APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Tom Schellens, Kip Kotzan, Susanne Stutts, Richard Moll, Wendy Brainerd (Alternate), Edgar Butcher (Alternate) and Judy McQuade (Alternate).
Acting Chairman Schellens called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He noted that Chairman Speirs has recused herself for the first Public Hearing. Mr. Moll indicated that he too is recusing himself. Mr. Schellens noted that Wendy Brainerd would be seated for Richard Moll and Judy McQuade would be seated for June Speirs.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 04-23 Dimitri and Adel Tolchinski, 286 Shore Road, Appeal of ZEO Order to return structure to its approved configuration.
Mr. Schellens noted that this hearing is an appeal of a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. He explained that State Statutes require that the Zoning Enforcement Officer submit her file, which she has done. Mr. Schellens stated that in an appeal of the ZEO there is no hardship that has to be shown and the applicant has the burden of proof. He explained that the applicant needs to show how the Zoning Enforcement Officer was in error.
Attorney Thomas McGarry, representing the Tolchinski’s, stated that he objects to the fact that evidentiary material has already been submitted on the record. He noted that paperwork has been filed and as such that is objectionable under the practice in Connecticut unless a copy is provided to the Tolchinski’s and him as their representative. Attorney McGarry stated that they are appealing the C&D because Connecticut Law requires that they appeal to the Zoning Board before they go to the Superior Court. He indicated that his purpose this evening is preparation for Superior Court and he noted that he is quite confident of what the decision will be.
Attorney McGarry stated that in the previous hearing allegations were made regarding the height of the walls. He indicated that he has attached to his memorandum a piece of paper labeled floor plan. Attorney McGarry stated that this floor plan indicates in Notes 1 and 2 that the studs that are indicated would add up to 20 feet and with the base plates and top plates another 4.5 inches would be added. He explained that because this is a commercial structure, BOCA requires an 18” joist height, hence the 22 feet high walls instead of the 18’ referenced in the previous hearing.
Attorney McGarry stated that the Cease and Desist Order demanded that the structure be returned to its approved configuration. He noted that the Tolchinski’s asked the Zoning Enforcement Officer to make this more specific and that offer was refused. Attorney McGarry referenced the Board’s letter of March 12, 2003, which revealed that the only condition relating to the building itself is No. 8, the height of the structure is limited to 30 feet. He noted that at this time the building is lower than 30 feet. Attorney McGarry stated that equitable estoppel lies in the case where a municipal agent issues an order which has no basis in law or fact. He noted that they have relied on, to their detriment, the decisions of the Town Boards. Attorney McGarry stated that the applicant
had a Zoning Board of Appeals approval, a Zoning Permit, a Zoning Commission Site Plan approval and a Building Permit. He noted that in reliance upon this the Tolchinski’s have expended quite a bit of money. Attorney McGarry stated that the Cease and Desist fails to comply with the constitutional and statutory and due process requirements of the Connecticut Law and as such violates Section 8-12 of the Connecticut General Statutes. He indicated that all of the claims listed are addressed in his memorandum of law.
Dimitri Tolchinski stated that after receiving the Cease and Desist, he went to the Zoning Office and Ann Brown could not explain what was wrong. He indicated that the variance did not specifically state that the walls had to be 18’ high. Mr. Tolchinski noted that the drawings he submitted as part of the approved appeal were not drawn to scale. He indicated that the structure was built to what is allowed in the Town of Old Lyme.
Ann Brown, Zoning and Wetlands Enforcement Officer, stated that she has submitted a transmittal letter, which lists and identifies the different exhibits attached. She offered the following list of exhibits:
Exhibit 1 – Copy of Cease and Desist Order dated 3/17/04.
Exhibit 2 – Zoning Compliance Permit No. 02-413 with plot plan and building design plans attached.
Exhibit 3 – Variance 03-06, approved for the construction of garage/storage building and stating the conditions of approval.
