October 15, 2020

Mr. Tombalakian stated that Mr. Russell is a collector of antique vehicles and a year ago, he had those vehicles parked on his property. Mr. Tombalakian said that Mr. Russell also has five (5) drivers in his house and those vehicles were also parked on the property. Mr. Tombalakian said that currently Mr. Russell has three cars parked in the driveway and no vehicles parked in the garage; He said that all of the other vehicles are stored elsewhere. Mr. Tombalakian said that Mr. Russell also had a trailer stored on the property but it has been removed now. Mr. Tombalakian asked for an interpretation of Chapter 25 ordinances 25-12.3, 25-12.4 and 25-12.5 and do they apply to the Russell’s property which the building has been in existence before January 1978 which pre-dated the ordinances. Mr. Tombalakian also asked what a commercial vehicle is under the town ordinance. He said that Mr. Russell was cited for keeping commercial vehicles on his property and none of Mr. Russell’s vehicles were ever used for a commercial purpose and were not registered as commercial vehicles. Mr. Tombalakian said all of the vehicles are personal vehicles owned by Mr. Russell. Mr. Tombalakian asked the Board to also interpret the maximum parking area in a residential district regarding no more than thirty (30) percent shall be used for parking. He asked, does this even apply to the Russell’s property? Chairman Neuer stated that he has not heard any testimony regarding what existed on the property in 1951 and what the property was being used for in 1978; he said the use is not a protected prior non-conforming use. Chairman Neuer said that the use under review is for the parking of the vehicles and not the use of the single family house; he said the exception does not apply to the parking. Chairman Neuer stated that this Board cannot define what a commercial vehicle is; he said that is a legal question. Chairman Neuer also advised Mr. Tombalakian that he will have to prove to the Municipal Judge that the vehicles are not used for commercial reasons. Mr. Eben said that he agrees with Chairman Neuer; he said that he would also like information from the applicant that shows when the Zoning Official said that they could pave without a permit. Chairman Neuer stated that all the Board is considering now is the interpretation of the Ordinance. There were no further questions for

he Zoning Official said that they could pave without a permit. Chairman Neuer stated that all the Board is considering now is the interpretation of the Ordinance. There were no further questions for Mr. or Mrs. Russell from any of the Board Members. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Grygiel to state his view on the ordinance. Mr. Grygiel stated that his review memo, dated 6/23/2020, outlines his thinking on this issue.