Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10/22/2014

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

REGULAR MEETING - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE NEXT MEETING

OCTOBER 22, 2014

I.     CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Gregory Piecuch called the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Hall.  The following members were also present:  Paul Cocchi, Dennis Fallon, Thomas Horan, Craig MacCormac and Katie Martin.  Also present were Rachel Blatt, Assistant Town Planner, Leslie Brigham, Commission Clerk and other interested parties. 

II.     APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Paul Cocchi was appointed to serve for Tegan Blackburn and Dennis Fallon was appointed to serve for Carol Bingham. 

III.  PUBLIC HEARING(s)

The Secretary read the following into the record:

Legal Notice Town of Simsbury Zoning Board of Appeals – Regular Meeting

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Simsbury will hold a Public Hearing at a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices, 933 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut, on the following:

Application #14-16 of Joseph and Ann Marie Grella, Owners, for a variance pursuant to Article Five, Section F.1, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to allow for the construction of an accessory building without a primary use located on the same lot on the property located at 7 Firetown Road (Map G10, Block 104, Lot 002).Zone R-15.

Application #14-17 of Chen & Gao Realty LLC, Owner, for Front and Side Yard and Max Coverage Variances pursuant to Article Eight, Section A; and Parking and Circulation Drive Minimum Setback Requirements to Side and Rear Property Lines Variances pursuant to Article Ten, Section E.3, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to accommodate the construction of a mixed-use building housing a restaurant on the first

floor and two 2-bedroom apartments on the second floor on the property located at 568 Hopmeadow Street (Map G12, Block 132, Lot 037).  Zone B-1.

At this hearing, interested persons may appear and be heard on the issues and written communications will be received.  A copy of the above is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, 933 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut, for public inspection.

Greg Piecuch, Chairman, Simsbury Zoning Board of Appeals.

The Applicants were welcomed and members of the public audience were invited to comment. 

14-16 - The applicant, Mr. Joseph Grella, 10 Firetown Road, noted that they also own the lot directly across the street at 7 Firetown Road.  He stated that they would like to put a garden shed (12 feet x 18 feet) on the lot at 7 Firetown Road.  Currently, the lot consists of 5,645 square feet or .103 acres and the shed would be located within all the proper setbacks from the side yard and the street.  There is also going to be a fence installed on both sides on the property line to add privacy and shield the shed.  The Applicant provided pictures of the lot at 7 Firetown Road as well as pictures of 10 Firetown Road.  The hardship the applicant is asking for is that their property at 10 Firetown Road has no room for a shed within the building lot. 

Chairman Piecuch noted that the survey map of 10 Firetown Road, as well as the house next door, is being submitted into the file.

The Applicant noted that 10 Firetown Road has a steep grade in the property that would not allow a shed to be built on.  The intention of the shed is to store items for their gazebo as well as their lawn mower. 

Board Member Martin asked the applicant why 7 Firetown Road is currently zoned as “land that is not to be considered an approved building lot”.  The applicant stated that when the State purchased this property in 1984 and redesigned Firetown Road, the house, that was originally on this lot, was torn down and almost 50% of the land was taken for the road.  Mr. Grella noted that a neighbor purchased the land from the State of Connecticut and then sold it to him because he wanted to put a shed on the property.  There was also a concern that the house on the corner of Firetown and West Street might be going commercial and he did not want them to acquire this piece of property for commercial use. 

Ms. Rachel Blatt, Assistant Town Planner, noted that the code states that, in order to have an accessory structure, you need to have a primary structure on the same property and this is a non-conforming lot under 15,000 but it is an existing lot. 

Chairman Piecuch read Article 5, Section F, Paragraph 1 which states that accessory buildings for uses are permitted in any zone, provided that accessory buildings structures and uses shall be located on the same lot as the principal building structure.

The Applicant noted that there is a two car garage around the back of the house and an area in the front that could be considered a garage but is used for a workshop and storage.  

Mr. Grella noted that any power on the lot will be provided by solar energy with low voltage.  He also noted that, besides the shed, he would like to have a vegetable and flower garden on the property.  The applicant stated that he would get water to the lot by placing his rain barrels in a loader and bring them over to the lot.  It was noted that there is currently no driveway on the lot and the applicant stated this would be a future project. 

Ms. Blatt referenced Article 8, Section B, No. 15 exception to the height area that sheds of 200 square feet or less can be located within 12 feet of a property line but may not be located in any front or side yard.

