The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Avon held a meeting on Thursday, February 26, 2009 at the Avon Town Hall. Present were Messrs. Ladouceur, Eschert, McNeill, Paine, Ms. Mozzicato and Mr. McCahill, Planning & Community Development Specialist.
Mr. Eschert made a motion to nominate Mr. Ladouceur as Acting Chairman for this meeting, seconded by Ms. Mozzicato, vote was unanimous. Mr. Ladouceur called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING February 26, 2009
The Clerk read the call to meeting.
Mr. Ladouceur read the Application of Douglas Merrifield owner, Brian Kowalchik applicant; requesting from the Avon Zoning Regulations, Sections III.C. & IV.A.6., a 6’ variance to the 40’ Pine Trail front yard setback requirement and 18’ variance to the Secret Lake Road 40’ front yard setback requirement to permit a 12’x12’ deck on an existing nonconforming dwelling, located at 2 Pine Trail in an R-15 zone.
Mr. Brian Kowalchik, builder said they propose to build a 12’x12’ deck. He showed pictures of proposed location for deck and where the two roads are in relation to the deck. The retaining wall is made from concrete and stone. The deck will be at ground level, about 8” to the top, located off the double sliding glass doors in the photo.
Mr. McCahill said back in September this Board did grant a variance for the addition at the back corner of the property. At that time he had proposed a wrap around deck that was going to be on the Secret Lake and Pine Trail side of the house. There was some concern expressed by some of the abutters and the Secret Lake Association itself. Mr. Kowalchik withdrew the application for the wrap around deck at the meeting. Mr. McCahill received a call a few days ago from Sue Anderson, president of the Secret Lake Association, and she indicated that as long as there was no encroachment of the deck closer to the two roads, they would have no concern.
There was no one else present for this application. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:37 p.m.
Mr. Ladouceur read the Application of Thomas A. & Karen L. Gilbb owners/applicants; requesting from the Avon Zoning Regulations, Section IV.A.2., an 84’ sq.ft. variance which exceeds the 1,000 sq.ft. allowed for accessory buildings, to permit a 96 sq.ft. tool shed (a 988 sq.ft. accessory building exists), located at 533 West Avon Road in an R-30 zone.
Ms. Mozzicato said for the record that she knows Karen Gibbs on a professional basis. I’m a mortgage loan officer and she’s a real estate agent in the town. She does not believe that will in any way impair her ability to be fair. She can be impartial.
Attorney David Peck said he is representing Mr. & Mrs. Gibb and would like to reserve the opportunity to address the Board at the conclusion of their presentation.
Mrs. Gibb presented three additional letters in favor of the application and one opposed since she presented the original application. Also copies of the application with photos of the garage from the front, with the cars parked inside, and the shed in the current state.
Mr. Ladouceur said there is a series of letters signed by different property owners, some with notations at the bottom. Mrs. Gibb replied they were sent out to abutters as well as people who have been in the house, builders, and friends. It was also sent to other people on West Avon Road who have antique houses.
Mr. Gibb said this is a non conforming lot because the front rim of the house and the porch are closer to the road that is currently allowed under the existing zoning laws. Their home was built in 1840, long before the zoning laws went into effect. They took a distressed property in this town and made significant improvements trying to keep the heritage and the flavor of the home intact. Our efforts have led us to be featured in two magazines in the Connecticut valley region which we take as a compliment to what we’ve done. They’ve met many people in town who have commented on what a nice job they’ve done with the house. They’ve taken on a bigger tax liability and with Avon running out of tax dollars, projects are becoming more important for our town to generate additional tax revenue.
