OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 2012, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman (acting as Chairman), Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Arthur Sibley, regular member, Richard Smith, alternate (seated for Susanne Stutts) and Mary Stone, alternate (seated for Joseph St. Germain)
Acting Chairman McQuade called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
1. Case 12-19 – Steven E. & Donna P. Currier, 22 Wildwood Drive, variances to construct 9’ x 18’ lean-to and attach it to the existing barn.
Acting Chairman McQuade read the required variances for the record: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages and 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property lines, 20’ required, 12’ provided for a variance of 8’. She noted that the lot and existing structures are all conforming.
Mr. Currier stated that he constructed the barn one and half years ago in a conforming location and now would like to add a lean-to onto the side of it. He explained that they have a boat which they keep in the cellar and have great difficulty getting the boat in and out. Mr. Currier stated that he would like to construct the lean-to on the barn to store the boat. He noted that the barn has a foundation.
Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the property is 31,781 square feet in an R-20 Zone where 20,000 square feet is required. She noted that the existing coverage is 8 percent and the proposed is 9 percent. Acting Chairman McQuade indicated that there are three letters of support from neighbors. She questioned whether the applicant considered other locations on the property. Mr. Currier stated that they considered putting it on the garage but the garage is a salt box and using a photograph he demonstrated how the lean-to would block the entrance to the existing shed. He noted that the shed has footings.
Acting Chairman McQuade stated that it is difficult to take a conforming property and make it nonconforming. Mr. Kotzan stated that the lean-to could be slid over to the other side of the barn. Mr. Currier stated that there is ledge in that area and he would have to bring the boat over the septic system to transport it in and out. Mr. Kotzan noted that Nancy Johnson, abutting neighbor, wrote a letter in support of the application..
Mr. Sibley agreed that the Board tries not to make a property nonconforming. He indicated that if the Board considered the proposal favorably, he would request a condition that the lean-to is never enclosed.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman McQuade closed the Public Hearing.
2. Case 12-20 – Louis & Nancy Rossi, 22 Massachusetts Road, Variances to allow modifications to the front stairs and roof over entry; also additions to the rear in the setback.
Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the lot is 6,721 square feet in an R-10 Zone. She noted the following existing nonconformities: Minimum square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; minimum setback from street, 25’ required, 8.5 feet provided (steps) and 10 feet provided (roof); minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 6’7” provided on north side of the house and 8’ on the south side of the garage (to be removed as part of the proposal). Variances required: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, enlargement; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required; 8.8.9, other property line, 12’ required.
Larry Thomas Eddy was present to represent the applicants. Mr. Eddy stated that the applicants were previously before the Board and took this opportunity to re-design the project, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Board and the concerns of one of the neighbors. He noted that they have tried to comply to the Regulations as much as possible. Mr. Eddy noted that the previous proposal had five bedrooms and this proposal is for four bedrooms. He explained that they notified all the neighbors of the application and have not received any negative feedback. Mr. Eddy stated that there are three letters from neighbors in favor of the proposal in the file.
Mr. Hill, Architect, was also present. He noted that all the proposed work falls within the setbacks as they exist today. He explained that they are turning an existing stairway which reduces the intrusion into the setback. He noted that they also had a survey done which shows that there is 6,763 square feet which is 38 square feet more.
Acting Chairman McQuade stated that Ms. Brown requested that the applicant demonstrate that the floor area ratio is not exceeded. Mr. Hill explained the coverage is 900 square feet and noted that the shed is being removed. He noted that the shed was in the side yard setback and they are also reducing that nonconformity. Ms. Stone stated that there is a storage area that could be used as a bedroom. Mr. Eddy explained that it will not be as it will have garage doors similar to those that are on the existing shed.
Mr. Eddy noted that the front porch is currently enclosed and they are only reconfiguring the windows. He showed the area on the existing floor plan and on the proposed floor plan, noting that no new area is being enclosed.
Acting Chairman McQuade asked Mr. Hill to verify the zoning table. Mr. Hill noted that the terrace was included in coverage by the surveyor and according to Ms. Brown it should not have been because it is not impervious. Acting Chairman McQuade asked the applicants to have the zoning table corrected on the final plan.
Mr. Eddy stated that the hardship is the existing nonconformities. He noted that they are reducing the existing nonconformities and not creating any new ones.
Mr. (neighbor who submitted letter), Ridgewood Road, stated that the addition will be a tremendous improvement to the neighborhood. He indicated that the Rossi’s take exceptional care of their property and the proposal will only further enhance it.
No one present spoke against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman McQuade closed the Public Hearing.
3. Case 12-21 – Nicholas DiCorleto, 42 Breen Avenue, variances to exceed floor area ratio in new dwelling
Acting Chairman McQuade noted the existing nonconformities: Minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 4,128 provided; 8.8.3, minimum square, 75’ required, 49.96’ provided; minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, currently extends over the property line; minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 2’ provided on the south side. Proposal does not comply with: Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, 4’ proposed (improved nonconformity), variance of 26’ required; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 11.28 feet provided on the front side requiring a variance of .72’ and 8.85’ on the side for the Bilco door requiring a
variance of 6.15’; and 8.8.10, maximum floor coverage, 25 percent allowed, 29.5 percent proposed for a variance of 4.5 percent.
Attorney Mike Bonnano was present to represent the applicants. Attorney Bonnano stated that the existing home is in very bad shape and they are trying to fix it up and bring it more into harmony with the surrounding homes. He explained that there are at least six nonconforming issues that will either be eliminated or improved upon, He noted that the easterly side of house is on the neighboring property and it will be removed from his lot and on the southerly side it is currently one foot from the property line and it will be moved back to 11’ from the property line; he noted that these are very drastic improvements. Attorney Bonnano stated that the house currently does not meet the State minimum standard and that nonconformity will also be eliminated. He noted that the big change is the new
proposed septic system which has been approved. Attorney Bonnano stated that the septic system is located such that the porch, under State Regulations, is too close to the septic system and therefore can never be enclosed or utilized as living area. He explained that this is the major thrust behind the floor area variance. Attorney Bonnano stated that the location and condition of the existing septic system is unknown and he noted that this is a huge improvement and eliminates a nonconformity.
Attorney Bonnano showed the new design, noting that it is a Cape that will be in harmony with the neighborhood. He noted that because they can no longer use the front porch as living area, they are asking the Board not to calculate the area of the porch into the living area percentage. Attorney Bonnano stated that he reviewed previous decisions of the Board in granting a variance. He noted that in 2010 there was a case involving 3 Sea Lane and the Board stated that the granting of variances should not be so strict, especially when the neighborhood would benefit from it. Attorney Bonnano stated that another variance was granted, 81 Halls Road, and the Board said that it improved the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He noted that there is no question that this is what the applicant is doing
here.
Mr. Sibley stated that he understands the work that has gone into the proposal. He indicated that he does not think it is proper for the applicant to think they will receive a variance until an A-2 survey is performed and the Board is in receipt of a stamped, signed site plan. He indicated that the Board cannot consider this application until then. Attorney Bonnano stated that he does not feel they need an A-2 survey. Mr. Sibley indicated that there are some very close measurements and he does not think they can hang their hat on them. Attorney Bonnano stated that they have plans, the engineer is present, and he does not understand why he feels they need stamped plans.
Mr. Sibley questioned whether the applicant is removing the existing structure. Attorney Bonnano replied that they are. Mr. Sibley stated that an A-2 Survey is a requirement of the Town in this situation. Jim Thaxton, engineer, stated that all the work was done by a surveyor and they had an A-2 survey done. Mr. Thaxton stated that his drawings are all sealed. Mr. Sibley stated that the issue is that they do not have the information or A-2 survey here this evening. Acting Chairman McQuade stated that two sets of plans say option 2 and the other two sets don’t have that written on it. She indicated that they both appear to be the same. Attorney Bonnano submitted a copy of the colored plan that he spoke to this evening and asked that it be used as the record copy.
Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the 11’ setback has been changed by the ZEO to 5.85, as the Bilco door extends to 5.85’ from the property line. She asked that Attorney Bonnano change that number in his records as well. Attorney Bonnano indicated that he would reflect that on the drawing and noted that it is still an improvement in the nonconformity.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the property is being improved greatly. He questioned why they had to enlarge the structure. Attorney Bonnano stated that the house is not grand. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is a modest house, but the lot is also very small.
Mr. Thaxton indicated that he retrieved a copy of the A-2 survey from his car. Ms. Barrows noted that there is an A-2 survey on file with the Town.
Attorney Bonnano stated that the septic issue puts a unique spin on the front porch area. He indicated that the Town requested the septic layout which results in the front porch being restricted by the State. He reiterated that they have reduced all other nonconformities. Attorney Bonnano stated that the house currently sits on the neighboring property and this nonconformity is being eliminated.
