UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, May 8, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, May 8, 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, Judy McQuade 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 07-16 Andrea and Robert Donald, 12 Binney Road, variance to construct an addition and detached three car garage.
Dave King, builder, was present to explain the application. Chairman Stutts read the list of existing nonconformities: 21.3.1, minimum lot area, 80,000 square feet required, 65,805 provided; 21.3.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 80,000 square feet; 21.3.3, minimum dimension of a square, 200’ required, 195’ provided. She explained that a 1,008 square foot garage is proposed, 750 square feet of the existing house will be removed and a 710 square foot living space will be added; a 105 square foot porch and 90 square feet will be added to the kitchen.
Mr. King stated that the proposed additions are all within the setbacks. He explained that the coverage and bulk standards are all met. Mr. King noted that the applicant’s objective is to bring the house up to the standards and size of the rest of the neighborhood. He indicated that the lot was an approved building lot and the hardship was imposed by zoning. Mr. King stated that the driveway is currently in a dangerous location. He explained that when exiting it is difficult to see cars coming up the hill. Mr. King stated that they proposed to relocate the driveway and construct a new outbuilding for the garage. He stated that a neighbor received approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals for an expansion into the setbacks on a nonconforming lot. Mr. King pointed out
that the Donald’s had a zoning permit for this work, which was subsequently revoked. He noted that the only issue facing the homeowner is the fact that the lot is approximately 15,000 square feet in size short for the 80,000 square foot zone that was imposed after the original subdivision of land.
Mr. King explained that the existing driveway will be grassed. Chairman Stutts questioned the use of the second floor of the garage. Mr. King indicated that the second floor of the garage will be used for storage. He noted that Mr. Donald builds boats as a hobby. Mr. Kotzan questioned the coverage. Mr. King stated that the existing coverage on the lot is 3.77 percent and the proposed is 5.53 percent. Chairman Stutts stated that the garage is 1,008 square feet, they are adding 4’ to the height of the house; they are adding 1,158 square feet to the footprint; and they are adding 1,050 square feet to the second floor.
Mr. Moll stated that the proposed height does not appear to be shown on the plans. Mr. Donald asked for a minute to review the plans and he would determine the proposed height. Mr. Moll questioned when the house was constructed. Mr. Donald indicated that the house was constructed in 1950. Mr. Moll questioned whether the Donald’s would be living in the house year round. Mr. Donald indicated that he does plan to eventually live in the house full time.
Ms. McQuade questioned whether the garage would be heated. Mr. King replied that there may be a gas stove. Chairman Stutts stated that this property is one of the smallest in the general area. Mr. King noted that another property previously granted variances by this Board is 1.75 acres and the additions are in the setback.
Mr. St. Germain questioned whether the proposed driveway is gravel. Mr. King replied that the plan show a gravel driveway and it will be a gravel driveway. Mr. Moll stated that he visited the site and it was his feeling that there is enough of a site line coming out of the driveway if one is careful exiting.
Fred Harris, 13 Binney Road, across the street, indicated that after careful review of the plans he feels it would be a dramatic improvement to the neighborhood. He stated that the injustice done to Mr. and Mrs. Donald by the Town needs to be remedied. Mr. Harris indicated that the Donald’s were granted a permit and then it was revoked. Chairman Stutts stated that it was an unfortunate mistake. Mr. Harris stated that it was his understanding that it was given twice and then taken away.
Alan Proctor, 15 Binney Road, stated that he is in favor of the proposal and feels it will be a dramatic improvement to the property which is currently in dire need of renovation and upgrading. He indicated that there have been many close calls exiting the driveway and he feels the driveway should be changed.
Mr. Harris stated that his driveway is almost directly across from the Donald’s and because the driveway is blacktop, he gets quite a bit of run-off from their property straight down his driveway. He noted that the elimination of this pavement would be a great improvement.
Jennifer Morgan, 10 Binney Road, abutting property owner, stated that she looked to purchase the Donald’s house years ago and she and her then husband had plans drawn up to expand the house. She explained that at that time she was told that Zoning did not allow for the addition that they had hoped to put on. Ms. Morgan stated that the subsequent property owner was confronted with the same situation. She stated that the Donald’s have presented their plans to many of the neighbors, excluding her. Ms. Morgan stated that two years ago she was outside cutting down some trees and Mr. Donald accused her of being on his property. She indicated that at that time he did much brush removal, and she pointed out to him that he was actually working on her property. Ms. Morgan read a
letter from Mr. Donald to her indicating that he would transfer the brush to his side of the property and apologizing for the confusion on the boundary location. She pointed out that this occurred three years ago and the brush has still not been removed.
Chairman Stutts questioned whether Ms. Morgan was notified of this hearing. Ms. Morgan indicated that she was. Chairman Stutts noted that all the information was available in the Zoning Office and it was up to her to come to the Town Hall to review the plans. Ms. Morgan stated that she would like Mr. Donald to honor his word and remove the brush from her property.
Ms. Morgan stated that part of the expansion affects her view. She pointed out her property on the site plan.
Mr. Moll stated that he was very concerned about the hole on the property with the large rock and the water in the hole. He explained that at the first hearing regarding the revoked permit, he brought it to the attention of the applicant’s attorney and suggested that the area be secured. Mr. Moll asked that the safety issued be addressed immediately. Mr. King stated that when the cease and desist was received they stopped working. Mr. Moll stated that safety can always be addressed.
Chairman Stutts noted that when the Board grants a variance they look for a hardship that is unique to the property; they make sure that the proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood; and they look at whether the relief is the least amount necessary. She noted that the increases to this property appear excessive and questioned whether all the additions were necessary. Mr. King stated that the proposed house and garage is not excessive on a 65,000 square foot lot in this particular neighborhood.
Mr. Donald pointed out that they are addressing a safety issue with the property in relocating the driveway. He noted that for this reason they would like to relocate the garage and driveway. He noted that the net change in the house is 250 square feet of footprint. Chairman Stutts pointed out that there is an entire second floor being added. Mr. Donald stated that the house is currently two-bedrooms. He noted that he has two children and would like three bedrooms, which is a standard size home. Mr. Donald stated that their proposal is reasonable, not excessive.
Mr. King noted that Ms. Morgan does not have a view of the water in the summer. Mr. Moll stated that there are many pine trees that would block the view year round.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the public hearing for this application.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 07-17 William and Lorraine Boyko, 65 Corsino Avenue, variance to demolish and rebuild enlarged year-round home on nonconforming lot.
Attorney William Childress, Lee Rowley, Tony Hendriks, and Lorraine and William Boyko were present to explain the application. Attorney Childress explain that the property is 9,216 square feet in an R-10 zone. He noted that they are lacking 784 square feet of property. He noted that there is currently a year round home on the property with a detached garage and shed. Attorney Childress explained that both the garage and shed are in the side setbacks and will be removed. He pointed out that the current coverage on the lot is 27.5 percent, which is 2.5 percent over the maximum coverage allowed. Attorney Childress stated that the proposal is to construct a new home that will meet all the setbacks and will comply with the coverage requirements. He noted that there are no variances
sought for the bulk standards. Attorney Childress noted that all nonconformities are eliminated in the new proposal except for the area of the lot, which cannot be changed. He noted that the Dess property is larger than 10,000 square feet but the Dess’ have indicated that there is no land available for purchase. Attorney Childress stated that the proposed height of the structure is 29.5 feet.
Attorney Childress stated that the hardship is that the lot area was created prior to zoning and there is nothing that can be done to acquire more land and bring the lot into compliance. He stated that the lot is substantially similar to others in the immediate vicinity and based on that it can be stated that the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood. Attorney Childress stated that the septic system has been approved.
Attorney Childress noted that the Board heard this matter earlier, and based on the reasons for denial of that application, they have provided more information on the drainage issues. He noted that the application included a drainage report from Engineer Lee Rowley and a response from the Town’s engineering consultant Tom Metcalf. Attorney Childress stated that they have provided photographs of the flooding in the area and noted that although it is not technically designated a flood zone, it is clearly susceptible to flooding. He noted that for that reason, they are elevating the first floor to elevation 11.
Chairman Stutts noted that in deciding the original application, the Board was concerned with the fact that the lot coverage was over the allowed 25 percent, which has been addressed, and they questioned the drainage and how the proposal would impact the neighborhood. Attorney Childress read a letter to William and Lorraine from Lee Rowley (Later in the hearing this is marked Exhibit B). Chairman Stutts read a letter from the Town’s consulting Engineer, Tom Metcalf (Later marked Exhibit A).
Mr. St. Germain questioned the hardship. Attorney Childress stated that the only variance being requested is for the area of the lot. He noted that the hardship is that they cannot add any area to the lot. Chairman Stutts read the application, noting that strict application of the Zoning Regulations would prohibit replacing existing structure with a new structure on an undersized lot with no contiguous land available.
Mr. Moll questioned the purpose of a swale. Lee Rowley, engineer, stated that a swale is a depression that is created to direct water from a high point to a low point. Mr. Moll stated that there is a proposed retaining wall and he questioned whether it will be a solid wall. Mr. Rowley stated that the wall can be solid to limit water flow onto the neighboring property. Tony Hendriks affirmed that they are planning a solid wall. Mr. Hendriks stated that they will incorporate Mr. Metcalf’s advisement and create a swale on the westerly boundary line. He noted that the plans have not yet been revised but they will make that change as a condition of approval. Mr. Hendriks pointed out that Mr. Metcalf is a professional engineer that reviewed the project as a consultant to the Town
of Old Lyme.
Chairman Stutts questioned the proposed coverage. Attorney Childress indicated that it is slightly less than 25 percent. Mr. Hendriks stated that the proposed coverage is 24.9 percent, down from the existing 27.5 percent.
Susan Crowick, property owner directly across the street at 64 Corsino, indicated that the applicant has addressed the two issues from the previous hearing. She stated that she constructed a solid retaining wall when she constructed her house and her next door neighbor has never received water from her property. Ms. Crowick indicated that she is in favor of the proposal.
John Dess, 70 Biscayne, stated that he is in favor of the proposal.
Chairman Stutts noted that there were ten letters in favor of the application at the last hearing that the applicant has requested be transferred to this file. She read the addresses of these individuals.
Jim McKusker, 59 Corsino Avenue, indicated that he lives to the north of the Boyko property. He stated that there is frequent flooding in the area and this issue was supposed to be addressed by the applicants. Mr. McKusker stated that the applicants have only supplied a letter indicating that the ground was suitable for the floodwater. He noted that the hardship provided is that it is a pre-existing undersized corner lot on two narrow streets and is subjected to frequent flooding and is to be rebuilt with a higher first floor elevation. Mr. McKusker stated that 65 Corsino is already three or four feet higher than his property and when there is flooding the pictures show that the water is about one third into their property and no where near their home. He noted that there are enough problems
with water run-off. Mr. McKusker stated that when Mr. Dess rebuilt his home a few years ago they constructed a septic system with a mountain of fill and in heavy rains all of Mr. Dess’s water flows onto his property.
Mr. McKusker stated that he does not feel it is appropriate for his property to get the water from both the Dess’s and Boyko’s property. He indicated that he feels this should be addressed.
Chairman Stutts stated that the Board cannot do anything about the flooding in the area because the neighborhood is below the sea level. She noted that according to the engineers, this flooding will occur regardless. Mr. McKusker indicated that the Boyko’s raising of their property will bring him more water. Mr. Kotzan stated that if the water level is rising because the sea is rising, the small volume of land at the Boyko’s will not affect how much sea water comes in. Mr. McKusker stated that the mound of dirt will create more run-off. Ms. McQuade pointed out that the engineer has proposed a wall to retain the water. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the coverage on the lot is being reduced so there will be more land to absorb the water. She noted that they are talking
small amounts. Chairman Stutts stated that the sea water is the big problem. Mr. McKusker indicated that everyone that purchased there knows of the sea water. He indicated that that situation did not just come about. Chairman Stutts stated that the Boyko’s have worked hard to make it less of a problem. Mr. McKusker questioned whether it was fair that he would now receive water from two lots. Chairman Stutts replied that she does not feel it will impact him personally. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the Board members are not experts but the two experts have testified and agree that it won’t affect the neighboring properties.
Mr. Kotzan explained that the Board has sought expertise because at the last hearing they felt they didn’t know enough about hydrology to make a reasonable judgment. He noted that they sought independent advice from the Town’s engineer on this matter. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board has to take this information at face value. Mr. St. Germain noted that Mr. Metcalf’s report indicates that the situation will not get any better or any worse. Mr. McKusker asked if the Board would put that in writing. Mr. St. Germain noted that it is written in Mr. Metcalf’s report. Nick Campagna indicated that he has proof that Mr. Metcalf is wrong. He indicated that he cannot walk to Mr. Pavano’s house because Ms. Crowick’s lot is higher and Mr. Marino’s
house is swampy in the rear, so he cannot cut through. He pointed these lots out on the plan. Mr. Campagna indicated that Ms. Crowick’s water runs into Mr. Marino’s lot. Chairman Stutts acknowledged that there are drainage problems in the area that are not related to the discussion this evening. She indicated that the Board must consider the information provided by the engineers as to the drainage from the subject lot. Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposed grades on the lot will bring the water toward the roads; he noted that water runs down hill.
Ms. Crowick indicated that Mr. Campagna is referring to a two-foot right-of-way that is behind the cottages. She noted that that right-of-way has always been underwater. Mr. Campagna indicated that Mr. Marino’s pump constantly runs in his basement which is not in the right-of-way.
Mr. Harold Olsen, 58 Corsino Avenue, stated that he and the Manifort’s were the first two houses and there has been flooding ever since; for more than 50 years. He indicated that the Town allowed the filling of the pond. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board listened carefully to the neighbors at the previous meeting. He noted that the Board, feeling incompetent to make decisions on the flooding and drainage, paid for and received an independent opinion. Mr. Kotzan stated that the neighbors could have picked an engineer of their own if they felt they needed additional advice. An audience member questioned who paid the engineering bill. Mr. Kotzan replied that the Town paid the engineering bill of Mr. Metcalf and noted that Mr. Metcalf’s is as independent of an opinion as one
could get. Mr. Olsen stated that if the water is to be eliminated the Town would need to pump out the Sound. Mr. St. Germain stated that the Board has acknowledged the flooding problem and at the last hearing they were advised to send a letter to the Town in that regard. Mr. Olsen indicated that he sent a letter to the Selectmen.
Mrs. Olsen, 58 Corsino Avenue stated that she appreciates what the Boyko’s want to do and she appreciates the neighbor’s situation. She stated that the neighbor’s have not made their point clear enough as to their water problems. Mrs. Olsen stated that the people behind her have water in their yard year round because the gentleman who owns it refuses to fill in his yard. She indicated that there are so many mosquitoes in the summer. Chairman Stutts indicated that this is not a situation for the Zoning Board of Appeals to address. Mr. Kotzan stated that Mrs. Olsen is stating that it is okay to fill, which is contrary to the neighbor’s statements.
Nick Campagna stated that there is no low spot at the Boyko’s right now but adding fill will make a low spot. He noted that now the Boyko’s and McKusker’s property dry out at the same time.
Peter Grimaldi, 43 Washington, stated that he is the ex-president of the Miami Beach Association. He stated that he worked many years ago with Jim Rice over the flooding problem at the beach. Mr. Grimaldi stated that the beach association has gotten the run-around from the Town for years. He indicated that rainwater is the problem. Chairman Stutts stated that the Boyko’s engineer has addressed drainage.
Andrea McKusker stated that at the last hearing a gentleman made an inappropriate comment that when the McKusker’s sell their property the next owner may raise the property. She indicated that she was insulted by this inappropriate comment.
Adrian Dadokian questioned why, if the soil is so permeable, there is a flooding problem in the area. Mr. Rowley stated that many of the homes and development in this area took place before it was recognized that the homes and septic systems should be at a higher elevation. He explained that over time, as property becomes more valuable, people will come in and raise their properties, homes and septic systems. He noted that many of the existing homes are not built to today’s standards with septic systems too low in the ground and as soon as it rains water is flooding the systems and backing them up. Mr. Rowley stated that today’s codes recognize this and require that systems be constructed higher, as the Boyko’s are proposing. He noted that FEMA requires that the first floor
living area be at a certain level above the sea.
Ms. Dodakian stated that five years ago she was not allowed to construct her house higher. She indicated that she has a little view which will be taken away by the Boyko’s and she does not believe that is fair. Ms. Dodakian stated that at the time of her renovation she had a new septic system put in and her yard smells like a sewer plant. Mr. Rowley indicated that he is not familiar with the design or construction of her septic system. Ms. Dodakian stated that she paid $15,000.00 to Shoreline Sanitation. Mr. Rowley suggested that it may not be her system that she smells.
Mr. Moll noted that Mr. Rowley’s report indicates there is 26 inches to ground water. He questioned how this compares to other areas in Old Lyme, on average. Mr. Rowley stated that the ground water table in the beach area is constant based on the average in the fluctuations in the tide. He noted that the soils are very permeable.
Mario Campagana questioned why the Boyko’s want to build up. He questioned the hardship. Chairman Stutts stated that the Boyko’s are remodeling their home, lessening some nonconformities and meeting building, health and FEMA codes. Mr. Campagna indicated that he does not see a hardship. Mr. Kotzan stated that each case is looked at individually. He noted that the Board would not exist if variances were not granted based on hardship and granting reasonable relief to a property. Mr. Campagna indicated that the wall is not going to stop water going to the neighbors. He noted that he is not an engineer but the bottom line is the wall will not stop the water; it is only common sense. Mr. Moll indicated that Mr. Campagna told a story at the last hearing about how he
used to fish from his whale boat on his property where his house now stands. Ms. Dodakian explained that there is a big pond in the back where he fished.
Chairman Stutts noted that there is a list of 24 signatures of people who are against the proposal and two letters dated March 9 and March 6 which are also not in favor of the proposal. Ms. Dodakian stated that another reason she is contesting the proposal is because her view will be completely obstructed. Ms. McQuade noted that the proposal is not out of character with the neighborhood as there are many tall houses in the area.
Nick Campagna asked Mr. Rowley if the proposed wall would prevent water from draining onto the neighboring property. Chairman Stutts noted that this has already been addressed by the engineer in his report. Mr. Rowley stated that the water is being directed toward the street. Mario Campagna indicated that one cannot stop water.
Ms. Dodakian stated that the proposed home is larger than the existing home and she questions how the coverage could be reduced. Chairman Stutts noted that the proposed home and garage are attached and the existing coverage house the house, garage and shed, with the existing shed and garage to be removed.
Mr. Kotzan noted that if the Board did not allow properties reasonable variances to meet current health and FEMA codes, they would be making every property in the area stuck as they are. He indicated that that would have a huge impact on the value of the properties if people know they cannot make improvements by lifting their homes above the flood level.
Mr. McKusker stated that the Boyko’s proposal is infringing on his property and he should not be subjected to that. Mr. St. Germain noted that the flooding problems will exist whether the Boyko’s raise their house or not.
Ms. Dodakian indicated that when she received a variance for her property she was limited to 28.5 feet in height and she was not able to change the footprint. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the Boyko’s height will be 29.5 feet and they are reducing the footprint. She noted that variances are granted and considered on a case by case basis because many factors can differ.
Mr. McKusker indicated that in granting this variance the Board will be putting the burden on some one else. Chairman Stutts noted that that is contrary to the reports of two engineers.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this public hearing to a close.
The Commission took a five minute break at this time.
ITEM 3: Open Voting Session
Case 07-16 Andrea and Robert Donald, 12 Binney Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the proposal is to construct a three car garage and put additions on the existing house. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing nonconformities are the lot area of 65,805 square feet in an R-80 Zone and the required square is 195’ with 200’ required.
Chairman Stutts stated that the property currently contains a one-story house with two bedrooms. She noted that the second story of the proposed house will have three bedrooms. Chairman Stutts stated that a new septic system will be installed. She stated that the hardship provided was that the lot was approved for subdivision in 1955 and this particular house is one of the smallest in the neighborhood. Chairman Stutts pointed out that it is on one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood. She explained that the applicant has indicated that the driveway is located in a dangerous spot on the curve of the hill and they are meeting all setback and bulk requirements; coverage is increasing from 3.77% to 5.53%.
Chairman Stutts noted that the existing house is very small. Mr. Kotzan stated that the neighborhood supports ambitious houses. Chairman Stutts stated that the neighbors across the street were in favor of the application and they agreed with the driveway safety issue. She noted the other neighbor across the street indicated that they are receiving run-off from the existing driveway and would appreciate it being moved and the existing driveway removed and grassed over.
Mr. St. Germain noted that Jennifer Morgan, abutting neighbor, was in opposition. He indicated that if there is a view from her property, it is a seasonal view. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that there are many evergreen trees and even before leaves come out there cannot be much of a view. The Board noted that there was a civil matter discussed with the cutting of brush and it would be nice if Mr. Donald would resolve that matter.
Ms. McQuade noted that the garage is very large, but noted it is set far back on the lot and the size of the lot supports a garage this large. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that the proposal is not out of character with the neighborhood. He noted that the proposal does not violate the intent of any of the Regulations being varied. Mr. Kotzan indicated that moving the driveway solves a small safety and drainage issue. He noted that the proposal makes the property more in conformance with the size and type of neighboring properties.
Mr. Moll stated that the height needs to be indicated on the plans. Mr. Kotzan indicated that the height has been added to the drawing. Mr. Moll noted that he would like to see some restrictions on the garage because of the full second floor on it such as no water and no heat. Mr. Kotzan noted that there is no bathroom in the garage. The Board agreed that a reasonable condition would be that the garage space cannot be habitable.
Mr. Moll stated that John Flower signed off on the septic system. He explained that the plan signed by Mr. Flower does not show the driveway going over the system. Mr. Moll suggested that Mr. Flower’s approval be confirmed on the plan that shows the driveway over the leaching fields.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Joe St. Germain and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct an addition and detached three car garage, 12 Binney Road, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. No habitable space in the garage.
2. John Flower to review septic/leaching location as it relates to the driveway.
3. Necessary action be immediately taken to ensure safety on the property in regard to the large hole.
Reasons:
1. Solving a safety and drainage issue with relocation of driveway.
2. All bulk requirements are met.
3. Proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood.
4. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 07-17 William and Lorraine Boyko, 65 Corsino Avenue
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that a variance is being requested to demolish and rebuild an enlarged year-round home on a nonconforming lot. Chairman Stutts stated that a similar proposal was before the Board a few months earlier and the Board was concerned with a slight increase in coverage and there were questions from the neighbors in regard to drainage. She noted that the hardship provided is that strict application of the regulations would prohibit replacing existing structure with a new structure on an undersized lot with no contiguous land available. Chairman Stutts stated that the garage and shed will be removed and the existing coverage of 27.5 percent is being reduced to 24.9 percent. She noted that the Boyko’s engineer and the Town engineer both
agreed that the drainage and flooding will not be increased or decreased by this proposal.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board looked at the application previously and recognizing that they are not experts on hydrology, they solicited an opinion from the Town’s consulting engineer. Mr. St. Germain agreed that this is an important point.
Mr. Kotzan stated that if the Board were to deny this application they would be condemning the neighborhood to not being able to upkeep and modernize their homes. He noted that the Boyko’s have presented a proposal that minimizes impact to the community. Mr. Kotzan indicated that the land has to be raised to meet codes. Mr. St. Germain noted that the proposal brings the property into Zoning Compliance, with the exception of the lot size, and into compliance with Health and FEMA Codes. He emphasized that the project decreases the existing nonconformities on the property.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposal does not violate the intent of any of the Regulations being varied. He indicated that, unfortunately, everyone in the area should try to do the same to mitigate the water problems. Mr. Kotzan stated that if granting a variance would cause harm to another property he would vote no. He indicated that the Board sought a professional opinion and that opinion is that there will be no impact to the neighboring properties.
Chairman Stutts stated that the comments from the public during the hearing were that the flooding would be increased on neighboring properties. Ms. McQuade indicated that that is contrary to the opinion of two engineers. Chairman Stutts indicated that they also felt that the wall would make the situation worse, which again, is contrary to the two engineers’ opinions.
Mr. St. Germain pointed out that the coverage on the lot is being decreased under the proposal, which will help the water situation. He noted that the swale will also retain water so that it will stay on their property longer.
Tom Metcalf’s letter was marked Exhibit A and Mr. Rowley’s letter was marked Exhibit B.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the photographs of the current flooding are not relevant to whether the proposal will increase the flooding. He noted that they did not provide any proof that the proposal would increase the flooding problems in the area.
Mr. Moll noted that a requirement of approval should include that the plans be revised to incorporate the suggestions of Mr. Metcalf (Exhibit A) and that the retaining wall be solid.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Joe St. Germain and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to demolish and rebuild enlarged year-round home on nonconforming lot as per the approved plans and with the following condition:
1. The swale suggested by Town Engineer, Tom Metcalf (Exhibit A), be incorporated into the site work and the retaining wall shall be solid.
Reasons:
1. Proposal eliminates existing nonconformities of coverage and setbacks.
2. Proposal is in character with the immediate neighborhood.
3. Reduced coverage by structures increases area of land to absorb rainwater.
4. Drainage and flooding concerns addressed by applicant’s engineer and confirmed by Town’s engineer.
ITEM 4: Minutes
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2007 Special meeting and the March 13, 2007 Regular Meeting as corrected.
ITEM 5: Any New or Old Business
None.
ITEM 6: Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
