Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 12, 2008 Meeting Minutes The regular 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: Mark Benjamin Henry Olender Joseph Jacaruso Raymond Dussault, Alternate Paul Kramarewicz ABSENT: Dorothy Travers Santo Rizzuto, Alternate Paulette Craig, Zoning Enforcement Officer Darlene Fedus Papineau, Recording Secretary ~~~~~ E. COMMUNICATIONS None ~~~~~ F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES On a motion by Kramarewicz/Jacaruso it was unanimously voted to accept the October 14, 2008 meeting minutes. ~~~~~ G. OLD BUSINESS None H. NEW BUSINESS #V-08-37 Appeal of Sunny Waters LLC for property at 252 Old Canterbury Turnpike, located in an R-80 zone district. Appeal of ZEO’s interpretation of CT Public Act #07-43 regarding the replacement of existing mobile homes. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Paul Kramarewicz, Henry Olender and Raymond Dussault. Ms. Craig introduced Atty. Kevin Emerson, representative of Corporation Counsel, to the Board, stating he was invited to explain the variance application, the Statute and the Regulations that state what can be appealed and what can’t; the Board could then make a decision on whether or not this falls under their 1 of 5 regulations. Mr. Benjamin, ZBA Chairman, asked Atty. Emerson if it was appropriate for the Board to hear this application at this time, or if it should be forwarded to Corporation Counsel for an opinion Atty. Emerson stated that it is Corporation Counsel’s opinion that this is not an “appealable decision” of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The applicant is appealing a letter that Ms. Craig wrote in which she stated her interpretation of Public Act 07-43. He said it seems that the applicant is seeking a determination of the ZBA as to Ms. Craig’s interpretation of the Statute. He noted that the City Charter states in Chapter 15, Sec. 10, which an appeal can be made within 15 days of “an order, a requirement or a decision” of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. His impression is that this is not an order, a requirement or a decision. Atty. Branse, representing the applicant, asked for clarification as to whom Atty. Emerson was representing – Ms. Craig, as Zoning Enforcement Officer, or the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was his opinion that Atty. Emerson could not represent both the ZEO and the ZBA, and he noted his objection. Mr. Dussault stated for the record that Atty. Emerson was not representing the ZBA at this meeting. Atty. Emerson stated he was representing the City of Norwich, and not necessarily Paulette Craig or the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Benjamin wasn’t sure that the ZBA could make a decision to overturn the ZEO’s interpretation of something. He was concerned that no zoning permit application has been filed, denied or approved. He made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jacaruso and unanimously voted, to continue this application in order to get legal direction from Corporation Counsel to define their authority. Atty. Branse agreed that the Board has 35 more days in which to open the public hearing. ~~~~~ #V-08-38 Appeal of Peniel Inc. for property at 134 Boswell Avenue, located in an MF zone district. In accordance with Sec 12.1, rear yard setback, 25’ required to be reduced to 22’ and Sec. 15.1.11, off-street parking, 16 spaces required to be reduced to 6 spaces in order to construct 736 SF addition to church. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Paul Kramarewicz, Henry Olender and Raymond Dussault. Ms. Craig entered into the record as Exhibit “A”, the application, as “B”, public notices of 10/29/08 & 11/05/08; as “C”, abutters’ notices; as “D”, Assessor’s street card; as “E”, GIS map; as “F”, applicant’s site plan; as “G”, letter of support, Ilda Andrews; as “H”, letter of support, Manuel and Maria Andrade; as “I”, floor plan; as “J”, rendering; and as “K”, photos. Speaking in favor was the applicant and minister of the Church, Kevin Hamel of 122 East Main Street, Jewett City. He stated to the Board he would like to build an addition to the side of the 100 year old Church to accommodate new restrooms on the same level as the meeting area since the members are currently Page 2 of 5  inconvenienced by having to go outside and downstairs to use the facilities. He noted they would not be adding any additional seating. They would build an enclosed staircase to the basement and an area for mothers and new babies upstairs. Ms. Craig stated that, because of the addition, the parking requirements had to be recalculated; the applicant is proposing six off street parking spaces. The grounds for appeal noted were the fact that the Church has existed on the lot for over 100 years; no expansion on the seating capacity and the space is needed for lavatories. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. ~~~~~ #V-08-39 Appeal of Wayne Kerylow for property at 30 Edward Avenue, located in R-20 zone district. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 15’ required to be reduced to 2’ in order to construct 10’x30’ carport. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Paul Kramarewicz, Henry Olender and Raymond Dussault. Ms. Craig entered into the record as Exhibit “A”, the application, as “B”, public notices of 10/29/08 & 11/05/08; as “C”, abutters’ notices; as “D”, Assessor’s street card; as “E”, GIS map; as “F”, applicant’s site plan. Ms. Craig told the Board that the GIS from the Zoning office showing the property lines were incorrect. A correct one was provided by NPU and verified by the abutting property owner. Speaking in favor of the applicant was Robert Valiquette, of Suburban Remodelers. He explained to the Board the primary reason for the carport is for the elderly owners to have immediate access to the car at all times from a door located near the proposed carport. The hardships noted were the narrow lot and the house being close to the property line. The Board was concerned about water runoff to the abutter’s property. Mr. Valiquette stated he would install a gutter to deflect the water to drain to the back of the property and stone would be placed on the ground for added control. The Board asked why the carport couldn’t be constructed in the rear of the house and Ms. Craig noted that due to the topography of the land and a retaining wall in the vicinity it would not be feasible to construct there. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. ~~~~~ I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS #V-08-38 Appeal of Peniel Inc. for property at 134 Boswell Avenue, located in an MF zone district. In accordance with Sec 12.1, rear yard setback, 25’ Page 3 of 5 required to be reduced to 22’ and Sec. 15.1.11, off-street parking, 16 spaces required to be reduced to 6 spaces in order to construct 736 SF addition to church. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Paul Kramarewicz, Henry Olender and Raymond Dussault. The Board noted the hardship as the Church has been there for 100 years and the applicant is asking for reasonable use for a restroom and handicap access to the building. It was also noted the applicant would be gaining six parking spaces not losing sixteen and they have limited use of the property. On a motion by Kramarewicz/Dussault, it was unanimously voted to approve the variance. #V-08-38 Appeal of Peniel Inc. for property at 134 Boswell Avenue, located in an MF zone district. In accordance with Sec 12.1, rear yard setback, 25’ required to be reduced to 22’ and Sec. 15.1.11, off-street parking, 16 spaces required to be reduced to 6 spaces in order to construct 736 SF addition to church - APPROVED ~~~~~ #V-08-39 Appeal of Wayne Kerylow for property at 30 Edward Avenue, located in R-20 zone district. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 15’ required to be reduced to 2’ in order to construct 10’x30’ carport. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Paul Kramarewicz, Henry Olender and Raymond Dussault. The Board discussed the hardship as the narrow lot and no matter where the applicant wanted to construct the carport they would still need to apply for a variance. The applicant had no opposition from abutting neighbors. The Board determined that the owners would have reasonable use of the property and the carport would fit in with the neighborhood since it is not overly large. On a motion by Kramarewicz/Benjamin it was voted 4-0-1 (Dussault abstained) to approve the variance. #V-08-39 Appeal of Wayne Kerylow for property at 30 Edward Avenue, located in R-20 zone district. In accordance with Sec. 12.1, easterly side yard setback, 15’ required to be reduced to 2’ in order to construct 10’x30’ carport - APPROVED WITH CONDITON THAT GUTTER BE INSTALLED ON CARPORT. ~~~~~ Page 4 of 5 J. OTHER MATTERS None K. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Kramarewicz/Jacaruso, it was unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paulette Craig, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 5