Summary of Project Review Committee Meeting on July 20, 2020
Jul 23, 2020 12:10:50 GMT -7
Admin likes this
Post by Donna Lash-Andersen on Jul 23, 2020 12:10:50 GMT -7
Summary of Project Review Committee Meeting on July 20, 2020
The Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) Project Review Committee (PRC) learned on July 20, 2020 that a North Glastonbury landowner (Lot 64) has no desire to proceed with a variance process because it will take too long and he does not want to contact the adjoining neighbors. The owner had previously been told by the PRC that because he has nearly completed the construction of a large building with six kitchens and at least three exterior doors without GLA review or approval, that applying for a variance could be an option to resolve his alleged ‘non-compliant’ situation.
Instead the owner, presented plans for a new proposal with updated application forms, a $1,600.00 check for the fees related to the new plans, and notice that he has retained an attorney. The owner claims the new plan is for a single family dwelling with space for his large family. The unusual division of space is needed to keep his family safe during the COVID 19 pandemic.
The proposed plans (which would involve some changes to what is already built) create Unit A and Unit B within the structure. A 6 ft. addition to the front of the building would give access to a long hallway that in turn would access four suites in Unit A. Unit B, located on the lower level, would have one kitchen and would be an “in-residence guest house”. The architect, Lucas Schad, claims that the new plans are compliant with all GLA regulations because GLA docs do not regulate the number of kitchens or doors for a residence. 1 Go to endnotes
Instead the owner, presented plans for a new proposal with updated application forms, a $1,600.00 check for the fees related to the new plans, and notice that he has retained an attorney. The owner claims the new plan is for a single family dwelling with space for his large family. The unusual division of space is needed to keep his family safe during the COVID 19 pandemic.
The proposed plans (which would involve some changes to what is already built) create Unit A and Unit B within the structure. A 6 ft. addition to the front of the building would give access to a long hallway that in turn would access four suites in Unit A. Unit B, located on the lower level, would have one kitchen and would be an “in-residence guest house”. The architect, Lucas Schad, claims that the new plans are compliant with all GLA regulations because GLA docs do not regulate the number of kitchens or doors for a residence. 1 Go to endnotes
NG Parcel 64 Construction Project in Question
Lucas Schad confirmed that construction workers are on site again. The owner learned from his attorney, Karl Knuchel of Livingston, that GLA did not actually give him an official cease and desist order in the spring of 2020; it was just a warning letter.
Even though the work to finish the building, water and septic is nearly complete, GLA President Newman Brozovsky said he would consult with the GLA attorney about how to interpret the Covenants.
The PRC also listened to questions and comments from concerned landowners, some who attended in person and others who participated by phone. One urged the committee to stop the construction immediately with a Cease and Desist order. Another called the construction illegal and asked why GLA had not stopped the construction when it began two years ago.
Obviously irritated, Chairman Gerald Dubiel answered that it takes time to get such an order, and then stated that he had been working on this for 18 months.
Dubiel’s irritation deepened when another landowner asked him why he ignored information that was given to him, within weeks of when the construction began; the building was not what had been initially approved. “I blame you for this mess”, she stated.
The PRC also listened to questions and comments from concerned landowners, some who attended in person and others who participated by phone. One urged the committee to stop the construction immediately with a Cease and Desist order. Another called the construction illegal and asked why GLA had not stopped the construction when it began two years ago.
Obviously irritated, Chairman Gerald Dubiel answered that it takes time to get such an order, and then stated that he had been working on this for 18 months.
Dubiel’s irritation deepened when another landowner asked him why he ignored information that was given to him, within weeks of when the construction began; the building was not what had been initially approved. “I blame you for this mess”, she stated.
As Dubiel worked to regain his composure, he said the blame should be placed on the owner’s previous engineer who obviously knew that the construction was not approved or compliant. He then revealed that the engineer had been his friend for 30 years and that he had believed his friend instead of the landowner. He later apologized. The landowner then emphatically reminded Dubiel that if he had not ‘blown off” that early report and had actually investigated it, all of this trouble could have been avoided.
Committee member Charlotte Mizzi believes that road safety must be addressed for this project. Access to Lot 64 is on a steep one-lane GLA platted gravel road with two blind curves.
Mizzi also believes that the owner should agree that the use of the five suites would be for his family only and that the suites would never be not rented.
But that, countered Schad, means the owner is being asked to give up property rights. “Why would he do that” he asked.
Mizzi also believes that the owner should agree that the use of the five suites would be for his family only and that the suites would never be not rented.
But that, countered Schad, means the owner is being asked to give up property rights. “Why would he do that” he asked.
Another landowner said the PRC should be shamed for not being on top of this project sooner and that the owner should be shamed for not working with the Covenants. He added that having five dwelling units on a parcel near his property detracts from his property value. He said. “I read the covenants before we purchased our land. We came here for peace, quiet and beauty, not this.”
Committee member John McAllister believes that the owner has shown an intent to defraud and that the owner’s fast forward move on the construction shows bad faith. McAllister also acknowledged that there are loop holes in the GLA documents big enough for a bus to drive through.
Board member Claudette Dirkers added that of all the non-compliant projects in Glastonbury, this project is the “most outrageous of all”.
The meeting ended close to 9 pm with the general understanding that the President Brozovsky would consult with the GLA attorney and that the PRC and the board would hold a joint meeting in about a week to find resolution.
Board member Claudette Dirkers added that of all the non-compliant projects in Glastonbury, this project is the “most outrageous of all”.
The meeting ended close to 9 pm with the general understanding that the President Brozovsky would consult with the GLA attorney and that the PRC and the board would hold a joint meeting in about a week to find resolution.
Endnotes
1. Section 3.12 of the GLA Covenants reads that "A dwelling unit is a structure, or portion of a structure, normally consisting of a living area, bathroom and cooking facilities,
designed for occupancy by a single family."
Section 1.1 of the Master Plan reads that “Residential Housing Maximum residential development for a subdivided parcel is limited to one (1) single family residence and one (1) Guest House or in-residence guest apartment per subdivided Tract or Lot.”
Section 1.2 of the GLA Master Plan reads: “Duplexes and other multi-family housing are not allowed in the Community.”
designed for occupancy by a single family."
Section 1.1 of the Master Plan reads that “Residential Housing Maximum residential development for a subdivided parcel is limited to one (1) single family residence and one (1) Guest House or in-residence guest apartment per subdivided Tract or Lot.”
Section 1.2 of the GLA Master Plan reads: “Duplexes and other multi-family housing are not allowed in the Community.”
