OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR. MEETING
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 15, 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, Mary Stone, Secretary and Richard Smith, alternate.
Also present was Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Case 13-29 – Florence Chimiel, 132 Shore Road, variance to allow removal of a portion of the front of the existing main building and construct a two-story addition to the rear which will be FEMA Flood compliant and to renovate and construct small addition to the accessory building.
Chairman Stutts noted that the property is located in WF-20 Zone and is 36,840 square feet. She noted the existing nonconformities for the record: 8.9.7, street setback, 40’ required, 15.3 feet existing; 8.9.8, rear setback, no figure provided; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 20’, building #2 is 16’; 8.9.13, maximum lot coverage, 60 percent, 73 percent existing. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.3.1, Enlargement; 8.9.7, minimum street setback, 40’ required, 12.8 feet proposed, variance of 27.3 feet required (improvement of 12 feet); 8.8.9, minimum other setback, 20 feet required, building #2 16’ proposed for a variance of 4 feet; and 8.9.13, maximum total lot coverage, 60 percent
allowed, 74 percent proposed, variance of 16 percent required. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the structure was built in 1940 and it is a water-dependent use.
Attorney Michael Cronin was present to represent the applicant. Gerry Karpuska was also present to explain his design work for the applicant. Attorney Cronin noted that his application has a two step approval process, the first being a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and then Special Exception approval from the Zoning Commission. He indicated that this property is an existing marina on the Shore Road that he is sure all the Board members are familiar with. He noted that the lot size is almost double what is required in the WF-20 zone.
Gerry Karpuska explained that the existing building is .3 feet from the roadway. He noted that they will be removing a portion of the building which will bring the structure 12.8 feet
from the roadway and thereby making it less nonconforming. Mr. Karpuska stated that they are proposing to add on to the rear of the building with a second floor above it. He explained that they are adding a handicap ramp along the side of the building which comes up to a deck. He noted that there is an existing deck that is closer to the street than the proposed deck and it will be removed. Mr. Karpuska pointed out a smaller deck on the side on which sits two air conditioner condensers and a propane tank. He noted that they are raising the building 4 feet 4 inches to comply with FEMA and all utilities must be above the base flood elevation.
Mr. Karpuska noted that another restriction on the property is the tidal wetlands which requires a 50 foot setback. He noted that the building and decks have been designed to comply with this requirement. Mr. Karpuska stated that the Zoning Regulations require 37 parking spaces and they have 34 currently so they have added three additional spaces on the site plan. He noted that Building #2 on the site plan is an accessory structure. He explained that they are requesting a 4’ variance. Mr. Karpuska explained that because this building is a water-dependent use, it is exempt from the 50’ tidal wetlands setback requirement. Attorney Cronin noted that Ms. Brown acknowledged this in her Zoning review. Mr. Karpuska stated that they are raising the floor of Building #2 four
feet to meet FEMA requirements. He noted that the existing foundation will remain. Mr. Karpuska noted that they will be adding exterior stairs and a landing. He noted that the parking lot is included in coverage.
Attorney Cronin stated that the increase in coverage from 73 to 74 percent resulted from the stairway, the four additional parking spaces and the difference between the portion of the building removed and the rear addition. He noted that most of the coverage on the property is the required parking. Mr. Karpuska stated that the parking area is paved.
Attorney Cronin stated that the additional 1 percent coverag is 36 square feet and they could make an adjustment if the Board felt it was necessary. He explained that the hardship is that the property was developed prior to Zoning in 1941 .3 feet from a major highway. Attorney Cronin stated that moving the structure back is an improvement for the purpose of Zoning. He noted that the irregular shape of the lot makes it impractical to move the entire structure further back because then it would be in the wetlands setback. Attorney Cronin explained a recent court decision where a property owner improved a piece of property had three single family residences but rather two were requested, and the Board granted the variance; the Supreme Court found that that could be a basis of granting a variance
without having a hardship. He indicated that eliminating nonconformities can be a basis for granting a variance.
Mr. Karpuska stated that the second floor will be used as office space, either for marine insurance or sales. Ms. Stone questioned whether the bathroom on the first floor is for customer use. Mr. Karpuska noted that the marina has a portolet outside for customer use. Ms. Stutts questioned whether the portolet was handicap accessible. Mr. Karpuska indicated that he does not know. He noted that the property is located in the Gateway Zone and the height is limited to 35’ from grade. After being questioned, Mr. Karpuska noted that Building #2 is 19.8 feet tall.
Ms. Stone noted that the property slopes from the roadway down toward the river. Chairman Stutts noted that there is no access for Shore Road. Mr. Karpuska noted that entry is from the side road. Attorney Cronin noted that the Zoning Commission will be reviewing the Site Plan as well.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
2. Case 13-30 – Joaquin Mut, III and Springfield 36, LLC, 36 Springfield Road, variance to allow construction of 14’ x 32’ shed on vacant lot.
Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required, 4,480 provided; and 8.8.3, minimum square, 75’ required, 40’ provided. She noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, and General Rules; 7.1, accessory building must be located on the same lot as the use to which it is accessory. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided is that the cottage located at 33 Springfield Road does not have area for parking or storage.
Attorney Michael Cronin was present, along with the applicant Mr. Mut, to explain the application. He indicated that the house is located at 33 Springfield Road, constructed in 1944 prior to Zoning. Mr. Mut presented a photograph of the cottage and noted that it is two stories, containing four bedrooms and a living and dining room. He noted that in the early 1970’s they removed a fifth bedroom to enlarge the living room. Attorney Cronin noted that the cottage is located very close to the side property lines on a lot that is a little over 4,000 square feet and only 40 feet wide. He explained that the house is also located very near the roadway, allowing no room for parking.
Attorney Cronin noted that across the street there is a lot which is 4,480 square feet and has 40’ frontage and a depth of 112 feet. He noted that Mr. Mut owns this property. Attorney Cronin stated that the lot is currently used for parking vehicles. Mr. Mut stated that his dad purchased the property somewhere between 1948 and 1951. Attorney Cronin noted that this property has been used for parking for 60 years. He noted that recently Mr. Mut had the opportunity to purchase the lot next door to this at 36 Springfield Road, and is the same dimensions. He indicated that for title purposes he purchased the property in an LLC, which is the reason for the dual application. Attorney Cronin stated that this was done so that the lots did not automatically merge.
Attorney Cronin stated that Mr. Mutt would like to construct a storage shed on this property at 36 Springfield. He noted that the proposed shed is a little larger than a single car garage. Attorney Cronin stated that the Zoning Regulations do not allow accessory buildings unless it is on the same lot as the primary structure. He explained that Ms. Brown also indicated that a variance would be required for the lot square. Attorney Cronin stated that if the variance is granted, the applicant would dissolve 36 Springfield LLC and combine the two properties thereby eliminating the variance required for the square. He indicated he would also expect the Board to combine the three properties as a single entity and used as a sole entity. Attorney Cronin stated that basically they have one
crowded lot with a cottage that would be combined to be in excess of 12,000 square feet. He noted it would not be unique in the beach areas of Old Lyme to see parking garages across the street from dwellings, most of which existed prior to Zoning.
Attorney Cronin submitted a letter from his neighbor at 40 Springfield indicating that they have no objection to the proposal. Mr. Mut stated that one neighbor has a view so he and that neighbor put up an 11 foot stick to see if that height would impede his view. Mr. Mut explained that although he has not made a final choice on the shed that he will construct, it will not be taller than 11 feet.
Chairman Stutts questioned why the applicant chose to combine all three lots. Attorney Cronin stated that one cannot tie together the uses if the properties are not in the same name. Chairman Stutts stated that the size of the structure along with the lack of windows, gives it the look of a warehouse as opposed to something more residential looking. Mr. Mut stated that he spends the winter in Europe and he is concerned with people looking into the garage. He noted that many garages in the area do not have windows. Chairman Stutts stated that the problem is that the garage is 32 feet long without windows. She noted that the location is very exposed and she does not feels that it adds to the neighborhood. She indicated that he could have windows with shutters or curtains to block
views. Mr. Mut stated that he would add windows if the Board required. Attorney Cronin suggested that they could add as a condition that there would be not less than two windows per side. Mr. Mut stated that he has two boats and at least one vehicle in the garage for the winter. Ms. Stone stated that it would be an improvement not to have these things stored outside.
Ms. Stone questioned the parking surface. Mr. Mut stated that the parking area is grass. He noted that a stone area exists on the lot which was approved by the Wetlands Commission and the purpose of which is for drainage. He noted that he does not plan to add stone or a driveway to the shed. Chairman Stutts suggested a little landscaping around the shed to soften it. Ms. Stone read the letter from the neighbor at 40 Springfield Road in favor of the application.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
3. Case 13-31 – Robert J. and Susan V. Staab, 30 Neck Road, variance to allow generator and propane tank to remain in existing location.
Chairman Stutts noted there are no existing nonconformities. She noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 8.8.9, setback from property line, 35 feet required, 3 feet proposed, variance of 32 feet required; and 7.6.3, Propane tanks and generators greater than 30” must meet setbacks, 35 feet required, 3 feet proposed, variance of 32 feet required. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal is to add a 26” x 46” x 8’2” generator and a 1,000 gallon propane tank. She noted that the hardship provided is that the applicant was told he did not need a permit.
Mr. Staab explained that about a year ago he decided to get a generator and the day of the hurricane last year an electrician came to install it. He indicated that this electrician does most of the work at Saybrook Inn and Marina and agreed to do this work on the side. Mr. Staab stated that in the middle of the installation he found out that an application was required so he applied for one and one was granted. He explained that the electrician was told that he did not need a Zoning Permit. Mr. Staab explained that that was not true and he found out two weeks later that he needed a Zoning Permit, which he applied for. He indicated that his neighbor has no concerns with the generator. Mr. Staab stated that the propane tank has been in existence in this location for 15 years and he has
owned the property for seven years.
Chairman Stutts questioned how the propane is delivered. Mr. Staab explained that the truck drops a hose and fills the tank. Chairman Stutts noted that the tank is in the ground. Mr. Staab stated that the generator is not visible to neighbors. He noted that it runs automatically every Sunday morning for a few minutes. Chairman Stutts suggested that the applicant check out the flood zone through the building department. He indicated that they received a building permit already. Ms. Barrows pointed out that the applicant may want to check as to whether he has a proper building permit because a building permit automatically triggers a Zoning Permit. She noted that the electrician may have received an electrical or plumbing permit.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 13-29 – Florence Chimiel, 132 Shore Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She stated that the applicant has done a good job of taking all the Zoning Regulations and making the proposal conform as much as possible and making many improvements. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants will still need a Special Exception from the Zoning Commission. Ms. Stone pointed out that the Zoning Regulations required them to add four more parking spaces thereby increasing the coverage. She stated that Building #1 will be more compliant by moving it back from the road. Ms. McQuade noted that both buildings will be FEMA compliant which is a great improvement to the property.
A motion was made by Judy McQuade, seconded by Mary Stone to and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the removal of a portion of the front of the existing main building and construct a two story addition to the rear which will be FEMA flood compliant and to renovate and construct a small addition to the accessory building as shown on the plans entitled “Plot Plan Proposed Renovation For: Black Hall Marina, 132 Shore Rd., Old Lyme, CT dated September 3, 2013, Sheet S1” and “Key Plan Proposed Renovation For: Black Hall Marina, 132 Shore Rd., Old Lyme, CT dated July 24, 2013, revised August 28, 2013 and further revised September 3, 2013, Sheet A2.”
Reasons:
1. Both buildings will be FEMA compliant.
2. The addition to Building #1 is compliant with setback requirements.
3. The removal of a portion of the front of existing main building reduces a nonconformity.
4. The irregularly-shaped large lot makes it difficult to accommodate two structures and the required parking within zoning regulations.
2. Case 13-30 – Joaquin Mut, III and Springfield 36, LLC, 36 Springfield Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She explained that the she is concerned that the shed is long and appears to be more of a warehouse and less of a residential structure. Chairman Stutts noted that the applicant agreed to add windows and she would like to see that as a condition of approval. Ms. Stone noted that the three small nonconforming lots will be combined into one lot that will be conforming and will reduce potential density in the neighborhood. Chairman Stutts noted that the neighbor at 40 Springfield was in favor of the proposal. She noted that the shed will provide needed storage for the cottage. Chairman Stutts suggested that another condition she would like to see is that there will be no heat or plumbing in the shed.
A motion was made by Richard Smith, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow construction of a 14’ x 32’ shed on the vacant lot at 36 Springfield Road with the following conditions:
1. All three lots shall be combined and in the name of one owner.
2. There will be no heat or plumbing in the shed.
3. The shed is for storage only, no human occupancy.
4. Windows, or the appearance of windows, will be added in order to give a more residential appearance to the shed.
Reasons:
1. Proposed project will combine three non-conforming lots into one property thereby reducing potential density in the neighborhood.
2. The shed provides needed storage for cottage that has no garage.
3. Owner agrees that the parcels will remain under single ownership and use.
4. The shed will always remain an accessory structure to the building at 33 Springfield Road, Old Lyme, Connecticut.
3. Case 13-31 – Robert J. and Susan V. Staab, 30 Neck Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the propane tank and generator were installed 3 feet from the side property line, requiring a variance of 32 feet. Mr. Smith noted that the generator is not visible to the neighbors and there have been no complaints from neighbors as yet and the unit runs every Sunday morning. Ms. Stone stated that she feels the applicant was given questionable advice and then proceeded on that advice. She stated that the Board did recommend that the applicant obtain a building permit to ensure that it meets flood zone requirements. Ms. Stone noted that there was no malicious intent to bypass Zoning in the placement of the generator.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the generator and propane tank to remain in its existing location three feet from the side property line on property located at 30 Neck Road.
Reasons:
1. The generator is not visible or objected to by the closest neighbor.
2. The only alternative solution would place the unit in the center of the back yard.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of September 17, 2013 as presented.
2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule
Ms. Barrows noted that the April Meeting is on Passover. The Board agreed to leave the date and make accommodations for applicants that may be scheduled on that date, if necessary.
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule as submitted.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Barrows explained that a mistake was noted in the Notice of Variance Granted for 52 Gorton Avenue, Castanho, in the reasons for granting the variances. She noted that the reasons implied that there were only going to be two bedrooms but it should have said they are reducing the bedrooms by two, going from 6 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the change in wording on the Notice of Variance Granted for Land Records for 52 Gorton Avenue, Castanho, to read as follows: “The reasons to grant are that elimination of the side setback, going from six bedrooms to four bedrooms, reducing it by two, . . .” A motion was made by Judy McQuade, Seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
