NOTICE OF ACTION
ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 - 7:00 P.M.
ENFIELD TOWN HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
820 ENFIELD STREET - ENFIELD, CT
NOTES ON VARIANCES
When can a variance be granted?
A variance may be granted where such grant will not affect the overall purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, and where strict interpretation of the Ordinance will result in a hardship.
What constitutes a legal hardship?
A legal hardship exists when the Zoning ordinance uniquely affects a parcel of land differently from other properties, and where use of the property or reasonable use of the land would be impossible without the variance. Self-imposed or financial hardships cannot, by law, be considered as a reason for granting a variance.
What other issues affect the variance consideration procedure?
A variance, once granted, runs permanently with the property; there is no connection to the present or future owner(s) of the parcel. Connecticut courts have held that variances should be granted sparingly in order to protect the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. In particular, state law requires a minimum of four affirmative votes of the five-person Board in order to grant a variance.
Should there be only four members present at a meeting, and should a quorum be met without any abstentions on the part of that Board, an applicant shall be given the option of waiting until the next regularly scheduled meeting for their application to be heard at Public Hearing, or to request a special meeting should time limits require and allow.
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES
· Public Hearings for Appeals & Variances will be opened by the Chairman;
· Presentations & testimony will be heard;
· Comments for & against the application will be solicited from members of the audience present, and;
· Final comments by the applicant are then allowed.
· The hearing will then be closed (unless the it has been tabled to the n ext meeting), the application discussed by the Board, and a vote taken (a minimum of four concurring votes are required by law for approval).
· Upon completion of the vote, applicants may leave if they wish.
AGENDA
THE MEETING WILL ADJOURN AT 9:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER – Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL – Peter Yarum, Chairman, and Board members John LeDoux, Jr., Edward Furey and Elizabeth Ballard were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 29, 2004 – Ms. Ballard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of March 29, 2004. Ms. Ballard made a correction on page 5. “Chairman Ballard” should read “Chairman Yarum.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING(S) / PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN
(Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Enquirer on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, and Monday, April 19, 2004.)
VARIANCES -NEW
READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE
5a. ZBA 2004-04-01 - Thomas K. & Marie Galaske, 26 Holiday Lane, Map 92 / Lot 104, R33 Zone, Parking an allowed Recreational Vehicle forward of the required setback behind the front building line- EZO Section 4.20.1[3] TABLE NOTES
Because only four Board members were present this evening and four votes are required to approve a variance, Thomas and Marie Galaske opted to return with their variance application at the May 24, 2004 meeting.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to take items out of order and consider 2004-02-03 at this time. The motion was approved unanimously; see section 6a, below.
READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE
5b. ZBA 2004-04-02 - Lepak, 32 West Shore Drive, Map 80 / Lot 143, R-33 Zone, variance to allow an accessory structure forward of the rear building line to allow construction of a three car garage - EZO Section 3.30.7A[i] – This public hearing was closed.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a variance to allow an accessory structure forward of the rear building line to allow construction of a three-car garage - EZO Section 3.30.7A[i].
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Property of Mark & Patricia Lepak, Ed Lally and Associates, dated October 1979", submitted for this application and showing the location of the proposed garage , and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-04-02. This variance is solely for the area indicated on the noted site plan; no other setback incursions are granted or implied.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote. The Board further noted that the accessory structure has to be located according to the site plan submitted.
READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE
5c. ZBA 2004-04-03 - Jeanne Mango, Applicant/Owner, 34 Glenwood Street., Map 76 / Lot 87, R-33 Zone, requesting a 2.5' variance of the side yard setback for an attached garage - EZO Section 4.10.2 H – This public hearing was closed.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for a 2.5' variance of the side yard setback for an attached 24' x 24' garage - EZO Section 4.10.2 H
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Map showing survey of lot #34 from a 1953 map titled 'Glenwood' Megson & Hyyppa, Civil Engineers, as revised by Hyyppa on 5/3/65", submitted for this application and showing the location of the proposed garage , and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2004-04-03. This variance will be solely for the area indicated on the noted site plan; no other setback incursions are granted or implied.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
REVISIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS BY-LAWS
READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE
5c. ZBA 2004-04-04 - Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals, revisions to the Bylaws of the board: (1) Chairman's statement regarding procedures, etc. - adding it to the by-laws as APPENDIX I; (2) Re-formatting the agenda and adding it to the Bylaws as APPENDIX II – This public hearing was closed.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Ms. Ballard, to approve the revisions to the Bylaws of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals which include: (1) the Chairman’s statement regarding procedures, etc, and adding it to the Bylaws as Appendix I; and (2) reformatting the agenda and adding it to the Bylaws as Appendix II. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS - NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
SUITABILITY OF LOCATION [new or used car sales, general repairer license, limited repairer license, gasoline service stations]
6a. ZBA 2004-02-03 – Enfield Ford d.b.a. Quick Lane, 33 Palomba Drive, Map 57 / Lot 343, BR Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability – General Repairer License. – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C. (NOTE: Amendment Sec. 70 to the state budget affecting suitability of location statutes reinstates the ZBA as the required approver of a certificate of location. Sec. 10 of the original PA 03-184 remains in effect; that section repealed CGS 14-55 that required a public hearing.)
Ms. Ballard made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request to approve a Certificate of Suitability under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-54, for the new operation of a General Repairer’s License, under the applicant’s ownership, where previously a Limited Repairer's license was approved. Said operation is to be at the described location [33 Palomba Drive - units 7 & 8] and as delineated on the 3-page site plan approved on 4/1/02 by the Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission, and as submitted with the application ZBA #2004-02-03, titled (sheet 1) “Layout & Landscaping, Car Care Mall, Manchem Limited Partnership, Palomba Drive, dated 6-1-88, revised 2/19/89", (sheet 2) "Map Showing As-Built Property of Manchem LTD. Partnership, Volume 115 / Page 35, dated 10/10/89", and (sheet 3) "Floor Plan Prepared for Enfield Ford D.B.A. Quick Lane, 33 Palomba Drive, Enfield, CT and dated 3/3/04".
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Discussion item: ZBA inquiry re abstention from voting, and how it affects a decision. Response received from Assistant Town Attorney
· Discussion item: Additional items per any requests of the Board with a 2/3 vote
ADJOURNMENT – Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a 4 – 0 – 0 vote, the Board adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
|