Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Historic District Commission Minutes 09/09/2013
Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

Monday, September 9, 2013


Place:
Memorial Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT
Present:
REGULAR: Ken Levin (Co-chairman), Barbara Traskos, Joanne DiCamillo
ALTERNATE: John Forbis, Janet Sturges
Absent
Nina Peck, Jim Bechtel, Ned Pfeiffer
Guests
Ian Neviaser, Wendy Brainerd, Stanford Brainerd, Dini Mallory, Madeleine Nichols
Agenda:
    9:00
Public Open Forum
     9:15
Regional School District 18 - Center School Future use
     9:45
Active CofAs: 22 Lyme Street pool, 84 Lyme Street LACFA - landscape screening, 30 Lyme Street - fencing, 84 Lyme Street - LACFA Sill House renovations
  10:15
40 Lyme Street - roof shingle replacement
  10:45
Plaque Program Update - 12, 20, & 23 Ferry Road,173 Mile Creek Road, 4 Johnnycake Hill Road
  11:00
Any Other New or Old Business (Hall’s Road update)
  11:15
Adjournment

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Co-chairman Ken Levin.
Barbara Traskos made a motion, seconded by Joanne DiCamillo, to authorize "alternates" Janet Sturges and John Forbis to vote in place of "regulars" Jim Bechtel and Nina Peck. Motion carried.
 
John Forbis made a motion, seconded by Joanne DiCamillo, to approve the July minutes. Ken Levin, Barbara Traskos, Joanne DiCamillo, and John Forbis voted in favor. Janet Sturges abstained as she had not attended the July meeting. Motion carried.

1. Public Open Forum: Wendy & Stanford Brainerd, Diane Mallory, Madeleine Nichols
See attached statement read by Wendy Brainerd. Diane Mallory handed out photos of the Chocolate Shell and the Old Lyme Ice Cream Shop as well as copies of her attached statement. Stanford Brainerd expressed the opinion that businesses in the HD must not be allowed to ignore the rules.
Action: Review the presented materials and discuss how to best address the issues raised (HDC).

Janet Sturges pointed out that Lyme Street used to have an A& P, a liquor store and a hardware store with corresponding traffic. Most of the commercial businesses have now moved from Lyme Street to Hall's Road.
.
2. Regional School District 18: Center School Future Use - Ian Neviaser, Superintendent
The interior of the Center School will be converted to accommodate the change from an elementary school to space for Pre-K, central office functions and community facilities The changes will only affect the inside of the building except for changes to the playground.

3. Active CofAs:
a) 84 (77) Lyme Street LACFA – Landscape screening: When the access road is completed, Harry. Resnikof (the developer) has agreed to discuss adding more landscaping - if the HDC feels it is needed.
b) 30 Lyme Street - Fencing is still in progress.
c) 84 Lyme Street LACFA - Sill House renovations are still in progress.
d) 22 Lyme Street - The pool has been installed.

4. 40 Lyme Street Roof Shingle Replacement: Lynn & James Fairfield-Sonn
A Certificate of Appropriateness application was submitted to replace the cedar shingles on the roof of the main house with Certainteed Architectural Shingles (“Weathered Wood”).
Joanne DiCamillo made a motion, seconded by John Forbis, to approve the CofA application. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Barbara Traskos will be the HDC liaison.

5.  Plaque Program Update: Martha Hansen
12 Ferry Road: Research continues (Martha Hansen).
20 Ferry Road: Research continues. (Martha Hansen and Pamela Hamilton).
23 Ferry Road:  Robin Sedgwick is ready to proceed with the plaque research - Martha Hansen will meet with her this month.
173 Mile Creek: The research has been completed and the plaque (Charles P. Swaney ca. 1848) has been delivered.
4 Johnnycake Hill Road: Dyanne Rafal is planning to do the research with help from Martha Hansen.

6. Any Other New or Old Business:
a) Hall's Road update:
Action: Keep HDC informed (John Forbis)

b) High School Planting:
Joanne DiCamillo contacted John Rhodes regarding the planting of new shrubs along the High School entrance road. The shrubs replacing plants damaged or killed over the winter were planted in May and are not like for like replacements - although they are evergreens (inkberry instead of American holly).
Action: Keep HDC informed (Joanne DiCamillo).

7. Adjournment:
Janet Sturges made a motion, seconded by Joanne DiCamillo, to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 a.m. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.



Respectfully submitted,


Martha Hansen
Recording Secretary


9112013_30259_0.png
9112013_30325_1.pngTo:  The Historic District Commission
From: Wendy and Stanford Brainerd, Mary Pullen, Diane Mallory, Lee and Michele Mergy, Tom and Jayne Schellens. (List incomplete)

September 9, 2013

We are coming to the Commission (OLHDC) with several issues related to the expansion of The Chocolate Shell located at The Village Shops in the heart of the Historic District. And while several of our concerns relate directly to the Chocolate Shell, the apparent lack of respect shown by the landlord, Warren Hannas, to his neighbors and to the Town Zoning Rules is of equal concern. Some of these issues we believe are under the purview of the OLHDC and many should attract the scrutiny of Zoning.  We have enumerated our concerns below.

  • The business has expanded from an allowable use as a retail shop selling chocolate and candy, to a CAFÉ (see photo of flag), opening 7 am- 6 pm and selling freshly made pastries and quiche made at nearby bakeries. The shop also is making and serving a variety of coffees, lemonades and drinks.  The owner uses Facebook to advertise her daily special food and beverage offerings. (This can be viewed on the Chocolate Shell Facebook page).  * As of yesterday (9/6) the pink sandwich board sign, which I gather was asked to be removed by zoning, has reappeared.
  • Is the new flag subject to OLHDC regulations regarding signage? Is the sign and garbage receptacle placed at the new entrance on Academy Lane subject to OLHDC review?  Were the new standing no parking/towing signs approved by the Historic District?
  • The landlord has added an additional length of fence along Academy, is this allowable without a certificate of appropriateness?  Or is this an expansion of floor area?
  • There are approximately 8 tables plus chairs on the front lawn. And, due to the expansion customers now sit out front with their food and coffee, sometimes for an hour or more.
  • On page 10 of the Historic District Handbook it states, “ By Ct statute, both ‘buildings’ and ‘structures’ require a C of A and a public hearing in Historic Districts. Specifically:  USE OF LAND FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARKING (see photo) and SIGNAGE (see photo).  It is our understanding that a C of A has neither been applied for or provided to the landlord.
  • There is a new ‘de facto’ entrance to The Chocolate Shell on Academy Lane.  Many of the customers enter through the patio gate, which also has an OPEN/CLOSE sign attached and a garbage receptacle.  The new entrance has produced a patio entrance where many customers choose to enter and congregate as if it were a private residence.
  • This new CAFE is clearly and expansion of use in a non-conforming location. (See Zoning Regs Sec.9 Non-conforming 9.01 – Non-conforming locations are not to be expanded, altered or enlarged). There have been several relevant ‘turn downs’ by the town for other requests to expand the location in this way. (Will provide if requested).
  • There is a host of issues related to parking and safety: The much increased parking along Academy Lane has compromised it’s definition as a LANE and caused continued property damage to the private hedge across the street (Caution Tape is required to keep the cars from constantly hitting the property).  The landlord recently put up 3 different sets of parking signs to designate which size car could park in which section of the Academy Lane lot. The signs threaten towing if not customers (is this ‘residential parking’?)  In addition to which, none of the customers pay attention to the new signs and continue to park large SUVs which extend way out onto the Lane.  NOTE: The Landlord has again expanded parking on Academy Lane in the Westward direction in direct violation of the determination of the Zoning Officer.  It is also worth suggesting that Lyme St. has more than ample parking for the Village Shops. Very large numbers of cars park for both the Congregational and Catholic churches, Musical Masterworks concerts, openings at The Cooley Gallery and other events on a routine basis.  
  • In addition, every Wednesday between 4:30 and 5:15 am a large garbage truck backs down Academy Lane and into the Village Shops driveway and empties the 1, and now 2 dumpsters  (perhaps in anticipation of expansion?) that reside permanently behind the Village Shops. Are 2 dumpsters allowable? Is screening a requirement?  Does this break the allowable work ordinance now set at 7:30?   Courtesy should also be a consideration in the small village.

In our minds this is a sad lapse of oversight on the part of the town.  While those of us residing in the Historic District have gone to great trouble and expense to meet the requirements of the OLHDC and zoning, therefore beautifying the district, our neighbors at The Village Shops and The Chocolate Shell and others have wantonly ignored the requirements, perhaps assuming that the Town will do nothing? The Ice Cream Shop has put up pink flamingos, rainbow colored peace signs, umbrellas and many tables and chairs on Town property. At some point there was a decision to re-zone the former church and Masonic Lodge as residential properties; it is our belief that the Town should back up that conscious decision to preserve a beautiful historic residential area by enforcing it’s own laws. The creep creep within the Historic District is not in keeping with the intent of Zoning.  The uneven application of requirements and rules is not only of concern to this neighborhood, but to many other town residents and business owners whose plans to expand or advertise have been stymied by the zoning board regulations. The Lyme Street coffee shop owners and landlords should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as are those who follow the rules.

Respectfully submitted,

Dini Mallory