Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 01/15/2019
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, Jan 15, 2019
Mezzanine Conf. Room
MEMORIAL TOWN HALL, 52 LYME STREET
OLD LYME, CT -~7:00 P.M.

  • Meeting called to order at TIME 7:00 PM
  • Roll Call
Present:~Nancy Hutchinson (Chair), Kip Kotzan (Vice Chair), Marisa Hartmann (Secretary), Dan Montano, and Alternates Stephanie Mickle
Absent:~~ Alternates Tom Schellens and Steve Dix

Others present:  Keith Rosenfeld, Land Use Coordinator.  

IV.~    Public Hearing

Case 19-01C – Ralph DiCristofaro/Hartung, LLC, 11/11A Hartung Place,~requests variances to allow the existing structure to become FEMA compliant. ~

The chair introduced the case, and read the variances being requested:  
  • Section 8.8.6 Maximum Height, 24 feet required, 30.3 feet requested for dwelling 11 and 30.5 feet for dwelling 11A;
Section 8.8.11 Maximum Building Coverage, 25% required, 36% requested
Section 8.8.12 Maximum Ground Coverage, 30% required, 36% requested.

Sabrina Foulke and Alexa Ashton of Point One Architects represented the applicants.  There currently exist 2 small structures on the property that are not FEMA compliant.  Both are non-conforming and the lot is also non-conforming, in a VE-13 Coastal High Hazard Area.  One structure is located on the front property line, and 1.6 feet from the side property line.  The other structure is 3 feet from the side property line and 26 ft 1 inch from the front property line.  The elevation of the structures are currently 8.3-8.4 ft, and the FEMA height is 13 feet.  This proposal also includes a Coastal Site Plan Review Application.

The proposal is to elevate the existing non-conforming structures in their exact locations, and add the minimum size breakaway staircases to reach the elevated first floor, increasing the existing coverage non-conformities from 32% to 36%.  Ms. Foulkes reviewed the existing and proposed plans.  Ms. Ashton reviewed the zoning compliance tables.

Ms. Hutchinson asked if the were any possibility of reducing an existing non-conformity to potentially off-set the proposed increase in non-conformity; for example, if the structure is being raised, why not move it farther from the property line to reduce the setback non-conformity.  Ms. Foulke noted that it is difficult with the limited space available, but they could consider pulling one structure a foot or so off of the property line.  Also discussed was the number of bedrooms in the existing structures and whether the current plan reduced the total number of bedrooms.  Ms. Hutchinson thought that two existing structures had 4 and 3 bedrooms, respectively, and that that number had not changed.  Ms. Foulke stated that each existing structure currently had 5 bedrooms, and that number would be reduced to 4 and 3.  The Board expressed the view that it generally looked favorably on reducing the total number of bedrooms when seeking a variance to renovate a structure on a non-conforming property.

Mr. Kotzan asked if the variance could be minimized by combining the staircases and creating a shared staircase for the two structures.  Ms. Foulke said she would explore that option; one concern she had was how that would affect the construction if the structures were moved closer.  The benefit would be that it would reduce multiple non-conformities.

Ms. Hutchinson noted that she spoke to the ZBA Attorney prior to the meeting and asked if “becoming FEMA compliant” was, in itself, a legal hardship, and she was told that it is possible that in some cases FEMA compliance can be viewed as a hardship IF there is no adverse impact on the comprehensive plan AND it is the minimum needed to comply.  Most often the board deals with situations where a non-conforming structure seeking to become FEMA compliant reduces some legal preexisting non-conformity, which helps to off-set any increase in non-conformity; and it that case law is clear that a substantial reduction in non-conformity can, when seeking to become FEMA compliant, replace the need to demonstrate a legal hardship.  

Ms. Foulke said she thought that it was potentially a good idea to move one building back and tie the stairs together, while trying to maintain the establishment of additional parking under the elevated structures.  Mr. Kotzan stressed the importance of trying to minimize the variances needed to become FEMA compliant.  Ms. Hutchinson agreed, especially since both structures are already non-conforming, and the property is such a non-conforming lot.  The Board cannot redesign the project but can ask questions that can potentially support both FEMA compliance and legal compliance with land use case law.  Ms. Foulke agreed to try to make changes and then come back to the Board with a revised plan.

Ms. Ashton then reviewed additional details of the plans, where parking is proposed, the type of break away walls proposed, etc.  Mr. Kotzan asked the applicant to confirm that the structure was not being elevated higher than necessary to meet FEMA compliance to allow under structure storage, and Ms. Foulke explained how the proposal will meet slightly higher than is necessary to meet FEMA compliance in a VE flood zone, but is being done in anticipation of global warming and sea rise.  She also explained the planned construction to meet FEMA requirements.

Next the Secretary, Ms. Hartmann read into the record the comments from CT-DEEP, related to the Coastal Site Plan Review Application, and the Board asked the applicant to please address those comments when they return with a revised plan.  A copy was provided to the applicant, as Ms. Foulke said that they had not yet received it.

The Chair opened the public hearing to public comment.  Frank Maratta, of 13 Hartung Place, said that he supported improving these structures, he described as shacks, but also had a concern that the elevation of the structures would block the afternoon sun on his property, and that he felt that this did not align with the regulations that protect light and air. He asked the applicant to consider a flat roof to reduce height. He also had questions about timing of construction.

A~Motion~was made by S. Mickle, seconded by D. Montano, to~CONTINUE~the Public Hearing for Case 19-01C – Ralph DiCristofaro/Hartung, LLC, 11/11A Hartung Place to the February 19, 2019~Regular ZBA Meeting, Mezzanine Conference room, Memorial Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme CT.

Voting in favor:~ Kip Kotzan, S. Mickle, D. Montano, M. Hartmann, and N. Hutchinson. Opposed:~~None; Abstaining:~~None.  The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0.

Case 19-02 – Town of Old Lyme, 166 Boston Post Road,~requests variances to demolish existing restroom and construct updated restroom facilities which will comply with site safety and ADA requirements. ~The structure will be located in the 60-foot front yard setback and will require variance of 38’ (60’ required/22’proposed).

Mr. Phil Parcak, Old Lyme Facilities Manager and Chair of the Restroom Committee at Hains Park, is representing First Selectwoman of the Town of Old Lyme, Bonnie Reemsnyder, the applicant – who was able to join the public hearing later in the presentation.  He explained the rationale for relocating the Hains Park Restroom, including some of the safety issues with its current location:  poor visibility of the entrances from most areas of the park, location of electrical meter and overhead electrical lines directly next to the basketball court.  He also noted the existing facility is not ADA compliant, and to make it so would require a complete rebuild; thus, the proposal to relocate to a better location.  He described how the new location would have improved visibility, safety, ADA compliance, and that there was no better place in the park to meet these safety and accessibility needs.  He also described how the location would allow ADA accessibility to the parking, and ADA paths to the beach and the boathouse.  It would also greatly improve the aesthetics of the park.  

Ms. Hutchinson noted that the stakes placed in the park are slightly different than shown on the plot plan submitted.  Mr. Parcak stated that ideally it will be moved slightly to the Southeast, but final location would need to await confirmation of the septic system, which cannot be closer than 25 feet.  He showed an elevation sketch, and noted the structure would not exceed 504 square feet, and not exceed 17 feet in height.  The board expressed support for moving as close as possible to the parking lot while maintaining the proposed setback from the street.   

Mr. Parcak also described the history of the park and it being zoned C-30 before the park existed.  The existing restroom is 30% in the front setback, at a 90-degree angle to the road.  The proposed structure would be parallel to the street, down hill from a stone retaining wall, and would not be obtrusive.  Other areas of the park are zoned R-10, with a 30-foot street setback.   

Ms. Hartman read into the record a letter of support from the Old Lyme Parks and Recreation commission, who unanimously supported the new location due to its improved safety, ADA accessibility and aesthetics.   

The board discussed potential contingencies for approval, and which plans would be stamped in association with the potential variance.  Mr. Parcak agreed with the proposed conditions for approval and the plans (plot plan with revision, and structural elevation) to be stamped.

There was no public comment.

A~Motion~was made by D. Montano, seconded by S. Mickle, to~CLOSE the Public Hearing for Case 19-02 – Town of Old Lyme, 166 Boston Post Road.

Voting in favor:~ Kip Kotzan, S. Mickle, D. Montano, M. Hartmann, and N. Hutchinson. Opposed:~~None; Abstaining:~~None.  The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0.

V.      Open Voting Session

Case 19-02 – Town of Old Lyme, 166 Boston Post Road,~requests variances to demolish existing restroom and construct updated restroom facilities which will comply with site safety and ADA requirements. ~The structure will be located in the 60-foot front yard setback and will require a variance of 38’ (60’ required/22’proposed).

The members discussed the evidence presented, potential issues and/or reasons to grant/deny, and potential conditions that had been agreed to by applicant.

A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Mickle, to~GRANT with conditions the requested variance to Section 8.9.7 (a 40-foot variance) as per plans stamped and signed by the Chair at this meeting.  The conditions are: maximum 504 square feet; maximum 17 ft height; potential to move southeast slightly to maintain 25 ft from septic system.  

Voting in favor:~ Kip Kotzan, S. Mickle, D. Montano, M. Hartmann, and N. Hutchinson. Opposed:~~None; Abstaining:~~None.  The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0.

Reasons for GRANTING/DENYING:

  • Increasing public health and safety of the park’s bathrooms.
Enhancing ADA accessibility of the park.
Minimal impact to surroundings.
  • In harmony with the park; best location for the park for the structure.
  • Supported by Parks and Recreation Commission.
  • Increases safety of basketball court, by moving electric wires.
  • Also based on other evidence presented during the public hearing and reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session.
V.~~~~~~Regular Meeting
a) New Business
Election of Officers:  A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by M. Hartman, to re-elect the same slate of officers:
Chairman – Nancy Hutchinson
Vice-chairman – Kip Kotzan
Secretary – Marisa Hartmann

Voting in favor:~ Kip Kotzan, S. Mickle, D. Montano, M. Hartmann, and N. Hutchinson. Opposed:~~None; Abstaining:~~None.  The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0.

The Chair reminded the Board that local elections are this fall, and she asked those whose term will expire in 2019-2020 to please let her know whether they are interested in being re-elected to another term, and for which position:  full member or alternate.

b) Old Business
The Chair provided a brief update on the implementation of the Board-approved ZBA process improvements, noted special thanks to Cathy Frank for her help in creating fillable-PDF files of the updated ZBA forms, and helping to update the ZBA website.
c) Correspondence and Announcements
The Chair reminded the board about the CT Bar Assoc CT Land Use Law course scheduled for March 23rd in Middletown and to please let Kim Barrows know whether you would like to sign up.
d) Minutes – ZBA Regular Meeting November 20, 2018
A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Mickle to~Approve~the Minutes of the ZBA Regular Meeting Nov 20, 2018.
Voting in favor:~ Kip Kotzan, S. Mickle, D. Montano, and N. Hutchinson. Opposed:~~None; Abstaining:~~M. Hartmann.  The motion passed, 4-0-1.

VI.~~~~~Adjournment

A~Motion~was made by M. Hartman, seconded by K. Kotzan, to adjourn the Jan 15, 2019 Regular Meeting.
 
Voting in favor:~ Kip Kotzan, S. Mickle, D. Montano, M. Hartmann, and N. Hutchinson. Opposed:~~None; Abstaining:~~None.  The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Hutchinson

The next regularly scheduled ZBA Meeting will be held on
Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 7:00 PM, in the Mezzanine Conference Room,
Memorial Town Hall, at 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.