MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Thomas Berstene, Teri Dickey-Gaignat, Sandy Jeski, Stephen Wagner, and Lavina Wilson
Chairperson Berstene called the regular meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ITEM: Executive Session
Motion to: go into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. to discuss pending litigations or claims on appl. #2623-04 – Elaine D. Gerlt, c/o Wayne C. Gerlt, Esquire, 318 Felt Road
Was made by Commissioner Wagner
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Motion to: adjourn Executive Session at 7:11 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Seconded by Commissioner Wagner
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: New Business
Appl. #2686-06 – Connecticut Valley Properties of South Windsor, LLC, 1678-1700 Ellington Road, RC zone
Mr. Peter DeMallie from Design Professionals, Inc. came before the Commission represent Connecticut Valley Properties of South Windsor. Mr. DeMallie explained that this application is requesting three variances. The first variance request is to allow the existing building (building A) 50’ to the front property line. This building will be handicap accessible and will have various improvements to it. The second variance being requested is for a proposed structure (building C) which will replace building B and will be 25’ from the front property line. Removal of building B will allow sidewalks to be constructed as well as landscaping to be planted. The third variance is to allow a 15’ buffer. There is town owned wetlands forest in the rear of this property. Mr. DeMallie reviewed
the hardships as well as circumstances on the property that would create difficulties regarding this application. All parking will be in the interior of the lot. There will also be only one access to this property which will eliminate existing curb cuts. This plan is felt to be the best alternative and will be environmentally friendly. By combining these lots, the site will be brought more into conformance than they are presently. Existing evergreens on the east side of the building of 1700 Ellington Road are on Mr. Urso’s property. A hemlock tree is located on property at 1708 Ellington Road.
Mr. David Holmes of Capital Studio Architects in East Hartford explained to the Commission that the attempt here is to create a village theme. Mr. Holmes told the Board that curb cuts
will be consolidated and there will only be one curb cut for this site. There will also be the ability in the future to connect to abutting properties. Sidewalks have been added throughout the site. Building C will consist of 4,300 square feet on the ground floor and 2,200 square feet on the second floor. Building D is one story. Building A will have all the architectural elements applied to it to complement the rest of the buildings on the site. Buildings F-I will be located to the rear of the property. The buildings will consist of 10-12 units and will have a total square footage of 900-1,000 for each unit. The total square footage of the new and existing commercial development is approximately 24,600 square feet. There will be 1/3 retail, 1/3 office and 1/3 medical office. Mr.
Holmes concluded that he feels this project is a huge improvement to what is there presently.
Mrs. Amy Merit came before the Board and stated she felt this is a wonderful proposal.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. DeMallie explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission will need to grant site plan approval which will include the driveway access and then this application will go to the State for their review and approval because Ellington Road is a state road. No part of the building at 1700 Ellington Road will be retained; a whole new building will be constructed in its place. Mr. DeMallie reviewed the hardship for each variance with the Board. The intent of the regulations regarding buffers is to buffer this zone from the residential zone. There is no residential property to the rear, it is a town owned wetlands forest which is highly regulated. If there is ever any work within 80’ of the wetland, a permit is necessary.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.
Appl. #2687-06 – Dr. Gregory Haroian, 1169 Ellington Road
Mr. Michael Lloyd an Architect with Planning Resource Network, 362 Dupont Street, Toronto, Canada came before the Board to represent Dr. Gregory Haroian. Mr. Lloyd explained that there are two errors that occurred after approval from this Board in 2005. The first error was converting .72 acres into square feet. It was converted to 31,000 square feet when it is actually 33,000 square feet. This throws the net results off by 3% and affected the following:
· Original site coverage of original building and pavement was presented as 42.7 and is actually 45.7
· Interim parking plan was presented at 48.8 and is actually 51.8.
· All reserved parking was presented at 53.7 and is actually 56.7.
The second issue that occurred was when restoring the original characteristic of the building. The original building presently sits in the front yard setback and does not have a roof. When constructing a roof onto the building, the overhang creates a 2’ further encroachment out from the sides of the building. The roof could be a flat roof, but the applicant would like to re-establish the historical value of the building with a peaked roof.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Lloyd stated that roof overhang would be a new request.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 8:25 p.m.
Appl. #2688-06 – David M. Dubiel, 173 Farnham Road
David Dubiel and Amy Merit came before the Board to represent this application. Mr. Dubiel explained that they are requesting a variance to allow a carport closer to the property line than allowed. A two vehicle carport is necessary because of their job requirements and there is also a medical hardship within the household which requires the necessity for the vehicle to be inside away from inclement weather. There was a contractor who was taking care of the construction of the carport. It was found out later that the contractor had not taken out permits for this work. To the rear of the carport there is a large oak tree. If we were to conform to standards, the oak tree would need to be removed.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Chairperson Berstene stated that the lot is only 100’ wide and the placement of the house would create difficulty putting a carport on either side of the house because the house is centered on the lot.
Answering questions from the Board, Mr. Dubiel explained that the house was constructed in 1954. The carport will be attached to the house when construction is complete.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 8:40 p.m.
Appl. #8689-06 – John Thorne, 8 Welles Lane
Mr. John Thorne came before the Board to represent this application. He explained that his home is on a corner lot and the current zoning regulations do not take into consideration that the front and back yards both have a requirement of structures being 50’ from the property line. The shed is 12’ x 16’ and would be located in the center of the back yard and would not be reasonable use of the rear yard if the regulations were enforced. Mr. Thorne stated he is requesting to locate the shed 30’ from the property line and have it located between two trees. Mr. Thorne spoke with neighbors and they are in agreement of where the shed is being proposed.
No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board Mr. Thorne explained that the shed could not be located further back because it would then be in the neighbor’s yard.
Chairperson Berstene stated that the lot is an odd shape and there are two front yards on this lot.
With no further questions, the public participation portion and public hearing closed at 8:50 p.m.
Appl. #8690-06 – MLB Inc., d/b/a Ful-Line Auto, 1546 John Fitch Boulevard
Attorney Hal Cummings came before the Board to represent MLB Inc. Attorney Cummings explained that there was a property taking by the State which caused some of the need to request these variances. The purpose of these variances is to allow a used car dealership that displays vehicles. The State has given the applicant approval to utilize a portion of the frontage in order to display vehicles.
Mr. Peter DeMallie from Design Professionals, Inc. came before the Commission. He explained that an easement area has been established along the front property line that is just short of 200 feet long. The northerly driveway will be removed and grass and landscaping will be created in that area. The first variance requested is to allow parking without five foot perimeter screening. The second variance request is to allow display of vehicles within 10’ of the property line. In the display areas of 1-20, 21-24 and 39-45, both requests will be necessary. The parking of vehicles needs to be where they are proposed because in the four bays vehicles need space to get in and out. The parking is also necessary in order to allow circular access through the site. This will avoid vehicles from
backing out of the site onto Rte. 5 and allow emergency vehicles safe access through the site. There will be no vehicles that are waiting for body work to be done stored in the front of the building, they will be inside the building or in the rear of the building.
Attorney Cummings concluded that the used car sales, general repair and auto body work are all existing, previously approved uses at this site. The nonconforming location of the building was caused by the State taking of property. The law does allow for reasonable growth for existing nonconforming uses. Attorney Cummings submitted 15 letters into the record, (Attachment A through 0).
Public
Mrs. Deborah Fine came before the Commission to speak in favor of this application.
Mr. Harvey Fine came before the Commission to speak in favor of this application.
Mr. Bill Leary came before the Commission to speak in favor of this application. He stated that if the business is not allowed to display vehicles, it will not be a viable business.
Mr. Russell Jenson came before the Board to speak in favor of this application. He stated that this company provides great service to their customers and looks forward to the business continuing this service.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Attorney Cummings explained that any variances previously granted, the application is requesting they be combined with what is being requested with this application. One driveway access is being closed and the applicant is seeking 0’ line for display of vehicles. Past approval was for 50 parking spaces and that is being modified. Mr. DeMallie stated that parking spaces can be removed from the plan which is located east of the wooden fence, if this application is approved.
After a brief discussion, it was decided that this application would be tabled in order to draft appropriate language and clarify the request for the variance to section 3.10.5 to modify prior approvals in order to conform to the submitted plan, and have the applicant specify what variances are being sought/eliminated.
Motion to: table and continue to the public hearing being held on October 5, 2006 on appl. #2690-06 – MLB, Inc. d/b/a Ful-Line Auto, request for three variances: 1) to section 13.7.4 to allow parking of display vehicles within 10’ of the property line; 2) to section 13.4.a to allow parking without a five foot perimeter screening and no interior landscaping; and 3) to section 3.10.5 to modify prior approvals in order to conform to the submitted plan, at 1546 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone.
Was made by Commissioner Wagner
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Deliberative Session
Appl. #2686-06 – Connecticut Valley Properties of South Windsor, LLC, 1678 & 1700 Ellington Road, RC zone.
The Board Members discussed the benefits for each request:
Building A
· Bringing the building more into conformance to the regulations.
· Allows building to address handicap accessibility and improves the aesthetics of the building.
Building C
· Moving building C further back would restrict traffic flow on the site.
· Will be consistent with buildings on same street. Substantially reduces the nonconformity of existing and pre-existing building.
Buffer
· Requirement would unnecessarily eliminate the usage of the property considering there is forested wetland which is town owned to the rear of the property.
· Combining the two parcels will bring the lot more into conformity.
Motion to: approve appl. #2686-06 – Connecticut Valley Properties of South Windsor, LLC, 18-3 Arthur Drive, for three variances: 1) a 40’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a structure (building C) 25’ from the front property line (65’ required); 2) a 15’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a structure (building A) 50’ from the front property line (65’ required); and 3) a 35’ variance to section 10.4.1 to allow a 15’ buffer (50’ required), on property located at 1678 & 1700 Ellington Road, RC zone.
Was made by Commissioner Wagner
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
The Board concluded the hardship to be as follows:
1. If the building was moved back it would unnecessarily restricts traffic flow (building C).
2. The variance allows the property to address handicap accessibility and improves the aesthetics of the building, (building A).
3. The buffer requirement would unnecessarily eliminate the usage of the property because the town owns the property to the rear which is a forested wetland.
Was made by Commissioner Wagner
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #2689-06 – John Thorne, 8 Welles Lane, RR open space zone
Motion to: Approve appl. #2689-06 – John Thorne, a 30’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a shed 20’ from the property line (50’ required), at property located at 8 Welles Lane, RR open space zone.
Was made by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #2687-06 – Dr. Gregory Haroian, 1169 Ellington Road, A-20 zone
Commission members felt the application should be re-advertised to include modification of a previously approved variance.
Motion to: Table appl. #2687-87 – Dr. Gregory Haroian, request for two variances: 1) a 17’ variance to section 5.6.3 (i) to allow impervious coverage of 57% (40% allowed); and 2) a 2’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a structure 38’ from the front property line (40’ required), on property located at 1169 Ellington Road, A-20 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #2688-06 – David M. Dubiel, 173 Farnham Road, A-20 zone
Motion to: Approve with conditions appl. #2688-06 – David M. Dubiel, a 6’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a carport 4’ from the side property line (10’ required), on property located at 173 Farnham Rod, A-20 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Jeski
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was follows: unanimous
Hardship: Placement of the house on the property creates difficulty constructing a carport that would conform to the regulations any where on the property.
Condition: Three to five arborvitae or similar type plantings to be placed in the vicinity of the carport in order to provide screening from the neighboring property. The plantings should be 3 to 4 feet in height at the time they are planted.
ITEM: Minutes
Motion to: approve the July 6, 2006 minutes.
Was made by Commissioner Jeski
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Other Business
ZBA Application
Commissioner Wagner reviewed the changes to the ZBA Application he felt necessary. The Board will review the changes and will discuss this matter further at the next scheduled meeting.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 10:51 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Wilson
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
| 
