Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 07/21/2015



OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, July 21, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall.  Those present and voting were: Judy McQuade, Chairman, Art Sibley, Vice Chairman, Mary Stone, Secretary, Kip Kotzan, regular member, Nancy Hutchinson, alternate (seated) and Harry Plaut, alternate.

Also present was Keith Rosenfeld, Land Use Coordinator

Chairman McQuade called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and noted that Nancy Hutchinson would be voting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.      Case 15-20 – Harry S. Plaut, 53 Breen Avenue, requests variances to demolish an existing one story dwelling and construct a new 1 ½ story residential dwelling that will be FEMA compliant.   

Chairman McQuade noted that this hearing was continued from the June meeting.  Harry Plaut was present to explain his application.  He noted that after the last meeting, the Board asked him to address the elevation requirements.  Mr. Plaut stated that the FEMA requirement is elevation 12 and the proposed elevation is 16.  He indicated that the Board felt the proposed house was too high and the second floor too large.  Mr. Plaut stated that the revised plan reduces the second floor to 400 square feet consisting of one bedroom and one bathroom.  He stated that a neighbor expressed concern about the height of the proposed dwelling and noted that the new proposed height is 22 feet.  Mr. Plaut stated that the neighbor was also concerned about the side porches which he has eliminated to satisfy that neighbor.  He noted that there will be no garage door on the ground level floor, only a walk in door.  He stated that the first floor square footage is 686.  Chairman McQuade questioned whether Mr. Plaut realized that the proposed home is considered two story, not one and one half.  She explained that the proposed second floor square footage is more than 50 percent of the first floor square footage.  Ms. McQuade stated that she also thought the application states that the height of the dwelling is 29 feet.

Ms. Hutchinson stated that the first floor square footage is 915 square feet and the second floor square footage is 440, which would make this a one and one half story home.  Mr. Plaut stated that the house is 29’ x 31’ on the first floor.  Ms. Stone stated that she thinks the 686 square feet might have been the second floor square footage before it was reduced.  Chairman McQuade pointed out that the original plan had 686 square feet on the first floor and 686 square feet on the second floor; she noted that the square footage was exactly the same.  Mr. Kotzan stated that the original application plan showed a structure that was 24’ x 27 on both floors.  Mr. Kotzan noted that the height is currently shown at 28’8”.  Chairman McQuade noted that the maximum floor area is 29%.

Mr. Kotzan stated that the house does not currently meet the minimum square footage requirements provided by the regulations and the proposed structure would be conforming relative to minimum square footage.  Mr. Kotzan stated that allowing a second story creates an additional nonconformity.  Chairman Cable stated that a new variance is also required for the height.

Mr. Plaut stated that there will be no outbuildings on the property.  He noted that the house next to his, as well as those to the rear, are taller than his house.

Dimitry Tolchinski, neighbor on the south side, stated that the current house is not livable and he is in favor of the proposal.  He noted that it is currently the smallest house at the beach.  

Peter O’Keefe, 51 Breen Avenue, abutting owner to the north, stated that he and his wife just purchased their property.  He stated that one of the things missing from the presentation is the hardship.  Mr. O’Keefe stated that the proposal is for the enlargement and expansion of a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot.  He noted that the hardship provided on the application is that the size of the lot does not provide for some of the general bulk requirements.  He noted that this property has been used for many years as a summer residence and has been used by Mr. Plaut for many years as a summer residence.  He stated that the application indicates that the hardship is the same as many of the homes in an R-10 zone, which is the exact opposite of what a hardship is; a hardship is unique.  Mr. O’Keefe stated that no evidence of a hardship has been provided because some of the peculiarities of his property belong to others in the beach community.  He stated that there is nothing stopping the applicant from becoming FEMA compliant without increasing the size of the dwelling.  He noted that the property needs to be raised 5’ to meet FEMA and the applicant is asking to go 1.8 feet higher.  

Mr. O’Keefe stated that he does not have a problem with the house being moved and meeting the minimum FEMA requirements and increasing the first floor to 800 square feet to meet the minimum square footage requirements.  He noted that there is no need to go to one and one half stories and increase the height of the structure creating a new nonconformity.  He explained that no hardship has been shown as to why this is necessary.  Mr. O’Keefe stated that allowing this proposal would begin a rush of applications from people in the beach community that would want to do the same with their bungalows.

Mr. O’Keefe stated that the application should either be denied or it should be sent back to be reconfigured to an 800 square foot single story dwelling.  He noted that this proposal would take away his view of the beach.  

Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable called this hearing to a close.



2.      Case 15-22 – Ernest & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road, variance to construct addition over existing deck.

Chairman McQuade noted that the applicant is requesting to construct an addition over and existing deck.  Attorney Cronin was present to represent the applicants.  He stated that Gerry Karpuska, architect, is also present.  He noted that the Board denied this application without prejudice earlier in the year because it was too large and could be cut back to be more conforming.  He noted that Mr. Karpuska redesigned the addition.

Attorney Cronin described the lot as shown on the site plan. He explained that the house was constructed on the lot in 1925 and the house and lot, at 7,000 square feet, were deemed nonconforming when Zoning was established.  He noted that the lot is also nonconforming as to the 75’ required square as it is only 50 feet wide.  Attorney Cronin stated that the right hand side of the application shows the enclosed porch which faces the street and it is the entrance to the house.  He pointed out the floor plan and noted that there is a lower deck on the right hand side which encroaches 6.5 feet to the side property line.  He noted the second floor has four equal size bedrooms. Attorney Cronin stated that the proposal is to add a bedroom off the kitchen area to the rear which would be totally within the existing deck area. He noted that this would be a bedroom with a private bathroom.

Attorney Cronin stated that one potential problem is the percent of floor area.  He explained that the dwelling currently meets the lot coverage requirement at 23.86 percent coverage and will be reduced slightly to 23.46 percent.  Attorney Cronin stated that the floor area is currently 25.97 percent and will increase to 27.34 percent.  He noted that this is a net increase of 1.34 percent.  Attorney Cronin stated that they have tried to minimize any increase in the floor area coverage which include:  1) reduced the side line from 6.53” to 7.3” which is a reduction in nonconformity.  He noted that there has been case law that says a Board can grant a variance without a hardship when there is a reduction in nonconformities.  He explained that on the second floor one of the bedrooms will have the closet removed and the door so that it will no longer be considered a bedroom under the building code, so it will remain a four bedroom home.  Mr. Karpuska stated that it is actually the health code that will no longer consider it a bedroom.  He noted that one of the concerns of the Board was that they would be creating a fifth bedroom.

Mr. Kotzan stated that it appears that the second floor will be larger yet the numbers do not reflect a larger second floor.  Mr. Karpuska stated that the additional area is attic space that will be used for storage and the ceiling height is under 6 feet.

Attorney Cronin noted that the lot coverage is being decreased.  He noted that the new bedroom was reduced two feet from that which was proposed in the previous plan.  Mr. Kotzan questioned whether it could be reduced further so as to not increase the floor area.  Mr. Karpuska stated that the original plan had an increase in floor area of 3.3 percent.  Mr. Kotzan stated that he understands the applicant would like a master bedroom and noted that they could combine two of the second floor bedrooms to create one.  He stated that it is difficult for the Board to allow an increase in floor area when there is a reasonable use of the property.  He questioned whether it could be reduced further.  Attorney Cronin stated that this was the best that Mr. Karpuska could do under the circumstances.  He explained that they are not doing this to create a master bedroom on the first floor.

Attorney Cronin stated that the hardship is that the dwelling was constructed prior to zoning and any improvement requires a variance.  He submitted, as an exhibit, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.  Attorney Cronin stated that he is submitting it for the Board’s general information.  He noted that in the Zoning Regulations the provisions of 21.2.5 states, in regards to the standards of granting a variance, where a variance is predicated upon the Americans with Disabilities Act, that the variance sought constitutes a reasonable accommodation as that term has been applied by the Courts of the United States for needs of a disabled person, as that terms is defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Attorney Cronin stated that one of the requests for variances in this application is for protection of one of the owners of this property under the ADA.  

