Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes The special meeting of the City of Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call was taken. PRESENT: Marc Benjamin, Chairman Mark Kulos Peter Curprak Dorothy Travers David Martin, Alternate Robert Phoenix, Alternate ABSENT: None OTHERS: Richard Shuck, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Katherine Rose, Recording Secretary Marc Benjamin stated there were 4 regular members. Alternate member David Martin was seated. D. COMMUNICATIONS: None E. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: David Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2018 meeting. Dorothy Travers second. Motion carried unanimously. F. OLD BUSINESS: None G. NEW BUSINESS: Marc Benjamin opened the public hearing 1. V#18-07: 2 West Ledge Drive. Request for Variance to ZR Sec. 4.8.7 for relief from the square footage and cubical content requirement to allow for the replacement of two non- conforming structures within a multifamily housing development with four structures; and relief from ZR Sec. 6.4.1 to allow for the new structures to maintain the previous density in the units of 1 /3,188 sf. and number stories of 3. Property of Peachtree Limited Partnership; Application of Darwin C. Gebbie, Assessors Map # 117, Block # 1 Lot # 14, MF Zone Richard Shuck read into the record Exhibits A-J. Attorney Mark Block, 138 Main Street, Norwich, CT. Mr. Block stated he was in attendance with Project Engineer Brandon Handfield on behalf of the applicant Darwin Gebbie. Attorney Block distributed copies of original 1970’s site plan that was on file with the City Clerk to be entered into the record as Exhibit K. Attorney Block said they have been unable to locate building plans for the original complexes so they are not sure exactly how they were constructed in regards to what the cubicle content of them were back in 1970. Attorney Block said the current zoning regulations for variances in regards to reconstructing non-conforming uses largely deal with the destruction of one building, not the destruction of an entire apartment complex. Attorney Block wished to highlight the two sections of our regulations that 1 of 5 are applicable to this situation; ZR Sec 4.8 Non-conforming buildings and uses and ZR Sec 4.8.7. Attorney Block stated that cubicle content is not defined within the City’s regulations so he introduced for the record Exhibit L, a real estate definition of cubicle content which states to arrive at the cubicle content of a building multiply the area of the building by the height of the building, measured from the bottom of the cellar to the top of the roof beams. In the case of the Peachtree site he says there were no cellars for the buildings so it would be measured from the floor slab. He summarized that cubicle content refers to a mathematical calculation not the interior composition of the units; since they do not have building plans from 1970 they cannot make accurate calculations. Attorney Block requested from the Commission to allow a variance on the reconstruction as it pertains to the floor area and the cubicle content, to vary the density from the current regulation which is one building per 5,000 square feet of area to the original 1,388 square feet. The current change in regulation would decrease the number of units they would be able to construction from the original 120 units down to 76 units. Attorney Block said they are also requesting a variance on the maximum number of stories in the building from 2½, per current regulations, to the original 3 stories. Attorney Block said their goal is to reconstruction the site as close to the original design while creating structures that are up to the City’s codes. Project Engineer Brandon Handfield of Yantic River Consultants, 191 Norwich Avenue, Lebanon, CT, presented the original 1970’s site plan with the proposed construction laid on top of it for reference. Mr. Handfield highlighted how they are trying to maintain the existing level of development in regard to parking and access points, fences, the tree line, etc. Mr. Handfield said that the proposal for four buildings instead of the previous two will keep the same building height while provided open recreation space that the City requires. Mr. Handfield stated the previous buildings were about 500 feet long of a continuous building at three-stories high we’re proposing four separate buildings same scale in terms of height but much less of a visual burden. Mr. Handfield said an additional benefit of the four separate buildings is they allow access through that gives residents a route to the center courtyard. Mr. Handfield discussed the interior corridor within the buildings that did not previously exist. Mark Kulos asked Attorney Block and Mr. Handfield if they believed the new cubicle content would be in the ballpark of what it once was and Mr. Handfield stated that while they don’t have a way to figure that out exactly they know the previous foundation was a little over 32,000 square feet and while the new proposed buildings are slightly over 50,000 square feet the foundation square footage does not account for the interior hallways or decks that existed in the original structure. Mark Kulos also asked if they were planning to build on the slab with no cellars and Mr. Handfield responded yes. He also asked if they knew if there were two or three stories; Mr. Handfield said while there may have been some units half below grade that overall, three stories would have been needed to achieve the square footage listed on the 1970’s plans and that they are also proposing three stories. Mr. Handfield discussed some of the fire safety and aesthetic benefits that their design allows, including fire stops, sprinklers and internalized decks and common areas. He also responded 2 of 5 to a question by Marc Benjamin that they did not have any carports or garages including in their plans only outdoor parking. Dorothy Travers asked if these new units were to be one or two-bedrooms and if so what the square footage would be. Mr. Handfield stated that usually these structures allow for a mix but they have laid out the plan to allow for a maximum of all two-bedroom units per current market reflections, and that it would be 1000-1100 square feet for those units. Marc Benjamin asked Mr. Handfield to clarify on an earlier statement he made on there being less parking spaces in the new proposal. Mr. Handfield said regulations have changed since 1970 so they have designed 180 spaces opposed to the previous 199. Marc Benjamin asked what other approvals they were going to need and what step in the process they are currently in. Attorney Block said next would be the site plan approval through the Commission on City Planning but their contract to rebuild the property is contingence on being able to rebuild what was there and at this point they knew these were two variances they would need to even get the project off the ground. Marc Benjamin opened the public comment section of the meeting. James Murray, 69 Scott Street, Norwich, CT. Mr. Murray stated he is concerned that the new development in the case of a fire as the hydrant in front of his home was not enough during the Peachtree fire. Mr. Murray stated he is also concerned about the quality of the soil as far as cancer-causing agents, asbestos and formaldehyde from the old insulation. He said the land is now grown over and is worried what could be released if the land is disturbed and also noted that there are several people in that neighborhood currently suffering from cancer. Chris Kendall, 67 Scott Street, Norwich, CT. Mrs. Kendall said she is concerned about the traffic impact as people already speed in the area and she has witnessed many potential accidents. Mrs. Kendall said she is also concerned about the footprint of the new development being larger than it previously was as the old building was large enough and those in the neighborhood have gotten used to not having neighbors looking down upon them. She added too that stirring up contamination is a concern of hers as well. Debra Alfieri, 169 Dunham Street, Norwich, CT. Mrs. Alfieri said her family has the largest piece of property bordering the Peachtree site and constantly had issues in the past with people cutting through their property to reach the street. Mrs. Dunham said they would really like to see a fence erected to protect the neighbor land owners or to at least see it addressed in some way. She is concerned with someone injuring themselves on their property and filing a lawsuit. Theresa Wujcik, 175 Dunham Street, Norwich, CT. Mrs. Wujcik stated that she is a neighbor to Mrs. Alfieri and the stone wall behind her home is directly next to the garage that still exists at the Peachtree apartments. She said while she isn’t opposed to the new development she also had issues with people going through her yard and had things stolen from her patio. Mrs. Wujcik said she is looking forward to the removal of the overgrowth that has developed but is also looking for some type of barrier to exist between the property and her own. Mrs. Wujick 3 of 5  also inquired if these would be rental properties or not and Marc Benjamin let her know there wasn’t an answer for that at this time. Marc Benjamin closed the public comment section of the meeting. Attorney Block responded to the various concerns by stating the applicant Darwin Gebbie has every intention of being a good neighbor and that they are still in the early stages of planning but will take into consideration the current property owners’ concerns. Mr. Handfield added that he did have a partial environmental study done on the property in 2010 that found there were no known contamination issues with the site and said that they would need to pass environmental testing in order to achieve funding for the project. Peter Cuprak asked what the plan was for laundry facilities. Mr. Handfield said the design was for each unit to have its own washer and dryer. Marc Benjamin made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mark Kulos seconded. Motion carried unanimously, Marc Benjamin, Mark Kulos, Peter Curprak, Dorothy Travers, and David Martin voting in favor. H. DISCUSSION / DECISION ON APPLICATIONS 1. V#18-07: 2 West Ledge Drive. Request for Variance to ZR Sec. 4.8.7 for relief from the square footage and cubical content requirement to allow for the replacement of two non- conforming structures within a multifamily housing development with four structures; and relief from ZR Sec. 6.4.1 to allow for the new structures to maintain the previous density in the units of 1 /3,188 sf. and number stories of 3. Property of Peachtree Limited Partnership; Application of Darwin C. Gebbie, Assessors Map # 117, Block # 1 Lot # 14, MF Zone Mark Kulos made a motion approve for the purpose of discussion. Peter Cuprak seconded. Mark Kulos stated that because the square footage determined by measuring the existing foundation does not include exterior decks or interior hallways the gap between the new proposed square footage and what had existed isn’t actually that large and the new proposed design has a much cleaner and efficient design. Mark Kulos said balancing the economics, the fact they are keeping the same residential usage, and that they are improving the existing property he is inclined to approve the variance. Mark Kulos and David Martin clarified that the hardship for the applicant would be that reconstructing to the original footprint creates an unreasonable project as far as logistics and safety concerns. Mark Kulos addressed that in regards to the height with the previous building have three stories and to allow the property to have marketable-sized units while not encroaching further towards the property barrier or creating an additional building he is again inclined to approve the variance. 4 of 5  Marc Benjamin added that the situation at hand is unique in that it was a total devastation of a loss and that the proposal being put in front of them is maintaining the integrity of the unit size so he believe plus or minus 5-10,000 square feet to achieve a more desirable and safer project he believes is reasonable. He added that he is completely in support of the idea to break the development into four buildings with fire protection walls and sprinklers between. In response to the water pressure issue that was brought up Marc Benjamin said that the buildings did not have the proper fire protection so no amount of water would have been able to put the fire out. Marc Benjamin also said he favored the two-bedroom units so he is in support of the project. Dorothy Travers said she agreed. Marc Benjamin called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously, Marc Benjamin, Mark Kulos, Peter Cuprak, Dorothy Travers, and David Martin voting in favor. I. OTHER MATTERS: Marc Benjamin said after their last meeting he had met with City Manager John Salomone in regards to a replacement for Henry Oleander and Mark Kulos, should he step down. He stated he was told the City Manager is still looking for replacements and accepting applicants. J. ADJOURMENT A motion was made by to Marc Benjamin adjourn at 8:33p.m. David Martin seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Katherine Rose Recording Secretary 5 of 5