OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, December 9, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on Monday, December 9, 2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present were: Jane Cable, Chair, John Johnson, Vice Chairman, Jane Marsh, Secretary, Tom Risom, regular member and Pat Looney, regular member.
Also present were Ted Kiritsis, alternate, Joan Bozek, Alternate (arrived at 7:35), Harland Frazier, alternate and Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Cable called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. She noted that Mr. Kiritsis would be seated. Chairman Cable immediately recessed the Regular Meeting to conduct the Public Hearing. At 7:57 p.m. Chairman Cable reconvened the Regular Meeting.
1. Site Development Plan Modification Application to allow the removal of a portion of the front of the existing main building and construct a two story addition to the rear which will be FEMA flood compliant and to renovate and construct a small addition to the accessory building as shown on the plan on property located at 132 Shore Road, Black Hall Marina & Outfitters, Florence Chmiel, owner; Gerry Karpuska, applicant.
Attorney Michael Cronin was present to represent the applicant. He stated that in order to expand they have modified and reduced many nonconformities; the most obvious being the proximity to the Shore Road, .4 feet from the road and will be more than 12 feet from the roadway. Attorney Cronin stated that they will be removing the front portion of this building thereby increasing the setback. He explained that the smaller structure toward the water is at elevation 3.5 feet. Attorney Cronin stated that they are elevating this structure to 7.5 feet and adding a small addition. He explained that the main structure will also be elevated to 12.5 which is the minimum flood elevation. Attorney Cronin noted that they are adding a second floor to this structure for offices. He noted that
they received the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Cronin explained the ZBA variances to the Commission.
Mr. Karpuska explained the site plan. He noted that the main building near the street will be removed further from the street by eliminating a section of the building at the front. Mr. Karpuska noted that they will be constructing an addition to the rear of this building. He pointed out the handicap ramp and the mechanicals which are all elevated above the flood elevation. Mr. Karpuska noted that they are adding four additional parking places. He noted that they are removing a deck and relocating it to a more conforming location.
Mr. Karpuska explained that the second building is being elevated four feet, but noted that it will still not meet FEMA Code.
Attorney Cronin noted that there will be no additional boat slips, just improvements to the structures. He noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals did not put any conditions on their approval.
Chairman Cable stated that she would like the Sanitarian’s comment be a condition of approval, that the sanitary system be non-effluent producing.
A motion was made by Pat Looney, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to approve the Site Development Plan Modification Application, as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received an application for Site Development Plan Modification dated November 11, 2013 and consisting of: the application, a statement of use and project description, abutter list, copy of Legal Notice of Decision for variances granted by the ZBA on October 15, 2013, Plot Plan entitled “Proposed renovation for: Black Hall Marina 132 Shore Rd. Old Lyme, CGT. Dated 9-3-13, revised 11-11-13, sheet S1 prepared by Michael Girard, Licensed Professional Engineer” and building design sheet entitled “Proposed renovation for: Black Hall Marina 132 Shore Road Old Lyme, CT dated 7-24-13, revised 8-28 2013, 9-3-2013 and 11-11-2013 sheet A2, Building Designed by Gerry Karpuska.”
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 2013 and the commission has had an opportunity to hear testimony both from citizens of Old Lyme and the applicant; and
Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted at its October 15, 2013 Regular Meeting, the necessary variances to allow the removal of a portion of the front of the existing main building and construct a 2 story addition to the rear of it which will be FEMA flood compliant and to renovate and construct a small addition to the accessory building;
Whereas, the proposed use is permitted under the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, Section 5.9.2, and the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the technical provisions Section 13A of the Regulations with the following condition:
1. Letter from Sonia Marino, Sanitarian with approval which is “based on maintaining 15’ between the existing sub-surface sewage disposal system and the new addition. The soil testing that was performed on August 7, 2013 demonstrated no naturally occurring soils over a restrictive layer. Therefore, the approval is for a non-flow generating building addition which has been determined.”
Whereas, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the General Standards of Section 13A, in particular that the proposed use, buildings and other structures and site development are designed and arranged as follows:
to achieve safety, comfort and convenience;
b. 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
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval to Florence Chmiel for the Site Development Plan Modification application for property at 132 Shore Road, Old Lyme, CT, with the condition specified.
2. Special Permit Application to permit a master suite addition to the first floor of an existing structure on a nonconforming lot (8,000 s.f.) in accordance with Section 9.1.3.2 of the Zoning Regulations on property located at 33 Brightwater Road, Paul Graml, owner applicant.
Ms. Marsh stated that she would like it clear in the approval that the addition is 26 feet from the front property line and she would like the 25’ setback line drawn on the final plan.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Pat Looney and voted unanimously to approve the Special Permit Application, as follows;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received a Special Permit Application dated November 4, 2013 consisting of a statement of use, abutter list, photos of the premises, deed, zoning statistics, site plan of proposed addition to residence of Paul & Maura Graml 33 Brightwater Road Old Lyme, CT 06371 dated October 11, 2013, revised November 19, 2013 prepared by J.W. Flower and property survey titled “Map Depicting Lots 112 & 113 “Old Lyme Shores” prepared for and property of Paul C. Graml 33 Brightwater Road Sheet 1 of 1 Date: April 16, 2001, scale 1 inch = 10ft. prepared by Hendriks Associates, LLC;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 2013, and the Commission has had an opportunity to hear testimony from the public and from the applicant; and
Whereas, the proposed enlargement is allowed by Special Permit under section 9.1.3.2 of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the technical provisions of this section:
1. There is no new nonconformity, nor increase in any existing nonconformity, with respect to setback, coverage, and other Bulk requirements; and
Whereas, the Commission has considered:
a. the density or intensity of the Lot and the surrounding area, including the area and topography of the Lot, its coverage by Buildings, the height and volume of such Buildings, the number of Dwelling Units or bedrooms, and the ratio of impervious surfaces;
b. the natural resources on the Lot and in the vicinity of the Lot which may be adversely impacted;
c. the access to the Lot, including whether access roads are public or private, their surface condition, width, grade, flood hazard, drainage, existing traffic volume, and suitability for increased traffic or population to be served;
d. Access to the existing or proposed Building(s) or Structure(s) on and Abutting the Lot for emergency vehicles and public safety personnel;
e. the character of the neighborhood, including the scale of other Buildings or Structures in the area, the streetscape, impact on marine or coastal vistas as viewed from public Streets or other public viewing areas;
f. privacy, light, and air for the subject Lot and Abutting Lots;
g. increased effluent disposal volumes, the condition of the existing septic system on the Lot, and the impact on potential future repair or expansion of any such septic system; and
Whereas, the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the technical provisions of Section 13A and Section 13B of the Regulations with the following modifications required to be added to the final plan:
1. Survey showing the proposed location of the addition and the location and size of the existing garage.
2. An as-built survey of the constructed addition in its approved location, prepared by a licensed land surveyor is to be submitted to the Town to verify compliance with approved plans.
3. Revised survey shall be submitted with the proposed addition shown on the plan and one foot behind the setback, with the front setback shown as 25’.
4. Terrace shall be modified so that it is at least 15’ from the rear building line.
5. Pursuant to the Sanitarian’s letter, the approval is based on properly abandoning a row of leaching system that will be too close to the new building addition. A licensed installer is required to install a new section of leaching system in accordance with the CT Public Health Code On-site Sewage Disposal Systems. Mark Peterson licensed installer (#005631) has
applied for a permit to construct. Approval has been granted based on a confirmation test hole required before system installation.
Whereas, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the General Standards of Section 13B, 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
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval for a Special Permit Application dated November 4, 2013, for a master suite addition, at 33 Brightwater Road, Old Lyme, CT, Paul Grmal, applicant with the condition specified.
3. Special Permit Application to permit construction of a storage shed at 36 Springfield Road [vacant lot] in accordance with Section 9.1.3.2 of the Zoning Regulations, Jack Mut, property owner. Receive and set a public hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to receive the Special Permit Application for 36 Springfield Road, Jack Mut and set a Public Hearing for Monday, January 13, 2014.
4. Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations, Section 14.5.1~(amended wording in bold): 14.5.1 Spacing from House of~Worship or School. No Building, other Structure or Premises shall be Used as a liquor establishment if any entrance to such liquor establishment is located within 200 feet or less radius from a property containing a House of Worship or school building provided, however, that a Building, Structure or Premises is eligible to be used as a liquor establishment within such distance if the House of Worship or school was erected on such property after the lawful commencement of the liquor establishment Use. The spacing requirements from a House of Worship shall not apply to establishments having a
grocery store permit for the sale of beer only, Assif Choudhry, Petitioner.
No action taken. Chairman Cable noted that because it is a Regulation change the Commission must give 60 days notice and for that reason the Public Hearing is scheduled for January 13, 2014. She noted that for the same reason the Zoning Commission’s amendment, below, is scheduled for January.
5. Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations, Section 5.12.3 Light Industry LI-80 District (LI), Special Permit Uses, Per Section 13B to include “Governmental Services buildings,” Town of Old Lyme Zoning Commission, Petitioner.
No action taken. Public Hearing scheduled for January 13, 2014
6. Release of Bond Request dated November 19, 2013 from Henry Resnikoff, a member of Lyme Academy Apartments, LLC.
Ms. Brown suggested that the Commission wait to take action as the applicant has a few small things to do and Wetlands has not yet released the bond. No action taken; not ready to release at this time.
7. Approval of Minutes – Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
of October 16, 2013 and November 13, 2013.
Chairman Cable stated that she would like to make a change to the minutes. She indicated that she said that it would be sufficient to distribute the letter to each Commission member rather than read it aloud. Chairman Cable stated that the minutes indicate she said that she would like to read each letter aloud. Chairman Cable stated that she finds that things are sometime paraphrased in the minutes. Mr. Kiritsis stated that he has been misquoted many times in the minutes and have always accepted it as the minutes. Ms. Bozek stated that one can always request a change to the minutes before they have been approved. She stated that when she was Chairman the minutes were a recapitulation of what happened rather than word for word.
Chairman Cable asked whether Mr. Kiritsis would like to object to her request and he indicated that he would.
A motion was made by Tom Risom, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of October 16, 2013 with the following amendment: Page 8, item 8 Correspondence, number 2 to read “She indicated that it would be sufficient to distribute the letter to each Commission member rather than read it aloud.” Motion carried 3:0:2. In favor: J. Cable, J. Marsh, T. Risom; Abstaining: J. Johnson, P. Looney.
Mr. Johnson requested a change to Page 6 A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of November 13, 2013 with the following amendment: page 6, first paragraph, change “their” to “they’re” to read “the owner indicates they will be removed and they’re not but some are.” Motion carried 4:0:1. In favor: J. Cable, J. Marsh, J. Johnson, P. Looney; Abstaining: T. Risom.
8. Any New or Old Business
Preliminary discussion, Bruce Baratz, consider including “Arbors” in section 7.4.2 Fences, Walls and Terraces
Mr. Baratz, 309 Ferry Road, stated that Ms. Brown recently contacted him for the second time and they met regarding a complaint she received from a neighbor about an arbor on his property. He indicated that he has been a real estate broker since 1970. Mr. Baratz stated that he is aware that Towns have different requirements as to what size fence can be put up and whether the good side has to go in or out. He noted also that people can plant trees that grow up to 40 feet. Mr. Baratz explained that he put up lattice for his grapes and roses so they can climb up them. He stated that Ms. Brown suggested that he come before the Commission to discuss whether an arbor is considered a fence. Chairman Cable questioned how Mr. Baratz would define an arbor. Mr. Baratz indicated that he didn’t know. Chairman Cable stated that Mr. Baratz would have to make a petition to amend the Regulations and in that would request what he wants.
Ms. Brown explained that Mr. Baratz constructed what he intends to be an arbor, a structure on which plants will grow. She noted that it is almost on the property line and certainly taller than 6 feet. She noted that if he cut the arbor down to under 6 feet he could leave it in its current location. Ms. Brown stated that the neighbor apparently felt impacted because he called and complained. She questioned whether the Commission would consider an arbor differently than other structures. Chairman Cable stated that she is not sure there is a good way to differentiate between a living fence and a fence. Ms. Cable stated that she has vines growing up the fences along her property line and they are as high as 12 feet. Ms. Brown noted that anyone can plant as many tall trees as
they’d like along their property line.
Several of the Commission members noted that they know of many places in Town where people have large poles with deer fencing that have become walls with living things growing up them.
Mr. Risom asked if the structure in question is the one halfway up Mr. Baratz’s driveway on the left. Mr. Baratz’s indicated that it is. He stated that he could plant cedar trees and have his vines grow up them. Chairman Cable noted that he could also use the arbors he has if they meet the setback. He noted that meeting the setback would put the arbors in the middle of his front yard. Ms. Marsh stated that a single pole does not constitute a fence. She indicated that she does not want to use the word arbor. Mr. Risom noted that there is lattice between the poles. Chairman Cable questioned when a pole would become a fence. She noted that the definition of fence is a structure for enclosure or screening.
Mr. Baratz stated that the plantings are in the only area on his property where he gets sunlight. He indicated that he could have another sunny area if he could remove the trees or trim the trees in the Town right-of-way. Chairman Cable suggested that Mr. Baratz go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.
Election of Officers – Chairman Cable asked Commission members to be prepared to act on this in January. Action on this item is tabled until the January 13, 2014 Regular Meeting.
Discussion of Section 21.1.4 of the Zoning Regulations and Special Permits in the R-10 District, Section 9.1.3.2 and the definition for calculation of floor area - Ms. Brown reported that she and Attorney Knapp are still working on the text. Discussion was tabled to January.
9. Correspondence
Chairman Cable distributed an email dated Friday, December 6, 2013 from Ms. Janet Lage with a response from the First Selectwoman, which will be part of the Commission’s official record.
10. Zoning Enforcement
a. Zoning Enforcement Report
A Zoning Enforcement Report was distributed to the Commission members. Chairman Cable questioned the Motor Vehicle Repair business on Meadow Lane. Ms. Brown stated that this is difficult to prove. She noted that the owner has not contacted her. She noted that the certified letter was returned but the letter sent regular mail was not returned.
Chairman Cable stated that the First Selectwoman asked for a committee to interview the applicants for Ms. Brown’s position and Tom Risom was chosen as a member.
b. Site Inspection Report
None.
11. Miscellaneous/Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. on a motion by John Johnson; seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
