Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 8, 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 Paul Kramarewicz Joe East – Alternate ABSENT: Joseph Jacaruso Dorothy Travers Peter Cuprak - Alternate 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 Paul Kramarewicz and second by Marc Benjamin it was voted unanimously to APPROVE the minutes of the January 14, 2014 regular meeting as corrected. G. OLD BUSINESS: None H. NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Marc Benjamin explained the legal proceeding to Mr. Wisneski stating a quorum of four members was present to vote. Mr. Benjamin stated because there were only four members present all four members would have to vote in the affirmative. It wasn’t a matter of a majority. Mr. Benjamin explained to Mr. Wisneski that he had the option to go before the board that evening or he could postpone his variance until next month when the possibility of five board members could be present. Mr. Benjamin stated that if there were five members present one member could oppose the variance and it still would be approved. The Board confirmed Mr. Wisneski understood his options. Mr. Wisneski stated he wanted to move forward and be heard with only the four members. 1. V#14-01 – Application of Leonard Wisneski for property located at 206 Canterbury Turnpike in an R-40 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 50’ front yard required request reduction to 20’ & 30’ side yard request reduction to 10’ for the construction of a 24’ x 30’ accessory structure. 1 of 3 Seated were Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Paul Kramarewicz, and Joe East Tianne Curtis entered into the record Exhibits “A-H” Leonard Wisneski, property owner, 206 Canterbury Turnpike presented. Mr. Wisneski stated he wanted to build a 24’ x 30’ accessory garage structure for his invalid wife because she couldn’t use the stairs to enter or exit their home. Mr. Wisneski stated it would be much easier to transfer his wife from the car to the wheelchair in inclement weather. A handicap ramp had been installed a couple of years ago. Mr. Wisneski stated he has a two car garage located under the house but it’s not feasible to park there because of the close proximity to the gas boiler. Marc Benjamin asked if the only variance being requested was for the reduction of the side yard. Tianne Curtis responded that Mr. Wisneski would need the variances for the front and side yard. Ms. Curtis explained when she originally reviewed the application; the tax card showed less acreage than what Mr. Wisneski really had. Ms. Curtis stated originally there was a lot coverage increase from 10% to 12%, but when Ms. Curtis used Mr. Wisneski’s A-2 survey the lot coverage had been met and the lot coverage variance didn’t need to be requested. Joe East asked Mr. Wisneski to clarify if the ramp at the entrance of the house came down the left side of the house. Mr. Wisneski stated yes and the ramp was installed two years ago which didn’t show on the City’s GIS map. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. Wisneski how he designated the location for the accessory garage structure. Mr. Wisneski stated because of the location to the driveway and being in the front of the house. Mr. East asked Mr. Wisneski if he was going to transfer his wife to the wheelchair and push her all the way up the driveway and ramp to get her inside the house. Mr. Wisneski stated yes. Mr. East asked Mr. Wisneski if it would be easier to put a little roof overhang over the house. Mr. Wisneski stated he didn’t want to spoil the aesthetics of the house. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. Wisneski how close the neighbor’s house was to his house. Mr. Wisneski stated it’s not very close. Marc Benjamin stated it would be in Mr. Wisneski’s best interest to continue the variance until next month to allow Mr. Wisneski to get more accurate setback reduction requirements. Mr. Wisneski asked the ZBA to continue his variance until next month. Upon motion by Paul Kramarewicz and seconded by Marc Benjamin motion carried unanimously to continue V#14-01 until next month. H. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS Page 2 of 3 1. V#14-01 – Application of Leonard Wisneski for property located at 206 Canterbury Turnpike in an R-40 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 50’ front yard required request reduction to 20’ & 30’ side yard request reduction to 10’ for the construction of a 24’ x 30’ accessory structure. J. OTHER MATTERS K. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Paul Kramarewicz, second by Henry Olender, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary Page 3 of 3