Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING February 19, 2008 Meeting Minutes The special meeting of the City of Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present. PRESENT: Joseph Jacaruso, Chairman Marc Benjamin, Co-Chairman Paul Kramarewicz Henry Olender Dorothy Travers Santo Rizzuto, Alternate Raymond Dussault, Alternate Paulette Craig, Zoning Enforcement Officer Darlene Fedus, Recording Secretary ========================================= E. COMMUNICATIONS None ========================================= F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES On a motion by Kramarewicz/Rizzuto it was unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2007 meeting. ================================================= G. OLD BUSINESS None H. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Craig noted to the Board that the first four items on the agenda were interrelated; after discussion, the Board has chosen to open and vote on each variance application separately. She also mentioned there was a request from a resident to table the first four variances since he would like to comment but there were several other City meetings taking place at the same time. Atty. Theodore N. Phillips of 12 Case Street informed the Board that he objected to the request and asked respectfully to go forward due to constraints on time sensitive items. #V-07-47 Appeal of American Wharf Development Corp./PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 38 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 9.6.1, permitted use; Sec. 9.6.5, landscaping buffer, 5’ required to be reduced to 0’; and Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; westerly side yard setback 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; rear yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; maximum lot coverage, 25% allowed to be increased to 70% to allow construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 46 West Main Street and 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender Ms. Craig entered into the record as Exhibit “A”, the application; as “B1”, public notices of 1/30/08 & 2/6/08, as “B2”, public notices of 2/13/08; as “C”, abutters’ notices; “D”, assessor’s street card; as “E”, GIS map; as “F”, applicant’s plot plan; as “G”, 12/21/07 request for review by Commission on the City Plan; as “H”, 1/30/08 Commission on the City Plan’s favorable recommendation; as “I”, representative authorization from American Wharf; as “J”, authorization portion of American Wharf’s lease w/City; as “K”, representative authorization from PRA; as “L”, applicant’s aerial map; as “M”, excerpt from “What’s Legally Required”; as “N”, CAM info; and as “O”, Charles O’Neil’s comments. Speaking in favor of the applicants was Atty. Theodore Phillips of 12 Case Street. He explained how the four application intertwined with each other in regards to the proposal for the eighteen-story hotel and proposed parking facilities; the project is contingent upon approval for each application and would not be able to move forward due to its complexity if all of the variances were not approved. Atty. Phillips went on to explain this variance request is in conjunction with other applications filed on this date for 46 West Main Street, 74-78 West Main Street and 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive. Atty. Phillips gave an overview of the property, explaining the ownership/lease agreements in place for the subject properties. He noted there are special circumstances that apply to the land for which the variances are sought, peculiar to the land that do not apply generally to other land in the WD zone, and have not resulted from any act subsequent to the adoption of the Zoning Regulations in that the parcels known as 46 West Main Street and 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive are actually part of a single ground lease from the City of Norwich to American Wharf Development Corporation but are separated by a narrow span of the Yantic River. The proposed granting of the side and rear yard variance will allow for a reasonable use of the properties as a cohesive single property known as 46 West Main Street. The properties are located between and restricted by two branches of river, and are subject to numerous code restrictions that reduce the usable portion of the properties, necessitating variances to allow a scale of development that makes the use reasonable. Atty. Phillips noted that due to the aforesaid circumstances and conditions, the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the property in that they would not be able to use the leasehold properties as a single cohesive property. The granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land, and the variance requested is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose. The granting of the variance, he said, is necessary to avoid interference with the public’s enjoyment of the Marina portion of the property and would be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning regulations, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Atty. Phillips went on to state that the granting of the variance will be to the benefit of the neighborhood in that the use of the leasehold properties as a cohesive unit will allow for the construction of a hotel on the adjacent property and will increase the grand list of the City of Norwich and will allow for a reasonable use of the property that would not be detrimental to the use of other property remaining in the zone. Atty. Phillips explained that the developer did not want to interfere with the park, marina, restaurant and city property and they had looked to configure where it would be the least intrusive and minimal on the impact of view. Due to the limitations on parking requirements in the zoning regulations within the CC and WD district, they need to adapt to both. Members of the Board asked if the project would be sensitive to aesthetics, and the amount of tiers that would be included in the garage and the height in reference to other garages in the City. The Board was assured that the Commission on the City Plan would have the final approval on the aesthetics; there would be four tiers and the proposed garage would be lower that the parking garage at the Mercantile Exchange building. Speaking in favor of the applicant was J.P. Mereen of 22 Mediterranean Lane. Mr. Mereen asked the Board to look outside the box in reference to the developable property in the downtown area, to consider this as a solid proposal and to move forward with it. Speaking in opposition was Bart Pacekonis of South Windsor, CT who has been a Planning and Zoning Commissioner for 6 years in South Windsor and is also a business rep/organizer with the New England Regional Council of Carpenters. He stated to the Board that a valid hardship for each variance in his opinion does not exist and for this particular variance there was no real hardship that existed to allow development to increase to 70% coverage; he felt the applications should be denied. He then read an excerpt from “What’s Legally Required” (see Exhibit “M”) and was told by the Board he needed to stay within the subject of the variance that was before the Board. Also speaking was Keith Ripley of Meadow Lane. Mr. Ripley mentioned he was concerned that at the last NCDC meeting they had made reference to the transportation center and the property possibly being acquired form the American Wharf. Atty. Phillips pointed out the part of the property by referring to the map and stated it was not related to the current project. Mr. Ripley stated he was not for or against the project; his concern with this particular variance was that is was necessary for the Board to recognize it was in the flood plain zone. Speaking in opposition of the applicants was Gabriel Lara of Lincoln Avenue. He stated he was concerned with the hotel being 18 stories, in the flood plain and how it would affect the look of Norwich, the amount of money being spent on the project and how it would affect waterways, the environment and future generations. The Board reminded Mr. Lara he was getting off the subject and that their job was to look at the variance before them and the property in question. Speaking in opposition of the applicants was Robert Corriveau of 296 Millstone Rd. East, Waterford CT who stated he was representing 17 individuals in the audience and their concern was the fact that the property is in the CAM area and if the applicants would need to go through Site Plan review and the adverse impacts this project would have. Ms. Craig informed him if and when the variance was approved, they would need to go through CAM review and Site Plan review. Mr. Corriveau stated he was concerned with the parking garage blocking the view to the water and the impact on boats and the bridge. He was informed by the Board that the DEP, State of CT DOT and EPA would be the proper departments in regards to those concerns. Speaking in opposition of the applicants was Charles O’Neill of 26 Jones Court. He stated his concerns for the buffers and the interest of the public welfare and fire and public works concerns. Ms. Craig noted that there may be a misconception of the buffer and easement, which would be addressed during the rebuttal. Speaking in opposition of the applicants was Mike Sposito of 83 Hunters Road. He stated his concerns as to the impact traffic would have on local business and the public and to the traffic flow. Speaking in opposition of the applicants was Ned Remondi of 61 Palmer Street Ext. in regards to the height of the proposed parking garage. He was informed that the developer would be able to answer during rebuttal. Speaking in opposition of the applicants was Robert Sylvia of 259 Laurel Hill Avenue who had a concern regarding the proposed parking garage and the blocking of any view of the harbor.  Atty. Phillips rebutted and addressed the concerns of each speaker in opposition. He noted the configuration of the proposed garage took into consideration the concern residents had of the use of the marina. He also noted that the Planning Commission would address any concerns regarding traffic. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. ======================================== #V-07-48 Appeal of City of Norwich/American Wharf Development Corp./PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 46 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 9.6.1, permitted use; Sec. 9.6.5, landscaping buffer, 5’ required, to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’ to allow for construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 38 West Main Street and 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. Ms. Craig entered into the record as Exhibit “A”, the application; as “B1”, public notices of 1/30/08 & 2/6/08, as “B2”, public notice of 2/13/08; as “C”, abutters’ notices; “D”, assessor’s street card; as “E”, GIS map; as “F”, applicant’s plot plan; as “G”, 12/21/07 request for review by Commission on the City Plan; as “H”, 1/30/08 Commission on the City Plan’s favorable recommendation; as “I”, representative authorization from American Wharf; as “J”, authorization portion of American Wharf’s lease w/City; as “K”, representative authorization from PRA; as “L”, applicant’s aerial map; and as “M”, petition. Speaking in favor of the applicant was Atty. Theodore Phillips who addressed the concerns of Mr. O’Neil and referred to the exhibit map in regards to the buffer issues and side yard variances being sought. In regards to pedestrian easement, Heritage Walkway will not be affected by the variance. Mr. Benjamin asked for clarification on the four stories of the parking deck and asked if it would be aesthetically pleasing. Tom Cummings of CLA Engineers told the Board that the design was not complete yet and referred to the Exhibit map. Atty. Phillips stated once the hotel is built it will not be a distraction and the ratio would be similar to the UN building in New York City. Speaking in opposition was Bart Pacekonis of 39 Blue Ridge Dr. South Windsor, CT who stated again there is no hardship with the variance, only the one that the developer created. Speaking in opposition was Keith Ripley, who reminded the applicant that it is their responsibility to see if there are any other alternatives to develop the property. He also asked if there were easements associated with the State road for traffic requirements needed.  Speaking in rebuttal, Atty. Phillips stated three areas on the waterfront trap the property and topography, inferring there was no reasonable use of the property. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. ================================================ #V-07-49 Appeal of JCM CT Acquisitions LLC/PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 74-78 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 9.6.5, landscaping buffer, 5’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 12.1, front yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; rear yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; and maximum lot coverage, 70% allowed to be increased to 85%, in order to allow for construction of a hotel. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. Ms. Craig entered into the record as Exhibit “A”, the application; as “B1”, public notices of 1/30/08 & 2/6/08, as “B2”, public notice of 2/13/08; as “C”, abutters’ notices; “D”, assessor’s street card; as “E”, GIS map; as “F”, applicant’s plot plan; as “G”, representative authorization from JCM LLC; as “H”, representative authorization from PRA; and as “I”, applicant’s aerial map. Speaking in favor of the application was Atty. Theodore Phillips who stated the buffer would go across the driveway; it would be in harmony with the waterfront and would not interfere with residential properties. He went on to say the hotel would be comprised of a convention center accommodating 700 people, coffee shop, gift shop - a first-class, full service hotel unlike any other hotel presently in Norwich. Speaking in opposition was Bart Pacekinis who stated that the 85% maximum lot coverage requested is excessive and would cause a dangerous situation to the public in respect to public safety and welfare. Speaking in opposition was Charles O’Neill of 26 Jones Court. He stated his concern for pollution, transportation, traffic congestion and public health. Speaking in opposition was Keith Ripley who stated to the Board he was not trying to block this project; he wanted to be sure the public was informed and didn’t have a shadow of doubt. His concern was with the floodplain and the buffer zones with respect to safety. Atty. Phillips rebutted in regards to the buffer and the uniqueness of the property and terrain issues with the four properties being treated as one. As far as the safety issues are concernerd, Atty. Phillips stated that the proper engineers, regulators and commissions will deal with each issue. He also stated there weren’t any abutters complaining. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. ========================================== #V-07-50 Appeal of City of Norwich/American Wharf Development Corp/PRA Development and Management Corp for property at 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive, located in CC zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’ in order to allow construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 38 West Main and 46 West Main Street to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. Ms. Craig entered into the record as Exhibit “A”, the application; as “B1”, public notices of 1/30/08 & 2/6/08, as “B2”, public notice of 2/13/08; as “C”, abutters’ notices; “D”, assessor’s street card; as “E”, GIS map; as “F”, applicant’s plot plan; as “G”, representative authorization from American Wharf; as “H”, authorization portion of American Wharf’s lease w/City; as “I”, representative authorization from PRA; and “J”, applicant’s aerial map. Speaking in favor of the applicant was Atty. Theodore Phillips who stated that this application was a land lease situation similar to the application for 46 West Main Street with other provisions applying; he referred to the map and pointed out that by necessity they could not provide a 50’ buffer. He also stated that since this is a Chelsea Central zone district, a parking garage is allowed and there are no setbacks required. The Board asked for the clarification of the four levels. Atty. Phillips said that in regards to the four levels, they would be on both sides of the river with an archway for boats to get through. Also speaking in favor was Keith Ripley who stated he wasn’t in favor of the proposed design but was in favor of this application for the vision of American Wharf and it’s something that Norwich needs. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. ============================================ #V-08-01 Appeal of Robert & Urling Sylvia for property at 146 Division Street, located in MF zone. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, lot area, 15,000 SF required to be reduced to 5,300 SF and recreation area, 900 SF required to be reduced to 0’ in order to continue use as a 3-family dwelling. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. Ms. Craig entered into the record as Exhibit “A”, the application; as “B1”, public notices of 1/30/08 & 2/6/08, as “B2”, public notice of 2/13/08; as “C”, abutters’ notices; “D”, assessor’s street card; as “E”, GIS map; as “F”, photos; as “G”, applicant’s site plan; as “H”, purchase documentation; and as “I”, area playgrounds. Speaking in favor was the applicant, Robert Sylvia of 259 Laurel Hill Avenue, owner of 146 Division Street. He stated he purchased the property in November of 2007 and it was presented as a three-family by the realtor; it has been occupied as a three- family for 7-8 years. It is also listed on the assessor’s card as a three-family and the bank gave a loan based on a three-family. Ms. Craig informed the Board that the previous owner applied for a variance in 1998 to convert from a 2- to a 3-family and it was denied; apparently he turned it into a 3 -family anyway. Mr. Sylvia found out that the property was a 2-family after he approached the tenant on the third floor to work on his apartment. He then went to speak to Ms. Craig who