APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Tom Schellens, Kip Kotzan, Susanne Stutts, Richard Moll, Wendy Brainerd (Alternate), Edgar Butcher (Alternate) and Judy McQuade (Alternate).
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 04-17 Peter and Diane Sereno, 10 Pond Road, variance to construct a partial second floor addition over existing first floor.
Diane Sereno and Rob Fredrickson, Builder, were present to explain the application. Ms. Sereno explained that she would like to construct a bathroom on the second floor, right above the existing small bathroom on the first floor. She noted that the addition would be very modest and would not go outside of the present footprint. Ms. Sereno stated that the house was built in the 1930’s. She pointed out that there is no abutting land that she could purchase to increase the size of her lot.
Chairman Speirs stated that the lot size is 2,614 square feet. Ms. Sereno stated that she believes that there were originally three houses on one larger parcel and then was subsequently subdivided. She noted that she purchased the property in 1978. Chairman Speirs noted that variances are required of Sections 21.3.1, 21.3.2, 21.3.3, 21.3.7, 21.3.8, 21.3.9, 21.3.10 and 21.3.11.
Chairman Speirs questioned when the new deck was constructed in the front. Ms. Sereno stated that it was constructed four years ago with a permit. She indicated that the deck is less than 12 inches high.
Ms. Sereno stated that allowing a bathroom on the second floor would not increase the use of the property. She noted that the new bathroom would be 5’ by 11’. Ms. Sereno stated that they just installed a new 1,000-gallon septic system. Mr. Moll questioned the water source. Ms. Sereno stated that their water source is Connecticut Water Company. Chairman Speirs noted that the house is seasonal.
Ms. Brainerd questioned the easements. Ms. Sereno stated that the easement is 5’ wide and the purpose is to allow the other property owners walking access to the beach. Mr. Moll noted that there are four bedrooms and he questioned how often the remaining three bedrooms are occupied. Ms. Sereno stated that they do not rent the rooms but have visitors a total of three of four weeks of the summer. The modest bedroom sizes were noted.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-18 Richard T. Gagne, 90 West End Drive, variance to allow a 12’ x 18’ x 9.3’ storage shed.
Richard and Joan Gagne were present to explain their application. Mr. Gagne explained that he would like to place a storage shed on a piece of property that was left vacant by a garage that was removed. He noted that a six-car stall garage was partially on his property and the owner of the garage removed it this past fall. Mr. Gagne stated that he was allowed to use three of the stalls for storage. He explained the proposed layout to the Board.
Mr. Gagne stated that his property is 40’ x 100’ with an additional 40’ x 25’ across the street where he would like to place the shed. He indicated that he purchased the property in 1989.
Chairman Speirs noted that variances are required of Sections 8.9.3, 21.3.7 (variance of 18’ for front setback), and 21.3.8 (variance of 30’ required from rear property line). Mr. Gagne noted that his hardship is that the removal of the garage by the rightful owner has eliminated his storage. He noted that there has always been a structure on the 40’ x 25’ piece of property. Mr. Gagne pointed out that West End Drive also bisects his property.
Mr. Gagne stated that the reason he refers to the shed as temporary is that it will be tied down, but it will not be on a foundation and could theoretically be moved. Mr. Schellens questioned how much of the original garage was on Mr. Gagne’s property. Mr. Gagne replied that approximately 1/3 of the garage was on his property and 2/3 was on his neighbor’s property.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 04-19 Joanne Centola, 70 Grassy Hill Road, variance to construct addition.
Rob Centola and Joanne Centola were present to explain the application. He noted that they would like to construct a 10’ x 18’ addition to their home to provide access to the basement from the living space in the home. He noted that the addition would also provide a minimum utility storage space. Mr. Centola explained that the lot is nonconforming because it does not have the minimum square required. He noted that their hardship is that there is no adjacent land available to purchase to enable them to conform to the square criteria.
Mr. Centola stated that his neighbors have submitted letters in favor of the proposal to the Board. He explained that he believes the plan extends and enhances the existing architectural design of the home and does not impact the environment or provide hardship on the community. Ms. Centola stated that her parents purchased the land in 1950 and built a cottage in 1952. She explained that the house was winterized, with the addition of a basement, about 1960. Ms. Centola stated that she and her husband added a second story to the home in 1991. She indicated that now that they are planning to retire to Old Lyme, they would like to have access to the basement from inside the home.
Mr. Gagne stated that the house contains one bedroom and one bath on the first floor and two bedrooms and one bath on the second floor. Chairman Speirs noted that the current coverage is 11 percent and the addition would increase it to 12.8 percent. Mr. Moll noted that the Centola’s became owners of the property in the late 1980’s and the square regulation was instituted in the early 1990’s.
Roger Bruenig, 72 Grassy Hill Road, indicated that they have been neighbors for ten years and he would like to see them be able to increase the livability of the house. James Norris indicated that he would be in favor of the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 04-20 Old Lyme Acquisitions, LLC, 85 Lyme Street, variance to enlarge area devoted to a nonconforming use.
Attorney Childress and Mr. and Mrs. Greene were present to explain the application. Keith Greene stated that when they purchased the property their vision was to make it look like the Town Green. He noted that his wife Candy has been planting flowers and the new cherry trees are blooming. Mr. Greene stated that one of the comments they receive the most from guests is that they wish there was a place outside where they could enjoy a sandwich or a cold beer in the nice weather. He indicated that just as the fireplace gathers people in the winter, the outdoor space gathers people in the summer. Mr. Greene presented a picture of the Florence Griswold Museum, showing meals and artists on the porch of the house.
Mr. Greene stated that approximately one year ago he presented some sketches to the Historic District Commission and they enthusiastically gave their support to an outdoor eating area in the front, giving outside activity to Lyme Street which is what they yearn to see. Mr. Greene stated that this was very encouraging to him because that is his vision also.
Attorney Childress stated that the Inn exists as a transient hotel in the MFR-40 Zone by reason of a pre-existing nonconformity. He noted that the status of the pre-existing nonconforming use was validated by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1985 when a variance was granted to the then owner for an addition on the north side of the building. Attorney Childress noted that there is a letter from Harry Smith, Town Planner at the time, dated June 26, 2001, in which he too confirms the status of the nonconformity and the validity of the use.
Attorney Childress stated that the application before the Board this evening is required to permit limited seasonal outdoor dining, including service of alcohol. He noted that the Inn is currently operating under a hotel permit, which would permit such use on a patio area outside. Attorney Childress stated that they are proposing a 30’ x 30’ patio at grade, the location of which is shown on the site plan. He noted that ten tables with four seats per table are proposed, with a total capacity of forty people. Attorney Childress stated that because of the shading in the area, umbrellas would be few if any. He noted that food preparation will be inside the Inn and served to the tables outside. Attorney Childress stated that the alcoholic beverages will be prepared inside and
served outside. He noted that they would like to use this area seasonally, from May 1 to October 31.
Attorney Childress stated that they are seeking to vary Section 8.7.1, which prohibits enlargement, extension or alteration of nonconforming uses, unless the nonconformity is reduced. He explained that they propose to shut down a comparable number of indoor seats when the outdoor seats are in use. Chairman Speirs questioned how they propose to monitor that. Attorney Childress stated that there are rooms that can be closed, as there are two interior rooms that serve approximately 60 people each, and one of those rooms could be closed. He indicated that they are willing to close off more seats inside then what are provided outside.
Chairman Speirs questioned where, in the liquor permit, they would allow the extension of serving alcohol outdoors. Attorney Childress stated that Section 30-21 of the Statutes says that a hotel permit shall allow the retail sale of alcoholic liquor to be consumed on the premises of a hotel. He noted that it further states, golf facilities and swimming pools within the confines of the entire property owned by or under control of the permittee shall also be considered part of the hotel premises. Attorney Childress stated that as he reads the Statute as saying not only inside the hotel, but the area upon which the hotel is located. Ms. Greene stated that when they transferred the liquor permit upon purchasing the Inn, she was told by the State that the liquor license would cover the use of outside
service.
Attorney Childress stated that he had a discussion today with Ms. Brown, who indicated that it may be prudent to add to the variance request Section 45.3.1 which says that within a residence or rural district no liquor establishment except a dining room in a hotel. He indicated that this section would be covered by the legal ad. Chairman Speirs stated that the Sections designated are 8.7.1, 8.7.3, 45.3.1 and 32.5.4. Attorney Childress stated that they are not asking for a variance of 32.5.4. Ms. Brown noted that Section 32.5.4 is the existing nonconformity and a variance is not required of this section.
Chairman Speirs stated that the tables are underneath the trees and she noted that they might certainly need umbrellas on all tables. She noted that the Greene’s have greatly improved the property but noted that a variance will go with the property and not just the current owners.
Attorney Childress stated that transient hotel use is not a nonconforming use in the district, although the property in question is nonconforming. He stated that their hardship is the inability to provide amenities that are expected of upscale hotels and restaurants of this nature in the shoreline area. Attorney Childress stated that a new application for a transient hotel in this district could include a patio. He noted that their application is pending before the Zoning Commission for site plan approval. Chairman Speirs noted that this would apply to all properties in Town, not just the Old Lyme Inn. Attorney Childress stated that the property is next to the turnpike and there are institutional neighbors as well as residences. He noted that it is not strictly a residential
zone.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not think the proposed use will have any impact on traffic. Mr. Greene stated that their restaurant business is terrible in the warmer months because people like to go to other outdoor eateries. He noted that the outside menu would offer a lighter faire. Mr. Schellens noted that if the variance was considered favorably the Board might want to consider hours of operation as there are abutting residential properties. He indicated that they might want to consider outdoor cooking and outdoor entertainment too. Mr. Schellens stated that he would not want to see any type of tent under which the tables are kept.
Attorney Childress explained that the Zoning Commission would be reviewing the site plan for noise, screening, hours of operation, etc. He indicated that they would be willing to accept conditions of approval if the Board were to consider this application favorably.
Mr. Moll questioned how long the Greene’s have owned the property. Attorney Childress replied that they purchased it in 2001. Mr. Moll stated that the detail on the drawing does not show the hedge going all around the property, only along Lyme Street. He stated the residents of the Town have enjoyed the Maple trees on the property for a long time. He noted that only one tree is shown on the site plan. Mr. Greene stated that an arborist visited the property and gave instruction on how far the pavers need to be from the trees. Mr. Greene stated that he and his wife have planted over 450 things since they purchased the property and they are being very careful to be sure that the trees are protected.
Chairman Speirs questioned how many tables are in the room that would be closed when the patio is open. Mr. Greene replied that that room seats 68. He noted that there are 8 tables of 8 and a ninth seat can be squeezed in when needed. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether it would be easier to limit the total number of patrons on the entire site. Mr. Greene noted that they could currently seat 200 people. Mr. Kotzan suggested limiting the total seating to 200 at one time.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Speirs closed the Public Hearing for this item.
The Board took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
Case 04-17 Peter and Diane Sereno, 10 Pond Road
Chairman Speirs noted that variances are requested of Sections 21.3.1, 21.3.2, 21.3.3, 21.3.7, 21.3.8, 21.3.9, 21.3.10 and 21.3.11. She stated that she believes the applicants have the option of using one of the four bedrooms as a bathroom. Chairman Speirs stated that the hardship provided was the older family members having to use the facilities on the first floor. She noted that the lot size is very small with coverage of 40 percent.
Ms. Stutts stated that many older homes are remodeled to use a closet or bedroom for a bathroom without increasing the area of the house. She indicated that she believes that the same could be done in this case.
Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that the lot is extremely small. He indicated that he believes granting a variance would violate the intent of Zoning.
Mr. Moll noted that the coverage would not be increased if the variance were granted. He noted that the use of the building would not be increased by adding a bathroom. Mr. Kotzan stated that he feels it would be best to decrease the number of bedrooms on this small lot. Ms. Brainerd pointed out that there is only two feet from the proposed expansion to the adjacent property line.
Chairman Speirs stated that there is currently an overuse of the property and she believes one of the bedrooms could be renovated into a bathroom. Mr. Schellens noted that the addition would be too close to the property line. Mr. Moll stated that he does not think the intensity of the use would increase by adding a bathroom. Chairman Speirs noted that the intensity of use might be decreased by exchanging a bedroom for a bathroom. Mr. Moll stated that then the septic system would be over designed for the size of the building. Chairman Speirs noted that that may or may not be true. She reiterated that the lot is 2,614 square feet.
Ms. McQuade noted that the floor area ratio would increase from 47 to 49 percent, when 25 percent is allowed.
A motion was made by Richard Moll and seconded by Kip Kotzan to grant the necessary variances to construct a partial second floor addition over existing first floor, 10 Pond Road, Peter and Diane Sereno, applicants. Motion did not carry, 1:4, with Mr. Moll voting in favor.
Mr. Moll noted that the neighbors did not express opposition to the proposal. He indicated that he does not feel the intensity of use would be increased.
Chairman Speirs stated that the proposal is not within the intent of Zoning. Ms. Stutts pointed out that there are other options available to the applicant. Mr. Kotzan stated that an adequate hardship does not exist as the owners have a reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Moll stated that he does not understand how the Board feels this would increase the use on the property. Mr. Kotzan stated that they did not indicate the use would be increased. He noted that the bulk and living area would be increased.
Case 04-18 Richard T. Gagne, 90 West End Drive
Chairman Speirs stated that the property is 4,702 square feet and the property is bisected by West End Drive. She noted that the applicant would like a 12’ x 18’ x 9.3’ storage shed under Sections 8.9.3, 21.3.7 and 21.3.8. Chairman Speirs stated that the hardship provided is that the street bisects the property. She noted that the applicant purchased the property in 1989 and up until recently there was a garage on the property. Chairman Speirs noted that the garage was on several properties and was removed by the real owner of the garage.
Mr. Moll stated that the owner had considerable space in the old garage and is asking for a much smaller storage shed. Mr. Schellens pointed out that Mr. Gagne had no control over the demolition of the garage. He indicated it is not fair for him to lose the grandfathered rights of a building that was on his property that was removed through no fault of his own. Mr. Schellens noted that this is a unique situation.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the requested variances to allow a 12’ x 18’ x 9.3’ storage shed, 90 West End Drive, Richard T. Gagne, applicant.
Chairman Speirs stated that this storage building would be replacing the storage building that was removed from the property. She noted that the proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 04-19 Joanne Centola, 70 Grassy Hill Road
Chairman Speirs stated that the property is 10,871 square feet and is in an R-10 Zone. She noted that the coverage is 11 percent and the proposed is 12.8 percent. Chairman Speirs stated that the 10’ x 18’ addition would include storage and access to the basement from the interior of the house. She noted that variances are requested of Sections 8.9.3 and 21.3.13 (minimum square).
Chairman Speirs noted that the property was originally a cottage and had several upgrades and additions through the years. She noted that two prior appeals were approved.
Mr. Moll commended the applicant for their presentation and drawings. He noted that the two adjacent neighbors are in favor of the application. Mr. Moll stated that the proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to grant the requested variances to construct an addition, 70 Grassy Hill Road, Joanne Centola, applicant.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the request is reasonable and the only nonconformity is the minimum required square. He noted that the proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 04-20 Old Lyme Acquisitions, LLC, 85 Lyme Street
Chairman Speirs stated that the property is 81,381 square feet and located in a multi-family zone. She noted that the current coverage is 11.8 percent and is not proposed to increase. Chairman Speirs stated that she would suggest that the Board’s attorney review any questions of the Board before the Board takes action.
Mr. Schellens stated that he personally feels the patio would be a nice addition on Lyme Street. He indicated that he does want to be sure that any approval granted includes protection to the Town. Mr. Schellens noted that the variance goes with the land, not just to the current owners. He noted that this is an evolutionary process of the restaurant industry. Chairman Speirs stated that variances are not to be given on that basis.
Mr. Schellens stated that if the Chair would like to get legal advice before making a decision he would suggest holding a Special Meeting to conduct the Open Voting Session.
Mr. Moll stated that he believes the Board may only be responsible for granting the variance and not the other aspects that will be reviewed by the Zoning Commission. Chairman Speirs noted that some of the concerns vocalized at the Public Hearing may or may not be the responsibility of the Zoning Board of Appeals and suggested that that is why she would like to get guidance from Attorney Royston. Chairman Speirs stated that a Special Meeting could be held on the 17th or 18h of May in the afternoon. She noted that there might already have to be two meetings for the June hearings.
The Board agreed to continue the Open Voting Session for this item to a Special Meeting on June 17, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Schellens noted that this would be contingent upon Attorney Royston’s schedule also.
Mr. Moll stated that he wants to be sure a burden is not put on the Town for monitoring the use. Mr. Schellens stated that he would like to be sure the Board can put restrictions on the proposal or if they should leave that to the Zoning Commission.
No one present spoke in favor of or against this application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes
This item was tabled to the June Regular Meeting.
ITEM 7: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
Ms. Brown stated that the Attorney for Sherlock 221 has asked for an extension to open the Public Hearing. She noted that their application was approved before the Zoning Commission last evening. Ms. Brown stated that it is her expectation that the case will eventually be withdrawn.
ITEM 8: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Susanne Stutts. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
