East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 20, 2008
Town Hall Meeting Room
7:00 P.M.
Approved Minutes
1. Call to Order: Chairman Nichols called the ZBA Meeting of October 20, 2008 to order at 7:00PM
Members Present: Chairman Charles Nichols, Willie Fuqua
Alternate Members Present: Vincent Jacobson, Brian Spack, Linda Dart
Absent: Brendan Flannery
Staff Present: James Carey, Building, Planning & Zoning Administrator
2. Seating of the Alternates: Brian Spack was seated
3. Legal Notice: Mr. Carey read the legal notice.
4. Approval of Minutes
· September 8, 2008 Regular Meeting:
Mr. Fuqua moved and Ms. Dart seconded, to approve the minutes of September 8, 2008 regular meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Communications:
· Discussion of Requested Postponement to Angelico’s appeal
Mr. Carey read into the record a letter received from Attorney Downey requesting continuation of the Angelico’s application. Mr. Carey spoke with the towns attorneys and verified they are within their time frame specified by statute. Mr. Carey added he will be away for the regular scheduled meeting in November therefore requested the Zoning Board of Appeals schedule a special meeting in order to discuss the Angelico’s matter and any other applications that come in for Monday, November 3, 2008.
Mr. Fuqua moved to schedule a Special ZBA meeting on November 3, 2008 in replace of the regular meeting scheduled for November 10, 2008. Motion was seconded by Ms. Dart. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Fugua moved to change the order of the agenda to hear the application of Mr. DiStefano, agenda item number 10, to the first item on the agenda to accommodate personal needs. Motion was seconded by Mr. Spack. The motion carried unanimously.
6. Application of Thomas DiStefano, 1 West High Street, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, Main Street front yard setback reduced to 4 ½ from 50’. Route 66 front yard setback reduced to 1’ from 50’. Route 66 side yard setback reduced to 7’ from 25’, maximum lot coverage increased to 75% from 60% to preserve the non conforming footprint – M~01A/B~47/L~10;
Mr. DiStefano explained to the board his wishes to remove the deck from the original structure, fill in the area and put grass there. As it sits it is non-conforming and Mr. DiStefano has asked that once it is filled in, it would remain a nonconforming lot with the right to build on the piece of property.
Mr. Carey added Mr. DiStefano has never intended to abandon the non-conformities. The state statue is clear stating in order to extinguish a non-conforming use the town would need to show an intention to abandon that use and Mr. DiStefano has never intended to abandon that use. The town is actively looking into obtaining a grant to purchase the property.
Mr. DiStefano added Mr. O’Keefe the town manager approached him with this idea.
Chair Nichols asked if there were any parties present to speak in favor or against the application before the board.
Eleanor Selavka, 6 Main Street stated the beautification sounds well however wonder’s why it has taken 11 years to realize. It is not attractive and her concern with the economy being the way it is the grant money will be more difficult to receive. Ms. Selavka also asked why the original deck was not removed when the other debris was taken off of the site immediately following the fire. Mr. Carey replied that existing wooded deck could not be found to be unsound to the state that it had to be demolished and filled in. Filling in that foundation could have made a case that the intention was that the property owner abandoned that use.
Mary Ann Dostaler, 56 William Drive asked if this variance is granted does that increase the value of the property, therefore increase the amount the town would have to pay to acquire the land through the grant. Mr. Carey stated if the variance is not granted then Mr. DiStefano leaves the property as is, it would be his belief that the value would remain the same. Ms. Dostaler asked if the variance is granted would there be any conditions as to how quickly it would need to be completed. Mr. Carey stated there could be conditions if the board chooses.
Myron Poliner, 3 Main Street, congratulated Mr. DiStefano for finally moving forward with doing something with this property. Mr. Poliner discussed the set backs in addition to the visibility on Rt. 66 could be affected assuming there is going to be a building on the property. Mr. Carey discussed with the towns attorneys the issue of non-conformity and there is not a 5 year or 1 year rule. The State of Connecticut is held through its law that in order for a town to force a cessation of non-conformity the town’s burden is to prove that there was intent for the property owner to abandon the property. The town’s attorneys at this time do not feel there is a case to prove that the property has ever been intended to be abandoned in its footprint.
Mr. Carey agrees with some of the challenges this site poses for redevelopment on the same footprint. Any application to utilize that footprint would still be subject to review and site plan review by the planning and zoning. Mr. Carey stated he would contact the town attorney to come before this board to discuss condemning properties and non-conforming properties.
Mary Ann Dostaler, 56 William Drive asked if the town has a purchase agreement and/or a right of first refusal in place with Mr. DiStefano. Mr. Carey didn’t believe there was any written agreement in place with Mr. DiStefano and unsure if the town or Mr. DiStefano would be interested in pursuing that option.
Mr. Nichols moved to table the application of Thomas DiStefano, 1 West High Street, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, Main Street front yard setback reduced to 4 ½ from 50’. Route 66 front yard setback reduced to 1’ from 50’. Route 66 side yard setback reduced to 7’ from 25’, maximum lot coverage increased to 75% from 60% to preserve the non conforming footprint – M 01A/B 47/L until the meeting on November 3rd to have the town attorney present. Motion was seconded by Mr. Jacobson. The motion carried unanimously.
7. Application of Old Marlborough LLC, 48 Old Marlborough Road, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, lot depth parcel A & B, to 133.4’ from 175’(B) and to 122.5’ from 175’(A) to construct a commercial building on Parcel B – M 10A/B 83A/L 13:
Mr. Rand was before the board representing this request regarding this 2 acre parcel of land across from Lake Vista. The applicant would like to utilize their free split and cut the lot in half using it for two purposes. The existing structure is a four family home that is non-conforming. There is enough area with the 2 acres however they do not have enough to cut it in the East / West direction. The applicant stated if this variance is granted they will then proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission to see if they may take the rear piece of land, Lot A, and bring it back into the residential zone and keep the front half, Lot B, commercial.
Chair Nichols asked if there were any parties present to speak in favor or against the application before the board.
Steve Kissinger, 66 Old Marlborough Road, asked for clarification on the residential and commercial lot and where the split would be. Mr. Kissinger asked for clarification on the entrances and exits for the building. Mr. Rand stated exits and entrances have not yet been designed and this would be under the purview of the Planning and Zoning in site review in addition to DOT. Mr. Kissinger expressed concerns about the drainage issues on the parcel.
Barbara Noatowski, 48 Old Marlborough Road, asked if there was going to be only one entrance from Old Marlborough Road and how parking will be affected. Mr. Rand believe there would be 2 entrances, one off Old Marlborough Road and one off Route 66, with an easement through the commercial piece.
Pat Holmes. 49 Old Marlborough Road, asked how they could be assured that the commercial users would not be going though and exiting or entering from Old Marlborough Road. Mr. Rand stated that if the commercial building is built, it would be separated from the residential parcel.
Ms. Dart asked if the variance and zone change could be combined. Mr. Carey replied the Zoning Board of Appeals has no power for zone changes, however this board could condition the variance on the applicant successfully obtaining a zone change.
Grace Jiang, 11 Stevenson Road, expressed concerns of the noise and pollution that would be increased on this site.
Ms. Dart moved to approve the application of Old Marlborough LLC, 48 Old Marlborough Road, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, lot depth parcel A & B, to 133.4’ from 175’(B) and to 122.5’ from 175’(A) to construct a commercial building on Parcel B – M 10A/B 83A/L 13; contingent upon receiving a zone change of Parcel A then would become residential. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fuqua.
Ms. Dart moved to amend the motion to include the driveway off of Old Marlborough Road continues to be used for the residential purpose without any commercial use. Mr. Fuqua seconded the amendment. Motion for amendment passed unanimously.
Original Motion passed unanimously.
8. Application of Sandra W. Gilmore, 28 North Cone Road, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.4 and 7.2.1 to allow two dwellings on one property - M~11/B~40A/L~12A;
Sandra Gilmore was before the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting an existing barn located at 28 North Cone Road be allowed to be used as an in-law apartment. The previous owner built the 2nd structure without obtaining the proper permits.
Chair Nichols asked if there were any parties present to speak in favor or against the application before the board.
Brian Ferchaus, 10 West Avenue, stated that several people in town finish areas without the officials being aware and felt that the applicant should be commended for trying to take the appropriate steps to do this with approvals the correct way.
David Milardo, 30 North Cone Road, expressed his concerns of the property previously being sold as a lot with approval to construct one home not two. Mr. Milardo is concerned about the property becoming such of an apartment complex with future owners.
Steven Beeler current owner, 28 North Cone Road, stated the existing barn is not visible from Cone Road. There is currently a septic system that has been inspected by the health department and a discussion has taken place regarding what would need to be done to the well if in fact this application is approved.
Irene Artikes, 24 North Cone Road, stated she lives in a R2 zone and would like to keep it that way. The barn was constructed as a horse barn not as a second dwelling. Ms. Artikes expressed her concerns if there is drilling going on for a larger well would that effect her well which is a few hundred feet away.
Larry Gerzabek, 11 North Cone Road, is not against approval of in-law apartments but has it been investigated the option of adding onto the existing home for an in-law and leaving the barn as is? Ms. Gilmore stated they have not explored those avenues.
Kate Adams, 21 North Cone Road, expressed her concerns if this is approved for this specific property would it need to be done for others?
Mr. Spack moved to deny the application of Sandra W. Gilmore, 28 North Cone Road, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.4 and 7.2.1 to allow two dwellings on one property - M 11/B 40A/L 12A as there is no hardship proven. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fuqua. Motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals took a break at 8:50pm and reconvened at 8:57pm.
9. Application of Gary Smith, 52 Middle Haddam Road, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, front yard setback from 36’ from 50’ to construct a wheelchair lift addition– M 02C/B 10/L 2;
Mr. Smith was before the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting approval to put in a wheelchair lift. Mr. Carey reported due to the layout of the existing building the proposed location of the chair lift is the only option. This has been before the Middle Haddam Historical District and has been approved.
Chair Nichols asked if there were any parties present to speak in favor or against the application before the board.
Fred Hansen, 2 Keiley Pond Road. Stated he lives next door to the church and extensive studies have been done to try to put the lift in another location and this is the only location that would work. In addition Mr. Hansen stated it is not visible from the road.
Paul Rappo, 50 Middle Haddam Road, stated this is essential for the church.
Ms. Dart moved to approve the application of Gary Smith, 52 Middle Haddam Road, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No.
6.1, front yard setback from 36’ from 50’ to construct a wheelchair lift addition– M 02C/B 10/L 2; based on the fact that there is no other place to put the lift in addition is required by the American Disability’s Act. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fuqua. Motion passed unanimously.
10. Application of Cynthia Smith, 7 Hawthorne Road, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, side yard setback from 15’ to 2’ to construct a deck – M~10/B 8Z/L 33A;
Ms. Smith was before the board requesting a variance to place a 12 x 24 deck on the outside of the home facing the lake. Mr. Carey stated the existing home does need some attention and formalization.
Chair Nichols asked if there were any parties present to speak in favor or against the application before the board. Hearing none,
Mr. Fuqua moved to approve the application of Cynthia Smith, 7 Hawthorne Road, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, side yard setback from 15’ to 2’ to construct a deck, M~10/B 8Z/L 33A: due to the construction of the deck and the configuration of the lot. Motion was seconded by Mr. Spack. Motion passed unanimously.
11. Application of Thomas P. & Alexandra P. Crean, 35 Lake Drive, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, reduction of the north side-yard setback to 6’ from 10’ to construct a wrap-around, covered porch to existing entry – M~03A/B 44C/L 14:
Mr. Crean was before the commission with an explanation of their plans for adding a wrap around deck to the home.
Chair Nichols asked if there were any parties present to speak in favor or against the application before the board.
Mr. Carey had a letter from the IWWA stating this application was approved by the IWWA with the conditions.
Mr. Jacobson moved to approve the application of Thomas P. & Alexandra P. Crean, 35 Lake Drive, requesting a variance of the East Hampton Zoning Regulations, Section No. 6.1, reduction of the north side-yard setback to 6’ from 10’ to construct a wrap-around, covered porch to existing entry – M~03A/B 44C/L 14. Motion was seconded by Mr. Spack. Motion passed unanimously.
12. New Business: None
13. Old Business: None
14. Adjournment:
Mr. Fuqua moved to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jacobson. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted
Kamey Peterson
Recording Secretary
| 
