MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
WATERTOWN, CONNECTICUT
PUBLIC HEARING
Time: 7:00 pm
Date: August 24, 2016
Place: Watertown High School Lecture Hall
324 French Street
Watertown, Connecticut
1. Call Meeting to Order
Chairman, Mr. Enrico Sarandrea called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Ned Dalton executed the roll call.
Member’s Present:
Enrico Sarandrea, Chairman
Vincent Giannetto
Jeff Franson
Roger Mitchell
Gary Swingle
Edwin Dalton
Town of Watertown Connecticut Planning and Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Watertown Municipal Center 61 Echo Lake Road Watertown, CT 06795 Telephone: (860) 945-5266 Fax: (860) 945-4706
Website: www.watertownct.org
Page 2 of 18
Member’s Absent: Phillipe Roger
Scott Demers
Also Present: Moosa Rafey, Wetlands Enforcement Officer,
Land Use Secretary, Roseann D’Amelio
Gary Swingle is being seated for Phillipe Roger
Rick Sarandrea: Ok, I’m going to read the ground rules for the Zoning Board of Appeals’
Public Hearing tonight.
“ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GROUND RULES”
1. The applicant or his representative will make his formal presentation to the board stating
his specific hardship and precisely why this merits a variance from the Zoning
Regulations of the Town of Watertown.
2. All comments, discussion and observations shall be made through the Chair after proper
recognition by the Chairman. This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time
speaks on any issue, thus making it easier for everyone to understand and for clearer legal
transcription.
3. All persons addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their name and
address for the record. If necessary, the person may be asked to spell his name for the
record.
4. Following the presentation of the application, the Zoning Board of Appeals will ask
specific questions of the applicant.
5. After the Board has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow any members
of the public who wish to speak either in favor of this application or against it, to address
the Board.
6. I shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of the general
public.
7. I shall then allow any members of the general public who wish to present any additional
information or clarifying discussion to do so.
8. I shall then provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these additional
remarks if he or his representative so wishes.
9. The Zoning Board of Appeals has thirty-five (35) days from the date the Public Hearing
commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Board may ask the applicant for a
thirty-five (35) day extension of the public hearing period if the Board requires any
Page 3 of 18
additional information or wishes to schedule a site walk to observe the situation for
themselves.
10. The Zoning Board of Appeals has thirty-five (35) days from the date when the Public
Hearing is closed to render its decision. The Board may or may not make its decision
tonight at its Regular Meeting following the Public Hearing.
11. You may stay for the Regular Meeting if you wish or you may leave at the end of the
Public Hearing and contact the Zoning Office the following morning to determine the
status of your application.
Application #1061 of David Heckelman for a variance of 29 feet to a front yard property line
setback for installation of a 21 foot diameter above ground pool to be located 6 feet from the
street line of Ripley Street at 51 Orient Street, Oakville, CT in an R-12.5 residential zoning
district. I’ll have the Secretary read the public notice.
Ned Dalton: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Watertown will hold a public
hearing at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at the Watertown High School Lecture Hall,
324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act upon the following applications:
Application #1061 of David Heckelman for a variance of 29 Ft to front yard property line
setback for an aboveground pool to be located 6 Ft from a front property line on Ripley Street,
Oakville, CT in an R-12.5 Residential Zoning District, Section 12.8 of the Town of Watertown
Zoning Regulations requires minimum 35 Ft front year setback for an accessory structure in an
R-12.5 Residential Zoning District.
At this hearing interested persons and written communications will be heard. A copy of the
application is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office, Watertown Municipal Center, 61 Echo
Lake Road, Watertown, CT.
Dated in Watertown, CT this 12th day of August 2016
Dated in Watertown, CT this 18th day of August 2016
Edwin Dalton, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
David Heckelman: 51 Orient Street, Oakville. Being that I’m on a corner lot, I have 2
frontages situated on Ripley Street side. You asked for a 35 foot setback. It only leaves me like
6 feet away from the house. I’m very close to my house so I really can’t do nothing on that side
so I need this variance in order to do this pool. It doesn’t give me any room at all.
Rick Sarandrea: You putting a deck on this pool too?
David Heckelman: yes
Page 4 of 18
Rick Sarandrea: What size is the deck?
David Heckelman: It’s going to be like a 10 x 10. Something small, I’m going to make so it’s
uniform with the pool. I just want to get the space I need and if this goes thru then I’d like to put
a fence so it would be private. I want to make it look private and presentable.
Rick Sarandrea: any one from the board have any questions for the applicant?
Vincent Giannetto: that’s a very difficult lot
David Heckelman: yes, and there’s no other place to put it. On the other side I have a shed and
that would be the only questionable spot but nowhere else.
Rick Sarandrea: Moosa did you ever look at this?
Moosa Rafey: Yes Mr. Chairman. I went there and I made a copy of the plot plan for you, it’s
in the packet. I just want to give you a little bit of information on this lot. It’s a corner lot. It
has 2 frontages. If this was a regular lot and this side of the property was a side line he would
need only 5 feet setback for the pool and he already has 6 feet. I went there and this is the most
reasonable place. There’s already evergreen trees around that area that is not going to be visible
from the road. In addition to that, if the homeowner wants to build a fence it will give him more
privacy and also it’s not going to be visible from the road.
Rick Sarandrea: Anybody else from the board have any questions?
Any one from the public wish to speak for or against this application? 3x
Hearing none – do I have a motion??
Roger Mitchell: Motion to Close
Gary Swingle: second
Rick Sarandrea: Application 1062 of Kevin Penilaitis for 2 variances of 5 feet each to front
yard property lines setback for construction of an oversized detached garage to be located 30 feet
from front property lines on Davis Street Extension and Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT in an
R-12.5 Residential Zoning District. Can I have the Secretary read the notice.
Ned Dalton: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Watertown will hold a public
hearing at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at the Watertown High School Lecture Hall,
324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act upon the following application:
Application #1062 of Kevin Panilaitis for a variance of 5 ft to front yard property line setback on
Bunker Hill Road and a variance of 5 Ft to front yard setback on Davis Street Extension for
construction of a 30’x30’ oversize detached garage to be located 30 Ft from front property lines
on Davis Street Extension and Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT in an R-12.5 Residential
Zoning District. Sections 12.8 and 6.3.13.f of the Town of Watertown Zoning Regulations
Page 5 of 18
require minimum 35 Ft front yard setback for an oversize accessory structure in an R-12.5
Residential Zoning District.
At this hearing interested persons and written communications will be heard. A copy of the
application is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office, Watertown Municipal Center, 61 Echo
Lake Road, Watertown, CT.
Dated in Watertown, CT this 12th day of August 2016
Dated in Watertown, CT this 18th day of August 2016
Edwin Dalton, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Rick Sarandrea: state your name and address for the recond
Kevin Panilaitis: 418 Bunker Hill
Rich Sarandrea: state your case and hardship
Kevin Panilaitis: Again with the dual property lines, corner streets and with the water course
with my 100 foot offset from the water course, it pretty much elimates 90% of my lot. I’d just
like to build a garage and get things I own out of the way.
Rick Sarandrea: Any one from the board have any questions for the applicant?
Vinny Giannetto: Is that a second level garage?
Kevin Panilaitis: it’s a half floor they call it.
Vinny Giannetto: What’s it to be used for?
Kevin Panilaitis: I’d like to put a little wood shop upstairs. I do a lot of wood working and
storage for my cars and boats and things.
Moosa Rafey: It’s not going to be used to house farm animals? It’s not going to be a barn?
Kevin Panilaitis: no, I’ve been done farming for 20 years.
Rick Sarandrea: Moosa, did you go out there?
Moosa Rafey: Yes, I think everybody should know about this. This is the triangle on the corner
of Davis Street Extension and Bunker Hill Road. Now if you can see because of the setback
requirements from both streets, 35 feet on each side, it’s basically taking most of the property.
On the other side of the property there is a brook going thru the property and there’s a 100 foot
setback for wetlands. If you take all of those buildable area on this lot is really limited. I went
Page 6 of 18
there and I walked around to see if we could push this a little bit without the variance, it’s
impossible to do. If there wasn’t a road in the back, they would need only 30 feet setback.
Vinny Giannetto: how do you plan to get into the garage?
Kevin Panilaitis: The existing garage is going to be eliminated once the new garage is up. My
intention is to be able to pull in the driveway and take a left into the garage door. The garage and
the breezeway will go and it’ll just be a driveway.
Vinny Giannetto: can that be moved more toward the house?
Kevin Panilaitis: It wouldn’t give me access to actually turn into the garage if I moved it closer
to the existing garage even after it’s gone and the way the setbacks are even if I knock the garage
down and build it there, I still wouldn’t be able to get into the front of the garage without paving
half of the front of the street.
Vinny Giannetto: Where is the septic?
Moosa Rafey: Actually the septic system is on the other side of the house and the well is behind
the existing garage. The setback for septic is different.
Rick Sarandrea: Anybody else have any questions?
Any one from the public wish to speak for or against this application? 3x
Hearing none do I have a motion?
Roger Mitchell: Motion to close
Gary Swingle: second
Rick Sarandrea: All in Favor: Aye
Opposed: none
Application #1063 of Mark Febbriello for a variance of 8 feet to a side property line setback for
an existing driveway serving a single-family dwelling located 2 Ft from a side property line at
68 Pine Ridge Drive, Oakville, CT in an R-30 Residential Zoning District
Can the Secretary read the legal notice.
Ned Dalton: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Watertown will hold a public
hearing at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at the Watertown High School Lecture Hall,
324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act upon the following application:
Application #1063 of Mark Bebbriello for a variance of 8 Ft to a side yard property line setback
for an existing driveway serving a single-family dwelling located 2 Ft from side yard property
Page 7 of 18
at 68 Pine Ridge Drive Extension, Oakville, CT in an R-30 Residential Zoning District. Section
34.9.4 of the Watertown Zoning Regulations requires minimum 10 Ft setback from side and real
property lines for a driveway serving a single-family dwelling.
At this hearing interested persons and written communications will be heard. A copy of the
application is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office, Watertown Municipal Center, 61 Echo
Lake Road, Watertown, CT.
Dated in Watertown, CT this 12th day of August 2016
Dated in Watertown, CT this 18th day of August 2016
Edwin Dalton, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Rick Sarandrea: State your name and address for the record.
Mark Febbriello: 68 Pine Ridge Drive Extension, Oakville, CT
Rick Sarandrea: State your case and hardship
Mark Febbriello: I had constructed a house on the property at 69 Pine Ridge Dr Extension and
I currently have a gravel driveway in which I definitely want to pave. When the town had come
up to do their checking of the property, they told me that it would be a problem if I had paved on
my own because where the gravel lies it infringes on the boundaries. I have a fire hydrant on the
opposite side of where this pin is located so I have some restrictions that way so I’m just looking
to get the driveway paved. If I can get a little bit more room for the mouth of the driveway. I
have a buffer zone, if you will, between myself and the next property down, which is about 25 ft
that’s owned by the Town of Watertown and it’s access to a retention pond which I think, in my
mind, would have been no problem to pave the driveway and not put any harm to anybody’s
property. I just looking to pave my driveway. I’m hoping it goes thru so I can just get it done as
soon as possible.
Rick Sarandrea: Moosa, did you go look at this?
Moosa Rafey: Yes Mr.Chairman. You also have a map in your packet and you can see the way
that the house is on an angle, they want to have a straight driveway that gets close to the
property. That is the problem. Also, on that side there is an easement that the town has, a
drainage easement. On the opposite side there is a fire hydrant. I went there and it looks ok. To
be honest, in the past when Mary Barton was here, we were never enforcing the setback for
driveways. But recently we do. The Town zoning regulations require 10 feet setback on the
property. It created a lot of hardship for smaller lots in the Oakville area. If have an
R-G zone lot there’s not enough room to keep a 10 foot distance for the driveway. I didn’t see
any problems. I went there and it looks nice like all the other driveways in the neighborhood.
Rick Sarandrea: Any other questions for the applicant?
Any one from the public wish to speak for or against this application? 3x
Page 8 of 18
Hearing none – do I have a motion?
Roger Mitchell: Motion to close
Gary Swingle: second
Rick Sarandrea: All in favor: aye
Opposed: none
Application #1064 of Willie and Diane Boone and Paul Palasciano of Go Green Builders, LLC
for a variance of 3 Ft to a side yard property line setback for an existing driveway serving a
single-family dwelling located 7 Ft from side yard property line a 561 Winding Brook Farm
Road, Watertown, CT in an R-70 Residential Zoning District Section 34.9.4 of the Watertown
Zoning Regulations requires minimum 10 Ft setback from side and rear property lines for a
driveway serving a single family dwelling.
Can I have the Secretary read the legal notice.
Ned Dalton: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Watertown will hold a public
hearing at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at the Watertown High School Lecture Hall,
324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act upon the following application:
Application #1064 of Willie and Diane Boone and Paul Palasciano of Go Green Builders, LLC
for a variance of 3 Ft to a side yard property line setback for an existing driveway serving a
single-family dwelling located 7 Ft from side yard property line a 561 Winding Brook Farm
Road, Watertown, CT in an R-70 Residential Zoning District Section 34.9.4 of the Watertown
Zoning Regulations requires minimum 10 Ft setback from side and rear property lines for a
driveway serving a single family dwelling.
At this hearing interested persons and written communications will be heard. A copy of the
application is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office, Watertown Municipal Center, 61 Echo
Lake Road, Watertown, CT.
Dated in Watertown, CT this 12th day of August 2016
Dated in Watertown, CT this 18th day of August 2016
Edwin Dalton, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Rick Sarandrea: Is there anyone here to represent the applicant?
Paul Palasciano: I am sir. Paul Palasciano from Go Green Buildlings, 105 Waterbury Road,
Prospect. We built a stone retaining wall, which is exposed about 7 feet out of the ground on the
neighbors side and approximately 2 feet out of the ground on the owners side. It was constructed
Page 9 of 18
in the dead of winter. I made a mistake when I pulled the lines to see and I was off by 3 feet.
Essentially there was an error on my part. We tried to squeeze as much to that side as we could
because the topography of the lot slopes down and we didn’t want to have to put in another
retaining wall at the driveway. It was freezing cold and I made a mistake. So we want to see if
you folks would grant us that 3 feet for their driveway.
Rick Sarandrea: The driveway is brick or paved??
Paul Palasciano: It’s neither yet. There’s a belgium block border going up which is not part of
the problem. It is where it leads into this retaining wall that’s gorgeous and very large.
Unfortunately, it encroaches 3 feet towards the property line of the neighbor, Mr. Lubus. So, I’m
hear to ask you for that variance.
Rick Sarandrea: Moosa, did you go look at this?
Moosa Rafey: Actually Mr. Chairman, we noticed this when we received the final as built. No
body knew that the driveway is 7 feet from the property line. When they did the final “as built”,
we noticed that it was 7 feet. They have a beautiful stone wall that they build. They don’t want
to destroy it but I cannot issue a permit, if a variance is not granted. The shaded area is the part
where they need the variance not the entire driveway. Just 3 feet of the driveway is in the
setback area. On the other side there is a stone wall.
Gary Swingle: The stone wall is not the problem?
Moosa Rafey: No. The driveway has to be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and
they built the wall during the winter and they thought it was more than 10 feet but the surveyor
did the final as built and revealed that it’s not 10 it’s only 7 feet.
Rick Sarandrea: Any one from the public wish to speak for or against this application?
Robert Lubus: For the record my name is Robert Lubus. I am the adjacent property owner, the
property that’s being affected by this request for a variance. I am also an attorney who resides
there as well. The concerns I have are these: since this property began its construction, I believe
in November 2014. We have had tremendous problems with regards to erosion that have only
gotten worse. That erosion has included up to as recently as the recent rain storm where I have
erosion coming from their property line all the way across to where I’ve just installed a pool.
Literally, underneath my pool fence and up to and almost including the pool deck. That’s a
problem. Now with the Boone’s and Mr. Palasciano wanting to be even closure to my property
line, I have significant and greater concerns with regard to erosion. What they’re going to do by
putting pavement closer to my property line is create another area where less of a buffer for the
water to go into the ground. Now it’s going to be 3 feet closure to my property and my wife’s
property and 3 feet closer to further erosion on my property. We have erosion that literally goes
from the home that they’ve constructed recently to and taken 2 yrs to construct all the way to our
back property line. That’s a problem. They have also taken this property, which was at one
point slanted for the majority of it towards the road on Winding Brook and also to some degree
towards our property and they have effectively divided it in 2 so that the front porch of the
Page 10 of 18
property continues to drain to the road but the rear of the property now drains to the rear corner
adjacent to our property and it’s creating more erosion. I have erosion quite literally across half
my property, in part, because of the wall they created that diverts water from the center of their
property to either end. In one case, the back corner to the back corner essentially of my property
as well. So, this is a matter which I believe, if you haven’t walked the property, I think it’s
necessary to walk the property. I certainly would invite you to walk the property as well. Now, I
would say that my opposition to this can be mitigated by the actions of the builder and/or the
Boones to resolve the problems we have had over the last 2 years. It has gotten to the point
where, and I consider myself to be a fairly good and easy going neighbor, I’ve had to contact the
police to stop trips by their dump trucks from moving a mound of soil that had to be 100 truck
loads where they literally tracked dirt and silt from the property line, a 10th of a mile up Winding
Brook and a 10th of a mile up Platt Road. I had to go to the police and contact them and asked
them to stop this because everything they were doing was effecting my property and now they
want to be closer to my property and cause with this, further erosion that eventually will be
directed onto my property. I have significant concerns. I think that while I do not want to be a
bad neighbor, and I recognize that the Boone’s have a tremendous investment in this property, in
this wall. I agree the wall was put up in the dead of winter, why I don’t know and I’ve expressed
this to the builder of the wall, I don’t believe the wall will last, because I watched them construct
the wall, the individuals from Mancini fencing company. I watched them heat the rock and the
morter with a torch while they were putting the wall together, in the dead of winter. This wall is
going to fall apart and I will have further erosion. I don’t want to stand unnecessarily against the
Boone’s. I want them to eventually have this variance, but I think they have to do things to
resolve this issue, and for that reason, I would ask that the Zoning Board walk both properties,
take a look at these circumstances and then make their decision at the next meeting as
appropriate. Thank you
Jeff Franson: Do you have pictures of that erosion?
Bob Lubus: I do, unfortunately, I have them on my phone by text. I can offer for you to look at
my phone right now and I’m happy to do that. I only got them tonight.
Vinny Giannetto: Was there any erosion control?
Moosa Rafey: I think if you decide to go to see the site, you will probably find the answer to
your questions.
Vinny Giannetto: You’ve been there?
Moosa Rafey: Many times
Rick Sarandrea: Is it a sloped property?
Bob Lubus: My understanding is there is drainage from the center of the property to either end
that they put in. I put it because of what I was doing, which was a pool, in roughly the last 6
months. I put in a curtain drain around the edge of my pool. That’s not stopping the water
Page 11 of 18
draining from their property to mine and the silt, which is significant and tremendous coming
from their property to mine.
Gary Swingle: Is that because it’s under construction still?
Bob Lubus: It’s been under construction for 2 years.
SEVERAL PEOPLE SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY
Rick Sarandrea: Right now there’s no grass?
Bob Lubus: Not in the rear of the property. They’ve attempted to plant grass and unfortunately,
and I’m guessing because of the weather and the drought like conditions, none of the grass from
my view in the rear took. I understand the grass would stabilize some of this but it’s not
stabilizing it now.
Rick Sarandrea: Now these pipes or drains they put it, do they go to a storm sewer?
Bob Lubus: I don’t know that answer
Rick Sarandrea: how did you put in your curtain drain?
Bob Lubus: Mine goes right under my property. It goes towards my driveway.
Rick Sarandrea: Is it going to a storm sewer?
Bob Lubus: It’s not going to a storm sewer, it’s going right under another part of my grass. So
I understand where that needs to go and it’s not going into a storm sewer, that’s not appropriate.
I would tell you that during the years that I’ve lived there, which has been since 2001, water
literally drains from this property from the spring into the summer virtually every year. From
roughly the same spot. I’m talking not my property, but the neighboring property that had not
been built because all the water was directed to the street and eventually it did go to the storm
sewers. That’s where it was built and I can tell you that because I watched it from about 2002.
We moved in 2001. Having said that, now it’s changed and the topography of the property in
part because of the house and in part because of what they did with the landscaping has changed
significantly and now they’ve moved the water from our understanding to the back corner. Now
I believe that’s from a curtain drain, that’s what I thought was explained by the Boone’s and by
the builder, but I’m willing to be corrected on that, but my understanding is the water is clearly
directed towards the corner of my property, it’s clearly directed even without drains by the way
they’ve changed the topography. That’s not a natural occurrence, none of this is a natural
occurrence, which is the standard generally for a variance. The property condition, not the
human mistake, is supposed to cause the need for the variance. As I said, I almost certainly
would not oppose variance if the issues can be taken care of in a way that would assure us that
we are not going to have further problems down the road. I think you need to walk the property
and to be able to see that and I invite the committee to make an appointment to walk our property
along with I’m assuming, the applicant.
Page 12 of 18
Rick Sarandrea: Anybody else have any questions?
Jeff Franson: Moosa, have you been to the property previously with Mr. Berger or anything,
associated with complaints or concerns about drainage on the property or stabilization of the
property under construction..
Moosa Rafey: Yes, Mr. Franson, what happens with any application before I issue a foundation
permit I give it to the town engineer to look at. As you can see this driveway is kind of steep.
It’s to the maximum grade, 15% slope area, and as you know that all driveways upstream of the
road will drain toward the street. There is a catch basin at the bottom of the driveway, and
during the construction we told the developer that they had to put the silt fence and they did that.
I agree with the neighbor, there was some erosion problems. The problem is that this site was
constructed during the winter. You know that once the ground is frozen it is harder to install the
silt fence and the one that they had in the beginning during the construction, some of that failed.
There were some erosion problems during construction but now if you go see, the entire front of
the property is all seeded and they also used those hay blankets to make sure there is no more
erosion. On the back of the property I don’t know how the situation is. But it takes time for the
grass to grow. If you want to go to see the property we can go see it.
Jeff Franson: Just from the gentlemen’s testimony, it sounds like there’s a lot of water moving
on the property and the owner of this property isn’t controlling it within their boundaries of their
home. That’s what it sounds like
Moosa Rafey: Rain water, no matter what you do, it drains everywhere.
Jeff Franson: I don’t disagree. You can grade property to control the water that falls onto your
property.
Moosa Rafey: The water from the driveway because of that wall, it shouldn’t go to your side,
now it goes towards the road. The wall should help that the water goes towards the road not
towards the property.
Bob Lubus: On the front of the property, the water goes towards the road. In the back of the
property the water is going all on our property and silt is coming in.
Moosa Rafey: The wall goes to the end of the driveway
Bob Lubus: The wall doesn’t go all the way to the front end of the driveway. The wall stops
part way down the hill, correct?
Moosa Rafey: Yes. You have a problem in the front part?
Bob Lubus: I have a problem, the entire back from the mid section of this property where the
house is all the way to the back, I have erosion issues that are coming onto my property. I agree
with you, that it generally begins where that wall ends and I agree that the wall ends just after the
Page 13 of 18
mid point of the property, just after their driveway. My problem is the water is directed there by
the way they’ve created the topography and it wasn’t natural. The natural way this topography
ran was generally speaking towards the road. They’ve essentially divided this property in half,
put a peak there and caused some of the water that starts at that driveway right where the house
is to go to the back and that is causing erosion onto my property and that’s not appropriate.
Vinny Giannetto: Erosion onto your property or erosion of your property?
Bob Lubus: It’s onto my property. There is silt coming from their property onto mine. There’s
silt that goes at least in one spot roughly half way across my property, the rear property line.
From the side line they have roughly half way across.
Vinny Giannetto: If it was stabilized you still have a water problem
Bob Lubus: It’s not just the stabilization of the hill, it’s that if they’ve directed water to that
back corner, they need to redirect that water whether with a piping system somewhere on the
property. It shouldn’t drain on my property and I shouldn’t have a soaking wet back yard as a
result of what they’ve done.
Moosa Rafey: Mr. Lubus, I heard that you don’t have any objection to the variance, is that
correct?
Bob Lubus: As long as my issues are taken care of I would not object to the variance. I don’t
want this issue to be resolved, the variance to be resolved, unless I also have resolution on all of
the issues created by the work done on this property. What they’ve done is they caused these
problems and now they say, please give us a variance. That will further exacerbate the problems
and eventually we’ll fix it and while I do believe in the good will of the homeowners, I believe in
the ability to use what we have here. The committee can certainly put conditions on an approval
requiring the repair of these issues, requiring the repair of my property or the committee doesn’t
have to.
Moosa Rafey: If tomorrow they remove that 3 foot of the pavement from the shaded area on the
map, and they put grass there I have to issue their CO. It’s not going to fix your problem. I
think the problem that you have is some drainage problem that has nothing to do with this
application in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are asking for a 3 foot variance. If
this board doesn’t grant this variance, I will tell them to remove 3 feet of the pavement from that
side. But just for your information, recently I asked him to post $2,500 in addition to another
$1,000 bond just for erosion control on this lot. They posted that bond $2,500 recently and we
have another 1,000 for the driveway. We are not going to release a penny of that moneybefore
everything is done. Until this point this was a construction site. We always have problems with
erosion. From this point forward, I think there shouldn’t be any problem. If there’s damage to
your property, you can take them to court. But the issue in front of this board is just for the 3
feet of pavement on the driveway.
Rick Sarandrea: If we came out there and saw what you want us to see, there’s nothing we can
do. We would have to refer it to the Town Engineer and Moosa.
Page 14 of 18
Moosa Rafey: I will be glad to bring the town engineer to your property and we can walk
together and you can show us where your concerns are and I will invite the property owner of the
house to be with us and see if there is anything they should do to fix the problem to make the
situation better. I can do that but that cannot be a part of the approval or denial of this
application.
Bob Lubus: Let me say it clearly. The law is that you cannot approve a variance over objection
when the issue is caused by man. This issue by builder’s admission is caused by his mistake. It
is caused by man. You don’t have the ability, well you can approve what you want, but you
won’t hold up in court.
Gary Swingle: I don’t think that’s Moosa’s point. We are not the zoning board, we don’t have
very narrow powers.
Bob Lubus: I agree with you, but part of the concern is the more you pave this property,
particularly closer to my property, the more there’s erosion to my property despite the wall. I
agree with Moosa’s statement that if they take out those 3 feet, and I can sue them then. But if
they want the variance, then a way to resolve it is to obtain our consent or at least our withdrawal
of an objection. So if they want this, they can fix our problems and if they don’t want this then
that’s fine, they can withdraw and take up part of the driveway, I don’t care on their decision. I
can always pursue it other avenues, you’re right, I’m a litigator, I file lawsuits all the time. I
don’t want litigation with my next door neighbor. I want it resolved. If they choose to fix it in
the way you suggest, by removing a portion of the driveway that they want, they can do that and
I guess I will have to have litigation. If not then they need to deal with it in an appropriate way
to resolve our concerns.
Vinny Giannetto: We are still in the same position whether we have the wall or driveway.
Moosa Rafey: There’s nothing we can do with the wall.
Rick Sarandrea: What we are trying to say is that this is planning and zoning issue and
engineering issue.
Bob Lubus: I understand, but they can’t do what they want which will cause further erosion.
Jeff Franson: If the grass was established, assuming the problem is gone, will there still be
excessive water going into your property?
Bob Lubus: Yes. It would channel its way into the back of my property and the back of my
property would then essentially have an area where water would run from the back corner near
the Boones all the way to the Lafrance’s property and then eventually, behind my property is
Careyshire Farm and there’s a pond at the bottom or some wetlands just passed the Lafrance’s
property. The silting problem would be gone but I wouldn’t be able to walk in the back of my
yard because I’d be walking thru mud.
Page 15 of 18
Paul Palasciano, Go Green Builders: Almost none of these things are correct. If i can show
you a picture. This is an engineered wall with a footing that is 10 feet wide 2 feet thick. It’s got
15,000 pounds worth of rebar in the wall. This wall could hold the empire state building up.
Mancini’s are professional. They know their stuff. The footing is 10 feet deep to the top of the
wall 8 feet wide. It’s buried 5 feet in the ground on one side. It’s huge and massive.
Graciously, the Boone’s put on this gentlemen’s side of the wall instead of putting some cheap
block – beautiful hand laid stone. This wall is not going to be in question, ever, that it’s going to
fall apart. In the integrity of my client’s would correct any of those issues, if they ever
happened. We complied with every issue of erosion control. There’s a massive amount of dirt.
When it pours, anything can fail at that point. We had gigantic piles of dirt. We removed a
bunch of it, as much as we could, and then we spread out the rest of it. We decreased the
incline/decline towards the property, however, at the union of the 2 properties, it dove down a
little bit. That’s the fact that the water is running down this hill and my clients paid extra money
for the landscaper to blend it. The damage has already been done. The grass was put in to try
and stop this problem. It didn’t take. We had a tanker truck to water the grass trying to get it to
grow. It was too hot, it didn’t grow. So we had to redo the whole yard by the landscaper. My
clients are doing that portion of the project on their own. I don’t have any control financially or
otherwise with the contractor that they’re using. My clients are very well off and very well
known. They would never leave him in a mess. As far as the future water running down that
hill, after that grass is established, the decline has been decreased from its original and water runs
downhill. There’s not a lot you can do about it. Once the grass is established it’s not going to be
an issue. He paints a picture that he’s going to be knee deep in water in his back yard even when
the grass is grown because he lives in a lower incline. That doesn’t make any sense, it’s not
realistic and it won’t happen that way. Does he have a mess in his yard? He does. Is it going to
be cleaned up and made perfect? It will – at our expense, 100% guaranteed. The bottom line is
that 3 foot variance for that driveway is up against the stone wall. What that’s going to do is
divert water away from his property and down the driveway and out, not onto his property. The
rest of this, to me, is irrelevant. His argument is not about the variance but his letter that he sent
is clearly is using it as leverage against my clients so that they comply and they will comply. He
didn’t have to do that. Not being a good neighbor.
Rick Sarandrea: Well us granting a variance as he said, even if we went to court, I believe we
would win because that variance, where it’s located, has nothing to do with the problems that
he’s got in his yard. Moosa echoed that. If this was something that we had the power to put a
condition on this thing for all the other problems that are there, that’s one thing. The power lies
right now with you, him, Moosa and the town engineer. All we are doing is granting a variance
so that he can get his CO. It looks like it’s 3 feet.
Paul Palasciano: He would never feel the impact of that 3 feet. It has no bearing on his
existence.
Rick Sarandrea: There’s bigger things going on here like you said. Moosa will make sure,
because this is not the Planning and Zoning Commission, this is Zoning Board of Appeals, we’re
blasé court.
Page 16 of 18
Moosa Rafey: Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention one thing, the hardship with this
application is topography. They needed that retaining wall there. They made a mistake, we’re
human, and I will gladly go with both neighbors and walk both properties with the Town
Engineer to see if there’s anything we can do to help both neighbors, we will be glad to do that.
If this board denies this application tonight, and tomorrow they remove that 3 feet of the
pavement, I will issue the CO. There is nothing else I can do.
Paul Palasciano: We are going to fix that property. One thing is is that we have to establish the
grass on the higher area before we can do anything for him. That has to take hold and this is
prime time for that. We reseeded and we did the whole thing over and regraded it. Once that is
established, we will move in to clean. There’s no reason to clean it now and then do it again.
We will 100% going to stand up and take care any issues this gentleman has despite the goings
on.
Gary Swingle: Again, you have to understand that this has nothing to do with us, this is Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Bob Lubus: The issue is whether or not this variance would cause additional erosion onto my
property. That is in your jurisdiction and if it does, when we already have erosion coming on my
property then I can impose a variance and that opposition can be dealt with by this court. Paving
over more of the land causes more erosion onto my property. I get it. That’s your only issue
whether or not he can invade 3 feet closer to my property line then he’s supposed to in this zone.
I get that, but paving over it means there’s 3 feet less of soil to have water sink into before it gets
to my property.
Rick Sarandrea: You believe that this 3 feet would correct your problem?
Bob Lubus: It’s not going to correct the problem but why would I make it worse? Why would I
agree to make it worse? That’s part of the problem.
Moosa Rafey: Mr. Chairman, the impervious surface coverage of this lot is 24.2% with that
additional 3%. The zoning regulations allows 25%. This gentleman can create more impervious
surfaces on that lot. It is not to the maximum.
Bob Lubus: The problem is if you do it right on my property line then the water is likely to
keep going onto my property. If you put that 25% within the setback lines, that’s something
permitted, and I don’t have a rejection to it. It’s not within the setback lines.
Rick Sarandrea: We can go see it, but again it doesn’t matter. We’re putting ourselves in a
position where this is not a safety issue. It’s a 3 foot variance. I understand your concerns, but
there’s other avenues that you can take to have those concerns taken care of. This board is not
one of them. We will certainly go out there and take a look at it, and I’m sure that if we do go
out there and look at it, they’re going to listen to us too saying ZBA came out too and they’re
saying it is what it is. They part that we’re looking at really has nothing to do with the rest of
what’s going on.
Page 17 of 18
Bob Lubus: The bond is not in my favor. The bond is in favor of the town. The town isn’t
going to represent me in getting my property restored to its original condition. I do not suggest,
as the builder suggests, my property is pristine. I just put in a pool. I still need to do some, I still
need to do some landscaping work directly around the pool, however, the pool had a fence
installed all the way around it. It was roughly a 2 inch gap between the height of the land and the
bottom of the fencing. There’s no longer a gap. 2” has come onto my property from the
adjacent property. That has not come from my property. The 3,500 bond is in favor of town to
assure that he cleans up issues that effect the town or the town’s property.
Moosa Rafey: The town does not get involved with private properties. If there’s a dispute on
the property that they damaged something, it’s a civil issue. They can take them to court. The
town does not get involved. You are right that the bond is for the town. If they don’t finish and
the erosion is not under control, then the town will hire a contractor to use that money to go there
and seed the lawn to make sure that the soil is stabilized. It is not to fix your property. For this
commission there is one issue. There is an application for a 3 foot variance in front of you. I
want the board to focus on that issue. You have 3 options: you can deny it, you can approve it
or you can table it and go see the site. Period – that’s it.
Rick Sarandrea: Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak for or against this
application? 3x Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Vinny Giannetto: I make a motion to close
Paul Palasciano, Go Green Builders: I believe you guys have the map and you can see the cuts
are – the whole driveway goes to the right.
Jeff Franson: That’s what I’m saying, downhill side of the property.
Paul Palasciano: The driveway doesn’t pitch to the neighbor’s property. It pitches to the street.
If fact, the wall is going to divert the water that would go over into his property, to the street. So
it’s totally contradictory to his theory. These people are not suffering financially. They will be
more than happy to correct this problem for this gentleman.
Page 18 of 18
Rick Sarandrea: Well sir, that’s what I would do then so this way here, he’s happy, you’re
happy, the town is happy, everybody’s happy. So that’s what I would do. But again, that’s not
our deal.
There’s a motion – do I have a second?
Roger Mitchell: second
Rick Sarandrea: All in favor. We’ll go into the regular meeting.
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Ned Dalton, Secretary