Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 11, 2012 Meeting Minutes The regular meeting of the City of Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso. Roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present. PRESENT: Joseph Jacaruso, Acting Chairman Henry Olender Raymond Dussault – Alternate Peter Cuprak - Alternate Joe East - Alternate ABSENT: Marc Benjamin, Chairman Dorothy Travers Paul Kramarewicz ALSO PRESENT: Tianne Phoenix Curtis, Zoning Enforcement Officer Linda Lee Smith, Recording Secretary Tianne Curtis asked the Board if any members intended to recuse themselves from voting on an application this evening. Henry Olender stated that he needed to recuse himself from V#12-11 - 15 Shore Road. Joe East stated that he needed to recuse himself from V#12-13 - 9 Gardner Acres Road, V#12-14 - 74 Russell Road and V#12-15 – 15 Turnpike Park. Zoning Enforcement Officer, Tianne Curtis stated for the record the manner in which the voting of the hearings was to take place this evening. As the quorum of voting members was four (4), applications heard must acquire a unanimous affirmative vote in order to pass and not simple majority. E. COMMUNICATIONS: NONE F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: Upon motion by Joe East, second by Peter Cuprak, it was voted unanimously to APPROVE the minutes of the August 14, 2012 regular meeting. G. OLD BUSINESS: NONE H. NEW BUSINESS: 1. V#12-11 – Request of Thomas St. George, Jr. for property located at 15 Shore Road in a Residential (R-20) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; R-20 front yard setback 30’ required, request reduction to 15’ for the construction of a 22’ x 14’ deck with 2’ x 3’ stair. 1 of 8  Tianne Curtis entered into the record Exhibits A-K. Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Ray Dussault, Joe East, and Peter Cuprak Thomas St. George, property owner, 15 Shore Road presented. Mr. St. George explained to the Board the proposed deck would not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the pre-existing non-conforming house. He stated his hardship was the 10’ right of way placing his house approximately 33’ from the street line and 14’ to the property line. Therefore the visual setback would be +/- 27’. Raymond Dussault questioned if there was any response from the abutters. Tianne Curtis stated that there was no response from the abutters. Joe Jacaruso asked if he talked to his neighbors. Mr. St. George stated he had and his neighbors had no objections. There being no others speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. 2. V#12-13 – Request of Glenn Jacobs for property located at 9 Gardner Acres Road in a Residential R-40 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; R- 40 side yard setback 30’ required, request reduction to 10’ for hot tub, 5’ for shed; and 2’ for pool. Tianne Curtis entered into the record exhibits A-K. Seated were Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Ray Dussault, and Peter Cuprak Property owners, Glenn and Susie Jacobs, 9 Gardner Acres Road presented. The Jacobs’ explained to the Board there is a non-permitted 6’ hot tub and 15’ above ground pool that has been dismantled. They are looking to correct the violations with the necessary permits. Mr. Jacobs noted they would also like to have a 10’x12’ storage shed. Mr. Jacobs stated the locations of the duplicate septic and drywells were a hardship as well as being a corner lot. Reference was made to Exhibit G½. Tianne Curtis asked the applicants if the hot tub was going to be on a concrete slab. The applicants stated that the hot tub is sitting on a free floating deck on blocks on the ground. Joe Jacaruso asked if the hot tub could be moved. The applicants replied yes it could be. Henry Olender questioned why the pool was proposed so close to the property line. Susie Jacobs stated that their yard is much smaller than Exhibit F shows. The Jacobs’ noted the letters of support from #5 & #11 Gardner Acres Road; Exhibits H & I respectfully. Ray Dussault asked the shed would be located 5’ from the property line could the pool also be moved to 5’ from the property line. The applicant stated it probably could be moved. Page 2 of 8  A letter had been issued by the Norwich Zoning Office, not a complaint from their neighbors to have the pool taken down. He replied it probably could moved over another couple of feet. Henry Olender asked if the 3’ would make a difference. The applicant stated he could do it because he has an estimate of 8’ to the sidewalk. There being no others speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. 3. V#12-14 – Request of John Burgess for property located at 74 Russell Road in a Multi-Family (MF) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; MF side yard setback 10’ required, request reduction to 2’ for the construction of a 20’ x 20’ deck with 8’ x 20” stair. Seated were Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Ray Dussault, and Peter Cuprak John Burgess, owner of 74 Russell Road presented. Mr. Burgess explained to the Board he already built a 20’ x 20’ deck off the garage. When he began building the deck he thought permits were not needed, based on his interpretation of the 2003 IRC. He had assumed that a 30” high deck didn’t need a permit; and by following the line of the house he would be ok, but unfortunately he was mistaken. Mr. Burgess explained to the Board it wasn’t possible for the deck to meet the 10’ side yard setback without cutting it in half. He noted the existing house and garage was nonconforming; located only 2’ from the property line. He stated the property was originally a single plot, but when it was divided in 1952, the non-conformity was created; the lot is narrow and restricted and the deck was constructed as far to the back yard as possible to be compliant. Tianne Curtis clarified the property line being referred to as the “rear” was actually his side yard as it’s a corner lot; hence the 10’ setback. Mr. Burgess stated that his neighbor, 74R Russell Rd didn’t want to see them have to tear it down or reduce in size, referencing Exhibit I, his letter of support. He also referenced Exhibit J, letter of support from 73 Russell Rd. Henry Olender asked how far away the wetlands were. Mr. Burgess stated it’s roughly 50’ from the wetlands and it’s on a dead-end street. Acting Chair Joe Jacaruso opened the floor to those wishing to speak. Speaking in opposition was Christine Kaiser of 89 St. Regis Ave., an abutter, and Atty. Robert Hannon, 6 Greencrest Drive, Farmington, CT. Atty. Hannon submitted correspondence dated August 14, 2012. Tianne Curtis entered said item to the record as Exhibit M. Atty. Hannon had information he wanted on the record, and stated the following to the Board. He was of the Page 3 of 8 opinion this was a self-created hardship, created by Mr. Burgess’s negligence to apply for the proper Zoning and Building permits, it is the homeowner’s responsibility to contact the City for the answer; there was no hardship; the applicant could relocate the deck without the need for a variance; there are other issues with the property; and the information on the application did not properly reflect the 2’ request. Ms. Kaiser had complaints relative to other issues at the Burgess property and stated the following to the Board. She had an A2 survey done in 2010, showing a fence Burgess had constructed in 2009 encroaches 2’ onto 74R Russell Rd.; said fence also encroaches onto the discontinued portion of Russell Rd, creating a violation of Connecticut General Statute (C.G.S.) 13a-55, Ms. Kaiser’s claim her 80’ Russell Rd frontage has been blocked. Ms. Curtis entered said A2 to the record as Exhibit N; Ms. Kaiser was of the opinion drainage pipes from the Burgess property were deposited into the wetlands on her property; the deed used to issue fence permit Z#09-163 didn’t match the others Kaiser had found. Atty. Hannon noted the discrepancy was an Attorney error and not one of the City. Hannon requested that, if the Board were to grant the appeal, an as-built be required. Ray Dussault asked for clarification for location of the ROW. Atty. Hannon stated the discontinued portion of Russell Rd., property of the City of Norwich, was the ROW referred to in Ms. Kaiser’s C.G.S. violation. Peter Cuprak questioned if this was a legal ROW. Atty. Hannon replied it’s a public ROW for abutters. The Board was in agreement the discussion was getting off subject. Atty. Hannon stated an original application reflected a 2” distance to the property line, not 2’ as stated by the applicant. The Board inspected the A2 and questioned the point Atty. Hannon referred to. There was discussion relative to the 2” vs. 2’. Henry Olender determined it was to scale and reflected 2’. Hannon stated he felt comfortable with the 2’ request as opposed to the 2”. Ray Dussault stated the following: The Board requiring an as-built was common in similar applications; the fence was not applicable to the appeal; Wetlands activity was regulated by the IWWCC. Henry Olender noted the pre-existing home and garage were non-conforming and the proposal was to maintain the 2’ setback. Mr. Burgess rebutted the testimony of Atty. Hannon and Ms. Kaiser, stating this wasn’t a self-created hardship as the 2’ setback and narrow shape of parcel came to be when the lot was divided. There being no others speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. Page 4 of 8 4. V#12-15 – Request of Advanced Improvements for property located at 15 Turnpike Park in a Residential R-40 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; R-40 side yard setback 30’ required, request reduction to 25’ for the construction of a 10’x10’ deck with associated stair. Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Ray Dussault, and Peter Cuprak. Contractor David Preka of Advanced Improvements, 61 West Main Street, Mystic contractor presented for 15 Turnpike Park. Mr. Preka explained to the Board the pre-existing deck had been removed as it was 20 years old and unsafe. Advanced Improvements were approved Zoning and Building permits for the repair only, however both the deck and stairs were entirely removed and replaced with new construction. Preka noted the deck and stairs had been built to code within the same footprint; however the new construction could be only 25’ from the property line as opposed to the 30’ requirement. Tianne Curtis stated she had issued permit Z#12-142 for repair, which was kicked back from the Building Dept., permit was revised to Z#12-142(A) and referred back a second time for work without a permit. There being no others speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. 5. V#12-16 – Request of Craig Ballard for property located at 97 Hunters Road in a Residential R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; R-20 30’ rear yard setback, request reduction to 22’ for the construction of a 14’x16’ screened deck. Tianne Curtis entered into the record exhibits A-H. Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Ray Dussault, and Peter Cuprak, and Joe East. Property owner Craig Ballard 95 Hunters Road presented. He stated to the Board he is proposing a 14’ x 16’ deck off the rear of his house. Mr. Ballard stated his hardship as the existing location of septic system, septic system and house. Mr. Ballard noted the vegetative buffer in the rear yard and distance from the side yard abutters. Ray Dussault asked Ms. Curtis for conformation the abutters had been notified. Ms. Curtis answered yes. Henry Olender questioned if the proposed screened in porch would have a roof over it? Mr. Ballard replied yes. Ms. Curtis stated to the Board she had computed the increase in lot coverage, and he did not exceed the 10%. Joe East asked about the topography of the property. Mr. Ballard replied the grade was consistently flat. Page 5 of 8  There being no other speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. E. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V#12-11 – Request of Thomas St. George, Jr. for property located at 15 Shore Road in a Residential (R-20) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; R-20 front yard setback 30’ required, request reduction to 15’ for the construction of a 22’ x 14’ deck with 2’ x 3’ stair. Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Ray Dussault, Joe East, and Peter Cuprak. Joe East made a motion to approve the variance as the proposed deck and stair would not encroach any further into the front yard setback then the home, and being the last home on a dead end street, there wouldn’t be any negative impact to the neighborhood or abutters. Ray Dussault seconded the motion, as the deck was reasonable use of the property, and the City ROW denied him a significant portion of land use. Motion made by Joe East, second by Ray Dussault to approve V#12-11. Motion carried unanimously - APPROVED 2. V#-12-13 – Request of Glenn Jacobs for property located at 9 Gardner Acres Road in a Residential R-40 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; R-40 side yard setback 30’ required, request reduction to 10’ for hot tub, 5’ for shed; and 2’ for pool. Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Ray Dussault, Henry Olender, and Peter Cuprak. Henry Olender stated the reduction to 2’ for the pool was excessive. While there were valid hardships, septic and drywell locations and odd shaped lot, it was possible for the pool to be 5’ like the shed. Ray Dussault agreed the location of the septic and drywells were hardships and there were no objections from the neighbors, but was not in support of the 2’ setback for the pool. Motion made by Henry Olender, second by Ray Dussault to approve V#12-13 with the modification the pool setback be 5’. Motion passed unanimously. APPROVED w/ MODIFICATION Page 6 of 8  3. V#12-14 – Request of John Burgess for property located at 74 Russell Road in a Multi-Family (MF) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; MF side yard setback 10’ required, request reduction to 2’ for the construction of a 20’ x 20’ deck with 8’ x 20” stair. Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Ray Dussault, Henry Olender, and Peter Cuprak. Henry Olender made a motion, second by Joe Jacaruso to accept V#12-14 for discussion. Ray Dussault stated he was not in support of the appeal. The applicant hasn’t presented a valid hardship has not been met and needs to be conforming and verified with an as-built. Henry Olender stated that the house is nonconforming. Mr. Burgess will be able to meet the side yard setback requirements; the deck continues the line of the garage and the affected abutter is not in opposition. Peter Cuprak noted that it at the end of a dead-end road surrounded by wetlands and the fence and drainage pipes are civil matters between property owners. Henry Olender stated it would be easier if people did things by the rules. Ray Dussault noted there were too many questions unanswered and it needs to be brought into conformity or reapplied for with an as-built if necessary. Henry Olender asked how it can be brought into conformity when the garage is already 2’ non-conforming. Henry Olender asked Ray Dussault to entertain a motion to table the decision to the October 9, 2012 regular meeting; Mr. Dussault agreed. Ms. Curtis stated on the record the public hearing portion had been closed, therefore no further testimony or communications would be accepted. A legal notice will not be required and the decision has been tabled to the October 9, 2012 regular meeting. Motion was made by Henry Olender, second by Joe Jacaruso to TABLE the decision to the October 9, 2012 regular meeting. 4. V#12-15 – Request of Advanced Improvements for property located at 15 Turnpike Park in a Residential R-40 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; R-40 side yard setback 30’ required, request reduction to 25’ for the construction of a 10’x10’ deck with associated stair. Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Ray Dussault, Henry Olender, and Peter Cuprak. Page 7 of 8  Ray Dussault stated the applicant had taken steps to correct the work per building code; the removal resulted in the need for the variance. Henry Olender stated the new construction sat in the same building footprint and the reconstruction was necessary for egress. Motion was made by Ray Dussault, second by Joe Jacaruso to approve V#12- 15. Motion carried unanimously – APPROVED 6. V#12-16 – Request of Craig Ballard for property located at 97 Hunters Road in a Residential R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1; R-20 30’ rear yard setback required, request reduction to 22’ for the construction of a 14’x16’ screened deck. Seated were Acting Chairman Joseph Jacaruso, Ray Dussault, Henry Olender, Joe East and Peter Cuprak. Ray Dussault stated there was reasonable hardship given the location of the septic and furnace ventilation and the applicant has found it will meet building code. Henry Olender noted the UHD granted an approval for a 12’x16’ deck; however the request was for a 14’ x 16’. Tianne Curtis stated the applicant has been back to UHD for the revised approval. Motion was made by Ray Dussault, second by Joe Jacaruso to approve V#12- 16. Motion carried unanimously – APPROVED J. OTHER MATTERS: NONE K. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Peter Cuprak, second by Ray Dussault it was voted unanimously to adjourn at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary Page 8 of 8