OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 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, Richard Moll, Joseph St. Germain and Richard Smith, alternate (seated for Kip Kotzan). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 11-26, Variance to allow raising the rear section of roof 3’ x 20’ x 24’, 10 Ridgewood Road, Patricia P. Kenefick, applicant.
Chairman Stutts stated that the variance is requested to allow the rear section of the roof to be raised 3’ x 20’ x 24’ with no change in the footprint. She noted the existing variances: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 5,227 square feet provided; 8.8.2 minimum lot area per dwelling, 10,000 square feet required, 5,227 square feet provided; 8.8.7, minimum dimension square, 75’ required, 40’ provided; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30 feet required, 20’ provided; 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required, 4.2 feet provided (north side); and 8.8.12, maximum lot coverage, 30% maximum required, 33% provided. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, general rules; 9.3.1, enlargement;
8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25% allowed, requested variance of 8.2%, 8.8.8 minimum rear setback, requested variance of 10 feet; and 8.8.9, minimum other setback, requested variance of 7.8 feet. She noted that the hardship provided is that the roof needs repair and raising the roof will give the interior more light.
Fran Kenefick was present to explain the application. He noted that he lives in Plantsville, Connecticut and the applicant is his wife. Mr. Kenefick stated that the purpose of raising the roof is to have all cathedral ceilings and add large sliding windows in the front of the house. He noted that the house is currently 15 feet high and adding 3 feet to the rear will be well below the 24’ maximum allowed. Mr. Kenefick stated that the closest neighbor is the Campbell’s at 8 Ridgewood Road. He explained that if one is standing in the front of his house at 10 Ridgewood, one would be looking at the Campbell’s rear deck.
Mr. Kenefick stated that the addition is in harmony with the neighborhood and it will not obstruct anyone’s view. He explained that they chose to live in Point ‘O Woods because of its uniqueness. Mr. Kenefick stated that he built his home in Plantsville 30 plus years ago and every room except two lower bedrooms has cathedral ceilings. He indicated that they would like to do the same at their home on Ridgewood.
Mr. Kenefick stated that the house is not expanding beyond the footprint of the house. He noted that the room sizes are adequate; they would just like to add light.
Mr. St. Germain stated that he had trouble finding the front of the house, noting that access was from another street. Mr. Kenefick explained that the entrance is on the side of the house; he pointed it out on the site plan. He demonstrated on the floor plan the areas that would have the cathedral ceilings. Mr. Kenefick explained that the porch and living area will have vaulted ceilings with an attic floor above it. Chairman Stutts questioned whether the applicant could take out the existing attic floor and vault the ceilings. Mr. Kenefick stated that if he were to do that he would not have storage. Chairman Stutts explained that the problem is that they will be creating living area in the attic. Mr. Kenefick indicated that he does not plan to have living area in the attic.
Chairman Stutts stated that a future homeowner may. Mr. Kenefick stated that he wants to be able to walk in the attic; he noted there are no stairs. He indicated that they will be vaulting the ceiling of the living area and porch. Mr. Kenefick indicated that by going up 3’ the attic area will go from 5’3” to 6” at the peak in half the attic area.
Ms. McQuade questioned whether the entry would remain on the side of the house. Mr. Kenefick acknowledged that the entry would remain on the side. He emphasized that they are not creating living space or changing the footprint. Mr. Kenefick stated that they will be adding pull-down stairs to access the attic. He reiterated that they would only be making the cathedral ceilings and adding the front windows.
Chairman Stutts questioned if it would be possible to add less than 3 feet to the height. Mr. Kenefick stated that it would cost him the same amount of money whether he added one or three feet to the height. Chairman Stutts stated that the Board has to look at it as increasing living space because of the 6’ height in the attic. She suggested bringing the height down a little bit so that it did not count as floor area. Mr. Kenefick stated that people in Point ‘O Woods are making all kinds of additions to their homes at this time. He indicated that there are five homes building second floors. Chairman Stutts stated that they cannot address those homes right now because they do not have the facts in front of them. Mr. Kenefick stated that he would agree to a stipulation
that the attic area cannot be used as living area.
Ms. Brown stated that she was not aware there was any attic area in the proposal and questioned whether her floor area ratio might be incorrect. She indicated that there may be a little less floor area then she originally calculated. Ms. Brown suggested that the Board leave the Public Hearing open for a month and allow her the opportunity to go over the plans again with the applicant and recalculate the floor area and ratios. Mr. Kenefick agreed to keep the Public Hearing open to the November Regular Meeting.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the road rises as it goes up to Mr. Kenefick’s house. Mr. Kenefick replied yes. Mr. Moll questioned whether the houses on either side of him are closer to the road then his house. Mr. Kenefick replied that they are. Mr. Moll questioned how much of the 20’ length of the raised roof could be seen from the street. Mr. Kenefick stated that he is not exactly sure, but noted that some of it will be seen. He reiterated that they will not be blocking anyone’s view.
A motion was made by Joseph St. Germain, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for Case 11-26, variance to allow raising the rear section of roof 3’ x 20’ x 24’, 10 Ridgewood Road, Patricia P. Kenefick, applicant until the November 15, 2011 Regular Meeting.
2. Case 11-27 – Daniel Peck, 38 Saltaire Drive, variance to raise a portion of the rear roof 4’ x 15’ x 22’.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to raise a portion of the rear roof 4’ x 15’ x 22’. Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage; 9.1.3.1, general rules; 9.3.1, enlargement; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear, 30’ required, variance of 7’6” requested; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, variance of 5’6”; and 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25% allowed, variance of .9%. She noted that the application states that the applicant is willing to remove 200 square feet of the building footprint in order to retain 180 square feet of space created by raising the roof.
Attorney Peter Evans was present to represent the Mr. Peck. He acknowledged that the Board could make them remove the raised roof and return the structure to its previous dimensions. Attorney Evans explained that they got a few estimates from builders to do just that, and the cost would be around $50,000.00 which is five times the cost of what they will propose this evening. He indicated that if they remove the 10’ x 15’ shed and the porch they will removing 215 square feet, not 180 as indicated on the application. Mr. St. Germain questioned whether the shed was already removed. Attorney Evans indicated that it has been removed and noted that in conversations with Ms. Brown there was acknowledgement that the shed has not been abandoned. He explained that by removing
the front porch it will also increase the front setback and lessen that nonconformity. Attorney Evans stated that the Peck’s want to do the right thing and noted that according to land use law, there need not be a hardship if the nonconformities are being reduced. He cited a CT Supreme Court case which says there does not necessarily have to be a hardship if other nonconformities are being reduced. Attorney Evans stated submitted letters from three neighbors indicating their approval of the project.
Attorney Evans stated that the Pecks are very sorry and have presented the only reasonable way to correct the problem. He reiterated that the applicant is willing to remove the 210 square feet of shed and porch to retain the 180 square feet of additional living area.
Mr. Moll asked how, if the applicant had a permit, the roof was raised. Attorney Evans stated that the builder saw that the wood was rotted under the roof and made the suggestion to raise the roof. Mr. Moll questioned whether they worked to a drawing. Attorney Evans replied that they did not.
Terrence Williams, Old Lyme taxpayer, that he what he sees is an improvement and looks great from the street and from the side. He indicated that he would also object to having the porch removed. He indicated that he does not know how one could contemplate putting the structure back to its original condition.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
3. Case 11-28 – Lawrence & Heidi Lapila, 20 Swan Avenue, variance to allow placement of a generator with 10 feet of the side property line.
Chairman Stutts noted that the variance is requested to allow placement of a generator with 10 feet of the side property line. She noted the following existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 sq. ft. required, 4,980 provided; 8.8.2; 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square, 75’ required, 60’ provided; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, one and one-half allowed, dwelling is two stories; 8.8.6, maximum height, 24’ allowed, no height measurement provided by applicant; 8.8.9, 30’ required for narrow street, 20’ provided; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30’ required, 18’ provided; 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required, 10 feet provided; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25% required, 67% provided; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by
buildings and structures, 25% allowed, 36 percent provided; 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage, 25% allowed, 36.3 percent provided; maximum total lot coverage as a percent of lot area, 30 percent allowed, 36.3 provided. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1 general rules; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 5’ variance requested; 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 6’ variance requested; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings, requesting a variance of 6.5 percent; 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage as a percent of lot area, requesting a variance of 6.5 percent. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that there is no other place to put the generator and when they lose power they have no heat or water; other homes in the area are set farther back and have generators in conforming locations. Mr. Moll questioned how many variances the applicant is requesting for installation of the
generator. Chairman Stutts replied that there are four variances.
Lawrence Lapila was present to explain his application. He indicated that he was not aware that he needed four variances. Mr. Lapila stated that his power goes out frequently for extended periods of time. He indicated that the generator runs at 65 decibels and an air conditioning unit runs at 70 plus decibels so the generator is less noisy than the air conditioning unit. He explained that per code, the generator cannot be near the air condition unit or a window which is why he chose the proposed location. He indicated that he was not aware that the proposed location was in the rear setback and he would be willing to move it up on the property if that did not create a front or side setback issue.
Mr. Lapila stated that he submitted letters from his neighbors on either side and the neighbor across the street indicating that they are in favor of the proposal. He noted that his home is year round, although he does not live there year round as he has two other homes. Mr. Lapila stated that because he is not here all the time he cannot use a portable generator like most people. He noted that it cannot be placed in the shed because it cannot be run indoors; it must be run outside. Mr. Lapila stated that based on the average year, he thinks he would run it for an hour or two on five different occasions. Chairman Stutts stated that she does not see this as a unique hardship as everyone in Old Lyme loses power.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the applicant would be willing to shield the generator with shrubs or lattice. Mr. Lapila agreed. He submitted a copy of the generator specs for the record.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 11-27 – Daniel Peck, 38 Saltaire Drive
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the applicant has made every effort to rectify the situation. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is removing the front porch and a 10’ x 15’ shed, in exchange for the 180 square feet of living space they gained by raising the roof.
