OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
There were no public hearings conducted prior to the October 16th Regular Meeting.
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, October 16, 2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present were: Jane Cable, Chair, Jane Marsh, Secretary, Pat Looney, regular member, Ted Kiritsis, alternate and Harland Frazier, alternate.
Also present: Joan Bozek (Alternate arrived at 7:42) and Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Cable called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. She noted that Mr. Kiritsis and Mr. Frazier would be seated. Chairman Cable noted that there are no Public Hearings this evening.
1. Special Permit Application to permit a minor addition to an existing single family residence on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the structures are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 20 Griswold Point, Elyandco, Inc. owner/applicant. Applicant requested an exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for a minor addition to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation.
Dave Johnston stated that he is a resident of Haddam but a landowner in Old Lyme. He indicated that Tim Ely and Rob Hack are also landowners in Old Lyme and they are present this evening to discuss 4.10.12.1, which is an exception to the Special Permit of the Gateway provisions. Mr. Johnston stated that this past January they sold some of their land to the Old Lyme Land Trust on Hatchetts Hill Road. He explained that they took some of the capital to use for maintenance on their property on Griswold Point. He noted that they would like to renovate the kitchen of the main house which was built in the early 1800’s. Mr. Johnston noted that 40 people own the property and they voted unanimously to do this work.
Mr. Johnston stated that Rob Hack’s brother is an architect and he drew plans for the kitchen renovation which involves going out on the southeastern side of the house 6’ x 15’, for a total of 90 square feet. He indicated that this is less than 1% of the size of the existing house which is 4,520 square feet.
Mr. Johnston stated that there will be no view of the addition from the Connecticut River. He distributed packets to the Commission Members which contains all the information he is presenting. He noted that the house fronts on the Long Island Sound and he explained that it sits way back from the house on the 10 acre lot. Mr. Johnston showed the location of the house on the site plan and noted the small kitchen addition on the southeastern corner of the house. He explained that the existing house will block the addition and it will not be seen from the Connecticut River.
Mr. Johnston showed an architectural rendering of the proposed addition and Google Earth photographs. Mr. Kiritsis stated that the presentation was very comprehensive.
A motion was made by Ted Kiritsis, seconded by Pat Looney and voted unanimously to approve the Special Permit Application to permit a minor addition to an existing single family residence on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the structures are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 20 Griswold Point, Elyandco, Inc. owner/applicant, as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received an application for an exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for a minor addition to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone at 20 Griswold Point;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has evaluated the plan submitted and has concluded that the proposed addition will not be visible from the Connecticut River.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval to the exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for a minor addition to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone at 20 Griswold Point Road, Elyandco, Inc., owner/applicant. No discussion and a vote was taken.
Chairman Cable stated that Joan Bozek has arrived and will be seated in place of Ted Kiritsis.
2. Special Permit Application to permit pool and pool house/mechanicals, garage and front foyer to an existing single family residence on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the structures are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 18 Sill Lane, Peter and Christine Cowell, owners/applicants. Applicant requested an exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for a pool and pool house/mechanicals, garage and front foyer to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone.
Peter Cowell was present to explain his application. He indicated that he would like to construct a swimming pool, pool house, a front foyer, a kitchen addition and a garage. He indicated that he has 2.14 acres and no views to the Connecticut River. He noted that Talcott Farms is between him and the Connecticut River. Mr. Cowell stated that his house is marked “A” in the Google Earth photographs. The Commission reviewed the photographs and noted that the additions would not be visible from the Connecticut River.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to approve the Special Permit Application to permit pool and pool house/mechanicals, garage and front foyer to an existing single family residence on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the structures are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 18 Sill Lane, Peter and Christine Cowell, owners/applicants, as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received an application for an exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit to permit the addition of a pool and pool house/mechanicals, garage and front foyer to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone at 18 Sill Lane;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has evaluated the plan submitted and has concluded that the proposed addition will not be visible from the Connecticut River.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval to the exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for the addition of a pool and pool house/mechanicals, garage and front foyer to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone at 18 Sill Lane.
3. Special Permit Application to permit an addition to an existing single family residence on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the structures are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 110 Lyme Street, John and Barbara Noyes owners and Steven Hallahan, applicant. Applicant requested an exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for an addition to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone.
Steve Hallahan was present to represent the applicants. He explained that Noyes would like to construct a small addition to the west side of their historic property on the corner of Sill Lane and Lyme Street. Mr. Hallahan stated that the photographs show that the property is not located near the Connecticut River and over 700 feet from the Lieutenant River. He explained the photographs to the Commission.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to approve the Special Permit Application to permit an addition to an existing single family residence on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the structures are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 110 Lyme Street, John and Barbara Noyes owners and Steven Hallahan, applicant, as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received an application for an exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit to permit an addition to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone at 110 Lyme Street;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has evaluated the plan submitted and has concluded that the proposed addition will not be visible from the Connecticut River.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval to the exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for an addition to an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone at 110 Lyme Street, John and Barbara Noyes, owners.
Jane Marsh rescused herself for the next hearing and Ted Kiritsis was seated for this application
4. Special Permit Application to permit an addition to allow conversion of attic space to enlarge bedroom in an existing single family residence on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the structures are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 81 Mile Creek Road, Geoff and Sophie Marsh, owners and Donald Gerwick, applicant. Applicants requested an exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for an addition on an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone.
Jeff and Sophie Marsh were present to explain their application. Mr. Marsh stated that they have hired Don Gerwick to do construct an addition to the second floor of their house. Chairman Cable noted that the property is 1.7 miles from the Connecticut River. Mr. Marsh explained the site plan to the Commission members.
A motion was made by Pat Looney, seconded by Harlan Frazier and voted unanimously to approve the Special Permit Application to permit an addition to allow conversion of attic space to enlarge bedroom in an existing single family residence on property in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone, where the structures are in excess of 4,000 square feet floor area, 81 Mile Creek Road, Geoff and Sophie Marsh, owners and Donald Gerwick, applicant, as follows:
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has received an application for an exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit to permit an addition to allow conversion of attic space to enlarge bedroom in an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone at 81 Mile Creek Road;
Whereas, the Zoning Commission has evaluated the plan submitted and has concluded that the proposed addition will not be visible from the Connecticut River.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Old Lyme Zoning Commission grants approval to the exception, in accordance with Section 4.10.12.1 of the Zoning Regulations, from requiring the Special Permit for an addition to allow conversion of attic space to enlarge bedroom in an existing single family residence in the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone at 81 Mile Creek Road, Geoff and Sophie Marsh, owners.
5. Release of Bond Request from The Old Lyme Country Club, 35 McCurdy Road
No action taken.
6. Approval of Minutes – Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
of August 12, 2013 and September 9, 2013.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of August 12, 2013 and the Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of September 9, 2013 as submitted.
Pat Looney left at this time (8:45 p.m.) and T. Kiritsis left at 9:10 p.m.
7. Any New or Old Business
Clinton Brown of DiCesare Bentley Engineers, Inc. to have a pre-application discussion with respect to a possible zoning regulation text amendment to Section 14 – Alcoholic Liquor, Subsection 14.5 Commercial Districts, item 14.5.1 Spacing from Houses of Worship or School to incorporate an exemption for grocery stores having beer permit only. The language is to be similar to Section 14.5.2 but only to apply to House of Worship.
Mr. Clinton Brown of DiCesare Bentley Engineers stated that he wanted the opportunity to discuss with the Commission the possibility of a text amendment to Section 14 of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations. Mr. Brown stated the agenda header explains very clearly what he would propose. He indicated that he would like to grocery stores with beer permits only to be exempt from the spacing of houses of worship and schools. Mr. Brown stated that if this text amendment is successful he would come back to the Commission for a beer grocery permit for 281 Shore Road.
Mr. Brown stated that the spacing is measured from the door of the liquor establishment to the property line of the church or school; he noted the measurements are not door to door. Mr. Brown pointed out that everywhere else in the Regulations where there are separation distances, the distance is measured entrance to entrance. He noted also that in the Commercial Zones where they talk about enterprises for offsite consumption, grocery store permits are exempt. Mr. Brown stated that his thought is to take that language and add it to the Regulation that requires a separation distance from schools and churches. He further explained that they would not ask for an exemption to the separation requirement from schools, only churches.
Mr. Brown stated that there would be a very small change in how a convenience store would operate if given a grocery beer permit.
Chairman Cable stated that she would entertain this text amendment if Mr. Brown were to submit an application. She indicated that she is not sure how the public would feel about it.
Ms. Marsh noted that the location of the church has kept the area dry for quite a long time. She suggested that they look at the area to which they would be allowing more alcohol. Mr. Kiritsis noted that there is another convenience store right there that would probably want to do the same thing. Ms. Brown stated that there is a commercial area right across the street also.
Mr. Brown stated that in the commercial zones the establishments would have to be 1500 feet apart, unless they are grocery beer permits only so there could not be multiple package stores. Chairman Cable noted that there are no more liquor store permits to be given in Old Lyme. She noted that the grocery beer permit limit would be economics.
Mr. Brown suggested that he could do research on the possibility of how many that could possibly request a grocery beer permit and address that as part of the application. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Discussion of Section 21.1.4 of the Zoning Regulations and Special Permits in the R-10 District
Chairman Cable stated that the reason that the Commission had trouble with alternative 8 is not because they did not trust the Zoning Board of Appeals, but rather that they did not want people double-dipping. She indicated that they don’t want people going to ZBA and then coming to the Zoning Commission for a Special Permit or receiving site plan approval from the Zoning Commission and then going to the ZBA for relief.
Ms. Brown distributed copies of comments from Ms. Marsh. Mr. Looney stated if someone in the R-10 Zone on a nonconforming lot of record shows they can build something compliant within the Zoning Regulations, they should be allowed to with just a Zoning Compliance Permit Application. Chairman Cable stated that that would be going further than the current Regulation they are discussing. Ms. Brown noted that if a homeowner in the R-10 Zone comes in now for a permit on a nonconforming lot, it would be denied. She noted that this also applied in the flood zone where people are really stuck when trying to raise their homes. Chairman Cable noted that the Zoning Commission could authorize ZBA to give a height variance. Mr. Looney stated that they already have that authority. Chairman
Cable noted that they do not have that authority with Special Permits. She noted that the problem is people double-dipping; they should be allowed one or the other (variance or special permit).
Ms. Marsh stated that R-10 is a zone that is considered to be too small to build up. She noted that there are a lot of nonconforming lots in that zone. Ms. Marsh stated that these people were going to ZBA and being denied because they lacked a hardship. She indicated that the Zoning Commission went through extensive considerations and decided to give relief by allowing a Special Permit when all bulk requirements could be met. She noted that people then started getting variances and then coming to the Zoning Commission to get a Special Permit and that’s not the intent of the Regulation.
Mr. Looney reiterated that if a nonconforming lot can meet all the bulk requirements he believes it should be approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Ms. Brown pointed out that the same thing will happen. She will approve the application and then the applicant can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance for whatever additional work. Chairman Cable agreed and stated that the Special Permit process is not as onerous as the variance process and the applicant should choose which process that they would like to pursue, but not both.
Ms. Marsh stated that the flood zone is a particularly sensitive area and she believes the review should be done by the Zoning Commission, not the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Chairman Cable agreed and noted that one way to deal with the issue in the flood zone would be by changing the definition of height in the flood zone. She suggested that the base elevation could start at the end of the FEMA required elevation.
Ms. Bozek noted that the Commission is saying that if a house is destroyed in the flood zone they cannot rebuild a former two story house and she would like to ask counsel if that is a taking of property. Chairman Cable stated that FEMA would be taking it, not the Zoning Commission. Ms. Marsh suggested sending her email to Attorney Branse and ask his opinion. Ms. Brown stated that she is not clear what the Commission is suggesting. She questioned whether the Commission is saying that if a house needs to be raised but not exceeding 24’, only needing relief for building up in the side setback, if a variance would be required. Ms. Marsh indicated that a variance would not be required, a Special Permit would be required. Ms. Brown questioned whether this would apply everywhere or just
in the flood zone. Ms. Marsh indicated that this would be allowed only in the flood zone because it is a FEMA requirement.
An audience member stated that Old Saybrook allows reconstruction without any new nonconformities by permit with no Commission involvement. He noted that the idea behind it is that the structures are rebuilt and not left damaged. He stated that height is the issue. He indicated that something needs to be done. He noted that without relief people are limited to the 50% of the value of the structure for improvements. Discussion of global warming and future storms ensued.
The audience member stated that in instances where someone is one-half mile from the shoreline and the house only needs to be raised 9 inches, such as in Mr. DiCorletto’s situation, the approval should come from the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Ms. Marsh stated that there is a lot of building in the beach areas and over her career she has learned that that probably should not have been done. She noted that now people have homes and no one wants to take them away. Ms. Marsh stated that she wants to be fair without cancelling the overall policy of development.
Ms. Bozek stated that she is comfortable with sending Ms. Marsh’s email to Attorney Branse for review.
Ms. Brown stated that there is someone present who has a project to work on a house that is on a nonconforming lot and in a nonconforming location on the lot. She indicated that he would like to put a conforming addition on the house which would work under the current Regulations. She explained that the house was constructed a long time ago and the building materials are not modern. Ms. Brown stated that he would like to demolish the house but reserve some of the nonconformities. She noted that if one voluntarily demolishes their house the Regulations require them to get a variance. Chairman Cable stated that if the house meets the Special Permit requirements she does not see why the Commission would not approve it.
Ms. Brown questioned whether someone with an empty lot in the R-10 zone would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance to construct a home. It was agreed that they would have to get a variance.
Another audience member explained the difference between the A and B Flood Zones and not all areas require break-away walls. He discussed the disparity in measure height in the flood zone from the basic elevation and outside the flood zone from average grade. He indicated that there does not appear to be a mechanism to allow people to tear down an existing nonconforming house and rebuild without Zoning Board of Appeal approval. Ms. Marsh explained that there has never been a mechanism that allowed that without going to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
John Syndowski stated that he had a house fire in 2008 and has not rebuilt yet. He noted that now FEMA has raised the requirements even further. Mr. Syndowski explained that the house is still there and possibly buildable. He stated that his lot is conforming and located in the flood zone. Ms. Brown noted that the lot is also sloping. She indicating that she suggested Mr. Syndowski attended this evening because he is having difficulty getting the house he would like to construct on the lot because of the average grade measurement and the 24 foot height limit. Ms. Brown stated that the Commission sounds like they are keeping the 24 foot height requirement from the ground, but giving relief if it has to be raised up in a setback area if that is where the house exists. He noted that the
house is 21 feet tall currently and he is having difficulty finding a design that will work measuring the height from average grade.
Approval of the 2014 Zoning Commission Meeting Schedule
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to approve the 2014 Meeting Schedule as submitted.
8. Correspondence
1. Letter from Diane Mallory, Academy Lane across from the side of the Chocolate Shell.
Chairman Cable stated that most of the issues Ms. Mallory has relate to the Historic District Commission. She stated that the Zoning Commission does have authority over some issues on Page 3 of the letter which Ms. Brown will address. Chairman Cable stated that Ms. Brown has discussed some issues with the owner such as tables outside and tables inside for eating and the overall creeping enlargement without permits or approval. She indicated that she never remembers people eating inside the store. Ms. Brown stated that the owner is now serving tea and other drinks and she feels it is a change of use. She indicated that the Zoning Board of appeals can decide whether it is a change of use. Ms. Brown stated that serving pastries is not a change of use.
2. Janet Lage Correspondence – Ms. Brown indicated that she forgot to distribute the letter last month. Chairman Cable stated that they were emailed last month. She indicated that she would rather distribute the letter to each Commission member then read it aloud.
Ms. Brown stated that Ms. Lage has appealed a letter she wrote to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Cable stated that one cannot appeal a letter.
9. Zoning Enforcement
a. Zoning Enforcement Report
Ms. Brown stated that the Town is hoping to build another building in the Industrial Park at the Town garage. She indicated that she is not sure where the Regulations would allow this. Ms. Brown suggested a Regulation specific to Town Facilities. Ms. Bozek stated that Attorney Branse could make a recommendation.
b. Site Inspection Report
None.
10. Miscellaneous/Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. on a motion by Joan; seconded by Harlan Frazier and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
