MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Wagner, Thomas Berstene, Teri Dickey-Gaignat, and Sandi Jeski
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Joel Nadel sitting for the vacant seat
Ronald Banks
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Planner and Debbie Reid, Recording Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The Recording Secretary read the legal notice as published in the newspaper.
ITEM: New Business
Appl. #2610-04 – David A. Patria, 565 Nevers Road, request for a variance to section 6.1.2 to continue a commercial use of a golf driving range in an industrial zone, at R005 Sullivan Avenue (southerly side of Sullivan Ave., easterly of Route 5), I zone.
Mr. David Patria came before the Board to represent this application. He explained he is requesting to continue a commercial use (golf driving range) in an industrial zone. The business has been family operated for 50 years. Mr. Patria felt it is time to improve the building and enhance the grounds.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning explained to the Board that zoning was in place 50 years ago. Current zoning regulations do not allow driving ranges in the industrial zone as a permitted use, but it is not known what zoning regulations allowed fifty years ago. When Mr. Patria came to discuss what the business was planning to do with the town, he was given two options. The first one was to provide evidence that this is a nonconforming use and this is just an expansion under those grounds; or the second option was to go for a use variance.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Patria explained that there are retail sales of golf balls and golf lessons provided at this location. It would be difficult to locate another piece of property of this size for this business and customers are accustomed to this location. Mr. Patria would like to replace the existing shed with a new 20’x 20’ structure to enhance the business.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 7:45 p.m.
Appl. #2611-04 – Robert & Kimberly Selig, request for a 15’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a barn 35’ from the property line (50’ required) at 112 Pheasant Way, RR zone.
Mr. Robert Selig came before the Board to request a 15’ variance on the eastern side of the property. The Town issued a permit to the applicant to build a 30’ x 40’ barn on their four acre parcel. There is a C L & P easement to the rear of the property and in order to not encroach on that and because of the slope of the land, a 15’ variance is necessary. Mr. Selig informed Board members that seven years ago when building his house, there was a neighbor opposed to the approval of an interior lot. In order to appease the neighbor, the house was placed back 22 feet further than required. If this had not happened, the appeal being requested tonight would not be required. If the barn were placed in conformance to the regulations, it would be located on a fairly steep slope that would
requie a large amount of fill and create the potential for erosion.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Mr. Selig showed Board members the position that the barn would be located. Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Selig informed the Board that the barn will be one story with a loft (approximately 30 feet high). Turning the barn and moving it 15’ to a flat piece of the property will eliminate the need to improve the site with fill. The closest neighbor will be approximately 200-250 feet away. Horses have been grazing on this property for 35 years.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 7:55 p.m.
Appl. #2612-04 – Stone Crest Construction, LLC, 6 Bancroft Lane, request for a 3’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a proposed house 47’ from the front property line (50’ required) for property at 9 Bancroft Lane (lot #1 Forest Village Subdivision), A-40 open space zone.
Mr. Peter DeMallie from Design Professionals came before the Board to represent this application. He explained that the applicant is requesting a variance on the southeast corner of Bancroft Lane, lot #1. The lot is existing and was subdivided in the 1980’s. This lot is a corner lot, so two front yard setbacks are required. The developers were unaware of the Town’s desire to have the driveway on Bancroft Road instead of Strong Road. The house is a modular home and has already been constructed with a side loaded garage based on the design proposed, so a three foot variance is necessary. A number of considerations have been looked at in order to have the house in conformance to the regulations, but there would be other issues that arise.
Mr. DeMallie listed hardships and considerations:
The lot is a corner lot which creates larger setback requirements.
The rear yard separates the house from the industrial zone.
The abutting house is exceptionally wide and right up against the building line.
Having the house towards Bancroft Lane will keep it in conformance with the neighborhood.
Because the new owner of the house has two small children it is preferable to face the house towards Bancroft Lane where there are sidewalks as opposed to facing it towards Strong Road which has more traffic.
Three letters were submitted, all speaking in favor of this appeal, (Attachment A, B & C).
No one from the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. DeMallie explained that the house was under contract for sale, the house was ordered subsequent to that contract and was in the process of being constructed. Design Professionals was approached and asked to go to the Town for a building permit plot plan which had not been submitted to the Town for approval. The plan was reviewed by Town Staff and it was determined the driveway would need to come off of Bancroft Lane.
The house was originally proposed to face Strong Road, this request would not have needed a variance.
Commissioner Berstene commented that he feels this situation is a self inflicted hardship. Mr. DeMallie felt there are enough situations here that he feels are clear hardships. There is the industrial zone to the rear of the property across the street. The abutting house is large and built to the setback line. The applicant is only requesting a 3’ variance for this narrow lot.
Chairperson Wagner stated that the property is not a rectangular piece of property. It would only be able to conform it were put further back on the lot into the woods.
Ms. Dang who is the Manager of Stone Crest Construction came before the Board. She explained that when the house was ordered, they were informed by the design engineering firm that the house would fit on this parcel. When it was discovered that the house would not fit without a variance, it was suggested that the house be placed at an angle in order to keep it in conformance with the South Windsor regulations.
Mr. Dang who is with Stone Crest Construction explained that he was working in conjunction with Galen Semprebon from Design Professionals when the house was ordered. The property was thought to be rectangular, but it was discovered that the width of the lot narrows as it gets closer to Bancroft Lane. It was then suggested to rotate the house to stay in compliance, but the Town did not want that, so a variance is necessary.
Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning told Commission members that at the time of the original subdivision, the developer is required to show how a house will be oriented on a lot. On that original approval, it shows the driveway coming off onto Bancroft Lane. In the subdivision regulations, when there is an option of having a driveway on a local road versus a collector road, it is required to locate the driveway on a local road. Strong Road is considered a collector road.
Commissioner Nadel stated that he does not find this to be an overly large house. He felt comforted that the request is only for three feet and also felt that corner lots create difficulty in meeting the setback requirements.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 8:20 p.m.
Appl. #2613-04 – The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, 379 Main Street, request for the following variances: to section 3.10.3 to allow expansion of a nonconforming structure; and three of the variances to section 10.2: 1) a 13’ variance to allow a side yard of 12’ (25’ required); 2) a 27.1’ variance to allow front yard setback to allow an existing structure to remain at 37.9’ (65’ required); and 3) a an 8.7’ variance to allow 56.3’ setback for proposed addition (65’ required), for property at 498 Buckland Road, GD zone.
Mr. Peter DeMallie from Design Professions came before the Commission to represent this application. He explained that the Dr. Bob Grillo has purchased this property and will be using it for his office. The office is proposed to have six treatment rooms and twenty-five parking spaces to the rear of the site. The hardships associated with this property are as follows:
This parcel was re-zoned from residential to commercial gateway zone. After the rezoning the property dimensional requirements were changed.
There were two governmental takings, which have reconfigured the property lines.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. DeMallie explained that the property was purchased by Mr. Grillo two months ago. He did have the knowledge that he purchased a nonconforming structure and the expansion of it would require variances.
A variance to section 3.10.3 to allow expansion of a nonconforming structure:
The hardship for this request is that the building has a full foundation. To relocate that would create tremendous difficulty and it should be able to be used in its present form.
A 13’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a side yard of 12’ (25’ required):
The hardship to this variance is that this is an architectural consideration because the building plane needs to be continued back to the rear to have it aesthetically pleasing and functional. The plane is already there, it is angled and can not be changed.
An 8.7’ variance to section 10.2 to allow 56.3’ setback for proposed addition (65’ required):
Mr. DeMallie explained that there is a little notch on the interior of the building. This would not be visible from the outside at all.
A 27.1’ variance to the front yard setback to section 10.2 to allow an existing structure to remain at 37.9’ (65’ required):
Mr. DeMallie explained the purpose of this variance is to allow for reconstruction of this structure on the same foundation if it were ever destroyed.
Commissioner Nadel suggested that the applicant could request a variance to section 3.10 and with that in mind asked the applicant what the hardship on the property would be? Mr. DeMallie stated that he feels the hardship is due to the government taking property from this parcel. The property would have been in conformance prior to the taking of property by the government. If the variance were not granted, there would be great difficulty of doing the financing through the bank.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. DeMallie explained that the owner of the property could knock the house down and reconstruct it in conformance with the regulations, but it is felt that it is reasonable to refurbish it instead. The nonconforming building is being changed physically with the proposed expansion. A variance is necessary to keep the foundation of the front building where it is.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeals closed at 8:50 p.m.
DELIBERATIVE SESSION
ITEM: Appl. #2611-04 – David A. Patria, R005 Sullivan Avenue (southerly side of
Sullivan Avenue, easterly of Route 5), I zone
Commission members discussed the fact that it would be very difficult for this owner to find a piece of property that would support a golf driving range and parking.
Motion to: approve appl. #2610-04 – David A. Patria, 565 Nevers Road, a variance to section 6.1.2 to continue a commercial use of a golf driving range in an industrial zone, at R005 Sullivan Avenue (southerly side of Sullivan Ave., easterly of Roue 5), I zone.
Was made by Commissioner Berstene
Hardship:
The exceptional difficulty is that driving ranges are not allowed in the Industrial zone and by not granting a variance for this existing establishment, it could force the business out of this location.
The great difficulty of relocating a business of this size to another piece of property.
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2611-04 – Robert & Kimberly Selig, 112 Pheasant Way, RR zone
Commission members discussed that an area to locate the barn on the property is limited because of the slope of the land.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #2611-04 – Robert & Kimberly Selig, a 15’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a 30’ x 40’ barn 35’ from the property line (50 required), at 112 Pheasant Way, RR zone.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Hardship:
The necessity under the South Windsor zoning regulations for a structure to feed and house animals.
The slope of the land and the existence of the C L & P easement limit the ability to place a barn anywhere else on the parcel.
Conditions: The barn is limited to a maximum size of 30’ x 40’.
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2612-04 – Stone Crest Construction, LLC, 9 Bancroft Lane (lot #1, Forest Village Subdivision), A-40 open space zone
Commission members felt there are a number of hardships associated with this request.
Motion to: Approve appl. #2612-04 – Stone Crest Construction, LLC, 6 Bancroft Lane, a 3’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a proposed house 47’ from the front property line (50’ required) for property at 9 Bancroft Lane (lot #1, Forest Village Subdivision), A-40 open space zone.
Was made by Commissioner Jeski
Hardships:
1) The subdivision regulation which requires the driveway to come off from Bancroft Lane (a local road) as opposed to Strong Road (a collector road).
2) The practical difficulty of utilizing the garage as designed if placed in a conforming location with the front of the house facing Strong Road.
The requirements specific to a corner lot. Corner lots are subject to two front yard setback requirements.
The configuration of the lot resulting in the tapering down of the lot from the back of the property to the front (Bancroft Lane).
Seconded by Commissioner Nadel
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2613-04 – The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, 498 Buckland Road, GD zone
Commission members discussed in length the meaning of a nonconforming building. They also talked about the hardships associated with this request.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #2613-04 – The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, 379 Main Street, for a variance to section 3.10.3 to allow expansion of a nonconforming structure at 498 Buckland Road, GD zone.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Hardship:
1) The two government takings for road widening have created the existing structure to become significantly nonconforming making it difficult to use the property in conformance with the Town’s comprehensive plan.
The rezoning of the property to the Buckland Gateway zone requires larger
setbacks than the previous zone.
Conditions:
Approval is based on the plans prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. dated
2/26/04.
2) The use is subject to site plan approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission
3) The use is subject to a permitted use in the zoning regulations.
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Commission members discussed the various hardships they felt exist.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #2613-04 – The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, 379 Main Street, for a 13’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a side yard of 12’ (25’ required); 498 Buckland Road, GD zone.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Hardships:
The placement of the original structure conformed at the time it was built and the rezoning of the property to the Buckland Gateway zone requires larger setbacks.
The property line is not perpendicular to the structure, making the expansion encroach further into the side yard.
The two government takings for road widening have created the existing structure to become significantly nonconformity making it difficult to use the property in conformance with the Town’s comprehensive plan.
Conditions:
Approval is based on the plans prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. dated 2/26/04.
The use is subject to site plan approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission
The use is subject to a permitted use in the zoning regulations.
Seconded by Commissioner Berstene
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Motion to table decision on the rest of appl. #2613-04 – The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, 379 Main Street for the following variances to section 10.2: 1) a 27.1’ variance to allow front yard setback to allow an existing structure to remain at 37.9’ (65’ required); and 2) an 8.7’ variance to allow 56.3’ setback for proposed addition (65’ required), for property at 498 Buckland road, GD zone.
Was made by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: failed (no second)
After a lengthy discussion, the Board felt they could make a decision on an 8.7’ variance to section 10.2 to allow 56.3’ setback for proposed addition (65’ required).
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #2613-04 – The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, 379 Main Street, for an 8.7’ variance to section 10.2 to allow 56.3’ setback for proposed addition (65’ required), for property at 498 Buckland Road, GD zone.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Hardship:
The two government takings for road widening have created the existing structure to become significantly nonconformity making it difficult to use the property in conformance with the Town’s comprehensive plan.
The rezoning of the property to the Buckland Gateway zone requires larger setbacks than the previous zone.
Seconded by Commissioner Wagner
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: Wagner, Nadel, Jeski and Dickey-Gaignat voting in favor; Berstene abstained.
Condition
Approval is based on the plans prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. dated 2/26/04.
The use is subject to site plan approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission
The use is subject to an approved use in the zoning regulations.
Commissioner Nadel stated that his concern about this variance is setting precedence and he also stated that he can find no hardship to support this.
Motion to: table appl. #2613-04 – The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, 379 Main Street, for a 27.1'’variance to section 10.2 to allow front yard setback to allow an existing structure to remain at 37.9'’(65'’required) at 498 Buckland Road, GD zone.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Seconded by Commission Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Minutes
Motion to: table decision on the March 4, 2004 minutes.
Was made by Commissioner Berstene
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Old Business:
Motion to: extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m. to finish discussion on agenda items.
Was made by Commissioner Berstene
Seconded by Commissioner Nadel
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Abutter Letters
Commission members briefly discussed the option of having abutter letters sent out. It was decided a draft of the by-laws and certified letter would be written and would be reviewed and discussed at the next meeting.
Motion to: table discussion regarding abutter letters to the next scheduled meeting.
Was made by Commissioner Berstene
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Berstene
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows
________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
Recording Secretary
| 
