APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, October 17, 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, Tom Schellens, Joseph St. Germain (Alternate, seated for June Speirs).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m.
Mr. Moll noted that this evening’s special meeting was set last week at the Regular Meeting. He explained that there is a political debate at the school this evening that everyone might be interested in attending.
A motion was made by Richard Moll to adjourn.
Mr. Moll noted that this is a privileged motion and is not debatable or discussable.
Mr. Schellens seconded the motion.
Chairman Stutts stated that they planned to get together this evening to act on these cases and she would like to get through the agenda as expediently as possible.
Mr. Moll indicated that there is no discussion; this is a privileged motion that must be voted on.
Motion did not carry 0:5.
ITEM 1: Open Voting Session
Case 06-38 Beverly Curry, 14 Brightwater Road
Mr. Schellens noted that the property is 12,000 square feet. He noted that they were granted year-round status. Mr. Kotzan stated that the addition was proposed in the location that it was because they were working around the location of the existing chimney and stairs. Mr. Kotzan noted that the proposed addition would be in the front setback. Chairman Stutts stated that a variance of 5.3’ is required. She noted that the existing house contains two bedrooms. She noted that the proposed addition is 18’ x 16’ and 16’ high. Chairman Stutts stated that the total footprint area is 1,444 square feet or 12 percent coverage. She noted that a previous appeal was granted for year round status. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is the
location of the house on the lot. She stated that the house is 13’ into the setback. Chairman Stutts explained that the applicant indicated that the addition could not be put on the other side of the house because of the location of the septic system. She stated that after examining the site plan, it does appear that the addition could be put where the existing deck is, without requiring a variance. She pointed out that the deck is almost the same size as the proposed family room.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the proposal is 5’ into the setback because of the location of the chimney and stairs. He noted that the area beyond that is the counter area of the kitchen and would not accommodate a doorway. Mr. Kotzan stated that they could slide the room back and relocate the existing kitchen window.
Mr. Schellens stated that there does appear to be other avenues for the homeowner to add an addition without the granting of a variance.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he is not sure that there is a legitimate hardship as he is not convinced that a family room addition couldn’t be added without violating the setbacks.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to allow the construction of a first floor addition, 14 Brightwater Road, Beverly Curry, applicant, as per the plans submitted. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. No hardship; large lot provides other options for placing the addition.
2. Not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 06-40 Janice Habicht, Trustee, 49 Seaside Lane
Chairman Stutts stated that the variance is requested to enlarge the bulding devoted to a nonconforming use. She noted that the nonconforming use is the multi dwellings in an R-10 Zone. Chairman Stutts stated that the lot contains 12, 381 square feet. She noted that a variance is required of Section 8.7.1, no nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged unless reducing or eliminating the nonconformities. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant would like to raise the roof 12 inches, extend the north side of the house two feet and add dormers on the north and south side. She noted that the dormers are more like vents. Chairman Stutts stated that the house contains two bedrooms currently and that number will not increase.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant appealed to Superior Court and the Courts decision was that the other home on the property would have year round occupancy but this small cottage was to remain seasonal. She explained that the hardship provided by the applicant was that the variance is needed to modernize the structure because the present roof configuration encourages leaking and structure deterioration; unique shape of house; and elimination of step down living room.
Chairman Stutts stated that there were three or four neighbors present at the public hearing who indicated that the property was already too densely developed and that the septic was questionable as to whether or not it was installed in the proper location. She stated that Attorney Cronin indicated that the space was being increased by 41 square feet and then said it was changing from 548 to 576, which is only 28 square feet.
Mr. Kotzan stated that this being a nonconforming use puts it in another category. He stated that expansion under those conditions should not be encouraged. Mr. Kotzan indicated that he agrees with the neighbors that the lot is over-built and he cannot justify granting variances that expands the envelope. Mr. Schellens agreed and stated that Attorney Cronin indicated that it is a conforming use and this would lead to the question as to why he did not appeal the ZEO’s evaluation of the Zoning Permit as a nonconforming use prior to the variance hearing. Mr. Moll questioned why there is any doubt as to this being a nonconforming situation. Mr. Schellens stated that there was testimony from the applicant that indicated this. Chairman Stutts read page 9 of the unapproved minutes where
Attorney Cronin stated that an issue in the appeal was whether or not the two dwellings were nonconforming uses and the Court found that they were conforming to the Regulations that multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in this zone. She further read that Attorney Cronin stated that the Court found that the two houses are a permitted use on the property. Chairman Stutts stated that the application before the ZBA is for a variance to enlarge a building devoted to a nonconforming use. Mr. Schellens stated that they cannot allow the expansion of a nonconforming use and he does not see an extreme or extenuating circumstance to do so in this case.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the arguments presented were more architectural or design elements as far as why one wall or area needed to be bumped out. Mr. Schellens stated that a denial will not deny the applicants reasonable use of their cottage. Mr. Moll noted that they have had a use since the 1930’s. Mr. Schellens agreed that an adequate hardship was not provided.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Tom Schellens to approve the application of Janice Habicht, Trustee, 49 Seaside Lane, to enlarge a building devoted to a nonconforming use as per the approved plans. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. No hardship provided.
2. Three neighbors were against because the lot is already congested.
3. Nonconforming uses should not be increased.
4. Variance not necessary to fix up cottage.
5. Not within the Plan of Zoning.
Case 06-41 Joyce Soucie, 7 Saltaire Drive
Chairman Stutts read a letter from Ron Rose, Sanitarian, dated October 17, 2006, noting that based on the location of septic tank and right-of-way, this plan does not comply with the State of Connecticut Public Health Code and the plan is not approved at this time. Mr. Schellens stated that based on that evidence he would suggest that the application is not complete and therefore it should be voted on without further deliberation. He stated that the Board could also further discuss the application and if approved it could be contingent upon Health Department approval. Chairman Stutts suggested that it would be a good idea to discuss and take action to give the applicant feedback. She noted that the application was complete, the health approval was revoked.
Chairman Stutts noted that the application is for a 12’ x 35’ sunroom without heat and a 22’ x 26’ two-car garage with a breezeway to connect the garage to house. She noted that the existing nonconformities are the street setback, 25’ required and 19.7 existing; rear setback 30’ required, 19’ existing; and other setbacks, 12’ required and 11.7’. Chairman Stutts stated that a variance of 11’ is requested for the sunroom and 14.2’ for the garage. She explained that a variance is also required for lot coverage; 25 percent allowed and 30.9 percent is proposed, for a variance of 6.9 percent. She noted that the hardship provided was the shape of the lot. Chairman Stutts stated that the lot has the required area. She noted that
the current house is 1 ½ story with three bedrooms. She indicated that the applicant was flexible in that they were willing to keep the sunroom open because the garage was their priority. Mr. Schellens noted that adding just the garage, not the breezeway and sunroom, would bring the coverage to 25.9 percent. He noted that this is what he understood the applicant to have said at the public hearing.
Chairman Stutts noted that in 2001 the applicant had a large renovation that was done without a variance. She stated that at that point there was a garage shown on the plan, but it was never constructed. Chairman Stutts stated that with the current house, breezeway and garage, the structure would be 98’ across the front of a 125’ lot. She indicated that that would be very bulky across the front. Chairman Stutts stated that she believes there are other options, such as putting the garage up against the house, which would reduce or eliminate the side and rear setback variances, especially with the flexibility indicated by the applicant for moving the septic system.
Mr. Kotzan stated that there are two things that are problematic about the application as it exists. He indicated that one is exceeding lot coverage. Mr. Kotzan stated that if the applicant was able to keep it down to 25 percent and reduce the setback variances, he might be more inclined. He indicated that the lot does look a little overbuilt. Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not understand why the garage has to be located where it is; the applicant should ask for the smallest variance needed.
Mr. Moll agreed, and noted that it appears that the garage could be moved up next to the house. He indicated that this garage addition would block off the only window on the side of the house in the master bedroom. Mr. Schellens stated that it comes down to what is of greater value to the applicant; windows in the bedroom or a two-car garage. He indicated that he is inclined to deny the application and give the applicant feedback as to how they might proceed. Mr. Schellens stated that he is very reluctant to even allow the applicant over the 25 percent coverage as he does not see an adequate hardship for it. He noted that the house was substantially renovated approximately five years ago and the applicants had the opportunity to figure in a garage in a conforming location at that point in
time. He pointed out that choices were made at that time.
Mr. Kotzan stated that maximum building coverage on a lot is very meaningful and unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to push past it, he would not be in favor of allowing a variance.
Mr. Moll stated that in viewing the property and in viewing the latest assessor’s card dated 8-31-2006, he was confused as it does not seem to be the same house. Chairman Stutts stated that the date of August 31, 2006, is the print date of the assessor’s card.
Chairman Stutts stated that the renovations done to the property to date are very nice and are a benefit to the community.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Joseph St. Germain to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a two-car detached garage, breezeway and sunroom, Joyce Soucie, 7 Saltaire Drive, as per the approved plans. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Lacks Health Department approval.
2. Adequate hardship not provided.
3. House is oversized for lot; structure would measure 98’ across a 125’ lot.
4. Garage could be located in a conforming/more conforming location.
5. Not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Mr. Moll noted that the septic approval was withdrawn by Ron Rose in a letter dated October 17, 2006.
Case 06-42 Patricia & Gary Bieniewicz, 31 Four Mile River Road
Chairman Stutts noted that the applicants are requesting to construct an attached two-car garage with a bonus room above, 24’ x 24’ and 26’ in height. She stated that there are no existing nonconformities but the proposal does not comply with the minimum setback from the street, 50’ required and 45.3’ provided. Chairman Stutts stated that if the garage was constructed to conform, it would be limited to 20’ 6” which would make it difficult for them to open the car doors because of the existing chimney along the side of the house. She indicated that the house has three bedrooms, with a footprint of 862 square feet. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposed addition would add 576 square feet to the footprint. She noted that they have Health Department
approval and the next door neighbor at 29 Mile Creek Road spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided were wetlands on the property and the topography of the land. Mr. Schellens stated that they may have been able to construct a garage in a conforming location with massive excavation into the hillside to allow a turn-around area. He noted that in this circumstance he sees a legitimate hardship. Mr. Schellens noted that the land is adequate but they have many restrictions imposed by the land.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the setback variance requested is a minimal intrusion on a State Highway. Chairman Stutts stated that she would like a condition that the bonus room not be used as a bedroom. Mr. Schellens stated that if it is conforming they should be allowed to use it. He noted that they did not apply for an additional bedroom.
Mr. St. Germain questioned the definition of bonus room. Mr. Schellens stated that often times they are used for a playroom or t.v. room. Mr. Moll stated that he is concerned with the casualness of adding a room that may become a bedroom. Mr. Kotzan pointed that they could easily put more rooms in this house in a conforming location. Mr. Schellens stated that the Board is more concerned with the addition of rooms and those rooms becoming bedrooms on very small lots. He noted that this is a large lot where the applicants could put an addition in a conforming location and at that point Ron Rose would be contacted to determine if the septic could accommodate another bedroom.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a two-car garage, Patricia & Gary Bieniewicz, 31 Four Mile River Road as per the approved plans and with the condition that there be no increase in the number of bedrooms as a result of this construction.
Reasons:
1. Adequate hardship.
2. Small 3.5 foot variance to accommodate much-needed garage.
3. All other locations for garage have been exhausted.
4. Neighbors are in favor.
5. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
ITEM 2: Approval of Minutes of the September 12, 2006 Regular Meeting.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2006, Regular Meeting as corrected.
ITEM 3: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. on a motion by Richard Moll and seconded by Tom Schellens. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
| 
