APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, June 13, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Richard Moll, Joseph St. Germain (Alternate, seated for Tom Schellens), Wendy Brainerd (Alternate), and Judy McQuade (Alternate, seated for June Speirs).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Mr. Moll requested that Item 5 be moved up on the agenda. The Board agreed to take the agenda in order.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 06-26 Lynne Galipeau, 14 Miami Avenue, variance to construct an enclosed porch.
Lynn Galipeau was present to explain her application. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is requesting to construct a 16’ x 20’ enclosed porch, 12 feet in height under Section 8.9.3. Ms. Galipeau explained that she would like an enclosed porch that would afford her the opportunity to be outside with protection from bugs. She noted that she originally requested a deck and a porch but was told by the Sanitarian that the septic setback was 6 to 10 feet. Ms. Galipeau noted that she is no longer requesting a deck. Chairman Stutts stated that Mr. Rose’s approval indicates approval for a porch only, no deck.
Chairman Stutts noted that she drew the porch on the plot plan. She noted that the porch meets all setbacks. Chairman Stutts stated that the deck is 34 feet from the side and 30’ from the rear property line. She stated that the application states that the porch will be 14’ high and the elevation drawing indicates 12’ in height. Ms. Galipeau indicated that the existing roof of the house is 14’ high and the porch will be 12’ high.
Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the house was constructed before Zoning and there is no additional land to purchase; the house is 768 square feet so the proposal will provide a little additional living space. Chairman Stutts stated that there are two letters of support from neighbors.
Mr. Moll questioned the quality of the elevation drawings. He questioned what the porch will look like. Chairman Stutts stated that if the Board were to approve this application, they would need to make a condition that proper plans be approved prior to issuance of the permit. Ms. Galipeau stated that the porch will be screened. She indicated that she will not have storm windows. Ms. McQuade questioned whether she is maintaining the exterior wall. Ms. Galipeau replied that she will retain the existing exterior door that will lead out to the porch. Mr. Kotzan noted that the Board does like to condition this type of approval with the requirement that the exterior wall and door remain so that the porch does not become year round living space. He questioned whether there would
be a knee wall. Ms. Galipeau indicated that she plans to have a knee wall with screens above. She noted that the house has a full basement, but the porch will be on footings.
Mr. Moll questioned when the house was purchased. Ms. Galipeau noted that she purchased this property in 2005. Mr. Moll indicated that the Board is always concerned with what a porch can become. He stated that they require very detailed drawings for this reason. Mr. Moll suggested that the Board may want to continue this Public Hearing to give the applicant the opportunity to provide adequate elevation drawings. The Board and the applicant agreed to continue the Public Hearing to the July Regular Meeting so that the applicant can provide detailed plans.
Mr. Moll noted that the application provides a checklist of required items. He noted that the applicant did not check off the items provided. Mr. Moll indicated that the application is lacking the required floor plans. Ms. Galipeau noted that the floor plan is in the file.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Pubic Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 06-27 Frank Lishing & Joann Reis Lishing, 307 Swan Avenue, Appeal of ZEO’s denial of Application for Conversion of Seasonal Dwelling to Year Round Use Dwelling.
Attorney Mattern requested by letter that the Public Hearing for this application be continued to the July Regular Meeting. Mr. Moll questioned the reason for the continuation. Chairman Stutts noted that the applicant needs time to provide more information. Mr. Moll stated that this case is unique because there is a pending court case against the Town regarding year round use. H e noted that the Board has not heard this case yet; he noted that it was not appealed before. Chairman Stutts stated that she did not feel it appropriate to discuss this case any further this evening.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 06-28 Frank Lishing & Joann Reis Lishing, 307 Swan Avenue, variance to allow conversion of seasonal dwelling to year round use dwelling.
Attorney Mattern requested by letter that the Public Hearing for this application be continued to the July Regular Meeting.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 06-29 Joseph Sullo, 9 Sea Lane, variance to demolish existing dwelling and construct larger dwelling on existing footprint and to raise structure to FEMA Codes.
Attorney Mattern requested by letter that the Public Hearing for this application be continued to the July Regular Meeting.
ITEM 5: 286 Shore Road, review of plans
Mr. Moll excused himself from the discussion. Ms. Brown stated that she requested to be on the agenda to discuss this property. She explained that this property is the Tolchinsky property and they were granted a variance to construct a building and the Zoning Commission approved that same building and a site plan. She noted that ultimately, the building was not constructed in compliance with the approvals. Ms. Brown indicated that Mr. Tolchinsky applied for variances and he appealed the Cease and Desist Order she issued. She stated that the Board upheld her Cease and Desist Order and did not grant the variances he requested to allow a modification to the approved plans so that the building could remain 35 feet tall. Ms. Brown noted that the Judge also found in favor of the Town in both
of those cases. She explained that the trial is scheduled for July 18 in her effort to force Mr. Tolchinsky to come into compliance.
Ms. Brown stated that she is looking for guidance from the Board. She noted that Mr. Tolchinsky has submitted a proposed building plan to show how he would modify what exists and he believes that the proposal complies with the variance and the approvals that were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Zoning Commission. Ms. Brown stated that she does not believe these plans comply with the approvals. She asked that if the Board believes her evaluation to be reasonable she would like them to indicate so and if they do not agree she would like them to put it on their agenda for their July Meeting for further discussion and vote by the Board.
Ms. Brown showed the Board the modified plans. She provided a second set of plans on which she superimposed, to the best of her ability, the building as it was approved. The Board reviewed the different elevation plans. Ms. Brown stated that the Zoning Commission asked that she continue her enforcement efforts. After careful review the Board members agreed that the proposed plans are not in compliance with the approvals granted and indicated that Ms. Brown should pursue this enforcement.
ITEM 6: Open Voting Session
No action taken.
ITEM 7: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2006 Special Meeting.
ITEM 8: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
Mr. Moll stated that this afternoon the Zoning Enforcement Officer asked whether he and Ms. Speirs should recuse themselves from cases involving 286 Shore Road. He indicated that at the meeting of September 13, 2005, under New Business, he requested that the Chair send a letter to Attorney Royston, asking whether it would be a conflict of interest if he or June Speirs were to hear anything associated with this property now that the Superior Court had ruled on the case. Mr. Moll stated that this is not reflected in the minutes.
Mr. Moll asked that the Chair contact Attorney Royston at this time and ask his opinion on this matter. Chairman Stutts stated that one reason people recuse themselves from cases is the perception of a conflict. She indicated that there is no question in her mind that Mr. Moll has a strong interest in this case. She suggested a vote of the Board. Chairman Stutts stated that if the Board feels he has an attitude regarding this property than perhaps it would be more accurate then an opinion from Attorney Royston who is not present. Chairman Stutts noted that the case is now in the hands of the Court and she indicated that he did the right thing this evening in excusing himself. She advised that he recuse himself in future discussions of this property.
Chairman Stutts suggested that Mr. Moll call Attorney Royston if he would like.
ITEM 9: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Judy McQuade. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
