Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
APPROVED MINUTES
October 24, 2006
Chairman Martin Atkins called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Other Members Present: Jeff Slapikas, Marianne Byrne, Carl Graveline, Lori DaSilva (alt)
Members Absent: Matthew Blinstrubas, George Havican (alt)
Also Present: William Donovan, Clerk/Land Use Inspector
Chairman Atkins seated L. DaSilva for M. Blinstrubas
Correspondence: a. Connecticut Water Company: Letter reminding of requirement for applicants to notify the water company for any proposed activity within a drinking water supply watershed or aquifer.
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 14-2006: Todd Brewer, 29 Maple Drive for a 13 foot side yard variance for a
sunroom. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public Hearings" for this application as it
appeared in the Republican American on October 12 & 20, 2006. Mr. Brewer is representing the property
owners, Claire and Bruce Hadzega. The Hadzegas are seeking to construct a three-season sunroom over
an existing deck that would be 12 feet from their right side property line They are seeking a 13 foot side
property line variance. Chairman Atkins asked for confirmation that the sunroom is being constructed
within the existing deck's footprint. Mr. Brewer stated that is correct. The variance includes the overhang
for the roof. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the public. There were no comments from the
public and no further questions from the board. The public hearing was closed at 7: 16 p.m.
Chairman Atkins asked for a motion to add Christine and Richard Hinckley, 471 Matthew Street to the agenda. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by M. Byrne to add Christine and Richard Hinckley to the agenda. Unanimous.
b. 7:20 p.m. Application 15-2006: Gary & Lynn Beard, 131 Matthew Street for a 15 foot side property
line variance for an attached garage. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public
Hearings" for this application as it appeared in the Republican American on October 12 & 20, 2006. Mr.
Beard stated he is seeking to construct an adjoining garage 10 feet from the side line. The garage will be
17 feet wide by 38 feet long. He presented a detailed plot plan for the board's review. Mailings were
completed to the adjoining neighbors and receipts were given to the clerk. This will be a 1 '/2 car garage.
Mr. Beard stated his hardship is there is only 15 feet between the house and left side line. The lot is 1/2
acre in size and has 111 feet of frontage. It is non-conforming in both minimum size and frontage
requirements. Also, with the well in front and septic in the back there really is no other practical place to
put a garage. M. Byrne asked how long have the applicants lived here. Mr. Beard stated 1 1A years. C.
Graveline commented it appears the original garage was converted to living space. Mr. Beard stated it
was. Chairman Atkins asked that even though the garage is designed as a 1 Vz car structure, would there
be only one car parked inside. Mr. Beard stated that is correct; remaining space will be for storage. The
chairman asked if a detached garage can be placed on the property. Mr. Beard stated he does not believe
so. Mr. Beard stated a 30-50 foot strip of land on the right side of his property extends to property located
in the rear. There are two separate properties in back of Mr. Beard's house. A portion of this rear property
has been deeded over to the Prospect Land Trust. Mr. Beard stated this strip of land separates his property
and proposed garage from the next closest property on the road. Chairman Atkins asked if there is any
ledge on the applicant's property. Mr. Beard stated he does not think so. Chairman Atkins asked what the
structure's width would be if it was reduced to a one car garage. Mr. Beard stated he would guess 13 or 14 feet wide. Chairman Atkins asked for comments of the public. Peter Rhodes (???), 130 Matthew Street is in favor of granting the variance. He does not believe the structure would harm the character of the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m.
c. 7:40 p.m. Application 16-2006: BillieJo Racine representing the Prospect Historical Society, 61 Waterbury Road to place a second detached sign on a Business District zoned property. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public Hearings" as it appeared in the Republican American on October 12 & 20, 2006. Chairman Atkins noted the property is owned by the Town of Prospect. Ms. Racine presented a sketch of the proposed sign. Chairman Atkins asked if consideration was given to reconfiguring the existing sign on the property to accommodate both signs. Ms. Racine has concerns there may be too much information on one sign post for the traveling public to take in, and also the Historical Society would likely not agree to replace their existing sign. M. Byrne asked why it sounds like there are two different groups involved. Ms Racine stated she represents "The Shed" that is a separate program of the Historical Society that acts as a fund raiser for the society. J. Slapikas asked what the maximum allowed height for a sign is. B. Donovan stated 15 feet. J. Slapikas stated then it is possible for two separate signs that together equal less than the maximum 24 square foot area for signage to be placed on two 15 foot sign posts. B. Donovan stated that is possible. Ms. Racine stated she has mailed all required notices to the adjacent properties. Receipts of the mailings were given to the clerk. Ms. Racine confirmed the proposed second sign and existing sign combined equal 20 square feet in area and does not require a variance. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the public. No comments were received and the public hearing was closed at 7:47 p.m.
New Business:
a. Antonio Mendes, 55 Straitsville Road. Application for an 8 foot variance of the front property line setback to place a detached garage 42 feet from the property line. Mr. Mendes is seeking to place a 20' x 20' foot detached garage on his property. He would be parking one or two cars in the garage. M. Byrne asked why the garage is proposed at the shown location. Mr. Mendes stated this is where the driveway is located and the area itself is relatively flat. Chairman Atkins asked if an addition could be added to the existing garage. Mr. Mendes stated this could put him into the 25 foot buffer. The garage could be moved back one or two feet but this would put the two buildings fairly close together making it difficult to back out of one garage without hitting the other. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by M. Byrne to accept Application 17-2006 as presented. Unanimous. A public hearing was scheduled for November 28, 2006 at 7:10 p.m.
b. Joseph Bednarek, Jr., 11 Morris Road. Appeal from the decision of the official charged with the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bednarek stated he is appealing having to park his motor home other than on his driveway. B. Donovan informed the board that a zoning regulation requires motor homes to be stored on residential properties at least 50 feet from the front property line or, if the home is less than 50 feet to the front property line, that the motor home cannot be stored closer to the street than the home. Mr. Bednarek's house is approximately 50 feet to the front property line and his motor home is stored closer to the street than his home. Chairman Atkins asked if the motor home is used very often. Mr. Bednarek stated he uses it very little. The motor home is 32 feet long. It is parked hi the driveway approximately 40 feet from the road. He has owned the motor home for four or five years. It is registered. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by L. DeSilva to accept Petition 18-2006 for an appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer's enforcement order. Unanimous. A public hearing was scheduled for November 28, 2006 at 7:20 p.m.
c. Scott Mastropietro, 24 Cornwall Avenue. Application 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. Mr. Mastropietro stated he is seeking a 500 foot variance of the size limitation on detached garages. The home was built in 1997 with a 2-car attached garage and separate garage bay. He has owned the house for 2 years. Chairman Atkins asked for the hardship. Mr. Mastropietro stated his father recently became ill and
will be living with the family. There are four children in the family and storage space has become extremely limited. The proposed garage would be 36' x 36' with 1 !/2 stories. His house is 4,100 squari feet. The lot is approximately 3.14 acres. The proposed garage would be in proportion to the house am lot. Motion by C. Graveline, seconded by M. Byrne to accept Application 19-2006 as presented Unanimous. A public hearing was scheduled for 7:40 p.m. on November 28, 2006.
d. Christine Hinckley, 471 Matthew Street. Application for a 17 foot variance for a detached ut building. B. Donovan stated there is an enforcement order in effect directing Mrs. Hinckley to relocatf her shed at least 20 feet from her property line. He stated it may be more to Mrs. Hinckley 's benefit tc submit an appeal of the enforcement order rather than submit an application for a variance. Mrs. Hincklej agreed to do whatever would be the correct procedure. Chairman Atkins stated he would allow ai amendment of the application for an Appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officers' enforcement order Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by C. Graveline to accept Petition 20-2006 for an appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer's enforcement order directing Mrs. Hinckley to relocate her detached shed i minimum 20 feet from her property line. Discussion. Mrs. Hinckley stated the shed had originally beer located on the neighbor's property. The neighbor brought legal action against the Hinckleys to move the shed off of their properly. Mrs. Hinckley spoke with Bill Donovan approximately 2 years prior who a1 that time said if the shed can be moved entirely off of the neighbor's property this would be satisfactory Mr. Donovan is now saying the shed must be located at least 20 feet from the property line to be ir compliance with the zoning setback requirements. A new house has been constructed on the abutting property where the shed was originally located. J. Slapikas asked about the copies of the legal papers contained in the application packet. B. Donovan explained when Mrs. Hinckley first contacted him aboui this matter he was of the opinion that the shed, which had been located on the neighbor's property foi more than three years, had pre-existing legal standing of exemption from the regulations for setback. He has since been advised by the Town's attorney that once such a structure is moved it looses the statutorj exemption and must comply as if it were a new structure. C. Graveline asked if any portion of the shed's existing location is on any portion of the prior location. Mrs. Hinckley stated the shed is completely ofl the prior location. A discussion followed on how far the shed was actually moved. B. Donovan stated because of the legal matters and individuals involved it may be advisable to allow Mrs. Hinckley the option of pursuing either a variance or petition. He suggested accepting an application for a variance as well as the petition for an appeal. Chairman Atkins first asked for a vote on accepting the petition, Unanimous. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by L. DaSilva to accept Application 21-2006 of Christine and Richard Hinckley for a 1 7 foot rear property line variance for a detached shed. Unanimous. A public hearing was scheduled for November 28, 2006 at 7:50 p.m.
Old Business: None
Actions on Applications:
a. Application 14-2006: Todd Brewer, 29 Maple Drive for a 13 foot side property line variance for a sunroom. Motion by C. Graveline, seconded by L. DaSilva to approve the application as presented. Discussion: J. Slapikas stated he feels the variance request is reasonable. The sunroom is being placed over an existing legal non-conforming deck and the builder has taken into account the roof overhang in the variance. C. Graveline also stated his approval based on the new sunroom being constructed over existing structures. There was no further discussion and a vote to approve was Unanimous.
b. Application 15-2006: Gary & Lynn Beard, 131 Matthew Street for a 15 foot side property line variance for an attached garage. Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by L. DaSilva to approve this application as presented. Discussion: J. Slapikas stated the applicant has attempted to reduce both the size of the structure and variance from his original application that was recently denied. He stated the board can consider the fact that there is a 40-foot easement on the right side of the property that will further separate the garage from any structures located on the abutting lot. C. Graveline questioned if this easement or driveway was paved in the future whether this could cause water problems to the garage. Chairman Atkins stated the board is approving a footprint for a structure — not only a garage. Other uses in this
location could be forthcoming with the approval of this variance. M. Byrne stated she does not have a problem with the variance request. Chairman Atkins questioned the hardship involved and does not feel there is one. C. Graveline also is not sure whether a valid hardship exists. J. Slapikas stated the garage would not impact or be harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. It is a small garage on a small lot and the applicants are only trying to utilize their property in a reasonable manner. Chairman Atkins called foi a vote. In favor: 4; opposed 1. Motion to approve carries.
c. Application 16-2006: BillieJo Racine (Prospect Historical Society), 61 Waterbury Road for a variance to place a second detached sign on the property. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by C. Graveline to approve the application as presented. Discussion: M. Byrne stated she does not feel a variance is necessary as the two signs can easily be combined on one common stanchion or twin posts and be compliant with the regulations. Other board members agreed. In favor: None. Motion by J. Slapikas, seconded by C. Graveline to deny the application as presented. In favor of denial: Unanimous. The application was denied. J. Slapikas stated having multiple signs allowed on commercial properties is not a good precedent. Once one property is approved for additional signs, other commercial businesses are sure to follow with similar requests.
Approval of Minutes: Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by C. Graveline to approve the September 26, 2006 minutes as presented. Four votes in favor with one abstention. Motion to approve carries.
Public Participation: None. Under general discussion Bill Donovan mentioned the board's last meeting of the year falls on December 26th. It was agreed to change that meeting date to Tuesday, December 19th.
Adjournment: Motion by M. Byrne, seconded by J. Slapikas to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Unanimous.
Martin Atkins, Chairman