Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 06/26/2013 ADOPTED
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
June 26, 2013
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Tegan Blackburn called the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:04 P. M. in the Main Meeting Room at Simsbury Town Hall. The following members were also present: Jacqueline Battos, Carol Bingham, Paul Cocchi, Dennis Fallon, Craig MacCormac, and Greg Piecuch. Also present were Lynn Charest, Zoning Compliance Officer; Howard Beach, Zoning Compliance Officer; Lisa Gray, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Blackburn appointed Dennis Fallon to serve for Thomas Horan, Jacqueline Battos to serve for Katie Martin, and Greg Piecuch to serve as Secretary.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
13-03 – Application of Carl T. Landolina, Agent for James Bosworth, Owner, for Side and Rear Yard Variances to accommodate an existing dock, pursuant to Article Eight, Section A, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations, on property located at 4 Apple Lane (Map D08, Block 147, Lot 2). R-40 Zone.
Attorney Carl Landolina informed the Board that his client, James Bosworth, was not present because he had to attend a wake and, therefore, he doesn’t have the affidavit regarding the placement of the sign on the property. He asked that the Public Hearing proceed, but remain open to the July Regular Meeting to allow time for Mr. Bosworth to submit the affidavit.
Attorney Mark Brance, representing Alan and Dorothy Hixon, also asked that the Public Hearing proceed.
Chairman Blackburn made the decision to proceed tonight with the Public Hearing.
Atty. Landolina explained that his client purchased the property in 2009 and was told by his attorney at the time that his property extended to the middle of Hop Brook, which is flowing behind the rear yard. This information was taken from the map supplied to the attorney. Assuming that was true, Mr. Bosworth installed a dock, without approval, to improve his enjoyment of the brook. The dock, as it stands today, extends 34.6 feet into the side yard and 11.2 feet into the rear yard setbacks.
Mr. Bosworth was first notified by the town of the violation in July 2012. In January 2013, Mr. Bosworth appeared before the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission and was granted a permit to keep the dock in its place as removal of the dock would cause further disturbance in the wetland. Subsequent to the wetlands violation, the property was surveyed and found to be in violation of Zoning Regulations.
Atty. Landolina continued by explaining that the nature of the property and the watercourse requires encroachment into the rear yard setback in order to install a dock, and logical placement requires encroachment into the side yard.
Attorney Mark Branse distributed the document “Aggrievement and Standing in Land Use Appeals” and stated that the applicant cannot simply construct a structure and apply for land use permits on another’s property. He also distributed and displayed maps depicting the entire subdivision and the property in 1966 and 1971. None of the maps showed the property line at the center of the brook. Atty. Branse then distributed the Dock Location Plan showing that 18.4 feet of the dock was actually constructed on the Hixons’ property.
Atty. Branse asserted that, while there may be a hardship argument for extending a dock into the rear yard setback, there is no hardship for constructing it in the side yard. He further stated that the dock is reflective, out of scale, very large, and intrusive to neighbors, and suggested that the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission approved the dock because removing it would have caused too much disturbance.
Mr. Piecuch asked Atty. Branse for his opinion on the applicant’s assertion that there are “topographical constraints” requiring him to locate the dock inside the side yard setback. Atty. Branse replied that he believed that the applicant’s “topographical constraint” is that the water is closer to the applicant’s home in the side yard.
Chairman Blackburn opened the hearing to public comment. Alan Hixon argued that the dock is not in the most logical place if one knows where the children exit the home. He also noted that most of the watercourse is on his property and, if Mr. Bosworth had kept the dock on his own property, it would have only extended two feet into the water.
Robert Helfand, VP of Hop Hollow Tax District, restated the issue of Mr. Bosworth building the dock without approval, partially on the Hixon property.
Atty. Landolina took issue with Atty. Branse’s assertion that the Bosworths knew they were erecting the deck in violation of wetlands and zoning regulations and disregarded that fact and proceeded with construction. He stated that the Bosworths did not intentionally violate the regulations.
Roger Vone, 15 Hop Hollow Rd., argued that the Bosworths were not ignorant to the regulations because they had a previous wetlands violation on their property.
Gary Kevorkian, Lot 4 Apple Lane, said the subdivision covenants state that docks in excess of 12 feet are prohibited. He further stated that he has been living on and enjoying his property without a dock for 20 years.
A motion was made by Mr. Piecuch to continue the public hearing to the July Regular Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fallon, and unanimously carried.
13-06 – Application of Michael Gattinger, Owner, for a side yard variance to accommodate the addition of a carport, pursuant to Article Eight, Section A, or the Simsbury Zoning Regulations, on property located at 19 Winterset Lane (Map G07, Block 103, Lot 061). R-40 OS Zone.
Michael Gattinger explained that he is seeking a 6-foot side yard variance to construct a carport to store a third vehicle. He stated that this is the most logical location for the carport as it is adjacent to his existing garage and can share the existing driveway. He also noted that the pie-shape of the lot, location of the septic system on the property, and topography further inhibit construction in other locations.
Mr. Gattinger said he has discussed his proposal with neighbors and has received no opposition.
Chairman Blackburn opened the hearing to public comment. Karen Topalis, 21 Winterset Lane, stated that she would prefer that the carport not be built because it will be too close to her property and would be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.
Board members discussed at length options for reducing the amount of the variance.
Chairman Blackburn asked staff if the Board can place conditions on the variance. Mr. Beach replied that that has happened in the past.
A motion was made by Ms. Bingham to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Piecuch, and unanimously carried.
A motion was made by Mr. MacCormac to grant a side yard variance of no more than 6 feet due to the unique shape of the lot. The motion was seconded by Ms. Bingham. Mr. MacCormac voted in favor; all others were opposed. Motion failed.
IV. MINUTES
May 22, 2013
A motion was made by Ms. Bingham to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2013 meeting, as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Piecuch, and unanimously carried.
V. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mr. Piecuch to adjourn the meeting at 9:16 P. M.
___________________________
Greg Piecuch, Acting Secretary