Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 14, 2012 Meeting Minutes The regular meeting of the City of Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present. PRESENT: Marc Benjamin, Chairman Henry Olender Dorothy Travers Peter Cuprak - Alternate Joseph East -Alternate ABSENT: Joseph Jacaruso, Co-Chairman, Paul Kramarewicz & Raymond Dussault ALSO PRESENT: Tianne Phoenix Curtis, Zoning Enforcement Officer Jacquie Barbarossa, Recording Secretary E. COMMUNICATIONS: NONE F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES On a motion by Travers/East, it was voted unanimously to APPROVE the minutes of the January 10, 2012 regular meeting. G. OLD BUSINESS: NONE H. NEW BUSINESS: 1. V#12-01 – Request of Wang’s Investment Corp for property located at 327 Central Avenue located in a Multifamily (MF) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.15.1.11 13 off street parking spaces request reduction to 5 for the conversion to church. Seated were, Marc Benjamin, Dorothy Travers, Henry Olender, Peter Cuprak & Joseph East. Tianne Curtis entered into the record exhibits A-H. Frank Calzone of Wangs Investments Corporation stated that the 5 parking spaces he was requesting would be used for Sunday mornings only. He stated he had torn down garages on the property to create more spaces. He stated the space has been empty for 3 years and that it would be better for the community to have a tenant since people dump trash on the property. He stated he had 3 parking spaces in front of the building and 3 or 4 additional on the side since the garages were no longer there. 1 of 4 Mr. Benjamin asked if the 13 parking spaces were based on the 2 apartments and church use. Ms. Curtis stated that since the 2 apartments were pre-existing they would require 1.5 spaces per unit; the church requires 1 space for every 3 seats, which would be 7, (determined by the Fire Marshall); and the office space requires 3, which equals 13. She also stated that on street parking couldn’t be counted in the required spaces. Joe East questioned the change of use of the property from restaurant to religious use. Ms Curtis stated the church use is permitted with special permit in that zone and that the parking requirement was the issue for the variance. Mr. East asked what the hardship was. Mr. Calzone said he did not understand. Mr. Benjamin explained to the applicant that he needed to demonstrate what is unique to the property and why the variance not being granted would deny him reasonable use of his property. Mr. Calzone stated he had been trying to rent the property for 3 or 4 years and finally found good tenants. Mr. Calzone stated he wasn’t sure of the hardship. Ms. Curtis gave Mr. Calzone the application so he could read the stated hardship to the board. Mr. Cuprak said he didn’t understand the words in the 3rd line of section 4. Mr. Calzone was unable to decipher what his wife had written. He stated he owned 5 buildings in the City and his taxes were up to date and the proposed renters would only be using the building for 4 hours on Sundays. Mr. Benjamin explained to the applicants that they could request a continuance and come back with more information. Mr. Calzone stated people park all over the street and he just wanted to rent the space. He complained about people dumping garbage on his property and he was in a bad situation and he wanted to rent the property. Mr. Benjamin asked if the applicant wanted a continuance to get more information for the board. Mr. East asked if there was anything preventing a restaurant from renting the space. Ms. Curtis stated that was possibly since there would be no change in use. Mr. Benjamin suggested again for the applicants to ask for a continuance to revise the plan or have a consultant help draft a hardship. Mr. Calzone requested a continuance. Motion by Peter Cuprak to accept the request, seconded by Marc Benjamin – unanimous – HEARING CONTINUED. 2. V#12-02 – Request of Caring Community of Connecticut, Inc. for property located at 135R Maple Street located in a Residential R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.3.24.1 to allow the construction of a shared drive and Sec.8.2.1 to allow a two-family dwelling. Use Variance appeal withdrawn by applicant. Page 2 of 4 Seated were, Marc Benjamin, Dorothy Travers, Henry Olender, Peter Cuprak & Joseph East. Tianne Curtis entered into the record exhibits A-I and clarified the amended variance request. The applicant had withdrawn the appeal of Sec.8.2.1 to construct a duplex, and was requesting only Sec.3.24.1 to allow construction of a shared drive. Wes Wentworth of Wentworth Civil Engineers, Lebanon, CT showed the revised site plan with the proposed 1 family house. He stated a free split created the lot when the property was in an R10 zone. He indicated the proposed easement that would allow access to the rear lot by a shared driveway. There is 6-foot high retaining wall and the grade is very steep so instead of excavating the property the applicants were asking for a shared driveway. He stated the property is now in a R20 zone, it meets the setbacks, it is a lot of record, landlocked and access was not left at the time of the original free split. Ms. Curtis entered the revised site plan as exhibit “J” for the record. Mr. Benjamin asked if the Caring Community would have common ownership in both properties. He also asked if it would be a group home and could be sold separately in the future. Mr. Wentworth stated it could be sold in the future and it would be for residential use. Ms. Curtis noted the applicant had stated the use would not be defined as a rooming/boarding house as the tenants would be long-term and not defined as “transient.” Mr. Benjamin asked if that was the only place the driveway could go and Mr. Wentworth stated yes. Mr. Olender asked if the retaining wall could be removed so 2 driveways could be put in. Mr. Wentworth said it could with major excavation. Ms. Curtis noted it would still require an easement to access the rear property. There was discussion on 2 driveways as opposed to using the current driveway for access to the rear. Mr. East felt it would deprive the front property in favor of the rear property by taking more property for the 2 driveways versus using the existing. Mr. Olender asked why the owner could not transfer a portion of the front property through lot line reconfiguration. Ms. Curtis stated that the lots were already nonconforming. Mr. Olender felt it was making the lots more non-conforming. Mr. Wentworth stated it was already an existing lot created by deed and he felt a shared driveway with easement was less of a variance request than asking for frontage and lot reductions. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V#12-01 – Request of Wang’s Investment Corp for property located at 327 Central Avenue located in a Multifamily (MF) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.15.1.11 13 off street parking spaces request reduction to 5 for the conversion to church. Page 3 of 4 Seated were, Marc Benjamin, Dorothy Travers, Henry Olender, Peter Cuprak & Joseph East. Hearing continued to the March 13, 2012 regular meeting. 2. V#12-02 – Request of Caring Community of Connecticut, Inc. for property located at 135R Maple Street located in a Residential R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.3.24.1 to allow the construction of a shared drive and Sec.8.2.1 to allow a two-family dwelling. Use Variance appeal withdrawn by applicant. Seated were, Marc Benjamin, Dorothy Travers, Henry Olender, Peter Cuprak & Joseph East. Dottie Travers made a motion to grant the variance based on information presented, seconded by Joe East who stated the hardship would pose no greater impact to the front lot by extending the driveway to the back lot since it was a pre-existing lot and if a shared driveway were put in at time of split it would not have been a zoning violation. Mr. Olender stated he would not vote for the variance since it was a non-conforming lot and would make the situation worse. He stated in recent months applications on Laurel Hill and Canterbury Turnpike had not been granted and he wanted to be consistent. Marc Benjamin stated that two 11 ft driveways in a 30-foot space versus one wide driveway would not make much of a difference. Without the drive access to the existing lot land locked property the applicant would not have reasonable use of the property. Mark Benjamin, Dorothy Travers, Peter Cuprak and Joe East voted to approve the variance, Henry Olender opposed. APPROVED (4-1) J. OTHER MATTERS- 1. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman Dottie Travers made a motion to table to the next regular meeting until all members were present, seconded by Marc Benjamin – UNANIMOUS – TABLED K. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Peter Cuprak, seconded by Joe East it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 7:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacquie Barbarossa Recording Secretary Page 4 of 4