TOWN OF REDDING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2006—8:00 P.M.
TOWN HALL HEARING ROOM
Present:
Philip Bronson, Chairman
Andrea Cotton
Colleen Litoff
Robert Morton
Beth Williams
Alternates: Bruce Given
Also present: Tom Gormley, Redding Zoning Enforcement Officer; Gerry Casiello, Redding Zoning Commission
The meeting was called to order at 8:04 p.m.
REGULAR APPLICATIONS:
0306-1: 7 Hill Road, Pools by Murphy, Applicant: request variance to Sec 4.6, Schedule of Requirements, Item 9(b), reduce side yard from 40 feet to 36 feet, and rear yard from 50 feet to 2 feet, for construction of pool.
Kelly Sullivan, a representative from Pools by Murphy, began by stating she had received a letter from Aquarion Water Company, which said they had no problem with the variance sought for this application. The letter was read into the record.
Ms. Sullivan stated that this was the only area that a pool could be installed, due to locations of the septic and the well, and the regulation of staying 25 feet from each. The parking lot for the Redding Roadhouse Restaurant is 100 yards from the proposed pool site. Aquarion Water Company property also borders this property.
0306-2: 169 Picketts Ridge Road; Mark Ciferri, Deborah McCarty, Owners: request variance to reduce side yard setback from 40 feet to 38 feet 6 inches to accommodate an existing structure.
Mr. Ciferri had first presented the application to the Board in February 2006, requesting a variance from 40 feet to 39 feet 2 inches 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. Mr. Ciferri amended his application, and presented such to the Board.
Mr. Ciferri stated that he had met with a surveyor, to confirm the exact point of the side setback as it relates directly to the garage. A control or work point (stake) on the Steenberger’s property, used to set the transit on in order to set the other points of the property, was causing some confusion as it had been used to measure the property line on the initial survey. A secondary survey measured correctly and discovered the overhang was violating the set back regulation to the correct property measurement.
0306-2: 279 Black Rock Turnpike, Mark Lake and Mary Ellen D’Onofrio, Applicants: appeal from a certificate of zoning compliance dated January 31, 2006 granted to Creston Ely for 279 Black Rock Turnpike. A request was made to postpone this appeal to the April 18, 2006 ZBA meeting, by a representative from Neil Marcus’s office.
0306-4: 29 Giles Hill Road, Laurie and John Richardson, 23 Giles Hill Road, Applicants: appeal of Zoning Officers Approval of Candace Benyei’s application for zoning permit issued.
Mr. and Mrs. Richardson presented the appeal, saying that the application for the zoning permit failed to meet required zoning regulations in that the applicant has not submitted all documents and information required and therefore not in compliance. They further state that the proposed building is not in character with the neighborhood and not in the interest of the general welfare.
Attorney’s Ward Mazzucco and Camille DeGalen presented this application on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Richardson, who were present at the meeting.
Tom Gormley, Redding ZEO, had granted a zoning permit to construct an equestrian building with a footprint of 12,000 square feet, as well as a new driveway. The property has been a farm since 1973, and currently has barns, a training corral, and other equipment and area’s specific to the training and housing of horses. Boarding and breeding of horses and private riding lessons are also done at the location.
The proposed 2 story structure will have a large riding area, bathrooms, a laundry area, horse stalls and storage area. In addition to the initial application and accompanying documentation, further submissions included surveys, building plans and various correspondences.
A letter from Frank Taylor, Chairman of the Zoning Commission, to the other Zoning Commission members, was submitted, stating in his opinion that a full special permit use site plan and land management plan should be required, as well as scheduling a Public Hearing to address this.
Mr. Mazzucco maintained that the proposed uses of the structure are expanding non-conforming uses, and not permitted or accessory uses.
Mr. and Mrs. Benyei had applied for the zoning permit for the equestrian building. They presented their application at the October meeting of the Zoning Commission, who voted to deny the application and move to the special permit process. Frank Taylor was not present, and submitted a letter as referenced above.
The applicant returned to the Zoning Commission in November, and there was no special permit application or notice to the Richardson’s. The proposed building had been moved more than 100 feet from the Richardson’s boundary line. The driveway is still a concern, as it remains extended through the 100 foot setback and is improper. The existing gravel driveway runs from the road back to a shop/garage/apartment building. Mr. Mazzucco stated that the applicant extended that from the building to a paddock area, without approval. On November 9, 2005, the Zoning Commission approved this plan, which included the 12,000 square foot building and the driveway. Mr. Taylor was present at that meeting.
