Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 8, 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 Henry Olender Dorothy Travers Paul Kramarewicz Joe East – Alternate Raymond Dussault-Alternate ABSENT: Peter Cuprak - Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Tianne Phoenix Curtis, Zoning Enforcement Officer Linda Lee Smith, Recording Secretary E. COMMUNICATIONS - NONE F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES On a motion by Paul Kramarewicz and second by Dorothy Travers, it was voted unanimously to APPROVE the minutes of the September 10, 2013. G. OLD BUSINESS: H. NEW BUSINESS: 1. V#13-20 – Application of Monica Endres for property located at 43 Lorenzo Street in a Multifamily (MF) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 25’ rear yard setback required, request reduction to 6’ for the construction of a 15’ x 25’ swimming pool & associated 10’ x 10’ deck. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Paul Kramarewicz, and Dorothy Travers Tianne Curtis entered into the record Exhibits “A-H”. Monica Endres, property owner, 43 Lorenzo Street presented. Ms. Endres explained she wanted to put an above ground pool and a 10’x10’ deck off the existing deck. Ms. Endres explained her hardships relative to the easement/ right-of-way on her property, the septic system and leaching fields located in the front of her house. Her house is located in the center of her property. Ms. Endres stated with the location of the existing deck, this was the only location 1 of 5 she could put her pool while trying not to encroach upon her neighbors. Marc Benjamin questioned how far was the pool from the house. Ms. Endres stated 3’. Ms. Endres stated she asked for the pool to be 15’x25’ but she could go smaller. Henry Olender asked why there was a discrepancy between Uncas Health District as-built plan stating the pool would be 9’ from the property line and the variance application stated 6’ from the line. Tianne Curtis explained a question had arisen if building code had a required minimum distance between the home and pool for a single family home. Tianne Curtis stated there was no such requirement and that the 3’ discrepancy was by the pool contractor’s recommendation. Marc Benjamin stated Ms. Endres had a very limited area where the pool could be located. Steve Meyer, 22 Elijah St., Norwich was a concerned neighbor neither in favor or opposed to Ms. Endres variance. Mr. Meyer submitted photos Exhibit “I”. Mr. Meyers was concerned on how close the pool was going to be to the property line, and maybe she could put the pool closer to her house. Marc Benjamin stated that the pool or any accessory of the pool would be located 6’ from the property line and not 6’ from the chain link fence. Marc Benjamin noted that Ms. Endres is basing the distance which is only as accurate as the City’s GIS plot plan, which also states a disclaimer of not being an actual survey. Marc Benjamin clarified the pool would be 6’ from the property line, and Ms. Endres is responsible to know where her property line is located. Mr. Meyer was concerned because of the 3’ of dirt which would have to be dug out or fill to be added. Tianne Curtis clarified the numbers to Mr. Meyer stating from the garage portion to the rear of the property line would be 25’. The main structure 34’ to property line, and Ms. Curtis stated the existing deck extends 6’. Ms. Curtis stated the addition isn’t in line with the garage. Mr. Meyer understood that the 6’ is from the main structure to the property line. Monica Endres stated in regard to her pool options that the pool company also has an option that they wouldn’t have to excavate. Ray Dussault asked if there were any other responses from the other abutter notices. Tianne Curtis stated no. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. Page 2 of 5 2. V#13-21 - Application of William Lavoie, Jr. & Teresa Lavoie for property located at 31 Yerrington Ave in a Residential (R-20) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 20,000 sq.ft required, request reduction to 8,444 required and 100’ lot width required, request reduction to 38.63’ for the division of a parcel with 2 non-conforming principal residences. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers and Ray Dussault Tianne Curtis entered into the record Exhibits “A-F”. Attorney Bill Sweeney, TCOR, 43 Broad St., New London, CT, represented William & Teresa Lavoie property owners, 31 Yerrington Ave. Mr. Sweeney gave a brief presentation requesting to reduce the lot width, lot area and re-divide the property into two separate building lots. Atty. Sweeney stated the Lavoie’s got caught between two zoning changes. Mr. Sweeney stated it’s a single parcel of land with a two family house and a single family house. In 2003 the property was changed from R10 to R20. Mr. Sweeney stated that before 2003 zone change from R10 to R20 the minimum lot size was 10,000 sq.ft minimum lot size with 80 sq ft frontage and they were two conforming lots. In 2007 another structure was built before the zone changed prohibiting two structures on one property. Atty. Sweeney stated if you drove down the street you wouldn’t think these two houses were on the same property. Mr. Sweeney did research in the neighborhood and the average lot size was 13,000 sq. ft, the smallest lot being 8,445 sq. ft., and the largest lot size being 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Sweeney stated their hardships were they couldn’t have two principal residences on one piece of property which is prohibited today. The property is legal, pre-existing nonconforming and it is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Sweeney stated with the zone changes they were outside the Lavoie’s hands. The zoning change of 2003 changing from R10 to R20 and the 2007 zoning text amendment prohibiting two principal structures on the same property were the Lavoie’s hardships. Ray Dussault stated that when he drove by the Lavoie’s property, he had a hard time distinguishing that both houses were on the same property. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V#13-20 – Application of Monica Endres for property located at 43 Lorenzo Street in a Multifamily (MF) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 25’ rear yard setback required, request reduction to 6’ for the construction of a 15’ x 25’ swimming pool & associated 10’ x 10’ deck. Page 3 of 5 Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Paul Kramarewicz, and Dorothy Travers Upon motion by Dorothy Travers, seconded by Paul Kramarewicz motion carried unanimously to APPROVE V#13-20. Dorothy Travers stated the hardship was because the septic system was located in the middle of the property. Marc Benjamin stated with the size of the pool, location of the house, deck and garage, and where the septic is located it’s the most reasonable place to put the pool. 2. V#13-21 - Application of William Lavoie, Jr. & Teresa Lavoie for property located at 31 Yerrington Ave in a Residential (R-20) zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 20,000 sq.ft required, request reduction to 8,444 required and 100’ lot width required, request reduction to 38.63’ for the division of a parcel with 2 non-conforming principal residences. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers and Ray Dussault Motion was made by Dorothy Travers, seconded by Ray Dussault to APPROVE V#13-21. Motion carried 4/1 with Marc Benjamin opposed. Dorothy Travers stated the presentation by Atty. Sweeney was very good with the history of the property, and what had transpired through the years with the zoning regulations being changed. Dorothy Travers stated if the property was divided it would conform with the property size to the rest of the neighborhood. Dorothy Travers stated the hardship dates back to the zone change 2003 from R10 to R20. Ms. Travers stated it’s presently nonconforming and this would make it conforming. Marc Benjamin stated was an excellent presentation. Mr. Benjamin stated at that time many builders were building multiple houses on the same properties. It was discussed years ago that these problems would be back to the ZBA. The hardship happened and it was self-created by the person building the second property. Ray Dussault stated if it was a builder that didn’t reside in the Lavoie’s property, there would be an economic intent. Mr. Dussault stated the person owned the property for a number of years and wasn’t building the house to sell it immediately. Mr. Dussault stated it’s a nonconforming piece of property which would become a conforming property. Mr. Olender stated the hardship is the 2003 zone change and this would correct a nonconformity. Page 4 of 5 J. OTHER MATTERS-NONE K. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Paul Kramarewicz and seconded by Ray Dussault it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5