Mr. Kotzan questioned why the size of the bedroom could not be reduced.  Mr. Karpuska stated that it needs to be large enough to accommodate a wheelchair.  Mr. Kotzan stated that it is hard without any documentation as to how large the bedroom would need to be.  Chairman McQuade questioned whether the other rooms are handicap accessible.  Mr. Karpuska stated that it is a rather open area.  He noted that the type of wheelchair, a transporter chair, can get through a 22 inch door.  Chairman McQuade stated that a smaller chair would require less room in the bedroom.

Attorney Cronin read the definition of disabled from the ADA, noting it is very broad.  He noted that Ms. Perlini has a handicap parking pass issued by the State and he submitted it for the record.  Ms. Hutchinson stated that it would be good to have a report from a doctor stating that she is permanently disabled, not temporarily.  Attorney Cronin stated that he has a report from her doctor dated May 15, 2015, which he submitted for the record, and stating that she is receiving chemotherapy for metastatic bone cancer, as it is not safe for her to go up and down stairs and he does not see her improving within the next year.  Mr. Perlini stated that as result of chemotherapy for several cancers, she is not stable.  He indicated that she will remain on chemo for the remainder of her life.  Mr. Perlini stated that she fell down the stairs and broke her hip.  He noted that this resulted in a week in the hospital and much time in rehab.  Mr. Perlini stated that the chemotherapy affects her balance.  

Mr. Kotzan stated that he feels the plan could be reconfigured without increasing the floor area and still meet the needs of Mrs. Perlini.  Ms. Hutchinson stated that many people have family members that go through an illness and convert existing areas, such as a dining room. Mr. Kotzan stated that a smaller bedroom would solve the issue for him.  Ms. Stone stated that every year she goes to the Land Use Conference and one thing they are told year after year is that the hardship goes with the property, not with the people that own the property.  She noted that Mrs. Perlini has a disability.  Attorney Cronin stated that there are no reported cases on this issue but it is implemented all the time.  He noted that handicap ramps are allowed in the side setbacks when someone needs to be accommodated, the applications do not even come to the Board.  Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant wants to provide a downstairs bedroom for Mrs. Perlini.  He noted that the hot tub on the deck is being removed and the bedroom addition will be less intrusive to the neighbors then the activity on the deck.  

Ms. McQuade stated that the Board is not questioning the need but rather whether the need can be accommodated without increasing the floor area ratio.  Mr. Kotzan agreed and stated that they have made accommodations in the past for people with disabilities.  He indicated that they want to make the accommodations with the minimum variance.  

Attorney Cronin asked the Board to continue the Hearing to allow Mr. Karpuska time to review the plan and see if he can make revisions.  He stated that he spoke with Attorney Royston and mentioned this issue and Attorney Royston indicated that he would welcome an inquiry from the Board.

Property owner at 22 Massachusetts Road stated that Mrs. Perlini should be accommodated and he thinks the proposal would be good for the Town and Point ‘O Woods.  

Mr. Marquette stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act is civil rights legislation and it has been incorporated into the building code.

Attorney Cronin stated that he would submit a written request for an extension.

A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing on 37 Ridgewood Road, Perlini, to the September 15, 2015 Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m., Mezzanine Conference Room, 52 Lyme Street.  

3.      Case 15-23 – Joanne Centola, 70 Grassy Hill Road, variance to add a third bedroom to a previously approved three bedroom dwelling (one bedroom was converted to a den).

Attorney Harry Heller was present to represent Ms. Centola.  He noted that Joe Wren, Project Engineer and Ms. Centola are both present as well.  He noted that the property is 50 feet in width and 206 to 215 feet in depth extending back to Rogers Lake.  Attorney Heller stated that both the lots and the dwelling on the lot are compliant with the exception of the lot having the 75’ square, which was varied by this Board under Variance 04-19 so that makes it conforming as to the square; and the R-10 zoning district only allows 1.5 stories and a two-story dwelling exists.  He explained that the proposal before the Board seeks to increase the size of the second floor by 180 square feet to add a third bedroom as shown in the plans.

Attorney Heller stated that he feels that there is a good case to say that by the granting of Variance 90-26 by this Board, a second floor was already granted to this house, however it was granted based on the house plans and site plan submitted which showed a dimension of 24 feet by 32 feet.  He indicated that after discussing it with Mr. Rosenfeld it was decided that they may be increasing the second floor living area so a variance application was filed.  He explained that in 1988 the Board granted a variance for a second floor but the variance expired and in 1990 Mrs. Centola received a variance to construct the second floor which was completed.  Attorney Heller stated that in 2004 a variance application was submitted for a small addition to the easterly side of the house which is the bump-out on the side.  He noted that the purpose of the variance was for interior access to the basement from inside the house.  Attorney Heller stated that in 2004 the house was a three bedroom house but the use of the first floor bedroom was eliminated as access to the house came through the room and it was then converted to a den reducing it to a two-bedroom home.  He stated that the applicant would like to add a third bedroom on top of the bump-out that was approved in 2004.  Attorney Heller pointed out that the bedroom addition will be in compliance with the height requirements in the R-10 Zone of 24 feet at 23’8”.

Attorney Heller stated that the hardship is in the development of the property.  He stated that the original house did not have interior basement access, which they feel is a hardship.  Attorney Heller stated that this resulted in the first floor bump out which allowed interior access to the basement but eliminated a bedroom.  He noted that both before and after the addition, the house will be in conformance with lot area coverage and floor area coverage.  Attorney Heller noted that the lower rear of the house is within the upland review area so any ground level addition would have potential environmental consequences.  He noted that there is a FEMA A and X zone so construction on the westerly side would encroach on the 100-year flood zone.  Attorney Heller stated that any bedroom located on the first floor would have access to the living room.  He read and submitted two letters from abutting property owners who are in favor of the application.  

Attorney Heller stated that there are a significant number of two-story homes in the area, as are the homes of the two people abutting who submitted letters.

Ms. Hutchinson noted that the applicant removed a bedroom in order to have interior basement access and it would seem to her that not having a third bedroom would be a self-imposed hardship.  She noted that at that time there must have been other access to the house.  Mr. Wren pointed out the original entrance on the left side of the house, which did not go through the bedroom.  

Attorney Heller stated that the Board granted a variance for a two-story dwelling and he feels that as long as they stay in conformance with all the other regulations that govern the bulk, it would not really be another variance.  Mr. Kotzan noted that that variance is restricted by the plan that was approved.

Ms. Hutchinson stated that she does not see the hardship as the applicant had a third bedroom and chose to remove it.  Attorney Heller stated that every house should be able to access the basement from the interior so he does not feel it is self-imposed.  Ms. Centola stated that the Zoning Board, in 1990, made them keep three walls standing.  She noted that when she and her husband relocated to Old Lyme they realized that they needed access to the basement from the inside of the house.  Mr. Wren stated that another reason they cannot add to the first floor is the location of the existing well.  He pointed out that no new nonconformity is being created by the addition.  He noted that the house is already a two-story house.  Mr. Wren noted that the lot is only nonconforming as to square; it does not lack lot area.  

No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.  Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade called this hearing to a close.
4.      Case 15-24 – Graybill Properties, LLC, 151 Boston Post Road

Chairman McQuade stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to demolish an existing restaurant building, retain the existing mixed use building on the east side of the property and construct a new mixed use building in the vicinity of the existing restaurant use building; the proposed building will be approximately 7,038 square feet, consisting of a restaurant and retail space on the ground floor and office space on the second floor.

Joe Wren, professional engineer, was present to represent the applicant, Jim Graybill.  Mr. Wren stated that the site is to the left of All-Pro Automotive.  He explained that the side building will remain with no changes.  The existing building closest to the street will be removed and a new building constructed further back on the lot doubling the setback which is currently 21 feet.  Mr. Wren stated that there is paved parking in the front and until recently there was a residence on the property that was removed.  He noted that the green area on the map is inland wetlands and the pink line is the review area.  Mr. Wren stated that almost half the site is encumbered by the upland review area.

Mr. Wren noted that many of the other existing buildings along Route 1 are much closer than the required 60’ setback from the street.  He indicated that Town Planners, over the last ten years, have come to realize that instead of putting all the parking in front of the development such as Benny’s in Old Saybrook, it is better to put the structure toward the front of the lot for better visibility and safety and to put the parking in the back.  Mr. Wren stated that the other issue is the well which is currently in the front of the property and they will install a new drilled well.  He explained that the septic system will be installed just outside the upland review area and has been approved by the Health Department.

Mr. Wren stated that he has submitted architectural plans of the proposed building and photographs of the existing building.  He noted that the street presence is much nicer.  He noted that they plan to have a restaurant in the building with some retail on the first floor and office spaces on the second floor.  Mr. Wren noted that three quarters of the ground level will be the restaurant and the remainder retail.

Mr. Wren read an email from the Sanitarian noting that he has approved the variance application and will be requiring a few more test holes.  He noted that the proposed building and site will be more conforming then it is currently.  He noted the existing front setback is 21’ and the proposed is 47.7 feet; 55 percent coverage is allowed, they are currently at 57.3 percent and will be reducing it 54.4 percent.  Mr. Wren noted that because the wetlands cannot be included when figuring lot coverage, they were able to get the coverage under 55 percent by making some of the parking pervious.  He noted that with the larger buildings and parking that meets the standards they are able to reduce the coverage by approximately 2,300 square feet.  Mr. Wren noted that the new structures will meet all the current building codes.  He noted that another recent trend is to have adjacent parking lots connect so that drivers do not have to exit back onto the street to get into the parking lot of the next business and they will have a connection into the All-Pro parking lot.  He noted that the parking lot will also have a standardized in and out curb cut, reducing the amount of open curb on Route 1.

Ms. Stone questioned whether there would be sufficient parking for the uses in the buildings on the property as she saw some cars on this site that appear to be overflow from All-Pro.  Mr. Graybill noted that sometimes employees park there during the day but are gone before the restaurant would be busy in the evening. Ms. Hutchinson questioned whether the connecting parking was for the sake of All-Pro.  Mr. Wren reiterated that the connection has been there, they are just formalizing it; he noted that it is also the new thinking of Town Planners in order to reduce in and out traffic on the main roads.

Mr. Wren stated that they are a few parking spaces extra shown but they will probably not have them after they add the islands and street trees as required by the Zoning Regulations.  He noted that his will be another area that is brought in conformance with the Regulations.  Mr. Wren stated that this site plan was created for the Zoning Board of Appeals and once they receive the variance they will be adding the other site improvements.  He stated that they will not be going beyond the curb area as shown on this plan.  He noted that this site will be brought significantly closer to compliance.  He noted that the reduced impervious coverage is also a great benefit to the wetlands.  Mr. Wren noted that many of the adjacent businesses do not even have enough parking area to allow cars to turn around.  He pointed out the parking specifics and building locations of the surrounding businesses as they relate to proximity to the street.  The map showing these distances was marked Exhibit C.  Mr. Wren pointed out that the pervious pavers will cost five times the amount of asphalt.

Mr. Wren noted that the current non-conforming sign will be removed and although no signs are currently proposed, any signs in the future will meet the Zoning Regulations.

Mr. Wren stated that the hardship is the amount of wetlands and upland review area on the property.  He stated that by substantially reducing the nonconformities on the site is justification in itself to grant a variance.  Mr. Wren stated that every single existing nonconformity is being reduced or eliminated.  He noted that they believe the project is in harmony with Route 1.  Mr. Wren noted that Cherrystone’s is another property that is very close to the street.

Mr. Wren noted that the applicant will still need to go to the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Zoning Commission for a Special Permit.

Mr. Wren read a letter of support from John and Debbie Wells, 146-3 Boston Post Road.  Mr. Graybill noted that the Wells live right across the street from the property.

A neighbor at 10 Appletree Drive stated that the Graybills are great neighbors currently with the gas station and he feels the project would be a great improvement on the Post Road.

Neighbor Myron, 141 Boston Post Road, stated that Graybill Properties LLC is first class and he is sure that they will maintain the property. He stated that he has quality of life concerns, such as what the uses of the offices will be.  He indicated that he is also concerned about the signs.  He stated that he is concerned and wants to make sure it is dark at night as far as the signs are concerned and lights around the building.  He stated that he would not like an outdoor dining area.  

Mr. Wren noted that lighting will be addressed as part of the special exception permit process with the Zoning Commission.  He stated that they are adding trees to beautify the site.  Mr. Wren stated that there will be lighting for safety but there are standards that require that the light be directed down.  Mr. Wren stated that the idea is to have offices such as medical offices.  He noted that the outdoor patio is enclosed on three sides and only open to the wetlands area.  Mr. Wren noted that the area is 18’ x 24’ with three tables, with a maximum of 20 people and there should not be a problem with noise.

Pat Taylor, 142 Boston Post Road, directly across the street stated that she is looking forward to this project and stated it will be a huge improvement.

Mr. Holland, 143 Boston Post Road, adjacent neighbor, stated that he fully supports the proposal.  He noted that Mr. Graybill is very responsive to requests.

John McDonald, 151-1 Boston Post Road, stated that he is in favor of the proposal.  He stated that the new building will be a massive improvement.  Mr. McDonald stated that Mr. Graybill is addressing the existing 14 signs that are on the property.  He noted that one of these signs obstructs his ability to get out of his driveway.  Mr. McDonald stated that he applauds the Graybill’s design and feels it is a vast improvement.  He submitted photographs which were marked Exhibits D1 and D2.

Mr. Wren reiterated that the existing signs will be removed.

Phil Marquette, Tisbury Road, stated that Mr. Graybill has addressed the architectural aesthetics and landscaping, and they have addressed the environmental aspects.  He indicated that it is a large improvement on many levels for the Town.

Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed the Public Hearing.

OPEN VOTING SESSION

1.      Case 15-20 – Harry S. Plaut, 53 Breen Avenue, requests variances to demolish an existing one story dwelling and construct a new 1 ½ story residential dwelling that will be FEMA compliant.   

Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.  She noted that there will be one bedroom on the second floor and the remainder will be storage with a ceiling height of less than 6 feet.

Ms. Stone stated that he major objection is from the adjacent neighbor to the north.  She stated that when you buy a house next to a lot that already has a home one assumes it will stay there.  She indicated that this change will block the neighbors view.  Ms. Stone stated that the plans have been modified from the first application but she feels the house is still higher than it needs to be and it doesn’t have to have a half story as it is an acceptable size house without the second floor.  She noted that it is a very small lot.  Ms. Stone stated that as the homes in the flood zone are raised, there are going to be blocked views and hard feelings.  She stated that the house size is doubling.

Mr. Kotzan stated that they must be sensitive to the neighbors such as Mr. O’Keefe.  He stated that the first floor increase is much bigger than the current house and does not exceed the height or maximum floor area.  

Ms. Hutchinson stated that this proposal is more than the minimum needed to overcome the need for a variance.  Mr. Sibley and Chairman McQuade agreed.  The Board agreed that if this proposal is denied the applicant could come back with a more compliant plan.  Chairman McQuade suggested that the motion include a condition that an A2 Survey be included as part of any future application.

Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant is violating the intent of the Regulations he is asking to vary.  Chairman McQuade stated that the need to raise the house can be done without adding to the nonconformities.  She stated that the house is both larger and taller than is strictly necessary for a reasonable use of the property.

A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to deny without prejudice the variances requested for 53 Breen Avenue (plans dated June 26, 2015) and noted that an A-2 survey must be submitted with the next variance application.

Reasons for denial:

  • The plans submitted violate intentions of regulations the applicant seeks to vary.
  • The proposed house is larger and taller than strictly necessary to overcome hardship and achieve a reasonable use of the property.
  • The property could be made FEMA compliant if built smaller.
2.      Case 15-22 – Ernest & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road

No action taken.  The Public Hearing for this item was continued to the September Regular Meeting.

Ms. Hutchinson stated that she would be in favor of getting an opinion from Attorney Royston as to what type of accommodation needs to be done under the ADA.   Ms. Stone stated that when the Board grants variances for ramps and such, they are temporary.  Ms. Stone stated that this will be an additional, permanent nonconformity.

3.      Case 15-23 – Joanne Centola, 70 Grassy Hill Road

Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.  

Ms. Stone pointed out that nonconformities are not being increased.  She noted that the deck is currently in the side setback.  Mr. Kotzan noted that the lot lacks the required 75’ square.  Chairman McQuade noted that the house is also nonconforming as it is two stories where only 1.5 stories are allowed.  Mr. Kotzan noted that the lot is narrow which is why they cannot add onto the first floor.  Mr. Sibley noted that this is like a railway house where one has to go through one room to get to the next.  He stated that the applicant has a reasonable request.  Mr. Kotzan stated that he believes it is a reasonable use of the property.  Ms. Stone stated that the applicant is respecting the Regulations.  Chairman McQuade noted that the height, at 23’8”, will not exceed the maximum height allowed in the zone

A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Nancy Hutchinson and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted which are dated April 21, 2015 to allow construction of a third bedroom to a prior approved three bedroom dwelling (one prior bedroom converted to a den), with the proposed addition on the second floor of the east side of the dwelling house.  
 
Reasons for granting:   

  • The varying of the regulations does not violate the intent of the regulations.
  • The hardship is that there is no other way to achieve replacement of third bedroom on a legal sized lot.
  • The height does not exceed the legal limit.
4.      Case 15-24 – Graybill Properties, LLC, 151 Boston Post Road


Ms. Stone stated that the applicant is asking for two variances.  Chairman McQuade stated that one is for the front setback, although it does not meet the required 60 foot setback, it increases the existing building setback from 21’ to 45’.  She pointed out that the existing coverage is over the maximum allowed of 55 percent and the proposed coverage of 54.5 percent is conforming.  She noted that this was done by using pervious pavers for some of the parking.

Ms. Stone stated that if the plan changes after going through Zoning and Wetlands as long as the variances are not affected, they will not have to come back to the Board; she noted that if the changes affect the variances, they would have to come back to the Board.  Mr. Kotzan stated that there were a tremendous number of nonconformities that were reduced and some eliminated.

Chairman McQuade stated that the neighbors were in favor of the proposal and praised Mr. Graybill.  She stated that she feels it is a project that will make the entire site less nonconforming and will be good for the Town.  Mr. Kotzan agreed and stated that the Board has to be accommodating in situations like this.  

A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted to demolish existing restaurant building, retain the mixed use building on the east side of the property and construct a new mixed use building in the vicinity of the existing restaurant building.  The new building will be approximately 7,038 square feet and will include a restaurant and retail/office space on the ground floor and office space on the second floor.  The front setback increases from 21.3’ to 47.7’ (60’ required).  Parking to remain in front but landscaping will be added to reduce the existing non-conformity.  

Reasons for granting:  

  • The proposed plans lessen the existing nonconformity of building setback and many others.
  • The new building sustains and improves the character of this commercial and residential district.
  • The proposed plan reduces lot coverage to conformity.
  • The neighbors most affected all spoke in favor of the project.  
New Business

None.

Correspondence

Mr. Rosenfeld stated that they have received many letters regarding a variance the Board granted for a shed which was to be an accessory building that does not allow for human occupancy.  He stated that the motion to approve required that the plans be reviewed by the Chairman prior to issuance of a building permit to review for conformity to the motion.  Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the building is a 16 x 24 foot shed as shown on the plans.  He noted that the roof of the building is 17.5 feet which is within the requirements of the plans. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that there is a partial 6.5 foot second floor and it meets the setbacks as prescribed in the variance.  He noted that plans were never submitted to the building department.  He noted that there is also a cupola attached to the top which exceeds the height.  Mr. Rosenfeld stated that his solution is to sign off on zoning compliance with the condition that the cupola be removed or that an application for variance be submitted; and also that when the building department issues a c.o. that it be accompanied by a height survey to confirm the height.  Chairman McQuade noted that the cupola does make the shed look taller.  The Board agreed this is a good resolution.

Minutes

A Motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted to approve the April 21, 2015 Minutes as submitted.  So moved 3:0:2 with Ms. Hutchinson and Ms. McQuade abstaining.  

A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted to approve the May 19, 2015 Minutes with the following corrections which are in bold:   Page 3 second to last paragraph, second to last sentence: Karen Conniff questioned whether the other neighbors have rights to the right of way.  Page 6 second to last paragraph, last sentence: Nancy Hutchinson agreed and noted that the applicant cannot move forward without a decision by the board.~ Page 7 Case 15-15, first paragraph, last sentence:  Mr. Kotzan stated that it was inferred that the second floor area could be used for sleeping, and noted that the second floor was not designated as living space on the tax records.  Page 8 first sentence: ~Ms. Hutchinson stated that this is a reasonable request to fix an odd configuration and a safety and health issue due to the water problem.  So moved, 3:0:2 with Ms. McQuade and Ms. Stone abstaining.  

Minutes of the June 16, 2015 Meeting were tabled to the September 15, 2015 Regular Meeting.

Chairman McQuade stated that Mr. Sibley has suggested a time limit be set for meetings.  Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board cannot cut it back too much because they cannot cut off the public.  Chairman McQuade stated that she finds it hard to turn away applicants if they’ve set the evening aside.  Mr. Sibley stated that the time limit keeps the Board moving as there are a lot of things that can be more concise.  Mr. Kotzan stated that he would rather stay an extra half hour rather than coming back another evening.  Chairman McQuade stated that the Board could cut their comments down to keep things on track.  Mr. Kotzan stated that many things need to be brought to the applicant’s attention such as the fact that the variance is given to the land, not the person.  He noted that the Board knows this, but not all applicants are aware, and it needs to be addressed during the Public Hearing.  Ms. Hutchinson stated that she asks questions during the presentation because when she is not voting she would not have the opportunity during the open voting session.

Chairman McQuade asked all members to let either her or Kim Barrows know if they will not be attending a meeting.

Ms. Stone stated that all of the Board members announce their opinions during the Public Hearing when it is only really to gather information.  She stated that she feels the Board needs to police each other on this.  Mr. Sibley agreed and stated that the Board members should only ask specific questions of the applicant during the Public Hearing.  Chairman McQuade stated that the Board members must be careful not to comment.  Ms. Hutchinson stated that when an application is received, someone should make sure it is complete.  Mr. Rosenfeld stated that Kim Barrows reviews the application to make sure it is complete, but she does not review the contents; for example she will make sure there is a zoning table but she does not review the contents of the table.  Mr. Kotzan stated that if the applicant comes before the Board with an incomplete application the Board can tell the applicant that it will be continued to the next month and they have done that in the past.  

Chairman McQuade stated that in the case of an incomplete zoning table, she is under the impression that Mr. Rosenfeld reviews it and would catch it.  Mr. Rosenfeld agreed.  He stated that if someone pays the appropriate fee and submits some paperwork, he is required to accept it.  He stated that the Board can then deny it for lack of information.  Ms. Hutchinson stated that she would like to have this clarified.  Mr. Rosenfeld stated that he cannot hold onto an application because after 65 days it will be automatically approved.  Ms. Hutchinson stated that the Board should deny applications that are incomplete.  Chairman McQuade stated that there are times when something is missing and the Board continues the hearing.  

Ms. Stone stated that she feels the Board has made strides in the past two years in treating all applicants with an equal degree of courtesy, attention and respect.

Ms. Hutchinson questioned whether the Board has ever sat down with Attorney Royston for a half hour or an hour and asked questions regarding the practices of the Board.  Chairman McQuade stated that the Board goes to Attorney Royston for advice and most of the other things one can find in a book.  Mr. Rosenfeld stated that Google has a lot of information on procedures.  He noted that he wrote a commissioners handbook for his commission in Naugatuck and he will contact his old assistant to see if she still has a copy of it.

Ms. Hutchinson stated that the Chairman is not signing the site plans in all cases and she is concerned that because the motions state as per the approved plans.  The Board discussed improving the motions to include conditions such as removal of existing buildings.  Mr. Kotzan stated that the approved plans are all the plans that are part of the record.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m. on a motion by Mary Stone and seconded by Kip Kotzan; so voted unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,



Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary