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, February 8, 2012 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, Adam Stillman and Philip Broadhurst
Present: Carl Garbe (alternate) (seated for Application 11/12-20C - Steven & Helene Yates only) , Christina Costa, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Kim Barrows, Clerk
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.
11/12-19C - Nancy J. Norrie-Murphy seeks a variance of Par. 68.1.2(B)4 (narrow street setback/30’ required/19' proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit construction of a two-car detached garage (22'x24') and expansion of existing gravel driveway on property located at 83 Cypress Road (Knollwood Beach Club), Map No. 4, Lot No. 46.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: David Royston, Esquire, attorney for the applicant; Ms. Norrie-Murphy, applicant
Attorney Royston gave his presentation by showing the site plan and a picture showing the tidal wetlands to the rear. Cypress Road is a 40' road which is subject to the narrow road setback which adds an additional 5 feet. Four colored pictures were handed out, one shows the existing driveway in the right of way; one shows how Cypress Road winds around the lot and the tidal wetlands; one shows how the tidal wetlands go in the rear of the property i.e. delineation of lawn and tidal wetlands and the last one shows the house. Attorney Royston then went over the variances requested. This proposal will help eliminate the number of cars on the narrow street. The hardship is that the area for constructing an improvement is limited due to narrow street and tidal wetlands setback. The variance
request relief is within the intent of zoning since it honors the tidal wetland setback and the garage is no closer to the rear than the house is. Zoning regulations state that cars should be on the lots. The proposed garage is to be in character with the house, same color, siding, windows, etc. Applicants prefer a detached garage since the side where the garage can be constructed, the house has windows on that side. A. Stillman showed pictures to the applicants and their attorney that he had taken of the property and asked if they were ok with the pictures. Everyone said they were fine. The builder, Jeff White of Southington was asked what the change in grade would be, Mr. White stated that the grade in back of garage would be basically the same as the existing house. There will be a high foundation wall. B. Dooley stated that adding surface coverage would add to the runoff.
Letter in support received from Ernest and Frances Fayan of 23 Woodland dated January 31, 2012. The Chairman then 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 7:55 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The hardship is that the area for constructing an improvement is limited due to the narrow street setbacks and the tidal wetlands setback. The structure will not encroach into the tidal wetlands. The proposal will allow more cars to be parked within the lot and not on the street. The garage will be in character with the house, i.e. siding and color.
A Motion was made by A. Stillman, seconded by R. McCall to GRANT w/condition Application 11/12-19C - Nancy J. Norrie-Murphy. The variance for the narrow street setback is granted with the condition that the garage structure does not have habitable space above. Sufficient hardship has been shown, the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood and is within the intent of zoning. The Coastal Area Management application is approved as it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and makes all reasonable measures to avoid adverse impacts. No discussion. A vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, A. Stillman, P. Broadhurst In Opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion unanimously passed. 5-0-0
Brian Dooley recused himself and Carl Garbe was seated for this application only
11/12-20C - Steven & Helene Yates seek a variance of Par. 24.5.1 as modified by 68.1.2(B)4 (narrow street setback/30’ required/9.8' Fenwood Ave./28.7' Fenwood Drive) and Par. 24.6.2 (maximum coverage/20% required/21.4% proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit a garage/ mudroom addition with master bedroom above on property located at 93 Fenwood Drive, Map No. 9, Lot No. 9-01.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Yates, applicants; Mr. John Schroeder, Architect
Mr. Schroeder presented the project to the Board. The proposal is slightly over the lot coverage percentage. This is a small lot and there is no other place on the lot for the addition. The house is located on a dead-end street. There were lots of letters in support. Other homes in the area have garages. Access to the garage would be off Fenwood Avenue, not Fenwood Drive in order to save a large, old oak tree. The coverage is going up 1.4%. Attached to the garage will be a mud room and extra space for storage which extends the length of the garage and its encroachment into the setback. Without a mudroom as a buffer, people would enter from the garage into the den. The mudroom also creates an aesthetic break. There is only one house that is served from
Fenwood Avenue. D. Alexander stated that if mudroom removed and garage shortened to 22' it would meet the regulations. The CAM response was that the paving be removed and have a pervious surface. C. Garbe asked if attic space above garage was going to be the master bedroom, the answer was yes. D. Alexander asked if the garage was as large as it is to accommodate the bedroom above. The following were letters in support, form letter all dated January 22, 2012, James Blair of 80 Fenwood Drive; Richard Lalatte of 81 Fenwood Drive; Helen Scott of 82 Fenwood Drive; Kenneth and Donna Dulude of 84 Fenwood Drive; Raymond B. Bliss of 86 Fenwood Drive; Robert T. Halle of 89 Fenwood Drive; Francis Gagne of 95 Fenwood Drive and George MacLauchlan of 101 Fenwood Drive.
