OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 19, 2012, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those 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.
1. Case 12-14 – Daniel Small, 56 Shore Drive, variances to allow shed.
Mr. Small noted that the shed is proposed to be 5’ from the property line which is 10 to 12 feet from the street. Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 7,840 provided; 10,000 sq. ft. required; 8.8.2; 8.8.3, minimum dimensions of a square, 75’ required, 70 provided; 8.8.7, minimum street setback; and 8.8.9, setback from other property line. She noted that the proposal does not comply with 8.0.c, 8.8.7 variance of 25’, and 7.1.c.ii. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that meeting the required setback would put the shed in the middle of the yard on top of the septic field.
Mr. Small explained that the rear of his property is Moss Point Trail. He noted that most of his neighbors have garden sheds such as the one he is proposing. Mr. Small stated that the shed will not have a poured foundation. Chairman Stutts questioned why the shed could not be located more toward the driveway in such a way as a garage would be located. Mr. Small stated that there are trees in that area; he indicated that he does not want to remove the nice trees to locate a shed. Mr. Small noted that the shed will be no taller than 12’. Chairman Stutts questioned if the small existing shed would be coming down. Mr. Small explained that he will keep this shed in order to store the supplies for his hot tub.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
2. Case 12-16 – Jon & Judith Green, 28 Katherine Road, variance to allow improvements to existing structure and construction of garage with workshop above.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities: 4.10.3, Connecticut River setback; 4.3.1, Gateway Zone; 4.2.12, no enlargement within 50’ of coast; and 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line. She noted that the proposal does not comply with the following: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 8.8.9, minimum other setback; 9.3.1, enlargement; 4.10.3, Connecticut River setback; 4.3.1, no building in the Gateway Zone; and 4.2.12, Coastal Management setback. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is the existing house is in the tidal wetlands. She noted that the proposal includes the removal of an existing metal shed.
Joe Wren, PE, was present to represent the applicants. He explained the site plan and noted that the green line represents the tidal wetlands line and noted that all the land south of that line is tidal wetlands. He noted that wetlands land is not included in the total lot area when determining coverage. Mr. Wren explained that the house is currently one story with a very small loft area on the second floor. He noted that the only parking is in the driveway and visitors must park in the street. He pointed out that Katherine Road is very narrow and he has many letters of support from neighbors. Mr. Wren pointed out that the addition of a garage will allow the homeowners to park in the garage and visitors could park in the driveway which would improve public safety. He explained
that they are proposing a small bedroom addition on the west side of the house and a bathroom enlargement. Mr. Wren explained that these two small additions are both within the 50’ setback. He noted that the much larger part of the project is the addition of a 22’ x 24’ garage with a workshop above. He explained that the driveway will be slight expanded and the patio will be pervious. Mr. Wren noted that they currently have to pull out backward onto Katherine Road but the small driveway addition will allow them to turn around and pull forward out into the street.
Mr. Wren stated that the existing metal shed will be removed as part of this project. He noted that there is a Coastal Area Management Application as part of this and it was viewed favorably by the DEP. He indicated that they like that the activity was on the landward rather than the water side of the house. Mr. Wren stated that the DEP asked for some type of storm water management. He noted that there is not a lot of room for storm water management underground due to the water table and there is not enough room for a rain garden either; he indicated that he would leave this to the Board.
Mr. Sibley questioned the type of well they had. Mr. Wren indicated that it is a dug well and the proposal has been approved by the Town of Old Lyme Health Department.
Mr. Wren stated that Gateway is also in favor of the project. Chairman Stutts questioned the height of the garage. Mr. Wren noted that it 1.5’ taller than the existing house, which is 19.5’. Chairman Stutts stated that putting a large structure next to a small house such as this appears awkward and she questioned the orientation. Mr. Wren explained that they did try other orientations but there were limitations because of the property. Chairman Stutts stated that a one car garage might be more attractive. Mr. Wren stated that both the homeowners would like to keep their car in the garage. Mr. Sibley questioned whether the homeowners are ready to replace their well if there is a problem with it because they are building so close to it. Mr. Wren replied that they
would have other location options for a well if there is a problem.
Mr. Wren noted that they have eight letters of support from neighbors, including the neighbor directly across the street. He asked that the letters be made part of the file.
Mr. Sibley questioned the use of the workshop. Mr. Wren noted that Mr. Green is an airline pilot and he builds model planes.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
3. Case 12-17 – Linda S. & Greg E. McKenna, 58 & 60 Sea View Road, Variance to demolish house and garage at construct addition to other existing home.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants are seeking variances to demolish house and garage at 58 Sea View Road and construct additions to house at 60 Sea View Road. Chairman Stutts reviewed the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot size; 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square; maximum stories, 8.8.6, maximum height; 8.8.7, minimum street setback; 8.8.9, setback from other property line; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area; 8.8.11, maximum coverage by buildings; 4.2.12, no enlargement within 50’ of coast; and 4.3, no enlargement within 50’ of high tide line. She noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.3.1, enlargement; 4.2.12, no enlargement within 50’ of coast; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area; 8.8.11,
maximum lot coverage. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the rocky shorefront occupies a third of the property.
Hillary Donald, Architect, and Michael Harkin, Engineer, were present to represent the applicants. She explained that there are currently two lots to be effected. Ms. Donald noted that both the two lots are currently nonconforming, each being 8,000 square feet, for a new lot size of 16,000 square feet. She explained that each lot has a house and garage and the plan is to remove one house and one garage and construct an addition.
Ms. Donald stated that the current total floor area is 32.5 percent and this number will be reduced overall by 2 percent. She noted that the coverage is also over the allowed 25%. Ms. Donald stated that the third variance is because of the proximity of the coast. She explained that they are putting an addition on the house at 58 Sea View, noting that the addition will be located tightly behind the house. Ms. Donald explained that removing two buildings and adding an addition to the other existing building creates a bit more open space. She noted that the addition is 1.5 stories.
Mr. Harkin, PE, explained the site plan. He noted that both properties have public water. He noted that when the house at 60 is removed, the house at 58 will be using the pump channel at that location and the one at 58 will be abandoned professionally. Mr. Harkin stated that they received a letter from Tom Metcalf this morning; he noted a favorable response from OLISP (DEEP). He read a portion of the letter from OLISP, which notes that the new construction is on the road side and the benefit of removing the other two structures. Mr. Harkin noted that OLISP also noted the benefit of reduced coverage on the lots and the use of a rain garden. He explained that they are putting the rain garden in as a good engineering practice. Noting the question from OLISP, Mr. Harkin stated that
the foundation of the house at 60 will be removed.
Addressing Mr. Metcalf’s comments, he noted that there were minor comments, all of which he agrees to and/or has addressed. Ms. Donald stated that Mr. Metcalf asked for clarification on the grade on the side of the addition and she is happy to provide clarification, noting the letter was just received today.
Greg McKenna stated that they are moving from a year round home in Farmington. He indicated that the reason for the bathroom addition is so that they would not have to worry about the stairs to use the bathroom. He indicated that they have three neighbors that have written letters in favor of the application. Mr. McKenna stated that the key is that they are reducing the properties by two bedrooms. He noted that it is advantageous for everyone. Chairman Stutts stated that it is great that they have reduced two nonconforming lots into one conforming lot. She indicated that 3,000 square feet of floor area loses the cottage feel. She noted that it is over in floor area and coverage, despite the size of the lot. Mr. McKenna stated that they are reducing the coverage from 30.5 to
28.5 percent. He noted that basement space is being considered living space. Chairman Stutts stated that she feels it is ambitious size-wise. Mr. Harkin stated that the architect kept the cottage feel from the front of the property. Mr. McKenna stated that the proposal is far less than what exists on the property. Mr. Kotzan stated that the floor area and coverage is being reduced in the new proposal. Ms. McKenna stated that the floor area reduced and the coverage remains approximately the same. She noted the architectural plans show the existing and proposed floor area and coverage. Mr. Sibley stated that there are many small cottages in the beach areas and it obviously is beneficial to remove a house and septic system. He indicated that that the Town doesn’t want to see the shoreline covered in large houses so they must question and give reason for allowing variances to enlarge in a reasonable way.
Mr. McKenna showed photographs and showed the location of the addition, noting that people driving buy will get a much better view of the water. Mr. McKenna noted that the house they are tearing down has three bedrooms and they are only adding one bedroom as part of the addition to the other house. He noted that total bedrooms are being reduced by two.
Doris Farquharson, next door neighbor, indicated that Mr. McKenna showed her the plans and she is questioning what it will look like from her house. They reviewed the plans.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
4. Case 12-18 – 26 Sea View Trust, LLC, 26 Sea View Road
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant is requesting variances to allow demolition of existing dwelling and construct new house attached to existing garage. She noted the following existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot size; 8.8.2, minimum lot for each dwelling; 8.8.5, minimum dimension square, 75’; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25’; 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12’ required; and 4.2.12, no enlargement within 50’ of coast. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with Section 4.2.12, no building to be enlarged within 50’ of coast; 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, general rule, on a nonconforming lot, no building to be enlarged to increase its nonconformity; 9.3.1, enlargement, no nonconforming to be enlarged unless said portion conforms to
regulations; 8.8.6, maximum height of building, 24’; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required; and 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25% allowed. She noted that the hardship provided is the steepness of the lot.
Steve Mortimer, owner of 22, 24 and 26 Sea View, was present to explain the application. He indicated that he was granted a variance to construct a new dwelling for his family at 22 Sea View and showed a photograph of it to the Board. He indicated that when 24 and 26 Sea View came on the market he heard that some people were interested in purchasing both the properties with the intent of demolishing them, combining the lots and constructing one large home. He noted that he bid on both these properties in order to prevent that from happening. Mr. Mortimer explained that he is now before the Board to request modest improvements to #26; similar to the renovation of his home at 22 Sea View Road. Mr. Mortimer stated that part of his plan is to remove the house at 24 Sea View which will create open
space.
Craig Laliberte, Architect, stated that the record stated that they are enlarging the home within 50’ of the rocky shore and that is incorrect. Chairman Stutts noted that that is an existing nonconformity, not a variance request. Mr. Laliberte stated that he is in receipt of a letter from Tom Metcalf, consulting engineer for the Commission, with minor comments that he has suggested the Board consider.
Mr. Laliberte oriented the Board on the site plan. He noted that the existing house is nonconforming to the side setbacks and the rear setback. Mr. Laliberte stated that the other existing house will be removed and the area grassed. He noted that the coverages is going up slightly, but still well within the 25 percent allowed. Mr. Laliberte stated that they have improved the southern side setback and bettered the northern side setback. He indicated that they are increasing the height and the floor area ratio. Mr. Laliberte stated that the existing garage is set at elevation 42.36 and the existing home is at elevation 27.15, which is a big change in elevation across the lot. He explained that they propose to match the garage elevation as their entry from the street. He noted that
they will step down almost 3.4’ into the house in order to not further exceed the height requirement and to also not require a pump for the sewer which is very beneficial. Mr. Laliberte stated that the ceiling height in the basement and first floor is 9 feet, with 6’ walls in the back and some sloped ceilings. He noted that the small second floor is all contained within the structure in order to reduce the height.
Mr. Laliberte stated that they are raising portions of the concrete walls and floor system in the basement which reduces the basement floor area. He explained the floor plan to the Board, noting that the square footage of the first floor is 1,125 square feet. Mr. Laliberte reiterated that the short width and the drastic change in elevation are driving the height of the house.
Mr. Laliberte stated that they will be doing some structural work to the existing garage.
He noted that there is a 12’ x 17’6” raised deck outside of the great room. He noted that there is currently a retaining wall with a stair system and a portion of the wall will have to be cut out and reconnected. He noted that the retaining wall by the neighboring property will not be disturbed. Mr. Laliberte explained each elevation, noting that the small second floor area cannot be seen from the front. Mr. Mortimer stated that he is not planning to merge the empty lot at this time. He noted that it is a nonconforming lot so he cannot build on it unless he comes before the Board.
Chairman Stutts questioned the height of the homes on either side; looking at a photograph she noted that they were approximately the same height.
Joe Wren stated that there will be a silt fence for erosion control and a 4’ construction fence as requested by Mr. Metcalf. He indicated that they will not put construction fence on the side of the property abutting Mr. Mortimer’s other property.
Mr. Mortimer stated that he already has the demolition permit and would like to take the house down as soon as possible to enjoy the open space for the summer.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
1. Case 12-14 – Daniel Small, 56 Shore Drive
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the application would like an 8’ x 12’ x 10’ located 5 feet from the property line on Lone Pine Trail. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship is the fact that there are two street setbacks to meet.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the shed will not have any substantial impact in the proposed location. Mr. St. Germaine stated that taking into consideration the applicant’s options, he would be in favor of granting the variance. He noted that the applicant stated that it is a movable, self-contained shed for storage of garden tools and his lawn mower.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the shed as per the plans submitted.
Reasons:
1. A unique situation having two street setbacks.
2. Proposal will clean up the yard.
3. Proposal is within the intent of zoning
2. Case 12-16 – Jon & Judith Green, 28 Katherine Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the hardship is that 63 percent of the property is in the tidal wetlands. Chairman Stutts noted that four variances are being requested. She noted that the Gateway Commission gave their approval noting that the additions are on the rear of the house. Mr. St. Germaine stated that he is not objecting to the house additions but feels that the garage/workshop structure is jammed on the lot. Chairman Stutts agreed, but noted that they do like to give people garages on small lots. Mr. Kotzan stated that the only variance relative to the garage is the narrow street setback. Chairman Stutts stated that she feels there are other options to locate the garage. Ms. McQuade stated that she does not feel like a two-car garage
is too much although she would like to see the height of it reduced slightly.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley to grant the necessary variances for the proposed improvements to the house structure, but to deny the variances for the garage and the workshop above the garage.
The Commission discussed splitting the vote into two separate votes. Mr. Sibley withdrew his motion. Ms. McQuade stated that she feels it should be voted on as one proposal.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted to grant the necessary variances for the application as submitted.
Chairman Stutts stated that she believes the garage should be moved closer to the house. Mr. Kotzan stated that he believes a two-car garage is a reasonable use. Mr. St. Germaine stated that it is a small lot. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is a large narrow lot with a lot of wetlands. He stated that they are only asking for a variance for the street setback. Ms. Stone pointed out that the garage was located to not obstruct the views of the neighbors. She noted that there is a public boat launch right next to the property and having cars on the street will narrow the street. Ms. Stone noted that the cars being in the driveway would make it safer and protect public access. Ms. McQuade agreed and noted that the little turn-around allows them to pull head-out into the street.
Chairman Stutts felt the garage would look like it was dropped from the sky.
The motion carried 4:1:0, with Chairman Stutts voting against.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the Coastal Site Plan Review Application for this appeal because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Reasons:
1. The parking area improvement is remedying a safety issue, residents can pull out onto street versus backing on to it.
2. A two car garage is a reasonable and modern use of the property.
3. No other location on the lot to place the structure due to the wetlands.
3. Case 12-17 – Linda S. & Greg E. McKenna, 58 & 60 Sea View Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the requested variances are 3 percent for floor area and 7 percent for maximum floor area. Chairman Stutts noted that they are removing one house that contains three bedrooms and adding one bedroom to the other existing home, eliminating two bedrooms.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley to grant the necessary variances to allow construction according to the plans submitted.
Mr. Kotzan looks favorable on the reduction in nonconformities. He noted that two properties are being combined and the total floor area percentage has been reduced although they are still over on lot coverage. Mr. Kotzan stated that they are also eliminating a septic system. He acknowledged that it is an ambitious house, although he noted that there is more floor area now on the two lots. He also noted that they are reducing it by two bedrooms.
Ms. McQuade stated that there is a lot of bulk. She noted that a lot that size should be able to meet the floor area ratio. Chairman Stutts felt that a 3,000 s.f. house was large for the area and not in keeping with the cottage feel. Mr. Kotzan stated that the burden on the land is being reduced.
Mr. Sibley stated that there is public water and sewer there. He noted that the growth in the area will continue and the bigger house will be the rule. Mr. Sibley stated that the lot is large enough for the proposed house. He noted that the view of the water will be increased by the removal of the second home.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposal is better for the Town then the existing conditions. He noted that people that have money to take on this type of project are going to want a comfortable house. Mr. Kotzan stated that the house will not have a substantial visual impact. Ms. Stone pointed out that if the houses were to remain as they are, there could be two possible applicants to this Board in the future. She noted that many more people could occupy the land. She noted that she views this proposal favorably from an environmental standpoint.
Ms. Stutts stated that she likes that some homes are bigger than others; the varied look is nice in the neighborhood.
Motion carried 5:0.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the Coastal Site Plan Review Application for this appeal because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Reasons:
1. There is a reduction in floor area.
2. Combining of lots.
3. Decrease in nonconformities.
4. Lessens potential future impact to the town by combing two dwellings into one.
4. Case 12-18 – 26 Sea View Trust, LLC, 26 Sea View Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the existing home is on the rocks and they are demolishing it and rebuilding it farther from the water and attaching it to the garage. Chairman Stutts stated that she thinks the applicants did a great job of designing the home into the hill. She noted that it does not appear that there were many other options. Ms. McQuade agreed and noted that they made every attempt to make the structure as small as possible.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the variances required as per the plans submitted; applicant has agreed specifically to include and comply with all of the conditions listed in the June 18, 2012 letter from Tom Metcalf, Engineer.
Ms. Stone stated very modest structure and a better use of the property.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the Coastal Site Plan Review Application for this appeal because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Reasons:
1. Better use of property.
2. Modest structure built into slope to minimize impact to the streetscape.
3. Lessens impact on the neighborhood.
4. Excellent plan.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A Motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 20, 2012 Regular Meeting as submitted.
A Motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 17, 2012 Regular Meeting as submitted.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Stutts stated that Lenny’s on the Beach appealed Ms. Brown’s C&D and the Court upheld the Board’s decision to uphold the Zoning Enforcement Officer. She read the Court’s ruling. Chairman Stutts said that this Court decision is being appealed. Ms. Barrows stated that they are documenting the continuing violations and the Town will be asking the Court to find that Lenny’s is willfully violating and have the Court impose a fine of up to $1,000.00 a day.
Chairman Stutts stated that she will not be present at the June Meeting and Ms. McQuade will act as Chairman. She noted that Mr. Sibley may not be present and Mr. Moll has not attended recently. Chairman Stutts stated that if there will only be four members present then she would like Ms. Barrows to notify applicants and give them the opportunity to continue their cases. Mr. Sibley stated that he may not know until the day of the meeting that he could not attend.
The Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. on a motion by Suzanne Stutts; seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
