UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Susanne Stutts, Richard Moll, Tom Schellens, Judy McQuade (Alternate), Wendy Brainerd (Alternate) and Edgar Butcher (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. She stated that Judy McQuade would be seated for Kip Kotzan.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 04-44 David & Dawn Hamilton, 63 Browns Lane, variance to construct above-ground pool and decking.
David and Dawn Hamilton were present. Chairman Speirs stated that the file is incomplete and the applicant has submitted a written request for a 35 day extension of the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to grant David and Dawn Hamilton, 63 Browns Lane, a 35-day extension for their Public Hearing.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-46 David Prilipp, 40 Mile Creek Road, variance to construct 6 foot fence in street setback.
No one was present to represent the applicant. The Public Hearing for this item was tabled to give the applicant the opportunity to arrive.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 04-47 John & Donna Duthrie, 22 Buttonball Road, variance to construct a first floor addition.
Chairman Speirs read a letter from the applicant withdrawing their application.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 04-45 Jerry & Dolores Vowles, 77/79 Hartford Avenue, variance to combine lots and to increase/enlarge nonconforming building on nonconforming lot.
Jerry and Dolores Vowles were present to explain their application. Mr. Vowles explained that they would like to join their two properties by deed and join the two existing buildings. He distributed a copy of his application to each Board member. Mr. Vowles explained that he would like to merge his two lots and make one building out of the two existing buildings.
Chairman Speirs stated that the proposal does not comply with the following Sections of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations: 8.8.1, no addition to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location; 8.9.3, no addition to a building on a nonconforming lot; 22.3.1, minimum lot area required is 10,000, two merged lots will be 5,000 square feet for a variance required of 5,000 square feet; 22.3.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit is 20,000 square feet, variance of 15,000 square feet required; 22.3.2, minimum dimension square, 100 feet required, 50 feet proposed for a variance of 50 feet; 22.3.7, minimum setback from street line is 30’, 13 feet proposed for a variance of 17’; 22.3.8, minimum setback from rear is 30’, 19’ proposed for a variance of 11 feet; 22.3.9, minimum setback from
other property line is 12’, 6’ proposed on north and south side no change; variance of 11’6” north and south side; 22.3.11, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent maximum, 88.5 percent proposed, variance of 63.5 percent; 22.3.12, maximum lot coverage by buildings as structures as percent of lot area, 25 percent maximum, variance of 27 percent required; 22.3.13, maximum total lot coverage as a percent of lot area; 41.1.3, nonconformity, change in building requires two additional parking spaces, variance of two parking spaces required.
Mr. Vowles stated that Page 1 of his presentation shows the existing plot plan. He noted that both the existing lots are 25’ x 100’. Mr. Vowles stated that his proposal is shown on Page two and depicts one 100’ x 50’ lot with one building and one septic system. He pointed out that this one building will have one store and one apartment, instead of two. Mr. Vowles stated that Page 3 shows both the existing elevations. He noted that Page 4 is the proposed elevations. Mr. Moll questioned whether the drawings were drawn to scale. Mr. Vowles replied that the drawings are to scale.
Mr. Vowles stated that both buildings currently have both an apartment and a store. He noted that his proposal is two have one store and one apartment in the proposed building. Mr. Vowles stated that at one point in time the yellow building was two apartments but it is currently, per the Assessor, considered to be one store and one apartment. Mr. Moll noted that the alley way between the buildings, which is to be enclosed, is 9 feet x 43 feet.
Mr. Vowles stated that #77 Hartford has a septic system and leaching field in the middle of the property. He noted that the proposal is to remove the septic tank at #79 Hartford Avenue and add more leaching to the existing system at #77 Hartford. Mrs. Vowles stated that the property was originally a boarding house with 12 bedrooms and they reduced it to a 5 bedroom apartment. He noted that the current proposal further reduces bedrooms to three. Mr. Vowles stated that the bedrooms in the other building will be eliminated totally so there will only be three bedrooms total on the property. He explained that Page 7 shows the existing first floor plans for both buildings.
Mr. Vowles explained that the proposal is adding 387 square feet of interior space and he noted that he has removed 402 square feet of interior space by having open porches on both the first and second store. He noted that he created these porches to show that he is not necessarily looking for more space, but would like to have one larger building that is more useful than the two existing buildings. Mr. Vowles noted that there will be a large area inside the building for storage of their inventory. He noted that the store space will really not be any larger than the store area of the two existing stores.
Mr. Vowles stated that Page 9 of his presentation depicts the existing second floor floor plan. He noted that one building has five bedrooms and the other building has 4 bedrooms. Mr. Vowles noted that on Page 10 shows the proposed second floor and he pointed out that the bedrooms will be reduced from the 9 existing to 3. He reiterated that there is a second floor porch that is cut into the building to make up for the added second floor interior space created by building across the alleyway, just as was done on the first floor.
Mr. Vowles stated that the property is currently seasonal and he has no plans to use it other than seasonally. He noted that there are no wells on the property and he has no intention of hooking up to Connecticut Water.
Mr. Vowles pointed out Page 12 of his presentation which he referred to as the fact sheet. He read this page to the Board. Mr. Vowles noted that although the footprint has been enlarged, there is a net decrease in interior space. He explained that the number of bedrooms when he purchased the property was 18, which he has reduced to 9 and the proposal further reduces to 3 bedrooms. Mr. Vowles noted that they are also decreasing the number of stores from 2 to 1 and the number of apartments from 2 to 1.
Mr. Vowels noted that Mr. Rose has indicated that 25 percent will need to be added to the leaching field and the perc test revealed good soils. He noted that the tank is large enough for a three bedroom apartment.
Chairman Speirs questioned why Mr. Vowles applied for variances instead of waiting for the Sound View Design District Regulations. Mr. Vowles stated that he is ready to move forward with this project and he is not sure how long it will be before those Regulations are finished and adopted. Mr. Vowles stated that the SVDD proposal allows for a 0’ front setback. He noted his property is currently 13’ from the street. Mr. Vowles stated that the current height for the district is 35 feet and the SVDD Committee is considering reducing the height limit to 27 feet. He noted that the height of his proposed building is 33 feet. Mr. Vowles explained that one of the two existing buildings is 27 feet and in order to join the two existing buildings the minimum required height is 33 feet,
as proposed. Mr. Schellens stated that the Board should review this proposal from the current Zoning Regulations and not the Sound View Design District proposal.
Mr. Vowles stated that the two existing properties are so nonconforming that no improvements can be made without a variance. He indicated that he feels his proposal is a good compromise and improves both properties without creating additional interior space. He reiterated that this proposal eliminates one store and six bedrooms and will improve the character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Vowles explained that they order merchandise in August and warehouse it in store until the following year, which is why they need so much storage.
Mr. Moll stated that he would hope there would be some similarity between the Sound View Design District Committee’s efforts and this project. Mr. Vowles indicated that a goal of the SVDD is to have this be a year round community. He noted that he is not interested in his property becoming year round, and stated that it is his belief that businesses will not prosper there year round. Mrs. Vowles stated that business has picked up a bit in the spring over the last two years now that many of the properties have become owner occupied. She noted that the business slows considerably mid August because school sports begin and people begin preparing for school, which typically begins in August. Mrs. Vowles stated that they stayed open a few weekends in September.
Andrew Faenza, 61 Portland Avenue, stated that the Vowles have done a great deal of work on their properties and continue to improve them. He stated that the Vowles are very community minded and are good citizens of the Town. Mr. Faenza stated that this project may spark the SVDD project.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-46 David Prilipp, 40 Mile Creek Road, variance to construct 6 foot fence in street setback.
Chairman Speirs stated that an applicant is not required to come before the Board to present their application. She stated that a variance is requested of Section 7.4.6, fence can only be 4’ in the street setback, variance of 2’ required. Chairman Speirs read the application to the Board, noting that the hardship is that the fence has not changed the character of the neighborhood and his neighbors are in favor of the application.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed the Public Hearing for this application.
The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
Case 04-34 Frank & Janet Maratta, 85 Swan Avenue
Ms. Brainerd was seated for Mr. Moll for this item. Mr. Schellens stated that the pavers should be at the same height as the sidewalk for safety. He indicated that there are four existing tables in this area and asked that a condition be put on any approval noted that there cannot be more than four tables in this area in the future. Ms. Brown noted that there is a step up from the pavers to the door.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Wendy Brainerd and voted unanimously to approve the variance request of Frank & Janet Maratta, 85 Swan Avenue, to replace existing deck with pavers, with the following conditions:
1. The grade of the pavers be at the same grade as the sidewalk.
2. No more than four tables on the paver area.
Mr. Schellens noted that the proposal is within the intent of Zoning in that it addresses public safety.
Case 04-44 David & Dawn Hamilton, 63 Browns Lane
Chairman Speirs stated that the Public Hearing for this item is continued to the January, 2005 Regular Meeting.
Case 04-47 John & Donna Duthrie, 22 Buttonball Road
Chairman Speirs noted that this application was withdrawn by the applicant.
Case 04-45 Jerry & Dolores Vowles, 77/79 Hartford Avenue
Chairman Speirs stated that she does not see a true hardship for the properties. She indicated that they are addressing health issues by reducing the number of bedrooms to three. Chairman Speirs noted that a large number of variances are required, although the proposal is a great improvement to the property.
Mr. Schellens stated that one of the hardships is the fact that they own two nonconforming lots with many existing nonconformities. He indicated that he thinks the proposal is very creative and finds it to be enormously beneficial to the Town and in the best interest of Zoning in the fact that the impact of the two properties is being reduced. He noted that there has been a great reduction in the number of bedrooms. Mr. Moll noted that although the footprint is being increased, the interior area is not and the applicant is giving many things back. He noted that Hartford Avenue is a very unique area, and this application is the only practical solution he has seen for the area.
Ms. Stutts stated that she believes the proposal is good for the Town, noting that the applicant is reducing the number of apartments from one to two along with reducing the number of bedrooms. She stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has a charge of making setbacks less in this area to help perpetuate business on Hartford Avenue. Ms. Stutts stated that joining some buildings will give the area an eclectic look which is the way the SVDD Committee would like to go. Ms. McQuade agreed, noting that there have been many more reductions in nonconformities than increases in nonconformities. Chairman Speirs stated that she would like to see the height of the building reduced, if possible. Ms. Stutts noted that that would not be possible, without having a flat roof.
Mr. Moll agreed that this is proposal could be the catalyst that starts a domino effect on Hartford Avenue. Chairman Speirs agreed and suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals notify the SVDD Committee of this proposal as an example of what can be done on Hartford Avenue.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to combine lots and to increase/enlarge nonconforming building on nonconforming lot, Case 04-45 Jerry & Dolores Vowles, 77/79 Hartford Avenue as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. Two lots must be merged by deed.
2. Property to remain seasonal use only.
3. Open porches on first and second floor to remain open porches.
4. Third floor attic space limited to storage only
5. Property limited to three bedrooms.
Chairman Speirs noted that the hardship is that the property at 79 Hartford Avenue is too small for an adequate septic system. Ms. McQuade noted that because the two abutting properties are owned by the same individuals, it is practical to combine the two small stores into one more practical sized store and to make the many reductions in nonconformities as noted in testimony and discussion.
Case 04-46 David Prilipp, 40 Mile Creek Road
Ms. Stutts stated that if the purpose of the fence is to block noise from Mile Creek Road, then that is the wrong reason as a plastic fence will not cut down noise. She indicated that the house is set back 54 feet from the street and a row of plantings would block sound better. Chairman Speirs noted that a neighbor noted that the fence was nicer to look at than the yard. Ms. Brown explained that the yard was overgrown with brambles and that type of thing, not junk or rubbish.
Mr. Schellens stated that the intent of the Regulation is to be sure there is adequate sight line and probably also intended to protect smaller neighborhoods where it would not be appropriate to have such high fences in the front setbacks. He noted that the fence does provide Mr. Prilipp with privacy. Ms. McQuade stated that she approached the property from Route 156 and she feels it looks like a barricade. She indicated that a more natural color fence may look better. Ms. McQuade stated that if other neighbors asked for the same type of fence it would ruin the character of the street.
Chairman Speirs stated that if the applicant had come before the Board before the fence was erected it would probably have been suggested that he use landscaping as a barrier instead. She noted that the fence does not interfere with the sight line and suggested that a condition of approval could be that he remove the lattice along the top to reduce the height to five feet. Mr. Schellens noted that the lattice may even be two feet in height which would reduce it to four feet. He indicated that he would be in favor of allowing the fence to remain as it is and requiring the applicant to plant lilacs or some type of planting to soften the look.
Mr. Moll stated that the applicant indicated that the fence would cut down the light from cars and he indicated that it would be helpful to know where the bedrooms are located. He indicated that without presentation by the applicant it is difficult to know what part of the house is impacted by lights in the evening. Chairman Speirs stated that another reason offered was the need for privacy, which is lacking along Mile Creek Road. Ms. Brown noted that the setback required is 50 feet and the house is 54 feet from the street.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by June Speirs to grant the necessary variances to allow a 6 foot fence in the front setback at 40 Mile Creek Road, David Prilipp, applicant, with the following condition:
1. Addition of plantings along the outside of the fence line along the street line to reduce the bulky appearance.
Motion did not carry, 2:3, with Chairman Speirs and Tom Schellens voting in favor.
ITEM 7: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
Ms. Brown noted that the plans for the Wendland property on Osceola Trail were required to come back to the Board for final review. She noted that the Board wanted to see plans that eliminated the deck structure on the plan submitted at the time of application. Ms. Brown noted that the final plans presented this evening show the elimination of that deck.
Chairman Speirs noted that the approval granted by the Board was for a 1,189 square foot home, not the 1,200 square feet required for a two story home. She noted that the proposed home is 1.5 stories.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to accept the plans submitted for 11 Osceola Trail as the final plans and meeting the requirements of the approval granted by the Board.
Referral from the Old Lyme Zoning Commission, Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Regulations
The Board discussed the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations and Chairman Speirs noted that she felt this proposal is not appropriate and may create some overbuilding. She pointed out that in the case of the Balavander property, they purchased property in another zone because they did not have enough area.
Chairman Speirs noted that the Board Members may go to the Public Hearing and speak as citizens of the Town of Old Lyme.
Mr. Moll stated that twice in the last month he has had the opportunity to visit the Jib Restaurant and noted illegal signs hanging on the patio. He noted that he has been advised that Zoning has enforced against the signs. Ms. Brown noted that she has issued a cease and desist order which they must respond to. She noted that the tables on the sidewalk are also an issue. Ms. Brown indicated that a representative of the Jib has indicated that they will be making application to the Zoning Commission to keep the outside tables. She noted that she has also sent sign applications.
Mr. Moll questioned how long the property at 286 Shore Road could continue in its current state. Chairman Speirs noted that it is a pending Court case. Mr. Moll stated that there are unregistered motor vehicles on the property and it is an eyesore. Ms. Brown noted that those issues would be independent of the Court case. She indicated that she has not begun an enforcement on this property and noted that she will try to get the property cleaned up. Mr. Moll questioned whether the building was in use. Ms. Brown noted that the building has not received a Certificate of Occupancy.
Chairman Speirs noted that Mr. Brechtel has appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals in their action to uphold the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Susanne Stutts and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the October 12, 2004 Regular Meeting as clarified. So voted 4:0, with Ms. McQuade abstaining.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the September 29, 2004 Special Meeting, 4:0 with Chairman Speirs abstaining.
A motion was made by Tom Richard Moll, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 14, 2004 Regular Meeting as clarified.
ITEM 8: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
