 |
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, August 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, Adam Stillman, Secretary, Dorothy Alexander, Vice Chairman, Philip Broadhurst and Robert McIntyre.
Present: Christopher Billiau, alternate and Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Carl Garbe, 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.
12/13-07 - David G. Heiney, Co-Exec of Estate of Eugean E. Heiney, Jr. seeks a variance of Par. 10.7.1 and 10.7.2 (nonconformity enlargement/change), Par. 58.2 (Gateway Riparian Buffer/100’ required/78’ proposed), Par. 58.6 (Gateway Riparian Buffer/prohibits construction within 100’/within 78’ construction proposed) and Par. 37.4.3.B (side yard setback/15’ required/ 8.5’ proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit renovation of residential structure with addition of rear dormer built within existing footprint property located at 27 Bridge Street, Map No. 24, Lot No. 51.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Edward M. Cassella, Esquire, attorney for the applicant
Attorney Cassella presented the proposal to the Board. The renovation of the structure includes only a dormer addition to the rear of the property. A letter dated June 26, 2012 from J. H. Torrance Downes, Senior Planner for the Conn. River Gateway Commission stated that “. . .only increases the “visual bulk” of structure to a minor degree. . .” Attorney Cassella stated that while the applicant was repairing storm damage from Storm Irene, Mr. Coccomo, the contract purchaser, constructed a rear dormer without permits. The dormer is on the northern portion of the house and is in the side yard setback, so it triggers a variance. The applicant would like the dormer to remain and is seeking the necessary variances. The construction is completely within the building
footprint and Attorney Cassella went over the necessary variances that are required. Attorney Cassella stated that the construction of the rear dormer is consistent with the Town Plan of Development and the hardship is the added requirements for the Gateway Conservation Zone. The survey dated October, 2011 has been revised through June, 2012. The 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 7:40 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. R. McCall stated that the variance requests came after the dormer was constructed. The Board does not condone coming in after the fact. The project does not affect the wetlands and the Connecticut River Gateway Commission letter dated June 26, 2012 from J. H. Torrance Downes, Sr. Planner stated “. . . only increases the “visual bulk” of structure to a minor degree. . .” Since there was no floor plan in the file and while the Health District application was approved, the form itself was not fully completed with respect to number of existing and proposed bedrooms. Since the public hearing had been closed, no further information from the applicant’s agent could be provided.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to DEFER the decision on Application 12/13-07, David G. Heiney until the September 12, 2012 Regular Meeting in order to obtain further information regarding the number of bedrooms since the Health District form was approved but not fully filled out, i.e. number of existing and proposed bedrooms and for the applicant to provide a floor plan. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, A. Stillman, D. Alexander, P. Broadhurst, R. McIntyre Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
12/13-08 - John M. & Sharon A. Napier seek a variance of Par. 10.7.1 and 10.7.2 (nonconformity enlargement/change), Par. 24.5.1 (front yard setback/25’ required/16.75’ proposed) and Par. 24.6.1 (building coverage/20% allowed/27.02% proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit expansion of existing residential property, deck and hatchway to be removed and expansion will be in the front yard on property located at 10 Neptune Drive (Knollwood), Map No. 004, Lot No. 230.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Edward M. Cassella, attorney for the applicant; Mr. & Mrs. Nappier, applicants
Attorney Cassella gave his presentation by outlining the site plan to show the existing and proposed structure. The proposal is to remove the existing deck and construct a 2 story addition in the front and to add second story to the rear addition. There are two net decreases: 1) remove deck and hatchway and 2) remove front stoop. The hardship is the need for additional space in the kitchen area. The lot is small, 45’ x 100’, there will be a reduction of the nonconformity in the sideyard setback of 8’ and the new kitchen addition will be within the two setback lines. There is no ability to add additional land to make the lot more conforming. The coverage is going from 24% to 27%. Mr. Napier, the applicant, went over the floor plans on the second floor when
