APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Public Hearing on Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary, 7:42 p.m.), Tom Risom (Member), Eric Fries (Vice Chairman, 7:38 p.m.), Joan Bozek (Member), Steven Ames (Alternate), John Johnson (Alternate, 7:38 p.m.) and Howard Tooker (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Kiritsis called the Public Hearing to order at 7:31 p.m.
1. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct multi-family housing, 49 Hatchetts Hill Road, Hilltop Development, LLC, applicant. Continued from the June Regular Meeting.
Ms. Marsh read the exhibits that have been entered into the since the June Public Hearing, Exhibit S through Exibit Y. She read a letter from Ron Rose, Sanitarian, stating that the plan is approved as proposed, pending approval of the State. Ms. Brown stated that Wade Thomas, engineer, noted in his letter that most of his comments have been addressed and there are some small modifications that he feels should be made, which could be done as a condition of approval. Ms. Marsh read Exhibit Y, a letter from David Roberge, Fire Marshall, noting that all of his concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
Attorney Cronin was present to represent Hilltop Development LLC. He explained that the project is located on the southerly side of Hatchetts Hill Road and contains 20.6 acres. Attorney Cronin stated that the land has just been reclassified as MFR-80. He noted that the proposal is for 8 buildings, 16 units, as shown on the site plan.
Matthew White, Angus McDonald/Gary Sharpe and Associates, explained the site plan. He noted that within the property there are two fairly high hills and most of the development will be on the top of these two hills. Mr. White stated that there is an inland wetlands corridor to the west of the property and noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the project. He noted that the 16 units are all two-bedroom units located in 8 duplex buildings. Mr. White stated that access to these buildings will be through the 24’ wide road as shown on the site plan. He noted that they have verified that there is adequate site distance and have submitted a site line demonstration plan that was reviewed by the Town’s consulting engineer. Mr. White stated that they have demonstrated
turning radius for the Fire Department. He noted that Mr. Roberge is in agreement with the new road name, Amon Hill Road. Mr. White stated that each unit will have a two car garage, with parking for two cars in the driveway, for a total of 4 parking spaces per unit. He explained that being on the hilltop the storm water flows away in all directions, but the primary storm water flow is either to the west or to the north toward Hatchetts Hill Road. He pointed out the dividing line on the plan. Mr. White indicated that the storm water drainage system was reviewed and approved by Wade Thomas.
Mr. White explained that the septic system is a State Department of Public Health System because of the design flow for the site. He stated that there are 32 bedrooms in the 16 units, with a daily design flow of 4,800 gallons per day. He noted that the Department of Public Health jurisdiction is between 2,000 and 5,000 gallons per day. Mr. White stated that the leaching systems are in the southeast corner of the property and there are essentially 8 separate systems, one for each building. He noted that six of the systems will have pump chambers and two flow naturally to the leaching system. Mr. White stated that the reserve areas have been shown on the site plan.
Mr. White stated that the water supply will be via a community water system that will be set up with supply wells, a pump building and a distribution system providing water to each of the units. He noted that there have been three test wells drilled on the site, all of which have very high yield. Mr. White indicated that the water system application is also before the Department of Health and the DPUC for their review and approval. He noted that electrical will be underground, but will originate on one of the poles for the system that goes through the property currently. Mr. White stated that there are currently lines on the property which will be abandoned and removed, with exception of the first pole coming in.
Mr. White stated that both the architectural plans and landscape plans have been submitted. He noted that he is submitting revisions to the landscape plan. Mr. White explained that these revisions were made to coordinate with the site plan changes; minor adjustments to the road and buildings. The revised landscape plans were marked as Exhibit Z.
Mr. White stated that each unit has two bedrooms. He noted that there is an upstairs room that previously had an access less than 5’ and because it could be considered a bedroom, the architectural plans were previously revised and resubmitted. Mr. White stated that it now has an access greater than 5’ wide and does not have direct access to a full bathroom.
Attorney Cronin stated that there are four new comments in Mr. Thomas’ letter which he indicates could be conditions of approval. Attorney Cronin stated that he has no objection to the Commission accepting these comments as conditions of approval. Mr. White addressed these comments and indicated that he would take care of each of them.
Attorney Mario DiLoretto, General Manager of Readco, was present to represent Eastport LLC, an abutter of the subject property. He noted that Eastport property is located just to the east and the south the proposed development. Attorney DiLoretto stated that he is in favor of the application. He noted that he has a few concerns that he would like to discuss with the Commission and suggest a few conditions of approval. Attorney DiLoretto stated that he is surprised that this property was rezoned to residential as it is squeezed between already established industrial uses. He noted that all but one of the Commission members present this evening were present when Kellogg Marine was before the Commission. He reminded the Commission of the concern of the abutting neighbors and indicated that
he is present this evening because he does not want to see mistakes repeated. Attorney DiLoretto noted that there were issues with Kellogg as to whether it satisfied the Zoning Regulations in providing an orderly transition between developments of like character. He indicated that given the outcry at the time of the Kellogg application, the Commission should consider conditions on this approval to protect the development of the undeveloped industrial land. Attorney DiLoretto stated that Kellogg gave a 4.3 acre conservation easement between the edge of the Kellogg project and the second most rear lot; he noted that they also constructed a forty foot high earthen berm with plantings of 12 to 14 foot trees so that there would not be a visual from the Chestnut Hill Development to Kellogg.
Attorney DiLoretto stated that he does not want the future development of Eastport land hindered by the same general standards that hindered Kellogg, simply because this landowner was granted the benefit of a Zone change. He indicated that one condition he is suggesting is that there be comparable screening to that which Kellogg was required to provide, so that screening is not imposed on the future development on the adjacent industrial site.
Attorney DiLoretto stated that he would like, within the body of the Condominum Documents, that there be an expressed disclosure statement so that every potential homeowner is put on notice that that development project is surrounded by industrial use properties that could potentially permit up to 45 foot high buildings in accordance with the Regulations. He pointed out that many residents of Chestnut Hill indicated that they were not aware of what could be constructed. Attorney DiLoretto submitted a letter outlining his proposed conditions. This letter was marked Exhibit AA. Attorney DiLoretto stated that the application is a Special Exception, which gives the Commission broad discretion in reaching a decision and allows them to take into account the interests of abutting property owners.
Attorney Cronin submitted a copy of the map that shows the zone change from industrial to MFR-80 for the record (marked Exhibit AB). He indicated that the property was in three separate zones prior to the zone change to MFR-80. Attorney Cronin stated that along Hatchetts Hill Road the zone was LI-80S and did not allow residential uses. He noted that there will be no dwellings within the portion of land was zoned LI-80S. Attorney Cronin stated that the LI-80 zone, which is where the proposed dwellings will be located, specifically permits all residential uses. He noted that when Eastport purchased the adjacent property they should have realized that the property could be developed in a residential manner. He noted that the “burden” has not been increased because the
zone change came about. Attorney Cronin stated that a small portion of the southeast corner of this property was zoned residential.
Attorney Cronin stated that the Master Plan of Development shows this area as an area that should be developed for residential purposes. He noted that the zone change was in harmony with the Master Plan.
Mr. White stated that the one location where the property abuts Eastport land already has screening proposed. He noted that this situation is different then the Kellogg situation, as there are already industrial uses in the area.
Attorney Cronin stated that it is questionable whether the Zoning Commission has the authority to impose a disclosure in the condominium documents. He noted that the wording of the disclosure would not be helpful to the property owner and is asking a lot of the applicant. Attorney Cronin stated that he would be willing to state that the property is located in an industrial area and indicated that he would like to review the statement, perhaps work with the Commission’s counsel. Attorney DiLoretto stated that because the application is a Special Exception the Commission can use discretion. He stated that he is offering the applicant a simple disclosure. Attorney DiLoretto indicated that it is logical to warn the potential buyers before they purchase and the industrial land is developed.
A motion was made by Howard Tooker, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to close this Public Hearing.
2. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a 6’ fence in the street setback, 110 Shore Road, Kevin Braza, applicant.
Chairman Kiritsis stated that the Public Hearing was opened at the June Meeting and no testimony was taken because the applicant was not present. Because no one was present to represent the applicant, the Commission tabled the Public Hearing on this matter.
3. Site Plan/Special Exception Modification Application to add office space to existing storage building, 458 Shore Road, M. Brett Painting Co., Inc., applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice for the record. (Eric Fries arrived at this time.) Mr. Ames stepped down and Mr. Tooker remained a voting alternate.
Attorney Bennett was present to represent the applicant. He explained that the property is in a commercial zone and is located on the corner of Shore Road. Attorney Bennett stated that the reason for the Public Hearing is that the applicant is asking the Commission to waive the additional parking. He noted that the proposal is to put offices in the yellow building that exists. Attorney Bennett stated that when the application for the existing building was before the Commission, the Commission allowed the applicant to show the parking on the site plan but not construct it until there appeared to be a need, which there has not been.
Attorney Bennett stated that they would like to move their office space into the second floor of the new building. He noted that the parking is shown on the site plan, but the applicant would rather not pave more of the yard when there is no need for additional parking. Attorney Bennett stated that most of the employees of M. Brett Painting are working off site. He indicated that Ms. Brown informed him this afternoon that Ron Rose, Sanitarian, has not sent a letter approving the septic. Attorney Bennett stated that there is no problem with the septic and the applicant’s engineer has verified this. He noted that Mr. Rose’s approval is strictly administrative.
Attorney Bennett stated that the additional office space will be 1,920 square feet. He noted that the offices will be used solely for M. Brett Painting and will not be leased out.
Linda Mullen, 2 Four Mile River Road, stated that she lives across from the subject property. She stated that she has notes from a meeting dated August 26, 2003. Ms. Mullen stated that at that time it was indicated that there would be a gravel surface and none of the new parking spaces would be paved. She indicated that she was also told that there would be no plumbing in the storage building. Ms. Mullen stated that when this building was constructed she was not notified and she is upset having it across from her house. She pointed out that the parking area was paved and now the water runs off into the wetlands. Ms. Mullen indicated that the building is not supposed to have plumbing or offices.
Ms. Mullen stated that they store latex paint in the building and they previously indicated that they would not store paint in the building. She indicated that she is concerned about increased septic usage with the offices and she is concerned about the wetlands. Jeff Mullen stated that when the building was purchased the applicant stood at a Zoning Meeting and stated that he would not change the site. Mr. Mullen stated that the Town did not notify him of the last public hearing. He indicated that he called Ms. Brown when the applicant was loading his building with paint supplies and Ms. Brown did nothing about it. He stated that the Town does no enforcement. Mr. Mullen stated that he will get the DEP involved and there will be constant monitoring from now own. He noted that the
storage building was for ladders and equipment. Mr. Mullen stated that the applicant had people outside painting this past week. He indicated that he believes it is a travesty that the Town allowed this building to be constructed.
Norman Burke stated that the Mullen’s have been in their house for twenty or thirty years. Mr. Burke stated that his house was constructed in the 1800’s. He noted that the houses surrounding this property are all 200 to 300 year old colonials. Mr. Burke stated that it was a surprise that this large building was constructed. He noted that the interior lights are left on all evening. Mr. Burke stated that the parking lot was not to be paved according to the record. He noted that this past week there were many people painting things out in the parking lot. Mr. Burke stated that this parking area has no curb to catch the run-off and no basin to slow it down. He noted that they are painting in this parking lot and letting the water leave the parking lot to go into the
Four Mile River. Mr. Burke stated that he and his children love to crab in the river. He noted that he understands that the building cannot be removed but he and his neighbors do not want any more development or activity. Mr. Burke stated that he believes there will be issues when the DEP gets involved.
Tad Fallon, neighbor, stated that he is directly adjacent to the new building. He noted that there is a 20’ setback from the building to the property line. Mr. Fallon stated that he purchased his home about a year before the building was constructed next store and he was never notified of the Public Hearing. He noted that two realtors explained that the property was located in a C-30 zone and the Town would not let the building change. Mr. Fallon stated that his sunroom overlooks this new building. He noted that he is not sure that the landscaped area between properties has been constructed as it is shown on the site plan. Mr. Burke stated that the record clearly shows that the parking was not to be paved. Mr. Fallon stated that he agrees with the proposal that the
additional parking should not be paved. He noted that Mr. Brett indicated to him that the small house was not being removed. Mr. Fallon suggested additional screening in key locations on the site may reduce the impact the site has on the neighbors, particularly on the Mullen’s side. Mr. Fallon marked on the site plan additional areas where additional screening would be helpful.
Mr. Fallon stated that the site plan showed no windows on the one side, just a blank wall. He noted that the fire marshal made them install three fire doors along that large wall. He noted that Mark and Matt indicated that these doors would not be used. Mr. Fallon stated that his mother-in-law watches his 10-month old and one day a worker was using an air-compressor type machine and blue smoke was coming out. He pointed out that his sunroom is right on his property line and then there is only 20’ to the building. Mr. Fallon stated that Mark guaranteed him that this would not happen again and yet three weeks ago the door was open and someone was doing something.
Eric Stoddard, neighbor, stated that he is more concerned about what has been said and promised in the past and has not been held true. He indicated that he would like the Board to take into consideration everything that was said here this evening because he would like to feel secure that what is said here this evening will be held true in five years. He noted that he would like a guarantee that the house will not be torn down in five years.
Mr. Risom stated that there appears to be separate enforcement action that could be taken.
Attorney Bennett stated that the application before the Commission conforms to the Regulations. He indicated that they would not be before the Commission this evening, except for the fact that the applicant does not want to pave additional parking area. Attorney Bennett stated that the applicant did stand before the Commission and state that they would use the property as it was and store ladders and so forth and that’s what he did, and that was the original application for the use on the property. He noted that the next application changed aspects of the property and the procedures were followed and the building was approved. Attorney Bennett stated that now the applicant would like offices and he has set forth the parameters of this application.
Attorney Bennett stated that he invites the ZEO to come any time to inspect the property. He noted that he invites the DEP to come down as they work with the DEP all the time. Attorney Bennett explained that no one was painting in the parking lot; he noted that supplies were hauled out and put back in. He suggested that the Commission go and see if there is paint on the parking lot. Attorney Bennett stated that he believes the original landscape plan was followed and if it is determined that it has not been the applicant will take care of it. He noted too that there was no restriction on the permit as far as paving.
Mr. Fries read the statement of use from the application for the storage building. Chairman Kiritsis noted that it indicates the parking area will be gravel. It was also pointed out that it is shown on the site plan as a gravel lot. Chairman Kiritsis stated that it does appear that the site plan approval has been violated. Ms. Brown stated that she has not signed off on the C.O. and she does not see an as-built drawing. Mr. Fries suggested that the procedure be reviewed.
Tad Fallon stated that the proposed use of the building was storage and now they would like to have offices. He indicated that the septic system was constructed to allow for expansion and it appears that this was the plan from day one. Mr. Fallon stated that it was his understanding that a C.O. would not be issued unless the project was complete. He indicated that Ms. Brown told him this. He noted that after the project was complete he called Ms. Brown and she indicated that a C.O. would not be issued because it was a storage building. He indicated that this appears not to be the case. Mr. Fallon stated that some one should make sure that the rules are followed.
Linda Mullen stated that the impact is not just on the neighbors but on the wetlands and the environment. She indicated that the parking lot should never had been paved and she asked Ms. Brown to check into it and she received no return phone call.
Norman Burke stated that none of the neighbors received notice of Public Hearing on the construction of the building. He stated that he still does not understand why they did not receive notice. Mr. Burke stated that he does not believe that the landscaping has been completed. Chairman Kiritsis apologized that the neighbors did not receive notice of the Public Hearing and indicated that he does not know what happened. Attorney Bennett stated that his client has a business plan and has not misrepresented anything. He noted that the original site plan shows a two story building with an unfinished second floor, the future plan being offices on the second floor. Attorney Bennett stated that all landscaping, as shown on the site plan, will be completed. He noted that the applicant
pulled a permit for the paving but it will be corrected if the Commission determines that it is contrary to the site plan. He reiterated that it was not done without a permit.
Mr. Ames questioned the number of employees. Attorney Bennett replied that there are a little over 100 employees, 6 or 7 in the office. He explained that most of the employees are out on the road. Mr. Ames questioned the amount of office space required for a painting contractor.
Mr. Fries questioned whether the building is currently plumbed and whether it will be plumbed as part of this project. Attorney Bennett replied that it has to be plumbed if there are offices and indicated that he does not believe it is plumbed at this time.
Tad Fallon stated that he definitely does not want to see additional paving. He reiterated that approval should contain additional landscaping on all sides.
Jeff Mullen stated that the plumbing pipe is already in the foundation. He asked the Commission to do the right thing at this time. Mr. Mullen stated that communication with Ms. Brown in the Zoning Office is not good and she does not return phone calls.
A motion was made by Eric Fries, seconded by Howard Tooker and voted unanimously to close this Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Eric Fries, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to adjourn the Public Hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
