OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 2011, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Joseph St. Germain, Fran Sadowski, Alternate (seated for Kip Kotzan) and Richard Smith, Alternate (seated for Richard Moll). Also present was Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
1. Case 11-19 Stanley Ehrlich, 69 Gorton Avenue, request for variances to allow the complete renovation of existing outmoded and outdated single-family dwelling.
Chairman Stutts noted that the parcel is 4,150 square feet; she stated that the existing conditions do not meet the requirements of the following Sections: 8.8.3, minimum square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; 8.8.5, number of stories, 1.5 maximum, 2.5 requested; maximum height, 24’ required, 25’ 5” requested; minimum street setback, 25’ required, 13.2’ provided; minimum rear setback, 30’ required, 27’ provided for the house, -2’ provided for the small shed, -4’ provided for the large shed; minimum other setback, 12’ required, -2’ provided for the small shed and -4’ provided for the large shed; maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent required, 34.5 percent provided. Chairman Stutts stated that the
proposal requires variances of Sections 8.0.3, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, 9.3.1, 8.8.5, and 8.8.8.
Attorney Michael Cronin was present to represent Mr. Ehrlich. He noted that the previous two times the applicant was before the Board the applicant was in Arizona, but is able to be present this evening. He also noted that Jerry Karpuska was present to explain the drawings. Attorney Cronin explained that this application was before the Board in December and the current application is essentially the same. He noted that the first application enlarged the second floor and continued it out over the existing overhang to the front and rear of the structure. Attorney Cronin stated that the Board felt this was too much of an extension and denied it without prejudice. He indicated that they came back with another application which eliminated the increase on the second floor and shifted a little
of that floor area on the second floor to the rear. Attorney Cronin explained that both of these applications were a slight extension of the footprint to the rear of the structure which is now covered by a partially enclosed porch and a bathroom. He stated that the second application squared off the structure in its current location which resulted in a slight increase in the footprint of the structure. Attorney Cronin noted that the Board again decided that this was too much of an increase. He read the motion of denial from that application and submitted a copy of it for the record.
Attorney Cronin explained that the current application addresses the Board’s comments in the previous denial. He noted that they have eliminated any expansion in the footprint and they have converted four bedrooms into two bedrooms and redesigned the bathroom so that it can be handicap accessible. He noted that the only change on the second floor is the interior layout. Attorney Cronin stated that the first floor proposal is to enclose the existing porch, including the bathroom and provide a modest first floor bedroom. He stated that the Board indicated that the need to make something handicap accessible is not a hardship, but noted that it is a consideration. Attorney Cronin stated that the redesign allows for movement throughout the first floor in a wheelchair. He indicated that
he believes they have addressed all the concerns and comments of the Board in the previous denial. He noted that they have only slight increased the percent of coverage and have reduced the number of bedrooms.
Jerry Karpuska explained the floor plans. He noted that the footprint extension is 40 square feet. He noted that the front porch will remain a front porch. Attorney Cronin pointed out that they are not proposing any changes to the exterior of the dwelling. Mr. Karpuska stated that the wall between the house and the enclosed porch will remain. He noted that they are reducing the attic square footage by 40 square feet. Attorney Cronin noted that the attic will be used for storage only. He noted that he does not believe there will be any neighbors in opposition as there have not been in the past. Mr. Karpuska stated that the attic will be accessed by pull-down stairs. Mr. Ehrlich stated that he is not sure if they will need a ramp for his wife to access the house.
Attorney Cronin noted that temporary ramps are allowed by the Zoning Regulations.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
Attorney Cronin stated that the same hardships provided in the previous applications would apply such as the limited lot size, age of the structure, interior layout, narrow staircase and small bedrooms.
Mr. Ehrlich stated that he and his wife live at this property seven months out of the year. He noted that the home suited their needs until his wife became ill. He noted that they have owned the property for 30 years and they don’t want to leave. Mr. Ehrlich stated that this is very important to he and his wife. He noted that the hardship to him is the quality of life.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing for Case 11-19 Stanley Ehrlich, 69 Gorton Avenue, request for variances to allow the complete renovation of existing outmoded and outdated single-family dwelling.
2. Case 11-20 – Stephen and Valerie Newhouse, 4 Carrington Road, request for variances to allow a 16’ x 20’ addition to the rear of existing dwelling.
Attorney Cronin was present to represent the applicants. Chairman Stutts stated that the lot is 14,368 square feet and the dwelling does not meet the minimum other yard requirement of 12 feet, 5 feet existing. She noted that the proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.6, yards and lot coverage; 9.3.1, enlargement; and 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line of 12’ required, proposing a variance of 7.5’. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided by the applicant is the placement of the house on the lot.
Attorney Cronin noted that the property is located on Carrington Road in the Point ‘O Woods section of Old Lyme. He noted that the property is unique because it is a conforming lot. He noted that the existing coverage is 16.67 percent where 25 percent is allowed. Attorney Cronin stated that there will be a slight increase in coverage of 325 square feet or 17.9 percent. He stated that the property was constructed prior to Zoning and is constructed right near the property line. Attorney Cronin stated that at a later time they acquired the neighboring property and put up a garage. He noted that the property is high up and there are no wetlands anywhere near the property. Attorney Cronin stated that the property is served by public water and sewers and is designated by the Town
as a year-round dwelling. He explained that the year-round status was not granted as part of the South Lyme Property Owners lawsuit; year-round status was applied for and granted by the Town after a formal review.
Attorney Cronin stated that the small addition is to the rear of the property. He noted that there is an existing deck on the rear of the dwelling. Attorney Cronin stated that currently the closest point to which the house sits to the other property line is 5 feet. He pointed out that they are not increasing this nonconformity, but are requesting to put the addition 5.85 feet from the property line at its closest point. Attorney Cronin stated that the neighboring house is also right on the property line and there is perhaps 12’ between the two dwellings. He explained that right down the middle of the property line is a paved driveway and that paved driveway extends slightly onto this property but is used by the neighbor. He pointed out on the site plan how the driveway ends right
at the end of the existing house. Attorney Cronin explained that the effect of the addition will be to extend the driveway another 15 or 16 feet and will allow the neighbor another parking space. He noted that looking between the properties from the deck there is a nice view of the water, noting that this as a reason for the placement of the addition. Attorney Cronin stated that several years ago the applicants applied for a second story for this property, the Board granted the variances, and after careful review it was found that the house was not constructed to accommodate a second story so the work was not done.
Mr. Newhouse stated that he and his wife have owned the property since 1990 and have made numerous improvements over the last twenty years. He indicated that his addition will be the last of the changes and the purpose is to make the house more efficient. Mr. Newhouse explained that the house does not have laundry facilities because of the fragile septic system; and there is a small 5’ x 7’ bathroom and the addition will allow for a second bathroom with a bathtub, which they also currently do not have in the house. He explained that the previously approved proposal for a second floor was not constructed due to structural issues, as well as the fact that they would have had to install a new septic system when the sewers were being constructed. He noted that they do not have a bedroom
large enough for their bed, bureau and closet.
Mr. St. Germain questioned how much of the neighbor’s driveway is on Mr. Newhouse’s property. Mr. Newhouse replied that the driveway is not paved, and approximately 5 feet of it is on his property. Mr. St. Germain questioned whether the applicant’s neighbor had any rights on Mr. Newhouse’s property because of the driveway. Attorney Cronin replied that the neighbor has no rights; the driveway is simply an accommodation.
Mr. Newhouse presented a floor plan of the addition and explained it to the Board. Mr. Smith questioned why the applicant did not consider putting the addition on the opposite side of the house where there is more room. Mr. Newhouse stated that the north end of the house toward the garage is the kitchen/dining room area. He stated that the design is the simplest way to get an expanded bedroom and bathroom.
Mr. Newhouse pointed out that the addition will not be visible from the front of the house. He indicated that he spoke to all his neighbors who have offered their support.
Chairman Stutts read the letters from neighbors in favor of the application.
Ms. Sadowski expressed concern about the driveway and stated that at some point in time the property owner loses the right to say “no.” Attorney Cronin stated that the adverse possession rule has to be done under a claim of right and then do it for 15 years. He indicated that adverse possession is very difficult to prove and the property will not change.
Joseph Busetta, 8 Carrington, noted that he is the abutting property owner where the addition will be constructed. He stated that the Newhouse’s are wonderful people who came to him with their proposal. Mr. Busetta indicated that he is in favor of the proposal. He indicated that he can put three cars on his own property without infringing on the Newhouse’s property. He explained that he would sign a statement indicating that he will not file a claim of adverse possession. He also noted that the addition will give both homes more privacy.
Wayne Ashton, abutting neighbor to the rear, stated that the addition is in a discrete location and he is in favor of it.
Mrs. Newhouse stated that her husband was recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease and a larger bathroom would make it easier for him to get around in.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
3. Case 11-21 – Daniel Peck, 38 Saltaire Drive, request for variances to allow raising of roof line 4 feet on the rear section of dwelling (rear roof dimensions 15’ x 22’).
Chairman Stutts reviewed the variances required to raise the a 15’ x 22’ portion of the rear roof of the dwelling. She noted that the lot is 4,012 square feet. Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities and requested variances.
Daniel Peck stated that he purchased the property in May of this year. He stated that at that time he pulled a permit for stripping the roof and new siding. Mr. Peck stated that he also got an electrical permit. He explained that over the years the large trees shaded the roof and upon removing the shingles they found that the roof was rotted down to the rafters. Mr. Peck stated that the carpenter suggested that they raise a section of the roof for more living area, while still maintaining just three bedrooms. He explained that he did not think it was a problem because he was not exceeding the maximum allowed height of a structure or adding to the footprint.
Chairman Stutts noted that the problem is that the lot is only 40 percent of that which is required for the zone. She noted that the arborvitae can be cut back; she indicated that the rotting rafters were caused by water, not lack of sun light. Chairman Stutts stated that because the lot is so small the work he has done requires several variances.
Chairman Stutts noted that a stop work order was issued. Mr. Peck indicated that they stopped all work except for the work on the first floor for which he has a permit. Chairman Stutts explained that the Board has to look at this application as though the work was not done.
Mr. Peck stated that there was a small 60 sq. ft. shed attached to the house in the rear of the property that was also rotting because of the trees. He noted that by removing this shed the property is now more in compliance with the rear setback. Mr. Peck stated that he has not increased any of the other setbacks. He noted that the gross floor area is 998 square feet and with the shed that he removed it was 1,048 sq. ft., over the 25 percent allowed. Mr. Peck stated that he added 120 square feet of living area on the second floor by raising the roof and removed the 60 sq. ft. shed. He noted that this results in the requested 2.5% variance for living area.
Mr. Peck stated that in comparison to other homes in Old Lyme Shores he has one of the lowest floor area ratios. Chairman Stutts questioned the number of bedrooms. Mr. Peck noted that the septic system was installed ten years ago. He indicated that he currently has three bedrooms and with the new bedroom on the second floor he is removing one from the first floor so the house will remain a three bedroom home. He noted that removing the first floor bedroom will increase the size of the living room.
Mr. Peck reiterated that he had no idea that increasing the roof would be a problem. He noted that he knew that the Town was coming back out to inspect. Mr. Peck stated that he believed that he was raising the roof in compliance with the Zoning Regulations. He noted that the trees are within 10 feet of his house. He explained that the proximity of the trees to the house blocks sunlight which creates mold.
Chairman Stutts read letters in favor of the application from neighbors.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 11-19 Stanley Ehrlich, 69 Gorton Avenue, request for variances to allow the complete renovation of existing outmoded and outdated single-family dwelling.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case, noting that this is the Ehrlich’s third application to the Board. Chairman Stutts stated that the first floor porch will remain a porch; there is no increase in floor area on the second floor. Mr. St. Germain stated that the applicant has listened to the Board’s recommendations and asked for the minimum required to get a bedroom and bathroom that is much needed. Ms. McQuade agreed. She noted that the bedroom is small. Ms. Sadowski stated that they will be increasing the value of the house by making it handicap accessible.
A motion was made by Joseph St. Germain, seconded by Fran Sadowski and voted unanimously to grant the requested variances for Case 11-19 Stanley Ehrlich, 69 Gorton Avenue, request for variances to allow the complete renovation of existing outmoded and outdated single-family dwelling since the applicants have cooperated with the Board in doing the absolute minimum in order to accomplish what they need, and noting that they do have a definite need.
Reason: this is the third time the applicant has been before the Board and they have complied with what the Board has asked.
2. Case 11-20 – Stephen and Valerie Newhouse, 4 Carrington Road, request for variances to allow a 16’ x 20’ addition to the rear of existing dwelling.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the applicants were before the Board in 2002 for a full second floor addition, which the Board approved. She noted that the second floor was never constructed and now the applicants are requesting a 16’ x 20’ first floor addition.
Chairman Stutts noted that there were a number of letters in favor of the application. She stated that the lot is over 14,000 square feet so it can accommodate a 320 square foot addition. Chairman Stutts stated that the location of the addition enhances the privacy for both this house and the neighboring house.
Chairman Stutts noted that the property was given year-round status and was not part of the class action lawsuit. Joseph St. Germain stated that the bedrooms are very small and this allows a reasonable use of the space. Chairman Stutts stated that it will remain two bedrooms.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Joseph St. Germain and voted unanimously to grant the variance needed for Case 11-20 – Stephen and Valerie Newhouse, 4 Carrington Road, request for variances to allow a 16’ x 20’ addition to the rear of existing dwelling.
Reasons: it is strictly a setback from the side property line of 6.5’; it is a minimal request to enhance the property; it is a small house on a large lot; there are no other issues like coverage or maximum floor area; it is a very reasonable request to finally get a washer and dryer space now that there is a full septic and water; and they are going to be able to extend the back bedroom since it is very small; very reasonable request; within the intent of Zoning.
3. Case 11-21 – Daniel Peck, 38 Saltaire Drive, request for variances to allow raising of roof line 4 feet on the rear section of dwelling (rear roof dimensions 15’ x 22’).
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that they are adding 180 square feet to the second floor and removing a 60 sq. ft. attached shed. She stated that the house will remain a three-bedroom home. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided was that the trees in the back of the house are shading the roof and creating mold.
Ms. McQuade stated that there was no interior plan showing the elimination of the bedroom on the first floor. She noted that the big issue is the increase in the nonconformity of the floor area ratio to 29 percent.
Mr. St. Germain reminded the Board that they have to consider this application as if it has not been constructed. Chairman Stutts agreed and noted that the increase in the percent of floor area is what bothers her the most. Mr. St. Germain pointed out that there are neighbors in favor of the proposal and none opposed. Chairman Stutts questioned whether the Board could grant the increase in the roof without allowing the interior floor area. Ms. McQuade indicated that this would be difficult to enforce. Chairman Stutts stated that she has trouble with the increase in roof height being necessitated by the tree height and does not see this as a hardship. She reiterated that the lot is very small at approximately 4,000 square feet; she noted that the roof increased from 18’6” to
22’6”.
Mr. St. Germain stated that if the roof had been replaced as it existed they wouldn’t be here discussing it. He noted that the trees are really not a factor. Mr. St. Germain questioned what the Board would have done if the applicant had not done the work and came before the Board requesting this variance. He noted that there are economic ramifications of saying no. Ms. McQuade stated that the Board should consider that the applicant did believe he had a proper permit.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by R. Smith to GRANT, very reluctantly, the necessary variances. The reason is the fact that it is in existence and the economic hardship. It probably was an honest mistake, but the applicant benefits from an honest mistake. Discussion: J. McQuade stated that obviously the Board wouldn’t have granted the variances the first time around but the roof has been raised and the house is entirely sided. There is no opposition from the neighbors for whatever that accounts for. J. St. Germain stated that everyone would be coming in like this in the future. S. Stutts stated the reason she is opposed is that, to be consistent, the Board would never have voted this way on properties with the percentage of maximum floor area with percentage of
lot, it is just too much to give to a 4,000 square foot property and we never would have done it if the building hadn’t been done, there is not a hardship that distinguishes this property from the others in the area that would make it a viable option. No further discussion and a vote was taken. In favor: J. McQuade, J. St. Germain, R. Smith
In opposition: S. Stutts, F. Sadowski Abstaining: None The vote was 3-2-0. The Motion to grant failed to pass, the variances were DENIED, the applicant needed four affirmative votes to grant the variances.
Reason: The fact that it is in existence and the economic hardship the applicant would incur if he had to remove it; probably was an honest mistake, but the applicant benefits from an honest mistake.
Ms. McQuade stated that obviously the Board wouldn’t have granted the variances the first time around but the roof has been raised and the house is entirely sided. She pointed out that here is no opposition from the neighbors.
Mr. St. Germain stated that he does not want to set a precedent and have people doing this type of thing in the future. Chairman Stutts stated the reason she is opposed is that, to be consistent, the Board would never have voted this way on the had the work not been completed already with the percentage of maximum floor area for the lot. She stated that it is just too much to give to a 4,000 square foot property. Chairman Stutts stated that there is not a hardship that distinguishes this property from the others in the area.
No further discussion and a vote was taken. Motion did not carry, 3-2-0, with Ms. Stutts and Ms. Sadowski voting against.
Chairman Stutts explained that the applicant needed four votes in favor for the motion to pass. Mr. Peck questioned what he should do next. Ms. Barrows explained to the applicant that there is an appeal process and suggested that he come to the office to discuss.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by R. Smith to approve the May 17, 2011 Regular Meeting minutes as submitted. No discussion and a vote was taken. In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, J. St. Germain, F. Sadowski, R. Smith In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Stutts stated that the legal bill for 66 Billow came to $750.00. She stated that she has put in a call to the attorney about the Zoning Board of Appeals responsibility in regards to sending out notices. She indicated that she needs clarification on this because Point ‘O Woods has sent another letter regarding their research on the job of the Zoning Board of Appeals and they had been told it was the applicants responsibility to notify the neighbors. Ms. Barrows explained that that is not correct; she noted that the applicant has the responsibility of providing a list of abutters and after preparing the legal notice she sends that to the abutters. Chairman Stutts stated that that process is not written anywhere. Ms. Barrows explained that Ann Brown indicated that it was an error
in the re-write process and that the change should have been made and was not.
Chairman Stutts stated that she needs clarification before she responds to the letter from Point ‘O Woods. She indicated that the person from Point ‘O Woods wants to clarify an abutter as a property with any portion of it within 100 feet of the applicants property; and to be sure that the notice is checked for completeness and accuracy. Mr. St. Germain stated that if the Point ‘O Woods Association wants more people notified than they should take the responsibility of notifying the additional people. Chairman Stutts agreed. Discussion ensued on the different ways other Towns notify abutters. Chairman Stutts read the Point ‘O Woods letter to the Board regarding 85 Connecticut Road and future notification to abutters; she then read her response to the letter. Ms.
McQuade suggested forwarding her response to the people copied on Point ‘O Woods original letter to the Board.
Chairman Stutts noted that Old Saybrook is having the same problem with seasonal dwellings that Old Lyme is having. She noted that many of their seasonal homes are being torn down and the beach areas are losing their seasonal charm.
Ms. Barrows stated that the Zoning Commission is rewriting their FEMA Regulations due to a mandate, along with a few FEMA requested changes. She indicated that she will send Board members a .PDF copy if they would like. Ms. Barrows stated that the FEMA Map will also be changing in July.
Ms. Barrows reported that the Executive Session to be held by the Zoning Commission is closed to everyone, including the Zoning Board of Appeals; she noted that the Commission is meeting to discuss the seasonal regulations with their attorney. Ms. Barrows stated that there will eventually be a public meeting that everyone will have the opportunity to attend and voice their opinion.
The Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. on a motion by Joseph St. Germain; seconded by Fran Sadowski and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
