OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, October 26, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: J. McQuade, Chairman, M. Stone, Secretary, K. Conniff, N. Hutchinson, alternate and M. Hartmann, alternate.
Also present was Kim Barrows.
Chairman McQuade called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 16-17 A – Appeal of a ruling of the Zoning Enforcement Officer – 34 Shore Acres, Lacy
Chairman McQuade stated that all members present were present at the Public Hearings. She stated that the Board must decide whether to uphold or not uphold the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Chairman McQuade stated that the Board must decide whether the lot in question is a new lot or an expansion of an existing lot. She stated that Attorney Cronin’s position is that the existing lot is being expanded and not the creation of a new lot.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that 34 Shore Acres is currently a 20 foot by 20 foot lot that does not contain a dwelling. She noted that the applicant states that the lot was created in 1925 and is a nonconforming lot and subject to Section 9.1, nonconforming lots. Ms. Hutchinson stated that under Section 9.1.2, it is required that nonconforming lots be merged with contiguous land by the same owner for Zoning purposes. She stated that the applicant proposes to take land from 35 Shore Acres Road and add it to 34 Shore Acres Road. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the description of this lot would not match the deed of the lot created for 34 Shore Acres in 1925 and for this reason she believes it to be a new lot. She noted that any lot created after the MABL regulation was incorporated in 1990 must have the
minimum area of buildable land. Ms. Hutchinson stated that she believes this to be a reasonable interpretation of the Zoning Regulations and feels that the Zoning Enforcement Officer should be upheld. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the applicant’s interpretation is not reasonable and rationale.
Ms. Stone stated that she does not think that the applicant presented a valid case and the exemptions for the 20’ x 20’ parcel should not be extended to the increased lot. She noted that the newly created lot should be held to the Zoning Regulations and should be required to meet MABL.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that the issue before the Board is whether the newly expanded lot is a new lot. She noted that this is the issue before the Board as noted in Attorney Royston’s letter. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the newly expanded lot is a new lot as its description has changed.
Ms. Hartmann agreed with this interpretation.
Chairman McQuade stated that she too agrees that 34 Shore Acres is a newly created lot.
Ms. Hutchinson stated that the subject lot being proposed would not correspond with the legal lot of record recorded in 1925; it would be a newly created lot and any newly created lot after July 1990 would have to meet the MABL requirement.
Chairman McQuade noted that the 20’ x 20’ lot is only one percent of the total area of the expanded lot.
A motion was made by Nancy Hutchinson, seconded by Karen Conniff and voted unanimously to uphold the ruling of the Zoning Enforcement Officer for 34 Shore Acres and the reasons for upholding is because the newly expanded lot would not correspond with the legal description of the “Lot of Record” (per Section 3-111), which in this case is the Lot for which a Deed was recorded in 1925 prior to the effective date of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations; it would be a newly created lot. Any new Lot created after July 15, 1990 must comply with Section 8.4 Minimum Area of Buildable Land. This reasonable and rationale interpretation of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations aligns with the decision of the ZEO, that the newly created lot is not exempt from the Minimum Area of Buildable Land (MABL) requirement (Section 8.4).
Reasons:
- The subject lot being proposed would not correspond with the legal lot of record recorded in 1925; it would be a newly created lot and any newly created lot after July 1990 would have to meet the MABL requirement.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. on a motion by Nancy Hutchinson and seconded by Marissa Hartmann; so voted unanimously
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
