OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 19, 2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Arthur Sibley, regular member, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Richard Smith, alternate (seated for Judy McQuade) and Mary Stone, alternate (seated for Joseph St. Germain). Also present was Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Case 13-05 C – Sharon Griffin Trustee, 113 Hillcrest Road, variance to demolish existing dwelling and construct new dwelling.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities for the record: 8.8.7, street setback 25’ required, house is 23’, garage 5.17’; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property lines, 12’ required, house is 4.05’ and garage is 5.08’; and 4.3, tidal water protection, 50’ from high water, 25’ provided. Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with the following: Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, 5’ variance required; 8.8.9 minimum setback from other property lines, 12’ required, variance of 4.95’; 4.2.12, enlargement of buildings within the coastal boundary; and 4.3, tidal water protection, 50’ from high water, 25’ provided. She noted
that the hardship provided is that the lot is conforming but the configuration of the lot necessitates the variances.
Geri and David Deveaux, Deveaux Architects, were present to represent Sharon and Bill Griffin. Ms. Deveaux noted that Mr. Metcalf requested that the coastal resource line be shown on the plan, which they have done. She explained that the goal of the project was to limit expansion to those areas beyond the zoning setback, with the exception of the coastal resource area.
Ms. Deveaux displayed photographs of the property, along with photographs of neighboring properties. She noted that the site plan shows all the setbacks, the coastal resource area and the coastal resource line. Ms. Deveaux stated that the proposal gives back some square footage. She noted that if all setbacks are met, only 9 percent of the property could be utilized. She indicated that once the coastal boundary and resource areas are taken into consideration, there is basically no area to be utilized.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the existing home has five bedrooms on the second floor with very limited headroom, 6 feet or less. Mr. Deveaux stated that the basement is a stone foundation with limited headroom. He noted that the home interior has no insulation or inside walls. Ms. Deveaux stated that the house has reached the end of its useful life.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the height of the home is 20.7 feet, based on the average grade. Chairman Stutts questioned the use of the yard currently. Ms. Deveaux stated that there is lawn and then it falls off where there is brush.
Ms. Deveaux explained that with all of the problems it makes sense to rebuild instead of repairing. Mr. Deveaux stated that they are basically keeping to the existing footprint. He noted that on the waterside there is presently a 27’ setback and the proposal will eliminate that nonconformity as it will be set back 30’. He indicated that they are trying to keep all of the expansion parallel to the water but within the coastal boundary. Ms. Deveaux stated that the house is currently tucked into the corner of the lot and leaving it in its current location preserves the views of neighbors.
Ms. Deveaux stated that they are proposing the same house in the same location with an expanded area to the south and a new porch. She noted that the home will be reduced from 5 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms. Ms. Deveaux noted that the floor area on the first floor is 1,363, which would allow no more than 50 percent of that on a story above. She indicated that they would be able to have a code-compliant staircase, insulation, and allow for updated framing that meets the building code. She noted that the basement is included in the floor area. Ms. Deveaux noted that the structure is not in the flood zone. Mr. Deveaux pointed out the area in the basement with the walk-out doors. He indicated that they will also have to do a little blasting in the basement.
Ms. Deveaux explained the floor plan. She explained that the existing first floor is 1,036 square feet and they are proposing 1,353. She noted that the existing second floor is 675 square feet (at 6’ in height) and the proposed is 682 square feet. Ms. Deveaux stated that the existing basement is 356, and the proposed basement is 367 square feet. She noted that the existing garage is 247 square feet and will remain the same. Ms. Deveaux noted that the existing total square footage is 2,024 and the proposed total square footage is 2,659, including the garage and the basement. She noted that the existing coverage is 1700 square feet and the proposed is 1928 square feet of coverage. Ms. Deveaux stated that the existing impervious coverage is 123 square feet of existing concrete
walk and 63 square feet of concrete apron around the garage, which will remain. She noted that all the new terracing will be pervious. Ms. Deveaux stated that the new terraces will be blue stone and pointed out where they will be located on the site plan.
Mr. Deveaux stated that there is a 5’ wide right-of-way that goes down to the marina and that is beyond the limits of this property. He compared the existing architectural drawings with the proposed architectural drawings and explained the differences. He noted that the proposed home is very similar to the existing home from the street.
Ms. Stutts questioned whether they tried to design the property without going over the existing foundation. Ms. Deveaux indicated that they did consider that. She noted that the lot is conforming, a little over 10,000 square feet, and has the 75’ square. Mr. Deveaux stated that the issue is the entire property is within the coastal boundary. Ms. Deveaux stated they meet the floor area ratio. She indicated that the total enlargement is 317 square feet.
Mr. Deveaux stated that the proposed height is 24 feet. Ms. Deveaux asked that they set elevations, which they have done. Mr. Deveaux stated that the finished floor elevation will not change. She noted that the increase in height will give them a little more ceiling height downstairs and a little more upstairs so that they can put in egress windows in the bedrooms to meet building code.
Mr. Kotzan read a letter from Marcy Balint, OLISP, who pointed out that expansion into the coastal resource setback is against policy and hard to enforce on other properties if granted for this property; the proposed terrace area should be designed to allow percolation to the extent possible; rain barrels should be considered.
Chairman Stutts stated that if the footprint was kept the same there would still be good use of the property. Ms. Deveaux noted that there are a lot of rock outcroppings on the property. Ms. Stone stated that she is concerned about the expansion of the terraces in two directions. Mr. Deveaux stated that there are currently stone walls and garden areas that they would like to maintain.
Mr. Kotzan read a letter dated February 19 from David Spaduto of 105 Hillcrest Road, in opposition to the application.
No one present spoke in favor of the application.
David Spaduto stated that he is not against raising the height to 24 feet, although it will take away a little bit of his view. He stated that if all properties made the same small change there would be a cumulative effect. Mr. Spaduto stated that where there is proposed parking on the plan it would block his driveway. He stated that there has always been some give and take, as the applicants utilities come across his property. Mr. Spaduto stated that other maps show it as a 10 foot right-of-way. Mr. Sibley stated that he would think there has to be some sort of map or right-away agreement must exist for the utilities. Mr. Deveaux stated that the Griffin’s deed reads that it begins at the corner of a 5 foot right-of-way. Chairman Stutts noted that issue of the right-of-way
should be settled but it is outside the Board’s purview.
Bill McCoy, attorney, stated that Section 9 of the Regulations states that it is the expectation that over time, nonconformities will go away. He stated that that would mean that expansion of nonconformities is not allowed. Mr. McCoy stated that expansion should only be allowed only where there is a legal hardship. He noted that there is an existing structure on the lot which is being used. Mr. McCoy questioned the legal reason to expand the nonconformity. He noted that there is clearly not a legal hardship. Mr. McCoy stated that the DEP report nails it right on the head, noting that once the standard is varied for this property, it will be hard not to do it for all properties.
Mr. Sibley questioned who Mr. McCoy is representing. Mr. McCoy stated that he is representing both Mr. Spaduto and Mr. Thompson, abutting landowners.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether Mr. McCoy felt this was a necessary hardship.
Mr. McCoy stated that a necessary nonconformity is when the configuration of the property is such that to strictly comply with the zoning regulations one would lose reasonable use. Mr. Kotzan stated that an unnecessary hardship is when there is a burden on the property and it is not something that needs to be on the property to exercise the zoning plan of the Town. He stated that a necessary hardship is one that is necessary to exercise the zoning plan of the Town.
Mr. McCoy stated that he is not saying the applicant can’t do anything; Section 9 addresses what can be done. Mr. McCoy stated that there is an increase in impervious area due to the roof. Ms. Deveaux stated that she has included the roof in her coverage calculations. Mr. McCoy stated that there is no justification of why there are three terraces closer to the shoreline, which is an expansion. Ms. Deveaux stated that the terraces are pervious. Mr. Deveaux noted that if the property was not in the coastal boundary the project could move forward by right. Mr. McCoy stated that the property is within the coastal boundary, which is why they are all here.
Mr. Griffin stated that if he does work in excess of $50,000.00 he will have to bring the entire structure to code. Mr. McCoy agreed but noted that the Regulations allow for repairs and explained that he could reconstruct the present structure. He indicated that he rebuilt his home in the coastal flood plain and he maintained exactly what he had prior to the demolition.
Bill Griffin stated that Mr. Spaduto has some concerns regarding the driveway and he is willing to work that out with him.
Mr. Spaduto stated that he has no problem with the demolition or reconstruction of the house; he indicated that he has issues with their increasing the size of the house.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 13-05 C – Sharon Griffin Trustee, 113 Hillcrest Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. Chairman Stutts noted that the lot is conforming. She noted that the major issue is that they are not working within the existing footprint. Chairman Stutts stated that she is concerned about decreasing views of others. Mr. Kotzan indicated that he feels the addition on the west is too ambitious. Chairman Stutts agreed. Mr. Kotzan stated that he sees advantages to the proposal also such as reducing the number of bedrooms and meeting code. Ms. Stone stated that she is particularly concerned about the addition toward the water, even though it is pervious. Mr. Kotzan stated that the terraces do not bother him. He indicated that if it was a simple tear down and rebuild with the roof changes, he would be more agreeable.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposal is a little too ambitious.
Mr. Sibley stated that a lot of these cottages were constructed inexpensively prior to zoning. He noted that the people of Point ‘O Woods put their money together and got sewer and water because they needed to, to continue to live on this rock. Mr. Sibley stated that they try hard not to give away everything, but they do allow variances that they feel will be an improvement. He stated that he thinks this plan was carefully done. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that OLISP was not in favor of the proposal. Ms. Stone stated that the site is so unique and so sensitive that it cannot carry what another similar lot could. She indicated that if the proposal were more of a rebuilding on the existing footprint with some slight alterations, she would be in favor.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley and seconded by Richard Smith to grant the necessary variances to demolish existing home and construct a new dwelling, 113 Hillcrest Road.
Reasons:
1. The plan is close to what can be done with all of the constraints and the regulations that have been applied to a very sensitive piece of property. The proposal is consistent with the neighborhood and is also consistent with all applicable coastal policies and makes all reasonable measures to avoid adverse impacts and the CAM is approved.
Reason for denial:
1. A little too ambitious and no adequate justification for the expansion on the side
Motion did not carry 2-3-0; In favor: Arthur Sibley and Richard Smith; In opposition: Susanne Stutts, Kip Kotzan, Mary Stone (four affirmative votes required to grant a variance).
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to deny without prejudice the variances to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling at 113 Hillcrest Road.
Reasons:
1. The Board felt that the applicant could present a different proposal that does not encroach outside the existing footprint.
2. There are a lot of admirable pieces to the proposal.
3. The Board would agree to a rebuild of the existing but not an expansion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made Kip Kotzan, seconded Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 15, 2012 Regular Meeting.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Stutts stated that there is a conference on March 19 in Plantsville that everyone is invited to attend.
Ms. Stone stated that she presented to the Board briefly about a conference she had attended. She stated that there were presentations by three attorneys addressing various aspects. Ms. Stone stated that she took notes and requested a copy of the Powerpoint presentation for anyone who would like to review. She indicated that she would leave it with Ms. Barrows.
Chairman Stutts stated that the Town received a grant from the State to construct bathrooms at Soundview. Ms. Stone noted that it contains a bike trail also. She noted that the State grant is 80 percent of the construction costs.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
No action taken.
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
