APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, May 9, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Joseph St. Germain (Alternate, seated), Wendy Brainerd (Alternate, seated) and Judy McQuade (Alternate, seated).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Chairman Stutts noted that there are only four voting members this evening which would require a unanimous vote. She asked the two applicants if they would like to hold their hearing this evening or postpone it to the June Regular Meeting. Both applicants agreed to hold their hearings this evening with only four members.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 06-20 Patricia Shippee, 209 Mile Creek Road, variance to construct a first floor addition.
Patricia and Nathan Shippee were present to explain their application. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants are requesting a variance to construct a 19’ x 16’ first floor addition. She noted that the proposal does not comply with the following Sections: 8.8.1, no building to be enlarged on a nonconforming lot; 7.4, setback; and 7.4.2, narrow street setback, 55 feet required.
Mr. Shippee explained that they have received a variance to construct a similar first floor addition. He noted that this application is the same, with the exception of the dimensions of the addition. Mr. Shippee stated that the approved measurement is 11’ x 24’ and the proposed is 19’ x 16’, for the same square footage. Chairman Stutts noted that the current proposal is a few square feet larger. She noted that it is also more in the front setback; approximately 171 square feet of additional structure in the front setback. Chairman Stutts noted that the Board must consider that the nonconformity is being increased by the bulk of the building coming closer to the road.
Mr. Shippee stated that the house was constructed in 1750 in its present location and additions are bound by very old, large trees. He noted that they have tried other solutions, but the one before the Board is the most viable. Mr. Shippee noted that there is no other direction to build an addition.
Chairman Stutts stated that she has visited the property and it would appear that the entire structure could be brought back so that the entire addition could remain at the same setback as the variance previously approved. She noted that this would fit within the existing walk. Mr. Shippee noted that the main house has a peak and the existing addition has a peak also. He noted that the proposal lines up those peaks with the new addition. Mr. Shippee explained that if the addition is set back further there will be a discord with the three peaks.
Mr. Shippee noted that the structure is beautiful and it would be ruined by setting the addition back and having discord between the peaks. He noted that the property is highly visible on its corner lot. Mr. St. Germaine stated that the addition could be moved back and the peaks could line up by changing the angle of the roof and having a longer rear shed-type roof. Mr. Shippee stated that at one point they were thinking of having a long slope to the roof, such as a salt-box type roof.
The Board agreed that the applicant could construct the 19’ x 16’ addition within the original setback in the already approved variance. They further agreed that Chairman Stutts will review new elevation drawings before the Zoning Permit is issued.
Mrs. Shippee wrote a letter withdrawing this application.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Pubic Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 06-21 David and Lisa Wurzer, 3 Lakeside Avenue, application to modify condition of Appeal 06-11 to allow construction on Lot 88, 9 Town Woods Road.
Attorney John Bennett, Geri Deveaux and David Wurzer were present to explain the application. Attorney Bennett stated that the applicant is looking for a clarification of the condition placed on the approved variance prohibiting construction on 9 Town Woods Road. He explained that the approval also combined 3 Lakeside and 9 Town Woods Road into one parcel. Attorney Bennett stated that the Wurzer’s agreed, thinking the Board’s intention was to have these two lots be one residential parcel. He noted that the concern now is that 9 Town Woods Road cannot be constructed upon because the Wurzer’s had thought they would be able to construct the usual accessories and amenities, such as a garage. Attorney Bennett stated that the Wurzer’s assumed that the Board’s intention
was that they not be able to construct an independent single family residence on 9 Town Woods Road. He indicated that for this reason, they would like modification or clarification of the language so that amenities are allowed as complying with Zoning.
Attorney Bennett stated that the hardship is that the subject property was developed long before Zoning was implemented in Old Lyme and the house was sited too close to one boundary line. He noted that if the house was centered, there would be a proper setback on all sides. Attorney Bennett noted that by adding the land of 9 Town Woods Road, 3 Lakeside is now closer to conformity in all respects. Attorney Bennett asked that the record of the prior application be included as part of this application. He noted that that record will show that there was no objection by anyone to the application.
Mr. St. Germaine noted that one neighbor did respond. Attorney Bennett noted that that neighbor was the one that suggested combining the two parcels but they were not against the application. Mr. Wurzer noted that after the neighbor’s parcels were joined he subsequently constructed a two-car garage with storage on his other parcel. Mr. St. Germaine questioned whether that neighbor received notice of this hearing. Mr. Wurzer replied that all neighbors were sent notices of this evening’s hearing. Chairman Stutts read this neighbor’s letter for the record.
Chairman Stutts noted that Attorney Royston has asked to review the language of the convenant. She suggested that Attorney Bennett draw up a document for the Board’s transmittal to Attorney Royston. Attorney Bennett agreed and noted the applicant is asking that the Board modify their condition to state that the two parcels are irrevocably combined by a covenant to be approved by Town Counsel so that they remain a single residential lot with the typical amenities that are approved by Zoning.
Chairman Stutts read a portion of Attorney Royston’s letter which indicates that in order to modify the condition there must be, at a minimum, a 4:1 vote of the Commission and a hardship must be shown.
Mr. Wurzer asked that the 6 month clock to start construction be reset when this variance is filed, as he has held off on final plans until this matter was resolved. The Board agreed that the six months would start from the date of the filing of this modified variance.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Open Voting Session
Case 06-20 Patricia Shippee, 209 Mile Creek Road
Chairman Stutts noted that this application has been withdrawn.
Case 06-21 David & Lisa Wurzer, 3 Lakeside Avenue
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. Ms. McQuade stated that she is very agreeable to the modification of this condition. Mr. St. Germaine agreed, noting that it is really just a clarification. Chairman Stutts stated that the original intent of the Board was to prevent another home on that parcel. Mr. St. Germaine stated that the Wurzer’s should be able to do anything on their property that is permitted under the Zoning Regulations.
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Joseph St. Germaine and voted unanimously to modify the condition previously placed on 3 Lakeside Avenue to read:
1. The two properties, 3 Lakeside Avenue and 9 Town Woods Road, be joined by covenant not to divide, the intent being that these two properties cannot be separated. The language of the covenant not to divide the properties and the manner of its recordation on the land records, shall be subject to review and approval by counsel for the Board.
ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes
No action taken.
ITEM 5: Executive Session to discuss pending litigation
At 8:20 p.m., Ms. Stutts made a motion to go into Executive Session. Seconded by Joseph St. Germaine and voted unanimously.
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Joseph St. Germaine and voted unanimously to adjourn the Executive Session at 8:57 p.m.
At 8:58 p.m. Joseph St. Germaine made a motion to go back into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Seconded by Wendy Brainerd and voted unanimously.
A motion was made by Joseph St. Germaine, seconded by Wendy Brainerd and voted unanimously to adjourn the Executive Session at 9:18 p.m.
Chairman Stutts noted that no votes were taken and no decisions were made in the Executive Sessions.
ITEM 6: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
The Board discussed its concern regarding the potential height of homes in the R-10 Zones. Ms. McQuade suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals may want to ask the Zoning Commission to meet and discuss the height issues. It was noted that the SVDD Regulation further limits heights of homes in that zone. Chairman Stutts stated that she believes a letter to the Commission suggesting that they think about reducing the 35 foot height allowance in the R-10 Zones in their Regulation Rewrite.
ITEM 7: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. on a motion by Wendy Brainerd and seconded by Judy McQuade. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
