OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Judy McQuade, Mary Stone, Secretary, and Arthur Sibley. Also present was Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. 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.
Joseph and Michelle Piecuch, along with their son Greg Piecuch, were present to explain the application. Chairman Stutts noted that the some of the information in the application has been revised. She pointed out that the lot area was originally noted as 4,792 square feet and it has been changed to 5,730. Chairman Stutts stated that the only variance being requested is to Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area, 25 percent allowed, 32 percent proposed, for a variance request of 7 percent. She noted that the applicants have eliminated the need for a variance to Section 8.8.11, maximum building coverage and Section 8.8.12, maximum lot coverage as a percentage of the lot.
Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the applicants have to walk from the shower through the kitchen to get to the bathroom.
Greg Piecuch explained that his parents presented their application at the July Meeting. He noted that he serves on the Zoning Board of Appeals in Simsbury and is a little more familiar with the process so he got involved. Mr. Piecuch noted that the first thing he did was have a survey done and then he had professional plans made. He indicated the survey resulted in them finding out that there had been a lot line revision many years ago that had not previously been picked up in the Assessor’s Office. He indicated that the additional square feet of property eliminated the need for two of the variances and reduced the requested amount of variance for Section 8.8.10. Mr. Piecuch noted that the proposal does not encroach on the northern property line as a result of the survey. He
stated that the survey also shows the measurements of all structures on the property, shows the proposed addition in gray and provides a zoning table.
Mr. Piecuch stated that there are pre-existing nonconformities such as lot size and building square. He indicated that they scaled back the proposal. Mr. Piecuch stated that the floor area ratio is currently 30.6 percent or 5.6 percent over the maximum and they are requesting to increase the floor area ratio to 32 percent. He indicated that with the exception of floor area ratio everything is either conforming or pre-existing nonconforming.
Mr. Piecuch stated that they have full floor plans and elevation drawings. He indicated that he blew up the floor plan and super-imposed the existing to the proposed. Mr. Piecuch stated that the area in red is the first proposal and he noted that it shows a deck which they have eliminated. He indicated that the Board provided valuable feedback that persuaded them to reduce the proposal considerably. Mr. Piecuch noted that the pink shown on the plans is the current proposal. He noted that a good portion of the addition has been removed from the proposal.
Mr. Piecuch stated that his parents have eight grandchildren and there are no laundry facilities in the house. He noted that they own the property to the south and his mother brings the laundry there. Mr. Piecuch indicated that the proposal is as small as possible while still allowing for a proper bathroom. He noted that they removed the changing area that was proposed as part of the outside shower to show their good faith in reducing the project to the minimum extent possible.
Chairman Stutts questioned whether the applicants would be willing to change the siding of the outside shower so that it did not match the house and was a lighter. Mr. Piecuch stated that they could do a lattice. Chairman Stutts noted that it would be less likely to get moldy with air flowing through it.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the abutting properties are nonconforming and if not, if he has asked to purchase land from them. Mr. Piecuch stated that they have not asked about purchasing land. He noted that to the north there was a lot line revision. Mr. Piecuch noted that the neighbors’ lots are also undersized. He distributed photographs of the neighborhood as he explained them to the Board. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the garage is functional. Mr. Piecuch stated that it is functional although they do not use it to store a car. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether they could reduce the size of the garage. Mr. Piecuch stated that there is no way they could reduce the size of the garage without tearing it down and rebuilding it. Mr. Piecuch explained that the gable
roof would be extending over the deck and noted that it would not increase coverage because it would not be extending any further than the deck. He stated that the stairs and landing are included in coverage.
Mr. Piecuch noted that although they have not presented the current plan to their neighbors, they did review the prior proposal with their neighbors and seven of them have submitted letters in favor of the application. He reiterated that these letters were sent before the plans were reduced.
No one present spoke in favor of against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
2. 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.
Jeff Flower noted that since the last meeting they asked the surveyor to get some spot grades because there was concern about the original grades shown. He indicated that the spot grades are shown on the revised plan at each of the corners of the house. Mr. Flower noted that there was a mistake on the site plan which has been corrected. He indicated that the house is being elevated an additional foot due to an error on the first set of plans/application. Mr. Flower stated that they are proposing no changes to the house; all they want to do is raise the house to FEMA standards. He explained that the existing grade goes down to the house and they propose to change the grade so that it goes back up toward the seawall. He pointed this area out on the site plan. Mr. Flower stated that
everything will be done to the V-Zone Requirements which allows this type of grading. He noted that the applicants are aware they are requesting to construct to the old FEMA requirements, i.e. A Zone. Attorney Bennett indicated that they are also aware of the insurance ramifications. Mr. Kotzan stated that the application is FEMA compliant. Mr. Flower noted that they have designed the structure to the V Zone. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the Board should make sure the structure is compliant in their approval. Mr. Flower stated that Ms. Brown is their FEMA representative. Mr. Flower stated that they have kept the height of the house just under twenty-four feet. Mr. Flower explained that in the A Zone the structure must be at 10’ plus 1’ for the Town. He noted in the V Zone the structure must be at 13’ plus 1’ for the Town plus and that is to the bottom of the frame so an additional foot must be added. Mr. Flower stated that the V Zone requires an additional 4 feet (11’
versus 15’). Attorney Bennett clarified that they are using the old height requirements for the A Zone but are constructing to the new V Zone requirements.
No one present spoke in favor of the application. Attorney Bennett stated that two neighbors have indicated that they are in favor of the application. Mr. Flower stated that the neighbor to the rear is happy with the proposal.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed this Public Hearing.
3. Case 13-27 – Cynthia Sepe, 12 Dennis Road, variance to place 14’ x 20’ garden shed 15 feet from side setback.
Chairman Stutts stated that the property has no existing nonconformities. She noted that the proposal does not comply with: 9.3.1, enlargement and 8.8.9, minimum setback from side setback, 35’ required, 15’ proposed for a variance of 20’. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is the topography of the property, the ledge and the existing wetlands on the property.
Ms. Sepe explained that there is considerable ledge and outlying wetlands on the property. She noted that the shed is 14’ x 20’ and there is no other place on the property to place the shed. She indicated that they have the property setback from their septic system and noted that the area they propose to place it is flat and wooded. Ms. Sepe pointed out the wetlands on the property and noted that the property backs up to nature conservatory property. She explained that the shed will have cedar shingles and match the house.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there would be electricity, water or heat. Ms. Sepe replied that there would not be.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
4. Case 13-28 – Grace M. Bonola, 22 Clifton Street, variance to allow 10’ x 12’ x 5’ shed in the rear setback.
Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: Section 8.8.1, minimum lot size, 10,000 square feet required, 5,663 square feet existing; 8.8.2, minimum lot size per dwelling, 10,000 square feet required, 5,663 square feet existing; 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square, 75’ required, 61’ provided; and 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, 27’ provided. She noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; 9.1.3.1, General Rules; 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, 5’ provided for a variance of 25’. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the property is a corner lot and the property has a lack of storage space.
Ms. Bonola stated that they are requesting a 10’ x 12’ shed in order to store their golf cart, kids’ toys, grill, and beach chairs. She indicated that although they would be allowed a 10’ x 10’ shed, it would not be quite big enough for their storage needs. She explained that being a corner lot they are exposed and have experienced vandalism in the past.
Chairman Stutts noted that most of the properties in the neighborhood have sheds on the rear of their properties. She noted that it would also tidy things up.
Mr. Kotzan noted that it is a pre-made shed. Ms. Bonola indicated that it would be set on gravel. She also indicated that there would be no electricity, heat or water.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. 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 reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Sibley stated that the effort to have an A-2 Survey was very beneficial to both the applicant and the Town. He indicated that the changes to the plan were well thought out and a good compromise.
Chairman Stutts agreed and noted that the expansion was reduced. She noted that many of the surrounding neighbors were in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Kotzan suggested a condition of approval that the outside shower not be completed enclosed; he suggested lattice or louvers.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances for Case 13-24 – Joseph Piecuch, Michele Potvin-Piecuch and the Irmgard J. Ziemba Trust, 26 Massachusetts Road, to allow addition to enlarge a bathroom, shower area, add a washer and dryer area, linen closet and outside shower, with the condition that the siding on the outside shower not be solid.
Reasons:
1. Change in floor area of less than 2 percent.
2. Size of addition reduced by 40 percent.
3. A-2 Survey revealed increased lot size.
4. Numerous letters of support from neighbors.
5. Rear deck eliminated.
6. Modernizes old cottage with minimal impact.
2. 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 reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Kotzan noted that the only variance requested is to raise the structure to FEMA requirements. He noted that no other variances are requested. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that if the applicant were to comply with V Zone requirements they would also need a height variance.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances for Case 13-26 C – Mark and Maryellen Phelan, 77 Sea Spray Road, to raise floor elevation of house to more closely conform with Zoning Regulations and FEMA.
Reasons:
1. Minimum variance required to comply with FEMA requirements at the time of application.
3. Case 13-27 – Cynthia Sepe, 12 Dennis Road, variance to place 14’ x 20’ garden shed 15 feet from side setback.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the property backs up to nature conservatory property and that the shed is not within 100 feet of the wetlands. Chairman Stutts indicated that the proposal does not impact the neighborhood.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances for Case 13-27 – Cynthia Sepe, 12 Dennis Road, to place 14’ x 20’ garden shed 15 feet from side setback, with the condition that there be no electricity, plumbing or heating.
Reasons:
1. Topography of lot makes alternate placement impossible.
2. No impact to adjacent properties or the neighborhood.
4. Case 13-28 – Grace M. Bonola, 22 Clifton Street, variance to allow 10’ x 12’ x 5’ shed in the rear setback.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case.
Mr. Kotzan indicated that a 10’ x 12’ shed is reasonable due to the fact that there is no garage or other storage on the property.
Reasons:
1. Property does not have a garage or alternate storage.
2. Larger shed is warranted.
3. Secured storage is necessary due to vandalism.
4. Corner lot.
5. In harmony with the neighborhood.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances for Case 13-28 – Grace M. Bonola, 22 Clifton Street, to allow 10’ x 12’ x 5’ shed in the rear setback, with the condition that there be no electricity, plumbing or heat.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of June, 2013, as presented.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of July 16, 2013, with corrections noted.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Stutts stated that the Sullo’s were turned down by the Superior Court in changing their garage. She noted that the Town prevailed and the Sullo’s have since appealed the Court’s decision.
Mr. Kotzan questioned the FOI letter that was received by the Board members. Ms. Barrows stated that she wrote in her response that the Zoning Board of Appeals members did not communicate on the matter by email or otherwise.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the appeal of the ZEO’s recent decision was moving forward. Chairman Stutts replied that it is.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, Seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
