Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Variance (50)
APPLICATION FOR TOWN OF SOUTH W I N D S 0 R 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. 4. Application must be delivered to Chairman or Secretary no later than 15 days prior to first Thursday of each month. Submit application as soon as possible because it will be returned if incomplete or not described satisfactorily. 5. The applicant or his representative must be present for the Board Meeting (time and place to be advised). TO BE COMPLETED Y BOARD / Filed ( 7.� . . . . Applicant Marion P. Case AT E in• :sKge 5t, So., Wind 'sor ,Conn.,. . . Fee � � • � � • . • . Mailing Address ��•1444 Ma • i Receipt No. !c� .C /.T.7 Is applicant a corporation, co-partnership or individual? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 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: ®REQUEST VARIATION,OF ZONING ORDINANCE: To vary Article . . . : .�... . . . . . . . . Section . . . . . . . . . . . . t+d tii L a'7" � . . 7`J4 C. •��:; L'11�-a.•� / i2`fl 7��. . . . . . . . . . . . U to allow . . . . . . . . . ❑ OR SPECIFIC EXCEPTION OR APPROVAL UNDER Section• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . toallow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑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 PERMIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �:� . . . Zone 4.'' .�'• on premises known as . . . . �• •� (STREET AN UMSERI Owner of property . ri4 r i c , Pe. .Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address 1444. Main .S t. ,S o.Windsor,Conn. -1- State the particular hardship or unnecessary difficulty that prompts this application: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Continue on 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.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 & 0 Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I —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. N AS 14 csj M hp14V3 Ate€ �i=rycC. 10 I. 1 r r V t �C ACTION OF THE BOARD at the meeting held on GRANTED r DENIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G%� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./IPX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restrictions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR T)P Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J Received from ----------- --------0------------- ----------=---t----------r- -----r ---------------------------------------==---- --�L- - --`- --- -�- of -----�`-t=----------------------1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .__ `__ Dollars fee for a hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This hearing is to cover application number ____-- r^___,for_____________t-_�_.____ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 Dated at South Windsor,Conn.,this--------- --- .----y___day of----_•__ `-__"_________________________________________19___-_-- Signed {� , ------------F- ----- ---------------=-----'•-r--------------- ---------- SECRETARY January 180 1979 Mrs* Marion Pe Case 1444 Main St. So, Windsor, Ct. 06074 Dear Mrs, Cases Res App. No* 1297-79 Your application to the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals will be heard at a Public Hearing on Thursday, February 1, 1979, at 700 po me in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall. You, or someone representing you, must be present. Please complete the enclosed form by inserting the legal description of the property in question and the name of the owner, and bring it with you the night of the hearing. Also enclosed is a receipt for the application fee of $30. Yours very truly, vg Robert W. Warren, Chairman encs. 1712 Main Street E. Windsor Hill , Connecticut 06028 January 26 , 1979 Mr. Robert Warren, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South Windsor 494 Abby Road South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Mr. Warren: Mrs. Marion Case will be coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 1 to request a variance to the 150 feet zoning frontage requirement in the historic district on Main Street. We did not learn of Mrs. Case ' s applica- tion until Wednesday, January 24. I had established plans to be out of the state on business at that time making it impossible to attend that meeting. The lot in question is a back lot or wood lot behind 1752 Hain. Street with an access strip 50 feet wide from the lot to Main Street. Zoning variances similar to the one being requested have occassionally been granted in South Windsor. However, according to the town clerk' s office, no variances of this type, in fact no zoning variances at all have been granted on Main Street. Many people feel , and town reports support the feeling, that it is important to preserve the atmosphere that the historic district and Main Street now present. The build- ing of a house in the lot in question would be detremen- tal to preserving that atmosphere. In addition. the grant- ing of such a variance would set a precedent. It would be difficult to grant this particular request and to deny similar requests in. the future. As you are aware, there is quite a bit of open land behind the houses on I-lain Street. The development of any of this land in a manner similar to that purposed by Mrs. Case would further jeopardize the atmosphere that Main Street presents. I therefore respectfully suggest that Mrs. Case ' s -2 application for a variance to the zoning frontage require- ment be denied. Sincerely, Robert L. Craven, Jr. t, _" ���%► S' Transcript of a portion of a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on February 1, 1979• Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals present: Warren, Eriksson Cowles and Murrin. Alternates present: Earley (sitting for Vitiello) . Mr. Warren: The next application is application 1297-79, Marion Case of 1444 Main Street, South Windsor, for a building lot with less than required frontage. Mr. Woodcock: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Attorney John Woodcock, and I'm an attorney with a law practice here in South Windsor with offices located at 16. . Mr. Warren: Excuse me. Could somebody close that door? Somebody? Will that work? Shove it. Just give it a good shove. Mr. Cowles : I 'm going to turn the heat up. Secretary: You can't. The thermostat is locked. Mr. Woodcock: Let me try again. I'Rt Attorney John Wood- cock. Good evening. I'm here this evening on behalf of Marion Case of 1444 Main Street, South Windsor. She's a long-time resident of South Windsor and is the widow of Albro Case, who is widely reknown in South Windsor, and all over the State, as a restorer of classic homes, many of those homes which stand on Main Street. The prop- erty in question is located on the easterly side of Main Street. There is. . .attached to the application I've included the MDC layout and it consists of approximately 3.8 acres of land, located diag- nally across the street from the Ellsworth Junior High School. The property extends approximately 165 feet easterly from Main Street. 165,000 square feet more or less of land here. The application is for a variance to allow a building lot on property with less than required frontage. The frontage for this piece -2- of land is 50.01 feet. This is an A-40 zone. The required frontage in an A-40 zone is, of course, 150 feet. The proposed use for this property will be a building of a home, a residence for a family. My client does have someone who is interested in the property, and a condition of that particular acquisition is that we get approval as a building lot. The proposed home would be located approximately 400 to 500 feet from Main Street. If you stood out on Main Street and looked in you could not. . .would not see it. You may see it in the winter but it's highly doubtful you would. This is a very heavily wooded piece of land. There are a few wet spots, but the method of utilizing the rear land, if the Board should act favorably on this application, would be to run a 15 foot driveway approximately 330 feet to the rear. . .the rear land which kindof opens out. Now, the applicant and the people who are interested in this particular piece of property, have been made aware of the fact that this is an Historical District and that Historical District Commission approvals would have to be obtained before they could build in this area. And, that is something that we have brought to your attention. Furthermore, for the Board's attention, in preparing my presentation, I reviewed the Inland-Wetlands Map, and there is a piece of this property that is located within the wetlands, so anybody who would seek to build a home there would have to go to Inland-Wetlands and get their approval before a building permit could issue. Now, as I stated previously, this piece of land is heavy woodland, sort of an uneven terrain, and is wet in a few areas. The cases in the Supreme Court, and the Courts in Connecticut, 3- in defining hardships, what they basically do is they apply a two- fold test. That test is, is the property in its present situation useful, or is it useless. Is there any utility for this particu- lar piece of property and if there is not, would the creation of whatever proposal we're talking about, would that be non-conformity with the rest of the neighborhood. In other words, would it have any negative impact, or negative effect on the neighborhood. The piece of land in question is over four times the size of a required building lot in this particular zone. As I've stated before, it's 165,000 square feet. The applications of the present zoning regulations of this Town, would, in effect, destroy any use for this property. There's no other use for it. You can't farm there; obviously there's no commercial activity permitted, and the only feasible way to use this property would be to build a home on it. The rationale, and I don't have to get into this with the Board, on each application, what we're concerned with is what is the condition of the piece of property before you. And, I think, in this particu- lar case, that before you is such that if the variance were not acted. . .were not approved, it would be, it would amount to a con- fiscatory type action, because Mrs. Case would not have any alterna- tive with respect to what she could do with the land. The case of Lessner v. the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Manchester, the Supreme Court held that the application of the Manchester frontage requirements was confiscatory, because the owner could not get the required frontage and that particular case there was a 120 foot requirement for frontage in this particular zone. It was a large piece of land like the piece of land that's before the Board -4- tonight and the frontage on that piece of land was 100 feet. The Board denied the variance to the regulations and the applicant appealed the Board's action and the Court held that because the applicant was unable to acquire any other frontage other than her hundred feet, that what the Board's action constituted was a confis- catory type condemnation act. I think we have that sort of situation here. In fact, I know we have that situation here. There's no way Mrs. Case can obtain any other frontage. All the other lots around her particular piece of land, they have assorted areas of frontage, but if you look at the map you can see there's no way she can pick up any more frontage. Now with respect to the character of the neighborhood, it's one and two families, As I 've stated before, diagnally across the street we have the Ellsworth Junior High School, and it's in the East Windsor Hill area of Main Street. Addressing myself to the question of precedents, this sort of variance is a common one in South Windsor and other towns. Each time the Board of Appeals looks into an application or variance of this nature, they make a determination as to whether the condition of the land in question would create a hardship for the person. Now here in South Windsor, we've had many precedents of which I'm going to name just two, because I think they're quite applicable. I've done some re- search as to prior Board actions, and I've got two that I'm going to read into the record and talk to you about,this evening. The first prior action is the application No. 1092-1975. This concerned ten acres. . .I'm sure most of you gentlemen are aware of this. .you probably acted upon it. This concerned ten acres of land on Abby Road, -S- in an RR zone, and I believe the required frontage is 1?5 feet. The applicants came in and sought a variance with respect to having this piece of land, this ten acre piece, made a one. . . .made a building lot, and the Board after hearing the presentation ruled that the property was unsuitable for anything else and farming, etc. , and for that reason they granted the variance. The other application I would like to mention this evening was application 960-73. This was a variance granted in an A-40 zone. There was a 12 acre piece of land, 50 foot frontage, very similar to the situation we have this evening. Of particular significance was that piece of land was located on Main Street, and the Board, after hearing the presentation,made a determin- ation that the piece of property, it was unsuitable for any other use and allowed a variation for a building lot. I have, with me, a petitition signed by sixteen residents of the Town of South Windsor, all of whom live on Main Street, who support this application. In closing, I would like to read to the Board a citation from a Connecticut Supreme Court decision which I thought was quite interesting when I was preparing my presentation. The case is Finch v. Montenary and it may be found at 143 Connecticut, page 542. In that particular case the Court stated that the function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to protect the individual property owner from unnecessary hardships owing to some condition affecting his land peculiarly, which it is not necessary for him to suffer in order to effectuate the general plan of zoning adopted for the community as a whole. Well, here we have a peculiarity. In our piece of land, and secondly, the proposed use, what we're looking for, is not something -6- that is going to have any significant impact or is going to run against the grain of our zoning plan for our community. If the Court should seek to act favorably upon this request for a variance, of course, the applicant would be most acceptable to any resonable conditions. Mr. Warren: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this appeal: Richard Doran: I 'm Richard Doran. I live at 1828 Main Street. I support this application. Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Margaret Peck: I'm Margaret Peck, 1862 Main Street. I'm not opposed. Secretary: That was Margaret Peck? 1862? Margaret Peck: Yes. Mr. Warren: Anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Before we hear those in opposition I have one letter in opposition. It's from a Mr. Robert L. Craven, Jr. of 1712 Main Street, addressed to me: "Dear Mr. Warren: Mrs. Marion Case will be coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 1 to request a variance to the 150 feet zoning frontage requirement in the historic district on Main Street. We did not learn of Mrs. Case's application until Wednesday, January 24. I had established plans to be out of the state on business at that time making it impossible to attend that meeting. The lot in question is a back lot or wood lot behind 1752 Main Street with an access strip 50 feet wide from the lot to Main Street. Zoning variances similar to the one being requested have occasionally been granted in South Windsor. However, according to the town clerk's office, no variance of this type, in fact no _7_ zoning variance at all have been granted on Main Street. Many people feel, and town reports support the feeling, that it is important to preserve the atmosphere that the historic district and Main Street now present. The building of a house in the lot in question would be detrimental to preserving that atmosphere. In addition the granting of such a variance would set a precedent. It would be difficult to grant this particular request and to deny similar requests in the future. As you are aware, there is quite a bit of open land behind the houses on Main Street. The development of any of this land in a manner similar to that purposed by Mrs. Case would further jeopar- dize the atmosphere that Main Street presents. I therefore respectfully suggest that Mrs. Case's application for a variance to the zoning frontage requirement be denied. " Mr. Warrens Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes? Mrs. Robert Craven: I'm Mrs. Robert Craven and I also live at 1712 Main Street and I would like to say that I oppose and I 'd like to add. . .is it okay if I add a statement?. . . .I'd like to speak in conjecture with what the lawyer said about the fact that it would plane a hardship on the land. Mr. Albro Case chose to divide that property from the piece that was in front of it, so it was at their decision that the lot got divided in the first place and a 50 foot frontage was kept. I think that should be put into the record. That it was not originally just a piece of land in there. Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes? Paul Clapp: I'm Paul Clapp, 1693 John Fitch Boulevard and I'm opposed and I'd like to know what will happen to the water from that. . . . . (unintelligible) . -8- Mr. Warren: The water from the front piece itself. . . . Mr. Clapp: From the driveway. It's a long drive, from Main Street to the lot (unintelligible - about 10 seconds ) . Mr. .Warren: Thank you. The Wetlands is a good point. That was what the attorney was trying to. acknowledge. If we were to approve the applicant, or anyone trying to build here, they would have to go with a site plan to the Inland-Wetlands Commission and that is what they're very careful aboutt. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes? Mrs. John Clapp: I'm Mrs, John Clapp from 1693 John Fitch Boulevard (unintelligible - 2 or 3 ,seconds ) and I'm opposecIl to it. Mr. Warren: How far is this property from John Fitch Boulevard? What's the depth of this property and what distance is your back lot from Route 5? Mr. Clapp: We go on the side of their property - probably 175 feet - or something - I don't know. Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes? Barbara Accorsi: 1752 Main Street. Mr, Warren: Do you have her name for the record? Secretary: No, I don't. Mr. Warren: Name? Mrs. Accorsi: Barbara Accorsi. Secretary: A C 0 R S I? Mrs. Accorsi: A C C 0 R S I. Secretary: Thank you. Mr. Warren: You said 1?52? Mrs. Accorsi: Yes. This is planned on being built behind our -9- home, and I feel that the historical atmosphere, that it will. . . (unin- telligible - 2 or 3 seconds ) four or five hundred feet up the street . . .our home is very historical. . .it, housed (unintelligible) of the Theological Seminary at one time. We've done an awful lot of work on it. We've worked for seven years on it and to have a home put. . .in such a manner. . . .to be put right in our back yard. . . .I think South Windsor (unintelligible) . Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Dr. Zarapees : I'm Dr. Zarapees and I live at 1653 Main Street. I live down the street and I'm very (unintelligible - word or two) as a matter of fact the whole family. My concern is that is going to set a precedent with developing the land in back and in consequence it will have a grave effect on traffic on Main Street. We've already had a near fatality not much longer than six to eight months ago. A car almost struck my son who was riding a bicycle. . . . (End of tape. Due either' to mechanical failure of the recording equipment, or a defective tape, nothing was recorded for the following 25 to 30 minutes on- one side of the tape. When the tape was changed at the end of approximately 25-30 minutes the recording continued. Mr. Warren: Next please. Yes? Doris Rockwell: I 'm Doris Rockwell, 1713 Main Street and like the good Dr. Zarapees, Mrs. Case has been a friend of mine for, oh, for even years before she came to South Windsor, but I am opposed because I believe it would set a precedent and also I think there will be a traffic problem there. It's bad enough now mornings and nights and as Dr. Zarapees said, the speeding is unbelievable at timest and as far as the water there is concerned, when we were kids it was the local skating pond. There was that much water there at times. In the -10- s ummer there wasn't because it was a dry summer, and besides that you had the biggest and baddest mosquitos in South Windsor, Mr. Warrens Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Mr. Addington: Linwood Addington of 1648 Main Street. Looking back actually as to what things have actually happened on Main Street, the residential, R-40 zone (unintelligible) the line was drawn basically giving depth to that zone to give the old Main Street area sort of a bumper zone from (unintelligible) residential Route 5, and there was a split approximately when you get to our house - approximately down the middle, which actually made for a bumper zone. And, now if you start building all down through that whole back area you've lost the whole effect of the bumper zone between an Industrial and the older homes, which are taxed very highly in town. It's classified as a real expensive area and if you go in line with the taxes and now you start to build houses behind houses and actually lower the quality of the area, it's really sort of putting knives on tacks and I would oppose building houses behind all these houses on this street. Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Yes? Calvin Lane: Calvin Lane of 870 Main Street. Mrs. Case is a good neighbor, but I must oppose this petition. I would support the evidence presented in the letter you read to us and that the other people in the area also presented. Onother occasions similar appeals have been turned down. I know one of my neighbors who went up to the Town Hall a few months ago and asked for a permit to engage in a similar activity, that is, a (unintelligible word) to allow for a rather narrow driveway to build in the back of a lot. Now, there -11- are many such lots on Main Street. I'm not as concerned with Mrs. Cases ' piece of property as I am with the possible setting here of a very real precedent, because what you might decide in this case it would seem to me would apply in many other instances up and down the street. Because this is a condition peculiar to Main Street and I am worried that developers, when there is development, may come in and their interest is not the best interests of the residents o f the area, and this also could be applied to additional traffic and I also am opposed to what seems to be to me spot zoning. The Zoning Code was drawn up to protect both individuals and the residents of an area and it seems to me in this instance we have a matter of spot zoning (unintelligible - 1 or a seconds ). Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak now? Pat Robbins : Pat Robbins, 1803 Main Street. Secretary: I'm sorry. I didn't catch the last name. Pat Robbinsa Robbins - R 0 B B I N S. Secretary: That was 1803? Thank you. Pat Rbboinss Along with everyone else, Mrs. Case is a friend of mine but, and, specifically picking on the change of zoning on Main Street, rty husband and I have talked this over and over again and I have to say not to do this because we are across the street and we have open land from our home completely down to the river and if this is changed, I wonder what would happen in years to come. This may change the areas next to me and I would hate to see property in back of me. There is a historical sign about 500 yards up the street from me that reads "today I rode through paradise" and I believe that's all. Thank you. -12-� Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Is there anyone else who would just like to comment for or against - or just make a comment? or ask a question? Dr. Zarapees : I just want to stress, I've been interested in historical districts for a long time and I'm living in a house now that is part of the National Historical District registry. I think that eventually we have a good chance of putting this whole district in the National Registry. Everyone that I have spoken to at State level, and out of state level, has said that this is a very unique area. As a matter of fact, it is likened to the Deer- field of - Massachusetts, and I think Mr. Case probably knew that. That's why he was living there all those years. There is no other place that I can think of along the Connecticut River other than Deerfield that has it. . . .that we can say this about. I think we would be making a tragic mistake. Mr. Warren: Did you have any comments in relation to this? Mr. Wood.c. ock: I did have a couple of comments and I was regress and I apologize for not presenting to the Board a survey which I have which more clearly shows this piece of land. Mr. Warren: It's time for questions from the Board anyway, and one of the questions. . . .which can t be answered from this. . .b ut how far is it from the back of Mrs. Cases property to John Fitch Boulevard? Do you know that? Mr. Woodcock: I wouldn't know, but probably somebody from the audience would have that information. I think. . . . . (Several voices, all unintelligible, for two or three seconds ). Unidentified voice: Is that property all in the A zone, or is that part of it into the Industrial? (Several unintelligible voices at once for 2 seconds ). -13- Mr. Woodcock: It's all A-40. Unidentified voice: All A-40. Mr, Woodcock: Yes, it is. Mr. Eriksson: Can you elaborate on the history of this property? How did it get in the form that it's in? Do you. . . Mr. Woodcock: How did it get with a 50 foot frontage? Mr. Eriksson: Yes. Was it self-created? Mr. Woodcock: It was not self-created by Mrs. Case. I was waiting for that question. I figure it's a very appropriate question. Mrs. Case's husband purchased the property, I believe, in 1962. Mr. Eriksson: What is "the" property? As it stands now? Mr. Woodcock: The entire piece. . . . Mr. Eriksson: Entire piece? Mr. Woodcock: The entire piece, which includes this home in front. Mr. Erikssons The Accorsi home? Mr. Woodcock: The Accorsi home. Mr. Eriksson: He bought the . . . Mr. Woodcock: He bought the whole piece of land about 800 by 200. Mr. Erikssons Was this cut out of it? Was it one lot? Mr. Woodcocks It was one lot at that time when Mr. Case purchased it. Mr. Warren: About when was that? Mr. Woodcocks 1962, I believe. Let me check my file. August 24, 1962. Mr. Warren: He subsequently sold that? -14- Mr. Woodcock: I understand (unintelligible word or two) he restored the Accorsi home, did some work on it, and then he put the entire piece on the market. The 200 by 865 foot piece. He did find a purchaser who purchased it in 1964s And they did not want the rear piece, being the 50 foot by 330 foot border there and the Leonards subsequently, I believe, in the late 60's or early 70's conveyed the property in the front adjacent to the subject property to the Accorsis. But, Mrs. Case did not became the owner of the land until Mr. Case died a couple of years ago. In '71. She's had the property through probate since 1971. Mr. Warren: Does Mrs. Case own any adjacent land? Immediately adjacent? Mr. Woodcock: She owns a large home up in East Windsor Hill which is almost to the dead end there. . .it's the second house on the end. . .the large brick home. Mr. Warrens She doesn't own any property adjacent to this property? Mr. Woodcock: No. Mr. Eriksson: Are there any other accesses to this property other than the 50 feet? Mr. Woodcock: no. Mrs. Case: Right-of-way. Mr. Woodcock: Oh, there's a right-of-way, as I understand, even though it's not shown on this map which through the deeds emmanating back to the 1820's runs along the northerly boundary of the Accorsi property. Mr. Eriksson: But, as far as anything. . . Mr. Woodcock: No, there is not. (General discussion for about one minute with many unintelligible voices. ) -15- Mr. Warrens What's the approximate assessment value? Mrs. Case: (unintelligible - 10 seconds ) I'm not sure. Four thousand something. Mr. Warren: I'm a little bit confused. Earlier you stated the house is to be built four to five hundred feet from the street, yet the driveway would be like 330 feet deep? How would they. . . would they walk the rest of the way? (Laughter) Mr. Woodcock: I don't believe so. It Just gives you an idea of how large a piece of land it is. No, I would assume that the builder who put the home there would have the driveway run to the home (unintelligible). I :sake the representation that it's 400 to 500 feet. It's second hand information. I received that information from the attorney who represents the prospective pur- chaser, if indeed, there's ever a prospective purchaser. This is information that was given to me. Mr. Warren: One of the obvious difficulties which is related to a parcel of this kind, is the actual physical placement. In other words, if we, by approval of what you're. . . . just what youtre request- ing, made this a building lot, and someone subsequently could place that building like anywhere they wanted to as long as they met proper rear yard and side yard requirements, so it's been fairly normal for the Board when approving such small frontage to at least fix conditions on it. Normally, we look at a map and say this building shall be as indicated on the map. You said at the start, I guess, any reasonable restrictions? Mr. Woodcock: Yes, yes, any reasonable restrictions. Mr. Warrens Any other questions? Royal Cowless Would this. . .as far as the Wetlands are concerned. . -16- would that restrict the building of a home on a certain part of this? Mr. Eriksson: That would be their jurisdiction. Mr. Cowles : Pardon? Mr. Warren: Inland-Wetlands would be concerned about the placement of a house too. That would be another difficulty for us to acknowl4dge and try to specify (unintelligible - 2 seconds ). Mr. Cowles : Any they would govern the type of building that would be there? Be put up there? No - the Historical Society would. In other words, if you get the variance you have to go to the Wetlands Commission. . . . , Mr. Woodcock: And Historical Commission. . . Mr. Cowles : and Historical . Mr. Warren: If they wanted to build they'd have to. Mr. Cowles : Where is this Wetlands part of the property? Mr. Woodcock: Okay. I 'm going on memory now. . .I believe it's over in this area here. . .okay. . .and it may be over to the rear as well. But, this is the area that I believe it's in. You may wish to check it. Mr. Cowles : Is there a pond on this property over here. Mr. Woodcock: No. Mr. Cowles : Then what is it? Mrs. Case: (Unintelligible) Mr. Woodcock: It's a very small area. . . (several voices at once, unintelligible, about 2 or 3 seconds) . Mr. Cowles : All right. I've got my answers. Thank you. Brad Case : I'm Brad Case, Mrs. Case's son. (Several unintelli- gible voices for about 90 seconds ). -17- Mr. Warren: Any other questions from the Board? Then I'll declare. . . . Mr. Woodcock: I'd like to make a closing statement. . . Mr. Warren: Before you do that. . . .I 'll let you do that, we'll have one more statement from you. Linwood Addington: Linwood Addington again. There's just one thing I would like to mention. This property is basically wet. If there's a cellar allowed to be put on the property it's not only a situation of draining the surface of theproperty. It's going to be draining in on property down to the base of the cellar. This is the thing that happened on property adjacent to my property. There were two houses built. The Town allowed the builders to put tile. . . .a network of tile, down on the top of the clay. . .which is actually the bottom of the water table. . .and drain into the Town sewer. It drained the pond out. It drained my well out, The surface of the water was a lot lower than it ever was before. So, in essenee, when they build on a piece of property like that is, naturally wet, whatever they use to drain. . .most of the time it's a matter of running the tile out to a street or something , they basically drain the water table down. There's a lot of shallow wells in that area. Mr. Woodcock: Very briefly, I'd just like to restate to the Board that Mrs. Case is extremely conscious of the Historical signi- ficance of this particular district. She's lived here for many, many years, and one of the first things she did in considering to sell this property to someone else, was to determine what the standards and the requirements where of the Historical District Commission and bring those standards and requirements to the -18- attention of the prospective purchaser to ensure that wh o ,ever was going to be build there would would do so with full knowledge of the signif icance. . . .the Historical significance of the area and whatever building that person put up would be in continuity with the theme and atmosphere of that part of our community. Mr. Warren: I'll declare the public participation portion of this hearing closed, and we'll notify you by mail, Mrs. Case, of our decision. �QW H Sf°< , _a -4e U�zql 0 s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 f OR•CO /• AREA CODE 203 644-2511 February 59 1979 John J. Woodcock, III, Esq. P. 0., Box 445 So, Windsor, Ct. 06074 Dear Mr, Woodcock: Re : App, No, 1297-79 Marion P. Case The above application to the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals requesting a variance of Article 5.29 Section 5, to allow a building lot with less than required frontage on property on Main Street as shown on the map on file with the above application, in an A-40 Zone, has been denied. The Board voted unanimously to deny the application because it felt the hardship was self-created. Yours very truly, vg Robert W. Warren, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals CERTIFIED MAIL RICHARD M. RITTENBAND al Y'am 1734 ELLINGTON ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 06074 (203) 644-2456 March 7 , 1979 Mrs. Virginia Graney Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Marion Case v. ZBA Dear Ginny: An appeal has been filed in the above matter. Will you kindly send me three copies of your complete file in this matter including the newspaper notice (s) , letters , minutes and a transcript of the public hearing. Thank you. Verb true yours , Richard M. Rittenband Town Attorney RMR/dds �O*N Sf�( O wf le, T-ow� 074C So ?din� .7 rl * ti o w` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 l��soR•CO- AREA CODE 203/644-2511 March 27, 1979 I hereby certify that to the best of my ability this is a true and accurate verbatim transcript of the public hearing held on February 1, 1979, concerning application No. 1297-79, Marion Case, requesting a variance of Article 5. 2, Section 5, to allow a building lot with less than required frontage on property located on Main Street, as shown on the map on file with the application, in an A-40 zone. vi gi a S. Gran , Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Transcript of a portion of a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on February 1, 19799 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals present: Warren, Eriksson Cowles and Murrin. Alternates present: Earley (sitting for Vitiello) . Mr. Warren: The next application is application 1297-79, Marion Case of 1444 Main Street, South Windsor, for a building lot with less than required frontage. Mr. Woodcock: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Attorney John Woodcock, and I 'm an attorney with a law practice here in South Windsor with offices located at 16. . Mr, Warren: Excuse me. Could somebody close that door? Somebody? Will that work? Shove it. Just give it a good shove. Mr. Cowles : I 'm going to turn the heat up. Secretary: You can't. The thermostat is locked. Mr, Woodcock: Let me try again. I'm Attorney John Wood- cock. Good evening. I 'm here this evening on behalf of Marion Case of 144.4 Main Street, South Windsor. She's a long-time resident of South Windsor and is the widow of Albro Case, who is widely reknown in South Windsor, and all over the State, as a restorer of classic homes, many of those homes which stand on Main Street. The prop- erty in question is located on the easterly side of Main Street. There is. . .attached to the application I've included the MDC layout and it consists of approximately 3.8 acres of land, located diag- nally across the street from the Ellsworth Junior High School. The property extends approximately 165 feet easterly from Main Street. 165,000 square feet more or less of land here. The application is for a variance to allow a building lot on property with less than required frontage. The frontage for this piece -2 of land is 50.01 feet. This is an A- 0 zone, The required fronta in an A-40 zone is, of course, 150 f ge 5 feet* The proposed use for this property will be a building of a home, a residence for a family. M% y client does have someone who is interested in the property, and a condition of that particular acquisition is that we et as a building lot. The proposed h g approval home would be located a 400 to 500 feet from Main Str pproxir�ately Street. If you stood out on Main Scree and looked in t you could not. . .would not see it. you m the winter but it's hi hl ay see it in g y doubtf doubtful you would. This is a very wooded piece of land. There are a few heavily wet spots, but the method of utilizing the rear land, if the Board should act favorably on this application, would be to run a 15 foot driveway approximately 330 feet to the rear. . .the rear land which 3 - kindof opens out. Now, the applicant and the people who are interested in this particular piece of property, have ve been made aware of the fact that this is an Historical District and that Historical District Commission approvals would have to be obtained before they could build in this area. And, that is something that we have brought to your attention. Furthermore, for the Board's attention, in preparing my presentation, I reviewed the Inland-Wetlands Map, and there is a piece of this property that is located within the wetlands, so anybody who would seek to build a home there would have to go to Inland-Wetlands and get their approval before a building Permit could issue. Now, as I stated previously, this piece of land is heavy woodland, sort of an uneven terrain, and is wet in a few areas. The cases in the Supreme Court, and the Courts in Connecticut, in defining hardships, what they basically do is they apply a two- fold test. That -test is, is the propert in useful, or is it us y its present situation Bless. Is there any utility for this particu- lar art' • cu- lar p • iece of property and if there is not, would the creation of whatever proposal we're talkingabout,ut, would that be non-conformity with the rest of the neighborhood. In other words, would it have any negative impact, or negative effect on th _ e neighborhood. The piece of land in question is over four times the size of .a required building lot in this particular zone. As I•ve stated before, it's 1659000 square feet. The applications of the present zoning regulations of this .Town, would, in of fect, destroy any use for this property. There •s no other use for it. You can't farm there; obviously there's no commercial activity permitted, and the only feasible way to use this property would be to build a home on it. The rationale, and I don't have to et g into this with the Board, on each application, what we're concerned with is what is the condition of the piece of property before you. And, I thin k, in this particu- lar case, that before you is such that if the variance were not acted. . .were not approved, it would be, it would amount to a con- fiscatory type action, because Mrs. Case would not have any alterna- tive with respect to what she could do with the land. The case of Lessner v. the Zoning Board of Appeals of the To wn of Manchester, the Supreme Court held that the application of the Manchester frontage requirements was confiscatory, because the owner could not get the required frontage and that particular case there was a 120 foot requirement for frontage in this particula r zone. It was a large piece of land like the piece of land that• s before the Board _4- tonight and the frontage on that piece of land was 100 feet. The Board denied the variance to the regulations and the applicant appealed the Board's action and the Court held th at at because the .applicant was unable to acquire any other frontage tage other than her hundred feet, that what the Board's action co nstituted was a confis- catory type condemnation act. I think we ha,Ve that sort of situation here. In fact, I know we have that situation here.- There's no way Mrs. . Case can obtain any other frontage. Al l ll the other Lots around her particular piece of land, they have assorted areas of frontage, but if you look at the map you can see there's no way she can pick up any more frontage. Now with respect to the character of the neighborhood, it's one and two families p As I ve stated before, diagnally across the street we have the Ellswor th Junior High School, and it's in the East Windsor Hill area of Main Street. Addressing myself to the question of r p ecedents, this sort of .variance is a common one in South Windsor and other to wns. Each time the Board of Appeals looks into an application or ' variance of this nature, they make a determination as to whether the condition of the land in question would create a hardship for the person. Now here in South Windsor, we've had many precedents of which I' • m going to name just two, because I think they're quite applicable. I've done some re- search as to prior Board actions, and I've got two th at I'm going to read into the record and talk to you about-this evening. The first prior action is the application No. 1092--1 9?5• This concerned ten acres. . . I'm sure most of you gentlemen are aware of this. .you probably acted upon it. This concerned ten acres of land on Abby Road,. -S- in an RR zone, and I believe the required frontage is 175 feet. The applicants came in and sought a variance with respect to having this piece of land, this ten acre piece, made a one. . . .made a building lot, and the Board after hearing the presentation ruled that the property was unsuitable for anything else and farming, etc. , and for that reason they granted the variance. The other application I would like to mention this evening was application 960-7 3• This was a variance granted in an A-40 zone. There was a 12 acre piece of land, 50 foot frontage, very similar to the situation we have this evening. Of particular significance was that piece of land was located on 1 ain Street, and the Board, after .hearing the presentation,made a determin- ation that the piece of property, it was .unsuitable for any other use and allowed a variation for a building lot. I have, with me, a petitition signed by sixteen residents of the Town of South Winds or, all of whom live on Main Street, who support this application. In closing, I would like to read to the Board a citation from a Connecticut Supreme Court decision which I thought was quite interesting when I was preparing my presentation. The case is Finch v. Montenary and it may be found at 143 Connecticut, page 542. In that particular case the Court stated that the function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to protect the individual property owner from unnecessary hardships owing to some condition affecting his land peculiarly, which it is not necessary for him to suffer in order to effectuate the general plan of zoning adopted for the community as a whole. Well, here we have a peculiarity. In our piece of land, and secondly, the proposed use, what we're looking for, is not something - 6- . that is going to have any significant impact or is going to run against the grain of our zoning plan for our community. . If the Court should seek to act favorab for a variance, of c ly upon this request nurse, the applicant would be most acceptable to any resonable conditions. p le Mr. Warrens Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this appeals Richard Dorans I 'm Richard Doran. I live at 1828 Main Street. I support this application. Mr. Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Margaret Peck: I'm Margaret Peck, 1862 Main Street. I'm not Opposed* Secretary: That was Margaret Peck 1862? Margaret Peck: Yes. Mr. Warren: Anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Before we hear those in opposition I have one letter in opposition. It's from a Mr. Robert L. Craven, Jr, of 1 712 Main Street, addressed to me; "Dear Mr. Warrens Mrs. Marion Case will be coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals on February1 to request a variance to the 150 feet zoning frontage requirement in the historic district on Main Street. We did not learn of Mrs. Cas e's application until Wednesday, January 24. I had established Plans to be out of the state on business at that time making it impossible p ible to attend that meeting. The lot in question is a back lot or wood lot behind 1752 Main Street with an access strip 50 feet wide from the lot to Main Street. Zoning variances similar to the one being requested have occasionally been granted in South Windsor. However, according to the town clerk's office, no variance of this type, in fact no *.I_ zoning variance at all have been granted on Main Street. Many people feel, and town reports support pport the feeling, that it is important to preserve the atmosphere that the historic district and Main Street now present. The building ding of a house in . the lot in question would be detrimental to res p erving that atmosphere. In addition the granting of Such. a variance would set a precedent. It would be difficult to rant g this particular request and to deny similar requests in the future. As you are aware, there is quite a bit of open p land behind the houses on Main Street. The development of any of this land in a manner similar to that purposed by Mrs. Case would further jeopar- dize the atmosphere that Main Street presents. I therefore respectfully Y suggest that Mrs. Cases application for a variance to the zoning frontagerequirement be denied. ,, Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes? Mrs. Robert Craven: . I 'm Mrs. Robert Craven and I also live at 1712 Main Street and I would like to saythat I oppose and I ' d like to add. . .is it okay if I add a statement?. • • •I 'd like to speak in conjecture with what the lawyer said about the fact thatit would pla:.ce a hardship on the land. Mr. Albro Case chose to divide that Property from the piece that was in front of it, so it was at their decision that the lot got divided in the first Place and a 50 foot frontage was kept. I think that should be into p the record. That it was not originally just a piece of land in there. Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who woul d like to speak in opposition? Yes? Paul Clapp: I•m Paul Clapp, 1693 John Fitch Boulevard and I•m opposed and. I f d like to know what will happen to the water from that. . . . . (unintelligible) . ' r -8- Mr. Warren: The water from the front piece its elf. . . . Mr. Clapp: From the driveway. It's a long drive, from Main Street to the lot (unintelligible - about 10 seconds ) . Mr. .Warren: Thank you. The Wetlands is a good point. That was what the attorney was trying to. acknowledge. If we were to approve the applicant, or anyone trying to build here, they would have to go with a site plan to the Inland-Wetlands Commission and that is what they•re very careful about. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes? Mrs. John Clapp: I'm Mrs. John Clapp from 1693 John Fitch Boulevard (unintelligible - 2 or 3 seconds ) and I'm opposed to it. Mr. Warren: How far is this property from John Fitch Boulevard? What's the depth of this property and what distance is your back lot from Route 5? Mr. Clapp: We go on the side of their property - probably 175 feet - or something - I don't know. Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes? Barbara Accorsi: 1752 Main Street, Mr. Warren: Do you have her name for the record? Secretary: Nov I don't. Mr. Warren: Name? Mrs, Accorsi: Barbara Accorsi. Secretary: A C 0 R S I? Mrs. Accorsi : A C C 0 R S. I. Secretary: Thank you. Mr. Warren: You said 1?52? Mrs. Accorsi: Yes. This is planned on being built behind our -9- home, and I feel that the his torical atmosphere, that it will. ,, . (unin- telligible - 2 or 3 seconds ) four or five hundred feet up the street - - . our home is very historical. . .it housed ed (unintelligible) of the 'Theological Seminary at one time. on it. We've done an awful lot of t�Je've worked for seven ' work Years on it i and to have a home put. . . such a manner. . . ,to be n put right in our back yard. . . .I thi Windsor (unintelligible) , nk South Mr, Warren: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Dr. Zarapees: I'm Dr. Zarapees and Street. I live I live at 1653 Main down the street and I'm very (uni or two ntelligible - word as a matter of fact the whole family. My concern is that is going to set a precedent with developing the Land in back and i consequence it will have a grave effect n on traffic on Main Street. We've already had a near fatality not much longer than six .to eight months ago. A car almost struck my son who was riding a bicycle. . . . (End of tape. Due either- to mec hanical failure of the recordin equipment, or a defective tape, nothingg was recorded for the followin 25 to 30 minutes on one side Of theg tape. When the tape was chan ed at the end of approximately 25-30 m• g mutes the. recording continued. Mr. Warren: Next please. Yes? Doris Rockwell: I 'm Doris Rockwell , 1713 Main Street and like the good Dr. Zarapees, Mrs. Case has been a friend of mine f o oh, for even years before she r' came to South Windsor, but I am precedent o because I believe it would seta r Opposed p and also I think there wil be a traffic problem there. It's l bad enough now mornings and and as Dr. Zarapees said the s and speeding is unbelievable at as far as the water there is concern times, and ed, when we were kids it was th g pond. There was that e local skatin at much water there at times. In the -10- summer there wasn't because it was a dry summer, and besides that You had the biggest and baddest mosquitos in South Windsor. Mr. Warren:in opposition? Is there anyone else who would like to speak Mr. Addington; Linwood Addington of 1648 Main Street. Looking back actually as to what things have actually happened Main Street, the residential, R_1�0 on zone (unintelligible) the line was drawn basically giving depth p to that zone to give the old Main Street area sort of a bum er P zone from (unintelligible) resi Route 5, and there was a split a dential approximately when you get to our ho approximately down the middle, which actuall use y made for a bumper zone. mod' now if you start building all down through that whole back area you've lost the whole effect of the bumper zone between an Industrial and the older homes, which are taxed very highly in town. It's Classified as a real expensive area and if you g° in line with the taxes and now you start to build hou ses behind houses and actually lower the quality of the area# it's really sort of putting knives on tacks and I would- oppose buildinghouses uses behind all these houses on this street. Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else wh o would like to speak? Yes .? Calvin Lane; Calvin Lane of 870 M a goad neighbor, but I m a1n Street. Mrs. Case is ust oppose this petition. I would the evidence presented' in the support letter you read to us and other people in the area also presented* that the p ented. On .other occasions simil appeals have been turned down. ar I knave one of my neighbors who w UP to the Town Hall a few months ent ago and asked for a permit a in a similar activity, that is to engage g g • a (unintelligible word) to to a rather narrow driveway to build in w for the back of a lot. Now, there -11- are many such lots on . Plain Street. I•m not as concerned with Mrs* Cases ' piece of property as I am with the possible setting here of a very real precedent, because what you might decide in this case it would seem to me would apply in many other instances up and d the street. Because this is a conditio own n peculiar to Main Street and I am worried that developers, when there is development, may come in and their interest is not the best interests of the residents o f the area, and this also could be applied to additional traffic and I also am opposed to what seems to be to me spot zoning. The Zoning Code was drawn up to protect bo th individuals and the residents Of an area and it seems to me in this instance we have a matter of Spot zoning (unintelligible' - 1 or 2 seconds), . Mr. .Warren: Thank you, Is there anyone y ne else who would like to speak now? Pat Robbins : Pat Robbins, 1803 Main Street. Secretary: I'm sorry. I didn' t catch the last name. Pat Robbins : Robbins - R p B B I N S. Secretary: That was 1803? Thank You. Pat Rbboins : Along with everyone els e' Mrs' Case is a friend Of mine but, and, .specifically Pickingon the change of zoning on Main Street, my husband and I have talke d this over and over again and I have to say not to do this because we are across the street and we have open land from our home com le p tely down to the river and if this is changed, I wonder what would happen in years to come. This may change the areas next tome and I would hate to see property in back of me. There is a historical sign about 500 yards up the street from me that reads 'today I rode believe that's through paradise" and I all. Thank you. l 2, Mr. Warren: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Is there anyone else who would just like to comment for or against or just make a comment? or ask a question? Dr. Zarapees : I just want to stress, I've bee n interested in historical districts for a long time and I'm living in house now that is part of the National Historical District tract registry. I think that eventually we have a good chance of Putting this whole district in the National Registry. Everyone that I have spoken to at State level, and out of state level, has said that this is a very unique area. As a matter of fact, it is likened to the De er-- f i eld of Massachusetts, and I think Mr. Case probably knew that. That's why he was living there all those years, Ther e is no other place that I can think of along the Connecticut River other than Deerfield that has it. . . -that we can say this about. I think we would be making a tragic mistake. Mr. Warren: Did you have any comments in rel ation to this? Mr. Wood.c- ock: I did have a couple of comments and I was regress and I apologize for not presenting to the Board a survey which I have which more clearly shows this piece of land. Mr. Warren: It's time for questions from the Board anyway, Y Y, and one of the questions. . . .which can' t be answered from this . . .but but how far is it from the back of Mrs, Case's propertyto John o n Fitch Boulevard? Do you know that? Mx. Woodcock: I wouldn't know, but probably somebody from the audience would have that information. I think. . . . . . (Several voices, all unintelligible, for two or three seconds ). Unidentified voice: Is that property all in the A zone or is that part of it into the Industrial? (Several unintelligible voices at once for 2 seconds) , . Mr• Woodcock: It's all A~-40. Unidentified voice: All A-40. Mr* Woodcock: Yes, it is. Mr. Erikssons Can you elaborate on the history of this property? How did it get in the form � , that i t s in? Do you. . . Mr. Woodcocks How did it get with a 50 foot frontage? Mrs Eriksson: Yes. Was it self-created? Mrs Woodcock= It was not self-created reated by Mrs. Case. I waiting for that ues