MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Wagner, Teri Dickey-Gaignat and Sandi Jeski
ALTERNATES PRESENT: James Kupchunos sitting for Tom Berstene
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. #2658-05 & #2665-05 – Mitchell Property Group, LLC, 38 Ident Road, I zone
Buffer
Attorney Wayne Gerlt came before the Commission to present this application. He explained that this property was previously occupied by a waste hauler with associated outdoor storage. When this property was first developed there was a buffer requirement that is shown on the plan, but it was never planted on the site. Today, the difficulty in putting up a buffer would be that the buses would not be able to turn around. The buses are 35 feet long and the buffer limit is only 37 feet from the building. The applicant would like to eliminate the buffer in its entirety because the buffer would create a hardship for the turning radius of the buses. There are evergreen plantings currently planted along the southerly property line.
Tower
Attorney Wayne Gerlt explained that the tower is proposed to be located up the side line a bit to ensure that if the tower, which is 120 feet, ever fell it would not fall onto the public streets or fall onto anyone else’s property. The area chosen for the tower is believed to be the safest on the site. The location is also believed to be the best location to ensure communication. The color of the tower would be gray as suggested by the regulations.
Mrs. Marjorie Anthony, Chairperson for the Economic Development Commission came before the Board to speak in favor of this application. She stated that the location is the best fit for communication to the school buses and the employees. There needs to be strong communication from this facility for the safety of the employees and the children.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Attorney Gerlt explained that a telecommunication towers’ service can be affected by buildings or structures that get in the way of the radio waves. In locating this tower on the property these type of issues had to be considered.
Mr. Tomek Grajewski, an Engineer with Zubic Associates, explained that the pavement
is approximately 37 feet away from the edge of the building. This plan proposes to decrease the paved area by pushing the existing edge of pavement further away from the front of the building, therefore permitting a full turning radius.
The buffer that is required on this site was shown on the plans but was never put up. We don’t want to plant the buffer and then have the buses go into that area. The site has been extensively planted.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 7:29 p.m.
Appl. #2659-05 – Mitchell Property Group, LLC, 90 Brookfield Street, GC zone
Attorney Wayne Gerlt came before the Board to present this application. The applicant would like to be allowed to erect two sheds on the property. There has been difficulty in placing these sheds due to location of wetlands, the location of the regulated area, the construction of the transfer station as well as fencing around the station, parking areas and ingress/egress to the site. The storage sheds are necessary for materials used on a daily basis. With the erection of these sheds the site will be cleaned up. The hardship is created by the topography of the site, the wetland areas and the fencing required by the State of Connecticut, DEP.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Attorney Gerlt explained that the proposed shed on the south side of the property will be 200’ x 40’ and the shed on the north side of the property will be 100’ x 30’.
There is a distance of 60’ between this property and the residential property.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing of this appeal closed at 7:41 p.m.
Appl. #2660-05 – Jan & Elizabeth Lukasik, 179 & 185 Commerce Way, I zone
Attorney Wayne Gerlt came before the Board to present this application. He explained that this request is to allow an existing paved walkway between two industrial buildings to have a covered connector constructed. Both buildings are owned by Mr. & Mrs. Lukasi.
There is a building on each property and the paved pathways between the buildings were approved in 2004. The enclosed walkway will allow equipment to go back and forth between buildings without the worry of inclement weather. The structure can be easily removed if in the future one or both properties are sold. The hardship is created
because the walkway exists as approved and the regulations will not allow the applicants to cover it.
Mrs. Marjorie Anthony, Chairperson of the Economic Development Commission came before the Board to speak in favor of this application. The connector is necessary for business to continue. The owner is limited for land at this location.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning, explained that if this application were approve, a site change order should be submitted to be signed off at the staff level and an application made for a building permit.
Attorney Gerlt told Board members that when the original cross travel easement was established, it was in compliance with the requests of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The easement does not address the passageway between the buildings, but that will be amended.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 7:50 p.m.
Appl. #2661-05 – Dr. Gregory Haroian, 1169 Ellington Road, A-20 zone
Mr. Michael Lloyd an Architect with Planning Resource Network, 362 Dupont Street, Toronto Ontario, Canada came before the Board to present this application. He explained that Dr. Haroian has been working out of this building at 1169 Ellington Road since 1987 and has recently acquired the building. At this time Dr. Haroian would like to expand his practice, but this existing building poses a number of limitations. The existing curb cut has poor site lines and is adjacent to multi family housing. The goal is to move the curb cut down into a location that would be suitable. Currently there are 33 parking spaces, the practice does not require any more but zoning regulations would require 9 more spaces. The applicant will be going to the Planning and Zoning Commission showing 34 parking spaces and will request
a waiver for the remaining 9. Currently there is an area reserved for the 9 spaces if they are required. Parking spaces can not be placed in the rear of the building due to the existing dimension in the rear.
No one form the public spoke in favor to this appeal.
A letter from the ABC Group speaking in opposition to this appeal was read into the record (Attachment A).
In response to the letter from the ABC Group, Mr. Lloyd explained that the buffer between the subject property and the property to the rear will remain as it stands, with additional plantings being supplemented. The buffer is on the adjacent property.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Lloyd explained that the current practice has two operatories and after the renovation of the building there will be six operatories. Dr. Haroian will be the sole tenant in this building after renovations have been complete. The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. during the week and 8:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. on one or two Saturdays per month.
After a short discussion involving the impervious coverage on the site, Michele LIpe, Assistant Director of Planning suggested that alternative pavement could be looked at in the reserve area if the spaces are required to be built.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 8:10 p.m.
Appl. #2662-05 – Daniel Coffey, 18 Heritage Drive, A-20 zone
Mr. Daniel Coffey came before the Board to represent this application. He explained that the lot at 18 Heritage Drive was a leftover lot from the development and has a very unusual configuration. The house was constructed in the upper left hand corner of the lot. Previously a deck with a handicap ramp was approved by this Board. Mr. Coffey stated that they would like to eliminate the ramp and construct a family room/seasonal room in the same footprint of the deck. This would allow for caregivers for Greg Dupuis to have a room to stay in when having to stay overnight. The neighbors that have been informed of this have been in favor of this request.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board Mr. Coffey explained that the existing foundation and existing structure will be used to build the room. The hardship is the placement of the house so close to the property line will not allow any addition without a variance.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 8:23 p.m.
Appl. #2663-05 – Jon D. Berman & Frank W. Russo, 819 Clark Street, RC zone
Mr. Peter DeMallie from Design Professionals, Inc. came before the Board to present this application. He explained that they are requesting two variances. One would be to propose a 20’ x 40’ addition which would be two stories plus a full basement which will serve as offices. The addition would be 50’ from the front property line. The second
request is for a modification to the 1990 variance that was approved to allow an addition 28’ from the front property line. Upon further reflection it was decided that the addition should be placed further back and therefore the addition 28’ from the front property line was never constructed and now this request is in front of you tonight. Parking will be added to west side of the building. Water quality enhancements will also be provided to the site. The hardships have stayed the same as previously stated in the 1990.
Mr. Tom Frays who owns property to the west and north of this site came before the Board to speak in favor of this application. He explained that he has seen the maps and if fully in favor of this proposal.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board Mr. DeMallie explained that the proposed variance requesting an addition will be built further back then the previous variance request which was approved. The new proposal if for the addition to be 50 feet from the front property line where the previous request was for the addition to be 28 feet from the front property line. The reduction in the buffer from 25 feet to 10 feet will still be necessary. The front of the building is brick, but the rest of the building is a wood finish. Elevations of the building were submitted with the application.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 8:47 p.m.
Appl. #2664-05 – The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, 498 Buckland Road, Buckland Gateway Development zone
Attorney Ralph Alexander came before the Board to present this application. He explained that this application had been before the Zoning Board of Appeal and received approvals in April and May of 2004. The next step was to go to the Planning & Zoning Commission to receive site plan approval. The Planning & Zoning Commission questioned whether the applicant conformed to the Zoning Board of Appeals conditions regarding the alteration of the existing structure or elimination of the structure in order to construct the applicants new office. A legal opinion was sought from the Town Attorney and in his opinion he stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the best party to interpret the variances granted. Therefore, they have re-applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Peter DeMallie from Design Professionals, Inc. came before the Board. He stated that when the applicant came before this Board in 2004 it was stated that the existing footprint would remain and an addition would be added. The parking lot is smaller in order to meet landscaping and handicap accessibility requirements. The front setback will be less then what was requested because the front porch will be removed. The roof line will change because it is necessary to have a nine foot ceiling. Any wall system that can be salvaged will, but this structure will be converted into an office building. The hardships stated previously have remained the same.
Mrs. Marjorie Anthony, Chairperson of Economic Development Commission came before the Board to speak in favor of this appeal, (Attachment B).
Two other letters were read into the record (Attachment C & D).
No one form the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Chairperson Wagner stated that he had been previously influenced on approving these variances because he was under the impression that the original house would be preserved. Now it appears that the house will be torn down and the foundation and some other minor structural elements will be used.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. DeMallie stated that the regulations are designed for bigger parcels. This parcel is an undersized lot where no other land is available. Drainage and water quality requirements have to be met as well as parking. There are wetlands to the rear of this parcel. If the foundation is structurally impaired, There will be a need to modify it, but the same footprint will be used.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 9:15 p.m.
Appl. #2666-05 – Shady Brook Associates, LLC, in the development known as “Shady Brook Senior Residence Development”, A-40 zone.
Mr. Kenneth Peterson with Gardner and Peterson Associates located in Tolland, CT., came before the Board to present this application. He explained that when constructing unit 17 in the Shady Brook project, the unit was located 4’ closer to unit 5 then permitted. Alternatives have been sought, but it was found the only way to fix this situation was to request a variance. Two 4 to 5 foot tall pine trees will be planted in between the two units to give each unit owner privacy on their decks. A deck will also be constructed to the rear of unit 5.
Mr. Joseph Yacavone owner of 44 Bailey Circle, unit 5 came before the Board to speak in favor of this appeal. This was an honest mistake and do not see any reason why the Board would not allow this variance.
Mrs. Marjorie Anthony owner of 50 Bailey Circle, unit 17 came before the Board to speak in favor of this appeal. The screening between the units and the construction of the deck to the rear of unit 5 are agreeable to both parties.
A letter from the Condo Association was read into the record speaking in opposition to this appeal (Attachment E).
Mr. Peterson explained that the letter in opposition was based on the plan that was originally submitted. In that plan the proposed deck to the rear of unit 17 was not shown.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Peterson explained that the plantings can be whatever the Board would like. Commissioner Jeski stated that she would like to see three or five trees planted and there should be a screening of arborvitaes. Mr. Peterson said he would be agreeable to that as long as that would suit the two unit owners.
Mr. Peterson explained that the deck on unit 17 is 10’ x 20’. The existing deck size on unit 5 is a 7’ x 12’ and we are proposing to construct a deck 10’ x 13’ on unit 5 with stairs to the rear.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 9:35 p.m.
Appl. #2667-05 – Clark Realty, Inc., 3 Castlewood Drive, AA-30 zone
Ms. Jean Huppe from Clark Realty came before the Board to present this application. She explained that when the buyer was purchasing this house, they requested that a cover be built over the stoop. The building line was overlooked and a variance is now required for the front porch.
Ms. Mary Sanchez of 2 Castlewood Drive came before the Board to speak in favor of this appeal.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Ms. Huppe explained that when the buyer requested to have the cover over the stoop, the porch was partially built. The cover was constructed and the necessity for the variance was found out when a certificate of occupancy was being requested.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 9:40 p.m.
DELIBERATIVE SESSION
ITEM: Appl. #2657-05 – KF Properties, LLC, 175 Wheeler Road, A-20 zone
Commission members discussed the Town Attorney’s opinion stating that this is a use variance and the Zoning Board of Appeals can not grant use variances when use variances are allowed in other zones.
Motion to: deny appl. #2657-05 – a variance to section 5.6 to allow the office conversion overlay zone to be applied to the property located at 175 Wheeler Road, A-20 zone (continued from 9/8/05).
Was made by Commissioner Jeski
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Reason for denial: The application before the Board constitutes a use variance because it seeks the variance of zoning regulation to allow a particular use where it is not otherwise allowed. The Zoning Board of Appeals has no authority granting a use variance when a use variance is allowed within another zone.
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2662-05 – Daniel L. Coffey, 18 Heritage Drive, A-20 zone
Motion to: approve appl. #2662-05 – Daniel L. Coffey, a variance to section 10.2 to allow the construction of a sunroom on existing deck (variance previously granted for deck) on property located at 18 Heritage Drive, A-20 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
Hardship: The unusual configuration of the land and placement of the house makes it impossible to construct a three season room in any other area.
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2666-05 – Shady Brook Associates, LLC, in the development known as “Shady Brook Senior Residence Development”, A-40 zone
Commission members decided that 5 arborvites would be adequate for the buffer between the units.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #2666-05 – Shady Brook Associates, LLC, a 4’ variance to section 4.1.12g to allow the structure at Unit 17 – 50 Bailey Circle to be 16’ from the structure at Unit 5 – 44 Bailey Circle (20’ required), in the development known as “Shady Brook Senior Residence Development”, A-40 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Kupchunos
Hardship: Accidental placement of building Unit 17 – 50 Bailey Circle on plans prepared and submitted by Gardner & Peterson Associated with this application.
Conditions:
1. The decks to be build as presented on the plans, but with addition of steps for Unit 5 – 44 Bailey Circle to be placed onto the rear of the deck.
2. A minimum of five arborvitae type plantings to be five to six feet in height planted between the decks to be used for screening.
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2667-05 – Clark Realty Inc., 3 Castlewood Drive, AA-30 zone
Motion to: approve appl. #2667-05 – Clark Realty Inc., a 2.5’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a front porch cover 47.5’ from the front property line (50’ required) for property located at 3 Castlewood Drive, AA-30 zone.
Was made by Commissioners Jeski
Hardship: Placement of the house on the lot.
Seconded by Commissioner Kupchunos
The motion : carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2656-05 – The J.E. Shepard Co., 2019 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone
Commission members discussed the Town Attorney’s opinion in length.
Motion to: deny appl. #2656-05 – The J.E. Shepard Co., 200 Sullivan Avenue, a variance to section 6.1.2.6 to allow a two-family house in an Industrial zone at property located at 2019 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone.
Was made by Commissioner Kupchunos
Reason for denial:
1. No hardship demonstrated.
2. No evidence presented of a nonconforming use on the property.
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Appl. #2661-05 – Dr. Gregory Haroian, 1169 Ellington Road, A-20 zone
Motion to: Approve with conditions appl. #2661-05 – Dr. Gregory Haroian, two variances: 1) a 2’ variance to section 5.6.3e to allow for an 8’ buffer (10’ required), and 2) a 13.2% variance to section 5.6.3i to allow 53.2% impervious coverage (40% allowed) for property located at 1169 Ellington Road, A-20 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Kupchunos
Hardship: The inability to meet the parking requirements without this variance.
Conditions:
1. Site plan approval is required.
2. In the event that parking spaces 35-43 (shown as reserved spaces on the plans) are constructed, they must use a non-pervious surface in their construction.
3. The existing buffer to the west of the building must be maintained.
ITEM: Appl. #2660-05 – Jan and Elizabeth Lukasik, 179 and 185 Commerce Way, I zone
Motion to: Approve with conditions appl. #2660-05 – Jan and Elizabeth Lukasik, variances to section 10.2 to allow: 1) a 0’ side yard (10’ required) for property located at 179 Commerce Way and 2) a 0’ side yard (10’ required) for property located at 185 Commerce Way to allow a connector between the two existing buildings, I zone.
Was made by Commissioner Jeski
Hardship: The unsafe movement of equipment and personnel between the two buildings during inclement weather creates the need for this connector.
Conditions:
1. Modify the cross travel easement to include the walkway.
2. Site order change must be submitted to the Planning Department.
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Old Business
Annual Report
Motion to: accept the annual report as modified
Was made by Commissioner Jeski
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Kupchunos
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
| 
