R:\Planning\ZBA\2016\11 - November 30\Agenda 30 NOV 2016.docx

AGENDA

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

LINCOLN CENTER HEARING ROOM

NOVEMBER 30, 2016

7:00 P.M.

A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

OM FOUNDATION, INC. – application #2016-115 - Request a variance of Art. II Sec.

1.00.02(e)1 to allow a place of worship on a street that is not an arterial or collector street

at 15 Burnham Street Extension, Rural Residence zone.

JUSTIN WEAVER – application #2016-130 - Request a variance of Art. II Sec.

1.03.04(c) to allow a shed 7 feet from the side property line (15 feet minimum side yard

required) at 10 Trevor Court, Residence AA zone.

DAVID FARR - application #2016-132 - Request a variance of Art. II Sec. 4.01.01 to

allow 56 feet of lot frontage (100 feet minimum frontage required) and to reduce the lot

area to 7,280 sq. ft. (12,000 sq. ft. required) at 42 Westwood Street, Residence A zone.

B. BUSINESS MEETING

1. Consideration of Public Hearings

2. Approval of Minutes

October 26, 2016 – Public Hearing, Business Meeting

3. Adoption of 2017 Meeting Schedule

4. Acceptance of New Applications

5. Other Business

TOWN OF MANCHESTER

LEGAL NOTICE

The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on November 30, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in

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

consider the following applications:

OM FOUNDATION, INC. – application #2016-115 - Request a variance of Art. II Sec.

1.00.02(e)1 to allow a place of worship on a street that is not an arterial or collector street at 15

Burnham Street Extension, Rural Residence zone.

JUSTIN WEAVER – application #2016-130 - Request a variance of Art. II Sec. 1.03.04(c) to

allow a shed 7 feet from the side property line (15 feet minimum side yard required) at 10 Trevor

Court, Residence AA zone.

DAVID FARR - application #2016-132 - Request a variance of Art. II Sec. 4.01.01 to allow 56

feet of lot frontage (100 feet minimum frontage required) and to reduce the lot area to 7,280 sq.

ft. (12,000 sq. ft. required) at 42 Westwood Street, Residence A 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\2016\11 - November 30\Legal Notices\PH Notice 30 NOV 2016.docx

MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING

HELD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

LINCOLN CENTER HEARING ROOM

OCTOBER 26, 2016

MEMBERS PRESENT: James R. Stevenson, Chair

Albert Gionet, Vice Chair

Robert Haley, Secretary

Edward Slegeski

Armando Darna

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Sandra DeCampos

John Topping

Matthew Peak

ALSO PRESENT: Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner

James Davis, Zoning Enforcement Officer

Gary Anderson, Director of Planning

Katie Williford, Administrative Secretary

The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary read the legal notice for the

application when the call was made.

DRAFT

ZBA – PH – 10/26/16 – 2

CATALINA GRIFFIN – application #2016-121 – Request a variance of Art. II Sec. 1.03.05(a)

to allow a fence that is 9 feet tall at its highest point (6 feet maximum allowed) at 19 Grove

Street, Residence B zone.

Ms. Catalina Griffin presented her application. She stated that her house was on a hill and her lot

had unique topography. Her reason for requesting the variance was to allow her to have a nice

fence that would look normal, she said.

Ms. Griffin displayed photos and discussed the height of various portions of the fence. She said

the fence is higher when viewed from one side than from the other side, because of the hill. The

fence varies in height in different locations in order to keep it straight, she said.

Mr. Stevenson noted that Ms. Griffin’s request was for a 9 foot high fence, and asked if she

really just wanted it to be 6 feet 8 inches. Ms. Griffin clarified that she had only described one

section of the fence so far.

Mr. Stevenson asked Ms. Griffin to explain her hardship and the reason she was requesting the

variance. One reason was the unique topography of the lot, she said. In the back of the house,

there were two hills so the fence had to go up and down. Part of the fence was 8.2 feet tall but

she requested 9 feet to be safe, she said. The only part of the fence that was 8.2 feet tall was a

door in the fence, which needed to be that tall to allow machinery, such as an excavator, to pass

through, Ms. Griffin said.

Mr. Stevenson asked for clarification of the hardship, and particularly the statements in Ms.

Griffin’s application relating to the nearby fire stations. Ms. Griffin replied that she lived close

to Main Street, so there was a lot of noise. She said other reasons for the higher fence were that

ZBA – PH – 10/26/16 – 3

she had two dogs and a pool, and that there was a lot of debris next to her property that she

wanted to screen.

