OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 18 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, Mary Stone, Secretary and Arthur Sibley. Also present was Richard Smith (alternate) and Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Case 13-15C – Carolyn V. Adams, Trustee, 24 Champion Road, variance to elevate the existing house and deck to comply with FEMA Flood Regulations; decking to be modified to eliminate existing encroachment.
Joe Wren, P.E., and his assistant Seamus Moran, along with Attorney Matthew Ranelli were present to represent the applicant.
Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with the following sections: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, general rules, 9.3.1, enlargement; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories 1.5, 4 stories proposed; 8.8.6, maximum height of building or structure, 24’ allowed, 31.2 feet proposed, variance of 7.2 feet requested; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, variance of 24.7 feet requested for the deck, 24 feet requested for the front porch and 22.6 feet for the house; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, variance of 11.5 feet and 8.4 feet for the deck and house on the west side and on the east side a variance of 11.7 and 8.6 feet; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, variance of 74.2 percent requested; 4.2.12,
construction and enlargement of certain buildings adjoining coastal resources, no buildings within 50 feet of beaches, variance of 35 feet for stairs and 37’ for the deck and a 50 foot variance for the beach area enlargement; 4.3, tidal water protection, variance of 42.5 feet for the deck and stairs and 37’ for the deck addition; and for area outside the conservation zone, a variance of 42.5 feet for the deck and stairs and 37’ for the deck addition.
Mr. Wren noted that the sections listed by the chairman are how the existing structure is presently nonconforming. He noted that the site plan shows the encroachments onto the neighboring property. Mr. Wren stated that the proposal will repair and raise the house to meet flood standards and will remove the existing encroachments. He pointed out that with the exception of height, the property will be more conforming. Mr. Wren provided the certified mailings receipts for the record. He noted that the coastal area management application has been submitted and comments have been received from DEP.
Mr. Wren noted that there are a couple of corrections he would like to make to the variances requested: Under section 4.2.12, 4.3 and 4.3.2, there is an error in that the application says the stairs are 7.5 feet from a coastal jurisdiction line and the proposed stairs are further away than the existing stairs and the distance is 25.2 feet, not 7.5 feet; and under Section 4.2.12 it should state 14.6 feet from coastal jurisdiction line, not 7.6 feet.
Mr. Wren explained that the structure sustained damage in Supers Storm Sandy last year and in order to repair the structure it must be raised to the appropriate FEMA elevation. He noted that the house is in both elevation 10 and 11 AE zones. Mr. Wren explained that the house must be raised to the more restrictive zone and the town adds one foot which brings the required height to 12 feet in an AE zone. He explained that they are constructing a two foot floor structure which brings the finished floor to elevation 14 and results in a building height of 31.2 feet. Mr. Wren noted that the existing structure is 26 feet. He pointed out that the house was constructed prior to zoning. Mr. Wren explained that there is no lateral room to move the house so it will be lifted in place so work can be
performed underneath and once the foundation in place it will be set back down. He noted that the current finished floor elevation is 9.1 feet which is 3 feet lower then what it should be under today’s FEMA standards.
Mr. Wren explained that the existing grade is elevation 8 on east and west sides of the property and elevation 7 through the center of house. He noted that there will be 5’ of clearance underneath the house. Mr. Wren stated that the natural grade drops off down to elevation 5. He noted that there will not be a slab underneath and there will be no walls so water and air can flow freely below the structure. Mr. Wren stated that there will be no parking under the structure; parking will remain as it is today. He noted that there is no proposed grading. Mr. Wren explained that the deck sustained heavy damage from the storm and will be rebuilt so that it does not extend over property line. He pointed out on the site plan the portion of decking that is to be removed. Mr.
Wren explained that what is considered additional decking in the proposal is the increased stairway for the deck which is necessitated by the increase in height of the deck. He reiterated that they removed the portion of deck that was off the property but it doesn’t count toward reduction of coverage because it wasn’t on the property. He indicated that the only increased nonconformity is the height.
He stated that the staff review letter suggests that the new structure is four stories. He noted it is three stories with a very small story on the top that has a gross floor area of less than 50 percent of floor area of the floor below which would be considered a half story; so the house is really 2.5 stories. Mr. Wren explained that Ms. Brown is counting the area underneath the house as a story. He noted that there is not 6’ of head room underneath the house and there is no slab so it could not be living space. Mr. Sibley agreed and noted he was involved in a similar type of case and won because it is not a rule that will stand up and as long as one cannot use it as habitable space, it cannot be counted. Mr. Wren agreed and noted that he was involved in a similar case in Old Saybrook
and the Town decided it did not count as a story.
Addressing Coastal Area Management, Mr. Wren noted that DEP reviewed the proposal and sent and replied via an email dated June 17, 2013. He noted that the DEP commended the property owner for bringing up to FEMA standards and asked if they would consider raising the structure to the elevation scheduled to go into effect August 5, 2013. He explained that the zone changes from AE to B and the elevation increases from 11 to 14 and the Town requires an additional one foot which would result in a structure at elevation 15 with the 2’ floor. Mr. Wren noted that that would result in a structure of 34.2 feet versus the 31 feet proposed. He noted that he discussed this with the owners today and understanding the flood insurance ramifications, they have decided to move forward with the application as
presented this evening, meeting today’s FEMA standards. Mr. Wren noted that the beach association will not allow work to be performed in the summer so they cannot begin the project until after Labor Day. He noted that they will be all set as long as they obtain their building permit prior to the August 5 deadline. Mr. Kotzan noted that if the proposal came in 6 months from now, the requirement would be even higher, so this proposal is a compromise.
Mr. Wren noted that the hardship is straight forward as the house was damaged by storm sandy. He noted that it is not being raised or added on to, but merely raised to meet the current flood standards. He stated that they are removing the encroachments over three property lines. Mr. Wren stated that the proposal is good for the owner, the Town and the neighborhood
Chairman Stutts noted that the property is very undersized and stated that she would think there would be a way to put the stairs within the deck so that they don’t need to be in the front and side setback. She indicated that it seems an unnecessary expansion into the setback. Mr. Wren explained that the stairs are necessary to meet fire code. Chairman Stutts stated that the stairs could be parallel instead of perpendicular and they could not have a walkway. Mr. Wren stated that they are replacing what is there today. Chairman Stutts noted that it was washed away. Chairman Stutts questioned whether they would be keeping the flat roof. Mr. Wren replied that they would be because raising the peak of it would increase height and volume of the house and because of the
expense.
Ms. Stone stated that eliminating the room on the top would eliminate the height issue. She pointed out that it is only 120 square feet and it would make the ZBA’s decision easier.
Mr. Wren noted that this is the only house that survived the 38 hurricane which is why it is grandfathered; it has existed here since at least 1934. He stated that he had structural engineers evaluate the structure and plans are available for informational purposes if they’d like them.
Neighbor at 25 Champion, directly across street, stated that they have been friends since they moved in. He noted that he also had damage from Super Storm Sandy. Mr. Griswold stated that he is concerned about the berm and would like to be sure that it will be taken care of and put back in better condition to protect him. He noted that this may be the responsibility of the Point ‘O Woods Beach Association. Chairman Stutts noted that the berm is along the street and not entirely on the Adams’ property
Mr. Wren reiterated that there is no proposed grading at all and no moving of materials. He explained that there will be limited excavation for the beams and everything would be put back to its existing elevation. He noted that the berm will not be touched.
Ms. Nasin at 27 Champion, abutting property owner, stated that she has no problem with their repairing the structure. She explained that there are temporary utility poles on her property running lines to the Adams’ house. She explained that this is a liability issue and needs to be put on their property immediately. She stated that the deck encroaching on her property should be removed. She stated that the berm is a matter of safety and protection for all and asked that they be sure not to cut the berm on her property. She asked that they not encroach on her property during construction. She stated that it is a beautiful home in a beautiful location and it is a home to be saved.
Mr. Wren reiterated that there is no intention to encroach on anyone’s property or grade or remove the berm.
Mr. Griswold, 25 Champion explained that the berm damage was caused by people driving onto beach between the Adams and the Roach property. He stated that it will require a great deal of heavy equipment and after restoration a fence should be installed. Mr. Sibley stated that the Point ‘O Woods Association will have to address the issue and put a sign up. He stated that he wants workers on the Adams’ property aware of the situation.
Bill Griffin, 7 Champion Road, stated that he is the acting president of the association. He indicated that the fence will be replaced as soon as all work is finished.
Mr. Wren stated that the street line is close to the structure and the area where the berm and fence are located is not on the Adams’ property but rather on association property.
Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
2. Case 13-16C – Sharon Griffin Trustee, 113 Hillcrest Road, variance to allow demolition and reconstruction of structure within 50 feet of the shoreline
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities as indicated in the application. She read the list of required variances: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, variance of 3 feet required; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, variance of 7.6 feet requested; 4.2.12, construction and enlargement of certain buildings adjoining coastal resources, no buildings within 50 feet of beaches; and 4.3, tidal water protection, variance of 23 feet for the house and 32 feet for the terrace.
Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is the sloping nature of the property and the rock ledges and the expansion does not encroach on the neighbors.
Geri and David Deveaux, Deveaux Architects, were present representing Sharon and David Griffin. Ms. Deveaux stated that they had a previous application before the Board and it was denied without prejudice. She indicated that they made adjustments addressing the Board’s comments and have incorporated Mr. Metcalf’s review comments from February 2013 as well as the February 5, 2013, comments of OLISP.
Ms. Deveaux explained that the proposal makes substantial improvements to the house which includes a 205 square foot addition to accommodate the reconfiguration of the house. She stated that the hardship is unique and is that when they apply current setbacks, only 9.3 percent of land is buildable and only 9 percent when you apply the coastal resource boundary setback
Ms. Deveaux indicated that the property is located at the point of Point ‘O Woods at end of Hillcrest Road. She noted that there are three very similar looking cottages at the point. She showed a photograph of the existing 1.5 story cottage with contains five bedrooms with an existing detached garage. Ms. Deveaux displayed a side view which shows the outcroppings and ledge that runs along the water. She stated that Hillcrest Road is made up of many different houses and showed photographs of several surrounding homes.
Mr. Deveaux explained the site plan and noted that the dark red line represents the existing building footprint, the dashed lines are the existing deck, the shaded red area is the expansion, the blue lines indicate the previous application. He explained that because they were asked to reduce the requested expansion, the blue line gives an idea of how much they have reduced it. He stated that the previous application was asking for an 11’ increase and they have scaled it back to 6 feet; they asked for a 6’ increase on the front and have scaled it back to a 4’ increase. Ms. Deveaux noted that speaking in terms of percentages, they have reduced the requested expansion 59 percent from their February application.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the setbacks are shown in green and the yellow is the coastal resource line. She stated that the dark green is the only area that could be built upon in a conforming manner. Mr. Deveaux stated that they are not encroaching any more on any setbacks; all additions are within the buildable area. Ms. Deveau stated that the existing house is 1.5 stories and contains five bedrooms. She noted that there is one bedroom on the first floor and four bedrooms on the second floor. She noted that the second floor bedrooms have limited headroom, 6’5” at the highest point. Mr. Deveaux submitted photographs of the upstairs bedrooms. He noted that the existing staircase is very narrow. Mr. Deveaux stated that the upstairs bedrooms are basically
closets and the windows in those rooms are close to the floor and do not meet egress code.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the proposal is a simple 1.5 story home with shed dormers on the front and the back. She noted that it is very similar to the other two homes on the point. Ms. Deveaux stated that the home has deteriorated over the years and because they are making greater than 50 percent improvement they have to bring the house up to code. She noted that it is better to rebuild rather than repair. Ms. Deveaux stated that the objective is to maintain the existing home, rearrange some spaces, putting in code compliant stairs and keeping living space just as they are on the south and west side. She noted that they are maintaining the bedroom and utility closet on the first floor. Ms. Deveaux explained that the new stairs will be 8” wider. She noted that they are
proposing a one story covered porch where the deck was previously. Ms. Deveaux stated that the house will have three bedrooms, one bedroom on the first floor, one bedroom on the second floor and one bedroom in the basement. She noted that the allowed floor area has not been exceeded. Mr. Deveaux stated that there will be some removal required in the basement area to accommodate the bedroom. He noted that there the existing sliding doors will remain and he displayed the proposed elevation plans. Mr. Deveaux stated that they will maintain the existing roof lines and the ridgeline will be shortened up.
Ms. Deveaux stated that off the lower level there is a terrace and a stone wall. She stated that graphically it may appear more involved then it is. Mr. Deveaux stated that the face of the wall is 10 feet out beyond the existing building and he showed photographs of the existing area. He pointed out that the terrace ends right about where the lawn ends which keeps it natural in the coastal boundary area. Mr. Deveaux stated that the wall will be 2 feet high above the terrace which is at elevation 18.5.
Mr. Kotzan stated that it is good to end the terrace on the lawn and so it does not encroach in the coastal area.
Ms. Stone questioned whether the terrace material will be pervious. Mr. Deveaux stated that it is pervious and there are gaps between the stones so water can go through to the lower base of crushed stone. Ms. Stone questioned whether the cobblestone area is pervious. Mr. Deveaux stated that none of the surfaces will be mortared. He noted they reduced the terrace area from the previous application. Ms. Deveaux addressed the fact that there is site stabilization to minimize impact to the coastal resources pre and post construction.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the floor area does not exceed allowable; the height of the structure will be 24’ which is allowed; the coverage does not exceed the allowable. She indicated that the floor area will be 25%. Ms. Deveaux stated that coverage was 16.5 percent and will increase to 17 percent. She noted that the total lot coverage is 19.6 and they are reducing it to 18.4 percent because they are eliminating some impervious material.
Ms. Deveaux stated that they are in receipt of several letters in favor of the proposal which she asked be made part of the application; Mr. Griffin stated that he went to all his neighbors and asked for their support because he was surprised by the opposition last time. Ms. Stone noted letters in favor of the proposal from property owners at 104 Hillcrest, 110 Hillcrest Road, 105 Hillcrest Road and 115 Hillcrest Road. It was noted that the neighbor at 105 Hillcrest Road, Mr. Thompson, has concerns. Mr. Deveaux stated that in Mr. Thompson’s letter there was a question as to whether they were building to roof lines or wall lines and he stated that the footprint area was figured to wall lines. Ms. Deveaux stated that Mr. Thompson is also concerned about his view and she presented a photograph
showing the proximity of his house to this house and noted he is farther out then this terrace is going to be.
Mr. Thompson, 109-1 Hillcrest Road, came to the table to see the photographs and the design of the terrace and wall. He explained that there is a contentious issue over the driveway to the right of their garage that has been going on for about a year. He stated that his understanding is that they are planning to park a car to the right of the garage which would block the entrance and exit to where he parks and where the Sperduto’s park. Chairman Stutts suggested that they try to resolve the issue between neighbors. Mr. Thompson agreed and noted that his family is accustomed to looking out to the west of their present home and he was not able to tell how big the stone wall would be. He indicated that he also has a concern regarding his quiet enjoyment of his property. Mr. Thompson
stated that he is concerned about blasting because if anything happens to the ledge it will take out his house. He indicated that he would like pre and post inspections. Ms. Deveaux stated that his views won’t change because they are keeping the existing footprint of the house. Mr. Deveaux stated that the grade of the terrace will be lower into the hillside and will be lower than the existing grade.
Sharon Griffin, 113 Hillcrest Road, stated that her family has been at Point ‘O Woods for 65 years. She noted that she treasures the view of 113 Hillcrest Road. She indicated that Mr. Thompson has made many changes to his property, including a dock along the coastline, yet he doesn’t see the right of others to change their property. Ms. Griffin indicated that there is no privacy in Point ‘O Woods.
Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
3. Case 13-18 – Luis and Alicia Castanho, 52 Gorton Avenue, variance to
Geri Deveaux requested that the Board open the hearing and take no testimony and continue to July 16, 2013.
A Motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to open the Public Hearing for 52 Gorton Avenue and continue it to the July 16, 2013, Regular Meeting, no testimony to be taken. A letter dated June 13, 2013 from Geri Deveaux, Deveaux Architects made the request on behalf of the applicant.
4. Case 13-17 – Marla Richardson, 10 Seaside Lane, variance to allow construction of storage room on second floor above existing first floor kitchen.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities as noted in the application. She then read the proposed variances: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, general rules; 9.3.1, enlargement; 4.2.12, construction and enlargement of certain buildings adjoining coastal resources, no buildings within 50 feet of beaches; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30 feet required, variance of 23.6 feet; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, variance of 6.6 percent.
Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the basement floor is sandy and the utilities were moved to the first floor due to Super Storm Sandy, which ate into the storage area.
Marla Richardson stated that she had damage from Storm Sandy and is living there again full time with her four children after having to move out for six months. She noted that her utilities were in the cellar and everything down there, including personal items, was destroyed in the storm. Marla Richardson stated that she had flood insurance and was moved from the property for 6 months. She indicated that she changed from oil to propane so the propane tanks could be moved outside and she moved the electrical and utilities to the first floor. She indicated that the proposed storage area is accessed walking through another closet and the purpose is solely storage for her personal items such as Christmas decorations, etc. She noted that the ceiling height will be 5 feet.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that it shouldn’t count as floor area if the height is only five feet inside. Ms. Richardson stated that it may be that the increased floor area is the porch that is being rebuilt from the storm. She noted that it was already approved by Ms. Brown and a variance was not required because the porch had a roof and is now only being enclosed.
Ms. Stutts stated that something might be fit into the area between the two bedrooms which wouldn’t encroach into the setback as the proposal does. Ms. Richardson stated that the house is not grand and that area is already part of the living space. She noted that the bedrooms are so small that they have just beds and bureaus and one can barely walk in them.
Ms. Stutts stated that she would like to see more detail on the proposal. Ms. Richardson indicated that the drawings are drawn to scale.
Glen Sulmasy, New London, spoke in favor of the application. He indicated that he witnessed the devastation that occurred at the property and confirmed that the first floor had to accommodate the mechanicals and more storage is required.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
The Commission took a five minute recess at this time.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 13-15C – Carolyn V. Adams, Trustee, 24 Champion Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that they are removing walkways and decks that were encroaching on neighboring property and reduced the coverage. She noted that they are increasing the height to meet the current FEMA elevation which is a compromise between the existing flood elevations and the new flood elevations that will be effective August 5, 2013. Chairman Stutts noted that they will be changing the stairway in the front of the house and make it perpendicular so that it does not encroach as much into the setback.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he likes the idea that they are removing encroachments. He indicated that he didn’t originally like the extra two feet they originally spoke of, but after learning that it will be shorter than the August elevation, he feels differently.
Mr. Sibley stated that the house will be much stronger and better after the renovation. He indicated that the proposal is acceptable.
Mr. Kotzan asked that a condition be added that care be taken not to reduce the existing berm.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to the necessary variances to allow elevating the existing structure and decking to comply with FEMA Flood Requirements (elevation 12). The decking to be modified to eliminate existing encroachments and the house raised as shown on the plans entitled “Coastal Site Plan Land of Carolyn V. Adams, Trustee 24 Champion Road, Map 86, Lot 3 Old Lyme, Connecticut dated April 3, 2013 revised to 5/17/13 minor deck revisions prepared by Indigo Land Design, LLC” and the Coastal Site Plan Review Application is approved as well because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts the following conditions added:
1. Details on the raising and placement of pilings underneath the structure be fully detailed on site plans and in writing.
2. No concrete foundation connection between all pilings at ground level, i.e. sand between the pilings and preferably no garage.
3. Stairs in front to be realigned to not intrude further into the setback.
4. Impact from construction to the berm will be mitigated.
Reasons to Grant:
1. Parts of deck extending outside property lines will be removed.
2. The protruding stairway will be placed parallel to deck to reduce the setback.
3. Strength and safety of structure will be improved to meet current FEMA requirements.
2. Case 13-16C – Sharon Griffin Trustee, 113 Hillcrest Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the Board considered a variance for this property back in February and denied the application. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant listened to the Board’s concerns and presented a plan which is greatly reduced.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the reconstruction will result in a sturdier, code-compliant building.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow demolition and reconstruction of existing structure on same footprint within 50’ of the coastal shorefront as shown on the plot plan prepared by Deveaux Architects for the Griffin Residence 113 Hillcrest Road dated 4-2-2013 Sheet L-1 and the “Site Development Plan property of Sharon Griffin Trustee 113 Hillcrest Road Old Lyme, Connecticut dated December 28, 2012, Sheet 1 of 1 Revised to 4-5-13 house revision”. The Coastal Site Plan Review Application is approved as well because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Reasons to Grant:
1. Per the DEEP OLISP, the proposed (replacement) home is not located in a flood zone.
2. Several measures have been taken to take previously stated concerns into account.
3. Proposal will maintain character of the neighborhood.
4. Reducing number of bedrooms from 5 to 3.
5. Reconstruction will result in a sturdier, code-compliant building.
3. Case 13-18 – Luis and Alicia Castanho, 52 Gorton Avenue
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the July Regular Meeting.
4. Case 13-17 – Marla Richardson, 10 Seaside Lane
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the applicant would like to add a storage area on the second floor above the kitchen due to loss of use of the basement after Storm Sandy. Chairman Stutts suggested that some storage area could be found by using portions of the existing enclosed porches.
Ms. Stone stated that she would like a condition that the ceiling height in the new area be kept under 6 feet to be sure that it cannot be converted to living area. Chairman Stutts stated that they need additional plans also. Mr. Sibley agreed. The Commission discussed the roof line and decided they would need a better detailed plan.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he would like clarification of the height in the addition because if it is less than 6’ in height it would not count as floor area. He noted that the application shows an additional 108 square feet of floor area and the area is only 103 square feet. Mr. Kotzan stated that he thinks a good solution would be to have a step up floor so that none of the ceiling is higher than 6 feet.
Ms. Stutts stated that the house is very bulky and she feels that this addition would add more bulk. Ms. McQuade stated that she does not think it will add much bulk and she could approve it if there is a way of making sure that more detailed plans are provided. Mr. Kotzan stated that there should be another condition limiting the ceiling height.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the storm damage caused the need because she had to remove the utilities from the basement.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Mary Stone to and voted to grant the necessary variances to allow construction of a storage room on the second floor above the existing first floor kitchen as shown on the drawing entitled “Second Floor Plan” noted in red and approximately 103.50 s.f. on the property at 10 Seaside Lane with the following conditions:
1. Detailed measured plans for addition to be provided.
2. Ceiling height to be kept under six feet (6’) in addition to prevent addition being used as living space.
3. Detailed plans must include elevation of rear of house.
Motion carried, 4:1:0, with Chairman Stutts voting against.
Reasons to Grant:
1. Sufficient hardship has been shown and we are trying to keep the use of the property consistent.
Reasons for Denial:
1. The property is extremely overbuilt already and there are other ways of achieving the same storage within the existing footprint.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the May 21, 2013 Regular Meeting
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the May 21, 2013 Regular Meeting with the following amendment: page 7 second line to read “Motion did not carry, 4:1, with Mr. R. Smith voting against.”
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Stutts introduced the Board Members to George Hunt, a potential Alternate to the Board.
CONTINUATION
A Motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing to Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.
The Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously.
| 
