SOUTHINGTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Public Hearing ... · 6/24/2003 · meeting to order at 7:30...

SOUTHINGTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Public Hearing – Tuesday, June 24, 2003

7:30 pm - Town Hall Council Chambers

75 Main Street, Southington, CT

MINUTES

CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CLYNES, called the public hearing portion of the regular

meeting to order at 7:30 pm with the following in attendance:

Robert Sherman, Joseph LaPorte, Edward Kuklinski and Mary Dickman

Others:

Frank Vinci, Zoning Enforcement Officer, sat in

Absent:

Joseph LaRosa - Alternate

Michael Milo – Alternate

Robert Salka – Alternate

Robert Borkowski - Alternate

A quorum was determined.

The Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag was recited by everyone in attendance.

Mr. Sherman explained to the applicants the procedure to be followed in the presentation

of an appeal and advised them that should their appeal be approved, they file it with the

Town Clerk’s Office as soon as possible.

MICHAEL CLYNES, Chairman, presiding:

Public Hearing Items:

APPEAL 5049A - application of James E. Soterion to exceed a 25 percent building

expansion to vary the lot area requirement to 27,228 square feet where 80,000 square feet

is required, and to allow a 40 foot front yard setback where 50 feet is required in

connection with an addition to a nonconforming restaurant, under Section 7A-00, 11-

09.6, 11-10.1 and 11-10.3 of the Zoning Regulations, 1615 West Street, property of

JTES, LLC, 1500 feet north of the intersection with Spring Street, in an R-40/B Overlay

zone.

MR. VINCI: Just a note, it takes four concurring votes for any application to be

approved. One of our members has a conflict of interest on this particular application and

the applicant is wishing to hold his application until we have a full compliment of

members.

ATTORNEY DENORFIA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May we be excused, I don’t think

an alternate will be here tonight.

THE CHAIR: We’ll table to the next time.

MR. SHERMAN: I’ll move that 5049A be tabled.

MR. LA PORTE: Second.

APPEAL 5050A - application of Dean C. and Lisa M. Olsen to vary the front yard

setback requirement from 40 feet to 33.5 feet and to vary the area requirement from 50

square feet to 112 square feet for a proposed front porch, under Section7A-00 and 11-

05.1 of the Zoning Regulations, 242 Mandel Drive, property of Dean C. and Lisa M.

Olsen, 2000 feet east of the intersection with Pleasant Street in an R-20/25 zone.

MR. VINCI: Will the applicant please come forward and state your name and address for

the record?

MR. OLSON: Dean C. Olson, 250 Mandel Drive. I have some pictures. I have five

copies.

(Passed around.)

I was kind of hoping to get a little flavor for how this was going to work before I jumped

right in.

MR. SHERMAN: its always kind of lousy when you think you’re number two and you

end up number one.

MR. OLSON: I didn’t want to be last, either.

MR. SHERMAN: But, don’t be nervous. Very few people come before us all the time so

everybody is in the same boat.

MR. OLSON: Thank you.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: My name is Dean Olson as stated in the appeal,

5050A. I think Frank described what I am trying to accomplish at my residence.

My wife and I bought this home approximately a year and a half ago. We really enjoy the

home and the neighborhood. We’ve been making a lot of improvements to the home. We

had a very tough winter and spring and we discovered that we have a problem water spot

at the entry of our home. The home was built in 1979 at the 40-foot building line with the

entry door at grade. It is on a slab. And, there are no steps to the entry door.

There is an existing condition roofline over the entry door, approximately 3.5 x 9 feet. A

roof porch, which does not protect the area of our home from the elements or change in

grade. There is heavy water damage to the siding, sheeting and supporting pillars of this

roofline porch.

If I could just step through some of the pictures. From left to right, the first picture shows

the entry door in a set environment. It’s a split-level home. The first floor drops down to

the entryway and there’s a large rock in front of my entry door.

The second picture is a little bit more to the right. It starts to give you an idea of what the

entry door is set on.

The third picture gives you a full view. The proposed roofline would cover from where

the spruce is there to the driveway.

And, then the last picture, although this wasn’t a heavy rain, gives you an idea of the

water damage to the sheeting and the pillar area. I just kind of took that one-day when it

happened to be misting out.

We plan to replace these items with vinyl and fiberglass deposit materials. We have

already replaced the entry door as you can see. The proposed solution will protect the

area with a 7 x 16 roof with a gutter to keep the rain and snow away from the home.

With my application I have included a drawing with a plan that you can look at.

Obviously, that plan would be more detailed for the building inspector showing that we

can meet all of the building codes for joists and trusses and things of that nature.

I have spoken to all of my neighbors concerning this issue. They’re in full support of the

project. Before the meeting I was able to go around and get a couple of signatures. This

shows what I have.

MR. VINCI: Would you like this read into the record?

MR. OLSON: Yes, please.

MS. DICKMAN: “Dated June 24, 2003. Southington, CT. ZBA Appeal #5050A. To

Whom It May Concern: I have reviewed the project above and support this special

application request for Dean C. and Lisa M. Olson.”

And, we have: Jeff Dufrene, 235 Mandel Drive

Darlene Butkowitz, 250 Mandel Drive

Donna Skwiot, 272 Mandel Drive

Bruce Welch, 255 Mandel Drive

MR. OLSON: I have also had some interaction with other neighbors. It was suggested

that maybe I put that together in support of this project.

And, I’m here to answer any other questions at this time.

MR. LA PORTE: So, you are looking for a variance of like 6.5 feet, right? That’s what it

comes down to. In the front.

MR.OLSON: Correct. I think the ordinance allows for 5 x 10 and I’m looking for 7 x 16.

MR. VINCI: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the second part of the application actually doesn’t

apply. That’s for projections as of right. He would be allowed to encroach into the

regulated setback area five feet, not more than 50 square feet. But it actually doesn’t

apply to this particular application. So he just needs the variance for setback.

THE CHAIR: Anyone else have any questions?

MR. SHERMAN: The water sure can get annoying, can’t it?

MR.OLSON: Got an exterminator coming tomorrow.

MR. SHERMAN: Did you get it actually into the house?

MR. OLSON: I don’t know what his plans are.

Oh, no. It’s on a slab, so there’s no lower level. It just meets the wood at grade.

MR. SHERMAN: I see.


(No response)

All right. Anyone else here to speak in favor of the application?

(No response)

Is there anyone here opposing the application?

(No response)

Appeal is closed. Chances are we will make a decision tonight if you’d like to remain. If

you can’t remain, you’ll be notified by mail of our decision.

MR. OLSON: Thank you very much. I’d like to thank the Board and I’d like to thank

Frank for his time.

APPEAL 5051A, application of Michael and Sue Abacherli to construct a 456 square

foot accessory building where 200 square feet is allowed, under Section 2-01.A.A.1 of

the Zoning Regulations, 76 Ladyslipper Lane, property of Michael A. and Sue S.

Abacherli, 750 feet south of the intersection with Churchill Street, in an R-40 zone.


the record?

MR. ABACHERLI: It’s Michael Abacherli and I live at 76 Ladyslipper Lane. I’ve got

some pictures and stuff, too.

(Passed around)

What we have is we installed an in ground pool in the back of the house. The reason for

the large shed that we’ll call it a shed/pool house, if you would. We have no storage

basically in our garage. Our garage is a very small two-car garage. It’s 21 x 21, which is

not quite standard for even a two-car garage. So, we can’t even put any lawn equipment

in there. Barely one car fits nicely with the bikes and stuff.

So, what we are trying to do is incorporate one shed in the back of the house. All these

pictures that I have, picture one is the view from the street. The shed is right behind the

white fence. It will not be visible by the street, whatsoever. There’s a 6-foot drop-off

right behind that fence with a retaining wall.

So, the shed itself is absolutely invisible from the street.

The next picture that you see are different views from my neighbor’s house, which we

have all their agreements that the shed is fine with them and nobody can see it.

We are going to be using half the shed as a changing area for the pool house. Keep the

neighbors, kids and things of that nature that come over, basically out of the house.

That’s what we are trying to do. So, part of the pool house/shed area will be used for kids

to be changing and things of that nature so they are not going in and out of the house.

That’s about 140 square feet. A 12 x 12 room is designated for that.

That’s leaves us about 300 square feet for an oversized shed and pool and chemical

storage which we don’t want in the basement of the house, either. The pool filter is rather

large for the size pool we have. We take it all apart and we bring inside during the winter

months.

We also have a loop lock cover, which is a safety, child cover that is rather large and

needs to be stored in the summertime. So, these are things that we do have to be set up

now. Lawn equipment, pool material, chemicals, gasoline and things of that nature that

we would just like to have.

What I really need is a third garage. But the house is not set up properly with where the

garage is. The septic system almost abuts right where I could put a third car garage.

That’s where I’d like to put it, but I can’t.

So the only thing really is rather than having two sheds on the property, which I don’t

want either, because that becomes a mish-mash of things, is to put in a little bit oversized

shed.

Everything you see there I’ve done myself. I put the in ground pool in myself. Dug the

hole, put it in, the fencing. So, this is, you know, my own labor that we’re doing this and

it’s made all to code and to specs. That’s why I’m here to make sure that everything is

going forward in the right manner.

Hopefully, we can go forward with this size shed.

MR. LA PORTE: So this is a combination pool/shed.

MR. ABACHERLI: Yes, it’s really there as a small cabana for the pool, so the kids can

go in there and change.

MR. LA PORTE: Is there pluming going in there?

MR. ABACHERLI: No.

THE CHAIR: Yes, Frank?

MR. SHERMAN: At first sight, it’s a big variance. However, you are authorized to have

a 200 square foot shed and a 200 square foot cabana, so that’s 400 square feet. If you

combine them into one, that lessens the variance, where I stand. So it would be 408 vs

456.

MR. VINCI: Well, I was just going to express concern over the size of this variance. I

can understand the applicant’s need for storage because I can use a lot of storage, also.

However, the regulations allow 200 square feet for accessory structures. And, this is more

than twice the size.

As Mr. Sherman just pointed out, the applicant could, without a variance, put two

structures up of 200 square feet each. He can do that as of right.

THE CHAIR: So, in other words, you’re saying you are opposed to it?

MR. VINCI: Well, yes. When the PZC looked at accessory structures, they limited the

size of them to 200 square feet. Because they didn’t want a large structure. Be that as it

is, the applicant is still allowed to have a shed and a pool house, or another structure.

MR. SHERMAN: I guess what the Board has got to evaluate is whether or not the impact

on the neighborhood or the impact on the property would be better with two 200 square

foot buildings or one 400 or 456 square foot building.

MR. ABACHERLI: If you look at the pictures on the --- you can’t see this structure at

all. It’s impossible to see from the street. The only place you can see it from possibly, is

my neighbor, the house you can see right behind the house.

And, per the agreement I set up with him, I would put a row of arborvitaes in there.

They’re 7 feet tall and so his view is going to be limited, as well.

Plus, the shed is actually at pool level and there’s a retaining wall that goes into part of

the shed, as well. So, half the shed is hidden behind this retaining wall, as well. So the

only thing that is really visible is maybe 15 feet and that’s visible only to my house. It’s

not really not visible to any other neighbor. Or the street. That’s why I took so many

pictures of the street going back. You cannot see – you can’t even see the pool. If you

can’t see the pool, you will not be seeing the shed from the street.

But, if I split it up, having a pool house and cabana, obviously with the shed some place

else, you’re going to see the shed from the street.

(Pause)

MR. LA PORTE: So, the storage space is, the square footage, Frank? What’s just the

storage part?

MR. VINCI: Well, you are allowed to have a shed up to 200 square feet.

MR. LA PORTE: Oh, I know that. But what is he using so much for storage?

MR. ABACHERLI: Well, I can split it up. I mean, 200 and 200 is fine. But, I mean ---

MR. LA PORTE: No, no. I’m not asking that. I’m just asking for your storage of all your

tools and stuff?

MR. ABACHERLI: I was going to use a 12 x 12 room for the pool and whatever was left

over, it’s about 144, roughly figure 300.


(No response)

Anyone else here to speak in favor of the application?

(No response)

Is there anyone here in opposition to the application?

Just you, Frank?

MR. VINCI: Well, I raised those comments, that’s all.

THE CHAIR: All right. The appeal is closed. Chances are we will make a decision

tonight if you’d like to remain. Otherwise, you’ll be notified by mail of our decision.

