MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
November 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, November 10, 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: Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Fran Sadowski (Alternate), 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 09-23 – Cheryl Forgione Patafio, 3 Sea Lane
The application was withdrawn in accordance with an e-mail received from Attorney William Childress, the attorney for the applicant dated October 29, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case 09-24 – Thomas Coty, 8 Spruce Avenue
S. Stutts stated that the request for variances to allow construction of a 14’ x 35’ enclosed carport on the east side of the existing structure. The applicant is purchasing additional property to obtain a total of 10,000 s.f. The applicant is asking for a 6’7” variance on the east side for the carport. The applicant submitted a survey of the property this evening. R. Moll asked, as a point of order, if the survey was to be part of the original application and submitted 30 days ago? Mr. Coty stated that the plans were in the file, but he was just made aware that a survey needed to be done for the planning aspect of the process. S. Stutts asked the applicant to explain the hardship and what he planned to do.
Mr. Coty stated that due to the lay of the land and the neighborhood the way it was built and designed years ago, he is committed to putting the carport on the east side and that side only due to the fact that the septic system is on the west side of the property. S. Stutts stated that the septic system was 25’ from the house, Mr. Coty stated that it is located at the corner of the house. The Board discussed the drawing of the septic system. Mr. Coty stated that the drawing the Board had was inaccurate, S. Stutts stated that the Board needed an accurate depiction of the location of the septic tank. S. Stutts stated that in as much as the applicant bought extra property to make the lot conforming (the house conforming on the lot), the applicant is now asking for variances to put the carport on the east side of the lot which will make the lot nonconforming. The applicant will not be placing the carport on the west side where he purchased the
property. The applicant stated he wanted to keep the row of hedges and large trees on the west side so that the neighborhood would retain its natural look. S. Stutts asked where the trees were located and Mr. Coty stated that they are 15 to 18 feet from the property line on the west side. Mr. Coty also stated that the septic system is on the west side as well along with the leaching fields. If the garage or carport was placed on the west side, the septic would need to be removed and the ancient hedgerow would need to be removed along with the large oak trees. S. Stutts asked what the goal was to purchase the lot on the west side. Mr. Coty stated that it was recommended by Ann Brown (the Zoning Enforcement Officer) that he purchase the land to make the lot conforming (10,000 s.f.). S. Stutts stated that now the lot is conforming, the applicant is asking for it to become nonconforming again. J. McQuade asked if there was a
stone wall on that side of the property, Mr. Coty stated no there was not, it is flat. J. St. Germain asked why the applicant needed the carport, Mr. Coty stated that he needed it to store outside/yard items and saws and in the event of inclement weather to put a car in it. J. St. Germain asked if commercial equipment would be stored there, Mr. Coty answered no there would not be. J. McQuade asked if there would be a door on the carport, Mr. Coty stated yes, either a standard garage door or just keep it open in the front. The goal is to make it aesthetically pleasing with vinyl siding and windows. The original goal was to put a master bedroom above, but they are not doing it now. S. Stutts asked for a layout of what was on the inside of the house. Mr. Coty verbally recited the floor plan of the inside of the house to the Board. The side entrance to the house will be into the carport. The kitchen is located to the
rear of the property. J. St. Germain asked the applicant why a tarp was in the yard, Mr. Coty put up the tarp to keep the elements off the toys and such that are stored on existing slab. Mr. Coty was subsequently asked to remove the tarp. The Board asked about the actual dimensions of the carport since there were three different sizes listed. Mr. Coty stated that the actual size of the concrete slab (proposed carport) is 13’7” x 35’. The slab to the rear, adjacent to the deck, is not included in the size of the carport. S. Stutts stated that on the plan that the width is 13’ but no other dimension shown. J. St. Germain asked for a side view of the carport showing what was to be enclosed. Mr. Coty stated that there will be a half wall with a number of windows in it. J. St. Germain asked if Mr. Coty had a drawing of what the view would look like. There was not one in the file since Mr. Coty did
not realize he needed one. J. St. Germain discussed the difference between a carport and a garage, and J. St. Germain stated that this seems like a garage. Further discussion regarding the size of the structure, Mr. Coty stated that it is 13’7” x 35. K. Kotzan asked about what was located on the east side of the property. Mr. Safiotti owns the vacant lot next door. R. Moll presented a copy of the assessor’s map outlining the lots in the area and discussed who owned which lot. R. Moll discussed the plan view of the carport and asked the applicant to place the carport on the lot. R. Moll asked what was behind the tarp, Mr. Coty stated that there is a dresser, bicycles and a desk. R. Moll asked how long the roof extension was there. Mr. Coty stated that it is the original roof.
The Chairman then opened the floor to the audience to speak either in favor or in opposition. No one came forward to speak in favor, Mr.& Mrs. Safiotti of 60 Rogers Lake Trail came forward to speak in opposition. Mr. & Mrs. Safiotti also submitted a letter to the Board. Mr. Safiotti stated that they also own 4 Spruce Avenue and he submitted several photos to the Board showing the property lines and shows how the carport will encroach on their property in an adverse way. He stated Mr. Coty was asked by Zoning to dismantle the carport. The photos submitted are Exhibits A through E. R. Moll asked about the iron pipes in the ground, Mr. Safiotti stated that the pipes were the original markers of the properties. Mr. Safiotti stated that the carport/garage will not fit into the
neighborhood. J. St. Germain asked about the stonewall on that side, it belongs to the Safiotti property. Mr. Safiotti stated that Mr. Coty had an outbuilding on the property for storage. There is a 10’ x 16’ shed.
Also speaking was Andrea Bakalitis of 54-56 Rogers Lake Trail has lived there for 28 years, she is kiddy corner to the property on the south side. The house was originally a little cottage that was added on to in 1992.
R. Moll and K. Kotzan debated what was under the eave of the roof and the roof line. The eave only extends out one foot, there is not a big space below the eave. J. McQuade asked if there was any other place on the lot to place the carport now that the applicant is buying additional land? Mr. Coty stated that he would love to put it on the west side, S. Stutts said why not to the rear. Mr. Coty stated that there would be difficulty with the turning radius. Also Mr. Coty does not want to take down the hedgerow of shrubs on the west side and the septic tank and leaching fields. K. Kotzan stated that having a garage/carport is a reasonable use for the property, and the Board has to see if that use is prohibited by strict application of the regulations and if there is another option to place the
carport somewhere else, the Board has to look at it. Also the abutting neighbor on the east side is opposed to the encroachment in their setback. Mr. Coty stated, that just like the Safiotti’s, he wants to keep the natural aspect of the land on the west side with the trees. The Board and Mr. Coty discussed different angles to enter the property on the west side but the reality is Mr. Coty would have to remove the trees and he is not willing to do that. R. Moll wanted the dimensions of the shed (10’ x’ 16’) to be noted on the plans that were submitted.
There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing was closed.
Case 09-25 – Daniel W. O’Connell d/b/a Dan & Bill’s, 96 Shore Road
The applicants were not present at the hearing. The Board reviewed the file but determined that the applicants needed to be present to state their case and answer questions that the Board had. The Board stated that it would continue the public hearing until the January 19, 2010 Regular Meeting.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to CONTINUE the Public Hearing on Case 09-25 until the January 19, 2010 Regular Meeting; a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
VOTING SESSION
Case 09-24 – Thomas Coty, 8 Spruce Avenue
S. Stutts stated that the request for variances to allow construction of a 13’ 7” x 35’ enclosed carport on the east side of the existing structure. The applicant has purchased additional property to obtain a total of 10,000 s.f. which makes the lot conforming. The applicant is asking for a 6’7” variance on the east side for the carport, which the applicant feels is the only reasonable place to put a carport. The plans are unclear as to where the septic system is actually located. The neighbors next door are upset about the carport being very visible from their property and impinge on their sideyard. The garage is a reasonable use of the property. K. Kotzan stated that with the land the applicant just
purchased there is another place on the lot for the structure. The Board discussed several options as an alternative location for the carport. The Board discussed that the layout of the inside of the house was not submitted and neither was a picture of the eastside visual of the carport. K. Kotzan stated that the hurdle is that this reasonable use (which a garage is) is prevented by strict application of the regulations, which it is not since there is a different location where it can be placed on the property to get a functional garage. He stated that the matter of the hemlocks does not make it so that you have to encroach on a neighbor who is opposed to the carport. The Board discussed several options as to placement of the carport/garage on the lot, i.e. to the rear of the house and to the side of the house where the applicant purchased the land. If the applicant did not want a driveway over the leaching fields, the driveway could come
in further to the west and loop around it. The consensus of the Board was that there is another location for the placement of the carport. R. Moll stated that the drawings submitted were not drawn to scale.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to DENY the application to grant the variances, as per plans submitted, regarding Case 09-24, Thomas Coty, 8 Spruce Avenue for the following reasons: that this reasonable use necessitates violation of the regulations when there are alternate locations for the carport that would be conforming, inadequate technical information was supplied by the applicant to show the details of the layout of the land, what he is applying to the land and adding to the land and the septic system was not adequately indicated on the map; No discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to DENY passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Approval of Minutes of the October 13, 2009 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2009 Regular Meeting; a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Approval of Minutes of the October 13, 2009 Special Meeting
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2009 Regular Meeting; a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
New Business - Vote on the 2010 Regular Meeting Schedule. The Board agreed to move the Regular Meeting of the ZBA to the THIRD Tuesday of each month except for the fact that there will still be no meetings in August or December.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Stutts, to approve the 2010 Meeting Schedule and move the regular meeting to the THIRD Tuesday of each month except for August and December; a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Old Business - None
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain to adjourn the November 10, 2009 Regular Meeting; the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 (NOW THE THIRD TUESDAY OF THE MONTH) at 7:30 p.m. in the Mezzanine Conference Room, Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371
| 
