Print
Share page with AddThis

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 08/26/2020

Meeting date: 
Wednesday, August 26, 2020

Subject to Approval

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS-MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, August 26th, 2020
The public hearing was web-based on Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/2574297243
Meeting ID: 257 429 7243

I. CALL TO ORDER - Mr. Antonio called the meeting to order at 7:01pm. Mr. Antonio led the meeting due to Ms. Martin’s absence.

II. ROLL CALL

1. Appointment of Alternatives: N/A

Present: Steven Antonio, Joann Hogan, Mark Freeman, Ali Rice, Ram Kaza, Joshua Michelson, Thomas Hazel

Absent: Katie Martin

III. APPLICATIONS
1. Public Hearings
A. Application #20-09: of Jonathan Lydecker, Owner/Applicant for a variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 3.9 to construct a front porch at the property located at 11 East Tomstead Road (Assessor’s Map G08, Block 120, Lot 058B). Zone R-15
• Mr. Antonio asked if anyone was there to speak on behalf of the applicant and asked for an explanation for the project and the hardship from the applicant, Mr. Lyndecker. Mr. Lyndecker explained it is a simple front porch, that will encroach on the front yard setback 2 feet on the north side of the porch and 4 feet on the south side of the porch, to add more outdoor living space to increase value of the property. He confirmed this was discussed with neighbors and there was no negative feedback. Mr. Antonio noted that the Commission has to develop a hardship to explain why they can’t put this porch somewhere else on the house and asked why they chose the front of the house. Mr. Lydecker reported there is no other building space at the house and stated it is designed to be a front porch. Ms. Hogan asked if there is a limitation in the backyard. Mr. Lyndecker explained there was due to the septic tank and stated there is also a patio with an addition already put on the back of the house. Mr. Antonio stated with the area view the septic is on the left side which Mr. Lydecker agreed. Mr. Antonio asked for clarification that the only thing behind the house at this point is a deck and Mr. Lydecker corrected him stating it is a patio. Mr. Antonio asked for any questions from the Commission members. Ms. Hogan explained the hardship asks for a need not just a want and that is her struggle at this time; this has to be more than a want or an ascetic change, it has to be something that is keeping you from using your property in a reasonable way. Mr. Lydecker explained their property line is close to their neighbors on the right and left so they want more living space in the front. He stated they cannot add anything on the left or the right. Ms. Hogan asked if there is a road in the front and the back of this house and Mr. Lydecker noted that is correct. She further stated that the applicant has two front yards and the front yard is much further from the yard than the backyard. Mr. Hazel chimed in confirming that under the zoning regulations this applicant is considered to have two front yards. Mr. Antonio asked for the depth of the addition, seeing the variance being asked for is 2 feet on the north and 4 feet on the south. Mr. Lydecker stated he believes it to be 8 feet from the front of the house. It was explained by Mr. Hazel, that even if the porch was reduced there would still be a variance. Ms. Hogan asked if the variance from the front of the house to the road is 2 feet or 4 feet. Mr. Antonio stated both because it is a diagonal line. Mr. Hazel explained to the Commission members that the house is slightly angled. Ms. Hogan clarified the only variance is to the East Thompson road. There were no other questions. Mr. Antonio moved that the public hearing of this application be closed. The motion was made in the affirmative. Ms. Hogan made a motion to pass application #20-09 for Lydecker, for a variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 3.9 to construct a front porch at the property located at 11 East Tomstead Road; 2 foot north, 4 foot south variance request. Mr. Michelson seconded the motion.

