Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: April 14, 2004
Board Members: Present -Walter Swift, Chair, Jim Poage, Vice Chair, George Hartmann, Alan Greatorex, Absent – Ross McIntyre
Board Alternates: Present -, Margot Maddock, Marcia Armstrong , Jackie Glass
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Rusty and Noreen Estes, Jeff Snelling, Curtis Shepard, Elaine Neal, Amy Record
At 7:30 pm, Vice-Chair Jim Poage called the meeting to order in the temporary absence of Chairman Swift and asked Marcia and Jackie to sit as regular members. Voted to approve minutes of March 18, with an amendment by Jackie, on a motion by Jim, seconded by George.
Russell and Noreen Estes, Applicants, Permit Application 04-008, M402/L43
Proposal: build new home and detached garage at 92 Shoestrap Road.
The Estes propose to build a house and detached garage on this lot in the Rural District. The project requires a special exception to build a driveway across agricultural soils and to exceed the maximum building footprint on a non-conforming vacant lot. The lot is shown with much Steep Slopes Conservation District, but a site visit proved the building areas were not steep slopes. Noreen explained that the driveway location proposed is the best place for it on the lot, along the side setback, and that the house and garage would be reversed in position but occupy the same place. Rusty added that the driveway had already been approved and is under 10% slope. George asked about its length. Rusty said it was 350' or shorter. Jim noted that the lot size reduction would allow 1498 square feet without a special exception. Vickie
said that other than the ag soil crossing there are no other issues. The pre-zoning lot is 1.72 acres in a zone where the minimum lot size is 5 acres. She confirmed that the ZBA can waive the ag soil requirement if the lot is under 3 acres. Jim said that because there are 1 1/4 acres of ag soils on the lot, this issue will be waived. He asked for public input.
Jeff Snelling, who owns the lot below to the west, indicated his well on the map, and said he hoped that when the cellar was dug it would not affect flow at his well, or that occupancy would contaminate it. Rusty said he measured the well’s distance from the proposed leach field, and found it would be over 150'. He understood Jeff’s concerns. It is over 100' to the house site. He would not dig more than 8' for a 6' foundation and hit no water. Jeff said he felt Rusty should do with his land as he wished as long as there would be no contamination resulting. Alan said the new well is to be a drilled well.
Deliberations: George noted there was no other practical drive location given the lot shape, and that if the house was moved, it would create a problem with the Snelling well. Jim moved to grant a special exception under section 8.31 relative to vacant non-conforming lots, and under 4.64B.7, regarding access ways in agricultural soils. The access proposed is permitted under this section. Section 4.53 governs the nature of the access, and these conditions have been met.
Findings of fact: The 3 acre lot was created through a minor subdivision in 1987. After conservation district reductions, the effective “lot size” is 74,923 sf which allows a 1498 sf house. The proposed house has a footprint of 2000 sf. Section 8.31 provides, “a Special Exception shall be required which shall include a determination by the ZBA of reasonable and practicable dimensional requirements applicable to the size and location of the proposed residence. The ZBA finds that the proposed building footprint is reasonable, and a
special exception is granted. Jackie inquired about reducing the size of the garage, and Jim explained that the footprint of the garage was not an issue. Conditions: will be built according to best construction practices; a state permit for the septic system is required. Rusty said he will get this and an energy code design. Jackie seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
`
Walter Swift arrived and assumed Marcia Armstrong’s place as a regular member.
Curtis Shepard, Applicant, Permit Application 04-010, M401/L61
Proposal: add to back of house at 25 Wilmott Way.
An addition for a bedroom is proposed for a two-bedroom home in the Rural District. This requires a special exception under section 8.25 to exceed the maximum building footprint. Jackie Glass asked about previous permits for construction on the property. Curtis said he added a shop and barn with an office overhead, and got a special exception for that. This addition is to be behind the house and not in the setback. Jim said that the total footprint is in bounds, and a special exception is needed for 107 sf, which is permitted under 8.25. No abutters were present.
Deliberations: Since the septic system is approved for three bedrooms, there is no septic issue. Jim moved to grant a special exception under section 8.25.
Findings of fact: the house is in the Rural District and was built before zoning. Additions made since zoning have all been permitted. The original footprint may be expanded up to 1000 sf. The maximum footprint allowed on the lot is 1830 sf. The existing home is 1324 sf, and proposed addition is for 613 sf for a total of 1937 sf. The remainder is 107 sf over the permitted limit. There is a balance of 893 sf for future expansion, for which a special exception would be required. The current septic system is for a three bedroom house, and so an upgrade would be needed for a future expansion. There was no comment from abutters. Conditions: will be built according to best construction practices. Jackie asked if the driveway would be moved. Curtis said he would expand it by 25'. George seconded the motion. Walter
noted that the building was conforming when the ordinance was passed. The motion passed unanimously.
Elaine and Frank Neal, Applicants, Permit Application 04-09, M201/L63
Proposal: add 14 x 16' porch at 7 Hamilton Lane.
The Neals propose to add on to their home in the Lyme Common District. This requires a special exception on section 8.24 or a variance, if the ZBA denies the special exception, to encroach into the Wetlands Conservation District. There was once a 600 sf addition which did encroach into the wetland buffer, but it burned between 1969 and 1979. When the Neals were granted a permit to build in 1992, the Zoning Board did not consider the presence of wetlands, and a slightly larger addition was built than was proposed and permitted.
Vickie read a letter from the Conservation Commission, following a visit of four members to the site. All CC members agreed that the addition would not cause an additional negative impact, and their letter referred to a planned patio. Elaine said she did not realize she needed a permit for the patio too, and would return for one. Walter asked if the CC had seen the larger 19’ x 16’ dimension proposal. Elaine said she staked it out for the CC. Walter said that the decision memo from 1992 had said up to 4500 sf would be approved, but the building permit was for 1700 sf. The numbers varied, and plans appeared to be in flux. He cited the language in the previous memo and concluded that whatever was approved then was okay, and what was built was okay, but he agreed
that the previous ZBA had not addressed the wetlands issue. Elaine said that there had been a discussion of agricultural soils, but not of wetlands. She confessed she was ignorant of the issue at the time, and that the confusion was based on the LaClair drawing. She agreed that the project is clearly in the wetland buffer. Jim asked if there is an accurate map now. Vickie displayed it and said she went to the site with the applicant and measured. Elaine continued that her 1992 addition replaced the burned 600 sf addition. Jim said that the new addition would not count as a new intrusion because it replaced the burned one. Abutter Amy Record said that she supports the application.
Deliberations: Walter said that the addition had burned by the time the ordinance was passed, and that it had also been in the wetland buffer. The total application within the wetlands district is 1104 sf, or 504 sf if it is accepted that the 600 sf addition counted as grand fathered. Elaine said she did not know when it burned, but assumed it was before 1979. Vickie said that in the Lyme Common District 500 sf is allowed. Walter consulted the ordinance and noted that if the addition had been rebuilt within 2 years, it would be counted as a non-conforming replacement under 8.26 and 8.27. Jim observed that grand fathering it under these conditions would be like allowing space for a cellar hole. Walter said that because the addition was not there when zoning was put in, it does not count. Marcia agreed. Jackie noted
that the acreage has changed considerably since 1992. Alan said that because the intrusion has existed for 12 years already, it is not a problem. Elaine said that there are 704 sf of encroachment into the wetlands buffer now, not including what she is proposing.
Walter said that the 160 sf porch and 640 sf 1992 construction equal 800 sf in the buffer now. This was compared to the tax card. Walter asked if the 1992 drawing accurately depicted what was built. Elaine said she thought her porch was 8’ x 12’. Walter said that at this moment, the footprint is over by 300 sf. He reopened the hearing to accept a question from Amy Record, who pointed out the long time frame and asked what could be done.
Re-entered deliberations. George said that credit could not be given for the 600 sf portion that burned, so the project needs a variance. Others agreed. Vickie suggested an equitable waiver under section 10.61 since the violation has existed for more than ten years. Walter consulted the ordinance and reviewed the criteria of 10.61 A, B2, C (the CC’s letter) and D.
He continued by reviewing the conditions for a variance. It meets 10.60A for abutter support, B, C (CC letter), D, and possibly E. He asked if there was another place to put the addition. Elaine noted that the purpose of the project is to enlarge a porch attached to the residence, so this was the only place. She added she is concerned with preserving land in the village and has bought more acreage, of which 16 acres are wetlands. Jim said she cannot conveniently use the non-wetland portion of the land from her house. Walter said that a verbal application for an equitable waiver would be accepted, since the hearing was noticed for a special exception or a variance and any other sections found applicable.
Walter moved to deny the special exception for the proposed expansion based on these findings of fact:
As a result of a 1992 decision by the ZBA, 800 sf of additions were made to the existing residence on the subject lot that intruded into the current wetland buffer zone. At the time of that hearing, the ZBA did not consider and may not have been aware of intrusion into the wetland buffer zone. The limit of expansion is 500 sf in the Lyme Common District. An existing 600 sf portion of the residence burned before 1979. This ZBA therefore did not give credit for the pre-existing structure in calculating the square footage. Sections 8.26 and 8.27 are used as grounds for not allowing the special exception. The current application would increase the intrusion into the wetland buffer by an additional 304 sf above 800 sf. George seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Walter reopened the hearing. Elaine asked to apply for an equitable waiver for the existing addition. The ZBA re-entered deliberations. Jim said that all conditions of 10.61 A-D are met, after deliberations by the board. He moved to grant an equitable waiver to forgive 800 sf intrusion allowed by the former board in 1992. Alan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Regarding the variance, Walter suggested that the board has determined that it meets all criteria A-E of 10.60, since it is supported by the abutter and by the Conservation Commission’s letter of April 12. George moved to grant a variance for the addition of 304 sf in the wetland buffer to bring the total intrusion to 1104 sf. Conditions include use of best construction practices and suitable care taken to keep debris out of the wetlands. Construction will be performed in accordance with the amended application sketch dated March 16, 2004. Jim seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Walter asked the Board to consider a change in the rules of procedure which currently require discussion for two consecutive meetings before the meeting when an action is voted upon, on non-applicant actions. He asked the Board to consider a change to one meeting’s discussion in advance of a vote. George preferred this. Will take up again at next meeting. Elections will take place at the May meeting. Also discussed the possibility of moving the officer elections to better coincide with town meeting.
Meeting adjourned 9:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
