OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 20, 2012, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Arthur Sibley, regular member, Richard Smith, alternate (seated for Kip Kotzan), and Mary Stone, alternate (seated for Joseph St. Germain).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Case 12-27 – Big Green Outdoor, LLC, (Cherrystone’s Restaurant) 218 Shore Road.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities for the record: 8.9.7, minimum street setback, 60’ required, 7’ existing; 8.9.10, minimum setback from a residence in a rural district boundary line, 40’ required, 32’ existing; and 8.9.13, maximum total lot coverage, 55% allowed, 39.2% existing on the 2.37 acre site. She noted that the proposal does not comply with 8.0.c, yards and lot coverage; 9.3.1, enlargement, 8.9.7, minimum street setback, 60’ required, variance of 53’ requested for roof and a 24’ variance for the vestibule; 8.9.10, minimum setback from a residence in a rural district boundary line, 40’ required, requesting a variance of 8’ for the roof. Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided by the applicant is that the structure was
built in the 1930’s with one half of the structure in the front yard setback.
Joe Wren, P.E., was present to represent the applicant. He noted that Greg Nucci, Point One Architects, is also present. Mr. Wren noted that the project is exempt from CAM under the Zoning Regulations. He explained that the applicant recently purchased the property and is planning to make “village charm” type improvements. Mr. Wren stated that the restaurant was constructed in the 1930’s approximately 3 feet off the street line. He noted that half of the building is within the front yard setback. Mr. Wren stated that the proposal adds a peak roof, which aside from the aesthetic appeal, will correct a structural problem. He explained that another benefit of the peak roof would be drainage. He indicated that they are before the Commission for a variance and will
then go before the Zoning Commission for site plan approval. Mr. Wren stated that the applicant would like to get the structural work done before the winter sets in so that they could spend the winter doing the interior renovations and do the site improvements in the spring.
Mr. Wren explained that there is only a small increase to the footprint by the addition of a small vestibule on the east side of the building. He noted that there is currently a vestibule on the west side. Mr. Wren stated that the current coverage is 39.2% and because the area where the vestibule would be is already paved, there is no increase in coverage. He explained that all of the impervious parking will be removed from the site and replaced with a pervious material such as seashells or stone, resulting in a lower percent of lot coverage.
Mr. Wren stated that the street setback will not be changing. He noted that the roof is currently 7’ from the street line and will remain 7’ from the street line. Mr. Wren explained the septic system, noting it was overhauled in 1993 and is in good working order and there are no changes proposed. He indicated that there are no increases in flow or seating proposed.
Ms. Stutts stated that the building is close to the road and the little bump out along the road forces one to walk very near the street. She questioned whether it could be removed as part of the renovation. Mr. Wren noted that it would be better answered by the applicant or architect, but pointed out that the new vestibule on the east side would eliminate any need for people to walk between the front of the building and the street. Mr. Sibley suggested that something be put along the street to protect the building from cars. Mr. Wren stated that they will be going before the Zoning Commission for site plan approval and will keep that suggestion in mind. Mr. Montanarro, previous owner, agreed that the vestibule would eliminate the need for people to walk between the building and the street.
Greg Nucci, Point One Architects, stated that the revised floor plans show a pathway through the renovated building. He indicated that that is the reason for adding the vestibule on the east side. Mr. Nucci stated that they are planning to have planting beds in the front of the building and pylons could be added to act as a barrier.
Mr. Nucci stated that the existing second floor area is a business office with a bathroom which will remain. Ms. McQuade questioned whether the patios are outdoor dining areas. Mr. Nucci replied that the applicant would like them to be, but that would be a future application.
For comparison purposes, Mr. Nucci distributed architectural drawings showing the existing and proposed for each elevation. He noted that the little bump out on the front referred to early adds architectural interest and he would not want to remove it.
Mr. Montanarro stated that he believes the project will be a beautiful gateway to the Sound View District.
Ms. Stone questioned the number of parking spaces. Mr. Wren indicated that although the parking area is shown on the plan, the actual spaces are not. He stated that when they go before the Zoning Commission the site plan will show the required parking spaces. He noted that there will be landscaped islands in the parking lot.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts closed the Public Hearing.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 12-27 – Big Green Outdoor, LLC, 218 Shore Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the variances are required for the roof and the new vestibule on the east side. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the structure was built in 1930 and more than half of it is in the front setback. She noted that the septic system was overhauled in 1993. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal will have to go before the Zoning Commission for site plan approval if it receives the variances from the Zoning Commission. Mr. Sibley stated that he would like to see safety in the front of the restaurant addressed during the site plan process. Ms. Smith stated that if a restrictive barrier is constructed it will force pedestrians further into the street. She indicated that she is more concerned with
beach goers than patrons of the restaurant. Mr. Sibley stated that a barrier needs to be placed in front of the building because it is an obvious hazard. He indicated that he does not want to design it but request that the applicant address it before site plan approval.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant designed an aesthetically pleasing building which is a great improvement to the neighborhood. Ms. McQuade stated that the changes enhance the entrance and exits to both the parking lots and the building and increase safety. Ms. Stone stated that the improvements also address the structural integrity of the building.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances as per the plans submitted and to make the necessary arrangements to address the concerns of the Board with respect to the safety of the pedestrians walking in front of the building along Rte 156 and the safety of the structure from cars traveling along Rte. 156.
Reasons:
1. Proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Parking lot renovations increase safety.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made Suzanne Stutts, seconded Mary Stone and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting.
APPROVAL OF 2013 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule as submitted.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Letter from Jeff Flower dated November 8, 2012 requesting an additional one year extension on Case #10-02C, 73 Swan Avenue.
Ms. Barrows stated that Mr. Flower has asked for another one-year extension as the Zoning approval has lapsed. Ms. Barrows read Mr. Flower’s letter, noting that nothing has changed in the plan that would change the required variances. The Commission agreed that this would be the final extension and if the approval lapses again, the applicant would have to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously to grant a final one year extension for Case #10-02C, 73 Swan Avenue, to November 20, 2012.
Ms. Stone stated that there is a program offered by UCONN Center for Land Use Education and Research and was held Saturday, November 10th. She noted that there were three lectures and she requested a paper copy of the Powerpoint presentations. Ms. Stone stated that there were a few things that got her attention and she wanted to share them. She stated that they were constantly warned not to show their prejudices as sometimes people have instinctive reactions to proposals. Ms. Stone stated that they were also warned about communication outside of the Public Hearing and suggested when approached or asked about an application the Commission Member should encourage the person to attend the Public Hearing. She stated that long motions were also encouraged and it was pointed out that the
things that are left out are usually regretted. Ms. Stone stated that they cautioned that the reasons listed at the end of the motion should really be compiled as part of the motion. Ms. Stone indicated that she learned quite a bit and was glad that she attended.
The Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. on a motion by Arthur Sibley; seconded by Richard Smith and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
