APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Susanne Stutts, Richard Moll, Kip Kotzan, Tom Schellens, Wendy Brainerd (Alternate) and Edgar Butcher (Alternate).
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 05-07 Russell A. Gomes, Jr.. variance to construct a two-story, three-bay garage. (Continued from the March 16, 2005 Special Meeting.
Attorney Jane Cable and Russell Gomes were present to explain the application. Attorney Cable noted that Mr. Gomes is requesting a variance to construct a three-bay garage, although the picture provided as part of the application shows a four-bay garage. She explained that the property is mostly in the C-30 Zone and partly in the LI-80 Zone and is located on the Shore Road. Attorney Cable stated that the property does not have the minimum square for the zone and therefore is nonconforming. She indicated that they are requesting a variance for the minimum square; a variance because the accessory building is larger than the house on the property; and a variance of the requirement that provides that only one garage space can be used by a non-occupant of the property. Attorney Cable explained
that the house on the property is rented and the garage is for Mr. Gomes’ personal use and none of the spaces will be used by the occupant of the house.
Chairman Speirs questioned the use of the second story. Attorney Cable stated that at this point in time the second floor is unfinished. Chairman Speirs noted that a floor plan was not provided. Attorney Cable stated that a variance was granted in 2000 for the construction of the house. She noted that variances are required of Sections 22.3.3, 8.9.3, 9.1 (Definition of Accessory Building) and 21.2.6c. Chairman Speirs questioned whether septic and water would be provided to the garage. Attorney Cable stated that there will be no septic and water provided to the garage. She explained that the bays will be used to store cars. Attorney Cable stated that the garage will be 40’ x 60’ and the existing residence is approximately 27’6” x 46’ with a 24’ x 24’ garage.
Attorney Cable stated that the hardship is that the shape of the property prohibits additional buildings and additional land cannot be acquired. Chairman Speirs noted that Mr. Gomes has use of the property with the existing residence. She noted that there is an existing two car garage with a loft above. Ms. Stutts stated that the proposed garage is 2400 square feet and the existing house is 1975 square feet according to her calculations. Attorney Cable stated that the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct the house indicate that the dimensions of the house are 44’ x 28’. Mr. Gomes stated that the house is 46’ x 28’ with a 24’ x 24’ two car garage with a finished loft.
Mr. Gomes stated that the house has been rented for two years. He indicated that the current tenant will be out at the end of June and he is anticipating living in the house. Mr. Moll questioned the need for such a large accessory building. Mr. Gomes stated that he has vehicles that he collects and has them stored elsewhere at this time and would like to garage them in this garage. He explained that they are antique vehicles.
Attorney Cable stated that the use of the property behind this property is a storage facility. Mr. Gomes noted that there are a few residential properties. Mr. Kotzan questioned why the proposed garage is 40’ deep. Mr. Gomes stated that he would be willing to consider making it a little less deep if it would please the Board. He indicated that he could double-stack the vehicles in a 40’ deep garage. Mr. Moll stated that it appears the drawing of the neighboring wells and septics was not included, although the application indicates that it was. Attorney Cable stated that the only septic systems on file with the Health Department were submitted as part of the application. Mr. Moll stated that normally they are shown on a map, as required. He noted that there are 12
abutters shown on the application as being within 100 feet and only one septic system has been identified. Attorney Cable stated that the Health Department only had one record.
Larry Oswicki, 2 Columbus Avenue, stated that he is concerned with the number of vehicles that would be stored in a garage of this size. He stated that the average garage is 12’ x 18’. He noted that a 24’ x 24’ garage is an oversized two-car garage, which the property already has. Mr. Oswicki stated that he is concerned that the bays will be leased in the future if a variance is granted to allow use of the garage by a non-occupant of the residence. He explained that the applicant requested a residential use of the property in 2000 and now it appears that he wants the Board to allow a commercial use.
