OLD LYME ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were: Judy McQuade, Chairman, Art Sibley, Vice Chairman, Mary Stone, Secretary, Karen Conniff, regular member and Harry Plaut, alternate and Nancy Hutchinson, alternate.
Also present was Keith Rosenfeld, Land Use Coordinator.
Chairman McQuade called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and noted that she would announce the members voting before each case.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case 15-22 – Ernest & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road, variance to construct an addition over an existing deck.
Chairman McQuade stated that she, Mary Stone, Arthur Sibley, Harry Plaut and Nancy Hutchinson would be voting on this case because they were all present at the start of the hearing in July.
Chairman McQuade noted that the Public Hearing was opened in July. She stated that the proposal increases the floor area by 1.34 percent, thereby increasing the nonconformity. Attorney Michael Cronin was present to represent the applicant. He stated that he raised the issue of the ADA, American Disabilities Act, which is a newer concept in regards to requesting a variance. Attorney Cronin noted that the Board requested an opinion from their attorney on this matter and stated that he agrees with Attorney Royston’s response. He indicated that Attorney Royston explained in his letter that there is no case law, but the applicant has demonstrated that there is a disability and they are entitled to protections and benefits from the act. Attorney Cronin noted that Attorney Royston stated
that it is the Board’s discretion as to whether the variance should be granted under the general guidelines taking two things into consideration: are there other alternatives and has the applicant done everything possible to minimize the effect of the variance.
Attorney Cronin stated that the applicant asked for a continuation of the hearing because the Board felt there may be things the applicant could consider to reduce or eliminate the variances requested. He noted that the plans have been revised. He explained that Mr. Karpuska could not be present this evening but the plans have been revised by him and are part of the record. Attorney Cronin distributed additional copies of the revised plans. He noted that they have made significant changes.
Attorney Cronin stated that the existing coverage is 23.86% and under the regulations they are allowed 25%; existing floor area is 25.97% and the original plan increased floor area to 27.34%. He indicated that the revised plan reduces the existing coverage from 23.86% to 22.5% and the proposed floor area has been reduced to the existing floor area of 25.97% so there will be no increase. Attorney Cronin stated that he question was could they remove 80 square feet from the proposal and Mr. Karpuska was able to by reducing the size of the bedroom 2.5 feet in length, eliminating the downstairs bathroom next to the proposed bedroom and adding a second door to the existing bathroom for access from the bedroom, and added a closet on the second floor with ceiling height of less than 6 feet. He indicated that
they eliminated a bedroom door on the second floor so that it is not considered a bedroom, but rather a den or office so the number of bedrooms is not increasing. Attorney Cronin stated that they reduced coverage by eliminating the fireplace and air conditioning in the side yard. He explained that by reducing the size of the bedroom they have increased the side yard setback as well which is a reduction in the existing nonconformity.
Attorney Cronin noted that part of the deck is already enclosed so the bedroom area expansion is shown cross-hatched on the site plan. He indicated that they presented the doctor’s letter which explained that a first floor bedroom was a necessity. Attorney Cronin stated that is not much more that can be done in this house to accommodate a handicap person. He explained that because the house is used for entertaining children and grandchildren, it is not possible to use the dining room or other room for a bedroom. He noted that they have reduced the request for variances as much as possible.
Chairman McQuade stated that the Board appreciates their reworking the plan and coming up with a way to do it without increasing the nonconformities. Mr. Sibley agreed and stated that the applicant did a good job.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this public hearing.
2. Case 15-28 – Dimitri Tolchinski, 286 Shore Road, request for variances to place generator and exhaust duct in setback, to not require landscaping strips along Swan Avenue and Route 156, and location of parking adjacent to property line for a dwelling on the first floor of the existing structure.
Chairman McQuade stated that this application will have to go to the Zoning Commission for a Special Permit under Section 5.11.3 if the variances are granted. Mr. O’Keefe was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the property is located in a C-10 Zone and the structure is located in the northeast corner of the site. Mr. O’Keefe stated that it is a mixed use property with a retail/office establishment on the first floor and a residential apartment on the second floor. He noted there is also a garage/loft to the rear of the property.
Mr. O’Keefe explained that Mr. Tolchinski would like to turn the first floor into a restaurant establishment and will have to go before the Zoning Commission for a Special Permit under Sections 5.11.3 and 13b of the Zoning Regulations. He indicated that this is a two-step process and the first step is to determine the variances needed. Mr. O’Keefe explained that the dwelling is nonconforming in terms of lot area; 20,000 square feet is required and 16,117 square feet. He noted that they are not enlarging the structure. He pointed out that the required square is 100 feet and the property has 94’ +/-. Mr. O’Keefe stated that the side yard setback requirement is 20’ and 10.59’ is provided. He noted that the site plan shows three items in the side yard, the propane tanks, gas
generator and exhaust ducts. Mr. O’Keefe stated that Section 7.6.3 permits the location of propane tanks in the side yard setback as long as they are smaller than 30” in diameter and are adjacent to the building. He explained that the propane tanks will meet these requirements and he does not believe that a variance is required for the propane tanks. Mr. O’Keefe noted that he has advised his client that the generator will have to be moved to the rear of the property and noted that they will not need a variance for the generator. He noted that the issue is the exhaust duct that will be required if the structure is used as a restaurant/deli. Mr. O’Keefe noted that it will extend out into the required setback. He indicated that he questions whether they will need a variance because in his analysis of this is that the exhaust vent would not increase the extent of the current nonconformities. Mr. O’Keefe showed a photograph of the
structure that depicts the 5 foot eaves extending off the building and the regulations allow eaves to extend one foot into the setback without requiring a variance. He noted that the duct will extend out of the building 18” and then go straight up to the roof, staying 10 feet from any property line. He noted that the duct is a vertical expansion above a nonconforming structure and noted that here are two appellate court cases that deal with vertical expansion. He noted that the cases found that vertical expansion is allowed as long as it does not extend beyond the existing footprint. Mr. O’Keefe noted that the duct will not expand beyond the existing footprint.
Chairman McQuade questioned where the generator would be located as there are already three things in the rear of the property. Mr. O’Keefe stated that it would be located in the final site plan.
Mr. Sibley stated that he went to visit the property. He noted that there have been some issues with this property; it was supposed to be a shorter building with a flat roof. Mr. Sibley indicated that he looked at the back and side yards would have to be cleaned up as a consideration in any variance. He stated that he is going on record as saying that the people on Swan Avenue have to look at the most wretched mess he has ever seen. Mr. Sibley stated that he does not know how it has gotten to this point. He indicated that he wants to see it all cleaned up before this moves forward. Chairman McQuade stated that the variance for the garage was granted based on the fact that the yard would be cleaned up and everything would be put in the garage. She indicated that she would like to
know what was put in the garage. Mr. Tolchinski stated that things from his garage on Breen Avenue were put in this garage. He explained that he had to cut a few feet off the second floor of the garage and he cannot fit all his equipment in it.
Ms. Conniff stated that it would be helpful to have plans that are not and drawn. She stated that in a situation where there has been confusion in the past she feels there should be more formal plans. Mr. O’Keefe stated that they fully plan to have professional drawings for the site plan review. Ms. Conniff stated that there are two different commissions involved and these plans are not acceptable. She noted that there is talk about moving things and there is nothing formally documenting it. Ms. Conniff stated that the plans show several parking spaces in addition to the structures and it says coverage is 30 percent; she questioned where the 30 percent is documented. Mr. Tolchinski stated that parking is not included in coverage. Ms. Conniff stated that it is counted in
coverage.
The lack of a landscape plan was questioned. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that if Mr. Tolchinski proposes a landscape plan that does not meet the requirements he will come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. Mr. O’Keefe stated that he understands that they will address the parking and landscaping at a future time. He stated that he will advise Mr. Tolchinski that they will need something specific at that time. Mr. O’Keefe stated that it appears that they have more work to do. He stated that he does feel the Board has the information they need based on the three items discussed today and it was his understanding that they could come back to the Board. Mr. Sibley suggested that there will be less confusion and wasted time for all involved if professional plans are submitted.
Mr. Sibley noted that the property has current violations. Mr. O’Keefe stated that it was his understanding that this was a two-step process. He indicated that the Board has all the information they need on the duct variance.
Chairman McQuade stated that the Board needs to see the entire site including parking and landscaping.
Ms. Stone pointed out that the Board doesn’t meet in December and questioned whether the hearing could be continued to January. She noted that the Board needs to see improvement on the property before they will even consider a variance for the property. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that 35 days is November 24th. Ms. Conniff stated that the Board could deny without prejudice because the application is not complete. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the applicant could request a 65 day extension from November 24 which would take the Board to the January 19, 2016, Regular Meeting. Mr. O’Keefe asked for a continuation to the January 19, 2016 Regular Meeting. Ms. Conniff stated that if there are any questions or problems in January there will be no additional time to continue the
hearing for more information.
Ms. Stone stated that the clean-up needs to precede the Board considering any variance on the property.
Mr. O’Keefe indicated that he will follow up his request for a continuation in writing.
Jack Montanaro, year round resident for over 30years in Old Lyme and seasonal resident since birth, stated that he worked at a meat market in that same location all through high school. He indicated that he does not know if that is relevant, but it was the number one grocery store in the beach area. He noted that it was a deli as well and they made grinders.
Rob Breen, lifelong summer resident of Swan Avenue, stated that he too remembers the grocery store and it was a vibrant area.
Frank Ritchie, stated that he owns two homes on Swan Avenue and is in favor of the proposal. He stated that he is anxious to have the property cleaned up and feels the proposal is a great addition to the property.
Carol, 67 Centerbeach Avenue, stated that she has lived here 30 years and remembers the market. She noted it was a very busy corner and it would be great to have a market back.
Asiff Choudray, owner of market across the street, stated that Mr. Tolchinski has been cleaning up his property. Mr. Choudray stated that he has been there 15 years and he is in favor of the use. He noted that Mr. Tolchinski fixed the roof.
Kevin Scott, resident of 20 years, stated that he is in favor of the proposal and thinks it would be a good use of the property. He indicated that there appears to be a good business plan and the area would benefit from it.
Joanne Reese Cushing stated that she is in favor of the application and echoes all the previous comments.
(Name inaudible) stated she has lived in Town for 47 years. She noted that she lives on Browns Lane not far from this site. She stated that she would like to see a deli or some food establishment in that area. She stated that it would be convenient to not have to drive all the way into Town.
Terrie Swaney stated that she too worked at the grocery store 42 years ago. She stated that a deli in that location is needed.
Shane Burlingham, 247 Shore Road, stated that he is in favor of it as long as it runs better than the hardware store where everything was on the floor and it was trashed. He stated that his mother is elderly and cannot pull out of the pizza place because of all the trucks and things in the way.
Dominic Scarfo was present representing his parents, the Scarfo’s who own the property behind Mr. Tolchinski’s garage. He asked where the generator was going to be located because it is not shown on the plan. Chairman McQuade noted that the Board has requested plans and the hearing is going to be continued. Mr. O’Keefe stated that it will be located between the main building and the garage. He stated that his family is not against a deli but there are and have been other issues, such as the garage being constructed outside the approved plan. He noted that Mr. Tolchinski brought in massive amounts of dirt resulting in water run-off onto his parents and others properties. He explained that at one point Ms. Brown, the prior Zoning Enforcement Officer, sent a five page letter to Mr.
Tolchinski noting all the work that needed to be done before a CO could be issued by the Town. He noted that some of the issues still exist. He noted that Mr. Tolchinski has caused many problems for his parents. He indicated that he does plan to speak at the next hearing. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that he will discuss any problems.
Dominic Scarfo, resident of Swan Avenue, stated that the dirt brought in by Mr. Tolchinski has caused many problems for him. He stated that he doesn’t think its right to have a generator near a residential property.
(Inaudible name) owns property on Hartford Avenue Extension. He stated that he received a letter indicating Mr. Tolchinski was to construct a garage, now there is a three story building. He noted that there are cars and toilet bowls on the property, his trash is all over. He noted that the garage was supposed to be used to store things instead of the property. He stated that he does not know how the town allows this as there are unregistered cars and trucks and a backhoe.
Mr. Sibley stated that they are hoping that the property gets cleaned up as the Board requested. He stated that the Town is trying to improve the entire Sound View Area.
John Tipella owner of pizza shop stated that Mr. Tolchinski’s vehicles block the entrance and exit from his property. He submitted photographs which were marked as exhibits. Mr. Tipella stated that the fence is in very bad shape and is in danger of falling down; he stated that the fence and the trucks need to be removed. He indicated that the property looks like a junk yard. Mr. Tipella stated that he and Mr. Tolchinski had an agreement to split the cost of a fence but Mr. Tolchinski changed his mind.
Mr. O’Keefe stated that Mr. Sibley seems very concerned about properties being kept up. Mr. Sibley replied that he is and it is why he serves.
Mr. Scarfo stated that the photos Mr. Tipella submitted show where the fence fell down and how much higher the ground is as a result of him bringing in dirt. He also noted that many of the people that spoke in favor do not live near the property.
Mr. Tolchinski stated that he won’t talk about his what his neighbor Mr. Tipella has done. He stated that he will clean up his property in the next few weeks. Chairman McQuade stated that the Board feels like the neighbors do; she noted that the conditions of the variances were not met. Mr. Tolchinski stated that Ms. Brown told him she would issue the CO before she left as he completed everything she asked him to.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade asked for a motion to continue the Public Hearing to January 19, 2016.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted unanimously to continue the public hearing on Dimitri Tolchinski, 286 Shore Road, until January 19, 2016.
3. Case 15-29C – Juliette Meeus & Catherine Stevens, 65 Shore Road, variance to demolish existing structure and construct new structure to meet all building codes and FEMA Regulations.
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer, representing the applicants who are also present at the hearing. He noted that they are under contract to purchase the property contingent upon all approvals being met. H explained that the existing house will be in essentially the same area as the existing house. Mr. Wren stated that the proposal is to demolish and rebuild a more traditional style structure for the CT River scene. He noted that Gateway has submitted a letter of no opposition. Mr. Wren stated that the edge of the river is approximately one mile from the house. He noted that it is a clear view down to the river with binoculars. Mr. Wren stated that they are extending the garage about 10 feet and they may have to remove one tree. There is clarification from Gateway that that would be okay
as the tree is not between the house and the river.
Mr. Wren pointed out the brush line and noted the lawn area. He indicated there will be no new areas of clearing. He noted that the new house will be 100 percent FEMA requirements; he stated that the first floor will be at elevation 13’2”, including the additional one foot that the Town requires. He stated that the house will be less than 35’ tall. Mr. Wren stated that the property is surrounded on three sides by inland and tidal wetlands and nature conservancy property. He explained that they need a variance for being less than 100’ from the coastal boundary. Mr. Wren noted that the septic tank will be replaced but the leaching system is in good condition. Mr. Wren stated that they have done a test hole to show that they have a reserve area. He pointed the
well out on the site plan.
Mr. Wren stated that there is no room on site to construct without the variance, which is their hardship. He explained that they will be bringing in a small amount of fill.
Sabrina Foulke, Point One Architects, stated that Mr. Wren provided the existing grade. She noted that the existing ridge of the house is at 31.5’ and the zone allows 35’ in height. She noted that they have reduced the apparent bulk of the structure.
Juliette Meeus stated that she is hoping to purchase the property as it is a magical spot. She indicated that she has a close relationship with the Nature Conservancy so was excited to find this property. Ms. Meeus stated that if the Board allows this project, they will take wonderful care of the property.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this public hearing.
4. Case 15-30 – Peter & Melissa Turtoro, 7 Lantern Lane, variance to construct an 18’ x 36’ inground swimming pool with associated improvements as noted on the site plan.
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer, was present to represent the applicants. He noted that the property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Wren stated that the subdivision documents show a 20 foot side setback for this property where the typical setback in this zone is 35 feet. He noted that it is a conservation subdivision with smaller lots and smaller setbacks. Mr. Wren stated that the plan shows a 35’ side setback which they believe to be an error. He stated that they have chosen to go with a variance request. He explained that the east side has the septic tank and two leaching fields and the other side has a large slope. Mr. Wren noted that the proposed location is the only location for the pool. He noted that the pool house is in compliance with the setback. He
noted that the pool is located 20’ from the side yard which is what they think the setback was meant to be. Mr. Wren stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission suggested that they add a swale along the side of the property to drain into the wetlands. He stated that the error on the subdivision plan is their hardship.
Ms. Stone stated that a large corner of the pool house goes over the 20’ line. She questioned why it couldn’t be changed to be in a conforming location. Mr. Wren stated that a shed less than 200 square feet has to meet half the setback; he noted that even with a 35 foot setback the shed is conforming.
Mr. Rosenfeld noted that the variance does not pertain to the drainage swale.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this public hearing.
5. Case 15-31 – Carol Frazier, 29 Library Lane, variance to allow the placement of a 12’ x 24’ shed in the sideyard setback.
Rick Frazier was present to explain the application. Chairman McQuade noted that the requested shed is 288 square feet. She noted that the proposed setback is 7’ where 15’ is required.
Mr. Frazier stated that they have had mold problems in their crawl space. He noted that they have had water problems and it has been suggested that they need water tanks in the crawl space. Mr. Frazier stated that when they come in to service the well the truck has to drive over the well and they may need to drill deeper in the future. Mr. Frazier stated that they need to make sure there is room to get the truck back there so that is why they have chosen the proposed location. He indicated that he will use the shed to store typical things such as lawn furniture, etc. Mr. Frazier stated that they currently have a two car garage but can only park one car in it.
Mr. Frazier noted that the lot slopes down and levels out for 30 feet and slopes down again. He noted that further down the property they would be too close to the wetlands. Ms. Conniff stated that if the shed was a little smaller it would not have to meet the full setback. Mr. Frazier noted that in his zone the shed would have to be 100 square feet in order to only meet half the setback.
Mr. Frazier noted that there is only one neighbor that will see the shed.
Ms. Conniff stated that this shed is almost the size of a two car garage. Mr. Frazier stated that his parents have the same size shed so he knows how quickly it will fill up.
Mr. Frazier stated that until recently they were only getting 10 gallons a day. He noted that the well is currently at 180 feet and may have to go to 400 feet.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McQuade closed this public hearing.
The Commission took a two-minute recess at this time.
OPEN VOTING SESSION
1. Case 15-22 – Ernest & Sandra Perlini, 37 Ridgewood Road
Members voting: J. McQuade, A. Sibley, M. Stone, N. Hutchinson, H. Plaut
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that at the July Hearing the Board asked the applicant to reduce the plan so as to not increase the nonconformities of the property. She noted that he applicant managed to accomplish this and also reduced a nonconformity.
The Board noted that the hardship is that it is a reasonable accommodation for the American Disability Act and the need was accomplished without increasing the nonconformities.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct a first floor addition over an existing deck, as per plans submitted.
Reasons for Granting:
- It is a reasonable accommodation as per the American Disability Act.
- The need to accommodate the patient was achieved without increasing the existing nonconformity.
2. Case 15-28 – Dimitri Tolchinski, 286 Shore Road
No action taken. The Public Hearing for this item has been continued to the November Regular Meeting.
3. Case 15-29C – Juliette Meeus & Catherine Stevens, 65 Shore Road
Members Voting: J. McQuade, A. Sibley, K Conniff, M. Stone, H. Plaut
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the property is surrounded by wetlands. Ms. Stone noted that a variance is required to construct any house on the property. Chairman McQuade stated that a very small house would not require a variance.
Mr. Rosenfeld noted that the Coastal Site Plan Review Application must be approved as well. Mr. Wren explained that because the house is under 4,000 square feet and does not need Zoning Commission approval, he spoke with Ms. Barrows who indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals could approve it.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to demolish existing structure and construct a new structure that meets all building codes and FEMA regulations, as per plans submitted.
A motion was made by Arthur Sibley, seconded by Harry Plaut and voted unanimously to concur that the Coastal Site Plan Review Application is approved because it is consistent with all applicable CAM policies of the Coastal Management Act.
Reasons for granting:
- The house will comply with FEMA.
- The marsh will be restored adjacent to the conservation area
- The design of the house has a lower roofline and the architectural mass has been decreased.
4. Case 15-30 – Peter & Melissa Turtoro, 7 Lantern Lane
Members Voting: J. McQuade, A. Sibley, K Conniff, M. Stone, H. Plaut
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the one variance required is for the side setback. She noted that the property has five lot lines and one side line is marked 35’ where the other side lines are marked 20’ in the subdivision plan. Ms. Stone questioned whether the Board wanted to address the confusion of the setbacks shown on the subdivision plan. The Board agreed not to address this in their consideration.
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Judy McQuade and voted unanimously to grant the necessary variances to construct an 18’ x 36’ in-ground swimming pool with patio, shed and other associated improvements as noted on the site plan, as per plans submitted with the condition that a revised plan for drainage into adjacent wetland be submitted.
Reasons for Granting:
- The unusual shape of the lot (five sided) dictated this placement of the pool due to topography, septic, well and gradients.
5. Case 15-31 – Carol Frazier, 29 Library Lane
Members Voting: J. McQuade, A. Sibley, K Conniff, M. Stone, H. Plaut
Chairman McQuade reviewed the facts of the case. She noted that the property is large and conforming. Ms. Stone stated that the Board had a similar case recently and the Board denied the application. She questioned whether there are differences in this case. Ms. McQuade stated that the size of the property and the fact that this shed would be back toward the woods.
Mr. Plaut noted that the one homeowner that will see it is not aware of the issue. It was noted that the owner would have received notice.
Mr. Rosenfeld stated that only a 100 foot shed would be allowed without a variance in the R-15 zone. Mr. Sibley stated that the well problem is a hardship because the crawl space will have to house the water tanks.
Ms. Stone noted that the property already contains a two-car garage. She noted too that he crawl space will be unavailable for storage due to the need to store water tanks in that location.
Chairman McQuade pointed out that the property is an acre and a half and is odd shaped. Mr. Sibley agreed and noted that that is a hardship, along with the proximity to wetlands. Chairman McQuade stated that the she cannot be located anywhere else on the property.
A motion was made by Karen Conniff, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted to grant the necessary variances to allow the placement of a 12’ x 24’ shed within side yard setback, as per plans submitted. Motion carried 4:1:0, with Mr. Plaut voting against.
Reasons for Granting:
- The storage space in crawl space is being eliminated by the need to put in water storage tanks due to lack of water on property (a recent development).
- The topography of the lot, proximity of wetlands, and property boundaries dictate that this is the only place the shed can be placed.
New Business
Chairman McQuade noted that there will not be a November Meeting of the Board because there are no applications to hear or act on. Because of this they will be approving their 2016 meeting schedule this evening.
A motion was made by Karen Conniff, seconded by Nancy Hutchinson and voted unanimously to approve the 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule.
Correspondence
Chairman McQuade reminded Board members to let her know a few days before a meeting if they are unable to attend so that she has time to be sure there are enough members attending the meeting.
Minutes
A motion was made by Mary Stone, seconded by Arthur Sibley and voted to approve the September 15, 2015 Minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3:0:2 with Ms. McQuade and Ms. Conniff abstaining.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. on a motion by Karen Conniff and seconded by Nancy Hutchinson; so voted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
