APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Richard Moll, Kip Kotzan, Tom Schellens, and Joseph St. Germain (Alternate – seated for June Speirs).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 07-07 Jeffrey & Sarah Tufano, 22 Gorton Avenue, variance to construct second floor dormer.
Attorney Greg Carnese was present to represent the applicant. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing nonconformities are Sections 21.3.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 3,485 provided; 21.3.2; 21.3.3, minimum square, 75’ required, 41’ provided; 21.3.7, street setback, 25’ required, 10’ provided; 21.3.9, other setback, 12’ required, 11’ provided on the north and 7’ on the south; 21.3.10, maximum floor area, 25% allowed; 40.6 existing; and 21.3.11, maximum lot coverage, 25% allowed, 25.4 existing. She noted that the proposal does not comply with Sections 8.8.1, 8.9.3, 21.9.3, setback; 21.3.10, maximum floor area, 25% allowed and 45.5% proposed for a variance of 20.5%.
Attorney Carnese stated that they are proposing a second floor dormer on the rear of the home, similar to the dormer that exists on the front of the home. He indicated that photographs were submitted with the application. Attorney Carnese stated that they cannot change the current lot size or the current footprint of the house. He noted that none of the existing nonconformities with respect to lot area, lot shape, coverage, dimension of the square on the lot, and setbacks are going to change with the proposal. Attorney Carnese stated that the hardship is that they cannot construct the dormer, similar to other properties in the area. He explained that there are lots in close proximity that have larger homes on the same size lot. Attorney Carnese stated that just down the street there are
smaller homes on larger lots that could do what they want if they wanted to. He indicated that this is a pre-existing nonconforming use.
Attorney Carnese stated that the real issue is the increase in the square footage of the house. He indicated that they are not asking to change the footprint; the dormer addition is on the rear of the house. Attorney Carnese stated that this is a no-harm variance to anyone else. He indicated that no one is prejudiced in the neighborhood by this proposal, except his client if they are denied.
Attorney Carnese stated that there are other properties on Gorton Avenue and Brookside that have similar or more lot coverage by structure and some less. He listed some examples. Chairman Stutts pointed out that this application does not comply with the Floor Area Ratio, she noted that the coverage is not increasing. Attorney Carnese stated that there are other, much larger houses in the area on much smaller lots; he noted that most of these are pre-existing nonconforming.
Attorney Carnese stated that they are proposing to reduce the overall bedrooms from five to three which reduces the intensity of the use on the property. He indicated that it will remain a seasonal use property. Attorney Carnese stated that they will update the septic system as part of this project. He noted that they are looking to add 184 square feet or 11 percent of the total square footage proposed of 1,587 square feet. Attorney Carnese stated that the present living area in the house is 1,136 square feet. He noted that this application is not unlike an application before the Commission last month on Joffre Road.
Attorney Carnese stated that the plans show that there will be three bedrooms and a bath on the second floor where there is currently three bedrooms and a closet on the second floor. Attorney Carnese stated that in the downstairs they will eliminate one bedroom and open the floor plan so that there is a dining/kitchen/living room area with a study. He noted that they will be reducing the intensity. Attorney Carnese stated that this application is not unlike other applications that have come before the Commission in recent months. Chairman Stutts stated that each case is individual. She stated that the dormer allows the bedrooms to become larger and she noted that the existing floor plan could incorporate a bathroom. Chairman Stutts stated that the dormer addition is enabling the
applicants to have larger bedrooms. Attorney Carnese stated that the number of bedrooms are being reduced which reduces the intensity of the use. He indicated that the Chair has asked him not to discuss other applications but he is going to. Chairman Stutts stated that there is no point in comparing cases because there are so many different aspects to each one. Attorney Carnese stated that he sat through the Joffre Road presentation last month were the proposal was asking to make non-usable knee-wall space full height living space. He noted that this is not un-similar. Chairman Stutts noted that this proposal is 20 percent over the allowable floor area ratio. She noted that this is a gross amount and the Board has a hard time giving any percent over the floor area ratio allowed. Mr. Schellens stated that there is the variety of lots in the beach area with over and under utilization of the lots; he noted that this is the reason zoning
exists. He stated that what has come before is why there are grandfathered nonconformities and there is no way this is prejudicial. Mr. Schellens stated that these grandfathered properties in no way give this property the right to expand to the same intensity. He indicated that he does not have the Joffre Road case in front of him, but believes that the Board does not act favorably on applications over the floor area or coverage ratios, and believes that the Joffre Road case was not over the floor area ratio. He noted that he understands that the applicant is trying to make more usable space but pointed out that the floor area ratio is already at 40.6 percent when only 25 percent is allowed. Mr. Schellens asked Attorney Carnese to refer specifically to the Joffre Road case and provide the Board with the floor area ratio. Attorney Carnese indicated that he cannot. Mr. Schellens stated that that is exactly why the Chairman indicated that
unless all the facts of the case are presented it cannot be asserted that they are comparable.
Mr. Kotzan stated that when the Board is asked to vary a regulation they first look at the intent of the regulation and is what is being asked for going to offend the intent of that regulation. He stated that the regulation was written for just this type of situation where there is already a large amount of floor area on the property. He indicated that if the floor area ratio was not over the limit this would be a very different case. Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposal goes against the intent of the regulation being varied.
Mr. Moll stated that reducing the number of bedrooms is a very positive thing. He noted that the real positive aspect is that the proposal would eliminate the existing cesspool and replace it with a septic system. Mr. Moll stated that there are no drawings showing the rear elevation or the other side elevation. He questioned whether the proposal is to totally redo the house. Attorney Carnese stated that it is close to that. Mr. Moll stated that it appears that the dormer on the front comes in on the sides and the elevation view shows the vertical wall the same. He noted that the upper floor plans, if superimposed over the first floor, show the same floor area. Mr. Moll noted that there is some discrepancy in the drawings.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 07-08 William & Lorraine Boyko, 65 Corsino Avenue, variance to demolish existing year-round single-family dwelling and construct new year-round single-family dwelling.
Attorney Bill Childress and Tony Hendriks present to represent the applicants, William and Lorraine Boyko, who were also present. He explained that the property is currently a year-round dwelling. Attorney Childress stated that the lot is 9,216 square feet in an R-10 zone. He noted that the lot is subject to periodic, severe flooding. Attorney Childress stated that the building coverage is currently 27.5 percent and there are an existing garage and shed that both currently violate the side setback. He indicated that the proposal is to remove the existing house and also the detached shed and garage and replace them with a new year round dwelling wherein the building coverage will slightly increase to 28 percent. Attorney Childress stated that the new building will be in compliance with
the building and health codes; he noted a new septic system is proposed. Attorney Childress stated that the proposal will be in compliance with all setbacks; the variance requested are for lot area and the lot coverage increase of .5 percent.
Attorney Childress distributed several photographs of the property depicting the flooding conditions that occur. He also displayed photographs taken this past week after the severe rain, noting that the flooding is not one isolated incident. Attorney Childress presented photographs of other existing properties and noted that the addresses are indicated on them. He explained that the photographs relate to the hardship and that is that in order to have any sort of consistent, reasonable use of the grounds of this property, an elevated deck is necessary. Attorney Childress stated that the proposed decking is what puts the application over the 25 percent allowed coverage. He noted that the lot area hardship is that the lot was created prior to the Regulations and there is no available contiguous
land to add to it. Attorney Childress stated that the tax map shows that the surrounding properties are all very similar in size, around 9,000 square feet. Mr. Hendriks stated that the applicants contacted their adjacent neighbor who has some additional land and these neighbors were not willing to sell any land.
Attorney Childress stated that they are asking for a variance of 784 square feet for land area and the proposal is over 274 square feet on the lot coverage. He stated that this proposal is consistent with the neighborhood, as shown in the photographs submitted. Attorney Childress stated that the plans made an effort to achieve the extra space through dormers and interesting changes in roof lines.
Attorney Childress read and submitted letters in favor of the application: Joseph and Judy Shea, 40 Pond Road; Susan Krawier, 64 Corsino Avenue; Jennie Cassarino, 23 Biscayne Boulevard; Pete Tagliatti, 24 Liberty Street; Barbara W. Tagliatti, 24 Liberty Street; Kathleen Abbott, 8 Flagler; Tom & Theresa DeVito, 30 Liberty Street; Joe Montanaro; and John & May Dess, 70 Biscayne Boulevard.
Mr. Kotzan stated there is a slight expansion in building coverage. He noted that if 46 square feet of decking was removed there would be no increase in coverage. Attorney Childress stated that they could remove 46 square foot of decking, but noted that to have a minimal use of the outside of the property, there must be elevated decking. Mr. Hendriks noted that the decking is not large and is barely wide enough for a table and chairs. He pointed out that they have eliminated the existing setback issues of the shed and garage. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing structures are being torn down which is the opportunity to make the property as conforming as possible, with the exception of lot size.
Chairman Stutts questioned the height of the existing house. Attorney Childress noted that the proposed height is 29’6”. Mr. Hendriks stated that the ground elevation is being raised approximately two feet. Mr. Schellens noted that the house is currently one story. He indicated that they are elevating the ground and adding a second floor. Mr. Moll noted that this property is located in Flood Zone B on the FEMA Map. Mr. Hendriks stated that he believes this is an error in the flood map and noted that the photographs attest to that. Mr. Schellens stated that there is a good increase in floor area. He noted that he does not like to see the building coverage over 25 percent, especially noting that the existing buildings are being removed.
Attorney Childress stated that the FEMA Map gives this property a B Zone designation, but noted that the elevations confirm that it should be an A Zone. Tony Hendriks stated that in this particular instance, he believes the entire area is an A Zone from an elevation standpoint. Mr. Hendriks stated that the survey is based on USCGS data which means that it is on the federal elevation datum of 1929, which specifies the base flood elevation for this particular area, of elevation 11. He noted that for this reason, they have put the first floor on elevation 11. Mr. Hendriks stated that this information is on sheet 2 with the septic system design.
Chairman Stutts questioned whether the 2’ retaining wall was for the fill for the septic system. Mr. Hendriks stated that they have raised the grade slightly on the north and west sides for two reasons: 1) to raise the grade of the house a little bit to get above the base flood elevation and 2) to allow grading from the house to the property line without having extreme run-off issues and to bring the septic system up to code and to be able to grade over the septic system. Mr. Hendriks explained that this is the reason for the 2’ retaining walls. He noted that the property will drain toward the roadway, not toward the neighbors. Attorney Childress noted that it is not legal to increase the drainage to your neighbors without an easement and they are conscious of that. Mr. Moll
stated that unless the retaining wall is impervious or the land inside the retaining wall is lower than the neighbors’, water will drain onto the neighbors’ property. Mr. Hendriks indicated that they are talking about water that comes from the sky not tidal flooding.
Mr. Moll stated that there are no contours on the map; he noted that there are spot elevations. He stated that he would like to see an elevation where the two walls come together as there are elevations all along the wall of 10 feet. He noted that now he cannot tell which way it is going to drain. Mr. Moll questioned why contour lines are not shown. Mr. Hendriks stated that contour lines are normally shown in one or two foot intervals. He explained that there is not that type of change in grade from the existing to the proposed. Mr. Hendriks stated that the lot is flat. He noted that on one side of the site the elevation is 4.7 and the other side is 5.3. He noted that this is a five or six inch difference in grade across the property.
Mr. Schellens questioned how the height was measured. Mr. Kotzan noted that it is shown from the base of the foundation to the peak. Mr. Schellens questioned how much higher the proposed grade is from the existing grade. Mr. Hendriks replied that the grade is increasing two feet. Mr. Hendriks stated that Mr. Rose has approved the septic system design.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he would like to see the coverage reduced by 46 square feet. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the building coverage is 274 square feet over. Mr. Kotzan indicated that he would like to see it reduced to at least the existing coverage of 27.5 percent. He indicated that he cannot see allowing an increase in the existing coverage, even acknowledging the reduction of setback nonconformities. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant has reasonable use of the property as it exists. He indicated that he does not see a hardship to expand the nonconformities. Attorney Childress stated that they would accept a condition of approval that the deck be reduced by 46 square feet.
Mr. Moll stated that the house was originally constructed in 1965 and remodeled in 1986. He noted that the property, in 1998 when it was purchased, the Assessor’s Card was stamped seasonal use. Ms. Boyko stated that they have a letter indicating that it is a year round use property. Mr. Moll indicated that this letter should be made part of the file.
Bobbie Doyen stated that she is very familiar with the property and is an appraiser in Town. She indicated that when the Boyko’s purchased the property she did the appraisal and at that time it was in terrible condition. Ms. Doyen stated that the proposal is a vast improvement to the property and as an appraiser she notes that when improvements are made in a neighborhood other neighbors make improvements to their home. She stated that the Boyko’s are only asking to enjoy their home more.
Scott Fulton with Flanders Fire Department in East Lyme was present to speak for his in-laws. He indicated that the Boyko’s are wonderful people and this represents an opportunity for them to give back to the community and to themselves.
John, Newington, indicated that the Boyko’s are good friends and are an asset to the community. He urged to the Board to approve the proposal.
Jim McCusker, adjacent property owner to the north, 59 Corsino Avenue, stated that he likes what the Boyko’s are trying to accomplish, but noted that the circumstances are not right for the Board to approve the application. He stated that when the property behind him built up, his property became a bigger swamp. Mr. McCusker stated that the water has no place to go but come into his yard. He showed the Board some photographs of flooding in the area. Chairman Stutts stated that the rain last week was very unusual. Mr. McCusker stated that much of the water comes from the brook which then saturates all the septic systems. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the flooding was as it is when they purchased the property. Mr. McCusker replied that the flooding then was not as bad as it is
now. He noted that the raising of the surrounding homes is what has made the flooding worse than it was. Mr. Kotzan stated that much of the problem is the perviousness of the ground and the amount of land that can penetrate the water, not as much the slopes on the properties. He indicated that the problem with the last storm is that the rain came on top of frozen ground so that it could not penetrate the ground. Mr. Schellens stated that there is a flood plain and every time a lot is elevated the area of the flood plain is being reduced. Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not agree.
Adrian Dodakian, 51 Corsino Avenue, stated that when she put an addition on her house she was not allowed to put a full second floor on. She noted that her house is 28’ high. Ms. Dodakian stated that she has a nice water view and if the applicant’s build up it will destroy her water views. She stated that she has put everything she has into her home. Chairman Stutts asked that Ms. Dodakian point out her house. Ms. Dodakian submitted photographs and noted that some were taken in 2003, some 2004 and some 2005. She noted that all the neighbors suffer from the flooding. Ms. Dodakian stated that she spoke with her architect who indicated that this proposed building will obstruct her water view. She submitted a photograph depicting her water view. Chairman Stutts
pointed out that the footprint is perpendicular and will not obstruct the entire view. She explained that the house will still be perpendicular to Biscayne and parallel to Corsino Avenue. Ms. Dodakian stated that her archictect indicated that her view will be obstructed. Chairman Stutts agreed that it may be a little obstructed but it will not be totally obstructed.
Chairman Stutts read a petition submitted into the file against the application. She read a letter from the Grimaldi’s expressing their concerns about the proposal. Chairman Stutts read a letter in opposition to the height of the proposed structure, signed Van & Priscilla Krikorian, Wayne Dodakian and Rachel Dodakian.
Ms. Dodakian stated that many of the people, such as Kate Abbott, who were in favor of the proposal live further up toward Shore Road and are not effected by the flooding or the loss of water views. Chairman Stutts stated that they do take that into consideration.
Mario Campagna, 72 Corsino Avenue, stated that he has been in Old Lyme since 1948. He stated that this area was constructed when the jetty was cut off and sand was brought in. He indicated that he used to fish where there are now houses. Mr. Campagna stated that this is the reason the area is so often flooded. He indicated that he too would like the Board to consider the location of the homes of the people who spoke in favor of the application.
Nick Campagna stated that he would like to speak on behalf of the McCusker’s. He stated that this proposal will turn their house into a swamp land and will eliminate their sea views. Mr. Campagna stated that if people have postage sized lots they get a postage sized house. Chairman Stutts recommended that Mr. Campagna write a letter to the Zoning Commission letting them know his feelings. She explained that if they do not want houses in their area to be this height, they should let the Zoning Commission know. Mr. Schellens agreed and noted that if they would like the rules to change that is the route the neighborhood should take.
Harold Olsen, 58 Corsino Avenue, indicated that he has lived in the area for 50 years. He questioned the hardship. He stated that the proposal would not be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Olsen stated that everyone in the beaches pays large tax bills and all they get in return from the Town is a poor snow-plow job in the winter. He noted that they would like to get results from the Board of Appeals. Mr. Olsen stated that the beach people need more cooperation from the Town.
Attorney Childress pointed out that they are not asking for a height variance. He noted that the proposal is not near the 35’ limit. Attorney Childress noted that Zoning does not regulate views. He indicated that his clients have tried to be respectful of views. Attorney Childress stated that the blocking of views is not a matter that is before the Board. He noted that there has only been one expert here this evening testifying about the drainage and that was Mr. Hendriks, who testified that the drainage has been designed in such a way not to increase run-off onto the neighbors’ properties but rather onto the street and to the catch basin.
Attorney Childress stated that the Boyko’s did not create the flooding and they cannot resolve the flooding. He noted that there job is to not make it worse for the neighbors and he stated that the proposed drainage design accomplishes that. Attorney Childress reiterated that the only variances required are for the land area and the coverage on the lot.
Ms. Boyko stated that the flooding the neighbors have spoken about is the reason they want to raise their property. She noted that they do not intend to hurt anyone. Ms. Boyko stated that it is interesting to her that many of the people that spoke in opposition to her proposal have already done what she is requesting to do.
Mr. Boyko indicated that they purchased the property 8 years ago. He indicated that the property was in very poor shape. Mr. Boyko explained that his wife and family have fallen in love with the house and the area. He stated that it is an extreme hardship to live in the home as a permanent home. Mr. Boyko stated that the sand floor is constantly flooded with 3 to 4 inches of water and the moisture and moldly smell permeates the entire home. He explained that the garage is small. Mr. Boyko stated that the electrical service is only 100 amp, there is little insulation resulting in high heat bills and it appears that the only answer is to rebuild the house. He noted that there are two beautiful homes on either side of his and he would like to build his to that standard.
Mr. Boyko stated that they knew from the beginning of their planning that they wanted to be sure that water would not drain toward the McCuskers. He indicated that they are raising their home so that it does not flood and their plan is designed so that the McCuskers home will not flood any more than it currently is flooding. Mr. Boyko stated that Ms. Dodakian indicated that she would fight the project if her view was blocked and for that reason the plan was designed so that the gap remains between the homes and Ms. Dodakian will retain her view.
Mr. Kotzan questioned if the house would be adequate for the Boyko’s without the basement. Mr. Boyko replied that they could not. Mr. Kotzan stated that the full basement takes up an area that will no longer be able to accept water. Mr. Hendriks stated that they are talking about surface water, not ground water. He indicated that in a 5, 10, 25 or 100 year storm water falls on the roofs and the ground and some is absorbed by the soil but most of it is run-off. He stated that taken into consideration with the high water table and an unusually high tide, water can inundate the area. Mr. Hendriks stated that the basement will be a storage area for lawn equipment and yard furniture and that type of thing. He stated that they have addressed surface run-off and it will not go onto
the McCusker property; it is draining toward the roadway and the existing drainage system. Mr. Hendriks acknowledged that the drainage system does not always function good. He explained that overall, the property will be more in compliance with the Regulations.
Ms. Dodakian stated that mold is a problem at the beach. She questioned whether Mr. Hendriks is an architect or hydrologist. Mr. Hendriks stated that he is a land surveyor with Rowley Hendriks Engineers and Land Surveyors. He indicated that he does not have an engineering degree.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this item to a close.
ITEM 3: Open Voting Session.
Case 07-07 Jeffrey & Sarah Tufano, 22 Gorton Avenue
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the property already exceeds the maximum floor area at 40.6 percent and the proposal to add a dormer brings the total floor area ratio to 45.5 percent. Chairman Stutts stated that the dormer is also in the setback.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not see justification to add further to an already excessive floor area ratio. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided was that the lot is small and additional land cannot be acquired. She indicated that this is not a unique hardship. Mr. Schellens noted that they have reasonable use and enjoyment of their property. Mr. Moll pointed out that the property was just recently purchased by the applicants. He noted that the number of bedrooms is being decreased and a new septic system will be installed.
Chairman Stutts stated that this property is one of the largest houses in the area as far as bulk is concerned. Mr. Schellens stated that it appears from the plans that the applicant is also enlarging the existing dormer. He indicated that it is his feeling that the floor area ratio is already excessive. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant could reconfigure the second floor and obtain a bathroom without adding a dormer.
Mr. Kotzan stated that a bathroom could be obtained without adding a dormer and increasing the bedroom sizes. He stated that he does not believe there is a hardship, but if there was he would qualify it as a necessary hardship that the property has to bear. Mr. Kotzan stated that granting someone 45.5 percent floor area when 25 percent is allowed would directly violate the intent of the Regulation. Chairman Stutts reminded the Board that the lot size is 3,485 square feet.
Mr. Schellens stated that the requested square footage increase for the home is 180 square feet, which is a lot for a 3,485 square foot lot. Chairman Stutts noted that the existing floor area is 1,334 square feet.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Tom Schellens to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a second floor dormer, 22 Gorton Avenue, Jeffrey and Sarah Tufano, applicants, as per the submitted plans. Motion did not carry, 1:4, with Mr. Moll voting in favor.
Reasons:
1. Plans are deficient.
2. No hardship.
3. Floor area ratio already excessive.
4. Bathroom can be accomplished on second floor without adding a dormer.
5. Proposal is not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 07-08 William & Lorraine Boyko, 65 Corsino Avenue
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the existed shed and garage will be removed which will eliminate the existing setback nonconformities. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing lot coverage is 27.5 percent and the proposed coverage is 28 percent. She explained that the proposed height is 29’6” and there will be an additional two feet of fill.
Chairman Stutts stated that one neighbor expressed concerns about the height and protection of views but the main issue was drainage or flooding. She suggested that the Board could refer the plan to Tom Metcalf for his engineering review of the drainage. Mr. Kotzan stated that if the ocean is coming in it will not matter to the neighbor whether this lot is raised two feet. He noted that the ocean flooding and high water table is the serious issue in this area. Mr. Kotzan stated that when the tide comes in high enough the drainage system is no longer functional. The Commission agreed that they would like to request an engineering review of the plan by Tom Metcalf.
Chairman Stutts stated that the other issue is the hardship to allow the coverage to increase to 28 percent. Mr. Schellens stated that he is reluctant to allow additional coverage on the lot. He noted that once the structure is removed the applicants should build to the 25 percent allowed maximum coverage. Mr. Schellens stated that the living space is being doubled; they are getting a full basement and two-car garage. He indicated that he feels that the lot coverage should not exceed 25 percent. Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not think they should expand a nonconformity as they would be by granting a variance to exceed the lot coverage. Mr. Schellens indicated that although the floor area ratio is complying, the applicants are getting a lot on a nonconforming lot and should not be
granted more coverage than is allowed as there is no hardship.
Mr. Kotzan stated that if the applicant were denied on this application and reapplied with 25 percent lot coverage, he would be inclined to ask Tom Metcalf, consulting engineer, to review the drainage on the lot. He indicated that he needs another opinion on the drainage before he could vote in favor of this application, putting the lot coverage aside. Mr. St. Germain agreed, noting that he would like to know that the changes on the lot will not contribute any more to the flooding problem than what’s existing. The Board discussed the proposed septic system and agreed that they would like some more information on that with any subsequent application. Mr. Kotzan stated that he would like to know that any changes on the subject lot remedies the water issues on it without causing any harm to the
neighboring properties.
Mr. St. Germain stated that the Zoning Regulations allow the applicants to reconstruct the existing house without expanding it on a nonconforming lot. He indicated that the Regulations also require them to bring the house up to the flood elevation for the flood zone. Chairman Stutts noted that the flood zone map shows this property in a B Zone. Mr. Schellens indicated that this is another issue to address with Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. Kotzan stated that because the property is a reconstruction with an expansion of floor area, he would like to see the property stay within the required 25 percent lot coverage and not the existing 27.5 percent. Chairman Stutts read Section 8.8.2, Change, which indicates that no nonconforming building or other structure or site development, once changed to conform; by tearing the building down it is now changed to conform; or to more nearly conform to these Regulations, shall therefore be changed so as to nonconforming or less conforming again. She noted that this is her reasoning for keeping the coverage to 25 percent.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the Board should table the voting session on this item and seek technical information regarding the drainage issue. Mr. Kotzan stated that he feels they should get an engineering review with a subsequent application. He indicated that he is not comfortable with the coverage of the lot with this application and cannot justify getting an engineering opinion on the current application.
Mr. St. Germain stated that when one tears down a house it is al new, it is not reconstruction, it’s new construction. Mr. Moll stated that he would like to get an independent opinion as to whether this proposal would create any additional drainage or flooding problems. Mr. Kotzan agreed.
A motion was made by Richard Moll to continue the voting session and seek technical input from Tom Metcalf on the impact of this new building on this site as far as ponding and flooding in the area. Mr. St. Germain seconded the motion.
Mr. Schellens stated that because the existing house is being demolished the applicants must be held to the 25 percent coverage limit and he feels an engineering review may be premature. He noted that the applicants agreed to remove some decking to bring the proposal down to their existing 27.5 percent coverage. Mr. Schellens indicated that the Board could not redesign the current plan to 25 percent coverage. Chairman Stutts stated that she feels it is an incomplete motion. She indicated that the applicants must first deal with the problem of excessive coverage. Mr. Schellens stated that he would like Ms. Brown to review the application as the Wetlands Officer because there is a wetlands issue.
Mr. Moll withdrew his motion and Mr. St. Germain withdrew his second to the motion.
Mr. St. Germain noted that not one neighbor spoke in opposition to the size of the home; they spoke about sight line and they talked about flooding. Mr. Kotzan agreed, but noted that it is not only the complaints of the neighbors that determine whether a variance is granted or not. He stated that there has to be a hardship to justify going over the allowed maximum coverage with a reconstruction. Mr. Schellens stated that he would like to see a letter from Ron Rose, Sanitarian, indicating that the septic is at the elevation that it has to be per State Code. He noted that in this way it would justify raising the lot elevation two feet for a new septic system.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by Kip Kotzan to grant the necessary variances to allow the variance to demolish existing year-round single-family dwelling and construct new year-round single-family dwelling, William and Lorraine Boyko, applicants, as per the plans submitted. Motion did not carry, 1:4, with Mr. St. Germain voting in favor.
Reasons:
1. Creating a new structure on a nonconforming lot that is more nonconforming as to maximum lot coverage.
2. Not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning to exceed lot coverage.
ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 9, 2007 Regular Meeting, the January 17, 2007 Special Meeting and the February 13, 2007 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 5: Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
