APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, March 24, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Richard Moll, Judy McQuade (Alternate seated for Tom Schellens), and Edgar Butcher (Alternate seated for Susanne Stutts).
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Open Voting Session
Case 04-13 Graybill Properties LLC, 147 Boston Post Road
Chairman Speirs stated that she would first like to review the issues presented in the letter dated March 17, 2004 from Ann Brown to the Zoning Board of Appeals. She noted that the first item was resolved and the footprint on the site plan is now property represented on new architectural plans. Chairman Speirs questioned the height of the building. Ms. Brown noted that the height is 31’ 4”, as represented on the architectural plan. Chairman Speirs stated that the second item in the letter is that they need final floor plans. Ms. Brown noted that she has not received new plans, but it is her recollection that the testimony indicated that the floor plans were complete and in essence, the plans would not change.
Chairman Speirs noted that the third item of the letter questioned whether there is an attic area above the bays and the applicant indicated that there would be. She indicated that if the applicant plans to use this area, they would have to come back to Zoning. Chairman Speirs noted that the next item was that the Site Data Table be expanded to include floor area, building coverage and total coverage, which was done. She questioned whether Ms. Brown reviewed this data. Ms. Brown indicated that she performed the review and it is her belief that some of the numbers may not be proper. She noted that the underlying lot size that should have been used for the calculations was not used. Ms. Brown stated that Section 7.2.3 states that when a lot is in two different districts all the lot area
can be used in calculations, provided that the requirement of the district having the largest lot area and shape requirement is met. She noted that it goes on to say that no area in a residence or rural district may be used to satisfy a lot area requirement in any other district. Ms. Brown stated that all the calculations must exclude the residential land. She noted that the total lot area in the commercial zone is 59,489 square feet. Ms. Brown noted that the problem is that she cannot exactly subtract out the wetlands for calculating total floor area, building coverage and total coverage, because she does not have the wetland figure for only the commercial zone. Ms. Brown stated that she has roughly calculated and the percentages appear to be within the Regulations, but reiterated that she could not calculate to the precision that would be appropriate. She noted that some of the tolerances are very close. Ms. Brown stated that the Board
could move forward and noted that these figures should be recalculated and if the percentages are over, the applicant would have to come back for another variance.
Chairman Speirs noted that the next item is the letter questions the height of the canopy and it was noted that the existing canopy over the pumps has 12 feet clearance and the proposed canopy has 16 feet clearance. She stated that the next item requests the process of determining the parking requirements for the proposal. Chairman Speirs noted that that information was submitted and indicated that it was based on the square footage of the building. She noted that Item 8 in the letter asks for clarification on the plans to show the area to be used for vehicle sales. Chairman Speirs noted that it was indicated at the public hearing that there would be no more than eight cars for sale on the property. She stated that she would like a condition of approval to include a designation of these eight
parking spaces on the site plan.
Chairman Speirs stated that Item 9 of Ms. Brown’s letter questions the distance from the parking area to the residential boundary on the south side of the property. She noted this item has been clarified and that the parking has been moved away from this area and a variance is not required on the southern side. In regards to Item 10 of her letter, Ms. Brown submitted a list of all the required variances.
Chairman Speirs stated that during the Public Hearing Mr. Graybill mentioned Capitol Tire in Waterford. She explained it is now City Tire and she and Mr. Moll visited the operation. Chairman Speirs noted that the City Tire building is 11,430 square feet and is similar to the proposal. She explained that City Tire has five bays in the front for tires, brakes, shocks, exhaust and alignment and the rear has two bays that are full of truck tires. She explained that with five working bays there were 28 parking spaces, approximately 6 of which were not occupied. Chairman Speirs noted that City Tire does not have gas pumps.
Chairman Speirs read a letter which she wrote to Ms. Linda Krause, CREPA, asking for specific parking requirements for the proposed use. She then read Ms. Krause’s response which indicates that this particular type of use typically lack sufficient parking for all activities and can become a zoning enforcement issue. Chairman Speirs noted that Ms. Krause’s recommendation for parking is 57 exterior parking spaces, which is 10 more than are currently shown on the site plan. She noted that the first plan submitted to the Board had only six bays and the current plan has seven bays. Chairman Speirs pointed out that one less bay would lower the required parking spaces and would allow more room for additional parking.
Chairman Speirs suggested the following conditions of approval:
1. That a six-foot solid fence be required along Appletree Drive and around the rear of the Graybill property.
2. Hours of operation for repairs to be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
3. No parking spaces may be rented to offsite businesses.
4. Parking spaces for the eight vehicles for sale shall be designated as the first eight spaces in the northwest corner of the lot.
5. No wrecked vehicle storage on site.
Chairman Speirs noted that a fence is a more practical barrier than landscaping and will provide a good buffer for the protection of the residential zone. She stated that the facility is being expanded. Chairman Speirs stated that she does not think the Board should require any additional landscaping. Mr. Moll noted that there is a proposed stockade fence on the property. He noted that the existing fence along Appletree is in great disrepair and noted that it is on Town property. Chairman Speirs pointed out that a six-foot fence along the property line within the street setback would require an additional variance.
Chairman Speirs noted that the applicant indicated that their hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. She noted that the operation of the service area is 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., which is a condition she would like to put on the approval. She indicated that she does not feel they should put a condition for the hours of operation for the gas pumps.
Chairman Speirs noted that the applicant indicated at the Public Hearing that he would not rent spaces to any offsite businesses. She noted that this should be a condition of approval. Chairman Speirs noted that designating the spaces for the cars for sale would eliminate any confusion for enforcement. She suggested that the first eight spaces in the northwest corner of the site will be devoted to used car sales and indicated as such on the site plan.
Chairman Speirs stated that she recalls testimony that wrecked vehicles will not be stored on the site, but will be stored on Halls Road or Huntley Road. Ms. Brown pointed out that an impound area is not shown on the plan. Mr. Moll stated that the applicant indicated that towing is part of this business. He noted that if it is not shown on the site plan, it must be excluded, as it will effect the parking requirements. Ms. Brown stated that the variance requested is for a setback variance along Appletree Drive. She noted that the applicant did not ask for a variance to allow an impound area or for the storage of wrecked vehicles and she believes that to be an issue for the Zoning Commission.
Chairman Speirs explained that the variances needed as determined by the Zoning Enforcement Officer differ from those that the applicant is requesting. She indicated that she would like to review these for the record. Chairman Speirs noted that the applicant indicated that they are not requesting a variance to Section 8.7.1, since there is no expansion of the motor vehicle sales. She noted that a variance is being requested of Section 8.8.1, no structure shall be enlarged or extended except in a conforming location (canopy to be higher in the front setback area). Chairman Speirs stated that a variance is required of Section 22.2.2(a) (No parking spaces devoted to a motor vehicle use may be within 100’ of a residential property of another owner), 20’ variance required from Appletree
Drive street line and 30’ variance requested from the Boston Post Road street line as shown on the plan; 22.3.10 (Minimum setback from Residence or Rural District boundary line, 20 variance required. Chairman Speirs noted that the applicant did not request a variance of Section 31.3.16d (Landscaping, interior islands in the parking lot) and it is required. Ms. Brown noted that Mr. Hendriks indicated that he feels the plan is in compliance, although it is her reading of the Regulations that more islands are required. Chairman Speirs noted that if the plan is not in compliance as determined by the Zoning Commission, the applicant would have to apply for a variance. She noted that a variance is requested of Section 31.3.16e (Landscaped strip required along street line), variance of 10’ needed. Chairman Speirs stated that the application indicated that a variance of Section 41.2.2 is not being requested. She noted that a loading space is
not indicated on the site plan and again, if the Zoning Commission determines that one is necessary, they will have to apply for another variance. Chairman Speirs noted that a variance is requested of Section 41.3.5 (Parking spaces must be at least 25’ from residential land boundary), variance of 5’ from Appletree Drive required; and Section 41.3.5 (all parking must be 30’ from street line), variance of 10’ required on Appletree Drive).
Chairman Speirs noted that the hardship provided that strict application of the Regulations would not allow a safe and convenient layout on the site and allow for the required number of parking spaces, or access to and egress from the property. She noted that the uniqueness is that the lot is tapered and there are residential zone boundary setbacks on three sides of this commercial property. It was also noted that the zone line divides the property and there are wetlands and ledge on the property. Chairman Speirs noted that the property has been used in the current manner for many years.
A motion was made by June Speirs and seconded by Judy McQuade to approve the application of Graybill LLC, 147 Boston Post Road, Site Plan dated February 2004, with revisions through March 11, 2004, for variances to locate the parking within the setback of a Residential Zone Line and within the setback of a Residential Boundary Line with the following conditions:
1. That a six-foot solid fence be required along Appletree Drive beginning 30 feet in from Boston Post Road, approximately 230 feet along the designated parking area and around the rear of the property to the edge of the wetlands.
2. Hours of operation for repairs to be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
3. No parking spaces may be rented to offsite businesses.
4. Parking spaces for the eight vehicles for sale shall be designated as the first eight spaces in the northwest corner of the lot and the number of vehicles for sale shall be limited to eight.
5. No wrecked vehicle storage on site.
Mr. Moll noted that the Regulations do not specifically address this type of use in determining parking. He noted that the proposal is extremely complex. Ms. McQuade noted that the applicant is requesting a variance for parking and she is hopeful that the Zoning Commission will deal with all other issues, such as the number of parking spaces. She stated that in her opinion the nonconformity of parking is being reduced. Mr. Moll pointed out that the use is being expanded.
The Board agreed to include a variance to Section 7.4.6 for the 6’ fence in the street setback along Appletree Drive.
A motion was made by June Speirs, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to amend the motion to include the granting of a variance under Section 7.4.6 for the six-foot fence along Appletree Drive.
Chairman Speirs stated that it is very important that Ms. Krause’s letter be forwarded to the Zoning Commission. She noted that removing one bay might alleviate some of the parking concern. Mr. Moll questioned whether the plan would have to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals if the Zoning Commission made any changes to the Site Plan. Chairman Speirs stated that the Board could forward the minutes of this meeting to the Zoning Commission. Ms. Brown suggested a condition indicating that if the Zoning Commission determines there are substantial changes to the plan, it must come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
A motion was made by June Speirs, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to add a sixth condition, as follows: If in the opinion of the Zoning Commission there are substantial changes to the plan dated February 2004 and revised through March 11, 2004, it must come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for further review.
So voted unanimously, 4:0.
ITEM 2: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. on a motion by Edgar Butcher and seconded by Richard Moll. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
