Old Lyme CT - Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 06/19/2018

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 06/19/2018

UNAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – REGULAR MEETING

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2018

MEZZANINE CONFERENCE ROOM

MEMORIAL TOWN HALL, 52 LYME STREET

OLD LYME, CT - 7:00 P.M.

I. Meeting called to order at 7:04 PM

II. Roll Call

Present and Voting: Nancy Hutchinson (Chair), Kip Kotzan (Vice Chair), and Alternates Stephanie Mickle, Stephen Dix, and Tom Schellens.

Absent: Marisa Hartmann, Dan Montano

Also present: ZBA Attorney David Royston

Before beginning the continued public hearing for Case 18-03C, the Chair asked the applicant’s representatives if they would like to request the public hearings for Cases 18-03C and 18-09C be combined, as both relate to the same property, as indicated in the published Legal Notice for Case 18-09C. The Legal Notice for Case 18-09C, Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road, was read into the record.

The applicant’s representatives, Architect Laliberte and Engineer Snyder, responded that the applicant would like to request the two Public Hearings for 6-1 Pond Road be combined. In light of the applicant’s request, the Chair asked if the Board would like to make a motion to combine the Public Hearings for Cases 18-03C and 18-09C, per the applicant’s request.

A MOTION was made by T. Schellens, and seconded by S. Mickle, to combine the Public Hearings for Cases 18-03C and 18-09C per the applicant’s request. No discussion. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

N. Hutchinson confirmed for the record that all of the board members seated for today’s Public Hearing for Cases 18-03C and 18-09C have attended all of the prior Public Hearings for Case 18-03C, including the Alternate S. Dix, who is replacing M. Hartmann, as well as alternates S. Mickle and T. Schellens, and regular members K. Kotzan and N. Hutchinson

Before starting the combined public hearing for Cases 18-03C and 18-09C, N. Hutchinson asked Attorney Royston if he was aware of any additional information was being submitted by the applicant. Attorney Royston responded for the record that there were several exhibits that had been removed after presentation to the board and are now being resubmitted. First, colorized versions of architectural plans presented at the March 20, 2018 ZBA meeting for Case 18-03C were being re-submitted. The exhibits were labeled as being resubmitted on June 19, 2018. Attorney Royston stated that this completes the record for the Public Hearing through the March ZBA meeting. The case was then continued until the May ZBA meeting.

Next, three sheets of colorized, revised, architectural drawings and elevations that had been presented at the May ZBA meeting but which had then been removed were resubmitted. N. Hutchinson noted that the revised architectural drawings did not include a revision date. Architect Laliberte apologized and labeled the resubmitted drawings as being revised May 1, 2018. N. Hutchinson accepted the resubmitted drawings as re-dated by Architect Laliberte, and they were labeled as having been presented at the May 15, 2018 ZBA meeting and resubmitted on June 19, 2018. Similarly, Zoning Tables (black and white) that had been presented to the Board at the May ZBA meeting, but had been removed, were re-submitted and labeled as above.

Lastly, three sheets were stapled together that include a colorized zoning table of proposed house calculations, a plot plan by Snyder Civil Engineering (revision date May 1, 2018), and a letter from the applicant (dated March 24, 2018) all of which had been presented at the May 15, 2018 ZBA meeting but removed, were re-submitted and marked received by Keith Rosenfeld, ZEO, on May 30, 2018.

N. Hutchinson read into the record email correspondence between ZBA Attorney Royston and the applicant’s representatives related to the new variance application (18-09C) dated May 29-June 12, 2018. In response to a query by Attorney Royston, the applicant clarified his position that “Should the Town Approve the Variances and all required project approvals then the patio will be removed in whole. Should the Town deny the project, the applicant would intent to retain the existing patio.”

N. Hutchinson asked Architect Laliberte if the architectural drawing dated May 1, 2018 and resubmitted today superseded any other drawing submitted, and he stated for the record that the drawings revised as of May 1, 2018 and submitted today superseded any prior architectural drawings submitted.

III. Continued Public Hearing

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). ~

AND

Case 18-09C - ~Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road,~requests variances to allow reconstruction of the dwelling on the lot having an address of 6-1 Pond Road, to raise it above base flood elevation in the Flood Hazard Area, and to construct additions to the dwelling which require the following variances. For a proposed second floor addition over an existing enclosed porch (rear yard setback of 30 FT. required, 17.9 FT proposed, 12.1 FT. needed). For a proposed stairwell (side yard setback of 12 FT, 5.1 FT. proposed, 6.9 FT. needed). For the same proposed ~stairwell (rear yard setback of 30 FT. required, 17.9 FT. proposed, 12.1 FT. needed). For an increase in Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) from the existing 33% of all dwellings on the lot to 37% of all dwellings on the lot, solely due to an increase from the existing 14% to 18% FAR for the 6-1 Pond Road dwelling only. Enlargement of a Non-Conforming Structure, where the above variances are required to allow enlargement. These variances are in addition to the variances requested on the pending application entitled~Case 18-03C-Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road.

Lastly, three sheets that were stapled together and include a colorized zoning table of proposed house calculations, a plot plan by Snyder Civil Engineering (revision date May 1, 2018), and a letter from the applicant (dated March 24, 2018) all of which had been presented at the May 15, 2018 ZBA meeting but removed, were re-submitted and marked received by Keith Rosenfeld, ZEO, on May 30, 2018.

She then turned the presentation over to the applicant’s representatives. Architect Laliberte introduced himself, Mr. Snyder and Mr. King of Snyder Engineering, and Mr. and Mrs. Calvanese. He clarified that the architectural plans presented at the May 15^th ZBA meeting, now marked as revised May 1, 2018 and resubmitted tonight, are the current architectural drawings. He confirmed that these drawings supersede those submitted previously at the March 20, 2018 ZBA meeting.

Mr. Laliberte reviewed the history of the project and the applicant’s efforts to address the boards comments and concerns since the March 20^th ZBA meeting, including changes to the plan presented at the May 15, 2018 ZBA meeting, and the additional variances needed for the proposed plan for discussion today. He also apologized to the Board, as he was not aware that the drawings and documents presented previously were not submitted. He also noted that the revised zoning calculation chart that he was about to present has also probably not been submitted, and he promised to submit tonight. This chart was created after meeting with Attorney Royston to better explain the proposed changes. The chart shows both 6-1 alone, existing and proposed, as well as a column with the total of the three homes on the property. The primary driver of the increase in Floor area ration is an increase in floor area on the second floor, about 400 ft. In addition to a decrease in side setback encroachment, the applicant is proposing a large decrease in total lot coverage, by removing the raised patio, the side deck and all building overhangs, for a total reduction of 7%. They are also eliminating an illegality, by removing and illegal bedroom and reducing the total number of existing bedrooms from 5 to 4. They are also reducing building and structure coverage by 6%. The applicants believe the board has the right to approve the requested variances based on the fact that the application is improving compliance with zoning regulations. The applicants are also supplying the design for fully compliant septic systems for all three homes on the property and reducing the burden of parking by creating two new parking spaces underneath the raised home. The proposal also provides a nice fire separation from the adjacent home, by increasing the side setback, increasing safety.

N. Hutchinson asked if the coverage calculations presented included only the portion of the patio on the property, and not the portion off the property. Mr. Laliberte confirmed that it only included the portion of the patio on the property, but confirmed that when the patio is removed, the portion off of the property would be removed as well. N. Hutchinson also asked for clarification as to how much of the approximately 400 sq.ft. increase in floor area on the upper level is due to the side stairwell, and Mr. Laliberte indicated that it is approximately 100 sq.ft.

Mr. Snyder indicated that the only change in the plot plan dated May 29, 2018 versus the May 14, 2018 version is related to the updated variances and zoning calculations. He then wrapped up the presentation thanking Attorney Royston for his helpful dialogue and noting that the applicants have taken the boards comments to heart and made a number of concessions while still maintaining a plan for a safe and livable house.

Mr. Dix asked questions about ensuring FEMA compliance with respect to removing the patio and construction of the stairs. Mr. Laliberte confirmed that all construction will be fully compliant with FEMA requirements for a high hazard flood zone, designed by professional engineers, with a subsequent FEMA review. K. Kotzan noted that some of the living space will be needed to house mechanicals. Mr. Laliberte submitted the updated zoning calculations presented to the board, and they were marked received and dated.

A Motion was made by T. Schellens, seconded by K. Kotzan, to CLOSE~the Public Hearing for Cases 18-03C and 18-09C - Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road. No discussion. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

IV. Public Hearing

Case 18-06 – Philip Orenstein, 8 Jericho Drive,~requests variances to allow a 24’ x 28’ garage on the right side of the home at the top of the driveway.

Mr. Orenstein presented his case for requesting a side-yard setback variance. He described his hardships as the home not being centered on the property and his septic system located in front of the home, so that he has not other place to place the garage. He is requesting a variance from the 35’ side-yard setback to having only a 15’ setback from the property line.

Ms. Hutchinson asked about the existing garage and the need to add another 2-car garage. Mr. Orenstein stated the existing 1-car garage is small, and is being used as a workshop, as he has no basement in the home. He said it would be nice to have a place to put his cars throughout the year. He noted that much of the land he has he cannot use, as about 30’ behind the house the land drops down an embankment.

Ms. Mickle asked why not attach the garage to the existing garage or expand the one he has. He noted that he could but was unsure of how it would look. He is willing to adjust the plan to get permission to build a 2-car garage at the top of the driveway. Ms. Hutchinson noted that if the proposal was for an attached garage addition, he may not need a variance. The board described some of the key criteria that they consider in deciding whether to grant a variance, which would make it difficult to approve the plan proposed. Ms. Mickle asked if he constructed a large 2-car garage would he remove the shed in the side setback, and Mr. Orenstein said he would keep the shed.

Attorney Royston suggested that the Board consider continuing the Public Hearing, to allow the applicant to consider other options, so that the applicant may either no longer need a variance or only require a much smaller variance, which the Board could then consider at the next meeting and still remain within he legal timeframe of the initial variance. The applicant submitted a written request to continue the Public Hearing until the next regular ZBA meeting on July 17, 2018.

A MOTION was made by T. Schellens, seconded by S. Dix, to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Case 18-06 – Philip Orenstein, 8 Jericho Drive to the July 17, 2018~Regular Meeting. No discussion. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

T. Schellens made a point of order, requesting the Board reopen the Public Hearing for Case 18-03C and 18-09C for the purposes of allowing public comment.

A MOTION was made by T. Schellens, seconded by K. Kotzan, to REOPEN the Public Hearing for Cases 18-03C and 18-09C to allow for Public Comment. No discussion. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

During public comment, two neighbors that live in the same condo association as the Calvaneses spoke in favor of the application: Mr. Gary Gnazzo and Mr. John Rondinone. Mr. Rondinone noted that it would improve the neighborhood.

A MOTION was made by T. Schellens, seconded by K. Kotzan, to RE-CLOSE~the Public Hearing for Cases 18-03C and 18-09C. No discussion. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

Case 18-07 – Allison & Andrew Meslow, 38 Seaview Road,~request variances to allow the construction of a 340 s.f. detached accessory building for a 1-bay garage and storage shed which will exceed the total allowable floor area by 6% for the property.

Mr. and Ms. Deveaux, architect, represented the applicants, and read the variance application into the record. They noted that the accessory structure meets all other zoning requirements except floor area, and that this is due to the severely sloped topography and location of the house, which was build prior to zoning regulations. This results in an unfinished, unheated basement space that is only accessible externally, and has exposed ledge and persistent ground water seepage and run-off to be counted as existing floor area because it exceeds 6’ in height. They presented a plot map and photos of the area, showing how the accessory structure would fit with the neighborhood, and how its location on the property would maintain site lines of the water. The Deveauxs also presented a plot plan, architectural drawings, and reviewed the zoning table of the existing versus proposed. They noted that the existing shed will be removed, and that the paved surface in the driveway will be replace by pervious pavers, thereby reducing pre=existing lot coverage non-conformity. They highlighted that the roof structure was designed to minimize the height of the accessory structure, and the location chosen to minimize the number of variances needed.

Ms. Hutchinson noted that if the approximately 420 sq.ft. of the unusual basement space below the house were not counted as floor space it would more than off-set the additional 340 sq.ft. of the proposed accessory structure, and K. Kotzan noted that if it were not counted it would bring floor area ratio very close to the allowed 25%. Mr. Deveaux answered structural questions raised by S. Dix.

The Public Hearing was opened for public comment, one neighbor from across the street Ms. Arlene Carmelee, asked the Applicant’s representatives for clarification of several points related to their presentation, and had no further comment.

A Motion was made by S. Mickle, seconded by T. Schellens, to CLOSE~the Public Hearing for Case 18-07 – Allison & Andrew Meslow, 38 Seaview Road. No discussion. Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

Case 18-08 – James & Janet Bechtel, 174 Mile Creek Road,~request variances to allow a 25 s.f. (10’ x 30”) bump out addition to an existing structure from the edge of the road.

Ms. Bechtel presented the proposal for a 7-foot variance from the road for the proposed 25 s.f. bump-out addition. She presented a plot plan and drawn-to-scale floor plans and elevations for the bump-out. She described the hardship as the house being built in 1775 before zoning regulations and before the road right-of-way was established. The house is located on a section of Mile Creek Road where the Town right-of-way is extremely wide, so although the bump-out is 76 feet back from the edge of the roadway, it falls within 43 feet of the road right-of-way. All other zoning requirements will be met.

The Chair opened the floor to Public Comments. No one spoke.

Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by T. Schellens, to~CLOSE~the Public Hearing for Case 18-08 – James & Janet Bechtel, 174 Mile Creek Road. No discussion. Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

V. Open Voting Session

The combined Cases of 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). AND Case 18-09C – Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road,~requests variances to allow reconstruction of the dwelling on the lot having an address of 6-1 Pond Road, to raise it above base flood elevation in the Flood Hazard Area, and to construct additions to the dwelling which require the following variances. For a proposed second floor addition over an existing enclosed porch (rear yard setback of 30 FT. required, 17.9 FT proposed, 12.1 FT. needed). For a proposed stairwell (side yard setback of 12 FT, 5.1 FT. proposed, 6.9 FT. needed). For the same proposed ~stairwell (rear yard setback of 30 FT. required, 17.9 FT. proposed, 12.1 FT. needed). For an increase in Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) from the existing 33% of all dwellings on the lot to 37% of all dwellings on the lot, solely due to an increase from the existing 14% to 18% FAR for the 6-1 Pond Road dwelling only. ~Enlargement of a Non-Conforming Structure, where the above variances are required to allow enlargement. These variances are in addition to the variances requested on the pending application entitled~Case 18-03C-Christopher Calvanese, 6-1 Pond Road.

Discussion was held prior to making a motion. K. Kotzan noted that a key driving factor was becoming compliant with FEMA requirements. He also noted that significant amendments were made to address concerns raised with the initial proposal, as well as the moderation of an illegal use, and the reduction of existing legal non-conformities to achieve a FEMA compliant structure will be important in his consideration. Ms. Mickle raised a concern with increasing this flood zone. S. Dix noted the improvements in flood or storm mitigation from raising the structure, removing patio and other structural changes. T. Schellens also highlighted the increasing the side setback to improve the fire safety lane, as well as removing the illegal use and thereby reducing the number of bedrooms and bringing the structure more into conformance, off-setting his prior concern about increasing floor area on the second floor. He feels that moving towards fire safety and erosion safety is more important than simply raising the existing building, because it brings a benefit to the community beyond just meeting FEMA compliance. He also noted that they sacrifice some living space to incorporate mechanicals inside the house. N. Hutchinson understood the need for the height variance, the stairway in the side setback, and the reduction of the side setback non-conformity, but was concerned about the increase in floor area on the second floor which is now elevated in the rear setback facing the water and will now be three stories high when it used to be only one story high facing the water, and whether that is balanced-out by all of the other safety considerations a high hazard flood zone, removal of the built-up patio and moderation of an illegal use. T. Schellens noted that the abutting neighbor had no objections. S. Dix supported the safety, access and structural changes.

N. Hutchinson requested input onto potential conditions should the application be approved, and suggested a condition related to the removal of the patio both on and off the property. Attorney Royston stated that a condition could be discussed because that is a structure that is covered by the CAM application review and could result in a safety issue if left in place. N. Hutchinson suggested the condition that after removal that that area be restored close to its natural state. Attorney Royston noted that such a condition should relate to the Coastal Area Management Policy and suggested that a possible wording for the condition be that “after removal of the patio and deck per the approved plan that the area be returned to previous natural grade with materials that are consistent with the policies and goals of the Coastal Area Management Act.” The Board agreed with this wording of the proposed condition.

A MOTION was made by T. Schellens, seconded by K. Kotzan, to~GRANT with condition the requested variances for Sections 8.8.6, 8.8.9, 8.8.11, 8.8.8, 8.8.10 and 9.3 to allow reconstruction of the dwelling to raise it above base flood elevation in the Flood Hazard Area, and to construct additions to the dwelling as per the plans prepared by Craig Laliberte Architects revised dated May 1, 2018 and site plans prepared by Snyder Civil Engineers and revised dated May 29^,2018, and that have been stamped and signed by the ZBA Chair at this meeting. The condition is that after removal of the patio and deck per the approved plan that the area be returned to previous natural grade with materials that are consistent with the policies and goals of the Coastal Area Management Act. Also approved is the Coastal Site Plan Review Applications because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.

K. Kotzan reiterated that this is a situation where it is about safety but also reduction in non-conformities: reduction in coverage, reduction in bedrooms, etc. N. Hutchinson summarized that in addition to becoming FEMA compliant the proposal has also been reduced significantly from the plan proposed in March to address the concerns raised by the Board; the moderation of conversion to an illegal use; a reduction in the side setback increased fire safety; and the proposal is aligned with the intent of zoning regulations. A concern raise was extra living space on the second floor and S. Mickle noted also a little bit on the first floor. Voting in favor:~ K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Dix, N. Hutchinson; Opposed: S. Mickle; Abstaining: None. The motion passed 4-1-0.

Attorney Royston was asked to provide guidance on providing the reasons for granting. He stated that he assumed the negative vote is concern with respect to the increase in floor area ratio, and he believed for those who voted in favor considered compliance with FEMA requirements as a critical factor in your decision and that the overall reduction in the other non-conformities, setback and coverage, outweighed the increase in floor area and setbacks. If those Board members who voted in favor concur, then it would be helpful to capture that in the reasons for granting. All four members voting in favor concurred with that summary.

Reasons for GRANTING:

Brings dwelling into FEMA compliance, consistent with zoning regulations
The proposal has been reduced significantly from that initially proposed
A significant reduction in pre-existing non-conformities (Lot coverage, side set-back)
The proposal moderates prior illegalities and eliminates an illegal use
Increase in side setback increases fire safety
Hardship in necessity of moving utilities into living space to meet FEMA requirements

The applicant was advised by the Chair that the plans that were stamped and signed are the plans that were approved, and if there is any substantial change to the plans the applicant will need to come back to the Board and may require an amendment to the variance application.

Case 18-06 – Philip Orenstein, 8 Jericho Drive,~requests variances to allow a 24’ x 28’ garage on the right side of the home at the top of the driveway. – CONTINUED until the July 17, 2018 Regular ZBA Meeting, per request of applicant.

Discussion was held prior to making a motion. S. Mickle and T. Schellens highlighted the genuine hardship with the land based on the topography. He also noted that the proposed 1-car garage is a minimum request, and is very much in keeping with the neighborhood. K. Kotzan noted that the 420 sq.ft. of unusable living area under the house would bring the floor area close to the allowed 25% if it were not counted, and the proposed accessory building is conforming in every other way. S. Dix noted that there will be a reduction in impervious lot coverage, that they are minimizing property disturbance by using existing retaining walls. Also highlighted was the sensitivity to the sight lines of the neighbors.

A~Motion~was made by S. Dix, and seconded by T. Schellens, to~GRANT the requested variance for 8.8.10 to allow the construction of a 340 s.f. detached accessory building for a 1-bay garage and storage shed as per the architectural plans and plot plans prepared by Deveaux Architects and stamped and signed by the ZBA Chair at this meeting.

No further discussion. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

The Reasons for GRANTING:

True hardship of the land – topography

Conforms with all other regulations
Reduces impervious surfaces
Consistent with the neighborhood
Minimal impact, within the intent of zoning regulations
Increased safety
Minimal disturbance of property and drainage
Site lines to water remain

Case 18-08 – James & Janet Bechtel, 174 Mile Creek Road,~request variances to allow a 25 s.f. (10’ x 30”) bump out addition to an existing structure from the edge of the road.

Discussion was held prior to making a motion. T. Schellens noted that the right of way along Mile Creek Rd is much wider that other rights-of-way, so there is a hardship of the property which was established prior to zoning. N. Hutchinson stated that this variance is within the intent of the zoning regulations, this would be an unnecessary hardship for the applicant, and this is an historic property.

A Motion was made by T. Schellens, seconded by S. Mickle, to GRANT the requested variance (8.8.7) to allow a 25 s.f. (10’ x 30”) bump out addition to an existing structure as per the plans submitted and that have been stamped and signed by the ZBA Chair at this meeting.

No further discussion. Voting in favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, T. Schellens, S. Mickle, S. Dix; Opposed: None, Abstaining: None. The motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

The Reasons for GRANTING:

Hardship is unusual road right of way – extremely wide
Aligns with the intent of the zoning regulations
Minimum variance requested to meet hardship

V. Regular Meeting

a. New Business - None

b. Old Business – None

c. Correspondence and Announcements

A letter dated June 11, 2018 from Attorney Royston to ZBA Chair N. Hutchinson regarding the Hope project before the Zoning Commission and conflict of interest was discussed. N. Hutchinson summarized that on June 7^th Attorney Royston shared with her the memo from Chairwoman McQuade dated July 7, 2017 (also attached to this his June 11^th letter). He explained that if a variance were required for the Hope application, he would recuse himself from representing either the applicant or the ZBA, and N. Hutchinson had stated that she was comfortable with that. To clarify, she did not take a position on the larger question of conflict of interest, as it was her understanding that chairwoman McQuade had made that decision a year ago, and as she has had no involvement with the Hope case she did not feel she was in a position to either override or endorse Chairwoman McQuade’s decision. Attorney Royston stated that the purpose of the letter to N. Hutchinson was so that this Board was aware, and he was available to answer any questions the Board may have. The Board agreed to go “on the record” that the ZBA takes no position regarding the Hope Special Permit Application.

Prior to leaving the meeting, Attorney Royston informed the Board about a Supreme Court Case challenging a variance application decision related to a property established prior to the zoning regulations, and that the court decision has created an uproar. He stated there is legislation being developed to correct for this decision, which would allow a variance without hardship in cases of ACA or FEMA compliance, or to provide substantial justice. This is why the reduction of non-conformities is such an important alternative, as so many cases don’t have hardship. The Fedus case showed that one not only needs a reduction in non-conformity, one also needs a benefit, such as meeting FEMA compliance – to meet the other prong: being consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations. Both parts of the prong are needed. The Board requested that he share a link to what he referred to as a terrible court decision to Kim Barrows to share with the Board.

d. Meeting Minutes for the March 20, April 17, and May 15, 2018 Regular ZBA Meetings

A~Motion~was made by T. Schellens, seconded by K. Kotzan to~Approve~the Minutes of the March 20, April 17, and May 15, 2018 Regular ZBA Meetings. No Discussion. Voting~In favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, S. Mickle, T. Schellens, S. Dix, D. Montano; In Opposition: ~None; Abstaining: None. The Motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

VI. Adjournment

A Motion was made by S. Mickle, seconded by S. Dix, to adjourn the June 19, 2018 Regular Meeting. No Discussion. Voting In favor: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, S. Mickle, T. Schellens, S. Dix, D. Montano; In Opposition: None; Abstaining: None. The Motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 PM.

The next regularly scheduled ZBA Meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 7:00 PM in the Mezzanine Conference Room, Town Hall at 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Hutchinson