 |
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: April 20, 2006
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Chair; Jim Poage. Absent - George Hartmann, Walter Swift, Ross McIntyre
Alternate members: Present - Margot Maddock, Marcia Armstrong
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Lee and Kathy Larson, Scott May, Tim Olsen, Burke and Dawn Cunningham
Minutes of the January 19 meeting were approved on a motion by Margot, seconded by Jim. Minutes of the March 16 meeting were approved on a motion by Jim, seconded by Margot. Alan appointed Margot and Marcia to sit as regular members.
First Baptist Church of Lyme, Applicant, Permit Application 2006-011, M409 L14
Project: erect sign at 177 Dorchester Road.
Alan explained that the applicant is entitled to a five-person board, and that he could ask to table the hearing on this application until five members could be present. Lee chose to continue with a four-person board.
The First Baptist Church proposes to place a 36" x 36" sign at the southeast edge of their property in the Lyme Center District. This requires a variance to section 5.1 to place a sign within the side property setback allowance. Lee Larson explained that the sign would be erected halfway down the bank between the stone wall, which is the property line, and the drainage ditch. It will be a single hanging sign, similar to that at the Academy building, and will not be illuminated. He added that the church could place the sign in the middle of the green in front of the church without a variance, but this would interfere with snow plowing, eliminate parking space, and affect sight distance for those leaving the parking area. The proposed location identifies the
church without this interference.
Alan asked if the sign could be raised above the proposed 72" height so that those leaving the lot could see under it. Lee said the sign would be set back 15' from the road, and that he had checked visibility when selecting the location, and this would be best. Abutter Scott May agreed, and said he did not view the sign as a problem. Abutter Adair Mulligan agreed and thought the sign would be an asset. There are no front setback requirements.
Deliberations: Alan reviewed the provisions of section 10.50, and Lee’s responses to each. Voted unanimously to accept Lee’s response to the conditions for a variance, on a motion by Jim seconded by Marcia. Jim moved to grant a variance to the First Baptist Church of Lyme to erect a sign, for section 6.25 of the zoning ordinance and the setback requirements of Table 5.1. The church is located in the Lyme Center District. The signage proposal meets all requirements for size and description in the zoning ordinance. Only placement is an issue. For the reasons described by Lee, the best place is in the side setback in a location halfway between the stone wall and the drainage ditch. The sign will be 36" square, 72" high, and well within the zoning ordinance limits. Two abutters were in
attendance and supported the application. Marcia seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Timothy Olsen, Applicant, Permit Application 2006-104, M402 L30
Project: build house at 208 Dartmouth College Highway.
Alan explained that the applicant is entitled to a five-person board, and that he could ask to table the hearing on this application until five members could be present. Tim chose to continue with a four-person board.
Tim Olsen proposes to build a new three-bedroom cape-style home on the property of Malcolm Wing in the Rural District. This requires a special exception under section 8.25 of the zoning ordinance to exceed the maximum building footprint and section 5.13 to place the replacement septic system within the property setback. A mobile home was removed from the property in 2005. Margot asked how long after a building is removed would consideration of the property change. Vickie said it is two years, and referred to the definition of “abandoned” which would have to apply to make it a vacant lot. Jim advised that section 8.25 would apply, and would allow 1000 sf of expansion. Vickie noted no abutter comment had been received. Jim noted that the setback situation
applied to the new building only, and not to the earlier one. Tim said that the house would be centered on the lot, and that the septic field would be moved to get it out of the wetland buffer. Jim asked whether the septic design had been approved. Tim said not yet, because he needs to show he is moving the well. The new septic system is sized for a three bedroom home; the former system was for a two bedroom home. Alan asked about a ditch. Vickie said there are hydric soils on the corner of the lot.
Deliberations: Members reviewed the conditions of section 10.40 and agreed the application meets them all. Margot moved to grant a special exception to build a home in the Rural District under section 8.25 to expand a footprint, and under section 5.13 to replace a septic system within the setback. There was a previous building on the lot, but it was removed within the past year, so section 8.25 applies, and an extra 1000sf of expansion is allowed. Both the lot and the original trailer were pre-zoning. On the pre-zoning lot, 1272 sf of development would have been allowed. The proposal adds 1684 sf, with an excess of 412 sf. Up to 1000 sf extra is permitted, leaving 588 sf for future expansion. Conditions are that septic system approval and energy code approval are needed from the state, and best building
practices to control erosion should be used. Jim seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Burke and Dawn Cunningham, Applicants, Permit Application 2006-118, M413 L27
Project: build sunroom, deck, and shed at 6 Canaan Ledge Lane.
Alan explained that the applicants are entitled to a five-person board, and that they could ask to table the hearing on this application until five members could be present. The Cunninghams chose to continue with a four-person board.
Burke & Dawn Cunningham propose to remove their deck and replace it with a sunroom at their home in the East Lyme District. This requires a special exception under section 8.25 to exceed the maximum footprint. They would also like to add another deck and a shed. These will be located within the property setbacks and require a special exception under section 8.22. Burke explained that their home is set on a small two acre pre-zoning lot, and the 150' side setbacks in this district actually overlap. The sunroom would be a basic metal frame structure on the southwest side. He said that his neighbors to the south, with whom he shares a driveway, are not concerned. Alan asked about a tree buffer, out of concern for damage due to excavation. Burke said
there is a tree line between the homes, but that he will build the floor himself on pillars, so will not damage tree roots. Jim asked if there were any other reasonable locations for the shed. Burke explained that the land drops down to a brook in the rear and there is no way to avoid being in the side setback. Vickie added that his neighbors to the north have cleared their lot and been cutting trees on the Cunninghams’ property.
Deliberations: Alan noted that the provisions of section 10.40A have been met. Jim moved to grant a special exception to remove a deck and replace it with a sunroom under section 8.25, and to build a new deck and tool shed in the side setback under section 8.22. The house was built in 1972 before zoning, on a two acre lot. After reductions for the steep slopes conservation district, there is an effective lot size of 66,211 sf. In the East Lyme District, the maximum footprint is 1% of the lot, so the allowable building footprint would be 662sf. The pre-zoning footprint is 1024 sf. The proposed addition of the sunroom is 216 sf, which is a permitted expansion under 8.25. The balance of the footprint for the house will be 784 sf. The new deck and shed are 400 sf and 80 sf respectively, and are separate from the
house and meet the definition of accessory structures. They would be built in the side setback. Section 8.22 allows expansion of up to 1000 sf in the setback areas. Within the setback, the net expansion, after removal of the existing deck, will be 372 sf, leaving 628 sf for future expansion in the side setback areas. The shape of the lot forces the 150' side setback areas to overlap each other, and does not allow any building. The tool shed cannot be located outside the side setback, and the location selected for it is the flatter area of the lot, which will be partially screened from the neighbor’s view. Lot coverage is not an issue. 12% coverage is allowable. The applicant is not proposing to heat the sunroom at this time, so state energy requirements do not apply. Provisions of section 10.40A 1-14 have been met. Conditions include use of best construction practices. Marcia seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Vickie advised the Cunninghams to seek a state energy code approval in case they decide to heat the sunroom in the future.
Meeting adjourned 9:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| |
