APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, July 10, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Public Hearing on Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Tom Risom (Vice Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Jane Cable, John Johnson and Steven Ames (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Kiritsis called the Public Hearing to order at 7:33 p.m.
1. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct two elevated paddle tennis courts, a 24’ x 24’ maintenance shed and a gravel parking area, 40 McCurdy Road, Old Lyme Country Club, applicant.
Ms. Brown noted that the application indicates the address as 40 McCurdy Road, but it is 35 McCurdy Road. She stated that the legal notice was published with the incorrect address. Ms. Brown explained that the applicant had the same error on the Wetlands Application but she noticed it and it was corrected. She indicated that she did not notice the error on this application until today. The Commission agreed to open the Public Hearing and continue it to the August Regular Meeting; and in addition, to re-advertise with the proper address.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in the New London Day on Thursday, June 29, 2006 and Thursday, July 6, 2006, for the record.
Gary Sharpe was present to represent the applicant. He indicated that he would be agreeable to continuing the Public Hearing to the August Regular Meeting as there are some outstanding review comments that need to be addressed.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to re-advertise the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct two elevated paddle tennis courts, a 24’ x 24’ maintenance shed and a gravel parking area, 35 McCurdy Road, Old Lyme Country Club, applicant, with the correct address and to continue the Public Hearing to August 14, 2006.
2. Special Exception Application/Site Plan Modification Application of M. Brett Painting, 458 Shore Road, to make interior modifications to the second floor of existing storage building and to use the second floor for office space and to authorize construction of fewer parking spaces than standards require.
Attorney John Bennett was present to represent the applicant. Ms. Marsh read the Legal Notice as published in the New London Day on Thursday, June 29, 2006 and Thursday, July 6, 2006. She also read the Exhibit List for the record.
Attorney Bennett noted that the revision date of the drawing is not referenced. Ms. Marsh corrected this on the exhibit list. Attorney Bennett stated that the applicant was before the Commission a while back with this same application. He noted that at the time they had some difficulty because they anticipated that the septic system would be adequate and there were problems establishing that. Attorney Bennett explained that new test holes were dug and have been certified by Ron Rose, Sanitarian. He indicated that the building at 458 Shore Road is located in a C-30 Zone. Attorney Bennett stated that the applicant intends to use part of the second floor of the existing building, which was originally intended for storage, as office space. He noted that there are no structural or
exterior changes.
Attorney Bennett stated that the site plan shows additional plantings and screening. He stated that the application complies with all the Town Regulations. Attorney Bennett stated that the reason the application is a Special Exception is because the applicant is requesting a waiver for certain parking requirements. He indicated that the applicant will build the parking if it is the Commission’s desire; but the applicant does not see the need as there will be no additional employees at the site.
Chairman Kiritsis questioned whether the office space would be rented out to other businesses. Attorney Bennett replied that the office space would not be rented out. Mr. Johnson questioned whether the applicant would accept this as a condition of approval. Attorney Bennett replied that they would. Chairman Kiritsis stated that at the last hearing, there was a question as to whether there was more paving done than was initially approved. Attorney Bennett stated that he does not believe that to be an issue, but if it is, the applicant will correct the situation. Ms. Brown stated that the Commission approved a gravel parking area and she signed off compliance on the parking area. Ms. Marsh questioned whether the paved parking area changed the drainage. Ms. Brown indicated that
Tom Metcalf reviewed the plan, which shows the existing paved parking area. Ms. Marsh indicated that she is not sure he would focus on work that has been completed based on the application before the Commission. Mark Brett indicated that there are six to eight employees in the building. Ms. Cable stated that she would like to include a condition of any approval that the office space shall not be rented to any other entity or business.
Linda Mullen indicated that she is present on behalf of her husband who is owner of 2 and 4 Four Mile River Road. She noted that she has retained an attorney to represent them this evening, but he is delayed because of traffic. She explained that they have a few concerns. Ms. Mullen stated that her attorney did a title search which indicates that 458 Shore Road LLC is the owner of the property, which is not indicated properly on the application. She noted that the existing paved parking area is a concern to them. Ms. Mullen stated that she would like to know what the applicant intends to do with the building that currently houses the offices. She questioned whether it would be torn down. Ms. Mullen stated that she lives right next door to this property and knows that the workers
come to the site to get supplies. She stated that with the recent rains, she is concerned with the drainage and run-off from the vehicles that are parked on the pavement. Ms. Mullen stated that one of the building drains runs right onto the paved parking area.
Ms. Marsh indicated that it does not appear that the applicant intends to take down the existing building. She noted that they have also testified that there will be no additional employees at the site.
Ms. Mullen questioned whether the area can handle additional septic. Ms. Marsh stated that there is a letter from Ron Rose, Sanitarian, evaluating the project.
Ms. Mullen stated that she has deeded rights to a well that is on 458 Shore Road. She indicated that there is a car parked right next to her well, which is a concern to her. Mr. Risom stated that according to the site plan, the well is located off the property of 458 Shore Road and in the road right-of-way.
Norman Burke, 459 Shore Road, indicated that he was present at the last hearing, and the Chairman specifically noted that the property is not in compliance with the approved site plan. He noted that nothing has been remedied, but yet the application is before the Commission again. Chairman Kiritsis indicated that the question was the paved parking area, which was addressed before Mr. Burke arrived this evening. Mr. Burke noted that the paved parking area slopes off, there is no curb, and no catch basin. He stated that there are now two dumpsters on the property which he does not like to view from his property. Ms. Marsh noted that there is a proposed landscaping plan for screening. Mr. Burke reviewed the landscape plan. He noted that he would like to see the dumpsters enclosed.
Eric Stoddard, 453 Shore Road, displayed photographs of the property. He noted that his primary concern is to resolve what is not currently in compliance with the approval. Mr. Stoddard stated that at the last meeting it appeared that the Commission was very concerned about the areas of non-compliance. He questioned how the neighbors could be confident that the applicant will be required to complete the site plan as it is being presented this evening.
Norman Burke questioned the status of the paved parking area. He questioned whether it is being accepted as it exists. Ms. Brown stated that she approved the pavement as a minor modification to the original approval. She noted that she also accepted it when she signed off on the Zoning Compliance. She indicated that her approval, as ZEO, legitimizes the paved parking area. Mr. Burke stated that a slope parking area creates run-off at a velocity. He noted that there is no curb to slow the water down. Mr. Burke stated that in all due respect, he does not understand how she can approve something like that. Ms. Brown stated that the original application went to Wetlands, and one of the conditions of approval was that there be no disturbance beyond the area that was approved and
their expectation was that there would be no curbing or paving. She noted that in the meantime, the wetland on 458 Shore Road has been designated a tidal wetland, so the application never came back to the Wetlands Commission, as they no longer have jurisdiction. Ms. Brown noted that the Wetlands Commission approved the plan with gravel parking. Mr. Burke noted that drainage should have been reviewed when the pavement was proposed. He indicated that he does not believe that some one with the proper education and authority has reviewed the drainage.
Attorney Alan Messier was present to represent the Mullen’s. He noted that Marcy Balint, Senior Coastal Planner, reviewed the plan and indicated that she supports the plan not to proceed with full parking. Attorney Messier stated that she did have a concern about impervious coverage, which is why the Commission originally approved a plan that had no pavement. He indicated that he questions the procedure by which this area became paved. Attorney Messier stated that the concern of his clients is that the same thing will happen again. He questioned what would preclude the parking to be constructed. Attorney Messier submitted two photographs showing erosion in the area of the paved parking area. Ms. Marsh noted that the photographs are dated 6-25-06. She marked these
photographs Exhibit J.
Attorney Messier asked the Commission to look closely at this project and to take into consideration the impact that it will have on the neighbors; including the Mullen’s well. Attorney Messier indicated that his search shows the owner of the property as 458 Shore Road LLC.
Mr. Risom asked for a clarification on the type of evergreens to be used for screening. Attorney Bennett noted that the plans to not note the species. It was suggested that the evergreens be low to the ground and be able to grow well in the shade. Attorney Bennett suggested rhododendrons. He noted that the Site Plan Application meets the requirements of the Zoning Regulations.
Attorney Bennett stated that a copy of the deed was submitted with the application which shows 458 Shore Road LLC as the owner. Ms. Marsh asked that the owner sign the application. Attorney Bennett indicated that Mr. Brett and Mr. Fleischer own the LLC, and are the only members of the LLC. He indicated that the public is not being deceived and the matter should not bear on the Commission’s consideration of the application. Attorney Bennett stated that they have three years’ experience with the paved parking lot and there have been no problems with run-off. He noted that the paving plan was reviewed, approved and constructed. Attorney Bennett stated that if the driveway was gravel, there would be erosion from the water coming off the roof. Attorney Bennett noted that
the Mullen’s well, located in the road right-of-way, is not their primary well and could not be because the State would not allow it. He noted that it may not be a violation of the health regulations to use this well for watering the lawn or washing cars. Attorney Bennett indicated that the road salt that goes into that well is far worse than being adjacent to a parking facility.
Attorney Bennett stated that the applicant would be willing to pull out the paving if the Commission required it. He indicated that he believes removing the pavement would serve no purpose. Attorney Bennett noted that the application before the Commission conforms in every respect. He indicated that there have been no comments stating that the plan does not conform to the Regulations. Attorney Bennett noted that the property is located in a C-30 Zone. He noted that all proposed work is interior.
Attorney Kiritsis questioned whether there will be a bathroom in the new office space. Attorney Bennett replied that there is a new bathroom. He noted that there will be no more employees. Attorney Bennett noted that the existing septic system conforms. Chairman Kiritsis questioned how the dumpster would be enclosed. Attorney Bennett replied that it is enclosed by a fence on three sides and the proposed bushes should take care of the view from the fourth side.
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 Special Exception Application/Site Plan Modification Application of M. Brett Painting, 458 Shore Road, to make interior modifications to the second floor of existing storage building and to use the second floor office space and to authorize construction of fewer parking spaces than standards require.
Chairman Kiritsis adjourned the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
