Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes - 05/07/2020

Zoning Board of Appeals >
May 7, 2020 I
Page 1 of 3 =
=>
MINUTES Gin
SPECIAL VIRTUAL MEETING 2 a
‘ mn
Zoning Board of Appeals y May", 2020:
Waterford Town Hall \ 300 PME
Members Present: Catherine Newlin, Chair, Joshua Friedman, Warren Mackenzie,
Members Absent: Anne Darling, Michele Kripps
Alternates Present: Jason Maryeski, Danielle McCarty
Alternates Absent: Darcy Van Ness
Staff Present: Jill Pisechko, Zoning Official; Mark Wujtewicz, Planner; Abby
Piersall, Planning Director; Anna Scanlon, Recording Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER AND APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chair Newlin called the meeting to order and appointed Jason Maryeski to sit for Anne Darling and
Danielle McCarty to sit for Michele Kripps.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Motion made by D. McCarty and seconded by J. Friedman to approve the minutes of
the November 7, 2019 meeting as written.
VOTE: 5-0
3. PUBLIC HEARING
Application #Z-20-1 - Appeal of Robert P. Nauta, owner and James Bernardo, LS, applicant at 10
Shore Drive, VR-75 zone. Variances are requested from zoning regulations section 6A.6 — Lot
Area, Setback and Building Regulations. Front yard setback variance of 10 feet. Building coverage
variance of 3%. Variance is needed to Construct Single Family Dwelling on existing Foundation. A
COASTAL SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COASTAL
MANAGEMENT ACT.
— Public Hearing must close by: Wednesday, June 10, 2020.
Exhibits #1 thru #16 were submitted into the record.
Applicant James Bernardo, LS, applicant presented the application to the board. Mr. Bernardo
stated that the variances are needed in order to construct a single family dwelling on the existing
foundation. He stated that the parcel contains a foundation of concrete piers that were located an
installed in accordance with a previous survey. A subsequent survey revealed an error of 10 feet in
the previous survey relative to the location of the front property line. That the correct location of the
front property line resulted in an encroachment of the existing foundation piers into the required
front yard setback by 10 feet. The corrected property line also revealed the area of the lot to be less
than previously determined thereby resulting in an increase in lot coverage by 3%.
J. Bernardo also reviewed the CAM application with the Board.

Zoning Board of Appeals
May 7, 2020
Page 2 of 3
Chairman Newlin asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding this
application. Lisa Reveruzzi of 14 Shore Drive spoke against the application. Jill Johnson of 23
Shore Drive spoke in support the application. Marilyn Lusher of 6 Williamsburg Drive spoke in
support of the application. She is also the realtor that has the property listed. Gwen Horsley of 11
Shore Drive made comments. There being no further comments or questions, the public hearing was
closed at 3:52 PM.
4, APPLICATION REVIEW
Application #Z-20-1 - Appeal of Robert P. Nauta, owner and James Bernardo, LS, applicant at 10
Shore Road, VR-75 zone. Variances are requested from zoning regulations section 6A.6 — Lot
Area, Setback and Building Regulations. Front yard setback variance of 10 feet. Building coverage
variance of 3%, Variance is needed to Construct Single Family Dwelling on existing Foundation. A
COASTAL SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COASTAL
MANAGEMENT ACT.
MOTION: Motion to approve made by J. Friedman and seconded by W. Mackenzie, to approve
Application #Z-20-1 with the following condition:
1. The lot coverage variance granted is based on the size of the footprint of
the proposed structure in relation to the size of the lot. Based on this fact.
There shall be no further enclosure or structures permitted on any portions
of the open deck system and no accessory structures unless approvals are
granted for any future proposals from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This
condition also to be noted as a covenant restriction in the deed description
of the property and on the final plans
VOTE: 5-0
REASON(S): 1. The placement and construction of the foundation piers were in accordance with
a previously approved site plan and that a subsequent survey conducted after the
piers were constructed identified an error in the previous survey relative to the
location of the front property line.
2. The location of the foundation presents an exceptional and unusual hardship
specific to the subject property and would justify the granting of a 10 foot front
yard variance as requested.
3. The reduced area identified from the corrected survey and the location of the
existing pier foundation presents an exceptional and unusual hardship.
4. The Board has examined the plans, the Coastal Site Plan Review Written
Findings and Decision (Exhibit 9) and finds the application for Coastal Site Plan
consistent with Section 25.4 of the Zoning Regulations. The proposal, as
planned and presented, is consistent with stated Coastal Area Management
policies.

Zoning Board of Appeals
May 7, 2020
Page 3 of 3
5. OLD BUSINESS
No old business was discussed.
6. NEW BUSINESS
No new business was discussed.
7. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Motion made by J. Freidman and seconded by W. Mackenzie to adjourn the meeting
at 4:07 PM.
VOTE: 5-0
espectfully Submitted,
? m (ol
Afina Scanlon
Recording Secretary