Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 13, 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 Joseph Jacaruso Dorothy Travers Henry Olender Paul Kramarewicz Joe East – Alternate ABSENT: 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 Joe East it was voted unanimously to APPROVE the minutes of the April 8, 2014 regular meeting. G. OLD BUSINESS: 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. (Continued from April 8, 2014 meeting) Seated were Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz, Joe Jacaruso and Joe East Tianne Curtis reminded the Board V#14-01 had been continued from the 4/8/14 regular meeting, and the public hearing kept open in order to accept further testimony. Ms. Curtis stated the Board had requested the applicant verify his setback request; as there was conflicting information presented at the 4/8/14 meeting. Ms. Curtis explained the original request for a reduction to 20’ had been determined by the 1985 survey Exhibit “G” as measured from the fenced area with the call out “dog pen”. Ms. Curtis explained that Mr. Wisneski had forgotten to mention the pen had been cut back 10’ since the 1985 survey; thus creating the conflicting measurements. Ms. Curtis stated she had gone to the applicant’s property, per the Board’s request, to document where Mr. Wisneski 1 of 5 was proposing the structure. Ms. Curtis referred to Exhibit “I”, photos taken at the site visit, & stated the photo illustrates the area Mr. Wisneski had measured & staked as 30’ from what he knows as his property line, and a second stake measuring 30’ indicating the length of the proposed structure. Mr. Wisneski stated this is the closest point he was proposing the construction. Ms. Curtis felt that, based on her observations at the site visit, modifying the request for reduction to 20’ to be a reduction to 30’ would allow sufficient room should the Board act favorably on the appeal. Chairman Benjamin asked if Mr. Wisneski was still asking for a reduction to 10’ for the side yard setback. Ms. Curtis responded yes. Tianne Curtis noted all 4 members from the 4/8/14 hearing were present, as well as 2 additional members. If the 2 members had familiarized themselves with the application they were qualified to vote. Ms. Curtis advised the Board state on the record who would be seated prior to the close of the public hearing. Mr. Wisneski stated he wanted to construct the garage because his wife was handicapped & he wanted an easier way to transport her from the house to the car via the existing handicap ramp. He stated the attached garage was not usable because she could not do stairs and he needed a covered area to protect from rain. Joe East stated that, while he was sorry Mr. Wisneski’s wife was handicapped, he didn't understand how the proposed location of the garage would be a benefit, as she would still be transferred a distance from the home. Mr. Wisneski responded he could get his wife into the car under cover as opposed to in the driveway and subjected to the weather. Joe East asked why the garage could not be located closer to the home to avoid encroaching on the side yard property line. Mr. Wisneski replied that he wanted to make the property look nice, and a garage sitting next to the house would be terrible. Henry Olender asked why he couldn't attach a garage to the house. Mr. Wisneski replied that there is a screened in porch with windows on the side of the house. Paul Kramarewicz stated Mr. Wisneski’s wife was disabled and he wanted to make things easier but not upset the look of his house which was why Mr. Wisneski was there. Dorothy Travers agreed with Paul Kramarewicz and asked about the well cap in the front yard. Mr. Wisneski replied that he is on City water and the well is no longer in use. Dorothy Travers stated it was the applicant’s prerogative to decide where they wanted the garage & the higher elevation of the house could create difficult access if he were to build an attached garage. Mr. Wisneski stated that the home on one of his abutters’ properties is located far from the shared property line, & the land across Canterbury Tpke is the reservoir owned by the City of Norwich. Paul Kramarewicz noted there was no opposition. Chairman Benjamin stated there was not a clear hardship which was what the Board was supposed to be looking at; the occupancy is not a hardship. Paul Kramarewicz responded that Mr. Wisneski’s wife was handicapped. Chairman Benjamin responded that is occupancy, & if the occupant changed tomorrow, the Page 2 of 5 hardship wouldn’t exist. Mr. Wisneski stated they had been in the house 45 years & they wouldn’t be asking for the variance if they intended to move. Mr. Wisneski also stated there was a property in the same neighborhood who, in his opinion, had constructed a garage on top of the property line. There were no additional comments. Chairman Benjamin stated that, out of fairness, those members present at both hearings should be able to vote on the application. The 5th voting member should be determined between Joe Jacaruso & Dorothy Travers. Joe East stated that he was just an alternate & he would be fine giving up his voting seat to a regular member. The Board agreed the following members would be voting on the application: Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, Paul Kramarewicz & Joe East. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. Wisneski if he had anything he’d like to add; Mr. Wisneski replied no. As there was no further testimony & no one present to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Benjamin closed the public hearing. He explained to Mr. Wisneski that if the variance were approved, there would be a 15 day appeal period before he could start construction. If the variance were denied, there would be a six (6) month waiting period to reapply. H. NEW BUSINESS: None I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 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. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Paul Kramarewicz, Dorothy Travers and Joe East Marc Benjamin made a motion to approve, second by Paul Kramarewicz. Henry Olender stated it's not ideal because they could attach it to the house; many people have breezeways between their homes & garages; however it is Mr. Wisneski’s prerogative to come before the board to request the location he feels will best suit his needs. Henry Olender stated he will be voting in favor for their safety & because of her handicap Paul Kramarewicz stated it wasn’t in the ideal spot, but he agreed with all Hank Olender’s statements. Dorothy Travers stated he was also in agreement with Hank Olender. Page 3 of 5 Joe East stated he was sympathetic to Mrs. Wisneski’s handicap, however he didn’t see this as a solution or that it warrants changing the setbacks. It makes no sense in terms of ease & access. He agreed with Hank Olender that many people have breezeways attaching their home to a garage; accommodating not even having to leave the house. Marc Benjamin stated there were 2 variances being requested and asked Joe East which variance he objected to; Joe East responded both & stated he felt there was enough property to build close to the house with the aesthetics of the house being second to the zoning regulations. Marc Benjamin stated the property line is set back considerably from the street line, giving the appearance he did meet the front yard setback. Chairman Benjamin stated he agreed with Joe East there was no need to crowd the property line & that there are reasonable alternatives to what was presented. Chairman Benjamin stated he was not as opposed to the front yard setback as he was to the side. Paul Kramarewicz stated the surrounding properties would never be built on & questioned what the Board would gain by requiring Mr. Wisneski to push the garage towards the house. Marc Benjamin asked Paul Kramarewicz where the hardship was in his statement because that was what we needed to base the decision on. Paul Kramarewicz stated the wife was handicapped & the applicant was asking for an easier way to transfer his wife. Paul Kramarewicz stated Mr. Wisneski had already constructed a handicap ramp at the front of the home and that applicants have come before the Board with similar requests which the Board has granted as American Disabilities Act (ADA). Marc Benjamin stated he wanted to vote based on merit & specific to the property. Paul Kramarewicz responded the land surrounding the property line was wooded & would not be built on. Joe East stated although there was no existing structure at the side yard, he didn’t see a reason to vary the zoning regulations as Mrs. Wisneski could be accommodated without a variance. Henry Olender recalled Mr. Wisneski had bought a 40’ strip of land, Tianne Curtis referred to Exhibit “G” & stated she had no information on the land transfer/lot line adjustment she was unable to provide any details. Hank Olender stated the acquisition of the 40’ strip was an effort on Mr. Wisneski’s part to increase his side yard. Chairman Benjamin stated he could understand the reduction of the front yard setback however the required 30’ sideward setback could be met by locating the garage closer to the house. Chairman Benjamin asked if the Board would like to amend his motion to vote on each request separately. Paul Kramarewicz had Page 4 of 5 seconded the initial motion & did not want it amended; motion should be taken as -is. Paul Kramarewicz stated the Board had approved other variances granting construction 2’ off the property line & decks built without permits. Paul Kramarewicz asked how the Board could approve construction performed without permits but not someone following the correct order of things with no opposition aside from members of the Board. Chairman Benjamin called for a vote on initial motion to approve. Motion FAILED 3-2 (voting in favor Dorothy Travers, Hank Olender & Paul Kramarewicz) (voting in opposition Marc Benjamin & Joe East) J. OTHER MATTERS None K. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Paul Kramarewicz, second by Dorothy Travers, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 7:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5