OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, July 15, 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, Mary Stone, Secretary, Nancy Hutchinson, alternate
Present: Harry Plaut, alternate and Kim Barrows, Clerk
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 14-15 – John & Shelley Biancamano, 23 White Sands Beach Road
Chairman McQuade noted that the applicants are requesting a variance to construct an 8’ x 12’ shed on the property. She noted that the property is located in an R-10 zone. She noted that the shed will increase the coverage on the property from 25 percent to 26 percent. Chairman McQuade noted that a variance is required for the coverage.
Bob Antoniac, local contractor, was present to explain the application. He indicated that the shed will be 10’ in height. Mr. Antoniac stated that the shed is need for storage of their grill and such during the winter. He noted that the shed will be constructed on blocks and located in the middle of the property. Chairman McQuade noted that all setbacks will be met. She questioned whether there is currently a small plastic shed on the property. Mr. Antoniac noted that there is a plastic shed on the property which will be removed if this variance is granted. Chairman McQuade noted that the property does not have a garage. She noted that the hardship provided is that there is no winter storage for this seasonal property. Mr. Antoniac noted that even when
the property is being used in the summer there is no place to store the lawnmower.
Mr. Sibley questioned what type of siding the shed would have. Mr. Antoniac replied that it will be sided to match the house.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
2. Case 14-16 – Paul C. Fiore, 18 Jericho Drive
Chairman McQuade stated that the applicants are requesting to construct a 20’ x 22’ garage addition in the side setback. She noted that there are currently no nonconformities on this property and the proposal to expand does not comply with: Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages and 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 35’ required, 16’ proposed, for a variance request of 19’. Chairman McQuade noted that the hardship provided is their difficulty parking.
Paul Fiore, property owner, was present to explain his application. He stated that he would like to expand the current garage and move it back onto what is the only flat area on his property. He indicated that the property drops off. Mr. Fiore stated that the addition will have no impact on views from the street or those of his neighbors. He stated that constructing this addition will allow him to clean up his property and have a place to keep everything inside. Mr. Fiore stated that he had an A2 survey done and sketched the garage on it. Mr. Fiore stated that there is one neighbor on the same side as the garage and they have expressed that they are in favor of the proposal.
Chairman McQuade noted that there is a letter on file from Mr. Fiore’s neighbors, the Wyeths. Mr. Fiore stated that the area where he is putting the garage is the flattest part of the entire property. He indicated that if he added five or ten feet to the existing garage it wouldn’t do much for him. Ms. Stone questioned how many feet it would be from the garage to do the drop-off of the property if it were constructed as proposed. Mr. Fiore replied that there is at least 50 to 60 feet. He pointed the area out in the photographs. Mr. Kotzan questioned if the walls in the photographs were retaining walls. Mr. Fiore noted that they are two foot walls that are decorative, not weight bearing.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
3. Case 14-17 – Town of Old Lyme, 166 Boston Post Road (Hains Park)
Chairman McQuade stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a boathouse which exceeds the 24’ height requirement.
Ms. Peck, architect, was present to represent the Town of Old Lyme. She noted that the boathouse is for the Town crew program which is so successful they have outgrown their current boathouse. Ms. Peck explained that the plan. She noted that the storage is as tight as possible as are the stairs. She noted that everything is as small as it can possibly be. Ms. Peck noted that the height took its form from the stacking requirements. She noted that the second floor has just enough height to put in a few windows. Ms. Peck stated that it does not exceed the height requirement in other parts of the part. She explained that the park is split in two zones and the part where the boathouse is located is actually zoned residential. Ms. Peck stated that the boathouse could be
moved to another area of the park and a variance would not be required. She noted that the current boathouse is tucked away right near the water which is why it was probably chosen to begin with.
Ms. McQuade questioned whether the basketball court is being removed. Ms. Peck stated that there are two plans, as basic plan and a more ambitious plan but in both plans they keep the basketball court. She noted that they would also like to improve the parking situation. Chairman McQuade questioned whether the basketball court is being relocated and Ms. Peck replied that it would be.
Ms. Hutchinson questioned the coverage on the property. Ms. Peck stated that as the plan is drawn the total coverage is 27 percent where 30 percent is allowed. Ms. Peck stated that her original goal was to just add a bay to the boathouse, but that would not work. Ms. McQuade noted that the boathouse is wider and longer. Ms. Peck stated that the trailers will not be stored outside so this boathouse will clean up the property.
Ms. McQuade questioned whether a Wetlands Application is required. Ms. Peck stated that they will be before Wetlands in two weeks. Ms. Barrows pointed out that at that meeting the application will be received so the Wetlands Commission will not be acting on it until their September meeting.
Ms. Hutchinson questioned the septic system. Ms. Peck stated that there are two options for septic but the most economical is to hook into the existing system. Chairman McQuade noted that they have a letter from the Sanitarian.
Ms. Peck stated that in the turnover of Enforcement Officers, the fact that the corner of the building is in the setback got lost in the shuffle. She noted that because the legal ad had been placed already they revised the drawing to show a little cut out in the building which is 4’ x 10’. She noted that she will probably be back before the Board in September to request a variance to fill it back in.
Pauls Fuchs presented a dozen letters of support from members of the community. Mr. Kotzan marked these letters Exhibit A. Mr. Fuchs noted that as a coach he feels that the upstairs space for storage and exercise is a huge bonus.
Greg Macklin, President of the Rowing Association, indicated he is very excited about this project. He noted that a lot of thought has gone into the planning of this project. Mr. Macklin stated that they were sensitive to the community as a whole when designing this project.