In the process in what we’ve done in the past four and a half years, we’ve continually been met with objection by one adjacent property owner. We don’t understand all the objections, all we’ve done is increase the property value and paid additional taxes by doing so. There’s a letter sent to this Board that wrongly states that this is our third appeal. Again that’s not accurate. We were hoping to receive from the previous owner of our house a letter that said he left because of the problems that were going on with trying to renovate the property and this adjacent property owner. We’re asking this Board to work with us. We’re trying to keep this house in the heritage from which it was delivered, spent a lot of money to make it look right and look good,
and I think we’ve achieved that. Our other options for storage are not pretty, a tent, a tarp, a pod, something silly. We’re trying to invest in this property and continually improve it and work with quality builders like Bill Kurtz from Four Square. The hardship is we need additional space to keep our tools. We built a garage that was 988 sq.ft., they need another 98 sq.ft. to keep the gas powered snow blower, lawn mower, tractor, trailer and everything associated with them. Our garage is full as the pictures show. He doesn’t want to drive the tractor down the steps that were installed in 1911 to the basement of our home. We respectfully request that you approve this for these reasons.
Mr. Moynihan said he had to correct Mr. Gibb’s comment on the number of variances requested. They first applied for a variance to enlarge the house, the second variance was to make a six car tandem garage and all three abutters objected to that. Today’s variance is number three. He mentioned his letter dated February 23, 2009 objecting to this variance. They were out of town in October & November due to an illness of a family member. When they returned, the Gibbs has torn down a two car garage and they were in the process of building this 1,000 sq.ft. garage. He contacted the town and they said they changed the zoning regulations from a 600 sq.ft. requirement to 1,000 sq.ft. for detached buildings. After they got their garage done they started to add the storage shed. Mr.
Moynihan lives at the corner of Hollister and West Avon Road. He showed pictures taken from his lot toward the Gibb house. He has a two car garage himself with all his equipment in it. He doesn’t understand why they need another 10% structure to hold tools. Isn’t 988 sq.ft. enough. He’s surprised to hear they have tools that use gas engines as he’s never seen them use them. They must have them stored somewhere else. He said he never received a letter from the Gilbbs saying they were building this.
When the rules are made, you can build a 1,000 sq.ft. building, you submit your plans, they’re approved by the building department and then you try to sneak in another 100 sq.ft. The town told them to stop. Why make a rule for allowing 1,000 sq.ft. for an accessory building and then let them go over. He also thinks the roof of the new garage is higher than the house which is not allowed. They did have a problem with the neighbor before that. He put in a two car post and beam tandem garage as he had antique cars. When the Gibbs bought the property, they broke into the garage and made it a family room. He was upset they got letters from all over the town, he thought this meeting was just for abutters.
Mr. Bill Kurtz, president of Four Square Post and Beam said they built the two car garage for the previous owner Marcel Robaczynski, and are now building this garage for the Gibbs. He said Mr. Robaczynski confided in me that the reason he left Avon was because of the neighbor who constantly gave him a hard time. He just had a hip replacement and is confined to the house so he could not attend tonight’s meeting and asked me to convey his message.
Mrs. Gibb said when they bought the lot they did not understand nor was it brought up by the building department that it was a nonconforming house. When they applied for a building permit to renovate the house they were granted a variance by this board as the house is nonconforming. The second time they did want to enlarge the garage as part of the original plan; it was denied as there was an objection. They have only used the one variance. Then the town zoning regulations increased the minimum size allowed for an outbuilding. She said they have been very neighborly, have had no problem with other areas where they have lived. They sent out letters to abutters and to people on West Avon Road who live in antique homes asking for their support. There is only one person who has opposed this application. They have done everything to improve this property. They have solid pine trees from their house to the fence. They are well within the regulations for amount of land to
building structure. They might paint the garage white or stain it with white trim. When they meet with the painters in the spring they will make the decision. We miscalculated the amount of area we needed for the garage. They are looking for 84 extra sq.ft.
Mr. Moynihan stated that Mrs. Gibb is in real estate, she should have known that it was nonconforming. He said since the renovation he can see right into the house. He said Mrs. Gibb came over when they first moved there to tell him what they proposed to do with the house. She hasn’t come over since. He’s been in Avon 22 years, has great neighbors on the other side. If the town makes a regulations for 1,000 sq.ft., then they should abide by that. From his deck he can see their garage. His lot is 300’x125’, one of the biggest yards in town.
Atty. David Peck representing the Gibbs on this application said the testimony from Mr. Moynihan that he was dwelling on the issue that the variance will enable anyone to circumvent the zoning regulations in town. That is not the case. This would not apply to a garage that was attached to the house. There are ways to do that. This was not done with malicious intent or disregard to the regulations with the thought the regulations were flexible or they would get away with whatever they desired with this property. With all due respect to Mr. Moynihan the regulations are not to be trounced upon. There is a request for a variance and that is why the Gibbs are here.
The Gibbs have two adult sons who stay with them frequently and have a number of vehicles. This is a four bedroom property so they are entitled to have five garages. Mention was made the variance was sought as a matter of convenience. It is not the basis of this application.
The hardship is gas, power and lawn equipment that would otherwise have to be stored in the basement of an antique wood framed home which would be a safety issue. He hopes the photos speak for themselves that the work that has been done, the style, effort and not just the expense, but the true investment that was made for this project (the garage and addition) is such that it’s absolutely consistent with the character of the community and town conservation plan and an asset to the neighborhood. And of course there are 23 letters in favor of the applicants. The second element to the hardship, if the variance were denied, would deny the Gibbs a reasonable use of the property. To store the gas equipment in a tent would not be in the spirit of the property or neighborhood and his clients are not interested in doing
that out of respect to the community.
Ms. Mozzicato commented she went to observe the house as she knows Mrs. Gibb and wanted to make sure she could be completely fair. She had asked if the house had a mortgage only to mention that if you have a mortgage you are prohibited from storing gas products in the house. This has been in effect for the past ten years as part of the mortgage.
Mr. Ladouceur said there are twenty three letters for this application. Two are abutters, Mr. Naigle, 529 West Avon Road and Mr. Mason, 521 West Avon Road.
Other letters are from people on West Avon Road who have antique homes and people who approached the Gibbs who commented how they took a distressed property and make it what it is.
Mr. Moynihan said the building their putting up is not consistent with the houses in the neighborhood. If you drive up Hollister they all have two car garages, called modest homes. You don’t find tandem garages, great big structures. It appears to him that the roof line is higher than the roof line on the house. The Gibbs were told by the town to stop putting up the shed as it was not on the original building plan.
Mr. McCahill said Mr. Sanson is our building official and has done a number of inspections on this property with regard to the outbuilding under construction. His last inspection was January 20th. When he drove by on January 22nd he noted there was an additional structure being built to the south of the existing garage. He had a discussion with Bill Kurtz, builder, and asked him to cease the work, then had a discussion with the Gibbs. That afternoon they came in to apply for a building permit. Then Mr. McCahill contacted both the owners and builder to advise them he couldn’t sign off on the zoning aspect of that building permit. At this time that permit is on hold as is the existing two car garage. The other option they have is to trim 84 sq.ft. off the existing garage,
which obviously they aren’t going to do. With both of the outbuildings being there, we cannot sign off for zoning on either permit until this issue is resolved.
Mr. Gibb stated that Mr. Kurtz started the shed when they realized there wasn’t enough room in the garage. Mr. Gibb was going through a battle with cancer going through surgery, chemo and radiation. Mr. Gibb told Bill he would get the permit and he didn’t get it. He made a mistake. Bill was under the impression that Mr. Gibb had gotten the permit. As soon as they got the cease and desist, they stopped. The frame of the shed is on blocks which can be moved at any time. Unfortunately he was more concerned about battling his disease than thinking about getting the permit. He messed up.
Mr. Eschert stated that going through the paperwork he noticed that Karen Gibb was the realtor that sold my builder the house he lives in now. He does not have a continuing relationship with her so he does not see any conflict with this application.
Mr. Ladouceur said there were 23 form letters from people in favor of application, many putting notes at the bottom and one with a letter attached and one from Mr. Moynihan opposed. All Board members have copies.
Ms. Mozzicato suggested the shed could be moved to the opposite side of the garage if that would be a better location to accommodate everyone’s concerns.
Mr. Gibb stated there was a pool on that side. It could be put on the back of the garage as it’s on blocks. The present location of the shed would be convenient for him to get out his snow blower and tractor to be accessible to the driveway. The location of the shed is not in anyone’s view.
