MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Marjorie Anthony, Robert Warren, Joel Nadel Barbara Murray, and Joseph Carino
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Thomas Berstene
Stephen Wagner
Chairperson Anthony called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The Recording Secretary read the legal notice as published in the newspaper.
Appl. #2496-01 – Douglas Rondeau, request for variances to sections 10.2 and 3.11.2 to allow an existing shed 18’ from the front property line (located near Dart Hill Road) at 7 Debbie Drive (50’ required), A-30 Open Space zone.
Mr. Douglas Rondeau came before the Commission to represent this application. He explained that the shed is already existing in the side yard closest to Dart Hill Road. If the shed were placed in the opposite corner of the property, it would be in conformance, but that area is the lowest point of the property. Therefore, that area is subject to surface water during heavy periods of rain. During construction of the home, there was a storm drainage system installed with drainage pipes that are also in the area where a shed would be in conformance. This area is also subject to overhanging foliage, which would require some trimming back.
Mr. Rondeau told Commission members that where the shed is presently located, there are no topographical issues. The shed is well hidden from Dart Hill Road and Debbie Drive by an existing hedgerow. While pulling the permit for the shed, Mr. Rondeau explained that he was under the assumption that the shed could be placed on either side of the house and where the shed is located presently would be in conformance. Mr. Ronadeau told Commission members that it would cost a great deal of money to relocate the shed.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Rondeau explained the house was purchased in June of 2000. Mr. Rondeau told the Board he was not aware of the regulations for a corner lot and the placement of a structure. The shed is on a leveled, graded bed of gravel. It was estimated at $650.00 to move the shed to the other side of the house.
Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning informed Commission members that when Mr. Rondeau’s house was constructed, the zone required 50’ front yard setbacks. Although the zoning requirements have presently changed in this area to 40’ front yard setbacks in open space subdivisions, Mr. Rondeau’s house was constructed under the previous regulations. Any new construction in this area will still be required to have a 50’ front yard setback because of the subdivision map on file in the Town Clerks Office.
Commissioner Warren felt the area where the playscape is located would be a reasonable area to place the shed. Mr. Rondeau felt it to be a good area, but then the playscape would need to be relocated.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 7:47 p.m.
Appl. #2497-01 – Arthur W. Utay & Janet C. Wade-Utay, request for a variance to section 3.10.9.b for the expansion in the rear of the house of a non-conforming structure, at 482 Main Street, A-40 zone.
Mr. Arthur Utay came before the Commission to represent this application. He explained he had been before the Commission one year ago for a variance to construct a second story, which was approved. Since that time there has been some detailed examination of what is needed for good architectural and functional design. It was realized at that time that an additional 10’ x 8’ section is needed to accomplish this addition. This was discussed with abutting neighbors who unanimously approved the design.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Utay explained that the first floor addition would be 14’ wide by 20’ long and will encompass the sunroom and eating area. The second floor would be 10’ wide by 26’ long and will have the master bedroom and mater bathroom.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 7:54 p.m.
Appl. #2489-00 – Richard S. Kelley and Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., request an appeal from the Planning & Zoning Commissions September 19, 2000 decision denying a site plan application on property located at Town Center, 1725 Ellington Road, RC zone.
Chairperson Anthony read a statement into the record, which stated she would be recusing herself from this application and having Vice Chairman Warren chair this application.
Vice Chairman Warren stated to the public that the Commission has before them a jurisdictional question. They have asked Attorney Penny, Legal Counsel hired by the Zoning Board of Appeals, to give us the Zoning Board of Appeals an opinion regarding authority or jurisdiction to hear this application. Chairman Warren asked Attorney Penny to come forward with his remarks.
Attorney Penny stated he had rendered a decision to the Board in writing on December 7, 2000 which deals with the jurisdictional issues, (Attachment A). Attorney Penny told Commission members that elements from other court cases had helped him with his decision. Attorney Penny went through the cases and took the key elements out to show the Commission how he came up with his final decision. He also reviewed the South Windsor Zoning Regulations as well as State Statutes as they relate to the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals and found that the South Windsor Zoning Regulations have different language then other communities that have been before the Courts in similar situations.
Attorney Penny stated to the Commission that he felt it is not appropriate for the Zoning Board of Appeals to take jurisdiction over this matter, but instead the appellants should go to the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut.
Attorney Sol Kerensky came before the Board to represent Stop & Shop Supermarkets and Richard Kelley. Attorney Kerensky stated that although the regulations do not include the broad powers set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes, section 8-6, the Zoning Board of Appeals has to abide by the State Statutes.
Attorney Kerensky stated that if the Board believes 8-6 of the Connecticut General Statutes confers upon an applicant the right to take an appeal to Zoning Board of Appeals then in fact, jurisdiction should be granted to Mr. Kelley and Stop & Shop. However, if Zoning Board of Appeals believes that is not the case, then this application should be denied based upon lack of jurisdiction.
Attorney Greg Sharp, Special Counsel for the Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission came before the Board to make a few comments. He explained that he does not see anything in the Connecticut General Statutes, section 8-6 that extends Zoning Board of Appeals jurisdiction any further then the current regulations. Therefore Attorney Sharp concurs with Attorney Penny’s opinion. Attorney Sharp then presented the Board with information for the record (Attachment B).
Attorney Kerensky suggested that if there is going to be a motion to deny, it be based on the fact that Zoning Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal and be clearly stated.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Commissioner Nadel stated that he had spent a great deal of time looking over the material presented as part of this application. Commissioner Nadel commented on the different Court cases that have been discussed.
Commission Nadel referenced a statement from the newspaper saying that the Chairperson said that ZBA is not obliged to hear the appeal – that is the papers writing, that is not the
Chairperson’s statement and it is not accurate. If the Zoning Board of Appeals has jurisdiction then we are absolutely obligated to receive the appeal, hear the evidence and make a decision. Commissioner Nadel stated that he felt the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals does not have the jurisdiction to receive, hear or otherwise act upon this application.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 8:30 p.m.
DELIBERATIVE SESSION
ITEM: Appl. #2489-00 – Richard S. Kelley and Stop & Shop Supermarket, Co., Town Center, 1725 Ellington Road, RC zone
Motion to: Deny jurisdiction of appl. #2489-00 – Richard S. Kelley and Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., an appeal from the Planning & Zoning Commissions September 19, 2000 decision denying a site plan application on property located at Town Center, 1725 Ellington Road, RC zone.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Seconded by Commissioner Wagner
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Reason for Denial – South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals does not have the jurisdiction to receive, hear or act on this application.
ITEM: Appl. #2496-01 – Douglas Rondeau, 7 Debbie Drive, A-30 Open Space zone
Commissioner Nadel said from Dart Hill Road, he could barely see the shed because of the pine trees.
Michele Lipe told Commission members that she would explain to the applicant about their concern with corner visibility and what the zoning requirements are relating to corner visibility.
Commission members discussed at length the change in the regulations and how it would effect new development in this zone.
Motion to: Approve appl. #2496-01 – Douglas Rondeau, variances to sections 10.2 and 3.11.2 to allow an existing shed 18’ from the front property line (located near Dart Hill Road) at 7 Debbie Drive (50’ required), A-30 Open Space zone.
Was made by Commissioner Carino
Seconded by Commissioner Murray
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: 4 to 1 with Commissioners Anthony, Murray, Carino and Nadel voting
in favor of approval of this application and Commissioner Warren voting against approval.
Hardship:
As stated by the applicant, the chosen location is one of the most appropriate areas to
place the shed.
ITEM: Appl. #2497-01 – Arthur W. Utay & Janet C. Wade-Utay, 482 Main Street, A-40 zone.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #2497-01 – Arthur W. Utay & Janet C. Wade-Utay, a variance to section 3.10.9.b for an expansion in the rear of the house of a non-conforming structure, at 482 Main Street, A-40 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Warren
Seconded by Commissioner Carino
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Hardship:
The non-conforming structure pre-dates zoning requirements.
Expansion of the non-conforming use would be an improvement on the property.
Condition: The expansion must be as shown on the plans submitted with the application.
ITEM: Minutes
Motion to: approve the February 1, 2001 minutes.
Was made by Commissioner Murray
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Murray
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows
________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
| 
