MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018
I. Meeting Called to Order at 7:01 p.m. by Nancy Hutchinson, acting Chair
II. Roll Call
Present: Nancy Hutchinson (Chair), Kip Kotzan (Vice Chair), Marisa Hartmann (Secretary), and Alternates Tom Schellens, Stephen Dix and Stephanie Mickle (late)
Absent: Dan Montano
Also present: Keith Rosenfeld, ZEO/Old Lyme Land Use Coordinator
III. Election of Officers
Nancy Hutchinson asked for a Motion for a slate of officers.
A Motion was made by T. Schellens, seconded by K. Kotzan, to elect the following officers:
Chairman – Nancy Hutchinson
Vice-chairman – Kip Kotzan
Secretary – Marisa Hartmann
Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Dix, T. Schellens; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
IV. Continued Public Hearing:
Case 18-01 – Frances O’Connell, 12 Lee Drive, requests variances to allow an 18’ x 22’ detached one car garage on the right side of the residence where existing driveway and curb cut are located – WITHDRAWN
V. Public Hearings:
Case 18-03C – Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road, requests variances to allow reconstruction of the dwelling above base flood elevation in the Flood Hazard Area which requires variances for exceeding the height by 8’ (from required 24’ to proposed 32’), an increase in maximum lot coverage (from required 25% to proposed 29%) and minimum setback from other property line (12’ required/5.1’ existing).
Stephanie Mickle seated in lieu of Stephen Dix
Ms. Hutchinson read the legal notice for Case 18-03C, Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road, and noted that this is a little bit of an unusual situation in that there are three single family dwellings on one lot. They are 6-1 Pond Road, 8 Pond Road and 8-1 Pond Road. She reminded the Board keep that in mind as the applicant or their representative make their case for how they meet or exceed the zoning requirements. She also noted that there is a CAM application accompanying this variance application.
Donald Snyder, Snyder Civil Engineering, LLC out of Portland will be representing and Thad King will be assisting him. Craig Laliberte, Architect is present and will be able to go over the architectural aspects of the project. Mr. Snyder stated that this parcel is an existing lot of record on Pond Road with three single-family, beach style homes on it. Mr. Rosenfeld, the Old Lyme ZEO, was very informative in working towards this plan and in assisting us on the permits that we were applying for on this case, and he identified the need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The variances being sought apply only to the 6-1 Pond Road home; however, all three homes on this existing nonconforming lot were evaluated during the process of finalizing the plans for 6-1 Pond Road.
Mr. Snyder stated that they did their best to use design standards that would minimize potential impacts on surrounding properties and still renovate the existing structure and bring it up to existing code. By doing that, the structure needs to be elevated to meet FEMA flood standards. As the applicant is elevating the structure, a height variance is needed.
Mr. Snyder described the existing house as being within 2 feet of the left side property line, whereas a 12’ side yard setback is required. The current design increases slightly the distance from the side property line from 2 ft to 5 ft, reducing the existing non-conformity by 3 ft. Ms. Hutchinson interjected that what is close to that property line is actually a shed. Mr. Snyder concurred, and said that the shed is now part of the structure. It has been connected to the house and is now finished living space. Mr. Laliberte stated that it is internally connected to the house and is an existing bedroom, not a shed. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the property records state that it is a shed and not living space. Ms. Hutchinson said that she is not sure if it is
“appropriate” to count it as existing living space. Mr. Snyder stated that sometimes things in beach communities “morph” into other things over time and this was likely that type of situation, but it is currently finished as a bedroom attached to the house, whether right or wrong that is the existing condition.
Mr. Snyder stated that the neighbors were shown the plans and that Mr. & Mrs. Coons couldn’t make the meeting but submitted a letter dated March 10, 2018 in support of the plans. The Coons live next door at 4 Pond Road. Ms. Hartmann read the letter into the record.