APPEAL 5052A, application of John and Melissa Fuhrman to vary the parking space

requirement to 4 where 3 are allowed and height requirement to 2 stories where 1.5

stories are allowed for a proposed detached garage, under Section 2-01.A.A.1 of the

Zoning Regulations, 428 Woodruff Street, property of John and Melissa A. Fuhrman, 750

feet west of the intersection with Pleasant Street, in an R-20/25 zone.


the record?

JOHN FUHRMAN and

MELISSA FUHRMAN: 428 Woodruff Street.

MR. VINCI: Explain what you are doing?

MR. FUHRMAN: What I’m asking to do is for an 8 x 12 extension to the right rear side

of a three-car garage.

MR. VINCI: Mr. Fuhrman, do you want to explain to the Board what your plans for the

property are?

Okay? Maybe that will help.

MR. FUHRMAN: Okay. Well, I bought the property with intentions of building a new

house and a garage on the property in the future. And, knocking down the existing house

and garage.

And, I wanted an oversized garage. I have four cars, three antique vehicles and my wife’s

car, that I’d like to store.

MR. SHERMAN: Why wouldn’t a 1.5 story garage fill the bill?

MR. FUHRMAN: Well, I have some sketches of the proposed garage and we’d like to

put a 12/12 pitch on the garage to match the proposed plans for the house.

MR. LA PORTE: What would you use the second, what I call, second story for? Storage

or what?

MR. FUHRMAN: Just storage.

MR. LA PORTE: What is the square footage of your house now?

MS. FUHRMAN: Nine, nine-something.

MR. LA PORTE: Nine hundred. And, you’re asking for over a thous

and square foot for the garage.

(Pause)

That’s excessive.

So now the garage is going to be bigger than the house.

MS. FUHRMAN: Well, when this happens, it will be all at once. We’ll build the new

house and the garage. It’s our plan. Like he said, the second story is for the purpose of

keeping the look of the peaks matching, 12 pitch, is that correct?

MR. FUHRMAN: Yes.

MS. FUHRMAN: We’ve talked to the building inspector and have met the requirements

where you have to come in and measure all the thing and it’s not more than 50%.

MR. LA PORTE: You see, we are dealing with just the garage right now. So, we have to

look at that.

MR. VINCI: Mr. Chairman, that’s a very good point. As Mr. LaPorte pointed out, the

new garage will be larger than the existing house, which begs the question, what is the

accessory use? Is it – what’s the principle use, the garage or the house?

I don’t know if the Board’s inclined to go along with this. You might make it contingent

upon the building permit being obtained for the new house as part of the development of

the property.

MR. LA PORTE: You’ve still got an excessive size garage there, Frank. No matter what

you’ve got.

MR. VINCI: I won’t argue that at all.

MR. SHERMAN: Totally detached. If it were attached, we would say the rooflines would

be more critical than the detached. It is a huge garage.

MS. FUHRMAN: Well, both peaks will be facing the road, so that would be your visual

point, and that’s what we were concerned with, keeping them looking the same.

We have a three-car garage and the extension on the back. Now we were told that you

can have a little bit more than what you required to fit for a single car. So, that’s why we

have three cars plus the added --- which I am not exactly sure of the measurements. The

dept of it, in other words.

For storage of lawn care, bikes, et cetera, things of that nature that wind up in the garage.

We are not --- hoping to avoid having to build any type of shed on the property. We hope

to be able to store everything in the garage.

MS. DICKMAN: So the main part of the garage is going to be 24 x 28 and then you are

saying that that part that you are going to use for the accessory part is the other, is that

what you are saying?

MS.FUHRMAN: Why don’t you explain why you have the extension? It’s not just for

storage. It’s for – the antique vehicle we have is a 1924 truck. It is oversized in length.

MR. FUHRMAN: Yes, lengthwise. I would use, I need three bays for my antique

vehicles and then a single bay for her car.

MS. DICKMAN: Is it possible to keep the same pitches and whatnot but scaling down

the size of the garage? I mean, without this 12 x 36 or something, just keeping the three

garages and staying along the same rooflines that you want with your new house?

MS. FUHRMAN: Well, we actually thought that that was what we were accomplishing

after talking with you, after we discussed it with you. You said it would be ---

MR. VINCI: Well, I think the point is that we don’t have anything showing a new house

here, yet. We’re dealing with the old house and as one of our members pointed out, the

garage would be bigger than ---

MS. FUHRMAN: We do have our plans drawn, if that makes a difference, if you’d like

to see a print.

MR. FUHRMAN: I have a print if you’d like to see that.

MS. FUHRMAN: As far as a building permit, we haven’t gotten that far, yet. We’d like

to get everything approved.

MR. FUHRMAN: I want to have the garage approved before I go any further. I mean,

there’s no use in me having plans drawn up if the garage is not approved.

MR. VINCI: If you do get approval here, are you going forward with your building plans

for the house?

MS. FUHRMAN: In the spring.

MR. VINCI: Okay. What’s going first? Are you putting up the garage first before the

house or will the house go up first?

MS. FUHRMAN: After talking to the bank, we’d like to just do everything all at once.

We were preapproved to be able to do that.

MR. VINCI: All right. Well maybe the Board does want to see the plans for the house,

then.

MR. SHERMAN: See the relativity between the two. The garage and the house.

MR. LA PORTE: When you knock this house down, where is the other house going? Is it

going to go the same place?

MR. VINCI: It’s right on the plan there. Right behind it.

MR. LA PORTE: Oh, okay. I got it. I got it.

MR. FUHRMAN: Right behind the existing house.

(Pause, pause, pause)

MS. FUHRMAN: Could we also submit these letters? One regarding the neighbors we

spoke to.

MR. VINCI: Would you like these read into the record?

MS. FUHRMAN: Yes, please.

MS. DICKMAN: “Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southington, 75 Main Street, PO

Box 610, Southington, Connecticut 06489. 1924 Model T-T Truck.

Dear Boardmembers: Please be advised that we are the current owners of a 1924 Model

T-T truck. My two sons, John Fuhrman and Robert Fuhrman will be inheriting the truck,

per instructions of our last wishes.

It is our understanding between our sons that John Fuhrman will hold responsibility for

housing said vehicle since Robert Fuhrman lives out of State. The above-mentioned

vehicle is currently stored outside, covered by a tarp. Therefore, it is our wish that said

housing of vehicle commence immediately so that the vehicle can have stable and

property protection from the outside elements.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Frederick C Fuhrman, dated

05-05-03 and Marjorie A. Fuhrman dated 05-05-03.”

“Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southington, 75 Main Street, P O Box 610,

Southington. 428 Woodruff Street garage plans.

Dear Boardmembers: Please be advised that M/M John Fuhrman are in the process of

drawing garage plans for the property located at 428 Woodruff Street. The current plan is

for a 28 x 36 garage including an 8 x 12 extension continuing the rear side of the

property. The purpose of said extension is to house a 1924 Model T-T truck.

The property at 428 Woodruff Street is approximately 255 feet deep and 153 feet wide.

At present there are four residential homes bordering said property. Each current owner

has been informed of potential garage plans.

Below please find signatures of property owners stating acceptance of the plan. Sincerely,

John Fuhrman and Melissa Fuhrman dated 05-13-03.

I have read above letter and accept the proposed garage plans including extensions.

Frederick Fuhrman, 440 Woodruff Street, Southington

Marjorie Fuhrman

Kathleen Marshal, 92 Dogwood Drive, Southington

Nancy Marshal

Lynne Leone, all of 92 Dogwood Drive

Lina Charette, 89 Dogwood Drive, Southington

Charles Laser, 416 Woodruff Street, Southington”

THE CHAIR: Yes, Frank?

MR. VINCI: Could we keep those plans for the record? Do you have a copy of those?

MR. FUHRMAN: The house plans?

MR. VINCI: Yes.

MR. FUHRMAN: Will I be able to get them back?

MR. VINCI: Not if we keep them for the record.

(Pause)

Well, if I can hold them, I’ll make a copy for the record and we can give you those plans

back.

Thank you.

MR. FUHRMAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. LA PORTE: All well and good, Frank, but the thing is, if they go and put up the

garage and then something happens and the house is never built, then what have we got?

MR. VINCI: Well, first of all I am not advocating, you know, I’m not speaking for the

applicant. I’m on the fence on this one here.

The Board knows the issues with some of these large garages. One thing, if you are

inclined to approve it, and if you were, I’d recommend a couple of stipulations.

-The second floor be cold storage only

-No commercial activity in the garage.

But, if you were inclined to approve it, then you might condition it that the garage be

built under the same building permit as the house. So, it gets built together and not as you

said, not --- you are exactly right. Without – if the garage gets built first, then what is the

primary use of this property? It’s bigger than the house.

MS. FUHRMAN: That is our intention. To do it at the same time.

MR. VINCI: Again, I am not advocating for the applicant.

MR. SHERMAN: Just seems like an awful lot of building on a 20/25 lot.

MS. DICKMAN: Um.

MR. SHERMAN: Actually, the oversized garage, except for the third or fourth allowable

car is not really a matter for us. The height of it and the fourth car --- the size of it is not

anything that is being varied here.

MR. VINCI: Well, the size is a little bit because you have to accommodate the fourth car.

So, the first part, the 24 x 28 is fine. Then you have 12 x 36, which basically is two

spaces. So you have one extra space in there, which is basically 12 x 18. So, it’s an extra

space for two cars.

MR. SHERMAN: What I’m trying to do is bring into focus what we’re asked for. So, if

we disallow, if we are bothered by the size of the garage, we would have to disallow the

fourth space. That’s the only method we can use to cut down the size of the garage and of

course bring it down to 1.5 stories, as well.

MR. VINCI: But then he wouldn’t have to be here.

MR. SHERMAN: But the size of it, the only way that, we can’t comment on the size of it

except to disallow the fourth parking place. Just to bring it into focus so we know what

we are doing here.

MR. VINCI: That’s correct.


MR. LA PORTE: Would they be inclined to accept something like that?

MR. VINCI: I put the lot size on there. It’s 100 x 225 and equates out to 38,000 plus

square feet.


MS. FUHRMAN: Could I just, in answer to your question, and then I guess I am

misunderstanding why we would be here. Because we had three antique vehicles and we

need to house them. And, we can’t in a three-car garage because we have four vehicles.

So, that’s why we just needed that one extension to be able to slide that little truck back

and put another antique vehicle behind it because we are not allowed to have a six car

garage and that is in essence what it would be if we went all the way across the back.

And, as far as the height, it’s just for aesthetic purposes, only. Like I said before, we did

talk to the building inspector and he told us what we needed to do and everything is to

code that way. It’s just the peak that looks --- but otherwise it would be just used for

storage.

MR. LA PORTE: So, this would all be built together we’re saying now? Is that what we

are saying or we are not saying?

MS. FUHRMAN: The house and garage?

MR. LA PORTE: The old garage would come down, the house would be built and the

garage would be built.

MS. FUHRMAN: That’s right. Everything – right. All the old would be gone and we

would be building the new. We were told that we could stay in the existing house and

wouldn’t receive CO until everything was demolished.

MR. VINCI: We have had situations in the past where we’ve had older homes on existing

properties and the owners wanted to put new houses up. We allowed them to stay in the

existing house until such time as they got a CO for the new house and then we had

stipulated that within 30 days the existing house be demolished.

MR. SHERMAN: And, that would cover the garage?

MR. VINCI: And, that would cover the garage as well, right.

MR. LA PORTE: So, what I’m saying is, Frank, the house gets started and the garage at

the same time. It’s not the garage is going to be first and let the house go. Is that right?

Can we stipulate that?

MR. VINCI: That’s exactly what I said. That’s what they’re saying.

MR. LA PORTE: Yes, okay.

MR. VINCI: That was a very good point.

THE CHAIR: Any other questions?

(No response)


(No response)


(No response)

Appeal is closed. We’ll probably make a decision tonight if you’d like to remain.

Otherwise, you will be notified by mail of our decision.

MR. AND MRS. FUHRMAN: Thank you.

APPEAL 5053A, application of Emily Janazzo for a Café Patio Permit under Section 4-

01.32A of the Zoning Regulations, 129 Center Street (Brickhouse Café) property of Lina

and Louis Perillo, III, Trustees, 60 feet west of the intersection with North Liberty Street

in a CB zone.


the record?

