OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 15, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Art Sibley, Vice Chairman, Mary Stone, Secretary, Kip Kotzan, regular member, and Nancy Hutchinson, alternate.
Also present was Keith Rosenfeld, Land Use Coordinator
Acting Chairman Sibley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and noted that Nancy Hutchinson would be voting. He also noted that there are only four members present this evening.
Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the reason Mr. Sibley noted that there are only four members present is the fact that all votes will have to be unanimous in order to grant a variance. Mr. Kotzan stated that each applicant can decide whether or not they would like to go forward with their hearings this evening or continue them to the October meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 15-22 – Ernest & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road
Acting Chairman Sibley stated that they are in receipt of a letter from the applicant’s attorney requesting additional time and asking that the Public Hearing be continued to the October meeting.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing on 37 Ridgewood Road, Perlini to the October 20, 2015 Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m., Mezzanine Conference Room, 52 Lyme Street pursuant to an e-mail dated September 15, 2015 received from applicant’s attorney.
2. Case 15-25 – Erik Krajewski, 10 Noyes Road, variances to demolish existing structure and construct a new FEMA compliant structure centered on the lot, making it more conforming.
Erik Krajewski was present to explain his application. Mr. Krajewski stated that the house was substantially damaged during Superstorm Sandy. He explained that it is a conforming lot and he has gone through a lot to position the house properly on the lot. He noted that he is meeting all the building codes for the flood zone. Mr. Krawjewski noted that the entire house and deck meet all setbacks, with the exception of the deck stairs. He noted that he also has to replace the septic system. Mr. Rosenfeld noted that the applicant is asking for a variance for the deck stairs and for the height of the structure, which will be 26’ and 7/8”.
Mr. Kotzan questioned how high off the ground the house needed to be to meet FEMA. Mr. Krawjewski stated that it must be a minimum of 6 feet, but it is proposed at 9 feet because of the garage underneath; he noted that it will be safer at 9 feet.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that she has concerns when people request to raise their structures to meet FEMA requirements and then propose to raise it further to include a garage underneath. She noted that the Board is only supposed to allow the minimum necessary to meet the FEMA regulations. Ms. Hutchinson asked if there was a hardship that required him to raise the house an additional three feet to incorporate a garage. Mr. Krajewski stated that the topography of the lot is a hardship.
Mr. Sibley stated that the Board will have many more cases requesting variances to meet FEMA regulations. He noted that he has sympathy and accepts that the houses will be raised. Mr. Kotzan stated that the house will be greatly improved, but questioned whether he could get reasonable space without the additional one-half story. Mr. Krajewski stated that it is a single story home. He stated that there is no second floor; the utilities will be installed above the first story.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the FEMA requirement requires the house to be raised 7 feet and the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations require an additional 1 foot. He explained that the applicant is only requesting one additional foot in height to incorporate the garage under the structure.
Ms. Hutchinson questioned whether the structure could be a little lower and still allow the garage. Mr. Krajewski stated that he is requesting the absolute minimum to allow for a garage. He noted that he garage is important to him for storage. Mr. Krajewski noted that the house currently does not meet setback and he is relocating it to a more conforming location on the property. He stated that the lot is over 12,000 square feet.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board can consider the reduction in the nonconformities in their consideration for the small increase in height.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Sibley called this item to a close.
Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the applicant would like the Board to consider his application this evening.
3. Case 15-26 – Peter & Mary Ladd, 12 Littlefield Drive, variance to increase house footprint.
Russ Smith of Amity Construction was present to represent the applicants. He explained that the Ladd’s are requesting several variances to allow an expansion of the footprint of their home. Mr. Smith noted that contained in the packets to the Board are letters in favor of the proposal from the Smith’s neighbors, plans and photographs. He explained that the property is unique in that it is a triangle. He explained that they are requesting a rear setback variance and noted that the existing garage is located approximately three and one half feet from the rear property line and the existing house is located approximately 8 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Smith stated that the new area will allow for expansion of the existing bathroom and much needed utility space. He noted that
the existing house is a single story home with a small utility area that is accessed from the exterior via a hatchway. Mr. Smith explained that another improvement with the increase will be an interior stairway to the basement with elimination of the exterior hatchway. He stated that the house currently is 1,068 increase and they are requesting 1,300 square feet with the addition. He noted that the coverage is increasing from 10% to 13%.
Mr. Smith stated that the proposed improvements will enhance the neighborhood, supported by the letters in favor of the application from the neighbors.
Ms. Stone questioned whether the safety of the applicants would be increased by the interior stairway to the basement. Mr. Smith stated that the utilities are located in the basement and it would be much safer for the applicants in the event of severe snow, etc., to be able to access the basement from the interior.
Ms. Hutchinson questioned the height of the existing house. Mr. Smith stated that the house is approximately 18 feet in height. He noted that there is an attic area that they will use for storage with an interior staircase. He noted that the interior height in the attic area is less than 6 feet. Mr. Kotzan noted that the existing square footage of the house, at 640 square feet, is lower than the required minimum square footage for a single story home. He noted that the addition will bring the home into conformity in that regard.
Ms. Stone noted the letters in favor and read their names and addresses for the record.
Ms. Hutchinson noted that none of the existing nonconformities are being increased.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Sibley called this item to a close.
Mr. Smith stated that he would like the Board to act on this matter this evening.
4. Case 15-27 – Frank T. Hackett, 14 & 16 Moore Avenue, variance
Robert Pfanner was present to represent the applicant. He explained that the property is located in Rogers Lake and is right on the border of the R-10/R-20 zone and they are requesting a variance of minimum lot size. He explained that the property is located in the R-20 zone and only contains 12,554 square feet. Mr. Pfanner stated that there is currently a small, approximately 288 square foot shack located at the rear of the property in a nonconforming manner. He noted that it is in great disrepair and referred the Board to the photographs on file. Mr. Pfanner stated that the proposal is to construct a new home and remove the existing structure. He noted that in doing this they will be removing the nonconforming structure and constructing a home in a conforming area on the lot, thereby
reducing the nonconformity. He explained that the proposed home is a small colonial and will have a code compliant septic system. Mr. Pfanner stated that the only variance required is for the lot size. Addressing hardship, he explained that without the variance nothing else can be done with the lot and the regulations do not allow anything to be done with the nonconforming structure.
Ms. Stone questioned the lot numbers. Mr. Pfanner stated that 16 and 20 were merged because they were under the same ownership. He noted that the owner of 14 passed and left that lot to his brother and lot 14 has now been combined to make all three lots one lot. Mr. Pfanner stated that his client has an agreement to purchase the lot; he does not currently own the lot.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that there is a gate to an EPA area.
Vic Gunther, along with his brother John Gunther who was also present, stated that they are co-owners of 22 Moore Avenue and are present to learn more about the proposal.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that most of the homes in the area are either single or one and one half story. She questioned whether, since the lot was undersized, they considered a smaller scale home. Mr. Pfanner noted that the house is located on the border of the R-10 zone and indicated that he feels the house is proportionate to the lot size. He noted that the house is not large with the footprint only being 36’ x 24’.
Mr. and Mrs. Malcarne 21 Moore Avenue, stated that they are across the street from the property and thank both the property owners for doing something good with this property. He indicated that they have waited for a long time for someone to clean up this property. Mr. Malcarne stated that this proposal will be a welcome improvement to the neighborhood.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the elevation drawing is drawn to scale and denotes what will be constructed. Mr. Pfanner stated that it is drawn to scale and represents what will be constructed.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman Sibley called this item to a close.
Robert Doyen, 7 Devitt Road, stated that he wanted to comment on the Noyes Road application and indicated that he thought the meeting was at 7:30. He stated that he is in favor of the application. He noted that Mr. Krajewski went through a lot since Superstorm Sandy and has done a lot of planning to reconstruct properly. Mr. Doyen stated that he and his wife elevated their home prior to Sandy and had no damage. He asked the Board to approve the application.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 15-22 – Ernest & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road
The Public Hearing for this matter has been continued to the October Regular Meeting.
2. Case 15-25 – Erik Krajewski, 10 Noyes Road
Acting Chairman Sibley reviewed the facts of the case. Ms. Hutchinson stated that almost all the requested height variance is related to FEMA and Town Regulations. She indicated that asking for a small additional amount of height seems like a reasonable request in light of the fact that they are reducing/eliminating so many other existing nonconformities. Mr. Kotzan agreed and noted that adding one additional foot to get a garage makes sense.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to demolish the existing structure and build a new FEMA compliant structure that will be centered on the lot making it more conforming per the plans referenced as Exhibit A, site plan, and Exhibit B, construction plan, in the file.
Reasons for granting:
- Produces a FEMA compliant structure
- Reduces other existing non-conformities
3. Case 15-26 – Peter & Mary Ladd, 12 Littlefield Drive
Acting Chairman Sibley reviewed the facts of the case. Ms. Stone stated that this is an issue of modernization and health and safety. She indicated that she does not see how they could deny it and make the homeowners live with the situation. Ms. Hutchinson noted that it is imperative to be able to access utilities from inside the home and it is clear that the upper area is not additional living space. She noted that the lot is very unique. Ms. Hutchinson stated that it is a minimal expansion to accomplish what they need and it does not increase any nonconformities. She noted that many neighbors wrote letters of support of the application.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to remove an existing entry/bath and construct a new 18’ x 18’ addition for new entry way which will have a new bath and new stairs leading up to the attic storage area per the plans referenced as Exhibit A and Exhibit B in the file.
Reasons for granting:
- It is clear that upper space will not be living space.
The house is not being expanded beyond what is necessary to address health and safety issues.
The plan does not increase existing nonconformities.
4. Case 15-27 – Frank T. Hackett, 14 & 16 Moore Avenue
Acting Chairman Sibley reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Sibley stated that there was a case a long time ago where the Board found that there was no house on the lot and denied the application. He explained that the Court found for the plaintiff. Mr. Kotzan stated that all the Regulations are being met with this application with the exception of lot size. Mr. Sibley noted that the area is full of nonconforming lots and houses. Ms. Stone stated that lots have been combined and the lot would be conforming in the R-10 zone; she noted that it is just outside the R-10 zone.
Mr. Rosenfeld suggested that the Board require that the applicant submit a plan showing all the lots combined as one before the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Mr. Kotzan suggested that another condition be added that requires the demolition of the existing structure on the property. He stated that the proposal is a reasonable use of the property.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant with conditions the necessary variances to construct a new single family dwelling on the lot per the plans referenced as Exhibit A, construction plan and Exhibit B, site plan in the file, with the conditions that the applicant must demonstrate that lots have been combined into a single lot before a zoning compliance permit is issued and the existing structure on the property must be demolished.
Reasons for granting:
- Request is a reasonable use of the property which existing regulations would have prohibited.
- The development of lot is appropriate to neighborhood.
New Business
None.
Correspondence
Minutes
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Nancy Hutchinson and voted unanimously to approve the June 16, 2015 Minutes as amended with the following correction: Page 7 – Sentence beginning “Ms. Hutchinson” should read “Karen Conniff.”
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously to approve the July 21, 2015 Minutes as submitted.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Arthur Sibley; so voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
