MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Thomas Berstene, Matthew Davis, Stephen Wagner, Sandra Jeski
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Gentile sitting for Theresa Dickey-Giagnat
N’Marie Crumbie
TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning & Zoning
Kathy Middleton, Recording Secretary
Chairperson Berstene called the public hearing to order at 7:14 p.m.
The recording secretary read the legal notice into the record as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Saturday, April 21, 2007 and Saturday, April 28, 2007.
ITEM: New Business
Appl. #2696-07 –David & Jacqueline Dewey, 159 Center Road, Vernon, CT- request for 19 foot variance to section 10.2 to allow a garage to be located one foot from property line (20 feet req.), on property located at 1005 Main Street, A-40 zone
Jacqueline Dewey, property owner came before the commission to requesting a variance of 19’ to place a tandem garage and the end of the existing driveway. Dewey stated that they feel that this is a natural placement and that the hardship is that it is a non-conforming narrow lot (70 feet). They also feel that there will be minimal impact with open area. Dewey stated that they are requesting a 19 foot variance however; they are willing to negotiate rather than be rejected.
George Treadwell, 1013 Main Street, neighbor of Dewey came before the commission and stated that the lots are very narrow and the only place to put a garage is at the end of the driveway. Treadwell stated that he and his family have no objection.
Answering questions from the commission Dewey stated that the property is currently vacant and that the height of the garage would be between 10 and 12 feet. Commissioner Jeski asked what the hardship was because there is a lot of open space in the back yard. Dewey stated that the hardship is the narrowness of the property, they are looking for minimal impact by having the garage on the side to allow for an open view.
Public Hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.
Appl. #2697-07 – Lindsey Limousine, Inc., appeal from the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s decision involving a cease and desist order dated 2/2/07 alleging a sign in violation of the zoning regulations on the property located at 170 Strong Road, I zone
Michael Lindsey, President of Lindsey Limousine came before the commission to appeal a sign zoning violation. Lindsey gave a brief background about himself and his business. Lindsey stated that he currently owns twenty nine vehicles. Lindsey stated that there is no current complaint logged to promote this action. Lindsey stated that he would like to address the zoning violation and had the following comments:
· Fact 1. Exhibit 1 - copy of Connecticut Title – title does not state mobile billboard or billboard truck.
· Fact 2. Exhibit 2 – copy of CT registration – vehicle is described on registration as a 1999 Chevrolet Model 3500, body style – box truck.
· Fact 3. Vehicle is not parked in front of subject property; it is parked on subject property.
· Vehicle does not fit in any of the buildings and is in the way when parked the rear of the building.
· Would like the commission to consider what would happen when a property doesn’t have any parking in the rear or parking that is not visible from a public way.
· Fact 4 – vehicle is legally registered and titled in the State of CT and is authorized to utilize the roadways.
· Fact 5 – doesn’t believe that this situation constitutes an off premises sign as stated in zoning regulation 17.17J.
· Vehicle is used as a service vehicle
Zoning Enforcement Officer, Joy O’Connor came before the commission. O’Connor stated that the sign is visible from the road and the purpose of it is advertising. O’Connor brought to the commissions attention a billboard website named Rubberneck, which is owned and operated by Michael Lindsey and handed out copies of the website information to commission members (attachment A) proving that this vehicle is a billboard vehicle. O’Connor stated that in the original planning and zoning approval, in the comments and concerns Lindsey stated that the only cars that would be parked outside are those that are ready to go out on a job or vehicles that have just been returned.
Town Attorney, Richard Roberts of Hallaran & Sage came before the commission and stated that how the truck is listed on the DMV title is not dispositive of how it should be treated under South Windsor zoning regulations. The meaning of the regulation that permits signs on vehicles used in the normal day to day operations of the business is intended to cover things such as a contractor truck with its name on it, not for vehicles where the sign is the sole reason for the vehicle being in existence.
Commissioner Berstene asked Lindsey to describe what the purpose of the service vehicle is. Lindsey replied saying that the vehicle is used for transporting car parts, purchasing bulk supplies, tools, and is also used for errands. When asked by Berstene how he handles a request for somebody else’s sign to be put on the vehicle. Lindsey explained that the website is a mute point and has never been used for anything other use.
There was a lengthy discussion among commission members regarding the difference of whether or not the truck is a portable billboard or is signage for the normal course of business. Lindsey stated that the truck was only used about 2 days a week. Commissioner Davis noted that the photos taken on 3/19/07 showed the truck being plowed in and appeared as though it may not be used on a daily basis. Lindsey stated that it is used a couple times a week.
Wagner asked why the truck is parked in the area that it is parked in. Lindsey stated that due to the flow of activity around the building there is no other area to park the truck.
