APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library. Members present were Tom Risom (Acting Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Jane Cable and John Johnson.
Acting Chairman Risom called the Public Hearing to order at 7:32 p.m.
1. Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct an Office Complex, 2 Huntley Road, BGP Development, Inc., applicant. Continued from the July 9, 2007 Regular Meeting.
Acting Chairman Risom noted that the Public Hearing was opened at the July 9, 2007 Regular meeting and no testimony was taken. Ms. Marsh read the list of exhibits for the record.
Tony Hendriks, Bob Giannotti and Lee Rowley were present to explain the application. Mr. Hendriks noted that they had previously made application to the Zoning Commission, not knowing that they needed Wetlands approval. He explained that it was during the course of the previous application that it was determined that water that was being generated on 2 Huntley Road was going onto the 4 Huntley Road site and eventually down into the wetland. Mr. Hendriks stated that for this reason, they withdrew the original application and reapplied. He noted that they now have Wetlands approval.
Mr. Hendriks stated that the building at 4 Huntley Road was previously approved by the Commission. He noted that 2 and 4 Huntley have been combined. Mr. Hendriks submitted Exhibit M, a letter from the applicant’s attorney indicating that the two parcels have been merged. He explained that Mr. Metcalf comments include that the site data table is confusing and noted that it is a little confusing because the work on 4 Huntley Road was separate. He noted that they have grayed-out the 4 Huntley Road site on the site plan so that the 2 Huntley Road site stands out a little more. Mr. Hendriks stated that they have labeled 4 Huntley Road Phase 1 and 2 Huntley Road Phase 2 and each has a site data table. He pointed out that the third data table is for Phase 1 and 2. He stated that it
is clear what the coverages are. Mr. Hendriks stated that both of the sites are accessed by their own, separate driveways. He explained that the Phase 1 building is approximately 6,000 square feet in size and the proposed building is 7,500 square feet in size. Mr. Hendriks stated that the 6,000 square feet in Phase 1 was originally intended to house Mr. Giannotti’s private kitchen showroom and his private office and small workshop. He indicated that they received a modification because a doctor’s office has taken over 2,500 square feet of that building and the remaining 3,500 square feet is being used by Mr. Giannotti. Mr. Hendriks stated that the regulations require a parking space for every 200 square feet of medical office use and 3.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet for non-public access use. He noted that this calculates to 25 spaces for the site (4 Huntley Road). Mr. Hendriks stated that for 2 Huntley, assuming all the square
footage is for public access, would require 5 spaces for every 1,000 square feet. He noted that the total number of required parking spaces for both phases is 62.
Mr. Hendriks stated the septic system has been approved by the Sanitarian and there is a subsurface water storage area that is in conformance with the Regulations. He noted that this will store all the water generated in a 100 year storm. Mr. Hendriks stated that the site is covered 60 percent, which puts them in the category of 55 -75 percent. He stated that this complies with the standards of the Zoning Regulations for that category. Mr. Hendriks stated that since Phase 1 was built they have never seen water come out of the catch basin. He noted that Mr. Rowley’s calculations show that because of the good gravel material that sits underneath this site, everything is going straight down into the ground, which is a really good thing.
Mr. Hendriks stated that the Phase 1 landscaping is basically all installed. He explained the proposed landscaping for Phase 2. He noted that his draftsman has indicated that the trees will be 25’ high and he explained that they will not be 25’ high when they are planted. He noted that they will be 1 ½ to 2” caliper when they are planted. Mr. Hendriks stated that none of the parking areas extend beyond 15 or 20 spaces without some sort of a break for landscaping. He explained that they propose a trash collection area in the corner of each site
Mr. Hendriks stated that they have a best management practices plan on the site for keeping the catch basins clean and having a maintenance program on the underground storage area because it needs to be checked regularly for silt build-up, etc. He noted that the manufacturer recommends every 6 months for the first year, although the Wetlands Commission had some thoughts on this issue. Ms. Brown indicated that it was either bi-monthly or quarterly; she noted that it is in the approval. Ms. Marsh noted that the approval indicates bi-monthly inspection for the first year.
Mr. Hendriks reviewed Mr. Metcalf’s letter dated July 21, 2007. He noted that the first comment is regarding the merging of the lots, which has been addressed. Mr. Hendriks stated that the second comment is the abandonment of the existing wells. He explained that a note has been added indicating that the wells will be abandoned in accordance with Public Health Code requirements. Mr. Hendriks stated that Mr. Metcalf was concerned about people coming out of the building and stepping directly onto a travel portion of the parking area so they have pulled the stairways inside the building. He indicated in this way, people have the opportunity to look in both directions before stepping out into a traveled area. Mr. Hendriks stated that requiring a sidewalk is not necessary. He
explained that it is not needed with the indentation of the units. Mr. Hendriks stated that the person exiting the building is going to their car. He noted that the comment regarding the site data table has been addressed. Mr. Hendriks stated that the next comment is about the landscaping and he indicated earlier that if the Commission feels some additional landscaping is required, they would provide it. He noted that he feels the proposed landscaping is more than adequate. Mr. Hendriks stated that the comments about storm drainage have been satisfactorily addressed between Mr. Rowley and Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. Hendriks stated that the plans show a full basement and they have not provided a footing drain. He indicated that because they know the soil conditions, they don’t believe a footing drain is necessary. Mr. Hendriks stated that Mr. Metcalf suggests that the design engineer inspects the storm drainage installation, which is a given. He noted that Mr. Metcalf suggests an erosion control bond which is something that they are willing to provide. He noted that the land is fairly flat and the water will be staying on site as there are not any steep slopes. Mr. Hendriks stated that comment 12 is in regard to the inspection of the storm drainage system, which has been addressed by the Wetlands Commission.
Ms. Cable stated that she takes issue with Mr. Gould’s letter. She indicated that the way the way to merge a property is with a deed. Ms. Cable stated that they will not merge automatically because they are in the same ownership because they are not substandard in size. Ms. Cable stated that Mr. Gould should provide a deed. Mr. Hendriks stated that one is not conforming. Ms. Cable agreed that they have merged by operation of Law. Mr. Risom stated that they are merged by Zoning, but the owner should file a new deed that identifies them as a single parcel. The Commission agreed that providing a new deed would be a condition of approval.
Ms. Cable questioned whether the landscaping requirements have been met. Mr. Hendriks pointed out the landscaping on the plan and indicated that many of the sides abut exist parking areas on neighboring properties. Mr. Hendriks stated that all of the lighting is downward lighting with house-side shields. Ms. Brown noted that the lighting specs are not shown on the plan.
Ms. Brown stated that Wetlands is requiring a bond so they Zoning Commission may not want to take a bond. She stated that she does not see a particular need for an additional loading space on the 1.5 acre parcel. She explained that if this was eliminated and more landscaping was provided in that area, it would bring the total coverage down closer to 55 percent. Mr. Hendriks stated that because of the rear entrance he foresees UPS trucks and the like using this area to be out of the way of traffic.
Ms. Brown stated that the site data table for Phase 1 should be eliminated. She indicated that the table for Phase 1 and 2 should be corrected to show total building coverage. Ms. Brown stated that she believes it to still be confusing. She explained that the numbers do not add up. She stated that she would like to see actual distances on the site plan itself; the distances to the property line. Ms. Brown stated that she would like more clarification as to the surface of the landscape area. She indicated that it has been described this evening as either grass or mulch and shrubs. Ms. Cable agreed that it should be shown clearly on the plan. Ms. Brown stated that they need the specifications for the rear lights. She recommended that the design engineer inspect during
the installation of the storm drainage system and provide a written report to the Town indicating that it has been installed to the design criteria.
Jim Graybill, neighboring business owner, indicated that he is in favor of the proposal. He indicated that Mr. Giannotti has done a great job with two of the worst lots in Old Lyme.
No one present spoke against the application. Hearing no further comments Acting Chairman Risom closed the Public Hearing.
The Public Hearing adjourned at 8:43 p.m. on a motion by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
