APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, February 9, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Regular Meeting on Monday, February 9, 2004 in the auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Eric Fries (Vice Chairman - arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Howard Tooker (Alternate - Seated), John Johnson (Alternate – Seated) and Steve Ames (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
1. Convene Meeting; announcement of voting alternates.
Chairman Kiritsis called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
2. Lyme Academy of Fine Arts – Discussion on enforcement of the terms of the Certificate of Decision.
Chairman Kiritsis noted that this item was discussed at the last meeting and the Commission members visited the site to observe the lights. He stated that another as-built drawing was submitted, although it is not sealed. Mr. Rosado stated that he has reviewed this as-built with Ms. Brown and Mr. Hendricks was awaiting final approval before sealing the plans. He indicated that Mr. Hendricks would add the requested elevations and his seal to the final as-built drawing.
Chairman Kiritsis stated that the Commission’s engineer, Tom Metcalf, had some review comments and questioned whether these had been addressed. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Metcalf’s comments would be addressed on the final as-built. Chairman Kiritsis stated that there is a letter from Ms. Atwood-Johnson discussing a fence around two sides of the property. Mr. Rosado stated that there is not a fence but a bumper guard that goes along the parking area that is no more than three feet high and it is defined in the plans. He noted that there is no other fence, except for existing fencing.
Chairman Kiritsis questioned whether Lyme Academy is proposing any additional changes to the lighting. Mr. Rosado stated that they are awaiting the Commission comments on the frosted glass proposal. He indicated that they have proposed all the technical changes that they can for these particular fixtures. Chairman Kiritsis stated that one of the conditions read in part, “all existing lighting should be shielded to prevent glare or the spillover of light onto neighboring properties including properties across Lyme Street.” Mr. Johnson stated that it was indicated at the last two meeting that Lyme Academy would install shields on the lighting to push all the light toward the parking lot so that it would not spillover onto the adjoining neighbors’ property. Mr. Rosado stated
that they installed shields as prescribed on the approved plan. He noted that this work has been done. Mr. Rosado stated that the problem is that they are working with existing fixtures that may have been somewhat problematic in the beginning and they are trying to modify these fixtures to solve the problem and there is only so much that can be done. He indicated that the manufacturer feels that any more modifications will void any warranties they have and they wouldn’t guarantee that the lighting might not malfunction.
Ms. Brown asked which lights are shining onto the neighbors’ property. Mr. Rosado stated that it is a subjective issue. He indicated that he believes that it is not shining onto the neighboring properties. Attorney Campbell Hudson, representing Lyme Academy, stated that there was a lot of discussion at the Public Hearing regarding this issue and as a result the Commission required several very specific details about the type of shields that would be put on the lights. He stated that from a technical standpoint, it is the Lyme Academy’s position that they have complied with every single established requirement. Attorney Hudson stated that when one is on the neighboring property looking toward Lyme Academy, one could see lights. He stated that there is no noticeable spillover
of light onto the neighboring properties. Attorney Hudson stated that the shields are directing the light downward.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether it is possible the light is reflecting off the buildings. Mr. Rosado stated that the fixtures chosen were generated from the involvement of the Historical Society to try and have a fixture that would fit in the Historic District. He noted that it is not the best light for the situation as it tends to shoot the light in a more horizontal way. Mr. Rosdao stated that the classic fixture for a parking lot is a shoe-box type fixture that directs light more downward than outward. He explained that it also has a metal halide bulb, which tends to glare. He noted that these bulbs would degenerate over time.
Eric Fries arrived at this time (7:45 p.m.). Mr. Fries stated that it is his feeling that the lights that exist are not in keeping with the character of Lyme Street. He indicated that he finds the lighting much more suited to an urban setting. Mr. Fries stated that he believes that regardless of what was approved he cannot understand why the Academy is not taking a little more initiative to be a good neighbor.
Mr. Rosado stated that sodium bulbs cannot be installed in the new fixtures. He noted that the other part of the problem is that they are trying to provide a level of illumination that makes the area secure. He noted that there are many women that attend the Academy in the evening and the school is obligated to provide a secure environment. Mr. Fries stated that since the lights were first turned on the issue has been the color and intensity of the lights. Ms. Marsh pointed out that the older less intensive lights have provided a safe environment for students. She noted that the new fixtures are much brighter and everyone expected lighting comparable to the older ones. Ms. Marsh pointed out that the older lights were also required to have shields installed. She noted that no one
expected the new lights to be brighter.
