OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, May 19, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Art Sibley, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Regular Member, Karen Conniff, Regular Member, Nancy Hutchinson, Alternate and Jack Mut, Alternate.
Also present was Keith Rosenfeld, Land Use Coordinator
Vice Chairman Sibley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 15-08 – Ernest & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road, variance to construct a first floor addition over an existing deck.
The applicant was not present. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the application was received on 3/13/15 and it was opened on 3/17/15 and continued to 4/21/15 at which point it was continued to tonight. He noted that the hearing has to be closed this evening or the applicant would have to grant an extension to the next meeting. He suggested holding this hearing to the end of the meeting and taking action then.
2. Case 15-13 – James L. & Laura D. Parent, 43 Center Beach Avenue
Laura and James Parent were present to explain their application. Ms. Parent indicated that they purchased the home 6 years ago and noticed that the entrances were dated. She noted that they are retiring there in June. Ms. Parent explained that her mother is in a wheelchair. She stated that the side door is only 32 inches and does not permit wheelchair access to the deck. She noted that the front door is 36” and allows wheelchair access. Ms. Parent stated that she realizes they could put a handicap ramp on the front of the house but would like to put a small deck on the front of the house that would fit in and contribute to the neighborhood.
Mr. Kotzan questioned if there would be a ramp. Ms. Parent stated that it would be a small porch with three steps and they would use a temporary ramp that is put up and taken away when not in use. Mr. Parent stated that the porch is 14 feet wide and less than 6 feet deep. Ms. Parent stated that the deck will be aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Hutchinson questioned whether they considered widening the side door. Ms. Parent stated that when you go in the door the wall is right there on one side and on the other there are built in cabinets. She noted that there is no room to widen the door.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there is a knee wall or just a flat porch with posts. Ms. Parent stated that it will look exactly like their side porch; just rails, no knee wall.
It was suggested that there could be a condition that the porch will never be enclosed.
Mr. Kotzan noted that the applicant is asking for a 6 foot variance.
Neighbor at 54 hawks nest road, one block from the site, stated that the house and yard are impeccable and she feels it is a reasonable request.
Chief of Old Lyme EMS, Jim, stated that they prefer front door entrances and he is in favor of this proposal.
3. Case 15-14 – James & Ellyn Behan, 59 Hillcrest Road
Jim and Ellyn Behan were present to explain their application. Mr. Behan stated that they would like to enclose their screened in porch and make it part of their living area. He noted that they are not changing the footprint or the roof. He explained that they have a center chimney in the center of the living room and kitchen and have no seating area for a dinner table. He explained that the house is year round and they have family holidays at their house. Mr. Behan noted that the area is 8 feet deep and noted that it is already enclosed with screen.
Mr. Kotzan stated that floor area is not an issue and neither is coverage. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the only variance required is because it is an undersized lot. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there will be additional bedrooms. Mr. Behan replied that there is not. Ms. Behan stated that they have a table with three chairs. Mr. Mut stated that he drove by and noted that there is a foundation under the porch. Mr. Kotzan stated that giving up a porch for living space will most likely preclude a front porch in the future.
Mr. Kotzan questioned the exterior finishes. Mr. Behan replied that the house will be identical to what it is now, including the front door. Mr. Kotzan noted that the plans are weak but the Board could limit it with a description. Mr. Behan stated that they are going to have double windows on either side of the door.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Sibley called this hearing to a close.
4. Case 15-15 – Carl Coelho & Elaine Fay-Coelho, 15 Sea Spray Road
Russ Smith, Construction Engineer representing the Coelho’s, was present to explain the application. He explained that the applicants would like to add a rear dormer to the second floor of their existing cape. Mr. Smith stated that the property is undersized and the addition requires setback variances as well. He noted that he dormer is within the footprint of the original house. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the application is inconsistent as whether it is seasonal or year round. He explained that the sanitarian realized that he the septic is adequate and the house is year round. Mr. Smith stated that it has been approved by the Sanitarian. He noted that the number of bedrooms will not be increasing. Mr. Smith stated that the house is not occupied full time. He noted
that the house currently has two downstairs bedrooms. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the use of the second floor is triggered by ceiling height under 6 feet tall. He noted that although kids could sleep up there it is not considered living space by the Zoning Regulations. It was pointed out that there will be a bathroom on the second floor where there is no living space at this time.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Sibley called this public hearing to a close.
5. Case 15-16 – Katy Kus, 256 Boston Post Road
Scott Striby, representing the applicant, noted that the house is extremely small and Ms. Kus would like to add 48 square feet for a pantry area. He noted that filling in the area will help with drainage near the garage as well.
It was noted that the lot is 76,000 square feet in an RU-80 Zone. Mr. Kotzan questioned the roof line. Mr. Striby. stated that the roof will be over the top of the garage roof and will get rid of the trapped water.
No one present spoke in favor or against this application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Sibley called this public hearing to a close.
6. Case 15-17 – Umars, LLC, 281 Shore Road
Clint Brown, Engineer, was present to represent the applicant. He explained that they would like to reconstruct the existing convenience store pump island and canopy and related site improvements. Mr. Brown stated that the applicant was before the Board six months ago with a similar application that was denied without prejudice. He noted that this new application is substantially different; the building has been reduced in size and the number and extent of variances has been reduced. He distributed copies of his exhibits for each Board member.
Mr. Brown stated that the second sheet shows the site layout and variances required. He noted that the current gas station is the typical 1950 station and the site is crowded and inefficient. Mr. Brown explained that the existing site is laid out in a nonconforming state and they are highlighted on the plan. He noted that the landscape area is currently in the highway right of way. Mr. Brown noted that the site is split down the middle by an alleyway that is not part of the site. He noted that the site is considered one piece of land as evidenced in the land records. MR. Brown stated that the applicant has an agreement with the Town to use and maintain the right of way. Ms. Hutchinson questioned whether other neighbors have rights to the right of way. Mr. Brown stated that
they may as he has not done a full title search on the alley way.
Mr. Brown stated that replace convenience store and move it; he noted that they proposed a 2500 square foot building and have reduced it to 1800 square feet. He submitted a plan of another station that gives an idea of what the finished building would look like. Mr. Kotzan marked these three photographs as Exhibit A. Mr. Brown stated that the parking would be located principally in the front of the store where parking is currently on the side. He noted that this arrangement allows for landscaping along the adjoining residential properties.
Ms. Hutchinson noted that the proposal has two islands and a larger canopy. Mr. Brown stated that this station gets many trailered boats and two islands will make it much more usable and safe. He noted that he pumps and island are further from the street. He noted that he site is zoned C-10 and pointed out the setback lines on the site plan. Mr. Brown stated that the setback on Swan is 18’ where 25’ is required; the canopy is 3’ from Shore Road where 30 feet is required and 2’ is existing; setback from the canopy to the alleyway would be 0 at Shore Road side and 6 feet where it is currently .9 feet and 4.1 feet. He noted that the maximum building coverage is 95 percent where 60 percent is allowed and 99 percent exists. He stated that the maximum lot coverage is 28 percent where
25 percent is proposed and 30 percent is existing on Parcel A. Mr. Brown stated that the setback for the landscape strips is 0 feet along Shore Road both existing and proposed, where 20 feet is required; On Swan Avenue it the parking will be 8 feet from the road where it is currently 22.5 feet and he noted that they have added a traffic island for safer entering and exiting and additional landscaping will be installed on this island; and the setback is 0’ for the parking along the alleyway because it runs through the center of the property.
Mr. Brown noted that the previous application required a variance for the number of parking spaces and the current application proposes 9 parking spaces which is the required number. He noted that 7 of them are located right outside the front door. Mr. Sibley stated that he has seen the damage done to canopies because of high winds and he wants to make sure that the applicant has taken this into consideration. Mr. Brown stated that the property is located in a high wind zone and the canopy will be designed by a structural engineer.
The zero setback was discussed in the event that sewers are eventually installed. Mr. Mut stated that the sewer line could go down the alleyway. Mr. Kotzan agreed. Mr. Brown noted that 10 feet is narrow for a sewer line.
Ms. Hutchinson questioned whether they thought about increasing the green areas outside the property line. Mr. Brown stated that the last plan for the Sound View Area showed treatments for the front area and that would tie into this plan.
Mr. Brown stated that the hardship is the unique alleyway. C-10 setbacks and landscape requirements do not allow anything on property without a variance; if one is respected the other is not. Mr. Brown stated applicant is trying to improve and upgrade his 1950’s gas station. He noted site and building coverages go down. He noted some of the parking setbacks are decreased. Mr. Brown stated that the parking is now conforming. He noted only two minor items increase, everything else decreases.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that 11.8.6 applies to this application and asked if this was addressed in the zoning table of variances. She read the Regulation to the Commission. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the applicant will have to go before the Commission for site plan approval. Mr. Rosenfeld suggested that the applicant review these requirements. Mr. Rosenfeld noted that no one has considered this to this point. Ms. Hutchinson stated that a table showing all the regulations and what is existing and what is proposed would be very helpful. Mr. Brown noted that there is a table as part of the application. Ms. Hutchinson stated that there are a few regulations that are not on the table. Mr. Kotzan asked the applicant to write the deltas on the chart for the Board’s use. Mr.
Brown took a few minutes to do this. Ms. Hutchinson noted that the property is not 50 feet from the Residential District Line and a variance for this should be added to the application.
Mr. Kotzan read a letter from Frank Pappalardo, Chairman of Sound View Commission, commenting as a private citizen, noting a few concerns including the size of the canopy and fuel island, and offering many suggestions and changes to the plans.
Dimitry Tolchinski, Shore Road, stated that he has lived in Town since 1984 and this property has been neglected for many years. He said that the current owner is trying very hard to improve the property and the improvements will be good for the neighborhood.
Chris Munday, 3 Beckwith Lane, stated that it would be easier to get around the lot with the proposed changes.
Bob Serkin, Point ‘O Woods Beach, stated that he travels this road many times a day and feels the project is unnecessary and excessive. He noted that there are more than enough of these facilities in the area and this will add to traffic congestion. Mr. Serkin stated that it will become a hangout for kids and will become a blight on the character of the area.
Convenience Store owner across the street submitted a letter read by Mr. Kotzan from Marilyn Osmond to the ZBA against the application. He read a petition against which was signed by 103 people.
Jen Jake, Portland avenue, purchased his home 10 years ago, stated that it will take away from the character of Hartford Avenue and will create more congestion.
Property owner at 4 Hartford Avenue stated that the new canopy will be in his backyard and will hurt his property value. He stated that the site is contaminated from the gas. Mr. Kotzan noted that the building will be farther from the property line. Their son had a seizure on the soccer field and he now has seizures. She noted that when they purchased the property 20 years ago there was no gas station there. She noted that the triggers for seizures are noise, sleep deprivation and stress. She noted that the condensers on the roof are right by their bedrooms. She noted that people use the alleyway as a bathroom. She indicated that she does not think it needs to be overdone.
Rick Callahan, 14 Oak Road, stated that the first canopy is very close to the road and the proposed building is too large for the lot and two islands are not needed.
Owner of proposed gas station stated that his 1400 square foot building does not have storage and he does not have an exit door; he is only asking for 400 additional square feet. He noted that he can reduce it more if needed. He stated that he took over the abandoned station in1999 and he would think the townspeople would not want an abandoned station in their neighborhood. He noted that he has spent a lot of money on because the property was contaminated; it cost $300,000.00 to replace the tank in 2010 and meet all DEP requirements. He stated that he paid to have city water hooked up to three homes.
Mr. Sibley stated that no matter what happens, he sees that the property owner has tried hard and it is very much appreciated. He noted that the commercial operation is right up against a home that people live in. Mr. Sibley stated that a special amount of attention can be extended by the applicant and they must also understand that he is trying to improve the property.
Addressing parking, the property owner stated that on some weekends the police cannot even keep up with the problems and tow all the cars that should be towed.
Mr. Brown submitted a petition signed by 75 people which was marked Exhibit D. He explained that the beach is what draws the traffic and the businesses serve those people, which is part of the Sound View Plan. Mr. Kotzan read the petition for the record.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Sibley called this Public Hearing to a close.
1. Case 15-08 – Ernst & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road
Mr. Rosenfeld staed that this application was received on 3-15-15 and it was opened on 3-17-15 and it was continued to April and then again to May at the request of the applicant. He noted that because the applicant is not here to grant an extension he recommended that the Board close the public hearing and utilize testimony received to make a decision.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Nancy Hutchinson and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for Case 15-08, Ernst & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 15-08 – Ernst & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road
Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the Board has 65 days to act on this application. Mr. Kotzan suggested making a motion to deny without prejudice. Ms. Conniff agreed and noted that the applicant cannot move forward without a decision by the Board.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to deny without prejudice the application of Ernst and Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road based on the fact that the Board does not have sufficient evidence to complete the hearing and there were some deficiencies in the information available for deliberation.
2. Case 15-13 – James L. & Laura D. Parent, 43 Center Beach Avenue
Mr. Kotzan noted that he door on the side is not wide enough for handicap accessibility. He noted that the Board typically allows a minimal addition for this type of thing which is a safety issue. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the intention of the Board is that this porch will never be enclosed and it is an open porch with railings.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Jack Mut and voted unanimously to grant with conditions the necessary variances for 43 Center Beach Avenue per the plans submitted to construct a 6’ x 14’ open porch onto the front entrance facing Center Beach Avenue. The conditions are that the porch is never to be enclosed, it shall be open with railings only and does not increase in capacity.
Reasons for granting: The variances are for safety for handicap access; there is a minimal increase; will be built per the plans.
3. Case 15-14 – James & Ellyn Behan, 59 Hillcrest Road
Ms. Hutchinson stated that there is no change in the foundation and the floor area is not exceeded. Mr. Kotzan noted that the only deficiency is the size of the lot.
A motion was made by Jack Mut, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to grant with conditions the necessary variances for 59 Hillcrest Road per the plans submitted to allow existing 8’ x 26’ screen porch to be enclosed to become part of the living space. The condition is that there is no change in the footprint, there will be a few steps off the front, but the side steps will be removed.
Reasons for granting: No other options for adding to the structure; not offending the intent of the regulations and no expansion in the footprint.
4. Case 15-15 – Carl Coelho & Elaine Fay-Coelho, 15 Sea Spray Road
Ms. Hutchinson stated that she is concerned about adding a bathroom to a floor where there is no living area and she does not see the hardship. Mr. Kotzan stated that it was inferred that the second floor area could be used for sleeping.
A motion was made by Karen Conniff, seconded by Nancy Hutchinson and voted unanimously to deny the variances for 15 Sea Spray Road to construct a bath dormer onto the second floor of the house since sufficient hardship has not been shown.
Reasons for denying: Sufficient hardship has not been shown, the dormer is not living space as defined by the Town/Assessor, it would not be in line with the regulations and it is an undersized lot.
5. Case 15-16 – Katy Kus, 256 Boston Post Road
Ms. Hutchinson stated that this is a reasonable request to fix an odd configuration and a water problem. Mr. Mutt noted that it is also a very large, almost conforming lot in the RU-80 Zone.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Nancy Hutchinson and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances for 256 Boston Post Road per the plans submitted to allow a small addition to square off the front of the garage and repair the roofline. It is a reasonable request, the lot is almost a conforming lot and the repair will eliminate the existing problems.
6. Case 15-17 – Umars, LLC, 281 Shore Road
Mr. Kotzan stated that the property is located in one of the few commercial zones n Town and the commercial area is for all townspeople, not just those that live nearby. He noted that the Town has to allow the upgrading of commercial areas. Mr. Kotzan stated that the only question is whether to allow one or two islands. He noted that there are many improvements as part of the plan and noted that the proposed building is further from the neighboring house.
Mr. Mut suggested that there might be something else the applicant can do to buffer the property from the neighbor. A higher fence and vegetation were suggested.
Ms. Hutchinson reviewed the chart of variances noting that most of the nonconformities are decreasing. Mr. Kotzan stated that he sees the second pump as a good way to reduce back-up in the busy months.
Acting Chairman Sibley stated that the improvements will clean up a mess and he is in favor of approving it. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that although being a neighbor of a convenience store is not fun, the property owner has a right and is giving the Town the type of business they would like to see. He noted that the building size was reduced substantially in this application.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances for 281 Shore Road per the plans submitted to allow construction of a 50’ x 36’ (1,800 s.f.) new convenience store, new pump island with canopy 36’x46’ (1,656 s.f.) and related site improvements.
Reasons for granting: The proposed plan will improve the flow of traffic in and out of the facility; it will modernize an existing facility and many nonconformities are being decreased.
New Business
Election of Officers
A Motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Jack Mut and voted unanimously to postpone the election of officers until the June 16, 2015 Regular Meeting.
Minutes
A Motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Jack Mut and voted unanimously to table the April 21, 2015 Minutes to the next meeting.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Nancy Hutchinson; so voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
