TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2012
REGULAR MEETING
SENIOR CENTER
HOLLY GREEN PLAZA
391 NORWICH-WESTERLY ROAD
NORTH STONINGTON, CT 06359
MINUTES APPROVED ~ NOVEMBER 20, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Charlie Burger called the Regular Meeting of the North Stonington Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Sr. Center, Holly Green Plaza.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Burger, Chairman, James Lord, Vice-Chair, Robin Hall-Secretary, Heather Chrissos and Alternate Members Hilaire Cote, Vilma Gregoropoulos and Edmond McGowan, III
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Candy Palmer
STAFF PRESENT: Sr. Planner/ZEO Juliet Leeming, Administrative Assistant Cheryl Konsavitch, Planning & Zoning Attorney Michael Carey and ZBA Consulting Attorney Robert Avena
2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
Chairman Burger read the Rules of Procedures into the record.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZBA Application #12-001, of Arlene F. Steinlauf & Scott A. Hurwitz (Trustees of the Edward G. Steinlauf Trust, & Lorraine Yardan, Trustee of the Stephen W. Yardan Trust), 55 Soundview Heights, Branford, CT 06405 for property known as Jeremy Hill Rd., located on the west side of Jeremy Hill Rd. approximately ½ mile north from the intersection of Providence Turnpike with Jeremy Hill Rd. in an R-60 zone. Applicant is appealing from an order, requirement, or decision made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer in Zoning Application #12-007 regarding an access way for the above referenced property. Tax Map #115, Parcel #7823
Chairman Burger read the application into the record.
Seated: C. Burger, J. Lord, R. Hall, H. Chrissos, H. Cote
Atty. Bates requested some time to review ZEO Leemings multi-page brief.
Chairman Burger asked if there were certified mail receipts to be submitted. Atty. Bates stated he did not believe abutters needed to be notified, but stated the clerk in the Land Use Office did notify the abutters. The certified receipts and green cards are part of the record.
Atty. Avena stated to the Board they can list the Exhibit’s that are already a part of the record.
Chairman Burger listed the following as exhibit:
Exhibit A – Zoning Board of Appeals Application submitted 3/09/12 and has items labeled in the application package submitted as exhibit’s A-E.
Exhibit B – Letter from Robinson & Cole dated 3/09/12 that relates to the history of the parcel.
Exhibit C – Letter from Vilma Gregoropoulos date stamped 4/16/12
Exhibit D – Zoning Permit submitted 1/25/12
Exhibit E – Transcript of Planning & Zoning Meeting of 2/02/12
Exhibit F – Transcript of Planning & Zoning Meeting of 2/09/12
Exhibit G – Section 1500 Supplemental Regulations date stamped 4/17/12
Atty. Timothy Bates was present representing the applicants and Arlene F. Steinlauf and Lorraine Yardan who is two of the three owners of this property was present.
Philip Katz, Sr. Project Engineer with Stantec was also present.
Atty. Bates stated that what they are faced with is a conundrum, a conundrum for the Town and a conundrum for his clients.
Atty. Bates submitted for the record (Exhibit H), the signed approved subdivision plan from Stonington.
Atty. Bates referring to Exhibit D stated the problem we are all facing pointing to the property line located on the map is that all of the zoning use or subdivision use is on the Stonington side. Atty. Bates stated there are no buildings or uses under our regulations on the North Stonington side. The only thing in North Stonington is the road which is the reason we are here this evening. Atty. Bates asked what is this road, who regulates it and how does it get permitted. Atty. Bates stated this discussion has been going on for several years to date and would like to come to some resolution.
Atty. Bates stated that when this subdivision first came up, there was an invitation for Stonington and North Stonington to sit down together and go over the proposed plan. Atty. Bates stated that North Stonington elected not to. Atty. Bates stated that when the application was submitted to Stonington, North Stonington received notice, attended all the hearings, raised objections and the Stonington Planning Commission voted it down. Atty. Bates stated an appeal was taken and North Stonington could have elected to participate in the appeal, but chose not too. Atty. Bates stated there was a settlement of the appeal and the subdivision was approved and North Stonington had the opportunity to be involved in this throughout the process. Atty. Bates stated that the applicant knew that they would
have to come to North Stonington to take care of the issue of the access way.
Atty. Carey commented on the appeal process and stated he did not believe North Stonington would have received notice.
Atty. Bates stated the applicant then submitted to the North Stonington Inland Wetlands Commission and was approved with conditions which are a part of this record. Atty. Bates stated he understands the Town is not enthusiastic about having a subdivision with just a road, but these things happen and this issue needs to be addressed.
Atty. Bates stated there is only a road in North Stonington to this development and there is nothing in the regulations that allows a road as a use. Atty. Bates went over the history of applying for various permits and then applied for a zoning permit. Atty. Bates stated that ZEO Leeming felt this was a site-plan application and she did not have the authority to act on it, which she had the Planning & Zoning Commission take a position on and so they advised her that she did not have the authority to act on a zoning permit to allow a roadway to go in. ZEO Leeming then sent a letter denying the application and that Atty. Bates stated is her ruling which is the basis for the decision of their appeal.
Atty. Bates stated they have no basis for a site-plan because there is no structure or building that requires a site-plan and no subdivision application because there is no subdivision and this situation needs a solution. Atty. Bates stated they are asking in there appeal to reverse the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and say to her that you can review this, apply whatever regulations you deem appropriate and approve or disapprove it. Atty. Bates stated he believes that is an appropriate result.
Atty. Bates addressed a memo submitted by V. Gregoropoulos and addressed the issue of a variance.
Atty. Bates addressed the issue of concerns stated in the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s letter and in letters of others that states they did not include a Stormwater Management Plan and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Atty. Bates stated that when they applied for the driveway permit, they did include those and when they applied for the Zoning Permit, if the ZEO had wanted those items they certainly could have included them.
Mr. Philip Katz, Sr. Project Manager for Stantec Consulting submitted (Exhibit I) for the record which is the site-plan that was submitted date stamped 6/17/11 that was withdrawn. Mr. Katz stated this plan has some of the details on it that have been said to be missing and reviewed what the sheets were. Mr. Katz also submitted the Drainage Report as (Exhibit J) which accompanied the site-plan and stated they are more than happy to provide additional engineering detail as required.
Atty. Bates discussed the wetlands approval which was approved for a 20 foot roadway talked about sight lines and stated there has been a series of cases that have pretty well established that one town cannot bar another town from developing or creating a subdivision that has access from another town.
Atty. Bates stated that the Town is in a position where it has to deal with this application and if this development fails because they have to keep figuring out how to get approvals because of inappropriate access then we will all end up in court. Atty. Bates stated that is not where he likes to resolve things and would like to work together to come up with a plan that addresses the legitimate public health and safety concerns.
Atty. Carey questioned Atty. Bates on some of the technical issues to remedy the defects in this application, as grades and inadequate sight lines. Atty. Bates objected saying that they are not appealing the request of ZEO Leeming for additional information; they are appealing her determination that she had no jurisdiction.
ZEO Leeming asked that (Exhibit D) be clarified as a Zoning Permit and not an Inland Wetlands Permit as previously stated.
Exhibit D consists of the following:
Application #12-007 – Cover page
Declaration of covenants, reservations, & restrictions for property of Signal Hill Common Interest Community.
Notice of Decision from Wetlands to applicant dated 3/18/09
Report from Philip Katz dated 2/28/09, date stamped 1/25/12
Letter from Atty. Bates dated 1/25/12, date stamped 1/25/12
Drainage Report dated 5/05/11, date stamped 1/25/12
Initial review from Towne Engineering dated 2/02/12
Signed approved map from Stonington, stamp received 1/25/12
ZEO Leeming stated she had submitted additional information that she used to make her decision which she submitted for the record as the following exhibits:
Exhibit K – Findings from denial dated 2/22/12
Exhibit L – Memo’s from ZEO Leeming dated 2/02/12 and 2/09/12
Exhibit M – Notice of Decision to applicant dated 2/22/12 & Notice of Decision to the Westerly Sun for publication on 2/23/12
Exhibit N – Letter from Atty. Carey to Atty. Bates dated 2/24/10
Exhibit O – Motion for Open & Amend Settlement & Stipulated Judgment dated 2/08/08
Exhibit P – Application to Stonington Inland Wetlands Commission dated 6/30/05
Exhibit Q – Notice of Hearing to Town Clerk for Stonington Inland Wetlands dated 6/06/05 & stamped received 6/09/05
Exhibit R – Memo to Thomas Londregan from Keith Brynes dated 3/13/06 and stamped received 3/13/05
Exhibit S – Cover sheet for SP #11-055 that was withdrawn stamp dated 6/17/11
Exhibit T – Page from declaration of Common Interest Community
Exhibit U – Letter from Atty. Londregan to Keith Brynes dated 3/28/06 & stamped received 3/28/06
Exhibit V – Property cards from Stonington for each of the lots showing that they are taxed separately
Exhibit W – Approved Subdivision Plan on record in Stonington
ZEO Leeming stated she is entering these items into the record because this is the information she looked at to make her decision, and learn the history of the project.
ZEO Leeming submitted a handout of her presentation stamped received 4/17/12 that she went over for the Board and is part of the record. The presentation includes the history that related to this application, the findings on why this application was denied and the ZBA appeal.
Atty. Bates objected to some of ZEO Leeming’s statements and Atty. Carey offered his opinions to Atty. Bates objections.
The Board asked questions throughout the presentation on topics such as right to access, subdivision process, condo association, why was site-plan withdrawn, access in Stonington, how does North. Stonington benefit, what is it you’re asking us to decide, variance option and what criteria do we follow.
Atty. Carey gave his presentation and discussed correspondence between him and Atty. Bates which is also referenced in ZEO Leemings presentation. Atty. Carey submitted for the record (Exhibit X) Declaration of Signal Hill Common Interest Community.
The Board asked questions of Atty. Avena pertaining to the appeal.
Chairman Burger asked if there were any general remarks or comments from the public regarding this appeal. The following person spoke:
Linda Walsh
Chairman Burger asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of this appeal. There were none.
Chairman Burger asked if there was anyone speaking against this appeal. There were none.
Atty. Avena stated that one of the issues the ZBA will be addressing is what is in front of them and how to address it from the legal prospective. Atty. Avena then reviewed the application for the Board.
Atty. Carey stated they are just trying to find a way to deal with this situation and does not believe the way the applicant tried to deal with this in his application as a zoning permit was the right way. Atty. Carey stated they are trying to find a regulation that would apply to this so it can be reviewed according to fixed standards.
Chairman Burger asked if Atty. Bates would like to make a summarization and rebuttal.
Atty. Bates stated this is not an easy situation and when you draft zoning regulations you don’t think of every situation. Atty. Bates stated his applicants need the Zoning Board of Appeals assistance in how to proceed since this is not a use that is regulated and they need your direction. Atty. Bates referred to V. Gregoropoulos’s memo dealing with the variance issue and stated he believes this situation presents a hardship for his clients. Atty. Bates then stated he believes they can come up with a road that can meets the concerns of everyone and construct a safe access way in North Stonington.
MOTION by R. Hall, SECOND by Heather Chrissos to close the Public Hearing on ZBA Application #12-001. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PENDING APPLICATIONS:
ZBA Application #12-001, of Arlene F. Steinlauf & Scott A. Hurwitz (Trustees of the Edward G. Steinlauf Trust, & Lorraine Yardan, Trustee of the Stephen W. Yardan Trust), 55 Soundview Heights, Branford, CT 06405 for property known as Jeremy Hill Rd., located on the west side of Jeremy Hill Rd. approximately ½ mile north from the intersection of Providence Turnpike with Jeremy Hill Rd. in an R-60 zone. Applicant is appealing from an order, requirement, or decision made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer in Zoning Application #12-007 regarding an access way for the above referenced property. Tax Map #115, Parcel #7823
Chairman Burger read the application into the record.
Seated: C. Burger, J. Lord, R. Hall, H. Chrissos, H. Cote
The Board deliberated.
MOTION by R. Hall, SECOND by H. Chrissos to uphold the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s Decision and deny ZBA Application #12-001, of Arlene F. Steinlauf & Scott A. Hurwitz (Trustees of the Edward G. Steinlauf Trust, & Lorraine Yardan, Trustee of the Stephen W. Yardan Trust), 55 Soundview Heights, Branford, CT 06405 for property known as Jeremy Hill Rd., located on the west side of Jeremy Hill Rd. approximately ½ mile north from the intersection of Providence Turnpike with Jeremy Hill Rd. in an R-60 zone. Applicant is appealing from an order, requirement, or decision made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer in Zoning Application #12-007 regarding an access way for the above referenced property. Tax Map #115, Parcel #7823.
The applicant’s ZBA application #12-001 is denied for the following reasons:
1. The Zoning Enforcement Officer lacked jurisdiction to handle zoning application #12-007 and
2. A request for a site-plan would have been a more appropriate device in this matter versus the request made by the applicant. A more proper application would have been a site-plan to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. NEW APPLICATIONS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. OLD BUSINESS: None
8. CORRESPONDENCE: None
9. REVIEW MINUTES:
Review minutes of January 17, 2012 meeting
MOTION by R. Hall, SECOND by J. Lord to approve the draft minutes of January 17, 2012 as written. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by J. Lord, SECOND by H. Cote to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cheryl Konsavitch
Cheryl Konsavitch, Administrative Assistant
Zoning Board of Appeals
| 