MS. JANAZZO: Emily Janazzo, 223 Clark Street in Milldale. I’m just here to get, for my

liquor permit, in order to get a liquor permit for my patio, I need it approved through

zoning.

It’s an existing patio. It has been here for years. I don’t know if you have ever seen it. I

handed in this sketch when I submitted the application.

MR. LA PORTE: We’re talking about a café permit out there? Are we talking liquor or

beer and wine.

MS. JANAZZO: Um-hum.

MR. VINCI: It’s existing. It’s been there for about –

MR. LA PORTE: Is it beer and wine? Full?

MR. VINCI: It’s basically the alleyway between the Brickhouse Café and the American

Gourmet. There’s an alleyway there and for fifteen years they’ve had a patio permit. In

fact I signed off on the zoning permit back in 1990 or 1991. Before we were doing these

patios.

A couple of stipulations we might have – there be no access from other than inside the

existing café. They have a wrought iron fence in the front. How about in the back?

MS. JANAZZO: There’s a fence. It’s fenced in on all sides. And, you can only get on to

it through the bar room. There’s an emergency exit at the back, though, that’s according –

the fire marshal, you have to have that. He signed off on it, already.

MR. LA PORTE: Do you go year by year with this? That’s what I want to know.

MR. VINCI: Well, no. You can do that if you like.

MR. LA PORTE: Because we’re getting a lot of these.

MR. VINCI: We are getting a lot of these. We might also want to stipulate as we did in

some of these others that there be no loudspeakers or amplification or entertainment on

the patio.

MR. LA PORTE: No. Right, okay.

How about the hours?

MR. VINCI: Again, access only through the existing café, outside entrance there.

MR. LA PORTE: How about the hours of serving liquor out there?

MR. VINCI: We haven’t had that in the past and you know, for fifteen years there hasn’t

been a problem. If you require them to come back on a yearly basis, if there is a problem

the previous year, then we can address that the next time here. But it hasn’t been a

problem.

MR. LA PORTE: Okay.

MR. SHERMAN: Are you intending to serve everything out there in glasses, not in

bottles?

MS. JANAZZO: Oh, no. There will be no service stations out on the patio itself, but you

can take your drinks out there and food out there.

MR. SHERMAN: What we always get nervous about is if bottles, for example, bottled

beer is brought out there and it could be passed over to someone off of the patio from the

patio and if it’s served in glasses, that wouldn’t probably be as practical.

MS. JANAZZO: The fences are quite high. Liquor Control, you have to have a certain

height for them. And, actually the back fence has no openings. I mean, it’s a kind of

sealed-off fence. The front of the fence, however, has like slots and that’s according to

Liquor Control. You have to be able to see through the front of the fence.

MR. SHERMAN: I guess your answer is they will serve it in bottles?

MS. JANAZZO: Oh, yes, It’s bottled beer.


MR. LA PORTE: And, does she understand that if we do approve this here that’s for one

year and on a yearly basis?

MR. VINCI: Well, she’s right there.

MS. JANAZZO: So, I have to come back for approval every year?

MR. LA PORTE: Yes.

MS. JANAZZO: Would I have to pay every year, too, a certain amount of money?

MR. VINCI: Well, how do you want to do this?

MS. JANAZZO: We haven’t had to in the past.

MR. LA PORTE: Well, how’re

you doing the other ones, then?

MR. VINCI: Right now we’re doing it with a new application.

MR. LA PORTE: If we get no backlash or anything ---

MR. VINCI: Then we’ll go from there after a year or so, but you know, without an

application, unless there’s a change in the Permittee, we never see it again.

MR. SHERMAN: That’s about the only weapon, if you will, the Board has to make sure

that everything is in compliance. And, if it isn’t it can be a miserable existence for the

neighborhood. So, if you are forced to come back to us, we can talk to the police during

the next time and see if anything occurred that they didn’t like before then and then take

appropriate action if it’s needed.

Generally, we run for a couple of years and if there’s no problems it probably could or

maybe taken off at that time. But that’s the reason for it.

MR. VINCI: So, the short of it is that you’d be coming back in the spring of next year for

a new application. Just to do this all over again and tell us how things are going.

MS. JANAZZO: Okay, so it’s just like a recheck. Would I be paying anything again?

MR. VINCI: Yes, sixty dollars.

MS. JANAZZO: Every year?

MR. VINCI: Well.

MS. JANAZZO: Just that no one in the past has had to do this and it’s been here so long.

I mean, it hasn’t had any complaints. There isn’t music speakers out there or anything.

MR. VINCI: The Baord’ll make a decision next year and maybe they’ll not have you

come in for two years or whatever. So, once we get a track record on how you are

operating.

THE CHAIR: Anybody else here to speak in favor of the application?

(No response)


(No response)

If not, the appeal is closed and we’ll probably make a decision tonight if you want to

remain. Otherwise, you will be notified by mail of our decision.

APPEAL 5054A, application of Patricia Griffin to vary the side yard setback requirement

from 8 feet to 3.7b feet and lot coverage from 792 square feet to 800 square feet for an

addition to an existing home on a nonconforming lot, under Section 7A-00 and 11-13 of

the Zoning Regulations, 9 Whitlock Avenue, property of Patricia Griffin, 350 feet east of

the intersection with Norton Street, in an R-20/@5 zone.


the record?

MS. GRIFFIN: Pat Griffin. I live on 2 Oakdale Drive in Plantsville.

The house in question is on Whitlock Avenue and square footage total is 384. It’s really

what we would call an efficiency house. My daughter is presently living in it and she is

wheelchair bound. So, what we’d like to do is add a room on to the back of the house so

that she can have access from the other part of the house.

It will be done correctly so it will be run by an architect so that the rooflines and so forth

would be in keeping with the neighborhood and I think it would be an improvement.

MR. SHERMAN: Does the house predate zoning? Itself. It looks like the addition won’t

be any closer than the house. You’re keeping the same line as the house.

MS. GRIFFIN: Yes, what I’d like to do is move the line to the left a little bit so that the

rooflines would --- it wouldn’t look like a trailer, if you know what I’m saying.

It has to be the ground floor because of her problem.

MR. SHERMAN: When was the house built, approximately?

MS. GRIFFIN: Let’s see. Year built: 1948.

MR. SHERMAN: Okay that predates zoning.

MS. DICKMAN: Now, the addition isn’t going to go straight back like you show here?

You said you’re going to have like a job?

MS. GRIFFIN: That’s the way we looked for it because I really didn’t know what I was

doing. But ---

MS. DICKMAN: So, it is actually going to be closer to the property line than what you --

-

MS. GRIFFIN: No, not closer on the right. No.

MS. DICKMAN: Oh, on the other side, okay, all right. I just wanted to understand.

MR. VINCI: This is a nonconforming lot of record. It’s only 30 feet wide. The side yard

requirement is 8 feet for this particular property, so they have a 1.5-foot on the other side.

MS. DICKMAN: Okay.


(No response)


MR. ADAMS: Good evening. I’m Joe Adams. And, my daughter lives in the house. And,

ever since she has been confined to a wheelchair it’s almost impossible to live in that

house. When four people get in there, one has to leave, the way it is now. So, we really

need this addition.

And, I’m all for it. I hope you people are, too.

Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Anyone here opposed to the application?

(No response)

If not, the appeal is closed. Chances are we will make a decision tonight if you want to

stay, otherwise you will be notified by mail of our decision.

APPEAL 5055A, application of David Shrake to construct a 2 story detached garage

where a story and a half is allowed, under Section 2-07G of the Zoning Regulations 119

Meriden Avenue, property of Janet Shrake, 600 feet south of the intersection with

Beechwood Drive, in an R-20/25 zone.


the record?

MR. SHRAKE: I’m David Shrake and I’m here to represent my wife on this appeal. We

both live there and we’ve lived there for two years. When we constructed the house, we

put in a foundation for the garage.

The reason why I need the variance is it doesn’t follow the 50% rule. It’s 3 feet off on the

roof pitch. I’m trying to match the roof pitch of the garage with the roof pitch of the

house so that it doesn’t look strange from the road.

That’s about 100 square feet upstairs bigger than it should be for a story and a half. I just

want to use it for storage. That’s all it is there for.

MR. LA PORTE: That garage is just going to be used for storage, the 1000 square?

MR. SHRAKE: Just a three-car garage with storage above.

MR. VINCI: If the Board is inclined to go along with this application, I have suggested

the same stipulations that we put on or suggested for the previous one:

-Upstairs be cold storage only

-No commercial activity

MR. SHRAKE: I’m willing to go along with that. That’s fine. It’s just to store stuff. It’s a

shame to have that much roof up there and not store stuff. So, it’s really all I’m using it

for.

MR. VINCI: What’s the size of your property?

MR. SHRAKE: It’s a 3-acre lot.

MR. VINCI: Three acres.

MR. SHRAKE: And, I’ve asked my neighbors and, I don’t have anything signed, but

they said it’s fine. It’s going to be an addition to the neighborhood. But, I don’t have

anything in writing.


(No response)


(No response)


(No response)

If not, the appeal is closed. Chances are we will make a decision tonight if you’d like to

wait. Otherwise, you will be notified by mail.

MR. SHRAKE: Thank you.

APPEAL 5056A,application of Kristin M. and Justin C. Altwies to vary the front yard

setback from 50 feet to 42.5 feet and the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 27 feet for a

23. x 32 foot garage addition under Section 7A-00 of the Zoning Regulations, 60

Rockwood Drive, property of Kristin M and Justin C. Altwies, at the intersection with

Mountain Edge Drive, in an R-40 zone.


the record?

MR. ALTWIES: I’m Justin Altwies and this is my wife, Kristen. 60 Rockwood Drive.

The proposed garage addition, um, when we first bought the house almost three years

ago, the existing garage was previously turned into a daycare center. So, the garage doors

were closed off and an adjoining bathroom was put in. And, once we purchased the

house, we found it very convenient to modify that daycare center into a large family

room. We put recessed lighting in. New carpeting and it functions very well for a family

of five as a large family room.

I have pictures here to submit of where the proposed garage will be added.

MR. VINCI: Would you like these entered into the record?

MR. ALTWIES: Please.

(Pause)

The roofline of the garage will be opposite of the peak that’s shown there. We feel that

the large family room that we have now adds a significant value to the property and also

an addition of this garage would also be in concert with the rest of the neighborhood. I

think we are the only house in the neighborhood that currently does not have a garage.

Our neighbors, or at least the neighbor behind us, is in full agreement with this. He’s tired

of looking at the blue tarp that I have there. It’s covering up my first John Deere tractor,

which I am desperate to get inside a garage. So, that’s another reason why I want the

garage.

MR. SHERMAN: This is the former daycare center.

MR. VINCI: Yes. We remember that application.

MR. ALTWIES: Yes. That’s the one.

MS. ALTWIES: At the present time we store the snow blower and tractor in the back,

both are covered by blue tarps which are both visible by our neighbors on Mountain Edge

behind us and also by the other neighbor on Rockwood. It’s impossible to get them down

into the cellar.

Our plans are to add the garage, pave the driveway. So that the garage at the present time

would store the tractors and the snow blower. The bicycles that are also back there.

Garbage cans. It will make it much more attractive than it is. It currently does look odd to

the neighbors because there’s a door and it obviously looks like it was, at one time, a

garage there.

MR. LA PORTE: It has a buffer there, too. There is all trees on that side?

MS. ALTWIES: There is a huge tree line. Right.

MR. VINCI: If I may, Mr. Chairman, this is a corner lot. And, the regulations say that the

side opposite the front door will be the rear yard. Well, the way this house is orientated,

it’s orientated right at the corner. If it was orientated towards Mountain Edge, then they

wouldn’t need a rear yard setback variance, at all. It would be 27 feet off the line and 25

feet is the side yard requirement. So, it’s kind of just because of the way the house was

oriented that they had that rear yard provision.

MR. SHERMAN: You have no inclination to rekindle the daycare center operation?

MR. ALTWIES: None whatsoever. We have three kids and that’s plenty.

MS. ALTWIES: We were welcomed very nicely into the neighborhood. They were like –

yes.

THE CHAIR: Anything else you’d like to say?

(No response)

Is there anybody else here to speak in favor of the application?

(No response)


(No response)

If not, the appeal is closed. Chances are we will make a decision this evening if you’d

like to remain. Otherwise, you will be notified by mail.

