APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Richard Moll, Kip Kotzan, Judy McQuade (Alternate - seated) and Edgar Butcher (Alternate - seated).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 05-22 Andrew & Kimberly Rae, 70 Lyme Street, variance to relocate portion of nonconforming shed in a nonconforming location.
Andrew and Kimberly Rae were present to present their application. Mr. Rae explained that they are renovating his property of 70 Lyme Street and he is seeking permission to move the footprint of the shed, maintaining the exact same square footage. Mrs. Rae stated that the outbuilding is in very bad disrepair. Mr. Rae indicated that he believes the building was put together from three different structures. He reiterated that they are removing a portion of the east end of the outbuilding and adding on to the west end. Mr. Rae stated that the rooflines will remain the same.
Chairman Stutts questioned whether the shed would be heated. Mr. Rae indicated that he may heat it in the future, perhaps with a propane heater. Chairman Stutts stated that it is marked seasonal on the application. Mr. Rae stated that they plan to use it as an art studio or a recreational room.
Chairman Stutts noted that the height of the shed is being increased two feet higher than the existing shed or 13’ versus the 15’ proposed.
Mr. Rae stated that his hardship is that there is no other place to put the shed on his property. He also noted that he is not further encroaching on setbacks or increasing the square footage of the shed. Mr. Rae noted that he installed a new septic system and a new well.
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are requested of the following Sections: 8.8.1, no addition permitted to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location and 21.3.9, minimum setback from other property, 15 required, 1 foot existing.
Mr. Moll questioned the square footage of the existing shed and the proposed shed. Mr. Rae replied that the proposed shed is slightly less, but basically equivalent. Chairman Stutts noted that the square footage of the shed is being reduced by 2 square feet. Mr. Moll questioned whether the Rae’s were sure of their property line. Mr. Rae replied that he is not sure, and neither is his neighbor. Mr. Moll stated that he might suggest as a condition of approval that they determine the property line.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 05-23 David and Dawn Hamilton, 63 Browns Lane, variance to construct an above-ground pool.
Dawn Hamilton was present to explain her application. She noted that she had previously been before the Commission in November, 2004, and at that time it was determined that the allowed coverage was exceeded. Ms. Hamilton stated that they have removed a deck which was 274 square feet. Chairman Stutts noted that existing coverage (before the pool was constructed) was 1,392 square feet; proposed coverage is 2,032 square feet. She questioned how this has changed. Ms. Hamilton indicated that she is not sure.
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are requested of the following Section: 8.9.3, no additional buildings or structures on a nonconforming lot.
Steve Scanlon, 66 Browns Lane, stated that he is in favor of the application. Anna Pescal, 66 Browns Lane, indicated that she too is in favor of the application.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 05-24 P.N. DiPinto Builders LLC, 3 Village Lane, variance to allow height to be measured in accordance with provisions of Section 7.3.2(b).
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 05-25 P.N. DiPinto Builders LLC, 1 Village Lane, variance to allow height to be measured in accordance with provisions of Section 7.3.2(b).
Mr. Moll stated that because the next two cases are the same, he would make the recommendation that the two hearings be held simultaneously. Attorney Mike Dowley agreed. He indicated that he is representing the applicant. Attorney Dowley stated that he believes he has set forth clearly in the application the reason for the variance. He explained that 3 Village Lane is a beautiful structure. Attorney Dowley stated that the house was built with a Building Permit and all other proper requirements from the Town. He explained that at the time Mr. DiPinto tried to get a Certificate of Occupancy, a question came up as to whether the building should be measured under the Conservation Zone Regulation. Attorney Dowley stated that Gateway has established many Regulations to preserve the view
of the river. He indicated that there is a letter in the file from the Gateway Commission indicating that there is no impact to the view from the river. Attorney Dowley read sections of this letter for the record.
Attorney Dowley stated that by variance they would apply Section 7.3.2b (height measurement of non-conservation zone) and the height of the structure would be 33.3 feet. He noted that the maximum allowed height is 35 feet.
Attorney Dowley read a letter from Christine Leverone, 305-1 Ferry Road indicating that she could not be more pleased with the subdivision or the look of the homes and would be in favor of the developer being granted a variance for the height. He read a letter from Dominic Pappa, 14-1 Neck Road, would also indicated that he is in favor of a height variance being grated to these two properties.
Attorney Rowley presented a photograph of 1 Village Lane. He noted that the letter from Gateway would also apply. Attorney Rowley stated that the structure would be 32.8 feet if measured under Section 7.3.2b (non-conservation zone). He noted that if measured under the conservation zone regulation (7.3.2a) it would be 37.5 feet.
Attorney Rowley stated that the hardship is the topography of the lots. Mr. Moll noted that he could not find a dimension on the elevation drawings to indicate the height of the structure. Mr. DiPinto indicated that the plan is scaled accordingly. He noted that the plan before the Board this evening is the same plan that was submitted for the Zoning Permit. Mr. Moll noted that the Zoning Permit Application indicates that the height of the structure is 30 feet. He stated that the approval also indicates that height is measured in accordance with Section 7.3.2a. Mr. DiPinto stated that many Towns have the height requirement of 35 feet. He indicated that the height is usually measured from the first floor elevation. Mr. DiPinto stated that the height he indicated was measured
from the first floor. Mr. DiPinto indicated that the height was inadvertently overlooked by many people, including his engineer. He indicated that it was an honest error or oversight. Mr. DiPinto pointed out that the plans he submitted for both homes show full walk out basements. Chairman Stutts acknowledged that the height could have been determined by scaling the drawing.
Chairman Stutts stated that the variance being requested is to allow the height to be measured in accordance with Section 7.3.2b, which takes an average of the height of the house above grade.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from Dr. and Mrs. William Fitzgerald in opposition to the variance.
Anthony Barry, 2 Village Lane, stated that he has worked with Mr. DiPinto for ten months and has found him to be very straight forward and ethical. He indicated that he is two months passed closing on his home and is very happy with his experience. Mr. Barry stated that the appearance of 1 and 3 Village Lane are very pleasing, as is the neighborhood. He indicated that he would like to see the Board grant a variance for the height.
Ken Gray, 2 Neck Road, stated that Mr. DiPinto installed drainage across his property for the development. Mr. Gray stated that his experience working with Mr. DiPinto was great. He indicated that Mr. DiPinto was very diligent and concerned with how the work was done. Mr. Gray stated that he is in favor of the application.
Charles Batts, 3 Old Bridge Road, stated that the height confusion appears to be a misunderstanding. He indicated that the Gateway Commission has no objection and the variance should be granted.
William Fitzgerald stated that the width of the Conservation Zone is dictated by both the Connecticut River and the Lieutenant River. He indicated that he suspects that the homes can be seen from the Lieutenant River. Mr. Fitzgerald questioned whether Gateway actually viewed these homes from the Lieutenant River. Chairman Stutts stated that there is no one present representing the Gateway Commission. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that there is a large dead tree on his property line which he has been trying to get Mr. DiPinto to remove. He noted that Mr. DiPinto is showing no sensitivity to his neighbor. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he is strongly opposed to the granting of this variance.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called these Public Hearings to a close.
ITEM 5: Public Hearing Case 05-26 Robert & Joane Ringering, 24 & 24-1 Neck Road, variance to allow the construction of two dormers.
Robert and Joane Ringering were present to explain their application. Mr. Ringering stated that they are asking for a variance to construct two dormers on an existing second floor attic space that will allow the interior space to be used as a bathroom and closet.
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are needed of Sections 7.4, setbacks, no building shall extend within less than minimum distances from any streetline; 8.8.1, no building that does not conform shall be enlarged; and 21.3.9, other setback, 35 feet required, 25 existing.
Mr. Ringering explained that the dormers are within the 35’ setback. Mrs. Ringering showed the setback line on the site plan and pointed out the location of the dormers. She explained that the expansion cannot take place anywhere else on the property because of septic and well locations. She noted that on another side there is a large mature oak tree that would have to be removed for expansion. Mrs. Ringering explained that because of this they would like to use the existing space in the attic. She indicated that they would also like to keep the character of the house as it now is.
Chairman Stutts noted that the two structures at the top of the driveway will be removed. Mrs. Ringering stated that they will be removing the brick house and the garage. She indicated that the front lot with the brick house and garage is 24 Neck Road and her home is on 24-1 Neck Road. Mrs. Ringering stated that they would like to take these two structures down and make that area more wooded.
Mr. Moll noted that the deed states there are three parcels of land. He noted that there is a third parcel on Calves Island. Mrs. Ringering stated that they could not and would not build on that parcel.
Charles Batts, 3 Old Bridge Road, stated that he is in favor of the application because the principle spirit and intent of setback is not violated because the footprint is not being changed. He indicated that this small architectural change is consistent with a 180 year old house. Mr. Batts stated that it would be a shame to cut down the old oak tree.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called these Public Hearings to a close.
The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 6: Open Voting Session
Case 05-22 Andrew & Kimberly Rae, 70 Lyme Street
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants are requesting a variance to relocate a portion of a nonconforming shed in a nonconforming location. She noted that the proposal is not in compliance with Section 7.4, setbacks, no building shall extend within less than minimum distance of any street line, rear or other property line; 8.8.1, no addition permitted to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location and 21.3.9, minimum setback from other property, 15 required, 1 foot existing.
Chairman Stutts stated that the shed is an old outbuilding that measures 16’ x 24” and is 13 feet high. She noted that the new structure will be basically the same size, only 15 feet high. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing square footage of the building is 337 square feet and the proposed is 335 square feet. She noted that the studio will not have heat, but may have heat in the future. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided was that this is the only viable location without removing trees.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the existing nonconformities will be slightly reduced. He indicated that he likes the idea that less of the structure will be directly on the fence line. Ms. McQuade stated that the Historic District Commission also approved the application. Mr. Moll questioned whether the Board should consider any restrictions to the use of the building, such as habitation. Mr. Kotzan suggested that allowing heat would be reasonable and prohibiting water connection would also be reasonable. Mr. Moll stated that the Board may want to consider requiring a property line survey to confirm that the structure is not built on or over the property line.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant variances of Sections 7.4, 8.8.1 and 21.3.9 to relocate a portion of a nonconforming shed in a nonconforming location, Andrew & Kimberly Rae, 70 Lyme Street, as per the approved plan and with the following conditions:
1. No water provided to the shed/outbuilding.
2. Property line shall be established prior to construction to verify that the structure is not constructed less than one foot from the property line.
Reason:
1. Granting of the variance is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 05-23 David and Dawn Hamilton, 63 Browns Lane
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants are requesting a variance to construct an above ground pool. She noted that the applicants were before the Board in November. Chairman Stutts stated that a variance is required of Section 8.9.3, no additional buildings or structures on a nonconforming lot. She explained that the prior appeal was denied by the Board because the pool was constructed and the maximum allowed coverage on the lot was exceeded.
Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided was the lot size and the applicant indicated they are not able to purchase additional land. She explained that the change from the case heard in November is that the applicants have removed a 12’ x 23’ deck which reduced their coverage to 1,758 square feet, within the 10 percent allowable coverage in this zone. Mr. Kotzan stated that he is satisfied now that the property does not exceed coverage and a pool is a reasonable use on a residential property. He noted that the pool meets all setbacks. Ms. McQuade agreed. Mr. Moll pointed out that neighbors were present to speak in favor of the application.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant a variance of Section 8.9.3 to allow for the construction of an above-ground pool, David and Dawn Hamilton, 63 Browns Lane, as per the approved plan.
Reasons:
1. Granting of the variance is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 05-24 P.N. DiPinto Builders LLC, 3 Village Lane & Case 05-25 P.N. DiPinto Builders LLC, 1 Village Lane
Chairman Stutts stated that they will discuss these two cases at the same time but vote on them separately. She explained that a variance is being requested to allow the height to be measured in accordance with provisions of Section 7.3.2b. Chairman Stutts showed a map of the Conservation Zone and pointed out the location of the two houses, noting they were quite deep into the zone and cannot be seen from the river. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that the Gateway Commission sent a letter indicating there would be no impact if a variance was granted.
Chairman Stutts stated that the height of the house was built to the plans submitted and approved for the Zoning Compliance Permit. She noted that it appears to have been an oversight. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is the topography of the house lots.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not feel the granting of the variance would violate the intent of the Regulation. He noted that the Gateway Commission has indicated this in their letter. Chairman Stutts read the letter from Linda Krause, Gateway staff.
Ms. McQuade stated that it appears several people overlooked the height of the structure prior to its construction. She indicated that she did not feel allowing the variance would violate the intent of Zoning or Gateway.
Chairman Stutts noted that the height of the structure measured under Section 7.3.2a is 38.6 feet and measured according to 7.3.2b it is 33.3 feet. Mr. Moll stated that the applicant indicated on the Zoning Permit Application that the height of the dwelling is 30 feet. He noted that Ann Brown approved the permit and noted on it that the height was to be measured in accordance with Section 7.3.2a. Mr. Moll stated that there are no measurements on the drawing. Mr. Kotzan noted that the Board must look at the application as if the homes have not been constructed. He noted that allowing the height to be measured under Section 7.3.2b does not violate the intent of the Regulation, as noted in the letter from Linda Krause, Gateway staff.
Mr. Butcher stated that the hardship is the topography of the lots. Mr. Kotzan stated that the other hardship is that the lots are located in an area of the Conservation Zone that is not visible from the river.
Mr. Moll noted that Mr. DiPinto stated at the Public Hearing that he uses local people for his work because they know the Regulations. He noted that Tony Hendriks Associates did the site plan and an out-of-state firm did the architectural plans which did not have dimensions. Ms. McQuade suggested that the Zoning Enforcement Officer require height dimensions on all plans.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant a variance to allow the height of the dwelling at 3 Village Drive to be measured in accordance with Section 7.3.2b, P.N. DiPinto Builders LLC, applicant, as per the approved plan.
Reasons:
1. Granting of the variance does not violate the intent of Zoning.
2. Building height is less than 35 feet as measured under Section 7.3.2b.
3. Property is located in a pocket of land in the Conservation Zone but not visible from the river.
Chairman Stutts stated that as measured under Section 7.3.2a the height of 1 Village Lane is 37.5 feet and measured under Section 7.3.2b the house is 32.8 feet.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant a variance to allow the height of the dwelling at 1 Village Drive to be measured in accordance with Section 7.3.2b, P.N. DiPinto Builders LLC, applicant, as per the approved plan.
Reasons:
1. Granting of the variance does not violate the intent of Zoning.
2. Building height is less than 35 feet as measured under Section 7.3.2b.
3. Property is located in a pocket of land in the Conservation Zone but not visible from the river.
Case 05-26 Robert & Joane Ringering, 24 & 24-1 Neck Road
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants are requesting a variance to construct two dormers, one on the east and one on the west side of the house, under Sections 7.4, no building shall be expanded within a minimum distance of any street line, 8.8.1, no enlargement, and 21.3.9, other setback, 35 required, 25 existing. She noted that the hardship expressed is that the applicants would have to remove an old oak tree and that they are trying to preserve the look of the antique house. She noted that they are not increasing the footprint, but rather using existing attic space. Chairman Stutts stated that the garage and house on Lot 7 will be removed and the two lots will be merged by deed. Chairman Stutts noted that when the lots are merged the lot will be slightly over three acres.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the application states that the house and garage must be removed, or the kitchen removed from the house, and the lots merged prior to issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant variances of Sections 7.4, 8.8.1 and 21.3.9 to construct two attic dormers, 24 & 24-1 Neck Road, Robert & Joane Ringering, applicants, as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. Granting of the variance does not violate the intent of Zoning.
2. Dormers do not impact neighbors.
3. House constructed in 1850 and the owners are trying to maintain the original look of the home.
ITEM 7: Approval of Minutes of the May 10, 2005 Regular Meeting
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 10, 2005 Regular Meeting as clarified.
The approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2005, was tabled to the September Regular Meeting.
ITEM 8: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting
None.
ITEM 9: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
