APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 19, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Monday, July 19, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Tom Schellens, Kip Kotzan, Susanne Stutts and Richard Moll.
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.
ITEM 1: OPEN VOTING SESSION.
Case 04-30 Edmund & Barbara Keene, 41 Columbus Avenue
Chairman Speirs stated that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, 8.9.3 and 21.3.7. She noted that a variance is needed to allow a 9’ x 24’ expansion of the existing house. Chairman Speirs stated that the hardship provided by the applicant was that the size of the current kitchen is a safety hazard and the applicant would like to expand the kitchen into the addition. She noted that the addition would also give them a safe place to put their circuit breaker box. Chairman Speirs noted that the property is year round.
Mr. Kotzan stated that at 690 square feet, the house is undersized for a one-story structure and this addition would bring the property into compliance. Mr. Schellens stated that the proposed addition only protrudes 4” into the setback. Mr. Kotzan stated that there is public water at the site. Ms. Stutts stated that the applicant indicated that he would be putting in a new septic. Ms. Brown stated that the applicant has either proposed that or recently installed a new septic and she does not remember which. She noted that the Health Department would require a new septic before issuing the Building Permit and she pointed out that she cannot issue a Zoning Permit until the Health Department approves the plan.
The Board discussed the elevation drawings and Mr. Kotzan suggested that the Board could indicate as a condition of approval that there be no elevation of the roofline. Mr. Schellens stated that the roof appears to have a higher pitch in the drawings. He indicated that because this is not the intent of the Board or the applicant, he suggested that a condition of approval should be adequate drawings. Ms. Stutts suggested that because the height is indicated as 21.5 feet on the drawings, the Board could limit the height of the structure to that.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a 9’ x 24’ first floor addition, 41 Columbus Avenue, with the following conditions:
1. Single story addition no higher than existing roof line.
2. Final plan required and subject to Chairman and Zoning Enforcement Officer review and approval prior to issuance of the Zoning Permit.
3. New plans to include dimensions of existing structure, including the height of the addition.
The Board agreed that this application is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 04-32 Timothy LeBlanc, 287 Mile Creek Road
Chairman Speirs stated that variances are requested of Sections 8.8.1, 8.9.3 and 21.3.7. She noted that the variance is to allow a 15’ x 25’ first floor bedroom addition. Chairman Speirs noted that the structure will remain a one-bedroom home and one-half the attic space used for storage and the remainder of the space for the cathedral ceiling.
Chairman Speirs noted that the house was constructed in 1900 prior to Zoning. She noted that the headroom in the attic varies from 4’10” to 5’5”. She pointed out that a new septic system has been installed. Chairman Speirs stated that the lot is 10,454 square feet in an RU-40 Zone and there is no adjacent land available to purchase.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the headroom in the attic is not adequate and by adding a bedroom on the first floor they are not expanding the use of the property. He noted that the location of the septic system prohibits putting the addition in another location. Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant would like to improve the property without expanding the use. Mr. Schellens pointed out that the applicant testified that the portion of the attic that was left for storage would be accessed by pull-down stairs. He noted that the drawings show a roofline height of 14’ for the proposed addition and the height of the existing structure is 15’. Mr. Moll stated that his notes indicated that the height of the addition is the same as the existing structure. Mr. Schellens suggested that
the height of the addition be limited to the height of the current structure. Mr. Moll noted that the structure is currently only 450 square feet on the first floor and is undersized.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll, and voted unanimously to grant the requested variances to construct a first floor bedroom addition, 287 Mile Creek Road, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions.
1. Height of the addition not to exceed the height of the current roof line.
2. There shall be no livable space on the second floor of the dwelling.
The Board agreed that this application is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 04-26 Sal Guarnaccia, 66 Old Colony Road
Chairman Speirs noted that the property is 5,225 square in an R-10 Zone. She stated that the current coverage is 46.63 percent and the proposed coverage is 46.77 percent. Chairman Speirs noted that variances are requested of Sections 8.7.1, 8.8.1, 8.9.3, 21.3.7, 21.3.9, 21.3.10 and 21.3.11.
Chairman Speirs stated that the variance is needed to rebuild the existing front porch and replace a portion of the second floor roof. She read a letter from Ron Rose, Sanitarian, indicating that the septic system installed at the subject property on March 12, 2004 complies with Connecticut Public Health Code. Chairman Speirs stated that the hardship provided is that the structure is pre-existing in the setback. She noted that the second floor porch roof was changed from flat to pitched to prevent leaking and the ends of the first floor front porch were extended eight inches to line up with the exterior wall of the balance of the home. Chairman Speirs noted that the depth of the front porch was reduced 4.5” across the entire length of the house. She noted that the applicant also offered
to reduce the number of bedrooms in the house from ten to eight. Chairman Speirs pointed out that the Board should consider this application as if the work has not been completed.
Chairman Speirs stated that the first floor front porch has been incorporated into the living area of the house. She indicated that there are three apartments in the structure with a total of ten bedrooms. Mr. Kotzan stated that Mr. Guarnaccia indicated that the porch was converted to living space prior to his purchase of the property. He pointed out that either way he is willing to install a wall between the porch and the living space. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board has been cautious and wise about trying to influence what happens inside the house and Mr. Guarnaccia has made several concessions. Mr. Kotzan indicated that he is afraid that if the Board denies the application they will not have recourse regarding the porch and would not be able to reduce the number of bedrooms, which is
beneficial to the property.
Mr. Schellens stated that he believes the project is a vast improvement over the previous structure. He indicated that he does not agree that the porch was part of the living area when Mr. Guarnaccia purchased the property. He indicated that all evidence provided showed otherwise. Mr. Schellens agreed that the reduction in the number of bedrooms would be a good concession and a relief for the property. He noted that the 34’ 8” x 8’ 4.5” porches across the front, first and second floor, should be non-livable space.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the applicant indicated that he is willing to reestablish a wall with exterior doors and windows. Mr. Schellens noted that this should be done on both the first and second floor. Chairman Speirs stated that if approved, the plan to reestablish the porch areas should be approved by the Board. Mr. Schellens stated that the entry door should be removed and replaced with a combination screen/glass door. He noted that the current door is an exterior door. He noted that the combination door would give it more of a “porch” look and would define a less secure area than the exterior wall of the house, which is inside the porch and where the living space starts. Ms. Brown stated that the house is not occupied 8 months of the year and Mr. Guarnaccia would probably
prefer a more secure door. She noted that he did offer to put a screen door on the front. Mr. Schellens corrected his previous stated dimensions of the porch and noted that it is 36’ x 8’.
Chairman Speirs read the conclusion of Attorney Harris’ memorandum, which was submitted at the Public Hearing.
Mr. Moll pointed out that a new septic system has been installed and any reduction in the number of bedrooms would probably make the septic system more efficient. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that most of the concerns about the property are grandfathered. He noted that the use is not being expanded.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Richard Moll, and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to enlarge the first floor front porch 8” on both ends and to raise the second floor roof, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. Number of bedrooms on the property to be reduced by 2; reduced from 13 to 11 as offered by the applicant.
2. Reestablish 8’ x 36’ porch area with wall, storm door and windows as proposed, to include combination screen/storm doors to replace existing solid door.
3. Third floor to be limited to storage.
4. The Board will approve final submission showing reconstruction as per the motion of approval and this plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals as soon as practical.
The Board noted that this application is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 04-24 Patricia Wendland, 11 Osceola Trail
Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant has two proposals as part of the application, the first being to repair and expand the existing cottage and the second is to convert the dwelling from seasonal to year round use. She noted that a variance is required of Section 21.2.5c(i) for the conversion and Section 8.9.3 for the expansion portion of the application.
Chairman Speirs indicated that there is nothing unique about an undersized lot. Mr. Kotzan stated that the conversion would be against the intent of the Plan of Zoning. He indicated that he believes the property must suffer this reasonable hardship.
Chairman Speirs stated that the property is 6,925 square feet in an R-10 Zone. She noted that the dwelling meets all setback and coverage requirements and there is no land available for purchase. Chairman Speirs stated that the property was developed in the 1930’s prior to Zoning. She indicated that this is not a unique hardship and the dwelling has had use and enjoyment since 1937.
Discussing the repair and enlargement, Mr. Schellens stated that he would like to see a plan that has a more modest structure. Mr. Kotzan stated that the footprint is basically the same, with a small bump-out. He noted that the applicant has had reasonable use of the property and indicated that the proposal would fit on the lot. Mr. Schellens indicated that the two-story dwelling with attic is too large for the lot. He indicated that the applicant’s goals could be accomplished with a Cape that would be less bulky. Ms. Stutts noted that the proposed height is 31 feet.
Mr. Schellens stated that the proposed dwelling would not be consistent with the neighborhood as there are few two-story homes on the lake side. Mr. Kotzan stated that increasing the dwelling from 700 square feet to 1,400 square feet may be too much enlargement. He stated that he would like to see the structure improved, but noted that this plan may be too ambitious. Ms. Stutts suggested that the application be denied without prejudice to give the applicant the opportunity to present plans for a smaller home.
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to deny without prejudice the application of Patricia Wendland, 11 Osceola Trail, to repair and expand existing cottage.
Ms. Stutts stated that the proposal is out of scale with the neighborhood and the lot size. She noted that the height is proposed to increase from 15’ to 31’, which is an extremely large increase. Mr. Kotzan suggested that the applicant be encouraged to produce plans that would be more in harmony with the neighborhood.
In discussing the conversion from seasonal to year round, Mr. Kotzan noted that conversion to year round would violate the intent of Zoning. He indicated that the seasonal designation is a necessary hardship. Chairman Speirs agreed and noted that the house has been in use and enjoyed for over sixty years as a seasonal property.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by June Speirs to grant the conversion of 11 Osceola Trail from seasonal to year round. Motion did not carry, 0:5. Variance denied.
The Board indicated that the granting of this variance would not be within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 04-31 Guiseppe & Maryjean Pisani, 16 Swan Avenue
No action taken. The Open Voting Session for this item will be held at a Special Meeting on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 2: Approval of Minutes of June 8, 2004 Regular Meeting and June 16, 2004 Special Meeting.
No action taken.
ITEM 3: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Susanne Stutts. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
