MINUTES
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Old Saybrook
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Old Saybrook at its Meeting that was held on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall, First Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street, heard and decided the following appeals:
Seated for this evenings meeting and voting were the following members: Dorothy Alexander, Vice Chairman, C. Gosselin, Brian Dooley, Joan Strickland, Secretary and Mary Kennedy (alternate)
Present: Christina M. Costa, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Rex McCall, Chairman, Allan Fogg (alternate) and Kent Johnson (alternate)
The meeting was then called to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following public hearings were conducted, as well as the decision making sessions. The meeting has been recorded on tape and the following actions were taken:
The Vice Chairman introduced the Board members who were seated for this evenings meeting. The Vice Chairman then proceeded to read the Legal Notice into the record.
Public Hearing:
09/10-16 – Nicholas Inferrera seeks a variance of Par.10.7.1 (nonconformity), Par. 10.8.2 (nonconformity/lot), Par. 10.8.4 (nonconformity/lot), Par. 24.5.1 as modified by Par. 68.1.2 B4 (setback – narrow street setback/30 ft. required/propose 10.9' for house/propose 27.5' for penthouse) and Par. 24.5.3 (sideyard setback/ 15' required/propose 10.5') of the Zoning Regulations to allow closing in of area shown as porch on previous plan approved by ZBA (on 12/12/07) and to approve expansion of penthouse from 9' x 9' (as shown on plan approved 12/12/07) to 10' x 12' as built and the shed is to be removed on property located at 16 Uncas Road (Cornfield Point), Map No. 1, Lot No. 120.
Present: Attorney William Childress, agent for the applicant
Attorney Childress gave a brief presentation. Variances were granted in December of 2007 to allow a 9' x 9' penthouse and an enclosed porch. During inspections and after construction it was noted that the penthouse became 10' x 12' and the enclosed porch was fully enclosed to become a part of the living space of the dwelling. Attorney Childress stated that the location of the house did not change from the 2007 plans, just that the penthouse was built slightly larger, and extends a 1 ½ on the east and west side and 6 inches on the north and south sides and sits further back from the front of the house. The enclosed porch was a part of the ground coverage calculation in the original 2007 plan but was to remain a porch. Its inclusion as part of the actual living space does not change the
original footprint but increased the floor area slightly. The same hardship applies, which is the narrowness of the lot and no additional land to build on. In 2007 there was a condition that the shed be removed and to date that shed has not been removed. Attorney Childress admitted that it is not good to build something that has not been approved. Chris Costa the Zoning Enforcement Officer gave a summary of events that led up to why the applicant was before the Board now in 2010. A letter from William Chadwick dated January 5, 2010 who is a neighbor next door wanted to know why something was
built without inspections along the building process and an e-mail from Maureen Rogers of 11 Uncas Road had the same concerns. Chris Costa submitted her timeline of events for the record. Attorney Childress stated that Mr. Inferrera gave his plans to his builder with an outline and then the builder built what is constructed today. C. Gosselin stated that the Board is not looking at it as a “new” application, but would the Board have voted on this application as presented tonight back in December of 2007. J. Strickland stated that the shed is still there. D. Alexander stated that if the Board is looking at this like a new application it is encouraging people to do this again, i.e. modify the plans as they build. C. Gosselin stated that a Certificate of Occupancy has still not
been issued and a C/O should not be issued until the shed is removed.
The Vice Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 8:00 p.m.
Voting Session:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. B. Dooley stated that the builder had disregarded the plans by over building the penthouse. Also the shed which was to be removed was a condition of the original approval and still remains on the property. C. Gosselin stated that the shed should be removed. He doesn’t like the fact that the applicant deviated from the plans but the slight increase in the size of the penthouse is minor in nature, it extends about a half a foot. J. Strickland stated that the shed is 3.2' from the property line. The porch was always included in the coverage, so having it become part of the house doesn’t change the coverage issue, it is still under 40%. D. Alexander agrees with B. Dooley and she wouldn’t have voted for
the penthouse due to the “bulk” factor. B. Dooley agrees with D. Alexander, if the Board grants the variance, it allows applicants to build over what has been approved. B. Dooley stated that he would be against granting the variances if the neighbors objected, but none did.
A Motion was made by J. Strickland, seconded by C. Gosselin to GRANT Application No. 09/10-16 - Inferrera since going by the plans that had been submitted dated November 17, 2005 which do show a change in the penthouse to 10' x 12' and the proposed porch being converted into interior space to the house. 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 the zoning plan and this appeal is not in conflict with the purposes set forth in the Old Saybrook zoning regulations. Also the shed that was originally to be removed should also now be removed as well. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: C. Gosselin, B.
Dooley, J. Strickland, M. Kennedy Opposed: None Abstaining: D. Alexander The motion passed. 4-0-1
Public Hearing:
09/10-17 B Stephen Hanford seeks a variance of Par. 41.6.1 (street setback 50 ft. req./3' proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to allow a two sided, 2' x 4' sign closer to the road on property located at 102 Ingham Hill Road, Map No. 35, Lot Nos. 008/0004.
Present: Allie Hanford, agent for the applicant
Ms. Hanford gave a brief presentation. The applicants would like to have a two sided sign that is 4' x 2' closer to the road since the existing sign is in a hole and not visible from the street. The hardship is the topography of the land. The Architectural Review Board approved the proposed sign. B. Dooley asked if the sign would be lite, it will not be. It will be a carved sign with two pillars. The road is curved and to be in compliance with the regulations, as they are now, the sign is in a hole and can’t be seen by motorists passing by.
The Vice Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. Attorney Royston spoke in favor, since he had been to the building and could not find the building since the sign could not be seen. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 8:25 p.m.
Voting Session:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. B. Dooley stated that it is an attractive sign. The size will be what is stated on the application. C. Gosselin agreed and the drawing on file depicts the size and proportions of the sign.
A Motion was made by B. Dooley, seconded by C. Gosselin to GRANT Application 09/10-17 - Stephen Hanford for the sign that is specified on the drawing that is on file, it is to be of wood construction, not lighted and with the dimensions of 60 inches tall by 5 feet wide. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland, M. Kennedy Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Public Hearing:
09/10-18 – Richard C. and Dolores T. Cortellessa seek a variance of Par. 10.8.2 (nonconformity/lot), Par. 10.8.4 (nonconformity/lots), Par. 24.3.1 (10.8.3) (lot area, 12,500 s.f. req./8,000 s.f. proposed), Par. 24.6.2 (building coverage, 20% req./23.1% proposed), Par. 24.3.2 (min. dimension of square 100' req./80' proposed) and Par. 24.3.4 (min. width along bldg. line 100' req./80') of the Zoning Regulations to permit demolition of existing year round single family dwelling and permit construction of new single family dwelling on property located at 31 Clearwater Road, Map No. 3, Lot No. 57.
Present: William A. Childress, Esquire, agent for the applicants; Mr. & Mrs. Cortellessa
Attorney Childress gave a brief presentation. The lot has 8,000 s.f. and has substantial setback violations. Attorney Childress presented to the Board maps that have colored lines delineating existing structure (blue) and the proposed structure with the setback lines (gray). There will be a new septic system that has been approved by the Health District. The applicant is asking for the traditional variances that are needed to re-qualify the lot, i.e. lot, area, shape. The ground coverage will increase from 21.2% to 23.1%.
The following letters were entered into the record in support of the project: Les and Lea Dolinsky of 16 Hartlands Drive dated June 16, 2008, Donald and Ann Preece of 32 Clearwater Road dated June 16, 2008, Beatrice and Hilary Kozlowski of 30 Bellaire Drive dated June 16, 2008 and the Abraham Family of 35 Clearwater Road dated June 16, 2008.
The hardship is the that the regulations themselves are designed for lots there are 2 and a half times the size of this lot. There is no additional land available to increase the size of the lot. The increase in coverage is modest and the Health District has approved the new septic. The height of the proposed home will be 26'. C. Gosselin stated that applicant eliminated nonconformities and move the house back. The Board discussed the elimination of two nonconformities, the slight increase in coverage and the new septic system.
The Vice Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 8:35 p.m.
Voting Session:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. C. Gosselin stated that the new septic system is a benefit to the Town. Plus the applicant is reducing the existing nonconformities and the height of the house will be 26 feet. B. Dooley agrees. The neighbors approve the design and proposal. It is in harmony with the neighborhood.
