 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 18, 2011
(RESCHEDULED TO JANUARY 25, 2011 DUE TO SNOW)
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, January 25, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Town Hall, 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 and voting for the meeting.
Present and voting were Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Joseph St. Germain and Richard Moll
Present: Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Marilyn Ossmann, alternate, Richard Smith, alternate and Fran Sadowski, alternate
The meeting was then called to order at 7:35 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 11-01 Michael J. and Helen Francis, 81 Connecticut Road
Present: Attorney Michael E. Cronin, agent for the applicant, Jill Cartegna, Point One Architects, Michael Francis, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow raising the existing structure to comply with the FEMA requirements and to build new rear deck with stairs within footprint of former deck. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 6,108 square feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 6,108 square feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot, 75’ required, existing is 40.2 square feet, Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories 1 ½ required, 2 existing, Section 8.8.6, maximum height of building or structure, 24’ required, 24’4” existing, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required, 9.38’existing, Section
8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’ required, existing 13.89’ for shed, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 4.37’ house on north side, 3.14’ shed on south side, Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot, 25% required and there is 30.79% existing and Section 4.3 Tidal Waters Protection 50’ required, 41.99’existing.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 9.1.3.1, general rule, Section 9.3.1, enlargement, Section 8.8.6, maximum height of building 24’, 24.4’ existing, 27’ proposed for a variance of 3’, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline is 25’, existing and proposed is 9.38’requiring a variance of 15.62’ and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’, existing is 4.37’ for the house on north side requiring a variance of 7.63’. The footprint of the house will be increased because the front stoop is being enlarged.
Attorney Cronin gave his presentation. The applicant would like to bring the dwelling up to current standards by renovating the existing home and not demolishing it. The renovations exceed 50% of the value of the home so the applicant will need to raise the house to meet the FEMA flood elevation of 12 feet. Ms. Cartagena explained the project to the Board. The lot is a small existing lot that has a year-round structure on it. The house will just be raised 2.6’, there will be no change in the roofline and no addition of dormers, the only change will be the addition of 5 steps to enter the front door. The shed in the rear has been made smaller which accounts for the slightly lower floor area percentage. There was discussion with respect to the basement flooring and the
basement ceiling height.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the public hearing closed.
Case 11-02 Graybill Properties, LLC, 11 Halls Road
Present: Attorney Thomas McGarry, agent for the applicant, Mr. James Graybill, applicant and Mr. Philip Parcheck
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow reconversion of upstairs to an apartment with three (3) bedrooms. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.9.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot is 150’, only 120’ plus or minus existing, and Section 4.15, no more than one principal use on the lot, there is a restaurant, office retail existing and previously approved.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 5.10, commercial C-30 District and C-30S District allowed uses and Section 4.15, no more than one principal use on the lot, there is a restaurant, office retail existing and previously approved, the proposal is to add a dwelling unit as an additional use in the C-30S District, and add dwelling unit that is larger than 25% of the Floor Area of the commercial uses on the lot. If variances are granted, the applicant will need to apply to the Zoning Commission for a Special Permit for the approval of the apartment.
Attorney McGarry gave his presentation. The applicant, Mr. Graybill, would like to reconvert the upstairs of the building back into a rental property. There is a glut of office space within the Town of Old Lyme, but there is a need for housing for students at the Lyme Art Academy. Attorney McGarry discussed the history of the property and how it was once a single family residence in the 1960’s and then was converted over the years into commercial space. At one point in time there were two apartments in the upstairs space. Attorney McGarry further explained that there will be no expansion in the footprint of the building. Currently there are two bathrooms and one kitchen in the space. There is also a public water supply to the property. The argument was that it is not
an expansion of the use, but an intensification of the use. The economy has shifted and the space would be better used as an apartment. S. Stutts stated it was a lovely idea, but the hardship can’t be a personal economic problem. Mr. Graybill explained that if the property remained commercial, there would not be sufficient parking.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the public hearing closed.
Case 11-03 Joseph and Suzanne Toce and John and Susan Caprio, 307 Hartford Avenue
Present: Attorney Michael E. Cronin, agent for the applicants, Angus McDonald, Jr., P.E.
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow demolition and reconstruction of dwelling on essentially the same footprint and the dwelling to remain seasonal. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.9.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 4,422 square feet existing, Section 8.9.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 20,000 square feet required, 4,422 square feet existing, Section 8.9.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot, 100’ required, existing is 47 square feet plus or minus, Section 8.9.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 35’ required [30’ +5 for narrow road (Section 8.6], 19.1’existing, Section 8.9.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’ required, existing .03’ for shed, Section 8.9.9, minimum setback from other property
line 12’ required, 7.8’ north and south sides of the house, 4.1 south side of the shed, Section 8.9.11, maximum floor area as percent of lot, 25% required, Section 8.9.12, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures 25% required and Section 8.9.13, maximum total lot coverage as percent of lot area 60% required.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 9.1.3, expansion of existing building or structure on nonconforming lot, Section 9.3.1, enlargement, Section 8.9.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 35’ required [30’ +5 for narrow road (Section 8.6], 19.1’existing and Section 8.9.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 7.8’ north and south sides of the house.
