 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 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, March 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: Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Marilyn Ossmann, alternate, Richard Smith, alternate and Fran Sadowski, 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:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Case 11-09 Stanley Ehrlich, 69 Gorton Avenue
Present: Attorney Michael Cronin, agent for the applicant; Mr. Gerry Karpuska, Architect
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow the renovation and reconstruction of an existing outmoded and outdated single family dwelling. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 4,150 square feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 4,150 square feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot, 75’ required, existing is 50’, Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories 1 ½ required, 2 ½ existing, Section 8.8.6, maximum height of building or structure, 24’ required, 25’5” existing, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the
streetline, 25’ required, 13.2’existing, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’, existing 27.5’ for house, +/- 2’ smaller shed, +/- 4’ larger shed, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, +/- 2’ smaller shed, +/- 4’ larger shed and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot, 25% required and there is 35.4% 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 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1 ½ required, 2 stories, enlargement of the second story area in the front and rear, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’, existing is 27.5’ for the house, 27.5’ for proposed rear addition, they area seeking a variance of 2.5’ and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 25% required, 35.4% existing and 34.84% proposed. The ceiling height has been reduced in the attic and the shed to reduce floor area ratio. The applicant is asking for a variance of 9.84%.
Richard Moll called a point of order and passed out the minutes of the November 2010 meeting wherein the Board denied the application presented without prejudice. Attorney Cronin stated that that meant the applicant could come back and not be bound by the prior denial. Attorney Cronin stated that the previous plan was to go from front to back and add on a second story to allow a first floor bedroom. The house currently has 4 bedrooms upstairs and it would then be reduced to three bedrooms, two upstairs and one down. The Health Department has reviewed the application and has approved the proposal but the dwelling will not be deemed year-round, it will remain seasonal. The property was part of the lawsuit and was granted year-round use for zoning purposes only. Attorney Cronin stated that
they are not increasing the existing footprint, the proposal is to go up. Mr. Karpuska then went over the floor plans with the Board noting the differences from the first plan to the one presented this evening. Attorney Cronin showed the Board pictures of the stairwell to the second floor that currently did not meet the building code. The Board asked how the floor area ratio was being reduced and Mr. Karpuska stated that the ceiling height on the shed and a portion of the upstairs was being reduced. Attorney Cronin stated that this is not a large structure, 1,400 square feet with an extension out the back. The improvements will be made to the bathrooms to modernize the structure. The proposed deck area could be eliminated if the Board felt it was a concern. S. Stutts stated that this house is in a one and a half story zone and the structure is two stories, plus the lot is only 4,100 square feet in a 10,000 square foot zone. This is a
pre-existing nonconforming structure that has been placed on the lot prior to zoning. If the floor area ratio remains a problem, the applicant is willing to remove the shed entirely.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr.& Mrs. Salvatore Cancelliere of 70 Gorton Avenue spoke in favor of the application. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the public hearing closed.
Case 11-10 – Robin Sedgwick, 23 Ferry Road
Present: A. Joseph Shea, Contractor; Mrs. Robin Sedgwick, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow kitchen remodel and raising of roofline on Ferry Road side, also a 6” bump out for a window. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline is 30’, existing is 2’ on the southwest corner of the garage and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line is 15’, 0’ on the east side of house 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’, there is 1’ for the addition to the garage and house requiring a variance of 29’.
Mr. Shea gave his presentation. In November of 2008, the applicant was granted variances to build an addition and reconfigure existing space. The applicant would now like to change the roof pitch to allow a flat ceiling throughout the kitchen to install cabinets. The existing door on the south side will be relocated to the east side of the house. The roof change will be exactly like what is depicted on pages 2 and 4 of the plans presented with the application. The hardship is the house was built in the 1840’s prior to zoning. At one time the road had shifted more towards the house taking away its front yard. Mrs. Sedgwick gave the history of the house and Mr. Moll stated that the applicant had gone through quite a lot of work with the previous addition, i.e. buried oil tanks
and the disposal of the oil. This project also includes a “bump-out” window in the kitchen area.
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 11-09 Stanley Ehrlich, 69 Gorton Avenue
S. Stutts stated that this a re-do of the application from November, 2010 which was denied without prejudice. Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1 ½ required, 2 stories, enlargement of the second story area in the front and rear, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’, existing is 27.5’ for the house, 27.5’ for proposed rear addition, they area seeking a variance of 2.5’ and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area, 25% required, 35.4% existing and 34.84% proposed. The ceiling height has been reduced in the attic and the shed to reduce floor area ratio. The applicant is asking for a variance of 9.84%. The Board does not mind the deck out front. The Board felt that there was sufficient area within the existing footprint
to make the necessary changes to modernize the structure and improve the staircase. There is a definite bulk issue on this small lot, the only change from the last application to this one was the switching of the addition of a second story from the front to the back.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to DENY granting the variances for the plans as submitted. Discussion: the second floor bedroom was switched from the previous plan from front to the back. There is space available within the existing footprint to make renovations. Where the covered porch is, it can be turned into living space, which is reasonable. The deck in the front is not an issue. The property is already overbuilt, existing proposal is not within the intent of zoning. 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 property is already maxed out and not sufficient hardship to grant. They have a two and a half story, 1,289 square foot building on a 4,150 square foot lot with year round use from zoning only, increasing the outside is not within the intent of zoning. The zone allows a one and a half story dwelling.
Case 11-10 – Robin Sedgwick, 23 Ferry Road
S. Stutts stated that this is an older home placed on the lot prior to zoning. The roadway has changed over the years due to the ferry and the trolley crossing. This proposal is minimal, with approximately 16 inches being added to the roofline to allow cabinet space in the existing kitchen. This is a reasonable request to make a structure more livable. There will not be an expansion of the footprint, the only difference will be the existing door on the south side being relocated to the east side.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to GRANT the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted to raise the roof line by approximately 16 inches. 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: The hardship is the placement of an older house on the lot, small change to update an old house and is within the intent of zoning.
Approval of Minutes of the February 15, 2011 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to approve the February 15, 2011 Regular Meeting minutes with the following changes: the alternates were not “present” where it states present; on page 7 change under 31 Sill Lane Reason to grant: “with a very small property” to “with a very small footprint”. 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. 5-0-0
Adjournment
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan to adjourn the March 15, 2011 Regular Meeting; no discussion and a vote was taken. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows
Recording Clerk
| |
