PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING Monday, FEBRUARY 12th, 2007
EAST LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
A Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the East Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, February 12, 2007 at 7:35 PM at the East Lyme Town Hall, 108 Pennsylvania Avenue, Niantic, CT.
PRESENT: Bill Mountzoures, Chairman, H. Peter Hunt, Secretary,
Tom Boguszewski, Leo Mostowy, Skip Saunders, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Mary McGuinness, Applicant
Flo Hurley, Alternate
William Mulholland, Zoning Official
ABSENT: Shawn McLaughlin, Chairman, Craig Mason, Alternate
Chairman Mountzoures called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 PM. He noted that he had seated Mr. Saunders, Alternate at the table.
2. Read Notice of Public Hearing
Mr. Mountzoures asked Mr. Boguszewski to read the notice of the Public Hearing:
Case No. 1-2007: Application of Mary McGuinness for a request of a variance of Section 7.3.3 of the East Lyme Zoning Regulations to construct an addition on the property identified in the Application as 19 Clark Street, Niantic, Connecticut. East Lyme Assessor’s Map 17.3, Lot 56.
The Public Hearing notice was sent to the New London Day for publication on 1/30/07 and 2/8/07.
Mr. Mountzoures introduced the Board members and polled each for any conflict of interest. Hearing no conflicts of interest, he explained the rules of the meeting and asked that anyone speaking please stick to the subject matter of the application.
Mr. Mountzoures called for the applicant or their representative to make their presentation.
Mary McGuinness, 19 Clark Street, Niantic, Applicant, said that this has been her residence for the past two and a half years and that it is a single story home that is 28’ x 24’ providing 672 sq. ft. of living space. This amount of square footage is impractical in this day and age an addition to this dwelling would make it more conforming to what is stated in Section 20.11 of the Zoning regulations which states that a single family dwelling should not be less than 800 sq. ft. While looking into the possibility of expanding, she found that her house is non-conforming on the west side. Due to this, she said that she is requesting a four (4) foot variance to the 12 foot setback regulation on the west side of her property in order to add on to her house.
She said that her home was built in 1930 and that it was nonconforming when it was zoned R-3 in the 1950’s. The setbacks then were eight (8) feet and a survey that she had done in May of 2004 shows that part of the west side of her home is less than five (5) feet from the property line. Now that it is zoned R-10, she said that she is even less conforming. The lot sizes are supposed to be no less than 10,000 sq. ft. and she said that her lot is only 9,709 sq. ft.
She said that the proposed addition calls for a second floor rear dormer and a 16’4” x 23’ room attached to the rear of the present house. A pre-existing garage prevents her from adding on to the east side of her property so the proposed location of the addition is the only place for it considering the lot configuration. The proposed addition would add 673 sq. ft. to the house size. She said that regulations state that she is allowed 25% lot coverage and that would be 2,427 sq. ft. With the proposed addition, she would have lot coverage of 1,831 sq. ft., keeping her under the allowable 25%. The house would be about 1300 sq. ft. with this addition.
She lastly said that she has shown her neighbors on the west side the plans and that they have said that they do not have a problem with the addition. She said that she does not have any neighbors to the east as that is an empty lot.
Mr. Mountzoures asked Mr. Mulholland about this property – he said that he noticed that it was 15 feet from another residence and that the regulations state that a second story could be put on without a variance - he asked if the garage counts as a ‘residence’ since it sits between the two houses.
Mr. Mulholland said no, the garage does not count.
Mr. Mountzoures said to Ms. McGuinness that she could put a second story on this house to get the extra square footage and not have to seek a variance.
Mr. Mostowy asked when the other variance was granted.
Ms. McGuinness said that she was not sure.
Mr. Mountzoures said that he recalled that it was a long time ago.
Mr. Mountzoures called for anyone who wished to speak in favor of this application -
Mark Provost, 17 Clark Street said that he is the neighbor who lives next door. He said that he has a detached garage and that there is about 30 feet between the two houses with the garage in-between them. He said that he does not object to the addition.
Mr. Mountzoures called for anyone who wished to speak in opposition to this application -
Hearing no one –
Mr. Mountzoures asked if the Board had any other questions that they wanted to ask.
Mr. Boguszewski said to Ms. McGuinness that she could make it a 12’ x 23’ addition and would not need the variance of 4’. She could reduce the 16’ to 12’ x 23’ for the addition.
Ms. McGuinness said that she has a center chimney and this would create problems going upstairs with a dormer and they were trying to figure out where to put the stairs to the dormer.
Mr. Boguszewski said that they could configure the stairs and that by taking the 4’ off that she would not need a variance and she would have the second story.
Ms. McGuinness said that she has pull-down stairs at present.
Mr. Boguszewski said that she could still do the addition without needing a variance just by reworking the plans.
Mr. Hunt asked when the garage was built.
Ms. McGuinness said that there was no date that she could find on her documents for when it was built.
Mr. Hunt asked who owns the lot to the east.
Ms. McGuinness said that it is State Property and that it is still park of the campground.
Mr. Hunt suggested that she see if anyone at any time had ever applied for a transfer of some footage from the State for that lot.
Mr. Mountzoures asked if there were other questions –
Hearing none - he said that he would now close the Public Hearing.
Mr. Mountzoures closed this Public Hearing at 7:56 PM.
Mr. Mountzoures said that they would now deliberate and make a decision on the application.
Mr. Mountzoures said that the only comments that they can take now are from the applicant and only if they have technical questions that they need answered. He also informed the applicant that in the event that they wish to contest the decision that they have 15 days to appeal it to the Superior Court.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Mountzoures opened the Regular Meeting at 7:57 PM.
Case No. 1-2007: Application of Mary McGuinness for a request of a variance of Section 7.3.3 of the East Lyme Zoning Regulations to construct an addition on the property identified in the Application as 19 Clark Street, Niantic, Connecticut. East Lyme Assessor’s Map 17.3, Lot 56.
Mr. Mountzoures called for discussion.
Mr. Boguszewski said that the hardship of having a small house can be remedied in other ways than a variance. He said that they could go up or reduce the side of the addition by the 4 feet. He said that Section 20 does not say that not being able to make your house bigger is a hardship.
Mr. Hunt said that he agreed that there were satisfactory alternatives to this. He said that was the reason that he asked about the garage and suggested perhaps a purchase of a few feet from the State.
Mr. Mostowy said that he agreed with Mr. Boguszewski that there are other options to be pursued here and that the State might be one of them.
Mr. Saunders said that he agreed with what Mr. Boguszewski and the other members have said. He added that he walked abound this house and was surprised at how huge and deep this lot runs. He said that with that type of depth to the property that there are other alternatives.
Mr. Mountzoures called for a motion.
**MOTION (1)
Mr. Boguszewski moved in the Application of Mary McGuinness for a request of a variance of Section 7.3.3 of the East Lyme Zoning Regulations to DENY the requested variance to construct an addition on the property identified in the Application as 19 Clark Street, Niantic, Connecticut. East Lyme Assessor’s Map 17.3, Lot 56.
Mr. Saunders seconded the motion.
Mr. Boguszewski said that the reason for denial of the variance is due to the lack of a hardship.
Mr. Mountzoures called for a vote on the motion.
Vote in Favor: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
**MOTION (2)
Mr. Mostowy moved to adjourn Case #1-2007 of the East Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:05 PM.
Mr. Saunders seconded the motion.
Vote in Favor: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Zmitruk,
Recording Secretary