APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
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.
1. Convene Meeting; announcement of voting alternates.
Acting Chairman Risom 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 8:43 p.m.
2. Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct an Office Complex, 2 Huntley Road, BGP Development, Inc., applicant.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to approve the Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct an Office Complex, 2 Huntley Road, BGP Development, Inc., applicant, as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received applications for a Special Exception with Site Plan, and Coastal Site Plan approvals, plans dated January 2007 with revisions through August 3, 2007, 8 sheets as prepared by Rowley, Hendriks and Associates, and elevation drawings, one sheet, dated 9/14/06 with revisions through 6/26/07;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on July 9, 2007 and August 13, 2007, and the commission has heard testimony from both citizens of Old Lyme and the applicant; and
Whereas, Section 31.3.15 allows the commission to grant a special exception to allow total ground coverage in excess of 55% (61.4% requested) up to 75%, if the commission finds 1). that the additional coverage is provided in units or areas set apart from other covered areas in an effective manner by natural or landscaped areas or buildings so that the appearance of a continuum of covered area is mitigated, 2). The additional coverage includes sidewalks and other paved areas for use by pedestrians, 3). Provision is made on the lot for storm water detention, and 4). All specific landscaped area requirements of Paragraph 31.3.16 are met. The commission hereby makes such a finding.
Whereas, Section 34.2.14 requires that a Special Exception be approved to allow clearing of more than 30% of the natural vegetation form the lot, and 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 required to be added to the final plan:
1. The Site Data Table for Phase I must be removed from the plan;
2. The Site Data Table for Phase I and Phase II must be corrected to show correct total building coverage, and correct setback distances for the buildings;
3. Actual distances from the proposed building to the property boundary lines must be shown;
4. The tree out in the driveway on the east side of the proposed building must be removed;
5. The surface of the landscaped areas should be identified as grass and/or shrubs or mulch;
6. The fixture design of the building mounted lights must be submitted to show compliance with regulation guidelines;
7. During construction, the design engineer shall inspect the storm drainage installation and shall provide the Town with acknowledgement of compliance with design plans.
8. An As-Built Plan, which includes the location and elevations of the drainage system as constructed, shall be required prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
9. Columnar arborvitae shall be 1 ½ to 2” in caliper and 4 feet in height;
10. Deed describing merged lots must be recorded prior to the endorsement of the plan.
11. Existing wells to be properly abandoned within a reasonable time after the new well is constructed and approved.
12. Loading area be converted to a landscaped island.
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:
a. to achieve safety, comfort and convenience;
b. to conserve as much of the natural terrain and provide for vegetation on the site to the extent practical;
c. to be in architectural harmony with the surrounding area;
d. to protect nearby residential and preservation areas;
e. 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, the Zoning Commission has submitted a copy of this application to the Office of Long Island Sound Programs of the Department of Environmental Protection for review and comment, 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 Robert Giannotti, BGP Developers, LLC, for property at 2-4 Huntley Road, Old Lyme, CT, for a Special Exception with Site Plan, and Coastal Site Plan approvals, plans dated January 2007 with revisions through August 3, 2007, 8 sheets as prepared by Rowley, Hendriks and Associates, and elevation drawings, one sheet, dated 9/14/06 with revisions through 6/26/07, with the modifications and conditions specified.
3. Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a multi-family residential development, 64 & 66 Hartford Avenue, Raymond Kastner, applicant.
The Public Hearing for this item is scheduled for the September Regular Meeting. Ms. Brown stated that Geri Deveaux will be doing the architectural review for the Town.
4. Coastal Site Plan Applicatin to demolish existing residence and construct a new three bedroom residence, 104 Hillcrest Road, Marcy C. Ramondetta, applicant. Receipt.
Ms. Brown questioned whether the Commission wanted to hold a Public Hearing. The Commission agreed that they would.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to receive the application and to set the Public Hearing for September 10, 2007.
5. 14 Ferry Road, Accessory Building, determination requested as to a proposed 900 square foot accessory building.
Mac Godley was present to explain the proposal. He stated that he would like the Commission’s opinion on Lyme Regis’ proposal. Mr. Godley stated that the woman that oversees the units has moved and there has been discussion on how to keep a caretaker on the grounds. He noted that the population is getting quite elderly. Mr. Godley stated that the proposal is to construct an accessory structure, approximately 900 square feet, for a caretaker to live. Ms. Brown stated that it is her believe that the site is at its maximum as far as the multi-family regulations are concerned. She indicated that they cannot add another dwelling, but the proposal is to have a unit for a caretaker and would be owned by the Association, not by the caretaker.
Ms. Cable questioned why they did not have an office, instead of a dwelling and in that way they could have rotating shifts. Mr. Godley indicated that that is not what they are looking for. He indicated that they are looking for a minimum living area for a caretaker. Ms. Brown questioned whether it could be considered an accessory building rather than a dwelling unit. Mr. Risom questioned how it could not be considered a dwelling unit. Ms. Brown stated that the facility, under the multi-family regulations, could not add this building. She indicated that if it is considered an accessory building for a caretaker, rather than a multi-family unit, then it could be. Ms. Cable stated that a condition could be that the unit could never be sold or rented. Mr. Godley stated that the
caretaker would be paying rent to the association to pay down the mortgage. Mr. Risom suggested that Lyme Regis could rethink that option.
Mr. Godley showed the floor plan, noting that the structure has two bedrooms. He noted the low profile of the structure. Mr. Godley stated he purchased his parents unit and the other association members have asked him to be the President; in the year that he has been president, the common fees have gone up three times. He explained that he is not sure how the Association would afford this project, but he is trying to get a determination from the Commission so that he knows whether it is worth his time to go after this idea.
Ms. Marsh questioned who or what the caretaker would be taking care of. Mr. Godley indicated that the caretaker would do work such as checking lights, monitoring service plus contractors to ensure the work was done property, respond to the people in the complex with special needs, etc. He indicated that the complex is like Essex Meadows, only without any safety net. Ms. Cable stated that it seems it may be time for some of the residents to move on to another place, rather than try to adapt the place to the changing need of the owners. Mr. Godley stated that that is difficult to do when there is individual ownership.
Ms. Marsh stated that the building will have to function as an adjunct to an elderly type of facility and the Commission will require that the person living there needs to perform certain functions, with a job description. She stated that the Association will not be able to rent this unit.
Acting Chairman Risom stated that he would have to justify why adding a unit over the maximum allowed would make sense in this case, but not others. Ms. Marsh indicated that they would have to be sure that they did not refer to it as a unit. Mr. Risom agreed, but indicated that he would like the Declaration of Covenants of the Homeowners Association to reflect that the resident of that structure has a certain role. He noted that this would make it something other than another dwelling.
The Commission members agreed that they could consider it an accessory structure and not an additional unit. Mr. Godley thanked the Commission for their time.
6. Special Exception Application to construct riding enclosure, McCulloch Farm, Whippoorwill Road. Discussion and/or receipt.
Acting Chairman Risom noted that they are being asked to determine whether the proposed use constitutes another accessory building or if it would require a Special Exception because the Commission determines it to be a riding facility or boarding stable.
Mary Jean Vasiloff and Erica Robb were present to explain the proposal. Ms. Vasiloff stated that she has been working at the farm since 1969. She indicated that they are proposing to put in an indoor arena directly behind the existing barn, which would be used for training horses and on occasion for educational clinics and workshops. Ms. Cable questioned whether the arena would be attached to the barn. Ms. Vasiloff indicated that it would be right against the barn, and the Fire Marshal has indicated that there are requirements in that regard and they are in the process of making sure that it will work.
Ms. Brown indicated that she asked them to come to the Commission informally because the question is, is this building part of a farm use and in that case could be handled by a zoning permit; or is it something more than that. She stated that they have described to her an extension of the existing horse farm use rather than a riding stable or boarding stable which requires a Special Exception.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether they plan to hold events at the arena. Ms. Vasiloff stated that they would, but noted that they currently have events there. She noted that there is no seating in the arena. Ms. Vasiloff stated that it is designed to be a working facility with the occasional clinic or workshop, which by nature would not be more than a handful of people because the clinic loses its value if there are too many participants. She indicated that on occasion there will be larger events.
Acting Chairman Risom noted that it is a fabric type structure. Ms. Vasiloff indicated that they will not be keeping animals in the building. She stated that the height of these structures is just over 40 feet, but because they wanted to avoid the Zoning Board of Appeals they are in the process of re-engineering the building so that it will be under 35 feet.
Ms. Cable stated that she does not believe this proposal requires a Special Exception because it is accessory to the current use. Mr. Risom agreed. Ms. Marsh asked that the Statement of Use indicate the frequency of the larger events so that there is a clear record.
7. Site Plan Modification Application to convert a portion of the existing office building to restaurant use, reconfigure parking and the addition of a paved patio to accommodate outside dining, 11 Halls Road, Graybill Properties, LLC, applicant. Receipt.
Mr. Graybill indicated that he is proposing a change in use from a beauty salon to a breakfast and lunch bistro. He indicated that the interior is 1,100 square feet and he would like to add a 20’ x 20’ patio outside. Mr. Graybill pointed out that the application indicates a paved patio, which is incorrect. He noted that the material will be bluestone. Mr. Graybill stated that there will be 55 seats, including 12 seats outside. He noted that the landscaping is shown on the plans. Mr. Graybill stated that there will still be one rental unit on the first floor and one on the second floor.
Ms. Brown noted that the parking lot is being redone as part of the plan. Mr. Graybill explained an exchange of property with the neighbor. Ms. Brown questioned whether they were modifying the lot line or giving easements. Mr. Graybill stated that his professionals will go over all this with the Commission next month. Mr. Risom stated that he wants to be sure that the parking spaces are not just an agreement between gentlemen, but that it is deeded that way. He stated that he wants to be sure that there is still adequate parking for the other building.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to accept the application and to set the Public Hearing for September 10, 2007.
8. Zoning Enforcement.
a. Zoning Enforcement Report
The Commission Members reviewed the Zoning Enforcement Report. Ms. Brown noted that the Tolchinsky’s are up to date on their payments to the Town.
Ms. Brown indicated that she is having problems with Ziggy’s on the Beach. She noted that the Fire Marshal has asked Liquor Control to hold a hearing. Ms. Brown stated that she has sent out an order requiring that the residential use be removed from the second floor and will be inspecting on the 20th of August.
b. Site Inspection Report
No report.
8. Approval of Minutes
Referring to the July 9, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes, Mr. Johnson stated that he does not believe Mr. Tooker pointed out that he was a non-voting member. He asked that the tape be reviewed. Ms. Brown indicated that Ms. Bartlett listens to the tape to do the minutes. Ms. Marsh indicated that she remembers Mr. Tooker indicating that he was not a voting member. Mr. Johnson stated that it is his distinct recollection that when Mr. Tooker tried to respond, Mr. Risom stopped him. The Commission agreed to table the approval of the July 9, 2007 so that Ms. Brown has the opportunity to review the audio recording.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of July 23, 2007.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 1, 2007 minutes.
6. Regulation Rewrite
A Regulation Rewrite Meeting was set for Monday, August 27, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Church of Christ the King Parish Center.
7. Correspondence
None
8. Miscellaneous/Adjourn
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
