TOWN OF REDDING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 21, 2006—8:00 P.M.
TOWN HALL HEARING ROOM
Present:
Philip Bronson, Chairman
Robert Morton
Andrea Cotton
Absent: Mike Cardillo, Beth Williams
Alternates: Heloise Fahan for Andrea Cotton; Bruce Given for Mike Cardillo
Also Present: Jo-An Brooks, Land Use
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m.
REGULAR APPLICATIONS:
0206-1: 169 Picketts Ridge Road; Mark Ciferri, Deborah McCarty, Owners: request variance to reduce side setback from 40 feet to 39 feet 2 inches to accommodate an existing structure.
Mr. Ciferri presented the application to the Board, requesting the variance to accommodate a new mud room/garage addition, the northern most front right corner of which is in question.
He stated that prior to construction of the addition a measurement was taken from a metal stake with an orange flag, assumed to be the property line, resulting in what he thought to be at least 50 feet from the property line. The stake was actually an indication of elevation, not a property marker. The foundation was poured, the structure was built, and it wasn’t until he got the as built survey did he realize that there was an encroachment of 10 inches. He stated that most of the encroachment is an overhang on the structure. The map provided shows the overhang at 38 feet 6 inches.
In response to a question from Mr. Bronson, Mr. Ciferri stated that a survey was done before the plot plan was submitted for approval from the Zoning and Building Departments. He stated that the stake was put in by the surveyors a second time that they had come out. The proposed building was approved by the Zoning and Building Departments.
Comments from the public included Ruby Schneeburger, adjoining property owner, who wanted to know if the Zoning Enforcement Officer had been out to check the measurement of 39 feet 2 inches, after the permit to build was granted.
Charles Schneeburger, also adjoining, stated that the markers that are there do not measure up to the mark that the people plotting the elevation did. He stated that the addition is 46 feet from the house. Mr. Schneeburger said he spoke to the surveyor, who did not do a survey; he only plotted points of elevation.
0206-2: 9 Cross Highway, Town of Redding, Owner: request to reduce variance of 11 feet to 10.4 feet.
Mr. Bronson explained that after a variance was granted in August, a formal survey had been done and determined that the correct setback should have been 10.4 feet instead of 11 feet.
Ms. Brooks added that the 11 foot variance was granted based on a hand drawn map.
It was first thought hat the property line between the old Heritage House and the Police Department could be moved, as the town owns both parcels. This cannot be done because of the minimum rectangle regulation. Ms. Brooks claimed the hardship being inability to move the minimum rectangle.
0206-3: 5 Packer Brook Road, Edward and Deirdre Fletcher, Owners: request variance to Sec. 4.6.5, sub item c, rear yard in feet, reduce rear setback from 50 to 25 feet.
(This application originally presented in January, 2006 to the ZBA. Mrs. Fletcher was to return with a new plan for the pool, placing it closer to the deck. The original request was for a 30 foot setback.)
Mrs. Fletcher returned to present the amended proposal to the Board.
The new plan shows 60 feet 7 inches from the side setback and 25 feet from the rear setback.
The septic tank is 46 feet to the right of the house and the leeching fields flow down a sloping hill toward the front of the house. The location of the pool has to be at least 25 feet from the septic tank. The well is located in the front yard. There is an above ground wooden deck area on the rear of the house. It was unclear what the dimensions of the deck were and the distance from the proposed pool. Mrs. Fletcher claimed that the hardship was the inability to place the pool in another location because of the septic and leeching fields, the well, and hilly area of property and stonewall area, 150 feet from the house.
0206-4: 23 Chestnut Woods Road; William Nelson, Owner: request variance to Sec. 4.6.5b Schedule of Requirements, minimum building setback at side yard 40 feet for property zoned R-2. Augment existing legal non-conforming structure, adding a second floor with a half bath.
Mr. Nelson presented his application to the Board.
He stated that the addition will not be used as a dwelling. He believes that this request makes economic sense and that the architectural significance will not be compromised. He spoke with his neighbor Henry Connolly, who expressed verbal support to Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Bronson stated that a variance was granted on June 21, 2005 for interior changes only, with no identified hardship. He further stated that only on rare cases may the ZBA create a variance encompassing an existing non-conforming use.
Upon a motion by Ms. Cotton, seconded by Mr. Morton, the Board voted 5-0-0 to enter deliberative session at 8:58 P.M.
DELIBERATIVE SESSION:
0206-1: 169 Picketts Ridge Road:
After careful consideration and thorough discussion, the Board determined that the information as presented in the submitted survey showed an overhang of 38 feet 6 inches, which is different than the 39 feet 2 inch request.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Morton, seconded by Mr. Given, the Board voted 5-0-0 to continue this application to March, pending ability to deny without prejudice for a second time to allow amendment of the application for purposes of conformity to survey, to be determined on advisement of Town Counsel.
0206-2: 9 Cross Highway:
After careful consideration and thorough discussion, the Board, upon a motion made by Ms. Cotton, seconded by Mr. Morton, voted 5-0-0 to amend the original variance from 11 to 10.4 feet, based on the hardship that another variance would be necessary to move the property line, and other alternatives have been considered but not possible. It was made clear that Mr. Bronson received advice from Town Counsel that an amendment was the best way to handle it because a hardship has been stated and it is not a variance granted on a previously granted variance.
0206-3: 5 Packer Brook Road:
After careful consideration and thorough discussion, the Board determined that the applicant complied with the Board’s request for an alternative plan. The Board discussed positioning the pool closer to the fence or property line, adding to the screening, or placing it farther from the fence, and adding trees as screening.
Upon a motion made by Ms. Cotton, seconded by Mr. Morton, the Board voted 3-1-1 to grant a variance of 30 feet. Defeated, 1 vote abstaining, 1 vote opposing.
Upon a motion made by Ms. Cotton, seconded by Mr. Morton, the Board voted
4-0-1 to grant a 15 foot variance so it can be no closer than 35 feet from the property line based on topographical hardship.
0206-4: 23 Chestnut Woods Road:
After careful consideration, the Board upon a motion by Mr. Given, seconded by Ms. Cotton, voted 5-0-0 to deny the variance.
Upon a motion made by Ms. Cotton, and seconded by Mr. Morton, the Board voted to exit deliberative session at 9: 25 P.M.
Upon a motion made by Ms. Cotton, and seconded by Mr. Given, the Board voted 5-0-0 to adjourn at 9:25 P.M.
These minutes have not been approved by the ZBA.
Submitted by vaz
| 
