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 13, 2011 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, Chris Gosselin, Joan Strickland and B. Dooley
Present: Mary Kennedy (alternate) who was seated for only Application 10/11-14C and Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Allan Fogg (alternate) and Kent (Skip) 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 Chairman introduced the Board members who were seated for this evenings meeting. The Chairman then proceeded to read the Legal Notice into the record.
For the record, Joan Strickland listened to the tapes for this matter. Mary Kennedy is seated for this application only.
10/11-14C B Estate of Eugean E. Heiney, Jr. seeks a variance of Par.10.8.3 (lot area/69,700 s.f. required/9,403 s.f. existing), Par. 37.2.2 (minimum square/100’ required/4.98’ (s/s) and 21.68 (w/s) proposed), Par. 58.6 (Gateway Riparian Buffer/prohibits construction/new dwelling
proposed) and Par. 68.1.2(B)8 (tidal wetlands setback/50’required/41’proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit removal of existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling in compliance with FEMA requirements and new septic on property located at 29 Bridge Street, Map No. 24, Lot Nos. 50 & 51.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Edward M. Cassella, Esquire, agent for the applicant
David Royston, Esquire who originally presented this application to the Board back in March, who then was on vacation and turned it over to Attorney Cassella in April, stated that he would leave the presentation in Attorney Cassella’s capable hands, leaving Attorney Royston to speak as a citizen of the Town in favor of the application.
Attorney Cassella went over the fine points of his presentation. The residence is in an SP3 zone across from Saybrook Point Inn. The Estate is trying to sell the existing dwelling to the Fogels who, in turn, would like to replace the deteriorating structure with a new one. The applicants have presented two possible house designs, and after last months hearing, have come to the Board with a new proposal that has been altered to take into account the Board’s concerns. The hardship is that this is a residential dwelling with a 9,400 square foot lot, where the zone it is located in requires a 69,700 square foot lot. Attorney Cassella then went over the variances requested in order to tear down and rebuild on this lot. He also went over the alterations made from the previous
plan, i.e. the utility room has been removed from the rear and incorporated into the existing living space. The structure itself has shrunk two (2) feet width wise for a reduction of 275 +/– square feet. There have been some architectural modifications made by adding a one foot bump out and a turret, which do not encroach into the front setback. The septic system complies with the public health code. This new proposal reduces several existing nonconformities, i.e. the front and side yard setbacks. The only encroachment is to the rear into the 50' tidal wetlands setback, but in the rear there will only be an elevated deck on piers that will not impact the wetlands. The existing shed in the wetlands setback is to be removed. R. McCall stated that at the last hearing Ms. Susan Sangster spoke in favor as well as Mr. David Heiney. There was also a letter from a neighbor, Mr. Steve Tagliatella. R. McCall commended the applicants
on the revision. There were no concerns from the Gateway Commission only that if trees were removed, the Commission should request that trees with calipers of at least 3" replace those being removed on a one to one basis and the placement of fill should be avoided around the bases of any existing trees. C. Gosselin stated that he was concerned with the size of the house on the lot. Attorney Cassella stated that there were houses in the area that were 3,614 and 2, 965 square feet in size, this house is one-third the size. This is a modest house for the area. C. Gosselin stated that the applicants should be aware that the height should not exceed what is allowed and be careful of the grading on the site. C. Gosselin also asked about the attic space and what it would be used for. The attic space to be used for storage only and the Connecticut River Area Health District, Wendy Arnold stated in a letter of March 11, 2011 that there be no
living space above, only storage.
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 7:50 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
The public hearing closed this evening. D. Alexander stated that the applicants should be commended for revising the plans to address the concerns of the Board. C. Gosselin was still concerned that the structure is too large for the size of the lot. Although C. Gosselin agrees that the eliminating the other nonconformities is good. D. Alexander stated that she is usually the one concerned about the “bulk” of the structure but feels that it fits in with the area and wouldn’t appear substantially larger than those in the area. R. McCall stated that since it is being built in an area between two marinas the house itself would not stand out.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to GRANT w/conditions Application 10/11-14C, Estate of Eugean E. Heiney, Jr. The location of it within the Gateway
Area has been found to be not objectionable to the Gateway Commission because of the minimal impact on the river. There are two pluses, the encroachment into the setbacks in the front and rear will be eliminated, the ground addition in the rear of the utility room has been moved to the front so the only encroachment into the 50' tidal wetland setback is a second floor deck which minimizes any affect on the wetlands. The conditions are: 1) that the removal of any trees that do not have to be eliminated due to construction be prohibited if possible. In addition where trees are removed, the Commission requests that trees with calipers of at least 3" replace those being removed on a one to one basis and the placement of fill should be avoided around the bases of any existing trees and 2) that the third
floor of the house (attic) will be used for storage only, no living space. There will be a new septic system installed and the dwelling will compliant with the FEMA regulations and the flood ordinance requirements. The CAM application is also approved. No discussion. A vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, M. Kennedy Opposed: None Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Brian Dooley seated for the remaining applications.
10/11-17C B Barbara Leroy Rutigliano seeks a variance of Par. 7.4.10 (wetlands setback/50' required/ 10' proposed) and Par. 65.2.4 (excavation within tidal wetlands) of the Zoning Regulations to permit restoration action to resolve notice of violation for excess fill on site during house renovations on property located at 57 Vincent Avenue, Map No. 113, Lot No. 134.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Keith Ainsworth, Esquire, agent for the applicants; Mr. & Mrs. Rutigliano, applicants
Chairman McCall read into the record a memo from Christina Costa, Zoning Enforcement Officer dated April 13, 2011 which outlines the reason the Rutigliano’s are before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This has been an ongoing wetlands violation since 2003 and the only way to resolve the matter is to have variances granted to allow remediation and restoration efforts within the 50 foot tidal wetlands area. If the variance is denied, the Rutigliano’s will not be permitted to conduct activities to remediate the violation within the 50' tidal wetlands setback and a new resolution will need to be worked out between the Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission due to a lawsuit in the Superior Court. If the variances are granted, the Rutigliano’s will still have to appear before the Zoning
Commission to obtain a Special Permit.
Attorney Ainsworth gave his presentation. The Rutigliano’s purchased the home in 1957 wherein the tidal wetlands (salt marsh) had been filled in, as was the practice back then to construct a house. In 2003 the homeowners did a septic repair and fill was brought in. In 2006 they the renovated the existing home and built it to the FEMA codes and filled the yard to level
it. At that time there was an ongoing debate as to whether or not there were “tidal” or “inland” wetlands on the property. After lengthy debate between the Town, the DEP and the Rutigliano’s it was settled that there were “inland” wetlands with salt characteristics. The restoration area is a 10' x 110' strip on the western boundary that will be fully reconstructed according to the plans on file. That area will remain a no mow area and 142 cubic yards of soil will be removed from the site. Attorney Ainsworth submitted photos and also stated that the shed will be removed as well. The applicants need the variances because if they did not received them, they would be in violation of doing work within that setback. The Health District approved
but stated that they could not interfere with the septic system area. Attorney Ainsworth went on to discuss what would be done to the 10' x 110' area and stated that it was a very aggressive restoration plan. B. Dooley asked about the timing of this project. Attorney Ainsworth stated that they hoped to start this summer, but still had to go through zoning. C. Gosselin stated that the applicants have hired professionals to remediate the problems but felt the project should be done as soon as possible.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mrs. Rutigliano wanted to speak in favor of their project. And, of course, Attorney Royston spoke in favor as well. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 8:20 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
The public hearing closed this evening. The request for this variance stems from an inland wetlands violation and an agreement between the Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Commission and the applicants pursuant to a pending court action. The Board commended the applicants for doing what is right by restoring the wetlands to its original state. The proposal, as presented, is an aggressive wetlands restoration. B. Dooley and C. Gosselin stated that the project should be completed within this growing season. This project still has to go before the Zoning Commission for final approval.
A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by B. Dooley to GRANT Application 10/11-17C, Barbara Leroy Rutigliano. Granting variances in this situation is in the best interests of the applicant and the Town. The plans clearly dictate what is taking place on site and time is of the essence for this particular project and encourage the applicant to everything possible to execute this work during this growing season. The CAM application is approved as well. No discussion. A vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, B. Dooley Opposed: None Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
10/11-18 B Harry Amara seeks a variance of Par. 10.8.1 and 10.8.2 (nonconformity enlargement/change), Par. 24.5.3 (sideline setback/15' required/13' proposed) and Par. 24.5.1 as modified by 68.1.2(B)4 (narrow street setback/30’ required/15.1’proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit expansion of front porch up to second floor for an expansion of 196 s.f. to the front of house on property located at 16 Uncas Trail, Map No. 019, Lot No. 298.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Mr. Harry Amara, applicant
Mr. Amara gave his presentation. He would like to put a second floor over the existing front porch. There will be no expansion in front toward the road or to the side. The house is located on a narrow street which increases the front setback and the lot is very narrow which limits where any expansion can occur. The expansion is in order to increase the existing bedrooms. There will be a total of three, even though the Health District has approved four. The proposal complies with the ground coverage percentage and the gross floor area percentage. The house was built in 1928 prior to zoning and the entire house is nonconforming. The lot is 50' x 100' going up is the only possible way to expand on this lot. C. Gosselin stated that the proposal was pretty straight forward.
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 8:30 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
The public hearing closed this evening. B. Dooley asked if there were any letters in the file either in favor or in opposition. There were no letters from neighbors. D. Alexander stated that the proposal is consistent with what is in the neighborhood. The size of the lot dictates that any expansion needs to go up. There will be no expansion of the actual footprint of the house, the addition will go above an existing porch. The lot with is only 50 feet and limits where any expansion can go. C. Gosselin stated that the proposal was very straightforward.
A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by J. Strickland to GRANT Application 10/11-18, Harry Amara. What is seen on site and the applicants presentation, the hardship centers around the size of the lot and their limitations to do expansion that would be conforming in any other way, it is clear by the drawings provided and the site plan. The addition over the porch is a modest one and the architectural drawings are in character with what is there and is in harmony with the neighborhood. No discussion. A vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, B. Dooley Opposed: None Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
10/11-19 C B J.S.M.L. Associates, LLP (Luigi’s Restaurant) seeks a variance of Par. 10.7.1 (nonconforming structure/existing 4,496 s.f/addition of 962 s.f. proposed) and Par. 33.7.1 A (maximum bldg coverage 3,000 s.f. required/addition of 2,458 s.f.) of the Zoning Regulations to permit expansion of first floor for new freezer/cooler and code compliant access to building on property located at 1295 Boston Post Road, Map No. 27, Lot Nos. 32 and 33.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: David Royston, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Thomas Elliott, architect; Joseph Wren, P.E.
Attorney Royston gave his presentation and a history of Luigi’s. In 1956, Luigi’s was started on the Boston Post Road. In 1989, the DiBella family purchased the property where the restaurant is now, a B-3 zone to School House Road. The B-4 zone goes to the Westbrook line. Mr. Elliott was the architect who renovated the restaurant in 1989 when it was in conformance with the zone, the property obtained all of the approvals needed for the renovation. Mr. Lenny DiBella went to the Zoning Commission to obtain a Special Exception to upgrade the cooler system and do some renovations. The new regulation was enacted around 2000 which limited building structure coverage in the B-3 zone to 3,000 sq. ft. per building on a lot. The restaurant itself, prior to any renovation, is
4,500 sq. ft. The DiBella’s own property to the rear of the restaurant along Schoolhouse Road, which is sometimes used for overflow parking. The Zoning Commission did approve the site improvements, i.e. parking and landscaping. But the applicants need a variance of Section 33.7.1.a in order to make improvements/renovations. This is a pre-existing nonconforming lot, which is the classic hardship. The regulation has made the one building nonconforming even though the site itself meets all zoning regulations. It is unique to this property. Mr. Joseph Wren, P.E. went over the improvements approved by the Zoning Commission. Mr. Thomas Elliott, Registered Architect then went over the renovations and improvements to be made to the building, copies of which are in the file. The restaurant will be updated and the coolers, which are 20 years old, will be replaced since they have given out. The restaurant will also be made
handicapped accessible, i.e. access ramp and bathrooms. The large maple trees out front will not be impacted by the renovations.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Robert Parnell spoke in favor, stating that it is good to let business grow and that there was a real hardship due to the change in the zone. R. McCall stated that there was a letter in favor sent by Paul and Alice Baldi of 1350 Boston Post Road dated April 13, 2011. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 9:20 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
The public hearing closed this evening. The applicants have owned the property for 22 years and after 11 years of the restaurant being in business the Zoning Regulations changed the B-3 zone regulation to limit any one building structure on a lot could not exceed 3,000 square feet. This property, before any renovation, is 4,500 square feet. The adoption of the new regulation created an undue hardship for the applicant and his business as a restaurant.
A Motion was made by C. Gosselin, seconded by J. Strickland to GRANT Application 10/11-19C, J.S.M.L., Associates, LLP. The Zoning Regulation 33.7.1.A definitely imposes an
unusual hardship for this particular appeal and the applicant clearly. The proposal made and the fact that professionals were used to design this project have exceeded expectations. The CAM application is approved as well. No discussion. A vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, B. Dooley Opposed: None Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
REGULAR MEETING:
Minutes: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by C. Gosselin to approve the Minutes of the March 9, 2011 Regular Meeting as submitted. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, B. Dooley 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 13, 2011 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, B. Dooley Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Recording Clerk
Old Saybrook Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. at the TOWN HALL, First Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street.
| 
