Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 09/20/2011
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, September 20, 2011

The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 20, 2011, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall.  Those present and voting were:  Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Joseph St. Germain, Fran Sadowski, Alternate (seated for Kip Kotzan) and Richard Smith, Alternate (seated for Richard Moll).  Also present was Kim Barrows, Clerk.

Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.

1.      Case 11-22B Dominic J. Nardi, 115 Hillcrest Road, Request for a Variance to Allow the Reconstruction/Demolition of existing structure on code-complying foundation with a 323 sq. ft. footprint and a new, modified roof with a new front and rear dormer.

Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities:  8.8.3, minimum dimensions of a square, 75 feet required, 67 provided; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30’ required, 10’ provided; 4.3, currently within the 50’ mean high water line, 8’ existing.  Required Variances:  Proposal does not comply with 8.0.3, yards and yard coverages, 9.1.3.1, general rules, 4.2.1.12, construction and enlargement of buildings adjoining coastal resources; 4.3, tidal waters, protection other than the Connecticut River; 9.07,  voluntary demolition; 9.3.2, change, 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30’ required, 10’ provided.  Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that all of the structure is within 50 feet of coastal resources.

Geri Deveaux and David Deveaux, Deveaux Architects, were present to explain the application.  Ms. Deveaux noted that the property is located in Point ‘O Woods.  She pointed out that the property is on the point and surrounded by water.  Ms. Deveaux stated that there are three similar properties at the end of Hillcrest Road and she presented photographs of these nearby properties.  She noted that the side and front setbacks are in compliance and pointed them out on the site plan.  She then noted the location of the 50’ coastal resource setback on the site plan.  Ms. Deveaux stated that the little yellow shaded area on the site plan is the only compliant building area.  

Ms. Deveaux explained that the existing footprint is 36’ by 33’.  She noted that the upstairs is considered a half story; the headroom is very low.  Mr. Deveaux presented some existing photos of the upper story.  Ms. Deveaux pointed out the sloped ceilings.  She noted that the headroom in the kitchen is also low at 7’ 2”.  Ms. Deveaux stated that there are existing dormers on the front of the house and the gable on the back.  She noted that there is an existing, enclosed lower level which houses the mechanicals and the laundry.  Mr. Deveaux noted that the headroom is very low in the lower level also and there is also exposed ledge.  Mr. St. Germain questioned whether there is concrete where the mechanicals and laundry area located.  Mr. Deveaux pointed out the area where there is a poured slab, noting that there is none in the crawl space area where the exposed ledge is located.

Ms. Deveaux stated that a structural engineer was retained to look at the structure and it was his determination that the house is starting to fail and is nearing its end of life.  She noted that his report was submitted as part of the application.  Ms. Deveaux noted that the recommendation was to build rather than to repair.  

Ms. Deveaux noted that the proposed plan shows a code-compliant foundation, which is break-away because of the zone.  She noted that the plans comply with FEMA.  Mr. Deveaux explained that the base flood elevation is at the bottom of the existing windows in the foundation wall.  Ms. Deveaux stated that the interior stairs are currently not code compliant and to make them compliant they need to be extended and the mechanicals need to be brought to the first floor which is the reason for the 323 square foot increase to the footprint.  She indicated that they have tried to recreate the same house.  Ms. Deveaux noted that the height will remain under the 24’ maximum allowed height.  She explained that they are accommodating the neighboring homes or the “micro-neighborhood” in their design of the proposed structure.  Mr. Deveaux pointed out the similar architectural features they have used in the photographs.  She noted that 113 Hillcrest has a floor area of 1,872; 114 Hillcrest has a floor area of 1,908 and the proposed floor area of the subject property is 1,940.  It was noted that the house was constructed in 1927.

Chairman Stutts questioned whether they had given any thought to reconstructing the house in the compliant area of the property shown on the side plan as the yellow shaded area.   Matthew White, Engineer, pointed out the B zone on the property and explained that it is the equivalent of elevation 16.  He noted that the B zone only trims one corner of the house.  Ms. Deveaux explained that if the house is moved higher up on the property it will take on more of a presence on the property.  She indicated that it would also obstruct neighbors’ views.  Mr. Deveaux pointed out the exposed rock on the property.  Mr. White stated that he believes that as part of the Coastal Site Plan Review, it is understood that the house cannot be located outside the 50 foot setback from coastal resources.  He noted that nothing is gained in moving the house 10 feet out of the B zone when the house is being constructed to FEMA standards.

Chairman Stutts questioned whether this proposal is less nonconforming than the existing structure in any aspect.  Ms. Deveaux stated that no matter where the house is located on the property it will be located in the coastal boundary.  She indicated that that is the hardship.  She noted that the break-away construction would be one aspect that would be less nonconforming.  Chairman Stutts stated that another Coastal Site Plan Review comment was their concern for the increase in the size of the house.  Ms. Deveaux stated that as she explained earlier, the small increase was to allow the mechanicals and laundry to be located on the first floor in order to comply with FEMA and to extend the stairs so that they are code compliant.  

Mr. Deveaux stated that the proposed height is 24 feet and the existing height is 21’ 8”.  Ms. Deveaux noted that the floor area to lot area ratio will be 15.2 percent with the existing 10.1 percent.  She noted that 25 percent is allowed. She noted that existing building coverage is 11.3 and the proposed is 15.9 percent, with 25 percent allowed; and the total coverage existing is 17 percent with 19.3 percent proposed and 30 percent allowed.

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

2.      Case 11-23 – Joseph A. Sullo, 9 Sea Lane, Request for a Variance to allow existing garage shed raised to a higher elevation to comply with FEMA and new structure in same location and size

Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities:  8.8.1, minimum lot size, 10,000 sq. ft. required, 6,000 sq. ft. provided; 8.8.3, minimum dimension square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5 max, 2 existing; 8.8.6, maximum height, 24’ max, house is 25.5’; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25’ required, 4.1’ provided (garage); 8.8.8, rear setback 30’ required, 21’ provided (house); 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required, 3.4’ provided (house) and 3.2’ provided (garage); 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent max.  Chairman Stutts noted that no percentage was provided for existing floor area.  She noted that the proposal does not comply with the following Sections:  8.0.3, lot coverage; 9.1.3.1, general requirements, no enlargement on a nonconforming lot unless it conforms; 9.1.3, no enlargement of a nonconforming building unless it conforms.  She asked the applicant to provide the hardship.  

Jeff Flower, Architect for Mr. Sullo, stated that they would like to take the existing garage and raise it three feet in its existing location to prevent it from flooding.  He noted that by raising the garage it would be FEMA compliant.  Mr. Flower stated that after raising the garage they would reroof and reside it.  He explained that after it is raised they would not be able to store a car in it but would use it for storage.  Mr. Flower pointed out the photograph from two years ago so they could see the flooding around the garage.  He noted that the elevation at the seawall is 9’ and at the garage it is elevation 5 which is the low point on the site.  Mr. Flower stated that test holes in that area last year showed that at 30” there was 30 gallons per minute coming into the hole, which is a lot of water.  He noted that they had to put in higher footings when they raised the house last year because of this.  

Mr. Flower stated that the house is not large and the Sullo’s would like to raise their garage so that when they use it for storage their possessions will not get damaged.  Chairman Stutts questioned why the garage cannot be relocated.  Mr. Flower stated that if the shed is turned the Sullo’s would lose their entire yard.   Chairman Stutts questioned how it would look sticking up three feet.  Mr. Flower stated that they will fill some between the two buildings so that it will not look as if it is sticking up three feet.  

Mr. Flower stated that they plan to reside the garage to match the house and remove the large garage doors on the end and add a few windows.  Ms. McQuade pointed out that grading on one side of the garage will not change the appearance of its height from the other side of the shed.  Mr. Flower agreed and noted that they were only grading approximately 6 inches on the far side of the garage.

