OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, September 10, 2018
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, September 10, 2018, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of the Old Lyme Middle School. Those present and voting were: Jane Cable, Chairman, Jane Marsh, Secretary, Alan Todd, Gil Soucie, and Paul Orzel.
Also present: Keith Rosenfeld, Land Use Coordinator and Stacey Winchell and Harvey Gemme, alternates.
Chairman Cable called the Public Hearing to order at 7:37 p.m.
1. Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g – Affordable Housing Application for 18-1 Neck Road (formerly 16 Neck Road) for 23 dwelling units. Graybill Properties, LLC, property owner. Neck Road Hope Housing, LLC, applicant. To be known as River Oak Commons I.
2. Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g – Affordable Housing Application for 18-2 Neck Road (formerly 16 Neck Road) for 14 dwelling units. Graybill Properties, LLC, property owner. Old Lyme Hope Housing, LLC, applicant. To be known as River Oak Commons II.
Attorney Royston was present to represent the applicants for River Oak Commons 1 and River Oak Commons II. He noted that at the last Public Hearing they requested a continuance of the Public Hearing to this evening in order to have time to address the concerns of the reviewers and submit plans and receive and address additional comments. He noted that the revised plans were filed on August 21st, with hand-delivered copies to the Commission’s consultants.
Attorney Royston stated that once the plans were filed, the process was for the Commission’s consultants to review them and provide comment. He noted that Tom Metcalf replied on September 5 with a supplement on September 8. Attorney Royston stated that the Fire Marshal’s comments were submitted today. He submitted a document entitled “Conditions of Approval” into the record. He stated that these conditions are the conditions that are imposed on these types of applications. Attorney Royston stated that the applicants are aware of this. He noted that the conditions have been identified from the review letters, for example, where there has been a recommendation that a condition of approval be such and such. Attorney Royston stated that his clients are acceptable to all the
conditions in this list. He stated that it may be helpful to the Commission to know that they are in agreement. Attorney Royston stated that the very first condition tracks the recommendation from Tom Metcalf from his very first review letter, “no construction activity should begin on the site, including demolition, clearing, etc., until the applicants have obtained all the necessary permits and approvals from all local, State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction, unless such activity is a condition or requirement for obtaining such approval.” He noted that for example, the certificate of public convenience and subsidy for the water system from the Connecticut Department of Health will require certain soil testing, placement of a well. Attorney Royston stated that that is one of the approvals that’s going to be required which they understand. He noted that those sort of things would be allowed. He noted there will be no changes to the
parcel until all approvals have been issued. Attorney Royston stated that the final permit will probably be the Building Permit. He noted that there are fourteen conditions of approval and the last one states “all the forgoing conditions of approval and this paragraph are integral to the decision of the Zoning Commission to approve the application.” Attorney Royston explained that that means the applicant does not have the ability to appeal one condition and have it removed as they are all tied together. He stated that these are the terms and conditions which they have identified which does not mean the Commission may not find more conditions.
Attorney Royston stated that many of the review comments received have treated this as the application for the permit and this is not the case. He noted this is not an application for the permit, but for the approval of the project which will enable the applicants to obtain the permits. Attorney Royston stated that this is significant when we come to the Ledge Light comments because Ledge Light said appropriately in the beginning, the plans they have received are not sufficient for approval at this time. He stated that they are aware of that and realize that it would have to be a condition of approval. Attorney Royston stated that the Fire Marshal indicated that there was a 30-day period for him to review plans and the Statute he provided is that which involved an application for an actual building
permit which requires a Fire Marshal to review the plans in order to determine compliance.
Attorney Royston stated that there was a comment about restrictions on the property regarding the State taking of the highway access ramp. He provided the original of a letter from Attorney Royston to the Commission attached to it a deed of Graybill Properties acquiring the land and also attached is the certificate of taking from the State of Connecticut when it took the property and established a non-access line. He noted that on the northerly end of the property it says “State of Connecticut Interstate 95 Non-Access Line.” Attorney Royston stated that that means this property has no rights to enter onto the State property without the State’s consent. He indicated that in 1989 when the State of Connecticut took this property for the expansion of 95, they established a 125-foot area to
the south and the taking document states that access to the property, now the Graybill property, cannot be had within 125 feet of the ramp and in fact the distance down to the relocated driveway is just about 200 feet. Attorney Royston noted that it is well beyond the restriction. He noted that the northern edge of the access driveway is well within the requirements of the restriction on the property. Attorney Royston noted that there are no other deed restrictions on the property relating to its use or access. He noted that there are regulatory requirements for access to the property, specifically because Route 156 is a State road and access onto that road for anything beyond an existing driveway to the existing single-family house requires an encroachment permit by Connecticut DOT. He noted that the conditions of approval include this State permit. Attorney Royston stated that they will have to show that they have a safe entrance to this
project and will need a DOT encroachment permit and based on information provided by the traffic engineer and reviewed by the Commission’s traffic engineer, clearing will have to be done on State of Connecticut property in order to receive a DOT encroachment permit.
Attorney Royston stated that he mentioned issues regarding 8-30g, the next item is copies of the report from the traffic engineer firm which has been engaged by the applicant. He noted that the report is dated September 10th and was previously submitted. Attorney Royston noted that the Commission’s traffic engineer submitted a report on September 5th. Attorney Royston stated that Steve Uhlman is present to answer any questions which the commission may have concerning his report.
Attorney Royston stated that the certificate of public subsidy which is from the Department of Health and required for the water company. He submitted a series of multiple letters, the first was from Attorney Royston to the Connecticut Water Company asking if they would be the servicer for the community water system. Attorney Royston noted that the second letter is from the CT Water Company indicating their willingness to act as the servicer. He noted that the third letter is the start of the process for the water system, a filing with the Department of Health, a Public Water Screening Form. Attorney Royston stated that the next letter is an acknowledgement of receipt of the form and information on what the applicant will need to do for the Department of Health for approval of their water system. He noted that this does not need to be completed before the project’s application can be started. Attorney Royston stated that Mr. Metcalf stated that the project can be approved
without a certificate by the department of Health because otherwise the community is liable for it. He noted that the point is that one does not need approval before approval by the Commission. Attorney Royston stated that there have been approved applications conditioned upon the certificate of the community water system being received. He noted that the Commission has done this in the past and he cited two Superior Court Cases in support of this. Attorney Royston explained that the Superior Court ruling asks is there a reasonable probability that the certificate will be issued. He noted that they will provide testimony through their expert Joe Wren, and he testified to it earlier, they have investigated water sources for a supply of water and has reviewed this information with the water company. He noted that in Mr. Wren’s professional opinion, there is a reasonable probability that the certificate will be issued and that is sufficient for
the Zoning Commission’s purposes.
Attorney Royston submitted the resume, or qualifications, of Philip Sherman, PE, who is a fire protection engineer and building code consultant. He noted that Mr. Sherman is present this evening to testify. He explained that Mr. Sherman has been in contact with the Commission’s consulting engineer Tom Metcalf and the Old Lyme Fire Marshal David Roberge. Attorney Royston stated that they attended a meeting last week and he also believes they met as recently as today. He noted Mr. Sherman’s qualifications and stated that he is not only an engineer, but his area of expertise is in fire code/fire protection. Attorney Royston stated that Mr. Sherman has been a fire marshal and has been a fire service provider; he’s driven the trucks. He noted that he has the qualifications to review
these plans and the applicant needs to show the Commission that their plans do comply. Attorney Royston submitted a letter from Mr. Sherman to Ray Nucci, the applicant’s architect and structural representative for the applicant. He noted that Mr. Sherman’s report is in response to David Roberge’s comments in his first review. He noted that this report does not address David Roberge’s recent comments which were provided to the Commission late this afternoon and there was not sufficient time to respond to these additional comments. He noted that both David Roberge and Mr. Sherman are present this evening to answer the Commission’s questions. Attorney Royston noted that there was a concern expressed with regards to the community building relating to occupancy, parking and the sufficiency of the septic system. He indicated that the septic system will be built to the occupancy and there were questions how that would be controlled.
Attorney Royston noted that the community building is not essential for the project whose main goal is to provide safe housing at an affordable price for families. He stated that the plans were changed in regard to the community building so that it is now to be a housing management building with offices and a conference room. He noted that they will be providing plans for purposes of demonstrating compliance with some of the Fire Marshal requirements. Attorney Royston stated that the change in the building has not been incorporated into the site plan sheets. He noted that with the change from a community building to a management building, it is reduced in size, use and footprint, all of which mean the septic system design, the number of parking spaces required for the original building are not needed as it is a reduction from what they currently see on the site plan. He noted that the conditions of approval document states that the final plans
will show the building on that site with the parking required for that building and with the septic system approved for that building and the criteria for its use. Attorney Royston stated that Ledge Light will review the revised plan in their approval of the septic system and when they go for the building permit it will be reviewed by the building official and the fire marshal to ensure it complies with their requirements.
Attorney Royston submitted a document which relates to the Fire Marshal’s concern about access of the fire ladder to the rear of the buildings. He noted that the expert will go through this with the commission and stated there will be testimony regarding, grade, fire apparatus being able to service buildings, showing how lines can get to the buildings, and showing that in the back of the buildings there is sufficient distance between the rear of a particular building of concern to the Fire Marshall.
Attorney Royston submitted two copies of the deeds to the two applicants. He noted that these deeds are the template to show when the property is conveyed, lot 1 will pass over the roadway and it will also provide that there will be an easement for storm drainage on lot 2 over lot 1 into the detention basin on lot 1. He noted that the deed will also document maintenance of the retention basin; cutting to provide a sight line on both the applicant’s property and the adjacent property.
Attorney Royston stated that one of the proposed conditions of the approval would be that the owners of the property are responsible for assurance that those things are complied with. He submitted a document entitled Management Plan and Operations, which he noted is brief and simply says that the owners will be responsible to ensure compliance with all the terms and conditions of the River Oak Commons 1 and River Oak Commons II and then a list of conditions.
Attorney Royston stated that there are other items that need to be provided to the Commission to enable them to make their decision. He indicated that he will ask others to make their presentations at this time, starting with Joe Wren who will explain changes that have been made to the plans.
Joe Wren, PE, owner of Indigo Land Design, stated that the overall plan has basically remained the same and indicated that he will go over the changes that were made as a result of comments made by the Commission’s consultants and staff. Mr. Wren introduced Seamus Moran, PE, who was also present. He noted that the first slide he is showing is the sight line at the traffic light on Route 156 and turned it over to Steve Uhlman, traffic engineering consultant, after first orientating the Commission to the layout on the site plan. He noted that the alignment and width of the roadway has not changed and the basic layout is the same as earlier plans; lot 1 has 7 buildings and lot 2 has four residential buildings and the management office building. He oriented the Commission to the location of the site
in relation to the traffic light on Route 156. Mr. Wren stated that the site line provided is 555 feet and after tracking counts and speeds, the required distance is 445 feet or 110 feet less.
Steve Uhlman, traffic engineer and PE, he stated that there have been concerns expressed about traffic coming down the ramp and requested that the Department of Transportation allow them to install a stop sign control at the bottom of the ramp. He noted that the DOT will not allow them to do a stop sign control at which point he was asked to perform speed and car counts off the ramp and southbound onto Route 156 to determine if they could get a safe sight line distance to the ramp for vehicles to safely exit the site. He indicated that they received a comment letter from DOT dated September 5, 2018. Mr. Uhlman reviewed his letter of July 20, 2018, and noted that the 85th percentile speed determined was 23 miles per hour coming off the ramp, and noted also that this data came from actual counts
of speeds checked over 24 hours. He noted that this speed requires a sight distance of 270 feet. He noted that the grade in the area is good but they will need to clear brush. He explained that a PowerPoint done by the State shows proposed improvements to I95 from Exits 70 to 74 which are defined as mid-term, which would be the second phase of improvements and would extend it to three lanes, probably not even being designed until 2020 to 2022. He stated that they will need to get an encroachment permit from the district in order to clear and details would be hashed out at that time; he noted that they cannot apply until they receive project approval.
Mr. Uhlman stated that Ms. Marsh requested that additional speed counts be taken a little further up the ramp and some between the ramp and the project’s driveway to determine a more realistic distance. He stated that they will do these counts when they submit for the encroachment permit. Mr. Uhlman stated that they did not receive this comment until last Thursday. He noted that sight line distances are determined for those exiting the driveway without the driver coming toward them having to do anything. Mr. Uhlman stated that any improvement to I-95 and future changes to the ramp by the State will address the sight line for this development. He stated that they cannot know now what improvements DOT might make to I-95 but it does not appear they are changing the intersection. He
pointed out that they may tie the ramp into the light; he indicated that they can’t predict.
Joe Wren stated that they did submit revised plans on August 21, 2018. He noted on the September 5th and 6th they received comments from Commission staff and consultants and received one response today. Mr. Wren stated that they organized a meeting with Town staff, Zoning and Fire Marshal, as well as the Health District to discuss any outstanding issues so that they could update plans accordingly for this meeting. Mr. Wren stated that they have plans to submit this evening which are marked draft, four sheets, which show revisions to allay some concerns of the Fire Marshal and the Health District. He explained that the septic systems are generally the same on lot 1, and he noted that lot 2 septic systems are all generally in the same location, as well as the well house.
Mr. Wren stated that the roadway grade has come up several times and noted that although it is a private road they are being held to public road standards. He noted that the maximum grade allowable for a public road is 10 percent and stated that the previous plan showed a small area of roadway in the northwest corner with 14 percent grade and another short section of roadway at 14 percent grade in the southwest portion of the site. He indicated that Mr. Metcalf agreed that he would find it favorable if the main road in was 10 percent grade and only the small portion in the northwest corner remained at 14 percent, he would find that favorable. He explained that the reason for this is that every single building could be accessed at 10 percent grade. Mr. Wren stated that the Fire Marshal considers the entire roadway as the fire access lane and there is some discrepancy in the fire code but the applicant took ownership of that and now the roadway meets the
access plan all the way through, with a small area of 15% in the southwest corner. He noted that the maximum grade for a driveway is 15%. Mr. Wren explained that in doing this they have provided turnarounds in the event the person driving the apparatus does not want to drive down the small section of 15% grade. He noted that these are fire-code approved turn arounds for radii and length. Mr. Wren stated that they discussed it with the Fire Marshal today and left him a set of plans today.
Mr. Wren explained the grade on the site plan as it relates to building locations. He pointed out the different grade areas on the plan and pointed out the turn-round areas which are located in areas of less than 10 percent grade.
Mr. Wren stated that they have an email from the Old Lyme Superintendent of Schools and Sharon Haynes from the bus company that services the school. He explained that Sharon Haynes came to his office to review the August 21st plans and both expressed having no problem with the bus coming into the site, picking up the children at the specified location and proceeding around the loop and back out to Route 156. He stated that Sharon Haynes stated that if they have a lot of children in the Lot 2 development they could also have a pick-up area at the turnaround. Mr. Wren noted that there are two areas on the site where the buses can pick up children. He read both emails into the record.
Mr. Wren stated that they used the parking requirements in the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations in determining the number of parking spaces and came up with 90 required and they have 93 in total. He noted that there are handicap spaces near the handicap units and four additional handicap spots. Mr. Wren stated that the grade is not more than 2% near the handicap spots per regulations. He stated that the management office building has a smaller footprint and is not proposed to be an assembly building because of the concern expressed that it would be lacking the required parking spaces for such a building. Mr. Wren noted that the occupancy of the management building is 30 people.
Mr. Wren stated that because the 24-foot wide roadway with 1-foot curbs on either side meets the criteria of a fire access lane, the apparatus could set up in the roadway with its outriggers extended and because the buildings are located 50 feet from the roadway they are able to safely reach the structures with an aerial apparatus. He noted that Mr. Roberge had concerns about what would happen if all the parking spaces were filled and there was a fire or issue and they could get between vehicles. He noted that for this reason they have added striped isles five feet in width which was acceptable to Mr. Roberge. Mr. Wren stated that the fire apparatus in Town can support up to a 6 percent grade but the fire code states 5 percent or whatever the Town apparatus allows. He noted that the front of all
buildings on the plan have a grade of 5 percent or less.
Mr. Wren stated that Mr. Roberge asked them to add no parking signs so that the roadway was not obstructed. He indicated that Mr. Roberge noted that the police would enforce the no parking policy and it would not be left up to the condo management company to enforce. He stated that they also added speed limit signs. Mr. Wren pointed out the areas where there are guard rails. He stated that they initially proposed wooden guard rails for aesthetics but Mr. Metcalf was not comfortable with that so they the plans to show metal guard rails. Mr. Wren stated that they have provided retaining walls in some areas and have maintained an area of at least 13 feet between the walls and the buildings as required by Mr. Roberge. He noted that the rear of the buildings have one story roofs and can
easily be accessed with a ladder. He noted that the area around the buildings has been graded and the retaining walls added as part of the revised plan for fire access.
Mr. Wren stated that he spoke with the Water Company again today regarding the specifics of the plans and he did not have any problem with the revisions as long as there was no source of pollution within the well radii such as a septic system or underground oil tank. He noted that there will be a generator with propane in case of a power outage and there will be two or three propane tanks to serve the well pump building. He noted that the entire well radius is on the two lots. Mr. Wren stated that the Commission could chose to approve this project with a condition that the Department of Public Health approves the wells and a signed certificate is provided to the Commission before the Zoning Compliance is issued. He noted that the Commission did this with a previous application that he was involved
with a few years back.
Mr. Wren stated that they relocated septic tanks based on comments from Mr. Roberge that they were too close to the propane tanks. He noted that they basically just turned the tanks to meet the separation requirement.
Mr. Wren stated that they had comments from Tom Metcalf which were all addressed. He noted that Ledge Light Health District’s biggest concern is that the Department of Health has to approve the wells before the Commission can approve the plan. He noted that Attorney Royston explained the case law earlier that says the Commission can approve this plan with the condition that they will not receive a zoning compliance certificate or a building permit until Department of Health approval has been received. He noted that all their other comments are minor.
Greg Nucci, Point One Architects, explained that they have changed the community building which is now proposed to be a development office building. He noted that the building layout is basically the same on the right side, with a large conference room located on the left side. He explained that the dotted line shows the original building size and stated that the size has been slightly reduced. Mr. Nucci stated that the structure is one story.
Mr. Nucci showed a sketch of the two buildings with the small retaining walls showing that a ladder can be placed up against the roof for access.
Attorney Royston asked for a five-minute recess for the purpose of reviewing Bill Sherman’s response to the comments of the Fire Marshal. He indicated that he thinks it might be appropriate for the Commission to review the letter and ask questions of Mr. Sherman rather than him reading the letter to the Commission point by point. The Commission members individually read Mr. Sherman’s letter.
Philip Sherman, fire protection engineer, was present to answer questions regarding his letter.
Chairman Cable stated that she assumes that the presence of two turn arounds that Option 1 is the option that the applicant is putting forth. Attorney Royston stated that it has been described as Option 1 and the applicant has made it part of his application and they are prepared to construct those turn arounds as a condition of approval. He noted that the Fire Marshal has indicated, at least in conversation, that if the residential buildings were sprinklered that would be sufficient to avoid the need for a specific turn around area. He stated that they are willing to investigate whether the buildings can be sprinklered and noted that it would depend on the water pressure and other things. He reiterated that Option 1 is part of their application and the status of sprinklers is not yet determined. Attorney Royston stated that the codes they are talking about are effective October 1. He stated that neither the current fire code nor the fire code effective October 1 require these
types of buildings to be sprinklered.
It was questioned whether sprinklers were required in the management building. Greg Nucci stated that sprinklers are not required in the management building.
Attorney Royston stated that contact was also made with the ambulance association who noted that the plans are satisfactory to them. He explained that they can access grades steeper than 15 percent. Attorney Royston stated that Kristen Anderson, representative of the Woman’s Institute and a member of Neck Road LLC, would like to make a statement on behalf of the applicant.
Ms. Anderson read a letter to the Commission thanking them for reviewing their application and explaining their purpose as a non-profit to provide needed housing.
Ms. Marsh stated that they will not get additional data on ramp speed of cars. She noted that the person exiting the project will have to make a number of site line adjustments, looking under the bridge, at the ramp and in the opposite direction. She noted that they will have to be looking over their shoulder as well. Mr. Uhlman stated that there will not be trees or brush because they will be clearing. He indicated that this is no different than a right turn only out where one has a sharp angle and has to look slightly over their shoulder. He stated that the calculation is only about the cars exiting, not other cars on the roadway. Mr. Uhlman stated that he misspoke before as he took the data over four days. He noted that the speed of 23 mph was an average over four days.
He noted that is good data. Mr. Uhlman stated that sometimes the cars will be stopped at the light so cars exiting will only be looking at the ramp. He stated that the Department of Transportation will be looking over their shoulder to be sure this is safe. Ms. Marsh stated that she thinks it is her responsibility before she approves the application to be sure she feels it is safe.
Ms. Marsh stated that the person coming south on Route 156 and wants to enter the project has to cross the traffic coming off the ramp. Mr. Uhlman stated that for that there is a stopping sight line of 150 feet which is significantly shorter. He noted that people coming off the ramp have a yield sign and it is the responsibility of the person coming off the ramp to yield to traffic. Mr. Uhlman stated that he does not see that as a safety issue.
Sloan Dannenhower, 35 Ben Franklin Road, stated that he does not understand that with all the experts here how there has not been one mention of a young child that gets on his bicycle and wants to go down to the shopping center. He noted that a young child won’t watch that carefully and will just try to get across the street. Mr. Dannenhower stated that the Zoning Commission is tasked with health and safety and this is a safety issue.
Steve Youngite, Pastor of the Congregational Church, stated that a poet named Naomi Nye tells a story that relates to this discussion. He noted that she speaks of a scene that happened at a boarding gate at an airport where a woman who only spoke Arabic collapsed and began wailing. He stated that no one knew what to do and Nye spoke to her in what little broken Arabic she knew and the woman slowly calmed down and a belonging took place among all of those people. He stated that she concludes her story by saying this is the world I want to live in, the shared world, and this can still happen. Mr. Youngite stated that it is the world he wants to live in as well and the world he has long wished to encounter here in Old Lyme. He stated that the conversations about affordable housing have been
discouraging to him. Mr. Youngite stated that affordable housing is needed in Old Lyme. He stated that people of limited incomes and older residents being priced out. Mr. Youngite stated that he senses a panic of the changes that may occur if Old Lyme opens its doors to affordable housing. He stated that this project affords Old Lyme the opportunity to announce the kind of community they want to be; one that extends itself to others in a spirit of generosity or one that closes itself to that spirit of welcome. He stated that he wishes to live in the shared world and believes it can still happen.
Dominic Pappas, 14 Neck Road, stated that he is the abutting property owner to 16 Neck Road. He stated that when he comes down his driveway to Route 156, he stops two or three feet before the end of the roadway and explained that he has to look left and right multiple times before pulling out and recently was about to go when he looked left and there was a group of bicyclists coming that he hadn’t previously seen. Mr. Pappas stated that he has been doing this for 20 years. He noted that there have been two accidents in this location in the past 30 days. Mr. Pappas stated that it is a dangerous area and it is not an appropriate site for affordable housing and stated that he is in favor of affordable housing.
Coleen Gerber, resident of Lyme, stated that she has lived here for several decades, her children went to school here and her grandchildren attend school here now. She stated that she has served on affordable housing boards. Ms. Gerber noted that there is no affordable land in town which prevents affordable housing. She stated that she is proud of the eight houses Lyme has been able to build. Ms. Gerber stated that when she attended school in Old Lyme there was a socio-economic diversity which she enjoyed because it made their education rich. She noted that over the last decade they have lost a great deal of that diversity. Ms. Gerber stated that many people who work at the Big Y and the Pharmacy do live in Town. She stated that she wants the person cutting her trees and doing her
plumbing work to live in her Town and she feels poorer because they do not. She urged the residents of the Town to endorse affordable housing somewhere in the village district where people can walk to school and work. She indicated that she believes strongly that they will all be better off.
Steve Sunami, 24-2 Short Hills Road, stated that the permit process has not been correct. He questioned how the residents here this evening could have the opportunity to review and comment on what was submitted this evening. He noted that all he heard today was well we promise to get you this permit and when we get this permit we’ll get you this. He stated that the documents have been thrown at you piecemeal until you have to close the hearing. Mr. Sunami stated that this is not the way things should be done.
Tom Unger, Old Lyme resident, stated that his one issue with the project is the location. He stated that although 85% of the cars coming off the highway are driving 23 miles per hour, his concern is with the speeds of the top 15% or the top 2%. He noted that these people will be the source of a traffic fatality. He stated that people that don’t live in Old Lyme have no right to lecture the people of Old Lyme.
Gregory Strout, 81 Neck Road, stated that as part of the request for continuance there was a list of things given to discuss and one was pedestrian issues. He questioned whether the applicant followed up on this. Mr. Strout stated that if the applicant felt it necessary to list pedestrians as an issue then why was it not addressed.
Robert Half, 8 Riverbend Road and member of the Blackhall Association, stated that the Blackhall Association recommends that the Zoning Commission not approve this application based on health and safety reasons. He stated that the Blackhall Association members are all residents of Old Lyme that frequently use Exit 70 and believe that the proposed project would create an extremely unsafe traffic situation and safety risk for members of the association and those dwelling in the proposed development. He stated that members of the Blackhall Association are not opposed to affordable housing in a more appropriate area in Old Lyme.
Terry, 15 Shore Drive, stated that she is wondering about Hope and the Woman’s Institute and how much taxpayer money they are supported by.
Lauren Ash, Executive Director of Hope Partnership, stated that they are not publicly funded, they are a privately funded non-profit. She noted that it is also the same for the Woman’s Institute.
Terry also questioned how much they paid for the land. Chairman Cable stated that that is not at issue tonight; it is not a zoning issue.
Pam Neely, 31 Lyme Street, stated that there is a list of fourteen conditions of approval and that in itself should give the Commission pause and get the applicant back to the drawing board.
Ms. Maynard, 7 Ryefield Road, stated that it is her fear that because of the health and safety issues Old Lyme is going to invoke a loophole that will allow them not to build anything in Old Lyme. She stated that she hears objections to the demographics of the new community, families with children, and safety concerns for the children. She noted that she has heard landowners offer land for this type of development. She suggested that no one is objecting to having low income housing and suggested considering land near Ryefield Manor. She stated that changing the demographics will make room for more seniors who need housing. She stated that 500 seniors are on a waiting list.
Chairman Cable asked Ms. Maynard to stay on topic.
Ms. Maynard stated that there are many other locations in Town and encouraged the Woman’s Institute to look at senior homelessness.
Emerson Caldwell, 2 Dutchess Drive, stated that any nonprofit that has a high standard should not subdivide two LLC’s to do a sewage area. He stated that they should look at other areas in Town. He noted that there are too many missing components for the Commission to approve. He stated that they used two LLC’s to circumvent the DEP restrictions.
Bill Larmen, 36 Mile Creek Road, asked if they could put the view of the roadway that leads up to the development so he can see the ramp. He stated that the person exiting has to look at the ramp and also the other direction. He questioned the speed of the cars coming on Route 156. Mr. Larmen stated that people coming are going 45 plus trying to beat the next light. He stated that it is a bad location.
Heidi Kettler, Madson Ridge, stated that it is preposterous to think that with people going 23 mph it will be a static state when you’re talking about on and off ramps on the highway. She indicated that that is crazy and anyone with common sense would know that it is. Ms. Kettler asked if anyone had any idea which elementary school the children in this development would attend. She indicated that she thinks it is a health and safety issue and wants to know if there will be an influx of 75 kids into her child’s elementary school that only has 200 kids in it.
Chairman Cable asked Ms. Kettler to address the Commission.
Ms. Kettler stated that the question is to the applicant because they are the ones proposing it. She stated that it has been clear who Chairman Cable is in favor of as it is completely obvious. Ms. Kettler stated that Chairman Cable has been catering to the applicants. Ms. Kettler stated that the Commission members are intelligent people and it is not their job kick the can waiting for all the other approvals as Attorney Royston suggested they do. She stated that she knows the Commission will make the right decision for the town that they support.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Gil Soucie, seconded by Alan Todd and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Affordable Housing Application or 18-1 Neck Road - Neck Road Hope Housing, LLC, (formerly 16 Neck Road) for 23 dwelling units to be known as River Oak Commons I and 18-2 Neck Road Old Lyme Hope Housing, LLC (formerly 16 Neck Road) for 14 dwelling units to be known as River Oak Commons II.
Attorney Royston thanked the Commission on behalf of the applicant.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
At 10:40 p.m. Chairman Cable closed the Public Hearing.
Respectfully,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 