UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, January 8, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Tom Risom (Acting Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Jane Cable, John Johnson, Howard Tooker (Alternate – seated) and Steve Ames (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Attorney Mark Branse.
1. Convene Meeting; announcement of voting alternates.
Acting Chairman Risom called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. He noted that Howard Tooker would be a voting alternate this evening. He immediately recessed the Regular Meeting to conduct the Public Hearing. The Regular Meeting reconvened at 8:36 p.m.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to move Item 5 up on the agenda.
2. Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 24 Neck Road, Rob Shickel, applicant. Receipt.
Rob Shickel was persent to explain the application. He noted that the A-2 survey shows the property in its combined form. Mr. Shickel stated that the Town has heard a proposal from the applicants regarding merging the two lots. He noted that there is currently a deteriorated dock near the southerly boundary of the property which is not usuable. Mr. Shickel stated that there has been a dock installed on the adjacent property, which is fairly large.
Mr. Shickel noted that the proposed dock has fixed piers, 30 feet in length. He noted that there is a 30’ ramp going out to a 100 square foot float. Mr. Shickel stated that the dock does not conflict with navigation. He noted that the application notes there will be down lights, no greater than 10 watts, and spaced approximately 20 feet apart. Mr. Shickel stated that there is an error in the application. He noted that the land area should say 113,130 square feet. Mr. Shickel stated that he will provide a corrected page before the next meeting. He indicated that he is awaiting the Inland Wetlands Commission finding of no jurisdiction. Mr. Risom asked for the letter of approval from the Army Corps of Engineers, which Mr. Shickel indicated he would also
provide.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to receive the application for the Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 24 Neck Road, Rob Shickel, applicant, and set the Public Hearing for February 14, 2007.
3. Petition to amend the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, Proposed new Section 7.4.3.1, Lot Adjacent to a Limited Access Highway, Gary Yuknat, applicant.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to approve the Petition to amend the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, Proposed new Section 7.4.3.1, Lot Adjacent to a Limited Access Highway, Gary Yuknat, applicant, with the following modifications:
1. “Interstate Route 95” replaced “Limited Access Highway.”
2. Approval by Site Plan Review under Section 31.
Effective February 1, 2007.
4. Petition to amend the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, Sections 32.6.9, 32.6.10, 36.2.8, 36.10.2 and 36.14, Open Space, Old Lyme Zoning Commission, applicant.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh and seconded by Jane Cable to approve the Petition to Amend the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, Sections 32.6.9, 32.6.10, 36.2.8, 36.10.2 and 36.14, Open Space, Old Lyme Zoning Commission, applicant.
Mr. Ames indicated that he is not comfortable with voting this evening and would like time to review it further. Mr. Tooker agreed.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted to table discussion on the Petition to Amend the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, Sections 32.6.9, 32.6.10, 36.2.8, 36.10.2 and 36.14, Open Space, Old Lyme Zoning Commission, applicant, to the January 14, 2007 Regular Meeting. Motion carried, 4:1, with Ms. Marsh voting against.
5. Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application, Town Hall Expansion Project, 52 Lyme Street, Town of Old Lyme, applicant.
Ms. Brown indicated that she wrote a draft motion of approval incorporating Mr. Metcalf’s comments. Ms. Cable questioned whether Ms. Brown included a bond. Ms. Brown noted that there is a bond mentioned. The Commission members agreed to delete any reference to a bond in the draft motion.
A motion was made John Johnson, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to approve the Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application/Town Hall Expansion Project, 52 Lyme Street, Town of Old Lyme, applicant, as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received Special Exception and Coastal Site Plan Application from the Town of Old Lyme, titled, Town of Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall at 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT, 17 sheets, with an issue date of 12/5/2006, and also, the Property Survey & Topography Plan revised to 11/15/06 by Richard W. Gates, L.S.
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on December 11, 2006 and January 8, 2007, and the commission has had an opportunity to hear testimony from both citizens of Old Lyme and the applicant; and
Whereas, the proposed use is permitted by Special Exception under Section 7.4.7 (Navigable Water) and Section 34.2.13 and Section 34.2.14 (Water Resource District) of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the technical provisions Section 31.2 of the Regulations with the following modifications:
Plan C-2:
1. Because proposed grading will occur to the northerly property line (land of Anderson), the line must be clearly delineated in the field to avoid accidental encroachment onto the Anderson property; this can be best achieved by placing silt fencing along the property line prior to construction.
2. To assist with construction, sidewalk widths must be noted/depicted on the plan. It is assumed that the access and exit driveway widths depicted (15.0’ and 12.0’) are curb face to curb face dimensions.
3. Considering the height of the proposed retaining wall extending south of the proposed southerly building addition, some type of groundwater drain will probably be necessary. Provisions for connecting the drain piping directly to the proposed drainage system should be included.
4. To assist with construction, additional proposed spot elevations in the parking area should be included. As a minimum, spot elevations at principal pavement “corners” and the pavement at the landscape bump-out across from the handicap parking. Also, if there will be a raised curb along the sidewalk paralleling the parking area, additional spot elevations should be provided to assist in construction. As shown it is unclear if raised curbing along the sidewalk is proposed or if the parking pavement will be flush with the sidewalk, and this must be clarified.
5. The proposed 36” Detention Piping is to be backfilled with ¾” stone as specified on Plan C-6. Since the Detention Piping is “downgradient” from the existing septic system and is within 50 feet, backfill material must be changed to a less permeable material to avoid possible septic system effluent migration through the porous stone backfill and ultimately to the tidal wetlands. Section II. Table No. 1 Item H. of the Regulations and Technical Standards for Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems by the State Health Department prohibits placement of “…piping backfilled with free draining material located down gradient from the sewage disposal system…” (within 50 feet). Additionally, because of the proximity of the 36” Detention Pipe to the septic system (25 ft. to 30 ft. separation) and sandy soils (per Test Pit Data), the pipe must comply with “tight pipe” requirements specified in the Regulations and Technical Standards. Refer to Section I. P.
Plan C-3:
6. From Plan C-2 it appears that the Stormceptor structures will be utilized as inlets for pavement runoff. Suitable rims/grates must be specified. The project engineer must verify that the functioning of a Stormceptor with direct surface drainage into the structure is acceptable.
Plan C-4:
7. Common to all details: Gravel base and subbase materials must be referenced/specified to Conn. Department of Transportation Form 816 material requirements. Also compaction requirements for gravel base and subbase placement must be specified
Plan C-5:
8. Project plans must include specific details for the retaining wall. Considering the wall height, retaining wall plans must be stamped and sealed by a professional engineer familiar with retaining wall design.
9. Similar to a previous comment, the sidewalk widths must be clearly noted in the Dimensions detail.
Plan C-6:
10. See Plan C-2 comments for Detention Piping (#5 of these conditions)
11. The project engineer must verify that suitable reduction fittings for connection of the 18” dia pipe and 8” dia pipe to the 36” dia. detention pipe are available/manufactured. If not, manhole structures at the connections must be specified.
Plan C-8:
12. As previously noted, the silt fencing along the northerly property line in common with Anderson must be extended. )#1 of these conditions).
13. Information on the maintenance of the Stormceptors must be provided to the Town for future reference and implementation.
14. The project engineer is required to perform necessary site inspections during construction to assure compliance with project plans.
15. An as-built plan must be submitted to the Town upon completion of improvements and prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
16. Any required modifications to these plans must be satisfactorily addressed prior to signing/endorsement of plans by the Commission Chairman.
Whereas, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the General Standards of Section 31.3, in particular that the proposed use, buildings and other structures and site development are designed and arranged as follows:
to achieve safety, comfort and convenience;
to conserve as much of the natural terrain and provide for vegetation on the site to the extent practical;
to be in architectural harmony with the surrounding area;
to protect nearby residential and preservation areas;
to show that reasonable consideration has been given to the matter of restoring and protecting the ecosystem and habitat of Long Island Sound and reducing the amount of hypoxia, pathogens, toxic contaminants and floatable debris therein; and
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has deliberated and considered the evidence presented at the hearing as well as the input of its staff and professional consultants; and
Whereas, although the Zoning Commission has received comments from the Office of Long Island Sound Programs of the Department of Environmental Protection, after submitting the application materials to them for review, the Commission determines that the application and plans as they will be revised are consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Management Act;
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval to the Town of Old Lyme the Special Exception and Coastal Site Plan, applications for property at 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT, with the modifications specified.
5. New or Old Business
Mr. Griswold stated that the Town is considering a Board of Ethics and distributed a memo which gives a brief overview and notes the date of the training session. He explained that the complaints must be written and evaluated by the Board of Ethics confidentially, until such time they ruled there was validity to the claim. He urged Commission members to attend one of the training sessions.
Ms. Brown stated that there is an application to convert Jerry Vowles property on Hartford Avenue to year-round use under the SVVD Regulations. She noted that although he indicated he has a perfect septic system, the Health Department indicated that it is not fully, 100 percent compliant with no exceptions. Ms. Brown stated that the Regulations indicated that one cannot convert without a 100% compliant system. She noted that she has not been able to contact Mr. Vowles and noted that she believes they should return the application and fees.
Ms. Brown noted that in reading the Regulations as they pertain to this project, she had difficulty understanding exactly how the Regulations are to be enforced and understood. She urged the Commission members to review the SVVD Regulations. Ms. Brown noted that Mr. Vowles has one apartment upstairs and commercial use downstairs, which would be a mixed use, but it is not clear in conversion to year round how to handle mixed use. She questioned whether they may feel it is so unclear that it needs to be clarified. Acting Chairman Risom urged the Commission members to do this review.
6. Discussion with Dave Roberge regarding Hazard Mitigation Plan.
No action taken. Mr. Roberge was not present.
7. Zoning Enforcement
The Commission members reviewed the enforcement report. Ms. Brown stated that the next hearing for Mr. Tolchinsky will be held on March 5, 2007 to discuss legal fees and other fees the judge may assess.
8. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2006 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, the November 27, 2006 Special Meeting and the December 11, 2006 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing.
9. Regulation Rewrite
A regulation rewrite meeting is set for Monday, January 29, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
10. Correspondence
.None
11. Miscellaneous/Adjourn
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