Ms. Jean Marecki, 6 Firetown Road, read from a statement that was given to Commission members.  She stated that she has resided in her home for 50 years and her concern is that there is going to be a fence on two sides facing the other neighbors.   Ms. Marecki stated that they are going to have to look at a shed every time they look out their window or go down their driveway and this will take away from the value of their property.  She questioned if Commission members have ever accepted any zoning change similar to this request where you have a shed being built across the street from the residence and the two properties are not physically attached to each other.  She also noted that the shed is being erected between two other residences and questioned if a driveway was going to be added to the property.  Ms. Marecki stated that it is dangerous to cross the road with a snow blower or tractor on this curve of the road and asked what is being done to address the safety concerns. 

Ms. Lisa Caesar, 45 Owens Brook Blvd, daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Marecki at 6 Firetown Road, noted that the home next door, which was Mr. Grella’s mother-in-law, is being sold and the applicant stored his equipment behind her garage.  Ms. Caesar stated they the reason they believe Mr. Grella would like to build this shed is that he will no longer be able to store his equipment behind this garage once the property is sold. 

Ms. Ashley Schwitter, 13 Firetown Road, stated that the Grellas are very good neighbors and they take very good care of their property.  She noted that she approves of this proposal for the garden shed, fence and organic garden and believes this will enhance the corner. 

Chairman Piecuch noted that he did receive Ms. Schwitter’s e-mail of October 2, 2014 with her comments.

Board Member Martin asked Ms. Blatt what would be involved if a driveway was to be added to the property.  Ms. Blatt stated that a permit would have to be obtained from the Engineering office. 

Mr. Vaughan Marecki, 6 Firetown Road, stated that there will be two fences facing two sides of the property and asked if they could have a fence blocking the shed from their view as well. 

Chairman Piecuch asked the applicant if he is aware of any other variance in the town of Simsbury that would establish precedent for what is being asked for.  Mr. Grella stated he does not.  Board Member MacCormac asked if the applicant has heard from the neighbor on the other side of the lot.  The applicant stated that he did speak with the other abutting neighbor and he stated that it did not matter to him as his house is currently on the market. 

Board Member Martin asked the applicant to address the safety concerns that the members consider one of the hardships.  Mr. Grella noted that Firetown Road is a busy road; however, he stated that he currently drives his lawn mower across the road to cut the grass as well as his utility tractor to move wood around and to push the snow from his driveway onto the lot.  He stated that there has never been an accident in front of his home since he moved there in 2000.  Ms. Ann Marie Grella stated that people have often commented on how well they take care of their property and that this is the intent of the property across the street by adding a beautiful shed, garden and other displays.  She noted that they have been talking about doing this for the past seven years and has nothing to with the sale of her mother’s home. 

Commissioner Piecuch closed the Public Hearing

Board Member Martin made a motion to approve the application to allow for the construction of an accessory building without a primary use with the hardship being no other reasonable place on the primary property. 

Board Member Horan seconded the motion.

The Board Members discussed the safety concerns for a busy road as well as the hardship with the property and that it is not the primary property.  Ms. Blatt noted that this is a unique request and is not a typical situation.  Board Member MacCormac stated that he believes the structure would be an attractive addition to the property.

The motion to approve Application #14-16 failed to pass with 1 Board member in favor 5 opposed.

14-17 Applicant of Chen & Gao Realty, LLC, Owner – Mr. Ed Lally, Engineer, representing Chen & Gao Realty, noted that the parcel is 15,222 feet and contains approximately .35 acres.  He noted that the prior application had some deficiencies or areas that could be approved upon.  He noted that the property is extremely small and negotiations have been taking place for some time for the owner of 568 Hopmeadow Street to purchase the Green Tea Restaurant property.  There was a home originally on the property that housed a tailor shop with a parking area.  The coverage, at that time, was around 55% and since then the building burnt down and was removed.  The coverage is now about 47% with the requirement zoned at 40%. 

The parcel purchased next door is predominately covered with pavement and a building with some pavement onto the abutting property.  The only grass on this property is a small area sliver near Hopmeadow and a small area around the existing sign.  Mr. Lally stated that, in his documentation, the property was very difficult to develop into the formal regulations with only a 12 foot width for a building.  There is a 15 foot separation to a driveway and the Town requires a 24 foot standard driveway to access parking in the rear, which would only leave 15 ½ feet between the edge of the drive and the other building line.  It was discussed with the Town to put in a parking lot in the front of the building but the Town was very persuasive in stating why it should not be done and Mr. Lally noted that this creates a hardship for the applicant.

Mr. Lally stated that the applicant has entered into a contract to purchase the abutting property and that the plan depends on this purchase.  The applicant is proposing to eliminate the current driveway that goes to the rear of the property and is proposing to put the new building in square to the existing building.  The entrance to the building will be moved somewhat to the rear of the and will use the two properties as one with the circulation.  The proposal is to remove pavement and increase the street scape of Hopmeadow Street and put an island in the center of the entrance way and narrow the entrance way.  It was also stated that the applicant will pull the pavement away from the property line. 

Mr. Lally noted that there is a regulation that states the all parking spaces have to be 9 x 18 feet, when there are two parking spaces nose to nose.  He stated that if a car drives up to a landscaped area, the nose hangs over and you would not need the spaces to be 18 feet long.  Mr. Lally noted other changes to the property including landscaping, handicap spaces, removing payment, adding trees and hedges and a gated dumpster enclosure in the back.   He noted that, with these changes, they are still over 40% coverage on this property and the new building is being held almost in line with the face of the adjacent building with one corner fairly close to the street. 

Mr. Lally stated that the building will be very attractive from Hopmeadow Street and they have to go to Design Review and Planning before they can get a building permit.  One of the plans is making the façade of the Green Tea building match the façade of the new building.  To facilitate this request, he created a cross easement document, which Board members have a copy of, which is a draft that has been reviewed by Town staff and that it did not specify the dumpster area was being shared.  The variance they have is 20 feet or 18.4 to the roof at this location and the Town’s set back is 25 feet.  The average set back exceeds 25 feet but the building is positioned uniquely to the street.  The average distance between the gutter and the street line, in a normal road situation, would be 10 feet, but this is 20 feet.  Another item that is unique is that 65% of this site cannot be developed and he noted that the prior building was covered with 55.5% of covered surface.  He stated that at 572 Hopmeadow Street, the Green Tea building has an existing hard service coverage of 95.3%.  The proposed condition would have 82.6%. 

The existing condition on combined site of hard surface is 76.7% and, when they are done, it will be at 73.2%, which will be placed in between adjacent parking lots to the north, along the side of the building to the south, against Hopmeadow Street and in the middle of the parking area.  Mr. Lally is asking for a special waiver/permit for the two feet on the parking spaces.

Board member Martin questioned if the Board could stipulate, if they were to grant the variance, that it is contingent on the sale of the Green Tea building.  Ms. Blatt noted that the variances are granted on the plans presented at this meeting. 

It was noted that the applicant will have to get a special permit from Zoning for the parking spaces to be 2 feet shorter than required.

Chairman Piecuch invited the public to speak.  There were no public speakers.

Chairman Piecuch closed the Public Hearing.

Board Member MacCormac made a motion to grant a variance for application 14-17 for the front and side yard and maximum coverage variances as indicated on the agenda and in consideration of the plans presented during the hearing, specifically the plan that is dated October 3, 2014 Chen & Gao Realty LLC variance plan prepared for.  In consideration of the hardship being that this particular lot is unique in its size and is difficult to utilize as such, given the Town zoning requirements and in order for the owner to make beneficial use of this property, as proposed.  Included in the application are the following seven variances for 568 Hopmeadow Street:

The application includes the following variances for 568 Hopmeadow Street:

Front yard setback:reduction by 6.6 ft.(25 ft. to 18.4 ft.)

Side yard setback – Southreduction by 13.4 ft.(20 ft. to 6.6 ft.)

Side yard setback - Northreduction by 3.6 ft.(20 ft. to 16.4.ft.)

Maximum Coverage:increase by 17.4%(40% to 57.4%)

Parking side yard setback - South:reduction by 8.2 ft.(15 ft. to 6.8 ft.)

Parking side yard setback - Northreduction by 3.3 ft.(15 ft. to 11.7 ft.)

Parking rear yard setbackreduction by 3.5 ft.(10 ft. to 6.5 ft.)

Board Member Martin seconded the motion.

The Board Members noted that this would be a great improvement for the area. 

Chairman Piecuch added a condition approval to the motion that there be a cross easement in a form acceptable to the Town attorney, executed by the owner of the subject property and the adjacent property to right access

Board Member MacCormac amended his motion to include the above.

The motion was passed unanimously.

IV.  UPDATE RULES AND PROCEDURES

This has been tabled for the next meeting.

V.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 17, 2014

Board Member Horan made a motion to approve the September 17, 2014 minutes as amended. 

Board Member Fallon seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

VI.  OTHER MATTERS AS MAY PROPERLY COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION

Nothing was discussed at this meeting.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Board Member Martin made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50P.M. 

Board Member Horan seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

Gregory Piecuch, Chairman