APPROVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EXHIBIT 9: Stephen and Susan G. Lutz of 66 High Hill CircleEXHIBIT 10: Ellen and Woodie Weiss of 87 Middle Beach RoadWith no further questions or comments, this portion of the public hearing was closed andthe Board began its deliberation.Ms. Braisted appreciated that this is likely the most picturesque location in Town. Shestated that the houses are beautiful and cottage like, and she speculated that thepending new regulations strive to keep larger first floors with graduated second floors,which this is not in keeping with. She stated that she doesn’t think the house has tobe this large or a block like structure in order to have four bedrooms. She alsorecognized the objections of the neighbors.Mr. Moore recognized that there was amelioration of some nonconformities, and statedthat he is very familiar with the house and knows the neighborhood quite well, andthe proposed project does not fit in with the neighborhood. He agreed that it wasunnecessary for the third floor to be so large.Mr. Fiume agreed with Ms. Braisted and Mr. Moore’s comments and was opposed to theapplication. He added that even some minor tweaking wouldn’t change his mind.Ms. Stevens stated that she also agreed with members’ comments. She conceded that thehardship with respect to the septic system and the structural condition of the housewas satisfied. However, she stated that she had reservations about the “ominousness”of the third floor and she was not in favor of the height variance request. She wasalso concerned that the air conditioning was not addressed.Mr. Kelty agreed with Ms. Stevens. He complimented the design, but stated that the thirdfloor pushed it out of acceptability with the neighborhood.Mr. Cozean agreed with Ms. Stevens that the hardship test was satisfied. However, hestated that when he thinks about what the proposed regulations and the Plan ofConservation and Development envision, he is concerned and tends to agree withsome of the other comments made by members. Mr. Fiume asked if Mr. Cozean wasin full agreement with hardship. Mr. Cozean stated that he felt they met the hardship,but did not meet the second prong of the test.Based on the application as presented and its discussion, upon a motion by Ms.Braisted, seconded by Mr. Fiume, the Madison Zoning Board of Appealsunanimously voted to deny the request to vary Secs. 2.17, 3.6(d), 2.7.1/3.6(e), and3.6(f) of the Madison Zoning Regulations to permit critical coastal resource setbackvariances of 42.6 ft. to rear steps and 37.5 ft. to porch; 19.7% area coverage; heightvariance of 3.1 ft.; front yard variance of 10.1 ft. to building; west side yardvariances of 11.3 ft., 10.8 ft. and 8.8 ft.; and east side yard variances of 8.9 ft., 8.3 ft.,6.2 ft and 13.2 ft..; all to permit existing 2½-story dwelling to be replaced with 3-story dwelling in approximately the same location for application #8043+CSP: 106MIDDLE BEACH ROAD.The motion carried 5-0-0.IN FAVOR: Cozean, Moore, Fiume, Stevens, BraistedOPPOSED: noneMadison ZBA • Approved March 2, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes • Page 6 of 16
ABSTAINED: none8044+CSP: 12 BAYVIEW PLACE. Map 18, Lot 65. R-2 Zone. Owner: JosephWalton; Applicant: William Plunkett, L.L.C. Request to vary Secs.3.6(d&f) of theMadison Zoning Regulations to permit 22.2% area coverage; front yard variances of 38 ft.to house, 37.7 ft. to porch, 39.1 ft. and 38.7 ft. to steps, 39.5 ft. to chimney and 21.3 ft. toair-conditioning units; and rear yard variances of 12.6 ft. to house, 12.2 ft. to porch and10.4 ft. to air conditioning units; all to allow existing 2½-story dwelling to be demolishedand replaced with new 2½-story dwelling on approximately same footprint. Coastal SitePlan Review required.Attorney Chuck Andres of LeClairRyan with offices located in New Haven, presented,and was accompanied by Thomas A. Stevens, P.E. and L.S., as well as Mr. Plunkett. Hedescribed the proposal and noted that the new dwelling slightly decreases the existingnonconformities. He oriented the Board to the property location and identified the reasonfor the demolition related to the house becoming functionally obsolete and the structuraldesign issues with inadequate spans and rafters, which he stated Mr. Plunkett would lateraddress. He stated that when he went in the house to the second floor with the owner, heobserved that the floor was unsteady. He noted that the house was constructed in early1900s, but was added on in different pieces at various times. He stated that part of whatdrove the design and made it impossible to renovate the existing structure is that theowner wants to reside at the house long-term, and was proposing to put an elevator in thehome to allow all the floors to be handicapped accessible.Attorney Andres stated that he reviewed the minutes from the January ZBA hearing atwhich Attorney Zizka spoke to the Board about the proper criteria for granting a variance.He then addressed why he thinks they meet all the criteria. First, he noted that Mr. Zizkawas concerned about applications to enlarge houses that are on lots that are too small. Hestated that he doesn’t think this falls in that category because they have a 2½ story houseand they proposed to replace it with 2½ stories. He stated that they were not increasingany nonconformities; rather they were decreasing them, as he described. He stated thatAttorney Zizka discussed undersized lots that were created prior to zoning as a basis forhardship, which he stated this property does fall into. He stated that this lot existed priorto zoning, and he submitted a 1941 deed marked EXHIBIT A for the record as proof, andclaimed that the hardship related to the application of the regulations to this pre-existing,undersized lot. He read from the January minutes where Mr. Zizka stated that applicantsshould be demonstrating why their building envelope is too small compared to all otherbuilding lots going down the line. He demonstrated the surrounding lots and thebuildable area under the existing zoning regulations on a document marked EXHIBIT B.He summarized that out of 65 lots, this is one of three that has no building envelope. Heinterpreted that Attorney Zizka was saying they need to show uniqueness, which hecontended they were able to show with this application. Secondly, he pointed out thataccording to the meeting minutes, Attorney Zizka identified a reduction innonconformities as a relevant criteria, which was also achieved by this application.Third, he noted that Attorney Zizka mentioned remedying existing problems, which heMadison ZBA • Approved March 2, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes • Page 7 of 16
Page 2 and 3: B. APPLICATIONS/APPEALS8043+CSP: 10
Page 4 and 5: Stevens responded that they couldn
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?