THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT
BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. OFFICIAL COPIES OF MINUTES, WHEN APPROVED, CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK OR PLANNING OFFICE.
ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 2010
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, May 24, 2010 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
Mary Ann Turner
Charles Mastroberti, Alternate
Andrew Urbanowicz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Virginia Higley, Zoning Enforcement Officer
MINUTES
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the Minutes of April 26, 2010. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING(S) / PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN
Chairman Yarum gave input to the audience about the procedure for this evening’s meeting. He also stated when a variance can be granted.
APPEALS – NEW – ONE
ZBA 2010-05-01 – VMS Construction, Applicants & Anthony Troiano & Frank Troiano, Jr., Owners, 26 Pearl St., Map 24 / Lot 84, TVC Zone, appealing a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer - EZO Sections 1.10, 3.30.13, 5.20, 5.40, & 6.30.5.
This application was withdrawn.
VARIANCES –NEW - THREE
ZBA 2010-05-02 – Timothy Kennedy, Applicant & Owner, 6 Louise Dr., Map 53 / Lot 317, R33 Zone, requesting an Accessory Structure setback variance forward of the rear building line - EZO Section 3.30.7A
Timothy Kennedy and Newell Girard of 6 Louise Drive appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. Kennedy stated his application is for a variance for a hot tub to be placed on an existing patio area in his back yard. He is installing it for therapeutic purposes. The zoning says it has to go back past the back line of the garage because it is an accessory structure. Any other location other than the proposed location would move the hot tub into an upland review area. This would mean he would have to change and make an area that right now is pervious impervious by creating more patio space. If he had to move it further away, he would have difficulties getting to it year round.
Mr. Kennedy stated he has lower back spasms and he suffers from paraforma syndrome which affects his sciatic nerve. It makes it difficult to get around and the hot tub is one of the things that seems to help his condition.
Ms. Turner stated she went and looked at the property and it is pretty self-explanatory.
Chairman Yarum asked other than the fact that if Mr. Kennedy relocated the hot tub to some other area of the yard that it would be a little less convenient to get to, is there any other reason he can’t relocate it. Mr. Kennedy submitted some pictures of the landscaping. The area slopes off greatly and once it goes past that location, it does put it into the wetlands area. Getting out to it in the winter would be difficult. Putting it further away would probably make it unusable because Mr. Kennedy would not be able to get to the location. He tried to show this in the pictures he presented.
Chairman Yarum stated he visited the property and he noticed there is an addition off the house which is a screened porch area. Standing in his back yard, the hot tub is now staked out to the left. Chairman Yarum asked if it could be placed in front of the addition and still be behind the rear building line which is closer to the doorway than the proposed location.
Ms. Girard stated the garage comes out past the porch. Mr. Kennedy stated the hot tub is 78” x 78” and if he put it there, he felt it would stick out past the garage.
Chairman Yarum stated it can’t be in front of the rear building line.
Ms. Girard stated Chairman Yarum is saying to put it in the back of the porch. If they put it back there, that is their access for both ways to the back yard. You have to push it back a little bit further than what you think because you have to get back there. You can’t have it up too close. The fencing is right there where the pool is. You could push it back more. However, they would prefer not to make another large patio area into the part that is already a yard or a pervious area. It makes more sense not to get into the yard to do that again – to make another impervious area.
Ms. Turner stated there is a garage door on the back of the garage. There has to be a reason they put that there.
Chairman Yarum asked why the hot tub couldn’t go here and he noted the proposed location. Ms. Turner stated it is right in front of the garage door.
Chairman Yarum asked if they have looked at all options available to them knowing what the town regulations are. Mr. Kennedy stated he tried to get creative and looked at it. To put it out by the pool area would be difficult when the area is covered in snow. It’s for safety reasons. To try to walk around that area in the winter would be an accident waiting to happen. He thought he could move it to the right side and the yard slopes off. Ms. Girard stated they have to be past that line again. They have a double garage door that comes out and that is their access to the side. Mr. Kennedy stated there is a side door that comes out of the side of the garage which would go right around the front of that porch.
Ms. Turner appreciated that they opened the fence up this morning.
Mr. Kennedy stated it is an open space and when he came in and spoke with Katie Bednaz and she looked at the property and he said that he had already had this impervious area and creating more impervious area was something that would not be a good thing to do. The proposed location is an ideal location for the hot tub. If he comes out that side patio door, it is maybe sixteen feet over to where that would be located and, yes, it would be closer if he put it in the front but it would block the egress. It still wouldn’t be behind the garage and it would be right on top and he doesn’t want to put it one foot away from the edge of the house. There is landscaping and trees. He gave it a lot of thought as to where it could go.
Mr. Urbanowicz asked if they had considered putting on a deck attached to the house and have the hot tub up on the deck so that it would be connected to the building. Ms. Girard stated the porch is level to the ground so they can’t go up. Mr. Kennedy stated if it was raised higher he could have done that because the door would have opened but the concrete comes right over. That would have been an ideal thought. If he didn’t have a hatchway door going into the basement, he would have put it right there but he is not going to take away the hatchway access.
Chairman Yarum stated he doesn’t follow Mr. Kennedy’s reasoning why a deck could not be there. Mr. Kennedy stated there could be a deck there. He asked why it is better if it is up on a deck. Mr. Urbanowicz stated if it is on the deck, you don’t need a variance. Ms. Girard stated there would be no access from the house to the deck. You would have to put a deck on and come down, go on the porch and go back up to the hot tub.
Mr. LaRosa stated the door that they are coming out of is at ground level and there is no stair.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to approve the request for an accessory building rear building line setback variance to construct a spa – EZO Section 3.30.7A.
Reference is made to the site plan submitted by the applicant on a building permit diagram form showing the proposed location of the spa and stamped “RECEIVED APR 23, 2010, PLANNING OFFICE, ENFIELD, CT”, and to all documentation, photographs, and discussion under ZBA 2010-05-02.
Mr. LaRosa stated if you were to attach a deck, you wouldn’t need a variance and he understands the reasoning. What Mr. Kennedy is saying is you can’t attach the deck by the door because the door is at ground level. Mr. Urbanowicz was talking about a different area.
Mr. LaRosa looked at the property and stated there is a big enough grade where you would have to bring in dirt to level this. Mr. LaRosa went to Route 5 to the hot tub store and he asked the owner. He said this is the best location. Having it on a deck would make it so there is no variance required. His thought was you don’t want a hot tub being a freestanding entity in a yard. They would always recommend that it be put up against the house or set into a deck. He didn’t think a freestanding hot tub in a yard would be the appropriate thing to do. He noted the area would have to be level and looking at the slope, you would have to bring dirt in to level out the area. If you’re getting into a wetland area – you can’t do anything within 100’ of a wetland without getting approval from Wetlands. Mr. LaRosa did not believe the applicant had 100’.
Chairman Yarum stated the garage is closer to the wetlands than leveling off a 6’ x 6’ hot tub.
Ms. Higley stated it is difficult in wetlands but you are allowed to do things in wetlands. You just have to go to the wetlands commission. She thought she heard Mr. LaRosa say you couldn’t be within 100’ of wetlands. Mr. LaRosa stated he won’t argue the fact that there are ways of doing this hot tub where you don’t need a variance but the professional he talked to said the proposed location was the best location.
Chairman Yarum stated there are areas on the property that could suit the applicant’s needs. They may not be convenient for him but he does have other options. The most logical option for this applicant is to build a grade level deck, attach it to the home and forget the variance. Sit the hot tub on top of the deck.
The motion was denied by a 2 – 3 – 0 vote. Ms. Turner and Mr. Mastroberti voted in favor; Chairman Yarum, Mr. LaRosa and Mr. Urbanowicz voted nay.
The reason for approval given by Mr. LaRosa is the applicant has other options. He agrees with the professional but you can certainly build a ground level deck with one step and attach it to the house and put the hot tub on top of that. They would then not need the variance.
ZBA 2010-05-03 – Gregory Perkins, Applicant & Owner, 262 Jackson Rd., Map 111 / Lot 202, R44 Zone, requesting a coverage variance of 4.39%, 24.39% proposed, 20.08 existing, 20% allowed for deck addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Gregory and Karen Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Mr. Perkins submitted the notice for the public hearing sign.
Mr. Perkins stated he submitted an application for building a deck on his house. The size of the deck was going to be over the allowable limit by 140 square feet. Mr. Perkins designed the deck and he had pictures that he submitted. Last year he had his house sided and he had the contractor put up a ledger board so that when he built the deck, he could incorporate both doors on that side of the house. There are sliding glass doors on the bedroom and there is also a kitchen door that they wanted to incorporate on the deck. He designed the deck to be 26 and ½’ long to incorporate both doors. The depth of the deck would be 16’ deep. Their intentions are to put a spa on that deck at some point.
Mr. Perkins stated the footprint of the spa is 8’ x 11’. That will take up a considerable amount of space on the deck. They had looked at outdoor furniture and by the time you put everything on the deck, you are going to run out of room. Mr. Perkins tried to design the deck large enough so that he could incorporate what he wanted on the deck. He was not aware of the twenty percent building rule. When he contacted his contractor, he was aware of the twenty percent but there is nothing in his back yard. The back yard is stockaded off to the public so it is private for them. They are looking to have some entertaining space on the deck.
Ms. Turner stated she noticed they have another deck where they incorporated two steps in the back yard. Ms. Turner stated if they took up that piece of decking, they could still keep the top.
Mr. LaRosa stated if they took up the deck flooring and just used the steps that are there and they could leave the roof over the top that would give him the extra he is looking for his coverage.
Mr. Perkins stated that was grandfathered into the house and he didn’t put that there. Ms. Turner stated they checked to make sure if they wanted to keep the cover because it’s more of a pergola without the deck part. If you pick up the wood on the ground, you would pick up the 146 square feet he is looking for.
Mr. Perkins questioned take the wood porch off but leave the overhang. Mr. LaRosa stated right. Mrs. Perkins stated that would work. Ms. Turner noted they would not need a variance. Mr. Perkins stated he could do that.
Ms. Turner stated if he picks up the wood deck, the twenty percent rule would not be a problem.
Mr. LaRosa stated part of the coverage would be the ground level deck.
Mr. LaRosa stated he would use the area and still get to the keep the roof. That way he could build the deck he wants and he doesn’t need a variance.
Ms. Turner stated he has stairs there and they just incorporated the stairs to make it flat.
Chairman Yarum asked if Ms. Higley is in agreement. She stated yes but he would have to take the steps and the decking off. It would have to be right on the ground. Mr. Perkins stated he has to have steps into the house. Ms. Turner stated he doesn’t have to take the steps off but just the wood. Ms. Higley agreed. Mr. LaRosa stated the canopy over the top stays because it is not dug into the ground.
Mr. LaRosa asked if he loses the 140 square feet, would he still be able to live with the deck. Mr. Perkins stated he wouldn’t be able to. He would be willing to take the wood off the back deck if that is going to help him out.
Mr. LaRosa stated according to the memo from the Zoning Enforcement Officer with the measurements given to the Board if that happens, Mr. Perkins would not need a variance. Mr. Perkins stated he will take the wood off the back door. Chairman Yarum asked that the Board give staff an opportunity to review what was just discussed.
Chairman Yarum made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, that the Board deny ZBA 2010-05-03 without prejudice.
Chairman Yarum stated this would allow Mr. Perkins to go to the Building Department with his new plans and get his building permit which the Zoning Enforcement Officer needs to sign off on. If for some reason there is an issue, this would allow the Perkins’ to come back to the Board.
Mr. Perkins asked if he has to submit plans taking that back wood off. Mr. LaRosa stated he takes it off and then resubmits his plan. Mr. Perkins stated his contractor would have to resubmit the permit after he takes the wood off. Chairman Yarum stated this motion would allow Mr. Perkins to come back to the Board if needed.
Mr. LaRosa stated if the Zoning Enforcement Officer finds a problem after the wood is removed, Mr. Perkins could come back to the Board without paying for anything else.
Ms. Turner asked if they need to come back for another building permit. Chairman Yarum stated they would. Ms. Turner stated the building permit she saw makes no mention of a hot tub. Mr. Perkins stated it is in the future when they can afford it. Mr. LaRosa asked if they save themselves money if it is all included in one permit. Ms. Higley stated they do save themselves money but they would have to see if Jim Taylor, the Building Inspector, would allow them to add that.
Ms. Turner stated they made no mention of a hot tub on the building permit which means that they will have to come back unless they work to amend. Ms. Turner stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer will be able to guide Mr. Perkins when he comes to see her. The building permit is not complete for what Mr. Perkins is telling the Board. The application implied that they had purchased the spa but the building permit doesn’t talk about it.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
ZBA 2010-05-04 – Nancy Grimaldi, Applicant & Owner, 31 Belmont Ave., Map 79 / Lot 83, R33 Zone, requesting an Accessory Structure setback variance forward of the rear building line - EZO Section 3.30.7A
Ms. Nancy Grimaldi appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Ms. Grimaldi stated her application is for a variance because she is unable to move the accessory structure to behind the rear building line of the house because the house is at the very back end of the property. Ms. Grimaldi stated the foundation goes back to 1920. The house was torn down and a new house was put up.
Ms. Grimaldi stated the variance would provide her with reasonable use. She has been at this location since 1999. She has a trick elbow. She noted she cannot put a garage on the property. That’s in the deed where she is unable to build a permanent structure. She looked into this and found it and it seems to do the trick.
Ms. Grimaldi presented a petition agreeing to this variance for a temporary carport structure signed by all of her eleven neighbors.
Ms. Grimaldi pointed out another hardship came about. The person that lives with her has an elderly father and he walks a little slow. He comes to visit often and the carport makes it easier for him to access the property. The other visitor is a retired military navy chief who is disabled with a degenerative disease and she thought the carport was great. She could pull in and not worry. Between the elbow and the two people visiting, Ms. Grimaldi stated they all contribute to the hardship part of this variance.
Ms. Grimaldi stated the structure meets the height and square footage requirements. It is ten feet high and the maximum is twelve feet. The square footage maximum is 600 square feet and this is 400 square feet.
Ms. Grimaldi stated in Section 3.30.7 it talks about accessory buildings.
Ms. Grimaldi stated there is no other area to put this. That is the only area.
Ms. Turner stated there is no descriptive drawing that shows how much coverage it takes up on the property. This is required. You have to take into consideration your house and every other thing that sits on the property and the Board doesn’t have that. Ms. Turner also noticed in the photos in 2006 it looks like Ms. Grimaldi replaced the structure. She asked when it was replaced. Ms. Grimaldi stated it is just the cover. The cover comes off and you can buy a new cover. The frame is the original frame.
Chairman Yarum asked if the original frame was installed in 1999. Ms. Grimaldi confirmed that to be correct.
Following a question from Ms. Grimaldi, Mr. LaRosa stated it would have been required for her to draw a sketch of the property with every accessory structure that’s on the property. He noted the property currently has ten zoning violations. They all coincide with why the applicant is here. It is a coverage issue and a coverage issue is not constrained to time. To come into compliance, the Board needs to have the scaled drawing.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Chairman Yarum made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, that ZBA 2010-05-04 be kept open and tabled to the next meeting to allow the applicant to come back with the site coverage information that the Board requires. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman Yarum notified the applicant her application is tabled until next month. He asked that she submit the required information and the Board can then vote on it.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to go into Executive Session. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote and the Board went into Executive Session at 7:50 p.m. Executive Session ended at 8:12 p.m. and there were no motions made or decisions made.
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to have the Zoning Enforcement Officer ask all proper town individuals to inspect the Robbins property on Weymouth Road as far as the use. He stated he had driven by the property and there was stuff in the building. Mr. Robbins is presently suing the town and there is no occupancy issued for the building. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Ms. Turner, to adjourn. Following a 5 – 0 – 0 vote, the Board adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Mary Ann Turner, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|