UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, April 12, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Public Hearing on Monday, April 12, 2004, in the auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Joan Bozek, Tom Risom, Howard Tooker (Alternate), John Johnson (Alternate) and Steve Ames (Alternate - seated). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
The Public Hearing convened at 8:05 p.m.
1. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to reconstruct the existing transfer station per DEP Consent Order of 2002, 109 Four Mile River Road, Town of Old Lyme, applicant.
Jane Marsh read the legal notice as published in the Main Street News on Thursday, April 1 and Thursday, April 8, 2004. She then read the exhibit list and indicated that anyone was welcome to review them.
Jim Otis, professional engineer with Anchor Engineering Services, Glastonbury, Connecticut, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the landfill is not the focus of the application as it predates the Zoning Regulations and presumably is a grandfathered use. Mr. Otis stated that the Town is proposing to modify the transfer station so that it can continue to operate even after the landfill closes in a few years. He noted that the construction or modification of a recycling facility or a transfer station in an RU-80 Zone is a permitted use with a Site Development Plan approval and the granting of a Special Exception by the Zoning Commission.
Mr. Otis stated that the first goal of the reconstruction is to provide additional containers for material so that the transfer facility can accept the same materials that currently go to the landfill. He explained that the second goal is to improve access to and from the site and circulation on the site. Mr. Otis stated that the third change is the addition of a building to be utilized by the Department of Public Works. He explained that the driveway, shown in gray on the site plan, would be widened and reoriented so that it is more perpendicular to Four Mile River Road. Mr. Otis stated that a scale will also be added to allow the facility workers a more accurate way of measuring waste that leaves the site, and if they chose, to weigh waste that comes onto the site. He explained that by
widening the driveway, they can add an additional incoming lane which will reduce the backing up of traffic onto Four Mile River Road, which occasionally occurs on Saturdays. He noted that this change would also incorporate the Fire Marshal’s comment that the roadway width be a minimum of 24 feet.
Mr. Otis stated that the orange rectangle on the site plan is the new proposed building, 36’ x 72’. He noted that the building will store Public Works equipment such as the recyclable truck and the Town’s payloader. He explained that the payloader is driven back and forth to the site several times a week from the Machnik Drive Public Works Yard. Mr. Otis stated that liquid recyclables will also be stored in the building.
Mr. Otis stated that the last modification is the addition of two or three spots for containers on the north end of the existing storage area. He noted that bulky waste will be stored in these containers and is defined as land clearing and demolition debris. Mr. Otis stated that additional large bulky items would include furniture.
Mr. Tooker questioned the distance from the proposed new building to the nearest house. Mr. Otis replied that it is 340 feet from the north end of the building to the property line and is heavily screened by woods. He stated that even though they are deciduous trees they are thick enough to effectively screen the building from the neighboring property. Mr. Otis stated that there are tall evergreens trees located between the house and the 345’ wooded area. He indicated that these evergreens are 15 to 20 feet tall. Mr. Otis stated that he would be willing to note on the plans that the wooded area will remain.
Mr. Johnson questioned whether Mr. Otis would be willing to accept a condition that designates a specific color. Mr. Otis indicated that he would have to ask the Director of Public Works, but he would guess that they would be willing to work with the Commission. Mr. Risom questioned why a payloader would be needed on site. Mr. Otis stated that they use it for the leaf composting operation. He indicated that he would have to ask Mr. Roach what other uses they may have for it. Mr. Risom stated that the drive to the garage is to the right of the building whereas the garage door on the plan is centered on the building. Mr. Otis stated that he will make a note of, and correct, the fact that that the driveway is offset relative to where the door is shown on the architectural
plan.
Ms. Bozek questioned whether there would be a road that goes around the landfill after it closes. Mr. Otis replied that there would be an access road around the perimeter of the landfill to allow for inspection of slopes. Mr. Johnson questioned whether the road is part of this application. Mr. Otis stated that the road is shown on the plans. Mr. Risom stated that it is really not a road, but a shelved off area and a slope. Mr. Otis stated that once or twice a year the area can be inspected by use of this road. Ms. Bozek stated that there is a relatively new detention pond. Mr. Otis stated that the current DEP standards for landfills is that run-off is controlled after landfill closure and during construction. He stated that they are calling for a detention basin that can
accommodate run-off from a 25-year frequency storm. Mr. Otis stated that the drainage calculations for this have been submitted to Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. Otis stated that they appeared before the Wetlands Commission in March and on April 3, 2004 there was a site visit. He indicated that the Wetlands Commission has not acted yet. Ms. Brown noted that the Zoning Commission will have to wait to act on this application until after the Wetlands Commission takes action.
Ms. Bozek questioned whether any details have been provided for any of the activities, such as the storage of oil. Mr. Otis presented a photograph of the existing storage area. He noted that the DEP requires that waste oil and spent antifreeze be stored in an enclosure that has three walls and a roof and an impervious base treated with a sealant such as a concrete floor with an epoxy coating. Mr. Otis stated that they would fulfill these requirements. He noted that DEP requires 110 percent spill containment, double containment, so that if the tank leaks it is still contained. Ms. Bozek questioned whether the waste oil will be handled by the resident or person bringing the waste oil to the facility. Mr. Otis replied that the DEP requires that waste oil only be poured into the waste
oil tank by a facility operator or that the pouring be overseen. He noted that townspeople can pour their own oil, but it has to be visibly watched by DEP. Mr. Otis explained that the reason for this is that they do not want the fluids mixed.
Ms. Brown questioned whether there are any intended modifications from the drainage structure into the outflow down by the river. Mr. Otis stated that there are and stated that this was an item discussed with the Wetlands Commission during the site walk. He explained that the Wetlands Commission thought a culvert would be appropriate so that the watercourse is not flowing over a gravel road that runs from Four Mile River Road back to the Four Mile River. Mr. Otis stated that they all discussed that rather than having the proposed rip-rap overflow curve to the east towards Four Mile River, an alternate configuration would be to have the rip-rap overflow to a point due south so that any overflow from the basin will discharge to this low area and then less directly into Four Mile River.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether there would be lighting on the building. Mr. Otis stated that he has not specified models, but he believes they would be 200-watt sodium halide. He indicated that the lights would be directed down. Mr. Otis stated that the lights only would be used when needed and will not be left on for security. He pointed out that the two lights would not be on the side where they would be seen from the neighboring house. Ms. Marsh asked that the lighting specifications be added to the plans.
Ms. Bozek asked for a description of the scale house. Mr. Otis presented a picture of the scale house. He noted that there are two types of scales, ones that are flush in the parking lot and others that are slightly elevated. He indicated that they are proposing a slightly elevated scale. Mr. Otis stated that the scale is 60 feet long with a little down ramp. He noted that next to that there will be a scale house 20’ x 8’ and submitted a picture of one for the record. Mr. Otis stated that the operator would use the scale house. Ms. Bozek asked that the size of the scale house be indicated on the plan.
Mr. Johnson asked if the driveway bed is crushed gravel. Mr. Otis replied that the plan is for the first few hundred feet to be paved with bituminous asphalt, the thought being that that area is where most of the traffic would be. He noted that the rest of the roadway would be gravel to encourage infiltration of rainwater. Mr. Otis stated that the apron will be paved also, but not until the construction is completed.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
Russell Faircloth, 117 Four Mile River Road, questioned where building materials would be stored once they can no longer be buried. Mr. Otis replied that the Town will keep the bins that they currently have for metal and aluminum and the plan is to add two or three more containers for bulky waste. Mr. Faircloth questioned whether there would be any new compactors. Mr. Otis stated that there is one proposed waste compactor unit. Mr. Kiritsis questioned whether additional noise will be generated on site. Mr. Otis replied that he does not believe additional noise will be noticeable. He pointed out that there is currently a compactor on site.
A motion was made by Tom Risom, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to leave the Public Hearing for this item open, awaiting a decision of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission.
Mr. Otis stated that he would address all of the Zoning Commission and Wetland Commission comments on the site plan.
2. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a 5’ x 100’ dock and 5’ x 5’ platform, 5 Beaulieu Drive, Wesley Poriotis, applicant.
Gary Sharpe, McDonald-Sharpe and Associates, was present to represent the applicant. Ms. Marsh read the legal ad as published in the Main Street News on Thursday, April 1 and Thursday, April 8, 2004. She also identified the exhibits for the record.
Mr. Sharpe stated that Beaulieu Drive is just off of and north of Ferry Road. He noted that there is an existing dock to the north of this property on the Stanley property and they have chosen to strike a line from that dock down toward the inner dock at the Old Lyme Dock Company property to give the Commission an idea of the level of intrusion that this dock will have. Mr. Sharpe stated that the proposed dock is approximately 80 feet inside of that line. He stated that the specific detail of the dock is located on the lower left corner of the drawing. Mr. Sharpe explained that there is 16’ of dock landward of the mean high water line. He pointed out that on the landward end of the dock they are proposing a 6’ x 6’ platform, which will act as a landing for an existing
stairway that exits the existing deck on the property. Mr. Sharpe indicated that there is 116 square feet of new structure landward of the mean high water line.
Mr. Sharpe stated that Mr. Poriotis would like low-level lighting on the dock. He noted that there is already quite a bit of lighting in the area with the Baldwin Bridge and the Old Lyme Marina. Mr. Kiritsis asked for a definition of low-level lighting. Mr. Sharpe indicated that the lighting would be 25 watt and low level on the deck, not on poles. He stated that the dock would be constructed from standard pressure-treated lumber for both pilings and decking. Mr. Sharpe presented the Assessor’s record for the year 2000, which notes that the deck was constructed in the year 2000. (Assessor’s card was marked Exhibit J). He indicated that there does not appear to be a permit issued for the deck, although he believes that it was constructed when the house
was constructed.
Mr. Sharpe presented three photographs of the area for the record (Exhibit K).
Mr. Johnson questioned the length of the “T.” Mr. Sharpe replied that the “T” is 40 feet in length and 5 feet wide. Mr. Risom stated that there are ice-cutters on the pilings and that is very important. He noted that many docks were lost on the river this year.
Ms. Brown noted that the site plan submitted this evening with revisions through March 25, 2004 was marked Exhibit M.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
A motion was made by Tom Risom, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to close this Public Hearing.
3. Site Plan/Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a dock, 23 Talcott Farm Road, Talcott Farm Association, Inc., applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the list of exhibits and the legal ad as published in the Main Street News on Thursday, April 1 and Thursday, April 8, 2004.
Keith Neilson, DOCK0, was presented to represent the applicant. He explained that the portion of the dock in the Commission’s jurisdiction is at the upper end of a sloped walkway and landing along the shore. Mr. Neilson stated that the correct easement is 15 feet and a revised plan has been submitted. He noted that the dock was specifically provided in the article of transfer of the property.
Mr. Neilson stated that the dock has received both DEP and Corps of Engineers permits. He explained that the portion of dock within the Zoning Commission’s jurisdiction is 15 feet long and 4 feet wide or 60 square feet. He noted that the easements that have been granted with the property allow for the dock to be established and the 15-foot easement from the mean high water line up the hill contains the landing. Mr. Neilson stated that they are anticipating minimum disturbance of the ground. He noted that the path will be visible, but not marked and will not be graded.
Mr. Neilson stated that Richard Snarsky reviewed the site to be sure there are no inland wetlands on site and his finding and sketch are included in the application documents. He noted that there were no inland wetlands. Mr. Neilson stated that since the DEP has issued a permit for this dock location, it was suggested that he mention the necessity of a waiver because they are within 35 feet of the side property line. He explained that the dock is located 27 feet off the property line and the Zoning Commission has the authority to waive the 35-foot requirement by up to 25 percent.
Mr. Neilson stated with the exception of the requested waiver for location 27 feet off the property line, the dock meets all zoning requirements. He noted that the dock is for private recreational use and will not generate traffic; there will not be any significant changes to drainage characteristics on the site; and there are no sewage facilities proposed. Mr. Neilson stated that there will be utilities on the site; therefore no water or lights.
Mr. Neilson stated that all of Mr. Metcalf’s review comments have been addressed. Ms. Bozek questioned whether the site was open space. Bob Gionotti stated that the lot is currently a building lot owned by Mr. Talcott and the easement runs through the lot. Mr. Gionotti stated that the easement is in the name of the association. Ms. Bozek questioned whether there is a house on the lot because the point has been raised in the past whether a dock is allowed without a principal use. Mr. Neilson stated that there is not a house on the property.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application.
Ms. Brown asked for confirmation that the final plans have a revision date of April 22, 2002. Mr. Neilson replied that that is the correct revision date of the Stein survey. He noted that the revision date of his final plan is March 5, 2004.
A motion was made by Tom Risom, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for this item.
The Public Hearing adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
