MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – REGULAR MEETING April 17, 2018
Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 P.M
Present: N. Hutchinson (Chair), K. Kotzan (Vice Chair), M. Hartmann (Secretary), D. Montano, and Alternates S. Mickle, and S. Dix.
Absent: T. Schellens, Alternate
Voting: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan M. Hartmann, D. Montano, and S. Mickle
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).
On April 16th, the applicant’s representative, Mr. Snyder, sent an email to Keith Rosenfeld, Old Lyme ZEO/Land Use Coordinator, via email requesting a continuance until the May ZBA meeting.
A Motion was made by S. Mickle, seconded by D. Montano, to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Case 18-03C – Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road~to the May 15, 2018 Regular ZBA Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Mezzanine Conference Room, Memorial Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.
Voting~in favor: K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, N. Hutchinson, D. Montano, S. Mickle; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0.
Case 18-05C – Gaetano & Judith B. Carbone, 88 Hillcrest Road,~requests variances to allow the removal and reconstruction of an existing non-conforming structure for substantial improvements including a code-complying foundation, stair and modified roof form. ~The new structure to be relocated to reduce non-conformities.
Ms. Deveaux, Architect, and Mr. Deveaux are representing the applicant. They first reviewed the variances being sought: 8.8.1 Lot Size, 8.8.2 Minimum square; 8.8.5 1.5 story max., requesting relief of 28 sq.ft.; 8.8.6 24’ height, requesting relief of 1.5 ft; 8.8.7 street setback, requesting relief of 7’ for existing garage; 8.8.8 rear setback, requesting relief of 17.5 ft for house and 29.5 ft for deck; 8.8.9 side setback, requesting relief of 8 ft on the north and 10.2 ft on the south, 8.8.10 Max Floor Area, requesting relief of 8%; 8.8.11 Max building coverage, requesting relief of 3%; 8.8.12 Max ground coverage, requesting relief of 2%; 7.6.3 Air Conditioner setback requirement; and 8.0.c Yard Coverage and 9.07 Voluntary Demolition, requesting relief to allow reconstruction of an existing structure.
Ms. Deveaux stated that the variances are needed to allow the removal and reconstruction of an existing non-conforming structure for substantial improvements including a code-complying foundation, stair and modified roof form. The new structure is to be relocated on the property to reduce non-conformities. She stated that strict application of the zoning regulations would produce an unusual hardship or exceptional difficulty because the lot configuration, house location and building height existing prior to the zoning regulations. Current zoning setbacks result in a narrow (14 ft average width), impractical building area and shape. She stated that the hardship would be unique and not shared by others in the area because approximately 74% of this existing structure and deck is located in the rear
setback, which abuts an undeveloped coastal resource. The current location has little/no impact on this open space. Relocating the structure and deck 35 ft ± upland out of rear setback would reduce the open space between the north neighbor and south driveway and would not eliminate any side-yard non-conformity. The variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations because the scope of work maintains the building position in the neighborhood and increases abutting property views. The proposal alters the footprint shape, but does NOT increase Floor area, to better comply with setbacks. Building height and lot coverage remain unchanged. All structures are now located on the property and no longer extends onto abutting property.
These variances would allow the reconstruction of an existing structure in a more conforming location. The structure is not in a flood zone, but it is within 100 ft of a coastal resource. The existing deck lies partially beyond the property line.
The original house was built in 1915, with construction appropriate for that time, and is currently sitting on deteriorating foundations. A structure constructed today would need to comply with more stringent requirements for wind loads, windows, foundation, etc. The architects are recommending a complete reconstruction, replicating the original building mass, volume, and profile.
The Deveauxs then reviewed a map of the area and photographs of the home and neighborhood. Similar to other homes in the area, there is a small garage near the street and the dwellings lie closer to the rear property line towards the water, and this property abuts a never-to-be-developed coastal resource area within Point-O-Woods. In response to a question from Ms. Hartmann, Mr. Deveaux stated that the garage will only undergo cosmetic changes, perhaps siding. Because of the extensive renovations needed, the applicant is required to bring the building up to code, which would require a rebuild.
The Deveauxs then reviewed the plot plan, showing the small, narrow buildable area within the setbacks. Also shown were the areas of the deck that extended beyond the property, and where the existing dwelling extended into the setbacks. A total of 74% of the existing structure sits in the rear setback. Since the project requires a rebuild, they sought to design the project to better locate the structure on the property and reduce non-conformities, which included sliding the entire structure back 5.5 feet, away from the rear property line, bringing the deck entirely onto the property, and shifted another part of the structure away from the side setback into a conforming location. Sliding the structure back 5.5 ft rather than a full 35 ft would result in much less impact to the site and reduce the
crowding of the other homes in the neighborhood.
The Deveauxs then reviewed the building plans – existing and proposed. There are currently 6 bedrooms (5 upstairs and 1 down) and the new dwelling will be reduced to 4 bedrooms. The new structure will sit on a full foundation with a crawlspace (less than 6 ft, for mechanicals). The design maintains existing bulk, and provides a 1.5 story appearance, maintains the location of the existing home in the neighborhood.
Ms. Hutchinson asked whether these variances were the minimum needed to address the hardship, and specifically whether the second floor could be reduced by 28 sq ft (per exist5ing) to avoid the need for a variance from the 1.5 story requirement, and the height by 1.5 feet (per existing) to avoid the need for a height variance, since they are reconstructing the home. The Deveauxs explained that when reconstructing they must bring the structure up to current building code, and that will require thicker floors, walls and ceilings, as well as code-compliant internal stairs. Therefore, by rebuilding “in kind” and maintain the existing footprint and envelope, which they viewed as allowed, the applicants are essentially sacrificing a significant amount of usable internal living space. They noted that all of
the proposed rooms will be very small.
It was discussed whether moving the structure back on the sloped lot to a flatter areas may may slightly decrease the average height versus natural grade (existing 25.6 ft), and the Deveauxs would review those calculations. It was noted that moving the structure back onto a flatter part of the property would make the new structure appear much lower, and more attractive, when viewed from the water.
Ms. Hartmann read the DEEP comments to the CAM application into the record. DEEP noted that the dwelling was built prior to zoning regulations and is not in a flood zone, and that the project will require many variances to allow demolition and reconstruction of the home. The DEEP expressed no objections to the proposal, and stated it was pleased the dwelling will be moved 5-6 ft farther from Long Island Sound and coastal resources. It noted that the proposed coverages are similar to pre-existing and made a recommendation that haybales be used to minimize sedimentation and erosion during construction.
Ms. Hutchinson expressed concern with the proposed location for the air conditioner in the side setback. The Deveauxs described the difficulty in placing it elsewhere on the property but agreed that it could be moved closer to the front door, to be less intrusive in the side setback, thereby minimizing the variance required. Ms. Hutchinson also asked whether the applicant needed a variance for the front setback for the garage (8.8.7 street setback, requesting relief of 7’ for existing garage), if it is already a legal preexisting non-conformity. Mr. Kotzan explained that it should be listed even if no change in location of the garage is proposed, just as the variance for Lot Size and Minimum Square variances are listed, but the lot is not changing.
The Board reviewed the changes in non-conformities. The height is either the same or will be reduced slightly after moving towards a less sloped portion of the property. The rear setback non-conformity is being reduced. The side setback non-conformity is also being reduced. There is a slight increase in the % coverage, but that is due to bringing the deck back onto the property. The only other increase is the proposed location of the air conditioner in the setback, but if that is reduced as agreed that increase would be minimal. There is also a reduction in the number of bedrooms, going from 6 to 4 bedrooms.
Ms. Mickle asked whether the structure will continue to be seasonal. The Deveauxs noted that the dwelling is currently hooked-up to Point-O-Woods sewer and public water and will attain year-round designation after bringing the building up to code with the proposed reconstruction. Ms. Mickle also asked if the dwelling could be moved even further forward on the property, away from the rear setback. The Deveauxs responded that one of the reasons for not moving it farther back is the location of ledge on the property, as well as the resultant crowding of the neighbor’s driveway. Also moving it further back would result in much more disruption and impact to the site, increasing the potential for silt and erosion in the Coastal Resource Area. Finally, moving it further up-slope, away from the rear
property line, will also increase the apparent height of the structure on the property.
The Deveauxs confirmed that the plans submitted are the ones that will be constructed, except for reducing the intrusion of the air conditioner into the side setback. They will also recalculate the height versus average existing grade of the new proposed location, which will likely be less, but will not change the plans for the building as drawn.
Mr. Dix asked whether there would be a drainage issue towards the front of the house. Mr. Deveaux explained how their construction would avoid that issue, along with grading.
Ms. Mickle thanked the Deveauxs for a well-designed project, and clear presentation.
Ms. Hutchinson asked for public comments. There were no audience members to comment.
A Motion was made by M. Hartmann, seconded by S. Mickle to CLOSE the~Public Hearing for Case 18-05C – Gaetano & Judith B. Carbone, 88 Hillcrest Road.
No discussion. Voting~in favor: K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, N. Hutchinson, D. Montano, S. Mickle; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0.
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 18-05C – Gaetano & Judith B. Carbone, 88 Hillcrest Road,~requests variances to allow the removal and reconstruction of an existing non-conforming structure for substantial improvements including a code-complying foundation, stair and modified roof form. ~The new structure to be relocated to reduce non-conformities.
Ms. Hutchinson, the Chair, requested the voting members begin a discussion of the positives and negatives of the applications before a motion is made, and summarized some of her considerations. She noted that there are reductions in some pre-existing non-conformities (rear and side setbacks); a reduction in intensity of use due to a reduction from 6 to 4 bedrooms; DEEP supports the Coastal Area Management Plan; no objections from any neighbors; the variances appear to be the minimum required to allow reconstruction of the dwelling; and they are actually reducing the usable living space by bringing up to code.
Mr. Kotzan added the benefit of converting a cottage “made of sticks” into a reconstructed dwelling that will be much safer and can survive a storm. Ms. Hutchinson asked if there were any other comments or concerns.
Ms. Mickle raised some concern about the number of variances requested but felt that they were all understandable and minimal. The board commented that most of the variances were either for pre-existing non-conformities or were reduced. The design seems to fit with the neighborhood and aligns with the intent of the zoning regulations. The hardship is that they have a lot that is small, narrow and long, established before the zoning regulations.
Ms. Hutchinson noted that the Board had discussed the hardship, the minimizing of the variances required, and that the alignment with the intent of the zoning regulations. Ms. Hartmann noted that no neighbors opposed the plan. Mr. Kotzan noted that the plan is basically to replace an existing dwelling with something that is similar but better. Ms. Hutchinson reminded the board that the applicant had agreed to relocate the air-conditioning unit to reduce the side variance required.
A Motion was made by M. Hartmann, seconded by D. Montano, to GRANT,~with conditions, variances to Sections 8.8.1, 8.8.3, 8.8.5, 8.8.6, 8.8.7, 8.8.8, 8.8.9, 8.8.10, 8.8.11, 8.8.12, 7.6.3, 8.0c, 9.07 to allow the applicant to reconstruct the dwelling as per plans prepared by Deveaux Architects and stamped and signed by the ZBA Chair at the meeting. ~The condition is to relocate A/C unit to minimize intrusion into side setback. ~The~Coastal Site Plan Review Application is also approved~because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
No further discussion. Voting in favor: K. Kotzan, M. Hartmann, N. Hutchinson, D. Montano, S. Mickle; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Reasons for granting:~~1) DEEP supports Coastal Area Management plan. ~2) Unique hardship demonstrated with the property. ~3) Plan minimizes variances required. 4) Consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations. 5) Produces a safer building structure. 6) Reduces existing non-conformities.
Bruce Hyde from the Land Use Academy, UCONN CLEAR will come to Old Lyme and give a 90-minute Land Use course entitled Legal Requirements and Procedures, Roles & Responsibilities if 15 people sign-up to attend. The Board requested it be scheduled on a Tuesday evening, starting at 5:30 or 6 PM.
All new members who would like and Old Lyme ZBA ID badge, please submit a headshot photo to Ms. Hutchinson so she can request David Roberge make all of the badges at the same time.
David Royston, the ZBA attorney, offered to come to meet with the Board to answer legal questions. Mr. Kotzan suggested including discussion of the recent Fedus vs Old Lyme ruling.
Ms. Hutchinson noted that there is a free Land Use course on “Plan Reading” being given by the same UConn CLEAR group in Old Saybrook tomorrow evening for anyone is interested.
As part of continued discussion of potential ZBA process improvements, the need to receive unapproved ZBA minutes for review before the following ZBA meeting was raised. Also raised was the desire for email communications from staff when there are significant changes to case files or the ZBA agenda.
- Correspondence and Announcements
Amendments to sections of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations relating to the protection of Aquifers were approved by the Zoning Commission at their Regular Meeting on April 9, 2018, effective June 1, 2018.
- Minutes – ZBA Regular Meeting - January 16, 2018
A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by M. Hartman, to~Approve~the Minutes of the ZBA Regular Meeting January 16, 2018 as submitted.
Voting in favor: ~N. Hutchinson, D. Montano, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle, K. Kotzan; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0.
VII. ~~~Adjournment ~
A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by D. Montano, to~adjourn~the April 17, 2018 Regular Meeting. ~
Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, D. Montano, M. Hartmann, S. Mickle, K. Kotzan; Opposed: None; Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:39 pm.
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
| 
