APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Tom Schellens, Susanne Stutts, Wendy Brainerd (Alternate, seated) and Judy McQuade, (Alternate, seated).
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 04-34 Frank and Janet Maratta, 85 Swan Avenue, variance to replace wood deck with raised brick.
Chairman Speirs stated that she has just been informed that this proposal does not comply with Section 8.7.1. David Rintoul was present to represent Frank and Janet Maratta. He noted that the property is a nonconforming commercial use located in an R-10 zone. Attorney Rintoul explained that the building is at least 50 years old and there is currently a wood deck sidewalk along the east side of the building which provides access around the side of the building and some access to the beach. He noted that the owners have agreed to remove the deck because of potential flood hazard issues. Attorney Rintoul stated that the owner would like to replace the deck with brick pavers that will provide an attractive appearance and safe footing for pedestrians and patrons.
Attorney Rintoul stated that if this variance is denied the owner would have to install either compacted sand or compacted gravel in this area. He noted that these surfaces would not increase lot coverage. Attorney Rintoul explained that because of Fire Regulations a hardened surface is required. He stated that in the absence of a variance the owner will have to place a surface that is less attractive and more dangerous then what would be allowed with the variance. Attorney Rintoul noted that the conditions are unique to the owners’ property since he is a commercial use in a residential zone. He noted that no other property would have the issue of commercial patrons and the general public using their property as a sidewalk. Attorney Rintoul pointed out that the variance requested
is the minimum required as it just replacing a surface that is currently being used for access. He stated that granting the variance will not result in any increased flood hazard because the surface will be brick.
Attorney Rintoul stated that there are three letters from neighbors supporting the variance and he submitted another written statement by the Annazo’s also supporting the variance.
Chairman Speirs stated that she visited the facility and noticed platform decking on the side abutting Jib 88. Attorney Rintoul stated that there is decking at the back of the property giving access to the parking lot. Frank Maratta, applicant, stated that Ms. Speirs is probably referring to the south deck. Chairman Speirs stated that she is speaking of the deck in the alleyway. Attorney Rintoul stated that there is not a deck in that area.
Ms. Brown stated that there was some work done without permits on this property and the Town and Mr. Maratta have had some dealings in court. She explained that last spring an agreement was reached and one of the items was that Mr. Maratta would remove the east deck, as it was constructed without permits. Ms. Brown noted that another complication is that the property is in a flood zone so anything constructed on it has to be flood compliant. She noted that Mr. Maratta is currently flood proofing the south deck. Ms. Brown explained that the removal of the east deck has become a problem because the Fire Marshal states that when one exits the building in a fire they must step onto a firm surface. She noted that this is the reason that Mr. Maratta is before the Commission.
Mr. Schellens questioned whether any portion of this raised brick area would be used for seating. Mr. Maratta stated that the area has been used for seating for years. Mr. Schellens stated that the variance is being posed as a safety issue when really it is more of a way to expand a nonconforming use. Attorney Rintoul disagreed. He noted that he could not prove that there were permits to allow construction of the deck, therefore the Town had the right to ask that it be removed. Attorney Rintoul stated that this is not an expansion of a nonconforming use because this area of the property has always been used for this purpose and he believes the area was paved at the time Zoning Regulations came into effect, although they are having difficulty proving that. Attorney Rintoul stated that
they have applied to expand a nonconforming use for the very reason that this is the position the Town has taken.
Mr. Maratta stated that in 1992 he spoke to Joe Hart about adding this deck and he was told that it was allowable as long as it was 12 inches or less. He indicated that he was not issued a permit. Mr. Maratta stated that Mr. Hart did not view this as expansion of a nonconforming use if the deck was less than 12 inches. Mr. Maratta noted that the east side of the building is the shady side and most families gravitate there to eat. He noted that no alcohol is served in this area.
Chairman Speirs noted that there are three letters from neighbors in favor of the application. Tom Fallo, neighboring property owner, stated that the deck is nicer than the sand and the pavers would be even nicer. He stated that this option would eliminate the dust and dirt from compacted sand or gravel.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-38 Gail S. Balavender, 68 Billow Road, variance to allow addition to residence and second story garage.
Chairman Speirs stated Ms. McQuade would be recussing herself and the Board will consist of only four members. She noted that the vote would have to be unanimous in order for a motion of approval to pass. Ms. Brown submitted a revised Zoning Compliance sheet, noting that she received new plans recently.
Christina Burnham was present to represent Gail Balavender, along with Brian Buckley, architect. Attorney Burnham stated that the application is to add living space to an existing house and because the site plan is a little confusing, she has color coded one for reference. She explained that the lot is located at the end of the street and it is irregularly shaped. Attorney Burnham stated that the lot is located mostly in an R-10 Zone, with the exception of a small triangle that is located in an R-20 Zone. She noted that the lot is also burdened with restrictions through the deed on a portion of the lot. Attorney Burnham stated that the existing house is outlined in red on the site plan. She explained that the garage currently exists and is .12’ from the actual lot line, but 10.12
feet away from the line for all the land they can use for structures because of a ten foot easement.
Attorney Burnham stated that the proposal is to keep the main house as it is and remove the stoop, keep the garage and add a second story, and then connecting the house to the garage so that the second stories will connect. She explained that the covered porch will be slightly expanded and enclosed. Brian Buckley stated that there is a partial expansion on the second floor for a walk-in closet. Chairman Speirs noted that the previous owner purchased the square of R-20 property to make the lot conforming so that they could construct a home on the lot.
Attorney Burnham stated that if the property were zoned entirely R-10, some of the requested variances would not be necessary. She explained that the applicant is adding a second story to the garage, and for that reason needs a variance of the rear setback. Attorney Burnham stated that a variance is required on the northern boundary where there is only .12 feet to the boundary. She noted that again, the boundary is not being changed but a second story is being added. Attorney Burnham stated that if the easement area is taken into consideration, the setback is 10.12 feet to the fence which appears to be the property line but in reality is not the actual property line. Attorney Burnham stated that in the R-10 zone coverage of 25 percent is allowed and the proposal would have 23 percent
coverage. She explained that because the applicant has to comply with the R-20 zone, the coverage allowed is only 15 percent so a variance is required for coverage.
Attorney Burnham stated that the applicant’s hardship is that the property is located in two zones and must meet the more stringent requirements of the R-20 zone, even though the lot is located primarily in an R-10 zone and the lot is 10,000 square feet. She pointed out that the lot is odd-shaped and only allows a 74 foot square.
Brian Buckley, architect, stated that the proposal began with the connection of the garage with the living area and to provide an entry foyer. He explained that the proposal allows the applicants to enter into a mudroom area. Mr. Buckley stated that they have added a bedroom over the garage, but have eliminated one from the main house. He noted that bedroom #1 is 13.1 x 17.8 and the new bedroom is 21’ x 15’. Mr. Buckley stated that the story over the garage is not a full second story. He explained that the walls in that room start at 5 feet and slope up to 8 feet. Attorney Burnham stated that the height of the main house is not changing. She stated that the garage was constructed with a permit, although she is not sure why it was allowed to be constructed so close to
the property line.
Attorney Burnham stated that the plan is in conformance with the immediate neighbors. She explained that they have tried to use as much of the existing footprint as possible. Attorney Burnham stated that there is a deed restriction that prohibits building on one side of the lot. Chairman Speirs questioned if the coverage could be decreased. Attorney Burnham stated that only 15 percent coverage is allowed in the R-20 zone and there is currently 19 percent coverage on the property. She noted that an addition of any kind would need a variance for coverage. Chairman Speirs stated that the proposal is quite large. Attorney Burnham stated that the coverage is being increased by the connection from the house to the garage, but also by the enlargement of the enclosed porch. She
noted that perhaps the enclosed porch could be eliminated, although the porch enlargement is only 100 square feet, or one percent.
Chairman Speirs noted that the floor area permitted in the R-20 zone is 20 percent and the property is already at 22.8 percent, proposing an increase to 32.5 percent. Chairman Speirs stated that that is a tremendous increase. She questioned when the property was purchased by the Balavenders. Ms. Balavender stated that they purchased the property in 1995. Mr. Buckley stated that the proposal add 484 square feet to the second floor. Attorney Burnham noted that total floor area is increasing by 1,000 square feet.
Ms. Brainerd questioned the highest point of both the house and garage. Attorney Burnham stated that the house is currently 33.5 feet and will remain at that height and the garage is 26 feet high.
Willard Northrup, 21 Edge Lea, stated that his property backs up to the Balavender property and he would like to keep the character of the neighborhood as it is. He noted that if everyone decided to build large houses it would change the beach area. Mr. Northrup stated that this property is right on the beach. He indicated that he would like to see the Balavenders be able to enlarge their property but he is struggling with allowing people to increase the size of their homes on nonconforming properties. He noted that his sight lines will not be affected by the project.
Rachel Bonavita, 25 Edge Lea Road, indicated that she is directly behind this property. She stated that she and her husband constructed the Balavender home twenty years ago. Ms. Bonavita stated that they received variances to construct the present home. She noted that there is a restriction for building on the front of the property so that the view from Edge Lea would not be impeded. She stated that she is not aware how the garage was allowed to be constructed, as there should be a 35 foot setback and the garage is five feet from her property line. Ms. Bonavita stated that she is not in favor of the applicant adding a second floor to this garage. She indicated that the garage is one and one-half inches from the side property line. Ms. Bonavita stated that the property uses a
shared well on Edge Lea, and she is concerned about the Jacuzzi in the master bedroom on the second floor and an additional bathroom over the garage and a shower on the first floor. She indicated that her property on Edge Lea is year round and she is concerned about the water supply.
Ms. Balavender stated that she uses city water in the summer when they are apt to have more visitors. She noted that they do not use the property in the winter time. Ms. Balavender stated that if they were to use the property in the winter in the future it would be just she and her husband.
Ms. Bonavita stated that she does not want the Zoning Board of Appeals to set a precedent in the neighborhood by approving this application. She noted that none of the setbacks have been met.
Attorney Burnham stated that the view from the Bonavita property will not be impeded as much as shown on the drawing from Ms. Bonavita, as the garage roof is 7.5 feet lower than depicted. She noted that one of the neighbors on Edge Lea stated that they would like the home to keep the character of the neighbor. She pointed out that the Balavender property is part of Old Lyme Shores, not the Edge Lea neighborhood, and the entirety of Old Lyme Shores is an R-10 Zone. Attorney Burnham pointed out that the proposal meets most of the requirements of the R-10 Zone. She pointed out that most of the dwelling cannot be seen from the street.
Attorney Burnham stated that the property is on Long Island Sound so that a CAM Application was required. She noted that the construction is on the existing house and there will be no new grading and clearing and no demolition will take place. Attorney Burnham stated that they estimate a 4 percent increase in impervious cover. She explained that no new storm water management practices are proposed because the house has the standard drainage for houses. Attorney Burnham noted that dunes and beaches are adjacent but will not be impacted in anyway, nor will the adjacent coastal waters be impacted. She noted that the second story additions to the home and garage will not change the character of the neighborhood and will not limit public access in anyway to the waterfront site. Attorney
Burnham stated that current structures meet the flood zone requirements and they will not be changing first floor elevations. She indicated that no new septic is proposed because the number of bedrooms is not changing.
Attorney Burnham stated that she does not believe the proposal impacts the current public access to the water and does not limit the water dependent uses that exist.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed the Public Hearing for this application.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 04-40 Patricia L. Wendland, 11 Osceola Trail, variance to add half-story addition to dwelling.
Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant would like to add a half-story addition to the dwelling. She noted that Ms. McQuade rejoined the Board. Chairman Speirs read from the application, noting that the proposal is to allow reasonable reconstruction of a deteriorating single story dwelling at 11 Osceola Trail in accordance with the enclosed plans. She noted that the application does not indicate that a second floor is being added and she stated that the legal notice indicates a half-story addition to the dwelling. Chairman Speirs stated that the legal ad did not indicate anything about the reconstruction of a single story dwelling and she believes it should have. She noted that there is a letter in the file from Ann Brown to the Zoning Board of Appeals noting that the application submitted
is to replace an existing seasonal cottage with a larger seasonal cottage on a nonconforming lot, requiring a variance of Section 8.9.3. Chairman Speirs noted that this letter goes on to state that this application is not a request to allow occupancy of a seasonal use beyond the period of April 1 to November 15 as described in Section 8.9.3a. Chairman Speirs asked Ms. Wendland if she was in agreement with the letter from Ann Brown. Ms. Wendland stated that she is in agreement with the letter from Ann Brown.
Chairman Speirs stated there are two different numbers offered for the total square footage of the proposed house, one being 1,1,89 and the other 1,162 square feet. Ms. Wendland stated that 1,162 is the total coverage and the 1,189 is the living area. Chairman Speirs stated that 1,189 square feet does not meet the minimum for a two-story home. Ms. Brown stated that the Zoning Regulations are not clear in defining ½ story or story. She noted that it is not as important in defining a 1.5 story house as it is when one is defining a 2.5 or 3 story house. She noted that there is no minimum square footage offered for a 1.5 story home. Chairman Speirs stated that variances are required of the following Section: 8.9.3, no enlargement of a building allowed on a nonconforming
lot.
Ms. Wendland stated that she has reworked her proposal and feels this proposal is more in harmony with existing homes in the neighborhood. She indicated that the proposal before the Board previously was probably not in harmony with the neighborhood. Ms. Wendland stated that the proposed height is 24 feet, compared to her prior plan of 31 feet. She noted that the proposal is a 1.5 story structure with a total of 1,189 square feet, 754 on the first floor and 435 on the second floor. She stated that the footprint is being increased from 24’ x 29’ to 26’ x 29’. Ms. Wendland noted that the proposal meets all setback requirements. She explained that the 2’ increase is proposed to accommodate the utilities because there is no basement. Ms. Wendland stated
that there will be one bedroom one the first floor and one bedroom on the second floor.
Ms. Wendland stated that the property has been in her family since 1946. Ms. Wendland stated that the bump out on the foundation is 4’ x 18’ long and they are proposing to come out an additional 2’. Ms. Wendland stated that the calculations are based on 24’ x 29’ or 58 square feet. Chairman Speirs noted that there is also a 4’ x 18’ addition. Ms. Wendland stated that she has included a deck in the coverage, but she believes it will not be a deck but a patio. She explained that the plans before the Board were in a book of plans and her proposal does not include a deck or a porch. Ms. Wendland stated that she is planning to have a balcony which is included in the coverage. Chairman Speirs stated that she would like to see plans that
show what is really being constructed. She noted that this could be a condition, if the proposal was approved.
Ms. Wendland stated that she is removing the deck on the lakeside. Chairman Speirs stated that the existing foundation appears to be cinderblocks on top of cement. She questioned the height of the new foundation. Ms. Wendland stated that as far as she knows the foundation is all cinderblocks. She stated that the height of the structure is 24’ from the finished first floor, or 24’ 10” from the top of the foundation wall. Mr. Schellens questioned the distance from the grade to the top of the foundation as 6 inches. Mr. Schellens stated that he would encourage 12 inches because of termites. He indicated that he would also insist that they use the existing grade as noted on the northwest corner of the house for a baseline. Mr. Schellens stated that the height
should not exceed 26 feet from the existing grade.
Ms. Wendland stated that she will be removing one of the existing sheds. She noted that her hardship is her narrow property. Ms. Wendland stated that she has just recently had to brace the bathroom floor and is at a point where the cottage needs to be improved. Ms. Wendland stated that the lots were developed in the 1930’s prior to Zoning and there is not and has never been land available to purchase.
Ms. Stutts questioned which shed would be removed. Ms. Wendland noted that the one on the side of the property between the house and the side yard is being removed. She noted that the other one will remain.
Chairman Speirs noted that the letters in the file in favor of the application, with the exception of one, are dated 2003 and refer to a year-round use which is not the proposal at this time. She noted that there is a current letter from the neighbor at 19 Osceola Trail indicating that they are in favor of the application.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called the Public Hearing for this item to a close.
The Board took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 4: Open Voting Session
Case 04-34 Frank and Janet Maratta, 85 Swan Avenue
Chairman Speirs stated that the variance is requested under Section 8.7.1 (no nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged, extended or altered and no building or other structure or part thereof devoted to a nonconforming use shall be enlarged, extended, etc., except where the result of such changes is to reduce or eliminate the nonconformity). She explained that the variance is requested to allow the replacement of a wood deck with brick pavers. Chairman Speirs explained that the existing wooden decks on the east side will be removed and replaced with brick. She noted that the use of the area would be to provide access and egress to the building.
Chairman Speirs stated that if the variance is not granted the owner would be required by the Fire Marshal to put down compressed sand or gravel. She noted that the hardship was noted as unique because there are no other commercial properties in the zone subject to fire regulations regarding emergency egress. Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant indicated that the variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Regulations because replacement of the wood deck would reduce flood hazards, further, allowing brick pavers would provide superior emergency egress through the existing emergency exits then the alternative of relocating emergency exits to the existing hard surfaces. Chairman Speirs noted that the application has been approved by the Health Department.
Mr. Schellens stated that a settlement with the Town was alluded to and there is an unapproved expansion of a nonconforming use. He noted that there are four tables in this deck area. Mr. Schellens stated that the reasoning given was to provide egress, yet the area is being crowded with flower pots and tables. He noted that the area does look nice, but he would like confirmation from the Fire Marshal that the width of the access is adequate. Ms. Brown stated that Ms. Ozols issued a Cease and Desist Order in the spring of 2001 for work being done without permits. She noted that it took until this past May to get a judgment to resolve the violation. Ms. Brown stated that there were numerous violations cited at the property, some of which were resolved by removal of them. She
explained that in order to resolve the pending violations, the Town agreed that Mr. Maratta would have an engineer certify that the south deck was flood compliant or he would have a design done to have the deck floodproofed. She explained that he was required also to remove part of the south deck, the part that was not on the 1994 site plan. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Maratta was also required to remove an incursion into the alleyway which was not on the 1994 site plan and he was required to remove the east deck. She explained that he was required to move the dumpster and put a screening around it and pay the Town some money. Ms. Brown noted that once the work was complete, an as-built was to be submitted to the Town. She noted that none of this was done on time so they went back to Court and the judge stated that Mr. Maratta had until September to get this work done.
Ms. Brown noted that although this time has passed, Mr. Maratta is now making an effort to resolve the issues. She explained that when it was agreed to remove the east deck fire code was not considered and Mr. Roberge has indicated that a hard surface is required. Mr. Schellens questioned whether the hard surface is required where the entire east deck is located. Ms. Brown stated that there is a section that probably could be left as sand. She noted that Mr. Maratta has testified that he has always used this area in conjunction with his business. She stated that he may have had pavement there at one time although he cannot prove that. Ms. Brown noted that Ms. Ozols did not enforce against the table so she would assume that Ms. Ozols accepted the fact that the tables existed.
Mr. Schellens stated that he would like to know exactly what the Fire Marshal’s requirements are. Ms. Brown stated that the Board could request that as staff information if they are inclined to table their decision.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Susanne Stutts and voted unanimously to table the decision on this application until the October Regular Meeting for the purpose of receiving clarification from the Fire Marshal as to the area required to be a hard surface for fire egress.
Case 04-38 Gail S. Balavender, 68 Billow Road
Ms. McQuade recused herself for this item. Chairman Speirs stated that the application requests construction of a second story over the existing garage and construction of an addition to the existing house which consists of 1,000 additional square feet. She noted that variances are required of Sections 8.8.1 (no addition to a nonconforming building except in a conforming location); 8.9.3 (no addition to a building on a nonconforming lot); 21.3.8, minimum setback from rear boundary line, 35’, 30.11 foot variance requested for second story on garage and 12’ variance for the porch area on the rear; 21.3.9, minimum setback from other boundary line, 20’ required, a variance of 19.88 feet required for garage and 7.4 feet for the porch area on the north side; 21.3.10, maximum floor area ratio, 20
percent allowed, 22.8 percent existing and 32.5 proposed for a variance of 12.5 percent. Ms. Brown stated that there are some discrepancies in these numbers from her calculations, the attorney’s and the architect’s. She noted that she used the assessor’s records and the floor plans received from the applicant. Ms. Brown stated that the applicant calculated the proposed floor area as 36 percent. Chairman Speirs suggested using Ms. Brown’s calculations. She noted that a variance is also requested of 21.3.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings, 15 percent allowed, 19 percent existing and 23 percent proposed for a variance of 8 percent.
Chairman Speirs stated that the variances requested are extreme. She stated that the coverage is very high. Chairman Speirs stated that the structure is tremendous. Mr. Schellens stated that there is an inherent hardship in the R-10/R-20 split zone. Ms. Stutts pointed out that variances would be required if the standards of the R-10 zone were used. Mr. Schellens stated that although it is not clear how the garage was constructed in the location it is in, he does not feel it would be right to allow the height to be increased in this extremely nonconforming location. Mr. Schellens stated that the design of the proposed house is very handsome, but he cannot justify such a huge improvement in such a nonconforming location on a nonconforming lot. Mr. Schellens suggested that the
applicant could apply to the Zoning Commission to move the zone line. Mr. Schellens stated that he would be amenable to allowing the applicant to meet the requirements for the R-10 zone.
Ms. Stutts stated that she would not be agreeable to allowing any addition over the garage. Ms. Brainerd agreed, noting the garage structure would be very large and not in harmony with the neighborhood.
Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant is already over the allowed floor area ratio for the R-10 Zone. She indicated that the applicant is requesting too many variances.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by Susanne Stutts to grant the requested variances to construct an addition to residence and second story on garage, 68 Billow Road, Gail S. Balavender, applicant. Motion did not carry, 0:4.
The Board indicated that the applicant was seeking too many variances and an additional 1,000 square feet of floor area is excessive. They found that this application is not within the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
Case 04-40 Patricia L. Wendland, 11 Osceola Trail
Ms. McQuade rejoined the Board. Chairman Speirs stated that the property is located in an R-10 zone and contains 6,925 square feet. She noted that the coverage is 15 percent and proposed coverage is 16.5 percent. Chairman Speirs stated that a variance is required of Section 8.9.3, no additions on a nonconforming lot. She noted that the applicant is seeking to replace a 24’ x 29’ footprint with a 26’ x 29’ footprint and adding a ½ story second floor. Chairman Speirs stated that all setback requirements are met. She noted that the applicant is proposed a seasonal structure.
Ms. Brown stated that the total square footage is 754 on the first floor and 435 square feet on the second floor for a total of 1,189 square feet. Chairman Speirs stated that this proposal is within the intent of Zoning as it meets all setbacks and is not excessive in its coverage. Ms. Brown suggested that they include a variance for the minimum size of a two-story dwelling, Section 7.6 because the structure is 1,189 rather than the 1,200 required by Zoning.
Chairman Speirs noted that the dwelling was constructed in 1946 and has greatly deteriorated. She indicated that there is very little increase in the footprint. Chairman Speirs noted that the height of the structure will not exceed 26’ from the existing grade at the northwest corner of the house. Chairman Speirs noted that the porch shown in architectural rendering was not shown on site plan and is not part of the application.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Wendy Brainerd, and voted unanimously to grant the requested variances of Sections 8.9.3 and 7.6 to construct a half-story addition to dwelling, 11 Osceola Trail, Patricia Wendland, applicant, as per the approved plans and with the following conditions:
1. Height of structure not to exceed 26 feet from the existing grade.
2. House is to remain seasonal use only.
3. 9’ x 5’ shed to be removed.
4. Final building plans to be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to issuance of Zoning Permit.
ITEM 5: Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade, and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 16, 2004 Special Meeting as submitted.
ITEM 8: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
None.
ITEM 9: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Susanne Stutts. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
