MINUTES
WATERTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS<= o:p>
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
WEDNESDA=
Y,
JUNE 28, 2006 - 7:30 P.M.
WATERTOW=
N HIGH
SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
APPLICATION #823 – GARY AND =
AMY
SWINGLE
PRESENT: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; John Griffith, Vice Ch=
airman
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Roger Mitchell, Acting
Secretary
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Phil
Roger
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Enrico Sarandrea, Chai=
rman
ABSENT: =
&nb=
sp; =
Mary
Bisson, Secretary
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
None
ALTERNATES ABSENT: &=
nbsp; Chris
Lafferty
Gary Swingle
OTHERS PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; Moosa
Rafey, Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Sarandrea, Chairman, Called the Public Hearing to Order at 7:30 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Mitchell, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Sarandrea, Chairman, asked for a moment of silence in memory of Mary Bisson,
who passed away this past weekend.
Mr.
Sarandrea, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record as follows:=
“GROUND
RULES
1. =
The applicant or his representative will make his formal presentati=
on
to the Board stating his specific hardship and precisely why this merits a
variance from the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Watertown.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 2
2. =
All comments, discussions, and observations shall be made through t=
he
Chair after proper recognition by the Chairman. This is necessary to ensure that o=
nly
one person at a time speaks on any issue, thus making it easier for everyon=
e to
understand, and for clearer legal transcription.
3. =
All persons addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly
stating their name and address for the record. If necessary, the person may be as=
ked to
spell his or her name for the record.
4. =
Following the presentation of the application, the Zoning Board of
Appeals will ask specific questions of the applicant.
5. =
After the Board has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall t=
hen
allow members of the public who wishes to speak either in favor of this
application or against it to address the Board.
6. =
I shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the
members of the general public.
7. =
I shall then allow any members of the general public who wish to
present any additional information or clarifying discussion to do so.
8. =
I shall then provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to
these additional remarks if he or his representative so wishes.
9. =
The Zoning Board of Appeals has thirty-five (35) days from the date=
the
Public Hearing commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Board may ask the applicant fo=
r a
thirty-five (35) day extension of the Public Hearing period if the Commissi=
on
requires any additional information or wishes to schedule a site walk to
observe the situation for themselves.
10. =
The Zoning Board of Appeals has sixty-five (65) days from the date =
when
the Public Hearing is closed to render its decision. The Board may or may not make its
decision tonight at its Regular Meeting following the Public Hearing.
11. You may stay for the Regular
Meeting if you wish or you may leave at the end of the Public Hearing and
contact the Zoning Office the following morning to determine the status of =
your
Application.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 3
3. Hearing of Cases=
&=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of the Public Hearing from May 24, 2006 - Application #823 of Gary and Amy
Swingle request for a variance of Section 7.4 of the Watertown Zoning
Regulations concerning access to a commercial property located in the Town =
of
Bethlehem via a residential property at 2579 Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT=
.
&=
nbsp; Recess
or Adjourn, the Public Hearing must be Closed by July 5, 2006.
Atty. Simoncelli: I guess the initial Public Hearing=
was
in April; now it’s July.
Prior to that it’s been 7 years since this matter first came
before this Board. I’d =
just
like to move things along, get the Public Hearing Closed and make a decisio=
n.
Mr. Sarandrea:<=
/b> Well we’re going to, whether=
Atty.
Pilicy shows up or not, we’re probably going to talk about this
application tonight.
Atty. Simoncelli: Okay, whatever you’d like to=
do is
fine.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> It’s up to you, Mr. Chairman=
, if
you want to open the Public Hearing and continue it, move it to the end of =
the
Agenda . . . . .
Mr. Sarandrea:<=
/b> Yea we’ll move it to the end=
of
the Agenda. We’ll make =
it F
instead of A.
MOTION: (Mr.
Mitchell, sec. Mr. Griffith) to move Agenda Item 3A to 3F.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
Mr. Sarandrea, Chairma=
n,
Reconvened the Public Hearing for Application #823 at 8:26 p.m.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 4
Mr. Sarandrea:<=
/b> Okay, I guess our attorney didn=
217;t
show up.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Sorry, he told me he’d be he=
re
after 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Sarandrea:<=
/b> Let’s run with it, I think w=
e can
figure it out.
Atty. Simoncelli: I really don’t have anything=
to
add to what was previously said.
You have an opinion from Atty. Pilicy. Suffice it to say the hardship is =
that
there’s no access to the Swingle’s property in Bethlehem except
where it’s presently located.
If there are any questions, I’ll certainly try to respond.
Mr. Roger:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Most of our questions are answered=
at
this point. It doesn’t =
make
the decision any easier.
Mr. Sarandrea:<=
/b> Is there anyone from the public who
wishes to speak for or against this application?
Atty. Cloutier:=
I had, after the May Hearing, I did
receive a copy of Atty. Pilicy’s letter and Atty. Pilicy suggested th=
at I
put in writing, I had certain concerns, and in response to that letter he
suggested I put those concerns in writing, which I did, and I have an origi=
nal
to submit to your Board and I have copies for each of you.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Did you send a copy to Atty. Pilic=
y?
Atty. Cloutier:=
No, cause I thought he’d be =
here
tonight, but I’d be happy to do that.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> No, I can give him a copy.
Atty. Cloutier:=
I do have an extra copy for him.
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 5
First a use variance, =
which
is what is being requested here is absolutely prohibited by the Zoning
Regulations of the Town of Watertown and because I believe that in my
verbalization of that argument last month I might not have hit them all, so=
I
have included them in this letter so you have the regulations directly in f=
ront
of you, with their numbers. T=
hose
Regulations, according to Connecticut Law, limit the extent to which varian=
ces
can be granted by this Board and the request is beyond the scope of your
authority to grant and therefore the request on that ground alone must be
denied.
Secondly even if this =
Board
did have authority to consider this variance which I submit (inaudible) does
not, the Swingle’s still have not established the grounds necessary to
allow a variance here. Specif=
ically
they have not sustained their burden of proving that the variance would not
substantially affect the comprehensive plan. What they’re proposing is a
substantially change because the property that would permit they’re
asking to change the use of for access is in a residential zone and this wo=
uld
substantially change its use, further because Bethlehem has no zoning, this=
is
even different than a situation where the access might be to an area under =
your
zoning authority or control, cause Bethlehem has no zoning if this use vari=
ance
were granted, than anything could happen in Bethlehem. I know that at the first Hearing in
April there were references to a possible Wal-Mart or something, but
(inaudible) this Board has no (inaudible) control about what may happen in
Bethlehem and hw the use of this land in Watertown could change. The second thing related to that
substantial change is this does affect the property values of the abutting
landowners. Attached to my le=
tter
is a copy of a letter from the Tax Assessor of the Town Of Morris, that
establishes that the Conron’s property at 304 Watertown Road in Morris
received a 10% reduction during the 2004 valuation and this letter says the
reduction was attributable to the volume of traffic at Sugar Mountain Farm,=
the
abutting property of 304 Watertown Road, and I would hasten to point out to=
the
Board that is based on a high volume of traffic, on only certain weekends of
the year. Again if this use c=
hange,
or use of variance were permitted, and there were more significant developm=
ent
back there, this traffic could be much greater in frequency and volume and
could very seriously impact or substantially change the residential charact=
er
of this neighborhood and the property (inaudible). Further the Swingle’s
haven’t established their burden of proving a hardship requisite for =
any
sort of variance. The only ha=
rdship
that they’ve alluded to is the financial hardship regarding their
inability to access the commercial property. In the application I saw that they=
claim
that they need this for access.
That is not exactly accurate.
Access is permitted to a residential use. Access is permitted in this area to
Bethlehem so long as the Bethlehem is being used as a residential use. The problem here is that the use in
Bethlehem changed more than 10 years after the Swingle’s had owned the
property, to change the use from that of residential to that of, or
agricultural to that of commercial and as a result that change is what is
prohibiting access.
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 6
Again access is not
permitted per say, they can still use the driveway to access a home in
Bethlehem, to access a property in Bethlehem, as long as that property is n=
ot
used for commercial or industrial purposes because of that use they need a
variance for the purpose of such a use, is expressly prohibited by the
Watertown Zoning Regulations.
Finally any claimed hardship by the Swingle’s is clearly self
created here and as I mentioned earlier they purchased the property in 1985
attached to my letter is the Tax Assessor’s card for the property in
Bethlehem which shows that the building was built in 1996 so clearly when t=
hey
bought the property in 1985 it wasn’t being used for commercial and
industrial purposes. It was o=
nly 10
years after they owned the property they changed the use thereby necessitat=
ing
the change in the use of their Watertown property. I would submit as outlined in my l=
etter
that the Swingle’s decision to go forward at their own risk, at their=
own
peril to go forward and change their needs for how the Watertown property w=
as
to be used without proper authorization from this Board was done recklessly=
and
I cite a Connecticut Court Case that was told exactly that, when a property
owner accidental imperiled supposed to have an access that a change
they’re seeking had already been granted is reckless conduct, it shou=
ld
not be rewarded by this Board, and again all these later arguments even if =
this
Board did have the power, I submit the governing factor here is this Board =
does
not have the power to grant a use variance, expressly prohibited by the
Regulations and as such doesn’t have the statutory authority to grant=
the
variance request. Thank you.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I’d be happy to answer
questions. (Tape #1, Side B e=
nded
– may have missed some.)
Mr. Roger:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Confer with (inaudible)?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes, Atty. Pilicy (inaudible) staff
member and he can provide you an opinion.
Mr. Roger:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We can Close but not make a decisi=
on?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> You have 65 days to make a
decision. But Atty. Pilicy al=
ready
gave you a legal opinion. You=
still
have questions?
Mr. Griffith: At the last meeting, at the end of=
the
discussion my recollection was that there was to be a meeting between all
parties to see about the drainage problem.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes, that’s correct.
Mr. Griffith: Did that take place?
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 7
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes. I met with the Conron’s and =
Mr.
Swingle and I also took Mr. Berger, the Town Engineer with me. That is a separate issue totally.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There is some existing drainage
problems, some erosion going off of Mr. Swingle’s property onto Mr. C=
onron’s
property and Mr. Swingle has agreed to stabilize those areas as soon as the
weather permits. I did, I thi=
nk you
have a copy of a letter I sent to the Town of Morris because originally I
received a letter from Morris who had some concerns about the wetland impac=
ts
of that drainage issue and we kind of resolved that issue and Mr. Swingle i=
s willing
to correct the problem.
Atty. Simoncelli: These are basically legal arguments
being made here. You have a l=
egal
opinion from Atty. Pilicy. Th=
e one
factual claim that I would dispute concerns the volume of traffic. I don’t know how anybody can=
make
any comment on the volume of traffic.
As far as I know, and I’m pretty sure, there was never any tra=
ffic
count taken there, there was never any counter machine set up to determine =
what
the volume of traffic may be, so I think that’s just pure speculation=
.
Mr. Griffith: I think what we’re trying to=
look
for is the parties to get together and come to some kind of agreement on wh=
at
could be done to mitigate the effects on the Conron’s property, like =
the
weather, dust control, paving the road, or oiling the road or whatever that=
is,
or putting up some kind of barrier to separate their property from the noise
and so forth, the trucks using the street, that was never discussed between=
the
parties?
Atty. Simoncelli: Frankly we thought the only issues =
were
concerning the water situation and that was certainly discussed and my clie=
nt
has agreed to make some upgrades to take care of that problem.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
I have questions for Franklin, but
he’s not here.
Atty. Cloutier: It’s my understanding from Mr.
Conron, that at the meeting between the parties, which I did not attend, bu=
t he
has just informed in response to your question, Mr. Griffith, that the areas
were not discussed. (Inaudibl=
e)
hesitate to say this but any sort of barrier would ameliorate the
situation. The problem is
amelioration is not what we’re looking for. The use that this land is being us=
ed for
is absolutely prohibited and so we would oppose any sort of variance that w=
ould
permit access to a commercial or industrial use to this residential propert=
y.
Mr. Roger: =
We have to Close the Public Hearing
tonight.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 8
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Okay, but if we Close the Public He=
aring,
like he said, we can still ask Franklin for, I have a couple of questions f=
or
him and would straighten my mind.
Mr. Rafey: =
Do you want to raise your questions=
for
the record so that he knows what they are when they get the Minutes, and th=
en
he can answer them?
Mr. Sarandrea: =
(Inaudible) cause I’m not goi=
ng to
get an answer. We still won&#=
8217;t
be able to do anything tonight.
Mr. Rafey: =
The legal opinion doesn’t ans=
wer
your questions?
Mr. Sarandrea: =
No.
Mr. Mitchell: <=
/b> Does this meeting have to Close ton=
ight?
Mr. Roger: =
It has to be Closed by July14th.
Mr. Rafey: =
Unless you want to have a Special
Meeting?
Mr. Sarandrea: =
But now if we Close it, and we get a
legal opinion and we’re (inaudible), then we can make a decision on t=
his?
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
How does that sound?
Mr. Roger: =
I don’t think I’m going=
to
feel comfortable either way, but . . . .
Mr. Sarandrea: =
But at least we Closed it.
Mr. Mitchell: <=
/b> How many cars or trucks are running=
up
and down this road?
Mr. Conron: 300.
Mr. Mitchell: <=
/b> On a weekend?
Mr. Conron: On a Sunday.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 9
Atty. Simoncelli: I would just like to have the oppor=
tunity
to respond to anything that Atty. Pilicy might give you.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
No problem.
Mr. Rafey: =
But how can you do that if you Clos=
e the
Public Hearing, unless you hold a Special Meeting between now and July 5
Atty. Simoncelli: My suggestion would be that youR=
17;re
not receiving any evidence from either Atty. Cloutier, Atty. Pilicy or
myself. We have various diffe=
rent
legal opinions. Your ordinanc=
es say
you cannot permit the use variance.
Well State Statutes say you can, and there is some case law that says
ordinances that prohibit all use variances run afoul of the State Statutes,=
so
these are the type of things that you could consider after the Close of the
Public Hearing because you would be receiving technical information from st=
aff. I would just like to have the
opportunity to include my comments in with Atty. Pilicy’s, once I see=
his
opinion.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
All I’m concerned about, I th=
ink
the rest of the Board is too, is that we’d like to make a decision ei=
ther
for or against this thing, but if we vote in favor of it we were thinking a=
bout
putting some conditions on it, we just wanted to make sure that the conditi=
ons
we put on it will be able to be upheld.
Mr. Rafey: =
You can put any conditions you want,
reasonable conditions on there, residential property in Watertown, but not =
in
Bethlehem.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Right, that’s the only thing =
that
bothers us. I have a couple of
questions I want to ask Franklin.
Atty. Cloutier: There was a question about the volu=
me of
traffic and Dan Conron had replied that there were about 300 cars on a Sund=
ay
when the warehouse was open. =
And I
would object to this Board receiving further information from the applicant=
or
his attorney after the Public Hearing was Closed. I know the offer or the request ha=
d been
made and .. . . .
Mr. Sarandrea: =
No, maybe you misunderstood, if we =
kept
the Public Hearing open, I mean once we Close the Public Hearing that’=
;s
it, cause nobody can bring in any more information.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 10<= o:p>
Mr. Roger: =
You said 300 cars. Is that 150 in and 150 out, or is =
that
300 one way?
Mr. Conron: 10:00 in the morning until 500 in t=
he
afternoon; at least 300 cars driving up.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
And 300 cars coming back down?
Mr. Conron: Yes.
Mr. Rafey: =
There’s one other option that=
you
have, if you don’t mind. You
can withdraw this application tonight and resubmit it, give more time, and =
next
month we can continue the Public Hearing and then Close it that night witho=
ut
paying a fee.
Mr. Mitchell: <=
/b> Can we just extend it?
Mr. Rafey: =
You already received the 35 day
extension.
Mr. Roger: =
Waive the fee, that way it’s =
like
opening up a new application.
Mr. Sarandrea: = We just received this tonight too.<= o:p>
Atty. Simoncelli: Of course I’ve had no opportu=
nity
to respond to that.
Mr. Rafey: =
Is that something you want to consi=
der?
Mr. Roger: =
At this point to make an informed
decision we need some more time. I
understand that the parties involved want this Closed no more than we do,
we’ve been seeing this for years, but in order to make an intelligent
decision here we got more information tonight and we have questions for the
Town Attorney, so I think that the option that Moosa has presented here is
probably the best way to go. =
We
need more time. It’s no=
t that
easy of a decision for us.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
It would be a lot easier if Bethleh=
em
wasn’t involved. We hav=
e to
do this right for everybody to have . . . to have what he wants, and have t=
he
neighbors have what they want, and we’re happy, the Town’s happ=
y,
everybody’s happy, so we have to ask Franklin a couple of questions
here. I mean you probably can
answer them and she can probably answer them, but we need to have our attor=
ney
answer them.
Atty. Simoncelli: Give me an opportunity to try and g=
et a
hold of my clients, they’re in Colorado but I have a number for them.=
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 11<= o:p>
Mr. Roger:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Present them with the
scenario of withdrawing the application and resubmitting it, waiving the fe=
e.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
I mean considering it’s a hol=
iday,
and we just got this information, we just want to do it right.
Atty. Simoncelli: I just want to (inaudible) okay.
Mr. Rafey: =
I think that’s the best way t=
o do
it, it gives you some time.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
What’s another month? You’re not coming in with an=
ything
new, are you?
Atty. Cloutier: (Inaudible.)
Atty. Simoncelli: We’ll withdraw the applicatio=
n and
resubmit it to the next meeting with the understanding that the fee will be
waived.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Yes.
Mr. Rafey: =
Please write a letter withdrawing t=
he application. I need something in writing from y=
ou.
Atty. Simoncelli: Okay.
Atty. Cloutier: Am I (inaudible) making inquiry on a
mater related to this whole issue.
I frankly don’t know if you’re in a position to be able =
to
(inaudible) but I was simply wondering why a Cease and Desist Order issued =
in
1999 which has never rescinded and is not correctly being enforced?
Atty. Simoncelli: Well technically it’s not in
court. Once a Cease and Desist
Order issued by the Zoning Enforcement Office is appealed to the Zoning Boa=
rd
of Appeals, there’s an automatic stay of the Order except for some
exceptional circumstances. We
initially obtained from the Court a temporary injunction prohibiting
enforcement of that Order. Th=
at
carried all the way through until the decision was to remand this matter ba=
ck
to this Board. Now the Board =
has,
we haven’t come before you on the remand yet which would get into the
whole road issue, and I don’t want to spit my tongue on that, but
technically it has been remanded to you so basically it’s status quo =
at
this point.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 12<= o:p>
Atty. Cloutier: I agree that the matter has been
remanded. That remand was in =
2004. And the injunction that the court =
had
entered was only until the appeal before that court had been concluded. So the appeal before that court ge=
ts
concluded, the remand was made, I forget if it was August or October, but in
2004 and by the Swingle’s simply, or by the remands not being address=
ed,
nothing seems to be happening, the Cease and Desist Order is not being enfo=
rced
which is why I asked my initial question to this Board.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Moosa, didn’t Pilicy tell us =
that
everything was all taken care of?
Mr. Rafey: =
There was a settlement.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Yea, there was a settlement with the
Town.
Mr. Rafey: =
The Zoning Board of Appeals, the Zo=
ning
Enforcement Officer, the Town of Watertown, the Swingle’s, and all, I
think, agreed on the settlement agreement and this application came in fron=
t of
this Board as a condition of that agreement, that they should apply for a
variance.
Atty. Cloutier: I do understand that and if you rec=
all
last month I premised all my comments based on the explanation that that
agreement is not enforceable and is unlawful because this Board doesn’=
;t
have the authority to enter into settlement agreements. The settlement agreement was not
approved by a court.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
We didn’t. We didn’t settle, we didn=
217;t
settle it, they came here and told us that everything was settled. Now we can allow them to use their
property or whatever it was there . . . . we voted on being able to use the
property as it exists. Is tha=
t what
it was?
Mr. Rafey: =
No, this application that’s in
front of you is to allow him to use their existing driveway to a residential
property to access a commercial property in Bethlehem.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
I’m saying before we got to t=
his
point the last thing that when they did this whole agreement, what did we v=
ote
on that time?
Mr. Rafey: = You didn’t vote on anything.<= o:p>
Mr. Roger: =
We didn’t vote on anything.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 13<= o:p>
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Okay so that was brought to us to t=
ell us
what?
Mr. Rafey: =
Because once they got together to s=
ettle
the issue, then everything dropped, they agreed on everything.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
So the next thing is now the road, =
again?
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes, that’s the only issue in=
front
of you. This application for a
variance.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
So we have nothing to do with a Cea=
se and
Desist Order. That was suppos=
ed to
have been settled.
Mr. Rafey: =
Because the Zoning Enforcement Offi=
cer
was a party involved with this agreement, she also signed the settlement
agreement, that means that she withdrew the Cease and Desist Order.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Right.
Atty. Cloutier: I understand that she entered into =
the
settlement agreement, I have a copy of that, that’s part of this reco=
rd
actually, my point is merely that the court ordered that it be remanded to =
this
Board and there has not been a decision on that remand. Instead there was a settlement, wh=
ich in
our position that this Board is not authorized to enter into which brings us
back to the comments that I made last month. I’ll stand on those comments=
for
the purpose of this Hearing.
Mr. Griffith: <=
/b> It was presented to us as a fete a
complis since the agreement was arrived at between the parties and the Town=
.
Atty. Cloutier: The problem with that is the agreem=
ent
was made by the Swingle’s, the Town, and I believe the Zoning Enforce=
ment
Officer signed it and the Zoning Board of Appeals, but the people who had no
say into this settlement agreement were the Conron’s, because there w=
as
no Public Hearing on the settlement agreement and that denies them their
fundamental fairness under Connecticut Law, that was the point I was making=
by
the Conron’s.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
I think . . . .
Mr. Rafey: =
This is a legal, do you want to ans=
wer
Atty. Simoncelli?
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 14<= o:p>
Mr. Sarandrea: =
They were notified, but they
weren’t here.
Mr. Rafey: =
I think all of the other neighbors =
were
part of this settlement agreement because we received letters from every si=
ngle
. . . .
Mr. Rafey: =
Neighbors other than Mr. Conron, th=
at
they were in agreement with whatever agreement between Swingle and those
neighbors have, we received (inaudible) no objection, they wrote to this Bo=
ard
that they have no objection to this settlement agreement. The only neighbor that was not inv=
olved
was the Conron’s.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
We never got an answer back until t=
he
night that Pilicy was here and explained the whole thing to us about the
settlement; all of the sudden you guys appeared on the scene.
Atty. Cloutier: And that was the April meeting rega=
rding
the application for a variance (inaudible).
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Right.
Atty. Cloutier: And that’s when the settlement
agreement had already been (inaudible) by that point and the Conron’s
were not a party to it.
Mr. Rafey: =
I think they were invited to by Swi=
ngle.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
They were told about it, from what =
we
were told, they were told about it, but they never answered. I don’t know if I’m sa=
ying
this right or not.
Mr. Griffith: <=
/b> My (inaudible) was they removed
themselves from the whole business when it got complicated, they moved out.=
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Yea.
They don’t live there.
You guys don’t liver there?
Atty. Cloutier: They still own the property.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
I understand that. Maybe he can answer it better. I’m sure they were all notif=
ied.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 15<= o:p>
Atty. Simoncelli: First off there was a Public
Hearing. The Planning and Zon=
ing
Commission had a Public Hearing which they had to deal with approve the sal=
e or
the transfer of the property to the Swingle’s. Secondly the Conron’s did re=
ceive
a letter from Mr. Swingle inviting them to work out an agreement; that was =
on
January 17th of this year.
I have a copy of that for the Board. It may already be part of the reco=
rd.
Mr. Rafey: =
I think it’s already part of =
the
record, but if you want to give it to me to be sure . . . .do you have this
letter Mr. Conron?
Mr. Conron: I don’t know. Does it say sign a quit claim or
something like that?
Atty. Cloutier: I guess (inaudible) we’re not=
going
to come an agreement on that tonight.
I was wondering why it wasn’t . . .
Mr. Sarandrea: =
You guys came in on the tail end of=
this
thing. From what I remember, I
guess you were notified but never got back to anybody, so that would probab=
ly
be saying. . . . .
Mr. Griffith: <=
/b> The notice was sent to the address,=
maybe
the tenants never forwarded it to the Conron’s.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Or whoever was there, or whatever,
because you guys came in April, we didn’t hear anything from
anybody. Nobody was fighting =
this
thing anymore. Going back yea=
rs
ago. . . . .
Mr. Roger: =
We came here the original meeting in
April thinking, we were told by Franklin that everything was settled with a=
ll
the neighbors and then all we had to do was vote on this, and then you show=
ed
up, and now we’re here.
Mr. Sarandrea: =
Here we area again.
Mr. Roger: =
I mean that’s basically what
happened.
Atty. Cloutier: I hear you and I thank you for answ=
ering
my questions. I’m not s=
ure
they’re satisfactory from our perspective but I appreciate your givin=
g me
the information that you know. I do
appreciate that; thank you.
Mr. Mitchell: <=
/b> From what I remember the issue of t=
he
road was never actually settled.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#823 – GARY AND AMY SWI=
NGLE
JUNE 28,=
2006
Page 16<= o:p>
Atty. Simoncelli: We may be doing that the next time =
we see
each other.
Mr. Sarandrea, Chairman read aloud the followi= ng letter for the record:
&#= 8220;Application #823, Filed by Gary and Amy Swingle for property at 2579 Litchfield Road, Watertown CT that they are going to withdraw their application. Signed by their Attorney, George B. Simoncelli, Jr.”
MOTION: &= nbsp; (Mr. Mitchell, sec. Mr. Griffith) to Close the Public Hearing for Application #8= 23 of Gary and Amy Swingle request for a variance of Section 7.4 of the Watert= own Zoning Regulations concerning access to a commercial property located in the Town of Bethlehem via a residential property at 2579 Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
Public
Hearing Closed at 9:00 p.m.
Mr.
Sarandrea, Chairman, called a 5 minute Recess at 9:00 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Enrico
Sarandrea, Chairman
Zoning =
Board
of Appeals
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary