APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, December 12, 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) and Judy McQuade (Alternate).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 06-48 Town of Old Lyme, 52 Lyme Street, variance to renovate Town Hall and expand parking.
Tim Griswold, First Selectman of Old Lyme, read a letter from Town Counsel Marylin Clarke for the record, in which she points out that the Town has purchased additional land for this project and noting that the use is allowed in a residential zone. Attorney Clarke noted in her letter that certain existing nonconforming aspects of the property will become less nonconforming because of the additional land area.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities, as follows: 21.3.6, maximum number of stories allowed is 2.5, 3 stories existing in the rear; 21.3.7, minimum setback from street, 30’ required, 20’ 10” existing; 21.3.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot, 20% allowed, 22% existing; 21.3.12, maximum total lot area coverage as percent of lot area, 30% allowed; 41.3.5, location of parking and access isles, 31’ required, 7’ existing in the rear; 15’ for other setback, 3’ existing.
Chairman Stutts read the variances being requested: 8.8.1, no nonconforming building shall be enlarged; 7.4, setbacks; 21.3.6, maximum height, 35’ permitted, 34’ existing, 41’ 1” proposed, for a variance of 6’ 2”; 21.3.7, minimum setback from street, 30’ required, 20’ 10” existing, proposed 22’8” (resulting in a decrease in the existing encroachment); north side – existing setback is 28’ 10” requiring a variance of 1’ 2”; 21.3.10, maximum floor area, 20% allowed, variance of 11.6% requested; 21.3.12, maximum total lot coverage as a percent of lot area, 30% allowed, 48.8% proposed for a variance of 18.8%; and 41.3.5, location of parking, 31’ required for rear setback, 15’ proposed, for a variance of 16’.
Paul Bailey, architect for the project, gave a brief overview of the site plan. He noted that the new addition on the south side will provide a new meeting hall on the upper level and new offices and bathrooms on the lower level. Mr. Bailey noted that there will be a street-level entrance on the front of this addition and an entrance off the back from the parking lot. He noted that inside there will be access to a new elevator which will provide access to all floors of the building so that the handicapped will be able to access all offices. He explained that on the north side they are adding a second floor addition on what is known as the bunker. Mr. Bailey stated that this will also provide an egress stair on the end for safety.
Mr. Bailey stated that these additions will increase the functionality of the building, will provide handicap accessibility and create a safer building by not having the number of dead ends that it currently has. He explained that the Town has purchased the Speirs house next door and has added 10 feet along the rear of the property to alleviate the required parking setback and to provide space for grading down. Mr. Bailey stated that there will be 38 parking spaces with the same circulation pattern as exists. He pointed out that the handicap spaces that will have direct access into the rear door.
Mr. Moll questioned the date on the site plan. Mr. Bailey noted that it is revised through December 5, 2006 and is the drawing submitted to the Zoning Commission for site plan approval.
Mr. Bailey stated that the Town is asking for five variances, the first being for the maximum height of the building. He explained that the rear elevation currently has a flat roof that is over the building department and the fire marshal’s office. He stated that they are adding a sloped roof to provide for an air-handling unit. Mr. Forbes stated that they are also looking into a solar energy system to reduce energy costs and the panels would be installed on this roof area. Mr. Bailey stated that this increased roof slope will increase the rear elevation to 41’ 1” to the peak. He noted that this roof will not be higher than the roof in the front of the building, but will require a variance. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the height is not calculated as an average
height because it is located in the Gateway Zone which measures height at the highest point.
Chairman Stutts questioned whether exposing the beams in the auditorium necessitates the proposed sloped roof. Mr. Bailey replied that it does relate to the increased roof slope. He noted that the new roof allows the air handling unit and duct work to be installed above the beams.
Mr. Bailey stated that the second variance requested is for the front yard setback. He noted that the required setback is 30 feet and the existing front of the Town Hall is 21’ from the lot line. Mr. Bailey stated that the new additions are setback farther than 21’ but not the required 30 feet. He explained that it would be difficult to move the additions back further because of roof lines as they would relate to the existing structure.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the property line appears to be approximately 8 feet in from the street, which gives the appearance of the building being set back further. Mr. Bailey noted that it is 15’ from the property line to the street.
Mr. Bailey explained that the proposed parking is 15’ from the rear property line. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the property behind the Town Hall is buildable. Mr. Bailey stated that he does not believe it is buildable. Mr. Griswold noted that there is a water pipe that goes underground behind the parking area and goes into the wetlands. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether some one would be inclined to put structures near the parking area. Mr. Griswold replied that the rear property owner would not be able to do that. Mr. Bailey stated that the parking would not impact that property. Mr. Schellens noted that that that property is currently a nonconforming commercial business. Mr. Kotzan noted that he wants to be sure that they are not compromising a buildable or useable
property behind the parking area.
Mr. Forbis noted that the Town gave Malcolm Speirs 6 feet of property to the left in exchange for the extra 10 feet of property in the rear. Mr. Griswold noted that the Town also has slope rights of 5 feet beyond the 10 feet of property conveyed. Mr. Schellens questioned the distance of the current parking to the property line. Mr. Bailey noted that the parking is currently 7’ from the rear property line and the parking spots are being increased from 20 to 38.
Mr. Bailey displayed the landscape plan as approved by the Zoning Commission. He pointed out the new evergreens. Mr. Forbis stated that the Tree Commission has been working with the landscape architect since day one. He explained that they jointly discussed each tree on site to determine which could be saved and which could not. Mr. Forbis stated that the Historic District also reviewed the landscape plan.
Mr. Schellens questioned the height of the cupola. Mr. Bailey replied that the cupola is 43 feet high but the roof peak is 33’ 4”. He reiterated that the peak in the back will not be visible from the front. Mr. Schellens stated that he is establishing the fact that there currently exists a height above 35’ and a new nonconformity would not be created.
Mr. Kotzan questioned how 38 parking spaces was determined to be the appropriate number. He also questioned the process used to justify the additional floor area. Mr. Griswold stated that originally, the expansion included room for the school board. He noted that at that time, there were to be approximately 12 additional employees, which was the genisis of the 38 spaces. He noted that even though the school board will not be part of the expansion, it is his hope that the people attending evening meetings will use the parking in the rear. Mr. Griswold stated that there will be parking spaces during the day for the 20 employees. He indicated that it would be a good thing to get the parking off the street in the evening. Mr. Kotzan agreed that evening parking on the street is
awkward, especially in the evening when there are multiple meetings and/or events at the schools. Mr. Griswold stated that a space needs study was performed before the architect became involved in the planning. He stated that the building expansion was reduced when the school board declined to be part of the expansion. Mr. St. Germain requested that the space needs study be made part of the record of this hearing. Mr. Forbis explained the reduction in floor area after it was determined that the school board would not have their offices in the new Town Hall.
Mr. Bailey stated that the third variance required is for parking. He noted that the required setback is 30’ and the proposed parking is 15’ from the property line. Mr. Bailey stated that the floor area as a percentage of lot area is the fourth variance they are requesting. He explained that the requirement is 20 percent maximum floor area and the proposal has 33 percent for a variance of 13 percent. Mr. Bailey stated that the final variance required is for total lot coverage. He noted that 30 percent is allowed, and the total is 32 percent for a variance of 2 percent. Mr. Bailey explained that this number includes parking. He noted that they do not require a variance for building coverage.
Chairman Stutts questioned whether the Town was receiving a grant for exposing the beams in the auditorium. Mr. Forbis explained that the Town has applied for two grants, one is for the work directly related to handicap access and the second is restoration of Connecticut Historic Buildings. He indicated that if this grant comes through it is $200,000.00 and will be directly for exposing the trusses.
Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated that there is a drainage pipe that runs through the lot behind the parking area into the wetlands. She noted that nothing could be constructed on top of that. Ms. Brown stated that the 100 year flood zone also goes through that area, which would also make it difficult to build upon. She noted that she is expecting that the Flood Zone Regulations will change shortly and will make it pretty much impossible to construct in that area. She explained that perhaps one could build further back on the property where the land rises.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the plans before the Commission were the final plans. Mr. Forbis stated that the drawing before the Board is the one that everyone is using for final engineering, estimating cost of construction and receiving approval from Town Boards. He explained the construction development drawings will be the next set and any changes would be brought back to the Boards.
Mr. Schellens questioned whether any thought has been given to removing the cupola and reducing the nonconformity of height in the front of the building. Mr. Griswold stated that there is a historical nostalgia about the cupola because it was a civil air patrol observation area.
Julie Edmundson, 45 Lyme Street, stated that she is concerned as far as her view across the street. She noted that she is currently looking at the Speirs property that the Town purchased and she is concerned that when the house is removed she will have a view of Speirs Plumbing. Mr. Forbis pointed out Ms. Edmundson’s house on the site plan. He explained and pointed out the new trees that are being added to obstruct her view of Speirs Plumbing.
Ms. Brown stated that the Historic District Commission has reviewed and approved the design and landscaping of this proposed building. She noted that there is an email in the Board’s file from CRERPA indicating that they have no objection to the approval of the variances requested for the town hall expansion. Ms. Brown noted that their review took place by request because the project is located in the Gateway Zone.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the drainage shown on the drawing have any impact on the plan view layout being reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Forbis stated that the plans are the same.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Open Voting Session
Case 06-48 Town of Old Lyme, 52 Lyme Street
Chairman Stutts stated that the Town is requesting six variances; height, two street setback variances, maximum floor area, maximum total lot coverage and parking setback. She stated that the hardship as stated was to allow proper service to the public. Chairman Stutts stated that the structure was constructed in 1920 and is currently nonconforming as to number of stories, street setback, lot coverage, floor area and driveway setbacks. She noted that the applicant stated that the variance is in harmony because many of the changes are internal and do not change the character of the building.
Chairman Stutts noted that the Town has made the effort to purchase additional land; 7,754 square feet of land in total. She indicated that the property is located in the Historic District and it was felt that it is important to keep the Town Hall in the center of Town.
Mr. Schellens stated that he does not see an issue with the height variance because the existing flat roof is being raised. He noted that they have granted this type of relief many times in the past. Mr. Schellens stated that by raising the roof pitch on the rear the Town is not in effect creating a new nonconformity, as the cupola is already nonconforming. Chairman Stutts noted that the roof will look exactly the same from the front.
Mr. Schellens stated that the street setback issue is similar to every other building on Lyme Street as all of the homes are constructed in the front setback. Mr. Kotzan stated that the functional setback really is sufficient. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the new structures in the front setback are less nonconforming than the existing structure. Mr. Schellens stated that the new parking on the west side will be the same distance from the new property line as the existing parking so he would not consider this a new nonconformity. He indicated that all the new parking is toward the building and is in a conforming location.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the floor area ratio is large because of the need for meeting space and public space. He noted that the lot coverage includes the parking. Mr. Kotzan stated that addressing the lack of existing parking addresses a real safety issue. Mr. Schellens agreed.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Town Hall is in the center of the Town and the renovations to the structure address the health and safety of all townspeople who use the building. Chairman Stutts stated that she is surprised that the Town has not been forced to address handicap issues with the existing building.
Mr. Moll suggested that the plans being approved be marked Exhibit A (Proposed Architectural Site Plan, Sheet SP1, dated October 2, 2006 revised through 12-5-06 as prepared by Paul Bailey, Architect) and Exhibit B (Proposed Exterior Elevations, Sheet A2.1, dated October 2, 2006 revised through December 5, 2006, as prepared by Paul Bailey, Architect).
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances for expansion of the Town Hall and expansion of parking, 52 Lyme Street, Town of Old Lyme, as per the plans submitted and any changes to the plans need to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman; and to find that the proposed activity is compatible with the preservation of the natural or traditional riverway scene and consistent with the purposes of Chapter 447A of the Connecticut General Statute as it now exists or may thereafter be amended.
Reasons:
1. Building constructed in 1920’s, located in the center of Town for use by all townspeople.
2. Facility is used primarily during the daytime.
3. Has received Certificate of Appropriate from Historic District Commission.
4. All efforts were made to minimize number and amount of variances.
5. Additional property was purchased.
6. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
7. Will produce a positive impact on health and safety.
8. Building will be brought up to handicap access codes, as well as fire and building codes.
ITEM 3: 2007 Meeting Schedule.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the 2007 Meeting Schedule, as amended.
ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of the November 14, 2006 Regular.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2006 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 5: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. on a motion by Richard Moll and seconded by Kip Kotzan. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
