anyone know what this is?

[The Voice of Reason]

14-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, 27-29, 30-32, 31-33, 36-38, 50-52, 56-58, 59-61 Colonial Street

special permin application for a planned residential development

Applicant dean Iaiennaro

owner: Pope Park Zion, LLC

on the Hartford planning web site

[beerbeer]

Upgrading the homes, perhaps?

c. 14-16 Colonial Street–Variance from Section 542 rear yard setback, to allow a rear yard

setback of 13.4’ when 30’ is the minimum permitted. Applicant- Pope Park Zion, LLC.

d. 18-20 Colonial Street–Variance from Section 542 rear yard setback, to allow a rear yard

setback of 14.6’ when 30’ is the minimum permitted. Applicant- Pope Park Zion, LLC.

Everyone testifying in the case was sworn in.

Board Member Dauphine read the summary recommendation into the record. It read “Staff recommends

approval of the proposed variance to the rear yard setback requirement. The approved lots, which

comprise the zoning lot, are too shallow to accommodate the required rear yard setback, thus creating a

hardship.”

Board Member Dauphine read the applicant’s hardship statement into the record. It read “Existing lots

(one zoning lot) measure 57.47 ft and 60.35 ft in depth and are too shallow to accommodate the required

rear setback.”

Dean Iaiennaro, of Pope Park Zion LLC, introduced himself as the applicant. He discussed a subdivision

which was previously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and included the subject

properties. He discussed why it was necessary that they be granted a variance from the rear yard setback

requirement.

Principal Planner Jonathan Mullen presented a summary of the application. He stated that staff

recommended approval of the variance request.

Board Member McGarry stated his concern in that open space was being eliminated therefore leaving a

small backyard if the variance were granted.

Mr. Iaiennaro stated that they had worked with landscape architects to come up with the best plan for the

space they had to work with.

Board Member Dauphine asked how large each unit was. Mr. Iaiennaro stated that each single family

home ranged from 1,600 to 1,800 square feet and had three bedrooms and 2 baths. He stated that they

planned to build five more similar proposals along Colonial Street.

Board Member Lerman stated for the record that he had represented the applicant in the past and that it

would not influence his vote.

A discussion occurred amongst the Board Members regarding their concern for how shallow the

proposed lot was.

Board Member McGarry asked if there would be any screening in the rear of the property from adjacent

neighbors. Mr. Iaiennaro stated that they would install fencing with screens in the rear.

[The Voice of Reason]

Upgrading the homes, perhaps?

what was that from?

but damnit, we need more info!

[beerbeer]

It's pretty clear he wants to build three bedroom homes that extend further into the back yard than the current structures. Hence the variance.

They might be new homes or they could be renovations. It's an upgrade for the neighborhood. But it s just homes on one side of one street east of Trinity.

[The Voice of Reason]

It's pretty clear he wants to build three bedroom homes that extend further into the back yard than the current structures. Hence the variance.

They might be new homes or they could be renovations. It's an upgrade for the neighborhood. But it s just homes on one side of one street east of Trinity.

Weird, only the first 2 paragraphs of your last post were visible to me when I read that. wonder if its my wifes Mac or just my stupiud brain. sorry about that.

It seems you are right, however I can confirm that is it new homes. If you map the location 61 Colonial Street you can see there is nothing there, and its basically a nice little infill project.

it almost reads like a suburban sub division though.

and then there is this part

"He stated that they planned to build five more similar proposals along Colonial Street. "

there seem to be 11 lots involved in the proposal I found with all those addresses

your article references 2 of those lots plus the quote above and they would each be 3/2 single families

I am guessing they will either leave some lots undeveloped or something, because this would total (2+5) 7 total single family homes. maybe those 4 remaining lots will become something other than 3/2 single families.

any infill is good though,