Mr. Snyder continued by stating that the last variance requested is relevant for the elevation of the structure. In order to meet the FEMA flood elevation, the structure is proposed to be 32 feet, the structure needs to be raised approximately 8 feet and will be compliant with the FEMA Flood regulations, bringing the total height to 32 ft. Ms. Mickle asked if that is the lowest they could raise it, and could it be any lower than 32 feet and still be compliant with FEMA. Mr. Snyder said “no” because to maintain the 8 feet per floor, this is the lowest they could go and still meet the 100-year flood zone requirements. They tried to site it as low as possible and still meet the FEMA requirements. Ms. Hutchinson asked what would be the minimum height of the “base floor” necessary to
comply with the 100-year flood zone. Mr. Snyder stated that the first floor needed to be above elevation 13. Ms. Hutchinson requested Mr. Snyder specify the height required taking into account the site elevation. Mr. Laliberte clarified that the site elevation is 7 feet. Mr Kotzan then commented that the elevation needed to increase by 6 feet-“ish”. Mr. Laliberte stated that in a V-zone all of the structure needs to be elevated above 13 feet, the finished floor is the framing and then one foot above, so we are looking at a total elevation of 14 feet. Mr. Laliberte then said he would describe how they tried to reduce the size of the structure by reducing the height of the second story, and that some of the ceiling heights are only 6 feet high. He also noted that some of the ceilings are sloped in the bedrooms in order to reduce volume.
Mr. Schellens asked if the first floor was non-habitable and would be blow-threw construction. Mr. Laliberte stated that the first floor was for vehicular storage. Mr. Schellens asked for confirmation that in bringing the height up to meet FEMA that anything above elevation 13 would be habitable and anything below that would be a “blow threw” and for vehicular storage. Mr. Laliberte concurred. Mr. Schellens asked if they would be altering the grade, Mr. Snyder stated no. Mr. Schellens also asked if fill would be brought in and Mr. Snyder answered no to that as well. Mr. Laliberte stated that the height may change slightly if a 4” concrete slab is poured. Mr. Kotzan asked what the current foundation is and what the new structure would be, and if there would be pylons.
Mr. Laliberte stated that they may do pylons, but there will be concrete piers and a maximum 4” concrete slab in that zone, which will not be reinforced since the slab has to be able to break away.
Mr. Kotzan asked if the existing house would be modified and elevated, Mr. Laliberte stated that the existing house and foundation will be demolished and a new one constructed. He stated that in order to comply with a V Zone that is what they have to do. Ms. Mickle requested confirmation as to whether the existing house was going to be demolished, and Mr. Laliberte stated yes that it was. She further stated that is not a renovation, it is new construction, and I think that makes a difference. Ms. Hutchinson concurred, stating that in Zoning, with existing nonconformities, the applicant doesn’t necessarily get them back when the structure is demolished. Mr. Snyder and Mr. Laliberte looked at it as a renovation since they were going to use some of the existing foundation lines from the existing
structure. But since they are bringing the structure up to code and FEMA Flood compliant it acts as new construction for a new house due to new pylons, foundation and height. Mr. Snyder wants to go on the record that the applicant wants to leave the application as a renovation, not as new construction, as that was the intension of the site plan.
Ms. Hutchinson requested that when the applicant continues their presentation, she would like more information about the existing structure and existing floor area, responses to comments received from DEEP, and a description of any potential increases in non-conformities, for example by adding a second story within a setback. She also noted that it is not yet clear whether the shed is a legal and/or habitable structure. Mr. Snyder stated that as a condition of approval they can provide photos of the shed and/or arrange an inspection of the inside of the structure.
Ms. Hutchinson noted that usually when a variance application is submitted, the ZBA receives drawings of the existing floor plans and heights of the existing structure, so that they can be compared to what has been proposed. Without them, Ms. Hutchinson stated it is hard to compare this proposal to what exists, and how the proposal may increase any existing non-conformities. She also noted that an increase in height in a setback is an increase in nonconformity. Mr. Snyder noted that they are adding some square footage on the second floor.
