Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 09/23/2020
Subject to Approval
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS-MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2020
The public hearing was web-based on Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/2574297243
Meeting ID: 257 429 7243
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Martin called the meeting to order at 7:04pm
II. ROLL CALL
1. Appointment of Alternatives: Ram Kaza promoted to a full voting member
Present: Thomas Hazel, Ram Kaza, Ali Rice, JoAnn Hogan, Joshua Michelson, Mark Freeman, Steven Antonio, Katie Martin
Absent: Sharon Thomas and Stacey Walczak
III. APPLICATIONS
Chairman Martin asked Mr. Antonio to read in the public notice for the public hearing applications. Mr. Antonio read out loud both of the applications for the public hearing. Chairman Martin explained that all interested parties will be heard.
1. Public Hearings
A. Application #20-12 of Jesus Cobo and Daniel Castle, Applicants/Owners for a variance of Section 3 of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to construct a garage addition on the property located at 298 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map G15, Block 153, Lot 015)
• The applicants explained they purchased this property a month and a half ago and they had been deciding on what to do with the property before investing. They explained that most of the property is in the flood zone so they would like to construct a garage but the problem that they are finding is that anywhere else on the property, other than in front of the house, would be subject to the FEMA flood area and they would have to play the flood insurance while also risk having the garage flooded. It was also explained that the road in front of their house was shifted as there used to be a sharper corner but due to accidents there was a re-design of the road which caused the property line to be farther away from the road where they would like to have the garage than other sections of the property and so it is putting them in the range of needing a variance. The applicants presented additional documents not included in the package so Chairman Martin noted this has to be put in the packet as part of the application. The applicant will send over a hardcopy to Mr. Hazel. The applicants shared their screen and presented a close up of the property via aerial map which outlined the flood zone. They explained they would like to maintain the integrity of the house without blocking it. The map had an outline of where they would like the garage to be, near the front of the house. They presented two photos that showed what the property would look like with and without the garage from a view of down the street via google maps. They stated they have done measurements; it will be 40 feet from the road and 16 feet from their neighbor. The request is for a 3 bay garage that is connected to the back of the house while still maintaining the feel and look of the property. They presented a before and after photoshopped picture to the Commission of what the house would looks like before and then what it would look like after the garage is built. There is also a barn behind the house. Mr. Kaza asked if there is a garage there currently and they stated no there isn’t. Chairman Martin asked if they were to shrink it to a 2 bay garage how would that impact the variance that they are requesting. They explained it would be reduced about 9 feet. She told Mr. Hazel that on the agenda it should clearly state the variance that is being requested. Mr. Hazel explained it is encroaching 43 feet into the front yard setback and on the south side of the house, it would be 33 feet encroached at the greatest into the side yard setback. Mr. Hazel read the staff report out loud that included the encroachments. He also stated that would be reflected in the language of the variance if this were approved. Chairman Martin asked the applicant if they would explore a 2 car garage and stated this is quite a large request for a variance from both sides. Mr. Hazel stated in running with the averages, their depth isn’t large, it is about 30x40; making it a 34 encroachment from the front yard. He stated a 9 foot reduction would give them plenty of space for a 2 car garage. Mr. Antonio stated that if you go to google street view there is a telephone pole in front of where the garage is to be placed which is a main feed for the house and barn; the building laws preclude building anything under a main feed. He stated they will have to discuss how they will get power to their house and barn because the power cannot go over any structure. The applicants explained that was brought up by many different contractors and they were recommended to go into the garage rather than into the house, having the main feed in the garage. They further explained that pole only has a telephone wire. Chairman Martin asked for the applicant to explain how the property line was shifted by the town. They reported it wasn’t the property line that was shifted it was the road that was shifted to straighten out the sharp curve that was causing accidents. The applicant explained that since the road was shifted out it has caused the property line to be farther out from the portion of the road. Mr. Antonio explained that doesn’t change their setback. Mr. Antonio told the applicants that there are two other avenues that can be considered, one is to move the FEMA boundary by petitioning to move the floodplain and also asked if they have considered to put this in the area of the backyard behind the house where the lower section is. The applicants stated they were told that any part of the garage that possibly touches the FEMA flood area is subject to flood insurance and could flood. They also stated the neighbors have told them that area has flooded in the past and so they feel that having FEMA come out and retrace that may work against them. Chairman Martin noted that being in a floodplain is a hardship for this property and not having a garage can be viewed as a safety concern and feels it is a reasonable use of the property but is struggling with the size of the variance and that it will be much closer to the front and the side yard. She asked if they would explore a smaller variance with a two car garage. They stated they can explore it but were hoping for a 3 car garage as they have a farm truck and were hoping to store it in the garage. Chairman Martin asked if the truck can be placed in the barn but the applicants explained they will be having chickens in the barn. They stated they would have to demo part of the historic barn and it would not be easy to have it fit the truck. Mr. Kaza also asked the applicants to explore a 2 car garage instead of a 3 car garage so that the variance can be reduced. Mr. Freeman stated he was in agreement with exploring a 2 car garage and asked if they will be connecting the garage to the home. The applicant stated yes and used the map they shared on the ZOOM screen to post out where they will be connecting the garage to the home. Mr. Antonio explained to the applicants that they can change the gradient and change the floodplain elevation if they got top soil. He stated this would expand their whole back yard. They stated they looked at the ability to build on the flood zone and was told that it is possible but that whatever displacement made to the flood zone would have to be made up on the property, so they would have to figure out a way to displace water somewhere else significantly if they wanted to move the garage somewhere to the back of the house. The applicants are unsure if that is possible. Mr. Antonio stated he disagrees as they are mixing up a floodplain with a conservation type of easement. He stated if there is an easement on the land that is different. The applicant explained that if they were to displace that and if they were to fill their backyard it would affect their neighbors and could cause their neighbors to flood more and disrupt the neighbors flood lines. Mr. Hazel stated he is not the floodplain manager for the town but knows that their laws any structure would have to have two feet of freeboard. He stated in regards to compensatory storage, filling versus giving volume back at a net zero that can help the floodplain, he doesn’t know the regulations and reported that Mr. Glidden is the certified floodplain manager and the applicants would have to speak to him. Mr. Antonio said it could be done by excavation. In which the applicants explained they had spoken with Mr. Glidden prior to coming to this Commission. Mr. Antonio stated they are getting off task and he didn’t mean to drag them down but he feels part of the Commission’s job is to research other alternatives. Chairman Martinshe feels this is exactly the job of the Commission and explained there are potentially other places to put the garage and asked the applicants to get more guidance from Mr. Glidden regarding the floodplains. She stated if Mr. Glidden comes back to explain that the floodplain would be too much of a hardship than that would be good for the Commission to know. She stated if they want to keep it where they desire for it to be built then they should consider a 2 car garage and the Commission would like to know the specifics for a 2 car garage. She stated at this point she will not be moving in favor of this application. Mr. Hazel stated under state statute this can be tabled for further review at the next meeting and that will meet the Commission’s 65 day deadline for a decision; so if they have questions that need answers they can request this be revisited. Chairman Martin agreed that was a good idea. Mr. Antonio asked for the site plan also. Mr. Hazel stated that was part of the packet as a DOT site plan. Mr. Antonio stated it is hard to clearly see on the site plan that was included where the setbacks are and would like something a little more black and white. The applicants stated they were hoping to move forward but seeing as there is apprehension, they are in agreement to table it. They asked the Commission what specifically they are asking for as they feel like they will not have any further information to provide for a 2 car garage outside of what they provided today. Mr. Antonio told the applicants that the less of a deviance they ask for the more likely they can achieve it. The applicant stated they can move the structure closer to the house to a certain point but they are not sure they would be able to drive a car inside of it if it gets too close. Chairman Martin stated what she is thinking is that usually the garages are attached so you have access to the house from the garage instead of having a separate walkway is a way to condense that. She stated they try to be reasonable and accommodate good proper use so they can enjoy their property within reason so she is hoping they can find middle ground. No further thoughts from the Commission. Chairman Martin asked for this application to be tabled and requested that the applicants work with the town and re-present. She explained the application would remain open. The applicant asked if the new plan should be a 2 car garage with a reduction in the side walkway. Chairman Martin stated yes and to talk with Mr. Glidden about moving the garage and shifting the floodplain, also to ask about grading that could happen to reduce the floodplain and move it on the other side where you don’t even need a variance. She asked the applicants to explore all options. The applicant stated that part of the beauty of the property is the beauty from the back of the house and if they built something there, they would lose the view and the feel of the house that they would like to preserve if they were to move the placement of the garage. They would prefer to put it where it is shown on the map and do not feel that the other options are viable for them. The applicant asked if the Commission would like something in writing from Mr. Glidden as they have found it tough to get in contact with Mr. Glidden since COVID. Mr. Hazel stated he will facilitate a response/discussion from Mr. Glidden and will get something in writing from him as to what the options are and aren’t and the reasonings behind the findings. The vote will be held until the regularly scheduled meeting. Chairman Martin asked for a motion to table application #20-12.
• Mr. Antonio made a motion to table application #20-12 in the hopes that there be further clarification for alternatives to moving the structure, reducing the size of the structure or moving it somewhere else in an adjusted floodplain zone. Mr. Kaza seconded the motion.
MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (6-0-0)
B. Application #20-13 of Guy & Francine Casalino, Applicants/Owners for a variance of Section 3 of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to construct a front porch at the property located at 32 Arrowhead Drive (Assessor’s Map A16, Block 307, Lot 030) Zone R-40
• Guy Casalino presented the application. He explained they are looking to put a 8 foot covered front porch the length of the front of the house. He stated based upon the original plot plan on town record the 8 foot encroaches 4 feet into the setback that’s on the original plan. Mr. Casalino stated the line looks like it goes to the road which is 67 feet from the house. He asked for the variance to be 4 feet into the setback. Chairman Martin asked Mr. Casalino for the hardship as to why they cannot place it somewhere else. Mr. Casalino answered stating because it is a front porch. Chairman Martin stated as part of the application there is a letter from the neighbors in support of this application with no objections. Mr. Antonio asked for the depth. Mr. Casalino stated it will be 8 feet which is a standard size to allow seating on the front porch. Chairman Martin asked if there are other porches in the immediate area. Mr. Casalino stated that they are the only cape style house, most are colonial houses with no front porch. Chairman Martin stated this application seems pretty straight forward. Mr. Freeman agreed that this application seems very straightforward, they have neighbor support and it will be a nice addition to the home. Mr. Michelson asked about the 1 neighbor that they didn’t get a signature from and Mr. Casalino stated that is a house 2 houses down. Chairman Martin asked if they have any safety considerations such as it would be safer to have a front porch. Mr. Casalino agreed and stated for people coming to the house it would nice for them to have a covered area to walk to the door. Chairman Martin asked Mr. Hazel to confirm the size of the variance; 4 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Mr. Antonio stated it is an additional hardship that the applicant has two front yards to deal with. Mr. Hazel confirmed there will be no encroachment to the other front yard. Ms. Hogan stated the applicant isn’t asking for more than an 8 frontporch, with an 8 front porch being kind of narrow for it to be useful. Chairman Martin closed the hearing and asked for a motion on this application.
• Ms. Hogan made a motion to close the hearing for application 20-13 of Guy and Francine Casalino, Applicants/Owners for a variance of Section 3 of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to construct a front porch at the property located at 32 Arrowhead Drive, seeking a 4 foot front yard variance. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion.
MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, 0 abstentions (6-0-0)
2. Discussion and Possible Action
A. Application #20-12 of Jesus Cobo and Daniel Castle, Applicants/Owners for a variance of Section 3 of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to construct a garage addition on the property located at 298 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map G15, Block 153, Lot 015)
• No discussion as this application was tabled for further clarification on alternative strategies presented during the public hearing.
B. Application #20-13 of Guy & Francine Casalino, Applicants/Ownders for a variance of Section 3 of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations to construct a front porch at the property located at 32 Arrowhead Drive (Assessor’s Map A16, Block 307, Lot 030) Zone R-40
• ChairmanMartin noted that she feels it is a pretty reasonable use of a property with a front porch, with the elements it is a nice safety feature of having a front porch, that a porch is a good thing to have on a property and that the neighbors are in favor. Mr. Freeman agreed. Ms. Hogan noted they are asking for a minimal size variance for a useful front porch.
MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions (6-0-0)
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of August 26, 2020 regular meeting
• Chairman Martin noted the minutes were very extensive and comprehensive.
• Ms. Hogan made a motion to approve the minutes from the 8/26/2020 minutes. Mr. Antonio seconded.
MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (6-0-0)
Chairman Martin made another request to Mr. Hazel that the variance be put on the agenda for each application. Mr. Hazel stated that is why they include the staff report which outlines the variance. He stated he cannot change what the applicant provides in their application but stated they do request the applicant clearly outlines the variance on the application. Mr. Antonio stated that on the application there is a request for the list of names of address’ of all property owners around the applicants; he asked for the purpose of this. Ms. Barkowski stated she takes the applicant’s list and pulls up her own list and then notices get sent out to the neighbors, along with publication, informing everyone of the application.
V. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Antonio made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:06pm.
MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (6-0-0)
Respectfully Submitted,
Amanda Werboff
Commission Clerk