 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 17, 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, May 17, 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 and Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: 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 11-15 Warren Hannas, 9-1 Halls Road
Present: Attorney Frederick Gahagan of Waller, Smith and Palmer, agent for the applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of a second stairway to conform to fire egress requirements and also a patio/deck. The existing nonconformities are Section 4.10.3, Connecticut River Setbacks, no alteration within 100 feet of high tide line, existing structure 55’ +/-.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 8.9.7, minimum setback from streetline 60’, proposed for new stairs is 59.1’ for a variance of 0.9’, Section 9.3.1, enlargement and Section 4.10.3, Connecticut River setbacks, no structure altered within 100’ of high tide line, for the proposed deck/patio there is 52’ for a variance request of 48’ and for the proposed stairs there is 62’ proposed for a variance request of 38’.
Attorney Gahagan gave his presentation. The variances are needed to allow construction of an exterior staircase that is required by the Old Lyme Fire Marshal to provide separate and equal egress from the second floor. Variances are also needed to allow construction of a walkway and deck that meet the definition of “terrace” in Section 3.2.200 of the Regulations. The upper part of the terrace will complete the connection between the two buildings shown on the plans by extending the existing walkway to the west entrance of the ground floor. The lower portion of the terrace will provide a sitting area. The hardship with respect to the stairs is that the placement of the stairs in a conforming location on the building would create a violation of the fire code and an unsafe condition. The hardship with respect to the terrace is that strict application of the 100 foot Connecticut River setback to prohibit the lower terrace would preclude a normal and reasonable use of the
applicant’s property with no off setting benefit to the public policy goals of the regulation. The placement of the stairs will not affect the surrounding properties since the stairs will be set back 340 feet from the street. The hardship with respect to the 100 foot Connecticut River setback line is unique because strict enforcement will prevent any ground level improvements associated with any pre-existing building that would not adversely affect the purposes and policy goals behind the regulation. R. Moll asked about the Gateway Commission. The Gateway Commission was contacted and a letter was received on May 17, 2011 stating “it is found that there will be little if any impacts to the “natural and traditional riverway scene” if the variances were approved as submitted.”
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 11-16 – John and Michele Roncaioli, 56 Columbus Avenue
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of a dormer on the back side of the house for a 20’ x 20’ +/- utility/study/computer room. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 8,750 square feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 8,750 square feet existing, Section 8.8.4, wetlands/watercourse restriction 0%, existing is 300 s.f. wetlands, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required plus 5 feet for narrow road setback so 30’ is required, 17’provided, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’ required, there is 15’ to covered terrace and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 7.4’ south side of the house.
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 and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required plus 5 feet for narrow road setback so 30’ is required, 24’ 10” is proposed requiring a variance of 5’ 2”.
Mr. Roncaioli gave his presentation. This house was given year-round status in April, 2000 by Marilyn Ozols for zoning purposes. Mr. Roncaioli stated that the house as it exists is a two bedroom home and will remain a two bedroom home. This is a double lot that contains 8,750 square feet. The proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the dormer will be to the rear of the property. The existing roof pitch needs to be raised to accommodate a code compliant stairwell thereby creating a need for a variance. There is no other place in the house to add a stairway that would not obstruct the current living area. The living area square footage is only 1,382 square feet.
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 11-17 – Sydna and Marvin Hyman, 44 Corsino Avenue
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow installation of a new foundation which increases the height of the structure from 17’ to 20’ to accommodate a new septic system. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 3,938 square feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 3,938 square feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot, 75’ required, existing is 52.5’, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required, 19.7’for the house provided, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’ required, 13.8’ existing for the house and +/- 2’ for the shed, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other
property line 12’ required, 5.2’ south side of the house and +/- 2’ for the shed and Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area, 25% required, 26% 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 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required, 19.7’for the house existing which requires a variance of 5.3’, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’ required, 13.8’ existing for the house which requires a variance of 16.2’ and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 5.2’ south side of the house which requires a variance of 6.8’.
Mr. Richard Hyman gave his presentation and stated that this home as been in the family since 1951. There will be no changes to the existing building it will just be raised to accommodate a code compliant septic system. The height of the house will go from 17 feet to 20 feet and will not exceed the height allowed in the zone. The slight increase of the house will not affect the surrounding homes since the other homes in the area are at a higher elevation. The existing system is not repairable and this is the only area to place a new system. The house will remain seasonal, its status will not change. The foundation will be upgraded for the house.
The following letter was entered into the record in support of the application: Mr.& Mrs. John Mayoros of 42 Corsino Avenue dated May 9, 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 11-18 – Bernadette Hirst, 8 Oak Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow a second floor addition creating a two story dwelling. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 6,868 square feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 6,868 square feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot 75’, existing is 50’ +/- , Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required, 12.6’provided and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 9.6’ east side of the house and 8 feet west side of the deck.
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 stories, two stories are proposed, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required, 20.6’for second floor addition requiring a variance of 4.6’, and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 9.6’east side of the house for the second floor addition requiring a variance of 2.4’.
Mr. Andy Veselak, the agent for the applicant Ms. Hirst, gave his presentation. The proposal is to add a second story to the existing dwelling. The hardship is the size of the lot. This is an expansion of a undersized house on a tiny lot, the deck on the house will remain. The applicant has no intention of using this house year-round, it is currently a summer cottage with three tiny bedrooms. The second story will be used for bedrooms. There is no heat in the house and it will remain that way. Mr. Veselak stated that the height of the structure will be 24’ to the peak. The proposal is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Peter Osborne of 11 Oak Road spoke in favor of the project. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the public hearing closed.
VOTING SESSION:
Case 11-14 – Edmund Boryczewski, 66 Billow Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow relocation of existing house to create space for code compliant septic system. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 4,015.7 square feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 4,015.7 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 stories existing, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required, 10.7’provided, Section 7.1.c, only one detached accessory building not used for human occupancy and not exceeding 15’ in height and 200 sq. ft. in floor area may extend into
the required side or rear setback by a distance equal to one-half of the minimum required setback, 3.81’ south side of garage (6’ required), 1.44’ from the rear for the garage (15’ required), Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 4.3’ north side of the house, Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot, 25% required and there is 51.3% existing, Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area, 25% required, 33.4% existing and Section 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage as percent of lot area, 30% required, 33.4% 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 existing requiring a variance of a half story, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from the rear property line, 30’ required, 4.3’ on the north side of the house for a variance request of 12.8’, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 4.3’ north side of the house existing requiring a variance of 7.7’, Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot, 25% required and there is 51.3% existing, 49.7% proposed, requiring a variance of 24.7%, Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area, 25% required, 33.4% existing,
31.8% proposed requiring a variance of 6.8% and Section 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage as percent of lot area, 30% required, 33.4% existing, 31.8% proposed requiring a variance of 1.8%.
The Board discussed the fact that the current septic system is 500 gallons and is still working for the seasonal aspect of the property. The applicant wants to make the property year-round and therefore the septic system requires a larger capacity in order to do that. Also, the septic has to be at least 8 feet from the foundation of the house. In order to accomplish that, the tank needs to be placed in the front of the house since the rear of the property has an abundance of ledge and is not suitable for the placement of a tank. To place the tank in the front, the house then needs to be moved 15 feet to the rear of the property creating a need for a variance of the rear setback. The front setback will now be conforming. If the deck/porch in the front of the house was to be removed, the
septic system would comply with the 8 foot requirement to the foundation and the house would not have to be moved to the rear. As it appears, the deck/porch didn’t show on any plans or permits in the Zoning file. The consensus of the Board was that this is a lot of house for such a small lot and if moved back towards the other home, it would tower over that home. The neighbor to the rear did speak at the public hearing and was not in favor of moving the house back. He, in the past, had problems with noise from the deck in the rear where the house currently sits. K. Kotzan stated that the floor area is 51%, 25% is allowed. This house as built, is not allowed in the area under the current Zoning Regualtions. The house can be reduced in size to make it more conforming. The neighbor interjected at this point to say that the well on their property is not 75 feet away from the proposed septic. There was discussion that the
applicant would be bringing in city water to his property and offered it to the abutting side neighbor. There is a small vacant lot next door that could be purchased. K. Kotzan stated that this is a difficult situation. J. St. Germain stated that there should be a compromise made by the applicant to reduce the size or change the structure to make it more conforming so that variances could be granted to accommodate the septic system.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to DENY the granting of the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted on the grounds that they do have other options to potentially to achieve this year round use of the property but that would include diminishing some of the dimensions of the structure in the process of moving it and creating the leaching field. The property to the rear is harmed by the proposed plans and we do not have the right to impose that burden on that property for this owner to achieve his aims as shown. There are other reasonable ways to accommodate and change things, it may diminish the size of the structure but that, unfortunately, is the burden that the property must bear. This is not a property that can be have things just shift around it is wildly overbuilt
it is 51% of floor area on it, even proposed is 49.7% so essentially 51% coverage. Discussion: S. Stutts stated that it would have a lot less impact on the neighbors if it was diminished and if it wasn’t moved to the back. 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
Case 11-15 Warren Hannas, 9-1 Halls Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of a second stairway to conform to fire egress requirements and also a patio/deck. The variances are of Section 8.9.7, minimum setback from streetline 60’, proposed for new stairs is 59.1’ for a variance of 0.9’, Section 9.3.1, enlargement and Section 4.10.3, Connecticut River setbacks, no structure altered within 100’ of high tide line, for the proposed deck/patio there is 52’ for a variance request of 48’ and for the proposed stairs there is 62’ proposed for a variance request of 38’. The applicant tried to place the stairway in a place that did not require a variance, but the Fire Marshal said that the two forms of ingress/egress can not be that close together. The applicant had
to redesign the proposal and the stairs now need variances to comply. This is a clear health and safety issue. The placement of the stairway does not impact adjacent property owners since the building is set so far back from the road. The Connecticut River Gateway Commission approved the proposal as submitted as well.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll to GRANT the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted for the interest of safety to establish a second point of egress and the existing regulations that apply to this property have little meaning. Not imposing on any of the neighboring properties, it has minimal impact on the area. Discussion: R. Moll stated that this variance is driven by the Fire Marshal’s request for an additional form of egress. S. Stutts stated that it is a unique juxtaposition to the street which is the hardship. 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
Case 11-16 – John and Michele Roncaioli, 56 Columbus Avenue
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of a dormer on the back side of the house for a 20’ x 20’ +/- utility/study/computer room. Variances are request for Section 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage, Section 9.1.3.1, general rule, Section 9.3.1, enlargement and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required plus 5 feet for narrow road setback so 30’ is required, 24’ 10” is proposed requiring a variance of 5’ 2”. The applicant is putting a dormer on to the rear of the house, the footprint is not being expanded and there are no further encroachments into the setback. J. St. Germain stated that the proposal is not affecting any of the neighbors. There are wetlands in the rear of the property so the
applicant could not expand to the rear. This is a very small house for the neighborhood and the second floor dormer addition is minimal.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll to GRANT the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted. The reason is that it is a reasonable use of the property that the strict application of the regulations would prevent and allowing these regulations to be varied in the application, will not affect the overall zoning plan. It will not offend the intent of the regulations that have been varied. Discussion: There was no one present at the hearing in objection and there were no letters of objection from the neighbors in the file. 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
Case 11-17 – Sydna and Marvin Hyman, 44 Corsino Avenue
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow installation of a new foundation which increases the height of the structure from 17’ to 20’ to accommodate a new septic system. Variances are requested for Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required, 19.7’for the house existing which requires a variance of 5.3’, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’ required, 13.8’ existing for the house which requires a variance of 16.2’ and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 5.2’ south side of the house which requires a variance of 6.8’. All of these already exist since the house is only being raised up. The septic system failed and the current space beneath the
house is not adequate for a septic system. At the public hearing letters in favor were submitted for the proposal and entered into the record. The applicant states that the house is to remain seasonal. J. St. Germain stated that this is a health and safety issue that is being addressed. The water table is very high in this area. There will be no additions made to the structure, this is a small house on a small lot. It was stated that there was no audience participation at the public hearing either in favor or in opposition.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain to GRANT the necessary variances to lift the building as per plans submitted and put a new foundation that makes it possible to put in the compliant septic system arrangement. This is in the interest of public health and no detriment to 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
Case 11-18 – Bernadette Hirst, 8 Oak Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow a second floor addition creating a two story dwelling. Variances are required of Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the streetline, 25’ required, 20.6’for second floor addition requiring a variance of 4.6’, and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’ required, 9.6’east side of the house for the second floor addition requiring a variance of 2.4’. The hardship is the size of the lot. The Board has asked that the plans be changed to meet the 1 and a half story requirement. The existing house is 627 square feet with two bedrooms. There was discussion as to the actual size of the existing dwelling. K. Kotzan said that there would be a condition placed on the variance so
that the square footage of the second floor would conform to the regulations of 1 ½ stories. J. St. Germain asked about the house being hooked up to sewers in Point O’Woods, and yes this cottage was hooked up to the sewer system. The proposal is not exceeding maximum coverage allowances, there is no intensification in the use and the height will remain 24’.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by R. Moll to GRANT the necessary variances, with the exception of the variance requested for two stories, to build this project according to plans that will be submitted to the Chairperson and approved by her that basically reduce the scope of the project so that it will be a one and a half story structure rather than a two story structure, within the existing footprint (not expanding over the front porch). If the Chairperson determines that the plans have substantial alterations so that it doesn’t look substantially like the plan submitted with reduced dimension it should come back to the Board. Discussion: R. Moll discussed the requirements in the application for pump out ticket and this application had them all. Also discussed was the
seasonal aspect on the Assessor’s card. 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
Approval of Minutes of the April 19, 2011 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by J. McQuade to approve the April 19, 2011 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. Correction: on page 4, last paragraph, to read: “Mr. Boryczewski stated that he purchased. . .” 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
Old and New Business
There was discussion regarding the letters received in connection with the variances granted for 85 Connecticut Road. There was also discussion about ZBA procedures for notifying abutting property owners and determining which properties were within 100 feet.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain to adjourn the May 17, 2011 Regular Meeting; no discussion and a vote was taken. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows
Recording Clerk
| |
