APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Tom Schellens (Acting Chairman), Kip Kotzan, Wendy Brainerd (Alternate – seated for June Speirs) and Judy McQuade (Alternate – seated for Richard Moll) and Edgar Butcher (Alternate seated for Susanne Stutts). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 04-10 Joseph and Martha Spada, 55 Gorton Avenue, variance to allow a cupola, pergola and decorative gable.
Joseph and Martha Spada were present to explain their application.
Ms. Spada explained that the dimensions of the cupola are 27” wide by 53” high. Mr. Schellens circled the referenced model on the manufacturer’s sheet and marked it Exhibit A. The plans were modified by the applicant to reference Exhibit A.
Ms. Brainerd stated that the decorative gable is noted as being three feet high. She noted that the roof measurers four feet high. Ms. Brainerd stated that if this is the case, the front elevation drawing is a little misleading, as there should only be one foot from the top of the gable to the top of the roof. Mr. Spada stated that he believes the decorative gable is smaller than that. He stated that they are not raising the roof at all. Mr. Schellens noted that the side elevation drawings show the same pitch roof as the structure currently has.
Ms. Brainerd pointed out that the 2000 Assessor’s records indicate that the house is two bedrooms and the applicant has indicated on the application that it is three bedrooms. Ms. Brown stated that the existing deck with the requested pergola counts as coverage, so there is no increase in coverage. She noted that it is part of the application for variance because the roof structure of the pergola is an enlargement. Mr. Schellens noted that the 1970 Assessor’s Card shows that the house has three bedrooms.
Mr. Butcher questioned whether the cupola was accessible from the interior of the house. Mr. Spada stated that it is purely decorative. Ms. Spada stated that the windows are stationary.
No one present spoke in favor of or against this application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Schellens closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-11 Charles and Deidre Goodwin, 11 Whippoorwill Road, variance to add first floor rear addition.
Charles Goodwin was present to explain his application. Mr. Goodwin stated that he has submitted two letters of support from his adjoining neighbors. He noted that he has submitted new elevation drawings, as requested. Mr. Goodwin explained that they would like to build a small addition off the back of the house. He noted that the property is located in an R-40 zone and contains a little more than a half-acre. Mr. Goodwin stated that the addition meets all setback and bulk requirements. He pointed out that the existing coverage is 8 percent and would increase to 9 percent, still well within the limits. Mr. Goodwin stated that the addition will mirror the front section of the house that was built in 1858. He noted that it is their intent to replicate the character of the
original house and tailor the new addition’s roofline to match that.
Mr. Goodwin stated that the addition would be a family room and a study/computer room. He explained that the existing patio will be removed and the new room will sit on a foundation. Mr. Goodwin noted that the existing chimney would also be removed. He stated that although the elevation drawings have been drawn to scale, the placement of doors and windows are in approximate locations. Mr. Goodwin stated that they do not have building plans as yet.
Mr. Goodwin pointed out that they have received Health Department approval.
Mr. Schellens noted that variances are being requested of Sections 21.3.1, minimum lot area, 40,000 square feet required, 20,909 provided; 8.9.3, no enlargement of a structure on a nonconforming lot.
Mr. Goodwin stated that the existing living space is approximately 1600 to 1700 square feet and the addition is 324 square feet. He explained that his hardship is the fact that the house and the parcel pre-exist zoning. Mr. Goodwin stated that neither of his adjoining neighbors could sell him enough land to make his lot conforming.
Ms. Brainerd questioned the distance from the garage to the side property boundary. Mr. Goodwin noted that he was not exactly sure, but it is wide enough to get a dump truck through. Ms. Brown noted that it is not 35’, so that would be an additional existing nonconformity.
Mr. Goodwin stated that the original structure has a stone foundation and there is a furnace down there, but there is barely enough headroom and is not suitable for living space. He explained that the other portion of the home has a three-foot crawl space. Mr. Goodwin explained that an addition is the only opportunity for additional living space.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Schellens closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 04-12 Patricia Moody, 41-1 Swan Avenue, variance to install a bay window in the setback.
Patricia Moody was present to explain her application. She explained that she would like to replace her existing double-hung window with the same size bay window that would project approximately 11 inches.
Mr. Schellens noted that the following existing nonconformities: Section 21.3.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 10,000 per dwelling, 40,000 required, 11,182 square feet existing; 21.3.3, minimum dimension square, 75’ required, 74.55 existing; 21.3.7, street setback, 25 required (3’ provided on north side, 2’ provided on west side); 21.3.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required, other buildings on property 6’ from south side. He noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, no additions to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location; 8.9.3 no additions to a building on a nonconforming lot and section 21.3.7 minimum setback from the street, 25’ required, 3’ and 2’ existing, variance of 23’ required.
Ms. Moody stated that she believes the bay window will enhance her property. Mr. Schellens noted that Health Department approval has been received. Ms. Moody stated that the existing window is leaking and is broken. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the cement sidewalk outside the building is a public sidewalk. Ms. Moody indicated that it is on her property. She noted that it is a sidewalk to nowhere. Ms. Moody stated that people walk along the street. She pointed out that neither of the abutting properties have sidewalks, which is why she refers to it as a sidewalk to nowhere.
Ms. Moody pointed out that the bay window would not extend further than the overhang of the existing roof. She stated that the bay window would not have a roof on the top of it.
Michael Cumming, 41-1 Swan Avenue, stated that he is in favor of the application. No one present spoke against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Schellens called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Open Voting Session
Case 04-10 Joseph and Martha Spada, 55 Gorton Avenue
Mr. Schellens stated that the application for variance is to allow a cupola, a pergola and a decorative gable. He noted that the hardship given was that the house pre-existed zoning and the additions are not increasing the living area, but just enhancing the appearance of the structure. He noted that there is no adjoining property available for purchase.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Zoning Regulations, as applied to this property, prevent a reasonable change to the property. He noted that he does not believe these small changes violate the intent of Zoning and to not increase or expand the use of the property. Mr. Kotzan noted that coverage is not increasing.
Mr. Butcher stated that the existing nonconformities on the lot are a result of the implementation of Zoning. Ms. McQuade stated that the granting of these variances serve the public good in respect to the appearance of the home.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Wendy Brainerd, and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to add a cupola, pergola and decorative gable, 55 Gorton Avenue, Joseph and Martha Spada, applicants, as per the approved plans.
1. Serves the public good by increasing property values.
2. Does not expand the use of the property.
3. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 04-11 Charles and Deidre Goodwin, 11 Whippoorwill Road
Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant is requesting variances to add a first floor rear addition to their home. Mr. Kotzan stated that this property is one of a few parcels in a neighborhood of slightly larger parcels. He stated that all setback and bulk requirements are met. Mr. Kotzan stated that the addition is modest and will increase the livability of the home.
Mr. Schellens noted that the house was constructed in the 1850’s and obviously preceded Zoning. Ms. McQuade noted that neither adjoining neighbor has enough land to sell to the Goodwin’s and remain conforming themselves. Ms. Brainerd stated that she feels the request is reasonable and within the intent of the Plan of Zoning. Ms. McQuade agreed, noting that the coverage is increasing from only 8 percent to 9 percent.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade, and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to add a first floor rear addition, 11 Whippoorwill Road, Charles and Deidre Goodwin, applicants, as per the approved plans, with the following condition:
1. Prior to issuance of the Zoning Permit, the final building plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Acting Chairman.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Adequate hardship was determined by the size and shape of the lot relative to the history of its creation and the age of the home, built in approximately 1850.
Case 04-12 Patricia Moody, 41-1 Swan Avenue
Mr. Schellens noted that the variance requested is to replace an existing double-hung window with the same size bay window. He noted that the bay window would project 11 inches.
Ms. Brainerd noted that this is a minor request. She indicated that the window is not increasing the use of the house. Mr. Butcher noted that the roof overhang is greater than the 11” projection of the bay window. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that the sidewalk appears to be on the applicant’s property.
Ms. McQuade noted that the addition of a bay window will improve the look of the home and is within the intent of Zoning. Mr. Schellens noted that the existing utility meter projects at least 11 inches and is at the same elevation as the window.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Kip Kotzan, and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow a bay window, 41-1 Swan Avenue, Patricia Moody, applicant, as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is within the intent of Zoning.
2. Proposed window will not project further than the roof overhang or the utility meter currently on the same side of the building.
3. Proposal does not violate the intent of the Regulations it seeks to vary.
ITEM 5: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
None
ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2004 Special Meeting.
The Commission agreed to table the approval of the minutes of the February 10, 2004 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 7: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Judy McQuade. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
