OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUATION OF JUNE 18, 2013, MEETING
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals continued their Regular Meeting of June 18, 2013, to Wednesday, June 19 2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Mary Stone, Secretary, Kip Kotzan, and Arthur Sibley. Also present was Richard Smith, alternate and Kim Barrows, Clerk.
Chairman Stutts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Case 13-19 A – 50 Shore Road, Randy Nixon, appellant - Appeal of Zoning Enforcement Officer ruling regarding an accessory structure on the property without a Zoning Compliance Permit Application.
Michael Ziska was present to represent the appellants. He explained that a structure was built on the neighboring property of his clients. Attorney Ziska stated that if it were deemed a structure by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, it would not have been approved. He noted that the Zoning Enforcement Officer determined that it was not a structure and therefore not subject to the Zoning Regulations. He explained that she allowed it to remain based on the fact that the definition of structure includes wheels. Attorney Ziska stated that they contend that it is a structure and ask that the Board overturn the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Ms. Lage presented a package of documents to show the physical aspects of the structure. She indicated that the first set of photographs shows the structure going up. Attorney Ziska noted that the properties adjoin one another in the R-40 zone. He stated that the first photos shown were entitled “photos taken before wheels were added to the structure.” He stated that the pipes shown are the metal pipes that constitute the frame; the green item added is a construction tarp.
Attorney Ziska stated that the next pictures are entitled “wheels, detail of structure.” He noted that the first picture shows wheels attached. Ms. Lage stated that she was told by the Zoning Enforcement Officer that when the wheels where added it is no longer a structure. Ms. Lage stated that there are boards underneath the wheels so it will not sink into the ground. Ms. Lage described the next photo which she said shows that the structure is located in the wetlands. She indicated that fill was added. Ms. Lage stated that the structure on the left in the picture is an accessory shed that she will talk about later.
She presented another set of documents entitled “structure placed at 50 Shore Road.” Ms. Lage stated that the lot should be 40,000 square feet and is only 15,000 square feet and is therefore nonconforming. Ms. Lage stated that the property is 100’ x 150’. Attorney Ziska stated that on Page 7 one can see two brown colored structures and noted that the second structure is the shed. Ms. Lage pointed out her house and the windows from which she took the photographs on the side closest to the lot at issue.
Ms. Lage explained that Page is a wetlands map she got from the Zoning Enforcement Officer and noted that the area colored red is the lot in question; she stated that at a minimum it is in the tidal wetlands. She explained that the creek goes up to the country club, under the railroad tracks and to Route 156. Ms. Lage stated that Page 8 is the Town Tax Map.
Ms. Lage stated that Page 9 is the FEMA Map which was taken from on-line, showing property is located in an AE zone, 100 year flood zone. She explained Page 10 is flood zone information which was taken from the town website. Ms. Lage noted that you type in an address and it shows whether a property is in the flood zone shown in orange and the pinker color is the 500 year storm. She stated that Page 11 is a site map of the property and he natural resources on the property.
Attorney Ziska stated that he understands the Board has received certain documents. Ms. Barrows stated that the applicant has had every opportunity to review the file. He asked that the items submitted this evening be made part of the record.
Attorney Ziska stated that there were some original emails in the file dated March 13, 2013, in which Ms. Lage expressed concern regarding the structure, along with copies of photographs; an email dated 4-2-13 from Ann Brown stating that she is in the process of sending a notice of violation and requesting a zoning application; then several more emails from Ms. Lage following up; finally an email dated 4-18-13 from Ann Brown noting that the neighbor has cured the problem by adding wheels to the structure so she has closed the enforcement file.
Attorney Ziska stated that Mr. Nixon requested clarification for the basis of her determination that no zoning permit was required. He stated that her response, dated 5-6-13, indicated that it was because of Section 3.2.189 of the Zoning Regulations, the definition of structure. Attorney Ziska provided the Board copies of certain sections of the zoning regulations. He stated that the argument is that anything with wheels is not a structure. Attorney Ziska stated that anything which is constructed or erected and the use of which requires more or less permanent location or ground or water areas or attachment to something having permanent location on ground or water areas not however including wheels. He stated that the definition is split. He stated that the first one states more or less
permanent and the second part says permanent and mentions wheels. It is obvious by the definition that the Zoning Commission is saying the intention is that if something is going to be basically staying in one place, not intended to be moved from place to place, then it is a structure. He stated that the more or less permanent means that it does not have to be permanently attached to the ground. He noted that artwork and things of that sort can be considered structures and noted that some signs are considered structures even though they can be moved. Attorney Ziska stated that the second part of the definition might refer to a permanent shed, with a large moving device and the device would be considered a structure even though it could be taken on and off. Attorney Ziska stated that looking at these definitions, the interpretation given is understandable in a sense, unless you take it apart as he did. He indicated to prove that he would like them
to look at the definition for trailer – A trailer or mobile home, off or on wheels, but not otherwise attached to a foundation or otherwise capable of relocation or transport. He noted that the definition goes on to say, or any mobile building shall be included in this definition. He indicated that the important thing is if you only had to put wheels on something to take it out of the definition of structure, the definition of trailer wouldn’t make any sense. Attorney Ziska stated that the definition of building is – any structure having a roof and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or material. He noted that under this definition a building must be a structure, but if you go into the definition of trailer it refers to a mobile building. He indicated that if a building can be on wheels, then a structure can be on wheels because if it’s a building, it’s a structure. He noted that the
only way to interpret the definitions so that they make sense is to say if the intention of this object is to sit on the property and not to be moved, it is a structure, and probably under the definitions, a building. He stated that from a common sense standpoint, take a shed 5’ x 5’, no one would argue that it is a structure. Attorney Ziska stated that with the interpretation of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, all one would have to do is put on little strips of wood with training wheels. He indicated that as one can see from the picture, the wheels are no bigger then those on a lawn mower, and all of a sudden it is not a structure and not only that it cannot be regulated. Attorney Ziska stated that that can’t be right; it doesn’t make any sense. Attorney Ziska stated that the use regulations for the RU-40 district, which say that one can only do what the regulations specifically say one can do. He said that the accessory
use section, 5.2.4, one use that is listed is recreational trailers, which are considered a structure or building. He indicated that if the object in question is a trailer, it is considered a structure or building in the RU-40 zone. He indicated that it has to be one or the other and he believes because it is housing a boat, it is a garage. Attorney Ziska stated that even if one considered it a trailer it should be regulated it. He noted that 5.2.4 has specific regulations for that. Attorney Ziska stated that Section 6 of the Regulations has a specific prohibition – no land in any district shall be used for a trailer tent or similar structure to be occupied as a dwelling; Section 7.3, garages, indicates it was an intention to regulate garages; Section 7.86 has specific regulations for recreational trailers showing intention to regulate them; and Section 11, storage trailers, permanent storage trailers stated any storage trailer located on any lot
for 90 consecutive or non-consecutive days shall be considered a permanent storage trailer and d) in no case shall a permanent storage trailer be located in any residential district.
Attorney Ziska stated that if this thing was truly meant to be mobile, it is a trailer and is not allowed. He stated that there are a host of zoning requirements set forth in section 20 gives instruction on what one must do to have an addition on their building which states no premises building or other structure or part there of shall be used or changed in use and no building or other structure shall be constructed, etc., until an application for zoning permit has been submitted. Attorney Ziska stated that even if they aren’t dealing with a building or a structure, it’s a change of use, everything similar to this type of use has been considered under the regulations being an accessory use; garages, sheds, trailers, they are all talked about as an accessory use. He stated that this
object is a new use and the property is being used in a different way and requires a zoning permit. He indicated that his position is that it requires a zoning and building permit because it is a structure. Attorney Sisk stated that the application should also include a plot plan which requires an A2 survey. He indicated that under the ZEO’s interpretation this object needs no review; it is in the flood plain, it is in the wetlands. Attorney Ziska stated that the Floodplain Regulations talk about the importance of anchoring buildings and structures. He asked the Board to sustain the appeal and overturn the decision of the ZEO and determine that this is a structure or a building and requires a zoning permit and if they find that it is not, that it would still require a zoning permit to ensure that it meets the Regulations.
Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer since January 2012, stated that she received a complaint regarding the structure and did visit the site and send a notice of violation. She noted that the property owner, Mrs. Willis, called as soon as she received the notice and said that she would come into compliance with whatever would be required and she had a tenant that had installed it and she would contact her, which he did. Ms. Brown stated that after explaining the problems with the lots, Mr. May indicated that he would think about what he would do over the weekend and call her. Ms. Brown stated that he called on Monday and said that he had been reviewing the regulations and found that if he put wheels on it, it would not be considered a structure. She told him that she would read the applicable
regulations and get back to him which she did. Ms. Brown stated that she told him then that she agreed with him. Ms. Brown stated that the structure was anchored to the ground before he modified it with the wheels and it no longer is a structure. She indicated that she inspected it with the Building Official and concluded that it was no longer a structure by the definition and the Building Official concluded that it did not need a building permit. Ms. Brown stated that she believes the owner has cured the zoning violation. She noted that it does move and it is not connected to the ground.
Attorney Eric Knapp was present to represent Ann Brown. He indicated that the appellant raised issues not relevant to this Boards function; in particular, if it is a structure, whether it is compliant is not an issue for this Board. Attorney Knapp stated that Ms. Lage has raised a wetlands violation, which may be true, but it is a wetlands issue.
Attorney Knapp stated that the Board’s discussion is limited to the photographs in connection with definition 189. He stated that the rest of the regulations are nice evidence of intent but not tied to the definition of structure. He stated that trailers carry things, so this is not a trailer. Attorney Knapp stated that it is not permanent, it is easily moved. He indicated that the board needs to make their own interpretation as to whether this is permanent. He suggested that the regulations might need to be reviewed and tightened up so that these don’t get put up all over Town, but the fact is right now this does not qualify as a structure. Attorney Knapp stated that there is no change in use, it is still a residential property. He indicated that it is not a violation
of the regulations as written and whether it is a good idea or not is a separate issue; whether it is an overburdening of the lot, again, a separate issue.
Arthur Sibley stated that the structure is to protect the boat, there is no hitch, no way of taking it out of there. He noted that the boat inside is on a trailer with a hitch and the boat can come and go on the trailer. He indicated that it is a dock for the boat on land. He stated that this is a land-dock and the trailer and boat come and go.
Attorney Ziska agreed that some of the issues are not anything that the Board needs to decide this evening. He indicated that he brought them up to indicate that it is not just a paper issue, he wants the Board to understand that there are real concerns behind why they are here this evening. Attorney Knapp did not address the dichotomy of the definition of trailer as a mobile building and a building is a structure. He said that theoretically it can be moved but they haven’t shown that it can be, and as pointed out there is no hitch. He indicated that it was clearly designed to stay where it is, it won’t be going anywhere, which makes it more or less permanent.
Ms. Brown stated that the original purpose was a sunshade to protect the boat and it is not attached to the ground and is movable. She indicated that she could move it by pushing it.
Mr. Nixon questioned whether Ms. Brown has seen it move. She replied she had not. Mr. Nixon stated that piping staging frame weighs several hundred pounds and the wheels are the size of training wheels on a child’s bike and to say she could move it is a stretch of the facts.
Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
2. Case 13-20 – Ronald S. Levitt, 25 Sargent Road, variance to construct a one-car garage with storage above.
Chairman Stutts read the existing nonconformities: 8.8.1, minimum lot size, 10,000 square feet required, 6,588 existing; 8.8.2, 10,000 square feet per dwelling, 6,588 square feet existing; 8.8.3, minimum dimensions of a square, 75’ required, 50’ provided; 8.8.9, minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required, 12’5 provided for the deck and 3.8 feet for the shed; 8.8.10, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 2.8’ provided for the house and 11.6 feet provided for the deck; and 8.8.11, minimum lot coverage, 25 percent allowed, 29.5 percent existing. She noted that that proposal does not comply with the following: 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1 General Rules; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings, 25 percent allowed, 30.3 percent
proposed; and 8.8.10, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 6.7 feet provided.
Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided by the applicant is the rugged topography of the yard. Chairman Stutts noted that they have reduced or eliminated many of the variances they had previously requested.
Mr. Levitt stated that the yellow is what is being removed. He noted that part of deck on the south side, part of the deck where the garage is located and the shed is being removed. He noted that the latest plans are dated 6/19/13. Mr. Levitt explained that the hardship is the topography of the lot, the large amount of ledge in the rear yard, the placement of the house and the fact that the cottage was built in the 1940’s. He noted that the deck covers rugged rock and if it did not exist they would not be able to use the yard. Mr. Levitt stated that the deck will be reduced in size; the size of the garage has gone from 18 x 24 to 14 x 22, which is the smallest size structure in which one could fit a vehicle. He noted that the shed is being removed which reduces a nonconformity. Mr. Levitt stated that the original application requested 37.8 percent coverage and this proposal reduces the request to 31.4 percent. He noted that the sideline setback to the north is now 6.7 feet
and the neighbor most affected, Mr. Formica, has submitted a letter of approval.
Mr. Levitt stated that the reasons given for denial in April were the size of deck, percentage of coverage would exceed maximum by 12 percent, and that there are other alternatives to achieve these goals. He stated that the proposal that is before the Board is slightly less than the existing coverage.
The Board commended Mr. Levitt on the work he did to bring his property into more conformity while still being able to request a garage.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
3. Case 13-21 – Town of Old Lyme, 166 Boston Post Road, variance to construct an 8’ high fence in the setback, installation of a temporary boat storage facility until existing boat house facility is modified to accommodate the boat door.
Chairman Stutts noted that the proposal does not comply with: 8.0.c Yards and Coverages; 9.3.1, Enlargement; and 8.8.9, minimum setback from side, 12’ required.
Harold Thompson, member of the Old Lyme Rowing association explained that they are proposing an additional storage area to go behind the existing boathouse. He explained that they have many rowers and training sessions, have the jr. women’s national team coming to train. Mr. Thompson stated that they have a grant application in to expand e boathouse but have not received word yet. He indicated that the problem is that the boats get dinged and damaged going in and out so they would like a little additional area to store boats, especially with the jr. national team coming. He stated that there is a fence between Haines Park and the residential property adjacent but it is only 4 feet high.
Mr. Thompson explained that they use chase boats that are aluminum, usually staffed with coaches, and these boats were stored behind the boathouse. He explained that over the wintertime the three aluminum boats were stolen and chopped for aluminum salvage and were delivered to the aluminum salvage place in Old Saybrook. He explained that they feel an 8’ fence would be appropriate. He indicated that the existing boat house is 4.5 feet from the fence. He indicated that the area adjacent is heavily wooded and even in the winter one cannot see through to the neighboring residences.
Mr. Thompson stated that their wish is to receive a grant and rebuild the boathouse making it larger. He explained that they think they have a good shot at getting a grant, and as soon as they hear they get it they need additional funding which they will procure by fundraising. He explained that they would like to have the boathouse done in the next couple years. Ms. Stone questioned how long the fence would be erected. Mr. Thompson indicated he did not know. Chairman Stutts stated that the Board could condition consider this in the conditions. Mr. Thompson agreed. He indicated that in the winter they take the engines off the chase boats and store the chase boats in the boathouse and the engines elsewhere.
Mr. Thompson explained the existing fence. Chairman Stutts stated that the property already has the look of the fence, this fence will only be taller. Mr. Thompson stated that the fence will not impede the basketball court.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
4. Case 13-22C – Kasie Munson, 26 Katherine Road , variance to raise existing home to comply with FEMA Regulations.
Chairman Stutts noted the existing nonconformities: 8.8.4, wetlands, 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 11.1 provided on east side; 8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings, 25 percent allowed; and 8.8.12, maximum lot coverage, 30 percent required. She noted that the numbers of the existing percentages were not provided in the application. Chairman Stutts stated that the proposal does not comply with 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverages; 9.1.3.1, General Rules; 9.3.1, enlargement; 8.8.5, maximum number of stories, 1.5 existing, 2.5 proposed; 8.8.6, maximum height of building, 24’ allowed, 29’6” proposed; 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12’ required, 11.1 provided on east side;
8.8.10, maximum floor area as a percent of lot area; 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings, 25 percent allowed; and 8.8.12, maximum lot coverage, 30 percent required; and 4.10.3, CT River setback, 100’ required from high tide line, no figure provide.
Chairman Stutts stated that the hardship provided is that the substantially damaged building needs to be raised to meet FEMA Regulations; existing foundation to be raised 6.8 feet.
Jeff Flower was present to represent applicant. New elevations are being proposed. He stated that he went back and changed the calculations and they are shown on the second page. He indicated that he guestimated the wetlands using Google. Mr. Flower also submitted a copy of the Google picture, starring the house, and a copy of the letter from Ann Brown stating that the house is substantially damaged and must meet the FEMA Regulations.
Mr. Flower explained the new site plan. He noted that the high tide line is more than 100 feet from the house. Mr. Flower stated that in looking at the Google picture, the brook is dark green, and the next lighter green is the wetlands. He noted that he based the wetland area on the area between the brook and the grassed area which is mowed.
Mr. Flower stated that the area under the house cannot be used for anything because of the flood zone. He noted that the existing floor is a slab on grade and the slab will remain and the walls will be moved up. Mr. Flower stated that originally he thought the house would be raised by 6.8 feet, but it is being raised 10 feet and the plans show that correctly. He noted that there will be a front and rear set of stairs. He noted that elevation 14, plus an additional one foot for the Town requirement and with the floor, the first floor will be at elevation 16. Mr. Flower pointed out the area that will house the mechanicals.
Mr. Flower stated that the layout of the home will not change. He noted that the interior of the structure is not damaged. Mr. Flower noted the structure was constructed in 1959.
Ms. Stone stated that she visited the property today and it is covered in mold. She indicated that she was concerned that the neighbor’s view might be obstructed and stated that their view right now is the house and surrounding bushes. Mr. Flower noted that that home might acquire a water view through and underneath the raised house.
No one present spoke in favor or against the application. Hearing no further comments Chairman Stutts called this Public Hearing to a close.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 13-19 A – 50 Shore Road, Randy Nixon, appellant - Appeal of Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She pointed out that the Board is not concerned with the shed, the wetlands approval, etc., only concerned with the definition of a structure. She indicated that they aren’t considering whether the Regulations need to be tightened up in the future. Chairman Stutts noted that the Board needs to decide whether they agree with Ms. Brown’s interpretation of the Regulations.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Regulation is awful and it is the Board must decide if her interpretation is accurate. He stated that he listened very carefully, and in his mind when he sees metal sticking up with canvas over it, it is a temporary thing.
Mr. Sibley and Ms. Stone indicated that they visited the property. Ms. Stone stated that the structure is staked to the ground. Chairman Stutts indicated that it is staked so that it does not blow away. Mr. Kotzan stated that staking it does not make it a permanent structure. Ms. Stone stated that the stakes would make it less permanent; she indicated that she does not feel that it is a permanent structure.
Ms. McQuade indicated that Ms. Brown stated that it is not staked. Ms. Stone indicated that Ms. Brown is wrong, it is staked. She stated that it is ugly and offensive but she does not believe it is a structure.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the shelter could easily be moved. Mr. Sibley stated that this shelter remains in the same position and the boat is moved and is used someplace else and it comes back to the structure. He indicated that the shelter remains so therefore it is permanent in nature.
A Motion was made by A. Sibley, seconded by M. Stone to NOT UPHOLD THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER with respect to the appeal of 50 Shore Road for the following reason: The shelter is intended to be a permanent docking area for the boat, which comes and goes. No further discussion and a vote was taken: In Favor: A. Sibley Opposed: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, M. Stone Abstaining: None The motion failed to pass.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the Board is the finder of fact regarding what the Regulation means and he does not think Ms. Brown’s interpretation is wrong. He noted that it is a very poorly written regulation and does not nail down the definition. Mr. Kotzan stated that he can see where the interpretation of the definition can be debated.
Chairman Stutts pointed out that this shelter is capable of being transported. Ms. McQuade stated that she believes it is a structure. She noted that the owner realized they could put wheels on it and it wouldn’t count as a structure. She indicated that the purpose of the structure is to protect the boat from weather which could be done by putting the tarp directly over the boat.
Mr. Kotzan stated that the issue is whether it is permanent. He indicated that someone can put up a tent for a party for a few days. Mr. Kotzan stated that it is not the Board’s fault that the definition was not written properly. He noted that it is not written so that he can find that the shelter is a structure.
Ms. Barrows pointed out that people need building permits for tents for weddings.
Ms. McQuade stated that before the structure was on wheels it required an application because it was a structure. She indicated that it was not until the wheels were put on was it decided that it did not need a permit.
Chairman Stutts stated that Ms. Brown’s testimony was that she instructed the applicant to put wheels on the shelter so that it would not be a structure and the homeowner complied. Mr. Sibley indicated that he heard Ms. Brown stated that the applicant read the regulations and came up with the idea to put wheels on it. Ms. McQuade agreed with Mr. Sibley and indicated that that is what she heard Ms. Brown state. Chairman Stutts re-read her notes and agreed she was incorrect. Mr. Kotzan stated that if the Regulation does not state something, the Board cannot enforce it.
Ms. Stone stated that the Board cannot make the Regulation say what they wish it said.
A. Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to UPHOLD THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER with respect to the appeal of 50 Shore Road for the following reason: based solely on the language of current Zoning Regulations, the ZEO’s interpretation can be construed as correct. No further discussion and a vote was taken: In Favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, M. Stone Opposed: A. Sibley Abstaining: None The motion passed.
2. Case 13-20 – Ronald S. Levitt, 25 Sargent Road
Chairman Stutts stated that the Board has heard this appeal several times and the applicant has done a good job reducing all the required variances. She noted that he removed coverage so that there is no variance required for coverage.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow the construction of a one car garage with storage as shown on the property survey dated January 23, 2013 which was modified to show the decking to be removed, the shed to be removed and the size of the garage which is 14’ x 22’ on property located at 25 Sargent Road.
Reasons to grant:
1. Applicant has removed the need for variance for maximum lot coverage
2. Hardship shown due to topography and difficulty of getting in and out of a car.
3. Case 13-21 – Town of Old Lyme, 166 Boston Post Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted the proposal is to construct an 8’ fence.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Kip Kotzan and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow an 8’ high fence enclosure in the setback for installation of a temporary boat storage facility until the existing boat house is modified to accommodate the boats stored at the property located at 166 Boston Post Road with the condition that the fence is to be removed once the boat house has been modified.
Reason to grant:
1. Fence is a temporary solution to increase the safety and security of the property.
4. Case 13-22C – Kasie Munson, 26 Katherine Road
Chairman Stutts reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the applicant is requesting to elevate their home to FEMA compliance.
A motion was made by Kip Kotzan, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to allow elevation of the existing home to comply with FEMA Regulations (BFE 15) position of structure as noted on the “Property survey map depicting of property of Daniel B Falkenstein #26 Katherine Road Old Lyme Connecticut Sheet 1 of 1 dated February 19, 2013, revised to 6/19/13 mean high water notation prepared by Hendriks Associates, Anthony Hendriks, L.S. LLC”. The Coastal Site Plan Review Application is approved as well because it is consistent with all applicable coastal policies and includes all reasonable measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Reason to grant:
1. Proposal will meet upcoming FEMA regulations with minimal impact to lot.
ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. on a motion by Kip Kotzan; seconded by Mary Stone and voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
