OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, February 24, 2014
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 2014, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Judy McQuade, Acting Chairman, Mary Stone, Secretary, Art Sibley, regular member, Karen Conniff, regular member and Harry Plaut, alternate
Also present was: Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Acting Chairman McQuade called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Case 14-01 – Marcy Withington, 12 Ferry Road, variance to allow addition to existing barn.
Acting Chairman McQuade noted that variances are requested to allow an addition to the existing barn which is located in the setback. She noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.7, minimum setback from street line, 50 feet required, 46 feet provided; and 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 35 feet required, 17.7 feet provided for the garage and 3.7 feet for the barn. Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the proposal does not comply with the following: 8.0c, Yards and Lot Coverage; 9.3.1, Enlargement; and 8.8.9, setback from other property line, 35 feet required, 24 feet proposed for the barn addition for a variance of 11 feet.
Jim Plyler was present to represent the applicant. He explained that the applicant wants to build a squash court on her property as she is a avid athlete and competitive squash player. Mr. Plyler explained that they considered using one of the two barns that exists on the property but both are smaller than a squash court. He noted that there are no squash courts in the area for her use; most are toward New York and Boston. Mr. Plyler presented a map indicating the existing courts in Connecticut. He noted that it seems wasteful to construct another building on the property. Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the lot is 1.53 acres and the coverage is around 5 percent. Mr. Plyler stated that it makes the most sense to add a small addition to the existing barn. He presented
photographs of the barn and noted that the only place where the addition would be seen is from the Lyme-Regis side of the property and that is located 250 feet away. Mr. Plyler noted that the design of the court is New England style.
Mr. Plyler stated that the hardship is that although it is a large property, the 100 year old barns were constructed in the setback. He noted that it would be wasteful and unnecessary to construct another building on the property.
Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the addition is 23’ 6” by 26’ 9” with a height of 19 feet. Mr. Plyler noted that this addition is much smaller than constructing an entire building. He indicated that the hardship is that the two existing barns were constructed in the setback. Mr. Plyler stated that the court will only be for personal use.
Mr. Plyler stated that the building would also contain a bathroom with a shower. He noted that there will also be heat and air conditioning. Mr. Plyler stated that the septic system hook up has already been approved by the State. He noted that the remainder of the building will contain an exercise area and viewing area.
Mr. Sibley questioned whether any neighbors expressed concern. Mr. Plyler indicated that one neighbor, David Rahr, was concerned about the noise and he explained that noise would not be an issue. He noted that he did indicate on the plans that he would use sound insulation to allay this concern.
Ms. Stone read a letter from Jack Spratt indicating he is in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Plyler stated that a lean-to addition to a barn is classic New England design. He noted that an addition to one of the existing barns is much better than constructing another building.
Frank Hamilton, III, next door neighbor at 20 Ferry Road, stated that he would much rather have the addition to the existing barn rather than constructing a third building. He indicated that his children are squash players and it would be great to have one right on their street.
Jamie Childs, friend of Ms. Withington, Sill Lane resident, stated that he is a nationally ranked squash player. He noted that when he moved to the area he found that one had to travel to a college such as Wesleyan, Trinity, Brown or Yale to play squash. Mr. Childs stated that many schools are not keen on letting the public use their courts due to liability. He noted that the game of squash is not noisy and there would be much more noise if she were to use the barn as a workshop. Mr. Childs stated that one will not be able to tell what is in the building by looking at the exterior of the barn. He indicated that it makes more sense to put an addition on the barn rather than constructing another building.
David Rahr, next door neighbor at 10 Ferry Road, stated that he is a matter of inches of the barn. He asked the Board to consider noise when they considering this proposal. Mr. Rahr stated that he understands that insulation has been added to the plan. He asked the Board to consider a way, if the application is granted, to address noise after the construction if it is found to be a problem. Mr. Rahr stated that Mr. Plyler did a great job designing the addition and noted that it is very New England style. He reiterated that his only concern would be the possible noise.
Ms. Stone questioned whether they considered taking down the existing barn and moving it out of the setback. Mr. Plyler stated that it would be a huge expense to move the barn. He noted that it has new sills and a new roof. He indicated that it would have to be torn down and rebuilt. He noted that the barn would be out in the center of the lot because of the existing septic system and setbacks. Mr. Plyler stated that it is a matter of aesthetics, not just money.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
2. Case 14-02C – Warren E. Hannas, 9-1 Halls Road, variance to allow enlargement of terrace and steps and variance to allow enlargement of a building on a nonconforming lot
Mark Zamarka, Attorney, and project engineer, Matt White, were present to represent the applicant.
Acting Chairman McQuade noted the existing nonconformities: 4.10.3, Connecticut River setback, 100 feet from high-tide line required, 50 feet provided; 8.2.1, Lot Area, Shape and Frontage, 25’ frontage required, 0 feet provided; and 8.9.7, minimum setback from street line. She noted that the proposal does not comply with Sections: 8.0c, Yards and Lot Coverage; 9.1.3.1, Expansion on a nonconforming lot; 9.3.1, Enlargement; and 4.10.3, Connecticut River setback, 100 feet from high-tide line required, variance of 9 feet required for the terrace and 16 foot variance for the steps.
Attorney Zamarka stated that Mr. Hannas purchased his property in 1986 which contains approximately one and one half acres on the Lieutenant River. He noted that Mr. Hannas runs his wood brokerage business out of the existing building. Attorney Zamarka stated that the purpose of the additions is to formally convert the existing building to office space and the addition will also add office and storage space to continue the current use. He noted this would be an allowed Special Permit Use under Section 5.10.3. He noted that the lot is nonconforming because it does not have 25 feet of frontage. Attorney Zamarka stated that the property is landlocked and accesses Hall Road via an easement. He explained that the existing building is within 100 feet of the high tide line but was constructed
when the requirement was 50 feet from the high tide line. He noted also that this is not the structure to which they are proposing the addition. Attorney Zamarka noted that the stairs on this existing building are in the street line setback and he noted that again, this is not being changed as part of this application.
Attorney Zamarka noted that the proposal is to add a one story addition to the existing building that will also contain a garage and storage space and to resurface the existing terrace which is lower than a foot above grade and does not qualify as a deck under the Regulations. He indicated that they are also proposing to construct another small terrace off the new addition and to put in a new step from the existing building onto the existing terrace.
Attorney Zamarka explained that for the addition they are seeking a variance of Section 8.2.1 regarding the 25 feet of street frontage and 9.1.3.1 regarding expansion of a building on a nonconforming lot. He stated that the hardship for this is that strict application of the Regulations would preclude an otherwise lawful use of this property; the property is in keeping with the characteristics of the zone as well as the proposed addition, the lot conforms in all other respects to the C-30 Zone and has lawful access. Mr. Zamarka stated that the purpose of Section 8.2.1 is to stop the creation of more land-locked lots, not necessarily to prevent the improvement of lawful, existing land-locked lots which is what they are seeking to do. He noted that their situation is unique as there are no other
land-locked lots in the C-30 Zone. Attorney Zamarka noted that the addition will not impact views from the Connecticut River and additional landscaping will be proposed as part of the Special Permit Application.
Attorney Zamarka stated that the proposal was designed to minimally impact neighbors, particularly the Lyme Historical Society next door. He noted that the terrace is basically ground level and will not be visible from the Connecticut River or from the Lyme Historical Society. He explained that the additional parking has been designed out of view from the Lyme Historical Society also. Mr. White pointed out the existing gravel parking area on the site. He noted that the proposal pulls the parking away from the neighboring property line to meet the 12 setback requirement and they have depicted where the spaces will be delineated. Mr. Sibley questioned how many spaces there would be. Mr. White noted there are 18 parking spaces, including two in the garage; he noted that most of the
proposed parking area is already used as parking.
Mr. White stated that the addition will have a second story over the garage for storage. He explained that they will be resurfacing the existing terrace and installing one new step which falls within the 100 foot setback. Mr. White noted that the second item within the 100 foot setback is the proposed terrace and stated that it will be lower than one foot in height. He noted that the building addition is not within the 100 foot setback.
Attorney Zamarka stated that the hardship for the terrace in the Gateway Zone is that the terrace will not affect the Gateway Standards which are to protect the view from the Connecticut River.
Ms. Stone stated that although the plans are for an office building, the rooms have closets such that a bedroom would. She noted one looks just like a master bedroom suite with the extension of the stone patio off of it and walk-in closets, very much like a residence. She questioned what would prevent the property from being used as a residence because the design looks residential. Mr. White explained that the building was originally constructed as a house so the rooms are divided residentially. He noted that the addition is one big office area and is meant to be an office as the applicant is proposing. Ms. Stone stated that the line between residential use and commercial use is blurred with this plan and she questions whether approving this plan sets the Board up for future trouble.
Mr. Sibley stated that the house would have to be accessed through a commercial property. Ms. Stone questioned whether the land would have to go through a change in zoning in order for the property to be used as a residence. Attorney Zamarka stated that he believes a residential use is conforming in the C-30 zone. Mr. Sibley stated that the property is very sensitive relative to views from the Connecticut River. He indicated that architecture and the like are very important on this property and it would be a shame if the property looked commercial. Mr. Sibley stated that the proposal is aesthetically pleasing.
Ms. Barrows noted that the proposal was approved by the Gateway Commission. Attorney Zamarka stated that the Health Department has also approved the application.
Jack Anderson, director of Florence Griswold, introduced himself, along with Ted Hamilton, Board President, Trustee Dr. David Frankel and Counsel Kerry Olsen of Hartford. Mr. Anderson stated that they very much appreciate Mr. Hannas as their neighbor. He indicated that they have some very serious concerns about what is being represented here this evening. Mr. Anderson stated that the proposal is a dramatic expansion of the house, more than doubling the size. He noted that in an application last year the statement of use indicated that they were expecting 17 to 20 employees which is a dramatic expansion of a business completely surrounded by the museum’s property. Mr. Anderson explained that Mr. Hannas has access to his property across the museum’s land. He noted that the
expansion will increase traffic and more than doubles the office space. Mr. Anderson stated that he feels this is an intensification of use and over development of the land.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the museum is a centerpiece of Old Lyme and brings a lot of tourists into Old Lyme. He indicated that he is a volunteer of the museum and has lived in Town many years. Mr. Hamilton stated that the museum is not just an abutting property owner but it also surrounds the property. He indicated that the museum property has a house and several outbuildings in addition to the museum and it holds many events that bring people to the property. Mr. Hamilton stated that the applicant previously expanded his business footprint in the late 1990’s when he built a two story garage/office just to the south of the pre-existing house and at the time the museum did not object. He indicated that the applicant submitted variance requests to expand his business again last year and
at that time the museum spoke against it. He noted that the Board did not approve that application and the applicant has returned with another application that goes even further, with an expansion of the footprint that more than doubles the size. Mr. Hamilton stated that the museum is concerned that this small property is being overbuilt with traffic, parking and commercial activity which will result in increased traffic via the right-of-way over their land, increase demand on the aquifer where there have been problems sustaining it in the past and a potentially negative visual impact of a commercial office complex right in front of the museum in its rural park-like setting.
Attorney Olsen distributed handouts to the Board members which were marked as exhibits. She stated that the history of the property is important. Attorney Olsen stated that in 1956 Mr. Marsh conveyed 3.5 acres of land to Shirley Saunders and the parcel at issue this evening is part of that 3.5 acres. She explained that at that time there was a restriction in the deed that said it was for residential use only and that no more than two residences could be put on the 3.5 acres. The deed also required a 100 foot setback from the adjacent property which is now the museum property. Attorney Olsen explained that in 1959, the balance of the Marsh property was transferred to the museum’s predecessor with the benefit of those deed restrictions. She explained that in 1986, the estate of Ms.
Saunders requested modifications to the deed restrictions and they were granted by the museum’s predecessor (document part of submission). She noted that the setback was shrunk to 60 feet and required that the building be used as a residence or office and no other retail or commercial or industrial type use. She noted that it also clearly states in the deed that any modification to the property must comply with Zoning.
Attorney Olsen reiterated that the only access to the property is via an easement over the museum’s property. She stated that the current applicant and his partner purchased the property with the deed restrictions. Attorney Olsen noted that in 1992 the applicant bought out his partner and applied for a zone change to C-30 because initially the property was half R-40 and half C-30. She noted that at this time there was only one residential building on the property that they are now referring to as the office. Attorney Olsen stated that the applicant then applied to construct a garage with a second floor home office. She explained that in 1996 the applicant returned for another CAM review and Site Plan asking to construct the garage with a second floor professional office and filed a
Statement of Use in support of that. Attorney Olsen noted that all these documents she is referring to are part of her submission to the Board. She read the Statement of Use to the Board. Attorney Olsen stated that in 2008 the applicant was back before the Board asking to modify the use of the garage/office and as part of that application he proposed to make the entire garage/office completely office and use the old house strictly for storage. She noted that at the time he assured the Zoning Commission that these changes would not intensify the use on the property as the uses of the buildings were just to be switched; she read a portion of the minutes to the Board.
She noted that in 2011, after converting the garage to office space, he sought and received a variance to extend the decking/stairs within the required setback of the Lt. River. She noted that in 2012 he sought to expand the use of the main building plus create a new garage and storage, contrary to his 2008 assertions. She noted that those requests were denied. Attorney Olsen stated that the current application is very similar to the 2012 application, although even bigger. She stated that they are also asking to go into the prohibited setback area of the Lt. River. Attorney Olsen stated that they are being asked to allow expansion on a nonconforming lot that already has two nonconforming buildings. She indicated that variances are to be sparingly granted, only to reduce a hardship and
only if to do so would not undermine the Town’s comprehensive plan. She noted that the Zoning Regulations prohibit expansion on nonconforming lots and what that says is that the Town does not want overdevelopment of lots that do not have ready access.
Attorney Olsen stated that the hardship provided by the applicant is not unique. She stated that every lot without frontage is in the same situation and any hardship she would say is self created as the property was purchased with the knowledge of the deed restrictions and limitations of the property; the owner eliminated an approved garage and storage so there is no hardship to say that he does not have a garage. She noted that that was a choice that was made in 2008. Attorney Olsen stated that it is key to realize that Mr. Hannas already has reasonable use of his property; she noted that there just because he cannot expand it the way he would like does not give him a legal hardship.
Attorney Olsen stated that the real concern is overburdening the lot and its impact on the museum’s property. She indicated that for these reasons the museum asks the Board to deny the application.
David Frankel, Museum Trustee, asked for assurance from the applicant that the extra office space will not be a commercial venture to lease to non-affiliated parties.
Attorney Zamarka stated that the proposal is not a dramatic expansion or overburdening of the lot. He noted that the survey map shows they are well underneath lot coverages and everything is outside of the setbacks that relate to the Historical society. He indicated that it is not an overburdening of the property but merely a continuation of the allowed use. Attorney Zamarka stated that the zoning plan is not just the zoning regulations but also the zones. He noted that the C-30 zone was expanded a few years ago to include property that leads up to the Historical Society property line. He questioned why they would expand the zone other than to allow continued commercial use of the property. Attorney Zamarka noted that the design of the building is in keeping with the area. He
noted that the hardship is real and warrants the granting of the variances. Attorney Zamarka stated that the only proposed use is the expansion of the business that is currently there. Rachel Hannas stated that there is no determination of what will be occupying the building other than it will be commercial. She noted that her father is nearing retirement and her brother and she are both employed by her father. Ms. Hannas indicated that the property will continue in her family. She stated that the intended use is office space with approximately 5 additional employees.
Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
3. Case 14-03C – Edith May Donald Twining, 11 Riverbank Lane, variance to demolish a dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling in substantially the same location in a tidal wetlands setback.
Attorney Michael Cronin was present to represent the applicant. He explained that Riverbank Lane is a private road that runs off of Sill Lane, which runs parallel with the Lieutenant River. Attorney Cronin stated that the property has been in his client’s family for three generations and was constructed in 1954 prior to Zoning. He noted that it was a four bedroom pre-fab home that came in on a truck. Attorney Cronin stated that in the 1970’s the land was split and his client has inherited this parcel with the home. He noted that the house was constructed on dirt and is not of great quality after 60 or 70 years. Attorney Cronin noted that the lot is over two acres. He indicated that the variance is requested to demolish the house and re-construct in the same basic area
on the lot.
Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the property does not comply with Sections: 4.10.3, Connecticut River Setback, 100 feet required, 65.5 feet provided; 8.2.1, Lot Area, Shape and Frontage, there is no street frontage, square required is 150 feet, 141 feet provided; and 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square, 200 required, 141 feet provided. She noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, Expansion on a nonconforming lot; and 4.10.3, Connecticut River Setback, 100 feet required, 69 feet provided for a variance of 31 feet.
Matthew White explained the site plan to the Board. He noted that the proposed footprint is very similar to the original with a few small bump-outs, although the new house will be a few feet farther from the river. Mr. White noted that there is a flood zone associated with the Lieutenant River on the left side and the house is not located in the flood zone. Attorney Cronin stated that they are not increasing any nonconformities on the property. He noted that the patio area on the existing house is closer to the river than the patio on the proposed home so the house is being pulled back slightly. Attorney Cronin stated that the house was originally constructed prior to the 100’ required setback. He noted that the house could be pulled way back on the lot but it would spoil the
present use and utility of the property as the real value is the proximity to the river. Attorney Cronin stated that the Gateway Commission has indicated that they have no objection to this particular project. He noted that Gateway did discuss tree removal. Ms. Twining explained that there are many beautiful trees by the water and she has no intention of removing them. Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the house is being reduced from four bedrooms to three. Ms. Twinings noted that the house is currently one story and the proposal has a small second story.
Attorney Cronin stated that the existing footprint is 1,506 and the proposed footprint is 2,050 with a second floor of 812 square feet. He noted Marcy Balint, DEP, did the CAM Review and found that the project is consistent with the Coastal Area Management Act. He noted that she had comments with regards to run-off and materials to be used. Attorney Cronin stated that the Town Engineer, Tom Metcalf, had a few recommendations. Mr. White stated that Mr. Metcalf commented that a sump pump would be required. He agreed, and noted that they will install one as a precaution although he believes it will not be used. He also recommended a check valve which he also agrees with. Mr. White stated that he will add a note that the existing septic system will be abandoned. He indicated
that he will also add a note to the plan clarifying the flood zone.
Attorney Cronin stated that the hardship is that the property was developed prior to Zoning. He noted that the proposal meets all the bulk regulations.
Mr. White noted that the map shows two property lines on the north side of the map which has to do with a previous transfer. He notes that surveys and monuments show one line and the deeds reference the other line. Mr. White noted that this discrepancy has no bearing on the application or the variances requested.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Acting Chairman McQuade closed this Public Hearing.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
A letter dated January 13, 2014 from Paul M. Geraghty, Esquire with respect to 42 Breen Avenue, Nicholas DiCorleto, property owner requesting an extension of time for pulling a permit to work on the property.
Attorney Geraghty stated that this proposal was in court for quite awhile until an agreement was reached with the Town. He explained that because it dragged out for quite some time, the materials that were originally planned for construction of the septic system were no longer available and a new septic system had to be designed and submitted for approval. He indicated that the work will commence in conjunction with work on Mr. DiCorleto’s neighboring property and those permits should be ready in the next few months. Attorney Geraghty explained that they are asking for a one year extension.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted unanimously to grant a one year extension to the approval of 42 Breen Avenue, from April 1, 2014 to April 1, 2015.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 14-01 – Marcy Withington, 12 Ferry Road
Acting Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. Mr. Sibley stated that he is concerned that it may create some disturbance in the neighborhood. He indicated that if the Board were to grant, he would want to see a condition that would require some type of cooperation.
Ms. Stone stated that she does not believe a hardship was shown other than the inability to play squash close by. Mr. Sibley stated that the use of the building to play squash is no different than someone having a swimming pool. He noted that this particular yard is deep and already has a structure that could accommodate the use keeping the remainder of the yard open. He indicated that he feels it would be ridiculous to create a third building on the property. Ms. Stone stated that a residential property does not have to accommodate a squash court. Mr. Sibley noted that there is no problem with space on this property. He explained that the solution is less objectionable then constructing a third building. Ms. Stone stated that if the Board is doing what they should be doing, they
should be dealing with hardships when they grant a variance. She noted that however nice it would be to have a squash court, she comes back to the hardship issue.
Acting Chairman McQuade agreed there is no hardship, especially because it can be accommodated elsewhere on the property. She noted that they would be stretching their duties in granting this. Acting Chairman McQuade indicated that she cannot state a hardship. Mr. Plaut stated that he does not see a hardship although he has no problem with the proposal. He questioned what might happen down the road if someone doesn’t want a squash court on the property. Ms. Conniff agreed that there is no hardship.
A motion was made by Mary Stone and seconded by Arthur Sibley to grant the necessary variances for Application 14-01 – Marcy Withington, 12 Ferry Road, per the plans submitted. Motion did not carry 1:4:0, with Mr. Sibley voting in favor and Ms. McQuade, Ms. Stone, Ms. Conniff and Mr. Plaut voting against.
Reason for Denial:
1. Sufficient hardship has not been shown.
2. Case 14-02C – Warren E. Hannas, 9-1 Halls Road
Acting Chairman McQuade stated that she would like time to review the material submitted this evening. Ms. Stone agreed that considerable information was submitted this evening. Mr. Sibley stated that he agrees the Board should consider this proposal very carefully before making a decision. Acting Chairman McQuade stated that she visited the property and feels that the building could definitely use upgrading, but not necessarily expansion. She indicated that she would like some time to review the history of the property from the information submitted this evening.
Mr. Plaut stated that there does not appear to be any vision for the property and by the current condition, there appears to be no sensitivity to the fact that it boarders the most important asset of the Town. He indicated that if he were to vote this evening he would vote against it. He noted that the design of the structure does open up the possibility of a residential use.
Ms. Stone noted that the neighbors’ objections to the project will not change. She noted that there is a hardship here but she feels the plans are too large. She indicated that she would like to see something smaller and more scaled. Ms. Stone stated that much of the lot will be covered with parking and it is an intensification of the use with additional employees. Mr. Sibley urged Board members to visit the property.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted to postpone the decision on the case until the March 18, 2014 Regular Meeting to afford board members more time to review additional facts of the case submitted this evening. The motion passed, 4-0-1, with Harry Plaut abstaining.
3. Case 14-03C – Edith May Donald Twining, 11 Riverbank Lane
Acting Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the hardship is that the property is unusual because of the bottleneck shape and the fact that it was subdivided and the home constructed prior to the Gateway Regulations.
Ms. Conniff stated that she is concerned about the enlargement of the house so close to the water. She noted that the house size is being doubled. Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the footprint is basically the same size. Ms. Conniff stated that in a flood there would be more debris. Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the house is not located in the flood zone. Mr. Plaut stated that they are taking down a 1950’s pre-fab and constructing a new home which is advantageous. Acting Chairman McQuade noted that they are installing a new well and septic system.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted to grant variance application 14-03C – 11 Riverbank Lane, per the plans submitted and in accordance with the Property Survey Map prepared by Angus McDonald Gary Sharpe & Associates, Inc. for Twining Family Trust Riverbank Lane Old Lyme, Connecticut, dated November 26, 2012 and revised to 12/26/12 and the Site Development Plan prepared by Angus McDonald Gary Sharpe & Associates, Inc. entitled “Site Development Plan showing portion of property of Edith May Donald Twining 11 Riverbank Lane Old Lyme, Connecticut, date: August 23, 2013, Scale: 1” =20’ Sheet 1 of 1 revised to 12/6/13.”
The Coastal Site Plan Review Application is approved as well because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The following conditions are added:
1. Limiting tree removal on the property is critical to the minimal visual impact finding made by the Gateway Commission.
2. Existing well and septic shall be abandoned in accordance with the Public Health Code requirements when new well and septic are installed. A note identifying this should be placed on the site plan.
3. Demolition debris to be trucked off site, not buried on site.
4. A Notation be placed on the site plan showing the conversion of the FEMA flood elevation (elevation 9) to the site plan topographic datum.
5. Measures should be taken to mitigate storm water runoff onto neighboring properties.
Motion passed, 4-0-1, with Ms. Conniff abstaining.
Ms. Stone indicated that her favorable vote is made with reservations because the rules are there for a reason and the Board should limit massive buildings that are in sight of the waterways and although there is no height variance requested the fact that the historical footprint is closer to the water means that the height is that much more visible from the waterway. Acting Chairman McQuade noted that the height increase is 2.5 feet.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Ms. Barrows noted that the current slate of officers is Susanne Stutts, Chairman; Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman; and Mary Stone, Secretary. The Board agreed to table this item to the March Regular Meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted to approve the Minutes of the October 15, 2013 Regular Meeting as submitted. Motion passed, 3-0-2, with Ms. Conniff and Mr. Plaut abstaining.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted to approve the Minutes of the November 19, 2013 Regular Meeting with the following change: that the references to Chairman Judy McQuade, should be changed to Acting Chairman. Motion passed, 3-0-2, with Ms. Conniff and Mr. Plaut abstaining.
Ms. Barrows noted that on March 10 the Zoning Commission has invited all Commissions and the Public to attend a presentation by Diane Ifkovic, State NFIP Coordinator, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), CT DEEP.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
