APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Tom Schellens, Kip Kotzan, Richard Moll, Wendy Brainerd (Alternate seated for June Speirs), Judy McQuade (Alternate) and Edgar Butcher (Alternate).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 05-27 Suzanne Mandeville/Norman Renaldi, 29 Homestead Circle, variance to construct a two-car garage with loft.
Attorney David Markowitz was present, along with Suzanne Mandeville and Norman Renaldi. He noted that the property is located in an R-20 zone and contains .40 acres. Attorney Markowitz stated that they are seeking a variance to construct a two-car garage which would be located in the location of the former single-car garage which was recently removed because of structural insect damage. He stated that the application meets the classic requirements for a variance and it should be supported.
Attorney Markowitz explained that both the home and the original garage were constructed twenty feet from the street line prior to zoning. He stated that to locate a new garage that would meet the 30’ setback requirement is impossible because of the location of the septic system. Attorney Markowitz stated that it would also look awkward to have a garage offset ten feet from the home. He noted that the Connecticut Appellate Court sustained the granting of a variance in a similar situation. Attorney Markowitz cited the case as Stillman versus the ZBA of Redding. He pointed out that many homes in the area have two car garages and noted that at the last hearing in this matter some one stated that a two-car garage is a contemporary standard. Attorney Markowitz indicated that the
granting of this variance would not have any adverse impact on public health, safety, welfare or property values. He stated that the lot will otherwise comply with Zoning.
Attorney Markowitz stated that at the last hearing in this matter (Case 05-19) the Board requested additional information, which has been supplied with the current application. He noted that the first was an elevation drawing showing both the house and garage and the second was to have the error in the foundation plan corrected, which now shows a 24’ x 24’ garage, which is the intended size of the garage.
Attorney Markowitz stated that strict adherence to the Zoning Ordinance will cause a hardship to his clients. He indicated that they believe this hardship is unnecessary to carry out the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Markowitz read three letters of support into the record; Jay and Gerry Graves, 3 Homestead Circle; Scott and Sandra Speirs, 1 Homestead Circle; and Richard and Katherine Bencher (directly across the street).
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of the following sections: 8.8.1, no addition to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location; 8.9.3, no addition to a building in a nonconforming location; 21.3.7, minimum setback from street, 30’ required, 20’ existing; and 7.4.2, narrow street requirement, 40’ required, 20’ existing.
Attorney Markowitz stated that the original garage was 12’ tall and the proposed garage will be 20’. He noted that the old garage was 32’ from the side yard and the proposed garage is 21’ from the side yard. Attorney Markowitz stated that the original garage was 12’ x 22’ and the proposed garage is 24’ x 24’. Mr. Schellens questioned why the original garage was removed and when. Mr. Renaldi explained that he sent a letter to Ms. Brown because the garage had to be removed as a matter of safety.
Mr. Moll stated that many of the surrounding homes have one-car garages. He questioned the hardship for a two-car garage with loft as opposed to a one-car garage. Mr. Markowitz stated that the purpose of the loft is to bring the garage height up to match the height of the dwelling. He indicated that they could just have attic space, but the loft would provide storage area. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there would be heat or plumbing in the loft. Attorney Markowitz replied that there would not be.
Mr. Moll questioned which plans in the file were correct. Attorney Markowitz stated that the set of plans from the original case are not part of the application and should be removed. He noted that Sheets A-1 and A-2 are the proper drawings. Mr. Moll stated that the plans show the stairway to the loft in the back of the building. He questioned whether the stair access could be accomplished in that location according to building code. Mr. Renaldi indicated that it should be possible because the plans were drawn by an engineer. Mr. Moll explained that the set of drawings that are not part of the case shows the stairwell on the back of the garage and a six-foot tall person would hit their head at the top. He noted that the stairs do not meet building code in that drawing. Mr.
Moll stated that he is concerned that the stairs will end up on the outside of the building. Attorney Markowitz stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals could condition the approval of the 24’ x 24’ plan requiring the stairway in the interior of the garage.
Neighbor Doreen Abbott, 28 Homestead Circle, indicated that she has lived in the neighborhood since 1951 and is in favor of the application. She indicated that one-car garages are passé. She noted that most new construction have three-bay garages. Ms. Abbott noted that the neighbors would be appreciative that things are stored in a garage.
Suzanne Mandeville stated that she has lived in the house for ten years. She noted that most of the homes started off as cottages long before Zoning existed. Ms. Mandeville stated that people are trying to update their properties and stay in the neighborhood. She indicated that they conform with every zoning requirement except the distance to the street. Ms. Mandeville explained that moving the garage back ten feet would make it impossible for them to enter into the kitchen from the garage.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Open Voting Session
Case 05-27 Suzanne Mandeville/Normal Renaldi, 29 Homestead Circle
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, no addition to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location; 8.9.3, no addition to a building in a nonconforming location; 21.3.7, minimum setback from street, 30’ required, 20’ existing; and 7.4.2, narrow street requirement, 40’ required, 20’ existing.
Chairman Stutts noted that the reference drawings are labeled Sheets A-1 and A-2. She explained that the hardship provided is the location of the maple tree in the rear yard and the septic reserve area. Chairman Stutts noted that the garage will contain a loft with windows, but will not have heat or plumbing.
Mr. Schellens stated that if the original garage had not been removed the applicant would only be looking for a 12’ extension of the building within the 40’ setback because the 12’ x 22’ would have existed. He indicated that he believes the application should be reviewed as if the original garage still existed. Mr. Schellens stated that it appears onerous to require the applicant to set the garage back 10 feet. He stated that he feels a 24’ x 24’ garage is a reasonable size, especially since there are no issues with other setbacks or coverage.
Mr. Kotzan agreed with Mr. Schellens’ comments. He indicated that he thinks the lot size is sufficient to accommodate a two-car garage. Mr. Kotzan stated that it would not accomplish anything to require the applicant to move the garage back 10 feet.
Mr. Moll questioned the hardship related to the loft area. He noted that not all two-car garages have lofts. Mr. Schellens stated that the Board could limit the expansion to non-living space and can condition the approval on a code-compliant staircase located in the interior of the garage, as approved. Mr. Kotzan stated that the loft area is reasonable for a property in the location of this one where they may want to store small boats and patio furniture. Mr. Schellens stated that the floor area of the loft is not any greater than that of a cape-style garage.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a two-car garage with loft, 29 Homestead Circle, Suzanne Mandeville and Norman Renaldi, applicants, as per the approved plans (Sheets A-1, A-2 and A-3) and with the following conditions:
1. No heat or plumbing in garage.
2. Entire garage structure not to be used as living space.
3. Code-compliant stairway to be located in the interior of the garage, within the envelope and footprint of the garage as illustrated in the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. Two-car garage is in harmony with the neighborhood.
2. Two-car garage is a reasonable use of property.
3. This minor expansion is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2005 Regular Meeting as clarified.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2005 Regular Meeting and the June 20, 2005 Special Meeting as clarified.
ITEM 4: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
Chairman Stutts noted that the judge’s decision in the Tolchinski matter was forwarded to each Board member. She commended the Board members for establishing such a clear record of the matter.
ITEM 5: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Susanne Stutts. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
