Chairman Domenic N. Moschella called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:02. Other members present: Jeffrey Slapikas, Betty Lou Holley, Martin Atkins and Fred Harkins.
Correspondence: a.) Planning & Zoning approved minutes for July 25th, 21st and September 4, 2002; b.) The Segal Company-July 2002 Bulletin. Motion by F. Harkins, seconded by B. Holley to place correspondence on file. Unanimous.
Clerical Bill: Motion by F. Harkins, second by B. Holley to pay the clerical bill. Unanimous.
Approval of Minutes: Motion made by B. Holley, seconded by F. Harkins to approve ZBA minutes of August 27, 2002 as amended. Unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS: Motion by M. Atkins, seconded by J. Slapikas to add Peter and Maria Vaccarelli, 13 Holley Lane, Prospect to the agenda under "New Business". Unanimous.
Robert E. Doyon, 2 Forest Ridge Road requesting a variance of Section 300 of the Zoning Regulations that requires a minimum 50-foot rear property line setback for a detached shed. Mr. Doyon is applying for a 20-foot rear property line variance to allow his proposed shed to be placed 30-feet from the rear property line. Motion by M. Atkins, seconded by J. Slapikas to accept Application # 29-2002 of Robert E. Doyon and schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 7:10 p.m. Unanimous.
Peter and Maria Vaccarelli, 13 Holley Lane requesting a variance of Sections 300 and 310 of the Zoning Regulations that requires a minimum 50-foot rear property line setback for a detached shed and that a detached utility building be located beyond the rear range line of the primary house. The Vaccarellis are applying for a 20-foot side line variance and a 5-foot placement variance to allow their proposed shed to be 5-feet from the left side property line and 5-feet forward of the house rear range line. Motion by F. Harkins, seconded by B. Holley to accept Application #30-2002 of Peter and Maria Vaccarelli and schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 7:15 p.m. Unanimous.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7:10 p.m. ZBA Application #25-2002 of Vincent & Antonella Jacovino, 21 Trotters Way requesting a variance of Section 310 of the Zoning Regulations that requires a detached utility building to be located beyond the rear range line of the primary house. Chairman Moschella read into the record the Notice of Public Hearings for this application as it appeared in the Waterbury Republican-American on September 13th and 19, 2002. Attorney Thomas P. Brunnock represented the Jacovinos in this application. Mr. Brunnock related that the house itself is located at the rear 50-foot property line setback due to wetlands on the property, and therefore putting a detached building to the rear of this house would require a rear property line variance. The proposed 40' x 50' utility building/garage would not extend beyond the front range-line of the house and actually be placed farther from the street line. Attorney Brunnock stated that strict application of the zoning regulations would produce an undue hardship inasmuch as the Jacovinos would not be able to erect a utility building anywhere on their property without an approved variance. M. Atkins asked how high this building would be. Mr. Jacovino stated he has not drawn up final plans at this time, but estimates approximately 15-feet high. M. Atkins also asked if there is an existing garage on the property. Mr. Jacovino stated he does have a three-car attached garage. D. Moschella asked what the intended use of the building would be. Mr. Jacovino related he would be storing his collection of antique cars inside. D. Moschella related his concern that a building of this size (2000 square feet) has the potential of being used for commercial purposes. Attorney Brunnock stated that Mr. Jacovino does not intend to use this building for other than what is allowed per Town regulations. D. Moschella asked for comments from the public. Letters in support of this application from Mayor Chatfield (as representing the Town as an abutting property owner), Donald and Palma Debiase, 25 Trotters Way, James and Deborah McMahon, 15 Trotters Way and a petition signed by 12 property owners on Trotters Way were entered into the record. Mark Debiase, 23 Trotters Way stated his property would be most affected by this structure and also supports this application. No one spoke in opposition. There were no further comments and D. Moschella closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
7:30 p.m. ZBA Application #26-2002 of Peter M. Sydoriak, 1 Corrine Drive requesting a variance of Section 300 of the Zoning Regulations that requires a 50-foot street line setback for a structure to be placed on his property at 77 Morris Road. Chairman Moschella read into the record the Notice of Public Hearings for this application as it appeared in the Waterbury Republican-American on September 13 and 19, 2002. This three-sided parcel is located at the intersection of Terry Road, Morris Road, Bronson Road and Clark Hill Road and therefore requires a 50-foot structure setback on all three sides of the parcel. Mr. Sydoriak related he is seeking a 17-foot street line variance on Morris Road and a 33-foot street line variance on Bronson Road for construction of a new house. Mr. Sydoriak submitted a packet to each board member and for the record detailing the description and history of this parcel; his reasons why the board should grant the requested variances; pertinent sections of the zoning regulations and Connecticut General Statutes that support the granting of the variance; a partial listing of variances granted for other properties in Prospect; and copies of letters from the former Prospect Land Use Inspector and a private engineer relative to parcel 77 Morris Road. Mr. Sydoriak related that past attempts to obtain variances were denied by the ZBA. D. Moschella asked what those reasons were. Mr. Sydoriak stated safety, traffic and neighboring property value concerns. Mr. Sydoriak related that when he obtained this parcel of land through a town auction in [1983] he was told "it was a nice small lot to put a small house on". Further, recent court decisions have agreed that this is a legal non-conforming lot and allowed due consideration per the regulations for the granting of a variance in order to build a house. M. Atkins stated that the court did say Lot 77 Morris Road is a legal non-conforming lot, but that it is not a legal non-conforming building lot--which was the basis for the earlier appeal. Franklin G. Pilicy, P.C. representing Mr. Sydoriak presented a map prepared by R.M. Lugli in 1993 that, according to Mr. Pilicy was in accordance with Mr. Schiller's interpretation of the zoning regulations relative to corner lot setback requirements. (Clarence Schiller was the Land Use Inspector for Prospect at that time). Mr. Pilicy further stated that subsequent to prior interpretations of this parcel recent court decisions conclude that Lot 77 Morris Road is a legal non-conforming lot. Mr. Pilicy further related that it is also clear that without the granting of a setback variance or variances, Mr. Sydoriak will not be permitted to build a house on this parcel. Mr. Pilicy related that if strict application of the zoning regulations is so severe as to amount to practical confiscation that is sufficient hardship to allow - even require the zoning board of appeals to grant a variance. As this relates to 77 Morris Road, unless some relief is granted by a variance, the town is in effect confiscating the parcel by not allowing anything to be built on this property. Further, the town's layout of the roadway network surrounding this parcel impacts to the confiscation by causing 50-foot setback requirements on all three sides. D. Moschella asked if the roads were in existence prior to Mr. Sydoriak's purchasing the parcel. Mr. Pilicy stated they were, however the question is not when Mr. Sydoriak purchased the property, but rather when the roads were developed relative to when the zoning regulations were adopted. This is about how the zoning regulations have impacted this piece of property and how this piece of property was created--- that are the issues. Mr. Pilicy went on to say that this lot was created prior to zoning, and the regulations have consequently made this parcel virtually worthless. By comparison, had the owner of this parcel built a house here prior to zoning, that house would still be there today. D. Moschella questioned whether this is a self-imposed hardship in that Mr. Sydoriak purchased the property after zoning and after the setback requirements was in effect. Mr. Pilicy stated it is not. He gave as an example saying that had this lot been twice the current size, and Mr. Sydoriak sold off half leaving the remainder as non-conforming, then it could be considered a "self-imposed hardship" if variances were required to build a house. M. Atkins related that Mr. Sydoriak had to have had some knowledge of the problems in building on this parcel when he purchased the property due to the fact that the purchase price from the town was likely well below the market price for other similar-sized parcels in Prospect. M. Atkins also queried that if a stream were running through the middle of this property, whether not allowing a building near this stream could also be viewed as a "taking". Mr. Pilicy related that prior to 1987 there would have been a right to build on this lot from a wetlands' prospective. After 1987, that