Mr. Rosado stated that the problem is the type of fixture and this was missed at the time of approval. Mr. Tooker questioned the cost of changing the lights to the type that exist in the northern parking lot. Attorney Hudson indicated that it would be a very significant cost as they would have to install entirely new fixtures, not just the top. Mr. Rosado stated that there are fourteen fixtures and the cost would be close to six figures.
Attorney Hudson noted that the Academy relied on their professionals who gave them the advice that resulted in the current situation. He noted that if the cost were insignificant it would be much easier to address some of these issues. Mr. Rosado stated that to change the wattage of the bulbs from 250 to 150 is almost $10,000.00. He noted that they have not changed the wattage, they’ve changed the bulbs from clear glass to a frosted glass. Mr. Fries pointed out that that had a minimal effect.
Chairman Kiritsis noted that the issue does not affect just the adjoining neighbors, but the entire Town. He stated that it looks like there is a stadium there. He noted that the new Academy building is a great structure and it is ruined by the lights.
Mr. Johnson stated that it some of the lights were not turned on, perhaps it would lessen the effect. He noted that they could also reduce the wattage. Mr. Fries suggested changing the wattage of one bulb and letting the Commission members view it before changing all the bulbs. Mr. Rosado stated that he would be happy to reduce the wattage of one bulb and give the Commission the opportunity to view it. Mr. Kiritsis suggested using a light meter both before and after the bulb is changed to give a quantitative evaluation of the difference. Mr. Rosado pointed out that a 100 watt bulb will eventually burn down to 75 watts.
Ms. Brown reminded the Commission that their approval states that “all existing lighting shall be shielded to prevent glare or the spillover of light onto neighboring properties, including properties across Lyme Street.” She noted that the real demarcation is the boundary line. Ms. Brown pointed out that it didn’t address the brightness in the parking lot, it just stated that it cannot come off the property. She questioned whether there is better shielding that could be installed that might do a better job. Mr. Rosado stated that the manufacturer designed the shields to fit that fixture and the 250 watt bulb. He noted that the model numbers are on the plans.
Ms. Brown stated that it is her belief that the landscaping has been planted essentially to the plan’s requirements. She stated that there is very little screening in the area by the drainage structure and it does impact the Bice’s property. Ms. Brown stated that she believes it might be this area that a fence was referred to by Ms. Atwood-Johnson. She stated that a solid wood fence might be appropriate in this area to protect the Bice’s both visually and to keep headlights off the property until the evergreens grow. Attorney Hudson stated that the Academy would not be happy about new requirements that were not part of the original approval. Chairman Kiritsis stated that a private agreement between the Bice’s and the Academy is not part of the Commission’s
deliberations. Attorney Hudson agreed that it was a private matter.
The Commission agreed to conduct a site walk at Lyme Academy during their next Regulation Rewrite Meeting if the agreed upon lighting changes were made.
Tom and Karen Bice, 80-1 Lyme Street were present to represent their views on the situation. Mr. Bice stated that it has been agreed this evening that all issues besides the lighting are private matters between the Academy and himself. He indicated that he is very surprised by that. Mr. Bice sited language from the Town’s Ordinance, 32.4.3, “the impact of the parking area on the surrounding neighborhood must be minimized.” He noted that it does not say lighting. Mr. Bice stated that Section 32.4.3 states, “Landscaping should be in harmony with adjacent lots and character of the neighborhood.” He stated that these two conditions have not been met. Mr. Bice stated that when standing in his backyard looking toward the Academy you see a parking lot,
automobiles, traffic, a dumpster, a loading dock and large road signs. Mr. Bice stated that the plantings are not in keeping with the adjacent lot and character of the neighborhood. He stated that he has a subjective view as to whether these conditions have been met, the Academy has a subjective view as to whether these conditions have been met, and he would like to hear the Commission’s subjective view as to whether these conditions have been met. Mr. Bice stated that the Commission has the responsibility and authority to issue its judgment as to the totality of this construction project, not just the lighting. He indicated that he does not understand why one piece of the approval becomes a private matter between neighbors.
Mr. Bice stated that he appeared before the Commission during the Public Hearing with a signed agreement indicating that they would work as neighbors to arrive at a satisfactory solution. He noted that the Academy has done nothing. He read a letter from Mr. Osborne stating in part “The College has done all it can do to create a buffer along our mutual property line.” He stated that the proper perspective is the view from his property toward the Academy and he invited the Commission to come onto his property and view the situation from his perspective.
Mr. Bice stated that he has had two independent appraisals of his property recently and both agree that the boundary conditions between his and the Academy’s property significantly lowers their property value. He noted that the actual reduction would depend on market conditions. He stated that he asked Wilbur and King, landscape architects, to read the language and proposed a proper buffer. He noted that the work they have proposed is between $90,000.00 and $100,000.00. Mr. Bice stated that there is a transfer of wealth and he is involuntarily paying for their boundary line. He pointed out that there are economic consequences to what the Academy has done. Mr. Bice asked that the Commission enforce the approval as they should and not take the position that this is a private matter
between neighbors.
Mr. Bice stated that Ms. Atwood-Johnson and Mr. Osborne indicated to him that they have aesthetic problems with them having a fence on their property. He stated that he has requested a meeting and was denied. He noted that he has since received a letter indicating that the Academy has done all that it can do.
Ms. Marsh stated that the Commission was given specific plans for landscaping and she does not recall anyone at the Public Hearing stating that the landscaping plans were not sufficient. Mr. Bice stated that the original plan approved by the Commission called for the preservation of existing trees. He noted that somewhere along the way the drainage ditch had to be expanded and they basically clear-cut all the trees. Mr. Bice pointed out that clear cutting was not part of the original plan. He noted that the plans changed and their landscaping plan should be adjusted to reflect this.
Karen Bice stated that they were assured that the trees between the properties would remain and if the trees had remained there would be no issue at this time. She stated that it is part of the record that all the trees would remain. Mrs. Bice stated that on the first day of clearing the trees along the property line were not removed and she was very comfortable with the fact that the trees, along with the additional plantings, would provide a good buffer. She noted that when they came home from work on the second evening of clearing, these trees were gone. Mrs. Bice explained that they were also told there would be fencing in that area. She noted that this is all in writing and part of the Zoning Commission’s record. Mrs. Bice indicated that this is why they did not protest the
landscaping plan that was presented.
Mr. Bice stated that the agreement signed by him and Mr. Putsch was the basis on which he supported this project. Chairman Kiritsis stated that he was amiss by thinking that the agreement between the Bice’s and the Academy had been honored. He indicated that since it has not been, he would like to hear from the Academy on this issue. Attorney Hudson stated that the Regulations Mr. Bice referred to are the basis on which the Commission analyzes an application. He noted that the question is not whether what is going on complies with the Regulations, but rather does it comply with the Commission’s approval. Attorney Hudson stated that it is the position of the Lyme Academy that what was approved by the Commission complies with the Regulations. He indicated that the trees along
the boundary line were cleared, but it has been made clear that this was done because of the requirements of the State. Attorney Hudson stated that it is their hope that the landscaping will grow and provide the intended screening.
Chairman Kiritsis stated that the agreement between the Lyme Academy and the Bice’s was evidence that entered into his decision-making. He questioned why Attorney Hudson did not consider this evidence. Attorney Hudson stated that Lyme Academy took the trees down because the government required them to; they had no choice. Mr. Fries questioned whether they received approval from the Commission or the Zoning Enforcement Officer to make this change on the approved site plan. Attorney Hudson stated he is not clear on the course of events.
Attorney Hudson stated that the Academy would consider some additional landscaping, but certainly not the $100,000.00 plan that Mr. Bice has presented.
Mr. Fries stated that he would like to see a time line on the course of events, including when it became apparent that additional trees needed to be removed. Ms. Marsh stated that she remembers discussing the changes to the drainage from an engineering aspect, but no one mentioned anything about removing additional trees. Mr. Fries requested a copy of all the minutes addressing the Lyme Academy application to give the Commission members an opportunity to review the course of events. Mr. Tooker stated that his vote was predicated on the agreement between the Academy and the Bice’s.
Chairman Kiritsis stated that they will review the minutes and take a site walk of the property at their next Regulation Rewrite Meeting and address this issue again at the March Regular Meeting.
3. Eastport West/Kellogg Marine, discussion on complaint of activities in parking lot after 6:00 p.m.
Mario DiLoreto was present to represent the property owner. He indicated that at the December meeting their was a resolution passed by the Commission. He noted that the resolution was precipitated by neighbors and was concerning forklift activity outside the building after the prescribed hours. Attorney DiLoreto stated that the resolution was to issue a Cease and Desist from the use of that type of equipment. He noted that the Zoning Enforcement Officer advised him that the Commission had taken the position that one of the enumerated conditions to the Site Plan approval had included any type of motor vehicle.
Attorney DiLoreto stated that during the Public Hearing it was made very clear that Kellogg Marine operates under two shifts, day shift and night shift and that particular condition regarding motor vehicle traffic with mechanical equipment proscribed, would be inconsistent with what was advertised and with what was identified in their Statement of Use. He noted that the minutes also reflect this. Attorney DiLoreto stated that they have asked the Commission to rescind this resolution and have also filed an Appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that they would like to reach a mutually agreeable resolution with the Zoning Commission.
Chairman Kiritsis read an amendment and restatement by Michael Lech of November 13th where he states “no forklift or mechanical equipment shall be used outside the proposed building.” He noted that the October 11, 2000 minutes Mr. MacDonald stated “there would be little truck traffic, if any in the evening. He indicated that the trucks are loaded in the evening for delivery the next day.” Chairman Kiritsis stated that these comments led him to believe there would be very little evening activity at all.
Attorney DiLoreto stated that the stated that the comment made by Mr. MacDonald was made in his opening remarks. He noted that Mr. MacDonald was not that familiar with Kellogg’s operations on the opening night of the hearing. Attorney DiLoreto stated that the condition put on the approval was not put on the table on the first night of the hearing. He noted that representatives of Kellogg came before the Commission to represent their activities and operations. Attorney DiLoreto stated that on November 13th the minutes indicate “Mr. White explained that there are approximately 140 employees on two shifts. He stated that on the western end of the building there would be six receiving spaces and twenty distribution spaces. He stated that the larger trucks would access
the receiving spaces and drop off merchandise. He noted that the distribution spaces are for smaller marine trucks that leave to distribute the product.” Attorney DiLoreto stated that this shows the distinction between receiving and distribution trucks and clearly identifies that there are two shifts. He read from the next page of the same minutes, “Mr. Risom questioned the flow of the semis. Mr. MacDonald stated that the small trucks leave between 4:00 and 8:00 a.m. and return between 4:00 and 8:00 p.m.” Attorney DiLoreto stated that the nature of the activity was clearly articulated. He pointed out that it is clear in the record that the operation would receive product through semi receiving trucks during the day, and it was limited to the daytime.
Attorney DiLoreto stated that in the November 13th minutes he states to the Commission that the incoming delivery traffic would be between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. He noted that he also testified that the 26 distribution trucks leave and return once per day.
Mr. Fries stated that a comment was made that the delivery trucks would return to the facility between 4:00 and 8:00 p.m. He indicated that the testimony also states they would not be moved after that and it sounds like the current operations may be a little different then that. Mr. Fries stated that his interpretation of the minutes is that the trucks would return between 4:00 and 8:00 p.m. and would not move for the rest of the evening. Attorney DiLoreto stated that that is a fair interpretation. He noted that this operation sends trucks down to Baltimore and up to Plattsburg and Maine everyday. Attorney DiLoreto stated that everything could not be anticipated at the Public Hearing and as it turns out not every truck gets back before 8:00 p.m. He noted that there are many factors,
such as traffic, that cannot be anticipated. Attorney DiLoreto stated that the bays being used are the ones at the northernmost section of the building. He indicated that they are taking measures to minimize the impact. Attorney DiLoreto stated that all the auditory levels on the trucks have been reduced to the lowest allowable levels.
Attorney DiLoreto stated that the condition of approval was designed specifically to deal with the operation of equipment outside the building, not to prevent motor vehicle flow on the site. He explained that at the Public Hearing they gave a reasonable expectation of what was likely to occur. Attorney DiLoreto stated the evening activity on site is minimal.
Ms. Marsh stated that it is a stretch to say that the words “no operating mechanicals outside in the evening” clearly applies to trucks. She indicated that she was worried about vehicles cycling around the property in the evening but the applicant allayed her worries and no restriction in this regard was put on the approval. Mr. Stahley stated that between October and the current time he is only using 18 trucks. He questioned whether the Commission members have visited the site in the evenings to hear the noise. Attorney DiLoreto stated that they have committed themselves from the start to be good neighbors. He noted that they would continue to try to be good neighbors.
Mr. Stahley stated that on a Monday evening a truck could be moving as late as 12:00 a.m. in the lot, but on a Thursday evening, it may be 9:00 p.m. He noted that in the summer the employees may be three until 3 or 4:00 a.m. Mr. Stahley explained that it is a seasonal business with great fluctuation in business. He noted that because the gate is locked in the evening, he has to back the trucks up to line them up. Mr. Stahley pointed out that if the gate were open in the evening he would not have to back the trucks up. He stated that in season, using all twenty bays, he has to move six trucks in the evening.
Dr. Shannon, 2 Lantern Lane, stated that it was his understanding that he would not hear any noise after 6:00 p.m. He noted that when he did he called Mr. Stahley. Dr. Shannon stated that he then came to the Commission with his concern and the Commission seemed to agree with him. He stated that he tried to obtain the Public Hearing tapes, but they are missing. He indicated that because of this he too had to look at the minutes. Dr. Shannon noted that the spirit of all the talks was noise. Chairman Kiritsis questioned whether Dr. Shannon would be agreeable to allowing the gate to remain open in the evening so that the trucks would not have to back up. Dr. Shannon stated that he does not think he is the one to make that decision as there are other neighbors involved. Attorney
DiLoreto stated that he would be willing to work that out with all the neighbors. Dr. Shannon stated that he would be agreeable to allowing the gate to remain open to see if that reduces the noise level in the evening. Attorney DiLoreto asked Dr. Shannon to call him if he or any neighbor has a problem and they will immediately shut the gate. Dr. Shannon agreed to an experiment in leaving the gate open in the evening to see if it alleviates the noise.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Eric Fries and voted unanimously to rescind the Cease and Desist Order for Eastport West/Kellogg Marine, because Note #1 of the original decision does not apply to motor vehicle activity.
4. Special Exception, 43 Hatchetts Hill Road – preliminary discussion.
Mark Diebolt, applicant, and Jeff Flower, architect, were present to explain the preliminary plans. Mr. Flower stated that at a previous meeting they discussed a commercial area and twelve duplexes. He explained that, for a few reasons, they have changed the site plan and re-engineered the location of the driveway to the high point of Hatchetts Hill Road. Mr. Flower stated that this location has the best sight lines. Mr. Diebolt explained that this sight line would be sufficient for cars that are far exceeding the existing speed limit.
Mr. Flower noted that the plans have also been reduced to 16 units, still duplexes. He indicated that for marketing reasons they have attached the garages. Mr. Flower explained that they are planning to create a commercial lot and develop that some time in the future. He stated that the duplex portion of the proposal would be the first part they develop.
Mr. Flower stated that each building would have its own septic system. He pointed out on the site plan were the leaching areas will be. Mr. Flower stated that there would be a community water system for the site, most likely two wells. Chairman Kiritsis questioned the topography. Mr. Flower stated that there is some drop-off on the last few units. Mr. Diebolt stated that the property flattens out at the top of the hill.
Mr. Diebolt stated that he has owned his property, totaling 42 acres, and has had no offers for any of the commercial property that has been for sale or for lease for six years. He explained that the proposed housing is for adults over 55 years of age, so there will be no children to impact the school system. Mr. Flower stated that he was wondering whether the Commission was more inclined toward the project if they restricted the age to Adult 55. Chairman Kiritsis stated that he does not believe the Commission should address that. Ms. Marsh pointed out that age-restricted housing is not part of the Zoning Regulations and they could not consider that. She noted that if the applicant wanted to have private restrictions in that regard, he could.
Mr. Diebolt stated that the highest and best use for the property is multi-family. He noted that because of the topography one would have to cut and blast for an industrial use. Mr. Flower noted that he too believes multi-family to be the best use of the property with regard to the abutters. He indicated that it is a good buffer between the commercial zone and the residential zones that are abutting.
Mr. Flower stated that there are two units per building, with all the units having a first floor master bedroom and a second floor master bedroom. He noted that there is no other way to build a two-bedroom and have it remain that, without having both of them have a full master bath within the unit, because the moment you put the master bath in the hallway, the other area could become a bedroom. He noted that the remainder of the upper story is open to the railing. Mr. Diebolt stated that the development would look like eight 4,000 square foot homes, as each unit is just under 2,000 square feet. He pointed out that they are planning to have the buildings have a Nantucket style look.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether they planned to put a conservation restriction on the open space. Mr. Flower stated that the Association would own the land. She questioned whether it would be used for conservation type purposes, such as stating that there is no tree cutting. Ms. Marsh stated that she would like to see a portion of the open space on the outside of the development have a conservation easement.
Mr. Diebolt stated that he would like to present a final application within a month or so. Mr. Johnson stated that this is a much better plan than was originally presented. Ms. Marsh stated that she too would rather see a multi-family use than an industrial use on the property.
5. Site Plan/Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a pavilion, 52 Ridgewood Road, Point O Woods Association, Inc., applicant. Receive and set public hearing.
Ms. Brown noted that the office is awaiting revised plans. She stated that the applicant would like the Commission to set the Public Hearing. The Commission agreed to set the Public Hearing for March 8, 2004, and asked Ms. Brown to urge the applicant to get the proper plans to the office as soon as possible.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Howard Tooker and voted unanimously to schedule the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a pavilion, 52 Ridgewood Road, Point O Woods Association, Inc., applicant, for March 8, 2004.
A motion was made by Eric Fries, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to move Items 7 and 11 up on the agenda.
6. Zoning Enforcement.
Ms. Brown distributed the Sound View Steering Committee’s revised proposed Sound View Design District Regulations. She explained that the document is a draft. It was noted that there are representatives from each of the different Town Commissions, along with several staff members on the Committee in the audience.
Ms. Brown pointed out that there are two maps, one of which is incorrect. She noted that in the June version the Pavilion lot was eliminated and a parking lot on Swan/Martino was eliminated. Ms. Brown noted that otherwise the maps are identical. There was general agreement that the June Map is the correct map. Ms. Brown explained that the Committee compromised on the lot requirements for year-round use. She noted that year-round commercial use would be allowed. Mr. Fries stated that he does not think there is currently a Regulation that prohibits that. Ms. Brown stated that the limiting factors on many of the proposals for the area would be the ability to meet health code.
Mr. Fries stated that one of the critical components of the redevelopment is the permitting of parking lots by Special Exception. Ms. Marsh stated that the problem with parking is that beach goers will use the parking spaces intended for the beaches’ commercial area.
Ms.Brown explained that there are some changes to the current bulk requirements. She noted that the 10,000 square foot lot size and the 20,000 square feet per dwelling is the same, although this may be impractical if they are considering multi-family. Ms. Brown noted that the proposal reduces the square required and she suggested reducing the height allowed also to perhaps 26 or 24 feet. Ms. Brown stated that the street setback required is 6 feet, as currently most of the buildings are 6 to 10 feet off the street. She stated that a 10 foot setback from the side and rear property lines is proposed and a 20 foot setback from a residence and rural district. Ms. Brown pointed out that on one side of every one of the designated lots there is the conflict or residence district and SVDD. She
noted that the maximum total coverage proposed is 60 percent.
Ms. Brown stated that Torrence Downes wrote a memo that discusses amending Section 8.9.3 to allow building in the SVDD zone if all bulk requirements are met, regardless if the lot is conforming or not. She noted that this Regulation would reduce the size of buildings in relation to the underlying size of the lot. Ms. Brown stated that Ms. Krause suggested that a separate time limit be established for the Flood Zone for substantial improvements, rather than the life of the building. Ms. Brown stated that the Committee believes that the liquor regulations should have to comply with what currently exists in the Regulations.
Mr. Fries stated that the Committee would like to move as quickly as possible on this proposed Regulation. He indicated that he would like to talk about this in a little more detail and suggested that they do that at the next Regulation Rewrite Meeting. Chairman Kiritsis disagreed, indicating that those meetings are reserved for the Regulation review. Ms. Marsh agreed with Chairman Kiritsis. Ms. Marsh stated that she does not believe this proposal is a redevelopment plan. She noted that each person that owns a property down there could take advantage of the Regulations or not. Ms. Marsh pointed out that there would be many old buildings and uses that will remain. She stated that she feels this is very different than what was originally talked about. Mr. Fries stated
that the Commission must review the proposal in its entirety to point out what parts of the proposal they will not support. He stated that as soon as everyone is in agreement with the basics, he thinks the Commission should ask Mark Branse to write the actual Regulation. Mr. Fries explained that that is why it is pertinent for the Commission to review the proposal at this time.
A motion was made by Eric Fries and seconded by Howard Tooker that the Commission hold another special meeting for the purpose of going through this design document and deciding what they are willing to incorporate into their Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Fries noted that in this way, they could determine how the document will be drafted. Mr. Kiritsis stated that it is his opinion that the proposal is not complete enough at this point in time and several other members agreed.
So voted, 4:0:1, with Mr. Kiritsis abstaining.
Ms. Marsh stated that she does not believe the Zoning Commission should be the proponent of the SVDD Regulation. She indicated that she would rather see the proponents come to the Zoning Commission with the proposed regulation and present it to them. Ms. Marsh stated that she feels the application should come to the Commission and the Commission should hold a Public hearing and act in its policy making capacity. Ms. Marsh stated that she would be happy, however, to brainstorm and give the Committee an idea of what she thinks will work and what she thinks will not work.
The Commission agreed to conduct a Special Meeting on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. to review the proposed Sound View Design District Regulation.
Ms. Brown stated that she has had a request that dog grooming be allowed as a home occupation. She noted that in the past she was told it was considered a kennel and would need to fit in the kennel regulations. Ms. Brown noted that since that time the Commission agreed that the groomer on Shore Road is a service activity rather than a kennel activity. Ms. Brown stated that as a home occupation, this individual would groom the animals and send them home; there would be no kenneling of animals. Mr. Tooker stated that the woman on Shore Road was required to obtain full approval. Ms. Brown agreed, noting that the application came in as a business service. Mr. Tooker stated that it is comparable to a hair salon in the home. Mr. Fries questioned the zone. Ms. Brown indicated that
the property is located in the LI Zone, although there is a residential use established on the property. The Commission agreed that dog grooming is not an appropriate home occupation.
Ms. Brown stated that another person has asked whether they can put an awning structure over their deck, as they would rather not go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a porch. She explained that the awning would have button down sides. The Commission agreed that this would not be appropriate on a nonconforming lot.
Ms. Brown stated that Lynn Sherlock’s attorney indicated that they will have an application in by the end of the month. Mr. Kiritsis stated that the original use was issued to Ann Haviland to have wine and beer only. Ms. Brown stated that the Special Exception recorded says liquor use, it does not specifically indicate beer and wine. Ms. Brown stated that it is her understanding that Lynn Sherlock would like to continue with a full liquor permit. Mr. Kiritsis stated that he would like a Cease and Desist issued by the end of the month if an application is not received. He pointed out that they have been in noncompliance for three or four months.
Ms. Brown stated that it was her mistake to issue the café license. Mr. Fries stated that the discussion was very clear that there would be no more bars in Town and they were very specific in discussing what would be allowed. Ms. Brown stated that the record is not specific. Ms. Marsh stated that this evening has shown that the Commission is very good at bringing up all the points they would like to incorporate and then do not write them out as part of the approval. She suggested that in the future each individual Commission write down the points that are important during the Public Hearing. Mr. Johnson stated that the Commission is too casual with their approvals.
Ms. Brown stated that she has received a Special Exception Application for a garage at 61 Shore Road. She noted that the garage is within 50 feet of tidal resources.
A Motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to accept the Special Exception/Site Plan/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a garage, 61 Shore Road, Kirsten Parker, applicant, and to set the Public Hearing for March 8, 2004.
Ms. Brown noted that Attorney Knapp has almost reached an agreement on 25 Library Lane. She noted that the lean-to addition has been partially removed.
Ms. Brown noted that Dimitri Tolchinski has submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting that the condition of the variance be modified to allow him to change the gable orientation and to construct a building no more than 35 feet tall. She explained that it was originally approved for 30 feet in height. Mr. Johnson questioned whether the dumpster location was changing. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Tolchinski did not include that as part of the variance and is therefore not being considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Richard Moll questioned whether Mr. Tolchinski would have to come back to the Zoning Commission for a modification to his Site Plan, if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the requested variance. Ms. Brown stated that changing the top of the building design would not be a significant change to the layout that the Zoning Commission has approved. Mr. Fries stated that anything that has to have another variance to complete is considered by the Commission to be a change to the Site Plan.
7. Approval of Minutes.
A motion was made by Eric Fries, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing as clarified, the December 8, 2003 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing as submitted, the January 12, 2004, Regular Meeting and Public Hearing as submitted and the January 26, 2004 Special Meeting as submitted.
8. Regulation Rewrite – Set Special Meeting.
A Regulation Rewrite Meeting has been set for Monday, February 23, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
9. Correspondence.
None
10. Any new or old business to come before Commission.
None
11. Miscellaneous/Adjourn.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Eric Fries and voted unanimously to adjourn at 11:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
