Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
TOWN OF RYE – ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 18, 2016 – 7:00 p.m.
Rye Town Hall
Members Present: Acting Chair Gregg Mikolaities, Burt Dibble, Patrick Driscoll, Charles
Hoyt and R.J. Lincoln.
Also in Attendance: Planning/Zoning Administrator Kimberly Reed.
I.
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Acting Chair Mikolaities called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.

Minutes of May 4, 2016
Motion by Burt Dibble to move the approval of the May 4, 2016 minutes to the June 1, 2016
meeting. Seconded by Patrick Driscoll. All in favor.
II.
Applications:
1. Nicole & Michael Callahan of 325 Wallis Road for property owned and located at
1367 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 17.4, Lot 16 request Variances from Section 603.1 for
expansion of a non-conforming building; Section 202.4A for expansion of a building on a lot
with two dwellings; from 204.3B for expansion of building on the left side where a setback
of 9.2’; exists, 13.6’ is proposed and 20’ is required; from Section 204.3B for expansion of
building on the right side where a setback of 3.4’ exists, 3.7’ is proposed and 20’ is required;
from Section 304.4 for building height where 34’4” exists, 29’.10” is proposed and 28’ is
allowed; from Section 204.3E for lot coverage where 50.1% exists, 50.0% is proposed and
30% is allowed. Property is in the General and Coastal Overlay Districts and SFHA,
Zone AO+1. Case #31-2016.
Nicole Callahan, applicant, spoke to the Board. She stated that they are looking to do some modest
renovations to the house to improve the livability of the house and for safety issues. The front
section of the house has an existing enclosed porch, which is part of the living space and is about 6”
stepped in from the rest of the house. Part of the proposal is to extend the porch so the walls line up.
She continued that they are also looking to put in a dormer on the third floor. The stairs that go from
the second to the third floor are quite dangerous and this will fix the stairs while allowing the room to
remain useable space. She noted that the space being added with the dormer is about 166cf. The
intent is to keep the dormer in line with the slope of the existing roof of the house. In addition to the
bulk of the dormer, they are seeking approval for a front deck that will be built off the second floor
master bedroom on top of the existing first floor porch. She pointed out that the houses in the
1
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
neighborhood have a similar deck as they are requesting. (She submitted photos to the Board for
review showing the existing conditions.)
Mrs. Callahan reviewed the criteria for granting the variances requested.
Member Hoyt asked if the neighbors were informed of the plan.
Mrs. Callahan confirmed. She explained that a letter with the proposal was sent to the neighbors.
Mr. Drapeau, who is the next door neighbor, called to say he was in favor of the proposal. They did
not hear anything back from the other neighbors.
Acting Chair Mikolaities opened to the public for comments or questions. Hearing none, he closed
the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Member Driscoll pointed out that the application reads, “building height where 34’4” exists, 29’10”
is proposed”. He thinks this was discussed at the previous meeting and should read a little
differently. It should be noted that the renovated portion of the home is going to be 29’10” but the
existing portion of the home is going to remain at 34’4”. He continued that a presentation for this
application was made two weeks ago. The additional information does not seem to have too much
bearing on his decision. He thinks this is very reasonable. They seem to focusing on the function of
the interior of the house, as opposed to adding a lot of bulk to the house. It seems reasonable and
logical.
Member Dibble stated that he agrees with Member Driscoll. The changes enhance the value of the
house and brings the house more in to code. He is in favor of the proposal.
Member Hoyt stated that he has no problem with the application. He has read through the
application and the paperwork carefully. He has checked off all the conditions for meeting hardship.
It was written very well. He is convinced this is a very good project. The increase in bulk is minor
and the height of the house does not bother him.
Member Lincoln stated that the existing stairs sound dangerous and awkward. The project is not
inhibiting anyone or expanding the size of the house.
Acting Chair Mikolaities stated his thoughts are the same. He understands what is being done from
the exhibit that was submitted. He does not have a problem with the proposal.
Acting Chair Mikolaities called for a vote on variance to Sections 603.1, 202.4A, 204.3B (right and
left side), 304.4 and 204.3E:
1. The variances are not contrary to the public interest?
Driscoll - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed?
Driscoll - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
2
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
3. Substantial justice is done?
Driscoll - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished?
Driscoll - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
5. There are special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other
properties in the area?
Driscoll - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purpose of the
ordinance provisions and the specific application of those provisions to the
property?
Driscoll - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
7. The proposed use is a reasonable one?
Driscoll - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship?
Driscoll - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
Motion by Burt Dibble to grant the variances requested by Nicole and Michael Callahan, 325
Wallis Road, for property at 1367 Ocean Boulevard as advertised and with the building height
of 34’4” existing and 34’4” is proposed, where 28’ is allowed. Seconded by Patrick Driscoll.
All in favor.
2. Joan & Robert Tufts of 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive, #909 Sarasota, FL for
property owned and located at 15 Richard Road, Tax Map 5.2, Lot 171 to request
Variances from Section 603.1 for expansion of nonconforming house; from Section 204.4 C
for an entry way in the front setback where a front setback of 24 +/- exists, 18’ is proposed
and 20.66’ is required; and from Section 301.8 B. 1 & 7 for excavation, fill and structures
within the 75’ wetlands buffer. Property is in the General Residence & Coastal Overlay
Districts. Case #35-2016.
Bob Gray, Gray Construction, representing the applicants, presented to the Board. He explained
that the lot is located on Richard Road and is .31 acres. The lot has about 113ft of frontage and the
depth of the lot is equal on both sides at 138ft. The property is located in the General Residence
Zone and Coastal Overlay. Averaging the two abutting properties, the front setback is 20.66ft. He
3
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
noted that the wetlands line sweeps through the rear of the property towards Richard Road. The
entire existing house is within the wetlands buffer. The existing ranch is 24x40 and is just under
1000sf with three bedrooms and one bath. The living room is to the front with a kitchen in the rear.
There is an existing staircase to the basement towards the front that cuts the space in half. Other
features of the property include a deck on the back, an above ground propane tank and a detached
shed to the far right. The house has a full basement and is on town water and sewer. He continued
that part of the proposal is an addition of a mudroom, an addition of a half bath and the location of
the laundry brought up from the basement to the main floor. The right side of the house will be the
location of the mudroom space, which allow for a half bath and laundry in this area. The stairway
that is in the middle of the living space will be removed in order to achieve a more open living space.
He noted that they were trying to respect the setback line. The mudroom was “jogged” to set it back
from the house so relief would not be needed from the side setback. The other thing that the Tufts
wanted to do was to aesthetically improve the house and create a front entrance. They are proposing
a front porch, which is more of a gable that ties into the other gables on the house. There will be a
couple of open columns that will create a shallow porch. The relief that is needed is for a set of stairs
that is coming off the porch, which will project into the front setback. The final piece of the
improvements is to remove the large propane tank in the rear and install a new tank to the right side
of the house. This will pull the tank further away from the buffer. The shed will also be removed
from the property. The applicant would also like to expand the deck to the rear; however, they have
made sure that no relief will be needed for the side setback.
Joe Coronado, Jones and Beach Engineers, stated that he met with the Conservation Commission
about three weeks ago in regards to the proposal. The commission held a site walk on the property.
They had a couple of concerns that they wanted addressed. He noted that a letter from the
commission has been submitted to the Board. There is currently a paved driveway right next to the
wetland. The commission wanted the driveway to become a porous type driveway. He continued
that the applicant agreed to a porous driveway. The driveway is being proposed with pavement
blocks, rather than porous pavement. The walkway to the front of the house will be eco pavers. The
Conservation Commission also requested plantings along the top of the slope that goes down into the
wetlands. This will help with runoff and stormwater treatment. There is also concrete debris along
the slope and a concrete dug well that will be removed. The shed has some concrete cinderblocks
underneath. The Conservation Commission wanted all of that cleaned up. The owners have agreed
to that. There is also an existing outdoor shower and the commission requested stone under the
shower to take the water and prevent runoff. The owners have agreed to that as well. He noted that
they have addressed all the concerns of the Conservation Commission.
Acting Chair Mikolaities asked about the drainage easements.
Mr. Coronado explained that the back part of the property is a triangular piece of land, which has
been added on to over the years. Part of the land that was added on to the property was subject to an
easement. The land is subject to a drainage easement. He pointed out that there is also a paper street
and 15ft of that was added to the property.
Acting Chair Mikolaities asked if they can plant within that easement.
Mr. Coronado commented that he does not know what that drainage easement states; however, the
drainage way is actually off line. The planting area is about 5 to 6 feet higher then where the
stormwater currently runs. He believes the owners have the right to plant. There are already trees
and plants growing in this area. He continued that there is no grade change proposed for the site.
4
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
Mr. Gray reviewed the criteria for grating the requested variances.
Referring to the existing outdoor shower, Member Driscoll asked if the water is going to drain
through the stone pit.
Mr. Coronado explained that the commission wanted to be sure there was a stone reservoir so it will
seep in to the ground.
Member Driscoll asked if they considered building up as opposed to building out.
Mr. Gray stated that the first floor mudroom drove the location of the addition. He thinks they are
going to keep it as a three bedroom. If the owners were to build up, it would just increase the
bedrooms.
Member Driscoll asked if there was anything going on inside the house that would warrant such a
large propane tank.
Mr. Gray commented that the tank was something that would typically be seen with a 4000sf home.
There was nothing special that warranted that size.
Speaking to Mr. Coronado, Member Driscoll asked if he reviewed the lot coverage numbers to make
sure there was nothing needed.
Mr. Coronado confirmed. He noted that the building coverage is at 11% and the total coverage is
20%.
Referring to the May 11th letter from the Conservation Commission, Acting Chair Mikolaities noted
that it states, “at the top of the slope the existing lawn be removed and non-lawn buffer be made of
shrub be added”. He continued that the shrubs are spaced 15 or 30ft. He asked if this is the
commission’s intent or did they want a continuous planting strip.
Mr. Coronado explained that they talked about plantings and the frequency. The spacing and
frequency would depend on what is proposed for plantings. The plants are 10ft apart and some of
them get larger. Based on the letter, the commission will need to sign off on the plantings.
Acting Chair Mikolaities opened to the public for comments or questions.
Donna Cipullo, 11 Richard Road, stated that she does not have an issue with the proposal. She
asked where the propane tank is being moved to.
Acting Chair Mikolaities commented that it will be closer to her house and there will also be a
generator.
Mr. Gray pointed out that the new tank will be smaller. (He reviewed the location with Mrs. Cipullo
on the plan.)
Mrs. Cipullo stated that she has a 30 gallon tank in that location also. There would be a small space
in between the two tanks. She continued that she has a porch with all glass windows. The tank will
be right there outside the window.
5
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
Mr. Gray stated that there is the potential to screen the tank with some type of shrubbery or lattice.
He will talk to the Tufts about this if it becomes an issue.
Mr. Coronado pointed out that Mrs. Cipullo’s deck is about 30ft away from the proposed tank
location. He is sure the landscaper would be happy to do some landscaping in this area. He noted
that the Tufts are going to be using the home as a summer residence.
Hearing no further comments or questions, Acting Chair Mikolaities closed the public session at 7:51
p.m.
Member Lincoln stated that it is a nice enhancement. They will be losing the “eyesore” of the
massive tank. The new tank will be 30ft away from the neighbors and it could be landscaped in the
area so it would not be seen. The generator would not be running all the time. It may go on a couple
of times per year. He thinks it makes sense for the enhancement to the property and the
neighborhood.
Member Hoyt stated that it is a modest addition to a modest house in a modest neighborhood. He is
in favor of the proposal.
Member Dibble agreed.
Member Driscoll stated that pending Conservation Commission’s approval and having them take a
look at this makes him feel a lot more comfortable. He wishes there was a little more dialogue
between the neighbors in regards to the generator and the propane tank; however, it does meet side
yard setbacks. As long as the Conservation Commission follows up with the plan, he thinks it is a
solid application.
Acting Chair Mikolaities noted that the Board is reviewing Sheet C-2, site plan 5-13-16, along with
the Conservation Commission’s letter of May 11th. He continued that they are trying to “dress up”
this older house. He does not have any problems with what is being done. He likes the Conservation
Commission’s conditions.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chair Mikolaities called for a vote on variances to Sections
603.1, 204.4 C and 301.8 B. 1 & 7:
1. The variances are not contrary to the public interest?
Lincoln - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Driscoll – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed?
Lincoln - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Driscoll – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
3. Substantial justice is done?
Lincoln - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Driscoll – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
6
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished?
Lincoln - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Driscoll – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
5. There are special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other
properties in the area?
Lincoln - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Driscoll – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purpose of the
ordinance provisions and the specific application of those provisions to the
property?
Lincoln - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Driscoll – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
7. The proposed use is a reasonable one?
Lincoln - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Driscoll – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship?
Lincoln - Yes, Hoyt - Yes, Dibble - Yes, Driscoll – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
Motion by Charles Hoyt to grant the variances requested by Joan and Robert Tufts of 1212
Benjamin Franklin Drive, Sarasota, FL for property owned and located at 15 Richard Road,
with the condition that they adhere to all the requests of the Conservation Commission prior to
the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Seconded by R.J. Lincoln. All in favor.
Note: Charles Hoyt recused himself from the following application. The applicant agreed to
move forward with a four member Board.
3. Paul Simbliaris of 58 Route 27, Raymond, NH for property owned by Mary Beth
Herbert of 112 Gates Street, Portsmouth and located at 0 Pollock Drive, formerly 10
Pollock Drive, Tax Map 23.1, Lot 17 requests Variances from Section 601 to build a home
on a vacant lot of 10,000 s.f. where 44,000 s.f. is required and frontage of 75’ where 150’ is
required; from Section 304.4 for a building height of 29.5’ where 28’ is required. Property is
in the General Residence, Coastal Overlay Districts. Case #36-2016.
Attorney Tim Phoenix, representing the applicant, spoke to the Board in regards to the proposal at
0 Pollock Drive. He noted that Mr. Simbliaris is under contract to purchase the lot conditioned upon
getting the permits to build a home. He continued that they are before the Board with a very straight
forward variance request. It is presently a vacant lot. John Chagnon did the site plan and
engineering and Charles Hoyt did the design work. There are two variances being requested. One is
for the height, which is proposed to be a 1.5ft over the 28ft limit and the other is for 601, building on
a lot that doesn’t meet the requirements. He pointed out that he also asked for a variance for the lot
7
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
size because it is more direct than filing an administrative appeal. It is his opinion that this lot does
not need a variance from Section 601. In 2009, there used to be two homes on one lot. The owners
at that time, got a variance to subdivide the lot into two separate lots with a house on each lot. He
submits that because there was a variance granted and subdivision approval granted this lot is an
existing lot and can be built upon. Also, if there is a lot that is a non-conforming lot with a house on
it, the house can be torn down and a new one built. This Board and the building inspector have never
required relief from 601. He noted that this house is vacant today; however, until 2009 it did have a
house on it. He submits for those two reasons the variance does not apply.
He continued that the other variance that is needed is the height variance. The lot is 75ft wide. The house
that was taken down had a left side setback of 10ft and a right side setback of 17.2ft. If the home is 30ft
wide with a garage, that is roughly 50ft, and sideline variances are going to be needed. He commented
that Mr. Hoyt worked very hard to not need any variances for lot coverage or sideline by putting the
garage under. Putting the garage under creates some height and puts it higher than what is allowed by
1.5ft. He pointed out that if the coverage on the house is 1390sf and the garage was on the side and
would be a total of 1870sf, which would require coverage variances. The lot size is such that a 21st
century decent home cannot be built on it without getting coverage and/or sideline relief or putting the
garage under and it ending up a little higher.
Charlie Hoyt, architect, reviewed the design, floor plan and elevations of the home for the Board.
Acting Chair Mikolaities asked John Chagnon to talk about impervious coverage.
John Chagnon, Ambit Engineering, stated that the proposed impervious coverage is 26.9%. The 9%
that is there now is the paved driveway. The driveway slopes towards Pollock Drive. There is a 3%
grade up to the driveway entrance. There is some pavement that is going to be removed. Currently, there
are no other accommodations for storm water. He continued that the septic is going to be located in the
rear. A State permit has been issued for the septic system.
Attorney Phoenix reviewed the criteria for granting the requested variances.
Acting Chair Mikolaities opened to the public for comments or questions.
Sandra Dombrowski, 39 Pollock Drive, asked if it is a three story house or two story.
Acting Chair Mikolaities explained that it is a two story house; however, the garage is under the house so
it is three levels.
Member Driscoll commented that there is living space on the garage level as well.
Ms. Dombrowski asked the height of the houses on either side of this property.
Attorney Phoenix stated that one is 15ft, which is a one story home. There is another house that is 31ft,
which is a two and a half, three story home.
Mr. Chagnon explained that the elevation to the peak of the house for the Sandborn property is 31.58ft.
Acting Chair Mikolaities asked the elevation to the ridge for the house that is being proposed.
8
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
Mr. Chagnon explained that it would be 40.90.
Ms. Dombrowski asked if the house is going to be built on the old footprint.
Mr. Chagnon replied no.
Jody Papandrew, 14 Pollock Drive, stated that the original house was a summer cottage that was
winterized. She continued that she is directly impacted by the house. The 1.5ft height above the
restriction will directly impact the views of the ocean. She noted that her house is a two story home
located next door. She was under the impression that anyone who bought the property was obligated to
follow the original footprint because of the size of the lot. The person who bought the original house let
the house go to ruin. It was vacant for years so it had to be torn down. It is a small lot for a little cottage.
Elizabeth Rawding, 771 Old Ocean Blvd, commented that there is a lot of ledge. She asked what would
happen if they have to blast.
Acting Chair Mikolaities replied that there is criteria that they have to follow for blasting and excavating.
Ms. Rawding asked if they would be responsible if anything should happen to the properties in the area.
Attorney Phoenix stated that this is slab on grade. The garage is essentially going to be at the ground
level. He does not see a need for blasting. However, a blasting company is worried about their own
liability. The company would do a blasting survey and set a radius with an inspection of the homes
within the radius. If a homeowner in the area makes a claim from the blasting, the company would know
because they did the pre-blast survey and will take care of it. The town will have checks and balances for
a project that involves blasting.
Mr. Hoyt reviewed the plan for the public.
Ms. Dombrowski stated that the prior owner bought the property to preserve the footprint. The proposal
is not preserving the footprint. She reiterated that this is a small lot.
Walter Martin, 763 Ocean Blvd., stated that the house is being moved back from Pollock Drive. He
asked how far back will the house be and how close will it be to his lot line. He noted that he lives behind
this property.
Mr. Chagnon explained that the building is proposed to be 44ft from the rear lot line. The prior building
was 58ft from the line. It will be 14ft closer to the lot line.
Mr. Martin asked if there is a deck on the back of the house.
Mr. Chagnon confirmed. The measurement is to the deck. The house is 10ft wide from the back of the
house. The house itself is only 4ft closer to the property line.
9
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
Mr. Martin asked where the septic will be located.
Mr. Chagnon explained that it will be located in the area between the house and the property line in the
rear. It is about 22ft off the house and 30ft off the property line.
Tim Sanborn, 767 & 753 Ocean Blvd., stated that the variance that was granted to make this a separate
lot was not in 2009. That was the year that the current owner tore down the cottage.
Attorney Phoenix agreed it was 1997.
Mr. Sanborn stated that he checked with the town when it was proposed that the house was going to be
torn down and asked what the ramification would be in terms of its future use. He continued that he was
told that they would be subject to a variance. He questions the statement that the variance would not be
necessary. This is a very congested area. The owner of the lot came in and practically clear cut all the
trees on the lot. There is not a lot of privacy in this area at all. As a result, the neighbors have put up
shrubs to have a little bit of a barrier. In terms of its impact, a building on that lot is going to impact the
views from the Papandrew lot.
Attorney Phoenix clarified that it was 1997 that the lot was subdivided and 2009 that the cottage was
taken down. The Papandrews subdivided the lot. The lot is subject to property owner rights just like any
other lot. He understands Ms. Papandrew’s belief that it would stay a cottage; however, that is not zoning
law or property rights. Once the lot is sold, it is going to be used seasonally or year round. Once the
house is down, someone is going to put a house on it. He understands the concerns that have been raised.
Some of the houses around this property are taller than this and some are shorter. He does not understand
Ms. Papandrew’s comment that 1.5ft will block her view. There is still some building envelope that
could be utilized if the building was shortened and made wider. He asks the Board to consider the fact
that this is a small lot and it is reasonable for someone to have a garage. If they put it on the side, it is
going to need sideline relief and coverage relief. He continued that this is the best of both worlds. He
does not see how 1.5ft is going to significantly or negatively impact anyone’s view. If it is denied, there
will be a redesigned and it could even be larger. The impact to the neighborhood will relatively be the
same as 29.5ft, 28ft or 24ft and wider. He seldom sees the effort that was taken to bring it in and not need
sideline relief, front setback relief, wetland relief or coverage relief. He thinks it is a fair balancing test.
He noted that the ground coverage for the cottage was 1243sf. This house is 1390sf of coverage, which is
147sf difference.
Mr. Sanborn commented that his back yard is directly to the rear of the proposed building. He noted that
his decks are in this area and they do not meet the setbacks. The decks were existing when he acquired
the house in 1996. In terms of any type of privacy from the continued use of the decks would essentially
be gone.
Speaking to Zoning Administrator Reed, Acting Chair Mikolaities asked if there were any conditions that
go with the demolition permit from 2009.
Zoning Administrator Reed replied that she does not know but will look in the files.
10
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
Acting Chair Mikolaities called for a recess at 8:55 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:57 p.m.
Acting Chair Mikolaities noted that Mr. Chagnon had a copy of the demolition permit and there were no
conditions.
Attorney Phoenix stated that the fact that in 1997 the town granted the subdivision and variances is very
significant. Once that happened, this is a valid lot.
Acting Chair Mikolaities asked for further comments or questions from the Board. Hearing none, he
closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
Member Driscoll stated that Attorney Phoenix’s last point is a good point but it still does not address the
height requirement for him. The height of the building is where he is struggling with which direction to
go. He looks back to the five criteria and he struggles with the criteria, “there are special conditions of
the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area”, in relation to the height requirement.
He continued that there were definitely efforts made in the design to keep the mass of the house down but
it is still a large house for the neighborhood. After hearing from the applicant and the abutters this is
where he stands.
Member Dibble stated that when he drove down Pollock Drive, he felt the neighborhood was crowded.
He understands the concerns of the residents that adding back a building that has been gone for a long
time would make them feel crowded again. On the other hand, he is completely convinced by the
statement that this is a legal lot and if they stay within the setbacks they can build what they would like.
There are other buildings that are taller than this building. To some degree this mitigates his concern
about the height. He feels a need to say that people do not have an automatic entitlement to a view.
There has to be a view easement in their deed to claim that the view is being obstructed. Very often this
Board sees applicants requesting buildings of larger size, which they balance by claims of public good by
upgrading to code and improving appearance. In this case, he is convinced by the building assessment
that the designer did everything he could do to stay within this last 1.5ft. The removal of the garage from
under the building does not enhance the project. It is a detriment to the project. In view of the fact that
there are other buildings in the neighborhood that are taller, he is inclined to not object to the 1.5ft over
the 28ft.
Member Lincoln stated that this is a tough situation and he always tries to put himself in the shoes of the
people who are involved. He definitely understands the concerns of the surrounding neighbors but
whether it be now or down the road there will be a structure on that lot. It will never stay an open lot. It
is a buildable lot. He struggles a little bit with the 1.5ft over but it will not make a big difference. He is
inclined to go along with it.
Member Dibble stated that neighborhoods that were once one-story, small, summer cottages have evolved
over time and become a mix of larger and smaller buildings. It’s hard to define where the neighborhood
ends and begins. This is another neighborhood that is in transition. It is difficult to disallow the project
because it is not in keeping with the smaller structures, some of which are nearby.
11
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
Acting Chair Mikolaities stated that he understands the concern from the neighbors. It is unfortunate that
in 1997 there was not some advice given that there should be some conditions put on the lot once it was
subdivided. The time to put a condition on the lot that it has to be a one story house would have been
when the lot was subdivided. He continued that they have done a very tasteful job. This is a 10,000sf lot.
All things considered, this is a big lot in this area. The problem he is having is with the 1.5ft over the
height. This is the whole length of the building that is running high, as opposed to a dormer on the side.
He thinks it is a tasteful house. It is only two bedrooms. The Board has seen worse than this on half the
size lots. He commented that he is still thinking on the height. There are two variances in front of the
Board to 601 and 304.4.
Member Dibble commented that it is a fairly treed neighborhood. It seems to him that the trees would
interfere with the views more than the house.
The Board agreed to vote on each variance separately.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chair Mikolaities called for a vote on variances to Section
601:
1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
3. Substantial justice is done?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
5. There are special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other
properties in the area?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purpose of the
ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the
property?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
12
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
7. The proposed use is a reasonable one?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities – Yes
Motion by Patrick Driscoll to approve the variance requested from Section 601 to build a
home on a vacant lot of 10,000sf, where 44,000sf is required and frontage of 75ft, where 150ft is
required. Seconded by Burt Dibble. All in favor.
Acting Chair Mikolaities called for a vote on variances to Section 304.4:
1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
3. Substantial justice is done?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
5. There are special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other
properties in the area?
Driscoll – No, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purpose of the
ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the
property?
Driscoll – Yes, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
7. The proposed use is a reasonable one?
Driscoll – No, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
13
Final Minutes of ZBA May 18, 2016
8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship?
Driscoll – No, Dibble – Yes, Lincoln – Yes, Mikolaities - Yes
Motion by Burt Dibble to grant the variance to the applicants to Section 304.4 for a building height
of 29.5ft, where 28ft is required. Seconded by R. J. Lincoln.
Vote: 3-1. Opposed: Patrick Driscoll.
III.

Other Business:
None
Adjournment
Motion by R. J. Lincoln to adjourn at 9:14 p.m. Seconded by Patrick Driscoll. All in favor.
*All corresponding paperwork and files may be viewed at the Building Department, Rye Town Hall.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dyana F. Ledger
14