questioned about the bump-out to the front. R. McCall discussed the street width, R. McCall stated that it was 40’ and Attorney Cassella stated that it was 30’. The hardship is the imposition of the setbacks on the lot and the size of the lot. The Board and the applicant discussed turning the direction of the stairs from going straight out to the street to turning them side to side. A. Stillman suggested that the shed be removed that would decrease square footage by 72. s.f. The following letters of support were entered into the record: Judy Noz of 2 Sea Crest; Winifred Lawless of 1 Neptune Drive, Susan & Paul Tray of 7 Neptune Drive, Judith Raffalo of 2 Neptune Drive and Patrice Cowles of 12 Neptune Drive. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation. Attorney Cassella asked for a consult with his client about agreeing to the condition of
no further encroachment than the existing stoop is now and about cutting the shed size down to 40 s.f. which reduces the ground coverage further. There were no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The Board felt that the coverage could be reduced more and the applicant had agreed to reduce the front steps by 24 s.f. by turning them sideways instead of heading straight to the street and reduce the size of the shed which accounts for 32 s.f. for a total of a 56 s.f. reduction bringing the percentage to 25.7%.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by A. Stillman to GRANT w/condition Application 12/13-08, John M. & Sharon A. Napier. The condition is that 24 s.f. be removed from the proposed front entrance by turning the two front steps to the side of the property rather than the road [Neptune Drive] and cutting the rear shed down so it is 32 s.f. smaller. The hardship is the fact of the size of the lot and it is a plus that the sideyard setback to the rear is being eliminated. The front stoop will not extend further than the existing steps. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, A. Stillman, D. Alexander, P. Broadhurst, R. McIntyre Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
A. Stillman recused himself; C. Billiau is seated for this application
12/13-09C - Thelma Ratner seeks a variance of Par. 24.3.1 (minimum lot area/20,000 s.f. required/3,411 s.f. existing), Par. 24.6.1 (maximum gross floor area/40% allowed/ 1,326 s.f. 38.9% proposed), Par. 24.6.2 (building coverage/20% allowed/29.6% proposed), Par. 24.3.3 (minimum lot frontage/50’ required/39.0’ proposed), Par. 24.5.1 (street setback/25’ required/13.06 proposed), Par. 24.5.3 (sideline setback/15' required/ 7.5’ on east side proposed) and Par. 24.5.3 (sideline setback/15' required/5.1’ on west side proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit demolition and reconstruction to meet FEMA code of cottage damaged by storm on property located at 7 Beach Road West (Chalker Beach), Map No. 12, Lot No. 148.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Stuart Ratner, Esquire, attorney for the applicant and her son; Mrs. Ratner, applicant.
Attorney Ratner gave his presentation by stating that the cottage was destroyed by Storm Irene. The applicant attempted to repair the damage but more of the structure needed to be repaired than they originally thought. In obtaining estimates, the cost exceeded the 50% FEMA threshold so the applicant needs to meet the FEMA flood elevation. Attorney Ratner went over the plans and indicated that the roof pitch will change, to be a 12 pitch. The existing shed is to be removed since there will be storage below the cottage due to the 14’ elevation. The deck will be reduced in size as well, it is going from 318 s.f. to 297 s.f. This is a reduction in the over all coverage. Everything about the cottage will remain the same except for the roofline. The height will remain below
the 35’ requirement and the Board cautioned that it should remain below the 35’height. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. Ms. Doris Zumbrowski of the WPCA spoke, asking about the Health District Approval. The applicant has Health District approval. Mr. Tom McNeary of 141 Chalker Beach Road opposed the pitch of the roof, stating it will look like a tower. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 8:37 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. R. McCall noted the discrepancy in the ground coverage amounts on the plan and what was given during the presentation. With the deck being reduced in size and the shed being eliminated the coverage percentages will be reduced. The house will be raised to meet the new proposed FEMA flood elevation of 14 feet. A new site plan noting the high tide line was presented to the Board this evening. The height of the structure will remain under the 35’ height limit.
A Motion was made by C. Billiau, seconded by D. Alexander to GRANT Application 12/13-09C, Thelma Ratner. The variance for minimum lot area, variances for the sideline setbacks and the minimum lot frontage are granted. They have demonstrated that they are going to take off the shed and they are reducing the total ground coverage as well by cutting the size of the deck. The FEMA requirements are being met by raising the house. The hardship is that the structure was destroyed by the hurricane, it was heavily damaged and the repairs required were over 50% over the value of the structure requiring them to meet current FEMA standards. 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 and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, P. Broadhurst, R. McIntyre, C. Billiau Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
A. Stillman is seated for the rest of the meeting
12/13-10C - John and Martine Ozycz seek a variance of Par. 58.2.3 (Gateway Riparian Buffer Cutting Restriction/prohibits cutting within100’ required/replacement of trees per landscape plan proposed) and Par. 58.6 (Gateway Riparian Buffer/prohibits construction within 100’/within 50’ construction proposed) of the Zoning Regulations to permit demolition of existing dwelling and construct new dwelling to meet FEMA code on property located at 30 Saltus Drive, Map No. 49, Lot No. 4.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: David M. Royston, Esquire, attorney for the applicants; Mr. & Mrs. Ozycz, applicants
Attorney Royston gave his presentation by going over the site plan and noting the tidal wetlands setback. Attorney Royston went over the following letters: a letter from Marcy Balint, of the DEEP, OLSIP dated August 7, 2012 stating “. . . generally consistent, assuming trees can be protected and/or planted along the rivers edge . . .” and a letter from J. H. Torrance Downes, Senior Planner for the Conn. River Gateway Commission dated July 9, 2012 stating “. . .the Gateway Commission chose not to oppose the granting of the variances. . .” and “. . .the proposed development was not seen to be adverse to the protection of the “natural and traditional riverway scene” . . .” Attorney Royston then went over the necessary variances needed to permit reconstruction of a
dwelling. The house will be less nonconforming than what is currently there, it will be constructed in accordance with the Gateway Conservation standards and will be FEMA compliant with the existing standards and those to be proposed. The septic will be upgraded. Attorney Royston noted that there are some diseased trees in the front of the property which will be removed as well as several trees to the north. Mr. Ozycz stated that the trees with the ribbons will remain. The site plan shows trees to be removed and trees to be replaced. The landscape plan shows all of the plantings. Brook Girty, architect, discussed the house and the landscaping plan. The house is a sprawling 4,400 s.f. house. The proposed house and deck will not encroach into the setbacks but the proposed patio will. The Zoning Commission will be responsible for the tidal wetlands protection aspect. A. Stillman asked about moving the pool house,
Attorney Royston stated that the applicants have made every effort to keep the other structures to a minimum. The 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 9:15 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. The new dwelling will be moved farther inland so as to meet the 50’ tidal wetland setback. A letter dated July 9, 2012 from the Connecticut River Gateway Commission stated “. . .the Gateway Commission chose not to oppose the granting of the variances. “. . . the proposed development was not seen to be adverse to the protection of the “natural and traditional riverway scene” in the lower Connecticut River.” The DEEP did not object but asked for the planting of the buffer to be “. . .native non invasive species . . .” Per Attorney Royston’s request, the Board felt the Zoning Commission could determine what those plantings would be. R. McCall and
R. McIntyre agreed it was a good plan.
A Motion was made by R. McIntyre, seconded by R. McCall to GRANT Application 12/13-10C, John and Martine Ozycz. The variances that are requested are approved and that the tree plantings as presented are sufficient. Since the application is going before the Zoning Commission, the Zoning Commission shall determine which type of buffer will be provided for the marshlands. 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 and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, A. Stillman, D. Alexander, P. Broadhurst, R. McIntyre Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
12/13-11C - Helen B. Morelli, Trustee c/o Glenn Morelli seeks a variance of Par. 10.8.1 and 10.8.2 (nonconformity enlargement/change) and Par. 24.5.3 (sideline setback/15' required/9.8’ proposed for second floor vertical extension) of the Zoning Regulations to permit expansion of second floor utility room by raising roof to create a dormer on property located at 1 Shetucket Trail (Indiantown), Map No. 13, Lot No. 14.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Attorney Royston gave his presentation. R. McCall went over the memorandum that acting Zoning Enforcement Officer, J. H. Torrance Downes, provided with respect to the history of the property and noted several violations on the property, some of which were rectified and some under discussion. Since Mr. Downes was not able to attend the meeting to address certain concerns the Board had and Attorney Cronin, the attorney for the ZBA, had not provided an opinion to the Board on the matter, the consensus was to continue the public hearing.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by R. McIntyre to CONTINUE the Public Hearing on Application 12/13-11C, Helen B. Morelli, Trustee c/o Glenn Morelli, so that J. H. Torrance Downes, acting Zoning Enforcement Officer and Attorney Michael Cronin, attorney for the ZBA to either be present to answer the questions from the Board or provide a letter addressing the Boards questions. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, A. Stillman, D. Alexander, P. Broadhurst, R. McIntyre Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
REGULAR MEETING:
New Business: A request from David Annino asking of the Board would accept computer models instead of Architectural Plans for the applications that propose small projects, i.e. additions, barns but not for new construction or major additions. The Board discussed this matter and since the Board would not sure what a “computer model” entailed, they would like further information before agreeing to accept them. The ZBA will still require height and other dimensions on a plan.
Minutes: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by A. Stillman to approve the Minutes of the July 11, 2012 Regular Meeting which was continued to July 12, 2012 as submitted. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, A. Stillman, P. Broadhurst, R. McIntyre Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Adjournment: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by R. McIntyre to adjourn the August 8, 2012 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, R. McIntyre, A. Stillman, D. Alexander, P. Broadhurst Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Recording Clerk
Old Saybrook Zoning Board of Appeals
| |
