OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, August 8, 2011, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Jane Cable, Chairman, Jane Marsh, Secretary, John Johnson (arrived at 8:12 p.m.), Vice Chairman, Tom Risom (Regular Member) and Pat Looney (Regular Member). Also present were Joan Bozek (Alternate), Ted Kiritsis (Alternate) and Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Cable called the Public Hearing to order at 7:34 p.m.
1. Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application to permit construction of an 8,600 s.f., two-story office building on the commercial portion of property located at 5-1 Davis Road East which is in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone; Huntley & Halls, LLC, owner and Questa Builders, Inc., applicant.
Chairman Cable noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the July Regular Meeting. Ms. Marsh introduced the exhibits made part of the application since the July Public Hearing.
Bob Doane, Professional Engineer, was present to represent the applicants. He stated that he has gone over the plan with the Commission but would like to go over some changes made in response to some of the letters received. Mr. Doane stated that they have responded to Mr. Metcalf’s comments such as signage location, lighting, landscaping, and the architecturals. He noted that some drainage was changed in response to the Wetlands Commission. Mr. Doane stated that the applicant has been before the Planning Commission for the lot line modification which was approved. He explained that he has changed the title on the plans because it is no longer a free split but rather a lot line modification.
Mr. Doane explained that the one issue raised that he did not address was the number of handicap parking spaces. He indicated that it was noted that a medical office use requires more handicap spaces and after thoroughly reviewing the Regulations he was not able to find this requirement. Mr. Doane asked whether he could be referred to that Regulation and if in fact more are required he will revise the plans as a condition of approval. He reiterated that the use will be medical offices.
Mr. Doane stated that they received a letter from Mr. Metcalf dated August 5, and they have no problem doing anything he asks in that letter such as adding a left-hand turn sign. Mr. Doane noted that they have received positive responses from Torrance Downes and Marcy Balint regarding storm water management.
Chairman Cable questioned whether the sign would be lit and Mr. Doane replied that it would not be lit. Chairman Cable asked Mr. Doane to review the landscaping plan for the Commission which he did. He noted that one of the conditions of the Wetlands Commission approval is that they stake the limits of clearing prior to construction to be sure that this plan can be implemented.
Ms. Brown pointed out that the Commission should keep in mind that the residential lot and driveway shown on the plan is for demonstration purposes and the Commission is not approving them at this time; she noted that their approval will be for the entire commercial lot.
Ms. Brown noted that the footprint of the building has been modified to agree with the architectural drawings. Mr. Doane acknowledged that he did.
Ms. Bozek pointed out that there was a neighbor concerned about their view of the property. Mr. Doane explained that with the non-clearing limits on their side, they will not see the building. He noted that Torrance Downes and Marcy Balint agreed with that.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing for this item.
A Motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Special Permit and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Applications to permit construction of an 8,600 s.f., two-story office building on the commercial portion of property located at 5-1 Davis Road East which is in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone; Huntley & Halls, LLC, owner and Questa Builders, Inc., applicant.
2. Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application to permit construction of a boathouse on property located at 38 Neck Road, Joseph Chontos, applicant.
Seated for 38 Neck Road were Jane Cable, Jane Marsh, Tom Risom, Pat Looney, and John Johnson.
Ms. Marsh read the legal ad and exhibit list for the record.
Attorney Michael Cronin was present to represent the applicant, along with Mr. Chontos, Penny Sharp, Environmentalist, Centerbrook Architects, Roger Nemergut., Engineer.
Attorney Cronin stated that although Section 4.3 allows encroachment into setback areas, it applies to areas that are not part of the Connecticut River Tributaries. He explained that Section 4.10.3 talks about a 100 foot setback from the river and its associated wetlands, but it allows encroachment into that area for water-dependent uses and it specifically mentions docks and boathouses.
Roger Nemergut, PE, stated that the property is a .30 acre parcel. He noted that the boathouse is shown on the site plan in gray. Mr. Nemergut pointed out the tidal wetlands and the mean high tide line on the site plan. He noted that the plan also shows an elevated walkway that will lead to a previously approved, but not yet constructed, dock. He noted that the walkway is elevated four feet off the ground and is designed to standards given to him by DEP. Mr. Nemergut explained that the homeowner lives across the street on Neck Road and the water supply will be located there. He noted that there is an infiltration system for storm water run-off. Mr. Nemergut stated that the building meets all the Zoning Requirements. He noted that the parcel is located next to the Old Lyme
Marina. It was noted that the boathouse is 800 square feet.
Mr. Kiritsis questioned whether the boathouse would have cooking facilities. Mr. Nemergut stated that the boathouse will not have cooking facilities or sleeping facilities; he indicated that it will have a small refrigerator. Attorney Cronin suggested that any approval could state that the building will not be used for residential purposes. He reiterated that that a residential use is not the applicant’s intent.
Mr. Shaw pointed out the small area of wetlands on the property and also explained the planting plan, noting that it shows both species and quantity. Attorney Cronin noted that Mr. Metcalf requested an as-built of the structure to ensure it meets the 35 foot building height. Ms. Brown noted that there is a demonstration on the plan that shows the 35 foot building height.
Ms. Bozek questioned the length of the walkway. Mr. Nemergut stated that the walkway is approximately 150 feet.
Chairman Cable questioned why DEP says that they have not approved the dock plan. Mr. Nemergut stated that DEP has approved a dock plan but the walkways are different, so they have not approved this particular plan. He pointed out the difference between the approved plan and the current plan. Ms. Brown stated that the walk-way part is new to both the Town and DEP. She explained that the previously approved plan did not have a walkway down to the dock, it was just a path. Ms. Brown also noted that docks do not require a CAM Application.
Penny Sharp stated that only two coastal resources were involved. She explained that they identified impacts, such as the piers for the walkways. Ms. Sharp stated that the decking allows light to flow through.
Mr. Chontos stated that there are small down-lights and he would take a recommendation from the Commission as to the hours they would be allowed to be used.
Attorney Cronin stated that Section 4.10.12.3 is the Special Permit Criteria for the Gateway Zone. He noted that they have met all the requirements of this section and gave a brief explanation of each. Ms. Brown stated that she believes those criteria to be the ones used when the Commission evaluates a structure 4,000 square feet or larger.
The representative from Centerbrook Architects explained the floor plan, noting that there are two levels. He stated that the first floor has a general seating area, along with a bath, laundry and kitchen/bar area. He stated that the second floor is not finished and will be used for storage. Mr. Chontos stated that he wants the capabilities they laid out for ease of use and to lessen the trips back and forth across the street during the day. He stated that he recognizes that this is not a typical layout with the lot being divided by Route 156.
Mr. Johnson asked the applicant to explain how they plan to get material on site. Ms. Bozek noted that it would appear that some of the planting will have to be removed. Mr. Nemergut stated that he envisions the septic system being the last thing installed and until that time that area would be a staging area. Ms. Bozek stated that it was indicated during the DEP review that one of the ways to be sure it is not used as a residence is to not allow vehicle access. She stated that this could be achieved by replanting the shrubs and suggested that it be noted on the plan. Mr. Nemergut stated that they could put a note on the plan indicating that they would restore the plantings after construction.
Attorney Cronin stated that they expect a condition that the boathouse will not be used for a residence or dwelling.
Chairman Cable stated that all of DEP issues seem to be with stand-alone structures on one piece of property. She noted that because the lots will be merged, that is not the case. Attorney Cronin stated that he has a proposal to put that aside.
Peter Dickson, neighbor to the north, reviewed the plans carefully with him. He noted that it appears that the job will be done professionally and he has no reservations about the project. Chairman Cable questioned whether Mr. Dickson had any thoughts on the lighting. Mr. Dickson replied that he did not.
Attorney Cronin read DEP’s letter which he received at 5:30 p.m. this afternoon, and noted that the DEP states in it that residential use is not an allowed use in the WF zone. He noted that the WF Zone allows boathouses and docks, which are clearly residential accessory uses. He noted that the Regulations do not state that no residential use of any type will be allowed. Attorney Cronin stated that the DEP’s next comment is that the lot is separate from the residential lot across the street and therefore cannot be an accessory use. He read a Notice that he has prepared and plans to file on the land records to address this issue.
Ms. Bozek stated that the Notice states the lots are merged for “zoning” purposes. Attorney Cronin stated that that means if you were to sell the properties separately it would be a violation of the Zoning Permit and law. Ms. Bozek stated that she would rather it say that the lots cannot be sold as separate parcels. Attorney Cronin agreed to include those words in the notice.
Attorney Cronin stated that the DEP’s letter goes on to state that all the characteristics of the boat house appear to be residential. He noted that he has addressed this comment already. Attorney Cronin stated that the DEP’s next comment addresses an inapplicable Section of the Regulations; should be referring to 4.10.3. He noted that the DEP goes on to say that private docks are not considered water-dependent uses under the CCNMA. Attorney Cronin noted that this is an incorrect statement. He indicated that he read the entire document and it is not stated that residential docks are not a water-dependent use.
Mr. Looney stated that there is a considerable amount of area on the second floor that is usable area and noted that the windows on the second floor also meet the residential code. He stated that one of his concerns is that the boathouse could become a dwelling. Mr. Chontos stated that it comes down to the use restrictions. Ms. Brown explained that this concern can be alleviated with conditions. She stated that the actual floor area is important, it needs to be clarified, and the plans may need to be revised to meet the Regulations.
Mr. Chontos stated that what he finds perplexing is that the DEP letter asks the Commission to consider adverse impacts to future water dependent development, ignoring the fact that there is a DEP dock permit already. He noted that the future use of the lot is already defined.
Attorney Cronin stated that the next letter is from Torrance Downes, and in the first paragraph he discusses whether this is a dwelling or boathouse. Attorney Cronin read the definition of Boathouse as defined by Webster, which states primarily for the storage of boats but also for recreation. He noted that Mr. Downes addresses the functional need of being on the water. Attorney Cronin stated that the boathouse is convenient and much easier than dragging kayaks and such across the street. Chairman Cable stated that she thinks Mr. Downes is stating that it is not operationally necessary to have the encroachment in the 100 foot setback.
Attorney Cronin stated that there do not appear to be any environmental concerns or Gateway concerns, but rather a Zoning interpretation of the project.
Mr. Chontos stated that the dock is already approved and if this project is approved the only question is whether DEP will allow the decking that connects the two.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Ms. Bozek suggested that the applicant may want to consider holding the Public Hearing depending upon the outcome of the drawing review. Mr. Chontos stated that he is confident the calculations will be okay.
A Motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing on the application for 38 Neck Road, Joseph Chontos, applicant.
The Meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. on a motion by Pat Looney; seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