confirmed the house was a 2-family. He stated the yard is large enough for a playground and it’s a corner lot. Mr. Dussault told him that the issue is with the agent, not the ZBA. Mr. Sylvia stated there have been no issues with parking for the past 7-8 years. Ms. Travers asked about the size of the third floor and was told it measured 600- 700 square feet with two means of egress. There are playgrounds within 500-800 feet of the property. Ms. Craig noted that when Mr. Sylvia came in to apply for the variance, he chose to reduce the recreation area and keep the parking as is. Mr. Benjamin noted that the seller also misrepresented the property. Mr. Sylvia said he made his decision to buy the property based on the assessor’s card and the bank has the property as a 3-family. Mr. Sylvia noted the building department condemned the apartment because it is not legal and the requirements are different for a 3-family. Speaking in opposition of the applicant was Charles O’Neill of 26 Jones Court who stated the applicant should be required to maintain the recreation area. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. ======================================== #V-08-02 Appeal of Tilcon, Inc. for property at 20 Lucas Street, located in GC zone. In accordance with Sec. 9.2.1, permitted use, to allow the development of an industrial facility wastewater reclamation and renovation facility. Ms. Craig noted the application had been forwarded to the Commission on the City Plan because it is a use variance. She asked that this appeal be continued until recommendations from the Commission are received.  On a motion by Benjamin and seconded by Kramarewicz, it was unanimously voted to continue to the next ZBA meeting. ================================================== #V-08-03 Appeal of Christopher Wisniewski for property at 69 Grant Court, located in R-20 zone. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 15’ required to be reduced to 13’ in order to construct single-family dwelling. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. Ms. Craig entered into the record as Exhibit “A”, the application; as “B1”, public notices of 1/30/08 & 2/6/08, as “B2”, public notice of 2/13/08; as “C”, abutters’ notices; “D”, assessor’s street card; as “E”, GIS map; and as “F”, applican’ts site plan. Speaking for the applicant was Ed Wisniewski of 71 Bashon Hill Rd, Bozrah, CT. He stated that the lot is a previously approved building lot and the applicant would like to build a single-family residence. He is requesting a two- foot variance to allow the construction of a two-story dwelling. If the variance was not approved the applicant would not have usable space that would be functional. The house would blend harmoniously with the neighborhood and would be less of an infringement than some of the homes already in that area. He noted that the owner is trying to propose a plan that is reflective of the neighborhood such as a modular home with traditional design; disturbance to the neighborhood would be reduced due to the quick construction of the house. Speaking in opposition of the applicant was Laurie Sklener of 65 Grant Court who stated her property has a nice tree line buffer that would be disturbed, therefore losing value to her property. The Board informed her that the applicant has a right to put up a house and there is city water and sewer available. Speaking in opposition was Kenneth Stuckey of 73 Grant Court. Mr. Stuckey’s concern was how close the house will be to his property line. He also stated the applicant should have researched what type of house could be put on the property before purchasing. Ms. Craig noted that the GIS map in our office shows Mr. Stuckey’s house closer to the property line than the surveyor’s map. Also speaking in opposition was Debra Beckwith of Prospect Street, who was concerned about the property lines being so close. Mr. Wisniewski rebutted, stating that the owner had approached both abutting property owners to try to accommodate and create the most minimal  impact. The hardship would be that the applicant would not have reasonable use of his property. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. ============================================== I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS #V-07-47 Appeal of American Wharf Development Corp./PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 38 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 9.6.1, permitted use; Sec. 9.6.5,landscaping buffer, 5’ required to be reduced to 0’; and Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; westerly side yard setback 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; rear yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; maximum lot coverage, 25% allowed to be increased to 70% to allow construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 46 West Main Street and 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. The Board noted the unique, irregular shape of the property and the location of the water as hardships for this application. On a motion by Kramarewicz/Travers, it was unanimously voted to approve the variance. #V-07-47 Appeal of American Wharf Development Corp./PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 38 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 9.6.1, permitted use; Sec. 9.6.5,landscaping buffer, 5’ required to be reduced to 0’; and Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; westerly side yard setback 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; rear yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; maximum lot coverage, 25% allowed to be increased to 70% to allow construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 46 West Main Street and 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street - APPROVED ======================================================= #V-07-48 Appeal of City of Norwich/American Wharf Development Corp./PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 46 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 9.6.1, permitted use; Sec.  9.6.5, landscaping buffer, 5’ required, to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’ to allow for construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 38 West Main Street and 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. The Board noted the unique, irregular shape and the location of the water as a hardship for this application. On a motion by Kramarewicz/Travers, it was unanimously voted to approve the variance. #V-07-48 Appeal of City of Norwich/American Wharf Development Corp./PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 46 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 9.6.1, permitted use; Sec. 9.6.5, landscaping buffer, 5’ required, to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’ to allow for construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 38 West Main Street and 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street – APPROVED ================================== #V-07-49 Appeal of JCM CT Acquisitions LLC/PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 74-78 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 9.6.5, landscaping buffer, 5’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 12.1, front yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; rear yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; and maximum lot coverage, 70% allowed to be increased to 85%, in order to allow for construction of a hotel. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. Mr. Dussault was concerned with the floodplain and Mr. Benjamin noted the property is unique in that it contains multiple properties and seems greater in percentage than it is. The hardship would pertain to the above-mentioned and the limited use due to the topography. On a motion by Kramarewicz/Travers, it was unanimously voted to approve the variance.  #V-07-49 Appeal of JCM CT Acquisitions LLC/PRA Development and Management Corp. for property at 74-78 West Main Street, located in WD zone. In accordance with Sec. 9.6.5, landscaping buffer, 5’ required to be reduced to 0’; Sec. 12.1, front yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; easterly side yard setback, 10’ required to be reduced to 0’; rear yard setback, 20’ required to be reduced to 0’; and maximum lot coverage, 70% allowed to be increased to 85%, in order to allow for construction of a hotel - APPROVED ======================================= #V-07-50 Appeal of City of Norwich/American Wharf Development Corp/PRA Development and Management Corp for property at 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive, located in CC zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’ in order to allow construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 38 West Main and 46 West Main Street to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. The Board noted the limited land use as a hardship for this variance. On a motion by Kramarewicz/Jacaruso, it was unanimously voted to approve the variance. #V-07-50 Appeal of City of Norwich/American Wharf Development Corp/PRA Development and Management Corp for property at 150 Chelsea Harbor Drive, located in CC zone. In accordance with Sec. 3.15, buffer screening, 50’ required to be reduced to 0’ in order to allow construction of a parking deck spanning this property, 38 West Main and 46 West Main Street to support hotel proposed for 74-78 West Main Street - APPROVED ===================================== #V-08-01 Appeal of Robert & Urling Sylvia for property at 146 Division Street, located in MF zone. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, lot area, 15,000 SF required to be reduced to 5,300 SF and recreation area, 900 SF required to be reduced to 0’ in order to continue use as a 3-family dwelling. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. Mr. Kramarewicz said that the applicant bought the property with the understanding it was and is a 3-family and there are two playgrounds nearby (one on Lake Street and one on Brook Street). Mr. Dussault reminded the Board that they had already denied the previous owner’s application and there isn’t any  recreation area on the property. Mr. Kramarewicz mentioned that the bank had given the applicant the loan for the property based on a 3-family home. Mr. Jacaruso said he blames it on the realtor. Ms. Travers noted that it stated on the street card it was a 3-family and he paid for a 3-family. A motion to grant was made by Kramarewicz and seconded by Travers. The application was defeated 3-2 (Jacaruso, Olender opposed). V-08-01 Appeal of Robert & Urling Sylvia for property at 146 Division Street, located in MF zone. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, lot area, 15,000 SF required to be reduced to 5,300 SF and recreation area, 900 SF required to be reduced to 0’ in order to continue use as a 3-family dwelling - DENIED ========================================= #V-08-03 Appeal of Christopher Wisniewski for property at 69 Grant Court, located in R-20 zone. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 15’ required to be reduced to 13’ in order to construct single-family dwelling. Seated were Joseph Jacaruso, Marc Benjamin, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Henry Olender. Mr. Kramarewicz and Mr. Benjamin stated they would rather give a two- foot variance for a 22’ house then to see a 20’ house. Ms. Travers noted it is a building lot and without this variance the applicant wouldn’t have reasonable use of his property, causing a hardship. Mr. Olender mentioned the area is already overcrowded. A motion to grant was made by Kramarewicz and seconded by Jacaruso. The application was approved 4-1 (Olender opposed). #V-08-03 Appeal of Christopher Wisniewski for property at 69 Grant Court, located in R-20 zone. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 15’ required to be reduced to 13’ in order to construct single-family dwelling - APPROVED ========================================= J. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Kramarewicz/Jacaruso, it was unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paulette Craig, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals