Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
1 April 2, 2007 meeting
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: April 2, 2007
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Chair; George Hartmann, Walter Swift, Jim Poage
Absent - Ross McIntyre
Alternate members: Present - Frank Bowles
Absent - Jane Fant, Margot Maddock
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Bob Coyle, Denby Coyle, William Pushee, Daniel Smith, Cynthia Bognolo, Don Elder, Julia Elder, Wayne Pike,
Tami Dowd, Scott Nichols, Lloyd Nichols, Sue Ryan, Wallace Ragan, Earl Strout, Beverly Strout, Chris Stowe, Judy
Brotman, David Corriveau, Norm Wakely, Beverly Wakely, Veronica Daley, James Daley, Charles Ragan, Dan Brand,
Peter McGowan, Daniel Lynch, Brian Cook, Garry Thrasher, Tom Hunton, Barbara Roby, David Roby, Colin Robinson,
Peter Glenshaw, Traci Flickinger
Minutes of the November 16, 2006 and March 15, 2007 meetings were approved on a separate motions by George
Hartmann, seconded by Frank Bowles. Minutes of the March 27, 2007 meeting were amended to indicate that the chair
had appointed Frank Bowles and Margot Maddock to serve as regular members, and approved as amended on a motion
by George seconded by Frank. Chairman Greatorex asked Jim Poage to take his place as a regular member, and
appointed Frank Bowles to serve as a regular member.
Jim Poage noted that the date was Passover, and might preclude some from attending the hearing. He suggested that if
any complaints are encountered, the board might authorize a rehearing so that those who could not testify could have
a chance to do so.
Robert Coyle, Applicant, Permit Application 2007 - 006, Map 201, Lot 73
Project: convert first floor of Nichols Hardware store to restaurant and market at 5 Main Street.
Robert Coyle proposes to convert the Nichols Hardware store and lunch counter at 5 Main Street (Map 201 Lot 73 in
the Lyme Common District) to a restaurant and retail space. He is applying for a special exception for the joint use of
parking spaces under section 7.26. At the March 27 meeting of the board, he was granted an Equitable Waiver to retain
the right for eight units.
Alan Greatorex reopened the continued hearing and asked the public to focus its remarks on the issue of parking.
Bob Coyle said he had no new information. Tom Hunton, who lives across the Common from the store, said he favored
the project. Earl Strout, who lives on the back of the Common, said he agrees and favors the project. Charles Ragan said
that the downtown area would benefit from the project and that residents would use it. Daniel Smith, attorney for Will
Pushee, acknowledged that the community seems to favor the project, but that the Pushees would have to deal with the
problems he said it would cause. He said that the project does not comply with the zoning ordinance since there are not
enough spaces for the restaurant and 7 other uses. There are 41 spaces on site and even without the restaurant, 46.5
spaces would be required. The lot is already short of space, so a special exception cannot be allowed by section 7.26.
Dan Brand, who identified himself as a traffic engineer, said he is in favor of the proposed use. Regarding the
parking issue, he said that Lyme is not a destination for a lunch crowd, and that most patrons would walk from other
places on the Common. He thought there was room for decreasing the number of day parking spaces. He added that the
church and flea markets rely upon on-street parking for overflow. He concluded that while the lot doesn’t meet the
acreage needs, there are mitigating circumstances. Frank said that the parking requirements are “general guidelines” and
that for similar septic guidelines, they assume a need that is 50% too high. Atty. Smith said that the project turns the
zoning ordinance on its head and that at the last meeting, the board seemed to say that the numbers required by the
parking guidelines were appropriate for this project. Frank disagreed, saying that only some seemed appropriate, but that
cars would move in and out for other uses. Atty. Smith reminded that there had been testimony about employees and
patrons using the state park and ride area. Charles Ragan said on behalf of the selectmen that parking on Route 10 should
not be an option since it is forbidden. A long-time resident, he recalled that when the lunch counter was active, it was
hard to find a parking spot at Nichols on a Saturday morning, and asked how much more business would be generated
beyond that of the hardware store. He said that otherwise he didn’t recall much of a problem, and said that 60-80 parking
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
2 April 2, 2007 meeting
spaces seemed exaggerated. Traci Flickinger asked about overlap of hours. Bob said that the restaurant would be open
11 am to 10 pm, and that if Nichols Hardware had been held to the same criteria, it would have needed more spaces. At
his maximum use, he would be required to have 65.7 spaces (minimum 53 spaces, depending on whether some units are
office or retail), and Nichols maximum would have been 67.5, and minimum 64.5. He concluded that his project would
need fewer spaces than Nichols ever did. He said he thought that the Diebold, Dowd, and Pike properties, plus others
around the Common would all be impacted, yet Wayne Pike’s tenant signed the support petition. Wayne said that Ed
Gray had later spoken to him to say that he did not consider the traffic, only the convenience. Wayne and Tami had not
signed it, preferring to wait for more information.
Chris Stowe, the current renter of the 3d floor apartment, said he supports the project, noting that he is related
to the Coyles. Atty. Smith said his sense of the last meeting was that Nichols had less traffic than the restaurant would.
He advised deferring to the Planning Board on parking needs since the project is non-compliant now. Will Pushee said
that when a drive-up window was proposed by Ledyard Bank, his father had not gone along with the idea because of the
traffic flow. He said he does not want a fence or late night cars on his front lawn, and wants to see the Common and have
light commercial use. Walter asked when the lunch counter stopped serving. Scott said it was October of 2005.
Peter Glenshaw said that there had been very few cars at a time at Thetford Village Pizza when it was open, and
he didn’t think it would be a problem. There were 8-10 tables there, and people ate in or took pizza out. Sue Ryan asked
how much parking is needed if a retail business is located in the two back units on the first floor. Bob said it depends
on the number of employees, and maximum use of the 3800 sf would mean maximum of 19 spaces, minimum of 15, plus
6 employees. He reminded that the four upstairs offices would be converted to two.
Bev Strout said she favored the project and said it sounded as if not even another hardware store could go in,
since it could not satisfy the parking restrictions. Traci said that the Coyles are committed to the future of the town and
would be good stewards of the property. David Roby said that the approval is for the building, not for the Coyles, and
that the building could still be used for retail. He added that the ZBA interprets the rules but doesn’t write them. He said
that any approval should be clear that there will not be parking on the Common. Garry Thrasher said that the
requirements for the Coyles are less than what was required for Nichols and that this is a pivotal issue. Bob said his
requirements are based on the number of seats, and his seats in the restaurant are limited. Atty. Smith noted that the
appendix to the site plan review says that the number of spaces is a minimum.
Deliberations: Alan reviewed the previous meeting’s discussion. George asked whether the Planning Board had said
whether its parking guidelines were requirements. Vickie said they were requirements. George said that even if a
hardware store went back in, it couldn’t meet the parking requirements, and that the ZBA cannot approve the special
exception the way the parking requirements are written. He thought that the issue should be part of planning board
review. Walter said that if the special exception for parking sharing is denied, the applicant can change his plans and go
to the planning board with new ones. Frank noted the strong sentiment in the community and asked if the rules could be
changed. He said that he had lived in the 3d floor apartment and not had trouble with finding a parking space. He added
that the Pushees had built their house when there was commercial activity there years ago, and that it would be possible
to put conditions on the use of the building, such as no music, controlled lighting, limited hours, and other technical
means to address impacts if the apparent contradiction in parking can be dealt with. He said it could be argued that the
Pushees knew what they were buying.
Walter observed that if the board were to grant a special exception under 7.26, it would also need to consider
section 10.40, but if it denies the special exception, it does not need to address 10.40. Frank said that the only remedy
then would be for the citizens to change the ordinance. George asked if the Planning Board can contemplate a change
in the parking requirements during site plan review. Vickie said that the Planning Board has more flexibility than the
Zoning Board does. George reminded that under these rules, a hardware store could not exist there. Walter said that he
assumed that the food market would operate with the same hours as the restaurant and that one solution might be to
restrict the use of the space to restrict parking. Vickie said that the Planning Board would have to do that. George
suggested turning down the special exception but recommending that the Planning Board review the parking requirements
as part of site plan review. Vickie said they would do that anyway. Walter said that findings could state based on the
aggregate retail, the board recognizes that there isn’t enough separation of the timing of uses. He said that the project
fails at section 7.26A, that the capacity to be provided will substantially meet the intent of the requirements of this Article
because of variation in time of use, because the timing of use is not far apart, based on the table given to the board on
March 27, 2007. (reproduced in part here: )
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
3 April 2, 2007 meeting
Use Total Parking Needs based
on Retail on first floor
Restaurant with take-out (40 seats) 20
Ledyard National Bank (1200 sf) 6
Post Office (1,247 sf) 6
Remaining 1st floor - #1 estimate
for retail space (3,854 sf) employees largest shift
19.25
6
2d floor office (1,755 sf) #1
2d floor office (1,034 sf) #2
7
Apartment (one bedroom) 1.5
Total 65.75
Out of Deliberations: Bob said that the board should consider the maximum impact time of the business, and that the
restaurant would have the most impact when other businesses are closed.
Deliberations: Walter said that the estimated parking requirement in aggregate is based on standards in Appendix A of
the site plan review and require 65.75 spaces as a minimum standard. If the restaurant is ignored, the number of required
spaces is still 45.75. So, independent of when the maximum impact of use occurs, the numbers needed still exceed what
is available. Therefore, he cannot judge that the time-sharing requirement is met. This determination is made strictly on
the numbers the Planning Board has chosen to assign to specific uses, but that more could be learned about those uses
in site plan review, and conditions could be assigned to change the requirements on various uses. Therefore, if the
Planning Board determines ways to limit the use of the spaces, more could be known after site plan review. Jim Poage
said that there has been testimony from a traffic engineer that some numbers are not correct given the situation.
Walter moved to deny the special exception for joint use of parking spaces on the proposed project lot, based
on the following findings of fact:
• the applicant is applying for a special exception for the joint use of parking spaces under section 7.26.
• the project is located in the Lyme Common District.
• the application does not meet the test of 7.26A, that the capacity to be provided will substantially meet the intent
of the requirements of this Article because of variation in time of use, because the times of operation of the uses
has too great an overlap, based on the table furnished to the board on March 27, 2007 by the applicant.
• the plan submitted by the applicant dated 10/24/06 showing estimated parking available indicates 41 spaces.
• the applicant identified the following uses and calculated parking spaces required using Appendix A of the site
plan review regulations which sets minimum requirements for retail, office, apartment, and restaurant space.
• the applicant characterized the time allocated and shows considerable overlap during the operation of the
restaurant and the 8-5pm businesses.
• the board viewed the application in the context of the minimum parking requirements and the maximum number
of employees at work.
• ignoring the restaurant, other uses require 45.75 spaces under the projection made by the applicant
• lacking further insight into what the real uses will be, and how realistic Appendix A is and how relevant to
actual uses, the board finds that there is not sufficient capacity in individual time uses to allow for adequate
parking to be shared.
• to the extent that the board denies on the basis of these findings, it did not consider issues of section 10.40A,
and has therefore not taken into consideration a lot of public input, both positive and negative.
George seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
4 April 2, 2007 meeting
Out of Deliberations: Atty. Smith, anticipating that the applicant might go to the Planning Board to ask for a
modification, asked if a restaurant will be allowed on the site in the Lyme Common District. Alan said that this question
must be addressed by the Planning Board, under section 4.49, if the application does go to the Planning Board. Will
Pushee said that when his father’s house was built, there was a field behind the Diebold property and it was not
commercial. Bob thanked the board for the time and attention given to his project, and thanked the public.
Meeting adjourned 9:02 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
