THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED
BY THE ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL. 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
December 19, 2011
A Regular meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, December 19, 2011 at the Enfield Town Hall, Enfield Room, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Frank Alaimo (Alternate)
Brittany Christensen
Maurice Larosa
Charles Mastroberti
Mary Ann Turner, Secretary
Andrew Urbanowicz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Virginia Higley, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Peter Yarum at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. ROLL CALL: Present were: Chairman Peter Yarum and Board members Alaimo (Alternate), Christensen, Larosa, Mastroberti, Turner, and Urbanowicz (Alternate). Also present were Virginia Higley, ZEO and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
The fire evacuation procedures were read by Chairman Yarum.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 28, 2011 Regular Meeting: A motion was made by Mr. Larosa and seconded by Ms. Turner to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 28, 2011 as presented. Vote was 5-0-0.
4. CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT: A brief verbal report was provided by Ms. Higley.
She reported that the owner of 2 Bell Acre Road (ZBA 2011-11-01) reported that his shed has been dismantled but the debris has not yet been removed. Ms. Higley stated that once the debris is removed, she will have the variance recorded.
Ms. Higley asked the Board if members would prefer to hold a meeting in January, 2012 for the purpose of electing positions only as currently there are not any applications pending.
Members held discussion and a motion was made by Mr. Larosa and seconded by Ms. Turner to hold a meeting in January only if an application is received; the organizational meeting will be held in February, 2012. Vote 5-0-0.
Ms. Higley reported that, going forward, she will make sure that Board members receive copies of all available documents concerning applications that come before them.
The CT Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies Fall. 2011 Quarterly Newsletter was received.
Ms. Higley reminded members to bring all documents and memos found in this month’s meeting packet pertaining to the election of officers, bylaws, and forms to the February, 2012 meeting.
5. PUBLIC HEARING(S) / PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN: Chairman Yarum explained the procedures for the public hearing and the circumstances in which a variance can be granted.
6. READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE: The legal notice was read by Ms. Turner.
7. NEW BUSINESS
ZBA 2011-12-01 – Michael J. Pawlowski, Applicant/Michael J. & Diane Pawlowski, Owners, 37 Burnham Street, Map 52 / Lot 271, R-33 Zone, requesting a modification of minimum side yard setback of 2 ft. (10 ft. to 8 ft.) for a 12 ft. x 20 ft. shed- EZO Section 4.10.2H: It was noted that there was a clerical error in the legal notice. The setback of 2’ is correct but it is from 5’ to 3’, not 10’ to 8’.
Mr. Michael Pawlowski represented the applicant.
Chairman Yarum asked if site coverage is still an issue, considering the correction to the clerical error.
Ms. Higley stated that Mr. Giner has said that the applicant is under the 20% lot coverage, not counting decks.
Mr. Larosa pointed out that a ruling was made by the PZC that an attached building is considered part of the primary structure, so the deck would need to be counted.
He noted that the Board had the same discussion at the November, 2011 meeting.
A review of the PZC regulations that were amended in December, 2009 stated that because the deck is not free standing, it is not an accessory structure.
Chairman Yarum noted that he does not want to see the application presented and possibly approved, yet still not be in compliance because of the 20% rule.
Ms. Higley asked if the applicant would be in compliance if the deck was not present.
Mr. Pawlowski stated that he would still be over by 41 square feet. If he were to take the doors to the basement out, he would be okay.
Mr. Pawlowski went on to say that he thinks Mr. Giner looked at the deck by aerial photos. The deck is only 5 or 6’ tall.
Mr. Larosa explained that the regulations were changed 2 years ago. If the deck is attached to the primary building, it is part of the structure, all one unit.
He went on to say that the measurements are all included in the application and Mr. Giner is indicating not to count the deck, but the regulations are clear that it should be counted.
After several calculations, it was determined that coverage allowed is 2,526 square feet; the applicant has 2,654 – an overage of 128 square feet.
Ms. Turner noted that there isn’t anything that can be removed to bring it into compliance. The applicant would need 2 variances according to the amendment.
She went on to say that she would prefer to wait until the Board has a workshop meeting with PZC on this subject before the ZBA makes a ruling on this application, so as not to rule improperly.
Ms. Higley noted that the Town Planner interprets the regulations; the ZEO enforces those interpretations.
The Board requested that Ms. Higley try to set up a workshop meeting with PZC for January 9, 10, or 11, 2012 to discuss Mr. Giner’s memo of 10/26/11 regarding decks, setbacks and lot coverage.
Chairman Yarum explained to the applicant the difficulty of completing the public hearing on this application until the ZBA meets with the PZC.
Mr. Pawlowski asked if he can add a 2nd variance request, this time for coverage, if it becomes necessary.
Chairman Yarum stated that he can. He also asked if the shed was built on site or delivered.
Mr. Pawlowski stated that he built it, on site. It has a sand/stone/block foundation. He did not seek a building permit at the time because he didn’t realize that one was required.
Mr. Larosa asked whose fence went along the side yard.
Mr. Pawlowski replied that it is his, but his neighbor was present at the meeting in case there were any questions.
At 7:36 p.m., a motion was made by Mr. Larosa and seconded by Ms. Turner to table this application to the next regular meeting of the ZBA, February 27, 2012. Vote was 5-0-0.
ZBA 2011-12-02 – Michael Reilly, Applicant / Enfield Loaves & Fishes, Inc., Owner, 28 Prospect Street, Map 24 / Lot 28, R-33 Zone, requesting a variance of the 20% lot coverage to build a 10 ft. x 12 ft. garden shed on the property on Enfield Loaves & Fishes Soup Kitchen - EZO Section 4.10.2H: Michael Reilly represented the applicant.
Ms. Higley noted that the lot is a “through lot”, having “frontage” on 2 streets, but is not a corner lot. She referred the members to page 16 of the regulations, section 3.30.7a, iv.
Mr. Reilly explained that the proposed 10 x 12’ shed is an Eagle Scout project. The shed will be used for tools, shovels, and other lawn care items. The lot has over 20% coverage and so a variance is required.
Ms. Turner asked what the shed will look like.
Mr. Reilly explained that it will have board and batten siding, a double door on the 12’ side and a single door on the 10’ side.
In response to a question by Chairman Yarum, Ms. Higley explained that this is the only area in town where 85% lot coverage is allowed.
This structure was built on the property in the late 1800’s. It is now in the R33 zone and will be held to the 20% lot coverage but she believes that it is over the allowed coverage amount only because of the R33 zone. At one time, there were no zoning laws, and prior to being in the R33 zone, it was R17.
In the Thompsonville Village District, residences and businesses can have up to 85% lot coverage.
Mr. Alaimo added that the parameters of the Thompsonville Village District are an overlay on the zoning map.
Ms. Higley added that this lot is within a street or 2 of the village. The backyard, facing Thompson Court, is actually in the village but for zoning purposes, the lot is R33. If the property were totally within the village district, there would be no need for a variance application. She added that the hardship was caused inadvertently by the zone changes.
Ms. Turner added that the building jogs out.
Chairman Yarum asked the applicant what makes this property different from others in the area.
Mr. Reilly replied that it is used as a soup kitchen. Having the shed would allow equipment to be safely stored and easily retrieved when needed. Shovels and ice-melt products could be accessed immediately for the safe entry and exit of those utilizing the building.
Mr. Reilly, Sr. added that equipment is now stored “everywhere”.
Chairman Yarum summarized, by stating that it would be a safety concern because of the number of people going in and out of the Kitchen, and currently there is no place to store equipment that is needed quickly.
Ms. Turner stated that she would want a Certificate of Compliance required so that the ZEO is able to go out on to the property and see that the rules of the variance have been followed.
At this time the hearing was opened for public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak for or against this application.
The public hearing was closed by Chairman Yarum at 7:54 p.m.
A motion was made by Mr. Larosa and seconded by Ms. Turner to approve ZBA 2011-12-02.
Discussion followed.
Ms. Turner noted that the way the application was described, this is a safety issue. And the building will be behind the main structure – it is the only place it can go.
She again requested the requirement of a Certificate of Compliance.
Mr. Larosa asked if an amendment to the application is required, to include the site line of the building.
Ms. Higley agreed that it would be required.
Mr. Larosa’s motion was revised, with Ms. Turner making the second to approve 2011-12-02 with the following revision: The accessory structure will be in front of the rear site line, given the building/lot configuration. Vote was 5-0-0.
Reason for approval was: Given the building/lot exceeds 150 years old and that it is now open to the public as a soup kitchen, the hardship lies within the need to keep the property maintained in a safe manner, and the storage of those maintenance items. In addition, Thompsonville Center District that is within a block, allows for 85% lot coverage.
8. OTHER BUSINESS – Discussion of Zoning Certificate of Compliance versus Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Turner read a memo from Ray Warren regarding Certificates Of Zoning Compliance versus Certificates of Occupancy.
A Certificate of Occupancy is for buildings. A Certificate of Compliance is for things. A certificate of Compliance is a zoning regulation, not a building regulation.
The memo noted that some things don’t require Certificates of Occupancy and some projects do not have buildings, such as parking lots, dog parks.
Mr. Larosa noted that according to the regulations, everything has to have either a Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Compliance.
Ms. Turner added that if the rules were followed as they are written, there would be many fewer issues.
Ms. Higley agreed and noted that the regulations state that new structures or additions over a certain number of square feet should have an “As Built for foundation” survey. She added that she has no way to see when permits require her review.
Ms. Turner stated that she hopes that by speaking with PZC and adding the Certificate of Compliance to all ZBA applications, the lack of communications will stop.
She again stated that the current regulations don’t need to be re-written, just enforced.
Members discussed potentially changing the ZBA application form to incorporate the requirement of a Certificate of Compliance for every application.
Ms. Turner stated that she feels that the ZEO should have the opportunity to make sure that a building is in compliance with the zoning regulations. She gave the example of the Robbins property.
Members held lengthy discussion of the building permit process and ART meetings.
They also discussed how other towns, such as Simsbury, accomplish the application staff sign off process.
Ms. Turner stated that she feels it is vital to require a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The regulations state that one “shall” be requested.
Chairman Yarum noted that 3 separate letters from him to the Building Department have not been acted upon regarding the ZEO being informed when a foundation is installed on new construction, to make sure that setback requirements are met. This is in the regulations.
Ms. Turner asked that the joint meeting with PZC include decks and lot coverage, certificates of compliance and “As Built” surveys.
Members held further discussion and felt that every building permit should be reviewed by Ms. Higley and if it is not applicable, she signs off as such.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None.
10. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Mr. Larosa and seconded by Ms. Turner to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________
Mary Ann Turner, Secretary
|