OLD LYME PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
October 14, 2004
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Harold Thompson, Robert McCarthy, Steve Ross, Chris Kerr and Alternate Robert Pierson seated for Connie Kastelowitz and Alternates Alan Bayreuther and Nancy Strohla. Also present were: Tony Hendriks, Gary Sharpe, Ted Crosby, George James, Mike Silberberg, Robb Linde, Kevin Kenny, Ellie Czarnowski and Kim Groves.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
Alan Bayreuther recused himself.
ORIGINAL DIVISION – 392 SHORE ROAD- JACQUELINE MIANO
Gary Sharpe presented the proposed division. The property consists of 26.4 acres and is located in South Lyme . The proposal is to divide the 26 acres into two separate parcels. One parcel will be 4.4 acres and the other 22 acres. Mr. Sharpe noted the Sanitarian has approved the plan as designed and the Zoning Enforcement Officer has also stated the plan complies with the zoning regulations. Mr. Thompson reported Attorney Mattern’s memo indicates the property has never had a prior split. Steve Ross made a motion to approve the Original Division at 392 Shore Road property of Jacqueline Miano. Robert Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED – BASSAM AWWA – 10 LOTS – LORDS MEADOW DRIVE.
Mr. Hendriks continued the hearing process on behalf of the applicant, Dr. Bassam Awwa. Mr. Hendriks noted the hearing was continued to allow the applicant to address Mr. Metcalf’s comments in his letter of September 4, 2004. He indicated he has addressed these comments in a letter to the commission dated October 11, 2004 and submitted revised plans. Mr. Metcalf sent a memo dated October 14, 2004 to the commission stating he has not had an opportunity to review the revised plans. Mr. Hendriks stated the other outstanding item was where the road should be located as it entered into the site. He noted he had discussed this with the Inland/Wetland Commission and they felt the location of the road as it is proposed and designed is in the best location minimizing the impact. Mr.
Hendriks introduced a copy of the plan into the record of the Cross Section Study – STA 8+00 of Lord’s Meadow Lane Ext. The left cross section is as designed and the right cross section shows the road being moved over 20 ft as suggested by commission members subsequent to the walk. As you can see moving the road over 20 ft. or so almost doubles the impact from a cubic ft. standpoint as well as from a square foot standpoint. Kim Groves reported she had spoken with Attorney Valerie Votto on the phone
Page 2 – Minutes
October 14, 2004
today who indicated her client was satisfied with the agreement reached between the Concasia’s and the applicant to relocate their driveway entrance to minimize the impact of the street lighting into their home. Mr. Ross stated he was still concerned about the area of the steep grade, he noted from the minutes of the Inland Wetlands Commission this was basically a numbers game in terms of the amount of cut and fill. He noted he recalled from the site walk it dropped off rather steeply and the center line of the road was about six feet below. Mr. Hendriks reviewed the cross section design. Mr. Ross stated for the record the motivation for this was primarily economical based on what he has read in the minutes. Mr. Hendriks stated it is an engineer’s responsibility to equalize
the cuts and fills as much as possible and minimize the amount of erosion and disturbance to the site.
Nancy Strohla asked about the test hole data that was not yet submitted as noted in Ann Brown’s memo of October 14, 2004. Mr. Hendriks stated the Health Department had reviewed and approved the plan. Mr. Thompson stated if there is new test hole data it should be resubmitted to Mr. Rose for his review.
Mr. Thompson discussed the waiver request of the Old Lyme Subdivision Regulations Section 5.5.12.b., Slope Grading regarding the project He noted the subdivision was designed with slopes of two feet horizontal to one foot vertical rather than the three feet horizontal to one foot vertical required. The purpose of the slightly steeper slopes is to maintain the disturbed areas to an absolute minimum in accordance with discussions with the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands commission and suggestions from Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. Thompson noted he had received correspondence from Joan Bozek concerning two aspects of the plans. He noted one of the items she expressed concern about has already been addressed and that is the screening of the Concasia property and the second item is that the proposed access strip to the wetlands on the plans be eliminated. She further stated the access strip is not a valid lot, and is on the plans only as a future road.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
George James – Chairman of the Open Space Committee – Mr. James urged that the Planning Commission not accept the open space that has been offered on this plan and strongly recommended the Planning Commission consider the proposal the Open Space committee has made which allows for the passage of people through this property with a town owned right of way to the Lay property.
Mr. Hendriks stated he felt the Open Space Committee should have contacted him prior to this evening to discuss their proposal and stated for the record he had never seen the document being discussed. He reviewed the current open space proposal with the commission. He further added if the Open Space Committee would like to discuss this proposal with the applicant he would be happy to do so.
Page 3 – Minutes
October 14, 2004
Mr. James noted he had sent Dr. Awwa a copy in June 2004. Mr. James read the proposal into the record.
Mr. Ross noted he had recalled that the representative of the Lords Meadow Homeowners Association had indicated that for insurance reasons they did not want pedestrian access to be continued from this property into their property.
Mike Silberberg- Conservation Commission – He stated when the Conservation Commission submitted their letter regarding this particular development a proposed conservation easement was attached. He noted it was very important that if there was going to be a conservation easement it needed to be clearly defined.
Mr. Hendriks requested a copy of the conservation easement be provided to Attorney Block. Mr. Silberberg agreed to do so.
Robert Linde III – Mr. Linde asked Mr. Hendriks if the plan before the commission tonight include the revisions made in response to Mr. Metcalf’s comments. He stated his concern is regarding the proposed extension, which shows the road at a different width. Mr. Hendriks stated it is the intention of the applicant to delete the entire right of way from the existing end of Lords Meadow Lane to the easterly property line as part of the roadway. The temporary turning circle is constructed in and around the area of Lot#7, beyond that a driveway is to be constructed that would access Lot #6 as shown on Sheet 4 of 12. No other grading is intended beyond that at this particular time. Mr. Linde stated his concern is that showing a road on the plans it may allow the potential
for future development. He stated if the plan is approved as shown, should there be a development that goes in across the wetlands the owners of that property may assume this was a pre-approved access over the wetland. Mr. Thompson stated there is no way it could be pre-approved. Any modification of this development would require another application before the commission. Mr. Linde stated if he were building across the way and noticed this on the plans he would believe that commission would have reviewed this prior and as a result would draw the conclusion that there is real potential to put a road across this wetland. Mr. Thompson asked if there was a note on the drawing stating this is not to be further developed.
Mr. Ross stated the applicant is reserving that portion of the property – it could be a future road to access the other property and it is not within this commission’s authority to prevent that capability. Any development beyond the cul-de-sac would require a complete application from the person seeking to develop the property, which would go through all the reviews of the various land use commissions.
Mr. Hendriks stated they felt it was good planning to provide a possible future extension of this roadway to another site whether anybody ever ends up using it or not.
Page 4 – Minutes
October 14, 2004
Mr. Linde stated he would like to see appropriate screening on the entire north side of the road entering the proposed development be addressed and reflected on the plans prior to approval.
John Alexander – Noted he concurred with Mr. James suggestions. He also expressed concern about the amount of disturbance to the property. He also felt there would be no reason to build the circle. Ending that road 200 ft. further to the entrance and that is a recommendation that should be seriously considered will reduce the amount of disturbance. He further stated he could not believe that more material will be moved if you take that road out of the 100 ft. reserve area and take it along the top of the hill instead of half way down the ridge.
Mr. Hendriks stated the applicant went through this very thoroughly with the Wetlands Commission. They were provided the information with respect to cuts and fills in the area, it was also reviewed by the commissions engineer and specifically the commission felt this location was the best possible location to the minimize the impact on wetlands.
Mr. Alexander noted the commission members were not engineers reviewing the plans. Mr. Ross noted he did not see any correspondence between the Inland/Wetlands and Mr. Metcalf. He further asked if the commission relied only on the figures provided by Rowley & Hendriks. Mr. Hendriks stated it was his understanding Mr. Metcalf reviewed the plans. He further stated as the design engineers that this is the best possible location for this road. The most prudent and feasible alternative to accessing this property. Mr. Thompson agreed to have Mr. Metcalf review this item.
Ted Crosby – He asked what the definition was for “temporary turnaround”? He wondered if there was a time limitation. Mr. Thompson stated he would obtain clarification from counsel.
Mr. Linde asked if we could also check with counsel to determine if this cul-de-sac termed temporary in any way restricts the ability of any land use commission from acting on any proposals in the future.
Mr. Thompson clarified with Mr. James’s several items related to the open space proposal. Mr. Hendriks indicated he would speak with Dr. Awwa and did not foresee a problem with providing a fee easement along the common boundary line with Lots 5 & 6.
Mr. Thompson raised the issue of the fire well versus the tank. Mr. Hendriks stated they are working with the Fire Department to do whatever is necessary. Mr. Thompson asked if the Wetlands Commission did not want a fire well in that area. Mr. Hendriks stated it would require activity in the wetland area with a pump into the pond or brook. Mr. Hendriks stated the Wetlands Commission favored a 20,000 gallon water storage tank outside the review zone as an alternative.
Page 5 – Minutes
October 14, 2004
Thompson asked how the integrity of the tank was guaranteed. Mr. Hendriks indicated it was not. Mr. Pierson asked who would maintain the tank. Mr. Hendriks stated the Town of Old Lyme would be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Ross stated since that it is a Fire Department issues their viewpoint as to the best method would be more practical based on their experience.
COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROJECT
Mr. Alexander stated he opposed the project because it is unclear to him whether this road into the wetlands will ever be built or is temporary. He stated if you are never going to build it and it is going to be permanent than lets call it what it is. If it is better 200 ft up the road then put it 200 ft up the road. He further stated he will oppose it until the town engineer says that there is more dirt moved by moving the road outside of the 100 ft. reserve area.
Harold Thompson made a motion to close the public hearing. Robert Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 to 1. Steve Ross opposed.
Alan Bayreuther recused himself from the following discussions.
SOUTH LYME ESTATES – 3 LOTS – 392 SHORE ROAD - FLANDERS 161, LLC
Gary Sharpe presented the proposed application. The property is a 4.4 acre parcel. The existing driveway leading into the property is directly opposite the entrance to Point O’ Woods. There is currently a single residence on Lot #1. There are two lots proposed in the southern half of the property. There is a 25 ft. right of way being shown through a portion of the front part of Lot #2 and traversing along the front part of Lot #3 and traveling up the west side to Lot #1. That easement will incorporate a proposed new driveway, which will access all three of the residential lots that are incorporated into this subdivision. A common driveway entering from Route 156 approximately 100 ft. further to the north from the current entrance to improve the sight line
will service all three lots.
Ann Brown’s memo indicated she had spoken with John DiCastro of Connecticut Department of Transportation who has reviewed the proposed location of the new driveway and feels it is the best location for access to accommodate proper safe sight line visibility. He will have a formal evaluation prior to the next meeting.
Mr. Sharpe indicated the Wetlands Commission reviewed the proposal and indicated they have no jurisdiction over the site.
Mr. Ross commended the applicant and Mr. Sharpe for taking the concerns the Planning Commission expressed at the previous meeting regarding this driveway to heart and finding a
Page 6 - Minutes
October 14, 2004
satisfactory alternative. He also stated there are five curb cuts on the opposite side of the street plus what doesn’t show on a piece of paper that Shore Road traveling from west to east comes over a steep hill so there is very little sight line at the existing driveway and to add two house to it was an invitation for safety problems. He felt the solution that is proposed satisfies all the concerns regarding the safety of the proposed homes.
Mr. Thompson reported that a memo from Mr. Metcalf indicated there was lack of information on the plan to determine if the plans comply with the zoning and subdivision regulations. Mr. Sharpe indicated he had just received the letter and he believed the revisions that were made on September 1, 2004 addressed Mr. Metcalf’s concerns, however it seems Mr. Metcalf did not get a copy of the most recent plans. Kim Groves agreed to forward a copy of the revised plans to Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Pierson noted Ann Brown’s memo indicated she did not have a copy of the recent plans either so therefore she had not reviewed the plans for zoning compliance. Mr. Thompson also addressed the memo from Tom Risom, WPCA.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Mike Silberberg – Conservation Commission submitted a letter to the Planning Commission. Kim Groves agreed to forward a copy to all commission members.
Mr. Crosby asked what the use of the property would be since it was located partially in a commercial zone. Mr. Sharpe noted there is a zoning district that runs across the property. Mr. Sharpe noted even though a portion of the property is located in a commercial zone he did not believe there was any intent to use the property as anything but residential. Mr. Kenny, Land Surveyor and partner on this project stated if there was any intent other than residential there would be a plan before the commission.
Mrs. Rodriguez – Asked if there is any zoning change the Planning Commission could make to ensure the property remains residential. The commission explained that is not under their jurisdiction. Mr. Ross stated that residential use is permitted in a commercial zone.
Harold Thompson made a motion to continue the public hearing for the South Lyme Estates Subdivision until November. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
WOOD CREST ESTATES – 11 LOTS - 392 SHORE ROAD – KENWOOD, LLC.
Mr. Sharpe presented the Wood Crest Subdivision. This subdivision is bordered along the west side of Route 156. The proposal includes the construction of a permanent dead end road into the property. The link to that road is approximately 700 ft. It also crosses a wetland in one area. The wetland crossing is under review by the Inland/Wetlands Commission. The road was placed where the best available sight line exists on Route 156. John DiCastro, Connecticut Department of Transportation has indicated this appears to be the best access for safe sight line visibility. He will have a formal evaluation prior to the next meeting. He noted the drainage will be collected
Page 7 – Minutes
October 14, 2004
from the roadway into catch basins about 400 ft in from Route 156 and also at the intersection with Route 156 and the drainage will be discharged on the upstream side. The reasons for this is so that the culverts will be utilized which pass underneath the crossing which have control structures to minimize the amount of water that goes downstream. He stated he realizes there is a constricted pipe under Route 156 and there is evidence of problems downstream with excess water and by doing this we can actually minimize the amount of water that is discharged from
this property. Mr. Sharpe indicated drainage calculations were submitted as part of the application.
Mr. Ross asked when Mr. Sharpe indicated the flow was diminished by 25 percent; did he mean 25 percent less than the current flow or the anticipated flow without the upstream discharge. Mr. Sharpe stated at the point where the culvert goes underneath Route 156 was where he calculated the flow presently, and after the development and at that point it is down by 25 percent. Mr. Thompson asked how that works. Mr. Sharpe explained the basin is used as retention it allows the water to build up and pond for a period of time after a rainfall event then it is metered out slowly and there will never be a surge of water going downstream.
There is a total of 4.5 acres, which will be placed in the conservation easement, approximately 17 percent of the total area of the subdivision. The intent is to protect the wetland corridor and the vegetation, which exists adjacent to the corridor, and ensure the embankment remains stable.
Harold Thompson stated there was a memo from the Fire Department that stated the fire well exceeded the recommended distance. Mr. Sharpe had not received the memo. He had only received comments from the Fire Marshal indicating the proposal met the requirements.
Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Sharpe when the access is created onto Route 156 the drainage needs to be controlled out to Point O’ Woods and also we do not want to restrict the flow, which will change the wetland area. Mr. Sharpe explained the basin is not designed to pond water for an indefinite period of time but designed to hold the water back to buffer the peak flow. Mr. Sharpe also indicated it would be a town road.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Debbie Hemingway – Expressed concern that she just recently built her house and did so very carefully because they wanted to be off in the woods by themselves. She expressed concern that she and her husband had worked extremely hard not to knock trees over and to see something like this built with so many homes constructed on the ledge and the loss of trees and the disturbance of nature of the entire area was very upsetting. She also noted the homes on the ledge will create a poor visual and noise pollution. She also wondered if the two separate pieces could share the same access. She also indicated that the ledge made it difficult to install the septic for her residence.
Page 8 – Minutes
October 14, 2004
Mr. Sharpe indicated they are presently working on a plan, which will depict the clearing limits for this property, which is in response to the Wetlands Commission. He also stated the line of sight is so poor additional access would not be added at the southern portion of the property.
George James – Read the open space proposal into the record. Mr. Sharpe asked for an example of the sample easement. Mr. Sharpe stated he was not prepared to address the specific proposal
in detail at this time, however the purpose of open space as indicated in the subdivision regulations is addressed by the conservation easement. He further indicated he did not necessarily believe there was a need for recreational areas in the subdivision such as formal ball fields, picnic areas or things of that nature because these are relatively large lots in a wooded environment.
Mr. Crosby asked where the siltation would be contained before it goes into the wetlands. Mr. Sharpe indicated there is silt fence all along the roadway and along the private road. This was prepared in response to Wendy Goodfriend’s recommendations to the Wetlands Commission. She also recommended 4 ft sumps rather than 18” sumps in the catch basins, which the developer is willing to do and will provide more for the entrapment of sands and silts.
Mr. Linde asked what does it take for the system to fail. Mr. Sharpe indicated it was designed not to fail. He noted they also placed a 24” culvert above the level of the 25 year storm. He stated if there was a really serious storm and the water was starting to pond on the north side to the point where it became dangerous there is an overflow that would allow that water to pass through.
Bill Flannigan – Asked if there would be a buffer zone between this property and the Windward Lane Subdivision. Mr. Sharpe stated there is nothing specified but there is a good deal of woods on the Windward property. Mr. Flannigan asked if the commission would review the necessity of a buffer.
Elizabeth Rodgriquez – Expressed concern about additional traffic being added to Route 156. She noted when I-95 closes due to accidents between Exits 70 & 71 it is already a problem without adding 22 additional cars. She also expressed concern about blasting on the project and how it might impact her well and foundation.
Mr. Sharpe stated Route 156 is a major state artery and has sufficient capacity to absorb the traffic that presently exists and the additional eleven lots. He also noted this is one of the items that the DOT takes into consideration in their review process.
Harold Thompson made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Wood Crest Subdivision at 392 Shore Road. Steve Ross seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 9 – Minutes
October 14, 2004
SUBDIVISION – 2 LOTS – JOHN W. ALBRYCHT – 7 SHORE DRIVE.
The commission opened the public hearing and noted the Zoning Enforcement Officer stated in her memo the proposed new 5,423 s.f. lot does not comply with the zoning regulations. Harold Thompson made a motion to close the public hearing based on insufficient information. Steve Ross seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ORIGINAL DIVISION – BASSAM AWWA
Steve Ross made a motion to table any action. Robert McCarthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ANSON B. CLINTON – LOT LINE MODIFICATION – OLD STAGECOAH ROAD
Ann Brown’s memo dated October 14, 2004, indicated the modification complies with the zoning regulations. Attorney Mattern indicated no legal documentation is required, however the applicant should submit copies of the right of way in favor of the Clinton property which runs across land now or formerly of Schmitt for review to assure that the reconfigured lots are legally able to be serviced by the right of way.
Steve Ross made a motion to approve the lot line modification contingent upon copies of the right of way agreement in favor Clinton being reviewed and approved by counsel. Robert Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
VILLAGE ESTATES – BOND REDUCTION
Steve Ross made a motion to reduce the bond in accordance with Mr. Metcalf’s recommendation. Robert Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Robert Pierson made a motion to amend the agenda to add the discussion of 7 Shore Drive. Robert McCarthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
DECISION – ALBRYCHT – 7 SHORE DRIVE
.
Steve Ross made a motion to deny the application because it does not comply with our zoning regulations and we have an insufficient application to consider the request. Robert Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 10 – Minutes
October 14, 2004
READING AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
Steve Ross made a motion to waive the reading of the minutes and approve them as amended.
The amendments being adding a notation that Bayreuther recused himself from the discussion on Miano, South Lyme Estates and Wood Crest Estates and strike on Page 2 discussion by the Concasia after the Valerie Votto paragraph. Robert Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
