TOWN OF WESTON, CONNECTICUT

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING

July 24, 2007

Present: Board Members: Chairman Richard Wolf, Carolyn Mulcahey, MacLeod Snaith, Nick Noyes and Robert Gardner; Alternates: Harriette Heller

________________________________________________________________________

Chairman Wolf called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and the Board Secretary read the notice of the public hearing into the record.

15 OLD ROCK ROAD, owner, BROCKSTEIN, JONATHAN E., Map 26 Block 4 Lot 23, variance to Section 321.5 of the Zoning Regulations to permit construction of a 2-car garage 2 feet 9 inches from the rear lot line.

Mr. Brockstein and Jennifer Masone, architect, came forward to discuss the proposal. They stated that they propose to build a new garage located where the existing parking area is. The house does not have a garage at all, it is in the Stonybrook area, and one of the original houses built in the 1930s. Ms. Mason further explained that the lot is long and narrow and sloping with the house at the crest. It is tight to the side and rear setbacks already. Ms. Masone indicated on the map where there was a steep area and rock outcroppings in the area within the setbacks and they would also like proximity to the front door. Currently the entrance to house is at the rear of the property. The only other level area is located at the beginning of the driveway and would be over 180 ft. away from the house. In order to keep the garage within the setbacks, they would have to locate it on the huge rock outcropping which would require removing lots of trees and re-grading the driveway for access. Discussion ensued.

Following discussion, Mr. Wolf commented that there was a LandTech drawing which situated the garage within the setback and Ms. Masone noted that those plans were prepared for the septic system and sited the proposed garage directly on top of the rock outcropping which would require a lot of earth work. Mr. Snaith commented that there seemed to be other places to put the garage that would still be within the setbacks. Mr. Noyes noted that there was another Stonybrook home which had come before the Board and it has its garage across the street. Discussion continued.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Gordon Muller, 11 Harvest Lane, came forward and stated that he was the neighbor who would look straight back at the garage which would not be hidden by leaves in the winter. He further stated that he thinks it would be detrimental to his property and that there are alternatives, one to take the rock out and the other location could be on the left side of the house with the driveway re-routed.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 2

Hearing no additional public comment, Mr. Brockstein then thanked the Board for their time and addressed the neighbor. He stated that he would not want to do anything to disrupt his neighbor.

The public hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m.

Tom Barcello, property owner, came forward to present his appeal. He noted that he has been in discussions with Bob Turner, Zoning Enforcement Officer, regarding the re-development of his property. He presented a copy of a letter dated 4/4/07 to Turner and then read the response dated 6/13/07. Mr. Barcello explained that he is asking for the ability to put a larger single family dwelling on his property and convert the old smaller dwelling to an accessory structure. He would like to occupy the old building until the new one is built, but afterwards, it would not be utilized as a single family dwelling. He discussed several uses and noted that they don’t want to knock down the existing building, they want to convert it to an accessory structure by taking out the living accommodations. He believes that the use of the structure can be changed by putting in the new larger single-family dwelling.

Mr. Wolf posed a question regarding the allowable coverage of the land and would both buildings be within that. Mr. Snaith commented that it would be an accessory structure that does not look like accessory structure, they both will look like 2 houses on one lot. Discussion of the regulations ensued.

During discussion, Mr. Barcello stated that they will change the appearance of the building to look more like a barn. Ms. Mulcahey commented that it will still be 1,700 sq. feet and according to the regulations, an accessory building is only allowed to be 1,500 sq. ft. Discussions continued.

Following discussion, Mr. Turner came forward and spoke to why he made his decision to deny the request. He stated that he does not put the same interpretation on use that Mr. Barcello does. The fact that you don’t call it a dwelling doesn’t mean that it is not a dwelling for the purposes of zoning regulations. It doesn’t make it an accessory just because you put a larger building on property.

Mr. Barcello noted that there are no definitions in the regulations for useage and he was looking for clarification. There are no definitions as to what is allowed as an accessory use and what is not. Discussion continued.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 3

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Hal Shupak, came forward and commented on the single family regulation and noted that a house was being converted to an accessory. The house is built on 2 acres, there are 6 houses on the street. It is a residential neighborhood and they would like to keep it that way. He has no objection to them taking down the house and building an additional accessory building. He further commented that there are no other barns on the street and he would not want to see a barn now.

Mark Hasin, next door neighbor at 5 Autumn Ridge, commented that he has no objection to them building a larger house but has questions in terms of accessory use. The house was smaller and then expanded. It might have been easier to call it an accessory building before they expanded it.

Mr. Hasin noted that the Ferry’s, across the street on Eleven O’Clock couldn’t make it to the meeting, but they asked him to express their concern regarding drainage onto their property.

Following public comment, Mr. Snaith noted that the issue before the Board is accessory use, which is ill-defined in the regulations. Mr. Gardner commented that it seems unclear on both sides.

Following some additional discussion, the public hearing was closed at 9:13 p.m.

DELIBERATION:

Ms. Mulcahey stated that she would rather see the garage someplace on the property where it would not turn a conforming lot into a non-conforming one. If it was a primary building and the only place to put it or to expand the primary residence, it would be different. As an accessory building, it should not make the lot non-conforming.

Mr. Gardner stated that he agreed and that, looking on map, there seemed to be other places on the property to place the garage so that it would stay conforming. Mr. Wolf commented that it was interesting that the septic designers had put the garage right on the rock outcropping. Mr. Noyes commented that there were alternate locations.

Mr. Gardner made a motion to deny the request for a variance for 15 Old Rock Road based on the applicants’ failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship especially regarding the Board’s view that there are alternate locations available on the property to site the garage within the setbacks. Mr. Noyes seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion carried (5-0).

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 4

Mr. Noyes noted that this was an appeal to an order or action of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and thinks it is pretty straight-forward. Mr. Snaith commented that the problem with the whole issue is that "accessory building" is not specifically defined in the regulations, but they have to look at the intent of the regulations as much as anything else. Clearly the regulations’ intent is that there be only be one primary dwelling and that accessory buildings are permitted, but should be clearly subordinate to the primary residence. Both buildings conceivably look like two single family dwellings on one lot and therefore Mr. Turner was correct in his decision. Mr. Noyes commented that Mr. Turner was not given enough information for him to approve what the owner wanted to do and he would support the decision to not allow the structure to be converted.

Mr. Snaith made a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer dated 6/13/07. Ms. Mulcahey seconded the motion. The motion was voted on and carried (4-1 [Gardner]).

Mr. Noyes made a motion to approve the minutes from the 5/22/07 meeting, as amended, and Mr. Gardner seconded. All in favor, the motion carried (5-0).

MOTION TO ADJOURN:

Mr. Wolf made a motion to adjourn and Mr. Snaith seconded. All in favor, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Delana Lustberg

Board Clerk