TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 5, 2009
The East Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Monday, January 5, 2009 at theEast Windsor Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, Connecticut. The following members were present: Regular Members Michael Ceppetelli, Cliff Nelson and Mary Buckley; and Alternate Members Dan Noble and Nick Macsata.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Michael Ceppetelli. A quorum was established as three regular members and two alternates were present. Mr. Nelson read the Legal Notice as it appeared in publication.
NEW HEARINGS:
ZBA #2009-01 - Application of Herb Holding Trucking Inc. for property located at 59 Broad Brook Road for a variance of Section 602.3 – Signs in Residential Districts to allow roadside signage for a business in a residential zone. (R-1 zone)
Herb Holden, Sr. and Herb Holden, Jr. were present for this hearing. Herb Holden, Jr. explained that they have a business that is grandfathered in a residential zone. He said that they want to have a roadside sign and referred to a drawing of the proposed sign. The overall dimension of the sign itself is 7 ½’ x 3 ½’. The total dimension is 5’ x 10’ with the pillars. Mr. Holden, Jr. pointed out on plans where the proposed sign would be located. He said they want to have a sign that is consistent with the business zone. Mr. Macsata expressed concern about the sight line as to driving safety. Mr. Holden, Sr. noted that they have a lot of frontage, and this would not impede driving safety. Mr. Ceppetelli indicated that if the board would
like it further from the road they could make it a condition. It was noted that the regulations require a setback of at least 10 feet. Mr. Nelson asked about putting the sign on the building. Mr. Holden, Jr. said because of the trees, you wouldn’t be able to see a sign on the building.
Mr. Ceppetelli opened up the hearing to the public.
Jeff Carolus, of 56 Broad Brook Road, said he lives directly across the street and he is in favor of the sign. He said his driveway is about 50 feet away from the Holdens’ and he felt that is wouldn’t be a hindrance coming in or out of the driveway.
MOTION: To close the hearing on ZBA #2009-01. Nelson / Macsata / Unanimous
Discussion and Vote:
Mr. Nelson said he didn’t see any hardship. He felt that the sign is way too big. He said he would like to see it cut down to the minimum size (which is 32 sq. ft.) including the pillars. Even at that size he felt that it was over-kill in a residential area. He said if you can’t find Herb Holding Trucking with all the trucks in the yard, something is wrong. Mr. Macsata said he thought it is good to advertise the business. He felt that this was a nice presentation and that this would enhance the property. Ms. Buckley thought that the sign was tastefully done. She didn’t feel that it was too big. Mr. Noble was in favor of it. Mr. Ceppetelli said they need to make sure that they adhere to the current zoning regulations regarding the positioning of
the sign. He felt that the applicant deserves to have a sign. He said they can make it a condition that the overall sign does not exceed X number of feet. He felt that the sign was well within a reasonable size.
MOTION: To approve ZBA #2009-01 with the stipulation that they meet the current zoning regulations as far as sign placement.
Buckley / Macsata
In Favor: Buckley; Macsata; Noble; Ceppetelli
Abstain: Nelson
ZBA #2009-02 - Application of Site Enhancement Services for property located at 10 Prospect Hill Terrace, owned by Burlington Coat Factory, for a variance of Section 602.5 - Freestanding Signs to allow a high-rise freestanding sign that will exceed height and size requirements. (B-1 zone)
Kyle Clements of Site Enhancement Services came forward. He presented material to the board that included drawings of the proposed high-rise sign. He explained that they are requesting a 200 sq. ft. sign at 70 feet in height to be located on the southwest corner of the Burlington Coat Factory. There was a pre-existing high-rise sign for Cohoes that collapsed due to weather issues. He said they are sliding the position of the sign away from the trees, putting it in the parking lot. Mr. Clements noted that there is immense tree blockage around the site. Anyone traveling along I-91 wouldn’t be able to identify where Burlington Coat Factory is. Also, they are so far away from the main traffic flow on North Road that they have no visibility from that road.
Mr. Clements pointed out that other businesses in the corridor utilize these types of high-rise signs, such as Cracker Barrel. He said that Cracker Barrel has a high-rise sign that is the same size but their grade is quite a bit higher above the interstate and much closer to North Road. Mr. Clements said they are just asking for the minimum height to clear the tree line and the minimum amount of square footage to be visible from both roads.
Mr. Clements referred to a photo showing the previous high-rise sign that collapsed. That was a little closer to the road. They are moving the new sign about 30 feet back. Mr. Ceppetelli expressed concern about the safety factor of a high-rise sign. Mr. Macsata asked if the new design provides more stability. Mr. Clements said they will put in a new foundation. Mr. Noble noted that this would be covered by the Building Department. Mr. Nelson said they have pretty stringent rules. The board members further discussed the height of the sign. Mr. Clements suggested that they table this application and he could bring back photos of a target test that shows the sign at different heights. Mr. Ceppetelli said he would feel more comfortable tabling this. Ms. Buckley
asked if the sign could fall on the highway. Mr. Clements answered that there was no way of that happening.
