Old Lyme CT - Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 03/19/2019

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 03/19/2019


	ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS –~REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2019 MEZZANINE CONFERENCE ROOM MEMORIAL TOWN HALL, 52 LYME STREET OLD LYME, CT -~7:00 P.M. I.~~~~~~Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM II.~~~~~Roll Call Present:~Nancy Hutchinson (Chair), Kip Kotzan (Vice Chair), Marisa Hartmann (Secretary), and Alternates Stephanie Mickle and Steve Dix. Absent:~~Dan Montano Seated: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle and S. Dix III. ~~~Public Hearings: ~ Case 19-03C – Randall W. & Nancy M. Epright, 91 Hill Crest Road,~request variances to allow removal of seasonal single-family dwelling (5 bedrooms) and replace it with a new three-bedroom structure. ~ Ms. Hutchinson introduced the case, which has an accompanying Coast Site Plan Review Application to which CT-DEEP have been provided comments. The single variance being requested is to Section 8.8.6, Maximum Height; the applicant is requesting to be allowed a maximum height of 28.7 feet. The applicants’ representative introduced themselves: Attorney Michael E. Cronin of Old Saybrook and Architect George Penniman. Attorney Cronin described the location of the property in Point O’Woods. He reviewed a 2017 change in land use law (PA 17-39) that includes the statement that “the demolition or deconstruction of a non-conforming use, building or structure shall not by itself be evidence of such property owner’s intent to no reestablish such use, building or structure.” He provided hardcopy of the amended text, which was entered in the record and marked Exhibit A. The Board noted that they were familiar with the amendment. Attorney Cronin noted that the current property is a non-conforming lot, in that it does not meet the 75-foot minimum square, and the existing structure built in 1920 is also non-conforming, so PA-17 is relevant. He also noted that the Board has the discretion to grant a variance based on reductions of existing non-conformities, rather than based on hardship, and referred to a recent case from Old Lyme where this was upheld in court. He noted whereas that case in nothing like this case, it does demonstrate the concept. The Board noted they were familiar with that case. Attorney Cronin noted that the current structure currently has 8 non-conformities, and the proposal is to reduce 6 of them, some of which he viewed as significant reductions. He referenced the summary he provided with the variance application (Answer to #5). For example, one of the most substantial reductions proposed is a significant reduction in encroachment of the garage in the front set back, from 3.4 ft to 17 ft. Ms. Hutchinson noted that she had questions about some of the reductions listed, and noted that some were not included in the Zoning Tables provided with the plans submitted with the application (Maximum Stories and Maximum Floor Area), and had questions about how others were calculated. For example, the Assessors Cards list the existing structure as being 1.5 stories, but Attorney Cronin’s summary listed it as 2.47 stories and the new structure is reduced to 1.62 stories. She asked the Architect Penniman to please explain how he generated the data in the Zoning Tables included on his plans, particularly the number of stories and the floor area calculations. Architect Penniman noted that the plans are complicated because of the lot. He described the lower level of existing structure has being the first floor which currently contains 1 of 5 bedrooms and a laundry room. Ms. Hutchinson noted that the structure is assessed as having only 4 bedrooms, and if that level contains an illegal bedroom, then perhaps this level would be considered a basement. She noted that the ZBA Attorney has advised the Board that we cannot consider elimination of an illegal use as a reduction in non-conformity. Although the application claims a reduction in bedrooms from 5 to 3, if this is an illegal bedroom, then the change in the number of bedrooms is 4 to 3, although is still a reduction. Next discussed was a comparison of the lower levels of the existing and proposed structures. Ms. Hutchinson noted that her impression from the plans was that the lower level in the proposed structure appeared much larger than the lower level in the existing structure. Mr. Penniman explained that most of the lower level the proposed structure is actually crawl space, rather than basement, because “they had to drop the ceiling height down below 6 feet not to be considered a basement”. He explained that the only area on that level that is above 6 feet is the garage area (for a golf cart) and the vestibule to the stairs. The floor of the crawl space will be cement slab. In response to a question from Mr. Kotzan about the calculation of number of stories, Mr. Penniman noted that the calculation can be complicated because the lot is not flat, so not all portions of the structure are on the same level. He then walked the Board through all of the plans submitted, and explained that applicants would like to convert this older seasonal dwelling with sub-standard construction to a year-round retirement home having improved construction. Being in Point O’Woods, they have sewer and CT water. He stated the new structure (without decks) is close in size to the existing structure, and is improved versus side setback. The garage has a smaller footprint, and has storage on an upper level, none of which is over 6 feet. Ms. Hutchinson noted the adding of a bathroom to the garage, and asked if the applicants would be willing to agree to a condition that the garage not be used for habitable space, and Mr. Penniman agreed. Mr. Penniman then described all of the efforts to eliminate impervious surface, which resulted in a reduction in ground coverage on the lot. He provided a new drawing (Exhibit B, Site Coverage Diagrams, George Penniman Architects, LLC, dated March 11, 2019). showing the details of where impervious surface was removed Mr. Kotzan noted that this was a significant reduction in ground coverage, and the new drawing was a very helpful submission. Mr. Penniman also submitted a new plot drawing that included a more complete Zoning Table (Exhibit C, Site Alignment Diagram and Zoning Chart, George Penniman Architects, LLC, dated March 11, 2019), which now includes 8.8.3 Minimum Dimension Square, 8.8.5 Maximum Number of Stories, and 8.8.10 Maximum Floor Area for both existing and proposed. The Board noted having a complete Zoning Table is important in evaluating proposed increases and reductions in non-conformity and recording what has been proposed. Ms. Hutchinson asked if the floor area was calculated consistently for both the existing and proposed, including how the lowest level was incorporated, and Mr. Penniman said yes. Mr. Kotzan asked for confirmation that there were no other expansions of non-conformites other than height, and Attorney Cronin stated that according to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Keith Rosenfeld, stated the only variance needed is height. Mr. Penniman noted that the height increase was needed to allow for improved ceiling heights and current building codes for a year-round structure, and the roof design is intended to minimize roof height. The total increase in height they are seeking is an additional 2 feet over existing. In comparison to the neighboring homes, it will be lower in height. Ms. Mickle asked if there were any other considerations in changing from seasonal to year-round that the Board should consider, and it was discussed that bringing the home up to current code was also a safety improvement, with reduced risk of fire from old wiring, etc. In response to a question from Mr. Dix, Mr. Penniman described how any elevation changes to the site would be done safely to minimize impacts to neighbors. Mr. Penniman confirmed that except for the garage area the lowest level is only for storage and mechanicals, it is less than 6 feet, it is unheated, and is not habitable. He agreed that the applicants would accept a condition that specified that other than the garage area, the lower level is not to be used for habitable space. Ms. Mickle asked about access to the crawl space area, and Mr. Penniman stated that there is only access to this space from the outside, and not the garage. Ms. Hutchinson acknowledge the challenges of building on an uneven lot that rises underneath the structure, and noted that the Exhibit C, with the updated Zoning Chart, is one of the plans that the Chair will stamp and sign for the record should the variance be approved. Ms. Hartman read the comments from the CT-DEEP on the submitted Coastal Site Plan Review Application, and they had no formal comments on the application. Attorney Cronin agreed. The Chair opened the meeting to public comment, as there were no public comments. Ms. Hartman read one letter of support received from Jack and Coleen Muirhead. Ms. Hutchinson reviewed the conditions that the applicant agreed to: 1) the garage will never be converted to habitable space; and 2) the on the lower level of the main structure, other than the garage area, will be less than 6 feet and never be converted to habitable space. Mr. Penniman agreed. She also noted that Exhibits B and C added to the record show reductions in lot coverage, reductions in setback non-conformities, and an updated, more complete Zoning Chart. Attorney Cronin summarized by saying that he felt the reduction in non-conformities can support approval of the variance, and the nature of the site and the need to meet current building codes can also be considered a hardship is support of the height variance of 2.1 feet. He also noted that by pulling back the garage from the front property line, it also improves the off-street parking. A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by M. Hartmann, to~CLOSE~the Public Hearing for Case 19-03C – Randall W. & Nancy M. Epright, 91 Hill Crest Road. Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle and S. Dix. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~~none. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. Case 19-04C – Deborah & Ira Fiegenbaum, 22 Hartung Place,~request variances to allow the re-building of the existing year-round duplex creating a new single-family home which will be elevated to meet FEMA requirements. Ms. Hutchinson noted that the applicant submitted correspondence today requesting a delay to the opening of the pubic hearing until the next regularly scheduled ZBA meeting. Secretary M. Hartmann read the into record the email correspondence dated March 19, 2019 from the applicant’s representative Jeff Flower. A~Motion~was made by S. Mickle, seconded by S. Dix, to Postpone the opening of the public hearing for Case 19-04C – Deborah & Ira Fiegenbaum, 22 Hartung Place to the April 16, 2019 Regular Meeting, Mezzanine Conference room, Memorial Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme CT. Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle and S. Dix. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~~none. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. IV.~~~~~Open Voting Session: ~ Case 19-03C – Randall W. & Nancy M. Epright, 91 Hill Crest Road,~request variances to allow removal of seasonal single-family dwelling (5 bedrooms) and replace it with a new three-bedroom structure. ~ The members discussed the evidence presented, including the additional evidence and Zoning Chart provided with Exhibit B and Exhibit C, and the potential conditions that had been agreed to by applicant during the public hearing. Also discussed were the comments from CT-DEEP on CSPR application, and a letter of support by a neighbor. Finally, it was noted the new structure will be improved and safer when built to current code. A~Motion~was made by S. Dix, seconded by M. Hartmann, to~GRANT with conditions the requested variance to Section 8.8.6 (28.7 feet maximum height) to allow removal of seasonal single-family dwelling and replace it with a new three-bedroom structure as per the plot plans prepared by Osprey Environmental Engineering, LLC and dated January 24, 2019 and the structural plans prepared by George Penniman Architects, LLC and dated January 25, 2019 and stamped/signed by the ZBA Chair at this meeting. The conditions are 1) any aspect of the garage cannot be converted to habitable space; 2) The main structure’s lower level, except for the garage area, (crawlspace) not be converted to habitable space. The Coastal Site Plan Review Application~for this appeal is approved because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle and S. Dix. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~~none. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. Reasons for GRANTING/DENYING: Significant reductions in non-conformity in front setback and lot coverage. Moving the garage farther from street improves off-street parking The height variance requested is well justified based on reasonable ceiling heights and current construction standards A hardship due to significant topological constraints on site The proposed structure fits with the neighborhood A reduction of use by reducing the number of legal bedrooms from 4 to 3. Letter of support by a neighbor Applicants agreement with two conditions to ensure appropriate future use regarding the garage and the main structure lower level. Improved safety of structure when upgraded to current building code. The evidence presented during the public hearing and the reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session. Case 19-04C – Deborah & Ira Fiegenbaum, 22 Hartung Place,~request variances to allow the re-building of the existing year-round duplex creating a new single-family home which will be elevated to meet FEMA requirements. – DELAYED UNTIL April 16, 2019 ZBA Meeting, per applicant request. V.~~~~~~Regular Meeting a) New Business - none b) Old Business Case 19-01C~– Ralph DiCristofaro/Hartung, LLC, 11/11A Hartung Place –the Board at its meeting on February 19^th~inadvertently neglected to include language in the motion to~Grant with conditions~the approval for the Coastal Site Plan Review Application which the Chair stated would be addressed at the next ZBA meeting. A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Mickel to~Approve~the Coastal Site Plan Review Application~for Case 19-01C - Ralph DiCristofaro/Hartung, LLC, 11/11A Hartung Place because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle and S. Dix. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~~none. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. c) Correspondence and Announcements - none d) Minutes – ZBA Regular Meeting February 19, 2019 A~Motion~was made by M. Hartmann, seconded by S. Mickle to~Approve~the Minutes of the ZBA Regular Meeting February 19, 2019. Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle. Opposed:~~ none; Abstaining:~~S. Dix. The motion passed, 4-0-1. VI.~~~~~Adjournment A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Dix, to adjourn the March 19, 2019 Regular Meeting. Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle and S. Dix. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~~none. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 PM. THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED ZBA MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2019 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE MEZZANINE CONFERENCE ROOM Memorial Town Hall, at 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.