TOWN OF WALLINGFORD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 18, 2009 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 Zoning Board of Appeals 1 TOWN OF WALLINGFORD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 18, 2009 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES A regular meeting of the Wallingford Zoning Board of Appeals was held Monday, at 7:00 p.m. in Town Hall. Approximately 21 members of the public were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Knickerbocker called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Present were: Jeffrey Knickerbocker (Chairman), Robin Hettrick (Vice Chairperson), William Birney, Andrew Barnett, Alan Reed (alternate), Tom Wolfer (alternate), Kacie Costello (Asst. Town Planner) and Sonja Vining (Recording Secretary). Absent was: Vincent Cervoni (alternate) Chairman Knickerbocker announced that tonight s decisions would be published in the Record- Journal on Friday, May 22, The effective date of your variance will be Friday, May 22, 2009, the date a certified copy is recorded on the land records. The statutory 15-day appeal period will expire on Sunday, June 7, If you commence operations and/or construction during the appeal period, you do so at your own risk. The next regular meeting of the Board will be June 15, READING OF THE MEETING LEGAL NOTICE: Chairman Knickerbocker read the beginning of the published Legal Notice. Chairman Knickerbocker explained that first the public hearing notice for each application would be read, and then each applicant would come forward to explain his or her request. The Board would question the applicant and then receive comments for and against the application from the public. Then the public hearing would be closed and the Board would consider the application. Unless stated, all votes were roll-call votes. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DECISIONS ON THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE BOARD: Voting Members would be Mr. Barnett, Ms. Hettrick, Mr. Knickerbocker, Mr. Birney and Mr. Reed.

2 Zoning Board of Appeals 2 # CEWE variance for a front yard of less than 40 ft. (Section 5.1A), to expand the porch at 10 Sullivan Road (Yalesville). Zoned R-18 15, 2009, addressed to Jeffrey Knickerbocker, Chairman. (Attachment A) Presenting the application was David Cewe. Mr. Cewe explained that he would like to construct a porch along the entire front of his house. He submitted photos of his house to the Board. Mr. Cewe indicated that the steps would not be moved closer to the street. He is just taking the landing and dropping it down one step and extending it along the front of the house. GIVEN THE UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE LOT AND THE FACT THAT IT PREDATES ZONING. # WERDANN variance for sideyards of less than 20 ft. and a front yard of less than 40 ft. (Section 5.1A), to construct a second floor at 22 Circle Drive. Zoned R-18 15, 2009, addressed to Jeffrey Knickerbocker, Chairman. (Attachment A) Presenting the application were Brian Werdann, Applicant, and Robert Amantea, Land Surveyor. Mr. Amantea stated that the top floor is proposed to overhang the first floor by two feet in both the front and the rear of the house. The existing house is 27 feet from the front street line. This house predates zoning. The addition will be going straight up on the sides; the sideyards will not be changing. The existing one-story house is approximately 750 sq.ft. in size. When the addition is complete there will be an additional 900 sq.ft. The footprint is not changing. The reason for the overhang is basically for appearances.

3 Zoning Board of Appeals 3 GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY PREDATES ZONING AND THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT. # PESTANA variance for a sideyard of less than 20 ft. (Section 5.1A), to construct an addition at 85 East Main Street. Zoned R-18 15, 2009, addressed to Jeffrey Knickerbocker, Chairman. (Attachment A) Presenting the application and representing the Applicant was Edward Mic, 371 Howe Road, Durham. Mr. Mic explained that the Applicant would like to construct a 20 x 24 addition off the rear of the house. The addition would follow the north sideline of the existing house. GIVEN THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT. # BRICKLEY variance for a sideyard less than 12 ft. (Section 5.1A), to construct a new roof structure at 6 Cedar Street. Zoned R-11 15, 2009, addressed to Jeffrey Knickerbocker, Chairman. (Attachment A) Presenting the application were Michael Brickley, Applicant, and Architect Daniel Lyon. Mr. Lyon explained that the Applicant would like to put a new roof and a second story on the existing house. The building and the lot predate zoning. Mr. Lyon stated that the neighbor s