There was further discussion with respect to the 20' encroachment into the street setback on Fenwood Avenue. The Board still questioned the need for the mudroom that extends the structure further into the setback. The Board discussed the large encroachment into the setback, the Architect stated that the entrance to the garage could be rotated and three feet could be taken off the length of the garage and still be able keep the mudroom. D. Alexander stated that it would be neater and cleaner if the applicants came back with new plans.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to CONTINUE Application 11/12-20C - Steven & Helene Yates to the March 14, 2012 Regular Meeting. No discussion. A vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, A. Stillman, P. Broadhurst, C. Garbe In Opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion unanimously passed. 5-0-0
11/12-21 - Kenneth & Kimberly Johnson seek a variance of Par. 68.1.2B9 (distance to tidal wetlands/50' required/20.3' proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit enclosure of existing 10' x 20' rear deck to provide additional kitchen area on first floor on property located at 9 Allendale Road, Map No. 19, Lot No. 67.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: David Royston, Esquire, attorney for the applicant; Mr. & Mrs. Johnson, applicants
Attorney Royston presented the proposal to the Board. He stated that the Site Development Plan, more specifically the Zoning Data Table showing Gross Floor Area (per Town Hall Records) of 1,104 s.f. is based upon the first floor living area per the Assessor’s record. McDonald/Sharpe then added the increase in Gross Floor Area resulting from the enclosure of the deck and the additional floor space over the garage. It would appear that the finished basement area (496), the finished garage (308) and the shed shown on the Site Plan (368) should have been included within the existing gross floor area, which would have increased the existing to 2,276 s.f. and the proposed to 3,039 s.f. The revised figures result in an existing gross floor area of 8% and the proposed gross floor area of 11%.
These calculations may exceed the actual gross floor area and the proposed gross floor area, but Attorney Royston stated that it is better to err on the higher side. The only variance required is for enclosing the existing deck, existing deck is 208 s.f.. This is a vertical extension with the tidal wetlands setback. The roof will be 19' up from the exiting grade which is less than the existing house. Attorney Royston submitted 4 pictures of the neighborhood. The hardship relates to the property, it is a large narrow lot, extends to the rear and has a significant amount of tidal wetlands. 28,000 s.f. is upland area, even when the wetlands are excluded, the lot is still large but is restricted by the location of the tidal wetlands. The house and deck were constructed prior to the enactment of the tidal wetlands setback. There will be no expansion of the footprint and no new construction. There was discussion of water runoff with decking
versus roofing. A. Stillman showed pictures to the applicants and their attorney that he had taken of the property and asked if they were ok with the pictures. Everyone said they were fine. The following letter in support from James and Mary Bohan of 14 Allendale was entered into the record. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Ms. Julie D’Ambrosi of 18 Meadowood Lane spoke in favor. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 8:55 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. This is a large lot even when the wetland area is excluded from the calculation. The house and deck were constructed prior to the regulation change creating the 50' tidal wetland setback. This is not a new structure, but an existing deck that is being enclosed and added to the living space of the existing home.
A Motion was made by P. Broadhurst, seconded by B. Dooley to GRANT Application 11/12-21 - Kenneth & Kimberly Johnson. Granting the variance for the distance to the tidal
wetlands does not impose a threat to the wetlands. The deck structure to be enclosed already exists. No other place for expansion. No discussion. A vote was taken: In favor: R.
McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, A. Stillman, P. Broadhurst In Opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion unanimously passed. 5-0-0
11/12-22C - Andy & Patti Kolodziejczyk seek a variance of Par. 10.7.1 and 10.7.2 (nonconformity enlargement/change), Par. 24.5.1 as modified by 68.1.2(B)4 (narrow street setback/33.5’ required/10.6' proposed) and Par. 24.5.3 (sideline setback/15' required/3.2 on west side/2.4' on east side proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit raising the house to meet FEMA standards, install full foundation, raising the addition to same elevation, in raising dwelling 5' additional stairs and small deck for access are required to access dwelling on property located at 96 Sea Lane (Indiantown), Map No. 154, Lot No. 543.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Mark Reeves, Builder; Mr. & Mrs. Kolodziejczyk, applicants
Mr. Reeves presented the proposal to the Board. Several inches of water were in the first floor after Tropical Storm Irene. The property is 900 feet from the water. The extensive repairs to the property triggered the 50% FEMA improvement rule, where if the cost to fix exceeds 50% of the appraised value of the structure, then the structure needs to be flood proofed. This means raising the structure to the FEMA flood elevation. The house will be raised to the “draft” FEMA elevation. The lot sits in a very low area where water seems to pond. The builder and the property owners are committed to managing the water on site. The applicants propose a very utilitarian deck at the back of the house to grill. There will be a minimal landing and staircase that will hug
the house and will not encroach any further. There was discussion about moving the house to a more conforming location but can’t do that because it will be too close to the septic. A lot of the impervious surfaces will be removed, i.e. patio, chimney, concrete stairs. The deck will be 17' long and 6' wide. There was discussion about gravel base for the foundation. R. McCall asked if fill would be brought in, Mr. Reeves said no. The existing garage to remain, only siding replaced. Drainage issued were discussed, the plan is to ask about tying into a catch basin 60' north of property, but drainage pipe has to go through another property and those property owners were reluctant. Several alternatives have been looked into. A. Stillman showed pictures to the applicants and their attorney that he had taken of the property and asked if they were ok with the pictures. Everyone said they were fine. Mr. Reeves stated
that some of the water could be from a leak in the water line going to the house. R. McCall stated that the water issues can’t be addressed by the ZBA, only the zoning issues. Mr. Reeves stated that they would do everything possible to mitigate water issues.
