UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, April 10, 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 07-13 Edward D. Ingraham, Jr., 22 West End Drive, variance to allow exterior staircase to second floor.
Edward Ingraham, Jr. was present to explain his application. Chairman Stutts stated that the application is for a variance to allow an exterior staircase to the second floor. She noted that the lot is nonconforming as to size and shape; two family use is a nonconforming use; and the structure is nonconforming as to placement and size. Chairman Stutts noted that there are two separate ownerships. She noted that the lot is 3,050 square feet in an R-10 zone which requires 10,000 square feet. Chairman Stutts read the list of existing nonconformities. She noted that a variance is required of the following sections: 8.7.1, 8.8.1, 8.9.3, 7.4, 7.4.2 and 21.3.11. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided on the application is that there is only one exit for fire. She
noted that the upstairs unit is 856 square feet with two bedrooms. Mr. Ingraham indicated that that is correct.
Dave Palmer, contractor for Mr. Ingraham, questioned the narrow street setback. Chairman Stutts explained that there is an additional setback requirement on narrow streets. Mr. Palmer explained that the existing staircase is a problem because it is difficult to get things in and out. He noted that they have had to take the wall out. Mr. Palmer submitted a photograph of the existing interior stairs, noting that they are steep and only 30 inches wide. Mr. Ingraham, Sr., stated that the house was built in the early 1900’s and is one of the oldest houses in Hawks Nest Beach.
Mr. Palmer stated that they looked at different ways to put in a decent staircase and they couldn’t find any way to do it. He noted that the existing staircase is the only way in and he believes it is a fire hazard. Mr. Palmer stated that the proposed staircase is tucked into the corner. He indicated that there would be a four x four landing and with the proposed run one stair would come out in front of the house. Mr. Palmer stated that they plan to put a peak over the top of the landing.
Chairman Stutts questioned the location of the interior stairs on the floor plan. Mr. Palmer pointed out their location on the floor plan, as they were not shown on the floor plan. Mr. Moll questioned the location of the front door of the first floor. Mr. Palmer pointed it out on the site plan. He noted that the current stairs do not meet code. Chairman Stutts questioned what room the staircase would enter into. Mr. Palmer replied that the staircase will enter into the kitchen. Chairman Stutts questioned what would happen to the existing stairwell. Mr. Palmer noted that they will probably close it up. Mr. Schellens indicated that it may be a good idea to leave the staircase open to have two means of egress. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the windows were a
secondary egress. Mr. Schellens stated that windows have to be a certain size to count as an egress. Chairman Stutts noted that many homes have two staircases. Mr. Schellens stated that the application is requesting a secondary egress. Ms. Ingraham replied that that is not the case. Mr. Palmer stated that they would like a decent staircase that would accommodate large items. Mr. Ingraham stated that his dad is also handicapped. Chairman Stutts noted that a 13’ variance is requested of the front setback.
Mr. Palmer indicated that in the other Towns he works an exterior staircase would be allowed without a variance. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the area is very crowded and overbuilt and outside staircases add to the bulk of the house and the crowding of the area.
Mr. Schellens indicated that he can see dormering the roof to allow for the doorway, but he would not like to see a covered landing as it would not be minimally necessary in order to accommodate the door. Mr. St. Germain asked whether the applicant would keep the existing steps so the proposed would be a secondary access. Mr. Palmer indicated that they could, but there would be no use of it.
Chairman Stutts questioned if the applicant knew when the property became two-owner. Mr. Ingraham replied that it was that way before his father. Mr. Ingraham, Sr. stated that when his father passed away there were three cottages and they each got one, plus one floor of this house.
Mr. St. Germain questioned whether the applicant would keep the existing stairs. Mr. Palmer indicated that they would rather not, as they are useless. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the stairs have been used for 100 years or more.
Mr. Moll questioned the riser height on the current stairs. Mr. Palmer replied that it is approximately 8 ¾ inches. Mr. Moll noted that it appears the existing stairs are 32 inches wide. Mr. Palmer indicated that the stairs are 30 inches wide. Mr. Moll stated that he has a problem with the drawings submitted. He noted that the site plan is not adequate, as far as the configuration of the front of the house. Mr. Palmer indicated that he did not feel that part was of concern to the Commission. He drew a quick sketch of the entryway to the structure.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 07-14 John Kelsey, 12 Ferry Road, variance to allow addition that creates a third story.
John Kelsey and Jim Plyler were present to explain the application. Mr. Moll indicated that a deed is a required part of the application and noted that the deed submitted as part of this application is that of the prior owner’s. Mr. Kelsey assured the Board that he would get the correct deed.
Chairman Stutts explained that the variance is requested to construct a dormer addition that would create a third story. She noted that the existing nonconformities are Sections 21.3.7, minimum setback from street, 46’ provided, 50’ required and the other setback for the barn and garage, 3’7” and 17’7” provided, 35’ required. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with Section 21.3.5, maximum number of stories, 2.5 allowed, 3 proposed. She noted that the hardship provided is the third floor headroom is 6’2” to 7’ and the owner is 6’5”.
Mr. Kelsey stated that he and his wife purchased the house at 62 Lyme Street in 2001. He noted that since then they have had a child and had the opportunity to purchase this house on 12 Ferry Road in September of last year. Mr. Kelsey stated that they planned an extension renovation within the existing footprint. He noted that the house had been through a number of renovations that had rendered much of the space inefficient. Mr. Kelsey stated that many of the renovations were less professional than they should have been. He explained that the house was originally constructed in 1884. Mr. Kelsey stated that the work on the first two stories is primarily reconfiguring space. He noted that the third floor had two rooms and a bathroom, along with a finished closed in the front.
Mr. Kelsey stated that the staircase going from the second floor to the third floor was not code compliant. He indicated that in addressing the staircase they rendered the existing two rooms useless. Mr. Kelsey stated that the addition of the dormers provides an opportunity to create proper egress. He indicated that with the addition of the dormers they will be creating the space they lost from installing the stairs. Mr. Kelsey noted that the stairs have already been installed. He explained that the proposal is not in violation of any other zoning regulation and they are not increasing the intensity of the use of the house. Mr. Kelsey explained that the house currently has five bedrooms and they will have four bedrooms plus an extra room on the third floor. He noted that a significant amount of the third floor was already in use and the dormer addition will only replace that area given up for the new stairway.
Mr. Kelsey stated that the dormers would also provide headroom which is a consideration for him because he and his brother are both 6’5”. Chairman Stutts questioned whether there was open space under the cupola which has already been constructed. Mr. Kelsey indicated that it was intended to allow light and headroom for the winder stair. He noted that it is not part of the application.
Mr.Plyler, contractor, indicated that he did not think they could fit an egress window in the third floor. He explained the exterior views to the Board. Mr. Moll indicated that there is no drawing of the fourth side. Chairman Stutts questioned the hardship, noting that the hardship is to the land. Mr. Kelsey noted that the safety issues are real. Mr. Kotzan noted that there has been an historic use of the third floor with bedrooms.
Mr. Moll asked the amount of floor space that will be gained. Mr. Plyler replied that they would be gaining approximately 80 square feet of living space. He noted that they are reducing the number of bedrooms. Chairman Stutts noted that there is a third room on the third floor that could be used as a bedroom.
David Briar, 10 Ferry Road, stated that he has not seen the plans before this evening and came to the hearing because he was curious as to what was being done next door. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 07-15 Carl & Tina DeLeo, 75 Sea Spray Road, variance to construct a second floor dormer/addition.
Attorney Fritz Gahagan was present to represent the applicants, Carl and Tina DeLeo, who were also present. Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities: Section 21.3.1, minimum lot area 10,000 square feet, 4,800 provided; 21.3.3, minimum dimension square, 75’ required, 55 existing; 21.3.7, setback, 25’ required, 20.47’ existing; 21.3.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required, 3.66” on the north and 7.46’ on the south side; 21.3.10, maximum floor area, 25% allowed, 37% existing; 21.3.12, maximum lot coverage, 30% allowed, 37% existing. She noted that variances are required of Sections: 8.8.1, no enlargement to a nonconforming building on a nonconforming lot; 8.9.3, no enlargement on a nonconforming lot; 7.4, setbacks; 21.3.7, minimum street setback, 25’ required, 3’ variance requested; 21.3.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required, 5’ variance requested; 21.3.10, maximum floor area, 25% allowed, variance of 12.5 percent requested.
Attorney Gahagan explained the site plan to the Board. He noted the proposed dormers on the plan. Attorney Gahagan stated that two of the dormers encroach slightly. Chairman Stutts noted that there is an addition of 185 square feet of floor space being added to the second floor. Mr. Moll stated questioned the driveway area. Mr. DeLeo pointed it out on the site plan. Mr. Moll indicated that there is a driveway easement for the house next door on this property. Mrs. DeLeo indicated that they also own the house next door.
Attorney Gahagan presented the existing floor plan for the first floor, which does not change, and the proposed second floor plan. He noted that the change is usable floor space, as he calculates it, is 70 square feet. Attorney Gahagan explained that they are reducing the number of bedrooms from four to three. Attorney Gahagan explained that the area over the new stairway is not floor space, but air space. He presented the side elevation view from the north; and the view from the front, which shows the dormer over the stairwell in the middle, as well as a dormer on either side of that. Attorney Gahagan noted that there was no change on the rear elevation. He explained that the height of the house is 23 feet and will remain 23 feet. Attorney Gahagan stated that originally
there was an error on the permit and it was indicated that the height was 16 feet. He noted that that was not a measurement to the ridge.
Attorney Gahagan noted that the second floor currently contains two bedrooms and the new plan shows one large room with a railing around the staircase, not a wall or knee-wall. He explained that he does not arrive at the same area calculations as Ms. Brown. Attorney Gahagan stated that Section 7.5.1 defines floor area and indicates measuring from outside wall to outside wall. He noted that the first floor is 840 plus 126 square feet in the entryway for a total of 966 square feet of living area. Attorney Gahagan stated that with the second floor being 840 square feet (outside wall to outside wall) the total existing square footage is 1806. He agreed that there is a 70 square foot increase in usable floor area but noted that it is very small and there is a decrease in intensity by removing one
bedroom. Attorney Gahagan stated that the floor area is not increasing as floor area is defined. He agreed that the usable space is increasing. Attorney Gahagan stated that the usable space is increasing 4.4 or 4.5 percent.
Attorney Gahagan noted that the Board received four letters in favor of the application which he wanted to be sure were part of the record. Chairman Stutts noted that she usually reads these at the end of the presentation, after public comment.
Attorney Gahagan stated that the purpose of the dormers is for light and ventilation. Chairman Stutts suggested skylights. Attorney Gahagan stated that there is no increase in height of the structure and there is no meaningful increase in usable space. He stated that strict enforcement of the Regulations would prevent improvement to the health of the house, i.e., ventilation and light, and the benefit of that on the occupants. Attorney Gahagan stated that size is not being increased in any meaningful way and intensity of use is being decreased by removing one bedroom. He noted that this is one of the rare occasions when an application stays within the spirit of the rules.
Mr. St. Germain stated that the existing second floor calculations show 840 square feet and 624 square feet usable space. He questioned whether the 624 square feet deducts the open area above the stairway. Attorney Gahagan stated that he believes the proposal is within the intent and in harmony with the Regulations in its not expanding or enlarging the nonconformity in any substantive way. He noted that the DeLeo’s are putting in a conforming septic system as part of the renovation and are attempting to decrease the effect of the small lots in the neighborhood. Attorney Gahagan stated that the proposal is also in harmony with the neighborhood and noted that approximately one-third of the homes in the area have dormers on the front.
Chairman Stutts pointed out that Ms. Brown calculated 185 additional square feet in floor area. Attorney Gahagan agreed that that number would be correct if the stairwell was counted. Ms. Bartlett noted that Ms. Brown does calculate the stairwell and she suggested that if there were any questions on Ms. Brown’s calculations that the Public Hearing be continued for her explanation. She noted that there is another section of the Regulations that discusses floor area in relation to the ceiling height. Attorney Gahagan stated that he believes there is a 4.4 percent increase in usable floor area. Ms. Bartlett indicated that it appears Attorney Gahagan and Ms. Brown agree on the total floor area at the end of the project, they just do not agree on the percent of increase. Attorney
Gahagan agreed that he and Ms. Brown are not far apart in that regard.
Attorney Gahagan stated that the existing floor area of 1806 is roughly 37.625 percent floor area ratio. Mr. St. Germain noted that the floor area hasn’t changed if one is using Section 7.5.1, outside wall to outside wall. Attorney Gahagan acknowledged that they are removing a knee wall and gaining additional floor area by constructing dormers, but he noted that under the Regulations, floor area is not changing. Mr. Schellens noted that the proposal does increase the bulk of the building and encroaches in the setback.
Attorney Gahagan stated that the proposal is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and does not affect anyone’s sight line.
Mr. Schellens suggested that the applicant could perhaps consider removing the shed to bring down the lot coverage. Chairman Stutts stated that the lot coverage is not increasing, the floor area is increasing. Attorney Gahagan pointed out that the lot coverage is conforming at 21.1 percent.
Mr. Moll questioned the cost of improvements, not including the proposal before the Board this evening. He noted that the building permit application for replacement of roof, siding, windows, flattening porch roof and removing chimney dated January 11, 2007 and one later in January for temporary electrical service. Mr. Moll stated that the building permit is for $35,000.00. He questioned the cost of this project. Mr. Moll indicated that whatever number was originally submitted to the building department was struck over and changed. Attorney Gahagan indicated that they received a bid of $17,000.00 to construct the dormers. Mr. Moll noted that 17,000.00 and 35,000.00 equals $52,000.00. He noted that the Assessor’s Record shows an appraised value of the dwelling of $96,700.00,
and it appears that half this amount would be exceeded. Attorney Gahagan stated that he was working off the amount noted on the Zoning Permit by Ms. Brown as $17,200.00 remaining prior to flood-proofing. He noted that if that threshold is crossed, it will have to be dealt with. Mr. Moll noted that there have been no permits issued for all the interior renovations so these dollars have not been calculated into the total either.
Attorney Gahagan explained that he used the number provided on the Zoning Permit by Ms. Brown. Ms. Bartlett suggested that Ms. Brown used the originally number supplied on the building permit, which was subsequently changed. Mr. Moll stated that the Board would be in error in approving an application that does not meet FEMA requirements. Mr. Schellens agreed, noting that FEMA will not insure homes in Old Lyme if they do not adequately enforce this Regulation. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the Building Department is the enforcer of this Regulation. Attorney Gahagan noted that the Zoning Permit indicates an additional $17,200.00 can be spent on improvements and the estimate for the dormers is $17,000.00. Mr. Moll stated that the property is being completely renovated inside;
electrical, plumbing, walls, etc., so there has been a lot of money spent on the house that has not been calculated.
Chairman Stutts read letters from neighbors in support of the application: 1) 74 Sea Spray, Margaret Farley; 2) 77 Sea Spray, Mark and Maryellen Phelan; 3) John Worthenboch; 4) Mary Jane Plant. Attorney Gahagan stated that Mr. Worthenboch and Mary Jane Plant are across the street and adjoining on the south. Mr. Moll questioned whether these neighbors saw the final plan with the second floor deck and railing. Mr. DeLeo indicated that they had.
William Randazzo, neighbor, stated that he has lived on Sea Spray for nine years. He noted that what the DeLeo’s are doing is good for the neighborhood. Mr. Randazzo stated that he is only adding 70 square feet. He indicated that he will be coming before the Board in the next few months and he hopes his neighbors make improvements also. Mr. Randazzo urged the Board to approve the application.
Attorney Gahagan questioned whether the Board thought the hearing should be kept open for future discussion of the floor area ratio. The Board agreed that they could not decide that for the DeLeo’s because if the public hearing is closed and the Board has questions they can table discussion and get input from their staff. Chairman Stutts warned Attorney Gahagan that if the public hearing was closed this evening, he could not comment further to the Board. Attorney Gahagan indicated that the DeLeo’s would like the public hearing closed this evening.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this public hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Open Voting Session
Case 07-13 Edward D. Ingraham, Jr., 22 West End Drive
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that they have requested a variance to construct an exterior staircase to the second floor. Chairman Stutts stated that the property is 3,050 square feet and a variance is requested for the narrow setback of 13 feet, a variance of 1.2 percent for maximum lot coverage. She stated that the hardship provided is that the interior stairs are steep and narrow and impractical because they switch back. Chairman Stutts stated that they have difficulty getting furniture in and out. She pointed out that the house was constructed in 1900 and it appears that the stairs have been functional until now.
Mr. Schellens stated that he would entertain going over the 25 percent coverage. He indicated that a secondary egress is mandatory. Chairman Stutts stated that she visited the property and she felt negative toward the proposal. She acknowledged that it is less visible in that the staircase is tucked into the corner. Chairman Stutts stated that the general area is very crowded. Mr. Schellens stated that he would like to see a condition that would prohibit the dormer from extending beyond the existing eaves.
Mr. Kotzan reminded the Board members that it will not be a second egress because the testimony of the applicant is that the existing stairway would be removed. Mr. St. Germain agreed with Mr. Kotzan. He noted that he believes there will be a gain in floor area. Chairman Stutts stated that the most they would get is a closet. Mr. St. Germain indicated that he specifically questioned them about the existing staircase and the applicant indicated it would be removed.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the two-family house is a nonconforming use. He stated that once the interior stairs are removed, it is less likely to ever be a single family residence again. Mr. Kotzan stated that having just an outside staircase will permanently divorce the two buildings. Mr. Schellens noted that the applicant cannot reconfigure the interior stairs because they don’t own the first floor.
Mr. Moll stated that this case lacks adequate drawings. He noted that he is not in favor of the application because he does not think the drawings are adequate. Mr. St. Germain agreed, and noted that he is concerned that they are dealing with only one owner of a two-family home. Mr. Kotzan reiterated that the property is only 3,050 square feet and the building is a two-family dwelling. He noted that that is a very intense use. Mr. Schellens indicated that it appears to him that a new staircase could be constructed in the interior. He stated that the applicant has not proved to him that they don’t have the right to alter the staircase space.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Tom Schellens to grant the necessary variances to allow exterior staircase to second floor, 22 West End Drive, Edward D. Ingraham, Jr., as per the plans submitted. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
1. Proposal is not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Proposal expands a nonconforming use
3. Other remedies are possible.
4. Adequate hardship not provided.
5. Maximum lot coverage would be exceeded creating a new nonconformity.
Case 07-14 John Kelsey, 12 Ferry Road.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the variance is to allow an addition that creates a third floor. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided was that the third floor headroom is 6’2” to 7’ and the owner is 6’5”. She stated that they also mentioned a safety aspect with the old stairs, which when replaced, created a loss of space on the third floor. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant testified that the third floor bedrooms have existed since 1884. She noted that he also indicated that they are trying to correct poor architecture of existing dormer and roof connection.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the bedrooms are already in existence. Mr. Schellens stated that he believes the applicant will be gaining more area than was lost in reconfiguring the stairs. He stated that this is a third floor expansion. Mr. Schellens stated that he would feel differently if the existing dormers were removed in order to accommodate this one larger bedroom in the back, as it would be a trade off. He noted that the existing area of the third floor is what is grandfathered.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he feels expanding the third floor would go against the intent of the Regulation. Mr. Schellens stated that no hardship was demonstrated. Mr. Kotzan acknowledged that the applicants have done a great job with the property. Mr. Moll agreed.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by Joe St. Germain to grant the necessary variances to allow addition that creates a third story, 12 Ferry Road, John Kelsey, as per the plans. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Adequate hardship not provided.
3. Cupola addition provides needed light.
4. Other remedies are available to minimize expansion of nonconformities.
Case 07-15 Carl & Tina DeLeo, 75 Sea Spray Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She stated that a variance is requested to construct second floor addition/dormers. Chairman Stutts noted that the property is 4,500 square feet where 10,000 square feet is required. She explained that variances are requested of the street setback (3’), a side setback variance of 5’, and a variance of 12.5 percent for floor area coverage. Chairman Stutts stated that Ms. Brown has figured 185 square foot additional living area and Attorney Gahagan stated that 70 square feet of floor area is being added. She noted that the applicant indicated that the purpose of the dormers is for ventilation and light. Chairman Stutts noted that four neighbors sent letters in favor of the proposal and one neighbor in favor attended the hearing. She noted that the bedrooms are being decreased from four to three and a new septic is being installed.
Mr. St. Germain questioned whether the Board should table discussion in order to get an explanation of floor area calculations from Ms. Brown. The Board agreed to discuss the matter before making a decision. Mr. St. Germain stated that if one is to measure from outside wall to outside wall, then Attorney Gahagan would be correct that there is no additional floor area. Mr. Kotzan stated that the maximum floor area, everyone agreed, is greatly exceeded. He stated that this property is half the size it should be and is overbuilt by 12 percent for floor area ratio. Mr. Kotzan stated that there is an additional 70 square feet by Attorney Gahagan’s admission. He noted that there are also setback issues. Mr. Kotzan stated that he cannot justify this change because he believes it
will impact an already overused lot. Mr. Schellens stated that the coverage on the lot is below the maximum allowable.
Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided by the applicant was needed ventilation and light. Mr. Kotzan stated that that is not a hardship.
Mr. St. Germain noted that the Regulations indicate that there is no expansion if floor area is measured from outside wall to outside wall. Chairman Stutts indicated that regardless of that, there is a vertical expansion which is prohibited under Section 8.9.3. Mr. Kotzan noted that the house next door was just before the Board twice and the second time they creatively designed their addition to not increase floor area.
Mr. Kotzan stated that Attorney Gahagan agreed that the useable area was increasing by some definition; he just does not agree with Ms. Brown’s numbers. Mr. Schellens agreed. Mr. Kotzan stated that he cannot justify increasing the floor area 70 square feet when it is already around 35 percent.
Chairman Stutts noted that the upstairs area might be dark without windows across the front, but suggested that skylights would help. She noted that the hardship provided is light and ventilation.
Mr. Schellens suggested that the Board discuss whether they should continue their deliberations for additional information or explanation regarding Ann Brown’s calculations of floor area. Mr. Kotzan stated that even using Attorney Gahagan’s calculations, ignoring Ms. Brown’s calculations, he does not see a legitimate hardship to expand the upstairs floor area on a lot where the maximum floor area is already greatly exceeded.
Mr. Moll stated that the biggest concern he has is whether the house is in a flood prone area. He noted that the A-2 survey provided indicates the property is located in Zone A8. Mr. Moll stated that the Zoning Regulations indicates that any substantial improvement, rehabilitation, etc., should not exceed 50 percent of the appraised value of the building. He noted that the information presented to date does not prove well to him that the applicant will not be over 50 percent of the appraised value. He explained that on Page 33-2 the Regulations discuss base flood elevations. Mr. Moll stated that Section 33.6.4 speaks to residential structures having the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated to a minimum of 1 foot above the base elevation. He indicated that he wants to be sure
that this property does not need to meet the base floor elevation.
Mr. Schellens indicated that the property owner could request a mid-term re-evaluation from the Assessor which may increase his assessment. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that Ms. Brown indicated on the Zoning Permit the amount left to be spent on improvements so it would appear that she is tracking the amount of money spent.
Ms. Stutts indicated that the neighbor directly next door tried to increase their floor area over the maximum allowed percentage and they increased their lot and reconfigured their plan to decrease all variances required to Section 8.9.3, no increase on a nonconforming lot. She noted that this applicant got their dormer, but they reconfigured their plans. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board should be consistent, as they try to be.
Mr. St. Germain stated that the big issue is the expansion and the flood issue is a secondary issue. He noted that the applicant may be able to resolve the flood issue and the Board has to be clear they have a larger issue.
A motion was made by Joseph St. Germain and seconded by Tom Schellens to grant the necessary variances to allow construction of second floor addition/dormers, 75 Sea Spray Road, Carl and Tina DeLeo, as per the plans submitted. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Adequate hardship not provided.
2. Other options for ventilation and light.
3. Excessive floor area ratio.
4. Concern of noncompliance with FEMA Regulations.
ITEM 5: Minutes
No action taken.
ITEM 6: Any New or Old Business
Chairman Stutts indicated that June Speirs has received a lifetime achievement award for her dedication of over 30 years to the Zoning Board of Appeals. She indicated that she would like to plan a little get-together where June could be honored by family, friends, and various commission and board members. The Board agreed on a date of April 25, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. in the conference room.
Chairman Stutts explained that the Board’s May Meeting will be held at Christ the King Church’s Parish Center, as will all meetings until the Town Hall Reconstruction Project is complete.
ITEM 7: Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
