Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Commission Minutes 11/13/2008




OLD LYME PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2008



PRESENT WERE:  Harold Thompson, Steve Ross, Sean Mulligan, Connie Kastelowitz and Alternate Nancy Strohla seated for Chris Kerr.  Also present were Attorney Cassella, Attorney Rannelli, and Howard Tooker and Kim Groves.


DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DECISION – SHORT HILLS PROPERTIES, LLC – SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION – 16-2 SHORT HILLS ROAD AND 20 SHORT HILLS ROAD.

Thompson stated at the last meeting that the commission had discussed road access, traffic and emergency vehicle access and other items.  Thompson noted for the record that the commission is only reviewing the seven-lot subdivision.

Thompson asked the commission members if they had any questions or concerns with regard to the subdivision.  Ross stated he had satisfied his questions and concerns at the last meeting during the discussions.  Mulligan concurred with Mr. Ross.  

Thompson stated that the commission has received a draft motion, which had been prepared by Attorney Cassella.  Thompson noted there were a couple of items in the motion that the commission needed to discuss.

Thompson stated that if the commission chooses to approve this subdivision it has some choices to make within the draft motion.  

He noted that the commission needs to make a decision with regard to Item #5 as to whether or not the stone foundation is filled in on the site or the foundation is disassembled and the stones are used on the site.  Thompson noted that the commission has received documentation from the State Archaeologist stating that the foundation is of no interest to them and he has not problem with it being excavated and the stones being used at the site.  

Ross stated he felt the foundation should be left as it is.  He noted when the commission walked the site it did not appear to be crumbling, and further stated he did not feel it was a safety hazard or attractive nuisance.  He noted it has been there for many, many decades and hasn’t seemed to attract any problems.  Strohla expressed concern about somebody jumping off the foundation and getting injured.   
Page 2 – Minutes
November 13, 2008

Thompson reviewed the correspondence between Marty Smith and Nicholas Bellantoni, State Archaeologist with regard to the structure on the site.   Thompson stated the final correspondence from Bellantoni indicated that they would consider the barn feature mitigated with the report that was submitted.  In other words they have granted the applicant to do as he wishes with the structure.

Ross stated he felt the choice should be the applicant’s and he doesn’t feel particularly strongly in any regard.  He noted any of the choices were fine with him.  Thompson suggested that the choice be left up to the developer.  The commission agreed to leave this choice up to the discretion of the developer.   Attorney Cassella reported that the commission has a letter from Nicholas Bellantoni indicating it is okay to remove the structure so if we reference that letter and say it is okay for the applicant to remove the structure but if he wishes to preserve it the question for you folks is do you want it preserved with a conservation easement which was part of Tom Metcalf’s discussion or do you just want to say that it is up to the landowner.

Ross stated it would like the record to reflect that it is an existing feature of the lot and we are leaving it up to the owner to determine what happens if anything.  Cassella asked if the commission’s intent was to do this without any strings attached.  The commission indicated that was correct.   Cassella added to the end of 5(a) in the draft motion “and it can be removed at the applicant’s discretion” and 5(b) was removed from the draft motion.  

Thompson discussed Items 6(a) and 6 (b) in the draft motion with the members.  Thompson stated he thought the applicant’s approach was to have a locked gate to deter ATV traffic and other traffic from traveling through the site.    Thompson stated that he felt every fire truck in town is equipped with the universal lock cutter.  

Ross stated that during the hearing someone based a lot of their argument regarding the road on the fact that they considered it a dead end and the applicant seem to indicate otherwise because the road goes through to Route 1 and therefore,  his feeling is there should be no gate.  If it is a through road it is a through road with a cul-de-sac at the end of the paved portion.  Therefore, he stated to install a gate across the road is inconsistent with the argument made by the applicant.  Thompson stated the commission does not have jurisdiction on the location of the gate, he stated it could be located on another parcel of property which is beyond this commission’s jurisdiction.  Ross stated again it was not something he felt that strongly about.  

Thompson stated it was his understanding that they were going to use this access for construction vehicles during the development of this property.   He stated this would be a passable road but not to town standards so it would be accessible and usable by emergency vehicles yet it would not be up to the standards of the town road.  Again, it is intended to minimize ATV traffic that the applicant would like to install a gate or barrier.



Page 3 – Minutes
November 13, 2008

Ross stated that a gate would not stop ATV or motorcycle traffic.  Thompson stated he understood that, but if the owner of this property decides to put a gate up to restrict ATV traffic on the portion of property which is beyond the seven lot subdivision that should be his choice provided that the emergency responders have keys to open that gate.  Thompson stated again maybe this should be left to the discretion of the owner of this property.  Cassella stated that the commission is basically choosing 6(a) in the draft motion provided.

Cassella noted that the commission can consider that easement as it goes all the way out to Route 1 and whether or not you are going to allow this subdivision to be approved with gates at any point on that easement including the Kus gates.   Ross stated that he favored 6 (a).  The commission agreed.

The commission agreed to remove 6 (b) from the draft motion.  

Ross asked Attorney Cassella to review with the commission any of the minor changes in the draft motion presented tonight versus the one he received earlier.

Cassella stated there were some minor changes based on his conversation with Thompson.

Cassella stated that #4 raises the issue with regard to road length.   He stated the subdivision regulations state in Section 5.5.7 (e) 2 “that says a road should not be more than 1,200 ft long” and this was a major part of the discussion at the hearing between the developer’s attorney and the opposition’s attorney.   Ross stated that the commission discussed this issue at the last meeting.  Cassella also reviewed changes in the wording made to Items 2 and Item 4.  

Ross questioned the enforceability of the language added to Item 2 “in accordance with all comments of the Commission and its legal counsel during the public hearing”.  He stated you would have to refer back to a recording.  Cassella stated that people do it all the time.  

Cassella stated that Item 9 used to read “that the applicant should provide a temporary grading easement change” that was changed to “shall”




Page 4 – Minutes
November 13, 2008


Cassella also noted that a paragraph was added to the end of the draft motion which states:
“The commission’s determinations are based upon the accuracy of the information provided by the Applicant.  If any of the information provided subsequently proves to be false, deceptive, incomplete or inaccurate, the permit may be modified, suspended or revoked.”  

Ross stated he no longer has a problem with #2 because it is relating to the documents once they are completed and at that point the commission is done with it.

Cassella stated the commission needed to discuss the IWWC as it relates specifically to the Planning Commission.   The new language in here that says “with the exception of conditions #1 and #3 on the wetlands approval because the proposed homeowner association is not retaining ownership of the private, wet water quality swale, dry water quality swale, detention/biorention basin, or catch basins which would require association assignment of responsibility of inspection, operation or maintenance or a Stormwater Treatment Facility Maintenance Declaration”.  He noted he also left open the question about the conservation easement.  Cassella stated the commission needs to look at what the IWWC condition is and what did they say and whether or not we want to adopt these conditions and if we don’t adopt these conditions we need to state specifically on the record why we are not doing that.   Cassella stated it is difficult to read into what the IWWC is doing but it seems to him that they were trying to make sure that the Planning Commission is keyed into the fact that the homeowner’s association may own some of these features, and their might be a private road, drainage features, etc.  He stated we know based on the testimony of the applicant last time that the road is public, the triangle in the middle of the road is public and although there are detention structures on some individual lots that are subject to drainage easements in favor of the town to get to for maintenance and inspection. Therefore, he stated he did not think this was clear when the IWWC did their final approval who was going to have the ownership.   He cautioned the commission from going away from what they have already conditioned because there may be a reason that we are not aware of.  He said being redundant is one thing, but once we start tampering with it we run the risk of modifying something that maybe shouldn’t of been modified.

Ross asked why we have to include the IWWC conditions?  Why we can’t leave it to them to establish their conditions and the applicant to deal with them.  Cassella stated several items are pointed to this commission.  Ross stated he certainly did not want to take on things that are under the IWWC decision making even as it interfaces because we were not at their meetings to hear their discussions or the public comments so for us to make decisions based on their decisions when we did not hear any of the testimony and comments. “I think opens a door that I don’t want to go through.”  



Page 5 – Minutes
November 13, 2008



Cassella stated the reason this issue is raised is because it was clearly pointed to us.  He stated that items 14 and 15 of the IWWC action need to be taken under consideration.  .  Ross stated 14 and 15 were more procedural than judgmental.  Cassella stated the big concern is that the IWWC approval is part of the application that has been forwarded to this commission so it is his recommendation as in every application is to make sure that you adopt their conditions as part of your own.  Just so the record is clear that you have not modified any of their conditions, unless there are valid reasons to do so.  Ross suggested the entire paragraph after Item 13 be removed and continue on to the paragraph which precedes item 14.   Mulligan stated he did not feel we need to remove the entire paragraph and also felt the commission should adopt what they have already put in to stay in line.  Mulligan further stated it seemed to him to be a natural progression and it notes that this commission has no objection.  Ross stated how do we object to what we have not heard at the meetings or discussions.   Further discussion ensued.  

Thompson suggested that we recognize the motion but not commit to anything.  The commission agreed to “We acknowledge that their actions on September 23, 2008 and leave the first sentence in the paragraph and omit the remaining portion.  The commission agreed.  

Ross suggested that at the end of the last sentence additional words be added to item #3 “and improves the intersection of the right of way in the location of the proposed Great Oak Road and Short Hills Road”.

The commission discussed Section 5.5.7 e.2.   Thompson read the regulation to the commission.   Ross stated he felt counsel’s wording addressed this issue very well.  The commission concurred.  

Harold Thompson made a motion to approve the Short Hills Properties, LLC – Seven Lot Subdivision application using the draft motion with all the agreed changes above incorporated into the document as follows:

The application was presented to the Planning Commission on August 14, 2008 and the Commission held public hearings on September 11, 2008 and October 9, 2008.  The Commission also held a site walk at the property on September 8, 2008.  

The Commission has reviewed the information and materials submitted with the application and during the public hearing.  Based upon the information and materials submitted as well as the statements of the applicant and the members of the public in support of and in opposition of the subdivision the Commission makes the following findings:


Page 6 – Minutes
November 13, 2008



1.  The application for the Oaks subdivision is consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development, is conducted in a manner which protects the health and safety of the community, preserves the character of the land and meets the polices set forth in Section 1.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.  

2. The application for the Oaks subdivision meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.

3.  With respect to the existing condition of Short Hills Road, based upon the report from F.A. Hesketh & Associations, Inc. dated July 12, 2008, the report from DLS Consulting dated October 7, 2008, the report from Holdsworth Pelton dated October 7, 2008, and the Commission members’ own observations regarding the condition of Short Hills Road, the approval of the Oaks subdivision will not result in a potential safety hazard and improves the intersection of the right of way in the location of the proposed Great Oak Road and Short Hills Road.

4. Pursuant to Section 5.5.7e.2. of  the Subdivision Regulations, that the length of Great Oak Road is satisfactory for safe and convenience vehicular access, including emergency vehicles access, due to the existence of the emergency access easement to Route 1 and the number of lots (seven) proposed in the Oaks subdivision.  
    
5. With respect to the stone structure located on Lots 3 and 4, the Commission adopts the recommendation of Nicolas F. Bellantoni, PhdD that the stone structure has been properly mitigated and can be removed and it can be removed at the applicant’s discretion.

6.  With respect to the emergency access easement proposed by the applicant off of Boston Post Road, locked gates are permissible so long as OLFD locks are provided for fire department and other emergency responder access.

Based upon the above-findings, I make a motion to grant approval to the subdivision known as The Oaks, 7 lots, located at 16-2 and 16-20 Short Hills Road, as shown on the plans titled, “The Oaks Land now or formerly George King, II land now or formerly Howard S. Tooker to be acquired by Short Hills Properties, LLC Short Hills Road Old Lyme, Connecticut” dated May 1, 2008, with revisions through August 22, 2008, prepared by Bennett & Smilas Engineering, Inc. 415 Higganum Road, P.O. Box 241 Higganum, Connecticut 06441, with the following modifications/conditions:




Page 7 – Minutes
November 13, 2008




  • The road warranty deed shall be executed and provided to the Board of Selectmen prior to Town Meeting; upon acceptance it shall be filed immediately with a Certificate of Title current to the filing.
  • All required legal documents, including but not limited to Road Warranty Deed, Water Quality Easements(s), Declaration of Shore Hills Planned Community, Temporary Sloping & Grading Easement(s), Emergency Access Easement, Fire Tank Access Easement, Conservation Easement, and Common Driveway Agreement(s) shall be in a form acceptable to the Commission’s counsel based upon the requests made during the public hearing.  All easements shall be filed simultaneously with the filing of the Mylar.  A Certificate of Title shall be provided for all warranty deeds and easements establishing that there are no encumbrances other than standard utility easements.
  • The applicant must post bonds in amounts as determined by the Town Engineer in the forms acceptable to the Commission’s counsel.  
  • Filing of the mylar and any required legal documents for the lot line modification approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 10, 2008, as shown on the plans entitled, “Lot Line Revision Plan, land now or formerly of Howard S. Tooker to be combined with land now or formerly Short Hills Properties, LLC, Short Hills Road Old Lyme, Connecticut, Scale 1” = 100’ Sheets 1 of 4, 2 of 4, 3 of 4, 4 of 4, Dwg. No. 1, 2, 3, 4” dated May 1, 2008, Revised: 7/09/08 Dwg #4 (Sheet 4 of 4) added, prepared by Bennett & Smilas Engineering, Inc. 415 Higganum Road, P.O. Box 241 Higganum, Connecticut 06441.  
  • Construction of the Fire Protection Water Storage Tank, with all appurtenants thereto, as shown on the plan entitled, “Fire Protection Plan” Dwg. FPP-1, Date: October 1, 2008, Revised 10/8/08 Old Lyme Fire Chief Review”, and subject to revising any applicable plans to incorporate the conditions in the letter dated October 8, 2008 from Fire Chief Jewett.
  • Completion of the proposed subdivision streets in accordance with the “Design and Construction Standards of the Town of Old Lyme, Connecticut” effective January 14, 1998.  




Page 8 – Minutes
November 13, 2008


  • Recording of satisfactory releases and/or agreements concerning the release by William J. Culotta and Linda S. Reynolds of the 60-foot easement on record, including any provisions, if applicable, for granting access to their property over the proposed Town right of way and/or the relocation of their driveway.  
  • As recommended by Thomas E. Metcalf in his letters dated August 2, 2008 and August 25, 2008, Dwg No. 6., an the applicant should provide a temporary grading easement from Howard S. Tooker, if necessary for construction of the road.
  • With respect to the emergency access easement off of Boston Post Road, the easement shall be specify that any locks installed on gates in the easement shall meet the approval of the Old Lyme Fire Department and any other emergency responder.  
  •  As recommended by Thomas E. Metcalf in his letter dated August 2, 2008, Lot 1 shall have a driveway in substantially the same location as the driveway shown on the plans described above entitled “Site Development Plan” Sheet 1 of 2, Dwg. No. 5, revised through 8/22/08.  
  • Revising any applicable plans to incorporate the recommended revisions in the letter dated October 7, 2008 from DLS Consulting.
 
We acknowledge that on September 23, 2008 meeting of the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission the application for a subdivision of Short Hills Properties, LLC, 16-2 Short Hills Road and 20 Short Hills Road, Map 24, Lots 14 and 14, 25.058 ac., was approved with the numerous conditions.   

Additionally, the Commission has received the following recommendations from the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission, which the Commission incorporates into its conditions:

14.     The applicant should provide the Planning Commission a final map that includes all metes and bounds for the proposed property and conservation easement areas.  All drainage easements, driveway easements, fire protection facility easement, and other easements should also be noted on the final maps.  The applicant should provide the Planning Commission maps with benchmarks that match the elevation datum and accuracy of the topographical survey.
        
  • The plans should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review of final design.  Prior to any construction on Great Oak Road, a pre-construction meeting will be required with the Public Works Department, Town Engineer, and Land Use
Page 9 – Minutes
November 13, 2008

Administrator to finalize design and construction methods and post necessary permits, bonds and insurance certificates with the Town.

The Commission’s determinations are based upon the accuracy of the information provided by the Applicant.  If any of the information provided subsequently proves to be false, deceptive, incomplete or inaccurate, the permit may be modified, suspended or revoked.


Steve Ross seconded the motion and specified the changes from the draft we received.  In Paragraph 3 has wording at the end related to the intersection of Great Oak and the right of way, and that 5 a has words “at the applicant’s discretion” added at the end, 5b and 6b are deleted, and after Paragraph 13 the words “We acknowledge” will proceed the first sentence which begins “at the September 23, 2008 meeting” and all the wording subsequent to the first sentence will be deleted.  He also noted Item #11, 8 are also deleted.

Thompson asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There being none, a vote was requested of those in favor and opposed.

The motion passed unanimously.

LOT LINE MODIFICATION – ERNST J. SCHAEFER – 136 NECK ROAD

Steve Ross made a motion to table this application until the December meeting.  Harold Thompson seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

RESUBDIVISON – 136

Harold Thompson made a motion to receive the application and set it for public hearing in December.  Connie Kastelowitz seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

BLACKBURN SUBDIVISION – BLACKWELL LANE

Steve Ross made a motion to grant a 90-day extension for the filing of the mylars and the posting of the bond.  Nancy Strohla seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

Cassella stated he received a request from Mr. Blackburn regarding his open space conservation easement requesting that hunting not be allowed on his property.   The commission discussed the difficulty of enforcing this request.  Cassella stated the applicant could provide restrictive covenants on his deed and he would discuss this possibility with Mr. Blackburn.  





Page 10 – Minutes
November 13, 2008

Steve Ross made a motion to add the 2009 Planning Commission Calendar to tonight’s agenda as Item 5 and Reading and Approval of the minutes would become Item 6.   Connie Kastelowitz seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

2009 CALENDAR

Harold Thompson made a motion to approve the 2009 Planning Commission meeting dates.  Sean Mulligan seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER MINUTES

Steve Ross made a motion to waive the reading and approve the minutes as submitted.  Connie Kastelowitz seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,



Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator