APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Kip Kotzan, Susanne Stutts, Richard Moll, Edgar Butcher (Alternate) and Judy McQuade (Alternate).
Chairman Speirs stated that at the request of Attorney Cronin she would like to move item four up on the agenda.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case04-16 Daniel Schavone, 13 Sea Lane, variance to remove one-car garage and construct a two-car garage.
Attorney Cronin thanked the Board for their consideration and indicated that the applicant has run into a problem with regard to the septic system on the property. He noted that a new system was installed a few years ago and does not apparently conform to all the Regulations. He noted that because it may take a while to resolve, he is requesting that the Board continue this matter to the next Regular Meeting of the Board.
Chairman Speirs stated that this particular case has been on file since March 5, 2004. She noted that she would think that would have been plenty of time for the Director of Health to settle the matter. She explained that there are already five cases for May. Chairman Speirs stated that at the moment there is a denial on record from the Health Department. She noted that just yesterday new plans were received on this application. Chairman Speirs stated that she believes the application should be resubmitted after Health approval is received. Mr. Schellens stated that Health Department approval is a prerequisite of any application. He indicated that the application is incomplete at this time and the Board should treat it as such.
Tony Hendriks stated that Mr. Schavone submitted the application and only found out toward the end of last week that the Health Department had concerns. He noted that he met with Mr. Rose twice and he believes that things may be resolved. Mr. Hendriks stated that a continuance would provide the applicant enough time to address those issues.
Chairman Speirs stated that it would be her suggestion to deny the application without prejudice so that the applicant may resubmit when everything is in order. Attorney Cronin stated that he would rather withdraw the application and resubmit in the future. Chairman Speirs asked Attorney Cronin to send a letter indicating this to her.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-09 277 New London Turnpike LLC, 175 Boston Post Road, variance to permit the construction of roof over a 12’ x 14’ deck.
Fritz Gahagan and Edward Lombardi were present to represent the applicants. Attorney Gahagan explained that a cease and desist was issued last summer and Mr. Lombardi stopped work. He noted that shortly after that he spoke with Ms. Brown and filed the present application. Attorney Gahagan stated that the lot is nonconforming and fronts on Boston Post Road, immediately east of Laysville Hardware Store. He noted that the lot narrows as it goes back. Attorney Gahagan noted that there has been a historical drainage problem on the site. He noted that the owner worked with DOT to get a curb and culvert and he completed redid the parking lot using 10 inches of crushed stone so that water would be absorbed. Attorney Gahagan stated that the original configuration of the house had a central
porch with two doghouse-type shed roofs. He noted that all the water collected onto the open porch. Attorney Gahagan stated that the water ponded in this area and created icing problems and flooded the under story, which is a living space. He stated that the water is both a health and safety hazard.
Attorney Gahagan stated that the new roof has been tailored to relieve this hardship and he pointed out that there is no expansion of the footprint of the structure, no expansion of the living space and no expansion of storage space. Chairman Speirs noted that there are two separate living areas in the structure. Attorney Gahagan agreed and indicated that at one point in time there were three. Chairman Speirs stated that the Assessor’s Records indicate that both structures on the property are single-family dwellings.
Chairman Speirs questioned whether there were any flooding problems in the lower level today as there have been quite heavy rains. Mr. Lombardi replied that the roof has corrected the problem and there is no water in the lower level. Chairman Speirs questioned whether gutters would help with the drainage. Mr. Lombardi stated that if in the future he has drainage problems in this area he would install gutters.
Mr. Gahagan asked his client to acknowledge that he has no right or intention to enclose the porch. Mr. Lombardi indicated such. Chairman Speirs noted that the Board might wish to make this a condition of approval.
Mr. Gahagan stated that the hardship arises from the land and the pre-existing conditions. He noted that the proposed resolution is the minimum necessary to address the problem and does not go beyond what is necessary to address the problem. Attorney Gahagan stated that in no way was the hardship brought about by the current owner or an owner of recent times.
Chairman Speirs questioned the total coverage. Attorney Gahagan replied that the coverage is approximately 21 percent. Mr. Schellens questioned how many living units were on the property. Mr. Lombardi replied that there are three, one unit in the front structure and two units in the rear (subject) structure.
Attorney Gahagan stated that the following variances are requested: Section 8.8.1, no addition to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location; 8.9.3, no enlargement of a building on a nonconforming lot; and 22.3.9, 20’ side setback required, 19’ proposed.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the garage had connected utilities at this time. Mr. Lombardi replied that there is currently electric service.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 04-14 Maria Teixeira, 248-1 Shore Road, variance to expand garage, allow bay window and decorative awning gable.
Maria and Chris Teixeira were present to explain the application. Chairman Speirs noted that a variance is requested of Section 22.3.3, minimum dimension of a square. She stated that a 150’ square is required and the property has a 100’ square for a variance of 50’. She indicated that a variance is also requested of 9.1, accessory building, as the garage is larger than the existing dwelling and Section 8.9.3, no enlargement of a building on a nonconforming lot. Chairman Speirs stated that the square footage as determined by the Zoning Enforcement Officer shows the square footage of the garage larger than that of the existing house.
Chris Teixteira stated that he has a small landscape/contracting company and he would like to build this new garage to store his equipment. Chairman Speirs questioned why the proposed garage has a second floor. Mr. Teixteira stated that it is not an entire second floor on the new garage but is primarily a loft for storage. Ms. Teixteira explained that the existing garage has a walk-up second floor. She pointed out that the property is zoned commercial. Ms. Teixteira stated that they would like to add a larger garage to the existing one-car garage. She noted that the proposed garage is in keeping with a residential neighborhood. Ms. McQuade questioned the heights of the proposed garage and the existing house. Mr. Teixteira stated that the house is 20 feet high and the
proposed garage is 24 feet high. He noted that the neighboring house is taller than the garage. Mr. Teixteira indicated that they also might add onto the home at some point in the future.
Mr. Teixteira stated that they currently reside at Rogers Lake and there is not enough room for his business at that location. Chairman Speirs questioned whether Ms. Teixteira had a book keeping business. Ms. Teixteira indicated that she does, at her Shore Road property. Mr. Teixteira stated that he currently keeps some of his equipment at a friend’s property in Lyme and he has to go back and forth to get the equipment.
Mr. Teixteira explained that the only access to the loft in the new structure will be a ladder. He noted that there would be no access from the second floor of the existing garage to the loft of the new garage.
Mr. Teixteira stated that the second floor space would increase by a 15’ x 36’ area and a 9’ x 8’ area, for a total of 540 square feet. Mr. Teixteira stated that there won’t be heat in the building, but there will be water and electrical service. He noted that there would be a small washroom with a sink and a toilet. Ms. Teixteira stated that she might eventually move her book keeping business to the second floor of the proposed garage.
Mr. Teixteira stated that their hardship is the fact that the lot is 100’ wide and 300’ deep. He noted that the Regulations require a 150’ square and because the property does not have the proper dimensions it cannot be utilized as any other lot. He noted that the property meets all other requirements of the Regulations and that the lot pre-existed that Regulation. Chairman Speirs noted that the imposition of Zoning affected lots throughout the Town.
Mr. Teixteira stated that he would store trucks and equipment on the first floor of the garage and supplies and small items on the second floor. He noted that the little door on the outside is for decoration. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is more like an old fashioned barn. Ms. Teixteira explained that they would also store their patio and garden furniture on the second floor of the existing garage, as they currently do. Mr. Teixteira stated that the second floor interior height in the existing garage is 7’ to the peak. He noted that in the proposed loft the interior height would be 12’ from the floor to the peak.
Ms. Teixteira stated that they have an existing picture window in the house that they would like to change to a bay window. She noted that they would also like to put a wooden gable awning to replace a vinyl awning that blew off. Chairman Speirs noted that these structures meet all setback requirements but because it is a nonconforming lot they require a variance under Section 8.9.3.
Mr. Moll questioned when the property was purchased. Ms. Teixteira replied that she purchased the house in 2000. Mr. Moll stated that the septic system made reference to infiltrators and questioned whether that is the current system. Mr. Teixteira replied that it is the current system on the property. Chairman Speirs questioned whether the proposed garage’s bathroom would tie into the existing system. Mr. Teixteira replied that it is.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 04-15 James and Deborah Gardner, 44 Grandview Avenue, variance to allow a sunroom addition, mudroom addition and porch.
Chairman Speirs noted that both she and Judy McQuade would excuse themselves from this hearing and Mr. Moll act as Chairman. James and Deborah Gardner were present to explain the application. Mr. Moll stated that there was a prior appeal that was denied. Mr. Gardner explained that that appeal was for a family room addition. He noted that since that time he has added on to the home in a conforming location or the north side.
Mr. Gardner noted that he would now like a sunroom addition. He noted that the hardship on the north side of the structure is immediate ledge that goes straight up hill. He explained that the problem with an addition on the south side is that the sunroom would have to be off a bedroom and because of the septic. Mr. Moll noted that the property was divided in 1928.
Mr. Gardner stated that his neighbor Mr. Kennedy is approximately 600 feet away, another property is 700 to 800 feet away and his daughter’s property is 300 or 400 feet away and a fourth abutting property is located 600 to 800 feet away. He noted that these neighbors have sent letters supporting his application.
Mr. Moll noted that the other addition, on the front of the house, is a mudroom 7 x 12’ and an open porch attached to that of 7’ x 29’. He questioned whether this agrees with the total width of the house. Mr. Gardner stated that the front porch is 16’ wide and the mudroom is 12’ wide. Mr. Moll questioned whether the existing garage is shown on any of the plans. Ms. Gardner replied that he apparently did not. Mr. Gardner noted that the garage is 32’ x 24’ and he also has a 12’ x 12’ shed.
Mr. Gardner stated that the existing square footage of the house is 1,488. Mr. Schellens calculated the coverage to be 7.7 percent. Mr. Kotzan noted that the lot is oversized for the zone. Ms. Gardner stated that they have purchased two additional lots, which they’ve added to this property.
Mr. Moll noted that the project requires a 5’ variance for the front and a 10’ variance on the rear yard.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Mr. Moll closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
Case 04-15 James and Deborah Gardner, 44 Grandview Avenue
Mr. Moll noted that Mr. Butcher would be seated for Chairman Speirs. Mr. Moll noted that the property is part of a 1928 subdivision and the lots were 100' x 50'. He explained that the applicant purchased several other lots in 1998 to make their lot conforming. Mr. Moll explained that the variances requested are for front and rear setback of 5’ and 10’ respectively. He noted that the drawings are rather limited and suggested that a condition of approval be that the final plans need to be reviewed and approved by the Acting Chairman prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant should be applauded for purchasing additional properties to make his property conforming. He stated that the coverage is very low. Mr. Schellens stated that he feels this is a minimal request and is within the intent of Zoning. He stated that the hardships are valid with regard to the septic field and the ledge.
Mr. Moll marked the elevation plans Exhibit A. Mr. Moll marked the structural plan Exhibit B and the proposed layout, showing actual dimensions, was marked Exhibit C.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to variance to allow a sunroom addition, mudroom addition and porch with the following condition:
1. Elevations drawings to be submitted to the Chairman for review prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit to verify overall compliance with drawings submitted, identified as Exhibits A, B and C.
The Board recessed for five minutes. Chairman Speirs noted that she and Ms. McQuade returned to the table.
Case 04-09 277 New London Turnpike LLC, 175 Boston Post Road
Chairman Speirs stated that the variance is requested to construct a roof over a 12’ x 14’ deck under Sections 8.8.1, 8.9.3 and 22.3.9. She explained that a 20’ side setback is required and 19’ is provided for a variance of 1’. She noted that the hardship given is that the natural topography of the land slopes downward and prior to roofing this deck, there was an unsafe condition due to water accumulation and icing. Chairman Speirs noted that the water also traveled into the lower living area.
Chairman Speirs noted that the new roof has already been constructed and the applicant testified that this roof system has cured the water problem. She indicated that she believes gutters may also improve the drainage.
Chairman Speirs stated that she believes the Assessor should be notified of the fact that the property on the lakeside has two living units. She noted that the Assessor’s record of 1980 show that the basement was finished with three rooms. She noted that the lower story currently has 4 rooms plus a bath and utility area. Chairman Speirs stated that she did not see any building permits for this work. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant has the current use of the property. He suggested that a condition of approval should be that the property is restricted to one residential unit in the front and the rear dwelling be limited to no more than the existing two residences; and that the garage structure not be used for habitation. Ms. McQuade stated that the other condition should be
that the porch not be enclosed. The Board agreed to identify the dwelling on the front of the property as Building A and the building toward the rear (lakeside) Building B.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Tom Schellens, and voted unanimously to approve the application of 277 New London Turnpike LLC, 175 Boston Post Road, for variances to construct a roof over a 12’ x 14’ deck with the following conditions:
1. Deck cannot be enclosed (Bldg B).
2. Front structure (Bldg. A) to remain a one-family dwelling and the lakeside structure (Bldg. B) to remain no more than a two-family dwelling.
3. There will be no habitation in the garage and the garage will remain an accessory building to the residential use.
Case 04-14 Maria Teixeira, 248-1 Shore Road
Chairman Speirs stated that the variance requested is to expand the garage, allow bay window and decorative awning gable. She noted that the decorative awning gable will be wooden. Mr. Schellens noted that the Sanitarian approved the proposal, indicating that there is adequate reserve area. Mr. Kotzan stated that the variances requested are very minimal. He noted that the lot is nonconforming because it does not meet the minimum square.
The Board agreed that the bay window and decorative awning gable were both small additions and decorative in nature. It was noted that they both meet the required setback. Chairman Speirs stated that the bay window should be sized for the record. She asked that this information be forwarded to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Chairman Speirs stated that another way of stating it could be limited to the size of the picture window it is replacing.
Chairman Speirs stated that she feels the accessory building will dwarf the house. She stated that the application indicates that the applicant will plant evergreens along Route 156 to screen the property. Mr. Schellens noted that it is a commercially zoned property. He indicated that many of the properties in that area have a mixed use. Mr. Schellens stated that the proposed use is not accessory to the residence as it is a commercial use. Chairman Speirs stated that she would like to see the garage reduced 325 square feet to keep it smaller than the existing dwelling.
Mr. Moll stated that septic systems with infiltrators are a new type of alternative system and used in areas where the typical sand/trench system cannot be used. He stated that he is surmising that this land has a problem in this regard. Mr. Moll stated that he is concerned about the future possible uses of these buildings. Mr. Schellens stated that they have to defer to the Health Department in this regard. He indicated that he would like to see a condition restricting the garage to a non-residential use.
Chairman Speirs again stated that she would like to see the applicants reduce the size of the garage 325 square feet. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant has requested a 30’ wide garage and to reduce the area enough he would have to reduce it to 21’ wide. Mr. Schellens noted that removing the breezeway would only decrease the size 180 feet. He indicated that the Board should not get into redesigning the application but should act on the application before them.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow replacement of the picture window with a bay window of similar clear opening size and for the construction of a decorative awning gable over the front entryway, with final drawings being reviewed by the Chairman.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted to grant the necessary variances to allow expansion of garage, 248-1 Shore Road, Maria Teixteira applicant, with the following conditions:
1. Residence is to remain a three-bedroom house.
2. New garage will be a commercial use and not inhabited.
Vote 4:1, with Chairman Speirs voting against.
Chairman Speirs noted that she voted against this application because it has been a residential use since the 1960’s.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the property is zoned commercial and he believes that a reasonable commercial use should be allowed. He stated that the accessory building is only slightly larger than the house and does not believe allowing the accessory building to be larger than the primary dwelling is a critical factor in a commercial zone. Ms. Stutts stated that the commercial use is not too intrusive. She noted that the small side of the garage facing the road would also reduce the impact of the structure.
ITEM 6: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
None
ITEM 7: Approval of Minutes
Ms. Stutts stated that the minutes of March 4, 2004, reflect the fact that she voted in favor of the application for 43 Breen and in fact she voted against it. She noted that these minutes have already been approved.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the March 9, 2004 Regular Meeting.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the March 24, 2004 Regular Meeting as clarified.
It was noted that Sherlock 221 has submitted an appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, which is currently scheduled to be heard in May. The applicant has requested a postponement of the hearing until June. The Commission agreed that this would be agreeable.
ITEM 8: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Kip Kotzan. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
