Zoning Board of Appeals

Revised 4/17/14 CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 14, 2014 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 Henry Olender Dorothy Travers Peter Cuprak - Alternate Joe East – Alternate ABSENT: Joseph Jacaruso Paul Kramarewicz Raymond Dussault-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 Peter Cuprak and second by Dorothy Travers, it was voted unanimously to APPROVE the minutes of the November 19, 2013 regular meeting. G. OLD BUSINESS: 1. V#13-22 – Application of Adin Loewenstein for property located at 436 New London Tpke in a Residential R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.3.9 Corner Visibility, to permit the maintenance of existing plantings greater than three (3’) within the restricted triangular area. Marc Benjamin stated the public hearing portion had been conducted & closed at the 11/19/2013 regular meeting. Motion had been made & seconded to TABLE decision in order for the board to drive the intersection and assess the corner visibility issue. Mr. Benjamin stated no further testimony could be accepted. Mr. Benjamin stated on the record that Joe East (Alt) would be voting in Joe Jacaruso’s absence as he was present during the public hearing testimony. . Voting were Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, Peter Cuprak, and Joe East. 1 of 4 Motion was made & seconded to take agenda items out of order to move to decision of V#13-22 prior to New Business. Motion was made by Dorothy Travers, second by Peter Cuprak to APPROVE V#13-22. Motion carried 4/1 (Henry Olender opposed). Dorothy Travers stated she observed the site in both day & nighttime, & had no visibility issues when pulling out of Ford Avenue to New London Turnpike from the arborvitaes. Ms. Travers stated she pulled beyond the stop bar to be able to see after stopping. Peter Cuprak noted the correspondence received from the Norwich Police Dept. had no reports of an accident at the intersection of Ford Ave. Joe East stated the trees had created no visibility issue at his site visit. Joe East stated the trees provided a buffer for privacy and road noise, and if cut down to 3’ per Sec.3.9 it would be a huge negative impact to his property with nothing gained or accomplished. Mr. Olender stated he was standing by his prior statements at the hearing; that the arborvitaes did create a safety hazard, as evidenced by the need to pass the stop bar, & that the City has the ordinance for a reason. Mr. Olender stated the Board would be setting precedence if they were to grant the variance, & there was no hardship as new trees could be planted. Marc Benjamin stated you would need to pass the stop bar for clear visibility, however the correspondence from the Police Dept. claimed no accidents have occurred at the intersection. Marc Benjamin stated he could understand the issue from both sides; the ordinance as written or the pre-existing condition. Although a car would need to pass the stop bar for a clear view, it is the stone/retaining wall that blocks the view more so then the arborvitaes. Mr. Benjamin stated the combination of the grade of the road & the walls create a hardship to Mr. Loewenstein, and to require the removal of the trees will negatively impact his quality of life & may affect the integrity of the retained earth. Motion was made by Dorothy Travers, second by Peter Cuprak to APPROVE V#13-22. Motion carried 4/1 (Henry Olender opposed). H. NEW BUSINESS: 1. V#13-23 – Application of Thomas & Joy Griffin for property located at 54 Fairmount Street in a Multifamily MF zoning district. In accordance with Sec.5.6 Swimming Pools location within side & rear yards, Sec.12.1 Westerly rear yard 25’ setback, request reduction to 5.5’; Northerly side yard 10’ setback, request reduction to 7’ for the construction of a 16’ x 32’ in ground swimming pool. Marc Benjamin recused himself & left the meeting room. Henry Olender was acting Chair. Page 2 of 4 Voting were Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, Peter Cuprak, and Joe East Tianne Curtis entered into the record Exhibits “A-L” Thomas and Joy Griffin, property owners, 54 Fairmount Street presented. Mr. Griffin stated he wanted to build an in-ground pool for his son who is autistic because it would be beneficial for him. Presently they have to travel 45 minutes to take their son to a pool as community centers continue to close and reduce their hours. Mr. Griffin stated he had some of his trees cut down and had spoken with his neighbors and received no opposition. Mr. Griffin explained to the board he had a licensed survey performed & the property lines were considerably different than from the aerial plot plan. Joe East asked Mr. Griffin what the size of the pool was going to be. Mr. Griffin stated the in-ground pool would be 16'x 32' with 4' sloping depth with the setbacks determined measured to the pool’s edge. Henry Olender asked what the requirement was for the rear yard; Tianne Curtis confirmed 25’ per Sec.12.1, however Sec.5.1 permits 10’ as the pool was a detached accessory structure. Tianne Curtis noted the proposed pool could meet neither setback. Henry Olender asked Mr. Griffin how far away from the abutter’s house would the pool be. Mr. Griffin stated it’s approximately 25'. Mr. Olender asked if he was planning on putting a privacy fence up. Mr. Griffin stated that he presently has a chain link fence up which will be replaced by a 6' privacy fence. Joe East asked if the patio was in the setback. Tianne Curtis stated no the patio is considered landscaping. Mr. Griffin stated his hardship was the boundaries of his property; and if he couldn't get the variance they would have to move. Ms. Griffin stated the in- ground pool wasn’t a luxury, but a necessity for their son’s health Noah Griffin, son of Joy & Thomas Griffin spoke in support of the pool and how it would improve their quality of life. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. H. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V#13-22 – Application of Adin Loewenstein for property located at 436 New London Tpke in a Residential R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.3.9 Corner Visibility, to permit the maintenance of existing plantings greater than three (3’) within the restricted triangular area. Motion was made by Dorothy Travers, second by Peter Cuprak to APPROVE V#13-22. Motion carried 4/1 (Henry Olender opposed). Page 3 of 4 2. V#13-23 – Application of Thomas & Joy Griffin for property located at 54 Fairmount Street in a Multifamily MF zoning district. In accordance with Sec.5.6 Swimming Pools location within side & rear yards, Sec.12.1 Westerly rear yard 25’ setback, request reduction to 5.5’; Northerly side yard 10’ setback, request reduction to 7’ for the construction of a 16’ x 32’ in ground swimming pool. Motion was made by Dorothy Travers, second by Peter Cuprak to APPROVE V#13-23. Motion carried unanimously. Dorothy Travers stated the hardship was the topography & that the pool would benefit their child. Dorothy Travers stated there was no opposition from the neighbors & that a privacy fence will be installed. Joe East stated the pool would allow for reasonable use of their property, and with very little impact to their neighbors. Henry Olender stated the property owner’s would be putting up a privacy fence and the pool would improve the property owner’s quality of life. Motion was made by Dorothy Travers, second by Peter Cuprak to APPROVE V#13-23. Motion carried unanimously. J. OTHER MATTERS K. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Peter Cuprak, second by Dorothy Travers, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary Page 4 of 4