Mr. Moynihan stated that it could be moved but they would still be over the 1,000 sq.ft. limit. He would object to anything over what is allowed by the regulations.
Mr. McCahill said the zoning regulation prior to June, 2006, had language that you were limited to 600 sq.ft. for an out building using the regular set back requirements. If the outbuilding was set back 150’ from any property line you could increase the size to 1,000 sq.ft. The other part of that language said we counted floor area on each level in outbuildings. If you had a 500 sq.ft. building and you had two floors, that would be equivalent to 1,000 sq.ft. in floor area. There was a problem with the size we were allowing as somewhat restrictive so in June, 2006 the Planning and Zoning Commission took it upon themselves to change their regulations to try to accommodate what seemed to be a repeat of variances to this Board. Now you can have a 1,000 sq.ft. footprint from normal setback requirements in your
area. We only allow outbuildings for cars and storage.
There was no one else present. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING February 26, 2009
A Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was held following the Public Hearing.
Ms. Mozzicato made a motion to GRANT, seconded by Mr. Paine the Application of Douglas Merrifield owner, Brian Kowalchik applicant; requesting from the Avon Zoning Regulations, Sections III.C. & IV.A.6., a 6’ variance to the 40’ Pine Trail front yard setback requirement and 18’ variance to the Secret Lake Road 40’ front yard setback requirement to permit a 12’x12’ deck on an existing nonconforming dwelling, located at 2 Pine Trail in an R-15 zone. The vote was unanimous by Messrs. Ladouceur, Eschert, McNeill, Paine and Ms. Mozzicato.
Reason – The granting of the variance is in harmony and keeping with the purpose and intent of the regulations and would not be injurious to the neighborhood.
Hardship – To deny would deprive the owner of a reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Ladouceur opened the application for 533 West Avon Road for discussion.
Ms. Mozzicato said she was trying to find a location solution. We are here because they want a variance. We have to look at the total picture. That’s why she suggested a different location to try to make everyone happy but it’s not the shed itself, it’s the extra sq.ft. over the amount regulated by the regulations. She looked at the property today and did not see where that little shed changed the character of the neighborhood or took away from it. Her concern was if Mr. Moynihan said the position of the shed was objectionable, but that was not the case. She doesn’t like the idea of storing gasoline in a heated area or against a wall that was heated. That could be a fire hazard.
Mr. Paine said we have been making exceptions as long as they were not abusive or would set a president to overcome.
Mr. Ladouceur looked at the pictures showing the blue tarp. It would not be noticeable if the roof was black same as the garage. The pine trees look very thick. The pictures showing the cars, makes little room for all the other items they plan to place in the shed. He thinks you need space for storage.
Mr. McNeill said the shed would look better than a collapsed tent. They are not designed to stand up under winter conditions. You could attach the shed to the house except this is a historic house and you wouldn’t want to change the integrity of the house.
Mr. McCahill said you could have a shed attached to a dwelling and it would not be counted as detached square footage. In this case, the house is already nonconforming and would need a variance to add square footage. This had already been discussed with the Gibbs.
Ms. Mozzicato wanted to thank Mr. Moynihan for his being a Marine and serving his country.
Mr. Paine made a motion to GRANT, seconded by Mr. McNeill the Application of Thomas A. & Karen L. Gilbb owners/applicants; requesting from the Avon Zoning Regulations, Section IV.A.2., an 84’ sq.ft. variance which exceeds the 1,000 sq.ft. allowed for accessory buildings, to permit a 96 sq.ft. tool shed (a 988 sq.ft. accessory building exists), located at 533 West Avon Road in an R-30 zone. The vote was unanimous by Messrs. Ladouceur, Eschert, McNeill, Paine.
Reason – Granting the variance is in harmony and keeping with the purpose and intent of the regulations and would not be injurious to the neighborhood.
Hardship – Denying would deprive the owner of a reasonable use of the property.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley C. Kucia, Clerk
| 