Mr. Ceppetelli felt that a huge sign could be a distraction. He said if you are on North Road trying to read the sign, it could cause an accident. Mr. Nelson said what difference does it make whether it is 60 feet or 70 feet high. He said they let the previous applicants put a 12-foot sign in a residential area on Route 190 which is only one lane. He said Cracker Barrel has a large sign. We want Burlington Coat Factory to stay there. Mr. Ceppetelli pointed out that there is a residential area across the street from the Burlington Coat Factory. Mr. Macsata said they don’t want another vacant building. They need to support business. Mr. Noble said he didn’t know that Burlington Coat Factory was there.
Mr. Ceppetelli opened up the hearing to the public.
Alan Baker, of 341 Rye Street, said he didn’t know that Burlington Coat Factory was there. He said that is a corridor where all the signs go. He said it is good for the town.
MOTION: To close the hearing on ZBA #2009-02. Macsata / Nelson / Unanimous
MOTION: To approve ZBA #2009-02 as submitted. Nelson / Noble
In Favor: Nelson; Noble; Buckley; Macsata
Abstain: Ceppetelli
ZBA #2009-03 - Application of DMD Realty Family Limited Partnership for property located at 341 Rye Street for a variance of Section 408.3(c) Rear Lots – Minimum Standards to allow the creation of a second rear lot which will exceed the 20% maximum rear lots allowed in a subdivision and Section 401 Bulk & Area Requirements to allow a lot with 172.94’ of frontage. (A-1 zone)
Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates came forward, along with Alan and Charlene Baker, the applicants. Mr. Ussery presented an Affidavit of Proof that a public hearing sign was posted on the property. It was also noted that a Certificate of Mailing had been provided as proof of notification of the abutters. Mr. Ussery explained that this is an application for a variance of two sections of the regulations. He said 341 Rye Street is a 10-acre parcel that was purchased by Doug King and that was where he built his house. Three lots were subdivided in front and there is an existing rear lot. Mr. Ussery said that Mr. King’s daughter would now like to build a house. The regulations only allow 20% of the lots in a subdivision to be rear lots. If you count all of the lots
they are shy of that. They would need 8 lots and they only have 6. Mr. Ussery indicated that they had met with staff and it was suggested that they come to the ZBA. Also, in providing the 30-foot rear lot access, it leaves it short on frontage for the existing house. The requirement is 175 feet and the remaining frontage would be 172.94 feet. Mr. Ussery said the hardship is that the implementation of the regulations would require the owner to build a town roadway. He said that is not the most appropriate way to develop this. He said if you go up and down the road and look at the existing lots, the average frontage is about 170.83 feet.
Mr. Ussery presented a concept subdivision plan showing what could be done if they built a road. The plan showed a roadway with an offset cul-de-sac. Mr. Ussery pointed out that rear lots need to have double the required lot size, so with this concept plan they could get two additional lots. He said you have to look at what is the most appropriate use of the land. Mr. Ceppetelli felt that with a rear lot the property value of the neighbors will decrease. Mr. Ussery said he spoke with the Parkers, who own the front parcel, and they have no objection. Mr. Noble said he liked rear lots. He said this is a way to pass it down to their children. Mr. Macsata said if they were to put in a town road they wouldn’t need a variance. Mr. Ussery indicated that the rear lot
regulations require screening to protect the adjoining neighbors; with a town roadway none of that screening is required. He also noted that the 20% rule was not in effect when the owner first developed this site.
Mr. Ceppetelli opened up the hearing to the public. No one came forward to speak.
MOTION: To close the hearing on ZBA #2009-03. Nelson / Macsata / Unanimous
Discussion and Vote:
Mr. Nelson said he usually is not in favor of rear lots but in this instance he felt that they have met their hardship. He didn’t agree that the values would go down for the neighbors. He said if the neighbors were concerned they would have come to the meeting. He said this goes with the surrounding area. Mr. Macsata and Mr. Noble both agreed. Mr. Ceppetelli said he knows for a fact that rear lots affect the real estate values. He said the neighbors did not come forward. He said it appears that they are going to get their lot one way or another. The town road could be less desirable and they could get more lots. Ms. Buckley felt that this would be more aesthetically pleasing.
MOTION: To approve ZBA #2009-03. Macsata / Noble / Unanimous
OTHER BUSINESS: 2009 Meeting Schedule
MOTION: To approve the 2009 meeting schedule.
Macsata / Nelson / Unanimous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Ceppetelli pointed out some corrections to be made. On page 4, the fourth paragraph, change to read “The generator will be placed in the building and thus will eliminate noise.” On page 5, under Discussion and Vote, the last sentence should read “..if we were to deny this application it would give a significant amount of impropriety based on the fact that there were two other existing providers.”
MOTION: To approve the minutes of November 3, 2008, as amended.
Macsata / Nelson / Unanimous
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To adjourn. Nelson / Macsata / Unanimous
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marlene Bauer
Recording Secretary
| 
