TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR – ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 7, 2006
The East Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Monday, August 7, 2006 at the East Windsor Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, Connecticut. The following members were present: Regular Members Michael Ceppetelli and Stan Paleski; and Alternate Members Tom Gudzunas and Dan Leone. Nancy Rudek, Zoning Enforcement Official, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Michael Ceppetelli. Mr. Paleski read the Legal Notice as it appeared in publication. A quorum was established as two regular members and two alternates were present. Mr. Ceppetelli advised the applicants that since only four members were present it would take a unanimous vote to approve either of the applications. He gave the applicants the option of waiting until the next meeting to be heard.
NEW HEARINGS:
ZBA #2006-10 – Application of Gersten Clifford & Rome, LLP on behalf of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. for property located at 59 Broad Brook Road, owned by Herbert W. and Kathleen A. Holden, for a variance of Section 2.2 Expansion of a Non-conforming Use, to allow the construction of an addition to an existing commercial garage in an A-1 zone.
Attorney Allan Koerner, of Gersten Clifford & Rome, LLP represented Mr. Holden who was present. Also representing the applicant was Dana Steele, of J. R. Russo & Associates and John Cohen, of Herb Holden Trucking. Attorney Koerner provided proof of notification to the abutting property owners. He submitted copies of a letter in support of this application which was submitted at the previous meeting. Mr. Ceppetelli read the letter from Jeffrey and Gayle Carolus, of 56 Broad Brook Road which stated that as the closest abutting property owners, they are highly in favor of granting this variance. Also submitted to the Board members were copies of a memo from Atty. Koerner, dated 8/7/06 regarding this application.
Atty. Koerner said that he reviewed the minutes of the last meeting and one point that was discussed was that this was characterized as an expansion of a nonconforming use. He felt that the better way to characterize it is that it’s an increase in the amount of business. It’s not a change of use. The applicant is not seeking to do anything that is not presently being done on the property and has not historically been done on the property. They have always done vehicle repair on the site. What they are seeking to do is expand the building so that they can bring the workers indoors. Atty. Koerner said this will reduce the impacts on the neighbors. It would permit the men to work in inclement weather.
Atty. Koerner referred to his memo and stated that the fact that a nonconforming business grows and expands on a piece of property is not an illegal expansion of a nonconforming use because there is no change of use. He noted that this board has granted several variances in the past to permit the expansion of buildings on the site. He felt this was not inconsistent with what the board has done in the past.
Dana Steele, of J. R. Russo & Associates, referred to plans of the property and pointed out the existing buildings on the property. He indicated that on the north side of the property is a concrete pad and that area is where existing repairs, particularly welding, are currently done outside. Mr. Steele noted that a title search of this property indicates that this parcel was originally purchased in 1950, which was prior to the adoption of the zoning regulations in 1952. This use was in existence prior to the adoption of those regulations. Mr. Steele said that at this time the applicant is proposing to enclose a portion of this concrete pad area and put a roof over it. He said they will be reducing the noise. They will also be reducing the visual
aspect of it. They don’t see it as an expansion but rather as an improvement. With regard to other aspects of the zoning regulations, they are proposing to move the property line so that the structure meets the setback requirements and no other variances are required. The proposed addition is 65’ x 40’ and will be located approximately 34’ from the new property line. The existing building is 32’ from the new property line.
Mr. Ceppetelli pointed out that at the previous meeting there were some conditions that the applicant had agreed to such as a berm with plantings to be added. Mr. Holden pointed out that the berm is existing. John Cohen, of Herb Holden Trucking pointed out on the plans the location of an existing berm that runs to the end of the property. There is natural vegetation there. Mr. Holden said he would be willing to plant some trees there, such as pines or hemlocks. Mr. Ceppetelli felt that would help with the noise, particularly in the winter. Mr. Ceppetelli also noted that at the previous meeting there was some concern about a spotlight. Mr. Cohen said they can redirect it so that it shines down more. Ms. Rudek pointed out that this will have to
go to the Planning & Zoning Commission and the lighting and required plantings will be addressed at that time.
Mr. Ceppetelli opened up the hearing to the public.
David Gardner, of 71 Broad Brook Road, pointed out on the plans the location of his property. He was concerned that this would be rezoned as commercial. He said he didn’t mind a building going there. He was concerned that if he sells his property this would take away his property values. He felt that the noise was a problem. Mr. Ceppetelli pointed out that this would reduce the noise. Ms. Rudek pointed out that that whole area is zoned A-1 and they can’t rezone that one property; it would be spot zoning.
Jeff Carolus, of 56 Broad Brook Road, said that he is probably the closest neighbor. He pointed out on the plans that he is directly across the street. He said he has four children; they have lived there for 18 ½ years and Mr. Holden has become a good friend. He said noise has never been a problem. He said if they stopped Herb Holden from trucking it would not stop the number of trucks from coming down that road at 5:30 in the morning. He doesn’t have any problem with this. He didn’t feel this was hurting his property values. He said another issue, having four children in school is the budget. He said if we stop businesses from expanding we won’t be taking in those tax dollars.
Kathy Pippin said she lives on Woolam Road. She said she walks the roads in town. She was concerned about the trucks in the area at 5 and 6 in the morning. She felt that Mr. Holden had many other places to build on.
Mr. Ceppetelli asked Mr. Holden if this expansion would add any more trucks. Mr. Holden responded that it wouldn’t. They just want to get the men inside.
MOTION: To close the hearing on ZBA #2006-10. Paleski / Gudzunas / Unanimous
Discussion and Vote:
Mr. Paleski felt that some things have been clarified since the last meeting. This is an existing operation that has historically occurred on the concrete pad. He felt that this would alleviate some of the noise problems in the area. With plantings it would certainly abate some of the noise. Mr. Gudzunas said the existing pad is already there. The work will now be done inside and that is good for the neighbors. He had one concern about in the future when Mr. Holden leaves and someone else goes in there. Mr. Ceppetelli said with the addition of the plantings and putting the noisy activities inside under cover should help the neighbors. He pointed out that this operation was here long before most of the neighbors in that neighborhood.
They knew that operation was there when they bought their property. Mr. Leone said he was in favor of this the last time Mr. Holden came before the board and he felt that more favorable information has been given. He had no problem with it.
MOTION: To approve ZBA #2006-10. Paleski / Gudzunas / Unanimous
ZBA #2006-11 – Application of Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. for property located at 329 Scantic Road (Victory Estates), for a variance of Section 8A.10.5.3 and 8A.10.5.5 Required Yards and Setbacks in Multi-Family Development Districts, to allow an existing access drive (intended for emergency access only) to remain between 3 feet and 24 feet of property lines, where 30 feet is required; and a reduction of the landscaped buffer strip from 25 feet to 3 feet.
Mr. Ceppetelli reminded the applicant that they will need all 4 votes to approved this application.
Dana Steele, of J. R. Russo & Associates came forward. Also present were Bishop Ralph Saunders and Kevin Saunders. Mr. Steele referred to plans which show the existing conditions at the property today and explained that the property is located on the east side of Scantic Road, a short distance from its intersection with Route 5. It includes a large acreage of property, a portion of which has been approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission for a condominium development. Mr. Steele referred to the plans that were submitted with that application. It included a 12-acre portion that has 2 portions of frontage along Scantic Road. He indicated that the proposal was for 41 single-family detached condominium units. Mr. Steele said the reason
they were here tonight was that a new opportunity has presented itself and the applicant feels that it is better than what was already approved.
Mr. Steele explained that Victory Outreach Ministries is a religious organization; their facility is located on this site at the top of the hill. It has an access drive about 15 feet wide. It is one of two accesses to the property. The existing paved access drive is located in close proximity to the property line. The closest point is 3 feet. The entrance tapers so at the frontage to the corner of the property is 3 feet and it expands out to 24 feet at the largest point.
Mr. Steele said that the 2 sections of the regulations that are applicable to this variance are Section 8A.10.5.3 and 8A.10.5.5. Section 8A.10.5.3 deals with the setback of an access road from a condominium development. This section requires a 30-foot setback from the property line. He pointed on the map that the strip that the applicant owns is approximately 50 feet wide. The regulation requires a 30-foot setback, a 24-foot wide road, and requires another 30 feet on the other side because that is another property. That would be 84 feet and they only have 50 feet. At the time that they applied to Planning & Zoning, they approached the property owners to the south, the Bilodeaus, about purchasing their property. By purchasing that piece it allowed
them to move the existing driveway so it was 30 feet from both property lines, and no variance was needed. Mr. Steele pointed out that the down side was that the existing house had to be removed. They were proposing to move the house. Mr. Steele said that a new opportunity has presented itself in the Lovett piece, which is within the interior portion of the two accesses. Mr. Steele pointed out on the map that Schanck Road is on the applicant’s property. It is a private road and four residents have access on that road. There is also a business located in South Windsor that has access along Schanck Road. He indicated that Schanck Road is narrow; it doesn’t meet current standards. It also begins to taper closer to the property line. Essentially there is nowhere to push the snow without going onto the properties.
Mr. Steele noted that in addition to the 30-foot setback there is also a 25-foot setback which is contained within that 30 feet, but the regulations require a landscaped buffer strip. In the application it was proposed to plant this buffer area. The majority of the strip is about 15 feet wide. It widens to as wide as 24 feet and at the narrowest point it is 3 feet. Their intent is to keep the existing driveway as is. Regulations require that it be 24 feet wide, so they are proposing to widen it on one side.
Mr. Steele said the hardship has to do with the parcel shape. It is only a 50-foot wide strip. There is just so much that can be done with it. The only solution is to purchase some more land, which the applicant is prepared to do. They feel that this other solution would work better. Mr. Steele explained that the Lovett piece would be purchased and the Bilodeau piece would remain as is. The existing structures on the Lovett piece would be removed. Schanck Road would be moved over to the north to provide a full snow shelf along the entire southern portion. Also the road would be turned at 90 degrees, creating a safer situation. Mr. Steele said it would be an improvement in terms of traffic for everyone living on Schanck Road.
Mr. Steele noted that the existing road, rather than being a full access, would be changed to an emergency only access. This provides more of a buffer area to the north.
Mr. Steele pointed out that by purchasing the Lovett piece they will be taking down structures that are not in the best of shape. He felt this would be a benefit overall to the surrounding properties. With regard to the properties on Schanck Road, there would be improvements in safety, improvements in conforming to current standards, and snow removal.
Mr. Paleski asked about the emergency access and questioned how they would limit vehicle traffic from the condominiums down that road and still allow emergency access vehicles. Mr. Steele said they will have to go back to Planning & Zoning if this variance is granted to address some of these issues. Right now there is curbing proposed around the entire development that you can drive over but it presents a visual barrier and it doesn’t look like an access point. They propose that the curbing continue across the entrance. Emergency equipment can easily drive over it. The applicant is also willing to eliminate the pavement and put in pavers. They will discuss this with emergency services.
Mr. Gudzunas asked if Schanck Road is a town road. Mr. Steele noted that it is a private right-of-way owned by the applicant. Mr. Steele said that regardless of what happens with this application, this roadway will be used for this development. Mr. Ceppetelli felt that there would be 2 homes that will have more traffic going by their front yard.
Mr. Paleski asked if there was a possibility of purchasing both the Lovett and Bilodeau properties. Bishop Saunders said they are working on it. He said possibly the Bilodeau house could be incorporated, maybe as a clubhouse. Mr. Ceppetelli said with both parcels they wouldn’t need a variance. Mr. Steele said if they owned both parcels, with the house staying they would still have to move the existing road over.
Mr. Ceppetelli brought up the issue of hardship. He felt that they have made their own hardship by trying to build 41 units on a lot that really isn’t conducive to doing that. He said they have solved that hardship by purchasing the adjacent lot. Mr. Steele said the number of units has nothing to do with whether or not a variance is needed. He said the access now is only 50 feet wide. There is nothing they can do about that.
Mr. Ceppetelli opened up the hearing to the public.
Bishop Saunders said they still intend to use the Bilodeau property. If they were to purchase the Bilodeau as well as the other property it puts them way over what they can afford to do. He said the houses next door are a detriment to the other properties. They want to clean up the property. He said the Town Planner had felt that this would make more sense.
Jeff Walker, of 339 Scantic Road, was concerned that any road that anyone can possibly drive on, they are going to use. He said they don’t have room to do what they are asking to do. He would object to it.
Mike Fauteux, of 347 Scantic Road, pointed out on the plans that his property is on the corner. His house, which was built 6 years ago, is 18 feet from Schanck Road. He said he wouldn’t have built his house there if he had know about this project. He built it because it was a private road. He felt that his property will be diminished, with 100 cars going by his house. He felt that the Lovett property should be cleaned up but not demolished. He felt that the house has a lot of history.
MOTION: To close the hearing on ZBA #2006-11. Paleski / Gudzunas / Unanimous
Discussion and Vote:
Mr. Paleski said he didn’t realize that that property was 18 feet away. He said they will be putting all of the traffic by one person’s house. Mr. Gudzunas said if they deny this, they will just go with what Planning & Zoning approved. Mr. Leone felt that this seems better than what was already approved. He would rather go with something better. He said he has been on Schanck Road with an opposing vehicle and it really needs to be widened. Mr. Ceppetelli said he didn’t see a hardship. He felt they could be seriously diminishing the property values of the two lots around the corner. He said this will guarantee that they will see all of the traffic from that development. Mr. Gudzunas said he always considers the
neighbors. Mr. Paleski felt the best solution would be to purchase both properties.
MOTION: To approve ZBA#2006-11. Paleski / Leone
In Favor: Leone
Opposed: Palesli; Gudzunas; Ceppetelli
Mr. Paleski said if this had been a cul-de-sac with homes they would not need the access road. It is a self-created hardship. It is something that is not existing already; it is something that they are building. It will create a hardship to the property owner on the corner. Mr. Gudzunas felt that there has to be a better way to do this for everyone concerned. He felt that the first way that Planning & Zoning approved was the best way. Mr. Ceppetelli agreed that what was approved by Planning & Zoning was a better solution. He was very concerned about the neighbors’ property values and he felt that there was no hardship. He felt that they should deny this without prejudice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION: To approve the minutes of July 3, 2006. Leone / Guzunas / Unanimous
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To adjourn. Paleski / Gudzunas / Unanimous
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marlene Bauer, Recording Secretary
| 