law changed to where there was not an automatic right to build on a lot with wetlands conditions. Mr. Pilicy again stated that the purchase price of this lot in 1983 or who currently owns the lot is not the issue: the issue is that without a variance, no building can take place, and without a variance the Town is in effect confiscating the property as unusable. D. Moschella asked for comments from the public. Linda Hennessey, 72 Morris Road, is opposed to this variance. She reminded the board that previous ZBA boards have denied variances due to safety concerns and impact on property values. Past court decisions have also upheld the boards' denial of variance requests for this parcel. She stated that in the past Mr. Sydoriak successfully petitioned the town to reduce his taxes claiming the lot is not a building lot. There is also a concern that road salt from winter road maintenance could impact the well water on this parcel. Sam DeSantis, 2 Terry Road is opposed saying the lot is too small for a house or for a family to live on. Carol Mastrantonio, 75 Morris Road is opposed citing traffic safety concerns. John Strang, 76 Morris Road stated he had interest in purchasing the property in 1983 for open space, however Mr. Sydoriak had already purchased the property. Steve Petracca, 5 Clark Hill Road is opposed saying the lot does not conform to town standards. Also questioning the roads on which the variance is requested. Mr. Pilicy re-stated that the issue before the board is that Mr. Sydoriak has the right to apply for setback variances and, in his opinion by not granting relief through variances the board in effect is confiscating this property as un-usable. D. Moschella announced the public hearing will be carried over to Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 7:20 p.m.
8:40 p.m. ZBA Application #23-2002 of Batire Halim, 1 Roy Mountain Road requesting a 130-foot variance of the minimum 150-foot front property line requirement for a new residential lot to allow a 20-foot wide driveway for street access to a proposed rear lot at 22A Roy Mountain Road. Chairman Moschella read into the record the Notice of Public Hearings for this application as it appeared in the Waterbury Republican-American on September 13 and 19, 2002. Floria Polverari represented Mrs. Halim in this application. Mrs. Polverari stated that the boundaries of this parcel were created from the development of surrounding lands. Chairman Moschella asked why this lot was not included in the original approved Roy Mountain Road Subdivision. Mrs. Polverari related that at that time, this parcel of land was the only access to the adjoining 13+ acres of land to be developed which ultimately became part of the Robinmark Road subdivision. Chairman Moschella asked for comments from the public. Katie Blinstrubas and George Sabo, representing 'Highland Greens Golf Course', 122 Cook Road as an abutting property owner spoke in opposition. Mrs. Blinstrubas presented a letter from Attorney Richard M. Levy indicating that the proposed variance is a classic case-book example of a "self-created" or self-imposed hardship and therefore cannot be approved by the board. George Sabo also mentioned the concern of the impact on the development of this lot relative to wetlands and surrounding properties. M. Atkins asked that if this proposed lot had been part of the original Roy Mountain subdivision whether a front line variance would have been needed. B. Donovan responded no variance would have been necessary, however because this parcel is not an approved subdivision lot it does not come under the Subdivision Regulations but rather the zoning regulations that requires a minimum 150 foot of road frontage. Chairman Moschella asked for additional comments. There were none, and the public hearing was closed at 8:58 p.m.
9:00 p.m. ZBA Application #28-2002 of Robert S. Pinto, 30 Union City Road. Chairman Moschella read into the record the Notice of Public Hearings as it appeared in the Waterbury Republican-American on September 13 and 19, 2002. Chairman Moschella noted that under this procedure, the Zoning Board of Appeals acts as an agent for the State of Connecticut in determining the suitability of location for this type of enterprise. M. Atkins excused himself from this application and J. Commendatore was seated in place. Robert Pinto indicated that the proposed business intended is similar to "J&R Auto, 35 Union City Road" which he currently operates and is located across from 30 Union City Road. Chairman Moschella discussed with the applicant and board members the various items listed under Section 14-55 and the suitability of location for this business. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing closed at 9:05 p.m.
M. Atkins was re-seated for J. Commendatore.
9:10 p.m. ZBA Application #27-2002 Batire Halim of 1 Roy Mountain Road requesting a variance of Section 300 of the Zoning Regulations that requires a minimum 50-foot front property line setback for a structure placed at her property at Lot 2, Elaine Court. Chairman Moschella read into the record the Notice of Public Hearings as it appeared in the Waterbury Republican-American on September 13 & 19, 2002. Floria Polverari represented Mrs. Halim for this application. Mrs. Polverari related that the owner recently built a new house on this parcel and the "As-Built Plot Plan" shows the new house at 49.4 feet from the front property line. Accordingly, Mrs. Halim is seeking a one-foot front property line variance for this house location to meet the 50-foot front line minimum requirement. Chairman Moschella queried if they had been advised by the Land Use Inspector to verify the actual foundation location prior to framing. Mrs. Polverari indicated they did take a field measurement and felt the foundation was within the necessary setback distance. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing closed at 9:15 p.m.
ACTION ON APPLICATIONS
ZBA Application #25-2002 of Vincent and Antonella Jacovino, 21 Trotters Way. Motion to approve Application #25-2002 by J. Slapikas, seconded by M. Atkins for a variance at 21 Trotters Way allowing a detached building to be placed forward of the rear range line of the primary house. Discussion: B. Holley concerned with the large size of the building. D. Moschella also reiterated the largeness of this building (40'x 50') and expressed his concerns with potential future commercial utilization. F. Harkins additionally stated the house is only 14 months old, and to come back this early on tends to create a self-created hardship in that there was nothing restrictive with the original lot itself that prohibited a primary house and attached garage. J. Slapikas stated he does not necessarily believe the size of the building should dictate an approval of a variance. He further stated that the location of the septic system and consequent location of the house ultimately determine where future utility buildings may need to be located. J. Commendatore also stated that a potential use of a building should not be grounds for approving or denying an application as there are in-place regulations/requirements for an allowed use. M. Atkins responded that a variance to construct a garage of this size when there already exists a 3-car garage on the property introduces a substantial intrusion into the nature and is out of character with that neighborhood. Chairman Moschella called for a vote. J. Slapikas in favor; D. Moschella, M. Atkins, B. Holley and F. Harkins opposed. Application is denied. Reasons: Proposed shed is out of character with the neighborhood, and the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by seeking an additional garage when a 3-car garage already exists on the property.
ZBA . ZBA Application #23-2002 of Batire Halim, 1 Roy Mountain Road requesting a 130-foot variance of the minimum 150-foot front property line requirement for a new residential lot to allow a 20-foot wide driveway for street access to a proposed rear lot at 22A Roy Mountain Road. Chairman Moschella stated that the board needs time to review information submitted with the public hearing and therefore will continue discussion on this application at the next scheduled ZBA meeting on October 22, 2002.
ZBA Application #28-2002 of Robert S. Pinto, 30 Union City Road. M. Atkins excused himself and J. Commendatore was seated. Chairman Moschella reviewed the requirements of the Connecticut State Statutes, Section 14-54. Motion by J. Commendatore, seconded by J. Slapikas to approve Application #28-2002 for a Certificate of Approval at location 30 Union City Road for Robert S. Pinot, for a Car Dealership in the Repair and Sales of motor vehicles in a designated commercial zone. In favor: Unanimous. Reasons: Complies with Section 14-54 of the Connecticut State Statutes.
ZBA Application #27-2002 of Batire Halim, Lot 2, Elaine Court. Seeking a one-foot front property line variance for construction of a new single family house. Motion to approve: Unanimous. Reasons: Surveyor error. Will not impact on character of neighborhood.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
ADJOURN Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by M. Atkins to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Unanimous.