Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes June 10 2014 Present at the meeting were: Mark Altermatt, John Toomey, Joel Hoffman, Jon Treat, Morris Silverstein, Bob Peterson and Jim Rupert, Zoning Enforcement Officer Call to Order 7:00 PUBLIC Hearing Mr. Altermatt moved to do Item 2 (Public Hearing)for State of CT DOT 390 Lake Street first relating to the Application for Variance based on 48-24 State seeking to reduce lot size 30768sf by 465 because the state dot is taking a piece of property at the corner of that lot which makes the lot smaller than the town regulations Michael Marzi, State of CT DOT noted that if the variance is not granted, the state will be forced to do a total acquisition. Here tonight to request the variance under 48-24 Currently cars are traveling on that property- the corner is already paved, state seeking to acquire that piece because cars are currently trespassing Property owner - Joan Faulkner- 390 Lake Street, Bolton CT- noted there's a light pole at the corner where the variance is requested and that CL&P was there taking photos earlier in week. Ms. Faulkner wants to know where will that pole go? She doesn't want it in her yard. She said if they are going to take part, to take it all. The house was built in 1700s. House was added on in 1968-9 -- expressed concern about heavy equipment and machinery will destroy lot and her house. She has concerns about the foundation and this project compromising it Mr. Altermatt explained this board has 2 options- grant a variance or not grant a variance. Ray Boyd, 36 Box Mountain Road Bolton, noted has spoken with Mrs. Faulkner many times about thisand the neighboring property. He said he wasn't sure that Mrs. Faulkner was aware that the state might take the whole property and may want more information before saying if she would want the variance granted or not. Said that could change how she's feeling about the variance. Mr. Boyd noted Mrs. Faulkner is already considering selling her house and concerned that this is diminishing property value already Scott Bushey CT DOT -from Highway Design Group, project manager for this project Spoke to concerns about the foundation. Says construction to start 2016 and occur April-November. They routinely work around old houses, have special provisions in contracts to do pre-surveys and subsequent inspection. They have monitoring devices in place. He noted that the purpose of project is to address accidents on Lake street
Mr. Bushey said that the state hasn't looked at a total property acquisition in this instance. Mr Boyd spoke to Box Mountain being very narrow as is and by doing a total acquisition it would also serve to allow Box Mountain to be wider and making a safer intersection with Lake Street Mr Bushey said that this is being done more at the request of the town - Mr Boyd noted that school buses aren't allowed to stop at the intersection of Box Mountain and Lakehaven't been for 20+ years- Mr Bushey noted that the problem the project is trying to address is on Lake Street and not Box Mountain- Box Mountain is a town road and the town can apply for a project. Eric Luntta, 384 Lake Street, Bolton. Mr Luntta asked Mr Bushey how far into Mrs Faulkner's maintained property on Lake Street does the state already own? Mr Bushey thought 30 feet beyond edge of payment and tapers down to 5. Mr. Luntta said he doesn't understand why the state is asking for a variance and not the town because the state already owns 5 feet of the curb but it's a town road. Mr. Bushey said that the state is applying for the variance because they are doing the project. Mr. Altermatt asked when work would start assuming this goes ahead. He asked if the public hearing was kept open could the state come back and give an answer to the total acquisition question and if the lack of a variance would change the scope of the project. Asked if the state could get back to this commission about the total acquisition issue within the 65 day time frame Mr. Silverstein asked who will own this small parcel? (the town- becomes part of the right of way of Box Mountain) Does the state have deeded rights to Lake Street where Box Mountain meets it? Or is it a right of way? is a state road- per Mr. Bushey. Mr. Marzi said they'd have to look into that Also what consideration has been given to addressing the issues on the other side of the street? (Mr Bushey noted that the other side is environmentally sensitive and wetlands area) Mr Silverstein said he is in favor of not making a decision tonight. He would like more information. Mr Boyd asked this commission to keep the hearing open to get some answers to questions asked tonight Mr Bushey said that all this does is make an existing condition legal. 95% of what they are looking to take is already paved- they aren't taking any considerable amount of property from her Eric Luntta- noted that the current lot is under the square footage already Expressed his disappointment in what the state has presented to the town. He's lived on that road for 30 years, 6 fatalities at the end of his driveway. The changes to the road proposed will make cars go faster on lake street. He asked if the project meets the federal highway standards. The state had said they are allowed to take exemptions. Mr. Luntta is concerned that the state is so concerned about this small piece of land and that Mrs Faulkner is losing value in her property through this. Mr Luntta said that some of the standards that the state has to meet are for that intersection -- said that he'd be very careful in making a consideration because he feels that there is something the state isn't
telling the town and residents about this project. There is money coming to the state from the federal government- said he's not convinced that the town knows all of the facts here. Mr Bushey- standard design criteria is standard and recommended across the board -- design standards would call for 32 foot width for box mountain- required to look at intersection sight lines. Existing intersection doesn't meet standards. They are only doing 26 feet for the road- that's the exemption the state is taking (design exemption) Jon Treat- recused himself Mr. Marzi noted that the state is doing same with a property on other side of the street but that property is conforming to regulations already Mr. Hoffman moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Silverstein seconded. 8:00 Motion passed 6-0-0 Mr. Silverstein suggested this commission discuss the application after the next public hearing Application of William Anderson- 61 French Road, Bolton Mark noted that Bob Peterson is taking Bill Pike's place and Morris Silvestein will take the place of Jon Treat for this hearing (and previous) Steve Penney, Atty for Mr. Anderson -- Pete Henry from Holmes and Henry in Coventry is also here to speak for applicant Applicant for variance of 11-a to permit a lot in r1 zone to a frontage in excess of 164 feet at 61 French Road, Bolton Mr Penney shared history of this property and submitted evidence in support of the variance as follows: --Copy of minutes from Inland Wetlands Commission 11/28/95 for the record (exhibit a) -Copy of Inland Wetlands Commission minutes from Jan 23 1996 (exhibit b) Maureen Johnson- owns property 57 French road- asked why never notified of this Atty Penney- noted this permit was unanimously renewed by Inland Wetlands Commission in 12-19- 2000 (exhibit c) John Varca received a variance from this Commission for Parcel c (exhibit d) - minutes of Zoning Board of Appeals 10-19-1995 Copy of relevant sections of 1995 Bolton Zoning Regulations (Exhibit e) Copy of Building Permit map -- note of frontage on bottom left dated 4-24-91 and revised 12-15-95 (exhibit f)
Photo of taken by William Anderson at the end of April 2014 depicting where the wetland would be crossed the access way (exhibit g) Photo taken by William Anderson at the northerly crossing (end of April 2014) (exhibit h) showing where the wetland would be crossed over on area in question (taken in northerly direction) Photo northerly crossing facing south taken by Mr. Anderson end April 2014 facing wetlands(exhibit i) Photo at northerly crossing facing west (direction road would go) taken by Mr Anderson end April 2014 (exhibit j) Copy of Assessor's Map 17 for this area of Bolton to show lot frontages (Exhibit k) Mr. Penney explained that the Hardship comes from conditions intrinsic to site itself. Wetlands compromise site by crossing entire site east to west Substantial depth of site Mr. Hoffman- asked about access to west for lots c and d Mr Anderson has a shared driveway but it's too steep as It is- received variance because there wasn't a place to put parking spots at bottom of the driveway- Mr Anderson, 77 French road - noted the easement isn't an option for the area in question- current owner will only sell the land. Mr. Altermatt asked why not an easement at same price as purchase -- no need for variance. Explained that by case law that hardship cannot be economical in nature. He noted he's not seeing a hardship enough to grant a variance Mr. Hoffman- why if an easement granted can there only be one lot developed? Easement allows 1 lot to be developed. Buying the area in question means the applicant can develop both lots. Mr.. Silverstein asked- with an easement is it possible to put a driveway to service 2 lots? Yes, but each lot requires a minimum of road frontage (per Mr Rupert) so applicant wouldn't be able to develop 2 lots with frontage of easement Mr. Altermatt spoke to this commission needing to ensure that variance are granted when there are no other options due to hardship, and that this applicant had indicated that there are other options although this is most economical Mr. Altermatt noted that the map from for the variance granted 10-19-95 and dated 2-6-96 was not showing parcel b and not a fully accurate representation of the parcel as a whole Landowner of parcel a- 61 French road- Nancy Varca- always intention for rear lot to have 2 homes built on the back area. Septic and other things were moved to accommodate the 50 foot area for future planning
