APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, March 17, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Richard Moll, Kip Kotzan, Judy McQuade (Alternate seated for Tom Schellens), and Edgar Butcher (Alternate seated for Susanne Stutts).
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Open Voting Session
Case 04-13 Graybill Properties LLC, 147 Boston Post Road, variance to
Tony Hendriks, surveyor, was present to explain the application to the Board. He displayed and explained the proposed site plan. Mr. Hendriks stated that the area currently being used for the business is highlighted in yellow and covers 77.4 percent of the commercial property or C-30 Zone. He noted that the existing buildings cover 4,632 square feet. Mr. Hendriks pointed out that these figures are all listed on the detail sheet. He stated that the applicant was before the Board a few months back and the application was denied without prejudice. Mr. Hendriks stated that the alternative proposal which is being presented this evening tries to accommodate all the concerns of the Board and neighbors, the largest concern being the garage bays being oriented toward the residential area.
He noted that the repair building and parking has been moved away from the Brown residence and the entrance to the bays is from the commercial side of the property.
Mr. Hendriks explained that new bays are being constructed toward the rear of the rebuilt building which presently houses the service station and the customer service area. He stated that the existing canopy will be raised in height to conform to the building code requirements and for the safety of the larger vehicles. Mr. Hendriks stated that he would like to focus on the variance requests. He pointed out that the parking area has been pushed away from the residential area. Mr. Hendriks stated that there are three variance requests, the first being for parking to a residential boundary line and the next is for parking from a residential property. He pointed out that the parking is being pulled away from the Boston Post Road boundary also. Mr. Hendriks stated that the property currently
has an existing four-bay garage, which will be relocated toward the rear of the property and will be used for vehicle storage.
Mr. Hendriks noted that a variance is requested of Section 8.8.1, no structure shall be extended or enlarged except in a conforming location; Section 22.2.2(a), no parking spaces devoted to a motor vehicle use may be within 100 feet of a residential property boundary, 30’ and 10’ variance required; and minimum setback from a Residential or Rural District Boundary Line, 40’ required and 20’ proposed; Section 41.3.5, location of parking spaces must be 25’ from a residential land boundary line, 5’ variance requested; 41.3.5, all parking must be located 30’ from a street line. Mr. Hendriks stated that they are not requesting a variance to Section 31.3.1. He noted that they have submitted landscape plans (Sheet 4 of 6). Regarding Section 31.3.16(d), Mr. Hendriks
stated that they are planning to landscape the front section as much as possible. He pointed out that currently the pavement extends right along the front of the site and there is no landscaping. Mr. Hendriks stated that they are not requesting a variance of Section 41.2.2 for a loading space. He noted that as per Section 41.8.2, Parking Spaces, all parking spaces shown on the plans are 9’ x 18’.
Mr. Hendriks indicated that he would like to address the letter dated March 10, 2004 from Ann Brown to him, identifying ten items of possible concern. He explained that Items 1, 2, and 3 will be addressed by the architect. Mr. Hendriks stated that Item 4 requests floor area, building coverage and total coverage in square feet, as well as percentages, in the Site Data Table. He noted that this has been done on Sheet 5 of 6. Mr. Hendriks stated that all the coverages are based on the commercially zoned square footage only. He stated that Item 5 indicates that the calculations for coverages are based on the total lot area and not just the commercially zoned lot area. Mr. Hendriks reiterated that the calculations are based on the 59,489 square feet of commercially zoned land. He noted
that Item 6 questions the additional size of the canopy, which will be addressed later. Mr. Hendriks stated that Item 7 discusses parking requirements. He stated that the Regulations do not have specific requirements for a motor vehicle repair service station. Mr. Hendriks stated that because there are offices in the building, he calculated one parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area, which is the most stringent requirement in the Regulations. He noted that this calculation shows a requirement of 56 parking spaces. Mr. Hendriks stated that there are 47 outside parking spaces, 7 spaces in the bays and 4 more spaces in the four-bay garage, for a total of 58 parking spaces provided. He noted that Items 8 and 9 refer to some items that the applicant agrees are not needed. Mr. Hendriks stated that the final item addresses the list of variances that are required.
Mr. Joe Griffith, architect, explained that the new facility is providing the customer service area, the lavatory facilities and the administrative areas. He noted that on the second floor there will be office space and lounge space. Mr. Griffith stated that the north elevation faces the Boston Post Road and the west elevation faces Appletree Drive. He noted that the east elevation faces the commercial side of the property. Mr. Griffith explained that he has shown on the elevations the approximate 9’ height to the underside of the existing canopy and the 12’ to the top of the canopy. He noted that it is shown in relationship to the proposed canopy, 14’ to the underside and 16’ to the top of the canopy. Mr. Griffith stated that this new canopy would comply with
the new building codes. Mr. Moll noted that an RV would need 16’ for clearance. The prior owner, Douglas Maynard, stated that weekly someone would get caught up on the top of the canopy.
Mr. Griffith stated that the second floor is partial, as there is no access to the area over the bays. He also pointed out that there is no attic, the stairs shown go to the level above the tire storage. He noted that the building is 23’4” to the ridge and 16’ to the eave line.
Mr. Griffith stated that the five bays face the east. He explained that the primary service bays have 10’ x 12’ overhead doors. Mr. Griffith stated that the tire service area is toward the back of the service bays, providing additional buffer from the residential area. Chairman Speirs questioned the total bays in the plan. Mr. Griffith replied that there are seven bays. Mr. Graybill stated that the seventh bay would allow him to keep all tires inside the building. He noted that all used tires would be stored above the tire area, to avoid having to use outside racks. Mr. Graybill stated that the old casings, which will be picked up weekly, would also be stored inside the building. Chairman Speirs questioned whether the seventh bay would be used for service or
storage. Mr. Graybill replied that the seventh bay would be used for service. He indicated that he is constructing the building to be able to accommodate a growing business.
Chairman Speirs questioned whether the tow truck would bring wrecked vehicles to this site. Mr. Graybill stated that he intends to continue that operation, putting the impound yard behind the Halls Road location. He noted that the tow trucks may be stored on this site, but the wrecked vehicles will be kept in the impound yard at Halls Road.
Mr. Griffith stated that the floor plans are dated February 29, 2004, and all required dimensions are on them. He noted that there is no attic area above the service bays, just a storage area over the tire storage, which is 1,012 square feet. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the tire storage area is included in the total square footage of the building. Mr. Griffith replied that it is included.
Mr. Graybill explained that he attempted to allay all the Board’s concerns with the current proposal. He noted that the way the site is now laid out, he will have to close for six months to rebuild. Mr. Graybill stated that he took the neighbors into consideration by reversing the building. Chairman Speirs questioned whether there would be drainage onto the neighbor’s property. Mr. Hendriks stated that there is a six-foot change in grade in the first 70 feet of the Brown property. He noted that the Graybill property is level. Mr. Hendriks explained the water flow on all the adjoining properties. He stated that on the Graybill property the water would be picked up by catch basins, which are labeled on Sheet 3 of 6. He noted that the roof leaders from the roofs of
the buildings will be picked up by the catch basins and all the water will be brought to the southeast corner of the proposed parking area, Catch Basin No. 7. Mr. Hendriks stated that from there it would go through a storm septor into a gallery system which is designed to hold that first inch of rain. He noted that it would seep into the ground after that and eventually into the wetlands.
Chairman Speirs questioned why there are no landscaped islands in the parking lot. Mr. Hendriks explained that the Zoning Regulations call for a landscaped item between rows of 15 or more parking spaces. He noted that that has been done near the handicap parking spaces. Mr. Hendriks stated that they would like to leave the area in the rear as open as possible for snow plowing purposes. Chairman Speirs expressed concern that the two-way drive could be dangerous and noted that it may be safer to have one way in and one way out. Mr. Hendriks stated that the traffic engineer has indicated that the two-way traffic would be safest. He noted too that there is not a lot of traffic generated in a car service business, as there would be with a donut shop or something of that nature.
Mr. Hendriks stated that the septic system is located under the parking area. Mr. Moll questioned whether it was typical to pave over a septic system. Mr. Hendriks stated that there is nothing unique about it in a commercial area. He noted that it is usually only residential septic systems that are covered by grass. Mr. Hendriks stated that the existing septic system is 30 or 40 years old. Mr. Kotzan questioned whether there were any other businesses like the proposed in the area that the Board could view. Mr. Graybill stated that the canopy size is the same as the one at the Citgo station. He stated that it would be similar in size to the Capitol Tire store in Waterford on Route 1, although that facility is probably 25 years old.
Ronald Swaney, Commercial Construction, stated that he inspected the existing four bay garage and believes it can be structurally moved.
Mr. Hendriks reiterated that the applicant is pulling the parking 20 feet away from the property line where parking currently takes place. Chairman Speirs questioned what will happen to the existing fence. Mr. Hendriks noted that the fence does not belong to Mr. Graybill. He indicated that they believe the heavy pine screening and a split rail fence will provide a good buffer. Mr. Hendriks noted that the existing fence is in very poor condition.
Attorney Phil Holt stated that the property has a preexisting nonconforming use. He presented a memo from Attorney McGarry and asked that it be made part of the record. Attorney Holt stated that the applicant intends to make the appearance of the operation something that is more in characteristic with the Town and the appearance of the surrounding area. He noted that the pitch of the roof is steeper than a typical commercial use because they are trying to make the structure appear more residential. Attorney Holt stated that they are moving the parking further from Appletree and Boston Post Road to make the property less visibly intrusive to passersby on the street, without compromising the ability to market the automobiles that he intends to sell. He noted that the only nonconforming use at
the moment is the actual sale of cars. Attorney Holt stated that this use is not being increased.
Mr. Hendriks stated that the new service building is within the setbacks as allowed by the Zoning Regulations. He noted that no variances are being requested for the structures, with the exception of the canopy. Mr. Hendriks noted that all the other variances requested are for parking.
Attorney Holt stated that the existing coverage for the parking area is 77.4 percent and the maximum lot coverage under the proposal will decrease to 62.5 percent. He noted that the parking area on the lot is being reduced.
Chairman Speirs read the hardship as provided on the application, which noted that the current layout is not safe and convenient and does not contain required parking spaces. An additional hardship is the tapered shape of the lot, street frontage and/or residential zone boundary setbacks on three sides, with a zone line dividing the property. It was also noted that ledge dictates the location of the rear parking lot. Chairman Speirs noted that the new parking will be located further from the property line than it currently is, which the applicant claims reduces the existing nonconformities.
Ron Swaney, business owner and resident of Old Lyme, stated that he thinks the new Laysville is a great asset to Route 1 and believes Mr. Graybill’s proposal will be another asset to Route 1. He noted that the proposal is a great improvement over the existing property. Mr. Swaney stated that the Town owns the fence on Appletree Drive and the Board should not ask the applicant to maintain the fence.
John Pfieffer, resident, stated that he has lived in Town for 55 years. He stated that the proposal is the type of upgrading that the community needs. Mr. Pfieffer stated that the Town needs an operation such as this.
Bert Osoconnel, indicated that his property border’s Mr. Graybill’s. He indicated that the proposal is great for the Town and urged the Board to seize the opportunity of this property being improved.
Kevin Hogan, Lords Meadow Lane, stated that the proposal is great for the Town. He noted that this improvement would compliment the new Laysville. Mr. Hogan explained that the Graybill’s want to invest in the future of the Town. He noted that he would like to spend his money on repairs in Town. Mr. Hogan asked the Board to look favorably upon this proposal.
Doug Maynard, previous owner of the property, stated that the proposal is a great thing for the Town and the area. He noted that the building needs a lot of work and updating. Mr. Maynard stated that he is in favor of the proposal.
Leo Holland, property owner directly across the street, stated that he was shocked by the initial proposal. He noted that Mr. Graybill spent time explaining the current proposal to him and he indicated that he is in favor of the proposal.
Diane Brown, 10 Appletree Drive, stated that she is concerned about the drainage. She noted that her property is not sloped. Diane Brown stated that there is a decline from the present stockade fence down to a little pond in the wetlands. She explained that her main opposition to the proposal is that her property will fill up with water. Diane Brown stated that she has a well and two young children. She stated that she has serious concerns about the septic and whatever types of contaminants that might go through the drainage system. Diane Brown stated that she is also concerned about the future expansion of the business and questioned whether the Halls Road site would close and the towing business brought to this site. She stated that she is concerned about the integrity of her
neighborhood. Diane Brown stated that as unsightly as the stockade fence is, it provides containment from the buildings. She stated that if the stockade fence falls over she would have to look at the old building that is being relocated on the lot.
Diane Brown stated that she has lived in her house for ten years, and the use of the Graybill property has all been in the front. She noted that the applicant rented the rear parking spaces to trucks that started up at 4:00 a.m. Diane Brown stated that the proposal would provide more traffic and more noise. She stated that Mr. Graybill has assured her that the towing business will remain on Halls Road.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the towing business would remain on Halls Road. Mr. Graybill stated that he leases the Halls Road location. He noted that he is not sure what the future will be at the Halls Road location. Mr. Graybill stated that towing would always be a part of his business. Mr. Moll stated that he would like Mr. Graybill to set parameters for vehicle storage on the property, such as a reasonable number of days per vehicle. Mr. Graybill stated that he would say seven days. He noted that a used car could be for sale on the lot for three or six months. Mr. Graybill stated that there would be no long-term vehicle storage on the site.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to close this Public Hearing.
The Board took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 2: Open Voting Session
Case 04-13 Graybill Properties LLC, 147 Boston Post Road
Chairman Speirs stated that she is concerned about the access to the rear of the site. She questioned whether the access to the rear of the property was adequate for a fire truck. Mr. Moll suggested that some one from the Fire Department review the plan. Mr. Butcher stated that the Zoning Commission would refer it to the Fire Marshal.
Mr. Butcher stated that Mr. Graybill could install a stockade fence on his property as a buffer, as he is asking for a variance to lessen the setback from a residential neighborhood. Chairman Speirs agreed, noting that a stockade fence would also be a noise barrier. Chairman Speirs stated that the proposed white pines would not provide a visual barrier, as their lower branches usually fall off. Ms. Brown stated that the Zoning Commission would also address the buffer area. Mr. Moll stated that the Tree Commission might be able to offer some input as to the appropriate trees to use as a barrier. Chairman Speirs asked Mr. Moll to discuss this with a member of the Tree Commission.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he believes the current use of the Graybill property is more damaging to Diane Brown’s property and well than the proposed activity with the new drainage system. Chairman Speirs stated that she believes Diane Brown has a valid point about the drainage. She noted that the water drains down onto the Brown property and into the wetlands. Mr. Kotzan pointed out that it always has. Chairman Speirs stated that the additional pavement would make a big difference. Mr. Kotzan agreed, but noted that the State is now involved and they are regulating the drainage. Ms. McQuade agreed.
Chairman Speirs stated that Diane Brown was the only neighbor that spoke against the application this evening. Mr. Kotzan stated the proposal would be a great visual improvement for the abutting neighborhood.
ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2004 Regular Meeting as clarified and the March 4, 2004 Special Meeting.
The Board agreed to hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. to hold an Open Voting Session for Case 04-13 Graybill Properties LLC, 147 Boston Post Road.
ITEM 4: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Judy McQuade. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
