APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, February 6, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Monday, February 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Tom Schellens (Arrived at 7:10), Richard Moll, Kip Kotzan, June Speirs and Wendy Brainerd (Alternate).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Wendy Brainerd sat for Tom Schellens for the first Public Hearing, Case 06-05.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 06-05 Restated Jewel Trust, Kathleen Rollar Abbott Trustee, 8 Flagler Avenue, variance to construct garage and second floor addition.
Denise Vondassel, architect, and Kate Abbott were present to explain the application. Ms. Vondassel explained that the applicant was before the Commission a few months ago to construct a second floor addition and was denied. She indicated that the applicant has tried to address all the Board’s concerns in this new application. Ms. Vondassel stated that the existing house is 816 square feet and was constructed in 1953. She stated that there is a crawl-space under the majority of the house and a small basement portion that is only large enough to contain the furnace. She noted that there is no basement storage and no garage, although there is currently a shed.
Ms. Vondassel stated that the previous owners were granted a variance to add a front porch on the front of the house. She explained that the building falls 3.2 feet into the front setback and approximately 8’ into the side setback. Ms. Vondassel noted that the lot size is 8,451 square feet, approximately 1,500 square feet shy of the 10,000 square foot minimum. She noted that the assessor’s records show that the property contains 9,148 square feet; she indicated that all of the figures presented are based on the A2 Survey showing 8,451 square feet.
Ms. Vondassel stated that the applicant has received Inland Wetlands approval. She explained that the applicant proposes to remove the existing 80 square foot shed, the existing front porch and the existing deck on the side of the house. Ms. Vondassel noted that the first floor addition only comes to the middle of the existing driveway. In comparing this application to the one denied in October, Ms. Vondassel noted that the second floor addition has been considerably reduced. She pointed out that there is no living area over the garage, the dormers have been removed and 5’ has been removed from the height of the house. Ms. Vondassel stated that because the height has been reduced 5’ there is no attic storage possible; for that reason, they propose using the area over the garage as
attic storage. She emphasized that this attic space over the garage will not be finished.
Ms. Abbott noted that the floor area has been greatly reduced from the last application, as well as the building coverage. Ms. Vondassel stated that the house will have three bedrooms. She presented a photograph of the existing house with a rough sketch of the addition drawn on it.
Chairman Stutts stated that the height of the garage roof appears high. She noted that lowering it would reduce some of the mass. Ms. Vondassel stated that the roof is a typically garage roof. Mr. Kotzan stated that part of what makes it look taller is that it is only one bay.
The Board compared the floor plans of this application and the previous application, along with the elevation drawings. Ms. Vondassel noted that she has lowered the roof from almost 30’ to less than 25’, or 24’ 6”. Mr. Schellens stated that the design of the house has not been harmed by lowering the roof and he is satisfied it could not be lowered any further.
Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 21.3.1, lot size, 8,451 square feet provided, 10,000 square feet required; 21.3.2; 21.3.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, 21.8 provided; and 21.3.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 4.9 feet provided on north side. Ms. Vondassel noted that they are not adding the second floor in the setback on the north side.
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of Sections: 8.8.1, no addition is allowed on a nonconforming building except in a conforming location; 8.9.3, no addition or enlargement is permitted to a building on a nonconforming lot; and 21.3.7, minimum setback from the street line, 25’ required, 21.8’ provided. Ms. Vondassel noted that the floor area ratio of the last application was 24.6 percent and this application has a 20 percent floor area ratio. She indicated that the proposed building coverage is 16.9 percent, which is much lower than the 25 percent building coverage allowed under the Regulations.
Mr. Moll asked that the hand-out provided by Ms. Vondassel be marked Exhibit A. Ms. Vondassel noted that the applicant proposes to remove the existing shed, the existing front porch and the existing deck on the side for a total of 344 square feet. She noted that the home is year round.
Nancy Russo, 2 Flagler Avenue, questioned the hardship. Ms. Stutts stated that the hardship as provided by the applicant is that the owner has tried unsuccessfully to purchase adjacent land; existing house construction preceded Zoning and the layout of current house on lot does not lead to any alternative as there are wetlands in the rear. Ms. Russo stated that Ms. Abbott purchased the property a few years ago and knew that it was nonconforming. Mr. Moll stated that knowledge of a property’s nonconformity does not specifically preclude it from having a hardship. He noted that there is a court case that states this. Mr. Kotzan stated that a hardship is when strict application of the Regulations disallows a reasonable use of the property. He noted that asking for a garage is, these
days, a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Kotzan stated that the hardship still has to be qualified, such as does it offend the intent of the Regulation they are asking to vary. He noted that a classic example would be going over in coverage, floor area, or intruding into the setback. He noted that there are more things involved, but that is the basis of it. Mr. Schellens stated that the hardship goes with the land and existed before Ms. Abbott purchased the property.
Ms. Russo stated that she is concerned about the impact on the neighborhood. She presented photographs of small homes on nonconforming lots on Venician Drive and Flagler Avenue. She also presented a photograph of her house at 2 Flagler Avenue. Mr. Kotzan questioned the size of Ms. Russo’s garage. Ms. Russo stated that she has a two car garage and noted that she also has a conforming lot. She stated that she is worried about the impact on the neighborhood when others see that by a mere request they can now add onto their homes. Ms. Russo stated that when these people add on their retail value will go up and everyone knows that. She indicated that she sees the possibility of large homes on too small of lots. Mr. Kotzan stated that that is where coverage and setbacks come
into play. Ms. Russo stated that it is a beach community and she is concerned about the impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Moll questioned the square footage of Ms. Russo’s property. Ms. Russo indicated that she does not know and reiterated that she has a conforming lot. Ms. Abbott stated that the photograph she submitted shows the square footage of Ms. Russo’s home. Ms. Vondassel noted that 2 Flagler Avenue is built-out at 25 percent coverage. Ms. Vondassel noted that 8 Flagler is well under the allowed building coverage. Ms. Russo stated that Ms. Abbott addressed her concerns in this application and indicated that she is now just concerned with the overall impact to the neighborhood.
Ms. Vondassel stated that the proposed second floor of Ms. Abbott’s proposed house is only 1 foot higher than the main level of Ms. Russo’s home. She noted that the surveyor confirmed this.
Adrian Dodakian, Corsino Avenue, indicated that she is in favor of Ms. Abbott’s application. She noted that there is so much open land behind Ms. Abbott’s because of the brook that the addition will not impact the neighborhood.
Mario Campagna, 72 Corsino Avenue, stated that he is in favor of the application. He noted that the addition is not monstrous and will fit well in the neighborhood.
Chairman Stutts read the ten letters submitted in favor of the application. Ms. Abbott pointed out the location of the homes of the people writing in favor.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Pubic Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 06-06 Greg Symon, 27 Brightwater Road, variance to construct second floor deck.
Jeff Flower, architect, was present to represent the applicant.
Chairman Stutts noted the following existing nonconformities: 21.3.7, minimum street setback, 25’ required, 20.5’ existing; 8.8.1, no enlargement except in a conforming location; and 7.4, setbacks, no building in setbacks.
Mr. Flower stated that the house itself is nonconforming because at the time it was constructed the front setback requirement was 20’. He noted that the brick portion of house on the architectural drawing is existing. Mr. Flower stated that the addition shown on the plan is totally conforming, with the exception of the second floor deck which extends slightly into the setback area. He noted that there was an existing foundation in the front and a deck which were removed. He distributed photographs depicting this. Mr. Flower stated that the second floor deck extends into the setback 4 ½’.
Mr. Flower stated that the home currently has four bedrooms and will only have four bedrooms with the addition. He indicated that the lot is a conforming 10,000 square foot lot. Mr. Flower stated that the deck is 14’ 2” long and 4 ½” of it extends into the setback. He stated that there is 1’ 9” from the setback back to the face of the building. He noted that the deck is 6’ 3” wide.
Mr. Flower stated that the hardship is that the property was originally constructed and designed based on the setback at the time which was 20 feet and the setback was subsequently changed to 25 feet. He indicated that the house was constructed in the 1940’s.
