APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, September 11, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, September 11, 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, Richard Moll, Joseph St. Germain (Alternate – seated for Tom Schellens), and Judy McQuade (Alternate).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 07-24 David & Kathleen Collins, 6 Katherine Drive, variance to construct a sunroom over existing deck within 50’ of the tidal wetlands.
Chairman Stutts opened the Public Hearing for this item, and noted that the Public Hearing is continued to the October 9, 2007 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 07-25 Gregory & Linda McKenna, 58 Sea View Road, Appeal of Cease and Desist Order dated June 26, 2007, for construction of patio structures more than 1 foot off grade and finishing living space in the basement level.
Chairman Stutts opened the Public Hearing for this item, and noted that the Public Hearing is continued to the October 9, 2007 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 07-26 Dominick & Carmenza Melillo, 49 Jericho Drive, variance to construct a sunroom in the rear setback.
Geri Deveaux and Dominick and Carmenza Melillo were present to explain their application. Ms. Deveaux indicated that they are requesting a variance of Section 7.4, which is the setback requirement that no building shall extend into a setback. She stated that the variance is needed to allow a proposed sunroom and a new landing and deck area to extend into the rear setback. Ms. Deveaux noted that a variance is needed of Section 8.8.1, no building which does not conform to the zoning regulations shall be enlarged; and Section 21.3.8, minimum setback from a rear property line is 35 feet and the specific variance requested is 10 feet for the sunroom and a 14’ variance for the landing and deck area. She noted that the existing garage is 19’ from the rear property line.
Ms. Deveaux noted that the property is located in the Jericho Hill Subdivision. She noted that the address is 49 Jericho Drive and indicated that it is on the cul-de-sac. Ms. Deveaux showed the site plan and noted the location of the existing house in relation to the rear property line. She noted that they would like to enlarge the existing sunroom. Ms. Deveaux explained the photographs submitted for the record. Ms. Deveaux explained the current floor plan and noted that the bedrooms are in the front of the house and the living room, kitchen, dining and existing sunroom are in the rear of the house. She stated that the existing sunroom is 8’1” x 12’9”. She explained that the existing sunroom needs repair and the applicants are proposing a new sunroom in the
same location, only a little larger (12’ x 16’).
Ms. Deveaux stated that the Melillo’s situation is unique in that the existing house was built toward the rear of the lot, with some of it in a nonconforming area. She pointed out that the proposed sunroom will not project any closer to the property line than the existing garage corner. Ms. Deveaux stated that zoning would allow the sunroom on the side, but noted that it is impractical because of the way the house is laid out. She noted too that the current sunroom is on the south side of the house and is near the kitchen and dining rooms. Ms. Deveaux stated that using the location of the existing sunroom provides the least impact on the property relative to the neighbors.
Ms. Deveaux stated that they propose to rebuild the existing concrete step and the patio. She noted that there will be a little better landing with one step down. She stated that this needs to be addressed because it is more than 18” off the ground and is considered a deck. Ms. Deveaux stated that the landing will be 3’ wide. She noted that the proposed sunroom will be 16’ high. Ms. Deveaux stated that the current coverage is 3.3 percent and with the proposed addition, the coverage will be 3.5 percent; she noted that 30 percent coverage is the maximum allowed.
Ms. Deveaux noted that if the proposed sunroom was constructed on the side of the house, it would be directly off the living room. She noted that there would also be a conflict with the location of the chimney in that location.
Mr. Moll stated that the photographs were very informative.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this public hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 07-27 Steven Scanlon, 66 Browns Lane, variance to enlarge deck in front setback.
Steven Scanlon was present to explain his application. Chairman Stutts explained that the proposal is to add a 9’ x 14’ section to the existing deck. She read the existing
nonconformities on the property and noted that a variance is required of Section 8.8.1, 7.4 and 21.3.7, 50’ minimum street setback, 40’ proposed for a variance of 10’.
Mr. Scanlon stated that he wants to add a 9’ x 14’ section of decking to connect the existing deck to the house. He indicated that currently they have to walk out the kitchen door, down a staircase, and then up another staircase to the deck. Mr. Scanlon stated that if this section of decking were added, he could walk directly out onto the deck. He indicated that his elderly father cannot use his deck because he cannot get up and down the stairs. Mr. St. Germain questioned when the existing deck was constructed. Mr. Scanlon replied that he began construction last year and finished it this past summer.
Mr. Scanlon indicated that he would not be putting lattice work around the bottom of the deck because the oil man needs access for deliveries.
Dave Hamilton, 63 Browns Lane, indicated that he lives directly across the street and is in favor of the application.
Stephanie Morton, 64 Browns Lane, indicated that she lives directly next door to the north and is in favor of the proposal.
Dawn Hamilton, 63 Browns Lane, indicated that she is in favor of the proposal.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this public hearing to a close.
ITEM 5: Public Hearing Case 07-28 Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC, 2 Bank Road, variance to construct a second floor.
Attorney Eugene Cushman, Tony Hendriks, and Mr. Asselin were present to explain the proposal. Also in attendance were Judy Asselin, Christine Vieceli and John Vieceli, owners.
Chairman Stutts read the list of existing nonconformities. She noted that a variance is requested of Sections 8.8.1, no nonconforming building to be enlarged unless the enlarged portion is conforming; 8.7.1, no nonconforming use shall be enlarged; 22.3.9, minimum setback from other property line, 20’ required, 19’ proposed for a variance of 1’; and 7.4.7, no structure to extend within 50’ of the mean high water.
Attorney Cushman stated that the last two variances are needed because the existing structure is already in place. He noted that the proposal is not to put up a new structure but to add a second story to the existing house. Attorney Cushman stated that the proposal is to move the property line and thereby reduce the existing nonconformity of 6’ to 19’. He stated that the house was constructed in the early 1960’s, well before zoning. Attorney Cushman pointed out the existing cemetery and noted that both the cemetery and the river are restricting the use of the property.
Attorney Cushman stated that the proposal is to add a second story on the existing structure and a deck. He noted that the house is 48’ from mean high-water. Attorney Cushman pointed out the location of the new septic and noted that they will also be adding parking. He noted that the house has always been used residentially, as have the homes around it. Attorney Cushman stated that there will be no change in the use.
Tony Hendriks stated that the proposed septic system was reviewed and approved by the Old Lyme Sanitarian and test holes were witnessed. He noted that there are excellent conditions for a leaching system. Mr. Hendriks stated that the existing system is substandard and much closer to the tidal wetland line.
Attorney Cushman stated that the existing nonconformities are being reduced by moving the property line over and case law is clear that if the proposal lessens a nonconformity then that can take the place of a hardship. He noted that the configuration of the land creates a hardship because of the cemetery and the wetlands.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there are any buildings on the property that service the marina as their primary use. Attorney Cushman stated that the garage is primarily used for the marina. He stated that the subject house is used by the owners when they come down on weekends. Attorney Cushman stated that the other house is a rental house. Attorney Cushman stated that the proposal will provide the owners with more space in the house and that space will be higher and above any possible flooding. He noted that the variances are small and do not damage anyone in the neighborhood or hurt the health or welfare of the Town.
Chairman Stutts noted that the application indicates that the proposed structure will be 35 feet tall and the plans indicate 30 feet in height. Mr. Hendriks stated that the maximum height allowed in Old Lyme is 35’ or 2.5 stories. He explained that based upon the architectural drawings, the average height is 30’, based upon the height at the four corners of the structure.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether anyone’s views would be impacted by the proposal. Attorney Cushman replied that there would not be. He noted that the volume of traffic will not change either. Mr. Hendriks stated that if the structure were to be used as a WF-20 zone commercial use, the traffic and impact would be much greater than the residential use.
Attorney Cushman stated that if the property line could be moved one more foot, the proposal would be conforming and could be done by right. Ms. McQuade questioned whether the applicant has been to the Planning Commission for the lot line modification. Attorney Cushman stated that they came to the ZBA first because if this is not approved they will not be moving the lot line.
Mr. Moll stated that the file requires a deed, and the deed says “transacts office and place of businesses at #2 and #4 Bank Road.” He indicated that he does not see a deed transacting a residential use. Attorney Cushman explained that the deed is a standard form CT quick-claim deed and noted that a deed does not convey use, it conveys land. He noted that any LLC or corporation, a place of businesses is indicated on the deed, which is the case here.
Mr. Hendriks stated that the Town took a very small area and created the WF-20 district within an R-20 district, strictly because of the marina. He noted that the Zoning Commission’s actions made these residential homes nonconforming because of the waterfront access regulations that the State of CT was promoting at that particular time.
Mr. Hendriks noted the flood elevation line on the plan and noted that the house and the leaching system, for the most part, are outside the flood line.
Chairman Stutts stated that earlier Attorney Cushman stated that if the property had one more foot of land, they could do the work by right. Attorney Cushman clarified his statement to indicate that they need one more foot of land and the house would have to be 2 feet farther back from the tidal wetland. Chairman Stutts noted that a variance would still be required for the use. Attorney Cushman acknowledged this.
Mr. Kotzan indicated that it may be a good thing to grant this variance so that the residential use may be preserved. Chairman Stutts pointed out that it is a WF-20 zone because the Town wanted water dependent uses here.
Mr. Moll questioned the requirements because the structure is located in the flood zone. Mr. Hendriks stated that improvements of more than 50 percent of the value of the home cannot be made without bringing the home into compliance with the flood regulations. Mr. Moll questions whether more than 50 percent of the value of the structure was being put into this home. Mr. Hendriks replied that they are not. Ms. McQuade questioned this. Mr. Hendriks stated that there was an appraisal done on the house and the architect provided documentation as to how much the second story would cost and it is less than 50 percent of the house. Ms. McQuade questioned whether work was being performed on the bottom. Mr. Hendriks stated that this information was provided as part of the record.
Attorney Cushman stated that the homeowners will be doing much of the work themselves which will keep the cost down.
Judy Asselin, owner, indicated that she is in favor of the application, as did Christine Vieceli and John Vieceli, owners.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this public hearing to a close.
ITEM 6: Public Hearing Case 07-29 David & Deborah McCusker, 2 Sea View Road, variance to increase roof height and widen dormer in the setback.
Jeff Flower, architect, was present to explain the application. Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities. She noted that variances are required of Section 8.8.1,
nonconforming building cannot be enlarged; 7.4., setback, no structures to extend into the setback; 21.3.9, minimum setback 12’, addition proposed is 4.6’ for a variance of 7.7’.
Mr. Flower indicated that the intent of the proposal is to reconstruct the rear of a cottage that was constructed in the 1930’s. He noted that it was built by the grandparents of the current owners. Mr. Flower stated that they have 13,000 square feet of land so the lot is conforming, but the house was constructed in the side setback. He pointed out the land that was acquired to bring the property to 13,000 square feet. Mr. Flower stated that there is a driveway on the side of the house that is an easement for another piece of land and there is another easement that goes to the association that is used by two other homes as a driveway. He noted that for this reason, they cannot expand in the opposite direction where an addition would be conforming.
Mr. Flower explained the renovation plan. He noted that they will be raising a portion of the roof. Chairman Stutts noted that the shed has a peculiar way of tying in with the rest of the roof. Mr. Flower stated that the floor in the shed area is 1.5’ lower and they would like to put in a proper foundation and raise it. He noted that the limiting factor in doing this is the base of the dormer. Mr. Flower stated that they would like to widen the dormer. He noted that no new space is being created as the dormer area is over the stairs so one can walk up the stairs without ducking.
Mr. Flower stated that they have been advised by the Health Department that they will also need a new septic tank because the existing tank is undersized. He indicated that they will be putting in a 1,000 gallon tank. Mr. Flower stated that the bedrooms will stay the same; they are rearranging the kitchen and bath, i.e., raising them to today’s standards. Chairman Stutts stated that it is a seasonal house and questioned whether it would remain seasonal. Mr. Flower stated that nothing he is doing would make the house other than seasonal. Ms. Speirs questioned whether the house has heat. Mr. Flower replied that they have some heat. He noted that the house is not used in the winter.
Mr. Moll stated that Point O’ Woods established its own WPCA and would like to hook up to sewers. He noted that the septic pump out report indicates that there is a 250 gallon tank and went on to say that the depth from the cover to the top of the contents of the tank was 0 inches. Mr. Moll stated that the report indicates that the next 8 inches was scum and the next 4 inches sludge. He indicated that putting a larger tank into an area that has a lot of stone is not necessarily going to improve the habitability of that area other than the pump outs won’t happen as often. Mr. Moll questioned whether the Health Department approved the septic system. Mr. Flower noted that the tank is very old; basically a cement pot. He indicated that the location of the outlet dictates the 0
inches. Mr. Flower stated that the tank goes out to a field on the side of the house which is probably just a drywell. Mr. Moll questioned the design of the new system. Mr. Flower stated that they are not being required to design a new system as this system has never failed. He indicated that they are upgrading the tank because the State requires a minimum 1,000 gallon tank for a residence. Mr. Moll questioned whether Mr. Flower
was asserting that putting in a 1,000 gallon tank is all that is needed to expand the dwelling, under the Health Code. Mr. Flower indicated that this is his understanding.
Chairman Stutts questioned whether there is a cesspool or a septic system. Mr. Flower indicated that that is not known. He indicated that they believe there is a drywell because that would have been a general way to do it. Mr. Kotzan stated that the renovation is not major or substantial. He noted that they are correcting a problem with the roof and widening the dormer to allow headroom on the staircase.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called the Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 7: Open Voting Session
Case 07-26 Dominick & Carmenza Melillo, 49 Jericho Drive
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She stated that the variance is required to construct a sunroom, 12’ x 16’, in the rear setback. Chairman Stutts stated that a 10’ variance is needed for the sunroom and 14’ for the deck and steps. She indicated that for some reason, the house was constructed toward the rear of the lot and the garage was constructed in the setback. Chairman Stutts noted that they will not be violating the setback any further than the existing garage. She noted that the existing 8’ x 12’ sunroom is in need of repair. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is the placement of the house toward the rear of the lot. She noted that the fireplace would prevent placement of the sunroom further to the west.
Chairman Stutts stated that the property has woods to the rear and there is no visibility from other properties. She noted that it backs up to Conservation property and undeveloped property.
Mr. St. Germain noted that the sunroom could go to the front of the house and be in complete conformity, or on the side. Chairman Stutts stated that the rear of the house is south. She noted that those other two options are the west and north side which isn’t a good place for a sunroom.
Chairman Stutts noted that the neighbors at 47 Jericho sent a letter indicating that they have no objection to the proposal.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he is having a hard time because the one question he always asks himself is whether the work can be done without getting a variance. He noted that there seem to be some potential solutions, although they may be less desirable. Mr. Kotzan stated that on the other hand, there is no impact and the proposal would not violate the intent of the Regulations being varied.
Mr. Moll noted that he finds it unusual that the house, with so much land, was set so far back on the lot.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a sunroom in the rear setback, 49 Jericho Drive, as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. The house and garage were placed at the extreme rear of the lot, with the garage in the rear setback.
2. Replacing original sunroom structure which is in need of repair.
3. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 07-27 Steven Scanlon, 66 Browns Lane
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the applicant would like to connect the house to the existing deck with a 9’ x 14’ area of new decking. Chairman Stutts noted that this deck would be in the front setback, requiring a variance of 10 feet. She noted that this house was constructed 26’ from the road where 50’ is required. She noted that the property is 32,000 square feet in size.
Chairman Stutts stated that the adjacent neighbor and neighbor across the street have indicated that they are in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the impact on this additional piece of deck and how it will impact the street is nonexistent. He indicated that it will be an improvement on the property. The Board agreed that a condition might be that the deck is to be open and not enclosed.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the house was constructed prior to the zoning regulations and this should not prevent him to making improvements to the rear of the house because it violates the front setback.
A motion was made by Joseph St. Germain, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a 9’ x 14’ section of open deck, as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. Entire house is constructed in the setback.
2. Will not impact the neighbors, all of whom were in favor of the proposal
3. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 07-28 Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC, 2 Bank Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the lot line between the two houses will be moved to make the structure on 2 Bank Road less nonconforming.
She stated that there will be 19’ to the property line rather than the 6’ there is currently. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal is an expansion of a nonconforming use; a residential building in a WF-20 zone. She noted that in these improvements, the septic will be moved from the waterfront side of the house to the back of the house.
Mr. Kotzan stated that a grandfathered residential use in a commercial zone does not seem quite as offensive as a grandfathered commercial use in a residential zone. He indicated that the proposal makes the property more upscale and he feels this might be good for the overall health and use of the area. Chairman Stutts stated that she does not see anything wrong with making the property a bona-fide marina, which is what the zone indicates. She noted that in this way the public could use the waterfront opposed to one family having a private house there.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposed house is larger than he would like to see, but noted that it does not block another property’s view. He noted that the proposal does not eliminate the possibility that the property won’t be used commercially in the future.
Mr. Moll indicated that any motion should include a stipulation that whatever improvements are made to the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by June Speirs and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a second floor, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. Lot line modification to be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Cost of improvements shall not exceed 50 percent of the assessed value of the structure.
Reasons:
1. Side setback nonconformity has been lessened.
2. Septic is being relocated away from the water.
3. Proposal will not prohibit commercial use at a later date.
Case 07-29 McCusker, 2 Seaview
Chairman Stutts noted that the variance is being requested to raise the roof two feet and widen the existing dormer. She reviewed the facts of the case. Chairman Stutts noted that the applicant’s recently purchased property to bring their total square footage to 13,133 in an R-10 Zone. She noted that the house was constructed in the early 1900’s near the setback line. Chairman Stutts stated that there is an easement on that same side of the property that acts as a buffer. She noted that the widening of the dormer gives headroom on the stairway and the bedrooms will remain the same. She noted that the septic tank will be increased from 250 to 1,000 gallons as the State requires. Chairman Stutts noted that the dormers are on the rear of the house and face the railroad.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the changes are not substantial. He noted that it’s nice to see a plan like this that improves the property greatly and does not make a lot of changes.
Mr. Moll stated that he has difficulty with the proposal and is concerned about the septic system. He noted that a 1,000 gallon tank can only hold more, but does not solve any problems with the leaching. Chairman Stutts indicated that if bedrooms were being added she would understand his concern and pointed out that they are not adding bedrooms. Mr. Moll questioned whether they had Health Department approval. Chairman Stutts stated that Health originally denied the permit because a deep hole test was required. She indicated that after the deep hole tests were completed, the permit was approved. Mr. Moll stated that he believes differently. Ms. McQuade noted that the work cannot be performed unless Health approval is received.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Joseph St. Germain and voted to grant the necessary variances to allow an increase in roof height and the widening of the dormer in the setback, as per the plans submitted. So moved, 4:0:1, with Mr. Moll abstaining.
Mr. Moll stated that he does not believe the Board has sufficient information to make an intelligent decision. He indicated that this is a classic example of when the data is either not submitted or submitted at a late point in time.
Reasons:
1. Additional property has been purchased to comply with the minimum lot size.
2. Lot is pie-shaped.
3. Small intrusion into the setback of the rear of the house and will not impact the neighborhood.
4. There is a buffer/easement on the side.
5. Within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
ITEM 8: Minutes
A motion was made by Joe St. Germain, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2007 Regular Meeting as corrected.
ITEM 9: Any New or Old Business
Because of the volume of cases for October, the Commission set a Special Meeting for Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 10: Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. on a motion by Joseph St. Germain and seconded by June Speirs. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
