OLD LYME PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 11, 2009
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Harold Thompson, Robert McCarthy, Steve Ross, Chris Kerr and Alternates Robert Pierson and Steve Martino.
Thompson called the meeting to order and noted for the record that Robert Pierson will be seated for Connie Kastelowitz and reported that he has listened to the tapes and read the correspondence.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION – DAVE AND MARY EKLUND – 312 FERRY ROAD – 9 LOTS.
Thompson noted the commission received a letter from Attorney Cassella, Planning Commission Counsel, indicating that he received the revised plans, a letter from Tom Metcalf and a Notice of Intervention,therefore he requested that the applicant consent to an extension of the public hearing so that there can be continued discussions regarding the issues.
Matthew White, Angus McDonald and Gary Sharpe & Associates noted he also received a copy of Attorney Cassella’s letter as well as the Notice of Intervention and agreed to grant an extension to continue the hearing in order to prepare a response to the Notice of Intervention. Mr. White submitted a letter consenting to an extension.
White noted that since the last meeting he met with Tom Metcalf, Town Engineer, and as a result of that meeting he submitted a revised set of drawings for the project which include the changes requested by Tom Metcalf along with the changes they were a result of the Inland Wetlands approval.
White noted he has submitted to the commission two waiver requests for the subdivision. He stated they he is requesting waivers of the monumentation for a couple spots which are located in the pond, but stated that all the other edges of the open space would be monumented in accordance with the regulations. He stated the other requested would
Page 2 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-11-09
be for a waiver of monumenting the access driveways for Lots 7 and 8 where there is a common driveway that traverses the property line between those two lots, otherwise the access strips will be completely monumented.
Thompson noted for the record that the pond has been confirmed as non-tidal and also noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission required no activity within the 100 ft. of the regulated area.
White stated in Metcalf’s letter to the commission he points out that the footing drain for Lot 2 appears to go into the 100 ft regulated area; however he stated that was incorrect and noted that there are two lines very close to one another on the plan – one of them is a soil boundary line and the other is the footing drain. He stated there is no activity in the regulated area.
Thompson asked White if he would like to discuss the points in Metcalf’s letter since he had just received it today. White stated he would like to review the items with the commission.
He stated one of the issues dealt with the encroachments onto the Richeimer property. He stated there are small diameter pipes that are discharging from the Richeimer’s property onto the Eklund property. He also noted there is a fence that is also over the line onto the Eklund Property. He noted these issues do not affect the subdivision in anyway because there is a swale graded along this driveway which will pick up any discharge coming from the Richiemer property and swale it off as not to effect any new construction. White stated that Ed Cassella expressed concern about these encroachments in the future when lots are sold and therefore suggested a notice be filed on the land records.
Thompson stated there was also concern that the house locations shown are schematic and should those locations differ greatly they could effect the septic and wells of the neighboring properties. White stated he has demonstrated on every lot that all of these lots are buildable, however should changes occur there could be an impact, therefore, he agreed to place a note on the plan. Thompson stated he just would like the assurance that any potential buyer would be made aware of this condition prior to purchase.
Page 3 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
Thompson stated Metcalf also raised the issue of the width of the road on Ferry Road. White stated based on his discussions today with both Attorney Cassella and Tom Metcalf he believes they are in agreement with the approach that has been taken. White stated in 1700’s when Ferry Road was laid out it was a 4 rod road (66 ft.), however none of those monuments up and down Ferry Road exist today. White stated that all the surveyors have been holding the stone walls up and down Ferry Road as the recognized right of way for this road. He stated the stone walls are less than 66ft apart; but it is what is recognized as the right of way. He stated in terms of the front setback for the two lots on Ferry Road in an effort to be conservative he have gone to the center line and defined it and offset that 33
ft into the lots. White noted, however there are a couple of areas along Ferry Road where the stone walls wanders to less than 50 ft. wide and the suggestion is to provide an easement to the front to allow ½ of the distance necessary to give to the town which ultimately would be 2 or 3 ft if the commission should require that and he would be happy to accommodate that request.
Thompson raised the issue of easements from property owners for buried utilities. White stated there is a CLP easement on the property and all that allows for is guide wires holding up poles on Sandpiper Point Road to encroach up to 15’ into the property. White stated the easement specifically states no poles will be located on the property and there currently are no buried utilities..
Thompson stated that Metcalf suggested a note be placed on the plan which indicates the limits of clearing to be sure those areas remain undisturbed. White stated they are shown on the plan along with a note that the sight lines also need to be maintained. White stated he would also note that he would have the limits of clearing staked by a surveyor prior to construction.
Thompson just reiterated that White agreed to place a note on the plan as well as file something on the land records that any change in location of the house, well and septic system could adversely impact the adjacent lots.
Page 4 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
Thompson raised the issue of the NEPDS Phase I permit. White stated this permit that is required if you have 5 acres of disturbance or more the applicant has to register with this agency thirty days prior to construction, however this site does not exceed 5 acres of disturbance.
Thompson stated bonding still needs to be addressed. Thompson also noted the commission received a letter from Ron Rose, Director of Health indicating that Lot #2 and Lot #6 due to a high mottling and water table will require engineered systems prior to construction.
Steve Ross asked if any consideration had been given to stipulating an exact area that wells and septic should be placed in order to not impact the adjacent properties. White stated he felt the schematic site plan already demonstrates that each lot is buildable and noted that each of the individual lots will have an additional review by the Zoning Enforecment Officer at the time of construction and therefore was not sure if any further restrictions could be placed on the plan at this point in time.
Steve Ross asked about the amount of open space. White stated at the last meeting he submitted an open space analysis. He stated the amount of upland is 1.17 acres, the pond is 4.72 acres and wetland is 1.36 acres totaling 7.25 acres or 38% of the parcel. White submitted the definition of open space as outlined the Old Lyme Subdivision Regulations that “a parcel or parcels or an area of water or a combination of water and land set aside for conservation, park or playground purposes.” White submitted this language as part of the record.
White submitted a memo from Attorney Sipples which also referenced a case very similar to this one: The Town of Lebanon Planning and Zoning Commission versus Kelsey Property Development (1991).
Thompson noted for the record that all submittals wouldl be available in the file in the Land Use Office. Kim Groves noted for the record that the commission received three letters from neighboring properties including 18 Sandpiper Point Road, 8 Sandpiper Point Road, and Mr. Richeimer which will be sent out with the minutes to the commission. She also noted the commission also received letters at their last meeting which were part of the record and also mailed out with the minutes.
Page 5 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
BRUCE KENYON – 16 SANDPIPER POINT ROAD.
Mr. Kenyon stated he has three concerns. He noted that this proposal essentially doubles the houses on the road which he feels will significantly change the character of the street as well as impact the area that up to now has remained undeveloped and provided an area for turkeys, migratory birds, and deers. He stated he could wish this development would not take place but understands his wish is not enough to say “no” therefore, if this does take place he would like to be provided a better assurance that this will not impact our environment any more than it has too.
Mr. Kenyon asked if the homes would be required to have a minimum square footage so they will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Kenyon asked if there had been an investigation done that the water that currently exists in the area has the capacity to support the additional homes.
Mr. Kenyon stated he was concerned about runoff during construction as well as when the homes are built. He stated all the land slopes down into the pond which he feels would have a negative impact.
White stated schematic house locations have been demonstrated on all of the lots and the smallest one has an 1,800 sq. ft. footprint which would be a total of 3,600 sq. ft and many of the homes are much larger than that, however someone could choose to build a smaller or larger home. White stated if those requirements are put into place it would be done by the developer who is selling the lots not during the subdivision process.
Thompson stated if an association is developed the by-laws of the association can define minimum square footages, the design and characteristic of the home.
White stated each of the lots will be served by a well and he has demonstrated possible well locations with their appropriate separating distances on each of the lots.
Page 6 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
Ross asked if a study had been done on the site. White stated there has not been one done and was not sure if that was something typically required by this commission. Ross stated staff mailed the commission members some information about the pond which indicated when the pond was excavated it hit an underground water supply which flooded the area with fresh water. Ross stated it would appear that not far away there is a fresh water aquifer. Ross provided Mr. Kenyon with a copy of the article.
White stated regarding runoff there is no activity within 100 ft of the wetlands and the are gently sloping with well drained soils and each of the dwellings has a roof infiltration system proposed with enough sub-surface storage volume to handle the first 1” of runoff. Therefore, for the majority of the storms there will no storm run-off for the proposed houses. Thompson asked what sort of maintenance these sub-surface systems will require. White stated that really none – they are subsurface and the roof –leaders go into them and they are screened. Thompson asked about additional runoff from the driveways. White stated the driveways are flat slopes and are not expected to have an impact and that information is further detailed in the drainage report that was submitted and reviewed by
Tom Metcalf.
DIANA ATWOOD JOHNSON – ENVIRONMENTAL INTERVENER
Ms. Johnson asked Mr. White to point out the open space on the plan. Mr. White pointed out the areas on the plan.
Ms. Johnson asked Mr. White if that was a revised drawing. Mr. White stated this is the current drawing. It was noted that Ms. Johnson’s drawings were dated May 17th and the drawings have since been revised. White indicated that the open space areas had not changed.
Ms. Johnson expressed concern that the demonstration plan did not depict what was actually shown on the plan. White explained this was a color-coded plan that was being used for the presentation, however the commission members had a copy of the actual prints in front of them.
Page 7 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
Ms. Johnson asked Mr. White why he was requesting a waiver for the open space Page monuments. Mr. White stated he went through this earlier with the commission and
explained that he is proposing open space markers in compliance with the regulations all the way around the open space, however there is a couple locations where the open space boundary is in the water.
Ms. Johnson asked where the markers would be placed. White stated he was using a color-coded demonstration plan, but the markers are shown on the plans that were submitted to the commission.
Ms. Johnson asked Mr. White to point them out on the presentation plan. White stated they are spaced at the intervals specified in the regulations.
Ms. Johnson asked Mr. White to explain why he would not be given the Town of Old Lyme 15% in land rather than water. White stated as he indicated in his Open Space Analysis he was providing 30% of open space which meets the definition of the subdivision regulations.
Ms. Johnson stated if you choose to give the town water for open space that is excellent but noted the regulations also call for land. White stated he did not believe the regulations call for land. White stated the applicant chose to give 38 percent of open space. Johnson stated that water is not land. Thompson asked Mr. White if he took the area of the pond out of the equation how much open space would be given in land. Johnson stated they are required to grant 2.8 acres and they are proposing 2.5.
Ross stated he took the 1.17 upland and 1.36 wetland which equal 2.43 and 2.83 is 15% of the requirement, therefore it is 4/10 of an acre under the 15%.
MR. RICHEIMER – SANDPIPER POINT
Mr. Richeimer expressed concern about the quality of his current well and noted that he has laid out a new well location and wondered if that new location would be impacted by the subdivision. White indicated there would be no impact to that location due to the layout of the proposed subdivision.
Page 8 – Minutes
OLPC 6-9-09
Richeimer also expressed concern about additional runoff in the area. He noted he is experiencing problems currently without the additional homes on the street. White stated that some of Mr.Richeimer’s problems have to do with the grading of his individual lot in the fact that it drains toward his garage.
Thompson asked Mr. Richeimer the depth of his current well. Richeimer indicated it was 120 ft.
Mrs. Johnson noted that Mr. White did not address that Drainage Area C in his drainage narrative contains all the remaining upland on the site totaling 9.5 acres which falls to the wetlands and the pond and includes six houses and 5 driveways. She further stated if any entity is to take over the owernship of this pond that there is potential for liability and environmental issues related to any kind of runoff, erosion or pollutants that will occur as a result of this intensive development on this property and the Planning Commission should take this under consideration.
Thompson stated there has been discussion concerning the liability of the pond.
Harold Thompson made a motion to continue the hearing until the July meeting. Steve Ross seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING
SUBDIVISION – MATTHEW AND SANDRA MACDONALD – 155-1 BOSTON POST ROAD- 2 LOTS
Steve Ross made a motion to approve the application of Matthew and Sandra McDonald at 155-1 Boston Post Road contingent upon submission and review of all appropriate legal documents as identified in Attorney Cassella’s letter dated May 13, 2009. Robert McCarthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 9 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
LOT LINE REVISION – WESELY PORIOTOS – 5 BEAULIEU DRIVE
White stated he had presented the division at the last meeting. He noted the division is to accommodate a swimming pool on the existing lot.
Steve Ross asked if the second lot was buildable in its current configuration. White stated this lot meets the zoning regulations. White also noted that Attorney Cassella had commented that since the existing driveway crosses another lot an easement should be provided.
Steve Ross made a motion to approve the Lot Line Revision for Wesley Poriotos at 5 Beaulieu Drive. Robert McCarthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Later in the meeting, Thompson noted that the motion to approve the subdivision modification for Wesley Poriotos did not include language for the easement over Lot 3 as recommended in Attorney Casella’s letter of June 11, 2009. Steve Ross stated that he deliberately left that out of his motion because the parcels are currently owned by Mr. Poriotos. Thompson stated that the purpose of the easement was to eliminate future problems. Robert McCarthy stated that he heard Matt White state that an easement was being prepared. Thompson took an action item to follow-up on the easement over Lot 3.
PEDERSEN SUBDIVISION – REQUEST FOR A 180 DAY EXTENSION FOR FILING OF THE MYLARS
Harold made a motion to approve the request for a 180 day extension for filing of the mylars. Robert Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
LOT LINE MODIFICATION – OLD LYME CONSERVATION TRUST AND RICHARD ROMAGNA – 160-1 FOUR MILE RIVER ROAD
A representative from the Old Lyme Conservation Trust was present to present the application. He stated the Trust would like to purchase the property in an effort to add acreage to their preserves in that area. Thompson asked about the unique configuration of the property. He stated the property was configured in this unusually shape due to sentimental personal reasons. He further noted this property would allow
Page 10 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
the trust to achieve access to property that they own as well as property the town owns that is currently landlocked.
Robert McCarthy asked about the terrain into the property. He indicated it was a steep slope.
Harold Thompson made a motion to approve the Lot Line Modification 160-1 Four Mile River Road as presented. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PRCD REGULATION (12.9.1 PRCD DENSITY INCENTIVE)
Attorney Steven Sheehan was present to discuss the proposed amendment to the zoning regulations. Sheehan stated the goal is propose a regulation that allows for an environmentally friendly development which gives an incentive to develop land using little energy while preserving larger tracts of open space. He stated the goal was to stay very close to the goals of the Old Lymes Plan of Conservation and Development. Sheehan read some of the goals in the plan to the commission. He further stated this proposal is geared to 55 and older communities which there are not much currently available in the area.
Sheehan stated some of the sections were modified and reviewed those changes with the commission. He stated Section A (1) is limiting it to public roadways that affect (arterial and collector) as defined in the Old Lyme Subdivision Regulations. He stated any new roads would have to be privately maintained which would reduce the cost burden that would be incurred by the town. He further stated that due to the large land tracts required it limits the locations this regulation could be used in Old Lyme. He stated if it was limited to just arterial there are only four roadways defined as arterial (Route 156, Route 1, Four Mile River Road and Hatchetts). He stated the regulation would require a connection to potable public water, more than 1,500 ft from Long Island Sound and not within the
Gateway Conservation Zone. He stated the proposed regulation would provide a credit based on the amount of additional open space that the applicant gives and one of the changes made is that the credit is discretionary and not a mandated credit and also
Page 11 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
placed an overall limit that this in no instance if they gave more than 20 acres of open space would they be able to get more than twenty additional units.
Thompson asked if this proposal was limited to specific zones. Sheehan stated it was only for PRCD’s in the R-40 or R-80 zone and a 20 acre minimum would be required to even consider this type of development.
Sheehan stated some of the other changes were in response to Attorney Branse’s comments. He noted that Attorney Branse has confirmed that the new proposed amendment as revised meets every requirement and he has submitted this in writing to the Zoning Commission.
Thompson stated that one of the concerns expressed by the commission was the increase in density which is really challenging the resources in that area. Thompson asked if a sewer treatment system would be required. Sheehan stated that he didn’t believe at this size but once you cross a certain number of units it would be required.
Joe Wren stated that any one of these developments would have to has access to a road that is classified as an arterial, therefore it would not be permitted on Main Street.
He stated there is a requirement that it will have to have a potable public water supply, which means either a well system that is state approved by the Department of Public Health or would have to connect to a water company and it would also have to comply with the Common Ownership Act. He also noted that all the homes would be required to use some form of renewable energy.
Wren presented an exhibit for the commission to review. He stated the exhibit was drawn to scale with two identical properties. He stated they are not property specific but they are approximately 30 acres in size.
He presented the first drawing which demonstrated how the 30 acre rectangular property could be developed under the current PRCD. The commission reviewed the drawing. He stated this drawing was 20 units on over 30 acres so it was 1.5 acres per unit.
Page 12 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
The second drawing demonstrates the incentive on the same 30 acre rectangular piece of property that could be developed under the proposed regulation. He noted this would allow the applicant to get 5 additional units and also a 50% increase in open space over the current regulation.
Kerr asked if the proposed setbacks were used would that allow for additional units. Wren stated there was that potential of additional units
Wren also noted that open space has to be contiguous and approved by the Open Space Committee and the Conservation Commission prior to the developer getting his credit for those additional units.
Ross asked what the density was per acre of the proposed proposal. Wren stated 25 units over the thirty acres which comes up to 1.2 acres per unit. So it is .3 acres per unit less using the schematic of the proposal for the new amendment.
Thompson asked if the 1.2 acres per unit included the 100 ft. setback.
Ross asked what the density is in each of the schematics excluding the open space. Wren state it would be 25 units on 16 acres. The second one would be 20 units on 21 acres.
Sheehan stated the current PRCD would be 1.02 acres and the new would be approximately .64 acres per each unit.
Sheehan stated for wildlife the worst thing you can do is to develop a site into two acre lots because you end up with no area for wildlife which forces the animals into backyards eating the shrubs. Therefore, he stated nationally the idea is to place the homes in closer conjunction and reduce the amount of roadway and increase the amount of open space in one area for the wildlife. Ross stated he would like to see sources.
Ross asked what the road area was for the two drawings. Wren stated the proposed drawing has cul-de-sacs which could be eliminated. He further noted that since these roadways do not have to be public they can be reduced to 18 or 20 ft in width without curbing as opposed to meeting town road standards.
Page 13 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
Discussion ensued about the creation of the two drawings that were presented to be used solely for demonstration purposes.
Kerr asked what the proposal is for the setback side lines – is it 100 ft or 35 ft? Wren stated in front of both the Zoning and Planning Commission a 35 ft setback is shown so when he created the diagram he used 100 ft just to show that we can still use that and there is flexibility within working with the setbacks. Kerr stated it appears the desire is to keep the setback at 35 ft. Wren stated that 35 ft is what we originally proposed so that would be correct. Kerr stated then if it was 35 ft then even more units could be put on the site. Wren stated that was correct if you had the water supply, the soils and the road to support the traffic. Wren stated whenever you exceed 33 bedrooms the DEP requires a permitting process.
Discussion ensued about the cost of taxes combined with association’s fees for these units, the proximity of the dwellings to one another, the locations in town where the necessary water supply would be available and the amount of bedrooms proposed for each unit.
Jeff Montanaro, owner of Cherrystones Restaurant, stated he has lived in town over 25 years and was a summer resident prior to that. He stated his property is located behind the restaurant and he would like to protect the property with as much open space as possible. He noted the only way to accomplish this is to change the regulations without having these huge setbacks. He stated by having geo-thermal it adds an additional cost to each unit of approximately $40,000 and therefore the additional units are necessary to make this proposal financially possible. He stated the intent of these regulations is to make them so site specific that it is difficult for anyone else to use in the area. He further stated there is a dire need for this type of housing in town.
Ross stated there are current PRCD regulations in town that seem to be working. He noted that the commission does not receive a flood of applications but what is being proposed introduces restrictions that would further reduce the number of potential applications which is getting close to spot zoning. Ross stated looking at these regulations (not site specific) he heard a lot of discussion that relates to the marketing of the proposal and not the PRCD regulations themselves. He stated he owns a certified
Page 14 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
energy efficient home and has looked into these systems and applauds them but the applicant is giving the impression that they are selling this concept based on the way the property will be marketed not the impact of the regulations. Ross stated that very simply the proposal trades the addition of open space for density in the developed portion which is clearly demonstrated by the concepts. Ross stated there was no need to debate the wildlife issue because he felt no matter how much open space there is the animals will migrate to people’s homes and gardens. He further stated it is a good thing to have greater amounts of open space but also felt it was a good thing not to have the houses as close together. He stated first of all the proposal is more restrictive in terms of the roads you can put it on and
potential locations and questioned how that would overall benefit the housing stock that you have demonstrated a need for in the Town of Old Lyme on more than your site. He also asked what you cannot do in the current PRCD that is environmental friendly that you need to change the regulations. Therefore, he asked why these same principals could not be applied to our current PRCD regulation?
Ross stated that open space does have a role in the Plan of Conservation and Development but the level of density in this proposal is not really the character of Old Lyme. He further stated that is part of the POCD to maintain the current character of the town and this is getting to be more like the areas in town the preceded zoning which has large numbers of non-conforming lots. He stated he needed to understand why this cannot be accomplished under the current regulations, therefore needing to further restrict PRCD’s so they become less useful and applicable. He also stated that he thought the amount of density increase is excessive. He stated he was not opposed to the concept but to the extent it is being taken.
Attorney Sheehan stated that this proposal would not eliminate anyone from being able to apply for any other PRCD’s. He stated this only restricts someone who wants an extra credit if they are using renewable energy. He further stated using the extra renewable energy is the reason why cost effectively it cannot be done with the other setup because f the cost is minimally $25,000 to $50,000 per unit.
Page 15 – Minutes
OLPC – 6-9-09
Sheehan stated the Zoning Commission asked the applicant if he could come up with solutions or suggestion as to how the PRCD regulation might be used to make other new uses. He stated the Zoning Commission feels this regulation is not frequently used.
Wren stated what is proposed is just an amendment to the PRCD. He stated he definitely disagreed that the open space in clusters is the same as contiguous open space and referenced a section in the POCD. He stated larger tracts of open space remain undisturbed areas. Wren stated that clustering is not a character of Old Lyme it is an evolving land use practice that the POCD supports.
Wren stated that the Open Space Committee indicated they were in favor of the proposal and also reviewed sections of the regulations that support the language that is proposed in this amendment.
Wren stated this type of development would provide seniors with the opportunity to stay in town and reduce their costs by downsizing from their existing homes.
Thompson stated he would like the opportunity to review the information and discuss this issue at the next Planning Commission meeting.
READING AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY MINUTES
Steve Ross made a motion to waive the reading and approve the minutes as submitted. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
