APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, April 8, 2008
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Church of Christ the King Parish Center. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Kip Kotzan, Joseph St. Germain (Alternate seated for Tom Schellens), Judy McQuade and Richard Moll.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 08-08 Thomas & Kristin Gotowka, 25 Library Lane, Coastal Site Plan and Variance Application to demolish existing dwelling and construct new dwelling and deck.
Attorney Burnham was present to represent the Gotowka’s. Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities. She noted that the proposal does not comply with Sections, 7.4., setbacks; 7.4.2, narrow street setback, 32.2 foot variance requested from Library Lane and a 22 foot variance from Elm Street; 7.4.7, navigable water setback 50’, variance of 34.5 feet requested; and Section 8.2.2.
Attorney Burnham stated that the lot presents many hardships. She noted that it is a very large lot for the R-15 Zone but much of it is wetland. Attorney Burnham explained that when one considers the setbacks for narrow streets and the setback for the tidal wetlands and the setback from the inland wetlands, there is a very tiny piece of land, out of the 64,000 square feet, that is not within some setback. She noted that the lot has many built-in hardships. Attorney Burnham stated that the existing dwelling was constructed in the 1930’s and is in a nonconforming location. She noted that the base elevation does not meet FEMA requirements.
Attorney Burnham stated that the existing dwelling has had several variances granted over time, one of which was to allow a garage that was added to the house to be at less than the required flood elevation. She explained that the proposal is to put the new house essentially in the same spot as the existing house and to make it compliant with FEMA regulations. Attorney Burnham explained the site plan to the Board. She noted that the decorative overhang on the front of the proposed dwelling does extend further to the street then the current house.
Attorney Burnham stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the proposal, with the condition that the existing shed be relocated on the property. She noted that the relocated shed is not within any zoning setbacks. Attorney Burnham stated that the garage addition allowed by the granting of the variance is two-story, and there is a bedroom above that garage. She noted that the proposal is for a three-bedroom house to replace a three-bedroom house essentially within the same footprint. Attorney Burnham stated that the rear deck is a little closer to the wetlands then the existing house and deck.
Attorney Burnham explained that the hardship is the very limited amount of upland on the lot, most of which is within setback distances. She pointed out that the reason they are not relocating the house to the small area of upland is that this is a reserve area in the event that the current system fails. Attorney Burnham stated that the proposal is within the intent of the Zoning Regulations because the house is being replaced with a house that is uniform in design, unlike the existing house.
Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal has a much different look then the existing house. She questioned the height of the existing house. Attorney Burnham stated that the existing house is two separate heights; one being the original house and the other being the two-story garage. Chairman Stutts noted that the proposed house is 32 feet, 4.4 inches in height. She noted that the existing house is one story. Attorney Burnham stated that the garage is two-story and would be close to the same height as the proposed dwelling. Attorney Burnham stated that the Gotowka’s have worked on the fragmites and one can notice how the wetlands are now much more open and attractive and available for native plants.
Attorney Burnham stated that new first floor will be higher than the existing first floor to meet FEMA requirements. She noted that the proposed first floor elevation is 10 feet. Mr. Moll noted that the plans show the first floor as 5 feet above grade. He pointed out that there are no height dimensions on the elevation drawings. Mr. Moll questioned whether the grade was changing. Attorney Burnham replied that it is not. She added dimensions to the elevation drawing.
Mr. Moll noted that the property has serviced its owners and provided habitation for its owners since the 1930’s. He noted that the proposal will be a much greater vertical presence on the lot. Mr. Moll stated that he sees the purpose of the proposal, but noted that Mother Nature provided the hardships on the lot long ago. He expressed uncertainty about moving the leaching field to the upland portion of the property. Attorney Burnham noted that the proposal is not to use the upland area and to keep the existing septic area. Mr. Moll stated that the next owners may have to. Attorney Burnham stated that it would only be moved if the existing system fails and that could happen regardless of which three-bedroom structure is on the property.
Attorney Burnham stated that there are all different kinds of houses on Library Lane, including two-story colonials. She noted that this house will not be out of place, but rather the existing house is more out of place and jarring.
Chairman Stutts stated that the regulations allow 35 feet homes, but 32 feet in height is high when it is so close to the road. She noted that it will appear even taller because of how it is situated. Chairman Stutts stated that she feels the house is more ambitious then the property can handle. Attorney Burnham stated that the house is only 1,540 square feet which is not a large house and it is a large piece of property. Chairman Stutts noted that the house is 32 feet closer to the road then the Zoning Regulations require and if it were a one story house it would not be as obtrusive.
Attorney Burnham stated that the property owner cannot do much to the house without bringing the entire structure up to FEMA Codes. Ms. McQuade questioned whether the property has health approval. Attorney Burnham stated that Matthew White, the engineer, is handling the health approval.
Ms. McQuade questioned the square footage of the house. Chairman Stutts noted that the proposed square footage is 2,856 square feet. Attorney Burnham stated that it is the coverage that is 1,540 square feet. Mr. Moll noted that Marcy Balint, OLISP, has provided comments. Attorney Burnham stated that she is submitting a letter from Matthew White, engineer, addressing Ms. Balint’s comments. She explained that in this letter Mr. White indicates that all work will be landward of the high tide line. Mr. Moll stated that because of the sensitivity of the lot, Ms. Balint asks that the staging areas be noted on the plans. Attorney Burnham stated that the engineer will revise the drawing to show the staging areas. Mr. Moll stated that the owners may also have to apply for
approval on the bridge. Attorney Burnham stated that that was mentioned in Marcy Balint’s letter. She noted that the bridge has been in existence for 40 or 50 years and they will apply for whatever permits that OLISP feels is necessary.
Attorney Burnham pointed out that because the proposed home is a modular home it will not require the amount of construction as a stick-built home. Ms. Gotowka indicated that she and her husband have been very mindful in selecting something that will fit in with the area and also takes advantage of the property. She noted that they did not try to come up with a design that was their dream house, but rather one that was sensitive to the environment.
Judith Winer, neighbor directly across the street, indicated that she has no problem with the application and does not believe that anyone does have a problem.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this public hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 08-10 Bud and Jane Smart, 41 Brightwater Road, variance to reconstruct and expand existing garage.
Attorney McGarry and Skip Beebe were present to represent the Smart’s. Attorney McGarry submitted a memorandum that he prepared giving the background of the property and explaining the proposal. He explained that the garage was constructed 73 years ago. Attorney McGarry noted that it was constructed without a foundation so that it sits directly on the ground. He indicated that the garage settled and it now ponds whenever there is rain. Attorney McGarry stated that over the years, in order to protect the garage, the Smarts have been putting down chemicals to stop the infestation of termites. He noted that one of the prime reasons to allow the proposal would be so that they could stop putting chemicals on the ground. Attorney McGarry indicated that the main house does not have
a basement and they would like to be able to store seasonal items in the garage.
Attorney McGarry indicated that they are slighting increasing the size of the footprint of the garage, but not moving it closer to the lot line. He pointed out that the Regulations limit what can be done to the garage, such as the fact that it cannot be inhabited. Attorney McGarry stated that there is presently an outdoor shower that they would plumb into this structure.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities and noted that the lot is 6,000 square feet in a 10,000 square foot zone; street setback, 25’ required, 10’ provided; rear setback, 30 feet required, 3’ provided; other property line, 12’ required, 4’ 6” provided; and maximum floor area, 25% maximum, 31% existing. Chairman Stutts stated that the new garage is 20’ x 20’ x 18’ in height and the existing garage is 18’ 2” x 16’ 6”. Mr. Beebe indicated that the existing garage is approximately 12 feet in height. He also noted that the garage may be smaller then 20’ x 20’. Chairman Stutts asked Mr. Beebe to write the dimensions on the elevation drawings and initial them, which he did.
Chairman Stutts questioned the access to the storage area above the garage. Mr. Beebe pointed out the stairs on the floor plan. Mr. Kotzan noted that the floor area ratio is over and the lot is over built. Mr. Beebe stated that the coverage on the lot is not over the 25 percent coverage allowed. Chairman Stutts noted that the floor area ratio is over the allowed 25 percent. Mr. Beebe noted that this proposal will not add to floor area ratio.
No one present spoke in favor of or against this application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 08-11 Thomas Degnan, 22 Caulkins Road, variance to construct 12’ x 12’ shed.
Tom Degnan was present to explain his application. Chairman Stutts noted that the existing nonconformity is 21.3.3, minimum dimension of square, 75’ required, 70’ provided. She noted that a variance is required of Section 8.9.3, no building on a nonconforming lot to be enlarged. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that there is 12,480 square feet in an R-10 Zone but the lot lacks the required square. She noted that another hardship noted is the high water table and the lack of basement for that reason.
Mr. Degnan stated that he would like to replace his existing shed with a shed that is a little larger. He noted that the proposed shed will meet all setback requirements of the zone. Mr. Degnan explained that most of the homes in the area do not have basements because of the high water table. He indicated that he currently stores some of his larger equipment right in the yard covered with a blue tarp. Mr. Degnan stated that his attic has no access. He explained that his land area exceeds the zone minimum by 25 percent but the odd shape prevents him from having the required square. Mr. Degnan stated that the other lots in the neighborhood are square or rectangle. He noted that his lot is unique for this reason.
Mr. Degnan stated that his proposed shed is the exact same one that his neighbor installed last year. He noted that his neighbor has the required square and did not need a variance to install the shed. Chairman Stutts noted that there are two sizes listed in the application, 12’ x 12’ and 12’ x 14’. Mr. Degnan explained that he was not sure originally, but now knows he would like a 12’ x 12’ shed.
Mr. Degnan explained that his plan is to paint the shed the same color as his house. He indicated that he spoke with some of his neighbors. Mr. Degnan noted that the Holland’s submitted a letter and the Beluchi’s who were also in favor but did not submit a letter.
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: Request by applicant to review revised roof line, 2 Bank Road, Case 07-28
Chairman Stutts noted that the Board approved this variance in January and the applicant has requested to revise the roof line. Robert Asselin displayed the elevation drawings, both approved and proposed.
Mr. Asselin explained the change to the roof line. He noted that the approved roof is very difficult to construct. He indicated that there will be increased bulk in the roof area, but there will be no useable space underneath. Mr. Asselin explained that the proposed roof is easier to build and maintain, with fewer valleys. He noted that the maximum height of the roof is not changing.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that he is basically exchanging one dormer for another. He noted that it currently runs from to back and now will run from side to side. Mr. Moll noted that he had a great deal of difficulty finding 2 Bank Road.
The Board agreed that the proposed roof line is within the intent of the variance granted. Mr. Asselin put together a set of final plans which were marked amended roof line and signed by Chairman Stutts.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
Case 08-08 Thomas & Kristin Gotowka, 25 Library Lane
Chairman Stutts noted that this application was heard at the last meeting and the Public Hearing was closed. She explained that they did not vote because they were awaiting a response from Marcie Balint, Office of Long Island Sound Programs, on the Coastal Site Plan Application. Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal is to tear down the house and construct a new dwelling. She noted that variances are required for the two street setbacks and from the 50’ setback from navigable water. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided was the odd shaped lot with only a very small section of upland. She noted that the house was constructed in the 1930’s.
Chairman Stutts indicated that there were five prior appeals; three of which were granted and two were denied. She stated that it would be difficult to repair and upgrade the existing house because once 50% of the assessed value of the structure is spent it would have to meet FEMA Codes. Chairman Stutts explained that the new house will meet the flood zone requirements. She pointed out that there they have not received health code approval at this time. Chairman Stutts noted that the neighbor across the street spoke in favor of the application.
Mr. St. Germain stated that it is a good thing that the new structure will meet both FEMA and Building Codes. He noted that the lot has many hardships because of the wetlands and he feels this warrants the granting of the variance. Mr. St. Germain stated that the only neighbor that spoke lived directly across the street and she spoke in favor of the application. He indicated that he was originally concerned about the size of the structure so close to the street, but now feels that if the neighbor across the street has no objection, then neither does he. Mr. St. Germain stated that the neighborhood has varying architecture and building heights already.
Chairman Stutts stated that the house seems too large for the lot and almost seems to fight the land. Mr. St. Germain agreed, but noted that there is no choice but to build up. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that 2,500 square feet is not an overly large house.
Mr. Moll stated that it is significant that the neighbor across the street spoke in favor because they are the ones that will be impacted the most. He indicated that a lot of money will be invested in the house and into the Town by an increase in the tax base. Mr. Moll stated that there should be a condition that the environment not be impacted during construction.
Chairman Stutts noted that there is no Health approval. Mr. Kotzan noted that that is irrelevant because even if the variance is granted the proposal cannot move forward without Health approval.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Joseph St. Germain and voted unanimously approve the Coastal Site Plan Application and to grant the necessary variances to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling, 25 Library Lane, Thomas & Kristin Gotowka, applicants, as per the approved plans and with the condition that all comments in Marcie Balint’s (OLISP) letter be incorporated into the site plan.
Reasons:
1. Odd shaped lot with large amount of wetlands.
2. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 08-10 Bud and Jane Smart, 41 Brightwater Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She explained that the proposal is to reconstruct and expand existing garage, with a shower and second floor storage. Chairman Stutts explained that the property is 6,000 square feet in an R-10 Zone. She noted that the existing garage is 3’ from the rear property line where there should be 30’. She stated that the existing garage is 18’2” by 18’6” and 12’ in height and being replaced by a 20’ x 20’ garage and 18’ in height. Chairman Stutts stated that there will be an interior stairway to the second floor of the garage. She noted that the house does not have a basement for storage. Chairman Stutts stated that the floor area ratio is over the allowed 25 percent at 31 percent.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the coverage on the lot is okay. He noted that he originally was thinking this was over the allowed percent but now knows that the floor area is not changing as a part of this proposal. Chairman Stutts stated that the look of the garage is changing because it will now be 18’ in height as opposed to 12’. Mr. Kotzan noted that the garage will be bigger, but at the current time it appears very small. Ms. McQuade pointed out that the garage roof line will mimic the house roof line. Mr. Kotzan noted that the garage does need to be repaired. Ms. McQuade pointed out that the house is tall and the garage will not look too big for the house.
Chairman Stutts stated that the Board must consider whether they are giving the least amount of variance possible. Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposal is a practical, modern garage. Ms. McQuade noted that the existing garage needs to be reconstructed because it is falling apart. She noted that the proposal is basically the same, except for a little more than one foot on either side. Ms. McQuade indicated that they are adding a second floor for storage, which is practical when there is no basement. She noted that many homes have a garage plus a storage shed. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that there is no coverage issue on the site. He noted that the main point is that there will be no additional living area in the garage.
Mr. Moll stated that if the Board looks at the existing garage as compared to the proposed garage, there is a second floor area. He noted that there is nine feet to the ridge inside the second floor. Mr. Moll stated that it is creating a lot of nice space on the second floor. Mr. Kotzan noted that there will be a 7’ strip down the middle of the second floor where one would not have to bend over. He indicated that that is not much area.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to reconstruct and enlarge the existing garage, Bud and Janet Smart, 41 Brightwater Road, as per the approved plans, with the conditions that the garage not exceed 20’ x 20’ and their be no living area in the garage.
Reasons:
1. Not increasing infringement on setbacks.
2. No shed or basement on property for needed storage.
3. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 08-11 Thomas Degnan, 22 Caulkins Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the proposal is to replace an 8’ x 10’ shed with a 12’ x 12’ shed on a lot that lacks the required square. She noted that the lot is oversized at 12,480 square feet. Chairman Stutts noted that the lot is odd-shaped and the house does not have a basement for storage because of the high water table.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the shed meets all setbacks. Ms. McQuade indicated that if the lot met the 75’ square requirement he would not even be before the Board. She noted that the proposal meets the intent of Zoning and is a reasonable requerst. Mr. Kotzan stated that this is a similar situation as the others on Coult Lane where the lots are adequate size but lack the required square and/or are odd shaped. Chairman Stutts noted that the lot frontage is 150 feet.
A motion was made by Joseph St. Germain, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a 12’ x 12’ shed, 22 Caulkins Road, Thomas Degnan, applicant, as per the proposed plans.
Reasons:
1. All setbacks are met.
2. Property is over sized for the zone.
3. Shed will have no impact on the neighborhood.
4. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 08-09 Pollio Family Trust, 9 Champion Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She pointed out that the Board closed the Public Hearing last month and was awaiting comments from Marcie Balint, OLISP, for the Coastal Site Plan Application.
Mr. Moll noted that the existing porch is screened and the proposed porch has windows. He suggested that the Board review their unapproved minutes to refresh their memories. Mr. Kotzan stated that he has his notes from the March Meeting. He pointed out that the property certainly needs rehabilitation and the proposal is to raise the house to meet FEMA requirements. Mr. Kotzan stated that there is no change in floor area, no change in coverage and it will meet all FEMA requirements which is very desirable. He indicated that they are also enlarging windows for egress which is a safety improvement. Mr. Kotzan stated that his notes also reflect the porch issue, which is his only concern.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the proposal shows a wall between the house and the enclosed porch and along the wall there is a sliding glass door and windows. He pointed out that the house is seasonal and he is not sure that there is quite the risk that there is when the home is year round.
Chairman Stutts noted that Marcie Balint indicates in her letter that the high tide line needs to be shown on the site plan. The Board members reviewed Ms. Balint’s letter.
Chairman Stutts noted that the house will be raised three feet to meet FEMA requirements. She noted that the neighbors do not appear to have concerns about the height increase. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that because they will be spending more than 50 percent of the appraised value of the structure they must meet FEMA requirements, which is requiring them to raise the house three feet.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade, and voted unanimously approve the Coastal Site Plan Application and to grant the necessary variances to raise the dwelling to meet FEMA requirements, 9 Champion Road, Pollio Family Trust, applicant, as per the proposed plan and with the condition that the site plan be changed to address Marcie Balint’s (OLISP) comments in her letter dated April 8, 2008 and for the ZEO to ensure that the DEP is satisfied that their permit process has been met, prior to her issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.
Reasons:
1. Necessary to raise structure to meet FEMA requirements.
2. Does not change view from neighboring properties.
3. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the February 28, 2008 minutes as amended.
ITEM 7: Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. on a motion by Richard Moll and seconded by Kip Kotzan. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
