Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 11, 2013 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 Henry Olender Joe East – Alternate Paul Kramarewicz ABSENT: Raymond Dussault-Alternate Peter Cuprak – Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Tianne Phoenix Curtis, Zoning Enforcement Officer Linda Lee Smith, Recording Secretary E. COMMUNICATIONS – Tianne Curtis stated the July ZBA meeting cancellation was included in the June ZBA packets. F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES Upon motion by Paul Kramarewicz, second by Dorothy Travers, it was voted unanimously to accept the minutes of the May 14, 2013 regular meetings with the stated corrections. G. OLD BUSINESS 1. V#13-07 – Application of Guy Palazzo for property located at 88 Sherman St in a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.9.1 permitted use AND Sec.9.8.7 mixed residential & commercial use to permit the conversion of professional office to single family residence and art studio and to permit the sq. ft. of residential use to exceed the sq. ft. of commercial use (84% + 16%) – continued from 5/14/13 meeting Tianne Curtis stated the continuation of V#13-07 was to allow the referral from CCP which was received as Exhibit “J”. Ms. Curtis stated Exhibit “A-I” were included in the members May packet. Marc Benjamin stated the CCP gave a favorable recommendation as there would be no adverse impact to the neighborhood; it’s currently mixed use, and is not contrary to the Plan of Conservation and Development. 1 of 8 Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, and Joe East. Property owner, Guy Palazzo and his daughter, Carrie Palazzo, 6 Harvard Terrace were available to answer questions. Jason Vincent, NCDC 77 Main Street spoke in favor of the application. He wanted to mention items that made it eligible for the variance. Mr. Vincent gave a brief overview. From 1800-1993 it was originally used as a single family home and then converted to office use. Mr. Vincent stated Mr. Palazzo is trying to correct the use that was changed 20 years ago. The hardship is related to the property; with 90% of the time the property has been used as residential. Mr. Vincent stated part of the hardship being there wasn’t any zoning before 1953. Mr. Vincent stated it’s zoned NC, and the Sherman Street neighborhood was designed for residential and commercial use. Mr. Vincent stated there are horizontal and vertical sight line issues with the property which are hardships. Mr. Vincent stated the property wasn’t designed to be used as 100% commercial use; but the site could go from 100% commercial, or 50% mixed use to 84% residential which is a reasonable request and Mr. Vincent would be in favor of this variance. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. H. NEW BUSINESS 1. V#13-09 – Application of 104 North Main Street, LLC for property located at 104 North Main St in a General Commercial (GC) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.9.2.1 permitted use AND Sec.Sec.15.1 Off-street parking 8 required; request reduction to 3 AND Sec.8.3.1 Recreation area 1350 sq.ft required; request reduction to 0 for the conversion of a two (2) family residence to three (3) family. Tianne Curtis entered into the record exhibits “A-K”. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, and Paul Kramarewicz. Richard O’Keefe, a member of the 104 North Main Street, LLC, 185 Central Avenue was present. Attorney Mark Block, 138 Main Street, attorney representing Mr. O’Keefe. Marc Benjamin stated to the applicant that the CCP forwarded an unfavorable recommendation, because there currently isn’t any off-street parking to support the 2 family, and it was the Commission’s opinion the owner has reasonable use of the property. Attorney Mark Block explained the multi-family property was constructed in 1905. Atty. Block submitted Exhibit “L” as an updated plot plan of the property and the photo shows the available parking that exists on North Main Street. The pictures Page 2 of 8 also showed the type of neighborhood it was even though it’s in a GC zone. Atty. Block stated the other properties located near Mr. O’Keefe’s appear to be multifamily homes, with the lots being very small and not designed with off-street parking. There are three parking spaces available inside the garage. Atty. Block stated he’s requesting a variance for the additional five parking spaces. Atty. Block stated because of the lot configuration it wasn’t constructed or designed with a recreational area. Atty. Block submitted Exhibit “M” as a copy of 1988 street card, owned by Gary O’Connell being constructed in 1905 as a 3 family house included with a floor plan with the layout of the third floor. Atty. Block stated the third floor apartment hadn’t been used as an apartment since 2001 when the owner relinquished the 3 family to a 2 family due to building/fire code compliance. Atty. Block stated there were electrical, fire door and access issues the former owner didn’t want to deal with. Atty. Block stated it was never the intent to give up the right and abandon the use of the third floor. Atty. Block stated the hardship was listed under Section 4.1 and Sec. 4.5 having a pre-existing/nonconforming use and Mr. O’Keefe didn’t abandon the use and is looking to resume what was originally permitted. Mr. O’Keefe stated it’s a nice 1440 sq. ft. apartment, and he has renovated many apartments, with 3 bedroom apartments being in high demand. Mr. O’Keefe wants to utilize the third apartment. Mr. O’Keefe stated the apartment is on the bus line, and the tenants wouldn’t need a car. Mr. O’Keefe stated some of his tenants work at the casinos and use the bus line regularly. Atty. Block stated Mr. O’Keefe has renovated many apartments in the City of Norwich. He is a good landlord and would be adding to the City’s tax roles. Dorothy Travers asked Mr. O’Keefe if his apartments were 1440 sq. ft? Mr. O’Keefe stated his apartments including stairwells were 1440 sq. ft. Ms. Travers questioned the den on the second floor stating it could be made into another bedroom. Mr. O’Keefe stated the den is a nice place for children to do their homework. Mr. O’Keefe wasn’t sure if 8’x10’ den could be considered a bedroom. Ms. Travers asked if the parking is calculated on the number of bedrooms? Tianne Curtis stated the current regulations state 2½ parking spaces per unit which was changed from 1½ parking spaces per unit in 2009. Ms. Travers stated there were three parking spaces in the garage and there was also on-street parking. Joe East was concerned with the lack of recreational space that was required. Mr . East was concerned with adding 50% more occupancy to the property because it doesn’t provide for any recreational space. Mr. O’Keefe stated he doesn’t have the land area for the recreation. Joe East stated the proposed plan showed the third floor apartment with one bedroom is accessed through another bedroom. Mr. O’Keefe stated it’s an existing condition. Joe East asked Mr. O’Keefe if the third floor apartment had a kitchen? Mr. O’Keefe stated no it’s the existing plan without Page 3 of 8 the kitchen. Mr. O’Keefe stated the only change he made to the third floor apartment was he added a wall in the back area to form the den. Joe East asked when Mr. O’Keefe was doing the work did he pull permits that were for a two family. Mr. O’Keefe stated yes. Mr. East asked Mr. O’Keefe if there was only one exit from the third floor. Mr. O’Keefe stated he submitted Exhibit “L” a corrected plot plan with parking areas showing two egresses from the third floor. Dorothy Travers asked if he had laundry facilities? Mr. O’Keefe stated there were laundry facilities in the basement and on the first floor, but none dedicated for the third floor apartment. Joe East asked if there were two meters, power panels and boilers for the two apartments presently there. Mr. O’Keefe stated he didn’t have any separate panels, meters or boilers dedicated to the third floor apartment. The only thing done to the third floor was some light construction. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. O’Keefe when he purchased the property? Mr. O’Keefe stated a little over a year ago. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. O’Keefe if he purchased the property as a 2 family and was it vacant? Mr. O’Keefe stated yes he purchased it as a vacant 2 family and it’s now rented. Henry Olender stated Mr. O’Keefe has use of his 2 family property; a 3 family would compound the issue with no recreational area. Paul Kramarewicz agreed with Mr. Olender that Mr. O’Keefe has reasonable use of his property. Dorothy Travers asked Mr. O’Keefe how much yard area he had? Mr. O’Keefe stated there is a small patio area and small lawn area. Tianne Curtis stated Mr. O’Keefe can’t use any of the yard as recreational area because the required setbacks don’t count towards the recreational area. Mr. O’Keefe stated he wants to be able to use the third floor apartment as he’s able to comply with the 3 family building and fire code issues. Mr. O’Keefe stated with the third floor apartment he wasn’t creating anything new. Mr. O’Keefe also stated that in the 1900’s they didn’t need cars, the parking spaces and the recreation areas weren’t a concern. Mr. O’Keefe wants to add another good clean quality apartment to the City’s housing market. Atty. Mark Block stated there is a hardship because the property existed before zoning, and it’s only denied because of zoning, and the ZBA needs to consider the nonconforming use and there was no intent to abandon the use. The prior owner couldn’t comply with the building and fire code requirements, and relinquished the third family apartment. There being no other speakers, the hearing was closed. 2. V#13-12 – Application of Nancy Khybery for property located at 25 Huntington Pl in a Multifamily (MF) zoning district. In accordance with Page 4 of 8 Sec.12.1 10’ side yard required, request reduction to 1’ for the construction of a 12’ x 25’ porch. Tianne Curtis entered into the record exhibits “A-G”. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, and Paul Kramarewicz. Property owner, Nancy Khybery, 25 Huntington Place presented. Ms. Khybery stated she purchased a 2 family house that she converted back to a single family. She explained the existing garage was rotted, unsafe and had been taken down and rebuilt with a deck in the exact footprint of the dilapidated garage. Ms. Khybery stated many of the neighbors have front porches for seating, whereas s he doesn’t have the land in the front of the house. Ms. Khybery submitted Exhibit “H” photos 1-10 pictures of the deteriorated garage and new deck. Marc Benjamin stated the garage had been decaying on the back of the house, it was taken down, and a deck put in the exact space of the old dilapidated garage. Marc Benjamin stated Exhibit “G” was a letter from the closest neighbor next door stating they had no objections to the existing deck. Henry Olender asked if Ms. Khybery went to the Historic Commission. Ms. Khybery stated she spoke to Mr. Lowenstein and Mr. Edgar; they both have seen the deck in the back of the property and didn’t have any problem with it. Joe East asked if Ms. Khybery had pulled the appropriate permit for the conversion from two family to single family? Ms. Khybery stated yes she had received the conversion permit. Mr. East also asked if she had acquired the appropriate building permits? Ms. Khybery stated she didn’t realize she needed them and has since applied for them. Ms. Khybery’s contractor informed Ms. Khybery that because she wasn’t going outside the original garage footprint that she didn’t need a permit. Ms. Khybery has since and is applying for the correct permits. Tianne Curtis explained Exhibit “F” which was the plot plan where the actually garage was located. Paul Kramarewicz asked if the variance would be approved, she could then go to the Building Dept. for the building permits. Ms. Khybery stated yes. Henry Olender asked Ms. Khybery if she took down the two garages? Ms. Khybery stated no, they took down the garage that was attached to the house only; and the freestanding garage is still there. Henry Olender was concerned with the Historic Commission and with the integrity of the neighborhood including the deck being on the back of the house. Dorothy Travers stated the Historic Commission is concerned when it’s on the front of the house, not on the back. Page 5 of 8 Marc Benjamin stated if the ZBA wanted they could wait for a response from the Historic Commission. Mr. Benjamin stated the ZBA could postpone the decision and it wouldn’t stop work on the deck. Tianne Curtis stated clarification for the Certificate of Appropriateness would come before pulling the building permit. The variance is the first step before the review from the Historic Commission and the building permit. Joe East clarified the variance needs to be approved to put the deck on the back of the house; then the Historic Commission approval; and application for a building permit. Jason Vincent, NCDC, 77 Main Street, a Certified Planner, he stated the Connecticut Historic Trust handbook stated the Certificate of Appropriateness wo uld not require a certificate if it wasn’t visible from public view, and the variance would be first step to help correct the issue. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V#13-07 – Application of Guy Palazzo for property located at 88 Sherman St in a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.9.1 permitted use AND Sec.9.8.7 mixed residential & commercial use to permit the conversion of professional office to single family residence and art studio and to permit the sq. ft. of residential use to exceed the sq. ft. of commercial use (84% + 16%) – continued from 5/14/13 meeting Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, and Joe East. Marc Benjamin stated they had received a favorable referral from CCP. Motion was made by Dorothy Travers, second by Joe East to grant V#13-07. Dorothy Travers stated it would help improve the area, it fits into the residential/commercial area, and it’s an improvement to the property and the tax base for the City. Joe East stated this neighborhood has both residential/commercial buildings. Mr. East stated he didn’t think the residential aspect of the variance would detract from the neighborhood, but it would add to the neighborhood with security and vigilance. Marc Benjamin stated he drove by the property, and next door neighbor had a professional office with 4 apartments. The hardship would be it was previously mixed residential as well as commercial use. Mr. Benjamin stated justifying just the commercial use wouldn’t work with the sight lines for a mixed use. Page 6 of 8 Upon motion was made by Dorothy Travers, second by Joe East, the Commission voted unanimously to APPROVE V#13-07. Motion carried unanimously. 2. V#13-09 – Application of 104 North Main Street, LLC for property located at 104 North Main St in a General Commercial (GC) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.9.2.1 permitted use AND Sec.Sec.15.1 Off-street parking 8 required; request reduction to 3 AND Sec.8.3.1 Recreation area 1350 sq.ft required; request reduction to 0 for the conversion of a two (2) family residence to three (3) family. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, and Paul Kramarewicz. Motion was made by Marc Benjamin, second by Joe Jacaruso to approve V#13-09. Dorothy Travers stated the second floor apartment could be used in a different way as it could be expanded on the first to the second floor. Ms. Travers stated Mr. O’Keefe should have realized when he purchased the property it was a 2 family, not a 3 family. Ms. Travers stated there is no recreational area, despite adding the on-street parking. Ms. Travers stated Mr. O’Keefe could have expanded the second floor apartment, and the third floor could be used as additional bedrooms. Ms. Travers stated when they changed the 3 family to a 2 family people walked and didn’t use cars as much. Paul Kramarewicz stated the CCP gave them an unfavorable review. Mr. O’K eefe is looking at it as a monetary issue and he does have reasonable use of the property. Henry Olender stated because of the lack of recreational area he wouldn’t be considering it. Mr. Olender stated North Main Street is one of the widest streets with plenty of on-street parking but with the lack of recreational area he’s not in favor of this variance. Joe Jacaruso stated it doesn’t seem right to put the third family in it. Marc Benjamin stated it may have been a 3 family originally and zoning was put into place to protect properties from getting overbuilt and over occupied. The previous owner didn’t abandon the use, but it was converted to a 2 family. Mr. Benjamin stated the applicant purchased a 2 family house, with the lack of parking and recreational space, a reasonable hardship hasn’t been demonstrated. Mr. Benjamin couldn’t justify passing the variance. Marc Benjamin clarified a motion to Grant the appeal would allow the property owner to convert the 2 family to a 3 family. A motion to approve V#13-09 FAILED 0-5. Page 7 of 8 3. V#13-12 – Application of Nancy Khybery for property located at 25 Huntington Pl in a Multifamily (MF) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 10’ side yard required, request reduction to 1’ for the construction of a 12’ x 25’ porch. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, and Paul Kramarewicz. Motion was made by Marc Benjamin, second by Paul Kramarewicz to grant for discussion V-13-12. Marc Benjamin stated given the testimony and the pre-existing garage, and the d eck doesn’t go beyond the lines of the pre-existing garage; and it’s permitting the applicant reasonable use of the property. Paul Kramarewicz stated this would be the first step to apply for the variance, then to the Historic Commission, and the Building Dept. The deck is on the back of the house and not an issue with the Historic Commission. Mr. Kramarewicz is in favor of the appeal. Upon motion by Marc Benjamin, second by Paul Kramarewicz, the Commission voted unanimously to APPROVE V-13-12. On a motion by Paul Kramarewicz, second by Marc Benjamin it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 8:21 pm. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary Page 8 of 8