APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, January 19, 2005 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, Kip Kotzan, Judy McQuade (Alternate), and Wendy Brainerd (Alternate).
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
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 to present their application. Mr. Hamilton acknowledged that he gave his consent to have his Public Hearing continued to this meeting. Chairman Speirs noted that the applicant is requesting to construct an above-ground pool with decking under Sections 8.9.3, no extension or expansion on a nonconforming lot; 21.3.9, setback of 35’ required, 8’ variance required on the north side; 21.3.11, maximum lot coverage, 10% allowed, 11.5% proposed, for a variance of 1.5%. She questioned when the home was purchased. Mr. Hamilton replied that it was purchased in 1985. Chairman Speirs questioned how many structures were on the site. Mr. Hamilton stated that they have a house, pool, and a shed.
Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant applied for the pool and was denied and then the pool was installed anyway. She noted that at that time a Cease and Desist was issued. Ms. Stutts stated that she did not see a hardship indicated on the application. Mr. Hamilton stated that both of his neighbors declined to sell him property. Chairman Speirs read a letter from neighbors Susan Black and Marsha Grant in this regard.
Mr. Moll stated that there is more than one site plan in the file. Mr. Hamilton stated that the pool is 16’ x 18’ with a two-foot walkway around three sides and a six foot platform on the west side. Mr. Moll stated that the footprint of both the pool and deck is 20 x 32. Mr. Moll questioned the side yards. Mr. Hamilton replied that the pool is 35’ from one side and 42’ from the other side. Ms. Stutts noted that those setbacks are not the same as the setbacks indicated by the ZEO’s denial. Chairman Speirs noted that the lot is 100’ x 200’. Chairman Speirs questioned whether the applicant would be willing to remove some structure from the lot to bring the coverage down to 10 percent. The distance from the pool to the property lines, as
indicated by the applicant, was marked on the drawing and initialed by the applicant. Mr. Kotzan stated that to reduce the coverage down to 10 percent, the applicant would need to remove approximately 300 square feet of coverage. Mr. Hamilton stated that the pool is centered in the back yard and he does not believe a variance of the side setbacks is required.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed the public hearing for this item.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 05-01 Robert & Dawn McCarthy, 85 Flat Rock Hill Road, variance to allow the keeping of livestock on 2.92 acre parcel.
Robert and Dawn McCarthy were present to explain their application. Chairman Speirs noted that the variance requested is to keep livestock on 2.92 acres. Mr. McCarthy stated that they would like to construct a barn to keep two horses on their property. He noted that they currently have 2.92 acres and the Zoning Regulations require 3 acres of land. Mr. McCarthy explained that they have two abutting neighbors and have approached them both to purchase property. He noted that one neighbor was willing to lease property, which would not solve the problem, and the other neighbor’s mortgage company indicated that they may not release the property. Mr. Schellens questioned when the lot was formed. Mr. McCarthy replied that it was subdivided in 1991 and he purchased it in 1995.
Chairman Speirs stated that the 1990 Assessor’s records indicate that the property is 2.9 acres. Mr. McCarthy stated that Mr. Hendriks surveyed the property and has indicated that the parcel is 2.92 acres. Chairman Speirs noted that when there is a discrepancy between the assessor’s records and the surveyor, one usually searches the deeds. She questioned whether Mr. McCarthy searched the deed. Mr. McCarthy stated that he went to the surveyor, Mr. Hendriks, who gave him the information on the property. Chairman Speirs noted that the applicant has not presented a map representing that the lot is 2.92 acres.
Chairman Speirs questioned where and how the manure would be treated. Mr. McCarthy noted that his property contains no wetlands. He explained that the barn will be placed in the flat area of the property and the manure will be managed in that area. Mr. McCarthy stated that they have researched various methods of composting, along with discussions with the Health Department. He explained that the area will be cleaned and maintained on a daily basis. Mr. McCarthy stated that the nearest neighbor that will be affected is supportive of the application. Mrs. McCarthy stated that the neighbor was to attend the hearing this evening, but she is not sure they are able to because of the weather. Mr. McCarthy stated that they will compost and remove the manure. He noted that he has
provided this information to the Health Department and believes they have approved it. Mr. McCarthy noted that the composting will be more than 75 feet from any wells. He pointed out the neighbor’s well on the site plan.
Mr. McCarthy stated that his hardship is that they are short .08 of an acre to keep animals and neither neighbor will sell them property. He noted that other properties in Old Lyme with 3 acres or more are more than $500,000.00. Mrs. McCarthy noted that they have permission from two of their neighbors to access the Nature Conservancy property which abuts directly behind the two houses behind them.
Mr. McCarthy stated that the property is unique because most of the properties around him are greater than three acres or substantially less. He pointed out that his property is just shy of the required 3 acres. Mr. McCarthy stated that it will be in harmony with the neighborhood as there is a barn across the street that housed a horse at one time. Mrs. McCarthy noted that none of their neighbors have come forward to speak against the application.
Chairman Speirs questioned whether they would be giving riding lessons. Mrs. McCarthy replied that they would not. Mr. Schellens questioned whether it is for private use only, no boarding. Mrs. McCarthy stated that she can only afford one horse, but she should have at least two as it is not fair to have a horse stable alone. She indicated that if the Board were to put a condition on approval, she would request that it be two horses, and one would be a boarder.
Mr. Moll questioned the topography and Mr. McCarthy demonstrated it, using the site plan for reference. Mr. McCarthy pointed out the area that they propose to fence in, noting that it is approximately 30,000 square feet. Ms. McCarthy stated that she plans to leave as many trees as possible. Mr. Moll noted that the variance request is for farm animals and pointed out that the Board must consider this in their deliberations, as the next owner of the property may want to keep goats, pigs or chickens, which are all considered farm animals. Mrs. McCarthy noted that sometimes companion animals are goats.
Mr. Moll suggested that the McCarthy’s consult with the Zoning Enforcement Officer before installing the fence. He noted that it’s location relative to the setback will vary depending upon the height.
Anthony Hendriks, Licensed Land Surveyor, indicated that he is in favor of the application. He noted that he has not been retained by Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Hendriks noted that Mr. McCarthy came to his office because he did the original work for the Dalstrom’s, but he did not do survey work for Mr. McCarthy. He explained that he calculated the McCarthy’s parcel as 2.92 acres and he provided this information to them. Mr. Hendriks stated that he is very familiar with the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations and pointed out that the requirements for lots are 40,000 square feet, 80,000 square feet, etc., and these are referred to as a builder’s acre or two builder’s acres when a real acre is 43,560 square feet. He noted that when the Regulation was written to require 3 acres to keep
farm animals, they were talking about 3 builder’s acres. Mr. Hendriks stated that all the shoreline towns’ deal with lot sizes in this way. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 05-02 David & Nina Peck, 135 Mile Creek Road, variance to allow a first floor addition in the setback.
David and Nina Peck were present to explain their application. Mrs. Peck stated that they are proposing a 600 square foot addition, 35 square feet of which imposes on the 50’ setback. She showed the floor plan with the zone line superimposed on it. Mrs. Peck explained that they purchased the property 15 years ago and at that time the house was 1500 square feet. She indicated that they have slowly restored the house, as the original part was constructed in about 1860. Mrs. Peck stated that they were granted a variance previously for an addition. She explained that their current plans include a fourth bedroom, with this bedroom being on the first floor.
Mrs. Peck stated that the original house was constructed near the street, as were most homes in the mid 1800’s. She noted that she has tried to minimize the intrusion into the setback. Mrs. Peck stated that the 35 square feet of the addition that is in the setback is necessary for an access into the fourth bedroom.
Chairman Speirs stated that the property is located in an RU-40 zone and contains 42,621 square feet. Mrs. Peck stated that the coverage is 4.8 percent. Chairman Speirs noted that it is 6.2 percent with the addition. Mrs. Peck explained that the interior basement access was lost with the first addition to the property and this project would enable basement access from the interior.
