Chairman Martin Atkins called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.

Other Members Present: Carl Graveline, Matthew Blinstrubas, George Havican (Alt),Lori DaSilva (alt)

Members Absent: Jeffrey Slapikas, Marianne Byrne

Also Present: William Donovan, Clerk/Land Use Inspector

Chairman Atkins seated G. Havican for J. Slapikas and L. DaSilva for M. Byrne

CORRRESPONDENCE: As entered under "Public Hearing"

CLERICAL BILL: Motion by M. Blinstrubas, seconded by G. Havican to pay the clerical bill. Unanimous.

PUBLIC HEARING:
a. Application 11-2006: Lisa & Dean Accetura, 6 Rozum Circle for a 42 foot front line variance for a housi addition. Chairman Atkins read into the record the "Notice of Public Hearing" for this application as it appearei in the Republican American on August 24 & September 1, 2006. Attorney Edward Fitzpatrick represented the applicants and presented a letter from Dean Accetura to this effect. Chairman Atkins entered three letters a correspondence: James and Kimberly Tompkins, 10 Rozum Circle, Anna and John Mauriello, 16 Rozum Circh and the Emmons Family of 3 Rozum Circle all supporting the requested variance. Chairman Atkins asked Bil Donovan, Land use Inspector for the Town of Prospect, to summarize the events associated with this variance Mr. Donovan stated his office received an application for an "Accessory Living Unit" that required an additior at 6 Rozum Circle. The builder had left the application with his assistant who processed the application ir normal procedure. Several days afterwards, Mr. Donovan was on Rozum Circle and noticed the location of the addition being too close to the street. He looked at the application and realized the builder was using the street line as a side line. The regulations require a structure to be 50 feet from the front property line and 25 feet from a side property line. Mr. Donovan stated the lot also meets the definition of a "Corner Lot" under the regulations because of the sharp angle of the roadway abutting 6 Rozum Circle. As such, a primary building or accessory living unit must be at least 50 feet from the property line of the entire street on which it abuts. He notified the builder about this problem and asked that he have the owners apply for a variance. The builder stated he had understood that the addition's location was acceptable under the regulations as he had received a zoning permit and had not heard otherwise from the zoning office. The applicant's application shows the addition 26 feet from the edge of pavement. However, a recent "as-built" plot plan prepared for this meeting shows the addition actually being only 8 feet from the property line. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated the builder is not the applicant—the Acceturas are the applicants. The issue before the board is the hardship the Acceturas will endure if the variance is not granted. This is a unique situation where undue hardship to the property owner would occur without relief from the board. He stated there is legal precedent for a ZBA to grant relief under these conditions. C. Graveline asked what the size of the lot is. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated .6 acres. C. Graveline asked for plans and when and how the builder was selected. He asked Mr. Accetura if he knew Jeff Slapikas, the builder, was also a member of the ZBA. L. DaSilva asked when construction began on the addition. Mr. Accetura stated after July 4th. Chairman Atkins asked for comments from the public. Robert Accetura, 38 Woodcrest Drive questioned what can be the harm in allowing this addition to go forward to provide housing for aging parents. Barbara Bragg, 12 Rozum Circle supports the variance. Kim Slapikas, 51 Royal Crest Drive is the builder's wife. She stated there was confusion over whether this was a normal sideline or corner lot front line. Her husband believed he was in agreement with the regulations and any mistakes made were not done intentionally. C. Graveline stated when he looked at the addition and saw how close the structure was to the street, he could not understand how the builder would not have known he was too close to the property line. Attorney Fitzpatrick again stated that mistakes were made, but there is also an unusual difficulty involved in not being able to place a house addition anywhere on this lot without the need for a variance. The real hardship is with the home owner, who suffers because of the building restrictions on his lot and mistakes made in preparing and processing his application by both the buildei and zoning office. Chairman Atkins asked Bill Donovan how the zoning application was approved. Bill statec his assistant reviewed the application believing the addition complied with a sideline setback and Bill signed of on the application accordingly. Chairman Atkins asked Bill had he reviewed the application himself, if he mighi have noticed the problem with the measurements. Bill stated he would likely have, but he did not and this is wh> there is a variance before the board. Bill recognized the oversight from his office and has adjusted the application process to require an 'as-built' foundation plan when a proposed structure is 5 feet or less to a property line setback as shown on a zoning application. Bill Scarpati, the building inspector for Prospect, confirmed what Bill Donovan is doing and added the requirement for "as-built" plans following the installation of foundations is becoming more prevalent in towns throughout the state. Ann Stein, 22 Cook Road asked what the standard procedure is for accepting and processing construction applications. Ron Aliciene, 15 Heritage Drive supports the variance saying mistakes were made and the building limitations on this lot allow for relief from this board. C. Graveline asked Bill Scarpati what was left to be done with the process of obtaining a building permit for the structure. Bill Scarpatti stated a document was missing from the application to issue a building permit at that time, but all required paperwork is now in his office. M. Blinstrubas asked for confirmation whether there is any other location where an addition could be placed without the need for a variance. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated because the house was built prior to the current zoning regulations the house is located within the front property line setback requirements. Even if the accessory living unit were built as a second-story addition a variance would be required. He stated the specific hardship involved is the current zoning regulations restricting building setbacks on corner lots as defined in the regulations. However, those same zoning regulations allow for an accessory living unit for in-laws which is what the applicants are attempting to build. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated the angled configuration of the lot, the location of the house which was built prior to zoning and is within the front property line setback, and the location of the septic system and pool prevent conformity with the regulations. Chairman Atkins asked B. Donovan if this lot with the sharp corner angle is unique to the town. Bill stated it is and that he is not aware of other such lots in Prospect. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m.

ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOLLOWING CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING:

a. Application 11-2006: Lisa & Dean Accetura, 6 Rozum Circle for a 42 foot front line variance for a house addition. Motion by C. Graveline, seconded by M. Blinstrubas to approve Application 11-2006 as presented. Discussion: C. Graveline stated he understands the confusion with the old and new regulations for 25 foot side line setbacks and recognizes the builder proceeded on the belief that he was in compliance. He stated to look at the addition it seems very close to the road but he understands the hardship is the limitation of building anywhere on this lot because of the house location, in-ground pool and septic system. M. Blinstrubas also agrees with the hardship in that even if the applicant were to build up, they would need a variance anyway. L. DaSilva believes there was good faith in building the addition and that the hardship is with the homeowner who would suffer from the mistakes made if the variance is not granted. She is in favor of the variance. G. Havican also is in favor of the variance saying the homeowner would suffer without relief from the board. Chairman Atkins stated because the builder had cut in a jag at the corner of the addition indicates he was trying to stay 25 feet from the property line. The owner is an innocent party in the matter. The town made mistakes in the processing of this application and the job of the board is not to penalize the property owner consequently. The lot is non-conforming and regardless the property owner would have needed a variance to build. There was no malice or intent to deceive involved. C. Graveline stated that the neighbors who sent correspondence and are present all support the variance. Chairman Atkins called for a vote. In favor: Unanimous.

ADJOURNMENT: Motion by C. Graveline, seconded by G. Havican to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Unanimous.

Martin Atkins, Chairman