OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 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, Mary Stone and Richard Smith (alternate). Also present was Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. She noted that Mary Stone has been appointed a regular member of the Board.
1. Case 13-07 – Ronald S. Levitt, 25 Sargent Road, variance to construct a one car garage with storage.
Robert and Emily Levitt were present to explain their application. Chairman Stutts noted that the Public Hearing for this application is continued from the March Meeting. She stated that the application requests a variance to construct a two-car garage with storage on a 6,500 square foot lot. Chairman Stutts noted that the lot coverage existing is 31.1 percent. She stated that the Board was concerned about the size and height and roof configuration of the project.
Alan Goleck, builder, presented a scaled drawing of the garage, as well as a site plan. He explained that the garage is one-story with a loft. Chairman Stutts stated that the garage looks almost the same height as the house. Mr. Goleck indicated that it is not higher than the house. He noted that the garage is 14’ x 24’ when it was originally proposed to be 16’ x 24’. He indicated that 14’ is the minimum width that he can build the garage. Mr. Goleck noted that the height has not been reduced. He stated that the pitch of the roof matches the house for aesthetic purposes and noted that the height of the structure is dictated by the 8’ walls, 4.5’ loft area and roof pitch. Mr. Goleck noted that the garage is attached to the house by a
roof.
Ms. Stone questioned whether the applicant has given any consideration to removing part of the large rear deck in order to reduce coverage on the lot. Mr. Levitt stated that they have had the deck for approximately 25 years and they had not considered removing it. He noted that the deck is their yard because the rest of the yard area is very rocky. Chairman Stutts stated that 25 percent lot coverage is allowed and they are asking for 37.8 percent which is very high. She noted that another option would be to lower the deck to under 1’ from the ground and it would not be counted in the coverage calculation. Mr. Goleck questioned how much of the 850 square foot deck he would need to remove. He explained that the deck starts out low where it attaches to the house and then the ground
slopes down so the deck is higher. Mr. Goleck questioned whether it would make a difference if the shed was removed. Mr. Sibley stated that if the shed was removed it would reduce the lot coverage and would be to his advantage. Mr. Goleck noted it is not a very large shed.
Mr. Kotzan agreed it is nice to have a garage but the Board has to consider everything else on the lot. Mr. Sibley stated that the deck was constructed to make the yard more useable. He indicated that anything that can be removed, such as the shed, is a move in the right direction. Mr. Goleck agreed to remove the shed. Mr. Kotzan suggested that the applicant remove 10 feet of the deck.
Mr. Kotzan stated that removing the shed and 10 feet of the deck would reduce the coverage approximately 148 square feet. Mr. Goleck stated that without the 10 feet of deck he will just have more useless yard area. Chairman Stutts noted that many neighbors have garages but they are on the rear of their property, not squeezed along the side. Mr. Goleck indicated that he considered constructing the garage in the rear but it did not make sense due to the sloping nature of the property.
Mr. Kotzan read a letter from Peter Formica, 22 Sargent Road, indicating his approval of the application.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
2. Case 13-10 – John and Maureen Swarts, 68 Corsino Avenue, variance to allow raising of existing structure to meet FEMA Regulations.
Chairman Stutts noted that the existing structure does not comply with Section 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25’ required, 23.9’ existing. She noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.3.1, enlargement, 8.3.5, maximum stories 1.5, 2 stories proposed; and 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25’, 23.9’ provided; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25% allowed, 38% proposed.
Denise VonDassel, architect, the applicants and Valerie Vatto, attorney, were present to explain the application. Ms. VonDassel noted that the house sits almost at the end of Corsino Avenue. She noted that the house was severely damaged during Storm Sandy. Mr. Swarts stated that they had 4 inches of water in the house. He noted that it is currently a ranch. Attorney Votto stated that the cost of repair is almost in excess of the value of the home and so in order to repair the home they must raise the structure 6 feet. Ms. VonDassel stated that the house will be lifted 6’, but according to FEMA code, the utilities cannot be housed there so the area will only be used for storage. She explained that the house currently meets all Zoning Regulations with the exception of the
front setback as it is 23.9 feet from the street where 25’ is required. Ms VonDassel pointed out that they are not moving the house, merely lifting it 6’ to meet FEMA. She explained that according to the Zoning Regulations the basement must be counted as floor area even though it cannot be used as habitable space per FEMA. Ms. VonDassel stated that they are putting in flood vents so that the water can flow underneath the house.
Ms. VonDassel noted that the hot water heater is on the first floor closet and the electrical panel will be relocated to the main floor.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the public hearing.
3. Case 13-11 – Michael and Debra Noddin, 29 Flagler Avenue, variance to allow existing screen porch/gazebo to remain in its current location.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities for the record: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 5,653 provided; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling; 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square, 75’ required, 65’ provided; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30’ required, house has 23’ and shed has less than 30’; and 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property lines, 12’ required, house has 8” on the north side and the shed has less than 12’. She noted that the proposal does not comply with the following: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, General Rules, no enlargement on a nonconforming lot; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear setback 30’, gazebo is 5’6”; 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 5,653
provided; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling; 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square, 75’ required, 65’ provided; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30’ required, house is 23’. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the owner has health issues.
Mr. Noddin explained that he placed the gazebo in a spot previously occupied by something else and did not realize it was a problem. He noted that this is the first gazebo they have ever had on the property. Mr. Noddin stated that his father-in-law purchased the house in 1974 and gifted it to his wife and her sister in 2005. He explained that the original intent of the gazebo was to have a place for the other brothers and sisters to use for family functions. Mr. Noddin stated that they had three metal gazebos that they maintained and two went down in thunder storms and the third one collapsed in 2010. He stated that in the act of buying a shed for his other home, he came upon the gazebo and thought that he could just replace what had previously existed. Mr. Noddin apologized and noted
that he did not realize he was violating code. He indicated that he moved it closer to the house after finding out he was in violation.
Chairman Stutts asked Mr. Noddin to explain the rear porch and deck. Mr. Noddin stated that the porch existed in 1974 when the house was purchased. He noted that they replaced the siding in 2011 and at the time they replaced the porch and shower.
Mr. Noddin stated that his in-laws are in their early 80’s and his mother is 82 and has Alzheimer’s and his father is 85 and the gazebo keeps them out of the sun. Mr. Noddin stated that his neighbor complained about the gazebo which is how the Town found out about it. He noted that no one ever complained about the previous gazebo. He noted too that this gazebo is 10’ x 12’, the same size as the previous gazebo.
Mr. Kotzan read a letter from George Reichardt, neighbor, indicating his concerns regarding Mr. Noddin’s gazebo and resolutions that would be agreeable to him and a letter from the neighbor Garett Plona at 27 Flagler, indicating his approval of the gazebo.
Mr. Sibley questioned whether Mr. Noddin would be able to move the gazebo 12’ from Mr. Reichardt’s property line. Mr. Noddin indicated that if he did the gazebo would be right up against his house. He stated that the gazebo is about 6 feet from the property line and 8’ from the porch. Mr. Noddin stated that if they put the gazebo 12’ from the property line it will basically be attached to the porch. Mr. Sibley stated that it would appear that the gazebo could be moved a little bit without being right up against the porch. Mr. Noddin acknowledged that and indicated that he could move it four feet which would provide a 10’ setback.
Mr. Sibley reiterated that Mr. Noddin cannot connect the gazebo to the existing porch. He stated that he feels moving the gazebo is an agreeable solution. Ms. Stone questioned whether the gazebo would have electricity. Mr. Noddin replied that there would not be any electricity connected to the gazebo. Ms. Stone stated that the hardship provided is a health issue and questioned whether the variance goes away when the house is sold. Chairman Stutts explained that the Board cannot consider a health issue as a hardship to grant a variance. Ms. Stone stated that she visited the property and noted that it was on ties and gravel and not on a permanent foundation. She stated that the neighbor has a legitimate concern and she wonders whether the Board could put on a condition of use, such
as it would not be used late at night.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the neighbor’s shed is as big as the gazebo and the shed is right on the property line.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application.
Chairman Stutts noted that the neighbor asked that the hearing be held open. She questioned whether the Board felt they had enough information to close the hearing. Ms. Barrows stated that she notified Mr. Reichardt that he could write a letter and state his concerns, which he did. Ms. Stone stated that facilitating peace between neighbors is not a function of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
Chairman Stutts noted that Mr. St. Germain resigned and Ms. Stone has been sworn in as a regular member.
1. Case 13-07 – Ronald S. Levitt, 25 Sargent Road, variance to construct a one car garage with storage.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Sibley stated that the topography and the large ledge out-cropping makes the lot very difficult. He indicated that the ledge makes the layout very difficult but they have overcome it by building a very large deck that gives them use of space outside. He pointed out that the result of the deck is that there is not enough room for another structure without a large variance. Chairman Stutts stated that she objects to the size of the proposed garage. She noted that there is only one foot between the edge of the garage and the property line. Chairman Stutts stated that the height of the garage is also extreme in this location.
Ms. McQuade noted that the applicant did reduce the width of the garage by two feet at the Board’s request. She stated that her real concern is coverage and the large deck. Mr. Kotzan stated that removing the shed and 10’ of the deck could bring it down to 35 percent. He indicated that this is his concern. Ms. McQuade stated that the deck could be cut in half and still be functional. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that the deck alone brings the property way over on coverage. Chairman Stutts noted that the existing coverage is 31.1 percent.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley and seconded by Mary Stone to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a one car garage with storage as shown on the property survey dated January 23, 2013 on property located at 25 Sargent Road with the following conditions: 1) the property survey is to be revised to show the garage as 14’ wide by 24’ deep and 2) the existing shed is to be removed.
Reasons for Approval:
1. The size of proposed garage has been reduced by two feet in width and the topography of the lot is too difficult to develop according to current zoning regulations.
Motion did not carry, 0:5.
Reasons for Denial:
1. Size of deck could be reduced to reduce the overall coverage.
2. Percentage of coverage would exceed allowable percentage by at least 12% and there are other alternatives to achieve these goals.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to deny the necessary variances requested based on the reasons previously stated.
2. Case 13-10 – John and Maureen Swarts, 68 Corsino Avenue, variance to allow raising of existing structure to meet FEMA Regulations.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to GRANT the necessary variances to allow elevating the existing structure to meet FEMA regulations and remain in the same location as shown on the property survey titled “Existing Conditions survey prepared for John L & Maureen H Swarts #68 Corsino Avenue, Old Lyme Connecticut” dated December 12, 2012 prepared by Anthony Hendriks, L.S., LLC and the preliminary plans and elevations prepared by KV Designs dated February 22, 2013 on property located at 68 Corsino Avenue with the following conditions: 1) The property survey titled above should be updated to reflect the staircases up to the structure and 2) the elevations to be noted on the property survey as well.
Reasons:
1. The excessive floor area is caused by raising the structure; the space under the structure will never be living space.
2. The Board seeks to comply with FEMA regulations and the intrusion into the front setback is caused by the existing foundation which will be used when the house is raised.
3. Case 13-11 – Michael and Debra Noddin, 29 Flagler Avenue, variance to allow existing screen porch/gazebo to remain in its current location.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to GRANT the necessary variances to allow the existing screened gazebo to remain in its current location on property located at 29 Flagler Avenue with the following conditions: 1) the gazebo will never be electrified; 2) the gazebo will never be attached to the house; 3) the gazebo will never be enclosed with permanent windows and 4) no deck(s) shall connect the gazebo to the house.
Reasons:
1. A similar sized shelter has been in the same location for a number of years.
2. The structure exceeds the allowable square footage for outbuildings by a small amount.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A Motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the February 19, 2013 Regular Meeting as amended: Correct the date at top of minutes from 2012 to 2013. On page 6, there should be more detail in the reasons for denial (second paragraph). In the fifth paragraph, reasons for denying without prejudice, reason number 1 should clarify the statement with respect to not encroaching outside the existing footprint: was that the actual intent of the discussion? Also on page 6, delete under Reasons: “The Board would agree to a rebuild of the existing but not an expansion.” No further discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, K. Kotzan, J. McQuade, A. Sibley, M. Stone In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
None.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion was made by Suzanne Stutts, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to nominate the slate of officers as follows: S. Stutts, Chairman (until November, 2013), J. McQuade, Vice Chairman and M. Stone, Secretary.
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
