APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, June 6, 2006
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Susanne Stutts (Chairman), Richard Moll, Tom Schellens, Joseph St. Germain (Alternate, seated for Kip Kotzan), Wendy Brainerd (Alternate, seated for Cases 06-23 and 06-24), and Judy McQuade (Alternate, seated for Cases 06-22 and 06-25).
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Mr. Moll apologized for missing the last Regular Meeting and indicated that it is up to each Board member to inform the Chairman if they are not able to attend a meeting. He noted that there are no checklists on the applications to indicate that all required items are contained in the files. Mr. Moll asked for Ms. Stutts’ assurance that each case is complete. Mr. Schellens indicated that he too missed last month’s meeting and apologized for not calling the Chairman.
ITEM 1: Public Hearing Case 06-22 Timothy Denison, 78 Lyme Street, variance to construct addition .
Timothy Denison was present to explain his application. Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with the following Sections: 8.8.1, no enlargement to a structure which does not conform to the requirements of the regulations; 8.9.3, no enlargement on a nonconforming lot; 7.4, setbacks; and 21.3.9, minimum setback from other property line, 35’ required, variance of 22.46’ requested.
Mr. Denison stated that he would like to construct a potting/storage shed. He indicated that currently they are not able to use their 1.5 car garage for cars; it is used for storage. Mr. Deninson stated that they would like to connect the existing garage with the existing detached barn with a new storage building. He explained that the barn will be used as another living area for their children. Mr. Denison stated that they would like to use the existing garage for their vehicles and the potting/storage shed for storage.
Mr. Denison stated that the current buildings are in the setback, which is their hardship. He noted that there was supposed to be a visual buffer between his property and the Art Academy which was never installed. Mr. Denison indicated that this too is a hardship. Chairman Stutts indicated that the Denison’s could construct a fence. He indicated that he could not landscape in this area because the barn is literally on the property line. Mr. Denison stated that installing a fence may not be possible because the barn is on the property line. Mr. Denison stated that his wife was supposed to be here this evening, but she is running late. He indicated that she provided the hardship on the application.
Mr. Denison stated that he purchased the property in 2000 and in 2001 they did a complete renovation. He indicated that they received a variance for the breezeway.
Chairman Stutts noted that the property is located in an R-40 Zone requiring 40,000 square feet and the property is 20,939 square feet. She noted that the requirement for lot coverage is 10 percent and 12 percent exists, with 14 percent proposed.
Mr. Denison stated that the roof of the new structure will have a gambrel type slope facing toward his yard. Chairman Stutts questioned what the barn is currently used for. Mr. Denison stated that it is currently empty and rotting away. He indicated that it is probably the oldest structure on the property and they would like to restore it. Mr. Denison stated that it will be used as another living area for his kids. He noted that there will be no plumbing in this new living area.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the property is in the Historic District. Mr. Denison replied that it is. He explained that he appeared before the Historic District Commission yesterday for this project and they were approved. Mr. Moll questioned whether there was any discussion as far as the previous use of the barn structure. Mr. Denison stated that his wife went to that meeting so he does not know what was discussed, although he believes it was not. Mr. Moll indicated that it is out of the ZBA’s purview, but he was inside the building before and he was lead to believe that it was an artist studio at one point in time. Mr. Denison stated that it was an artist studio at one time, which is why there is the large north-facing window. Mr. Moll asked if the Historic District
Commission had any concern with removing the window because of the historic aspect. Mr. Denison reiterated that the Historic District approved his application. He indicated that if the removal of the window is a stumbling block for this Commission, he would be willing to keep the window. Mr. Denison stated that no one knows when the window was installed. Mr. Denison stated that the chimney was installed by Senator Dodd in the 1960’s. Chairman Stutts questioned when the house was constructed. Mr. Denison stated that the main house was constructed in 1726 and the addition off the back was constructed around 1900.
Chairman Stutts stated that the addition will make the house look very bulky from the Art Academy side. She noted that it changes the whole character of the building from a house with an outbuilding to just a large mass in the setback. Mr. Schellens stated that the proposed structure will block the rather industrial look of the Academy. He noted that on that side of the property it is not well screened. Mr. Schellens stated that the proposal has a design similar to the Art Academy.
Chairman Stutts read the following hardship from the application: “Proposals are minimal and only extend minimally into setback. Lot and original structures predate Zoning. Hardship is unique because the lot and structures are nonconforming and pre-date Zoning. Most other properties on Lyme Street are in the R-15 zone.”
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Pubic Hearing to a close.
ITEM 2: Public Hearing Case 06-23 Lyman & Lois Hoops, 7 Kinner Avenue, variance to construct a 4’ x 26’ first floor addition and a 367 sq. ft. second story addition.
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with Section 8.8.1, no enlargement of a nonconforming structure except in a conforming location; 8.9.3, no building or other structure located on a nonconforming lot shall be enlarged, and 7.4, setbacks, narrow street setback requires 60’, proposal is 26.5 feet, for a variance of 33.5 feet. Lois Hoops and her builder, Dick Gunther, were present to explain the application. Mr. Gunther stated the Hoops would like to put a second bedroom in their one-bedroom house. He explained that because the setbacks are tight, they are looking to add the bedroom on the second floor. He explained that the 4’ x 26’ addition on the side will contain the staircase, so that floor area is not lost inside the existing structure.
Chairman Stutts stated that the current house is 16.5 feet in height and the proposal is 22 feet. She noted that the existing home is 844 square feet and they are proposing 1295 square feet. She noted that the hardship provided on the application is that the lot predates Zoning and there is no land available to purchase.
Mrs. Hoops stated that they have septic approval. Mr. St. Germain questioned whether Kinner Avenue is a private road. Mrs. Hoops replied that it is and that it is owned by every property owner on the road. She indicated that she has owned the house for 32 years. Mrs. Hoops stated that it is a year-round home. Ms. Brainerd noted that the existing outbuilding is not on the site plan. Mr. Gunther stated that the Assessor’s Card indicates that the shed is 96 square feet (8’ x 12’). It was determined by the Board that the property was still within the allowed coverage.
Joan Weeks indicated that she is the neighbor on the side of the property where the addition will be. She indicated that the house will look better and be a real improvement to the neighborhood. Mrs. Weeks stated that she has the largest house on the street with 1,500 square feet. Chairman Stutts noted that most of the houses on the street do seem to have a little bit of a second floor.
Another gentlemen spoke in favor of the application.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 3: Public Hearing Case 06-24 Fred & Andrea Fenton, 2 Smith Neck Road, variance to construct a dormer.
Mr. and Mrs. Fenton, along with their builder Preston Frantz, were present to explain the application.
Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with Section 8.8.1, no enlargement unless in a conforming location; 7.4 setbacks, and 21.3.7, street setback of 50’ required, variances of 24’ (Smith Neck) and 10’ (Shore Road) required. Mr. Fenton stated that their house is a cape and the only real bedrooms are on the second floor. He noted that currently there are two bedrooms on the second floor, one being the master bedroom and the other is shared by his two boys. Mr. Fenton explained that in between these two bedrooms there is a door that goes into the attic. He indicated that they would like to add a dormer so that they can have a third bedroom (12’ x 14’) on the second floor.
Mr. Fenton explained that as part of the project they will be changing the front entry, which is currently considered a bedroom. He explained that they are not adding an additional bedroom.
Mr. Fenton stated that their hardship is that the property predates Zoning and there is no other land to purchase. Mr. Frantz stated that there is also a safety issue because the house is located so close to the road. He indicated that they cannot utilize the space on the first level for a bedroom. Mr. Fenton stated that just prior to purchasing the property a car did crash into the house. He indicated that he would like all his children on the same floor as he and his wife.
Chairman Stutts noted that a previous appeal before the Board allowed them a 6’ fence in the front setback. Mr. Fenton noted that another appeal denied them the right to keep chickens on less than 3 acres.
Mr. Schellens questioned the floor area. Chairman Stutts noted that Ms. Brown did not indicate that there is a floor area ratio problem.
Ms. Brainerd noted that the application indicates that there are currently five bedrooms in the house. Mr. Fenton explained that there are two bedrooms upstairs, and downstairs there are three rooms that are counted as bedrooms. He noted that they use one as an office, one as a playroom and there is a third room. Mr. Frantz stated that this third room has to be walked through to get to the other two rooms.
Chairman Stutts stated that the dormer will stick right up and out into Route 156. She noted that this cannot be screened because there is not enough land out front to plant anything tall enough. Chairman Stutts stated that the dormer will look quite bulky. Mr. Fenton stated that the rendering does not show a bulky dormer. Mrs. Fenton pointed out that the dormer matches the other side of the house. Mr. Fenton stated that the dormer goes to the existing roof ridge.
Mr. Schellens noted that the vision appraisal card shows two bedrooms on the first floor and two on the second floor. He noted that the application indicates five bedrooms. Mr. Schellens stated that the previous assessor’s card indicates three total bedrooms. Mrs. Fenton stated that there intention is to have three bedrooms on the second floor. She indicated that when they purchased the property they were told it is a five bedroom house because every room that has a closet is considered a bedroom. Mr. Schellens noted that the Health Department signed off on a five bedroom home.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
ITEM 4: Public Hearing Case 06-25 Thomas & Sherry Johnston, 4 Lieutenant River Lane, variance to construct a two-story addition.
Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with Section 8.8.1, no enlargement of a nonconforming structure unless it’s in a conforming location; 21.3.9, minimum setback, 15’ required, northeast corner .78 foot variance required; and 21.3.5, maximum number of stories, 2.5 permitted, 3 stories proposed.
Attorney James Spallone was present to represent Thomas and Sherry Johnston. Jill Couette, architect, and Sherry Johnston were also present. Attorney Spallone stated that the structure, as it exists, invades the setback by slightly over 9 inches.
Jill Couette, architect, explained the project. She noted that the existing two and one-half story carriage house goes over the setback by 9 inches. She noted that the bulk of the enlargement is complying. Ms. Couette stated that the existing roof is currently a hip roof on the end and they would like to change that in the area of the setback. She explained that they would like to add a gable roof to match the roof line of the main structure. She noted that this change in roof line breaks into the setback slightly at the corner in question.
Chairman Stutts noted that dormers are being added to the roof of the carriage house. Ms. Couette noted that this area is not in the setback. She noted that they have added the dormers for aesthetic reasons, in addition to getting light and ventilation into the attic. Ms. Couette noted that she does not understand why it is being considered a third floor. Mr. Schellens pointed out that at least half of it is open to the second floor and the remaining area does not have headroom. Mr. St. Germain stated that Ms. Brown indicated to him that the Regulations are very unclear and are subject to interpretation regarding the number of stories. Ms. Couette stated that there will be no living area in the attic. Mr. Schellens noted that even if it were to be considered a third floor it is
pre-existing and the applicant is removing approximately one-third of the floor area. Ms. Couette stated that there is a 2.5 foot wide area in the center of the attic that has 7 foot headroom. She noted that the stairway to the attic is also pre-existing.
Ms. Couette noted that there was a four bay garage. She noted that they are renovating part of one of the existing bays into the apartment area and will be adding another bay with a studio above it.
Mr. Schellens explained that the setback of the corner of the house is pre-existing. Ms. Couette noted that the carriage house was constructed in 1929. Mr. Schellens noted that they are modifying the roof at that corner, which is requiring a variance. Ms. Couette noted that the eave of the roof will be in the setback. Mr. Schellens noted that the Planning Commission allowed the subdivision of this property about seven years ago and found it to be conforming, otherwise they would not have allowed it to be divided. He stated that he is very familiar with this property.
Attorney Spallone stated that the hardship is that the carriage house was constructed in 1929 and the invasion into the setback by 9.36 inches creates a small nonconformity. He indicated that this small encroachment requires a variance from the Board. Attorney Spallone stated that the hardship is that there is no way to update, renovate, change or expand this area of the house without obtaining a variance. He noted that this is unique to this particular property because of the way the structure is situated on the property with a minor intrusion into the setback. Attorney Spallone stated that because the intrusion into the setback is so minimal, the granting of a variance would not substantially effect the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning Plan. He noted that the application complies in all
other respects.
Ms. Brainerd questioned when the property was purchased by the current owners. Mrs. Johnston stated that she and her husband purchased it June 1, 2005. Ms. Brainerd noted that the Johnston’s also own the neighboring property. She pointed out that across the street from the carriage house there is a 1 ½ story cape owned by Sandra Rube, and directly across is another 1 ½ story home owned by Deborah Ames. Ms. Brainerd noted that these are very small scale houses and the proposal is a very large scale house. Mr. Schellens stated that on the corner of Ferry and Lieutenant River there is a large three-story home. Ms. Stutts noted that the carriage house is very long and the dormers shorten the look of the structure. Mr. Schellens agreed, and noted that the proposal is a
great improvement to what currently exists.
Mr. Moll questioned why the architect did not make a small design change so that they did not have to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Spallone stated that the corner is within the existing building. Mr. Moll stated that if nine inches of the building were removed, it wouldn’t be a problem. Attorney Spallone stated that that may not be feasible structurally. Mr. Moll questioned the percent of renovation to the structure. Ms. Couette replied that it would be approximately 30 percent. Mr. Moll questioned the owner’s intent for the property. Mrs. Johnston stated that they plan to use it for guest rooms and as a studio for her art. She noted that the lots are separate. Mr. Moll noted that that they could sell the carriage house tomorrow.
Mrs. Johnston indicated that they would not and that they plan to keep it in their family. She noted that she would like to preserve as much as she can of the original carriage house.
Jeanne Potter stated that they lived across from the Johnston’s in Georgetown Historic District and they redid their home there. She noted that they care deeply about the history and preservation of homes. Ms. Potter stated that the Johnston’s are creating a family compound. Robert Potter agreed with his wife’s comments and stated that the Johnston’s take meticulous care of their properties. He stated that they are taking a beautiful home and doing everything they can to maintain and preserve and improve the property.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time.
ITEM 5: Open Voting Session
Case 06-22 Timothy Denison, 78 Lyme Street
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants are asking for a variance of 22.46 feet for the side setback for a proposed addition. She stated that the proposal does not comply with 8.8.1, 8.9.3, 7.4, and 21.3.9. Chairman Stutts stated that there is also a lot coverage issue. She noted that 10 percent coverage is allowed, 12 percent exists and 14 percent is proposed.
Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the structure predates zoning and that most other properties on Lyme Street are in the R-15 Zone. She noted that Mr. Denison stated at the Public Hearing that the Academy’s driveway makes their property very public and there is no buffer. Chairman Stutts stated that Mrs. Denison has provided a copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic District Commission.
Mr. Moll questioned whether the outbuilding is identified as an artist’s studio on the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Schellens noted that the outbuilding will be used as living area and the new structure will be a storage building. He noted that the outbuilding has a lot of character, which is probably the reason for this. Chairman Stutts stated that if a property is already 2 percent over in coverage and needs privacy, they do not need to add 354 square feet of building, they could put up a fence which would not increase the coverage on the lot. She indicated that it is not necessary to construct a large structure for privacy when a fence will do.
Chairman Stutts noted that the hardship provided on the application is that the structure predates Zoning. She stated that this is not unique as it applies to many properties in Town. Mr. St. Germain stated that Mr. Denison stated that the privacy issue was a byproduct of getting the storage building/potting shed. He noted that he is not adding the shed for privacy, it is a secondary benefit.
Chairman Stutts stated that she goes in and out of the Academy frequently and she is very familiar with the look of this house. She indicated that the house is very long and bulky on the front and this proposal will make it long and bulky on the side as well. She indicated that the lot coverage is a big issue. Mr. Schellens indicated that this property should be treated as an R-15 lot because most other lots on Lyme Street are in the R-15 Zone. He noted that the applicant could construct a 10’ x 10’ outbuilding not attached to the existing structures and only have to meet half the setbacks. Ms. McQuade stated that he could not because of the coverage issue. Mr. Schellens stated that the coverage issue is the real issue. Mr. St. Germain agreed that coverage is the
issue. Mr. Schellens acknowledge the applicant’s need for storage and privacy. Ms. McQuade agreed, but noted the coverage issue.
Mr. Moll stated that he is concerned about the historic aspect of the existing outbuilding. Chairman Stutts noted that that is not the Board’s concern as the applicant has received approval from Historic District.
Ms. Brainerd stated that she agrees with Ms. Stutts regarding the mass of the structure. Mr. Moll stated that the old Byce property is another example of great size and volume in that area. He noted that this architecture is typical of older homes. Ms. McQuade noted the size of Lyme Academy. Mr. Schellens noted that he believes it is more sensitive to the property to put the storage building where it is proposed rather than stuff it into the left-hand side of his property in a conforming location. Mr. Moll agreed.
Ms. McQuade indicated that she felt less weight should be given to the bulk of this project because of the bulk of the Academy. She noted that the applicant does not live next door to a typical residence. Mr. Schellens agreed and stated that the Zoning Commission should take more effort in protecting the abutting neighbors of large public developments such as Lyme Academy. Mr. St. Germain stated that Lyme Academy should have been made to do the landscaping they were required to. Ms. Brainerd stated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer should enforce the landscaping that was required.
Mr. Schellens stated that he believes much of the historical significance of the building was lost around the time when Senator Dodd added the fireplace.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens and seconded by Joseph St. Germain to grant the necessary variances to construct an addition as per the approved plans. Motion did not carry, 3:2, with Susanne Stutts and Richard Moll voting against.
Reasons (Approval):
1. Adequate hardship provided
2. No cellar storage
3. Relief and privacy from view of Academy
4. Building design conforms to that of Lyme Academy
Reasons (Denial):
1. Coverage is exceeded.
2. Inadequate historic recognition of outbuilding
3. Congested, bulky structure
4. Privacy can be obtained with a fence
(Members voting: Stutts, Moll, Schellens, St. Germaine and McQuade)
Case 06-23 Lyman & Lois Hoops, 7 Kinner Avenue
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicants would like to add a 4’ x 26’ foot addition along the side to accommodate a stairway to a second floor, and create 367 new square feet of living area on the second floor. She noted that the lot size is 10,000 in a 40,000 zone. She noted that there are many homes on lots of similar size in the area. Chairman Stutts stated that the narrow road setback requires 60’ from the road and a variance of 33.5 feet is required. She noted that the existing house is 844 square feet and 16.5 feet high. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal would increase the square footage of the house to 1295 and the height would be 22 feet. She noted that the number of bedrooms would increase to two. Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship
provided is that the lot predates Zoning and there is no land available to purchase.
Mr. St. Germain stated that all the homeowners own the private road which means the Hoops own part of the road. He indicated that that may change the setback variance required.
Chairman Stutts noted that two neighbors spoke in favor of the applicant, one of which was the neighbor next door to the addition. Mr. Schellens noted that 844 square feet is minimal for a year round home. He noted that there is not a coverage or floor area issue. Chairman Stutts stated that the major issue is the setback from the private road. She noted that the proposal does not have much of an impact on the outside of the home, yet it makes a huge improvement to the livability of the inside of the house. She indicated that she feels this is still a starter home for some one.
A motion was made by Wendy Brainerd, seconded by Richard Moll and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a 4’ x 26’ first floor addition and a 367 sq. ft. second story addition as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. 10,000 square foot zone juxtaposed in the 40,000 square foot zone.
2. Majority of homes in the neighborhood are similar.
3. Small addition will increase livability of the house.
4. Meets the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
(Members voting: Stutts, Moll, Schellens, St. Germain, Brainerd)
Case 06-24 Fred & Andrea Fenton, 2 Smith Neck Road
Chairman Stutts noted that the property is 1.2 acres. She explained that a 50 foot street setback is required and because of the existing location of the home, they require a variance of 24’ for the dormer on Smith Neck Road and a 10’ variance on Shore Road. Chairman Stutts stated that the dormer addition will contain a third upstairs bedroom. She noted that the hardship provided is that the house was constructed 100 years ago on a corner lot and the addition will not be visible from existing homes. Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant indicated there will be no increase in footprint, height, or number of bedrooms. She noted that the applicant also indicated that there was a safety issue in having the children in downstairs bedrooms.
Chairman Stutts stated that the applicant indicated that they currently have five bedrooms, two up and three down. She noted that the proposal adds a bedroom on the second floor and eliminates one on the first floor.
Mr. Moll stated that the variance they were given for the fence provides privacy for the bottom half of the house. He indicated that the existing large trees will probably block the dormer. Mr. Moll noted that at some point in time a car traveled into the house and the applicant would not want one of their children to be in a bedroom downstairs. He stated that this is a safety issue that should be considered because of the amount of traffic and the speed of the cars traveling down Shore Road.
Mr. Moll pointed out that the Assessor’s Cards go from three bedrooms in the 1990’s to four bedrooms in 2000. He noted that the application indicates five bedrooms. Mr. Moll suggested a condition that indicates that the number of bedrooms not exceed five. Mr. Schellens agreed and noted that Mr. Rose approved the septic system for a five bedroom home.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Joseph St. Germain and voted unanimously to construct a dormer as per the approved plans and with the following condition:
1. Number of bedrooms not to exceed five.
Reasons:
1. Meets the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Resolves a safety issue in allowing three bedrooms on second floor.
3. No increase in footprint.
4. Dormer not visible from neighboring homes.
(Members voting: Stutts, Moll, Schellens, St. Germain, Brainerd)
Case 06-25 Thomas & Sherry Johnston, 4 Lieutenant River Lane
Chairman Stutts stated that the variance is required to construct a second floor addition. She noted that the northwest corner of the existing home is 9 inches into the setback requiring a variance of .78 of a foot. Chairman Stutts noted that a variance is also requested for a three story structure because of dormers being installed in the existing attic. She noted that the hardship provided was that there is no other way to change the existing structure without a variance being granted. Chairman Stutts noted that the home will be 26 feet high and 78’ long. She noted that the bedrooms are being decreased from three to two. Chairman Stutts stated that the Potter’s spoke in favor of the application, although they do not live in the neighborhood.
Mr. Schellens stated that in the area of nonconformity the applicant is simply changing the roof from a hip roof to a pitched roof. Chairman Stutts noted that the main roof is not being enlarged and the proposed dormers improve the look of the structure. Ms. McQuade noted that the proposed structure is not three stories because the attic is not being enlarged, there is not adequate headroom and one third of the flooring is being removed. Mr. Schellens agreed that the dormers compliment the look of the structure and will add light and ventilation.
Mr. Schellens noted that the Planning Commission allowed this estate to be broken into three parcels, one of which is this carriage house. He noted that the proposal is a modest addition on a conforming lot. He noted that 2,400 square feet of living space is also modest. Ms. Stutts noted that the structure is not visible from the road.
Ms. Brainerd stated that the home is extremely visible from the road. She stated that the structure is very incompatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Brainerd stated that there are two one and one-half story capes directly across the street from this home. She acknowledged the small nonconformities and questioned whether a requirement could be added to require more trees across the front. Mr. St. Germain noted that there were no neighbors present speaking against. Mr. Schellens pointed out that there are other large homes in the neighborhood.
Mr. Moll noted that the owners are replacing the existing cesspool with a conforming septic system.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade, and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a two-story addition as per the approved plans.
Reasons:
1. Meets the intent of the Plan of Zoning.
2. Minimal variance requested.
(Members voting: Stutts, Moll, Schellens, St. Germain, McQuade)
ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes
Mr. Moll stated that at the June Regular Meeting there will be two cases presented by Attorney Mattern. He noted that the Board is approving minutes tonight from January 30, 2006, an evening when Attorney Mattern presented another case which he subsequently appealed. Mr. Moll stated that Attorney Mattern quoted case law in his presentation. He suggested that the Board be prepared. Mr. Schellens stated that it is difficult to ask the Board to interpret the law. Mr. Moll indicated that the Board needs time to decipher the cases that are presented to them because no two cases are exactly alike.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 30, 2006 Special Meeting as clarified.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2006 Regular Meeting as clarified.
A motion was made by Tom Schellens, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2006 Regular Meeting.
ITEM 7: Any New or Old Business to come before said meeting.
None.
ITEM 8: Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m. on a motion by Tom Schellens and seconded by Judy McQuade. So voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Clerk
| 
