 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
July 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, July 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 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 7:27 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 10-07 Joseph A. Sullo, 9 Sea Lane
Present: Jeffrey W. Flower, Architect, agent for the applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow existing shed/garage to be rebuilt and the existing house to be renovated and both to be raised to meet the FEMA base flood elevation. The Board decided to address the house proposal first to raise it two (2) feet, and then the shed/garage proposal. The existing nonconformities for the house are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot size, required 10,000 square feet, existing is 6,000 square feet, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 6,000 square feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot is 75 feet, existing is 50 feet, Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories is 1 ½, currently there exists 2 stories, Section 8.8.6, maximum height of building or structure is 24 feet, 24.5 feet exists,
Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline, 25 feet required and 6.64 feet exists for the shed/garage, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, required is 30 feet, existing is 18.5 feet for the house, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12 feet required, one plus or minus foot for the garage/shed, 6.5 feet west side of the house, 3.5 feet for the east side of the house and Section 8.8.10 maximum floor area as percent of lot area 25% required (1,500 s.f. permitted) (house 1,656 s.f./garage 247 s.f.) 31.7% exists (1,903 s.f.). The hardship is
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c (Yards and Lot Coverage), Section 9.1.3.1 (General Rule) and Section 9.3.1 (Enlargement).
Mr. Flower gave his presentation. He stated that he reviewed the flood zone maps and has determined that the property is in an A8 zone (11 foot) and then goes to 10 feet with the shed and a small portion of the property is in the B zone, the B Zone is the non-hundred year flood. Mr. Flower then went on to discuss the different flood zones. The main elevation of the first floor of the house is 10.74 feet, the elevation of the finished porch is 10 feet so since part of the house is in the 11 foot zone, it needs to be raised up to 11 feet to meet FEMA, plus one additional foot for the Town, so 11 feet becomes 12 feet. The FEMA regulations state that only 50% of the appraised value can be expended in a five year period for renovations. If it exceeds that amount, then the dwelling must be raised
to meet the flood elevation. Mr. Flower stated that his client wants to fully renovate the house and it will definitely exceed the 50% appraised value. The building has a poor foundation and will need a new one. Mr. Flower further went on to explain the “dips” in the elevation and how the grade on the property will be changing slightly. Mr. Flower stated the Section 4.4.1.1 of the regulations is to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas of the Town by the establishment of standards designed to a) protect human life and public health; b) minimize expenditure of money for costly flood control projects and c) minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding. Mr. Flower talked about flood proofing versus raising it up to meet flood elevations. Mr. Flower stated that the house, when raised the additional two feet, will be a total of 26’6” high. He did talk to
his client, but did not put it on the application about asking for a variance of the additional one foot elevation required by the Town. The house would only be 25’6” in height if they did not need the additional one foot. This would also make access into the house easier. S. Stutts went over the previous variances requested in 2006 to raise the house. The applicant will be staying within the footprint and there will be a new septic system installed. It was noted that there is an A-2 survey in the file. J. St. Germain stated that the footprint will remain the same. S. Stutts asked about the “skirt” around the house, Mr. Flower stated that stone will be placed around it so that it looks old again. As shown on the plans, the basement level will be 9.41’ and be a crawl space, not a full basement. The Board and Mr. Flower discussed the extra one foot required by the Town, K. Kotzan stated that the
applicant would prefer the house to be closer to the ground for easier access. There was discussion as to house numbers, and J. St. Germain stated that a house number should be put on the house since it was hard to find.
With respect to the garage/shed the existing nonconformities for the house are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot size, required 10,000 square feet, existing is 6,000 square feet, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 6,000 square feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot is 75 feet, existing is 50 feet, Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories is 1 ½, currently there exists 2 stories, Section 8.8.6, maximum height of building or structure is 24 feet, 24.5 feet exists, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline, 25 feet required and 6.64 feet exists for the shed/garage, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, required is 30 feet, existing is 18.5 feet, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12 feet required, one
plus or minus foot for the garage/shed, 6.5 feet west side of the house, 3.5 feet for the east side of the house and Section 8.8.10 maximum floor area as percent of lot area 25% required (1,500 s.f. permitted) (house 1,656 s.f./garage 247 s.f.) 31.7% exists (1,903 s.f.). The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c (Yards and Lot Coverage), Section 9.1.3.1 (General Rule) and Section 9.3.1 (Enlargement).
Mr. Flower stated that the shed if effectively a one car garage at the moment. Mr. Flower showed the Board some pictures of the shed when it was flooded during the rains in the spring. It is not water from the ocean, but rain water runoff from the road due to the hill. The proposal is to move the garage away from the property line slightly and from the street slightly, although this will improve the setback it still will not make it conforming. Mr. Flower discussed the foundation, it will be a slab three (3) feet higher than existing and the land would be regarded towards the neighbors. S. Stutts asked why the shed/garage could not be moved further. The reason was that the existing septic is in the way and the new one will go into that area. This proposal is to build an all
new structure that will be the same size but a little “fancier”. There will be a garage door off one end and the structure will be used for storage. The height will go from 11.9’ to 14.9’ (which includes the FEMA requirement plus one foot for the Town). S. Stutts asked about putting the “short” side of the shed facing the road so that it did not look so formidable from the road, since it can be seen from the road. Mr. Flower stated that it wouldn’t be feasible. S. Stutts asked why the structure had to be so big, there are other options for the garage/shed and flexibility since it is being taken down entirely. K. Kotzan asked how far away the shed/garage has to be from the septic system, there is a 10’ separation distance. The Board discussed the grading options and the placement of the shed.
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 10-08 Bryan and Carrie King, 58 Center Beach Avenue
Present: Mr. Bryan King, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow height and width expansion of the existing front porch. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot size, required 10,000 square feet, existing is 5,000 square feet, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 5,000 square feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot is 75 feet, existing is 50 feet, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline, 25 feet required, existing 20 feet and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12 feet required, existing is 10 feet.
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) and Section 8.8.7 minimum setback from streetline 25 feet required, 20 feet existing, 20 feet proposed for the addition. The hardship as stated in the application is that the applicant is looking to enhance structural stability and the aesthetic value of the home.
Mr. King gave his presentation to the Board, he would like to re-do the porch of the house and extend it over a bit. Mr. King purchased the house in 2008 and in doing some work found that the existing foundation was failing and a new foundation needed to be poured and brought up to code. In doing that they noticed the front porch on the door side is basically on cinder block and has been sinking. Mr. King stated that on the original structure there was a pump shed that fell down off the house and he felt the porch would be next. There is a lot of rot and water damage on the porch. Mr. King wants to take the porch off, move the entry way to the middle and mirror both windows on the existing house with windows and make it aesthetically pleasing. J. St. Germain stated that he did not see
any dimensions for the height, Mr. King stated that it will be approximately 13’2”, and will not meet or exceed the existing house roof line. It will remain a porch and the outside of the existing house will remain clapboard in the porch area and it will not be heated or insulated. S. Stutts asked if Mr. King was building the porch, he stated no. The Board stated they like to look at plans to see what exactly is being designed and built. Mr. King showed a picture to the Board and stated that that was what he gave to the builder to design. He did not want the added expense of professional drawings in the event the variance was denied. S. Stutts discussed the number of windows and the door and gets the concept but wanted a drawing. K. Kotzan wanted to make sure that this space would remain a porch and not, over time, become part of the living room or a bedroom. The applicant said it would remain a porch.
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 10-09 John Maloney, 19 Saltaire Drive
A letter was received from Tom McGarry, attorney for the applicant, stating that his client was out of Town and requested that the public hearing be continued to the September meeting.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to Open and CONTINUE the public hearing to the September 21, 2010 Regular Meeting on Case 10-09 John Maloney, 19 Saltaire Drive. No discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Case 10-10 Michael and Francine Gumkowski, 4 Windward Lane
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Gumkowski, applicants
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow replacement of existing deck with a 12’ x 37’ deck at the rear of the house. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, required is 35 feet, existing is 28 feet.
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 rear property line, required is 35 feet, the proposed is 23 feet to replace and enlarge the deck requiring a variance of 12 feet. The hardship as stated on the application is that the house is setback due to the location of a large amount of wetlands on the property and as a result has a very small usable backyard. The back of the property line is not straight.
This property is in an RU-40 and C-30 zone. S. Stutts asked where the zones are on the property. The C-30 zone ends at the garage area, the rest is RU-40 and the property rises up rapidly to the rear. The applicants want to replace the existing 12’ x 13’ deck with a 12’ x 37’ deck that would be at the same height the existing deck is now, by doing this it will make a better use of the space behind the house. The area is all wooded and can’t be seen by any of the neighbors so there will be no impact on any neighboring properties. S. Stutts asked about the decking material (not decided by the applicants yet) and that the deck will remain same height as the existing deck. The patio portion in the rear has become hard to maintain due to the chipmunks tunneling
underground. The hardship is the wetland area in the rear and the placement of the house on the lot.
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.
There was a 5 minute recess.
VOTING SESSION
Case 10-07 Joseph A. Sullo, 9 Sea Lane
The Board decided to take the two matters separately. The house footprint will stay the same, variances will be needed for the side yard and the street and also for the height. It is a 6,000 square foot lot where 10,000 square feet is required. The proposal is an attempt to raise the house to meet the flood elevations required by FEMA. S. Stutts stated that in 2006 variances were sought to raise the house 8’ 2”, in 2008 raised 10’9” and today to raise and remodel as is, 2’. S. Stutts stated the Board has to weigh the pluses of having the house flood proofed against having it raised up 2’ higher and possibly have it dominate the space this very undersized lot. J. St. Germain stated that it goes back to the issue of having to raise the house to conform
to the FEMA regulations. F. Sadowski stated that the applicant is asking for the minimum number of variances to just raise the house as it sits. K. Kotzan stated that what if the Board split the height difference by only granting the variance to raise it the required one foot for FEMA and not the additional foot for the Town’s requirement. This would make the height of the raised dwelling more in conformance with the height regulation. K. Kotzan stated that the applicant would be in favor of just meeting the FEMA one foot, it would be easier for access to the house due to the topography.
With respect to the garage/shed, the variances are for the street setback, there will be a distance of 8.64’ for the street requiring a variance of 16.36’ and Section 8.8.9, minimum property line setback of 12’, the shed only has 2.15’ on the neighbors side and are asking for a variance of 9.85’. The shed will be raised 3 feet due to the problem with the slope and the placement is governed by the new septic system location. S. Stutts felt that with the 6,000 square foot lot, to have a 20’ x 20’ shed plus, is really expecting a lot when the lot is so small. S. Stutts didn’t feel that the applicant was grandfathered to have the same size shed they have. There are other possibilities to change the size and placement of the shed on the lot. There
also is not a hardship, there isn’t anything unique and different in this situation. J. McQuade felt that a shed is a reasonable use for the property. S. Stutts agreed, but how big does it have to be and since it is being completely torn down and rebuilt, it could be moved. J. McQuade stated that she didn’t feel the same way as S. Stutts about the size of the structure and that none of the neighbors have complained about the proposal. K. Kotzan felt the shed/garage could be moved closer to the house and turned from the road.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to GRANT the necessary variances to allow the raising of the height of the building to conform with the FEMA regulation heights and not meet Town required additional one foot requirement with respect to Case 10-07 Joseph A. Sullo, 9 Sea Lane. Discussion: J. McQuade asked what the height would not be, it would be 25’6” not 26’6”. The height in the R-10 zone is 24’. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
The reason for granting the variation of the Town’s regulation is to bring it into more conformity to the Town’s height regulation.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to DENY w/out prejudice the necessary variances for this part of application to demolish and replace the garage in an elevated state on the property with respect to Case 10-07 Joseph A. Sullo, 9 Sea Lane. Discussion: K. Kotzan stated that the reasons are that there are other alternatives, it is a tear down and it can be relocated to make it less impactful on the setbacks. J. St. Germain stated that the only reason it was voted to deny was for the scope of the project, setback and location, not the FEMA height increase. K. Kotzan stated that it is a reasonable use and since it is a tear down, it can be relocated. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Case 10-08 Bryan and Carrie King, 58 Center Beach Avenue
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow height and width expansion of the existing front porch. The hardship is that the porch is not structurally sound and the porch will be centered to give the house a more aesthetically pleasing look. S. Stutts stated that the house is very small, only 864 square feet and will be increased by 48 square feet utilizing the space where the fallen pump house was. This is a reasonable proposal and will improve the aesthetics of the front of the house. J. McQuade stated that the size of the porch should be mentioned (20’x8’). The Board discussed that the outside of the house, in the porch area, should remain clapboard and not be heated. J. St. Germain asked that the applicant, prior to the Chairman signing The Notice of
Variance, provide the Chairwoman with a set of drawings to make sure the size and design remains as discussed and voted on.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by F. Sadowski, to GRANT w/condition the necessary variances to allow height and width expansion of the existing front porch and that a plan is presented to conform to the dimensions and the porch is to remain a porch on the property with respect to Case 10-08 Byran and Carrie King, 58
Center Beach Avenue. No discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
It is a small increase in porch size to an undersized house. It greatly improves the look of the house and is keeping with the neighborhood.
Case 10-10 Michael and Francine Gumkowski, 4 Windward Lane
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow replacement of existing deck with a 12’ x 37’ deck at the rear of the house. This is a large lot in an RU-40/C-30 zone. The variance is needed due to the placement of the house on the lot and the amount of wetlands on the lot. The expansion of the deck will be over the existing patio space. K. Kotzan stated that this is a reasonable use for the property. J. McQuade stated that there is no impact on the neighbors by expanding the deck.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to GRANT the necessary variances to build the deck with dimensions 12’ x 37’ as a continuation of the existing deck at the rear of the house with respect to Case 10-10 Michael and Francine Gumkowski, 4 Windward Lane. No discussion and a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Placement of the house was dictated by wetlands, increase size of deck will not impact neighborhood and is within the intent of zoning.
Approval of Minutes of the June 15, 2010 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by J. McQuade, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the June 15, 2010 Regular Meeting with the following correction: page 5, Case 10-05 –Sadowski to have the sentence read “The house will be raised to meet FEMA regulations but the proposed design of the house . . .” . No discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
New Business
The Chairman, S. Stutts, handed out an article that was printed in the New London Day on July 17, 2010 about Old Saybrook transitioning from the seasonal status to year round status.
S. Stutts introduced Mr. Dick Smith to the Board, he is interested in becoming an alternate.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to adjourn the July 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 9:35p.m.
There will not be an August ZBA meeting. The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, September 21, 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
| |