Exhibit 4 – Notice of decision of the Zoning Commission, action dated 7/15/03.
Exhibit 5 – Zoning Compliance Permit No. 03-504, requesting an increase in the height of the garage to 35’.
Exhibit 6 – Legal notice of decision to the applicant, indicating Board’s denial to increase height to 35’.
Exhibit 7 – Zoning Compliance Permit No. 04-105, to allow the applicant to secure the partially finished building from the elements, with plans attached.
Exhibit 8 – Zoning file notes dated 12/10/03, 12/15/03, 12/19/03 and 3/18/04.
Ms. Brown noted that the ZBA has been involved in the evolution of this project. She noted that they allowed the variance with the condition that the height be limited 30’. Ms. Brown noted that the applicant submitted the same plans to the Zoning Commission and the Building Department. She explained that as the construction progressed, the Zoning Office received a number of complaints that it appeared the building was too tall. Ms. Brown read her file note dated 12/10/03. She noted that she spoke with Mr. Tolchinski on this date and he explained that the application drawings were reference drawings and that he thought he could build up to 35’. Ms. Brown noted that on December 15, 2003 she met with him on site and he indicated that he would stop building and asked her to
consult with the ZBA and Zoning Chairs to make sure that they agreed that he would have to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to modify his variance to build a taller structure. She noted that she spoke with both June Speirs and the Zoning Chairman who both agreed that the variance would need to be modified.
Ms. Brown stated that after Mr. Tolchinski applied for and was denied a modification to the variance to build to 35’, a Cease and Desist Order was issued. She noted that she subsequently issued a Zoning Permit to allow the building to be secured, at Mr. Tolchinski’s risk. She indicated that the structure is not built to the plans that were approved.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether Ms. Brown was ever given a copy of the plans that were used in the actual construction of the building. Ms. Brown stated that the only plans she saw where the same ones that are attached to the zoning permit. She indicated that building plans that show construction technique are unfamiliar to her.
Mr. Kotzan asked Mr. Tolchinski if he had the plans that the builder referenced during construction. Mr. Tolchinski replied that the builder used the plans that he submitted to Zoning. Attorney McGarry stated that the floor plan page indicates the height of the studding and joists would add up to 22 feet. He noted that there is an inconsistency. Mr. Tolchinski explained that the only change to the plans are some additional windows.
Mr. Tolchinski stated that the drawings do not indicate a wall height of 18 feet. He noted that that dimension came from Mr. Schellens. He pointed out that there is no scale referenced on the drawings and the plans are not drawn to scale.
Ms. McQuade noted that Attorney McGarry indicates that all construction has been in conformance with all permits and variances issued by the Town of Old Lyme. She noted that the current structure looks nothing like the building that the ZBA approved. Ms. McQuade stated that the structure looks entirely different then the sketch they approved and she noted that neighbor’s testified to this fact at his last hearing. Attorney McGarry stated that the only condition put in the letter of approval to Mr. Tolchinski is that the building not exceed 30 feet in height. Mr. Kotzan stated that the letter also indicates that the structure should conform to the approved plan. Attorney McGarry stated that as the building sits right now it does not exceed 30 feet in height.
Ms. Brown agreed that the building is not higher than 30 feet tall, but she noted that it is not constructed in compliance with the plans submitted to the ZBA, the Zoning Commission and ultimately to her for Zoning approval.
Attorney McGarry questioned whether Ms. Brown reviewed the plans submitted as part of the first variance request. She indicated that she did. Attorney McGarry questioned whether she referred to the notes on the bottom of the sheet that shows the floor plan. She noted that she does not review construction technique. Attorney McGarry stated that these notes indicate that the framing would be in excess of 18 feet. Ms. Brown stated that she does not know that, as she would not evaluate construction technique.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Schellens closed this Public Hearing.
