OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the American Legion Conference Room, Town Hall [The meeting was rescheduled from February 17, 2015 due to inclement weather]. Those present and voting were: Art Sibley, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, regular member, Mary Stone, Secretary, Karen Conniff, regular member and Nancy Hutchinson, alternate.
Present: Kim Barrows, Clerk
Acting Chairman Sibley called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 15-01 A – Appeal of a Cease & Desist Order, 14 Lyme Street, Vitality Spa, Warren Hannas, applicant.
The Public Hearing for this item is continued to the March 17, 2015 Regular Meeting.
2. Case 15-06 – KCA Realty, LLC, Elizabeth Karter, 4 Joel Road, variance to rehabilitate property to prior condition, under 50 percent of market value of structure, without meeting FEMA flood elevation.
Ms. Karter noted that that she purchased the property this past May. She indicated that the property was decrepit and there were people living in it. Ms. Karter noted that the situation was not beneficial to the people living there or the neighbor. She submitted photographs of the property conditions. Ms. Karter stated that she cleaned the yard and got contractors for the construction, plumbing and electrical work which totaled $28,000.00. She explained that the rule is that one cannot spend more than 50 percent of the market value of the structure which is determined by the assessment which is $62,000.00. Ms. Karter stated that they started construction and put a little overhang over the door and made the house more symmetric. She noted that she spoke with Kim Groves, filled out
the forms and received her building permit. Ms. Karter stated that she is not a developer, she asked the right people and did the right things. She noted that she started work on May 24, 2014. She indicated that on June 16th she received a call from her contractor who stated that the Building Inspector indicated that she did not have a permit and needed to stop work. She stated that the Building Inspector stated that he did not believe that her quotes were accurate or market value and that she would have to raise the structure to meet FEMA standards. Ms. Karter stated that to meet FEMA requirements the house would have to be raised 11 feet in the air and would require a lot of construction on a marsh.
Ms. Karter noted that she worked very hard to do what she needed to do. She noted that she got two electrical quotes. She stated that she is perplexed because she does not even need a variance, her problem is that she undertook some work she didn’t have to because she knew it would be under the 50 percent. Ms. Karter stated that the information came from the Building Inspector three weeks after it should have come after they were underway; she noted this seems unfair. She indicated that what they are doing has multiple benefits to the Town. They are cleaning it up and giving it to the Connecticut Audubon, not as a house but as an entry to the lovely area.
Unknown – it is contiguous with lovely Land Trust Property and it was a blighted property that was not good ecologically. She noted that Lydia wanted to improve it so the Connecticut Audubon Society expressed interest. Ms. Eleanor Robinson stated that there is no formality to this, it was all conceptual, but she noted that everybody wins whether it goes to Audubon or to the Land Trust.
Bob Doyen, neighbor, stated that he is in support of the proposal and noted that it was in rough shape and Ms. Karter helped the woman who owned it and had plans to fix it an turn it over to one of these great organizations. He indicated that all the neighbors are very happy with the plan.
Mr. Sibley stated that one can see the mess from Route 156. He stated that the trouble is that it is barely a roadway that can be used to facilitate the entrance into the park. Mr. Sibley stated that it is not an appropriate place for any type of structure. He indicated that he had no idea that there was no intention of using it as a home again. Mr. Sibley noted that people in that area are elevating their homes because of flooding.
Ms. Karter explained the plan, pointing out the FEMA elevation line, she noted that half of the house could be up and the other half could stay low.
Ms. Barrows noted that the Board members are not DEEP experts and it would be very helpful if the applicant had submitted a survey. Mr. Sibley stated that he has to pay FEMA insurance on a property which is very expensive. He noted that his property has never had any water on it.
Ms. Stone stated that the Board has Ms. Karter’s stated intention, but she is concerned with the possible creation of a living unit in an area that will always flood. She stated that the Board cannot put the Town at risk because people would be living there and would be in danger. She suggested that she would be more inclined if the agreement to give it to a non-profit was in writing. Mr. Sibley stated that he is sure that the applicant was given the idea that she could do this and it cannot be done.
Mr. Kotzan stated that Ms. Karter has estimates and a record of what she paid contractors. He noted that she is making it a non-dwelling structure. He indicated that he is not even sure why she is before the Board for a variance.