Maureen Johnson- 57 French road- she was never notified of any applications that have gone to wetlands or zoning that went to the boards. She wouldn't have known of this meeting but happened to drive by the house and saw the notice on the property and went to town hall. Her name was not on the list of abutters- she's not ever been notified and has lived on that property for 50 years. She had continuous water problems after she built the house- downhill of application lot. They had to put a drainage system in for horses in back and also one in the house because of water coming in. There is also a curtain drain they had to put on property. Mrs. Johnson said that the old cart path on the area in question - that's where water comes down the hill - right into her yard. This variance will aggravate the situation and put more of a burden on the homeowner. The variance is a financial consideration - this is creating a hardship for her. Her bedroom will be 25-30 feet from this driveway. Leech field is very close to where she thinks this proposed road will be. Stakes were never put in when survey was done. Leech fields are on that side of the house Kim Gonder, also 57 French road- said the leech field is between the house and area in question- now a driveway will go in Mrs. Johnson asked if the current access to other property owned by Mr. Anderson was considered as access to these lots in question Mrs Johnson expressed concern about the impact on the value of her house with a driveway so close to her house Mr Silverstein asked how far the house is from the property line currently. Owner said 25-30 feet at most. Built in 1960 Mrs Varca said that there is no running water coming down the cart path Mr Penney apologized to Mrs Johnson for missing her in the notifications- hearing was postponed immediately Mr. Peterson asked, if we grant variance to north side of the property- that s a 50 foot on north, and there's another 50 foot at the south side? (yes) Move to close hearing at 9:15 pm by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Hoffman. Motion passed 5-0-0 9:15 Discussion for French Road application: Mr. Hoffman said he has a hard time granting a nonconforming variance. Mr Silverstein sees a hardship because of the wetlands on the south side of the property--- the cost of going across the south wetlands is going to be huge- would have to hire engineers to build a road through that area. also noted that several lots in the neighborhood have smaller frontage. Feels the change in the lot would make it conforming to the neighbor Mr Altermatt said applicant has to BUY the 50 foot strip or buy the easement to the 50 foot strip. Then lot a stays conforming. That brings up the issue that he can only build on one lot back there.
Mr Altermatt noted he cannot see to grant a variance based on the town regulations - doesn't feel economic concerns can be a factor in decision, and that there are alternatives that exist so he would be hard pressed to grant a variance in this situation Mr Silverstein moved to grant variance with a hardship based on access to land being wetlandsseconded by Mr. Peterson. Motion 2-3-0. Motion fails, variance not granted. Application denied. Discussion Lake Street: Mr Rupert reported that this commission had asked Mrs. Faulkner during the hearing if she'd be in favor of the variance. She had the opportunity to discuss this application with the representatives from the state after the hearing, and had come inside to inform Mr. Rupert that now that she had all of the information that she'd like to go ahead and is in favor of the variance Mr. Hoffman moved to grant variance, seconded by Mr. Peterson because the hardship is that the property left to the landowner is decreased in size through no fault of the landowner in accordance with 48-24. Motion passed 5-0-0 Approval Minutes: 11/21/13 Mr. Toomey moved to approve seconded by Mark Altermatt. Motion passed 5-0-0 Correspondence - CT Quarterly Mr. Hoffman moved to adjournat 9:42 pm, seconded by Mr. Peterson. Motion passed 5-0-0 Respectfully Submitted, Brett B Martin, Board Clerk Please see minutes of subsequent meetings for any additions or corrections hereto