Ms. Griffin submitted a letter from a neighbor, Sean Connors of 99 Main Street. Mr. Stevenson

read into record the letter, dated October 26, 2016, which stated that Mr. Connors did not have

any problem with the fence.

In response to questions from Mr. Haley, Ms. Griffin confirmed that she was told that the fence

could not be higher than 6 feet when she took out the permit to build the fence. She said she was

also told that she could apply for a variance to have a taller fence. Mr. Haley asked if she had

built the fence taller than permitted before deciding to apply for a variance, and Ms. Griffin

confirmed that was correct.

Mr. Gionet asked what type of equipment Ms. Griffin was bringing through the gate in the fence

and she replied that it was a mini excavator. Mr. Gionet asked if Ms. Griffin was operating a

business out of her home. She said she was not. Their back yard was in poor condition and she

and her husband had been fixing it for the past two years, she said.

Mr. Darna asked for an explanation of the statements in Ms. Griffin’s application relating to

break-ins and police presence in the area. Ms. Griffin stated that one of her neighbors had two

bikes stolen from his house this year. The fence would make it less easy to get to her house, Ms.

Griffin said. Mr. Darna said he contacted the Police Department and was told that the only call

on Grove Street so far in the last quarter was for harassment, and there were three minor

collisions on Main and Grove Street. Ms. Griffin replied that the harassment call was about her

next door neighbors. She said she had 4 to 5 cameras pointing to her house because of the

ZBA – PH – 10/26/16 – 4

neighbors. About ten times so far this year, when Ms. Griffin was sunbathing with a friend, one

of her neighbors had stood on the back of a truck, looked over at her house, and laughed for 15-

20 minutes at a time, she said. The fence was partly for privacy, Ms. Griffin said. She

confirmed that she reported the incident to the police. Mr. Darna noted that the Police

Department told him they had only one record of harassment, and Ms. Griffin replied that she

was told she needed video evidence, and she was only able to get a video once.

Mr. Topping stated that the idea of the fence being tall for privacy reasons is contrary to proper

policing, because a taller fence makes it easier to hide from law enforcement. Ms. Griffin noted

that the fence would not actually be 9 feet high; the door was the only part that was above 7 feet

tall.

Mr. Topping asked if the excavator could be used to level off an area for the fence so it could be

a 6 foot fence. Ms. Griffin replied that she had purchased $6,000 worth of fill material to flatten

a lot of the property, but it was still not enough.

Mr. Haley asked why the fence needed to be 8 feet tall to allow equipment through, since the

width of the opening was what mattered. Ms. Griffin explained that there is a post over the top

of the opening, to prevent the wind from blowing the fence over. Mr. Peak asked how wide the

gate was and she replied that the doors were 3 feet wide each, for a total of a 6 foot wide

opening.

Mr. Stevenson asked if any member of the public wished to comment in favor of this application.

ZBA – PH – 10/26/16 – 5

Mr. Brendan Griffin, the applicant's husband who also lives at 19 Grove Street, came forward.

The topography of the property makes it difficult to appeal to people in terms of resale value, he

said. He said he had tried to level the property as much as possible in the back, to allow a

vehicle such as an SUV or truck, to be stored in the rear of the property. He said that he and Ms.

Griffin were trying to make the best possible use of the property, which had been a distressed

property. Mr. Griffin said the fence by the pool was 7 feet high and there was a retaining wall on

one side of the pool. The fence is constructed of 2x6 pressure treated timbers and 4x4 timbers.

He reiterated that the lot topography was unique, adding that Grove Street was initially a nursery

or farm area so there were a lot of stumps. There were some arborvitaes that were growing in

that would soon be taller than the fence, he said. The house is very close to its neighbors to the

left, he said. Regarding the fence being built before a variance was requested, Mr. Griffin said

that they had cut the 4x4 timbers down to finish it, but some had not been finished yet. He said

they had a larger parking area at the top of the house where a vehicle could be brought to the

back of the lot. They built the wall directly to the garage in such a way that you could drive into

the garage, close it, and it would be completely secure. Mr. Griffin clarified that each door of the

gate is 4 feet, so the gate was a total of 8 feet wide, with a 4x4 on the top running across the

opening.

Mr. Gionet said it appeared in the photos that the finished side of the fence faced inwards,

toward the applicant’s property. Mr. Griffin said the fence was not complete but he didn't want

to do any more work until he received approval. He said his intent was to finish the fence to

have both sides look the same.

In response to a question from Mr. Topping, Mr. Griffin said the retaining wall comes up just

below the side of the pool, which is 3.5 feet tall.

