MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2006 - 7:30 =
P.M.
WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY C=
ENTER
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; John Griffith
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Roger
Mitchell
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Phil
Roger, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Enrico
Sarandrea, Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
None
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Gary
Swingle
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; Chris
Lafferty
OTHERS PRESENT<=
/b>: =
; &n=
bsp; Moosa Rafey, Assistant Zoning
Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Sarandrea, Chairman, Called the Meeting to Order at 8:35 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Roger, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Sarandrea, Chairman, asked Mr. Swingle to sit in for Board Vacancy.
3. =
Minutes
A. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, July 26, 2006, App. #825,
B. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, July 26, 2006, App. #830, Susan
Hansen-Beardsley
C. =
Public Hearing, July 26, 2006, App. #832, Nijat Dzafer
D. =
Public Hearing, July 26, 2006, App. #833,
E. =
Regular Meeting, July 26, 2006
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr. =
Roger,
sec. Mr. Griffith) to Accept 3A through 3E as presented.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: =
; None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 2
4. =
Old
Business
A. Application
#825 of Gary and April Benoit for appeal of decision of the Watertown Zoning
Enforcement Officer concerning a letter issued by the Zoning Enforcement Of=
fice
concerning 1400 Main Street, Watertown, CT in a B-G General Business.
If the = Public Hearing is Closed on August 23, 2006, then a decision is required by October 27, 2006.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Roger,
sec. Mr. Griffith) to Table Application #825 of Gary and April Benoit for
appeal of decision of the Watertown Zoning Enforcement Officer concerning a
letter issued by the Zoning Enforcement Office concerning 1400 Main Street,
Watertown, CT in a B-G General Business.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
B. =
Application
#832 of Nijat Dzafer for appeal of decision of the Watertown Zoning Enforce=
ment
Officer concerning a Cease and Desist Order issued concerning property at <=
st1:address
w:st=3D"on">
If the = Public Hearing is Closed on August 23, 2006, then a decision is required by October 27, 2006.
&= nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. = Roger, sec. Mr. Mitchell) to Table Application #832 of Nijat Dzafer for appeal of decision of the Watertown Zoning Enforcement Officer concerning a Cease and Desist Order issued concerning property at 395 Davis Street, Oakville, CT.<= o:p>
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
(Tape #1, Side B ended - may have missed some.)<= o:p>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 3
C. Application
#833 of Gary and Amy Swingle request for a variance of Section 7.4 of the
Watertown Zoning Regulations concerning access to a commercial property loc=
ated
at
If the = Public Hearing is Closed on August 23, 2006, then a decision is required by October 27, 2006.
Mr. Swingle Recused himself for this
application and has left the room.
Mr. Roger: I know the Board is split on this decision pretty much, that's why I want to have some discussion.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Roger,
sec. Mr. Mitchell) to Approve Application #833 of Gary and Amy Swingle requ=
est
for a variance of Section 7.4 of the Watertown Zoning Regulations concerning
access to a commercial property located at 2579 Litchfield Road, Watertown,=
CT
due to not having a quorum.
&= nbsp; Discussion: Mr. Roger: At the beginning of this applicati= on way back in the 90's, I was on the Board, Rick was, I don't know if Roger was.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Sarandrea: Roger was and Nick Reynolds.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Roger: I remember how I voted, I voted th=
at
there be a road there and if there was a road there we wouldn't be here at =
this
point, and I think the Board members know what my reasoning was behind this=
, it
was on everybody's deed, the Town recognized it, it was on the Town, but ye=
t we
ended up with no road there, and it just, we have Franklin who was the Town
Attorney at that time and basically gave us decisions back then why there
shouldn't be a road, but maybe not why there shouldn't be a road, he gave us
things to help us decide, as he's doing tonight, but it almost seems like b=
ack
then he was swaying us to decide against this and now tonight he's almost
talking to us to, sway us towards approval. I don't like the way it looks, but=
also
I don’t like the fact that if we deny this, it's almost like confisca=
ting
the land in Bethlehem that he owns, and by that is, somebody else wouldn't =
have
bought this land because they couldn't have accessed it. Swingle bought it because he could
access it from his property so it was of use to him. Yes, he created the hardship but i=
f we
deny this, for all intents and purposes we are confiscating his land for
nobody's use because nobody else can use this land. I don't like to approve it on the =
other
hand because we have no control on what he's going to do on the land in
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 4
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Sarandrea: Well I feel the same way, I mean a=
s you
do in some instances. We went
through this thing for how many years.&nbs=
p;
I'm thinking that they've got the stuff up there, they do a pretty g=
ood
job, all the neighbors seem to be in agreement that they don't have a probl=
em
with it, there isn't any other way of accessing the property, except through
Watertown, they own both pieces of property, it's legal in Bethlehem to hav=
e a
commercial business going on, but I think, I don't know if I'm right on thi=
s, I
think that if we did approve it that he could use that road or driveway,
whatever, I'm wondering if we could put some kind of condition that if he d=
oes
want to expand the use or change something up there, that he goes before the
Town of Bethlehem, that we be considered, I don't know if we can do that,
considered that we be notified.
Years down the road we may not all be here, but there will be differ=
ent
people living there, and there was some concern that it might change the us=
e to
something else, so I don't know if we have any way of approving this, with =
the
condition that if there was anything done up there, I mean leave everything
conforming the way it is right now.
For instance if he put up another barn would be fine, but if he was =
to
change the use from what it is right now, is there some way that the Town of
Watertown could be notified. =
I mean
if he's doing this work in Bethlehem, is there some way that we could be
notified so that we could have some kind of say, like this is too much for =
us
to bear.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Griffith: They wouldn't h=
ave to
listen to us anyway.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Sarandrea: That's true, but on the other hand=
they
still have to go through our Town to get to this property, so I mean we wou=
ld
have no control on this at all, a traffic survey, or, I'm saying years down=
the
road. I mean right now they're
probably, I would imagine they're whole life it's going to stay the way it =
is,
but years down the road we don't know what's going to happen to this
property. Maybe
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Pilicy: Well if you have a specific questi=
on
I'll try.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Sarandrea: If we approve this, which I'm kind=
of in
favor of approving it . . . .
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Pilicy: You're asking if we can condition =
it?
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 5
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Sarandrea: Condition it, that you know it doe=
sn't
get, I mean I know it can never be a plaza, I don't think, or anything crazy
like that but there has been mention of that, is there any way, is that land
zoned for special use through Bethlehem, I know there's no zoning, but
Bethlehem still has to approve.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Pilicy: Well your focus is on what occurs =
in
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Roger: I understand what =
you're
trying to do , and I thought of that also, but it comes down to
enforcement. It's something t=
hat
can't be enforced. We could p=
ut it
in there but it's not going to get enforced. The neighbor could say well the tr=
affic
increased by this many cars and (inaudible) could say no. We're not going to stand there and=
count
the cars.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Pilicy: The real measure of increase would=
be if
there was an increase in the building, that you would know. If they increased the square foota=
ge of
the retail operation, then by implication there would be an increase in the
amount of traffic going to the retail use.=
Other than that, I don't know of any other way to condition it, but =
you
could condition it by saying the retail activities, square footage, as it
exists today cannot increase. If it
does, then the variance cannot accommodate use greater than what you have
today. That would be about th=
e only
way you could do it.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: I think they can condition the use=
of
the driveway which is in the Town of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Mitchell: How can you limit the driveway?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty. Pilicy: You can limit the use of the drive=
way
and that measure that use by the size of the retail use in
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Griffith: Since I wasn't here for the origin=
al
case . . . .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 6
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Pilicy: Well the original case was complet=
ely
different, it wasn't a variance. It
was an interpretation of a Cease and Desist Order that again was based on a
number of different sections of the Zoning Regulations, and then somewhere =
in
about the 7th or 8th inning, it turned into a question about whether or not=
the
driveway was a public highway, and it had nothing to do with a variance, it=
had
to do with interpretation of regulations and existence or non-existence of =
old
highways.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Griffith: I've been on the
property from the
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Rafey: The topography is =
not .
. . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Roger: They're landlocked=
by
other property owners with the original right of way to this particular pie=
ce
of property, other than through
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Griffith: They can't get an easement from the=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Roger: Well that's someth=
ing,
another can of worms we're going to open and I don’t really think at =
this
point that we're going to settle that tonight.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Sarandrea: That wouldn't have anything to do w=
ith
us.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Rafey: For clarification,
everybody knows that there is a long history behind this application, but w=
hat
is in front of you tonight is just a simple variance application and that i=
s a
variation of Section 7.4 of the Watertown Zoning Regulations. I want the Board to please focus o=
n that
issue and this application in front of you.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Sarandrea: Well we're just discussing it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Griffith: Well you have to know if there real=
ly is
a hardship or if there's one created by the Swingle's themselves or if ther=
e is
some other way of them relieving the hardship. I mean they're obliged to do the b=
est
that they can to relieve the hardship.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: I think Atty. Pilicy kind of expla=
ined
to you what the hardship is.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Sarandrea: We went through all that numerous =
times.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 7
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Pilicy: I'll just state that a hardship at=
the
end of all the deliberations is within your province to decide. If you decide a hardship exists, t=
hen
there's a hardship. If you de=
cide
there isn't a hardship, then there isn't, and either way you go is subject =
to a
possible appeal where a Superior Court will decide, but again within
(inaudible) range of discretion.
All the applicant can do and the individuals opposed to the applicat=
ion
and myself is tell you that these facts could support a finding of hardship=
or
these facts should not support a finding of hardship, but essentially you're
the fact finder and the decision maker and that's really what the Zoning Bo=
ard
of Appeals is all about.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Roger: To answer Doc's question, if this =
road
had been approved way back and somebody else owned this property, if somebo=
dy
approached us to access this property through this road, for some reason, i=
n my
opinion, if we had to give a variance for that, I mean the hardship would be
that they were unable to access the property. I understand the Swingle's own it =
at
this point and being that they are abutting property owners, it is self
inflected hardship but if somebody else owned the property it wouldn't be a
self inflicted project, so it's something you need to decide to whether it's
self inflicted or whether it's truly a legitimate hardship.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Mitchell: As far as restricting as far as tr=
affic,
keep the same business, the type of business it is it could mushroom
regardless. I mean you could =
have
5,000 people a day coming through this room and it would be crowded, but it
would still be the same size room.
I don't know what restrictions we'd be able to put on it. The only thing I can think of is e=
ither
a fence between the property lines, pave the road, if that would be accepta=
ble
to both parties.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Sarandrea: There's already a letter in here w=
here
they've already addressed the drainage . . . .
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Mitchell: It would have to be a mutual . . .=
.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Sarandrea: That's all been addressed, it's ju=
st one
neighbor right now. All of th=
e rest
of the neighbors, there's letters right here, they're all in favor of it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Mitchell: (inaudible) but=
ted up
against the fence, the driveways, what I'm saying if there was a fence, a p=
aved
road, that would eliminate the dust, the fence would take care of anything
you'd see.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 8
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Sarandrea: I don't think there's anything we =
can do
on that either.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Roger: All we can do right now is approve=
or
deny the variance.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: In
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Mitchell: I just mentioned this =
in
case they can both get together, this solves it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
; Mr.
Roger: We need a unanimous
decision for this to pass, because we're short a member. It's either 4-1 or it's 4; 3-2 can
defeat. If it's not unanimous=
it's
going to die here. My vote st=
ands
to approve.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Sarandrea: I do too.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Mitchell: I would approve on =
the
condition that there was a fence or something put up to block that road, ta=
ke
care of the drainage, and either put gravel down or pave it to eliminate the
dust.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Sarandrea: Can we do that?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, you can do that.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Griffith: I vote nay.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Roger: It's
defeated.
&=
nbsp; In
Favor: &=
nbsp; Mr.
Mitchell, Mr. Roger, Mr. Sarandrea
&=
nbsp; Opposed: =
Mr.
Griffith
&=
nbsp; Abstained: None
&=
nbsp; MOTION
FAILED (3-1-0)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 9
5. New Business
A. Application
#834 of Jose and Christine Duque request for three variances of the Waterto=
wn
Zoning Regulations to permit the construction of an addition to an existing
single family dwelling at
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Roger,
sec. Mr. Griffith ) to approve Application #834 of Jose and Christine Duque
request for three variances of the Watertown Zoning Regulations to permit t=
he
construction of an addition to an existing single family dwelling at
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
B. =
Application
#835 of Rachel Saucier request for three variances of Section 66 of the
Watertown Zoning Regulations to permit an existing deck to remain on site
within a flood prone area at 333 Falls Avenue, Oakville, CT.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Roger,
sec. Mr. Mitchell) to approve Application #835 of Rachel Saucier request for
three variances of Section 66 of the Watertown Zoning Regulations to permit=
an
existing deck to remain on site within a flood prone area at 333 Falls Aven=
ue,
Oakville, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
6. =
Communications
and Bills
None
7. =
Reports
from Committees
None
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2006
PAGE 10
8. =
Adjournment
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Griffith, sec. Mr. Mitchell) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Enrico
Sarandrea, Chairman
Waterto=
wn
Zoning Board of Appeals
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary