OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 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, Arthur Sibley, regular member and Mary Stone, alternate (seated for Joseph St. Germain)
Also present was Kim Barrows (Clerk).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 12-10 – Christina & Thomas Gotowka, 25 Library Lane.
Chairman Stutts stated that this application has been withdrawn.
2. Case 12-11 – Vincent S. & Rose Miceli Family LLC, 40 Washington Avenue, Variance to allow enclosure of existing patio area.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, Lot Area, 10,000 sq. ft. required, 9,220 provided; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, 10,000 sq. ft. required, 9,220 provided; and 8.8.8, minimum setback from the rear property line, 30’ required, 7.5’ existing. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with the following Sections: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, General Rules; 9.3.1, Enlargement; and 8.8.8, minimum setback from the rear property line, 30’ required, variance of 18 feet, 3.5 inches. She noted that the hardship provided is that the rear setback of 7.2 feet is existing and the previous property owner purchased an additional lot on the south side of the property to increase the lot area.
Mr. Miceli stated that they purchased the property in December, 2000, and there was an existing concrete patio base at that time. He explained that two winters ago there was an extreme amount of water and ice damage when water got between the gutters and the roof. Mr. Miceli stated that they are basically gutting the entire house and rebuilding it. He noted that they would like to enclose the patio area while this construction is ongoing so that they have an outdoor space where they are protected from the sun and the rain in the summer.
Chairman Stutts stated that the fact that the previous owner purchased a lot to increase the property is a good thing, and that might be a more appropriate place to put an addition. She noted that the patio could be replaced in its existing location. Mr. Miceli stated that the gas tank is located on that side of the house, which is the only place it could be located. He noted also that the bedrooms are located on that same side of the house. Chairman Stutts noted that there is a small room near the bedrooms that the addition could be accessed from. Mr. Miceli stated that it was a hallway, not a room.
Ms. McQuade questioned what time of room he was proposing, i.e., a screened porch or a year round room. Mr. Miceli stated that they would use the room as a dining area. He noted that it is not his permanent home.
Chairman Stutts noted that the site plan indicates 14’ to the rear property line and the Zoning Enforcement Officer has 7.5’ to the rear property line.
Mr. Miceli explained that the roofline would be extended with a half wall and the remainder would be sliding windows with screens. He indicated that there would be no heat in this room. Chairman Stutts noted that there is only one elevation drawing.
Mr. Sibley questions whether the floor would be installed on the cement or whether it would be the same elevation as the first floor. Mr. Miceli stated that it would be the same level as the first floor and they are planning to put pressure treated lattice around the bottom.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the request is reasonable but he would like to know why they cannot construct the room on the other side of the property where there is more room. Mr. Miceli explained that the central air unit is right outside one of the bedrooms and it is the only place it can be located; he noted that it has to be located so many feet from the propane tank. He noted that the extra lot was purchased so that there would be extra land in case it was needed for septic area in the future. Chairman Stutts stated that she spoke with Mr. Rose and he explained that the septic needs to be located 15’ from the footings so a room such as this would not impact septic location.
Mr. Sibley stated that he would not feel comfortable going forward with this application without better drawings that are to scale. He indicated that he would like to see how the roofs will attach and he would also like to see additional elevations. Mr. Kotzan stated that proper drawings could be a condition of approval. Mr. Sibley stated that he doesn’t feel comfortable making a decision without seeing the drawings. He indicated that the applicant should also add the additional hardships, as stated this evening, to the application.
Ms. McQuade questioned the square footage of the home. Mr. Kotzan stated that the application indicates 1,150 square feet of living area.
Mr. Sibley stated that he would like to see the Public Hearing continued so that the applicant could provide proper drawings. Chairman Stutts noted that the site plan reflects a different setback then Ms. Brown indicated in her review. She agreed that the Public Hearing should be continued. Mr. Sibley stated that the applicant should provide proper architectural drawings at that time, along with a corrected site plan. Mr. Miceli stated that he looked into an architect and the fees were $6,000.00. Chairman Stutts stated that the drawings need to be done to scale, but they do not need to be produced by an architect.
Chairman Stutts stated that the other option is for the Board to deny without prejudice which would give the applicant the opportunity to find out whether there might be other objections that come out during the Board’s discussion in the voting session that he might want to address at the same time.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
3. Case 12-12 – John Heckman & Helen Cantrell, 21-3 Library Lane, Variance to construct small covered entry over front door and landscape pergola on northwest side and rear.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities: 8.8.4, Wetlands/Watercourse Restrictions, 35 percent; 8.8.7, minimum setback; 4.3.1, Conservation Zone, no building within 100 feet of high tide; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 15% allowed, 19% existing; and 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings, 10 percent allowed, 11.8 percent existing. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with the following Sections: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, no expansion on a nonconforming lot; 9.3.1, no enlargement of a nonconforming building; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 50’ required, 19’ proposed; 4.3.1, no building within 100’ of high tide line, variance of 52’ proposed; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 15% allowed,
19.4% proposed, variance of 4.4% requested; and 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings, 10 percent allowed, 11.8 percent existing, variance request of 1.8%. She noted the hardship provided is the placement of the house on the lot relative to tidal wetlands and the restrictions on the use of the land due to the wetlands.
Jill Cartagena, Point One Architects, was present to represent the applicants. Ms. Cartagena explained that they would like a covered entry over their front door and a landscape pergola in the front of their house. She noted that the location of their house on the site plan and noted that it was constructed in 1968. Ms. Cartagena explained that the lot was originally over 80,000 square feet and a year after it was built the land was subdivided and the neighbor’s house was built on the new lot. She noted that the mean high water tide line of the Duck River cuts the lot in half so less than half of the lot is buildable. She also noted that the 100’ setback line for the mean high tide line goes through their house and into the front yard. She noted that the entire house is
within 100’ of the mean high tide line. Ms. Cartagena stated that the property also must meet two front setbacks. She noted that due to the lot being subdivided and a right of way being given to the neighbors to access their house, their front yard setback was decreased and the front setback line also goes through their house. Ms. Cartagena noted that for these reasons, the variances are unique to this property; she noted that there is no room on the property to construct anything while meeting setbacks.
Ms. Cartagena stated that the front pergola is a landscape pergola that is open on the sides and on the top and there will be pervious brick pavers on the ground; she stated that it is 197 square feet in area. She noted that the pergola proposed on the rear of the house is 15 square feet. Ms. Cartagena stated that the covered front entry is only 27 square feet and will be covered with glass, with no sides, and supported by two posts of the pergola. She noted that these areas add up 239 square feet. Ms. Cartagena noted that they are not adding any foot print or living area. She noted that the Town considers any structure that is attached to the ground as floor area, so floor area increases from 19.4 to 20.4 and maximum floor coverage from 11.8 to 12.8 percent.
Ms. Cartagena stated that the sketch-up model shows what the structures will look like, which the Board reviewed. She noted that the poles will be metal, not wood, and will be matt black in color.
Ms. Cartagena noted that the walkway is existing and will remain as it is, brick pavers. She indicated that the project is an outdoor landscape element and will never be enclosed. Ms. Cartagena stated that her clients would accept a condition of approval that it always remain open, as that is their intent.
Mr. Heckman stated that his wife has been doing a lot of landscaping and noted the existing flower beds on the property. He indicated that their intent of this project is simply landscaping and for the aesthetics of the house.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
4. Case 12-13 – William Randazzo, 40 Sea Spray Road, Variance to construct cover over front entry and pergola.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformity: 8.8.7, street setback, 25’ required, 20’ existing. She noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 8.8.6, maximum height of structure; 8.8.7, street setback, 25’ required, variance request of 8’6” for front entry and 5’ for the pergola; and 8.8.10 maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25% allowed, 26.7% proposed, variance of 1.7%.
Mr. Randazzo stated that the hardship is his cancer, as he needs a little shade when he sits outside. He stated that his pergola will be pvc and will not be able to hold anything other than flower pots. He indicated that he would also attach shades that he could raise and lower. Chairman Stutts questioned why Mr. Randazzo would not want to sit on the eastern side of his house where there is more room and less sun. He indicated that he gets to see his neighbors out on the street and can engage with them rather than sitting by himself in the back yard.
Chairman Stutts stated that the house size was recently doubled which is why the floor area will now be exceeded. She explained that there are other options such as a chair with an attached umbrella. Mr. Randazzo stated that even his garage is counted as floor area, which is 440 square feet. He indicated that a pergola will enhance the front of the house whereas an umbrella will not. Mr. Randazzo explained that the pergola will never be living area. He explained that the covered entry is 18 square feet and noted that the existing front steps will not be changed at all.
Mr. Kotzan explained that the Board cannot consider a person’s personal hardships, such as Mr. Randazzo’s skin cancer, as a reason for approval. Mr. Sibley stated that a retractable awning is another option. Mr. Randazzo stated that he has concern with the wind damaging an awning, and again, was looking at the most visually pleasing option.
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 12-10 – Christina & Thomas Gotowka, 25 Library Lane.
No action taken; this application was withdrawn.
2. Case 12-11 – Vincent S. & Rose Miceli Family LLC, 40 Washington Avenue.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board needs more accurate plans; he stated that he also feels that this addition could be accomplished in another location without violating a setback, or with less intrusion into a setback. Ms. McQuade stated that she feels the variance is small and noted that the setback violation is not being increased. She noted that the location makes the most sense and noted that the house is very small and the lot is good sized. Ms. McQuade stated that putting the room near the bedrooms seems awkward, although she agrees it should be considered.
Mr. Sibley stated that he agrees with Ms. McQuade. Mr. Kotzan noted that they have used the same reasoning on other projects. Mr. Sibley noted that better plans are required. Chairman Stutts stated that 7.5’ is very close to the neighbor and although he is not encroaching further, he is constructing walls and enclosing the patio which will add more bulk right on the property line. Mr. Kotzan noted that there were no objections from the neighbors.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted to grant the necessary variances to allow enclosure of the existing patio area, Case 12-11, Vincent S. & Rose Miceli Family LLC, 40 Washington Avenue, with the condition that amended plans are brought forth with detailed drawings that show how the roof ties into the existing house, the height dimension, and that these plans meet with the approval of the Chairman. The motion passed 4:1:0, with Ms. Stutts voting against.
Reasons to Grant:
- Proposal is a reasonable use of property
- Proposal doesn’t offend the intent of the zoning regulations being varied
- The cement slab is existing.
- Other options are limited due to the configuration of the property.
3. Case 12-12 – John Heckman & Helen Cantrell, 21-3 Library Lane
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the hardship provided was the house placement on the lot relative to the tidal wetlands.
Ms. Stone noted that the project was very well thought out and great consideration was given to the environment. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that the coverage has increased but he does not feel the landscaping features, although defined in the Regulations as structures, violate the intent of the coverage regulations. He noted that the covering over the porch is for safety.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the application of John Heckman and Helen Cantrell, 21-3 Library Lane, variance to construct small covered entry over front door and landscape pergola on northwest side and rear, as per the plans presented, with the condition that the pergola remain open.
Reasons to Grant:
- Project shows sensitivity to the environment.
- The roof over the doorway is for safety reasons.
- Pergola is an open landscape feature.
4. Case 12-13 – William Randazzo, 40 Sea Spray Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the roof over the porch is 18 square feet.
Chairman Stutts noted that there is a large area in the back of the house where a pergola could be located. She suggested that the two items be considered separately. Mr. Kotzan stated that he has a problem with the floor area as a percent of lot area regulation being violated because the house was just recently redone to the maximum amount of floor area allowed and now the applicant is for an increase. Mr. Sibley stated that he can see where the applicant would like a roof over the front door and he can see where that could be an afterthought.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant could use an umbrella for shade rather than constructing the pergola in the front. She noted that the hardship was self-imposed as the applicant recently reconstructed and increased the floor area to the maximum amount allowed.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted for the construction of the covering over the front steps, Case 12-13 – William Randazzo, 40 Sea Spray Road, with the condition that the structure be drawn on the plans and submitted for approval by the Chairman and that the structure is no bigger than 18 square feet.
Reason to Grant:
- Purpose of entryway cover is for safety and protection from the elements.
Chairman Stutts stated that she does not feel vinyl pergolas are aesthetically pleasing in the front of the house and feels it would be more appropriately located in the rear of the house where there is also more room. She noted that the structure would be located very near the street in the front of the house. Ms. McQuade stated that there are alternatives, such as an awning, that would eliminate the need for a coverage variance.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the coverage was brought to its limit in 2010 when the house was redone and enlarged. He indicated that he feels this is a self-imposed hardship.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Mary Stone to grant the necessary variances to build a pergola, Case 12-13 – William Randazzo, 40 Sea Spray Road, as per plans submitted with the condition that construction drawings show the dimensions of the pergola and the attachment of it to the house. Motion did not carry, 1:4:0, with Mary Stone voting in favor.
Reasons for Denial:
- Proposed pergola has a roof like structure.
- Self-imposed hardship.
- Applicant could have been included the pergola in the design of the addition in 2010 so it did not exceed ground coverage.
Executive Session to discuss settlement proposal in pending litigation (Sullo vs. ZBA Appeal Docket # KNL CV11 6010923S). Appeal of ZBA decision regarding location of shed at 9 Sea Lane.
A motion was made by Suzanne Stutts, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to go into Executive Session at 9:15 p.m., inviting Kim Barrows to attend.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to adjourn the Executive Session at 10:00 p.m.
The following is the consensus of the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a settlement proposal:
The new proposal doesn’t satisfy the intent of the reasons given for the previous denial. Some effort needs to be made to minimize setbacks and to reduce ground coverage. The decision hinges on height of the structure, the dimensions of the structure and the location of the structure on the lot. This consensus was unanimous.
Adjournment
The Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. on a motion by Arthur Sibley; seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
