Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 18, 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, Co-chair Dorothy Travers Raymond Dussault Henry Olender Joe East – Alternate Peter Cuprak - Alternate ABSENT: NONE ALSO PRESENT: Tianne Phoenix Curtis, Zoning Enforcement Officer Linda Lee Smith, Recording Secretary E. COMMUNICATIONS The 2015 meeting schedule was provided; Tianne Curtis requested the Board contact her with any omissions or modifications. Communication from Corporation Counsel dated November 17, 2014 was distributed to the Board as well as Atty. Rutchik. Tianne Curtis stated this was the response to the Board’s request at the October meeting for guidance in determining if a subsequent variance application is “substantially the same”; then if CGS 8.6 applied to V#14-06. Marc Benjamin stated the Board was to go into Executive Session prior to moving to New Business. Marc Benjamin stated Tianne Curtis would be explaining Counsel’s legal opinion as it pertains to proper procedure. Upon motion by Ray Dussault, second by Joe East, the Board voted unanimously to recess to Executive Session at 7:03pm. F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES Upon motion by Ray Dussault, seconded by Dorothy Travers it was voted unanimously to APPROVE AS AMENDED the minutes of the October 14, 2014 regular meeting. 1 of 6  The meeting resumed at 7:45 p.m. As a courtesy, Atty. Rutchik offered to allow the V#14-08 applicant to be heard first. There was no objection from the Board; upon motion by Marc Benjamin, second by Joe Jacaruso the Board voted unanimously to modify the agenda. G. OLD BUSINESS: None H. NEW BUSINESS: 1. V#14-08 – Application of Nicholas Kaika for property located at 4 Waldo Rd aka 17 Thamesview Rd in an R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 30’ Westerly front yard setback required request reduction to 5’ & Southerly front yard setback request reduction to 16’ for the construction of a front porch & rear deck. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers and Ray Dussault Tianne Curtis entered into the record Exhibits “A-H” Ms. Curtis stated the receipts for abutters’ notification were submitted. Nicolas Kaika, property owner, 4 Waldo Rd aka 17 Thamesview Rd presented. Mr. Kaika explained the house was built in 1927, the front of the house was only 15'-20' off the road with the setback 6' to the property line. He explained he had removed an 11’ x 6’ falling deck on the front of the house and built a 5' x 6' porch and landing. He explained the deteriorated front porch was the only entrance from the house which he had replaced the porch without the proper permits. Mr. Kaika stated the side door on the side of the house would have the second deck and stairs, which is shown as Exhibit "F", showing an octagonal deck which would continue to the back patio with access to the doors. There was a large deck on the back that had been taken down. Mr. Kaika stated the stairs were the only thing outside the zoning requirement. He also had Uncas Health District's approval. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. Kaika if the size of the original porch was 11' x 6'. Mr. Kaika stated yes and he's reduced it to 6' 6” with 3" difference which was less encroaching than the original porch with the front tip of the step being 6' 3" off the house. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. Kaika about the second deck. Mr. Kaika stated a 16' setback for the construction of front porch and rear deck. He stated it would be started 10' from the edge of the house and it would continue to the back with the deck. Marc Benjamin asked if there were alternative locations that would comply with zoning. Mr. Kaika stated there was no alternative access to the existing side door where the stairs leading to the driveway were proposed. Page 2 of 6 Mr. Kaika stated the other two properties located near him had similar porches and about the same distance from the road. There was no further testimony and no one wishing to speak in opposition. Upon motion by Dorothy Travers, second by Peter Cuprak motion carried unanimously to close the public hearing. 2. V#14-06 – 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 30’ & 30’ side yard request reduction to 10’ & 10% maximum lot coverage increased to 12% for the construction of a 20’ x 30’ accessory structure. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers and Ray Dussault Atty. Rutchik acknowledged receipt of Corp Counsel’s legal opinion. Marc Benjamin explained to Attorney Rutchik that the Board decided to follow Corporation Counsel's advice & apply the Successive Application Rule because the application came in under the 6 month window. Mr. Benjamin stated the Board would follow a two-step procedure to determine if applications V#14-01 & V#14-06 were the same or substantially the same. The first step would require the applicant to provide evidence the requested relief has changed. The second step would require the applicant to provide evidence there has been a change in circumstances affecting the application. Both determinations would have an individual motion & vote passes by simple majority. Attorney Rutchik, 126 Broadway, Norwich, represented Mr. Wisneski, 206 Canterbury Turnpike. Attorney Rutchik read in its entirety Exhibit "J"; a letter of support from Judi Hopfer Deglin addressed to Mayor Deb Hinchey. Tianne Curtis reminded Atty. Rutchik the Board is looking for him to present his argument the Successive Application Rule should not be applied. Atty. Rutchik disagreed with the limited amount of time he's had to review Corporation Counsel's letter. Atty. Rutchik stated Atty. Driscoll’s interpretation did not apply to this application as 6 months have passed. Atty. Rutchik asked for the denial date of V#14-01; Tianne Curtis responded May, Ray Dussault responded May 13. Marc Benjamin noted the application date for V#14-06 was November 4. Attorney Rutchik responded the determination of the 6 month span is calculated by decision date; therefore 6 months had not passed. Page 3 of 6 Marc Benjamin stated the Board is obligated to follow counsel; Atty. Rutchik asked if the Board was not prohibited from hearing the variance. Marc Benjamin stated the choice to apply the Successive Application Rule was discussed in Executive Session & it’s the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the differences. Tianne Curtis noted the application had been postponed in order to receive a response from Counsel; not for the purpose of extending time between applications. Ms. Curtis gave reference to CGS 8-7(d). Marc Benjamin stated only testimony from Leonard Wisneski & Atty. Rutchik could be considered as this was not a Public Hearing. Atty. Rutchik displayed a plan of 206 Canterbury Tpke & asked Mr. Wisneski to identify particular areas. Marc Benjamin repeated the steps of the process they were obligated to follow. The Board asked Atty. Rutchik if he felt he wasn’t given proper time to address Counsel’s legal opinion, would he like to request an extension to prepare to present next month. Attorney Rutchik spoke to Mr. Wisneski and decided to proceed tonight. Property owner Leonard Wisneski, 206 Canterbury Turnpike noted the application was dated September 22, 2014. Mr. Wisneski stated he was requesting the 50' front yard setback be reduced to 30' & the 30’ side yard setback be reduced to 10’. Mr. Wisneski was of the opinion he had requested the front yard setback be reduced to 20’ & the side to 10’ in the prior application. Mr. Wisneski also stated the size of the structure had been changed from 24’x30’ to 20’x30’ & he hadn’t mentioned the ledge that kept him from moving the building further in. Marc Benjamin asked why the existence of ledge had not been included in the application. Atty. Rutchik was of the opinion there was a substantial change in the setbacks as the garage was moved back 10’. Mr. Wisneski stated yes and it is now on an angle and the only point between the house and garage is ledge. Atty. Rutchik opposed the use of the Successive Rule as he determined dates to be outside of the six month restriction. Peter Cuprak recused himself & was excused from the room. Ray Dussault stated there were substandard differences in the two applications, and that adjustments claimed still fell within the original request. Marc Benjamin stated the Board needed to look at the applications side by side and compare for a substantial difference. Henry Olender noted the 10’ proposed change had been addressed at the prior meeting and though he was proposing the garage to be 4’ smaller, the variance request was still for a 10’ setback as opposed to requesting 14’. Ray Dussault noted the 4’ reduction was taken from the conforming side. Page 4 of 6  Marc Benjamin stated the change in structure size was not significant if the request for the side yard reduction to 10’ remained the same. Motion was made by Henry Olender, second by Ray Dussault that there was not a significant change in application. Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Ray Dussault in agreement; Dorothy Travers in opposition (4-1) The Board progressed to the second step to hear the Applicant’s testimony there had been a change in circumstances affecting the application. Attorney Rutchik stated the land itself hasn't changed but the existing conditions of the property include ledge, greenery and non- conforming sheds that could be removed to open up space on the side yard. Atty. Rutchik noted the letter of support from the neighbor & the frustration of his client’s inability to get approval. Marc Benjamin stated the ZBA is obligated to follow the rules and regulations set forth by the City of Norwich & State of CT; the Board has been given legal guidance they will follow. The Board & Atty. Rutchik were in disagreement of the Successive Application Rule and the calculation of the six month window. Atty. Rutchik objected to applying these to his appeal. Ray Dussault stated the applicant was unable to provide evidence of any significant changes to the property. Motion was made by Ray Dussault, second by Henry Olender that there was not a significant change to the property. Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Ray Dussault in agreement; Dorothy Travers in opposition (4-1) I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V#14-08 – Application of Nicholas Kaika for property located at 4 Waldo Rd aka 17 Thamesview Rd in an R-20 zoning district. In accordance with Sec.12.1 30’ Westerly front yard setback required request reduction to 5’ & Southerly front yard setback request reduction to 16’ for the construction of a front porch & rear deck. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers and Ray Dussault Upon motion by Dorothy Travers, second by Ray Dussault the Board voted unanimously to APPROVE V#14-08. Page 5 of 6  Ray Dussault stated Mr. Kaika was entitled to a front door which is a reasonable use; and he had corrected a potentially hazardous situation. Mr. Dussault stated the septic takes up quite a bit of room on the property, and his hardship was because of the location of the house on the property; and he'd have to change the door location. Dorothy Travers stated the hardships were because there are two front yards; the size of the property; and the location of the septic. Ms. Travers stated it's aesthetically appealing on the corner lot and with the improvements made to the property and neighborhood. Henry Olender stated the house is close to the property line; and he has made the porch smaller. Marc Benjamin stated it's pre-existing, nonconforming, and he's decreasing the nonconformity on the front porch by making it smaller and bringing it more into compliance. The terrain on the side yard requires a step and a landing and it would be the minimal amount to bring it up for egress. 2. V#14-06 – 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 30’ & 30’ side yard request reduction to 10’ & 10% maximum lot coverage increased to 12% for the construction of a 20’ x 30’ accessory structure. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers and Ray Dussault Motion was made by Henry Olender, second by Ray Dussault that there was not a significant change in application. Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Ray Dussault in agreement; Dorothy Travers in opposition (4-1) Motion was made by Ray Dussault, second by Henry Olender that there was not a significant change to the property. Marc Benjamin, Joe Jacaruso, Henry Olender, Ray Dussault in agreement; Dorothy Travers in opposition (4-1) J. OTHER MATTERS: NONE K. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Dorothy Travers, and second by Joe Jacaruso it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary Page 6 of 6