UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Tom Risom (Chairman) Jane Cable (Vice Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), John Johnson, and Patrick Looney. Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
1. Special Permit Application to add a protective structure to a portion of deck, 1 Washington Avenue, Carlos Sacadura, applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice and exhibit list for the record. She noted that the Public Hearing was continued from the September Regular Meeting. Attorney McGarry was present to represent the applicant. He presented his certificates of mailing for the application. Attorney McGarry explained that the property is 11,640 square feet located in an R-10 Zone. He stated that Mr. Sacadura would like to install a screened porch with a clear panel roof on a portion of the pre-existing deck. Attorney McGarry submitted photographs of the existing deck. He explained that the protective enclosure is a screened porch designed to protect him from the elements and tick-borne diseases. Attorney McGarry stated that he has provided a site plan which shows that the room is not attached to
the house. Mr. Johnson pointed out that if it were tied to the house there would only be three walls, instead of the four proposed. Attorney McGarry stated that there would not be windows, but fiberglass screens.
Ms. Cable noted that the deck area being enclosed is on the back of the house, not the side.
Sandra Almisky, 7 Washington Avenue, indicated that she has no objection to the proposal. No one present spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Ms. Marsh made a motion to close the Public Hearing; seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously.
2. Special Permit Application to construct a shed, 77 Sea Spray Road, Mark & Maryellen Phelan, applicants.
Chairman Risom noted that this Public Hearing is continued from the September Regular Meeting. Attorney John Bennett was present to represent the applicants. He noted that this application comes under Section 9.4 of the Zoning Regulations to take an existing shed and move it approximately 4 feet. Attorney Bennett stated that the existing shed is old and in need of replacement so the applicants would like to reconstruct and relocate the shed. He noted that the survey shows the current location of the shed. Ms. Brown stated that the shed is not existing. Attorney Bennett agreed and indicated that he should have stated that it was pre-existing as it has been removed.
Attorney Bennett submitted a new sketch of the shed and noted that it contains corrected figures from the one submitted with the application. He noted that the shadow on the plan is the location of the proposed shed and the outline is the location of the old shed. Mr. Risom noted that the A-2 survey shows the pre-existing shed in the pre-existing location. He noted that the proposed she is smaller by inches on each side, but is a little taller.
Attorney Bennett stated that Jeff Flower, architect, has produced a number of sketches that show that the shed is on piers and has hurricane clips. He submitted three photographs of the shed to show how it relates to the neighboring properties (marked Exhibits I, J and K). Attorney Bennett stated that the shed has already been constructed and the Phelan’s regret that there was confusion as to whether they needed a permit. He noted that they were under the impression that because they were reducing the size and putting it in a more conforming location that a permit was not necessary. He explained that Section 9.4 of the Zoning Regulations allows for nonconforming properties to achieve improvements. Attorney Bennett stated that Section 9.01 states that the Town is seeking to reduce
nonconformities which this proposal achieves.
Attorney Bennett stated that the gas tank was installed prior to the change in the Zoning Regulations. He indicated that if the tank is moved, it will create an issue as the Phelan’s do not want it next to the house; he indicated that they would then prefer to have it remain where it is. Mr. Flower stated that the shed is taller because it was raised to meet the high-wind code, taller doors were installed and the roof pitch increased to make the roof more consistent with the surrounding homes. He noted that the new shed is approximately 2’ higher.
Attorney Bennett stated that the application meets the general and specific requirements of Site Plans and Section 9.4 allows for relief when the proposal is less nonconforming, as this proposal is.
Attorney Fritz Gahagan was present to represent Carl and Tina DeLeo, neighbors to the north. He submitted authorization from the DeLeo’s which was marked Exhibit L. Attorney Gahagan indicated that he feels this application is an application for a new shed. He explained that the applicant took down the old shed in order to locate the propane tank in the corner. Attorney Gahagan stated that the Regulations allow the reconstruction of something lost from casualty, they do not allow replacement of something that has been taken down by the property owner. He noted that the proposed shed is not located in the same place. Attorney Gahagan stated that the shed was removed and not replaced for several months. He noted that the applicant is essentially asking to place a shed in a
nonconforming location.
Attorney Gahagan stated that the regulations, Section7.1c only permits accessory structures halfway into the side yard and the proposed shed is farther into the setback. He indicated that he does not believe this application can come under Section 9.4 because it has been enlarged; he noted that the height of the shed has increased by 2 feet. Attorney Gahagan stated that the increase in height directly effects the DeLeo’s enjoyment of their property and because nonconformities are not soposed to be increased in a way that has an adverse impact on neighboring properties, the Commission should not approve this application. Attorney Gahagan stated that it might be another matter for them to reconstruct the original shed. He noted that there is no landscaping that can buffer the height increase. Attorney Gahagan stated that the DeLeo’s view is further obstructed by this shed. Mr. Flower noted that the shed was taken down and the new one put up within a week’s time. Attorney
Gahagan stated that his client indicated that it was a few months between the shed being taken down and the new one constructed.
Attorney Gahagan stated that Section 13 requires that the application conform in all respects to the Regulations unless a variance is received, etc. He indicated that the applicant does not meet the tests under this Section. Attorney Gahagan stated that 13b.4.5 requires that it be in harmony with the neighbors properties, which it is not.
Mr. Risom questioned why the fence on the DeLeo’s property comes onto the Phalen’s property. Attorney Gahagan replied that he has no knowledge of the fence and is not sure that it belongs to his client. Attorney Bennett stated that the original survey shows a 1 foot reserve strip that runs up to Shore Road. He noted that the Phalen’s purchased that strip from the beach association. He indicated that he is not sure about the location of the fence. Mr. Flower stated that the property pin is located at the second post of the fence which would mean that the fence is 1 foot onto the Phelan’s property.
Attorney Bennett stated that Section 9.4 does not prohibit removing a structure. He explained that a variance is not required either. Attorney Bennett stated that the DeLeo’s view will not be obstructed at all. Mr. Flower reiterated the reasons for the increase in height. Attorney Bennett stated that based on 9.4, he does not think it is relevant the length of time the shed was down. He noted that there was a plan from the start to remove the old shed and replace it with a new shed.
Attorney Gahagan stated that the photographs show that there is green grass where the shed was and by where the propane tank is located, which was put in before the change of the Regulations. He noted that he believes the photograph to be taken around March. He noted that it was gone long enough to grow grass. Mr. Flower explained the history of the propane tank installation. He noted that the tank is less than 125 gallon and the Phelan’s have plans to shield it with fencing.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
A motion was made by Pat Looney, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to close this Public Hearing.
3. Special permit Application to convert two-family dwelling to a single-family dwelling and enclose the upper and lower existing porches, 12 Old Colony Road, Gregg F. Neely, applicant.
Attorney Paul Gozzi and Gregg Neely were present to explain the application. Ms. Marsh read the legal ad and exhibit list for the record. Mr. Risom noted that the property is owned by the Kingston’s and Mr. Neely is the builder.
Attorney Gozzi submitted a letter requesting a waiver of the site plan based on the fact that the plan does not impact setbacks. He explained that the property is currently a two-story, two-family home. Attorney Gozzi stated that the Kingston’s would like to enclose the porches on the first and second floor to provide additional living space. He noted that the construction would also include a new roof on the house. Attorney Gozzi stated that the current roof is at 22’8” and the proposal would increase the height to 24’. He noted that the footprint will not change. Attorney Gozzi stated that they are decreasing the number of bedrooms and changing the use from two-family to one-family. He explained that this application is under Section 9.4 and he believes
they are reducing the nonconformities on the lot and decreasing the impact on the zone, along with the impact on the lot by decreasing the number of bedrooms.
Gregg Neely, builder, explained that the front porch on the first floor will remain an open porch. He noted that the second floor porch is currently glassed, but they will reconstruct it to make it part of the second floor. Mr. Neely explained that the second floor square footage is increasing from 648 to 898 square feet. Attorney Gozzi noted that he filed a revised statement of use with revised figures.
Mr. Risom that although they are applying under Section 9.4, they are expanding the square footage of the house.
Ms. Marsh stated that she would like to see the applicant provide a site plan as it is important to document the location of the existing house. Attorney Gozzi stated that they have made a representation that they are using the same footprint. He noted that he does not believe there is an increase in the nonconformity.
Attorney Gozzi submitted the mailing receipts.
Ms. Cable explained that the reason the Commission changed the Regulations was to make things a little easier for properties in the R-10 zones to make improvements. She noted that the reason they are requiring site plans is because they know how tight things can get on a small lot.
Karen Kingston, property owner, stated that she would like to see the Commission approve the application and noted that they are trying to improve the property.
A motion was made by Jane Cable to grant the request to waive the A-2 Survey. There was no second. A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by John Johnson and voted to deny the request of the applicant to waive the A-2 Survey; 4:1, with Ms. Cable voting against.
Mr. Looney stated that he lives in an R-10 Zone and he has seen work done without a survey. He indicated that it is to ones benefit to have a survey of their property.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing to the November Regular Meeting.
4. Site Plan Modification Application to revise parking, 1 McCurdy Road, Church of Christ the King, applicant.
Janet Sturgis was present to represent Christ the King Church. She indicated that the lot in question is the northern overflow parkng area which, after construction, Bob Sullivan got permission to redirect the drainage. She noted that the surface was then prepared for pavers by putting down crushed stone. Ms. Sturgis stated that people began using the lot and the church now would like to pave it. She indicated that they have also reduced the size of the lot to prevent the necessity of having to take down a very large maple tree.
Mr. Risom stated that Mr. Metcalf reviewed the proposed parking lot and submitted a letter in response. Ms. Sturgis stated that the site plan has been revised to address all comments but the drainage, as Mr. Rowley is still working on that. She indicated that she should have it by the next meeting. Ms. Sturgis stated that they have also added some landscaping.
Mr. Risom noted that this Public Hearing will be continued to the November Regular Meeting.
At 9:12 p.m. Chairman Risom adjourned the Public Hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
