Fanelli returns to Lloyd Zoning Board

By Mark Reynolds
Posted 1/15/20

Last week Lloyd resident Stacey Fanelli, in her husband’s absence, was again before the Lloyd Zoning Board seeking an area variance for two homes that are on their property at 26 Gabriety Road- …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Fanelli returns to Lloyd Zoning Board

Posted

Last week Lloyd resident Stacey Fanelli, in her husband’s absence, was again before the Lloyd Zoning Board seeking an area variance for two homes that are on their property at 26 Gabriety Road- a smaller house that existed on the property when they bought it, which was later renovated, and a second new house that that was put up in May 2019. Presently, the Fanelli’s have been denied a Certificate Of Occupancy for their new home because of the two homes. The zoning in this area is Residential 2 acre [R2] and the total size of their lot is 1.97 acres. There is a second issue because an accessory building is not allowed to be located within the front yard. The Fanelli’s are also living in their new home without a Certificate of Occupancy, but the Building Department is holding that in abeyance until the entire matter is resolved.

The record shows that the Fanelli’s were granted a signed building permit in May 2019 that made no mention of their having to remove the smaller house. Building Department Director Dave Barton has stated on the record that John Fanelli was told by his department that the smaller house had to be removed if he were to build a new home. There is no documentation, however, in the building department’s records to back this claim and Fanelli has repeatedly denied that he was told of this zoning provision; which is why he has been before the Zoning Board for the past few months seeking relief from the code.

At last week’s Zoning Board meeting the board’s land use attorney Paul Van Cott outlined for Stacey Fanelli what is needed from them to make a full application to the board for this project. Van Cott said the Fanelli’s will need a front yard variance for the pre-existing smaller house on the property. He said this house would no longer be classified as a single family dwelling, but instead would be considered as a guest cottage even though he said there is little distinction between these two terms.

Van Cott said he looked at the Fanelli’s site plan and discovered that the new house is 30 feet from the lot line from the side yard when 35 feet is the required distance for a side yard setback in an agricultural district. This would require a 5 foot variance from the ZBA.

Van Cott questioned whether the maximum building coverage has been exceeded, which includes the new house, a small shed, and the older small house.

“The combination of that can’t be more than 8% of your entire lot,” he said. “That is something your surveyor or consultant can calculate and share with the building department. If it does, that would require a variance as well.”

Van Cott said because the ZBA is treating the smaller building as an accessory apartment it needs to be on a lot, “that is of conforming size and the agricultural lot size is 2 acres.” Because the Fanelli’s lot is 1.97 acres Van Cott said they would need a variance of .03 of an acre relief from the 2 acre requirement.

Van Cott said if the ZBA were to grant the variance on the small house as an accessory apartment, the Fanelli’s would then have to apply for a Special Use Permit from the Planning Board. Van Cott suggested to Stacey Fanelli that, “It’s probably advisable to start working towards making it something that would comply if and when it gets to the point of being approved by this board and going to the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit.”

Stacey Fanelli asked if they will be able to rent the accessory home with Van Cott saying they should make that part of their application. He said it does not matter if the smaller house is considered an accessory apartment or a guest cottage [but] what matters is how you propose to use it.

At a previous ZBA meeting, the board informally suggested dividing the 1.97 acre lot into two separate deeded lots. Last week Van Cott said this “solution” would not be allowed by the code, which states that, “such a non-conforming lot shall not further be reduced in area or frontage.” He added that “this would also require a variance.”

Van Cott said it would ultimately be up to the Fanellis on what they would like to apply for.

“What we wanted to do tonight is [show] the course that really more directly addresses the structure issues without having to propose to have two lots that is only half of what the district ordinarily allows,” he said.