 |
MINUTES
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Old Saybrook
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Old Saybrook at its Meeting that was held on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall, First Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street, heard and decided the following appeals:
Seated for this evenings meeting and voting were the following members: Rex McCall, Chairman, Dorothy Alexander, Vice Chairman, C. Gosselin, Brian Dooley, Joan Strickland, Secretary
Present: Kent Johnson, alternate, Christina M. Costa, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Mary Kennedy, alternate and Allan Fogg, alternate
The meeting was then called to order at 7:34 p.m.
The following public hearings were conducted, as well as the decision making sessions. The meeting has been recorded on tape and the following actions were taken:
The Chairman introduced the Board members who were seated for this evenings meeting. The Chairman then proceeded to read the Legal Notice into the record.
09/10-12(a) – Appeal by William Thiele of the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (Application No. 09-084 dated June 24, 2009), citing improper notice of the issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for an installation of floats at the Homeowners Association docking facility on the property of Channelside Homeowners Association located off Fourth Avenue Extension, Map No. 59, Lot No. 67-14.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Thomas Cloutier, Esquire, agent for the Applicant; Mr. William Thiele, applicant
Attorney Cloutier turned the opening presentation over to Mr. Thiele who went into the channel development over the years from 1960 to present. Mr. Thiele lives on Essex Road which is noted as Map 59 Lot 68 and Map 59 Lot 69 (Exhibit “A” which includes the photos). Mr. Thiele noted that in late summer there was a lot of activity and land clearing. He made some inquiries and found that there was an application before the DEP for docks and floats. He then made a call to the DEP and made an appointment with Sue Bailey (Permit Writer) of the DEP where she explained what documentation the DEP had and when the matter might be opened for public input. Ms. Bailey stated it was her understanding that this was already approved by the Zoning Commission and the Harbor Management Commission. Mr. Thiele then scoured the agendas for Zoning Commission meetings from 2008 and 2009 and did not find the matter listed, he did find a notation on the April 6, 2009 minutes under Committee and Staff
reports that the Zoning Enforcement Officer reported on four matters one of which was Channelside. The Zoning Enforcement Officer, Chris Costa, was asked for an opinion on whether the proposed project represented permissible intensification of an existing, nonconforming but legal use. The ZEO gave an affirmative opinion explained it to the Zoning Commission, the Commission endorsed it and it is reflected in the minutes. The constructive notice of this was the October 29th meeting with Sue Bailey. Mr. Thiele has a complaint about the process and granting of a dock. He explained the 13 docks and the structures extending into the channel. He feels it would dramatically alter the character of what has been there for 50 years and feels that it should have been on the agenda and there should have been input from the neighbors. He also feels that this should have been given to the Harbor Management Commission for input. Mr. Thiele went
over the information regarding the progression of the channel and the information presented by the ZEO and how he feels it differs from the ZEO’s interpretation. He notes that the Zoning Regulations changed from time to time and there was a significant change to the Zoning Regulations in 1973, the seawall was built in 1982 and the ZEO applied the rules from the 1960's regulations to the seawall. Mr. Thiele feels this all pertains to case law and the lawyers will argue “intensification”. Mr. Thiele discussed the history of what has been built or not built over the last 50 years. Attorney Cloutier submits for the record as “Exhibit B” a copy of the approved subdivision map dated 2001 which shows the Channelside Subdivision. Attorney Cloutier states that what is marked in “blue” is the area that is the subject of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Attorney Cloutier also notes that the 13 lots in
Channelside do not have frontage on the channel due to the “blue strip” on the Channelside Homeowners Association which owns the frontage. Mr. Eric Koch who is a neighbor and can attest to what has been in the channel, comes forward to give his presentation. Mr. Koch’s presentation is what is noted as “Exhibit C” which is in the Land Use file. The material gives a history of the DEP permits, the dock plans, the residents concerns and photos of how the channel has developed over the last 50 years. Mr. Koch also states that the foliage was cut down in 2002 on the Channelside property and the pictures in his presentation package noted as E and F show this, also pictures F & G show soil erosion in to channel which builds up the silt on that side. Mr. Koch explains the bulkhead and how a permit was issued in 1981 which expired. The retaining wall was built with tubs which does not have a valid approval from the
DEP. B. Dooley asked about the construction and Mr. Koch went over the permits and drawings. R. McCall asked how many boats are currently there, the boats are mostly on the east side, there are 5 homeowners and no more than 10 boats can be docked which are parallel to Anchorage Lane. Mr. Koch stated the bulkhead needs to be installed properly to stop the soil erosion which spills into the channel.
Attorney Cloutier entered into the record “Exhibit D” which has the Certificate of Zoning Compliance attached as well as Attorney Cloutier’s own Exhibit E which is a copy of the minutes of the April 6th Zoning Commission. Attorney Cloutier went on to discuss each of the attachments to “Exhibit D”. Attorney Cloutier states this is a substantial project, i.e. expansion/enlargement of a nonconforming use by installing docks and floats into the water. In 1987 the initial subdivision was approved with the condition that no certificate of occupancy be given or lots sold until repairs to the wall were made. The 1987 subdivision eventually expired and a new subdivision with fewer lots was approved with no conditions imposed in 2001. Attorney Cloutier states
the Certificate of Zoning Compliance was issued on improper information and on the basis that it is an intensification as opposed to an expansion. Attorney Cloutier submits “Exhibit E” in to the record as a Memorandum of Law.
Attorney Royston who is the attorney for the Channelside Homeowners Association, Inc. gives his presentation. Attorney Royston states for the record the three maps that the Board members have which is part of the ZEO’s file (“Exhibit E”). Attorney Royston discusses three matters, one appellant, Mr. Thiele’s right to appeal. Attorney Royston feels this is not the forum to decide that. Attorney Royston states that his client reserves its right to contest that issue in the appropriate forum. Secondly, after listening to the presentation, it concerns Attorney Royston that the Homeowners Association is somewhat put in the position to try and address issues of navigation which are DEP issues and also issues relating to the permits for the bulkhead which are not zoning
issues. Attorney Royston address what the ZEO may have relied upon to make her decision at the April 6th Zoning Commission meeting. Attorney Royston met with the Zoning Enforcement Officer early in 2009 for the purpose of discussing the zoning issues relating to the Channelside Subdivision and the property that the Homeowners Association owns. He states that the property ownership goes into the middle of the channel which is 600' long and 96' wide at the SW end. Attorney Royston goes on to explain why there was a Zoning Commission meeting discussion in April and the permit in June, approved in July. This process was all started in January of 2009 and it took time to obtain and process all the documentation to make a determination. More important is the claim by the appellants because the CZC it states that the basin, the channel and the bulkhead was constructed between 1958 and 1963 that that is incorrect with respect to the bulkhead on the
westerly side that this somehow negates the validity of the Zoning Compliance. The channel was dug between 1958 and 1963 in conjunction with a permit from the DEP. Attorney Royston went on to give a history of the channel, he also went over the deeds to the property and its ownership. Attorney Royston also went over the 1987 subdivision that expired and the new subdivision approved in 2001 with 13 lots. The history of the subdivision was given. Any noncompliance with the DEP permit is not within the Zoning Board of Appeals jurisdiction. Attorney Royston states the appeal record is incomplete, even if it is within the ZBA jurisdiction which he believes it is not, it is in the jurisdiction of the DEP. Attorney Royston also states it is within the jurisdiction of the Town with the road, Harbor Management, Channelside Homeowners Association, the building official, the Zoning Commission and the Planning Commission which approved the
subdivision in 2001. It is in the ZBA’s jurisdiction with respect to the Zoning issue under the CZC on this property as it has a legal pre-existing nonconforming use. R. McCall asked about the Army Corps of Engineers and that is another multi-jurisdictional agency that has jurisdiction. The Zoning issue comes down to what the applicant position was and what information was submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO). The ZEO makes the first determination as to whether or not there exists a legal nonconforming use, that is her determination, which is a factual determination that she needs to make and she is called upon constantly to make decisions with respect to the existence or nonexistence of a particular use. Attorney Royston states that the decision the ZEO made was a correct one and the basis for there opinion she made a correct one starts in 1956 when Attorney Royston goes over the maps the Board has and outlines the construction of
the manmade channel, how it was developed and then divided. The property use with its property description running to the center of the channel and that is extremely significant that in the deeds to the property and in the deed by which the Sapia’s, Jr. and Howell. Attorney Royston gave the history of the Sapia /Howell development. Attorney Royston then submitted the deeds for the record as “Exhibit F”. Attorney Royston also discusses permits for repairs in 2003 and an application being made in order to complete the repairs and put docks and bring it into suitable fashion and now there is criticism of the process. All the proceedings with the DEP and the reason the appellant has the copies are that they participated in those actions and one item is a letter that the appellant made a statement with respect to those applications. The approval of the subdivision was a matter of a public hearing in which the abutters would be
provided notice of the hearing, not only in 1987 and 2001. Attorney Royston submitted the Declaration of Channelside and Articles of Association of Channelside Homeowners Association (“Exhibit G’) and went over the subdivision approval and reiterated that the ownership went to the middle of the channel, he also went over the uses and that it was not for commercial purposes. Attorney Royston stated that based upon that information the ZEO issued a certificate of Zoning Compliance which so extensive and, in Attorney Royston’s opinion, was to make sure she was careful in treating it from a zoning point of view and not get into the jurisdiction of any other agencies while making sure the uses being made were within
the boundary lines of the property (to the center line of the channel) that they were not extending or expanding the use into a property that was not designed or intended for that use. Attorney Royston submits a case to the ZBA which is noted as “Exhibit H” which involves the Town of Avon and sets forth the factors a ZEO is to take regarding the use and intensification of said use. Discussion as to how many boats, the ZEO put a condition on how many boats could be docked (13).
Eric Knapp, Esquire, attorney for the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Christina Costa and the Zoning Commission. Attorney Knapp stated that much of what was heard tonight is outside of the Board’s jurisdiction and the Board does not need to worry about. The only thing the Board needs to worry about is what Ms. Costa, the ZEO, decided in the Certificate of Zoning Compliance which is a very narrow issue. The very narrow issue has to do with the use that this property has as a nonconforming use, being expanded or is it being intensified. The use being discussed is the docking of boats, a bulkhead (or floats/docks) is not a use it is a structure. Nonconforming use and nonconforming structure sometimes are used interchangeably but they are different. The bulkhead is not the use, the issue has
been how long have people been able to use boats. The docks are not being evaluated by the ZEO, the are being evaluated by the DEP. It is the use of docking the boats being intensified. The space hasn’t changed, it is still the same 608' of channel. The number of boats (13) has increased. Attorney Knapp stated everything else heard as testimony this evening is not in the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Costa only has to worry about the intensification of the use. Ms. Costa discussed the process of how the Channelside matter was discussed at the Zoning Commission meeting. Attorney Cloutier conceded that the Homeowners Association does own to the middle of the channel and he disagrees with Attorney Knapp. Attorney Cloutier also disagrees with Attorney Royston regarding the use in 1973. Attorney Royston discussed the use in 1960, there was a property with tidal wetlands with not basin. The basin was created
to divide the property in half and provide access to the water. Attorney Knapp replies to Attorney Cloutier’s statements. Ms. Costa clarified that she imposed conditions on the Certificate of Zoning Compliance with respect to use by limiting the number of boats and whether or not jet skis would be docked or rented. J. Strickland stated that the Homeowners Declaration limits the number of boats. Mr. Koch stated that you are not supposed to impede navigable waters, which the docks would do since the stretch out into the water.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience, either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Mark Kaputo of 10 Anchorage Lane asked why there was not a public hearing when the matter went to the Zoning Commission so that the neighbors could have input. Mr. Thiele addressed the Board again. Attorney Tighe who represents Michael and Linda Sogren agrees with Attorney Knapp. Attorney Knapp stated that even though it is recommended that there only be 13 boats, it will be the DEP that has the final say on the matter. There was no further audience participation and no comments from the Board since this application was pretty straight forward. The public hearing closed at 10:00 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
The public hearing closed this evening. Attorney Cloutier submitted several documents in support of his client’s appeal and Attorney Royston also submitted documents to the Board with respect to his client, Channelside. Attorney Knapp who represented the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Christina Costa also presented a case as to the signing of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. After all the lengthy testimony and documents presented this evening the Board decided to defer the decision in order to digest it all and obtain input from its counsel.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to DEFER the Decision on Application No. 09/10-12(a) - Appeal by William Thiele to the February 10, 2010 Regular Meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room. The Board wants to seek input from its counsel to review the testimony and documents presented. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
09/10-13 B James Gallery & Soda Fountain, LLC (owner), Tissa’ Country Market (applicant) seek a variance of Par. 24.2 (Special Exceptions Uses) and Par. 62.3 (parking on site/to allow credit for offsite parking) of the Zoning Regulations to allow restaurant or food service establishment on property located at 2 Pennywise Lane, Map No. 30, Lot No. 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Present: Edward Cassella, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Mrs. Kathy Benjdid, applicant and Mr. Richard Dunn, Proprietor of the Bed and Breakfast.
Attorney Cassella gave a presentation. The applicant is seeking two variances from the Board, the major question is a use variance to allow for food service at James Pharmacy & Soda Fountain and the second is for the parking since the parking on site is insufficient. There is parking off site that is owned by the State and leased by the Town. The food service is deli style and would in the area that was the existing soda fountain. The soda fountain and ice cream service will remain but there will be the addition of the deli style food service which will also include soups, stews and sandwiches. Attorney Cassella submitted for the record the site plan, a narrative, photos and the proposed floor plan for the space (all of which are in the Land Use file). The applicant proposes to use
the other side of the building for retail space. Attorney Cassella stated that there are five (5) parking spaces on site and 10 spaces off-site. The off-site spaces are State property leased to the Town and the 5 on-site are for the B&B, its inn keeper and staff. Attorney Cassella went on to explain how the “bones” of the structure will not change, the only thing changing is what is actually happening inside. The kitchen area will be improved by adding a 24" range, a panini maker and a microwave. Attorney Cassella went over the history of the property stating that in the 1800's there was a tavern on the property showing that there was food service, he then went on to explain the variances given up to this date for the B&B. The last variance granted stated that any change or expansion in the uses would require a new application and that is why the applicant is before the Board. Attorney Cassella states that the
hardship is that the building is in a Residence A zone that has traditionally been used as a commercial piece of property. The current ice cream parlor is only open seasonally but there has been a lot of turnover in the past years. The applicant is only seeking to add an expansion or enlargement of the existing food service and will be keeping all of the historical aspects of the building. This business will be in keeping with the neighborhood and conforms with the Town Plan of Development. The application will still have to go to the Zoning Commisssion for a Special Permit if the ZBA grants the variances and the Zoning Commission will address parking and garbage disposal. Attorney Cassella asked that the application be exempt from CAM since they are only seeking a minor change in the use. The Health District has approved the application. The classification is being upgraded from a
Class II to a Class III kitchen for food service and the difference between the two has to do with heating and cooling. No “convenience store” items will be sold on the property, the hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday. Those are the proposed summer hours and at this time can’t determine the winter hours, but assume they will drop during the winter. C. Gosselin asked if the business would be open later than 8 p.m., the applicant stated that it would not.
D. Alexander asked who owns the property. Richard Dunn, proprietor of the B&B stated that Shelley Nobile owns the building but that he has a “Bond for Deed”. Three letters were read into the record, two in support: Marilyn Shup a former Old Saybrook resident dated December 14, 2009 and Christina Antolino of 22 George Drive dated January 8, 2010. Carin Roaldset of 25 Maple Court dated January 12, 2010 has concerns regarding the increased stream of traffic. Attorney Cassella handed out the following: 22 letters in support that were not read into the record but are in the file; a petition signed by 250 Old Saybrook residents who support the application (also in the file); and several newspaper articles about Tissa’s. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments
from the audience, either in favor or in opposition. Speaking in favor was Adam Cepiel of 20 Dudley Avenue; Michael Pace, Jr. of 43 Pennywise Lane; Robert Otto, corner of Main & Sheffield. Mrs. Desautel of 380 Main Street spoke with concerns, she is support of Main Street businesses but is concerned of increased traffic in an historic residential area. She has safety concerns regarding safety with traffic and parking and does not want the encroachment of commercial business here. Mr. Desautel of 380 Main Street also spoke in opposition and has concerns about expanding the food service aspect, the traffic, the parking and encroachment of commercial enterprise in the residential area. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed at approximately 11:00 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. D. Alexander stated that she was in opposition and read a prepared statement into the record (a copy in the file), which basically stated that the commercial zone at the southern end of Main Street terminates at the Fire House and Old Post Road, that James Pharmacy has been a treasured exception to this in commemoration of Miss Anna Louise James and that she feels there are more than enough vacant commercially zoned sites in Old Saybrook in which to position a business. Variances have already been granted at this site, but to do so again and again will simply invite progression of commercial activity deeper into the Res. A zone. A previous application had been granted on the site where the Sanitarian stated he had no objection provided
there was no cooking and washing allowed. The current Health District has revised its position regarding cooking relative to the current appeal, but the reason is unclear. D. Alexander also feels there is no hardship shown.
J. Strickland noted that the parking area is owned by the State and leases it to the Town. R. McCall asked if this application should be referred to the Police Commission with respect to traffic flow. B. Dooley stated that parking will be difficult if the business is busy, which during the summer the current ice cream parlor is very busy. R. McCall stated that he is in favor of an eating establishment but is concerned about the impact the high traffic volume will have in that area. C. Gosselin stated that he lives close to the site and feels there needs to be a viable establishment in that space since many over the years have failed. He is also hesitant to deny the application for a theoretical traffic problem. He also hopes that the traffic issue would not be a chronic problem for the
neighbors. C. Gosselin feels the application should be granted. J. Strickland stated that the traffic problems already exist during the summer months and is typical for Old Saybrook in the summer. J. Strickland stated that the Health District requested a grease trap for the septic and must feel the septic is adequate. C. Gosselin felt the cooking to be done is minor. There was a petition entered into the record with 250 names in support. D. Alexander stated that the enthusiasm is for the business not the location.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by J. Strickland to GRANT Application No. 09/10-13 - Tissa’s Country Market. The congestion is not unique to that area, in the summer there is congestion almost anywhere you have to be very careful driving in and along the parking spaces the entire length on Main Street and throughout Town. To add to the attractiveness of this site is another way to keep it viable because as someone pointed out, the retail business has not done well except for the ice cream. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland Opposed: D. Alexander, B. Dooley None Abstaining: None The motion failed to pass, 3-2-0, it takes 4 affirmative votes to grant a variance.
09/10-14 – Estate of Robert A. Harms seeks a variance of Par. 10.8.3 (nonconformity/lot - 12,500' req./9,000 existing), Par. 24.3.2 (min. dimension of square 100' x 150' req./nothing proposed, lot too small) and Par. 24.3.4 (min. width along bldg. line 100' req./90' on East Street) of the Zoning Regulations to permit demolition of existing year round single family dwelling and permit construction of new dwelling within setback requirement and flood plain requirements with a 24' x 40' footprint and the existing garage to remain on property located at 12 East Street, Map No. 22, Lot No. 49.
Present: Nick Saraceno, contractor and agent for the applicant
Mr. Saraceno gave a brief presentation. Currently there are four tarps covering the existing dwelling and the structure is in terrible condition. There is a 5' basement underneath the existing structure. The lot size does not meet current zoning requirements and there is no additional land to add to make the lot conforming. The garage on the property is in good condition and will remain. The house structure will be demolished and a cute cape style home with a dormer in the rear will be constructed. The first floor will have an open floor plan with all utilities on the first floor as well. The house will be brought up to FEMA standards (12' elevation). The septic system will be brought up in height and that is where any additional fill will be added on the property. The
number of bedrooms will go from two to three. This proposal will be in harmony with the neighborhood. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience, either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no comments from the Board since this application was pretty straight forward. The public hearing closed at 11:25 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. There are currently four tarps on top of the existing deteriorating structure and the structure is an eyesore to the neighborhood. The house will be taken down and a small cape with dormers will take its place. The existing garage will remain. The house will be built up to code both building and flood. The house will go from two bedrooms to three. The project will definitely be an improvement to the neighborhood.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by C. Gosselin to GRANT Application No. 09/10-14 - Estate of Robert A. Harms. The existing home is dire need of replacement. The new home will meet all current zoning except for the size of the lot and the width and the square requirements. The hardship is the deterioration of the home and the size of the existing lot. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
PUBLIC HEARING:
09/10-15 – Eriks V. Surmanis and Linda C. Surmanis seek a variance of Par.10.7.1 (nonconformity), 10.7.2 (nonconformity/change) and Par. 24.5.1 as modified by Par. 68.1.2 B4 (setback – narrow street setback/30 ft. required/21.39 ft. existing) of the Zoning Regulations to permit a 25 s.f. addition to the right side of front of house to fill in notch to allow interior renovations on property located at 33 South Cove Road-1 (Knollwood Beach), Map No. 4, Lot No. 269.
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Surmanis, applicants; Mr. John McMann, contractor
Mrs. Surmanis gave a brief presentation. The applicants are seeking a variance to fill in a notch of the house on the front right side. The hardship is the placement of the lot on the house prior to zoning. There will be no further encroachment into the setback. By filling in the notch the applicants will be able to do some interior remodeling to allow the front door to fully open. Currently the front door can only be opened 90 degrees and is located in a constricting location. The design of the house will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will compliment the architectural design of the house. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the audience, either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no comments from the
Board since this application was pretty straight forward. The public hearing closed at 11:35 p.m.
VOTING SESSION:
Discussion with respect to the public hearing that closed this evening. R. McCall stated that adding the square footage to the building was adding to the nonconformity but the structure already exists close to the road and there will be no further encroachment. It is a small addition, only 25 square feet. B. Dooley stated that it will improve the architectural character of the house, it will also be in harmony with th neighborhood. Also fixing the front door so that it opens fully is a safety issue and should be done.
A Motion was made by B. Dooley, seconded by R. McCall to GRANT Application No. 09/10-15 - Surmanis to add the 25 square foot addition to the home. The hardship is the fact that there is a safety issue with the house, the house will not encroach any farther on the street than it already does and it is in harmony with the neighborhood. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
PUBLIC HEARING:
09/10-16 – Nicholas Inferrera seeks a variance of Par.10.7.1 (nonconformity), Par. 10.8.2 (nonconformity/lot), Par. 10.8.4 (nonconformity/lot), Par. 24.5.1 as modified by Par. 68.1.2 B4 (setback – narrow street setback/30 ft. required/propose 10.9' for house/propose 27.5' for penthouse) and Par. 24.5.3 (sideyard setback/ 15' required/propose 10.5') of the Zoning Regulations to allow closing in of area shown as porch on previous plan approved by ZBA (on 12/12/07) and to approve expansion of penthouse from 9' x 9' (as shown on plan approved 12/12/07) to 10' x 12' as built and the shed is to be removed on property located at 16 Uncas Road (Cornfield Point), Map No. 1, Lot No. 120.
Due to the lateness of the hour, Attorney William Childress, agent for the applicant, requested that the public hearing be opened and continued to the February 10, 2010 meeting.
A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by D. Alexander to CONTINUE Application No. 09/10-16 - Inferrera to the February 10, 2010 Regular Meeting to be held in the first floor conference room at 7:30 p.m. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
REGULAR MEETING
New Business:
1 ) Election of Officers: Nominations for Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary -
Chairman: D. Alexander nominated R. McCall to serve as Chairman, B. Dooley seconded the nomination. D. Alexander moved to close nominations for Chairman, B. Dooley seconded the motion. A vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, J. Strickland, B. Dooley, C. Gosselin Opposed: None Abstaining: R. McCall The motion passed. 4-0-1 Rexford McCall was elected Chairman.
Vice Chairman: R. McCall nominated D. Alexander to serve as Vice Chairman, J. Strickland seconded the nomination. R. McCall moved to close nominations for Vice Chairman, J. Strickland seconded the motion. A vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, J. Strickland, B. Dooley, C. Gosselin Opposed: None Abstaining: D. Alexander The motion passed. 4-0-1 Dorothy Alexander was elected Vice Chairman.
Secretary: R. McCall nominated J. Strickland to serve as Secretary, C. Gosselin seconded the nomination. R. McCall moved to close nominations for Secretary, C. Gosselin seconded the motion. A vote was taken: In favor: D. Alexander, R. McCall, B. Dooley, C. Gosselin Opposed: None Abstaining: J. Strickland The motion passed. 4-0-1 Joan Strickland was elected Secretary.
Minutes: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by C. Gosselin to approve the Minutes of the December 9, 2009 Regular Meeting as presented. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, B. Dooley, J. Strickland Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Adjournment: A Motion was made by R. McCall, seconded by C. Gosselin to adjourn the January 13, 2010 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: R. McCall, D. Alexander, C. Gosselin, J. Strickland, B. Dooley Opposed: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the TOWN HALL, First Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Saybrook Zoning Board of Appeals
| |
