APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, January 28, 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, John Johnson, Steve Ames (Alternate), Ted Kiritsis (Alternate) and Howard Tooker (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Vice Chairman Cable called the Public Hearing to order at 7:34 p.m.
1. Special Exception application to construct multi-family housing, 49 Hatchetts Hill Road, Hilltop Development, LLC, applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in the New London Day on Thursday, January 17, 2008 and Thursday, January 24, 2008. She read the list of exhibits for the record.
Attorney Michael Cronin and Project Engineer Matt White were present to represent Hilltop Development, LLC. Attorney Cronin explained that the application is to construct a multi-family housing project under Section 32.6 of the Zoning Regulations. He noted that the property is currently zoned MFR-80. Attorney Cronin stated that they are proposing 16 two-bedroom units on 24.6 acres of land. He noted that an application identical to this one was approved by the Commission a little over two years ago. Attorney Cronin stated that the only difference is that they expanded the open space from the original plan in order to comply with new regulations that have been adopted since that time of original approval.
Attorney Cronin explained that for a variety of business reasons the property was not developed after the original approval. He noted that at that time they were a contract purchaser of the property and have since taken title to the property. Attorney Cronin stated that this application was prompted by the Commission’s application to change the zone back to an industrial zone. He asked that the Commission’s decision, dated August 8, 2005, be entered as an exhibit (Exhibit O). Attorney Cronin stated that he would also like to submit a letter dated August 30, 2005 from the Commission’s engineer noting that the revised drawings address all of the outstanding comments contained in the April 5, 2005 and July 8, 2005 engineering review letters and the Zoning Commission’s
conditions of approval (Exhibit P). Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant just received the review comments from Wade Thomas for this application today. He noted that the matter was before the Inland Wetlands Commission this month and there was a question as to whether the existing wetlands permit was still valid because they are issued on a five-year basis. Attorney Cronin explained that the matter is currently being reviewed by the Wetlands Commission’s counsel and they have not issued a final report yet, although he anticipates that the matter will be held open so that they may address the engineer’s comments.
Matthew White, engineer with Angus McDonald/Gary White and Associates, stated that this property is 20.6 acres on the south side of Hatchetts Hill Road. He noted that the property is essentially a large hill. Mr. White stated that the gray shading on the site plan represents areas of steep slopes around the perimeter of the property. He explained that access to the site would be from a new driveway off Hatchetts Hill Road. Mr. White stated that the road traverses a bit to get up the hill. He indicated that the 16 units would be in 8 buildings, with each unit having a two-car garage with parking spaces in front of the buildings. Mr. White stated that each building will have its own on-site septic system and all 8 septic systems are located in the southeast portion of the property.
He indicated that the design flow for the site falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health and they have reviewed and approved the plans. Mr. White explained that the open space regulation has changed since the 2005 application. He noted that previously a portion of the western edge of the property was proposed as a conservation easement. Mr. White stated that they have expanded the conservation easement area as noted by the dashed line on the site plan. Ms. Marsh questioned whether the easement language was submitted as part of the application. Attorney Cronin stated that the original decision noted indicated that that would be a requirement of the declaration; not a specific requirement that the Town have a specific easement. He indicated that he would have no problem submitting the easement language at the next meeting if required.
Mr. White noted that there is a community water system proposed which is also regulated by the State Department of Public Health. He noted that the wells have been installed and tested. Mr. White stated that the community water supply would be owned and operated by a water company such as the Connecticut Water Company. Ms. Cable questioned whether DPH has approved the water supply. Mr. White indicated that he does not know the final status of the community well.
Mr. Kiritsis questioned whether the driveway sight line has changed because it was a concern of his in 2005. Mr. White stated that he has not yet submitted a copy of the sight line demonstration plan that was submitted during that application. He submitted a copy of this which was marked Exhibit Q. Chairman Risom questioned whether the high power lines were still to be removed. Mr. White noted that the high power lines will be moved underground.
Ms. Cable questioned whether the plans presented this evening are the final plans from the 2005 application; the ones which address all of the Commission’s and their engineer’s concerns. Mr. White stated that the plans are the final plans that address all comments and conditions of approval.
Mr. Kiritsis questioned whether there is an established timeline for this development. Attorney Cronin indicated that he cannot answer that question but he can say that they have purchased the property and intend to move forward. He noted that they have put a lot of money into the project to date.
Mr. White noted that the landscape and architectural plans that are part of this application are the same plans from the 2005 application.
Chairman Risom asked that the applicant provide a copy of the DPH approval letter for the septic systems. Mr. White noted submitted an emailed copy, which was marked Exhibit R. He noted that there were conditions to the approval. Mr. Risom read the letter for the record.
Mr. Johnson questioned whether the project is 55 and older housing. Mr. White replied that it is not, it is simply multi-family housing. Mr. Johnson questioned whether there would be any affordable housing. Mr. White replied that there would not be. Attorney Cronin noted that the units will be approximately 3,000 square feet. He noted that they will be limited to two bedrooms, which was a requirement of the first application.
Mark Diebolt stated that he is in favor of this proposal and that he submitted a letter in that regard. He explained that he is the previous landowner, prior to Hilltop purchasing the property. Mr. Diebolt verified that the high power lines will be removed and new residential lines will be installed underground. He noted that the lines along Four Mile River Road were upgraded by CL&P in order to serve the transfer station. Mr. Diebolt stated that the DPUC was involved with the water supply approval, which came almost a year after the Commission’s approval.
An unidentified woman questioned whether blasting would be done. Mr. White stated that there will be blasting because the units will have basements. He noted that they will be required to have pre-blast surveys and it will be very carefully controlled. She also questioned whether the septic systems are safely separated from her well. Mr. Risom stated that the drawing should show that the DOH required separating distances between well and septics.
Hearing no further comments, Ms. Marsh read a letter from Jeffrey Smith in opposition to the project.
Mr. White indicated that he would like the hearing to be held open so that he may address the engineer’s comments. Attorney Cronin indicated that they are also waiting for an answer regarding the validity of the wetlands permit. He asked that the Hearing be continued to March 10, 2008 and indicated that because this is beyond 35 days, he will send a letter consenting to an extension.
2. Site Plan/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a two-story, 14,600 square foot office building, 1 Huntley Road, Huntley & Halls, LLC, applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice as published in the New London Day on Thursday, January 17, 2008 and Thursday, January 24, 2008. She read the list of exhibits for the record.
Joe Wren, professional engineer, was present to represent Huntley & Halls, LLC. He stated that the property is 6.2 acres in area, just off of Halls Road. Mr. Wren stated that the blue dashed line on the plan shows the deep water marks, labeled as a pond and the green line is wetlands. He noted that the project is in the Coastal Area Management Zone and within the Gateway Zone. Mr. Wren stated that the architectural plans have been slightly revised, for clarification of the building height as defined by the Regulations (marked Exhibit T).
Mr. Wren explained that the project was approved by the Wetlands Commission at their last meeting. He noted that the building is 14,600 square feet two-story professional office building. Mr. Wren stated that they are anticipating a combination of professional offices and medical offices. He stated that there is a drive-through portico in the front, which is required for a medical building. Mr. Wren stated that there are two entrances and exits on the plan and noted that he has left them because eliminating one would leave a dead-end parking lot. He explained that this could cause congestion and pedestrian safety issues. Mr. Wren noted that Huntley Road is a one-way street that comes out onto Route 156. He noted that the parking required is 73 parking spaces, which are designated
on the plan. Mr. Wren stated that the three required handicap spaces are also shown on the plan. He indicated that the parcel is very flat with a gentle slope down to the pond.
Mr. Wren pointed out the dumpster location on the site plan, noting that it is fenced. He noted that the property is located in a C-30S zone. Mr. Wren stated that there are two nearby residential zones and pointed them out on the site plan. He explained that the required buffers from the residential lines and the property line are shown and provided. Mr. Wren stated that a portion of the property is located in the R-40 zone, but nothing is being disturbed or developed in that area of the parcel.
Mr. Wren explained the drainage and pointed out the catch basins on the site plan. He noted that the entire site has very coarse sand and gravels. Mr. Wren noted that the property is in the Aquifer Protection Zone.
Mr. Wren pointed out the signage on the site plan, which includes stop signs and traffic directional signs. He noted that they are monument type signs and renderings have been provided. Mr. Wren explained the landscape plan, noting they have the required landscape buffer area between the residential area. He noted that the requirements of the Regulations are actually exceeded in this regard. Mr. Wren explained the landscaping around the parking area and dumpster. He noted that there is a 6’ enclosure around the dumpster. Mr. Wren stated that existing trees that will remain are shown on the plan with an “R.” He explained that they have tried to save as many existing trees as possible and have supplemented new trees, where appropriate. Mr. Wren pointed out
the landscaping along the street which provides a natural fence.
Mr. Wren stated that there are eleven light poles, 14’ maximum height, shoe-box design, and full cut-off. He noted that the lighting detail has also been provided. Mr. Wren stated that he does not believe there will be lighting on the building. Mr. Risom stated that if there are lights under the canopy he would like them to be fully recessed. Mr. Wren noted that if that were a condition of approval they would comply with it.
Mr. Wren stated that the property is served by well and septic and noted the location of each on the site plan. He pointed out the 75’ protective radius. Mr. Wren stated that Mr. Rose initially requested additional soil testing which was done and he received a new plan. He noted that Mr. Rose indicated that because the well will handle more than 15 people, they need approval from the DPH. Mr. Wren stated that that could be another condition of approval. Ms. Cable questioned how many people the septic was designed for. Mr. Wren stated that the calculation is one person for every two hundred square feet, which comes out to 73.
Mr. Wren stated that he believes they have addressed all of Ms. Brown’s comments. He indicated that they will sign and seal all the final plans. Mr. Wren noted that Mr. Metcalf has indicated that his comments have all been addressed. He noted that comment #5 was regarding the sight line. He explained that Bruce Hillson did a traffic study and indicated that no off-site improvements would be required for this project. Mr. Wren stated that there is a level of service of A on Huntley Road and a level of service of B at the intersection and these would not be changed. He noted that the sight line is 80’ longer then what was required.
Mr. Wren stated that when the project first began he asked if the Fire Marshal would require a water source for fire protection. He indicated that he wanted to work this out before they began the Wetlands review process. Mr. Wren explained that Dave Roberge indicated that a water source was not required. He noted that he received a letter just recently from the Fire Chief indicating that a water source is required. Mr. Wren stated that this will have to be added to the plan and the applicant will now have to go back to Wetlands. He requested that this item be a condition of approval because it will take time to get this approval. Ms. Marsh noted that the wetlands approval must be in place before the Zoning Commission approves the plan. Mr. Wren pointed out that they currently have
Wetlands approval, although it is without a dry hydrant on the pond. He noted that the Fire Department also asked for appropriate signage for no parking in the fire lane and recommending that it be in front of the portico.
Ms. Marsh read a letter dated January 9, 2008 from the Fire Marshal, indicating that he would suggest one entrance and exit to eliminate the possible confusion of cars entering the wrong way onto Huntley Road. Mr. Wren stated that having two entrances and exits provides better traffic flow for the building and enhances pedestrian safety. Mr. Kiritsis suggested that he further discuss this issue with the Fire Marshal.
Mr. Wren noted that the comments from OLISP indicate that they are generally pleased with the overall storm water design.
Ms. Brown stated that she thought 12’ light posts might be more appropriate. Mr. Wren indicated that they would be happy to reduce them. He indicated that although they don’t anticipate a truck larger than a box truck, they want to be sure that if a truck goes up on the curb they don’t hit the lighting fixture.
Ms. Brown stated that the floor area shown on the architectural plan subtracts out the second story foyer. She explained that the current regulations calculate floor area from the outside wall to the outside wall and noted that the upstairs is the same square footage as the downstairs. Mr. Wren noted that they did not count the area above the first floor open foyer. She indicated that this will not affect compliance, it is just not accurate.
Mr. Johnson questioned the amount of wetlands on the property. Mr. Wren stated that it is 2.15 acres out of the 6.2 acres. Ms. Marsh questioned what has been done to stop the car lights from intruding into the residential area. She noted that the trees might shield the building, but not the car lights. Mr. Wren noted that most of the houses are to the north. Ms. Marsh suggested some fencing or berming. Responding to a question, Mr. Wren stated that the lights are generally put on timers. Ms. Wren stated that the building is used mostly during the daytime. She indicated that she wants assurance that the house 70’ away will not be affected by headlights. An adjacent neighbor indicated that his house is approximately 100’ away. Mr. Risom noted that there
won’t be much trespass lighting to the west.
Mr. Risom questioned whether it was required that the first inch of rainfall be retained. Mr. Wren stated that the drainage system will retain more than the first inch of run-off from the roof. Mr. Risom stated that he would like to see maintenance of the drywell and invert addressed in the declaration. Mr. Wren stated that the last sheet of the EOS the maintenance is shown.
Mr. Risom questioned whether the fire lanes are marked on the site plan. Mr. Wren indicated that they are not currently marked but he will revise the plan to reflect a fire lane.
An adjacent neighbor indicated that there is never water in the pond in the summer. Mr. Wren noted that environmentally it is not classified as a pond but rather a deep-water marsh. He noted that Mr. Roberge had the same concern about the water supply from the wetland in the summer. He indicated that he would get a volume on the water.
Mr. Ames expressed his concern for the volume of traffic on Huntley Road. He noted that people currently go the wrong way on Huntley Road. Mr. Ames stated that a building this size will create quite a bit of additional traffic. He indicated that many people from Lyme use Huntley Road as a short cut to Route 156 north. Mr. Risom indicated that it might be time to address Huntley Road. It was suggested that the road could be made two-way to a certain point and others expressed that this could create greater confusion. Mr. Tooker stated that he thought it was a good idea to make Huntley Road two-way until just passed Mr. Giannotti’s new building. He indicated that the Town should look into this, not the developer.
Mr. Looney stated that for medical providers there is a requirement that 10 percent of all spaces must be handicapped. He indicated that his concern would be that if eight spots have to be changed to handicap in the future, will they still meet the minimum requirement of parking. Mr. Wren stated that they would then have to expand their parking area in that case, but indicated that he has done several medical facilities and has not come across that particular requirement. He indicated that they typically use 1 handicap space for every twenty five spaces.
Andy Kus, 5 Huntley Road, indicated that he would like additional trees to buffer car headlights. Mr. Wren stated that they can modify the plan to add a berm or additional plantings, as required by the Commission.
Brian Farnam, 29 Neck Road, questioned the date of approval from Wetlands. Ms. Brown noted that it was approved at the last meeting, the letter was only written today. Ms. Cable pointed out that the Wetlands approval had a number of conditions. Mr. Wren explained that the Wetlands process began last May. He noted that the original building was much longer. Mr. Wren stated that the building was redesigned and moved away from the wetlands. He explained the precautions taken to eliminate impact to the wetlands. Mr. Farnam questioned the lighting. Mr. Risom indicated that the Commission likes to see fixtures that shine the light toward the building from the edge of the property rather than from the building out. He noted that in this way it is not likely to trespass off
the property. Mr. Risom noted that the lights have cut-offs.
Chairman Risom indicated that he would like to talk to Roberge and the Fire Chief about the pond. Mr. Wren noted that the fire pond is not an issue for the Zoning Commission but could rather be an issue at the time of C.O. Chairman Risom indicated that for this reason he would like to leave the Public Hearing open to the next meeting. Ms. Brown pointed out that because this is a site plan application they only have 65 days to act. She noted that the February 13th meeting would be within that timeframe as it was received at the December meeting.
At 9:28 p.m., Chairman Risom adjourned the Public Hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
