APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, January 9, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on Monday, January 9, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Jane Marsh (Secretary), Tom Risom, John Johnson, Brian Kyle (Alternate), Steven Ames (Alternate, seated) and Howard Tooker (Alternate, seated). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
1. Convene Meeting; announcement of voting alternates.
Acting Chairman Risom called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. He immediately recessed the Regular Meeting to conduct the Public Hearing. Acting Chairman Risom reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:05 p.m.
2. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 38 Neck Road, Blair and Caroline Hoxby, applicants.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to approve the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 38 Neck Road, Blair and Caroline Hoxby, applicants
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received applications for Site Plan and Special Exception approvals to allow construction of a dock, one sheet titled, “Site Development Plan Showing Proposed Improvements Prepared for Blair and Caroline Hoxby, Neck Road, Conn. Route 156, Old Lyme, Connecticut”, as prepared by Angus McDonald/Gary Sharpe & Associates, Inc., Old Saybrook, Connecticut and dated October 11, 2005;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 9, 2006, and the commission has had an opportunity to hear testimony both from citizens of Old Lyme and the applicant; and
Whereas, the proposed use is permitted by Special Exception under the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the technical provisions Section 31.2 of the Regulations with the following conditions:
The applicant will not install any utilities during or after the construction of this dock.
Whereas, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the General Standards of Section 31.3, 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;
to conserve as much of the natural terrain and provide for vegetation on the site to the extent practical;
to be in architectural harmony with the surrounding area;
to protect nearby residential and preservation areas;
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 finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the General Standards of Section 32.9.3, in particular that the proposed use, buildings or other structures and site development conform to the standards of this section.
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 Blair and Caroline Hoxby for the Site Plan/Special Exception applications to construct a dock on property at 38 Neck Road, Old Lyme, CT, dated this 9th day of January, 2006.
3. Site Plan/Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to remodel an existing gasoline/repair facility and to change the use to a gas/convenience store/coffee shop, 85 Halls Road, All Pro Tire, Inc., applicant.
The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting.
4. Petition to Amend the Old Lyme Zoning Map, Hatchetts Hill Road, from LI-80, LI-80S and RU-80 to MFRU-80, Diebolt and Diebolt Development LLC, applicant. (Received December 12, 2005 and Public Hearing set for February 15, 2006).
Acting Chairman Risom noted that the Public Hearing for this item is set for February 15, 2006.
5. Petition to Amend the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations to create a new Section 32.5.10, Conversion of a Non-Residential Building to Dwelling Units, Michael Cohen and Steven Wallet, applicants. (Received December 12, 2005 and Public Hearing set for February 15, 2006).
Acting Chairman Risom noted that the Public Hearing for this item is set for February 15, 2006. Ms. Marsh noted that the agenda indicates Michael Cronin is one of the applicants and it should be Michael Cohen.
6. Site Plan Modification Application to modify the surface of the overflow parking and modification to the drainage system, 1 McCurdy Road, The Church of Christ the King, applicant. (Received December 12, 2005).
Ms. Brown suggested that the Commission discuss this item and decide whether they would like to conduct a public hearing in February. She explained that there were two parking areas that were to be impervious pavers. Ms. Brown stated that the parking was not constructed in that manner; it was constructed as a gravel base with grass on top, which would be a change in the design of the site plan. She explained that they would also like to add a catch basin to address water puddling in an area.
The Commission agreed that a Public Hearing would not be required. Mr. Risom asked that Mr. Metcalf review the drainage. The Commission will consider this item at their February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting.
7. Applications for Site Plan/Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan, 48-54 Hartford Avenue and 58-62 Hartford Avenue. Discussion at the request of applicant.
Ms. Brown stated that the Commission received a letter last month from the applicant’s attorney requesting that this matter be put on the agenda. She noted that he then called and cancelled and indicated that he would send plans. Ms. Brown indicated that plans have not been received. Ms. Marsh suggested removing this item from the agenda until plans are received or the applicant requests to be on the agenda.
8. Fee Schedule – Discussion of Engineering and Architectural Fees.
Ms. Brown stated that they are trying to design a fee schedule for the SVVD because an architectural review is required by the Regulations. She indicated that it is difficult because of the discrepancy in the size of projects. Ms. Brown stated that it was suggested to her that there be a minimum fee, with a distinction between an accessory use (fence or shed) and a change to the principle use. Ms. Brown stated that another issue is engineering fees and the possibility of requiring applicants to reimburse the Town for its expert’s evaluation of plans. She indicated that most other Towns contact their engineer for an estimate of the time it will take to review and then report to the Commission on the evening of receipt of the application. Ms. Brown stated that in this way the Commission
can ask the applicant to sign a statement indicating that they are willing to pay up to a certain dollar amount.
Ms. Brown stated that there is an Ordinance that allows the Commission to charge the applicant fees incurred in evaluation of their application. She indicated that the problem lies in getting to an exact dollar amount. Ms. Brown stated that she would hope to have the dollar amount determined before the application is officially received by the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Metcalf does the bulk of reviews for the Town. He questioned whether Mr. Metcalf has indicated whether he will be able to estimate his billable time. Mr. Johnson questioned what would happen if Mr. Metcalf’s actual bill was larger than the estimate. Ms. Brown stated that the Town could pay the difference or ask the applicant for more money.
Ms. Marsh stated that if it can be set after the fact, then the agreement should be signed with no dollar amount. Ms. Brown stated that the Planning Commission currently has applicants sign a statement indicating they are willing to pay if the Commission requires them to. Ms. Marsh stated that she would like to see the applicants sign an agreement to reimburse the Town for the actual costs incurred in reviewing the application. Mr. Johnson stated that an engineer cannot realistically provide a hard number.
Mr. Johnson stated that many applicants receive the benefit of the Town engineer’s review at the Town’s expense. Mr. Ames questioned why the applicant should have to pay more money in fees because Mr. Metcalf does not always review the applications in a timely manner. Ms. Brown stated that much of the differential between what engineering costs should be and what they actually are have to do with the quality of the plan submitted.
Discussing architectural review in the SVVD, Ms. Brown stated that she has discussed the matter with a few architects and it was suggested to set a minimum fee of $100.00. Mr. Tooker suggested charging a percent of the construction costs so that the applicants could budget their projects.
Ms. Brown noted that in some cases the Town may have to hire their own professionals, such as a traffic engineer, to refute the testimony of an applicant’s traffic engineer. She indicated that the Town should be able to charge this back to applicants.
The Commission agreed that for an application in the SVVD, the applicant should sign a document indicating that there will be a minimum architectural review fee of $100.00 and a maximum review fee of $1,500.00. Ms. Brown stated that the fee should not exceed $1,500.00 in any case because the review is basically of the façade.
Ms. Brown stated that she would also like the Commission to modify the fee schedule for fences. She noted that $350.00 for an application for Site Plan/Special Exception for 6’ fences in the setback is high, considering the plans are not reviewed by an engineer. The Commission agreed to set the Site Plan/Special Exception fee for a 6’ fence in the front setback at $100.00.
Ms. Brown stated that year to date the Commission has spent $4,678.86 on engineering, with a budgeted amount of $5,000.00. Mr. Risom noted that the Commission will be over budget for the year. Ms. Brown stated that both Planning and Wetlands are already over their budgeted engineering costs for the year. Mr. Risom stated that the fees should cover the costs. Ms. Marsh stated that Land Use cannot be self-funding because costs are a moving target.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to modify the fee schedule to set a $100.00 fee for Site Plan/Special Exception Applications for fences under Section 7.4.6 and to set a minimum $100.00 architectural review fee in the SVVD, up to a maximum of $1,500.00, effective February 1, 2006.
The Commission agreed to further discuss engineering fees at the February Regular Meeting.
9. Approval of Minutes.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by John Johnson and voted to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing; so moved 4:0:1, with Tom Risom abstaining.
10. Zoning Enforcement – Zoning Enforcement Report.
The Commission members reviewed the Zoning Enforcement Report. Ms. Brown suggested that the Commission members visit 147 Boston Post Road. She noted that when she mentioned it to Mr. Graybill he had his lighting consultant add shields. Ms. Brown stated that she would like the Commission members to be sure they are happy with the added shields.
Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Brown to look at the sandwich signs on Halls Road.
11. Regulation Rewrite – Set Special Meeting.
Ms. Brown stated that she has not received anything in regards to the Regulation Rewrite from Attorney Branse. She noted too, that January 23, 2006 is the date of the Annual Town Meeting.
12. Correspondence
Ms. Brown stated that Christ the King Church has requested to have their bond of $75,000.00 reduced to $10,000.00. She suggested that the Commission wait until after they determine whether are allowing the modification of surface of the overflow parking areas. Ms. Brown stated that she will also send the bond reduction request to Tom Metcalf.
13. Any new or old business to come before Commission.
None.
14. Miscellaneous/Adjourn
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
