OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 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 and Harry Plaut, alternate
Present: Jack Mut, Alternate and Keith Rosenfeld, Land Use Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 14-19 – Scott & Kathleen Boulanger, 73 Portland Avenue, variance to allow public parking on an exciting private lot.
Scott and Kathleen Boulanger were present to explain their application. Mr. Plaut recused himself. Chairman McQuade noted that the applicants have been before the Board previously for a similar variance. Ms. Boulanger indicated that her previous application was in 2004. Chairman McQuade questioned whether any circumstances have changed since the prior application. Ms. Boulanger stated that when she previously applied that Mr. Griswold wrote a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals stating that the application should be denied based on public safety and sanitation. She explained that the letter indicated that because of the number of existing parking spaces there should be no more because of public safety concerns. Ms. Boulanger stated that over time there has been a reduction in
the number of parking areas, mainly from the public parking area. She explained that at one time there were 78 parking spaces along the street and that has been reduced to 45 spaces. Ms. Boulanger stated that the Town lot, prior to 2014, had 93 parking spaces and that has been reduced down to 75 spaces.
Ms. Boulanger stated that her property is unique because it is surrounded by already permitted parking lots. She noted that she has photographs to submit to the Board.
Chairman McQuade stated that the Board has been advised by counsel to decide if this application is different than the prior application, i.e., have there been enough changes that the Board should even consider this application.
Chairman McQuade asked if there were any audience members that would like to speak in favor of the application, knowing of any changes that may have occurred in the neighborhood. She then asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak against the application due to changes in the neighborhood. No one came forward to speak. Chairman McQuade questioned whether the Board felt, based on Ms. Boulangers’ testimony, that there were enough changes to consider this application as different from the 2004 application.
Mr. Kotzan asked if Ms. Boulanger had a copy a copy of Mr. Griswold’s letter. Ms. Boulanger gave Mr. Kotzan a copy of the letter. He questioned whether sanitation has substantially changed. She noted that there are port-o-potties available and with the reduced parking it has substantially reduced the sanitation.
Ms. Boulanger stated that there has been a reduction of 82 spaces overall and she is requesting a total of 18 parking spaces, some of which will be for her own private use. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether Ms. Boulanger has a letter from the current First Selectman and she indicated that she does not.
Mr. Boulanger stated that there have been renewals of permits through the sale of a property or a change of ownership of lots and these are new lots. He indicated that the policy is that every year the lot permit has to be renewed. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the plan to renew the beach area has changed since 2004. Mr. Boulanger stated that the parking has been reduced and in the near future the plan is to reduce the Town parking lot even further because of the bike path project. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the parking was being reduced for logistics of the bike path or to reduce the number of vehicles at the beach. Mr. Boulanger stated that it is being reduced because they are constructing a park.
Mr. Sibley stated that the property owners in the beach area are trying to solve the problems. He asked the Boulangers if there is anything different about their property since the prior application. Ms. Boulanger indicated that there has been no change in size or shape to her property. She indicated that the previous application was denied based on the First Selectman’s letter. Ms. Boulanger stated that her proposed lot mirrors two other lots and her lot is surrounded by five other parking lots.
Chairman McQuade questioned whether there has been any change in how the Town permits these lots. Ms. Boulanger stated that she does not know. She indicated that she went to the First Selectman for a permit and was told that she would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.
Chairman McQuade stated that because Mr. Plaut has recused himself there are only four voting members. She noted that it takes four votes to grant a variance. Chairman McQuade stated that it is the applicant’s choice whether they would like to wait until next month to have five voting members.
Mr. Kotzan stated that before he votes on whether to hear the application he would like to hear from the First Selectman or someone involved in the planning of the beach area revitalization on why they changed the parking in the Town lot and along the street. Mr. Kotzan stated that he believes that the conditions have changed since their prior application.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to hear the variance application for a public parking lot on 73 Portland Avenue (4:0:0).
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to continue the public hearing for a variance for a public parking lot on 73 Portland Avenue to the October Regular Meeting (4:0:0).
Ms. Boulanger stated that she will out of Town in October. Mr. Rosenfeld suggested continuing to the October Meeting and asking for another extension at that time.
2. Case 14-20 – Jeremiah J. Grady, 40 Billow Road, variance to construct a 24’ x 24’ detached garage in the rear and side setbacks.
Chairman McQuade noted that this property is 100’ x 80’, approximately 7,800 square feet, and contains a year round residence. She noted that the proposal does not comply with 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 8.6, lots on narrow street; 9.1.3.1, general rules; 9.3.1, enlargement; 8.8.9, rear property line setback, 30’ required, 2’ proposed for a variance of 28’; and side property line 12’ required, 3’ proposed for a variance of 9’.
Dan Michaud was present to represent Mr. Grady. He explained that the existing garages in the area were constructed prior to Zoning. Mr. Michaud stated that he is attempting to keep this garage consistent with the area and the existing garages are all constructed a few feet from the rear and side property lines. He noted that if the proposed garage was constructed to the current setbacks it would not be consistent or in harmony with the neighborhood. Mr. Michaud stated that the applicant’s lot is 100’ x 80’ where most lots are 50’ x 80’. He noted that constructing to the setbacks would result in a garage that was out of character for the neighborhood. Chairman McQuade noted that there is a little shed in the back corner. Mr. Michaud noted that the shed contains garden
equipment.
Ms. McQuade questioned who owns the wooded area behind the property. Mr. Michaud explained that there is a one foot strip of land going down the property line and he is not sure who owns it. He indicated that he has heard that the purpose of the strip is to prevent the connection of Billow Road over to the next road. Mr. Michaud stated that he is not sure who owns the woods beyond that. Mr. Kotzan stated that the deed indicates that the one foot strip is owned by someone named Smith. He questioned whether two car garages are typical of the neighborhood. Mr. Michaud indicated that there are approximately three others on the street. He noted that the proposed garage would be 15 feet in height. Mr. Sibley stated that there is a neighborhood beyond the woods and he
believes the woods are open space.
Chairman McQuade questioned why the applicant did not propose the garage closer to the house to eliminate the side setback variance. Mr. Michaud pointed out two large trees that they would have to remove in order to do that. Chairman McQuade stated that she would like to see the side setback satisfied. Mr. Michaud stated that the garage would get into the tree’s root system and it would not survive. Mr. Kotzan stated that the slab would not affect the root system. Mr. Michaud stated that they are going down 42 inches with the foundation. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is a large garage. Mr. Michaud stated that 24’ x 24’ is a standard two car garage. He noted that part of the Board’s job is to determine whether this is a reasonable use and are the variances requested being
minimized.
Mr. Michaud stated that they are trying to keep the proposal consistent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he would like to see the footprint of the tree on the site plan. He noted that the tree is a consideration. Mr. Michaud stated that one of the tree’s roots are already pulling up the existing driveway and he has photographs of that. Looking at a photograph, Mr. Kotzan noted that there appears to be enough room to move the garage a little. Looking through the photographs, Mr. Kotzan noted that there are other trees in the area where the garage is proposed. Mr. Michaud stated that the applicant is willing to take that tree down.
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), variance to construct boathouse in side setback.
Chairman McQuade noted that this application was heard at the July Regular Meeting where it was noted that a small section of the building, 4’ x 14’, was removed due to the fact that it was overlooked that it was in the setback. She noted that at that time, the applicant indicated that they would submit a request to fill in this area.
Ms. Nina Peck, Architect, stated that the request is one percent of the existing footprint. Chairman McQuade noted that the applicant is requesting a 4’ side setback variance.
No one present spoke against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
4. Case 14-22 – Jennifer & Edward Reyes, 29 Massachusetts Road, variance to remove and replace existing shed within the rear and side setbacks.
Chairman McQuade noted that the proposal does not comply with 8.0.c, yards and lot coverages; narrow street; 9.1.3.1, general rules; 9.3.1, enlargement; 8.8.8, 30’ rear setback required, 3.4’ provided; 8.8.9, minimum setback from side property line, 12’ required, 2’ provided; 8.8.10, maximum floor coverage, 25% allowed, 50% proposed; and 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage, 25% allowed, 30% proposed.
Jennifer and Edward Reyes were present to explain their application. Chairman McQuade noted that there was an existing shed that the Reyes’ removed, not realizing that they needed a permit to put up another structure. Ms. Reyes noted that the proposed shed is a little larger than the previous shed, 14’ x 18’ and 15’ in height.
Ms. Reyes stated that they fell through the shed floor because it was so rotted. She noted that they decided to remove and replace the shed, not realizing that they needed a permit to replace the shed. Mr. Reyes noted that the new shed is on a crushed stone foundation and noted that it is used strictly for storage. Chairman McQuade noted that the property also has a one car garage.
Ms. Reyes showed a photograph of the old shed, noting it was covered in ivy. She noted that the new shed is 1 to 2 feet deeper than the old shed. Chairman McQuade noted that there is a glass door on the shed and asked if the shed was strictly for storage. Ms. Reyes noted that it is strictly for storage. Ms. Reyes noted that the house is currently seasonal but they would like to eventually retire and make it their year round home. She noted that they will need the garage for their vehicle at that point.
Ms. Reyes noted that the new shed encroaches less on the property lines than the previous shed. She noted that the old shed was approximately 12’ x 15’. Ms. Reyes noted that there are letters in favor of the shed from her neighbors. Chairman McQuade noted that the coverage is high. She noted that the Board typically allows sheds as people need storage.
Mr. Sibley stated that if the Board grants this they will specify that the shed is for storage only and not to be used as a garage or for habitation.
Mr. Kotzan read the letters in favor of the application.
Michelle Frascarelli, 32 Massachusetts Road, stated that she lives across the street and feels the shed is beautiful and adds to the neighborhood. She stated that the shed is used strictly for storage.
Elizabeth Sagan, 68 Connecticut, stated that she lives directly behind the Reyes and she was so glad to see the old shed taken down. She noted that the new shed is beautiful and she is very pleased.
Peg Hurley, 31 Massachusetts stated that the shed is gorgeous. She noted that the Reyes have redone their home and made it one of the nicest in the neighborhood.
Richard Sagan, 68 Connecticut, neighbor directly to the rear, stated that the shed is beautiful and he wishes that everyone at the beach fixed up their property as nicely as the Reyes have fixed theirs. He indicated that Mr. Reyes helps him when he has problems at his home. Mr. Sagan stated that he put a gate in the fence that separates their property so that they can go back and forth. He indicated that he would be very disappointed if Mr. Reyes had to take down the shed.
One of the neighbors behind the shed stated that the shed is a great improvement on the property and he is happy to have the Reyes as neighbors.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the photographs have been labeled Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 14-19 – Scott & Kathleen Boulanger, 73 Portland Avenue
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this Item has been continued to the October Regular Meeting.
2. Case 14-20 – Jeremiah J. Grady, 40 Billow Road
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.
Chairman McQuade stated that she feels the applicant could compromise to satisfy the side setback. Mr. Sibley stated that he does not feel sufficient hardship has been shown as to the placement of the garage. Mr. Kotzan agreed that some compromises could be made to allow this reasonable use. He noted that the garage is maximally offensive to the regulations in regards to size and location and the applicant did not justify the need for the proposed placement. Mr. Plaut stated that he feels the garage is too large for the lot. Mr. Kotzan stated that he is not sure they can consider the want of the applicant to preserve a tree.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Arthur Sibley to grant the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted. Motion did not carry, 0:5:0.
Reasons:
1. Side setback could be satisfied which would lessen the proposed nonconformity.
2. Insufficient hardship provided.
3. Proposal is maximally offensive to the Regulations.
3. Case 14-21 – Town of Old Lyme, 166 Boston Post Road (Hains Park)
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow this technicality to be removed and the project to move along (5-0-0).
Reasons:
1. No substantial change to the original variances granted.
4. Case 14-22 – Jennifer & Edward Reyes, 29 Massachusetts Road
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the Board would have granted a variance to replace the existing shed if the applicant had applied before tearing down their old shed. He stated that he would like more documentation on the size of the old shed but testimony indicated that it is substantially the same size.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant, with conditions, the necessary variances for this building that has been put in without a permit but which is a very agreeable improvement to the property. The condition is that the building will never be converted into additional sleeping area and that it will not accommodate a vehicle. The structure would be for storage and for the enjoyment of having a little more room for the necessary things that they have there (5:0:0).
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Chairman McQuade asked the Board Members to notify her in advance if they are aware they will not be able to attend a meeting.
Minutes
Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the minutes of the June meeting need to be approved as well. Chairman McQuade asked the Board to take a few minutes to read them.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the June 17, 2014 Regular Meeting, as submitted.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted to APPROVE the Minutes of the July 15, 2014 Regular Meeting, with the following correction: page 3 under Case 14-17, paragraph 4 where it states “. . .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’,” it should read “4’ x 14’.” Motion carried 4:0:1, with Ms. Conniff abstaining.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to adjourn the September 16, 2014 Regular Meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
