OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 2014, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Judy McQuade, Chairman, Art Sibley, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, regular member, Karen Conniff, regular member, Harry Plaut, alternate (seated for Case 14-13 Havens)
Present: Nancy Hutchinson, alternate (seated for Case 14-14 Gotowka) and Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Mary Stone, Secretary
Chairman McQuade called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 14-13 – Samuel H. Havens, 24 West End Drive
Chairman McQuade stated that the applicant is requesting a variance for vertical expansion by requesting two shed dormers and expanding the existing second floor footprint. She noted that the Public Hearing was continued from May because the Board wanted to get a legal opinion from their attorney.
Attorney Harry Heller was present to represent the applicant Samuel Haven. He stated that the Board shared Attorney Royston’s response. Attorney Heller stated that they agree with Attorney Royston’s opinion, particularly with respect to this Board having jurisdiction to act on the variance request which was a critical issue of debate. He indicated that under the statutory authority, the Zoning Commission can only adopt regulations which prohibit a Zoning Board of Appeals from granting variances of uses which are not allowed in the Zoning District. Attorney Heller noted that the variances requested at this property are variances of the bulk regulations, not use regulations. He noted that the current use and the proposed use are residential.
Attorney Heller explained that as far as the applicability of the Doyen and Raymond Cases, he and Attorney Royston disagreed, however it is academic because they have applied for the necessary variances for vertical expansion without expansion of the footprint and Attorney Royston has given the Board the criteria, if they feel the legal standards for the granting of the variance have been proven to you, to grant the variance citing the specific sections necessary to allow the vertical expansion.
Attorney Heller stated that the final opinion from Attorney Royston was the fact that granting this variance and a Special Permit under Section 9.1.3.2 will allow the property to be more conforming. He noted that the variances, if granted, would allow them to apply for a Special Permit and if that is granted the property would be nearly conforming as to the minimum square footage.
Attorney Heller stated that since the last meeting he looked at the other homes on West End Avenue, which constitute the neighborhood, and many of them are existing two story homes. He noted that the variances, if granted, would allow Mr. Havens to make improvements to his property that would be consistent with the neighborhood. He noted that granting this variance would be a benefit to the neighborhood in obtaining consistency with neighborhood character and upgrading the character and value of properties in the neighborhood. Attorney Heller noted that they had many letters of support and no one appeared against the application, indicative of the fact that the neighbors feel the granting of the variance will result in a residence that is in character with the neighborhood and not injurious to their
properties’ interest.
Mr. Heller stated that a similar situation was considered by the Board a few years ago at 44 West End Avenue. He noted that they were seeking virtually the same relief with respect to a vertical expansion, it was granted, the construction has occurred, the house looks good and fits in with the neighborhood.
Chairman McQuade noted that the first floor of the dwelling is 663 square feet with no proposed change; the second floor is currently 340 square feet increasing to 459 square feet.
Attorney Heller noted that the hardship is that the property was created before the enactment of the Zoning Regulations and the impact of the Regulations made this property a nonconforming lot, making virtually any reconstruction on this property impossible without relief from the Board. He stated that they also have the alternate ground cited in Attorney Royston’s opinion that the fact that they are making the property more conforming to the Zoning Regulations in respect to the minimum size of the house.
Attorney Heller noted that there are currently two bedrooms on the second floor and the proposal has two bedrooms on the second floor. He stated that currently, the floor area is very limited because it is a gable roof and there is no headroom in much of the space. He noted that the proposal has a shed dormer and a peaked roof which allows headroom. Chairman McQuade noted that the height is increasing from 20.6 feet to 22 feet, still within the height regulations.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the improvements are substantial enough to require FEMA compliance. Attorney Heller stated that in his opinion it is exempt from both FEMA and CAM; he noted that Attorney Royston agreed. Ms. Barrows noted that there will be a little over $4,000.00 dollars left before FEMA compliance would be required.
Ms. Conniff noted that the house is not currently two story so the fact that it will be an almost conforming two story dwelling in regards to size is not pertinent. Mr. Kotzan agreed. He noted that the two story dwelling that they are claiming will be more compliant does not exist. Attorney Heller noted that the house will be more conforming as a two-story dwelling.
Chairman McQuade noted that there were three letters of support noted at the May hearing; she noted all three letters were exactly the same. Ms. Barrows read the letter for the record.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
2. Case 14-14 – Thomas G. & Christina J. Gotowka, 25 Library Lane
Nancy Hutchinson was seated for Karen Conniff, Regular Member, who stepped out. Chairman McQuade noted that the variance requests construction of a deck on the west side of the structure. She noted the existing nonconformities: 4.3.1, conservation zone, structures, etc., not with 100’ of mean high tide line, 15 feet existing; and 8.8.7, minimum street setback, 40’ required, 9’ from Library Lane, 17.8 feet from Elm Street. Chairman McQuade stated that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.3.1, Enlargement; 4.10.3, Connecticut River Setback, 100’ required, 22’ proposed, variance of 78’; and 8.8.7, minimum setback from street, 40’ required, 10’ proposed from Library Lane, variance of 30’.
Chairman McQuade noted that the following previous appeals have been granted for this property: 4-30-08, tear down old structure and replace with new building; and 5-30-95, construct detached two-car garage 23’ from the wetlands.
Attorney Michael Cronin was present to represent the applicants, along with Matthew White, Engineer, who did the site plan and a representative of Connecticut Valley Homes. He acknowledged that the house is fairly new. Attorney Cronin stated that that there is an existing porch on the left side of the property that provides access at the flood level elevation. He noted that the house is compliant with the flood elevation requirements. Attorney Cronin stated that the applicants would like to enclose the deck to create a sunroom and noted that there is no encroachment into any of the setbacks. He pointed out the deck on the site plan and noted that it is 12’ x 25’; he also noted that the stairs will remain in the same location. Attorney Cronin stated that the elevations are
shown on the site plan. He noted that the property is located at the end of the Duck River. Attorney Cronin presented the elevation drawings noting the windows. He indicated that the Board found a hardship and allowed the dwelling to be torn down and rebuilt in the same general location.
Matthew White, Engineer, explained the wetlands on the property. He noted that the front narrow street setback line and the wetlands line cross each other. Attorney Cronin noted that this leaves no building area. He indicated that the 100’ setback is from the Connecticut River or its tributaries or wetlands and the Duck River is a tributary.
Attorney Cronin stated that one hardship is that the lot was created before Zoning was enacted. He stated that the first house was remodeled in 1979 and he is guessing that the house dated back to the early 1900’s. Attorney Cronin stated that Library Lane is one of the oldest side roads in Old Lyme. He indicated that there is nothing that can be done on the property without getting a variance. Attorney Cronin stated that the narrow street setback requires 40’ on Library Lane and 45’ from Elm Street. He noted that a high percentage of the houses on Library Lane come out to the street. Attorney Cronin stated that this particular house is 9’ from the front property line and there are many homes closer than that. He noted that the sunroom is an addition in terms of its livability. He noted that the usable area of this 15,000 square foot lot is 3,200 square feet. Attorney Cronin noted that the house is new and so is the septic system which is located on the west side of
the property. He indicated that they believe it is a reasonable request.
Chairman McQuade questioned the height. Attorney Cronin noted that the roof is flat. The representative from Connecticut Valley Homes indicated that the wall height is 9’ and the roof height would be approximately 10’3”.
Mr. Kotzan noted that he would like to see a condition that the sunroom not be winterized.
Mr. Sibley questioned the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Mrs. Gotowka stated that there are three bedrooms and two bathrooms, one of the first floor and one on the second floor.
Mr. Kotzan read a letter from the Wrights, 23 Library Lane, in favor of the application.
John Stratton, Elm Street, stated that he has no objection to their enclosing their deck and stated that the Gotowka’s do an admirable job of maintaining their property.
John Heckman, 21 Library Lane, stated that he has the same type of enclosure. He noted that it would be an improvement to their property.
Jennifer, 33 Library Lane, stated that she was in favor of the proposal.
A gentleman from Ball Lane, a small road off Library Lane, stated that he agrees with all the prior comments. He noted that this improvement would be in harmony of the neighborhood and noted that the Gotowka’s take immaculate care of their property. He indicated that he endorses the proposal.
Mrs. Gotowka stated that they have made a charming home even more charming and have gone out of their way to use native plantings throughout the property. She stated that Mr. Gotowka has had a heart transplant and one of the medications he is on for the rest of his life prohibits him from being out in the sun so using the deck is no longer possible. She stated that she feels this is an important consideration. Attorney Cronin noted that they are aware that a personal hardship is not a reason to grant a variance.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 14-13 – Samuel H. Havens, 24 West End Drive
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the proposed home will be 1,123 square feet. She noted that there are currently three bedrooms and the proposed home will remain three bedrooms. Chairman McQuade stated that the house will be 23.3 feet high. She noted that the property is located in the R-10 zone. She noted also that the floor area is currently 27% and it is increasing to 29%.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the two things he is thinking about is floor area and the fact that they would be creating a new nonconformity by allowing a two story home where one does not exist currently. He noted that it is currently 1.5 stories which is in compliance with the Regulations. Mr. Sibley stated that these are true facts, but noted that it is an impractical building and a very difficult second story. He noted that the home will be more compliant as to minimum square footage. Mr. Sibley stated that the home will be more practical and he is very much in favor of granting the variance. He indicated that currently, in order to use the second floor bedrooms, one needs to crawl around. Mr. Sibley noted that the increase just makes their home more enjoyable and practical. He noted
that the Board tries to make properties work as close as they can to what Zoning law allows. He noted that the proposed home will be a better situation and exactly what variances are for. Mr. Sibley stated that there will be no harm or stress caused by the proposal.
Chairman McQuade stated that the stairway will be much safer. She noted that the property owners are asking to use the house in a better way; she noted that the house will be lower than the two homes in front of it and very comparable to the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Kotzan stated that they can come back and lift the house to meet the FEMA standards and the Board won’t be able to stop them. He indicated that he is worried about what could happen. He noted that the Regulations don’t allow two stories because they are not wanted in the R-10 zone.
Mr. Sibley stated that many homes in Town have gone over the height requirement to meet FEMA Regulations. Mr. Kotzan agreed but noted that this house is not increasing in height to meet FEMA, they are adding square footage and creating a two story home. He noted that they could increase the height now and then come back for a variance to raise the house to meet the FEMA Regulations.
Chairman McQuade noted that the house is only 660 square feet on the first floor.
Mr. Plaut stated that many people are raising their homes and creating problems by blocking views of neighbors. Mr. Sibley stated that the Board could not have anticipated that FEMA would require that homeowners raise their homes to meet regulations and punish those who do not.
Ms. Conniff stated that she believes it would be good for the homeowners to have a little more headroom but she is concerned about them coming back in the future to raise the home to meet FEMA standards. She noted that there is precedence with other properties having done this.
Chairman McQuade stated that there are safety issues being addressed such as the staircase and headroom. She noted that she is not sure that it is fair to think about something that may or may not happen in the future. Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicants may very well raise the house if there are punitive measures taken by FEMA for those who do not. He indicated that their raising the home to meet FEMA is a real possibility and something he believes they can take into consideration.
Mr. Plaut stated that he believes that the time to elevate the house would be now while they are planning this expansion. Mr. Sibley stated that many of these homes that were once cottages are now homes and he thinks that it is not a bad thing to accommodate. Mr. Kotzan agreed that these homes are being rehabilitated and being made function for the next 100 years. He indicated that it is too small as it exists. Mr. Kotzan noted that the neighborhood has mostly two story homes so even though they would be allowing a new nonconformity, it is not inconsistent with the neighborhood and the home would be more conforming as to minimum square footage. Chairman McQuade noted that the house will be more in keeping with the neighborhood and will be greatly improved.
Mr. Plaut stated that many of the homes that have been raised in the area have not changed their rooflines.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley to grant the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted. Motion passed, 4-1-0, with Mr. Plaut voting against.
Reasons to grant:
1. Existing structure very impractical due to no headroom on second floor.
2. Dormers only to increase usability of the two bedrooms on second floor
3. Staircase widened and heightened for safety
4. Not an expansion of use, residential use already exists.
5. Height of building doesn’t exceed the 24’ allowed.
Chairman McQuade stated that with the granting of the variance for Section 9.1.3, variances are also granted for Sections 8.8.7, 8.8.8 and 8.8.9.
Reason for denial:
Harry Plaut noted the following reasons:
1. Expansion in floor area and increase in height.
2. The majority of the houses in the area have not changed at the roofline.
3. Consideration should have been given in the proposal to add the dormers to elevate the house to meet FEMA regulations.
2. Case 14-14 – Thomas G. & Christina J. Gotowka, 25 Library Lane
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. Ms. Conniff noted that the hardship provided is the fact that the wetlands setback and the street setback cross one another. Mr. Kotzan noted that the property is quite large and there are no coverage issues. He noted that the problem is that the house sits so close to the road. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the neighbors were all in support of the proposal and he would think the neighbors would be the ones affected by it. Ms. Conniff indicated that she thinks the sunroom will improve the look of the property. She indicated that she would like conditions that state that the room will never be winterized and no deck will be constructed on the roof of the sunroom. Mr. Kotzan suggested also requiring them to keep the exterior siding and
exterior door.
Chairman McQuade stated that the property is totally over-built. She indicated that they have very reasonable use of the property without granting another variances, as they have received two variances already. She indicated that she feels the sunroom is a want rather than a need.
Ms. Conniff stated that the variances granted in the past have brought the property to what it is and this variance will greatly improve the look of the property. Mr. Kotzan agreed that the structure will look better and less imposing with the enclosed sunroom.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the property is not over-used. Ms. Barrows suggested adding a condition that the sunroom not be heated.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Karen Conniff to grant the necessary variances that will allow the enclosure of the deck making it a three-season room, with the following conditions:
1. The three-season room can never be made into year-round living space;
2. No heat to be installed in the room;
3. The exterior of the house shall remain “as is” in the three-season room enclosure, i.e., no sheet rock walls on the existing outside of the structure and there will never be a deck above the three-season structure, it will remain a roof.
Motion passed, 4-1-0, with Chairman McQuade voting against.
Reasons to grant:
1. Proposal is minimal compared to the size of structure that exists.
2. Porch might remediate the look/size of the existing structure and will make it look better.
3. Enclosing the deck would look better than having the open deck.
4. There are no coverage issues.
5. The conditions will help make sure that the structure will not be overbuilt further.
6. The proposal had neighborhood support.
Reason for denial:
1. The property is totally overbuilt.
2. The applicants already have a very reasonable use of the property.
3. Other variances in the past have been granted for the construction of a new structure and then a garage within the wetlands setback.
4. This is a case of want versus need and the view from the street is a large imposing structure affecting the streetscape.
5. Not everyone in Town has an enclosed porch; the house is full of windows.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
None.
MINUTES
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the May 20, 2014 Regular Meeting with the following corrections: 9 Lake Drive: (Page 5, paragraph 5): [……..] He noted that Lake Drive is a narrow street and the front yard setback increases to 29’ at one point and 35’ at the other end where the street narrows, and that the proposed new two-car garage would be situated entirely in the setback from the street, 3.5 feet from the property line. […..]; (Page 6, paragraph 2): Mr. Wren stated that there is currently a one car garage which will remain. Ms. Hutchinson stated that their proposal appears to have been sensitive to Wetlands, but not to zoning. Because they propose to construct
the new two-car garage only a few feet from a narrow road, she questioned what would happen if the road was widened in the future. She also pointed out the potential liability if snow plows pushed snow and ice into the garage, causing damage. Ms. Hutchinson asked whether they had considered adding a one-car garage, since they already have a one-car garage. Mr. Wren pointed out the Town right-of-way could allow the road to be widened on the other side of the street, away from the applicants’ property, if necessary. [………………….] Mr. Grant stated that he measured where the snow plows came the past two winters and believes that the new garage would be far enough from the road to avoid damage. 35 Brightwater Road: (Page 6, paragraph 6): […………] He noted that it is 66 decibels (dba), which is quiet, similar to a lawn mower. […………] Mr. Donovan stated that this lot is one
of the larger in Old Lyme Shores. 24 West End Drive: (page 9, paragraph 1): [……….] He noted that there are currently two bedrooms on the second floor, and they propose to maintain two bedrooms. Chairman McQuade questioned the height. [……..]
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted unanimously to adjourn the June 17, 2014 Regular Meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