B. Application #20-10: of Aaron Strindberg, Applicant: JayMac LLC, Owner for a variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 4.5 to allow a residential use for the property located at 558 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map G12, Block 132, Lot 035). Zone B-1
• Mr. Antonio asked Mr. Hazel if it asks for a coverage adjustment in the application packet as well. Mr. Hazel replied stating it has to do with the percentage of residential and the zone; usually the residential can’t be more than 50% of the commercial use. He stated the applicant is looking to do 100% residential. Ms. Hogan asked if the applicant is requesting to revert the property back to what is used to be. Mr. Hazel agreed. Mr. Strindberg was asked to summarize his application. He explained the property was bought back in 2008 and it was residential when he bought it and isn’t sure when it went to B1 as the previous owner didn’t own a business there. He reported they had a business there for many years but about 2.5 years ago they moved their business down the street, and they desire to either sell or lease. However, he stated they did not know they could not sell it as a residential and stated they have not had luck with selling it or leasing it as a business. He reported the primary complaint is that there is not enough parking for a business. Mr. Strindberg asked the Ensign-Bickford, the business to the southern part of their property, if they would lease the parking to them. Mr. Strindberg explained Ensign-Bickford came back with a proposal of a lease for 25 years with an amount of $541.66 per month to lease the property and would then have to install a parking lot there for about $6,000 and would be responsible to maintain the property. Mr. Strindberg stated they currently only have a slot for 4 parking spaces which is why they approached Ensign-Bickford about leasing the parking lot. They feel the cost would be considered a hardship and isn’t sure that would meet the needs of people who might want to lease or buy the property. He explained they were told by a relator that if it could be made available to make it residential, they would have high probability to lease or sell it. Mr. Hazel stepped in to clarify the percentage he gave earlier stating he did get it wrong; he stated in a permitted business use, residential use is clearly accessory to the principal business use as designed as part of the business complex if the following applies, residential use must be located above the principal use in the total square footage of all residential does not exceed 40% of the total floor area. Mr. Hazel apologized for providing the incorrect percentage at the beginning and reiterate that it is 40% not 50% and that this applicant is trying to make it 100%. Mr. Antonio asked for clarification on the lease amount; does it includes taxes or is it just the general maintenance. Mr. Strindberg stated taxes were not in addition. Mr. Antonio asked if any other Commissioner members had questions. Mr. Michelson asked if when it was purchased it was residential, in which mr. Strindberg agreed and stated it had been residential from its inception in 1917. Ms. Rice reported she read the letter in 2008 requesting a parking lot. She asked Mr. Strindberg if the intentions were to switch it to more of a business rather than residential or did they just want a parking lot to have some business in the house and keep it some residential. He explained there were no parking spots at all there and they moved a business in, a psychiatric business, and so they needed some parking. He stated it wasn’t so much to make it a business but that there was absolutely no parking. Mr. Antonio asked if he was the one who requested the driveway and then switched it to a B1 by putting the psychiatric business there. Mr. Strindberg reported they did not switch it to a B1 and he is not sure how or when that happened. He stated when they purchased the property their relator told them it could be used for either residential or business and they took her word for it at that time. Mr. Antonio asked Mr. Hazel if there is much residential around this neighborhood. Mr. Hazel stated everything around it is not residential, one of the reasons they couldn’t change the zone to residential. He further reported it would be spot zoning, which is not allowed under state law, so cannot change the zone to residential, they have to ask for a variance to change the percentage of usage. Mr. Hazel explained they are not changing the zone just varying the use, the zone would stay a B1 zone or surrounded by either B1 or I2. Ms. Hogan noted the only house around it would be across the street. Mr. Antonio asked to clarify the location for his memory, which the Commission members assisted with. Ms. Hogan asked Mr. Strindberg if there is a back-access road. He stated the rails to trails runs behind their property. Ms. Rice asked Mr. Strindberg if the property was purchased with the intent to make this an office space. Mr. Strindberg stated it was the intention to put a business there as their relator told them they could see it as either a business or residential down the road, but she was not well informed. Mr. Freeman asked if they were looking to make it a multi or single family. Mr. Strindberg stated only a single family. Mr. Antonio asked if the neighbors were contacted. Mr. Strindberg stated they spoke with Benny who owns the property next to it and he is fine with it. Mr. Antonio asked if anyone has any further questions while they are in public hearing mode. Mr. Antonio asked to close the public hearing application 20-10 and move into discussion mode with the Commission members. Ms. Hogan made a motion to pass application #20-10 for Aaron Strindberg, Applicant: JayMac LLC, Owner for a variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 4.5 to allow a residential use for the property located at 558 Hopmeadow Street. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion.

C. Application #20-11: of Lorri DiBattisto, Applicant; Regina Pynn and Matthew Edwards, Owners for a variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 3.9 to construct an addiction at the property located at 25 Walker Driver (Assessor’s map E14, Block 131, Lot 052). Zone R-40
• Ms. DiBattiso is requesting to construct an addition to 25 Walker Drive. Ms. DiBattisto spoke on behalf of the applicants. She went over the floor plan that was submitted to the Commission members in the applicant package. She reported the design will be to the right-hand side of the house to allow this young growing family to have people over and to have a separate master bedroom away from the children when they get older. She stated the way the original house lot was laid out in 1953 had a front lot line set at 36 feet and based upon their research of the newer zoning regulations for zone R40, the 36 was increased to 50 feet. She stated if that had not changed, they would not be before this Commission. Ms. DiBattisto explained the applicants desire to stay in their neighborhood and would like to increase their home enjoyment. Ms. DiBattisto reported the variance is a hardship in the fact that the zoning regulations changed. She also pointed out that the Commission members have 5 letters of support from the neighbors. Ms. Rice asked on page 12 of the application packet submitted, the floor plan, where would the addition be added on to the existing floor plan. Ms. DiBattisto responded that it is on the right-hand side of the house, everything to the right of the kitchen about 633 square feet, 15 feet wide 41 1/2 feet back. She further explained this would include a master bedroom, closet, bathroom, and family room. Mr. Antonio asked if it was considered to put the proposed bedroom behind the flex space which would put them within the setback lines. She explained the flex space is the backyard which is used for the children along with a deck and so they wanted the enjoyment of the home to be together and as close as possible. Mr. Antonio asked if they are on city sewer and it was stated they are. Mr. Michelson asked if the extension is put on the other side of the house it appears it would be within the zone. Ms. DiBattisto stated that side is a split level, so it isn’t necessarily logical for the elevation and leveling of the house taking into consideration having young children and wanting to be on the same floor as them. She further noted that would increase their construction costs and that is also the side of their driveway. Mr. Hazel noted the left side would be encroaching the front yard along with the side yard. Ms. DiBattisto stated they are only asking for the front setback variance. Mr. Antonio reported he had just looked the home up on google and the right side does fit well with the lot. Ms. Rice asked what they will do with the chimney. Ms. DiBattisto stated the fireplace will remain and, in the plan, and elevations the chimney is still there. There were no further questions. Ms. Hogan made a motion to pass application #20-11 of DiBattisto for variance to the zoning regulation 3.9 to construct and addition to the required front yard; they are looking for a 12.5 foot variance on the northwest side of the house. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion.

2. Discussion and Possible Action
A. Application #20-09: of Jonathan Lydecker, Owner/Applicant for a variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 3.9 to construct a front porch at the property located at 11 East Tomstead Road (Assessor’s Map G08, Block 120, Lot 058B). Zone R-15
• The discussion was led by Mr. Antonio who noted there is no negative feedback from the neighbors. He validated the need for a hardship stating there would not be much of a depth if they remain in their setbacks. Ms. Hogan explained she understands having two front yards, doesn’t feel the depth is excessive and feels the smallest variance is being asked for to have it be a worthwhile addition. Mr. Freeman agreed stating aesthetically it will add value to the home and he feels having the two front yards is hard so he would agree with Ms. Hogan. Ms. Rice stated she agrees with what was already said however, she feels they could do something extra with the patio in the back but understands the frustration with having two roads in the front and the back. She also stated she noticed the property is very old and understands that can be restrictive as well. Mr. Michelson stated he doesn’t feel there is anything additional to add. He stated he understands the hardship of having two front yards and doesn’t feel there is anything negative about a small variance. Mr. Kaza stated he had nothing further and was in agreement. The discussion was closed. Ms. Hogan made a motion to approve the application #20-09 of Jonathan Lydecker application for a 2- and 4-foot variance of the property at East Tomstead Road for a front porch 2 north and 4 south not to exceed that. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (6-0-0)

