OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 18, 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, Richard Smith, alternate (seated for Susanne Stutts for Case 12-21 only) and Mary Stone, alternate (seated for Joseph St. Germain)
Acting Chairman McQuade called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Case 12-21 – Nicholas DiCorleto, 42 Breen Avenue, variances to exceed floor area ratio in new dwelling
Chairman Stutts noted that this Public Hearing has been continued from the July Regular Meeting and she was noted in attendance. She noted that Ms. McQuade would be Acting Chairman for this Public Hearing and Richard Smith would be seated for her.
Attorney Geraghty was present to represent the applicants. He noted that his partner filled in for him last month due to his inability to attend. Attorney Geraghty stated that one of the things the Commission asked for was the rear dormers that were noted as option. He indicated that they are now shown on the plans as a build-out. Attorney Geraghty stated that the Zoning table now reflects the proposal as it is being presented to the Commission. He noted that the plans were resubmitted and Ms. Brown stated that the setback from other property lines reads 5.97 and the previous site plan indicated 5.78. Attorney Geraghty stated that the plan was corrected and revised and he submitted the revised plan for the record.
Attorney Geraghty stated that the proposal is to have dormers front and rear and they are six feet at the maximum. He noted that the house currently does not meet the minimum floor area for a two-story dwelling which is 1,200 square feet. Attorney Geraghty stated that adding the dormers provides a more aesthetic structure, more light and more ventilation and reduces a number of nonconformities on the property. He stated that the proposed house is a substantial improvement over the existing structure and very much in conformity with the architecture in the surrounding area. He noted that they are lessening many setback nonconformities. Attorney Geraghty stated that the septic functions but its location is unknown. He noted that a new septic system will be installed. Attorney
Garrigty explained that the septic system’s orientation was changed by request of the Zoning Commission. He noted that the Zoning Commission’s approval states that the open porch cannot be enclosed and used for living area. Attorney Geraghty stated that based on the lot size and maximum floor area allowed the front porch puts them over the floor area ratio. He explained that they are asking for a variance based on the fact that the Zoning Commission has specifically excluded the porch from being able to be used as living space.
Attorney Geraghty stated that the hardship is that they are trying to meet the minimum floor area regulations and in doing so they exceed the maximum floor area ratio; and the floor area counted for the front porch can never be used as living space as it was specifically prohibited as part of the Zoning Commission’s approval of the application.
Ms. McQuade questioned what the second floor space would be used for. Attorney Geraghty stated that the second floor space near the dormers would be dead area, although one could put a bureau there.
Mr. Sibley stated that he has a septic system that was approved and works very well in an area where heavy trucks travel over it. He indicated that the driveway location did not have to be changed. Attorney Geraghty stated that they changed the location at the request of the Zoning Commission and acknowledged that septic systems can be located under driveways.
Ms. McQuade stated that Mr. DiCorleto owns 44 Breen Avenue and questioned the size of it. Attorney Geraghty stated that 44 Breen is slightly larger. Ms. McQuade questioned whether Mr. DiCorleto has considered combining the two lots as the Board frequently asks if people have tried to purchase additional property from adjacent property owners. Attorney Geraghty stated that there was an attempt to merge the lots and construct one home in 2006 and it was denied.
Ms. McQuade read the existing and proposed nonconformities for the record.
Mr. Sibley noted that the neighbors are in favor of the application. Mr. Kotzan stated that the corrected elevation drawings are not in the file. Attorney Geraghty submitted the new elevation drawings for the record.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the variance request is that the porch not be counted as floor area. Attorney Geraghty agreed, noting that it cannot be used as living area by the Zoning Commission’s approval. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that in order to meet the minimum required floor area they must exceed the percent of maximum floor area as a percent of lot area. Ms. McQuade stated that she asked Ms. Brown why the applicant did not combine the two lots and Ms. Brown replied that the applicant could choose to, but is not required to combine them because there is a house on each of them. Attorney Geraghty stated that he has had no discussion with the Town on combining the lots since he has been involved.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman McQuade closed the Public Hearing.
