Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 8, 2015 Meeting Minutes The regular meeting of the City of Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:04 p.m. Roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present. PRESENT: Marc Benjamin, Chairman Henry Olender, Vice Chairman Mark Kulos Dorothy Travers David Martin – Alternate Robert Phoenix - Alternate ABSENT: Raymond Dussault Peter Cuprak – Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Tianne Phoenix Curtis, Zoning Enforcement Officer Kim McGee, Corporation Counsel Linda Lee Smith, Recording Secretary Tianne Curtis explained to the board that Mr. Eldridge had withdrawn his application because he had an A2 survey done and he had modified his location; and could meet and comply with the 15’ setback. Ms. Curtis said that the board would need to vote a motion to deny without prejudice because if Mr. Eldridge needed to come back to the board within six month because he left of his own free will. Upon motion by Mark Kulos, second by Henry Olender motion was made to suspend the rules and proceed directly to the decision. All were in favor. G. OLD BUSINESS: 1. V#15-08 – Request of Donald Eldridge for property located at 31 Wilmot Avenue in a Residential (R20) zoning district. In accordance with Sec. 12.1; 15’ side yard required, request reduction to 12’ for the construction of a 20’ x 20’ addition. (Continued from November 10, 2015) Seated were Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Mark Kulos, David Martin, and Dorothy Travers Tianne Curtis stated the public hearing had been continued from last month and the applicant had voluntarily withdrawn his application and didn’t wish to continue the hearing. Mark Kulos stated because the proposed construction could be built in the appropriate setbacks, there was no reason for the application to continue. Ray Dussault was absent Dorothy Travers replaced him for the voting. Upon motion by Henry Olender second by Mark Kulos motion carried unanimously to DENY V#15-08 without prejudice. E. COMMUNICATIONS: 1. ZBA 2016 Scheduled Meetings Upon motion by Henry Olender, second by Mark Kulos motion was made to accept the 2016 proposed ZBA schedule. Motion carried unanimously. F. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES Upon motion by Mark Kulos, seconded by David Martin it was voted unanimously to APPROVE the minutes of the November 10, 2015 regular meeting as amended. H. NEW BUSINESS: 1. V#15-09 – Application of Leonard Wisneski for property located at 206 Canterbury Turnpike in an R-40 zoning district. In accordance with Sec. 1.1 50’ front yard setback required request reduction to 30’ for the construction of a 24’ x 30’ accessory structure. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Mark Kulos, David Martin, and Dorothy Travers Tianne Curtis entered into the record Exhibits “A-G”. Marc Benjamin informed Mr. Wisneski there were 5 voting members present, (all 4 would have to be affirmative for passing) not a majority. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. Wisneski if he would like Mr. Benjamin to recuse himself because of previous history. Mr. Wisneski stated no that Mr. Benjamin was very familiar with his project and he wanted Mr. Benjamin to continue to be seated as a voting member with the new variance application. Kim McGee, City Council, she appreciated Mr. Benjamin's option to Mr. Wisneski to recuse himself, and Ms. McGee stated that his comments on the record don't waive any future claims, but Ms. McGee stated the decision to recuse himself was Mr. Benjamin’s decision. Leonard & Mary Wisneski, property owners, 206 Canterbury Turnpike, Norwich, CT were present. Mr. Wisneski stated he had come to the board previously, his wife is handicapped, he explained he wanted to construct an accessory structure to allow Mr. Wisneski to be able transfer his wife from wheelchair into the car and to be done inside the building out of the inclement weather. Mr. Wisneski stated the present garage is too far away from the house. Mark Kulos asked if it would be a secondary garage. Mr. Wisneski stated yes. Mr. Wisneski stated he had applied 2 years ago for a side yard reduction from 30' to 10' and front 50' to 30'; and since his neighbor, the Deglin’s, 220 Canterbury Turnpike had allowed a lot line adjustment that would extend Mr. Wisneski's side yard setback 30'. Mr. Wisneski submitted Exhibit "H" a photo of the existing condition. Mr. Wisneski stated he has installed a handicapped chair which does help but it takes 3 minutes out in the rain compared to being inside the garage. Mr. Wisneski submitted Exhibit "I" plot plan 2. Mr. Wisneski explained he would wheel his wife in the wheelchair down the driveway to the proposed accessory structure. Mr. Wisneski explained he would be coming in 30' from the boundary line, 50' from the street, with a 20' buffer between the street and boundary line. Mr. Wisneski stated the accessory structure would be situated on the old boundary line and his neighbor, the Deglin's extended Mr. Wisneski's side yard setback another 30' with a lot line adjustment. Tianne Curtis stated she had confirmed the deed for the additional strip of land was extended 30' on the side yard to Mr. Wisneski. Mr. Wisneski stated the land across the street belongs to Taftville reservoir, the land behind to Fairview reservoir and the land next to Mr. Wisneski belongs to the Deglin’s no further building could take place. Mr. Wisneski stated Exhibit "G" was a letter of support from the Deglin’s. Mr. Wisneski submitted Exhibit "J" a letter from Neurology Associates, a letter stating the accessory structure would be a benefit for Mrs. Wisneski. 2 Mr. Wisneski stated other properties in his neighborhood had previously received variances with greater setbacks than he was requesting such as 64 Flyers Drive; Exhibit "K" photos of 444 Canterbury Turnpike variances with similar setbacks had been approved in the same R40 zone; Exhibit "L" 157 Canterbury Turnpike house and garage sitting on the side yard setback. Mark Kulos asked Mr. Wisneski it appeared as only one corner would be 30' from the property line. Mr. Wisneski stated the drawing shows the structure 40' from the property line because the garage location may have to be shifted a bit and Mr. Wisneski had included a 10' leeway in case it needs to be moved back closer to the 30' shown in Exhibit "F". Ms. Curtis explained in Exhibit "F" where it would need to be located if he had to meet 50' setback and also what is being proposed. Marc Benjamin stated Mr. Wisneski would be locating the accessory structure between 30' to 50' from the front yard setback. Mark Kulos stated Mr. Wisneski may be able to move the building over a little bit. Mr. Wisneski stated yes but no closer than 30'. Mark Kulos stated there is only one point where the garage would meet the 30' setback. Mr. Kulos asked Mr. Wisneski if he had to put the accessory structure where the 50' setback was because of the ledge. Mr. Wisneski stated yes there would be ledge and Canterbury Turnpike has many boulders as well. Mr. Kulos asked Mr. Wisneski if either ledge or large boulders were making him move the garage closer towards the front yard setback. Mr. Wisneski stated yes but the main reason was because his wife was handicapped. Mr. Kulos asked Mr. Wisneski what his hardship was, what was unique to his property preventing him from putting the accessory structure where it would conform. Mr. Wisneski stated his land with the ledge was his hardship. Mr. Kulos asked if he were to move 20' towards the road would he avoid the exposed ledge. Mr. Wisneski stated yes. Robert Phoenix asked if the garage would be enclosed. Mr. Wisneski stated yes. Mr. Phoenix as if he had other uses for the garage. Mr. Wisneski stated probably for another vehicle and storage. Mr. Phoenix asked if it would be heated. Mr. Wisneski state no. Mr. Phoenix asked if it would be a two car garage. Mr. Wisneski stated yes and he would install a Hoyer lift. Mark Kulos stated it makes sense where the accessory structure would be located because of the position to the driveway and the front of the house and trying to avoid the exposed ledge. Mr. Kulos stated Mr. Wisneski took care of the Deglin’s side yard setback because he obtained the extra side yard land. Robert Phoenix asked Mr. Wisneski if he would be combining the two pieces of property. Mr. Wisneski thought they had been. Tianne Curtis stated it was a lot line adjustment. Mr. Phoenix stated Mr. Wisneski is now in compliance with the side yard setback. Mr. Phoenix asked Mr. Wisneski about his landscape and buffers on Canterbury Turnpike. Mr. Wisneski stated there is stone wall, many trees and the building wouldn't be seen from the road. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. Wisneski to confirm the road edge is 20' to the stone wall and 30' from the stone wall to the accessory building. Marc Benjamin stated it would appear to be setback 50' back from the road. Mr. Wisneski confirmed. Mr. Phoenix stated it wouldn't be visual from the road. There being no other speakers the public hearing was closed. I. DISCUSSION/DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V#15-08 – Request of Donald Eldridge for property located at 31 Wilmot Avenue in a Residential (R20) zoning district. In accordance with Sec. 12.1; 15’ side yard required, request reduction to 12’ for the construction of a 20’ x 20’ addition. 3  Seated were Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Mark Kulos, Dorothy Travers, and David Martin A motion had been made and seconded. Upon motion by Henry Olender second by Mark Kulos motion carried unanimously to DENY V#15-08 without prejudice. 2. V#15-09 – Application of Leonard Wisneski for property located at 206 Canterbury Turnpike in an R-40 zoning district. In accordance with Sec. 1.1 50’ front yard setback required request reduction to 30’ for the construction of a 24’ x 30’ accessory structure. Seated were Marc Benjamin, Henry Olender, Mark Kulos, Dorothy Travers, and David Martin Upon motion by Henry Olender, second by Dorothy Travers motion carried unanimously to APPROVE V15-09. Henry Olender stated the hardships were Mrs. Wisneski's health, handicap, ledge, he has acquired the 30' additional property on the side yard; and he's back far enough off the road, and also for their wellbeing. Mark Kulos stated the board can't approve a variance based on a person’s health, it has to be something that is unique with the land. A hardship can't be based on a person’s medical condition. Henry Olender stated the board continues to grant handicapped ramps for people with medical conditions. Mr. Kulos stated yes that’s true but there has to be a hardship associated with the land. Dorothy Travers stated the hardships were there was quite a bit of ledge, the location and being close to the house, and there are also trees buffering the property. Dave Martin stated the ledge is the hardship; and the pre-existing location of the house and the driveway limits the location options for the garage. Mark Kulos stated Mr. Wisneski has a 20' City owned buffer in the front of his house, and 30' to the stonewall, the visual impact would appear as a 50' setback. Mr. Wisneski won't know until they start the footings but he may need to adjust the footprint around the ledge. Marc Benjamin stated Mr. Wisneski is requesting 50' front setback reduced to 30', the side yard conforms, and the stated hardships were the ledge and for medical necessity. J. OTHER MATTERS: 1. Workshop for the review of current Zoning Ordinance Sec.19.1.1 in order to propose application criteria to be included within the ordinance. Tianne Curtis gave a brief overview of the new zoning regulations stating Section 19.1 needs to be modified as of the Nov. 2, 2015 City Council new zoning regulations were adopted. Marc Benjamin stated a workshop would be set up for the new zoning regulations. 4 K. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by, Dorothy Travers and second by David Martin it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary 5