APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, October 11, 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, Edgar Butcher (Alternate seated for June Speirs) and Wendy Brainerd (Alternate).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 05-29 Adel and Dimitri Tolchinski, 286 Shore Road, variance to construct a two-story garage and storage building with flat rubber roof.
Chairman Stutts read a letter dated October 3, 2005 from Dimitri Tolchinski withdrawing this application. Mr. Moll asked all present for this hearing to leave their name and address with the secretary so that they can be notified again if Mr. Tolchinski resubmits.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 05-28 Suzanne Mandeville/Norman Renaldi, 29 Homestead Circle, variance to construct two full shed dormers and two dog house dormers.
Suzanne Mandeville and Norman Renaldi were present to explain their application. Chairman Stutts stated that the file was incomplete and the applicant was asked to submit additional information. Mr. Renaldi stated that he brought the elevation drawing that was requested this evening.
Mr. Renaldi stated that he would like to construct two full shed dormers, one 12’ x 24’ feet and 8’ high and the second one 18’ x 30’ and 8’ high. He noted that they would like to construct two dog shed dormers on the front of the house. Mr. Renaldi stated that these dormers will allow for the installation of windows and will increase headroom. He noted that the upstairs already contains two bedrooms and a bathroom. Mr. Renaldi stated that he submitted photographs of the numerous homes in the area that already have dormers. He indicated that they are not increasing the square footage or increasing the footprint. Mr. Renaldi noted that the dormer height is well below the height of the existing structure.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is requesting variances of Sections 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; 21.3.7 minimum street setback, 30’ required, and 7.4.2, narrow street setback of 40’ for a variance of 20’. She noted that the home currently has one bedroom on the first floor and two on the second floor. Mr. Renaldi stated that the number of bedrooms and the location will remain the same.
Chairman Stutts noted that at the September meeting this applicant was granted an extensive variance to increase the garage footprint by 312 square feet and adding a loft of 576 square feet for a total of 888 square feet of additional storage. Chairman Stutts stated that the dog house dormers do not have show a dimension. Mr. Renaldi stated that the windows will be 5’ x 3’ egress windows. He noted that they currently only have a window on each end of the second floor and the bathroom does not have a window. Chairman Stutts indicated that the applicant indicated that there will be no increase in floor space, only headroom. Mr. Schellens stated that he would disagree with that statement. He indicated that livable space would have a minimum ceiling height that the applicant
currently does not have. He noted that increasing the ceiling height is increasing the livable floor area. Ms. Mandeville noted that they acknowledge that the dormers will give them more usable space, which is the reason for the request. She indicated that they mean that the dormer addition is not increasing the floor area that currently exists.
Ms. Mandeville stated that the smaller dormer will give them access to an attic area that they now have to crawl into up through a closet. She indicated that this dormer will allow them to walk into this area and utilize the area. Ms. Mandeville noted that the basement is damp and they cannot rely on it to store their possessions.
Mr. Renaldi marked the size of the doghouse dormers on the elevation drawing. Chairman Stutts stated that when she went through the neighborhood it appeared that the homes were one story with storage above. Mr. Renaldi stated that many neighborhood homes have dormers in the back.
Mr. Moll asked to review the elevation sketches that are in the file. Mr. Renaldi stated that those drawings should not be in the file as they are rough drawings that the engineer worked from. Mr. Moll stated that those are the only drawings the Board had to review until this evening. He noted that this drawing shows three dog house dormers. Mr. Renaldi replied that he is only requesting two and voided the elevation drawing that depicted three dog house dormers. Mr. Renaldi voided another elevation drawing that was not accurate. Mr. Moll stated that it is very difficult to understand the drawings.
Ms. Mandeville stated that the original home was a small cape and an addition of a step-down living room was put on in the 1960’s. She noted that there is attic space above the living room that is difficult to access. Mr. Renaldi stated that the 12’ x 24’ dormer will be over the living room. Chairman Stutts noted that both the house and the living room measure 28’ on the elevation drawing and the living room is only 24’ and the main house is 30’. Mr. Schellens indicated that he is reluctant to work with inaccurate drawings.
Mr. Moll noted that there are also plans in the file that show two outside decks. Mr. Renaldi stated that these decks are no longer part of the plan. Mr. Moll asked that this drawing be voided. He noted that again, this inaccurate information was in the file for the Board’s review up until this point in time.
Ms. Mandeville stated that their hardship is that there are only two access-ways to the attic area above the living room. She indicated that one is through a small 14” x 14”crawl hole in the closet and the second is through a small access-way that they put through the master bedroom closet. She indicated that with a larger access they could store larger objects and more easily access them.
Chairman Stutts pointed out that the hardship for the garage and loft area was the need for additional storage. Ms. Mandeville stated that that storage is boating equipment and outdoor furniture and things of that nature. She indicated that the attic area storage would be a large walk-in closet for clothes, suitcases and Christmas and holiday decoration storage. Ms. Mandeville stated that the dormers would also allow for windows on the second floor, as they now only have one on each end, north and south facing.
Ms. Mandeville stated that she does not particularly like skylights and does not think they will enhance the appearance of the house. She noted that they also will not give the needed ventilation. Ms. Mandeville noted that the first floor of the garage addition is not for storage, but for parking of vehicles. She noted that the loft area above is for storage of their outdoor items off season and also the storage of Mr. Renaldi’s tools and equipment for his work. She explained that the basement is damp.
Mr. Moll noted that there is no plan view of the existing attic. He noted that the application indicates that floor plans of the existing and proposed structures were provided. He noted that these floor plans have not been provided for the entire structure. Mr. Kotzan questioned the existing living space as indicated on the Assessor’s Card. Mr. Kotzan noted that the additional living space appears to be approximately 120 square feet.
Ms. Brainerd pointed out that the hardships provided by the applicants are not hardships of the land.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from David Scanlon, 21 Homestead Circle, indicating his support of the application.
No one present spoke in favor or against this application.
Ms. Mandeville stated that 8 or 10 of the homes in the neighborhood have dormers.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 05-30 David and Carol Stanland, 5 Cobblers Lane, variance to construct in-ground swimming pool.
Carol Stanland was present to explain her application. She indicated that she has an application before the Inland Wetlands Commission and based on their recommendation, the location of the pool has been moved four feet further from the wetlands but along the same line that distances the pool from the road. Ms. Stanland stated that she was advised by Ms. Brown that since the setback requested would not change she could just change the site plan drawing.
Ms. Stanland stated that the application is for a pool and sitting area, the total length of which is 57’ x 24’ at its maximum points, noting that it is egg shaped. She explained that the pool itself is kidney shaped, 34’ x 18’ at its largest points. Ms. Stanland stated that there is a 3 foot walkway around the pool which is included on the site plan. She explained that the sitting area is at the narrow end of the pool and will be smaller than the 15 to 20 foot area shown on the site plan. Ms. Stanland stated that the required protective fencing will surround the entire pool.
Ms. Stanland explained that the only other location on the property where it would be viable to put the pool is 90 feet from the house and in a heavily wooded area with very mature trees. She pointed this area out on the site plan. Ms. Stanland stated that this is also the septic reserve area. Ms. Stanland stated that she applied for a two-car garage a few years back and was denied. She indicated that the house has no garage and feels it is fair to assume that a future owner may want a garage and in order to keep the garage out of the setback the existing septic would probably have to be moved.
Ms. Stanland stated that the entire property is within the 100 ft. review area and any work on the property must go before the Wetlands Commission. Chairman Stutts stated that she has found several different dimensions for the pool within the application. Ms. Stanland explained that the 57’ x 34’ is from the edge of the walkway on one side to the end of the sitting area on the other side, so the outermost points.
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are requested of Sections 7.4, no building shall extend within minimum distances of any street line; 21.3.7, minimum setback from street line, 50’ required, 35’ existing and 25’ proposed along Deer Ridge. Ms. Stanland stated that the construction of Deer Ridge took place after the construction of their home and placed her house within 50’ of the street. Ms. Stutts questioned when the road was constructed. Ms. Stanland stated that it was constructed in approximately 1980. Mr. Moll questioned how long she has owned the property. Ms. Stanland replied that they have owned it 7 or 8 years. Mr. Moll noted that the nonconformity existed when the Stanland’s purchased the house. Ms. Stanland questioned whether the
50’ setback applies to a private road. She noted that all the construction equipment will enter onto her property and will not access her property from Deer Ridge.
Chairman Stutts questioned whether Ms. Stanland asked Ms. Brown about the applicability of 50’ setback on private roads. Ms. Stanland replied that she had not. Ms. Bartlett noted that the answer is in Ms. Brown’s denial as she has denied the permit based on a 50’ setback requirement.
Chairman Stutts noted that it appears that the pool could be tucked in closer to the house. Ms. Stanland stated that that area is very steep and one cannot put a swimming pool within 25’ of the septic system. Mr. Kotzan stated that he feels the pool could be tucked into the same area Chairman Stutts pointed out. Ms. Stanland stated that it would require the construction of a retaining wall that would have to be large. Mr. Kotzan questioned the approximately required height of the retaining wall needed. Ms. Stanland replied that it would have to be 4 to 5 feet high.
Mr. Moll noted that the pool equipment would be adjacent to the house.
No one present spoke in favor of the application. Chris Ansted, 3 Deer Ridge, was present to speak on behalf of the Deer Ridge Homeowner’s Assocation which has a membership of four homeowners. He noted that all four homeowners are in agreement. Mr. Ansted explained that they are the owners of Deer Ridge Road. He noted that they have two issues with the pool, the first is a concern that the pool construction equipment would access the property from Deer Ridge Road. He noted that Ms. Stanland has addressed this, although they would like to see a bond held in case the roadway was used and damaged.
Mr. Ansted stated that three of the homeowners have young children and the pool sits right next to the edge of the road. He indicated that they are concerned that there be fencing to protect the children from accessing the pool and they are also concerned about the proximity of the fence to the side of the road and the visual of the fence. He noted that most pools are behind the house, not along the street. Mr. Ansted indicated that they are all very concerned about the visual as they come and go from their homes. He noted that one will be able to see people around the pool as they drive by. Mr. Ansted stated that the homeowners association would like to see a privacy fence required around the pool, at least 6’ in height to block the view.
Mr. Schellens questioned whether the applicant intends to have plantings to help screen the pool. Ms. Stanland replied that she is and noted that she submitted a painted rendering of the finished project. Mr. Schellens stated that the fence and the plantings should also be shown on the site plan. Ms. Stanland stated that the fence will be right against the concrete area shown on the site plan. She noted that none of her neighbors will be able to see the pool from their homes. Ms. Stutts read a letter from Ann Brown, IWEO, indicating that they have not acted on the application and noting that the Zoning Board of Appeals may make a decision on the matter without a Wetlands Commission Report.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Open Voting Session
Case 05-28 Suzanne Mandeville/Normal Renaldi, 29 Homestead Circle
Chairman Stutts reviewed the application. She noted that the variances are requested to construct two doghouse dormers and two full-shed dormers on the existing home. Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, no addition to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location; 8.9.3, no additions on a nonconforming lot; 21.3.7, street setback 30’ and 7.4.2, narrow street setback, 40 foot required, variance of 20’ required.
Chairman Stutts noted that the property is 17,424 square feet in an R-20 zone. She noted that the hardship provided is that the applicant’s need access to their attic for storage and there is a need for light and cross-ventilation on the second floor. Chairman Stutts noted that there will be no increase to the number of bedrooms which is currently three. She stated that a variance was granted last month for a two car garage, which included a 576 square foot lot over the garage to be used for storage.
Chairman Stutts noted that the elevation drawings for the project were just submitted this evening. Mr. Schellens stated that the many of the drawings before the Board are lacking accurate detail for the Board to be able to make a decision. He stated that he feels this expansion is extensive and the hardship was not shown. Mr. Schellens stated that he does not see how better access to attic space warrants a 12’ x 24’ dormer. He stated that an adequate hardship was not proven. Mr. Schellens stated that the accuracy of the drawings is also bothersome.
Mr. Moll stated that he is concerned that the attic area could eventually be converted to another bedroom. He questioned the floor area of the attic area. Mr. Schellens stated that it could absolutely be converted to some type of living space. Mr. Kotzan stated that there were inconsistencies on the drawings that the applicant acknowledged. He indicated that he would not be comfortable approving drawings that are deficient to the extent that these are. Mr. Kotzan stated that he would also like to see actual data in regard to the additional living area.
A motion was made by Edgar Butcher and seconded by Kip Kotzan to grant the necessary variances to construct two full shed dormers and two dog house dormers, 29 Homestead Circle, Suzanne Mandeville and Norman Renaldi, applicants. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Insufficient plans with contradictory information.
2. Hardship not shown.
3. Proposal appears excessive for additional storage in light of garage/loft addition granted.
Case 05-30 David and Carol Stanland, 5 Cobblers Lane
Chairman Stutts reviewed the application. She noted that the variance is requested to construct an in-ground pool with sitting area and walkway. Chairman Stutts stated that variances are requested of Sections 7.4, no building within the minimum distance of the street line and 21.3.7, 50’ street setback required and 25’ variance required. She noted that the hardship provided was that the only other location is 90 feet from the house and is currently the septic reserve area. She noted that construction in this area would also require tree removal. Chairman Stutts stated that the other hardship provided was that Deer Ridge was constructed after the home and made the location of the home nonconforming. Chairman Stutts stated that the Wetlands Commission has not acted on the
application.
Chairman Stutts stated that it is her opinion that there are other locations on the property for a pool and that the pool could possibly be smaller. She indicated that it would not be in keeping with the neighborhood to have a pool between the house and the street.
Mr. Kotzan stated that there does appear to be other options. He indicated that a retaining wall would work. Mr. Kotzan stated that the pool is entirely in the setback which concerns the neighbors. He indicated that this location would violate the intent of Zoning. Mr. Kotzan noted that a pool is a high-use structure and is a concern right near the road. He indicated that the applicant has not shown that there is absolutely no other location for a pool on the property without invading the setback as aggressively as this plan does. Mr. Kotzan indicated that his own swimming pool has a five foot retaining wall because of the same issues facing this applicant.
Mr. Schellens stated that he empathizes with the homeowner because Deer Ridge Road created a nonconforming situation on their property. He indicated that even so, the pool is entirely in the setback. Mr. Schellens stated that there appears to be alternative places on the property to locate a pool.
Mr. Moll pointed out that there are four homeowners that object to the project. Mr. Kotzan stated that their objection to the pool being so close to the road is his interpretation of the intent of the Regulations; to prevent structures and activities too close to the road.
Chairman Stutts pointed out that the neighborhood association was also concerned about the construction equipment access, although Ms. Stanland assured them that access would be gained across her property and not by Deer Ridge Road.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by Edgar Butcher to grant the necessary variances to construct an in-ground swimming pool, 5 Cobblers Lane, David and Carol Stanland, applicants. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Granting of the variance would violate the intent of the Zoning Regulations.
2. It was not demonstrated that the pool could not be located on the property in a conforming/more conforming location.
3. Inadequate hardship.
4. Concerns of neighboring property owners.
ITEM 5: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2005 Regular Meeting as clarified.
ITEM 6: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
Chairman Stutts stated that the Board will be holding a Special Meeting to hold an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. She explained that Attorney Branse, Attorney Radshaw and Attorney Royston will be in attendance. The Commission members agreed on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
ITEM 7: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Kip Kotzan. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
