MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
May 12, 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, May 12, 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: Fran Sadowski (Alternate), Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: 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:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 09-06 Jeffrey A. Mullen, 2 & 4 Four Mile River Road
Present: Mr. Jeffrey Mullen, applicant; Ms. Liz Rassmussen, applicant’s agent
Request for variances to construct a 12’ x 24’ carport attached to an existing nonconforming structure. S. Stutts outlined the existing non-conformities. They are Section 21.3.3, minimum dimension of a square – 150’ required/115’ +/- existing, Section 21.3.7, minimum setback from streetline – 60’ required/18’ +/- to the house and 36’ +/- to the garage and Section 21.3.12, maximum total lot coverage as percent of lot area – 55% required /.046 lot coverage proposed. The hardship as stated is that the topography of the land prevents the location within the required setbacks and in 1932 there was a highway taking of the land along the street. In 1993 there was a prior appeal granting construction of a garage, that garage has not been built.
Ms. Rassmussen gave a brief presentation. The applicant requests a 25’ variance of the required 60’ minimum setback from the streetline. There is a nonconforming carport which exists and had been constructed by the builder without the proper permits. The owner was subsequently issued a cease and desist order and is now seeking the necessary variances to keep the structure that is attached to, and in line with the existing non-conforming barn. J. McQuade asked how long the carport has been there, the applicant answered about a year. J. St. Germain asked if the applicant was the owner at the time the carport was built and the answer was yes. The applicant stated that the builder told him that the proper permits were pulled, but they had not been. There is also an
existing tent-style building located on the site that is also in violation of the regulations and the applicant will be removing that structure.
Ms. Rassmussen detailed the site location, i.e. C-30 zoning district on 53,579 s.f. (1.23 acres) which consists of two lots 2 & 4 which have been merged through zoning (Section 9.12 (Merger of Non-Conforming lots). R. Moll asked if there was a deed merging the two properties, Ms. Rassmussen said there is not a deed merging the two lots. There was lengthy discussion as to merging the lots.
Currently on the site is a single family residence and barn with antique shop. The lot is an irregular shape due to a State of CT Highway taking in 1932 that reduced the distance to the streetline by about 22’. The steep topography does not lend itself to construction in the rear of the property. Ms. Rassmussen discussed previous variance applications, one in 1971 which was approved, but the file could not be located and another in 1993 to construct a carriage house which was approved since “sufficient hardship was shown in the topography of the land”. The carriage house was not constructed and the variance expired. Ms. Rassmussen stated for the record that the hardship is due to the 1932 highway taking and the site topography, that a literal enforcement of the regulations
would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship in constructing the carport; that such conditions do not affect generally the district in which the parcel is situated; that the requested variance is the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose as the structure encroaches no further than the existing barn; that the variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of these regulations and will not harm the public health, safety, convenience, welfare and property values.
S. Stutts asked what the business being run from the property consists of. The applicant answered antiques, but he collects antique cars as well. There was discussion as to the number of cars on the property and car(s) kept for parts. There was also discussion as to parking for customers who visit the antique shop. J. St. Germain asked if there were any plans to construct the parking area shown on the drawing which is to the right of the house. Mr. Mullen stated no, not at this time. S. Stutts asked if there were any plans to finish off the carport. Mr. Mullen stated he would like to put board and batten on the carport. Discussion then ensued as to whether or not if it is enclosed it is a carport or a garage.
S. Stutts opened the floor for Board member questions. R. Moll went through history from 1982 to present as an antique business. Further discussion as to the 1993 variance being approved but not constructed. K. Kotzan asked if the applicant would be agreeable to taking down the shed structure as a condition of granting the variance. The Board also discussed merging the lots as a condition of approval. K. Kotzan wanted to reference a “plan” if this variance is going to be approved. Ms. Rassmussen stated that the Board could reference the plot plan. Discussion about the photo with the dimensions being entered as “Exhibit A” and that the structure be three sided with the dimensions noted.
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 09-07 Rosalie Abraham, Trustee, 68 Washington Avenue
Present: Patrick Evans, agent for the applicant (builder)
Request for variances to construct breezeway between existing home and two car garage and convert one bay of two car garage into family/media room. This property is in an R-10 zone and has a 9,816 square feet lot. It does not comply with Section 9.1.3, no expansion of existing structure on nonconforming lot, Section 9.3.1, enlargement, Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area percentage of lot, 25% required, 26.7% proposed and Section 8.0.c, yard and lot coverage. The hardship is that the family has outgrown the house.
Mr. Evans gave a brief presentation. S. Stutts stated that there is not a picture of what the whole project will look like. Mr. Evans gave a history of the property. The property has been in the family for many years and is now in a trust. The garage structure was built approximately 20 years ago and it was stated that no one has used the garage structure. Since it hasn’t been occupied, the garage structure has become rundown and is deteriorating. S. Stutts asked what was in the garage structure and Mr. Evans stated that there were three bedrooms above the garage along with a bathroom. S. Stutts stated that in 1991 a cease and desist order was given to the homeowners for the conversion of the storage space above the garage into living space. The original garage was
granted in 1988 and for storage above the garage. In 1991, the cease and desist was issued regarding the conversion to living space. J. St. Germain stated that the application notes 6 bedrooms, J. McQuade stated that the assessor records show a three bedroom home.
Discussion about the Sanitarian signing off on the Zoning Compliance Permit Application. The existing tank size is not sufficient for 6 bedrooms. J. St. Germain stated that the plans submitted did not show three bedrooms and the bathroom above the garage. S. Stutts stated that the question arose as to how many building units was to due the ZEO noting under Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit, “how many units?” That statement triggered the Board to then do some additional research since the ZEO did not have an opportunity to go out and inspect the property prior to the meeting. The existing septic system cannot sustain a 6 bedroom home and Mr. Evans was advised to see the Sanitarian. R. Moll asked that elevations be given for the buildings and J. St.
Germain, along with other Board members asked for a panoramic view of the entire project.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to CONTINUE the Public Hearing on Case 09-07 Abraham until JUNE 9, 2009. The motion passed unanimously.
Case 09-08 Elisabeth B. Oberg, 239 Mile Creek Road
Present: Ms. Elisabeth Oberg, applicant
Request variances to build a 10’ x 11’ addition to existing kitchen in front area of the house. S. Stutts outlined the existing nonconformities. There is one re Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline 50’ required/20’ is existing. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverage, Section 9.3.1, Enlargement and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline, 50’ required, 22’ proposed. The house was built in 1900 and constructed within the setback.
Ms. Oberg gave a brief presentation. She stated that she is not adding bedrooms or plumbing. J. St. Germain stated that the street numbers were confusing. J. McQuade asked how long Ms. Oberg was in the house, Ms. Oberg stated since 1985. The Board reviewed the pictures in the file. The Board also discussed the drawings in the file regarding the roof elevation and tying it into the existing house. Ms. Oberg stated that she did not get the architectural drawings prepared until she knew she would be able to go forward with the project. S. Stutts stated that the Board would discuss, in its voting session, how they would approach the lack of architectural plans if the variances were granted. J. St. Germain asked if the addition could be moved to another part of the house,
preferably to the rear. Ms. Oberg stated that if that happened, it would be further from the kitchen. There was discussion as to rooflines and the pitch of roof on the addition. J. St. Germain asked about the hardship, S. Stutts stated the hardship is that the house was built in the 1900’s. J. St. Germain stated why not put the addition to the rear since there is a lot of land. R. Moll stated that it would be more appropriate to have the addition in the front where the dining room and the kitchen is. K. Kotzan stated that if the variance is grant, it would be conditioned on the Chairman approving the architectural plans. R. Moll went over the deeds to the property, and requested that the applicant provided the most recent deed to the property.
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.
VOTING SESSION:
Case 09-06 Jeffrey A. Mullen, 2 & 4 Four Mile River Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to construct a 12’ x 24’ carport attached to an existing nonconforming structure. The property is located in a C-30 zoning district on 53,579 s.f. (1.23 acres) which consists of two lots 2 & 4. The minimum setback from the street is 60’ and they are asking for a variance of 25’ in order to keep the existing carport and turn it into a sided carport. The hardship is the topography of the land. The conditions would be merging the lots by deed and taking down the tent type structure. The approval would cite “Exhibit A”. The Board discussed a time limit as to complying with the conditions. K. Kotzan stated that what this variance is for is minor compared to what had been granted in 1993 and never built. After discussion, S. Stutts stated that the applicant has two months to meet the conditions after completed. There was further discussion as to the carport being three sided, enclosed or not enclosed and the front not being
enclosed. Further discussion as to siding only one side of the structure.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to GRANT w/conditions Case 09-06, the necessary variances to build the 12’ x 24’ carport as per plans submitted and as-built picture labeled Exhibit A with the conditions that the properties, number 2 and 4 must be joined by deed, a removal of the temporary storage building on the property both conditions done within two months of approval and the option of siding two sides of the structure at the discretion of the owner; discussion – D. Moll, there are too many vehicles on the property; J. McQuade stated it will look much better when finished; this proposal is much smaller than what was granted in 1993. The motion passed. 4-1-0
Reasons to grant – the hardship is the topography to the rear of the property, carport will improve looks of property and removal of the temporary storage building.
Case 09-08 Elisabeth B. Oberg, 239 Mile Creek Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to build a 10’ x 11’ addition to existing kitchen in front area of the house. The minimum setback from streetline is 50 feet and applicant is proposing 22 feet, which is set two feet back from existing house. The house was built in the 1900’s and built with the kitchen in the front which is only 4 feet wide. The Board would grant the application with a condition that the Board approve the architectural drawing. J. McQuade stated that it is a nice addition to the home. R. Moll stated the applicant is a good shepherd of the property, this is a very small addition to the property and he feels that the hardship is the placement of the house on the lot.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by K. Kotzan, to GRANT w/condition Case 09-08 Oberg, the necessary variances to construct a 10’ x 11’ addition to the front of the dwelling with the condition that the plans with dimensions (including elevations) be submitted to the Chairman for approval and the most current deed to the property be placed in the file; the motion passed unanimously.
Reasons to grant – unusual hardship of an old house built close to the road, the only place to expand the kitchen is in the front, minimal alteration to make a large improvement to the house.
Approval of Minutes of the March 10, 2009 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2009 meeting; the motion was to approve passed unanimously.
Old Business - None
New Business – R. Moll discussed 7 Town Landing Road and the amount of fill being brought onto the property. The Zoning Commission approved the application at its meeting on May 11, 2009.
- R. Moll also discussed that at the next election the ZBA should make sure that there are five regular members and alternates who will serve when the Registry Regulations come into effect.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan to adjourn the May 12, 2009 Regular Meeting; the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, June 9, 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
| 
