UNAPPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, December 8, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Jane Cable (Acting Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), John Johnson, Ted Kiritsis (Alternate) and Patrick Looney. Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Attorney Mark Branse.
1. Convene Meeting; announcement of voting alternates.
Acting Chairman Cable called the Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. She noted that Mr. Kiritsis would be seated for Chairman Risom. Acting Chairman Cable noted that there are no public hearings on the agenda.
2. Registry Regulation
Attorney Branse indicated that when they met in August they discussed the proposed registry regulation and there were a few outstanding issues. He noted that one of them was whether everyone should be registering in the R-10 Zone. Attorney Branse stated that the original concept was that they would be sent to everyone in the R-10 Zone, even if it is known that the property is a year-round use. He noted that the concern with this approach is that a number of people might receive the questionnaire and feel that because they have a known year round dwelling they do not have to send it back. Attorney Branse stated that Pages 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed registry gives two ways of handling those that miss the registry. He explained that the first option states that the person who missed the deadline
can at any time apply to the ZBA for Special Exception, not a variance, proving that they had a good reason for not answering the registry and that had they answered the registry the Zoning Enforcement Officer would have had good reason to find the property year round. Attorney Branse stated that the drawback to this first approach is that it leaves things open ended and that the deadline to register is a soft deadline.
Attorney Branse stated that the second approach recognizes two possible situations where the ZBA could act: 1) is exactly the same as above, except that he added within 10 years, which does not allow it to go on forever, and 2) the person is allowed to bring proof of year round status by submitting to the ZEO proof of prior approval for conversion or brings the ZEO a building permit that allows a year round occupancy.
Ms. Cable and Ms. Marsh indicated that they prefer the second option. Mr. Kiritsis agreed, but questioned whether ten years was too long. Ms. Cable stated that at the last meeting that was discussed and the ten years is a compromise between some who felt there should be no time limit and some that felt five years was adequate. Mr. Kiritsis questioned whether there would be an administrative staff that would be aware of all this in ten years. Attorney Branse stated that most registries have a drop-dead date and there is no escape valve. He noted that there are not many registries in Connecticut, but of the ones he is aware of they typically are for nonconforming commercial uses and are small in number. Ms. Cable stated that there is a different philosophy behind nonconforming uses
because you want them to become conforming and you would want a drop-dead date.
Ms. Cable stated that there are a fair number of people who assume their status and assume that it is year round. She noted that they will probably not return the registry but something will wake them up in the future, such as a sale, the death of the owner, etc. Mr. Kiritsis questioned if there was any Statutory limit. Attorney Branse indicated that there is nothing Statutory. He noted that as time goes on it will become harder and harder to assemble the evidence.
Mr. Kiritsis questioned whether the Town should track responses and remind property owners who do not respond. Attorney Branse noted that there are approximately 1400 properties in the R-10 Zone. He explained that of these 1400 people, maybe only 1,000 will register in the first round. He noted that in that case it would not be hard to go back to the 400 and say we haven’t heard from you, etc. Ms. Cable reiterated that the second option is a good compromise from the discussion at the August meeting.
Attorney Branse stated that on Page 5, Item 3, there is another area where the Commission has options. He explained that one of the questions was whether everyone goes on the registry as either year round or seasonal or whether the registry is just year round. Ms. Brown stated that the other thing to consider is whether it is only nonconforming or conforming lots. She noted that there are houses that cannot be converted to year round because they are in a nonconforming location on a conforming lot. Ms. Brown stated that the registry discusses nonconforming lots, but not nonconforming structures. She indicated that she believes that everyone should register and state whether they believe they are seasonal, year round, and why. Ms. Marsh stated that Note 4 on Page 5 should be changed to
indicate “all.” She noted that they also need to indicate what the fee will be. Ms. Brown stated that a fee will aggravate people and may make some people not register. She noted that people who don’t register are a problem for the Town and the additional process will cost more than any fee that they would charge. Ms. Cable suggested triggering a fee only for the Special Permit from ZBA. Ms. Brown indicated that that would certainly be a fee, but that is not the same as a registration fee. She stated that in the long run it would be better if the Town did not charge a fee. Ms. Brown stated that the process will aggravate people to start with, such as almost all of Rogers Lake where almost everyone has a year round house to start. She questioned why they would want to register and pay a fee when they built a year round home. Ms. Cable agreed. Ms. Brown stated that for those that have to go to the ZBA
because the evidence is not concrete, which would exclude those who originally built a year round home, the feel could be made a little larger. She noted that there is an Ordinance that allows the fees to be changed from time to time. Ms. Brown suggested $170.00 plus the $30.00 DEP fee, or $200.00 for the ZBA. She noted that although the Board of Selectmen would like to recover some of the costs, doing so will just make the process more difficult. Ms. Cable agreed and noted that it would be more of a nuisance fee. She indicated that in the agreement with the South Lyme Property Owners the Zoning Commission waived the right to recoup future costs.
Ms. Cable questioned whether they should confer with the ZBA to be sure they are willing to increase their fee. Ms. Brown indicated that she would speak to them about the possibility of raising fees at their next meeting. Attorney Branse suggested that Ms. Brown find out the cost of legal advertising. Ms. Brown stated that the Board of Selectmen is requesting $30,000.00 to finish the laser fiche and for printing and mailing the registry packets. She noted that the $30,000.00 will also include additional staff for when the registries are returned in the springtime. Ms. Brown noted that in the next year there will be a larger budget to deal with the determinations, along with IT and lasher fiche. The Commission agreed to eliminate the registration fee.
Ms. Cable stated that they can eliminate Footnote 10 on Page 9 as it does not apply anymore. Ms. Brown stated she has some small editing that she will send to him. She stated that on Page 3 it talks about a copy of the registration form. Ms. Brown stated that application is not the correct word. She indicated that there is a registration form to get on the registry. Attorney Branse stated that he added application where registration appeared because the Commission began to talk about the registry as just year round. Ms. Brown stated that it is not an application, but rather a statement of what the property owner believes to be true. Mr. Looney noted that it is part of the agreement that the Town cannot question whether a certain number of the properties are year round. He
noted that there is no permission to be granted with some of the properties. Ms. Cable agreed that it is a registration statement of sorts, not an application. Ms. Brown stated that there should be more information needed on the registry form. Attorney Branse suggested that he will add a line that indicates that the ZEO may require additional information. Ms. Marsh pointed out that because a property owner is given a golden ticket from Zoning they are not automatically year round because they then need to go to the Health Department for approval. Mr. Looney stated that the Building Code does not require insulation and other items noted on the form. Ms. Brown explained that the Housing Code, which was instituted prior to 1999, does make this and other requirements. Attorney Branse stated that if a house did not have central heat and insulation in 1999, it could not legally have been occupied year round. Ms. Brown stated that she does
not believe the Housing Code distinguishes between seasonal and year round.
Mr. Looney stated that the Commission should only be concerned with the Zoning aspect. Attorney Branse stated that in order to be legally nonconforming, something has to be legal. He explained that this means if there was a Housing Code, then it had to be complied with. Attorney Branse stated that the Davidson Case out of West Greenwich is a good example of this. He noted that if the house did not comply with the Housing Code in 1999, then it cannot be a legal nonconforming dwelling, technically year-round or seasonal.
Ms. Brown noted that the Building and Health Departments will need additional funding for staff to deal with these issues. Ms. Cable stated that the limitations of the Housing Code will upset many people and could land the Town back in Court. Attorney Branse stated that the Zoning Commission could not have agreed to anything in regard to the Housing Code Enforcement and it was never part of the lawsuit; he ntoed that the Board of Selectmen were never defendants. He noted that it is not deliberate on the Town’s part or South Lyme Property Owner’s part. Ms. Cable stated that if she were one of the property owner’s she would feel it was deliberate. Attorney Branse stated that she should not feel that way because Attorney Knapp and Attorney Slater discussed at length that
the golden tickets did nothing for them as far as Health Code or any other applicable code. He indicated that it was discussed at length but whether it got through from the Attorney to the membership he does not know. Ms. Marsh stated that Attorney Radshaw urged the Town to gather as much information as they could in the registry process because there are these additional steps in the process. Attorney Branse stated that he will insert in the requirements that they need evidence of complying with the Old Lyme Housing Code and asked for a copy of the Housing Code. Ms. Brown stated that somewhere in the Regulation there is a list of Codes that need to be complied with and she suggested that the Housing Code be added in that section also. Attorney Branse agreed. Ms. Brown stated that the dates also need to be adjusted because June of this year does not give them enough time. She suggested that a Public Hearing date and effective date would be
needed before she could determine what to change the dates to. The Commission agreed to attempt to approve the text in January and hold a hearing in the middle of February with an effective date of March 1, 2009. Ms. Brown stated that with this timeframe she would suggest that the dates be changed to September 1, 2009.