No one present spoke against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
4. Case 14-18 – Betsey P. Grant, Trustee, 9 Lake Drive
Chairman McQuade noted that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 20’ x 22’ 1.5 story two-car garage within the streetline setback. She noted that this application was previously before the Board and was denied due to the size and the location of the proposed garage. Chairman McQuade stated that the proposal does not comply with: Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages and 8.7.7, street setback, 25’ required and 7.6’ feet proposed.
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer, stated that the garage previously proposed was 22’ x 26’ feet. He noted that they have reduced the size and moved it further back from the street. Mr. Wren stated that they have also slightly reduced the height. He noted that the architectural plans reflect these changes. He noted that they added a dormer on one side of the garage to give a little more ceiling height as without the dormer there is a 3’ path down the middle that has 6’ ceiling height. He noted that the dormer is shown incorrectly; it should be shown on the south side of the house, not the north side as shown. Mr. Wren stated that the reduced the size of the garage 4’ and moved it back on the lot 4’ which brings it further back from the road. He pointed out that the
garage will only have one door.
Mr. Wren stated that after the Public Hearing was closed in May, it came up that there was another garage on the property. He indicated that because the hearing was closed he was not able to address it. Mr. Wren stated that there is another garage on the property and its interior dimensions are 9’ x 18’. He noted that this is the size of a parking spot in a parking lot. It was noted that the existing garage is only used for storage.
Mr. Wren stated that the only other possible location on the property is where the septic system and drywell is located. He noted that the views of the property owners at 10 Lake Drive are in favor of the proposal because it does not obstruct their views. He noted that the neighbor to the south is also in favor. Mr. Wren noted that the project received Inland Wetlands Approval. He noted that a third neighbor also wrote in favor of the application and all three letters have been made part of the file.
Mr. Wren noted that the hardship is described in the application just as it was in May. In discussing the location, Mr. Wren pointed out the well radius on the site plan and noted that the garage cannot be constructed in that location. He also pointed out the septic system location and existing drywell noting that the garage could not be constructed in that location either. Mr. Wren stated that the only other possible location would require a very long driveway. It was noted that the large tree in the area of the proposed garage would have to be removed.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he doesn’t think that Lake Drive would be widened in the future so he is not sure that the narrow road setback is as important as it might be on other roads.
Mr. Wren noted that the applicant has tried to address all the Board’s concerns from the last application.
Mr. Sibley stated that he applicant listened to the Board and he believes this is a better plan all the way around.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 14-15 – John & Shelley Biancamano, 23 White Sands Beach Road
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the coverage is increasing one percent to 26 percent.
Mr. Kotzan stated that it is a reasonable request. Ms. Hutchinson agreed and noted that it is a good thing that they are removing the plastic shed. Chairman McQuade noted that the original garage was removed in order to enlarge the house. Ms. Hutchinson noted that the paperwork indicates 12’ in height and the testimony was that the shed is 10’ in height. The Board agreed that the shed height being approved is 10’.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to install the storage shed at 23 White Sands Beach Road, Case 14-15 – John and Shelley Biancamano, applicants.
2. Case 14-16 – Paul C. Fiore, 18 Jericho Drive
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that the plan is well thought out and the topography of the lot is a real hardship. She also noted that it is not visible to the neighbors. Ms. Stone agreed that the topography of the lot is a hardship.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to grant the variances to build the garage as per plans submitted, 18 Jericho Drive, Case 14-16, Paul C. Fiore, applicant.
3. Case 14-17 – Town of Old Lyme, 166 Boston Post Road (Hains Park)
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.
Mr. Kotzan stated that consideration was given with respect to the size of the building and its use. He indicated that the scale of the building is about right. Mr. Kotzan noted that the crew program is an exemplary program. Ms. Hutchinson stated that it is a well thought out plan. Chairman McQuade stated that even though they are building onto the existing basketball court, a new basketball court will be constructed in another location on the site. She noted that there were ten letters of approval from townspeople.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to grant the variances sought for Case 14-17, 166 Boston Post Road (Hains Park), Town of Old Lyme, applicant, on the grounds that this building is the least impactful as it is sited on the property and its dimensions of any design that could fit the needs of the program.
4. Case 14-18 – Betsey P. Grant, Trustee, 9 Lake Drive
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.
Chairman McQuade stated that the existing garage which is attached to the house, as shown in pictures provided at the meeting, is too small for a car; it will store a lawn mower and other miscellaneous items. She noted that the proposal has been reduced in size from the previous variance that was denied and the street setback has been increased to 10’.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the location of the garage does not impact the neighbor’s view.
Chairman McQuade noted that the applicant brought pictures of the garage they tore down noting that it was too small to fit a car. She noted that it was not a practical garage.
Ms. Stone stated that the motion is being made knowing that the location of the dormer on the garage is on the south side, not the north side as depicted on the plans submitted.
Mr. Kotzan stated that a two-car garage is a modern use of most properties and if an accommodation can be made for a property to have one, it should be allowed. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the applicant listened to the Board and moved the garage back from the street and reduced its size. She noted that the applicant also considered all other areas on the property and provided adequate reasons why the proposed location is the only one that would work. Ms. Hutchinson stated that it is very unlikely that the roadway will ever be widened so the fact that the garage does not meet the narrow street setback has little impact.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant with conditions the necessary variances to build the 22’ x 22’ garage as revised with the condition that the structure never be used for human habitation, Case 14-18, 9 Lake Drive, Betsey P. Grant, Trustee.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Chairman McQuade introduced Jack Mut, indicating that he is interested in becoming an alternate on the Board. Mr. Mut noted that he is away during the months of February and March.
MINUTES
None.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to adjourn the July 15, 2014 Regular Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
