MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
March 10, 2009
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, March 10, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Town Hall, Second Floor Conference Room, 52 Lyme Street, heard and decided the following appeals:
The Chairman introduced the Board members who were seated for this evenings meeting.
Seated for this evenings meeting and voting were the following members: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Richard Moll, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman and Joseph St. Germain (Alternate)
Present: Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Fran Sadowski (Alternate), Thomas Schellens 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 voting session. The meeting has been recorded on tape and the following actions were taken:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 08-28 Theresa Genovese, 8 Seaside Lane
Present: Joseph Genovese and Mr. Genovese
Variances to construct a 14’ x 20’ screened porch on existing deck. S. Stutts outlined the existing non-conformities. They are Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, required 1 1/2 , existing 2; Section 8.8.6, maximum height of building or structure, 24’ required, 30’ existing; Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline/narrow street, 40’ setback required along Seaside Lane/37.5’ required along White Sands Beach Road, 11’ existing from Seaside Lane and 32’ +/- existing from White Sands Beach Road and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, required 12’, existing 7.5’.
The proposal does not comply with the following Sections: Section 8.0.c, yard and lot coverage, no structure shall be enlarged, except in conformity with the regulations herein prescribed for the District in which it is located; Section 9.3.1, Enlargement, no building or other structure which does not conform to the requirements of these Regulations and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 7.5’ existing.
S. Stutts stated the applicants have complied with recording the deed in order to merge the two properties. That was a condition of approval from a variance that was granted in 1987.
S. Stutts then went back over the sequence of events with respect to this case. Back in November of 1986 there was a plan for additions and alterations and in January of 1987 variances were granted for the sideyard of 5’ and a front setback of 14’. This was to allow a 504 s.f. addition to the east side of the dwelling and a 178’ addition to the north side, with a stipulation that the lots be merged and the dwelling not be used year-round.
In March of 1987 permits for the planned additions were applied for. The current proposal is for a 14’ x 23’ screened porch on the existing deck and the existing deck is 24’ x 22. The approval given in the health review states for “screened in porch only”. There is some confusion between the dimensions and the plan that has been penciled in. K. Kotzan asked what “exists” and what is “proposed”. S. Stutts answered that it all exists. J. St. Germain stated that the one thing that doesn’t exist is the “screened” porch, what is there is enclosed with windows and siding. The additions up until 1987 have been approved, the deed stipulation has been recently resolved and now the dimension issue needs to
be resolved with respect to the deck and the screened porch.
The Zoning Compliance Application states that the screened porch is 24’ x 22’, Mr. Genovese stated that it should be 24’ x 14’ (the change was made on the application), different references to square footage were made. That change was made to the application that the square footage is to be 336 s.f.
S. Stutts asked where the deck is and what portion is to be screened in. Mr. Genovese stated that somewhere between the time the plans were drawn up in 1986 and the construction done in 1987, the blueprints were altered. They have been trying to obtain the original blueprints to show how the changes evolved. Discussion as to the evolution of design on the Assessor’s cards over the years and what currently exists.
S. Stutts asked what they are asking for today. Mr. Genovese stated that they want to enclose a section of the existing deck. There is no additional square footage added or disturbance to the yard. Mr. Genovese provided pictures to show what has been done. R. Moll stated that the application is incomplete because there is not a drawing of what is to be done in the file. Discussion and interpretation as to what is a “screened porch”, a definitive definition was not reached. The porch as it exists has glass windows with screens and cedar siding. Further discussion as to not making the porch into actual living space. Mr. Genovese stated that there will not be heat or air conditioning in the space and it will retain the original deck flooring. S. Stutts changed
the application to state that the proposal is to “enclose a screened porch”. R. Moll wanted the point made as to how this application was advertised, i.e. a 24’x22’ screened porch.
S. Stutts asked the applicant how close they were to getting the blueprint showing the progression of the building. Applicants are having a copy mailed to them. Discussion as to a blueprint being in the file originally, Ann Brown had remembered seeing it but during the laserfiche process, maps had been separated from the file.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the public either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 09-03 Harcourt W. and Michelle L. Davis, 14 Lieutenant River Lane
Present: Mr. Harcourt W. Davis, applicant
Variances to construct a 33’ x 36’ addition to the existing dwelling. S. Stutts outlined the existing non-conformities. There is one, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline/narrow street, 40’ required, 24’ +/- existing (survey should confirm exact measurement).
The proposal does not comply with the following Sections: Section 8.0.c, yard and lot coverage, no structure shall be enlarged, except in conformity with the regulations herein prescribed for the District in which it is located; Section 9.3.1, Enlargement, no building or other structure which does not conform to the requirements of these Regulations, Section 4.10.3, Connecticut River Setbacks, no building shall be enlarged or structurally altered within 100 feet of the high tide line, the proposal provides for 55’ +/- setback and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline/narrow street, 40’ required, 30.6’ existing a variance of 9.4’ needed. There was a revision that the maximum floor area does conform.
Mr. Davis presented a map showing the high tide lines, wetlands area, parking area, house, etc. The house is built on a “plain” and the rear of the property slopes down to the Lieutenant River. A brief history of the house was given to the Board.
The applicants would like to do the following items:
Rebuild and enclose the porch on the northwestern side of property within the existing footprint. Remove the stairs on the northern side and replace them with an entry onto the proposed deck. Add stairs to deck leading from deck next to porch and running northerly parallel to deck.
Remove the existing wall (breezeway) attaching the house to the garage.
Add an addition to the northerly side of the existing structure. The addition will house a 24 x 24 garage, workshop and additional living space. The second floor will be all living space. The overall dimensions will be 33’ by 36’. The existing garage will remain in place and be incorporated into the addition. The front 8 foot portion in the easterly direction of the garage will remain while the portion intersecting the addition will be removed. The garage’s northerly wall will be moved in the southerly direction about 4 feet.
Add a first floor deck to the northwestern side of the above noted addition. The dimensions will be 13 by 36 feet wide. Add stairs to deck leading from deck next to porch and running northerly parallel to the deck.
Replace the existing septic system in the southerly direction from the house. Septic design to be submitted to health.
Remove the hemlock hedge for the street side of the property and replace it with new landscaping. Applicant has filed a Permit Application for Tree Work with the selectman’s office and are awaiting approval or denial.
Applicants working with DEP to obtain a permit to repair the existing dock. K. Kotzan asked about phragmities. There is not much on the property.
The stockpiled material to be located as noted on the site survey. The placement of the stockpile will be in the area where the trees are being taken down. J. St. Germain asked if the stumps will be taken off the property. The applicant stated yes they will.
Existing paved driveway to be removed and a new paved driveway installed. New driveway will be 24 feet wide and extend 24 feet alone the easterly side of the addition to the northeasterly corner of the addition and east about 30 feet to the street. Applicants to apply to the Selectman’s office to obtain a permit.
Due to the narrow street, applicants would like to add a 20’ by 20’ foot gravel off street parking space in the location of the proposed stockpile area listed on the survey.
The hardships are as follows: the 100’ high tide setback and the 50’ wetlands setback, as well as the streetline and sideyard setbacks. If the addition was to be shifted there would be more of a disturbance to the wetland areas.
The Board discussed the garage space and additional living space. J. St. Germain asked about the tree removal. Mr. Davis stated that the majority of the trees will remain, they are removing the hemlocks in the front and a few other for safety reasons.
The applicants were before the Zoning Commission on March 9, 2009 and obtained a waiver of Section 4.10.12.1. The applicants were able to demonstrate that the structure will not be visible from the Connecticut River.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the public either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Milton Allen of 12 Lieutenant River Lane spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Fulton was away and that he had spoken with him and Mr. Fulton stated that he did not have a problem with the application. There was no further audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed.
Case 09-04 Kimberly and Gregory Massicotte, 14 Walnut Road
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Massicotte, applicants
Variances to construct an open air pavilion with a masonry fireplace. S. Stutts outlined the existing non-conformities. They are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area 10,000 s.f. required, 9,583 s.f. existing; Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 s.f. required, 9,583 s.f. existing; Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot, 75 required, 53’ existing; Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline, 25’ and 7.5’ for Section 8.6 lots on narrow streets, required setback is 32.5’, applicant must show existing streetline setback to the house on the plot plan; Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’, applicant must show existing other (side) setback to the house plan on the plot plan.
The proposal does not comply with Section 9.1.3, Expansion of existing building or structure on nonconforming lot: Special Permit in R-10 zone. The hardship is applicant needs protection from tree litter for eating outside, there will be no increase in living space.
S. Stutts asked about the height of the proposed structure and the height of the existing house. The house is 20 feet, the plans say the structure will be 14 feet and the application states it is 18 feet. The actual height of the proposed structure will be 14’8” feet.
Mr. Massicotte gave a brief presentation. They would like a place to barbeque and entertain outdoors. This will clean up the backyard. Discussion about the size of the structure, either 20’ x 20’, but it is 21’ x 21’. S. Stutts asked about the trees in the backyard and if the issue is tree litter, the oak trees in the rear could be removed. Further discussion about the tree species in the Massicotte yard.
S. Stutts asked about the “beefiness” of the structure by using 8’x8’ posts. Mr. Massicotte wanted to create an arts and crafts type of look. K. Kotzan stated that there will be no siding. J. McQuade asked if there will be lighting in the structure. There will be lighting tucked in under the rafters. Discussion about the lighting, i.e. flood lights on the house, etc. S. Stutts read into the record a letter from a neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Burlingham of 16 Walnut Road. They are not opposed to the structure but are concerned about the shading the structure will create onto their property. The Board, in depth, discussed the shading from the structure, the tree cover and the orientation of the house on the lot.
R. Moll asked about the roofing. Mr. Massicotte stated it would be architectural roofing shingles, similar to the house. R. Moll brought up the issue of hardship with the land and stated that the structure shall remain open permanently (never enclosed) to this owner and any future owner of the property.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the public either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed.
VOTING SESSION:
Case 08-28 Theresa Genovese, 8 Seaside Lane
S. Stutts stated that this was a variance to construct a 14’ x 20’ screened porch on existing deck. J. McQuade stated that it should be changed to read “enclose a porch”. The Board discussed again that they felt comfortable up until 1987 when variances were granted but that the paper trail from then on became, as J. St Germain stated, ambiguous. That was the consensus of the Board. Since the application stated construct a “screened” porch and what has already been constructed is a porch/room enclosed with windows and cedar siding, the Board did not want to make that change to the application. The legal advertisement stated the proposal was for a screened porch and the Board would like a definition for a screened porch. K. Kotzan stated that the
evidence presented is insufficient for the Board to understand that the applicants were granted something that looks anything like what has been built. The variance, the way it was originally written, was really granting something close to this but had been amended slightly. Further discussion of the Assessor’s cards and footprints noted on same. S. Stutts stated the Sanitarian approved a screened porch only.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by K. Kotzan, to DENY w/out prejudice Case 08-28. There are not conclusive facts and drawings that can be put into the record to show the progression of additions to the property to date; applicants recorded the deed to merge the properties which was a condition of approval for a variance granted in 1987. Discussion: K. Kotzan is more concerned with what was originally granted and what existed prior to the variance. J. St. Germain agrees and would like to see what the plan showed, either windows or screens. No further discussion and a vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously.
Case 09-03 Harcourt W. and Michelle L. Davis, 14 Lieutenant River Lane
S. Stutts went over variances - Section 8.0.c, yard and lot coverage, no structure shall be enlarged, except in conformity with the regulations herein prescribed for the District in which it is located; Section 9.3.1, Enlargement, no building or other structure which does not conform to the requirements of these Regulations, Section 4.10.3, Connecticut River Setbacks, no building shall be enlarged or structurally altered within 100 feet of the high tide line, the proposal provides for 55’ +/- setback and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline/narrow street, 40’ required, 30.6’ existing a variance of 9.4’ needed. There was a revision that the maximum floor area does conform. Applicants are enclosing existing garage and breezeway. The existing house is already into the front
setback and in the rear into the 100’ setback. The hardship is that the house can’t be shifted in any direction or it will impact the wetland area or the septic area. The project is consistent with other houses in the area. K. Kotzan stated that the Gateway Commission did not have an issue with the proposal. The neighbors do not have an issue with the proposal. R. Moll stated that the Town will be getting a new septic system. S. Stutts stated that the applicants have been sensitive to the wetlands. J. St. Germain stated that the porch needs to be rebuilt.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to GRANT Case 09-03. The necessary variances are granted to build as per plans submitted; the motion passed unanimously.
S. Stutts stated this was a large lot; Gateway approved since no impact on the CT River;
consistent with the neighborhood and proposal within the intent of zoning.
Case 09-04 Kimberly and Gregory Massicotte, 14 Walnut Road
S. Stutts stated that the variances requested are to construct an open air pavilion with
a masonry fireplace. The pavilion will be 21’ x 21’ and 14’8” in height.
The hardship is applicant needs protection from tree litter for eating outside, there will be no increase in living space. Some of the trees will be removed. One neighbor was concerned about shade, but the existing trees already create shade and neighbors yard is on the north side of proposed structure. A condition will be placed on the variance that it will remain an open structure. K. Kotzan stated that the condition should say “no siding”. Lighting should be inside the structure under the rafters. R. Moll stated that lights should not be seen from the neighbors property. J. St. Germain stated that the light inside the enclosure shall be confined to the enclosure, meaning any light in the structure shall be enclosed in the structure. S. Stutts mentioned that
the applicants should be sensitive to the neighbors.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll, to GRANT w/condition Case 09-04. The necessary variances are granted to build the patio pavilion as per plans submitted with the condition that no siding be put on this structure to enclose it in any way; the motion passed unanimously.
Approval of Minutes of the January 13, 2009 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by R. Moll, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2009 meeting; the motion was approved unanimously.
Old Business
R. Moll discussed the “meeting minutes” pamphlet handed out a few meetings ago. The pamphlet does not adequately reflect the current Freedom of Information standards that are in place today.
New Business
Case 09-05 Swan Management LLC, 73 Swan Avenue – Discussion as to if there has been a significant change from the application submitted last month.
S. Stutts summarized the application differences from last months application which had been denied. The charge of the Board this evening is to only discuss if there has been a “significant” change in the application.
The application was denied since a very minimal effort was made to comply with the zoning regulations, proposed building twice the square footage of that allowed on this substandard sized lot, no hardship as lot could accommodate a reasonable size cottage within the setbacks and coverage regulations and was not within the intent of zoning. What the Board left the architect with was some objectives that the Board felt they would like to see. One was to reduce the number of bedrooms to 4, to reduce the size of the structure to one and a half stories, to eliminate the upstairs apartment and have only one kitchen in the house and also to reduce the bulk.
The new application has a first floor reduction of 51 square feet, the second floor was reduced by 51 square feet for total floor area reduced by 102 square feet. The front setback was increased to 10 inches, the south side setback was increased by one inch and the rear setback was reduced by two inches. There was discussion about accessory apartments and where they are allowed. They are allowed in the RU 40 (40,000 s.f.) or RU 80 (80,000 s.f.) zones. This lot contains 3,750 s.f. with an accessory apartment. S. Stutts further discussed what was required to have an accessory apartment, i.e. two off-street parking spaces and stairways located within the dwelling. J. St. Germain asked where in the application the applicant was asking for an accessory apartment. S. Stutts said they
have not officially applied for an accessory apartment but one is noted on the plan. K. Kotzan stated that the use was grandfathered. S. Stutts went on to discuss voluntary demolition as described in Section 9.07 of the Regulations, “The voluntary demolition by the owner of any Building or Structure containing a Nonconforming Use shall constitute evidence of willful abandonment.” J. St. Germain stated that that was the gist of everything. K. Kotzan stated that that is why they are asking for a variance. Further discussion ensued as to looking at this as a raw piece of land.
The Board went back to discussing if a significant change had been made. Floor area reduced by 102 s.f. and setbacks reduced by inches. J. St. Germain stated that even if it is a small change, it is still a 50% reduction from what exists. J. McQuade stated that the Board is looking for a significant change from the last application. The consensus is that it is not a significant change from last month. Further discussion on the “intent of zoning” and what is the view for the future.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll, to state that the application for review is not a significant change from the application submitted last month that was denied. Applicant will have to make a significant change to submit next month or wait six months to reapply. The motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by J. McQuade to adjourn the March 10, 2009 Regular Meeting; the motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, April 14, 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
| 
