Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF NORWICH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 12, 2023 7:00 PM Regular Meeting Minutes Hybrid Meeting ZOOM & Lower Level Conference Room 23 Union Street, Norwich, CT The regular meeting of the City of Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Roll call was taken. PRESENT: Marc Benjamin, Chairman David Martin Dorothy Travers (ZOOM) Robert Phoenix (ZOOM) ABSENT: Gregory Schlough OTHERS: James Philopena; Attorney Matt Green; Tanice Doman, Assistant Zoning & Blight Enforcement Officer; Richard Shuck, Zoning Enforcement Officer; and Katherine Rose, Recording Secretary Marc Benjamin called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Marc Benjamin stated all members would be voting on all matters. A. COMMUNICATIONS: None. Richard Schuck stated that the City Manager’s Office put out a reminder regarding required training. Marc Benjamin noted that could be further discussed during Old Business. B. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: David Martin made a motion to accept the October 10, 2023 regular meeting minutes. Robert Phoenix seconded. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. C. OLD BUSINESS: None. D. NEW BUSINESS: Robert Phoenix made a motion to vary from the rules and the submitted agenda in order to take action on V#23-09 and V#23-10 immediately after hearing the associated applications. Dorothy Travers seconded. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Marc Benjamin asked the applicants if they would like to continue their application until a full seat of members were present, as four positive votes would be required for an approval. Both applicants stated they would like to proceed with the current members. 1. V# 23-09: 102-110 Main Street: Request for relief from ZR Sec. 6.5.5 to permit total sq. ft. of residential use on the second, third, and fourth floors to exceed the sq. ft. of the commercial use on the first floor. Property of CPH 2 LLC, Application of CPH 2 LLC, Assessors Map # 102, Block # 002 Lots # 057, CC Zone James Philopena of 43 Broad Street, New London, presented on behalf of the applicant. James Philopena stated the property owner is looking to renovate the fourth floor of the building, but that ZR Sec. 6.5.5 required that the residential use shall not exceed the square footage of commercial use. James Philopena stated the 1830’s property was originally located in the Chelsea District and contributed to the structure of the downtown area of the city, but was damaged by fire in 2022. James Philopena stated the property is currently vacant and the applicant would like to add residential use to the renovated fourth floor. James Philopena stated the renovation plan called for raising the roof alongside the back of the home and that elevating the roof would not increase the square footage of the fourth floor or impact the historic look of the front of the property. James Philopena stated the building was approved as a mixed-use property as early as the 1980’s, with the 2nd and 3rd floors being used as residential space. James Philopena presented a Certificate of Occupancy which confirmed their belief that the fourth floor had been used for residential space in the past. James Philopena stated a letter from the Norwich Fire Department was also included in the application that discussed the use of the fourth floor as a dwelling in regards to a 1986 fire. James Philopena stated that in February of 2000 a skylight on the fourth was removed and dormers were installed on the fourth floor, which are shown in Exhibit A as part of the front of the historic building. James Philopena stated this change was an arguable implicit approval of residential use on the fourth floors. James Philopena stated that included photos taken recently also reinforce that the fourth floor was used as a residential space, which show items such as plumbing fixtures. James Philopena stated that given the age of the building and evidence provided the applicant believes that residential use of the space pre-dates zoning requirements, but if a variance is required there was still a legal basis for a hardship because ZR Sec 6.5.5 requires that the space be used commercially or not at all. James Philopena stated that there is no reasonable commercial use for the fourth floor of the property given the layout and demographic of the city. James Philopena stated that the city is in desperate need of residential properties and finding a commercial tenant for the fourth floor space would be nearly impossible. James Philopena stated the applicant was seeking a dimensional variance therefore the additional considerations in ZR Sec 7.10.2 did not apply. James Philopena added that literal enforcement of ZR Sec 6.5.5 would cause an unreasonable hardship to the applicant because they would be required to renovate the fourth floor for commercial use only. James Philopena the variance would coincide with the region’s need for residential space and revitalization of downtown areas. Robert Phoenix asked what the necessity was for renovating the building up through the fourth floor. James Philopena stated that his client was  looking to renovate the entire building due to the damage caused during the 2022 fire. James Philopena added his client was also seeking to get the most use out of the property. Dorothy Travers asked how many apartments did they anticipate putting on the fourth floor. James Philopena responded there would be two apartments to coincide with the third and second floor layouts. Marc Benjamin stated that the fourth floor is technically an attic, but clarified that the applicant is seeking to raise the roof to make the profile of the building in the rear higher to create a full story for the proposed two apartments. James Philopena stated that was correct and that a fire escape and balcony would accompany the addition. David Martin asked if there was a code requirement for external access to the fourth floor apartments. Marc Benjamin explained that the exterior fire escape would be required as it is a two family property, but it would likely be used as the main entrance by the fourth floor tenants due to accessibility. Robert Phoenix made a motion to close the application. Dorothy Travers seconded. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 2. V# 23-10: 41 Boswell Ave.: Request variances of the following: ZR Sec. 5.1.3.2, to reduce the required parking from 8 spaces to 7 and required loading space from 1 to 0; ZR Sec. 6.4.6 Landscape Design sections 1-6; ZR Sec. 6.4.8.2 to allow for the use of the existing vehicular access; ZR Sec. 6.4.1, Special Bulk Requirements, to reduce the density from 5000 sf. per unit to 2,352 to allow for 5 residential units, and reduce the minimal usable recreation area from 400 sf. per unit to 0. Property of T41 Boswell LLC, Application of Mathew H. Greene, Esq., Assessors Map # 093, Block # 007 Lots # 085, MF Zone Attorney Matt Green of 200 State Street, New London, presented on behalf of 41 Boswell LLC. Attorney Green stated his client purchased the property in 2021 which was historically a 11 unit boarding house. Attorney Green stated his client would like to convert the property to a 5 unit apartment house with two bedrooms each. Attorney Green stated that the exterior of the property would not be altered. Attorney Green noted the property had 95.5 feet of frontage on Boswell Avenue in the rear of the property’s access off of Reynolds Street. Attorney Green stated there was an existing compacted driveway that served as the access to the applicant’s property as well as two other properties. Attorney Green stated the paved compacted area extended beyond the driveway onto the subject property. Attorney Green stated there was about 30 feet plus from the rear of the property to a rock wall, where the property elevation then drops considerably. Attorney Green stated the width of the property at the rock wall was about 70 feet. Attorney Green added there was an existing walkway from the paved compacted area to the building for access to the rear. Attorney Green stated the application proposed seven 9-foot by 20-foot designated parking spaces along the rock wall towards the rear of the property, leaving another 10 feet to back up into the driveway area. Attorney Green stated the right of way to the parking spaces was on virtue of deeds that dated back over 100 years. Attorney Green stated the variance was unique as the property is within a multi-family zone, so both a five-unit building and a boarding house were allowable uses, however the other requirements to make the property conform were not consistent. Attorney Green stated the proposed use put forward would decrease the overall non-conformities. Attorney Green noted the variances requested pertained to ZR Sec 5.1.3.2 to allow for a reduced seven total parking spaces, as each two bedroom unit required 1.5 parking spaces making a total of seven overall spaces. Attorney Green noted the use as an 11 room boarding house requested 8.25 total spaces which was more than the application proposed, so again the variance would be a decrease in non-conformity. Attorney Green continued that the applicant also requested a decrease in the required loading spaces from 1 to 0, which was the current non-conformity and would not be changing. Attorney Green stated the application also requested a variance to ZR Sec 6.4.1 to which allow a maximum density of 1 unit per 5,000 square foot of lot area. Attorney Green explained the lot was 11,761 square feet which would only allow for two units. Attorney Green stated that five units would reduce the density from 5,000 to 2,352 square feet, which put the variance request at 2,648 square feet per unit. Attorney Green stated the current density was 1,069 square feet per unit, so the variance would be reducing the existing non- conformity by 1,579 square feet. Attorney Green continued that in terms of recreation space the current non-conformity would remain unchanged. Attorney Green stated a variance was also needed for ZR Rec 6.4.6.1 which requires a buffer strip of 15 feet per parking area and ZR Rec 6.4.6.2 which states the strip may only be reduced no less than five feet. Attorney Green stated the proposed parking spaces would have a minimal buffer of a couple feet, which was the existing non-conformity. Attorney Green stated there would also be no change in the existing non-conformites in terms of ZR Rec 6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.6 and 6.4.8.2. Attorney Green stated the hardship to the applicant was the location of the building and the landscaping of the lot; the location, dimensions and configuration of the lot; and the topography of the lot. Attorney Green stated the conditions are unique to the property and pre- dated zoning regulations. Attorney Green stated the five unit building would be more consistent with and beneficial to the neighborhood as a whole. Richard Shuck noted he referred the applicant to the planning department who had referred him back to the ZBA for approval. Dorothy Travers stated she felt the variances should be allowed as the change would be a positive improvement to the property. Robert Phoenix agrees and felt what was being requested was reasonable. Marc Benjamin asked if any space was being provided for recreational use. Attorney Green responded that there was more than 350 square feet of grass area per unit, but it was not fenced off in a recreational sense. Attorney Green clarified that there was space for a yard but not an expanded recreational space.  Marc Benjamin stated the application maintained the non-conformity of the property but a five apartment family building was more desirable than a boarding house. Robert Phoenix made a motion to close the application. Dorothy Travers seconded. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 3. V# 23-11: 8 Garfield Ave: Request for relief from ZR Sec. 1.1, Residential Bulk Requirements, to reduce the front yard setback from 30 ft. to 11 ft. and the side yard setback from 15 ft. to 5 ft. for the construction of stairs to the second floor on the north side of the home. Property of Joao Pontes, Application of Joao Pontes, Assessors Map #118, Block # 003 Lots # 075, R-20 Zone The applicant was not in attendance. Robert Phoenix made a motion to continue the application until the next regular meeting. Dorothy Travers seconded. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 4. V# 23-12: 490 Boswell Ave: Request for relief from ZR Sec. 1.1, Residential Bulk Requirements, to reduce the front yard setback from 30 ft. to 11 ft. and the side yard setback from 15 ft. to 5 ft. for the construction of code compliant stairs and landings on the north and east sides of the home. Property of Anthony A. Soria, Application of Anthony Sonia, Assessors Map # 086, Block # 001 Lots # 075, R-20 Zone The applicant was not in attendance. Richard Shuck noted that this applicant did not send out the legal notices to the abutters by the needed date. The application was not opened. E. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DECISIONS: 1. V# 23-09: 102-110 Main Street: Request for relief from ZR Sec. 6.5.5 to permit total sq. ft. of residential use on the second, third, and fourth floors to exceed the sq. ft. of the commercial use on the first floor. Property of CPH 2 LLC, Application of CPH 2 LLC, Assessors Map # 102, Block # 002 Lots # 057, CC Zone Robert Phoenix made a motion to approve V# 23-09. David Martin seconded. Robert Phoenix noted the board often made motions to approve applications based on zoning regulations and did see a need for the approval of this variance. Robert Phoenix based his approval on similarly made decisions by the board. Robert Phoenix added that disallowing residential use of the fourth floor would create a hardship for the property  owner. Dorothy Travers agreed that residential housing was needed and agreed that it would be viable to extend the roofline for the apartments. Dorothy Travers added she would prefer to see the building not deteriorate further and the approval would be a more viable tax option for the city. David Martin stated the hardship was the fourth floor is not viable commercial space, so if the variance was not granted effectively there would be no use for the fourth floor of the property. David Martin noted the evidence presented that showed the space had been used previously for residential use. Marc Benjamin stated that he was aware of access problems to the property in relation to the previously mentioned fire. Marc Benjamin stated he had concerns with creating two additional properties on the fourth floor. Marc Benjamin stated that he believed the attic space was previously illegally converted into residential use. Marc Benjamin stated that he did not have an issue with the fourth floor being residential, but did have an issue creating two additional apartments that required an exterior staircase. Marc Benjamin noted the existing staircases on the property would not be safe enough to carry emergency personnel to the newly proposed staircase. Robert Phoenix noted that his decision was made upon the assumption that sprinklers would be required for the property. Marc Benjamin stated he was unsure, as the property was not equipped with sprinklers initially. Richard Shuck stated that typically after three floors a sprinkler is required, but he also was not positive on the exact situation for the property. Richard Shuck explained that after approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, approval would also be required by the Commission on City Planning due to the addition of residential units. Richard Shuck added that the Fire Marshal would also review the application submitted to the CCP. Discussion ensued. Robert Phoenix made an amended motion to approve the variance based on the hardship that it was previously used as a residential space and is not a viable commercial space. Dorothy Travers seconded. Marc Benjamin stated that he was in support of the fourth floor residential use but wanted to note for the record that he did not safely feel there should be six units in the property. Robert Phoenix agreed with that statement. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 2. V# 23-10: 41 Boswell Ave.: Request variances of the following: ZR Sec. 5.1.3.2, to reduce the required parking from 8 spaces to 7 and required loading space from 1 to 0; ZR Sec. 6.4.6 Landscape Design sections 1-6; ZR Sec. 6.4.8.2 to allow for the use of the existing vehicular access; ZR Sec. 6.4.1, Special Bulk Requirements, to reduce the density from 5000 sf. per unit to 2,352 to allow for 5 residential units, and reduce the minimal usable recreation area from 400 sf. per unit to 0. Property of T41 Boswell LLC, Application of Mathew H. Greene, Esq., Assessors Map # 093, Block # 007 Lots # 085, MF Zone Robert Phoenix made a motion to approve the variance based on the clearly defined hardships stated by the applicant; location of the building,  landscaping of the lot and configuration of the lot topography. Dorothy Travers seconded. David Martin agreed and noted that the physical aspects of the building and property were not changing, but the variance would allow the property to be less non-conforming to regulations. Marc Benjamin stated he believed the renovation would be an improvement to the property and neighborhood. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 3. V# 23-11: 8 Garfield Ave: Request for relief from ZR Sec. 1.1, Residential Bulk Requirements, to reduce the front yard setback from 30 ft. to 11 ft. and the side yard setback from 15 ft. to 5 ft. for the construction of stairs to the second floor on the north side of the home. Property of Joao Pontes, Application of Joao Pontes, Assessors Map #118, Block # 003 Lots # 075, R-20 Zone The application was continued until the next scheduled meeting. 4. V# 23-12: 490 Boswell Ave: Request for relief from ZR Sec. 1.1, Residential Bulk Requirements, to reduce the front yard setback from 30 ft. to 11 ft. and the side yard setback from 15 ft. to 5 ft. for the construction of code compliant stairs and landings on the north and east sides of the home. Property of Anthony A. Soria, Application of Anthony Sonia, Assessors Map # 086, Block # 001 Lots # 075, R-20 Zone No action was taken on the application. F. STAFF UPDATES: Richard Shuck reiterated that terms for reappointment were coming up in February 2024 and asked members to please fill out forms as soon as possible, in addition to completing the required training. G. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Robert Phoenix to adjourn at 8:24 PM. Dorothy Travers seconded. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Katherine Rose Recording Secretary