APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 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, and Joseph St. Germain (Alternate – seated for June Speirs).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 07-10 Murray Wilmerding, 6 Old Shore Road, Appeal of Zoning Compliance Permit Application 06-405 regarding use of existing outbuilding.
Murray Wilmerding was present to explain his appeal. He indicated that the stable behind the house has been used as a guest-house/bunk house for years. Mr. Wilmerding stated that Ms. Brown had an objection to his making loft space in the stable so he removed that from the plan. He indicated that his proposal is to have living space on one side and a large bunk house room on the other side, with a big open space that currently is the stall area. Mr. Wilmerding displayed his floor plan for the stable.
Mr. Wilmerding stated that there is not currently a septic system and he plans to install one. Chairman Stutts questioned the square footage of the main house; she noted that that square footage in relation to the square footage of the accessory building is the issue. Mr. Wilmerding indicated that the house is approximately 1,100 square feet. Mr. Moll questioned the square footage of the stable. Chairman Stutts noted that it is 2,400 square feet.
Chairman Stutts indicated that the application before the Board is not for a variance. She indicated that Mr. Wilmerding has appealed the ruling of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and asked him to explain how Ms. Brown erred in her decision making. Chairman Stutts stated that the Regulations do not allow accessory buildings larger than the principle building. Mr. Wilmerding stated that this building has been in use for decades as it sits. Chairman Stutts stated that the building has been used as a barn, garage and storage area also. She noted that the entire building was not devoted to a guest house. Mr. Wilmerding acknowledged that the entire building was not devoted to a guest house.
Mr. Moll stated that this application is an appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and he would like read into the record what the appeal states. Chairman Stutts read from the application that this is an appeal of the Zoning Compliance Permit Application regarding the use of existing outbuilding. Mr. Moll noted that there is a letter in the file dated March 8th from the Zoning Enforcement Officer that goes into further detail and states that this case should be handled as a Special Exception Case before the Zoning Commission.
Mr. Wilmerding stated that for the last 30 years there has been a large bunk room in the stable building, a large play area and a storage area. He noted that they began storing things in the building in 1999 when his parents retired to the area. Mr. Wilmerding stated that he does not understand why the building cannot continue to be used as it has been.
Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, submitted a letter of explanation for the Board. She stated that Mr. Wilmerding has appealed her denial of Permit 06-405, which appears to be for the conversion of much of the area in this outbuilding that was the garage/stable/cabin building; she noted it was a multi-use building, and clearly has been for many years. Ms. Brown stated that the question is how much of it was used for what. She noted that the application enlarged the building by finishing off loft space and that was not historically used as living space. Ms. Brown stated that it also involved finishing off more of the building than it appeared was ever used as living space and also installing a kitchen. She explained that if she considers this finishing off space as a guest cottage,
Section 21.2.6b states that no accessory building shall be used for dwelling purposes except for employees or non-paying guests of the occupant of the dwelling on the lot and there shall be no provision for cooking facilities in such accessory building or available to such employees or guests, except for the principle cooking facilities in the dwelling. Ms. Brown noted that this plan had a kitchen so she had to deny it on that ground. She explained that Section 9.1 defines accessory building and the definition states that an accessory building shall not have a gross floor area greater than the footprint of the principle building. She noted that the footprint of the house is 776 square feet, so the outbuilding could not have more than 776 square feet of living space. Ms. Brown stated that she did determine that historically there was 864 square feet so in her denial she limited the building to 864 square feet. She indicated that it appeared that
historically the remainder of the building was storage space, garage and stable.
Ms. Brown stated that earlier in 2006, Mr. Wilmerding submitted an application to establish an apartment in this same building and she denied that application and sent a letter of explanation; she noted that that March 8th 2006 letter is the one that Mr. Moll referred to earlier in the hearing. Ms. Brown stated that she made an inspection and did not see any evidence of a kitchen. She noted that there was a stove in the garage area and that area did not seem to be finished off in any way. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Wilmerding has a right to apply for an accessory apartment in this building. She stated that he would need to make application to the Zoning Commission for a Special Exception and because the house is so small, the accessory apartment would be limited to 500 square feet.
