APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Richard Moll (Acting Chairman), Tom Schellens, Kip Kotzan, Susan Stutts, Wendy Brainerd (Alternate – seated for June Speirs) and Judy McQuade (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 04-02 Hudson Sullivan Homes, LLC, Canty Lane/326 Shore Road, variance to construct new home on a nonconforming lot.
Skip Beebe and Attorney Thomas McGarry were present to explain the application. Mr. Moll noted that the Public Hearing was continued from the January 13, 2004 Regular Meeting because late that afternoon it was determined that the well on the neighboring property was not shown in the correct location. He explained that a second drawing was submitted but did not receive approval from the Sanitarian. Mr. Moll stated that this afternoon a new drawing was submitted and has been approved by the Sanitarian.
Mr. Moll explained that in 1988, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied use of this land to construct a home. He noted that it was appealed and the Superior Court Decision of 1990 made judgment that the Board at that time confiscated the use of the property.
Mr. Beebe explained that he is proposing construction of a raised ranch at grade. He noted that they would have to bring in fill because of septic requirements. He noted that there would be a one-car garage on the lower level, along with a future bathroom and a third bedroom. Mr. Beebe stated that the main level would have a living room, dining room, kitchen area, as well as two bedrooms and two bathrooms. He stated that the house is 26’ by 36’. Mr. Beebe stated that the septic system is approved for three bedrooms.
Mr. Moll noted the following existing nonconformities: Minimum lot area required is 20,000 square feet, 10,014 square feet provided; Minimum dimension of square on lot required is 100’, 70’ existing. He stated that the proposal does not comply with the following Sections: 8.9.3, no new buildings on a nonconforming lot; minimum lot size required; and minimum square.
Attorney McGarry stated that the Superior Court found that the Board has no foundation to deny the application and the resulting effect was confiscatory. He indicated that he can find no case law that says the judgment has expired by operation of law or otherwise. Attorney McGarry stated that when this decision came down, the Zoning Board of Appeals consulted with two attorneys to take an appeal and both attorneys advised the Zoning Board of Appeals that the decision was written well enough that it was impossible to overturn. He noted that the situation has not changed since 1990 and a judge of the Superior Court has dictated that the variance has to be granted. Attorney McGarry stated that the Superior Court decision was based on the fact that, in oral argument, the entire record of the Zoning
Board of Appeals all indicated that the lot was buildable. He noted that the Town’s position was that the applicant had not shown a hardship because of the fact that the lot could have been built on prior to the Regulation change that prohibited it. Attorney McGarry stated that the plans before the Board are basically the same as they were in 1986 when the process originally began.
Attorney McGarry stated that the judgment of the Superior Court stands because the Zoning Board of Appeals did nothing to overturn it. He noted that there is no case law that he is aware of that says the Superior Court Decision expires. Attorney McGarry stated that the Board is faced with a decision that they failed to appeal in 1990.
Ms. Stutts stated that the property could have value to an abutting neighbor. She questioned whether there has been any effort to sell the property to an adjacent property owner. Peter Mletschnig, Realtor, stated that there have been unsuccessful efforts to sell to abutting property owners.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether the Board has received any feedback from their attorney as to their interpretation of the decision. He noted that there appears to be two factors in the decision, one being the issue of the facts of the case and the other being the amount of support in the record for the Board’s decision. Mr. Kotzan stated that he would like the Commission’s attorney’s opinion as to whether there could be sufficient facts to support the Board’s decision.
Attorney McGarry stated that at the time of the appeal, the Town’s attorney made no attempt to submit additional evidence into the record because there was no additional evidence that the Town could have submitted. He stated that the judge saw nothing in the record that would justify the Board’s refusing the variance. Mr. Kotzan stated that he would like more feedback from the Town’s attorney regarding the judge’s decision. Mr. Schellens agreed and asked if the Public Hearing could be held open. Attorney McGarry indicated that he would be agreeable to that.
Mr. Moll read a letter from John Flower, Assistant Sanitarian, indicating that the septic plan meets Darcy’s Law, which he marked as Exhibit A. Mr. Beebe explained that on the original drawing a well on the neighboring property was located in the septic reserve area. He noted that the revised drawing has the well in the correct location and the system has been changed to a special system for situations such as this where it cannot be dug below grade. Mr. Beebe stated that the system would be on top of grade with fill over it. He explained that the well for the proposed house is in the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Beebe noted that approximately 40 percent of the lot would be mounded approximately 3 feet to accommodate the septic system.
Mr. Moll questioned the location of the entrance to the garage. Mr. Beebe stated that the manufacturer’s plans don’t depict the garage. He indicated that his lower level floor plans show the garage and the garage entrance will be on the front of the house. Mr. Moll stated that he would like to have an elevation drawing that shows the garage door on the front of the property. Mr. Moll questioned whether the house is proposed as seasonal or year round. Attorney McGarry stated that the proposed use is a year-round, three-bedroom house.
Mr. Beebe corrected himself, indicating that the house is 27.5’ by 36’. He noted that the house is within the buildable area. Ms. McQuade questioned the height of the building. Mr. Beebe replied that it is approximately 19’ to the ridge. Mr. Schellens stated that since the Public Hearing is being held open he would like Mr. Beebe to submit an accurate elevation of the front of the building.
Peter Mletschnig, Realtor, stated that the proposed use by the applicant is a good use of the property and feels that the use should be allowed unless the Town wants to purchase the property. He noted that the use is the same as the surrounding area.
No one present spoke against the application. The Public Hearing for this application is continued.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-06 Steve A. Albert, 34 Lyme Street, variance to construct roof overhang.
Mrs. Albert, co-owner of the ice cream shop, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Moll noted that the overhang has been constructed and passed a picture of it around to the members. He noted that the purpose of the overhang is to keep supplies dry when they are delivered.
Mrs. Albert explained that there is a porch on the side of the ice cream shop where they receive all the deliveries. She noted that prior to the construction of the overhang there was a door with a pallet that they stepped onto. Mrs. Albert stated that the bread deliveries come at 4:00 a.m. and no one is there to receive them. She noted that the overhang keeps the deliveries protected from the elements. Mrs. Albert stated that when they reshingled the roof of the building they had the overhang constructed, not realizing that it was not conforming.
Mr. Moll noted that the application does not comply with the following Sections: 8.9.3, no additions to a building on a nonconforming lot; 8.8.1, no addition except in a conforming location; 21.3.7, street setback, 30 foot setback required, 14 feet provided; 21.3.10, maximum floor area ratio; 21.3.11, maximum building coverage; and 21.3.1, lot size, 15,000 square feet required, 11,325 provided.
Mr. Moll noted that the minutes of the December, 2002 Historic District Commission are included in the file and indicate that the Historic District Commission finds the proposal acceptable. Mr. Moll stated that the hardship provided by the applicant is that the property is nonconforming commercial and contains a home occupation that needs a covered area outside to receive deliveries. Mrs. Albert stated that she and her husband are moving into the house. Mr. Moll stated that the application indicates that the business is unique.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, a motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 04-07 Deborah and Ira Feigenbaum, 43 Breen Avenue, variance to construct a second floor addition.
Ira Feigenbaum and Attorney Matthew Ranelli, Shipman and Goodwin, were present to explain the application. Attorney Ranelli added the following to the record: Additional floor plan drawings and letters from neighbors in support of the application.
Attorney Ranelli stated that the Feigenbaum’s recently purchased this property and they have started work on the property with the appropriate Town permits. He noted that part of that work included demolition of the first floor. Attorney Ranelli stated that for this reason, he did not include a floor plan for what it looked like because it has changed. He noted that staff informed him that the Board would want to know what it looked like, so he has submitted floor plans of how it is today and how it was prior to the demolition.
Mr. Moll stated that the proposed floor plans were to be replaced, as they are extremely difficult to read. Attorney Ranelli stated that he would walk the Board through the floor plan.
Mr. Feigenbaum stated that when he purchased the property it was uninhabitable. Attorney Ranelli stated that the first floor of the house originally contained a kitchen, small bathroom, a living area, foyer and door to the front porch. He indicated that the original second floor contained two 9’ x 9’ bedrooms in the rear, and the front bedrooms were 6’6” x 11’10” and 9’9” x 11’10”. Attorney Ranelli stated that the porch on the second floor is enclosed. Mr. Feigenbaum stated that there is a solid wall with exterior grade doors that separate the porch from the house on the second floor.
Attorney Ranelli stated that with the appropriate permits, the first floor has been gutted. He indicated that they are opening up with first floor by installing laminated beams. He noted that the first floor porch has been partially eliminated to accommodate a larger living area inside. Mr. Schellens noted that this would constitute additional living area, so they are in fact increasing the living area of the first floor. Mr. Kotzan questioned the current living space. Attorney Ranelli stated that the current living space does not incude the porch. He noted that the house is currently a four-bedroom year-round house and this will not change. Mr. Moll questioned whether the porch was heated. Mr. Feigenbaum stated that there was baseboard heat in the porch.
Attorney Ranelli stated that the current living space is 1,040 square feet. He indicated that they are requesting to add approximately 90 square feet to the second floor, or 4’ 9” by 18’, or 85.5 square feet. Mr. Kotzan questioned how much additional living space the porches would provide. Attorney Ranelli replied that the porches are 18’ x 7’6” or 270 square feet additional living area.
Attorney Ranelli explained that the property is located in an R-10 Zone and has just under 5,000 square feet. He explained that the house was originally built prior to 1940 so both the lot and the structure predate the Zoning Regulations. Attorney Ranelli stated that he believes the structure is largely unchanged since it was originally built. He explained that the proposal is to raise the entire roof four inches around the perimeter of the building. Attorney Ranelli noted that there is not a header above the windows and the proposal is to put a plate of two two-by-fours nailed together around the whole perimeter, which will give the structure a little more strength and will raise the roof four inches. He stated that the roof shape would remain the same, with the same pitch and
style.
Attorney Ranelli stated that they would push the two rear bedrooms out over the existing footprint to make the bedrooms more usable for a family. He noted that the number of bedrooms is not changing and with the expansion they are still small. Attorney Ranelli stated that this area of the second floor would expand over the bump out on the first floor. He noted that this bump-out is in a conforming location.
Mr. Schellens stated that he is very uncomfortable with the level of drawings. He noted that they are dimensioned but he is not sure they are to scale. Mr. Schellens noted that there are no elevation drawings and he does not feel the application is complete. He pointed out that the Board requires elevation drawings and these drawings would help them determine how the building will impact the neighbors. Attorney Ranelli stated that he presumed the application was less complicated than it is and indicated that he would be happy to provide proper drawings, whether they are drawn by Mr. Feigenbaum or by an engineer. Mr. Moll stated that he would like elevation drawings of all four sides of the structure.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the proposal is a good improvement to the property, but he does not want the use of the property intensified. He noted that there is adequate use existing on the property. Mr. Kotzan stated that the living space is being increased and he feels a four-bedroom home on that small lot is a burden on the property. Attorney Ranelli explained that a new septic system has been installed on the property. He noted that the new system was approved and has the capacity to support four bedrooms.
Attorney Ranelli stated that the house is a four-bedroom home whether the bedrooms are expanded or not. He pointed out that the use is not changing or being intensified. Mr. Moll stated that the application reads: “The variance is needed to allow: To the extent a variance is needed it is requested to expand two existing second floor bedrooms over existing first floor footprint, install new roof plates, raise roof four inches and square off a 10” deep notch in the rear of the house.” The application further reads: “Strict application of the Zoning Regulations would produce unusual hardship or exceptional difficulty because: Strict application of the Regulations would result in an unusual hardship unnecessary to carry out the general purpose of the
Regulations for the zoning because it would prevent the home from achieving a minimum living space standard in the Town Regulations which could otherwise be achieved by vertical expansion and minor changes mostly in conforming areas. Further, this lot as conforming at the time the subdivision was created. The hardship would be unique and not shared by others in the area because: Most year-round homes conform to the minimum living space standards and most homes that do not, can be expanded to conform unless they are also nonconforming buildings or nonconforming lots as is the case of this house.”
Mr. Kotzan noted that the house is currently 1,040 square feet and the minimum living area for a two-story home is 1,200 square feet. He noted that the living space being requested will bring the total over 1,200 square feet, almost 200 square feet over the minimum. Attorney Ranelli stated that Mr. Kotzan’s point comes down to whether the porches are considered living space.
Mr. Moll stated that the Public Hearing would be continued to give the applicant the opportunity to supply all elevation drawings, roof details, and a presentation that shows the current living space and the proposed new living space. Ms. Stutts stated that she would like to see the door arrangement between the house and the porches.
Mr. Moll marked Attorney Ranelli’s supplement to the application Exhibit A and a letter of support from Bruce and Linda Payden, 47 Breen Avenue, as Exhibit B.
Attorney Ranelli stated that the proposal brings the structure up to code in terms of living space, which goes directly to public health and safety concerns, which is a primary directive of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that even if the porches are considered living space, there is nothing that should prohibit the Board from granting a variance to expand the rear bedrooms. Attorney Ranelli stated that the improvements to the property also increase property values in the area.
Attorney Ranelli stated that he has permits for all work performed on the property. Mr. Moll stated that he has a copy of a permit from the Zoning file, which is for gutting and replacing the interior. Attorney Ranelli stated that there is another permit. Mr. Moll stated that there has obviously been work done on the exterior. Attorney Ranelli stated that there is an additional permit. Ms. Brown stated that there is another permit in the Zoning file and she indicated that she would make a copy of it for the ZBA file.
Mr. Moll noted that Exhibit A contains several letters of support and he read the name and address of each supporter.
Dimitri Tolchinsky, property owner of 14 Purtill Avenue, stated that he knew the previous owner and in the 1980’s that owner was using the upper porch as a bedroom. Mr. Tolchinski stated that the low pitch of the roof makes it susceptible to leaks. He noted that there was heat on the porches. Mr. Tolchinski stated that the house needs considerable work and the neighbors are thrilled that the property is being improved.
Betty Singer, Colony Road, stated that the back of her house faces Mr. Feigenbaum’s. She noted that she is concerned because she has a porch on the back of her house and she wants to be sure that the Feigenbaum’s improvements do not impact her privacy. Ms. Singer questioned whether the Feigenbaum’s yard would remain the same size. Attorney Ranelli replied that the Feigenbaum’s yard would not be any smaller. Mr. Moll suggested that Mr. Feigenbaum meet with his neighbor and explain his proposal as it may impact her property.
Hearing no further comments, Mr. Moll noted that the Public Hearing for this item would be continued.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 04-08 Dimitri and Adele Tolchinski, 286 Shore Road, variance to increase height of garage/storage building to 35’.
Mr. Moll read a letter from himself into the record, indicating that he is disqualifying himself from participating in this Public Hearing. Mr. Schellens served as Acting Chairman. Attorney McGarry stated that there was no question raised as to Mr. Moll’s ability to judge this issue either by himself or by his clients. Ms. McQuade was seated in Mr. Moll’s absence.
Jeff Flower, Architect, stated that he was not involved in the original variance application but was asked to draw plans to change the height of the building from 30 feet to 35 feet. He explained that Mr. Dimitri relayed to him that he had made a mistake in his original determination of the height.
Ms. McQuade stated that there are two pages of abutters, but it appears that the immediate abutters were omitted. She noted that there is no one listed on Swan Avenue or Hartford Avenue Extension. Mr. Tolchinsky stated that he believes he has all the proper abutters listed. Ms. McQuade questioned whether the hearing should proceed if the abutters were not properly notified.
Mr. Flower stated that he has drawn a front elevation and the elevation toward Shore Road. He noted that he drew an existing elevation drawing, which he refers to as an as-built and approved front elevation and an as-built and approved south view (Shore Road) elevation. Mr. Flower stated that he measured the existing building, which has been constructed up to the eaves. He noted that he added a roof that shows the maximum roof that could be constructed to stay under 30 feet. Mr. Flower stated that he figured the average grade in determining the height. He noted that the third drawing takes Mr. Tolchinski’s building and adds siding, trim and a roof. He stated that Sheet 4 shows the roof as a 6/12 pitch roof. Mr. Flower noted that if the building is limited to 30 feet it will
be a 2 7/8th pitch roof which means it cannot be shingled, it will have to have single ply rubber roofing or built-up tar roofing.
Mr. Flower stated that the color of the building is for illustration purposes only. He stated that the 2 7/8th pitch roof on the 30’ building looks like a modular home or a trailer home low pitch roof and he does not believe that is what they are looking for in Old Lyme.
Mr. Kotzan pointed out that the original drawings supplied as part of the previous variance application show a building with an adequately pitched roof. Mr. Kotzan stated that it appears they have added a floor in this new application. Mr. Schellens stated that the original drawing supplied by Mr. Tolchinski was drawn to scale. He stated that the dimensions of width and length are accurate relative to the height of 30 feet. Mr. Schellens noted that the eaves measure out to 18 feet and the current drawings have the eaves at 23 or 24 feet. Ms. McQuade questioned whether the second floor was supposed to be open for storage. Mr. Tolchinski stated that there would be a ceiling on the second floor. Ms. McQuade stated that his original testimony was that there would be no ceiling on the
second floor.
Mr. Flower stated that they are also requesting a change in the direction of the ridge. He noted that creating the ridge off the narrower side lowers the roof down. Mr. Flower stated that the proposal is within the height limits for the zone. He indicated that the proposal is a better looking building then the building that was approved. Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board is being presented with a structure, which has been built out of compliance with what was approved, and now they are being asked to remedy it by increasing the height that they limited to. He noted that the walls have been built too high. Mr. Flower stated that the problem is that the original drawings were not good. He noted that there are no dimensions on the original drawings.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the structure currently under construction looks gigantic and he can’t imagine that the Board has to rectify what they agreed to by compromising further and allowing an additional five feet in height. He noted that the applicant is at fault. Mr. Flower stated that 35 feet is the height limit in the zone. He stated that the Zoning Board should not have accepted the original drawings.
Mr. Schellens noted that the scale on Mr. Tolchinski’s original drawings is one inch equals six feet. He noted that although the drawings are not dimensioned, using the indicated scale, the height is 30 feet, the width is 36 feet and the eaves come to 18 feet. He pointed out that the eaves of the current structure are not 18 feet. Mr. Schellens stated that the drawings are in fact to scale.
Attorney McGarry stated that the prior application indicated that the building would be two stories. He noted that a mistake was made with the original application and better plans should have been provided. Attorney McGarry noted that the allowed height in any zone in Old Lyme is 35 feet. He stated that a recent judgment indicates that a condition that does not ensure that a variance is in harmony with the intent and purposes of legitimate zoning ordinances is not a valid exercise of the powers delegated to a Board. Attorney McGarry stated that it is their position that a mistake was made, but the Board cannot discriminate against this property by demanding that the height be limited to 30 feet. He noted that this particular case goes on to say that he has the legal right on the Tolchinski’s behalf to challenge this at any point in time. Attorney McGarry questioned the validity of the imposition of the height condition.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether it was Mr. McGarry’s contention that the Board could not put a height limit on a building under the 35’ limit imposed by the Zoning Regulations. Attorney McGarry stated that the Board couldn’t. He noted that the variance in this case is simply the minimum square and in all other aspects the applicant complied with the Regulations. Mr. Schellens reiterated that the original drawings show the eaves at 18 feet and the second floor was characterized as attic storage space. He noted that the drawings depicted 18 feet for the eave height, which is a four-foot knee wall because there were 12-foot high ceilings on the first floor. Mr. Schellens stated that the applicant did not construct to the approved drawings and now Attorney McGarry is intimating
that the applicant can just construct to 35 feet and it is supported in case law. Attorney McGarry stated that the sole issue was minimum square which was enacted after this property was subdivided. He noted that once the minimum square variance was granted the Board couldn’t impose something that they don’t have the power to require of anyone else in the Town.
Ms. McQuade stated that when the Board was considering the original application, if the drawings Mr. Flower has prepared were presented at that time, the Board probably would not have approved the application because of the impact on the neighborhood. She pointed out that there is a large difference between the two sets of drawings. Ms. McQuade stated that it was obvious that there was a problem long before the building got to its current state. She noted that this proposal was discussed in three different Zoning Board of Appeals cases. Ms. McQuade noted that she still does not believe the neighbors were properly noticed.
Attorney McGarry stated that there is not a need for a hardship because case law states that was restricted in the past does not apply to this. Mr. Schellens questioned why the applicant did not appeal the Board’s original decision. He noted that the Board couldn’t approve a variance without a hardship. Attorney McGarry stated that the hardship is the minimum square requirement and the fact that it has no applicability to this piece of property.
Mr. Flower stated that when considering the size of this building in the neighborhood, the Board should realize that it is in a commercial zone. He noted that the application meets the requirements of the zone.
Mr. Tolchinski stated that the original application was for a two-story building. He stated that another hardship is that the building is partially constructed and is ready to be roofed. Mr. Tolchinski stated that the inclement weather is damaging the structure.
Ms. McQuade pointed out that the abutter list is not complete. Ms. Brown suggested continuing the Public Hearing and properly noticing all abutters. Attorney McGarry noted that the list of abutters he has is also only two pages.
Mr. Schellens noted that the denied Zoning Permit indicates the possible relocation of the dumpster. Ms. Brown noted that Mr. Tolchinski did not include the dumpster relocation in his variance application. Mr. Tolchinski stated that it was his thought to move the dumpster to the right of the new structure, which would be a more appropriate location. Ms. Brown noted that the dumpster location was a condition of approval. Mr. Tolchinski stated that if he could change the dumpster location it would be very helpful.
Ms. McQuade questioned whether the building has a basement. She noted that the basement is a new addition, as the original building did not have a basement. Mr. Tolchinski stated that when they dug the foundation, they found that the soil was so good, it was gravel, and there was no water at all. He stated for that reason he put a cellar on the end of the building, under the office section of the building.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Mr. Schellens noted that the Public Hearing would be held open for counsel review and proper notification of the abutters. Mr. Flowers questioned whether the Board would like elevation drawings of the two other sides of the structure. Ms. Brown stated that they should supply the two other elevations.
The Board took a five-minute recess and upon reconvening, Mr. Moll rejoined the Board as Acting Chairman.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
Case 04-02 Hudson Sullivan Homes, LLC, Canty Lane/326 Shore Road
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this application has been continued.
Case 04-06 Steve A. Albert, 34 Lyme Street
Mr. Moll stated that the property is located at 34 Lyme Street. Mr. Schellens stated that the property has historically been a commercial use, provided that it was owner occupied. He noted that prior to the ice cream shop it was a woodworking shop and before that an antique shop and prior to that an art gallery. Ms. Stutts stated that it was empty for quite some time.
Mr. Schellens stated that the son and the mother run the business. Ms. Brown stated that Zoning discovered the overhang and has been enforcing for quite some time. Mr. Schellens stated that the fact that the overhang is not unreasonable for a commercial use and it was constructed attractively. He stated that this minor additional is within the intent of Zoning. Mr. Moll stated that the overhang has a very practical use. Mr. Schellens noted that the Historic District Commission has indicated that the overhang is in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood.
Ms. Brainerd stated that there is an overhang on the east side of the building and this new overhang echoes that nicely. Mr. Schellens stated that he personally knows the neighbors to the south and they have no objection to the overhang. Ms. Brown stated that there have been no complaints regarding the overhang. Mr. Kotzan stated that the overhang provides a stable area when entering and exiting the building or loading/unloading. Mr. Kotzan stated that the building was deficient in that aspect.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan, and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow a roof overhang as proposed and constructed, 34 Lyme Street, Steve A. Albert, applicant.
Case 04-07 Deborah and Ira Feigenbaum, 43 Breen Avenue
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this application has been continued.
ITEM 7: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
The Commission discussed conducting a Special Meeting to continue the Public Hearings for the three cases continued this evening. It was agreed that each member would get their vacation schedules to Ann Brown in the next day or so and she would schedule a special meeting.
The Commission agreed to get any questions they have regarding the cases this evening that they would like Attorney Royston to answer to the Zoning Office by Friday afternoon.
ITEM 8: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2004 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 9: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan and seconded by Tom Schellens. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
