Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: June 17, 2004
Board Members: Present -George Hartmann, Chair, Alan Greatorex, Vice Chair, Walter Swift, Jim Poage
Absent – Ross McIntyre
Board Alternates: Present - Margot Maddock, Marcia Armstrong Absent – Jackie Glass
Staff: Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Judy and Paul Barker, Tom Turkington, Daniel Lynch
At 7:30 pm, Chairman George Hartmann called the meeting to order. Minutes of the May 27 meeting were approved on a motion by Walter seconded by Alan, with the note that the date indicated on the footer should be corrected.
Paul and Judy Barker, Applicants, Permit Application 04-044, M408/L22
Proposal: build a fire escape staircase at 70 Orford Road.
George appointed Margot Maddock to sit as a regular member on this case in order to have five members. The Barkers propose to build railings on the roof on the north side of the main lodge at Loch Lyme Lodge in the Rural District and build stairs from the roof to the ground level. This requires a special exception under section 8.23 to build within the road setback. Judy explained that the insurance company has required this change and will no longer allow a ladder. The stairs are to be located within the front setback because the building is so close to Route 10. If the stairs were built on the other side of the building it would force occupants to walk the length of the roof before they could escape to the ground in the event of fire. Judy said the stairs would be built of pressure treated wood. George asked if
the insurance company had reviewed the design. Paul said yes.
Deliberations: Alan advised that the Lyme Fire Chief should be asked for advice. Walter asked about state regulations. Paul said the state had never shown interest in fire escape provisions at the Lodge. Judy added that there are only four bedrooms upstairs. Walter suggested that Vickie Davis should research and confirm that no state regulations would be violated by the proposed design and that a metal escape would not be required. He explained that he was concerned about town liability. Walter moved to grant a special exception for the addition of a fire escape stairway and landing as shown on the sketch submitted with the application. Findings of fact include: that the landing is required by safety considerations; that the landing and stairway involve the addition of 51 sf of intrusion into the front setback;
that there is no other reasonable location for the structure; that there was no comment from abutters; that there is a long history of a building on the site with no encroachment since 1989; that the Barkers are entitled to make 1000 sf of additions in the setback; that the use of the property is conforming on a lot that is non-conforming lot there is encroachment into the front setback; that the building predates adoption of the zoning ordinance; and that the proposal meets the requirements of section 10.50. Walter added that the proposal is for pressure treated lumber, and that it is unresolved whether the proposed materials meet all state codes. Conditions: the applicant must demonstrate to the zoning administrator’s satisfaction that the construction materials meet state codes regarding fire escapes for buildings of this type. If the codes are met, the permit may be issued and the addition should be built substantially as shown. Alan seconded the motion, and it
passed unanimously.
Tom Turkington, Applicant for Daniel and Barbara Lynch, Permit Application 04-052, M407/L66
Proposal: replace a 12' x 12' shed with a 24' x 24' barn at 63 Whipple Hill Road.
Jim Poage recused himself from this case, and George appointed Marcia and Margot to sit as regular members.
The Lynchs propose to remove an unpermitted shed and build a larger barn on the site. This requires a special exception to build within the Agricultural Soils Conservation District and a variance to encroach into the road setback. Tom explained that there is a small (12' x 12') shed near the 145' long driveway, which the owners want to remove and replace with a larger one that will accommodate their recreational equipment, which is currently stored outside. The existing shed is 76' from the property line. The new structure could be put in the same place, but it would crowd a retaining wall and would require a cut into the slope. Therefore the owners would like to encroach 8 feet into the setback. The current structure is one foot outside the setback. Jim asked about the style of the house. Dan said it was
built by TimberPeg in 1993 and is considered a contemporary colonial. The shed is the same age and style. The new shed would be a similar style with similar clapboards, shingle roof, and roof pitch. Tom added that because it is a 12 pitch roof the roof would be 6' higher and would look like a two car garage.
Tom drew a sketch of the drainage and retaining wall at Alan’s request. He said that the site on the other side of the driveway was said to have once been a sandpit. Dan said that he wants easy access to the new barn and does not want to build a road to it. Tom explained that the land falls off on the other side of the drive, and that pine trees there currently screen the shed from the road. If the new barn is built on the other side of the drive, these trees would have to be cleared, making the structure more visible.
George noted that if building takes place on ag soils, the owner must put the rest in a conservation easement, and asked if the owner was willing. Dan said he was. Walter said it appeared that there was no way to avoid building on ag soils here, but he was troubled about whether the need for a variance was compelling. Tom said that there is currently sufficient room for natural drainage to flow between the shed and the end of the retaining wall that parallels the driveway, but that if the barn were moved closer to the wall, it would intercept this drainage. There is not enough room to build a swale. Tom said that the current shed is 12-14' from the wall, and that the proposed layout would move the building 4' closer to the wall. George asked if there is a cost
difference. Tom said that there would be a slightly higher cost to remove more trees and do more excavation. Walter explained that the standards that must be met for a variance are much more stringent than those for a special exception, and that in the absence of a well-defined topographic map, he advised a site visit. Other members agreed. Walter asked the applicant to stake out the corners of the proposed building before the visit. He noted that there were no abutters present.
Closed deliberations on a motion by Walter seconded by Alan. Tabled the public hearing to the following morning, Friday June 18, at 8 am for a site visit, on a motion by Walter seconded by Marcia. Continued the public hearing to Monday, June 28 at 7:30 pm, on a motion by Walter seconded by Alan.
Meeting adjourned 8:42 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
