Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 14, 2017 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. PRESENT: Marc Benjamin, Chairman Henry Olender, Vice Chairman Mark Kulos Dorothy Travers Robert Phoenix, Alternate David Martin, Alternate ABSENT: Peter Curprak OTHERS: Richard Shuck, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Linda Lee Smith, Recording Secretary Marc Benjamin stated the 4 regular members would be seated and Robert Phoenix would be seated for the alternate. D. COMMUNICATIONS – Richard Shuck stated that he received an email communication and would read it into the record under New Business V#17-10. E. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES A motion was made by Mark Kulos to APPROVE the minutes of the October 10, 2017 meeting. Second by Dorothy Travers. The motion passed unanimously. F. OLD BUSINESS: None G. NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Benjamin opened the public hearing 1. V# 17-10 – Application of Mark McWilliams for property located at 149 Harland Road, in a Residential (R40) zoning district. Assessor’s Map #68, Block #2, Lot #43. Request a variance of Sec. 1.1 Residential Bulk Requirements to construct a deck 17’ from the property line where 30’ is required. Richard Shuck entered into the record Exhibits “A-K”. Richard Shuck also entered Exhibit “L” into the record an email from neighbor Drew Bowen, 139 Harland Road that he had no concerns with the construction of the deck. Attorney Scott Jezek, mailing address PO Box 376, Moodus, CT 06469, and office 31 WF Palmer Road, Moodus, CT. Atty. Jezek represented the property owner who couldn’t be there this evening. Atty. Jezek stated he thought the packet the members received was quite complete and he wanted to focus on three items Exhibits “G”, “H”, and “I”. Exhibit G is a copy of the Assessors map that shows the house has a peculiar angle to the side yard; the side yards are not perpendicular and it’s a bit of a challenge to meet the side yards at the two corners closest to the particular lines but it does show the position of the house. He stated the house was constructed in 1928 the zoning regulations came into existence in 1959, and the house pre-existed the regulations 50 years prior to their adoption. 1 of 3 ZBA 11/16/2017 Atty. Jezek stated Exhibit “H” 3 pages of photos that show the deck that was already constructed. He stated 3rd photo shows where the original deck sat and can’t say with a degree of certainty that the replacement deck is exactly positioned over the prior deck but even if it were it would appear that it is contrary to the setbacks of the regulations. He stated the second photo shows the deck runs parallel to the house and it doesn’t extend any further than the edge of the house. Exhibit “I” are the actual details of the request. He stated the house and enclosed porch already encroach on the setback which it’s been there for decades and the deck is the replacement of the deck that was there historically and it’s not identically close to where it had been and it does requires the variance. Atty. Jezek showed a picture online of what the house looked like prior to Mr. McWilliams constructing the deck. Atty. Jezek stated he had emailed the photo Exhibit “M” to Mr. Shuck which depicted the back yard and the condition when Mr. McWilliams acquired the property. Atty. Jezek stated the house predates zoning, its configuration of the lot that creates the hardship, the regulations when adopted in 1959 put this house in the nonconforming position when only replacing a deck that pre-existed historically. He also brought for the commission Exhibit “N” a legal case study submitted by Atty. Jezek that concluded the location predated zoning regulations and can be used as a legitimate hardship for an applicant. Atty. Jezek stated the location of the house on the lot creates the hardship, it existed long before zoning, and if the house were twisted it would probably required under existing zoning regulations and the problem wouldn’t have existed and created by the regulations for a hardship and not created by Mr. McWilliams. Mark Kulos stated it’s not like he did new construction. Richard Shuck stated the porch was existing. Marc Benjamin questioned the jut out looks like it covers the deck and small enclosure. Atty. Jezek stated yes. Mark Kulos stated Exhibit “H” shows the original footing the closest to the sideline which he’s looking for the variance. Discussion ensued on the original footing. David Martin asked if they would have asked for a permit prior to demolition of the old one would they have needed the variance. Richard Shuck stated no he would have been permitted to replace what was existing but after the fact when he could only look at the Assessors records, the measurements didn’t line up, he couldn’t determine what was there and he couldn’t give a zoning permit. Richard Shuck stated it looked 2’ larger than what the record showed and it’s not what it looks like out in the field. Edward Page, 155 Harland Road, Norwich. Mr. Page asked the board if this variance was for what was already built. Marc Benjamin stated yes. Mr. Page stated previously there was a sunroom on the back they did add on, but there was never a deck on the back of the house. Mr. Page had lived there over 10 years and he stated it was a small green house on the back of the house put on by the previous owners. Mark Kulos asked how many feet did the deck add to it. Mr. Page stated probably 4’-5’. Mr. Page stated he had no complaints and wasn’t in opposition. Atty. Jezek stated Exhibit “G” city map measuring 17’ off the property line, the same measurement and map wasn’t changed, and stated someplace in history there was a 17’ setback. Page 2 of 3 ZBA 11/16/2017  There being no other speakers the public hearing was closed. Robert Phoenix made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mark Kulos seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. H. DISCUSSION / DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V# 17-10 – Application of Mark McWilliams for property located at 149 Harland Road, in a Residential (R40) zoning district. Assessor’s Map #68, Block #2, Lot #43. Request a variance of Sec. 1.1 Residential Bulk Requirements to construct a deck 17’ from the property line where 30’ is required. Motion was made by Dorothy Travers to grant the variance. Robert Phoenix second. Dorothy Travers stated the hardship was the topography of the land, the angle the house was built, the distance from the property line, and the zoning regulations have changed. Marc Benjamin stated he wanted to summarize Dorothy Traver’s hardships with the house pre-existing at 17’ from the side line is maintained, the line of the house and replacing an existing deck in the same location. Mark Kulos stated the hardship is the position of the house and the fact it looks like an existing footing. He stated it may not have been an existing footing on that structure but at one point it appears something was built onto that footing. Mark Kulos stated according to the Assessor’s map, they are maintaining the 17' distance to the property to the South as in Exhibit “G”. Mr. Kulos stated it looks like there is an accessory building built on the property line on the adjoining southerly property which is certainly out of compliance. The applicant is maintaining the line of the house, the porch properly fits and it’s to the rear of the property. After discussion motion carried unanimously. Voting in favor Marc Benjamin, Mark Kulos, Henry Olender, Dorothy Travers, and Robert Phoenix. I. OTHER MATTERS: 1. 2018 Calendar A motion was made by Dorothy Travers to accept the 2018 calendar. It was second by Robert Phoenix. The motion carried unanimously. J. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Dorothy Travers to adjourn at 7:32 p.m. It was second by Marc Benjamin. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lee Smith Recording Secretary Page 3 of 3 ZBA 11/16/2017