Town of Watertown Connecticut · 2017-01-27 · Enrico Sarandrea, Chairman Vincent Giannetto Jeff...

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

WATERTOWN, CONNECTICUT

PUBLIC HEARING

Time: 7:00 pm

Date: August 24, 2016

Place: Watertown High School Lecture Hall

324 French Street

Watertown, Connecticut

1. Call Meeting to Order

Chairman, Mr. Enrico Sarandrea called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. Roll Call

Ned Dalton executed the roll call.

Member’s Present:

Enrico Sarandrea, Chairman

Vincent Giannetto

Jeff Franson

Roger Mitchell

Gary Swingle

Edwin Dalton

Town of Watertown Connecticut Planning and Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Watertown Municipal Center 61 Echo Lake Road Watertown, CT 06795 Telephone: (860) 945-5266 Fax: (860) 945-4706

Website: www.watertownct.org

of 18

Member’s Absent: Phillipe Roger

Scott Demers

Also Present: Moosa Rafey, Wetlands Enforcement Officer,

Land Use Secretary, Roseann D’Amelio

Gary Swingle is being seated for Phillipe Roger

Rick Sarandrea: Ok, I’m going to read the ground rules for the Zoning Board of Appeals’

Public Hearing tonight.

“ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GROUND RULES”

1. The applicant or his representative will make his formal presentation to the board stating

his specific hardship and precisely why this merits a variance from the Zoning

Regulations of the Town of Watertown.

2. All comments, discussion and observations shall be made through the Chair after proper

recognition by the Chairman. This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time

speaks on any issue, thus making it easier for everyone 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 asked to spell his 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 then allow any members

of the public who wish 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 for a

thirty-five (35) day extension of the public hearing period if the Board requires any

of 18

additional information or wishes to schedule a site walk to observe the situation for

themselves.

10. The Zoning Board of Appeals has thirty-five (35) 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.

Application #1061 of David Heckelman for a variance of 29 feet to a front yard property line

setback for installation of a 21 foot diameter above ground pool to be located 6 feet from the

street line of Ripley Street at 51 Orient Street, Oakville, CT in an R-12.5 residential zoning

district. I’ll have the Secretary read the public notice.

Ned Dalton: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Watertown will hold a public

hearing at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at the Watertown High School Lecture Hall,

324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act upon the following applications:

Application #1061 of David Heckelman for a variance of 29 Ft to front yard property line

setback for an aboveground pool to be located 6 Ft from a front property line on Ripley Street,

Oakville, CT in an R-12.5 Residential Zoning District, Section 12.8 of the Town of Watertown

Zoning Regulations requires minimum 35 Ft front year setback for an accessory structure in an

R-12.5 Residential Zoning District.

At this hearing interested persons and written communications will be heard. A copy of the

application is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office, Watertown Municipal Center, 61 Echo

Lake Road, Watertown, CT.

Dated in Watertown, CT this 12th day of August 2016


Edwin Dalton, Secretary

Zoning Board of Appeals

David Heckelman: 51 Orient Street, Oakville. Being that I’m on a corner lot, I have 2

frontages situated on Ripley Street side. You asked for a 35 foot setback. It only leaves me like

6 feet away from the house. I’m very close to my house so I really can’t do nothing on that side

so I need this variance in order to do this pool. It doesn’t give me any room at all.

Rick Sarandrea: You putting a deck on this pool too?

David Heckelman: yes

of 18

Rick Sarandrea: What size is the deck?

David Heckelman: It’s going to be like a 10 x 10. Something small, I’m going to make so it’s

uniform with the pool. I just want to get the space I need and if this goes thru then I’d like to put

a fence so it would be private. I want to make it look private and presentable.

Rick Sarandrea: any one from the board have any questions for the applicant?

Vincent Giannetto: that’s a very difficult lot

David Heckelman: yes, and there’s no other place to put it. On the other side I have a shed and

that would be the only questionable spot but nowhere else.

Rick Sarandrea: Moosa did you ever look at this?

Moosa Rafey: Yes Mr. Chairman. I went there and I made a copy of the plot plan for you, it’s

in the packet. I just want to give you a little bit of information on this lot. It’s a corner lot. It

has 2 frontages. If this was a regular lot and this side of the property was a side line he would

need only 5 feet setback for the pool and he already has 6 feet. I went there and this is the most

reasonable place. There’s already evergreen trees around that area that is not going to be visible

from the road. In addition to that, if the homeowner wants to build a fence it will give him more

privacy and also it’s not going to be visible from the road.

Rick Sarandrea: Anybody else from the board have any questions?

Any one from the public wish to speak for or against this application? 3x

Hearing none – do I have a motion??

Roger Mitchell: Motion to Close

Gary Swingle: second

Rick Sarandrea: Application 1062 of Kevin Penilaitis for 2 variances of 5 feet each to front

yard property lines setback for construction of an oversized detached garage to be located 30 feet

from front property lines on Davis Street Extension and Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT in an

R-12.5 Residential Zoning District. Can I have the Secretary read the notice.



324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act upon the following application:

Application #1062 of Kevin Panilaitis for a variance of 5 ft to front yard property line setback on

Bunker Hill Road and a variance of 5 Ft to front yard setback on Davis Street Extension for

construction of a 30’x30’ oversize detached garage to be located 30 Ft from front property lines

on Davis Street Extension and Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT in an R-12.5 Residential

Zoning District. Sections 12.8 and 6.3.13.f of the Town of Watertown Zoning Regulations

of 18

require minimum 35 Ft front yard setback for an oversize accessory structure in an R-12.5

Residential Zoning District.








Rick Sarandrea: state your name and address for the recond

Kevin Panilaitis: 418 Bunker Hill

Rich Sarandrea: state your case and hardship

Kevin Panilaitis: Again with the dual property lines, corner streets and with the water course

with my 100 foot offset from the water course, it pretty much elimates 90% of my lot. I’d just

like to build a garage and get things I own out of the way.

Rick Sarandrea: Any one from the board have any questions for the applicant?

Vinny Giannetto: Is that a second level garage?

Kevin Panilaitis: it’s a half floor they call it.

Vinny Giannetto: What’s it to be used for?

Kevin Panilaitis: I’d like to put a little wood shop upstairs. I do a lot of wood working and

storage for my cars and boats and things.

Moosa Rafey: It’s not going to be used to house farm animals? It’s not going to be a barn?

Kevin Panilaitis: no, I’ve been done farming for 20 years.

Rick Sarandrea: Moosa, did you go out there?

Moosa Rafey: Yes, I think everybody should know about this. This is the triangle on the corner

of Davis Street Extension and Bunker Hill Road. Now if you can see because of the setback

requirements from both streets, 35 feet on each side, it’s basically taking most of the property.

On the other side of the property there is a brook going thru the property and there’s a 100 foot

setback for wetlands. If you take all of those buildable area on this lot is really limited. I went

of 18

there and I walked around to see if we could push this a little bit without the variance, it’s

impossible to do. If there wasn’t a road in the back, they would need only 30 feet setback.

Vinny Giannetto: how do you plan to get into the garage?

Kevin Panilaitis: The existing garage is going to be eliminated once the new garage is up. My

intention is to be able to pull in the driveway and take a left into the garage door. The garage and

the breezeway will go and it’ll just be a driveway.

Vinny Giannetto: can that be moved more toward the house?

Kevin Panilaitis: It wouldn’t give me access to actually turn into the garage if I moved it closer

to the existing garage even after it’s gone and the way the setbacks are even if I knock the garage

down and build it there, I still wouldn’t be able to get into the front of the garage without paving

half of the front of the street.

Vinny Giannetto: Where is the septic?

Moosa Rafey: Actually the septic system is on the other side of the house and the well is behind

the existing garage. The setback for septic is different.

Rick Sarandrea: Anybody else have any questions?


Hearing none do I have a motion?

Roger Mitchell: Motion to close


Rick Sarandrea: All in Favor: Aye

Opposed: none

Application #1063 of Mark Febbriello for a variance of 8 feet to a side property line setback for

an existing driveway serving a single-family dwelling located 2 Ft from a side property line at

68 Pine Ridge Drive, Oakville, CT in an R-30 Residential Zoning District

Can the Secretary read the legal notice.




Application #1063 of Mark Bebbriello for a variance of 8 Ft to a side yard property line setback

for an existing driveway serving a single-family dwelling located 2 Ft from side yard property

of 18

at 68 Pine Ridge Drive Extension, Oakville, CT in an R-30 Residential Zoning District. Section

34.9.4 of the Watertown Zoning Regulations requires minimum 10 Ft setback from side and real

property lines for a driveway serving a single-family dwelling.








Rick Sarandrea: State your name and address for the record.

Mark Febbriello: 68 Pine Ridge Drive Extension, Oakville, CT

Rick Sarandrea: State your case and hardship

Mark Febbriello: I had constructed a house on the property at 69 Pine Ridge Dr Extension and

I currently have a gravel driveway in which I definitely want to pave. When the town had come

up to do their checking of the property, they told me that it would be a problem if I had paved on

my own because where the gravel lies it infringes on the boundaries. I have a fire hydrant on the

opposite side of where this pin is located so I have some restrictions that way so I’m just looking

to get the driveway paved. If I can get a little bit more room for the mouth of the driveway. I

have a buffer zone, if you will, between myself and the next property down, which is about 25 ft

that’s owned by the Town of Watertown and it’s access to a retention pond which I think, in my

mind, would have been no problem to pave the driveway and not put any harm to anybody’s

property. I just looking to pave my driveway. I’m hoping it goes thru so I can just get it done as

soon as possible.

Rick Sarandrea: Moosa, did you go look at this?

Moosa Rafey: Yes Mr.Chairman. You also have a map in your packet and you can see the way

that the house is on an angle, they want to have a straight driveway that gets close to the

property. That is the problem. Also, on that side there is an easement that the town has, a

drainage easement. On the opposite side there is a fire hydrant. I went there and it looks ok. To

be honest, in the past when Mary Barton was here, we were never enforcing the setback for

driveways. But recently we do. The Town zoning regulations require 10 feet setback on the

property. It created a lot of hardship for smaller lots in the Oakville area. If have an

R-G zone lot there’s not enough room to keep a 10 foot distance for the driveway. I didn’t see

any problems. I went there and it looks nice like all the other driveways in the neighborhood.

Rick Sarandrea: Any other questions for the applicant?


of 18

Hearing none – do I have a motion?

Roger Mitchell: Motion to close


Rick Sarandrea: All in favor: aye

Opposed: none

Application #1064 of Willie and Diane Boone and Paul Palasciano of Go Green Builders, LLC

for a variance of 3 Ft to a side yard property line setback for an existing driveway serving a

single-family dwelling located 7 Ft from side yard property line a 561 Winding Brook Farm

Road, Watertown, CT in an R-70 Residential Zoning District Section 34.9.4 of the Watertown

Zoning Regulations requires minimum 10 Ft setback from side and rear property lines for a

driveway serving a single family dwelling.

Can I have the Secretary read the legal notice.




Application #1064 of Willie and Diane Boone and Paul Palasciano of Go Green Builders, LLC

for a variance of 3 Ft to a side yard property line setback for an existing driveway serving a

single-family dwelling located 7 Ft from side yard property line a 561 Winding Brook Farm

Road, Watertown, CT in an R-70 Residential Zoning District Section 34.9.4 of the Watertown

Zoning Regulations requires minimum 10 Ft setback from side and rear property lines for a

driveway serving a single family dwelling.








Rick Sarandrea: Is there anyone here to represent the applicant?

Paul Palasciano: I am sir. Paul Palasciano from Go Green Buildlings, 105 Waterbury Road,

Prospect. We built a stone retaining wall, which is exposed about 7 feet out of the ground on the

neighbors side and approximately 2 feet out of the ground on the owners side. It was constructed

of 18

in the dead of winter. I made a mistake when I pulled the lines to see and I was off by 3 feet.

Essentially there was an error on my part. We tried to squeeze as much to that side as we could

because the topography of the lot slopes down and we didn’t want to have to put in another

retaining wall at the driveway. It was freezing cold and I made a mistake. So we want to see if

you folks would grant us that 3 feet for their driveway.

Rick Sarandrea: The driveway is brick or paved??

Paul Palasciano: It’s neither yet. There’s a belgium block border going up which is not part of

the problem. It is where it leads into this retaining wall that’s gorgeous and very large.

Unfortunately, it encroaches 3 feet towards the property line of the neighbor, Mr. Lubus. So, I’m

hear to ask you for that variance.

Rick Sarandrea: Moosa, did you go look at this?

Moosa Rafey: Actually Mr. Chairman, we noticed this when we received the final as built. No

body knew that the driveway is 7 feet from the property line. When they did the final “as built”,

we noticed that it was 7 feet. They have a beautiful stone wall that they build. They don’t want

to destroy it but I cannot issue a permit, if a variance is not granted. The shaded area is the part

where they need the variance not the entire driveway. Just 3 feet of the driveway is in the

setback area. On the other side there is a stone wall.

Gary Swingle: The stone wall is not the problem?

Moosa Rafey: No. The driveway has to be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and

they built the wall during the winter and they thought it was more than 10 feet but the surveyor

did the final as built and revealed that it’s not 10 it’s only 7 feet.

Rick Sarandrea: Any one from the public wish to speak for or against this application?

Robert Lubus: For the record my name is Robert Lubus. I am the adjacent property owner, the

property that’s being affected by this request for a variance. I am also an attorney who resides

there as well. The concerns I have are these: since this property began its construction, I believe

in November 2014. We have had tremendous problems with regards to erosion that have only

gotten worse. That erosion has included up to as recently as the recent rain storm where I have

erosion coming from their property line all the way across to where I’ve just installed a pool.

Literally, underneath my pool fence and up to and almost including the pool deck. That’s a

problem. Now with the Boone’s and Mr. Palasciano wanting to be even closure to my property

line, I have significant and greater concerns with regard to erosion. What they’re going to do by

putting pavement closer to my property line is create another area where less of a buffer for the

water to go into the ground. Now it’s going to be 3 feet closure to my property and my wife’s

property and 3 feet closer to further erosion on my property. We have erosion that literally goes

from the home that they’ve constructed recently to and taken 2 yrs to construct all the way to our

back property line. That’s a problem. They have also taken this property, which was at one

point slanted for the majority of it towards the road on Winding Brook and also to some degree

towards our property and they have effectively divided it in 2 so that the front porch of the

of 18

property continues to drain to the road but the rear of the property now drains to the rear corner

adjacent to our property and it’s creating more erosion. I have erosion quite literally across half

my property, in part, because of the wall they created that diverts water from the center of their

property to either end. In one case, the back corner to the back corner essentially of my property

as well. So, this is a matter which I believe, if you haven’t walked the property, I think it’s

necessary to walk the property. I certainly would invite you to walk the property as well. Now, I

would say that my opposition to this can be mitigated by the actions of the builder and/or the

Boones to resolve the problems we have had over the last 2 years. It has gotten to the point

where, and I consider myself to be a fairly good and easy going neighbor, I’ve had to contact the

police to stop trips by their dump trucks from moving a mound of soil that had to be 100 truck

loads where they literally tracked dirt and silt from the property line, a 10th of a mile up Winding

Brook and a 10th of a mile up Platt Road. I had to go to the police and contact them and asked

them to stop this because everything they were doing was effecting my property and now they

want to be closer to my property and cause with this, further erosion that eventually will be

directed onto my property. I have significant concerns. I think that while I do not want to be a

bad neighbor, and I recognize that the Boone’s have a tremendous investment in this property, in

this wall. I agree the wall was put up in the dead of winter, why I don’t know and I’ve expressed

this to the builder of the wall, I don’t believe the wall will last, because I watched them construct

the wall, the individuals from Mancini fencing company. I watched them heat the rock and the

morter with a torch while they were putting the wall together, in the dead of winter. This wall is

going to fall apart and I will have further erosion. I don’t want to stand unnecessarily against the

Boone’s. I want them to eventually have this variance, but I think they have to do things to

resolve this issue, and for that reason, I would ask that the Zoning Board walk both properties,

take a look at these circumstances and then make their decision at the next meeting as

appropriate. Thank you

Jeff Franson: Do you have pictures of that erosion?

Bob Lubus: I do, unfortunately, I have them on my phone by text. I can offer for you to look at

my phone right now and I’m happy to do that. I only got them tonight.

Vinny Giannetto: Was there any erosion control?

Moosa Rafey: I think if you decide to go to see the site, you will probably find the answer to

your questions.

Vinny Giannetto: You’ve been there?

Moosa Rafey: Many times

Rick Sarandrea: Is it a sloped property?

Bob Lubus: My understanding is there is drainage from the center of the property to either end

that they put in. I put it because of what I was doing, which was a pool, in roughly the last 6

months. I put in a curtain drain around the edge of my pool. That’s not stopping the water

of 18

draining from their property to mine and the silt, which is significant and tremendous coming

from their property to mine.

