OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Judy McQuade, Chairman, Art Sibley, Vice Chairman, Mary Stone, Secretary, Kip Kotzan, regular member (arrived at 7:05), Karen Conniff, regular member, Nancy Hutchinson, alternate and Harry Plaut, alternate.
Also present was Keith Rosenfeld, Land Use Coordinator
Chairman McQuade called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and noted that Nancy Hutchinson would be voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 15-18 – Peter & Sandy Gerster, 14 Johnny Cake Hill Road
Ms. Foulke, Point One Architects, along with Peter and Sandy Gerster, were present to explain the application. She explained the current parking situation and showed photographs of the area. Ms. Foulke stated that the original house was built in 1937 and some additional work was done in the 60’s and 70’s. She showed photographs of an outbuilding referred to as the pony barn that the Gerster’s would like to rehabilitate. Ms. Foulke pointed out a small shed and noted that there is also a pool house. She noted that the goal is a three car garage on the property and the challenge is that the buildable area is where the pony barn is located and removing that would change the feel of the site. She indicated that they would like to construct the garage where the residents are currently
parking and because there is a hill there, the proposed garage would be set into the hill. Ms. Foulke presented a photograph showing the view that the neighbors would see. She explained that they are trying to keep views open to the pool from the house as well. She noted that the hardship is trying to maintain the integrity of the existing land. Ms. Foulke stated that it is her understanding that three neighbors sent letters in favor.
Ms. Stone read a letter in support from Mary Braden and a letter of support from Theodore Shell. She also read a letter of support from neighbor Mary McClain. Ms. Foulke stated that Ms. McClain is the neighbor that would be most affected by the change.
Ms. Foulke stated that if they removed the pony barn and constructed the garage in its place it would have a much greater impact to the site and the neighborhood.
Ms. Stone stated that the garage could be smaller and easily fit three cars. Ms. Foulke stated that the applicant would like an area as a workshop for wood materials. Ms. Stone stated that she is most concerned that they are asking for a side setback variance. Ms. Foulke stated that the reality is that they can park four or five cars in that area and civil engineers say that the oil runoff is better controlled by garaging cars rather than leaving them out on an open driveway. She indicated that they would consider reducing if it were a condition of approval. Ms. Foulke stated that one large garage door would be less visually appealing. She stated that if they reduced the depth to 22’ it would reduce the peak approximately one foot. Mr. Sibley noted that 24’ is the standard
depth. He stated that the size of the garage is not overwhelming for the size of the property.
Ms. Hutchinson questioned why the garage could not be moved farther onto the property where the cars are currently parked. Ms. Foulke stated that they did not put it in that spot because of the sight line to the pool; additionally, it would increase the impervious surface because a turn-around area would be required. She indicated that it may also affect the neighbor’s views and is least obtrusive in the proposed location.
Chairman McQuade noted that Mr. Kotzan arrived at the beginning of the hearing and will be voting on this matter; Ms. Hutchinson, alternate, will not be voting.
No one present spoke in favor of or against this application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade called this Public Hearing to a close.
2. Case 15-19 – Gina M. Garreffi, 15 Noyes Road
Chairman McQuade noted that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 12’ x 16’ shed. She stated that the shed would be 9’ from the property line where 12’ is required.
Ms. Garreffi showed her site plan, noting that she requires a variance of 3 feet. She noted that neighbors sent letters in favor of her proposal. Ms. Stone stated that it appears to be attached to the house. Ms. Garreffi indicated that the shed will not be attached to the house but rather right up against it. Ms. McQuade noted that the property already has a two car garage and a 10’ x 10’ shed; she questioned the need for another shed. Ms. Garreffi stated that she stores her 22’ boat on the side of the shed and needs more storage for her fishing gear which is now located in the garage.
Chairman McQuade noted that the property is conforming at this time. She questioned whether the applicant could reduce the size or change the location of the proposed shed. Mr. Sibley agreed and noted that it is better to have a conforming lot. Chairman McQuade agreed and noted that changing the size could solve the problem. Ms. Stone suggested a 9’ x 15’ shed. Ms. Garreffi stated that the proposed shed will be a workshop as well as for storage and 9’ makes the interior very narrow. Ms. Stone noted that the property has a garage and a shed already so it is hard to find a hardship. Chairman McQuade agreed and noted that the Board, in granting a variance, would be making the property nonconforming when it is currently conforming.
Ms. Garreffi questioned whether the application could be continued until next month so that she could meet with Klotter Farms and see what other shed options they have for her. Ms. Stone explained that if the shed is put in a conforming location Ms. Garreffi will not need the Board’s permission. Chairman McQuade noted that the Board will not grant a variance so the best thing would be for her to find a shed that will work on her lot in a conforming matter.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade called this Public Hearing to a close.
3. Case 15-20 – Harry S. Plaut, 53 Breen Avenue, requests variances to demolish an existing one story dwelling and construct a new 1 ½ story residential dwelling that will be FEMA compliant.
Mike Girard, Engineer, was present to represent the applicant. HE noted that Mr. Plaut would like to raise his house to meet the current FEMA Regulations which is EL 12. Mr. Girard stated that the current house is on piers and was constructed in the 1950’s. He noted that the house is 3’ from the side yard and 1.5’ from the rear yard. Mr. Girard stated that they thought that with all the nonconformities on the lot, it would be beneficial to move the house on the lot.
Mr. Girard stated that the existing building is below the minimum living area at 500 square feet where zoning calls for 900 square feet. He stated that the lot is 4,000 square feet. Mr. Girard stated that the proposal would be meet the side and rear setbacks but would require a variance for the front setback (narrow street) and it would also need a variance for height. He indicated that this proposal substantially reduces the number of nonconformities on the site. Mr. Girard stated that the new house will meet all FEMA requirements in addition to reducing the existing nonconformities.
Chairman McQuade noted that the house has the same living area on the first and second floors and is a two-story home, not a one and a half story home. Mr. Kotzan noted that if the ceiling height is greater than 6’ it is counted as living space. Mr. Girard stated that if they reduce the square footage they will need a variance for minimum square footage of a dwelling. Chairman McQuade noted that the house is currently 2 bedrooms and the proposal is for 2 bedrooms.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the height of the structure is the minimum to meet FEMA or if it is proposed higher to accommodate cars underneath. Mr. Girard stated that he has requested the height to meet FEMA plus 1 foot. He indicated that he would accept this as a condition of approval.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board needs better plans. He suggested continuing the hearing to allow the applicant time to present plans that reflect a 1.5 story home. Mr. Girard noted that the 24’ height allowance is a hardship. Mr. Kotzan noted that reducing some nonconformities such as minimum square footage is a good thing but increasing the structure to two stories is problematic. Mr. Girard stated that test pits were done on the property and he pointed out the area for a septic. He noted that there may be sewers in the area in the near future.
Peter Keefe stated that he is representing his wife, the abutting owner. He indicated that he will be a joint owner of the property with his wife in a week. Mr. Keefe stated that the house is almost tripling in size and his primary concern is the height as 33 feet is very high. He indicated that he realizes that the Board is allowing homes to be raised to meet FEMA and noted two recent examples in the area, one at 31’ and one at 28’. Mr. Keefe stated that he would like to see an architectural drawing as he cannot visual the proposal. He stated that he wants to be a good neighbor. Mr. Keefe stated that he is concerned too about the deck and door on the side near his property as it is 17 feet in the air and is a privacy concern. Mr. Keefe stated that he would like to see the
base flood plain elevations.
Mr. Kotzan stated that it is the policy of the Board to allow structures to exceed the height to meet FEMA standards. Mr. Keefe agreed, but noted that this property is increasing in size and moving its location. Chairman McQuade asked that the plans be submitted prior to the hearing to give everyone the opportunity to review them.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing on 53 Breen Avenue to the July 21, 2015 Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Mezzanine Conference Room in order to change the plans to reflect a one and a half story structure.
4. Case 15-21 C – Harry C. & Barbara B. Gough, 56 Meriden Road, variance to raise structure to meet FEMA Regulations and Local Flood Ordinances.
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer, was present to represent the applicants. He stated that the property is located in White Sands Beach. Mr. Wren stated that the property is triangular shaped and the existing three bedroom house is one level; there is also a deck and garage. He pointed out that the shed belongs to the neighbor and encroaches on the property. Mr. Wren stated that the building will not be expanded with the exception of a few staircases. He explained that the house is being raised 10 feet so additional stairs are required to get to grade. Mr. Wren noted that there are stairs off the rear deck and stairs in the front of the home.
Mr. Wren noted that this home is designated a severe repetitive loss property as they have suffered losses from multiple storms. He noted that these types of properties are highly recommended to be raised. Mr. Wren stated that the finished floor is now at 6.73’ and the proposed is 14.75 feet, an increase of 8 feet. He pointed out that the property is still under the maximum height in the zone of 24 feet. Mr. Wren pointed out that the house will be raised in its current location so the existing nonconformities will not change. He noted that the garage is staying in its current location and will not be changed/raised.
Mr. Wren stated that the stair additions increase the total coverage to 24.9 percent where 25 percent is allowed. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there is a more optimal position on the lot for the home. Mr. Wren pointed out the tidal wetlands, which would require a variance. He noted that they need area for the septic system as well. Mr. Wren stated that the coastal jurisdiction line is south of the existing home and noted that it would not be welcome to move it in that direction.
Mr. Wren stated that the hardship is that his property is classified as severe repetitive loss property and that there are only four other homes in Old Lyme classified as severe repetitive loss.
Mr. Wren stated that they will go for a general permit after getting approval from the Town.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there would be grading done on the site. Mr. Wren stated that there would not be any grading.
Mr. Gough stated that he had 14” of water on the first floor after super-storm Sandy.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade called this Public Hearing to a close.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 15-18 – Peter & Sandy Gerster, 14 Johnny Cake Hill Road
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. Ms. Stone stated that the proposal is 800+ square feet. She noted that it could be reduced and enable it to come away from the hillside a few feet and allow the roof line to come down slightly and would still accommodate the owners’ needs. She stated that her objection is that he building is larger than it needs to be.
Mr. Sibley stated that the applicant could move the structure away from the bank and have the same size structure. He noted that for the sake of the neighbors and the view of the pool there is reason to locate the garage in the proposed location. Ms. McQuade agreed and noted it is a large site. Mr. Kotzan stated that the intent of the setback regulation is to reduce impact to neighbors. He noted that the proposed location reduces the impact to neighbors. Ms. McQuade noted that there are three letters of support from neighbors. Ms. Conniff agreed with Mr. Kotzan’s comments.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the setback variances are in place to minimize impact to neighbors and the proposal minimizes impact to the neighbors.
Ms. Stone stated that she believes the structure is too large.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted to grant the necessary variances as per plans submitted to construct the 24’ x 36’ garage on the west side of the property between the existing home and the existing swimming pool. Motion passed, 4-1-0, with Ms. Stone voting against.
Reasons for granting:
- Location requiring variance has been selected to minimize impact to neighbor’s view.
- Letter from Connecticut River Gateway Commission dated June 3, 2015 stating “. . .it was determined that the Gateway Commission would likely not oppose the granting of the variances . . .”
Reasonable hardship has been shown.
3. Case 15-19 – Gina M. Garreffi, 15 Noyes Road
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that there is already a storage shed and a two-car garage on the property. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that the property is currently a conforming property and the granting of this variance would create a nonconforming property.
A motion was made by Karen Conniff, seconded by Kip Kotzan to and voted unanimously to deny the variances requested which would have allowed a 12’ x 16’ shed to encroach into the side setback where 12’ is required and 9’ is proposed as sufficient hardship had not been shown by the applicant.
Reasons for denial:
- Granting the variance would make a completely conforming property a non-conforming property.
- A garage and storage shed already exist on the property.
3. Case 15-20 – Harry S. Plaut, 53 Breen Avenue, requests variances to demolish an existing one story dwelling and construct a new 1 ½ story residential dwelling that will be FEMA compliant.
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the July Regular Meeting.
4. Case 15-21 C– Harry C. & Barbara B. Gough, 56 Meriden Road
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposal is to meet FEMA and no additional variances are being sought. He indicated that the application was presented very well.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the raising of the existing dwelling so that it complies with the current FEMA flood regulations and local flood ordinances and to approve the Coastal Site Plan Review Application for this appeal because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Reasons to grant:
- Safety of the structure and residents is at stake and this property is one of five in Old Lyme designated S.R.L. “severe repetitive loss.”
Election of Officers
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to nominate the existing slate of officers: Judy McQuade, Chairman, Art Sibley, Vice Chairman and Mary Stone, Secretary
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to elect the existing slate of officers as nominated: Judy McQuade, Chairman, Art Sibley, Vice Chairman and Mary Stone, Secretary.
New Business
Chairman McQuade stated that this case was denied without prejudice. She explained that the applicant did not appear at the May meeting because they had asked for a continuance.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to waive the application fee for the resubmission of 37 Ridgewood Road, Perlini, since it was not continued but denied without prejudice at the May 19, 2015 Regular Meeting.
Chairman McQuade stated that Jack Mutt has resigned because he is not a registered voter. She noted that he is registered in Newington and it is not practical for him to change his registration at this time. The Board agreed he will be missed. She asked that if anyone knows of someone interested they should put their name in.
Mr. Sibley stated that he received a nasty letter from a man who feels that the Board did not consider the neighbors of the gas station. Mr. Sibley stated that he feels the Board asked a lot of the applicant and they greatly reduced the size of the building. He indicated that he has asked the Zoning Enforcement Officer to pay close attention to this construction project. He noted that the gas station pre-existed the neighbor’s purchase of the property. Mr. Sibley stated that he feels that the proposal will be an improvement. Chairman McQuade noted that the Board did not hear about health problems at previous hearings. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the health issues come from problems with the property from the previous owner. Mr. Plaut indicated that he also received the letter.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the commercial areas in Town are for the townspeople and is part of the equation. He noted that they have to be allowed to improve their properties. Ms. Conniff noted that the property is becoming less nonconforming and will go to the Zoning Commission for site plan approval which will consider landscape buffers and such.
Chairman McQuade stated that she would like to add an agenda item for the next meeting to discuss meeting process such as discussing time limits; questions versus comments during the public hearings, etc.
Minutes
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to table the May 19, 2015 Minutes to the next meeting.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Karen Conniff; so voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