B. Application #20-10: of Aaron Strindberg, Applicant: JayMac LLC, Owner for a variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 4.5 to allow a residential use for the property located at 558 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map G12, Block 132, Lot 035). Zone B-1
• Ms. Rice lead the Commissions discussion stating that she feels the lack of communication is the biggest hardship; the realtor didn’t have the best information and feels the applicant tried other ways to resolve this. Mr. Freeman stated he thinks that since there is a large green space between the home and the next business and also if they desire to sell it maybe this applicant can get a young family there. Ms. Hogan noted she feels this applicant did research and tried to make it into a viable business location. She also stated she feels the cost of the parking spaces is very expensive. She stated they haven’t had any real offers for someone to buy it as a business location and so she does feel there is a hardship in maintaining it as a business and the fact that they did not know it was zoned as only a business in that way she feels it is a hardship. Mr. Kaza stated he feels it is too expensive to lease the parking spots and agrees it is a hardship. Mr. Antonio asked Mr. Hazel if they will go along with what the applicant is requesting will this establish some sort of limitation as this is looking to be more of a business district. Mr. Hazel stated it follows the property not the ownership so it could always still have commercial and residential fix under B1 but could also be 100% residential under variance. Ms. Hogan stated she sees a bit of an advantage if it is flexible that way as it would not be a good situation if it sits empty. Mr. Michelson stated he does not feel the first option to amend the zoning regulations is relevant here but thinks it is something that the Zoning Commission should look into even though he understands that isn’t something for this Commission. Ms. Rice made a motion to approve application #20-10 of Aaron Strindberg, variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 4.5 to allow a residential use for the property located at 558 Hopmeadow Street to increase the residential use of the business zone from 40% to 100%; the hardship is that they have attempted other ways to add parking spaces and it is one building surrounded by multiple other businesses. Ms. Hogan seconded.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (6-0-0)

C. Application #20-11: of Lorri DiBattisto, Applicant; Regina Pynn and Matthew Edwards, Owners for a variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations Section 3.9 to construct an addiction at the property located at 25 Walker Driver (Assessor’s map E14, Block 131, Lot 052). Zone R-40
• Mr. Antonio led the discussion and started by stating this is the most support letters he has ever received and feels that carries weight. He also stated he understands the hardship as he looks at the line of the house as it would be strange to shift the whole addition back. Mr. Freeman noted he would agree and stated if you look at the home and the surrounding homes it makes sense to put that addition on that side. Mr. Michelson stated he feels there is substantial thought put into alternatives and agrees this is the only option that makes sense. Mr. Kaza stated he read all of the supporting documentation and agrees with the hardship. Ms. Rice stated she feels they have thought about other areas to put the addition and they have overwhelming support from the neighbors. Ms. Hogan had no further discussion points and felt it was well thought out and agrees with all Commission members. Ms. Hogan made a motion to approve application #20-11 DiBattisto applicant and the owners Regina Pynn and Matthew Edwards 25 Walker Driver for a 12.5 foot variance of the Simsbury Zoning Regulation section 3.9 to construct an addition within the required front yard; the hardship exists because of zoning regulations that were created after the house was built which limits what can be done and with keeping with the style of the house and neighborhood the 12.5 foot variance would make sense. Ms. Rice seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (6-0-0).

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the WEDNESDAY July 22nd, 2020 regular meetings

• Mr. Freeman and Ms. Hogan reported the regular meeting minutes from 7/22/20 looked good. Ms. Hogan made a motion to accept the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting minutes from 7/22/20. Ms. Rice seconded.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (6-0-0).
•
V. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Michelson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:58pm.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (6-0-0)

Respectfully Submitted,

Amanda Werboff
Commission Clerk