APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were June Speirs (Chairman), Susanne Stutts, Richard Moll, Tom Schellens and Edgar Butcher (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer and her attorney, Eric Knapp.
Chairman Speirs called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. She stated that Edgar Butcher would be seated for Kip Kotzan.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 04-33 Joan Byer, 61 Breen Avenue, variance to construct first floor bedroom addition.
Chairman Speirs noted that this application has been withdrawn. Mr. Moll distributed a copy of the letter to each of the Board Members.
Chairman Speirs explained that she would be recusing herself for Item 4 on the agenda. Mr. Moll suggested that Items 4 and 5 on the agenda be switched. Chairman Speirs stated that the meeting will be adjourned this evening between 10:45 and 11:00 p.m., because recently the meetings have been going until midnight.
A motion was made by Richard Moll, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to switch the order of Items 4 and 5 on the agenda.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 04-39 Robert & Dawn McCarthy, 85 Flat Rock Hill Road, Appeal of ZEO denial to allow building for livestock on 2.9 acres.
Robert McCarthy was present to explain his application. He stated that he submitted an application to construct a building on his property for the purpose of keeping a horse or two. He explained that his application was denied on the basis that his property was not 3 acres as specified in Section 21.5.1. Mr. McCarthy stated that he questions the decision because the ZEO indicates that he has 2.9 acres when he actually has 2.92 acres. He stated that there are inaccuracies in the Assessor’s data. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Assessor’s data goes to two decimal places and the Regulations do not reference decimal places. He indicated that he believes 2.9 acres should be rounded to 3 acres. He stated that some one could have less than 3 acres and because the
Assessor’s data indicates three acres, their application would be approved.
Chairman Speirs questions whether the site plan submitted was done by a surveyor. Mr. McCarthy stated that it is a copy of the record subdivision map. Chairman Speirs noted that the lot size indicated on the building permit indicates is 126,324 square feet. Mr. McCarthy stated that that number is incorrect. Chairman Speirs questioned whether there was a survey that showed that this number is incorrect. Mr. McCarthy stated that he went to Tony Hendriks and Mr. Hendriks stated that the lot is 2.92 acres and 127,400 square feet. He noted that this information is incorrect in the land records. Mr. McCarthy stated that in many sections of the Regulations there are references to square footage of land that are usually factors of 10,000.
Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated that she denied Mr. McCarthy’s application for a barn because he intended to have farm animals. She noted that Section 21.3.5.1 states that three acres are required to keep farm animals. Ms. Brown stated that the best information in the Town Hall is that the McCarthy property is 2.9 acres. She noted that a previous application of Mr. McCarthy’s indicated that the property size is 2.9 acres. Ms. Brown noted that the fact is the property is not 3 acres. She stated that when the Zoning Regulations refer to an acre, they mean 43,560 square feet. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. McCarthy has testified that he does not have three acres. She indicated that she believes the permit was denied appropriately.
Ms. Stutts stated that the applicant could request a variance. Mr. Schellens noted that the applicant could also purchase additional property from a neighbor. He noted that the matter before the Board is an appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s denial to allow him to construct a barn to keep horse(s).
Mr. McCarthy stated that the basis of his argument is that the Assessor’s information is rounded so if someone had 2.99 acres, the Assessor data would say 3.0 acres. He noted that his Assessor’s information is 2.9 acres, not 2.92. Mr. McCarthy stated that it is possible for someone in the above situation to be considered a 3-acre parcel where his parcel would not be.
Mr. Moll questioned the document used by the ZEO to determine the size of the parcel. Ms. Brown stated that the application for the barn said the lot was 3 acres. She noted that at that time she went to the Assessor’s Map which indicated 2.9 acres. Ms. Brown stated that she got the street card and looked at previous applications. She noted that a previous application filled out by Mr. McCarthy indicated 2.9 acres. Ms. Brown stated that if Mr. McCarthy had shown her a survey that indicated 3 acres she would have had the other data corrected. She noted that Mr. McCarthy has testified that he has 2.92 acres, not three acres.
Mr. McCarthy stated that the home behind him cannot sell him land because there house is located too close to the setback line. He noted that there are driveways of the other properties close to the line on the sides of the property.
Attorney Knapp stated that the applicant has conceded that he does not have three acres. He noted that the fact that there are driveways on the sides of his property would not be an impediment as he could purchase the property and grant the neighbor an easement for the driveway.
Mr. Kotzan arrived at this time (7:54 p.m.). Chairman Speirs noted that Mr. Butcher would no longer be seated.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs called this item to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 04-41 Coleen Palma, 304 Canty Lane, variance to add second story to dwelling.
Coleen Palma and Jerry Karpuska were present to explain the application. Ms. Palma stated that she is requesting a variance to add a second story to her home on the existing foundation. She noted that she would like to move the two first floor bedrooms to the second floor. Ms. Palma stated that the other homes on Canty Lane all maintain at least 1.5 to 2 stories, with heights of up to 35 feet. Mr. Karpuska stated that the proposal is for the Palma home to be 25 feet high.
Chairman Speirs noted that the property is located in both the R-10 and R-20 Zone. Ms. Palma noted that the zone line goes through the middle of the house. She explained that the house was built in 1972 and the entire lot was R-10 at that time. Ms. Palma stated that she purchased the property in 2003. Mr. Karpuska stated that he spent a lot of time trying to determine when the zone line was changed and he was unable to do so.
Mr. Karpuska noted that variances are required of Sections: 21.3.1, 21.3.2, 21.3.7 and 21.3.9. He noted that the property is 15,435 square feet for a variance of 4,565. Mr. Karpuska noted that a 4’ variance is required of the front setback and a 6’ variance is needed for the other setback for the garage.
Mr. Karpuska stated that the hardship was created when the Zone District Line was changed. He noted that typically the zone line is set on the street. He noted that fifteen years ago he was granted a variance to construct a second story on his home on the same street. He noted that 7 of 9 properties have two-story homes on them.
Ms. Palma submitted letters from her neighbors in support of the application. Chairman Speirs read them for the record.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Speirs called the Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 04-43 Steve Albert, 34 Lyme Street, variance to allow continued use of tables and benches outside of shop.
Chairman Speirs noted that a variance is required of Section 21.2.2. Ms. Brown stated that the Ice cream shop was approved as a home occupation. She noted that the applicant is requesting continued use of the existing tables and benches outside of the shop. Mr. Albert noted that his site plan shows five small tables. He noted that there are 6 benches currently in front, which he did not show on the site plan.
Ms. Brown noted that the site plan approved at the time of the application for home occupation shows benches and tables out front, although it has currently expanded, which is the reason for the variance. Mr. Albert stated that the lot is 11,326 square feet and noted that the property is in an R-15 Zone. He explained that the property was always commercial until approximately 10 years ago when it became a home occupation. Mr. Albert stated that the Historic District Commission overwhelming approved the use of the tables and benches in 2001. He explained that he recently received a Cease and Desist for expanding the number of tables and benches.
Chairman Speirs suggested that any approval limit the number of tables and benches. Mr. Albert stated that his hardship is that they need seating in order to run the ice cream shop. He noted that people like to sit outside on nice days and he believes that if they did not have outdoor seating they would lose fifty-percent of their business. He noted that there is one employee-break table inside. Chairman Speirs noted that the proposal is for 6 tables, 6 benches and 16 chairs. Mr. Moll questioned how many people can sit on each bench. Mr. Albert replied that three people could sit on each bench.
Peter Zallinger, 36 Lyme Street, stated that he is in favor of the application and considers the ice cream shop a positive aspect of the neighborhood. Abram Poole stated that he frequents the shop and feels it is nice to sit outdoors. He noted that it adds to Lyme Street and he is in favor of the application. Chairman Speirs read letters from the following supporters: McDermott, 32 Lyme Street; Barbara Perkins, Academy Lane; Diane McNeil, 8 Sill Lane; Kathy and Chris Munday; and Michael Rafemo.
Mr. Moll noted that the applicant has received Historic District approval.
No one present spoke in opposition to the proposal. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Speirs closed this Public Hearing.
ITEM 5: Public Hearing Case 04-42 Steve Brechtel, 45 White Sands Beach Road, Appeal of C&D to remove deck.
Chairman Speirs recused herself and Mr. Butcher was seated in her absence. Mr. Schellens acted as Chairman. Attorney Charles Andres was present to represent Steve Brechtel.
Attorney Andres stated that Mr. Brechtel could not be present this evening as his full-time residence is in Wisconsin. He distributed a handout to the Board members and noted that he would be referring to it in his presentation. Attorney Andres stated that the first item is a letter dated October 12, 2004 to Ann Brown which he will reference from time to time. He indicated that he would like the Board to read the copy of the definition of the term “terrace,” provided from the Zoning Regulations. Attorney Andres stated that the issue at hand is whether the patio area outside Mr. Brechtel’s home is a terrace under the Regulations because if it is a terrace it is excluded from coverage and therefore would be allowed.
Attorney Andres stated that the property has been in the Brechtel family since the 1950’s. He explained that Mr. Brechtel considered adding a deck in the back yard and Exhibit A provides some of the background on that application. Attorney Andres noted that Mr. Brechtel received incomplete information from the Zoning Office and spent $3,200.00 having his septic system moved. He noted that the zoning staff neglected to tell him about coverage. Attorney Andres noted that Mr. Brechtel then applied for a variance to get a deck which was denied. Mr. Schellens asked if Attorney Andres could present a copy of a permit application that was submitted at the time Mr. Brechtel moved his septic, which indicates his plan to build a wooden deck. Attorney Andres stated that Mr. Brechtel’s
contractor consulted with staff and he does not think the permits were actually pulled at that point in time.
Attorney Andres explained that after the variance was denied Mr. Brechtel spoke with Ann Brown about what he could build in lieu of the deck. He noted that it was Mr. Brechtel’s understanding that he could construct a patio area, provided it was under one foot which is essentially what Mr. Brechtel did. Attorney Andres stated that there was an existing 7’ x 7’ landing on the back of the house which he replaced with a 4.5’ x 11’ x 7’ landing for which he should have sought Zoning approval. He acknowledged that Mr. Brechtel did not apply for a Building Permit for this landing either. Attorney Andres stated that they are not appealing the Cease and Desist as it applies to this landing. He noted that the platform area constructed is in conformance with what Mr.
Brechtel was told he could do. Attorney Andres stated that the patio area meets the definition in the Regulations of a terrace. He noted that terraces are excluded from total coverage. Attorney Andres stated that terrace is defined as a surfaced area adjacent to a building which serves as an outdoor extension of the use of the building, which is open both vertically and horizontally, which does not exceed a height of 12” above the adjacent grade of the land. He noted that he believes the patio meets these criteria. Attorney Andres stated that the only question is, is this a surfaced area? He noted that the type of surface is not specified. Attorney Andres asked the Board to look at Exhibit D which is pictures of wooden terraces which he got off the internet. He noted that it is not unusual to have a wooden terrace.
Attorney Andres stated that coverage limitations really apply to impervious surfaces. He stated that a wooden terrace with holes in it would better promote coverage limitations because the water can seep through the deck, and concrete, which would be allowed, would be totally impervious. Attorney Andres requested that Mr. Brechtel not be asked to remove this terrace as they believe a person is entitled to rely on the Regulations. Mr. Butcher questioned whether the structure was attached to the building. Attorney Andres stated that he believes it is placed right on the ground. He noted that he is not sure that it is actually attached to anything, as he was told it was freestanding. Attorney Andres stated that the Board has to look at what the Regulations say. He stated that decks
and terraces are not mutually exclusive.
Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated that she received a complaint about this property and sent her Cease and Desist after inspecting the property. She noted that there was a higher and lower deck constructed without Zoning Permits. Ms. Brown noted that the property came before the Board for a variance to construct a very similar deck to what has been constructed. She noted that the variance request was denied. Ms. Brown stated that she does not believe that Mr. Brechtel came to the zoning office until after he moved his septic system as he was living out of the country. She explained that he called the Office several times and it is not clear how many times or who even spoke with him. Ms. Brown stated that when he eventually applied for a Zoning Permit his plan did not comply
with the Zoning Regulations.
Ms. Brown stated that after she sent the Cease and Desist, Mr. Brechtel called her and at that time she reminded him of conversations they had after the variance was denied, and even prior to that, of how concrete slabs, pavers, etc., would be allowed without a variance. She explained that in this phone conversation he told Ms. Brown that he did not want to use pavers because they were too expensive. Ms. Brown stated that she believes Mr. Brechtel was fully aware of what he was allowed to do and what he couldn’t do.
Ms. Brown stated that she believes she issued the Cease and Desist appropriately and indicated that she would like to review the Sections sighted on the Order. She noted that any carpentry work performed on the premises should have had a Zoning Permit and a Building Permit and for this reason alone, the Cease and Desist was in order. Ms. Brown stated that the following sections were cited: Section 2.1, a building or use cannot be changed except in conformity with the regulations; Section 3.1, no building or use can be changed until a Zoning Permit has been applied for and received; 51.2, a Zoning Permit Application has to be submitted prior to any work being done; 8.8.1, no nonconforming building may be added to except that the addition conforms with the Regulations; and 8.9.3, no building may be
enlarged and no new buildings may be added on a nonconforming lot. She noted that she believes all the sections were appropriately cited in the Cease and Desist Order. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Brechtel’s attorney has asked the Board to interpret the terms deck and terrace as they relate to the Zoning Regulations. She noted that all Zoning Regulations have gaps and inconsistencies and noted that historically terraces have been interpreted as not being structures and did not require Zoning Permits in residential circumstances and the footprint of the terrace is not counted toward building coverage or total coverage. Ms. Brown explained that terraces are made of stone or concrete or pavers. She noted that decks, even decks less than 1 foot in height, have historically been considered structures and require permits and the footprint of the deck is counted in building coverage.
Ms. Brown stated that the landing portion of the deck is in the setback, is higher than 1 foot from the grown and is over in coverage. She noted that the definition of structure makes it very clear that a deck is a structure. Ms. Brown explained that the definition of terrace would qualify it as a structure also, although historically it has not been considered a structure. Ms. Brown noted that a Zoning Permit was not obtained and no structures may be enlarged on a nonconforming lot without a variance. She noted that if what exists today is a structure and it was enlarged, it needs a variance.
Ms. Brown stated that Attorney Andres referenced Section 7.5.3, measurement of total coverage. She noted that total coverage is specific and exempts terraces. Ms. Brown pointed out that building coverage includes buildings and structures on a residential lot. She stated that the Regulations are very clear in the difference between decks and terraces in the flood zone, as structures in this zone must be flood proofed where a terrace would not have to be.
Attorney Andres stated that Ms. Brown has not stated that the terrace constructed by Mr. Brechtel does not meet the definition of terrace. He noted that Mr. Brechtel should have applied for a permit. Attorney Andres stated that the Board has the ability to modify a Cease and Desist Order or fashion a remedy. He noted that the terrace should be allowed to remain because it meets the definition of terrace and does not count toward coverage.
Ms. Brown stated that if one goes by the strict definition of structure then a terrace is a structure and counts toward coverage. She noted that the applicant is asking for the best and the best. Ms. Brown stated that during the variance hearing Mr. Brechtel made the argument that his deck, which was not a terrace, would be more environmentally sensitive then a terrace because it would let the water infiltrate better. She noted that he acknowledged that a deck was different then a terrace at that time. Ms. Brown noted that historically, decks and terraces have not been synonymous.
Attorney Andres stated that Mr. Brechtel should be able to rely on the definition of terrace and noted that Mr. Brechtel constructed what he believed to be a terrace. He stated that the definition he is using for terrace is in the Zoning Regulations.
Attorney Eric Knapp, representing Ms. Brown, stated that the failure to apply for the original Zoning Permit has put Mr. Brechtel in a situation in which he is trying to work backwards to rectify. He indicated that Attorney Andres has conceded that a permit should have been applied for and is conceding that the landing has been enlarged. Attorney Eric Knapp stated that all that is in dispute is the wooden deck for which Ms. Brown has testified to the historical understanding of what it means. He noted that if the Zoning Commission was unhappy with the historical interpretation, they have had many years to fashion a solution to it and have not chose to do so. Attorney Knapp stated that one has to presume that the Zoning Commission is happy with the way things are now. He stated that there has
to be a level of reliance with history.
Attorney Knapp stated that deference should be given to the Commission that writes the Regulations and the person that enforces the Regulations. He noted that the Board would be treading on dangerous ground if they begun changing definitions at this time. Attorney Knapp stated that the Board can overturn Ms. Brown’s decision entirely, they can approve of her decision entirely, or they can modify the terms of what she has done by indicating that she is correct on some items and incorrect in some items.
Attorney Andres stated that he is seeking a modification to the Cease and Desist Order. He indicated that he will apply retroactively for a Zoning Permit for the work performed and agrees that the landing may need to be adjusted. Attorney Andres stated that it is his claim that the lower platform area meets the definition of terrace and does not count toward coverage.
Ms. Brown stated that terrace by definition is a structure and is not exempt from building coverage. She noted that it would be exempt from total coverage. Ms. Brown stated that if the Board were to consider this structure a terrace so that it may remain, she would need guidance on what to do with coverage. Ms. Brown stated that Attorney Andres is asking the Board to change history with respect to the definition of terrace, but not to change history with respect to building coverage.
Mr. Kotzan questioned whether Attorney Andres considered Mr. Brechtel’s terrace a structure. Attorney Andres replied that he believes it is excluded from coverage. He indicated that as for being a structure, even if it is a deck, it is allowed because it meets setbacks. He noted that terraces are excluded from both setbacks and coverage. Attorney Andres stated that even if the Board were to consider it a structure it would be conforming as long as they considered it a terrace.
Mr. Butcher questioned whether the structure is attached to the house. Attorney Andres replied that it is not. Ms. Brown stated that she does not think anyone knows whether it is or not because there were no Zoning or Building Permits issued for the structure. She noted that the steps down from the higher deck rest on the lower deck and could possibly be nailed in.
Mr. Moll noted that most of the members present this evening were present at the Public Hearing for Mr. Brechtel’s original variance request. He submitted the minutes of that meeting (October 14, 2003) for the record.
Hearing no further comments, Mr. Schellens called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 6: Open Voting Session
Case 04-34 Frank & Janet Maratta, 85 Swan Avenue
This item was tabled to the November 9, 2004 Regular Meeting.
Case 04-33 Joan Byer, 61 Breen Avenue
This application was withdrawn by the applicant.
Case 04-39 Robert & Dawn McCarthy, 85 Flat Rock Hill Road
Chairman Speirs noted that this is an appeal of the ZEO to allow a 15’ x 10’ building for livestock on 2.9 acres. She noted that the Regulations require 3 acres in order to have livestock.
Mr. Schellens noted that in his presentation Mr. McCarthy failed to make his case. He noted that the applicant did not provide an A-2 Survey to dispute Ms. Brown’s determination of his lot size and also testified that the lot is 2.92 acres. Mr. Schellens stated that he believes Ms. Brown acted appropriately in this matter.
Chairman Speirs stated that the Zoning Ordinance specifically specifies 3 acres of land is required for the keeping of livestock. She agreed that Ms. Brown was correct in upholding the Regulations.
Mr. Moll stated that Mr. McCarthy indicated various ways to round off numbers to get to three. He noted that the Regulations are clear in stating that 3 acres are required.
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Tom Schellens and voted unanimously to uphold the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s denial to allow a building for livestock on 2.9 acres, 85 Flat Rock Hill Road, Robert & Dawn McCarthy.
Mr. Butcher voted in place of Mr. Kotzan for this vote.
Case 04-43 Steve Albert, 34 Lyme Street
Chairman Speirs stated that the variance is requested to allow continued use of tables and benches outside of shop under Section 21.2.2. She noted that the applicant requested the use of 6 small tables and 6 benches and 16 chairs in the front of his shop. Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant testified that customers, neighbors and townspeople use the benches and tables for coffee and ice-cream. She noted that there was overwhelming neighbor support for Mr. Albert. Chairman Speirs noted that the hardship provided was that the business has prospered with this outdoor activity and is unique. She noted that there is no indoor seating.
Mr. Schellens stated that the Board should be specific if an approval is granted as he feels this plan maximizes the use of the property. Chairman Speirs agreed.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow continued use of tables and benches outside of shop with the condition that the exterior seating is limited to 6 benches, 6 tables and 16 chairs.
Chairman Speirs stated that this proposal is within the intent of the Plan of Zoning as it is accommodating the townspeople. Mr. Kotzan stated that the use is very appropriate for the area.
Case 04-41 Coleen Palma, 304 Canty Lane
Chairman Speirs stated the applicant requested variances to construct a second floor over the existing structure (27’ x 42’). She noted that the property is split between the R-10 and R-20 Zones and contains 15,435 square feet. Chairman Speirs stated that the existing and proposed coverage is 14 percent. She noted that the variances are request of Sections 21.3.1, 21.3.2, 21.3.7 and 21.3.9. Chairman Speirs stated that the applicant purchased the house in 2003 and the house was constructed in 1972. She noted that the hardship provided was that the lot is split between two zones and if it were solely in the R-10 zone she would be allowed two stories. Chairman Speirs noted that the other hardship provided was that the property is a corner lot and must meet two front-yard
setbacks.
Chairman Speirs noted that this property is one of the largest in the area. She explained that the property is year-round, as are many of the homes on Canty Lane. Chairman Speirs stated that the height of the proposed structure is 25 feet.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the applicant testified that seven of the nine properties on Canty Lane are two-story homes. He noted that Ms. Palma was not able to purchase additional land from her neighbors.
A motion was made by Susanne Stutts, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a second story addition to dwelling as per the approved plans and with a height limit of 25 feet.
Chairman Speirs stated that the proposal is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. She noted that the majority of the lot is in the R-10 Zone. Chairman Speirs pointed out that almost all of the surrounding homes are two stories.
Case 04-42 Steve Brechtel, 45 White Sands Beach Road
Chairman Speirs left for the evening at this time. Mr. Schellens explained that the applicant has appealed a C&D issued to remove the deck at his property on 45 White Sands Beach Road. Mr. Schellens stated that it is his belief that a terrace is masonry. He noted that although it is not spelled out clearly in the definitions, Ms. Brown acted consistent with the historic handling of this issue.
Mr. Schellens stated that had the applicant come to the Building Department for approval he would have had to provide plans to show that the deck was constructed properly, i.e., proper spans, etc. He noted that providing plans would not have been required had the applicant used pavers. Mr. Schellens indicated that because Mr. Brechtel did not come to the Town for permission, there was no intervening authority.
Mr. Schellens stated that the definition of structure precludes sidewalks. Mr. Moll stated that it does not preclude terraces. Mr. Kotzan reminded the Board that Attorney Andres noted that the higher deck did require a variance. He noted that this should have been obvious to the applicant who went ahead with the project without permits. Mr. Kotzan stated that Mr. Brechtel should have had an approval before construction.
Mr. Kotzan stated that he reviewed the pictures in the file and it appears to him that the structure is attached to the building. Mr. Moll pointed out that the hot tub appears to be constructed into the deck and the hot tub would count toward coverage, even if the structure constructed was found to be a terrace. He reiterated that the applicant knew that permits were required.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to uphold the ZEO in the appeal of her issuance of C&D to remove deck, 45 White Sands Beach Road, Steve Brechtel
ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes
No action taken.
ITEM 7: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
None.
ITEM : Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Kip Kotzan. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
