MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Wagner, Thomas Berstene, and Sandi Jeski
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Tim Moriarty sitting for Joel Nadel
Ronald Banks sitting for Teri Dickey-Gaignat
Chairperson Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Recording Secretary read the legal notice as published in the newspaper
Appl. #2638-05 – Jeffrey Elston, 1265 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone
Mr. Jeffrey Elston came before the Board to represent this application. He explained that he is currently leasing a unit at 1265 John Fitch Boulevard. At this location he will be selling vehicles through his web-site. The vehicles will be housed in his warehouse where he will do work on them to get them ready to sell. If there are any problems with the vehicles after they have been purchased, these repairs will outsource to another garage. There is 1800 square feet of garage space, which will fit approximately 14 vehicles. All vehicles will be kept inside the warehouse. There should not be an increase in traffic. There will be only one part time employee beside himself. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There could be one visit on
Saturday and Sunday by customers coming to view a vehicle (by appointment). The business will be erecting a 4’ x 2’ vinyl lettering sign in the window.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Elston explained that the vehicles would arrive at this location by being driven to this location if they are bought locally or an 18-wheeler car transport, a flatbed or a car trailer. The cars will be listed in four locations on the internet. Advertisements will be in the bargain news, cars.com, auto trader and e-bay. The business will have six parking spaces.
Chairperson Wagner told the applicant that he would be allowed two out of the six parking spaces to display vehicles for sale.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal and the public hearing closed at 7:16 p.m.
The Board decided to hold the Deliberative Session on this application prior to continuing the hearing on Application #2636-05.
Deliberative Session
Motion to: Approve with conditions appl. #2638-05 – Jeffrey W. Elston, 62 Highwood Drive, Glastonbury, CT., a Sate Hearing under section 14-55 of the General Statutes and section 3.13 of the Zoning Regulations to
allow a used car dealers license, (which includes a general repairers license), at 1265 John Fitch Blvd., I zone
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
Conditions placed on this application are as follows:
A maximum of six parking spaces are to be used for this business.
Two parking spaces can be used for display of vehicles for sale.
Vehicles under repair are to be stored inside the building.
Seconded by Commissioner Banks
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Public hearing continuation - appl. #2636-05 – Marylou and Susan Kupchunos, c/o Wayne Gerlt, Esquire, 178 Graham Road, A-20 zone.
Members that sat for this application were Chairman Wagner, Berstene, Moriarty and Banks. Commissioner Jeski recused herself from this application.
Town Attorney Guliano presented to the Board a packet that was prepared by Joy O’Connor, Zoning Enforcement Officer for the Town of South Windsor, (Exhibit 1), Ms. O’Connor then went through her involvement with the parcel at 178 Graham Road stating that she had sent a violation letter to Alfred and Marylou Kupchunos dated December 31, 2003, which pertained to the collection of donated clothes from this location. There were two to five single axle trucks delivering clothes daily. As a result of this violation letter and other factors, the used ceased.
On October 24, 2003 Ms. O’Connor explained that she received a complaint from Mr. Len Glasser who stated that there had been Environmental Services trucks possibly using the building for storage. As a result of this complaint, a violation notice was sent to Alfred and Marylou Kupchunos dated January 21, 2004. In the letter, section 4.3 was referred to which states in the A-20 zone the use of the barn for public storage is not a permitted use. A response was received from Attorney Gerlt. The letter was dated February 5, 2004 and it explained that the owners would not stop their use at this facility. Attached to Attorney Gerlt’s letter was a letter from Attorney Cummings dated December 31, 2001 which reviewed when Attorney Cummings looked at the barn in
2001 and the different uses that the barn had been used for in the past. After receiving the letter with the attachment Ms. O’Connor stated that she sent a letter to the Department of Environmental Protection advising them of the concerns of Environmental Services using the barn. The Department of Environmental Protection did go out and inspect the barn and had no concerns.
The next involvement with this property were concerns regarding the property by Mr. Glasser. There was a lot of truck movement on the property. Ms. O'Connor then went to the location and took pictures. Ms. O’Connor showed the Board the pictures and explained what was in each photograph. On July 7, 2004 Ms. O’Connor spoke with Mr. Whitlock regarding the increased activity at the barn. Also on July 7, 2004 pictures were taken again of the property.
On October 29, 2004 an enforcement order was sent to Alfred and Marylou Kupchunos. The order alleged a change of use on this site without the proper approvals from the Town. The applicant then appealed this action.
Answering questions from Attorney Wayne Gerlt, Ms. O’Connor’s explained that two weeks after the applicant received a cease and desist order, she received a letter from Attorney Cummings objecting to the Town’s position. A violation letter was sent to the applicant in January of 2004. Ms. O’Connor received a response from this letter from Attorney Gerlt which stated that Alfred and Marylou Kupchunos did not and would not relinquish their use of this facility for public storage purposes. Ms. O’Connor explained that she had contacted the Department of Environmental Protection after receiving a complain from a resident stating that Environmental Services trucks were parked at the barn. The Department of Environmental Protection did an investigation at this property. They found no
reason for any concern. Attorney Gerlt asked Ms. O’Connor if observations on this site could also be agricultural? Ms. O’Connor stated that the regulations concerning accessory uses in the A-20 zone are clear. She went through each picture stating whether there would be a violation on the property or not. Answering questions from Attorney Gerlt, Ms. O’Connor explained that after observing the property and speaking with neighbors it was decided that a violation had occurred on this property. The reason the violation had occurred is a result of the use of the property.
Answering further question from Attorney Guliano, Ms. O’Connor explained that it was stated in the applicant’s letter that they acknowledged using the property for non-agriculture purposes and felt they had the right to use it. This complaint is not a blight compliant and therefore cleaning up the site would not make the violation disappear.
Answering further questions from Attorney Gerlt, Ms. O’Connor stated that the property owners never gave any indication that they intended to cease using the property for commercial activity or agricultural purposes.
Answering questions from Attorney Fahey (Attorney for the Zoning Board of Appeals), Ms. O’Connor stated that there are no other buildings on this property. The applicant does not live at this location. The Town recognizes outdoor and indoor storage as principle uses in the industrial and commercial zones.
Attorney Guliano came before the Board to clarify the Town’s position on this appeal. The property is in an A-20 zone. In this zone there is no commercial or industrial storage allowed. If there is commercial or industrial storage it would only be allowed by a nonconforming use which would need to be approved by the Town. If that is what the appellant is trying to establish, that is the applicant’s burden, not the Town’s. The Town simply looks at the A-20 zoning, if it is not agricultural, there is a zoning violation.
Mr. Charlie Danna, Assessor for the Town came before the Board to answer any questions the Board, Attorney Guliano, Attorney Gerlt or Attorney Fahey had for him. Answering questions for Attorney Guliano, Mr. Danna explained that he has been the Town Assessor in South Windsor for the past seven years. Prior to becoming Assessor, he had been Assistant Assessor for the Town since 1981. Mr. Danna stated that he had brought with him all the field cards associated with this property (Exhibit 2), as well as preliminary work field sheets and hearing cards as a result of the revaluation. He also presented aerial maps (Exhibit 3-7). Mr. Danna then explained what a use assessment allowance against a property is. He stated that in the State of Connecticut a farming unit may receive a use assessment after certain
requirements are met. An application needs to be filled out and it needs to be proven to the Assessor’s office that the property is a farming unit. Once these qualifications are met, the Assessor applies the applicable and appropriate assessments against the land. This status stays with the property until such time as the property has a change in use or no longer qualifies. If a property is given this status, there is a reduction in the assessment on the land, not on the building. The property at 178 Graham Road was given this status from 1964 to 1974.
Answering questions from Board, Mr. Danna explained that on the field card, the property is labeled as a warehouse because it is most closely related to a potato warehouse for pricing schedules. In 1964 the area that is now listed as vacant residential was labeled tillable B because the area was being used for farming purposes.
Answering questions from Attorney Guliano, Mr. Danna stated that he has been an Assessor for 18 years. When land is assessed as farmland there is certain criteria that must be met. The property is reviewed on a yearly basis to make the determination on whether the property still meets the criteria. Presently, there is no separate assessment card for farm property.
Answering questions from Attorney Gerlt, Mr. Danna explained in 1964 he does not know why the land was assessed for agricultural use. On the field cards for other properties in Town the barns could be characterized as outbuildings, warehouse or industrial use.
Attorney Guliano presented three deeds for property at 178 Graham Road. One from Walter Kupchunos and Paul Kupchunos to Walter Jacob Kupchunos Jr. and Alfred Kupchunos dated December 18, 1986 (Exhibit 8). There was also two quick claim deeds both dated June 28, 1983 from Kupchunos Brothers Inc. One deed went to Walter Kupchunos (Exhibit 9) and the other went to Paul Kupchunos (Exhibit 10).
The Chairperson asked for any public comments.
Public comments
Mr. Leonard B. Glasser from 154 Graham Road came before the Board to speak in opposition to this appeal. Mr. Glasser presented pictures taken by his daughter (Exhibit Public AA). The pictures showed truck tractor-trailers using the public roadway and residential driveways.
Chairperson Wagner read a letter into the record (Exhibit Public BB).
Attorney Gerlt presented an affidavit for the record (Exhibit M); various pages of a catalog to show the general nature of items that used to be stored on the property (Exhibit N); and photo’s of the property as it looks presently (Exhibit O).
Attorney Gerlt closed his presentation by saying activities at this property have been going on for 75 years and there has been a continuous use of non-agricultural activities as shown during this hearing. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has no knowledge of activities before her time of hire and she has not attempted to contact myself or Attorney Cummings. The neighbors have legitimate concerns, but no one know the past uses of this property. There is no intent to not use property as commercial and no abandonment has occurred at this location.
Answering questions from Attorney Fahey, Attorney Gerlt explained that the warehouse was constructed and used for the purposes of mixed uses. The potato growing processed ceased in 1978.
Attorney Guliano closed his presentation by stating that he feels the Town has established that the applicant has been using this property for non-permitted uses. The affidavit process can be very general and it is felt that if you would like individuals to speak regarding a property, they should do so in person. The property was labeled as an agricultural use from 1964 to 1974, so therefore is has been shown that this property has not always been used commercially only.
Attorney Fahey discussed the briefs that will be prepared by Attorney Guliano and Attorney Gerlt. It was decided that Attorney Guliano would have his brief ready in two weeks and then one week later Attorney Gerlt would have his prepared.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this application and the public hearing closed at 10:35 p.m.
Motion to: go into Executive Session to discuss pending claims and litigation at 10:35 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
Seconded by Commissioner Banks
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Motion to: adjourn Executive Session at 11:06 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
Seconded by Commissioner Berstene
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 11:09 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
Seconded by Commissioner Banks
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
| 