Ms. Brown noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals will be very busy with appeals and suggested that the Zoning Commission may want to consider hearing the Special Permits for those who did not submit the registration form. Ms. Marsh stated that this might be good in addressing Mr. Kiritsis’ concern about who will be remembering the details of this in ten years. The Commission agreed that they would hear the Special Permits and asked Attorney Branse to reflect this in the Registry Regulation. Attorney Branse stated that he will have the changes to the Commission within a week.
Ms. Brown stated that she and Ms. Bartlett have been working on the other small corrections to the Regulations and they will be getting together to go over them. She indicated that they hope to have that text for January also.
3. Site Plan Modification Application to change the use of a building devoted to animal grooming to single-family dwelling on property located at 1 Davis Road West, Puppydog, LLC, applicant.
Ms. Brown noted that this application has been made to change the use of one of the buildings to single-family. She noted that just a few years ago the commission changed the use of one building to a grooming facility and they are now requesting that the use be changed to a single-family home. Ms. Brown noted that there are no changes to the building. Dr. M stated that the two buildings are on one lot and he currently operates his veterinary business out of 1 Davis Road. He indicated that in order to get that use he was required to extinguish the use in the second building. Dr. M stated that the original use of the building was a home and in 1990 the other building became a veterinary facility. He noted that he purchased it in 2003. Dr. M stated that a residential use is allowed
in that zone requiring a Certificate of Zoning Compliance only.
Ms. Marsh noted that the two building are on one property and they cannot be sold separately. Dr. M indicated that he was aware of that. He indicated that he would not be living in the home, but rather renting it. Ms. Brown stated that although both structures are on the same lot, they certainly look independent of one another. Ms. Barrows noted that Mr. Rose approved the septic system for the residential use. Ms. Marsh stated that she wants it to be clear that there are two uses on one lot and the Commission is not creating a new lot with this action.
A motion was made by J. Johnson, seconded by J. Marsh and voted unanimously to approve the Site Plan Modification Application to change the use of a building devoted to animal grooming to single-family dwelling on property located at 1 Davis Road West, Puppydog, LLC, applicant.
4. Zoning Enforcement
- Zoning Enforcement Report
The Commission reviewed the enforcement report. Ms. Brown noted that there has not been much enforcement since Ms. Bartlett left in August. Mr. Kiritsis asked that the current status for each property be updated.
No report.
5. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2008 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing.
6. Any new or old business
Ms. Brown stated that the final resolution of Lone Pine was reached and the Judge order that the permits be written for Mr. Iovanna which she has done. She noted that Mr. Iovanna is also suing Gary Sharpe for the site Plan and it appears that Gary Sharpe has added the Town to the lawsuit.
Ms. Cable asked if Ms. Brown could have Mr. Graybill cover the large exhaust pipe on the building. She noted that she does not remember seeing this on the site plan. Ms. Brown stated that she does not believe he submitted elevation drawings of that side of the building. Ms. Cable indicated that he may have left-over siding he could cover it with.
Mr. Johnson noted that the Commission never heard back from the Sugar Shack on their request to change the requirement that their hood be screened. Ms. Brown indicated that it will be added to the agenda so that it will be followed up on.
Ms. Brown stated that the Bar Association is having their training session at the end of March in Middletown. She noted that this is the Saturday training they provide every two years. Mr. Kiritsis stated that it is a very informative training session.
7. Election of Officers
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Pat Looney and voted unanimously to re-elect all the existing officers, as follows: Tom Risom as Chairman, Jane Cable as Vice Chairman and Jane Marsh as Secretary.
8. Correspondence
None.
9. Miscellaneous/Adjourn
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Pat Looney and voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
