ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 27, 2009
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 27, 2009 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Maurice LaRosa
John Rinaldi
Mary Ann Turner
Andrew Urbanowicz
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the Minutes of April 13, 2009.
Ms. Turner commented that on page 3 it notes Mr. Giner stated he would advise applicants to stake the corners of what they are proposing to build so that Board members can have a visual of where the building will be.
Chairman Yarum made a correction on page 14, last paragraph. “The reason for approval” should read “The reason for denial.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board did get the information on Second Avenue. There is also a letter regarding the Robbins’ case that will be discussed in Executive Session.
Chairman Yarum stated regarding Second Avenue, there is an item later in the agenda for discussion.
Chairman Yarum stated under Correspondence he has a letter from Mr. Kibbe who has stepped down to an Alternate position and Mr. LaRosa has been appointed a regular member effective April 21, 2009. Chairman Yarum was copied on a letter from James Bailey Brislin dated April 20, 2009 in regard to the fire station freedom of information request. He is requesting all documents, correspondence, copies of the Minutes and copies of the tape for the April 13, 2009 meeting. The Town Manager has responded and has stated the material will be available for his review within a reasonable time frame. The Board also received a memo from Zoning Enforcement Officer Virginia Higley to all members in regard to a colored copy of the DEP map for Level A aquifers in Enfield. If any Board member did not receive one, they should let staff know and one will be sent.
Chairman Yarum advised the public of the procedure for tonight’s meeting and when a variance can be granted. He noted that Alternate Andrew Urbanowicz will be voting on tonight’s applications.
Ms. Turner stated she would like to postpone both hearings this evening because of the Board’s last meeting. However, she is willing to keep that off the table this evening if the Board will put in writing to Mr. Giner, Mr. Alsbaugh, Mr. Warren and a copy to Mr. Coppler that in future applications the property is staked out and Board members can see what is being done. Ms. Turner viewed both properties and neither was staked out. In the future, an applicant must stake out the property or use orange fluorescent paint or whatever they have to do so that the Board knows exactly where the variance is located. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board might also want to consider amending their Bylaws at a future meeting. Ms. Turner would like this done by the Board’s next meeting. Mr. Alsbaugh will add that as an agenda item. Ms. Turner stated she will not ask to postpone tonight’s hearings.
Chairman Yarum stated under Item 6. Other Business the Board is discussing Second Avenue. As part of the meeting on April 13 the Board discussed accessory structures.
VARIANCES – NEW
ZBA 2008-04-02 – Exxon Mobil Oil, Applicants & MR&D LLC, Owners, 75 Hazard Avenue, Map 56/Lot 37, BL Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 17 ft., 3 ft. proposed, 20 ft. required to erect an environmental equipment container – EZO Section 5.10 Table
Elizabeth Anderson-Cobb from Ground Water Environmental Services appeared before the Board regarding this application. They are requesting a variance to put in a remediation system. Currently there is a smaller version on site. The intent is to put the larger equipment in to remediate the ground water which is impacted by the Mobil Station across the street. It is their intent that once the larger treatment system is in place that the smaller one that had been granted a variance previously would be removed. Ms. Anderson-Cobb has approval from the Fire Department via a written memo from Fire Marshal Censki. An email was forwarded to her and to Mr. Giner. She submitted a copy of this email to the Board.
Ms. Turner stated she met with the Fire Marshal this afternoon. She asked what other sites were available to erect this environmental equipment container. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the other areas they looked at were going to impede traffic flow and the fire trucks getting around the building. Ms. Turner stated Mr. Censki told her that the property doesn’t allow fire trucks in that area at the moment. Ms. Anderson-Cobb had had the Fire Marshal on site last year and they went through that because she wanted to make sure where she put this wasn’t going to be an issue and everybody would be able to access the building.
Ms. Turner stated the Fire Marshal showed her an area that’s up where the dumpsters are. If you go north, there are two dumpsters back there and the area is completely out of the parking lot and out of the turn radius and it is not involved in any drive area. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated they discussed all these options with the property owner. The location that they have submitted the application for is the one that the property owner desires. He didn’t want it out front. He didn’t want it out where the public could see it. Ms. Turner noted there was a second spot between two trees right on the grassy area a little bit further down going south. The Fire Marshal made mention that that was a desirable location also.
Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated there were different locations that they looked at and the intent is that they want to remove the existing system that is there and eliminate that problem by putting their existing system in the area that they propose. They are under the impression that that is the best location for all parties involved.
Ms. Turner stated there is nothing on the plan that tells her how big this container is and the way the Fire Marshal described it to her is it is like a thirty yard dumpster in size. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it is like a shipping container and it is eight and a half feet tall. Ms. Turner stated it would be almost the same height as the existing container but not quite as wide. Ms. Turner felt the present location will cause a swerve for people to get around and she questioned how is plowing to get done. While there is not supposed to be parking in the area, Ms. Turner witnessed a lot of parking there.
Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it is their understanding that the location where they wanted to put it was going to cause the least amount of distress to the public that use the area and it’s going to cause the least amount of distress to the people that own businesses in this location. She talked to the people that have office condos in the vicinity and the fire department and they are trying to appease everybody so that they can get it in the best spot possible.
Ms. Turner stated the Fire Marshal didn’t really consider this the best spot. It was just one that was negotiated. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated they had two locations directly behind the existing buildings. There was one that they had preferred and there was a different location where they were much closer to another building and the Fire Marshal did not feel that was best. It was the one on the lawn area.
Mr. LaRosa asked if other locations that were considered would have taken away the need for a variance. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated no, they would still have needed a variance. They would have needed to put it on the property line or they never would have met the setback requirements. Mr. LaRosa asked what is wrong with the one that’s there currently. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the system that is there currently is to address an immediate issue with a basement flooding problem. They were mandated by DEP to put in a treatment system to address this one issue. What they need to do is address the entire problem. Right now what is there is a temporary fix that addressed a need that arose. What they want to do is to remediate the problem and take care of the issue. Mr. LaRosa asked what is the issue outside of the basement flooding. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the ground water impacts due to releases at the Mobil Station. There are by products from an old gasoline release.
Mr. LaRosa asked if there is a hazard right now with leaving it there. It’s not gasoline but it’s a by product. Is there a hazard? Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated because of the classification of the ground water in that particular area, it is a GA which means they have to meet ground water protection criteria and they have to comply with the regulations of DEP. They will have to clean the property up.
Ms. Turner asked can you take the existing container and put the new container in its place. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the new container would be longer. The equipment will be bigger that needs to be housed in there. Ms. Turner is concerned about the location where they want to put it because it is right in the driveway. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated she could paint it out there and Ms. Turner agreed that would be a good suggestion.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if there is going to be something going into the ground at this location. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the treatment process pumps ground water and it is treated. Most of it is just a lot of filters and carbons. It is a larger scale size than what you would typically use in your home with pure water filters on your tap and filters in your refrigerator. They all contain charcoal or carbon of some sort. Their intent is to pump ground water, treat it and then it gets discharged into the sewer. They need to clean the ground water up.
Mr. Rinaldi asked how far down are they monitoring. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated they go to twenty-five feet. Mr. Rinaldi asked if that takes into consideration any runoff in the area. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the average concentration from runoff usually doesn’t fall within the same range. You get a lot of oils and greases.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if elevation is a factor or are they just monitoring migration. At this point being proposed, there is a significant drop in elevation and Mr. Rinaldi asked is that a factor for the location of where this is going or is the ground water migration independent of the elevation of the land in that area. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the ground water migration is independent of the topographical features. Where the system location is is the best location they could come up with at the time. The purpose of the treatment system is to clean up the ground water to address those impacts.
Ms. Turner asked does it matter where they address this issue from. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the existing system doesn’t treat the area. All it does is take water out of someone’s basement. It’s not treating the problem. Ms. Turner noted this containment that they want to put in doesn’t have to go there. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated they need to put it there. Ms. Turner would like to know why. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it is more logistics. Mr. LaRosa stated it could go anywhere and they could rip up the asphalt and put in the plumbing to where they need to mitigate the problem. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated if she has to, she will put the unit some place else but the people she has spoken to would like it at the proposed location.
Mr. LaRosa stated it was mentioned that the cleanup of the ground water in the soil would not be feasible. He asked if this is the only way to address this problem. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it is the only way. The only way to remediate ground water at this point is to pump it out of the ground. The only other option would be to do a massive excavation which is just not feasible.
Ms. Turner asked about the size of the container. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated she can provide specifications for the container. It is a standard shipping container thirty to forty feet long and they are painted battleship gray to blend in. It is surrounded by a security fence and then bollards. If the town would have any other specific requirements, they would comply with those requirements.
Chairman Yarum asked if this is an open container. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it is closed. Chairman Yarum asked is the remediation process a temporary thing or is this structure going to be permanently placed on the property. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it is going to be on the property for three years.
Chairman Yarum noted since the variance goes with the land, he asked if this is a temporary long-term measure and they remediate the ground water and they pull the structure off the property, they still have this variance in place. Is anyone aware of through DEP or through the town if there are temporary permits that allow this kind of activity? Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is nothing in the zoning regulations that provides for a temporary waiver of the regulations. The most relevant procedural aspect the Board should be looking at is the conditioning of any sort of approval. The Board would have to talk about what kind of conditions would be appropriate and feasible.
Ms. Turner stated she has staff comments from February, 2000 and it states they came in for a variance to install a temporary trailer and the vehicle contains devices that will monitor and perform mandated air and water remediation. Is this different at this time? Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated that was to address just the flooding issue, the water in the basement. Ms. Turner stated she was told that the water in the basement smelled like gasoline. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it probably did but she wasn’t here at the time. Ms. Turner stated 2000 to 2009 is a long temporary.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if they have criteria as far as finding a location for the test site and why did they choose this particular area. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it has a lot to do with the location of the impacts. Since the highest levels of concentration are located on that property, it is best to put the equipment where the issue is so that everything runs efficiently. Mr. Rinaldi asked if there were tests done to arrive at this concentration. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated yes, they have got a monitoring wall network that is on that property currently so that they know the location of the plume and they know what the concentrations are. They monitor it every ninety days taking water samples.
Chairman Yarum asked in relationship to where this container is going to be, where is the highest concentration on the property. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it is surrounding the dentist’s office and closer to Hazard Avenue.
Ms. Turner asked if the Board has the opportunity to look at the additional sites. The bump out has two trees and it could actually sit in that grassy area.
Chairman Yarum would like more information. The Board would like a copy of the specifications.
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to continue this public hearing and table it to the May Regular Meeting in order to get additional information. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman Yarum advised the applicant that the Board would like to see the location marked out by doing the four corners. Mr. LaRosa suggested other people might have additional information. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated she tried to get the property owner to come but she was not able to.
Mr. Urbanowicz stated some pictures of the site would help the discussion so that Ms. Anderson-Cobb could actually point out the different locations.
ZBA 2008-04-03 – Hazardville Institute Conservancy Society, Inc., Applicants & Town of Enfield, Owner, 317 Hazard Avenue, Map 83/Lot 254, HVBL Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 9 ft., 11 ft, proposed, 20 ft. required, and a building coverage variance of 32.17%, 52.17% proposed, 443.7% existing, 20% allowed to construct ADA access and a future stair tower – EZO Section 5.10 Table
Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, President of the Hazardville Institute Conservancy Society, Inc. and Richard Szewczak, a member of the Board of Directors, appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated they are here requesting a variance to construct a future handicapped access ramp platform, stairway and a future stair tower that may potentially house an elevator. Their building was built in 1869 and it has always been a community building. It was originally owned by the residents of Hazardville. In 1950 the shareholders sold the property to the Town of Enfield. It had been used as a youth center, a library, school rooms, and various public uses. In the 1970’s when the Angela Lamagna Center was built, the Institute was closed and the youth center was moved. The building was vacant since the mid 1970’s and their organization rallied to save the building around 1979. The town was ready to raze the building and a local group rallied to save the building. They have a 99-year lease that was signed in 1979. They have been working on restoring the building since then. They have had a twenty year hiatus where things were put on hold but they reorganized in 1999 and they applied for non-profit status.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated she is requesting a waiver of the application fees since it is a town owned building.
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to waive the application fees for ZBA 2008-04-03. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Richard Szewczak stated the property is a very small lot. At the time of the building’s inception, the use of the building was by residents within walking distance. There wasn’t a large requirement to have a large piece of property. Right now the property that the building is situated on is ninety feet deep by sixty-four feet wide. The total square footage is 5,761 square feet. The building that was erected is approximately forty feet by fifty-seven feet with a total square footage of 2,500 square feet including the stairway and the area way.
Mr. Szewczak stated what they are proposing to do is add a handicapped access sometime in the future plus a new access platform. He presented an architectural rendition of what the platform might look like. The platform would be approximately ten feet by ten feet with an access from the back and a handicapped ramp from the west towards the east. In the future, if they have the funds, what they would like to do is put in a new stair tower which would also house an elevator.
Mr. Szewczak stated their immediate need is they are just installing new doors to the Hazardville Institute and they don’t have a platform in the back. It is an on grade access point but the actual first floor of the Hazardville Institute is about twenty-six inches above grade. What they would like to do is create a temporary wood platform in the back so that they can have another access into the building through the back door. They are before the Board to see if they have any additional concerns about what they plan to do. One of the variances that they are also asking for is they don’t have an adequate rear yard setback. Their actual side setback is only eleven inches on one side and approximately five feet by eleven inches on the other side. The building has a slight tilt in terms of orientation to the property line.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated their lot is the green area or the lawn area. The back yard used to be completely fenced in but somehow the rear fencing disappeared a number of years ago. The paved area is the abutter’s property. They did find a pin that was in the pavement but pretty much the fence behind the building goes to the rear lot line. They did discover that the building was not directly on the property line and they have a little bit of property based on the pin they found on the northeast corner.
Ms. Turner asked if they are planning on building what their rendition is or is that temporary. Mr. Szewczak stated they are here for a six foot by eight foot wood platform.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated what started out as a temporary construction entrance blossomed into a temporary wood staircase but it didn’t make sense to just apply for a variance for that and then in the future come back for a variance for the rendition that is proposed. They are here for the future access handicapped ramp platform and stair tower. However, they do not have $200,000 to construct that. They do have $2,000 to put in the wood staircase. The wood staircase is well within the footprint of this plan.
Mr. LaRosa asked if they have a picture of exactly what they are looking to do now and exactly what the plans are. He sees a rendition without a stair tower or without anything that shows him what the plans are.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated on the site plan it shows the spacial request at this time and even though temporarily they are not at this specific time, it was his recommendation as staff to save them time and a future trip or two to this board to put the known entity on the ground for a variance at this time. They would then have it all taken care of at once. The full sized porch, ramp and stair tower are a future request. The smaller platform is just to get access into the rear of the building for activities that are going on now. It was a recommendation by Mr. Alsbaugh to deal with it all at one time rather than having to come back for multiple requests.
Mr. Szewczak stated they are proposing right now adding an addition of forty-eight square feet, a 6’ x 8’ platform. This entire addition plus the ramp is almost 500 square feet. Their immediate needs are they just want to get access into the building from the back door. Their long term goal would be to make the entire improvement.
Ms. Turner noted they have no time line. They will get their fees waived anyway when they come. She would rather have them come back when they are ready to build because they don’t know when that will be. It could be ten years from now or it could never happen.
Mr. LaRosa stated there has been an issue in town with people getting variances and building something that goes against the variance. He understands they are trying to save them time. If the Board approves this, then they have to put up what they are requesting. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they would have to stay within the parameters. One plan is their ultimate goal which would fit their requirements when they do get the funding for it. It is a long-term thing. When this is incorporated and referenced to a plan on the land records, they are going to be compelled to stay within those parameters. They don’t have to build the exact thing but they have to stay within the footprint and the distances.
Mr. LaRosa asked if they have an actual blueprint as to what they want to build. Mr. Szewczak stated they do have a series of plans that they have been using for this building. What they don’t have is they don’t have the access here included because it is not part of the construction that they are doing. They do have plans for the entire building improvements and it is organized in the manner that they are utilizing existing openings and they know exactly which openings they are going to be utilizing. The determination of the footprint and the requirements for that stair tower and elevator have been established and it is a matter of obtaining the funds for it.
Mr. LaRosa stated they are asking the Board to approve something by looking at a flat picture. They could build a sixty foot stair tower later on if the Board said go ahead and build the stair tower. Mr. LaRosa felt they are asking the Board to approve something that they cannot see.
Ms. Turner stated she would prefer that they come in and build what they are building today and the Board will be happy to entertain the additional improvements when they have the $200,000 to build what they want to build then.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he disagrees. The planning process is weird. Most people show up at the last minute when everything is said and done. That is when most of the public finds out. This process is kind of different but if you are a business or a homeowner, you are not going to go spend money having an A-2 survey with a design plan that might get a variance. This is the first step in trying to do what they want to do. Before you even think about building something, you need that footprint to vary the zoning regulations to allow you to pursue that. Mr. Rinaldi did not think you were going to spend all that money before you get that variance.
Ms. Turner stated she was under the impression when she read this that that is what they were building starting tomorrow if the variance passed. She now understands it is just the 6’ x 8’ platform. She would prefer that when they are ready to go for the additional improvements that they come back.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the Board is not approving the structure but they are approving the footprint. He discussed another variance request.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated she thought they were here for a variance for a footprint and not for the design of the structure. As Mr. Szewczak stated, they have a very limited amount of space within which to work. They have only one location to put this rear entry and handicapped entrance and they have to have this handicapped entrance in order to open the building to the public. They have the plans and have had them for a number of years and they are not going to change in the future. Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated if they are here to apply for a footprint variance, then she doesn’t understand why they would be required to wait for a later date. They are working on a full development plan now. They received a grant from the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation. If funds are available from the state in the future, this plan was supposed to position them for applying for a larger grant. These are all steps that they are putting in place in order to position them to find more funding in order to complete the building which is a town-owned building. Ms. Pfeifer Hall stated she is not understanding why they should wait for some future time.
Mr. LaRosa asked if the building is useable at this time. Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated it is not. The interior has been gutted. They cannot open the doors without a handicapped entrance so without this ramp, without this rear entry, they cannot open the building. They have to have two means of egress and right now they have just the front door which has stairs and is not handicapped accessible. The rear yard is 27’ x 66’ and it is very limited space.
Ms. Turner stated it says right in the application that they are here requesting a variance for a rear coverage canopy, stairs and handicapped access but they have now told the Board they have no intention of building that at the moment and that they are planning on putting a platform on. She would encourage that they come when they need what they need so the Board can do it properly.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated they are doing it properly. This plan isn’t going to change. Whether they come today or in two or three years, they will have the same plan. Ms. Turner questioned how do you know for sure that the plan won’t change. Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated they have very little space in which to work and you have to have a certain size ramp. You have to have a certain size platform in order to make it accessible. All these designs are outlined by building code.
Chairman Yarum stated if the Board grants this variance, there is in the file a plan. In the Board’s granting of the variance, it would be per this plan. If and when they do build this structure, it would be according to this plan. That is what the variance would be granted on. Further discussion followed led by Ms. Turner on how do we know that the plan will be in effect five years from now. Mr. LaRosa pointed out that in one of the cases this Board is in litigation with, plans were removed from the Building Department file and there are no plans. The other thing is they are asking for a coverage variance. If you grant a coverage variance, it doesn’t matter if it is this plan. Chairman Yarum stated the variance if granted pertains to this plan and the calculations that are given are based on the square footages of this plan.
Mr. LaRosa stated if you take the square footage of what they are proposing to add and give that variance for that square footage, if they don’t put this on, they give up the building and somebody else gets the building. As long as they are only going to add that much square footage, they can do what they want. The variance for the coverage is already there.
Chairman Yarum stated it is according to this plan. He will disagree and this was a discussion the Board had at their previous meeting. He agrees with the applicant. The Board is looking at distances from boundary lines and not what this thing looks like. That is not this Board’s job. It is not the Board’s job to say I don’t like that handicapped ramp. The Board’s job is do they need the handicapped ramp and if they do, is the variance to be granted.
Ms. Turner addressed the tower and stated they are giving the Board a footprint of the floor but the Board doesn’t have height for the tower. Chairman Yarum stated it is not the Board’s job to determine that. That is why the town has a building department and a Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Turner asked if there is a variance about tower height. Mr. Rinaldi stated only if they exceed it and they don’t plan on exceeding it.
Mr. Szewczak stated the stair tower is in keeping with the building itself. Right now what happens is the distance between the second floor to the actual roof structure is somewhere around seventeen feet. The stair tower probably doesn’t need seventeen feet of height of construction. An elevator only needs around twelve feet and to over extend the stair tower construction would actually start to interfere with the cornice and the overhang on the building. In the best interests of aesthetics, the stair tower would be considerably less than the height of the existing building right now to keep the present architecture somewhat intact. If the Board is concerned with a thirty or forty story tower, it will not be that. The proportions are going to be significantly less than the height of the building right now.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated any addition they are proposing will be in keeping with the current architecture of the building particularly if they receive any grant money through some historic funding source. Any additions would have to be in keeping with the architecture. They are not looking for something that would overpower the existing structure. In order for them to ever be able to use the second floor, they need another means of egress and preferably an elevator. Everything they have done to date has been anticipating that at some point in the future they would use the one large room.
Mr. Szewczak stated their anticipation is that it will be a place of assembly for the public use.
Ms. Turner asked if they have no intention tomorrow to build anything except a 6’ x 8’ platform.
Chairman Yarum stated he knows when a building permit is pulled, there is a certain time frame to start that project. If a variance is granted, is there a time frame to use that variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is not. Chairman Yarum stated any variance that comes before this Board and is granted a variance, they can sit idle on it. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is correct.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he understands the concerns because the application asks a question is this the minimum variance required for what you are doing. Mr. Alsbaugh would like the Board to try to understand that it is irrelevant what they intend to build at this time. What they are actually applying for in the variance is what the Board should be considering. They are looking at preparing for the future by asking for the known dimensions of a project that they will be gathering grant monies for down the road. It is not happening today and it may be a number of years before it actually occurs. But what they are actually applying for is what the Board sees before them. If they get this variance, what they plan on actually building is irrelevant because as long as they are within the footprint, they can do whatever they want. That’s not meant to avoid the process of the variance or give the Board false information. The intent of the variance was to take their broadest known requirement for the project long term and get the variances now so that they could then go forward with the actual grant acquisitions. There’s nothing more that the Board can do other than the process that they have and that is delineating precisely the extent of the footprint on a site plan and tying that by a motion to the variance that’s filed on the land records.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he asked very similar questions for quite a while when he joined the Board. He saw a need to focus on the fact that the Board is not approving this structure. Mr. LaRosa stated he completely understands that but the issue he is having is the variance stays with the property. Mr. Rinaldi stated the Board is granting a variance for specifically 14’. Mr. LaRosa stated the Board is giving a variance for twenty percent extra property coverage. It doesn’t matter where the twenty percent goes. If they don’t build this and the property gets handed over to someone else, they can come in and add twenty percent more building.
Mr. Szewczak differed with this. Right now the existing coverage is almost forty-four percent. What they are doing is asking for an eight percent increase. They are going from forty-four percent to fifty-two percent so what they are doing is adding 500 square feet of footprint of building to put in a stair tower and an elevator. It is 500 square feet of necessity in order to achieve their goals.
Mr. LaRosa asked how long ago did they take possession of the building. Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated in 1979. Mr. LaRosa asked were there zoning laws in the Town of Enfield in 1979. Ms. Pfeifer-Hall presumed that there were. Mr. LaRosa stated when they took possession of the building with ideas that they were going to remodel or do whatever to bring this building back to the standard that they wanted, they understood at the time that they took possession of the parameters of the building that the lot was too small and that the building would not accommodate certain things. He asked what is the hardship of this property.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated they did not have ADA requirements in 1979. Secondly, their organization fell upon hard times for five years. The organization did put on a new roof and saved the building from falling in. They reorganized around 2000 and they have made tremendous progress in the last nine years. Again, it is a town owned building. They are not some private entity that is trying to market this property to pass it off on to someone else.
Mr. Szewczak stated the building codes are constantly changing. The ADA rules are constantly changing. The access stairs are constantly changing. They have a number of variances that they still have to apply for just to utilize parts of the interior of the building. They want to maintain the character of the building and not necessarily start providing a significant amount of additions that necessarily conform to the present code. If they did that, they would be putting a new roof at the front entrance. At this point they are trying to maintain the minimal requirements to meet the code that is in effect today. It makes them a more vital entity if they can say they have the variance for the stair tower in terms of obtaining funding.
Mr. LaRosa understands that and he understands their desire to do what it is they are asking the Board to do.
Mr. Szewczak stated in 1979 he was not part of this group. No one knew what was going to happen in thirty years. That’s really what happened. Now we’re thirty years to the future and we have all these rules that we have to conform with. They are here saying they have a hardship because the original building has more coverage than you’re allowing them. Unless they knock down a quarter of the building, they have already exceeded their lot expectations. How do we get a stair tower and a ramp in and an access platform that has to be covered?
Mr. LaRosa stated they are going to use the building for an assembly hall but what they are using it for has no bearing on what the Board does here.
Mr. Szewczak stated they cannot get into this building unless they have a ramp. The building department will not give them a certificate of occupancy if they don’t have an access. Mr. LaRosa asked if there is anything this building could be used for where it doesn’t need the variance. Mr. Szewczak stated no. Ms. Turner noted it is a public building.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board is worried about the coverage variance not being what it was approved for. He suggested always look at the proposed motion because he always makes a reference and ties it to specific plans. The standard operating procedure has always been to make sure it is tied specifically to a footprint. As long as that footprint is tied to the variance, whatever happens within that footprint is okay. If they go outside of the footprint, that’s where the problem begins.
Mr. LaRosa stated his concern is the actual hardship. Mr. Alsbaugh stated none of the things that they have as hardships, the restriction of the property and the outside rules and change in zoning codes – none of that is their fault. The kinds of hardships that they are discussing are not something that they created. They are from outside sources that they have to deal with if they ever want to be able to use this building and open it to the public.
Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated when the shareholders of the Institute sold the building to the town, there was a deed restriction that the building only be used for enrichment and enlightenment so it always had to have a public purpose.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one was present to speak. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the request for a side yard setback variance of 9 ft., 11 ft. proposed, 20 ft. required, and a building coverage variance of 32.17%, 52.17% proposed, 43.7% existing, 20% allowed to construct ADA access and a future stair tower – EZO Section 5.10 Table.
Reference is made to a site plan titled “Renovations to The Hazardville Institute, 317 Hazard Avenue, Enfield, CT 06082, Szewczak Associates, Sheet L1 (and dated) April 8, 2009”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2009-04-03.
Mr. Rinaldi felt the deed restriction is very important. He doesn’t see the request being self-imposed. The intent was always there to make it a public building.
Mr. LaRosa stated he has no issues. The deed information to him is probably the most important thing that could have been said. He would like to make sure if this is approved tonight that it is stated in the approval that this variance will only be upheld if used for a public building. Mr. LaRosa had a concern if the building does go to commercial.
Chairman Yarum asked what is the concern if it does go to commercial. Mr. LaRosa stated the building is too big for the lot now. There is also the possibility of tearing down the building and giving the new owners the possibility of putting up a bigger building.
Chairman Yarum stated the Board can set forth conditions that in the event that this variance is granted, provided it remains as a public facility, the variance will stay in force. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has the authority to attach conditions. Any condition would only be tested in a court of law.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if he decided to buy this building what would happen. Mr. Alsbaugh asked that the Board consider what zone the building is in – Business Local. That is unlikely to change. It already has the potential for business use. Code requirements are all going to require ADA access. Whether it’s a non-profit public use or a business use, it is probably going to be pretty much the same. It is still going to be a highly restricted property.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated you have to consider the potential and if the potential is big enough to become a problem at this point.
Mr. Urbanowicz stated if the building is torn down, it would have to conform to the regulations of the zone. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it has to be built within the existing footprint or they have to come back for a new variance. Mr. Turner stated the new footprint would include the 500 square feet. Mr. Rinaldi stated you will see renovations along the shore leaving one little section of one wall because it is officially not a total demolition and they can get away with putting another house in that footprint. Once it’s demolished, you’re starting from scratch. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would have to be accidental. If it is intentional, you open up another set of circumstances and restrictions and the need to meet the current setback regulations.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Rinaldi stated it is a requirement in the deed that the building would be for public use. Mr. LaRosa wants to make sure that deed is completely tied to this variance. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the Board tie it to their reason for approval. Further discussion followed.
The reason for approval was because of the deed restriction, the building will remain for public use thereby creating a need for conforming to ADA requirements.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Second Avenue, tabled from 4/13/09
Chairman Yarum stated at the Board’s last meeting a number of items came up regarding Second Avenue. A lot of comments were made about accessory structures. He asked if the State of Connecticut responded to Mr. LaRosa. Mr. LaRosa stated they did call back. They stated the town as a whole can define structure.
Chairman Yarum stated the issue was that on Second Avenue the developer had put a deck on and it was attached. The developer withdrew his variance. Meanwhile, he detached the deck from the house, made it a freestanding structure and changed some grade elevations and was able to get his certificate of occupancy which in turn gave him the ability to sell the property. The question at the Board’s last meeting was what is an accessory structure. When you think of one, you think of a shed or a barn or a garage. Mr. LaRosa had put in a call to the State of Connecticut to get their definition of accessory structure and the response was it is up to the town.
Mr. LaRosa cited the zoning regulations on page 5, number 3, which addresses accessory structures. On page 6, number 13 it also addresses a building having a roof. Ms. Turner noted accessory building is number 3. Mr. LaRosa stated the town does not have a definition for accessory structure. Ms. Turner stated there is a definition for structure and she read it from the ordinance. Mr. Rinaldi stated he has seen the definition of structure at the state level and a stone wall was considered a structure. They were trying to exempt that.
Mr. LaRosa doesn’t feel that a deck falls into any one of these definitions. He proposed at the last meeting that decks be excluded from all of this.
Chairman Yarum read from the last Minutes about Mr. LaRosa suggested adding to the Board’s language that a deck cannot be called an accessory structure. Also, that any accessory structure not be within five feet of the main structure. Chairman Yarum stated the concern is if you have a deck and you separate it from being attached to the primary building by two inches, you now have according to the regulations in place a detached accessory structure.
Chairman Yarum mentioned during the discussion at the last meeting how the Board had worked with Planning and Zoning on certain issues that come before the Board, i.e. lake properties and front porches. There is a need for a better definition of accessory structure as well as accessory structures not being within a certain distance of the main structure. These two items are things that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be made aware of. Chairman Yarum did not think it is within the Board’s jurisdiction to change this.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated what the Board is talking about is that in most cases a deck is considered part of the main structure and there is the potential for abuse by separating it and calling it an accessory structure. Mr. Alsbaugh felt the Board should identify their concerns regarding the definitions, the occurrences that have brought concerns to the Board and the possible addressing of the definitions. Those would then be brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is the P&Z that amends the zoning ordinance. Mr. Alsbaugh felt the Board has hit on a problem that has been there all along.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the building code is being amended to address this issue. Ms. Turner stated the problem she sees is not only did they separate the building from the deck, but they dumped dirt on the ground and changed the elevation of the property which was never in the original plan. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this caused problems for them and they had to go back to Wetlands.
Chairman Yarum stated this comes up to another issue. Because of the same situation with Second Avenue, it was mentioned that within the application itself that the Board should see finished grades. This would avoid them coming back later and adding a mound of dirt to it and saying I brought the grade up.
Mr. Alsbaugh is not sure the Board can make that requirement because there are processes whereby Engineering looks at the grades and drainage and off site impacts. They will have the final say. There are mechanisms within those processes for dealing with things as they change as something is built. It may be more effective if the Board focuses on the issue of the definitions of the structure and the accessory. If those are clearly defined and the loopholes that may exist are closed within the zoning ordinance, then it gives the Board the grounds to make clear, decisive opinions on applications that come before them.
Mr. LaRosa stated the only reason this deck is still standing is because it was too tall which would have violated zoning regulations and a bunch of dirt got dumped on the ground and they said okay, now it’s not too tall.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that particular issue wouldn’t come back to this Board. The grade and drainage are issues that are dealt with through Engineering.
Mr. LaRosa stated the reason he brought that up was because of another property that has been a thorn in the Board’s side. If someone were to tell him to mound dirt up around the building, it would conform to the regulations. Mr. LaRosa doesn’t want to see that happen.
Ms. Turner asked what definitions the Board is asking Planning and Zoning to consider.
Chairman Yarum stated the first one is accessory structure. Ms. Turner noted there is no definition for deck.
Chairman Yarum stated before the Board’s next meeting, he will get a letter out with copies to all Board members to the Chairman of P&Z addressing these issues.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there may be some way in amending the definitions to reference the grade issue within that definition so that the grade cannot be manipulated. When an accessory structure is presented, a final grade should somehow be attached to the process so that it cannot be manipulated to subvert the regulations.
Mr. LaRosa stated the Board has been put in a pretty tough spot a couple of times and he really doesn’t want to keep this door open. He would like to find some way to close these loopholes.
Chairman Yarum stated the other item the Board wanted to discuss was having the applicant mark out an area where they are looking to vary. It may be spray paint or stakes. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the best way to address this is by amending the application form.
Ms. Turner stated when she looked at the properties for tonight’s meeting, you don’t really know where they’re talking about.
Mr. LaRosa stated the other thing to be brought up is the maps the Board receives. He was pleased with the maps the Board received for tonight’s meeting and this is what he would like to see on every property that comes before the Board. Some discussion followed of particular applications that did not include specific property maps.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is an issue that the Board will have to take up with Planning and Zoning because it is an issue of how much a person will have to absorb financially in the submittal of an application. Some of the bigger towns require an A-2 survey but smaller towns have always tried to accommodate the cost factor.
Ms. Turner discussed a previous variance that would have been easier if the property had been staked.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated in most cases what the Board sees in the application is what he has done the calculations on. Either he has reviewed a survey map or he has created something that is scaled to give the Board precise information.
Mr. LaRosa stated there have been times when the numbers contradicted each other.
Ms. Turner stated if a neighbor wants to add a garage, she doesn’t want them to have to go to the expense of an A-2 survey. They can take a plot plan and put stakes in the ground for Board review.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted the need to have a map the Board can make an informed decision from. Mr. LaRosa stated he is looking for a way to make the decision making process easier so that the Board has everything needed to make a viable decision. The staking idea he thinks is great.
Mr. LaRosa discussed the Hazard Avenue application tonight and stated without knowing everything, you can’t make a decision.
Ms. Turner stated in the Inland Wetlands Minutes it states on April 30 they will discuss fines. She would like this Board to discuss fines also. She would like to hear what Wetlands is doing.
Mr. LaRosa stated there are rules in town for fines. Mr. Alsbaugh stated we don’t have zoning fines yet. For the blight ordinance, there are fines but for the zoning ordinance there is no fine system yet.
Ms. Turner brought up the North Maple Street site which has been abandoned and is still out there.
Ms. Turner stated she would like to hear a presentation about fines. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested Board members attend the meetings of Wetlands and Planning and Zoning where they will be discussing fines. At that point, the Board can give input.
Mr. LaRosa stated if someone puts up a structure and comes in later for a variance, the Board says no and they keep it up forever because there is no fine mechanism in place. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town would take them to court and that would be a court issue.
Ms. Turner asked that someone attend the Thursday meeting on fines by Inland Wetlands.
Regarding the staking of properties, Mr. Alsbaugh will make it an agenda item for the next meeting. The agenda item will be opening the bylaws and amending the application. The Board will have a motion to consider at the next meeting. To amend the bylaws you have to have one meeting and the following meeting the Board votes. Next month it will be on the agenda for discussion and the following meeting it will be voted upon.
Mr. LaRosa requested that Mr. Alsbaugh try to implement the staking of properties for next month’s meeting. Mr. Alsbaugh will ask the applicants to mark the properties. Tomorrow morning he will photocopy a memo and attach it to the existing application.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
· Current Litigation
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to go into Executive Session to discuss current litigation. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote and the Board went into Executive Session at 9:10 p.m. Executive Session ended at 9:22 p.m. No votes were taken and no decisions were made.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
John Rinaldi, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|