Chairman Speirs stated that the variance is requested to add a one-story extension to the existing study, 11’9” by 13”, and a one-story addition to the playroom of 14’ x 14’6”. She indicated that third extension is 10’ x 16’. Mr. Kotzan noted that this information is being submitted for the record, as only 35 square feet of the addition is in the setback. Chairman Speirs noted that variances are requested of Sections 8.8.1, no building or other structure which does not conform to regulations regarding building height, bulk, etc., shall be enlarged or extended; 7.4.2, setback for narrow streets, 50’ required, 42’ existing, variance of 8’ requested; 21.3.7, minimum street setback, 50’ required, 42’ existing, 8’ variance
requested. Mrs. Peck noted that the fact that the property has two front yard setbacks is an additional hardship.
Mr. Moll asked that the room indicated as Sara’s room on the floor plan be changed to indicate that it is a bedroom. Mrs. Peck agreed and made the change.
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 4: Public Hearing Case 05-03 Michael & Lori Dolishny, 47 Brighton Road, variance to construct a two-story addition.
Michael and Lori Dolishny were present to explain their application. Chairman Speirs noted that the property is located in an R-10 zone and contains 10,350 square feet. She noted that the existing coverage is 25.7 percent and the proposed coverage is 29 percent. Mr. Dolishny stated that they purchased the house in 2001 and they now have three children. He indicated that they would like to move the three bedrooms to the upstairs so that they are all on the same elevation. Mr. Dolishny explained that their oldest daughter uses the bedroom upstairs and the two youngest share the other upstairs bedroom. He indicated that they would like to add a wrap-around front porch which would bring their house more in keeping with the other houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Dolishny explained that
his house is contemporary and the other houses are more like seaside homes.
Mr. Dolishny explained that they are not changing the frontprint at all and could make the interior changes without a variance. He explained that the variance is needed for the front porch. Mr. Dolishny stated that the front porch is open and will not affect existing sight lines. Chairman Speirs questioned whether the extra coverage is all from the front porch. Mr. Dolishny stated that the porch is close to 350 square feet.
Mr. Dolishny stated that his house is set 37 feet back from Brighton Road, but the property line is 12’ off the road. He demonstrated this on the site plan. Chairman Speirs noted that a variance of 9’ is required for the front setback.
Mr. Dolishny noted that they are not increasing the number of bedrooms as the first floor bedroom will no longer be a bedroom and the closet will be removed.
Chairman Speirs stated that if the Board were to act favorably on this application she would suggest a condition of approval be that the porch cannot be enclosed. Mr. Schellens questioned whether they have made attempts to purchase additional property from their neighbors. Mr. Dolishny stated that he has not because the neighboring properties do not have extra land and would themselves become nonconforming. Ms. Stutts noted that the remodeled second floor overhangs. Mr. Dolishny noted that the second floor cantilevers off the first floor two feet in the front. Chairman Speirs stated that the first floor footprint is now 1,482 square feet and will be increased to 1,532. She stated that the second floor footprint is 704 square feet and is being increased to 1,415. Chairman Speirs
noted that this is a large increase. Mr. Dolishny explained that the existing second floor is only one-half a second floor because of the way the roof slopes in the front of the house.
Mr. Dolishny stated that the house is 31 feet high and the height will not increase. Chairman Speirs noted that there are no height dimensions on the elevation drawings. Mr. Dolishny measured with a scale and noted that the height of the proposed structure measures out to 30 feet, noting that the drawing was a copy. He stated that he submitted the actual building plans to the Building Department. Mr. Schellens stated that he would like to see a hard set of plans that are scaled and measured. He questioned whether there would be living space in the attic. Mr. Dolishny replied that there will be pull-down stairs and only storage in the attic.
Chairman Speirs stated that variances are needed of the following Sections: 7.4.2, variance of 9’; 21.3.10, maximum floor area, 25% allowed, 28.5 % proposed, variance of 3.5%; and 21.3.11, maximum building coverage, 25.7%, proposed 29%, variance of 4%.
A neighbor stated that he is in favor of the application. He stated that the Dolishny’s are wonderful people and would adhere to whatever stipulations are imposed by the Board. He stated that the proposed structure would add to the character of the block and would be in harmony with the other homes.
Brian Ritchey, 16 Brighton Road, stated that the proposed structure would be in line with the current homes on Brighton Road.
Dave Williams, 3 Brighton Road, stated that the immediate neighbors are seasonal neighbors and are not present this evening. He indicated that the proposed structure will add to the appearance of the neighborhood and be in harmony with the neighborhood.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed the Public Hearing.
ITEM 5: Public Hearing Case 05-04 Gregory R. Smith, 50 Four Mile River Road, variance to allow construction of home on a nonconforming lot.
Darian Sheffield and Anthony Hendriks, Registered Professional Land Surveyor, were present to represent the applicant, Gregory Smith. Chairman Speirs stated that Mr. Smith is the owner of the property. She noted that the property is currently 22,000 square feet, although the application, site plan, etc., all indicate that the property is 27,000 square feet.
Mr. Hendriks stated that the property currently exists in Mr. Smith’s name and is 99’ in depth and 200’ in width, comprising the 22,000 square feet. He explained that this lot has been in existence since the Smith’s purchased it around 1950. Mr. Hendriks stated that the Smith family has never built on the property and under today’s Zoning Regulations it is a nonconforming lot unless it can meet the criteria of Section 8.9.1(a).
Mr. Hendriks stated that in Ms. Brown’s review of the application she points out that Section 8.9.1 states that a vacant lot having less than the minimum lot area required under these regulations is not required to conform to such minimum lot area requirements and any permitted building or other structure may be erected or placed and any permitted use may be made thereon if the following requirements are met: 1) such lot shall have an area equal to or greater than 90 percent of the minimum lot area required under these Regulations provided such lot is 18,000 square feet or larger. He noted that this particular lot would need 36,000 square feet in order to be an eligible lot under this Regulation so therefore a variance is required of this Section. He noted that 8.9.1c states, except for lot area
and frontage, all other bulk requirements of Schedule A and B-2, as the case may be shall apply, except as varied by the Old Lyme Board of Appeals. Mr. Hendriks stated that a variance is also requested of Section 21.3.3, minimum dimension of a square, 150’ required and the maximum square that can be put on the lot is approximately 99’.
Mr. Hendriks stated that Mr. Smith has a nonconforming lot that he can not build a house on without a variance. He presented a site plan with a yellow highlighted area and noted that this represents the building area on the lot as it currently exists in Mr. Smith’s name. Mr. Hendriks stated that this building area is only 12’ in width and based on the current regulations a house would not be able to be constructed without additional variances for setbacks. He explained that Mr. Smith owns approximately 22,000 square feet and the abutting property owned by Mr. Sheffield has 61,000 square feet for a total of approximately 84,000 square feet. Mr. Hendriks noted that it would appear that there could be two 40,000 square foot lots, but in doing so the lot line would have to be moved back to
what is represented on the plan as a purple line. He noted that if this were done, Mr. Sheffield would not be able to put any additions on the side of his small home.
Mr. Hendriks noted that the land of Mr. Sheffield’s on the south could not be made part of the Smith lot because then Mr. Sheffield would not have frontage on Four Mile River Road and that would make him an interior lot and the rear lot calculations would kick in and he would need 25 percent more area for an interior lot. He explained in this case Mr. Smith would need 40,000 square feet for a conforming lot and Mr. Sheffield would need 50,000 square feet and there is only 84,000 square feet.
Mr. Hendriks stated that a modest 26’ x 32’ cape style house with the possible future addition of a garage on the end would be accommodated by moving the property line back 20 feet into Mr. Sheffield’s property. He noted that the proposed home would be similar in size to a number of properties in the vicinity. Mr. Moll questioned when the surrounding homes were constructed along Four Mile River Road. Mr. Hendriks replied that he is not sure. Chairman Speirs stated that she believes they were all constructed prior to Zoning.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the proposal is in harmony with the home that currently exists adjacent to the Smith’s property.
Chairman Speirs stated that this area was zoned RU-40 because of certain characters of the land, specifically ledge. She indicated that this does not mean that a new house would be in harmony with the area or zone that now exists.
Mr. Hendriks stated that the most land that Mr. Sheffield could give of his property was to provide an additional 20’ along the back of the Smith property, bring the Smith property up to 27,000 square feet. He noted that he has designed a septic system for the proposed property and the test pits were excellent, going down to 130” and 102” respectively. He noted there was no mottling, no refusal, no water and great soils. Mr. Hendriks stated that the septic design was approved by the Health Department. He explained that this proposal allows Mr. Smith to have a contract with Mr. Sheffield, because Mr. Sheffield is the one interested in building a house on this lot for his mother. Mr. Hendriks stated that if this variance is not granted, there is nothing that Mr. Smith can do
with the property.
Mr. Schellens suggested a different lot line modification, cutting up and across the back of the Sheffield property, which could possibly bring the lot into conformance. Mr. Schellens stated that this would be part of the measure of hardship. Mr. Schellens stated that it would be achievable to get a conforming lot. Mr. Hendriks stated that he does not believe it would be. He indicated that he has looked at it very closely.
Chairman Speirs questioned whether the proposal meets all the current setbacks of the RU-40 zone. Mr. Hendriks replied that all setbacks of the RU-40 zone are met. He noted that the lot lacks area and square. Chairman Speirs questioned the size of Mr. Sheffield’s current home. He replied that it is 24’ x 32’, approximately. Mr. Sheffield stated that his second floor is unfinished. Chairman Speirs noted that the proposed house is a three-bedroom cape, with a bath on the second floor. She noted that the proposed house is larger than Mr. Sheffield’s current home.
Mr. Kotzan questioned why Mr. Sheffield could not construct a family room on the opposite side of his home. Mr. Hendriks stated that there is a two-car garage on that side of the property that is underneath the home. He noted that the topography of the lot would make an addition on that side most difficult. Mr. Sheffield stated that unless it was filled, the foundation would be exposed. He explained that there is a drastic slope on that side of the home.
Chairman Speirs questioned the garage location of the proposed home. Mr. Hendriks replied that Mr. Sheffield has not applied for the garage as part of this application, but the access would be via the existing driveway for which they have incorporated an easement for, with a turnaround area. Chairman Speirs stated that Four Mile River Road is heavily traveled and she is glad to see a turnaround area. Mr. Hendriks agreed and noted that the sight distance is excellent in both directions.
Mr. Hendriks noted that even if the property line was moved as far as it could be, irrespective of Mr. Sheffield’s future plans for his property, it would be an additional 24’ which would be approximately 4800 square feet and the lot would still be nonconforming. Mr. Sheffield stated that the original hope was to make a conforming lot, which is impossible.
Chairman Speirs stated that Mr. Smith’s lot is assessed at $3,000.00 which appears low for a building lot. Mr. Sheffield stated that that amount has already changed with the new assessments. Mr. Hendriks stated that he has tried to take into consideration Mr. Sheffield’s future plans and still create a larger lot for Mr. Smith. He indicated that although the two men have an arrangement, if the variance is not granted Mr. Smith will still own a nonconforming lot of 22,000 square feet. Mr. Schellens stated that without Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Smith is not restricted from use of the property. He indicated that what has been presented is one configuration, but not necessarily the only and best configuration because it does not satisfy the square. He indicated that this proposal
appears to be an “I want” versus an “I need.” Mr. Schellens stated that there are other potential possibilities of the lot line modification that would get considerably closer to conforming. Mr. Sheffield stated that the other abutting properties are not able to give land. He noted that Mr. Hendriks was not able to make two conforming lots of these properties after exhaustive study of the land. Mr. Hendriks stated that there is no configuration that will make the Smith lot conforming as to the required square. Mr. Schellens stated that there is no hardship. Mr. Sheffield stated that Mr. Smith has the hardship because strict adherence to the Regulations prohibit him from building on the property, so they have worked together in the hopes of making the lot more conforming. Mr. Schellens stated that there are opportunities to make the lot more conforming. Chairman Speirs stated that Mr. Smith would have more of a
chance to get a variance because he is the owner of the lot. Mr. Sheffield stated that Mr. Smith is still the owner of the lot. Mr. Hendriks stated that Mr. Sheffield is offering a portion of the land and Mr. Smith is the applicant this evening. Mr. Sheffield stated that Ms. Brown asked him to write a letter of intent, which he did, but Mr. Smith is the applicant.
Mr. Moll stated that Mr. Sheffield testified that he would like to construct a home for his mother on this lot. He questioned why his mother would need a three-bedroom house. Mr. Sheffield replied that his mother currently lives in a three-bedroom house and he would like to move her into a like property. Mr. Sheffield stated that he does not believe this is important or relevant to the application. He explained that he has three boys and his mother comes from Clinton regularly to help and support his family. Mr. Sheffield stated that she has recently retired and he would love to accommodate her nearby in a similar home. He explained that the proposed home is in harmony with the other homes in the area and the coverage is lower than those properties. Chairman Speirs stated the fact
that he would like to have his mother nearby is a personal hardship.
Chairman Speirs stated that she knows Mr. Smith’s hardship, but would like to hear Mr. Sheffield’s hardship. She noted that it appears that both men are the applicants. Mr. Sheffield stated that Mr. Smith’s hardship is that strict adherence to the Regulations would prohibit him from building on the property. He noted that his hardship is similar to Mr. Smith’s, although he has made the lot more conforming. Mr. Sheffield stated that there is no way he can make the lot 100 percent conforming, even with giving more land.
Chairman Speirs stated that variances are being sought to construct a 26’ x 36’ home on a lot of 27,000 square feet. She noted that variances are required of Sections 8.9.1(a) and 8.9.1(c).
Mr. Sheffield read his hardship, as written on the application. Mr. Moll stated that Mr. Sheffield has indicated that the proposal is in conformity with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development and asked for a specific example of this. Mr. Sheffield stated that the Plan of Conservation and Development asks for sites that are able to process their own sewage because the Town does not want more infrastructures, such as sewers. He stated that this lot will support its own sewage and well. Mr. Sheffield stated that the Plan also calls for a cross-section of the population and diversity in the Town, he noted that bringing his mother to this property brings someone of the older population into a property that is not a large single-family dwelling with multiple garages. He noted that the size
of the dwelling brings diversity in both size and income of the owner. Mr. Sheffield stated that the Plan also references economic development and single-family homes are one of the primary means of economic development.
Mr. Moll stated that the other comparable lots in the area that have houses on them were all developed prior to Zoning. He indicated that the current situation is not the same and is not unique. Mr. Hendriks stated that he does not believe it is 100 percent clear that all those homes were constructed prior to Zoning and this would have to be researched. Mr. Sheffield presented a proposed site plan that was signed by the abutting neighbor, Mr. Balboni.
Mr. Hendriks stated that they have presented a plan that meets the guidelines of granting a variance in Section 52.2, 52.2.1, 52.2.2, 52.2.3 and 52.2.4.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 6: Public Hearing Case 05-05 William Farrell, 37 Grassy Hill Road, variance to allow first floor addition.
Chairman Speirs stated that the current coverage is 8.27, the proposed is 10 percent and 15 percent is allowed. She noted that a variance is sought to seek a 9’ x 7’9” and 9’ x 13’6” first floor additions under Sections 8.9.3, 21.3.1, 21.3.9, 21.3.7 and 7.4.2.
Marybeth Farrell was present to explain the application. She noted that they have a small house on a small lot and approximately two years ago the roof of the bathroom was damaged when a large pine tree fell on it. She noted that repairs were made, but at this point they would like to replace the bathroom which has not been updated for at least 40 years. Mrs. Farrell noted that this is the extension in the rear, across the back of the house. She explained that the roof will be peaked, instead of continuing the shed roof.
Chairman Speirs stated that it appears that the increase in the roof creates a second floor. She noted that a second floor plan has not been submitted. Mrs. Farrell stated that there are no plans for a second floor, this area would be for storage only. She noted that they are only peaking the roof for drainage.
Mrs. Farrell stated that the existing square footage of the structure is 716 square feet and would be increasing to 907 square feet. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that this structure is currently nonconforming as to square footage and this addition would eliminate that nonconformity. Mrs. Farrell stated that the addition will allow an increase in the size of the bathroom, add a closet in the bedroom and provide a small eating area off the kitchen. She noted that they are not enclosing the front porch as part of this application. Mrs. Farrell stated that there will be pull down access to the attic area, which currently exists in the kitchen area. She stated that they may even vault the ceiling in the new peaked roof area and not put down additional attic flooring.
Mrs. Farrell stated that her hardship is that she has a tiny house on a very small lot that they would like to bring up to current living standards. She explained that her in-laws purchased the property in 1964 and after their death her husband and his brother owned the property and now only her husband owns the property. She noted that the house is approximately 80 years old. Mr. Moll stated that the deed provided as part of the application shows that both brothers own the property. Mrs. Farrell stated that she knows that her husband had the deed changed, as his brother is deceased. Chairman Speirs stated that the current deed should be made part of this application, as it does not appear to be at this time.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed the Public Hearing for this item.
ITEM 7: Public Hearing Case 05-06 Kathleen Aldridge, 70 Seaview Road, variance to enclose portion of existing screened porch and add a box window.
Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant is requesting to enclose and 8’ x 12’ portion of a screened porch under Section 8.9.3, and a new window extending approximately one foot to accommodate a window seat. Kathleen and Peter Aldridge, along with Arthur Hurst, were present to explain the application. Mr. Hurst explained that they already have a building permit to make repairs such as new ceilings, lighting and flooring. He noted that the screened porch is depicted in photographs supplied as part of the application. Mr. Hurst stated that the applicants would like to enclose one end of the porch. He presented an elevation drawing to give the Board an idea of what the enclosed porch would look like. Mr. Hurst noted that the box window would not extend any further then the
current roof line.
Mr. Hurst noted that the current porch is 36’ x 8’. Chairman Speirs stated that she does not see any building permits on the assessor’s cards that allowed the deck to be converted to a porch. She noted that at that time they were given a variance for a deck from the house to the garage. Chairman Speirs questioned whether there was a bathroom in the basement, as indicated on the assessor’s card. Mr. Hurst replied that there was not, as the basement is little more than a crawl space. Mr. Aldridge stated that the porch was always screened, although the prior owner removed the screens in the winter time. He noted that the porch was always an integral part of the house and shares the same roof line as the house. Mrs. Aldridge stated that she has asked her
neighbors who all indicated that the porch was screened as long as they can remember.
Chairman Speirs stated that there were three conditions placed on the house at the time the last variance was granted in 1986. She noted that one was seasonal use only and another was no habitation in the garage and the third was that an engineered septic system had to be installed. Mr. Aldridge replied that it was installed and pointed out the location on the site plan. Chairman Speirs questioned whether there was ever a variance granted for the balconies shown in the photographs. Mr. Hurst stated that the balconies were part of the original work done in 1986/1987 when the Aldridge’s first purchased the property. Mr. Hurst noted that the house was originally constructed in the 1920’s.
Mr. Hurst noted that there is a bathroom on both the first and second floors. He explained the layout of the first floor to the Board. Chairman Speirs questioned the depth of the box window. Mr. Moll noted that the drawing indicates 1’ 6”. Mr. Hurst stated that the window extends to the roof overhang. He noted that the window is 5’ 8” wide. Chairman Speirs stated that the coverage is 15.9 percent and 25 percent is allowed. Mr. Hurst noted that the landing shown on the drawing is 5’6” by 12’. He noted that this is part of the current application. Mr. Moll stated that the landing area, being higher than 12” off the ground, would be considered coverage.
Chairman Speirs noted that letters of support were received from neighbors Martin Guyer, Guy and Judy Carbone, the Bassett’s, the Harney’s, Richard Renick, and Austin Sedekin. Mrs. Aldridge pointed out these properties on the assessor’s map.
Mr. Aldridge stated that the hardship is the placement of the house on the property prior to Zoning. He noted that only one side yard is noncompliant. He pointed out that the coverage is conforming. Chairman Speirs noted that the existing coverage and proposed coverage is the same, according to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Schellens stated that the window seat is not technically an eave, but the difference in coverage would be negligible.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 8: Open Voting Session
A Special Meeting was set for Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. to conduct the open voting session.
ITEM 9: Approval of Minutes
No action taken.
ITEM 10: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
