HomeMy WebLinkAboutVariance (49) APPLICATION FOR
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Application and supplements must be filed in triplicate.
2. Application must be typewritten or printed in ink.
3. Answer all items, with particular attention to Page 3• 5 days prior to first Thursday of each month.
4. Application must be delivered to Chairman or Secretary no later than 1 y p described satisfactorily.
Submit application as soon as possible because it will be returned if incomplete or not advised).
licant or his representative must be present for the Board Meeting (time and place to be ad
5• The a pp TO BE CTP �
BY B RD
1. . . . . . . . . . . Filed • ( A•T E•)
Applicant . . • • • , G!" . . . .
sae , �,it d• ±�. Fee ` . . . . . . . . .
. ..��i�. /
Mailing Address .`°.�� J`�
Receipt No./�! 6.-•
r
Is applicant a corpor
ation, co-partnership or individual? ����!l/J���'�• ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' � � � • • •
If corporation list names of officers, if co-partnership — owners:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is applicant owner, lessee or prospective tenant? . • �' ' ' ' ' . . . . . . . .
Check one of the following: .
UEST VARIATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE: To vary Article . . •�+
. . . . . . . Section . . . . . . . . .
(�REQ � .
to allow /'17 .G!J .. '?'• . t:T' `�Jyf/ 'D �S'"T' ' '6-
[] OR SPECIFIC EXCEPTION OR ❑ APPROVAL UNDER Section• • • • • • • • • '
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to allow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
❑OR AN APPEAL FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION INVOLVING . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OR STATE HEARING UNDER 14-321 ❑ OR 14-54❑ OF THE GENERAL STATUTES FOR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
❑OR TEMPORARY AND CONDITIONAL PER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zone ...
on premises known aS4, (STREET AND NUMBER)
Owner of property r • • • • • —1—
State the icular hardship or unnecessary difficulty that prompts this application:
• } .�� . �,y�, •""�,«�+."RiJ�1. •" '^��^wow
4 (Continon Page 4)
Signature of applicant . ! . . . . . . .
or
This application was executed by . . . . . . . .
. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Attorney or Authorized Agent)
in behalf of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Applicant)
Liquor Outlets Within the Restricted•Area:
Locations and_Distances from Location in Question
Liquor outlets listed • . . • . • ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . Date . . . . • . . . . . . . . ._
Distances listed by . . . . • • . . . . . . . . .
• . . . . . •_. . . . . . Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
-2- • • •
Indicate plot by diagram, photographs and/or letters, in space below, showing streets, lot lines, building line, zone
boundary lines, dimensions and buildings present and proposed. It is important to include adjacent properties with dis-
tances from subject property.
In case of structural changes or new structure blue print or drawing made to scale must be submitted with this application.
ACTION OF THE BOARD
at the meeting held on
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GRANTED D tiIED
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .fr . . . . . . . . . .
. . . /„ .
. . : . . .' . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 1J.•. r . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restrictions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
—3—
FORM 174A CONNOMNT.WARRANTY D1120.sUQV1VON3N1► (� fYT�iY1il•....a•..�......sss
[� 7unl�L�wAw.GlLOwrMr.s.Rllr�fu.dN
.ter VOL F'A1•/.J:1 JL7r
uS
-5 IT
Tic V
w
lKnom 11e. That WE, HERBERT R. YOUNG and VERNIE C. YOUNG,
both of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut,
for the consideration of FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($14,500.00)
DOLLARS
c
!! nYrlvrrl to our (till MnliNfnrliun of WILFRED E. HEBERT, JR. AND ELMABETH P.
I HEBERT j both of 233 Ellington Road, East Hartford, Connecticut
do give, grant,bargain, sell and confirm unto the said Wilfred E. Hebert, Jr. and
Elizabeth P. Hebert _
i
i and unto the survivor of them;and unto such survivor's heirs and smigns forever
a certain piece or parcel of land, with the buildings thereon, situated in the
Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, located
on the southeast corner of Foster Street and Ellington Road, and bounded and
i described as follows, to wit;
EBeginning at the intersection of the southeasterly line of -
Ellington Road with the south line of Foster Street and running thence south-
westerly along the southeasterly line of Ellington Road, one hundred Sixty
Five (165) feet to land now or formerly of Charles J. Tuttle; running thence
i southeasterly along land now or formerly of said Tuttle, two hundred soventy-two 1
(272)feet to the east side of a pent road.-_running thence north along the east i :�
line of said pent road to the south line of Foster Street; running thence west
i in the south line of Foster Street, one hundred forty-eight (148) feet to the point
of beginning;
Said premises are more particularly shown as Parcel A on
a map entitled "Map No. 1 Green Acres Property of McNamara & DiBerardino, Foster
` St., Ellington b Beelzebub Roads, Wapping, South Windsor, Conn. Scale 1 inch -
100 feet Sept. 1945 Petersen & Hoffman Eng'rs Successors to Spencer 6 Washburn" 3
on file in tho Town Clark's Office in said Town of South Windsor, to which map re- _.
foronco is horoby had for a more particular description.
Doing tha namo prnmison convoyod to tho Grantors hornin by
Exnautor's Dood of Vornon L. Mundell, Exuoutur of Cntoto of Ivor.A. Moodo and ;
rocordod in Volume 73 at Page 246-248 of tho Land Rocords of tho Town of South
Windsor, ' I
Said premises are subject to the following encumbrances;
Ll,yAny rights of way, easements, encumbrances or rights for highway purposes whit
m exist or may appear of record.
2. Taxes on the List of January 1, 1971, which the Grantees herein assume and
agree to pay as part consideration for this transfer.
15.95 Conve,wince Tax rcc:1464 t
D. i� y'---�'�'_.-------
Town Cierk of South V hidsor
t
h
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR4:° 29
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Receivedf ram ----------- ----------------------•--- ' -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' 4r
of ---- ------------------- -- --F----- -j------------------ Dollars fee for a hearing before the Zoning Board of;�ppeals.
This hearing is to cover application number _-______________________________for_--_______________________-_-________________=
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------71-------------------------------- ---------- -------------------------------------------
Dated at South Windsor,Conn., this------------------------day of--------------------------------------------------------19------•
Signed-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRETARY
�pvs N EA`
O
C YT'0�� 0-je sau� �•
G
y A. 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
OR•CO��ft+ AREA CODE 203/644-2511
December 189 1978
Mr. Robert J. Sheridan
103 Palmer Dr,
So, Windsor, Ct, 06074
Dear Sir:
Re: App. No. 1296-78
Your application to the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals
will be heard at a Public Hearing on Thursday, January 4, 1979t
at 7130 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town
Hall. You, or someone representing you, must be present.
The enclosed form must be completed by inserting the legal
description of the property and the owner of same, and brought
with you to the hearing.
Enclosed is a. receipt for the application fee.
Y urs very trul ,
vg Robert W. Warren, Chairman
encs. Zoning Board of Appeals
January 9, 1979
Mr. Robert J. Sheridan
103 Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Mr. Sheridaw
Re i Application Rio. 1296-*79
As you requested, the above application to the Zoning Board of
Appeals was postponed f or one month at the January 4th meeting.
It will be heard on February 1. 1979. at 7#30 p• rae in the
Council Chambers of the 'own lull.
You. or someone re resenting you# must be present. Pleas*
be sure to bring a th ou the fora are previouslysent you
giving the legal desaription of the propertym question and
the nacre of the owner.
Yours very truly.
vg Robert Nw Warren. Chairman
Zoning Hoard of Appeals
1/31
Atty. Ahearn called. He represents Sheridan and understands
that someone (Young) aka who opposes this variance will raise the issue
that the application was not re-advertised. The fact that it was tabled
was published, and the minutes also state it was tabled 'till 2/1.
Checked over the By-laws and can't find anything about re-publishing.
I called Atty. Rittenband. He checked out the Statutes and can't
find anything specifically relating to re-publishing when a matter
is tabled. He feels in view of Freedom of Info. Acto that we
should re-publish tabled matters, and also be certain a notice is
posted in the Town Clerk's Office, rather than risk the chance of
a law suit. He also feels, to be on the safe side, that we should
post the sign although he doesn't find ixxtknx anything in the
Statutes that says we have to.
He suggested I call Atty. Cummings (who also had a matter tabled (Frechette)
at the last meeting) and also Ahearn, and tell them we'd prefer to
re-publish xxtit and cancel these matters until next month.
U Tlown o-P Somth
Cd 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE - SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
tiosOe co��' AREA CODE 203/644-2511
February 15, 1979
Frank Ahearn, Esq.
5 Oakland Rd.
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Mr. Ahearn:
Re: ZBA Application No, 1296-79
Robert J. Sheridan
The above application to the Zoning Board of Appeals will
be heard at a Public Hearing on Thursday, March 1, 1979,
at 7: 30 pe m, in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall.
It is the first matter on the agenda.
Yours very truly,
vg Robert W. Marren, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 19, 1979
Mr. Robert W. Warren
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
494 Abbe Road
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Dear Mr. Warren: RE: Sheridan - Palmer Drive Property
I understand that an application for some type of variance on the Sheridan lot
and acreage off Palmer Drive is to be considered by your board at the meeting on
March lst. I am unable to be present at that meeting and as an abutting property
owner, do have comments pertinent to your consideration.
I wish to register the following concerns with you, for reading at the appropriate
time in your hearing, and for deliberation as that takes place:
1. The property in question already has one variance, which was
supported both by its terms and by the neighborhood generally as a
reasonable allowance in view of the intended use of the property
for a single family dwelling. It did seem to present an unreason-
able cost if not an actual hardship to require that a road be
built to handle the one dwelling situation. To alter the
conditions of that variance or to add a second variance of some
type, would seem to be compounding the exceptions made and
providing a bad precedent.
2. Your board is duty bound to allow variances only where a hardship
exists, and I suggest that any such hardship presented to the board
would be of the self-imposed type, since the property was purchased
only recently by its present owner, with the present variance and
its conditions in evidence at that time.
3. It is my belief that a variance can be granted only after other
remedies have been exhausted. Although I do not know the precise
nature of the variance request at this time, I am aware that
provision for additional dwellings or whatever are certainly
within the abilities of the residential zone involved, but subject
to the conditions of the Planning and Zoning Commission. This
presumably involves submission of a subdivision plan of some sort
and/or the building of a road. In any event, the Zoning Board of
Appeals should not be used as a shortcut to appropriate zoning
procedures, but reserved only for true hardship situations, where
the hardship is attached to the peculiarities of the property
involved.
2 -
4. It may be that the request involves use of the right-of-way from
the Beelzebub side of the property, possibly similar to the use of
the right-of-way from Palmer Drive where an exception was granted.
If this be the case, and in addition to mar objection to a
compounding of exceptions and variances, I wish to point out the
possible traffic hazard situations as the right-of-way on or
adjacent to the subject property enters Beelzebub. The inter-
section of Beelzebub and Ellington has already been restructured
for safety purposes, and the combination of that intersection
together with Poster Street and the presence of the firehouse
certainly makes for a traffic planning situation that should not
be handled by exception.
The Sheridan s are new and good neighbors and we wish them well. Further, we
have no objection to additional housing being built on the property since it is
clearly zoned for that. However, any such housing or other use should be
subject to the conditions and procedures established by the town of South
Windsor.
