APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Monday, June 20, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), June Speirs, Richard Moll (Arrived at 4:40 p.m.), Kip Kotzan, Wendy Brainerd (Alternate for Richard Moll) and Edgar Butcher (Alternate for Tom Schellens).
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
ITEM 1: Open Voting Session.
Case 05-19 Suzanne Mandeville/Norman Renaldi, 29 Homestead Circle
Chairman Stutts stated that the application is for a variance to construct an attached two-car garage with loft. She noted that the plans show a 24’ x 26’ garage, but has been amended to show a 24’ x 24’ x 20’ high garage. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing coverage on the property is 1,663, with proposed coverage of 2,175 square feet. She stated that the hardships provided were that there is a large maple tree behind the existing garage and there is no additional land available to purchase.
Chairman Stutts noted that the existing nonconformities are Section 21.3.1, minimum lot size 20,000 square feet, 17,424 provided; 21.3.2, minimum lot per dwelling, 20,000 square feet required, 17,424 provided; 21.3.7, minimum setback 30 feet, 20’ provided, and 7.4.2, narrow street setback, 40 feet required, 20’ provided. She noted that a variance is required of Sections 8.8.1, no additions to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location; 8.9.3, no addition to a building on a nonconforming lot; 21.3.7, minimum street setback, and 7.4.2, narrow street setback.
Richard Moll arrived at this time (4:40 p.m.) and Ms. Brainerd was no longer seated. Chairman Stutts stated that the septic location restricts the location of the addition and this was provided by the applicant as an additional hardship. She indicated that she would like to see an elevation drawing that depicts how the new garage relates to the breezeway and the house. Chairman Stutts stated that there is an elevation drawing of just the proposed garage. Ms. Speirs pointed out that a neighbor submitted a letter expressing concerns that the height of the garage would block the sunlight. She noted that the neighbor’s house is quite close to the side yard. Ms. Speirs noted that the only use listed for the second floor of the garage was storage. Mr. Kotzan noted that the
applicant did state that there would be no heat or plumbing. Chairman Stutts stated that the second floor height is 9’11” at the center and 4’2” at the roofline. Mr. Kotzan noted that the garage does not encroach into the side setback. Chairman Stutts stated that it is unfortunate that the neighbor’s (Wiggins) house next door is so close to the side property line. She noted that neighbor’s across the street spoke in favor of the application. Chairman Stutts read a portion of Ms. Wiggins’ letter.
Mr. Kotzan stated that a two-car garage is a modern standard for a house if a property can carry it. Chairman Stutts stated that the issue to her is the fact that the garage is two-story and because it is proposed in the front setback, the building bulk is pushed further toward the street. She noted that the garage is almost as large as the house.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the purpose of the narrow street setback is to allow for road widening and he noted that it is highly doubtful that the Town will widen Homestead Circle. Mr. Kotzan stated that the lot is undersized, but is one of the largest in the neighborhood. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the Board could grant a two-car garage without a loft or second story. She noted that in this way there would be less bulk. Ms. Speirs agreed. Chairman Stutts noted that the hearing is closed so that the applicant cannot submit an elevation drawing to demonstrate how the proposed garage will look attached to the existing dwelling and also correcting the dimensions of the garage.
Mr. Moll stated that the application requires an elevation drawing of the proposed construction. Chairman Stutts noted that the applicant has provided that but noted that it does not give a representation of how the garage will look attached to the existing dwelling. Mr. Moll stated that architecturally the proposed garage is out of harmony with the other homes in the area. Ms. Stutts stated that she is not sure that the garage matches architecturally to the existing house. It was agreed that it is an issue of bulk. The Board members agreed that there could be storage above a regular two-car garage. Mr. Moll pointed out that he did not hear during the Public Hearing that the property had a deficiency in storage. Chairman Stutts noted that a two-car garage without a loft would also
alleviate the neighbor’s concerns regarding the blocking of sunlight.
A motion was made by June Speirs and seconded by Kip Kotzan to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a two-car attached garage with a loft, 29 Homestead Circle, Suzanne Mandeville/Norman Renaldi, applicants. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Plans for garage should reflect dimensions requested on the application.
2. Because bulk and size of garage is a consideration, the Board would request an elevation drawing showing the proposed garage attached to the existing dwelling.
Case 05-20 Paula and James Powers, 42 Coult Lane
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is proposing a second story addition of 16’ x 30’, adding 480 square feet to the existing home. She noted that the existing nonconformity is to Section 21.3.3, minimum dimension of a square, 200 square feet required, 150 square feet provided. Chairman Stutts noted that every lot in the subdivision is nonconforming as to square. She stated that this property is 167’ across the front and 650’ deep.
Ms. Speirs stated that she is not sure when the square requirement was added to the Zoning Regulations, but noted that every lot in the subdivision does not meet the square. Mr. Butcher stated that he is not sure why they require existing lots to meet a new Regulation. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Regulation is to prevent new lots being created that are long and narrow. He noted that the Board needs to review each application that does not meet square. Mr. Moll stated that there have been many applications before the Board this past year that relate to lacking the square.
The Board reviewed the site plan and elevation drawings and noted that they appear accurate.
Mr. Moll stated that a filed copy of the current deed must be provided prior to the filing of the variance. Chairman Speirs noted that prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, Health approval should be obtained. Mr. Moll noted that there is a letter in the file from the Sanitarian indicating that the deep hole and perc tests could be done when the foundation is constructed, with the understanding that a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until these tests are complete. Ms. Speirs noted that there is a bog area toward the rear of the lot.
Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship is the lack of square on the property and noted that the lot has the required area.
A motion was made by Edgar Butcher, seconded by June Speirs and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a second floor addition, 42 Coult Lane, Paula and James Powers, applicants, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. Recorded deed to be provided prior to the filing of the variance.
2. Health approval to be obtained prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood.
2. Lot has required area and there are no setback issues.
3. Proposal is in harmony with the Plan of Zoning.
Case 05-21 Nancy Sell, 372 Shore Road
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant has proposed a 9’ x 13’ sunroom on an existing second floor 9’ x 20’ deck. She noted that the existing nonconformity is Section 22.3.3, minimum square 150’ required, 110 square feet provided. Chairman Stutts stated that the property is located in a C-30 Zone. She indicated that the hardship provided is that the lot is triangular shaped. Chairman Stutts stated that the property is 30,056 square feet.
Chairman Stutts stated that the house is situated on the lot such that the sunroom will not affect the neighbor. She pointed out that the house is bordered on two sides by Conservatory Land. Ms. Speirs noted that the coverage is not being increased. She suggested that a building plan be submitted to ensure that it is constructed securely. Mr. Kotzan noted that that would have to be submitted to the Building Department as part of the building application. Ms. Speirs noted that the sunroom will not have heat. She noted that the plans reflect baseboard heat. Chairman Stutts stated that it was proposed to be a three-season room. Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant did indicate that there would not be heat, although he noted he does not think adding heat would have any affect on
the application. Chairman Stutts stated baseboard heat is not sufficient for an all-glass room. The Board agreed that they would not limit the heat.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by June Speirs, and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variance to allow the construction of a 9’ x 13’ sunroom on an existing 9’ x 20’ deck, 372 Shore Road, Nancy Sell, applicant, as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Unique triangular shaped lot with required area.
3. Sunroom will not impact neighbor.
ITEM 2: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. on a motion by Richard Moll and seconded by Kip Kotzan. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
