 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
March 16, 2010
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Old Lyme at its Regular Meeting that was held on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street heard and decided the following appeals:
The Chairman of the Board, Susanne Stutts, opened the meeting and introduced the Board members who were seated for the meeting.
Present and voting were Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Joseph St. Germain and Marilyn Ossmann, alternate
Present: Richard Moll (arrived at approximately 8:35), Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Fran Sadowski, alternate
The meeting was then called to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following public hearings were conducted, as well as the voting session. The meeting has been recorded on tape and the following actions were taken:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 09-30C – Bogdan Brocki, 73 Swan Avenue
Present: Mr. Jeffery Flower, agent for the applicant; Mr. Bogdan Brocki, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow demolition of existing 4- family, 9 bedroom dwelling and construct a single family 4 bedroom home that will comply with FEMA and building codes. The existing nonconformities are Section 5.5, Permitted Uses a multi-family house is not allowed in the R-10 district, Section 8.8.1, Minimum lot area is 10,000 s.f., there is only 3,750 s.f. existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit is 10, s.f., 30,000 s.f. required for 3-family house and 40,000 s.f. required for 4-family house, there is only 3,750 s.f. existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot 75’, there is 50’ existing, Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories is 1 ½ stories, existing 2 ½ stories, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the
streetline is 30’ (narrow road requirement adds 5’ to the 25’ required), 10.1’ existing, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line is 30’, 6.6’ existing, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line is12’, 0’ north side of staircase (1.3’ north side of the house), Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area is 25% (937.s.f), 72.1% (2,702 s.f.) existing, Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area is 25% (937.5 s.f.), 44% (1,651 s.f.) existing and Section 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage as percent of lot area is 30% (1,125 s.f.), 44% (1,651 s.f.) existing. The project does not comply with the following regulations Section 9.3.2, Change, Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverage, Section 8.8.5 Maximum stories 1 ½ stories, 2 stories proposed and a variance is needed to allow two stories, Section 8.8.6, Maximum height of building or structure
24’ permitted (existing 23’ as measured by the applicant), 27’6” is proposed and a variance of 3’6” is needed, Section 8.8.7, Minimum setback from streetline 30’ (narrow road requirement adds 5’ to 25’) there is 10.1’ existing and 13’6” is proposed, a variance of 16’6” is needed, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line is 30’ (existing 6.6’), 8’10” needed for the house so a variance of 21’2” is needed, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line is 12’ (existing north side is 0’ for the staircase, 1.3’ for the side of the house), 4’ 1 ½” north side of the house and a variance of 7’ 10 ½” is needed, Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area is 25% (937.5 s.f.), 68% is proposed (2,560 s.f.) and a variance of 43% is needed, Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings
and structures as percent of lot area is 25% (937.5 s.f.), 35% is proposed (1,318 s.f.) and a variance of 10% is needed, Section 8.8.12, maximum total lot coverage as percent of lot area is 30% (1,125 s.f.), 35% proposed (1,318 s.f.) and a variance of 5% is needed.
Mr. Flower gave a brief presentation. Mr. Flower refers to the site plan and points to where the regulations are being violated on the site plan. The existing dwelling will be demolished and a new building will be constructed on the site that would comply more with the zoning regulations than the existing house. A new septic system will be installed on the property as well, although it has been described as a “repair”. There will be one room on the first floor that will be used as a bedroom, even though it does not meet the definition of a bedroom in the building code and three bedrooms on the second level, one regular bedroom and two master bedrooms. A Coastal Area Management (CAM) application accompanies the variance application. Mr. Flower discussed the configuration of
the existing house, how it was built low to the ground and does not currently meet FEMA codes. If the house was to be renovated it would have to comply with the 5 year FEMA rule that states renovations can not exceed 50% of the appraised value of the home over a 5 year period. Mr. Flower discussed further the existing septic system located on the property, currently there are two cesspools and a septic system. S. Stutts asked if the ground would be elevated to accommodate a new system. Mr. Flower stated that the ground would be raised approximately 18 inches. J. St. Germain asked if that would affect the neighbors. Mr. Flower said the grade would slope to the sidelines and graded to the street. J. McQuade asked if the septic would be for 4 bedrooms and yes, the system could accommodate 4 bedrooms.
An e-mail received from Marcia Balint of the DEP dated February 4, 2010 stated that the DEP has reviewed the proposed amendments for consistency with the goals and policies of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act and find the project generally consistent.
Mr. Flower entered into the record, noted as Exhibit “A”, a new list of hardships. The hardships with the lot are width, depth and the minimum square due to the substandard size of the lot and the fact that there is no additional contiguous land to add to the property. The existing building predates zoning and is not up to current building codes. The height of the first floor elevation violates the FEMA regulations, since the structure predates zoning. If the house was to be renovated without raising the building to the required height only $40,000.00 could be spent over a 5 year period for the renovations. The cesspools would be removed and the existing septic system would be a “repair”. There was discussion with respect to the height of the building.
J. St. Germain asked if the reason the house is being raised is for FEMA and yes, it is. The drawing, noted as A-10, depicts the grading elevation. S. Stutts stated that the lot is 3,750 square feet in an R-10 District (10,000 sq. ft. minimum), working the house from bigger to smaller, the exercise should be what would legally fit on the lot and then increase size slightly from there. Bedroom sizes depicted on the plans are generous and there is no hardship for allowing the extra ½ story. There are other ways to design a structure to fit. J. St. Germain stated that there would be a new foundation. J. McQuade stated that there is too much building for the lot. Mr. Flower stated that when his client purchased the house, the 1 ½ story requirement was not part of the Zoning Regulations. J. St. Germain stated that what is proposed is better looking than what is there now. J. McQuade agrees with S. Stutts about
constructing something on the lot that fits within the zoning regulations. K. Kotzan stated that the property has a “grandfathered” use. The Board discussed the zoning regulations, the 1 ½ story regulation and the preservation of the beach look. K. Kotzan stated it is not preserved, you can say establish a beach look, there is nothing there now that can be preserved. The 43% variance for coverage is huge. Mr. Flower argued that the proposal is reducing the use.
The following letters were entered into the record in support of the project: Frank Lishing of 75 Swan Avenue dated February 8, 2010, Gary A. Carra of 74 & 76 Swan Avenue dated February 11, 2010 and Brian and Gary Carra, Jr. of 71 Swan Avenue dated February 11, 2010.
The Chair then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Frank Lishing of 75 Swan Avenue spoke in favor, he has no objection to the house and will add to neighboring properties. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed.
Case 09-31 – Sandra Y. Rueb, 5 Lieutenant River Lane
Present: Michael E. Cronin, Jr., Esquire, agent for the applicant and Mrs. Rueb, applicant, Mr. Wren was available by telephone for any questions.
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow renovation of existing older single-family dwelling to contemporary standards, including compliance with ADA regulations and present building and safety codes. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area 15,000 s.f., existing 9,955 s.f., Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 15,000 s.f., existing 9,955, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline (narrow street) 37.5’ required, existing 34.46’, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property 30’, existing 14.83’ house, 8.45’ shed, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 15’, existing 14.36’ southwest side of house, .29’ southwest side shed, Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot area 20% existing 24.4% and Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area 20% permitted, 20.58% existing. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverage,
Section 9.1.3.1, General Rule, Section 9.3.1, Enlargement, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline (narrow street) 37.5’ required, 34.46’ proposed for dormers (variance of 3.03’), Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line 30’, proposed 14.83’ (raising the roof of the family room) (variance of 15.17’), Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot 20% permitted, proposed 23.3% (variance of 3.3%) and Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area, 20% permitted, 20.06% proposed (variance of .06%).
Attorney Cronin gave a brief presentation. He stated that an application was brought before the Board in January and was denied without prejudice for the reasons that the design of the house could be improved to eliminate or reduce the number of variances required as much as possible. The applicant went back, took into consideration the comments from the January meeting, redesigned the project and has now come back to the Board with a new proposal.
Attorney Cronin handed out a letter dated March 5, 2010 from Joseph Wren of Indigo Land Design, LLC providing technical information that was read into the record by Attorney Cronin (copy in the file). The existing house was built in its present location in 1950. The home as four bedrooms and 2,260 sq. ft. of living area. The lot size is 9,955 sq. ft., is located in an R-15 zone and is encumbered by a 15’ side yard setback, a 30 foot rear yard setback and a 37.5 foot front yard setback making the existing dwelling a nonconforming structure. The proposed renovations will not expand the house footprint into any setback area. The number of bedrooms is being reduced from four to three. The renovations will be interior and dormers are to be added to the front of the house. The two
small bedrooms downstairs will be combined into a master bedroom suite. The first application that was submitted on January 19, 2010 was denied without prejudice. The applicant has proposed modifications that bring the property closer to conformance with the current Zoning Regulations. The existing 8’ x 10’ shed will be removed, the previously proposed kitchen addition has been eliminated and a closet is being added to bedroom “C” which shall have less than a 6’ ceiling height. The new closet is being added due to the elimination of the existing closet in that room which is being taken away for the addition of a dormer. The building coverage will be 20.06%, 20% is allowed, this is a minor increase in the coverage percentage. The proposed renovations will open up the house for light and air. The Board discussed the dormers to the front of the house and how they are used to satisfy the building code for egress. S. Stutts said Mr. Wren did a great job in complying with the
regulations.
A letter dated February 11, 2010 from Ron Rose, Sanitarian states that currently in place is a 1000 gallon septic tank and (1) one drywell totaling 163 sq. ft. of leaching area for a (4) four bedroom home. This house requires a minimum of 660 sq. ft. of leaching and a 1250 gallon septic tank. In order to be in compliance with the CT Public Health Code a repair would have to be made to the septic system and the State would have to give approval for the well as it is less than 75 feet from the septic system. This letter has been recorded on the Land Records. As stated the house as proposed would have three (3) bedrooms, making the septic system a closer to compliance with the Health Code. The proposal is to eliminate the underground oil tank and heat with natural gas.
Attorney Cronin discussed hardship and entered into the record, noted as Exhibit “A”, a copy of a deed dated April 14, 1941 showing that in 1941 a 10,000 square foot lot was in existence, then zoning was introduced and that area became an R-15 district which requires 15,000 s.f. There is no additional land available to increase the size of the lot in order to make it a conforming lot. Mrs. Rueb has tried to purchase land from the neighbors, but they were unwilling to sell of a portion. Attorney Cronin stated that Lieutenant River Lane is a narrow street and will not be widened in the future. S. Stutts stated that the goal was to renovate the dwelling with the minimum amount of variances and the applicant has achieved that.
Attorney Cronin also asked that the letters in support of the project that were submitted for the last application be incorporated into this application, they were from Sandy Garvin Cameron of 8 Lieutenant River dated January 17, 2010; Mary P. Pullen of 6 Lieutenant River Lane dated January 17, 2010 and Drs. Bill and Lisa Donovan of 11 Ferry Road dated January 15, 2010.
The Chair then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed.
VOTING SESSION
Case 09-30C – Bogdan Brocki, 73 Swan Avenue
S. Stutts read into the record the variances needed. J. St. Germain stated that the applicant made an effort to reduce the amount of nonconformities. Mr. St. Germain sees this application as an improvement over what is currently there. The choice is to leave the existing structure as it is, with four separate apartments and raise it. K. Kotzan stated that sacrifices have been made, the use had been “grandfathered”. Every case should be taken individually. K. Kotzan agrees that every property should try to be brought closer into incompliance with the regulations. S. Stutts stated that at what point does the Board think a reduction is enough from existing to what is proposed. J. McQuade stated that a reduction from 72% to 68% is not much of reduction.
J. St. Germain stated that a new septic and compliance with the FEMA codes are in the best interest of the Town. M. Ossmann agrees with K. Kotzan and J. St. Germain that the applicant has made sacrifices and the new design moves the house off the side property line. K. Kotzan stated that the Board needs to encourage renovations. The vision of cute little beach cottages that are 1 ½ stories are not something that will happen overnight. J. McQuade discussed the Sound View Village District regulations. S. Stutts stated that maybe the regulations should be rewritten. S. Stutts read into the record the hardship stated on the application which was that the applicant is in an area of multi-family units and there is no other property available to make the lot larger.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain, to GRANT the necessary variances, to build as per plans submitted, Case 09-30C, Bogdan Brocki, 73 Swan Avenue. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to grant failed to pass. 3-2-0. It was denied.
Reasons for voting against: S. Stutts stated that this is an excessive building on a very substandard lot with two full stories and asking for a 43% variance is excessive. J. McQuade stated that the charge of the Board should be granting the least variances possible and in this case this is not the least variance possible.
Case 09-31 – Sandra Y. Rueb, 5 Lieutenant River Lane
S. Stutts stated that this was an application to renovate an existing house. The application has come back after being denied without prejudice in January. The figures had been recalculated from the last application to the present one, thus reducing the floor area. The shed is being removed which decreases the floor area. The neighbors have approved the project. The number of bedrooms has been reduced from four to three. The hardship is the narrow street setback and the fact that the lot was not a square that was perpendicular to the street thus requiring a variance of the street setback. The applicants have approached the neighbors to purchase property to make it conforming. J. McQuade felt the applicants have addressed the concerns of the Board and made it more conforming. K. Kotzan stated it is more in compliance. S. Stutts stated that there is a reduction in floor area. J. St. Germain agrees with the rest of the members of the Board.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to GRANT the necessary variances, to build as per plans submitted, Case 09-31, Sandra Y. Rueb, 5 Lieutenant River Lane. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to GRANT passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Case 09-32- Robert I. Reardon, Jr., 81 Halls Road
Present: Mr. Robert Reardon, Jr., applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow a portico at the front door which encroaches 2’ into the 60’ front setback and reconstruct existing handicap ramp. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.9.1, minimum lot area 30,000 s.f., provided is 21,017 s.f., Section 8.9.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot 150 feet, 125 feet provided, Section 8.9.7, minimum setback from streetline 60’, provide are 61.4’ Halls Road, 50.6’ Davis Road East and 51.3’ Davis Road West and Section 8.9.8, minimum setback from rear property line 40’ and 38.3 feet provided. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverage, Section 9.1.3, Expansion of Existing building or structure on nonconforming lot: Special Permit in R-10 zone, Section
9.3.1, Enlargement, Section 8.9.7, Minimum setback from streetline 60’, 57’ proposed from Halls Road for portico a variance of 3 feet needed and there is 45 feet from Davis Road East for the handicap ramp, a variance of 15’ is needed, Section 8.9.8, minimum setback from rear property line is 40’, 28 feet for proposed handicap ramp, a variance of 12 feet is needed. The hardship is the building was constructed prior to setback regulations. The portico is designed to protect clients/customers from the elements. The portico construction will not be in the designated septic area. S. Stutts had some questions regarding the handicap ramp, Attorney Reardon stated that the ramp is too steep and not acceptable. A new ramp design will be constructed to meet the Federal Laws. Attorney Reardon purchased the property in January, 2010 and would like to enhance the appearance of the building, as well as bring it up to local, state and
federal codes. There will be two white columns in front of the building and new clapboard siding. The portico structure will encroach only 2 feet into the street setback, the existing stoop size will be increased slightly. The Board discussed that the height of the portico roof can’t exceed 16 feet. J. St. Germain asked about the handicap ramp and parking spaces. S. Stutts stated that the vertical design addition was needed to break up the horizontal front of the building. Attorney Reardon mentioned central air. Air conditioning units were not noted on the plans and Attorney Reardon stated that the units currently exist to the rear of the building. S. Stutts asked him to note the units on the site plan. M. Ossmann asked about parking, Attorney Reardon stated that there is ample parking area but a portion of the parking area will be re-landscaped to make it more appealing. J. St. Germain asked why the handicap ramp
currently goes to one parking space and not to the parking lot itself out front. Attorney Reardon stated that it is not a bad suggestion but to redesign the parking would delay getting the variances needed to proceed with the renovations and he wants to proceed as soon as possible. Attorney Reardon discussed further some interior renovations and how it would relate to the handicap accessibility. K. Kotzan asked if the drawings are adequate, even though they do not note the height of the roof of the portico. Attorney Reardon stated it will not exceed the existing roofline.
The Chair then opened the floor for comments either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed.
VOTING SESSION
Case 09-32- Robert I. Reardon, Jr., 81 Halls Road
S. Stutts went over the variances requested, 3’ of the front setback, 15’ for ramp on Davis Road and 12’ from the rear setback for the ramp. There is health approval and the hardship is that the building was constructed prior to the regulations, the existing ramp is too steep and there is a lip at the bottom of the ramp making it difficult to navigate. The portico is for protection from the elements for the clients who enter the building. The size of the portico will be 5’ x 20’ x 16’ height. The condition is that the portico will not exceed 16’ in height. The parking lot will be resurfaced and landscaped.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by M. Ossmann, to GRANT the necessary variances, to build as per plans submitted, with the condition that the portico roof not exceed the height of the roof line with respect to Case 09-32, Robert I. Reardon, Jr., 81 Halls Road. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to GRANT passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Much needed facelift in the front of the building, will greatly improve the neighborhood and added safety to the users of the building.
Approval of Minutes of the January Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the January 19, 2010 Regular Meeting; no further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Fee Schedule
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Stutts to change the Zoning Board of Appeals – Appeal from Ruling of Zoning Enforcement Official application fee from $100.00 to $260.00 to match the Variance application due to increase in costs; no further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to increase the fee passed unanimously 5-0-0.
New Business
R. Moll is now seated for the portion of the meeting.
S. Stutts stated that the Board received a thank you note from Mrs. Wysocki of 19 Brighton Road.
The Board discussed and completed the questionnaires that were sent out by the Connecticut River Gateway Commission regarding vistas/view sheds.
S. Stutts discussed the court cases that are being handled by the Board’s attorney and what the status of each is.
Richard Moll brought to the Board’s attention the Connecticut Zoning Board of appeal Newly Revised 6th Edition handout prepared by Thomas P. Byrne and Steven E. Byrne. R. Moll stated that everyone should receive a copy and take the time to read through it.
Clerk to find out if only (4) four members can be seated in order to hear an appeal.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Stutts to adjourn the March 16, 2010 Regular Meeting; the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371
| |
