OLD LYME PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARINGS & REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 8, 2007
PRESENT WERE: Harold Thompson, Connie Kastelowitz, Chris Kerr, and Steve Ross. Also present were Kim Groves, Attorney Michael Cronin, Gary Hendren, and Attorney Sal Diglio.
CONTINUED SUBDIVISION – ENOK PEDERSEN – BURR ROAD
Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant will be withdrawing the application, however before doing that he would like to address a couple of issues with the commission. Cronin also noted that the application had been withdrawn from the Inland/Wetlands Commission.
Attorney Cronin stated that one of the issues is the drainage situation at Saunders Hollow Road. He noted the commission had received a letter from Tom Metcalf, dated February 24, 2007. He stated that extensive modifications have been made to the plan which address the issues raised by Wendy Goodfriend and Mr. Metalf. Cronin reviewed Item #6 in Metcalf’s letter with the commission. He stated as a result of the off site drainage situation it was impossible for the applicant to address all the concerns within the current timeframe.
Cronin stated he would be filing two additional applications with the Inland/Wetlands Commission. He noted in addition to the Saunders Hollow Road drainage improvement there would be a municipal drainage improvement which will be referred to the Planning Commission for review.
Cronin discussed with the commission the concerns raised by the neighbors about the intersection of Burr Road and Bill Hill Road. He stated the intersection currently comes in at a very acute angle which creates a problem in turning right exiting Burr Road. He stated this concern has presented a problem to the applicant because not only is this not on his property but it also not in the Town of Old Lyme. Cronin stated at the last meeting the Planning Commission recommended that the applicant approach the Town of Lyme and find out what their position is on this matter. Cronin stated he has approached the Town of Lyme and he has a letter from Mr. Doane dated March 1, 2007 which includes a couple of sketches of the proposed realignment for the commission to review. Cronin noted
that Mr. Doane states in his letter that the Town of Lyme currently has no plans to improve the intersection. Cronin stated there is information back to 1950 recommending that the Town of Lyme look into whether or not this intersection should be improved. Cronin stated that at the present time the Town of Lyme has no plans to improve this intersection. Cronin noted that the Town of Lyme owns the actual area of the intersection. Cronin reported that Mr. Metcalf stated in his letter of February 15, 2007 that “by any generally recognized design standard, the horizontal and vertical geometry of the intersection is at variance with minimum acceptable requirements”. Cronin also noted that Mr. Metcalf indicated “that this may not be a popular recommendation as it will remove some of the rural “character” of the area, he believes the safety of the public overrides this emotional issue for this situation”. Metcalf also noted in his letter that it was unclear whether the Planning
Commission was going to require the developer to fund and implement improvements to the intersection as part of the subdivision approval process.
Cronin also noted that Mr. Pedersen expressed concern about the heavy amount of traffic generated by the
Page 2 – Minutes
March 8, 2007
commercial use (Hardy Farm) that currently exists because of this activity. Cronin stated he discussed this matter with Mr. Pedersen today and at this point it would be possible under the present arrangement to incorporate a process to improve the intersection. Cronin stated he could not make a blanket statement that the applicant will do make improvement because there is a process that must be followed. He noted the Town of Lyme would have to approve it as a municipal project and then be referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
Cronin asked the commission if there were any particular concerns for the present development of this property. Kastelowitz expressed concerns about the number of issues raised in Mr. Metcalf’s letter with regard to the project. Chris Kerr stated he felt the applicant was very generous to take on the project of improving the intersection because he did not feel the applicant was responsible. He further stated he felt it was the Town of Lyme’s problem that has existed since 1940 and they chose to never correct it and it is still a problem today with or without the proposed development. Steve Ross stated while Mr. Metcalf has made a number of comments in his letter, he did not feel any were substantial or significant in terms of not being able to be solved. Ross stated with regard to the
road he agreed with Mr. Kerr. He stated he also felt it was extremely generous of the applicant to offer to undertake this project. He further stated that while this intersection does appear to be a dangerous in reality it has not been dangerous because there have not been accidents. Ross stated he was disturbed that it had to get to this point, because if the residents of the community in this area, have so much concern over this intersection and allowed the addition of the Ashland Farm traffic which creates substantial impact then he feels it is incumbent upon them as residents of Lyme or Old Lyme to effect the change within their own town. He stated he did not feel the developer should be held hostage to this situation. He stated he did not feel the neighbors should be voicing their complaints at public hearings in the Town of Old Lyme over a traffic problem at an intersection that has been deemed to be a problem for over fifty years in the
Town of Lyme. He concluded that he felt this was Lyme’s problem, there have not been accidents and there is a new commercial activity that has generated additional traffic in recent years.
Thompson stated he has requested a meeting between the Selectmen of Lyme and Old Lyme, which has not occurred, but he will continue to pursue. He also noted that most of Mr. Metcalf’s notes included setbacks, open space, and common driveways, leaching fields and therefore the two major concerns he felt with the project are the drainage and the intersection.
Attorney Cronin stated for the record he formally withdrew the application.
Steve Ross suggested the fees be waived excluding any out of pocket expenses such as advertising. Mr. Thompson stated he would like to address this issue at the time of reapplication. Cronin reviewed the fee procedure agreed to the Wetlands Commission. Thompson stated he concurred with the same approach.
FOUR PONDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Chairman Thompson noted for the record that new plans were distributed this evening. Thompson asked if these were the same plans that were submitted to the Inland/Wetlands Commission. Gary Hendren indicated that they were not different but had different detail than required for the Wetlands Commission. Mr. Hendren stated he would highlight the differences in the current plans versus the plans submitted to the commission back in November. He stated that the plans in November had rectangles on the individual lots to demonstrate house locations. He noted the revised plans have a shaded building area on them to show the limits of where the house can be placed on the lot. Mr. Ross asked what the average footprint size of a structure that would be going on these lots. Mr.
Hendren indicated it would be about 2,500 sq. ft. Chris Kerr
Page 3 – Minutes
March 8, 2007
asked if a traffic impact study was required. Mr. Hendren indicated the project was under the threshold for any type of impact. Mr. Hendren also noted the project has two egresses, therefore no study was required. Mr. Hendren stated the only involvement was with the DEP and the location of the storm drainage under the road.
Mr. Thompson noted for the record that the plans submitted this evening would be forwarded to the appropriate areas for their review and comment. He further stated that once the comments are received then the commission would be in a better position to discuss the project.
Mr. Hendren asked the commission if it would be possible to discuss the referrals he had requested from the commission at this point in time. Mr. Thompson indicated he was not inclined to act on the referrals at this point due to the fact the application had not been forwarded to the appropriate agencies for review and comment. Mr. Hendren indicated he had received comments from both Wendy Goodfriend and Tom Metcalf. Mr. Thompson stated those comments were written on behalf of the Wetlands Commission.
Steve Ross stated he felt many of the wetlands issues needed to be resolved before this commission can have an effective review because there could be significant changes. Mr. Ross also discussed his concern that there is currently a stumping operation located on the adjacent property. Mr. Ross stated that often real estate is marketed on weekends and commercial operations are not in progress, therefore Mr. Ross requested a note be placed on the deed for the sites closest to the operation indication there is a stumping operation adjacent to their property. Attorney Diglio stated he was aware of the situation and reported that on the first page of the plans Item #22 indicates there is an existing commercial activity on the adjacent property that may be noisy, etc. Attorney Diglio also agreed to
include a note on the individual deeds.
Mr. Hendren discussed the Alternate Conventional Subdivision Plan. He stated road revisions have been made based on comments from Mr. Metcalf. He noted drafting errors have been corrected on the plan. Hendren stated Mr. Metcalf requested the site be probed in his presence, however he was unavailable to be at the site the day it was probed. Mr. Hendren stated Metcalf has now requested that the probes are survey and then he would walk the site. Hendren indicated this would create another delay for the project be along with additional expense, therefore Mr. Hendren asked the commission that if he goes through the expense of surveying each of the probes will that be the final thing required to make a reasonable conceptual plan. Hendren stated in his opinion it has gone well beyond
conceptual to almost an engineered plan.
Thompson stated he could understand some frustration on behalf of the applicant, but normally Mr. Metcalf has been very responsive. Thompson stated he would be happy to discuss this concern with Mr. Metcalf. Hendren stated the regulations required that an alternate conceptual plan be presented for a standard subdivision which provides the unit count for the PRCD. Hendren stated he would like clarification on the term “reasonable”. Thompson agreed to discuss this with Mr. Metcalf. Ross asked that if Mr. Metcalf expressed to the applicant he would like to be at the site at the time the probes were done, therefore why were the probes done if Mr. Metcalf was not there. Hendren stated they were trying to provide Mr. Metcalf with the information. Ross stated obviously if Mr.
Metcalf wanted them surveyed his interest was knowing where they were located on the site. Ross stated that if the applicant had made arrangements to make sure Mr. Metcalf was present at the time of probing he would not be asking for a survey. Ross stated he was not sure why this was being thrown back at the commission when we are discussing reasonable. He concluded
Page 4 – Minutes
March 8, 2007
by stating if a different appointment had been made all of this could be avoided. Mr. Hendren stated the probes were flagged and the applicant has offered to go back to the site on several occasions to walk through where the flags are and re-probe but he is requesting a survey. Hendren stated it was a big expense to survey every probe on an 83 acre site. The commission agreed to seek input from Mr. Metcalf on this matter.
Steve Ross asked for some additional wording on Note #22 on the Plan. “Buyer be aware as noted on applicable deeds ……” Attorney Diglio stated he would also list the lots noted by Mr. Ross in the prior discussion.
Attorney Diglio asked the commission if he could discuss the deferments requested by the applicant. He stated if these plans are approved by Inland/Wetlands Commission and then we move on to the Planning Commission and discuss the deferrals at that time then any thing that is changed on those plans would then have to go back to Inland/Wetlands. Mr. Thompson stated if they approve the proposal it will be contingent upon drawings that were signed and dated with a specific date. Mr. Thompson stated if those drawings are revised then they should go back to the Wetlands Commission, which at that time the approval could be revised if the changes are minor in nature. Attorney Diglio stated this is why he requested the Planning Commission’s approval of the deferments today and those that the
commission supports can be placed on the plan prior to going back to the Inland/Wetlands Commission. Ross asked Mr. Hendren to review the deferments. Hendren stated they are related to very specific requirements around architectural plans for houses. Ross stated that most of the items relate to obtaining zoning and building permits , not Planning Commission approval.
Steve Ross made a motion to continue the hearing. Connie Kastelowitz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISION – JACK & LINDA KELLY – 105 & 111 SHORE ROAD
David Coonrod presented the proposed two lot subdivision. He noted that the commission had not received comments from Mr. Metcalf. Coonrod stated that the Kelly’s purchased the property in the mid 80’s. He noted the property consisted of the laundry mat (sic) and a garden nursery. Coonrod noted that since 1972 the Town of Old Lyme has treated this as two individual parcels of land. He stated tax bills were issued for both 105 and 111 Shore Road. Coonrod stated the Kelly’s decided to sell the laundromat in November of 2006 and discovered the parcels had never been legal subdivided. He stated the proposal is to create a single-family residential lot at 111 Shore Road. He noted the laundromat would be eliminated. He further stated all of the
comments from both Ann Brown and Tom Metcalf will be incorporated into a revised plan to be presented to the commission at the April meeting. Coonrod noted a CAM application has been submitted.
Coonrod asked the commission for a waiver of all open space requirements due to the size and nature of the land. He stated there are tidal wetlands on the property, which does provide area that cannot be used. Chris Kerr stated he felt the open space should be waived due to the size of the lot. He also noted he did not support the fee in lieu of for this piece because the property owners had been paying taxes on a lot that did not exist since 1972. Steve Ross stated he concurred with Mr. Kerr. He further noted that the wetlands on the property create open space. He also noted that the assessor’s office has created two separate cards and therefore the Town of Old Lyme has recognized it as two lots all along, therefore no open space or fee in lieu should be required.
Page 5 – Minutes
March 8, 2007
Linda Kelly stated they have been paying taxes on two parcels of land for over twenty years and therefore assumed they were two separate parcels. She noted the line that divides the two parcels is a right-of-way, which goes back to the Olivier’s home. Attorney Geraghty spoke on behalf of the Oliviers who are the abutters to the rear. Geraghty requested some additional information be placed on the plan, which complies with the regulations of Section 7.2. Coonrod agreed to do that and a copy of the requests were submitted to Mr. Coonrod.
Geraghty noted his client is in favor of the lot becoming residential. Geraghty wanted the commission to be aware there has been some discussion about a relocation of the right-of way to the property and he wanted to be sure that his client was in agreement with any of terms setforth in that modification. He further noted that currently the right-of-way is defined by a metes and bounds description.
Harold Thompson made a motion to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting. Steve Ross seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING
BROAD BROOK ESTATES – (ARIA, LLC – FMTM)
Harold Thompson made a motion to approve the 90 day extension of filing the mylars. Connie Kastelowitz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
READING AND APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY MINUTES
Steve Ross made a motion to waive the reading and approve the February minutes as submitted. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
