APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, May 14, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Jane Cable, John Johnson, Howard Tooker (Alternate) and Steve Ames (Alternate - seated). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
1. Convene Meeting; announcement of voting alternates.
Chairman Kiritsis called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. He immediately recessed the Regular Meeting to conduct the Public Hearing. The Regular Meeting reconvened at 7:36 p.m.
2. Preliminary Presentation of Osprey Landing, Jeff Montanaro
Jeff Montanaro introduced Joe Wren, engineer, noting that he has been working on this project for quite a few years. He indicated that they would like to make a preliminary presentation of their planned development.
Mr. Wren explained that the site is located next to Cherrystone’s Restaurant. He explained that approximately a year and a half ago they separated the restaurant from the remainder of the property. Mr. Wren stated these 29 acres are the subject of discussion this evening. He pointed out the existing zone lines on the map noting that there is C-30, RU-40 and LI-80 land in this 29 acres. Mr. Wren stated that the plan, in the near future, is to petition to amend the Zoning Regulations by proposing a new PRD Zone. He explained that this proposed zone would be similar to Old Saybrook’s.
Mr. Wren stated that the blue items highlighted on the plan are either tidal or inland wetlands. He noted the flood zone also. Mr. Wren stated that Old Saybrook’s PRD Regulation was written in 1992 and they feel it is a well written regulation. He noted that it requires that 50 percent of the property has to be preserved in open space. Mr. Wren stated that the open space will either belong to the Town or to the homeowner’s/condominium owner’s association associated with the project. He indicated that the restaurant would provide an access easement to the property if the Town were to own the open space and in that way the general public that wanted to use the open space would not be driving through the neighborhood. Mr. Wren stated that as the open space is shown, it is
approximately 55 percent of the site. He noted that Old Saybrook’s regulation has a density of 8 bedrooms per acre. Mr. Wren stated that as shown, the density is 7 bedrooms per acre. He indicated that the plan has 31 units and they are assuming 3 bedrooms per unit.
Mr. Wren stated that there are architectural renderings of the units. He noted that all of the units have the master bedroom on the first floor. Mr. Wren stated that it is their intention that this be a 55 and older community. He noted that the architecture is very New England. Mr. Wren stated that the layout preserves views of the marsh but also spaces the units nicely.
Ms. Marsh questioned why they would design a development to Old Saybrook’s Regulations rather than Old Lyme’s. Mr. Wren stated that Old Lyme’s Regulations greatly need updating. He noted that there is a multi-family zone, but this is not a multifamily development. Ms. Marsh noted that there are cluster regulations. Mr. Wren stated that after reviewing the Regulations of Old Lyme, their attorney suggested proposing this new zone that has been working in Old Saybrook for quite a while. Mr. Wren stated that cluster developments are single family detached units that have their own individual property. He noted that individual wells and septics need to be designed for each lot. Mr. Wren stated that in this case, there is a community septic system and city water.
Mr. Kiritsis stated that Zoning is for the entire Town, not a specific area. He indicating that tailoring an application for one particular project is not how zoning works. Mr. Wren stated that they are not asking for an exception just to this particular property. He noted that there plan is to develop a new zone that can be used in other areas of Town. Mr. Wren stated that there are not many areas in Old Lyme with a large tract of land with access to a public highway.
Mr. Johnson stated that he agrees with Ms. Marsh’s comments. He asked that they look at Old Lyme’s Regulations. Mr. Johnson questioned whether any of the other Commission’s that have heard this presentation have made the same comment. Mr. Wren noted that one of the members of the Planning Commission indicated that the PRCD Regulation had recently been updated and asked that they look at the change. He noted that he asked their attorney to review these changes. Mr. Wren reiterated that this is not a formal presentation. Ms. Marsh stated that the Commission needs to know what is unacceptable with the current regulations. Mr. Wren stated that they have been working on this project for two years and have put a lot of thought and planning into it. He indicated
that they did not neglect the Town of Old Lyme’s Regulations; they reviewed them and did not find a fit for this project. He indicated that their attorney will make a presentation when they submit an application in June or July. Mr. Kiritsis indicated that he would perhaps have submitted an application to amend the Regulations before investing in the engineering and design of the project. He noted that the gating factor is whether or not the Town wants this type of development.
Mr. Wren stated that they have tried not to design a development such as Spinnaker in East Lyme. He indicated that they avoided the row-type housing that is very close together. Mr. Wren noted that their development has a minimum of 25 feet between the units; although they could have gotten more units if they but them closer together. He indicated that there are some amenities. He indicated that there will be a community clubhouse with an inground pool.
Ms. Marsh questioned how they will enforce the 55 and older restriction. Mr. Wren stated that that would be better answered by an attorney, but Old Saybrook’s Regulation has very specific criteria. He noted that anyone under the age can only visit 90 days at a time, such as a college student coming home for the summer. Mr. Montanaro explained that it would exclude school age children entirely.
Ms. Marsh stated that in general, Towns only adopt a denser level of development with the limitation that the developments are 55 and older. She noted that it must be part of the Regulation, not just the deed. Ms. Marsh stated that if the association does not regulate it than there is a zoning problem. Mr. Kiritsis stated that he does not want zoning burdened with the enforcement of the age of occupants. Mr. Wren stated that the association typically enforces it very strictly. Ms. Marsh indicated that she does not know why they would want to allow children for 90 days because it effects the idea of this being a retirement community. She indicated that the lack of children is the defining feature.
Mr. Wren indicated that they will revisit the PRCD and consider whether they could modify that Regulation. Mr. Johnson stated that they should not put aside the consideration of ten percent of the units being affordable housing. He noted that this is something that the Town needs.
Mr. Wren stated that they feel this proposal would be a good thing for Old Lyme and is a type of housing that is needed in Old Lyme. He noted that although East Lyme has hundreds of these units, some Old Lyme people don’t want to leave Old Lyme. Mr. Wren indicated that they will be submitting an application as soon as the attorney has put it together. He thanked the Commission for their time.
3. Site Plan Modification Application to add parking and reconfigure interior of building, 6 Vista Drive, Eastport LLC, applicant.
Ms. Brown noted that the applicant has granted an extension to the June 2007 Regular Meeting as the do not yet have a wetlands report.
4. Petition to Amend the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, change to Schedule A-1, Line 15, change use category of building use of facilities for the Town or Regional School District #18 from permitted as a right to Special Exception granted by the Zoning Commission, Old Lyme Zoning Commission applicant. Public Hearing set for June.
Chairman Kiritsis stated that the Public Hearing is set for June.
5. Policy for sale of Town property to adjacent property owners.
Tim Griswold, First Selectman, explained that from time to time abutters have asked to purchase a piece of Town property which, when added to their parcel, would make their lot conforming. He stated that they have had several requests in Town where a piece of land that is not particularly useful to the Town and abutting homeowners would like to purchase the land. He indicated that they can add restrictions to limit the use of the property to seasonal, which is only particularly relevant in the beach areas. Mr. Griswold stated that he would like the opinion of the Zoning Commission on this matter.
Ms. Cable stated that they would like to see lots acquire more land and become conforming. Mr. Griswold stated that in two or three instances a vacant lot could become a conforming building lot. Ms. Cable stated that the Town cannot sentence the owner of the vacant lot to provide open space to the neighborhood. She indicated that this is a policy decision for Town Meeting. Ms. Marsh stated that perhaps there should be an evaluation process, beginning with the Open Space Committee either accepting it or rejecting it. She suggested that it could then be reviewed by the Planning Commission and if both commission’s agreed, it could be sold. Chairman Kiritsis agreed with Ms. Marsh.
Mr. Griswold thanked the Commission for their time and good suggestions.
6. Policy for enforcing the private road ordinance.
Ms. Brown explained that the Ordinance does not allow the issuance of a Building Permit on a private road unless some particular conditions are met. She noted that the Zoning Regulations allow her to issuance a Zoning Permit. Ms. Brown explained that the Ordinance states that there must be a homeowner’s association that owns the road. She noted that the homeowner’s association would have the responsibility of maintaining the road. Ms. Brown stated that in this particular neighborhood there has been a homeowner’s association on and off and the roads have never been owned by the association. She noted that some houses had been constructed without the Building Official or herself knowing about the Ordinance; but now they know about it. Ms. Brown stated that there is
currently a gentleman with three lots who would like to build homes on them and cannot because the homeowner’s association does not own the roads. Ms. Brown indicated that the Board of Selectmen is looking for guidance and input.
Mr. Johnson questioned what standards private roads are constructed to when approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Brown stated that the Ordinance does not apply to private roads approved by the Planning Commission. She noted that currently, the private road standards are the same as the subdivision road standards. Ms. Brown noted that there used to be different standards. Mr. Johnson stated that if the private road cannot be accessed by a fire truck, the Town has liability.
Ms. Brown stated that she has not signed the Zoning Permit for the three proposed homes awaiting resolution of this matter. Ms. Marsh stated that the Town adopted the Ordinance because they recognized that there are areas in Town like this and they wanted to control the development. She suggested allowing private roads to be improved to some standard that is less than the standard of the subdivision road, but to the specifications of safety as determined by the Town Engineer and Fire Department.
Mr. Tooker stated that the problem is that they will be setting a precedent. He noted that if some one is allowed to build three houses on a less than standard road, another person could do the same thing. Mr. Tooker stated that the developer should pay an engineer to design a safe road. Ms. Cable indicated that the developer would have to design the road and the Town Engineer would review and approve it.
Mr. Griswold noted that the gentleman who wants to build the three homes will be responsible for improving a half a mile of roadway that will benefit all the other existing homes. Ms. Cable questioned whether he would be able to improve the road when he does not own the road. Ms. Brown stated that if one has the right to travel on the roadway, then they would have the right to improve the road and maintain access to their property. Ms. Marsh agreed. Ms. Brown stated that she believes this property owner can design a road, have it approved by the Town Engineer, and then do the work.
The Commission agreed that the Board of Selectmen would be responsible for making sure that the Town Engineer reviews the road specifications and agrees it is safe. They noted that it is not a Zoning function. Ms. Brown noted that this could be accomplished by the Ordinance being modified at a Town Meeting.
The Zoning Commission agreed that Ms. Brown could sign the Zoning Permits with the understanding that the Board of Selectmen will take care of this issue.
7. Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct an Office Complex, 2 Huntley Road, BGP Development, Inc., applicant.
The Public Hearing for this item is continued to the June, 2007 Regular Meeting.
8. Zoning Enforcement
a. Zoning Enforcement Report
The Commission members reviewed the enforcement report.
Ms. Brown stated that the Tolchinsky’s have begun the modifications to the storage building. She explained that Mr. Tolchinsky has requested making another change, which was to shorten the facia board. Ms. Brown stated that she requested a plan which was submitted by Mr. Tolchinsky’s engineer. She noted that she has distributed each member a copy of this letter, along with a letter from the Town’s engineer, Tom Metcalf. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Tolchinsky took 3 or 4 feet off the bottom of the building and put it back on the foundation and it appears that the sidewall is 6 to 12 inches taller than it should be.
Ms. Brown noted that the pitch of the roof has been changed to be a little flatter and the building will not be taller than 30 feet. She indicated that the engineer’s explanation appears to be that it was measured incorrectly the first time and not enough of the structure was removed. Mr. Johnson noted that the second floor will have more headroom.
Chairman Kiritsis stated that he would like the plans to show how high the foundation is off the ground. Ms. Cable stated that she would like to see a calculation of the interior volume of the present building versus the approved building. The Commission agreed they would like some clarification.
Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Tolchinsky’s first payment, postmarked April 30, 2007, was received.
b. Site Inspection Report
No report.
9. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2007 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing as corrected.
10. Regulation Rewrite
A Regulation Rewrite Meeting was set for Monday, May 21, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.
11. Correspondence
None
12. Miscellaneous/Adjourn
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
