OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, February 8, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Tom Risom, Chairman, Jane Marsh, Secretary, Jane Cable, Vice Chairman, Patrick Looney, Beth Sullivan (alternate), and Ted Kiritsis (alternate, seated). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Risom called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 p.m.
1. Coastal Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new stair and terrace on waterside of home and a Special Permit Application to renovate existing structure on property located at 10 West End Drive, Carlos & Melissa Santos, applicants.
Ms. Cable noted that this Public Hearing is continued from the January Regular Meeting. Ms. Marsh read the list of new exhibits for the record. Mr. Jeff Flower was present to represent the applicants. He asked that the Coastal Site Plan and Special Permit Applications be combined into one file thereby requiring one Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to merge the Coastal Site Plan Review Application and the Special Permit Application into one file for 10 West End Drive, Carlos and Melissa Santos, applicants.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice for the Special Permit Application for the record as published in The New London Day on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 and Tuesday February 2, 2010. She read the Exhibit List for the record. Ms. Marsh read the correspondence from Marcie Balint in its entirety.
Mr. Flower stated that the first piece of correspondence from Ms. Balint was read at the January Hearing. He explained that he and Ms. Balint have had several conversations since that time. Mr. Flower stated that the high tide line is Elevation 4, which is a line in the sand, and the sand moves. He indicated that he sent her an email amending the A-2 Survey to show the HTL one-year storm event at Elevation 4. He stated that Ms. Balint then responded to him via email that the high tide line moves and is not currently located where he is showing it on the plan. Mr. Flower stated that he had to find out when the satellite photo that she was referring to was taken and the date the survey work was done. He indicated that the field survey was done on June 4, 2009, and the Bing photos showing
the SE corner of the building resided. Mr. Flower stated that the storm damage was in 2005 and the damage was corrected immediately. He indicated that he has photos from December 16, 2008 showing the new siding weathered. Mr. Flower explained that all this shows that his information is more recent then Ms. Balint’s. He noted that he subsequently found an engineer who indicated that the Bing photos were taken in December of 2006. He reiterated that his survey was performed last summer. Mr. Flower stated that the High Tide Line is just a line and the High Tide Line depends on the direction of storms and it changes constantly. He indicated that Ms. Balint speaks of protection of habitat; he noted that the only habitat is either 10 feet in front of the existing structure or underneath it. Mr. Flower stated that they are not adding a building, but a structure with no roof that is not included in coverage.
Chairman Cable stated that Ms. Balint highlighted the fact that the structure is very close to the management area. Mr. Flower responded that the only reason they are before the Zoning Commission is that the Zoning Regulations require a review if a structure is within 50 feet of the CAM line. He noted that he believes his proposal meets Zoning requirements. Mr. Flower stated that everything meets FEMA, which she also referred to in her correspondence. Ms. Brown stated that she and Mr. Flower will deal with the FEMA regulations separately, as she must also consider the renovations to the cottage. Mr. Flower stated that his client does not want to raise the cottage one foot because the new FEMA maps that become effective in the Fall of 2010 show the flood zone elevation one foot lower for this
property. He noted that the current elevation is 11 and the new will be elevation 10. Mr. Flower stated that he proposes that they will keep work within 10 feet of the building and prior to doing the work he will ask his client to survey one more time. Chairman Cable stated that the Commission may ask for the survey prior to making a decision. Mr. Flower indicated that they could, although that would put the work off a little bit.
Mr. Flower noted that that he has updated drawings showing large holes in the wall as the Commission discussed at the January Hearing. He explained that they want the structure to be masonry because it will get wet, but also because wood is more dangerous with nails and splinters and such with kids running up and down it barefoot. Mr. Flower stated that the Commission’s engineer, Tom Metcalf, noted that upon site visit the High Tide Line appeared closer to home then shown on the plan. Mr. Flower stated that he cannot explain that comment because he does not know what day Mr. Metcalf visited the site; it could have been after a storm or right at high tide. He noted that he has to agree that the line has moved since his last visit there. Mr. Flower stated that that a five-year study,
surveying the property monthly, would probably give a good idea of the exact high tide line.
Mr. Flower stated that Mr. Metcalf suggests that the terrace wall foundation plans be signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer; he suggests that the footing installations could be problematic; and it will be necessary to consider the stability of the existing structure as well as the unstable, caving of excavated area during construction. Mr. Flower stated that they are meeting all the regulations and considering all the things Mr. Metcalf notes in his letter. He indicated that the structural engineer will review all of the designs. Mr. Risom suggested that this review by the structural engineer could be a condition of approval. Mr. Flower agreed.
Mr. Looney stated that he visited the site today. He indicated that it appeared to him that the high tide line was approximately 10 feet off the rear corner of the house and 8 feet from the southeast corner. He pointed these areas out noted that if one is facing the house from the water he is saying 10 feet from the left corner and 8 feet from the right corner. Mr. Looney stated that a bigger concern is that the wave action appears to go under the house. Mr. Flower stated that the wave action won’t be effected and noted that because of the holes the water will go right through the wall.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Flower if he knows of any other property in Town where this type of project has already been accomplished. Mr. Flower indicated that he did not. He indicated that there are two nearby houses that have stairs coming out the rear, but they are wooden stairs. Mr. Flower stated that no one has constructed a structure to this extend. Mr. Johnson stated that he is looking for history of a similar structure and how it has held up over the years. Mr. Risom stated that a property owner approximately ½ mile away has stacked stone on concrete piers and it has been there for 30 years. Mr. Flower noted that the Stark’s are the last house on West End Drive and they constructed it about 25 years ago. He indicated that there are also a few similar structures down
in Point ‘O Woods. Mr. Flower stated that most beaches are owned by beach associations. Mr. Johnson stated that he has never seen someone put masonry on top of sand and would like to see a similar structure that has existed for a while. Mr. Flower indicated that he did a similar one at the end of Breen, but noted that that one is located almost 100 feet from the water.
Mr. Flower stated that the proposed structure will protect the southeastern corner of the house and keep the house from having problems. He noted that the piers underneath the house were done in 2006; he noted that he has no idea how deep they were dug. Mr. Looney acknowledged that he could tell the piers were relatively new.
Ms. Marsh stated that there is a substantial amount of stairway that really isn’t stairway but rather another deck. Ms. Brown noted that the structure is in the rear setback, not the side setback. Ms. Marsh stated that a stairway can encroach into a setback, not a deck that attaches to a set of stairs. Mr. Flower stated that they need a landing to get to the stairs to both doors. Ms. Brown noted that the typical landing is 4’ x 4’. Mr. Flower stated that the regulations allow him access. Ms. Marsh questioned whether he believes that the Regulations would allow him five doors across the back of the house with one large landing across so that each door could access the stairs. Mr. Flower stated that he believes the Regulations say that. Mr. Flower stated that
they are talking about a 6 inch extension into the setback without including the wall. Ms. Brown agreed with Ms. Marsh’s comments. Mr. Flower stated that the special doors needed to meet FEMA are 3’6” and they all open out, rather than in. Ms. Marsh questioned whether he was replacing existing doors or adding new doors. Mr. Flower indicated that he was adding new doors. He stated that he became involved because the owners want access out the front of the house.
Ms. Brown questioned the depth of the footings for the deck area. Mr. Flower replied that he is going down to Elevation 1. Chairman Cable questioned whether the Commission was comfortable with closing the Public Hearing before receiving the structural engineer’s report and the new survey information. Mr. Flower stated that he would think the Commission could make a decision tonight. He indicated that they are going to get another survey to protect his client from the DEP. He indicated that the Commission has no information that says the line is any different then the information he has already provided. Mr. Flower stated that the structural engineer’s review could be a condition of approval.
Mr. Flower stated that Ms. Balint states in her letter that she only has jurisdiction up to the high tide line.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Tom Risom and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Coastal Site Plan/Special Permit Application to construct a new stair and terrace on waterside of structure and renovate existing structure, 10 West End Drive, Carlos and Melissa Santos, applicants.
2. Special Permit Application to demolish existing structure and construct a one and one-half (1 ½) story dwelling on property located at 42 Breen Avenue, Nicholas DiCorleto, applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the Exhibit List for the record. She noted that she read the legal notice earlier. Ms. Brown stated that the applicants had previously submitted this application last Fall. She noted that her evaluation documents the changes proposed and points out that the proposal is less nonconforming then the existing structure.
Paul Geraghty was present to represent Mr. DiCorleto. Attorney Geraghty submitted the mailing notices and a letter from his client’s engineer responding to Mr. Metcalf’s letter from last Fall. He noted that Mr. Metcalf’s comments have been addressed in the current plans.
Attorney Geraghty stated that the house currently encroaches on the neighbor’s property. He noted that by reconstructi8oning the house in the proposed location they will be reducing the number of nonconformities and eliminating some. Attorney Geraghty stated that the existing system is not known. He noted that the proposed septic plan has been approved by Mr. Rose, but today Ms. Brown stated that the MLSS formula is being questioned. He indicated that because this is a renovation, they only need to meet 50 percent. Attorney Geraghty stated that the dimensions of the dwelling will basically be the same. He noted that the house will be 1.5 stories. He pointed out that the house will be cape-style with a dormer. Attorney Geraghty stated that there will be some minor
internal changes. He stated that the existing footprint is approximately 850 square feet. Mr. Risom stated that the proposed footprint is 32’ x 26’ and the existing is 27’ x 18.3’. Mr. Johnson stated that this is not a small change. Attorney Geraghty stated that there is a large porch across the front of the proposed structure that is included in the footprint. Ms. Brown stated that the footprint of the old house is 626 square feet and the new is approximately 850 square feet, including the porch.
Attorney Geraghty stated that they are currently encroaching 6 to 12” onto the neighbor’s property. He indicated that the encroachment is being eliminated entirely. Attorney Geraghty stated that that this is a year round residence. He stated that the reason they did not move forward last fall was because the Regulations were changing.
Ms. Brown questioned the second floor square footage. Mr. Thompson stated that there will be two bedrooms, one 10’ x 14’ and the second 12’ x 9’ and a small bathroom or approximately 300 square feet. Ms. Brown stated that this would put them over the floor area ratio. Attorney Geraghty stated that there is a dormer. Mr. Thompson stated that the floor area is a 18’ x 26’ area. Ms. Brown reiterated that this would put them over on the floor area.
Attorney Geraghty stated that total living area is 1,100 square feet. Ms. Brown stated that the regulations would allow this property 1,032 square feet. She noted that they would not be allowed to create any new nonconformities. Attorney Geraghty stated that they could probably speak with the company that created the plans and shave 68 square feet off the second floor.
Reading from the Public Health Code, Mr. Thompson stated that the replacement system should provide a minimum of 50 percent of the required minimum leaching system spread and MLSS per technical standards. He noted that this is for a replacement of a system on an existing lot. Mr. Thompson stated that many existing lots across the state are not wide enough to accommodate 100 percent. Ms. Brown stated that John Flower indicated that the system did not comply and that they were awaiting resolution.
Mr. Risom stated that there is no indication where house #44 gets its water. Mr. Thompson stated that they are abandoning the existing well on the property. Mr. DiCorleto stated that the water comes from the curb on the northwest corner of the house.
Ms. Marsh stated that even though there was an existing house on the property, this is a new, larger home. Attorney Geraghty stated that no one knows what the existing septic system is but it appears to be working. He noted that the system is code compliant. He indicated that the code does not require more under the circumstances. Ms. Marsh indicated that this is not an addition, it is an entire new house. She stated that there are entire beach areas full of these types of properties and the Commission is not consistent if they allow them to construct new homes without meeting 100% of the Health Code. Attorney Geraghty stated that the septic is not within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission or the Zoning Board of Appeals. He commended the Commission for adopting a regulation
that allows Special Permits in this type of situation. Ms. Marsh stated she feels that they still have to hold the line on certain things, one of which is septic systems. Ms. Brown stated that John Flower did try to resolve the issue. Mr. Looney stated that he thinks the Commission should receive a final resolution letter on this matter. Ms. Brown stated that she asked Mr. Flower whether the system met Health Code without exceptions and he replied that it did not. She indicated that there was not enough time to resolve the issue before this evening’s meeting.
Attorney Geraghty stated that he would be happy to ask for an extension of the Public Hearing to resolve the issue with Mr. Thompson, Mr. Rose and Mr. Flower. Mr. Looney questioned whether they could meet MLSS with a two-bedroom home. Mr. Thompson replied that they could not. Mr. Risom stated that the existing grades are in the 12’s and the proposed plan shows the same numbers, but with a note that they are adding 24 inches of fill. Mr. Risom stated that the proposed plan does not show additional fill. Mr. Thompson stated that they are removing some material. Chairman Risom stated that the plans show that it is being added.
The Commission members agreed that they should keep the Public Hearing open to resolve the septic issues. Mr. Risom stated that he would also like to take the opportunity to review the plans.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
A motion was made by Tom Risom, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing for the Special Permit Application to demolish existing structure and construct a one and one-half (1 ½) story dwelling on property located at 42 Breen Avenue, Nicholas DiCorleto, applicant, to the March 8, 2010 Regular Meeting.
Chairman Cable adjourned the Public Hearing at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