Attorney Cronin gave his presentation. The property is on the north side of Shore Road in a C-10 zone. It is a single family dwelling built in the 1940’s. The applicants only want to use the house seasonally. The house will be demolished and rebuilt but the footprint will basically remain the same, except there will be an addition of 22 square feet. Renovating the existing structure is not practical since the foundation and the wooden structure have deteriorated. Attorney Cronin stated that the site plan has been revised to 12/28/10 to show the addition of the 22 square feet which squares off the jogs on the house and adds an additional one foot to the porch. The height of the house increases slightly, from 14.5’ to 15.7’ and the roof will be peaked.
Attorney Cronin went over the existing and proposed floor plan. There will be new bedrooms but there will be expansion of the size of the bedrooms by expanding into the porch area. R. Moll asked about the ground water table in the area and Attorney Cronin addressed the issue.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. K. Kotzan read Mr. Tolchinski’s letter into the record. Mr. Dimitri Tolchinski of 286 Shore Road then went over the points of the letter. The letter, which had 8 items listed was addressed by Attorney Cronin and Angus McDonald item by item. Mr. Dominic Scarfo of 303 Hartford Avenue was concerned about the water table and his well. The Board discussed the topography of the land in that area. Attorney Andrew Scarfo asked about the catch basin on the plan, and he wanted to make sure that there would be no problems with their well water. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the public hearing closed.
Case 11-04 William Bansavage, 23 Binney Road
Present: Mr. & Mrs. William Bansavage, applicants
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of addition to expand current kitchen and eliminate existing deck. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 35’ required, existing 26’ (variance granted in 2003).
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 9.3.1, enlargement and Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 35’ required, 26’ proposed for the addition, for a variance of 9’.
Mr. Bansavage gave his presentation. The applicants would like to add a small bump out addition to their kitchen that will be one story. At present, it is a small galley kitchen. The applicants explained that the addition would not be seen from the river. There are a lot of trees as a buffer and steep topography to shield the addition from the neighbors and the river. The Board discussed the dimensions of the project and the height of the structure. The hardship is the placement of the house on the lot due to the topography and ledge. J. St. Germain asked if the applicant approached the neighbor to add more land on that side so that the addition didn’t encroach into the setback. Both Mr. Bansavage and Mr. Crosby stated that that has never been discussed
before.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Frederick Crosby of 19 Binney Road asked about the Gateway Commission receiving the application for review, the application was subsequently sent to the Gateway Commission, but will still need to go to the Zoning Commission for Special Permit, under Section 4.10.12, which will also trigger a review by the Gateway Commission. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the public hearing closed.
Case 11-05 Lee and Michele Mergy, 22 Lyme Street
Present: Michele Mergy, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow addition of second floor family room and utility room above existing first floor, footprint not to change. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.6, maximum height of building or structure, 35’ required, the tower exceeds 35’, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 30’ required, 14.4’existing, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’ required, existing 17’, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 15’ required, 14.8’ existing and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot, 20% required, existing 26.3%. A portion of the rear accessory building has been removed and a conservatory addition added (by separate Zoning Permit Application),
resulting in a net loss of overall Floor Area of two square feet.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 9.3.1, enlargement, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line is 30’, proposed is 17’ for addition requiring a variance of 13’and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area 20% required, proposed is 26.3% for a variance of 1.3%.
Mrs. Mergy gave her presentation and discussed the history of the property. The hardship is the unique configuration of the existing building. The applicants would like to maintain the historic nature of the inside of the building. J. St. Germain asked if the applicants considered expanding the choir loft, Mrs. Mergy said no, they are trying to maintain the historic structure. The Historic District Commission approved the project as presented. Mrs. Mergy showed the Board a small model of what the addition would look like. R. Moll commended Mrs. Mergy on the model presented. Mrs. Mergy stated that the addition would house a sewing room for her daughter and another bathroom. The Zoning Compliance Permit Application shows that the property would go from three bedrooms to four
bedrooms. Mrs. Mergy stated that when the property was originally purchased it was for summer use, now it is their year-round residence. There was discussion of the square footage of the structure, the first floor is 4,073 square feet and the second floor is 1,084 square feet, which will be increased to 1,934 square feet with the addition. There was also discussion with respect to the “bulk” issues. S. Stutts read into the record the memo from the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Ann Brown to the Board stating that the applicant must recalculate the Building Coverage and Floor Area values since the survey plan and the architectural plans provide differing values. Also the plan should be sent back to the Sanitarian, Ron Rose, to confirm his approval of the project. Specifically, he should be asked if any modifications to the septic system will be required if the addition qualifies technically as an additional bedroom. Mrs. Mergy stated that
the septic is designed for four bedrooms. She also stated that the back building has been reduced in size lessen the building area.
The following letters were read into the record: letter dated January 17, 2011 from John V. Flower of 6 Beckwith Lane in opposition and a letter dated January 18, 2011 from Jane and Tom Schellens of 1 Academy Lane, in opposition. Mr. Schellens also submitted drawings depicting how the size of the proposed addition would impact his property.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded J. McQuade to CONTINUE the public hearing to February 15, 2011 so that the Board can ascertain consistent data. No further discussion and a vote was taken. In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, R. Moll In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
VOTING SESSION:
Case 11-01 Michael J. and Helen Francis, 81 Connecticut Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow raising the existing structure to comply with the FEMA requirements and to build new rear deck with stairs within footprint of former deck. Applicants asking for a variance in height of 3 feet, a variance 15.62 feet for the street setback and a variance of 7.63 for the other property setback. The raising of the structure is necessary to meet FEMA requirements. The area has public sewers. The house is in good condition, so the applicants only need to raise the dwelling to meet the FEMA requirements. There will be an addition of 5 steps to access the property and egress windows are being added to the second floor. No views have been restricted due to raising the height. J. St. Germain stated that the variances requested
are minimal in order to renovate the property.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain to GRANT the necessary variances to allow the applicant to lift the building as per plans submitted to meet the FEMA regulations. No discussion and a vote was taken. In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, R. Moll In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Reason to grant: Raising the house to comply with FEMA regulations, improves the neighborhood, setbacks remain the same and is within the intent of zoning.
Case 11-02 Graybill Properties, LLC, 11 Halls Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow reconversion of the second floor to an apartment with three (3) bedrooms. The hardship is that the applicant is unable to rent the office space due to the glut on the market and there is a need for housing. The building was originally residential in the 1960’s. S. Stutts stated that the parking spaces were adequate according to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, it would be a wash between residential and commercial spaces. S. Stutts felt that the hardship stated was not really a hardship. R. Moll stated that this was a positive use. The Board discussed the “intent” of the space, there is a kitchen and two bathrooms and had been at one time during the history of the property an apartment. J. St. Germain
stated the applicant was reducing what could be two apartments to being only one apartment. J. McQuade stated this was a good use of the space.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to GRANT the necessary variances to allow the applicant to change use of the property to reconvert to residential use for a single apartment on the second floor. No discussion and a vote was taken. In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, R. Moll In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Reason to grant: Property has history of residential use, need for housing at the Academy, condition that it remain a single apartment.
Case 11-03 Joseph and Suzanne Toce and John and Susan Caprio, 307 Hartford Avenue
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow demolition and reconstruction of dwelling on essentially the same footprint and the dwelling to remain seasonal. The applicants are asking for a variance of 15.9 feet for the street setback, which is existing and a variance of 4.2 feet for the other property setback which is slightly more than what was there. The hardship is that it is an outdated house that needs improvements. There is a new septic system from 1998. There are slight modifications to the house to square off the foundation which increased the footprint by 22 square feet. The height is increased, there will be a peak added to the roof. No change in elevation of the house. There will be a crawlspace beneath the house of approximately 5’8” in
height. The Board discussed the topic of a poured concrete foundation in the crawlspace versus a gravel floor for drainage. The Board also discussed the depth of the septic system and the ground water table. J. St. Germain stated that the Attorney and the Engineer went over item by item of the letter submitted by Mr. Tolchinski.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll to GRANT the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted with the conditions that the use remain seasonal and that the grading on the property stay true to its current state (is not changed during construction). No discussion and a vote was taken. In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, R. Moll In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Reason to grant: Unanimous to grant with conditions, essentially the same building updated with new improvements, in harmony with the neighborhood and will remain seasonal.
Case 11-04 William Bansavage, 23 Binney Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of an addition to expand the current kitchen and eliminate an existing deck. The applicants are asking for a variance of 9 feet for the rear setback. The hardship is the placement of the house on the lot due to the steep topography of the lot and the amount of ledge. The addition will be towards the back and will not affect the river scene or the abutting neighbors. It will be a one story addition and will square off the rear portion of the existing house. K. Kotzan stated that the variance requested does not impact the neighbors or the river and the lot is over 80,000 square feet in an RU-80 zone.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll to GRANT the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted. No discussion and a vote was taken. In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, R. Moll In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Reason to grant: Oversized lot, with topography issues and intrusion into the setback will not interfere with neighbors. There were no objections to the project.
Approval of Minutes of the November 16, 2010 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by R. Moll to approve the November 16, 2010 minutes with the following change: to reword page 3, third paragraph “as to repairing what with a latter, the existing deck?” to “why couldn’t repairs be done from another area of the yard instead of the deck”. No further discussion and a vote was taken. In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, R. Moll In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to adjourn the January 25, 2011 Regular Meeting which was rescheduled from January 18, 2011 due to snow; no discussion and a vote was taken. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371 Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371
| |
