MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
June 15, 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, June 15, 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 and voting for the meeting.
Present and voting were Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Joseph St. Germain and Fran Sadowski, alternate
Present: Marilyn Ossmann, alternate and Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Richard Moll
The meeting was then called to order at 7:28 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 10-04 - Charles H. Larson, 1 Lake Drive
Present: Mrs. Elin Larson, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of a walkway/ ramp from deck along south side of dwelling to parking area. The house is in an R-10 zone and the lot size is 12,590 square feet. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline, 25 feet required and 14.02 feet for the studio, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, required is 30 feet, existing is 25 feet for the house and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12 feet required, 10.58 feet for the studio. The hardship is the topography and the large outcroppings of rock in the area of access to the deck, the ground slopes away from the house and the irregular shape of the lot.
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c (Yards and Lot Coverage), Section 9.3.1 (Enlargement) and Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from the rear property line, required is 30 feet, existing is 19 feet for the ramp and deck requiring a variance of 11 feet.
Mrs. Larson passed out to the members a colored plot plan that outlines the shape of the lot and the curve of the shoreline with the large rock outcroppings. There is a substantial buffer zone from the house to the lake which will be enhanced by allowing the construction of the walkway and deck on the south side of the property. The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission has approved the plan and issued a permit. The construction will meet all American Disabilities Act requirements. J. St. Germain asked about the entrance on the other side of the property and what it would be used for. Mrs. Larson stated that that access would be for those who did not need to use a ramp and can manage the topography to get into the house. J. St. Germain asked why the ramp couldn’t be on
the other side, Mrs. Larson explained that there is a 3 foot drop in the property on that side. They have been, over the years, trying to stop soil erosion into the lake since their lot is the lowest point on the street. K. Kotzan stated that the walkway does not encroach into the side setback, only into the rear setback towards the lake. Mrs. Larson explained that the deck already exists and the ramp is there because they have permission to keep a handicap ramp for two years. They are before the Board to make the walkway/ramp a permanent structure, stating that this will be a beautiful addition to the property and make it accessible to everyone. J. St. Germain asked about the two year approval. Mrs. Larson stated that every two years they would have to apply to keep the ramp.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition, there was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed.
Case 10-06 – Francis and Sue Vesci, 46 Prospect Street
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Vesci, applicants; Mr. Adam Pietrowicz, agent for the applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow an 8’ x 10’ closet structure on the north side of the house (rear side). The lot is an 8,000 square foot lot in a 10,000 square foot zone. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum area of the lot; Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit which is 10,000 square feet, only 8,000 square feet exists and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from the street, required is 25 feet, existing is 14 feet from Prospect Street and 18 feet from Tyler Street. The proposed structure is to the rear and the existing setbacks will not change.
The project does not comply with the following regulation, Section 9.1.3.1(General rule), no nonconforming building to be altered to increase nonconformity.
Mr. Pietrowicz gave a brief presentation. The addition is a small 8’ x 10’ addition to the rear of the house. The applicants have a crawl space and a pull down staircase in the attic and no garage. The applicants are finding it difficult to access the storage area they have now and are proposing the interior closet. Mr. Pietrowicz stated that there is a floor plan in the file. J. St. Germain asked if the proposed structure would open into the house, the answer was yes. There will be no outside access to the structure. There will be no window in the proposed structure, the existing window in the existing house will become the door to the closet structure. S. Stutts asked if some light into the structure would not be useful. S. Stutts also stated that there
was not a height dimension on the plan. K. Kotzan asked if the height would be the same height to the ridge line of the existing structure. Mr. Pietrowicz stated that the ridge line would be lower than the existing. He stated that right now it is a hip roof but it will gable off. S. Stutts stated that there should be a vertical dimension on the plan. K. Kotzan stated that it could be conditioned so that it can’t go higher than the ridge line of the existing house. J. St. Germain asked if the structure would be mounted on posts and yes, it will be. S. Stutts asked about the existing shed on the property and it is used for the storage of lawn and garden equipment. The exterior of the new structure will be azec siding to blend in with the existing brick on the structure. There is not a ground coverage issue with the addition of 8’ x 10’ structure. K. Kotzan asked about the minimum size for a
structure, since the house is a very small house.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition, there was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed.
Case 10-05 - John Szozdowski, 25 Connecticut Road
Present: John Szozkowski, applicant, Attorney Thomas McGarry, agent for the applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow reconstruction of a home that was destroyed by a fire and to meet the FEMA base flood elevation. The existing nonconformities are not able to be listed since the house has been destroyed by fire.
The project does not comply with the following regulations Section 8.0.c (Yards and Lot Coverage), Section 9.3.1 (Enlargement), Section 8.8.6 maximum height of building or structure, 24 feet is required, 30 feet is proposed and a variance of 6 feet is requested.
S. Stutts asked if the applicant would like to state the hardship, Attorney McGarry offered a Memorandum of Law, and went through it briefly. As stated the house on the property was destroyed by fire and the Town ordered that the structure not be occupied. The combination of the age of the structure and the fire makes it impractical to rebuild and so the plan is to tear down the house and construct a new residence. The lot size is 37,465 square feet, the house will meet all of the setbacks, the only regulation it will not meet is the height requirement of 24 feet. The height of the existing damaged structure was deemed to be 23 feet. There is a drainage pipe that goes through the property that can’t be disturbed and that limits the placement of the house on the lot. The Town has
required that no new dwellings be occupied until they have hooked to the Point O’Woods septic system and obtained Connecticut Water. The house, as designed is 25 feet in height which sits on a slab, but due to FEMA requirements, it needs to be raised an additional 5 feet, for a total height of 30 feet. Since the new structure is to be built on a slab there is not a basement to house the mechanicals and duct work. Therefore the mechanicals will need to be placed in the attic space. Attorney McGarry went on to discuss the placement of the mechanicals. The Board felt that the floor area is being doubled and did not see a reason for a variance being granted for the height to exceed the 24 feet required in that zone. Attorney McGarry stated that the height of the new house, as designed, would not look out of place in the neighborhood. Attorney McGarry submitted a letter with 21 signatures from surrounding neighbors, who reviewed the
plans, and did not have any concerns with respect to the increased height. Attorney McGarry gave the Board a visual presentation as to what impact the increased house height would be on the neighborhood.
Attorney McGarry entered the following letters into the record stating that the height needed to be increased due to the placement of the mechanicals the design picked by the applicants. Mr. Paul Varricchio of Cozy Cool Heating and Air Conditioning, his letter pertained to the placement of the mechanicals and Mr. Michael Olinski of Galleria Designs of Middletown stated “that lowering the roof line further would cause a significant issue with the design of the house itself”.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience 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 10-04 Charles H. Larson, 1 Lake Drive
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow construction of a walkway/ ramp from deck along south side of dwelling to parking area. The house is in an R-10 zone and the lot size is 12,590 square feet. The hardship is the topography and the large outcroppings of rock in the area of access to the deck, the ground slopes away from the house and the irregular shape of the lot. The ramp will be built to ADA specifications. The ramp currently exists but the permit to keep it needs to be renewed every two years. The applicant would like to keep the ramp/walkway permanently and it would enhance the property.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to GRANT the necessary variances to build as per plans submitted the 4’ wide ramp and allow this to be a permanent structure on the property with respect to Case 10-04 Charles H. Larson, 1 Lake Drive. No discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
The hardship is the irregular topography on the property and the large rock outcroppings. The ramp will provide a safe access to the rear of the property and deck, it will not alter the character of the surrounding area. The ramp design will conform to the standards of the American Disability Act.
Case 10-05 John Szozdowski, 25 Connecticut Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow reconstruction of a home that was destroyed by a fire and to meet the FEMA base flood elevation. The existing nonconformities are not able to be listed since the house has been destroyed by fire. The lot size is 37,465 square feet and which is in an R-10 zone (10,000 square foot minimum lot size), the house will meet all of the setbacks, the only Zoning regulation it will not meet is the height requirement of 24 feet which is required in this zone. The house will be raised to meet FEMA regulations but the original design of the house exceeds the maximum height, and then to raise it to meet FEMA would make the house 30’ and require a variance of 6’. The fire damaged home originally had two bedrooms and the new plans show
anywhere from 3 to 5 bedrooms. The house would be 1 ½ stories built on a slab, the mechanicals for air conditioning and heating would need to be located in the attic space. The Board felt that since it was a “pre-built” design, modifications could be made to keep it within the height requirement for the zone and relocating the mechanicals to a room or closet. Although the neighbors approved and since the lot is large, the house could be repositioned on the lot and spread out rather than going higher. This house would be increasing the size of the original house on the property three fold. K. Kotzan stated that even though it is a reasonable use, there are other ways to design the house. J. McQuade felt that it was going against the Zoning Regulations.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to DENY the application for variances, as per plans submitted with respect to Case 10-05 John Szozdowski, 25 Connecticut Road. No discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
No exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship presented all houses in the area have the same problems, the height is dictated by the design, the massive roof design would dwarf other houses in the neighborhood and it is not within the intent of zoning.
Case 10-06 Francis and Sue Vesci, 46 Prospect Street
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow an 8’ x 10’ closet structure on the north side of the house (rear side). The lot is an 8,000 square foot lot in a 10,000 square foot zone. The hardship is that there is not a full basement or garage and tiny pull down stairs to the attic for storage. The house is very small and the closet structure will be attached to the rear of the house and the existing window will be made into a door to the closet. There will be no outside access to the closet. The placement of the structure is not within the septic area. The ground coverage will not be exceeded by the addition. The gable roof will not extend higher than the existing roof.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by F. Sadowski, to GRANT the necessary variance to build and 8’ x 10’ closet structure, as per plans submitted, with a roof that
does not exceed ten (10’) feet and whose eaves are equivalent in height to the exiting eaves and with the condition that the exterior wall of the existing house remain with the
only access being an interior doorway to the closet with respect to Case 10-06 Francis and Sue Vesci, 46 Prospect Street. No discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
The hardship is the very small house, no other land available to increase the size of the lot, the need for storage and the design will not impact the neighborhood.
Approval of Minutes of the April 20, 2010 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2010 Regular Meeting; no discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by S. Stutts to adjourn the June 15, 2010 Regular Meeting; no discussion and a vote was taken. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, July 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 Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371
| 