Chairman Speirs and Mr. Moll rejoined the Board and Ms. Brainerd and Ms. McQuade are no longer voting alternates.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-22 E. Gallo and S. & K. Boulanger, 73 Portland Avenue, variance to allow a commercial parking lot.
Kathy Boulanger and her father Eugene Gallo were present to explain the application. She explained that both she and her father own the property at 73 Portland Avenue. Ms. Boulanger stated that she is requesting a small commercial parking lot on a parcel that is mixed in with other parking lots. She explained that her lot is at this time a private parking lot, established for the use of their cottages. Ms. Boulanger stated that the plan she has created has room for 18 vehicles. She submitted photographs showing the views to the surrounding lots.
Ms. Boulanger stated that her great grandfather purchased the lot in 1941. She noted that her grandmother owned the property for years, along with her cottages, and Ms. Boulanger purchased the property approximately eight years ago.
Chairman Speirs noted that a variance is required of Section 6.3.9, which prohibits private parking lots from being converted to commercial parking lots. She stated that there are currently nine commercial lots with permits. Chairman Speirs stated that these lots can accommodate 623 cars and if two or three people are in each car, those parking spots add more than one thousand people to the beach. She noted that the hardship provided in the application is the fact that there are many surrounding parking lots. Ms. Boulanger stated that the SVDD Committee is trying to bring more businesses to Sound View. She noted that the parking on the street is being regulated to two hours or less. Ms. Boulanger indicated that there is a parking shortage in Sound View.
Ms. Boulanger stated that her proposed parking lot would be in greater compliance with the Regulations than the existing lots. She noted that she applied for and received a driveway permit and because she is on a corner lot she can have both an entrance and an exit to provide safe ingress and egress. Ms. Boulanger stated that based on the location of her house, people come from Portland Avenue and walk across her yard to use the beach. She stated that she spends a considerable amount of time cleaning her walkway and the beach. Ms. Boulanger stated that she would like to have a small business that would help to compensate her for her time.
Chairman Speirs stated that she has been in Sound View on the weekends and there is a problem with the number of people who utilize the area. Ms. Boulanger stated that she has a piece of property that she cannot use for anything else, based on its location. Chairman Speirs stated that the property has been used for a private parking lot for over sixty years. Ms. Boulanger stated that she has to monitor the situation because people will park anywhere. Mr. Gallo stated that he has a sign that indicates the lot is private property and parking is not allowed. He noted that people pull in even though there is a chain across it.
Ms. Boulanger stated that it is very frustrating for her to see the commercial lots, as they do not follow the rules and sometimes even park cars behind their homes. She indicated that she has called the police. Ms. Boulanger stated that she has met with Tim Griswold for the last three years and each time he tells her to wait until next year. Ms. Boulanger stated that she believes her situation is unique. She noted that Trooper Todd indicated that he felt her lot was already one of the commercial lots because of its location. Chairman Speirs noted that it is not a commercial parking lot; it is a private parking lot.
Chairman Speirs read a letter from Tim Griswold, First Selectman, indicating that the Board of Selectmen and the Resident Trooper felt that the Zoning Board of Appeals should reject the application. Ms. Boulanger stated that she feels the Board of Selectmen has a conflict of interest in this matter because there is a Town parking lot that generates a lot of income for the Town. Chairman Speirs noted that the Town spends quite a bit of money on policemen and portable toilets for the beaches.
Ms. Boulanger stated that new ways are being investigated to stop the people from coming to Sound View Beach. She noted that the problem is the cars that circle Hartford Avenue and Portland Avenue looking for parking. Ms. Boulanger indicated that adding one commercial parking lot will not be drawing more people to the area, but it will remove 15 cars from the roads.
Mr. Moll stated that the Sound View revitalization project faces two hurdles; one being lack of parking and the other is septage. Ms. Boulanger stated that the Board of Selectmen is stating in their letters that there is a parking issue and they need more parking and yet they are not in favor of her having a lot.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether she has discussed her proposal with the Sound View Design District Committee. She noted that she has not, but she has discussed it with the parking committee, which is made up of people who own commercial lots.
Sam Rio, Officer of Miami and Hawks Nest Beach Association, stated that when Rocky Neck closes the vehicles park along Route 156 and walk down through Miami and Hawks Nest. He indicated that they park in the plaza across the street and the woman who owns it cannot get the situation resolved. He indicated that the highest and best use for Ms. Boulanger’s lot would be parking.
Mr. Moll suggested that the Board consult with the Board of Selectmen and ask why they do not feel this parking lot will help the parking situation in Sound View.
Ms. Brown explained that there are two approval processes; the first to receive a variance to extinguish the prohibition of any new commercial parking lots and the other would be to get a permit issued by the Board of Selectmen. She noted that if a variance is granted, it is not guaranteed that the Board of Selectmen will license the lot.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 04-25 Peter Babin, 25 Town Woods Road, variance to allow sun room on new deck over existing slab.
Delores Rodriguez, Creative Enclosures, and Peter Babin were present to explain the application. Chairman Speirs noted that the only variance required is to Section 8.9.3, although there are many existing nonconformities.
Ms. Rodriguez explained that the sunroom is 12’8” in length by 11’7” wide. She noted that there is an existing slab on the rear of the property that exceeds those measurements by over four feet on two sides. Ms. Rodriguez stated that the sunroom would be placed on a platform on top of the slab. Mr. Schellens questioned the height of the sunroom floor. Ms. Rodriguez stated that the sunroom floor and the first floor of the house would be at the same elevation.
Ms. Rodriguez stated that the hardship is that the family is trying to expand their livable space and at the time they purchased the home they were unaware that the lot was nonconforming. Mr. Babin stated that he is not able to purchase any additional land. Chairman Speirs noted that all setback requirements are met. She noted that the property is 6,970 square feet, with the proposed coverage to be approximately 19.1 percent. Mr. Schellens stated that according to the scale on the drawing, the floor height would be 3 feet above the existing grade. He asked that that figure be noted on the plan. Ms. Rodriguez indicated that she is not sure that 3 feet would be exact, as it may be off by a couple inches. Chairman Speirs noted that a condition of approval could be implemented that
the exact elevation be provided to the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Moll stated that the plan view that shows the floor does not include the side door entrance.
Mr. Kotzan suggested a possible condition be that the height of the structure cannot exceed 15 feet in height. Chairman Speirs stated that the correct measurements would be added to the drawing before Ms. Brown issues the permit.
Mr. Babin stated that he purchased the property in December of 2000.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 04-26 Sal Guarnaccia, 66 Old Colony Road, variance to raise pitch of second floor roof and widen front porch.
Attorney Harris and Sal Guarnaccia were present to explain the application. Attorney Harris stated that he was before the Board one year ago with the same matter, which was denied without prejudice. He noted that several things have changed since they were last before the Board. Attorney Harris stated that at the last hearing there was discussion regarding the septic system. He noted that it was a cesspool and has been replaced with a septic tank and leach fields. Attorney Harris stated that the septic system repair is indicated on the Zoning Permit.
Attorney Harris stated that the applicant has reduced the number of bedrooms by two. He indicated that one of these bedrooms will be a living room and the other will be converted to a bathroom. Attorney Harris stated that the structure currently has 10 bedrooms and the applicant is willing to reduce that number to 8. Chairman Speirs noted that there are three bedrooms in the other dwelling on the property, for a total of 11 bedrooms on the property. Attorney Harris pointed out that there are currently 13 bedrooms on the property.
Attorney Harris stated that the issue before the Board arose in conjunction with repairs that were being done to the lower and upper porches. He noted that the net effect of all the changes, in terms of living space, is a 3 square feet increase. Attorney Harris stated that the purpose of the repairs was to make the dwelling sound, not increase the living space by 3 square feet. He noted that the original porch was 34’8” wide and was 18’7.5” from the road. Attorney Harris stated that the porch was widened 8” on each end to bring it in line with the house. He explained that the porch was reduced 4.5” in depth, for a net reduction in square footage of 13 square feet. Attorney Harris stated that the widening of the porch increased the square footage 11
square feet, for a net decrease in the porch area of 2 square feet. He submitted a document for the record that outlines these computations. Attorney Harris stated that the porch on the second floor had a significant amount of rot and also had the same indentation that the lower porch had. He explained that the desire was to make a gable roof to avoid future leaking of the roof. Attorney Harris noted that these changes resulted in a net increase of 5.3 square feet. He noted that all together, the total increase is 3.3 square feet.
Chairman Speirs stated that the lower porch is no longer a porch and has increased the area of the two first floor apartments. Sal Guarnaccia submitted photographs of the damage. He showed the Board a window sash that was removed from the porch. He noted that the porch was enclosed and had electricity. Mr. Guarnaccia stated that the porch was enclosed when he purchased the property. Ms. McQuade questioned whether there was a wall between the porch and the living room. Mr. Guarnaccia stated that he believes most of the changes to be property occurred in the 1980’s. He indicated that he did not remove an interior wall between the porch and the house. Mr. Guarnaccia stated that in one spot there was a small half wall, which was like a breakfast bar.
Mr. Guarnaccia pointed out that he had a permit to perform work on the property. He indicated that he did not realize he was doing anything wrong. Mr. Guarnaccia stated that there were windows on the porch and replaced them. He noted that the permit he pulled was for windows, siding and exterior doors. Attorney Harris stated that although the Assessor’s Card picture shows a porch with screens, the window Mr. Guarnaccia brought this evening was used in place of the screens in the cooler weather.
Mr. Schellens stated that he believes the three season porches have become part of the living area by the fact that they have been insulated, sheet rocked, wired and can accommodate year-round living. Attorney Harris pointed out that this is a seasonal dwelling. Mr. Guarnaccia stated that the reason he insulated was not for heat, but for air-conditioning. He indicated that he would be willing to put a wall and a door back between the porch and the living area if that would satisfy the Board.
Chairman Speirs stated that the 2000 Assessor’s Card for the rear building indicates that there is a screened porch. She noted that there is no longer a screened porch on that building which she believes is another expansion.
Mr. Guarnaccia pointed out that the pictures he presented that show the water damage on the porches also shows insulation hanging out. Mr. Kotzan stated that the pictures also show an interior type paneling. Attorney Harris stated that the pictures indicate that the porches were something more than a porch. He noted that the Assessor’s Records indicate the porches were finished and Mr. Guarnaccia has testified to what was there when he purchased the property.
Attorney Harris stated that if the Board was to find that the porch was a separate porch from the house, then a possible condition could be to re-establish a separation. Chairman Speirs stated that changes have taken place in the rear structure also. She noted that the structure they are discussing this evening was changed from a two-family to a three family at some point in time.
Attorney Harris stated that the changes occurred in the past and are on the Town Records. He indicated that the Town has never raised the issue, never issued a notice of violation or Cease and Desist Order. He indicated that Mr. Guarnaccia purchased the property in 2001.
Chairman Speirs stated that on a 4,000 square foot lot she sees it difficult to increase the use of the living space. Attorney Harris stated that the applicant is willing to remove two bedrooms and he is also willing to replace the wall between the porch and the house.
Mr. Kotzan stated that many things have been done to improve the property and the Board has to be careful to be sure that some of the improvements are not adding strain to a very small lot. Attorney Harris stated that the septic system alone is a great improvement. Chairman Speirs stated that it is a small lot with a large number of bedrooms. She stated that the owner could reduce the number of bedrooms. Chairman Speirs noted that she saw for rent signs on the premises. Mr. Guarnaccia stated that he is renting the property to help defray the cost of the improvements and legal representation.
Chairman Speirs questioned how many feet the well is from the septic system. Mr. Guarnaccia stated that it is about the same distance as it was before. Mr. Moll stated that the septic system was repaired. He questioned whether the septic system is a RUCH System. Mr. Guarnaccia indicated that it is. He noted that it is the septic system that Mr. Rose requested be installed. Mr. Moll noted that the septic system is under the repair classification. Attorney Harris indicated that there are many pre-existing properties whose systems cannot comply with current public health code. Mr. Moll stated that a RUCH System is an improvement over a cesspool, but if the property had enough land it wouldn’t need a RUCH System. Mr. Guarnaccia stated that his repair consisted of two
new tanks and a leaching field.
Mr. Schellens stated that even with an interior wall the porch does not appear to be a porch because of the lack of windows. He indicated that a number of windows have been removed and replaced with siding.
Attorney Harris asked that the matter be continued to the next meeting to give him an opportunity to review the issues raised by the Board and come up with some suggestions as to how the issues can be resolved.
Chairman Speirs noted that this Public Hearing is continued to the July 13, 2004 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
04-23 Dimitri and Adel Tolchinski, 286 Shore Road
Chairman Speirs and Richard Moll excused themselves for this vote and left the room.
Acting Chairman Schellens stated that Mr. Tolchinski has to prove at least one of the allegations that he made in order for the Board to find that an error was made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. He noted that the issue is whether the Cease and Desist was issued unfairly and incorrectly. The Board reviewed each of the allegations individually, as follows:
Claim A – The ZEO is estopled from issuing a cease and desist because she failed to inspect and/or upon her inspections failed to issue a stop order. The Board agreed that the appellant did not prove this claim.
Claim B – The Cease and Desist Order is invalid because it fails to specificy the exact violations with respect to what is being ordered. Mr. Kotzan noted that the variance had several conditions including one that indicated it must be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The Board agreed that the appellant did not prove this claim.
Claim C – The ZEO refused to make the order more specific upon a request of the applicants in violation of their due process rights and constitution protections and administrative procedures. Ms. McQuade stated that it was clear that the situation had been discussed with the applicant and she is not clear why it would have needed further discussion. Mr. Kotzan stated that he is not sure how the ZEO could have been more specific as she indicated that the structure was not constructed to the approved plan. The Board agreed that the appellant did not prove this claim.
Claim D – The Order is illegal because it fails to allow the applicants to protect their assets while an appeal is pending in the Superior Court as permitted by Statute and case law. Mr. Schellens stated that Permit No. 04-105 is a permit that granted the applicant the right to put a roof on the structure. The Board agreed that the appellant did not prove this claim.
Claim E – The ZEO has exceeded her authority by issuing the Order to further the efforts of the Zoning Board of Appeals to stop this construction after a variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Schellens stated that he does not understand how they made this connection. Ms. McQuade noted that the conditions of the variance were not being met and Ms. Brown would have been derelict in her duty if she had not issued a Cease and Desist.
Claim F- All construction on the site has been in direct conformity to all permits and variances issued by the Town of Old Lyme and its Boards and Commissions. The Board agreed that the appellant did not prove this claim.
Claim G – The construction conforms to all site plans. The Board agreed that the appellant did not prove this claim.
Claim H – The construction conforms to all sketches presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board agreed that the appellant did not prove this claim.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he was very confused when Attorney McGarry stated that Notes 1 and 2 on the floor plan reference height. Mr. Schellens stated that the note reads: “For the first floor, use 2 x 6 x 12 framing with 16” on center.” Mr. Schellens noted that the Note does not indicate whether this framing is floor joists or whether it is crossing bracing, interior walls or vertical framing. The Board agreed that there is no reference to height in this Note.
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to uphold the Zoning Enforcement Officer in her issuance of an Order to return the structure at 286 Shore Road to its approved configuration
Members voting: Tom Schellens, Susanne Stutts, Kip Kotzan, Wendy Brainerd and Judy McQuade.
Mr. Schellens stated that no evidence was presented this evening to support the eight claims made by the applicant.
The Board took a five-minute recess at this time.
Case 04-22 E. Gallo and S. & K. Boulanger, 73 Portland Avenue
Chairman Speirs and Richard Moll rejoined the Board. Ms. Brainerd and Ms. McQuade were no longer voting alternates. Chairman Speirs stated that a variance is requested of Section 6.3.9, which prohibits the conversion of a private parking lot to a public parking lot. She noted that the owner has use of the property, as it has been a private lot since 1941. Chairman Speirs stated that the area is overcrowded, which was conveyed in the letter from the Selectmen.
Ms. Brainerd stated that the applicant’s case was very compelling. She indicated that the applicant appeared to be a diligent person and she does not feel 17 additional parking spaces will create more traffic. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant’s lot is surrounded by three other parking lots. He noted that no one could use the property for anything other than a parking lot. Chairman Speirs stated that if this variance is granted a lot more people would be coming forth from the parking lot. Mr. Kotzan stated that this parcel is extremely unique.
Chairman Speirs stated that the lot to the right of Ms. Boulanger’s is not a public parking lot. Ms. McQuade agreed, but noted that she may rent spaces to other homes. Ms. McQuade stated that she believes they need to consider the recommendations of the Board of Selectmen and the Resident Trooper. She noted that there is a long list of people who have requested parking lots over the past ten years.
Chairman Speirs stated that no hardship has been shown, as the applicant has been using the property for a private parking lot for over 60 years. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant does have a reasonable use of the property, demonstrated by the fact that it has been a private lot for a long time. Chairman Speirs stated that the Selectmen and police have to monitor these lots and they have indicated that there are enough parking spots for the amount of beach area that exists.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he believes there is a hardship, but he is debating whether it is necessary or not. He questioned whether the request violates the intent of the Regulation that they are asking to vary. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Selectmen’s letter bothers him, but he would rather err on the side of caution. He indicated that he hopes the SVDD Committee re-evaluates the parking and if they do, he hopes they would consider recommending this parcel.
Mr. Moll stated that the Board of Selectmen should come up with a town-wide consensus regarding the parking situation. Chairman Speirs asked Mr. Moll to write a letter on behalf of the Zoning Board of Appeals and bring it to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review prior to submission to the Board of Selectmen.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, and seconded by Susanne Stutts to grant the necessary variances to allow the conversion of this private parking lot at 73 Portland Avenue, to a commercial parking lot. Motion did not carry, 5:0.
Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant has reasonable use of the property and has since 1941. She noted that the fact that the property owner wanted to earn money from the lot was financial and not something the Board could consider.
Case 04-25 Peter Babin, 25 Town Woods Road
Chairman Speirs stated that a variance is required to allow an 11’ x 7 x 12’8” sunroom to be placed on an existing slab, under Section 8.9.3. Mr. Schellens stated that the presentation was very good and the drawings accurate. He indicated that a condition of approval could be the final height of the floor to be evaluated by the Zoning Enforcement Officer to be sure it matches the existing floor level of the house, prior to issuance of the Zoning Permit.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Susanne Stutts and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a sunroom on a new deck over an existing slab, 75 Town Woods Road, Peter Babin, applicant, as per the approved plans and with the following condition:
1. The level of the floor of the sunroom will be consistent with the first floor level of the house and the Zoning Enforcement officer will confirm this prior to the issuance of the Zoning Permit.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the sunroom would give a reasonable use of the property that would be otherwise prohibited by the strict enforcement of the Regulations, the variance of which does not affect the intent of Zoning.
ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes
No action taken.
ITEM 7: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
None.
ITEM 8: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Susanne Stutts. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