Gary Swingle: Is that because it’s under construction still?

Bob Lubus: It’s been under construction for 2 years.

SEVERAL PEOPLE SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY

Rick Sarandrea: Right now there’s no grass?

Bob Lubus: Not in the rear of the property. They’ve attempted to plant grass and unfortunately,

and I’m guessing because of the weather and the drought like conditions, none of the grass from

my view in the rear took. I understand the grass would stabilize some of this but it’s not

stabilizing it now.

Rick Sarandrea: Now these pipes or drains they put it, do they go to a storm sewer?

Bob Lubus: I don’t know that answer

Rick Sarandrea: how did you put in your curtain drain?

Bob Lubus: Mine goes right under my property. It goes towards my driveway.

Rick Sarandrea: Is it going to a storm sewer?

Bob Lubus: It’s not going to a storm sewer, it’s going right under another part of my grass. So

I understand where that needs to go and it’s not going into a storm sewer, that’s not appropriate.

I would tell you that during the years that I’ve lived there, which has been since 2001, water

literally drains from this property from the spring into the summer virtually every year. From

roughly the same spot. I’m talking not my property, but the neighboring property that had not

been built because all the water was directed to the street and eventually it did go to the storm

sewers. That’s where it was built and I can tell you that because I watched it from about 2002.

We moved in 2001. Having said that, now it’s changed and the topography of the property in

part because of the house and in part because of what they did with the landscaping has changed

significantly and now they’ve moved the water from our understanding to the back corner. Now

I believe that’s from a curtain drain, that’s what I thought was explained by the Boone’s and by

the builder, but I’m willing to be corrected on that, but my understanding is the water is clearly

directed towards the corner of my property, it’s clearly directed even without drains by the way

they’ve changed the topography. That’s not a natural occurrence, none of this is a natural

occurrence, which is the standard generally for a variance. The property condition, not the

human mistake, is supposed to cause the need for the variance. As I said, I almost certainly

would not oppose variance if the issues can be taken care of in a way that would assure us that

we are not going to have further problems down the road. I think you need to walk the property

and to be able to see that and I invite the committee to make an appointment to walk our property

along with I’m assuming, the applicant.

of 18

Rick Sarandrea: Anybody else have any questions?

Jeff Franson: Moosa, have you been to the property previously with Mr. Berger or anything,

associated with complaints or concerns about drainage on the property or stabilization of the

property under construction..

Moosa Rafey: Yes, Mr. Franson, what happens with any application before I issue a foundation

permit I give it to the town engineer to look at. As you can see this driveway is kind of steep.

It’s to the maximum grade, 15% slope area, and as you know that all driveways upstream of the

road will drain toward the street. There is a catch basin at the bottom of the driveway, and

during the construction we told the developer that they had to put the silt fence and they did that.

I agree with the neighbor, there was some erosion problems. The problem is that this site was

constructed during the winter. You know that once the ground is frozen it is harder to install the

silt fence and the one that they had in the beginning during the construction, some of that failed.

There were some erosion problems during construction but now if you go see, the entire front of

the property is all seeded and they also used those hay blankets to make sure there is no more

erosion. On the back of the property I don’t know how the situation is. But it takes time for the

grass to grow. If you want to go to see the property we can go see it.

Jeff Franson: Just from the gentlemen’s testimony, it sounds like there’s a lot of water moving

on the property and the owner of this property isn’t controlling it within their boundaries of their

home. That’s what it sounds like

Moosa Rafey: Rain water, no matter what you do, it drains everywhere.

Jeff Franson: I don’t disagree. You can grade property to control the water that falls onto your

property.

Moosa Rafey: The water from the driveway because of that wall, it shouldn’t go to your side,

now it goes towards the road. The wall should help that the water goes towards the road not

towards the property.

Bob Lubus: On the front of the property, the water goes towards the road. In the back of the

property the water is going all on our property and silt is coming in.

Moosa Rafey: The wall goes to the end of the driveway

Bob Lubus: The wall doesn’t go all the way to the front end of the driveway. The wall stops

part way down the hill, correct?

Moosa Rafey: Yes. You have a problem in the front part?

Bob Lubus: I have a problem, the entire back from the mid section of this property where the

house is all the way to the back, I have erosion issues that are coming onto my property. I agree

with you, that it generally begins where that wall ends and I agree that the wall ends just after the

of 18

mid point of the property, just after their driveway. My problem is the water is directed there by

the way they’ve created the topography and it wasn’t natural. The natural way this topography

ran was generally speaking towards the road. They’ve essentially divided this property in half,

put a peak there and caused some of the water that starts at that driveway right where the house

is to go to the back and that is causing erosion onto my property and that’s not appropriate.

Vinny Giannetto: Erosion onto your property or erosion of your property?

Bob Lubus: It’s onto my property. There is silt coming from their property onto mine. There’s

silt that goes at least in one spot roughly half way across my property, the rear property line.

From the side line they have roughly half way across.

Vinny Giannetto: If it was stabilized you still have a water problem

Bob Lubus: It’s not just the stabilization of the hill, it’s that if they’ve directed water to that

back corner, they need to redirect that water whether with a piping system somewhere on the

property. It shouldn’t drain on my property and I shouldn’t have a soaking wet back yard as a

result of what they’ve done.

Moosa Rafey: Mr. Lubus, I heard that you don’t have any objection to the variance, is that

correct?

Bob Lubus: As long as my issues are taken care of I would not object to the variance. I don’t

want this issue to be resolved, the variance to be resolved, unless I also have resolution on all of

the issues created by the work done on this property. What they’ve done is they caused these

problems and now they say, please give us a variance. That will further exacerbate the problems

and eventually we’ll fix it and while I do believe in the good will of the homeowners, I believe in

the ability to use what we have here. The committee can certainly put conditions on an approval

requiring the repair of these issues, requiring the repair of my property or the committee doesn’t

have to.

Moosa Rafey: If tomorrow they remove that 3 foot of the pavement from the shaded area on the

map, and they put grass there I have to issue their CO. It’s not going to fix your problem. I

think the problem that you have is some drainage problem that has nothing to do with this

application in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are asking for a 3 foot variance. If

this board doesn’t grant this variance, I will tell them to remove 3 feet of the pavement from that

side. But just for your information, recently I asked him to post $2,500 in addition to another

$1,000 bond just for erosion control on this lot. They posted that bond $2,500 recently and we

have another 1,000 for the driveway. We are not going to release a penny of that moneybefore

everything is done. Until this point this was a construction site. We always have problems with

erosion. From this point forward, I think there shouldn’t be any problem. If there’s damage to

your property, you can take them to court. But the issue in front of this board is just for the 3

feet of pavement on the driveway.

Rick Sarandrea: If we came out there and saw what you want us to see, there’s nothing we can

do. We would have to refer it to the Town Engineer and Moosa.

of 18

Moosa Rafey: I will be glad to bring the town engineer to your property and we can walk

together and you can show us where your concerns are and I will invite the property owner of the

house to be with us and see if there is anything they should do to fix the problem to make the

situation better. I can do that but that cannot be a part of the approval or denial of this

application.

Bob Lubus: Let me say it clearly. The law is that you cannot approve a variance over objection

when the issue is caused by man. This issue by builder’s admission is caused by his mistake. It

is caused by man. You don’t have the ability, well you can approve what you want, but you

won’t hold up in court.

Gary Swingle: I don’t think that’s Moosa’s point. We are not the zoning board, we don’t have

very narrow powers.

Bob Lubus: I agree with you, but part of the concern is the more you pave this property,

particularly closer to my property, the more there’s erosion to my property despite the wall. I

agree with Moosa’s statement that if they take out those 3 feet, and I can sue them then. But if

they want the variance, then a way to resolve it is to obtain our consent or at least our withdrawal

of an objection. So if they want this, they can fix our problems and if they don’t want this then

that’s fine, they can withdraw and take up part of the driveway, I don’t care on their decision. I

can always pursue it other avenues, you’re right, I’m a litigator, I file lawsuits all the time. I

don’t want litigation with my next door neighbor. I want it resolved. If they choose to fix it in

the way you suggest, by removing a portion of the driveway that they want, they can do that and

I guess I will have to have litigation. If not then they need to deal with it in an appropriate way

to resolve our concerns.

Vinny Giannetto: We are still in the same position whether we have the wall or driveway.

Moosa Rafey: There’s nothing we can do with the wall.

Rick Sarandrea: What we are trying to say is that this is planning and zoning issue and

engineering issue.

Bob Lubus: I understand, but they can’t do what they want which will cause further erosion.

Jeff Franson: If the grass was established, assuming the problem is gone, will there still be

excessive water going into your property?

Bob Lubus: Yes. It would channel its way into the back of my property and the back of my

property would then essentially have an area where water would run from the back corner near

the Boones all the way to the Lafrance’s property and then eventually, behind my property is

Careyshire Farm and there’s a pond at the bottom or some wetlands just passed the Lafrance’s

property. The silting problem would be gone but I wouldn’t be able to walk in the back of my

yard because I’d be walking thru mud.

of 18

Paul Palasciano, Go Green Builders: Almost none of these things are correct. If i can show

you a picture. This is an engineered wall with a footing that is 10 feet wide 2 feet thick. It’s got

15,000 pounds worth of rebar in the wall. This wall could hold the empire state building up.

Mancini’s are professional. They know their stuff. The footing is 10 feet deep to the top of the

wall 8 feet wide. It’s buried 5 feet in the ground on one side. It’s huge and massive.

Graciously, the Boone’s put on this gentlemen’s side of the wall instead of putting some cheap

block – beautiful hand laid stone. This wall is not going to be in question, ever, that it’s going to

fall apart. In the integrity of my client’s would correct any of those issues, if they ever

happened. We complied with every issue of erosion control. There’s a massive amount of dirt.

When it pours, anything can fail at that point. We had gigantic piles of dirt. We removed a

bunch of it, as much as we could, and then we spread out the rest of it. We decreased the

incline/decline towards the property, however, at the union of the 2 properties, it dove down a

little bit. That’s the fact that the water is running down this hill and my clients paid extra money

for the landscaper to blend it. The damage has already been done. The grass was put in to try

and stop this problem. It didn’t take. We had a tanker truck to water the grass trying to get it to

grow. It was too hot, it didn’t grow. So we had to redo the whole yard by the landscaper. My

clients are doing that portion of the project on their own. I don’t have any control financially or

otherwise with the contractor that they’re using. My clients are very well off and very well

known. They would never leave him in a mess. As far as the future water running down that

hill, after that grass is established, the decline has been decreased from its original and water runs

downhill. There’s not a lot you can do about it. Once the grass is established it’s not going to be

an issue. He paints a picture that he’s going to be knee deep in water in his back yard even when

the grass is grown because he lives in a lower incline. That doesn’t make any sense, it’s not

realistic and it won’t happen that way. Does he have a mess in his yard? He does. Is it going to

be cleaned up and made perfect? It will – at our expense, 100% guaranteed. The bottom line is

that 3 foot variance for that driveway is up against the stone wall. What that’s going to do is

divert water away from his property and down the driveway and out, not onto his property. The

rest of this, to me, is irrelevant. His argument is not about the variance but his letter that he sent

is clearly is using it as leverage against my clients so that they comply and they will comply. He

didn’t have to do that. Not being a good neighbor.

Rick Sarandrea: Well us granting a variance as he said, even if we went to court, I believe we

would win because that variance, where it’s located, has nothing to do with the problems that

he’s got in his yard. Moosa echoed that. If this was something that we had the power to put a

condition on this thing for all the other problems that are there, that’s one thing. The power lies

right now with you, him, Moosa and the town engineer. All we are doing is granting a variance

so that he can get his CO. It looks like it’s 3 feet.

Paul Palasciano: He would never feel the impact of that 3 feet. It has no bearing on his

existence.

Rick Sarandrea: There’s bigger things going on here like you said. Moosa will make sure,

because this is not the Planning and Zoning Commission, this is Zoning Board of Appeals, we’re

blasé court.

of 18

Moosa Rafey: Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention one thing, the hardship with this

application is topography. They needed that retaining wall there. They made a mistake, we’re

human, and I will gladly go with both neighbors and walk both properties with the Town

Engineer to see if there’s anything we can do to help both neighbors, we will be glad to do that.

If this board denies this application tonight, and tomorrow they remove that 3 feet of the

pavement, I will issue the CO. There is nothing else I can do.

Paul Palasciano: We are going to fix that property. One thing is is that we have to establish the

grass on the higher area before we can do anything for him. That has to take hold and this is

prime time for that. We reseeded and we did the whole thing over and regraded it. Once that is

established, we will move in to clean. There’s no reason to clean it now and then do it again.

We will 100% going to stand up and take care any issues this gentleman has despite the goings

on.

Gary Swingle: Again, you have to understand that this has nothing to do with us, this is Zoning

Board of Appeals.

Bob Lubus: The issue is whether or not this variance would cause additional erosion onto my

property. That is in your jurisdiction and if it does, when we already have erosion coming on my

property then I can impose a variance and that opposition can be dealt with by this court. Paving

over more of the land causes more erosion onto my property. I get it. That’s your only issue

whether or not he can invade 3 feet closer to my property line then he’s supposed to in this zone.

I get that, but paving over it means there’s 3 feet less of soil to have water sink into before it gets

to my property.

Rick Sarandrea: You believe that this 3 feet would correct your problem?

Bob Lubus: It’s not going to correct the problem but why would I make it worse? Why would I

agree to make it worse? That’s part of the problem.

Moosa Rafey: Mr. Chairman, the impervious surface coverage of this lot is 24.2% with that

additional 3%. The zoning regulations allows 25%. This gentleman can create more impervious

surfaces on that lot. It is not to the maximum.

Bob Lubus: The problem is if you do it right on my property line then the water is likely to

keep going onto my property. If you put that 25% within the setback lines, that’s something

permitted, and I don’t have a rejection to it. It’s not within the setback lines.

Rick Sarandrea: We can go see it, but again it doesn’t matter. We’re putting ourselves in a

position where this is not a safety issue. It’s a 3 foot variance. I understand your concerns, but

there’s other avenues that you can take to have those concerns taken care of. This board is not

one of them. We will certainly go out there and take a look at it, and I’m sure that if we do go

out there and look at it, they’re going to listen to us too saying ZBA came out too and they’re

saying it is what it is. They part that we’re looking at really has nothing to do with the rest of

what’s going on.

of 18

Bob Lubus: The bond is not in my favor. The bond is in favor of the town. The town isn’t

going to represent me in getting my property restored to its original condition. I do not suggest,

as the builder suggests, my property is pristine. I just put in a pool. I still need to do some, I still

need to do some landscaping work directly around the pool, however, the pool had a fence

installed all the way around it. It was roughly a 2 inch gap between the height of the land and the

bottom of the fencing. There’s no longer a gap. 2” has come onto my property from the

adjacent property. That has not come from my property. The 3,500 bond is in favor of town to

assure that he cleans up issues that effect the town or the town’s property.

Moosa Rafey: The town does not get involved with private properties. If there’s a dispute on

the property that they damaged something, it’s a civil issue. They can take them to court. The

town does not get involved. You are right that the bond is for the town. If they don’t finish and

the erosion is not under control, then the town will hire a contractor to use that money to go there

and seed the lawn to make sure that the soil is stabilized. It is not to fix your property. For this

commission there is one issue. There is an application for a 3 foot variance in front of you. I

want the board to focus on that issue. You have 3 options: you can deny it, you can approve it

or you can table it and go see the site. Period – that’s it.

Rick Sarandrea: Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak for or against this

application? 3x Hearing none, do I have a motion?

Vinny Giannetto: I make a motion to close

Paul Palasciano, Go Green Builders: I believe you guys have the map and you can see the cuts

are – the whole driveway goes to the right.

Jeff Franson: That’s what I’m saying, downhill side of the property.

Paul Palasciano: The driveway doesn’t pitch to the neighbor’s property. It pitches to the street.

If fact, the wall is going to divert the water that would go over into his property, to the street. So

it’s totally contradictory to his theory. These people are not suffering financially. They will be

more than happy to correct this problem for this gentleman.

of 18

Rick Sarandrea: Well sir, that’s what I would do then so this way here, he’s happy, you’re

happy, the town is happy, everybody’s happy. So that’s what I would do. But again, that’s not

our deal.

There’s a motion – do I have a second?

Roger Mitchell: second

Rick Sarandrea: All in favor. We’ll go into the regular meeting.

ATTEST:

_________________________________

Ned Dalton, Secretary

Town of Watertown Connecticut · 2017-01-27 · Enrico Sarandrea, Chairman Vincent Giannetto Jeff...

Documents

Transcript of Town of Watertown Connecticut · 2017-01-27 · Enrico Sarandrea, Chairman Vincent Giannetto Jeff...