MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 11, 2008
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Old Saybrook at its Regular Meeting that was held on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Pasbeshauke Pavilion, 155 College Street Extension, heard and decided the following appeals:
Seated for this evenings meeting and voting were the following members: Rex McCall, Chairman, Dorothy Alexander, Vice Chairman, Joan Strickland, Secretary, Chris Gosselin, Allan Fogg, alternate
Present: Brian Dooley, alternate, Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Julius Castagno, Wendy Farah, alternate
The meeting was then called to order at 7:33 p.m.
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:
The Chairman introduced the Board members who were seated for this evenings meeting. The Chairman then proceeded to read the Legal Notice into the record and outlined the order of the public hearing and the regular meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
07/08-37– Jerzy S. and Stella Jedrychowski seek a variance of Par.10.7.1 (nonconformity/ improvements/ enlargement), Par.10.8.2 (nonconformity/lots), Par.10.8.4 (nonconformity/lots), Par. 24.5.3 (setback/other property line /15' required/9.2 ft. +/- proposed) and Par. 24.6.2 (max bldg./ structure coverage/20% required/21.34% proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit stairs from end of existing flagstone walk to access deck on property located at 4 Toms Road (Great Hammock), Map No. 6, Lot No. 15.
Present: William A. Childress, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Mrs. Jedrychowski and Eric Jedrychowski, applicants.
Attorney Childress gave a presentation that outlined the historical events leading up to the granting of the deck and the zoning issues pertaining to the deck stairs. He presents Exhibits A through J (on file), all which outline the existing setbacks and building progress from the time the applicants purchased the property to present day. The applicant has made many concessions during his building process to not limit anyone’s views. The matter before the Board is the stairway to and from the deck. Attorney Childress explains that there always has been the intention that there will be a staircase from the deck. Copies of plans faxed to Attorney Childress in August and December of 07 clearly show that stairs were to be part of the deck. It was an oversight that the plans submitted
with the previous application did not show the stairs. It was explained to the Board that an “as built” survey was required and at the time the as-built survey was done, the stairs had not been built. It was unfortunate that those plans were submitted and created confusion.
A letter dated June 6, 2008 from David McFarlin of 6 Toms Road was read into the record outlining why Mr. McFarlin was opposed to the granting of the variance. R. McCall asked Attorney Childress if he would like to comment. Attorney Childress reiterated that his presentation tried to give a history of just the zoning issues and that some of the opposition is due to extraneous issues. R. McCall stated that yes there are extraneous issues and that those issues should be handled by the ZEO, the Board only looks at the zoning issues. R. McCall noted that the public hearing was extended for input from the Building Inspector regarding ingress and egress, two entrances and exits are not required and there is a certain sized window that creates ingress and egress. Attorney Childress stated that still
there is no way off of the deck unless you jump and this creates a safety issue. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation. A. Fogg asked if all of the neighbors in the area had “switchback” stairs. Mrs. Jedrychowski stated that yes, they all did except for the Settipane deck which is pretty even with the ground. Discussion reverted to what had been previously granted. Mr. Algenius, the builder brought to the attention of the Board that the dimension on Exhibit F (the progress print) that the setback from the stairs should be 9.2' which was the original (when the house was purchased) setback not 12.3' (which is from the property line to the house). The 2005 approval, granted a 6.3' setback from the deck to the property line. Discussion as to if the plan filed with the current application accurately reflects what is to be built. The plan filed with
the application does not have a setback noted. C. Gosselin stated he wanted a plan with the correct information. After the Board discussed the matter with the builder and the attorney, re-measuring the plan submitted (plan revision as of 4-31-08), the conclusion is that the referenced plan accurately reflects a 9.2' setback. Attorney Childress states that the deck is currently built and the stairs proposed are 3 ½ feet wide. J. Strickland asked if a landing is proposed, which is not outlined on the plan. Attorney Childress notes the landing on the drawing in yellow highlighter. The Board members along with Attorney Childress and the builder start talking dimensions with respect to what will be built. The builder says, he started building a platform from plywood and the final dimension was 3.8 feet out (pointing to the plan saying “this way”). The builder states proposed landing is 3.8 feet one way and 4' the
other way. With the height difference he states that they need a total of 7 stairs, actually 7 treads. He continues with 8 risers and 7 treads, he is making the treads a 12" run, so they need 7' for the treads and 4' for the platform. The builder mentioned the concessions made by the owner, the deck wall was built like an 8' deck with a special railing so that you could see through it. It did not interfere with anyone’s view. Attorney Childress puts an “X” on the plan to show the platform. C. Gosselin asked if the builder could comply with what was just discussed. The marked plan was submitted as the “official” plan to work on, Attorney Childress asked if the setback could be made 9' rather than specifying 9.2'. The Board agreed. No further Board comments and the public hearing closed at 8:40 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
07/08-38 – Mario and Beverly Sassu seek a variance of Par.10.7.1 (nonconformity/ improvements/ enlargement), Par.10.7.2 (nonconformity/ improvements/ change), Par. 24.5.1 as modified by 7.4.4 (street line setback 30' required/26.09' proposed), and Par. 24.6.2 (max bldg./ structure coverage/20% required/23.96% proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit moving laundry/utility room to first floor and expansion of garage for bedroom above garage to existing single family dwelling on property located at 16 Summerfield Road (Cornfield Park), Map No. 3, Lot No. 259.
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Mario Sassu, applicants
Mr. Sassu gave a brief presentation. The applicants would like to put on an addition to the property to move the laundry/utility room to the first floor for easy access. A new septic system had been installed previously and approved by the Health District. The addition will not be encroaching further than what exists. One bedroom will be modified for the laundry/utility room expansion and the garage will be extended. The garage extension will increase the ground coverage from 21% to 23.9%. The Chairman read a letter into the record in support of the project from John & Cindy McHugh of 3 Parkcrofters Lane dated June 10, 2008. Mr. Sassu stated that the hardship was his wife’s medical condition. R. McCall stated that a medical hardship is not a valid hardship for
granting a variance. D. Alexander stated that currently there are two sheds on the property and if one was removed it would decrease the ground coverage. Discussion ensued as to whether or not one or both sheds should be removed. After discussion it was decided that the largest shed would be removed. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Speaking in favor was Ed Eccarino of 15 Old Colony Road. There was no one in opposition. There was no further audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed at 8:50 p.m.
07/08-39 – Arnold Chester seeks a variance of Par.10.8.2 (nonconformity/lots), Par.10.8.4 (nonconformity/lots) and Par. 24.3.1 (minimum lot area/12,500 s.f. req./10,250 s.f. existing) of the Zoning Regulations to permit demolition of existing single family residence and construction of new single family residence with attached garage (new house to meet all flood zone requirements) on property located at 18 Pequot Trail (No. 16 per Post Office) (Indiantown), Map No. 13, Lot No. 26.
Present: Christina P. Burnham, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Mr. & Mrs. Chester
Attorney Burnham gave a brief presentation. The applicants would like to remove the existing dwelling and replace with a new year-round dwelling that meets building codes and flood plain requirements. The variances being requested pertain to nonconformities with respect to the lot and for the minimum lot size. The lot is 10,250 s.f. +/- and the required lot size is 12,500 s.f.. The hardship is that there is no contiguous undeveloped land available for the applicant to purchase to increase the square footage of the lot. The septic system has been approved by the Health District. R. McCall asked about the septic system design and the amount of fill that needed to be brought onto the property. The Board was concerned about the amount of fill and the possibility of additional water
runoff onto surrounding properties. R. McCall asked if the applicant would provide a letter from an engineer stating that runoff would not occur. Attorney Burnham noted for the record that the property to the north was an oversized lot, there is a private 40' dirt road that would absorb water runoff and the property to the south is a higher elevation. The Board then discussed the house plans, the house would remain 4 bedrooms with a room over the garage. The room over the garage would be a workshop only and would not be accessible from the house itself, only from the inside of the garage. Discussion ensued with respect to the height of the house since the building needs to be raised to a 12' flood elevation. Also discussed was the existing shed on the property, the shed will be removed. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Speaking in favor were Mr. Kevin Hecht, 19 Mohican Trail and
Mr. Michael Petrucelli, Pequot Trail, who is the immediate neighbor to the north and was not concerned about the runoff issue. No one spoke in opposition. There was no further audience participation and no further Board comments. The Chairman then read into the record the letters in support of the project. Letters dated June 3, 2008 from Joyce Siniscalco of 3 Obed Trail; Marueen Schlosser of 5 Aquidneck Trail; Alan & Evelyn Lindquist of 22 Pequot Trail; Betsy Astarita of 25 Mohican Trail; Michael & Frances Petrucelli of Pequot Trail. The public hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING:
07/08-37– Jerzy S. and Stella Jedrychowski seek a variance of Par.10.7.1 (nonconformity/ improvements/ enlargement), Par.10.8.2 (nonconformity/lots), Par.10.8.4 (nonconformity/lots), Par. 24.5.3 (setback/other property line /15' required/9.2 ft. +/- proposed) and Par. 24.6.2 (max bldg./ structure coverage/20% required/21.34% proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit stairs from end of existing flagstone walk to access deck on property located at 4 Toms Road (Great Hammock), Map No. 6, Lot No. 15.
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. R. McCall felt that everything was put into place after Attorney Childress presented the history and R. McCall stated that it was a very minor encroachment into the setback area and less than what originally existed when the applicants purchased the house. The Board continued the public hearing to get input from the Building Inspector and technically there does not need to be egress from the deck, although it will enhance the safety of the homeowner by having access off the deck. R. McCall felt that there were neighborhood issues at play. The consensus of the Board was that the encroachment is less than what had existed and what the Board approved in 2005. C. Gosselin felt the error (omitting the stairs from the drawings)
occurred due to a simple oversight. The other issues raised are not within the purview of the Board. C. Gosselin feels that the applicant went out of his way to make changes that would be in harmony with the neighborhood and neighbors.
