|
TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK Historic District Commission |
Executive Board Robert Welsh, Chairman Robert Wendler, Vice Chairman Richard Morrison, Clerk |
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741 Telephone (860) 395-3131 FAX (860) 395-3125 MINUTES REGULAR
MEETING Monday, October 17, 2005 at 7:30p.m. Acton Public Library 60 Old Boston Post Road |
Members Randi Bradbury Joan Rimkus Alternate Members Henri M. David, Jr. Patricia Osborne Louise Tietjen |
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present Absent
Robert Welsch, Chairman Randi Bradbury
Robert Wendler, Vice Chairman
Richard Morrison, Secretary
Joan Rimkus, Member
Pat Osbourne, Alternate
Louise Tietjen, Alternate
Henri David Jr., Alternate
Also Present
Michael Cronin, Town Counsel
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
Ashley Riley, Recording Clerk
III. PUBLIC HEARING
“William Tully House” (1750) Application for Certificate of Appropriateness Erection of New Accessory Structure-Dock
135 North Cove Road (Map 32 / Lot 5)
Owner: LL Family, LLC Agent: Gary P. Sharpe, P.E.
Robert Welsh opened hearing with a challenge to Louise Tietjen on the basis of her involvement in this case. Robert asked if she would be able to make a fair and in bias decision based on information provided.
Louise Tietjen responded by saying that she was willing to compromise and was not willing to recluse herself from this case.
Mike Cronin, Town Counsel, commented that it was the individual’s decision whether or not they resign from the position. To recluse from her position is to be voluntary; if asked to disqualify herself, she had the right to refuse.
Robert Welsh asked the public audience if there were any objections to any member on the roll call and their participation in this case.
Jay Malcynsky, Attorney Representative of LL Family, LLC, pointed out that a letter was submitted to Robert Welsh on October 17, 2005 in regards to Louise Tietjen. The letter argued that Louise Tietjen could not make a fair decision based on her active involvement in the Manaforts’ case and personal bias. Jay asked that the Chairman ask all commission members if they, too, had the ability to make a fair decision on the public behalf.
Robert Welsh asked the Commission to, one-by-one, state whether they could or could not make a decision free of bias.
Joan Rimkus voluntarily reclused herself. Joan stated that she was impartial and cannot make a fair decision.
Richard Morrison agreed that he could be fair in his decision
Robert Wendler also agreed to make a fair decision
Pat Osbourne agreed to make a fair decision.
Louise Tietjen stated that she could make a fair decision and wasn’t aware that a letter had been submitted in regards to her involvement in this case. Louise asked that the letter be read aloud to the public.
Robert Welsh read the letter submitted by Jay Malcynsky, on October 17, 2005.
Louise ultimately decided to voluntarily dismiss herself from the Manafort case.
Robert Welsh then asked Henri David Jr. to take a chair in the commission for proper representation and pointed out that Henri had been involved in the Manafort case since the beginning and was up to date on all information.
Robert Welsh invited Jay Malcynsky to present any new accommodations or ideas they had come up with.
Jay Malcynsky showcased a slide presentation of different views from the Manaforts’ property and views from the streets as requested. Jay also showed the plans that were part of the original application, including the height and length of the dock. Jay then proposed that the dock’s height be reduced to 5.5ft after the initial 50ft of dock. Jay also proposed that the dock be shortened by 20 ft. He commented that one of the original concerns was the sub aquatic vegetation. Jay ensured the commission and the public that the amount of sub aquatic vegetation was not excessive in the area and the length of the dock was necessary to ensure that further vegetation would not be disrupted further, at the request of the DEP.
Henri David questioned the scale and view of the photos that depict the property and dock plans. The photos of the view were zoomed in and the photos depicting the planned dock were scaled out. He asked if this was done to limit the view of the dock.
Jay Malcynsky replied that the views presented were from the public’s point of view as requested.
John Russel, resident of 184 North Cove Rd, requested that photos should include views from the Connecticut River and from the cove.
Bill Philips, resident of Old Saybrook, commented that North Cove was an important and historic site. Bill said that he was concerned with uniformity in the community. He stated that the longest dock was just over 100 ft and this dock in question was well beyond that norm. Bill also questioned if this dock was within the jurisdiction of the Historic District Commission.
Diane Lefkowitz, resident of 178 North Cove Rd, stated that she did not think that the current proposal of the dock was not appropriate and would destroy the view and atmosphere of the neighborhood.
Jay Malcynsky stated that the alternatives were proposed with revisions made in response to the DEP and Historic Dist. Commission’s recommendations.
Richard Tietjen, resident of 69 Cromwell Place, also raised the question of the scaled views of the proposed dock. Rich questioned whether the dock’s height would interrupt the view of the old wharf. He shared the concern of the sub aquatic vegetation. Richard felt that the members of the commission should all be in question as to their ability to make a fair decision.
Barbara Smith, resident of 200 North Cove Rd, commented that she appreciated the effort of the revisions but proposes that the dock be shortened further.
Jack Stoper, resident of 48 Cromwell Place, commented that it would be only a matter of time before the applicant would be looking to extend the dock or for the cove to be drudged. He also made the observation that the boat will rest on the bottom of the cove, regardless of how far the dock extends.
Gary Sharpe, Civil Engineer for applicant, proposed that the length of the dock be brought out to a depth that would prevent the boat from resting on the bottom and therefore being less of a disturbance.
Martha Stoper, resident of 48 Cromwell Place, argued that the view of the cove is already disturbed by planted vegetation along the road and in personal properties. The dock would be hidden from view due to the growth of the vegetation. Martha expressed that her concern was what other disruptions would come along with the boat such as pollution and noise level.
Robert Welsh opened the floor to Commission member who had questions.
Henri David questioned what the basis was of the alternative height of 5.5 ft.
Gary Sharpe answered that the height is based off the mean high water. The height of 5.5 ft is based on what the average height of the water level is. The dock would be about 3.5 ft above high tide level. At the request of the DEP, the initial 50ft of dock cannot be lower than 6.0ft. He also emphasizes that with the dock being shortened by 20 ft, the floating dock will also be in 2 inches less water. Though it doesn’t sound like much, 2 inches of water brings the dock closer to the vegetation and can cause further disturbance in the still waters. The length of the dock is also necessary to have access to the tidal waters and deeper water level to keep the stern of the boat afloat.
Robert Welsh stated that he felt the need for depth did not require the dock to extend out so far. He had done a personal test and found that he could get in well beyond the desired length of dock. He also asked if a floating dock was necessary.
Gary Sharpe emphasized that a floating dock was better. He stated that the dock was based on the DEP’s certified measurements and figured the necessary length for the dock based on the average.
John Price, resident of 192 North Cove Rd, didn’t agree that the DEP had any jurisdiction over the decisions made on the dock.
Robert Welsh announced that the discussion of jurisdiction was open to any comments the public had before the closing of the public hearing.
The decision was made to read letters submitted to make them public knowledge.
Richard Morrison began by reading aloud the letter written by Michael Cronin to Robert Welsh, written on September 13, 2005. (letter was submitted into applicant’s file)
Richard Morrison continued by reading a letter written by John Russel to Robert Welsh on October 14, 2005. (letter was submitted into applicant’s file)
Richard Morrison then read a letter written by W. Campbell Hudson of Hudson and Kilby, Attorneys at Law, to Robert Welsh and Commission members, on October 14th, 2005. (letter was submitted into applicant’s file)
Richard Morrison read the last letter submitted, written by Stephen Lefkowitz, resident and property lawyer, to Robert Welsh, on October 17, 2005.
Barbara Smith clarified that the letters were by citizens and the letters were in regards to the question of jurisdiction. The public had nothing against the Manaforts having a dock, the argument was whether or not the Historic Dist. Commission had the authority to make the decision.
Mike Cronin stated that he looked into the regulations and, in his opinion, the Commission’s jurisdiction ended at mean high water level. He said that Zoning Commission’s jurisdiction also ends at the mean high water level. The DEP also states that the Historic Dist. Commission has no jurisdiction past the mean high water level, the area past that is up to the DEP, which applies to this particular application. As far as he is concerned, Mike states that the Commission’s authority ends at the water line.
Richard Morrison questioned when common sense came into effect. He quoted the North Cove Historic District Commission Regulations Manual that stated “Structure shall mean any combination of materials, other than a building, which is affixed to the land, and shall include, but not be limited to, signs, fences, walls, docks…”(section 2). Richard continued by saying that his interpretation was that this gave them the jurisdiction to approve or decline the application.
Mike Cronin explained that even though the Manaforts own the property and the Commission has jurisdiction, his opinion still stood that he didn’t believe that the Commission held jurisdiction for the extent of the dock.
Robert Welsh opened the floor up to further comments and there were none.
Mike Cronin began the discussion by stating that the Commission wasn’t required, nor did it have the authority, to determine jurisdiction. He recommended that the issue of jurisdiction not be addressed at all. If the Commission voted to deny the application on terms of not agreeing with the plans, the applicant could possibly sue the Commission on the basis that they didn’t have jurisdiction. Instead, he proposed the Commission come up with a general plan for regulations regarding docks and submit them to be amended. He posed another possibility to deny the applicant without bias to further applications to give the applicant a chance to revise and resubmit.
Pat Osbourne states that she felt she had no other option than to vote in favor of the application. Based on Cronin’s opinion, she felt that she could only approve but make it a requirement that the applicant comply with State Zoning or the DEP.
Richard Morrison shared the same view. He felt as if he was being forced to make the one decision or take the chance of being sued. He suggested that they have the applicant reapply with a compromise of having the dock in the neighborhood of 75-100ft.
Robert Welsh emphasized that it seemed that the public as well as the Commission was in favor of the Manaforts having a dock. He agreed with Richard Morrison in that if it was proposed that the dock be between 75-100 ft that it would be no problem.
Old Saybrook Planning Commission June 4, 2003 Meeting Agenda
Meeting adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
| 
