Mr. LaRosa stated the issue he is having is the definition of an accessory structure and he was hoping to have a response from the State of Connecticut for tonight’s meeting. He does not believe an accessory structure encapsulates a deck. An accessory structure by the definition given by the State of Connecticut is a barn, garage or shed. It is a structure with walls and a roof. Therefore, the staff have allowed a structure to go up that negates the definition given by the State of Connecticut to allow this to happen. He feels something should be done to make sure that this property conforms with what the state has given the Board as a duty to do and not have somebody that is a town employee going over the Board’s head to do what they feel was the interpreted specification by the state of Connecticut. He is waiting for the state to get back in touch with him. He feels the Board can table the matter and discuss it more at their next meeting. This is still an illegal, nonconforming structure.
Mr. Mastroberti made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to table this discussion of 33 Second Avenue until the Regular Meeting of April 27, 2009. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Giner will add under Other Business the discussion about 33 Second Avenue on the April 27, 2009 agenda.
Ms. Turner requested that Mr. Giner check on the document that went through the Building Department from Mr. Robbins.
Mr. LaRosa stated because of some of the issues the Board has been having, he would like to see if the Board can change some rules on how things are done and some of our definitions. When a building plan comes in, Mr. LaRosa would like for the finished grade to be put on the building plan so we don’t play the game of let’s move dirt later to try to conform. Mr. LaRosa would like a building plan to come with the Board’s applications which is required by the town ordinance. An accessory building is a building with walls and a roof. Mr. LaRosa would like to add to the Board’s language that a deck cannot be called an accessory structure. If there is a fire, the dispatch is going to send you to a deck fire. If there is a fire in a garage, they will send you to a structure fire. A deck is not a structure. Mr. LaRosa would like to impose that an accessory structure not be within five feet of the main structure. If they need a variance for that, then the Board will have to approach it at that point. But you certainly don’t want people just putting up decks as an easy way to get around it. Mr. LaRosa stated the town rules include a $250 fine for not coming into compliance with regulations. He would like to see the Board start enforcing that. Otherwise, places that continue to be out of compliance would be paying the town revenue. Mr. LaRosa questioned why the Board is not enforcing rules and regulations that they have put forward. Even if the Board grants a variance after the fact, if someone is caught by the zoning enforcement officer and given a cease and desist, they should be handed a fine.
Mr. LaRosa stated the Board continues to have issues with people asking for forgiveness instead of permission and there are other issues where when you deny something, they find a way to negate it a little bit and state they are in compliance.
Ms. Turner added that a homeowner can stake out their property and not necessarily give a survey.
Chairman Yarum stated to get building site elevations and to get building plans with the application will mean referring it to staff. These suggestions will be put in the Minutes to get things done and to make the Board’s life a little bit easier. Anything to do with accessory structures, Chairman Yarum would like to defer until the Board gets a definition from the state.
Mr. Giner stated each town can define what they mean by accessory so he would not wait for the state. If you want to get around that loophole, Mr. Giner suggested the Board write a note to the Planning and Zoning Commission and ask them to amend the regulations. If the state has a definition for accessory structures for the building code, the town doesn’t necessarily follow their definition. It’s whatever the Planning and Zoning Commission defines it as. Right now the only definition for an accessory use is pretty broad. It says a building or use which is clearly subordinate to, customarily incidental to and located on the same lot as a personal building or use. Mr. Giner recommended the Board get the Planning and Zoning Commission to better define accessory structure. Also, the definition of height should be changed as it says finished grade. If it doesn’t meet the height, you pour dirt on it and you have met the regulations.
Chairman Yarum stated what the Board has done in the past with issues like front porches and lake properties is put a list together and then meet with Planning and Zoning to discuss these things. To get some kind of a definition on what an accessory structure is could be an item. Also, there was a comment made that an accessory structure should not be within five feet of the house. Those will both be issues for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. LaRosa would like to entertain how to do something about finished grades. Chairman Yarum stated Mr. LaRosa made a comment about getting finished site elevations as part of the application so that the Board knows what those grades are. Mr. LaRosa stated he was upset and he went to the Building Department because there was an issue where the Board did not get a map that was acceptable. The way it was stated was it makes it so that we don’t have to have so much paper in our files. Mr. LaRosa stated the Board needs to make an informed decision and needs to see the footprint. Being more user friendly in the office doesn’t work if it makes the Board’s job harder. He noted the Cleary application which did not have a scaled drawing.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
John Rinaldi, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|