APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, July 10, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Church of Christ the King Parish Center. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), June Speirs, Kip Kotzan and Joseph St. Germain (Alternate – seated for Richard Moll).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. She explained to the applicants that because there are only four members present this evening all votes must be unanimous in order to pass. Chairman Stutts stated that each applicant can choose to have their hearing this evening or continue it to the September Regular Meeting.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 07-21 Roderick Clingman, 46 Four Mile River Road, variance to construct a first floor addition and chimney.
Mr. Flower was present to represent the applicant. He requested that the Public Hearing be tabled until later in the evening, as Mr. Clingman was not present.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 07-22 Matt Abrams, 11 Lady Slipper, variance to construct a 10’ x 14’ shed on a nonconforming lot.
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with Section 8.9.3, no building on a nonconforming lot. She noted that the lot size 67,518 square feet in an RU-80 Zone that requires 80,000 square feet. She noted that there are no existing nonconformities on the lot.
Mr. Abrams submitted an architectural drawing for the record. He indicated that his hardship is the need for storage Chairman Stutts noted that the proposed shed would not be visible from the neighbor’s home. Mr. Abrams agreed that it would not be visible to his neighbors. He indicated that his neighbors are in favor of the proposal. Mr. Abrams noted that he does not have enough room in his garage for storage of garden equipment.
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 1: Public Hearing Case 07-21 Roderick Clingman, 46 Four Mile River Road, variance to construct a first floor addition and chimney.
Roderick Clingman and Jeff Flower, architect, were present to represent the applicant. Chairman Stutts noted that the existing nonconformities are: Section 7.6, minimum floor area, 1200 minimum required for a two-story house, 825 square feet provided; 21.3.1 minimum lot area, 40,000 square feet required, 8,712 square feet provided; 21.3.2, minimum lot area per dwelling; 21.3.7 minimum setback from street, 50’ required, 3’ provided from the house, 2’ provided from the barn; 21.3.9, minimum setback from other property line, 35’ required, 23.5’ provided; and 21.3.11, maximum lot coverage, 10% allowed, 15.6% existing. She indicated that the proposal does not comply with Section 8.8.1, no nonconforming structure shall be enlarged; 8.9.3, no building can be enlarged on a
nonconforming lot; 21.3.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings, 10 percent allowed, existing is 15.6 percent and proposed is 18 percent for a variance of 8 percent; 21.3.7, minimum setback from street, 50’ required, proposed 8’, for a variance of 41’; 21.3.9, minimum other setback, 23.5’ existing, proposed 9.5’, for a variance of 25.5’.
Mr. Flower stated that there is no conforming place on the lot to put an addition. He explained the floor plan changes. Mr. Flower stated that the hardship is that all the neighboring lots are nonconforming and he cannot purchase additional land.
Mr. Flower noted that the addition will have a full foundation. He explained the topography of the lot and the reasoning for the location of the addition.
No one present spoke in opposition. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 07-23 Edward D. Ingraham, Jr., 22 West End Drive, appeal of ZEO Cease and Desist Order dated June 1, 2007, for installing an exterior door on the second floor and constructing a staircase.
Lois Ingraham explained that after their first attempt to receive a variance failed, they thought about other ways to obtain the exterior staircase. She explained that they made/needed the interior staircase wider. Ms. Ingraham stated the interior of the second floor was destroyed because of a leaky roof, so they had a new roof put on the structure. She indicated that they applied for a permit for a roof, vinyl siding, electrical work, etc. Mr. Ingraham indicated that he is representing his father, also named Edward, because he is 90 years old and not able to be present. He explained that they do not have any exterior exit from the second floor. Mr. Ingraham stated that if they cannot access the second floor, the cottage is useless to them. He explained that the interior staircase
is only 24 inches wide.
Mr. Ingraham stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals indicated at their last variance hearing that they should try to relocate the stairway in the original footprint. Chairman Stutts indicated that that is not what they’ve done, which is why they are here this evening. Dave Palmer, builder, stated that they moved the staircase around to the outside and installed a new inside staircase. He explained that they applied for a variance for an exterior staircase and were denied. Mr. Palmer indicated that the interior staircase was too narrow for furniture to be brought in and out and they had to remove walls to get the damaged furniture out. He noted that they put in a front landing that projects 10 inches past the existing concrete stairs. Mr. Palmer stated that he took pictures of
surrounding properties and noted that there are 9 houses in the neighborhood that have exactly the same situation. Mr. Palmer stated that the project is in conformance with the neighborhood. He indicated that the hardship is Zoning. Chairman Stutts explained that they are not dealing with a variance today, they are dealing with a Cease and Desist Order because they took matters into their own hands and made an addition without permits.
Mr. Palmer stated that he deals with other Towns in Connecticut and other Towns do not take landings into consideration with side lines or front lines. He indicated that it is an exit from the house, not a deck. Mr. St. Germain questioned whether the elder Mr. Ingraham lives upstairs. Mr. Ingraham replied that he does.
Mr. Palmer noted that the Fire Marshall inspected the property and indicated that the only way out would be to jump out a window. Chairman Stutts stated that the Board is not here this evening to grant a variance. She indicated that the matter is the Cease and Desist Order.
Mr. Palmer explained the location of the stairs constructed versus the location of the proposed stairs in the prior variance application. Chairman Stutts pointed out once again that this not a variance application. She noted that the applicant began this project without a permit and questioned how they knew it met building code. Mr. Ingraham indicated that he’s gotten most of his permits.
Ann Brown, Zoning and Wetlands Enforcement Officer, stated that she received a telephone complaint indicating that stairs were being constructed at this cottage. She indicated that she then visited the property and took the photographs that she has submitted for the record. Ms. Brown stated that the photographs show a new door on the front of the cottage on the left hand side and a landing with steps down. She stated that a Zoning Permit was not applied for, nor approved for this work. Ms. Brown stated that there was a Zoning Permit issued for the interior work, drywall, electrical, plumbing, siding. She noted that there is no permit for roofing. Ms. Brown noted that the variance was denied for the proposed exterior staircase and there was never any Zoning Permit applied for for the
reconstructing the staircase or the landing and steps outside. She noted that after she visited the property she sent a Cease and Desist Order to the owner because they worked beyond the scope of the permit issued and seemingly a slap in the face to the Zoning Board of Appeals which had specifically denied a variance for outside stairs. Ms. Brown introduced her attorney, Eric Knapp.
Attorney Knapp stated that many permits were applied for, except this particular project. He explained that the work has been done and there is now additional coverage on the property in violation of the regulations and the arguments presented this evening are not arguments that go to whether the regulations have been met but rather they are an argument for a varaince. Attorney Knapp stated that there has been expansion on a lot that is nonconforming and all this work was done without the benefit of a Zoning Permit. He indicated that the question for the Board is was the work applied for, were permits granted and is it in conformance with the Zoning Regulations. Attorney Knapp indicated that the answers to all those questions is no and he respectfully requested that Ms. Brown’s Cease and
Desist Order be upheld.
Ms. Ingraham stated that they were very confused as to what they were supposed to do after the ZBA denial so she called Mr. Griswold and asked him if he would not mind mediating a meeting between Ann Brown and herself to figure out what needed to be done. She noted that she requested this four times and the last time he told her that he could not get a hold of her. Ms. Ingraham stated that he then spoke with Ms. Bartlett and never got back to her on the content of that meeting. She explained that they have attempted to resolve the problem but there has been no response.
Mr. Ingraham stated that he owns the cottage in front of this house and questioned whether he could transfer some land to this property. Chairman Stutts stated that it would not be possible because that too is a nonconforming lot. Mr. Kotzan stated that this is a very small lot with excessive coverage.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Open Voting Session
Case 07-21 Roderick Clingman, 46 Four Mile River Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the property is a year round home in an R-40 Zone. Chairman Stutts noted that the existing coverage is 15 percent and the proposed is 17.6 percent, where 10 percent coverage is allowed. She stated that there was a prior appeal for a reconfiguration of the second floor. Chairman Stutts noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1; 8.9.3, a coverage variance of 8 percent; street setback 42’ variance; and side setback variance of 25’. She noted that the house was constructed in 1945 and the barn was constructed in 1830. Chairman Stutts stated that the barn takes up quite a bit of the lot. She noted that the present structure is only 825 square feet and Section 7.6 requires 1,200 square feet for a two
story home. Chairman Stutts noted that with the addition there will be 990 square feet, which will bring the home more into conformity with Section 7.6. Chairman Stutts noted that the basement under the proposed addition will house the heating system which is currently in a closet.
Mr. Kotzan stated that it is a difficult lot because it is small but noted that there is a lot of open space around it. He noted that it is a very small house and the addition will make it less nonconforming with Section 7.6. Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposal is modest. Ms. Speirs noted that the owner purchased the property in 2002 and knew what they were purchasing. Mr. Kotzan agreed but noted that the proposal does lessen a nonconformity.
Chairman Stutts noted that the property is over the allowed coverage. She pointed out that it gives a different feeling when the property is covered with a large old barn rather than a large house. She indicated that she feels it would be a shame to see them take the barn down in exchange for a little more house. Ms. Speirs suggested limiting the use of the barn as a condition of approval.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the coverage regulation exists to prevent a crowded feeling in a neighborhood and the layout of this lot with the surrounding properties that cannot be used, it does not do any harm. Chairman Stutts agreed and noted that it would be a much more valuable property, yet still small.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by June Speirs and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a first floor addition and chimney as per the approved plans, 46 Four Mile River Road, Roderick Clingman, applicant, and with the condition that the barn not be used as living space.
Reasons:
1. Reduces the nonconformity as to minimum square footage of a two-story home.
2. Variance was previously granted for the chimney.
3. Land is buffered by Conservation Easement.
Case 07-22 Matt Abrams, 11 Lady Slipper
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that a variance is requested to construct a 10’ x 14’ square foot shed on a nonconforming lot. Chairman Stutts stated that the property is located in an RU-80 Zone and contains only 57,520 square feet. She noted that the shed will be located in the rear of the property nestled in the trees and will not impact the neighborhood. Chairman Stutts stated that many of the surrounding homes have sheds.
Mr. Kotzan stated that a shed is a reasonable use on a property and the only regulation being varied is the lot size. He noted that a 57,525 square foot lot is a rather large lot and if the shed were only 4’ smaller a variance would not even be required.
A motion was made by Joseph St. Germain, seconded by and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a 10’ x 14’ shed as per the approved plans, 11 Lady Slipper, Matt Abrams, applicant.
Reasons:
1. Lot slightly undersized for the neighborhood.
2. Shed meets all required setbacks.
3. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 07-23 Edward D. Ingraham, Jr., 22 West End Drive
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. Chairman Stutts noted that the applicants have appealed Ms. Brown’s Cease and Desist Order issued for the construction of a second floor exterior door and stairway, dated June 1, 2007. She stated that the question is whether an application was made, granted, and could a permit have been granted if it were applied for.
Mr. St. Germain noted that a permit was not applied for and a permit was not granted. Mr. Kotzan stated that had the Ingraham’s applied for a permit it would not have been granted because of the increase of coverage. He noted that for these reasons Ms. Brown couldn’t have done anything but issue a Cease and Desist Order.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Joe St. Germain and voted unanimously to uphold the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer in her issuance of a Cease and Desist Order for the construction of a second floor exterior door and stairway, 22 West End Drive.
Reasons:
1. No evidence was presented by the applicant showing that any permits were applied for or approved.
2. No evidence was provided that Ms. Brown acted in error in her issuance of the Cease and Desist Order dated June 1, 2007.
3. Similar project was denied a variance and the applicants went ahead and constructed without permits.
ITEM 5: Minutes
A motion was made by Joe St. Germain, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2007 Regular Meetings as corrected.
A motion was made by Joe St. Germain, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2007 Regular Meeting as corrected.
ITEM 6: Any New or Old Business
None.
ITEM 7: Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by June Speirs. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
