MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LINCOLN CENTER HEARING ROOM NOVEMBER 29, Robert Haley, Secretary Sandra DeCampos

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LINCOLN CENTER HEARING ROOM NOVEMBER 29, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: ALTERNATE MEMBER SITTING: ALTERNATES PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: James R. Stevenson, Chair Albert Gionet, Vice Chair Edward Slegeski Armando Darna Matthew Peak John Topping Robert Haley, Secretary Sandra DeCampos Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner James Davis, Zoning Enforcement Officer Nancy Martel, Recording Secretary The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 PM. Mr. Darna read the legal notice for the application when the call was made. MANCHESTER HISTORICAL SOCIETY Application # Request a use variance of Art. II, Sec to allow a museum at 495 Middle Turnpike East, Residence A zone, and a variance of Art. IV, Sec to allow off-site parking for the proposed use. Mr. Dave Smith, Raymond Road, Manchester, introduced himself as representing the Historical Society, the owner of the subject property. Mr. Smith displayed a site plan of the property and the surrounding area. He explained that the property is part of what was the original Woodbridge Farm, and described the acreage. The Woodbridge family bought the farm in the late 1700 s and over the years, it has served as a hay farm, a potato farm and a dairy farm. Raymond Woodbridge, the last of the Woodbridge family, sold the bulk of the property. The current acreage was bequeathed to the Manchester Historical Society in 1998, Mr. Smith explained, and consists of the house, two barns and a shed. He noted that Bigelow Brook flows through the property. The Historical Society has restored the 1770s -1780s Woodbridge barn, Mr. Smith reported, and displayed photographs. The Society plans to turn the barn into a farm and agricultural museum representing that part of Manchester s history, as the town was a farming community prior to the mills. Mr. Smith reported that, in order to create the museum, there must be handicapped access to the barn as well as the creation of a stone dust or packed gravel pathway from the street to the barn and beyond. He noted that parking is not available on the site, and they plan to utilize parking on the street as well as the Senior Center. A requirement is that the museum must be open 12 days a year, and the plan is to be open from early May through late October, two Sundays a month for approximately two hours. He explained that the Society does not expect a ZBA PH

2 big demand for visitation, though they plan to be available to the public on two additional days: Town Heritage Day in June and a fundraising event in the fall. Mr. Smith described the plan to install a 9 x 15 sign on a tree near the road marking the Woodbridge property as well as a sign displaying Historic 18 th Century Woodbridge Barn on another tree. In order to enable handicapped access, there will be a path along the front of the barn as well as a large sliding door to enter the barn, he explained. Toilet facilities are required and the proposal is to provide an ADA compliant portable toilet, according to Mr. Smith, which will be situated inconspicuously, utilizing the shed. He displayed the floor plan of the proposed museum, explaining the features. He reiterated that the pictures in the members packets depict the barn before the restoration, and he submitted up-to-date photos. Mr. Darna asked how wide the proposed stone dust trail will be. Mr. Smith responded it will be four feet. Mr. Darna expressed his concern about access by emergency vehicles. Mr. Smith noted that the fire station is directly behind the property. He pointed to a doubleswing gate accessing the property, which has already been used by the Fire Department. Mr. Stevenson asked if any member of the public wished to comment either in favor of or in opposition to this application. Mr. Darna noted that the gates lead to the lawn, which may be muddy, complicating access. Mr. Smith reported that there is no plan to change the present access. He pointed out that the access road has existed for well over 100 years, is very hard-packed, and was used by the contractors renovating the barn. Mr. Darna reiterated his concerns about a 50,000 lb. apparatus backing into the property. Mr. Smith restated that there is no plan to create a drivable roadway into the property. Mr. Peak referred to the application, which stated that the terms of Thelma Woodbridge s will stipulate that, if the museum is not established, the property will pass to the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving. Mr. Smith commented that the application listed that as a hardship but he was informed that is not considered a hardship. However, it would be a considerable hardship for the Historical Society. He assumed that the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving would most likely sell the property. Mr. Peak said it seemed to be a bit of a Catch-22, if the terms say the property must be a museum, and he did not know if anyone else could operate the property as a museum if the ZBA did not approve this use. He considered that in this situation a historic property that could not be ZBA PH

3 operated as a museum, if the regulations do not allow it to operate as a museum, could be passed on to the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving, and they could turn it over to someone else and it is unclear what would be done with the property. Mr. Smith explained that the Society does not want to lose the property because it represents a part of Manchester s history that otherwise could not be shown in its setting. He noted that the Cheney Homestead represents the Cheney family and industrialization, while the proposed museum will represent the agrarian part of Manchester s history. Mr. Peak questioned the access for parking and the utilization of parking at the Senior Center. He assumed visitors would walk along the sidewalk. Mr. Smith agreed visitors would utilize the sidewalk and reminded the Board the museum will operate on Sunday, noting the Senior Center is not open on Sunday. Mr. Peak understood Mr. Smith s concern about the adjacent property and the hope it will be developed into an appropriate development as a historic area. He questioned the historic designation restriction on the subject property. Mr. Smith noted the property is on the National Register of Historic Places and there are no protections with that designation. He noted that even in the Cheney district there are not strong restrictions. Mr. Peak assumed if the property passes out of the Historical Society s ownership, it would be on the National Register of Historic Places, though it could be sold and the barn could be leveled for a new house. Mr. Topping stated the effort would be a great complement to the area. He questioned whether the signs would be attached to the trees. Mr. Smith stated that the metal signs are only attached to the trees by two screws. Mr. Gionet questioned whether the house will be utilized as a museum. Mr. Smith explained that the house is separated into an upstairs apartment and a downstairs home. He noted that a number of people have asked if the house is open to the public or will be a museum. The hope is that at some point it could be, though it has been remodeled and updated. In addition, Mr. Smith reported, it would be very difficult to achieve handicapped accessibility for the house due to the entrance steps and narrow doorways within the home. Mr. Stevenson referred to the statement that the portable toilets would be hidden from view from Woodbridge Street. He questioned if the Society would have an objection to a condition that the portable toilet would be hidden from view from the fire station and the apartments. Mr. Smith displayed the shed on the property where the portable toilets would be stationed. The open side of the shed faces the barn and the other three sides are enclosed and cannot be seen, he said. Mr. Stevenson asked Mr. Davis about the permitted sign regulations. ZBA PH

4 Mr. Davis reported there is no differentiation as to how the sign is installed. The applicant is entitled to one free-standing sign with a maximum size of 4 sq. ft., and a minimum of 5 ft. from the street line. Mr. Stevenson noted that the applicant has two signs and questioned if they would need a sign variance, which Mr. Davis affirmed. The Chair explained to Mr. Smith that the signs could be combined to meet the regulations. Mr. Davis remarked that was in his review comments. Mr. Stevenson asked Mr. Smith if the Historical Society has adequate liability insurance to protect the Town for parking at the Senior Center. The Town would need an umbrella policy. Mr. Smith replied that could be done. Mr. Stevenson stated that there is a well-established business adjacent to the property that predates zoning and pre-dates the parking regulations. They have very limited parking and are very successful. He asked if the Historical Society could relocate some of the museum s parking from on-street into the driveway of the house or into the Senior Center. Mr. Smith asked if it would be up to the Town Engineer to mark a couple of spaces for the museum s use. Mr. Stevenson responded that his idea would be to state on the sign Parking Available at the Senior Center. He questioned utilizing the driveway of the house. Mr. Smith stated that the Society could certainly state that on their sign. He noted there is room for two cars in the driveway. Mr. Davis reported that the two spaces in the driveway would be for the residents. Mr. Smith noted there are no residents at the moment, though there have been, and there will be. Mr. Stevenson complimented the Society on the work that has been done to the property. There were no members of the public to speak to this application. Ms. Bertotti reported that Staff reviewed the application and the comments somewhat address the remarks from the Board. In response to Mr. Darna s concern about the emergency vehicle access, the application was referred to the Town Fire Department, and the application will need to be reviewed. The applicant will need to receive Building, Fire and Zoning Permits postvariance. She noted that the Fire Marshal had no comment on the initial review, most likely due, in her opinion, to the number of people expected, number of days of operation and the hours of operation. Ms. Bertotti stated that Mr. Davis commented on the signage, explaining that the applicant will need sign permits, which is a standard requirement. The Town Traffic Engineer, she explained, recommended that if the museum is approved, any brochure advertise parking at ZBA PH

5 the Senior Center, which could be made a condition of the approval. Ms. Bertotti noted, from the Planning Department s perspective, this property is quite unique and there are not often properties with historic buildings and establishments in town. She commented that this site is zoned Residence A, a zoning district that does not allow a museum. Rather than going through the Planning Commission to allow a museum in the entire Residence A zone, which is unnecessary, Staff advised the applicant to seek a variance. Mr. Gionet asked whether the variance for the museum stay with the house if the application is approved and then in 5-10 years the property is sold. Ms. Bertotti responded that the variance would stay with the property. Therefore, she explained, it may not be the Manchester Historical Society that manages and owns the museum, but a historical museum would still be an allowed use. Mr. Davis interjected that stipulations of hours and days of operation would remain with the property. Mr. Stevenson questioned Mr. Davis about the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Davis responded there is no calculation for this use. He noted that in the past, the Town of Manchester has leased parking spaces from the Senior Center. Mr. Peak spoke to the conditions flowing with the property, i.e., the museum would still have the limits of the hours if it were conveyed to another group. He questioned if the parking would also apply to future owners. Mr. Davis stated that any conditions placed on the property or what they testify to at the application meeting would transfer with it. DAVID C. MOYER Application # Request a variance of Art. IV, Sec to replace the existing nonconforming 20 x 30 barn/garage with a new 24 x 30 structure at 241 Gardner Street, Rural Residence zone. Mr. David Moyer, 241 Gardner Street, introduced himself. He noted the irony that he is planning to take down a 1902 barn and replace it with a Kloter Farm barn. Mr. Moyer displayed the property, pointing out the barn and other structures. He explained their concerns about the safety of the current structure. The existing 20 x 30 garage will be replaced with a 24 x 30 structure and will be constructed 13 from the curb. Moving the garage further back would encroach upon the pool, he noted, and move the garage away from the driveway which was replaced a year ago. Mr. Moyer projected a picture of the proposed barn. Mr. Slegeski questioned whether there is currently power to the existing structure. Mr. Moyer responded that the current barn has electricity, as does another garage and a playhouse. Mr. Slegeski asked if the power was underground. Mr. Moyer responded that it is underground. When the pool was installed, they wired the pool and both garages at that time. ZBA PH

6 Mr. Gionet asked if the garage will be heated, to which Mr. Moyer responded it will not. He requested clarification of how much further back the proposed garage will be. Mr. Moyer explained that in speaking with Town Staff, it was suggested that the building should be more than the current 10 and will be approximately 13, which is 3 further back from the current location. Mr. Topping said he understood that putting the garage in the proposed location would increase the sight line for traffic on Joyce Lane. Mr. Moyer responded that is a good point. In addition, he reported they are also concerned about a dead tree on the property, which will most likely be removed soon. Mr. Peak observed that the existing garage was built long before any zoning rules existed and prior to Joyce Lane s construction. If the regulations had been applied retroactively, the applicant may have been required to move the barn. Mr. Moyer explained that by his measurement, the front corner of the property would be a little less than 10 from the curb. Mr. Peak also referenced the structural problems with the current garage. He asked for more information about those problems. Mr. Moyer stated that the garage leans and after it was examined by a builder, they were told that there are concerns with the integrity. He noted that they had replaced the siding on the garage years ago but the siding has waves due to the movement of the building. He pointed to a barn across the street from them that has already fallen down. Mr. Peak asked about the style of the Kloter Farms garage. Mr. Moyer noted that the picture is a good description of their proposal, other than removing a window on the first floor on the Joyce Lane side of the structure and moving the walk-through door to the opposite side. The existing garage is barn red and will be replaced by a red Kloter Farms structure. There were no members of the public to speak to the application. Ms. Bertotti stated that Staff reviewed the application and had no technical comments. To clarify, she stated, the application is for an increase in non-conformity. The article and section listed in the legal ad for the application, she explained, mean that the increase in footprint of this building requires a variance because there is an increase in non-conformity. She pointed out in her memo that because the structure will be relocated, the location itself is slightly less nonconforming; it is in a better location now than it was previously. Because the building is larger, the variance is required. She reported that, had the applicant decided to build the building in the exact same location in the exact same size, they would not need a variance as it would be permitted, she explained. ZBA PH

7 Ms. Bertotti addressed the applicant through the Chair notifying them that the Town has a demolition delay ordinance that applies to all buildings that are over 50 years of age. That is through the Building Department, and the applicant should contact Building as it could affect the applicant s schedule. C-TECH SOLAR, LLC Application # Request a variance of Art. II, Sec for installation of a solar canopy structure within 15 feet of the front property line (40 ft. minimum front yard required) at 161 Sanrico Drive, Industrial zone. Mr. Brandon Pizzoferrato, Representative of C-Tec Solar, Commercial Project Manager, introduced himself. He explained the proposal for a carport structure. The structure will be 105 x 45. Mr. Pizzoferrato pointed to a site plan for the project and explained the location of the proposed structure. He reported that the carport will have four columns, all within the paved area, and would not encroach upon the grass. He noted the taller end (14 at maximum) and stated it will be sloped toward the parking lot facing south. The property owner plans to put picnic tables underneath the solar carport for workers to enjoy shade in the warm months, he said. The reason for the variance, he reported, is that the top of the carport will be within 15 of the property border, just an overhang closer to the road. Mr. Slegeski reported that he viewed the property and the application, and questioned whether the building will be totally powered by this system. Mr. Pizzoferrato responded that it will not be totally powered by the structure, though the system will cover part of the electrical bill. Mr. Slegeski stated that he became confused by the statement excess will be sold back to the grid. He further asked, if the system is powerful enough to support the building and the applicant stated that they would sell power back to the grid, then does the panel really have to be as large as is proposed? Mr. Pizzoferrato reported that he did not sell the system, and does not have that information at this time. He will be supervising the construction and development of the project. If the structure is undersized for the electrical bill, it would need to be built as large as possible. The applicant, for their investment, wants the array to be as large as possible to cover as much of the bill as is achievable, in his opinion. He does not believe that they will exceed their electrical bill by building the carport. Mr. Slegeski asked on what is that statement based. Mr. Pizzoferrato explained that it is a 70 kw system and a building that size likely has a larger capacity for electrical use than what the structure can provide. Mr. Slegeski questioned whether the applicant is looking to power the building, or if they are seeking to garner some income from an oversized structure that requires a variance. Mr. Pizzoferrato reported that it would be a poor return on the applicant s investment to oversize the structure. The extra capacity, when sold back to the grid, is wholesale and there would not be a great return on the investment due to the additional cost for building an oversized structure, he stated. ZBA PH

8 Mr. Stevenson sought to clarify that it would not be profitable for the applicant to oversize the structure because they will not recoup whatever incremental cost of the array would not be recouped by the wholesale income. Mr. Pizzoferrato reported that typically in residential and commercial buildings, the intent is to cover around 90% of the electrical bill. There will be some months that produce excess power, i.e., in the summer. Mr. Darna assumed that the entire area will lose parking, to which Mr. Pizzoferrato replied that he disagreed. Where the panel is, there is handicapped parking, and eight stalls will be lost, Mr. Darna stated, because the posts are put in the middle of the parking area. He worried about cars running into a pillar holding up a canopy without a safeguard. Mr. Pizzoferrato explained there will be no parking loss. The posts will be very close to the curb, similar to a light post, and will be smaller than a typical concrete light post seen in a parking lot of a grocery store. Mr. Darna asked if there will be a barrier for the posts so a car cannot knock into them, to which Mr. Pizzoferrato replied there would likely not be. Mr. Darna asked if bollards will be placed in front of them, rather than just having four posts holding the canopy up. Mr. Stevenson interjected this is especially a concern with people sitting at picnic tables. If there are 50 people at picnic tables, a car could plow into a post and the people would be gone. Mr. Peak noted that the sun does not always shine, especially in New England, and the solar panels may be covering 90 to 105% of their projected needs, but they could not possibly have the energy produced exactly match the needs of the building. He expected that the applicant would use the solar structure for energy, but there will be cloudy days and at other times they will be relying on traditional power sources as well. Mr. Slegeski commented that this is such a large structure, the owner of the company is not in attendance, and the speaker is going to be the installer. Mr. Pizzoferrato reported that he is with the company that sold the project, though he is not the salesman. Mr. Peak questioned whether the structure would obstruct the fire lane. Mr. Pizzoferrato replied that the fire lane will be accessible for emergency vehicle purposes. Mr. Peak referred to the proposed variance, Art. II, Sec. 16, and said that section of the regulations speaks to area, height and bulk of principle buildings and structures. There is no mention of solar panels, he said, but he assumed they would fall under the general category of a building or structure. ZBA PH

9 Ms. Bertotti explained that, in this case, it is a yard variance. The applicant s proposed structure is encroaching into a front yard setback. Mr. Davis commented that it would be a structure, noting the ZBA has approved variances for solar panels on the ground in other locations. Mr. Peak requested clarification that the encroachment is the overhang onto the grassy area. He asked whether a variance would be required if the applicant had designed the structure in a manner where there was no overhang over the grass. Ms. Bertotti responded that, if the applicant was able to keep the encroachment 40 from the front property line, they would not need the variance. They are encroaching up to 15 of the front property line, which is why it is required. Mr. Peak asked how much space is on the grassy area from the edge of the lot to the street. Mr. Davis stated that graphically looking at the map, the parking lot is approximately 4-5 past the 40 front yard setback, which is about 35 from the front property line plus the distance from the property line to the curb, which in on a normal residential street is about 11. Mr. Peak assumed that the parking lot, at the moment, is closer to the curb than the 40. Mr. Davis stated that a parking lot can be within 8 of the front property line. Mr. Topping asked if there are industry standards for the installation of the canopy, which Mr. Pizzoferrato affirmed. Mr. Topping questioned whether the unit will comply with those standards, which again was answered affirmatively. He asked if there are other structures of this type in in Manchester. Mr. Pizzoferrato responded that he is unsure if there are any in Manchester, but Bloomfield has quite a few, as well as the Town of Windsor. Mr. Topping asked if those protrude into the parking areas. Mr. Pizzoferrato stated that they do. Mr. Davis informed the Board that the Town currently has a few hundred modules being constructed in the mall parking lot, which had gone to the Planning and Zoning Commission as it is in the Comprehensive Urban Development zone (CUD). There are columns in the parking lot, similar to what the applicant is proposing, and it is being used for shade and protection for vehicles. Mr. Topping stated that he is concerned whether an aerial piece could operate in that corner of the building, and whether the 14 canopy will limit the effectiveness. Mr. Pizzoferrato referred the Board to the rendering and described the dimensions of the fire lane and parking lot area. He could not speak to any access difficulties on the corner in question. Mr. Peak noted that part of what is considered the hardship is that there are wetlands limits in the feasible area and if the structure was placed elsewhere, there would be wetlands issues, to which Mr. Pizzoferrato agreed. ZBA PH

10 Mr. Stevenson commented that it appears that Mr. Pizzoferrato has installed many similar units. He questioned whether they ever put bollards around the posts, and what stops a car from hitting one. Mr. Pizzoferrato explained they are over-engineered; the steel itself would be oversized. Mr. Stevenson stated that he is worried about the safety of individuals eating their lunch on that site. He questioned whether the posts will be on the parking area or on the grassed area. Mr. Pizzoferrato replied they will be in the parking area, at the edge of the curb. Mr. Stevenson questioned whether there will be curb stops. Even driving normally, you roll into a curb stop, he explained, to which Mr. Pizzoferrato agreed. Mr. Gionet asked about the dimension of the posts. Mr. Pizzoferrato explained that they have not gone through the engineering yet, as it is a $7,000 cost that they were unwilling to incur until the variance is approved. Mr. Gionet reiterated that Mr. Pizzoferrato cannot give a dimension on the poles. Mr. Pizzoferrato noted they will be approximately 12 x 12 eyebeams. Mr. Stevenson requested clarification from Mr. Davis that the applicant would be required to go through the Building Department and the Engineering staff, with which Mr. Davis agreed. There were no members of the public to speak to the application. Ms. Bertotti reported that she referred the application to the Fire Marshal but never received a response. She noted that she received comments from the Building Official explaining that the application will require a full review by the Building and Zoning departments. If the variance is granted, the applicant will need to file for all the permits. Ms. Bertotti stated that she inquired about the proposed height; the Town allows 18 for accessory structures. The applicant verbally informed her, she recalled, that it would be 12, though she has nothing in writing and she has requested that in writing. The height will be reviewed by the Zoning Enforcement Officer and if the height exceeds the proposal, the applicant will be required to return to the Board for a height variance, she explained. Ms. Bertotti reported that the Engineering Department s Water Division recommended the support pillars be located at least 10 from the utility laterals on site. The Town Traffic Engineer asked whether or not the columns would interfere with the handicapped parking spaces, she noted, and after discussion it was determined they would be located in such a manner that they would not obstruct that accessibility. Ms. Bertotti reminded the Board that this is existing parking, and it is her understanding that the workers lunch area is already in that area, but they are using the current picnic tables location as a hardship reason. ZBA PH

11 Ms. Bertotti informed the Board that the Town made an application for a zoning regulation amendment relating to solar energy systems in town. They are hoping to have the application before the Planning Commission in January. If the Board does not approve this variance for the front yard location of the structure, and the Commission passes a text amendment, the applicant will have the ability to apply for a special exception, she explained. In the Industrial zone, under the draft regulation submitted to the Planning Commission, this type of installation would be an allowed use in the front yard of an industrial-zoned property under special exception. In the side yard and rear yard, she reported, it would be a permitted use as of right. Mr. Stevenson questioned whether these structures may be installed in different locations on a property and if the new regulations will speak to uses underneath the installations, i.e., picnic tables. Ms. Bertotti replied that solar panels will be regulated as roof-mounted, free-standing or parkingmounted structures. This installation would be considered parking-mounted. Mr. Stevenson questioned whether it would make sense to require revised plans depicting the picnic area. He stated that he is concerned because the plan has been reviewed, though it is not accurate. Ms. Bertotti replied that the Board could ask for a revised plan. With variances, the Board has broad jurisdiction as to what can be requested. Mr. Stevenson assumed that the Fire Marshal has not yet made a comment. If the Board approves this application, he questioned whether a condition may be made about negative comments from the Fire Marshal. Ms. Bertotti explained that if the variance is approved, the applicant will need a Fire Permit. In the event there is something in the Fire code that prevents the installation s location, the Fire Marshal will deny with or without hearings. Mr. Pizzoferrato explained to the Board that the picnic tables were merely a suggestion from the business owner and not a plan. Mr. Stevenson questioned Mr. Davis about the installation at the mall and whether bollards were installed at those locations. Mr. Davis replied that he is not certain as he does not review engineering. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed at 8:27 P.M. I certify these minutes were adopted on the following date: January 24, 2018 Date James Stevenson, Chair NOTICE: A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING CAN BE HEARD IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ZBA PH