APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, September 10, 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 multi-family residential development, 64 & 66 Hartford Avenue, Raymond Kastner, applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal ad as published on Thursday August 30, and Thursday September 6, 2007. She read the exhibit list for the record.
Ray Kastner, applicant, was present to explain his application. He stated that they just received Mr. Rose’s letter indicating that he is rescinding his approval of the septic system. He noted that Mr. Rose’s prior letter indicated his approval of the septic system. Mr. Kastner explained that he is not sure why Mr. Rose rescinded his approval because they designed it the way he requested. He stated that they are addressing Ms. Brown’s comments. Mr. Kastner stated that the architect has given her approval of the application.
Mr. Kastner stated that they will be installing new windows and siding on the new house so that it will be similar to the new house. He noted that the existing property has a chain link fence and they will be replacing it with a vinyl picket-type fence. Mr. Kastner stated that he will bring an exact design of the fence to the next meeting. He indicated that when he received the architectural report they agreed with her comments and added louvers to the top.
Mr. Kastner stated that the original septic design had individual systems for each house. He explained that Mr. Rose steered them toward two tanks and a shared leaching system, which he approved and then rescinded. Mr. Kastner stated that the height of the house is
27’ above the finished grade. Ms. Marsh questioned whether the street is at finished grade. Mr. Kastner stated that the grade will remain the same, but the new house will be brought down to elevation 11’5”. He explained that there is about a one foot step down from the sidewalk to the street. Mr. Kastner stated that with the elevation of the lot and the 27’ house, it still will not be as tall as the house next door or the Carousel across the street.
The Commission discussed the landscaping as shown on the site plan.
Angelo Herostle, 67 Swan Avenue, stated that his property is adjacent and he is concerned about his well. He indicated that he is concerned about his well in relation to the septic system. Mr. Herostle stated that there are rumors that the existing septic is going into the alley-way. He noted his property on the site plan. Mr. Kastner pointed out the 75’ radius, as shown on the site plan.
Ms. Moore, Swan Avenue, stated that her main water system is on the fire lane and she questioned whether that would be disturbed. Mr. Kastner stated that they are not doing anything with the right-of-way, as it is not his property. He pointed out the new driveway on the site plan. Ms. Moore stated that the driveway would interfere with her water. Ms. Marsh pointed out that his driveway will not be on the right-of-way.
Chairman Kiritsis indicated that the Zoning Commission Meeting will not be held at the Library in October
Donna Brown, 54 Portland Avenue, indicated that the proposal would be an improvement to Hartford Avenue. She indicated that Mr. Kastner does great work and follows all the rules required by the Town.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing to the October Regular Meeting.
2. Coastal Site Plan Application to demolish existing residence and construct a new three-bedroom residence, 104 Hillcrest Road, Mary C. Ramondetta, applicant.
Chairman Kiritsis noted that the legal ad was read. Ms. Marsh read the exhibit list for the record.
Gary Sharpe was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Sharpe stated that Mary and Joseph Ramondetta are present, along with architect Peter Springsteel. He noted that the property is located on Hillcrest Road and consists of a house with small garage, both of which will be removed. He noted that a new house and septic system will be constructed on the lot, with minimal grading. Mr. Sharpe stated that he has a full site plan with Mr. Rose’s signature which he submitted for the record. He noted that Ms. Brown provided
her comments today. He acknowledged that a post that supports the deck is in the flood plain and he does not believe this to be a problem from a FEMA standpoint.
Mr. Sharpe indicated that Marcy Balint indicated that her only concern was the septic system and he pointed out that it is designed in compliance with CT Health Code and has received Mr. Rose’s approval.
Ms. Brown indicated that elevation drawings have not been submitted. Mr. Sharpe indicated that he has elevation drawings for the Commission. Ms. Cable questioned the number of stories. Mr. Peter Springsteel, architect, stated that the basement disappears into the grade as one comes up the hill. He noted that on the street side there are two stories and on the water side there are three stories. Ms. Brown noted that this would be considered three stories. She read the definition of story for the Commission. Mr. Sharpe noted they could bring the grade up around the basement and eliminate the basement as a story. Ms. Brown noted that the other option would be to apply for variances because it may not make sense to bring in that amount of fill. Ms. Brown noted that there
are small discrepancies in the numbers on the site plan and the architectural floor plan that need to be reconciled.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to continue this Public Hearing to the October Regular Meeting.
3. Site Plan Application to convert a portion of 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.
Ms. Marsh read the exhibit list for the record. Mr. Sharpe and Jim Graybill were present to explain the application. Mr. Graybill explained that his proposal is to remove 1,400 square feet of office/beauty parlor space and convert it to a restaurant. He indicated that there would be 33 parking spaces. Mr. Sharpe noted that there will be 55 seats in the restaurant and the outside patio will have additional seating. He noted that when the outside seats are constructed, they will give up interior seats so they are requesting approval for 55 seats. Mr. Sharpe stated that the principal outside improvement is the parking area. He noted that this is outlined with a dark line as requested by Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Sharpe stated that he has new plans revised through today, which reflect
changes made as a result of Town review comments. He noted that directional arrows have been shown on the revised plan, as well as a note indicating that the parking space lines will be painted. Mr. Sharpe stated that there are also directional signs shown on the plan.
Mr. Sharpe stated that Mr. Metcalf indicates that the well is not allowed within 50 feet of the Lieutenant River. He pointed out that there is presently a well and they do not need to put in a new well but just showing it as a possible location. He indicated that in the
event they need a new well, they will relocate it so that it is 50’ from the Lieutenant River. Mr. Sharpe stated that the outdoor lighting does not include new lighting. He noted that it is a breakfast and lunch facility.
Mr. Sharpe stated that they have added signature blocks to the plan as requested. He noted that there are 16 parking spots in a row as noted by Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Sharpe stated that the parking spaces already exist and they would like to keep them as they are without adding an island. Mr. Sharpe stated that it was also noted that a loading space is needed. He pointed out the kitchen door and noted that that is probably where the truck would park to deliver. Mr. Sharpe stated that there is also a pegged area that is identified as a loading space which is separate from the parking area.
Mr. Sharpe stated that they do not intend to do any clearing near the Lieutenant River but they would like to do a little low thinning to create a view through the under story.
Chairman Kiritsis questioned whether there were any uses on the second floor that would remain. Mr. Graybill stated that there are offices and five spaces are provided in the rear for those offices. Mr. Sharpe indicated that the parking calculations were done on the square footage of the building; 2,400 square feet attributed to office space and the balance attributed to the restaurant with enough parking to accommodate both. Ms. Brown noted that the statement of uses indicates that they would like the second floor approved for office or retail. Ms. Brown noted that the calculation is the same.
Mr. Sharpe stated that Marcy Balint’s comments are centered on this being a waterfront site and asking the Commission to consider whether or not it complies with the Coastal Site Plan Review criteria or whether this site is suitable for a water-dependent use. He indicated that he believes it is not. Mr. Sharpe stated that a water dependent use by the DEP’s definition is a commercial operation with public access to the water. He indicated that this site is not suitable for a water-dependent use because the Lieutenant River is extremely narrow at this location and downstream it is extremely restricted due to the existence of two highway bridges. Mr. Sharpe submitted a photograph of the bridges for the record. He pointed out that they are not taking away an existing water-dependent
use and the new use will not restrict public access. Mr. Sharpe stated that the DEP owns the property to the south of this site and they have the ability themselves to provide access to the water.
Mr. Sharpe noted that the septic system has been approved. He stated that Ms. Brown questioned the setback as shown. He noted that the reason he showed it as he did is because the DEP parcel separates this parcel entirely from Halls Road and because they are a rear lot with a curbside right-of-way, they are all shown as side yard setbacks. Mr. Sharpe stated that there are two parking spaces that are on the Wills property. He indicated that they have been there for years and can be used by either party. Mr. Sharpe stated that they are exploring the possibility of straightening out the lot line so that it runs right up to the existing island, in which case Jim Graybill’s improvements will be on his property and the Wills improvements will be entirely on their property. He noted that
the
Wills are agreeable to this, as long as it does not restrict their use of the two parking spaces. Mr. Sharpe noted that this can be worked out.
Mr. Sharpe stated that the propane tank location will be moved because it does not meet setback. He indicated that the septic tank and grease tank will also have to be moved to get them out of the 50’ setback area. Ms. Brown noted that the Fire Marshal will also have to approve the seating plan. Ms. Brown stated that the seating plan provided does not show 55 interior seats; it shows some on the patio. Mr. Graybill stated that there will be 12 on the patio and 43 interior seats. Ms. Brown pointed out that he testified that before the patio is built there may be 55 seats inside. Mr. Graybill stated that he may not be able to fit 55 inside, perhaps only 48. Mr. Sharpe questioned whether they could just approve the application with a maximum number of seats, inside and outside,
of 55. Mr. Risom stated that they can for the purpose of parking calculations, but the Fire Marshal would determine the maximum capacity inside.
Ms. Cable suggested a written plan to be made part of the record that indicates they will be taking out the bittersweet and indicating what they intend to do with the existing shrubs and trees. She noted that this is a real concern of Gateway.
Mr. Graybill noted that the name of the restaurant will be Morning Glory and their theme will be around morning glories. He stated that there will be an arbor with morning glories growing on it. Mr. Graybill indicated that they will be doing the same in the rear to buffer the highway. Ms. Brown questioned whether the trellises are shown on the site plan. Mr. Graybill indicated that they are not and pointed out their location. Ms. Brown indicated that they should be shown on the site plan. Mr. Sharpe explained the drainage.
? Wills stated that he owns the adjacent property. He indicated that he sees great improvements since Mr. Graybill purchased the property.
Warren Hannis stated that the improvements are a positive thing for the neighborhood and the Town. He indicated that it appears the right-of-way is not changing and he will still be able to use it. Mr. Hannis stated that because it is an improvement to the entrance to his property, he has been working with Mr. Graybill in enhancing the entranceway. He stated that his property is in the commercial zone and he thought he had heard some one indicate that it is zoned residential.
Glory Wills stated that she is very much in favor of the application. She noted that this will be a great thing for the Town because there is no where to have breakfast.
Hearing no further comments, a motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to close this public hearing.
The Public Hearing adjourned at 8:43 p.m. on a motion by Jane Cable, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
