Select Page

Minutes of Zoning Board of Appeals, 06/17/2014

AGENDA: Zoning Board of Appeals

RECEIVED 06/19/2014 4:40pm
Michele R. Grande – Redding Town Clerk



Beth Williams, Chairman
Henry Polio, Secretary
Colleen Litof
Bruce Given
Scott Smith

The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m.


Upon the Motion of Ms. Smith and second of Mr. Given, the May 20, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes were approved (5-0) by the Board.


Application: 14-05-01 – 30 Rockledge Road – Map #86 & Lot 4 P2 – Owner: Richard and Daniela Polcari – Applicant denied variance without prejudice at the May 20th, 2014 meeting for a 10’x16’ Garden Shed – ~returning with alternate locations that would minimize the variance required. ~Section 4.6.5 of the Redding Zoning Regulations requires a 50’ foot front yard setback and 40’ side yard setback.

As requested, the Applicant, Richard Polcari, returned to present detailed information and photographs of the proposed locations for shed placement to the Board members.  Since the last meeting Mr. Polcari sought the advice of Douglas Hartline, Town of Redding’s Health Officer, and Eastern Drill Company who advised that the shed be kept 25 feet from the well.  Due to the irregular shape of the property and topography options for the shed placement are limited.  Mr. Polcari presented three proposed locations for the shed:  1) The location requested in the original Application which would have a minimum impact on neighbors, in the corner of the two properties (Variance request 40 feet for a 10 foot setback); 2) Twenty feet from the property line and 25 feet from the well, which would be the option furthest from the property line (Variance request 30 feet for a 20 foot setback); and 3) On the North side of the property six feet from the property line (Variance request 44 feet for a 6 foot setback).

Mr. Polcari submitted three letters in support of the shed placement from neighbors located at 28 Rockledge Road, 29 Rockledge Road, and 30 Rockledge Road.  Chairman Williams accepted and read the letters into the record.

Application: 14-06-01 – 3 Side Cut Road – Map #12 & Lot #17 – Owner & Applicant Barry N. Finch, 80 Canterbury Lane, Ridgefield, CT –Requesting variance 4.3.1(b) of the Redding Zoning Regulations increase percentage of floor area allowed to be apartments from 30% to 40.4% 4.6.5 of the Redding Zoning Regulations to reduce side yard setback on northwest side from 15’ feet to 0 feet.

Mr. Michael Mazzucco, Licensed Professional Engineer, presented the application to the Board.  The Applicant, Barry Finch, was also present.  Mr. Mazzucco indicated that the proposed second floor expansion to change the existing non-conforming 2 & 3-bedroom apartments to five 1-bedroom apartments, approximately 700 sqft in size each and thereby increasing the percentage of floor area to 45.4% (note: 40.4% on application is incorrect), would be within the existing footprint of the dwelling.  Mr. Mazzucco reviewed the plans for the layout of the apartments as well as the required 25 parking spaces necessary with the Board members.  Mr. Finch indicated that the use of the first floor of the dwelling would possibly be changing to a medical arts building for the geriatric or a cultural arts building.  Mr. Finch also indicated that the roofs would be changed from flat to gabled in style.

As an abutting property owner to 3 Side Cut Road, the DOT / Metro-North Railroad had received notice of the Application for Variance.  An emailed letter dated June 17, 2014 from Kevin Waugh of the Office of Rail / Department of Transportation was addressed to Ms. Pardee, Town of Redding Zoning Enforcement Officer, in opposition to the variance requested.  The letter was submitted along with survey and aerial photo of the property to the Board members.  Chairman Williams accepted and read the letter into the record as follows:

Ms. Pardee,

In response to the variance request by Barry Finch for the property located at 3 Side Cut Road, Redding, CT, the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation Office of Rail (the northerly property abutter) has several concerns with the proposed additions to the existing building and existing parking encroachments upon State rail property.~ The main questions/concerns are as follows:

Please refer to the attached survey from 1955 showing the property boundaries, and more recent aerial overlay that shows the property boundaries.

1  The existing parking spaces located to the west of the building (approx. 20) are either on State rail property or are partially located on State property and no agreement for the use of the State’s land is on file with the Office of Rail.~ As part of this application, has a parking variance been requested?

  1.  Access to the northern side of the building will require entering upon State rail property.~ If a rear door is proposed or exists, public ingress/egress is currently on State property within the rail operating envelope (15’ off rail) which is considered fouling the track.~ Can you confirm if access is addressed in this application?~ Also, the proposed construction/renovation will require the owner obtain rail protective flagging services from Metro-North Railroad and enter into an access agreement with the DOT.~ In addition, once construction is completed, this owner will require rear access on State rail property to adequately maintain his building.~ All of which will require agreements with the State and Metro-North Railroad.

Based on the available information at this time, and for the reasons outlined above, the State of Connecticut must object to the Owner’s application request for variance.~ Is it necessary to appear at the zoning board of appeals meeting in person, or will this email written notice suffice?

Thank you,
Kevin Waugh
Office of Rail
Department of Transportation
50 Union Avenue, 4th Floor West
New Haven, CT 06519
(203) 497-3364

The Board members discussed the issues raised in the letter with Mr. Mazzucco and Mr. Finch.  With regards to the issue of an agreement between the State and the property owner for use of parking space on State land, Mr. Finch indicated he was not aware that any agreement of use had been required at any time during his ownership of the property.  Mr. Mazzucco pointed out on the plans the current locations of egress/exit, three doors to the front and three doors to the side, and indicated that there would not be any areas of egress/exit on the side of the building abutting the railroad track.  Upon reviewing the apartment layout plans during this discussion, it was determined that there were four 1-bedroom apartments and one studio.  Mr. Finch indicated that the studio would not be a residential apartment but to be used as a work space for artists.  The studio layout included a bathroom and no kitchen.

Upon motion of Ms. Litof and second of Mr. Given, the Board entered Deliberative Session at 8:24 p.m.


Application #14-05-01– 30 Rockledge Road – Map 86 & Lot 4 P2 – Owner: Richard and Daniela Polcari – Upon motion of Mr. Polio and second of Mr. Smith, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a variance of 30 feet for the installation of a 10’ x 16’ shed due to demonstrated hardship of topographical concerns along with septic and well locations.

Application: 14-06-01 – 3 Side Cut Road – Map #12 & Lot #17 – Owner & Applicant Barry N. Finch, 80 Canterbury Lane, Ridgefield, CT ~-  Upon motion of Mr. Polio and second of Mr. Smith, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the increased percentage of floor area to 45.5% due to lack of hardship.  The Board agreed to table the request of reducing the northwest side yard setback to 0 feet as the setback is currently 0 feet based on the location of the dwelling.

Upon motion of Mr. Smith and second of Mr. Polio, the Board voted to exit deliberative session at 8:38 p.m.


The Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 8:39 p.m.

These minutes have not been approved by the ZBA.

Submitted by klg 6/19/14