Simsbury, CT - Zoning Board of Appeals

Chairman Peter Stempien called the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:35 P. M. in the Main Meeting Room of Simsbury Town Hall. The following members were present: James Daley, Lou George, Thomas Horan, Craig MacCormac, and Katie Martin. Also present were Howard Beach, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Lisa Arakelian, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.

A. 06-18 Application of Angelina F. Powell, Owner, requesting a front yard variance to expand the kitchen, pursuant to Article 8, Section A, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations on property located at 48 West Point Terrace. R-15 Zone.

Michael Carroll explained that he and Angelina Powell are seeking a five-foot front yard variance to expand an existing kitchen to accommodate their large family. He stated that this is the best location for the addition, as placing the addition on the north side of the house, where a carport currently stands, abutting the kitchen, would create a safety hazard because of the steep downward grade of the driveway from the street to the house on the north side. Mr. Carroll further stated that a neighbor, Wayne Hoffman, constructed a similar addition on his house across the street from Ms. Powell.

Mr. Daley asked if the Hoffmans required a variance to construct their addition. Wayne Hoffman, 49 West Point Terrace, replied that he did apply for and receive a variance for his addition, and he is in favor of the variance being granted to Ms. Powell as it would enhance the house and the neighborhood.

Chairman Stempien opened the hearing to public comment and read letters in favor of the variance from Eleanor and Wayne Hoffman, 49 West Point Terrace, Christine Lyll (sp?), 50 West Point Terrace, Ron Brown, 45 West Point Terrace, and Robert Bruno, 46 West Point Terrace. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stempien closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Mr. George to approve the variance as requested based on the steep topography of the lot and the stated safety hazard. The motion was seconded by Ms. Martin. Motion passed.

B. 06-19 Application of Michael and Karen Kelly, Owners, requesting a variance to add a second floor to the existing building, pursuant to Article 8, Section A, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations on property located at 51 Canal Street. R-15 Zone.

Michael Kelly explained that he is seeking a variance to add a second story to an existing non-conforming building. He noted that he applied for this variance once before, but was denied. He has since learned, after many hours of research and consultations with several surveyors, that there is a severe discrepancy between claimed lot lines, and the combined consensus opinion of the surveyors consulted is that there are so many “unknowns” that it would be virtually impossible to obtain a definitive resolution. In addition, the street layout is so old that the original property line was staked at the edge of the street, and there is no formal street easement defined, nor front property line established for the lot.

Ms. Martin inquired as to what Mr. Kelly would like to do with the proposed space. He replied that, due to an impending disabling operation, he would like to be able to use the second story as a storage area and live on the main floor of the existing house.

Mr. Beach noted that, using the old front pins and the southern of the two rear pins, the existing structure is ten feet from the side line at the front corner, but fully compliant with the current 12-foot side yard setback 18 feet west of that point, meaning that the total area of the building that is not compliant with today’s setbacks is nine square feet. Since the building has been there for more than three years, it is considered “grandfathered” and, therefore, “legal non-compliant”. Adding a second floor to the building would, therefore, create a total of nine square feet of non-compliant structure.

Mr. George asked if the observatory that was in the original application has been removed from the property or moved into the building “envelope”. Mr. Kelly replied that he is trying to move the structure, but he is having some difficulties.

A motion was made by Mr. George to grant the variance based upon the hardship being the undefined boundary lines which may, if defined, not even require a variance. As a condition of approval, Mr. George moved that the existing observatory structure be relocated off the property or within the building “envelope” within 90 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Daley, and unanimously carried.

C. 06-20 Application of Edward A. Jazlowiecki, Owner, requesting a side yard variance to relocate a shed, pursuant to Article 8, Section A, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations on property located at 15 Sachems Trail. R-40 Zone.

Roger Lear, attorney, presented a brief background description of this property and the application. He stated that the applicant now proposes to move the existing shed to a point 30 feet from the southern side property line, and exactly on the 40-foot side yard setback line on the western side, thereby requiring a ten-foot variance. Attorney Lear noted that this solution has been suggested and recommended by Connecticut State Judge Wagner and Town of Simsbury Attorney Robert DiCrescenzo. He further stated that there is some contention from a surveyor with Sanderson and Washburn as to where the property line actually lies.

Attorney Lear noted that the hardships are potential drainage problems and the possibility of encroaching on the leach field if the shed were to be moved any closer to the house, as confirmed by letters received from Marek Kement, Professional Engineer, and Ralph Butch, an excavator and septic system installer with Butch and Loveland Company.

Chairman Stempien opened the hearing to public comment and read into the record a letter in opposition of the application from W. Carlton and Catherine C. Coppersmith, 13 Sachems Trail.

Attorney Lear expressed opposition to the Carlton letter being admitted into the record because he did not receive it in advance of the meeting and did not have an opportunity to review it.

Donald Smith, Director of Forestry, State of Connecticut DEP, stated that he does not see a hardship and sees other areas where the shed could be located which would not require a variance. He asked the Board to deny the request for a variance. Mr. Smith also noted that there are various items besides the shed (play structure, litter, debris, etc.) which remain on State of Connecticut land, in violation of the town’s order in May 2005 to remove them.

Mr. Jazlowiecki stated that all debris and litter has been removed from the property. Mr. Beach replied that, when he visited the property two to three weeks ago, the debris had simply been moved into the woods. Mr. Smith also presented a memorandum, dated October 25, 2006, indicating that an inspection by State Forester Trafidlo on October 20, 2006, confirmed that numerous items, including debris, remain on State land.

Chairman Stempien appointed Craig MacCormac to serve as a voting member. Mr. MacCormac stated that he does not see the hardship as it was named by Attorney Lear, but, perhaps, photos of the property would help.

Mr. George noted that photos were viewed at a previous hearing. Attorney Lear replied that photos were not included in the records of the previous hearing which he received from Town Hall. Mr. Beach confirmed that photos are in the file, but the file is in a locked office to which he does not have access.