Ms. Karter submitted a letter she received from the Zoning Enforcement which states that they went on the professional opinion of the staff. Mr. Kotzan noted that there is no proof that she exceeded $31,000.00. Ms. Karter provided a summary of her estimates. Mr. Kotzan noted that the house is small. Ms. Karter stated that the Building Inspector stated that her quote included a toilet for $99.00 and the going rate for a toilet is $300.00. She indicated that he gave her several examples like that.
Ms. Barrows read an email from Diane Ifkovic at DEEP who stated that FEMA needs to see that a variance is given for sufficient cause i.e., not that someone cannot afford to raise the structure or for reason of being handicapped and that the granting of a variance will result in very high flood insurance rates and affecting the value of the home when it is sold. The applicant indicated that she is aware of those facts and indicated that she will work with the DEEP when and if the time comes. Ms. Karter stated that she does not believe she needs a variance and acknowledged that it is not a great piece of property. She stated that the appropriate use is to donate it.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that the applicant is asking for a variance and needs to provide a hardship. She indicated that the Board does not have the power to over-ride the Building Official. Mr. Kotzan stated that her testimony is that she is not spending more than $31,000.00. Ms. Hutchinson agreed that she should not have to be here in the first place. She stated that she asked for a meeting with the First Selectman, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Official and the end result is that she would have to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Town should have to provide proof that she is overspending.
Ms. Karter that there were two high school kids living in this house in unsanitary conditions and no one in Town did anything about it and now that she is trying to fix it up and the Town is making it difficult. She noted that anyone she gives the house to will pay the insurance or not insure it; their decision. Ms. Karter stated that she cannot get a commitment from one of the organizations until she knows what she is giving them. Ms. Stone stated that she would feel better about granting the variance if Ms. Karter provided a letter in which she details to the organizations what she is proposing and a letter in response from them stating that they understand that it can never be sold or used as a dwelling. Ms. Karter indicated that she is happy to try to get something in writing that would make
the Board more comfortable.
Ms. Karter stated that she could put a two bedroom home on eleven foot piers and showed a picture as an example. She indicated that she is not interested because that would not be good for the marsh.
Ms. Barrows read a letter from Keith Rosenfeld, Zoning Enforcement Officer, indicating that the proposed and required work for human occupancy will exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure. She also read a letter from John Flower, Building Official, indicating that a building permit was never issued for the property and the stop work order is still in effect.
Ms. Karter submitted her Zoning Compliance Permit in May and then it was rescinded. She noted that she did not understand that she only signed the building permit application but did not know that the building permit was never issued.
Ms. Stone stated that she needs to hear from Town officials and she would like to continue the hearing to get testimony from Town Officials. Ms. Barrows stated that the Board needs to grant based on a hardship. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the building codes that apply are based on the use. She indicated that if it is not going to be a residence she needs to clarify that with the Building Official. Ms. Hutchinson stated whether it is a lab or educational facility there might be other requirements of the Building Inspector. Ms. Karter stated that she plans to have a kitchen, living room and bathroom. She indicated that she cannot change the residential zone. Ms. Karter stated that she believes everything she is proposing is within the laws.
Mr. Sibley stated that the Building Department will not issue a building permit and there is nothing the Board can do about that. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Building Department cannot issue the permit until Zoning signs off. He indicated that he does not know how the Building Official can say that the estimates are not good. Ms. Karter stated that she has contracts with three contractors giving her quotes for the work. She noted that she received two quotes from electricians and after inspection both electricians stated that there has been no water damage to the electrical and she noted that it is obvious on the outside of the house where water has risen to which would indicate that it did not reach the electrical. Ms. Karter stated that there is a major difference between the amount of
electrical work that the electricians feel the house needs and what the Building Official thinks it needs.
Ms. Karter stated that she is asking the Board to determine whether she is exceeding 50 percent of the value of the property. Ms. Hutchinson stated that Ms. Karter is asking for a variance of the FEMA Regulations. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board cannot grant a variance to the Building Official. He indicated that he is not sure how it was determined that the work is exceeding the 50 percent rule but he is not sure that the Board can grant a variance to the FEMA Regulations in this instance.
Ms. Stone stated that she feels the applicant has done everything that she can do but she thinks the Board needs advice and input and therefore thinks that the hearing should be continued. Ms. Barrows stated that there are time constraints with this application because it was received in December. She suggested that if the Board denies the application without prejudice and then waives future fees, the applicant can try to work with the Building Official. Ms. Barrows stated that the applicant needs to provide a hardship that is not personal or financial.
Rod Clingman, 46 Four Mile River Road, stated that he has known the applicant for five years and can say that her intent is from the heart. He noted that she is a smart business person and she received quotes for the work. Mr. Clingman stated that he does not understand why she is before the Board.
Hearing no further comments, Mr. Sibley called this Public Hearing to a close.
3. Case 15-07 – Alexander Twining, 13 River Bank Lane, variance to enlarge/add onto house within 100’ of a tidal district.
Attorney Michael Cronin was present representing Alexander Twining. He explained that the house is at 13 River Bank Lane adjacent to the Lieutenant River beyond the Morning Glory Restaurant. He noted that the house is large and was constructed in 1907. Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant would like to renovate his kitchen and he cannot increase the footprint unless he gets a variance of Section 10.3 for 100’ setback from the river.
Matthew White, Professional Engineer, explained the site plan. He noted that the green line is the 100’ setback line and noted that the western portion of the house is within the green line. Mr. White noted that the gray lines are the additions. He explained that the plans submitted are different than those this evening, the difference being a two foot landscape wall. Mr. White stated that there is an inland wetland area on the site but they are not doing any work within 100 feet of it.
Attorney Cronin introduced Jordan Pennington, architect, to explain the renovation. Mr. Pennington stated that the existing house was built in many phases. He explained that the existing kitchen is nonfunctional as a kitchen. Mr. Pennington noted that they would like to fill in a little square and add a bay window. He explained that they would also like to add a small entry porch on the opposite side of the river. Mr. Pennington stated that the entry porch will have a roof over it. He noted that they are also relocating the bilco doors.
Mr. Pennington noted that Gateway did provide a letter. Ms. Barrows read a portion of the letter from Torrance Downes.
Attorney Cronin stated that the setback is required to protect the river view and he noted that the proposed changes will not affect the river view.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Mr. Sibley closed this Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 15-07 – Alexander Twining, 13 River Bank Lane, variance to enlarge/add onto house within 100’ of a tidal district.
Mr. Sibley stated that the application is to enlarge within the 100’ setback of the Gateway Zone. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the home is very old and needs to be modernized and the proposal is done well and will have minimal impact to the property. She noted that the Gateway Commission was in favor of the proposal. Mr. Kotzan agreed.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted to add the small additions on the property.
Reasons:
- The CT River Gateway Commission approved the project since the resulting construction will not create any significant visual impact to the riverway scene based upon the small size of the additions in relation to the size of the existing structure.
2. Case 15-06 – KCA Realty, LLC, Elizabeth Karterr, 4 Joel Road
Mr. Kotzan stated that he would be in favor of denying without prejudice and waiving future application fees in order for the applicant to have time to do additional work.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that she feels both sides could have handled things better. She noted that just not knowing the rules and regulations is not an excuse to proceed without one. Ms. Hutchinson stated that not having knowledge is not enough. She also sympathizes with the applicant having quotes and the Building Inspector telling her it is not adequate. Mr. Kotzan stated that he has sympathy because he does not know how the Building Inspector cannot accept documentation without providing reasons. Ms. Stone stated that the Board cannot judge how Ms. Karter was treated and cannot remedy any unfairness.
A motion was made Nancy Hutchinson, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to deny w/out prejudice and waive only the fee for submission of a future Zoning Board of Appeals application with respect to this particular matter.
Reasons:
- The reason for the denial is so that the applicant has time for additional work to be done with respect to this matter.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Election of Officers – Mr. Sibley noted that the election of new officers will be tabled to the March 17, 2015 Regular Meeting.
Ms. Barrows stated that the Board is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Mortimer to the ZBA dated December 26, 2014 requesting an additional one year extension for the variance granted for 26 Seaview Road, previous extension due to expire February 19, 2015. She noted the previous extension granted is expiring and the applicant has not sold the property.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the variance is not granted forever. It was noted that the regulations have changed over the years.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Nancy Hutchinson and voted unanimously to deny the request for an extension of time.
Reason:
- The Board felt the previous extension for three years was sufficient.
Minutes
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted to approve the Minutes of the January 20, 2015 Regular Meeting with the following corrections: page 2- half way down “Mr. Brown stated that on the Hartford Avenue side”, it should be “Swan Avenue side”; page 10 – 4th line down, it says “stressing class”, it should be “stretching class”; page 11 – 2nd line from the bottom, “Clara” should be “Sarah” and page 15 – half way down, it states “driveway is impervious”, it should be “pervious.” Motion passed, 3-0-2.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to adjourn the February 24, 2014 Regular Meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
