Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-4-5 Transcription - ZBATranscription of Meeting Montville Zoning Board of Appeals April 5, 206 Chairman MacNeil called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Chairman MacNeil asked the Clerk for a Roll Call: Mr. Fawcett: Here. Ms. MacFadyen: Present. Mr. MacNeil: Here. Mr. Mitchell: Here. MacNeil: Any new business before the public hearings, Tom? Sanders: No. MacNeil: Okay, first public hearing is 206-ZBA-01 for Donna Belle Jacobson. A Coastal Site Plan review application request for a lot frontage reduction from 180 ft. to 40.29 +/- ft. for proposed subdivision Lot #3 and a request for a lot frontage reduction from 180 ft. to 25.75 +/- ft. for the proposed subdivision Lot #2, for the purpose of creating a three-lot subdivision at 437 Kitemaug Road, Uncasville. As shown on Assessor’s Map 034 Lot 001-000. Sanders: Mr. Chairman, INAUDIBLE and do both public hearings under the same thing. MacNeil: Okay, I was going to ask if we could combine the two. Sanders: INAUDIBLE. MacNeil: Also open 206-ZBA-01a Donna Belle Jacobson. A Coastal Site Plan review application request for a lot frontage reduction from 180 ft. to 40.29 +/- ft. for proposed subdivision Lot #3 and a request for a lot frontage reduction from 180 ft. to 25.75 +/- ft. for the proposed subdivision Lot #2, for the purpose of creating a three-lot subdivision at 437 Kitemaug Road, Uncasville. As shown on Assessor’s Map 034 Lot 001-000. Do we have all of the notifications in order from the abutters’? Sanders: All notifications are here. MacNeil: Could we have the Staff Report, please. Sanders: This application was made INAUDIBLE two lots. Everybody is familiar with that. We had a comment from the Fire Marshall that the original site plan didn’t provide for access to the. MacNeil: Let the record show that Ms. Lakowsky is now present. Sanders: There was some modifications to the plan if you go to page two. MacFadyen: So, now there’s INAUDIBLE. Sanders: No, INAUDIBLE yet. MacFadyen: No, I thought that’s what this says. Sanders: I’ll read it. There was three. There is a concern; here, here, here. Two of the three. This area here, the ninety degree turn; this and this. Two of the three have been addressed. The Fire Marshall’s comments are in your package. At this point in time he says it’s safer. The vehicles can go down there; they can make a turn. As you notice on the plan, the shaded area is now an easement and is not owned by lot, which it shouldn’t probably INAUDIBLE. Those are subdivision questions. Does anyone have any questions? MacFadyen: Well those little things that look like easements, they look like they’re within the lot lines. They’re not? The lot line goes like that. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 2 of 17 Sanders: The lot line goes to that INAUDIBLE and this easement is on this lot here and that passage, and from that lot there to that passage. MacFadyen: Okay. Fawcett: I think that’s one of the three lots. The three lots are 1.843.49 and 4.39, am I correct? Sanders: Sure. The existing lot is 9.72. INAUDIBLE this house and this land that goes down in back over here. Fawcett: See, this is owned by someone else; this and this. MacNeil: It’s probably easier for them to see on the first page. Fawcett: This herringbone pattern represents ledge, right? Sanders: Yes. Fawcett: This is ledge and this is ledge. So what you’ve got here is you’re going to have to blast some ledge INAUDIBLE. Sanders: This long, sloping driveway here services this house. This driveway here services that lot there. Fawcett: So that’s lots one and two. And what happens with three now? Sanders: Well, three is the original INAUDIBLE. MacNeil: I think you can easier see that on the first page, and then you can refer to the second page because it’s a one line diagram and you can see how this separates and splits up; that way you don’t have all that extra stuff in there to see. Right now it’s all one piece, right Tom; this is the whole piece like this, and this is going to be split. The entrance to this one and the entrance to that one, and that’s where the house is going to stay there. So this is the piece right here. It goes all the way around INAUDIBLE; right now it’s one lot. That’s the nine point whatever; that’s an existing house, that’s going to remain; that would be the property for that house. This would be part of this parcel, this will be part of this parcel; and these are the two created lots. MacFadyen: And that’s just all INAUDIBLE. MacNeil: Those are existing; yeah well, it looks like it doesn’t go away, but right it’s just a little oddly shaped finger. MacFadyen: Okay, thank you. INAUDIBLE DISCUSSION BETWEEN BOARD MEMBERS. Fawcett: Lot one has INAUDIBLE. What you’re doing really you’re taking a piece of lot one to get back to lots two and three. MacNeil: And the applicant will have a chance to get up and also address any questions and clarify. Sanders: INAUDIBLE. The reason for the variance request, section 7.6, is there is inadequate road frontage for the two proposed lots, which are lots two and three. In August of last year 2005, the Planning & Zoning Commission deleted the Zoning Regulations Section 4.15, Interior Lots (Rear Lots). This section of the regulations would have allowed for an application to be made directly to the Planning & Zoning Commission. The reason for removal was, the regulations as written was found not to be fair and definitive. Due to this, the Commission has decided to eliminate Section 4.15 and re-visit the subject of real lots while they are revising the Zoning Regulations. The Commission is currently revising the Regulations. And on the fifth page of the Staff Report you have there, is a copy of the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting INAUDIBLE. Like I said, other business coming before the Commission . . . . ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 3 of 17 Lakowsky: That’s from the Planning & Zoning minutes, right? Sanders: Yes, the Planning & Zoning minutes from 8/10/2005. The Commission was discussing the fact that they have been having problems with the designs that were being presented under this Section 4.15, which is to reduce the lot frontage to create these rear interior lots. In trying to decide whether to have a moratorium on interior rear lots, a discussion was held regarding the moratorium and the legalities involved in the same, along with the possibility of deleting the entire interior lot section, 4.15, from the Regulations. Majority of the Commission felt that they should eliminate Section 4.15 now and revisit it when they do the revisions to the Regulations. The Planner distributed to the Commission a draft of the proposed revisions to the Zoning Regulations in regards to this, and then went on to talk about having meetings. The Planning & Zoning Commission INAUDIBLE an additional Tuesday each month in order to re-draft the Regulations. We’ve had problems with this section that’s created, designed to allow these rear lots. However, as it states in here, there’s been a lot of problems with it which is one of the reasons that the Planning & Zoning Commission has removed it from their Regulations at the present time in order to draft a better regulation to deal with this. Lakowsky: But they haven’t as yet. Sanders: They haven’t as yet. Fawcett: That kind of presents a problem of logic to me. If the regulation has been removed, then there is no regulation. How can you have any authority to either refuse or approve if there’s no regulation? If you’ve removed the regulation, where does the authority come to do anything? Sanders: If this was to be presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission as it is, the Planning & Zoning Commission would deny it because the regulation is not there. Fawcett: How can you deny something if you don’t have any basis to deny it? Sanders: Because it doesn’t meet the regulation. Fawcett: But, there isn’t any regulation, you suspended it. I don’t understand where we’re going with this. Sanders: Zoning Regulations are permissive. If it’s in there it’s allowed. If it’s not in there it’s not allowed. So if this was presented, because it is not in there at the present time it is not allowed. Fawcett: Okay. Then it wouldn’t be allowed. Sanders: That’s why they come to the ZBA to ask . . . MacNeil: For a frontage variance. Sanders: For a frontage variance under Section 7.6, which is the R-80. It takes a little bit to catch on that sometimes, but that’s the way it works. So, basically what they’re doing right now is they are asking you to waive the requirements to go from 180 feet per lot down to, in this case for two of them, 25 feet and then the other lot is basically 25 feet plus another 15 which is this little strip of land that comes up to the road here. MacFadyen: Is R-80 two acres? Sanders: What? MacFadyen: R-80, is that two acres? Sanders: Yes, it’s 80,000 square feet which is basically two acres. It’s considered what they call building INAUDIBLE 40,000 square feet. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 4 of 17 MacFadyen: So this one lot is even under the . . . . Sanders: No. It says 1.84 acres is actually 80,000 and a couple of feet. 80,007 to be exact. MacFadyen: Thank you. Sanders: So, the Planning & Zoning Commission would be looking at this issue. This would not be something that would be coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals if there wasn’t a problem dealing with these rear lots. INAUDIBLE Coastal Area Management INAUDIBLE. Any application that comes before any INAUDIBLE within one thousand feet of a body of water. INAUDIBLE Long Island Sound, has to go before a CAM review. Generally the residential CAM reviews are not a major concern in these particular cases. A three-lot subdivision would not be a big concern. It was reviewed by the Town Planner. The checklist has to be made as part of the package; and the Planner’s presented INAUDIBLE consistent with any applicable coastal policies that the State of Connecticut puts on us. MacFadyen: There are 301.87 existing feet of frontage now. Sanders: Yes. MacFadyen: Can you show me where that is. Sanders: Yes Mama. MacFadyen: I can see the 188, but I can’t see the . . . Sanders: You have to add them up. If you go from here around this corner to here. MacFadyen: Oh that’s not the 188, that’s the . . . . . oh, I see. Sanders: In other words, it can consist of this 25 and that 25 and then this 15. And then these go to these markers. MacFadyen: Okay I see. Thank you. Sanders: So, the recommendations from myself and the Planning Department is, due to the misinterpretations of the former regulations and problems that have arisen, approval of this variance request would create the same problems that required the Planning & Zoning Commission to revise the section on the regulations, which is section 4.15. So if you grant this variance for these two lots with a reduction, you are going to cause a problem for Planning & Zoning that they’ve been trying to get away from to go back and address to make this a lot clearer and a lot easier for any future applicants to deal with. So you do have the recommendation that these variances not be granted at this time for those reasons. Fawcett: So when Planning & Zoning re-visits this, is there a possibility that they might change the requirements so that this would be allowable? Sanders: Well one option is that they will tighten up the regulations and make them clearer, which would not lead us to having problems with these AUDIBLE projects that put safety concerns to everybody in the Town. Or they may find, and they’ll go back to the original that we’ve had for years that said these rear lot subdivision, or whatever, rear lots that they cause so much problems that they’re not . . . .that they cause more problems to the Town than they’re worth and may opt to not put them back in. For years we never had them. Fawcett: Could you share with us some of the problems that they’ve created. Sanders: Basically they cause problems between neighbors. Fawcett: Between neighbors. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 5 of 17 Sanders: Between neighbors, yes sir. If you go to the other page . . . Lakowsky: Now how is the . . . is it damp back there? INAUDIBLE. Sanders: No; there’s ledge. Here’s an example of the plan that is presented to you tonight. This is the driveway that services the proposed lot two. First it comes in this way, drives around to get to their house. The house is cited right here. This is a driveway; it’s coming into the proposed lot three and that house. This house sits right here. Anybody coming down this driveway, the lights are going to shine in that house. It’s pretty poor design. That causes a problem. This person comes down the driveway with his high beams on. This guys goes out and says something to him, you know, “could you put your high beams down” . . . . .well, if I want. Fawcett: People have lived in the country too long, I think. MacFadyen: Someone could come flying down that driveway drunk at night and crash right into that house. Sanders: These are some of the things that we run into. Here’s an example. This easement over the other person’s land. MacNeil: Can you keep the people off of Kitemaug Road, too? Sanders: Let’s put it this way, there are problems that are here that we’ve had to deal with. There’s no sense in creating problems that are coming up INAUDIBLE. But these easement here going across somebody else’s land, that tends to create a problems. Fawcett: I can see where going across somebody else’s land would be a bone of contention, you know as far as the lights are concerned. INAUDIBLE if you lived in the city you’d have lights all the time. But I can understand when you’re encroaching on somebody else’s property. Sanders: Mr. Fawcett if you ask me . . . . .come in the office and you can sit there and listen to the phone calls; I get them all the time. That is a problem. Fawcett: That is something that you run into, okay. Sanders: That eats up the assets of the Town. I have to spend a half hour explaining to people . . .you bought the house. But there is no reason that the Town shouldn’t be protecting the final property owner. We should not be creating a problem. MacFadyen: Is this easement, is that to address Mayor Jaskiewicz’s comments. Sanders: And the Fire Marshall’s, yes Maam. MacFadyen: Thank you. Fawcett: I don’t really see where you have any business taking away somebody else’s property to make things INAUDIBLE for somebody else, unless they agree to it. Sanders: But the concerns that have been with the Planning & Zoning Commission are that these shared driveways have been causing problems and they want to address them to make sure that INAUDIBLE don’t come in. Fawcett: These houses aren’t even here are they? Sanders: No sir. Fawcett: No, but these houses aren’t even here so that’s just a hypothetical situation anyway. Lakowsky: Yeah, whether they would put it there. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 6 of 17 Sanders: But, under the Regulations, subdivisions come under the preview of the Planning Commissions, and if Section 4.15 is addressed to or is changed to address these concerns, it should be the Planning Commission that makes this decision, not based on the ZBA INAUDIBLE. Fawcett: Okay, then really it isn’t up to us to make the decision, that’s really what you’re saying. Sanders: Right. MacNeil: If the variances are granted, that doesn’t circumvent the subdivision application, would it? It still would require an application to the Planning & Zoning for subdivision, because it is a subdivision. Sanders: Right, but the thing of it is that the requirements for subdivision are that they have 180 . . . . MacNeil: No, I’m just saying if the variance was acquired, they still would need to go through the subdivision process. Because technically they would have the frontage at this point to create those lots. Sanders: What you’re saying right now is basically is that Planning & Zoning would not have a chance to INAUDIBLE. MacNeil: I understand. Fawcett: Really lot one, there’s no problem with lot one. It’s getting two and three. MacNeil: We can go back to Tom after the applicant makes their presentation, unless you have something more to ask. MacFadyen: No, no I just . . . I’m not sure of the lot size. Okay. MacNeil: Would the applicant like to address the Commission and make their presentation and/or whatever. Liz Rasmussen: For the record, my name is Liz Rasmussen, and I am a planner for Dieter & Gardner, who represents the applicant. I want to give you here is a copy of a little narrative I’m going to go over. I’ll try to be brief and not go over it word for word, but I want to hit every important point that I think should be INAUDIBLE. Just to let you know, I’ll try to turn this so the audience can see this as well. I just want to give you a brief history, and I think also some of the things in the narrative will answer some of the questions that you have. Just to let you know that this is a 9.72 acre piece of land. I’m going to show you here what the land looks like. Right now it goes all the way around INAUDIBLE this looks like INAUDIBLE (525 on the tape). A little history on this application, and I did not work for Dieter & Gardner at the time, but from what I understand is as the final INAUDIBLE the Planning & Zoning Commission was to delete the regulation, un-denounced to Dieter & Gardner. I came on board, they asked me to submit all the applications and I got with Marcia and she said, “oh well, you can’t do it because we just deleted the regulation because there was INAUDIBLE troubling interpreting different points of the regulation”. So just to let you know, this subdivision was designed to conform with the old interior lot regulation. So if, in fact, that regulation were still in place, it would, as far as we’re concerned, conform to that regulation. So I just wanted to let you know a little history of how all this came. I spoke with Marcia and she said that the only way you could go forward with this application is to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask for a variance. And the applicant and the property owner is under some time constraint to get this done, and she did not want to wait for Planning & Zoning Commission because we didn’t have time when they were going to address the rear lot regulations. So that’s why we are here in front of you. Again, this is an application for a three lot subdivision which would create two new lots. This is the house here, with a driveway, shed and garden, and this is an above ground swimming pool. This lot will be 1.81 acres, which is again 8,007 square feet. Lot two is a rear lot, 3.49 acres. The driveway will come around here and will go around and will go to this house right here. The reason for this easement area was again when we revised the INAUDIBLE to be accessible to emergency vehicles, it went on the property line a little bit. This one looks like property INAUDIBLE but it’s actually silt fence; I know that you asked about that before, somebody did. But we would be more than willing to adjust property lines as needed so that those driveways are on their own lots. This property here, one driveway will come in here and go around and access the house back here. Again, two houses here, here; erosion sediment control is all in pink. We actually added this because there was some concerns with the West Farms Land Trust, and we INAUDIBLE the areas of ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 7 of 17 construction. Just to let you know, we wanted to go over a few points that we felt were reasons and/or hardships for the granting of this variance. We believe that the unique physical character of this property makes it exceptionally difficult to develop with the current frontage regulations requirements INAUDIBLE (618 on the tape). Again, this site is fairly large R-80 zoning district and the site is irregular in shape so it limits the access to the rear portion of the property. The variance requested is the minimum required to obtain a reasonable development of the site, and the two new building lots are proposed on the large site and the subdivision, again, was designed in accordance with the Commission’s prior regulations for interior lots. We believe that the variance INAUDIBLE (635) with the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinances in that the request for variance will allow for reasonable development of a permitted use in the R-80 zoning district. We believe that the variance will not be injurious to surrounding properties as the plan proposed is to create only two new lots for single family homes. The proposal will not create excessive noise or glare on surrounding properties, and increased traffic will be limited to two proposed properties serving an individual house lot. We don’t anticipate any other adverse impacts on neighboring properties. And lastly, we feel that the request for variance is consistent with the Town planning conservation and development and zoning regulations in that it encourages low density development in an R-80 zoning INAUDIBLE. Just to let you know, this is the second plan that I have submitted to the Town. The first one, the Fire Marshall had some issues. It had a hairpin turn and he did not feel that there was adequate access for emergency vehicles. So he sent us a template for turning radiuses that he wanted to have on the plan, and we have put them on and he has given us a memo saying that he approves of the new turning radiuses INAUDIBLE (677). Additionally, this driveway here, this is very close to Mrs. Enos’ house, you see INAUDIBLE. In order to try and lessen the impact on the property, I moved the driveway over as far as I could. It’s not a lot, but when we did submit the revised plan I think I moved it over about five or six feet. That was as far over as we could go without actually going on to the other property and having a little bit of room on that side. So we did take the time to try and move that over, because Mrs. Enos had expressed some concern about cars going so close to her house, which is fairly close on this lot. Should this subdivision receive favorable approval, should we get the variance approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission, the applicant agrees to stake out the boundary between both lot three, which is its access, and Mrs. Enos’ property and also to plant a vegetative buffer between the properties as requested by Mrs. Enos. She would like something like an INAUDIBLE tree or something similar to lessen the impact on her property, and the applicant has agreed to do that. I know that there was some concern also about lights coming into this house, that I don’t know if it’s completed or if it’s being built, but I think we could probably also work out some sort of vegetative buffer there that would lessen any headlight glare into the windows of that property as well. MacFadyen: It was the other driveway. Rasmussen: Excuse me? MacFadyen: That driveway. Rasmussen: This driveway comes over like this and goes around to this house. So the headlights would be coming here. This is sort of a steep slope, but it will be graded up and so in order to lower the impact INAUDIBLE (738) somewhat along the top of the line of the subdivision. MacFadyen: Where is Mrs. Enos’ house? Rasmussen: Her house is fairly close, it’s right about here. In the big scheme of things it’s pretty close, maybe fifteen feet or so. It’s pretty close to the property line. MacFadyen: It certainly is. Rasmussen: For the record, we want to let this Board know that we are willing to comply with Mrs. Enos’ requests. I met with the Town Engineer and Tom Sanders and also Don Bourdeau about the possibility of eliminating this driveway here and putting in a shared driveway so that one driveway would serve two lots. We decided not to go with that. The applicant wants to go forward with this subdivision, again, because she is under time constraints. And also, the regulations in Montville do not allowed shared driveways, so we would have to go back and get another variance. There is going to be some drainage work that’s going to be needed to be done according to the Town Engineer and according to Mr. Bourdeau. The applicant is willing to do any drainage ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 8 of 17 work that is going to be required. There is a catch basin right here which may need to be relocated for this driveway. Again, that is something that will be addressed if the variance is granted at subdivision with the Planning & Zoning Commission. So we are willing to make a drainage . . . . there is some really clogged up. We had to pretty much dig down to find this catch basin, you could not see it there was so much silt and sand and leaves and whatnot. So I just wanted to make that clear. The West Farms Land Trust owns the property that runs back here. I’ll show you on INAUDIBLE (798) and I think it goes up into this area, it’s not showing this now. But they expressed some concerns that the distance of the septic system INAUDIBLE to their property line. I just wanted to let you know that this is the septic system for this house. This is the primary system and this is the reserve system. The primary system is 50 feet from the property line and the reserve system is about 25 feet from the property line. The Land Trust is concerned about ledge so that there wouldn’t be proper drainage and there would be drainage onto their property. Just to let you that the test holes that were excavated and witnessed by the Health District in the area of the conceptual septic systems there was no ledge found. There was no ledge found, there was no water found, there was not mottling, there were no roots found; so an engineered septic system in this case is not required for this site. Again, these are conceptual, and when somebody comes in for a site plan there is certainly a possibility of moving that septic system even further away or perhaps address it at subdivision. Finally, should this application receive favorable approval, a subdivision is subject again to further review by the Planning & Zoning Commission at which time INAUDIBLE, grading, drainage and similar issues will be addressed. Again, if approved, the lots would be sold to private buyers. Have I answered all of your questions. MacNeil: Does anyone have any questions for the applicant at this time? Lakowsky: The land itself, will it be able to hold a septic tank and well because that back land is sort of swampy. Rasmussen: Yes, the test holes that will determine whether the soil can support an onsite septic system has already . . . .the testing has already been done and it has been witnessed by Dave Caughlin of Uncas Health District. INAUDIBLE (888). Fawcett: Well even if we approved it and later it was found that it couldn’t, you couldn’t proceed even with our approval. Rasmussen: That is correct. Fawcett: So our approval would have no effect on that. The recommendation, however, is that we deny this application. Sanders: You need to be careful of how far you go in asking questions about the subject itself. Lakowsky: We have to be careful? Sanders: Right, that comes under the permit of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Fawcett: That’s what I’m saying, it’s really not our . . . . . . Sanders: You can look at it generally, but be careful about asking about testing this or that or the other thing because it gives the impression that you’re INAUDIBLE subdivision and that is not your job here. Your job here is to sit down and say shall we reduce that frontage down. So you can ask some questions but you have to be careful INAUDIBLE. Rasmussen: If I could just add, you know I gave you some information about some of the technical things that we plan on doing just to show that we are willing to work with the neighbors to address any of their concerns. Again, as Tom said, it’s not really a ZBA issue, but I wanted to let you know what the applicant is willing to do. Basically, the applicant is asking you to address the five points we made with regards to grounds for granting the variance. MacNeil: Thank you for now. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this application? Please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 9 of 17 Nancy Enos: I’m Nancy Enos and I live at 431 Kitemaug Road. I’m Donna’s neighbor, and I would like to say that I am opposing until I get written statement from the surveyors okaying my requests that I have made. Anybody have any questions. MacNeil: So you are opposing it at this time because you have not received what you needed? Enos: That’s right. MacNeil: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of this application? James Orzechowski: My name is James Orzechowski, and I’m currently constructing the house at 443 Kitemaug, which is the . . . . .the house that I am constructing is beyond that 90 degree corner of lot, I guess is one. And it was my concern . . . I was one of the people concerned about lights coming into my bedroom window. What I would like to comment is I choose to live in Montville and not live in the city because of reasons of this. I don’t want lights coming into my windows or traffic near my home, and that’s why I choose to live in Montville and hope the Board keeps the zoning regulations to keep Montville that way. On points about that particular driveway; when I put my request in for construction of a driveway to Public Works, which is just . . . I guess it would be West of the proposed driveway for lot two, sorry I take that back. It was requested to me that I put my driveway as far away from that sharp turn in Kitemaug Road as I possibly could for sightline reasons, in which I confirmed, I did. The driveway that’s proposed would be at least another fifty feet closer to that corner, and I don’t know if Public Works has looked at that as a sightline issue or not; but I was requested to stay as far away from that corner as I could on my fifty-five or so feet of road frontage at that point. Looking also at the plan, the limited time I did have to look at it, the driveways . . . .the 90 degree turns that were in the driveways, or the 90 degree or so turns, that were the Fire Marshall and the Mayor’s concerns; two of those turns were addressed because the applicant has that property to grant the easement or actually move that boundary line to create those inner radiuses for an emergency vehicle to pass through. The third turn is around Mrs. Enos’ property; she is on the inner part of that radius which there can’t be an easement over her property without her permission, so that was not addressed in the second plan that is now in front of you. It would have to be, obviously, some boundary adjustments to that which I think need to be done now, not later, to obtain the variance, period. And again, from what Tom said as far as I was told by Liz at the couple of meetings ago when this was continued, that these lots do meet an old Zoning Regulation of back lot zoning. And those were taken out for reasons like what I am presenting to you that the Zoning Department was getting complaints or issues were coming up, taking up their time for lots that are, for lack of a better work, jammed behind existing neighborhoods. And people who, like Mrs. Enos, have lived there for years and now there will be a driveway very close within 15 feet or so to her house and I think that’s obviously one of the reasons why the Planning & Zoning said this is a bad thing. I understood it worked on large scale developments where there was significant frontage and lots of land off the road, and it wasn’t in an established neighborhood where these driveways had to . . . were splitting going to houses that were close together to begin with. They worked well for large scale developments where the neighborhood was developed with everybody’s eyes were open to it. When people were buying into it, they knew what they were buying into at that point. They knew that there were driveways that may pass by their house, or in front of their house, or right next to their house whatever it may be . . . .behind their house as it may be. When people bought these lots they were going in with their eyes open. Here, this is something going into an existing neighborhood, and it’s just poor as far as what it does to the existing neighborhood. As far as the time constraints that they are under, Liz had said that this plan was in its final stages when the Zoning Regulation was removed. To the best of my knowledge or remembrance, and I’ve been out there very regularly, almost daily, working on my house out there. I don’t remember . . . . there was, back in 2004 I remember there was a general survey done on the property, which turned out to be very ambiguous I guess is a good word for it because there was confusion between myself and Mrs. Jacobson about where the property boundary lines were out there and the land that I was buying and the land that she owned. And the surveyor was . . . . .the real estate agent selling me the property contacted the surveyor and he said he really couldn’t nail down the property lines out there very well. And in turn there was . . . .Mrs. Jacobson had some friends or whatnot that were cutting trees down on the property that I was about to buy. So there was confusion going on at that point in time of exactly where the boundary lines were out there. And as far as . . . . . my point is that I really don’t think that the plan was in final stages when the zoning for the back lots was removed. I don’t believe that test holes were done; and I mean there should be data in there on when the test holes were done and ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 10 of 17 observed by Uncas Health. But if I remember right by my . . . .it was sometime in December of 2005 that the test holes were being done, and that regulation was removed from . . . .back lot regulation was removed in August of 2005 I believe, like Mr. Sanders said so. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me as a hardship that the Zoning Regulation was pulled from INAUDIBLE at a time when they were almost done with their site plan. That’s really all I have to address, thank you. MacNeil: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of this application. Sheila Elliott: I’m Sheila Elliott from Waterford, Connecticut, and I am speaking on behalf of the West Farms Land Trust. We did send a letter to the applicant asking about the effect of drainage on the ledge that is all along the property border of our property with the third lot over here, and they did agree to move it farther away so that we wouldn’t have any trouble. But from an environmental point . . . . .so I can’t complain about that, I’m not complaining about that, I’m saying that there has been cooperation. But from an environmental point of view I just want to point out, that these long driveways that are going to be graded downhill go down to the Thames River, and the runoff and the ledge that goes all along our property is something that should be considered when you put long driveways like that and additional housing in, that the runoff is going to go right down that ledge and into the Thames River. MacNeil: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of this application? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of this application? Albert Oulette: My name is Mr. Albert Oulette, and I own the four acres to the South of the existing property line. My brother INAUDIBLE owns the property just to the North of my on the West side of the property. I’ve lived in that neighborhood now for . . . . longer than I’d like to remember . . . .48 years, and there is not much of any of that property . . . I’ve been their for years, that you can dig a hole more than two or three feet deep and you’re going to hit ledge anywhere. I experienced it with my own house when I built it. It all sits on ledge and the new septic system for, I believe it’s lot three there, I find it would be very hard for me to imagine because the ledge . . . .it doesn’t show it on the drawing here next to the railroad tracks there’s an out propping that’s in the neighborhood of 15 or 16 feet high. And even as dry as it has been now, there’s constant water running off of that into the railroad tracks, and I don’t see much of any septic system doing much good in there as far as running down off of that ledge. With the topography that is there, it’s going to be into my property. Fortunately, my well isn’t down there, but as far as wells go in that area, I’d just like to tell anybody that is looking to tell anybody that is looking to buy a piece of property there . . . .I’ve got five holes in the ground to get good water, so it’s not a good spot to try to be drilling wells. In the neighborhood, there’s quite a few cemented holes, and more than half of the properties there have multiple wells on them to get good water. Minutes Clerk: I’m sorry, sir, may I have your name again for the record? Oulette: Albert Oulette. Jr., 401 Kitemaug Road. Minutes Clerk: Thank you, Sir. MacNeil: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of this application? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of this application? We’ll give the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns. Rasmussen: I would just like to address some of the comments from the neighboring property owners. For the record, we did not give anything in writing to Mrs. Enos in regards to her requests, but we will certainly do that and obviously this is a public hearing, it’s on the record and INAUDIBLE. In regards to James . . . I can’t pronounce his last name so I’m just going to point to his property. His property is here . . . . MacNeil: Oulette. Rasmussen: Okay, Oulette. His property is here and I believe he just stated to you that he’s got a property with 55 feet of frontage, which would make it similar to the lots that we’re asking for that he’s actually so opposed to. I just wanted to point that out. INAUDIBLE (1419). He also has a non-conforming lot or what would have been ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 11 of 17 perhaps a rear lot at that time. I don’t know, I haven’t researched his property, but I just wanted to point that out. Just to let you know as far as this driveway, there is no portion of the driveway that is on Mrs. Enos’ property, so this plan has been revised so that the driveway itself is over here. This INAUDIBLE . . .this is all on the Jacobson property. And again, if that is a subject of concern we can look at changing the lot lines, and we we’d be happy to go and do that. As far as my comments with regards to the history about putting the final touches on this. As I stated to you, I would like for you to consider the five hardships I listed in my narrative. I was giving you the history of the property. I know that this file is labeled 2002 at Dieter & Gardner, you know and often times it takes various . . . it takes some time to put together a plan. So I’m just letting you know that to my knowledge it was all in stone; I came on board in November and it was like this. So something between August and November this was, from my understanding, completed. So I just wanted to let you know, I’m not asking you to consider time constraint as hardship. What else did I want to address . . . . .I just wanted to show you that we do have . . . . . INAUDIBLE (1479) . . .but we actually have test pit data . . MacFadyen: We can’t see any of that. Rasmussen: I know it’s very small. MacNeil: It’s really . . . . . . Sanders: It’s not a relevant point, and there again you’re starting to get into an area . . . . MacNeil: But you can address it for the concerns. Rasmussen: I would just like to address it for Mr. Oulette. Just to let you know that INAUDIBLE (1492). But these were done in December, 12/15, these tests that they were witnessed by David Caughlin and you can see; ledge at 58, 58, no ledge, no ledge, no ledge, no ledge. I mean you can certainly see it. Engineered septic systems are required when ledge is found at 48 inches, so there was no ledge on that lot three where the issue with the West Farms Land Trust; I’m sorry lot two, with regards to an engineered system. So I just wanted to put that forth. I understand the concerns of the West Farms Land Trust in regards to runoff on impervious surfaces from the driveways. Again, those issues for grading and drainage are going to be addressed, if this variance is granted, at the PZC level by the Town Engineer and the Public Works Director, and we will address any runoff and grading issues at that time. And I think that’s about it. I just INAUDIBLE (1530). MacNeil: Thank you. Is there anyone present who would like to ask a question or make an additional comment. Just so that you know, we are going to be acting on the variances only not the subdivision issues that were brought up a little bit. That is a function of the Planning & Zoning Department, so we are trying to wrestle with the variance request. So at this time if there is anybody who would like to ask a question or make an additional statement, now would be the time. Does anybody have any questions or Tom, the application, that we could get this information before we would close the public hearing. MacFadyen: We’re not to consider the easements to make these corners less than 90 degrees; that has nothing to do with us? That’s P&Z. MacNeil: That’s pretty much the subdivision . . . we can . . . Sanders: It was brought up originally and the plan was modified because that question was brought up originally by the Board; those are the Fire Marshall’s comments on it. MacFadyen: And Mayor Jaskiewicz. But the one point of it goes around Mrs. Enos’ property has no easement. MacNeil: The Fire Marshall signed off on the plan so I guess they don’t have a problem with it. MacFadyen: Well, he doesn’t approve it, he accepts it though. MacNeil: Right, but I think in the beginning he didn’t accept it and they made the modifications and then later he did. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 12 of 17 MacFadyen: And are we concerned with the sightline of the driveways, or is that Public Works and should they have commented? Sanders: That is Public Works, but it is a concern. In the Staff Report that I gave you, the thing that you need to look at INAUDIBLE (1603). In this particular case, based on a major portion of the Staff Report, this last statement that I put in here, I want you to really look at it and use it in your decision. And that is, the variance would not be in harmony with the general intent and purposes of the Zoning Regulations. The Planning & Zoning Commission has made a determination that there is a problem with these types of driveway sand this type of development and they have removed that section of the Regulations in order to address it. It’s basically their INAUDIBLE; and they are the ones that really should be looking at the subdivision in regards to all the other concerns that obviously that this Board has too . . . making the turns and site lines . . . .the septic systems. That’s where it really should be and that’s really what INAUDIBLE . . . .the number one thing that you really need to look at in making your decision. One of the other things is, if you go up, one of the other ones is . . . the unique conditions and circumstances associated with the request are the result of actions taken on the property subsequent to the adoption of the Zoning Regulations. There have been property’s split off of this which has caused the configuration that it is in now in order to do that, and that was created by the property INAUDIBLE. So there are some concerns there. Then again, I mean it’s a piece of property that’s been around for a number of years. It was divided up a long time ago, obviously people didn’t have the knowledge that we have nowadays, it probably shouldn’t . . . . .at that time if it was done under subdivision could have been fine. But, so is it a self-created hardship, it possibly can be. And those are really the two things that the Board needs to look at before rendering a decision as to whether to grant the variance. And I apologize . . . . Mrs. Enos and West Farms Land Trust did have letters and they were read into the record at the last meeting. INAUDIBLE . . .give them to you, but they were read at the last meeting INAUDIBLE (1717). MacNeil: Does anyone else have any questions for Staff or the applicant? Rasmussen: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a quick comment and I promise to be brief. I would want to make a quick comment to Mr. Sanders’ interpretation that perhaps this is a self-created hardship. Just to let you know, there’s two lots. One that’s INAUDIBLE and one that is INAUDIBLE . . that were split up after subdivision regulations were adopted, and there’s no record that it’s subdivision INAUDIBLE (1746) to those lots INAUDIBLE. But just as a matter of record, although it was the property that was split off, it was not this applicant herself. So I don’t believe that a self-created hardship will apply in this case because she is not the one who did it back in 1970. Fawcett: Was it her father’s? Rasmussen: I believe it was her father’s, but it was not her and he is not party to this application. So I just wanted to make that argument. And also that I know that there’s going to have to be some research done on those two lots. But the lot that is being subdivided is the original parent lot. So although those two illegal lots may come out of that, this lot itself is not. This is the original and there is no question in that regard. If the variance is granted, we may try to work with the Town to try to get those lots into the subdivision. We’re not sure; we haven’t gotten that far, but I just wanted to note that the lot we’ve subdivided is the original parent lot and that the applicant in this application was not the one who created those. Fawcett: Thank you. Sanders: For clarification, I never mentioned the applicant, I said the lot. It has nothing to do with the applicant. This is a unique condition to this property and a number of things INAUDIBLE. MacNeil: Thanks. Is there anybody else that has any questions for Tom or for the applicant. We can discuss this amongst ourselves once we get to the decision and discussion portion, but now is the time to collect information. Do we have enough to go on? Fawcett: I think so. MacNeil: I would like to make a motion to close 206-ZBA-01 and 206-ZBA-01a; is there a second? ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 13 of 17 Fawcett: I’ll second. MacNeil: Motion made and seconded; all in favor say aye. Board Members: Aye (by all Board Members). MacNeil: Opposed? (NONE OPPOSED). So moved. Item C, 206-ZBA-03 Douglas & Sheri Albot: A request for a side yard setback reduction from 15 ft. to 9 ft., and a request for a rear yard setback reduction from 40 ft. to 33 ft. for the property located at 104 Holly Hill Drive, Montville. As shown on Assessor’s Map 109 Lot 20. Staff Report, please. Are the notification in order? Sanders: Yes they are. This is an application for a side and rear yard various. As you will see on the plan, they plan to put a 24’ x 36’ addition on to the existing house; and if you’re looking at the picture, the addition’s going to be on the right-hand side of the house. MacFadyen: On the garage side? Sanders: No, on the other side, right between the big white house. This is the road side; you kind of have to look at it. Tipping it upside down might be easier to look at it. MacFadyen: Is this property that nobody owns? Sanders: That’s owned by the Town of Montville. MacFadyen: The City of Norwich owns that whole piece? Sanders: City of Norwich has this because they have INAUDIBLE. These lots were created . . . most of these lots on Holly Hill were created prior to subdivision and zoning regulations. Obviously the requirements in the R-20 zone are 20,000 square feet. The property is served by sewers and the existing lot has 14,134 square feet. INAUDIBLE (2003) frontage, and INAUDIBLE. The applicant is asking to put this addition on the side of the property, and it would required that the right side setback as you’re facing the house be reduced from 15 feet to 9.7, and that the rear be reduced from the existing 44 to 33. Due to the fact that the property was created prior to subdivision zoning regulations, they need a variance. We have granted them in the past in this area. I don’t see any major concerns. The 9.7 is almost 10; if it was down to, there again, a five foot as we’ve done with some, I would start questioning the proposed addition on that side. But we have allowed 10 feet in the past, and it doesn’t look as if it will adversely affect the property on that right side. Fawcett: Did we have anything from the neighbors? Sanders: I have not heard anything yet, and we will ask.. MacNeil: When we open it up to the public we may. Sanders: If the neighbors point out a reason, I’d be more than happy to entertain it; but based on what we’ve done before and what this is . . . and the other side is, an addition was put on the other side, it would still be less of a impact as far as the setbacks go, but there is also a house on, if you look at the bottom picture, that’s where the other house is. Either way, if it goes on there. Fawcett: It’s going to be close to a neighbor. Sanders: Yeah. And in these small lot neighborhoods these are things we have to do. MacNeil: Would the applicant like to step up and make a presentation? ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 14 of 17 Bill Coughlin: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Bill Coughlin and I’m with A-2 Maps and Surveys and I’m representing the applicants/owners of the property. I would like to just reiterate what Tom had said, is that this property is in a pre-existing, non-conforming lot pre-dating subdivision and zoning. At the time of the existing house being constructed, there was no restraints, no setbacks, so where the house was placed at that time, it didn’t matter. The applicants are proposing to put a two-story addition on the right side of the property, asking for a reduction of 15 feet on the side yard to 9 and for the rear lot 44 to 33. If there are any questions. MacNeil: You just picked that side of the dwelling because it probably goes best with the existing floor plan of the house. Coughlin: Exactly. The entrance, as you can see there, it looks like it is cost effective to do that. Having the deck out the back gives it a little bit more privacy, personal preference, style. MacNeil: Okay. I don’t have any questions. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this application? Any questions, comments from anybody that need to be made at this time? Does everybody feel comfortable with closing this application, or do we want to ask the applicant any questions? I would like to make a motion to close application 206-ZBA-03 Douglas and Sheri Albot; is there a second? Lakowsky: Second. MacNeil: Motion made and seconded to close the hearing. All in favor say aye. Board Members: Aye (all board members responded “aye”). MacNeil: Any opposed? (no board members were opposed). So moved. Old business. I guess we’ll pick up 206-ZBA-01 and 206-ZBA-01a Donna Belle Jacobson’s coastal site plan review and variance application request at the same time to simply the discussion. MacFadyen: Do we have to make two motions? MacNeil: Should I . . . do you think we should act separately on these, Tom? That probably would keep it cleaner. I mean, we had a public hearing on the same one, but. Sanders: You know, INAUDIBLE (2258) very simple one, but there again that doesn’t apply INAUDIBLE. MacNeil: Alright, well let’s just deal with them one at a time. The first one will be 206-ZBA-01. This is for the request for the reduction for the frontage to create these two interior lots. I would like to make a motion for discussion purposes that go along with the recommendation of Staff, if I could find it. I would like to make a motion to deny 206-ZBA-01 request for lot frontage variance for the property located at 437 Kitemaug Road in Montville. Is there a second? MacFadyen: Second. MacNeil: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? Fawcett: Well, regardless of how I feel about light shining in people’s windows, I don’t really feel that I’m in any position to run counter the recommendation of our advisor, because he knows a lot more about these things than I do. The only question I have is this is what three months now that we’ve been working on this one. Could we have saved ourselves two months of work if we had this information; was it even available three months ago. MacNeil: Which information? Fawcett: That the variance would not be in harmony with the general intent and purposes of the zoning regulations. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 15 of 17 Sanders: The extension was made at the request of the applicant, not due to action of the Board. Fawcett: Okay, that answers my question. MacNeil: I guess the Fire Marshall was continuing his review and the plan was modified a little bit; and during that timeframe, which obviously INAUDIBLE the Staff Report. Fawcett: Okay, thank you. MacNeil: I would like to say that I am in favor of rear lots; it’s unfortunate that this configuration with the long driveways and the tight turns. But I can’t see where we could at all circumvent the Planning & Zoning Department’s plan, and they’re the authorities on this. For us to grant this variance would be pretty much telling them that we are the Planning & Zoning Commission now. I have a problem with that; I can’t . . . .we’re the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I . . . . .not that this . . . . I believe in precedence. Until that rear lot section is either modified or put back in, we’re in a tough spot that we may see more of these and to be fair to everybody, I can appreciate the need for it. But at this time if they extracted it, it’s just a simple variance request, and I can’t see myself doing their job and that’s what I think we’d be doing. That’s my opinion. Mitchell: That’s what I was looking at, is for one without having the ability because they have removed it from regulation, they really don’t have a hardship of land because they don’t have the ability to put a back lot in there. So they’re basically, they use their land, whatever use they’ve been using it for the last X number of years it’s still . . . .there’s no hardship. MacNeil: They could come, even if that regulation never existed, they could still ask for this variance to create these lots. I’m not sure if they’d get it or not, but the simple fact that there was one and it was taken out because they have had issues with it puts the magnifying glass right on what we’re doing here, and I wouldn’t . . . . . .I think it just goes against the plan, the Town plan, at this time. Fawcett: Speaking as a ZBA member, I don’t have a crystal ball, I can’t anticipate what they’re going to do. Speaking as a citizen of the Town, I would hope that they would expedite whatever it is they’re going to do so people don’t get caught up over a long period of time with problems of this sort. MacNeil: It was a considerable expenses that the applicant went through to create this plan, so it would be nice if they could use it some time in the future; but we don’t have, again like you said, a crystal ball to know if that will happen. Are you ready for a vote, or do you want more discussion. Okay then, the motion stands, and I would also like to read for the record the reasons for denial, just to get them onto record. The unique conditions and circumstances associated with the request are the result of actions taken by the property subsequent to the adoption of zoning regulations. That one I am comfortable leaving with, but the strongest point is, the variance would not be in harmony with the general intent and purposes of the zoning regulations as per previously discussed. The literal enforcement of the provisions of the regulations would not result in an unusual hardship or exceptionally difficulty and would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. So I guess the written hardships can stand. There’s been a motion made and seconded to deny. Could I have a roll call vote, please. Minutes Clerk: Board Member Fawcett. Fawcett: Move to deny. Minutes Clerk: Board Member Lakowsky. Lakowsky: Deny. Minutes Clerk: Board Member MacFadyen. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 16 of 17 MacFadyen: Deny. Minutes Clerk: Board Member MacNeil. MacNeil: Deny. Minutes Clerk: Board Member Mitchell. Mitchell: Deny. MacNeil: Second application is 206-ZBA-01a coastal site plan review for Donna Belle Jacobson. This is the same facility, and I would like to make a motion to deny application 206-ZBA-01a, and the reasons for denial are stated previously on 206-ZBA-01, is there a second? MacFadyen: Second. MacNeil: Any discussion? Could I have a roll call vote, please. Minutes Clerk: Board Member Fawcett. Fawcett: Deny. Minutes Clerk: Board Member Lakowsky. Lakowsky: Deny. Minutes Clerk: Board Member MacFadyen. MacFadyen: Deny. Minutes Clerk: Board Member MacNeil. MacNeil: Deny. Minutes Clerk: Board Member Mitchell. Mitchell: Deny. MacNeil: Okay, 206-ZBA-03 Douglas and Sheri Albot, a request for a side yard setback reduction. For purpose of discussion, I would like to go with the recommendation of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and to approve 206-ZBA-03 for sections 9.6.2 and 9.6.3 rear yard setbacks of the Zoning Regulations; and the reason is the lots pre-date existing zoning subdivision and zoning regulations of the Town of Montville. This is unique to these particularly small lots and not affecting generally the Zoning District in which it is situated. A literal enforcement of such Regulations would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship. Is there a second? Fawcett: Second. MacNeil: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? I think that the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the applicant backed it up. There is no opposition from the public, and it does grant the applicant reasonable use of his property. And the reason why he is picking that side is obviously the floor plan of the house wouldn’t have to modified and it just lends itself better to where the garage is and to the grade. So I can see why it makes sense to be there. Any further discussion? The motion is to approve. Could I have a roll call vote, please. Minutes Clerk: Board Member Fawcett. Fawcett: Approve. ZBA Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Transcription Page 17 of 17 Minutes Clerk: Board Member Lakowsky. Lakowsky: Approve. Minutes Clerk: Board Member MacFadyen. MacFadyen: Approve. Minutes Clerk: Board Member MacNeil. MacNeil: Approve. Minutes Clerk: Board Member Mitchell. Mitchell: Approve. MacNeil: Old minutes. Approve the minutes of March 1, 2006. I’ve read the minutes and I’d like to approve them and say it was a good job for somebody who had to just listen to the tape; you did a good job. There’s been a motion made to approve the minutes, does anybody have any issues with them? (Board Members indicated no issues). Good, is there a second? MacFadyen: Second. MacNeil: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor say “aye”. Board Members: Aye (all Board Member stated aye). MacNeil: Opposed? (no one was opposed). So moved. The Board then briefly discussed non-related correspondence, and the meeting adjourned at 8:51 P.M. Transcription prepared and respectfully submitted by: Sandra Anderson Minutes Clerk