Camille Schwartz, 2 Columbus Avenue, stated that she lives directly across the street from the subject property. She stated that the size of the proposed building is excessively large and noted that the property is currently not maintained. Ms. Schwartz stated that she is concerned that Mr. Gomes does not live on the property. She stated that there are residential homes in the area. Ms. Schwartz stated that she is also concerned about the proximity of this building to other homes in the event of a fire. She indicated that she is not sure what is to be stored in the garage. Ms. Schwartz stated that she does not want to look out her window and see a monstrous garage. She noted also that most antique cars are kept in a heated garage. Ms. Schwartz stated that the applicant has
not indicated a use for the second floor and is not sure that he will be living on the property. She noted that there is not enough definite information. Ms. Schwartz stated that the renters currently do not take care of the property.
Attorney Cable stated that no one seems to trust the use of the garage and the sworn application by Mr. Gomes that he will be housing his own vehicles there. She indicated that he is not going to lease out the building and there are no plans for the second floor. Attorney Cable stated that any tenant problems should be addressed outside the ZBA.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 05-09 David Prilipp, 40 Mile Creek Road, variance to construct a 6’ fence in the front setback.
David Prilipp was present to explain his application. Chairman Speirs noted that a prior application for the fence was denied by the Board. She stated that variance is required of Section 7.4.6, front-setback of 50 feet required with a 40’ variance being requested. Mr. Prilipp explained that he cannot correct the height of the fence to 4 feet, but he could cut it down to 5 feet by removing the lattice on the top. He indicated that this application provides for some plantings to soften the fence. Chairman Speirs stated that any plantings would have to be compact as to not obstruct the sight line along the street.
Mr. Prilipp stated that his contractor erected the fence and had he or the contractor known of the Regulation they would not have put the fence where they did. He stated that he wanted a fence to cut down the noise from the roadway and also to keep his nieces and nephews and pets safe from the traffic. Mr. Prilipp stated that headlights shine into his living room. Mr. Prilipp stated that he called the Zoning Office and was told that he could put the fence 20 feet off the center line of the roadway but he did not question the height allowance for fences.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 05-11 Jerry & Donna Brocki, 28 Old Colony Road, variance to remove existing seasonal residence and replace with new seasonal residence in a more conforming location.
Jeff Flower, Architect, and Jerry Brocki were present to explain the application. Mr. Flower noted that there are two site plans, one of which he prepared that shows both the existing and proposed locations of the dwelling. He noted that the existing building actually straddles the property line and perhaps even crosses the property line. Mr. Flower stated that the proposal is to remove the existing seasonal residence and replace with a new building that is the same square footage, with the same number of bedrooms, in a more conforming location. He noted that instead of being 14’10” from the street the new structure will be 22’ from the street. Mr. Flower stated that the dwelling currently straddles the north property line and will be moved to the south 6’. He
explained that they will be installing a new septic system. Mr. Flower stated that they could not move the structure any further south because they needed room for the septic system, which also has setbacks that must be met. He noted that the coverage has been reduced by the addition of the second floor. He reiterated that the square footage is no greater than the existing structure.
Mr. Flower explained that a firewall would be required if there were to be any renovations to the building in its current location. He noted that this requirement would be because of Building Code. Chairman Speirs noted that there are many buildings in the beach area that are placed on the side of the lot. She indicated that she has heard of no requirement for a firewall. Mr. Flower stated that a firewall would only be required if the existing home were renovated. He explained that anything that is renovated must be brought to Code.
Chairman Speirs stated that once a building is demolished it no longer exists, and therefore all Sections that are listed as existing nonconformities would be required as variances for this application. Mr. Flower stated that they are before this Board for those variances.
Chairman Speirs stated that the requirement provided by Ms. Brown for the dwelling is 20,000 square feet. She noted that if this were the case, it would mean that the proposed dwelling is a two-family. Mr. Flower noted that they are proposing a one-family seasonal dwelling. Chairman Speirs noted that the Assessor’s Records do not indicate that the property is a two-family. Mr. Flower reiterated that they are proposing a three-bedroom, single-family seasonal dwelling which is exactly what exists on the property today. Chairman Speirs questioned the existing and proposed height. Mr. Flower replied that the proposed height is 25’9” and the existing height is approximately 20’.
Mr. Flower submitted the existing floor plans. Mr. Moll noted that the proposed floor plans and elevation drawings were already submitted. He explained that the proposed structure will have a living room, dining room and kitchen as one large area on the first floor and the three bedrooms will be on the second floor. Mr. Flower noted that the existing house is 20’ wide at one point and 14’ wide at the narrower side toward the front and the proposed house is 22’8” wide. Chairman Speirs questioned why the proposed structure was designed to be wider. Mr. Flower stated that the existing living room is long and narrow. He noted that there is no attic or basement.
Chairman Speirs stated that because the second floor overhangs the first floor, the setback requirement needs to be met from the second floor. Mr. Flower stated that the footprint that he has on the drawing is the outside of the upper walls. He noted that the front door is set in 1 foot.
Mr. Flower stated that the existing house is 1302 square feet and the proposed house is 1304 square feet. He noted that the Assessor indicates that the existing house is 1320 square feet. Mr. Flower noted that the coverage on the lot has been decreased. He explained that the proposal is a much better use of the lot then renovating the existing property. He noted that the hardship is that the home is on the property line and certain parts of any renovation would require meeting Codes that would make the house unusable. He noted that replacing the windows on the north side would not be allowed because it would not meet Code. Mr. Flower stated that the location of the proposed dwelling gives the homeowner room to install a new, conforming septic system. Mr. Flower stated that
on every standard the proposal is more conforming than it is today.
Chairman Speirs stated that variances are required of Sections 21.3.1 and 21.3.2. Discussion ensued regarding the 20,000 square foot land requirement noted by Ms. Brown. It was agreed that this was probably a typographical error. Chairman Speirs noted that the 2000 Assessor’s Card was not provided. Additionally, there was confusion as to the map and lot number which Mr. Flower clarified as Map 84, Lot 57, 28 Old Colony Road. He noted that this is how the property is identified on his site plan. Mr. Flower corrected this information on the engineer’s site plan. He indicated that he will ask the engineer to file a corrected map.
Chairman Speirs noted that variances are required for the minimum square, 75’ foot required and 60’10” existing; setback from street, 25’ required, 14’ existing, 21.3.8, minimum setback from rear property, 30’ required, 25’6” existing; minimum setback from other property lines, 12’ required, 12’ existing on the north side and 6’ existing on the south side; maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 25 allowed, 26 existing; 2.1 and 8.8.2.
Mr. Flower stated that he does not believe they need a variance for the square as the lot is a building lot. Chairman Speirs disagreed, noting that this lot is not part of a subdivision. Mr. Flower stated that as the building stands it violates the front setback, rear setback and one side. He noted that the proposal violates the front setback, but less than it does today, the side, but again less than it does today, and the rear setback will be conforming.
Mr. Moll questioned when the existing house was constructed. Mr. Brocki replied that it was constructed in 1940. Mr. Moll questioned when the operation of the current septic system is in question. Mr. Brocki replied that there is not. Mr. Flower stated that the system is not failing. Mr. Moll questioned whether the new system is a repair. Mr. Flower replied that it is not a repair, it is a new system. Mr. Flower stated that the water company will be supplying water. Mr. Brocki stated that he purchased the property in June, 2004. He indicated that he was aware that the property was nonconforming and he felt that he would either renovate the interior or do a total reconstruction if the Zoning Board of Appeals were to approve it.
Doug Whalen, 41 Old Colony Road, stated that many of the Old Colony Beach residents take pride in their residences and they like to see other property owners do the same. He noted that the repairs to older homes such as this can be extensive and sometimes extreme measures are required. Mr. Whalen stated that the fact that the septic system is being upgraded is great and helps to clean Sheffield Brook. He noted that he is in favor of the application.
Stanley Livingston, 24 and 26 Old Colony Road, stated that he is an abutting neighbor and would like to see the Brocki’s be able to reconstruct their home. He noted that the Board gave him approval to reconstruct 24 Old Colony Road. Mr. Livingston stated that he was allowed a height of 29’ 6” for his reconstruction project. He indicated that he feels the proposal would beautify the neighborhood and would give other neighbors an example of something to improve toward.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Case 05-12 Henry & Maureen Zadrowski, 59 Columbus Avenue, variance to replace deck with screened porch.
Geri Deveaux, Architect, was present with Mrs. Zadrowski to explain the application. Ms. Deveaux stated that Variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, 8.9.3, 21.3.1, 21.3.2, 21.3.3, 21.3.7 (11’) and 21.3.9 (7’ on south side and 1’ on north side) and 21.3.11 (2.4 percent variance). She explained that the applicant would like to add a screened porch on the existing deck.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the existing deck is 8’ x 26’ 10” and she is proposing an 8’ x 23’ screened porch in place of this deck. She noted that the lot is 4,000 square feet. Chairman Speirs questioned whether the screen panels were strictly screen. Ms. Deveaux replied that they are screens and there would be no windows. She indicated that there is 4’ strip at the rear of the building in which they could build, but after considering side setbacks there would be a very small area in which to put the screened porch. She noted that for this reason it seemed to make sense to work within the existing deck area at the front of the house. Ms. Deveaux stated that the proposal would slightly decrease coverage on the lot.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the height of the sunroom is approximately 16’ 6” and will not be taller than the existing house. She indicated that there would not be a loft area inside. Chairman Speirs stated that there was a prior appeal for a second floor addition which was denied. Chairman Speirs questioned the number of bedrooms. Ms. Deveaux replied that there are two bedrooms. Chairman Speirs stated that it was pointed out in 1990 that the septic system was below the required size for the existing house. Ms. Deveaux stated that the Health Department has approved this application. Mr. Moll pointed out that there is a letter from Mr. Rose that indicates that the property has sufficient area for septic replacement. Mr. Moll read this letter for the record. He
noted that the well has been abandoned. Ms. Deveaux stated that the septic system is not being replaced at this time. Mr. Kotzan stated that he would like to see a condition placed on approval preventing the screened porch from becoming a glass, three-season room.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed the Public Hearing for this application.
The Board took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
Case 05-10 John Albrycht, 25 White Oak Trail/7 Shore Drive
Mr. Butcher was seated for Mr. Schellens for this application. Chairman Speirs stated that Mr. Albrycht was requesting to merge a portion of 25 White Oak Trail, approximately 5,000 square feet, with 7 Shore Drive. She noted that the purpose of this was to allow an area for parking for himself and two other neighbors on Shore Drive. Chairman Speirs noted that there is a home on 25 White Oak Trail and removing 5,000 square feet of land would still leave a conforming lot with approximately 20,000 square feet. She explained that the Board had several questions which she posed to Attorney Royston. Mr. Moll stated that at the Public Hearing the Board felt there were some questions that should be addressed by Attorney Royston. He noted that this is reflected in the minutes of the Public
Hearing. Mr. Moll read the letter of response from Attorney Royston. Recapping the letter, Mr. Moll noted that land designated as open space cannot have anything on it, i.e., it could not be used for parking; the wording of the variance could merge a portion of 25 White Oak Trail with 7 Shore Drive in perpetuity; and the triangular parcel could be divided off for municipal purposes.
Chairman Speirs noted that in his letter Attorney Royston did not make a recommendation, he simply answered the questions of the Board. Mr. Moll stated the Board must remember that the application is for a variance to merge a portion of 25 White Oak Trail with 7 Shore Drive in perpetuity. He noted that the application is not to create an open space parcel or a municipal parcel, as Attorney Royston pointed out in his letter. Chairman Speirs stated that the next owner of 7 Shore Drive may not like looking at cars parked across from his home. She indicated that parking vehicles there also ruins the landscape/view of 25 White Oak Trail.
Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant indicated at the Public Hearing that another lot could be split from 25 White Oak Trail as it is currently 25,000 square feet, although the placement of the house at 25 White Oak Trail may make it difficult to meet setbacks on the new parcel.
Chairman Speirs stated that the two homes that are beyond 7 Shore Drive do not have room to turn around in their driveways, although there is lawn area. Ms. Stutts stated that she does not understand why the owner of 7 Shore Drive should solve the problems of the other neighbors. Mr. Schellens stated that Mr. Albrycht has other alternatives to create a parking area, such as a deeded right-of-way.
Mr. Moll stated that no one has proved on paper that another lot could be created from the property at 25 White Oak Trail. Mr. Kotzan noted that the owner of 7 Shore Drive could build out less if the triangular parcel were merged with 7 Shore Drive.
Chairman Speirs stated that the application indicates that although another 10,000 square foot parcel could be created, Mr. Albrycht wants to retain a non- buildable piece of land to be merged with 7 Shore Drive and this is unique. She indicated that she does not find that to be a hardship. Ms. Bartlett pointed out that any new lot created would have to be 30,000 square feet, regardless of the fact that the zone is R-10 (10,000 square foot). She indicated that Ms. Brown stated this fact at the Public Hearing and she believes it is reflected in the minutes. Mr. Moll noted that the applicant’s statement regarding a 10,000 square foot parcel is erroneous given the location of the home on 25 White Oak Trail considering required zoning and septic setbacks.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the idea of continuing to allow parking on this triangular parcel of property is a historic and valid use of the property. He indicated that it appears that there would be a way to solve this issue by a deeded right-of-way and a variance would not be required. Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not see a true hardship.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by June Speirs to grant the necessary variances to merge a portion of 25 White Oak Trail with 7 Shore Drive in perpetuity, as per the plan.
Mr. Moll stated that he does not believe splitting the triangular parcel from 25 White Oak Trail would be favorable for a future owner of 25 White Oak Trail. He noted that the applicant noted at the Public Hearing that a perspective buyer of 25 White Oak Trail backed out when he learned that the triangular parcel would not be part of the property.
Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. No hardship provided.
2. Historical use can be accomplished by a deeded right-of-way.
3. And for the reasons stated in discussion above.
Case 05-07 Russell A. Gomes, Jr., 246 Shore Road
Chairman Speirs stated the applicant is seeking variances of Sections 22.2.3, 9.1, 22.3.b.2, 8.9.3 and 21.2.6c to construct a three-bay, two-story garage on a lot with an existing residence. She noted that Mr. Gomes does not live on the property. Chairman Speirs stated that the property is nonconforming because it does not have the required square. She indicated that a variance was granted to construct the existing home. Chairman Speirs stated that the property is located in the C-30 and LI-80 Zone. She stated that the application was still lacking required information after having been continued.
Mr. Kotzan noted that because the lot is in two zones, the applicant must meet the requirements of the more restrictive zone. Chairman Speirs stated that the proposed garage is 40’ x 60’ and the existing house is 27’ x 46’ with a 24’ x 24’ garage. She noted that a variance is being requested of the requirement that the accessory building be smaller than the primary building on the lot. Mr. Kotzan stated that granting a variance of this requirement would be in direct conflict with the intent of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Moll stated that the granting of this variance would be an over intensification of structures on the property and he feels it is not appropriate.
Mr. Schellens stated that a variance was granted for a residential use on the property and the construction of this type of structure for use by a non-occupant of the property would be a mixed use. He indicated that he does not see a hardship. Mr. Schellens stated that this type of situation, use by a non-occupant, could get out of hand and would be very difficult to enforce. He stated that the applicant did not have elevation drawings of the structure.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by Richard Moll to grant the necessary variances to construct a three-bay, two-story garage at 246 Shore Road, Russell A. Gomes, Jr., applicant. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Application lacking required information.
3. Insufficient hardship.
4. And for the reasons stated in the discussion above.
5. Has use of the property.
Case 05-09 David Prilipp, 40 Mile Creek Road
Chairman Speirs noted that the applicant is requesting a variance of Section 7.4.6 to allow a 6’ fence in the front setback. She stated that she did visit the property and noted that the fence does not interfere with the sight line. Chairman Speirs stated that Mr. Prilipp did call the Zoning Office but did not ask the correct questions regarding the fence. Mr. Schellens stated that the Zoning Office should contact the fence company and inform them of the rules, as it appears to him it is the same company that has installed this and other fences that have come before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Schellens stated that the intent of the Zoning Regulations is to protect the sight line. He noted that the large maple trees are in front of the fence. Mr. Schellens stated that the fence does not interfere with the line of sight. Chairman Speirs stated that she would like to see a condition of approval regarding additional plantings.
Mr. Schellens stated that Mr. Prilipp’s situation is unique in that Mile Creek Road is a heavily traveled road and he can understand the need for a fence to block noise. Mr. Kotzan stated that Mr. Prilipp noted that he is also bothered by the headlights of vehicles and buses. Chairman Speirs stated that five neighbors have indicated that they are in favor of the fence and feel it is an improvement to the neighborhood.
Mr. Moll stated that he drove by the property and does not understand the issue that Mr. Prilipp has with headlights, as the house is sitting 54 feet back from the road. He stated that the applicant did not show the interior layout of the home to explain where the headlights were bothersome. Mr. Moll stated that the applicant indicated that an error was made. He stated that it would be problematic if all the abutting neighbors wanted to construct a similar fence.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by Kip Kotzan to grant a variance of Section 7.4.6 to allow a 6’ fence within the front setback, 40 Mile Creek, David Prilip, applicant. Motion did not carry 3:2, with Richard Moll and Susanne Stutts voting against.
Reasons:
1. For the reasons stated in the discussion above.
2. Not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 05-11 Jerry & Donna Brocki, 28 Old Colony Road
Chairman Speirs stated that the property contains 4,792 square feet and is located in the R-10 Zone. She noted that the existing coverage is 15 percent and the proposed coverage is 14 percent. Chairman Speirs stated that the variances are required to remove an existing seasonal residence and to replace it with a new seasonal residence in a more conforming location with a conforming septic system. She noted that there will be no increase in the number of bedrooms. Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant indicates on the application that strict application of the Regulations would produce unusual hardship or exceptional difficulty because under the present circumstances the owner cannot even paint his north wall as it is on and over the property line; additionally, any major repair would need the
adjacent owner’s approval; Building Code issues; and septic compliance would be impossible without moving the structure.
Chairman Speirs stated that this situation is not unique because many homes in the beach area sit close to the property line.
Mr. Schellens stated that the lot area of an A-2 Survey, signed, certified and sealed says that the property is 5,043. He indicated that this information is more accurate than the Assessor’s Records. Mr. Moll pointed out that the surveyor did not indicate the square footage of the lot, although the licensed architect shows that square footage on his site plan. Mr. Moll stated that the architect depended on the surveyor and he would not put that information above the Assessor’s Records. Chairman Speirs stated that she feels the Board should consider the information provided by the Assessor.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the hardship is that the dwelling was constructed before 1940 and once one begins improvements they need to meet today’s code. He noted that the location on and over the property line brings other potential issues to the applicant. Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposed structure would be a better structure than the one that currently exists on the property. He noted that every effort has been made to reduce the nonconformities on the site and the nonconformities have been reduced. Chairman Speirs stated that today’s Building Codes do not need to be met when making renovations. She indicated that she has discussed this with the Attorney Royston in regards to another case. Mr. Schellens stated that the hardship is legitimate because the home was built
directly on the property line and is not accessible on one side without being on the neighbor’s property. He indicated that this application would address that hardship. Mr. Schellens stated that the home was constructed in three pieces and it would be a hardship for the applicant to only make interior renovations on what is most likely an unstable foundation.
Ms. Stutts stated that the building and floor area ratios have both been reduced. Mr. Schellens stated that most of the other setback variances have been reduced. He indicated that the proposal is less nonconforming then the existing structure. Chairman Speirs stated that reference on the Zoning Permit to Section 21.3.2, minimum lot area required per dwelling unit, 20,000 required, is a typographical error and it should say that 10,000 is required.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the height has increased slightly and noted that the reason provided is because of the stairway and because the structure is wider. Mr. Schellens noted that the roof is a flat pitch. Mr. Kotzan noted that there are nearby houses that are taller. Chairman Speirs noted that Mr. Flower stated that the ceiling heights will be 8’, which is higher then the existing ceiling height.
Chairman Speirs stated that she would like to see the septic system installed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Schellens stated that the owner will not get a Certificate of Occupancy without a working septic.
Mr. Moll stated that he thinks this is a reasonable reconstruction, especially considering the benefit to the community, as testified to by the President of the Association. He noted that it is reasonable in size when comparing it to the neighboring properties. Mr. Schellens stated that the proposal serves the intent of Zoning as far as health with the new septic and public safety by having greater space between the residences. He indicated that the proposal is an enormous improvement. Mr. Moll stated that the applicant is making a significant contribution to the community.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances, as listed on the Zoning Compliance Permit, to remove existing seasonal residence and replace with new seasonal residence in a more conforming location, Jerry & Donna Brocki, 28 Old Colony Road, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. New septic system to be installed prior to issuance of a Building Permit as per the approved septic plan designed by Shoreline Sanitation.
2. To remain a three-bedroom, single-family seasonal dwelling.
3. Drawings S1 and A1 through A-6 to be retitled “Proposed Seasonal Use Residence.”
Reasons:
1. Proposal is an improvement to the health and welfare of adjoining properties and updating in Old Colony Beach Association.
2. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 05-12 Henry & Maureen Zadrowski, 59 Columbus Avenue
Chairman Speirs stated that the property is 4,000 square feet and is located in an R-10 Zone. She noted that the existing coverage is 28.1 percent and the proposed coverage is 27.4 percent. Chairman Speirs stated that there was a previous appeal for a second story addition which was denied. She explained that the proposal is to put an 8’ x 23’ screened porch on top of the existing 8’ x 26’10” deck. Chairman Speirs noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, 8.9.3 and 21.3.7. She noted that the hardship provided is that Zoning would only allow a 4’ x 26’ buildable area on the rear side of the house and in order to maintain the required percentage of lot coverage, the existing front deck would have to be removed to use that rear buildable area. It was noted that due to the odd shape of that buildable area it would have limited use.
Ms. Stutts stated that allowing the sunroom would give a lot more area to a very small house. She indicated that she would like to ensure, by conditions, that the porch remain seasonal. Chairman Speirs indicated that she would like a condition that the well be abandoned and that the house remain a seasonal dwelling. Mr. Kotzan stated that the plan shows a true screened porch. Mr. Moll noted that there have been no renovations shown to the current exterior wall. Mr. Kotzan noted that the coverage has not increased because the sunroom is being constructed over an existing deck.
Mr. Schellens noted that the plans show transom lights. Ms. Stutts asked what these lights suggest. Mr. Schellens stated that he believes they are for aesthetics. Mr. Moll noted that the file contains a document that indicates that the property owners had purchased membership into the Miami Beach Water Company at a cost of $7,200.00. He noted that this was done on September 22, 1996. He stated that the Sanitarian has indicated that the property has sufficient area for a septic replacement and the existing well must be abandoned in compliance. Mr. Moll stated that at this time the septic system is not going to be replaced and the well does not have to be abandoned. The Board agreed to not include a condition to abandon the existing well.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances, as listed on the Zoning Compliance Permit Application, to construct an 8’ x 23’ screened porch on top of the existing deck, 59 Columbus Avenue, Henry & Maureen Zadrowski, applicants, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. All enclosed area of porch to be restricted to screens only.
2. Transom feature shown on plans to be limited to screens only.
3. House to remain single-family seasonal home.
Reasons:
1. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Proposal decreases coverage on the lot.
ITEM 6: Election of Officers.
Chairman Speirs stated that she has been Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for twenty years and feels that it is time to step down. Chairman Speirs made a motion to nominate Susanne Stutts as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals; seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to nominate June Speirs as Vice Chairman.
Mr. Moll stated that the community could never acknowledge or repay the services of June Speirs over the many years she has served as Chairman and as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
ITEM 7: Referral from the Old Lyme Zoning Commission, Proposed Amendment to Section 7.4.6, Fences, Walls and Terraces.
This item was tabled to the May Regular Meeting.
ITEM 8: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
Chairman Speirs stated that a motion was made that the Zoning Board of Appeals decisions or minutes should go to both the Building Department and the Zoning Commission. She noted that she would ask Ms. Bartlett if this information is being communicated.
Chairman Speirs stated that she has a letter from Attorney Branse that she will have Ms. Bartlett make copies for each member. She indicated that she has requested a copy of the Freedom of Information from CREPA and will have this copied for the Board also.
Mr. Moll stated that in the November 9, 2004 minutes that were approved, Ms. Brown noted that the issues discussed regarding 286 Shore Road were independent of the Court case and she would start an enforcement to get the property cleaned up. He stated that she also indicated that a Certificate of Occupancy was not issued for the garage. Mr. Moll stated that there still has been no report on this issue and he believes one is overdue. Chairman Speirs stated that the issue has not come before the Court. Mr. Moll stated that these issues are not related to the Court case and he would like it documented that a report is long overdue.
ITEM 9: Approval of Minutes of the March 16, 2005 Special Meeting
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2005 Special Meeting.
ITEM 10: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
