APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Church of Christ the King Parish Center. Members present were Tom Risom (Chairman), Jane Cable (Vice Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Patrick Looney, Steve Ames (Alternate), Ted Kiritsis (Alternate), and Howard Tooker (Alternate). Also present was Mark Branse, Commission Counsel.
Vice Chairman Cable called the Public Hearing to order at 7:36 p.m. Ms. Marsh read the legal notices for the record.
1. Proposed Comprehensive Rewrite of the Town of Old Lyme Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map, Old Lyme Zoning Commission, applicant.
Vice Chairman Cable noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the December 12, 2007 Regular Meeting. Attorney Branse was present to answer questions.
Marty Smith noted a few possible clarifications the Commission could consider. He asked that the waiver mechanism be taken one step further. Mr. Smith suggested that tthe Commission have the power to waive the design requirements of Section 12.11.3 concerning certain separation distances. He explained that the Commission already has flexibility with the side yards setbacks and it would seem that the cluster and separation distance could also be flexible. Mr. Smith stated that this change would give applicants greater freedom and would achieve the same goals.
Mr. Smith stated that there is a technical problem with the wording also which he would like Mike Bennett, engineer, to explain. Mr. Bennett submitted a handout to the Commission members. He noted that he prepared a typical development based on the cluster regulations. On the handout, he noted that 100’ separation between clusters. Mr. Bennett explained that the minimum lot width in a cluster is 100’, separated by 100’ and a sideyard setback of 20’. He noted that tehnically, if a house is placed on lot 3 on the example, based on the setback requirements some lots could be made unbuildable because the Regulations go on to say that a dwelling in another structure must be 200’ away. He pointed out the 200’ radius on the plan and noted that it is possible
to layout a development with the 100’ separation and make a lot in another cluster unbuildable. He indicated that this seems very subjective; the first person to build gets everything and the other lots in the surrounding clusters could have restrictions. Mr. Bennett asked the Commission to look at the 200’ separation requirement between clusters.
Attorney Branse stated that the wording speaks about a 200’ separating distance between clusters. Mr. Bennett stated that it is between buildings in clusters. He noted that they are referring to the buildings. Attorney Branse stated that he does not believe the Regulations say what this drawing depicts. He explained that the drawing shows a 200’ separating distance around a building. Attorney Branse stated that he reads it to say that if buildings are located within 200’, it will be a cluster. He noted that it does not say a separating distance between buildings in a cluster.
Attorney Steven Sheehan representing Osprey Landing, 218 Shore Road, stated that this property is to the rear of Cherrystone’s. He noted that based on the Commission’s comments last meeting and the proposed change of the northern section of the property from LI-80 to RU-40, the owner is requesting that the property remain LI-80. Attorney Sheehan stated that changing only a portion of their land to RU-40 would leave it landlocked with no access, being separated by a commercially zoned property and the railroad. He indicated that until the owner knows where the Commission will go with other things and conservation changes in the future, they would prefer that no change be made to the property.
A member of the audience asked if there were any changes from the R districts to RU districts, as the only differences he noted was that the maximum floor area as a percent of lot area and maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as a percent of lot area. He explained that currently the R-40 has 20 percent maximum floor area and RU-40 has 15 percent. Attorney Branse replied that the proposed RU-40 is 15 percent maximum floor area. He indicated that the Commission could choose to retain the 20 percent maximum floor area.
Vice Chairman Cable noted two new exhibits, one a letter from the Planning Commission and a letter from the State Department of Public Health. Attorney Branse read the Planning Commission letter aloud. He explained that the letter indicates that they are not in favor of the changes to the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map and he questioned whether they meant to indicate that they were not in favor of the Zoning Regulations, as their letter did not reflect any comments or concerns in that regard. He asked that the Zoning Commission get clarification, if possible.
Vice Chairman Cable read the list of additional new exhibits.
Hearing no further comments, motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing.
2. Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct an 8,000 square foot maintenance building, 43 Buttonball Road, Black Hall Club, Inc., applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice and list of Exhibits. Gene Robida, Robida Engineering Development, stated that he is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Connecticut. He was present to represent Black Hall Club, Inc. Mr. Robida stated that he enlarged the Assessor’s Map to show the location of the proposed building. He explained that Black Hall Club, Inc., owns and operates an 18 hole golf course which is outlined in blue and contains 159 acres. Mr. Robida stated that the proposal pertains to two acres of the site and is highlighted in green. He stated that this property was merged last May. Mr. Robida noted that this map is solely for reference purposes.
Mr. Robida stated that the Black Hall Club purchased a 4 acre parcel in 2006, which included a residential home on Buttonball Road. He explained that they applied to the Planning Commission to carve out a one-acre parcel with the residential home which was approved. He noted that the remaining three acre parcel was merged with the other 159 acres of Black Hall Cub, Inc., and this was also approved. He noted that the map is filed on the Town of Old Lyme Land Records.
Mr. Robida stated that Sheet BH-1 in the application package shows the proposal. He noted the existing house on Buttonball. He explained that the existing access is via the road and out to the Clubhouse. Mr. Robida pointed out the access to the existing maintenance building, which is actually an old barn when the land was part of a farm. He noted that there are offices in the building that are currently heated by a woodstove and the repair facilities are heated by a space heater in the corner. Mr. Robida pointed out the existing storage building on the site plan, which will remain on site. He pointed out another area of open storage that is currently used. Mr. Robida noted the current pesticide storage area and noted that it is a weather-tight approved storage container. He
noted the fuel container which houses gasoline and diesel fuel, and pointed out the wash-own center which is essentially a paved area with the flow directed toward a catch basin which goes to a sump in the ground. Mr. Robida explained that there are currently two bays that are used for the storage of mulch and sand and these are not covered.
Mr. Robida stated that the proposal is to construct a new a building whose access would remain off the current access road. He noted that the building dimensions are 160’ x 50’ and is a single story structure. Mr. Robida stated that this building would house their offices and the garages would be used for work on the equipment and for the storage of equipment. He explained that they also proposed an equipment wash down building which will also house the current fuel container. He indicated that they will have a storage area inside the building for waste oil. Mr. Robida stated that they are proposing a separate wash down center where the equipment can be cleaned. He noted that this structure is enclosed. Mr. Robida stated that the equipment wash down portion of the
building is a zero-discharge unit. He noted that when the equipment is washed down it will go to sumps in the floor and those sumps flow to a pump which pumps up into a storage area. Mr. Robida stated that the water is stored and bacteria is added to clean it, it is filtered and then recirculated. He explained that there is no discharge into the ground from this structure. Mr. Robida stated that they also proposal an environmental management center which will contain the existing pesticides container. He noted that this building is fire-rated. Mr. Robida stated that there will be five bulk storage bays with three of them being covered. He noted that this storage will include mulch, sand and other bulk materials used on site. Mr. Robida pointed out the new proposed well location. He indicated that underground utilities are proposed from an existing utility pole to the backside of the building. Mr. Robida stated that there
will be an underground propane tank at the rear of the building.
Mr. Robida stated that the new septic system is designed with a 100 percent reserve area. He noted that the tank is H-20 loading because it is underneath the parking area. Ms. Marsh questioned the number of employees. Mr. Robida stated that there are 6 to 7 full time employees and 8 to 12 summer employees. Ms. Cable questioned whether the existing sheds will be removed. Mr. Robida stated that the existing maintenance building is proposed to be removed. He noted that the existing equipment storage building is to remain.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether the club had any plans for the residence which is now on a separate lot. Mr. Robida stated that he does not believe they have any plans for it. He noted that there are currently three residences, one on the golf course where the maintenance foreman currently lives. He explained that they just purchased another house and the third house is the one that they separated onto a one-acre parcel and merged the remainder of the land in 2006. Mr. Robida stated that he is not aware of any plans other than for the club to remain the homes. Ms. Marsh noted that if these homes were sold there should be screening of some sort.
Mr. Looney questioned whether the pesticide storage would maintain a containment of the volume that would be kept in the building. Mr. Robida replied that it would, as would the fuel storage.
Mr. Robida stated that Sheet BH-2 is the drainage and grading plan. He explained that the existing site is essentially a field that is mowed annually, with one treet located in the center of it. He pointed out that the darker lines are the proposed grading contours and noted that there is not much grading. Mr. Robida stated all the run-off from the parking areas is being directed either directly to the excavated stormwater retention area or to the grass-lined swale which has a very gradual pitch. He explained that the excavated basin is excavated three feet into natural grade. Mr. Robida stated that the soil testing showed all sand and gravel and no water at 8.5’. He explained that the gutter run-off is piped and discharged directly into the basin. Mr. Robida stated that the
basin is sized to handle 100 percent of a 25 year storm.
Mr. Robida stated that Sheet BH-3 is the erosion control plan. He noted the erosion control barriers on the exterior which would be a silt fence. Mr. Robida explained that a construction access road would come off Buttonball Road as opposed to through the entrance to the Club. He indicated that they would install a crushed stone anti-tracking pad. Mr. Robida stated that any excess fill will be trucked and stored on another part of the property. He noted that no soil will be removed from the site. Mr. Robida stated that Sheet BH-6 is the landscape plan. He indicated pointed out the existing tree line and woods. Mr. Robida stated that they will be relocating three of five existing white pines and pointed out the new location. He stated that there will be a row of 8 to 10’ white pines along the property line, which addresses the prior question regarding a buffer for the existing residence. Mr. Robida pointed out the three proposed 8 to 10’ dogwoods in the area of the existing
maintenance building which is proposed to be removed and 5 dogwoods across the entrance.
Mr. Robida presented the architectural plans and explained that the architect lives in New Hampshire and could not make tonight’s meeting because of the weather today. He noted the elevation drawings of the turf care maintenance building and noted that it is a single story structure with a height of 19’. Mr. Robida stated that the building is metal sided with a metal roof. He noted that the first four feet of the building will be block and noted that the colors have not been determined. Mr. Robida noted that the building has three bays.
Ms. Marsh questioned the exterior lighting details. Mr. Robida stated that the plan shows electrical wall fixtures and pointed them out on the plan, noting that there are three plus two outside the doors. Mr. Risom suggested that the applicant provide typical catalog cuts of the fixtures that might be used. He explained that the Commission focuses on lighting, specifically that it does not impact the neighboring properties. Mr. Robida stated that the building will be used solely during the day. Phil Neaton, groundskeeper, stated that the current building has two sodium lights that give just enough light for safety around the doorways. He noted that they do not work at night but do start very early in the morning, typically before sun-up. Attorney Mark Branse stated that on Page
31-3 it requires location, height, intensity and design of the light fixtures, including manufacturer’s specifications. He noted that colors of the buildings are also required to be disclosed.
Mr. Robida displayed the elevation drawings of the environmental management center where the pesticides are stored. He noted that this building is stone block with a metal roof and is fire-rated and specifically designed for the pesticides that will be stored inside. He noted that there are ventilation units and a specific air conditioner. Mr. Robida stated that this building is 14’ high.
Mr. Robida displayed the elevation drawings of the fueling equipment wash down center where they will store gasoline and diesel fuel, along with a waste oil tank. He noted that the wash down center will also be located in this building. He noted that this is a block building with a height of 14 feet. Mr. Robida stated that there are bay doors on either end (east and west). He showed the floor plan of this building and noted the location of the fuel tank. Mr. Robida stated that the waste oil storage tank is full contained.
Brian Obieske, Soil Scientist, indicated that he was asked to look at the different means of managing the stormwater on the site. He explained that he used the DEP 2004 stormwater quality guideslines in designing the system. Mr. Obieske explained the three different options. He noted that the chosen design begins with taking the roof run-off and piping it directly to the basin. He noted that roof run-off is chemically clean. Mr. Obieske stated that the parking lot’s sheet flow will go into the drainage swale and will encourage deposition of any larger particles and will encourage recharge in the flat areas. He explained that any pollutants associated with the run-off will either absorb to the soil and/or uptaken by the plants, primarily phosphorous or nitrogen. Ms. Cable
stated that there is a shallow pitch down the drainage swale and questioned whether build-up could occur so that it no longer drains. Mr. Obieske stated that he is not anticipating a great deal of load because the use is primarily summer, not winter. He stated that part of the plan is to inspect it visually every year. Mr. Obieske explained that the primary treatment zone will be planted with a New England conservation wildlife mix so that it will be a mix of grasses and wildlife friendly herbs. He noted that it is designed to fully retain a 25-year storm event, which well exceeds any of the standards from NEMO or the DEP guidelines. Mr. Obieske stated that this approach was determined to be the best alternative for the site.
Ms. Marsh questioned what would be stored in the bays that appear to be parking spots on the site plan. Mr. Robida stated that the bays will contain mulch and sand. Ms. Marsh questioned whether the sheet flow would go through that area. Mr. Obieske replied that it would not.
Hearing no further comments from the Commission Members, Vice Chairman Cable asked if any one would like to speak in favor of the application. Ron Swaney, adjacent property owner, stated that he is in favor of the proposal. He noted that the buildings would be an improvement to the property both visually and environmentally. Mr. Swaney indicated that as a neighbor, he appreciates that.
No one present spoke against the application. Vice Chairman Cable read a letter from Nicholas Griswold on behalf of Black Hall Woods, LLC, confirming three points that are the basis for their position that they are not opposed to the application (Exhibit O). Vice Chairman Cable read a letter from David Windgard on Fairway Lane, indicating questions and concerns. Addressing one of the concerns, Mr. Robida noted that there is no proposed change in the chemicals used or stored.
Vice Chairman Cable noted that the Conservation Commission responded to their referral earlier today and she read this for the record. Phil Neaton noted that the proposed work is being done to improve the current situation regarding pesticide storage, etc. He noted that currently the washing down of equipment is done on a gravel surface. Mr. Neaton stated that the pesticides used and stored will not change.
Jeff Soul, President of the Blackhall Board, addressed the issue of the houses and noted that they purchased the Howard house because they know the Club is not a good neighbor when they are starting mowers at 4:00 a.m. in the summer. He explained that this was part of the purpose in buying the house because they do not need the land or the house. Mr. Soul stated that the final use of the house has not been determined, but selling the house is not on the table. He noted that the most likely use will be for staff.
Acting Chairman Cable noted that the Town Engineer, Tom Metcalf, has not completed his review. She suggested that continuing the Public Hearing to the February 13, 2007 Regular Meeting.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Patrick Looney and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct an 8,000 square foot maintenance building, 43 Buttonball Road, Black Hall Club, Inc., applicant.
3. Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a new 45 space gravel parking lot, two paddle tennis courts and a 24’ x 24’ maintenance/warming shed, 35 McCurdy Road, Old Lyme Country Club, Inc., applicant.
Acting Chairman Cable noted that Ms. Marsh read the legal notice earlier in the Public Hearing. Ms. Marsh read the exhibit list for the record.
Earl Phillips, Robinson & Cole, was present to represent the Old Lyme Country Club, along with Bob Bollo, President of the Old Lyme Country Club. Mr. Phillips stated that his co-worker was working on this project and has since accepted a position in Houston. He indicated that the Commission is familiar with the property across from the golf course facility. Mr. Phillips noted that the application is similar to the application approved by the Zoning Commission in 2006. He stated that the proposal includes two paddle tennis courts, a gravel parking area and a warming shed. Mr. Phillips stated that the paddle court and warming shed architecturals have not changed, nor has the lighting. He indicated that after to appearing before the Zoning Commission and receiving Wetlands approval in
2006, the Army Corps of Engineers wanted the gravel parking area pulled back as much as possible from the wetlands area.
Mr. Phillips displayed both the current plan and the 2006 approved plan. He noted that the paddle tennis courts are in the same location, the lighting and signage details are the same. Mr. Phillips stated that the current plan shows the parking area pulled back from the wetlands and this new location has been approved by the Old Lyme Wetlands Commission. He pointed out that pulling the parking back required the relocation of the warming shed to the other side of the paddle tennis courts.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether the current plan includes the numerous plantings that were part of the original plan. Mr. Phillips explained that the Army Corps asked for avoidance rather than remediation. Ms. Marsh stated that she recalls the purpose of the wetland reconstruction to be for the handling of the drainage from the other side of the street. Mr. Phillips agreed and stated that they will do some additional work, but not part as this proposal.
Bob Bollo stated that the wetlands on the property are degraded. He noted that the Old Lyme Wetlands Commission proposed a trade-off for the parking on the original plan to include shallow pools and direct the water through these pools to exit the property from the pools rather than from the current wetlands. Mr. Bollo stated that the Army Corps of Engineers did not like that plan. He noted that the Wetlands Commission has approved the current plan provided the Country Club does certain plantings, which they have agreed to. Mr. Phillips noted that the landscape plan has not changed.
Ms. Marsh stated that she remembers concerns about the drainage as it passes through the culvert and that because of the things that were being done with the ponds, the elevation would not be a problem. She noted that she remembers Tom Metcalf being a little concerned about that. Mr. Phillips stated that to the extent that Wetlands had a concern, it was on Amtrak’s property, not the Country Club’s. Mr. Tooker noted that he remembers the pipe going under the railroad was silted in and Mr. Metcalf suggested that it be cleaned out and that would require permission from the railroad.
Mr. Phillips submitted the Army Corps of Engineers permit that was issued on July 31, 2007 (marked Exhibit N). He requested that a copy of the original 2006 decision be made part of the file. Ms. Cable noted that it is already in the record.
Ms. Marsh noted that the permit is not attached to the letter from Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Phillips indicated that he would fax a copy to the office.
Robert Dayson, 5 McCurdy Court, indicated that he is speaking on behalf of his wife Clarissa. He indicated that he did not receive the notice until January 3rd or 4th and he did not have a chance to get to the Town Hall today. Mr. Dayson asked to see the plan and noted that it is not the property he thought it was and has no comment. He stated that approximately one year ago neighbors asked them to sign a waiver of deed restrictions, which they did not. Mr. Dayson stated that the Country Club subsequently bought the property which lead to his confusion with this application.
David Vitale indicated that his property is closest to the project. He indicated that he was a little confused too because of their recent purchase of 31 McCurdy Road. Mr. Vitale stated that he too got the notice around the 4th of January and has not had a chance to review the plans at the Town Hall. Acting Chairman Cable explained that the application is very similar to the 2006 application and noted that Mr. Vitale attended and spoke at that public hearing. She pointed out the changes on the site plan for his benefit. Mr. Vitale reviewed the plan and thanked the Commission for their explanation. He indicated that he had no comments.
Ms. Marsh stated to make sure the file is complete, she would like to incorporate by reference the first file into this file. Attorney Branse stated that this can be done by adding one sheet to the new file that states everything in the older file is hereby incorporated into the new file. Ms. Marsh noted that in this way they will be sure the file is complete.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Special Exception/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a new 45 space gravel parking lot, two paddle tennis courts and a 24’ x 24’ maintenance/warming shed, 35 McCurdy Road, Old Lyme Country Club, Inc., applicant.
At 9:15 p.m., Acting Chairman Cable adjourned the Public Hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