2. Case 12-22C – Estate of James Kerwin, Kathleen Cox, Executrix, 37 Seaside Lane, Variance to construct a deck.
Chairman Stutts noted the following existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, 8.8.2, 8.8.5, 8.8.6, 8.8.9 and 8.8.10; the proposal does not comply with Sections, 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, General Rules; 9.3.1, Enlargement; 4.2.12, Construction or Enlargement of Buildings near Coastal Resources, no building within 50 feet of rocky shore, beach, etc; 8.8.5, setback from other property lines 12’ required, approximately 2 feet on the west side. She indicated that there is a question as to whether a variance is required for floor area ratio. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is the placement of the house on the lot.
Henry Racki, Rockwell Company, was present to represent the applicant. He noted that the proposal is for a deck to come out 16’ across the edge of the house. Mr. Racki stated that the subject home is set back much farther than the surrounding homes. He explained that the original proposal was to have the deck come out 16’ and there was a question as to the location of the septic system and the Town Sanitarian approved the deck at 13’. Mr. Racki submitted a photograph showing the surrounding homes that have similar decks.
Mr. Racki stated that one of the reasons for the deck is to achieve an egress from that side of the house. He indicated that the homeowner has a ramp on the roadside which was permitted and he noted the new deck will wrap around to the front and allow them access without stairs. Chairman Stutts stated that the home can be accessed from the front and back currently so the deck does not appear to be needed for access. Mr. Racki stated that the house is currently 1’ from the property line and they are proposing the deck to be 2’ from the property line.
Ms. Stone questioned whether the deck would obstruct the views of the neighbors. Mr. Racki pointed out that the deck would not because the neighboring homes are set in front of this house.
Chairman Stutts noted that the lot is 7,405 square feet and the home is 2.5 stories vice 1.5 stories allowed and the maximum floor area is 5 percent over the maximum. Mr. Sibley stated that there would need to be a stipulation on approval that the area underneath would never be enclosed and used as living space.
Mr. Kotzan read the referral letter from OLISP indicating no concerns for the construction of the deck.
No one present spoke against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
3. Case 12-23C – William & Carla Bergenty, 32 Pond Road, Variance to allow demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling and carport.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, 10,000 square feet required, 6,000 existing; 8.8.2; 8.8.3, minimum square, 75’ required, 40’ existing; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5 allowed, 2 existing; 8.8.6, maximum height, 24’ allowed, 24’7” provided; 8.8.8, rear setback, 30’ required, 0’ provided for the concrete terrace, 4.5’ for the deck and 25’ for the house; 8.5.3; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, everything is located inside the setback; 8.8.10, maximum floor area, 25 percent allowed, 38.3 percent provided; 8.8.10, maximum lot coverage, 25 percent allowed, 28.4 percent provided; 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage, 30 percent allowed, 43 percent existing. She noted that the proposal does not
comply with Sections: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, General Rules; 9.07, Voluntary Demolition; 4.2.12, Construction or Enlargement of Buildings near Coastal Resources, no building within 50 feet of rocky shore, beach, etc; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5 allowed, 2 proposed; 8.8.8, setback from rear property lines 30’ required, 15.8 feet proposed; 8.2.3, setback from required yard, terrace 0’ proposed, 0’ east side, 1’ west; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property lines, 12’ required, 9.8’ proposed on west side and 10.2’ on the east side; and 8.8.10, maximum floor area, 35 percent allowed, 43.2 percent proposed. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the lot is only 40’ wide and located totally within a coastal resource area.
Craig Y, Architect, was present to represent the applicants. He noted that the engineer, Joe Wren, was unavailable to attend due to another hearing this evening.
Mr. Laliberte stated that he has compared the requirements, the existing conditions and the proposed conditions. He noted that all the existing items that are highlighted in yellow are nonconforming. Mr. Laliberte stated that on the proposed side where they are highlighted in blue, the particular item is coming more into conformity and where it is marked with a red dash it is being brought into conformity. He noted that of all the existing nonconformities, six are becoming more conforming and four are becoming 100 percent conforming.
Mr. Laliberte presented two photographs of the existing conditions. He noted that the waterside shows an existing deck and the house is skewed with the property line which creates many of the nonconformities. He noted that the current structure does not meet the FEMA Regulations or hurricane codes and these items will be corrected in the reconstruction. Mr. Laliberte noted that a new compliant septic system is being installed and the number of bedrooms is being reduced from four to three.
Mr. Laliberte stated that the area underneath the deck counts toward floor area and they plan to enclose that area and eliminate the second floor deck. He stated that they plan to remove much of the concrete deck that exists on the water side, all of the wood deck structures and the existing shed located near Pond Road. He noted that by doing this they meet the maximum lot coverage requirement.
Mr. Laliberte explained that the addition is a projecting second floor mechanical area with a carport underneath set at grade. He noted that the house will be set on a slab. Mr. Laliberte stated that the mechanical room will have a ceiling height of 5’11”. Mr. Laliberte stated that the concrete patio area on the waterside will be removed and replaced with impervious pavers. He indicated that the carport is 24’ x 16’ and support by four posts. Mr. Laliberte explained that the carport will never be enclosed and will not ever be used as living space and a statement to this effect has been put on the plan. He explained the floor plan to the Commission. He indicated that the second floor will contain all three bedrooms.
Mr. Laliberte stated that the house exterior will be siding and stone veneer. He explained that the house is not structurally sound which is why the applicants want to tear it down and rebuild.
Mr. Laliberte stated that the maximum floor area is the only nonconformity that increased. He noted that if the carport was not included in the floor area, it would not have increased, but rather decreased. Mr. Kotzan questioned how floor area is increasing and lot area is decreasing. Mr. Laliberte explained that they are removing all the decking and the shed.
Mr. Kotzan read a letter from Marcy Balint, OLISP, indicating their approval. He read two letters in support from neighbors, John Manafort, 34-1 Pond Road and Sandra Manafort at 24/3b Pond Road. He noted that Mr. Manafort lives directly next door and Ms. Manafort resides five homes away.
Gary Nuzzo, 34-2 Pond Road, stated that he is in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Laliberte read a letter from Joe Wren briefly explaining the demolition/reconstruction.
No one present spoke against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Case Case 12-21 – Nicholas DiCorleto, 42 Breen Avenue, variances to exceed floor area ratio in new dwelling
Voting: J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, A. Sibley, M. Stone, R. Smith
Chairman Stutts stated that she is concerned about the small lot size, but noted that some nonconformities are being reduced. She noted that the house is being brought into conformity as to minimum size home. Mr. Kotzan agreed. Ms. Stone stated that it is a difficult situation because expanding the floor area meets one requirement and exceeds another.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to approve Case 12-21, Nicholas DiCorleto, 42 Breen, Variances to Exceed Floor Area Ratio in New Dwelling, making note that since this is a very tight site, no mistakes are going to be made and it will be built as shown to the Board on the plans without any exceptions [“Site Plan Nicholas J. DiCorleto, Jr. Corner of Breen & Maple Avenue Old Lyme, Connecticut prepared by Buck & Buck, LLC, Engineers dated 2/24/09, 1”=10” Drawing No. 1, revised 2/25/09, 11/24/09, 6/3/10, 10/5/10, 11/8/10, 12/10/10, 1/3/11, 9/5/12 and 9/13/12”. “Modified Saint Clair Design Nicholas J. DiCorleto, Jr. 42 Breen Avenue Old Lyme, Connecticut prepared by Buck & Buck, LLC, Engineers dated 8/29/12 Drawing
No. C5” plan does not show a revision date but is signed by the Acting Chairman, Judy McQuade, of the ZBA and dated 9/18/12], with the condition that the enclosing of the front porch never be contemplated or done in the future.
Reasons to grant:
1. Reasonable use with this size lot.
2. House has been designed to fit the property.
3. New septic to be installed.
2. Case 12-22C – Estate of James Kerwin, Kathleen Cox, Executrix, 37 Seaside Lane, Variance to construct a deck.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that OLISP had no concerns with the application. Chairman Stutts stated that she believes it is more of a want situation rather than need. Ms. Stone stated that the homeowner needs the ramp on the street side for access. Chairman Stutts stated that the homeowner has access to the house and the deck is not required for access. Chairman Stutts stated that the homeowner could construct a smaller, more conforming deck. Mr. Kotzan agreed but noted that it wouldn’t look as nice if it was smaller. He indicated that nothing will be accomplished by requiring them to shorten the deck. Mr. Kotzan stated that the deck does not extend as far into the setback as the existing home and because the home is so much more setback
from the water than the neighboring homes it will have no impact on the neighbors.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve Case 12-22C, application for variance to construct a deck, 37 Seaside Lane, Estate of James Kerwin, Kathleen Cox, Executrix, and the CAM Application, as per the plans submitted with a special stipulation that under no circumstances should anything be put in the way of the existing open three bay area underneath, and that area is to remain open for flood compliance purposes.
Reasons to grant:
1. Reasonable use of property.
2. Proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood.
3. Consistent with applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
3. Case 12-23C – William & Carla Bergenty, 32 Pond Road, Variance to allow demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling and carport.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Kotzan stated that the height of the house is lower and 5 other nonconformities are becoming less nonconforming, along with 4 existing nonconformities that are being totally eliminated. Chairman Stutts stated that the view from the road will be softened. Mr. Sibley stated that they are taking a house that is structurally unsound and making a substantial change for the better. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that they are adding a complying septic system, meeting FEMA Regulations in addition to reducing/eliminating all the other nonconformities.
Ms. McQuade pointed out that the floor area percentage is greatly exceeded and the room sizes are quite generous.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the fact that the carport is included in the total floor area is what makes him less concerned with the floor area being exceeded. He reiterated the number of nonconformities being eliminated and reduced. Mr. Kotzan stated that they are getting a lot for what they are giving. Mr. Sibley stated that the applicant could rebuild the home within the existing envelope but would not be able to make it as structurally safe as it will be if he constructs a new structure. He indicated that rebuilding an existing structure is extremely expensive. Mr. Kotzan stated that although many variances are required, the end result will be less nonconforming then what exists today. Ms. Stutts stated that she does not understand the need to exceed the floor area so drastically.
Ms. McQuade stated that she does appreciate all the nonconformities being reduced and eliminated. She indicated that if they made the home just a little smaller they could reduce the floor area ratio as it seems that they have rather large rooms. Mr. Kotzan stated that they currently have more use of the property then the proposal will give them.
Chairman Stutts stated that the land value is $628,100 and the building value is $183,000 as listed on the Assessor’s Card, which is unusual.
Ms. Stone stated that given the upgrade in the quality of construction and the number of ways the property is more conforming, she feels it is a net-positive for the neighborhood. She stated that the mechanical room addition is a smart idea. Ms. Stone stated that the advantages of the proposal far outweigh what exists on the property.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the CAM Application and Variance Application, Case 12-23C, 32 Pond Road, Variance to allow demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling with carport, William and Carla Bergenty, applicants, as per the plans submitted and with the condition that the carport never be enclosed [as noted on plan entitled “Coastal Site Plan Land of William Bergenty II & Carla Bergenty 32 Pond Road – Tax Map 75 Lot 111 Old Lyme, Connecticut dated July 27, 2012, Scale: 1”=10’ prepared by Indigo Land Design, LLC revised 8/2/12, further revised to 8/28/12” and shown as note numbered 2 under Schedule of Total Building Gross Floor Area].
Reasons to grant:
1. Several nonconformities being reduced.
2. New septic to be installed and the structure will be FEMA compliant.
3. Addition of more pervious surfaces on the lot to mitigate water runoff.
4. The additional structure gets mechanicals out of the flood area.
5. Less intensive use.
6. Consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2012 Regular Meeting as submitted.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2012 Regular Meeting, with the following correction on page 5, fifth paragraph where it states “Acting Chairman Cable,” it should state “Acting Chairman McQuade.”
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
None.
The Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