Respectfully,
Joel C. Cohan
65 Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Conn. 06074
The following is a transcript of a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appels
which was held on March 1, 1979. Due to either mechanical failure of
the recording equipment or tapes, there are portions of the hearing
which were not recorded, including the first 25 minutes of the hearing.
Members of the Zoning Present: Robert Warren, Richard Eriksson, Edward
Steben and Thomas Murrin
Alternate Present: Robert Earley
Hebert: . . . . .the garage is added on to it at a point where
my garage now is within I'd say 10 to 12 feet of this proposed area.
It's going to be, I would have to say, have to be condemned with this
roadway in here. And, if you look at it a little more closely
you'll find out I only have 13 feet from my front door to Ellington
Road. I 've got 12 feet from my side door to FosterStreet. Now,
I 'm goingto have another 12 feet on the other side to Felt Road. I
mean it's getting a little bit tight there and like I said, I was
told by Mr. McLaughlin in 1973, don't worry about it. Go ahead and
proceed, and this proposed driveway it's going to be a 50 foot right-
of-way. It runs 208 feet. If you quickly multiply it out you're
talking a quarter of an acre. Now I own (unintelligible word or two)
by MacNamara's map, take a look at it, multiply the dimensions that
I gave you. It reads 8/10ths of an acre. 8/10ths of an acre
includes Pent Road or the proposed Felt Road, whatever it is. But,
you take a quarter of an acre off 8/10ths of an acre and you're elim-
inating one-third of my property and one-third of my property it would
cause a tremendous hardship in devaluation of the land along.
And, I'd like to bring up this point also. We have two child-
ren, age 3 and 6. We live at a busy intersection. And, we've tried
to contain them in our backyard. I mean it's a problem. We can't allow
them to cross Ellington Road or Foster Street. We've gone through the
-2-
expense, we've got a patio in the back. Put a sand box in, 8 by 8.
Bricks on the bottom. Sand. Timbers. Swing set. Hammock in the
backyard. Two kids got four tricycles. A little fire truck behind
the house. Know why we did this? So that children that live in the
area, they want to play with our children, they're going to come over
to our house and play there. You realize, all this money I put into
this, it's only 30 feet from this proposed right-of-way? I mean, this
is a safety hazard. Not to my own children, but the children that
come over in the past years and enjoyed themselves in our yard.
Plus, we have another problem there. A little wet out tonight?
Drive up Ellington Road. You know where that property is? It's up-
hill. Where do you think all that water's coming from. It's not
coming from the low side of the road. A very dry lot? You could hear
a ladyslipper (unintelligible) growing in the sand. This thing up there
is like a marsh. We got a problem today. This house goes up, you're
talking at least, absolute minimum, 600 feet off from any sewer. You
have to run 350 feet off of Foster Street even before you approach
Mr. Sheridan's property. Is he going to put a sewer in there for this
house? No way. Septic tank. Septic tank in weland. Know what those
people got to run in there for water? Wells. I got a well in my
house. (several words - unintelligible). You've got a polluted well.
What do you do now? Dig another well. Tie into the city water. Well,
let's eliminate the problem with the contamination of the wells. I
mean, we've got a real serious problem as far as health, if anything goes
up there that's going to contaminate any wells.
And, last but not least, you know, I brought out this
point of where the right-of-way is now. The Town knows. Go down to
the records. You can find it. There's 200 feet of it. It's right
-3-
there. On Palmer Drive. Mr. Sheridan wants to put a house on the
other end of his property. He's got 200 feet of Palmer Drive, or
off Palmer Drive, 50 feet wide. Established. No questions asked.
I don't know. Maybe he doesn' t want traffic going by his house.
But it's there, and there's absolutely perfect entrance into his
property. (unintelligible - several words). And, really, I 'd like
to establish this point. By looking at that, and make a very
fine note of this. It is my land. It's not town land. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak in opposition? Yes?
Mrs. Edna Hornat: My name is Edna Hornat. I live at
55 (unintelligible ) street, East Hartford. My husband, Peter,and I,
own land that' s on the other side of Felt Road, and I don't know if
we're for it or against it. What I would like to know is how it would
affect the land that we own.
Mr. Warren: You're opposite the Sheridan property on
the Felt Road right-of-way?
Mrs. Hornat: Yes, we are. Our property extends down to
Foster Street. I guess it would be where he proposes this new
building go up.
Mr. Warren: Could you find it. . . could you come up and
point it out.
(20 seconds unintelligible)
Mr. Warren: This is the right-of-way. The Sheridan
property is here.
(About 90 seconds - unintelligible. Several voices. )
Mrs. Hornats . . . . . . or through here. There is a 50 foot
M -
(unintelligible).
(About 60 seconds - unintelligible. Several voices at once) .
Mrs. Hornat: Thank you.
Mr. Warren: What we established here at the maps was that
Mrs. . . .these people own the property across from the Sheridans. . .
across from the questioned right-of-way from the Sheridan property and
north of the Klenke property. He has no other access to that land other
than this questioned right-of-way, and they're asking what effect it
might have on their access to the land if this drive. .if this building
lot is approved, I guess, is really what the subject is, a nd I 'm
afraid, the answer is that it would put you in no better a position
than the Sheridans are in. You have no access, or no improved road
on which you could build or have a building lot without the same kind
of recorse that they -re attempting now, which would be to attempt
a variance to the use access to build. . .to establish a building lot
on an unimproved road, or to go to Planning & Zoning where they can' t
violate their own regulations and therefore, would have to require
an approved road before you could build. That's as clear as I can be.
Maybe Mr. Ahearn can offer something else when we give him a chance to
speak after we've had questions and remarks.
Are there any other remarks in opposition to this? Yes?
Richard Norman Dubay : Yes, my name is Richard Norman
Dubay. I live on 2345 Ellington Road. I also oppose this for the same
reasons,
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Are there any other remarks in
opposition? Yes?
Claire Cote' : My name is Claire Cote' . I live at 725
Foster Street and oppose it too.
Mr. Warren: Thank you.
-5-
Claire Cote' : For the same reasons.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Yes?
Mike Zabreski: My name is Mike Zabreski. I and my wife
at 609 Foster Steet, oppose it, for the same reasons.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak in opposition. Yes?
Pat Hatala: Pat Hatala. I live at 720 Foster Street.
I also oppose it for the same reasons. The traffic problems are
terrible there, and Mr. Hebert has improved the land. We've watched
it. (unintelligible) he moved in the land was absolutely deteriorated.
It was an eyesore to the neighborhood. Mr. Hebert came in, spent his
money to develop the property into a liveable place and we oppose it
f or that reason plus the traf f ic.
Secretary : What was your last name please?
Pat Hatala: Hatala.
Secretary: Would you spell it, please?
Pat Hatala: Hatala. H A T A L A.
Mr, Warren: Anyone else like to speak in opposition? Yes?
Greg Erickson: Yes. My name is Greg Erickson. I live
at at 2329 Ellington Road and I oppose it.
Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak
in opposition?
Kyle Zimmer: My name is Kyle Zimmer and I live at 2354
Ellington Road I oppose it for the same reasons as Mr. Hebert. I'm
also a member of the South Windsor Fire Department and it would pose a
serious hazard there in regards to additional traffic.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Yes?
Arthur MacNary: My name is Arthur ManNary and I live at
2289 Ellington Road, South Windsor, and I oppose it because we already
-6-
have a water problem coming off that back property, even just west of
his property.
Mr. Warrens On Ellington Road you get some drainage from
the. . . .
Mr. MacNary: Right. Where you tie into the drain we have
a regular stream coming down between my property and my neighbor's
property, Mr. Shea.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. I guess I'd like to sere on the
map, too, the location of that The question would be whether it's
further into the Sheridans property from the proposed parcel 2.
Unidentified voice : I have a map here.
Mr. Warren: We've got lots of maps here .
Unidentified voice: This is the map that the Cotes ' got
when they first (unintelligible word) .
(Many unidentified, unintelligible voices speaking at once
for approximately 105 seconds ) .
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak in opposition? Yes, in the corner.
Dave Shea: Dave Shea, 2281 Ellington Road. . . .
Secretary: Sorry, didn't. . .
Mr. Warren: Not too fast. We can' t pick it up.
Dave Shea: Too fast for you. Dave Shea, 2281 Ellington
Road. I live pretty well directly in back of the house that Mr. Cote '
(unintelligible). He says we've got quite a water problem, plus the
fact that house was built. . .take an overnight rain. .a day of rain, my
water gets very (unintelligible word) in the well, see, I 've got a well. .
(unintelligible - two or three words) .
Mr. Warrens Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak`.-in opposition? Yes? Ybs. Go ahead.
-7-
Bruce Cutler: Thank you. My name is Bruce Cutler, and I
live at 2321 Ellington Road. I also have a severe water problem (unintelli-
gible - two or three words) the people who live next door to me, the
Jarvises. Our land is formed like this, so that the water from the back
runs down between our property, and I think for any reason if the house
was built back there it would change the water table (unintelligible -
word or two) and we would end up with water in my garage or in my
basement. Also, if the water ended up in my garage or in my basement,
my artisan well is in my back yard, and I'm severely worried that I would
end up in some way with some kind of water running into my well. Also,
as of last night, because of the water problem, we do have on this road,
I had a person slide off the road, it was slightly frozen last night,
take down my mailbox and end up in my front lawn. And this isn't the
first time either that (unintelligible) ended up on my front lawn just
because of the severe water problems sitting out in front of my house.
I also oppose it.
Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak
in opposition? Yes?
Greg Jarvis: My name is Greg Jarvis. I live at 2315
Ellington Road, right next to Mr. Cutler, and for the same reasons,
bad water problems, everybody' s well is in the backyard, and additional
housing back there would create the water problem. And the water is
close, and I think if it either rose or moved in either direction it
would flood Mr. Cutler's celler and ours, too. So, for those reasons,
I oppose.
Mr. Warrens Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak in opposition?
Mr. John Young: I 'm John Young at 97 Palmer Drive.
-8-
I 'd like to oppose this application, primarily for the reasons that
Mr. Cohan has stated. He had stated four reasons and I think he has
stated the situation very well.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is thdre anyone who just has a remark,
or a question?
Unidentified voices No. I'll pass.
Mr. Warren: Okay. Mr. Ahearn, would you like to say anything?
Mr. Ahearn: Yes. I would like a chance. Rather than taking
the Board's time and answering every objection that's been raised,
I trust that the Board can distinguish between what is desirable inso-
far as the status quo is concerned, what is exactly (unintelligible
word) in terms of the traffic condition, what not, and water conditions,
but let me address myself first of all, in absentia, to Joel Cohan.
This, in fact, is the appropriate way to come to ask for
what is being asked for. Now, we don't. . . .when all the rhetoric is
reduced, and emotion is dampened, and people are throught talking about
what they've expended and what they would like to see happen as far
as no change is concerned, when it's reduced to its essence, what is
being asked f or here is to be allowed to build one house on 2-1/2
acres of land, and land that Mr. Sheridan pays taxes on. Now, there
are a lot of people that own land that abuts up to vacant land, and
they'd like to see the land vacant in perpetuity. I happen to be one
of the. There's a lot of woodland around my property and I wasn't
thrilled when somebody came in with an application for a subdivision.
