APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, October 2, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, October 2, 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 and Judy McQuade (Alternate – seated for Tom Schellens).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 07-30 Frank & Loretta Fiengo, 18 Swan Avenue, variance to raise roof and construct second floor.
Chairman Stutts stated that this Public Hearing should be continued to the November Regular Meeting at the applicant’s request. She noted that the Health Approval was revoked.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by June Speirs and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for this item to the November Regular Meeting.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 07-31 Phillip & Karen Smith, 29 McCurdy Road, variance to construct a first floor addition.
Karen Smith, owner, and Sean Mulligan, contractor, were present to explain the application. Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities as follows: 21.3.3, minimum dimension of a square, 150’ required, 125’ existing; and 21.3.9, minimum setback from the property line 35’ required, 31’ existing. She noted that the proposal does not comply with Sections 8.9.3, no nonconforming structure should be enlarged.
Mr. Mulligan explained that the proposal meets all the Zoning Regulations. He noted that the property has almost twice the required acreage for the zone. Mr. Mulligan stated that the problem is that the lot is long and narrow. He indicated that the addition will not be visible from the street and the abutting properties will have very limited views.
Mr. Mulligan indicated that the highlighted area on the site plan is the proposed addition. He noted that the addition will not be as tall as the existing structure. Mr. Mulligan indicated that they will be updating the septic tank to 1,000 gallons and have septic approval based on that. He indicated that the addition will be a kitchen/family room and the existing kitchen will be a pantry. Mr. Mulligan reiterated that the addition meets all setbacks.
Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is the placement of the home on the lot and the unique shape of the lot.
Mr. Moll indicated that the authorship should be added to the drawings. He questioned whether the Bilco was being relocated. Mr. Mulligan indicated that it is being relocated as shown on the plan.
Chairman Stutts reiterated that the property has twice the required land but is lacking the required square. Ms. Speirs questioned when the septic tank would be upgraded. Mr. Mulligan indicated that the septic tank would be installed before the addition was constructed. Mr. Moll stated that the application requires existing floor plans for the structure. Mr. Mulligan stated that the real difference is that the existing kitchen will become a pantry. He noted that it is all drawn on the plan; the existing walls are shown as dotted lines.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 07-32 Chris Calvanese & Sarah Mayo, 30 Portland Avenue, variance to raise roof height and enlarge deck.
Chris Calvanese and Sarah Mayo were present to explain the application. Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities: 21.1, permitted uses in a residential district, nonconforming use because of two dwellings on the lot; 21.3.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 20,000 square feet required, 5,000 square feet existing; 21.3.3, minimum dimensions of a square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; 21.3.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’ required, 5’ on south side and 24’ on the north side and 10’ for the shed; 21.3.9, other property lines, 12’ required, 2’ on south side 1’ on the north side and 2’ for the shed; 21.3.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 25% required, existing is 31%; 21.3.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings as percent of
lot area, 25% required, 39% existing; 21.3.12, maximum total lot coverage as percent of lot area, 30% required, 39% existing.
Chairman Stutts read the required variances: Section 8.7.1, no nonconforming use to be enlarged or extended; 8.8.1, no nonconforming building to be enlarged; 8.9.3, no building on a nonconforming lot; 7.4, setbacks; 21.3.8, minimum setback from rear, 30’ required, roof is 24’ for a variance of 9’; deck is 2’ from south for a variance of 6’; 21.3.9, minimum setback from other property line is 12’, deck is 2’ from the south for a variance of 10’, roof is 1’ from side for a variance of 11’; 21.3.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area, 25% allowed, proposal is 41% for a variance of 16%; 21.3.12, maximum total lot coverage as a percent of lot area, 30% allowed, existing is 39% and proposed is 41% for a variance of
11%.
Chairman Stutts noted that there are two buildings on the property, one raising a section of roof and the other building adding a deck. She noted that the hardship provided for the raising of the roof is that the roof pitch is flat and constantly leaking and drains right into the septic system under the house. He indicated that he has not raised the ceiling inside the house.
Ms. Mayo stated that she purchased the house for her parents wedding anniversary. She noted that she added the deck to her dwelling and Mr. Calvanese raised the roof on his building. Mr. Calvanese indicated that he changed the pitch of the roof not realizing the zoning ramifications. He explained the roof changes to the Board, noting that the roof was almost cone-shaped and then flattened out. Mr. Calvanese stated that when it rains hard the water goes directly off the roof into his septic tank. Chairman Stutts stated that the Board is looking at the building bulk on the property; she noted that it is already maxed out and they do not want to see more building bulk or land coverage in this type of situation. Mr. Calvanese noted that the problem was the flat roof and indicated that no
house should have a flat roof.
Mr. Calvanese indicated that his workers constructed the deck on Ms. Mayo’s house. Mr. Moll questioned whether there was a permit for this work. Mr. Calvanese indicated that he had permits for everything. Ms. McQuade questioned whether the permit was for the size deck that was constructed. Mr. Calvanese indicated that he didn’t know the size of the deck and he didn’t think the roof was a problem. Mr. Calvanese pointed out the area of deck that is new.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the property is seasonal or year round. Mr. Calvanese replied that he does not know whether it is seasonal or year round. Mr. Moll questioned how he could purchase a property and not know whether it is seasonal or year round. Mr. Calvanese stated that he knows most of the area is seasonal. Mr. Moll stated that he has strong reservations if the owner does not know the status of the property. Mr. Calvanese stated that he assumes it is seasonal. Ms. McQuade questioned whether there was heat in the dwelling. Mr. Calvanese initially replied no and then indicated that there was a furnace. Ms. McQuade stated that the water is shut off after November 15th and Mr. Calvanese acknowledged that that was true. He then stated that there are
working wells for both dwellings. Mr. Calvanese stated that he marked seasonal and year-round on the application because he did not know the status. He explained that the property ownership has been “condo-ized” and there are now two different dwellings and owners on one property. He noted the line dividing the property on the site plan and indicated that the line is only for the condo’s, not for zoning purposes.
Chairman Stutts stated that the roof work needs a variance for two setbacks. Ms. McQuade questioned whether either house put in a new septic system. Mr. Calvanese replied that they did not. Ms. McQuade questioned whether the existing shed is currently being used. Mr. Calvanese indicated that he does keep things in the shed. Mr. Calvanese indicated that he does plan to put a new septic system for his house. Mr. Moll questioned where the leaching field is for his system. Mr. Calvanese indicated that he does not know. Chairman Stutts questioned whether the shed would be removed for the new septic system. Mr. Calvanese stated that he will move the shed during construction of the new septic system and then put it back. He indicated that there were three sheds and he
removed two of them. Mr. Calvanese stated that the Sanitarian indicated that the septic system was not up to Code and he stated that he told the Sanitarian that he would repair the septic system. He stated that he has not repaired the septic system yet.
Mr. Moll stated that the roof has provided service to the property since at least 1957. He stated that the question is why could they not have used gutters to keep the water from running into the septic system. Mr. Moll stated that there is no guarantee that the roof configuration as constructed does not drain the water right into the septic system.
Mr. Moll pointed out that the applicant has presented to deck drawings that do not agree. Chairman Stutts suggested concentrating on the roof and then discussing the deck enlargement.
The Board discussed other possible options for reconfiguring the roof. Mr. Moll stated that other configurations would not have been possible because they would not have lined up with the cap line.
Ms. McQuade questioned how much the decking has been increased. Chairman Stutts replied that it appears it has increased approximately 6’ x 17’6”. She noted that the length is 17’6”. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is requesting a variance of 15 percent for lot coverage by buildings and 11 percent for maximum total lot coverage.
Ms. Mayo explained that she purchased this property for her parents 55th wedding anniversary. She stated that she and Chris are childhood friends. Ms. Mayo stated that they received a permit for the deck work and she decided that in case they ever needed handicap accessibility they would widen the deck on the side. She indicated that her dad already had his knees replaced and needed a walker for some time. Chairman Stutts noted that the deck addition is not for handicap accessibility. Ms. Mayo indicated it is for them to get out; if they ever had to run out the door quickly in the night there would be two different ways to exit. Chairman Stutts noted that there is already a second door. Ms. Mayo stated that she wanted to make the deck nice for her parents.
Chairman Stutts stated that there needs to be a hardship. Ms. Mayo indicated that there is no backyard for outdoor enjoyment. Chairman Stutts stated that that is the problem; that the lot is so covered with buildings there is no yard area and the additional deck just increases the coverage. Ms. Mayo indicated that she had a permit for the deck. Mr. Calvanese stated that he received a permit to construct the deck. Ms. Bartlett clarified the situation and stated that if the applicant had a permit for the deck it was to repair or replace the existing deck, not increase the size of the deck. Mr. Calvanese acknowledged that the permit was to replace the existing deck.
Ms. Mayo questioned whether she could use Belgium blocks for a patio. The Board indicated that she could, but she should speak with Ms. Brown first. Ms. Mayo stated that her septic system is located on the side where the birch tree was. She indicated that they removed the tree because it was on top of the system. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is hard for the Board to grant variances for coverage. He noted that the allowed coverage is 25 percent and the proposed is 41 percent. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Regulation exists to prevent this exact type of situation on a lot. He noted that the existing coverage is grandfathered but a hardship must exist to increase the coverage. Ms. Mayo questioned whether there was a complaint about her deck. Ms. Bartlett stated that there was a
complaint about the roof and when Ms. Brown visited the property she became aware of the deck situation.
Chairman Stutts read a letter from Mr. Paratti, 23 Hartford Avenue, indicating that he is in favor of the application because the project improves the value of neighboring properties.
Mr. Matarazzo, 54 Portland Avenue, spoke in favor of the application.
Mr. Moll stated that there is still a question as to whether the property is seasonal or year round. He indicated that they should take this into consideration during the voting session.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this public hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 07-33 Keith & Deb Czarnecki, 8 Duck River Lane, variance to construct addition.
Keith Czarnecki was present to explain his application. Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities for the record: Section 21.3.9, minimum setback from other property line, 35’ required, 5’ for the garage provided; and 7.4.7, no building within 50’ of the mean high navigable water, existing house 20’. She stated that the proposal does not comply with Section 8.8.1, no enlargement of a nonconforming building and 7.4.7, no building within 50’ of the mean high navigable water, addition 40’ for a variance of 10’.
Chairman Stutts noted that a required referral was made to the Gateway Commission and a reply has not yet been received. She suggested that this Public Hearing be continued to the October 9, 2007 Regular Meeting. Mr. Czarnecki agreed.
A motion was made by , seconded by and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for this item to the October 9, 2007 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
Case 07-30 Frank & Loretta Fiengo, 18 Swan Avenue
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the November Regular Meeting.
Case 07-31 Phillip & Karen Smith, 29 McCurdy Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that a variance is required because the property lacks the required square. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal complies with all other zoning regulations. She noted that the hardship provided was the unique shape of the lot and the placement of the house on the lot. Chairman Stutts noted that the property is twice the size of that required for the zone.
Chairman Stutts stated that the addition is 22’ x 15’ for a kitchen and family room. She noted that the septic system is being updated as part of the proposal.
Mr. Kotzan noted that this property is similar to the situation on Coult Lane where the lots were split long and narrow and they lack the required square. He indicated that the square regulation is in place to discourage any further division of land into sliver lots. Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not believe the addition further insults this regulation and he does not see any reason not to approve the application.
Mr. Moll noted that the home is beautifully situated and the only liability is the lack of square. He noted that the property was divided long before this requirement. Mr. Moll stated that the property has plenty of land for the zone. He indicated that the lot is nicely treed and the addition will not impact the neighbors.
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, 29 McCurdy Road, as per the approved plans and with the condition that the authorship of the drawings be submitted prior to the issuance of permits.
Reasons:
1. Property contains the requisite amount of land but it is an irregular shaped lot.
2. Proposal meets all other setback requirements.
3. Proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood.
4. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 07-32 Chris Calvanese & Sarah Mayo, 30 Portland Avenue
Chairman Stutts suggested discussing the two variances separately and indicated that they would first discuss the proposal to raise the roof. Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that there are numerous nonconformities existing on the property, as reflected during the public hearing. Chairman Stutts stated that the roof proposal requires a 6’ setback variance for the side and an 11’ for the rear setback.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he can see a hardship for the roof. He noted that it does not appear that the applicant has, or intends, to open the inside of the dwelling. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is not a huge change and he may be in favor of it if it alleviates a problem roof. He noted that there is no representation of what the roof was like prior. Mr. Kotzan stated that the plans are not quite adequate, but noted that the work has already been accomplished. He noted that the roof change makes a more sensible structure but he does not like the idea of adding additional bulk on this property.
Mr. Moll noted that the roof change does not add any additional coverage to the lot and noted that it should also improve drainage off the roof and direct it from the area of the septic system.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by June Speirs and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow an increase in roof height, 30 Portland Avenue, also known as Unit 1, as per the approved plans and noting that these plans represent what has already been constructed and recognizing that the property is a seasonal dwelling.
Reasons:
1. Raising of roof solves problem with leaky flat roof.
2. Change of roof pitch corrects drainage directly into septic system.
3. There is no increase in floor area or coverage with this proposal.
4. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Chairman Stutts stated that the application requires a 9’ variance for the rear setback, an 11’ variance for the side setback, 16% variance for maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures, and an 11% variance for maximum total coverage as a percent of lot area. She pointed out the additional decking on the site plan.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the coverage is way out of range. He noted that there does not appear to be a hardship to allow such excessive coverage on the property. Mr. Kotzan stated that this would offend the intent of the regulation that allows a maximum 25 percent lot coverage. Chairman Stutts stated that there are alternatives to an outdoor living space, such as a ground level patio. Mr. Moll agreed. Mr. Kotzan stated that the pre-existing deck was a good size. He noted that it is unfortunate that the deck has already been constructed, but noted that the Board cannot consider this.
The Board reviewed the Assessor’s Records to determine the pre-existing size of the deck. They noted that the best representation of the additional decking is probably the site plan submitted by the applicant. Mr. Moll noted that the Assessor’s Cards are marked seasonal, but without more time he cannot determine which structure they are referring to, and could possibly be both. Mr. Kotzan stated that Ms. Brown can clarify it for the property owner.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Richard Moll to grant the necessary variances to construct a deck as per the plans submitted, 32 Portland Avenue, also known as Unit 2. Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons:
1. Lot has excessive coverage.
2. There are alternatives for outdoor living space.
3. Violates the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 07-33 Keith & Deb Czarnecki, 8 Duck River Lane
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the October 9, 2007 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 6: Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. on a motion by June Speirs and seconded by Judy McQuade. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