Mr. Flower stated that they are not proposing to increase the size of the garage but rather to raise it to meet FEMA Regulations.  He noted that the garage is 11’9” and the proposal is to raise it three feet, or 14’ 9”.  Mr. Flower stated that the garage is 12’4” by 20’4”.  Ms. Stutts questioned why they do not move the garage closer to the house.  Mr. Flower explained that moving it closer to the house would entail turning it and then it would block the neighboring house.  Mr. Flower stated that his client would be willing to raise it two feet rather than three feet, but three feet is the FEMA Requirement.  Mr. Flower stated that they are trying to meet the requirements of the Town which require that one cannot spend more than 50 percent of the value without flood-proofing the structure.  He explained that the applicant cannot fix the garage without raising it; he could only spend a few hundred dollars which isn’t enough to fix the roof.

Mr. Flower pointed out that Ms. Brown made a few comments regarding what she would like to see on the final plan which they would do upon approval of the application.

Carrie Begin, homeowner on the corner of Brightwater and Sea Lane, 61 Brightwater Road, pointed out her property on the site plan.  She stated that the area floods several times a year and any grading on the Sullo property will add additional water to her property.  She indicated that raising the garage will cut off her view of the Sound.  Ms. Begin stated that Sea Lane floods on a regular basis.  She submitted photographs for the record.  

Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the flooding was a problem because the drain was inadequate or if it was affected by the tides.  Ms. Begin stated that she is not sure.  Mr. Kotzan stated that if the problem is the drain it may be the size of the pipe.  Mr. Flower stated that ponding is most often from a large rain.  He noted that the cubic feet of grading they are adding is minor.  

Mr. Kotzan noted that moving the garage closer to the house and turning it may not be optimum for the homeowner as he would lose some of his yard, but it might be better for the others in the neighborhood.  Mr. Flower stated that one of the reasons they didn’t move it was because that would mean they are changing things and the Board would require that they make it smaller.  He explained that the Sullo’s cannot fix the garage without permission from the Board.

Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.

3.      Case 11-24 – Peter R. Lasusa, Jr. and Marcia A. McLean, 2 Meetinghouse Lane, Request to allow renovation and modernization of existing dwelling and addition of open architectural carport

Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities:  8.8.7, minimum street setback, narrow street, 55’ required, 40.4’ required.  Proposal does not conform with Sections:  8.0.6, yards and lot coverage; 9.3.1, enlargement of nonconforming building; 8.8.1, maximum height, 35’ required, 38’ proposed; and 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 55’ required for carport, 20.8 variance requested, variance of 3’ for covered front porch.  She noted that the hardship provided is that the topography limits building placement, along with the requirements for the narrow street setback.

Joe Wren, Engineer, was present along with Peter Lasusa and Steve Tannenbaum, Architect.  Mr. Wren explained that the applicants recently purchased the property and would like to completely renovate the existing 1.5 story structure.  He noted that the proposal is based on the existing footprint.  Mr. Wren noted that the typical setback is 50’ in the RU-80 zone.  He stated that Meetinghouse Lane is a narrow street so 5’ is added to the standard 50’ setback.  Mr. Wren noted on the site plan the number of homes built in the 55’ setback.  Mr. Wren stated that all the neighboring property owners were notified of the application, as required.  He stated that the property is within Gateway and the Coastal Area Management Zone.   He indicated that this property was deemed exempt from Coastal Area Management by Ann Brown.  Mr. Wren stated that the house site is generally level.  He indicated that there is an existing porch on the rear of the home which previously had columns.  Mr. Wren explained that these columns have been removed and there are now braces holding the porch up.  He indicated that because the topography slopes slightly in this area, the question came up as to where the height is measured from.  Mr. Wren stated that they reached out to Torrence Downes of Gateway to help with the issue and he indicated that if the roof is cantilevered one would measure from the foundation line to the ridge.  He explained that measuring height in this manner would put the height of the structure at 35’, not 38’ as indicated in the application and therefore that variance would not be required.  Mr. Wren read a portion of Mr. Downes’ email to Ms. Brown.  Mr. Wren stated that the proposal is located one mile from the edge of the Connecticut River, and even farther to the navigable portion of the river.  

Mr. Wren stated that moving the house back to meet the front setback would be difficult because of the 12 foot elevation drop in the rear.  He noted that the carport is an open, see-through structure.  Mr. Wren stated that they will be expanding the house in a vertical direction and bringing the house to current building and fire codes.  He noted that the house is on a three acre parcel and is well below coverage requirements.  Mr. Wren stated that the hardship is the topography to the rear of the existing house which makes it difficult to move the house back on the property and out of the front setback area.

Mr. Wren noted that they have received Health approval and indicated that the Health Department has required them to have a reserve area in case it is needed in the future.  He pointed it out on the site plan and also provided calculations for that area.

Mr. Tannenbaum stated that the carport location was dictated by the interior layout of the house; where the applicants wanted their living area located with views to the river.  He noted that it also creates a face to the street and enhances a potentially bare façade with garage doors.  Mr. Tannenbaum stated that the look will be New England Farmhouse with simple lines, gray siding and white trim.  He indicated that they are proposing to use a copper roof that within a few months will turn to a dull gray.  Mr. Tannenbaum stated that this type of roof is both environmentally friendly and energy efficient.  Mr. Tannenbaum stated that the asphalt driveway will be removed and replaced with pavers.  

It was questioned whether solar energy was considered in this reconstruction.  Mr. Tannenbaum replied that it was, but the current orientation of the house does not suit solar energy, as the views that enticed the Lasusa’s to purchase the property are out of the family room/kitchen area.  He noted that there were smaller, more subtle energy efficient things incorporated.  Mr. White stated that beyond the views, re-orientating the house to incorporate solar energy would be very expensive because of the topography of the lot and would require extensive retaining walls.  He noted that the existing garage has been in its current location for 40 plus years and they are simply converting it to living space and adding a carport.   

Jeff Flower, neighbor at the northern end of the property, stated that by leaving the garage on the same end it will minimize site work.  He noted that it would be difficult to put the carport on the other side of the house because of the grade change and in addition they will have to cut trees and put in a new driveway.

Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.

4.      Case 11-25 – Jonathan & Lissa Kowalski, 10 Moore Avenue, variance to allow a second story on an existing one and three quarter story residence.

Chairman Stutts noted that the property is 13,503 square feet.  She read the existing nonconformities:  8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5 required, 2 stories existing; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30’ required, 21.9’ existing for the deck, 3’ existing for the shed and 11’ existing for the garage; 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required, 0’ for the shed.  Chairman Stutts read the proposed variances:  8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.3.1. Enlargement; 8.8.6, maximum height, 24’ required, 4” variance requested; 8.8.5 maximum number of stories, 1.5 required, variance requested for .5 story.  She noted that the hardship provided is that the dwelling is structurally deficient and the second bedroom is virtually unusable.  Chairman Stutts questioned why the applicant would want to put additional structure on top of a structurally deficient home.  Mr. Kowalski explained that the second floor is structurally deficient.  He explained that the master bedroom will be on the second floor where the existing second bedroom is currently located.  He noted that the headroom is currently 6’ 9” on the second floor.  

Mr. Kowalski stated that they purchased the house as a foreclosure with the intention of fixing it up.  He noted that it was when they began renovating that they found out that the second floor was poorly constructed.  Mr. Kowalski explained that the second floor is constructed with 2” x 6” that span over 19 feet resulting in a lot of bounce on the floor.  He noted that they thought of addressing the problem with beams but noted that the first floor also has low ceiling height.  Mr. Kowalski stated that they decided to raise the roof and make the structure more livable all around.

Mr. Kowalski stated that the neighborhood is all nonconforming; he showed photos of neighboring properties to the rear, noting that they are full two-story homes.  He noted that the house next door is 1.75 stories.  Mr. Kowalski stated that visually the proposed structure will fit in nicely and will not stand out.  He noted that his hardship is that the ceiling height is 6’9” and the windows are almost at the floor.  He explained that one would not let children use this bedroom.  Mr. Kowalski stated that the tub has a ceiling height of 4’ and the toilet on the second floor has an area built into the ceiling so one can stand up without hitting their head.  He noted that he feels the proposal will make the house more livable and safe and will fit in nicely in the neighborhood.  Mr. Kowalski stated that he showed all his neighbors his plans and he believes they are pleased.  He explained that the house was damaged during the hurricane last month and he tried to come in and amend his application but it was too late.  Chairman Stutts stated that the Board is always looking to make properties less nonconforming.  She noted that with the garage being crushed in the hurricane they could relocate the deck and the shed and eliminate those nonconformities.  Mr. Kowalski stated that he was hoping to reconstruct the garage and ask the Board to consider allowing him to increase it slightly and then eliminate the existing shed.  He noted that the garage would be constructed in its current location but no closer to the property line.  Chairman Stutts noted that the garage could be brought out further.  Mr. Kowalski stated that he could bring it a little further forward but could not make it conforming.  Mr. St. Germain pointed out that the garage is not part of this proposal.  Mr. Kowalski pointed out that he would not come back with a separate application for the garage but would like to make it part of this application.  He noted that he would not have considered changing the garage if it had not been destroyed by an oak tree in the hurricane.  Mr. St. Germain noted that there is not a proper plan showing the garage proposal.  

Chairman Stutts stated that the second floor is being increased 80 square feet.  She stated that the change in the roof appears to be a much bigger change then just adding 80 square feet and she asked him to explain the roof changes.  Mr. Kowalski demonstrated the roof change using a photograph of the existing home, noting that the rear roof would not change at all.  He explained the roof increase in the front of the house.  Ms. McQuade stated that the application states that the increase is 10 square feet.  Mr. Kowalski stated that the discrepancy is because the Town measures all floor area with a ceiling height of 6’ or more, which is why the Town indicates square footage increase to be less.

Mr. Kotzan questioned whether they could trim four inches off the height so that the Board does not have to grant a variance for a new nonconformity.  Mr. Kowalski stated that they are raising the first floor ceiling height 3” and installing an 11” eye-beam.  He noted that they looked at many options and this appeared to be the best solution.  Mr. Kowalski stated that when he purchased the property he had no idea that they couldn’t raise the roof without a variance.  

Chairman Stutts read a letter in favor of the application signed by four neighbors on Moore Avenue.

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

OPEN VOTING SESSION

1.      Case 11-22B  Dominic J. Nardi, 115 Hillcrest Road

Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.  She noted that the applicant is requesting a 40’ variance from the mean high tide line and a 20’ variance for the rear property line.  Ms. Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the entire structure is within 50’ of the mean high tide line.  Chairman Stutts read the letter from Marcy Balint as part of the Coastal Site Plan Review indicating that the house should be moved outside Zone B as it appears that it could be based on the site plan.  She noted that when a house is torn down and rebuilt it is the opportunity to make it more conforming.  

Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the Board could approve the variance if OLISP denies the Coastal Site Plan Review.  Ms. Barrows noted that the Board could still approve the application; OLISP has provided their input.  Ms. Stutts stated that OLISP is considered that once the Regulation is varied it sets a precedent and they further recommend that all construction be outside the B Zone when possible.  Mr. Kotzan noted that there is 20 square feet in the B Zone.  Chairman Stutts noted that it appears it could be moved up.  She questioned how they will be able to get FEMA insurance.  Mr. Kotzan stated that they are trying to bring the property to FEMA standards and he questioned the Board’s liability if they are not able to construct to FEMA Code.  He indicated that the expansion should be considered separately.  

Chairman Stutts stated that the work and improvements to the property could be done in a conforming location without granting a variance for 40’ from the mean high tide line.  Mr. Kotzan stated that FEMA requirements are being met with the proposal.  Chairman Stutts agreed, but noted that the variance for 40’ is not necessary.  She questioned what the Board would do in the future; she questioned whether the Board will only require new construction to be outside the 50’ mean high tide line.  Mr. Kotzan stated that the property is currently nonconforming and the applicant is bringing the property into compliance in some aspects.  He stated that the Board cannot require every applicant to bring every aspect of the property into conformance; he indicated that they have to draw the line somewhere as to what they can ask an applicant to do.  

Mr. Kotzan stated that many neighbors may not want the house moved back as it might block views.  Chairman Stutts noted that that is an interesting point, but she does not heard any reason why the home could not be moved further back on the property.  Mr. St. Germain stated that visually the house is located beautifully in a location where it has been since 1922.

A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Joseph St. Germain to grant the necessary variances allow the reconstruction/demolition of existing structure on code-complying foundation with a 323 sq. ft. footprint and a new, modified roof with a new front and rear dormer, 115 Hillcrest Road, as per plans submitted and to approve the Coastal Site Plan Application.  Motion carried 4:1, with Chairman Stutts voting against.

Reasons:

  • The Coastal Site Plan Review application for this appeal is approved because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts. It is also a very unique piece of property, will become FEMA compliant and being built in the same spot lessens the visual impact on the neighborhood and the point.  
  • For the elements of safety involved with this it becomes FEMA compliant, the risk involved in keeping the house in that spot and the disruption to the coastline off sets moving it further inland, it is not that significant.  It is not such a horrible thing that destroys the coastline or the safety of the occupants.
  • The house is where it has been since 1927.  If there wasn’t already a house on the point, the Board couldn’t foresee putting a structure on it. This is what an existing nonconformity represents.  
2.      Case 11-23 – Joseph A. Sullo, 9 Sea Lane

Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.  She noted that the Sullo’s are requesting to raise their existing garage/shed in the current location to meet the FEMA Regulations.  She noted that the applicant did not want to move the structure to a more conforming location because it would block the lawn space.

Mr. St. Germain stated that the applicant indicated that it currently cannot be used for a garage and will not be used for a garage in the future.   Chairman Stutts stated that the property is 6,000 square feet in an R-10 zone.  She noted that there would be less impact to the neighborhood if the garage/shed was turned.  Mr. St. Germain noted that the structure has been in that location since the late 1930’s.  Ms. Stutts pointed out that the structure is being raised and it will have much more impact on the neighborhood, especially as it exists right on the street.  Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that it would be better located closer to the house.  He indicated that leaving the structure in the current location is not the only way he can make it FEMA compliant.  He noted that the applicant may lose lawn if the structure is moved but he will gain lawn where it previously existed.

Mr. Kotzan stated that they have to weigh the impacts of the changes.  He noted that raising the structure in the current location will affect the neighbors and the neighborhood.  Mr. Kotzan stated that there are other options for locating the garage in compliance with the FEMA Regulations.  Chairman Stutts stated that she believes it impacts the neighborhood being so close to the street.  She noted that the base flood elevation is 10 feet and the applicant is proposing 9.2 feet.  Ms. McQuade stated that if they relocated the shed closer to the house they could bring the structure to full compliance with Elevation 10 without affecting anyone.

Mr. Kotzan stated that he would be in favor of allowing the structure to be raised in a more compliant location.

Chairman Stutts stated there is no hardship to warrant the granting of this many variances, as there are other remedies to achieve the use that would have less of a negative impact on the neighborhood.   She noted there would be less of an impact if were located closer to the house.

A Motion was made by K. Kotzan and seconded by R. Smith to deny the request for a variance to allow existing garage shed raised to a higher elevation to comply with FEMA and new structure in same location and size, 9 Sea Lane.  Motion carried 4:1:0, with Mr. St. Germain voting against denial.

Reasons:

  • This worthwhile proposal to make it FEMA compliant could happen in a different location and not impact the neighborhood in a negative the way it will in its current location.  Also, the relocation would reduce the nonconformity of the street line and property line setbacks.
Mr. Flower asked for more guidance from the Board as to the location they would be in favor of.

3.      Case 11-24 – Peter R. Lasusa, Jr. and Marcia A. McLean, 2 Meetinghouse Lane

Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.  She noted that the applicants would like to construct a carport and renovate the existing structure.  Chairman Stutts noted that they discussed moving the carport to the other side of the house but because of the topography it would entail a lot of fill and a very long driveway.  She noted that many of the homes on the same side of the street are located closer to the street because of the drop off in the rear of the homes.  Ms. McQuade stated that the request is reasonable given the topography of the land.  Mr. Kotzan indicated that the applicant is removing the impervious asphalt driveway and replacing it with pervious pavers.  He noted that the improvements proposed are a benefit to the neighborhood.  Ms. McQuade pointed out that the neighboring property owner who is an architect spoke in favor of the application.

Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided by the applicant was the topography of the land and the narrow street setback requirement.  

A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances, 2 Meetinghouse Lane, Request to allow renovation and modernization of existing dwelling and addition of open architectural carport, Peter R. Lasusa, Jr. and Marcia A. McLean, as per plans submitted, recognizing that the variance for height is no longer required.

Reason:  

  • The hardship is the topography and the narrow street setback and it is a large lot.  
  • The applicant will be putting pavers in the driveway and eliminating the asphalt.  
  • The abutting neighbor approved the plans submitted.  
4.      Case 11-25 – Jonathan & Lissa Kowalski, 10 Moore Avenue

Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.  She noted that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a full second story on an existing, deficient one and three-quarter story dwelling, increasing livable square footage by 80 square feet.  She noted that a variance of 4” is requested for the height.  Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant indicated that the renovations previously were done piecemeal and the floor boards on the second floor are inadequate.  She explained that the applicant is now asking to add to the application to rebuild his garage damaged during the hurricane.  Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board cannot add the garage to the application at this point in time.  He noted that the plans are deficient and he is still not clear why the height has to be increased.  Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant indicated that it had something to do with the stairs but he feels there might be other remedies.  Mr. St. Germain agreed.  Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant may not need to create a new nonconformity in asking for a height variance.  

Chairman Stutts stated that the reason for exceeding the 24’ height limit for the zone is not clear.  Mr. St. Germain stated that he believes there may be a step down somewhere on the second floor.  He noted that the plans are not very clear, which is a concern.

A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to deny without prejudice the variance to allow a second story on an existing one and three quarter story residence, 10 Moore Avenue,  Jonathan & Lissa Kowalski, applicants.

Reason:

  • There was insufficiency in the plans submitted and the description of the work to be done.
  • The hardship is not clear.  
  • There is the possibility of eliminating all of the nonconformities.  
  • The height exceeds that allowed in the district by 4” and can be reduced to conform; not a sufficient reason to increase it by 4”.
  • This is a large lot that can accommodate the house.                                                                                                       
APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan to approve the June 21, 2011 Regular Meeting minutes with the following corrections:  Page 9 – “reason” is for denial re Case 11-21 Daniel Peck, 38 Saltaire Drive, S. Stutts want to make sure it was clear about the reasons for denial. No discussion and a vote was taken.  In favor:  S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, R. Smith   In opposition:  None    Abstaining:  None    The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0

ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS

Chairman Stutts noted that Richard Moll is up for re-election.  She noted that he is unaffiliated and needs the Board to write him in when they vote.  

Chairman Stutts noted that she provided Public Hearing information to the Board Members.  She noted that this came about through letters from someone on Connecticut Avenue who felt the Zoning Commission was doing a poor job.  She noted that the Board does not have Regulations on how to handle the notification of abutting owners.  Chairman Stutts stated that the Board can just rely on the newspaper Public Hearing notice which would entail changing the current Regulations to eliminate notification of abutters.  She indicated that they can ask applicants to put up a sign.  Ms. Barrows noted that the Zoning Commission removed the sign posting requirement from their Regulations.  Mr. St. Germain stated that he feels the sign idea is a good idea because it makes it the responsibility of the applicant.  Chairman Stutts indicated that it would also be in the newspaper.

Ms. Barrows stated that many Towns have gotten rid of the sign requirements because it has caused many problems.  She indicated that sometimes property owners say it was posted and then neighbors say that it was not.  Chairman Stutts stated that she thinks the abutter notices are better.  Ms. Barrows agreed and noted that she sends the notifications and receives a receipt from the post office that it was sent.  Chairman Stutts stated that there are many changes that need to be made and definitions added to the Regulations.  The Board agreed that the applicants should be responsible for notifying abutters and providing certificates of mailing.

Ms. Barrows indicated that she will type a proposal for the Board to approve.  She indicated that the process will be an amendment to the Zoning Regulations.

Chairman Stutts stated that Ms. Sadowski will not be at the next meeting, which will be her last.  She indicated that Art Sibley has expressed interest in serving on the Board again.  

Chairman Stutts stated that the Zoning Commission voted to eliminate the seasonal regulations.

The Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. on a motion by Joseph St. Germain; seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously.                                          

Respectfully submitted,



Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary