OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, February 10, 2014
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, February 10, 2014, 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, Ted Kiritsis, alternate and Gil Soucie, alternate.
Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Cable called the Public Hearing to order at 7:32 p.m.
1. Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations, Section 14.5.1~(amended wording in italics): 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 beer permit for the sale of beer only, Assif Choudhry, Petitioner.
Ms. Marsh read new Exhibit N for the record. She noted that public testimony was taken last month and asked for additional comments from the public.
Vivian Cense, 75 Sill Lane, stated that she sees no reason to change the ordinance as it has served the Town well for many years. She asked that the ordinance remain as it is.
Tom Richardson, Lyme resident, stated that he has lived within Lyme and Old Lyme since 1982 and is currently Chairman of the Lyme Youth Services Bureau. He stated that he agrees with the previous comment and does not see the need for the sale of more beer in an area that already has a problem with youth drinking. He indicated that he does not feel it is necessary and he strongly objects.
Keith McCarthy, Old Lyme resident for 15 years, stated that he agrees with what his colleague just stated and he does not see any value that the change will bring to the community.
A gentleman from Browns Lane stated that the ordinance is fine as it is today and as a parent he is very concerned about there being more access to alcohol. He stated that he is also aware of safety issues within this particular neighborhood because of the DUI’s and high traffic in that area. He indicated that there are risks associated with additional access to alcohol.
Clinton Brown, Dicesare and Bentley Engineers, stated that at the January Public Hearing there were comments regarding the density of establishments that might serve alcoholic beverages. He noted that there was no demographic data to support those claims, such as what type of environment it is in. Mr. Brown stated that this makes it hard for the applicant to dispute or judge the information as it pertains for the proposal and he thinks it would make it hard for the Commission to make a judgment in that regard because no information regarding density was provided.
Mr. Brown stated that according to the Department of Consumer Protection there are three enterprises in Town with a grocery beer permit; Big Y, Andy’s and Coffee’s. He questioned whether these establishments run any differently because they sell beer. Mr. Brown stated that he looked around Town and noted that all these establishments are in close proximity to liquor stores and he indicated that he feels that beer is sold in these types of stores for the convenience of their customers. He noted that the Plan of Conservation and Development calls for Commercial Zones to serve the needs of the public and grocery stores exists in these zones to serve those needs. Mr. Brown noted that they circulated a petition that contains the text of the amendment and asks the Commission to approve the
amendment. He noted that there are seven pages containing approximately 80 signatures. Mr. Brown submitted this petition for the record. Mr. Johnson questioned whether the signatures were verified to be those of Old Lyme residents. Mr. Brown indicated that they did not and there may be some signatures of people who are not Old Lyme residents.
Mr. Brown stated that the entities most affected by this amendment would be the churches and nothing has been submitted by any of the churches or their representatives indicating concerns of the proposal. He noted that in order to obtain a grocery store beer permit, one must have a grocery store. Mr. Brown stated that as one looks around Town there does not seem to be demographics to support another grocery store.
Mr. Brown stated that his 30 years of experience stated that most Towns have separation requirements for liquor establishments and noted that in most Towns if you meet the separation distance you can go to the State and apply for a permit. He noted that in Old Lyme one must first come before the Zoning Commission for a Special Permit. Mr. Brown stated that one must prove there would be no impacts on adjoining properties and that is the big difference between Old Lyme’s Regulations and those of other Towns.
Mr. Brown stated that the currently Regulations do not hold to the same standard as other alcohol serving establishments and that is because the Commission recognizes that they are not the same thing. Mr. Brown stated that with the Commission’s Regulations and those of the State, it is highly unlikely that the Town will be overwhelmed with grocery store beer permit requests.
Mr. Brown thanked the Commission for their time.
Mr. Johnson questioned the impact on children and the availability of beer. Mr. Brown stated that that is a society issue; he noted that parents struggle to keep their kids on the right path, not only with alcohol but with other things as well. He indicated that he believes the Commission should be looking at this from a land use perspective and determining whether this amendment will impact other properties. He indicated that the society issues are bigger issues for everyone.
Mr. Kiritsis stated that the issue is the distance. Mr. Brown stated that the proposal is to take out the restriction that exists for the sale of beer in close proximity to churches. Mr. Kiritsis questioned whether Mr. Brown means beer when he states alcohol. Mr. Brown stated that yes, he means beer only, not alcohol, and apologized for creating confusion. Mr. Kiritsis stated that he does not believe the current Regulations treat the separation of grocery store beer permits any differently then liquor permits. Mr. Brown read the current regulation that exempts grocery store beer permits from the 1500 foot separation distance between establishments. Mr. Kiritsis stated that he does not remember that change and suggested perhaps that he was not on the Commission at that time. Mr.
Johnson stated that there is a 200 foot distance from a house of worship.
John Topalis, owner of the Pizza Plus, indicated that he is in favor of the application.
Mr. Johnson questioned whether beer is served at the pizza restaurant and Mr. Topalis replied that it is not, but he would allow someone to bring their own.
Assif Choudhry, Petitioner and owner of the gas station, stated that he has owned the station for fourteen years and has spent a lot of money protecting the environment in Old Lyme. He noted that the Dairy Mart down the street sold beer and they were not able to stay in business. He noted that the Bayberry Hotel went out of business. Mr. Choundhry stated that in order to stay in business he needs to increase his sales and he noted that no one from the church came to oppose the proposal. He reiterated that he is requesting to only sell beer. Mr. Choundhry noted that at one point there was a proposal to put condominiums in the church. He indicated that in the future it might not be a church and they he could simply come for a Special Permit. Addressing the society issues, he noted
that most kids will find beer in their parents’ garage. He noted that he cannot sell beer to anyone under 21 years of age. Mr. Choundhry noted that his business is very seasonal. He noted that he speaks for all businesses in the Sound View area when he talks about the seasonal nature and the difficulty staying open. He noted that the State now allows the sale of beer on Sunday; he noted changes are happening at the State level.
Mr. Johnson questioned what percentage Mr. Choundhry feels beer will be of his business. Mr. Choundhry stated that he would estimate $200.00 per day. Mr. Johnson questioned what percent that would be of total sales. Mr. Choundhry stated that it would be approximately 10 percent, but would be higher in the summer the three summer months. He stated that it is hard to survive in the winter months. He noted that the Dairy Mart couldn’t stay in business and they had a beer permit. Mr. Choundhry stated that the surrounding Towns make it easier for businesses. He reiterated that no one from the church has spoken against the proposal.
Mr. Kiritsis stated that he is delighted to see so many people come out for a Public Hearing. He noted that the preamble of the Regulations is what the Commission should think about.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Ted Kiritsis and voted unanimously to close the continued Public Hearing on the Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations, Section 14.5.1. Motion carried, 5:0:0.
2. Special Permit Application to permit demolition of existing detached garage and construction of an attached garage, enlargement of first floor and renovation of second floor in accordance with Section 9.1.3.2 on property located at 25 Massachusetts Road, Joe Minkos, owner.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in The Day on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 and Tuesday, February 4, 2014. She also read the Exhibit List for the record.
Larry Tomasetti, THI Construction was present to represent the applicant. He submitted the receipt for the certified mailings and noted one was not picked up.
Mr. Tomasetti stated that the property is one of the largest in the area, just shy of 10,000 square feet, or 9,026 square feet. He explained that Mr. Minkos’ parents will be coming to live with him which is the reason for the need of the additions. Mr. Tomasetti indicated that they plan to move the existing garage that is located in the setback. He noted that they will construct an attached garage in a conforming location and the area above the garage will be for storage only. Mr. Tomasetti explained that the dormer on the garage is for aesthetic purposes only and the height inside will be 5’10”. He noted that they will be converting the home to year round. Mr. Tomasetti noted that the engineer’s report notes that run-off will be decreased as all the storm
and footing drains will be tied into a drywell. He noted that there are four bedrooms existing and it will remain four bedrooms. Mr. Tomasetti stated that there is an error on the architectural plan as it shows the roof on the side being larger then it currently is and they do not plan to change the roof line as it would then bump out into the setback.
Mr. Tomasetti stated that the property will be tied into sewers and public water. He explained that the shed on the side will be for storage of their boats. He noted that they will be insulating and installing new windows to make it more energy efficient. Mr. Johnson questioned whether Mr. Minkos had children. He replied that he did not. Mr. Johnson stated that additional children in the school system was a concern if the area was allowed year round homes.
Mr. Minkos explained that he is recently engaged. He indicated that he is renovating the house for his parents and one grandparent.
Ms. Brown stated that there were conflicting sizes on the plans for the bathroom addition and questioned whether the plans have been revised to correct it. Mr. Tomasetti stated that the architectural drawings show a size of 7’ x 6’ and the correct size is 7’ x 6’6”. He indicated that he will submit revised plans. Ms. Brown stated that she would also like a correction to the roof size on the side shown on the new plans. Ms. Brown noted that the ceiling height of the shed is noted as 5’10” but the shed is over 12 feet tall. She indicated that she would like the Zoning Commission to consider whether they feel it is appropriate to eliminate the floor area by installing a ceiling in this area. She indicated that if the ceiling was not installed the
shed would count as floor area. Mr. Tomasetti stated that the applicant would be willing to put a shed roof on if the Commission had concerns in this regard.
Chairman Cable stated that the Zoning Block on the plans indicates that the structure is one story. Ms. Brown noted that the addition is one story.
Mr. Minkos questioned whether they could change the requested ceiling height in the shed to 5’11” as he is 5’10 ¾” tall.
Mr. Rossi stated that he feels this proposal would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and the Town. He indicated that Larry of THI Construction is a very reputable builder. Mr. Rossi stated that the proposal is a win for everyone.
A motion was made by Ted Kiritsis, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing on the Special Permit Application to permit demolition of existing detached garage and construction of an attached garage, enlargement of first floor and renovation of second floor on property located at 25 Massachusetts Road, Joe Minkos, owner. Motion passed, 5-0-0.
Chairman Cable adjourned the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
