MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 9, 2008
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Old Lyme at its Regular Meeting that was held on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Town Hall, Memorial Auditorium, 52 Lyme Street, heard and decided the following appeals:
Seated for this evenings meeting and voting were the following members: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Richard Moll, Thomas Schellens and Joseph St. Germain (Alternate)
Present: Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Judy McQuade, Fran Sadowski (Alternate) and June Speirs (Alternate)
The meeting was then called to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following public hearings were conducted, as well as the decision session. The meeting has been recorded on tape and the following actions were taken:
The Chairman introduced the Board members who were seated for this evenings meeting. The Chairman then proceeded to read the Legal Notice into the record and outlined the order of the public hearing and the regular meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 08-27 Kathy Clark, 445 Shore Road
This is application is for a variance to remove an existing sign and replace it with two signs on the property. Chairman Stutts stated for the record that this application does not comply with Section 19.6.1 c of the regulations (“on any lot there may be only one (1) free-standing sign . . .”) and the hardship stated is due to the curve of the road and the hill, the sign cannot be seen from the road.
Dr. Clark gave a presentation by stating that there is one sign existing now that was carved back in 1990 and it is only visible coming from East Lyme. If coming from the Old Lyme side the sign is not visible until a driver gets almost to the driveway and doesn’t have time to use the turn signal. Since the proposed new sign is curved, Dr. Clark would like to position the two signs separately in a way they will be seen by drivers. S. Stutts asked if the current sign was being redone, Dr. Clark stated no. S. Stutts asked if there were lights to illuminate the sign at night, Dr. Clark responded that there are currently lights under the existing sign. Discussion as to moving the existing sign out behind the existing shrubs. S. Stutts asked about the logo, the new logo doesn’t
seem to be a logo indicative of a veterinarian hospital. There was discussion regarding the sign dimensions and placement. T. Schellens suggested one sign in front and one traffic directional sign at the driveway. J. St. Germain asked if two signs were to be put up, Dr. Clark responded yes. He then asked if the sign could be “V” shaped and connected. Dr. Clark responded that the new signs are crescent shaped and would be difficult to put together. Discussion as to the trees remaining. T. Schellens stated that the trees will be a good backdrop for the signs. R. Moll stated that Dr. Clark is at a disadvantage to serve clients at night due to the current visibility of the sign. R. Moll also felt that Dr. Clark gave a very complete
presentation. T. Schellens stated the hardship is that the signs will be set approximately 37 feet back from the road. T. Schellens asked what the distance would be from one sign to the other. Dr. Clark responded no more than four feet. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed.
Case 08-28 Theresa Genovese, 8 Seaside Lane
This is application is for variances to construct a 14' x 23' screened porch on existing deck. S. Stutts stated that the Board will open the public hearing tonight. But since it is, in essence, an incomplete application due to the applicants not merging the two properties on one deed, the Board will continue the hearing until next month. The Board stated that the merging of the properties was a condition of approval back in 1987 when the ZBA granted variances for certain additions. Mr. Joseph Genovese, Jr. stated that he hired Attorney Christina Burnham to look into merging the two properties. Chairman Stutts stated that the Board needed the deed before they would act on this application. Chairman Stutts also stated that there is no information regarding the construction of what
has currently constructed, only photos of what is there now. The Board looks at the project as if it does not exist and would like a sketch with dimensions of the size of the addition. The Board also asked for a history of what additions have been made since 1987. R. Moll asked for the “ZBA checklist” and stated to the applicant that all the information on the checklist needs to be provided to the Board prior to the public hearing. Mr. Genovese and Chairman Stutts went over the Assessor’s Records but the Board has requested a more complete history of what additions were added. K. Kotzan reiterated the information the Board is requesting i.e. the history of the building and that the only addition the variances are required for is the “screened porch”.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by T. Schellens, to continue the Public Hearing to January 13, 2009 so that the applicant can provide evidence of the history of how additions to the property were added, as well as dimensions and a deed merging the two properties as conditioned in the previous variance approval. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, K. Kotzan, R. Moll, T. Schellens, J. St. Germaine. The motion was approved unanimously. 5-0-0
Case 08-29 Joseph & Marian Cancelliere, 62 Gorton Avenue
This is an application to demolish an existing one story dwelling and construct a new two story dwelling. The variances requested are Sections 9.3.2 (nonconforming/change), 8.0.c (yard and lot coverage), Section 8.2.2.1 (building height), Section 8.8.6 (maximum height of building/24' required/31'7" proposed), 8.8.7 (minimum setback from narrow street /30' required 12.3' proposed), Section 8.8.9 (minimum setback from other property/12' required/10.6' south side proposed) and 8.8.10 maximum floor area (25% allowed/27.7% proposed).
Present were Attorney Michael Cronin, Jr., agent for the applicant and Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Cancelliere, applicants
Attorney Cronin started the presentation by stating Mr. Cancelliere was a licensed, professional engineer with the State who has a lot of technical knowledge and has been involved with this property since 1973. Attorney Cronin stated the lot is approximately 170 feet in depth and 63.30 feet on the highway and is a conglomeration of several properties that have been acquired. There was an existing single family house on the property, with three bedrooms. The proposal is to demolish the existing structure and use the existing foundation for the new one and a half story building. There will be a new septic system on the property. S. Stutts stated that the applicant wants to build a one and a half story? Attorney Cronin went into the definition of half story and under the regulations this
proposed structure will be a one and a half story building under the regulations.
Mr. Cancelliere took the floor and went over the history of the property. There has been a 30 year history of efforts to achieve zoning compliance on this property. The subject property was initially purchased in 1973 by his father. The original property was 50’wide by 85’deep for a total lot area of 4,250 sq. ft. The house was built in 1948 and other than the vinyl siding, the structure is in its original condition with a foot print of 1084 square feet. The original septic system consisted of a cess pool just off the back porch and the building served as a two apartment rental property. The landlord occupied the back apartment, consisting of an eat-in kitchen, one bedroom and a bathroom. The front apartment consisted of another eat-in kitchen, two bedrooms, a living room and a
full bathroom. The front and rear apartments each had enclosed porches, they had separate electric meters, 30 amps each, and the building address was 46A and 46B Gorton Ave.
The two apartments in a building of just 1,084 square feet with two full kitchens, two stoves, two sinks, two refrigerators, two bathrooms, all connected to one water heater. The structure had numerous building code violations, lacked adequate egress from each apartment, and interior space was extremely cramped.
All rental activity ceased upon purchase by my dad and the wall between the two kitchens was breached with a passageway, opening the cottage from front to rear. But other than that breach, the cottage remains original.
An adjoining rear lot was purchased in September 17, 1973, just seven months after the initial purchase, merging the two lots to one property. With that addition, the parcel doubled in size to 8,500 square feet, much closer to the R-10 minimum lot size. With the acquisition of the rear lot, there was enough room for an improved septic system, and in August of 1982 the cess-pool was removed and new septic tank and shallow leaching field was installed compliant with the Health Codes of that period. No changes were made for 8 years following the installation of the septic system.
In the fall of 1990, concerns regarding the foundation were addressed by replacing it with a full perimeter concrete foundation. Before a building permit could be acquired, all non-conforming issues on the property were identified and quantified, and variances were requested and approved by this Zoning Board on October 10, 1990. A building permit was ultimately issued, work began in the fall of 1990 and was completed in the spring of 1991. In compliance with the Flood Zone regulations, the building was raised to achieve a minimum first floor elevation of 11.0.
Parcels were purchased from 1973 to 1991 making the parcel more compliant but still not enough to meet minimum requirements in the R-10 zone. In October 1994, an investigation of the land records, deeds and physical property boundaries between this parcel and a neighboring property, resulted in a property line disagreement. This disagreement could not be resolved by property owners, surveyors or attorneys and was ultimately settled with the assistance of the court. In February 1998, a property line agreement was executed which resulted in additional frontage to this parcel. This additional frontage brought the lot area of the property up to 8891 square feet, closer but still short of minimum 10,000 square foot lot area for the R-10 Zone.
In July, Mr. & Mrs. Cancelliere purchased the property from his parents with the hope of making it a conforming lot.
There was a paper street owned by the Old Colony Beach Association adjacent to the north lot line of the subject property, known as Purtill Avenue Extension. He approached the Beach Association in 1999 with an offer to purchase the right of way, but that request was rejected. After repeated offers, the sale of the Purtill Avenue Extension was finally approved and on March 17, 2005 they took title of an additional 11 feet of frontage bringing the total lot area to 10,765 square feet. The property now exceeded the minimum lot area for the R-10 zone. After 32 years of trying, the property finally became compliant with the R-10 zoning requirements with respect to minimum lot area.
In the 32 years from 1973 to 2005, the property grew from 4250 sq. ft to 10,765 sq ft, more than 2 ½ times it’s original size, all invasive plant species which previously existed on the parcel have all been removed, building was elevated to above the FEMA 100 year flood elevation, the landscaping was improved, a health code compliant septic system was installed and periodic pumping and inspection of that system in accordance with town regulations.
Discussion ensued with respect to the structure itself. The building is a 1 ½ story wood frame structure. The floor joists are made up of 2 inch by 6 inch wood beams, 24 inches on center, spanning 11 feet between supports. The residential building code requires floor systems to be able to support loads not less than 40 lbs per square foot. The existing floor framing system in this structure was analyzed and determined to support only 9 lbs per square foot.
The exterior walls are 2 inch by 4 inch lumber again 24 inches on center. Building code requires 16 inch spacing between studs. The ceiling joints are 2 inch by 4 inch lumber again, 24 inches on center, and the roof rafters are 2 inch by 6 inch lumber 24 inches on center. The roof rafters are inadequately sized and spaced to support snow load in New England. Of more serious concern is that there are no collar ties in the roof framing system, and to make things worse, there are three layers of asphalt shingles on the roof (code allows 2).
The electrical wiring is original 1948 vintage with the exception of the main service panel which was replaced in 1990 coincident with the foundation project. The plumbing is also original.
The foundation was constructed with the approval of this Board and the oversight of the town Building Inspector and saving it has merit. After much thought and analysis the decision was to demolish the building and rebuild the structure, for the most part, in the footprint of the existing concrete foundation. The primary purpose of this project is to ensure the health, safety and welfare of his family.
This project began to take shape soon after the acquisition of the Purtill Avenue Extension in 2005, which brought the property to 10,765 square feet. The applicants researched different building options and styles. After finding a home design that suited, they settled with Habitat Post and Beam of Deerfield, Massachusetts. One of their goals was also to build “green” and build “energy smart.” They investigated alternate energy systems, geo-thermal, passive solar and solar water. Solar Wrights Incorporated of Stonington, Connecticut is to design, size and install this system and they were asked to perform an assessment of the property to determine the architectural parameters (roof pitch and orientation) that would provide the optimal configuration for a roof mounted photo
cell array.
An analysis of the property was conducted in January 2008 and it was determined that the orientation of the roof line with a east/west ridge beam, and an 8 inch on 12 inch roof pitch would be the optimal orientation for this system, provided the roof line is elevated and free of shadows. These parameters along with the existing foundation plan were forwarded to the architectural Staff at Habitat Post and Beam in February 2008. This planning has been in the works for years.
In the meantime, the Zoning Regulations were revised (March, 2008). Mr. Cancelliere had been referencing the September 1986 and the 1993 versions of the Old Lyme Zoning regulations and although they were old, there were no changes in the set backs, or bulk requirements between the two editions. He then discovered the extent of the reduction in building height in the R-10 Zone from 35 feet to 24 feet, a reduction of 31.5%. The building height standard that was acceptable when the design of the project started was so severely reduced, that it created a new non-conformity in our proposal.
The hardship is that this proposal was significantly advanced before the change in the zoning regulations. At all times during the planning and design of the home, Mr. Cancelliere stated that they strived not to exceed the bulk requirement. At the time they contracted architectural services for this project, the Zoning Regulations specified a maximum building height of 35’, and the plans delivered in February 2008 were 31 feet, 7 inches, well within that limit.
R. Moll asked about the Purtill Avenue right-of-way. Discussion then ensued as to how the right-of-way on Purtill Avenue was divided. The strip was divided equally between the property owners, making their lots less nonconforming.
Discussion as to the applicants using the existing foundation since it is sound and the addition of “foundation extensions” so that when the house is placed on the foundation it will be square. The post and beam house will be traveling from Mass to CT via a truck and will need a “square” foundation to place it on. If the foundation is not square, the corners and joists will not line up properly. Also, Mr. Cancelliere would rather use the existing foundation than have it sit in a land fill.
The Board asked about the solar panels. The solar panels will be placed on the southern roof line. J. St. Germain stated that there were no plans showing the solar panel details. The panels, as designed, will be able to sustain 100 mile an hour winds. The roof pitch is such to accommodate the solar panels so that they will not have to be bracketed. Further discussion about the solar system itself.
Attorney Cronin took the floor and went over the variances required. The front and the sideyard setbacks already exist. The other variances required are for lot area, height of the structure and wetlands. With respect to the wetlands, any wetlands on the lot need to be taken out of the lot coverage calculation, thereby decreasing the lot size. With this regulation, the applicant lost 910 square feet of the total lot area. Attorney Cronin then went on to discuss Old Lyme adopting the height regulations stating that this regulation squeezes the property owner. If an owner has to adhere to the flood elevation, that in turn raises the height of the building. Then that limits the height of the building because it can’t exceed the maximum building height of 24'. This constitutes a
hardship, the applicant loses 4' in actual building height. There was discussion about the flood plain regulations. Attorney Cronin then addressed the solar panels and the pitch of the roof. Attorney Cronin went on to say that the applicant could comply with the regulations by building a house with a flat roof and then going to Zoning for approval by special permit under Section 11.13 (alternative energy systems). If the applicant went that route, the building and panels would not be in harmony with the neighborhood. It was also mentioned that the person most affected by the solar panels would be Mr. Brodeur, and he has sent in a letter of support.
There was discussion regarding the street setback and the narrow road. The street setback will remain the same since the applicant is using the existing foundation. Attorney Cronin then went on to discuss floor area. First floor area measured is1,453 square feet, the second floor actual, factual floor area is 699 square feet, the total floor area is 2,2152 square feet. The regulations state that total floor area shall not be more than 25% of the total lot area. The total lot area of this lot was cut back by 910 square feet due to the wetlands. According to that regulation and doing the calculation, the percentage is 21.83%, below the 25% allowed. But with the change in the March, 2008 version of the regulations, there was a sentence added that states any portion of the floor area
having a height greater than 12 feet shall be considered as two stories for measurement of total floor area. In recalculating the second floor, that adds an additional 562 square feet for a total of 2,714 square feet and a new percentage of 27%. In an R-10 zone there can only be a story and a half. Attorney Cronin went into detail as to the definition of half story.
The following letters of support were entered into the record: Donald S. Brodeur, Jr. of 214 Ingham Hill Road, Old Saybrook, dated November 11, 2008. Mr. Brodeur’s family is an abutting neighbor on Gorton Avenue; Joel D. Weisman of 60 Gorton Avenue dated October 27, 2008; Milton Rulnick of 22 Purtill Avenue dated October 31, 2008; Philip S. Rischall of 22 Purtill dated October 31 2008; Morris Rischal of 22 Purtill Avenue dated October 31, 2008; Frank Nicotera of 20 Purtill Avenue dated October 31, 2008; Carmela & Anthony Santangelo of 63 Gorton Avenue dated Otober 31, 2008; Felix Lombardo and Sandra Whitaker of 63 Gorton Avenue dated October 31, 2008; Joanne Santangelo of 63 Gorton Avenue dated October 31, 2008; Carmen and Anthony J. Vernali of 65 Gorton Avenue dated October 31, 2008; T. R. Riccio of
50 Gorton Avenue dated October 31, 2008 and Gary Lindsay of 75 Gorton Avenue dated October 31, 2008.
R. Moll wanted to know where the pictures of the large houses in the file were in relation to the applicant’s house. Mr. Cancelliere went over this with the Board. The pictures and map location are on file.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed.
REGULAR MEETING:
Case 08-27 Kathy Clark, 445 Shore Road
This is application is for a variance to remove an existing sign and replace it with two signs on the property. Chairman Stutts stated for the record that this application does not comply with Section 19.6.1 c of the regulations (“on any lot there may be only one (1) free-standing sign . . .”) and the hardship stated is due to the curve of the road and the hill, the sign cannot be seen from the road. The applicant would like to put two signs in front of the existing hedge so that it can be seen by cars coming in both directions. The zone is C-30, with 2 acres. T. Schellens went over the regulations that oversee signs. Section 19.6.1 d states “no free-standing Sign, including a Directory Sign, shall have an area greater than 32 square feet, nor a height greater than 10
feet.” Section 19.4.4., the sign area, “double-faced and, when double faced Sign is a Free Standing Sign, only one (1) sign face shall be counted in determining conformity to sign area.” Section 19.4.2, no free standing sign shall stand in the right of way. This sign is 24 square feet on the face. T. Schellens encourages the applicant to make it one sign with two faces and connect it by some means, i.e. fence or 2x4's. There was further discussion of the sign, whether one sign with two sides or two signs. T. Schellens did not want to see two separate signs. He felt that allowing the applicant to have two signs is going against the intent of the regulations. Lengthy discussion on the placement of the signs, how to angle the sign and sign design. T. Schellens suggested that the applicant put directional signs at the entrances. K. Kotzan mentioned conditioning the granting of the variance and have them physically
connected. K. Kotzan stated that this is all about safety, that is the hardship along with the configuration of the land and the curve of the road. There is a setback requirement of 37 feet that is also a hardship with the placement of the sign. In this zone, the sign could be as large as 32 square feet and the applicant is only asking for 24 square feet.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll, to GRANT w/conditions the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted the signs, with the condition that the dimensions do not exceed what is given in the plans and that the two signs, positioned at whatever angle for safety reasons, are not positioned father apart than four (4) feet from each other. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, K. Kotzan, R. Moll, T. Schellens, J. St. Germaine. The motion was approved unanimously. 5-0-0
The hardship is the unique position of the property on a hill and a curve making one sign not able to service cars coming from both directions. Two signs are necessary to identify the animal hospital. R. Moll stated also for public and animal safety. T. Schellens would like to add that the applicant get two directional signs for the property.
Case 08-29 Joseph & Marian Cancelliere, 62 Gorton Avenue
This is an application to demolish an existing one story dwelling and construct a new two story dwelling. The variances requested are Sections 9.3.2 (nonconforming/change), 8.0.c (yard and lot coverage), Section 8.2.2.1 (building height), Section 8.8.6 (maximum height of building/24' required/31'7" proposed), 8.8.7 (minimum setback from narrow street /30' required 12.3' proposed), Section 8.8.9 (minium setback from other property/12' required/10.6' south side proposed) and 8.8.10 maximum floor area (25% allowed/27.7% proposed).
S. Stutts stated that the hardship is that the property is located in a coastal flood area and the square footage has been reduced from 10,765 s.f. to 9,855 s.f.. The applicant has made numerous purchases of property in an attempt to make the lot conform to the required lot size. The lot has increased over the years from 4,250 s.f. to 10,765 s.f. The applicant has redone the foundation to comply with FEMA on his previous rebuild and would like to utilize the existing foundation and add foundation extensions to square it up. The applicant is also adding a solar heating/cooling system which has increased the roof pitch. And the cathedral ceiling has increased the computation for the living area space without having the actual living area. The engineering and planning was done prior to the
adoption of the new regulations in March of 2008. This project, as stated in the presentation, was an analytical and thoroughly thought out process. There was discussion by the Board of how the changes to the regulations was noticed to residents. The Board mentioned the number of letters in support of the project. S. Stutts stated that the solar panels are a big plus. T. Schellens stated that solar panels are not a hardship, and he has an issue with the height change. R. Moll stated that the Sanitarian stated that a new septic system will be installed and adequate leaching fields noted on the plans if this variance application is approved.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by K. Kotzan, to GRANT w/conditions the necessary variances to demolish the existing single story dwelling and construct a one and a half story dwelling according to the plans submitted, with the stipulation that final plans will be submitted showing the solar panels and their location on the roof, including elevations. These plans will be modified to their final state with the placement of the solar panels and will not significantly change from the plans approved this evening. The Chairman shall then make the determination that the final plans are in compliance with the original application. Discussion: the original motion was made granting a two story addition. In this zone only a one and
a half story is allowed and that was the intent. K. Kotzan stated grant as plan submitted. R. Moll stated that we may drift off course as to what drawing was actually approved, since the drawing submitted was a preliminary drawing and did not show the solar panels. No further discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, K. Kotzan, R. Moll, T. Schellens, J. St. Germaine. The motion was approved unanimously. 5-0-0
Minutes: A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by T. Schellens, to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2008 meeting with corrections made by R. Moll. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, K. Kotzan, R. Moll, T. Schellens, J. St. Germaine. The motion was approved unanimously. 5-0-0
A Motion was made by T. Schellens, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the October 14, 2008 meeting with corrections made by R. Moll. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, K. Kotzan, R. Moll, T. Schellens, J. St. Germaine. The motion was approved unanimously. 5-0-0
New Business: The Zoning Enforcement Officer, Ann Brown, discussed with the Board the Registry Regulations and how they will affect the Zoning Board of Appeals case load. A. Brown also discussed increasing the ZBA’s fees to reflect the cost of advertising the legal notices.
Adjournment: A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain to adjourn the December 10, 2008 Regular Meeting. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, K. Kotzan, R. Moll, T. Schellens, J. St. Germaine. The motion was approved unanimously. 5-0-0
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. at the Memorial Auditorium, Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371
| 