Berstene stated that there are other companies in town that have trucks who do not use them on a day to day (Monday – Friday) operations and they all meet the same criteria as being a sign parked in view of the main road. Berstene asked Atty. Roberts what constitutes day to day operations. Roberts stated that there term “day-to-day” is open to interpretation. O’Connor used her discretion to make a preemptive enforcement. The intent of the configuration of this vehicle is for advertising and its functionality is as a sign rather than a service vehicle. Berstene asked if there should be some evidence that it has been used for advertising for anything other than the company that owns it. Berstene stated that it the commission is being asked to decide this case on a statement of
intent and asked if there is a statement of fact that the vehicle has been seen and used advertising other than Lindsey Limousine. Davis stated that he felt comfortable with what the zoning officer has done based on the facts and information given to come to a conclusion that it is used a portable advertising sign.
Jeski asked when the vehicle was purchased and how long after it was purchased was the sign attached. Lindsey stated that the truck was purchased about three years ago and the signage was put on shortly after.
Wagner brought to attention that there are four running lights on the truck (attachment A). Wagner asked Lindsey what these lights do. Lindsey stated that they shine on the vehicle on the Lindsey Limousine sign. Lindsey stated that the vehicle is purchased and being used as a service vehicle. There were other options available, but didn’t transpire to anything.
Berstene asked for public participation. Mr. Shepard, 715 Main Street spoke in favor of Lindsey.
Motion to: continue public hearing #2697-07 for June meeting to allow both parties an opportunity to come to a resolution.
Was made by Commissioner Gentile
Was seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #2698-07 – Ernest & Laura F. Rempel Jr., - request for 7 foot variance to section 10.2 to allow a porch to be 43 feet from the front building line, (50 feet req.) on property located at 15 Niederwerfer Road, A-40 zone
Commissioner Crumbie sitting for Chairperson Berstene who recused himself. Wagner acting as Chair.
Ernest Rempel came before the commission and presented a photo of his backyard as evidence of his hardship stating that due to the set up of the back of the house there is no where to put an addition to the back and the current family room is too small. Rempel also stated that the other houses on the street are at a 40 foot setback.
Wagner noted that if this variance did not get approved that Rempel could still build an addition of 9 feet. Davis noted that there appears to be a 20% slope in the back. Davis stated that it appears that Rempel meets all other lot coverage requirements except for the setback.
Public hearing closed at 9:10
ITEM: Deliberative Session
Appl. #2696-07 –David & Jacqueline Dewey, 159 Center Road, Vernon, CT- request for 19 foot variance to section 10.2 to allow a garage to be located one foot from property line (20 feet req.), on property located at 1005 Main Street, A-40 zone
The board discussed the application. Commissioner Davis stated that he would be agreeable to a three (3) foot setback.
Motion to: approve with modifications- appl. #2696-07 –David & Jacqueline Dewey, 159 Center Road, Vernon, CT- a 17 foot variance to section 10.2 to allow a garage to be located three feet from property line (20 feet req.), on property located at 1005 Main Street, A-40 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Davis
Seconded by Commissioner Gentile
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
The Board concluded the hardship to be the unique trapezoidal lot geometry and the narrowness of the lot.
Appl. #2698-07 – Ernest & Laura F. Rempel Jr., -request for 7 foot variance to section 10.2 to allow a porch to be 43 feet from the front building line, (50 feet req.) on property located at 15 Niederwerfer Road, A-40 zone
Commissioner Crumbie sitting for Chairperson Berstene who recused himself.
The board discussed the merits of the application
Motion to: Approve- appl. #2698-07 – Ernest & Laura F. Rempel Jr., -request for 7 foot variance to section 10.2 to allow a porch to be 43 feet from the front building line, (50 feet req.) on property located at 15 Niederwerfer Road, A-40 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Davis
Seconded by Commissioner Crumbie
The motion: failed (variance request requires 4 affirmative votes)
The vote was as follows: 3 to 2 with Commissioners Gentile, Crumbie, Davis voting in favor of the motion and Commissioners Jeski and Wagner voting against the motion.
Commissioner Jeski stated that she did not see a hardship because the slope of the land to the back of the property is not partial. Commissioner Wagner didn’t see that there is difficulty with slope on any part of the property.
ITEM: Minutes
Motion to: approve the April 5, 2007 minutes.
Was made by Commissioner Davis
Seconded by Commissioner Jeski
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Other Business
Commissioner Davis recommended that a letter be sent from Planning to the State Legislature stating that the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals is not in favor of House Bill 54-14 which relates to the Zoning Board of Appeals handling appeals based on Tree Warden’s decision -because it is outside the scope of the zoning’s original charter under law.
Commissioner Davis also asked for clarification of the denial process and the length of time required for an applicant to re-apply for a variance.
Commissioner Wagner reminded commission members about the Connecticut Land Use Academy Workshops being offered. Commissioner Crumbie stated that she would like to attend.
ITEM: Old Business
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Jeski
Seconded by Commissioner Wagner
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Katherine J. Middleton, Recording Secretary
| 