A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by J. Strickland to GRANT Application 09/10-18 - Richard C. and Dolores T. Cortellessa . The proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood, there is a public health aspect with the improved septic system which is to the benefit of the Town, the neighborhood and the applicant. The reduction of the nonconformities as far as setback is certainly worth the trade off in the increase in floor area. The hardship is the size of the lot in the beach area makes it difficult for an applicant to comply with the regulations as they are currently written. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland, M. Kennedy Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed
unanimously. 5-0-0
Public Hearing:
09/10-19 – Saybrook Point Marina, LLC seeks a variance of Par. 37.4.2 (street setback, 25' req/ 21.5' proposed), Par. 37.4.3 B (setback, 15' req./proposed 4.10'), Par 7.4.4 (narrow street setback, 50' req./ 12.8' proposed), 37.5.2 (gross floor area, 40% req./proposed 51.8%) and Par. 37.1 (permitted uses) of the Zoning Regulations to permit 3 story, 3 suite residence with elevator and also rebuilt former bait shop structure on property located at 21 Bridge Street, Map No. 24, Lot No. 53.
By letter dated March 5, 2010 from Thomas J. MacDonald, AIA, agent for the applicant, the application of Saybrook Point Marina, LLC was withdrawn.
Public Hearing:
09/10-20 – Saybrook Ambulance Association seeks a variance of Section No. 128-19G of the Flood Plain Ordinance (6" for base flood elevation) to permit addition to existing building to increase office space and ambulance area on property located at 316 Main Street, Map No. 30, Lot No. 67.
Present: David Royston, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Rick Staub, Point One Architects
Attorney Royston gave a brief presentation. The Ambulance Association has a 99 year lease on the property at 316 Main Street. The existing facility was constructed in 1982 and Attorney Royston explained to the Board the construction timeline. The Ambulance Association is supported by fees and donations for citizens. In 2008 the Town amended the Flood Ordinance to define “critical facilities”, such as fire and police. The amendment stated that critical facilities would be built two feet above the FEMA requirement. This is more restrictive than the FEMA requirements. The applicant is asking for a variance of the Flood Ordinance. The existing building is already 1 and ½ feet above the required flood elevation. To raise the new structure the entire 2' (6
additional inches from existing) would create structural challenges within the existing building. Rick Staub of Point One Architects of Old Lyme gave a visual tour of the building. Raising the new addition would trigger relocating the stairs, elevator and height of the doors in the bays. This would be a physical hardship. A letter dated March 8, 2010 from Geoffrey Jacobson stating that after review he has no compelling objection to the requested variance of 6 inches.
The Vice Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Bill Marston of 326 Main Street stated that he had some concerns. He asked about the driveway that abuts his property and the proposed 500 gallon fuel tank. The tank really cannot be placed anywhere else on the property. This application will be going before the Zoning Commission as well. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 9:00 p.m.
Voting Session:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. B. Dooley in favor of the application. It is an existing building, not a new structure. Applicant has taken into consideration health and safety issues. C. Gosselin agrees, he feels this design makes perfect sense. To raise the addition for 6 inches is an unnecessary expense considering that the current elevation is a foot and a half over the required FEMA flood regulation elevation. Geoff Jacobson, the engineer who reviews the applications has no objection to granting the variance.
A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by D. Alexander to GRANT Application 09/10-20 - Saybrook Ambulance Association. The appeal meets the spirit of the zoning regulations and there is not a hardship varying the flood requirements since it is already a foot and a half above the FEMA standards. This variance does not substantially affect the Flood Plain Management Ordinance and strict adherence with the Ordinance in regard to this elevation issue would cause unusual hardship for the applicant in this particular case, and is unnecessary for carrying out the general purpose of the Ordinance and this appeal is not in conflict with the purposes set forth in the Flood Plain Management Ordinance. No discussion and a vote was taken: In
favor: D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland, M. Kennedy Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Public Hearing:
09/10-21 C – Between the Bridges, LLC seeks a variance of Section 3.4 (Compliance), Section 5.1 (General Standards), Section 5.3.2 (non-residential construction) and Section 5.3.3 (fully enclosed areas below base flood elevation) of the Flood Plain Ordinance (base flood elevations 6.5' as to bathrooms, 6.2' as to new building and 4.2' as to existing building) to permit additions and new construction on property located at 142 Ferry Road, Map No. 45, Lot Nos. 29 & 29-1.
The Board received a letter dated March 10, 2010 from Attorney William Childress, agent for the applicant, requesting that the opening of the public hearing be deferred until next month. The public hearing on Between the Bridges, LLC will open on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room, Town Hall.
Regular Meeting:
Minutes: A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by D. Alexander to approve the Minutes of the February 10, 2010 Regular Meeting as presented. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland, M. Kennedy Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Adjournment: A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by M. Kennedy to adjourn the March 10, 2010 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, B. Dooley, M. Kennedy Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the TOWN HALL, First Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows
Recording Clerk
| 