4 Zoning Board of Appeals 4 house is a good 60 feet from the property line. The Applicant has a leaky roof over the existing garage and would like to replace it and put an addition above at the same time. Mr. Brickley reiterated that the roof is leaking and he would like to change the pitch of it and put an addition above for future use. Mr. Lyon stated that the Applicant has not yet done an A2 survey. If once the survey is done the variance is found to be inadequate then the Applicant would appear before the Board again for whatever is necessary, but Mr. Lyon feels that architecturally he can work around what is found by the survey. Ms. Costello stated that at this time the requirement is that an A2 survey be done prior to pulling a building permit. If, via the survey, the Applicant finds out that the proposal is closer to the property line than the application states, he will have to come back before the Board. Ms. Costello indicated that the Board could table the application to the next meeting pending the submittal of a survey. Mr. Brickley indicated that he has done some survey work on his own and he believes that the neighbor s fence is directly on the property line, which is currently about 13 inches from the existing garage. He wants to see if he can get through this variance process before he puts out the expense for the A2 survey. Mr. Brickley understands that if things do not work out the way he plans he will appear before the Board again. He assured the Board that he has a good relationship with his neighbor and would not encroach onto his neighbor s property without permission during construction. The existing house was built in 1944 and predates zoning. GIVEN THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT AND THE FACT THAT THE STRUCTURE PREDATES ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: THAT IF THE A2 SURVEY SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS LESS THAN ONE (1) FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THE APPLICANT WILL RE-APPLY. # HANLEY variance for a sideyard of less than 20 ft. and building coverage greater than 15% (Section 5.1A), to construct a garage at 50 Forest Road. Zoned R-18

5 Zoning Board of Appeals 5 15, 2009, addressed to Jeffrey Knickerbocker, Chairman. (Attachment A) Presenting the application was Michael Hanley. Mr. Hanley would like to construct a standard two-car garage on a non-conforming lot. Ms. Costello stated that this is considered an attached garage, which could be up to 30 feet tall. GIVEN THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT # WITIK variance for a sideyard of less than 30 ft. (Section 5.1A) to construct an addition, and a Use Variance to verify three existing dwelling units (Section 4.2.B), at 856 Clintonville Road. Zoned RU-40 15, 2009, addressed to Jeffrey Knickerbocker, Chairman (Attachment A), and a letter dated May 15, 2009, from Michael and Shannon Carbaugh (Attachment B). Presenting the application were Attorney Joan Molloy and the Paul Witik, Applicant. Attorney Molloy presented some exhibits to the Board in conjunction with her presentation. She indicated that there are two variances that the Applicant is seeking. The first is a sideyard variance to allow the Applicant to expand the living area. This house was built in approximately The lot is triangular. There are some grading issues on the lot so they are trying to stay close to the existing structure so there is not a large cut and fill issue. The abutting neighbor has no issues with the variance. The second variance is seeking recognition for an existing three-family use. Attorney Molloy believes that the house has been used as a three-family since approximately It is not clear from the town records that it has been a three-family for that entire time period. In an attempt to show that the house has been recognized by the town as having three dwelling units, Attorney Molloy provided the Board with the following documents: assessor's cards from 2009, 1993, 1981, and 1970, all indicating the use as a three-family house; copies of Minutes from ZBA meetings in 1971 and 1974; a copy of the multiple listing service from when the house was for sale, which indicated that the house was a three-family with separate utilities; a portion of Mr.

6 Zoning Board of Appeals 6 Witik s contract when he purchased the house, which contained a condition that this house be a town approved three-family residence; and a 1951 directory for the Town of Wallingford. Mr. Witik has contacted a prior resident of this home who acknowledged that the house did have three living units. Attorney Molloy did not have anything in writing from this resident but if the Board requests it she will do what she can to get a letter. Attorney Molloy submitted photos of the front, back and side views of the existing house, and pictures showing three electric meters and three gas meters. Attorney Molloy reviewed an old assessor s map showing that there was a barn on this property, which encroached on the neighbor s property. She indicated that the structure is no longer there but the foundation is still in place; currently they use that area for parking. Attorney Molloy indicated that the Applicant is proposing to use the existing driveway and come up with a parking plan that would remove the current parking on the neighbor s property. There is currently a stone wall on the property. The proposal is to put the parking behind the stone wall. Attorney Molloy submitted photos of the current parking situation. She believes with the proposed plan the vehicles would be a lot less visible. Attorney Molloy submitted some conceptual drawings done by Daniel Lyon, Architect. She stated that the total square footage of the new three-car garage would be 604 sq.ft. There are five parking spaces proposed along with the three-car garage. Mr. Witik indicated that currently there is one tenant in Apartment #1 and the Witik Family is occupying both Apartments #2 & #3. Once everything is approved he intends on renovating the house. When the house was purchased by Mr. Witik it had three tenants. Mr. Witik stated that at this time the first floor apartment is approximately 1,100 sq.ft., the second floor is approximately 1,100 sq.ft., and apartment on the left is approximately 880 sq.ft. Once the addition is complete the footages would be approximately 1,439 sq.ft. for the apartment on the left (Apartment #1), Apartment #2 would be 2,656 sq.ft. and Apartment #3 would be 2,227 sq.ft. Attorney Molloy stated that the living space for Apartment #1 would be staying at approximately 854 sq. ft. and that the additional footage would be for the entrance way and the garage. Attorney Molloy admitted that she was unaware that the apartment footages are going to be increased. She believed that it would just be the apartment of Mr. Witik that would be increasing. Chairman Knickerbocker feels that there is something wrong with the square footages provided, they seem very large for apartments. Attorney Molloy apologized for the confusion and asked that she be allowed the opportunity to review the plan and provide accurate information for the Board to act on. Ms. Costello clarified that the way the application was presented: Apartment #1 would be 1,439 sq.ft., including the proposed second floor addition above the garage; Apartment #2 would be 2,656 sq.ft., including an expansion of the first floor; and Apartment #3 would be 2,227 sq.ft, including an expansion of the second floor. The total building area as she sees it would be well over 5,000 sq.ft., TO CONTINUE TO THE JUNE MEETING.

7 Zoning Board of Appeals 7 NOTE: MS. HETTRICK UNANIMOUS # CORSO variance for a sideyard of less than 15 ft. (Section 5.1B), to construct an addition at 1195 Old Colony Road. Zoned T-30 15, 2009, addressed to Jeffrey Knickerbocker, Chairman. (Attachment A) Presenting the application were Gary and Jennifer Corso. Mr. Corso presented a letter from Peter Kennedy and Julio Dominguez to the Board stating that they have no objection to the variance. He stated that he would like to add a third bedroom to his existing house. The existing house is approximately 1,500 sq.ft; with the addition it would be approximately 2,000 sq.ft. The addition would be going straight back off of the existing house. GIVEN THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT. # VANACORE variance for a sideyard of less than 12 ft. (Section 5.1A), to move the garage and add a carport at 554 North Main Street. Zoned R-11 15, 2009, addressed to Jeffrey Knickerbocker, Chairman. (Attachment A) Presenting the application was James Vanacore. Mr. Vanacore explained that he has an old garage that is falling down with a leaking roof and insect damage. The garage is very close to the street and really doesn t go with the house. The house is a 1915 house, and Mr. Vanacore would like to have the garage match the style of the house. He wants to push it back to have more room in the driveway to park cars. At this time

8 Zoning Board of Appeals 8 the garage is five feet from the line. Mr. Vanacore would like to move the garage so that it is in line with the house. There is a huge row of hemlocks that provide a buffer. Mr. Vanacore feels that there was a mistake in the measuring of the carport. He would like to go one more foot than the four foot that is indicated on the application. Ms. Costello stated that the way that the application was filled out and submitted to the Board was for the four feet and therefore, the Applicant would be better off staying with the four foot request unless they want to come back with a revised application. Speaking from the public was John LeTourneau, Director of Restoration and Project Manager for the Wallingford Historic Preservation Trust. He stated that the Trust has no problem with this application. He feels that this new garage would be a great addition to the neighborhood. No one from the public spoke opposed to the application. GIVEN THE NARROW WIDTH OF THE LOT. DISCUSSION: Survey Deadlines Ms. Costello indicated that there are two issues associated with this item. The first is the fact that as the regulation is currently written a person would only have to have a survey done in order to pull a building permit. It was never discussed at what point in the process the survey should be done if a variance is required. Ms. Costello is going to recommend to the P&Z that it be required that the survey be done prior to getting a variance approved. Ms. Costello asked to discuss with this Board at what point during the variance application process the Applicant should be required to provide the survey to the Planning Office. She recommended that either the Board require that the survey be submitted with the application by the application deadline or give the Applicants 10 days past the deadline to produce the survey. The Board Members discussed the cost factor of getting a survey done and then the possibility of having the variance denied. They discussed the cost of a survey versus the cost of appearing before the Board more then one time. The Board generally felt that an Applicant can appear before the Board without a survey but if a variance were granted it would be conditional. If the survey reflected something other than what was represented on the original Variance application, then the Applicant would have to re-apply to correct the Variance. The Board felt that Applicants should be encouraged to get the survey done before they appear before the ZBA so it

9 Zoning Board of Appeals 9 doesn t have to be heard more than once. Chairman Knickerbocker stated that if an Applicant is intending on submitting a survey with the Variance application, it must be submitted by the application deadline so the Board has all of the information in front of them at the time they make a decision. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 20, 2009 Regular Meeting The Minutes will be approved at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Barnett made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hettrick and passed. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sonja Vining Recording Secretary Wallingford Zoning Board of Appeals Attachments: A, A, A, A, A, A, B, A, and A.