TOWN OF WILLINGTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
March 11, 2004
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. File 2003-24 – Application to appeal ruling of Zoning Agent for home occupation at 364 Tolland Turnpike. (Map 22, Lot 28A, R80) Owner/Applicant: Joseph M. Renzulli. (Received 1/8/04; Site walk 1/17/04 at 2:30 p.m.; Hearing 2/12/04 continued to 3/11/04, Decision by 5/13/04)
Hearing opened at 7:35 p.m. Present for meeting were members: R. Maloney, N. Wilson, T. Smith, P. Wright seated for C. Deskus, A. Poole seated for R. Manaskie.
Joseph Renzulli applicant, Atty. JoAnn Paul representing Mr. Renzulli.
R. Maloney stated that Atty. Paul had represented him in a previous issue. Both he and Atty Paul stated that there would be no conflict.
Atty. Paul suggested the rear dwelling should be grandfathered because someone has been living there for quite some time.
There was discussion as to whether rear dwelling was legal.
The front building, previously known as Fenton River Gallery, cannot accommodate septic system or water. There was concern the structural integrity of the building needs to be verified.
Mr. Smith reiterated that the Board need only rule on the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s ruling.
R. Maloney asked if anyone was present to speak for the applicant.
Donald Schoeck, 361 Tolland Turnpike verified that someone has lived in the rear dwelling for 20 years.
Mary Steele, the previous owner of the property explained that the nine or so acres were quaint and lovely and that the gallery when it was there was lovely. She also stated that the rear dwelling was very cozy and even had a Jacuzzi bathtub.
Kenji Jordan of 68 Cowles Rd. stated that taxes were being paid as a commercial lot and therefore the owner should be able to use the land.
Closed hearing at 8:20 p.m.
2. File 2004-01 – Application for a variance for a business at 93 Latham Road (Map 4, Lot 13, R80) Owner: Betty Cydylo, Applicant: Roland Savoir (Received 1/8/04, Site walk 1/17/04 at 3:00 p.m.; Hearing on 2/12/04 continued until 3/11/04; Decision by 5/13/04)
Hearing opened at 8:20 p.m. Present for meeting were members: R. Maloney, N. Wilson, T. Smith, P. Wright seated for C. Deskus, A. Poole seated for R. Manaskie.
Also present were applicants: R. Savoir, B. Cydylo, J. Cydylo and Atty. Dorian Famiglietti.
Alternate member John Prusak left at 8:25 p.m.
A moment was taken for members to read letter from Matthew Willis responding to statements and cases sited by Atty. Dorian Famiglietti.
R. Maloney requested that Atty Famiglietti site what section of the zoning regulations the application is based. Atty. Famiglietti stated that 5.02.01.04 and 5.02.01.03. Section 13 could also be used in addition to 5.02.01.03 and 5.02.01.04. She wanted to condition variance and stated that the hardship is 1) Presence of chicken coop predates the zoning regulations and 2) it is no longer intended for its original use.
Hearing closed at 9:07 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING:
Members present: R. Maloney, N. Wilson, T. Smith, P. Wright seated for C. Deskus, A. Poole seated for R. Manaskie.
CALL TO ORDER: Opened at 9:09 p.m.
CORRESPONDENCE:
· CT Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies
· Budget balances 2003-2004
· Letter from Matthew Willis re: 93 Latham Rd dated 3/10/2004
· Letter from Robert Hisey dated 3/6/04 w/copy of letter to M. Eldredge re: withdrawal
· Letter from Economic Development Commission re: 93 Latham Rd.
· Letter from M. Eldredge re: recommendation of D. Brown for position on ZBA
· Letter to R. Manaskie from R. Maloney
· Letter to M. Eldredge from R. Maloney re: resignation of R. Manaskie
· Letter to S. Yorgensen from R. Maloney re: enforcement of regulations
· Letter from M. Eldredge to R. Hisey re: recommendation to ZBA
MINUTES:
R. Maloney requested waiting until 4/8/04 meeting to approve minutes.
NEW BUSINESS:
File 2004-02 – Application for a variance to construct a detached garage at 43 Laurel Dr. (Map 54, Lot 20-46, R80) Owner/Applicant: Dana J. Woods (Received 3/11/04; Hearing on 4/8/04; Decision by 6/10/04)
R. Maloney schedule a site walk for March 20, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. Post cards will be sent to all members and applicant.
OLD BUSINESS:
· File 2003-24 – Application to appeal ruling of Zoning Agent for home occupation at 364 Tolland Turnpike. (Map 22, Lot 28A, R80) Owner/Applicant: Joseph M. Renzulli.
Motion made by T. Smith to uphold zoning agents ruling in reference to File 2003-24, seconded by A. Poole.
R. Maloney was very concerned about the building, he feels structure was ready to fall down.
A/ Poole stated that during the site walk she noticed that most of the pillars were rebuilt and they are cement, some kind of concrete. But what she thinks detracts from that repair is the underside of the floor. The insulation is falling and she felt it may make it look worse than it is.
T. Smith stated that was not an issue for us.
N. Wilson stated that the issue is “is the house a residence or not.”
T. Smith stated that they are ruling strictly on whether the Zoning Agent is correct in stating whether it is not a home.
R. Maloney said to look at the application for the certificate, remember the application is for “other” which is home occupation. So they are asking for not just whether this is a residence but whether they can obtain a home occupation permit.
T. Smith stated the whole reason for denying the home occupation application is because there is no residence. The main problem for T. Smith is that it can be decided by the Building Official.
N. Wilson stated the applicant didn’t pursue that route. They are claiming that it has always been a residence, always been a home. And the question is “Is it a home?”
P. Wright said that when Gary Jones, the assistant ZEO, saw the map and that it stated the rear building was a cottage he had to research it and found there was no c.o. on it and it wasn’t built as a residence originally, it was built as a cottage.
N. Wilson stated that the building was skidded into the property and that it was some kind of farm building originally.
P. Wright asked if they could just get a certificate of compliance?
R. Maloney said that it would be difficult to get, that home would have to comply then, and then they could go to zoning and get a home occupancy permit. This never was a residence originally, it wasn’t set up as a residence, it kind of historically evolved into a residence. And the reason it is a residence is just because it hasn’t been inspected doesn’t weigh heavily enough. R. Maloney could have a shack in the woods and was living there and it wasn’t inspected and that wouldn’t make it right.
P. Wright asked if the commission would be who determined who could live in it?
R. Maloney stated that it was not the commission’s job. You deny the occupancy and uphold Mr. Jones and let it go back to the Zoning and let them meet the requirements of a residence.
T. Smith stated that it is incumbent on people who are buying property to look into what they are getting into. He also said he did not feel the letter from the health district was a ringing endorsement of the property.
P. Wright felt the homeowner needed to reassure the commission with more evidence of safety when all we have is that someone has been living in the cottage.
R. Maloney agreed saying that the homeowner has put the burden on the commission to allow them to skirt all the requirements that homeowners may have.
A discussion concerning whether the Town, the building inspector, and/or the fire marshal needs to look at the property to seed if it is a safe premises. If the commission were to vote against the zoning agent, they would be making the building a residence and allowing the use of a home occupancy, so that suddenly the commission would then be the building inspector, and everything else.
R. Maloney suggested the commission uphold the zoning official’s decision. That would then force the applicant to go back to the building inspector and get the necessary certificates and then let it go through the home occupancy route. And deny it without prejudice so that if they later on want to come back to the ZBA they can.
The application for zoning compliance stands as denied.
The motion was made by T. Smith and seconded by A. Poole and the motion is to uphold the zoning enforcement agent’s ruling to deny the application for the certificate of zoning compliance filed on November 13, 2003 and Mr. Jones signed it and denied it on December 9, 2003. And friendly amendment would be to simply uphold the ruling without prejudice to the applicant. Vote: All in favor.
· File 2004-01 – Application for a variance for a business at 93 Latham Road (Map 4, Lot 13, R80) Owner: Betty Cydylo, Applicant: Roland Savoir.
The Board will read over research by Gary Jones regarding history of property and go over testimony by applicants and their representative before making a decision.
DISCUSSION:
o Letter to S. Yorgensen from R. Maloney re: enforcement of regulations. R. Maloney went over discussions with S. Yorgensen, M. Eldredge and J. Blessington regarding the Zoning Enforcement Officials obligation to enforce the zoning regulations.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion made by T. Smith to adjourn meeting, seconded by N. Wilson.
Vote: All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrea Jordan, Clerk for ZBA
| 
