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, April 14, 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: Rexford McCall, Chairman, Dorothy Alexander, Vice Chairman, Brian Dooley, Joan Strickland, Secretary, Kent (Skip) Johnson (alternate) and Mary Kennedy (alternate), who was seated for Application 09/10-22, Tissa’s Country Market only. D. Alexander recused herself from Application 09/10-22 only.
Present: Christina M. Costa, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Chris Gosselin and Allan Fogg (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 Chairman introduced the Board members who were seated for this evenings meeting. The Chairman then proceeded to read the Legal Notice into the record.
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 30, 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, May 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room, Town Hall.
Public Hearing:
09/10-22 James Gallery & Soda Fountain, LLC (owner), Tissa’ Country Market (applicant) seek a variance of Par. 24.2 (Special Exceptions Uses) and Par. 62.3 (parking on site/to allow credit for offsite parking) of the Zoning Regulations to allow continuation of historic ice cream and soda fountain while adding deli-style food preparation and food service also maintaining retail sales on the pharmacy side of property located at 2 Pennywise Lane, Map No. 30, Lot No. 3.
Dorothy Alexander recused herself from this application.
The Chairman read into the record the Stipulation from the Court. It is entitled Joint Motion for Acceptance of Stipulation for Judgment which was dated March 18, 2010 (copy in file).
Present: Edward Cassella, Esquire, attorney for the applicant; Kathy Benjdid, applicant.
Attorney Cassella read a statement into the record which had a total of 369 signatures attached, all supporting the application and a letter of support from Deb Marquis, owner of the Clayhouse. The letters submitted from the previous application were also entered into the record at this hearing. There were several in support of the application. Attorney Cassella then proceeded to go into detail about the 19 seats which include the outside picnic tables for the deli/ice cream parlor and the necessary health permits that were obtained. The septic system and the kitchen were reviewed by the Health District and meet health code standards. The ice cream and soda area to remain as well as the retail space. The inside is to remain as is to keep and maintain the historic character of the
building. Attorney Cassella then gave the history of the property and how it always had food service of some type. Attorney Cassella then explained how the three room bed and breakfast was allowed after the pharmacy went out of business. The soda fountain is unable to sustain a viable business without some other business to help it out. The parking was discussed, the bed and breakfast has its own parking and the retail space has 1 parking space for each 175 square feet. There are ten parking spaces in the front which is State owned and leased.
The proposal is in accordance with the Town Plan of Development, it preserves the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town. The hardship is that there is a commercial use that has been established in a residential area which has been existence since the 1800's. The septic meets the standards and no upgrades are required. Any traffic generated will be due to the deli use. Attorney Cassella then went on to describe the high traffic already generated by the two churches in the area and the Historical Society when events are scheduled. He also stated that Main Street, also known as Route 154 is a main road and a high traffic road itself during the summer months. In addition to vehicular traffic there will be pedestrian and bike traffic. The Town of Old Saybrook
encourages non-vehicular traffic.
With respect to property values, the use is in harmony with the neighborhood and the surrounding area. It has been a commercial use for decades. Also the matter of “smells” was brought up and there will be no outdoor cooking and any “smells” would not impact the neighborhood. The applicant is passionate about preserving this important landmark in Town. Having an ice cream only shop has not fared well in the past and is basically a seasonal venture. The use can be restricted by the number of seats and the number of parking spaces.
Ms. Benjdid read the following letters into the record in support: Andre L. Lafferrire of 10 Fenwood Parkway dated April 8, 2010 and Helen L. Smits of 29 Fenwood Road dated April 7, 2010.
There was discussion with respect to the Health classification of “Class 2" and “Class 3", the distinction is for the heating and cooling of food. Ms. Benjdid stated that there is no other location in Town for her business, she has been searching for two years. Many other locations are too large and she felt that James Pharmacy was the perfect location and wants to maintain it for the future.
The Chairman read other letters into the record. There is a letter, not dated, but signed by 11 neighbors on Main Street, Maple Court and Pennywise Lane in opposition and listing their concerns i.e. traffic flow patterns, parking and pedestrian safety. Letters in opposition: Kevin and Lisa Farrell of 14 Maple Court dated April 7, 2010; Matthew and Margaret LaChance of 386 Main Street dated April 8, 2010.
The Board asked when the retail side opened up and Ms. Benjdid stated that they opened on March 3, 2010. C. Costa, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, asked what type of kitchen equipment would be needed. There was discussion about a microwave, deli slicer, crock pot and small stove. The deli would serve sandwiches, soups and stews. There will be no fried food or use of seafood.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. The following members of the audience spoke in favor: Darren Babonoe of 15 Channelside; Amanda Babonoe of 15 Channelside; William Pollack of Sharon Lane; Bob Raffalo of 2 Neptune Drive; Deanne Clark of 900 Boston Post Road; Larry Bright of 5 Holly Drive. In opposition was Caroline Collenberg of 7 Pennywise Lane although she thinks the retail store is delightful, she is afraid of people parking in front of her home, which abuts the property and also if the restaurant is allowed, who is to say if they leave, a Subway would be allowed. Debbie Desautel of 380 Main Street is also opposed, Joe Desautel of 380 Main Street is opposed because there will be a decline in property values, increased traffic and septic
issues. Bill Morgensen, a real estate expert, testified to the devaluation of surrounding properties when there is a “commercial” restaurant in the area. He also expanded on the health classification of “Class 2" and “Class 3" upgrades. Thomas McGarry, Esquire, attorney for the Desautel’s addressed the Board by stating that the Board could not hear the matter since the Board heard it less than two months ago and it was denied, there has been no substantial change to the application. He also stated that there was no hardship nor uniqueness to this particular piece of land. The change from Class 2 to Class 3 is an intensification of the use. There isn’t a statement of use to describe the type of food. He also stated that the parking is State owned and the Board doesn’t have the right to delegate the use of State property. From the audience Amanda Babonoe of 15 Channelside spoke again
in favor. Betsy Astrida also spoke along with Mrs. Desautel of 308 Main Street voicing concerns about future restaurants on the site and how it will affect the neighborhood. Ms. Benjdid stated that the restaurant will not be full service, it will just be takeout, there will be no impact on the septic system due to excessive water usage. There will also be no public access for the restrooms as in a full service establishment. Ms. Cosgrove spoke again regarding the parking lot and how that area of parking didn’t always exist. Attorney Cassella disagreed with Attorney McGarry regarding legal authority to hear this application, the Court ruled the first hearing in January null and void. C. Costa stated that, if approved, the application would have to go to the Zoning Commission for Special Exception and additional restrictions could be placed on the site. Attorney Cassella stated that a number of the signatures on the large petition were from
abutting neighbors who were in favor. Discussion ensued regarding the variances going with the land and future restaurants using the space. Mr. Desautel and Mr. Morgensen also addressed the commercial restaurant aspect. B. Dooley stated that he did not find a hardship and he has parking safety concerns.
After approximately two (2) hours of testimony, the consensus of the Board was to continue the Public Hearing until the May 12, 2010 meeting to digest the testimony heard this evening and seek advice from counsel as to how to proceed with respect to crafting a motion to either grant or deny the variances and also contemplate imposing conditions. There was testimony from abutting neighbors who were concerned about the expansion of commercial use on the property, also what would happen in the event the current occupants moved to another location, what type of commercial business would go into the space. There were several signatures in support of the application (a petition of approximately 369 signatures), approximately 13 or so signatures were from residents on Pennywise Lane and Main Street.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by M. Kennedy to CONTINUE the Public Hearing on Application 09/10-22 James Gallery & Soda Fountain, LLC (owner), Tissa’ Country Market (applicant) to seek advice from staff and counsel as to how to proceed with respect to crafting a motion on the application. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, B. Dooley, J. Strickland, M. Kennedy, K. Johnson Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion
passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Public Hearing:
09/10-23 C – Sandra G. Friedman seeks a variance of Section 10.7.1 (nonconformity), Section 24.5.3 (sideyard setback/ 15' required/ .5' proposed) and Section 68.1.2.b8 (tidal wetland setback/50' required/29' proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit extension of existing deck (296 sq. ft. on the northwesterly portion of the property) which will sit on top of existing retaining wall adjacent to existing deck on property located at 81 Plum Bank Road, Map No. 006, Lot No. 007.
Present: Edward Cassella, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Mr. & Mrs. Friedman, applicants
Attorney Cassella gave a brief presentation. The applicants would like to put a 296 square foot addition onto the existing 542 square foot deck. The stair access is not calculated in the coverage. The lot size is 15,000 square feet. There is a deck on the southern side and on the west. The addition will be on the northwest corner and sit on the existing retaining wall. The house next door has deck that sits at a higher elevation and the proposed deck addition will not interfere with the neighbors view. The following letter was entered into the record in support from Mr. & Mrs. Taylor of 77 Plum Bank Road dated March 23, 2010. The Health District has approved the application. The applicant states that the deck will be used for access to the house, currently there is
an existing steep stairway that is hard to navigate. The deck will be attached to the top of the existing retaining wall. R. McCall asked if there is an easement from the neighbors to access their property to maintain the retaining wall. Mr. Friedman stated that there is not an easement in place but he has a good relationship with the neighbors. CAM approval is needed as well, there will be minimal, if no impact at all, on the water. All construction will be landward. Attorney Cassella stated that the hardship is the shape of the lot and limited water front area, as well as the topography and the ability to access the deck. The applicants are looking for a ramp type structure. B. Dooley asked about the configuration of the decking so that there are large enough gaps to allow rain and water to go through. C. Costa stated that she as an issue with the deck being on the retaining wall. The Chairman opened the floor for
comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation. Mr. Friedman stated that the existing deck is not usable and has been there for 10 years. He also stated that if approved he would ask the neighbor for an easement. The Board will not condition a variance on a third party agreeing to the easement. There being no further comments from the Board or the audience, the public hearing closed at 10:24 p.m.
Voting Session:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. R. McCall stated that the applicants already have access to the house, and the reasoning for the variance was to gain access to the house. R. McCall stated that he can’t agree to grant a variance for a deck that goes right up to the property line. B. Dooley stated that he is concerned about access to the sea wall and the surge of water onto the deck. J. Strickland stated that the decking will be on top of the existing seawall which is .5 feet from the property line. There is a concern about maintenance of both the sea wall and the deck since there is not an easement agreement to access the abutting property. K. Johnson concurs with the Board members.
Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by J. Strickland to DENY Application 09/10-23C Sandra G. Friedman. Sufficient hardship has not been shown to justify construction of the deck right up to the northern boundary line. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, J. Strickland, K. Johnson Opposed: B. Dooley Abstaining: None The motion passed. 4-1-0
Public Hearing:
09/10-24 – Andrea Isaacs seeks a variance of Par. 7.3 (setback) and Section 41.6.1 (setback from streetline/50' required/27.9' proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit re-roofing, replacement of small shed dormer with unoccupied cupola structure approximately 7' x 7'. No additional floor area, aesthetic purposes only on property located at 256 Boston Post Road, Map No. 44, Lot No. 25.
Present: Andrea Isaacs, applicant
Ms. Isaacs gave a brief presentation. Ms. Isaacs recently bought back the Cloud Nine and is replacing the roof. At the time of t he replacement of the roof, she would like to improve the look of the building by adding a cupola. Ms. Isaacs presented the proposal to the Architectural Review Board and was given approval with a few suggestions, i.e. vertical siding, a metal roof and a weathervane. Ms. Isaacs agrees with the vertical siding on the dormer and the weathervane. There will be a decorative light in the dormer to act as beacon. The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition, there was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 10:37 p.m.
Voting Session:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The applicant is replacing the roof on the building and would like to enhance the building by adding some architectural features, i.e. a cupola with a decorative light inside. The applicant appeared before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and approved the design with some modifications, i.e. eaves perpendicular to the roofline, vertical siding on the dormer, metal standing seam roof and a wind vane. The ARB only offers the modifications as “observations and recommendations” for the consideration of the applicant. During the public hearing the applicant stated that the vertical siding on the dormer was fine, as well as the wind vane. The metal roof would be cost prohibitive. The consensus of the Board was
to agree with the applicant.
Motion was made by B. Dooley, seconded by K. Johnson to GRANT Application 09/10-24 Andrea Isaacs. The extension is vertical, the footprint will remain the same, there will be no living space on the second floor in the cupola area and a decorative light will be allowed, as well as a weathervane and vertical siding on the dormer. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, J. Strickland, K. Johnson Opposed: None Abstaining:
None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Public Hearing:
09/10-25 – Judith K. Raffalo seeks a variance of Par. 10.6.1 (nonconformity enlargement), Par. 10.6.2 (nonconformity change) and Par. 24.5.1 as modified by Par. 68.1.2 B4 (setback – narrow street setback/30 ft. required/propose 9.8') to permit a portico (5'x6') with columns attached to a 5.5' x 4.5' stoop (24.75 sq. ft.), residing to fit existing roofline and granite walkway on property located at 2 Neptune Drive, Map No. 4, Lot No. 231.
Present: Mr. Robert Raffalo, agent for the applicant
Mr. Raffalo gave a brief presentation. They would like to construct a portico with columns and a granite step. The house was built in 1929 and when Dr. Edwards owned it there was a portico on the house at one time. The structure will go from 14.8 feet from the road to 9.8 feet. There is no obstruction of any site line or safety issue. The hardship unique to the property is that the house was built in 1929 in its existing location and predated zoning. The existing stoop was crumbling and was not safe nor was it in compliance with the building code. The overhang will add protection to those coming and going from the front of the house. There are similar porticos on neighboring properties and this will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will add architectural detail to the
building. The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition, there was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 10:50 p.m.
Voting Session:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The hardship is that the house was built prior to zoning in 1929 which is within the required setback. The existing steps were crumbling had needed to be replaced for safety reasons. The portico will give the occupants protection from the elements. The proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood.
Motion was made by J. Strickland, seconded by B. Dooley to GRANT Application 09/10-25 Judith K. Raffalo, 2 Neptune Drive. The hardship is that the existing stoop no longer exists and poses a safety hazard. The age of the house was built before zoning for this area and the existing house already encroaches into the setback, so to create a new step to the house it requires an encroachment into the setback. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, J.
Strickland, K. Johnson Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 Mary Kennedy (alternate) left the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Public Hearing:
09/10-26 C – Stephan P. Brodeur seeks a variance of Section 10.7.1 (nonconformity), Par. 10.7.2 (nonconformity change) and Par. 24.5.1 as modified by Par. 68.1.2 B4 (setback – narrow street setback/30 ft. required/maintain 25') to permit removal of existing shed and construction of detached 22' x 18' 2" garage, also to raise roof over 50% of dwelling to create vaulted ceiling over kitchen and living room. Footprint of dwelling will not change on property located at 5 Old Colony Road, Map No. 3, Lot No. 265.
Present: Mr. Stephan Brodeur, applicant
Mr. Brodeur gave a brief presentation. The proposal is not to add a second floor but to raise the roof over a portion of the house. There will be no change in the existing footprint. The hardship is the size and shape of the lot. The existing garage meets the setbacks and the existing shed is to be removed. The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Edward Eaccarino of 15 Old Colony Road spoke in favor saying it was consistent with ongoing improvements to the neighborhood, there was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 11:05 p.m.
Voting Session:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The existing shed will be removed thereby removing a nonconformity. There will be no expansion of the footprint, the proposal is to raise the roof over a portion of the existing house. The consensus of the Board was to grant the variances requested.
Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to GRANT Application 09/10-26C Stephan P. Brodeur. The proposal will eliminate one nonconformity, the existing shed, it will not enlarge the footprint of the building, there will be no change in it, it will simply raise the roof on a portion of the house to improve the aesthetics of the building and it is in harmony with the neighborhood and will increase property values. The CAM application is also approved. No discussion and a vote was
taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, J. Strickland, K. Johnson Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Regular Meeting:
Minutes: A Motion was made by B. Dooley, seconded by D. Alexander to approve the Minutes of the March 10, 2010 Regular Meeting as presented. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, R. McCall, B. Dooley, J. Strickland, K. Johnson Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Adjournment: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by J. Strickland to adjourn the April 14, 2010 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, J. Strickland, B. Dooley, K. Johnson Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the TOWN HALL, First Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Saybrook Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475
| 