Mr. Mazzucco spoke to the concern over the driveway. He stated that the driveway is part of a parking facility, and does not meet the parking setbacks for a non-residential use, that being 100 feet. The approved plan shows parking spaces next to the proposed building. The part of the driveway extended through the 100 foot setback area is the problem. Mr. Mazzucco stated that a simple solution is to utilize an existing driveway that veers to the east just behind the Benyei house. That driveway is in place where traffic can go up behind the house and toward the barn.
An appeal was taken to the Superior Court, and the Benyei’s applied for zoning and building permit.
Mrs. Richardson spoke with regard to the impact of the driveway, and said she would like to see it moved back 100 feet, closer to the center of the Benyei property. She said this is a residential use but will become a commercial use. She further stated that the agenda for the November 9 Zoning Commission meeting did not clearly state that another plan was being presented, as opposed to an application for a special permit.
Mr. Richardson said that this was approved too quickly. He expected a public hearing so that an opportunity would be available to voice his concerns regarding drainage issues which already exist, and increase in traffic.
Mr. Casiello stated that the Zoning Commission’s contention is that this is a pre-existing, non-conforming use, not an expansion.
Mr. Gormley spoke to the Board. He stated that the Zoning Commission approved that site plan, and that a land management plan is not required, but may be requested. He further stated that per regulations, a structure greater than 2500 square feet must be set back 100 feet from all side lines OR effectively screened as required to protect adjacent properties. The Zoning Commission looked at this regulation and made the determination that it met that requirement. After going before the Zoning Commission, this plan went through the complete process of the Planning and Conservation Commissions and the Health Officer. Mr. Gormley said this is a permitted use, and this is an accessory structure. He further said that the permit granted addresses the building only, and says nothing about the driveway.
Attorney Robert Fuller, representing Candace Benyei, spoke and began by asking Mr. Mazzucco if his client would withdraw the appeal if Ms. Benyei was willing to postpone construction of the building pending litigation. Mr. Mazzucco responded that if nothing is built, including the driveway, his client would withdraw the appeal.
Mr. Fuller proceeded to address the Board. He stated that the proposed building is 147 feet from the Richardson’s property line. He pointed out that the approved site plan includes extensive screening. The number of horses kept there will also be decreased.
Mr. Fuller contends that this is not a parking facility driveway.
Mrs. Benyei spoke to the Board. She gave a brief history of the farm operation since 1973. Taxes have been paid as a farm. She said that the Town of Redding and the State of Connecticut both consider her property to be a commercial farm. She explained that a building of this size needs appropriate emergency access. Fire and other emergency apparatus cannot access the proposed building on the existing gravel driveway.
Ms. DeGalen spoke to the Board, clarifying that the appeal is based on non-conformity of regulations. She stated that farming is what the regulations say it is. She said that farming is based on raising crops, not a commercial operation such as this.
0306-5: 8 Fire Hill Road, Paul Frederick and Suzanne Morris, Owners: request variance to
Sec. 4.6, Item #5, side yard setback (corner lot) 50 feet to 30 feet, Item #6, Maximum Building Height, 22 feet to 28 feet, Sec. 3.13 setback exceptions 60% from 25% area over existing non-conforming dwelling.
Mr. Frederick presented his application to the Board. Mr. Bronson stated that a correction needed to be made in that the variance is to the front setback, as it faces the street.
Mr. Frederick would like to add a second story bedroom over an existing portion of the building. He had tried to work within the 25% regulation, but needs to increase it to 60% or encroach on the setback that faces Simpaug Turnpike.
It was discovered that the addition to the second story will cause an overhang, which will increase the footprint of the building.
0306-6: 148 Gallows Hill Road, Timothy and Nancy Anderson, Owners: request variance from property line setback, 2 foot variance from garage front, 5.9 foot variance from garage rear, and 19.6 foot variance for shed.
Nancy Anderson presented the application to the Board. Mrs. Anderson explained that a foundation had been poured and a shed set on it. The survey had been done for the final inspection and it was found that the foundation was 2 feet over the setback. Mrs. Anderson stated that there is a river in the back, a swamp on the side, two sets of septic lines and trees limiting the placement to any other location, making it necessary to request the variance.
She read a letter from neighboring property owner Peggy Casiello into the record, stating no objection to the buildings. Mrs. Anderson said she was unaware that a survey was required and had the foundation poured.
Mr. Bronson pointed out that it is the property owner’s responsibility to insure that regulations are followed before buildings are constructed, so that problems can be addressed before construction is complete and problems are discovered after the fact.
Upon a motion by Mr. Given, seconded by Ms. Williams, the Board voted 5-0-0 to enter deliberative session at 8:58 P.M.
Before deliberations, Mr. Bronson announced that Mike Cardillo had submitted his resignation from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board of Selectman has appointed Colleen Litoff as a full board member.
Mr. Bronson also received a letter from Town Counsel Mick Lavelle confirming that an amendment to a granted variance is allowable in the case of 9 Cross Highway, the old Heritage House Building.
DELIBERATIVE SESSION:
0306-1: 7 Hill Road, Pools by Murphy, Applicant, request variance to Sec 4.6, Schedule of Requirements, Item 9(b), reduce side yard from 40 feet to 36 feet, and rear yard from 50 feet to 2 feet, for construction of pool.
Upon a motion by Ms. Litoff, seconded by Mr. Morton, the Board voted unanimously to deny the variance, due to close proximity of rear setback.
0306-2: 279 Black Rock Turnpike, Mark Lake and Mary Ellen D’Onofrio, Applicants, appeal from a certificate of zoning compliance dated January 31, 2006 granted to Creston Ely for 279 Black Rock Turnpike.
The Board agreed to continue this appeal to the April 18, 2006 ZBA meeting.
0306-3: 169 Picketts Ridge Road, Mark Ciferri and Deborah McCarty, Owners, request variance to reduce side yard setback from 40 feet to 38 feet, 6 inches to accommodate structure.
Mr. Bronson explained that this application was denied without prejudice at the February ZBA meeting. There is no limit to the number of times that an application can be denied without prejudice, so long as new or different information is presented each time. In this case, it was agreed that a self-created hardship was created with regard to the plotting points.
Upon a motion by Ms. Williams, seconded by Ms. Cotton, the Board voted unanimously to deny the variance due to lack of hardship.
0306-4: 29 Giles Hill Road, Laurie and John Richardson, 23 Giles Hill Road, Applicants, appeal of Zoning Officers Approval of Candace Benyei’s application for zoning permit issued February 16, 2006.
The Board discussed whether this should be before the ZBA. There was a question as to whether the actions of the Zoning Enforcement Officer could be overturned or reversed by the ZBA.
Another issue was that the Zoning Commission made a decision on the proposed building, not the driveway, and the appeal does not mention the driveway, only the zoning permit.
Upon a motion by Ms. Williams, seconded by Mr. Morton, the Board voted unanimously to continue to the April 18, 2006 ZBA meeting pending consult with legal counsel and review of received documents.
0306-5: 8 Fire Hill Road, Paul Frederick and Suzanne Morris, Owners, request variance to Sec. 4.6, Item #5, side yard setback (corner lot) 50 feet to, Item #6, Maximum Building Height, 22 feet to 28 feet, Sec. 3.13 setback exceptions 60% from 25% area over existing non-conforming dwelling.
A variance cannot be granted to expand a non-conforming footprint.
Upon a motion by Ms. Litoff, seconded by Ms. Williams, the Board voted unanimously to deny the variance, based on failure to demonstrate hardship on all aspects.
0306-6: 148 Gallows Hill Road, Timothy and Nancy Anderson, Owners, request variance from property line setback, 2 foot variance from garage front, 5.9 foot variance from garage rear, and 19.6 foot variance for shed.
Upon a motion by Mr. Given, seconded by Ms. Williams, the Board voted unanimously to deny the variance, due to self-inflicted hardship.
Upon a motion made by Ms. Williams, and seconded by Ms. Cotton, the Board voted to exit deliberative session at 10: 37P.M.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Given, and seconded by Ms. Cotton, the Board voted 5-0-0 to adjourn at 10:38P.M.
These minutes have not been approved by the ZBA.
Submitted by vaz 3/27/2006
| 
