APPROVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

B. APPLICATIONS/<strong>APPEALS</strong>8043+CSP: 106 MIDDLE BEACH ROAD. Map 17, Lot 91. R-2 Zone. Owner:Middle Beach Corp.; Applicant: Frank Pullano. Request to vary Secs. 2.17, 3.6(d),2.7.1/3.6(e), and 3.6(f) of the Madison Zoning Regulations to permit critical coastalresource setback variances of 42.6 ft. to rear steps and 37.5 ft. to porch; 19.7% areacoverage; height variance of 3.1 ft.; front yard variance of 10.1 ft. to building; west sideyard variances of 11.3 ft., 10.8 ft. and 8.8 ft.; and east side yard variances of 8.9 ft., 8.3ft., 6.2 ft and 13.2 ft..; all to permit existing 2½-story dwelling to be replaced with 3-storydwelling in approximately the same location. Coastal Site Plan Review required.Thomas E. Cronan, Esq., with offices located at 1291 Boston Post Road, introduced theapplication and was accompanied by John Parker, Architect, and Thomas A. Stevens,P.E. & L.S., as well as the applicant and his wife. He submitted a copy of the letter thatwas sent out to neighbors marked EXHIBIT 1, and a replacement page 3 of the varianceapplication, marked EXHIBIT 2, which he went over and noted was consistent with whatwas legal noticed. The presentation Coastal Site Plan was marked EXHIBIT 3. Next,Mr. Cronan described the requested variances, and called out the reductions tononconformities and the increases to the nonconformities that result from the application.He then addressed legal hardship. He demonstrated the legal building area on the lot inyellow on a reduced site plan marked EXHIBIT 4. He recalled that Attorney Zizka hadrecently advised this Board that if there are unique conditions affecting a lot, that is aseparate and independent reason for finding legal hardship from the fact that the lot itselfis undersized, which this lot is and has been since prior to the adoption of the ZoningRegulations. He hoped the Board would make a finding of hardship and then that therelief being sought from the Regulations was warranted. Mr. Fiume asked what the legalhardship was related to the height variance. Mr. Cronan replied that the legal hardshipwith respect to height is that there is very little room to build and they have to get volumesomeplace. He stated that in this case, looking at the existing and proposed house fromthe street or from the water offers very little visual impact at all. He noted that the areasthat have some additional massing are from the sides. Finally, he turned the presentationover to the architect.John Parker, Architect, of 81B Middle Beach Road, Madison, presented the architecturaldesign of the project. First, he outlined the existing house conditions and the proposedhouse. He described the existing house as a typical, rustic beach cottage. He noted thatall of the floor joists in the house were undersized, which causes bounciness in the flooron the second floor, and it is way out of level in some areas and has some soft spots. Hestated that the bedrooms, bathrooms and closet areas are all very small, and the house isserved by electric baseboard heat and has no air conditioning; that there are special thirdfloor areas that were created to conceal plumbing lines, which can’t run in the floorsystems because of the shallow joists; that the third floor has a step up bathroom and awaste line that comes out of the wall, across the floor, and then proceeds; and that thesetypes of conditions would make it very difficult to renovate the bathrooms in the existinghouse. He demonstrated the existing and proposed roof designs, and noted that theMadison ZBA • Approved March 2, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes • Page 2 of 16
proposed roof shape allows more space on the third half floor; that the new house wouldbe sided with cedar shingles, which would be in keeping with the neighborhood; that theywere reducing from 7 to 4 bedrooms; and that the overall increase in height was due tothe fact that they had to increase everything by one foot in order to comply with theFEMA regulations and to meet the extra joist depth to meet the Building Code, and toallow for a higher ceiling on the first floor, which he indicated is common in most houses.Finally, he invited questions from the Board.Ms. Braisted asked for a description of how many total rooms are in the existing houseand would be in the new house, which Mr. Parker described for her. Ms. Braisted askedif the three bedrooms being eliminated were being absorbed into the living area for thenew structure. Mr. Pullano stated that they would allow for the four remaining bedroomsto be a little bit larger. Mr. Parker reiterated that the existing bedrooms are extremelysmall, and they are going to have larger, more comfortable bedrooms and explained thatthey are adding just over 300 s.f. to the new structure mainly due to the fact that the thirdfloor is slightly larger because of the roof shape. He pointed out that the footprint of theproposed house was actually smaller than the existing house. Ms. Braisted asked if therewas any way they could construct within the same size as the existing house, perhapsreducing the size of the proposed bedrooms. Mr. Parker replied that there probably was away to achieve that, but what was proposed was what the owners wanted. Ms. Braistedasked how long the owners owned the property. Mr. Pullano replied that they closed onthe house about a month prior to this meeting. Mr. Cronan interjected to state that thelaw is pretty clear that the “purchaser with knowledge” rule applies to use variances andnot to bulk variances, and the theory and legal position is that because the variance runswith the land, which most people think of as prospectively, it also runs retrospectively,which means that any prior owner could have come in and applied for a variance;whereas with a use variance, clearly you if you buy a residential property and you want toput a pizza parlor in, that’s your problem, but if you buy a residential piece of propertyand choose to apply for a bulk variance, the purchaser with knowledge rule does notapply. Understanding that the regulations don’t regulate this way, Mr. Cozean sought toclarify the difference peak to peak between existing and proposed in terms of what peoplesee, as well as the ceiling heights on the floors, which Mr. Parker demonstrated.Mr. Cozean invited questions and comments for and against the application from thepublic.A resident of 110 Middle Beach Road asked whether the septic system was approved bythe Health Director; where the heating unit would be located; and what the recoursewould be if they exceed the septic system capacity. Thomas A. Stevens, P.E. & L.S.,with offices located at 141 Durham Road, stated that the septic system was approvedin August 2008 and then the plan was later revised and approved for a 4-bedroomsystem. He noted that what was presented was not a sanitary design, but was thelocation as approved by John Bowers, Health Director. He submitted a letter ofapproval from Mr. Bowers, marked EXHIBIT 5. He pointed out that part of thebenefit of moving the house is that it allows room for a septic system. The residentasked what the recourse is if they exceed what was shown on the site plan. Mr.Madison ZBA • Approved March 2, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes • Page 3 of 16
Page 4 and 5: Stevens responded that they couldn
Page 6 and 7: EXHIBIT 9: Stephen and Susan G. Lut
Page 8 and 9: ead about from the minutes. He poin
Page 10 and 11: Mr. Cozean also agreed with members
Page 12 and 13: • A0: Lower Level Floor Plans•
Page 14 and 15: from the calculation it would. She
Page 16: discussing pending litigation at ap

APPROVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?