OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, July 16 2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Mary Stone, Secretary, Arthur Sibley, and Richard Smith (arrived at 7:42 p.m. and seated after the first case was heard) Also present was George Hunt, Alternate and Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to amend the agenda to move Case 13-18 – 42 Portland to be the first item so that it could proceed with 4 seated members. (4-0-0)
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Case 13-23 – Frederick Guidobono, 42 Portland Avenue, variance to allow air conditioner compressor, 18 feet from street (Bocce Lane).
Chairman Stutts noted the following existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 5,000 square feet provided; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 10,000 square feet, 5000 square feet provided; 8.8.1, minimum dimension of a square, 75 feet required, 50 feet provided; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5 allowed, 2 existing; 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, 13.4’ existing from Bocce Lane and 15.3 feet from Portland Avenue; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property lines, 12’ required, 10.6 feet provided on the south; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, 37.6 percent existing.
She noted that the proposal does not comply with the following Regulations: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, general rules, 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 25’ required, variance of 19.5 feet required (narrow street). Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the required narrow street setback only allows 6 inches for the compressor.
Mr. Guidobono stated that the compressor does not extend as far as the existing bulkhead, which he pointed out on the plan. He noted that the bulkhead is approximately 5 feet by 5 feet and the compressor is 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet.
Chairman Stutts noted that the plans have been approved by the Zoning Commission. He indicated that he is before the ZBA because the compressor requires a variance.
Robert Stratiania, 44 Portland Avenue (next door neighbor), stated that he would like to see this plan approved as Mr. Guidobono has done a lot of work to improve the property and he would like to see him be able to continue to make improvements.
Tom , 46 Portland Avenue, stated thanked the Guidobono’s for investing in their neighborhood and indicated that he is in favor of the application.
No one present spoke in opposition.
Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
Chairman Stutts stated that there are only four members present and they are awaiting a fifth member. She explained that with only four members, the vote must be unanimous, and with five members there can be one vote against. The remaining applicants chose to wait for a fifth member to arrive.
The Commission decided to go into Open Voting Session to take action on the first public hearing while awaiting the arrival of another board member.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 13-23 – Frederick Guidobono, 42 Portland Avenue, variance to allow air conditioner compressor, 18 feet from street (Bocce Lane).
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the plan was approved by the Zoning Commission with the small exception of the compressor because of an oversight. He indicated that the only reason to deny this would be neighbor objection and he noted that two neighbors spoke in favor of the application.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the placement of an air conditioning condenser closer to Bocce Lane without conditions. (4:0)
Reasons:
1. Project is within the scope of what the Zoning Commission had previously approved.
2. Two neighbors spoke in favor of the project.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Case 13-18 – Luis and Alicia Castanho, 52 Gorton Avenue, variance to allow removal of existing house and construction of a one and one-half story house elevated to meet FEMA requirements.
Chairman Stutts noted that the following existing nonconformities: 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5, 2 existing; 8.8.6, maximum height 24 feet allowed, 25 feet existing; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25 required, 15.17 feet existing; and 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 12 feet required, 10.9 provided.
She noted that the proposal does not comply with 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.3..1, enlargement; 8.8.6, maximum height 24 feet allowed, 27 feet proposed; 9.0, voluntary demolition of building, new structure must meet zoning regulations; and 9.3.2, Change, if altering to conform may not be made more nonconforming.
Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the adherence to both FEMA Regulations and number of story regulation, the use of upstairs space would be very limited; large lot but the wetlands on the property reduces the useable area.
Geri and David Deveaux, Architects, were present to represent the applicants. Geri Deveaux indicated that the project is about balancing design and site limitations and she feels the proposal takes into consideration the existing streetscape and scale of the neighborhood while addressing the inland wetlands, the Health Department, and recently amended FEMA Regulations. She stated that the septic system is approved and in place, they have received approval from the Inland Wetlands Commission and have a GEO soil report.
Mr. Deveaux noted the pictures of the existing neighborhood and pointed out the existing house at 52 Gorton. He also pointed out similar two-story homes nearby. Ms. Deveaux noted that the lot is large and it fronts on Gorton Avenue. She noted that the Castanho’s originally purchased two lots but later combined them to make this one property of 13,000 square feet at 52 Gorton Road.
Mr. Deveaux noted that much of the lot is wet and pointed out the wetlands line on the site plan and noted that with the 50’ wetlands setback, most of the rear of the property is unbuildable. He noted that the septic system is in the rear of the property. Ms. Deveaux noted that the property is in Flood Zone AE9. She noted that the new regulations in August the property will have to adhere to elevation 12, which is what the application proposed.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the existing structure is colored in red on the site plan and the proposed footprint is shown in green. She stated that the existing two-story house has six rooms on the second floor. She noted that the ceiling height on both floors is 7’3”. Ms. Deveaux stated that the house currently sits on piers.
Mr. Deveaux stated that if they were too take the existing house in place and raised it to FEMA compliance it would be at 28’3” above average grade. Ms. Deveaux noted that the ceiling height would not be in compliance with FEMA in this scenario. Ms. Deveaux stated that they then planned to make a 1.5 story house in the current location and raise it to meet FEMA and stay within the 24’ height limitation, with 8’ ceilings on the first floor, the half story would have very little ceiling height of 6 feet and therefore very little useable space. She indicated that the proposal is a true one and one-half story home that meets FEMA regulations. Ms. Deveaux stated that the current structure is two stories and sits in the front setback; the proposal is a one and one-half story home
that meets the front setback.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the floor area is going up to 35 percent which is an increase of 10 percent. He asked how that is limited bulk. Ms. Deveaux stated that the existing floor area is 18.5 percent and the proposed is 23.5 percent. Chairman Stutts stated that she did not see a variance request for floor area. Ms. Deveaux reviewed the document Mr. Kotzan was reviewing and noted that Ms. Brown is counting the area underneath the house. Chairman Stutts questioned the proposed height. Ms. Deveaux indicated that the proposed height is 29 feet.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the proposed dwelling is a long rectangular structure. Mr. Deveaux noted the front entry porch. Ms. Deveaux noted that there is one bedroom and a study on the first floor and three on the second floor; the half story is not in the front setback. Mr. Deveaux noted that they are trying to keep the bulk out of the setback. He stated that the plan is to park two cars underneath the house. Ms. Deveaux pointed out that the porch area in the setback is not covered and therefore does not have to meet the setback.
Ms. Deveaux noted that the house must be constructed to FEMA standards.
Doug Whalen, 41 Old Colony Road, stated that he would ask the board to look favorably upon this project. He indicated that the association works with the Emergency Manager, Dave Roberge, to try to get people to meet the FEMA Regulations. He indicated that all would like to avoid the casualties that were suffered during Hurricane Sandy. Mr. Whalen noted that the project will inspire other Old Colony Beach Association members.
Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
3. Case 13-24 – Joseph Piecuch, Michele Potvin-Piecuch and the Irmgard J. Ziemba Trust, 26 Massachusetts Road, variance to allow addition to enlarge a bathroom, shower area, add a washer and dryer area, linen closet and outside shower.
Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 4,092 square feet existing; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 10,000 square feet required, 4,092 square feet existing; 8.8.3, minimum square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5, 2 stories existing; 8.8.6, maximum height, 24 feet allowed, no figure provided; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25 feet required, 10 feet existing; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property lines, 12 feet required, 8 feet existing; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, 38.6 percent existing; and 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage of building as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, 29 percent existing.
Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with: 9.3.1, Enlargement, 8.8.10, maximum floor area, 25 percent allowed, 42 percent proposed for a variance of 17 percent; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage of building as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, 34.1 percent for a variance of 9.1 percent; and 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage as a percent of lot area, 30 percent allowed, 42 percent proposed, variance request of 12 percent.
Joseph and Michele Potvin-Piecuch were present to explain the application. Ms. Piecuch stated that there is currently a shelf without a dressing area and on the opposite side of the hall there is a small bathroom. She noted that they have eight grandchildren and need a washer and dryer. Ms. Piecuch stated that there is a garage on the property that they use for storage. Mr. Piecuch stated that the when they have their grandchildren it is not functional because the only place to dress is in the kitchen. He indicated that they would also like to install an outside shower.
Ms. Stone questioned who made the plan. Mr. Piecuch stated that John Scalia, a contractor, drew the plan. Ms. Stone stated that it does not appear that the floor plan will solve their problems. She suggested whether they could consider a better floor plan that will solve their problem but have the shower and dressing area in one room. Mr. Piecuch stated that they are planning to enlarge the bathroom and have a separate dressing area. He indicated that he spent a lot of time working with the space requirements and noted that they could make it a bit shorter, although they are only adding 10 feet.
Chairman Stutts stated that the property is less than half of what is required in the zone. She noted that the coverages are exceeded already. Ms. Piecuch stated that they could perhaps remove the closet and put in a stackable washer and dryer. Chairman Stutts noted that it is a large request.
Mr. Kotzan explained that the law does not allow the Board to consider their personal circumstances. Ms. Stone suggested the use of a professional to look at the house and determine the best use of the existing area and increasing floor area as little as possible.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for this item to the September 17, Regular Meeting in order to see if the applicants can reconfigure the space. 5-0-0
4. Case 13-25 – Paul Preissler, 88 West End Drive, variance to allow construction of 10’ x 21’ deck on ocean side of property.
Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 5,160 square feet existing; 8.8.2, minimum lot area per dwelling, 10,000 square feet required, 5,160 square feet existing; 8.8.3, minimum square, 75’ required, 40’ provided; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5, 2 stories existing; 8.8.6, maximum height, 24 feet allowed, no figure provided; 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 25 feet required, 15 feet existing; 8.8.8, minimum rear setback, 30’ required, no figure provided; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property lines, 12 feet required, 4 feet existing on the west and 8 feet existing on the east; and 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, 29 percent existing.
Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, General Rules; 9.3.1, Enlargement; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property lines, 12 feet required, 4 feet existing on the west and 8 feet existing on the east, variance of 8feet on the west and 4 feet on the east; and 4.2.12, construction of buildings in the coastal resource area. She noted that the hardship provided is the current stair/landing is not safe.
Ms. Preissler stated that three years ago they began upgrading the exterior of their home and she noticed that many neighbors were putting on decks. She indicated that she has six grown children and some have children and they would like an area where they can enjoy the beach with their grandchildren without worrying about them going into the water or wandering street side.
Chairman Stutts stated that the porch is enclosed on this property. She noted that that is not the case with the neighbors. She indicated that the coastal resource regulation is a concern. Chairman Stutts stated that she does see that the stairs are in need of repair. Chairman Stutts stated that they also have the option of a patio on the ground level.
Mr. Kotzan explained that the Board has to look at the intent of the coastal resource regulation. Chairman Stutts stated that the whole point of the coastal resource area is to keep buildings out of the coastal resource area.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
5. Case 13-26 C – Mark and Maryellen Phelan, 77 Sea Spray Road, variance to raise floor elevation of house to more closely conform with Zoning Regulations and FEMA.
Chairman Stutts noted that the application is incomplete. She pointed out that there is no denied Zoning Compliance Permit and the plans are missing dimensions. Mr. Flower stated that he does not believe they were required to get a Zoning Compliance Permit as they applied for a variance. Chairman Stutts explained that when the Zoning Compliance Permit is denied the applicant then has the basis for the variance. Mr. Flower stated that they have already conceded that they will need a variance. Chairman Stutts read a letter from Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, indicating that she has not been able to act on the Zoning Compliance Permit because of inadequate information and requesting that the Board open the hearing. Ms. Brown’s letter also requested that the letter from OLISP
requesting additional information be made part of the file.
Attorney Bennett stated that OLISP’s letter has to do with engineering aspects, not zoning. He indicated that they are before the Board to discuss the Zoning aspects. Chairman Stutts stated that the Board needs the denied permit. Attorney Bennett stated that he does not understand that to be the requirement. Chairman Stutts stated that she does not feel equipped to discuss it without the permit. Jeff Flower stated that he has brought information in at the last minute in the past. He indicated that the only difference between this evening and the next public hearing would be construction information regarding the basement. Mr. Flower stated that the OSLIP’s issue is whether it is constructed to A Zone requirements of today or V Zone requirements that will be mandatory
in August. He indicated that they plan on constructing to the V Zone requirements which is pilings versus a foundation. Mr. Flower stated that the other issue is the height.
Attorney Bennett stated that the application is to raise the house four feet with no other changes or additions. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board does not have a review by their Zoning Enforcement Officer. Attorney Bennett stated that Ms. Brown’s letter is looking for construction information. The Board agreed to open and continue the Public Hearing. Ms. Barrows requested an extension letter from the applicant. Attorney Bennett indicated that he would get a letter to the office. Ms. Barrows stated that it is the Boards position that the Zoning Compliance Permit triggers the variance application.
Attorney Bennett stated that the application is to simply raise the house four feet to bring it in compliance with FEMA requirements.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to open the Public Hearing for this item and continue it to the September 17, Regular Meeting in order to obtain further information and a denied Certificate of Zoning Compliance Permit Application. 5-0-0
OPEN VOTING SESSION
2. Case 13-18 – Luis and Alicia Castanho, 52 Gorton Avenue, variance to allow removal of existing house and construction of a one and one-half story house elevated to meet FEMA requirements.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Kotzan noted that the floor area considers the area underneath the house which is not practical. He suggested that the Zoning Regulations be amended to reflect this. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board is being consistent in overlooking this non-functional floor area in FEMA applications.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow removal of existing house and construction of a new 1 1/2 story house (maintaining the existing 15’ 2” street setback) and elevated to comply with new FEMA Flood elevations per the plans submitted and entitled “Plot Plan, Castanho Residence, 52 Gorton Avenue Old Lyme, CT dated April 1, 2013 revised May 14, 2013, revised to June 26, 2013, Sheet L.1 prepared by Deveaux Architects.” 5:0:0
Reasons:
1. The elimination of the side setback.
2. Reducing the number of bedrooms by two.
3. True 1 ½ story structure
4. Will conform to the new FEMA regulations.
5. Lot is oversized.
6. The design seeks to conform to the look of the neighborhood and the design also seeks to reduce the building bulk facing the street.
3. Case 13-24 – Joseph Piecuch, Michele Potvin-Piecuch and the Irmgard J. Ziemba Trust, 26 Massachusetts Road, variance to allow addition to enlarge a bathroom, shower area, add a washer and dryer area, linen closet and outside shower.
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this application has been continued to the September Regular Meeting.
4. Case 13-25 – Paul Preissler, 88 West End Drive, variance to allow construction of 10’ x 21’ deck on ocean side of property.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the hardship provided that the stairs and landing were not safe. Chairman Stutts agreed and noted that it is not a reason to construct a 10’ x 21’ deck. She stated that the property is already overbuilt and there are other alternatives without building into the coastal resource area.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to deny the variances requested to construct a 10’ x 21’ deck on the ocean side of 88 West End Drive as per plans submitted. 5-0-0
Reasons:
1. The proposal violates the intent of the Coastal Resource Regulation.
2. Sufficient Hardship was not shown.
5. Case 13-26 C – Mark and Maryellen Phelan, 77 Sea Spray Road, variance to raise floor elevation of house to more closely conform with Zoning Regulations and FEMA.
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this application has been continued to the September Regular Meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No action taken.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
The Commission discussed the Sullo Hearing and transcript. She noted that the Judge backed up the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Stutts noted that the Board has been appealed again for upholding the Zoning Enforcement Officer in an appeal of her decision to allow the boat cover on wheels.
Chairman Stutts welcomed the Board’s new alternate, George Hunt.
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. on a motion by S. Stutts; seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
