OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, April 8, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Regular Hearing on Monday, April 8, 2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Jane Cable, Chairman, Jane Marsh, Secretary, Pat Looney (Regular Member), Harland Frazier (Alternate) and Joan Bozek (Alternate arrived at 7:42 p.m.).
Also present: Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Cable called the Public Hearings to order at 7:33 p.m. She noted all members and alternates will be voting this evening.
Ms. Marsh read the legal ad for all the Public Hearings, as published in the New London Day.
1. Special Permit Application to permit demolition of existing garage and construction of a new garage in accordance with Section 9.1.3.2 on property located at 46 Saltaire Drive, Estate of Margaret O. & Norman J. Yester, owners.
Ms. Marsh read the list of exhibits for the record. Attorney Cronin and Angus MacDonald, Jr., were present to represent the applicant. Attorney Cronin stated that the application is coming in under 9.1.3.2 which allows the expansion of buildings on nonconforming lots in accordance with standards. He noted that normally one would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and show a hardship. Attorney Cronin explained that in preparing for tonight’s meeting they noticed that the distance of the proposed structure from the rear property line was not shown on the plan and Mr. MacDonald revised the plan to show the distance, which is 7 feet. He noted that there are no other changes to the plan.
Attorney Cronin explained that the existing structure is shown and the proposed is superimposed on top of it. He noted that the existing shower encroaches on the property line and the existing garage is 3.7 feet from the property line. Attorney Cronin stated that they are proposing to reduce the coverage of the existing garage 372 square feet down to 324 square feet and pulling it forward as much as possible so it will be 25 feet from the front property line, and pushing it away from the side property line from 3.7 to 5 feet. He noted that it is a highly developed lot and they are reducing the nonconformities as set forth in 9.1.3.2.
Attorney Cronin stated that the existing garage has a hip roof, which reduces the storage ability. He noted that the house does not have a basement so additional storage space is desirable. Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant recently received a letter from their Insurance Company indicating that the garage is in very poor condition and creates an increased potential for loss and noting that until the garage is repaired, it will not be insured. He submitted this letter for the record.
Attorney Cronin noted that the proposed garage is higher than the original garage to optimize storage.
Mr. MacDonald noted that the shower is being removed.
Attorney Cronin read a letter from Mr. Rice, neighboring property owner, indicating he is in favor of the proposal; a letter from the property owner at 48 Saltaire Drive, noting that they are in favor of the application; and the neighbor next door at 44 whose property the shower is encroaching on, indicating her approval of the application.
Ms. Brown stated that 9.1.3.2 states that the Commission can approve a proposal provided the septic system is in compliance with the current public health code without use of any exceptions provided by the code. Mr. Looney stated that the applicant has a larger garage now so in reality they could make application for repair, although he understands what she is saying. Ms. Cable stated that they are not adding living space.
Ms. Marsh read the letter of approval from the Health Department indicating that there is no reserve on the property and that the garage is approved based on the exact location on the plan. Mr. MacDonald stated that the septic system was replaced in 2006 so it is a newer technology, although it is located off site. Neither Mr. MacDonald nor Attorney Cronin were aware if the septic system approval was given any exceptions. Attorney Cronin stated that the garage has nothing to do with the septic system as there is no living space.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Joan Bozek, seconded by Pat Looney to and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing on the Special Permit Application for 46 Saltaire Drive, Estate of Margaret O. & Norman J. Yester, owners.
2. Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application to permit raising house in compliance with variance granted; install a new septic system; reduce the number of bedrooms and convert to single family house; modify the house to be more conforming in size, location and number of stories (Section 9.4) on property located at 73 Swan Avenue, Bogdan and Francine Brocki, applicant/owners.
Ms. Marsh read the list of exhibits for the record. Jeff Flower, Architect, was present to represent the applicants. He explained that the proposal is to reduce the size of the existing footprint and move into a conforming area. Mr. Flower stated that there is no impact to the coastal area as the existing dwelling is surrounded by homes. He stated that the existing building is a 2.5 story, 4 unit, 9 bedroom multi-family apartment building with an outside stairway. Mr. Flower stated that a variance was received to raise the building 3.8 feet to meet FEMA. He explained that a new tank and septic system will be installed. Mr. Flower stated that they are removing the front and side porches. He noted that the original house is in dire need of rework. Mr. Flower stated that
the site is so small that construction would be much easier if the structure was removed and rebuilt. He indicating that the variance granted allows them to raise the house.
Ms. Brown noted that the applicants were before the Zoning Board of Appeals two or three times, and it was the third application to simply raise the existing structure, which was approved. Mr. Flower agreed but noted that the first two attempts before the ZBA were not the same structure as proposed this evening. Mr. Looney stated that it would have been much simpler to have asked ZBA to remove and reconstruct. Mr. Flower noted that they did not originally plan to remove the existing house. He indicated that he thinks the application is more suited to the Zoning Commission.
Ms. Cable questioned the total height of the building when raised. Mr. Flower stated that it is 27.4 feet, where 24 feet is allowed. Ms. Marsh stated that one cannot get a variance and then come to the Zoning Commission under 9.4 and ask for more. She indicated that the proposed plan needs to meet the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Bozek stated that the plan is different than what was brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals. She questioned that when a new plan comes before the Zoning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals position is irrelevant.
Mr. Flower stated that the only thing they are discussing is the method of discussion. He explained that they decided since the Zoning Board of Appeals decision it would be better to relocate to increase the setbacks, which falls under the Special Permit Application. Mr. Looney stated that he feels it should be done by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Brown stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals denied their application to demolish the house and reconstruct it in a more conforming way. Ms. Brown stated that Zoning Board of Appeals did not allow the house to be torn down.
Ms. Cable stated that 9.4 authorizes reconstruction and she believes this is a reconstruction. Mr. Looney stated that he doesn’t understand why it didn’t come to the Zoning Commission first. Mr. Flower stated that it could not because they needed a variance to increase the height to meet FEMA. Chairman Cable stated that the Zoning Commission can allow them to exceed height under 9.4. Ms. Brown stated that they could not, as it would be a nonconformity. Ms. Marsh stated that the applicant cannot use their variance for the height and get the rest of the application approved as a Special Exception under 9.4. She stated that they already got permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals to raise the height and she does not believe they can come before the Zoning Commission to
grant a special exception for a nonconformity that does not exist today.
Chairman Cable stated that one cannot get a variance and come to the Zoning Commission through the back door to get the rest of the approvals saying you have a variance for the part we cannot grant; she noted that the application does not meet the requirements of 9.4. Ms. Marsh stated that it is a nonconforming property and voluntarily taking it down, under the Regulations, one starts over.
Ms. Bozek stated that the applicant has a permit to raise the existing house as it is today. Mr. Flower stated that they would like to improve the house, which is why they are before the Zoning Commission. Mr. Flower stated that they were planning to raise the second floor and rebuild the first floor. Mr. Looney stated that he does not believe the legal ad stated that the home was going to be demolished. Ms. Brown indicated that she did not understand that the plan was to demolish the house. Mr. Flower stated that the Statement of Use states that the applicant will rebuild the house in the same location. Mr. Looney pointed out that it does not say it is being demolished. Chairman Cable stated that the other tricky part in the statement of use is “in compliance with the
variance granted” and the Zoning Board of Appeals file is not part of the application.
Ms. Brown stated that the application intends to meet the current flood zone maps, which in this case is elevation 9. She pointed out that the new maps effective this August, will show this property in elevation 12, so even if they construct it now by August it will be FEMA noncompliant. Mr. Flower stated that he explained this to his client and he understands. Ms. Brown added the panel numbers and flood maps in the file for the record and asked that they be made exhibits.
Ms. Bozek stated that she is concerned that the legal ad does not state demolition and reconstruction. She stated that they also try to reduce nonconformities, which this application does. Ms. Bozek questioned whether the Commission felt it would be appropriate to re-notice the hearing with the word “demolition” included.
Ms. Bozek questioned whether the applicant would have to go back to ZBA to get approval because the footprint has changed. Ms. Cable stated that she did not believe they would have to.
Mr. Flower stated that he is willing to hang the first floor 16 feet in the air and not demolish it, in which case he would only be asking to move some of the appendages. Mr. Looney stated that he thinks the appropriate approval for this project should come from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Flower stated that he feels the Zoning Board of Appeals would have turned him away for asking for another variance. Chairman Cable stated that he would have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals with modified plan. Mr. Flower indicated that he has a variance for the height and the rest is under the Zoning Commission purview. He reiterated that they have removed their request to demolish the structure.
Ms. Marsh explained that a Special Exception has to be asked for cleanly, without a necessary variance. She noted that if the house was already raised, they could come back for a Special Exception to make conforming changes. Mr. Flower stated that the intent of the Zoning Regulation is to give people the ability to make things betters without the need for a variance. He indicated that he is doing exactly that; making the building better for the neighbors and the Town by reducing all the nonconformities and they are only left with the matter of height because of FEMA. Ms. Marsh stated that the applicant does not already have the excess height and that is the part that does not work. Mr. Looney agreed. Mr. Looney stated that the applicant could have presented the entire plan to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Frank Lishing, 75 Swan Avenue, stated that he would like the Commission to approve the application to improve the house and the neighborhood. He indicated that it does seem complicated to lift the second floor into the air and only reconstruct the second floor.
Joanne Lishing, stated that she has been pulling for reconstruction of this property for a long time and would like to see the Commission approve the application.
Ms. Cable suggested that the Commission continue the Public Hearing and get the Zoning Board of Appeals file to see exactly what was approved. She said the other option would be to let the applicant do the work that was approved and come back to the Commission. Ms. Marsh suggested getting guidance from Attorney Branse. The Commission agreed to keep the public hearing open with the applicant’s consent.
A motion was made by Joan Bozek seconded by Pat Looney and voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing to the May 13, 2013 Regular Meeting on the Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application for 73 Swan Avenue, Bogdan and Francine Brocki, applicant/owners.
The Commission took a five minute recess at this time.
3. Site Development Plan Modification Application, Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application to construct a building (28’ x 36’) to the west of the existing building with outdoor seating and takeout food (seasonal); parking lot renovations (100 +/- spaces) and landscaping; interior and exterior renovations; two entryways (one approved in front setback by ZBA); full service restaurant with State Liquor License and two outside patios (east and west) for dining and the service of alcohol (east and west sides) as an accessory use to the restaurant on property located at 218 Shore Road, Big Green Outdoor, LLC applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the exhibit list for the record.
Joe Wren, PE, was present to represent the applicant. He explained that all public hearing notices went out according to the Regulations. Mr. Wren stated that along with him is Greg Nucci from Point One Architects and Scott Chamberlain. He explained the site plan, noting that the footprint of the restaurant will essentially be the same and the roof will be partially raised in the southern section of the building. Mr. Wren stated that they have received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for modifications in the front setback. He explained that they are proposing to outdoor patios for dining and the service of alcohol, one on the east side and one on the west side. He stated that the addition is a 28’ x 36’ take-out restaurant with no interior seating but with exterior
seating of 24 seats. Mr. Wren explained that alcohol would not be served from this structure. He stated that the main restaurant will be year round but the take-out restaurant will be seasonal, basically Memorial Day to Labor Day. He stated that the overall sight accommodates the parking for the main restaurant, the outdoor patios and the take-out restaurant; approximately 100 parking spaces.
Mr. Wren stated that they are in discussions with DOT for driveway locations. He stated that the existing asphalt will be removed and replaced with either crushed stone or crushed sea shells, both of which are pervious. He stated that this will reduce the coverage from 40,000 square feet down to 12,000 square feet.
Mr. Wren pointed out the proposed plantings, noting that they will add 21 perimeter trees, six street trees and six interior trees. He indicated that it was not clear whether this application should be a Site Plan or Site Plan Modification, but they have since found an approved site plan from 1992, although some of the islands were not planted on the west side. He clarified that this proposal is a Site Plan Modification. Mr. Wren pointed out the existing septic system for the restaurant and the new septic system for the proposed take-out restaurant.
Mr. Wren reviewed the circulation on the site and noted the location of the dumpster which is in a fenced enclosure. He noted that they brought the application informally to the Wetlands Commission who determined they did not have any jurisdiction over the site. He noted that the project is not within the Gateway Conservation Zone.
Mr. Wren stated that the main restaurant is much more pleasing to the eye than the current structure. He noted that the lighting will be full cut-off and he has included the detail. Mr. Wren stated that the owners are looking into fixtures that appear more “New England.”
Mr. Wren explained that the septic system for the main restaurant will not change. He pointed out that although there are two new patios with seating, the seats have been reduced in the interior of the restaurant. Mr. Wren stated that the septic for the seasonal restaurant has been approved. He explained that the site is served by public water. Mr. Wren stated that the DEP has reviewed and approved for Coastal Area Management and commended the applicant for removing the impervious area. Mr. Wren stated that they have requested a waiver for the 30’ parking strip and also a waiver to reduce the required number of trees to 21.
Ms. Bozek questioned what part of the site plan was being modified. Mr. Wren explained that the application is for the service of alcohol and for the take-out restaurant. He stated that the main restaurant will not open until the fall, but the applicant would like to construct and open the take-out restaurant for the summer season.
Greg Nucci, Architect with Point One, stated that the applicant wanted a structure reflective of an Old Lyme Beach house. He noted that the existing structure has exceeded its lifespan. Mr. Nucci explained that the existing footprint will remain the same, although they are adding two vestibules which he pointed out on the site plan. He noted that they are adding a little volume for some roof height which allows it to bring in the cottage aesthetic inside. Mr. Nucci stated that they are adding a gas fireplace. Mr. Wren noted that they received a variance for the increased roof height in the setback area. Mr. Nucci explained the floor plan of the take-out restaurant and noted the outdoor lighting.
Mr. Wren stated that the coverage for the site is 8.4 percent where 20 percent is allowed. He noted that the tentative name of the restaurant is “The Old Lyme Beach Cottage,” although they may have a contest of some sort. He indicated that they do not have a sign application at this time, for that reason.
Ms. Brown noted that the applicant is applying to the State for a restaurant liquor permit and are requesting to serve liquor on the patios. Chairman Cable questioned whether there would be any entertainment. Mr. Wren stated that there is no planned entertainment at this time.
Ms. Bozek stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a variance to allow an increase in the roof height. She questioned the difference between this application and the prior one. Ms. Marsh stated that this is a Site Plan on a conforming lot and the other application was a nonconforming lot coming in under Section 9.4.
Mr. Wren stated that the waiver requests are for required reducing the required trees from 30 to 21 and reducing the buffer from the street from the required 30 feet to essentially 0 feet. He noted that the first 25 to 30 feet is owned by DOT.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Cable asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Pat Looney, seconded by Harlan Frazier and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing on the Site Development Plan Modification Application, Special Permit Application and Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review Application for 218 Shore Road, Big Green Outdoor, LLC applicant.
Chairman Cable adjourned the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
