HomeMy WebLinkAbout70 Pleasant Valley Rd Variance TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR h:
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION 3�� �, `
VARIANCE Application #d V7 f&
® APPEAL OF ZONING ENFORCEMENT/DECISION Date Rec' _
Applicant: VL ivi
n TOWN t;NAGER'S OPFICE
Address: ') O C L�A.S ANT ✓Au-.C-d V-0 TOWN O�SOUTH WINDSOR
Telephone#: qo o 5-L�r $2L- / S,5v 45-3 q Ll qS"1 ce1)
Property Owner: SArrrlC,
Address:
Telephone#:
Location of Subject Property in Question:
7 a Q L(9 AsArofi VAu.LT4 PO S 11)0-k UN --wb fz
Zone A y o
1. Are there wetlands on the property? YES NO
2. Is any part of the premises within 500' of town line? YES NO
3. Is this property within the CT Water Aquifer area? YES INO
(If yes,the applicant must file an application with the CT Water Company and submit copy with their application.)
C�
Requesting a Variance to Zoning Regulation Section(s): �- _.. I, }
Written Description of the variance request or Appeal of Zoning Enforcement Order/Decision:
(Attach additional sheet if needed)
gA
For Variance request only: 4 s :
1. Strict application of the regulations would produce UNDUE HARDSHIP bealai g:--f
2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and not shared by all properties alike in the
neighborhood because
3. The variance would not adversely impact neighboring property; i.e. public health, safety,
convenience, welfare and property value, because
:e- Cii h
Applicant's Name (please p ' t) 'ail
Signature Date AV
Property Owner's Name (please print) A�A-
Signature Date
DO NOT WRITE BELOW
Action of the Board: Approved [(� Denied
Date Date
Approved: Denied:
�vw
w
Effective 511107 Town GIS Pin #
Written Description of Variance Request
To : Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: Variance Request 70 Pleasant Valley Road
Date: November 19, 2015
First, I want to acknowledge the purpose of ZBA. I've been a member of ZBA in the past and
fully understand that ZBA intends to be cautious when excepting certain situations such that
precedent is not set nor neighborhoods impacted. I believe the current situation is unique and
granting a variance actually lessons neighborhood impact and improves visual aesthetics.
Purpose of Variance Request
I wish to build an accessory building to store 4 antique tractors. As such, it will be a static use
hobby building. The size of the building is still under consideration, but likely to be about
24'x34'. As the building proposed will be greater than 12' high, current zoning regulations
permit said building to be located on the property, but subject to the 50' rear yard line
requirement (Section-2-9)
Description of Variance Request
This variance request is for a variance to Section 3.12A of the zoning regulations to permit the
planned accessory building to be located as far back on the property as possible (within 10' of
rear lot line) so as to improve sightlines from the road and reduce the visual impact of the
building. The intended building will constructed in pleasing manner by Amish craftsman, it
would be desirable to push the building as far back on the existing lot as possible to reduce
visual impact.
Rationale
My interpretation of the 50' rear lot line requirement in current zoning regulations is to
maintain a buffer between adjacent properties such that activity within one neighbor's
property does not adversely impact another. In the case of 70 Pleasant Valley Road, however,
the result of following Section 3.12A is actually the opposite of what is intended by the zoning
regulations. The reason is simple:there is no housing located in the rear of the property—it is
farmland and buffered by large trees. As such, locating the building at or near the rear lot line
has the following benefits:
a. From the Pleasant Valley street view,the building is more "hidden" and less noticeable
b. From the point of view of both neighbors, the building is positioned behind significant,
existing, tree plantings on the side property lines and therefore obscured from view
c. From the point of view of the rear agricultural property, the least impact is on the rear of the
property, as corn stalks don't seem to mind having a building built nearby.
In summary:
Y
1. Application of regulations that would produce hardship because:
Building would be located in a more prominent position vs. taking advantage of the unique
boundary situation to locate the building into a more obscured location.
2. Hardship is unique because:
The rear property is agricultural and stretches for miles from the general area of Pleasant Valley
Road to Newberry Road and is farmland under cultivation.
3. Variance would not adversely impact neighboring property because:
In fact, granting the variance would actually benefit neighboring property because the building
would be less obtrusive vs. locating it per current zoning regulations.
PLOT PLAN. FOR
FEtiX BASTARACKE
SOUTH 1D�f I. r sGR., coNN.
:Scale trc-50 ' May.. 14,1963
Y;
4 L S She q dh S •.
l •
.. - !; —4 �� '. •#. R,
k Seik
4
Wad � N
40
L�.; `=�': �~•`� 1 MEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP
}"� M SUBSTANTI Y"CORRECT ;' '
-L
r
J
A representation of the kind of building being considered
; r
��
�\
t�!
{\?/� :
� / ee^ .
��/ . .
� . �2»
- \ ��.
( �� �
. , � a�! .
� )
/ ® \ \
2 \ / 2
\ � /
-
. 2 \ \ / \
�A4Y�tl
W n �Ydw����°,� °fr u+ka✓5
y+� rw d,y" r w a "✓f' r """ a 'a +
t !,r"a° ��lj�aM � r: ° � ' .»�9 yww'n'h�a . ,u ��l "��+r,�{ x^`�a r+r4"'am� ro ,w�� . � � • .
,a •
a� '. � � � ��w � �"b!na e�x� � ���':7w �,a���4a✓vn+w'�'� �^�������� td _
t i �ww�b „„ �t yF $ { �° +° �+ c lFaya trr �"*° .0�r{✓. ,"*'� •
r ^(wu ',� r +"nay a" �^ »ar'N� #'✓xd ^��+�u o �:, a: F t •
e w"� � �. 9 r w ! '� 4, N� 6 A + I r✓'wr � p a"� °A" r*a �«' y�i
� � '�"" � ^:i ° *'as..✓ a " aw� t e G uW` a a
4�s� ✓an.�e ✓ � °"�" ^ '# w9� w r � �� " '� ,� '� � � 1%b ��� ,� !�a uy..
.
p 4 a",f ri, M ✓v�:wttr ti� paJ� 'rva'� pp p r 3 t ,� aCn# xn raaa'"m
+v z7rp ^» 4 w F ,w„✓" ,G+" �' wi?"p'✓a �,. ��, ; t a �,r,;r t •+ """ S�a w" � � �i �u"^,a ""w'w jb�h a"„"w "�
a `'�'✓ a�S r 'u r �"�✓^� �y w '�� v �to„,a 7`.� �" '✓" ar r aaxr �' ^' n "��~w ��w�vu��'VK a �...
fir, R" �x^' """at � �„ � � a r r wa r 4x"4q"��1 � F �ays`���"'�i va✓ ~ra s r°�»m��, x� i° *+�
M H dr : Y � .w irr s t a f o t"�5,a � anr' " � �' �*.n'�✓,
�'1'M� � w' ^w i' 4�3C✓ �� �+^ rw.r*'*' '���. 9 ✓ �"dsr,w'✓ �n?'�° +''� "��w.�'.° a "''u„^" %a"+r'�✓ 'a✓°o°"a w 'w a�,w„�r*w�"✓J`"�`
r �� ri a ,va 'y ,u .".. e ` 'rbki•, �`Y, as uW ,y rvyda'a man„"+
✓—Z
wr '" 1 � ,�,•lr`• a ,i5nr'+A� ^r"+ �� u t ry�' +„�kae m�'u w ��w a+ Y : �,i �"y"u""
1
+ r-.hn +,�'* �+°a ✓ � " tat% ~� :, a a ,y" °� a � m
Y''$rw^rbW
"M , aakw J✓ y"M 'k"
�*„�w✓� �r s � � 6� � Kxi��yrwy ro�� � �st�"`"5a°� a� i �"p� `a"k.""�` ��,
a 'p" ✓ ,.r v rv" d t ti
04
"' a
tax ~~,� �� w^ ✓��>�' °�„wy `a,� awn mt ^tea, ,a�� r1�s+��.
a t a� w a8l r :^a y�"� *' ❑^ .«v�r"�,x•✓A' w ' "u aw» :'^t..,
�✓'�� x d ,.*'4",„:aM
AweW' ' ;„ x [ y' w5 �sa' s y�. �,w` + d M�y a"�i"� '�'ar„�', �✓'�w^w I i,�'w"'A M k Y'w,r � wi �'�y,w E �, r�w a. {� 7'
", awnarl. `#, Nz'"„ n ! ✓",,' pa kf p a.; rora p�' '+ " :p�`^" "^'a ✓" '^ e5 ^, iaF
i J i �-'''��''Lt ��xr 7 P v 1^a^ '�w +� ✓ ro�"ia+ ��+ �'�� ^ � n �Y r „„ w!Y r ✓ d
a a u � `� a�a"u �"w�:� "°ass �a ro' rrynl "f tr -",,. a +�� • • •
^8n X4w, ✓,tP� A �' M �1�� q W.. ,k� 1
"h� � ai ✓'w F ua 7e" �p ✓„ Y� �,.haw"��: a w '*;`"s.a r"`•a.„,�� ✓y ,,�'+� '�
� yse �r"p +m"fir.�G'' a £w yz" ,�" ^ 5 W+'a w'�✓,nt�u�"'�'on����"� ix� s 1n s✓'<r""��,� l.� ", �h.,i :✓t � •
aex� r"rr rs w e S ,. r✓* a+`wt✓wNx, '*t :'^+",w.r,u'y< e w,'",,„✓ 4 a w Fu �aa ,�'a. aw •
5 :✓1 .. r7 wp a np. ^, 7 "'
•� °5 q . r � v � y h" n'�u��¢r t� `wa ✓r as r y ayn °�w^ r i^w
e � 4`��a ti�� �,w 7 "�a�"''"� B pS✓ndk".,w e ra rlri"�,�ra"�° nr,�C,�` t"^�M,�, �'a✓ a a ".✓ �¢ �1uar a t'�� «,
s" .�M� » r °;�"� "✓,»;pw a ° a r / a r✓' a ,+e 's4w,^f't�✓r✓,� in, ✓Po ! """ ,
",�"dM G"` �k rw",�n' w ^w ai w" °y+�a„' '� i 4 ,y�" �, a� °.�✓s"5ga i
a � as � '" a• r w n�^ s<+}�^'i ✓ w�h, ~# w a, w ; - a o-y�n a�a�
7r� � ti✓akBCu '>� m „�` , w"�.' �a.a ?✓»kx 'y� �y`,� ,w n7a �n aa`.
d ar w t.+�°�v r � r nswu� r f! ^ "✓`� r*e a�r° ° J w z i
a"� +, a � ua ;p a'�^�"a'��p&"y�,,d,�✓r ✓.,^�� ^ i �,�,u � �wu�yl:Ssjro >« r a d'',°,ya*,aw"� " a,i. °
S i d p; a a M �� '�"�I Y ✓ 3N pas.� a s - w ha,� .
✓ru 9 sB. &1 a. "r l+a ?`rti " a ^y +w as"i ,,✓"
4,� � �„ �`;✓ � a5 F x � �^� w �v�+� �' "'�` `*�,� ° d r a° x�n� m✓ a p 7; "�,r'" .p +� �7
S�t ,o �., h �+� .• � , !,w�'w "� r�.ra✓�" r�' ✓r r, �'x �i,�� '�v x~"�a ' .��
",�;aayd ✓p,r ar�""*' ,w � y" i aµ k f� r1 'w N,Y ua r✓' r> " a y�g, LM 9�
:?Kan✓qa"�,x"✓p""'fit w a�av`� � w a xr n��G�'.��M� ww��"�Y"w,�"'���+S "✓ �"ar rw�v M�r 4 aJu °rd �a", '"�,a a'w` d� p'� M�`✓
✓wy i n✓ ���� " a C�r1%a �.�p t a +�✓'""k" 1r�'� "� a x ,«n`n. p a j u '✓a�"`ar4'`� � r",/w v+,
W+ ��� �^ w. a t:. S ,i t✓aa aPw "au, we�S +".a�a ET« n"'prvr 'Xw�w I". K P � ro 7� '^� 1 ✓v "s,'y vb +v by t a a F'«ra v +✓ d�' xcC a Qapry h r
�K ��,«� §� �3 ✓ T•p ro (3 1 p41 t Y a"'wd fu,M+p gx e A Yr✓'� ^ `�"�
�✓»�+'a�'i c r'� rv, ro t w a ✓ r< ,y ",'�'�^�* M",p F wa ,. �Ka tM �A*�«�"p
�" '� *� �aq.n,✓"»war � r � ,w �i�' a°`�^rM�+C�>;r � pw,.�+ti � � 6@ S�_ x
9 ,� .i'W`" ��yy�J✓ a Ka ro��( 5 r ,N"✓" �� ° r ✓,e��s �',�r"a"t� !y +d t p p 5 1�a u� #r*'d r z " ' r*z Cw,� adr Ai ap a *y .', !✓�t e °
r x � a i�uW "t¢! 9 a �^ ✓�ah�
'u.15
� r �;
pqq v ap� � a aw : },�rw• rma µxr wd9'�:+�p' r py � y a�,�
"p :�d it,y4'b i �k�'�^ ✓,� � °i, a Ja ti;� "n*{"�,
r�
page 1of3 vni 12t�nC Lab
n03'70$
After recording: IIIIIIIllllllfiilllllllllllllllllll!lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIII�III!lIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doo ID: 002372610003 Type: LAN
Book 2472 Page 236 - 238
File# 03708
TOWN CLERK Pteaae return Oo:
Ralph J.Alexander.Esquire
wilard&Alexanda,LLC
225 Oakland Road,Suite 306
South WJMWL CT 06074
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
PAUL W. ST. JEAN and BONNIE R. ST. JEAN both of the Town of South Windsor,
County of Hartford and State of Connecticut in consideration of the sum of TWO HUNDRED
EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND 001100 ($285,000.00) DOLLARS, do give, grant, bargain
and confirm unto TRACEY M. OATES and JAMES P. OATES both of the Town of South
Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut with AS JOINT TENANTS WITH
RIGHTS OF SURVIVORSHIP WITH WARRANTY COVENANTS
A certain piece or parcel of land more particularly described on Schedule A attached hereto,
and known as 70 Pleasant Valley Drive, South Windsor, Connecticut.
Being the same premises conveyed to the grantor herein by Deed dated November 14. 1969
and recorded November 17, 1969 in Volume 130 at Page 798 of the South Windsor Land
Records.
Said premises are conveyed subject to:
1. Any and all provisions of any ordinance, municipal regulation, public or private law,
building and building line restrictions of record and zoning regulations as established by
the Town of South Windsor.
2. Taxes due the Town of South Windsor on the List of October 1, 2014 and thereafter,
which taxes the grantee herein assumes and agrees to pay as part consideration for
this deed.
Convgwces Tax Received
Town Clerk of South Windsor
3
Page 2 of 3 Yr.! ! 'r ! 2 1"UT 0 2 3 i
r
Signed this day of July 2015.
tnessd by:
Thoma . Robinso Paul W. St. Jean
f� -,5 7 . ex, r4 Bonnie R. St. Jean
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
) ss. East Hartford July , 2015
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
Personally appeared Paul W. St. Jean tnR. St. Jean, signers of the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged the same as thand deed, before me.
. Robinson
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Grantees' Mailing Address:
70 Pleasant Valley Drive
South Windsor, CT 06074
Page 3 of 3 1 1 2 `ti�1 PnE 0:23 R
SCHEDULE A
piece or paroel of land located in the Town.of South Windsor, County of H&rdord
State of Cannecticut on the Northeasterly side of Pleasant Valley Road, so-called,
being more particularly bounded and described as fellows, to wit;
Commencing at a point set in the northeast boundary at Pleasant valley Road, whit
point marks the southeast corner of premises owned now or formerly by Charles
A. Nielsen, et mr. thence moving North 380 211 30"I"East along:,he southeast boun-
dary of said premises owned now or formerly by Charles R. Nielsen, et ux, a
distance of Two Hundred Sixteen and Forty-ono One-Hundredths (216.41) feet to a
Point set in the southwest boundary of premises owned now or formerly by doscph
W. viberte, Sr;thence moving in a southeasterly direction along the southwest
boundary of said premises owned now or formerly by Joseph W. viberts, 3s., a
distance of One Hundred Ejgiaty-seven(197)feet to a point; theaoe moving South
38 21' 34'l West along the second piece hereinafter described, a distance of Two
Hundred Fifteen and Sixty-eight One-hundredths (235.68) feet to a point set in the
northeast boundary of said pleasant valley Road-, thence moving xorth 5lo 38'.36"
West along the northeast boundary of said Pleasant valley Road, a distance of One
Hundred Mighty-Seven(187) feet to the point cad place of beginning.
Received for Record
At j:3 V1n
Recorde ' S It Windsor CT
Bye.
To Otte
CERTFIED MAIL
Date: December 16, 2015
Dear Edith and Stephen:
I am applying for a variance to build a tractor shed on my lot on Pleasant Valley
Road. Tracy and I just moved to this house from our house on Main Street.
Rather than putting the shed in the middle of the back lawn (which I could do), I
think it would be best to locate the shed at the far rear of the property, so it is less
intrusive. I plan to use the tractor shed to store a few of my antique tractors that are
used for Wood Library events, like the hayride for the 3 rd grade Native American
program.
In accordance with Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Board of Appeals, this letter
is to make sure you are notified that I have filed an application for 70 Pleasant Valley
Road (which abuts the cornfield) and that this application will have a hearing. The
application is on file at the town hall.
You are also invited to ask questions or give comments at the hearing also which is
scheduled for Thursday, January 7, 2016 at the regularly scheduled Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting. You can also send in written comments.
If you have questions, you can contact the town Planning Department, 644-2511,
ext. 329 or me at the phone number below. I will also stop by to better describe
what I plan to do and answer questions.
Sincerely,
Paul and Tracy Oates
70 Pleasant Valley Road
860 539 4957 (cell phone)
Postal e
CERTIFIED RECEIPT
C3 (Domestic Maff�Only;:No Insurance Coverage�Provided) m (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided)
tL
In °R U l
Tr � �t
-, '
y J.5 r f O POS tl F 11
age �.4 �f m
Post 1 �� m
C�,00
Certified Fee i y Certified Fee
Certified Fee ` * p =t (, f� ° postmark
° Return ReceiptFee " Pgstmaric O Return Receipt Fee
[y e(y(y FferA'°`i a Endorsement Required) y°i F1! .. Z„filer O (Endorsement Required) ° �y: a Web y
Return Receipt Fee813,
^��9-fi n
(Endorsement Required) a.^'r' " ( q ) ° s °
ry' O Restricted Delivery Fee - Restricted nt Required)
)
Restricted Delivery Fee Q (Endorsement Required) �; (Endorsement Required) a
(Endorsement Required) , eta°
y° a tTl �,a �p Total Postage&Fees
& nj
Fees '+° �,�* .��� �� E, .n Total Postage&Fees .x_ /1 �'2t�1
Total PostageftJ - Sent Tob°
I + ° Sent To /�` _
Sent To V5l_ 1=___ _ - -------------------------------- ---------
y _ ________ ___-._-_ ______-____
m
J' � Street;Apt IVo.;
'' ''"°"�----=---------- Street,Apt.No.; p
y - -- - d
--------------------
f Street,Apt.No.; or PO Box No. or PO Box o.
or PO Box No. ----------------- --- C`.State,ZIP+4- -- - -- - --
---------------
City State,ZIP+4 ----------------------------------------------------------- ity
City State ZIP+4
t
SSW N Sf4
C x FTau� 074C S-0� ?d
C U
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
December 15, 2015
Paul Oates
70 Pleasant Valley Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Application #2787-16— variance request
70 Pleasant Valley Road
Dear Zoning Applicant:
This is to notify you that the above named application to the South Windsor Zoning
Board of Appeals will be heard on Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Madden Room of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor.
Someone must be at the hearing to present the application.
Included in the $190.00 application fee is the cost of a sign to advertise that a public
hearing will be held regarding this property. The sign should be obtained at the
Planning Department at the South Windsor Town Hall and must be posted no later than
Sunday, December 27, 2015. The sign must be placed in a location visible from
Pleasant Valley Road.
Very truly yours,
DonnaDonna Thompson
Recording Secretary
LAW OFFICE OF
Keith Yagaioff& Associates
W W WXAGALOFF.COM
PO BOX 1 158 PHONE(860)432-5400
1343 SULLIVAN AVE FAX (860)432-5402
SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 KEITH@YAGALOFF.COM
January 7,2016
Michele Lipe
Director of Planning
Town of South Windsor
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear.Michele,
You asked for a legal opinion on the issue of whether a full member or alternate to the
Zoning Board of Appeals may appear on his/her own application for a variance. There also was
an ancillary issue of whether it would be a conflict of interest for a member of the Zoning Board
of Appeals to hear an application from a fellow member of the same political town committee.
The issues are addressed in,the Town Code of Ethics and Connecticut General Statutes
Sec. 8-11 and 8-21.
Code of Ethics Sec. 14-109 provides in part that the ZBA member may appear at ZBA on
his own application,provided there is no violation of C.G.S. Secs. 8-1.1 and 8-21.
C.G.S. Sec.8-11 provides restrictions for zoning members or alternates on appearing on
applications before the commission.
It is my opinion that the ZBA member is this instance may appear before ZBA on his
own application.
In.Gagnon v. Town of Stafford, C V010076654,2002 Conn. Super.LEXIS 2670, at*1.
(Super. Ct. Aug:2, 2002),the court held that"Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-11 aims its prohibition at
zoning board members or alternates who act on behalf of, or, as a spokesperson for., third parties.
"Appear for or represent any person,"a phrase which connotes agency or acting as a
spokesperson for others,is the statutory language used to express the prohibited act.It is that
advocacy for others that § 8-11 prohibits. Section 8-11 does not prohibit a member or alternate of.
-� a zoning commission from speaking individually before a planning commission about the effect
of an application on his own property. This interpretation of the statute is consistent with the
state and federal due process requirements that prevent persons from being deprived of their
property and the opportunity to be heard about proposals affecting their property without due
process of law regardless of whether they serve on a zoning commission. The words of the
statute do not refer to a prohibition against appearing for or against an application,but merely
prohibit appearing for or representing any person, firm,corporation in any matter pending. The
Michele Lipe
January 7,2016
Page Two
focus of the prohibition is representation of others."Id. "When the legislature used the phrase
"appear for or.represent," in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-11, it was to prevent the member from acting
for or on behalf of others,and not from speaking,for himself on an application affecting his own
property."Id.
If the legislature "intended to prevent any zoning board member individually from either
making an application or speaking against an application,the legislature could have
accomplished that end without using the phrase'appear for or represent any person.' "Massimo V.
Planning Commission,41 Conn.Sup. 196, 199-200, 564 A.2d 1075 (1989). The court here agrees
with the reasoning of the court in Massimo.It could not have been the intent of the legislature
that the practical result of§ 8-11 would be that,by their election to a local zoning board of
appeals, members give up their right to advocate on their own behalf regarding issues that may
affect their private property rights."Id..citing to Massimo.
"In Peterson v. Redding Planning Commission, Superior Court,judicial district of
Danbury at Danbury, Docket No. 90-0302916(December 2, 1992),the court held that it was not
improper for a member of the Planning Commission to disqualify himself and then appear and
speak at the public hearing on his own behalf. In Phillips v. Town of Salem Planning&Zoning
Commission, Superior Court,judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. 113120
(May 12, 1998),the court also held that General Statutes § 8-11 "does not prohibit a member
who is not participating in a matter from presenting their own view on the subject." Similarly, in
Leshine v. Planning&Zoning Commission, Superior Court,judicial district of New Haven at
New Haven.Docket No. 98-0413985 (May 17,2000),the court, citing R. Fuller, 9A Connecticut
Practice Series:Land Use Law and Practice(1999) § 47.3 p.441, stated that General Statutes §
8-H "does not expressly prevent agency members from representing themselves in applications
before the agency.While this might be:claimed to be an oversight, another argument is that
agency members should not have less property rights than other property owners in the
municipality,and should not have to resign from the agency in order to present an application
involving their own land."Id.
Therefore,my opinion is that the ZBA member may appear on,his own application before
the ZBA.
The second issue that I was asked to address concerns whether there is a conflict of
interest with a ZBA member or alternate hearing an application from a fellow member of the
-y same political town committee.
Michele Lipe
January 7, 2016
Page Three
Code of Ethics 14-102 definitions:
Financial interest:A financial interest is any interest in the outcome of the exercise of a person's
official capacity from which that person expects to or does derive economic gain in excess of the
economic gain which is expected to be or is derived by the members of the public generally.
Such person shall further be deemed to have afinancial interest if any close relative or business
associate of such person (as defined in this section)or if any company in which such person
holds greater than a 5%interest, is the beneficiary of economic gain in excess of that derived by
the public generally as encompassed in the previous sentence.
Close relative or business associate: When a relationship between an individual,in his or her
official capacity,and a particular relative or business associate of that individual is such that it
would tend to influence improperly that individual's judgment,in his or her official capacity,on
a particular issue or item, then that individual shall be deemed to have a"close relative or
business associate"relationship in that situation.
Conflict of Interest:A conflict of interest shall be deemed to exist when an official or employee
of the Town takes or participates in any action in such individual's official capacity which
involves either a situation wherein such individual has a financial interest or the situation
involves a close relative or business associates, all as defined in this code.
Code or Ethics at 14-105 provides:
No officer, official or employee of the Town shall intentionally or with reckless disregard for the
particular situation in question engage in their official Town capacity in any manner which
would create or result in a conflict of interest.The existence of a conflict of interest shall be
determined on a case by case basis. The person or persons making such determination shall be
bound to apply the general standards of reasonableness (as such standards are customarily
applied by the Courts of the State of Connecticut)to the relevant facts in each particular case as
they relate to the criteria set forth in this Code of Ethics hereinafter.
The Code of Ethics does not provide a clear definition of business associate. A business
associate generally means a person joined with another through employment or business
-� relations to achieve a common financial or business-related objective.
In my opinion, co-membership on a political town committee does not meet the definition
of business associate.
Michele Lipe
January 7,2016
Page Four
C.G.S. Secs. 8-11 and 8-21 provides that no member of the ZBA may participate.in a
hearing or decision of the commission in any matter in which he is directly or indirectly
interested in a personal or finance sense. The test is not whether personal interest does conflict
but whether it might conflict. Whether a particular zoning commission member should
disqualify himself is a factual question depending upon the circumstances of each case.
Therefore, given the information provided above, as well as the specific language of the
Code of Ethics and State Statues, each member of the commission should give due consideration
to whether they have a direct or indirect interest in a personal or financial sense in the application
at issue.
Sincerely,
Keith Yagaloff Esq.
KY jb
o
�L
i
,(OWN SFq
C x Y ?d&uaot
co
C
• _ w`' 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
i
CERTIFIED#7014 2120 0003 3214 2552
January 8, 2016
Mr. Paul Oates !�
70 Pleasant Valley Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Appl. 2787-16, 70 Pleasant Valley Road
i
Dear Mr. Oates:
i
At the meeting of the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals held on January 7, 2016,
the Board denied your request for a 40 foot variance to Table 3.1.2A of the zoning
regulations to allow a 20' x 30' accessory building to be located 10 feet from the rear
property line (50 feet required), on property located at 70 Pleasant Valley Road, A-40
Residential Zone.
The Board concluded there was no hardship.
Very truly yours, I
James Kupchunos, Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Postal
JK/dt 'tj CERTIFIED MAIL@ RECEIPT
.1711
D. only i
In
us
cc: Building Department ra _
ni Postage $
m
M Certified Fee
C3 Return Receipt Fee Postmark
C3 (Endorsement Requlred) Here
C3
Restricted Delivery Fee
C3 (Endorsement Required)
ru
� Total Postage&Fees
$ LP
rU
[-'
ent To ( ',
reet 8 Apt%V--LA I
PO Box No. °� ,--ry,State,ZlP+4 "
J O O --
, . See Reverse for Instructions