OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Richard Moll, Kip Kotzan and Richard Smith, alternate (seated for Joseph St. Germain) and Mary Stone, alternate (seated for Judy McQuade). Also present was Martha Rumskas, alternate and Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. She noted that Richard Smith would be seated for Joseph St. Germain and Mary Stone for Judy McQuade.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 11-26B, Variance to allow raising the rear section of roof 3’ x 20’ x 24’, 10 Ridgewood Road, Patricia P. Kenefick, applicant.
Chairman Stutts noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the November Regular Meeting at the applicant’s request. Mr. Moll asked that before the applicant begins his presentation, that he explain the location of the road in relation to the location of the house.
Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with the following Sections of the Zoning Regulations: 8.0.c, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.1, 8.8.10 (variance of 8.2% requested), 8.8.8 (variance of 10’ requested), 8.8.9 (variance of 7.8’ requested). She stated that the variance is requested to raise the roof to allow more interior light.
Fran Kenefick was present to represent the applicant, his wife. He explained that he met with Ann Brown several times and she suggested that he color code his drawings. Mr. Kenefick stated that the orange outline is the present structure, the blue is the proposed roof, the red is the present attic floor and the green is the new vaulted ceilings. He indicated that at the prior public hearing in October resulted in confusion, which is why he asked for a continuance to clarify the plan.
Mr. Kenefick stated that most of the house on the left side of Ridgewood Road either have raised roofs or are two story. He noted that raising his roof two feet will not interfere with anyone’s view. He noted also that there is cemetery property to the rear of his house. Mr. Kenefick stated that he initially wanted to vault the ceiling all the way to the peak and Ms. Brown recommended keeping them below 12’ so that they did not count as an additional story. He indicated that the vaulted ceilings will not exceed 11’ 5”.
Ms. Stutts noted that the additional information was not submitted to the Zoning Office until today so the Board has not had a chance to review them. Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant is not increasing the floor area. Mr. Kenefick pointed out the street on the site plan as requested by Mr. Moll. He explained that there are currently three bedrooms in the home and it will remain three bedrooms. Ms. Stutts noted that the revised plan has the same date as the original plan. Mr. Kotzan stated that they can refer to the color-coded plan when they act on the application.
Mr. Kenefick stated that they are putting on new siding and gutters at the same time. Mr. Moll questioned whether the bedroom ceilings would be up to the roof. Mr. Kenefick stated that the ceilings are not changing in the bedroom area. Mr. Moll questioned whether the windows shown on the second floor would be opening and closing for ventilation. Mr. Kenefick indicated that they would not be; they are fixed. Mr. Moll expressed concern with the attic stairs being located in the pantry and probably will severely limit use of the pantry walls. Mr. Kenefick stated that Ann Brown indicated that it would work. Ms. Stone questioned what would prevent Mr. Kenefick from using the attic area as living space. Mr. Kenefick indicated that it is an attic area with windows that do not open.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
2. Case 12-01 – Margaret B. Farrelly, 1 Sea Lane, variance to construct an open sided covered porch on the south side of the property.
Attorney John Bennet was present to represent the applicant. He explained that the applicant was before the Commission in the past for an open sided covered porch and this application reduces the requested porch in both depth and width and less a set of stairs. He noted that these changes to the proposal reduce the amount of the variances requested.
Attorney Bennet stated that there are two dimensional variances; one the setback from Sea Spray Road and the other the 50 foot setback from the sea wall. He noted that the property has two frontages as it is a corner lot. Attorney Bennet stated that having double frontage requires 25’ setback on two roads and the proposed on one road is 18’6” which results in the 6’6” variance. He noted that they are requesting a 10’ setback from the seawall. Attorney Bennet stated that they have eliminated the coverage variance that they requested in the previous application. Mr. Bennet noted that the coverage is currently 24.4 percent. Mr. Kotzan noted that Ms. Brown shows coverage differently and shows that a coverage variance is required. Attorney Bennet
stated that he would like to make the presentation and then go over the numbers with Ms. Brown and continue the hearing. Mr. Kotzan agreed, noting that it would make a difference if a coverage variance is not required. Attorney Bennet noted that the site plan was done by a surveyor. He noted that the surveyor shows 1666 square feet existing coverage and Ms. Brown notes 1748 square feet existing coverage.
Attorney Bennet noted that the property is on a corner lot on a dead-end street. He indicated that there will be very little impact on views as a result of this porch. Attorney Bennet submitted an aerial photo of the area showing the location of the home. He noted that the street is a dead-end and is basically a pedestrian way. Attorney Bennet stated that he has submitted letters from the neighbors in favor of the application and asking the Board to approve it.
Attorney Bennet stated that after the recent hurricane the owner engaged a FEMA representative who noted that his house is elevated. He noted that their insurance rate came down after the storm, probably unlike others. Attorney Bennet noted that the porch will also be raised.
Attorney Bennet stated that the existing structure was built on a steel frame in the 1960’s. He indicated that it is also on a corner lot and requires two street setbacks; he noted that he believes the proposal is not out of keeping with the neighborhood and does not impact neighbors. Attorney Bennet stated that the porch will not be seen from Sea Lane.
Ms. Stutts asked Attorney Bennet to discuss the letter from Marcy Balint, OLISP. Ms. Barrows noted that Ms. Balint’s letter was from the original file and Ms. Balint has not seen this application. Attorney Bennet noted that they have moved the porch closer to the house. Mr. Kotzan noted that every other property has a structure closer to the beach.
Mr. Kotzan read a letter in favor of the application from six neighbors. Mr. Moll noted that one of the people that signed the letter lives on Shore Road which is not a neighbor. He indicated that OLISP’s Marcy Balint did not recommend approval because she believes it would set a bad precedent to allow encroachment into the 50 foot setback. Ms. Stutts stated that because the porch is less than 400 square feet Ms. Brown did not require a CAM Application. She noted that the letter from Ms. Balint is from the previous application.
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing until the February 21, 2012 Regular Meeting in order to receive clarification of Section 8.8.11 (maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot coverage).
3. Case 12-02 – Jason Wilcox, 9 Jadon Drive
Chairman Stutts noted that this application has been withdrawn.
4. Case 12-03C – Joyce A. Nasin, 26 Champion Road
Chairman Stutts noted that this application has been withdrawn.
5. Case 12-04 – Louis & Elizabeth Alfonso, 12 Kinner Avenue, variance to allow bump-out on second floor to improve head space for a powder room and chimney.
Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, 8.8.2, 8.8.3, 8.8.7, 8.8.8 and 8.8.9. She noted that the proposal does not comply with Sections: 8.0.c, 8.6, 9.3, 9.3.1, 8.8.7 street setback (16’ variance requested), 8.8.9 (14’ variance requested). She noted that the hardship provided is that the house was built in 1928.
Louis Alfonso stated that they are not asking for a chimney. He pointed out on Page 7 of the proposal that there is a vent for a gas stove which comes out the side of the house which is why it is called a cantilever chimney. Mr. Alfonso showed a picture of the vent.
Mr. Alfonso stated that he has owned the property since 1964 and has used it year round. He indicated that they are proposing to enclose the area underneath the deck for a utility room. Mr. Alfonso stated that they are removing the existing deck. He noted that this work will not change the outside of the house. He indicated that they are requesting a bump-out on the second floor so that they may add a powder room with a toilet and small sink.
Mr. Alfonso stated that they are opening the area between the porch and the living room, leaving a three foot high wall. Mr. Kotzan noted that the floor area is going from 14 percent to 14.7 percent. Mr. Alfonso noted that it is a very modest proposal. He noted that the property is currently year round.
Mr. Moll stated that Kinner Avenue is a unique place. Mr. Alfonso stated that there have been a few changes in the surrounding homes over the last few years.
Mr. Moll questioned who did the drawing. Mr. Alfonso stated that it was done by an architect in Essex. Mr. Moll stated that this should be noted on the drawing. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is drawn to scale.
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 11-26B, Variance to allow raising the rear section of roof 3’ x 20’ x 24’, 10 Ridgewood Road, Patricia P. Kenefick, applicant.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the applicant brought additional plans to make the proposal clearer to the Board. Chairman Stutts stated that the ceiling height for the vaulted ceilings will be less than 11.5 feet so that it does not count as additional floor area. She stated that the proposal will make the house more aesthetically pleasing then the existing house. She noted that the attic will only be used for storage and has pull-down stairs for access.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the regulations being varied and the setback variances requested are already existing variances on the first floor. Ms. Stutts stated that the fact that the back of the house is being raised which does not change the size from the street. Mr. Moll stated that the new drawing is improved, yet it is not signed. Mr. Kotzan stated that he does not think it needs to be signed because it is not a site plan. Mr. Moll indicated that he was ready to approve the first evening because where the house sits along with its elevation above the road and because the addition is to the rear it will not be seen. Mr. Kotzan stated that the addition will make the home look more like the other homes in the neighborhood.
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal will increase neighborhood values. Mr. Moll stated that it is a reasonable use and it is within the intent of zoning.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build as per the plans submitted, noting that the plans reference the new ceiling joists, what parts will be open and what parts are to be attic space.
Reasons to Grant:
- A reasonable use of the property
- It is not against the intent of the Zoning Regulations which are to be varied.
2. Case 12-01 – Margaret B. Farrelly, 1 Sea Lane
The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the February Regular Meeting.
3. Case 12-04 – Louis & Elizabeth Alfonso, 12 Kinner Avenue
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She pointed out that the work being done underneath the deck does not require a variance. Mr. Kotzan noted that the street setback required is 50’ due to it being a narrow street. Chairman Stutts stated that the requested dormer is in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build as per the plans submitted.
Reasons to Grant:
1. This is an improvement to an older home in a unique area.
2. A small change to make an older home more livable.
3. Improves neighborhood values.
Old Business
Discussion of “Abutters List”
Ms. Barrows explained that there have been situations where abutters have not been sent notices. She noted that the only legal requirement is that the hearing be advertised in the newspaper. Ms. Stutts stated that whatever the Board decides she will forward on to the Board’s Attorney. Mr. Kotzan agreed and stated that they should continue to do what they have always done. Ms. Stone stated that another reason not to impose another requirement for notification is that the GIS system is not always correct. Ms. Barrows stated that she uses the Assessor’s Map to determine abutters. She indicated that she sends them and receives certificate of mailing from the Post Office to prove that she sent a notification to each address.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to leave the policy as it stands which has been used successfully for many years,
continue with the legal notice in the New London Day and to send courtesy notices to neighbors within 100’.
New Business
Election of Officers tabled to the February 21, 2012 Regular Meeting
Request made by Doreen Day for a refund of the application fee for 32 Grandview Avenue.
Ms. Barrows stated that in the Fall Ms. Day submitted an Appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s decision, which was withdrawn. She noted that Ms. Brown spent quite a bit of time on the application with both the Board’s and the applicant’s attorney and it was also advertised twice in the New London Day. Ms. Barrows stated that the application was withdrawn the day of the meeting. Ms. Barrows stated that the advertising fee was approximately $140.00. She noted that the applicant is now requesting a refund of her money. Mr. Kotzan stated that the application fee was spent on what it is collected for and the fact that the application was withdrawn is irrelevant. The consensus of the Board is that the Zoning Board of Appeals will not refund the application fee on this
matter since legal notices had been published and other costs had been incurred.
Minutes of the November 15, 2011 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the November Regular Meeting as submitted.
Chairman Stutts stated that the CT Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies is offering a workshop for $175.00. She indicated that the three new members might benefit from it. Ms. Barrows stated that she would call and get the details for the Board.
Chairman Stutts stated that she has a letter from Richard Moll indicating that Arthur Sibley will be replacing him in February. Ms. Barrows stated that the Board of Selectmen will have to appoint him and plan to do so at their next meeting.
Adjournment
The Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
