Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Commission Regular Minutes 06/27/05
APPROVED


OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, June 27, 2005


The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Special Meeting on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Old Lyme Middle School.  Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Tom Risom (Member) and Eric Fries (arrived at 7:36 p.m.)  Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.

1.      Convene Meeting; announcement of voting alternates.

Chairman Kiritsis called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. He noted that three members represent a quorum.  

2.      Public Hearing for the proposed amendment to the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map to create a new District, Sound View Village District.

Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in the Main Street News on Thursday, June 16, 2005 and June 23, 2005.  Ms. Marsh read the exhibit list for the record.  She read Exhibit J, a letter from James Lampos dated June 1, 2005.  Attorney Mark Branse indicated that the Statutes require that the referral response from Office of Long Island Sound Programs be read into the record and also the letters from the Regional Planning Agency.

Skip Sibley, Selectmen, gave an overview of the proposed Sound View Village District.  He explained that his involvement in this project began with the Havilland Report, a report commissioned by the EDC to study the possibilities of improving the Sound View area.  Mr. Sibley stated that in February 2002 Tom Bice, a former Selectman, put forward a motion to create the Sound View Task Force.  He noted that this Task Force had members from all the Land Use Commissions, as well as residents of the Sound View area.  Mr. Sibley explained that over a period of twelve months many possibilities were discussed, from indoor skating rinks to outdoor skating rinks.  He noted that at the end of those twelve months, Linda Krause from CRERPA assisted in creating new Regulations that would permit some of the ideas that were expressed.  He indicated that the Sound View area is a very unique area within the Town of Old Lyme.

Mr. Sibley explained that the Task Force dissolved and morphed into a Steering Committee which honed in on the Regulation creation.  He noted that they received feedback from the Zoning Commission and at that point the Board of Selectmen voted to take the work of Linda Krause, Eric Fries and the Steering Committee and with assistance from Attorney Branse they have created another set of Regulations that are before the public this evening.

Mr. Sibley stated that the Sound View Village District is the same area as the current C-10 Zone at the southern end of Hartford Avenue, but also including both the alleys between Hartford and Portland Avenue.  He noted that the regulations are intended to retain and enhance the distinctive character and scale of the seaside community within the capacity of the land to support such development, keeping in mind Health Code issues.  Mr. Sibley stated that under this proposal, changes to buildings, uses or construction of new buildings will require Site Plan approval and/or Special Exception from the Zoning Commission.  Additionally, plans must be submitted to the architectural reviewer, which will be designated by the Zoning Commission.  He explained that dimensional standards will be modified to make more of the lots conforming, to reduce setback and to allow for more flexible development and redevelopment.  Mr. Sibley stated that larger floor area ratios, greater lot coverage by buildings and greater total lot coverage are all proposed.  He noted that the allowable height is being reduced to 27’ for new buildings and existing buildings are limited to 27’ or their existing height, whichever is higher.

Mr. Sibley stated that parking requirements for residential uses will remain as they are currently, on site.  He explained that parking for owners or employees of nonresidential uses must be provided off street but can be either on or off site.  He explained that parking for patrons of nonresidential uses must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Zoning Commission, either on street, on site or off site.

Mr. Sibley stated that the proposed Regulation will allow uses similar to those currently allowed in the C-10, with the exception that multi-family housing is specifically permitted, affordable housing is encouraged, B&B’s are permitted and nonresidential uses are proposed to operate on a year-round basis if the applicant provides evidence that all public Health and Building Codes are met without waivers or exemptions.

Attorney Branse submitted a letter from him to the First Selectman dated February 3, 2005.  He noted that this letter explains many of the changes made from the original document (marked Exhibit L).  Attorney Branse stated that he is the Zoning Commission’s attorney and does not represent the Board of Selectmen.  He indicated that he was asked to perform a technical review of text which he would have done for the Zoning Commission at some point in the process.  Attorney Branse stated that the Zoning Commission authorized the work he performed for the Board of Selectmen.  

Attorney Branse stated that in his review he made great efforts not to change the policy aspect of the proposal, accepting that it represented what the participants of the process wanted for the Sound View area.  He noted that he corrected inconsistencies in the Regulation.  Attorney Branse stated that the text as Linda Krause drafted the proposal indicated that there would be an overlay zone.  He noted that an overlay zone takes the existing zone and puts a new layer of review over the existing zoning text.  Attorney Branse stated that the text contained different lot sizes, different setbacks, different height requirements, etc., and this is not an overlay zone.  He indicated that it appeared to rather be a new zone, not an overlay zone.

Attorney Branse stated that a village district achieves everything that the proposed Regulation intended to achieve such as mixed uses and a higher level of design control, and allows greater flexibility to look at each individual parcel.  He noted that the one drawback to this proposal is that it requires an architectural review.  Attorney Branse stated that the proposal seeks to allow greater use of property and reduce nonconformities in order to encourage new investment and at the same time control the size of the buildings so that they are compatible with the architectural history of the area.  He noted that he would suggest that the Havilland Report be part of this evening’s record because it points out that Zoning is only one component of a revitalization of Sound View.  The Havilland Report was marked Exhibit M.  

Attorney Branse stated that Ted Kiritsis, Chairman, sent an email to him with questions and concerns on the proposal.  He noted that the first question was in regard to Section 37.3(d), where it is required that all applications be referred to the Selectman’s office for review and comment.  Attorney Branse stated that it was in the original Krause draft and he did not put it in the Regulation, noting that there is no legal requirement for that referral.  He noted that Mr. Kiritsis also questioned the need for an architectural reviewer.  Mr. Branse stated that there must be an architectural reviewer with a Village District.  He noted that the next question was in regard to funding this review.  Attorney Branse stated that one way is out of the general fund (tax dollars) and the other way is through application fees.  He noted that Mr. Kiritsis questioned the authority of the architectural review board and noted that it would have no authority and would be purely advisory.  He noted that there is a time limit for a referral response by Statute, so if the reviewer does not respond the Commission can proceed.

Mr. Fries questioned whether a referral to CRERPA would fulfill the Statutory Requirements of the Village District Regulation.  Attorney Branse stated that if the Commission designates an AICP Planner at CRERPA as the architectural reviewer then it would satisfy the Statutory Requirement.

Attorney Branse stated that 37.4(d) states that a Commission may require a report from the Town Building Official and/or Sanitarian that the property be in compliance with current codes without waivers.  He noted that Mr. Kiritsis stated in his letter that this is how it should currently work.  Attorney Branse stated that that is correct, yet it does not hurt to say it again in the Regulation.  Ms. Marsh questioned what would happen if the Sanitarian did not want to make a report for the Zoning Commission’s public consideration.  Attorney Branse stated that the proposed Regulation requires the Zoning Commission to make a finding of compliance and there is no reason why the Sanitarian cannot state up front that codes are met.

Mr. Risom stated that the Regulation requires a plan be submitted to the WPCA if there is intent to use a community system.  He questioned the required action of the WPCA prior to Zoning approval.  Attorney Branse replied that the Statutes allow a WPCA to negotiate an agreement between the WPCA and the developer of the community septic system.  He noted that these agreements put the WPCA in the position where they can assure the function of the system.  Attorney Branse stated that the Statute requires the community system developer to come to an agreement with the WPCA.  He noted that if the Zoning Commission approves a development with a community system and that system fails, the Town is responsible for the repair.  Mr. Risom noted that all of this information is in the WPCA Regulations.  He indicated that he is questioning whether the engineering has to be done before the Zoning Commission approves the application.  Attorney Branse stated that this would depend on the level of detail that the WPCA wants to see.  He noted that as long as the WPCA is satisfied they can enforce the maintenance of the system, it is up to them what level of engineering they feel they need.

Attorney Branse stated that the next question is in regard to Section 37.5.J.1, referring to the housing of not more than two adults.  Attorney Branse stated that this wording should be changed to two persons, not two adults.  He explained that the next question was Section 37.5.1, talking about a facility by a government unit, which could be changed to read a non-profit or the Town of Old Lyme.  Attorney Branse stated that Mr. Kiritsis’ next question was in regard to section 37.9.d and the discussion on parking on public streets.  He indicated that he suggested that it be addressed by Town Ordinance and he does not agree.  Attorney Branse stated that it is the Zoning Commission’s authority to determine that parking requirements have been met and one way that can be accomplished is with on street parking.  He noted that because the streets are owned by the Town of Old Lyme and the Board of Selectmen must decide the allocation.  Attorney Branse stated that the proposed Regulation only addresses that the Commission will accept the availability of on-street parking to satisfy the parking requirements and that the Board of Selectmen agrees that the public land can be allocated in that way.  Mr. Fries noted that the Town has a Parking Committee that oversees the parking in Sound View.

Attorney Branse stated that Mr. Kiritsis’ letter questioned Section 37.9.f and how it encourages deliveries to the side or rear rather than the front.  He noted that the enforcement is difficult but the Commission can be sure in their review that there is a side or rear entrance.  Attorney Branse stated that Section 37.9.8 is a mandatory referral to the Board of Selectmen for waivers of sidewalks.  He noted that he has indicated that he understands the role of the Board of Selectmen in this because the sidewalks will be constructed on Town-owned property.  Attorney Branse stated that Section 37.9.9 allows for the Commission to consider noise impact and Mr. Kiritsis questioned whether there is a Town Noise Ordinance.  Attorney Branse stated that there is case law that a Zoning Commission cannot impose noise generation levels.  He indicated that this section of the proposed regulation is intending to state that the Commission can consider hours of operation based on noise factors.  Attorney Branse stated that Section 37.9.10 encourages community septic systems and Mr. Kiritsis indicated in his letter that this is not a Zoning function.  Attorney Branse stated that community systems are a Zoning function in the sense that if it is something that is encouraged it should be part of the Regulations.  He noted that community septic systems were part of the Krause proposal.

Attorney Branse stated that Section 37.9.11 requires WPCA approval of community septic systems and Mr. Kiritsis again notes that this is not a Zoning function.  He pointed out that the WPCA approval is mandated before Zoning approval.  Attorney Branse stated that water supply can also be considered as part of the Zoning review.

The following people spoke in favor of the proposal:

Gail Fuller, resident of 46 Swan Avenue, stated that she is Vice-President of the Sound View Beach Association and has been involved in this process for a few years.  She noted that she feels this is a very positive thing for Sound View.  Ms. Fuller stated that the Village District will allow the possibility of making greater changes.

Russ Carlo, 64 Swan Avenue, stated that he has been a resident of the area for over 7 years and is in favor of the proposed zone change.  He indicated that many of the residents would like to see the neighborhood and beaches improved.  Mr. Carlo stated there are many people who are willing to invest a lot of money to improve the area and he believes the proposal is another step forward.

Dennis Melluzo, 7 Portland Avenue, President of Sound View Beach Association, echoed Ms. Fuller’s comments.  He noted that he has been coming to the area his entire life and has seen the high and low point of Sound View.  Mr. Melluzo stated that he would like to see the property values increased and is strongly in favor of the Zone change.

The following people spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change:

Claude Brouillard, owner of a large section of Hartford Avenue, stated that he has a deep desire to revitalize the area.  He noted that he is in favor of the concepts of the Village District and is encouraged by the stated goals, but he feels the problem is that the floor area coverages and maximum lot coverages allowed in the proposal are probably what already exists on many of the properties.  He noted that this text will not benefit the property owners.  Mr. Brouillard pointed out that many of the properties are only 25 and 50 feet wide and the lot requirement is 10,000 square feet.  He noted that it is a tremendous idea, but because of the onerous requirements of lot size and lot coverage, there will not be many properties that won’t still have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Attorney Branse stated that there is no provision in the Regulation for adaptive reuse, but existing buildings can be changed in use and do not lose their nonconforming status.  He explained that the coverages provided in this proposal are more permissive than in the existing C-10 Zone.  Mr. Sibley agreed and asked Ms. Brown to give a comparison of the current and proposed coverages.  Ms. Brown stated that currently in the C-10 Zone the floor area ratio is 25 percent, maximum building coverage is 25 percent and total lot coverage is 30 percent.  She noted that the new Regulation proposes more coverage and more intensive use then is currently allowed.

Heidi Fields, 49 Hartford Avenue, stated that she agrees with Mr. Brouillard regarding some of the restrictions.  She explained that all her buildings cover 90 percent of her lot and she could not get an additional shed on her lot.  Ms. Fields questioned Section 37.4 c & d, where it states no year round use for single family dwellings shall be constructed or any seasonal dwelling be converted and (d) goes on to say that the commercial use can be changed.  She questioned what happens to properties with mixed uses, such as her own.  Mr. Sibley stated that conversions can happen but must be in compliance with Section 21.2.4 and Section 21.2.5 (Conversion Regulations).  Ms. Brown stated that these two sections are used to evaluate properties that want to convert from seasonal to year round use and there are a number of requirements, one of which is that everything must be conforming to convert to year round residential use.  Ms. Fields stated that her lot is not conforming.  Ms. Brown stated that 37.4 (d) holds open the possibility of converting commercial uses to year round use independent of the fact that your lot may be nonconforming or your building is in a nonconforming location.  She noted that one would have to meet Health Code.  Ms. Fields stated that she does not see the proposed Regulation helping the area.  She indicated that if people are not living in the area year round there is no need for year round commercial.

Nino DiNino, 49 Hartford Avenue, stated that he appreciates that the Committee was formed to relax the restrictions.  He noted that the proposed Regulations do not appear to help existing homes.  Mr. DiNino stated that they are taxed heavily for their property and questioned why the commercial uses can be used year round and not the residential.  He noted that the Regulation needs to go a little further.  He explained that the architectural reviewer seems to add another layer of review.

Mr. Brouillard stated that he owns the arcade building and noted that the parcel is 90 x 100 or 9,000 square feet.  He noted that the building is large.  Mr. Brouillard stated that it was indicated that the building could be changed to residential.  Attorney Branse stated that he does not believe he said that the arcade could be changed to residential.  Mr. Brouillard stated that his building covers 90 percent of the lot and there is nothing in the Regulation that helps his property and that is the flaw in the proposal.  Attorney Branse stated that uses are permitted in existing buildings in the proposed zone.  He explained that a commercial building could not be changed to year round residential without compliance with Sections 21.2.4 and 21.2.5, which is true for all seasonal residential uses.  Attorney Branse stated that the Committee is trying to encourage commercial use and are willing to allow mixes of commercial and residential use.  He indicated that changing a commercial building to condos does is not what the Committee had in mind as they are trying to encourage the commercial aspect.  Mr. Sibley agreed with Attorney Branse’s statement and noted that they are trying to restore the area commercially.

Mr. Fries questioned whether under the provisions of 37.5(b), multi-family, he could convert an existing commercial building to multi-family.  Attorney Branse replied that he could if the standards are met.

Nino DiNino stated that he owns six or seven commercial properties and eleven apartment units.  He indicated that Mr. Brouillard is correct.  Mr. DiNino stated that the commercial businesses only make money from the third week of June to the third week of August, or a ten week window to operate.  He indicated that the residential uses make more money in that short season than the commercial uses and people need to be living in the area in the off season to make the commercial uses work.  Mr. DiNino stated that the proposal is a good start but does not address the problems.  He noted that the property owners of Sound View are looking for high end condos to support the commercial uses.

Heidi Fields questioned whether the Regulation could be modified at this point.  Mr. Sibley stated that it could be clarified, but major changes cannot be made.  Ms. Fields suggested that she and her husband, Mr. Brouillard, Gail Fuller and Dennis Melluzo sit down and come up with some ideas because they are the ones vested in the area.  Mr. Sibley stated that he does not believe that is possible at this point as it is too late in the process.  Chairman Kiritsis stated that substantial changes cannot be made to the proposal at this point in time.

Mr. Sibley stated that he hears the comments of the residents.  He noted that the proposed Regulation may not be perfect and may not address all problems, but it is a step in the right direction.  Mr. Sibley stated that the proposal is conservative, but noted that it must be approved by the Zoning Commission.  He noted that it can be built upon in the future.

Ms. Marsh read the following letters for the record:

1.      Comments from the Planning Commission (Minutes)
2.      Letter dated June 27, 2005 from OLISP, Marcy Balint.
3.      Letter from Mr. Jim Lampos.

Attorney Branse stated that Ms. Balint, in her letter, referenced communications between himself and Dennis Greci.  He noted that it is correct that the current Statutes define community systems for residential only so that mixed uses would require other Town action.  Attorney Branse stated that it is possible to have multiple users of a piece of land, but with individual systems.  He noted that this is governed by State Law.

Attorney Branse reiterated that he does not represent the applicant.  He noted that he only reviewed the document from a legal standpoint and was paid from the Board of Selectmen’s budget.  Attorney Branse stated that he has not and would never take a stand on whether the proposal should be adopted or not.  He indicated that the Public Hearing could be closed and he could give opinions as the Zoning Commission’s attorney.

Mr. Fries questioned whether they could change the proposed Regulation at this point in time to accommodate Ms. Balint’s comments.  Attorney Branse indicated that Ms. Balint’s comments would result in less change from the existing C-10 and not more and in that way it would be possible.  He indicated that he would not make greater changes at this point in time.

A motion was made by Eric Fries, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the proposed amendment to the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map to create a new District, Sound View Village District.

The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time.

Discussion

Mr. Risom stated that he would like to take a little time to think about the comments made this evening and suggested that deliberation be continued to the July Regular Meeting.  Chairman Kiritsis stated that his comments can be addressed administratively.  He indicated that he did not receive the comments back from Attorney Branse until this past week.  Ms. Marsh questioned whether anyone is happy with the proposed Regulations.  Mr. Fries stated that two people did speak in favor of the proposal, but noted that neither of them have commercial interests.  Ms. Brown noted that many commercial interests were not present this evening which means they either did not know about it or were happy with how it is written.  She pointed out that only two commercial interests were present to criticize the proposed Regulations.  

Ms. Marsh questioned whether the two bars would be allowed to convert to year round use.  Ms. Brown noted that the Pavilion is not in the Sound View Village District.  Ms. Marsh stated that there is no police presence in that area, except in the summertime.  Mr. Risom stated that the proposed Regulation benefits the residences on the east side of Hartford Avenue that are no longer nonconforming.  Ms. Brown stated that it will help all of the properties along Hartford Avenue.  She noted that not all of them have 10,000 square feet, but some have more.

Mr. Fries stated that the proposal is not perfect but it is a good start.  He indicated that this has been prepared through a community effort and the commercial interests in the area can get together and prepare amendments that reflect what they want for the commercial uses.  

Ms. Marsh indicated that she would like to take some time to read the Havilland Report.  Mr. Fries questioned whether the proposed Regulation makes the Town any more vulnerable to DEP.  Mr. Risom replied all of it does.  He pointed out that Marcy Balint’s letter states this in discussing the increase in density.  Mr. Risom stated that Dennis Greci believes Old Lyme is over the threshold of being able to have in-ground septic for its inhabitants.  He noted Point O Woods as an example.  Mr. Risom stated that the High School had to form a Water Company and a Sewer Company in order to run their plant and those are both DPUC regulated because of the flow.

Ms. Marsh stated that she is not convinced that Sound View feels like a year round area.  She noted that so much of it is geared toward summer recreation.  Ms. Marsh stated that there is some value to having a beach community and the residents are not looking for a Beach Farms type of community.

Ms. Brown questioned whether the Commission would like Attorney Branse to attend the July Regular Meeting.  Ms. Marsh indicated that she does not necessarily need him to attend, but questioned whether he could revise the document to address Chairman Kiritsis’ comments.  Mr. Risom agreed that he would like a draft that reflects those comments.

Mr. Fries stated that he believes that the applications should be referred to the Board of Selectmen.  Mr. Risom stated that it can be referred as a courtesy and not be made part of the Regulation.  Ms. Brown questioned whether she should incorporate Marcy Balint’s comments.  The Commission agreed that they could not do that.  Ms. Marsh stated that she would like it clear that commercial/residential septic systems cannot be shared.  Ms. Brown pointed out that the Regulation states that it must comply with Health Code and she does not think it is a problem to keep it in the Regulations as an option.  Ms. Marsh stated that she is not sure she wants DPUC involvement.

Mr. Risom suggested that they incorporate some of Ms. Balint’s comments.  Ms. Marsh pointed out that it would be difficult because Ms. Balint does not want increased density, multi-family uses, B&B’s or year round commercial use.    Mr. Fries stated that they could alleviate some of the concern if the number of bedrooms are limited in the multi-family uses.  Mr. Risom disagreed, noting that the systems would have to support the number of bedrooms which would be self-limiting.  The Commission agreed that they should not allow community systems if it is required that they need State approval.  They agreed that they only want to encourage community systems that can be WPCA approved.  Ms. Brown indicated that she would figure out where to make this change.

Ms. Brown stated that the Commission can appoint the architectural reviewer and require that the applicant get and pay for that review.  Mr. Fries and Ms. Marsh stated that they would like to use CRERPA for this review as they have a feel for what Old Lyme is looking for in Sound View.  Mr. Risom stated that it can be done through the fee ordinance.  

Mr. Fries stated that it bothers him that some people will need a site plan review for simple work that they could presently do by a Zoning Permit.  Mr. Risom noted that this is the price they must pay for the added flexibility of what they can do.







3.      Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. on a motion by Tom Risom and seconded by Eric Fries.  So voted unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,



Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary