OLD LYME PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 8, 2004
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Harold Thompson, Robert McCarthy, Steve Ross, Chris Kerr, Connie Kastelowitz, and Alternates Robert Pierson and Nancy Strohla. Also present were: Kim Groves, Tom Schellens, Gary Sharpe, and Thomas Bagg.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION – THOMAS & JANE SCHELLENS – 39 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD.
Chris Kerr recused himself from the subdivision modification for Thomas & Jane Schellens. Robert Pierson was seated for this agenda item.
Chairman Thompson reviewed the recent correspondence items received by the commission from Attorney James Mattern, Thomas E. Metcalf and Ann Brown. Mr. Thompson stated Attorney Mattern indicates in his letter of January 7, 2004 he has not received any new documents on this matter. Mr. Metcalf’s letter indicates the proposed plans provide acceptable engineering documentation for the proposed driveway. Also included in his letter is a list of recommendations and requirements the town should discuss and possibly require as part of the approval. The memo from Ann Brown states that the retaining wall proposed on the plan creates a 35’ side setback violation of Section 7.4.7 of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations. Kim Groves stated the commission had received a
letter of approval dated December 19, 2003 from the Old Lyme Fire Marshal. Kim Groves read the letter into the record. Mr. Thompson stated the commission had discussed the placing of a note on the plan indicating no further development could take place on the rear lot. Mr. Thompson also noted that a soil and erosion bond would need to be in place prior to the filing of the mylars. Mr. Thompson also asked that a note be placed on the mylars stating the town would be held harmless for access by emergency vehicles. Mr. Schellens stated revised plans were submitted to the Planning Commission office yesterday, January 7, 2004. He noted the only modification made has been to address the drainage issue at the bottom where an undefined location of the culvert had been shown. Mr. Schellens submitted a copy of the actual calculations for the drainage stating that the one drain is more than adequate for the calculated area.
However, he added he is more than happy to install additional catch basins. Mr. Schellens reported Ann Brown made a determination that the retaining wall shown on the plan is located in the setback area and exceeds the height restriction of 6 feet. Mr. Schellens offered to amend the plan to indicate that the height of the wall will not exceed 6 feet on the vertical structure along there. Mr. Schellen’s read a statement/request into the record to the commission dated January 8, 2004. (see attached). Mr. Schellens stated he would like the right to meander in order to maintain as much of the old growth as he had previously had
Page 2 – Minutes
January 8, 2004
approval to do. Mr. Pierson asked if Mr. Schellen’s engineer had designed a 9-foot wall because it was needed or was it just something the firm proposed. Mr. Schellens stated the wall was designed with no regard to the zoning requirements. Mr. Pierson asked if it was designed with regard to retaining the property. Mr. Schellens stated he could have built the wall back 3 feet and up 3 feet and accomplished the zoning requirement. Mr. Schellens stated he would make sure that this is accomplished and that he will not construct a wall over 6 feet in height. Mr. Schellens noted it could be back 3 feet and up 3 feet and be less than a 9-foot wall. He further stated these are all site constraints. Mr. Schellens reiterated the fact that in the initial
approval he was given the flexibility to do those sorts of things and this proposal is far safer, a lesser grade, has the pull-outs that the Fire Marshal requested, and all of the drainage. He noted he has basically complied with everything and the issue of the six-foot retaining wall only came up this afternoon. Mr. Schellens acknowledged that there are potential issues on paper but they will not exist in the field. He further stated this drawing shows the area the trees will be cut back to and he has no intention of cutting the trees back that far. He also stated Mr. Metcalf asked for additional basins If we determine that we want to do additional basins he would rather not have to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson noted that this was a recommendation not a requirement.
Mr. Ross stated he felt the applicant’s sensitivity in the proposal would end up with less disturbance and disruption, however he is concerned with the same sensitivity not being exercised in the areas at the beginning of the driveway. Mr. Ross stated the purpose of the driveway is to gain access that the prior application achieved. The reasons for changing the access were not to improve or eliminate safety concerns, but related more to buyer preferences. Mr. Schellens stated it does in fact improve both of those aspects. Mr. Ross stated that was arguable. Mr. Ross stated that after seeing the site, an every indication from every engineer who has seen it, that there are challenges in this area and the approach appears to him to be one of do it any cost and he doesn’t mean
financial. It appears that taking this approach is one where drawings and equipment are being used to achieve an end result which would be better achieved for this site by going the previously approved route. He further stated if this was a subdivison the resistance to this would be extreme, however this is a one lot access driveway so that has to be taken into perspective. Mr. Ross stated his observation on seeing the site was that this approach was ludicrous and he stated he felt it did not present good judgement as compared to coming in with the previously approved plan. He further noted the commission is limited by regulations and statutes as to what it can regulate, however judgment is allowed when it pertains to excessive site problems. I think this qualifies for that and he felt this application should be considered with that in mind. This is not a simple matter of regulation numbers and requirements, but there is a portion of the
regulations that does give the commission the jurisdiction over very difficult site problems. Mr. Ross stated after seeing the site and what has to be done to accomplish this proposed access, when there is a viable already approved and far less invasive alternative, it puts the commission in a situation where they must take a very hard look at what has to be done in some of the sections of the driveway.
Page 3 – Minutes
January 8, 2004
Mr. Schellens stated he was confused, because he has provided from a very reputable engineering firm a design meeting all the requirements approved by the town’s engineer under great scrutiny and supported by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief as an improvement over what was previously approved and while he understands it is a daunting site from view, the actual terrain lines of the cut and fill along this area is very little because of the natural terrain. Mr. Schellens stated he has addressed everything the commission has asked for and the driveway is being shortened by 650 feet without any pull out areas. Mr. Ross stated Mr. Schellens stated the driveway was 650 feet shorter and he asked how much of that 650 feet is already existing and constructed. Mr. Thompson noted the prior
access was only wide enough for one car and could pose a potential safety hazard. Mr. Pierson stated he has seen a lot of things done on private property that are disturbances or crazy, but he does not feel that it is the commission’s responsibility if the person wants to spend the money and has the ability to do what is proposed and has the engineering done that is their right as long as it is safe and causes no liability for the town. Mr. Ross stated as he mentioned this is one lot not a subdivision, but he does have concerns and the commission should be discussing the issues raised. Mr. Ross stated every engineer who has reviewed this plan has stated it represents significant challenges and it just begs the question to him when you have an easier way that works. Mrs. Strohla expressed the concern with the issues raised by Mr. Schellens about the flexibility to construct. Mr. Schellens stated he would only be modifying the
location from the vertical aspect to be able to meander in order to preserve some of the old trees – he further stated he was given this waiver on the original approval. In other words, he would prefer not to be on a straight bee line as shown on the plans, but be able to have it meander and take advantage of the topography and also reduce the cut line back and install catch basins at locations to be defined by site disturbance and also only have a gravel access in some portions rather than the asphalt as shown on the plans. He noted on the original drawing it was shown as all gravel and he didn’t catch the plan indicated it would be all asphalt. He noted the good thing about the drawing being all asphalt is the drainage calculations. He noted his wife would prefer not to have any asphalt.
Mr. Thompson expressed concern that the plan reviewed by the town engineer was asphalt. He stated from his personal standpoint he doesn’t care if you meander or which trees you take down, but not knowing exactly what the grade is and not having Mr. Metcalf’s input, how do these changes impact the site from an engineering standpoint. Mr. Schellens stated from his estimation this falls under the same determination as the road construction. The applicant would like to have the flexibility to have it reviewed without coming back before the commission. Mr. Ross stated one of Mr. Metcalf’s suggestions was to have an inspection engineer on the site. Mr. Schellens stated he agreed to have an engineer in the original approval and that has always been his intent. Mr. Schellens stated
his concern is that if Ann Brown inspects the site to sign off on compliance and she states that the driveway is not asphalt to a certain point as shown on the drawing – he would like the flexibility to alter this in the field. Mr. Thompson stated a decision couldn’t be made on the application tonight because of the outstanding zoning violation, which needs to be
Page 4 – Minutes
January 8, 2004
resolved. Mr. Schellens stated he had a conversation with Ann Brown this afternoon about this – he mentioned and she concurred that this is not to presume that this commission operates the same way – but the Zoning Board of Appeals when there is an oversight – a non-compliance – the applicant can circle as he has on his plans and sign that it will be limited to whatever it is agreed to by the commission. He further added he does not know how he can accurately depict not knowing the meandering where this wall will go on the site. He stated if he told Jacobson Engineering it would just be a simple exercise to have them move the wall. Mr. Thompson stated he does not have a problem with where the wall is located but as it is currently depicted it is in the setback. Mr. Thompson stated when he spoke with Ann Brown she indicated this item needed to be addressed. Mr. Ross stated this commission couldn’t act or approve a plan that has conditions that are contrary to our regulations
and require a variance. Mr. Schellens stated as the applicant he is making the amendment to this application saying that he will not build any retaining walls that exceed 6 feet in height. He will conform with the zoning code. Mr. Ross stated the applicant did not do the drawing. Mr. Schellens stated he is the applicant and it states on the plan that any alternatives to the drawings can only be made by the owner of the drawings which is him. Mr. Ross stated it cannot be made without the express written approval of Nathan L. Jacobson Associates. Mr. Schellens stated he is not representing anything other than a zoning compliance issue and he will tell them to address it accordingly. But as the applicant he can say that I am not going to exceed 6 feet. This is not part of the engineering – part of the engineering is dealing with water, grades, width, accessibility and view lines – particularly since we are going to get into meandering - this wall was just put in here to
depict a requirement for a wall. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Schellens if he considered this to be an alteration to the drawing. Mr. Schellens stated he considered it to be his application and as the applicant I can put on an addendum.
Mr. McCarthy stated he is not revising it – but agreeing to have it done. Mr. McCarthy stated the engineer could put a note on the plan stating that the retaining wall will not be greater than 6 feet. Mr. Pierson stated this may be allowed from the Zoning Board of Appeals standpoint but he was not really sure if the Planning Commission has the legal right to make an adjustment to the zoning regulations. Mr. Thompson stated he did not feel comfortable making a decision because of the outstanding issue stated in the ZEO’s memo. Mr. Thompson offered to set up a special meeting as soon as the issues are resolved, and when this is approved it will become a document of record. Mr. Schellens stated actually it would not – the vellum will show the restrictions that are placed
on the application – which is submitted for the final signatures.
Mr. Ross stated he did not understand how the retaining walls could not be considered a part of the engineering on the drawings. He considered them to be major elements of the drawings. Mr. Schellens stated this is not the document the commission will actually be approving because notations will be added to the final plan. Kim Groves asked if all the notes could be placed on the plan prior to the Special Meeting and also the documents be stamped and sealed. Mr. Schellens stated his Attorney has been in touch with Jim Mattern and they both agree that unless this is approved there was no point in submitting documents. Therefore, Jim Mattern has said as
Page 5 – Minutes
January 8, 2004
he did in his letter that this approval is subject to final attorney review. Mr. Schellens further noted all the documentation is prepared and ready to go but it is awaiting commission approval. Mr. Thompson noted Mr. Metcalf had indicated what a good job Nathan Jacobson had done on the plans.
Chairman Thompson asked the commission if they had any further comments. Mr. Ross stated he wanted to be sure the applicant would retain an engineer to monitor and inspect the construction. Mrs. Strohla questioned again the town’s liability. Mr. Thompson stated some sort of a clause should be noted on the plan stating holding the town harmless for emergency vehicles for the rear lot. Mr. Schellens agreed in writing to a 35-day extension to the subdivision modification. Steve Ross made a motion to table any action until a special meeting is convened. Robert Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Steve Ross asked to be excused for the remainder of the meeting. Chris Kerr will be reseated for the remainder of the meeting. Robert Pierson will be seated for Steve Ross for the remainder of the meeting.
SUBDIVISION – VILLAGE ESTATES – 5 LOTS ON NECK ROAD
Mr. Hendriks, agent for the applicant submitted a letter formally withdrawing the application.
SUBDIVISION – VILLAGE ESTATES – 5 LOTS ON NECK ROAD
Bob Pierson made motion to receive the application for the Village Estates Subdivision and set for public hearing in February. Connie Kastelowitz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ORIGINAL DIVISION – THOMAS & JANET BAGG – 31 SMITH NECK ROAD
Gary Sharpe, agent for the applicant presented the proposed division. Robert Pierson made a motion to approve the original division. Connie Kastelowitz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION – JOHN & JACQUELYN COSTIGAN – LOTS 4 & 5 EVERGREEN TRAIL
Harold Thompson made a motion to table any action until next month. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 6 – Minutes
January 8, 2004
MEETING CALENDAR
Harold Thompson made a motion to approve the calendar as amended in discussion. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
READING AND APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER MINUTES
Robert Pierson made a motion to waive the reading and approve the minutes. Connie Kastelowitz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
