APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, December 10, 2007
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Middle School Auditorium. Members present were Tom Risom (Chairman), Jane Cable (Vice Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), John Johnson, Patrick Looney, Steve Ames (Alternate), Ted Kiritsis (Alternate), and Howard Tooker (Alternate). Also present were Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Mark Branse, Commission Counsel.
Chairman Risom called the Public Hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. Ms. Marsh read the legal notices for the record.
1. Proposed Comprehensive Rewrite of the Town of Old Lyme Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map, Old Lyme Zoning Commission, applicant.
Attorney Branse stated that this is the first comprehensive update of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations since 1991. He noted that during that time there have been many changes in State Law, case law and in the philosophies of the Commission. Attorney Branse stated that one of the basic goals was to improve the structure of the Zoning Regulations; another was to eliminate redundant zones, such as the RU-80, RU-40 and RU-20 zones which have the same parameters as the R-80, R-40 and R-20 zones, and also the LI-80 and LI-80S zones; and another goal was to update the definitions, as many words were not defined. Attorney Branse stated that there are also many more cross-references in these proposed Regulations.
Attorney Branse stated that the Commission also gave thought to policy issues during this rewrite and one of the important issues involves non-conforming lots. He noted that the current Section 8.9.3 does not allow for expansion on a nonconforming lot without variance. He indicated that the proposed regulations, in Section 9.1.3, allows the expansion of buildings on a nonconforming lot by Special Permit, as long as all setbacks and bulk requirements are met.
Attorney Branse stated that in the R-10 zone, the proposal is to lower the allowed height from 35’ and 2.5 stories to 24’ and 1.5 stories. He explained that this is recognition of the fact that many of the homes are not that tall and based on the lot size in an R-10 zone, a building of 35’ and 2.5 stories is extremely tall.
Attorney Branse noted that they have defined “fast food restaurant” and prohibit it in Town. He indicated that there have been many changes to the farming regulations. He noted that the commission is recognizing that Connecticut agriculture is surviving by becoming what is often called “routine agriculture.” He noted that farmers in Connecticut cannot compete with corn or grain. Attorney Branse explained that Connecticut farmers are finding success in niche areas such as organics, herbs, highly perishable items or unusual items. He noted that these type of operations occur on small parcels than the traditional farm. Attorney Branse noted that the current regulations require a 3 acre minimum area for livestock and the proposed regulations have no minimum for
farming or the keeping of livestock. He acknowledged that the regulations are more permissive relative to agriculture uses in recognition of the evolution of Connecticut Farmers.
Attorney Branse stated that the Commission will hear comments from the Public this evening and he or Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, will be glad to respond. He indicated that the Commission will not be answering questions this evening. Attorney Branse reviewed the letter from the Connective River Estuary Regional Planning Agency and noted that one of their concerns was that fill could be used to enable a deck to stay under 12” so that it did not have to meet setbacks. Attorney Branse stated that they suggest using natural or existing grade to prohibit this. He noted that the reviewer noted that for all rivers and tidal wetlands in Old Lyme there is a 50 foot setback and noted that the Gateway Regulations require a 100 foot setback from the Connecticut River and its associated
wetlands. Attorney Branse stated that this is not a discrepancy and he indicated that the question is would the Commission like to use 100 feet for all rivers and tidal wetlands. Attorney Branse noted that this same comment is in the OLISP letter. Attorney Branse stated that CRERPA suggested using Statutory language. He noted that the same comment regarding existing grade was suggested as it relates to the measurement of sign height.
Attorney Branse reviewed the letter from OLISP and noted that they asked the Commission to consider a 100’ setback from all rivers and associated tidal wetlands. He stated that they continue to question the Sound View Village District which allows a higher density than the DEP feels is suitable. Attorney Branse stated that OLISP also questions the reference to Community Septic System as the DEP is of the opinion that those type of systems should reference the Statutory sections. He noted that OLISP strongly supports the changes to the R-10 Zone, but also cautioned the Commission that the Special Permit process proposed means the expansion of nonconforming properties in an area that is experiencing effluent disposal problems near a very sensitive resource. He noted that OLISP is urging the use
of caution.
Attorney Branse stated that OLISP is asking that the Commission adopt a storm water Management Ordinance. He noted that there is storm water management language in the proposed regulations as recommended by the Town Engineering Consultant, Tom Metcalf.
Ms. Brown explained that the first set of changes to the zones was the actual consolidation of zones. She noted that these changes have not been highlighted as they are all over the map. Ms. Brown stated that the orange areas shown on the map are areas where the underlying zone will have a more substantial change. She pointed out an orange area on the north side of I-95, Short Hills Road and Flat Rock Road, which is currently LI-80. She noted that the current development near that area has been residential and the proposal is to change this industrial land to residential.
Ms. Brown stated that there is another orange area to the south of I-95 along Hatchetts Hill Road. She noted that this particular parcel is currently zoned MFR80, after a zone change petition approximately two years ago. She noted that a residential plan was approved for this parcel and the approvals have since expired. Ms. Brown stated that this property is proposed to change back to LI-80.
Ms. Brown stated that along Shore Road there are two small orange areas that are currently C-30. She noted that the proposal is to change one to R-20 and the other to the north would become RU-40. Ms. Brown pointed out an orange area south of the railroad and north of Shore Road along Buttonball and east. She noted that it is currently zoned LI-80 and the proposal is to change the land to RU-40.
Attorney Michael Cronin, Attorney Michael Klineman and Matthew White were present to represent Hilltop Development, LLC. He explained that Hilltop Development LLC is currently the owner of the property on the southerly side of Hatchetts Hill Road which is currently zoned MFR80. Attorney Cronin stated that the property was previously zoned LI-80 and because there was question as to whether a multi-family development could be constructed in the zone, the Commission suggested that the applicant petition to change the zone to MFR80. He noted that the Master Plan of Development shows the majority of this parcel to be residential, not industrial use.
Attorney Cronin stated that after the zone change was approved by the Commission, they accepted an application for a multi-family development consisting of eight buildings containing two residences each. He explained that it was a luxury development with each unit being 2600 to 2700 square feet with a two-car garage. Attorney Cronin stated that it was approved by unanimous vote of the Commission. He indicated that in September 2006 Hilltop purchased the property and presented a certified copy of the deed for the record. Attorney Cronin stated that for a variety of reasons, the property was not developed right away. He indicated that through all of this his client has relied on the fact that this property was residential. Attorney Cronin stated that they learned of the Commission’s
proposal to put the land back into the industrial zone and they are here tonight to tell the Commission that this project is not dead for the site. He explained that they have submitted a new application and plans for this project, modified from the original, for acceptance by the Commission this evening.
Attorney Cronin reiterated that the property is shown as residential in the Master Plan of Development. He indicated that the property is not suited for industrial use because of the extreme topography and difficult access.
Matthew White, McDonald-Sharpe & Associates, submitted a set of plans for the proposed project for this property. He explained that the Commission determined this property to be suitable for residential use in 2005 and at that time part of the reasoning was the steep slopes and the fact that the land lends itself to smaller, residential buildings. Mr. White stated that the southern half of the property is upslope from adjacent residential areas, which would be a concern for industrial development of the property.
Attorney Cronin stated that although the application submitted tonight would be grandfathered, it is not good planning to have a residential area, especially a new one, not zoned for residential use. He stated that his clients have spent tens of thousands of dollars in development costs and they have shown their intentions to develop the property by purchasing it.
Attorney Cronin stated that the proposal to allow special exceptions instead of variances on nonconforming properties is a great thing. He stated that he believes the height requirements should be looked at with regard to the Flood Zones. Attorney Cronin stated that a 24’ height limit may result in awkward style homes when they have to meet the flood zone elevations.
Mr. Kiritsis questioned when the multi-family housing project would move forward. Attorney Alan Klineman, representing Hilltop Development, stated that he cannot give an exact timeline, other then to say that the project is going forward.
Jim Lampost, property owner on Portland Avenue, stated that he owns three properties in the R-10 area and one in the C-10 area. He indicated that they are currently in the process of developing house plans for a 15,000 square foot lot. Mr. Lampost indicated that he believes that the 35’ height limit is too high for these zones, but noted that the 24’ height limit may be too stringent. He asked the Commission to reconsider this change.
George James was present on behalf of the Open Space and Conservation Commissions. He stated that in all the discussions over the years about PRCD’s, the most resounding comment is incentives for the developers. Mr. James stated that there was also discussion on revising the formula based on bulk rather than the complicated formula that currently exists in the Regulations. He asked that he would like to see incentives for the developers and presented a letter from the Conservation Commission with suggestions along those lines.
Ted Crosby, Alterate on the Connecticut River Gateway Commission, urged the Commission to adopt a 100’ setback from all rivers in Town and from the Long Island Sound, not just in the Gateway Zone. He urged the Commission to consider the areas not built upon yet and the protection of all resources. Mr. Crosby stated that the Town has adopted a storm water ordinance. He explained that the Town was mandated by DEP to enact an ordinance and he enabled the process. Acting Chairman Risom noted that Mr. Crosby’s comments echo those of Marcy Balint from Office of Long Island Sound Programs.
Attorney Steven Sheehan was present on behalf of Osprey Landing, LLC. He explained that Osprey Landing LLC owns one of the properties to the south of the railroad, the address being 218 Shore Road, near Cherrystone’s restaurant. Attorney Sheehan indicated that along with him this evening is Jeff Montonero, one of the owners, and Joe Wren, engineer for the project. He explained that the proposal is to change a portion of their property from LI-80 to RU-40. Attorney Sheehan stated that the parcel, as proposed to change, would be in two zones and they request that the C-30 portion of the property also be changed to RU-40. Attorney Branse stated that the Commission could not do that in the context of this hearing because they did not advertise any change to C-30. He
explained that they could discuss it this evening, but a future amendment would need to be made.
Attorney Sheehan stated that he too would like to see incentives for developers. He indicated that one of the items they are considering on the property is a PRCD which currently requires 30 percent of the property be dedicated to open space. Attorney Sheehan noted that they have been advised that there are sensitive areas for open space on the property and one of the incentives to the development of the property could be to preserve a greater area of open space. Ms. Cable questioned what type of incentive they would be looking for. Attorney Sheehan asked that Mr. Wren address the types of incentives.
Joe Wren, professional engineer, noted that the Conservation Commission’s letter submitted earlier in the hearing has two points on incentives that are consistent with their own thinking. He noted that number 5 in the letter indicates a possible incentive of up to 10% increase in the number of housing units if the applicant would devote an additional percentage of the total land area to open space. Mr. Wren stated that number 6 in the letter states that a 5 percent increase in the total number of housing units would be allowed if there were deeded public access to the open space.
Mr. Wren stated that the current PRCD regulations have 100’ setbacks from exterior property lines, 40’ between dwelling units, etc., and adding these setbacks up quickly forces the development to sprawl. He explained that reducing these setbacks would compact the development and thereby conserve more contiguous open space. Mr. Wren stated that in their proposed development, they would like to do most of the development on the already disturbed land, the driving range area, and preserve the back portion in its natural state and deed it to the Conservation Commission. He noted that this parcel has a large tidal marsh and to the east there is a large area of inland wetlands. Mr. Wren stated that in this particular case a 100’ setback from exterior property lines would force them to
use more of these areas that could be preserved.
Attorney Sheehan indicated that if this map amendment did not include the portion of the property that is C-10, they would come in with a separate application to change that piece of C-30 to R-40. He indicated that this change would only apply to Osprey Landing, LLC property.
Mr. Wren stated that there is a 30 percent slope factor in the formula to determine the number of housing. He indicated that if the land is buildable and there is a manmade slope on the property because of excavation 30 or 40 years ago, he would ask that that not be counted as 30 percent slope because it was a hardship that was created. Attorney Branse noted that it is still 30 percent slope. Mr. Wren stated that it is 30 percent slope but it may be buildable because it was made 30 percent or steeper by a manmade operation. Attorney Branse stated that whether manmade or natural, is 30 percent slope buildable land. Mr. Wren stated that it can be modified to be buildable.
Attorney Branse pointed out that there is no formula in Section 12, PRCD’s, in the proposed regulations.
Attorney Sheehan thanked the Commission for their time and echoed Attorney Cronin’s comments regarding the special exceptions/variances.
Martin Smith, Vice President of Real Estate Services of Connecticut. He explained that they either own or have options on 251 acres between Short Hills Road and Route 1 which is different parcels known as Tooker, Campo, May, Kus, Joseph, and King properties. He indicated that they have been looking at different ways on developing the property. Mr. Smith stated that they would like to develop the property under the PRCD Regulations and aligned his feelings with that of Joe Wren. He noted that more open space could be provided if the Commission were given greater flexibility. Mr. Smith stated that allowing attached housing would consolidate the building and create greater areas of open space. He stated that the new regulations eliminate the 10 percent bonus for PRCD’s. Mr.
Smith questioned why this was done. Attorney Branse asked for both the old and new section numbers that he is referring to. Mr. Smith stated that section 36.9.1 in the old regulations has a formula. Attorney Branse stated that the current PRCD requires a yield plan that sets the total number of units allowed. He noted that this is also the case in the proposed Section 12. He noted that the current regulations have two different tests, a formula in one place and a yield plan in another place and they reach opposite results. Attorney Branse stated they have tried to make the Regulation more consistent.
Mr. Smith stated that allowing attached housing brings the price range of the structures down and would give some much needed, lower-cost housing to Old Lyme.
Mike Bennet, Bennet & Miles Engineering, stated that he was in agreement with much of what Joe Wren stated. He noted that the open space calculation is extremely confusing in the new regulations. Mr. Bennet stated that having smaller setbacks will increase the open space of the community and keeping a 100’ separation will not add to any natural habitats. Ms. Marsh pointed out that some of the setbacks are for the benefit of the homeowners. Ms. Cable agreed and noted that zoning was established to provide more light and air. Attorney Branse stated that it appears that a few concepts are being confused. He explained that there are two vehicles that many zoning regulations contain, but Old Lyme’s current and future regulations do not. He noted that one vehicle is an
open space subdivision or a cluster subdivision. Attorney Branse stated that a cluster subdivision is single family housing with a little more flexibility to allow reduced lot area to create open space; it is not a multi-family vehicle. He noted that the PRCD, which is a cluster subdivision, is delegated to the Planning Commission. Attorney Branse stated that a floating zone allows much great flexibility and would allow multi-family attached housing. He noted that this type of application would go to the Zoning Commission because it is a zone change and as such gives the highest level of discretion. Attorney Branse stated that it appears that they are asking to make the PRCD something that it was never designed to be.
Acting Chairman Risom noted that he would like to open the floor to constructive criticism and not necessarily discuss pending or future applications. He noted that he would like to receive comments on the proposed Section 12.
Mr. Montanero indicated that he does not want to see a McDonalds come to Town, but he questioned how they can differentiate between that and a pizza place or donut shop. Attorney Branse read the definition of Restaurant, Fast Food and explained the difference.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for this item to January 14, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library.
At 9:20 p.m., Chairman Risom adjourned the Public Hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
