The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Public Hearing on Monday, March 8, 2004, in the auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Tom Risom, Howard Tooker (Alternate - seated), John Johnson (Alternate – seated) and Steve Ames (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
The Public Hearing convened at 8:00 p.m.
1. Site Plan/Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a pavilion, 52 Ridgewood Road, Point O Woods Association, Inc., applicant.
Gary Sharpe, McDonald/Sharpe Associates, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the pavilion would be used to give people an opportunity to get out of the sun and enjoy a picnic lunch. He noted that the location of the pavilion is near the beach in the parking area, to the north of the boat basin.
Mr. Sharpe explained that the Zoning Enforcement Officer suggested that a waiver may be necessary because they have not supplied a complete A-2 Survey of the property. He noted that the parcel is 4.5 acres in size and they have surveyed the portion in which the proposed pavilion is placed. Mr. Sharpe stated that the pavilion is setback appropriately from the boundaries and the data on the plan shows that the coverages are within the standards. He submitted a written waiver request of the requirement that the entire parcel be surveyed. Mr. Sharpe stated that he is also asking the Commission to waive the requirements for topography for the balance of the parcel and pointed out that accurate topography has been supplied in the area of the proposed activity. Mr. Sharpe stated that they are also
asking for a waiver of the requirement to show soil conservation service detailed mapping on the site. He indicated that he does not feel the SCS mapping is accurate any longer.
Mr. Sharpe indicated that the topography would not be changed. He pointed out that the contours are relatively flat with a gentle slope. Mr. Sharpe stated that there would be a foot of fill on one side and a foot of cutting on the other side. He noted that the footprint of the pavilion is 20’ x 40’.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in the Main Street News on February 26 and March 4, 2004. She read the exhibit list for the record.
No one present spoke in favor of or against this application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis called this Public Hearing to a close.
2. Site Plan/Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a garage, 61 Shore Road, Kirsten Parker, Applicant.
Jeff Flower, Architect, was present to represent the applicant. He explained that the property is located on Shore Road and was built in the 1830’s. Mr. Flower stated that the applicant has received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for this project. He explained that they asked the Historic District Commission to consider the home of historical significance, which allows work to be performed on the property without limiting it to a percent of the value of the home. Mr. Flower noted that the Historic District Commission agreed that the home has historic significance.
Mr. Flower explained the topography of the parcel and noted the flood zone on the site plan. He stated that a Special Exception is required to build within 50 feet of a navigable river or any associated wetlands. He noted that the tidal edge of the property is the northern boundary and the edge of the marsh is delineated as running along the 35-foot setback of the northern setback of the property. Mr. Flower stated they are proposing to building within 50 feet of that area. He noted that DEP’s comments were that their primary concern is whether there would be any destruction of the wetlands. He pointed out that although the structure is not habitable, the floor elevation must be at flood level because it is located in a flood zone. Mr. Flower stated that they will create a
retaining wall that sticks out from the garage and that wall will have grade brought up to the garage level on one side and will remain at the existing grade on the low side.
Mr. Flower stated that one of the comments from OLISP is that the garage should be moved closer to house and further from the wetlands. He explained that the applicant is trying to conserve the back yard for a reserve septic area and to allow room to bring their boot into the backyard for winter storage. Mr. Flower stated that the retaining wall will having footings and will be below grade. He noted that a silt fence is shown on the plan. He noted that Ms. Brown has suggested that he request a waiver of the A2 site plan requirements, as the site plan has been redrawn on his plan and he is not an engineer.
Mr. Flower stated that the garage would be used only for storage with no water or heat supply. Ms. Marsh questioned whether there would be any additional landscaping. Mr. Flower stated that along the front property line there is an existing picket fence and the intent would be to repair this fence and landscape within the apron. Ms. Marsh questioned whether the applicant would be willing to plant in the island to obscure the view of the parking area. Mr. Risom noted that only a third of the island belongs to the applicant. Mr. Flower stated that the applicants intend to landscape in that area for their own privacy.
Mr. Flower stated that the total coverage on the property is 1,648 square feet or approximately 2 percent coverage with 15 percent allowed. Mr. Kiritsis noted that the plan does not have a zoning compliance table. Mr. Flower noted that the footprint of the garage is 36’ x 26’. He explained that the house was purchased as a duplex and the owner is trying to bring the property into conformance as a single-family dwelling. Mr. Tooker questioned the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Flower stated that the total height is 8 feet, plus an 8-inch footing. He explained that standing on the north side one would see 3.5 to 4 feet of grade.
Mr. Risom questioned the use of T-111 for the siding. Mr. Flower stated that if that is an issue, he is sure the client would be willing to change the siding to the Commission’s preference. Kirsten Parker, applicant, stated that she is planning landscaping for privacy and indicated that she would be willing to change the siding of the garage if required by the Commission.
Ms. Marsh read the legal ad and exhibit list for the record.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis called this Public Hearing to a close.
The Public Hearing adjourned at 8:40 p.m. on a motion by Tom Risom and seconded by Howard Tooker. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
