Town of Old Saybrook, CT - ZBA 071206.Minutes

ZBA 071206.Minutes

MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

JULY 12, 2006

A Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Old Saybrook was held on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 at the Pasbeshauke Pavilion located at Saybrook Point Park, 155 College Street Extension and heard the following appeals and made the following decisions:

Seated for this evenings meeting were the following members: Jan Fenger, Vice Chairman, Rex McCall, Chairman, Dorothy Alexander, Chris Gosselin, Adam Stillman, and Carl Garbe, alternate (seated for application no. 05/06-44 - Corey Fox)

Present: Kim Barrows, Clerk

Absent: Alan Fogg, alternate, Herb Weiland, alternate

The meeting was then called to order at 7:35 p.m. The Chairman introduced the Board members who were seated for this evenings meeting. He then proceeded to read the Legal Notice into the record and outlined the order of the public hearing and the regular meeting. The following public hearings were conducted, as well as the decision session. The meeting has been recorded on tape and the following actions were taken:

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Carl Garbe was seated for this application only.

05/06-44– Corey Fox seeks a variance of Par. 10.6.1 (nonconformity/use/enlargement), Par. 10.6.2 (nonconformity/use/change), Par. 24.6.1 ( max gross floor area), Par. 24.6.2 ( max bldg./structure coverage), Par. 24.5.3 (setback/other property line), Par. 24.5.5b (setback/accessory bldg/rear property line) and Par. 24.5.5c (setback/accessory bldg/other property line) of the Zoning Regulations to permit addition and replacement of accessory building on property located at 75 Middletown Avenue (Saybrook Manor), Map No. 19, Lot No. 187.

Present: Mr. Fox, the applicant; Mr. Diorio, agent from Baseline Surveying.

The applicant provided the Board with floor plans and that made it easier to understand the scope of the project. The existing rear of the building will be updated and widened. There will also be a second floor over the first floor addition. The applicant also wants to tear down the shed in the rear, the shed encroaches on the rear setback and also puts the ground and floor coverage well over the zoning requirements. Without the shed, the coverages are below the requirements. The was discussion with the Board as to the variances requested. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or opposition. There was no audience participation. One letter in support was submitted by Ms. Sheri Clark of 77 Middletown Avenue dated May 1, 2006. There was no further Board comments and the public hearing closed at 7:50 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

06/07-01– Frances Ann Guerrera seeks a variance of Par. 10.7.1 (nonconformity/enlargements), Par. 10.8.2 (nonconformity/lots), Par.10.8.4 (nonconformity/lots) and Par. 24.5.1 (street line setback 25 ft required) of the Zoning Regulations to permit enclosure of open deck and addition of a shed dormer on property located at 7 Barnes Road South, Map No. 14, Lot No. 54.

Present: William A. Childress, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Jill from Point One Architects.

Attorney Childress gave a brief presentation. The property is located between a narrow street and a very narrow street. An application had been previously denied and this application has been revised to reflect the Boards comments at that time. The coverage is under the 20% allowed by the regulations, part of the decking on the waterside is to be removed. A dormer will be added on the west side of the structure that is included entirely within the roof parameters. A portion of the waterside deck will be enclosed with windows to become a three season porch in order to protect the property from the elements. All of the work will be done within the original footprint of the dwelling. The dormers on the Barnes Road side will not be seen and will not obstruct views. New windows and siding will be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The only variances requested are for street setbacks. A plot plan was submitted for the record showing the dwelling is 53' from the wetlands. No variances are requested with respect to the flood plain, the project will not exceed the 50% rule. It was discussed that the Barnes Road area has special character. Attorney Childress mentioned the letters sent in on this application and addressed that the proposal does not obstruct views, the bulk does not exceed 20%, no height variance requested and the side profile of the dwelling varies very little. A petition was submitted showing 18 residents in Great Hammock showing their support. (Petition in the file) J. Fenger was having trouble with the hardship and she feels relief from the elements is not a valid hardship. Attorney Childress stated that the hardship is the two very narrow streets and having to comply with the setbacks leaves a very small building area. This proposal is not violating floor coverage or height regulations. There is no other land available to increase the lot size. The following letters were submitted. In favor: Mr. Thomas Armstrong of 3 Barnes Road dated July 6, 2006. In opposition: M. Rosano of 31 Buckingham Avenue dated July 9, 2006; Elizabeth Frances, three doors down, dated July 9, 2006; Nancy Haney of 33 Buckingham Avenue, dated July 11, 2006; Pauline Van Cleave of 33 Buckingham Avenue dated July 10, 2006; R. Lurate of 27 Buckingham Avenue, dated July 9, 2006; Louisa LaRosa of 20 Buckingham Avenue dated July 10, 2006 (all letters are on file). The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or opposition. The following spoke in favor: Elaine Pernicky stated that the renovations mentioned in the letters were inside renovations pertaining to the kitchen; Mr. Frank Martoni of 15 Buckingham Avenue; Mr. Eugene Lucas of 25 Walker Avenue had no objection; Len Rasacone of Walker Avenue no objection; Christine Gwizd of 19 Buckingham Avenue no objection; Ginny Riley from next door in favor and Mrs. Conachello who has lived there for 60 years was in favor and Lucy Mazacatto was in favor. In opposition: Mr. Rosano felt hardship was not addressed. It was stated for the record the dwelling would remain season. There was discussion as to whether or not the property was seasonal or year-round. There was no further audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed at 8:30 p.m.

06/07-02– NAS Properties, LLC seeks a variance of Par. 10.8.2 (nonconformity/lots) and Par. 24.5.3 (setback/other property line) of the Zoning Regulations to allow portion of structure on southwest side to remain on existing foundation on property located at 3 Parkcrofters Lane, Map No. 3, Lot No. 268.

Present: Mr. Nicholas Saraceno, Jr., applicant.

Mr. Saraceno gave a brief presentation. Mr. Saraceno stated that since last month he went to the neighbors and discussed their concerns. He also explained to them that if the Otfinoski side was altered, the front of the house would look lopsided. Mr. Otfinoski was present this evening and said he worked it out with Mr. Saraceno that the 17 inch encroachment into the setback on his side could remain and in exchange, the existing fence would be removed and replaced with a lattice fence. It had been discussed that the house was bulky, but it is under the coverage allowed, under the height allowed and the only encroachment is the sideline setback of 17 inches. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or opposition. There was no audience participation. There was no further Board comments and the public hearing closed at 8:40 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING (DECISION MAKING PORTION ):

Carl Garbe was seated for this application only.

Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. R. McCall did not see a problem with granting the variances for the addition to the rear of the property to replace the plumbing and bathroom facilities. The problem is with granting a variance for the shed in the rear that will increase the ground coverage and encroach on the setbacks. J. Fenger agrees. The consensus of the Board was that the shed should not be granted. A shed could be built that would conform with the regulations.

A Motion was made by C. Garbe, seconded by R. McCall to GRANT the proposed addition/renovations in the rear of the existing building for Application 05/06-44 - Fox, including Paragraphs 10.6.1 and 10.6.2 (non-conformity). Sufficient hardship has been shown. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, D. Alexander, A. Stillman, C. Garbe Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by A. Stillman to DENY Variances for the rebuilding of the shed as shown on the plans on Application 05/06-44 - Fox. Sufficient hardship has not been shown. Discussion: J. Fenger asked if the shed had to be taken down? R. McCall stated no, it could be rebuilt as long as it is not torn down and he starts from scratch. A. Stillman asked about condition to demolish it. No further discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, D. Alexander, A. Stillman, C. Garbe Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The only variances requested are for streetline setbacks. There are two narrow streets, one narrower than the other making compliance with the regulations difficult. The proposal will not interfere with any views since the modifications are within the existing footprint. The deck on the waterside will be partially enclosed to become a three season deck. The project is under the percentages for ground coverage and floor area and the “bulk” does not appear to be increased. A. Stillman questioned why J. Fenger and D. Alexander voted against the proposal submitted in November, 2005. J. Fenger looked at the property as just another corner lot in town, but this situation is actually very unique with the “front” of the property being Long Island Sound. D. Alexander felt the November proposal had too much coverage and this application has been changed to reduce the coverage.

A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by D. Alexander to GRANT Application 06/07-01 - Guerrera. The hardship is the narrow streets and the corner lot. This variance does not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan of Old Saybrook and strict adherence with the zoning ordinance would cause unusual hardship unnecessary for carrying out the general purpose of the zoning plan and this appeal is not in conflict with the purposes set forth in the zoning regulations. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, D. Alexander, A. Stillman, C. Gosselin Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. C. Gosselin wanted to commend the applicant for his hard work and how the applicant went “politicing” through the neighborhood, getting their input and finally their agreement. A. Stillman had no other objection last time except for the Otfinoski’s objection. This time there was a compromise made between the applicant and the Otfinoski’s and the Otfinoski’s have given their consent to the project. D. Alexander, J. Fenger and R. McCall were also in favor. They felt the 17" encroachment was insignificant and existed previously with the old foundation. Every effort has been made to comply with the regulations.

A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by J. Fenger to GRANT Application 06/07-02 - NAS Properties, LLC sufficient hardship has been shown. Compliance with almost all of the regulations will be met. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, D. Alexander, A. Stillman, C. Gosselin Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

Minutes: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by A. Stillman to approve the Minutes of the June 14, 2006 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, A. Stillman Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

Adjournment: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to adjourn the July 12, 2006 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, A. Stillman Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.

The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Pavilion.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim N. Barrows, Clerk

Old Saybrook Zoning Board of Appeals

Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475