MR. ALTWIES: Thank you.

APPEAL 5057A, application of Richard D. Angelone to allow a two story detached

garage where a story and a half is allowed, under Section 207G of the Zoning

Regulations 215 Old Turnpike Road, property of Richard Angelone, 230 feet north of the

intersection with Homestead lane, in an R-12 zone.

MR. VINCI: Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the applicant.

“June 24, 2003. Attention: Zoning Board of Appeals. I am requested to change the date of

the hearing from June 24, 2003 to July 22, 2003. My wife is away on vacation until July

11, 2003.

Thank you. Richard Angelone, 215 Old Turnpike Road, Southington.

MR. SHERMAN: Move that we table, Mr. Chairman, until July 22nd meeting.

MS. DICKMAN: Second.

(Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.)

THE CHAIR: It’s tabled.

APPEAL 5058A, application of Robert and Gina Hall to vary the front yard setback to 50

feet where 60 feet is required for a new home with covered porch under Section 7A-00 of

the Zoning Regulations, 87 Cascade Ridge, property of Laurel Ridge Development

Associates, LLC, 1200 feet west of the intersection with Mount Vernon Road, in an R-80

zone.


the record?

MR. HALL: Robert Hall, 123 Shell Avenue, Milford, CT.

MS. HALL: Gina Hall, 123 Shell Avenue, Milford, CT

MR. VINCI: Explain why you need the variance?

MR. HALL: Yes, I believe you have copies of the preliminary A-2 survey. If you were to

look at the contour of the land, in the back there is a dramatic drop off. It’s got to be

50,plus, feet. Basically, a cliff.

In the front right hand corner, there are 2 20-inch water mains from the City of New

Britain, which we cannot encroach on.

And, the reason why we are looking for the setback is because after talking with the

builder, our excavator, our architect and our engineer, this was the best spot possible for

this house without reversing the septic system and putting an additional pump system in

to pump it upward because the grade of the land slopes right to left when looking at it.

And, without that setback of 10 feet, if you were to walk out of the back of the house,

you’d basically, I think it was –

MS. HALL: It was the point of the garage.

MR. HALL: It was two feet to the drop off. And, if you were to walk out the back door, I

think with the variance, we would have 20 feet instead of 10.

MR. LA PORTE: You own this lot?

MR. HALL: It is on deposit right now. But we can’t go any further until we find out,

obviously.

I believe the owner of the property did send a letter to the Town.

MS. HALL: Indicating that he had no objection.

MR. HALL: I don’t really have any neighbors up there. I have one that you can see.

MS. DICKMAN: How big is the parcel?

MR. HALL: It’s approximately, it’s just about two acres. But it’s split by that cliff. Most

of it’s up top. But then obviously if it was flat, I’d have no problem.

THE CHAIR: Anybody have any questions they’d like to ask?

Yes, Frank?

MR. VINCI: Well, I don’t usually read the letters from the property owner authorizing

permission, but in this case, I will because of the topography.

This is to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Joe Passanante, Laurel Ridge Development

Association, LLC.

The date is May 30, 2003. Re: Lot 3- Laurel Ridge Estates.

Given the topography I am in favor of the request for variance re the setback for the

house.

That’s Joe Passanante.

THE CHAIR: Anyone have any questions they’d like to ask?

MR. LA PORTE: The only thing I’ve got to say is that they don’t own the lot, yet. But ---

Their hardship, they’re looking at a self-inflicted hardship?

MR. VINCI: Well, you have a 2-acre parcel and you have unusual topography. You’ve

got an easement going through it. You have a CL&P easement.

MS. DICKMAN: Water.

MR. VINCI: Water company easement going through it. Their septic system, they really

don’t have too many options on this lot.

MR. HALL: We were looking to build a bigger house. We were looking for 3200 or 3400

square feet. It’s just not going to happen there.

MS. HALL: We like the lot and the area.

MR. HALL: We do love the lot. The views. Just couldn’t find anything else.

THE CHAIR: Anyone else have any questions they’d like to ask?

(No response)

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application?

(No response)

Is there anyone here opposing the application?

(No response)

If not, the appeal is closed. Chances are we will make a decision this evening.

8:30

SOUTHINGTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Public Hearing – Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Town Hall Council Chambers

75 Main Street, Southington, CT

MINUTES

CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CLYNES, called the regular meeting to order at 8:30 pm with

the following in attendance:

Robert Sherman, Joseph LaPorte, Edward Kuklinski and Mary Dickman

Others:

Frank Vinci, Zoning Enforcement Officer, sat in

Absent:

Joseph LaRosa - Alternate

Michael Milo – Alternate

Robert Salka – Alternate

Robert Borkowski - Alternate

A quorum was determined.

MICHAEL CLYNES, Chairman, presiding:

Approval of Minutes – Meeting of June 10, 2003

Mr. LaPorte made a motion to approve the Minutes as submitted. Mr. Sherman seconded.


NEW BUSINESS:

APPEAL 5049A - application of James E. Soterion to exceed a 25 percent building

expansion to vary the lot area requirement to 27,228 square feet where 80,000 square feet

is required, and to allow a 40 foot front yard setback where 50 feet is required in

connection with an addition to a nonconforming restaurant, under Section 7A-00, 11-

09.6, 11-10.1 and 11-10.3 of the Zoning Regulations, 1615 West Street, property of

JTES, LLC, 1500 feet north of the intersection with Spring Street, in an R-40/B Overlay

zone.

Tabled during the public hearing.

APPEAL 5050A - application of Dean C. and Lisa M. Olsen to vary the front yard

setback requirement from 40 feet to 33.5 feet and to vary the area requirement from 50

square feet to 112 square feet for a proposed front porch, under Section7A-00 and 11-

05.1 of the Zoning Regulations, 242 Mandel Drive, property of Dean C. and Lisa M.

Olsen, 2000 feet east of the intersection with Pleasant Street in an R-20/25 zone.

Mr. LaPorte made a motion to approve Appeal 5059A. Ms. Dickman seconded.

Ms. Dickman commented that the variance he’s looking for isn’t that excessive and I

think it’s going to --- the water problem he has is quite obvious and hopefully this will

help alleviate the problem.

Mr. Sherman added it’s not a problem that you could easily anticipate when you bought

the property. That seems to be a fair solution to the problem.

Mr. LaPorte agreed.

(Motion passed 5 to 0 on a roll call vote.)

One year to exercise permission.

APPEAL 5051A, application of Michael and Sue Abacherli to construct a 456 square

foot accessory building where 200 square feet is allowed, under Section 2-01.A.A.1 of

the Zoning Regulations, 76 Ladyslipper Lane, property of Michael A. and Sue S.

Abacherli, 750 feet south of the intersection with Churchill Street, in an R-40 zone.

Mr. LaPorte made a motion to accept Appeal 5051A. Mr. Kuklinski seconded.

Ms. Dickman noted he could put up the two separate sheds. I think it’s his idea to

combine them and they are kind of hidden. He’s got the cliff. I think for the area that he’s

putting it in; this probably is a better solution than the two separate sheds.

Mr. LaPorte agreed adding it is very well hidden.



APPEAL 5052A, application of John and Melissa Fuhrman to vary the parking space

requirement to 4 where 3 are allowed and height requirement to 2 stories where 1.5

stories are allowed for a proposed detached garage, under Section 2-01.A.A.1 of the

Zoning Regulations, 428 Woodruff Street, property of John and Melissa A. Fuhrman, 750

feet west of the intersection with Pleasant Street, in an R-20/25 zone.

Mr. LaPorte made a motion to accept Appeal 5052A. Mr. Sherman seconded.

Stipulations:Contingent on them getting the building permit for both the house and the

garage.

-Second level would be cold storage only




APPEAL 5053A, application of Emily Janazzo for a Café Patio Permit under Section 4-

01.32A of the Zoning Regulations, 129 Center Street (Brickhouse Café) property of Lina

and Louis Perillo, III, Trustees, 60 feet west of the intersection with North Liberty Street

in a CB zone.


Stipulation:No speakers, no entertainment, no access except from the café. One-year

approval for this calendar year and then they have to return.



APPEAL 5054A, application of Patricia Griffin to vary the side yard setback requirement

from 8 feet to 3.7b feet and lot coverage from 792 square feet to 800 square feet for an

addition to an existing home on a nonconforming lot, under Section 7A-00 and 11-13 of

the Zoning Regulations, 9 Whitlock Avenue, property of Patricia Griffin, 350 feet east of

the intersection with Norton Street, in an R-20/@5 zone.

Mr. LaPorte made a motion to accept Appeal 5054A. Mr. Kuklinski seconded.

Ms. Dickman noted that the house predated zoning.

Mr. LaPorte noted they have a good hardship.



APPEAL 5055A, application of David Shrake to construct a 2 story detached garage

where a story and a half is allowed, under Section 2-07G of the Zoning Regulations 119

Meriden Avenue, property of Janet Shrake, 600 feet south of the intersection with

Beechwood Drive, in an R-20/25 zone.

Mr. LaPorte made a motion to approve Appeal 5055A. Ms. Dickman seconded.

Stipulations:

-Cold storage only




APPEAL 5056A,application of Kristin M. and Justin C. Alltwies to vary the front yard

setback from 50 feet to 42.5 feet and the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 27 feet for a

23. x 32 foot garage addition under Section 7A-00 of the Zoning Regulations, 60

Rockwood Drive, property of Kristin M and Justin C. Altwies, at the intersection with

Mountain Edge Drive, in an R-40 zone.


Mr. LaPorte commented they have a good buffer there and the neighbors are in favor.



APPEAL 5057A, application of Richard D. Angelone to allow a two story detached

garage where a story and a half is allowed, under Section 207G of the Zoning

Regulations 215 Old Turnpike Road, property of Richard Angelone, 230 feet north of the

intersection with Homestead lane, in an R-12 zone.

Tabled during the public hearing.

APPEAL 5058A, application of Robert and Gina Hall to vary the front yard setback to 50

feet where 60 feet is required for a new home with covered porch under Section 7A-00 of

the Zoning Regulations, 87 Cascade Ridge, property of Laurel Ridge Development

Associates, LLC, 1200 feet west of the intersection with Mount Vernon Road, in an R-80

zone.

Mr. Sherman made a motion to approve Appeal 5058A. Ms. Dickman seconded.

Ms. Dickman said with all the restrictions he has, that the only place he can put the house

on the lot.

Mr. Sherman said it is not a question of no house or the variance. There will be a house

there in any event. I think they are really squeezed in.



Public Hearing Items - public hearing closed - decision tabled:

APPEAL 5040A, application of Westridge Development Corp. for an 18-foot front yard

setback variance for a proposed new single family home, under Section 7A-00 of the

Zoning Regulations, 174 Prospect Street, property of Westridge Development

Corporation, at the intersection with Church Street, in an R-12 zone.

Mr. Sherman made a motion to approve Appeal 5040A. Mr. LaPorte seconded.

Ms. Dickman said that driving through the area, if you look at the houses, there are really

quite a few large homes in that area and they’re not all small homes.

Mr. Sherman said it is a fair sized lot. Corner lots are traditionally a problem. I think the

corner lot does a present a hardship in itself. At some point, the PZC should address that

hardship to where you end up having a choice of front yards.

Explained.

Mr. Sherman said something is going to go there. A developer the caliber of Mr. Myjak is

going to make money on whatever he puts there and it’s going to sell readily. I don’t

think our action here will assist the developer, particularly.

The Chair commented it would be nice to keep harmony in the neighborhood.

Mr. Sherman further added he liked the design of the houses. I’ve walked that a half a

dozen times and still think that that would fit. If you miniaturize it, I don’t think it would

have the same impact. It is a leader house on the street.

Ms. Dickman said being a historical district; he’s trying to preserve the character.

Discussion.

Mr. Sherman added further that the caliber of the house and the style of the house would

overcome any snuggishness you might have on the lot.

The style of Church Street is bigger houses on smaller lots.



MISCELLANEOUS / OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS

None

Mr. Sherman made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by Mr. LaPorte.


Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 o’clock, p.m.

Michael Clynes, Chairman

Zoning Board of Appeals

SOUTHINGTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Public Hearing ... · 6/24/2003 · meeting to order at 7:30...

Documents

Transcript of SOUTHINGTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Public Hearing ... · 6/24/2003 · meeting to order at 7:30...