ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 18, 2009
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, May 18, 2009 in the Enfield Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Scott Hozempa
Maurice LaRosa
John Rinaldi
Mary Ann Turner
Andrew Urbanowicz, Alternate
Charles Mastroberti, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to approve the Minutes of April 27, 2009. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Board has the Town Attorney’s Report. Other correspondence will be discussed later in the meeting.
Ms. Turner reported she attended a program workshop on land use on Saturday and she felt it was very valuable. They will also come to Enfield free of charge and put on programs. Ms. Turner thought the Board might want to take it up with the other commissions and boards and see if there is a class all might want to attend. Ms. Turner will take on this task.
Ms. Turner asked when the Minutes were going to be on the town’s web site. Mr. Alsbaugh will update the site tomorrow.
Ms. Turner asked if the Board is going forward to Planning and Zoning and ask for their input regarding accessory structures. Chairman Yarum stated that item is on the agenda later this evening.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED [Appeals and/or Variances]
ZBA 2009-04-02 – Exxon Mobil Oil, Applicants & MR&D LLC, Owners, 75 Hazard Ave., 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
Chairman Yarum explained when a variance can be granted and the procedure to be followed for tonight’s meeting.
Elizabeth Anderson-Cobb, Herbert Woike from Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc. and Charles Manzoni, property owner, appeared before the Board regarding this variance request.
Chairman Yarum stated this is a continued public hearing and the hearing is still open.
Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated they took the Board’s concerns into consideration. She presented an aerial map of the location. The green swale represents the treatment system. If they move the system from the area that they propose to at the end of this lot, they had to increase the size of the system.
Mr. Manzoni would lose a portion of his parking area as well as the dumpster area. They took that into consideration. Due to the shape of the lot, they would lose between six and twelve parking spaces.
Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the other concern of the Board was snow placement. Due to the shape of the lot, this is an area where Mr. Manzoni puts a considerable amount of snow. When they had gone through the design originally, a lot of the concerns were taken into consideration. They also looked at another location which was behind the dentist’s office. In this area, a portion of it is landscaped and it is grass. In order to put their container there, they would have to take out the grass and put down an impervious surface. They looked at this location and reviewed it with the Fire Department and it was not acceptable to the Fire Department.
Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the location which abuts the back side of the Ford dealership was the best location. It is out of public view.
Chairman Yarum stated in correspondence with the Fire Marshal, he identifies the areas as 1, 2 and 3. He asked that they show the Board each of these areas.
Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated they selected three locations originally. She submitted an email to show location number one. The property at location 2 would not allow anyone to drive between 77 and the back of the property. The third location the property owner indicated was not acceptable to him.
Ms. Turner noted the grass area was never included.
Mr. Woike stated there is a transformer there that would have to be moved and it would restrict all traffic flow.
Mr. LaRosa is trying to get an idea of the property lines. He understood the whole area was one property and now that is not the case. So where the dumpster is there on the island is a new property line and if it were to go there, you would need multiple variances.
Ms. Turner asked why they can’t put the container where the existing one is. Mr. Woike stated they still need to operate it. Mr. LaRosa asked if the old system will be removed when the new system is up and running. Mr. Woike stated not immediately. This equipment is designed to prevent water from entering the pump itself. It would be a year before they deactivate the existing pump.
Ms. Turner noted it is possible it could stay.
Mr. Woike stated there is a need to be safe. The whole reason for this is public health and safety. They need to be secure that the water will stay below the basin.
Ms. Turner asked if the site will ever be cleaned up. Mr. Woike stated they do believe they will get the site cleaned up. This system that being discussed has extraction wells around the entire building so that the ground water plume is here.
Ms. Turner asked if we know where the gas is coming from. Mr. Woike responded the Exxon Mobil Station.
Ms. Turner noted they are trying to capture it at the building instead of at the source. Mr. Woike stated their wells will be here to eliminate the use of this shed and the activities currently going on in this building. The current design is a more comprehensive design.
Ms. Turner stated they believe they have found the leak, it’s contained and they are trying to clean it up and there’s nothing continuing to leak. Mr. Woike stated that is correct. The piping has been upgraded.
Chairman Yarum asked how they know the containment has not spread beyond that area. Mr. Woike stated they have monitoring wells and they can document this. They have a good control of where the plume is. They don’t have any wells on the dealership side but the stream creates a divide that prevents water from moving in that direction. They tried to get access but could not get access.
Mr. LaRosa stated the Board had asked before if the containment unit could go anywhere on the property and they said yes. But what they are saying now is it could go some place else except that it would have to be much bigger. Would it also not cause possible contamination?
Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the way the system is designed, should they have any kind of piping failure, they will do a secondary line. They have to install a particular piping that is above and beyond what you typically install at gas stations or at your own home. It is more durable and the material it is constructed out of is needed to handle the containment. There are those leaks that do occur. They will address that when they design the stub they put in the ground.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what fire department was involved. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated the Hazardville Fire Department and Fire Marshal Censki.
Chairman Yarum stated he has an email from the Fire Department talking about location #1. They mentioned this would be the grass buffer between Family Ford and the property owner. It appears it was his opinion that this equipment was going to go on that buffer. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated at the time they were out there, there was snow along the edge and there was the appearance that the grass strip continued on along the property line. Chairman Yarum noted there was no grassy edge but it was all bituminous.
Ms. Turner asked how big this container is. Ms. Anderson-Cobb stated it is about a 10’ x 40’ area. It includes the system container, a fence and the bollards.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if an alternate area to be changed to impervious was considered, would there also be another variance as far as coverage. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it has never been calculated. He would assume the amount of impervious surface on those properties is pretty close to being maxed out. It would definitely have to be recalculated so there is a possibility it could require another variance.
Ms. Turner asked how you will make the swing after snow is dumped in front of it. She has been around the building and people park back there. If you were going to put a plow through, you will not be able to go straight in any more. Mr. Manzoni pointed out the direction the snow goes. Ms. Turner asked if in the winter time people stop using the back. Mr. Manzoni stated there is less room to use. The more snow you have, the less asphalt you see. As a property owner, he would like the environmental components in one area. He would like to work with Mobil and he is very happy it isn’t costing him a dime to get the property cleaned up. It would be good for everybody. The unit is located off to the back and none of the environmental stuff is visible. The Fire Marshal felt this would be the best alternative.
Chairman Yarum asked when the smaller pump will be taken out if this variance is approved. Mr. Woike stated it would have to go a year. Chairman Yarum noted that two winters from now that the smaller pump would not be there. Mr. Manzoni stated Freshwater Pond is not too far away and when it does rain, the water really backs up.
Chairman Yarum noted this work is mandated by DEP and Mr. Woike confirmed that to be the case.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if Ms. Turner’s question had to do with is the snow removal hampered in any way. Ms. Turner confirmed that to be the question. Mr. Manzoni noted that people go around the building and you are not going to stop that.
Ms. Turner stated if they have been here since 2000 and it is 2009, do they have a hint when they would be done. Mr. Woike stated the system will operate for three to five years. They have a comprehensive program and multiple wells. They had success with such programs in the past. In a year, they could give a pretty good projection of when it will be completed.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record two drawings, one aerial and one scaled drawing of the property and the proposed equipment location.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. 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 17 ft., 3 ft. proposed, 20 ft. required to erect an environmental equipment container – EZO Section 5.10 Table.
Reference is made to a site plan titled “Trench System Layout Plan, EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Mobil Service Station #01-F2T, 76 Hazard Avenue, Enfield, CT 06082 (and dated) 3-11-09”, said plan also showing the variance request site at 75 Hazard Avenue north and across Hazard Avenue from the described service station, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2009-04-02.
Chairman Yarum noted that Mr. Hozempa was not present for the first public hearing but he has read the Minutes and will be voting on this application. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is alternative locations would be more intrusive to the property due to the size of the container and the impervious surfaces. Moving it to an alternative location would require additional variances. This remediation is not self-imposed and cleanup is mandated by DEP.
VARIANCES –NEW
ZBA 2009-05-01 – Laurence & Cheryl Provost, Applicants & Owners, 6 Third St., Map 36 / Lot 306, R33 Zone, requesting a rear yard setback variance of 32.5 ft., 17.5 ft. proposed, 50 ft. required to erect an addition and garage - EZO Section 4.10 Table
Chairman Yarum stated he would not be participating in this hearing because while he does not know the applicant, he is friendly with the family of one of the abutting property owners. Alternate Mastroberti will be participating in his place.
Laurence and Cheryl Provost appeared before the Board regarding this application. Mr. Provost submitted an affidavit regarding the public hearing sign.
Mr. Provost stated he did submit a plot plan of what they have now and what they propose to do. They are looking for a rear yard variance. He noted the property behind them is family owned.
Vice Chairman Hozempa asked that Mr. Provost explain the need for a variance.
Mr. Provost stated because of the lot behind them. They share the same driveway. They have a stream flowing through there with some wetlands on it. He contacted Ms. Bednaz of the Wetlands and he has to submit an application to them if this goes through. With the family owned property, it was divided before there were zoning regulations. They don’t need the front yard variance.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if there is a family there now. Mr. Provost stated yes, his wife’s grandfather.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the property was subdivided and he asked what year that was sectioned off. Also, was the rear house the main house at the time? Mr. Provost stated the front house was the main house. The rear house was actually a barn and they were given that land and his wife’s grandfather converted the barn into his house. This land was subdivided in the 1940’s.
Mr. LaRosa asked if Mr. Provost looked at any other parts of the property to put this addition. Mr. Provost stated on the east side of the driveway it slopes down pretty good into the stream. There is no way they could use that side. As far as the other side, there are sewer lines coming out on the west side to the road and it would also block their kitchen window. Ms. Provost stated there are also overhead wires on the east side.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this is an odd shaped property. He is looking at the rear most part of the property, the grandfather’s property. He asked if there is a way to get back there. It seemed like that was a stream going through and you couldn’t really access that. Mr. Provost stated that is correct.
Ms. Turner asked about the building on the left side. Mr. Provost stated there is a shed on the eastern side. Also, on the west side there is a right of way for House #8 that is on the far right hand side. He doesn’t know if that would affect anything but because it was family owned, they always shared the one driveway.
Ms. Turner asked what the big star on the plans is. Mr. Provost stated that is a pine tree which is not labeled.
Vice Chairman Hozempa asked how big the proposed garage is. Mr. Provost stated 26’ x 28’.
Mr. Rinaldi had a question about the proposed bath and he asked if they are adding a bathroom. Mr. Provost stated there is an existing bathroom there and entry way and they wanted to enlarge it and put their washer and dryer up there. Their intent is to have one floor living and have access for a walker for the grandfather when he can’t live alone any more.
Ms. Turner asked if they are going to walk through the bathroom to get into the house. Mr. Provost stated no, there would be a hallway and a mud room. Ms. Provost stated their bathroom used to be a pantry.
Vice Chairman Hozempa asked about the size of the existing house. Mr. Provost stated the existing house is 26’ x 28’. Vice Chairman Hozempa noted the garage is going to be as big as the house. He asked how many cars the garage will hold. Mr. Provost stated it will hold two cars and a motorcycle.
Ms. Turner stated it is too bad they have to take down their shed.
Ms. Turner asked about some lines on the plot plan. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is where the actual right of way is when it is measured out from the earlier map. When you scale it into the current map that is where it actually ends up. The driveway was put down because it didn’t really matter where it was because they were family and there was access there. They kept it farther away from the top of the slope.
Mr. LaRosa asked what the other right of way is. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he had assumed that was the sewer right-of-way. Mr. Alsbaugh pointed out a right of way on the early map. Mr. Provost stated he thought that was actually where the drive way was. He doesn’t know why they moved it. Mr. Alsbaugh asked who did the map. Mr. Provost stated it was done by a professional surveyor when the land was subdivided. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it says right of way. Maybe that was the intended sewer right of way. Mr. Provost stated that could be but the electric company has a right of way for the wires. The consensus was the right-of-way from the early survey was for the power lines over the front property to the rear property.
Mr. LaRosa asked if you were to take the garage and move it to the side of the house, would that hamper the sewer line. You have a buildable area on the west side of the house without coming for a variance. He asked if Mr. Provost has considered putting the garage there and not needing a variance or would that be messed up because of the sewer line. Mr. Provost stated it would and it would also be blocking their kitchen window. They also have a door on that side of the house.
Mr. LaRosa asked if they have considered a smaller garage. Mr. Provost stated a standard two car garage is 24’ x 24’. He has some toys and a work bench so that extra room would be nice. It is really not that much bigger than a standard two-car garage.
Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if the applicant has anything further to add. Mr. Provost stated another reason they liked that side of the house for the garage is because of the existing driveway. They would not have to change anything. Ms. Provost stated they also wanted the bathroom to be handicapped accessible. Vice Chairman Hozempa asked if they would be adding any ramps to the home. Mr. Provost stated if the need arose, they would do so.
Vice Chairman Hozempa opened this hearing to the audience.
Kerry Edwards spoke in favor of this addition. He lives at 4 Third Street on the west side. He believes the addition will be an asset to the property and to the neighborhood. He has seen the drawings and from his side, it looks great.
Vice Chairman Hozempa closed this public hearing.
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for a rear yard setback variance of 32.5 ft., 17.5 ft. proposed, 50 ft. required to erect an addition and garage – EZO Section 4.10 Table
Reference is made to a site plan showing the proposed addition and garage to the dwelling on the 6 Third Street lot, and also showing the 8 Third Street dwelling and lot, both lots labeled with bearings and distances, and a second plan being an A-2 Survey and showing the property of Henry and Waltella Dubish and dated May 1948, both site plans being stamped “Planning Office, April 30, 2009, Enfield, CT”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2009-05-01.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he doesn’t see any option to the east. He thinks between the shape of the property and the wetlands, he doesn’t think the east side is an option at all. This is an odd shaped lot that was subdivided by the family according to the applicant before there were cars.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Mastroberti voting. Chairman Yarum did not participate in this hearing.
The reason for approval is due to the unique shape of the property. With the slope and wetlands, they did not have any options to the east. The sewer access in the right of way on the west side of the property limited the use to the rear for the addition.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
· Review of By-laws / Modification of Appendix III – Application Form Template
The Board reviewed the modification of Appendix III on the application form. Chairman Yarum stated at the last meeting the Board talked about making some changes to the application process to include requiring the staking of the property. He read the proposed revision for the benefit of the Board.
Ms. Turner stated there is a need to change the date. On the top form, the revised date should be changed. She was concerned that we were not doing superceded by. Mr. Alsbaugh will move the revision date to the bottom of the document.
Chairman Yarum asked that the Board take it one step further and see if we can’t come to an agreement of what happens if an applicant comes in and they have done all their paperwork and submitted an application but have not marked anything off on the site. How should they be treated? Mr. Alsbaugh stated you can make a requirement for the application. You can table it to the next meeting and you can deny it without prejudice. Chairman Yarum suggested adding some type of language to warn the applicant that in the event their property is not marked out for the Board, that the application will be tabled. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested tabled the first time and denied without prejudice the second time.
Ms. Turner gave examples of how much easier it is with the property marked. Mr. LaRosa also agreed that it made it so much easier with the property marked.
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hozempa, to approve the modification of Appendix III of the By-laws as proposed. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Chairman’s memo to PZC re Accessory Structures
Chairman Yarum stated he sent a letter to the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding accessory structures recently. He gave Board members copies of his letter. He did not address the issues of raising the site level as that would be a wetlands issue. He did not bring any staff members into the letter as it served no purpose.
Ms. Turner requested that the Board receive a response to their letter that they received it and are taking it under advisement. Some discussion followed regarding what constitutes accessory structures.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will send a copy of this letter to Mr. Giner requesting a response.
Ms. Turner discussed maps presented by applicants and stated if the Board is shown a map there should be some legitimacy to it. Mr. Alsbaugh stated in the case tonight there was an A-2 survey. The Board did have an accurate A-2 survey and the other map did have bearings and distances. Board members noted unless a plan is signed and sealed, there is a question of where it came from.
Ms. Turner requested that she be given a copy of any document that the zoning enforcement officer produces stating someone needs a variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated generally there isn’t such a document. The Zoning Enforcement Officer would apprise someone of their statutory right to seek a variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated a letter is sent out and if the Board would like a copy of that letter, he can add it to the list. It never did come before unless they were appealing the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s decision. When they are going for a variance, they are not disputing the fact that they have an issue of some sort. They are coming to the variance and what they really need to do is make it clear in the application what it is they are seeking. Ms. Turner stated if a staff member has written a reason why they need a variance, she would like that piece of correspondence added to the meeting packet as it helps her understand how the variance got before this Board.
Some discussion followed regarding the manner in which the Board receives its meeting packet. It was the consensus of the Board that they would like a hard copy of the meeting packet in the future. Ms. Turner discussed possible delivery of the packets by her to some of the Board members.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
· Current litigation
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hozempa, to go into Executive Session to discuss current litigation. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote and the Board went into Executive Session at 9:10 p.m. Executive Session ended at 9:23 p.m. There were no votes taken or decisions made.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
John Rinaldi, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|