Acting Chairman McQuade stated that Ms. Brown has noted that the potential dormer on the drawing marked option 2 should be removed. Mr. Kotzan stated that he believes she is saying that it has been removed in option 2 but perhaps existed in option 1. Mr. Kotzan stated that a potential dormer shown in the rear would add floor area. The Board agreed that it is confusing. Acting Chairman Cable stated that she would like clarification from Ms. Brown. Mr. Kotzan stated that the question is whether the floor area ratio was calculated considering the rear dormer. Ms. Barrows stated that Ms. Brown indicated that the rear dormer area was not counted in her calculations.
Attorney Bonnano asked for five minutes to discuss the plans with Mr. Thaxton.
Attorney Bonnano stated that the confusion is that the dormer is in but it does not increase any area over 6 feet in height so it does not increase floor area. Mr. Kotzan stated that the drawing shows the 6’ height right off the stairs so that cannot be right. He questioned why someone would put a dormer if it didn’t increase the ceiling height. Attorney Bonnano stated that it does not increase the area over 6’ in ceiling height on the second floor. Acting Chairman McQuade stated that it does not make sense. Mr. Kotzan stated that there is a new roof line but there is no new ceiling line. He questioned the point of adding a dormer if not to increase the ceiling height. Attorney Bonnano stated that the dormer will not increase the area of ceiling height greater
than 6’. Mr. Thaxton, engineer, agreed. Acting Chairman McQuade stated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer asked that it be removed or she would have to do additional calculations. Mr. Kotzan stated that he would have difficulty voting on a drawing that indicated that there is a potential dormer. He indicated that it is also confusing that a potential dormer would not add ceiling height, which is the purpose of a dormer.
It was agreed that the plans should be clarified. Ms. Barrows stated that the applicant will have to provide written consent to continue the Public Hearing as the Board does not meet again until September. Acting Chairman McQuade noted that Ms. Brown will have to review the plan to determine whether the floor area increases. Mr. Kotzan stated that the drawing doesn’t even show the dormer on the elevation drawings.
Richard Montano, neighbor, indicated that he would be delighted with any improvements to this property.
Doug Whalen, 41 Old Colony Road, stated that Old Colony Beach has spent thousands in making streetscape improvements and have asked others to make their properties nicer. He indicated that the Old Colony Board of Governors are asking that the Board approve this application as this property has been an eyesore for a long time. He indicated that this eyesore is a hardship to all the residents of the beach community.
Joanie Beyer, neighbor, stated that the structure will be smaller than it currently is. She indicated that she does not understand how the Board can approve all the variances that they have in the beach areas and not approve this application.
Attorney Bonnano stated that he would submit written consent to continue the Public Hearing to the September 18, 2012 Regular Meeting.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for Case 12-21 – DiCorleto, 42 Breen Avenue, to the September 18, 2012 Regular Meeting.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Case 12-19 – Steven E. & Donna P. Currier, 22 Wildwood Drive, variances to construct lean-to and attach it to the existing barn.
Acting Chairman McQuade stated that they are adding a nonconformity to a property that has no current nonconformities and for this reason, she has a problem with it. Mr. Sibley stated that the small area that the owner wants to cover with roofing seems to be minimal and he would be in favor of a covenant that it is never to be enclosed. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is a minimal variance and a good case was made about crossing the leaching area. Ms. Stone stated the lean-to is a net gain to the neighborhood as the owner could just cover the boat with a blue tarp. Mr. Kotzan stated that that is a good point; the owner could park the boat in the same area and cover it with a blue tarp which might not be as agreeable to the neighbors.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Richard Smith and voted to grant the necessary variances to construct the lean-to and attach it to the existing barn with the covenant that no additional additions to the structure will be made and it will remain open. The owner will not expect to come to the ZBA for any future variances for that structure. Motion carried 4:1:0, with Judy McQuade voting against.
Reasons for granting:
1. Minimal intrusion into the setback.
2. Structure is not to be enclosed.
3. No objection from the neighbor who will be most affected.
2. Case 12-20 – Louis & Nancy Rossi, 22 Massachusetts Road
Acting Chairman McQuade stated that there were three letters in support. She noted that the street setback nonconformity is being reduced by one foot and the remainder of the addition meets the setbacks. Acting Chairman McQuade stated that the applicants listened to the Board and took into account all their comments. Mr. Kotzan agreed and stated that the first plan was ambitious and this plan followed the discussion and suggestions of the Board exactly.
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.
Reasons to grant:
1. The original plan submitted in February was very ambitious and the applicants amended the plans to take into account the feedback from the Board.
2. The addition to the rear is within the setbacks.
3. Case 12-21 – Nicholas DiCorleto, 42 Breen Avenue
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this application has been continued to the September Regular Meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No action taken.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
None.
The Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
