MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Warren, Marjorie Anthony, Thomas Berstene, Teri Dickey-Gaignat, and Stephen Wagner
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Sandy Jeski sitting for Marjorie Anthony on appl. #2582-03,
Tim Moriarty and Paul Oates
Chairperson Warren called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Recording Secretary read the legal notice as published in the newspaper.
Appl. #2581-03 – Mannarino Builders, Inc., 1169 Ellington Road, request two variances: 1) to section 10.3.7.1 to allow buildable square 80’ x 125’ (90’ x 90’ required); and a variance to section 4.6.1C to allow an interior lot on a parcel of land which did not exist prior to the adoption of the interior lot regulation, on property located at 727 Chapel Road, RR & RR-O zones.
Mr. Jay Ussery a Land Surveyor and Civil Engineer with J.R. Russo & Associates came before the Board. He explained that this application involves two variances. The parcel of property is approximately 4.1 acres, which the applicant would like to subdivide into two parcels. There was a total of 20+/- acres involved with this parcel before the State of Connecticut took land for the I-291 corridor.
Parcel B
Consists of 2.7 acres. This variance is to allow a rear lot on a parcel of land that was not in existence prior to the adoption or creation of the interior lot regulation. The taking of land by the State of Connecticut created this parcel in order to construct the I-291 corridor.
Parcel A
Consists of 1.5-acre +/-. The zoning regulations require a 90’ x 90’ buildable square, which the house has to be constructed in. The applicant is unable to attain this because of wetlands on the property, but can provide an 80’ x 125’.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Ussery explained that there are wetlands on either side of the property and the variance to allow an 80’ x 125’ buildable square will avoid any encroachment into the wetlands.
Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning came before the Board to explain the intent of the interior lot regulation. She explained that there are a lot of long linear or wide pieces of properties that do not have frontage on Town roads, but are large enough to support more than
one house. This regulation will allow those types of properties an opportunity to be developed if they meet certain criteria.
Mr. Ussery explained that this parcel was originally a total of 28 acres. The 4.1 acres is what is remaining after the State of Connecticut took the rest of the property for I-291.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 7:55 p.m.
Appl. #2582-03 – Anne T. Keen, request for two variances to section 10.2 for lot sizes: 1) 2,749 sq. ft. variance to allow a lot area of 37,251 sq. ft. (40,000 sq. ft. required); 2) a 5,388 sq. ft. variance to allow a lot area of 34,612 sq. ft. (40,000 sq. ft. required); and 3) a 24.7 ft. variance to section 10.2 to allow a lot with 175.3 ft. of lot depth (200 ft. required), at 140 Pleasant Valley Road, A-40 zone.
Commissioner Anthony recused herself from this application. Commissioner Jeski sat for this application.
Mr. Peter DeMallie came before the Board to represent this application. Mr. DeMallie explained that his client would like to request three variances in order to split her property into two lots. One lot would contain her residence and the second would be a new building lot.
1st variance – lot #1
This request is to allow lot area of 37,251-sq. ft. (40,000-sq. ft. required).
2nd variance – lot #2
This request is to allow lot area of 34,612-sq. ft. (40,000-sq. ft. required).
3rd variance – lot #1
This request is to allow lot depth of 175.3 feet (200 feet required).
Mr. DeMallie explained that Mrs. Keen resided at this location for over 25 years. Her house is located on the westerly side of the proposed 1.54-acre parcel. A hedgerow frames the entire area. Both lots are slightly undersized from the A-40 zone, but are not inconsistent with other lots in the immediate vicinity.
The following are hardships or reasons why it is believed these variances should be granted:
The unique shape of the lot.
Large evergreen hedgerows visually separate the proposed lot #2.
The proposed lot #2 has the full appearance of a building lot.
Twenty-two lots (69%) of the thirty-two lots in the immediate vicinity are either non-conforming to area or frontage.
Eighteen lots (56%) of the thirty-two lots are non-conforming to the required frontage.
Fourteen lots (40%) of the thirty-two lots are non-conforming to the area requirement.
Both lots have well over 200’ of frontage.
Both lots are larger than 3 or 4 lots to the east.
Four lots to the east are deficient in lot frontage.
Eleven area lots are smaller than what is being proposed.
Public sewer and well service existing house (lot #1).
Lot #2 would have full public utilities.
Lot #1 has a 36’ sideline from the proposed new lot.
The only way to create a conforming lot depth for lot #1 is to alter lot lines.
All other zoning requirements can be met.
This proposal will not undermined the integrity of the regulations.
If these lots were in another part of Town, the lot area and lot depth would exceed the minimum requirement.
The applicant will be moving to a more appropriate living environment due to health issues. There is no property available to buy which could make both lots conforming.
Public in favor
A letter from Mr. Vibert (Attachment A).
A letter from the property owner across the street (Attachment B).
A petition with more than 60 signatures (Attachment C).
Mr. Louis Keen came to speak in favor of this application stating that he feels this is a great opportunity and would like to stand in support of this application.
Mr. Richard Strong of 394 Graham Road felt this proposal is consistent with the are and could support another residence.
Ms. Nelcy Formeister of 102 Pleasant Valley Road and felt this proposal would conform to the lots in this area.
Mr. Adam Scott of 88 Cinnamon Springs stated that this proposal would conform to the lots in this area.
Mr. Matthew Keen came before the Board to speak in favor of this application.
Public in opposition
Mr. Lou Ventitozzi of 176 Pleasant Valley Road stated that although he is not against it, he has failed to understand the hardship on the property.
Mr. DeMallie explained that there is no other land available to buy which could make these lots conforming.
Comments or Questions
Mr. James Dina of 789 Main Street came before the Board. Mr. Dina explained that he feels when looking at a proposal, the surrounding neighborhood needs to consider what would be good for the entire neighborhood.
Mr. Fred Bachelle of 206 Pleasant Valley Road stated that he is an adjacent landowner and he never received any notification by mail. The odd shape of the new proposed lot will prevent anyone from constructing anything in the side yard. Mr. Bachelle also stated that there are larger lots around the neighborhood also.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. DeMallie explained that the peculiar shape of this lot and the inability to gain any land make it impossible to conform to lot depth.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding different aspects of this property which create difficulty meeting the regulations.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 8:50 p.m.
Appl. #2583-03 – Tim & Suzie Cooney, request for a 4’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a proposed front porch 36’ from the property line (40’ required) at 176 Hilton Drive, A-20 zone.
Mr. Tim Cooney came before the Board to represent this application. He explained that he would like to request a 4’ variance in order to build a front porch and second story addition. The porch would enhance the aesthetics of the house and provide a balance to the addition. Two abutting neighbors were told about this proposal and neither seem to have any problem with it.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Cooney explained that the porch would be on the first floor where the existing front steps are located. Mr. Cooney agreed with Commissioner Berstene’s statement that the original placement of the house does not allow any additions to this property that would be in conformance to the regulations.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 8:55 p.m.
DELIBERATIVE SESSION
ITEM: Appl. #2581-03 – Mannarino Builders, Inc., 727 Chapel Road, RR & RR-O zones
Chairperson Warren stated that this lot has wetlands to work around and the taking of land for I-291 presents a hardship.
Motion to: approve appl. #2581-03 – Mannarino Builders, Inc., 1169 Ellington Road, two variances: 1) a variance to section 10.3.7.1 to allow buildable square 80’ x 125’ (90’ x 90’ required); and 2) a variance to section 4.6.1C to allow an interior lot on a parcel of land which did not exist prior to the adoption of the interior lot regulation, on property located at 727 Chapel Road, RR & RR-O zones.
Was made by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Seconded by Commissioner Anthony
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Hardship:
The wetlands on the property make it impossible to conform to the regulations.
The State taking property for the construction of the I-291 corridor created the necessity for the variances.
ITEM: Appl. #2582-03 – Anne T. Keen, 140 Pleasant Valley Road, A-40 zone
Commissioner members discussed at length their opinion of a hardship on this request.
Motion to: Approve appl. #2582-03 – Anne T. Keen, three variances to section 10.2: 1) 2,749 sq. ft. variance to allow a lot area of 37,251 sq. ft. (40,000 sq. ft. required); 2) a 5,388 sq. ft. variance to allow a lot area of 34,612 sq. ft. (40,000 sq. ft. required); and 3) a 24.7 ft. variance to allow a lot with 175.3 ft. of lot depth (200 ft. required), at 140 Pleasant Valley Road, A-40 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Berstene
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: 4 to 1 with Commissioners Warren Berstene, Dickey-Gaignat and Wagner voting in favor of approval and Commissioner Jeski voting against approval
Hardship:
The way the original lot was designed creates the necessity for a variance.
ITEM: Appl. #2583-03 – Tim & Suzie Cooney, 176 Hilton Drive, A-20 zone
Motion to: Approve appl. #2583-03 – Tim & Suzie Cooney, a 4’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a proposed front porch 36’ from the property line (40’ required), at 176 Hilton Drive, A-20 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Berstene
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Hardship
Placement of the house on the property creates difficulty constructing an addition without the requirement of a variance.
ITEM: Minutes
Motion to: approve the June 5, 2003 minutes.
Was made by Commissioner Anthony
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Old Business
Motion to: untable appl. #2571-03 – Jerry McGuire, 139 Newmarker Road, an appeal from the Zoning Enforcement Officers decision that a sign violation does not exist in the backyard of property located at 24 Jessica Drive, A-30 Open Space zone.
Was made by Commissioner Anthony
Seconded by Commissioner Berstene
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2571-03 – Jerry McGuire, 24 Jessica Drive, A-30 Open Space zone
Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning explained that the Commission did receive an extension on this application, but a decision will need to be made tonight.
Chairperson Warren stated that the Commission had been advised by the Town Attorney that this structure is not a sign.
Commissioner Wagner stated he feels this structure should still be considered a sign. There is still a message being conveyed.
Commissioner Berstene stated that this structure was sold as memorabilia. Commissioner Anthony agreed with this statement.
Motion to: deny appl. #2571-03 – Jerry McGuire, 139 Newmarker Road, an appeal from the Zoning Enforcement Officers decision that a sign violation does not exist in the backyard of property located at 24 Jessica Drive, A-3- Open Space zone.
Was made by Commissioner Berstene
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: 4 to 1 with Commissioners Warren, Anthony, Berstene and Dickey-Gaignat voting in favor of denial and Commissioner Wagner voting against denial
Reason for denial: The Board agreed with the Town Attorney’s opinion that this memorabilia is not considered to be a sign.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Anthony
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows
________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
| 
