MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
July 14, 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, July 14, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. at the Old Lyme Town Hall, Auditorium, 52 Lyme Street, heard and decided the following appeals:
The Chairman of the Board, Susanne Stutts, opened the meeting 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, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Fran Sadowski (Alternate) and Joseph St. Germain (Alternate)
Present: Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Richard Moll, and June Speirs (Alternate)
The meeting was then called to order at 7:33 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 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
At the last meeting, K. Kotzan and S. Stutts asked if some part of the proposed dwelling 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. The new drawings (revised to June 7, 2009) and submitted for this meeting indicate a reduction in the square footage of the dwelling to 24.7%, rounded up to 25% and the proposal is now within the maximum floor area percentage. The maximum lot coverage by buildings currently was 23%, the proposal is now 19%. J. McQuade asked from where the architect reduced the square footage, Mr. Denney stated the building has been narrowed by one foot and went into a
detailed explanation. It was stated that the setbacks are greater than they were originally. Attorney Cronin went over the variances requested. One is for the front yard (street setback) due to the fact that the other homes on either side are closer to the street and this will also keep the dwelling farther away from the river. Attorney Cronin mentioned the letter from the DEP endorsing the project and the fact that the DEP asked for an additional vegetative buffer along the river. The other variance is for the height of the building due to the pitch of the roof to maximize the efficiency of the solar panels that will be installed. The height is proposed to be 28.5’, not the 24’ required by the Zoning Regulations. Attorney Cronin stated that the discrepancies on the original survey, as noted by Mr. Moll, have been revised and a new survey has been submitted revision date July 8, 2009.
The Chairman opened the floor for audience participation, either in favor or opposed. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at 7:47 p.m.
Case 09-11 Theresa Genovese, 8 Seaside Lane
Susanne Stutts stated applicants proposal was to enclose a 14’ x 23’ long screened porch on an existing deck. There was no one present to represent the applicants. The public hearing was subsequently closed. The clerk, Kim Barrows, stated that the applicants have not received health approval since it is contingent upon the applicants installing a new septic system. The Board should not take action on this matter if it has not been approved by the Health Department. The matter has not been withdrawn by the applicants and no further extensions can be granted. The Board members have asked about the definition of a screened porch and how the health department classifies “screened” porch.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 09-12 John G. & Lorraine M. Gibson, 45 Connecticut Road
Present: Mr. & Mrs. John Gibson, applicants
Susanne Stutts stated that this was a variance to convert from seasonal to year round use and read into the record the variances needed. The existing nonconformity is Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, required is 25’, 21’ existing. The proposal does not comply with Section 9.3.1, enlargement/height. The hardship is that the house was built prior to 1956 and all other aspects of the dwelling conform except for the front porch that was original to the house. The Applicants are waiting for the new sewer plant to be installed in Point O’ Woods. Applicants are looking for year round status down the road when the sewers are hooked up. J. McQuade asked if there was heat in the house, applicants answered yes. The dwelling is up to all codes, it had been
remodeled approximately six years ago.
The Chairman opened the floor for audience participation, either in favor or opposed. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The applicants decided that since there were only four voting members, they wanted to keep the public hearing open. The applicants submitted a letter granting an extension to keep the public hearing open until the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting.
Case 09-13 Thomas E. Lally, 54 Sea Spray Road
Present: Mr. Thomas Lally, applicant; A.J. Miller, contractor
Susanne Stutts stated that the proposal is to construct two porches, one on the north side of the house and the other on the south side. S. Stutts outlined the existing nonconformities, they are Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories is one and a half, existing 2 stories and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline, required is 30’, existing is 10.5’. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yard and lot coverage, Section 9.3.1, enlargement, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streeline (narrow street), 30’ required, 10.5’ existing (variance of 19.5’), Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1 ½ required, 2 stories existing and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 2,500 s.f. allowed, 2,549 proposed.
Mr. Miller stated the hardship is that when the project started in April, the setbacks were in compliance, the regulations changed in May making them noncompliant. The Chairman stated that the hardship runs with the land and asked again, what is the hardship. Mr. Lally stated that they purchased the house recently and the house did not have open porches. The lot size complies with the 10,000 s.f. requirement. This is a beach community and the applicants wanted to have the porches. Mr. Lally stated that the variances asked for are so small. The height of the house and porches will remain consistent. The Chairman asked about the “porches”, they will remain open with columns and railings. The drawings submitted portray one open porch and an addition. Both the
applicant and the contractor stated for the record that the porches will be open, no windows or screens. There was discussion on the size of the shower depicted on the drawings. The correct dimension for the shower is 8’ x 5.3’. S. Stutts asked about the decking that was depicted on the drawing, Mr. Miller stated that there will be no decking on the rear of the house. The compass orientation of the house, as shown on the drawings, were wrong. Mr. Miller fixed them on the file copies but will submit new drawings and a corrected map prior to the next meeting. There will be no increase in the amount of bedrooms, currently there are 4 bedrooms and 1 ½ baths. There will be small wallboard renovations in the house, the only real change are the porch additions. J. St. Germain asked that since the drawings will be redone, can the applicant provide elevations (with numbers) on the drawings. S. Stutts asked that the new
plan have the correct shower dimensions and removal of the deck. J. St. Germain asked if the applicant wanted to go forward with four members? The Board wanted proper plans in order to vote on the matter. Mr. Miller agreed to keep the public hearing open and submitted a letter granting a 35 day extension to keep the public hearing open until September 8th.
Case 09-14 Ned & Beverly Costello, 10 Tantummaheag Road
Present: Ned and Beverly Costello, applicants
Susanne Stutts stated that the proposal is to permit renovations to existing dwelling. S. Stutts outlined the existing nonconformities, they are Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 35’ required, 30.81’ existing. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yard and lot coverage, Section 9.3.1, enlargement and Section 8.8.9 minimum setback from other property line, 35’, asking for a variance of 4.19’. The Chairman also asked the applicants if they were willing to go forward with a four member Board and they stated that they would. Mr. Costello stated the hardship as the house being built in 1915 prior to zoning and when built the road passed in front of house. The road, when the home was originally built does not exist today, so the orientation
of the house has changed to Tantummaheag Road which is 90 degrees to the ancient road. The applicants would like to turn the entrance of the house and extend the porch. Mr. Costello went over the drawings with the Board. The only portion of the house that needs a variance is the porch along with the steps. There will some interior renovations to the house but there will be no change in the number of bedrooms. J. St. Germain, asked the applicants if it would remain an open porch and the applicants stated yes. Mr. Costello sent letters to the neighbors, he spoke with three people and no one had objections. The property owner on the south side came to the Town Hall to review the file and did not object.
The Chairman opened the floor for audience participation, either in favor or opposed. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed.
Case 09-15 – Appeal, Gregory & Kim Massicotte, 14 Walnut Road
Since there were only four (4) members present and in accordance with the applicant’s counsel, John Bennet, the public hearing on Case 09-15, Appeal, Gregory & Kim Massicotte will not open until the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting.
Case 09-16 Gregory & Kim Massicotte, 14 Walnut Road
Since there were only four (4) members present and in accordance with the applicant’s counsel, John Bennet, the public hearing on Case 09-16, Gregory & Kim Massicotte will not open until the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting.
VOTING SESSION
Case 09-10 Francisco J. & Mary Lee Pimentel, 85 Connecticut Road
Since there were not five (5) voting members present at the meeting, the decision on Case 09-10 was deferred until the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by J. McQuade to DEFER the decision on Case 09-10 Pimentel, 85 Connecticut Road to the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0-0.
Case 09-11 Theresa Genovese, 8 Seaside Lane
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by S. Stutts to DENY without prejudice Case 09-11 Genovese, 8 Seaside Lane due to lack of representation, lack of information and no health approval; a vote was taken and the motion to DENY passed unanimously 4-0-0.
Case 09-12 John G. & Lorraine M. Gibson, 45 Connecticut Road
Since there were not five (5) voting members present at the meeting, the public hearing will be held open until the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting.
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by F. Sadowski to CONTINUE the Public Hearing until the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting in order to have five (5) voting members; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0-0.
Case 09-13 Thomas E. Lally, 54 Sea Spray Road
Since there were not five (5) voting members present at the meeting, the public hearing will be held open until the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting.
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by J. St. Germain to CONTINUE the Public Hearing until the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting in order to have five (5) voting members and to submit a proper set of plans for discussion; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0-0.
Case 09-14 Ned & Beverly Costello, 10 Tantummaheag Road
Request for variances to permit renovations to existing dwelling. Applicants have a very large lot in an R-80 zone. The house was built in 1915 that was oriented towards a pre-existing road that puts the house into the setbacks by a very small amount. Applicants want to reorient the house towards the new driveway. Two portions of the porch will be in the setback approximately four feet. The new structure will not be visible from the road. The proposal has minimum impact on the neighbors. The Board decided to grant the variances needed to permit the renovations.
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by F. Sadowski to grant the necessary variances needed to allow renovations to the existing dwelling, it is a large lot and is well within the intent of zoning. It will improve the structure, neighbors were notified and there were no objections; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0-0.
Approval of Minutes of the June 9, 2009 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by S. Stutts, to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2009 meeting; a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 4-0-0.
Old Business - Discussion of the Point O’Woods septic system and that the Point O’ Woods Association is looking into the capacity.
Discussion of upcoming elections and the vacancies on the Zoning Board of Appeals.
New Business - Letter dated June 30, 2009 from Board member, Richard Moll, regarding stamping the plans that the Board approves so that there will not be a question in the future as to what had been approved. The Board will need to be consistent in its procedures and in the future stamp all plans approved. The Board has a stamp that states “Approved by ZBA Chairman and the date”. The Board members present this evening concurred with Mr. Moll.
There was also discussion with respect to the definition of “enclosed porch”. Looking back as to what the Board used in the past for a definition of enclosed porch it consisted of leaving the existing wall of the exterior of the house to remain as is, as well as the existing door (like the rest of the outside of the house), that is not habitable space and has screens which could have windows installed for the winter months. F. Sadowski stated that this was a slippery slope, since as time goes by, the space can become a living area with heat. J. St. Germain stated that the porch submitted tonight was an open porch with a roof, railing and columns. An enclosed porch could be enclosed by walls. J. St. Germain wants to ask other Towns in the beach community what their interpretation
of an enclosed porch is. J. McQuade stated that some porches are elevated and enclosed but look more like a part of the existing house. J. McQuade stated that most enclosed porches have a larger area for screens rather than large areas of siding and windows. J. St. Germain stated that the Zoning Commission should give a clear definition of an “enclosed porch” and an “open porch”. J. McQuade stated that 9 Champion looked more “porch like” where there are more screens than siding. The Board should look at 14 Lieutenant River, since the Board recently approved variances for renovations to the house, including a “screened porch”.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by S. Stutts to adjourn the July 14, 2009 Regular Meeting; the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
There will be no meeting in August. The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, September 8, 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
| 
