MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Wagner, Teri Dickey-Gaignat, Sandi Jeski and Joel Nadel
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Tim Moriarty sitting for Thomas Berstene, Ronald Banks and James Kupchunos
Chairperson Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Recording Secretary read the legal notice as published in the newspaper
No Executive Session was held.
Appl. #2624-04 – Myles & Barbara O’Reilly
Mrs. Barbara O’Reilly came before the Board to represent this application. She explained that she is requesting a variance in order to park a recreational vehicle on the side of her home. The lot is presently nonconforming and this request would require three variances.
In favor
A letter from Mr. Tim Carling of 81 Palmer Drive was submitted (Attachment A).
A letter from Mr. John Schaffner of 72 Palmer Drive was submitted (Attachment B).
In opposition:
Mr. Charles Lyons of 89 Palmer Drive came before the Commission. He stated that he has lived at 89 Palmer Drive for 42 years. He feels there is no hardship on this property and should not be approved. If this were approved it would set a bad precedent throughout the Town, (Attachment C).
Mr. John Young of 97 Palmer Drive came before the Board to speak in opposition to this appeal. He agreed that approving this would set a bad precedent.
A letter from Mr. Striebel was read into the record, (Attachment D).
Answering questions from the Board, Mrs. O’Reilly explained that they had purchased their home in 1976. The motor home was purchased eight years ago and has been stored at their residence since 1996. The backyard and other side yard slope in such a manner that the motor home would get stuck if it were parked in the rear. There are also trees that obstruct the viability of getting into the back yard on one side of the yard.
Ms. Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning told Board members that to her knowledge the regulations have never changed as far as the allowed length of a recreational vehicle.
Commissioner Nadel asked Mr. Lyons and Mr. Young if either one of them could see the RV from their homes? Both gentlemen said they could not but are both concerned of having the character of the neighborhood preserved.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this application and the public hearing closed at 8:05 p.m.
Appl. #2633-04 – Robert Michalak & Cydnae M. Lopes, 465 Niederwerfer Road, RR zone
Chairperson Wagner read a letter from Jeff Folger into the record (Attachment E).
Mr. Michlak came before the Board to represent this application. He explained that he had hired Design Professionals to survey the property. It was found that the property line is three feet further back than originally anticipated. Mr. Michalak told Board members that he would like to place the garage 20’ from the front property line.
No one from the public spoke in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Eric Lopes came before the Board to speak in opposition to this appeal. Mr. Lopes stated he would like the structure 25’ from the front property line.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Michalak explained that the neighbor’s house is approximately 250’ from where the structure is proposed to be located. The main concern of the applicant is to keep the garage away from the wetlands.
Commissioner Moriarty asked the applicant if they would be opposed to some sort of screening of the garage? The applicant said they would not have a problem with screening.
Michele Lipe stated that the applicant would need to go to Jeff Folger for a minimal impact wetland permit. Jeff would then monitor this situation.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this application and the public hearing closed at 8:35 p.m.
Appl. #2635-04 – Finn Daniels
The applicant has submitted the rest of the required information, but it was felt that the Board should hear this application at the next scheduled meeting.
Motion to: postpone appl. #2635-04 – Finn Daniels Architects, 101 Evergreen Way, Unit #103 in the Shops at Evergreen Walk, Buckland Gateway Development zone to the January 6, 2005 meeting.
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #2623-04 – Elaine D. Gerlt, c/o Wayne C. Gerlt, 318 Felt Road, AA-30 zone.
The Commission reviewed the handout that Chairperson Wagner had passed out, (Attachment F).
Commissioner Nadel felt that because every other phase has been grandfathered, this parcel should also be considered.
Commissioner Moriarty felt that the applicant is experienced in development and is an experienced Attorney and is acting in good faith.
Motion to: approve appl. #2623-04 – Elaine D. Gerlt, c/o Wayne C. Gerlt, Esquire, P.O. Box 1132, South Windsor, CT., the following variances to section 10.2 for proposed lot #2: a 15’ variance to allow lot frontage of 135’ (150’ required); a 22’ variance to allow lot width of 128’ (150’ required); and a 5,200 square foot variance to allow lot area of 24,800 square feet (30,000 square feet allowed) for property located at 318 Felt Road, AA-30 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
The motion: did not go any further because there was no second
Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning informed Commission members that she had spoken with the Assessor and was told that one building lot was assessed on the 2003 grand list at $80,000.00, which is 70% of the market value. The market value would then be approximately $114,000.
Commissioner Jeski stated that she feels the parcel is suited for two houses, not three.
Motion to: approve appl. #2623-04 – Elaine D. Gerlt, c/o Wayne C. Gerlt, Esquire, P.O. Box 1132, South Windsor, CT., the following variances to section 10.2 for proposed lot #2: a 15’ variance to allow lot frontage of 135’ (150’ required); a 22’ variance to allow lot width of 128’ (150’ required); and a 5,200 square foot variance to allow lot area of 24,800 square feet (30,000 square feet allowed) for property located at 318 Felt Road, AA-30 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Hardship: The substantial reduction in land value of lot #2 as a result of Planning & Zoning Commission not grandfathering this one remaining parcel in the Ridgefield Development, where all others have been grandfathered. This outweighs the public interest in having the current zoning regulations apply to this parcel.
Seconded by Commissioner Moriarty
Commissioner Nadel stated that he feels this is a unique situation and should be granted.
The motion: failed
The vote was as follows: 3 to 2 with Commissioners Moriarty, Nadel and Dickey-
Gaignat voting in favor of approval and Commissioners Wagner and Jeski voting in opposition of approval (the motion failed due to the failure to obtain the necessary 4 votes for approval)
Commission members voting to deny stated the following reasons they felt this should be denied:
Practical confiscation does not apply as a hardship because there is no denial of use of the subject parcel. Currently zoning regulations support subdivision into two parcels and construction of two homes on these parcels.
The balance test for a confiscation hardship does not support a claim of confiscation because:
There is no objective evidence of diminution of value relative to the cost of the land if it is subdivided into two parcels.
The applicant’s estimates stated in the public hearing indicated that the value of the land increases over the cost paid if the land is subdivided into two parcels.
There is no objective evidence that the cost of the land paid by the applicant did not reflect the zoning subdivision regulations in effect at the time of purchase.
Aside from the issue of confiscation, any perceived diminution of value caused by the current zoning regulations is a reduction of the maximum possible enrichment of the applicant, which is not the basis of a hardship.
The applicant is not being treated unfairly with respect to similarly situated property owners because there are no similarly situated property owners. Conditions under which pre-1985 regulations were extended to other property owners through 1992 do not apply to the current application.
Any perceived hardship is self created because:
The concept plan cited in the application is not binding on either the applicant or the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Any pre-application conference between the applicant or the applicant’s attorney and the Town staff is not, in accordance with Town Subdivision Regulations, binding on either the applicant or the Planning and Zoning Commission.
There is no objective evidence that the applicant’s attorney was intentionally or unintentionally misled by conversations with Town staff.
The applicant’s attorney is sufficiently experienced as both a developer and an attorney practicing in Town to understand when purchasing the land, the risks of assuming an exception to current regulations by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Zoning Board of Appeals.
6. It was felt that the applicant should have been aware of the regulations prior to the purchase of the property.
Motion to: deny appl. #2623-04 – Elaine D. Gerlt, c/o Wayne C. Gerlt, Esquire, P.O. Box 1132, South Windsor, CT., the following variances to section 10.2 for proposed lot #2: a 15’ variance to allow lot frontage of 135’ (150’ required); a 22’ variance to allow lot width of 128’ (150’ required); and a 5,200 square foot variance to allow lot area of 24,800 square feet (30,000 square feet allowed) for property located at 318 Felt Road, AA-30 zone.
Was made by Commissioner: Nadel
Seconded by Commission Moriarty
Reason for denial: As stated above.
Commissioner Nadel stated that his main reason for now denying this application was to give Commissioners, who voted against this application, more time to further discuss this application at the January meeting.
Town Attorney Barry Guliano stated that he felt the Chairperson should rule this motion out of order.
Chairperson Wagner stated that this type of motion is out of order as suggested by the Town Attorney.
Motion to: overrule the decision of the Chairperson.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Seconded by Commissioner Moriarty
The motion: failed
The vote was as follows: 2 to 3 with Commissioners Nadel and Moriarty voting in favor of the motion and Commissioner Wagner, Jeski and Dickey-Gaignat voting against the motion.
Motion to: extend meeting to 11:15 p.m. to finish agenda items.
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #2624-04 – Myles & Barbara O’Reilly, 73 Palmer Drive, AA-30 zone
Motion to: approve appl. #2624-04 – Myles & Barbara O’Reilly, the following variances: two variances to section 12.1a to allow a recreation vehicle 15’ from the side property line (20’ required); to allow a recreation vehicle 35’ from the front property line (50’ required) and a variance to section 12.1e to allow a recreation vehicle 32’ in length (maximum 27’ in length allowed), at 73 Palmer Drive, AA-30 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Hardship:
No other place on the property to place a recreational vehicle.
Vehicle has been on the property for 8 years and has become a part of the use of their property and should be sustained as such.
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Commission members discussed the ability to place a condition on this application in order to have the applicant come before this Commission in a certain amount of years.
Town Attorney Guliano explained to the Commission that a time limit could not be placed on a variance.
Chairperson Wagner stated that the applicant could not back the motor home any further. He feels that there is no hardship associated with this request.
Commissioner Jeski stated she is against this request because she feels they should have known the regulations before purchasing such a large motor home.
The motion: failed (4 votes necessary to carry)
The vote was as follows: 1 to 4 with Commissioner Nadel voting in favor of approval and Commissioners Jeski, Dickey-Gaignat, Wagner and Moriarty voting in opposition of approval.
Reason for denial:
Any hardship is self-created.
The recreation vehicle is clearly too large for this property.
A 32’ motor home does not fit anywhere in the residential zone.
Appl. #2633-04 – Robert Michalak & Cydnae M. Lopes, 465 Niederwerfer Road, RR zone
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #2633-04 – Robert Michalak & Cydnae M. Lopes, a 30’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a proposed garage 20’ from the front property line, (50’ required) at 465 Niederwerfer Road, RR zone.
Was made by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Hardship:
The location of the wetlands, the septic system, location for reserve septic system and slopes of the property create difficulty placing the garage in any other location.
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
Condition:
A natural screening of evergreens along the garage extending 5’ on either side of the foundation must be planted and maintained.
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Minutes:
The decision on the minutes will be discussed at the next scheduled meeting.
ITEM: Other Business:
The Connecticut Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies will be holding training sessions for members wanting to learn more about land use law.
ITEM: Old Business:
2005 Meeting Schedule
Motion to: remove from the table the discussion on the 2005-meeting schedule.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Seconded by Commissioner Moriarty
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Motion to: begin the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. This will begin in January, 2005.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Seconded by Commissioner Moriarty
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Motion to: approve the 2005-meeting schedule.
Was made by Commissioner Nadel
Seconded by Commissioner Moriarty
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Chamber of Holiday Social
The South Windsor Chamber of Commerce will be holding their Annual Holiday Social and New Business Reception at the Mill on the River on December 16, 2004 at 5:30 p.m.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
________________________________
Deborah W. Reid
Recording Secretary
| 
