Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 01/10/06
APPROVED


OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, January 10, 2006


The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall.  Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Tom Schellens, Richard Moll, Kip Kotzan, Judy McQuade (Alternate - seated), Wendy Brainerd (Alternate) and Joseph St. Germain (Alternate).

Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.

ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 05-31 Guy and Laura Mangs, 20-1 Sill Lane, variance to construct a two-story addition.

Attorney Howard Poole and Guy and Laura Mangs were present to explain the application.  Attorney Poole indicated that the application is for a significant increase to a residence on Sill Lane.  He noted that the parcel contains less area that is required for the zone and noted that it also has a long narrow shape.  Attorney Poole stated that the addition meets all setbacks from the neighboring parcels.  He explained that the nearest homes are hundreds of feet away and therefore have either no view of the addition or a very minimal visual impact.  Attorney Poole indicated that the applicants have had extensive discussions with their adjacent neighbors who all agree this plan represents the best plan with the least impact.

Attorney Poole noted that the addition will bring the present home into harmony with the other, larger homes in the neighborhood and will enhance property values.  He stated that the hardship reflects the relatively unusual shape of the property and the fact that topographically, other parcels are blocked visually.

Mr. Mangs explained the photographs of the property and placed them on the site plan in the general direction they were taken from.  He then identified the general location of the neighboring homes.  Mr. Mangs stated that he changed the location and size of the proposed addition to satisfy his neighbor, Yvonne.  He explained that the addition is 19’ 3” x 23’.  Ms. Stutts noted that there is a 15’ x 22’ addition shown on the plan, which makes the overall dimensions much larger.  Mr. Mangs explained that there is a 15’ x 15’ screened porch and noted that there is a deck shown on the plan that they do not intend to construct.  Chairman Stutts stated that the site plan shows a 22’ and 15’ long addition for a total of 37’ in length for the addition.  She noted that the width is 19’ 10”.  Mr. Mangs indicated that that is correct.  He indicated that the addition will be a family room with a loft area.  He indicated that the loft area will be a computer/office area with a bathroom.  Mr. Mangs stated that there will be an additional bedroom on the first floor and the screened porch.  Chairman Stutts stated that the drawing shows a three-season porch rather than a screened porch.  She indicated that the plans need to reflect exactly what is being proposed.  Mr. Mangs stated that he would then like to have a three-season enclosed porch.

Chairman Stutts questioned the total additional square footage.  Mr. Schellens pointed out that the new addition is shown as 831.6 square feet.  Mr. Mangs noted that it appears the builder may have included the deck that they do not intend to construct.  Chairman Stutts asked Mr. Mangs to cross the deck off the plan and initial the change.  She questioned the total additional coverage without the deck.  It was determined that the additional coverage is approximately 722 square feet.  

Mr. Mangs indicated that there are currently three bedrooms and they will be adding one additional bedroom.  Chairman Stutts noted that the plans show the proposed and existing height as 30’.  She noted that the addition is ambitious for a lot that is considerably smaller than the minimum required in the zone.  Attorney Poole acknowledged that the addition is ambitious, but noted the relatively unique situation of the home being so far from the neighboring houses and the extent to which this addition would bring the home more into conformity with the neighboring homes in terms of size.  Mr. Mangs noted that with the exception of Yvonne’s, all the homes in the area are considerably larger.  He noted that most of the other lots are larger as well.  Mr. Schellens pointed out that the lots on Griswold Avenue are considerably smaller than one acre.  He noted that the home is more in line with the homes in that neighborhood, rather than the surrounding homes and lots on Sill Lane.

Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the applicants have attempted to purchase land from abutting neighbors.  Mr. Mangs indicated that Ms. Yvonne Moore was not comfortable selling additional land.  He noted that there are no other variances required except the size of the lot.  Mr. Mangs noted that that is correct.

Mr. Moll questioned whether the new roof line would be creating a trough.  Mr. Mangs replied that it would not.  The Board reviewed the elevation drawings and noted that the height is shown as 18’6”.  Chairman Stutts noted that Mr. Mangs previously testified that the addition was 30’ high.  Mr. Mangs noted that 18’6” is the correct height for the existing home and the addition.  

Mr. Speirs stated that he is in favor of the proposal.  He indicated that the proposal will be a great improvement to the property and will enhance the neighborhood.

Mr. Cowell indicated that he is in favor of the proposal.

Chairman Stutts read letters in support of the application from Peter and Christie Crowell, the Speirs and Ms. Moore.

No one present spoke against the application.  Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.

ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 06-01 Bob and Dot Cipolla, 24 Walnut Road, variance to construct 8’ x 25’ first floor addition.

Chairman Stutts noted that the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing be opened and continued to the February 14, 2006 Regular Meeting.  

ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 06-02 Robert, Kathleen and Ann Stingle, 73 Hillcrest Road, Appeal of ZEO’s denial to allow vertical expansion within the footprint of existing structure.

Attorney James Mattern was present to represent the applicants.  He noted that they are appealing Ann Brown’s denial of an application to renovate a legally nonconforming structure in Point O Woods.  Attorney Mattern stated that there is no animosity in this matter, though he will show Ms. Brown is legally incorrect.  He introduced Kathleen Stingle, one of the three property owners, and Mr. Dan Wright, the architect.

Attorney Mattern introduced Exhibit A, a sheet of two photographs, depicting two other homes on the street.  He explained that the proposed addition will look very similar to these two homes, with a double-frontage roof with a dormer slightly indented from the outside of the roof.  Attorney Mattern stated that these two homes are good representations of how the proposal will look.  Chairman Stutts questioned the location of these homes, as she does not remember homes such as these in the immediate vicinity.  Ms. Stingle indicated that the green shingled house is directly next door to her to the right.  Chairman Stutts and Ms. McQuade both indicated that they thought the Stingle’s home was already higher than the homes on either side.  Mr. Moll asked for the exact addresses.

Attorney Mattern submitted Exhibit B, a photograph of a neighboring home depicting the type of renovation the applicant is proposing.  He noted that the dormer extends from within the confines of the roof line.  Ms. Bartlett noted that this photograph shows the house number on the door, #55.  

Attorney Mattern asked that the applicant’s application submitted, together with the denial, be admitted as a full exhibit.  It was noted that the ZEO submitted this information as an exhibit and is already contained in the file and marked ZEO Exhibit.  Attorney Mattern stated that he would like to explain the proposed renovations so that everyone has a clear idea of the project.  He submitted Exhibit C, a survey of the property as it currently exists.  Attorney Mattern noted that the property is located in an R-10 Zone, which requires 10,000 square feet of land.  He noted that the property is 6,000 square feet in area and has been since its original development in the 1930’s or 40’s.  Attorney Mattern stated that the home is a legal, nonconforming structure.  He noted that the structure is nonconforming in terms of frontage, in terms of both side lines and conforming as to the rear lot line.  Attorney Mattern stated that both a first and second floor currently exist.  He submitted Exhibit D, architectural drawings (4 sheets) and Exhibit E, an overlay of the existing structure with the proposed changes.  Dan Wright, architect, explained that the transparency shows the changes over the existing structure.

Attorney Mattern stated the overlay shows that the changes to the structure are relatively small.  He noted that in the front of the structure, part of the roof line will be lifted to accommodate a shed dormer with a gable in the middle.  Attorney Mattern stated that this will change the roof line in the interior.  He explained that in the rear of the structure a deck is being added with a safety railing.  Attorney Mattern noted that these are the only changes to the outside of the structure.  He noted that the purpose of the changes is to enlarge the two second floor bedrooms.  Attorney Mattern explained that the interior area where the roof is being raised is currently a storage attic that can be accessed from both bedrooms.  He noted that they would like to take down the wall that presently exists and extend the bedroom a few feet toward the front by increasing the ceiling/roof height.

Attorney Mattern stated that several years ago a case came down in the courts against the Town of Old Lyme called Cirullo.  This case was submitted and marked Exhibit F.  He noted that the Cirullo case is almost identical to the proposal before the Board.  Attorney Mattern stated that in the Cirullo case they proposed to raise the roof line of a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot.  He noted that in this case the ZBA held that it was an expansion of a nonconforming structure and was appealed by the Cirullo’s.  He noted that the Superior Court ruled in favor of the Cirullo’s.  Attorney Mattern stated that the Order was entered against the ZBA and is probably binding on the ZBA.  He indicated that he made this case known to Ms. Brown when the application was submitted.  Attorney Mattern noted that the ruling was written by Judge Hurley who is a lower court judge and it does not have any precedential value across the State, but it does have value in terms of the fact that this issue was raised by a party and the Old Lyme ZBA was determined to be incorrect.  He noted that the ruling was not appealed by the Town.

Attorney Mattern stated that following Cirullo (1996), came the decision on Doyen vs. the Zoning Board of Appeals of Essex (Exhibit G).  He noted that this case was held by the Appellate Court and supported by the Supreme Court when the Town of Essex tried to petition to the Supreme Court for further decision and the Supreme Court chose not to take it.  He indicated that when the Supreme Court does not take a case it means they are content with the Appellate Court decision.  Attorney Mattern stated that in this case the Court determined that a vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot is permitted by right, provided the height regulations are not violated.  He noted that the Stingle’s proposal does not violate the height regulations of the Town of Old Lyme.

Attorney Mattern introduced the Case of Frank Raymond versus the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Norwalk, which again followed the Doyen decision, allowing vertical expansion.  He noted that in this case there was an outside deck being used for restaurant purposes and the Court found that Mr. Raymond could enclose the deck.  This case was marked Exhibit H.  Attorney Mattern stated that another Appellate Court Case, Vivian versus Zoning Board of Appeals of Clinton (2003), stood that there is no vertical component to setback requirements (Exhibit I).

Attorney Mattern encouraged the Board to read the cases he has submitted.  He noted that the Courts consistently holds that a vertical expansion is permitted by right and does not require a variance.  Attorney Mattern stated that a lower court case came down in 2003 (Bertini versus New Haven Board of Zoning Appeals – Exhibit J).  He noted that the Zoning Enforcement Officer denied the right to put a second floor on a building and was encouraged by the ZEO to file for a variance.  Attorney Mattern stated that the Court concluded that the variance, which was denied by the ZBA, was sustainable because the ZBA had not articulated a proper standard of what the hardship was.  He indicated that this case is interesting because the Court went on to say that the Court felt very strongly that the applicant was entitled to have his second story permitted but he had not filed the proper paperwork.  Attorney Mattern stated that the Court found that the second floor addition did not encroach on the setback area and therefore a variance is not required.

Attorney Mattern summarized that he believes these cases demonstrate the current law, which allows vertical expansion by right.  He indicated that Ms. Brown gave four reasons in her denial, the first being Section 8.8.1 of the Zoning Regulations.  Attorney Mattern stated that 8.8.1 reads “No building or other structure which does not conform to the requirements of these Regulations regarding height limitations, building bulk and coverage or required setbacks, shall be enlarged or extended . . .”  He indicated that it says one cannot do anything to these type of structures, and he acknowledged that the Stingle’s have this type of structure.  Attorney Mattern noted that the regulation goes on to stated, “unless such enlarged or extended portion conforms to these Regualtions.”  He stated that when one is extending vertically and within the footprint, that portion legally conforms to the Regulations.  Attorney Mattern stated that the enlarged portion of the Stingle’s property conforms to the Zoning Regulations under case law as it presently exists.

Attorney Mattern stated that Ms. Brown indicated that the application did not comply with Section 8.9.3, which states that no building or structure located on a lot which does not conform to the requirements of these Regulations regarding lot area, shape, building bulk and coverage or off street parking, shall be enlarged or extended and no additional buildings or structures should be constructed on such lot.  He noted that the cases he submitted all involve nonconforming structures on nonconforming lots.  Attorney Mattern explained that the case law allows vertical expansion whether it is the lot or structure that is nonconforming.

Attorney Mattern stated that the third section Ms. Brown indicated in her denial is 21.3.7.  He noted that this is the bulk requirement table.  Attorney Mattern stated that the property is located in an R-10 Zone and the minimum setback from the street is 25’.  He noted that the first floor violates the front setback and case law upholds that the setback for the second floor is irrelevant.  He stated that it would be relevant if the applicant was encroaching further on the setback.  Attorney Mattern suggested that perhaps Ms. Brown is referring to an eave that appears to encroach slightly.  He noted that the Regulations allow eaves to encroach 1 foot, but if the Board or Ms. Brown have an issue with the eave the applicant is willing to change this.  Attorney Mattern stated that the final section on the denial is 23.3.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area.  He noted that the Regulations provide that the floor area of the structure should not exceed 25 percent of the lot size, which would be 1,500 square feet.  Attorney Mattern stated that the house already exceeds this percentage.  He explained that when the present floor area is computed, the Regulations specifically state that closets and attics are not included.  Attorney Mattern stated that the square footage of the entire used portion of the second floor is not changing.  He explained that the applicant currently uses the floor area for attic storage.  Attorney Mattern stated that if the roof height is raised the bedroom will be larger and the closet will be smaller.  He indicated that the square footage is being increased under the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, but the square footage of the use is not changing.  He stated that the floor area exists today is not changing.

Attorney Mattern indicated that it is his position that the Zoning Enforcement Officer simply made an error.  He stated that case law provides that vertical expansions are permitted by right.

Mr. Schellens stated that he feels it is misleading to cite case law without the specifics of the cases.

Attorney Mattern stated that the Doyen case needs to be looked at procedurally.  He noted that in this case the Zoning Enforcement Officer found that the vertical expansion was permitted and it went on appeal to Superior Court and the Superior Court reversed the decision.  He noted that it went to the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court reinstituted the ZEO’s decision.  Mr. Schellens questioned whether the vertical extension was in the setback.  Attorney Mattern stated that this case involved the neighboring appealing the decision of the ZEO.  He read a section of the case to the Board, noting that the applicant in the case was requesting a vertical expansion that would not exceed the existing structural footprint of the house, which is a legal nonconforming structure in that a portion of the foundation and the deck attached to the same side of the house extend into the 25’ side setback area required by the Regulations.  Attorney Mattern stated that the merits of this case are the same as the Stingle’s, there is no expansion, there is no expansion beyond the existing footprint of the building.

Attorney Mattern explained that in the Cirullo case there was an existing bedroom with a knee-wall and the Cirullo’s wanted to raise the roof above the knee-wall to increase the ceiling height.  He noted that if the Stingle’s house was originally constructed without a wall making a storage area, the applicant would not have an issue with floor area.  Attorney Mattern stated that the applicant has the right to remove this wall.

Mr. Moll stated that Attorney Mattern has indicated that legally, any nonconforming property can construct vertically by right.  He questioned whether all the outside solid walls of a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot could be raised to create a block structure that would be permitted because of the Court decisions he has referenced.  Attorney Mattern stated that that is correct.  Mr. Moll questioned how this would meet the intent of Zoning.  Attorney Mattern stated that it would meet the intent of Zoning in that the Regulations provide that vertical expansion is allowed.  He explained that after the Cirullo decision came down the Zoning Commission could have amended their Regulations to prohibit this type of expansion and they did not do that.

Mr. Moll stated that Attorney Mattern indicated that the Cirullo case is binding to the Town of Old Lyme in future cases.  Attorney Mattern stated that that is correct.  He noted that the Town is barred from re-litigating the same issue, referred to as the Issue of Preclusion.

Attorney Mattern stated that the architect, Dan Wright, has created a model of the structure to show what the new structure will look like.  Mr. Wright noted that there are no changes to the rear portion of the building, with the exception of the access to the outdoor, second floor deck.  He noted that the model was made to depict the front portion of the building because he was concerned that the drawing may be misleading from the side elevations.  Mr. Wright stated that the model is an accurate depiction of what the structure will look like.  This model was marked Exhibit K.

Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, indicating that she has been the ZEO in Old Lyme since January 2, 2002.  She introduced her Attorney, Eric Knapp.  Attorney Knapp stated that the Cirullo case says that changing the dormer will bring the house into compliance with the applicable building code that requires a ceiling height of 7’6” in any habitable room.  He explained that it is important to note that the Cirullo’s were attempting to bring an existing structure into compliance with the Building Code.  He noted that the case is not the same with the Stingle property.  Attorney Knapp stated that Attorney Mattern has stated that the applicant’s in this case are turning an attic into a room.  He noted that the need to make it compliant with the Building Code is not pressing presently; it is a self-created issue.

Attorney Knapp stated that Cirullo also discusses floor area ratio and he read a portion of the decision; “The plaintiff’s further argue that the dormer change will not increase the floor area of the house, nor create any additional rooms.”  He stated that he agrees that the Stingle’s will not be creating any additional rooms, but they will be creating additional floor area.  Attorney Knapp stated that that is what Section 21.3.10 of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations discusses.  He explained that if the ZBA allows this expansion they could end up with cubes along the beaches.  Referring to the Doyen Case, Attorney Knapp stated that the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations have Section 8.9.3, which the Town of Essex did not have.  He noted that Section 8.9.3 specifically states that if the lot is nonconforming, nothing on the lot, even in a conforming area, can be expanded.  Attorney Knapp noted that the Stingle’s are expanding on a nonconforming lot and are expanding in a nonconforming area.  He explained that the language of Section 8.9.1 is very similar to the Essex Regulations, but 8.9.3 is not matched anywhere in the Essex Regulations and is specifically what makes the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations distinguishable from Essex’s.

Attorney Knapp stated that the applicant’s maps show an expansion that is a substantive, material change in what the house will look like.  He noted that the house is getting larger and taller and allowing this change under the case law Attorney Mattern is discussing will change the entire beach area of Old Lyme and will destroy the purpose behind the Regulations of the Town.  Attorney Knapp stated that there are floor area ratio Regulations for a reason.  He noted that the lot in this case is 6,000 square feet and the Regulations indicate that the house should not be larger than 1,500 square feet and it is already larger than that.  Attorney Knapp stated that Cirullo is limited to the fact that the house needed to conform to Building Code and the floor area was not being increased.  He noted that the Essex case, Doyen, did not deal with floor area ratios and the Town of Essex did not have the provision of Section 8.9.3 which does not allow expansion of any type on a nonconforming lot.

Attorney Knapp stated that Ms. Brown was correct in not permitting this expansion by right and she was correct in requiring the applicant to come before the ZBA for a variance.  He stated that the Regulations of Old Lyme were designed to prevent this type of expansion and he does not see anything that Attorney Mattern has submitted that changes the basic facts.  Attorney Mattern stated that this application may be a good candidate for a variance, but it is not a candidate for a building permit under the existing Regulations which is why Ms. Brown did not issue the permit.

Ms. Brown stated that many of the variances that come before the Board are ones that comply with every setback and bulk requirement except for the underlying lot size.  She noted that many applicants, such as the first hearing this evening, was a request for a variance of only one section, Section 8.9.3.  Ms. Brown indicated that after a year or so with the Town she went to the Zoning Commission and alerted them to the fact that a great deal of the ZBA’s work dealt solely with Section 8.9.3.  She noted that the Zoning Commission indicated that it was their intention to prohibit expansion on nonconforming lots unless the ZBA found reason to grant a variance.

Attorney Knapp stated that taking an attic and turning it into part of the bedroom is expanding the house.  He noted that the envelope of the house is increasing, although the house is not being used more intensely.  Attorney Knapp stated that this is an expansion, not an intensification of use.  Attorney Knapp stated that the Stingle’s application specifically shows a percentage increase in floor area.

Mr. Schellens stated that Section 8.9.3(b) specifically discusses conversions, such as outbuildings and garages.  He noted that the Stingle’s are converting an attic to living space.  Attorney Knapp agreed and noted that 8.9.3 prohibits any type of expansion.  Attorney Knapp stated that Cirullo was not an appeal of Section 8.9.3.  He noted that the specifics of that case were sufficiently peculiar that he would argue that it is limited to those facts.  Attorney Knapp stated that another Old Lyme case before Judge Hurley questioned whether the roof could be raised because of Fire and Building Code compliance issues and he once again ruled that because it was for code-compliance issues it could be done.

Attorney Mattern stated that Section 7.5.1 needs to be read together with Section 8.9.3.  He noted that Section 8.9.3 indicates that there is no expansion of a structure on a nonconforming lot.  He indicated that the section (b) of 8.9.3 states that the conversion of outbuildings, garages or other structures to habitable living space is specifically prohibited.  Attorney Mattern stated that Section 7.5.1 defines floor area and reading from this section stated, “Floor area of attics, not used for human occupancy and of basements used solely for storage, mechanical equipment and services in support of uses of other floors of the building, is not counted in total floor area.”  He indicated that it does not say these areas are not inhabitable, it simply states that the area of those items are not used in the mathematical calculation of floor area.

Attorney Mattern stated that Mr. Knapp’s arguments had to do with policy and the ZBA is not a policy making Board.  He noted that the ZBA should interpret the Regulations the way they believe they are in fact written and not to establish policy.  Attorney Mattern stated that whether the homes at the beach become boxes or not is a policy decision.  He noted that the Zoning Commission can determine whether they would like to make more restrictive Regulations to disallow boxes, it is their prerogative.  Attorney Mattern stated that the discussion this evening is limited to how the Regulations are currently drafted.  

Attorney Mattern stated that the Doyen case is very clear regarding vertical expansion.  He indicated that he believes the Board is bound by the Cirullo decision.  He stated that the Doyen case goes straight to the point of vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot.  Chairman Stutts questioned where Section 8.9.3 fit into the Doyen case.  Attorney Mattern stated that it does not.  He stated that if the Board members read the case, they will see that vertical expansions are permitted.

Chairman Stutts questioned whether the Board members would like to keep the hearing open to get input from their counsel.  Mr. Moll stated that the Board could close the hearing and still get input from their counsel.  Attorney Mattern stated that the law would allow contact with the Board’s attorney post Public Hearing.

Attorney Knapp stated that Attorney Mattern has indicated that the Zoning Regulations should be amended to prohibit vertical expansion, yet his interpretation is that 35’ high within the same footprint is permitted by Appellate Case law.  He stated that if Attorney Mattern’s interpretation of Doyen is correct, there is nothing that the Zoning Commission can do to prohibit vertical expansion.  Attorney Knapp indicated that he is not in agreement with Attorney Mattern’s interpretation.

Attorney Mattern stated that the Zoning Commission could pass a very simple regulation prohibiting vertical expansion to get around the Doyen case.  Chairman Stutts stated that Section 8.9.3 covers vertical expansion.  Ms. Brown stated that Section 8.9.3 states that a building cannot be expanded on a nonconforming lot, which would include vertical expansion.

Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.

ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 06-03, Robert, Kathleen and Ann Stingle, 73 Hillcrest Road, variance to allow second floor addition.

Attorney Mattern and Dan Wright, architect, were present to represent the applicants.  He asked that all the exhibits introduced in the previous case be entered into the record for the variance Public Hearing.  He noted for the record that the applicant is requesting to raise the front roof of the house and install a dormer to expand the two bedrooms on the second floor.  Attorney Mattern stated that most of the work will be on the interior of the house.  He indicated that the standard for a variance is a unique hardship.  Attorney Mattern stated that the lot is extremely small and many houses, as shown in the photographs submitted for the record, are very similar to the proposed structure.  He noted that allowing the dormer will give the applicants more room, light and air on the second floor.  Attorney Mattern stated that the property is unique; the lot is 40’ x 150’ and if the house had been built similar to many of the existing homes in Point O Woods, the applicant would not be before the Board.  Attorney Knapp stated that the model submitted as an exhibit sets forth what the end result will be.  

Attorney Knapp stated that they are requesting setback variances only because the Zoning Enforcement Officer has indicated in her denial that they would be required.  

Chairman Stutts asked if the applicant could indicate on the plan where the addition encroaches on the front setback.  Dan Wright, architect, highlighted the area on the overlay, which was marked new Exhibit E-2.  

Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of the following Sections:  8.8.1, no addition to a nonconforming lot; 8.9.3, no addition to a building on a nonconforming lot; 21.3.7, minimum setback from street line, 25 feet required; 21.3.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 25 percent, 1,500 square feet permitted.  She noted that the existing height is 21.9 feet and the proposed height is 24.6 feet.  Chairman Stutts stated that the lot size is 60 percent of the 10,000 square feet required in the zone.  She noted that the floor area ratio allowed is 25 percent of 6,000, or 1,500 square feet.  Chairman Stutts stated that the existing floor area ratio is 33 percent or 1,990.17 square feet, and the proposal would increase it to 35 percent or 2,085.52 square feet.  She noted that the existing home is already the tallest home on the same side of the street.

Chairman Stutts noted that the house is seasonal.  Attorney Mattern agreed, and noted that there is no intent to change that status.

Attorney Mattern stated that the nature of the hardship is the fact that the Zoning Regulations preclude the applicant from doing what many other homes in the area have already done.

Ms. Brainerd questioned whether the increase in height would impede any neighboring properties’ view of the water.  Mr. Wright pointed out the very small peak that would extend above the existing roof line.

Attorney Mattern submitted two letters from neighbors, one residing at 72 Hillcrest and the other residing on 28 Sargeant Road.  Ms. Stingle stated that the neighbors on either side of her are also in favor of the application.

Mr. Moll requested that the dimensions of the new deck be put on the plan.  Mr. Wright indicated that the deck will be 8’ x 8’ and indicated this on the plan.  

Attorney Mattern stated that the Stingle’s purchased the property in 1995.  Mr. Moll questioned when the porch addition was put on.  Ms. Stingle stated that the home was as it is today when she purchased it.

No one present spoke in favor or against the application.  Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.

ITEM 5: Public Hearing Case 06-04 Autorino, 66 Swan Avenue, variance to extend dormer an additional 3’ x 16’.

Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is requesting a variance of Sections 8.8.1, no additions to a nonconforming lot; 8.9.3, no addition to a nonconforming building; 21.3.9, minimum setback from property line, 12’ required, 6’ provided.

Dave Bellistrini, General Contractor, and Mr. and Mrs. Barry were present to represent the applicant.  He noted that the cottage is currently 4 bedrooms.  Mr. Bellistrini stated that they are currently renovating the cottage, both interior and exterior.  He indicated that they would like to push out the existing 16’ dormer an additional 3’ toward the rear of the house to accommodate a bathroom on the second floor.  Mr. Bellistrini stated that the applicant has difficulty going up and down the stairs.  

Mr. Bellistrini stated that the look of the house will not change.  He indicated that they will be using the space over the existing staircase to install a shower, toilet and vanity.  The Board reviewed the plans and elevation drawings.  Chairman Stutts noted that there will be no additional bedrooms created and the coverage is not changing.

Mr. Moll questioned the drywells marked on the site plan.  Mr. Bellistrini stated that they are the leaching fields.  Mr. Moll asked Mr. Bellistrini to mark the drywells such.

Mrs. Barry indicated that her grandmother’s family has owned the property since 1938 and the home was constructed in 1928.  Mr. Moll questioned whether permits have been received for the ongoing work.  Mr. Bellistrini indicated that he has obtained the proper permits for the work he is currently doing.  Chairman Stutts noted that the application indicates that the dormer is 4’ x 20’.  Mr. Bellistrini acknowledged that he made an error on the application and corrected it for the record.  He noted also that the pitch of the roof may have to change a little, and if so, he would change the record drawings.

Mr. Bellistrini stated that the hardship is that this area is the only area where they could install a bathroom on the second floor.

No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.  Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.

The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time.

ITEM 6: Open Voting Session

Case 05-31 Guy and Laura Mangs, 20-1 Sill Lane

Chairman Stutts noted that the applicant is requesting to construct an addition with a family room, loft, bedroom, and a three-season porch.  She explained that the existing house is 24’ x 39’ or 936 square feet and the new structure is 722 additional square feet.  Chairman Stutts noted that a variance is required of Sections, 8.9.3, no additions to a building on a nonconforming lot.  She stated that the property is located in a R-40 zone which requires 40,000 square feet and the existing lot is 18,478 square feet.  

Chairman Stutts stated that the bedrooms will be increasing from three to four and the coverage will be increasing from 6.6 percent to 12.12 percent.  She noted that the height will not increase.  Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided was that the lot is long and narrow and that the applicant was not able to purchase additional land on the west side.  

Mr. Kotzan stated that if a hardship violates the intent of the Regulation the Board is being asked to vary, then the hardship is necessary.  He noted that he believes a hardship exists if a reasonable use of the property is prohibited by specific application of the Regulations.  Mr. Kotzan stated that he believes the later situation exists in this case.

Chairman Stutts noted that the property has less than half the required area for the zone in which it is located.  Mr. Schellens stated that Griswold Avenue has smaller lots and this particular parcel is right across the street and is in a larger zone.  He noted that it is peripheral in its development period and the zone line is arbitrary.  Mr. Schellens noted that the adjacent homes are similar to the proposed size of this home.  Chairman Stutts indicated that the Speirs’ home is 2,200 square feet on a one-half acre lot.  Mr. Schellens noted that the Cowell’s property is also one-half acre.  He noted that the existing structure is considerably smaller than the other homes in the area.

Mr. Schellens noted that the addition conforms to all other bulk and setback regulations.  He noted that the applicant has also received approval from the Health Department.  Mr. St. Germaine noted that two neighbors have spoken in favor of the application.  Mr. Schellens noted that every situation is unique.  Ms. Brainerd noted that the house size is being doubled.  Mr. Schellens noted that the percent coverage is well below the maximum allowed.

A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a two story addition, Case 05-31 Guy and Laura Mangs, 20-1 Sill Lane, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:

1.      Addition not to exceed 722 square feet.
2.      Drawing dimensions are to be clarified and submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board Chairman for final review and approval prior to issuance of Permits.
3.      Home not to exceed four bedrooms.

Reasons:

1.      Application meets all setback and bulk requirements.
2.      Neighbors are in favor of application.
3.      Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.

Case 06- 01 Bob and Dot Cipolla, 24 Walnut Road

The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the February 14, 2006 Regular Meeting.

Case 06-02 Robert, Kathleen & Ann Stingle, 73 Hillcrest Road, Appeal of ZEO

The Opening Voting Session for this item will be held on Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

Case 06-03 Robert, Kathleen and Ann Stingle, 73 Hillcrest Road, Variance

The Opening Voting Session for this item will be held on Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

Case 06-04 Autorino, 66 Swan Avenue

Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is requesting to extend a dormer an addition 3’ x 16’.  She noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1 and 8.9.3 and 21.3.9, 12’ setback required, 6’ provided.  Chairman Stutts noted that the home is currently four bedrooms and will not change.  She noted that the extension of the dormer is requested to construct a bathroom on the second floor of the home.  Chairman Stutts noted that the existing dormer is 3’ x 14’ and the two-foot extension will make the total length of the dormer 16’.

Mr. Moll stated that a two-foot extension is a reasonable expansion to accommodate a bathroom on the second floor of the home.  

A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to increase dormer to 3’ x 16’, Case 06-04 Autorino, 66 Swan Avenue as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:

1.      Dormer limited in size to 3’ x 16’.
2.      Home will remain four bedrooms.
3.      Final drawings of the roof pitch to be corrected and signed by the Chairman.
4.      Height of the dormer to remain 3’ and the pitch of the roof to remain the same as the drawing, or greater.

Reasons:

1.      Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2.      Minimum expansion to allow for second floor bathroom.
3.      Does not impact the character of the neighborhood.

ITEM 7: Approval of Minutes

No action taken.

ITEM 8: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.

Chairman Stutts stated that the Board should schedule a Special Meeting for February, as there are eleven cases.  She suggested meeting on Monday, February 6, 2006 in the conference room to hold a Public Hearing on six of the cases.  The Board members agreed and also agreed to start the meeting at 7:00 p.m.  They scheduled a Voting Session for Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. for Cases 06-02 and 06-03 and asked Chairman Stutts to discuss the matter with Attorney Royston prior to this time.

ITEM 9: Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. on a motion by Judy McQuade and seconded by Tom Schellens.  So voted unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,



Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk