The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Zoning Board of Appeals
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Board of Appeals |
|
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Zoning Board of Appeals
December 15 •November 17 •November 3 •August 18 •July 21 •June 16 •May 12 •April 21 •March 17 •February 17 •January 20 •Pevious Years:
Meetings in 2010 •Meetings in 2009 •Meetings in 2008 •Meetings in 2007 •Meetings in 2006 •Meetings in 2005 •Meetings in 2004 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
Posted: December 22, 2011 December 15, 2011
Present: Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Rod Wyant, Kathy Leab
Alternates: Todd Peterson, Chip Wildman
Absent: Polly Roberts
Staff: Shelley White,
Also Present: Atty. Coploff, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Mr. DeMotte, Architect, Atty. DiPentima, Mr. Sabin., Landscape Architect, ResidentsMr. Catlin called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Rod Wyant, Todd Peterson, Alt.Continued
ZBA-0906 - Request of Smith, 22 Parsonage Lane, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), 11.6.1(Side Yard Setback), for an addition that will encroach 12.4’ into 50’ side yard setback.
Mr. Demotte, Architect, was present to represent the Smiths. He stated that a soil scientist was hired and the wetlands have been flagged on the property and are indicated on the revised Proposed Site Plan titled Property Boundary Survey, prepared for Christopher W. & Marlene M. Smith, 22 Parsonage Lane, revision date 12-8-11, and he stated that the proposed plan was presented to the Inland Wetlands Commission, a site visit has been scheduled for next week and there will be a public hearing in January for this property. Mr. Demotte stated that the proposed addition has been moved and the encroachment of the garage into the side yard setback has been reduced to 9.4 ft and the mudroom is entirely out of the setback. He stated that the non conforming pool shed (56 sq. ft.) and detached garage (340 sq. ft.) total 396 sq. ft., the existing garage is 17 ft. into the setback and 5 ft. away from wetlands and the proposed plan would decrease the encroachment into the side yard setback to 263 sq. ft. He stated that the existing detached garage and separate pool shed would be removed and the wetlands would be ameliorated. Mr. Demotte stated that the unconventional shape of the lot and the wetlands on the property limits the buildable area and therefore is a hardship.Mr. Sabin, Landscape Architect, stated that the proposed plan is within regulated areas and that the I/W Commission is reviewing the request for a permit and he expects that there will be a positive outcome at the next Inland Wetlands Meeting in early January 2012.
Mr. Catlin explained that there are four people seated for this Public Hearing and this application would need a unanimous vote for approval. He stated that the approval from the I/W Commission is usually done before coming to the ZBA and that the public hearing could be continued. He stated that all of the information could be presented in January after the Inland Wetlands Commission has made their decision and the ZBA could listen to the presentation tonight or in January, but the ZBA does not usually rule on anything that is pending in front of the I/W Commission. The applicant chose to proceed with their presentation of the Site and Landscape Plan.
Mr. Sabin presented the map titled Site and Landscape Plan, prepared for Chris & Marlene Smith, dated 12-5-11 by Dirk W. Sabin and submitted a report dated 12-12-11 that he prepared for the Inland Wetlands Commission. He stated that a little over 4,000 sq. ft. of wetlands exist on the lot and the existing detached garage is along side of these wetlands and the applicant is proposing to demolish this structure and replace it with storm drainage in the form of a “Rain Garden”. Mr. Sabin stated that the proposed plan will restore the wetlands and it will be maintained in a wet meadow condition. He discussed the proposed native plantings for buffering and the evergreen plantings used for screening for both the neighbor’s and the Smith’s benefit.
Mr. Sabin displayed the map titled Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, Addition to the Smith Residence, dated 12-10-11, by Brian E. Neff, Licensed Engineer. He stated that there would be a series of catch basins that will drain into recharge galleries that are located at the north and east of the dwelling and the water from these galleries would be directed to the rain garden, which would be located at the area of the existing detached garage that is to be demolished.
The Commissioners and Mr. Sabin looked at the drawing titled Right Side Elevation – Stonewall. The drawing indicates the stonewall alongside the proposed driveway to be 2 feet high at each end and peaking at 5 feet in the middle. The driveway would be bituminous concrete but the applicant stated that pervious materials could be considered for the driveway. Mr. Sabin stated that the plantings would screen this wall and it would be barely visible. He stated that the net effect of this proposed plan is a decrease in the non conformity of the lot.
Mr. Demotte stated that the proposed plan is under the maximum lot coverage calculation. Mr. Catlin asked that this calculation be provided. Mr. Sabin stated that the lot coverage was conservatively calculated. Mr. Demotte discussed the changes in the eastern elevation architecture.
Mr. Demotte, Mr. Sabin and Mr. Smith stated that they discussed a “land swap” with Mr. Caroe, the adjoining neighbor. Mr. Smith submitted a letter to the Commission from him, addressed to Mr. Caroe, dated October 5, 2011(on file in the Land Use Office).
Atty. DiPentima stated that he was present to “assure members of the Board that if you are so inclined, to grant this application that you are well within your rights under the law to do so.” He stated that the Smith’s have taken into consideration the concerns of the neighbors, they have reduced the proposed plan and decreased the amount of square footage that would encroach into the setback area. Atty. DiPentima stated that there is Connecticut State case law that allows this board to take into consideration the fact that the Smiths have addressed the wetland problem and the substantial amelioration of the wetlands should be factored into the consideration of granting this variance. He stated that there is also Case Law that says if the reduction of a non conformity is an independent ground for granting a variance. Mr. Catlin stated that he commends the applicant for a very thorough application but he would like the land-based hardship addressed. Atty. DiPentima stated that the land-based hardship is the configuration of the lot.
Mr. Demotte stated that the only way to not encroach into the setback would be to remove the pool and push back the garage.
The Commission agreed to extend (letter of request for extension on file in the Land Use Office) the Public hearing to the January 19, 2012 regular meeting of the ZBA at Bryan Memorial Town Hall at 7:30 p.m. so that the applicant may obtain a ruling from the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Motion:
to continue ZBA-0906 - Request of Smith, 22 Parsonage Lane, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), 11.6.1(Side Yard Setback), for an addition that will encroach 9.4’ into 50’ side yard setback, by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 4-0 vote.
The Commission briefly discussed the point that Atty. DiPentima discussed regarding case law. Ms. White stated that she would look into the matter.
Seated: Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Rod Wyant, Kathy Leab, Todd Peterson, Alt.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZBA-0907 –Request of Risely, 72 Wykeham Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1 (side Yard Setback), for locating a generator within the setback.
Mr. Catlin read a letter from Ms. Risely, dated 12-15-11, requesting that the public hearing be postponed until next month.Motion:
to continue ZBA-0907 – Request of Risely, 72 Wykeham Road, for a Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1 (yard setback), for locating a generator within the setback,
by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Ms. Leab, passed by 5-0 vote.Consideration of the Minutes:
The Commission considered the minutes for the November 17, 2011 regular meeting.Motion:
to approve the minutes of the November 17, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as submitted,
by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Ms. Leab, passed by 5-0 vote.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:18 pm, by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Mr. Bowman.Mr. Catlin adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: December 1, 2011 November 17, 2011
Present: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson Staff: Shelley White, Mike Ajello Also Present: Atty. Coploff, Ms. Smith, Mr. DeMotte, Architect, Mr. M. Caroe, Mr. T. Caroe, Ms. S. Caroe, Mr. Pappas, Ms. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Residents Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Rod Wyant, Alt., Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0906 - Request of Smith, 22 Parsonage Lane, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), 11.6.1(Side Yard Setback), for an addition that will encroach 12.4’ into 50’ side yard setback.
Mr. DeMotte, Architect, Atty. Coploff and Ms. Smith were at this hearing to present this application. Mr. Demotte and the Commission looked at the map titled Site Analysis Plan, Property Boundary Survey, prepared for Christopher W. Smith and Marlene M. Smith, by Michael Alex, Surveyor, dated August 2011. Mr. Demotte noted that the existing garage is an existing non conforming structure and he discussed the lot line revision that turned this parcel into an interior lot. He stated that the hardship is that this is an interior lot and he explained that the proposed garage will encroach slightly into the side yard setback and the entire existing garage is in the side yard setback. Mr. Demotte stated that four other scenarios were considered and he showed the Commission site plans of the four other scenarios. He stated that he and his client feel that the proposed plan is the best scenario.The Commission and Mr. Demotte discussed the existing and proposed elevations. Ms. Roberts asked that Mr. Demotte discuss the grading and elevation issues because the proposed driveway would require a fair amount of grading. Mr. Demotte stated that the proposed garage’s slab would be two feet below the first floor of the house and that a low retaining wall would be required for the driveway. Ms. Roberts stated that a lot of fill would be required for the grading of the driveway. Mr. Demotte estimated that the driveway would require, approximately, a 3- foot retaining wall and would possibly need an additional foot above the driveway. The Commission and Mr. Demotte discussed the retaining wall. Ms. Roberts stated that the ZBA would like to see an elevation drawing of the proposed retaining wall with exact measurements.
Mr. Demotte stated that the proposed garage would have an attic above that would be used for storage, that the garage measures 24’ x 27’and that the pool equipment would be housed in a mechanical room that would be underneath the proposed mudroom.
Mr. Catlin asked if renovating the existing garage was considered. Mr. Demotte stated that they did not consider that option because it is non conforming, detached from the house, has low headroom and he does not feel that it is in good structural condition.
Mr. Demotte stated that Parsonage Lane is considered a private drive but it is maintained by the Town and could possibly be considered a public road. He stated that this lot would not be considered an interior lot on a public road and the setbacks would not be as restrictive and a variance would be unnecessary. Ms. Roberts stated that this house is considered an interior lot.
Mr. Bowman stated that he feels that the laundry room, mudroom and the powder room are larger than needed and add to the encroachment of the side yard setback. Mr. Demotte stated that that portion of the proposed plan is a small percentage of the encroachment and he discussed the dimensions of the rooms. Mr. Bowman stated that he felt that the plan could be leaner and that the entire structure could be located out of the setback.
Mr. Catlin stated that he is struggling with the hardship for this application. He stated that this renovation could be done in a way to satisfy the Zoning Code by taking the existing pool out.
Ms. Roberts asked if there were any comments from the public. She read a letter from the Pappas’ of 25 Parsonage Lane, dated November 17, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office) stating that they were not opposed to the proposed plan.
Mr. Caroe, neighbor, stated that he would like to summarize the points in the letter that he wrote to the ZBA dated November 6, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office). He stated that he feels that this proposed plan would require a radical change to the land with the extensive filling that would dramatically change the land and that he is concerned about storm water management. Mr. Caroe asked for the heights of the ‘upper garage’ and the driveway retaining wall and informed the Commission that this would be the view from his sunroom. He stated that alternatives do exist. Mr. Caroe noted that he submitted an engineering report to the ZBA from Godfrey Hoffman Associates dated November 17, 2011 and this report states that the A-2 survey submitted for this proposed addition is incomplete regarding the source of datum for the contours, and the omission of inland wetlands on the subject property.
Mr. Rimsky stated that the area is wetter than it used to be because fields were drained long ago and the drainage system does not work properly anymore. Mr. Ajello stated that he is certain that wetlands exist in that area and he would be uncomfortable supporting a variance if there is a wetland issue. The Commissioners agreed with Mr. Ajello.
Mr. Caroe thanked the Commission for addressing his concerns. Mr. Tim Caroe stated that the proposed driveway would be a large impervious area and he is concerned that more water will drain off into already wet areas.
Mr. Demotte stated that the old septic system would be abandoned and a new septic system would be installed in the backyard. He stated that they would have a storm water management plan for the driveway.
Ms. Smith stated that she and her husband have lived in Washington since 1975 and remodeled the house that they currently live in. She stated that they are looking to downsize and for medical purposes would like to have a house that functions on one floor. Ms. Roberts stated that this proposed plan is doubling the existing square footage of the house and the Town is struggling for the need of modest size homes. She stated that the Commission could only consider land based hardship and not personal circumstances and choices and there is nothing that inhibits the Smiths from designing a plan that would follow the Zoning Regulations other than the existing swimming pool. Mr. Bowman stated that the design is sympathetic to the needs of one floor living but that the plan could be leaner and the footprint minimized. He stated that the pool limits their choices.
Mr. Catlin stated that he is concerned with the surrounding properties and the possibility of disturbing wetlands. He stated that he would feel more confident if they could locate the wetlands and get Inland Wetlands approval. He stated that this is a significant addition to a sensible house and is still struggling with the hardship for this application. He stated that the property owners have other options and he encourages the neighbors to work together.
Ms. Roberts stated that she would like to see Mr. Caroe’s concerns addressed regarding the grading of the property and what the wall is going to look like. Ms. Caroe stated that there is no reference to the height of the retaining wall in the material that was submitted with this application. Mr. Demotte stated that the information states that the retaining wall would be 3 feet above grade. There was a discussion regarding a tall hedge being planted along the wall.
The Commission agreed that they would like the wetlands issue investigated and if there are issues that this proposed plan is taken to the Inland Wetlands Commission for approval and they would like to see elevation drawings of the proposed retaining wall with a storm water plan. Mr. Bowman stated that he would like to see the footprint of the new septic system.
Motion:
to continue ZBA-0906 - Request of Smith, 22 Parsonage Lane, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), 11.6.1(Side Yard Setback), for an addition that will encroach 12.4’ into 50’ side yard setback,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of the Minutes:
The Commission considered the minutes for the September 22, 2011 regular meeting.Motion:
to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as submitted,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Catlin, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Ms. Roberts read the following statement: “Randy Snook has served on this board for 8 years, and has now retired. We thank him for his dedication and will miss his quiet, calm voice, practical, common sense approach, courtesy and humor. As an engineer, he was instrumental in researching and crafting the criteria we use in the evaluation and location of noise generating equipment. The Town owes him our sincere gratitude.”Generators
Mr. Bowman stated that during the power outage from the snowstorm he heard of a couple of instances when carbon monoxide detectors went off in peoples houses and some people actually had to go to the hospital for CO2 poisoning and he was concerned that the Commission has generally placed importance on the location of generators regarding sound. He stated that the generators involved in these instances were located correctly and that maybe this regulation should be given a little more thought considering Carbon Monoxide safety. Mr. Ajello showed a picture of a generator and its location to the house it serves and the resident of this house had to go to the hospital during the period of power loss after the October snowstorm. Mr. Ajello stated that he did not receive any complaints regarding noise from generators over that period of time. The Commission agreed that they were in favor of doing further research on this topic and striking Zoning Regulation Section 12.14.4.There was a brief discussion regarding raised structures and heights of stone walls.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 9:05 pm, by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Ms. Roberts.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: November 5, 2011 November 3, 2011
Present: Todd Catlin, Randolph Snook
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson
Staff: Shelley White
Also Present: Ms. ChapinMr. Snook called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Todd Catlin, Randy Snook, Rod Wyant, Todd Peterson
ZBA-0905 - Request of Chapin, Jean, 42 Rabbit Hill Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Nonconformity), to expand existing garage 4’4” in length and 2 ½’ on both sides.
Mr. Snook stated that this application clearly shows the need to expand the garage both in length and width in order to make it structurally sound and meet modern day requirements so that it could house the average size vehicle. Mr. Wyant stated that this proposed plan corrects an existing problem. Mr. Peterson stated that the increase in the size of the garage is a bare necessity in order to serve as a garage.Motion:
to close ZBA-0905 - Request of Chapin, Jean, 42 Rabbit Hill Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Nonconformity), to expand existing garage 4’4” in length and 2 ½’ on both sides,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 4-0 vote.
MEETING
Mr. Catlin stated that this is a classic case of a land-based hardship and that he has no problems with this application. Mr. Wyant stated that he could support this application. Mr. Snook and Mr. Peterson agreed with Mr. Catlin and Mr. Wyant.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0905 - Request of Chapin, Jean, 42 Rabbit Hill Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Nonconformity), to expand existing garage 4’4” in length and 2 ½’ on both sides,
passed by 4-0 vote.Ms. Chapin thanked the ZBA for their prompt response to her request.
Motion:
to adjourn at 7:40 pm, by Mr. Snook, seconded by Mr. Wyant.Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: August 27, 2011 August 18, 2011
Present: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Kathy Leab, Randolph Snook and Peter Bowman
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson
Absent:
Staff: Shelley White, Mike Ajello
Also Present: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Sweeney, Ms. Chapin, Ms. Amdurer, Mr. Neff, Engineer, Mr. Sedito, Ms. Kaplan, Ms. Bishop-WrabelChairman Polly Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Kathy Leab, Peter Bowman and Randy SnookZBA-0898 - Request of West Mountain Builders (Nauiokas-Harrison), 10 Loomarwick Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1(Minimum Yard Setbacks), to construct a patio within 50’ setback of property boundary.
Mr. Johnson of West Mountain Builders and Mr. Sweeney, Property Manager were present to discuss this application. Mr. Johnson stated that he is requesting this variance for a patio, which already exists. He stated that the owners applied for a Special Exception for the patio and pergola last year and were denied because of the scale of the pergola. Mr. Catlin stated that the Commission approved of the patio but the Special Exception was denied because the pergola did not meet the requirements of a Special Exception. Mr. Johnson stated that the property with the patio is under the lot coverage limit and the neighbor’s concern regarding an existing water line has been resolved since the patio does not go over the water line. Ms. White confirmed that 7 out of 8 return receipt postcards were returned to the Land Use Office and that neighbors had come in to look at the plan and no one expressed any concerns. Ms. Roberts asked if the patio follows the dimensions on the map titled Zoning Location Survey, prepared for Amy Nauiokas & Michael Harrison, by CJOJ LLC. Land Surveying and Engineering, with a revision date of July 8, 2010. Mr. Johnson stated that he believed the patio does follow the dimensions of the survey. The Commission and Mr. Johnson briefly discussed if the patio had been measured. Mr. Ajello confirmed that the survey does include the driveway up to the property line in the lot coverage calculations. Mr. Catlin asked Mr. Johnson to speak about the hardship. Mr. Johnson stated that it is a small house on a difficult lot and the owners use the patio for dining space. He stated that the patio was made of pea stone and is permeable. There were no further questions or comments from the public or the Commission.Motion:
to close ZBA-0898 - Request of West Mountain Builders (Nauiokas-Harrison), 10 Loomarwick Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1(Minimum Yard Setbacks), to construct a patio within 50’ setback of property boundary,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Mr. Catlin, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that he did not have any objections to the previous application or this application. Mr. Catlin stated that he thought that this was a rebuilding of an existing patio. He stated that he was perturbed that the property owners built the patio without a Variance and that the ZBA should not be informed after something is built because the owner did not have time to go through the correct process. Ms. Leab stated that contractors should be aware of the Town’s Regulations. Mr. Bowman stated that he did not object to the patio on the previous application. He stated that the pictures seem to depict a larger patio than what is indicated on the Zoning Location Survey and that he would like the ZEO to confirm the dimensions as a condition of an approval. Ms. Roberts stated that she did not have a problem with the patio on the last application but the pergola was an issue and did not meet the criteria of a Special Exception. She stated that it is “outrageous” that a property owner would build something without going through the proper process because they think the Town wouldn’t mind. Mr. Snook stated that he feels that the ZBA did give the applicant the impression that the patio was approved and he could see how the mistake was made. Ms. Leab stated that the neighbors that were opposed to the previous application have not expressed any objections to the patio. The Commission agreed that the approval would be conditional and that the dimensions of the patio should be confirmed by the ZEO and match the Zoning Location Survey that is on file for this application.Motion:
to approve ZBA- 0898 - Request of West Mountain Builders (Nauiokas-Harrison), 10 Loomarwick Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1(Minimum Yard Setbacks), to construct a patio within 50’ setback of property boundary with the condition that the patio does not exceed the dimensions indicated on approved A-2 survey on file, passed by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Todd Catlin, Kathy Leab, Peter Bowman, Randy Snook and Rod Wyant, Alt.ZBA-0899 – Request of Chapin, 42 Rabbit Hill Road for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation 17.5 (increasing Non Conformity), to expand the length of existing garage 4’ 4”.
Ms. Chapin, property owner, was present to present her application. She stated that she would like to expand the length of the garage because she was unable to fit her car. Ms. Chapin stated that it will remain a two-car garage, just the length of the garage would increase and there would be one door. She confirmed that the floor plan of the living space above would not increase. She discussed plans to relocate the septic, which she has discussed with the Town Sanitarian. There were no further questions or comments from the public or the Commission.Motion:
to close ZBA-0899 – Request of Chapin, 42 Rabbit Hill Road for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation 17.5 (increasing Non Conformity), to expand the length of existing garage 4’ 4”,
by Ms. Leab, seconded by Mr. Wyant, passed by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that this is a very moderate increase and a property owner should be able to fit their car in their garage and he had no objections to this application. Mr. Bowman, Ms. Leab and Mr. Wyant agreed with Mr. Snook and stated that they had no objections to this application. Mr. Catlin read the requirements of a Special Exception and stated that he feels that this application fits the criteriaMotion:
to approve ZBA-0899 – Request of Chapin, 42 Rabbit Hill Road for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation 17.5 (increasing Non Conformity), to expand the length of existing garage 4’ 4”, passed by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Kathy Leab, Peter Bowman, and Randy SnookZBA-0900 – Request of Amdurer, 235 Baldwin Hill Road for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1 (Minimum Yard Setbacks), to construct an addition and deck with stairs on the rear of the house.
Mr. Neff, Engineer and Ms. Amdurer, property owner, were present to present this application. Mr. Neff stated that the addition to the house is already framed out but the deck and stairs have not been built. Ms. Amdurer stated that she stopped construction once she found out that she was not in compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Neff and the Commission looked at the map titled Zoning Location Survey, prepared for Phyllis Amdurer, by Roy Cheney, dated July 2011. Mr. Neff stated that the lot is non conforming and is technically considered an interior lot because it does not meet the frontage requirements. Mr. Catlin asked why this was not a Special Exception. Mr. Ajello stated that since the addition is already framed out, the property owner is unable to apply for a Special Exception and must apply for a Variance. The Commission and Mr. Ajello discussed Zoning Regulation 17.5.A.1. Mr. Snook stated that he did not feel that all the necessary details and dimensions are included on the survey and the survey does not match the floor plan.The Commission discussed whether or not Ms. Amdurer would like to withdraw this application and apply again to including a request for increase in lot coverage, and more detailed drawings that include dimensions and window locations. Ms. Bishop-Wrabel, neighbor, was present. She asked for some clarification regarding the fenestration on the north side of the addition and was concerned about how the proposed deck was going to be secured in such a steep area and that the stairs will be constructed as indicated on the provided drawings. Ms. Bishop-Wrabel stated that she and her husband are not opposed to this application and feels that Ms. Amdurer has a very restrictive lot. Ms. Amdurer stated that she would put plantings around the proposed deck and would like to address any concerns that Ms. Bishop-Wrabel and her husband would have. Ms. Amdurer submitted a letter of withdrawal for this application and will reapply and include the information that the Commission has requested.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZBA-0901 – Request of Brad Sedito (Schwartz), 173 West Shore Road for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1(Wetlands Watercourse Setback), to install a retaining wall.
Mr. Sedito and Mr. Neff were present to represent Mr. Schwartz, property owner, for this application. Mr. Sedito, Mr. Neff and the Commissioners looked at the map titled Sediment & Erosion Control Plan, Garage Area Landscaping, by Brian Neff, Engineer, with a revision date of 8-8-11. Mr. Neff stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission approved this plan at their last meeting. Mr. Sedito stated that the retaining wall would direct the water away from the garage and terrace and would decrease the grade which would also accommodate an emergency vehicle to gain access to the back of the house. The Commission, Mr. Sedito and Mr. Neff discussed the drainage surrounding the garage. Mr. Sedito stated that the retaining wall would be a dry stacked stone wall. There was a brief discussion regarding whether stone walls are considered structures. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0901 – Request of Brad Sedito (Schwartz), 173 West Shore Road for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1(Wetlands Watercourse Setback), to install a retaining wall,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Mr. Snook, passed by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Catlin stated that he did not have any issues with this application and that he feels the retaining wall is modest and serves a purpose. Mr. Bowman stated that he did not have any objections to the proposed retaining wall and that it is just a small part of the work that is being done to the property. Ms. Leab stated that she agreed with Mr. Bowman. Mr. Snook stated that the proposed retaining wall would divert the flow of surface water and that he does not have a problem with this application. Ms. Roberts stated that she agrees with Mr. Snook and is glad that the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved this proposed retaining wall. She stated that the grade of the lot is a hardship on this property.Motion:
to approve ZBA-0901 – Request of Brad Sedito (Schwartz), 173 West Shore Road for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1(Wetlands Watercourse Setback), to install a retaining wall, passed by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of Minutes
The minutes of July 21, 2011 were considered.Motion:
to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as submitted,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Catlin, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Ms. Roberts introduced Ms. Joan Kaplan who is running on the Democratic ticket for the Zoning Board of Appeals open Alternate position.Mr. Catlin stated that he represents the ZBA in the POCD Subcommittee and Ms. Braverman and Ms. Jahnke have announce that there would be meeting in September. He stated that the ZBA is a reactionary commission but if there were any members of the Commission that would like to provide input to the revisions of the POCD that they might forward them to Ms. White or him.
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:35 pm, by Polly Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: August 8, 2011 July 21, 2011
Present: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Kathy Leab, and Peter Bowman
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson
Absent: Randolph Snook
Staff: Pam Osborne, Mike Ajello
Also Present: Mary A. CollinsChairman Polly Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Kathy Leab, Peter Bowman and Roderick Wyant III
ZBA-0897 - Request of Collins, 113 Bee Brook Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.2 (Wetlands Watercourse Setback), to install new septic system.
Mary Agnes Collins was present to represent her application. Ms. Collins is proposing replacing the existing septic system, which is 48” from the river to one that is further from the river, at 145’. She feels the hardship is that to conform to the 200’ setback from the river, because of the grade of the land, she would need to install a pump-up system, which is problematic. Mike Ajello, Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that this activity is beyond the Inland/Wetland regulated area and he has given his verbal approval to the proposal. Measurements on the mapping were verified.Motion:
to close ZBA-0897 - Request of Collins, 113 Bee Brook Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.2 (Wetlands Watercourse Setback), to install new septic system,
by Polly Roberts, seconded by Roderick Wyant III, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Todd Catlin visited the site, the proposed new septic system is an improvement to the existing system, there is a larger buffer to the Shepaug River, and the hardship is in the slope of the land. Kathy Leab agrees with Mr. Catlin and has nothing to add. Peter Bowman agrees as well stating that pump-up systems fail under varying circumstances and a variance would still be needed for such a system. Roderick Wyant III felt this was a well thought out plan and Polly Roberts is in agreement as well.Motion:
to approve Request of Collins, 113 Bee Brook Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.2 (Wetlands Watercourse Setback), to install new septic system, passed by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of Minutes
The minutes of June 16, 2011 were considered.Motion: to approve the minutes of the June 16, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as submitted, by Kathy Leab, seconded by Roderick Wyant III, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Ms. Roberts received a legal bill from Murtha Cullina regarding the Jacobson appeal.Members and Mike Ajello discussed the ZBA application checklist, it was decided to leave it as is.
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:13pmpm,
by Polly Roberts, seconded by Todd CatlinMs. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Pamela L. Osborne, Acting Land Use Clerk
Posted: August 8, 2011 June 16, 2011
Present: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Randolph Snook, Kathy Leab
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson
Absent: Peter Bowman
Staff: Shelley White, Mike Ajello
Also Present: Mr. van Wyck, Mr. Neff, EngineerChairman Polly Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING, Continued
Seated: Todd Catlin, Randy Snook, Kathy Leab, Rod Wyant, Alt., Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0893 - Request of van Asch van Wyck, 7 Kirby Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non conformity), to raise roof 8.5’ at the rear of the house.
Mr. van Wyck was present and submitted Proposed Exterior Elevations - East & West, sheet A-1, North, sheet A-2 and South, Sheet A-3 Elevations, for van Asch van Wyck Residence Renovation, by Ferret & Hound Architectural Design and Consulting, dated April 23, 2009, with hand drawn revisions, not dated. The proposed elevations indicate a 4-½ foot increase in height to the existing rear roof, which is a decrease of 4 ft. from Mr. van Wyck’s first proposal. He stated that this proposed increase would provide enough height to meet building code, smaller windows than indicated on the previous plan would be installed and that he would submit a schedule for the windows. Mr. Snook stated that he is concerned because this is an extensive renovation and the applicant did not submit final drawings that indicate what the ZBA would approve. Mr. Catlin stated that a Special Exception does involve consideration of architecture and that the file must show an exact record of what was approved. The Commission suggested that they could consider approving this application with the changes that have been indicated in ink on sheets A-1, A-2, & A-3, and the explanation that the windows would be a smaller version of the same 6 on 6 windows indicated in the proposed plan with the caveat that final drawings of the exact renovation be submitted for the record. Mr. van Wyck confirmed and signed the 24’ 0’ ½” measurement indicated for the maximum roof height by hand on the Proposed Elevation East & West Drawing, sheet A-1 and that the windows for the adjusted proposed plan will be the same type windows as the drawings only smaller. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0893 - Request of van Asch van Wyck, 7 Kirby Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non conformity), to raise roof 4.5’ at the rear of the house,
by Mr. Snook seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that this is an extensive renovation and he would feel more comfortable with final drawings that indicate the window details and the 4’ 0” ½’ increase in roof height. He stated that he sees the need to raise the roof. Mr. Peterson stated that he agrees with Mr. Snook and that he feels that the revised proposed plan addresses the Commissions concerns and that final drawings for the record are necessary. Mr. Wyant stated that he supports this application and is satisfied with the height of the roof in the revised proposed elevations. Ms. Leab stated that she agrees that the final plans need to be submitted and that she is pleased that Mr. van Wyck addressed the Commission’s concerns of scope discussed at last months meeting. Mr. Catlin agreed with Ms. Leab and stated that the proposed plan supports the continued use of a family dwelling, it is reasonable in scope and that special consideration has been given to the size, location and architectural style and appearance.Motion:
to approve ZBA-0893 - Request of van Asch van Wyck, 7 Kirby Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non conformity), to raise roof 4.5’ at the rear of the house, contingent upon submission of final architectural drawings to the Land Use Office, passed by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Todd Catlin, Randy Snook, Kathy Leab, Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0896 - Request of Fernandez, 129 Sabbaday Lane, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), to construct addition: and enclosed connector between main residence and detached garage, and extend existing guest suite on west end of structure for laundry room.
Mr. Neff was present to represent the property owner, Ms. Fernandez. He gave a brief history of the property and read the Explanation of Request for Special Exception dated May 20, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office). The Commission and Mr. Neff looked at the drawing titled Fernandez Residence, First Floor Plan, Sheet A1-11, revision date of 2/7/11 and Exterior Elevations, Sheet A2-00, revision date 1/31/11 by McIver Morgan. Mr. Neff stated that the proposed addition would be a connector between the existing house and the detached garage. He stated that the existing garage framework (with some reinforcement) and foundation would remain. Mr. Neff stated that there is 2,839 sq. ft. of floor space in the existing house and garage main floor, and that the proposed addition would be 821 sq. ft., which would be a 29% increase. The proposed plan includes a laundry area, bathroom, sunroom and entryway. Mr. Neff stated that the existing barn will remain unchanged. Mr. Snook stated that the proposed plan would be an improvement to the existing structure. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0896 - Request of Fernandez, 129 Sabbaday Lane, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), to construct addition: and enclosed connector between main residence and detached garage, and extend existing guest suite on west end of structure for laundry room,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Snook, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Ms. Leab stated that she feels that the proposed changes are reasonable in scope and that it promotes continued use for a modern family. Mr. Catlin agreed with Ms. Leab and stated that the proposed addition is reasonable in scope, location and appearance and that he is in favor of this application. Mr. Snook stated that he is happy with the proposed plan and that it was “well thought out” and it extends the use of an existing older structure. Mr. Peterson stated that he feels the proposed plan is reasonable and pragmatic. Ms. Roberts stated that she agreed with the other commissioners.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0896 - Request of Fernandez, 129 Sabbaday Lane, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), to construct addition: and enclosed connector between main residence and detached garage, and extend existing guest suite on west end of structure for laundry room, passed by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of Minutes
The minutes of May 12, 2011 were considered. The Commissioners briefly discussed drawing, maps and survey requirements of an applicant.Motion:
to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as submitted,
by Ms. Leab, seconded by Mr. Snook, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Ms. Roberts reviewed a legal bill from Murtha Cullina regarding the Jacobsen appeal. Mr. Catlin read a letter that he wrote to Mr. Reese Owens of Halper-Owens Architects, LLC dated May 24, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office) regarding the First Congregational Church application for a variance.Motion:
to adjourn at 8:30 pm,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Ms Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: August 5, 2011 May 12, 2011
Present: Randolph Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson
Absent: Polly Roberts
Staff: Shelley White, Mike Ajello
Also Present: Mr. & Mrs. Tomczyk, Mr. Hileman, Mr. Sabin, Landscape Architect, Ms. Gordon, Mr. van Wyck, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Frank, Mr. Horrigan, Mr. Sullivan, Architect, Mr. Werkhoven, Ms. GorraVice Chairman Todd Catlin called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING, Continued
Seated: Todd Catlin, Randy Snook, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab, Rod Wyant, Alt.ZBA-0891 - Request of Tomczyk, 39 River Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5(Increasing Non conformity), installation of air conditioning unit, construction of a mud room and deck to rear of the house.
Mr. and Mrs. Tomczyk were present to present this application. Ms. Tomczyk explained that Mr. Ajello, ZEO, informed them that they needed a Special Exception for the installation of the air conditioner unit and they had not realized this. She stated that this was their weekend home and now it is their full time residence and they are seeking approval for the air conditioning unit as well as a proposed mudroom and a deck. Mr. Tomczyk stated that they had received approval for a Special Exception for an addition in 2006 and the addition was constructed smaller than what was approved and the air conditioning unit is within the previously approved footprint. The Commission and Mr. and Mrs. Tomczyk looked at the Property/Boundary Survey, prepared for Frank and Debbee Tomczyk, by T. Michael Alex, Land Surveyor, dated August 2006 and hand drawn elevations, photos and the 1st floor plan. There was a brief discussion regarding the ramp to the deck. Mr. Tomczyk stated that they are under 8% lot coverage. Mr. Hileman, adjoining neighbor, stated that he does not have a problem with the air conditioning unit or the proposed plan for additional work. Ms. White confirmed that three return receipt postcards out of four notices sent were returned to the Land Use Office. There were no more questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0891 - Request of Tomczyk, 39 River Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5(Increasing Non conformity), installation of air conditioning unit, construction of a mud room and deck to rear of the house,
by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Ms. Leab, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that the request is minor and reasonable and he is in favor of the application. Mr. Bowman stated that he agreed with Mr. Snook and that the proposed plan is appropriate. Mr. Wyant stated that he supported this application. Ms. Leab stated that the deck and mudroom is good for the winters and it supports continued use of a single-family dwelling. Mr. Catlin stated that the proposed plan meets the Special Exception criteria and he supports this application.Motion:
to approve ZBA-0891 - Request of Tomczyk, 39 River Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5(Increasing Non conformity), installation of air conditioning unit, construction of a mud room and deck to rear of the house, passed by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Todd Catlin, Randy Snook, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab, Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0892 - Request of Gordon, 180 West Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1(Front, Side & Rear Setback) & 12.1.1 (Wetlands & Watercourse Setback), to construct a canopy over entry door to boathouse and a 4’x 6’ storage shed.
Ms. Gordon and Mr. Sabin, Landscape Architect, were present to present this application. Mr. Sabin and the Commission looked at the Property Survey prepared for Kimberly Gordon by Charles Farnsworth L.L.S., dated October 28, 2010. Mr. Sabin described the existing structure and displayed a photo of the rotted doorframe and stated that the Gordons are seeking a variance to construct a canopy over the entry door to the boathouse that would project 2 feet from the wall of the structure and provide shelter as well as address the water drainage issue at the front door. The Commission looked at the floor plan, north, south, east & west elevations included in the drawing titled Proposed Renovations @ 180 West Shore Road for Kim Gordon, by D. Sabin dated 3-2-11. Mr. Sabin submitted an architectural drawing of the proposed shed that includes front, side views and dimensions, dated 5-12-11. He stated that the boathouse does not have room for storage and the proposed 4’ x 6’ shed would provide storage for boating equipment. Ms. Gordon stated that the shed would mainly be used for storing gas tanks and it would be locked. Mr. Sabin stated that the boathouse is pre-existing non conforming and is 408 sq. ft. which does not allow room for storage. There was a discussion regarding the meaning of ‘boathouse’. Mr. Snook asked where the main house was located. Mr. Sabin stated that there is not a main house and that this boathouse is on its own parcel and is being used as it always has been used; as sitting space to enjoy the lake with a dock for a boat. Mr. Sabin stated that the basic structure of the building would not change and that the proposed changes would slightly decrease lot coverage and that the lot coverage calculations were submitted to Zoning. Mr. Ajello stated that he researched this property and found that it has been used as a ‘cabana’ since the 1970’s and there are many structures on the lake that are considered a boathouse but are not used to store boating equipment. He stated that these could not be created today with our current zoning regulations but the Gordons have improved the structure and made the site safer by reducing the foot pattern on the road.Mr. Catlin read an email sent to Ms. Roberts from Mr. Paul Frank on May 11, 2011. Mr. Frank’s email stated that the owners of 180 West Shore Road have made great improvements to the property but he is concerned about an additional structure to a lot that already exceeds lot coverage and is part of the sensitive Lake Waramaug area. Mr. Ajello stated that the concrete steps and walkway have been removed and have been replaced with pervious surfaces and crushed stone which will improve drainage. Mr. Sabin stated that they have worked hard to increase infiltration on this property because they realize that lot coverage is an issue for properties surrounding the Lake. There was a brief discussion regarding the definition of ‘stepping stone.’ Mr. Sabin stated that the existing lot coverage was around 27% and with the proposed plan it would be 26%. Mr. Catlin stated that he is struggling with the shed in relation to the lot coverage. Mr. Sabin stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission approved this plan in the fall of 2010.
Mr. Catlin stated that the Land Use Office received an undated, anonymous letter opposing this proposed plan (on file in the Land Use Office) and read it into the record. Mr. Wyant stated that he feels this letter should be disregarded since it was not signed. Mr. Ajello stated that the use of the boathouse is what the use has been in the past and that the term ‘boathouse’ is used to describe many structures on Lake Waramaug that do store boat equipment and others that are places to enjoy the Lake by a dock or beachfront. Ms. Gordon stated that they use this boathouse while they spend the day on the lake. Some people stay in the boathouse when others are on the Lake and sometimes they have a barbeque before they leave. She stated that they would be replacing the composting toilet with an eco john that uses a propane tank (that will be removed in the winter) and there would not be a sleeping loft but temporary scaffolding was set up in the boathouse to do ceiling and window renovations. Ms Gordon stated that they plan to install a prefabricated wood-burning fireplace.
The Commission discussed concerns about the shed. Mr. Catlin stated that he is not in favor of what he feels is a ‘coverage swap,’ by taking out concrete and then adding the shed in an area where there were no structures. He stated that he did not feel that the need for the shed is a land based hardship. Ms. Gordon submitted a signed, hand written note withdrawing the request for a variance for a shed, dated May 12, 2011. There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close ZBA-0892 - Request of Gordon, 180 West Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s)11.6.1(Front, Side & Rear Setback) & 12.1.1 (Wetlands & Watercourse Setback), to construct a canopy over entry door to boathouse and a 4’x 6’ storage shed,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Ms. Leab, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that he is in favor of the small canopy over the front door and feels that the lack of it is a problem and he feels that it would be appropriate for the ZBA to approve this application. He stated that the boathouse would continue to be used as it has in the past. Mr. Peterson agreed with Mr. Snook and stated that he was satisfied that the shed was withdrawn. Ms. Leab stated that she was not in favor of the shed and that over time, people have been allowed to do things to their boathouse but things are more defined in the zoning regulations now. Mr. Bowman stated that he was concerned that the ZBA could be establishing, by precedent, a new use for structures along the lake and boathouses seem to be a vague area in the zoning regulations. He stated that he feels comfortable that the use is being continued as it has been used in the past and that the canopy is a minor addition but he did have concerns about the amount of hard surfaces that were introduced coupled with the fact that the applicant did not include lot coverage calculations with the application. Mr. Catlin stated that he would feel more comfortable if the applicant had submitted the lot coverage calculations and that he was pleased that the Inland Wetland Commission has approved the plan, that it is a modest and attractive improvement and that he was in favor of this application with the shed withdrawn.Motion:
to approve ZBA-0892 - Request of Gordon, 180 West Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s)11.6.1(Front, Side & Rear Setback) & 12.1.1 (Wetlands & Watercourse Setback), to construct a canopy over entry door to boathouse only. The 4’x 6’ storage shed was withdrawn, passed by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Todd Catlin, Randy Snook, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab, Rod Wyant, Alt.
ZBA-0893 - Request of van Asch van Wyck, 7 Kirby Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non conformity), to raise roof 8.5’ at the rear of the house.
Mr. van Wyck was present to discuss this application. Mr. van Wyck stated that his house is comprised of two barns and the rear barn ceiling has exposed beams that people hit their head on because it was never brought to code and he is proposing to raise the roof 8 ½ feet which would bring the rear barn roofline 3 ft. above the front barn roofline. The Commission and Mr. van Wyck discussed the height of the ceiling with the proposed roof. Mr. van Wyck stated that there are different floor heights in this part of the house and they would like to make it all one height and would be losing inches when this is done. The Commission looked at the drawings titled Existing Ground (1st Fl.) And First (2nd Fl.) Floor Plans, Sheet E-3 with revision date of 4-26-11, Proposed Exterior Elevation- North, Sheet A-2 and Proposed Exterior Elevation – East & West, dated 4-23-09, by F&H Architectural Design and Consulting as well as photos of the existing structure. Mr. Bowman and Mr. Catlin expressed concern with the scope and scale of the proposed increase. Mr. Snook stated that he did not see anything wrong with the proposed plan and does not find any serious objections with the plan. The Commission and Mr. van Wyck had a lengthy discussion about different ridgeline heights. Mr. van Wyck asked what height the Commission would approve. Mr. Catlin stated that the Commission could not request an exact height. Mr. van Wyck stated that he would consult with his architect and see what height the roof could be raised to meet building code as well as allow usable interior space and then he would come to the June 16, 2011 ZBA meeting. He requested that the Public Hearing be continued. There were no more questions or comments.Motion:
to continue ZBA-0893 - Request of van Asch van Wyck, 7 Kirby Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non conformity), to raise roof 8.5’ at the rear of the house,
by Mr. Wyant seconded by Mr. Snook, by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Todd Catlin, Randy Snook, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab, Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0894 - Request of Lanyi, 105 West Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 6.6 (Lake Waramaug Lake District - Docks), 17.4 (Non Conforming Structure), to rebuild existing boathouse with higher roof.
Atty. Kelly and Mr. Horrigan were present, representing the owner of the property and the applicant and Atty. Kelly submitted a copy of the deed to the property and a copy of the Inland Wetlands Commission approval. The Commission, Atty. Kelly and Mr. Horrigan looked at the Property Boundary Survey map of Cheeree Hill, prepared for 105 West Shore Road LLC, by T. Michael Alex, dated April 2011. Atty. Kelly stated that, in essence, the structure in question is a covered concrete dock and the gazebo is in disrepair and needs to be rebuilt and the owner would like to raise the roof by two feet because the existing roof is too low and raising the roof would make the structure more conforming. He stated that the structure would be built using the same footprint and the decking needs to be replaced to meet building code which would raised the height of the floor about 6 inches. Mr. Catlin asked if any work needs to be done to the concrete. Mr. Horrigan stated that Mr. Neff looked at the dock and it is structurally sound and when the water is lower they will fill in any cracks. Atty. Kelly submitted photos of the existing structure. The Commission looked at looked at the drawing titled Plan Section Elevations, sheet D101A, dated 4-27-11, by Halper Owens Architects LLC. Two dormers were indicated on the drawing but the proposed plan is to have 3 dormers. Atty. Kelly indicated the third dormer on the East Elevation drawing; sheet D101A and initialed the change. He stated that there is a safety issue regarding the existing height and the structure needs to be rebuilt to become more conforming and to continue the existing use. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0894 - Request of Lanyi, 105 West Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 6.6 (Lake Waramaug Lake District - Docks), 17.4 (Non Conforming Structure), to rebuild existing boathouse with higher roof, by Mr. Snook, seconded by Ms. Leab, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that the existing structure is in disrepair and the proposed plan would be suitable for further use and he does not have any concerns about this application. Mr. Catlin stated that he agrees with Mr. Snook and that the increase in height is modest and he has no issues with this application. Mr. Bowman agrees with Mr. Snook and Mr. Catlin and stated that the proposed plan is an attractive covered dock. Mr. Peterson stated that this proposed plan would improve this focal point on the Lake back to a usable state and he is in favor of this application. Ms. Leab stated that the increase is modest and she feels it would not attract undo attention.Motion:
to approve ZBA-0894 - Request of Lanyi, 105 West Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 6.6 (Lake Waramaug Lake District - Docks), 17.4 (Non Conforming Structure), to rebuild existing boathouse with higher roof, passed by 5-0 vote.
9:12-9:15 Commission break.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Todd Catlin, Randy Snook, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab, Rod Wyant, Alt.
ZBA-0895 - Request of First Congregational Church of Washington, for Variance, Zoning Regulation (s) 11.5.1.b (Lot Coverage), 11.6.1.c (Side Setback), 17.4.a (Non Conforming Structure), to install access lift on the eastern side of church.
Mr. Werkhoven and Ms. Gorra were present as representatives of the First Congregational Church and Atty. Kelly and Mr. Sullivan of Halper Owens Architects were also present for this application. Mr. Werkhoven brought a modified plan of the previously approved plan for ZBA-0887 for the Commission to consider. He stated that the Historic District Commission approved this proposed modified plan and it is design to house the lift that the Church plans to purchase. The Commission looked at the drawing titled Elevations, for First Congregational Church, sheet D202, revision date 4-18-11 by Halper Owens Architects LLC. Mr. Werkhoven stated that the modification is smaller and more conforming. The drawing depicts what was previously approved in March and what is being proposed with the modifications. Atty. Kelly stated that the minutes from the March 17th ZBA Meeting seems to suggest that the frontage was on Route 47 when the Church uses Kirby Road as the frontage. He stated that he recommended that the Church reapply to the ZBA so that the Town has a record of what is being done to the building. Mr. Snook stated that the dimensions of the addition are not indicated on drawing D101 titled Partial Plan, revision date 4-18-11, by Halper Owens Architects LLC. Dimensions were indicated by hand and Mr. Werkhoven initialed the changes on the plan. Ms. White confirmed that 10 out of 13 return receipt postcards were returned to the Land Use Office. Mr. Bowman stated that he was fine with the reduction in the plan and stated that handrails would be necessary. There was a brief discussion regarding the architecture. Atty. Kelly stated that if the Commission compares this modified plan to the plan that was approved in March and that the modified plan is more conforming, then no further variance is required and he requested that the fee be waived. Mr. Catlin stated that it is his thought that if this modified plan is to be approved then the ZBA would rescind the previously approved variance. Mr. Werkhoven agreed to withdraw ZBA-0887 request for Variance if this plan is approved. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0895 - Request of First Congregational Church of Washington, for Variance, Zoning Regulation (s) 11.5.1.b (Lot Coverage), 11.6.1.c (Side Setback), 17.4.a (Non Conforming Structure), to install access lift on the eastern side of church,
by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Ms. Leab, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that he does not see any reason to reject this application, that there is clearly a need to provide handicap access to the Church and he feels the fees should be waived. Mr. Bowman stated that he agrees with Mr. Snook and that waiving the fees would be justifiable in this case. Mr. Wyant and Ms. Leab stated that they agree with Mr. Snook and Mr. Bowman. Mr. Catlin stated that he thinks the modification is modest and is approved by the HDC and he agrees with waiving the fees.Motion:
to approve ZBA-0895 - Request of First Congregational Church of Washington, for Variance, Zoning Regulation (s) 11.5.1.b (Lot Coverage), 11.6.1.c (Side Setback), 17.4.a (Non Conforming Structure), with the understanding that ZBA-0887 is revoked, to install access lift on the eastern side of church, passed by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of Minutes
The minutes of April 21, 2011 were considered.Motion:
to approve the minutes of the April 21, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as submitted,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Ms. Leab, by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to adjourn at 9:45 pm,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Mr. Wyant.Mr. Catlin adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 3, 2011 April 21, 2011
Present: Polly Roberts, Randolph Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson
Staff: Shelley White, Mike Ajello
Guests: Lawrence Washington, Joe Abdella, Dirk Sabin , Landscape Architect, John MoisanChairman Polly Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING, Continued
Seated: Polly Roberts, Peter Bowman, Todd Catlin, Rod Wyant, Alt., Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0885 – Request of King, 153 Lower Church Hill Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.14(Noise Generating Equipment), to install generator in barn.
Ms. Roberts stated that Mr. Snook, Mr. Catlin, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Wyant visited the site on Wednesday, March 30 at 6pm at 153 Lower Church Hill Road to hear the generator running with the windows and doors to the barn open. It was noted that Mr. L. Washington, Mr. C. Washington, and Ms. Itkin were also present and there was no discussion of the application at the site. Ms. Roberts stated that the generator has been housed in it’s own room within the barn and that Ms. Itkin, neighboring property owner, told her it sounded much quieter. Mr. Snook stated that he measured the decibel level at different areas along the property line as well as within the neighboring property. He stated that he feels that the applicant has met all the requirements, has addressed the concerns of their neighbor and has done everything to mitigate the noise level so he would not have any problems approving this application based on what he heard and saw at the site. Mr. Catlin stated that he walked around the neighbor’s property and feels that as long as the generator stays within its sound enclosure that he does not see anything wrong with the location of the generator. He asked if it would be necessary to make the approval contingent on the sound enclosure. Mr. Ajello stated that the Zoning Permit will specify the sound enclosure for the generator and will be on file. Mr. Wyant stated that the weekly testing of the generator should occur during daytime hours. Mr. Peterson stated that he walked around the neighboring property and he feels that the applicant has made and effort to improve the sound impact on the neighboring property. Mr. Washington submitted a letter from Sound Engineering Services, dated March 31, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office), which states that the overall sound level at one foot beyond the property line closest to the generator enclosure was measured at 48.70 dBA. Mr. Washington stated that he would check that the generator testing is done during daylight hours.Motion:
to close ZBA-0885 – Request of King, 153 Lower Church Hill Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.14(Noise Generating Equipment), to install generator in barn,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Catlin, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
There were no further questions or comments from the Commissioners.Motion:
to approve 0885 – Request of King, 153 Lower Church Hill Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.14(Noise Generating Equipment), to install generator in barn,
by Ms. Roberts, passed by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Kathy Leab, Peter Bowman, Todd Catlin, Randy Snook
ZBA-0888- Request of J. Abdella, 2 Anna Jay Lane, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), to raise the roof go garage to create laundry and closet area, enclose 2/3 of rear deck to create family room, expand front porch roof & deck to 32’.
Mr. Abdella, property owner, was present to present this application. Mr. Abdella and the Commissioners looked at the Zoning Location Survey prepared for Joseph J. III & Shelly L. Abdella, #2 Anna Jay Lane, by Linwood R. Gee & Son, dated June 16, 2010. Mr. Abdella stated that his property is non conforming because it has 90 feet of frontage and is therefore an interior lot. There was a brief discussion regarding lot coverage and it was the consensus of the Commission that lot coverage was not an issue. The Commission looked at the elevation drawings titled Existing/Proposed 1st Floor Plan, Existing/Proposed 2nd Floor Plan, Existing/Proposed Front Elevations, Existing/Proposed North and South Elevations and Existing/Proposed Rear Elevations, sheets A1-A4, for the Abdella Residence, by Wesley H. Quigley III Architecture and Design, dated March 17, 2011. The Commission looked at the Existing/Proposed 2nd Floor Plan and briefly discussed the size of the proposed laundry, closet area. Mr. Abdella stated that the house was completely remodeled in 2005 and that all required permits were issued. The Commission looked at the Existing/Proposed 1st Floor Plan. Mr. Abdella stated that 2/3 of the existing deck would be enclosed and insulated and used as a family room and a staircase would be added to the remaining deck. He stated that the area under the proposed family room (previous deck) has a gravel floor and would be used to store outdoor equipment. Mr. Bowman asked if the house has a walk up attic and if it was being used. Mr. Abdella confirmed that there is a walk up attic and it is empty. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed solar panels. Ms. Roberts noted that the Location Survey does not indicate a measurement for the proposed deck stairs to the side property line. A measurement of 34’ was drawn in by hand on the Land Survey and initialed by Mr. Abdella. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0888- Request of J. Abdella, 2 Anna Jay Lane, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), to raise the roof go garage to create laundry and closet area, enclose 2/3 of rear deck to create family room, expand front porch roof & deck to 32’,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Mr. Snook, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook commented on the excellent quality of the drawings and information that Mr. Abdella provided with his application and stated that it was very helpful. Mr. Catlin read the requirements of a Special Exception in the Section 17.5.C. 1 and 2 of the Zoning Regulations and stated that he feels that this application meets the requirements and he is in favor of this application. Mr. Bowman stated that he was not sure about the large size of the proposed laundry/closet area and he feels that the extended front porch would crowd Anna Jay Lane. He stated that he was fine with the proposed family room and the laundry/closet area even though it seems a bit large. Ms. Leab stated that she agrees that the laundry/closet area is large and she is fine with the proposed expansion of the front porch and the family room. Mr. Snook stated that he feels that these changes are necessary for a growing family in a small house and that the full-length front porch would not encroach on the road, as it is flush to the front of the house. Ms. Roberts agreed with Mr. Catlin that these proposed changes meet the requirements of a Special Exception. She stated that the size of the laundry/closet area stays within the existing footprint of the garage and the front porch would not encroach further in to the front of the property than the existing stoop. There were no further comments.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0888- Request of J. Abdella, 2 Anna Jay Lane, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (Increasing Non Conformity), to raise the roof go garage to create laundry and closet area, enclose 2/3 of rear deck to create family room, expand front porch roof & deck to 32’, passed by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab
ZBA-0889-Request of J. Rosen, 304 Nettleton Hollow Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1 (Wetland and Watercourse Setback) to complete construction of gatehouse and driveway.
Mr. Sabin, Landscape Architect was present to represent the Rosens for this application. Mr. Sabin and the Commission looked at the Property/Boundary Survey prepared for James Rosen Et Al, by Michael Alex, dated April 2005, with hand drawn Site Plan, showing gatehouse and Adjacent Abutments at the Sprain Brook Crossing, L-1, dated 3-22-11, by D. Sabin. Mr. Sabin stated that the proposed plan received Inland Wetlands Approval and his clients are asking the Z.B.A. for relief of the 50’ setback from the Spain Brook. He stated that the property owner would like the 8’ x 8’ gatehouse for an occasionally employed security person and that the majority of the time the gate will have a security camera and operated automatically. Mr. Sabin stated that the existing concrete bridge was installed approximately around the year 2000. He explained the topography of the site and stated that the proposed location of the gatehouse would be the least obtrusive and the most sensible because of the topography and that the land-based hardship was topographical. The Commission and Mr. Sabin looked at the drawings titled Gatehouse @ Stonebrook Estate prepared for Jim Rosen c/o Stonebrook Estate LLC, L-2, dated 3-22-11, by D. Sabin. Sheet L-2 includes North, South and East Elevations and a Plan View of the proposed gatehouse and existing bridge. Mr. Sabin stated that the property owner stopped building the gatehouse when he was notified that it was not in compliance and that approximately 7 feet of the height of the square 8’2” structure has been constructed and the proposed plan would add another 3-4 feet in height to complete the construction of the gatehouse. He stated that the gatehouse is resting on the concrete abutments of the wing walls of the bridge. Mr. Sabin stated that Brian Neff, Engineer was hired for the Inland Wetlands Commission Application for this property to work on a storm water capacity computation of the bridge and he determined that there would be no significant impact. Mr. Catlin asked Mr. Sabin to explain the land-based hardship for this application. Mr. Sabin stated that the hardship was topographic and wetlands related. There was a brief discussion regarding the placement of the gate and security. Mr. Sabin stated that the property is very steep and that the most level areas are at the Sprain Brook and the entrance from the driveway to Nettleton Hollow Road. The Commission discussed the appropriateness of the location. Mr. Catlin asked if any of the neighbors responded to the notice. Ms. White stated that two out of five return receipt cards were returned. Mr. Sabin stated that he had heard from one of the neighbors that did not respond and that this neighbor expressed that he does not have any issues with the gatehouse. Mr. John Moisan was present representing Rock Creek Corp., an abutting neighbor. Mr. Moisan looked at the Site Plan. Mr. Moisan stated that the gatehouse is mostly built and is not visible from the road. The Commission agreed that they had no problem with the gates but did not favor the gatehouse. Mr. Sabin stated that the gatehouse would house the electric for the gate, security camera and screen. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0889-Request of J. Rosen, 304 Nettleton Hollow Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1 (Wetland and Watercourse Setback) to complete construction of gatehouse and driveway,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Mr. Catlin, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Ms. Leab stated that she did not feel that there was a land-based hardship for this application. Mr. Bowman stated that he was okay with the gate but not the gatehouse. Mr. Catlin stated that he does not find a hardship for the gatehouse and questioned why it could not be place elsewhere in a conforming location on the property. Mr. Snook stated that he did not have a problem with the gatehouse but he does not find a hardship. Ms. Roberts stated that she agreed with the other Commissioners regarding the gatehouse and has no problem with the location of the bridge and gate.
Motion:
to deny ZBA-0889-Request of J. Rosen, 304 Nettleton Hollow Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1 (Wetland and Watercourse Setback) to complete construction of gatehouse and driveway, by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZBA-0890 - Request of Johnson/Solomon, 29 Painter Ridge Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.14(Noise Generating Equipment), to relocate pool equipment 75’ from pool.
The applicant withdrew this application. Ms. White read a letter of withdrawal from Stephen Lasar Architects to the T.O.W. Zoning Board of Appeals, dated April 15, 2011 Re: 29 Painter Ridge Road.
Consideration of Minutes
The minutes of March 17, 2011 were considered.Motion:
to approve the minutes of the March 17, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as submitted,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Ms. Roberts, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business/Discretion of the Chair
Ms. Roberts stated that she believes the First Congregational Church would be coming back to Z.B.A. with a different plan.Mr. Catlin stated that the White/Jacobson matter was back in court.
Motion: to adjourn at 9:47 pm, by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Catlin.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 25, 2011 March 17, 2011
Present: Polly Roberts, Randolph Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson
Absent Katharine Leab
Staff: Shelley White, Mike Ajello
Guests: Lawrence Washington, Brian Neff, Engineer, Roberta Smith, Clifford Woodruff, Dave & Sue Werkhoven, Fran Itkin, Daniel SullivanChairman Polly Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Peter Bowman, Todd Catlin, Rod Wyant, Alt., Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0883 – Request of R. Smith, 31 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1.c (Front Setback), 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), and 11.5.1(Lot Coverage) to construct a 20’ x 22’ single story one car garage.
Mr. Neff, Engineer and Ms. Smith were present. Mr. Neff stated that changes have been made to the plan since the last meeting by changing the footprint of the proposed garage to 18’ x 22’ and moving it 55 feet from the E. Aspetuck River. He stated that the proposed driveway and door would be narrower which would reduce the proposed lot coverage from 18% to 17%. The Commission looked at the Proposed Garage Site Plan, prepared for Roberta Smith, by Brian Neff, with a revision date of 2-18-11. The Commission and Mr. Neff looked at the drawings titled Proposed Garage Section and Proposed Garage Elevations, prepared for Roberta Smith by Brian Neff, with a revision date of 2-18-11. Ms. Roberts asked if there were any concerns that the proposed garage would be too close to the road and if the State had to be involved. Ms. Smith stated that the stone retaining wall along East Shore Road is crumbling and would be replaced with a new concrete wall. Mr. Neff stated that the State would not have to be involved and that the wall is entirely on Ms. Smith’s property. Mr. Catlin asked how the location of the proposed garage differs from the previously application that had been denied. Mr. Neff stated that the proposed garage would be located a little further south and away from the existing driveway and the proposed increase in lot coverage has decreased. Mr. Woodruff stated that he had concerns regarding the retaining wall. Mr. Bowman stated that driveway and wall are far enough away from the road and a concrete wall would be much stronger than a crumbling stonewall.Mr. Woodruff stated that he was concerned that the property owner would have the capability of adding an apartment or workspace to the second floor. Mr. Neff stated that Ms. Smith does not have plans for a second or ½ story, there would not be enough headroom in the second level and that it would not be able to accommodate an apartment or a workspace. Mr. Woodruff submitted a drawing of the house on the property, which was rebuilt with dormers on the second floor. He stated that the property owner did not get a permit to install dormers on the second level. He stated that he was suspicious because the proposed garage would have 2’ x 10’ floor joists. Ms. Roberts stated that the proposed garage does not have the height to have a legal second floor. The Commissioners agreed that the second floor does not have the height to accommodate an apartment or workspace.
Mr. Woodruff asked Mr. Neff if the garage door faced the Mill property. Mr. Neff confirmed that it did. Mr. Woodruff stated that it would be a difficult driveway to maneuver. Mr. Neff agreed but said it could be done in a couple of different ways. Mr. Woodruff asked for confirmation that this garage wasn’t being built for the Mill. Mr. Neff confirmed that it was not.
Mr. Woodruff asked where the reserve septic would be on this property. Mr. Neff stated that the septic is not part of this application. Mr. Woodruff asked Mr. Neff if the garage was the only site a reserve septic could be located. Mr. Neff stated that he did not think this was the only site for a reserve septic. Mr. Catlin stated that this was a Health Department issue.
Mr. Woodruff stated that he had safety concerns. He stated that if Ms. Smith wanted a garage she could build a drive under garage for the Mill. Mr. Catlin stated that this did not have anything to do with this application. Mr. Woodruff stated that he did not feel there was a hardship because Ms. Smith does not live at this property. Mr. Catlin stated that the two properties are separate and are treated as such by the ZBA. Mr. Catlin stated that the hardship is land-based.
Mr. Woodruff asked the Commission to consider the safety issues. Mr. Snook stated that the line of site looks to be at least 125 ft. and as much as 175 ft. Ms. Roberts stated that she did not feel that visibility would be an issue. There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close ZBA-0883 – Request of R. Smith, 31 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1.c (Front Setback), 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), and 11.5.1(Lot Coverage) to construct a 18’ x 22’ single story one car garage,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Ms. Roberts, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Catlin stated that he was pleased that the footprint had been reduced. He stated that he did not feel there was a second story issue and that the proposed garage is modest. He stated that the property is a difficult site. Mr. Catlin stated that he was a little bothered that the ZBA voted against this in the past but that it would not weigh too much on his decision. He stated that he went to the site and feels that the garage is as out of the way as it could be and the profile has been reduced. Mr. Catlin stated that living with a shared driveway requires courtesy from each neighbor to drive carefully and that he is in favor of this application. Mr. Bowman stated that he agreed with Mr. Catlin’s comments regarding the size and that the proposed garage is clearly a one car garage. He stated that the residual space above the garage is created from having a pitched roof and could provide storage but could not be converted in to living space. He stated that he thought that a considerable effort was put into designing the storm water drainage system, doesn’t feel that there are any safety issues and believes there would be adequate visibility from the driveway. Mr. Bowman stated that he supports this application. Mr. Wyant stated that he was happy that the proposed garage has been reduced in size and he feels that safety is not an issue and that he supports this revised application. Mr. Peterson stated that he feels that an effort has been made by the applicant to reduce the size and that he does not feel that there would be any safety hazards. He stated that he feels that there is not an issue with a second floor on the proposed garage. Ms. Roberts stated that she agreed with the other Commissioners and she is happy with the reduction in the size of the garage and the narrowing of the driveway as well as moving it further south. She stated that she visited the site and does not think that maneuvering in the driveway would be a problem and that she was comfortable with the way it is accessed. She stated that this is a difficult property because it is in between the road and the river.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0883 – Request of R. Smith, 31 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1.c (Front Setback), 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), and 11.5.1(Lot Coverage) to construct a 18’ x 22’ single story one car garage, passed by 5-0 vote.PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Peter Bowman, Todd Catlin, Rod Wyant, Alt., Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0884 – Request of R. Smith, 35 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1 (Wetlands Watercourse Setback) and 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), to allow a 8.6’ x 9.9’ x 7.8’ high prefabricated shed.
Mr. Neff, Engineer and Ms. Smith were present. Mr. Neff stated that the map titled Property/Boundary Survey for Riverdance Mill, by Michael Alex, Surveyor, was revised to show the proposed location of the shed, which would be 25’ from Mr. Woodruff’s property line and 22’ from the watercourse, which was approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission. The Commissioners looked at the property boundary survey. Ms. Smith stated that they would just move the building 25’ from where it is currently located and away from the property line. Mr. Catlin stated that the building must be identical to what is approved with this application. Mr. Neff stated that the building would be set on timbers.Mr. Woodruff stated that the shed had been placed without a permit and that the property owner stated that it was needed to store gardening equipment. He asked where the gardening equipment had been stored before the shed was on the property. He stated that the property owner was granted a permit for a shed that was attached to the Mill and the purpose for this shed was to store trash cans and a gas tank. He stated the gas tank is not in there and that it is located in between the driveway and his property line near the pond without a permit. He asked what the need would be for an additional shed. Mr. Ajello stated that the lower level, where the shed is located, is considered to be in a flood plain and the current location of the propane tank is above the dam. Mr. Ajello stated that the record does not show why this tank was located there but he assumes that it is for safety reasons. Ms. Smith stated that she uses the shed that is attached to the Mill for garbage cans and wood storage. There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close ZBA-0884 – Request of R. Smith, 35 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1 (Wetlands Watercourse Setback) and 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), to allow a 8.6’ x 9.9’ x 7.8’ high prefabricated shed,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Catlin stated that he does not have an issue with this application, and that this is an extremely difficult piece of land. He stated that the shed is modest, the set back issue has been addressed and the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the location so he is in favor of this application. Mr. Bowman stated that agreed with Mr. Catlin’s comments and that he is glad that the setback issue was resolved and he is in favor of this application. Mr. Wyant agreed with Mr. Catlin and Mr. Bowman and he stated that wherever this shed would be located on the property would create a hardship and he feels that this is an appropriate location and that he is in favor of this application. Mr. Peterson stated that he feels this is probably the flattest area on the property and it would be moved out of the 25’ setback so he feels this is the most appropriate place to locate the shed and he is in favor of this application. Ms. Roberts stated that she is glad to see the shed moved out of the setback and approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0884 - Request of R. Smith, 35 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1.1 (Wetlands Watercourse Setback) and 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), to allow a 8.6’ x 9.9’ x 7.8’ high prefabricated shed, passed by 5-0 vote.PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0885 – Request of King, 153 Lower Church Hill Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.14(Noise Generating Equipment), to install generator in barn.
Mr. Washington was present to represent the Kings for this application. Mr. Catlin asked who installed the generator. Mr. Washington stated that Larry Low installed the generator. Ms. Roberts read a letter from Engineering Sound Services to Mr. Washington, C&L Restorations, dated February 1, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office), which stated the results of noise samples that were obtained using a Larson Davis System 824 Real Time Analyzer. According to this letter the decibel level would not exceed 50 dBA anywhere along the adjoining property line while the barn doors are closed. Mr. Washington stated that the generator is 80 kW and is model 45ERES (spec. sheet on file in the Land Use Office). Ms. Roberts asked if the barn doors would need to be opened if the generator were to run for a long period of time due to a power outage. Mr. Washington stated that all the exhausting and venting would be through louvered ports, there aren’t any doors on the west side of the barn, which faces the neighbors but there are windows. He stated that the generator has been in the barn since 12/10, and the trenching had started 1 ½ years ago. Mr. Washington stated that the barn was rebuilt to the exact previous footprint. Mr. Catlin asked if the non-conforming part of this building was identical to what was there before. Mr. Washington stated that it was. Ms. Itkin, adjoining neighbor, stated that she disagreed and that an updated survey was not available in the file. Mr. Washington stated that the survey is of the original barn footprint and the current barn has the same elevations and footprint.Ms. Itkin stated that when she originally came in to the Land Use Office the sound survey and an updated survey with the new configuration of the barn where not in the file. She stated that, as she read them, there are two different models indicated on the spec sheet and the application does not specify which model is being used. She stated that the engineer report indicates that the sound testing was done with snow on the ground and snow act as and insulator. Ms. Itkin asked why the generator was placed at the front of the barn instead of at the rear of the barn where the sound could be vented into open space and that it was loud enough to wake her up when it was being tested. Mr. Snook stated that the applicant did have an engineered report done that indicates that the generator does not operate above the 50dBA level. Ms. Itkin stated that she feels the test should be done with little or no snow on the ground, windows and barn door open. Mr. Catlin stated that the spec sheet does not say anything thing about the generator being 80kW.
Mr. Catlin stated that he was upset that the generator went in without a permit. He stated that the generator is very large. The Commission agreed that Ms. Itkin has legitimate concerns and that the report did not answer all of their questions. The Commission and Mr. Washington discussed when the weekly testing was scheduled for the generator. It was the consensus of the Commission that this Public Hearing would be continued on Wednesday, March 30 at 6pm at 153 Lower Church Hill Road.
Motion:
to continue the Public Hearing for ZBA-0885 – Request of King, 153 Lower Church Hill Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.14(Noise Generating Equipment), to install generator in barn, on March 30, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at 153 Lower Church Hill Road,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Mr. Snook, by 5-0 vote.Break 9:03-9:05
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Rod Wyant, Alt.
ZBA-0886 – Request of E. Werner, 258 Litchfield Turnpike, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5(Increasing Non conformity), to construct 85 sq. ft. addition to kitchen.
Mr. Neff was present to represent the Werners for this application. Ms. White confirmed that 5 out of 8 of the green return cards are in the file. The Commission looked at the map titled Partial Site Plan, drawing number 1 for Erhard Werner, dated 2-14-2011. Mr. Neff stated that the proposed addition is an 85 sq. ft., 1 story addition to the existing kitchen. Mr. Ajello stated that the property is and interior lot, which makes it non-conforming and that lot coverage is not an issue. Mr. Catlin stated that he visited the site. The Commission looked at the drawing number 2 titled Kitchen Addition Plans and Overview, for Erhard Werner, dated 2-14-2011. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0886 – Request of E. Werner, 258 Litchfield Turnpike, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5(Increasing Non conformity), to construct 85 sq. ft. addition to kitchen,
by Mr. Catlin, seconded by Mr. Snook, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that the addition is extremely modest, it does not violate any of the zoning regulations and he does not see any problems with it. Mr. Catlin stated that the property is clearly non-conforming and this is a modest expansion. He stated that is supports continued use of a single-family dwelling and it is reasonable in scope and he does not have any issues with it. Mr. Bowman, Mr. Wyant and Ms. Roberts agreed with Mr. Catlin and Mr. Snook.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0886 – Request of E. Werner, 258 Litchfield Turnpike, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5(Increasing Non conformity), to construct 85 sq. ft. addition to kitchen, passed by 5-0 vote.PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0887 – Request of First Congregational Church of Washington, 6 Kirby Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.5(Lot Coverage), 11.6(Front Setback) and 17.4 (Non Conforming Structures), to construct a one story housing for handicap accessible lift, walkway to structure and increase of patio in front of structure.
Mr. Werkhoven was present to represent the First Congregational Church for this application. He stated that the Church would like to construct a shaft that would house a handicap accessible lift and the structure has become non-conforming regarding lot coverage and setbacks over the years. The Commission and Mr. Werkhoven looked at the drawing titled Site Plan for First Congregational Church, by Halper Owens Architects LLC, sheet D100, dated 6-4-10. Mr. Werkhoven stated that the Historic District Commission has approved this proposed plan. He stated that the Church has considered different configurations and stated that the lift that was to be purchased would be smaller than they thought and the shaft could be smaller. He presented a drawing of the alternate east elevation depicting the smaller housing. Mr. Werkhoven stated that the goal was to change the church as minimally as possible. Mr. Catlin stated that changing the size of the shaft would change the volume of the structure. Mr. Werkhoven stated that they would go back to the HDC and ask for a modification if the smaller plan was chosen. Mr. Catlin stated that the ZBA needs to approve specifics and that the Church is a beautiful building and he would be uncomfortable approving a plan that was not yet approved by the HDC. Mr. Werkhoven discussed other changes that the Church would like to make regarding grading and curbs. Mr. Bowman asked about possible alternative locations for the lift. Ms. Roberts stated that she agrees that the least amount added to the building the better. Mr. Catlin stated that he does not feel that the Commission is in the position of approving a plan that is not definite. The Commission agreed that handicap accessibility is important for the Church. The Commission and Mr. Werkhoven discussed ADA compliance. Mr. Werkhoven stated that churches are exempt from ADA. Ms. Roberts asked Mr. Werkhoven if the Church was looking at the smaller plan to minimize cost or just to minimize the size of the addition to the building. Mr. Werkhoven stated that he did not think it would cost much more to build the first plan (approved by HDC). He stated that the only reason the second plan was created was because the type of lift that the Church has decided to purchase would be smaller than originally thought but that this lift could easily be placed in the original plan that was filed with the application. The Commission, Mr. Sullivan from Halper Owens and Mr. Werkhoven discussed the size of the equipment that was to be purchased by the Church. Mr. Sullivan stated that he did not think approving the smaller housing would be an issue because it would be less non-conforming. Mr. Werkhoven and the Commission agreed to focus on the plans that were submitted with the application. The Commission looked at the drawing titled Elevations, for the First Congregational Church by Halper Owens Architects LLC, sheet D201 dated 6-4-10. Mr. Catlin stated that he did not have any issues with this and he appreciates that it has been approved by the HDC. There were no more comments or questions.Motion:
to close ZBA-0887 – Request of First Congregational Church of Washington, 6 Kirby Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.5.1.c (Lot Coverage), 11.6.1.c (Front Setback) and 17.4.a (Non Conforming Structures), to construct a one story housing for handicap accessible lift, walkway to structure and increase of patio in front of structure,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Ms. Roberts, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that the plan is aesthetically pleasing, it does not alter the existing structure and it serves a very worthwhile purpose and he would be in favor of it. Mr. Catlin and Mr. Bowman agreed with Mr. Snook. Mr. Peterson stated he likes the idea of having the shaft a little larger for practical reasons and he feels that this is the best location. Ms. Roberts stated that it is clear that this property is difficult. She appreciates that the Church has thought of and presented other options that were not approved and she feels that this solves the problem and is the best location for the lift.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0887 – Request of First Congregational Church of Washington, 6 Kirby Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.5(Lot Coverage), 11.6(Front Setback) and 17.4 (Non Conforming Structures), to construct a one story housing for handicap accessible lift, walkway to structure and increase of patio in front of structure, passed by 5-0 vote.Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of February 17, 2011 were considered.
Correction:
Page 1
Heading should read: February 17, 2011
Seated for the first PUBLIC HEARING should read: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab
Page 4 under 2nd paragraph that begins with: Mr. Cruse stated that…7th sentence should read: Ms. Roberts stated that the Town Counsel has advised that this is not in the purview of the ZBA and it would be taken care of somewhere along the permitting process.Motion:
to approve the minutes of the February 17, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as amended,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Catlin, by 5-0 vote.Other Business/Discretion of the Chair
Mr. Catlin stated that the POCD Subcommittee would be meeting on Thursday, March 24th and asked if there was any subject that the ZBA would like brought to attention of the POCD Subcommittee that they should contact him.Motion:
to adjourn at 9:55 pm,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Catlin.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: February 27, 2011 February 17, 2011
Present: Polly Roberts, Randolph Snook, Katharine Leab, Todd Catlin Peter Bowman
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III, Todd Peterson
Staff: Shelley White, Mike Ajello
Guests: Lawrence Washington, Brian Neff, Engineer, Roberta Smith, Clifford Woodruff, Michael Cruse, Dave Werkhoven, Ralph AverillChairman Polly Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Rod Wyant, Alt.
ZBA-0882 - Request of Kleine-Micheletto, 110 Calhoun Street, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (increasing non conformity), to construct 10' x 13' mudroom on North Side of house.
Mr. Washington was present to represent the property owners. He stated that the previous owners were approved by the ZBA for a Special Exception in October 2010 and the new owners are requesting a Special Exception to add a 10' x 13' mudroom that would allow them to enter the house on the main level from the parking area. The Commission and Mr. Washington looked at the map titled Proposed Site Plan, for 110 Calhoun Street, by McIver Morgan, sheet A1-01, dated 11/23/10. Ms. Roberts asked why the mudroom could not be pushed back to avoid the front setback. Mr. Washington stated that there is a steep slope toward the rear of the house, which is the reason why the mudroom was located within the front setback. The Commission and Mr. Washington looked at the drawing titled Front and Back Elevations for 110 Calhoun Street, by McIver Morgan, sheet A2-01 with a revision date of 11/23/10. Mr. Catlin questioned if the house was historically significant since it is to be torn down and rebuilt. Mr. Washington stated that the Historic District Commission has approved the propose plan. Ms. Roberts stated that she believed that the ZBA accepted the previous application understanding that it would be rebuilt with as much salvageable material from the existing barn and that what was to be built would be done using the same dimensions, footprint, and scale as the existing barn. Ms. Leab asked why the mudroom was so large. Mr. Washington stated there would be one door, one window, two closets and storage for boots and shoes and it opens to the second level common space. The Commission and Mr. Washington looked at the drawing titled Upper Floor Plan for 110 Calhoun Street by McIver Morgan, sheet A1-02 with a revision date of 11/23/10. He stated that the previous owners had planned for an exterior staircase from the parking area to the entrance. Mr. Washington stated that the proposed mudroom would have a 42' front setback. Mr. Catlin asked if there was any consideration to move it further east and downhill with a staircase so that it would be in compliance with the zoning code. Mr. Washington stated that the original plan did have an exterior staircase going from the lower level to access the main level. Mr. Catlin asked if enclosing the exterior staircase was considered. Mr. Washington stated that he believes that the architect did not move the proposed mudroom back because of the steep grade and it would have to egress to the kitchen. The Commission and Mr. Washington discussed the steep grade toward the back of the barn. Mr. Bowman asked about the foundation. The Commission looked at the Upper Floor Plan. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0882 - Request of Kleine-Micheletto, 110 Calhoun Street, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (increasing non conformity), to construct 10' x 13' mudroom on North Side of house,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Mr. Bowman, by 5-0 vote.
MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that he could see the need for direct access from the parking area, that the slope of the property is an obstacle to moving it further back, that it is a fairly small addition and he has no problem with this application. Mr. Catlin stated that he would have liked a better reason than the slope for not moving the proposed mudroom further back and out of the setback. He stated that he suspects that if a northern elevation were submitted it would have probably shown windows on the lower level that would further complicate moving the mudroom back. He agrees that it is modest in scope in relation to the size of the barn and he is in favor of this application. Ms. Leab stated that she would have liked to see more information as to why this could be the only location for this mudroom and that other options had been considered and ruled out. She stated that she did not feel that this location was the only option. Mr. Bowman stated that he agreed that the applicant did not show that this is the only location for the mudroom and he was not sure why it had to be so large. Mr. Catlin stated that because it was a Special Exception the applicant does not need to prove hardship and that it does support continued use and is reasonable in scope. Ms. Roberts stated that she is inclined to approve this application. She stated that she is pretty convinced that this is the only location for the mudroom because of the grade and if it were moved further back it would cut in to the kitchen and the proposed mudroom location works with the floor plan.Motion:
to approve ZBA-0882 - Request of Kleine-Micheletto, 110 Calhoun Street, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (increasing non conformity), to construct 10' x 13' mudroom on North Side of house, passed by 4-1 vote.
Ms. Leab voted against the application because she felt that the applicant did not provide enough information as to why the mudroom could not be located elsewhere on the property further from the setback.Mr. Snook leaves.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab, Todd Catlin, Rod Wyant, Alt.
ZBA-0883 - Request of R. Smith, 31 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1.c (Front Setback), 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), and 11.5.1(Lot Coverage) to construct a 20' x 22' single story one car garage.
Mr. Neff, Engineer and Ms. Smith, the property owner were present to represent this application. The Commission and Mr. Neff looked a the map titled Proposed Garage Site Plan prepared for Roberta Smith by Brian E. Neff, Engineer with a revision date of 1-26-11. Mr. Neff stated that the property is .715 acres and the applicant would like to construct a garage located in an area of a structure that had been demolished in 1996. He stated that the proposed garage would have a new foundation that would be smaller than the existing foundation of the demolished structure. He stated that the owner had applied for a variance in 2006 for a garage, which was denied. Mr. Neff stated that this new application proposes a smaller garage that would be a 20' x 22', one car garage with a 16' wide door and that this proposed garage would be moved about 4 feet back so there would be no encroachment in to the driveway. He stated that the proposed garage would also have a roof drain system with a subsurface detention and infiltration system. Mr. Neff stated that the proposed structure would be 5 feet from East Shore Road. The Commission and Mr. Neff looked at the map titled Property Boundary Survey, prepared for Riverdance Mill, by T. Michael Alex, Surveyor, dated October 2006 and the drawing titled Proposed Garage Elevations, prepared for Roberta Smith, 31 East Shore Road, by Brian E. Neff, Engineer, with a revision date of 1-26-11. Mr. Catlin asked if the previous structure was 1-1/2 stories and if the proposed garage would have storage in the upper level. Mr. Neff stated that there would be a little bit of loft space above with a pull down door. The Commission questioned the size of the garage door. Mr. Neff stated that a 16' garage door is for a one-car garage and that an 18' or 20' garage door would accommodate 2 cars. Ms. Leab asked why the footprint was not decreased to 18' x 20' as Mr. Sedito had suggested with the previous application. Mr. Neff stated that Ms. Smith would prefer the 20' x 22' garage that was also suggested at the previous application Public Hearing. The applicant mailed 22 notifications to surrounding neighbors and 12 return cards were sent back. Mr. Cruse, an adjoining property owner was present at the hearing. Mr. Neff said the existing lot coverage is at 14% and with the proposed garage it would be 18%, which is 3% above the allowable 15% and the building is 1.5 % of the increase and the driveway is 2.5%. Mr. Bowman asked if the driveway could be narrowed to decrease the lot coverage. Mr. Neff stated that it would be possible to reduce it by a percentage point. There was a brief discussion regarding the West Elevation and the grade. The Commission and Mr. Neff looked at the drawing titled Proposed Garage Section, prepared for Roberta Smith, by Brian E. Neff, Engineer with a revision date of 1-26-11. Ms. Roberts asked if anyone from the public would like to speak.Mr. Woodruff, an adjoining property owner asked how large the cottage on the property is. Ms. Smith stated that the cottage is a one level, one bedroom house at approximately 900 sq. ft. Mr. Neff stated that the roof had been slightly raised when the cottage was rebuilt in 1998. Ms. Smith stated that she was required to put in a legal foundation that met FEMA standards. Mr. Woodruff stated that it was a fact that this is a brand new structure. Mr. Neff agreed and stated that it was a rebuilt structure. Mr. Woodruff asked where the existing septic was located. Mr. Neff stated that there is a cesspool in front of the house but that he did not have a drawing of it.
Mr. Averill, an adjoining property owner, stated that he had no issue with Ms. Smith's application and that she should be commended on preserving a historical building in our area.
Mr. Woodruff asked Mr. Neff what the minimum septic tank and field size for a 1-3 bedroom house. Mr. Neff stated that it should be 1,000 gallons and the size of the leaching fields would depend on the perc test. Mr. Woodruff stated that he was curious as to why a new building went up that had a "completely illegal, drastically undersized, cesspool." He stated that the cesspool is in front of the house and is 20 ft. away from the river. Mr. Neff stated it was an existing nonconforming system and the Health Department would have signed off on it. Mr. Woodruff stated that the Health Dept. did not sign off on it. Mr. Woodruff stated that something has to be done with that and he asked where the reserve septic system site was located. Mr. Neff stated that the proposed garage would not have any facilities. Mr. Woodruff requested that Mr. Neff show him where the reserve septic site was for the house. Mr. Neff and Mr. Woodruff looked at the Garage Site Plan. Mr. Woodruff stated that the only place to put a septic system would be where the property owner plans to put a garage. Mr. Bowman asked if there is room for a septic outside of the garage and outside the 75 ft. radius. Mr. Neff stated that the septic could be located underneath the driveway. Mr. Catlin stated that this is not in the purview of the ZBA and should be addressed with the Health Department. Mr. Ajello stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the proposed garage and the proposed plan will go to the Health Department for a review. Mr. Catlin stated that a preexisting nonconforming septic system does not need to be replaced if it has not failed and there is no proof that it has failed. Ms. Roberts stated that the ZBA could give approval for this plan but that is one of many steps that it has to go through.
Mr. Woodruff stated that the proposed garage would crowd the driveway. He asked if the need for a garage was a hardship and asked why Ms. Smith could not put a garage under the sawmill that she restored. He stated that he did not understand why she would need a garage on the property that was not her primary residence. Mr. Catlin stated that the ZBA is looking at a single property with a single property owner. Mr. Woodruff requested that the proposed garage be staked out and the ZBA make a site visit before the ZBA decides whether it should be approved. He stated that he does not agree that someone could not stand up in the second level that has a 10"pitched roof that is 20 feet wide and that there would be extra run off from a roof that is as steep as the proposed garage. Ms. Roberts stated that the steepness would not influence the amount of water that would run off from a roof. Mr. Woodruff stated that there are safety issues with a car backing out in to the driveway, there is no where to push the snow and if the gutters freeze up there will be run off which would cause ice patches on the road. He requested that this application be denied.
Mr. Cruse stated that it appears that Ms. Smith bought the land from the New Preston Women's Club. Ms. Smith confirmed that she bought part of the land from them. He stated that he did some research on the deed and discovered a section that said that no other building should be built on this lot. Mr. Cruse read the section of the deed dated June 28, 1966 in the Washington Land Records, Col. 65, page 310 that states "Said premises are conveyed subject to the condition that they shall be used by the grantee, its successors and assigns in the manner designed to promote beautification and community usefulness, and that no buildings shall hereafter be built thereon, and..."(on file in the Land Use Office). The Commissioners looked at the deed. Ms. Smith stated that there was a building there until it was torn down in 1996. Ms. Roberts stated that the Town Counsel has been advised that this is not in the purview of the ZBA and it would be taken care of somewhere along the permitting process. The Commissioners looked at the Proposed Garage Site Plan. Ms. Smith stated that she relied on her attorney to handle the transfers and title searches. She stated that she has widened the driveway and moved the proposed garage back by suggestion of the ZBA and the deed issue was something that she was not aware of. Ms. White read the section of the November 2006 Regular Meeting of the ZBA that pertained to Atty. Zizka's advise (on file in the Land Use Office).
The Commission stated that the septic, deed restriction, driveway and size of the building are issues that should be addressed and recommended that the garage be staked out. The Commission agreed that they would individually go and looked at the proposed site.
The Commission and Mr. Woodruff discussed the process that the proposed plan must go through.
Motion:
to continue ZBA-0883 - Request of R. Smith, 31 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1.c (Front Setback), 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), and 11.5.1(Lot Coverage) to construct a 20' x 22' single story one car garage,
by Mr. Bowman, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Peter Bowman, Kathy Leab, Todd Catlin, Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0884 - Request of R. Smith, 35 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1c (Front Setback), 12.1.1 (Wetlands Watercourse Setback) and 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), to allow a 8.6' x 9.9' x 7.8' high prefabricated shed.
Mr. Neff, Engineer and Ms. Smith, the property owner were present to represent this application. Mr. Neff submitted photos of the existing shed. Ms. Roberts asked why it was installed with out coming to the ZBA. Ms. Smith stated that she made a mistake and was told by the person she bought it from that she did not have to go to the Town because it is a temporary structure. The Commission and Mr. Neff looked at the map titled Property Boundary Survey prepared for Riverdance Mill by T. Michael Alex, Surveyor, dated October 2006. Mr. Neff explained the topography and stated that the IWC approved the location of the shed. Ms. Smith stated that the shed has been in its current location for 2 years. Mr. Neff stated that there is no existing garage or shed on the property for storage and Ms. Smith uses the shed to store lawn equipment and furniture. Ms. Roberts asked why this is the only place on the property that this could be located. Mr. Neff stated that if the shed were moved outside of the side setback it would be closer to the watercourses. The Commission, while looking at the Property Boundary Survey, suggested an alternative area for the shed. Ms. Smith stated that the area they were questioning was sloped and that she felt the area that the shed is currently located is the least obtrusive and the least visible. Mr. Woodruff stated that is was visible from his front yard. He asked why the shed has to be in this particular spot and that it is his right to have it moved outside of the setback and he wants it to be conforming. Mr. Woodruff suggested other areas that the shed could be located and stated that he didn't mind where the shed was as long as it was out of the side setback. The Commission, Mr. Woodruff and Ms. Smith looked at the Property Boundary Survey. Ms. Roberts stated that she understands Mr. Woodruff's position and that she would also like to see the shed moved out of the setback. Ms. Smith asked the Commission to come and see the location of the shed and that she would consider another location for the shed but she feels there is no other area that she could put the shed.Motion:
to continue ZBA-0884 - Request of R. Smith, 35 East Shore Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 11.6.1c (Front Setback), 12.1.1 (Wetlands Watercourse Setback) and 12.1.2 (E. Aspetuck River Setback), to allow a 8.6' x 9.9' x 7.8' high prefabricated shed,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Catlin, by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of January 20, 2011 were considered.
Correction:
Page 2, under the 2nd PUBLIC HEARING, members seated should read: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Peter Bowman, Todd Catlin, Rod Wyant, Alt.Motion:
to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2011 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as amended,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Catlin, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business/Discretion of the Chair
Mr. Catlin discussed the 2-17-11 POCD Subcommittee that he attended earlier in the day on behalf of the ZBA.Motion: to adjourn at 9:25 pm, by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Catlin.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: January 28, 2011 January 20, 2011
Present: Polly Roberts, Randolph Snook, Katharine Leab, Todd Catlin
Alternates: Roderick Wyant III
Absent: Peter Bowman, Todd Peterson
Staff: Shelley White, Mike Ajello
Guests: Reese Owens, Architect, Atty. Jim Kelly, Brian Neff, Engineer, Frank DolenChairman Polly Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35pm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Todd Catlin, Peter Bowman, Rod Wyant, Alt.
ZBA-0880 – Request of Arthur O. Peterson, 41 Kirby Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (increasing non conformity), to construct 30” x 64”, 27’ tall, brick faced chimney on West side of dwelling.
Mr. Brian Neff, Engineer and Mr. Frank Dolen were present to represent Mr. Peterson for this application. The Commissioners and Mr. Neff looked at the Property/Boundary Survey, prepared for Arthur O. Peterson and Valerie L Peterson, 41 Kirby Road, by T. Michael Alex, dated July 1999. Mr. Neff explained the unusual shape of the lot and explained that the house is within all the setbacks. Mr. Neff read Explanation of Request for Special Exception, dated December 22, 2010 submitted by Mr. Peterson (on file in Land Use Office). The Land Use Office received six out of seven return receipt postcards. Mr. Neff explained that the proposed chimney would allow for a fireplace in the living room and the existing chimney would be abandoned due to safety concerns. Mr. Dolen stated that the furnace was taken out and the dwelling uses electric heat. Ms. Roberts stated that the corner of the house is 5.22 feet and the basement hatchway is 5.36 feet from the rear property line. The proposed chimney would be 5.22 feet from the rear property line. Ms. White read a letter of support from Mr. & Mrs. Ruchman, neighbors of the applicant, dated January 6, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office). Mr. Dolen submitted an photgraph of the property. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close ZBA-0880 – Request of Arthur O. Peterson, 41 Kirby Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (increasing non conformity), to construct 30” x 64”, 27’ tall, brick faced chimney on West side of dwelling,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Snook stated that the lot is very irregular and he feels the proposed chimney is a modest proposal and he does not have any objections. Mr. Catlin stated that he thinks this is a reasonable proposal and that he visited the site and noted the existing chimney was rather “precarious looking.” Ms. Leab stated that it promotes continued use of the house, it’s modest and the existing chimney that will be abandoned addresses a safety issue. Mr. Wyant stated that he agreed with the other Commissioners and he supports this application because there is a safety issue with the existing chimney and the proposed chimney would make the house more operational.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0880 – Request of Arthur O. Peterson, 41 Kirby Road, for Special Exception, Zoning Regulation(s) 17.5 (increasing non conformity), to construct 30” x 64”, 27’ tall, brick faced chimney on West side of dwelling, passed by 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Seated: Polly Roberts, Randy Snook, Peter Bowman, Rod Wyant, Alt, Todd Peterson, Alt.
ZBA-0881 – Request of Spring Hill Farms, LLC, 69 Whittlesey Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1(Wetlands and Watercourse Setbacks), and 17.4 (Nonconforming structures) to construct a 21’ x 39’ barn on existing foundation with addition of covered entry that is 46’ from the Shepaug River.
Atty. Kelly and Mr. Owens, Architect, were present to represent Spring Hill Farms LLC for this application. Mr. Owen stated that this proposed structure would be used to process grapes for making wine. He stated that the proposed wine room would house three tanks and other equipment that would be needed for the wine making process. There will also be a bathroom for the farm crew. The Commission and Mr. Owen looked at the drawing titled, Partial Site Plan, Plans and Elevations with a revision date of 1/7/11, by Halper Owens Architects LLC. Mr. Owens stated that if they were to build the wine room on the other side of the existing shed it would be closer to the wetlands and the Agricultural Conservation Easement. Atty. Kelly stated that all of the existing structures were conforming when they were built but are now nonconforming due to revisions in the Zoning Regulations. The existing concrete pad was used for two silos that have been removed. The property owners have had the concrete pad restored. There was a brief discussion regarding the location of the septic system. Mr. Kelly stated that the 2-step entrance and access ramp are the only expansions of the nonconformity but otherwise the proposed wine room will be built on the existing foundation. There was a brief discussion regarding the Department of Agriculture and that the Conservation Easement indicated on the site plan is actually an Agricultural Easement. Mr. Catlin asked why the wine room could not be put in one of the other existing buildings. Atty. Kelly explained how the other barns were being used and that the outbuildings were originally placed in this area because it was not a suitable area for planting. Mr. Owen stated that the wine making process requires an environment with a micro-managed temperature and a separate mechanical system. He stated that they plan to have a high efficiency furnace in the storage loft of the wine room. The Inland Wetlands Commission approved the proposed plan. Ms. White read the section of the I/W Regular Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2011 regarding Spring Hill Farm LLC. Mr. Catlin asked what would prevent this building from becoming a cottage. Atty. Kelly stated that there is a principle structure on the lot and any one of the out buildings could become a detached apartment but that is not the intent of the property owner. The Commission discussed the possibility of a farm stand or some commercial activity. There was a brief discussion regarding the adjoining property. Atty. Kelly and Mr. Owens submitted photos of the property. Atty. Kelly discussed section 17.4 Non conforming Structures in the Zoning Regulations. There were no further comments or questions.Motion:
to close ZBA-0881 – Request of Spring Hill Farms, LLC, 69 Whittlesey Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1(Wetlands and Watercourse Setbacks), and 17.4 (Nonconforming structures) to construct a 21’ x 39’ barn on existing foundation with addition of covered entry that is 46’ from the Shepaug River,
by Mr. Snook, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 vote.MEETING
Mr. Catlin stated that he would have liked to see the concrete pad before it was fixed. He stated that the building will be located within the area of the other out buildings and it is a modest increase with the entry and the ramp. He stated that he always has concerns that something like this could turn into something commercial. He feels that there is a hardship because of the regulation change and that he is in favor of this application. Ms. Leab stated that she agrees with Mr. Catlin and that the proposed building in sensibly located among the other out buildings. She stated that the land is unique and she does agree that there is a land-based hardship. Mr. Wyant stated that he feels the proposed plan is well designed and believes the building is sited in an appropriate location and that he supports this application. Mr. Snook stated that he has concerns that eventually there will be commercial activity at this location. He stated that he was not entirely satisfied but he would vote in favor of this application. Ms. Roberts stated that the Agricultural Easement restricts where this building could be located and that the proposed area is the only place that it could go. She stated that the footprint of the existing concrete pad would slightly increase because of the addition of a covered entryway and a ramp but the proposed building is modest at approximately 800 sq. ft., it continues the agricultural use and she is in favor of this application.
Motion:
to approve ZBA-0881 – Request of Spring Hill Farms, LLC, 69 Whittlesey Road, for Variance, Zoning Regulation(s) 12.1(Wetlands and Watercourse Setbacks), and 17.4 (Nonconforming structures) to construct a 21’ x 39’ barn on existing foundation with addition of covered entry that is 46’ from the Shepaug River, passed by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of December 16, 2010 were considered.
Correction:
Under Public Hearing ZBA-0878, page 1, 5th sentence should read: Mr. Washington stated that when the units are moved the larger unit will produce 48 decibels at the property line and the two smaller…Motion:
to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2010 regular meeting of the Washington Zoning Board of Appeals as amended,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Leab, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business/Discretion of the Chair
Discussion of Noise Generating Equipment
Mr. Ajello, ZEO, discussed some issues he has experienced when advising property owners that are installing noise generating equipment. The Commission and Mr. Ajello discussed possible revisions to Section 12.14 Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment in the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Snook stated that in section 12.14.1 the word ‘generators’ should be deleted. The Commission and Mr. Ajello agreed to see how the existing regulations work and make revisions if necessary.Connecticut Bar Association Education & Training
Ms. Roberts stated that there would be a seminar at Wesleyan University on Saturday, March 12, 2011, 8:30am-4:30pm for Connecticut Land Use Law for Municipal Land Use Agencies, Boards and Commissions.Letter From Ms. Hill Dated 1/13/2011
Ms. Roberts read the letter dated 1/13/2011 from Ms. Hill, Land Use Administer to Mr. Robert Winston of the Tulip Tree Collection. The Commission briefly discussed ZBA-0324 and ZBA-0326.Motion:
to adjourn at 9:15 pm,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Leab.Submitted Subject to Approval,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Meetings in 2010