APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, November 15, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Tom Schellens, Richard Moll, Judy McQuade (Alternate - seated) and Wendy Brainerd (Alternate - seated).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 05-31 Guy and Laura Mangs, 20-1 Sill Lane, variance to construct a two-story addition.
Chairman Stutts stated that she is recusing herself for this Public Hearing and noted that only four members would remain, requiring a unanimous vote. She asked the applicant whether they would like to wait a few minutes to see if another Board member arrives. The applicants indicated that they would like to be moved further down on the agenda.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 05-32 Restated Jewel Trust, Kathleen Rollar Abbott, Trustee, 8 Flagler Avenue, variance to construct garage and two-story addition.
Kate Abbott and Denise Vondassel, architect, were present to explain the application. Ms. Vondassel stated that the existing single-story house sits close to both the side and front property line. She explained that the current house was built in 1953 and consists of 816 square feet. Ms. Vondassel stated that there is currently a wood deck on the side of the house and a 3’ deep porch across the front of the house. She noted that these will both be removed. Ms. Vondassel stated that the current house has a crawl space and an 8’ x 8’ area that contains the utilities. She noted that the house is currently smaller than the 850 square foot minimum required by the Zoning Regulations.
Ms. Vondassel stated that the lot size is .19 acres, 8,451 square feet, which is very consistent with the lots in the neighborhood. She noted that the zoning requirement is 10,000 square feet for the lot size. Ms. Vondassel stated that the plan is to enlarge the house to the south, as well as adding a second floor. She noted that the second floor will not be located over the area of the house that is within the side setback. Ms. Vondassel stated that the second floor addition will go above the remainder of the existing house and noted that the front is 3.2 feet into the front setback. She explained that the first floor addition will consist of a small 8’ area connecting to an over-sized one car garage. Ms. Vondassel stated that they will be removing the existing shed, deck and 3’ front porch. She indicated that the building coverage is increasing from 13 percent to 17 percent, still well within the 25 percent allowed.
Ms. Vondassel stated that the floor area is increasing from 9.6 percent to 24 percent, still under the 25 percent allowed. She stated that the addition will improve the overall appearance of the house. Ms. Vondassel stated that there are many larger homes surrounding this property. She stated that the hardship is that the house existed before Zoning was enacted.
Ms. Abbott stated that there is only one conforming property nearby and she did ask if that property owner was willing to sell some land to her and he indicated that he would not. She displayed pictures of the existing property and the neighboring properties for the Commission to review. She noted the square footages of these properties.
Ms. Abbott stated that she purchased the property in 2001. Mr. Moll stated that the applicant has indicated on her application that the house is year round. He noted that some of the old accessor’s cards show that the house is seasonal. Ms. Stutts stated that it was declared year round by the prior Zoning Enforcement Officer, Marilyn Ozols.
Ms. Abbott pointed out that most of the homes surrounding hers are much larger than hers. Ms. McQuade questioned the height of the proposed structure. Ms. Vondassel replied that it is just under 30’. Ms. McQuade questioned the height of the house to the north. Ms. Abbott indicated that she is not sure, but the owner is present this evening. Ms. Stutts pointed out that the existing house is 15’ so the proposal is to double it.
Ms. Stutts noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, no additions to a nonconforming building; 8.9.3, no addition or enlargement on a nonconforming lot; and 21.3.7, minimum setback from the street line, 25 feet, 21.8 feet proposed, variance of 3.2 feet. She noted that the living area is increasing from 834 square feet to 2,035 square feet and the height is basically doubling.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the Wetlands’ hearing was held. Ms. Abbott stated that there will be an onsite inspection this Saturday morning and a decision will be made at their next meeting. Mr. Moll stated that it appears that most of the surrounding areas are supplied water by the Miami Water Company. He questioned whether her well is satisfactory. Ms. Abbott replied that the well is satisfactory.
Lou Russo, 2 Flagler Avenue, stated that he originally owned three lots but in order to build his current house, he had to conform to the Regulations. He stated that Ms. Abbott’s lot size is not typical of the street. Mr. Russo stated that only three homes on the street have a similar lot size. He noted that all the year round homes on the street are not much bigger that Ms. Abbott’s. Mr. Russo stated that his house is 2,700 square feet and his lot is conforming. He indicated that his house is 24’ high. Mr. Russo stated that he built a passive-solar home, relying on the Town Zoning Regulations that homes would only be a certain height. He indicated that this house may cut into his sunlight.
Mr. Russo stated that he had to rigorously conform to the Zoning Regulations. He stated that he was not able to upgrade his family cottage, which is a seasonal home that they have paid taxes on for years.
Ms. Vondassel pointed out that the second floor addition on Ms. Abbott’s will be 60 feet from Mr. Russo’s property.
Dennis Vernitacola, 12 Flagler, stated that he would like Ms. Abbott to be able to add onto her home, but noted that he is concerned about the height. Ms. Vondassel noted that the house will be 40’ from Mr. Vernitacola’s house. Mr. Vernitacola stated that his house is 5’ from his property line and he does not want the 30’ structure to shadow his home. Ms. Vondassel stated that the side of the house by the garage is only 24.5’ high and it will be 35’ from the side property line. Mr. Vernitacola stated that he feels better knowing that the addition will be 35’ from the property line.
Ms. Vondassel asked Mr. Russo the height of his structure from the base of the retaining wall. He indicated that one cannot measure in that way. Ms. Vondassel stated that she was asking because that is what faces her lot. She pointed out that Ms. Abbott’s lot is lower than Mr. Russo’s lot. Ms. Vondassel stated that Ms. Abbott’s house will not be as tall as Mr. Russo’s.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 05-31 Guy and Laura Mangs, 20-1 Sill Lane, variance to construct a two-story addition.
Ms. Stutts indicated that she is recusing herself. Mr. Moll, Acting Chairman, pointed out that the vote will have to be unanimous when only four members are seated. Attorney Howard Gould asked if the case could be moved down on the agenda so that the applicants could have time to consider whether or not they would like to continue their public hearing.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 05-33 James and Maxine Carey, 65 Washington Avenue, variance to construct a first floor addition, raise existing roof and add two dormers.
Chairman Stutts rejoined the Board. Jerry Karpuska and James and Maxine Carey were present to explain the application. Chairman Stutts noted that variances are required of Sections 7.4, setback; 8.8.1, no enlargement of a nonconforming structure; 8.9.3, no enlargement on a nonconforming lot; 21.3.7, minimum street setback required 25’, variance of 9” required; and 21.3.8, rear setback, 14’ provided, 30 required, variance of 16’. She also read the existing nonconformities for the record.
Mr. Karpuska explained that the existing house is a single story ranch and the applicants would like to increase one of the first floor bedrooms and remove one bedroom from the first floor and relocate it to the second floor. He noted that the existing bedroom #3 (as marked on the floor plan) is only 80 inches wide. Mr. Karpuska stated that this bedroom would be relocated to the second floor and the existing bedroom #3 would be the stairway to the second floor and a laundry area as depicted on the proposed floor plan. He explained that one of the dormers was designed to give head room on the stairs and the other gives access to the bedroom and bathroom.
Mrs. Carey stated that the house is year round and they have owned it for ten years. She noted that she believes it was constructed in the 1950’s. Mr. Moll asked Mr. Karpuska to sign the drawings.
Mrs. Carey stated that Mr. Flower has suggested that a new system be installed if the application is approved. Mr. Karpuska stated that the lot coverage is only being increased 2 percent.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from Joe and Anna Scherenza and Ginny and James Romeo, neighbors, in favor of the application.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 05-31 Guy and Laura Mangs, 20-1 Sill Lane, variance to construct a two-story addition.
Attorney Gould indicated that the applicants would like to postpone their Public Hearing until the January Regular Meeting. Chairman Stutts opened the Public Hearing and continued to the January Regular Meeting. Attorney Gould submitted a written request to continue the Public Hearing to the January Regular Meeting.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 05-34 Kevin McMahon, 59 Grassy Hill Road, variance to construct a second floor balcony and 10’ x 8’ dormer.
Kevin McMahon was present to explain his application. He indicated that he purchased the property in July 2002. He explained that the property is approximately 100 years old. He noted that it was originally a barn and converted to a home about 50 years ago. Mr. McMahon stated that when he purchased the property it was uninhabitable. He noted that the property is water view, not waterfront. Mr. McMahon stated that his proposal is to keep the property a two-bedroom home. He noted that he constructed an addition in the rear two years ago, which was approved by the Town. Mr. McMahon explained that he then served overseas for a year and a half and has now finished replacing the windows, doors and roof.
Mr. McMahon stated that he constructed the dormer not realizing that a variance was required. He noted that it does not increase the square footage of the home and does not overhang any further than the original dimensions of the home and is not higher than the original structure. Mr. McMahon stated that the dormer just provides full utilization of the existing floor area of the home. He noted that the balcony allows water views and adds to the appearance of the home. Mr. McMahon read a letter from his immediate neighbors, Robert Cooper and A. Singhy.
Mr. McMahon stated that his hardship in regard to the dormer is that if he were not allowed to keep it he would not be able to utilize all the existing square footage of the home because of the knee-walls. He indicated that his hardship for the balcony is that it would allow fire egress. Ms. Brainerd pointed out that the balcony does extend four feet into the setback.
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of Sections 7.4, narrow street setback, 35’ required, 19’ variance for balcony; 8.8.1, no addition to a nonconforming structure; and 8.9.3, no addition on a nonconforming lot (100’ square required, 88’ provided).
Chairman Stutts stated that fire egress is not a hardship for the balcony. Mr. Moll stated that the application indicates that the balcony is 4’ x 20” and asked Mr. McMahon to correct the application to 4’ x 20’. He questioned the number of bathrooms in the proposed structure. Mr. McMahon replied that there will be two bathrooms. Mr. Moll stated that the 2005 Assessor’s Card shows the house as one bedroom and the drawing shows two bedrooms.
Mr. Moll questioned whether Mr. McMahon received a building permit for the balcony and the dormer. Mr. McMahon stated that he has building permits for the entire property, electrical, plumbing, etc. Mr. Moll again questioned whether he had building permits for the balcony and dormer. Mr. McMahon stated that he does not have a building permit for the balcony because it was not on the original plan. He noted that the balcony has been inspected but he failed to get a zoning permit.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 5: Public Hearing Case 05-35 Colleen Sablone, 68 Grassy Hill Road, variance to construct a second floor addition.
Chairman Stutts stated that the application requests a variance to add a second floor addition, but after review it appears to be different then that. She asked the applicant to clarify.
Colleen and Fran Sablone were present to explain their application. Ms. Sablone stated that they purchased the property in May 2003. She indicated that it was constructed some time in the late or mid 1940’s. Ms. Sablone stated that they propose to remove the existing dwelling and construct a new two-story home as depicted on the drawings submitted to the Board. Mr. Sablone showed a photograph depicting the property as viewed from Grassy Hill Road. He pointed out that the owners of the homes on either side have written letters in support of the application. Mr. Sablone stated that the home is currently located very close to the Lake. He presented other photographs depicting the view from their home to the neighboring homes.
Mr. Sablone noted that the site plan shows the existing house outlined in red. He noted that the proposed house and deck are outlined in yellow. Mr. Sablone stated that Ron Rose, Sanitarian, has found the soil satisfactory to install a three-bedroom septic to Code. He indicated that they currently have a three-bedroom house but the quality of the system is unknown.
Ms. Sablone stated that they have worked to find a plan that would require the minimum number of variances. She noted that the property lacks the required 75’ square. She explained that they need a 4’ variance for the side porch. Ms. Sablone stated that in all other respects the plans meet the Zoning Regulations.
Ms. Sablone stated that many neighbors have written letters of support or are here this evening to speak in favor of the application. She stated that the proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood and is in keeping with variances previously granted in the area. Ms. Sablone stated that the proposal moves the home back from the lake and will therefore improve both neighbors view of the lake, as shown in the photographs submitted.
Ms. Sablone stated that their hardship is the fact that there is no additional land to purchase. She noted that the lot was sized prior to Zoning. Ms. Sablone stated that this is the same hardship found by the Zoning Board of Appeals for numbers 66, 70 and 72 Grassy Hill Road. She noted that their plan is in keeping with the tone set by these neighbors.
Chairman Stutts stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals looks to reduce nonconformities. She noted that adding a porch into the side setback is hard to perpetuate when there is the opportunity to reduce it. Mr. Moll stated that it is not considered coverage if it is under 12 inches high. Mr. Sablone stated that the lot coverage is 19 percent, well under the 25 percent allowed. Chairman Stutts indicated that she was not discussing coverage, she was referring to building into the setback.
Mr. Sablone explained that the 4’ porch has the roof above it to give the entire house a cottage-look. He noted that it really serves no purpose as a porch being only 4’ wide. He noted that the current house, as small as it is, encroaches 7’ into the side setback. Mr. Sablone stated that they are reducing the encroachment from 7’ to 4’.
Mr. Schellens questioned whether the existing shed located near the lake will remain. Mr. Sablone replied that it will be removed.
Mr. Moll stated that he believes the lot is 10,250 square feet, not 20,000 as indicated on the application. Mr. Sablone apologized and noted that the lot is 10,361 square feet, not 20,000 as indicated. Mr. Moll stated that two of the assessor’s cards indicate that the property is seasonal. Mr. Sablone stated that there are two letters on file, one with Zoning and the other Health, both indicating that the house is a year round house.
Mr. Sablone stated that the access to the attic will not be a staircase. Chairman Stutts read letters from Lawrence Fazone, Jr., 64 Grassy Hill Road; Joan Centola, 70 Grassy Hill Road; Roger and Sandra Breunig, 72 Grassy Hill Road; and Leslie Chick, 66 Grassy Hill Road, all in favor of the proposal.
Jim Noyes, Coach Drive, questioned whether the existing structure was to be torn down. Mr. Sablone replied that it would be removed.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
The Board took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 6: Open Voting Session
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to add discussion of 24-1 Neck Road to the agenda.
Mr. Moll explained that in the course of the approved renovations the Ringerings have found that a chimney was not shown on the original site plan. He noted that they are asking whether this chimney is within the intent of the Zoning Board of Appeal’s original approval.
Mr. Schellens stated that a chimney is like a utility and he would find this within the intent of the original approval.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from Luanne Buckingham, noting that she would be in favor of the chimney and noting that she is the neighbor that the chimney would be facing.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Wendy Brainerd and voted unanimously that the addition of a chimney as depicted on the site plan is within the intent of the Board’s original approval.
Case 05-32 Restated Jewel Trust, Kathleen Rollar Abbott, Trustee, 8 Flagler Avenue
Chairman Stutts stated that a variance is requested to construct a garage and a second story addition. She noted that the property is 8,451 square feet in an R-10 Zone that requires 10,000 square feet. She noted that a setback variance of 3.2 feet is required on the front. Chairman Stutts noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, 8.9.3 and 21.3.7. She explained that 351 square feet of porch and decking is being removed. Chairman Stutts stated that the house is currently, at 816 square feet, under the minimum 850 square foot of living area required by the Zoning Regulations for a single story home. She noted that the applicant did attempt to purchase property from a neighbor but was unsuccessful.
Chairman Stutts stated that two neighbors expressed concern about the proposed height of almost 30’, one because of the potential impact to his passive-solar system.
Ms. Brainerd stated that the existing structure is comparable to other houses in the neighborhood, with the exception of the house to the north, 2 Flagler. Ms. McQuade stated that across the street there are other raised ranches. She pointed out that Ms. Abbott’s situation is unfortunate because her house is much lower than the house to her north, especially because 2 Flagler is on a higher grade also. Ms. McQuade stated that if Ms. Abbott’s house is raised to 30’ then the neighbor to her south will have the same problem because her house will be much higher than his. Mr. Moll stated that that neighbor was concerned that the expansion was too close to his property line, but he came to understand that it was considerably farther away then the required 12’. Chairman
Stutts pointed out that the height on his side was also much lower at approximately 24’.
Mr. Schellens stated that the deck on the south side of 2 Flagler is even with the current midpoint of Ms. Abbott’s house. He noted that the retaining wall on that property brings Mr. Russo’s sill to the midpoint of Ms. Abbott’s window. Mr. Schellens stated that the bulk of Ms. Abbott’s proposed house would be no greater than that of Mr. Russo’s. Mr. Schellens also pointed out that the neighbor at 10 Flagler will be 40’ from the garage addition and that is an adequate distance so that it will not impose on his sunlight.
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposed height is double the existing height and the proposed square footage of the home is more than doubled. She stated that she does not see a hardship. Chairman Stutts reminded the Board that Wetlands approval is also required.
Ms. McQuade stated that the hardship provided by the applicant was that the house predated Zoning. She stated that the proposal does not appear to be the minimum required to improve the property. Ms. McQuade stated that she can understand the need to increase the size of the home, but feels that doubling the height and floor area is too great an increase. Chairman Stutts agreed that the proposed increase is excessive.
Mr. Schellens stated that the height of 29’2” is given from the lowest point on the property. He noted that the average height would be less than that, which is how height is actually measured.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by Richard Moll to grant the necessary variances for Case 05-32 Restated Jewel Trust, Kathleen Rollar Abbott, Trustee, 8 Flagler Avenue, variance to construct garage and two-story addition; motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Too large of an addition on an undersized lot.
2. Overuse of property.
3. Height is doubled and living area is more than doubled which is excessive.
4. Neighbors on both sides expressed concern about the height and how it may impact their properties.
5. Not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 05-33 James and Maxine Carey, 65 Washington Avenue
Chairman Stutts noted that the variance is requested to construct a first floor addition, raise the existing roof and add two dormers. She noted that variances are required of Sections 7.4, 8.8.1, 8.9.3, 21.3.7 (9” variance) and 21.3.10, rear setback (16’ variance).
Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided was the location of the structure on the lot as it has existed prior to Zoning. She stated that 144 square feet of living area is being added to the first floor, with existing coverage being 15 percent and proposed coverage to be 17 percent. Chairman Stutts stated that the dormers will provide access to the second floor area.
Ms. McQuade stated that the small increase in coverage is very reasonable and the number of bedrooms is not increasing. She noted that the house is currently 1,161 square feet and will be increased to 1,328 square feet. Ms. McQuade stated that the proposed dwelling is in harmony with the other homes in the neighborhood and within the intent of Zoning. Ms. Brainerd agreed with Ms. McQuade’s comments.
Mr. Moll stated noted the letter of support submitted by the nearest and only year-round residents of the neighborhood.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Richard Moll, and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a first floor addition, raise existing roof and add two dormers, Case 05-33 James and Maxine Carey, 65 Washington Avenue.
Reasons:
1. Reasonable proposal to increase the livability of a small home on a small lot.
2. Well within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
3. Conforms to the cottage style of the neighborhood.
4. Small increase in coverage.
5. A new septic system will be installed.
Case 05-34 Kevin McMahon, 59 Grassy Hill Road
Chairman Stutts stated that the requested variance is required to construct a second floor balcony, 20’ x 4’, and to add a 10’ x 8’ dormer. She noted that a variance is required of Section 7.4 (variance of 19’). Chairman Stutts stated that the property lacks the required square of 100’. She stated that the number of bedrooms will not increase and he has approval from the Sanitarian. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided for the balcony is second-floor fire egress. Mr. Moll noted that a wooden deck is adequate fire egress. She noted that the 10’ x 8’ dormer was constructed on the second floor to add a window in the bathroom. Mr. Schellens stated that a knee-wall in a bathroom is a hardship. Chairman Stutts noted that
the dormer is not within the setback, only the balcony.
Chairman Stutts stated that the dormer adds character to the home. Mr. Schellens stated that Grassy Hill Road is much like Mile Creek Road where there are some very narrow lots and many older homes constructed in the setback. Ms. McQuade stated that a balcony overlooking the lake is something that anyone would want. She noted that it is not wide enough to become a high-use balcony, but is just wide enough to stand on.
Mr. Moll pointed out that the structure began as a barn in the 1920’s. He noted that Mr. McMahon has turned it into a very attractive structure.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Richard Moll, and voted to grant the necessary variances to construct a second floor balcony and 10’ x 8’ dormer, Case 05-34 Kevin McMahon, 59 Grassy Hill Road, as per the approved plans and the photographs submitted and conditioned on a new building permit being issued. Motion carried 4:1, with Ms. Stutts voting against.
Chairman Stutts stated that she feels the balcony is an unnecessary intrusion into the front setback and is not necessary for fire egress.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Balcony is a reasonable addition to a home overlooking a lake.
3. Small dormer addition is reasonable to increase livability of second floor.
4. Proposal is in harmony with the surrounding area.
5. Balcony could be a used for fire egress.
05-35 Colleen Sablone, 68 Grassy Hill Road
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are requested to remove the existing house and construct a new, two-story home. She stated that the proposed house is 26’ x 50’ and 30’ feet high and 1,300 square feet of living area. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing house is 841 square feet. She noted that the house will remain a three-bedroom house. Chairman Stutts noted that the property contains the required lot area but not have the required 75’ square. She pointed out that a side setback variance of 4.21 feet is required for the porch. Chairman Stutts noted that the house will be constructed further back from the lake than the existing house. She noted that a new septic system will be installed if the variances are granted. Chairman Stutts stated
that the house will not block views of the neighbors across the street or the neighbors on either side.
Mr. Schellens stated that the proposed home is similar in size to the surrounding homes. He noted that many of the surrounding lots appear to be lacking the required square. Mr. Schellens stated that moving the house back will enhance their neighbors’ view of the lake. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant has worked hard to design a long narrow house that is appealing.
Mr. Moll pointed out that the two abutting neighbors are in favor of the application. Mr. Moll noted that the building square is a fairly new Zoning Requirement (1995). He noted that the property otherwise meets the requirements.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to demolish the existing home and construct a two story dwelling, Case 05-35, Colleen Sablone, 68 Grassy Hill Road.
Reasons:
1. Reasonable proposal for a home that is currently below standard.
2. Many neighbors in favor of the application.
3. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
4. Proposal is in harmony with the surrounding homes.
5. Allows enhanced lake views for the two abutting neighbors.
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 October 11, 2005 Regular Meeting as clarified.
ITEM 6: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
Chairman Stutts stated that the Board has received a citation for the Stanland application for the pool.
ITEM 7: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