Mr. Flower reiterated that the building addition is conforming; the only portion of the project requiring a variance is the second floor deck.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from the neighbor at 33 Brightwater, Paul Graml, in favor of the application.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 06-07 Mark & Maryellen Phelan, 77 Sea Spray Road, variance to construct dormers and convert attic space to living space.
Jeff Flower, architect, was present to represent the Phelan’s. Mr. Flower explained that the applicant proposes to add a master bedroom suite in the attic of the existing structure. He noted that the house currently has four bedrooms, one of which will be eliminated to locate the stairway. Mr. Flower noted that the number of bedrooms will not change. He indicated that the work on the second floor incorporates three dormers, as depicted on the architectural drawings. Mr. Flower stated that the increase in height is one foot. He noted that most of the surrounding homes are two-story.
Mr. Flower noted that the ceiling height in the attic will be 6’6” on the sides and about 8 to 8.5’ in the middle. He noted that the total building height will be less than 20 feet. Chairman Stutts questioned the current height. He indicated that it is approximately 18’6”.
Mr. Flower distributed a sheet of coverage calculations. He explained that the lot was original 6,500 square feet when it was subdivided. Mr. Flower stated that the current owner received a deed that is identical to the original deed but a surveyor has since drawn the property and indicates that it is only 5,000 square feet. Mr. Flower stated that he deed describes the area all the way to the seawall, which is shown on the original subdivision plan. He indicated that a survey was done for the previous owner which shows 5,000 square feet. Mr. Flower stated that he presumes that the surveyor did not measure all the way to the seawall. He indicated that if the lot was reduced in size at any time, it was done illegally, because a lot cannot be made more nonconforming. Mr. Flower
stated that he believes the lot is still 6,500 square feet.
Mr. Flower stated that if the property is 6,500 square feet, the floor area ratio is increasing from 23.5 to 23.4 percent. Chairman Stutts stated that the Board cannot possible deal with the application until the lot size is determined. Mr. Flower questioned whether the Board could approve the application based on the applicant providing an A2 survey that shows that the property is 6,500 square feet. Chairman Stutts indicated that the Board could not do that. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that it would be difficult to approve an application that is going over its coverages. Mr. Schellens pointed out that the original subdivision map has been filed with the Town and the A2 survey has not been.
Mr. Flower stated that the Asssessor’s Records original indicated that the lot was .15 acre or 6,500 square feet and now the records say .11 acres or 5,000 square feet. He indicated that Vision Appraisal reduced the lot size during its last re-evaluation. Chairman Stutts stated that she would think that the applicant would like to know where their property ends. Mr. Flower stated that they mow their lawn all the way to the seawall and no one else could use the property. Chairman Stutts stated that it makes a difference because this lot, at .11, is the smallest lot in the area.
Chairman Stutts noted that on the Zoning Compliance Permit Application it indicates that the lot is 5,000 square feet, as does the variance application. Mr. Flower stated that if the lot size is 6,500 square feet, a variance would not be required for the floor area ratio. Chairman Stutts indicated that they need to have the lot size clarified in order to deal with the proper facts. She noted that variances are required for no expansion on a nonconforming lot, for the setbacks and the floor area ratio. Mr. Flower noted that the proposal does not increase coverage and does not further encroach on the setbacks. Chairman Stutts noted that the facts presented show an increase to 30.5 percent for the floor area ratio, which is what the Board needs to act on.
Mr. Flower asked that the Public Hearing be held open until the March meeting so that he may clarify the lot size. Chairman Stutts noted that the plan must reflect the application and this application is for a lot of 5,000 square feet. Mr. Schellens noted that the application would be much cleaner if the applicant withdrew. Mr. Moll indicated that he felt the applicant should be able to ask for a continuance and clarify the application. Mr. Flower agreed and noted that he is confident a local surveyor will be able to do the survey by the March meeting. Mr. Flower signed a letter granting an extension of the Public Hearing to the March 14, 2006 Regular Meeting.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Chairman Stutts noted that the Public Hearing for this item is continued to the March 14, 2006 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 06-08 Patricia M. Shippee, 209 Mile Creek Road, variance to construct first floor addition.
Nathan and Patricia Shippee were present to explain their application. Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of Sections: 8.8.1, no enlargement of a structure in a nonconforming area; 7.4, building setbacks (existing house already in the narrow street setback), 32’ variance required for the addition.
Mr. Shippee noted that the house was constructed in the current location in 1750. He noted that there were additions in 1790 and 1928. Mr. Shippee stated that they would like to add an addition at this time of 24’ x 11’. He presented an elevation drawing showing how the addition will look from the street.
Mr. Kotzan noted that there are wetlands in another direction and building in this area appears to be the only option. Mr. Shippee noted that they have over 3 acres; the problem is the location of the house on the lot and the many, many mature trees.
Mr. Shippee stated that they currently have two bedrooms and will have three bedrooms. Mr. Kotzan questioned the square footage of the home. Chairman Stutts noted that the addition is 284 square feet. She noted that an 11’ wide room is awkward, as she has one herself. Mr. Shippee stated that they have discussed having a 24’ x 18’ room but were afraid that it would be too large and they would not get ZBA approval. Mrs. Shippee stated that the kitchen is being redone at the same time.
Mr. Shippee stated that the existing first floor office will become a bedroom and the new room will be an office/study/sitting area. Mr. Moll indicated that there does not appear to be a floor plan that shows the number of bedrooms on the second floor. Chairman Stutts stated that there is a floor plan of the second floor and provided it for Mr. Moll. Mr. Moll noted that the floor plan shows 3 bedrooms existing on the second floor. He indicated that it appears they are adding a fourth bedroom. Mr. Shippee stated that they are not adding a bedroom. Mr. Moll questioned the hardship. Mr. Shippee indicated that the hardship is that they have an antique house that was constructed too close to the road and they cannot build in the other three directions.
Mrs. Shippee explained that there is currently a very small room on the second floor that they do not use as a bedroom, but the assessor must consider a bedroom. Mr. Schellens questioned how many bedrooms there will be both before and after. Mr. Shippee explained that there are and will be three bedrooms. Chairman Stutts stated that a new septic is also planned as part of the application. Mr. Moll read directly from #2 of the application which indicates that the variance is needed to allow addition to provide for a single level bedroom for the owner’s 88 year old husband unable to navigate the second story bedroom. Chairman Stutts provided a follow-up hardship provided by the applicant. Mr. Moll read this document, which states that the 1750 residence is otherwise bordered by 250
year old tulip, copper beach and oak trees.
Mr. Shippee stated that he is making a statement that the downstairs plan has no bedroom. He indicated that if some one else wants to add a bedroom in the future, they would have to come back before the Board. He noted that he submitted the revised hardship when he was instructed to by Ms. Brown because the other hardship he provided did not go to the land.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the lot is oversized and the house was constructed well before the inception of Zoning. Mr. Moll stated that the drawing shows a proposed septic for a four bedroom home. He noted that four bedrooms are shown on the floor plans. Mr. Schellens suggested that a condition of approval could be that the new septic system is installed prior to the addition be constructed. Mr. Moll suggested another condition that the home be limited to three bedrooms.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 5: Public Hearing Case 06-09 Shoreline Cottages LLC, 63 Sea View Road, variance to construct 12’ x 16’ screened porch.
John Carbone was present to explain his application. Chairman Stutts noted that two abutters were inadvertently left off the abutters list. Mr. Carbone indicated that he was able to contact these neighbors and has written acknowledgement of their knowledge of the hearing.
Chairman Stutts asked Mr. Carbone to change the Zoning Compliance Permit application to 12’ x 16’ for the screened porch so that it agrees with the variance application.
Mr. Carbone stated that he is seeking a variance to construct a screened porch. He noted that his hardships are that the home was constructed prior to the inception of Zoning and that he cannot acquire additional land from his neighbors. Mr. Carbone stated that the majority of the homes in the area have decks or porches and this is one of the last homes in the area that does not. He explained that he would like to have a 12’ x 16’ screened porch for his three small children to play protected from the elements. He stated that one of his children has allergic reactions to bugs and insects.
Mr. Carbone stated that the area where they are proposing the porch is currently a wooded area. Chairman Stutts noted that the lot is 7,480 square feet in a zone that requires 10,000 square feet. Mr. Carbone noted that all the other building and bulk requirements are met. Chairman Stutts questioned whether there is a deck on the top of the screened porch, as there appears to be a railing around the top. Mr. Carbone stated that the railing is decorative, he hasn’t decided whether he wants a deck on top. He noted that the elevation drawing is not to scale so the porch does look larger than it actually is intended. He noted that the front of the main structure is 24’ and the porch is only 12’ across.
Chairman Stutts noted that there was a screened porch along the front of the house. She questioned whether it is still screened. Mr. Carbone indicated that it has glass. He noted that that porch is only 7’ wide. Chairman Stutts noted that the house is currently three bedrooms. Mr. Carbone stated that he does not intend to enclose the porch and would accept such a condition of approval. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there would be a knee-wall. Mr. Carbone replied that there would not be, it would be screened top to bottom. He also noted that the home is a seasonal property. Mr. Carbone noted that he purchased the home last fall.
Mr. Moll stated that up until 6:00 p.m. this evening there were no photographs in the file. Mr. Carbone indicated that he has provided photographs this evening. Mr. Moll stated that there should be floor plans of the existing building. Mr. Carbone stated that the footprint of the porch is the floor plan.
Mr. Schellens questioned why Mr. Carbone did not consider putting screened panels in the existing porch, which would be a simple solution and not require a variance. Mr. Carbone stated that it is an extremely small area, 24’ x 7’, with the main entrance going right through the room. Mr. Moll indicated that there does not appear to be a map of neighboring wells and septics. Mr. Carbone noted that there are no properties near the screened porch, as there is an open lot to the south side.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from Maureen Rottenberg, property owner next door, in support of the application; a letter from James Marcy, 91 Sea View Road, in support of the application; and Richard Romandetta, 92-1 Hill Crest Road, in support of the application.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 6: Public Hearing Case 06-10 Donna Hayward, 248-2 Shore Road, variance to construct a 22’ x 22’ detached garage.
Donna Hayward and Brian Sanstrom were present to explain the application. Chairman Stutts noted that the application is to construct a 22’ x 22’ detached garage. She noted that the lot is 10,634 square feet and the property is located in a C-30/LI-80 zone. Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of Sections: 8.9.3, no expansion on a nonconforming lot; and 7.4 setbacks, 6’ encroachment on the rear line and 14’ encroachment on the side.
Ms. Hayward explained that the garage is limited to where it is located because of the location of the railroad, the house, the septic system and a right-of-way on the property. Ms. Hayward stated these limitations of the lot are her hardship.
Chairman Stutts read the application which states that the garage will not impact the area because it abuts the railroad in the back and is located in the commercial zone. Chairman Stutts noted that the lot shape is irregular and the coverage is currently 10 percent, with proposed coverage of 14 percent.
Ms. Hayward indicated that she currently does not have a garage, or a basement for storage.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 7: Open Voting Session
Case 06 -05 Restated Jewel Trust, 8 Flagler Avenue
Ms. Brainerd sat for Tom Schellens for this application. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant made a few changes from the previous application which are: proposed house is 24’6”, compared to the previous application at 30’; proposed coverage is 14.34 percent and the previous application had proposed coverage of 14.36 percent; existing floor area is 1167 square feet, previous application was 2,035 square feet, proposed application is 1691 square feet; and the proposed bedrooms over garage have been removed.
Chairman Stutts explained that the property is 8,451 square feet where 10,000 square feet are required. She noted that variances are required of sections 8.9.3, 8.8.1 and 21.3.7. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is removing the existing front porch, deck and shed for a total of 344 square feet of coverage to be removed. She pointed out that one neighbor expressed concern that allowing this change would encourage all the small homes on nonconforming lots to enlarge their homes. Mr. Moll noted that this neighbor has the largest house in the neighborhood.
Mr. Schellens noted that two people spoke in favor of the application and ten letters of support were received. He noted that the lot is 15 percent under the required size for the zone. Mr. Schellens stated that the building coverage is about 15 percent under the maximum allowed. He noted that all the numbers are proportionate around 85 percent. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant has addressed the neighbor’s concerns and he believes this design will have a positive impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Kotzan stated that it is reasonable to have a garage on a year round house. He indicated that he thinks the proposed second floor greatly enhances the house and it is not overbuilding on the lot. Chairman Stutts questioned the unfinished attic area over the garage. Mr. Schellens suggested limiting the number of bedrooms in an approval.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a garage and a second story addition, Case 06-05, 8 Flagler Avenue, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. Existing front porch, deck and shed (344 square feet of coverage) to be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. House is limited to three bedrooms.
Reasons:
1. 344 Square feet of coverage being removed.
2. Height is reduced 5.5 feet from previous application.
3. Garage is a reasonable request for a year round home.
4. House placement on lot is a hardship.
5. Expansion is in harmony with the neighborhood and within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
6. Many neighbors spoke or wrote in favor of the application.
Members voting – Stutts, Speirs, Moll, Kotzan and Brainerd.
Case 06- 06 Greg Symon, 27 Brightwater Road
Chairman Stutts noted that the application is to construct a second floor deck that extends 4.5 feet into the front setback. She noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, 7.4 and 21.3.7. Chairman Stutts stated that the entire deck is 6’9” by 14’ 2”. She pointed out that the lot is conforming.
Mr. Schellens stated that there was a pre-existing structure, as the old deck was over a foot tall. He noted that the proposed deck extends 6” less into the setback. Mr. Kotzan agreed. Chairman Stutts noted that the coverage is increasing to 13.7 percent to 14.7 percent. Mr. Schellens stated that the proposed deck would be within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a second story deck, Case 06-06, 27 Brightwater Road, as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. House was constructed in 1944.
2. Deck does not increase living area.
3. Deck being constructed over a deck that previously existed and extends 6” less into the setback.
4. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 06-07 Mark & Maryellen Phelan, 77 Sea Spray
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this case has been continued to the March 14, 2006 Regular Meeting.
Case 06-08 Patricia M. Shippee, 209 Mile Creek Road
Chairman Stutts noted that the property is a little over 3 acres and the home was constructed in 1750 in the front setback. She indicated that the home is currently three bedrooms and the applicant has stated that the house will remain three bedrooms. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal is to add a 24’ x 11’ by 11’ high addition to the right side of the house. Mr. Schellens stated that there is confusion as to whether the applicant is adding a bedroom on the first floor, as they are moving the first floor office into the new addition and using the office as a bedroom. Mr. Kotzan noted that the applicant agreed to a condition limiting the home to three bedrooms. Mr. Schellens pointed out that the lot is 3 acres in size and the new septic is designed to accommodate 4
bedrooms. He suggested a condition that the septic system be constructed prior to issuance of the permits for the new addition. Chairman Stutts stated that there is one small bedroom on the second floor that is not used as a bedroom because it is so tiny, which is typical of very old homes.
Mr. Schellens stated that he feels the hardship is legitimate because the property is located on Mile Creek, which is a narrow street. He indicated that the property is oversized for the zone and the home was originally constructed in the setback in 1750. Mr. Moll noted that the kitchen is also being renovated.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct an 11’ x 24’ first floor addition, Case 06-08, 209 Mile Creek Road, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. Home is limited to four bedrooms.
2. Installation of septic system (as proposed by the applicant) to accommodate a four-bedroom home be installed prior to issuance of the Building Permit.
Reasons:
1. Home was constructed in 1750 in the front setback.
2. Lot is oversized at 3 acres.
3. No other location for the addition because of wetlands and large trees.
4. Plan is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 06-09 Shoreline Cottages LLC, 63 Sea View Road
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal is to construct a 12’ x 16’ screened porch on a seasonal property. She noted that the lot size 7,480 square feet in a zone that requires 10,000 square feet. Chairman Stutts stated that a variance is required of Section 8.9.3. She noted that the porch meets all setback requirements. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing house is 855 square feet. She noted that the applicant has received approval from the Health Department. Chairman Stutts indicated that the hardship provided is that the home and lot predate the Zoning Regulations and additional land cannot be purchased.
Mr. Schellens questioned the current lot coverage. Chairman Stutts indicated that it was not on the application but Ms. Bartlett had checked it and she believes it is under 20 percent. Chairman Stutts stated that there was a screened porch on the house which was enclosed prior to Mr. Carbone’s purchase. She noted that he testified that it is only 7’ wide, with the main entrance going through the middle of it.
Mr. Schellens and Ms. Brainerd both indicated that a screened porch is not necessary. Chairman Stutts stated that she visited the site and the location of the proposed porch appears to be a natural place to put a screened porch. She indicated that it does not appear that it would impede any neighbors’ sight line. Mr. Schellens stated that the lot area is under 75 percent of the required and there is an existing front porch.
Ms. Brainerd stated that the existing homes are reasonably uniform scale wise. She indicated that this addition would give this home the look of a much larger house. Chairman Stutts stated that she objects to the top of the porch with the railing. Ms. Speirs stated that she would be concerned that the porch would eventually be enclosed. She also noted that without knee-walls the rain will come into the porch. Mr. Schellens stated that a screened porch is an integral part of homes in the beach communities; like having a garage for a year-round home.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not feel the application violates the intent of the Regulation being varied. Mr. Schellens suggested a condition of approval that the existing front porch remain a porch and does not become interior living space. Mr. Moll noted that there is no plan view that shows what the front porch actually is. He indicated that he is concerned with the casualness of this application. Mr. Moll expressed concerns that the top of the porch will be used as a deck. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant testified that the existing front porch is 7’ x 24’. He noted that the testimony given was that this porch is an entryway. He noted that looking at the photographs one can see through the large porch windows to the interior windows. Mr. Schellens
stated that the Board could put a condition of approval prohibiting the conversion of the front porch to living area and requiring that they maintain the interior wall and windows.
Mr. Schellens pointed out that the roof has a code-compliant railing around the top and he too is concerned that it will be used as a deck. Mr. Schellens stated that the coverage, with the porch, is 19.5 percent. Mr. Schellens noted that the elevation drawing does not have a height. Chairman Stutts noted that the height is indicated as 10 feet and questioned whether that means the roof is flat. Mr. Schellens noted that it probably is a flat roof.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by June Speirs to grant the necessary variances to construct a 12’ x 16’ screened porch, Case 06-09, 63 Sea View Road, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. 12’ x 16’ screened porch with no knee-wall and never to be enclosed.
2. Existing front porch to remain a porch with exterior wall, exterior doors and exterior windows and interior wall of this porch not be removed.
Motion did not carry, 3:2, with Mr. Schellens and Mr. Moll voting against.
Reasons for denial:
1. Owner has adequate use of property.
2. Lot size is less than 75 percent of the required area.
3. Property previously had screened porch that was enclosed.
Mr. Carbone stated that the Board’s decision was unreasonable in light of the other applications presented this evening. He noted that in the event one of his children get Lyme Disease or anything of that nature there will be a repercussion. Mr. Carbone stated that the Board has a lot of latitude to make decisions and he feels the process is a joke. He indicated that he will be able to construct a deck without the Board’s consent, which he will do, along with a temporary awning. Mr. Schellens suggested that the applicant look at other options for a screened porch, such as extending the existing 7’ deep porch an additional 5 feet.
Case 06-10 Donna Hayward, 248-2 Shore Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the proposed detached garage is 22’ x 22’, infringing on the side setbacks. Chairman Stutts stated that the property is split between the C-30 and LI-80 Zones. She noted that the required side setbacks are 40’. Chairman Stutts explained that the property backs up to the railroad and has a right-of-way on one side. She noted that the septic is diagonally across the back of the house which prevents them from moving the garage out of the setback. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing coverage is 10 percent and 14 percent coverage is proposed. She noted that the lot is irregularly shaped.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that many large trees on the property were also an issue in determining the location of the proposed garage. Ms. Speirs noted that allowing a garage would be within the intent of zoning.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a 22’ x 22’ x 13’ high detached garage, Case 06-010, 248-2 Shore Road, as per the approved plans labed A-4 and with the following condition:
1. That the garage to be used for storage of vehicles belonging to the occupants of the home.
Reasons:
1. Proposed garage is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Location of septic prevents meeting side setbacks.
3. In harmony with the neighborhood.
ITEM 8: Approval of Minutes
No action taken.
ITEM 9: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
None.
ITEM 10: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Tom Schellens. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
