|
ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 24, 2006 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
Edward Furey
Kevin Kibbe
Paul Thorogood, Voting Alternate
Richard Scott Hozempa, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of March 27, 2006. The Minutes were amended to correct page 10, seventh sentence under Other Business as follows: “The response stated that the Chairman of any board cannot enforce a board member to resign...” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of the approval letters for ZBA 2006-01 and 2006-02, the Bylaws with the proposed amendments, a copy of the application form and a copy of the agenda template with proposed amendments.
Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the proposed workshop for the Board brought up previously and noted it is Mr. Giner’s opinion that the workshop originally decided upon may not be as productive as another one he knows about. Mr. Alsbaugh will meet with Mr. Giner in the near future to plan a Board workshop. He noted the Board has new members and three members have expressed an interest in such a workshop.
Chairman Yarum addressed the one member of the Board that has been absent for some time. He has written to that individual asking that he consider resigning in order to give someone else an opportunity to serve on the Board.
Mr. Alsbaugh informed the Board about procedure suggested by the Town Attorney’s Office. The town had a recent appeal before the court which was just settled in the Town’s favor. One of the issues brought up was the issue of staff producing approval or denial letters. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the Assistant Town Attorney has requested that the Secretary of the Board actually sign the approval or denial letter and, in addition, the Board should fully discuss all items they wish to include in the letter. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the information (in the approval or denial letter) has to reflect what the Board talked about and it must be signed by the Secretary so that there is no question that it came directly from the Board.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VARIANCES – NEW
ZBA 2006-04-01 – Jeffrey H. Kontner, Applicant and Owner, 15 Howard Street, Map 54/Lot 230, R-33 Zone, requesting a coverage variance of 0.62%, 20% allowed, 11.238% existing, 20.62 proposed to construct a handicap accessible addition – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Jeffrey Kontner appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated others present regarding this application include his wife, his son, his sister and his neighbor, Timothy Sikes. He stated he likes where he lives and rather than move, it is his intent to build an addition. He noted he initially designed the proposed addition and while meeting with the Planning Department, he learned about zoning restrictions and setbacks. This caused him to do some revisions to his plans. His original plan included a two-car garage, a covered porch, a three-season room and a deck but the total addition would be located 12.5’ from the property line. He was advised by the Planning Department to request the minimum needed. He decided to forget about the new garage, did away with the covered porch and deck and rearranged the actual addition to be staggered. The result was the addition would be within the 35’ setback.
Mr. Kontner stated the addition will be handicapped accessible and all the hallways have been eliminated. Because he does not negotiate stairs well, the addition could not be built up.
Mr. Kontner stated to the rear of the property along the fence, there is a great deal of erosion that has occurred and he is about to lose his rear fence especially in the southeast corner. He noted the necessity to bring in fill and stabilize the fence.
Mr. Kontner stated he thought the revised plans came within the coverage requirements but his surveyor found they were .62% over. In order to go below that .62%, he would have to tear down half of his present garage and he doesn’t want to lose his garage. It is 159 square feet over. Mr. Kontner stated he is not requesting any encumbrances on the building line or height. The addition will be a single-story building and will fit in with the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Kontner stated the proposed addition will not be visible from the street since everything is behind the present structure. The courtyard will remain a courtyard and he is hoping to save the two existing trees.
Mr. Furey stated he has never had anyone come forward trying to comply with the zoning regulations as this applicant has. He felt that Mr. Kontner has done a very good job in trying to comply with the regulations and his variance request is minimal.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the variance request before the Board is for coverage. He noted the intent is to construct a handicapped accessible addition and he asked about the specifics of the addition.
Mr. Kontner stated the addition would include a family room, a kitchen, a dining room and a master bedroom with a handicapped accessible bathroom. There will also be a second bath. The existing bathroom will be made handicapped accessible. The present kitchen, which is a galley kitchen, will be turned into a laundry room. The rest of the house will remain the same because Mr. Kontner stated he won’t really use it. The two bedrooms will be combined into one meaning the home will remain a three-bedroom home. There will be two handicapped equipped bathrooms and a large walk in closet. There will be no hallways, just entrances and exits.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about ramps. Mr. Kontner stated these will be needed eventually. However, he was told not to include them in the plans because they will be temporary. The intent is to put a ramp in the breezeway opening and a ramp coming out into the courtyard in the future.
Mr. Hozempa asked if consideration was given to renovate the interior of the existing home to meet the need for handicapped accessibility. Mr. Kontner stated they looked at that but this is a Starr ranch. He would have to tear out both sides of the hallway because there is no way to get a wheelchair down that hallway and this would have cost more.
Mr. Kontner stated the existing kitchen will be turned into a laundry room because the intent is to have everything on one floor. The present bedroom and the small one behind it will be combined into one room which will connect to a bathroom. Mr. Kontner stressed that it is a three-bedroom home and it will remain a three-bedroom home with a single kitchen and everything moved up from the basement that can be moved up.
Chairman Yarum stated within the application, he sees no mention of converting the home into a handicapped accessible one. The application is based upon the erosion taking place at the rear of the property. Mr. Kontner stated that is an oversight on his part.
Chairman Yarum asked how the erosion will be corrected. Mr. Kontner stated they will use the dirt coming out from the new basement. His engineer is going to re-grade the back and grade that entire slope down. He has about 12.5’ from his fence to the property line and that will be properly graded and sloped.
Chairman Yarum stated he did visit this property and there is a difference in elevation between Mr. Kontner’s property and his neighbor’s of about six to eight feet. He would also estimate that the slope is for every foot of lawn there is two feet of rise which is quite steep. By adding material to it and softening the grade, the erosion will be addressed.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he also visited the site and he would concur with the Chairman’s comments.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public.
Timothy Sikes, 17 Howard Street, commented that he and Mr. Kontner have been neighbors for at least fifteen years and he was in favor of this request. Mr. Sikes considers it a medical need in order to make Mr. Kontner’s life better and he asked that the Board give this application favorable consideration.
Chairman Yarum asked if Mr. Sikes experiences runoff from Mr. Kontner’s property to his property. Mr. Sikes stated it is minimal and there is nothing that has caused him any adverse effects. He reiterated that he has no objections to this request.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve ZBA 2006-04-01, the request for a coverage variance of 0.62%, 20% allowed, 11.28% existing, 20.62% proposed to construct a handicap accessible addition – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a zoning location survey entitled “ZONING LOCATION SURVEY OF 15 HOWARD STREET, ENFIELD, CT, SHEET 1 OF 1, (and dated) 03-20-06”, showing the existing conditions and proposed improvements, and a table of data for which a variance is requested, as submitted of this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2006-04-01.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Hozempa voting.
The reason for approval is the variance was the minimum requested to maintain the property. The applicant has requested the variance in order to conform to handicapped accessibility.
ZBA 2006-04-02 – Adspresso, LLC, Applicant and Adsmedia, LLC, Owner, 540 Enfield Street, Map 33/Lot 63, BL Zone, requesting a freestanding sign setback variance of 9 feet, 10 feet required, a freestanding sign minimum frontage variance of 3.1 feet, 75 feet required, 71.9 feet existing, and a parking area landscape setback variance of 10 feet (previously 7 feet), 10 feet required, 3 feet proposed, existing not applicable, to provide signage and parking for change of use. – EZO Sections 10.30.1C, 10.30.5A Table, and 10.10.7A, vi.
Attorney Kate Tyler of Tyler and Tyler appeared before the Board representing Ida DiPace, owner of 540 Enfield Street. The request tonight is for three variances. In regard to the sign, there is a freestanding sign minimum frontage. They have 71.9’ and 75’ is required. They have 9’ for the setback and 10’ is required. The variances are necessary so that the sign would be visible from Enfield Street. Attorney Tyler noted if you drive by the property in either direction, the two properties on both sides of 540 Enfield Street are pushed more forward than 540 Enfield Street is. It is necessary that the sign be by the sidewalk so that it is able to be seen by vehicles driving by. Otherwise, it would be obscured by the other buildings. Additionally, on both sides there are two commercial properties which would obscure the sign.
Attorney Tyler stated they are requesting a parking area landscape setback variance of 7’. Ten feet is required and they are proposing 3’. She noted that both abutters have paved their property back to the property line. The only alternative they would have is putting the parking lot in front of the building which would not look as nice. By placing the parking behind the building, they are looking to avoid this and make the site more aesthetically pleasing.
Attorney Tyler presented a colored sketch for the Board’s information. Chairman Yarum noted receipt of a letter entitled ADS Media dated April 20, 2006 and a letter from Thomas Ragno dated April 21, 2006 in which Mr. Ragno supports this request regarding the freestanding sign, minimum frontage variance and a landscape setback variance. Chairman Yarum noted Mr. Ragno’s property directly abuts the applicant’s property.
Chairman Yarum stated also entered into the record is a drawing of the site in color detail showing lawn area, handicapped accessibility, concrete areas and bituminous areas.
Attorney Tyler presented some photographs of the site. Chairman Yarum entered into the record the colored photos of the property showing north, east, south and west elevations.
Mr. Furey stated he has viewed the property. Enfield Street in this area is a busy place and it is going to get even busier. He agreed with locating the parking in the back and noted this is not only aesthetically pleasing but he would also consider it a safety factor. Mr. Furey felt if the proposal is to use this as a business property, people need to see it coming from both ways on Enfield Street rather than having to slam on their brakes.
Mr. Thorogood agreed with Mr. Furey’s comments. He felt the parking in the back is definitely an asset. With the parking located in the front, this would be a safety issue. Regarding the sign, he advised that it be located high enough so that people coming out of the parking lot can see oncoming traffic.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the zone allows up to 20’ for the sign and the sign design is preliminary. At this time, the face design is shown but not the final height. There is the potential to go to 20’ in height.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this area is improving and to see someone make use of this building would be an asset to the town.
Chairman Yarum stated Section 10.30 of the sign regulations states all freestanding signs must be at least ten feet back from the street line. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is the front property line.
Chairman Yarum stated he did visit this property and if you look at the distance from the curb line to the building, there is 47’ and there is approximately 18’ from that headed back the other way where it does meet the sidewalk. Chairman Yarum stated to address Mr. Thorogood’s concern; he does not think visibility would be a factor for someone pulling out. There is still going to be another 30’ between the sidewalk and Enfield Street.
Chairman Yarum stated he toured both north and south of this site and there are a number of commercial properties that do have signage in the location this applicant is requesting. He does not feel it will be a hazard for anyone and there is a need for signage in the front.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Attorney Tyler added they found the monument is 2.5’ back from the sidewalk so the setback would be zero. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the applicant passed this information along to staff. Following some discussion, it was his recommendation that they present this information at tonight’s meeting and the Board with a three-quarter vote could amend whatever dimension was proposed. Chairman Yarum noted it would be a setback variance now of ten feet.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, for a revision to the text of ZBA 2006-04-02 as follows: “to approve ZBA 2006-04-02 for a freestanding sign setback variance of 3.1 feet, 75 feet required, 71.9 feet existing, and a parking area landscape setback variance of 10 feet, 10 feet required, 0 feet proposed, existing not applicable to provide signage and parking for change of use.” The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve ZBA 2006-04-02 for a freestanding sign setback variance of 3.1 feet, 75 feet required, 71.9 feet existing, and a parking area landscape setback variance of 10 feet, 10 feet required, 0 feet proposed, existing not applicable, to provide signage and parking for change of use. EZO Sections 10.30.C, 10.30.5A Table, and 10.10.7A.vi.
Reference is made to three 2-page portions of the Enfield Zoning Map (revised to 1966, 1971 and 1972); a copy of a portion of the Enfield topographical mapping from 1991 air photos showing existing conditions at 540 Enfield Street and the abutting properties and marked “ZBA 2006-04-02, received 3/31/06 RA/ap; and a proposed conditions map drawn on a 1966 survey map titled “Property of Ida DiPace, 540 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT, Proposed Site Improvement for Adspresso, Sheet 1 of 1” (undated other than the Enfield Planning Department stamp of March 30, 2006), as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2006-04-02.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he visited the property and noted it fronts a state road with no parking on it. That state right of way is at least on the other side of the sidewalk. The only place that he could see available for parking would be in the back. Compared to the abutting properties, the backyards of both properties were completely paved. As far as sign visibility headed southbound, with the Ragno property abutting north of this property, it protrudes so much it is almost right up to the sidewalk. The concrete steps are right up to the sidewalk. Also, by the time you notice this building, you have passed it.
Chairman Yarum agreed. He visited the property and if it wasn’t for the notice of the public hearing, he would also have passed the property.
Mr. Thorogood stated this request doesn’t affect the overall purpose of what they are trying to do with this property and it enhances the area. In his opinion, it would be a plus for safety and traffic visibility to have this request approved.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Thorogood voting.
The reasons for approval are it is the minimum requested for sign visibility for both customer and pedestrian safety. Rear parking is the only available option due to the state right of way. The property is located in a Business Local zone and the applicant is asking for a minimum of what the abutting properties have.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Vote on amendments to the Bylaws as discussed at the March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting, as required under Section XIV of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals Bylaws.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the Bylaws as amended and as discussed previously and reviewed at the Board’s March meeting. (Changes pertain to the Board’s discussion that the Zoning Board of Appeals is no longer the local authority for suitability of location.) The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Rinaldi requested that in future applications, Mr. Alsbaugh include information on the nearest main road.
Chairman Yarum requested an updated listing in the May meeting packet of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals list of members, their party affiliation, their phone numbers and the ZBA officers. He also requested that the attendance record for rotation be corrected to show the new officers. Mr. Thorogood requested that the information also include the email addresses of Board members. He also noted a correction that needs to be made on the attendance list.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Hozempa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Kevin Kibbe, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr |