 |  |  |
| | |
| ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES |
CITY OF NORWALK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JULY 10, 2008
Approved September 4, 2008
Ms. Carbone called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
PRESENT: Anne Carbone; John Hamlin; Dawn DelGreco; Steven Colarossi; Taylor Strubinger
STAFF: Aline Rochefort, Zoning Inspector; Vladimir Mariano, Deputy Zoning Inspector; Lindsey MCurran, Compliance Assistant
OTHERS: Shawn Smith; Atty. Ronald M. Gold; Wanda Contolini; Steven Certilman
Ms. Carbone went over the ground rules of a public hearing. She announced that one Commissioner was planning to recuse himself during hearings C. and D. Ms. Carbone asked the applicant if he preferred to appear before five commissioners, rather than the four present tonight. The applicant’s attorney said that he would prefer to appear before five commissioners. Ms. Carbone stated that items C. and D. would be postponed until August 7, 2008.
C. 08-0710-02 Muller Park Realty Company LLC. Appeal of Cease & Desist order. Property located at 30 Muller Ave.
The item was postponed until August 7, 2008.
D. 08-0710-03 Muller Park Realty Company LLC. Hutchinson Tree Care Specialists. Appeal of Denial to issue certificate of Zoning Compliance. Property located at 30 Muller Ave.
The item was postponed until August 7, 2008.
The Board agreed to hear Item B. first tonight.
B.08-0710-01 Sports Authority. Variance to replace existing wall & ground signs. Property located at 444 Connecticut Ave.
Ms. Carbone opened the public hearing. Mr. Colarossi read the legal notice. Mr. Smith, representing Sports Authority, explained that the sign change involves removing the word “The” from the sign, so that it would read “Sports Authority”, instead of “The Sports Authority. He explained that the proposal was to maintain the existing square footage, change the font, and to use LED illuminated lighting, which he described as a “green” product.
Mr. Colarossi read a memo from Ms. Rochefort.
Mr. Colarossi asked if the sign would be brighter than the previous one. Mr. Smith explained that it would look better and be well suited to the new façade on the building.
Ms. Carbone asked for a photograph of the sign. Ms. Rochefort stated that there was a photograph in the application. Ms. Carbone asked if the sign was within current code now. Ms. Rochefort said that it was not and that variances were still needed for letter size and height.
Ms. DelGreco asked if the frame would remain the same on the road sign. Mr. Smith said yes.
Mr. Hamlin asked what the applicant would do, if the Board were to deny the application. Mr. Smith said that the sign would be “popped out” and minor maintenance performed.
Ms. DelGreco asked if this was a new logo for the company nationwide. Mr. Smith said that it was.
There was a discussion of the dimensions of the sign.
Ms. Carbone closed the public hearing.
Ms. Carbone opened the public hearing. Mr. Colarossi read the report from Ms. Rochefort. Atty. Gold stated that the applicant was requesting variances for an administrative error. He discussed the litigation in a criminal court concerning his applicant. Atty. Gold also discussed statutes of limitations regarding criminal matters. Mr. Hamlin stated that the Board did not have jurisdiction over criminal liability and asked Atty. Gold why he was discussing it here. Atty. Gold explained that he was showing background information about the application.
Atty. Gold showed an aerial photograph of the residence, as well as a survey of the property. He discussed the pitch of the driveway and added that drainage conditions had been improved. Ms. Rochefort asked when the photograph had been taken. Atty. Gold said it had been taken that day. He showed additional photographs of the house and explained that the property had severe topographical conditions. He emphasized that the peak of the house had not changed. Atty. Gold also discussed the residence’s ability to integrate with the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Colarossi asked if there were any building permits. Atty. Gold said that there were not.
Atty Gold stated that the non-conformity of the residence was three stories back in 1984 and is still three stories, with the only change being in the grade. He added that the change in grade had been due to repairs that were necessary from an engineering standpoint. He reiterated that his applicant is entitled to a variance.
Mr. Hamlin asked Atty. Gold to explain how things had reached this point procedurally. Atty. Gold said that problems had been addressed since 1982 concerning the property. He added that in 2002, neighbors had complained that the property was an eyesore. Atty. Gold said that he had suggested painting the residence and cleaning up the property. Ms. Carbone added that there were also complaints about a lack of permits.
Ms. Rochefort reiterated that the application had reached this point because there was no response to a Cease and Desist order issued in 2003 for modifications to a garage without permits. Mr. Colarossi asked what work had been done in 2003. Atty. Gold said that it was cosmetic work done on the garage. Mr. Hamlin asked whether the Cease and Desist order was perhaps issued for an unfinished project dating from 1989. Atty. Gold said that the structural aspects of that project had been completed, but that the property had been left aesthetically unpleasing. Mr. Certilman discussed the curtain drain work done at the site.
Mr. Hamlin stated that there were two possible views of the work done at the site: first, that it had been all one project; second, that it had been two separate projects. He asked Atty. Gold if there had indeed been no connection at all between the two projects. Atty. Gold said that there had been no connection between the two projects. He discussed the details of those projects.
Ms. Rochefort stated that staff would have been required to sign-off and the application would have gone through all the necessary departments, when the buildings had been inspected. She added that staff had taken the application to housing court when there was no response to the Cease and Desist order. Atty. Gold said that the applicant was asking for equitable treatment and a variance.
Mr. Colarossi stated that there had been a consistent lack of heed to permits and requirements and consistent errors on the part of the applicant. Atty. Gold discussed the sanctity of zoning enforcement.
Mr. Hamlin asked what would happen if the Board did not grant the variance. Atty. Gold said that it would need to been taken as a criminal matter.
Mr. Certilman said that the Cease and Desist order had not been ignored, but rather that alternative means of resolution had been explored and that a successful resolution was never reached. Atty. Gold stated that Mr. Contolini had immediately gone to City Hall when he received the Cease and Desist order. He added that there was a hardship involved.
Ms. Carbone closed the public hearing.
The board discussed the application with regard to permits and compliance.
** MS. CARBONE MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAD SHOWN ONLY A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
** MR. STRUBINGER SECONDED.
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Board discussed the application, particularly with regard to softening the impact of the sign with landscaping and trees. Mr. Strubinger stated that the addition of such landscaping could have a negative impact on parking availability at the site.
** MR. HAMLIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
** MR. COLAROSSI SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. COLAROSSI MOVED TO ACCEPT MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
** MS. CARBONE SECONDED.
** MR. HAMLIN ABSTAINED.
** MOTION PASSED.
** MS. CARBONE MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MS. DELGRECO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Charlene Smith
 |
 |