The following letters were read into the record with respect to concerns and opposition to this variance: Russell and Linda Caldarella of 53 Hartford Avenue, dated February 6, 2012; e-mail dated February 8, 2012 from Linda C. Caldarella of 53 Hartford Avenue with further items; Robert and Susan Sussman of 55 Hartford Avenue dated February 3, 2012 stating concerns about ground water level and if it can’t be guaranteed not to become a problem, the variance should be denied (pictures of the area accompanied this letter). The Chairman then 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 9:45 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The applicants will be removing the concrete/paver walkway and patio which will increase permeability. This is a very wet area and the water seems to pond on this property since the properties on the north, south and east of it are slightly higher. The applicants will not be bringing in any additional fill.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by A. Stillman to GRANT Application 11/12-22C - Andy & Patti Kolodziejczyk. The hardship for the deck, front steps and landing is that they will make it more accessible for access and egress in and out of the home with any type of merchandise or supplies. There will be more pervious area with the removal of the flagstone patio and concrete paver walk. The Coastal Area Management application is approved as it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and makes all reasonable measures to avoid adverse impacts. No discussion. A vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, A. Stillman, P. Broadhurst In Opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion unanimously passed.
5-0-0
11/12-23C - Bettyann & Bradley Lemire seek a variance of Par. 10.8.1 and 10.8.2 (nonconformity expansion/enlargement/change) and Par. 24.6.2 (maximum coverage/20% required/29.2% proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit small deck and revised stairway on property located at 9 Saye Street (Chalker Beach) (variances granted prev. 1/11/12), Map No. 12, Lot No. 12.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Joseph Wren, P.E., agent for the applicants; Mr. & Mrs. Lemire, applicants; Ms. Denise Von Dassel, Architect
Mr. Wren presented the proposal to the Board. Only one variance is being requested for the deck. The existing house has a fairly large decks. Mr. Wren passed around photos of the property the day after Tropical Storm Irene. After variances were granted last month for the house, the applicants went back to the drawing board to look at coverage and try to reduce it further in order to have a deck. The proposal is to add a 14' x 10' deck. This reduces the coverage from 31.7% to 29.2%. The deck adds accessability and convenience to the homeowners. The hardship is that the lot was created prior to the enactment of zoning and the amount of wetlands on the property. The Health District approved proposal. There are 12 abutters to this property and no one has sent in a
letter in opposition. Mrs. Lemire stated that they would struggle without a deck due to the elevation of the property. The deck is a reasonable size and a reasonable request for the enjoyment of the property. A. Stillman showed pictures to the applicants and their attorney that he had taken of the property and asked if they were ok with the pictures. Everyone said they were fine. The Chairman then 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 10:10 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The Board discussed whether or not there was a real hardship. Variances were granted last month to center the house on the lot and the proposed deck at that time was denied due to encroachment into the setbacks. The new proposal is a deck which has been reduced in size to 14' x 10'. The addition of the deck would be consistent with those in the area. It will aid in going up and down additional stairs due to the raising of the house to meet the FEMA flood elevation. The applicants can grill and set groceries down without going up and down 15 or 16 stairs each time. Applicants have reduced the ground coverage from the previous application.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by A. Stillman to GRANT Application 11/12-23C - Bettyann & Bradley Lemire. The Coastal Area Management application is approved as it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and makes all reasonable measures to avoid adverse impacts. Sufficient hardship has been shown. The proposal is consistent with the neighborhood and does not go against the intent of zoning. Discussion: D. Alexander requested that the motion noted the plans as follows: the drawing prepared by Indigo Land Design, Site Plan dated 12/9/11 and revised to 1/13/12 with respect to deck and stairs, misc. R. McCall agreed to adding the plan revision date as part of the motion and A. Stillman, seconded it. No further discussion. A vote was taken: In
favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, A. Stillman, P. Broadhurst In Opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion unanimously passed. 5-0-0
REGULAR MEETING:
Minutes: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by B. Dooley to approve the Minutes of the January 11, 2012 Regular Meeting as submitted. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, A. Stillman, P. Broadhurst Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Adjournment: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to adjourn the February 8, 2012 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, B. Dooley, A. Stillman, P. Broadhurst Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Zoning Board of Appeals
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. at the TOWN HALL, First Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street.
| 
