MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
June 9, 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, June 9, 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 Vice Chairman of the Board, Judy McQuare was acting Chairman and ran the meeting this evening and introduced the Board members who were seated for the 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 09-07 Rosalie Abraham, Trustee, 68 Washington Avenue
R. Moll gave a brief summation regarding the application. In 1991 a Cease and Desist Order was issued due to the fact that the owner at the time created three bedrooms and a bathroom above the garage that had been granted for “storage above” only. The applicants now want to keep the three bedrooms and bathroom above the existing garage as well as the three bedrooms that exist in the house. The existing septic system is not adequate for a six bedroom home. After discussions with the Assistant Sanitarian and the Zoning Enforcement Officer, the applicant decided to withdraw and resubmit at a later date with a modified plan.
The application was withdrawn in accordance with a letter dated June 9, 2009 from
Patrick Evans, the applicant’s agent.
Case 09-09 Mary & Richard Todzia, 2 Walnut Road
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Todzia, applicants
Request for variances to allow the 8’ x 8’shed, that is 10’ high, to remain in the rear corner of the property at 2 Walnut Road. J. McQuade outlined the existing non-conformities. The proposal does not comply with the following Sections of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations: Section 8.0.c (yard and lot coverage), Section 9.1.3 (expansion of existing building or structure on nonconforming lot: special permit in R-10 zone), Section 8.8.8 (minimum setback from rear property line 30’/15’ for building less than 200 s.f.) existing 2’, request variance of 13’ and Section 8.8.9 (minimum setback from other property line 12’/6’ for building less than 200 s.f.), existing 2’, request a variance of 4’.
Mr. Todzia presented the application to the Board. They purchased the house three years ago and at the time of purchase there was an existing shed in that area. He stated that the existing shed was rotting away so he replaced it with a new one. He also stated that he spoke with the neighbors on the rear property line and on the side line and they did not have a problem with its location. J. McQuade asked if the new shed is in the exact location as the other one. Mr. Todzia stated that it is in about the same location give or take a couple of feet. K. Kotzan asked if the shed was the same size and Mr. Todzia stated that it was longer, approximately 10’ x 6’.
J. McQuade outlined the hardship as stated on the application submitted. It is a very small lot, no space for storage, the shed improves the neatness of the yard and on the other side of the property there is a hill along with the septic tank. The Board discussed the possibility of moving the shed since the shed sits on skids in the driveway area. Mr. Todzia explained that there really is no other place to relocate the shed and where it is currently placed is the only flat area on the lot. A question arose as to whether or not there was a basement in the home, the answer was that there was a small crawlspace. S. Stutts asked if the shed could be painted to match the house so that it did not stand out so much. Mrs. Todzia stated that she would like to change the color of the house, Mr. Todzia
stated that it is the natural color of the wood. Mr. Todzia also stated that if the shed can’t be in its present location, he will just remove it and not have one since any other placement on the lot would look ridiculous.
J. St. Germain asked the Board if there were letters in support of the shed. Mr. Todzia stated that his neighbors received letters about the hearing but no one had written a letter to the Board.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Sullivan of 4 Walnut Road is the neighbor on the side, he didn’t speak to Mr. Todzia about the shed originally because he just recently purchased the house next door. He stated that he did not have a problem with the placement of the shed. There was no further audience participation and no further Board comments. The public hearing closed at 7:55 p.m.
Case 09-10 Francisco J. & Mary Lee Pimentel, 85 Connecticut Road
Request for variances to demolish existing structure and replace with new single-family
dwelling on property located at 85 Connecticut Road. The proposal does not comply with the following Sections of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations: Section 8.0.c (yard and lot coverage), Section 9.07 (voluntary demolition), Section 9.3.2 (change), Section 4.3 (tidal waters protection, tidal river protection, other than the Connecticut River), 43’ proposed, request a variance of 7’, Section 8.8.6 (maximum height of building or structure 24’), 28.3’ proposed, request a variance of 4.3’, Section 8.8.7 (minimum setback from streetline 25’), 14.4’ proposed, requesting a variance of 10.6’, Section 8.8.11 (maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of non-wetlands area 25%), 26.1% proposed, requesting a variance of 1.1% and Section 11.20.b.(1) (an
application to construct a year-round use dwelling on a vacant lot in the R-10 zone shall be subject to the following application requirements and standards: The lot shall contain a minimum of 10,000 square feet and there shall be no more than one dwelling unit located on the lot;. . .).
Present: Michael E. Cronin, Jr., agent for the applicant; Mr. & Mrs. Pimentel, applicants and Mr. Nelson Denney, Architect
Attorney Cronin gave his presentation with respect to the project. J. St. Germain brought up the issue of “voluntary demolition” and abandonment of the use. Attorney Cronin concurred, the variance is to rebuild the dwelling on a lot less than the required 10,000 s.f. If the variance is not granted, the structure will not be demolished. The lot was originally divided long before the enactment of the Zoning Regulations. The lot on Connecticut Road is a double lot, each lot being 40’ in width. Attorney Cronin discussed several of the existing nonconformities on the lot. The new proposal would reduce several of the nonconformities but the lot size will not comply (10,000 s.f. required, 9,915 s.f. existing). Attorney Cronin also stated that the 50’ setback from the Three Mile River cuts across the property and makes 65% of the property nonbuildable. The existing house was built in 1934 and is a three bedroom, 1400 s.f. bungalow, with over 1,000 s.f. of decking, a garage and a
bathhouse. Mr. Denney went over the reasoning for demolishing the structure rather than rebuilding. The existing structure is not building code compliant, is of a light weight construction and built on concrete and wooden piers. Mr. Denney discussed the flood elevation heights, existing is 10.3’ and in accordance with FEMA regulations, the structure needs to be at elevation 12 for the A-8 flood zone. Any improvements made to the existing structure would exceed the 50% rule for FEMA and then the structure would have to be fully flood proofed.
The new proposal is to enlarge the common living area, add one more bedroom to the existing three bedrooms and add solar heating and cooling. The decking will be reduced to a minimum to allow a small table and chairs. There will also be an additional 178 s.f. added for the storage of the mechanicals, which space needs to be above the flood elevation. This additional square footage puts the total percentage 1.1% over the allowed 25%. The floor area is being reduced from 25% to 21% with a total living area of 2,082 s.f. Mr. Denney discussed the solar panels, there placement and orientation to the sun.
The hardship is the setback from the street, compliance with the FEMA regulations while also maintaining the one and a half story height in accordance with the regulations. The pitch of the roof is increased for the maximum efficiency of the solar panels. There is no additional land available to add to the lot to meet the 10,000 s.f. requirement. The lot size is 9,915 s.f. and 100% of the wetlands calculation needs to be deducted from the square footage. After deducting the wetlands from the square footage, a total of 9,649 s.f. remains.
K. Kotzan and S. Stutts asked if some part of the proposal could be reduced to lower the percentage of the lot coverage and questioned the addition of the extra bedroom. Discussion ensued about what could possibly be reduced. After discussion, Mr. Denney stated that the mechanical room could be reduced in size.
Attorney Cronin also asked if the Board could condition the variance so that the applicant could have additional time to obtain a building permit. The reason for the additional time is due to the timing of the sewer system hook-up at Point O’ Woods.
Since there was not a time deadline to grant the variances with respect to the applicants, the Board discussed continuing the public hearing until July to see a revised plan reducing the square footage and to send the proposal to the DEP since the property borders the Three Mile River. Attorney Cronin agreed to continue the public hearing to the July meeting. Since the plans are to be changed, R. Moll asked about cleaning up the plan to delete, “exiting” and “proposed” in certain areas, i.e. well, septic. R. Moll also asked about the number of homes the septic system was designed to handle and what would happen if each home on the system in Point O’ Woods decided to add additional bedrooms. J. St. Germain stated that the system could not have been designed with
just Point O’ Woods in mind. It was suggested that maybe the Board could write a letter to see how the system was designed and how the DEP came up with the sewer capacity.
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by S. Stutts to continue the Public Hearing until the July 14, 2009 Regular Meeting. No discussion and a vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously.
Case 09-11 Theresa Genovese, 8 Seaside Lane
The applicant granted an extension to continue the application to the July 14, 2009 Regular Meeting. The Health Department only approved the project as a “screened in porch” only. After discussions with the Sanitarian, Ron Rose, he did not consider what had been built a screened in porch. The applicant was to meet with Ron Rose for clarification of a screened porch and to discuss the installation of a new septic system. The matter was continued.
VOTING SESSION
Case 09-09 Mary & Richard Todzia, 2 Walnut Road
J. McQuade stated that the variances are to allow the 8’ x 8’shed, that is 10’ high, to remain in the rear corner of the property at 2 Walnut Road. The applicant did not realize that he needed a permit to replace the structure. J. McQuade outlined the variances requested, which are as follows: Section 8.0.c (yard and lot coverage), Section 9.1.3 (expansion of existing building or structure on nonconforming lot: special permit in R-10 zone), Section 8.8.8 (minimum setback from rear property line 30’/15’ for building less than 200 s.f.) existing 2’, request variance of 13’ and Section 8.8.9 (minimum setback from other property line 12’/6’ for building less than 200 s.f.), existing 2’, request a variance of 4’.
J. McQuade added that the applicant stated that there is no other place to move the shed to on the lot that would not look out of place, and that it was originally attached to the house. The shed was in bad condition so the applicant decided to reconstruct it and add a shower to the house which is attached to the house. The shed is for storage of lawn equipment and bikes, it will contain all the yard clutter to improve the appearance of the property. The hardship is that the lot is very small, .14 acres, also a very odd shaped property which is surrounded by three streets. There is no place for storage, the house is on ledge and the other side of the property slopes down. The neighbors do not have a problem with the placement of the shed. The neighbor, Mr. Sullivan, spoke in favor
of the shed at the public hearing. F. Sadowski asked if the shed could be painted. The Board decided that painting the house and shed all the same color could not be made a condition of approval but they suggested it.
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by R. Moll, to GRANT Case 09-09 Todzia, the necessary variances to allow the 8’ x 8’ shed to remain; discussion as to the applicant could have had a larger shed on the property and the original picture showed a shed on the property; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Approval of Minutes of the May 12, 2009 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Stutts, to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2009 meeting with the following rewording of a sentence on page 3, 2nd to last paragraph “S. Stutts stated that the question arose as to “how many building units on
the property” was due to the notation written by the ZEO under Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit in the denial; the motion to approve passed unanimously.
Old Business - D. Moll would like to pull the 9 Champion file to see what there porch looks like and how designed. The Board also wants a definition of three season room and porch.
New Business – S. Stutts mentioned that an FOIA, Ethics & Public Meetings Workshop will be held on Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon at the Old Saybrook Library. She urges members to sign up. There will be sign up sheets at the counter in the Land Use Department.
- S. Stutts mentioned they have banned plastic bags in Westport and can fine people $150.00. Westport is the first town to do this east of the Mississippi
- S. Stutts also mentioned the letter from the Conn. River Gateway Commission requesting a revision to the Definition of Height within the conservation zone.
- R. Moll discussed the bus barn project that was approved by the Zoning Commission on June 8th. Members can refer to the minutes of the Zoning Commission meeting for further details.
- R. Moll will be running again, but will not be at the caucus in July. Tom Schellens has resigned from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The goal is to have the regular membership filled before the Registry begins.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Stutts to adjourn the June 9, 2009 Regular Meeting; the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, July 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
| 
