APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, December 12, 2005
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Public Hearing on Monday, December 12, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiristsis (Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Jane Cable, Tom Risom, John Johnson, Steven Ames (Alternate), Brian Kyle (Alternate) and Howard Tooker (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Kiritsis called the Public Hearing to order at 7:32 p.m.
1. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 33 Neck Road, Blair and Caroline Hoxby, applicants.
Chairman Kiritsis explained that the application contained the wrong address and the legal notice was published with the incorrect address. He noted that the Public Hearing will be held in January after republication.
A motion was made by Tom Risom, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to re-advertise the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 38 neck Road, Blair and Caroline Hoxby, applicants, for the January 9, 2005 Regular Meeting.
2. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 31 Smith Neck Road, Thomas and Janet Bagg, applicants.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in the New London Day Thursday, December 1 and December 8, 2005. Mr. Kiritsis read the referral responses from Ron Rose, Sanitarian, David Roberge, Fire Marshall and Tom Metcalf, Engineer. He also read a memo from Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Gary Sharpe, Professional Engineer, was present to represent the Bagg’s. He noted that the Connecticut DEP has approved the application. Mr. Sharpe submitted a copy of the approval from the Army Corps of Engineers issued on April 11, 2005. He explained that there is a 10 foot section of dock that touches the land and extends out to the mean high-water line which is under the Zoning Commission’s review. Mr. Sharpe stated that there are a set of pilings on the upland portion above the high tide line and another pair of pilings approximately half way down the fixed dock, which sit on the mean high water line, and the last portion of the dock is supported by a large boulder which exists in that area. He noted that beyond this boulder there is a ramp and a float.
Mr. Kiritsis noted that the plans do not propose utilities. Mr. Sharpe indicated that that is correct, but the applicant would like to keep that option open for the future. He questioned whether the applicant would have to come back to the Commission for electric and water service in the future. He indicated that there will be no lighting on the dock.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 31 Smith Neck Road, Thomas and Janet Bagg, applicants.
3. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, 40 McCurdy Road, Old Lyme Country Club, Inc., applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in the New London Day on Thursday, December 1 and December 8, 2005. She also read the referral response from Ron Rose, Sanitarian and a memo from Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer. Ms. Marsh read the Statement of Use for the record.
Attorney Childress was present to represent the applicant. He explained that the sale of alcoholic is an accessory use to a Special Exception principal use. Attorney Childress stated that the Statement of Use provides that the proposed use remains and accessory use that is clearly subordinate and incidental to the principal use. He submitted a document prepared by the Office Manager of the Country Club in which she surveyed country club’s in the State to determine whether they had liquor permits. He indicated that this document shows that the service of alcohol is customarily incidental to this type of principal use. Attorney Childress read this document for the record.
Attorney Childress explained that they have not delineated areas of the property where the sale of alcohol may occur as it was thought not to be necessary. He indicated that if a private party was located at the pool or an individual wanted a drink by the pool during meal hours, there is nothing that would prohibit that. Mr. Ames questioned whether the consumption of alcohol by the pool was an issue when the pool application was before the Commission. Ms. Marsh noted that it was discussed, but she does not believe a condition was put on the approval. Attorney Childress stated that currently it is BYOB and there is nothing that would prohibit a member from having a glass of wine while sitting by the pool.
Mr. Risom questioned whether there is food service at the pool. It was noted that there is food service at the pool. He questioned whether a liquor permit of any kind is required when the price of liquor is included in a member’s ticket to a special event. Attorney Childress stated that the Country Club will get a non-profit club permit. He noted that currently the events are only BYOB.
Ms. Cable questioned the motivation of the Club to obtain a liquor license. Attorney Childress stated that the motivation is convenience for Club Members and additional revenues for the Club.
Rick Ermler, President of Old Lyme Country Club, encouraged the Commission to approve their application to serve liquor. He noted that members are currently allowed to bring alcoholic beverages to the club and may drink by the pool. He noted that there is no glass allowed near the pool. Mr. Ermler stated that another rule prohibits swimming in the pool when alcohol is being consumed within the fenced area of the pool.
Jeff Montanaro, Permittee of Cherrystone’s, stated that he is in favor of the application. He noted that it is very difficult to show a profit at a country club, especially with the service of food only.
Attorney Childress stated that he agrees with Ms. Brown’s determination that because no site changes are proposed, a site plan need not be filed.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, 40 McCurdy Road, Old Lyme Country Club, Inc., applicant.
4. Site Plan/Special Exception Application for the reconfiguration of Cherrystone’s parking lot, 218 Shore Road, 100 Acres, LLC, applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in the New London Day on Thursday, December 1 and 8, 2005. She also read the Exhibit List for the record. Ms. Marsh read the referral response from Tom Metcalf, engineer, dated December 6, 2005, a memo from Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, dated December 12, 2005 and the referral response from Marcy Balint, OLISP (email).
Chairman Kiritsis noted that the Commission requested a site plan that shows what the restaurant site will look like after subdivision, not what it could be like. Joseph Wren, Professional Engineer, was present, along with several members of the Montanaro family, to explain the application. Mr. Kiritsis noted that all referral comments received address the first plan submitted, not the newly submitted plan showing the site as it will look after subdivision. Mr. Wren stated that he prepared the second plan at the request of the Commission. He noted that in preparing that plan he first surveyed all the existing parking spaces. Mr. Wren stated that once the property is subdivided, 47 parking spaces will no longer be part of the restaurant parcel. He indicated that there are currently 116
striped parking spaces at this time on the site for the driving range and the restaurant. Mr. Wren stated that 91 spaces are required for the restaurant. He explained that after subdivision there will be 64 spaces on the restaurant parcel and the Montanaro’s feel this is extremely adequate parking because the restaurant is never at full capacity. Mr. Wren explained that there is an area shown on the plan for 28 reserve parking spaces.
Ms. Brown stated that the Fire Marshal is in the hospital and she was not able to get information from his files as to the capacity of the restaurant. Mr. Wren stated that the seating capacity is posted in each of the three main rooms of the restaurant. He noted that the Sanitarian submitted a letter to the Planning Commission noting that both parcels meet the Public Health Code requirements. Mr. Wren stated that Mr. Metcalf had a concern regarding drainage if the reserve parking was ever built-out. Mr. Wren noted that it would mostly likely be a gravel parking area for summer use.
Ms. Marsh noted that four or five spaces at the rear of the property may also need to be eliminated as it appears they may be in the required setback. Mr. Wren stated that they are not changing the use or proposing at new development at this time and questioned whether the buffer requirements are applicable at this time. Mr. Risom stated that as long as the uses are joined and associated, parking can be in the buffer. He noted that once they become disassociated, those four spaces must be eliminated. Mr. Risom stated that if the driving range became a residential development, those parking spaces would have to be discontinued. Mr. Wren stated that losing four or five more spaces would still leave adequate parking and the reduced spots could be added to the reserve. Ms. Marsh stated that
she believes that these parking spaces should be eliminated now in order to meet the Regulations. Mr. Wren noted that Ms. Brown indicated that the site did not have to be brought up to the current Regulations unless there is a change of use or a proposed development on the subdivided parcel. Ms. Brown stated that she understands the joint use regulation to mean that if commercial uses are adjacent to each other, parking could be shared. Mr. Wren stated that they will address this when the adjacent parcel is developed. Chairman Kiritsis stated that at the current time there is no buffer and at some point in the future there will either be a 12’ or 25’ setback required, depending on how the adjacent parcel is developed. Ms. Marsh agreed, noting that minimally the development will require a 12’ setback. She suggested that the plan show a 12’ setback.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether, if the adjacent property is developed residentially, the applicant would make a commitment to establishing landscaping on the restaurant parcel. Jeff Montanaro explained that the largest party in the restaurant in the last 10 years was a wedding with 150 people. He noted that the reduced parking is more than adequate. Mr. Montanaro stated that the paved parking to the right of the restaurant is never used. He noted that he would be willing to add landscaping as a buffer in the adjacent property was developed residentially. Ms. Marsh noted that she is referring to the east boundary. Mr. Wren noted that it would be to everyone’s benefit to screen the parking area if the property were developed residentially. Mr. Risom pointed out that the parking
setback would not have to change retroactively if the newly created parcel was developed residentially.
Ms. Marsh stated that the 12’ buffer and removal of the parking spots could be addressed as a note on the plan.
Sue Corrigan, Hostess at Cherrystone’s, indicated that she has been the hostess for 25 years. She indicated that they have never had 250 people in the restaurant and never will. Ms. Corrigan stated that business is down over the years and the parking will be more than adequate.
Andy Montanaro, stated that he has owned Cherrystone’s and 100 Acres since 1970. He indicated that business has slowed and he only has 10 employees at this time. Mr. Montanaro stated that he does not anticipate growing the business.
Joseph Shea, owner of adjacent parcel to the west, stated that there are currently 25 to 30 large trees existing between the properties which he would like to be sure would remain. He noted that most of the trees are on the Montanaro side of the property line. Mr. Wren indicated that they are not proposing any type of construction or tree removal in that area.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application for the reconfiguration of Cherrystone’s parking lot, 218 Shore Road, 100 Acres, LLC, applicant.
Chairman Kiritsis adjourned the Public Hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
