MINUTES<= o:p>
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC H=
EARING
WEDNESDA=
Y,
FEBRUARY 23, 2005 - 7:30 P.M.
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
APPLICAT=
ION
#791 – NOREEN AND DENNIS BUCKLEY
PRESENT:
&nbs=
p; John Griffith
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Phil
Roger, Vice Chairman
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Enrico Sarandrea, Chai=
rman
ABSENT: =
&nb=
sp; =
Roger
Mitchell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Scott
Stewart (arrived at 7:44 p.m.)
ALTERNATES ABSENT: &=
nbsp; None
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Zoning Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Sarandrea, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to Order at 7:48 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Ms.
Bisson, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Ms. Bisson, Secretary,=
read
aloud the Legal Notice for the Record:
“Legal Notice
The Zoning Board of Ap=
peals
of the Town of Watertown will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesd=
ay,
February 23, 2005 at the John Trumbull School Media Center, 6779 Buckingham
Street, Oakville, CT to hear and act upon the following applications:
Application #791 of No=
reen
and Dennis Buckley of 269 Beach Avenue, Watertown, CT request for a varianc=
e of
12.5 feet to a side yard property line setback to permit the construction o=
f an
addition to an existing single-family dwelling to be located 7.5 feet from a
side yard property line at 269 Beach Avenue, Watertown, CT in an R-30
Residential Zoning District.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#791 – NOREEN AND DENNIS BUCKLEY
FEBRUARY=
23,
2005
Page 2
Section 23.5.3.c of the
Watertown Zoning Regulations requires minimum 20 feet side yard property li=
ne
setback for a principal building in an R-30 Residential Zoning District.
At this Hearing intere=
sted
persons and written communications will be heard. A copy of the application is on fi=
le in
the Planning and Zoning Office, 51 Depot Street, Suite 502, Watertown,
Connecticut.
Dated at Watertown,
Connecticut, this 10th day of February, 2005.
Dated at Watertown,
Connecticut, this 17th day of February, 2005.
Mary Bisson, Secretary=
Zoning Board of
Appeals”
3. Hearing of Cases=
&=
nbsp; B. =
Application
#791 of Noreen and Dennis Buckley request for a variance of 12.5 feet to a =
side
yard property line setback to permit the construction of an addition to a
single-family dwelling at 269 Beach Avenue, Watertown CT.
&=
nbsp; Recess
or Adjourn, the Public Hearing must be Closed by March 31, 2005 unless
applicant grants a time extension.
Ms. Bisson recused herself from this application.
&=
nbsp; Dennis
Buckley, 269 Beach Avenue, Watertown, CT&n=
bsp;
06795
=
; Mr.
Buckley: I guess I’d like=
to
start by reading my hardship letter to you and then if there are any questi=
ons
I’d be happy to answer them.
&=
nbsp; “To
the Zoning Board of Appeals:
&=
nbsp; We
have requested a variance on our property so we may add additional living s=
pace
to our existing home. We are a
family of 5, having 2 small bedrooms for 3 children, 1 slightly larger bedr=
oom
for ourselves, and 1 small bathroom on the upper level of the house. After many conversations with vari=
ous
contractors and architects we have determined that the only viable place to=
put
our addition is on the left hand side of our house as you’re facing
it. This addition will compri=
se
primarily a master bedroom and bathroom on the first floor of the house,
entering from the current living room area of our house.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#791 – NOREEN AND DENNIS BUCKLEY
FEBRUARY=
23,
2005
Page 3
&=
nbsp; We
explored the possibility of extending into existing space above our garage,=
but
were told this is not feasible and cost prohibitive due to the fear of divi=
ding
the main house in the space of the garage.=
In addition there’s a chimney that’s sitting right in th=
e,
the chimney for our fireplace and our furnace is sitting directly in the way
preventing us from expanding from the existing second floor. Besides these two factors the (ina=
udible)
of the two second floors are not the same, also creating a problem. Expanding out of the rear of the h=
ouse
will also not work due to the topography of the land. We sit on a vast amount of ledge t=
o the
point where most of the back of house consists of very large rock
formations. Also we were told=
that
due to the present construction of the house, the steep drop-off directly
behind our house would almost make it cost prohibitive. Therefore we are left to work on t=
hat
left hand side of the house.
&=
nbsp; Our
neighbors to our left, Robert and Shelly Peck, have expressed no problem at
all. They have a letter in yo=
ur
packet from the Peck’s stating they have absolutely no problem with t=
he
application. Their home sits
approximately 400 feet into the existing woods and it would not affect their
privacy or quality of life whatsoever.
&=
nbsp; In
summation we feel that this is the only way to expand in lieu of our limited
options and it makes the most sense for us to do it this way. We assure you that this addition w=
ould
be done to the highest standards and tastes. Not only will it be a big benefit =
to us,
but also to the appearance of the entire neighborhood.
&=
nbsp; Sincerely,
&=
nbsp; Noreen
and Dennis Buckley”
=
; Mr.
Buckley: I’m not so sure,=
the
previous time that I met here, or just to jog your memory I was here just a=
few
months ago with an application, and I was looking for an 18 foot side setba=
ck
and right before the meeting it was discovered, and it was probably my faul=
t,
that there was an easement for a storm drainage, so we kind of at that poin=
t we
decided to go back and reapply.
After speaking to an architect and going back to the person who
performed the survey for me, we found that the 18 feet definitely was not
needed, #1, and #2, what we have done is we have set back the addition. The 20.7 feet of the first applica=
tion
which is the closest point of our house to the side setback line (inaudible=
) so
what we’ve done is we’ve set the addition back 4 feet which giv=
es
us a lot more room to the side, we are now requesting that 12.5 feet. The Town Engineer at the time sent=
a
letter saying obviously that he could not approve it because we would be
encroaching on the Town easement. I
think you also have a letter from the Town Engineer in your packet stating
there is no problem with the present application, whereas before (inaudible=
) so
hopefully now (inaudible). Mo=
osa
does have some pictures of what the addition will look like. I have a copy here.
WATERTOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#791 – NOREEN AND DENNIS BUCKLEY
FEBRUARY=
23,
2005
Page 4
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Everybody has a co=
py in
their packet.
=
; Mr.
Buckley: As you can see this was done obvio=
usly
on a computer drawing, but this is the exact way it’s going to look, =
the
addition will be off this left hand side of the house. It won’t look exactly like t=
hat,
but pretty close to it.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: If you remember at the last applic=
ation,
the only concern that we had was the drainage easement. Now the plan has been revised and =
it is
outside of the easement area. There
is a letter in your packet from the Town Engineer that they have no objecti=
on
to this revised plan.
=
; Mr.
Sarandrea: Is there anyone from the public who
wishes to speak For or Against this Application? I didn’t have any problem wi=
th it
the first time you came through here.
We all recommended that you should go, and you did what we were sayi=
ng
you should do, and it worked out fine for you; I’m glad. I’d hate to see you spend th=
at
kind of money and have it dug up or dig around your house.
=
; Mr.
Buckley: Well being a rookie at this I was =
going
for the most and not realizing I didn’t need all that much anyway, so=
it
didn’t make sense, so by setting it back we’ve picked it up, so=
I
appreciate that.
=
; Mt.
Sarandrea: Does anybody from the Board have a=
ny
questions?
=
; MOTION: (Mr.
Stewart, sec. Mr. Roger) to Close the Public Hearing for Application #791 of
Noreen and Dennis Buckley request for a variance of 12.5 feet to a side yard
property line setback to permit the construction of an addition to a
single-family dwelling at 269 Beach Avenue, Watertown CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Public
Hearing Closed at 7:52 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Enrico
Sarandrea, Chairman
Zoning =
Board
of Appeals
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary