ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

October 16, 2007

The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Center courtroom. Chairman Dunne, Members Kish, Haug, Smith, Sullivan and Munoz; Deputy Building Inspector Dave Buckley and City Attorney Pisanelli were in attendance. Member Vakirtzis was excused and Alternate Member Worthy was absent.

Mr. Dunne outlined the format of the Board's proceedings for the benefit of the public. The meeting was then opened on a motion by Mr. Kish, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Dunne noted six members were present and four votes would be needed in order to grant a variance.

Mr. Dunne called for corrections/additions or a motion to approve the minutes of the September 18, 2007 meeting. Mr. Kish made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 18, 2007 meeting as submitted, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DAVID VERDILE, 19 CRESCENT DRIVE, TAX GRID NO. 6054-13-121414, R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION THAT WILL LEAVE THE EXISTING HOUSE WITH AN 8 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK (10 ft. required) AND A TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 18.5 FT. (20 ft. required).

The public hearing on the application submitted by David Verdile, 19 Crescent Drive, seeking relief from Section 223.17(c) for a two lot subdivision that will leave the existing house with an 8 ft. side yard setback and a total side yard setback of 18.5 ft. was opened on a motion made by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Munoz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Jon Bodendorf of Hudson Land Design, described his client’s proposal to subdivide the .35 acre parcel at 19 Crescent Drive into two lots, one for the existing house and one for a new single family dwelling. Mr. Bodendorf explained in order for the subdivision to be approved by the Planning Board, two side yard variances are required. A variance is needed for an 8.5 ft. setback on the westerly side of the existing house where 10 ft. is required; and a combined side yard of 18.5 ft. where a total of 20 ft. is required. When the area was originally subdivided, it was two separate lots however at some point in time one of the previous owners combined them into one, presumably to install a pool. Mr. Bodendorf explained this action is to reestablish the original two lot layout. The new house will completely comply with zoning requirements. Mr. Dunne asked if the new lot was for family. Mr. Bodendorf believed his client’s original intention was for family use however the current market leaves them undecided.

Johnna and Tom Kelly, 20 Heaney Drive, explained their property is directly behind the proposed house. They had concerns for the very steep slope that falls into their back yard. Ms. Kelly said she has lived there for 37 years and there have been numerous problems with water. The original homes were not put in with drains and as a result, the developer was sued and drains were then installed around several houses. At that time, Ms. Kelly said she had no problem with her house so drains were not installed. Subsequently, three new homes were built on the adjacent property and water started to seep into her basement. Approximately five years ago, she spent $9,000 to have a B-Dry system installed to waterproof the basement, a costly yet necessary task. Ms. Kelly explained she is now concerned that a change in the back of her property may once again adversely affect the drainage. Mr. Kelly said the original builder did not construct a house on this parcel because there is very little clearance. Mr. Buckley explained this application is before the Planning Board and proposed drainage is shown on the site plan. Mr. Bordendorf explained the City Engineer also had concern for drainage, therefore surface water will be channeled and water from footing drains will be collected and pumped to the City’s storm drainage system. Mr. Buckley explained numerous situations exist where pumps are used and they are provided with back up power if the electricity goes out. A back up power system is now a requirement and is also in the best interest of the homeowner. The amount of water runoff onto adjacent properties will actually be reduced with this type of drainage system. To address privacy issues, Mr. Bordendorf explained the house will be constructed on the level portion of property and the sloped portion will be unaffected. Mr. and Mrs. Kelly had additional concerns that debris may run down the slope during construction and cause damage to their property. Mr. Buckley explained safety fencing and erosion control measures will be provided to prevent debris from leaving the site. Engineering details will be addressed in more detail at the Planning Board level; the Zoning Board is only addressing the setback variances requested.

Ms. Smith asked the applicant to explain why he wants to subdivide the property. Mr. Verdile explained he was planning to construct a new home for his family, however now has concern that his house may not sell due to the decline of the housing market. He indicated that he will hold off on construction until the market improves.

Anne Marie and Pete Moleano, 23 Crescent Drive, explained they live adjacent to the vacant parcel. They had concern that if the hedge is taken down, the new house will be very close to their kitchen door, bathroom and bedroom windows. Additionally, the new house will be on a higher elevation so they feared a loss of privacy. Ms. Moleano thought the hedge was the property line, however the survey indicates the back of the hedge is on the line and angles up to two feet off the property line. They reiterated concern over the severe drop and asked for assurance that their property will not be adversely affected. Mr. Buckley explained drainage and site concerns should be presented at the Planning Board’s public hearing. The proposed house complies with zoning requirements and the setbacks in question are for the existing house. Residents will be informed of the Planning Board’s public hearing when it is scheduled and they were encouraged to attend.

There were no further comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Kish made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Sullivan made a motion to grant the variances as requested, seconded by Mr. Dunne. On roll call Mr. Dunne, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Kish and Mr. Munoz voted in favor; Ms. Haug and Ms. Smith voted against the motion. Motion carried. Variances granted; 4-2.

ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DALE LEIFESTE, 38 CRESCENT DRIVE, TAX GRID NO. 6054-13-057416, R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.26(C)(1) TO CREATE PARKING IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO A STREET LINE.

The public hearing on the application submitted by Dale Leifeste, 38 Crescent Drive, for relief from Section 223.26(c)(1) to create parking in the required side yard adjacent to a street line was opened on a motion made by Ms. Haug, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Dale Leifeste, owner and resident of 38 Crescent Drive, explained the house was built in the 1970’s and he purchased it approximately four and half years ago. The house faces Crescent Drive and the driveway and garage face Phillips Street. Mr. Leifeste explained his wife uses the garage as her artist studio and they park in the driveway. They would like to create an additional wall by removing the garage door, however zoning regulations do not allow parking in the required side yard adjacent to a street line which is where the driveway is located. Mr. Leifeste explained they are only asking for permission to continue to park in the driveway.

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Sullivan made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Munoz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Kish made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 6-0.

ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY CARMELLA WALDEN,

16 MILLER STREET, TAX GRID NO. 5954-44-897673, R1-5 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) FOR AN ADDITION WITH AN 8 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK (10 FT. REQUIRED).

The public hearing on the application submitted by Carmella Walden, 16 Miller Street, for an addition with an 8 ft. side yard setback was opened on a motion made by Ms. Haug, seconded by Mr. Munoz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Carmella Walden, owner of 16 Miller Street, described her proposal for a bathroom addition with an 8 ft. side yard setback where 10 ft. is required. Her son who currently lives in the house is planning to get married and needs extra space. Ms. Walden explained her husband owns the lot adjacent to this property.

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Kish made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Ms. Haug made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 6-0.

There were no further items to consider and the meeting was closed on a motion made by Mr. Kish, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.