MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
October 13, 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, October 13, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Town Hall, Memorial 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, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Richard Moll, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman and Joseph St. Germain (Alternate)
Present: Fran Sadowski (Alternate), Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: 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 HEARING
Case 09-20 – Christine Wysocki, 19 Brighton Road
Present: Mr.& Mrs. Wysocki, applicants
S. Stutts stated that to allow existing bridge to remain in order to access the wetlands to the rear of the property. This case was continued to hear what determination the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission (IWWC) had made. A letter from Ms. Janet Bechtel, Chairman of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission was read into the record stating that the IWWC has discussed the case and conducted a site walk of the property in August to see the work done on the property. The IWWC has requested that the applicant submit a planting plan prior to the issuance of a permit. The IWWC stated that it would not be in the best interest of the wetlands to remove the structure. The letter also stated that Mr. Carpurso, Chairman of White Sands Beach Association and White Sands Beach Attorney,
Mr. Kepple were present at the IWWC meeting and were opposed to the structure.
Mrs. Wysocki stated that she did submit the planting plan to the IWWC and the ZBA has a copy in its file. J. St. Germain asked about the survey and the property boundaries. A letter from Hendricks & Associates was entered into the record at the last meeting regarding the actual property boundaries. S. Stutts went over the variances needed, they are from Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line is 30’, the proposed setback is 2.5’, therefore a variance of 27.5’ is being requested. The other variance is from Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage. S. Stutts asked Mrs. Wysocki what the hardship is, Mrs. Wysocki stated it is that the wetlands are in the rear of the property and to access the other side she needs to go over them because she can’t go
under the wetlands or around the wetlands to clean the debris. Her intent is to clean and maintain the wetlands, which is a positive intention. J. St. Germain asked Mrs. Wysocki why she did not obtain a permit. Mrs. Wysocki stated that it was a linear object, akin to a fence. S. Stutts asked if the Board had any further questions, there were none from the Board.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or opposed. Mr. Carpurso from White Sands Beach reiterated his comments from the last meeting that the buffer is not sufficient and that the bridge is excessive. He also stated that when he was at the IWWC meeting, the IWWC did not have a positive reaction to the bridge, but was concerned about its removal. J. St. Germain asked if the bridge was somehow lessened, would that be ok with the Association, Mr. Carpurso said that he stated that last time. K. Kotzan asked if all of the debris came from the White Sands Beach Association, Mr. Carpurso stated the wind blew both ways but the tennis balls are definitely theirs. R. Moll stated that the bridge was not visible from any other properties, but seemed it was viewed as more of an invasion
of White Sands Beach. J. St. Germain asked if there was any dialogue between the Association and the Wysocki’s, no there hasn’t. Mr. Carpurso stated that they (the Association) pointed out the options at the last meeting. Mrs. Wysocki stated that a compromise could be a gate at the end that says private property. Mr. Carpurso stated the people of White Sands have no intention of using the bridge. S. Stutts stated that that was not a compromise. Mrs. Wysocki stated that the bridge does not end on the stonewall (Mrs. Wysocki presented pictures to the Chairman). S. Stutts stated that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Mrs. Wysocki submitted a letter from Father Joseph Ash of St. John’s Church regarding Mrs. Wysocki’s character. There was no further audience participation and the Chairman closed the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case 09-22 – Dawn Hellier, 2 Maple Lane
Present: Dawn Hellier, applicant
S. Stutts went over the existing nonconformities which are from Section 8.8.1 minimum lot area 15,000 square feet required, 14,110 square feet provided; Section 8.8.2 minimum lot area; Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline, 45 feet required, 19.5 feet provided and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 15 feet required, 12 feet west side boundary provided. The proposal is to construct a chimney on the west side of the house which will extend into the setback. The house was constructed in 1850 with a center chimney. Over the years, the existing chimney has shifted and can’t be lined in order to make it safer. Ms. Hellier stated the letter submitted by New England Masonry explains the situation, Chairman Stutts then read the letter into the record.
Ms. Hellier submitted the following letters of support into the record: Mr. Joseph Barlow, Sr. of 1 Maple Lane; Mr. Gregory Smith of 3 Maple Lane; Robert W. and Mary K. Roth of 5 Elizabeth Lane; Russell Blackledge of 72 Lyme Street and David and Lisa Brault of 70 Lyme Street, all letters dated October 3, 2009.
S. Stutts asked if a sketch was submitted of what the actual chimney would like when completed. There wasn’t one since the chimney has not been constructed. J. St Germain asked why the placement of the chimney in that location when there were other places to put it. Ms. Hellier stated that furnace is to the north side of the chimney, the oil tank to the south side of the house and there is more room between the windows. S. Stutts wanted a floor plan of the basement showing the placement of all mechanicals. The Board agreed that the submission of the layout would be good. Ms. Hellier stated that she has no intention of building anything that is not depicted on what has been submitted. Ms. Hellier stated that the hardship is the inability to install a liner in the existing
chimney for safety reasons. Ms. Hellier at the meeting outlined on paper where the mechanicals were in the basement. She also stated that the chimney would be red brick and mortar.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or opposed. There was no audience participation and the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Case 09-23 – Cheryl Forgione Patafio, 3 Sea Lane
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan to open and CONTINUE the Public Hearing on Case 09-23 Cheryl Forgione Patafio, 3Sea Lane to the November 10, 2009 Regular Meeting per letter received from Attorney William Childress dated October 1, 2009; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.
VOTING SESSION
R. Moll listened to the tapes of the last meeting and is eligible to vote on Case 09-20 Wysocki.
Case 09-20 – Christine Wysocki, 19 Brighton Road
S. Stutts went over the variances requested, the applicant is asking for a 27.5’ variance in
the rear in order to keep the bridge. The hardship, as stated by the applicant, is that the bridge is needed to reach the other side of the wetlands in order to maintain them and clean the debris. K. Kotzan stated that the Wetlands Commission needs to address the bridge, but that is not what the Board needs to consider. The Board needs to consider the intrusion of the structure in the setback area. K. Kotzan asked if there could be a reasonable way to make a compromise to minimize the impact. S. Stutts stated that it is not the Board’s charge to re-design the bridge. K. Kotzan takes the applicant at her word that that is why the bridge was built. The Board discussed the litter aspect and the how the wetlands had overgrown over the years. S. Stutts stated that there are
other ways to deal with the wetlands and several other ways to get into them besides building the bridge. K. Kotzan asked what was the inconvenience of the structure in the setback to the abutting property owner (White Sands Beach Association)? The abutter could put up a fence for trespassers if that is the concern. S. Stutts stated that was not the issue, it was the fact that the 30’ buffer was compromised. R. Moll supported what K. Kotzan had to say. R. Moll stated that unmaintained within three years, the wetlands would be overgrown again. If the wetlands are maintained, people would be less inclined to throw there trash into it. J. St. Germain stated that the bridge was overkill and could have been done more tastefully. S. Stutts stated that the best way to handle the matter would be a compromise between the two parties (applicants and White Sands). J. McQuade stated that the hardship is to get to the other side of the
wetlands, a fence would not accomplish that. J. McQuade stated that it is a 27.5’ intrusion into the setback and that there are a lot of ways to look at it and other alternatives. K. Kotzan stated that if the structure was turned and placed along the property line, it would be like a fence. K. Kotzan stated that the bridge is perceived as an access to the adjoining property, not the applicants stated reason to get to the other side. K. Kotzan did not know what the Association is actually complaining about. The intrusion is only the 27.5’ with just the width of the bridge not the entire width of the property. J. St. Germain stated the Board needed to get back to the zoning issue which is the intrusion into the setback and the fact that it was built without permits. J. St. Germain stated that a fence could be a solution.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll to GRANT the necessary setback variances to allow the bridge as per dimensions on plan on Case 09-20 Christine Wysocki, 19 Brighton Road; a vote was taken and the motion was DENIED - the vote was 3-2-0. S. Stutts and J. St. Germain were opposed. It takes four (4) affirmative votes to grant a variance.
Case 09-22 – Dawn Hellier, 2 Maple Lane
S. Stutts stated that the variances are for construction of a chimney on the west side of the house. The dimensions of the chimney will be 4’8” wide, 28’ high, 32” deep and constructed of red brick and mortar. The 32” encroach into the setback and the existing west side of the house is 12’ from the property line. The house was constructed in 1850 and the existing chimney could not accommodate a stainless steel liner to make it safer. The configuration of the mechanicals in the basement and the bulkhead dictates the placement of the chimney. There were several letters in support of the application. There is not a drawing of the actual chimney in the file, but the applicant will submit one to the Chairman for approval.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll to GRANT the necessary variances to build a chimney as per information submitted with the condition that a drawing be supplied, to the satisfaction of the Chairman, that depicts the chimney to be built on Case 09-22 Dawn Hellier, 2 Maple Lane; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Approval of Minutes of the September 8, 2009 Regular Meeting that was continued to September 16, 2009
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2009 meeting that was continued to September 16, 2009; a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
New Business S. Stutts discussed that the Town of Guilford is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Regulations with respect to buildings along the coast. The Town of Guilford wants to have smaller scale buildings to preserve the character of the shoreline neighborhoods.
Old Business - None
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to adjourn the October 13, 2009 Regular Meeting; the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, November 10, 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
| 
