Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: October 21, 2004
Board Members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Vice Chair, Ross McIntyre, Jim Poage, Walter Swift.
Absent - George Hartmann, Chair
Board Alternates: Present - Margot Maddock, Marcia Armstrong, Jackie Glass
Staff: Absent - Victoria Davis, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Adair Mulligan, Recorder
Public: Kelley Bucciero, Terry Hogan, Rod Finley - Pathways, Kelly Downing, Michelle Couture, David Washburn, Jodie Rich, Shannon Munger, Kate Cook, Barbara Lynch, Denby Coyle, J. J. Pippin, Ursula Slate, Margaret & Richard Slosberg, Philip Harrison, David Roby, David Roby Sr., Barbara Roby, Cristin Roby, Kevin & Nora Rhoads
Alan Greatorex, acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Margot Maddock was asked to sit as a voting member to complete the five person Board. W. Swift recorded minutes for the first case (Rhoads). Marcia Armstrong recorded minutes for the balance of the hearing.
Old Business: The minutes for the meeting of September 21 were approved as amended on a motion by J. Poage, second by W. Swift, unanimous vote. The A. Greatorex requested for the record that Alternates sitting for Board votes in future cases be clearly identified in the minutes. Minutes for the meeting of September 22 were approved unanimously without change on a motion by Ross McIntyre and a second by W. Swift. Minutes for the meeting of September 28 were approved unanimously without change on a motion by J. Poage, second by R. McIntyre.
Nora and Kevin Rhoads, Applicants, Permit Application 04-062, M402/L32
Proposal: convert a building to office space at 188 Dartmouth College Highway. Special Exception for conversion to residential and business/office use.
Alternate Margot Maddock agreed to sit as a voting member. Deliberation on this matter continued from the meeting September 21. The public hearing was reopened on a unanimous vote of a motion by J. Poage, second by M. Maddock. The applicants asked for clarification regarding information on prior use and permits for the property. Poage stated that all information is in the public record, but that occasionally complete details are not reviewed until the matter comes before the Zoning Board. There was no additional public input.
The Board re-entered deliberation by unanimous vote on a motion by J. Poage, second by R. McIntyre. Without prejudice to this case, Ross noted for the record that at least two of the matters before the Board this evening (Rhoads, Lyme Nursery School) represent a trend that Lyme may see continuing and expanding in the future.
In particular he described how the Board was considering an application to change the use of the former New Caanan Academy from institutional to a residence with accessory office/business use at the same time that the Lyme Nursery School is requesting a new institutional use for land in the Rural District nearly across the street. He suggested the possibility that if the Nursery School outgrew this proposed site in future years and moved that new owner of that property might well wish to convert it to business use. Thus the incremental development of a "business" strip in the Rural District along the Route 10 corridor seems increasingly likely. He requested that this issue be brought to the attention of the Planning Board.
The Board then turned to the specific issues regarding this case. The Board considered the options for establishing the use of the property. The applicants request a special exception for converting a portion of the property to business use. The Board considered the sub-categories listed in Table 4.1 and reached general agreement that office use was the most relevant. However, the Board expressed concern that under Section 4.46, office conversion is exempted from site plan review by the Planing Board. It was agreed that the testimony by the applicants regarding number of full time employees (up to six on site) and periodic meetings involving clients and off-site employees pushed the limits of what could be considered office use by traditional standards. The Board determined that lacking
a better match in Business sub-category, office conversion applied, but that under the provisions of Section 10.50B a site plan review by the Planning Board was warranted to provide input to the Board regarding §10.50 B paragraphs 4., 6., & 8. Ross particularly noted that §4.49 (Planned Development) C. was intended to assure that in conversions of residential to business use reasonable controls were in place to preserve the residential nature of the property.
The public hearing was reopened by unanimous vote on a motion by M. Maddock, second by Swift. Nora Rhoads read a section of the March 23, 1995 Decision Memorandum dealing with the original conversion from single family residence to Institutional use. In consideration of the requirements of §10.50 A., the Board found that the property’s use (after conversion to Institutional) remained substantially residential in nature.
Deliberation was re-entered by unanimous vote on a motion by J. Poage, second by R. McIntyre. Action on the matter was tabled (in deliberation) until later in the meeting or October 28.
Lyme Nursery School, Applicant, Permit Application 04-092, M402/L51
Proposal: build 1700 sf building, well, wastewater treatment system, access drive, and 8 space parking area at 155 Dartmouth College Highway.
Alternate Margot Maddock agreed to sit as a voting member. Deliberation on this matter continued from the meeting September 21. Jim said the existing property is relatively small. The school they want to build exceeds the allowed footprint given by Table 5.1 though it can be fit on this property without encroaching on conservation districts. The existing trailer on the property is 909 Sq. ft but in the front setback and in the wetlands conservation district. If you demolish an existing structure you revert to a vacant lot. Ross noted that the application supports Lyme’s objectives with respect to providing education but involves challenges with respect to particular dimensional limitations for this site.
The meeting was opened to public comment - Rod Finley: Focusing on §8.34, he said he’d make a step process to make this fit in. The trailer is in the front set back and the wetlands area. The proposed building is not in setbacks or wetlands. They would be eliminating a non-conforming structure to build a conforming one. The addition of the Nichols land would help. Ross asked Rod to comment on the lot coverage issue. Rod said that to get a base lot of enough acreage you would need 2-3 or more acres (per the formula that Vickie works from.)
Alan noted that there was a large number of the public present - all in support of the Nursery School. No one opposed.
Jim moved to return to deliberations, Ross seconded, passed unanimously. Ross suggested that the trailer be moved to the building site thereby making it an existing structure. Then §8.25 could be used - although it is a stretch. Jim said we would need a change of use, Walt noted there is a lot line adjustment so we have to deal with §8.34 also. And §10.50 is most critical with some points being Planning Board issues, i.e. #3 (site), #9 (traffic) and #14 (parking). The Board also considered that if the application were for a 1000 sq. ft. expansion, the ZO would permit it by Special Exception. W. Swift noted that the application involves a net increase in footprint of less than 1000 sq. ft. and a relocation of the building that eliminates the infringement into the wetland
conservation district and eliminates the location in the front setback. His opinion is that the application meets the intent of the Special Exception provisions for expansion of an existing non-conforming structure delineated in sections 8.23, 8.24, and 8.25.
Walter moved to table the hearing and draft a motion to be presented next Wednesday night. Ross seconded. All approve. Alan asked Walter to draft the motion.
Crossroads Academy, Applicant, Permit Application 04-078, M401/L56
Proposal: Reclaim a gravel pit at 101 Dartmouth College Highway. Request for Variances to sections 4.61, 4.62, and 4.63 to build within the Wetlands, Steep Slopes and Shoreland Conservation Districts.
Alan asked Margot to sit on the board. Rod Finley presented some history. This gravel pit was created in mid to late 1960s per Irene Graf. It was constructed to provide materials for the ‘new road’ (Route 10). In the summer Crossroads went to the Planning Board seeking a Planned Development with the development plan, density calculations, etc. Then presented to the ZBA, asking for a Special Exception for the Planned Development. It was granted with the caveat that the Planning Board had the right numbers. A Special Exception was also granted for institutional use. They were also granted a variance for an over flow parking lot in the front setback. They were granted a Special Exception to allow an access road, a well and a cross-country ski bridge.
Crossroads are now seeking variances to excavate and place fill with Wetlands, Steep Slopes and Shoreland conservation districts. Rod showed the gravel pit restoration plan. They are planning ahead for future buildings that were approved by the Planning Board on August 26. On September 7 they submitted Pathways Consulting drawings of the Gravel Pit Restoration Plan for Crossroads Academy (sheets 1 & 2, rev. 00, dated 07/04) to the Town showing plans related to moving dirt in conservation districts. Steep slopes occur inside the pit and also in some regular landforms outside the pit. There was a site visit on October 16 attended by Conservation Commission and several ZBA members. Lee Larson sent two letters with his observations and recommendations - he was concerned mainly with run
off problems from the ski trails. Walt asked if the applicant would accept a condition that the Conservation Commission had to OK the plan for berms. There was no input from the public.
Deliberations: Ross said after seeing the site and learning the history, his overall reaction was favorable and he was prepared to offer a motion. Alan moved that Ross draft a motion to be presented next Wednesday, Walt seconded, all in favor.
David & Cristin Roby, Applicant. Permit Application 04-078, M410/L5.
Proposal: Build a carriage shed on their property at 232 Baker Hill Road in the Rural District. This requires a variance to section 5.1 to build within the property setback.
The Robys were asked why they wanted to build where they did. They explained that they couldn’t put the driveway in the conserved area so it was put as shown on map submitted with the application. The house site is about the only flat spot and it is not in the rear setback. Ross asked whether the adjacent Lot 4 was conserved in perpetuity. Robys said it was, but Lot 4 and 5 are separate. David Roby Sr. explained that the lots were subdivided in the early 70’s and the conservation easement put on Lot 4. The two lots would probably never be separated. Lot 4 can not be developed. Alan noted that Lot 4 could probably only be used for logging or farming.
Jim moved to enter deliberations, Ross seconded, all in favor. Walter feels need to see the site and Ross agrees. David can show us where lot line is and proposed footprint for carriage shed. Alan moved we adjourn until 9:00 AM Saturday for a site visit. Ross seconded, all in favor. Hearing was adjourned until Wednesday.
Nora and Kevin Rhoads, Applicants, Permit Application 04-062, M402/L32, continued.
Deliberation was re-entered following the regularly scheduled hearings by unanimous vote.
The Board noted that the proposed conversion is to residential use with an accessory business use, and that an important factor was whether a site plan review should or could be imposed. Section 4.46 implies that treatment as planned development is not required in a conversion to business/office use. But the Board felt that because of the scope of the application, a site plan was warranted. Jim sited §10.50 B and §12.10 as providing for a site plan review by the Planning Board if requested by the ZBA. Alan reiterated the need for a letter to the Planning Board about development along Route 10 outside of the Commercial District.
W. Swift moved to grant a Special Exception under 4.46 in which a portion of residential use will be converted to business/ office use = office conversion. Until 1995 the property in question (Map 402, Lot 32) was a residence and a barn, when New Canaan Academy got a SE to replace the barn with a new building (institutional use). On April 3, 2001 there was a SE granted to allow accessory use as a day care facility. Institutional use was permitted in the Rural District by Special Exception but primary use was still residential. Nora and Kevin Rhoads seek to convert to a business use that the Board feels best fits office conversion as stated in ordinance. Primary use is still residential with accessory use of an office conversion. There will be no change in footprint or new construction. Current plan shows 9 parking spaces and 2 car open garage. Applicant has testified they anticipate up to six regular employees with occasional meetings or more people. Requirements of 10.50
are met however because of the number of employees, traffic and parking issues in the use of this site, Board requires that the application be subject to site plan review by the Planning Board. ZBA requests Planning Board input on 10.50B - items 4, 6, 8 and 9. The Board imposes an additional condition requiring State approval of the septic system prior to permit. Ross seconded. Pass by unanimous vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm by unanimous vote on a motion by J. Poage and second by R. McIntyre.
Marcia Armstrong & Walter Swift
| 
