CITY OF NORWALK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 3, 2015 (approved October 1, 2015)

Transcription

1 CITY OF NORWALK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (approved October 1, 2015) PRESENT: STAFF: OTHERS: Taylor Strubinger, Chair; Joseph Beggan; Andrew Conroy; Lee Levey; Nadine Campbell; Juanita Olguin; Aline Rochefort; Vladimir Mariano Atty Al Vasko; Ed Gormley; Jay Dolberg; I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Strubinger called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. II. ROLL CALL After the meeting was called to order, Mr. Strubinger then read the rules of how the public hearings would be conducted. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A RKJ Flax Hill LLC- Appeal Zoning Officers decision that the parking lot in the front yard setback is not a valid use. Property located at 204 Flax Hill Road and RKJ Flax Hill LLC- Variance to allow a parking lot within the front yard setback. Property located at 204 Flax Hill Road Mr. Strubinger opened the public hearing and asked Atty Vasko whether the public hearing for one could be the public hearing for the second application. He agreed. B Josefina Cervantes- Variance of front setback for entry portico. Property located at 20 Coldspring Street However, at this point, Ms. Rochefort suggested that the application for 20 Coldspring Street be heard. Mr. Strubinger opened the public hearing and Mr. Beggan read the legal memo into the record. Ms. Cervantes asked for a postponement because she had not notified the neighbors of the public hearing. It was decided that the application would have to be postponed until October 1, MR. STRUBINGER MOVED: October 1, that the application be postponed until Mr. Levey seconded. Page 1 of 6

2 Mr. Beggan, Mr. Strubinger, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Conroy, Mr. Levey and Ms. Olguin voted in favor. C RKJ Flax Hill LLC- Appeal Zoning Officers decision that the parking lot in the front yard setback is not a valid use. Property located at 204 Flax Hill Road and RKJ Flax Hill LLC- Variance to allow a parking lot within the front yard setback. Property located at 204 Flax Hill Road At this point, Mr. Beggan read the legal memo into the record. Atty Vasko began his presentation by describing both applications. He handed in the certified, return receipts cards evidencing notice of the public hearing to the abutting neighbors. Atty Vasko said that they were appealing the Zoning Officer s decision on May 27, He then oriented the commissioners as to the location of the property on an aerial map. He gave a brief history of the property, including the variances that were on the property as well as describing the parking. He explained how it is a parking structure, and should not be described as a use. Zoning staff presented a possible parking layout that placed the spaces behind the front setback. Atty. Vasko explained that the topography of the parking lot did not lend itself to extra parking as the Zoning Office explained that it could have. They would like to keep the parking lot in front. There were questions about the number of parking spaces that were necessary for each unit. Mr. Beggan did not understand why affordable housing units would need 2 parking spaces for a 1 bedroom unit, if they were having a hard time making ends meet. Atty Vasko explained that affordable housing structures usually required more parking and that another client had come before the board requesting more parking. There was a discussion about how this application came from a request for an updated Certificate of Zoning Compliance. There was also a discussion about whether the applicant should have gone to the Zoning Commission first or the Zoning Board of Appeals first. Ms. Olguin asked for clarification on the definition of use vs. structure because of the applicant s argument that the parking is a structure. Ms. Rochefort explained how the city has separate regulations for parking. There was then a lengthy discussion between Atty Vasko and Ms. Rochefort about the number of spaces. There were then questions about 4 illegal units located within 2 buildings and what would be done with them, if the Zoning Commission did not approve them. Ms. Rochefort explained, on the plans, where the illegal units were. She did not believe that topography was a hardship for the parking. There was also a discussion about Fire Marshall inspections. Page 2 of 6

3 There was a discussion as to how many units could be built on the site now if there were no buildings. Ms. Rochefort did not have that calculation.. Atty Vasko made some points about Ms. Rochefort s memorandum. There was another discussion about whether parking is a use or a lot is a structure. Ed Gormley of Wilton spoke in favor of the application. He believed there was not enough affordable housing in Norwalk. No one spoke against the application. Atty Vasko continued his rebuttal of Ms. Rochefort s memorandum. He then described what a parking structure was. He suggested the city should define what it is. He also handed out a copy of, and discussed, a previous, recent decision of the, similar to this one. Ms. Rochefort reminded the commissioners that they must ask the staff at this point any other questions because once the hearing was closed, none could be answered. Page 3 of 6 Mr. Strubinger closed the public hearing. D Douglas Crosby - Special Exception to develop a nonconforming lot which is in the same ownership as an adjoining lot. Property located at 14 & 16 Sherwood Street Mr. Strubinger opened the public hearing and Mr. Beggan read the legal memo into the record. Mr. Dolberg, representing the Estate of Miriam Crosby, began the presentation by handing in the certified, return receipt cards, evidencing notice of the public hearing. He then gave a background of the two properties, 14 and 16 Sherwood Street. He noted that taxes were being paid on both properties and no structure had ever been constructed on 14 Sherwood. This lot was non-conforming as to lot width. At this time, they would like to develop it. The properties were first plotted in 1948 and they were originally in a B Zone. No one spoke in support or against the application. Mr. Strubinger closed the public hearing. IV. BOARD ACTION ON A D and request for extension of time in which to obtain building permits for Edward Naylor- 20 Hunt Street i Douglas Crosby - Special Exception to develop a nonconforming lot which is in the same ownership as an adjoining lot. Property located at 14 & 16 Sherwood Street MR. STRUBINGER MOVED: that the application be APPROVED because the applicant has made every effort to separate the ownership of these 2 lots.

4 The hardship is the zone change at that time. The lot should be looked at as a separate building lot. Mr. Beggan, Mr. Strubinger, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Conroy, and Ms. Olguin voted in favor. ii RKJ Flax Hill LLC- Appeal Zoning Officers decision that the parking lot in the front yard setback is not a valid use. Property located at 204 Flax Hill Road Mr. Levey said that he had worked in many municipalities around the state and none deemed a parking lot a structure. Mr. Conroy asked what would happen if the applicant went to court? The court could say that it is a structure. However, the city of Norwalk s parking regulations govern how parking is handled and the implication is that they be regulated. He thought that the court would not necessarily agree that the commissioners would have to call the parking lot a structure. MR. STRUBINGER MOVED: decision be DENIED. that the appeal of the Zoning Officer s Mr. Beggan, Mr. Strubinger, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Conroy, and Mr. Levey voted in favor. iii RKJ Flax Hill LLC- Variance to allow a parking lot within the front yard setback. Property located at 204 Flax Hill Road The commissioners had discussions about the variance. The applicant would have to file an application with the Zoning Commission in order to have the 4 illegal units become legal. MR. STRUBINGER MOVED: that the variance be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE since the believed that no hardship had been shown and the topography of the site was not shown to be an issue. The total number of parking spaces is still unclear until action is taken on the legality of the existing number of living units on site. Mr. Levey seconded. Page 4 of 6

5 Mr. Beggan, Mr. Strubinger, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Conroy, and Mr. Levey voted in favor. iv. Request for extension of time in which to obtain building permits for Edward Naylor- 20 Hunt Street Mr. Naylor began the presentation by explaining that because of a career development he was not in a financial position to obtain building permits for the addition he had planned to make to his home. He was requesting an 18 month extension. There was then some discussion among the commissioners as to how long the extension should be. Ms. Rochefort said that he had 2 options, either re-apply for the variance or request another extension. Mr. Naylor noted that it was costing more to request an extension. MR. STRUBINGER MOVED: that the extension be GRANTED for eighteen (18) months since the applicant indicated that a hardship had been shown. An extension of six (6) months would be insufficient. Mr. Beggan, Mr. Strubinger, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Conroy, and Mr. Levey voted in favor. VI. ACTION ON HEARING MINUTES - July 9, 2015 MR. STRUBINGER MOVED: that the minutes be accepted as corrected. Mr. Beggan, Mr. Strubinger, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Conroy and Ms. Olguin voted in favor. Mr. Levey abstained. VII. ADJOURNMENT Before the meeting was over, Mr. Conroy indicated that he would be eager to have a continuing education night with the Law Department. The commissioners thought it was a good idea. MR. STRUBINGER made a motion to adjourn. Page 5 of 6

6 Mr. Beggan, Mr. Strubinger, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Conroy, Mr. Levey and Ms. Olguin voted in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Palmentiero Page 6 of 6