Mr. Smith stated that he feels the raising of the roof was an honest mistake and the applicant has worked diligently to take care of the violation. Ms. McQuade agreed. Mr. Moll asked to review the site plan. Chairman Stutts noted that there were three letters in the file from the Peck’s neighbors in favor of the proposal.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Joseph St. Germain and voted unanimously to grant the variances requested to raise a portion of the rear roof 4’ x 15’ x 22’, 38 Saltaire Drive, Daniel Peck, applicant, as he has put forth a valiant effort to cooperate with the Town and to solve the problem with the least financial hardship.
Reasons:
- The applicants made an effort to compensate for the floor area of 180 square feet which was added to the second floor by removing 210 square feet.
- Proposal does not increase the nonconformity of the property; it reduces front and side setback nonconformities.
2. Case 11-28 – Lawrence & Heidi Lapila, 20 Swan Avenue
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the hardship provided is that the generator will start automatically while he is away; once a week for 12 minutes. Mr. Smith noted that the generator specs states that it does not need to be on a slab and suggested that it might not be permanent. Ms. McQuade stated that the variance requested for total coverage should be 11.5 percent, not 6.5 percent, as the maximum allowed is 25 percent, not 30 percent. Ms. Brown stated that Ms. McQuade is correct. Ms. McQuade stated that the abutting neighbor on the side where the generator will be located wrote a letter in favor of the proposal.
A Motion was made by Joseph St. Germain, seconded by Richard Smith and voted to grant the necessary variances required to install a generator, 20 Swan Avenue, Lawrence and Heidi Lapila, applicants. Motion passed 4:1, with Chairman Stutts voting against.
Reasons:
- Necessary to provide power in an emergency situation. The alternative is to have a portable power source handed out by the Town or the State in the event of an emergency.
NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Moll read a letter he received from Chairman Stutts while he was in Maine just recently. He indicated that he would like to see Arthur Sibley take his place as a permanent member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Stutts introduced Arthur Sibley. Mr. Moll stated that he is ready to resign, as his term does not expire until 2014, if Mr. Sibley is willing to take his place. Chairman Stutts stated that she would look into how to go about this.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Joseph St. Germain and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the September Regular Meeting.
Chairman Stutts stated that the Sullo’s have filed suit against the Zoning Board of Appeals over the Board’s denial to allow their garage.
Chairman Stutts noted that there is an interesting workshop coming up and indicated that Ms. Barrows has the information for everyone. She noted that the workshops are local.
Chairman Stutts stated that at the October Meeting the Board discussed how they would like to handle abutter notification. She indicated that she has since received a letter from the Point ‘O Woods lawyer and Attorney Royston responded to that letter. She explained that the Point ‘O Woods lawyer stated that future applications should be handled as stated in the CT State Statutes. Chairman Stutts stated that Attorney Royston replied to this letter stating that the Board may, by regulation, provide additional notice. She indicated that Attorney Royston has indicated that the Board is not in the wrong. Chairman Stutts stated that Attorney Royston recommends that the Board not adopt any additional requirements for notification. She explained that Attorney Royston indicated that it
would be okay to discuss the matter this evening and hold off on voting until the November meeting for FOI reasons. She went on to explain that Attorney Royston feels that the abutters list required by the Zoning Board of Appeals application form should then be removed immediately. Ms. Brown stated that there is currently no requirement for the Zoning Board of Appeals to notify applicants in the Zoning Regulations. She explained that past practice has been to send a notice to those abutters listed on the Zoning Board of Appeals Application. Ms. Brown stated that the requirement of the Statute is that it must be published. Chairman Stutts stated that it was also suggested that the website would be another form of advertising. Ms. Brown stated that one can register on the website and have certain notices sent to you by email. Mr. Sibley stated that there is no reliability in using the website or email. He indicated that all the people
that can be impacted by a project should be notified directly. Chairman Stutts stated that the Regulations are written currently that the Board does not have to notify abutters. Mr. Sibley stated that it does not need to be put into the Regulations; the Board can continue to send abutter notices as a courtesy. Ms. McQuade stated that this issue came up because of an application in Point ‘O Woods where someone within 100 feet was not notified. Mr. Moll stated that he has been on the Board for 20 years and this is the first time there has been an issue with notifications.
Chairman Stutts stated that if the Board choices to notify people they will have to set parameters of the mailing, add definitions, etc. Ms. Brown stated that sending them voluntarily puts the Board in the worst position. Ms. McQuade suggested making the applicants responsible for the mailings. Mr. Sibley stated that he feels the process should remain as it is. Ms. Brown stated that she thinks it would be best to handle it in the Zoning Regulations and set a formal process. She reiterated that it is important that adjacent neighbors are notified. Ms. Brown stated that for Zoning Applications the applicant is responsible to do the mailing and bring the receipts to the meeting. She noted that every now and again the applicant does not send the mailings and the hearing cannot go
forward.
The Meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. on a motion by Richard Smith; seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
