AGENDA

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

LINCOLN CENTER HEARING ROOM

JUNE 28, 2017

7:00 P.M.

A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

WATERSTONE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, INC. – application #2017-043 -

Request removal of a previous condition of approval of a variance #2016-070 that no

wall sign be located on the building above 40 feet at 434 Tolland Turnpike (formerly 444

Tolland Turnpike), General Business zone.

B. BUSINESS MEETING

1. Consideration of Public Hearings

2. Approval of Minutes

May 31, 2017 – Public Hearing, Business Meeting

3. Acceptance of New Applications

4. Other Business

R:\Planning\ZBA\2017\06 - June 28\Agenda 28 JUN 2017.docx

TOWN OF MANCHESTER

LEGAL NOTICE

The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on June 28, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the

Lincoln Center Hearing Room, 494 Main Street, Manchester, Connecticut to hear and consider

the following applications:

WATERSTONE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, INC. – application #2017-043 - Request

removal of a previous condition of approval of a variance #2016-070 that no wall sign be located

on the building above 40 feet at 434 Tolland Turnpike (formerly 444 Tolland Turnpike), General

Business zone.

At this hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications received. Copies of

these petitions are on file in the Planning Department and may be inspected during normal

business hours.

James R. Stevenson, Chair

Zoning Board of Appeals

R:\Planning\ZBA\2017\06 - June 28\Legal Notices\PH Notice 28 JUN 2017.docx

MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING

HELD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

LINCOLN CENTER HEARING ROOM

MAY 31, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT: James R. Stevenson, Chair

Albert Gionet, Vice Chair

Robert Haley, Secretary

Edward Slegeski

Armando Darna

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Sandra DeCampos

John Topping

ABSENT: Matthew Peak

STAFF PRESENT: James Davis, Zoning Enforcement Officer

Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner

Gary Anderson, Director of Planning

Nancy Martel, Senior Administrative Secretary

The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 P.M.

DRAFT

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 2

The Commission and public stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Secretary read the legal notice for the application when the call was made.

MOTION: Mr. Haley moved to adopt the revised agenda with the withdrawn application,

2017-030, removed. Mr. Slegeski seconded the motion and all members voted in

favor.

TOLLAND TURNPIKE MOTORS, LLC – Application #2017-033 – Request a DMV

Certificate of Location Approval under Connecticut General Statutes 14-54 for a used auto

sales/service facility at 1 Tolland Turnpike, General Business zone.

Attorney Steven Penny, 202 West Center Street, Manchester, represented the applicant.

Attorney Penny introduced the attendees representing this application: Andrew Bushnell, Project

Engineer with Bushnell Associates, Manchester, and Mohammad Taleb, managing member of

Tolland Turnpike Motors, LLC, the applicant.

Attorney Penny described the property, located at 1 Tolland Turnpike, on the north side of the

street on the Manchester/Vernon town line. This is the first property in Manchester and is a

rectangle of land with 250’ of frontage on Tolland Turnpike and 300’ of depth, he stated. The

parcel is 1.71 acres in size, Attorney Penny added, and is bounded northerly by an undeveloped

parcel of land in the Hockanum River flood plain; easterly by a new automobile dealership in the

town of Vernon; southerly by Tolland Turnpike, across from which are a new car sales and

service business and a crane equipment sales and service business; and westerly by a

commercially-zoned parcel currently housing a restaurant and a commercial mixed use complex.

Attorney Penny explained that the site is zoned General Business, with one structure that

historically was home to Vittner’s Nursery, now home to a small plant store. He stated that

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 3

public water and sewer serve the site. In February 2004, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved

new and used auto sales at the property as an adjunct operation to the Subaru dealership across

Tolland Turnpike, Attorney Penny said. The applicant at the time, Sub Peak, Inc., remains the

owner of the property and is an entity associated with the Subaru dealership, he said. At that

time, there were no proposed changes to the property, Attorney Penny stated, and there were no

plans to utilize the building given the proximity of its operations across Tolland Turnpike.

Attorney Penny stated that the General Business zone, which includes the subject property,

extends along both sides of Tolland Turnpike from the Manchester/Vernon town line on the east

to Jefferson Street beyond Northwest Park on the west. He added that the applicant has the

subject property under lease and a consent letter from the property owner, together with a copy

of the deed to the property, are both in the Planning Department file.

Attorney Penny explained that Tolland Turnpike is classified in the local Plan of Conservation

and Development as a major arterial roadway; the 2012 average daily traffic count reported

17,200 vehicles traversing the road each day. The applicant has reported the anticipated peak

hour trip volume would be 10 vehicles per hour, which the four-lane roadway and signalized

intersections can well handle, stated Attorney Penny. He explained that a review of the

Connecticut Crash Data Repository records did not indicate any pattern of repeated automobile

accidents in the area of the site. The applicant’s traffic report letter concludes that, based on the

information, the applicant’s proposal will not have an adverse impact on vehicular traffic on

Tolland Turnpike, or as it is known in Vernon, Hartford Turnpike, in the vicinity of the site,

Attorney Penny said.

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 4

On April 17, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted the applicant a Special

Exception, specifically a used auto sales approval, an erosion and sedimentation control plan

approval, and a flood plain permit all with respect to the demonstrated site plan. According to

Attorney Penny, the applicant intends to operate a used automobile sales business at the site with

spaces for 27 sales vehicles, two interior automobile repair spaces, four customer vehicles, and

three employee vehicles. In addition, there are also five vehicle spaces on the site to support the

existing plant store business, he said. The ability to make minor repairs, as required by the

Motor Vehicle Department, will be limited only to vehicles sold at the site, he stated. The

business would operate from 9 A.M. to 6 P.M. Monday through Saturday and employ three

persons onsite at any one time, stated Attorney Penny.

Mr. Andrew Bushnell, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor with Bushnell Associates at

565 Woodbridge Street, Manchester, stated his company prepared the site plan for this property.

He reiterated that it is the former Vittner’s Garden Center site. Mr. Bushnell projected a map of

the existing building and bituminous parking area between the building and Tolland Turnpike,

which will be reused for the plant store parking and the proposed automobile sales business. He

illustrated the marked spaces and the handicapped spaces as required. The proposal calls for a

driveway to the right of the building to accommodate two service repair bays for the automobile

business, stated Mr. Bushnell. To mitigate the additional impervious cover created by adding the

pavement for that drive, Mr. Bushnell proposes to remove pavement along the frontage of

Tolland Turnpike, replacing the pavement with a landscaped island. At the backside of the

existing parking area, he stated, the proposal includes a six foot wide grass strip to catch any

stormwater runoff, as well as any debris and sediment before it enters the rear of the property.

Presently, everything to the rear of the building is just a bare earthen surface and is intended to

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 5

remain, he said. Mr. Bushnell noted that the flood plain extends to the back of the building. Mr.

Bushnell explained the plan is to take eight cubic yards of material to make more of a low point

in the back to compensate for the fill that will be placed in the flood plain in order to construct a

ramp to access the service bays on the side of the building along with the driveway construction.

He pointed to the specified area for a dumpster enclosure to house a regular waste dumpster and

a recycle dumpster, which will be surrounded with a slatted chain link fence enclosure. There

will be a grass filter strip around the dumpster enclosure to treat any storm water running off

from the paved area, said Mr. Bushnell.

The building currently is served by city water, city sewer, natural gas and overhead electricity,

according to Mr. Bushnell, and there is sufficient utility service for the plant store and the

automobile dealership combined. Mr. Bushnell referred to the traffic accident data in the area, in

which there is no indication of traffic issues with this proposal.

Ms. DeCampos inquired whether there were any sprinkler systems in the building, to which Mr.

Bushnell replied that he is not 100% sure.

Attorney Penny discussed the requirements for location approval as follows: Sec. 14-54 of the

General Statutes provides that an applicant for a license to repair motor vehicles in a town of

Manchester’s size must first obtain a Certificate of Approval of the proposed location for that

activity from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sec. 14-51 of the statutes defines “limited repair” to

be “…minor repairs including specifically, repairs and replacement of cooling, electrical, fuel

and exhaust systems, brake adjustments, relining and repairs, wheel alignment and balancing,

and repair and replacement of shock absorbers.” The same statute goes on to provide that

“…adding or changing oil or other motor vehicle fluids, changing of tires and tubes including the

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 6

balancing of wheels or installing batteries or lightbulbs, windshield wiper blades or drive belts

shall not be construed as the repairing of motor vehicles.” Sec. 14-55 of the General Statutes

sets the criteria that the Board is obliged to apply in determining the suitability of the intended

location of the motor vehicle business, which include location in reference to schools, churches,

theaters, traffic conditions, width of highway and effect on public travel, stated Attorney Penny.

The Senior Planner’s memo to the Board suggests that these criteria are no longer in the statutes

to give guidance to the Board’s deliberations, according to Attorney Penny. This is, in fact, the

majority view given that the statute no longer appears in the compilation of statutes published by

the Commission on Official Legal Publications. Attorney Penny said a more recent, 2011, court

case held, after detailed research and analysis, that the statute does in fact remain in effect

because the General Assembly both repealed and then later amended the statute in the same

session of the legislature, thereby leaving it and its criteria in place for the Board to apply. He

said the statute is no longer published, but according to the court, it does nonetheless continue to

exist.

Former Connecticut General Statute Sec. 14-53 used to also require a finding that the location of

such a place of business would not imperil the safety of the public, Attorney Penny stated, but

that statute was, in fact, repealed, though the court opinion notes that the criteria in Sec. 14-55

expressly implied the suitability of the proposed site from a safety viewpoint, he said. When

considering an application for approval of a Certificate of Location for a motor vehicle repair

facility, the Board acts as a special agent of the State, Attorney Penny stated, though it does not

perform a local zoning function and, therefore, does not act pursuant to either the municipal

zoning ordinance or the zoning statutes. Accordingly, only the standards set forth in Sec. 14-55

may be considered when performing this function by the State, though in the past the Board

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 7

applied the regulations, and Attorney Penny pointed out those standards are identical to the

criteria that appear in the statute.

Attorney Penny said that, with respect to the statutory criteria for Certification of Location

Approval, there are no schools, churches or theaters located near the subject property that could

be effected by its motor vehicle related use or traffic. The remaining three statutory criteria are

traffic conditions, width of highway, and effect on public travel, he said. These matters were

addressed earlier in the context of Manchester’s own zoning regulations which, Attorney Penny

stated, mirror the requirements of the State statutes. He pointed out that neither the Town’s own

Traffic Engineer nor the Planning and Zoning Commission identified any issues regarding

adverse traffic conditions, area roadway design, or an unsatisfactory impact on public travel by

reintroducing an auto-related use of this location. Attorney Penny suggested that the statutory

criteria have been met and, in his opinion, the issuance of a Certificate of Location Approval

would be in order.

Mr. Gionet noted that there will be 34 parking spaces, 27 for cars that will be sold, four for

customers and three for employees, and questioned whether the applicant will have the full 27

cars on the lot at one time, to which Attorney Penny stated that is quite possible. Mr. Gionet

reiterated repairs would only service cars sold on that site, and Attorney Penny verified.

Mr. Stevenson asked for public comments and there were none.

Ms. Bertotti stated that there are no staff comments. She pointed out that some members of the

Board may recall being in charge of reviewing and granting Special Exception approvals in

addition to Certification of Location approvals, prior to the State Legislature’s action that

delegated Certificate of Location approval to the Planning Commission. She said at the time the

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 8

regulations were changed, the Commission became the body acting on the Special Exceptions.

Ms. Bertotti stated she is waiting to see what will happen with the law, whether this legislature

maintains the authority on Certification of Location approval with the Zoning Board. It may

revert back to the Planning Commission, she said, which would require another revision to the

zoning regulations enabling one body to review such proposals as the criteria is identical, and

which would prevent applicants from attending two meetings and paying separately for each.

Mr. Stevenson closed the public hearing on this application.

PATRICK KEARNEY – Application #2017-036 – Request a variance of Art. II, Sec. 1.03.04

to allow a pool with a deck three feet from the rear property line (30 feet required) at 146 Saddle

Hill Road, Residence aa Cluster zone.

Mr. Kearney, 146 Saddle Hill Road, Manchester, introduced himself. He stated that he would

like to install a pool and deck on his property, yet based on the lot shape and house shape, the

pool and deck cannot meet the requirement to be behind the rear plane of the house and remain

on the property. Mr. Kearney is requesting a variance to the 30 foot setback requirement to

allow a three foot setback, in order to allow the pool to be behind the rear plane of the house.

Mr. Gionet inquired whether the applicant would install a fence.

Mr. Kearney replied that he is not planning on erecting a fence as the pool would be 52” in

height. He pointed out that, in his opinion, his neighbors would prefer not having a fence.

Mr. Stevenson asked if the applicant had tried to configure the area in any other manner.

Mr. Kearney stated that the pool could come close on the south side of the property behind the

house addition, but just barely. There is a six foot drop-off that slopes away in that portion of the

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 9

yard, he stated, whereas the northern portion of the back yard is much flatter, which would

require less preparation for the pool installation.

Mr. Stevenson restated that the topography of the lot necessitates the proposed pool location.

Mr. Kearney responded that the proposed location has the best topography.

Ms. Bertotti stated there are no outstanding staff comments on the application.

Mr. Gionet stated it was his belief that all pools required a fence for safety purposes.

Mr. Davis responded that, as long as an above-ground pool is or exceeds 48” in height, a fence is

not required. However, a manufacturer’s ladder or a deck would require an auto-closure by State

code.

Mr. Stevenson closed the public hearing on this application.

STEPHEN AND JENNIFER O’NEILL –Application #2017-038 - Request a variance of Art.

II, Sec. 2.01.01 to reduce the rear yard to 24 feet (30 feet required) to permit construction of

kitchen, porch, and deck modifications at 547 Gardner Street, Rural Residence zone.

Mr. Stephen O’Neill, 547 Gardner Street, Manchester, stated he has been a resident of

Manchester for 50 years. He said his family has resided at 547 Gardner Street for the past 18

years. He specified that the property is a rear lot on Gardner Street just past Wyneding Hill. He

also said the property abuts the Case Mountain Recreational Area. Mr. O’Neill projected the

plot plan and stated that one of the challenges is that the property is an unconventional rear lot

with nine shared property boundaries. Additionally, the topography is challenging, according to

Mr. O’Neill, with over 110’ of elevation change from the driveway to the rear of the lot. He said

the difficulty is building an addition given the topography and the lot layout.

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 10

He explained he is seeking a variance of the 30 foot rear yard, allowing a 24 foot rear yard in

order to build an addition. Mr. O’Neill projected the proposed addition which consists of a small

bump-out area. He stated the Andrew Ansaldi Construction Company developed the plans. He

also presented the floor plan proposal and a picture of his family cramped in the dinette area. As

his family ages, stated Mr. O’Neill, they are seeking to allow a better flow in the dinette with the

use of walkers if necessary.

Mr. O’Neill stated they are proposing to replace the existing deck. He also projected the site

plan, which included the upper front elevation, the front door to the home, the garage, the

addition, deck replacement and how the addition could be blended in with the current siding,

although it is a remote lot. He also projected the lower elevation, which depicted the three foot

expansion for the dinette area as well as the rear elevation illustrating the three foot expansion

and the dinette area. He also pointed to the rear lot line, which shows the close proximity to the

setback due to the topography. He pointed to photos of the area showing the wooded area of the

Case Mountain Recreation Area, in addition to the abutting properties.

Mr. O’Neill stated there are letters of support within the application package. In addition, the

applicant was before the Board in 2001 to construct the deck that will be deconstructed, said Mr.

O’Neill, at which time they also struggled with the unconventional rear lot. He reiterated that

there are nine shared property boundaries and given the remote location and the rural residential

area, there would not be significant impact to the neighborhood character.

Mr. Slegeski asked if there will be excavation during the process.

Mr. O’Neill stated when excavating originally for the house, they did hit rock on the garage side,

requiring drilling out the rock. The site was previously excavated for the original foundation and

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 11

there will be excavation for this area, though it will not be full depth as they will not have a full

cellar.

Mr. Slegeski expressed his surprise that there is no ledge in that area.

Mr. O’Neill explained that there is ledge deep underneath, approximately seven feet below the

garage. There would be minimal excavation given the location of the addition.

Mr. Haley asked if the applicant can guarantee there will be no blasting.

Mr. O’Neill responded that he can guarantee there will be no blasting.

Mr. Haley asked for confirmation that the applicant would have no problem with the Board

making a condition for no blasting, to which Mr. O’Neill stated “absolutely.”

Mr. Gionet requested clarification on the site plan of the house and whether there would be a

deck on the top of the new addition.

Mr. O’Neill pointed to the area of a covered porch and stated that, in order to tie in the existing

windows, a flat roof was required. Therefore, the decision was made to install railings around

the rooftop so as to blend in with the rest of the house at that location. Additionally, there will be

door access from the master bedroom, which will make it aesthetically pleasing.

Ms. Bertotti indicated that the Planning Department has received four letters in support of this

application as a part of the application submittal. She went on to read only one of the letters, as

all four are identical. She stated the first letter is from John and Jill Vichi, 551 Gardner Street,

Manchester, Connecticut. The letter is dated May 5, 2017, addressed to the Zoning Board of

Appeals, she said, and read as follows: “Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: We are long-time

residents of the Town of Manchester and reside at 551 Gardner Street. We are writing to express

ZBA – PH – 5/31/17 - 12

our full support for the variance request by Steve and Jen O’Neill residing at 547 Gardner Street.

We are abutting neighbors and fully support the requested relief from their established rear lot

line so they may pursue improvements to their home. Thank you very much for your

consideration. John and Jill Vichi.” The remaining letters were signed by Richard and Jane

Whitehead, 569 Gardner Street; Bill and Carol O’Neill, 525 and 529 Gardner Street; and Kent

and Susan Schwendy of 530 Gardner Street, all in support, she said. Ms. Bertotti stated there are

no outstanding staff comments.

Mr. Stevenson noted there were no members of the public to speak.

The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

I certify these minutes were adopted on the following date:

________________ ____________________________________

Date James Stevenson, Chair

NOTICE: A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING CAN

BE HEARD IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING

HELD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

LINCOLN CENTER HEARING ROOM

MAY 31, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT: James R. Stevenson, Chair

Albert Gionet, Vice Chair

Robert Haley, Secretary

Edward Slegeski

Armando Darna

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Sandra DeCampos

John Topping

ABSENT: Matthew Peak

STAFF PRESENT: James Davis, Zoning Enforcement Officer

Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner

Gary Anderson, Director of Planning

Nancy Martel, Senior Administrative Secretary

CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS:

DRAFT

ZBA – BM – 5/31/17 - 2

TOLLAND TURNPIKE MOTORS, LLC – Application #2017-033 – Request a DMV

Certificate of Location Approval under Connecticut General Statutes 14-54 for a used auto

sales/service facility at 1 Tolland Turnpike, General Business zone.

MOTION: Mr. Haley moved to approve the Certificate of Location Approval.

Mr. Slegeski seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

The reason for the approval is the location has similar surrounding uses.

PATRICK KEARNEY - Application #2017-036 – Request a variance of Art. II, Sec. 1.03.04 to

allow a pool with a deck three feet from the rear property line (30 feet required) at 146 Saddle

Hill Road, Residence aa Cluster zone.

MOTION: Mr. Gionet moved to approve the variance.

Mr. Darna seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

The hardship is the topography of the lot.

STEPHEN AND JENNIFER O’NEILL - Application #2017-038 – Request a variance of Art.

II, Sec. 2.01.01 to reduce the rear yard to 24 feet (30 feet required) to permit construction of

kitchen, porch and deck modifications at 547 Gardner Street, Rural Residence zone.

MOTION: Mr. Slegeski moved to approve the variance.

Mr. Haley seconded the motion.

Mr. Haley reminded the Chair that Mr. Slegeski requested a condition of no blasting.

ZBA – BM – 5/31/17 - 3

AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Slegeski moved to approve the variance with the condition that

there be no blasting on the site.

Mr. Haley seconded the amended motion and all members voted in

favor.

The hardship is the unique configuration of the property.

APPROVAL OF APRIL 26, 2017 MINUTES: PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS

MEETING

MOTION: Mr. Gionet moved to approve the minutes as written.

Mr. Slegeski seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS

JEFFREY A. O’BRIEN – Application #2017-031 – To appeal a Cease & Desist Order issued

under Art. V, Sec. 3.02 of the Manchester Zoning Regulations and in accordance with

Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-12, for violation of Connecticut General Statute Section

8-3f (Operation of a Community Residence or Child-Care Residential Facility within 1,000 feet

of another such facility) at 112 Woodland Street (a.k.a. 112-114 Woodland Street), Residence B

zone.

VINFEN CORPORATION OF CONNECTICUT, INC. – Application #2017-034 – To appeal

a Cease & Desist Order issued under Art. V, Sec. 3.02 of the Manchester Zoning Regulations

and in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-12, for violation of Connecticut

General Statute Section 8-3f (Operation of a Community Residence or Child-Care Residential

ZBA – BM – 5/31/17 - 4

Facility within 1,000 feet of another such facility) at 102 Woodland Street (a.k.a. 102-104

Woodland Street), Residence B zone.

MOTION: Mr. Slegeski moved to accept the new applications.

Mr. Gionet seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

The business meeting was closed at 7:45 PM.

I certify these minutes were adopted on the following date:

_________________________ ____________________________________

Date James Stevenson, Chair