Mr. Schellens noted that the applicant could ask for a variance of the Regulation that allows only 500 square feet, so that he could have what has been determined to be the historical living space.
Ms. Brown stated that she and Mr. Wilmerding discussed the historical use of the building and he did not present any particular information so she had only what the tax assessor had in his records. She indicated that she also used the information she obtained in her inspection, which she noted was only looking through the windows. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Wilmerding can testify tonight to how the building was used and whether there was a formal kitchen installed and the other particulars of the building.
Ms. Brown stated that the Board will be deliberating on the appropriateness of her decision on the application. She noted that the Board may uphold the denial altogether or they may find that she was partially right and partially incorrect. She indicated that the Board should consider all the testimony from Mr. Wilmerding. Ms. Brown reminded the Board that Mr. Wilmerding’s application was to establish the layout as presented in the floor plan submitted, which includes a kitchen. She noted that Mr. Wilmerding has acknowledged that he has eliminated the second floor loft area. Mr. Schellens indicated that if Ms. Brown had the information that the Board will receive this evening, it is quite possible she may have made a different decision. Ms. Brown indicated that that is possible. She stated that the Board should consider the new information that Mr. Wilmerding submits this evening. Mr. Moll stated that he feels the Board should be acting on only the information Ms. Brown had
in determining whether her decision was correct. Ms. Brown reiterated that the Board should consider all the information presented this evening by Mr. Wilmerding and make a determination based on this new information.
Mr. Wilmerding stated that the 500 square feet allowed for an apartment is only a small piece of one of the three large rooms. Chairman Stutts asked the square footage of each of the three sections. Mr. Wilmerding replied that they are approximately 750, 900 and 700 square feet. Mr. Kotzan questioned which area of the building would be new living area, if any. Mr. Wilmerding stated that the loft space would have been new space, but he eliminated it from the application. He pointed out on the floor plan where the stove and flue were installed. Mr. Wilmerding indicated that in his lifetime the stove has not been used, although it was hooked up. He noted that most of the cooking was done on a grill and a hotplate or microwave for the people living in this space in the summer.
Mr. Wilmerding stated that there are two existing sinks from the tact room days and there were groom quarters.
Mr. Wilmerding submitted photographs and explained them in relation to the rooms in the building. He noted that the bathroom has functional heat, but the building was not used during the coldest months because there is no insulation. Mr. Wilmerding stated that the house itself has always been used year round. He explained that the structure was used as a bunkhouse for the last thirty to thirty-five years.
Mr. Moll stated that they do not have a good drawing of the lot. He noted that the drawing submitted does not agree with the assessor’s map. Ms. Brown noted that the property was reconfigured in 2002. Mr. Wilmerding stated that the lot is now 2.7 acres. Mr. Moll pointed out that a large percentage of this acreage is wetlands. Mr. Moll noted that the buildings are constructed on the only highlands on the property.
Lucius Wilmerding, Murray’s father, indicated that the house is remarkably small so the stable building was always used as a bunkhouse. He noted that the structure is deteriorating and it needs to be either renovated or torn down.
Frederick Schavoir, cousin of the applicant, indicated that the stable was used as a bunkhouse when he visited as a youth. Mr. Wilmerding stated that it was used as overflow for the family visitors for decades.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 07-09 Michael Shirvis/Adam Peterson, 54 Boston Post Road, variance to construct shed.
Michael Shirvis and Adam Peterson were present to explain their application. Chairman Stutts noted that variances are required of the following Sections: 8.9.3, no additions on a nonconforming lot; 7.4, setbacks, no building in setbacks; 7.4.4, accessory buildings not to exceed 200 square feet may extend into setback area by ½ of required setback or 17.5’ required, with 7’ proposed for a variance of 10.5 feet. She noted that the hardship provided is the triangular shape of the lot and 17.5 feet from the side line would position the shed in the center of the property.
Mr. Shirvis stated that the existing house is directly on the property line and they offset the shed a little more from the property line. He explained that they are cleaning up the rear yard. Chairman Stutts stated that it would make the lot appear wider to have the shed in the middle of the property. She noted that the current placement of the shed accentuates the long, thin lot. Mr. Peterson stated that the front door is 30 feet from the road and there is a lot of traffic on Route 1. He explained that they use the rear area as their only yard and placing the shed in the middle would cut down the already small yard area drastically. Mr. Peterson stated that placing the shed in the middle would also put it near or on the septic system. Mr. Schellens asked the applicant to
show the septic system on the site plan.
Mr. Schellens explained that the Board has to consider this application as if the shed does not exist and must consider why the shed cannot be located in a conforming location. He noted that an allowance is already given in the Regulation to allow this size shed to meet half the required setback of 35’ and the applicant must explain their hardship as to why it should be even less. Mr. Shirvis explained that the shed, in its current location, is hidden by the house and if moved to the middle of the property it would be visible from the Boston Post Road. He indicated that the neighbors abutting the shed have no problem with the location of it and have submitted letters in that regard. He noted that Mr. Cook has indicated that the shed actually helps block his view of Route 1.
Mr. Kotzan questioned the need for the shed. Mr. Shirvis indicated that they do not have a basement, only a crawl space and they do not have a garage. He noted that this shed is their only storage. Mr. Shirvis noted that they also do not have attic space.
Mr. Moll stated that one neighbor indicated that the applicants have done a great deal of work on the property. He questioned whether permits were received to do the work referenced by the neighbor. Mr. Shirvis replied that the work was cosmetic and did not require building permits.
Mr. Moll noted that the applicant did not supply information on his septic system and well or the neighbors. He indicated that this information should have been submitted as part of the application.
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 07-11 Kevin J. McMahon, 59 Grassy Hill Road, variance to construct two-car garage.
Kevin McMahon was present to explain his application. He indicated that his plan was denied by the Zoning Enforcement Officer because the lot is nonconforming as to the square and that the Sanitarian has approved his project. Mr. McMahon stated that he was also before the Inland Wetlands Commission and has a revised garage size to meet with that Commission’s specifications. He noted that Ms. Brown required an A-2 Survey which he has submitted.
Chairman Stutts stated that the application calls for a garage of 24’ x 30’ x 18’. Mr. McMahon indicated that the 24’ x 30’ is the reduced garage size; originally it was to have been 24’ x 40’. Chairman Stutts stated that a variance is required of Section 8.9.3, no building shall be enlarged on a nonconforming. She noted that the hardship provided was the lack of storage due to the fact that the converted barn has no attic or basement for storage.
Chairman Stutts noted that the property is 22,215 square feet in an R-20 Zone. She noted that the only variance required is for the lack of the required square. Mr. St. Germain noted that the shed is only 9’8” from the side property line. Mr. McMahon explained that he measured and installed the shed himself and he thought it was 10’ but the A-2 Survey shows the shed 9’8” from the property line. He explained that the shed will eventually be removed when he constructs the garage, but in the meantime he plans to drag the shed 4 inches so that it complies.
Chairman Stutts indicated that they may put a condition on the approval that the garage cannot have any living quarters. Mr. McMahon stated that he is hoping to have cold water in the garage, but no bathroom facilities.
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 4: Public Hearing Case 07-12 Irene Hickey, 43 White Sands Beach Road, variance to construct first floor bathroom addition.
Steve Parody, contractor for the applicant, was present to represent Irene Hickey. Chairman Stutts noted that the application requests a 6’ x 8’ bathroom addition to the first floor and to incorporate existing finished enclosed porches into living area of the house. She noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1, no nonconforming structure to be enlarged; 8.9.3, no building on a nonconforming lot shall be enlarged; 7.4, setbacks; and 21.3.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 required, 29.8 existing, 30.9 proposed. She noted that the hardship provided is that the applicant would like a bathroom on the first floor.
Mr. Parody stated that he submitted floor plans of both the existing and proposed floor plan for the first and second floors. He explained that there was a bathroom on the first floor on the left hand side. Mr. Parody explained that the bathroom was very small and contained a 30” shower stall; he noted that one would have to sidestep the toilet in order to get to it. He stated that the homeowner is almost 80 years old and she needs a more handicap accessible bathroom with a larger 3’ x 5’ shower/tub with a bench seat. Mr. Parody stated that the bathroom was moved to the right hand side of the house and has been enlarged. He noted that the new bathroom is 6’ x 8’.
Mr. Parody stated that they had to reduce the size of the back lounge area to increase the size of the bathroom and for that reason they would like to expand the small area of the footprint to square out the house and return that lost space. Chairman Stutts stated that the back lounge area is really a porch. Mr. Parody stated that it was a sitting area because there was an enlarged opening. He explained that the applicant would like to take the 10’x 12’ storage room shown on the right side of the first floor and convert that to a bedroom because the stairs are becoming difficult. Mr. Parody stated that because this room does not have a closet they will need to take more interior room space to accommodate a closet. He explained that the assessor’s card indicates that the
house is three bedrooms. Mr. Parody explained that the one small room upstairs is used for an office and storage.
Chairman Stutts stated that the application would have read more adequately if they had requested adding a bedroom to the first floor. She noted that the house had a first floor bath but did not have a bedroom. Mr. St. Germain stated that there are two storage rooms shown on the floor plans and two bedrooms. He noted that the assessor’s card states that there are three bedrooms. Mr. St. Germain stated that he would assume that the assessor is counting the storage area on the second floor as a bedroom.
Mr. Parody stated that the addition on the first floor does not violate the setbacks. Mr. Kotzan stated that there was reference to converting enclosed porches to living space. He questioned what space they are referring to. Chairman Stutts stated that the enclosed porches have been converted to living area which is probably why the floor area ratio already exceeds the 25 percent allowed. Mr. Kotzan asked when the porches were enclosed. Mr. Parody noted that the enclosed porches were incorporated into the living space years ago.
Chairman Stutts noted that the storage room on the first floor is 10’ x 12’ which is larger than two of the existing bedrooms on the second floor. She noted that it could be converted to a bedroom without increasing the footprint of the structure. Mr. Parody noted that the upstairs rooms already have closets.
Mr. St. Germain questioned whether the applicant would be willing to give up the shed to remove that coverage if the proposal were approved. Chairman Stutts noted that the lot coverage would not be exceeded with the addition; it is the floor area ratio that has been exceeded.
Mr. Kotzan stated that it may be that this lot is already overbuilt and it is hard to see a justification to expand the floor area beyond what is already in excess. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the enclosed porches have already been converted to living space. Mr. Schellens explained that the hardship has to be to the land, not the homeowners, because the variance goes with the land. He explained that it appears that this use is already too intense for the property.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the applicant is expanding the old 4’ x 8’ bathroom to be 7’ x 8’. Mr. Parody replied that he did. Mr. Moll noted that they took a 3’ x 8’ part of the lounge area and converted it to a bathroom. He explained that for that 3’ x 8’ part of the lounge the applicant is looking for a 6’ x 8’ addition to square off the house and make up for the 3’ x 8’ portion converted to a larger bathroom.
Mr. St. Germain stated that it appears that the tax records show that the house has 3 bedrooms on the second floor and one on the first floor.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further questions, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
The Board agreed to take the items out of order because some of the applicants have left and some have remained to hear the voting session.
Case 07-09 Michael Shirvis/Adam Peterson, 54 Boston Post Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that a variance is required because the property lacks the required area and square for the zone and because the already constructed shed is in the side setback. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the lot is triangular and a 17.5’ setback would put the shed in the middle of the back yard. She noted that the abutting property owners have no objection to the placement of the shed. Chairman Stutts stated that the septic system has not been noted on the plan so it is difficult to consider this part of the hardship.
Chairman Stutts stated that she thinks the shed would look better in the middle of the back yard. Mr. Moll stated that the neighboring wells and septic systems have not been indicated on a plan, which is a required part of the application. He explained that he is concerned with the storage of gasoline and other chemicals without knowledge of the location of the neighboring wells. Chairman Stutts noted that one can assume that any garage or shed would have gasoline storage. Mr. Kotzan stated that he feels the shed is an improvement on the property that has no other storage, i.e., basement, garage or attic.
Mr. Schellens stated that he lot is irregularly shaped and it is nice for the applicants to look out their window and see the woods instead of a shed in the middle of the yard. He noted that the surrounding homes all have outbuildings right up to the property line as well. Mr. Schellens stated that he thinks the location mirrors all the surrounding properties. Mr. Moll indicated that he does not have a problem with the location of the shed; his only concern is the proximity to other wells. He indicated that perhaps a condition of approval could be applied to ensure that the building has been located in accordance with the setbacks required for septic systems and wells.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a shed, 54 Boston Post Road, Michael Shirvis/Adam Peterson, applicants, as per the approved plans and with the condition that the location be approved by the Sanitarian as far as location in relationship to wells and septic systems on this property and the two adjacent properties. Motion carried 4:1, with Chairman Stutts voting against.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. House lacks a basement, attic and garage necessary for storage.
Case 07-11 Kevin J. McMahon, 59 Grassy Hill Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She explained that the only variance required is to Section 8.9.3, no additions on a nonconforming lot. Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal is to add a two-car garage. She explained that the property is located in an R-20 Zone and contains 22,215 square feet of property. She noted that the lot lacks the required square but has adequate area.
Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the house is a converted barn with no attic or basement storage space. She noted that the Wetlands Commission has approved the site plan for the garage. Chairman Stutts indicated that she would like a condition that the garage contain no living quarters and that the existing shed be removed when the garage is constructed. Mr. Kotzan stated that the new construction meets all setbacks and he thinks a garage would be a reasonable use on this property.
Mr. Schellens stated that there is no coverage issue and no reason to require that the existing shed be removed. He indicated that they could ask the applicant to move the shed to a conforming location. Mr. Kotzan stated that the intent of the minimum square regulation is not being violated by the addition of this garage.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a two-car garage, as per the approved plans and with the conditions that the existing shed be relocated to a conforming location or removed and the garage contain no living quarters.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 07-12 Irene Hickey, 43 White Sands Beach Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the request is to add a first floor bathroom and coordinate existing finished enclosed porches into living area of the house. Chairman Stutts stated that the property is 4,560 square feet in an R-10 Zone. She explained that the shed is in violation of the rear setback and both the house and shed are in violation of the side setback. Chairman Stutts stated that the floor area ratio is currently 29.8 percent and propose to increase this to 30.9 percent where 25 percent is allowed. She explained that the hardship provided is medical in that the applicant needs a bathroom on the first floor. Chairman Stutts pointed out that this is confusing because the house already contained a bathroom on the first floor which has already been
relocated and enlarged within the existing footprint of the house.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant’s representative further explained that the applicant would like to put their bedroom on the first floor. Mr. St. Germain noted that the assessor’s card lists 3 bedrooms up and 1 on the first floor. He noted that the bedroom on the first floor is probably what is labeled a 10’ x 12’ storage area. Mr. St. Germain stated that it appears odd that there is a 10’ x 12’ storage area on the first floor of a small summer cottage. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the front porch and rear porch have already been incorporated into living space. She indicated that the lot is less than half that required in the R-10 zone. Chairman Stutts pointed out that there appears to be enough room on the first floor to incorporate a
bedroom and meet the homeowner’s current needs without requiring a variance.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the 10’ x 12’ storage area could become a bedroom and closet space could be added on the other side of the wall toward the living room. He noted that in that way it would not decrease the size of the bedroom. Mr. Kotzan noted that the living room is a good size, 20’ x 21’. Chairman Stutts agreed and noted that using some of this space for a closet would not infringe on the existing living space.
Mr. Kotzan stated that there does not appear to be a good reason to allow the applicants to further increase an already excessive floor area ratio. Mr. Schellens agreed and noted that there is 832 square feet on the first floor plus the area on the second floor. He noted that he feels there is enough floor area for the applicants to work out a first floor bedroom.
Mr. Moll indicated that the Board has to look at the land, not the applicants. He indicated that as small as the proposal is, it is not easy. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant does have other options within the existing footprint.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a first floor bathroom addition as per the plans submitted. Motion did not carry 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Floor area has already been increased by incorporating front and rear porches.
2. Floor area ratio is currently excessive.
3. Bathroom has already been expanded within the footprint.
4. First floor could be reconfigured to incorporate first floor bedroom.
5. Adequate hardship not provided.
Case 07-10 Murray Wilmerding, 6 Old Shore Road, Appeal
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that this appeal is of the Zoning Officer’s denial of Zoning Compliance Permit Application 06-405 regarding use of existing outbuilding. Chairman Stutts stated that a lot of information was supplied this evening by the applicant, but it seems to her a lot of information is lacking. She proposed that the Board vote on the appeal with the information that Ms. Brown acted upon and base the vote on whether or not her decision was correct.
Chairman Stutts stated that Mr. Wilmerding was asking for a kitchen in the accessory building which is not allowed; he proposed to make the accessory building 2,400 square feet and Ms. Brown indicated that only 864 square feet could be living space. Chairman Stutts stated that Ms. Brown peered through windows in doing her inspection and could not determine that the structure had a kitchen.
Mr. St. Germain stated that the Board has received information this evening that they have not had the opportunity to review. He indicated that the Board agreed it would not act on applications when the information is submitted the night of the hearing. Chairman Stutts noted that Ms. Brown indicated that the Board should consider new information presented by the applicant. Mr. Schellens stated that he believes the Wilmerding’s have used this structure for overflow guests/a bunkhouse as long as they’ve owned the property. He indicated that there was no evidence provided by the applicant as to what the square footage of that sleeping area was. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant also did not present evidence of a kitchen. He indicated that the more appropriate route for
the applicant may be to apply for a variance. Chairman Stutts pointed out that the proposed use is really not the same as a bunkhouse. Mr. Kotzan agreed that what the building has been historically and what they’re proposing is the difference between an accessory outbuilding and an apartment.
Mr. Moll requested that the letter dated March 13, 2007 from Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer be marked Exhibit A. He indicated that the letter Ms. Brown referenced dated March 8, 2006, will be marked Exhibit B.
A motion was made by Richard Moll and seconded by Kip Kotzan to uphold the Zoning Enforcement Officer in her denial of Zoning Compliance Permit Application #06-405 regarding use of existing outbuilding.
The Board discussed whether they should consider the information presented by the applicant this evening. Mr. Kotzan explained that an appeal is different than a variance application in what is required. He reminded the Board that Ms. Brown indicated that they should consider testimony and any information submitted by the applicant. Mr. Kotzan suggested continuing the voting session if the Board felt they needed to review the information further.
The letter dated March 13, 2007 from Murray Wilmerding was marked Exhibit C.
Mr. Kotzan stated that it is his clear understanding that Ms. Brown told the Board to consider the new information submitted, not just the information Ms. Brown had when making her decision. Mr. Kotzan stated that not considering the information presented would be an abortion of due process.
Mr. Kotzan noted that there have been statements made by the Board Members in deliberations that it was not shown that a kitchen existed and it was not shown what square footage of the building was used as a bunkhouse. He explained that for these reasons alone the Board could uphold Ms. Brown’s decision. Mr. Kotzan indicated that the Board would be considering this evening’s testimony in making this decision. Mr. Schellens agreed that there was no testimony presented that established that a kitchen existed or how much square footage was used for a bunkhouse.
Motion carried unanimously.
Reasons:
1. After considering the historic evidence from the applicant, the Board felt that the ZEO had made the proper decision that there was not enough evidence to turn 2,400 square feet into a guesthouse.
ITEM 6: Any New or Old Business
Chairman Stutts noted that the Miami Beach group that was present at the March 6, 2007 Special Meeting sent a letter and photographs to both the Zoning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. She indicated that she would distribute copies of this letter to the Board members. Chairman Stutts stated that she would like to send a letter to the Zoning Commission with the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendations for the Zoning Regulation rewrite. The Board agreed that Chairman Stutts’ letter should be sent.
ITEM 7: Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
