UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, March 13, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Public Hearing on Monday, March 13, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman) Jane Marsh (Secretary), John Johnson, Jane Cable, Steven Ames (Alternate - seated) and Howard Tooker (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Kiritsis called the Public Hearing to order at 7:31 p.m.
1. 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.
Chairman Kiritsis noted that the Public Hearing was continued from the February 15, 2006 Regular Meeting. Ms. Marsh read the exhibits received since the last hearing.
Attorney Cronin was present to represent the applicants. He indicated that at the last public hearing he presented a detail review of the proposal and the Commission continued the Public Hearing with regard to future comments of the revision to the proposal filed prior to the last meeting.
The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time to retrieve chairs for the public, as directed by the Fire Marshall.
Attorney Cronin stated that much information has been disseminated in regards to the application that the applicant feels is in error. He indicated that he would like to set the record straight as to the exact proposal for the chapel. Attorney Cronin stated that the proposed Regulation allows structures such as the chapel to be converted into multi-family units not to exceed six in number, and all in accordance with the existing multi-family regulations. He indicated that the proposed regulations do reference the terms “tourist home, boarding home, hotel, motel and bed and breakfast.” Attorney Cronin stated that that part of the Regulation refers only to those properties which have, since 1960, been used for that purpose, and those properties are specifically excluded from qualifying
for conversion for this purpose. He noted that the proposal also does not allow the expansion of the building. Attorney Cronin referred to the project’s plans and noted that it was reviewed in its entirety at the last Public Hearing.
Attorney Cronin stated that it was anticipated that the Commission would receive a second response from their counsel. He indicated that Attorney Branse did respond to the revisions presented at the last meeting. Attorney Cronin noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the plans and unanimously recommended to the Zoning Commission that they adopt these Regulations. He noted that Attorney Branse had five comments in regard to the revised regulation. Attorney Cronin noted that based on Attorney Branse’s letter and other comments received at the last Public Hearing, the applicants prepared and filed a second revision to the proposed regulation. He explained that in the first introductory paragraph the language was changed slightly in response to Attorney Branse’s comment with
regard to conflict between the provisions allowing conversion of structures such as this to multi-family use and the standard multi-family use regulation. Attorney Cronin stated that they did this in the same manner that was used for the Sound View Village District. He noted that the provisions of the multi-family (Section 32.6) would prevail unless specifically in conflict with the enumerated sub-paragraphs of this section.
Attorney Cronin stated that under Paragraph A, Commissioner Marsh had a question with regard to the determination of the prior use of the property. He noted that this particular regulation limits the structures that would qualify for this particular type of project, to those properties which have not been used for residential purposes and have been in existence since January 1, 1960. Attorney Cronin stated that he added a new sentence to this section as follows: “It shall be the responsibility of the Zoning Enforcement Officer to determine compliance with this section based upon the Assessor’s Records of the Town of Old Lyme and other information requested of and provided by the property owner or applicant.”
Attorney Cronin stated that he has also revised Paragraph B, as Attorney Branse was concerned about architectural features and changes and indicated that in the new Sound View Village District Zone there are numerous controls in regards to this. Attorney Cronin stated that in response to that comment the regulation now reads, “Changes in the exterior appearance of the building shall be allowed, if appropriate, for conversion of the premises to the proposed residential use or to comply with building code requirements.” He stated that for further controls he added the phrase: “Such changes shall be made subject to the approval of the Zoning Commission as part of an application for Special Exception for the project under Section 32.6 of the Regulation and subject to the general standards
set forth in Section 32.4 of the Regulation.” Attorney Cronin stated that Attorney Branse also questioned a provision with regard to an expansion of an existing building to possibly create more units than the building could otherwise hold. He noted that he has taken one of Attorney Branse’s ideas for this section which states: “The size of the building shall not be expanded except for code required additions, which expansion shall not exceed 10 percent of the existing interior volume of the building."
Attorney Cronin stated that Attorney Branse also had a concern about not requiring garages. He explained that taking an existing building and incorporating garages into the first floor would create both an appearance and architectural problem. For that reason, they have chosen to eliminate it as a specific requirement under the multi-family regulations. Attorney Cronin noted that he asked Mr. Rose to write a letter with regard to the septic. He explained that Mr. Rose has indicated that the property can support six separate septic systems that can meet all present state and federal code requirements and can be approved by him as the local sanitarian. Ms. Marsh noted that she read Mr. Rose’s letter for the record.
Rosemary Strapple commended the applicants and their professional advisors. She stated that they have done a thoughtful job in preserving the exterior of the current structure.
Joe LaCasse, 11 Bayberry Ridge, member of Christ the King Parish, stated that the chapel is currently a non-revenue property to the Town which will be converted to residential and provide additional taxes. He indicated that it is a wonderful use for a building such as this.
Eleanor Riggle, Smith Neck Road, member of Christ the King Parish, stated that the new building will be a wonderful asset to the Town. She indicated that she fears what might be done to the property if this were not presented. Ms. Riggle stated that she is in favor of the proposal.
Larry Lapeal, property owner at 20 Swan Avenue and 19 Old Colony Road, which are adjoining streets. He indicated that his concern is traffic, as Swan Avenue is closed many days during the summer. Mr. Lapeal noted that the traffic pattern for the property puts all traffic onto Swan Avenue. He stated that six units on that small property is an overuse of the property and he is concerned about the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Lapeal stated that the applicants appear to want the best of both worlds: He indicated that they are putting traffic onto Swan Avenue, they want year-round use and rights to the public beach. He noted that the Town has been in Court for over five years on the seasonal issue. Mr. Lapeal stated that he feels this proposal is outrageous.
Shirley Annunziata, 43 Portland Avenue, read the following four letters into the record: 1) letter from Shirley Annunziata, 2) John and Rosemary Boccacio, 3) Frank Pappalardo and 4) Gilbert & Joyce Sussi.
Attorney Richard Havilland submitted two letters from two Old Lyme residents opposed to the application. He indicated that the first letter was from Glen Semel, Old Colony resident, is concerned because it is his understanding that the last revision was filed with the Town on March 8th. Ms. Marsh noted that the letter submitting the revision is dated March 8, 2006. Attorney Havilland indicated that under Section 8.3A the hearing is premature and their must be ten days between the last revision and the hearing. Ms. Marsh indicated that the letter is stamped March 13, 2006. Ms. Brown indicated that it was received by fax on March 8 and by mail on March 13. Attorney Havilland indicated that either way it was not received ten days prior to this hearing. He noted that Mr.
Semel is concerned that the proposal violates the Plan of Development in terms of density in residential zones. Attorney Havilland indicated that Mr. Semel is also concerned with pulling parts of the SVDD further into the residential areas. Mr. Semel’s letter was marked Exhibit DD.
Attorney Havilland stated that Andrea Lombard, Hartung Place, indicates concern with spot zoning. He indicated that she is also concerned that this application is a variance disguised as a zone change. Attorney Havilland stated that she has concern about the density of the development and also that the application was submitted in the winter months when most of the beach residents are not available to comment. He noted that Ms. Lombard is also concerned that members of the Board may also be members of the church and may have a financial interest. Chairman Kiritsis asked Attorney Havilland to explain how a church member could have a financial interest. Attorney Havilland explained that the church owns the property and if the proposal is approved, the present contract price for the property
will be used to pay off the current debt of Christ the King Church. Chairman Kiritsis questioned whether the money goes to the parishioners. Attorney Havilland indicated that it does not go to the parishioners, although it is money that the parishioners will not have to come up with if the sale did not go through. He submitted Ms. Lombard’s letter for the record (Exhibit EE).
Rosemarie Lombard, 35 Champlain Drive, read and submitted her letter in opposition to the proposed regulation change. She noted that she is concerned with documented hazards and inevitable tax increases. Ms. Lombard stated that the regulation change is not compatible with the Coastal Municipal Plan for the region. She indicated that Old Lyme is historically known for its risk and susceptibility to flooding and 287 Shore Road is located in an area of Town known for stream flooding, drainage problems and a high water table. She noted that a six unit building will greatly increase the risk of flooding and could cause untold health problems to adjacent homeowners. Ms. Lombard stated that the Plan of Development earmarks single family homes as its primary form of residential development, which
should be adhered to. She indicated that this proposal is counterproductive to Town planning. Ms. Lombard stated that approval of this proposal will set a precedent which will encourage a multitude of seasonal property owners in the shore area to petition the Zoning Board to grant their property year-round status. She indicated that this would require education increases, along with increased police protection and a paid fire department. Ms. Lombard stated that the Town’s infrastructure will need to be upgraded, including sewers. She urged the Board to act prudently and to adhere to the Plan of Development. (Exhibit FF).
Lillian Lombard stated that when Old Colony Beach was created it had to go before the General Assembly. She indicated that the General Assembly devised the Charter Oak Deed. Ms. Lombard stated that this should take precedent because our forefathers had the foresight to develop the area. She stated that in 1906 this was a tiny church which was later enlarged for all the beach people. Ms. Lombard stated that she would like to see the building remain as a summer church, which benefits more people than a six complex condominium.
Donna L. Brown, 54 Portland Avenue, stated that although this is her home, she cannot live their year round because of its seasonal status. She read a letter which she submitted for the record. She indicated that the proposed condominiums are not a good use of the property. Ms. Brown pointed out that the property is located on the corner of three busy Roads. She indicated that local law enforcement work endless hours in the summer keeping the traffic flowing and the pedestrian foot traffic safe. Ms. Brown stated that the area is already dangerous from a traffic standpoint. She noted that the density of development will affect the aquifer. Ms. Brown stated that she is also concerned with the psychological impact of converting a holy sacred structure to living space. She noted
that the applicants are looking for a special buyer. Ms. Brown stated that she welcomes improvements to Sound View but this project does not fit. (Exhibit GG)
Rob Breen, 35 Swan Avenue, indicated that his property is seasonal. He indicated that he would like to address the prior use of the property. Mr. Breen stated that he wondered why the language in the regulation states that the building has to be not used as a residence prior to being converted to a residence. He indicated that he is aware that the Town has a sewer avoidance program in place designed to limit the year-round population in the beaches, to limit the number of kids in the schools and to limit the drain on other town services; but most of all to limit the septic load in a very densely populated area. Mr. Breen stated that this project completely defeats the sewer avoidance program by bringing six more year-round units on a small property.
Attorney Cronin stated that there have been many comments on keeping the building a church; a view he sympathizes with. He indicated that that argument really is rightfully between the parishioners and the catholic church. Attorney Cronin stated that the area is residentially zoned. He noted that a church in East Lyme was converted to a beauty parlor. Attorney Cronin stated that the property is far too large for a single-family dwelling. He indicated that the septic issues have been addressed in detail, as have the traffic issues.
Chairman Kiritsis questioned whether the applicant wishes to keep the Public Hearing open. Attorney Cronin indicated that the Commission has discretion to change the language without going through the notice requirement. He indicated that if there is a substantive change in the Regulation, it would have to go through the process. Attorney Cronin stated that if the Commission feels it needs to be continued again to meet all filing requirements, the applicant will consent to an extension.
A motion was made by Jane Cable seconded by Steve Ames and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for the Petition to Amend the 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, to the April 10, 2006 Regular Meeting.
2. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a six foot fence in the front setback, 3 Sea Spray Road, Paul Kwasniewski, applicant.
Paul Kwasniewski was present to explain his application. He noted that as a builder and developer, one of the first things he did in renovating this property was to clear the unsightly overgrowth along the boundaries. Mr. Kwasniewski explained that this entailed clearing the large trees that were hanging over wires to the house and parts of the house itself. He stated that he also cleared the brush, bramble and vines on the side street, along with the existing fence it was woven into. Mr. Kwasniewski noted that the hedges along the main street were overgrown and blocking the view of traffic of his neighbors who voiced a complaint. Mr. Kwasniewski explained that the six foot fence addresses the issues of safety for children and pets, a barrier from the noise pollution of traffic, privacy and
an overall esthetic improvement to the property. He explained that a row of trees could eventually grow to block the sight line. Mr. Kwasniewski stated that he has submitted photographs for the record.
Chairman Kiritsis read the legal notice for the record (Exhibit A). Mr. Johnson questioned how the Commission knows there is no sight line issue. Mr. Kwasniewski explained that the fence is located on his property, a few feet inside the area where the original fence was removed. Mr. Kwasniewski noted that the original fence was about six feet high also. He stated that he also removed the shrubs that were outside the original fence. Mr. Tooker stated that he personally visited the site and can attest that the sight line has been improved.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a six foot fence in the front setback, 3 Sea Spray Road, Paul Kwasniewski, applicant.
3. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a six foot fence in the front setback, 115 Shore Road, Dawn Root, applicant.
Chairman Kiritsis read the legal notice for the record. Diane Stevens was present to explain the application. She noted that photographs were submitted as part of the application. Ms. Stevens read the Statement of Use for the record. She stated that the house is located on Shore Road next to Hallmark Drive-in. Ms. Stevens stated that the back yard and deck face the left side of Hallmark which is used for their parking and outdoor dining. She explained that the lights of parking cars shine directly into the home, along with the floodlights on the building which are on all night. Ms. Stevens stated that the deck is in full view of diners, affording no privacy. Ms. Stevens stated that Ms. Root has also encountered customers of Hallmark walking through her backyard. She
indicated that garbage blows onto the property. Ms. Stevens stated that the fence also allows Ms. Root to keep her dogs safe from traffic on Route 156. She indicated that Ms. Root chose a fence that is appealing and blends well with the area. Ms. Stevens stated that Ms. Root first proposed her plan to the ZEO who approved it and then was subsequently issued a notice of violation.
Diane Stevens stated that she lives and grew up across the street from Hallmarks and acknowledged that there is no privacy for Ms. Root without the fence.
Richard Teixiera, resident of Sunset Drive, stated that he travels Route 156 and visits Hallmark. He noted that Ms. Root removed trees and shrubbery where the fence has been installed. Mr. Teixiera noted that the sight line has been improved.
Gary Legion, owner of Hallmark, stated that he is concerned with the last two sections of fence close to the road because they are high. He noted that there were bushes, which could be trimmed down. Mr. Legion stated that he is concerned about kids darting into the street from behind the fence and cars not seeing them. He indicated that he likes the fence, but is concerned with the last two sections. Mr. Legion acknowledged that the same thing could have occurred when there were trees and shrubs in that same area.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a six foot fence in the front setback, 115 Shore Road, Dawn Root, applicant.
4. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a six foot fence in the front setback, 124 Boston Post Road, Margaret Ebbets, applicant.
Chairman Kiritsis read the legal notice for the record. Ms. Ebbets explained that when she purchased the property there was a 3.5 foot rusted chain link fence in amongst a dead, eight-foot high hedge. She noted that the middle of the hedge was bare so that it did not provide a buffer from noise or lights. Ms. Ebbets stated that this hedge blocked egress from the left coming out of Sunset. She indicated that when getting a permit for a propane tank in the Building Office she questioned the fence regulations and was told that she did not need permits if the fence was six feet or less in height.
Ms. Ebbets stated that her main reason for putting up the fence is the fact that she is epileptic and flickering lights are an issue for her. She explained that her living room is in the front of the house and a four-foot fence does not block fire trucks and ambulances. She noted that accidents on I-95 cause great amounts of traffic on the Boston Post Road and the fence helps buffer this noise and light.
Ms. Ebbets stated that the hedge was on the State right-of-way and her fence is on her property. She stated that the sight line has been increased. Ms. Ebbets stated that her neighbors have signed a petition noting that they are in favor of the fence and find it to be a welcome replacement of the over-grown hedge and rusted chain link fence; also noting the increased sight line. Ms. Ebbets noted that the fence has been in place for eight months.
Jimmy Driscoll, 112 Sill Lane, noted that he approves of the fence. He indicated that Ms. Ebbets has greatly improved the property and the sight line for both her property and the residents of Sunset Drive. Mr. Driscoll stated that the white fence also helps drivers get an idea of the road direction at night.
Volunteer fireman and neighbor, stated that the sight line has been improved. He indicated that he had approached the previous owners who trimmed the hedge approximately three inches, which grew back rapidly.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a six foot fence in the front setback, 124 Boston Post Road, Margaret Ebbets, applicant.
5. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 17 Sandpiper Road, Robert and Patricia Volland, applicants.
Chairman Kiritsis read the legal notice for the record. Sloan Danenhower was present to represent Gary Sharpe, who is on vacation. He explained that the application was previously approved but expired before it was filed. Ms. Cable stepped down as she was not present for the original hearing. Mr. Tooker sat in her place.
Mr. Danenhower explained that Sandpiper is off Ferry Road. He explained that the property is the very last on Sandpiper Road. Mr. Danenhower stated that he recently received approval from the Commission to construct a walkway down to the dock.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the hearing.
A motion was made by Howard Tooker, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 17 Sandpiper Road, Robert and Patricia Volland, applicants.
Chairman Kiritsis adjourned the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