Mr. Snyder reviewed the hardships for the three essential variances being sought, and he stated his view that any one legal hardship would be sufficient. One hardship is that the structure is in a special flood hazard area; the second is the topography and elevation of the lot; and the third is the fact that it is an existing nonconforming parcel with nonconforming structures. The geometry of the lot plays into it because if it were a square lot, rather than a rectangular lot, then setbacks would not be as great an issue. Ms. Hutchinson asked how the hardships are unique to this property and different from other properties in the area. Mr. Snyder stated that the first hardship with respect to increase in height is due to the Special Flood Hazard Area and anyone in this area would have to come before the
ZBA for a height variance. The second hardship was due to the topography of the land; other homes in the area are on a higher elevation closer to the beach. It’s unique that it is below elevation 13’. The opposite end of Pond Road (#40) is a lot higher. The third hardship is it is an existing nonconforming lot with three structures on a rectangular piece of property. The property is a “condominium”. Ms. Hutchinson asked since the condominium shares the land, does the applicant need permission from the other condominium owners. Mr. Snyder responded yes, and the other two condominium owners, Mr’s. Gnazzo, were in the audience and are in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Schellens asked if the lot size was 11,986 sq.ft. and if the buildable percentage calculations included the other structures. Mr. Snyder responded yes, they did. Ms. Hutchinson expressed the concern that the calculations provided were confusing, and it would be more helpful if square footage calculations were broken down by dwelling. He stated after consultation with the ZEO, they understood that calculation using combined values was the proper way to present the zoning table. Mr. Snyder noted that all three homes will have code compliant septic areas for year-round use, which is one of the “pros” of this proposal.
Ms. Mickle stated that the house is two stories as existing, which is non-compliant, and, because they are reconstructing the house, questioned why going forward they are keeping that non-compliant second story. Mr. Snyder stated that it wasn’t feasible to reduce the second story, not making it worth their while to give up half their home.
Ms. Hutchinson asked that the applicant review the zoning compliance table submitted, and they address the inconsistency with Mr. Rosenfeld’s non-compliance table, which states that the lot is non-compliant with respect to total lot area. Specifically, a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet is required for each dwelling on an R-10 lot, and since there are 3 dwellings on the one lot, the existing 11,986 sq.ft does not comply with the 30,000 sq.ft minimum required. Mr. Rosenfeld concurred, and Mr. Snyder stated that this was hardship number three in essence. It was agreed that this lot is non-conforming by about half, and Mr. Kotzan noted that it is a pre-existing nonconforming use.
Ms. Hutchinson asked how the raised stone patio was included in the coverage calculations. Mr. Snyder stated his understanding was that they were pavers and landscaping, and pervious so not included. Ms. Hutchinson stated that the area is actually impervious stones and concrete built up about two feet. Mr. Kotzan asked if it should be included in ground coverage. Ms. Hutchinson concurred. Mr. Snyder said that it was not included in the coverage area calculations provided.
Ms. Hutchinson reviewed the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations definitions for the three types of coverage calculations required: total floor area, which was not provided in the zoning compliance table submitted by the applicant; Building and Structure coverage; and ground coverage, which includes Building and Structure coverage plus impervious surfaces such as the walk-out patio being discussed.
Ms. Hartman read into the record a letter from DEEP dated March 20, 2018 that raised several concerns with the proposal, including the walk-out patio which, to DEEP, appeared to be a sea wall from the photo submitted. Specifically, the DEEP letter stated “. . .it is unclear how high this wall is, or whether it would impede water from going freely under the home, per V Zone construction…” While the DEEP noted they are “generally supportive of height variances to allow the raising of homes to meet or exceed FEMA NFIP standards” they raised concerns about the inadequacy of the information submitted for review and about an apparent increase in living space in the VE flood zone, stating: “Our office generally does not recommend significant increases in living space within Velocity Zones,
consistent with CCMA noted policy, especially in flood prone lower ares such as Pond Road.” [underlined emphasis per DEEP letter dated 3/20/18]. They also noted that “… the zoning compliance data appears to ignore there are two other homes on the single lot that currently supports three dwellings total. In other words, it is unclear to us how any variances, other than related to allowing for FEMA, could be allowed given there is not one house on the minimum lot size of 10,000 sf, but rather three dwellings, and any increase appears to exacerbating the non-conformity.” Finally, the DEEP noted that “any seawall or patio height increase modifications are considered a shoreline flood and erosion control structure which require a Coastal Site Plan locally, with a mandatory referral to this office for review…”.
Ms. Hutchinson gave a copy of the DEEP letter to the applicant, which had been received the day of the ZBA meeting. She discussed that some of the concerns raised by the DEEP relate in part to the conversion of the shed on the property into living space and the raised patio on the property. She noted that it very difficult based on information submitted to determine whether there is an increase in non-conformity related to floor area and ground coverage, and whether there is an increase in living space within the Velocity Zone. Mr. Snyder noted that part of the issue is that the DEEP review viewed the shed as a shed, and not living space, and speaking on behalf of the applicant he would agree to a building inspection of the shed as a condition of approval and stated that their position
is that it is existing finished living space that is connected to the home. Ms. Hutchinson asked if there were any permits to demonstrate that the shed was legally converted into living space, and Mr. Snyder did not know.
Mr. Koztan asked the age of the home, because when the shed was converted to living space could impact whether it can be considered a legal pre-existing non-conformity, and that timing would need to be established. Ms. Hutchinson suggested that this be checked with the Assessor’s office. This is one of the open questions for which the board needs more information. Mr. Snyder expressed the opinion that most detailed building records go back to the 90’s and offered that historical testimony about the timing of conversion may be helpful, and Mr. Gnazzo was asked to go on the record that the conversion from shed to living space happed long ago, and he did.
Mr. Snyder next wished to address the DEEP comments about the flood elevation and noted the DEEP reviewer didn’t have the luxury of looking at the architectural drawings. He asked Mr. Laliberte to go over those. First, Mr. Schellens asked about the zoning compliance table submitted; specifically, what is the current square footage of floor area and living space and what is proposed. Mr. Laliberte stated he did not have that. Mr. Snyder stated that the existing is 2,827 sq.ft. and the proposed is 2,976 sq.ft., so that the increase is less than 150 sq.ft. It was discussed that Mr. Snyder was referring to building coverage, and not floor area, which is not listed on the zoning compliance table. Mr. Laliberte tried to explain that not all of the structure will be two stories and part of
the increase is a staircase, so not all of the increase should be considered living space.
Mr. Laliberte reviewed the architectural plans and stated the structure will sit over the existing footprint, except for the side-shed area, where the footprint is slightly pulled in away from the side setback. Concrete piers will be poured along with a floating slab. Ms. Hutchinson asked whether the stairs in the side setback will be enclosed. Mr. Laliberte stated the stairs are “enclosed” but the walls are breakaway in the event of flooding. The stairs are a single row. Vehicular storage is proposed in the front area of the ground level, the rest is open area and a new rear patio will be installed that will be lowered to the base flood elevation so that the water flows thru – about a 7.5-7.6 foot elevation.
Mr. Snyder noted that the raised patio was not designed to be a seawall. Mr. Laliberte stated the rear patio would have to be lowered to be usable when the rear shutters on the bottom level are opened. It was discussed this would make it more like a terrace. Mr. Kotzan asked if the replacement for the elevated patio would be pervious or impervious. Mr. Laliberte did not yet know but agreed that the lowered height would make it no longer a Structure, as is the current elevated patio. Ms. Hutchinson noted the existing patio is up to her knee. It was discussed that if the replacement patio were impervious it would need to be included in calculation of ground coverage, but if it were pervious it may result in a decrease in ground coverage versus the existing patio. The applicant
was asked to show what is existing and proposed for ground coverage after incorporating the existing patio in the coverage calculations. Mr. Snyder noted that the patios are shared with other homeowners as communal space, and they are in favor of this plan.
Mr. Laliberte stated that the elevator has been changed to an accessibility lift which will go to all three levels of the home, and that all breakaway walls and concrete piers will be faced with a cultured stone.
Ms. Hartmann asked if the architectural drawings provide the square footage that extends into the setbacks, both side and towards the water, and was told that is shown on the site plan. Mr. Snyder said that they have taken 60 sq.ft. from the side setback and put it in a more compliant area, and that coverages (required, existing and proposed) are noted on the plans.
Mr. Kotzan asked about floor coverage which is not noted on any plans and may be where there is an increase in non-conformity. Ms. Hutchinson stated the Board wants to see the breakdown of the coverages per the zoning regulation definitions, specifically floor area, building and structure coverage, ground coverage, and living area, which is different than floor area. For example, a shed would be included in floor area but not living area.
Ms. Mickle asked that because the dwelling is being demolished and reconstructed, why would not a variance be needed to build to two stories and not the one and a half story that is required. Mr. Kotzan recalled a situation when a homeowner asked to reconstruct a dwelling to meet FEMA requirements, but when the Board asked the applicant to make reductions to become more compliant, the applicant instead decided to raise the exiting house to meet FEMA requirements. Ms. Hutchinson expressed the view that is it not just whether the new structure is designated 2-stories or not, but also where the added second-story space is located. For example, elevation in a setback is an increase in non-conformity, even if the edge is no closer to the property line, since the elevated structure could now be looming over a
neighbor. Without drawings of the existing structure it is very difficult to understand the overall increase in bulk. Mr. Laliberte explained that they have tried to minimize in increase in non-conformity in the side set back by placing the stairwell there, reducing roof lines, making that portion of the structure one and a half stories, although it is still higher than the existing shed within the side setback.
The definition of Floor Area was read, and how enclosed stairwells are included/calculated in total floor area was discussed. Mr. Snyder stated they are removing 60 s.f.uHu/600 cubic ft. from the side setback. Mr. Dix noted that a new stairway is needed to access the raised structure and having an open stairway is not as safe as an enclosed stairway.
Mr. Schellens noted that the Board is sympathetic to raising the structure to meet FEMA requirements, but we need to hold your feet to the fire for any further non-conformities and consider what is needed versus what is wanted.
Mr. Rosenfeld asked if the structure we see today will continue to exist, or will it be a new structure. Mr. Snyder stated it will be renovated into a new structure. Mr. Rosenfeld discussed “Voluntary Demolition” in the Zoning Regulations, as bringing the structure down to the foundation, after which you no longer retain the existing non-conformities. There was a discussion of the pros and cons as to how the Board should view a “reconstruction”, and whether some existing structures would need to be maintained to retain the existing non-conformity.
Ms. Hutchinson asked if they were asking for the “minimal” variances needed to have a safe living structure, with a proposal that is based on the existing dwelling without including the shed area. Mr. Snyder stated yes, when they started the project it was going to much larger and they scaled it down, so feel that it is as lean as it gets, including a minimal height variance. Ms. Hutchinson mentioned the cupola adding to the visual height. Mr. Laliberte said that could be removed.
Ms. Mickle asked whether the second floor is a full second floor. Ms. Hutchinson asked about moving the staircase out of the setback. Mr. Snyder stated that it wouldn’t work with the septic system, and the applicant already spent 4 months working out the septic system with Ledge Light Health District. Mr. Snyder felt that this was a minimal plan and that it can be approved based on any one of the hardships raised.
The applicant was asked to explain how the total numbers for coverage were determined, and Mr. Kotzan agreed that there appeared to be some discrepancies in how the zoning table was prepared that may need rectification, and suggested the applicant provide a more detailed breakdown of the numbers for building and structure for each dwelling, as well as total lot coverage. Mr. Snyder reiterated that they are only seeking variances for 8.8.11, 8.8.6, and 8.8.9.
Ms. Hartmann asked about the square footage of the house now versus the square footage of the new proposal. The new proposal is 2,054 which includes the stairs according to Mr. Laliberte. Mr. Kotzan would like to see a cut out of the existing structure son that one could slide it over the proposed structure to compare how it looks: how will it be higher, and how it will intrude into the setbacks.
Mr. Schellens feels the second-floor area is being increased a lot. Mr. Laliberte stated that he needs to get the Board information on the Floor Area ratios. Mr. Dix also asked about “usable space” and requested a comparison of existing versus proposed.
Mr. Kotzan asked if they were diminishing the numbers of bedrooms. Mr. Laliberte stated that they are going from 4 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms, which Mr. Kotzan noted was a point in the applicant’s favor.
Ms. Hartmann noted that the dimensions of the new master bedroom were huge, and Mr. Laliberte noted that was because the applicant combined two bedrooms into one master bedroom, to match the septic. Mr. Laliberte also noted that the existing home only has 7-foot ceilings and non-code compliance stairs that need to be addressed in the new proposal.
The Chair opened the floor for public comments. Mr. Gary Gnazzo lives next door, has lived there for 28 years, and is in favor. He believes reconstruction is better than elevation of older existing structures or trying to use existing walls to avoid issues with “voluntary demolition”. Mr. John Gnazzo agrees with Mr. G. Gnazzo; he is in favor and believes that these shacks need to be fixed up right, rather than constantly repairing them.
Ms. Hutchinson asked about what additional information should be provided to the Board, and should the public hearing be continued so that the Board can get answers to their questions. Mr. Kotzan would like additional information to support a more informed decision, including: numbers for Floor Area for each of the houses, drawings of existing floor plans providing living area, etc., as well as drawings with elevations comparing the existing structure to the new structure. This will help provide the information comparing the proposed non-conformities with the existing non-conformities. Mr. Schellens wants the floor area on the second floor for the new house versus the current house, details regarding the staircase, and considerations of any way to reduce the bulk. Also requested was that the
application’s zoning calculations be amended to include impervious areas in ground coverage and noting any proposed changes thereof. Mr. Kotzan asked that they provide documentation about the shed and when it was converted to living space. It was clarified that the Board would like the floor area and coverage information broken down by individual dwelling, common areas, and total. The Chair asked if the applicant would like to request a continuance, and how long of a continuance they would need to allow them to come back to the Board with the information requested. Mr. Snyder agreed to request a continuance until the next meeting and put that request in writing.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by T. Schellens to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Case 18-03C – Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road to the April 17, 2018 Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Mezzanine Conference Room. No discussion, and a vote was taken. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Dix, T. Schellens; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Case 18-04 – Carol Mitchell, 64 Columbus Avenue, requests variances to allow renovation of the existing year-round home with a reduction in bedrooms from 3 to 2, a slight increase in height of 6” +/- over the allowed 24’ in height to meet FEMA and a slight increase in the coverage percentage (required 25% which is existing to 27%).
Present were Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell, the owners, who presented letters in favor from neighbors at 62, 63, 65, 66, and 68 Columbus Avenue. Presenting on behalf of the applicant is Jeff Flower the architect. This is a single-family ranch house, owned by the same family since the 1950s. The dwelling is in an AE 13 zone, so the floor level needs to be raised to 13 feet elevation plus 1 foot, and the applicants are asking to raise it an additional foot. While they basically will likely comply with the 24 feet height requirement, because they are close, they are requesting a variance for an additional 6 inches, in case the shingles are too tall. The extra foot being requested is to allow parking underneath, once the structure is raised 4 feet over what it is now.
They are also propose raising the roof of the structure 30 inches to create a loft area to replace the basement storage space that will be lost. The loft ceiling will be less than 6 feet, so would not count as floor area. The structure will maintain the existing footprint, except for removal of a mechanical space off the back. The coverage is increased because they are adding stairs. Mr. Flower asked for a copy of the non-compliance table generated today by Mr. Rosenfeld, ZEO, that had been prepared today and was being reviewed by the Board. Mr. Flower continued his presentation and stated that the plan proposes decreasing the number of bedrooms from 3 to 2. He noted that they have worked with Ledge Light Health District and will be replacing the septic tank with one 10 ft from
the house. Mr. Kotzan noted that this is a seasonal home, and Mr. Flower said that will not be changing. The raised dwelling will also have internal stairs to the new loft. The living area will also have a cathedral ceiling of less than 12 feet, so that it does not count as extra square footage. The proposal also includes a new raised landing, where they currently have a patio, that will be connected to the entry stair. This is to address the loss of connectivity with the ground and the neighborhood due to raising of the structure 7-8 feet.
Ms. Hartmann asked about the tree in front. The applicant noted that it died and will be removed, and that is where the new septic tank will be. Underneath the structure will be FEMA compliant parking, the floor level will be a little lower than the outside grade, slightly graded to the back of the property.
Mr. Dix asked about the drainage. Mr. Flower replied that it will continue to drain onto the grass, towards the back of the property which is a brook. The floor will be slab, and there are no functional items at that level. Adding the extra foot in height above FEMA requirements for an AE zone, to allow under building storage helps everybody on the street and improves the neighborhood.
The basic hardship here is FEMA, which is not unique, but there is also the ability to approve a variance if the proposal goes in the direction of better compliance than what you have existing. In this case, they are making the property less non-conforming by removing a shed in the rear, thereby reducing the non-conformity of rear set back and distance to wetlands, plus the proposal will become more compliant with respect to FEMA.
Ms. Hutchinson asked Mr. Flower walk through the zoning compliance table. A question was raised about the change in coverage, and Mr. Flower noted that part of that change is coverage is required to provide access to the elevated structure. There were a number of questions about parking in the area and the composition of the proposed driveway, which Mr. Flower said will likely be gravel.
Mr. Flower reviewed the non-conformities, and was asked to highlight what is changing, with respect to coverage and setbacks. He views the access stairway as not impacting setback requirement but does impact coverage. The only increase in non-conformity is the front bump out, but that is mostly offset by the reduction in the rear setback non-conformity. The front bump out is cantilevered out on one concrete column. It will be a minimum impact visually, with see-through sides.
Ms. Hartmann asked if the applicants have had flooding from either hurricane Irene or Sandy. The applicant responded that they did have flooding into their crawl space that impacted some electrical equipment, but the flooding receded quickly. With the new proposal the mechanicals will be on the second floor.
Ms. Mickle asked whether the conversion of the crawl space to garage area will now become included into floor area. The answer was no, it is FEMA vehicle storage only.
Mr. Flower summarized that the applicant is asking for two variances: a slight increase in height (+/- 6”) and an increase in coverage from 27-31%, which is primarily the elevated landing plus access stairs. A decrease in non-conformity is the rear setback going from 15.5 to 11.5 ft.
Mr. Kotzan confirmed with Mr. Flower that the version of the plans submitted are the ones that will be built to.
Ms. Hartmann read several letters from neighbors into the record, all of which were supportive, and all of which commented on the benefit of adding understructure parking and meeting FEMA requirements.
Ms. Hutchinson opened the meeting for public comment. James Silvestro, of 60 Columbus Ave., stated his support of the plan, specifically commenting on its improvement to the neighborhood, the need to address increased flooding, and the need for additional parking in the area.
A Motion was made by T. Schellens, seconded by S. Mickle to CLOSE the Public Hearing for Case 18-04 – Carol Mitchell, 64 Columbus Avenue. No discussion, and a vote was taken.
Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle, T. Schellens; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
VI. Open Voting Session:
Case 18-03C – Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road, requests variances to allow reconstruction of the dwelling above base flood elevation in the Flood Hazard Area which requires variances for exceeding the height by 8’ (from required 24’ to proposed 32’), an increase in maximum lot coverage (from required 25% to proposed 29%) and minimum setback from other property line (12’ required/5.1’ existing). CONTINUED TO NEXT MONTH
Case 18-04 – Carol Mitchell, 64 Columbus Avenue, requests variances to allow renovation of the existing year-round home with a reduction in bedrooms from 3 to 2, a slight increase in
height of 6” +/- over the allowed 24’ in height to meet FEMA and a slight increase in the coverage percentage (required 25% which is existing to 27%).
The Chair, Ms. Hutchinson, requested that the Board discuss the application and the hardships before crafting a motion. Mr. Kotzan agreed that this would be good, to capture on the record the reasoning that would go into the proposed motion.
Mr. Schellens expressed his view that elevating the home to meet FEMA requirements was a hardship, also the requirement to add staircases to access the elevated structure is also a hardship and should not be an issue as far a setback and coverage. He also noted the reduction in non-conformity by removing the shed in the back. That reduction off-sets the modest landing added to the added stars in the front for socialization is quite minimal and is within the intent of zoning.
Ms. Mickle raised the point that during the public hearing Mr. Flower agreed that the side terrace be constructed with permeable materials, so requested that become a condition of approval.
Mr. Kotzan supports raising to meet FEMA requirements, however believes that the Board should also help to ensure that any other non-conformities are either decreased or are minimal to support improving the safety of the structure, such as allowing the adding of an access stairway, which is a reasonable approach.
Ms. Hutchinson noted that the applicants are proposing to raise the existing house, so there is no question about the legality of the existing non-conformities.
Both Mr. Schellens and Mr. Kotzan noted the importance of moving mechanicals higher, which sacrifices some living space. Another improvement is the code compliant septic system.
Ms. Hutchinson summarized that the structure will be come more compliant overall, with no increase in non-conformity except for a minor increase over what is the minimal required to elevate the structure for FEMA compliance. Mr. Schellens noted that much of that minor increase is due to the required addition of stairs, and Mr. Kotzan noted that the only other non-required increase was the extra 1 ft elevation (+/- 6 inches over the 24 ft limit) to allow an otherwise unusable space to be usable, and which helps the property get the parking off the street and underneath the structure.
Ms. Hartmann noted that none of the increases are intrusive and are on the side of the property where there are no near neighbors.
It was noted that all of the neighbors supported the plan, and all hardships were with the property and were not personal.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by T. Schellens to GRANT with condition the following variances to Sections 8.8.7, 8.8.9, 8.8.1, 8.8.10 and 8.8.11 to allow the applicant to lift the building as per plans submitted and dated July 11, 2017 and revised August 24, 2017 and stamped and signed by the ZBA Chair. The condition is that the side terrace be made of permeable materials.
No further discussion and a vote was taken. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle, T. Schellens; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Reasons for granting: 1) FEMA compliant with minimal nonconformities; 2) increases compliance with life safety regulations and upholds the intent of the Zoning Regulations and 3) Proposal is consistent with the neighborhood and supported by neighbors.
VII. Regular Meeting
- New Business – Ms. Hutchinson asked if people wanted to share ideas for how to improve our working processes. Mr. Schellens and Mr. Kotzan, who have served on the board many years, recalled how the ZBA used to rely heavily on Kim Barrows as clerk in the past, and that is would be good to have that amount of support again.
Ms. Hutchinson was asked to speak with staff and ZBA Attorney for any guidance they may have on the proposed format for drafting motions.
Mr. Kotzan also suggested that we ensure that we have clear plans that can be stamped and signed and be enforceable, so that we can ensure that they do not build something different than what was approved.
Mr. Schellens noted that historically the ZBA was very careful of how the variances were described and develop a template that can be used. It was also discussed that it may be helpful to develop a review template to help us capture key points raised during the public hearing that we want to remember to discuss during the voting session. Mr. Kotzan said that he would be happy to share a review template that he created for consideration by the rest of the Board.
Mr. Dix suggested that we also prepare a zoning template for applicants that requests they also highlights the changes in non-conformity, which was viewed as a good idea by the other members.
Also suggested was the development of some literature that can be provided to the applicants that is instructive. For example, the 2-page primer on the ZBA: this is what it does, this is what is required, this is what a hardship is, etc. Another suggestion was a Variance Application Checklist, so that the applicant knows what information we will need to review their application. Otherwise, in the past, we have had to open and continue cases because the applicant did not know what information was needed.
Also important is the need for a complete Zoning Compliance Permit Application, which is the step before the variance application. This can be discussed with Mr. Rosenfeld.
Ms. Hartman noted that we need the breakdown of square footage of the existing not just the proposed. Mr. Kotzan summarized that we need plot plans, building plans and elevations -for both before and after.
Everyone agreed these are important improvements, because when applicants get upset it is usually because they did not understand their responsibilities, and then have an issue when they come before us and we have to send them back to get more information.
Ms. Hutchinson expresses excitement that everyone wants to work together to improve the process.
b) Old Business – None
c) Correspondence and Announcements – None
d) Minutes –~~ ZBA Regular Meeting January 16, 2018. Mr. Rosenfeld handed out copies, but as the Board had not had the opportunity to review them, approval was Tabled to next month.
VIII. Adjournment
A Motion was made by T. Schellens, seconded by K. Kotzan to adjourn the March 20, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle, T. Schellens; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
The next regularly scheduled ZBA meeting will be TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018 AT 7:00 P.M. in the Mezzanine Conference Room, Memorial Town Hall, 52 Lyme St., Old Lyme, CT
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Hutchinson
| 