ZBA – PH – 10/26/16 – 6

Mr. Kevin Cunningham of 17 Grove Street came forward. He said he had thought the fence

looked tall at first, but because the applicant’s house is a lot higher than his back yard, he could

look out his windows and see into the applicant’s house. A 6 foot fence would provide no

privacy, he said. He said the work the applicant was doing on their house was coming out

beautiful, and the fence was giving him the privacy he wanted. If the fence were shorter, the

applicants would not be able to enjoy their yard with the neighbor they have on the other side of

their property, Mr. Cunningham said.

Ms. Susie Snow of 18 Grove Street, who lives across the street from the applicant, came forward.

She said the applicants built a fence between their house and Mr. Cunningham’s house, and the

neighbors on the other side built a fence, and both fences looked nice. There was no reason

anyone should argue or ask for variances, she said. She noted that Mr. Cunningham had small

children, and without the fence it had been possible to see people undressing in the applicant’s

house from Mr. Cunningham’s house.

Mr. Stevenson asked if any member of the public wished to comment in opposition to this

application.

Ms. Jacqueline M. Rivera, 27 Grove Street, came forward. She noted that her husband had also

sent in a letter, but she came to the meeting because the applicant was out measuring Ms.

Rivera’s stockade fence prior to the meeting. Ms. Rivera said she had several police reports for

harassment because Ms. Griffin had taken photos of Ms. Rivera’s grandchildren.

ZBA – PH – 10/26/16 – 7

Police had been to her property several times, Ms. Rivera said. Ms. Rivera said the applicant’s

claim that Ms. Rivera’s son was taking pictures and smiling at Ms. Griffin had been addressed by

police officers who came to the house.

Ms. Rivera said she had a fence down her driveway because the Griffins took ripped up their

driveway without having their property surveyed, while Ms. Rivera had to pay $1,000 for a

surveyor. Mr. Griffin uses his excavator until 9:59:59 every night and the police are not able to

do anything, Ms. Rivera said. She added that there was a report because the police caught the

Griffins using an excavator at 10:15 p.m.

Ms. Rivera said she had lived on Grove Street for 17 years and it used to be a quiet

neighborhood, but it was not anymore. She said the harassment incidents were ongoing with the

Griffins. She could not sit on her back porch and had to have mini blinds because the Griffins

were constantly watching them, she said.

Ms. Bertotti said the Planning Department had received several letters from neighbors. The first,

from Mr. and Mrs. Rivera on October 24, 2016, had been emailed to the Board members

previously. Ms. Bertotti read into record an email received from Kathi Yost on the day of the

meeting, which discussed concerns about the Griffins not abiding by Town ordinances, in

particular not getting permits for electrical work and their pool, and running loud machinery late

at night. Ms. Bertotti then read a letter from Paul Noel, the owner of 20-24 Pine Hill Street, who

said he had no objection to a variance being granted. Ms. Bertotti noted that she had also

received an email from one of the board members regarding taxes for 19 Grove Street.

ZBA – PH – 10/26/16 – 8

Mr. Stevenson asked if there were any staff comments. Ms. Bertotti said the map submitted with

the application did not indicate the length of the sections of fence that were taller than 6 feet and

she had asked the applicant to submit a better map. According to applicant, the email got stuck

in her spam filter and she did not see it until last week, Ms. Bertotti said. Ms. Bertotti followed

up with a phone call last week and the applicant said she would provide a better map, but Ms.

Bertotti still had not received one. Ms. Bertotti said she thought that would be helpful for the

Board to have, but it was up to the Board if they felt it was necessary for the applicant to provide.

Mr. Haley asked Mr. Davis if the height of a fence was measured to the top rail, or to the post.

Mr. Davis replied that fence height is measured to the top rail, so the post can be a little higher

within reason.

Mr. Topping noted that the retaining wall was testified to be 3.5 feet high and asked Mr. Davis

what the height limit was for that. Mr. Davis said he usually would check with the Building

Department, but he thought it was 30 inches or 3 feet. He said he did not know if the applicant

built the retaining wall or if it was already there. In response to a question from Mr. Haley, Mr.

Davis said that when there is a retaining wall, the fence is measured from ground level, as

opposed to from the top of the retaining wall.

Ms. Griffin said there was only one person opposed to her fence. She said she and her husband

work late because they both have full time jobs, but the excavator stopped a long time ago.

When they did their driveway, it was almost 7 feet from the other property, she said. Ms. Griffin

said that she has 30 to 50 permits with the Town because every time she wants to do something

to her property she asks the Town how they want it done. This is the only variance she ever

requested, she said, and she requested it because otherwise the fence would not look nice.

ZBA – PH – 10/26/16 – 9

The public hearing on this application was closed and the public hearing portion of the meeting

was closed at 7:43 p.m.

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.

kmw

MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING

HELD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

LINCOLN CENTER HEARING ROOM

OCTOBER 26, 2016

MEMBERS PRESENT: James R. Stevenson, Chair

Albert Gionet, Vice Chair

Robert Haley, Secretary

Edward Slegeski

Armando Darna

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Sandra DeCampos

John Topping

Matthew Peak

ALSO PRESENT: Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner

James Davis, Zoning Enforcement Officer

Gary Anderson, Director of Planning

Katie Williford, Administrative Secretary

The Chair opened the Business Meeting at 7:43 p.m.

DRAFT

ZBA – BM – 10/26/16 – 2

CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS:

CATALINA GRIFFIN – application #2016-121 – Request a variance of Art. II Sec. 1.03.05(a)

to allow a fence that is 9 feet tall at its highest point (6 feet maximum allowed) at 19 Grove

Street, Residence B zone.

MOTION: Mr. Haley moved to deny the variance. Mr. Darna seconded the motion.

Mr. Haley said the fence was beautiful, but he did not see enough of a hardship to grant a

variance, especially because the applicant knew the rules before they built the fence. He added

that the applicant testified that there were shrubs that were almost taller than the fence, so if the

applicant continued the shrubbery planting along the perimeter of their property, that would

address the privacy concerns. The problems with the neighbors are not within the Board’s

jurisdiction, Mr. Haley said.

All members voted in favor of the motion to deny.

APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 MINUTES: PUBLIC HEARING AND

BUSINESS MEETING

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

motion and all members voted in favor.

RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS

There were no new applications.

ZBA – BM – 10/26/16 – 3

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Peak said the Zoning Board members had recently received a copy of a change to the zoning

regulations, allowing multifamily housing in General Business zones. He said he wanted to

understand purpose of the change, which struck him as significant. Ms. Bertotti explained that

the development group that manages Burr Corners had a pre-application discussion with the

Planning and Zoning Commission, at which they discussed proposing multifamily housing at

Burr Corners, across the street from Manchester Honda. During that discussion, she said, the

PZC indicated that that type of change could be considered for the entire General Business zone.

The applicant then worked with Mr. Pellegrini and Ms. Bertotti to draft proposed language and

criteria for what the housing would look like, such as housing density limits, height limits, and

open space requirements. The applicant made an application to the PZC for a zoning regulation

amendment. When the hearing on that amendment was held, neither Ms. Bertotti nor Mr.

Anderson was present, but hearings can be viewed online, she said. In response to a question

from Mr. Peak, Ms. Bertotti clarified that every General Business zoned parcel in town will now

allow that use, which is subject to special exception permits. Mr. Peak asked if the zoning

regulation amendment had to do with a specific project that would involve income restricted

units. Mr. Anderson replied that he believed the idea for Burr Corners was that the units would

be market rate, but they had not applied for permits yet. Ms. Bertotti explained that, previous to

this amendment, the General Business zone did not allow housing at all.

Mr. Peak asked if the ZBA ever requested Town staff to do research on the history of projects.

Mr. Stevenson replied that, when the Board sees a lot of applications for the same thing, the

Board asks staff to bring that topic to the PZC, to see if the PZC wants staff to do research or is

ZBA – BM – 10/26/16 – 4

interested in amending the zoning regulations. Some examples included temporary signs, food

trucks, and the keeping of chickens, he said.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m.

I certify these minutes were adopted on the following date:

____________________________ __________________________________

Date James Stevenson, Chair

NOTICE: A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THIS BUSINESS MEETING CAN BE

HEARD IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

kmw

TO: Joseph V. Camposeo, Town Clerk FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals DATE: November 23, 2016 RE: Proposed Meeting Schedule for the Zoning Board of Appeals February 2017 through January 2018 The following is a list of public hearings to be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Lincoln Center Hearing Room, 494 Main Street, Manchester, Connecticut. A business meeting will follow the close of the public hearings.

February 22, 2017

March 22, 2017

April 26, 2017

May 31, 2017

June 28, 2017

July 26, 2017

September 27, 2017

October 25, 2017

November 29, 2017

January 24, 2018

The Zoning Board of Appeals approved this schedule on __________________.

, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals

cc: Zoning Board of Appeals Customer Service R:\Planning\Yearly Calendar - Board & Commission Schedules\2017 calendar memo - ZBA.docx

DRAFT