A Motion was made by A. Fogg, seconded by C. Gosselin to GRANT Application No. 07/08-37 - Jedrychowski. The encroachment is going to be less than the original approval from 2005, gaining an extra 3 feet plus or minus. It is also an added safety and convenience factor for the homeowner. The neighboring homes all have stairs from their decks, so this is not out of the ordinary for the neighborhood. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, R. McCall, J. Strickland, A. Fogg Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
07/08-38 – Mario and Beverly Sassu seek a variance of Par.10.7.1 (nonconformity/ improvements/enlargement), Par.10.7.2 (nonconformity/ improvements/ change), Par. 24.5.1 as modified by 7.4.4 (street line setback 30' required/26.09' proposed), and Par. 24.6.2 (max bldg./ structure coverage/20% required/23.96% proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit moving laundry/utility room to first floor and expansion of garage for bedroom above garage to existing single family dwelling on property located at 16 Summerfield Road (Cornfield Park), Map No. 3, Lot No. 259.
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. There is a slight encroachment only on one corner of the addition and a slight increase in ground coverage. The applicant is willing to take down a shed on the property to reduce the coverage by 96 s.f., thereby reducing the nonconformity. This is a modest addition. No additional encroachment from what already exists. The septic system is in the rear and its placement dictates where an addition can go on the property. The lot is a corner lot with a State Highway as one of its streets.
A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by J. Strickland to GRANT w/condition Application No. 07/08-38 - Sassu. This particular appeal is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood, there is no other spot where the applicant can reasonably expand his property and with the unique characteristics of being a corner lot and the location of the septic system on the lot and that the applicant is also willing to remove the largest shed in the rear corner of the property thereby reducing one nonconformity. This variance does not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan and strict adherence with the zoning ordinance would cause unusual hardship in this particular case unnecessary for carrying out the general purpose of our zoning plan and this appeal is not in conflict with the
purposes set forth in the Old Saybrook zoning regulations. Discussion: D. Alexander stated that applicant is willing, motion needs to say approval is predicated on the removal of the shed, the largest. No further discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, R. McCall, J. Strickland, A. Fogg Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
07/08-39C – Arnold Chester seeks a variance of Par.10.8.2 (nonconformity/lots), Par.10.8.4 (nonconformity/lots) and Par. 24.3.1 (minimum lot area/12,500 s.f. req./10,250 s.f. existing) of the Zoning Regulations to permit demolition of existing single family residence and construction of new single family residence with attached garage (new house to meet all flood zone requirements) on property located at 18 Pequot Trail (No. 16 per Post Office) (Indiantown), Map No. 13, Lot No. 26.
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. R. McCall stated that the nonconformities will be reduced, a new septic system will be installed, the dwelling will be flood compliant and the project is in harmony with the neighborhood. The shed will be removed reducing the ground coverage. D. Alexander stated that she is worried about the runoff on the neighbors property since three feet of fill will be brought in for the new septic system. There was discussion regarding the drainage and attaching a condition that the applicant provide a letter from a licensed engineer prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy stating that there will be no runoff. Further discussion regarding the road being a private dirt road versus an asphalt road. The dirt road would
absorb more water and not create as much water runoff. Also the house on the down side is quite a distance away and should not be impacted by the water runoff.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by C. Gosselin to GRANT w/condition Application No. 07/08-39C - Chester and approve the CAM application due to no adverse impact. The reasons for approval are it eliminates nonconformities such as setbacks from the road, it will conform with the flood ordinance and it will remove one encroachment with the removal of the shed shown on the property. The approval would be contingent upon a certified statement from the engineer that there will be no adverse effect to the neighbors with respect to runoff. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, R. McCall, J. Strickland, A. Fogg Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Correspondence and Letters:
A letter dated June 9, 2008 was received from Mark and Angel Evans of 174 Nehantic Trail requesting a one year extension in order to obtain a building permit. A variance was granted in July of 2007 to remove a seasonal dwelling and replace with a new year-round dwelling. At the 2007 meeting, house plans were submitted to the Board and the Board acted on the plans that were submitted. The letter of June 9th, however, states that we “still don’t have the correct house plans that are needed for this site.” The Board would only grant a one year extension only if the applicants use the plans submitted for approval in 2007.
A Motion was made by R. McCal, seconded by C. Gosselin to GRANT a one year extension for construction of a dwelling as granted in July, 2007 and identified on the map id as “Evans Residence, 174 Nehantic Trail, Old Saybrook, Date: 4/27/07 ALLCADD Drafting Design Services”. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, R. McCall, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, A. Fogg Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Minutes: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by C. Gosselin to approve the Minutes of the May 14, 2008 Regular Meeting. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, R. McCall, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, A. Fogg Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Adjournment: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by A. Fogg to adjourn the June 11, 2008 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, R. McCall, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, A. Fogg Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Pasbeshauke Pavilion, 155 College Street Extension.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Saybrook Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475
| 
