Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 8, 2012 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: Marc Benjamin, Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Co-Chairman Dorothy Travers Paul Kramarewicz Joe East- Alternate Peter Cuprak-Alternate Raymond Dussault-Alternate ABSENT: Henry Olender ALSO PRESENT: Tianne Phoenix Curtis, Zoning Enforcement Officer Linda Lee Smith, Recording Secretary E. COMMUNICATIONS - None F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES On a motion by Travers/Kramarewicz, it was voted unanimously to APPROVE the minutes of the April 10, 2012 regular meeting. G. OLD BUSINESS – None H. NEW BUSINESS 1. V#12-03 – Request of Brenda Sautter for property at 127 Newton Street located in a Residential R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; 20,000 sq.ft. lot area required, request reduction to 10,080 sq.ft; 100’ lot width required, request reduction to 90’ for the construction of a single family home. Tabled from 3/13/12 & 4/10/12 regular meetings. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz, Joseph East (alt.), Peter Cuprak (alt.) Raymond Dussault (alt). Ms. Curtis noted the application had been tabled from the 3/13/12 & 4/10/12 meeting agendas, and that the public hearing portion must be opened this evening to be in compliance. Ms. Curtis entered into the record Exhibits A” – F” 1 of 1 Speaking on behalf of the applicant was Attorney Marc Mandell, 71 East Town Street, Norwich. He distributed an Assessor’s map and stated the applicant, Brenda Sautter, has owned both 125 and 127 Newton Street since 2001. Atty. Mandell noted the existing homes on the same side of the street are also non-conforming and part of an approved 1964 subdivision. The applicant was of the opinion that #127 was a part of said subdivision, however through an inadvertent error, does not appear on the plan which ends at #125. A title search was performed, but had not been able to provide evidence #127 was a “lot of record” as it did not show as a separate lot until 1964. Atty. Mandell affirmed Ms. Sautter believed the lot to be developable similar to the surrounding properties. Without a variance she will only be able to have it as raw land, creating a unique hardship to her. Atty. Mandell noted that, if the Board were to grant the variance, the lot and proposed home would be in harmony with the neighborhood. Marc Benjamin asked if #125 was represented as a double lot on the subdivision, Attorney Mandell replied that it did not and appeared to have been cutoff at the end of 125 Newton St., whereas 127 Newton Street wasn’t even referenced. Peter Cuprak stated he remembered when the subdivision was being built it and there was one house after another and the end lot was probably an area used to put the loam, and as they found buyers the houses were created. Ms. Curtis entered into the record the individual Tax Assessors Map as Exhibit M, and the 1964 Subdivision Plan as Exhibit N. Raymond Dussault stated that if it was bought in 2001 the title searcher would have discovered all the same existing problems back then. Marc Benjamin stated that the title searcher maybe thought they got one oversized lot with big yard. Joe East stated that it is listed on the Assessor’s card as a separate vacant lot without a deed or structure on it. Attorney Mandell stated it has changed ownership probably only 3-4 times over the past 30-40 years and both properties have always been sold together. Mr. Dussault asked if there was water & sewer there. Attorney Mandell stated he wasn’t sure. Ms. Curtis stated it has either City water, sewer or both available because in the event it had neither it would have been required to have 40,000 sq. ft. Dorothy Travers questioned where the mail is delivered. Mr. Mandell stated 125 Newton St. because there is no house located at 127 Newton St. Ms. Curtis stated multiple parcels can transfer on one deed; the question is whether the property existed in the same meets & bounds prior to Zoning. In the event the property was indeed part of the ’64 subdivision, development would not be reviewed under present Zoning. Raymond Dussault stated the applicant was purchased in 2001 & the hardship presented is that it can’t be developed. Page 2 of 2  Attorney Mandell noted a Superior Court land-use case which determined if the literal enforcement of zoning code takes away from the economic value of a property, the ZBA has the ability to grant the appeal. The floor was opened for those wishing to speak. There were none to speak in favor. Donald Leary, 119 Starr Street spoke in opposition. Mr. Leary stated that the property abutting #127 belongs to his family. Mr. Leary noted the property is almost 50% smaller than required, as the lot was created under R-10 (10k square feet) setbacks, and that the applicant should have been aware of the change and non-conformity. Mr. Leary was of the opinion his property would be more susceptible to flooding of the brook, as it’s at a lower elevation. He asked the Board to deny the application due to lack of hardship; however if the Board did approve, they attach the condition the building must remain above the current berm height at the center of his property. He submitted his notes which were entered as Exhibit “O”. Chairman Marc Benjamin stated that his concern was that it was an undersized lot with the elevation of the house being built there. It’s always been an empty wooded lot. Attorney Marc Mandell stated that it would be fine if the Committee wanted to attach conditions to this variance. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. 2. V#12-04 – Request of Robert Kleemann Jr. for property at 401 North Main Street located in a General Commercial zoning district. In accordance with Sec.6.2.1 (b) to permit a motor vehicle dealer/repair license within 1,000’ of a lot of the same purpose; request reduction to 0’ to permit a second license on the property. Request to table to 5/08/12 regular meeting. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz, Joseph East (alt.), Peter Cuprak (alt.) Raymond Dussault (alt). Ms. Curtis entered into the record Exhibits “A-J” Presenting was the property owner and applicant Robert Kleemann Jr., 14 Shore Drive, Preston. Mr. Kleemann affirmed he has purchased the property and are in the process of relocating their business from Franklin St. He is proposing a division to the existing 20k square feet structure to allow for multiple businesses. Mr. Kleemann noted the reason for the variance was to allow Kleemann’s to keep their existing dealer/repair license in conjunction with the existing dealer/repair at 401 N. Main St., however having 2 licenses would have no negative impact to the property. His license would allow the addition of body shop, motorcycle and heavy truck repair. The ordinance requires a separation distance of 1,000’ from a property of the same purpose. Mr. Kleemann stated his business has been in Norwich for 6 years and is looking forward to staying. Raymond Dussault stated they would be running the same type of business out of it. Page 3 of 3  Tianne Curtis stated she had received the two signed certified abutter’s letters. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. 3. V#12-05 – Request of John Quinn for property at 26 Baltic Street located in a Multifamily MF zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; 25’ front yard setback required, request reduction to 1’ and 10’ side yard setback reduction to 5’ for the construction of 6.75’ x 10’ porch with 4’ stair. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz, Joseph East (alt.), Peter Cuprak (alt.) Raymond Dussault (alt). Ms. Curtis entered into the record Exhibits A” – G” Presenting was applicant and property owner John Quinn, 26 Baltic St. He explained to the Board that he had already torn down the porch as the roof was deteriorated and the porch in bad condition, creating extreme safety concerns. He noted that while he had a Building permit to replace his siding, he had not applied for the proper permits to demolish and reconstruct the porch. Ms. Curtis referred to Exhibit “E” which indicated Mr. Quinn’s property fronts on the portion of Baltic St which is a gravel lane running parallel to Broad St. Paul Kramarewicz pointed out that Mr. Quinn had pulled permits for other work and he removed the old structure for safety reasons. He was of the opinion Mr. Quinn was trying to comply and had Ms. Curtis and B.O. Jim Troeger inspect the site to determine if he could keep the construction should the appeal be approved. The porch was only 1’ larger on each side and the roof will not be reconstructed. Joe East asked if the porch was condemned before he took it apart. Mr. Quinn replied that it hadn’t been, but he was not aware he couldn’t remove and rebuild without permits, and that he had every intention of making the construction code compliant. Joe East noted that it is presently non-compliant as there were no permits in place. Paul Kramarewicz stated that Mr. Quinn was improving the property and repaired his stonewall. Marc Benjamin stated that the home was currently non-conforming with a 9’ front yard setback, and any construction would require a Variance; and that the work was for egress to the home. Joe East noted that Mr. Quinn had done the work knowing that it required a variance. Ray Dussault stated that although Mr. Quinn had addressed a safety concern while improving his property, he had also caused himself a lot of problems doing it without a permit, and if the Board denied his appeal, he’ll have to restart again. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. Page 4 of 4 4. V#12-08 – Request of Andrew Soulor for property at 219 Boswell Ave located in a Neighborhood Commercial NC zoning district. In accordance with Sec. 15.1.4; 19 off-street parking spaces required, request reduction to 1 for conversion of customer service to retail. Seated were Acting Chair Joseph Jacaruso, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz, Raymond Dussault (alt), Joseph East (alt.), Peter Cuprak (alt). Marc Benjamin recused. Ms. Curtis entered into the record Exhibits “A – F” Additional pictures were entered into the record as Exhibit “G”. Atty. Gerald Smith 141 Broadway was presenting on behalf of the property owner Andrew Soulor. Atty. Smith stated the subject property is in a NC zoning district where retail is a permitted use. The appeal is only for the off-street parking required for the use conversion from Customer Service to Retail, which can not be provided as the structure covers the majority of the property. Atty. Smith noted that a conversion to any permitted use would require the same appeal. He told the Board the proposed store will not be destination shopping. As a convenience store, customers will be in and out quickly, just stopping for an item, as opposed to customer service where they may have an hour visit or more. Joe East asked if the off-street parking calculation is the same for both uses and Atty. Smith replied yes. Paul Kramarewicz asked if this is the building that had been recently renovated and Atty. Smith replied yes as Mr. Soulor had acquired the property through foreclosure and has invested a significant amount of money into renovations. The floor was open to those wishing to speak. There were none wishing to speak in favor. Speaking in opposition were the following abutters: Kathleen Murphy of219 Boswell Avenue submitting Exhibit “H” letter of opposition on behalf of Fran Houle, Jr. DBA Prokop Signs of 238 Boswell Ave, Exhibit “I” (Points to Discuss)and Exhibit J (Photos); Jack LeClair of 80 Hickory Street submitting Exhibit “L” (Points to speak about); Gordon Vaughters of 215 Boswell Avenue submitting Exhibit “K” (Points to Remember); James Judge of 233 Boswell Avenue; Kathy Judge of 233 Boswell Ave; Greg Grippo of 209 Boswell Avenue, Multiple speakers felt the 10 day abutters notice was insufficient to allow neighbors to consider the application. Additional speakers were of the opinion the access ramp was not permitted, the 1 space Mr. Soulor was able to provide wasn’t on his property, and concerned of the dumpster location. All speakers had concerns relative to increased traffic, speeding, safety of residents and their children, vehicles being hit, negative impact of their property values, existing dangerous conditions at the 4-way intersection Page 5 of 5  of Boswell and Hickory and customers blocking their driveways and parking in front of their homes. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. Attorney Smith rebutted Mr. Soulor’s abutter’s notices were completed within the statutory time frame. He recommended the disagreement be taken up with the City Council as a text amendment. Atty. Smith rebutted the conversion would not be the cause of increased traffic given the nature of the retail and didn’t fall under the purview of Zoning, and any vehicle safety and speeding should be brought to the attention of the NPD. Atty. Smith affirmed the commercial use of this property dates back to the 1940s and the neighbors were aware of this when they purchased their homes, some of which are non-conforming uses as residences in the NC district. Atty. Smith asked Ms. Curtis if the Zoning permit had been approved for the construction of the ramp. Ms. Curtis replied yes and that it had been granted by Sec.3.25.He clarified the 1 parking spot could be used for an employee and was accessed from Hickory St. and not Boswell Ave. In response to Ms. Murphy’s statement relative to her investment in her home, Atty. Smith stated Mr. Soulor has invested in his as well. He reiterated the lack of parking would exist regardless of the use. His client will take care of removing the garbage in a proper manner and is not required to provide a dumpster There were no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATION 1. V#12-03 – Request of Brenda Sautter for property at 127 Newton Street located in a Residential R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; 20,000 sq.ft. lot area required, request reduction to 10,080 sq.ft; 100’ lot width required, request reduction to 90’ for the construction of a single family home. Tabled from 3/13/12 & 4/10/12 regular meetings. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz, Raymond Dussault (alt) for Henry Olender. Ray Dussault stated the economic reasons Atty. Mandell presented did not constitute a valid hardship. The title search was not clear and could not reflect it as a lot of record potentially purchased as a double lot. Paul Kramarewicz commented the property was sold as an unimproved wooded lot and the Board does not need to accept it as buildable for economic reasons. She has reasonable use of the property. Page 6 of 6  Joe East stated the properties have been transferred by a single deed and Schedule A and can’t provide solid evidence it is either a lot of record or a part of a subdivision, which constitutes a hardship. There was brief discussion relative to involvement of non-voting members speaking during deliberation. Ms. Curtis responded that it is unclear at this time however a request for legal opinion has been forwarded to City Counsel. Dorothy Travers stated the title search done when the applicant purchased the property 11 years ago may not have been done correctly as there are separate tax cards., Marc Benjamin stated the lack of documentation prior to 1964 concerned him as he wasn’t in favor of creating such a small lot. Potential reasons for the vacant land could include the reservation of the land by the developer or inability to build, neither unheard of at the time. Marc Benjamin felt the Board could go either way on this variance and justify their position. Raymond Dussault stated a title search, whether right or wrong, was done in 2001 and is not for the Board to determine. He maintained his position the hardship was only economic. Marc Benjamin addressed the Board and asked if any of the proposed stipulations on an approval would sway a vote. Ray Dussault and Paul Kramarewicz responded no. Motion was made by Joseph Jacaruso, second by Marc Benjamin to approve V#12-03. Voting in favor were Dorothy Travers, Joe Jacaruso, and Marc Benjamin; voting in opposition were Raymond Dussault and Paul Kramarewicz. Motion failed 3-2. 4-1 vote required not simple majority. 2. V#12-04 – Request of Robert Kleemann Jr. for property at 401 North Main Street located in a General Commercial zoning district. In accordance with Sec.6.2.1 (b) to permit a motor vehicle dealer/repair license within 1,000’ of a lot of the same purpose; request reduction to 0’ to permit a second license on the property. Tabled from 4/10/12 regular meeting. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz, Joe East (alt) for Henry Olender. Joe East stated having 1 or 2 licenses at the same property did not have any bearing. The same commercial activity will be on the property and will present no adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood. The stated hardship would afford him reasonable use of the property. Paul Kramarewicz stated the addition of another business to the property would be an asset to the City, as Mr. Kleemann is expanding his business, a larger facility would be necessary and there is ample parking to sustain the building. Page 7 of 7  Motion was made by Joe East, second by Paul Kramarewicz to approve V#12-04. Motion passed unanimously. 3. V#12-05 – Request of John Quinn for property at 26 Baltic Street located in a Multifamily MF zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; 25’ front yard setback required, request reduction to 1’ and 10’ side yard setback reduction to 5’ for the construction of 6.75’ x 10’ porch with 4’ stair. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joseph Jacaruso, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz, Peter Cuprak (alt) for Henry Olender. Peter Cuprak stated the poor condition of the original porch was a liability. There was discussion relative to Mr. Quinn being aware he would need a variance but going forward with the construction anyway. Ms. Curtis could not attest to the setback of the removed porch as it had not been inspected prior to the removal; however Mr. Quinn had been instructed to apply for a variance in June of 2010. Paul Kramarewicz and Dorothy Travers both reiterated Mr. Quinn’s willingness to work with the Zoning and Building departments. Marc Benjamin noted it was a reasonable request, particularly as it will not extend to the street line and constitutes reasonable use of the property. Motion was made by Peter Cuprak, second by Dorothy Travers to approve V#12-05. Motion passed unanimously. 3. V#12-08 – Request of Andrew Soulor for property at 219 Boswell Ave located in a Neighborhood Commercial NC zoning district. In accordance with Sec. 15.1.4; 19 off- street parking spaces required, request reduction to 1 for conversion of customer service to retail. Seated were Acting Chair Joseph Jacaruso, Dorothy Travers, Raymond Dussault, Peter Cuprak, (alt), Joe East (alt) for Henry Olender. Marc Benjamin recused. Raymond Dussault stated he consistently supports commercial development and there is very little, if any, difference between the current and proposed use. The abutters were provided notice within the legal timeframe and concur with the applicant the expected consumers will park briefly and not create congestion. The approval is warranted and will provide reasonable use of the property. Joe East stated the conversion will not alter the neighborhood as the off-street parking requirement would not change and the proposed use is permitted. Joe East added that he visited the site at different times and there was always adequate parking. Page 8 of 8  Motion was made by Ray Dussault, second by Joe East to approve V#12-08. Motion passed unanimously. J. OTHER MATTERS - None J. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Marc Benjamin and seconded by Dorothy Travers it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 9:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary Linda Lee Smith Page 9 of 9