question. I figure it's a very question. Mrs. Case�s husband y appropriate purchased the property, I believe,, in Mr. Eriksson: What is "t he" property? As it stands now? Mr• Woodcock: The entire w' Piece. . . . Mr. Eriksson: Entire ? piece , Mr. Woodcocks The entire piece which includes in front. this home Mr. Erikssons The Accorsi home? Mr. Woodcock: The Accorsi home Mr• Eriksson; He b o ugh t the 200. Mr. Woodcocks He bought the whole piece of land about 800 by Mr* Eriksson: Was this cut out of it? Was it one lot? Mr. Woodcock: It was one lot at tha Purchased it. t time when Mr. Case Mr. Warren: About when was that? Mr. Woodcock: 1962, I believe. Let me check my file. August 24, 1962. Mr. Warren; He subsequently sold d that? -14- Mr• Woodcock: I understand (Unintelli • he restored the Accor gable word or two) si home, did some work on it, and then he put the entire piece on the market. The 200 by 865 foot did find a piece. He purchaser who purchased it in 1964. An the rear piece� b d they did not want being the 50 foot by 330 foot border Leonards subsequently, I there and the believe, in the late 60ts or earl conveyed the property in the front y 70�s adjacent to the subject pro er to the Accorsis. But, Mrs. Case did not be . P ty come the owner of the land until Nor. Case died a couple of years s ag°• In '7l• She's had the property through probate since 1971. Mr. Warren: Does Mrs. Case own any adjacent land?adjacent? Immediately Mrs Woodcock: She owns a large home°me up -in East Windsor Hill which is almost to the dead end there. . . ' it•s the second house on the end. . .the large brick home. Mr. Warrens She doesn t t own an r property? y property adjacent to this Mr. Woodcock: No. Nlr. Erikson: Are there any other accesses to this property other than the .50 feet? Mr. Woodcock: no. Mrs. Case: Right-of-.way, Mr. Woodcock: Oh, there's a right-Of-way, as I understand, even though it's not shown on this map which thr ough the deeds emmanating back to the 1820ts runs along the northerly boundary of the Accorsi Property, Mr. Eriksson: But, as far as anything. . . Mr. Woodcock: No, there is not. voices. } (General discussion for about one minute with many unintelligible -15- Mr. Warren: What's the approximate assessment value? Mrs. Case: (unintelligible - 10 seconds) I'm not su re. Four thousand something. Mr. Warrens I'm a little bit confused* Earlie r you stated the house is to be built four to five hundred feet from the street, yet the driveway would be like 3 p f e 3 et deep. How would they would they walk the rest of the way? (Laughter) Mr. Woodcock: I don't believe so. It • dust gives You an idea of how large a piece of land it is. No, I wou ld assume that the builder who put the home there would have the driveway rlveway run to the home (unintelligible) . I make the representation its 400 to 500 feet. It's second . hand information, received that information from the attorney who represents the prospective pur- chaser, if indeed, there's ever a prospective ur p chaser. This is information that was given to me. Mr. Warren: One of the obvious difficulties which is related to a parcel of this kind, is the actual h s' p y Kcal placement. In other words, if we, by approval of what you're. . . . iust what you're request- ing, made this a building lot, and someone subsequently could place that building like anywhere they wanted to as long as they met proper _ rear yard and side yard requirements, so it's been fairly normal for the Board when approving such small frontage t g © at least fix conditions on it. Normally, we look at a map and say y this building shall be as indicated on the map. You said at the :.tart, I guess, any reasonable restrictions? Mro Woodcock: Yes, yes, any reasonable restrictions . Mr. Warren: Any other questions? Royal Cowles : Would this. . .as far as the Wetland s are cvncernec -16" would that restrict the building of a home on a certain part of this? Mr. Eriksson: That would be their jurisdiction. Mr. Cowles ; Pardon? Mr• Warren: Inland-Wetlands would be concerned about the Placement of a house too. That would be another difficulty for us to acknowlbdge and try to specify (unintelligible - 2 seconds) . . Mr. Cowles : Any they would govern the type of buildin g that would be there? Be put up there? No - the Historical .Society i ety would. In other words, if you get the variance You have�' a e to go to the Wetlands Commission. . . . . Mr. Woodcock: And Historical Commission. . , Mr. Cowles : and Historical . Mr. Warren: If they wanted to build they 'd have to. Mr. Cowles : Where is this Wetlands part of the ro ert P p y. Mr. Woodcock: Okay. I 'm going on memory now. . .I believe lieve it's over in this area here. . .okay. . .and it may be over to the rear as well. But, this is the area that I believe it's in• You may wish to check it. Mr. Cowles : Is there a pond on this property over here. Mr. Woodcock: No. Mr. Cowles : Then what is it? Mrs. Case: (Unintelligible) Mr. Woodcock: It's a very small area, (several voices at once, unintelligible, about 2 or 3 seconds) . Mr. Cowles : All right. I've got my answers$ Thank you. Brad Case : I 'm Brad Case, Mrs. Case's son. (Several unintelli- gible voices for about 90 seconds). Mr. Warren: Any other questions from the Board? Then Itll declare. . . . Mr. Woodcocks I'd like to make a closing statement. . . Mr. Warren: Before you do that, . . .I '11 let you do that, we'll have one more statement from you. Linwood Addington: Linwood Addington again. There's just one thing I would like to mention. This propertyis basically i ally wet. . If there's a cellar allowed to be put on the propertyit 's not only a situation of draining the surface of theproperty. It's going to be draining in on property down to the base of the cellar. This is the thing that happened on property adjacent to my property. There were two houses built. The Town allowed the builders to Put tile. . . .a network of tile, down on the top of the clay. . .which is actually the bottom of the water table. . .and drain into the Town sewer. It drained the pond out. It drained my well outo The surface of the water was a lot lower than it ever was before. So in essenee, when they build on a piece of property like that is naturally wet= whatever they use to drain. . .most of the time it's a matter of running the tile out to a street or something , they basically drain the water table down. There's a lot of shallow wells in that area. Mr. Woodcock: Very briefly, I•d just like to restate to the Board that Mrs. Case is extremely conscious of the Historical signi- ficance of this particular district. She's lived here for many, many years, and one of the first things she did in considering to sell this property to someone else, was to determine what the standards and the requirements where of the Historical District Commission and bring those standards and requirements to the -18- attention of the prospective purchaser to ensure that wh o .ever was going to be build there would would do so with full knowledge of the significance. . . .the Historical significance of the area and whatever building that person put up would be in continuit Y with the theme and atmosphere of that part of our community. , Mr. warrens I'll declare the public a p rticipation portion of this hearing closed, and we'll notify you by mail, Mrs. Case, Of our decision. SOW N 8 41C p N Y -0�� �S �• G � ►1 .• U wG 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 4 � OR.0 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 March 27, 1979 Richard M. Rittenband, Esq, 1?34 Ellington Road South Windsor, Ct. 06074 Dear Dick: Re : Marion Case 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. We have only one copy of the survey, which I'm also enclosing. Sincerely, vg Virginia S. Graney, Secretary encs . Zoning Board of Appeals CC: Mr. Robert Warren, Chairman 74 2f 76 q f W / I 70 A C:p� 2f f fi 66. / 70 k R L 80 -- / 2 f 81070 - / 8 , 90 soy , Coy -70 f i � - __`\f f 76 J / $U 76, - If 2f / 86 80 90 / , r \ 40 Zf 76 tti o