OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, October 12, 2011
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Monday, October 12, 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, Vice Chairman, Pat Looney (Regular Member) and Ted Kiritsis (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Cable called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. She noted that Mr. Kiritsis would be seated for Member Tom Risom. Chairman Cable immediately recessed the Regular Meeting to conduct the Public Hearing. She reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:29 p.m.
1. Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application to permit construction of 2 multifamily buildings for the initial phase of a 4 building project, each building will contain 6, 2 bedroom apartments on property located at 77 Lyme Street, Lyme Academy College of Fine Arts, Inc, applicant.
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the November 14, 2011 Regular Meeting.
2. Special Permit Application to permit renovation of single family residence on property located at 2 Meetinghouse Lane, which is in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the existing dwelling is in excess of 4,000 square feet, Marcia McLean and Peter R. Lasusa, Jr., applicants. The applicant requested, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, an Exception to the Special Permit process.
Mr. Looney stated that the application is for renovation and from the testimony it appears that the house is being demolished and rebuilt. Ms. Brown indicated that she does not believe they are removing the structure down to the foundation. Mr. Looney stated that he is also concerned with the measurement of the height. Ms. Brown read the statement of use. Mr. Looney stated that cantilevering the roof is a way to meet the height requirement. He indicated that he does not agree with it. Ms. Brown stated that adding the second floor increases the height. Chairman Cable read Mr. Downes’ email addressing height. Mr. Looney pointed out that the application does not have architectural plans and it should.
A Motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by John Johnson to approve the Application to permit renovation of single family residence on property located at 2 Meetinghouse Lane, which is in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the existing dwelling is in excess of 4,000 square feet, Marcia McLean and Peter R. Lasusa, Jr., applicants. The applicant requested, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, an Exception to the Special Permit process, as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received an application for a Special Permit to allow an addition to a dwelling where the floor area of the buildings on site are in excess of 4,000 square feet in the Conservation Zone (Gateway Zone), for property of Marcia McLean and Peter R. Lasusa, Jr., located at 2 Meetinghouse Lane, including the following drawings titled, Special Permit Application dated September 11, 2011 with accompanying documentation; letter from Joseph Wren, P.E. with application; aerial view of area; e-mail from Torrance Downes stating Gateway Provision could be waived; Lasusa drawings depicting elevations and Site Plan dated July 27, 2011 revised to show Health Comments and prepared by Indigo Land Design, LLC; and
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on October 12, 2011 and the commission has had an opportunity to hear testimony both from the public and from the applicants; and
Whereas, the proposed activity (an addition to a residential structure where the floor area of the buildings on site are in excess of 4,000 square feet in the Conservation Zone {Gateway Zone}) is permitted by Special Permit under the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations Sections 4.10.12.3, the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the standards of Sections 13A, 13B and Section 4.10.12 of the Regulations and waives the submission of any additional information which might otherwise not be necessary in order to decide the application.
Whereas, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the General Standards of the Zoning Regulations, in particular that the proposed use, buildings and other structures and site development are designed and arranged as follows:
to achieve safety, comfort and convenience;
to conserve as much of the natural terrain and provide for vegetation on the site to the extent practical;
to be in architectural harmony with the surrounding area;
to protect nearby residential and preservation areas;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has deliberated and considered the evidence presented at the hearing as well as the input of its staff and professional consultants and makes the following findings in compliance with Section 4.10.12.3:
a. Proposed site development shall maintain the essential natural characteristics of the site, such as major land forms, natural vegetative and wildlife communities, hydrological features, scenic qualities and open space that contributes to a sense of place.
b. Structures shall be adapted to the existing terrain, rather than altering the earth form to create a platformed development site.
c. Structures located above the crest of hillsides facing the river shall be held back from the crest of the hill to maintain a clear sense of the hillside brow in its natural condition.
d. Architectural elements shall not be overemphasized in a manner which disrupts the natural silhouette of the hillside. Structures shall be designated so that the slope of the angle of the roof pitch is generally at or below the angle of the natural hillside or manufactured slope.
e. Building forms shall be scaled to the particular environmental setting to avoid excessively massive forms that fail to enhance the hillside character. Massing of structural elements such as large roof areas shall be broken up to approximate natural slopes.
f. Roof lines shall relate to the slope and topography. Rooftop treatment shall be designed to avoid monotony of materials, forms and colors. Dark-colored roof treatments, which reduce visual impact on the structure of the landscape are preferred.
g. Site design shall preserve the existing natural landscape where possible and include new landscaping which is compatible with existing natural vegetation, the scenic character of the area, and increases visual buffering between the building and the River or its tributaries within the Conservation Zone.
h. Development shall be located so as to minimize the disturbance of sensitive areas. The smallest practical area of land should be exposed at any one time during development and the length of exposure should be kept to the shortest practical time. Disturbed areas shall be replanted with non-invasive trees, shrubs and ground cover species which are compatible with existing vegetation.
i. Site grading shall avoid straight and unnatural slope faces. Cut and fill slopes shall have curved configurations to reflect as closely as possible the forms and shapes of surrounding topography. At intersections of manufactured and natural slopes, abrupt angular intersections should be avoided, and contours should be curved to blend in with the natural shape.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval for a Special Permit to construct an addition to the dwelling per plans submitted for property at 2 Meetinghouse Lane, Old Lyme, CT. So moved, 4-1-0, with Pat Looney voting against.
3. Special Permit Application to permit the construction of a 3’ x 95’ boardwalk, a 3’ x 22’ ramp and an 8’x 10’ floating dock on property located at 18 Sandpiper Point Road, Tallmadge Renault, applicant.
A motion for approval was made by John Johnson, seconded by Pat Looney and voted unanimously to approve the Special Permit Application to permit the construction of a 3’ x 95’ boardwalk, a 3’ x 22’ ramp and an 8’x 10’ floating dock on property located at 18 Sandpiper Point Road, Tallmadge Renault, applicant.
as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received application for Special Permit approval to allow construction of a 3’ x 95’ boardwalk at two different levels, 89’ of which will extend waterward of the High Tide Line, a 3’ x 22’ ramp, and an 8’ x 10’ floating dock, at 18 Sandpiper Point Road, as shown on Plan View Showing Proposed Conditions prepared for Robert & Tallmadge S. Renault by Angus McDonald/Gary Sharpe & Associates, Inc. sheet 5 of 9 dated December 16, 2008, revised to June 10, 2010; sheet 6 of 9 entitled Detail Plan View Showing Proposed Conditions prepared for Robert & Tallmadge S. Renault by Angus McDonald/Gary Sharpe & Associates, Inc. dated December 16, 2008 revised to June 10, 2010; sheet 7 of 9 Boardwalk Detail
prepared by Angus McDonald/Gary Sharpe & Associates and Property Survey Plan property of Robert & Tallmadge S. Renault dated December 16, 2008 prepared by Angus McDonald/Gary Sharpe & Associates; and
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on October 12, 2011, and the Commission has had an opportunity to hear testimony both from citizens of Old Lyme and from the applicant; and
Whereas, the proposed use is permitted by Special Permit under the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations Section 4.3.1, the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the technical provisions Section 13 of the Regulations.
Whereas, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the General Standards of Section 13, in particular that the proposed use and structures and site development are designed and arranged as follows:
a. to achieve safety, comfort and convenience;
b. to conserve as much of the natural terrain and provide for vegetation on the site to the extent practical;
c. to be in architectural harmony with the surrounding area;
d. to protect nearby residential and preservation areas;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the General Standards of Section 13, in particular that the proposed use, buildings or other structures and site development conform to the standards of this section.
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has deliberated and considered the evidence presented at the hearing as well as the input of its staff and professional consultants; and
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval for the Special Permit application to construct a of a 3’ x 95’ boardwalk at two different levels, 89’ of which will extend waterward of the High Tide Line, a 3’ x 22’ ramp, and an 8’ x 10’ floating dock, at 18 Sandpiper Point Road, as shown on the plans.
4. Special Permit Application to permit an accessory apartment on property located at 136-1 Neck Road, H. Michael Schaefer, applicant/owner.
The Public Hearing for this item is continued to the November 14, 2011 Regular Meeting.
5. Special Permit Application to permit a three bay barn/garage on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the buildings are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 40 Smith Neck Road, Lisa Brault, owner.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to receive the Special Permit Application for 40 Smith Neck Road and set a Public Hearing for November 14, 2011.
6. Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review to permit a small fixed pier (5’ x 55’) for recreation use on property located at 30 Neck Road, Robert Staab, applicant.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to receive the Special Permit Application for 30 Neck Road and set a Public Hearing for November 14, 2011.
7. Special Permit Application to permit construction of a 4’ x 6’ concrete pad to support ramp hinge, a 3.5’ x 25’ ramp and a 6.8’x 15’ floating dock, for occasional private use by property owner only on property located at 11 Halls Road, James Graybill, applicant.
The Public Hearing for this item is set for the November 14, 2011 Regular Meeting.
8. Jazz Club – Preliminary Discussion.
Mr. ?? stated that he would like to have a Jazz Club on Huntley Road. He explained that he has been in the IT business for 35 years. He indicated that he purchased the building on Huntley Road and being a music enthusiast it has always been a dream to create something that he could call his own. He explained that his current business is a data center that basically monitors other systems. Mr. ?? stated that the new Sonalyst studio has taken off. He indicated that his background is technology. He noted that he will use the left hand side of the building for the Jazz Club. Mr. ?? stated that the capacity of the club would be approximately 75 people. He indicated that he spoke with the neighbors across the street; the only ones that would be potentially impacted.
Mr. ?? stated that they could also musical educational things with the schools. He noted that it would be used both during the day and in the evening. Ms. Brown stated that there is a problem with the separation of an assembly building from a residential district. Mr. ?? stated that the food would be catered from a local restaurant. He indicated that he would like to attract big artists. He indicated that many artists travel through on their way to the casinos and could stop to record a song.
In discussing the traffic, Mr. ?? suggested that Huntley Road be made one way in the opposite direction then it currently is so that the traffic comes out onto Route 1.
Mr. ?? stated that the Jazz Club would be approximately 5,000 square feet. Mr. Johnson stated that he thinks the traffic issue on Huntley Road should be addressed.
Ms. Cable stated that the issue is the location near a residential zone. Chairman Cable stated that if there are not concerts perhaps it wouldn’t be considered an assembly. She indicated that the educational part would comply.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Pat Looney and voted unanimously to add Roger Smith of 15 Meetinghouse Lane to the agenda to discuss possible exception to Section 4.10.12 of the Zoning Regulations.
9. Discussion with Roger Smith of 15 Meetinghouse Lane, regarding possible exception to Section 4.10.12 of the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Smith stated that he applied for a building permit to add a room in existing space over the garage. He indicated that they are adding a dormer to the existing roofline.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Jane Cable and voted unanimously to grant the exception to Section 4.10.12 in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations.
10. Approval of Minutes – Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of August 8, 2011 and September 12, 2011.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Ted Kiritsis and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of August 8, 2011 and the Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of September 12, 2011 as submitted.
11. Any Old or New Business
Ms. Cable stated that she has been asked that the Commission post their minutes in a more timely manner.
Ms. Brown stated that there was a complaint that the Executive Session where the Commission discussed pending and threatened litigation was not legitimate. She explained that it was okay to discuss pending litigation but not threatened litigation. Ms. Brown stated that the remedy is that the Commission must produce minutes within 90 days of the Judge’s decision. Ms. Cable stated that she believes it was wrongly decided. Mr. Looney stated that they won’t be accurate minutes at this point in time. Chairman Cable stated that everyone will have to put down their recollection of that meeting.
Ms. Brown stated that she discussed this with Eric Knapp, who discussed it with Mark Branse, and they stand by their advice regarding the meeting. She noted that they were surprised that FOI made the decision they did.
12. Correspondence
None
13. Zoning Enforcement
a. Zoning Enforcement Report
Ms. Brown stated that it appears that the spa use at Bee and Thistle is an amenity to the Bee and Thistle. Chairman Cable stated they are advertising a spa. Mr. Johnson stated that the phone is answered “Bee and Thistle Inn and Spa.” Chairman Cable stated that it should be restricted to Inn guests. Mr. Kiritsis stated that they do not have a permit for a spa use at all. Ms. Brown stated that there is a type of use that describes services that are offered on or off site, which she has used in the past for hairdressers. Ms. Marsh stated that she does not like the use of email for asking Commissions questions or their opinions on things as it could be considered a meeting. The Commission agreed to think about it and discuss this issue at the November
meeting.
b. Site Inspection Report
None.
14. Miscellaneous/Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. on a motion by Pat Looney; seconded by John John and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
