UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Special Meeting on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 7:20 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Tom Risom (Vice Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Jane Cable, John Johnson, Steven Ames (Alternate), and Howard Tooker (Alternate, seated). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Attorney Mark Branse.
1. Convene Meeting; announcement of voting alternates.
Chairman Kiritsis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Regulation Rewrite
Section 19 – Signs
19.4.5(a) – Attorney Branse stated that the Town now allows signs with luminous background, silhouette signs with opaque letters. He indicated that he would recommend the reverse, or an opaque background with illuminated letters. Attorney Branse stated that there are also channel letters which are letters with a hollow back and the light source is in the back of the letter and it creates a halo around each letter. The Commission agreed on the Regulation as written by Attorney Branse.
19.4.8 – Temporary Signs – Attorney Branse stated that he changed the reference in this section.
Attorney Branse stated that allowing 40 percent of windows to be covered in signs is a high percentage. He suggested 10 percent, noting that 25 percent is high. Ms. Marsh stated that there is a problem in regulating these types of signs because they go up and down. The Commission agreed to leave it at 40 percent. Attorney Branse noted that it goes on to state that the signs must be changed every 30 days. The Commission acknowledged this is not enforced.
Attorney Branse stated that he has lumped all temporary signs together, whether it is advertising an election, sale or carnival. He noted that the ACLU says that that is not good enough. Attorney Branse stated that he is concerned about requiring the removal of the sign within 30 days. He used the example of a sign that speaks to the war and Iraq. He questioned how some one could be asked to take this sign down. Attorney Branse indicated that he left the removal section the same as it currently reads.
Discussing nonconforming signs, Attorney Branse stated that the Statutes do not allow a discontinuance of a nonconformity unless the intent to abandon is shown. He noted that this would relate to signs also and he feels the current section on nonconforming signs does not address this legally. He suggested that the regulation state that one does not need a permit to simply change the content of a sign as long as the area, location and method of illumination are not changed. Ms. Brown stated that she requires permits so that the Town can keep track of what is there. Attorney Branse agreed that this is a good idea and will require a registration with the Zoning Enforcement Officer to demonstrate that the sign is the same area, illumination, location, etc.
Attorney Branse stated that the Regulations are currently not clear in the Commercial Zone. He indicated that he would suggest that they allow signs on one wall of the building, with a total maximum, and a second wall, which would be two signs, one overhanging sign; and then one free standing sign, for a total of four signs. He stated that this would allow one 60 square foot sign and a second 15 square foot sign, where a corner lot could have their second sign be 30 square feet. Attorney Branse stated that most of this is out of the current Regulations. Ms. Marsh stated that she wants businesses to be seen and to be successful. She noted that for the most part, the businesses in Town do not attract business unless one drives by. Ms. Cable noted that no one would want this many signs in
the Historic District, but they are more regulated. Ms. Marsh stated that she wouldn’t mind four signs (two wall signs, an overhanging sign and one free-standing sign) in the Commercial Districts. The Commission agreed. Ms. Brown pointed out that this Regulation does not work for a commercial complex such as the A&P.
Ms. Marsh stated that signs are advertising and how a community prospers. She indicated that she does not want it difficult for businesses to prosper, even those on the second floor of the complex. Ms. Cable stated that offices would tell a client that they are in the Citizens Bank Building on the second floor and there is a directory inside the building. Ms. Brown stated that Norwich allows so many square feet of sign space for every linear front foot of the unit that the office had in the building. She noted that this would allow each store to have its marquee. Attorney Branse indicated that Glastonbury tried that type of Regulation and it is very difficult. He noted that that is why he limited it to signage per tenant for overhanging signs. Ms. Marsh stated that they would like
to allow a marquee type sign for each ground level store, as long as it was a specific size. Attorney Branse stated that if a business requires a Special Permit or Special Exception, they can give a sign plan and the Commission can allow one sign per occupancy. He noted that the other Regulation is by right and can be approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether computer signs are covered in the Regulations. Attorney Branse replied that it would be a moving sign, unless it is a time or temperature sign.
Attorney Branse stated that the Commission has indicated to him that they did not want to classify streets (Section 2.6). Using the example of a group daycare (6 to 12 children) which is allowed by Special Permit, the Commission may want to require that it be on an arterial or collector road. He noted that the third level (above 12 children) is a daycare center. Attorney Branse stated that in a daycare center, it is a commercial operation and the owner does not have to live there. Ms. Marsh stated that she believes the Planning Commission classifies roads. She indicated that she does not think the Zoning Commission should classify roads. Attorney Branse pointed out that it is a way of restricting uses to particular places. Ms. Marsh stated that Old Lyme has very defined commercial
areas and very few in number. She indicated that they do not need additional tools to characterize these areas. The Commission agreed that they did not need this tool.
Discussion Section 7, Accessory Uses, Attorney Branse stated that the minutes of May 30, 2006, state 7.3(a), add private roads by permission. He stated that Section 7.3(a) talks about roadside shelters for school children. Attorney Branse stated that the Commission is requesting that they be allowed on private roads, as well as streets. The Commission agreed that that was their intent.
Attorney Branse stated that minutes suggest that the gross floor area definition be changed to include any interior area that has a minimum of 6’ ceilings. Attorney Branse stated that they are having difficulty with this in Old Saybrook. He noted that Old Saybrook uses 5.5’ ceilings. He noted that Old Saybrook does not allow attics that have 5.5’ ceilings on over 50 percent of the area. He noted that if the ceiling height is less than 50 percent, the area with 5.5’ ceilings is counted as floor area. Ms. Brown stated that the current Regulations are very difficult in dealing with floor area because they are inconsistent. She noted that ½ story is also not defined.
Ms. Brown stated that the Town of Stonington, when they approve new house plans, calculates every bit of space that could possibly be floor area. Ms. Brown stated that in one part of the current Regulations it states that the ceiling height has to be 7’ to be counted as floor area and in another section it defines floor area measurement from the outside wall of the structure. Ms. Brown stated that Stonington uses 6.5 feet as a ceiling measurement. The Commission agreed to use the 6.5 feet ceiling height as floor area. Attorney Branse stated that Stonington also counts any room with ceilings 12’ or greater as double floor area. He noted that in the Borough, they have had people construct flooring over high ceilings for additional bedrooms. Ms. Brown stated that Stonington
also counts covered porches as floor area, because they assume that eventually it will be. She indicated that this would solve many ZBA problems. Attorney Branse stated that all the shoreline towns have this problem because of the small lots in the beach areas. The Commission agreed that anything with 6’ ceiling and over counts as floor area and rooms with more than 12’ ceilings and higher will count as double floor area for calculation purposes; also including covered porches, whether or not enclosed. The Commission agreed that this will control bulk.
Ms. Brown read the definition for ½ story. They agreed to change the definition for ½ story using 6’ ceilings. Ms. Brown stated that a walk-out basement is easy to convert to living area. She noted that the definition of story excludes basement and cellar but floor area includes basement, but not cellar. The Commission agreed that this is the intent. Attorney Branse stated that under half story he will indicate that it should be compared to attic and he will note under attic to compare to half story.
Attorney Branse stated that minutes requested that Section 11.10 be deleted. He noted that 11.10, Motor Vehicle and Motor Equipment Storage and Sales. Ms. Cable indicated that the Commission does not want it to happen. He noted that deleting the section is not the way to accomplish that. Attorney Branse stated that prohibiting the use would make existing dealerships nonconforming and prohibit expansion. The Commission agreed that this was their intent. Attorney Branse questioned whether it was their intent to prohibit drive-throughs. The Commission agreed that this is their intent.
The Commission discussed wind-turbines and agreed that they would be allowed by Special Permit.
Attorney Branse stated that Section 11.23 is commercial and non-commercial cutting. He noted that they indicate non-commercial cutting should be part of the site plan review. Attorney Branse stated that commercial cutting is logging. Ms. Brown stated that commercial cutting is going to be handled by Wetlands, in an Ordinance that has not yet been approved by the Town. Attorney Branse stated that the State has not issued their criteria yet. Ms. Brown stated that the State Forester has indicated that the Town could handle it this way. Attorney Branse stated that the Statute says Wetlands Agencies can regulate logging by applying the Regulations adopted by the Commission of the DEP. Ms. Brown stated that is with the exception of the Towns that already regulated logging got a special
dispensation to continue to do it. Attorney Branse stated that it says to do it using the Commissioner’s Regulations, which they don’t have yet.
Attorney Branse indicated that they should leave Section 11.23, but add under site plan that the area of clearing must be shown as part of site plan approval. He noted that in this way, if clearing is done before site plan approval, it is under Section 11.23.
Attorney Branse stated that he was forwarded a report by DOCKO which reports on a DEP study of the parking requirements for marinas. He noted that he questioned whether they want to adopt these standards. Attorney Branse stated that many feel that one slip per boat is double what it needs to be. He indicated that OLISP feels that whatever public marinas that are left should be used to the maximum allowable and the limiting factor is parking. Attorney Branse stated that Stonington has gone to this standard and there have been no problems. The Commission agreed to change the standard to .5 spaces per slip.
Attorney Branse stated that he believes these are all the questions he has had and he would now suggest that he send a new complete set of the proposed Regulations.
Ms. Brown stated that she would ask the Commission to look at their R-10 bulk requirements. She noted that Susanne Stutts wrote a letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals suggesting that perhaps the height limit should be reduced. Ms. Brown noted that there is a house on Lone Pine under construction with a height of 32’ and without considering the narrow street setback, the house is fully compliant. She indicated that the height and bulk is allowed and it is very out of place. Ms. Brown noted that the bulk Regulations are over generous in the R-10 zone. She noted that many of the lots are miniscule. Ms. Brown suggested only allowing 1.5 stories with a 26’ height limit, but allow enclosing porches.
Ms. Brown stated that Zoning Board of Appeals is now the police, where the Regulations should be. She noted that although plans meet all the bulk requirements, the Zoning Board of Appeals feels structures are too bulky. Ms. Brown stated that this wastes time and effort and makes the community furious. She noted that if a nonconforming lot can make an addition and meet the bulk requirements, they should not have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Brown stated that 27’ is tall for the beach area; most homes are much smaller than that at the beach.
Ms. Brown suggested that 8.9.3 indicates that there are no additions on a nonconforming lot. She noted that in the beach area, the vast majority of the cases before the Zoning Board of Appeals is for that one section. She noted that when all other bulk requirements are met they should be able to make additions. Ms. Brown stated that this is the simplest change that will have the biggest effect. Ms. Marsh stated that vacant lots should still require a variance; this change should only apply to existing homes. The Commission discussed reducing the height in the R-10 zone to 27 feet for existing residential uses, and limit the homes to a story and a half and allow additions on nonconforming lots as long as all bulk requirements are met.
Ms. Brown stated that she did a survey of Hartford Avenue and noted that there is only one building that is 35 feet tall and the majority of the homes are 16 feet in height. Ms. Brown suggested that the Commission consider a lower height than 27 feet and limit it to a story and a half. Attorney Branse agreed that 35 feet is extremely high for a house on a small lot. Ms. Brown urged the Commission members to drive through the beach area and think about establishing a new height limit. She reiterated that the house on Lone Pine is either 30 or 32 feet in height and meets all bulk requirements, with the exception of the narrow street setback.
Ms. Cable questioned why a concrete patio is not considered coverage when a deck is not considered coverage. Attorney Branse stated that from the standpoint of impervious surface, that is legitimate. He noted that the concept behind the regulation is that of visual intrusion. Attorney Branse stated that something under 12 inches high it is virtually ground level. He noted that decks 4 or 6 feet off the ground can have a neighbor looking up at the underneath of the deck. Ms. Brown stated that in the new Regulations, a low deck can go to the lot line and not count as building coverage. Ms. Cable stated that it should be encouraged to not have people use impervious surfaces to get around the Regulations.
Ms. Brown stated that the proposed definition of deck excludes decks from building coverage if they are a foot or less off the ground. Attorney Branse questioned whether decks should count as building coverage or total ground coverage. Ms. Marsh stated that they should count for both. She indicated that concrete patios should be included as total ground coverage. Ms. Marsh stated that anything below 12 inches is not a deck, whether it is wooden or not. She indicated that anything over 12 inches in height should be included in building coverage and total ground coverage. Ms. Brown stated that there was a low suit filed a few weeks ago where the homeowner is way over on coverage and he constructed decks less than 12 inches. She stated that these decks would not be considered
building coverage under the new Regulations. The Commission agreed that total ground coverage would include concrete slabs.
3. Adjourn
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by Steve Ames and voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
