TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR – ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
JULY 3, 2006
The East Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Monday, July 3, 2006 at the East Windsor Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, Connecticut. The following members were present: Regular Members Michael Ceppetelli, Mary Buckley, Cliff Nelson and Stan Paleski; and Alternate Member Tom Arcari. Nancy Rudek, Zoning Enforcement Official, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Michael Ceppetelli. A quorum was established as four regular members and one alternate were present. Mr. Nelson read the Legal Notice as it appeared in publication.
NEW HEARINGS:
ZBA #2006-08 Application of Homes by Guarino, for property located at 8-10 Maple Street, for a variance of Section 2.3.3 Rebuilding a Non-conforming Structure and Section 18 Residential Bulk and Area Requirements (front setback), to allow the rebuilding of a non-conforming 2-family house (partially destroyed by fire) to be located 10’ from the front property line, where 35’ is the minimum requirement [R-1 zone].
Paul Guarino and his son, Paul Guarino, Jr. came forward. Mr. Guarino, Sr. referred to a plot plan of the property and explained that they were seeking a variance to rebuild a house on a non-conforming lot. He said that about half of the house was destroyed by a fire. They want to rebuild the exact same size house using the same footprint as the original house. He also referred to the house plans. Mr. Guarino, Jr. pointed out on an aerial map that all of the houses in the area are set back the same way.
Mr. Ceppetelli opened up the hearing to the public.
James Howe, Jr., of 20-22 Maple Street stated that he was against this application. He said that he has had to pay special ordinance insurance for 32 years that would pay for tearing down the building if it was burned over two-thirds, and filling in the foundation and moving the house back. He didn’t feel it was fair to the people that own houses on the street for someone new to get permission to rebuild on the same place. He felt that since the foundation was taken down, the house should be set back 35 feet.
Mr. Ceppetelli questioned since the foundation is not there what was the advantage of rebuilding in the same location. Mr. Guarino said if they put the house 35 feet back it won’t look good on that street. He pointed out that it wasn’t actually a foundation but more of a stone wall, and part of it had collapsed because of the fire, so that’s why they tore it down. He also noted that this is a 2-family house and this location will allow for a back yard for children.
MOTION: To close the hearing on ZBA #2006-08.
Nelson / Arcari / Unanimous
Discussion and Vote:
Mr. Nelson said he looked at this property and all of the houses are in a row, all built around the same time. This is conforming with the area. He saw where some of the houses had stone foundations. He could see where the fire would make part of it fall in. He didn’t have any problem with this. Mr. Arcari said he thought this will be an improvement. Ms. Buckley felt that if they put the house back 35 feet it would be offset from the other houses. Mr. Ceppetelli was concerned that this was quite close to the road. He felt that as long as they are rebuilding the house, maybe it should be moved back a little bit more. Mr. Paleski said he would agree that all of the houses are the same on the street.
MOTION: To approve ZBA #2006-08. Nelson / Arcari
In favor: Nelson; Arcari; Buckley; Paleski
Opposed: Ceppetelli
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Ceppetelli said he was opposed on the basis that he didn’t feel there was a valid hardship and he felt there were safety concerns.
ZBA #2006-09 Application of 137 & 137A Prospect Hill, LLC, for property located at 137 and 137A Prospect Hill Road, for the following variances: Section 11.4.2.1 Signs for Unified Commercial Centers, to allow modifications to a Unified Commercial Center sign to include the replacement of the allowable 60 sq. ft. of single identity sign with individual tenant signs totaling 102 sq. ft.; and the separation of the directory sign from the identification sign and its relocation at the main entrance on Rte. 5, where the regulation allows for the directory sign below the identification sign for the Unified Commercial Center; and Section 11.4.3.6 Height of Signs, to allow a 25’ high free standing Unified Commercial Sign where 15’ is
the maximum allowed. [B-2 zone]
Tim Coon of J. R. Russo & Associates came forward. Also present were Frank Marci, representing the property owner, as well as representatives from Starbucks and Quizno’s. Mr. Coon referred to plans and pointed out that this property is located at the intersection of Routes 5 and 140. The Comfort Inn is to the north; Burger King to the west; Sofia’s Plaza across the intersection; and Sofia’s Restaurant across Route 5 to the east. Mr. Coon noted that the site plan was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on March 28, 2006 to include a 58’ by 126’ commercial building for 4 tenants. The tenants are to be a Starbucks with a drive-thru, Quizno’s Restaurant, a retail space, and a bank with a drive-thru. At
that time the signage had not been fully worked out. Mr. Coon explained that because there are 4 tenants for this building, the Zoning Regulations consider it to be a unified commercial center. As such, Section 11.4.2.1 allows a single plaza identification sign up to 60 sq. ft. and 15 feet high, with a directory located underneath with 3 sq. ft. allowed per tenant. They are requesting a variance to allow a modification to that. They want to replace the single plaza identification sign with larger individual tenant signs on a single pylon sign totaling 102 sq. ft. They are also requesting that the smaller directory sign be separated from the commercial plaza sign and be allowed at the entrance off of Route 5. Mr. Coon said the second variance is to allow the sign to be a height of 25 feet where the regulations allow 15 feet.
Mr. Coon said that this is a corner lot with restricted access. Based on discussions with the State DOT they are only allowed access off of Route 5. He said the majority of the traffic is along Route 140 and south of the intersection. As such a unified commercial sign that only has 3 sq. ft. per tenant is not adequate for their purposes. Mr. Coon said they are asking for signs that conform to the other signs in the area. He referred to a set of photos that show the signs for other businesses in the area and noted that all of the signs in the area are larger and higher than what is allowed by zoning. Mr. Coon noted that the overall signage allowed for this building, based on square footage, is 189 sq. ft. All that they are proposing comes
under what the area allows for that size building. They are looking to be consistent with the surrounding area.
Mr. Ceppetelli opened up the hearing to the public. No one came forward to speak.
MOTION: To close the hearing on ZBA #2006-09.
Nelson / Arcari / Unanimous
Discussion and Vote:
Mr. Nelson felt that these are very well designed signs. It fits in with the signs in the area. He said it will be a good addition to the town and he is in favor of it. Mr. Paleski said they have done their homework. He didn’t have a problem with it.
MOTION: To approve ZBA #2006-09.
Nelson / Arcari / Unanimous
Mr. Ceppetelli said that the sign is in keeping with everything else in the area and not a hindrance to sight lines.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION: To approve the minutes of June 5, 2006, as amended.
Nelson / Arcari / Unanimous
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To adjourn. Nelson / Arcari / Unanimous
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marlene Bauer, Recording Secretary
| 
