Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Board of Appeals Unapproved Minutes 11/20/2018

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS –~REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Mezzanine Conference Room
MEMORIAL TOWN HALL, 52 LYME STREET
OLD LYME, CT -~7:00 P.M.

  • Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM
II.~~~~~Roll Call

Present:~Nancy Hutchinson (Chair), Kip Kotzan (Vice Chair), Dan Montano, and Alternate Stephanie Mickle (Acting Secretary).

Absent:~~ Marisa Hartmann and alternates Steve Dix and Tom Schellens

IV.~    Public Hearing

Prior to beginning discussion of any cases scheduled for public hearing tonight, the Chair informed everyone that because only four members of the board were present, and because four positive votes are required to grant a variance, the Chair would ask each applicant prior to the closing of their public hearing whether they would like the board to proceed with a vote on their case with only four board members present, or would prefer to delay a vote until the next (January) ZBA meeting with five members present. Mr. Kotzan noted the additional member would review the materials and listen to tonight’s recording prior to voting at that meeting.

Case 18-10 – Scott & Kathleen Boulanger, 73 Portland Avenue,~request variances to allow construction of a sanitary sewage pump station on the vacant lot.  

D. Montano noted that he had recused himself from this case.  The Chair asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and no one came forward.  Without an applicant’s representative present, and without the Board having received a written request for continuation of the public hearing until the January ZBA meeting, the Board felt they needed to close the public hearing tonight because it was opened at the October 16th ZBA meeting.  

A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Mickle, to~CLOSE the Public Hearing for Case 18-10 Scott & Kathleen Boulanger, 73 Portland Avenue,~to request variances to allow construction of a sanitary sewage pump station on the vacant lot.~ Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~~none.  The motion passed unanimously 3-0.

Case 18-11 – George & Deb Ross, 4 Joel Drive,~request variances to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling that will meet FEMA requirements on the vacant lot.  

The Chair noted that the opening of the public hearing for this case had been delayed from the October 16, 2018 ZBA meeting at the request of the applicant.  The applicants George and Deb Ross introduced themselves, as well as Anthony Hendricks, a licensed surveyor who will be supporting the applicants and providing background.

The Chair asked the applicants if they would like to proceed with the public hearing with only four board members, and noted that they can decide at the end of the public hearing if they would like a vote to proceed tonight with only four board members present, or would prefer to delay the vote until a meeting with 5 members present.  Mr. Hendricks stated that the applicant would like to proceed with the public hearing tonight, and to delay a vote until a time when the full board was present, with the additional member having time to review the materials and the recording.  The Chair noted that if the applicant chose to continue the public hearing until the January ZBA meeting, the applicant would need to request a continuance, since that would be more than 35 days from the opening of the public hearing tonight.  Mr. Hendricks concurred.

Mr. Ross summarized that they bought the property in April 2018 and worked with Ledge Light Health District (LLHD) on the well and septic plans that were approved in September.  Mr. Hendricks, Licensed Survey Professional, provided some history of the property, stating that this property is in a development that was initially established in the 1930s. There were originally 3 parcels of property, and Mr. Ross bought a portion of that property.  

Mr. Hendricks stated the Planning Commission had been asked for clarification of boundary changes that had been made by previous owners and the Assessor, and he noted that there were 2 houses on 3 parcels.  He then stated that after complying with all of the Planning Commissions requirements and regulations, we were able to define two parcels of property that were able to comply with the septic and zoning requirements with regards to an existing non-conforming lot; non-conforming in the aspects that the buildings were over the property lines and such.  All were 10,000 sq.ft. lots, and all of that was in conformance with the regulations.  He also highlighted that the prior structures were in a deteriorated condition.  Ms. Hutchinson noted that some ZBA members were familiar with the deteriorated condition of the pre-existing structure because a prior owner had sought a variance in 2015, which was denied without prejudice.  At that time, the three parcels were represented as a single lot.

Mr. Hendricks stated that the Planning Commission approved a new configuration of a Parcel A and Parcel B, with 2 houses on 1 parcel, with the stipulation that the existing houses be demolished before the new configuration could be recorded on the land records.  He reviewed a revised site plan dated 9/28/16, and pointed out the portion of property bought by Mr. Ross.  That site plan indicated the locations of the pre-existing structures, the proposed house and deck, and the proposed septic system that was approved by LLHD.  

Mr. Hendricks stated that no part of the proposed house or deck is closer to the tidal wetlands than previously existed.  Ms. Hutchinson noted that the site plan being presented by Mr. Hendricks does not match the side plan submitted with the variance application (dated 7/2/18), which shows the deck extending much closer to the tidal wetlands.  Mr. Hendricks acknowledged that some “minor” changes have been made to the earlier site plan.  

Ms. Hutchinson asked for clarification as to whether the variances are being requested to allow construction of a new structure on a “vacant lot”, or to allow expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming structure.  Mr. Hendricks stated that the applicants are requesting construction of a new home in the place of an existing home.  Ms. Mickle asked when the pre-existing structures were demolished, and it was confirmed that they were demolished prior to the applicants’ purchasing the vacant lot in April 2018.   Mr. Hendricks noted that the Planning Commission requested the structures be demolished for safety reasons, so that should not adversely impact the applicants.  Mr. Kotzan expressed concern that the buildings being demolished prior to the property being sold may impact how the board can consider the application – which is proposed as a vacant lot.  Mr. Skip Beebe, also there in support of the applicants, provided some additional background on the history of the structures and the property, and Mr. Hendricks listed a number of ways in which the proposed structure and septic system would be an improvement over the prior home, but acknowledged that the proposed home would be larger and extend closer to the wetlands than the prior home.

There was discussion of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations Section 4.2.12 Construction or Enlargement of Certain Buildings Adjoining Coastal Resources, Section 4.3 Tidal Waters Protection, Section 4.2.5.a Coastal Site Plan Review Application Requirements, and the terms “mean high tide line”, “mean high navigable waters line”, “mean high water line”.   The board requested the applicant denote where they are located in reference to the site or to provide documentation that they are not located on or near the site.  Ms. Hutchinson noted that she walked the site at high tide and saw water covering a significant portion of the property, and asked when the location of the tidal wetlands was determined.  Mr. Hendricks said the tidal wetlands was determined by soil scientist delineation based on the tidal wetlands soil profile defined by the state of CT, and was determined in 1995.  Ms. Hutchinson noted that the site plan notes refer to maps dated 1949 and 1928, which raises the question does the site map reflect current conditions.  It would be helpful to provide documentation that the site plan accurately reflects not only horizontal locations but also current elevations, especially since the applicant is proposing construction (including deck) within a few feet of the tidal wetlands.  Mr. Hendricks stated that the elevations were T-2 accurate, but just not designated as such on the site plan.  Mr. Kotzan reiterated that documentation to that effect and including the locations of boundaries from which the variances are being requested should be provided.  

Ms. Hutchinson noted that the Board needs to determine whether the variances requested are the minimum need to overcome a hardship and whether they align with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations, which try to minimize encroachment in these areas.  Mr. Kotzan also reiterated the need for documentation that the demolition prior to approval of a plan to rebuild was a special situation, and Mr. Hendricks said that he would provide the relevant records from the Planning Commission.  Mr. Kotzan also noted it would also be helpful to provide additional information on the previous structures, to have more information to compare with the proposed structure, including information on whether the smaller structure was a shed or a dwelling.

Ms. Mickle read into the record the CT DEEP’s response to the Coastal Site Plan Review Application referral dated November 19, 2018.  Highlights include a statement that expansion of living area over pre-existing within a flood prone area is not consistent with CCMA policies and is therefore not recommended; that the building plans need additional detail regarding compliance with the FEMA NFIP program and town flood regulations; a recommendation to build to higher Velocity Flood standards; concerns about salt water well intrusion and the proposed location of the well down-gradient of the proposed septic; concerns that building a home so close to the tidal wetlands will have an adverse effects on areas directly regulated by the CT DEEP so a recommendation to relocated the home farther from the tidal wetlands, a recommendation for a 10 ft wide vegetated riparian buffer along the edge of the tidal wetlands; and a recommendation to submit a formal submittal to the CT DEEPs Natural Diversity Database.   

Mr. Hendricks stated that the septic has been approved by LLHD, and they are aware of the potential salt water intrusion concern and will address as needed.  He also stated the applicant would be OK with providing a vegetative buffer, and he looks forward to working with the Board to address any of their concerns, any environmental concerns, as well as the wishes and concerns of Mr. & Mrs. Ross.

Ms. Mickle asked if the house can be relocated on the site.  Mr. Hendricks stated it could be moved closer to Parcel A, but not the street because of the necessary setbacks from the septic system; however, doing so may impact Parcel A.  Ms. Mickle read into the record the letter from the CT River Gateway Commission, which stated that the Commission would likely not oppose the plan due to it having limited visibility from the CT River due to the site’s location.

Mr. Ross reviewed the proposed building plans, which were intended to provide a general idea of what is proposed for their retirement home with a nice view of the river, and are not final.  They would like to build something nice that will enhance the neighborhood, and they want to abide with all of the environmental concerns, especially being located next to a nature preserve.  There was discussion about the change in floor area and coverage, the accuracy of the proposed height, the need to show the location of the entry stair, etc., so that the Board has adequate information for their review and to adequately document what is being proposed.  There is also a need to provide more information related to FEMA compliance as is required by the zoning regulations to obtain a zoning permit in a flood zone, which is not the same level of detail that would be required to obtain a building permit.  This information helps to ensure that whatever variances are granted meet the needs of the project.  The Board also evaluates the hardship, whether the plan is the minimum needed to address the hardship, and whether the plan in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning plan.

Ms. Mickle read into the record a letter from Mrs. Ross’s physician requesting the Board consider her medical conditions when reviewing the variance application request.  The Ross’s reviewed their desire for a new home with a home office, three bedrooms, dry storage area, etc.

Based on the feedback the applicants received today, they were asked how they wanted to proceed.  The options include requesting a continuance of the public hearing until January 15, 2019; close the public hearing so that the Board would make a decision based on the information presented to date; or withdraw the application and submit a new one with additional information provided.  The Board said they were open to waiving the application fee, if the applicants submitted a new variance application within 6 months.  Mr. Beebe suggested the applicants start fresh with a new application in January, and Mr. and Mrs. Ross provided a written statement withdrawing Case #18-11 in anticipation of submitting a new application within six months.

A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by D. Montano, to wave application fees for an amended application for George and Deb Ross, 4 Joel Dr., if submitted within 6 months upon withdrawal of application Case #18-11.  

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

Case 18-12 – Julie Zyla & Michael Bednarz, 98 Hillcrest Road,~request variances to allow reconstruction of an existing 2-bay garage structure with storage area. The reconstructed structure will be reshaped to reduce the nonconforming street setback encroachment with expansion in a conforming location, the new size to be 22’ x 24’with 3’ x 10’storage area.

David and Geri Deveaux of Deveaux Architects represented the applicants; they read the variance application into the record with the list of variances being requested.  The applicants had submitted another variance application to the Board in Feb 2017, Case 17-02C, related to the reconstruction of the existing house, which is now complete.  The Deveaux’s presented photographic and site plan evidence supporting the claimed hardships and how the proposed plan would be in alignment with the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and in harmony with the neighborhood.  The plan would also maintain a view of the water from the street.  The revised location also reduces non-conformity in the front setback by 5.5 feet.  

Also discussed was an issue with stormwater drainage coming from the street, and how they will use the garage construction project as an opportunity to address this issue, including installation of an enhances stormwater drainage system.  Photographs of on-going work where shown on Mr. Deveaux’s phone.  

Ms. Mickle read into the record two letters that had been submitted.  One letter, with photographs, from the next door (downhill) neighbor, Margarite Mattison, 100 Hillcrest Rd, expressing her concerns about stormwater running from 98 Hillcrest Rd. onto her property, with an attached letter from Mr. Sperduto, a Stormwater Hydrologist of Sperduto Land Survey, supporting Ms. Mattison’s claims and providing several recommendations to address.  

The Deveaux’s stated that they have discussed Ms. Mattison’s stormwater concerns and requests and how the applicants plan to address it.  They agreed to include four conditions to the variance intended to address this issue (see motion below) that were not indicated on the plans submitted.

The Chair opened the hearing to public comment.  One other neighbor (name?) from Hillcrest Rd spoke in favor of the plan.

The applicant was asked whether they would like the Board to proceed with a vote with only 4 members, as 4 affirmative votes are needed to grant a variance, or delay the vote to a future meeting with 5 members.  The applicant consented to proceed to a vote with only 4 members.

A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Mickle, to~CLOSE the Public Hearing for Case 18- 12 – Julie Zyla & Michael Bednarz, 98 Hillcrest Road.

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

Case 18-13 - Lawrence & Heidi Lapila, 19 Old Colony Road,~request variances to allow demolition of a nonconforming “Year Round” 5 bedroom, 2 family home so that a more conforming 3 bedroom single family residence can be built on the property that is outside the flood hazard area. ~

Mr. Hanner is a design-builder for BROM Builders, and a licensed broker, and is representing the applicants.  He reviewed the proposal to renovate an older home on a flat lot outside the flood zone.  It is a pre-existing non-conforming 2-family home in a residential neighborhood.  He reviewed a table he prepared in consultation with staff that identified all of the existing non-conformities and compared them with the proposed structure, and highlighted whether there is an increase or decrease in those non-conformities.  The plan is more conforming in all ways but one.  The key reductions are changing from a 2-family to 1-family home, reducing the number of bedrooms from 5 to 3, and reductions in building height, number of stories, and floor area.    

The applicant consented to the Board proceeding to a vote with only 4 members.  The Chair opened the hearing to public comments; no one spoke.

A~Motion~was made by D. Montano, seconded by N. Hutchinson, to~CLOSE the Public Hearing for Case 18-13 - Lawrence & Heidi Lapila, 19 Old Colony Road.

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

Case 18-14 William & Susan Pappas, Tr., 34 Sargent Road,~request variances to allow the rebuilding of an existing dwelling to its original size and footprint, the size is 24’ x 32’ for the main area.

Attorney Cronin is representing the applicant.  He introduced the builder, Ken Reeve.  He noted the house was build in 1925.  The applicant bought it recently and wanted to renovate.  Attorney Cronin presented a one-sheet drawing that depicts the existing structure elevations and floor plans and the proposed structure and floor plans.  This drawing had not been submitted previously so was marked Exhibit A.  The renovation would have modernized the home with the same number of bedrooms, converting a first-floor storage area into living space.   However, during the renovation the decision was made to raise the roof, after which the builder ran into dry rot.  They did not realize that it would be a zoning violation to then take down the walls.  

Because the application refered to an initial Zoning Compliance Permit application approval, but a copy had not been submitted with the variance application, Ms. Hutchinson asked the clerk to add a copy of the original Zoning Compliance Permit Application that had been approved to the file.  She noted that the permit approved “All internal changes”.  Since that zoning permit was not complied with, she believes the board must compare the proposed re-build plans to the original pre-existing structure.  

Attorney Cronin stated he believes that there is no change in this plan that should not already be permitted as a continued non-conforming use.  Ms. Hutchinson noted that by increasing the building height, which increases the bulk in the front and side setbacks, there is an increase in non-conformity.  Attorney Cronin agreed that this is a small increase in non-conformity.   He then described his rationale for why the rebuilt structure should not be relocated elsewhere on the lot in an attempt to reduce setback non-conformities, and claimed issues with the topography of the lot as a basis of a hardship.  The front of the lot is angled, and the view to the water is not perpendicular to the property.  The neighbors on the side of the property into which the existing structure sits partially in the side setback, have no objections to the proposed plan, and would prefer the structure remain at the same location, which is separated by a retaining wall.  

Ms. Hutchinson asked if it is likely that the applicant will have to rebuild the structure from scratch, why not rebuild in a more compliant location, to off-set the slight increase in non-conformity by the plans to increase the bulk in the setback.  The applicant believe that the existing location is the best location.  Ms. Mickle noted that there could be architectural ways to enhance the view if moved to a more conforming location.  Mr. Reeve noted that the second floor will now be more code compliant, and the roof is at a minimal pitch, so it is not as if they are trying to go higher than necessary. Attorney Cronin pointed out that all of the homes in this area are build well into the front setback and this is consistent with that, and if the house were moved it would no longer be parallel with the street.  

Attorney Cronin noted that the front steps will be removed, because the entranceway is being transitioned to the first floor, so they are reducing structure in the setback and reducing coverage, so they are reducing non-conformity.  Mr. Kotzan noted that the change to the roof would be barely noticable from the street.  Mr. Reeve highlighted that the roof eves will also be made smaller than existing, for a reduction in coverage.  The applicant committed to replacing the leaning retaining wall as a condition of approval, and are committed to building to the plans provided on Exhibit A.  Attorney Cronin reiterated that the building will look better and function better, and will enhance property values in the area.

The Chair opened the hearing for public comments.  Ms. Gaffney of 77 Hillcrest Rd, expressed concern that the project went beyond the initial Zoning Permit approval, and wanted to know what is planned.  Ms. Hutchinson noted that because they went beyond the Zoning Permit, a “stop work” order was put in place, and they are before the board now, with a public hearing, and so the neighbors can see what is planned and provide comment.  Mr. Reeve stated that they did not intend to do anything out of compliance.   Ms. Gaffney asked if they would be building up the land and whether the structure would be elevated in any way.  Mr. Reeve stated that the structure would not be raised, and that only grading related to drainage was planned.    

Ms. Hutchinson noted the Exhibit A building drawing does not have a zoning compliance table.  Attorney Cronin responded that the zoning compliance table is provided as a separate handout.  

Maria Prignano, 75 Hillcrest, was concerned that the elevated roof may block their view of the water.  Mr. Reeve explained the roof ridgeline is staying the same orientation but is being raised 2 feet.  Attorney Cronin pointed out that if the structure were moved back on the property, to be more-conforming, it would actually be higher because of the slope of the property, which would make the problem of view obstruction greater.  

Ms. Gaffney of 77 Hillcrest Rd asked for clarification as to whether there are any other increases beyond the roof elevation.  Mr. Reeves clarified that the deck with be the same, and the roof eves will be less, potentially improving views.

The applicant was asked whether they would like the Board to proceed with a vote with only 4 members, as 4 affirmative votes are needed to grant a variance, or delay the vote to a future meeting with 5 members.  The applicant consented to proceed to a vote with only 4 members.

A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by D. Montano, to~CLOSE~the Public Hearing for Case 18-14 - William & Susan Pappas, Tr., 34 Sargent Road.

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

A break was taken from 10:17-10:20 PM.

V.      Open Voting Session

Case 18-10 – Scott & Kathleen Boulanger, 73 Portland Avenue,~request variances to allow construction of a sanitary sewage pump station on the vacant lot.~

Seated:  N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, S. Mickle; 3 members is not enough to allow a vote on the variance.

A~Motion~was made by S. Mickle, seconded by K. Kotzan, to~continue deliberations of Case 18- 14 - William & Susan Pappas, Tr., 34 Sargent Road to the Jan 15, 2019~Regular ZBA Meeting, Mezzanine Conference room, Memorial Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme CT.

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 3-0.

CASE 18-11 - George & Deb Ross, 4 Joel Drive,~request variances to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling that will meet FEMA requirements on the vacant lot.~- withdrawn

CASE 18-12- Julie Zyla & Michael Bednarz, 98 Hillcrest Road,~request variances to allow reconstruction of an existing 2-bay garage structure with storage area. The reconstructed structure will be reshaped to reduce the nonconforming street setback encroachment with expansion in a conforming location, the new size to be 22’ x 24’with 3’ x 10’storage area.~

Seated: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, S. Mickle.  The members discussed the evidence presented, potential issues and reasons to approve, and the conditions that were agreed.

A~Motion~was made by D. Montano, seconded by K. Kotzan, to~GRANT with conditions the requested variances to Sections 8.8.3, 8.8.9, 8.8.7, 8.0.c, 9.07 per plot plan prepared by Deveaux Architects and dated 9/28/18 and building plans prepared by Deveaux Architects and dated 9/28/18 and stamped and signed by the Chair at this meeting.  The conditions are (1) add gutters to the garage to enhance collection of stormwater; (2) the yard drain will be relocated to increase collection capacity of the stormwater system; (3) enhance swale and berm to reduce runoff to neighboring property; (4) improve curbing on Hillcrest Road to direct flow to street drain.

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

Reasons for GRANTING:
  • Reduces non-conformity of pre-existing non-conforming structure (front setback).
  • In harmony with intent and purpose of zoning regulations and in harmony with the neighborhood.  Retains view of water from the street.
  • Plan will improve stormwater drainage.
  • Hardship preventing location elsewhere on property because of locations of sewer lines, underground propane tank, and stormwater management system.
  • Also based on other evidence presented during the public hearing and reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session.
CASE 18-13 - Lawrence & Heidi Lapila, 19 Old Colony Road,~request variances to allow demolition of a nonconforming “Year-Round” 5 bedroom, 2 family home so that a more conforming 3 bedroom single family residence can be built on the property that is outside the flood hazard area.
~
Seated: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, S. Mickle.  The members discussed the evidence presented, potential issues and reasons to approve, and the conditions that were agreed.   

A~Motion~was made by S. Mickle, seconded by D. Montano, to~GRANT the requested variances to Sections 8.8.1, 8.8.2, 8.8.3, 8.8.5, 8.8.7, 8.8.8, 8.8.10 to rebuild a more compliant structure at 19 Old Colony Road per plot plan prepared by J. Dempsey Associates, LLC and dated Sept 20, 2018 and building plans prepared by BROM Builders Inc and dated 8/17/18 and stamped and signed by the Chair at this meeting.  

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

Reasons for GRANTING:
  • Significant reduction of multiple non-conformities.
  • In harmony with intent and purpose of zoning regulations by reducing a 2-family home to 1 family home, and by reducing 5 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms.
  • It will be a more code-compliant structure.
  • Also based on other evidence presented during the public hearing and reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session.
CASE 18-14 – William & Susan Pappas, Tr., 34 Sargent Road,~request variances to allow the rebuilding of an existing dwelling to its original size and footprint, the size is 24’ x 32’ for the main area.

Seated: N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, Dan Montano, S. Mickle.  The members discussed the evidence presented, potential issues and reasons to approve, and potential conditions of approval.   

A~Motion~was made by D. Montano, seconded by K. Kotzan, to~GRANT with conditions the requested variances to Sections 8.8.1 (5251 ft), 8.8.2 (5251 ft), 8.8.3 (25 ft), 8.8.5 (1/2 Story), 8.8.7 (12.9 ft), 8.8.9 (9.5 ft & 0.7 ft), and 8.8.9 (11.15%) per plot plan prepared by Angus McDonald, Gary Sharp & Associates and dated 2/15/18 and building plans marked “Exhibit A” and dated 10/5/18 and stamped and signed by the Chair at this meeting.  The conditions are (1) Replace retaining wall, (2) Remove front stairs, (3) Reduce eves of roof per plans, (4) footprint cannot exceed existing dimensions.

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

Reasons for GRANTING/DENYING:
  • Rebuilding a decaying structure to current building code with non-substantive alterations from existing is in harmony with intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and public health and safety.
  • Small increase in roof height in setback is off-set by reduction in eves and removal of front steps in setback.
  • Visually in harmony with neighborhood
  • Improved safety by transitioning to ground-floor entrance.
  • Also based on other evidence presented during the public hearing and reasons articulated by the board within the public hearing or voting session.
V.~~~~~~Regular Meeting

~~~~~~~~a. New Business - none
~~~~~~~~b. Old Business - none
~~~~~~~~c. Correspondence and Announcements - none
~~~~~~~~d. Meeting Minutes – ZBA Regular Meeting Minutes – October 16, 2018

A~Motion~was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Mickle, to~Approve~the Minutes of the ZBA Regular Meeting Oct 16, 2018.

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

VI.~~~~~Adjournment

A~Motion~was made by D. Montano, seconded by S. Mickle, to adjourn the Nov 20, 2018 Regular Meeting.

Voting in favor:~N. Hutchinson, K. Kotzan, D. Montano, and S. Mickle. Opposed:~~none; Abstaining:~none.  The motion passed unanimously 4-0.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:16 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Hutchinson

The next regularly scheduled ZBA Meeting will be held on
Tuesday, January 15, 2018 at 7:00 PM, in the Mezzanine Conference Room,
Memorial Town Hall, at 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.