 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
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, February 15, 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: Marilyn Ossmann, alternate, Richard Smith, alternate, Fran Sadowski, alternate and Kim Barrows, Clerk
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 11-05 B Lee and Michele Mergy, 22 Lyme Street
Present: Mr. Lee Mergy, applicant
S. Stutts stated that there were two items outstanding from the last public hearing, one was to recalculate the building coverage and floor area values and the second was to have Ron Rose, the Sanitarian, confirm the septic design. Tony Hendricks was to provide a drawing showing the correct design of the septic system prior to the meeting, which at the time of the meeting the Board still did not have. Mr. Mergy went over the coverage on the data table with respect to the property, the maximum building coverage is going down and the floor area does not change at all and he described how part of the building was taken down to lower the coverage. J. St. Germain stated that he had a problem with this proposal since the neighbors, who were at the previous hearing and submitted letters, were adamantly opposed to the
project stating that it would be an invasion on their privacy. J. St. Germain asked Mr. Mergy if he has talked to the neighbor (on Academy Lane) to attempt to resolve the matter, Mr. Mergy stated that he did not have a copy of Mr. Schellen’s sketch prior to the first meeting but had one now. Mr. Mergy stated that the sketch was incorrect, the roof does not extend above the chimney. The addition only extends the existing roofline, it does not go higher. Mr. Mergy drew in his interpretation of what the roofline would look like. He stated that the incremental height would be about seven (7) feet. S. Stutts stated that it was shown on the plans that the height would be nine (9) feet, not seven. Mr. Mergy discussed the issue about the windows that would look down onto the abutting property, Mr. Mergy stated that he spoke with the neighbor, on three separate occasions, and offered to do one of three things or combination thereof, either
putting in obscured glass, raise the height of the windows so they were above eye level in the room or alternatively, eliminate the windows all together. The Board discussed the way the addition would look from the neighbor’s perspective and, if you were right underneath it, it would look like it was coming toward you. R. Moll asked if Mr. Mergy had the three dimensional model that was shown at the previous hearing. Mr. Mergy had that model and showed it to the Board. R. Moll stated that the model correctly showed what the addition would look like. (The model was not given to the Board as part of the record.) R. Moll asked Mr. Mergy when the church was built, Mr. Mergy replied that the church was built in 1860, and Mr. Moll stated that it was prior to zoning.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Flower of Beckwith Lane stated that their letters, his and Mr. Schellen’s still stand. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the public hearing closed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 11-06 B Peter and Constance Engelking, 12 Devitt Road
Present: Mr. Joseph Wren, Engineer, agent for the applicants; Ms. Denise VonDassel, architect; Mr. & Mrs. Engelking, applicants
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow interior renovations including raising roof, egress windows and enhance second floor living area. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline is 30’ (25’ + 5’ for narrow street requirement) and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line is 12’, 4.3’ on the west side which is existing.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 9.3.1, enlargement, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline is 30’ (25’ + 5’ for narrow street requirement), existing is 15.2’and proposed is 22’ for second floor addition requiring a variance of 8’and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 25% required, 25.5% proposed for a variance of 8’.
Mr. Wren gave his presentation. Mr. Wren went over the site plan of the property and stated that there is no proposed expansion of the footprint, the footprint of the building will remain as it is shown. The roof will be raised on the existing second level, which is not a full half story and is not proposed to be a full half story. The roof will be raised because of the low ceiling height that will now be brought up to building code standards. This will also add another form of egress in accordance with the building and fire safety code. Mr. Wren went over the variances requested and they are the existing nonconformities. The existing septic system is adequate to handle the changes proposed. The project is exempt from a Coastal Area Management Application in accordance
with Section 4.2.3b which allows an exemption from CAM for minor additions and modifications of existing buildings. The house was built in the late 1950’s, early 1960’s and was built in its location prior to zoning regulations. Ms. Denise VonDassel went over the architectural design of the house. The roof will be raised an additional 2 ½ feet over the existing height. The maximum height of the ceiling on the second floor will be 7.5’. The roof is in need of repair. K. Kotzan stated that the proposal exceeds the maximum floor area by .5%. Mr. Kotzan asked if the ceiling height could be reduced in some areas to reduce the percentage to the allowable 25%. There was discussion as to the number of bedrooms, there are 3 upstairs and one downstairs. The applicants had tried to purchase additional land, but were unable to. R. Moll asked stated the base flood elevation shown on the survey is 11’ but
asked what the first floor elevation was, Ms. VonDassel replied that it is 8.9’ at its lowest. Discussion ensued with respect to the 50% rule and how it applies to the FEMA regulations. Ms. VonDassell went over the pictures in the file which depict the house and the interior layout. S. Stutts asked about pruning the trees, and yes, the applicants intend to prune the trees.
The following letter of support from Chris and Meghan Anderson of 2 Devitt Road, letter not dated was entered into the record; John and Judy Green of 28 Katherine Road; Bill and Donna McNamara of 15 Devitt Road; Charles and Katherine Gary of 31 Katherine Road
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Ms. Bobbie Doyen of 7 Devitt Road spoke in favor; Mr. John Green of 28 Katherine Road spoke in favor. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the public hearing closed.
Case 11-07 B Nancy Manville, 31 Sill Lane
Present: Mr. David Tiffany, agent for the applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of a 12’ x 9’ bathroom addition within front setback. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot, 150’ required, existing is +/- 140’ and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 50’ required, 15’existing. The lot size is 80,586 square feet in an RU-40 zone. The hardship is the placement of an 1860’s house on the lot and the topography of the lot.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 9.3.1, enlargement and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline is 50’, proposed is 21’ +/- for a variance of 29’ +/-.
Mr. Tiffany gave his presentation. He stated that he submitted new plans on February 11, 2011 depicting a 12’ x 9’ addition to the house after he received a call from our office. The house does not have a downstairs bathroom with a shower or tub, there is only a bathroom upstairs. The occupants are unable to use the stairs to access the upstairs bathroom. Mr. Tiffany, prior to making his presentation to the Board, reviewed the existing floor plan and found there was no other place to put this bathroom addition and keep the architectural integrity of the farmhouse. Most of the house already exists within the front setback. Mr. Tiffany’s first proposal was an 8’ x 9’ addition which would be the smallest size to accommodate a bathroom, S. Stutts stated that a slightly
larger addition would be more architecturally pleasing to the farmhouse design. The applicants are trying to maintain the historic nature of the property. The house has been vacant for 12 years and there is a lot of work to be done to improve its appearance. R. Moll asked if the main hardship was the placement of the house on the lot, Mr. Tiffany stated yes.
Letters in support from the following people: E. Cooley dated February 3, 2011; Russell N. Bingham, M.D. of 8 Mill Pond Lane dated February 13, 2011; David Speirs of 22 Sill Lane dated February 5, 2011; James Graybill of 27 Sill Lane dated February 6, 2011; Edward Munday of 33 Sill Lane dated February 3, 2011.
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 11-08 B Dominick and Beverly Cappello, 46 Connecticut Road
Present: Denise VonDassel, KV Designs, architect, agent for the applicant; Mr. & Mrs. Cappello, applicants
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow partial reconstruction of the existing shallow pitched roof with a steeper slope and also add an additional 166 s.f. for entry, stair and expanded bathroom. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 5,977 square feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 5,977 square feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot, 75’ required, existing is 50’, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’, existing 2.74’ for the garage, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 2.87 for south side of garage and 3.21’ on the north side of the house and Section
8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area 25% required and there is 26.3% 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 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ is required and proposed is 3.21’ north side of the house for the second floor addition a variance of 8.97% required and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 25% required, 27.6% proposed a variance of 2.6% required.
Ms. VonDassel gave her presentation and submitted a revised site plan. The cottage was constructed in 1919 on the lot which predated zoning. The house has recently been connected to the Point O’Woods sewer system. The Town Assessors Card had originally noted that the lot size was 6,100 square feet, but after the applicants had the property surveyed, the lot size is only 5,977 square feet. The cottage has a crawlspace and a single car garage that affords no additional storage space. The applicants are removing the rear deck and ramp since they are over the 25% allowable coverage. The proposal is to have a steeper roof to the rear and add a small addition in the rear in order to construct a proper entry into the house and provide second floor storage space. Ms. VonDassel
discussed the headroom that was needed on the second floor in order to meet the building code. The roof extension is in the side setback and will need a variance. Ms. VonDassel stated that this is a one bedroom house and will remain a one bedroom house. The proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood. The roof needs to be reshingled since it is leaking so the applicants figured they would expand the space. Ms. VonDassel stated that the applicants would prefer not to have attic space with a pull down staircase. The applicant submitted an estimate from Jack Millea Builder of New Haven for the cost of the proposed renovations, the total would be $117,250.00. This amount can’t exceed 50% of the appraised value of the building, if it does, the applicant would have to comply with the FEMA codes. J. McQuade asked the applicant, Ms. Cappello, about the home office and if there were sleeping accommodations in it. Ms. Cappello said
it would have a sleeper sofa for guests.
Letters in support from the following people: James T. Horris and Christine Janicek of 48 Connecticut Road dated August 29, 2010 and Anne DeLucia of 44 Connecticut Road dated August 29, 2010.
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.
VOTING SESSION:
Case 11-05 B Lee and Michele Mergy, 22 Lyme Street
S. Stutts stated that the Mergy’s were to bring in a recalculation of the building coverage and confirmation from Ron Rose on approval of the project. The coverage is a wash, the majority of the Board was concerned with the percentage of maximum floor area as percentage of the lot. The main issue is the rear setback, 30 feet is required and the there is 17 feet, the building will be going up 9.5 feet within the setback thus encroaching on the neighbors “air space”. R. Moll stated that the building is unique and has historic value. R. Moll felt certain things were lacking in the presentation, there is a sewing room which could be used as a bedroom. The house was originally purchased as a “seasonal” home and is now used year-round. Two neighbors were
against the proposal. The majority of the Board felt that sufficient hardship has not been shown. J. McQuade had an issue with the bulk of the structure. J. St. Germain stated that no one came forward in support of the proposal during the public hearing. K. Kotzan felt sufficient hardship has not been shown and the proposal goes against the intent of zoning. S. Stutts stated that with an existing footprint of 8,666 square feet of space, why couldn't’t the interior layout have been better thought out prior to the renovations if more rooms were needed. Discussion of preserving the historical value ensued, R. Moll stated that the front of the building was historically preserved (which it has been), but the applicant wants to add on to the rear structure to preserve the interior of it. There is a trade off in which historic portion one wishes to preserve. There is plenty of space within the existing building to make
renovations to add rooms.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded R. Moll to DENY the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted. 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
Reason to deny: The hardship does not warrant the expansion in such a large building space. Applicant can find space within to accommodate their needs.
Case 11-06 B Peter and Constance Engelking, 12 Devitt Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow interior renovations including raising roof, egress windows and enhance second floor living area. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline is 30’ (25’ + 5’ for narrow street requirement) and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line is 12’, 4.3’ on the west side which is existing.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 9.3.1, enlargement, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline is 30’ (25’ + 5’ for narrow street requirement), existing is 15.2’and proposed is 22’ for second floor addition requiring a variance of 8’and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 25% required, 25.5% proposed for a variance of 8’.
The house was built in 1959 basically on the property line. The renovations are to bring the house up to current fire, safety and building codes. The applicants tried to purchase land from the neighbor to make the lot more conforming. There were five (5) letters in support submitted at the public hearing. The cost of the renovations will be below the 50% of the appraised value of the structure so that the applicant does not have to bring the house into compliance with the FEMA regulations. J. St. Germain stated that the project is in harmony with the neighborhood. This is a minimal addition to the property, there is only a .5% increase in the floor area. The height of the roof is going from 20 feet to 23.1 feet. K. Kotzan
stated that the Board is creating a new nonconformity by increasing the floor area by .5%. The Board discussed how to make that .5% reduction in floor area. The consensus was that the .5% was a minimal increase and the applicants made good use of the space.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to GRANT the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted under the condition that it does not exceed the FEMA requirements for cost of the project. Discussion: R. Moll, amend to state “and therefore does not exceed the current appraised value of $154,534.00”, 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
Reason to grant: Footprint to remain the same, small change to make an old house much more livable and safe, will enhance the neighborhood.
Case 11-07 B Nancy Manville, 31 Sill Lane
S. Stutts stated that this is a large lot in an RU-40 zone that is 80,586 square feet. It is an old house built in 1860’s in its present location. There is a street setback of 50 feet, currently the house is 23’ from the road. The hardship is the placement of the house on the lot and the topography of the lot. The floor plan of the house and the topography dictates where the addition can be placed. There were 5 letters in support of the project. The house has been vacant for 12 years and the renovations will be an improvement to the neighborhood. The total footprint of the house is 705 square feet and this is a small 12’ x 9’ addition. The nonconformity already exists since the building intrudes into the
front setback. It doesn't’t affect the intent of the regulation. R. Moll stated that this was a unique situation, an old farmhouse placed on a large lot where the zoning regulations have intruded over time.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll to GRANT the necessary variances as per revised plans submitted to allow a 12’ x 9’ bathroom with the height of 14’ to the roofline. 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
Reason to grant: This is an oversized property with a house with a very small property. Expansion areas limited by topography and will enhance the neighborhood.
Case 11-08 B Dominick and Beverly Cappello, 46 Connecticut Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow partial reconstruction of the existing shallow pitched roof with a steeper slope and also add an additional 166 s.f. for entry, stair and expanded bathroom. The house is built basically right on the property line creating setback issues, the floor area is being increased by 2.6%. It is currently a bungalow sized house that is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. There currently is no attic space and the proposal is to add storage space on the second floor. The upstairs area will gain an additional 266 square feet. There were two letters in favor of the project. J. St. Germain stated that this is a reasonable request, but the original question is “where does the
Board draw the line to expanding the existing houses to make them more livable for year-round use”. This area is being hooked up to sewers, more residents will be coming in for expansion of their homes on small lots to make them more livable. K. Kotzan discussed the increase in floor area percentage, 20.7% to 27.5%. This is a lot that has 5,977 square feet in an area where 10,000 square feet is required at a minimum. S. Stutts stated that there is a small garage in the rear that is used for a car and storage of deck furniture, etc. There is a need for storage, but is the need for storage a hardship.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain to DENY w/out prejudice the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted and allow applicant to amend plans to reduce maximum floor area to 25% . 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
Reason to deny without prejudice: Hardship not found, house could be reconfigured to reduce maximum floor area in the storage area.
Approval of Minutes of the January 25, 2011 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to approve the January 25, 2011 Regular Meeting minutes with the following changes: page 4, first paragraph, third line from the bottom: change “There will be new bedrooms” to “There will be no new bedroom”; page 5, third paragraph, last line: change “20% required, proposed is 26.3% for a variance of 1.3%” to “20% required, proposed is 26.3% for a variance of 6.3%”; page 5, fourth paragraph: change “The hardship is”, add to previous sentence to read as follows: “Mrs. Mergy gave her presentation and discussed the history of the property, she stated the hardship is. . .”; page 6, first paragraph: change the word “lessening” to “reducing” in the last sentence. No further corrections or 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.
Election of Officers
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan seconded by J. St. Germain to re-nominate the exiting slate as follows: S. Stutts, Chairman, J. McQuade, Vice Chairman and K. Kotzan, Secretary. No further nominations and a vote was taken; the motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan to adjourn the February 15, 2011 Regular Meeting; no discussion and a vote was taken. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Susanne Stutts, Chairman
| |
