 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
April 20, 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, April 20, 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, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Richard Moll, Joseph St. Germain and Fran Sadowski, alternate
Present: Marilyn Ossmann, alternate and Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman
The meeting was then called to order at 7:35 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 10-01 - Old Lyme Grange, 55 Lyme Street
Present: Doris Johnson and Mike Finke, Sugar Hill Building & Design, LLC
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow a handicap access ramp on the north side of the building at property located at the Old Lyme Grange. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1 minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet, existing is 8,712 square feet, Section 8.8.3 minimum dimension of a square on the lot is 80 feet, 65 feet +/- is existing and Section 8.8.9 minimum setback from other property line is 15 feet, 14 feet exists in the north side.
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 8.8.9 minimum setback from other property line is 15 feet, there is 14 feet on the north side, a variance of 1 foot is needed and Section 8.8.11 minimum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area is 20%, 21.6% is proposed and a variance of 1.6% is needed.
Mr. Mike Finke gave a brief presentation. The hardship is that the north side of the building is the only feasible location for access to the ramp. S. Stutts stated that there was a dimension for the width, 8 feet wide, but not for the length. Mr. Finke stated that the length of the ramp is different from the length of the structure because it double backs on itself. Mr. Finke believes the length of the structure is 32’ with 6’ within the recess of the building. The Board then reviewed the sketches in the file of the ramp as well as the orientation of the building. The drawing of the building in the file does not show the indentation (recess) on the north side of the building. The depth of the recess is 7’, the building is 15’ off the property line but in
order to have a functional ramp, there needs to be an 8’ wide platform, thus making it encroach 1’ into the setback. Mr. Finke then discussed coverage, and the platform is built at a 1 and 8” slope which is the maximum allowed by the building code. S. Stutts stated that the drawing in the file did not have dimensions and Mr. Finke then put the dimensions on the drawing in the file and initialed same. Mr. Finke also stated that they were looking into a “trex” material for the ramp which is currently now wood. Ms. Johnson stated that the Historic District suggested “trex” decking. It was also noted that the Historic District gave approval of the ramp structure. S. Stutts asked if there was handicap access currently, Mr. Finke stated there was not. R. Moll stated that the site the Grange building is on is a difficult site and having a safe access is important for a public building. There were no
further questions from the Board members. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Ms. Doris Johnson stated that the Grange building needs a handicap access for its members. There was no further audience participation and the public hearing closed.
Case 10-02C - Swan Management, LLC, 73 Swan Avenue
Present: Jeffrey Flower, Architect, agent for the applicant; Bogdan Brocki, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow the existing house to be raised to meet FEMA requirements in order to do interior renovations. 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 10,000 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 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 30’(narrow road requirement adds 5’ to 25’), 10.1’ existing and proposed, a variance of 19’.9” is needed, Section 8.8.8 minimum setback from rear property line 30’, 6.6’ existing and proposed, a variance of 23.4’ is needed, Section 8.8.9 minimum setback from other property line is 12’, there is 0’ on the north side staircase existing and 1.3’ north side of the house, Section 8.8.10 maximum floor area as percent of lot area 25%, 72.1% existing and proposed, a variance of 47.1% is needed, Section 8.8.11 maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures
is 25%, there is 44% existing and proposed and Section 8.8.12 maximum total lot coverage as percent of lot area is 30%, 44% existing and proposed.
Mr. Flower gave a brief presentation. Mr. Flower stated that the proposal is take the existing structure that does not meet the FEMA code and raise 3’4” to meet FEMA and allow them to renovate the building. The Chairman stated that she noted the structure would be raised 4’. The lot is only 3, 750 square feet, and 10,000 square feet is required. Mr. Flower stated that the hardship is that the lot and building are pre-existing, the house is a four family, nine bedroom house that has been added on to over the years. The FEMA requirement with respect to renovation to the house is that the cost of the renovation not exceed 50% of the value of the structure in a five year period unless you flood proof the house first. The structure needs help and the applicant could
only spend approximately $8,000 per year for renovations for a five year period. That course of action would not be in the best interest of the Town or for the owner. Mr. Flower then read into the record the FEMA regulations (Chapter 4.4 of the Zoning Regulations), which state structures should be brought up to FEMA requirements, protect human life and raise up to protect property and not use flood insurance monies. R. Moll asked when the house was built and when FEMA came into play. The house was built in 1904, the Zoning Regulations were effective in 1960 and FEMA came into play between 1960-1975. The Board wanted Mr. Flower to reiterate the hardship. Mr. Flower stated again that this is a pre-existing structure on a pre-existing lot, nothing new is being created and the applicant wants to renovate the property. Mr. Flower stated that the stairs are not part of the coverage generally, the land will be raised approximately 18 inches
on the sides and two or three steps are allowed under the Zoning Regulations. The Chairman asked about the septic system. Mr. Flower stated that there are two existing cesspools which will be removed, and there will be a septic system installed as a “repair” on the property. The septic will not be raised up to form a mound, it will be on the natural contour of the land. There will be no change in parking spaces on the lot. There are currently four units, 4 bathrooms and 4 kitchens now. The structure will be updated all within the existing footprint. The structure will also meet building and FEMA codes and there will be less grading on the north side. The height will go from 23’ to 27.5’. The Board discussed the Soundview Village District regulations with respect to building height. J. St. Germain stated that there are two regulations, Section 9.05 and Section 8.8.6 that contradict each other.
The Board then stated that a variance of Section 8.8.6 would need to be added for the height of the structure since it will exceed the 24’ allowed. R. Moll wanted an overview, that all the applicant is going to do is raise the house to meet FEMA regulations and renovate the structure, if variances are not granted, applicant will go through and renovate $8,000.00 per year. S. Stutts stated that this building will remain as it is by circumventing the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Flower stated that the applicant is not asking for anything outrageous, just to bring the structure into FEMA compliance. There were no further questions from the Board members. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and the public hearing closed.
Case 10-03 - Greg Symon, 27 Brightwater Road
Present: Jeffrey Flower, Architect, agent for the applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of 2nd floor deck 5’ into front setback and a 2 story addition. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.5 maximum number of stories is 1 ½ stories, there are 2 stories existing, Section 8.8.6 maximum height of structure is 24 feet, the ZEO could not determine the actual height because of the confusion with the drawings, Section 8.8.7 minimum setback from streetline is 25 feet, there is 20.5 feet existing, Section 8.8.8 minimum setback from rear of property line is 30 feet, the sunporch is +/- 28 feet and the garage is +/- 2 feet and Section 8.8.9 minimum setback from other property line is 12 feet, the garage is +/- 4 feet.
The project does not comply with the following regulations Section 8.0.c (Yards and Lot Coverage), Section 9.3.1 (Enlargement), Section 8.8.5 maximum number of stories is 1 ½ stories, the existing house is 2 stories, a variance is needed to allow 2 stories and Section 8.8.7 minimum setback from streetline is 25 feet, 20 feet existing, a variance of 5 feet is needed.
Mr. Flower gave a brief presentation. There was a variance granted in 2006 for the front setback and the porch decks. J. St. Germain asked if this proposal is the same as the one in 2006, Mr. Flower stated that yes it is the same, it is a “revisit” from a project a few years ago. Mr. Symon started the project but due to the economy, did not finish it. During this time, the Zoning Regulations had changed allowing only a 1 1/2 story structure not a two story structure. The house is still only 24’ in height but a two story structure. J. St. Germain asked if the Board had the hardship from the last variance, S. Stutts stated she had her notes from that time with her. The house was built in 1944, is a brick structure and it was a reasonable request with no living
quarters involved. S. Stutts thought that there were just decks proposed, but at that time, the house met all the other Zoning Regulations. The house is pre-existing and the porch intrudes into the front setback. This plan is the same size and same shape as the one presented in 2006. Mr. Flower then showed the Board the plans and stated that they are working on the same footprint except in the rear for the bathroom but that addition is not within the setback area. Mr. Flower discussed the ceiling height and that the original Georgian Colonial structure is a two story building and does not look like a cottage. He felt that the house would not look architecturally correct if the addition had to be a 1 ½ story addition. The lot is 10,000 square feet and there are a mix of houses in the area that are two stories, 1 ½ stories and cottages. The height of the addition is lower than the original house, it will be 23’ 6”
when finished. S. Stutts stated that the number of bedrooms was to remain 4. There were no further questions from the Board members. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Keefe of 30 Saltaire Drive spoke in opposition, Mr. Keefe read his letter into the record. There was no audience participation and the Chairman read the following letters into the record: Paul Graml of 33 Brightwater Road dated April 13, 2010 in support of the variance requests and a letter from Joseph and Marilyn Keefe of 30 Saltaire Drive in opposition to the granting of the variances. Mr. Flower stated that this is a unique situation, it had been granted a variance before, the foundation is in place, it is the only Georgian Colonial in the area, the addition will be in keeping with the character of the existing house, as well as the neighborhood and the lot meets the is a full size, 10,000 square foot
lot. No further comments from the Board and the public hearing closed.
VOTING SESSION
Case 10-01 - Old Lyme Grange, 55 Lyme Street
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow a handicap access ramp on the north side of the building at property located at the Old Lyme Grange. They need a variance of 1’ from other property and a variance of 1.6% for lot coverage. The hardship is that this is the only feasible location for the ramp which will be 8’ x 32’ along the driveway with a 1 to 8” slope and trex material for the decking and they have Historic District approval. It was stated that trex was only mentioned as a possibility since it could be cost prohibitive. There is a plot plan and ramp design in the file. K. Kotzan feels this falls under the category of a public safety issue, it is a public building that is used all the time by a lot of different people. The Historic
District has approved. The Board discussed land swap with the school, J. St. Germain said the land given to the school amounted to 73 square feet. J. St. Germain stated that it needs to be compliant with the American Disability Act. K. Kotzan stated that if it wasn’t a public use building, the Board would spend more time trying to reconfigure the design so as not to intrude into the setback and to the front.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by F. Sadowski, to GRANT the necessary variances to allow construction of the handicap ramp, as per plans submitted, Case 10-01 - Old Lyme Grange, 55 Lyme Street. Discussion: R. Moll stated that the modification is needed to enhance public safety. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
A small variance to make the building safe and handicap accessible, has Historic District approval and is within the intent of Zoning.
Case 10-02C - Swan Management, LLC, 73 Swan Avenue
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow the existing house to be raised to meet FEMA requirements in order to do interior renovations. J. St. Germain stated that that statement is the summation right there. This is the only issue before the Board. K. Kotzan feels the same, it is a safety issue. S. Stutts asked about a height number, since the Zoning Enforcement Officer did not note one on the Zoning Compliance table in the file. K. Kotzan stated that, what if the Board says the applicant can’t raise the house to meet the Flood Regulations, and then something happens to the house during a storm. Is the Board not going to grant variances to allow compliance with the FEMA regulations? J. St. Germain and K. Kotzan stated that all the nonconformities
had to be listed. The Board also discussed that the height should not exceed what is required between the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations and the FEMA regulations for safety reasons.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain, to GRANT the necessary variances to raise the building, as shown on plans submitted, to the minimal height necessary to meet the regulations of FEMA and the Town of Old Lyme’s Flood Elevation Regulations and the Coastal Site Plan Application is approved since it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts on Case 10-02C - Swan Management, LLC, 73 Swan Avenue. Discussion: R. Moll wanted to discuss further the FEMA regulations and as to when they were adopted, as well as the variances to be granted. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed. 4-1 (R. Moll opposed) -0
The applicant is not expanding the footprint, the raising of the height is the minimal required for the FEMA regulations and is being done for safety reasons.
Case 10-03 - Greg Symon, 27 Brightwater Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of 2nd floor deck 5’ into front setback and a 2 story addition not a 1 ½ story in accordance with the Zoning Regulations. This is a 4 bedroom home built as a Georgian Colonial and the style of the home dictates the architectural style of the house. The Board felt that the front intrusion of the deck could be reconfigured so that it did not extend into the setback in the front. One neighbor was in opposition to adding the deck. K. Kotzan stated that this was a tough one, he was going to deny, even though a variance had been granted previously and the regulations changed in the meantime. Does a hardship exist, can they do what they want without a variance. S. Stutts stated they had to define an underlying
hardship. Further discussion ensued as to whether or not a 1 ½ story addition would be possible. S. Stutts said the numbers really did not work out.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by K. Kotzan, to DENY Case 10-03 - Greg Symon, 27 Brightwater Road sufficient hardship has not been shown. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to deny passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Sufficient hardship has not been shown. There will still be a reasonable use if the porch is reconfigured to not encroach into the front setback.
Approval of Minutes of the March 16, 2010 Regular Meeting
Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2010 Regular Meeting with the following corrections: on page 6 add “PUBLIC HEARING” above Case 09-32 – Robert Reardon; change on page 5 under Brocki, seven sentences down change “incompliance” to “compliance” and on page 8 clarify “Clerk to find out about if only 4 members . . .”, the reason for this was that the Board thought when the registry appeals came before the Board the Board could split 4 and 4. Although it takes four (4) affirmative votes to pass a variance and/or an appeal, applicants will want to have a five (5) member Board seated for the meetings, making this item a moot point; no further discussion and a vote was taken
and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Correspondence and Announcements – A letter regarding 22 Seaview Road was handed out to the Board members regarding minor changes to the property.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. St. Germain to adjourn the April 20, 2010 Regular Meeting; no further discussion and a vote was taken. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT. There will not be a May 18, 2010 Regular Meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371 Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371
| |
