The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Avon held a meeting on Thursday, July 30, 2009 at the Avon Town Hall. Present were Messrs. Drew, Eschert, Ladouceur, McNeill and McCahill, Planning & Community Development Specialist. Mr. Drew called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING July 30, 2009
The Clerk read the call to meeting.
Mr. Drew explained that normally this is a five member board, tonight there are only four members present because of illness. The actions of the board must be unanimous where if we had five members, we could have one descending vote. You have the opportunity not to have this application heard tonight and could defer until the next meeting which is in September.
Mr. & Mrs. Holjes agreed to go forward.
Mr. Drew read the Application of John & Anne Holjes, owners, Anne Holjes applicant; requesting from the Avon Zoning Regulations, Section IV.A.6., a 4’ variance from the 20’ side yard setback requirement, to permit a deck, located at 3 Stevens Street in an R-30 zone.
John and Anne Holjes were present. Mr. Holjes said in the picture you can see the drop off and where they plan to build stairs for an entry way where the door to the house is located. This will be the main entrance to the deck. They will plant scrubs at the top of the hill to stop anyone from falling down the hill.
Mrs. Holjes said the deck has a wrap around to the side where the door is located. It will be 5’ wide so 2 people can walk and for the door to open. The side yard requirement is 20’, they need a 4’ variance for just that part of the deck. The majority of the deck is in the back of the house and does not need a variance.
There was no one else present. The Public Hearing closed at 7:38 p.m.
Mr. Drew read the Application of Joanne C. Seamans, owner, Alden W. Seamans applicant; requesting from the Avon Zoning Regulations, Sections IV.A.6. & IV.A.2., a 14’ variance from the 30’ rear yard setback requirement; a 197 sq.ft. variance from the 1,000 sq.ft. allowed for outbuildings, to permit a 17’x17’ car port addition to remain attached to existing shed, located at 3 Mountain Ledge Road in an R-15 zone. Mr. Drew made explained the four member board to Mr. Seamans as he was not present for the start of the meeting. Mr. Seamans agreed to go forward.
Mr. Seamans was present. He said he works on his cars under the car port. Mr. McCahill had stopped by one day and explained he would need a variance for the car port addition. The other alternative was to take off the metal roof and instead put a tarp over it making it a temporary structure. None of this can be seen from the road. He said the neighbor has a hedge on one side, the other side has a fence and then his house shields it from the road. It’s not visible unless you walk onto the property about 75’ from the road. There is nothing behind his property. The neighbor is at least 150’ from the property line. The side yard is not affected.
Mr. McCahill said we allow 1,000 sq.ft. of out buildings. The overhang does have a roof on it so by definition it does become something we count toward the allowed 1,000 sq.ft. He currently has an 816 sq.ft. garage, 192 sq.ft. for the existing shed which has been on the property for quite some time. That’s 908 sq.ft., then the 17’x17’ structure is 289 sq.ft. The total is 1197 sq.ft. of roof surface which is 197 sq.ft. in excess of what we allow. Also the structure does encroach on the rear property line so he needs a 14’ variance from the 30’ rear yard property line.
Mr. Ladouceur asked if he could put the car port on the right side of the shed instead of where it is presently located. It appears there is room between the shed and the garage which would require no rear yard variance, just the sq. ft. variance.
Mr. Seamans replied he probably would not move it as he is getting older. The shed was old when he moved in. The Town allowed him to remove the old shed and replace it in the same location. It has been there a long time.
Mr. McCahill stated without the variance, he could tear off the roof and replace it with a bunch of tarps over the 2x4’s that are there so he could still work on his car. That was the solution we talked about. The building code states that if something is temporary, it does not need a permit. This does not beautify the property. There was a comment from a neighbor that if you walk by, you can look through the side of the property and see the tarp. Without the variance he will tear off the roof and add more tarps which is not going to accomplish our objectives.
Mr. Ladouceur said the picture of the structure shows a car sticking out of it. He asked if the car fit in the structure and if the structure could have side walls. Mr. McCahill replied he could have side walls.
Mr. Seamans said he was working on the car and left it out as it needed to be painted. He could have pulled it in a little further. He was not planning to put on side walls
Mr. Drew read the letter from Marie Poirier, 4 Mountain Ledge Road across the street was in favor of this application.
There was no one else present. The Public Hearing closed at 7:55 p.m.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING July 30, 2009
A Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was held following the Public Hearing.
Mr. Ladouceur made a motion to GRANT, seconded by Mr. Eschert the Application of John & Anne Holjes, owners, Anne Holjes applicant; requesting from the Avon Zoning Regulations, Section IV.A.6., a 4’ variance from the 20’ side yard setback requirement, to permit a deck, located at 3 Stevens Street in an R-30 zone. The vote was unanimous by Messrs. Drew, Eschert, Ladouceur and McNeill.
Reason – To grant 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. Eschert made a motion to GRANT, seconded by Mr. McNeill; the Application of Joanne C. Seamans, owner, Alden W. Seamans applicant; requesting from the Avon Zoning Regulations, Sections IV.A.6. & IV.A.2., a 14’ variance from the 30’ rear yard setback requirement; a 197 sq.ft. variance from the 1,000 sq.ft. allowed for outbuildings, to permit a 17’x17’ car port addition to remain attached to existing shed, located at 3 Mountain Ledge Road in an R-15 zone. Discussion followed.
Mr. Ladouceur said the one problem with this application is that granting this variance will not necessarily improve the visibility or the beauty of the neighborhood because the tarps that are visible around the perimeter of the shed are still going to be visible afterwards. Mr. Seamans has clearly stated that he has no intention to move it to the other side of the property which would take it further from the neighbors property lines and if it’s denied, the way around it would be to put a tarp over the roof structure which I think will not change the visibility of it. It would add other issues such as snow and there is electricity and lights in there. The applicant said he did not plan to put up permanent walls either. There are tarps on three of the walls. The one that you can see from the road would be
just the front tarp.
Mr. Drew said this is unusual in terms of our applications, the terms of the structure and what it represents. If he came in and said he wanted walls and a door it would be more attractive.
Mr. McCahill said the entire property is fenced, there is really nobody that can see into this property on either the side or rear properties. The only way to see it is from the front on a 45 degree angle from his driveway looking toward the rear of the property that allows you to see the front of this structure where the car sticks out.
Mr. Drew said it is visible if somebody is walking by, it’s not impacting on the neighbors. In fact the person across the street is saying she doesn’t have a problem with this. There was no other correspondence about this application.
Mr. Ladouceur said if we approve this, the use and appearance would be permitted and there would be nothing to prevent the owner from putting permanent walls on it in the future without involving the ZBA, just by the building codes.
The vote on the Application of Joanne C. Seamans, owner, Alden W. Seamans, applicant was unanimous by Messrs. Drew, Eschert, Ladouceur and McNeill.
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.
The 2010 ZBA calendar was approved by the Board.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley C. Kucia, Clerk
| 
