 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
| ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES |
A Public Hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Norwalk, Connecticut
was held on
December 9, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in Norwalk City Hall in the Council Chambers.
Present were:
Anne Carbone; Chairperson, Richard Lowenthal, Kathleen Nagle; Secretary, Joseph
Santo, Gordon Tully, Patrick Geraghty (Alternate) and Dawn DelGreco (Alternate)
Also present were James Bradley, Zoning Inspector; Aline Rochefort, Deputy Zoning Inspector and Mike Greene, Director of Planning & Zoning
The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
The Chairperson reviewed the Zoning Board of Appeals procedure concerning the presentation of all applications. She stated they were expected to get through the agenda and reminded those speaking to clearly give their name and address for purposes of the recording machine. She asked those persons that have any materials to present in the viewing area to bring the microphone with them. And she requested that all audience members turn off their cell phones.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Chairperson announced stated there would be a slight change in the agenda
to take up an Executive Session matter #04-1021-03.
She also announced that item #04-1209-01 DOUGLAS HARNED – 1 PLANT COURT would
be postponed until January 6, 2005.
She stated the Executive Session would be opened to take up the following item and then closed. The Executive Session would be reopened at the end of the meeting to take up the other agenda items.
EXECUTIVE SESSION for:
#04-1021-03 JACK & MARILYN STEPKOSKI 28-30 HIGHWOOD AVENUE
Mr. Geraghty said on paper, the lots appeared to have been kept separate according to the tax cards. However, he was left with the impression that although on paper they were separate, he felt the property was used as one lot; so he was not inclined to grant the request.
Mr. Santo stated the even though they built steps to the property line; they never intentionally merged as one lot. He said if you looked at the map, many lots in the development area don’t conform to the Magnolia Park Development. Also, he thought granting the request would not harm the neighbors and none of them objected. But if the request was granted, he said the steps should be removed and the deck should conform, which will make the variance conform and the house will be the same as others on the street.
Mr. Lowenthal agreed with Mr. Santo. He added that they should remove the steps. He said that although the lot was challenged, he didn’t think the stone patio was significant enough to be considered a merged lot. Overall, he didn’t see any evidence of a merger, so he was agreeable to granting the request.
Mr. Tully agreed that the property would now be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. However, he pointed out that the statute says that lots are automatically merged as they pertain to the regulations, so he felt the board should support that statute. He also agreed there was dual usage and there was clearly recreation on the end of the property.
Ms. Carbone said as for the steps being on the lot line, if they were done with a permit, then it wouldn’t be an issue. However, she felt there was clearly intent to merge, so she said she would vote against granting the request.
** MS. CARBONE MADE A MOTION TO DENY SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEVELOP TWO NONCONFORMING
LOTS IN SAME OWNERSHIP, SEC. 118-800E(2) & 118-1410A(2)e FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
IN “C” RESIDENCE ZONE
** MR. TULLY SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED WITH THREE VOTES IN FAVOR, TWO VOTES IN OPPOSITON AND ONE ABSTENTION
(COMMISSIONER NAGLE)
Commissioner Geraghty left the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
#04-1209-03 – THEOFILIS & HELENE LAZARIDES – 25 WESTPORT AVENUE - VARIANCE
OF DRIVEWAY ISLE WIDTH; VARIANCE OF NUMBER OF STORIES PERMITTED; VARIANCE OF
SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LEGALIZATION OF 3 DWELLING UNITS IN BUSINESS NO. 2 ZONE
Ms. Carbone read the variance.
Ms. Nagle read the application.
Ms. Nagle requested waiving the reading of Schedule A and B narratives to be
made part of the record. Attorney Suchy agreed to waive the readings.
Ms. Nagle read the memo dated December 9, 2004 from Aline Rochefort, Deputy
Zoning Inspector.
Attorney Suchy stated she would speak as the representative for the applicant. She submitted the proof of mailings.
Attorney Suchy approached the display and acquainted the board members to the
property located at 25 Westport Avenue near Stew Leonard’s and the Dress Barn
in proximity to a new development to the west.
She said the property was located in the Business #2 Zone where commercial uses
are allowed and the
D-R Zone that allows multi-family uses. She said this was not an issue whether
the use was permitted, but it was issue of the 3-unit structure to be situated
on the property. She pointed out the photos on display showing the property.
She further stated the applicant purchased the property in March 1968 where
they came across a Statement of Closing that highlighted five dwelling units
that existed.
Ms. Nagle asked when the property was purchased, was it a 3-story and was it in compliance. Attorney Suchy said the structure existed in its current configuration since 1909, so it pre-dated zoning and has not been added to since then.
Ms. Nagle asked if it became a 2-family use, would they still require a variance for the third story. Attorney Suchy said yes, if it met the definition of a story. She said the 2-family structure required a 6 ft. sideyard.
Ms. Nagle questioned then what they would need to be here for in terms of current compliance. Attorney Suchy said they would need to be here for parking.
Attorney Suchy said the property was purchased in 1968 with five apartments; but she wasn’t sure when it was converted. She explained the problem came up when they had a Fire Department inspection in the year 2002 and they were required to construct another means of egress, so her client’s were issued a Cease and Desist. In. the year 2003, her firm was retained to give them assistance to look at what variance was required. She further noted that it would have required ten (10) parking spaces and 1,000 ft. of recreation area, but they couldn’t accommodate that, so they applied for legalization of the 4-units that would be more reasonable, but they still needed the parking space variance.
Attorney Suchy continued and said that a public hearing was held this year and the application was denied. She pointed out that the minutes from that meeting indicated a comment by Commissioner Lowenthal and former Commissioner Feinstein that they had no objection. And Mr. Tully expressed that he had mixed feelings. Commissioner’s Nagle and Carbone thought the property was too dense and there was an overuse of the property. She stressed however that his was a brand new application and they reduced the application by 25%, so they were now able to accommodate six (6) parking spaces on site with a recreation area. She noted the back would be cleaned up to put in benches, but they were unable to meet the sideyard setback at 10 ft. and the number of stories and back-up aisle way.
Attorney Suchy spoke about the back up distance. She said spaces 1 and 2 didn’t provide enough space. She said at space #5, the lot starts to narrow. When they reconfigured the back of the lot for parking, there is now a turnaround area, where cars can back in.
Mr. Lowenthal asked if the turnaround existed now. Attorney Suchy said it’s being proposed.
Ms. Carbone asked if the applicant ever owned the property at the back of Stew Leonard’s. Attorney Suchy relied no, never.
Mr. Santo asked what the back up requirement was. Attorney Suchy said there was a 24 ft. back up requirement. Mr. Bradley and Ms. Rochefort both agreed that 24 ft. was the legal dimension.
Ms. Nagle asked for the back up requirement, did it matter what number of units were there. Ms. Rochefort said with a different number of units, they may have been able to configure it differently, but this wouldn’t apply to two units.
Mr. Lowenthal asked if there was an attic apartment. Attorney Suchy said there was one and the tenant still lived there. She noted that she testified at the last hearing.
Ms. Nagle questioned if they couldn’t document the sideyard, would they still need a variance, due to the way the building existed. Mr. Greene said if they were converting it from one to two units, then they would need a variance, but if it was originally a 2-family, then it’s fine.
Mr. Tully questioned ownership of the property behind Stew Leonard’s. Attorney Suchy said she represented the Stew Leonard’s at the time and there was never any purchase to develop the Lazarides site.
Ms. Nagle asked if a survey was ever done predated to zoning. Attorney Suchy said they submitted an up-to-date survey, but they didn’t have a survey done in 1968. Mr. Greene said the survey showed where the surveyor referenced the maps. On survey-A, lot #6 was dated in 1907 and there was the other highway map, as well as the Stew Leonard’s map. He said that out of the four references, there was only one reference for this property. Mr. Tully asked then if they could assume there was no change in the lot since then, since it was listed on the map. Mr. Greene said yes.
Ms. Nagle asked about the 1907 map and if it was identical to the property they were looking at tonight. Mr. Greene said he wasn’t sure, but he said that information was could be found on file in the Town Clerk’s office. Attorney Suchy stated they could supply the title search if required.
Mr. Lowenthal asked about the chain link fence and the curb. Attorney Suchy said the chain link fence and the curb needed to be moved over and the fence needed to be properly positioned.
Attorney Suchy said there was a question about the 1929 tax card and whether it reads 2 or 3-family, but she thought it read 2-family. Ms. Rochefort had the original. And Mr. Greene noted that the tax card read that it was a double, but he said it wasn’t clear what that indicated.
Ms. Nagle asked if there was any history of building permits. Attorney Suchy said there weren’t any on file; she said they could go back to the Building Department to make sure they haven’t found any. Ms. Nagle said the letter from the Building Department stating they weren’t able to locate any permits would be helpful.
Attorney Suchy said that since the board was requesting the deed and map, she suggested they hold the hearing open so those documents could be presented. Mr. Greene stated that continuing the hearing would be okay, but he recommended they hear any comments for or against tonight and continue the matter only for the specific items requested. Attorney Suchy agreed that would be okay and she said she would save any rebuttal until the next scheduled hearing.
The Chairperson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of this application.
The Chairperson asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition of this application.
Attorney Suchy asked if she needed to re-notify the neighbors. Mr. Greene said the hearing would be noticed in the newspaper again.
It was clarified the following items should be presented at the next hearing:
§ Map # 218 – 1907 survey
§ All building permits if available or a letter from the Building Department
regarding there are no permits on file.
§ Copy of the title search
§ Copy of the field card
It was announced that this application would be held open and continued.
#04-1209-02 – MATINA PANAGIOTIDIS – 11 MAGNOLIA AVENUE - SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEVELOP A NONCONFORMING LOT IN SAME OWNERSHIP AS ADJOINING LOT IN “C” RESIDENCE ZONE
Ms. Carbone read the special exception.
Ms. Nagle read the application and Schedule-A attachment.
Ms. Nagle read the memo dated December 9, 2004 from James Bradley, Zoning Inspector.
Attorney Lathouris stated he would speak as the representative for the applicant
who was present. He explained the title to the property was in the applicant’s
wife’s name, but she wasn’t present. Attorney Lathouris submitted an affidavit
from the adjacent homeowner who has lived near the property for 39 years. He
attested in his statement that the property was always a separate lot with no
driveways. In addition, the lady who used to own the property passed away, but
she knew his client’s father for over twenty years and recalled hearing talk
about developing the lot. But when it was sold, she sold it to his client’s.
He submitted the affidavit into the record from:
Eddie Jalbert, 72 Stuart Avenue, Norwalk, CT
Ms. Nagle read the letter into the record dated December 8, 2004. The letter
basically stated that there was never any structure on the property at 11 Magnolia
Avenue.
Mr. Demetrius Panagiotidis in of 13 Magnolia Avenue approached. And Ms. Nagle
asked the applicant the following questions:
· How long did he reside at 11 Magnolia Avenue
Response - for two years.
· When he purchased the property were lots 72 and 72 included.
Response – yes
· How was the property used.
Response- he used to cut the lawn, but the lot was empty.
· Was there a shed or anything else on the lot, such as a garden etc.
Response - no
· When he purchased the property was anything on the empty lot.
Response - no, nothing.
Mr. Tully asked if there were shrubs in front and were they kept up.
Response - yes.
Ms. Nagle asked if he had any knowledge of the lot’s use by the prior owner’s.
Response – no.
Ms. Nagle asked about the survey that was submitted. She questioned lines drawn out with the setback requirements outlined in the memo. She asked if all was in compliance with the setback requirements for the zone. Mr. Bradley said as indicated in the memo, those were the requirements.
Mr. Lowenthal asked how old the garage was. Mr. Pan…said it had been there for as long as he remembered, noting he was 29 years old.
Ms. Carbone asked how old the house was. Attorney Lathouris said it was built before the 1940’s.
The Chairperson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of this application.
The Chairperson asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition of this application.
Attorney Lathouris stated they were not seeking a hardship. In addition, he said research indicated that the individual at 64 Magnolia Avenue was granted a Special Exception, so he felt it was justified that they be granted one as well.
Hearing no one, she closed the public hearing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Ms. Nagle with the evidence presented, a lot of documents were submitted that indicated the parcels were kept separate. Also, the affidavit that was submitted by the neighbor stating it was a vacant parcel that wasn’t used. There were no structures on the lot to indicate a merger and this seemed to indicate the parcels were kept separate. She said that upon her observance, the driveways were kept separate, so she was in favor of granting the request.
Mr. Tully agreed with that it was proven that the lots were kept separate.
Ms. Carbone said the house in the center of the property and the driveway on the other side was away from the vacant lot, so it seemed to be treated as a separate lot, so she was in favor of granting the request.
Mr. Lowenthal concurred.
Mr. Santo concurred.
** MS. CARBONE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEVELOP A NONCONFORMING
LOT IN SAME OWNERSHIP AS ADJOINING LOT (SEC. 118-800E2 & 1410A2e) IN “C”
RESIDENCE ZONE. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 MAGNOLIA AVENUE
** MR. SANTO SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Effective date December 17, 2004.
REQUEST FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION TO ZBA #04-0603-06 g. PAMPOUKIDIS & L. &
S. PASCHALIDIS – 138 MAIN STREET
** MS. CARBONE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION TO ZBA
#04-0603-06 g. PAMPOUKIDIS & L. & S. PASCHALIDIS – 138 MAIN STREET
** MR. TULLY SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED WITH FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR AND ONE ABSTENTION (COMMISSIONER NAGLE)
Mr. Greene explained that this item involved a club with parking across the street. Mr. Bradley said they were requesting an extension to obtain affidavits that need to be filed on the land records. He noted that the parking space confusion was rectified.
BOARD ACTION ON 18NOVEMBER04 HEARING MINUTES
Corrections
Page 2; 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, should read: Overall, they didn’t feel
the variance requested would negatively impact the neighborhood and there have
been no complaints from the neighbors.
Page 2; 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence, should read: Ms. Nagle asked if the applicant
would testify under oath, that she had no knowledge of the zoning regulations
and that she relied on the contractor.
Page 5; remainder of paragraph at top of page, should read: said if there is
a good faith reliance, the homeowner should not be penalized,…
Page 5; 6th paragraph from the top, 3rd sentence, should read: Ms. Nagle stated
that clearly this was a good faith reliance on someone that led the applicant
astray.
** MS. CARBONE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED
** MS. NAGLE SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
ADJOURNMENT
** MS. CARBONE MOVED TO ADJOURN
** MR. LOWENTHAL SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Graham
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |