Chairman Martin Atkins called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

Other Members Present: Jeff Slapikas, Marianne Byrne, Carl Graveline, George Havican

Members Absent: Matthew Blinstrubas, Lori DaSilva (alt)

Also Present: William Donovan, Clerk/Land Use Inspector

Chairman Atkins seated G. Havican for M. Blinstrubas

Correspondence: a. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley. Notice of presentation 01 land use decision-making scheduled for January 29, 2007.

Minutes: Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by M. Byrne to table the minutes to later in the meeting Unanimous.

Clerical Bill: Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by C. Graveline to pay the clerical bill. Unanimous.

Public Hearings:
a. 7:10 p.m. Application 17-2006: Antonio Mendes, 55 Straitsville Road for an 8 foot front property line variance to place a detached garage 42 feet from the front property line. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public Hearings" for this application as it appeared in the Republican American 01 November 16 & 24, 2006. Mr. Mendes stated he is seeking to construct a 20' x 20' detached 2-car garag< on his property. There is an existing garage on the property. Chairman Atkins asked for a hardship. Mr Mendes stated his existing garage is also utilized for storage and he needs the additional building for his 2 vehicles. He has lived in the house for 9 months. Mr. Mendes presented an architectural drawing of the proposed garage. Chairman Atkins asked what the area is of the property. Mr. Mendes stated one acre. The Chairman asked if other possible locations for the garage exist. Mr. Mendes stated he feels this is the only realistic location due to the location of the well, septic and driveway. Other locations would also require variances for side line setback. Chairman Atkins asked if the existing garage could be expanded Mr. Mendes stated the presence of ledge limits any expansion. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the public. There were no comments from the public and no further questions from the board. Tht public hearing was closed at 7: 19 p.m.

b. 7:20 p.m. Application 18-06: Joseph Bednarek, Jr., 11 Morris Road. Appeal from the decision of the official charged with the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public Hearings" for this petition as it appeared in the Republican American on November 16 & 24, 2006. Chairman Atkins noted the appeal before the board refers to Section 5.3.2.1 of the Regulations that restricts the location of outdoor storage of recreational vehicles on residential property Mr. Bednarek presented receipts for required certified mailings to adjoining property owners. One mailing was not accepted by a property owner. Mr. Bednarek stated he has lived at this location since 1964 and has no other location to store his motor home. Chairman Atkins asked Mr. Bednarek how long he has owned the motor home. Mr. Bednarek stated 5 years. He has always parked the vehicle where it is now located. Chairman Atkins asked if there are other locations where the vehicle could be parked. Mr Bednarek stated he could put the vehicle sideways across the front of the house, but he does not want to do this. Chairman Atkins read Section 5.3.2.1 into the record noting the requirement that a motor home shall be parked no closer to the front property line then the house where the house is less than 50 feet to the property line or a minimum 50 feet from the front property line. M. Byrne asked how far the vehicle is currently parked from the property lines. Mr. Bednarek stated it is in front of the house approximately 4( feet to the road and far enough from the side lines. The motor home is 32 feet long. He most recently used it last Christmas. He is trying to sell the vehicle at this time. Chairman Atkins asked if the vehicle could be angled close to the house to comply with the regulations. Mr. Bednarek stated he would be approximately 48 feet to the street. He could possibly park the vehicle where it would comply, but has concerns with safety backing out onto the road. Also, by parking the vehicle elsewhere would put the vehicle within 20 feet of the side property line. M. Byrne asked how long the vehicle has been for sale. Mr. Bednarek stated only for a short time. Chairman Atkins asked if other motor vehicles on Morris Road are parked close to the road. Mr. Bednarek stated there is one other vehicle. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the public. Joseph Pavlowski, Naugatuck stated it would be difficult for the vehicle to be parked safely on the property other than the current location. William Wasserback, 12 Morris Road stated it would be difficult to park the motor home on the side where the trees are. William Donovan, Land Use Officer/ZEO for Prospect reviewed the history of Section 5.3.2.1 and prior regulations concerning the storage of recreational vehicles and boats. He noted the first such regulation was in 1975 where recreational vehicles were to be stored in the least conspicuous location if possible, preferably in the rear yard. In 1990 the regulations were revised whereby motor homes, recreational vehicles and boats were classified as "unsightly materials" and as such not allowed to be stored outdoors anywhere on the property. In 2004 the zoning regulations were significantly revised, including Section 5.3.2,1 that allowed motor homes to be a minimum 50 feet from front and rear property lines and 25 feet from sidelines. Then, in 2006 as a result of a resident filing an application to remove this section entirely, the Planning & Zoning Commission again revised this section to the current version that permits motor homes to be located either no closer to the front property line than the house, where the house is less than 50 feet to the front property line, or no closer than 50 feet to the front property line and no closer than 20 feet to the side lines. The current regulation in place is less restrictive than prior recent versions of this same regulation. Mr. Donovan stated that since 1975 there have been zoning regulations in place controlling the outdoor storage of motor homes and other recreational vehicles. For over 30 years no board or commission has felt the need to revoke this regulation. Residents have approached the Planning & Zoning Commission challenging the commission to begin enforcing this regulation. The commission in turn directed the ZEO to begin to take enforcement actions as necessary. Mr. Donovan stated his office has received complaints on Mr. Bednarek's motor home. He also stated Mr. Bednarek purchased the vehicle approximately 5 years ago which was well after this regulation first went into effect. Chairman Atkins asked for a definition of "primary structure". Mr. Donovan stated it is the single family residence containing all necessary living areas. He stated this regulation has angered several town residents but remains in effect at this time. Chairman Atkins asked Mr. Donovan if he had measured the distance from Mr. Bednarek's house to the front property line. Bill stated he measured 74 feet from the house to the street, or curb line. There were no further comments and the public hearing closed at 7:50 p.m.

c. 7:53 p.m. Application 19-2006: Scott Mastropietro, 24 Cornwall Avenue for a 500 square foot variance of the maximum 800 square foot size limit for a detached garage to construct a 1,300 square foot garage. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public Hearings" for this application as it appeared in the Republican American on November 16 & 24, 2006. Mr. Mastropietro stated he is seeking a 500 square foot variance of the size limitation on detached garages. The hardship stated is that the family needed to create an in-law accessory unit in the house that caused the loss of the existing garage and storage space. Chairman Atkins confirmed the current regulation allows a maximum of 800 square feet for a detached garage. The lot itself is approximately 3 1/2 acres. The proposed garage would be at least 200 feet from neighbors. The home was built in 1998. Mr. Mastropietro has owned the home for two years. The proposed garage would be behind the house. Neighbors would see the garage in the winter. This lot shares a common driveway with 3 other lots. G. Havican again asked for the reason for a hardship. Mr. Mastropietro stated the hardship is loss of storage space. J. Slapikas stated there is no hardship with the land; the applicant is seeking to build a structure larger than is currently permitted. M. Byrne asked for confirmation that all neighbors were notified. Mr. Mastropietro stated all but one has received the certified mailings. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the public. Barbara Sheehan, 20 Cornwall Avenue asked where exactly the garage is to be placed on the property. Mr. Mastropietro stated the garage will be beyond the back edge of the house. There were no further comments and the public hearing closed at 8:05 p.m

d. 8:07 p.m. Petition 20-2006: Richard & Christine Hinckley, 471 Matthew Street appealing a zoning enforcement order directing compliance with Section 5.2.5.3 to relocate detached shed 20 feet minimun from property line. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public Hearings" for this petitioi as it appeared in the Republican American on November 16 & 24, 2006. Attorney Roger Harbanuk, 472 Wolcott Road, Wolcott, CT represented the petitioners. Attorney Harbanuk presented receipts of certifiec mailings. He stated that when the Hinckleys purchased this property approximately 16 years ago, then was a detached shed on the rear property line area. Recently, there was a dispute over the boundary lint with the abutting property owner and where the shed was partially located on his property. Litigation was commenced with the neighbor, Mr. Greg LaChance and a resolution settlement was made whereby the shed would be moved forward a few feet to resolve the dispute. Prior to completing that resolution, the Prospect Zoning Enforcement Officer was consulted who stated moving the shed would bring tha structure into more compliance with the regulations. Chairman Atkins asked if this resolution resulted in i signed document. Attorney Harbanuk stated letters were exchanged between the two parties. Attorne) Harbanuk stated by agreeing to drop further litigation, the Hinckleys gave up legal standing to pursue thi; matter as a legal nonconformity. Christine Hinckley presented pictures of where the shed originally wa: located and the shed's current location. J. Slapikas asked how far was the shed moved. Mrs. Hinckle) stated it was moved far enough off the property line to access behind it. Chairman Atkins confirmed witt the petitioners that the shed has been moved entirely off of the neighbor's properly and remains partially on the original footprint. Mrs. Hinckley stated the shed is now approximately 3 feet from the propert) line. Attorney Harbanuk again stated the Hinckley's had legal rights which they gave up based upon at agreement with the abutting neighbor and a confirmation from the ZEO that the shed's current locatior was acceptable. Otherwise, the Hinckley's would have continued litigation. Chairman Atkins asked Bil Donovan, Land Use Inspector and ZEO for Prospect to comment on this petition. Mr. Donovan statec Mrs. Hinckley did contact him asking if the shed were moved off the property whether this would bt satisfactory. Mr. Donovan stated at that time he believed because the shed had a pre-existinj nonconforming status, he could not require the shed to be located to current zoning setback requirements He felt that moving the shed off the neighbor's property would reduce the non-conformity. Mr. Donovar stated he later was questioned by Mr. LaChance as to why the shed was not located to meet the zoning setback requirements. Mr. Donovan consequently consulted with the Town's attorney who informed hitr that once a structure that has existed for three or more years in violation of the regulations is moved, i looses its pre-existing nonconforming status. Unless moving the shed again would cause extreme hardship for the Hinckleys, the shed should be relocated to comply with current zoning requirements. He read a letter he wrote dated August 24, 2006 addressed to the Hinckleys asking that they relocate theii shed a minimum of 20 feet from the property line. He further stated the Town's attorney does not see ar extreme hardship imposed on the Hinckleys in directing them to comply with zoning requirements Chairman Atkins summarized the dispute by saying originally the shed was on the LaChance propert) long enough to where the case could be made for the shed to remain in place under "adverse possession" The Hinckley's moved the shed to avoid further litigation, and also believing the ZEO would accept th{ new location. Afterwards, Mr. LaChance questioned why the shed should not be located in ful compliance with the regulations. Mr. Donovan stated from the Town's point of view relocating the shec elsewhere on the property does not cause unnecessary hardship to the Hinckleys and the Cease & Desis Enforcement Order was consequently issued. M. Byrne asked if other locations are feasible. Mrs Hinckley stated there are none because of the location of the dry well, driveway, and slope of the property. Chairman Atkins asked if there is anything in writing confirming a settlement or terms reachec in this matter. Mrs. Hinckley referred to attorneys' letters, however Chairman Atkins stated there is nc written document detailing the final terms of resolution. M. Byrne questioned a letter received dated 2005 stating the original shed was replaced by the current shed. Mrs. Hinckley stated they rebuilt a new shec over the location of the original shed. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the public. Doug Charette, 32 Cornwall Avenue stated he helped move the shed to its current location that is within the original footprint. Kim Holland, 3 Farmwood Drive stated the Hinckleys acted in good faith and shoulc not have to move the shed again. Richard LaChance, 477 Matthew Street is current owner of the property where the shed was originally located. He stated there was litigation only because the Hinckleys refusec to move the shed. He believes the shed was nut on this nronertv sometime after 1990. No oermits wen issued for the shed; hence it was illegally put on his property. His lawyer sent notice to the Hinckleys tc remove the shed off his property. Mr. Richard LaChance is saying the Hinckleys' statement that the shed was on his property before they bought their property is false. The Hinckleys put the shed on his property illegally. He questions the length of time the shed has been on his property and whether adverse possession applies. There was never an agreement between the two families to move the shed only off the property line; the shed was to have been moved 20 feet off the property line. Mr. LaChance purchased the property after the shed was moved. His survey showed the shed located 8 feet on his property. Mr LaChance stated litigation was suspended because of the cost and stress involved. Mr. LaChance presented pictures of the shed's current location. He is very concerned with his family's safety because oi the shed's unstable foundation and potential for this structure to tumble down onto his property injuring someone. The shed in its current location and condition is a safety hazard. Mr. LaChance stated the Hinckleys did advise his family they would move the shed 20 feet from the property line, but moved il only off the property line. Attorney Harbanuk presented a photograph dated 1991 showing the shed in place. Ann Stein, 22 Cook Road is in favor of releasing the Cease & Desist on the Hinckleys and allow the shed to remain in its present location. Dot Keilly, 23 Putting Green Lane does not support the Cease & Desist order. Attorney Harbanuk stated the litigation was not dropped until after the shed was moved. Had there not been an agreement, the litigation would have gone forward. William Donovan, ZEO reminded the board that the shed, once moved, lost its pre-existing non-conforming status and the enforcemenl order is asking only that the shed now be placed in compliance with regulations. Ann Stein, 22 Cook Road stated mis-information from town staff is now causing undue problems for the Hinckleys and this should be considered in the board's decision. Richard LaChance questioned whether the Hinckleys as property owners are primarily responsible for having their property in compliance with town regulations. Also, had the Hinckleys sought the legal zoning and building permits before building their shed, this conflict would never have occurred because the shed would have had to be located in legal conformity with zoning setback. There were no further comments and the public hearing closed at 8:58 p.m.

New Business:

a. CRT Realty, LLC, 7 Maria Hotchkiss Road. Application for a 25 foot front property line setback variance for a house addition. Bill Donovan represented the applicant. He stated CRT is seeking to add an attached garage and kitchen addition and a second story onto the existing house. The existing structure is non-conforming in that it is approximately 30 feet to the front property line. The additions will not be closer to the street than the existing house. Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by C. Graveline to accept Application 22-06 of CRT, LLC as presented. Four votes in favor with one abstention. Motion tc approve carries. A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, December 19,2006 at 7:10 p.m.

b. Christopher Buchholz, 4 Morris Road. Appeal from the decision of the official charged with the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Bill Donovan represented the applicant. Mr. Donovan stated Mr Buchholz was to have been present to appeal an enforcement order for storing his recreational vehicle in violation of Section 5.3.2.1. Mr. Donovan stated this is a very large vehicle stored at the street line. M Byrne asked that additional information on the location size and history of this vehicle be made available for the public hearing. Chairman Atkins asked for an acknowledgement that a petition submitted by Mr Buchholz was received by the board on this date. Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by G. Havican acknowledging the board's receipt of a petition as completed by Christopher Buchholz, 4 Morris Road Unanimous. A public hearing was scheduled for Petition 23-06 on December 19, 2006 at 7:20 p.m.

Action on applications:
a. Application 17-2006: Antonio Mendes, 55 Straitsville Road for an 8 foot front property line variance tc place a detached garage 42 feet from the front property line. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by G Havican to approve Application 17-2006 as presented. J. Slapikas feels there is enough room on the property to move the garage back from the front line. C. Graveline agrees the garage could be locatec elsewhere without the need for a variance. M. Byrne stated Mr. Mendes recently purchased the property and should have known of the new building limitations. She does not see a valid hardship. G. Havicar also agrees the garage can be moved further back. Chairman Atkins concurs the garage can be located further from the property line and does not see a valid hardship. Chairman Atkins called for a vote. In favor: none. Opposed: Unanimous. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by M. Byrne to deny Application 17-2006. In favor: Unanimous. Reasons: The hardship criterion specific to the applicant's property has not been satisfied.

b. Application 18-06: Joseph Bednarek, Jr., 11 Morris Road. Appeal from the decision of the official charged with the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by J. Slapikas tc revoke the Cease & Desist Enforcement Order against Mr. Bednarek. J. Slapikas stated there are othei such vehicles parked in violation. Approving any one location would open the door for others to follow. M. Byrne stated these vehicles can be an eyesore and understands the reasons for alleviating the violations. Chairman Atkins asked what the time line would be to force removal. B. Donovan stated Mr. Bednarek has other options available for further appeals. G. Havican asked when Mr. Bednarek purchased the vehicle. Chairman Atkins stated approximately 5 years ago. Chairman Atkins asked whether the porch is considered part of the primary structure. Board members reviewed possible locations on the property that could satisfy the regulations. C. Graveline stated the purpose of the regulation is to keep the motoi home parked in the least conspicuous location. Chairman Atkins believes the vehicle could be stored or the property in compliance with the regulations. G. Havican stated the property owner needs to be aware of the regulations before they purchase these vehicles. Chairman Atkins called for a vote. In favor ol revoking the enforcement order: None. The enforcement order remains in effect.

c. Application 19-2006: Scott Mastropietro, 24 Cornwall Avenue for a 500 square foot variance of the maximum 800 square foot size limit for a detached garage to construct a 1,300 square foot garage. Motion by C. Graveline, seconded by M. Byrne to approve this application as presented. M. Byrne recognizes the large size of the property and the need to accommodate the applicant's parents. She supports the variance. C. Graveline stated the proposed structure would be within all property line setback requirements on a large 3+ acre parcel. G. Havican also is in favor of granting the variance. Chairman Atkins supports the variance request given the size of the lot and location of the structure. He stated the applicant could legally apply for an attached structure similar in size and location. Chairman Atkins called for a vote noting the height of the structure must still comply with the current zoning requirements. In favor: Unanimous.

d. Petition 20-2006: Richard & Christine Hinckley, 471 Matthew Street appealing a zoning enforcement order directing compliance with Section 5.2.5.3 to relocate detached shed 20 feet minimum from property line. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by C. Graveline to revoke the enforcement order as presented. J. Slapikas stated the Town's attorney supports the enforcement order and does not believe the board should revoke it. He feels there is sufficient room for the shed to be relocated. He does not believe the shed wil] fall over the rear embankment. G. Havican stated he feels the structure must now comply with the regulations because it was moved. C. Graveline stated both sides have been aggrieved. However, he feels the Cease & Desist Order should remain in effect. Chairman Atkins concurs with the board members and called for a vote. In favor to revoke the enforcement order. None. The enforcement order remains in effect.

Public Hearings: (cont)

e. 9:30 p.m. Application 21-2006 of Richard and Christine Hinckley, 471 Matthew Street for a 17 foot rear property line variance for a detached shed. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice ol Public Hearings" for this application as it appeared in the Republican American on November 16, & 24. 2006. Attorney Roger Harbanuk, 472 Wolcott Road, Wolcott, CT represented the applicants. Attorae> Harbanuk stated the hardship is two-fold. The Hinckley's were required to move the shed consequent o1 litigation. However, a settlement was reached where the shed was moved forward approximately 8 feet tc its current location. The shed had been on the property for approximately 16 years. Pictures were presented showing the shed's original and current location. The zoning officer was contacted to see if the shed's new location would satisfy the town. The Zoning Enforcement Officer stated the new location ii acceptable. Attorney Harbanuk stated it has only been recently where a complaint was made on the shed'i location by the current property owner of 93 Plank Road. There is no other location where the shed cat be placed due to topography, septic, dry well, tree and location of other structures. Chairman Atkini confirmed the shed's size is 12' x 16'. Mrs. Hinckley presented pictures of the shed and property Chairman Atkins asked if the shed could be located anywhere else on the property. Mrs. Hinckley statec there is no other location. Chairman Atkins asked if the original shed has been expanded. Mrs. Hinckle> stated it has been expanded since they've owned the property. Mrs. Hinckley stated the original shed wai there when they purchased the property. The lot is less than one acre in size. M. Byrne asked if a surve} has been done of the property. Mrs. Hinckley stated a survey was done sometime in the 1960's. A recen survey was performed in 2005. Chairman Atkins again asked if there is anywhere on the property when the shed could be relocated. Mrs. Hinckley stated the driveway goes between the neighbor's property am her house. M. Byrne asked if the order has been to locate the shed 20 feet from the property line, when would the shed have gone. Mrs. Hinckley stated they would have not moved the shed and gone to court Mrs. Hinckley stated she spoke with Bill Donovan (ZEO) who stated the shed could be moved less that 20 feet. That is why the litigation was withdrawn. After the shed was left in its current location, the nev neighbor began construction on his home and cut the slope back between his property and the Hinckley's Then he complained about the shed's location. Attorney Harbanuk again stated that the litigation couk have continued if the ZEO required the shed be located to meet the regulations. After the shed wai moved, Mr. LaChance withdrew the litigation. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the public Ann Stein, 22 Cook Road is in favor of the variance saying the Hinckleys tried to comply with what was agreed to. Richard LaChance 477 Matthew Street stated his brother, who was the previous owner of th< property, did not attend this meeting because of disability. He is the current owner. He stated ever sincf he first started his project 1 V* years ago, it's been a constant battle with the Hinckleys over multiple issues associated with both properties. His point being there has been no "neighborly' agreement with th< Hinckleys on any matter. Mr. LaChance presented pictures of the shed's current location. He has strong concerns with safety: the shed is placed on cinder blocks on uneven ground. He presented pictures of th< shed's placement. Mr. LaChance believes there are other locations on the Hinckley's property where th< shed can go. There is a trampoline placed on level ground where the shed could go. The shed is current!} 18 inches from his property line. Chairman Atkins asked if there are vehicles stored outside on the Hinckley property. Mr. LaChance stated there are a trailer, commercial pick-up truck, and commercial van on the property. He feels his house has taken the Hinckley's view away of the surrounding property He is asking only that the Hinckleys comply with the law. The shed has never been permitted, nor ha; there been a permit issued for a new porch on the property. Mrs. Hinckley stated the trampoline is ove: the leaching field. She stated the shed is on flat ground and stable; the concern with safety results frorr how Mr. LaChance cut his property in back of the shed. The shed is on blocks. Mr. LaChance stated i someone is coming down the Hinckley's driveway and looses control, they could hit the shed and send i into his house. There was further comment and the public hearing was closed at 10:07 p.m.

Chairman Atkins called for a 5-minute recess.

Action on applications (cont):

e. Application 21-2006 of Richard and Christine Hinckley, 471 Matthew Street for a 17 foot reai property line variance for a detached shed. Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by G. Havican to approvi Application 21-2006 as presented. J. Slapikas stated its unfortunate this has happened. This could be i safety issue and he believes the shed can be moved to another location. C. Graveline is looking for ; compromise. The Hinckleys could have left the shed in its original location, but agreed to move it. Th< neighbor now wants the shed to be moved again to fully comply with the regulations. He suggested ; compromise of moving the shed 10 feet from the property line, or a fence be placed behind the shed fr the Hinckleys. G. Havican feels the shed currently is unstable. It could be moved 10 feet with thi requirement that the shed be property stabilized. Chairman Atkins stated the litigation was withdraw! with some understanding of where the shed would be placed. Had the Hinckleys been required to mov< the shed 20 feet, they would have done so or kept on going with the litigation. He believes there are areas on the property were the shed could be relocated. He likes the idea of a compromise and agrees 10 feet from the property line is fair. M. Byrne also believes another location is feasible, even if a new variance were required. B. Donovan mentioned the shed must still be located behind the front of the house. He suggested a 10 foot property line variance to allow the shed to be located 10 feet from the rear or eithei side line. M. Byrne stated if other than the rear property line is involved, a new variance is required. C. Graveline stated the other option is to allow the shed to be less than 10 feet but require a fence be installed for screening. M. Byrne withdrew her motion. Motion by M. Atkins, seconded C. Graveline to approve a 10 foot variance for the present shed to be relocated a minimum 10 feet from the rear property line with no additions or changes made to the structure. The structure must be relocated within 30 days after the 15 day statutory appeal period expires. Four in favor with one opposed. Motion to approve carries.

Old Business: None

Approval of Minutes: Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by C. Graveline to approve the October 24, 2006 minutes as presented. Four votes in favor with one abstention. Motion to approve carries.

Public Participation: None.

Adjournment: Motion by M. Byrne, (thank God!) seconded by J. Slapikas to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. Unanimous.

Martin Atkins, Chairman