APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Church of Christ the King. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Tom Risom (Vice Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Jane Cable, John Johnson (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Steve Ames (Alternate) and Howard Tooker (Alternate).
Acting Chairman Kiritsis called the Public Hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. Ms. Marsh read the legal notices.
1. Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct multi-family residential development, 64 & 66 Hartford Avenue, Raymond Kastner, applicant.
Chairman Kiritsis noted that the Public Hearing for this item was continued from the September Regular Meeting. Ms. Marsh read the list of exhibits submitted since the last Public Hearing. Ms. Brown submitted a letter from Tom Metcalf to Ron Rose which was marked Exhibit AA.
Ms. Marsh read Ms. Balint’s email which indicates that that Warren Herzig, DEP, reviewed the revised plans dated 8-27-07 and noted that DEP would require a permit. Ms. Brown noted that the plan Ms. Balint reviewed has been superceded. Ms. Marsh read the letter from the Conservation Commission which suggested that the septic plan be referred to the Old Lyme Water Pollution Control Authority. She then read the letter from Tom Metcalf dated October 10, 2007, which indicates he has not yet reviewed the revised plans; he noted that one of the key issues is the septic system improvements and urged the Board not to act on the application until his review is complete. Ms. Marsh read Mr. Metcalf’s letter to Mr. Rose requesting his attendance at a meeting on Monday, October 15, 2007 with Bob
Scully, DEP, to discuss the septic system for this project and another project. Ms. Brown stated that because of this upcoming meeting, she asked the Commission to hold off on making a decision this evening. Ms. Marsh read a letter from Ann Brown to Raymond Kastner, applicant. Ms. Brown indicated that she believes all her issues have been addressed on the plans revised through October 9, 2007.
Ms. Brown stated that there are two map revisions dated August 27, 2007, which is confusing. Ms. Marsh read Mr. Rose’s letter indicating that the plans dated August 27, 2007 are approved as designed as long as the existing well is abandoned before the CO is issued.
Raymond Kastner, applicant, stated that the lighting plan has been submitted. He noted that he is a little nervous about not having more light being located right on Hartford Avenue. Mr. Kastner stated that the plans show a picket fence that is vinyl. He indicated that the site currently has chain link and stockade fence that are four feet high. Mr. Kastner questioned why he is being forced to have a three foot fence. He noted that the only three foot fence that he could find in stock was a scallop fence which is shown on the plan. Mr. Kastner stated that he would prefer to the have a four foot fence but will do whatever the Commission requires.
Mr. Kastner stated that at the last hearing they discussed elevation. He noted that they are not adding any materials to the site. Mr. Kastner stated that the elevation of the first floor is 11 feet and the existing house is just over 11 feet or 11.06 feet. He noted that the existing site elevation ranges from 9 feet to 10.8 and toward the rear of the lot it is higher. Mr. Kastner stated that his neighbor’s parcel is 11.7 feet. He noted that his neighbor’s house has its finished floor at almost 13 feet or two feet higher than his proposed.
Mr. Kastner stated that he submitted a driveway application and spoke to Public Works about it. He noted that he is changing the existing driveway a few feet and is narrowing the cut from 18’ to 12’. Mr. Kastner stated that on November 5 they are scheduled to repave Hartford Avenue which puts pressure on him to install the city water and the curb cut. Mr. Kastner noted that he would like to get approval this evening. He noted that they have received Mr. Rose’s approval of the septic system but they could also make a stipulation that the septic system be approved by everyone.
Mr. Risom noted that the 3’ fence is not particular to this location, but a standard of the Sound View Design District. Mr. Kastner stated that stocked fences are 4’ typically. Mr. Risom questioned why the Conservation Commission thought there is no leaching field. Ms. Brown noted that the Conservation Commission received the first plan. Mr. Risom questioned the status of the Sanitarian’s approval. He indicated that he is under the impression that Mr. Rose approved the plan, revoked the approval and approved another plan. Mr. Kastner indicated that that is correct. He noted that Mr. Rose has approved the design on the plans dated October 9, 2007. Ms. Cable questioned whether there was still going to be a meeting on Monday the 15th. Ms.
Brown indicated that there is a meeting on the 15th and the proposed septic system for this property will be discussed. Ms. Marsh noted that Mr. Rose has signed the plan.
Mr. Kastner questioned whether he could keep the garage on the property with Mr. Rose’s approval. He noted that the garage is located over the reserve area. Mr. Risom noted that keeping the garage would hold up the project. Mr. Kastner stated that he would then request approval without the garage and re-apply for the garage at a later date.
Frank Papilardo was present representing Sound View Beach Association which operates the Shoreline Community Center on Hartford Avenue. He indicated that the Association fully supports Mr. Kastner’s application and noted that he has fulfilled the technical requirements of the Sound View Village District, including the aesthetic requirements. Mr. Papilardo stated that this is a wonderful opportunity to make a statement on Hartford Avenue and urged the Commission to approve the application.
Ms. Marsh questioned why Mr. Scully was reviewing the plan. Ms. Brown noted that Mr. Scully has concerns about the systems on this lot and he asked to be included in the meeting between Tom Metcalf and Ron Rose. She indicated that she supports this meeting and noted that it will also include discussions about the Tolchinsky property. Ms. Marsh questioned whether there was any information that may be obtained from that meeting that would necessitate keeping the Public Hearing open for. Ms. Brown noted that the meeting is regarding the Health approval and if a compliant system cannot be designed, than the project could not move forward, independent of the Zoning Commission. Ms. Brown suggested closing the hearing but not making a decision and possibly authorize the driveway location allowing
that portion of the project to move forward. Ms. Marsh stated that she does not believe the Commission can approve one little part of the site plan. Mr. Risom stated that he does not believe Monday’s meeting will change the plan.
Ms. Marsh stated that if Mr. Kastner is confident that his septic system meets public health code he could choose to install the water and do the driveway work without the Commission’s approval. Ms. Marsh stated that he could move the driveway without site plan approval.
Mr. Kastner indicated that he would like to see the Commission approve the application with the conditions that it meets all the health requirements and any engineering requirements from the staff.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by Howard Tooker and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for this item.
2. Coastal Site Plan Application to demolish existing residence and construct a new three-bedroom residence, 104 Hillcrest Road, Mary C. Ramondetta, applicant.
Ms. Marsh noted that there is a revised site plan dated October 1, 2007 (Exhibit N) and architectural plans revised through October 1, 2007 (Exhibit 0) and construction drawings, 17 sheets (Exhibit P).
Gary Sharpe, engineer, noted that the only change to his plans is the zoning data table. Peter Springsteel, architect, noted that there was an issue raised regarding the rear of the building and the fact that there was a walk-out basement. He noted that since that meeting it was determined that if all the windows and doors were eliminated from the basement level, the structure would be conforming at 2.5 stories. He showed the revised drawing and noted the added Bilco door.
Ms. Brown stated that the application text says that none of the structures are in the flood zone. She noted that the pillars that hold up part of the deck are in the flood zone and she suggested that structures in the flood zone be constructed to FEMA standards. Ms. Brown stated that the plan also states that the house is 50’ from the mean high tide line and the deck is a little closer and that distance should be shown and identified on the plan. Ms. Brown stated that she believes all other issues have been resolved. Mr. Sharpe indicated that he would correct this on the plan.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for this item.
3. Site Plan Modification Application, 61-1 Buttonball Road, to allow long-term car storage facility, a baseball and softball training facility and a sports training facility, and also to include drainage improvements and driveway paving.
Ms Brown noted that a revised plan was submitted today at 3:55 p.m. Ms. Brown was not able to locate the current file so Attorney Bennett submitted another copy for the record. Attorney Bennett indicated that they are seeking a modification of the existing site plan approval. He noted that the original site plan was approved May 10, 2004, and required that any changes in use be reviewed by the Commission as a modification. Attorney Bennett stated that the driveway, which had been located farther to the south, was moved. He noted that this required a wetlands permit which was received July 27, 2007. Attorney Bennett stated that a requirement of the wetlands permit was that the driveway be paved. Attorney Bennett explained that the drainage line is shown on Exhibit B. He
stated that when they added the paving to the plan, they are over on coverage by .4 percent. He indicated that reducing the driveway to 18’ in width would eliminate that issue and they would happily make that a condition of approval. Attorney Bennett stated that a neighbor would also be willing to convey the necessary 430 square feet, which would not compromise that lot. Attorney Bennett stated that the drainage is already in place.
Attorney Bennett stated that there will be three uses, the first being antique vehicle storage. He indicated that the area dedicated to this use is shown on the floor plan map as unit 1, 6,000 square feet. Attorney Bennett stated that there will be no more than 20 cars and no work will be performed on the cars on site. He indicated that a client will call for their vehicle and a manager will move vehicles to retrieve it. Attorney Bennett stated that there will be very little winter use as people do not use their vehicles in the winter. He noted that there will not be huge daily turnover. Attorney Bennett stated that there will be a maximum of four persons at a time for this use, the manager and potentially three owners. He indicated that the operating hours are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday by appointment.
Attorney Bennett acknowledged that they may store boats also, but indicated that the total number would be twenty whether it is a vehicle or a boat. Mr. Swaney indicated that the storage is only for high-end vehicles. Mr. Tooker questioned whether the maximum storage is vehicles. Mr. Swaney indicated that they could store 200 motorcycles. Ms. Marsh indicated that the application should state that. Attorney Bennett suggested that the applicant stay with 20 and come back for a modification if need be.
Attorney Bennett stated that the next proposed use will be in the 5,000 square foot space shown on the floor plan and this will house America’s Game, a baseball training company. He noted that the use is described in the Statement of Use. Attorney Bennett stated that the Walker brothers provide baseball training to high school and little league ball players. He noted that there is one-on-one training and group training available, with a maximum of 8 participants and no more than 3 three for a total of 11 at any given time. Attorney Bennett stated that the operation hours are Monday through Friday, 3:00 to 8:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 to 5:00 and Sunday 12:00 to 7:00 p.m. He noted that there is potentially for the hours of operation to be less because in season there is more activity and
during the off season there is less activity.
Attorney Bennett explained that the third use is Yuhas Performance Training which is personal training and conditioning. He noted that the proposed hours are 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 to 12:00 on Saturdays, with 4 to 10 people projected at any one given time. Attorney Bennett stated that given the three uses they could give up the truck loading space and get several more parking spaces if the Commission were so inclined. He indicated that there should be plenty of parking as designed.
Attorney Bennett stated that all work so far has been done with permits and all inspections have been completed. He noted that there is excess septic capacity on the site as confirmed by Ron Rose.
Ms. Brown questioned when the tenants would be occupying the facility. Attorney Bennett indicated that they would occupy immediately. Ms. Brown questioned when the site work would be completed, which has not been completed. She noted that they cannot move in without a Zoning Compliance Certificate. Mr. Swaney stated that the site work is minimal. Ms. Brown stated that the plan implies that much of the paving is done and that is not the case. Attorney Bennett stated that the plan submitted shows the changes from the original site plan. He noted that the original site plan has been submitted. Attorney Bennett stated that the problem is that they just received the plan and did not have time to review it. He noted that they would be willing to do a final sheet showing
everything as a condition of approval. Ms. Brown stated that there is a question as to whether the driveway will be modified to 18’ or if there will be a lot line modification. She noted that there will need to be a review by the fire department and Fire Marshal as to whether there is proper building access with the driveway.
Ms. Cable questioned whether the parking is being changed. Attorney Bennett stated that the only physical changes from the original plan are paving and drainage.
Ms. Brown stated that the required site work includes, paving, final grading and guard rails around the drainage structure. She explained that her original comment letter noted that the applicant should be working from an as-built plan with modifications proposed. She noted that the plan submitted indicates that it is an improvement location survey. She questioned whether the paving was complete around the building. Mr. Swaney replied that it is not complete. Ms. Brown pointed out that the plan shows that the paving is complete. Mr. Swaney stated that the paving has been pre-approved. Mr. Johnson noted that all site improvements have to be completed prior to occupancy. Attorney Bennett indicated that they would have to in order to get their CO and Certificate of Zoning
Compliance. Ms. Brown questioned whether the tenants would move in before a CO was obtained. Mr. Swaney indicated that they would not.
Kevin Munday, 57 Buttonball Road, indicated that he is in favor of the proposal.
Frank Lishing, Swan Avenue, stated that he is in favor of the proposal. He noted that the car storage is an excellent idea and there is a huge need for it in the area. Mr. Lishing urged the Commission to approve the application, noting that the sports facilities would be another bonus for the area.
Scott Larkin indicated that he is in favor of the proposal. He noted that he currently has to drive far to use this type of facility.
Attorney Bennett stated that Mr. Swaney will convey 430 square feet of property to this property in order to alleviate the coverage problem. He indicated that another map will be prepared and he will take care of the deeds. Ms. Brown pointed out that the Planning Commission approves all lot line modifications. Mr. Bennett indicated that it does not create a nonconforming lot. Ms. Brown stated that the Planning Commission Regulations state that one is required to go before them for a lot line modification. She noted that the applicant has indicated that their plan as proposed does not meet the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Risom stated that they could narrow the driveway or move the lot line. She indicated that the Commission needs to confirm Zoning Compliance. Ms. Brown stated
that generally this would have been referred to the Fire Marshal and Fire Department but this plan was not received until 3:55 p.m. today.
Hearing no further comments, Mr. Johnson made a motion to close this public hearing. Ms. Cable seconded; so voted unanimously.
4. Special Exception Application to construct a 6’ fence in the front setback, 228 Shore Road, Robert Conrad, applicant.
Chairman Kiritsis noted that the applicant is not present this evening. Ms. Brown noted that he called the office today to confirm the date and time of meeting.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to table this item until later in the meeting.
The Public Hearing adjourned at 9:06 p.m. on a motion by Jane Cable, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