I 'm quite candid. But, in fairness, a person can't be expected
to hold their land, and hold it for the benefit of somebody else, and
pay taxes for it, if, in fact, it can be used, and used fairly,
so it doesn't work any kind of detriment or or doesn't diminish
the value of somebody else's property. And, that's
-9-
what we're talking about here. Now, with respect to Joel Cohan. If
you take his rationale to its logical conclusion, then if the Town of
South Windsor chose to do nothing with respect to this road for the
next 100 years, the Sheridans and their heirs and their assigns would
be expected to keep it in the same condition and continue to pay taxes
on it, I would submit to you that that's not a very, very fair
proposition at all. Now, I'd like to address myself to the question
of the drainage and the water system. I don' t doubt that some of these
people who own property abutting this property have water problems.
I don't own property abutting this property but I' ve had water problems
recently. I think that just about the majority of the people in the
Town of South Windsor has them. There are a combination of factors
that have to do with that and Mr. Lucek is here, the former town
engineer. I'm sure he will indicate to the Board, and I'm sure the
Board already knows, that one of the things the Planning & Zoning
Commission does before anything in the way of building permits are
issued is to ensure itself that adequate provision for drainage. And,
adequate provision for drainage doesn't mean it's to be dumped on
somebody else's property and to aggravate any kind of a problem..that
they might already have. The fact of the matter is, in fairness, and
I know you're a fair Board and I know that these people are interested
in preserving some things the, way they are and they're trying to be
fair also, but there's little question that what is causing the problem
is rain, a lot of melting and a frozen earth situation . I have it in
my backyard and I live on a relatively level lot without there being
(unintelligible ).
Now, I'd like for a moment to talk about some of the
comments that were made by Mr. Hebert, and Mr. Hebert, for the record,
-10.
let me tell you that I've watched you. . . . I represented the sellers that
sold you that property. . .and I watched the property go from what somebody
described as a very deteriorated piece of property to a very nice
piece of property and I compliment you and Mrs. Hebert on that. You
read from a copy of a deed and I'd like to submit the deed itself,
as being the best evidence of what it says, and I'd like to call the
Board's attention to the fact that the deed itself is conveyed subject
to rights of way, easements, encumbrances or rights for highway
purposes which may exist or may appear of record. And, at the time
the Heberlo purchased the property they knew full well and the survey
indicate$ full well, that there was a road that existed and that road
cut through their property and they were buying a' title that was
subject to rights that had accrued for people to use that road. Now,
that's not uncommon in this Town because .generally, the Town of South
Windsor acquires interest in property in two fashions as far as roads
are concerned. There's either an outright deed such as the creation
of a new subdivision where the developer deeds the road in fee simple or
ownership title to the Town itself, or the Town acquires an interest
as the public does over a period of time by useage and most of the old
roads in South Windsor are not deeded roads. That is, most of the
main thoroughfares, they're road that grew up by useage. People found
it convenient to use them and they did use them and later on, at some
point of time, the Town made (unintelligible) have established actual .
boundaries. So, that's the situation we have with respect to. .to Felt
Road. The same thing is true with the Cote' property , and the Cotes '
don' t even (unintelligible). In their deed which they received from
Mr. and Mrs. (unintelligible) clearly refers to the property. .their
property being bounded by Pent Road. I'm sure if they looked at that
-11-
deed that would refresh their recollection about that.
Now, you know, when push comes to shove, we're not
talking about (unintelligible) . I 've heard people talking about. . . .
firemen talking about traffic hazards. . -what we're talking about here
is not a subdivision. If we went Joel Cohan's route we' d come to the
Planning & Zoning Commission and ask for a subdivision approval.
Then you could have some traffic dumping in there. What we're talking
about, the traffic that would be generated by one house. Mr. Sheridan's
brother's house and, you know, in fairness, that doesn' t conjure up
images to me of the traffic that you see on the Champs Elysees
in Paris. That might be one or two cars corning and going during the
course of the day. Normal, incidental type of use, and that's all.
The right-of-way itself, coming down, if you look at that plot plan
for Mr. Hebert, you'll notice it's 60 feet away. Now, he's talked
about moving lights so on. None of that would be necessary right
now. It wouldn't be necessary at all unless the Town saw fit because
somebody came in and wanted to develop this area and said, look, this
is a town road. Let us build 25 houses in here because we've got the
land. That's not what we're asking for at all. We're asking to °stick
a driveway in this property and to build one housep and that's all.
And, that doesn't create any traffic hazard at all. Nor, does it bother,
nor does it place anybody's children in jeopardy, no more so than
children playing around your own house and I'm familiar with where some
of you live so that I know that you know what I'm talking about. So,
you know, that kind of rhetoric is understandable, but it really isn't
factual and isn't fair. It isn't fair to Mr. Sheridan. I think that. . .
(Because of either mechanical defect in the recording
machine or defect in the tape, the last 5 minutes of this track of the
-12-
cassette tape was blank. The first 12 minutes of the next cassette
was unintelligible due to either mechanical defect in the recording
equipment or in the cassette tape) .
Mr. Eriksson: . . . . .this line on your first map between
parcel 1 and parcel 29 that is the line you wish us to draw? Is that
correct?
Mr. Ahearn: That line. . .
Mr. Eriksson: This line is not now there?
Mr. Ahearn: No, it is not existing.
Mr. Eriksson: 0. K. and this is the entire parcel that
we acted on when Mr. Cote' was in here? (Unintelligible — word or
two)
Mr. Ahearn: Well, I don't know what was submitted in
the application, but there was an application, I know, that. .f or Mr. Cote' ,
to be allowed to have a lot on an unimproved road. . . .Felt Road. Now
I don't know if the entire piece was submitted as described. I can't
answer that. But, in fact, at least a portion of this.
Mr. Eriksson: What is the total acreage of the parcel
1 plus parcel 2?
Mr. Ahearn: 12-1/2 acres:,of land.
Mr. Steben: Can you tell me approximately where the
house will be built?
Mr. Ahearn: Yes, we've indicated right here. This
indicates the drive as well as the house. Incidentally, at it's closest
point that would be at least 200 feet away from anybody else's home.
Mr. Eriksson: I believe you said this is not designated
wetlands. Is that correct?
Mr. Ahearn: No,it is not. There may be something wrong
-13-
up there but the Inlands-Wetlands people haven' t see fit to classify
it as Wetlands. Now, to my knowledge, it' s not that wet. Now I'll
readily concede I've never stomped through that area, so. . . .
Mr. Stebens You have 200 feet to the nearest property?
Mr. Ahearn: At least 200 feet.
Mr. Erikssons Did you address the question of self-created
hardship as brought up by Mr. Cohan, where the buyer of this property
bought it. When Mr. Cote' came in, there were no building lots back
there.
Mr. Ahearn: Yup.
Mr. Erikssons And, the land was unusable- 1 in the present
form. Correct?
Mr. Ahearn: Under our Zoning regulations, yes.
Mr. Erikssons Now, we as a Boatd recognized the fact that
the land was unusable, and made a building lot out of it, thereby
creating it usable.
Mr. Ahearns Technically we did that before purchase.
Mr. Eriksson: ( unintelligible word or two) . we made 12-1/2
acres into a building lot that was now usable.
Mr. Ahearn: I'd like to address myself. . .
Mr. Erikssons Now, all I'm saying is that I don' t understand
why this is not self-created hardship knowing that this is usable now.
One house, one lot. Okay. Usable lot. It's the same as my lot but
bigger. It's a lot more land obviously, but I have one house and one
lot. All right?
Mr. Ahearn: I'll be glad to respond to that.
Mr. Eriksson: And, why is this not self-created hardship
when he bought the parcel and now says I want to cut out another piece?
Mr. Ahearns I don't think that that's a self-created hardship
-14-
as one ordinarily considers when you hear these appeals. I think the
hardship itself is not a hardship that's created by Mr. Sheridan other
than in the sense that when he purchases the property he knows what
then and there exists. Now, when he purchased this property he knew
there was 12-1/2 acres of land . At they time he purchased it, there
was a house there. If you talk about self-imposed hardship, it seems
to me that logically this is the same argument that Joel Cohan argues,
that you have to conclude that that's going to be it for the. . .a hundred
years. . . in fact if the Town of South Windsor sees fit not to do anything.
That's not the situation at all. The situation here, and there isa
distinction. .this is a road that exists. It exists on any number of
maps and surveys. It's a recognized road. For reasons that the Town
knows best of, they've chosen not to improve this section of road.
They've improved part of it. And some of you were in Town when Felt road
didn't ran all the way through to where it does on Palmer . They
took a section of that and they ultimately opened it up. But, for
the Board to say this is a self-imposed hardship simply because Mr.
Sheridan knew it existed when he bought the house* and to have him then
say he should keep that forever the way it is and continue to pay taxes
on it, I don' t believe that that's self-imposed hardship at all.
Mr. Eriksson: All right, how do you distinguish it from,
other than the unimproved road, from the person who goes out and buys
2-1/2 acres or two acre building lot, where he puts a house on it and
then decides to cut an acre off in the back and he says, I want someone
to live there, knowing full well that the two acre lot that he bought
with the house on it was there, it was probably intended to exist forever.
Now, he wants to take it and cut an acre off . . . .
Mr. Ahearn: I think there' s a clear distinction there.
In the one case, that lot obviously doesn't conform and can never conform
_15-
unle ss the Town changes the zoning regulations. But in this case here,
this lot does conform except that the Town hasn't up-graded the road to
meet it's own specifications. Now, Mr. Sheridan is not authorized
to go down there and lay highway and bring this road up to Town
specifications. He doesn't have the right to do that. The only one that
has the right to do that is the Town of South Windsor. There's the
distinction. He couldn't bring a contractor in there tomorrow and
start running that road all the way through down beyond his property
down onto Foster Street without the Town's permission. Whereas, in the
case of the fellow that buys the lot, the two acre piece of land, and
decides that he would like to reap some kind of a benefit and get this
Board to grant a variance in the case of a portion of an acre of rear
land for somebody to build a house, there' s a clear distinction. You're
talking about a town road on one hand, and something that can comply, but
only if the Town will do something, as opposed to something that
somebody buys knowing full well it can never comply unless the Town
changes its regulations.
Mr. Warren: Thank you.
Mr. Steben: One more question. Am I to understand, that
the proposed Felt Road, Mr. Hebert says his property is on the place?
Let me just get my glasses.
Mr. Ahearn: Say that again.
Mr. Steben: Is some of Mr. Hebert's property on the proposed
Felt Road?
Mr. Ahearn: His property, if you look at this. . .
Mr. Hebert: I hate to break into this, but the public. . . .
Mr. Ahearn: I'm going to ask you, if you would please,
that I didn't interrupt you, that you give- me the same courtesy and then
you'll have a chance to rebut.
-16-
Mr. Hebert's property looks like this with the exception that
I understand there's been a garage added. Is that right, Mr. Hebert?
I mean this. . .
Mr. Hebert: Yes, to what is the carriage house, or whatever
in those days. . .
Mr. Ahearn: And, this is the road that comes down here. Of
course, that was the plot plan that Mr. Hebert had when he purchased the
property and he knew of the existence of this road as did the Cotes ' ,
on the other side, so it wans 't something that came as a surprise.
Mr. Warren: Yes.
Unidentified voice: Question. You say there's an existing
house on the land they're talking about building on next door. Where
is the existing house?
Mr. Warren: Well, can you come up and indicate approximately
where on the land. . .on the topographical map. . .where your house is?
Mr. Sheridan: We're looking at my house now?
Mr. Warren: Yes, where. . .
(Approximately 20 seconds - unintelligible voices ).
Mr. Warren: Yes, are there any other questions? Did you have
another remark?
Mr. Hebert: Yes. You know, up there now you have an MDC map.
Throw that out. That doesn't mean anything. Mr. Ahearn states that.
You got DiBardino and MacNamara. On that map there's a schedule that
states 8/10ths of an acre per building lot. The dimensions of my land,
including the proposed Pen Road, are in that 8/10ths of an acre.
DiBardino and MacNamara map, they show a. . .talk about a right-of-way? Look
in the middle of the right-of-way. It indicates a barn, number one, and
it also indicates a fence in that area. The fence is (unintelligible) so
could this have been for public use with a barn right in the middle of it?
_17-
Now, I've got another map here that was done for Carl Cote' by a certified
engineer that. . . .want to look at maps? We've got maps. Here's the
proposed Pent Road. Here's my home. This map doesn' t show an easement.
It comes up to my property and ceases. I mean, Mr. Lucek has done a
fine job , the MDC has done a fine job, everyone has done a fine job.
(unintelligible) 19689 and this clearly defines the road stopping at
my property, and actually if you read my plot plan it says "area subject
to right of easement for highway purposes. " Not for one driveway for
one individual.
Mr. Warren: Thank you.
Unidentified voice : One more question. How far do you
come back down. . .
Mr. Hebert: Let's use this as a guage. I believe I
added on at that ;time 10 feet- * * .
Unidentified voice: You' re right here?
Mr. Hebert : Well, I' d say almost directly to Palmer
Road to that right of way area. . . . (unintelligible - two voices about
5 seconds ) .
Mr. Hebert: I measured it from Palmer Road. Somewhere
out there on a crazy angle like by 63 feet . . .
(About 15 seconds unintelligible - several voices at once)
Mr. Ahearn: You know, if it's of any assistance, I asked
Mr. Lucek to make some measurements with respect to Mr. Hebert's house
and the right-of-way. I want to make one more comment directly to Mr. Hebert
I don't understand where that map came from, but his own surveyor showed
the right-of-way __r,unn i.n 9- through, and (unintelligible) DiBardino
and MacNamara who actually developed this area. Mr. Lucek, if you would
offer the Board some assistance. With respect to Mr. Hebert's land,
tell the Board how far away his land is from the building. . . . (unintelligible
-lg-
about 10 seconds ) Why don't you come up here. . . (about 30 seconds uninr
telligible - many voices speaking at once).
Mr. Ahearn: I 'd like to call your attention to the fact
that most of our rights-of-way are 50 feet. . .however most of them are
paves from anywhere in the neighborhood of from 32 to 34 feet, so
if you're making the measurement you're talking about from property
line to property line and not paved road.
Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who feels a question or
remark strongly? Yes, in the back?
Dick Kelley: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Kelley. I live
on 49 Rosemary Lane. I know the property in question and I believe it's
probably one of the most, nices piece of property in town. One of
the most attractive (unintelligible - 2 or 3 words ) I. as some people
know, I like to build one or two houses a year. I would be very,
very interested in a piece of property like this, especially if I
could connect Felt Road (unintelligible word) Sheridens house to Foster
Street. I also realize that there is property owned by Hornats
adjoining the Sheridan property and someday, it only seems to me
reasonable to assume, that a lot of that property will open up to
housing. If I lived on Ellinton Road at the present time, I think
I might jump at the chance to let Mr. Sheridan put a 10 foot driveway
from Foster Street into 2-1/2 acres of land, because you could almost
be guaranteed that you wouldn't have three more houses on 2-1/2 acres
of land someday coming down the pike. The gentleman has done an excel-
lent job on the house on the corner of Ellington. . . . (end of tape)
road to Foster Street, you would have a 10 foot driveway with one house.
I have no vested interest in this, but I would think if I wanted to
build a house on the particular land in question, that one of the con-
ditions that would be laid down by engineering department is that we
-19-
would have to construct a swale (unintelligible) undernearth the house
in question so that you would not have even the present run-off that
you have to the housing on Ellington Road. At the present time
Mr. Sheridan does not have to correct (unintelligible - 4 seconds)
If I lived there I think I would probably. . . . (unintelligible - 3 seconds ) .
Mr. Warren: Thank you.
Mrs. Hornat: I've got a comment I'd like to make. After
listening to all the comments that the various people made, apparently
what seems apparent is that they're expecting the Sheridens and Hornats
to pay taxes for their convenience, but not allowing anything on that
land.
Mr. Warren: Before we close, is there anyone else that
has a comment? Yes, please?
Mrs. Hebert: Yes, I'm Mrs. Hebert and I live at 2355 Ellington
Road, and I think you all agree that we aren't against development
back there. Maybe it is inevitable in several years. However, why
does it have to be a through way? Why can that not be developed as
a cul-de-sac? If he's so interested in having his brother live down
the road from him why can't he have (unintelligible) extended on his
road that already exists? I don't understand why he has to impose
a hardship on people that live at the other end of his land. We are
not exaggerating the traffic problem on that corner. Believe me. It
is very very bad corner. Without children. And, we are not exaggerating
the water problem. All you have to do is drive down Ellington Road
Anyt mi a ,, from now on and you will be hitting ruts, one after another,
wiped out by the water that pulls across that road and last winter
there were people that couldn't even open their mailboxes because they
were frozen shut by the water that was splashed and froze all over their
mail boxes.
-20-
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Mr. Young, did you have a comment?
Mr. Young: I just wanted to comment somewhat. . .everybody seems
to be saying something about the wetness of the land. I 've been living
there for. . .1962. We've experienced a total building experience, if
you wish to call it that, and the right-of-way next to my property has
already been built up. In fact, if you will review some of your
records, Mr. Cote' has stated that he brought in several hundred yards
of gravel just to put a base on that short driveway of Mr. Sheridan to
adequately hold traffic. If you will go through the police records
you will find that there was a bulldozer. . .a big payloader (unintelli-
gible) came up to its hubcaps back there. I think I also want to
call your attention to Mr. Cohan's letter, the other paragraph, other
than a hardship, by granting a variance you will grant a variance for
whatever purposes you see fit, but I think what you're doing is you're
allowing the building department, the building inspector (unintelligible)
there are no backward provisions in your method here of insuring
that a building, the use of the land, etc. , is going to be property
and be maintained. The only recourse you would havethereaf ter is
in Court totry and (unintelligible ) building department. I think
a subdivision is not necessarily restricted to three or more lots. It
could be two. I think we're looking for safe-guards more than anything.
Not restricting lots to be built up, but let's do it properly. Let's
provide safe-guards, Thank you.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Did we get all the feelings out
that people want to express? Any questions? That includes you, Mr.
Sheridan? Thank you. Then I'll declare the public participation
portion of this hearing closed and we'll notify the appellant by mail
of our decision.
IL
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 110 1979
TOWN HALL 7:30 P. M.
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Warren, Eriksson, Steben and Murrin
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Earley (sitting for Cowles)
APPLICATION No. 1296-79 Robert J. Sheridan, 103 Palmer Drive,
requests a variance of Article 5.21 Section 5, to allow a building
lot without the required frontage on a paved street on premises
known as Felt Road, Zone AA-30.
Attorney Frank Ah&arn appeared and stated he had offices at 5 Oakland
Road in South Windsor,. and was appearing on behalf. of. Robert J. Sheri-
dan who lived at 103 Palmer Drive, and wanted a -variance of Article
5.2,Secti on 59 to allow construction of a house. He produced a survey
of the property prepared by Emil Lucek Associates which -showed the
entire 12.5 acre parcel, broken into two parcels designs-tjed Parcel
#l, upon which Robert Sheridan's house had been built, and Parcel #2,
upon which Mr. Sheridan's brother wished to build a house. Parcel
#2 is over 2.5 acres, and has 455 feet frontage on Felt Road, and
the map showed -how he wished to have egress through a private road
to Foster Street, Mr. Ahearn mentioned that this portion of Felt
Road was an un-improved road, however, he produced a survey of
Valley View Farms (dated 11/l/50) , a survey entitled "Green Acres"
prepared in Septemb-r, 1945, The Metropolitan District Geodetic and
` Topographical SurveS dated April, 19700 a survey showing the
r sanitary sewer construction in the Birch Hill Area prepared by
James S. Minges & Associates, Inc. , dated 9/3/74, and a copy ..of
the Plan of Development of South Windsor, all of which indicated
Felt Road (formerly Pent Road) as continuing to Foster Street.
Mr. Ahearn also submitted a survey which had been prepared for
Mr. Hebert when obtaining his mortgage, which also .showed Felt Road
extending through to Foster Street.
Mr. Ahearn noted that his client had 12.5 acres, and that Mr. Sheridan's
brother, Richard, wanted to purchase 2.5 acres and construct a house,
He said he is aware of the fact there is concern about the possibility
of this being an open door to a subdivision, and stated this is not
in the offing. He spoke briefly about sub-divisions, and stated that
this proposed lot is over 4 times what zoning regulations require,
and that if permission were granted the house would conform to all
regulations, and that he would stipulate that the Town would not
be responsible for snow-plowing.
Mr. Ahearn stated that the hardship in this case is the is holding
the
Town chooses not to improve the road, and that Mr. Sheridan s holding
land and paying taxes on it since the Town does not see fit to bring
the road up to proper standards.
Mr. Francis Kucza of 726 Foster Road, appeared, and stated he lived
across the street from the proposed driveway, and that he would prefer
to see a driveway there rather than a town road.
Mr. Rennie Klenke of 127 Palmer Drive appeared, and stated he owns
Mr. Ahearn reiterated that he trusted the Board would ignore all the
rhetoric about what people spent fixing up their property, and
possible water problems, and stated that they were simply asking for
permission to build one house on 2.5 acres of land, upon which land
Sheridan is paying taxes. He noted the Sheridans would conform to
all building regulations. He commented that many people, including
himself, would love to have the open land around them remain undeveloped,
but that you couldn't expect someone just to hold property forever
and pay taxes on it. Mr. Ahearn noted that if one followed the rationale
in Mr. Cohan's letter, one would simply hold onto to land for a
hundred years and never make .changes.
Mr. Ahearn further stated that this has been an extremely bad winter
for water problem*, and that he diwkedwith Emil Lucek who .had informed
him that the Town Engineer would make certain there was.-adequate
drainage.
Insofar as Mr. Hebert's comments, Mr. Ahearn stated that he had
represented. the sellers when Mr. Hebert purchased his property, and
that Hebert was well aware of the fact that there was a right-of-way
and road that went through the property, which could someday be
developed.
POx. Ahearn again stated that they are asking permission for one
house, and not a sub-division.
f The Chairman then aG ed the Board if they had any questions.
firs. Eriksson asked that the exact location of the property in question
be clarif ied," and Mr. Steben wanted to know exactly where the
proposed house would be built. Mr. Ahearn pointed out the location
and stated the house would be built at least 200 feet from any other
house in the area.
Y'r. Eriksson asked Mrs Ahearn to address the issue raised in.Mr. Cohan's
letter regarding self-created hardship. Mr. Ahearn said the hardship
is not created by Mr. Sheridan, other than when he purchased the
property he knew there was -12.5 acres. Mr. Eriksson noted that
if permission was granted f or this house, they could keep coming
back f or two acre lots. Questions were asked by the Board concerning
the exact location of Mr. Hebert's house, whether or not the right-of-
way was actually on Hebert's land, and Mr. -Ahearn stated that the
surveys he had presented to the Board indicated that the right-of-way
was a continuation of Felt Road. Mr. Hebert then produced several
other surveys which showed it as a right-of-way, and one of the
surveys showed a barn and fence in the middle of the right-of-way.
P',r. Ahearn retorted that Mr. Hebert's own mortgage survey clearly
showed a right-of-way, and that he didn't know where the survey
Mr. Hebert produced came from.
A Mr. Dick Kelley of 49 Rosemary Lane, spoke, and informed the Board
that he was a builder and that this was probably one of the nicest
pieces of land in town, and that if he lived on Ellington Road he'd
have no objection to the land being developed. He noted that a
builder could easily correct any water problems.
Mrs, Hornat spoke up- and said that people were unreasonable to
_4-
expect the Sheridans to just keep the land forever and pay taxes
on it and not be allowed to build.
Mrs. Wilfred Hebert spoke and said she felt that there was no reason
why the house couldn' t be built and just have the driveway exit onto
Palmer Drive with some sort of cul-de-sac, and there would be no
hardship to the people at the other end.
I4r. Young then spoke in opposition to the request,_ citing Mr. Cohan•s
letter.
APPLICATION NO. 1 00--79 - Charles Elinskas, 760 Sullivan Avenue, requests
a variance of Article 5.2, Section 5, to allow the use of an existing
non-conforming building on premises known as 740 Sullivan Avenue,
Zone G. C. •
Mr. Elinskas appeared before the Board and stated that he wanted to
use these- premises as a real estate office, that none of the neighbors
objected, that the building had been used as a retail store in the
past, and that parking would be limited to three or four cars.
Mr. Albert Prancus spoke in favor of this appeal and said it was
used for businesses for many years.
No one spoke in opposition.
Upon questioning by the Board it was determined the building has been
empty for about three years, there would be no more than one or two E
sales people, and that Pair. Elinskas planned to do some exterior E
remodelling and put in another doorway so that the parking area would. t
face the door. There was a brief discussion about what type of
sign would be permitted.
APPLICATION. NO. 1 01- - Unfinished Furniture House Inc. , 73 John
Fitch Boulevard, requests a variance of Article 4.4.7, Section 4.5.4.4,
to allow a second sign and a sign larger than permitted on premises
known as 73 John Fitch Blvd. , Zone G. C.
Mr. Jon Pierpont of Massachusetts appeared and stated he was district
manager for Unfinished Furniture, and they needed a large sign in
front of their business since the Brave Bull and Ten Pin Bowling
blocked the building from view, and they were losing business.
He- said they would like to use the old Kinny Shoe Sign posts which
are there, and that they would paint and clean up the frame and insert
a sign with their logo. He produced a diagram of the proposed sign
and stated they would go along with whatever the Board desired.
APPLICATION NO. 1302-79 - Clara G. Slater, 285 Main Street, requests
a variance of Article 5. 2, Section 5, to allow construction of an
addition on a non-conforming building on premises known as 285 Main
Street, Zone A--40.
Per. James Slater of 421 Abby Road Road appeared and said he represented
his mother, Clara G. Slater, who was 73 years old and unable to maintair"_
her house on Main Street any more. He stated the house is too close
to Main Street and that's why he's before - this Board. .
Mts Robert Lalib erti of 2?7 Main Street stated that she didn't object
to the variance being granted, but was concerned that they would add the
addition to the house and then rent it out.
It was then brought out that there are six efficiency apartments in
the building at the moment, and that Slater planned on using his mother's
six room apartment, and one of the one-coon efficiency apartments plus
the addition as a large nine room apartment so that he and his wife
and children and mother could live together. He stated that he had -no
intention of* renting out the apartment, that he had been raised in
that house and felt it was a good place to raise his children. He stated
at the moment there are f our other tenants in the building besides his
mother, three of whom are individuals and one is a couple with a small
child.
WORK SESSION
Mr.. Warren informed the Board that the Town Council had appointed
alternate Edward Steben to fill the unexpired. term of regular member
Anthony Vitiello which expires November. 30, 1979- Wayne Gerlt was
appointed as an alternate to fill Steben's' term as an alternate which
expires November 30, 1979*
Mr. Warren informed the Board he received a letter from the Town
Attorney stating the Court upheld the Zoning Board's decision in
the Donald Cyr matter (App. 1258-78).
Application No. 129�&-79 - Robert J. Sheridan
Aw
Mir. Eriksson stated that he feels the situation regarding the right--of--
way in this matter is a. mess, and he is not a legal person who can inter-
pret maps and deeds and tell who owns what. He said that by approving
this variance we are agreeing with Attorney Ahearn's interpretation
that the right-of-way is established. He noted that in the past when the
variance was granted at the other end the right-of-way had been clearly
established. Mir. Eriksson also stated that when the original variance
-
was granted, Cote asked for one house on the 12.5 acres which was
then land-locked and not usable. He said that Sheridan knew when he
purchased from Cote that the ZBA had given permission .f or one house
using the right-of-way to Palmer Drive, and if this Board establishes a
precedent by allowing a second house, what's to prevent them from putting
up one house at a time until there was a sub-division?
Mr. Warren commented that the Planning & Zoning Commission should be
dealing with sub-divisions and not the Zoning Board, and noted that
the Deed did state Hebert owns the land in question and said if this
matter is approved the Board in effect would be imposing it's decision
on Hebert.
The members of the Board looked over the deed, and also studied the sur-
veys. Mr. Steben noted that Hebert bought the property knowing that
there was a right-of-way, Mr. Earley noted that Sheridan also bought
his property knowing he couldn't build another house on it.
Mr. Warren said there was lots of concern about what would happen to
this land when the original variance was granted, and if this variance
is granted, the Board would be establishing a precedent for future
connecting roads. Ar. Eriksson said that if we create the cut he felt
ae joara wou.!CL be viQlating the intention of the Planning & Zoning
rye' Commission when they drew the Comprehensive. Plan.
Steben commented that this is a private situation with one
brother owning property and wanting to sell a piece of it to another
brother to build a house, and that there are many houses, especially
in West Hartford where he used to live, that have private driveways
with the houses set back that are very beautiful. He noted that
the Board is talking about two houses on 12 acres, and that if the
house were built properly drainage could be controlled.
The Board agreed that drainage was not really an issue here, and that
the only member of the public who spoke that had a legitimate complaint
was Hebert.
Mr. Earley questioned why the driveway couldn't be put in next to his
brother's driveway, and exit onto Palmer Drive.
The Board briefly discussed the property owned by Hornat and Klenke
and reviewed the •surveys again. Mr. Murrin noted that the right--of-
way is clearly mentioned on Hebert's deed.
Mr. Eriksson reiterated that he still feels that the Board is asking
for trouble if it establishes the driveway as a cut, and that the
deed shows Hebert owns the land and it's not the Board's place to state
there is a right-of-way. He said he feels a Court of law should
decide if there's a right-of-way, and not the Zoning Board.
V71r. Eriksson mentioned that the Board had refused permission for-_a
second house on some Abby Road property, which was a comparable
situation, and in this case the situation is compounded due to the
questionable right-of-way, and the traffic situation.
Mr. Steben mentioned that we had one person with a problem, and then
a roomful of people showed up with water problems that have nothing
to do with this case. I The other members of the Boa1'd said they
realized that Hebert was the only one with a gripe. Parr. Earley
noted that both Sheridan -and Hebert knew what the situation was when
they bought their respective properties.
Mr. Eriksson stated that he does not feel the Board should establish
a way out of the parcel of land.
[�r. Eriksson then moved that application No. 1296-79; Robert J.
Sheridan, 103 Palmer Drive, requesting a variance of Article 5.2,
Section 5, to allow a building lot without the required frontage on
a paved street on premises known as Felt Road, Zone AA-30, be denied,
because he believes the Comprehensive Plan of the Planning & Zoning
Commission would be Violated by allowing a driveway to come out through
the right-of-way on the Hebert property, rather than establishing
access to the entire parcel through the 50 foot right-of-way to the
east of Cote 's property, or the established cut on Felt Road Extension
on the Palmer Drive end. Further, it was the intent of this Board
in granting the initial variance on the 12.5 acre parcel in November,
1975, to create one building lot of 12.5 acres with one house on it
for the appellant. At that time there was a hardship which was
eliminated by granting the variance,thus making the 12.5 acres a usable
piece of land.
Mr. Earley seconded the motion; Eriksson, Earley, Warren and ..urrin
voted -in favor; Steben voted against. The motion was .carried.
R !q �
Application No. 1300-Z2 Charles Elinskas
Mr. Steben moved that application No. 1300-?9, Charles Elinskas, request-
ing a variance of Article .2 Section to allow h
5,. the use of an
I _ exgsitng non-conf orming building on premises known as 740 Sullivan
Avenue, zone GC, be approved. The building may be used as a real estate
office. The building likely pre-existed zoning regulations, has been
used as a public building in the past, the the proposed use is no more
objectionable than former uses.
Mr. "Eriksson seconded the motion; it was unanimously approved.
Effective date: March 14, 1979
Application No, 1301--79- - Unfinished Furniture House, Inc.
The Board agreed a sign was necessary at this location due to the high',
speed .of traffic on Route 5, and the set-back of the building and location
of the adjacent buildings.
Mr. Murrin moved that application No. 1301-79, Unfinished Furniture
House, Inc. , 73 John Fitch Boulevard, requesting a variance of Article
4.4.7, Section 4..5.4.4, to allow a second sign and a sign larger than
permitted on premises known as 73 John Fitch Blvd. , Zone GC, be approved.
Said sign will be 6 x 12 feet, externally lighted, double-faced using
the existing frame work on the premises, and in accordance with the
sketch submitted with this application. The lights are to be extinguished
j at the close of the b,&xsiness daily.
Mr. Steben seconded the motion; it was unanimously approved.
Effective Date: March 14, 1979
Application No, . 1'302-72- Clara G. Slater.
The Board briefly discussed this matter and noted the building pre-dated
zoning regulations and is too close to Main Street, and it was noted
that by granting the variance the non-conforming use as an apartment
house would be lessened by reducing the number of apartments from six
to five.
Mr. Earley moved that application No. 1302-?9, Clara G, Slater, 285
Main Street, requesting a variance of Article 5.2, Section 5, to allow
construction of an addition on a non-conforming building on premises
known as 285 Main Street, Zone A-40, be approved. The insufficient set-
back of the building predated zoning regulations and the addition will
lessen a non-conforming use by combining two of the apartments.
Mr. Murrin seconded the motion; it was unanimously approved.
Effective Date: March 14, 1979
Respectf ully submitted,
Robert W. Warren, Chairman `
Zoning Board of Appeals
,'_} _- 3111
The following is a transcript of a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appels
which was held on Parch 1, 1979. Due to either mechanical failure of
the recording equipment or tapes, there are portions of the hearing
which were not recorded, including the first 25 minutes of the hearing.
Members of the Zoning Present: Robert Warren, Richard Eriksson, Edward
Steben and Thomas Murrin
Alternate Present: Robert Earley
Hebert: . . . . .the garage is added on to it at a point where
my garage now is within I'd say 10 to 12 feet of this proposed area.
It's going to be, I would have to say, have to be condemned with this
roadway in here. And, if you look at it a little more closely
you'll find out I only have 13 feet from my front door to Ellington
Road. I 've got 12 feet from my side door to FosterStreet. Now,
I 'm goingto have another 12 feet on the other side to Felt Road. I
mean it's getting a little bit tight there and like I said, I was
told by Mr. '. McLaughlin in 1973, don't worry about it. Go ahead and
proceed, and this proposed driveway it's going to be a 50 foot right-
of-way. It runs 208 feet. If you quickly multiply it out you' re
talking a quarter of an acre. Now I own (unintelligible word or two)
by MacNamara's map, take a look at it, multiply the dimensions that
I gave you. It reads 8/10ths of an acre. 8/10ths of an acre
includes Pent Road or the proposed Felt Road, whatever it is. But,
you take a quarter of an acre off 8/10ths of an acre and you're elim-
inating one-third of my property and one--third of my property it would
cause a tremendous hardship in devaluation of the land along.
And, I'd like to bring up this point also. We have two child-
ren, age 3 and 6. We live at a busy intersection. And, we've tried
to contain them in our backyard. I mean it's a problem. We can't allow
them to cross Ellington Road or Foster Street. We've gone through the
expense, we,Ve got a patio in
the back. Put a sand box i
bottom. Sand. Timbers. n, 8 by g,
Bricks on the
backyard. Two kids Swing set' Hammock in
got four tricycles. the
the house. A little .fire truck behind
Know why we did this? So •
area that children that live in
. they want to play with our c the
hildren, theytre goin
to our house and play there, Y g to come over
You realize, all this Money
this, it's only 30 feet from
this I put into
Proposed right-of-way? me
is a safety hazard. Not t
° my °wn children I an, this
come over in the Past • but the children that.
Years and enjoyed themselves
Plus w in our yard.
► e have another problem there.
. Drive up Ellington Road. A little wet out tonight?
You know where g
hill. Where do that property is? It 's u
You think all that water's A
coming from the low s • coming from. It's- not
side' of the road, A very
a ladyslipper (unintelligible) dry lot? you
Could hear
g e) growing in the sand.
is like a marsh. We got a This thi n u
problem Coda g P there
talkingy' This house goe
at least, absolute minimum, 60
0 s up, You're
y seWer,feet off from an .
have to run 350 feet off of You
Foster Street even before
fir• Sheridan's property. Is h YOU approach
e going to put a sewer in there
house? No way. Septic tank far this
• Septic tank in weland.
People got to run, in there for water.� Know what those
Wells. I got a well
house. (several words - unin . in my
What do you do now?
telligible). You've got a Polluted well.
Dig another well. Tie into th
e city water. Well,
let's eliminate the
problem with the contamination o
mean, we've got a real serious r health
f the wells. I
problem as far as h , if an
up there that's going to contamin ything goesate any wells.
And, last but not least, you k
ght- _ now, I brought out this
Point of where the ri
a of way is now. .The Town know
the records. You can find it. � s• Go down to
There s 200 feet of it. It'
s right
-3-
there. On Palmer Drive. Mr. Sheridan wants
to put a house on the
other end, of his property. He 's got 200 feet of Palmer Driver or
Off Palmer Drive, 50 feet wide. Established.
No questions asked.
I don't know. Maybe he doesn' t want traffic
going by his house.
But it's there, and there's absolutely perfect p t entrance into his
property. (unintelligible - several words). And
really, I 'd like
to establish this point. By looking at that
and make a very
fine note of this. It is my land. It's not
town land. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone 3► else who would
like to speak in opposition? Yes?
Mrs. Edna Hornat: My name is Edna Hornat.
I live at
55 (unintelligible) street, East Hartford. My husband, Peter and I.
own land that' s on the other side of Felt Road
r and I don't know if
we're for it or against it. What I would like
to know is how it would
affect the land that we own.
Mr. Warren: You're opposite the Sheridan ro e
p p rty on
the Felt Road right-of-way?
Mrs. Hornat: Yes, we are. Our property extend
s down to
Foster Street. I guess it would be where he ro 0
P p s es this new
building go up.
Mr. Warren: Could you find it. . . coul
d you come up and
Point it out.
(20 seconds unintelligible)
Mr. Warren: This is the right-of-way.
The Sheridan
property is here.
(About 90 seconds - unintelligible. Several
voices. )
Mrs. Hornato . . . . . . or through here. There is a 50 foot.
r�rr
(unintelligible).
(About 60 seconds —unintelligible. Sever
al voices at once) .
Mrs. Hornat: Thank you.
Mr. Warren: What we established here at the ma s was as that
Mrs. . . .these people own the property across from the
Sheridans. . .
across from the questioned right-of-way from the Sheridan ro
p perty and
north of the Klenke property. He has no other access to
that land other
than this questioned right-of-way, and they're askingwhat at effect it
might have on their access to the land if this drive. . '
if this building
subject lot is approved, I guess, is really what the sub
� t is, and I 'm
of raid, the answer is that it would put you in no bett
er a position
than the Sheridans are in. You have no accessr or
no improved road
on which you could build or have a building lot without the same kind
of recorse that they l re attempting now, which would be to
attempt
a variance to the use access to build. . .to establish a buildin
g lot
on an unimproved road, or to go to Planning & Zoning where they can 't
violate their own regulations and therefore, would have to
require
an approved road before you could build. That's as clear as I can
be.
Maybe Mr. Ahearn can offer something else when we give him im a chance to
speak after we've had questions and remarks.
Are there any other remarks in opposition to this? Yes?
Richard Norman Dubay : Yes, my name is Richard Norman
Dubay. I live on 2345 Ellington Road. I also oppose this for the same
reasons,
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Are there any other remarks in
Opposition? Yes?
Claire Cote' : My name is Claire Cote' . I live at ?25
Foster Street and oppose it too.
Mr. Warren: Thank you.
-Kr
Claire Cote' : For the 'same reasons.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Yes?
Mike Zabreski: My name is Mike Zabreski. I and my wife
at 609 Foster Steet, oppose it, for the same reasons.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak in opposition. Yes?
Pat Hatala: Pat Hatala., I live at 720 Foster Street.
I also oppose it for the same reasons. The traffic problems are
terrible -there, and Mr. Hebert has improved the land. We've watched
it. (unintelligible) he moved in the land was absolutely deteriorated.
It was an eyesore to the neighborhood. Mr. Hebert came in, spent his
money to develop the property into a liveable place and we oppose it
for that reason plus the traffic.
Secretary : What was your last name please?
Pat Hatala: Hatala,
Secretary: Would you spell it, please?
Pat Hatala: Hatala. N A T A L A.
Mr, Warren: Anyone else like to speak in opposition? Yes?
Greg Erickson: Yes. My name is Greg Erickson. I live
at at 2329 Ellington Road and I oppose it.
Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak
in opposition?
Kyle Zimmer: My name is Kyle Zimmer and I live at 2354
Ellington Road I oppose it for the same reasons as Mr. Hebert. I'm
also a member of the South Windsor Fire Department and it would pose a
serious hazard there in regards to additional traffic.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Yes?
Arthur MacNary : My name is Arthur ManNary and I live at
2289 Ellington Road, South Windsor, and I oppose it because we already
-g-
have a water problem coming Off f f that back property, even just
w
his property. J est of
the. . . . Mr. Warren: On Ellington Road
You get some drainage ..from
Mr. MacNary: Right. Where you Y tie into the drain we have
a regular stream coming down between m
Y property and my neighbor's
Property, Mr. Shea,
Mr. Warren: Thank you. I
guess I'd like to see on the
map, too, the ues location of that The questio
further n would be whether it's
into the Sherid
ans property from the proposed parcel 2.
Unidentified voice : I have a map here,
Mr. Warren: We' ve got lots of maps here .
Unidentified voice: This is the ma
p that the Cotes , got
when they first (unintelligible word).
(Many unidentified, unintelligible lgible voices speaking at once
for approximately 105 seconds ) .
Nam'• Warren: Thank you. Is there
like to speak in Opposition? anyone else who would
Yes, in the corner.
Dave Shea: Dave Shea, 2281 Ellington g n Road. . . .
Secretary: Sorry, didn't. . .
Mr. Warren: Not too fast. We ca
n' t pick it up.
Dave Shea: Too fast for you. Dave Shea 2281 Ellington
Road. I live pretty well directly in back of the house that Mr. Cote •
(unintelligible). He says we've got u
q ite a water problem, plus the
.fact that house was built. . . take an overnight g t rain. .a day of rain, my
water gets Very (unintelligible word) in the
well, see, I've got a well. .
(unintelligible - two or three words) .
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there
anyone else who would
like to speak -in opposition? Yes? Yes. Go
ahead.
-7-
Bruce Cutler: Thank you. My name is Bruce Cutler, and I
live at 2321 Ellington Road. I also have a severe water problem (unintelli-
gible - two or three words) the people who live next door to mep the
Jarvises. Our land is formed like this, so that the water from the back
runs down between our property, and I think for any reason if the house
was built back there it would change the water table (unintelligible -
word or two) and we would end up with water in my garage or in my
basement. Also, if the water ended up in my garage or in my basement,
my artisan well is in my back yard, and I'm severely worried that I would
end up in some way with some kind of water running into my well. Also,
as of last night, because of the water problem, we do have on this road,
I had a person slide off the road, it was slightly -frozen last night,
take down my mailbox and end up in my front lawn. And this isn't the
first time either that (unintelligible) ended up on my front lawn just
because of the severe water problems sitting out in front of my house.
I also oppose it.
Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak
in opposition? Yes?
Greg Jarvis: My name is Greg Jarvis. I live at 2315
Ellington Road, right next to Mr. Cutler, and for the same reasons,
bad water problems, everybody' s well is in the backyard, and additional
housing back there would create the water problem. And the water is
close, and I think if it either rose or moved in either direction it
would flood Mr. Cutler's celler and ours, too. So, for those reasons,
I oppose*
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak in opposition?
Mr. John Young: I 'm John Young at 97 Palmer Drive.
_g_
I 'd like to oppose this application, primarilyfor or the reasons that
Mr. Cohan has stated. He had stated four reasons and I think he has
stated the situation very well.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is thdre anyone who
just has a remark,
or a question?
Unidentified voice: No. I 'll pass.
Mr. Warren: Okay. Mr. Ahearn, would .
YOU Like to say anything?
Mr. Ahearn: Yes. I would like a chan
ce* Rather than taking
the Board's time and answering every objection h t at's been raised,
I trust that the Board can distinguish between what is desirable inso-
far as the status quo is concerned, what is exactl
y (unintelligible
word) in terms of the traffic condition, what note an
d water conditions,
but let me address myself first of all, in absentia
to Joel Cohan.
This, in fact, is the appropriate way to come to ask for
what is being asked for. Now, we don't. . . .when all the rhetoric is
reduced, and emotion is dampened, and people are throu h
g t talking about
what they 've expended and what they would like to see
happen as far
as no change is concerned, when it's reduced to its essence, what is
being asked for here is to be allowed to build one house on 2-1/2
acres of land, and land that Mr. Sheridan pays taxes on
• Now, there
are a lot of people that own land that abuts up to vacant land
and
they' d like to see the land vacant in perpetuity. I happen PA to be one
of the. There's a lot of woodland around my propertyand I
wasn't. .
thrilled when somebody came in with an application for a subd
ivision.
I 'm quite candid. But, in fairness, a person can't be expected p cted
to hold their land, and hold it for the benefit of somebo
dy else, and
pay taxes for it, if, in fact, it can be used, and used fairly,
so it doesn't work any kind of detriment or or doesn' •
t diminish
the value of somebody else's property. And th
at's
_9_
what we're talking about here. Now, with respect to Joel Cohan. If
you take his rationale to its logical conclusion, then if the Town of
South Windsor chose to do nothing with respect to this road for the
next 100 years, the Sheridans and their heirs and their assigns would
be expected to keep it in the same condition and continue to pay taxes
on it. I would submit to you that that's not a very, very fair
proposition at all. Now, I' d like to address myself to the question
of the drainage and the water system. . I don't doubt that some of these
people who own property abutting this property have water problems.
I don' t own property abutting this property but I' ve had water problems
recently. I think that just about the majority of the people in the
Town of South Windsor has them. There are a combination of factors
that have to do with that and Mr. Lucek is here, the former town
engineer. I'm sure he will indicate to the Board, and I'm sure the
Board already knows, that one of the things the Planning & Zoning
Commission does before anything in the way of building permits are
issued is to ensure itself that adequate provision for drainage. And,
adequate provision for drainage doesn' t mean it's to be dumped on
somebody else' s property and to aggravate any kind of a problem that
they might already have. The fact of the matter is, in fairness, and
I know you're a fair Board and I know that these people are interested
in preserving some things the- way they are and they're trying to be
fair also, but there's little question that what is causing the problem
is rain, a lot of melting and a frozen earth situation I have it in
my backyard and I live on a relatively level lot without there being
(unintelligible ).
Now, I'd like for a moment to talk about some of the
comments that were made by Mr. Hebert, and Mr. Hebert, for the record,
-10-
let me tell you that I've watched you. . . . I represented the sellers th
sold you that at
property. . .and I watched the property go from
described as a very deteriorated piece of what somebody
property to a very nice
Piece of property and I compliment you and Mrs.
Hebert on that. You
read from a copy of a deed and I'd like to submit the deed itself,
as: being the best evidence of what it sa s
y and I'd like to call the
Board's attention to the fact that the de ed itself is conveyed subject
to rights of way, easements, encumbrances
or rights for highway
purposes which may exist or may appear of record* And, at the time
they Heberts purchased the property they knew full well and the surve
indicates. >f ull well, that there was. a ro y
ad that existed and that road
cut;; through their property and they were buying yang a title that was
subject to rights that had accrued for People ple to use that road. Now,
that's not uncommon- in this Town because generally the Town of South .
Windsor acquires interest in propertyin
two fashions as far as roads
are concerned. There's either an outright dee g d such as the creation
of anew subdivision where the developer P deeds the road in fee simple or
ownership title to the Town itself, or the Town
acquires an interest
as the public does _over a period of time by use age and most of the old
roads in South Windsor are not deeded roads. That is, most of the
main thoroughfares, they're road that grew u
g p by useage. People found
it convenient to use them and they did use them and later on, at some
Point of time, the Town made (unintelligible)
have established aotua.Z.
boundaries. So, tha,t"s the situation we have with respect to. .to Felt
Road. The same thing is true with the Cote'
property , and the Cotes ,
don' t even (unintelligible). In their deed which they received from
Mr. and Mrs. (unintelligible) clearly refers to
the property. -their
property being bounded by rent Road. I'm sure if they looked at that
- -11-
deed that would refresh their recollection about that.
Now, you know, when push comes to shove, we're not
talking about (unintelligible). I 've heard people talking about. . . .
. .
firemen talking about traffic hazards. . .what we're talking about here
is not a subdivision. If we went Joel Cohan's route we' d come to the
Planning & Zoning Commission and ask for a subdivision approval.
Then you could have some traffic dumping in there. What we`re talking
about, the traffic that would be generated by one house. Mr. Sheridan's
brother's house and, you know, in fairness, that doesn' t conjure up
images to me of the traffic that you see on the Champs Elysees
in Paris. That might be one or two cars coming and going during the
course of the day. Normal, incidental type of use, and that's all.
The right-of-way itself, coming down, if you look at that lot
p plan
for Mr. Hebert, you'll notice it's 60 feet away. Now, he's talked
about moving lights so on. None of that would be necessary right
now. It wouldn't be necessary at all unless the Town saw fit because
somebody came in and wanted to develop this area and said, look, this
is a town road. Let us build 25 houses in here because we've of
g the
land. That's not what we re asking for at all. We're asking to:,stick
a driveway in this property and to build one house, and that's all.
And, that doesn't create any traffic hazard at all. Nor, does it bother,
nor does it place anybody's children in jeopardy, no more so than
children playing around your own house and I'm familiar with where some
Of you live so that I know that you know what I'm talking about. So,
you know, that kind of rhetoric is understandable, but it really isn' t
factual and isn't fair. It isn't fair to Mr. Sheridan. I think that. . .
(Because of either mechanical defect in the recording
machine or defect in the tape, the last 5 minutes of this track of -the
-12-
cassette tape was blank. The first 12 minutes of the next cassette
was unintelligible due to either mechanical defect in the recording
equipment or in the cassette tape) .
Mr. Eriksson: . . . . .this line on your first map between
parcel 1 and parcel 2, that is the line you wish us to draw? Is that
correct?
Mr. Ahearn: That line. . .
Mr. Eriksson: This line is not now there?
Mr. Ahearn: No, it is not existing.
Mr. Eriksson: 0. K. and this is the entire parcel that
we acted on when Mr. Cote' was in here? (Unintelligible — word or
two)
Mr. Ahearn: Well, I don't know what was submitted in
the application, but there was an application, I know, that. -for Mr. Cote' ,.
to be allowed to have a lot on an unimproved road. . . .Felt Road. Now
I don't know if the entire piece was submitted as described. I can' t
answer that. But, in fact, at least a portion of this.
P+ir. Eriksson: What is the total acreage of the parcel
1 plus parcel 2?
Mr. Ahearn: 12-1/2 acres..of land.
Mr. Steben: Can you tell me approximately where the
house will be built?
Mr. Ahearn: Yes, we 've indicated right here. This
indicates the drive as well as the house. Incidentally, at it's closest
point that would be at least 200 feet away from anybody else's home.
Mrr Eriksson: I believe you said this is not designated
wetlands. Is that correct?
Mr. Ahearn: No,it is not. There may be something wrong
-13�-
up there but the Inlands-Wetlands
People haven't see fit to classif
it as Wetlands. Now, to m Y
y knowledge, it's not that wet. Now I'll readily concede I've never stomped through that at area, so. . . .
Mr. Steben: You have 2'00 feet to the nearest property?
Mr. Ahearn: At least 200 feet,
Mr. Eriksson: Did you address the nest'
hardship as brought up b Mr. question of self-created
y Cohan, where the buyer of this pro pert
bought it, When Mr. Cote' came in there P Y
were no building lots back
there.
Mr. Ahearn: yup,
Trir. Eriksson: And, the land was unusable- *, in the Present
form. Correct?
Mir. Ahearn: Under our Zoning regulations,g ations, yes,
Mr. Eriksson: Now, we as a B oat
d recognized the fact that
the 'land was unusable, and made a building lot out of it, thereby
creating it usable.
Mr. Ahearn: Technically we did that
before purchase.
Mr. Eriksson: (unintelligible word or two
to ) ' we made 12-1/2
acres into a building lot, that was now usable.
Mrs Ahearn: I 'd like to address Myself. . .
.
y . .
Mr. Eriksson: Now, all I'm sayin is
why this is not self-cre g that I don t understand.
ated hardship knowing that this is usable
One house, one lot. Okay. Usable lot. It's the s now.
same as my lot but
bigger. I,t's a lot more land obviousl
y, but I have one house and one
lot. All right?
Mx- Ahearn: I'll be glad to respond P to that.
Mr. Eriksson: And, why is this not self-created hardship
when he bought the
parcel and now says I want to cut out another
Mr. Ahearn: I don't thin Piece?
k that that's a self-created hardship
P
-14-
as one ordinarily considers when you hear these appeals. I think the
hardship itself is not a hardship that's created by Mr. Sheridan other
than in the sense that when he purchases the property he knows what
then and there exists. Now, when he purchased this property he knew
there was 12-1/2 acres of land At the: time he purchased it, there
was a house there. If you talk about self-imposed hardship, it seems
to me that logically this is the same argument that Joel Cohan argues,
that you have to conclude that that's going to be it for the. . .a hundred
years. . .in fact if the Town of South Windsor sees fit not to do anything.
That's not the situation at all. The situation here, and there is a
distinction. .this is a road that exists. It exists on any number of
maps and surveys. It's a recognized road. For reasons that the Town
knows best of, they've chosen not to improve this section of road.
They've improved part of it. And some of you were in Town when Felt road
didn't run all the way through to where it does on Palmer They
took a section of that and they ultimately opened it up. But, for
the Board to say this is a self-imposed hardship simply because Mr.
Sheridan knew it existed when he bought the house, and to have him then
say he should keep that forever the way it is and continue to pay taxes
on it, I don' t believe that that's self-imposed hardship at all.
Mr. Eriksson: All right, how do you distinguish it from,
other than the unimproved road, from the person who goes out and buys
2-1/2 acres or two acre building lot, where he puts a house on it and
then decides to cut an acre off in the back and he says, I want someone
to live there, knowing full well that the two acre lot that he bough t
with the house on it was there, it was probably intended to exist forever.
Now, he wants to take it and cut an acre off
Mr. Ahearn: I think there' s a clear distinction there.
In the one case, that lot obviously doesn't conform and can never conform
_15_
unless the Town changes the zoning regulations. But in this case here,
this lot does conform except that the Town hasn't up-graded the road to
meet it's own specifications. Now, Mr. Sheridan is not authorized
to go down there and lay highway and bring this road up to Town
specifications. He doesn't have the right to do that. The on
ly one that
has the right to do that is the Town of South Windsor. There' s the
distinction. He couldn't bring a contractor in there tomorrow and
start running that road all the way through down beyond his r
p operty
down onto Foster Street without the Town's permission. Whereas in the
case of the fellow that buys the lot, the two acre piece of land, and
decides that he would like to reap some kind of a benefit and
get, this
Board to grant a variance in the case of a portion of an acre of
rear
land for somebody to build a house, there' s a clear i
distincton. You•re
talking about a town road on one hand, and something that can comply,
p y, but
only if the Town will do something, as opposed to something that
somebody buys knowing full well it can never comply unless the Tow
n
changes its regulations.
Mr. Warren: Thank you.
Mr. Steben: One more question. Am I to understand, that
the proposed Felt Road, Mr. Hebert says his property is on the place?
Let me just get my glasses.
Mr. Ahearn: Say, that again.
Mr. Steben: Is some of Pfx- Hebert's property on the ro os
p p ed
Felt Road?
Mr. Ahearn: His property, if you look at this. . .
Mr. Hebert: I hate to break into this, but the public. . . .
Mr. Ahearn: I 'm going to ask you, if you would please,
that I didn't interrupt you, that you give- me the same courtesy and then
You'll have a chance to rebut.
-16-
Mr. Hebert.'s property looks like this with the exception that
I understand there's been a garage added. Is that right, Mr. Hebert?
I mean this. . .
Mr. Hebert: Yes, to what is the carriage house, or whatever
in those days. . .
Mr. Ahearn: And, this is the road that comes down here. Of
course, that was the plot plan that Mr. Hebert had when he purchased the
property and he knew of the existence of this road as did the Cotes '
on the other side, so it wans •t something that came as a surprise.
Mr. Warren: Yes.
Unidentified voice: Question. You say there's an existing
house on the land. they're talking about building on next door. Where
is the existing house?
Mr. Warren: Well, can you come up and indicate approximately
where on the land. . .on the topographical map. . .where your house is?
Mr. Sheridan: We're looking at my house now?
Mr. Warren: Yes, where. . .
(Approximately 20 seconds - unintelligible voices ).
Mr. Warren: Yes , are there any other questions? Did you have
another remark?
Mr. Hebert: Yes. You know, up there now you have an MDC map,
P
Throw that out. That doesn't mean anything. T��r. Ahearn states that.
You got DiBardino and MacNamara. On that map there's a schedule that
states 8/10ths of an acre per building lot. The dimensions of my land,
including the proposed Pen Road, are in that 8/10ths of an acre.
DiBardino and MacNamara map, they show a. . .talk about a right-of-way? Look
in the middle of the right-of-way. It indicates a barn, number one, and
it also indicates a fence in that area. The fence is (unintelligible) so
could this have been for public use with a barn right in the middle of it?
-17-
Now, I 've got another map here that was done fo
r Carl Cote' by a certifies
engineer that. . . .want to look at maps? We've got maps..
P Here•s the
proposed Pent Road. Here's my home. This map doesn' t show
an easement.
It comes up to my property and ceases. I mean, Mr. L
ucek has done a
fine job , the MDC has done a fine job, everyone has
done a fine job.
(unintelligible) 1968, and this clearly defines
es the road stopping at
my property, and actually if you read my plot plan it says y "area subject
to right of easement for highway purposes. " Not for
one driveway for
one individual.
Mr. Warren: Thank you.
Unidentified voices One more question. How far do
you
come back down. . .
Mr. Hebert: Let's use this as a gua e. I
g believe I
added on at that :time 10 feet. . . .
Unidentified voices You' re right here?
Mr. Hebert ; Well, I' d say almost directly to Palmer
Road to that right of way area. . . .
(unintelligible - two voices about
5 seconds) .
Mr. Hebert: I measured it from Palmer Road. Somewhere
out there on a crazy angle like by 63 feet
(About 15 seconds unintelligible - several voices at once)
Mr. Ahearn: You know, if it's of any assistance
I asked
Lucek to make some measurements with respect to Mr
Hebert s house
and the right-of-way. I want to .make one more comment directly to Mr. Hebert
I don' t understand where that map came from, but his
own surveyor showed
the right-of-way :_r unn i.ni g through, and (unint
elliglble) DiBardino
and MacNamara who actually developed this area. Mr. L ucek, if you would
offer the Board some assistance. With respect to Mr. Hebert's lands
tell the Board how far away his land is from the
building. - . . (unintelligible
• -
about 10 seconds ) Why don' t you come up here. . . (about 30 seconds uninr
telligible - many voices speaking at once).
Yx. Ahearn: I 'd like to call your attention to the fact
that most of our rights-of-way are 50 feet. . .however most of them are
paves from anywhere in the neighborhood of from 32 to 34 feet, so
if you're making the measurement you're talking about from property
P Y
line to property line and not paved road.
Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who feels a question or
remark strongly? Yes, in 'th e back?
Dick Kelley: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Kelley. I live
on 49 Rosemary Lane. I know the property in question and I believe it's
probably one of the most, nices piece of property in town. One of
the most attractive (unintelligible - 2 or 3 words ) I, as some people
know, I like to build one or two houses a year. I would be very,
very interested in a piece of property like this, especially if I
could connect Felt Road (unintelligible word) Sheridens house to Foster
Street. I also realize that there is property owned by Hornats
adjoining the Sheridan property and someday, it only seems to me
reasonable to assume, that a lot of that property will open up to
housing. If I lived on Ellinton Road at the present time, I think
I might jump at the chance to let Mr. Sheridan put a 10 foot driveway
from Foster Street into 2-1/2 acres of land, because you could almost
be guaranteed that you wouldn't have three more houses on 2-1/2 acres
of land someday coming down the pike. The gentleman has done an excel-
lent job on the house on the corner of Ellington. . . . (end of tape)
road to Foster Street, you would have a 10 foot driveway with one house.
I have no vested interest in this, but I would think if I wanted to
build a house on the particular land in question, that one of the con-
ditions that would be laid down by engineering department .is that we
• -19-
would have to construct a swale (unintelligible) undernearth the house
in question so that you would not have even the present run-off that
you have to the housing on Ellington Road. At the present time
Mr. Sheridan does not have to correct (unintelligible - 4 seconds)
If I lived there I think I would probably. . . . (unintelligible - 3 seconds ).-
Mr, `'barren: Thank you.
Mrs. Hornat: I've got a comment I'd like to make. After
listening to all the comments that the various people made, apparently
what seems apparent is that they're expecting the Sheridens and Hornats
to pay taxes for their convenience, but not allowing anything on that
land.
Mr. Warren: Before we close, is there anyone else that
has a comment? Yes, please?
Mrs. Hebert: Yes, I'm Mrs. Hebert and I live at 2355 Ellington
Road, and I think you all agree that we aren't against development
back there. Maybe it is inevitable in several years. However, why
does it have to be a through way? Why can that not be developed as
a cul-de-sac? If he's so interested in having his brother live down
the road from him why can' t he have (unintelligible) extended on his
road that already exists? I don't understand why he has to impose
a hardship on people that live at the other end of his land, We are
not exaggerating the traffic problem on that corner. Believe me. It
is very very bad corner. Without children. And, we are not exaggerating
the water problem. All you have to do is drive down Ellington Road
anytime '.- from now on and you will be hitting ruts, one after another,
wiped out by the water that pulls across that road and last winter
there were people that couldn't even open their mailboxes because they
were frozen shut by the water that was splashed and froze all over their
mail boxes.
-20-
' Mr. Warren: Thank you. Mr. Young, did you have a comment?
Mr. Youngs I just wanted to comment somewhat. . .everybody seems
to be saying something about the wetness of the land. I 've been '
living
there for. . .1962. We've experienced a total building experience.g p ence, if
you wish to call it that, and the right-of-way next to my property has
already been built up. In fact, if you will review some of your
records, Mr. Cote' has stated that he brought in several hundred yards
of gravel just to put abase on that short driveway of Mr. Sherida
n to
adequately hold traffic. If you will go through the police records
You will find that there was a bulldozer. . .a big payloader (unintelli-
gible ) came up to its hubcaps back there. I think I also want to
call your attention to Mr. Cohan's letter, the other paragraph, other
than a hardship, by granting a variance you will grant a variance for
whatever purposes you see fit, but I think what you're doing is you're
allowing the building department, the building inspector (unintelligible)
there are no backward provisions in your method here of insuring
that a building, the use of the land, etc. , is going to be properly
and be maintained. The only recourse you would haveihereafter is
in Court tolry and (unintelligible) building department. I think
a subdivision is not necessarily restricted to three or more lots. It
could be two. I think we're looking for safe-guards more than anything.
Not restricting lots to be built up, but let's do it properly. Let's
provide safe-guards. Thank you.
Mr. Warren: Thank you. Did we get all the feelings out
that people want to express? Any questions? That includes you, Mr.
Sheridan? Thank you. Then I'll declare the public participation
portion of this hearing closed and we'll notify the appellant by mail
of our decision.
.pow"
W T-a O- ?Ai�
o �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
e•co�' AREA CODE 203/644-2511
March 5, 1979
CERTIFIED MAIL
Frank Ahearn, Esq.
5 Oakland Road
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Mr, Ahearn:
Res ZBA Application No, 1296-79
Robert J. Sheridan
. The above application to the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting
a variance of Article 5.2, Section 5, to allow a building lot
without the required frontage on a paved street on premises
i
known as Felt Road, n an AA-30 zone, has been denied.
The Board deniedthe variance because it believed that the intent
of the comprehensive plan of the Planning & Zoning Commission would
be violated by allowing a driveway to come out through the right
of way on the Hebert property, rather than establishing access to
the entire parcel through the 50 foot right of way to the east of
Cotes property, or the established cut on Felt Road Extension on
the Palmer Drive end.
It was also the intent of this Board in granting the initial
variance on the 12.5 acre parcel (November, 1975) to create one
building lot of 12.5 acres with one house on it for the appellant.
At that time there was a hardship which was eliminated by granting
the variance, thus making the 12.5 acres a usable piece of land.
Voting in favor of the denial were Board members Warren, Eriksson,
filurrin and Earley; with Steben dissenting.
Yo rs very truly,
vg Robert W. Warren$ Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
RICHAR��//D M. RITTEN13AND
shhwze�al-91am
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 06074
(203) 644-2456
March 28, 1979
Mrs . Virginia Graney
Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Re : Robert J. Sheridan, et ux
VS. ZBA of Town of
South Windsor
Dear Ginny:
Since the above plaintiffs are taking an appeal
on the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals in the
above matter, will you kindly prepare for me 3 copies of the
complete file, including transcript of the hearing,
notices , letters , etc. that you may have.
Thank you.
Ver truly your ,
Richard M. Rittenband
Town Attorney
RMR/dds
It OwN Sf,
Co -awz--t o-1?So� ?d&zd&)t
W. 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
OR.CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511
May 3, 1979
Richard M. Rittenband, Esq.
1734 Ellington Road
South Windsor, Conn. 06074
Dear Dick:
Re: Robert Sheridan v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Enclosed please find three copies of the transcript of
the public hearing, application, legal notices and Minutes in
the above matter.
I'm also enclosing the following surveys or maps which
were presented at the public hearing: Map of Valley View Farms
prepared by Hayden Griswold, map of Green Acres prepared by
McNamara & DiBerardino, map of property of Carol Sheridan prepared
by Emil Lucek, topographic survey of MDC, copy of Plan of Devel-
opment of the P & Z Commission, and Sanitary Sewer Construction
map prepared by James S. Minges & Associates.
Sincerely,
vg Virginia S. Graney,
encs. Secretary, ZBA
CC: Mr. Robert W. Warren, Chairman