OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, May 21 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, Mary Stone, and Richard Smith (alternate for Arthur Sibley). Also present was Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. She noted that Mary Stone would be seated for Joseph Sibley.
1. Case 13-12 – Michael and Lisa Melninkaitis, 68 Breen Avenue, variance to raise structure to meet FEMA Regulations.
Lisa Melninkaitis, applicant, was present to explain the application.
Chairman Stutts noted that the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 4,671 provided; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 10,000 square feet required, 4,671 provided; 8.8.3, minimum dimension square, 75’ required, 56.2 feet provided; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5 allowed, 2 existing; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, 15.2’ existing; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, 6 feet provided for the house and 2’ provided for the shed; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 2.9 feet provided; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, 45 percent existing; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures, 25 percent allowed, 32.5 percent
existing; and 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage, 30 percent allowed, 32.5 percent existing.
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with sections: 8.0.c, Yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, general rules, 9.3.1, enlargement; 8.8.6, maximum height of building or structure, 24’ allowed, 31 feet proposed; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, 15.2’ proposed; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, 6 feet provided for the house; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 2.9 feet proposed; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures, 25 percent allowed, 34.3 percent proposed; 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage, 30 percent allowed, 34.3 percent proposed; and 8.8.10, maximum floor area, 25 percent allowed, 88.6 percent proposed. Chairman Stutts noted that the additional floor area is the
basement which will not be finished. She noted that the hardship provided is that FEMA requires that the house be elevated in order to repair it.
Lisa Melninkaitis, applicant, explained that they are not changing the existing footprint. She noted that the entire first floor is gone. Ms. Melninkaitis stated that there was 8 inches of water inside in the back of the house from hurricane Sandy.
Chairman Stutts stated that the house was constructed in the 1930’s and the Melninkaitis’ purchased the property in 2010. She questioned whether the house would retain the seven bedrooms. Ms. Melninkaitis stated that they are keeping the house exactly as it currently is. She explained that she is not sure where the mechanicals will be stored in the proposed structure.
Ms. Melninkaitis stated that she has not yet hired a structural engineer but will take his recommendation as to the type of foundation.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
2. Case 13-13 – James L. and Laura D. Parent, 43 Center Beach Avenue, variance to allow construction of a porch on the main entrance which fronts Liberty Street.
Jim and Laura Parent, applicants, were present to explain their application.
Chairman Stutts noted that the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 8,000 square feet provided; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 10,000 square feet required, 8,000 provided; and 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, 29 feet provided
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with sections: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, general rules, 9.3.1, enlargement; and 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, 17’ proposed.
Ms. Parent presented a photograph of her home and noted that there is no on-street parking and that one has to park in their driveway. She stated that the front of the house is on Center Beach Avenue and there is a very long sidewalk from the street to the front door. She noted that this door is a standard 36 inch door. Ms. Parent stated that no one uses this door because it is not really the entrance to the house. She explained that people always come to the back door which is on Liberty Street because that is where the driveway is located. Ms. Parent stated that the door is 32 inches and has a small concrete stoop. She noted that they are only asking for five feet beyond what is existing, although the application states they are asking for eight feet. Ms. Parent stated that the
stoop is not secure and it is a hazard getting people and groceries into the house. She stated that they would like to build a little porch with a cover. Ms. Parent presented a sketch of the porch and cover, noting that the roof line will not be higher than the existing roof line of the house. She stated that the porch will not be enclosed.
Mr. Parent stated that the proposed porch will not extend out as far as their neighbors porch.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
3. Case 13-14 – Ross and Patricia Baiera, 38 Hillcrest Road, variance to allow a half bath addition and relocation of exterior shower.
Larry Thomas and Jerry Karpuska were present to represent the applicants who where also present.
Chairman Stutts noted that the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 3,420 provided; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 10,000 square feet required, 3,420 provided; 8.8.3, minimum dimension square, 75’ required, 40 feet provided; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, 8’ existing for the house, 7’ for the garage, and on Oak Road the house is 4’ over the boundary line; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 9.3 feet provided for the house and 2.1’ for the garage; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, 35.9 percent existing; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures, 25 percent allowed, 38.3 percent existing; and 8.8.12, maximum total lot
coverage, 30 percent allowed, 38.3 percent existing.
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with sections: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, general rules, 9.3.1, enlargement; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, variance of 24.2 feet requested; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, variance of 8.6 feet; 8.8.10, maximum floor area, 25 percent allowed, 38.6 percent proposed; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures, 25 percent allowed, 42.6 percent proposed; and 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage, 30 percent allowed, 42.6 percent proposed.
She noted that the hardship provided is that the lot is an unusual corner lot and the homeowner has a medical condition.
Mr. Thomas stated that Ross and Pat Baiera have owned the property for over 28 years and rented in Point ‘O Woods a few years before that. He indicated that Mr. Baiera’s medical conditions have been noted in letters in the file. Mr. Thomas stated that most of the addition is being constructed on an existing terrace. He explained that they have letters from two abutting neighbors in favor of the application.
Ms. Stone noted the exhibits in the file. Chairman Stutts explained that the Board cannot consider medical conditions in the granting of a variance.
Mr. Karpuska explained the site plan. Ms. McQuade questioned whether an entry porch is part of the application because she did not see it on the application. Mr. Karpuska explained that the entry door currently has a small porch which they would like to cover. Mr. Kotzan noted the lot is currently very over-built. He noted that there is space that could be used for proposed bathroom, such as the existing den. Mr. Kotzan stated that it may not be optimum but it is a trade-off. Chairman Stutts noted that there are also portable commodes. Mr. Kotzan stated that the medical reason is very compelling, although they are not supposed to consider that. He stated that the property is already very overbuilt. Mr. Karpuska stated that the addition is minimal. Chairman Stutts
noted that the property is only 4,000 square feet and is overbuilt.
Mr. Kotzan stated that asking for a half bath is a reasonable, although in this case there is existing space that can be used. Ms. Stone questioned whether the shower was being moved to accommodate the new bathroom. Mr. Karpuska indicated that the shower is being moved to accommodate the bathroom.
Ms. Stone read three letters of support from abutting neighbors that were submitted by the applicant’s representative.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 13-12 – Michael and Lisa Melninkaitis, 68 Breen Avenue
Chairman Stutts stated that all the houses on the street have setback issues but this house is being raised six more feet when it is already taller than the other small ranches. She stated that the coverage is 88.6 percent. Mr. Kotzan stated that most of that floor area is the basement, even though it cannot be used for anything. Mr. Smith stated that he feels that they should come back with a definite plan such as for the type of foundation and mechanicals. Chairman Stutts noted that there lack of doing that was financial in that they did not want to retain an engineer if they did not receive approval. Mr. Kotzan noted that the plan is exactly what exists today, only six feet higher.
Mr. Smith indicated that he feels it is too general of a proposal. Chairman Stutts stated that the Board can condition their approval on final plan review.
The Board discussed FEMA insurance.
Ms. Stone stated that the house will be much higher than the surroundings homes, but stated that over time the surrounding homes may also be raised to meet FEMA requirements.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he would feel more comfortable if there was lattice underneath the house instead of clapboard. He stated that he would like the open space underneath. Chairman Stutts pointed out that if the basement were used for storage of lawn equipment they may not want to have it open. Ms. Stone questioned whether they could condition their approval on a final review of the cladding on the raised portion of the house.
Chairman Stutts stated that a condition such as that would be aesthetic. Ms. Stone noted that the Board’s concern will be reflected in the record.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow raising the existing structure to meet the FEMA flood regulations as shown on the “Zoning Location Survey Map Showing Proposed House Elevating Land Owned by Michael F. Melninkaitis & Lisa Melninkaitis 68 Breen Avenue Old Lyme, Connecticut, Scale 1” = 20’ March 13, 2013” prepared by Robert Green Associates L.L.C for property located at 68 Breen Avenue, with consideration of a treatment that reduces the bulky appearance that would be caused by elevating the house to meet the FEMA flood regulations.
Reasons:
1. Variance is necessary to meet FEMA requirements in the flood zone
2. Living space is not being expanded.
2. Case 13-13 – James L. and Laura D. Parent, 43 Center Beach Avenue
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Kotzan stated that he believes it is a safety issue. He noted that it is simply a covered entryway. Ms. Stone stated that she would like a condition that the porch is never enclosed. Chairman Stutts suggested adding a condition that the porch roofline be lower than the existing house roofline.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow construction of a porch [8’ x 9.5’] onto the main entrance, which fronts Liberty Street for property located at 43 Center Beach Avenue with the following conditions:
1. The porch will never be enclosed.
2. The roofline stays below the existing house roofline.
Reasons:
1. A reasonable hardship was provided.
2. The lot is not overbuilt.
3. The intent of zoning is not infringed upon.
4. Safety has been improved.
3. Case 13-14 – Ross and Patricia Baiera, 38 Hillcrest Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.
Ms. McQuade stated that she is sympathetic to the medical problem, but the Board cannot consider this a hardship in considering the variance. She stated that the lot is considerably overbuilt already. Ms. McQuade noted that the applicants could give up a little space inside and still have a very reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the property itself does not speak to recommending any additional building because it is already so overbuilt. He noted that the den could be sacrificed for an additional bathroom. Mr. Kotzan agreed that the medical hardship cannot be considered. He noted that what they are asking for violates the intent of the coverage regulations.
Ms. Stone acknowledged that there is interior space that could be adapted to a bathroom.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted to deny the necessary variances to allow a half bath addition and relocation of exterior shower as shown on the “Property Survey Map Showing Land Parcel ID No. 93 / 82 Owned by Ross J. and Patricia A. Baiera 38 Hillcrest Road Old Lyme, Connecticut, Scale 1” = 20’ March 13, 2013 Rev. April 4, 2013” prepared by Robert Green Associates
L.L.C for property located at 38 Hillcrest Road. Motion did not carry, 4:1, with Mr. voting against.
Reasons:
1. The property is already overbuilt for the lot size.
2. The Board is constrained not to consider an owner’s medical condition as a hardship.
3. There is existing interior space that could be adapted to house an additional bathroom.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the March 19, 2013 Regular Meeting
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the March 19, 2013 Regular Meeting as submitted.
Minutes of the April 16, 2013 Regular Meeting
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the April 16, 2013 Regular Meeting with the following corrections: page 1, second paragraph should read “She noted that Mary Stone has been appointed a regular member of the Board, replacing Joseph St. Germain”; page 3, last paragraph should read “He noted that this is not the first gazebo they have ever had on the property
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Stutts stated that she has one resume from someone interested in becoming an alternate.
The Board discussed and decided to hold two meetings in June to handle the eight cases; they will hold the Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 and continue it to Wednesday, June 19, 2013.
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
