OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2012, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Present and voting were Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Richard Smith, alternate, arrived at 7:50 p.m. (seated for Joseph St. Germain) and Mary Stone, alternate (seated for Arthur Sibley). Also present were Martha Rumskas, alternate and Kim Barrows, Clerk.
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 Arthur Sibley.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 12-05 – Louis and Nancy Rossi, 22 Massachusetts Road, Variance to Modify Existing Roof/Attic to Provide a New Half-Story
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants are requesting a variance for modification of the existing roof/attic to provide a new half-story over the existing footprint and front stair modification reducing encroachment into setback. She noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 6,725 square feet provided; 8.8.2, minimum area per dwelling; 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25’ required, 8’2” provided; 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required; 6’7” provided on the north and 8’ on the south. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with the following sections: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.2.1, General Rules;
9.3.1, Enlargement; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5 allowed, 2 proposed; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25’ required, variance of 16’ 2”; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other properties, 12’ required, variance of 5’5”; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, variance required and percent not written on the application. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the house was built in 1930 and placed on the front of the lot.
Mr. Chris Hill, Architect, stated that his position is that the proposed house is 1.5 stories. Chairman Stutts stated that there are some numbers missing on the plans. Mr. Hill stated that the first floor, both existing and proposed, is 907 square feet and the proposed second story is 381 square feet. Chairman Stutts questioned the existing second floor square footage. Mr. Hill explained that the existing second floor is an attic. Chairman Stutts noted that the application lacks the percent of coverage. Mr. Hill stated that the proposed coverage as a percent of lot area is 24.8 percent.
Mr. Hill explained the application, noting that the applicants would like to construct two bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor. Ms. Stutts noted that the existing house has three bedrooms on the first floor and questioned whether they would be removed. Mr. Hill noted that they would not be as the plan is to have five bedrooms. He noted that the renovations on the first floor are limited to adding a stairway for access to the second floor. Mr. Hill stated that the walkway on the second floor looks down to the first floor.
Mr. Hill stated that the existing height of the house is 18’1” and the proposed is 22’10”; he pointed out the location of the bedrooms on the second floor. Mr. Hill stated that the front elevation drawings show that the house is being kept to the same scale of the surrounding homes. He stated that the front yard setback encroachment will be reduced slightly by rotating the front stairs. Mr. Hill stated that they are not increasing any existing or creating any new nonconformities.
Ms. Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the house was constructed in 1930 toward the front of the lot. Mr. Kotzan questioned why the application indicates a variance is required for a two-story home where only a one and a half is allowed. Mr. Hill indicated that he has calculated all the floor area with a ceiling height of 6’ or greater and the proposed second floor meets the requirements of a half story. Mr. Kotzan stated that if the Board where to act favorably on this he would like to see a requirement that the Zoning Enforcement Officer confirm that the second floor is only a half story. Chairman Stutts agreed, noting that Ms. Brown just did the calculations today so she had all the latest information to work with. Mr. Hill explained how he calculated the floor area and
noted that the green area on the plan is not counted as floor area on the second floor.
Chairman Stutts stated that increasing the house from three to five bedrooms is a big change. Ms. McQuade noted that the owners have used the property since 1986 as a three bedroom home and questioned the need for two additional bedrooms. Mr. Hill stated that the property owners indicated to him that they would like more room for the grandchildren when they come to visit.
Margaret Hurley, 20 Massachusetts Road, pointed out her house on the site plan. She noted that she has a two story home that is positioned so that she has a view of the homes on the Point. She indicated that she feels the proposed roofline will take her view. Mr. Hill noted that the roof line will only be a few feet taller than it currently is and although he does not know her view, he does not feel it will obstruct her view.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
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.
Chairman Stutts noted that this case was continued from the January Regular Meeting. Attorney Bennett stated that they are requesting variances from two setbacks. He explained that their calculations show that the maximum coverage is just under the allowed 25 percent and Ms. Brown’s calculations have put them just over the maximum allowed coverage. Attorney Bennett stated that the shower was not included in the original calculations. He explained that in order to reduce coverage to under 25 percent, they have removed the stairs on the back of the existing side porch, the porch will be notched and new stairs constructed on the front of the porch. Attorney Bennett stated that the stairs on the front of the house will also be notched into the porch bring them back one step and the end
result brings them below the 25 percent maximum allowed. He indicated that he believes Ms. Brown has submitted a new report to that effect. Attorney Bennett stated that they have submitted revised plans to reflect these changes.
Attorney Bennett pointed out the property on an aerial photograph and noted that all the homes have porches on the waterside which is what they are requesting. He stated that this fact goes to consistency with the neighborhood. Attorney Bennett stated that the construction of the home on the property was long before Zoning and the fact that it is a corner lot that must meet two front setbacks are hardship of the property. He stated that he does not think the proposal takes anything away from the neighborhood. Attorney Bennett stated that anyone looking toward the water will not be impacted by the addition because it is on the opposite side.
Attorney Bennett stated that the property is raised up on piers and has a sealed structure underneath it and for this reason it has a lower rating with respect to flood insurance. He stated that because the size is so small, a CAM Application is not required. Attorney Bennett noted that the proposal is minor; he noted that the porch is not enclosed and is raised up. He asked the Board to consider the application favorably.
Ms. Stone stated that she took the opportunity to drive to the property today and noted that there is no house next door; there is just a foundation wall. She noted that Attorney Bennett indicated that the surrounding homes all had rear decks or sunrooms. Ms. Stone questioned the plans for this house as far as a rear deck or porch. Attorney Bennett stated that he made his statement based on the aerial photo and noted that the last time he was at the property there was a house next door. He indicated that he does not know what the neighbors have been permitted to build.
Attorney Bennett noted that there was a typographical error in the coverage number and it has been corrected and initialed on the plan. He indicated that if the application is approved the plan will be corrected and submitted. Attorney Bennett stated that the hardship is the pre-existing conditions. He indicated that the proposal would be consistent with the other properties in the area.
Mr. Kotzan questioned the difference between this and the previous application. Attorney Bennett stated that they have reduced the plan so that they do not require a variance for coverage; they only need one variance. Attorney Bennett noted that there were many letters of support of the application from neighbors.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
3. Case 12-06 – Wolcott and Julianne Phelps, 18 Sargent Road, Variance to Construct a Rear Dormer.
Russ Smith, builder, was present to represent the applicant. Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 6,113 or 6,198 square feet provided; 8.8.2, minimum area per dwelling; 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; 8.8.5, maximum stories, 1.5 allowed, 2 existing; 8.8.6, maximum height, 24’ allowed, 24’2” existing; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25’ required, 18’3” provided; and 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required; 5’7” provided on the west side. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with the following sections: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.3.1, Enlargement; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other properties,
12’ required, variance of 4’7”; and 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, confirmation required on lot size.
Chairman Stutts noted the hardship provided by the applicant is that the house was constructed in 1932 5’7” from the side setback and the dormer will not be in the side setback.
Mr. Smith stated that they are seeking a variance to construct a rear dormer on the second floor. He noted that the current house is 26’ x 32’, including the enclosed porch on the front. Mr. Smith stated that there is a small, 5’ x 11’ addition on the rear of the home. He indicated that the house was constructed in 1932 and contains 880 square feet of living space on the first floor and 715 square feet on the second floor. He explained that there will be no increase in the floor area of the home. Mr. Smith noted that the house is currently located 5’7” from the side property line and explained that they will not be increasing this nonconformity but rather improving it by removing an existing outdoor shower and reducing the number of bedrooms from four to
three. He noted that the second floor wall height is currently 42” in the rear and they are requesting to increase it to 84” for the dormer. Mr. Smith stated that the dormer will not extend to the ends of the house but will end one foot from either end for a more balanced architectural look. He noted that the red square on the plan represents the part of the dormer that extends into the side setback.
Mr. Smith stated that the applicant, Mr. Phelps, has lived in the area for 60 years; he noted that Mr. Phelps also owns the adjacent property, which is the property that would be impacted the most by this proposal. He indicated that no other appeals have ever been filed for this property.
Chairman Stutts questioned the existing ceiling height on the second floor. Mr. Smith noted that the ceiling height ranges from 42” to 7’, sloping in both the front and the rear. Mr. Smith indicated that he provided the floor area ratio to the Zoning Enforcement Officer; the existing floor area is 23.33 percent and the proposed floor area ratio is 24.74 percent.
Mr. Smith noted that 16 to 20 square feet of floor area will be added that falls into the side setback. Mr. Kotzan stated that the elevation drawings appear to be missing dimensions, such as height. Mr. Smith stated that he submitted a set of plans and noted that the ridge line is not changing; it will remain 24’2”.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
3. Case 12-07 – John and Shelly Biancamano, 23 White Sands Beach Road, Variance to allow Reconfiguration of Roof in the Setback.
Jeff Flower, Architect, was present to represent the applicants. Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 8,960 square feet provided; 8.8.2, minimum area per dwelling; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25’ required,10’ provided; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear, 30’ required, 2’ provided for the garage; 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required; 2’6” provided for the house. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with the following sections: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.2.1, General Rules; 9.3.1, Enlargement; 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required, variance of 9’6”; 8.8.9, other setback, for chimney, variance of 11.75’; and 8.8.10, maximum
floor area as a percent of lot area, variance of 2.8 percent. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is the placement of the house on the double lot and the fact that there is no additional land available for purchase.
Mr. Flower presented the site plan and noted the location of the house in the corner of the lot. He noted that the house was constructed in 1921. Mr. Flower stated that the house is a typical cottage. He stated that they put a flat roof in the back corner of the house where the utilities are. Mr. Flower explained that the proposal is to change the roof in this area and this area is in the side setback, which is an expansion of a nonconformity. He noted that they would like to widen the bedrooms on the second floor. Mr. Flower stated that there are two small areas where the roof changes are in the setback and noted that all other changes are in conforming locations. He explained that in addition to widening the bedrooms on the second floor they will be adding a bathroom and
widening the second floor staircase to make it code compliant.
Mr. Flower explained that they are adding a little bump-out on the kitchen, a dining room and a porch, all of which is conforming. Mr. Flower stated that they will be moving the chimney so they can eliminate the variance requested for Section 8.8.9. He stated that the garage is 260’ and is included in the floor area ratio. Mr. Flower stated that they will be removing the garage and can therefore remove the variance requested for Section 8.8.10, floor area ratio. Mr. Flower noted that the garage removal also reduces the existing nonconformities.
Mr. Flower stated that they will be putting in new windows as part of the project, but no other changes to the outside. He explained that the will not be raising the roof ridge which is currently 23’, so they are not changing any views. Mr. Flower stated that the new windows will meet egress requirements, which is an important fact. He explained the architectural drawings to the Board. Mr. Flower showed the Board the existing floor plans, noting that the existing bedrooms are only a little over 7’ wide.
Mr. Flower stated that the applicants are trying to bring their property up to building code and are not able to by right because the house is crammed into the corner of the lot. He indicated that this is their hardship.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he knows the previous owners and has been in the house several times.
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 12-01 – Margaret B. Farrelly, 1 Sea Lane, variance to construct an open sided covered porch on the south side of the property.
Seated: S. Stutts, K. Kotzan, M. Stone, R. Smith, M. Rumskas
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the applicant requested a continuance of the Public Hearing and changed their plan in order to remove the variance request for floor area ratio. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the property is a corner lot that requires two front street setbacks and out of the surrounding homes, this home has the largest beach area in the front.
Mr. Kotzan stated that having two meet two front setbacks is a difficulty. He stated that the 50’ setback does not require a Coastal Site Plan Review. Mr. Kotzan stated that the open deck has very little impact on the coastal resources or on the neighbors. Chairman Stutts notes that reducing the floor area ratio had a big impact in her mind.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build the open porch as per the plans submitted.
Reason to Grant:
- Applicant worked hard to reduce lot coverage and reduced size of deck.
- Large lawn.
- Should not impact neighbors negatively.
2. Case 12-05 – Louis and Nancy Rossi, 22 Massachusetts Road, Variance to Modify Existing Roof/Attic to Provide a New Half-Story
Seated: M. Stone, M. Rumskas, K. Kotzan, S. Stutts, J. McQuade
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the applicant is no longer asking for a variance to construct a second floor, although it was agreed that the figures would need to be double-checked by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. She noted that the bedrooms are increasing from three to five. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the house was constructed in the 1930’s too close to the property line. She indicated that she feels this is an ambitious project.
Mr. Kotzan stated the house could be used year round with five bedrooms on this small lot. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided as the placement of the house can apply to a lot of beach homes in the area. She noted that an addition could be constructed in a conforming area of the lot.
Ms. McQuade stated that the applicants have a reasonable use of the dwelling as it exists. Chairman Stutts stated that she feels there are other options that would not require so many variances.
Mr. Kotzan stated that there is a lot of bulk at the front of the lot. Chairman Stutts indicated that she believes there are other ways to get what the applicants would like without being quite so ambitious.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he is a little concerned with all the bulk on edge of the property, in addition to the fact that the structure is getting bigger and taller in that location. Mr. Kotzan noted that the addition of two bedrooms, from three to five, is an intensification of use on a small lot. He stated that he feels the proposal is a little too ambitious.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Judy McQuade to grant the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted with the condition that the Zoning Enforcement Officer confirms that the percentage calculation of first floor and second floor ratio meet the half story definition and that the two story variance is not required.
Motion did not carry, 0:5:0.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to deny granting the variances to build as per plans submitted on the grounds that it is a very small lot with 3 bedrooms existing and increasing to five bedrooms which is an intensification of use, proposal puts a lot of additional bulk into the setbacks and although the current owners may not abuse the additional number of bedrooms, future owners could easily abuse it.
3. Case 12-06 – Wolcott and Julianne Phelps, 18 Sargent Road, Variance to Construct a Rear Dormer.
Seated: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, R. Smith, M. Stone for the rest of the meeting
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the proposal is to construct a rear dormer. Ms. Stone stated that the number of bedrooms is decreasing, the height is not increasing and there is no increase in the lot coverage. She indicated that she thinks these are all positive things.
Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the home was constructed in 1932.
The Board agreed that it was good that many things were being brought up to the building code as part of the renovation.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted with the condition that the Zoning Enforcement Officer accepts the floor area as being less than 25%; reduced bedrooms from 4 to 3.
Reason:
- Proposal is a reasonable update for better use of the home.
4. Case 12-07 – John and Shelly Biancamano, 23 White Sands Beach Road, Variance to allow Reconfiguration of Roof in the Setback.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the proposal is to reconfigure the roof in order to allow for updating and renovating in the interior. She noted that the hardship provided that the home was constructed on the side of the property in the early 1920’s and there is no additional land to purchase.
Chairman Stutts stated that she feels the applicants have done a good job of updating the home within the Zoning Regulations. Several members mentioned that the garage was being removed from the property which they feel is a good thing.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build as per the revised plans (to be submitted) which will show the removal of the garage and the inset of the chimney into the existing structure.
Reason:
- Good job of trying to improve an old house within current zoning regulations.
- Removal of the existing garage.
Old Business
None
Minutes of the January 13, 2012 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2012 Regular Meeting with the following correction: change “present: Ann Brown” to “present: Kim Barrows.”
New Business
Election of Officers
All the existing officers agreed to stay on in their positions if the others saw fit.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to re-nominate the exiting slate as follows: Suzanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman and Kip Kotzan, Secretary.
Changes to “Instruction Sheet” of the ZBA Application
Ms. Barrows distributed a proposed new instruction sheet for the ZBA Application. She indicated that she does not plan to accept applications that are not complete. Ms. Barrows stated that she has discussed this with Ms. Brown.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to make the changes to the “instruction sheet” attached to the Zoning Board of Appeals Application effective immediately.
Adjournment
The Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
