APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, February 14, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Richard Moll, Kip Kotzan, June Speirs, Joseph St. Germain (Alternate seated for Tom Schellens) and Judy McQuade (Alternate).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 06-01 Dot & Bob Cipolla, 24 Walnut Road, variance to construct 8’ x 25’ first floor addition.
Adam McNiece, builder, was present to explain the application. He indicated that the Cipolla’s would like to add a 200 square foot first floor addition for the purpose of increasing the size of their kitchen. Chairman Stutts noted that a variance is required of Section 8.9.3, no additions on a nonconforming lot. She noted that the existing nonconformities are the lot area, 9,150 square feet; minimum square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; 21.3.9, setback from side, 12’ required, 9’ provided on the west side.
Mr. McNiece stated that the hardship is the ceiling height in the kitchen. He explained that he cannot use the sink without bending over because of the slope of the roof. Mr. McNiece stated that the kitchen is currently 8’ wide by 20’ long and the height is 8’ sloping down to 5.5’ because the roof is a shed roof.
Mr. McNiece stated that the applicants will remove the existing 16’ x 20’ rear deck and shower enclosure. He explained the elevation drawing to the Board, noting that the existing shed roof will be removed and the new roof will intersect the roof of the main part of the house. Mr. McNiece stated that the existing roof is 20’ high and the proposed roof will only be 16’ at its peak. He indicated that he would be constructing exactly to the plans before the Board. Mr. McNiece stated that the addition will not be in the side setback, which is why the addition is slightly set in from the existing kitchen area. Mr. Moll noted that a scale is not indicated on the drawings. Mr. McNiece replied that the drawings have been drawn to scale.
Mrs. Cipolla stated that she was told that her home is one of the original homes in the area. Mr. McNiece indicated that the house is seasonal. Mrs. Cipolla stated that she has owned the home since 1987.
Mr. Kotzan questioned the coverage. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing coverage is 960 square feet and the proposed is 1,160 square feet. Mr. Kotzan noted that that would be a little over 10 percent.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Pubic Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 06-11 David & Lisa Wurzer, 3 Lakeside Avenue, variance to raise roof and add rear dormer.
Attorney Michael Wells and Geri Deveaux, architect, were present to represent the applicant. Attorney Wells stated that the lot is 5,888 square feet. He noted that there are many variances requested and explained that they are all tied to the lot size. Attorney Wells stated that with the exception of one side setback, the house is in conformance with the Regulations.
Geri Deveaux explained photographs of the property as seen from the various neighboring properties. She noted that the house is currently a three-bedroom house, with two bedrooms located on the first floor and the third bedroom on the second floor. Ms. Deveaux stated that the existing height under the ridge beam on the second floor is 6’. She noted that there is an existing stair to access this bedroom which is only 2’ wide and has a very steep riser/tread ratio. Attorney Wells noted that the house is assessed as a three-bedroom and the new septic installed was for a three bedroom home.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the Wurzer’s wanted to increase the ceiling height in the third bedroom, along with making the existing stairs safer. She explained that the proposal is to raise the roof, while still maintaining the look of the neighborhood. Ms. Deveaux stated that there will also be a dormer in the rear to allow for the additional headroom. She noted that the intent was to minimize the impact on the first floor plan so the new stairs were located where bedroom #2 currently is and bedroom #2 was relocated to the second floor. Ms. Deveaux noted that the floor plans are color coded so that the “purple” area can be seen on the floor plans and then identified as the same “purple” area and its location on the architectural drawings.
Ms. Deveaux stated that one of the proposed dormers requires a variance of 3.5 feet as it is set in 1.5’ from the lower level. She explained that the dormer on the rear is not in the setback. Ms. Deveaux stated that the house is year-round and she believes it always has been. Ms. Deveaux read the Zoning Table depicted on the site plan. She noted that the maximum floor area is 19.6 percent existing and 20.6 percent proposed. Ms. Deveaux stated that the maximum lot coverage is proposed to be 21.2 percent up from 19.7 percent or an additional 48 square feet because the porch is sliding over. She noted that the existing height is 17’6” and the proposal is 23’6”.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from the neighbors at 5 Lakeside, noting that when they received a variance they were required to have a covenant that joined their two properties together. Ms. Deveau displayed the tax map. Chairman Stutts stated that the neighbors are in favor of the application but request that the Wurzer’s two lots be joined, as theirs were. Attorney Wells stated that if the Board wishes to make that a condition of approval the Wurzer’s would be willing to do this. Chairman Stutts stated that it would increase the lot size from 5,000 to 22,000 square feet.
Attorney Wells submitted a letter from the other immediate neighbor Devine/Kolowski, 1 Lakeside, indicating that they are in favor of the proposal.
Attorney Wells stated that the hardship of the property is the configuration of the home on the lot which predates zoning. He noted that if the house was centered there would be 12’ setback on either side. Attorney Wells indicated that he believes Ms. Deveau has taken the existing foot print and adequately addressed the concerns of the Wurzer’s without further encroachment.
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 3: Public Hearing Case 06-12 David & Carol Stanland, 5 Cobblers Lane, variance to construct in-ground pool in setback.
David and Carol Stanland were present to explain their application. Mr. Stanland distributed a hand-out to the Board members and indicated that he would be reading this hand-out to the Board. He noted that there are 65 homes in his neighborhood and when he first purchased the property he applied for a garage and it was rejected because part of the proposed garage was in the setback. Mr. Stanland stated that at that time they chose not to apply to the ZBA for a garage. He indicated that he and his wife feel very strongly that they should preserve a location for a future two-car attached garage that is unencumbered by setback restrictions. He noted that there is a tissue overlay on the site plan which shows the only location for this future garage. Mrs. Stanland stated that it is
important that the opportunity for a garage in the future remains unencumbered.
Mr. Stanland stated that not allowing them to leave this area unencumbered for a future garage would reduce the market value of their property unfairly. He read the appraised values of the other homes in his neighborhood.
Mr. Stanland stated that the addition of a two car garage would require the relocation of the septic tank and leaching fields. Mrs. Stanland pointed out the existing tank and leaching fields and noted where they would be relocated to in the event a garage was constructed.
Mr. Stanland stated that their first proposal for a pool was submitted in October 2005 and the proposed pool was located on the western side of the property. He indicated that that location was chosen because no trees would have to be cut down, no neighbors would be able to see the pool from their house, the area for a future garage would be preserved and it allowed for the possible relocation of the septic system if the garage were constructed. Mr. Stanland stated that he did not foresee neighbors objecting to the proposal because it was not visible from their homes and it was located 28’ from the roadway. He indicated that his wife was blind sided by the neighbor’s objections to the pool and she was unable to respond at the time. Mr. Stanland stated that she was also not aware that
she had the option of postponing the vote to give her time to put together a response. He indicated that he checked records at the Town hall and discovered that the four parties that objected to this proposal have properties that are anywhere from 80 percent to 257 percent larger than theirs. Mr. Stanland stated that his neighbors’ objections to this proposal were unsubstantiated. He read their concerns as noted in his narrative. Mr. Stanland stated that when this application was denied he met with an attorney and they felt their only option was to appeal to Superior Court on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary based on the neighbors’ objections. He indicated that because they felt uncomfortable with the confrontational nature of the appeal, they attempted to find another location on the site that would support a pool and after doing so withdrew their appeal.
Mr. Stanland stated that the closest neighbor was provided a copy of the plan and a map of the proposed pool layout. He indicated that they indicated to the Roser’s that they will not put spotlights or submerged lights in the pool, nor will they cut down any trees between the two yards. He indicated that they also gave the Roser’s the option of choosing the fence. Mr. Stanland stated they also promised that they would not construct a pool house and that they would plant additional trees along the property line to further camouflage the pool. He indicated that having a pool within the setback will not devalue the neighboring property. Mr. Stanland read the property values of nearby homes that have pools and the property values of those properties next door.
Mrs. Stanland stated that the south and west sides of the back yard are heavily shaded. She noted that 40 to 50 mature trees would have to be cut down in order to accommodate a pool along either one of these perimeters. She noted that the Zoning Regulations clearly state that preservation of resources is a significant part of their intent. Mrs. Stanland stated that based on her discussions with the Wetlands Commission, she does not believe that the cutting of 40 or 50 trees in such close proximity to the wetlands would be permitted given the availability of other options. She noted that her entire yard, with the exception of a tiny portion in the front, is within the 100’ wetland review area.
Mrs. Stanland stated that her second hardship is the opportunity to retain, unencumbered, a location for a garage which would require the relocation of the septic system. She indicated that the right to reserve a location to construct a garage is extremely important to the value of her property, constituting a hardship. She explained that the site plan she has submitted shows what she believes to be the safest and most logical location for a relocated septic system.
Mrs. Stanland stated that the site of the proposed pool is as far as possible from the wetlands, with the exception of the area reserved for a future garage and associated septic relocation. She indicated that the Wetlands Commission has approved the proposal before the Board this evening.
Mrs. Stanland stated that the perimeter of the pool to the property line is 7 feet and the perimeter of the pool to the Roser’s open yard is 23 feet. She noted the Roser’s open yard area on the site plan. Mrs. Stanland stated that the perimeter of the pool to the Roser’s house is 100’ and the perimeter to the next closest house is 225 feet. She indicated that during the swimming season the foliage of the trees will eliminate visibility of the pool and in addition a privacy fence will be installed.
Mrs. Stanland referenced Section 31.3.1(d) of the Zoning Regulations addressing landscaping. She noted that the landscaping around the pool will enhance its attractiveness from the viewpoint of any neighbors. Mrs. Stanland addressed Section 31.3.1(e) and noted that there will be no outdoor illumination. She referenced Section 31.3.2, neighborhood, and noted that the pool will harmonize with the neighborhood and its location will not affect the property values of any neighbor. She indicated that the pool is intended to preserve and enhance the beauty and value of the area, although its visibility will be minimal. Addressing Section 31.3.18, preservation of natural features, she stated that in selecting the area for the pool, the location was chosen in which no mature trees needed to be
removed. Mrs. Stanland stated that she and her husband believe that there is no other feasible location on the site in which this would be the case, with the exception of the location that they previously proposed in an application which was denied. She indicated that the mature trees are a significant natural resource to their yard and to the neighborhood in general.
Mrs. Stanland stated that they believe they have shown that a literal enforcement of the Regulations would result in an exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship; that such conditions do not generally effect the district in which the parcel is situated; that for reasons fully set forth in the findings, the variance is necessary to relieve the exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship and is the minimum necessary to accomplish such purpose; and that the variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of these Regulations and will serve the public health, safety, convenience, welfare and property values.
Chairman Stutts noted that the Section requiring a variance is 21.3.7, minimum setback from other property line, 35’ required, 28’ variance requested.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board needs to determine that there is not a way to further minimize the amount of variance being requested. He pointed out a location close to the house where a pool would fit, even with the garage and relocated septic system. Ms. Stanland indicated that that location is where the leaching system currently is located. Mr. Kotzan noted that the request is odd, asking to reserve space for a possible future garage and possible relocated septic system, and on the other hand indicating that the pool cannot be located where the existing leaching fields are located. He indicated that he is not sure that they can accept an imaginary garage without accepting the new location for the septic system, hence freeing the land where the existing leaching fields are located.
Mrs. Stanland stated that they do not have enough money for both a pool and a garage at this time. She indicated that her kids would love a pool and perhaps years down the road they will add a garage. Mrs. Stutts stated that it is her understanding that leaching fields could perhaps be located somewhere else, perhaps in the front. Mrs. Stanland stated that she is not sure of the distance from the well. Mr. Kotzan stated that the distance would be 75’. Mr. Stanland stated that they purchased the property in May of 1998. Mrs. Stanland stated that the bottom of the septic system has to be 18” above the ground water level. She indicated that she would assume that because of the wetlands they will need a large surface area of septic system.
Chairman Stutts noted that there does appear to be other areas on the site plan where the pool could be located without cutting trees. Mrs. Stanland stated that they know that the area they have chosen is the sunniest spot on the lot. Chairman Stutts noted that the Stanland’s pointed out that their lot is the smallest in the neighborhood. She indicated that at some point they have to make a decision as to what is going to fit on an acre, keeping three sides of the property with mature trees, wetlands on both sides, adding a garage and adding a pool and changing the leaching fields. Chairman Stutts stated that it is a lot to ask from an acre of property and at some point they must decide which of these is most important. She indicated that they really want a pool, may be they should
compromise on some of the other items.
Mr. Stanland stated that there are other houses in the neighborhood that do have it all. He indicated that he testified that they have the smallest lot. Mrs. McQuade stated that the other properties may not be maintaining mature trees on three sides. Chairman Stutts stated that every situation is unique. Mr. Stanland stated that the proposal before the Board, and the proposal submitted in October, they have the option of having a garage and a pool. Chairman Stutts pointed out that that is only if they are allowed to construct a pool in the setback. She pointed out that the setback is a buffer that is required around each and every property. Mr. Stanland stated that one of the intents of a setback is to prevent people from putting things there that devalue their neighbor’s
property. He indicated that they have shown that a pool will not devalue neighboring properties. Chairman Stutts stated that a pool is a large item to put in the setback. She noted that some people do not like pools and sometimes the value lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Zoning Commission decided that a pool is a structure and should not be in the setback. He indicated that the entire pool is within the setback. Mrs. Stanland stated that the pool will not be seen from the neighboring yard or house and she does not see how she would be impinging on anyone’s rights.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from the Roser’s, 4 Cobbler Lane, stating their opposition to the proposal and specifically stating that the Stanland’s pool should be located in accordance with the Town of Old Lyme Zoning Regulations of 35 feet from the property line and not 7 feet as requested. Mr. Roser also requested that the Public Hearing be held open, if necessary, so that he may have the opportunity to respond.
Mr. and Mrs. Stanland indicated that they would not like to have the Public Hearing held open. They indicated that it was their intention to have the pool dug before the holidays. Mrs. Stanland stated that they believe that the Board’s decision to reject the original application was based upon comments made by the neighbors that were unfair, arbitrary and abusive. She indicated that they feel it was an unfair denial and they are now asking for approval so that they may get started as soon as possible. Mrs. Stanland stated that they have made the fullest, clearest possible case.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing for this application.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 06-13 Judith Shea, 40A Pond Avenue, variance to construct two-story addition.
Gary Smith and Joe and Judy Shea were present to explain the application. Mr. Smith stated that the lot is 6,000 square feet in area. He noted the following existing nonconformities: lot area; lot area per dwelling unit (2 dwelling units on property); minimum dimension of a square; minimum setback from the street line; minimum setback from rear property line; minimum setback from other property lines; and maximum floor area as a percent of lot area. Mr. Smith explained that the Shea’s would like to construct a 5’4” by 15’4” two story addition on the home to provide a fire stairwell and to add a 3’6” x 5’ deck with a stairway to grade as a second means of egress from the first floor. He indicated that the floor area increase would be 164 square
feet and the lot coverage would increase 118 square feet. Mr. Smith stated that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, 8.9.3, 21.3.10 (maximum floor area) and 21.3.11 (maximum lot coverage).
Mr. Smith explained the history of the property. He stated that in 1982 there was serious inland flooding and this dwelling was swept over. He noted that they were allowed to reconstruct as long as the first floor met the flood elevation. Mr. Smith explained that the current house is at elevation 15, which is 8.5 feet above the surrounding grade, which is part of the hardship. He noted the submitted photographs of the structure and noted that it was constructed with only one exterior access to the first floor due to the restrictions of the Zoning Regulations and because there was an adjacent building to the east within six feet. Mr. Smith stated that the second floor has windows 24 feet above grade due to the elevated structure; he noted that the second floor also only has one egress within
the building.
Mr. Smith stated that the hardship of the applicants is their safety in the event of a fire. He indicated that one of the purposes of the Zoning Regulations is to secure safety from fire, panic, flood and other dangers. Mr. Smith explained that if a fire were to occur on the first floor, there would be no way out of the second floor except to jump 24’ from the second floor windows. He explained several other fire scenarios. Mr. Moll noted that most homes only have one set of stairs from the second floor for egress. Mr. Smith noted that the difference is that the second floor of this home is elevated over 8 feet more than the average home. He noted that the proposed stairway will be fire-rated, unlike the current stairway that is inside and is not fire-rated.
Mr. Smith explained that at the time of the reconstruction of this dwelling, there were three other dwellings on the lot. He submitted a plot plan from 1982 showing all four dwellings. Mr. Smith noted that in 1994 one building was removed and in 2003 another building was removed.
Joe Shea stated that he purchased the property in 1977. He stated that he is concerned for the safety of his grandchildren because the second floor windows are 24’ from the sill to the ground. He explained that all of the utilities are in the kitchen. Mr. Shea stated that his property is unique in this aspect as there are no other cottages in the area that have been constructed to the flood elevation. He indicated that his major concern is safety. Mr. Kotzan stated that he appreciates that the two other dwellings have been removed, but indicated that he is not sure the Board is able to consider this as part of this variance. Mr. Moll questioned why this work was not done when the building was originally reconstructed. Mr. Smith explained that it was because there was another
dwelling within 6 feet of the subject dwelling.
Chairman Stutts stated that two buildings require 20,000 square feet of lot area and the subject property is 6,000 square feet. She noted that the maximum floor area is 25 percent, there is 39.2 percent existing, 42.5 percent proposed; lot coverage allowed is 25 percent and a variance of .8 percent is requested for the property. Chairman Stutts stated that these figures are a big issue for the Board.
Mr. Smith stated that a literal enforcement of the Regulations would result in continued exceptional difficulty and unusual hardship of fire safety for the occupants of this dwelling. He stated that the conditions are unique to this dwelling and do not generally effect the Zoning District. Mr. Smith stated that the requested variances are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and will conserve the public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
Mr. Shea submitted 9 letters signed by residents of Corsino Avenue to the north and letters from two neighbors (condo associations) to the east.
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 06-14 Francois & Mary Haymann, 15 Brighton Road, variance to construct three-story addition.
Francois Haymann was present to explain his application. He explained that he would like to expand the existing house which is currently 42’ x 28’. Mr. Haymann stated that they need a variance because the Zoning Regulations only allow 2 ½ stories and they would like a full third level. He noted that they purchased the house five years ago. Mr. Haymann stated that the original structure was a barn that was converted to a home in 1950. He indicated that his wife was born in the house in 1945 and they would like to retire in this house at the end of the year. Mr. Haymann stated that when they purchased the house five years ago, they reduced the bedrooms from four to three and they would like very much to construct a home office above the existing garage which would be the
second level. He noted that the third level would provide needed room and would make more sense then building out, which would loose the authenticity of the 1870 barn.
Mr. Haymann stated that the house would be 33’ high and the top of the chimney will be 35’. Chairman Stutts questioned why, if the third floor is a storage area, it has to be so tall. Mr. Haymann stated that he was told that 2.5 stories means there cannot be access with a stairway. He indicated that they would like to store antique furniture in the third floor, as well as a daybed for visitors that may stay over.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposed addition looks good and is very functional. He indicated that the Board cannot give a variance for that reason. Mr. Haymann stated that adding on to the back of the structure would be difficult because it drops off. Chairman Stutts stated that the three story addition would appear to be a four-story addition from the rear.
Mr. Haymann stated that they do not want to construct on the ground level because they would have to relocate the septic tank and it would be damp. He stated that the architect did a drawing showing a first floor addition and they did not like the look of the structure. He indicated that they poured the foundation for this addition, with the hope that the variance application would be approved and if not, then they would construct the already approved two story structure. Chairman Stutts noted that the height should be measured from the average grade and questioned whether the structure would meet the height limit.
Mr. Haymann stated that the hardship is that they would like to expand this historic structure in a way that makes it appear to be a single unit that is architecturally acceptable.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 6: Open Voting Session
Case 06 -01 Dot and Bob Cipolla, 24 Walnut Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that a variance is requested for a 8’ x 25’ kitchen addition. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with Section 8.9.3, no additions on a nonconforming lot. She explained that the existing nonconformities are the lot size, the minimum square and the setback from one side. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided was that the lot is pre-existing nonconforming as to size and shape and the ceiling height in the existing kitchen does not allow one to stand up straight at the sink. She noted that the applicant indicated that this addition will correct the current deficiencies of the structure. Chairman Stutts stated that the existing house is 32’ x 30’ and 20’ high with two
bedrooms. She indicated that the proposed addition will be 16’ high. Chairman Stutts noted that the lot is long and thin. She pointed out that the applicant will be removing a 16’ x 20’ deck and the outside shower. Mr. Kotzan noted that the lot size is deficiency is modest and he believes the intent of the Regulations are not being violated and the request is reasonable. Ms. Speirs agreed that it is reasonable that the homeowner be able to stand up in the kitchen. Mr. Kotzan noted that the proposal is well within lot coverage and floor area ratios.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct an 8’ x 25’ first floor addition, Case 06-01, 24 Walnut Road, as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. Applicant is removing existing 16’ x 20’ deck and shower.
2. 8’ x 25’ addition meets all setback requirements.
3. Addition has no impact on the neighborhood.
4. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 06-11 David and Lisa Wurzer, 3 Lakeside Avenue
Chairman Stutts noted that this application requests the raising of a portion of the existing roof and the construction of a rear dormer. She noted that the lot is 5,880 square feet. Chairman Stutts stated that when the lot is joined with the other lot the total lot size will be 22,031 square feet. She indicated that the roof is being raised from 17.5 feet to 23.5 feet.
Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of Sections: 8.9.3, no enlargement on a nonconforming lot and 21.3.7, side setback, 12’ required, 8’7” provided and rear setback 30’ required, 3’6” variance requested. She explained that the square footage of the home is being increased 82 square feet. Chairman Stutts stated that the house is currently 3 bedrooms and there will be no increase in that number. She noted that the hardship provided is that making improvements in the existing setbacks, which are nonconforming, the applicant can avoid expanding the footprint; the lot is odd shaped; and the placement of the house on the lot off-center.
Mr. Kotzan stated that requiring a covenant that joins the two lots changes the complexity of the application, as there will be a 22,000 square foot lot. He indicated that it would be a great enhancement to the neighborhood to be able to reserve that additional lot.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the raising of the existing roof and construction of a rear dormer, Case 06-11, 3 Lakeside Avenue, as per the approved plans and with the following condition:
1. The two properties (3 Lakeside and 9 Towns Wood Road) be joined by covenant not to divide, the intent being that these two properties cannot be separated and 9 Towns Wood Road cannot be constructed upon.
Reasons:
1. Two lots joined by covenant will total 22,031 square feet and will prohibit construction on 9 Towns Wood Road.
2. Small change requested to make a year-round home more livable and bring upstairs room to Code.
3. Does not interfere with neighbor’s view of water.
4. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 06-12 David and Carol Stanland, 5 Cobblers Lane
Chairman Stutts noted that the applicants would like to construct an in-ground pool in the setback on a lot that is 44,550 square feet. She noted that the existing nonconformity is the setback from the street, 50’ required, home is currently 40’ from Deer Ridge. She noted that variances are required of Sections 7.4, setback, no structures in setback and 21.3.7, minimum setback from other property line, 35’ required, 7’ proposed for a variance of 28’. She explained that the hardship provided was that there are wetlands on both sides of the property, there are mature trees in the backyard and the location of their septic system and leaching fields.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants gave an indepth presentation on why the pool needs to be within the setback and noted future building of a garage and future relocation of the septic and leaching fields for that garage would prohibit building the pool in another location. She noted that the applicants indicated that they would like to preserve the mature trees and have the pool in a location that is not shaded.
Ms. Speirs stated that a 28’ variance is a large variance for a pool and noted that the pool is proposed entirely in the setback. Chairman Stutts stated that it appears to her that there are other choices as to where a pool can be located on the property. She indicated that she is uncertain as to how the applicant can request preserving land for future development and request a variance for present development. Chairman Speirs stated that the Board should consider what is presently on the property.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant needs to prove that what they are asking for cannot be achieved within the Regulations. He indicated that the moving of the leaching fields for future development is too speculative in some ways. Mr. Kotzan stated that when one is putting a pool 28’ into the setback it violates the intent of Zoning. He noted that the Rosers do not want a pool right next to the property line. Ms. McQuade stated that the neighbors have a right to expect that the integrity of the setback is respected by the Board. She pointed out that a small variance of 3 feet or so would be reasonable, not 28’ as is being requested. Mr. St. Germain stated that if the garage was already constructed then the Board could look at the application in a different light. He
agreed that they cannot consider what does not exist. Chairman Stutts stated that it would be possible to locate the garage in another location, with perhaps a small variance, where it would not impact the leaching fields and could then perhaps allow the pool in a more conforming location. She indicated that there are too many other “what if” situations that have not and really cannot be addressed.
Mr. St. Germain stated that the Board would be setting a precedent in granting a variance based on the location of a phantom building. Ms. McQuade stated that the applicant is not requesting a garage in this application and she does not believe the Board can consider a garage in this application. Mr. Kotzan stated that perhaps this piece of property, with the wetlands, the desire to keep the mature trees, etc., cannot fit both a two-car garage and an in-ground pool. He noted that the property has certain natural constraints.
Mr. Moll stated that the applicants stated that a pool does not negatively impact the value of land and they showed values of adjacent homes. He indicated that the Board has no idea what these homes have, it is not a detailed appraisal, and certainly is a poor comparison. Chairman Stutts agreed that pools are subjective, some people want them, some people do not. Mr. Moll stated that $20,000.00 would be better spent on a garage rather than a pool, if one were to consider value.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll to grant the necessary variances to construct an in-ground pool in the setback, Case 06-12, 5 Cobblers Lane, as per the plans submitted. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Construction of the pool 28’ into the setback violates the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. There are other locations on the property to construct the pool in a conforming location.
3. Septic area could be relocated and in case of failure repair is usually accomplished in the same area.
4. Preservation of mature trees can be maintained with pool in a conforming location.
Case 06-13 Judith Shea, 40A Pond Avenue
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is requesting a two-story addition to construct a fire-rated stairway and 3’5” by 5’3” deck with stairs. She noted that the existing nonconformities: 6,000 square foot lot with two buildings requires 20,000 square feet of land; 75’ minimum square required, 40’ existing; street setback is 25’, 2.6’ provided; rear yard setback, 30’ required, 13.65 feet provided; other setback 12’ required, 6’ provided for the house in the front and 1.65 feet provided for the house in the rear; and maximum floor area required is 25 percent and 39.2 percent existing. Chairman Stutts stated that variances are required of Sections: 8.8.1, 8.9.3, maximum floor area, 17.5 percent variances requested and lot coverage
by buildings, .8 percent variance requested. She noted that the existing house was constructed 8’ above grade to meet the flood regulations, which is the hardship.
Ms. McQuade stated that two buildings have been removed from the property. Chairman Stutts noted that there were many neighbors who submitted letters in favor of the application. She pointed out that the lot is already over-built.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant could not have constructed this bump out after the flood that removed the building because there was another structure on the property. He noted that that building has since been removed and if it had been done at the same time of the reconstruction the Board probably would have considered it very favorably. Mr. Kotzan stated that a two-story house elevated 8’ off the ground should have more than one entrance/exit as a basic safety feature.
Ms. McQuade noted that the bedrooms on the lot have been reduced greatly also by the removal of the other two dwellings. She stated that she would agree that one access/egress from this building is a safety concern because the structure is elevated 8’ off the ground. It was noted that the proposed deck does not have a stairway. Mr. Kotzan stated that the dwelling lost floor area when it was elevated 8’ to meet the flood zone requirements. He indicated that this goes to hardship.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a two story addition and a 3’5” x 5’3” deck, Case 06-13, 40A Pond Road, as per the approved plans. Motion carried 4:1, with Susanne Stutts voting against.
Reasons:
1. A second egress from a two-story home that is elevated 8’ off the ground is a safety issue and is unique to this structure.
2. These improvements could not be made when the home was reconstructed after the flood because of the location of another structure on the property which has subsequently been removed.
3. Does not violate the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Chairman Stutts indicated that she voted against the application for the following reasons:
1. Grossly overbuilt property.
2. Floor area ratio has been exceeded.
Case 06-14 Francois and Mary Haymann, 15 Brighton Road
Chairman Stutts stated that the variance requested is to construct a three-story addition on a lot that is 32,670 square feet. She indicated that the addition will be 3 floors, each having 468 square feet of living area. Chairman Stutts stated that a variance is required of Section 21.3.5, maximum stories allowed 2.5, 3 stories proposed. She indicated that the addition will be for a garage, a home office, storage and possibly a bedroom. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the barn was constructed in 1878 and was converted in the 1950’s and is historically unique. She indicated that the property would appear to be four stories from the rear of the structure. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the average height of the structure was considered in figuring the total
height. Ms. Speirs noted that there is plenty of additional land to construct an addition in a conforming location.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a three-story addition as per the plans submitted. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Intent of the addition can be accomplished without a variance.
2. Proposal is not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
ITEM 7: Approval of Minutes
No action taken.
ITEM 8: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
None.
ITEM 9: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
