Town of Old Saybrook, CT - ZBA110806.minutes

ZBA110806.minutes

MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

NOVEMBER 8, 2006

A Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Old Saybrook was held on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at the Town Hall, First Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street and heard the following appeals and made the following decisions:

Seated for this evenings meeting were the following members: Dorothy Alexander, Jan Fenger, Vice Chairman, Rex McCall, Chairman, Adam Stillman, Carl Garbe, alternate, Allan Fogg, alternate

Present: Kim Barrows, Clerk

Absent: Chris Gosselin, vacancy

The meeting was then called to order at 7:40 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:

06/07-15C – Richard W. North seeks a variance of Par. 10.7.1 (nonconformity/ enlargements), Par. 10.7.2 (nonconformity/ change) and Par. 7.4.10 (special setbacks from wetlands) of the Zoning Regulations to permit extensive renovation of existing dwelling and new roof for garage on property located at 102 Knollwood Drive, Map No. 8, Lot No. 48.

Present: Alexander Tighe, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Mr. Rick Staub, Point One Architects.

Attorney Tighe went over the variances requested to refresh the Board. The public hearing was continued to this evening so that the Board could seek an opinion from its counsel as to the allowable height of an ornamental cupola. The Chairman met with Michael Cronin, the Board’s attorney and Christina Costa, the Zoning Enforcement Officer as requested and went on to explain to the Board the outcome of that meeting. The outcome being that both the ZEO and Attorney Cronin stated that the cupola was allowed. Board members felt differently since there was some confusion with respect to the regulations as written regarding the 35' height requirement, exceeding said requirement and “scenery lofts and towers”. Further confusion as to property being in a “Gateway” Zone or Conservation Zone. Attorney Tighe stated that the property was not in either of those zones. The variance for the wetland setback is required because most of the house is in the setback but the portion with the cupola is not. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or opposition. There was no audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed at 7:50 p.m.

06/07-17C – Andy and Phyllis Gregor seek a variance of Par. 58.6 (setback/Gateway Conservation Zone/ required 100' from mean high tide line of CT River or other wetland) of the Zoning Regulations to permit an addition on existing dwelling on property located at 94 River Street, Map No. 49, Lot No. 17.

Present: Edward Cassella, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Stephen Lloyd, Architect and Mr. & Mrs. Gregor, applicants.

Attorney Cassella gave a brief presentation. The newly adopted (adopted 8/28/06) setback for the Gateway Conservation Zone requires a 100' setback from the mean high tide line of the CT River or other wetland. This dwelling is pre-existing and is sitting on top of a bluff. The 100' buffer cuts through the existing structure. Applicants would like to put a 1 ½ story addition on to the dwelling and extend the deck. Mr. Lloyd stated that the project has been in the works for over a year. Topographical issues were taken into consideration as well as tree cover as to the placement of the addition. Mr. Lloyd showed the Board a picture of the dwelling from the River/Marsh area. The dwelling can’t be seen. A letter dated November 8, 2006 from Linda Krause of the Conn. River Gateway Commission stated that the Gateway Commission vote unanimously not to oppose the granting of the variance. A letter from the Gateway Commission of the Zoning Commission dated October 16, 2006 was also entered into the record. This proposal will also go to Planning. The legal hardship is that the project was in the works prior to the adoption of this regulation and the topography of the property dictates the placement of the addition. This is an existing dwelling. There was discussion as to the interior construction, new siding and the color of the siding. Every effort has been made to have the dwelling blend into its surroundings. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or opposition. There was no audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

06/07-19 C – Paul L. Tarascio and Kimberly Tarascio seek a variance of Par. 10.7.1 (nonconformity/ enlargements), Par.10.8.2 (nonconformity/lots), Par. 10.8.3 (nonconformity/lots/ detached dwelling), Par.10.8.4 (nonconformity/lots), Par. 24.5.2 (rear setback 15 ft required), Par. 24.3.1(a) (minimum lot/20,000 s.f.) as modified by Par.10.8.3, Par. 24.3.2 (minimum dimension of square), Par. 24.3.4 (minimum width along bldg. line) and Par. 7.4.10 (special setbacks from wetlands) of the Zoning Regulations to permit removal of single family seasonal dwelling and replace with year round single family residence on property located at 26 Walker Avenue Ext., Map No. 14, Lot No. 49.

Present: William A. Childress, Esquire, Agent for the Applicants

In response to a letter from the Connecticut River Area Health District dated November 8, 2006, Attorney Childress, the agent for the applicants, has requested that the opening of the public hearing be delayed until the December 13^th meeting.

A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to POSTPONE THE OPENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING until the December 13^th meeting re Application 06/07-19C – Tarascio. 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

06/07-20 – Lynn and Jesse Lombard seek a variance of Par. 10.7.1 (nonconformity/ enlargements), Par. 10.7.2 (nonconformity/ change), Par. 24.5.1 (street line setback 25 ft required), Par. 7.4.4 (narrow street setback), Par. 24.5.3 (setback/other property line) and Par. 24.6.2 ( max bldg./structure coverage) of the Zoning Regulations to permit an addition of 18.2' x 48.2' in the attic space on property located at 16 Attawanhood Trail (Indiantown), Map No. 19, Lot No. 269.

Present: Ralph Monaco, Esquire from New London, agent for the applicants and Mr. & Mrs. Lombard, applicants

Attorney Monaco gave a brief presentation. The dwelling is a 40 year old single family home. The dimensions are 28.2 x 48.2 and it is a legal, pre-existing nonconformity. The lot is an irregular shape and dwelling is slanted on the property. Attorney Monaco went over the variances requested. Applicants would like to renovate the existing attic space and put on a new roof. The new roof will be up to code and provide hurricane straps for high wind. The roof height will increase approximately 4 to 5 feet but will be within the required 35' height requirement. There will be no expansion of the existing footprint and no further encroachment into the existing setbacks. The proposal is consistent with the neighborhood development. J. Fenger asked about the deck, the deck is less than 6 inches above grade. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or opposition. In favor: Mr. Fred Mascola of 13 Attawanhood Trial; Mr. Mike Gilson of 12 Attawanhood Trail; ron Boulia of 24 Attawahnood Trail. The following letters were in favor: Barbara Molusis and Fred Mascola of 13 Attawanhood Trail dated November 1, 2006; Marie D. Happenny and Paige H. Lambrecht of 19 Attawanhood Trail dated October 28, 2006. The letter from the health district dated November 7, 2006 was noted and is in the file. There was no further audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed at 8:35 p.m.

06/07-21 – Old Saybrook Castle, LLC seeks a variance of Par. 10.7.1 (nonconformity/ enlargements) and Par. 52.7.17 C (Conversion of Dwellings/Special Standards) of the Zoning Regulations to permit a two family dwelling in the vacant structure (previously the Castle Inn) on property located at 12 Billow Road, Map No. 1, Lot No. 82-4.

Present: William A. Childress, Esquire, agent for the applicant; George Fellner, Architect and Mr. Fred Greateraux.

Attorney Childress gave a brief presentation. The proposal is to convert the property into two single family units. The property is in a residential zone, the variance is not for the conversion but for one clause in section 52.1.17(c) (making changes to exterior portion of the dwelling, i.e. structural changes but not for egress). Mr. Fellner took the floor to discuss the changes to be made to both the interior and exterior of the property. The ground coverage will be 19.99% and the building coverage will be 39.99%. Some of the changes are as follows: on the north end a 4 bay garage, an overhang over the entrance, a new foyer, in the rear a walkway out to a deck and a new pool with patio. The basement will have stairs and an elevator. The basement will not be built out, there will only be storage and space for mechanicals. Unit A will be approx. 8,609 s.f., Unit B will be approx. 10,488 s.f. Attorney Childress stated that this is a unique piece of property that deserves special attention to the historical significance. The hardship is the size of the property. What can be done with this property in order to preserve it. If the regulations were strictly enforced the renovations would not be possible. The castle property is now part of the Saltaire subdivision and has an easement that protects the historic nature of the property. The proposal will go to the Planning Commission and then to the Zoning Commission for a special exception. J. Fenger was happy that this is not the same proposal brought before the Board before. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or opposition. In favor: Barbara Merritt of 44 Town Beach Road; Henry Nozko, Jr. of 12 Point Road; Mike Beernaert of 7 Point Road; Beth Griffin of 5 Point Road; Marion Sirton of 27 Billow Road. In opposition: Ted Levy of Gates Road who feels the hardship is economic. In favor: Gloria Nozko of 12 Point Road wants the change. Her property abuts the castle and it is an eyesore. Most of the people in favor are close abutters who feel this is the best solution and will preserve the integrity of the castle and the neighborhood. There was no further audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed at 9:20 p.m.

06/07-22 – Anthony Messina seeks a variance of Par. 10.7.1 (nonconformity/ enlargements), Par. 10.7.2 (nonconformity/ change), Par. 24.5.1 (street line setback 25 ft required) and Par. 7.4.4 (narrow street setback) of the Zoning Regulations to permit addition of dormers for additional space in attic on property located at 30 Middletown Avenue, Map No. 020, Lot No. 104.

Present: Mr. Anthony Messina, applicant.

Mr. Messina gave a brief presentation. He would like to add dormers to the roof line on the north and south sides of the existing dwelling. The house was built approximately 60 years ago and attention at that time was not paid to “storage”. Mr. Messina has owned the house for 20 years and would like to use the added space for attic storage. There will be no plumbing or heating. The only setback other than the usual nonconformity expansion is the streetline setback. The house had been built prior to zoning. There was discussion as to the fact that “storage” is not an acceptable hardship but after some discussion it was the consensus of the Board that the existing pull down, crawl space situation was a safety hazard. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or opposition. There was no audience participation and further Board comments. The public hearing closed at 9:30 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING (DECISION MAKING PORTION ):

Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. R. McCall stated that he asked for the opinion of counsel and the ZEO both of whom agreed that the cupola was acceptable within the regulations. Some of the Board members felt that the regulation was confusing with respect to the cupola. A. Stillman stated that the design was fine but he had trouble with the “tower” having internal space, if it had only external space that would be fine. R. McCall stated again that the ZEO and counsel stated the cupola was allowed. Discussion as to exceeding the 35' height requirement. Further discussion as to granting the variances requested but not accepting the design as proposed.

A Motion was made by J. Fenger, seconded by A. Stillman to DENY w/out prejudice Application 06/07-15C – North sufficient hardship has not been shown. The proposed “tower” is a concern. Discussion: D. Alexander felt motion made sense since regulation is confusing. No further discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: J. Fenger, C. Garbe , A. Stillman, D. Alexander Opposed: R. McCall Abstaining: None The motion passed. 4-1-0

A. Fogg is seated for the next application only.

Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. A letter from Linda Krause from the Connecticut River Gateway Commission dated November 6, 2006 stated that “The Gateway Commission subsequently voted unanimously NOT to oppose the granting of this variance.” The Board members discussed that every effort had been made to comply with the new regulations by not cutting down trees and by having the house painted in a color that would blend in with the surrounding landscape. J. Fenger stated that the new regulations were adopted in August, 2006 and the project had been in development for over a year. A. Stillman asked if the Board could impose a condition on the color of the house. The consensus of the Board was that no, the Board did not have that authority.

A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by A. Stillman to GRANT Application 06/07-17C – Gregor. There is no adverse impact on the traditional CT River scene, also the topography on the lot and the trees prevent expansion in any other direction than as proposed on the plan. The CAM is also approved. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, C. Garbe , A. Stillman, A Fogg Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. There is no change in the footprint and no further encroachment. J. Fenger stated that the proposal was in harmony with the neighborhood. A. Stillman did not have a problem with it. D. Alexander asked about the hardship. A. Stillman stated that the hardship was the shape of the lot, the small house and the location of the house on the lot. R. McCall stated that it was an expansion of a nonconformity.

A Motion was made by D. Alexander, seconded by C. Garbe to GRANT Application 06/07-20 – Lombard. The footprint remains the same, it is an expansion of a nonconformity. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, D. Alexander, C. Garbe , A. Stillman, Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. J. Fenger stated that this was an astronomical challenge for the architect. J. Fenger did not agree with the neighbors. J. Fenger stated that by correcting an eyesore in the neighborhood the applicant does not need to enlarge the structure. The parcel the castle sits on is too small. J. Fenger feels that the garage could be inside the building. A. Stillman stated for the record that he knew Ted Levy (who spoke in opposition at the public hearing) and it does not color his decision either way. R. McCall stated that this was a big improvement and will be much more attractive than it is now. The neighbors did not object. The variance is for structural changes not pertaining to egress. A. Stillman does not feel deterioration of the property is a hardship. J. Fenger stated that at one time the castle was a freestanding inn and had gardens surrounding the property. A. Stillman stated that some of the decks were not necessary. There was discussion as to proposal not exceeding the ground coverage. R. McCall stated that the way it is designed only enhances the property and sees no reason to change it. C. Garbe felt this was a great plan.

A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by C. Garbe to GRANT Application 06/07-21 – Old Saybrook Castle, LLC to allow the exterior changes not relating to the egress. The hardship is the existing building is deteriorating rapidly, there is no other way of preserving the integrity of the building and it should be preserved to maintain the character and its history to the town. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Garbe , A. Stillman Opposed: J. Fenger Abstaining: None The motion passed. 4-1-0

Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. No change in the footprint, no further encroachments. It is a safety and health hazard.

A Motion was made by A. Stillman, seconded by J. Fenger to GRANT Application 06/07-22 – Messina. Applicant has demonstrated the hardship that the literal enforcement of the regulations would severely inhibit the use and enjoyment of the property and the modifications are in harmony with the neighborhood. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Fenger, D. Alexander, C. Garbe , A. Stillman, Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

Old Business: A letter dated October 6, 2006 from Attorney Childress, Agent for the Anuszkiewcz family of 17 Cranton Street requesting a six month extension in which to obtain a building permit.

A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to GRANT a six month extension in order to obtain a building permit for Application 05/06-37C – Anuszkiewcz, 17 Cranton Street. 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

Minutes: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to approve the Minutes of the October 11, 2006 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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

Adjournment: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by J. Fenger to adjourn the November 8, 2006 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Pashbeshauke Pavilion, 155 College Street Extension.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim N. Barrows, Clerk

Old Saybrook Zoning Board of Appeals

Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475