 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
January 19, 2010
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Old Lyme at its Regular Meeting that was held on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Lyme Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street heard and decided the following appeals:
The Chairman of the Board, Susanne Stutts, opened the meeting and introduced the Board members who were seated for the meeting.
Seated for this evenings meeting and voting were the following members: Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Joseph St. Germain
and Fran Sadowski (Alternate)
Present: Richard Moll (arrived at approximately 8:30 p.m.), new alternate, Marilyn Ossmann and Kim Barrows, Clerk
The meeting was then called to order at 7:35 p.m.
The following public hearings were conducted, as well as the voting session. The meeting has been recorded on tape and the following actions were taken:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 09-25 – Daniel W. O’Connell d/b/a Dan & Bill’s, 96 Shore Road
Present: Mr. Daniel O’Connell, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow placement of a carport on the southeast side of the garage. The existing nonconformities are with Section 8.9.3 minimum dimension of a square on the lot which is 150’, existing is 135’ plus or minus and Section 8.9.7, minimum setback from streetline which is 60’, existing which is 25’ from Shore Road and 53.8’ from Bailey Road. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverage, Section 9.1.3.1, General Rule and Section 8.9.7 minimum setback from the streetline 60’, proposed is 25 feet from Shore Road (variance of 35’) and 55 feet proposed from Bailey Road (variance of 5’).
Mr. O’Connell gave a brief presentation. He would like to have a roof over the wrecker for the winter to provide shelter from the snow and ice. The structure would be anchored into the ground, they will not be pouring a concrete pad. S. Stutts asked if it would be a permanent structure, the answer was that it could be moved, but it would be permanent. There was discussion with respect to there being more room on the other side of the property and if placed there, it would not look so crowded. S. Stutts asked about the other cars on the property and the mess of the farm stand. Adding the carport structure to the property would not make it look any better. S. Stutts also asked about the enclosed area to the rear and how it would be a good place to store items so that they
would be out of sight. K. Kotzan asked how far the structure would be from the existing building. The proposed structure is only 12’ wide which will be an open structure that will be placed close to the existing building along the wall. The size of the carport structure is 12’ x 31’ x 11’.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or opposed. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Case 09-26 – Christine Wysocki, 19 Brighton Road
Present: Matthew Berger, Esquire, agent for the applicant; Mrs. Wysocki, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this a request for variances to allow existing bridge structure to be scaled back 11.5’ to the rear and remain in order to access the other side of the wetlands in the rear of the property. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories 1 ½ permitted, two stories existing and Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline (narrow street) 34’ required, 26’ existing. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, yards and coverage and Section 8.8.8 minimum setback from rear property line, 30’ required and 14’ proposed for the bridge (variance of 16 feet required).
Mrs. Wysocki gave her presentation stating that this is a unique hardship. The topography of the lot creates the hardship, it is not a hardship created by them. The wetlands are in the rear and are 4 feet below ground in what Mrs. Wysocki classified as a ravine. The topography of the land was created well before the zoning regulations became effective. Mrs. Wysocki gave a “visual” presentation which showed the wetlands and the bridge as well as the adjoining properties. White Sands Beach Association did not like the idea of the bridge, so the applicants have proposed to reduce the length of the bridge by 11.5 feet. The applicant states that the wetlands need to be maintained in order to keep the debris from accumulating in them. Attorney Berger stated that the wetlands are
more of a marsh and impact the entire street. When the wetlands are flooded on the Wysocki property, they can be approximately 4 feet deep. Mrs. Wysocki entered into the record a map outlining the ½ mile route White Sands Beach stated the applicant could take to go around and clean up the wetlands (Exhibit A) at the last meeting. Shortly after that meeting, White Sands Beach Association posted “no trespassing” signs along the property line. A series of photos (showing debris and no trespassing signs) were entered into the record and are Exhibit B. S. Stutts stated previously that it is a self-inflicted hardship wherein the bridge was constructed within the 30’ setback, but it is now being reduced by 11.5 feet. Mrs. Wysocki stated that the other homeowners along the street have lawns in the rear. There was discussion with respect to the source of the debris that ends up in the wetlands. K. Kotzan stated that the
other “neighbor” to the rear is the tennis court which is along the property line and the intrusion into the setback has been reduced by the modification of the bridge. Attorney Berger stated that the topography hardship was not created by the owners and presented a court case (Stillman, 1991) which looks favorably on the topography situation.
Attorney Matthew Berger of New London submitted a letter to the Board dated January 19, 2010 outlining his presentation to the Board. The applicants also submitted duplicate copies of the letters submitted in support of the project in September of 2009 they have been resigned and dated, they are as follows:
Anthony and Patricia Lynch formerly of 5 Meriden Road dated August 7, 2009; Alison & David Williams of 3 Brighton Road, dated August 15, 2009; Tracy & Jeff Moore of 2 Brighton Road dated August 18, 2009; Lynda Murphy of 21 Brighton Road, no date; Mr. & Mrs. Brian Ritchie of 16 Brighton Road dated August 1, 2009; Francis Haymann of 15 Brighton Road, no date; Helen & Robert Sullivan dated July 30, 2009; Jeannette C. Speirs of 3 Brighton Road, no date; Amanda Learnard of 11 Brighton Road, no date; Tom and Cynthia Lesnik of 64 & 66 Brighton Road dated August 2, 2009; Michael & Lori Dolishny of 47 Brighton Road dated August 17, 2009; Dan Renn and Sue Frost of 22 Brighton Road, August 7, 2009; William Odette of 58 Brighton Road, no date.
The following letter was entered and read into the record by Barry Harrison on behalf of the Board of Governors: John Capurso, Chairman, Board of Governors, White Sand Beach Association, Inc. dated January 15, 2010 stating “The proposed modification, as contrast with the existing configuration, would better facilitate its stated purpose of accessing the far end of their wetlands property.” The letter also recommends a timetable be established for this modification as a condition of any approval.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or opposed. In favor: Linda Murphy, 21 Brighton Road; Jeff Moore of 2 Brighton Road; Brian Ritchie, 16 Brighton Road. There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Case 09-27 C– Frank Farrelly, 1 Sea Lane
Present: Mr. Adam McNiece, agent for the applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow a small sunporch (10’x22’) on the south side of the dwelling. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area 10,000 s.f., 7,445 s.f. existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 s.f., existing 7,445 s.f., Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of square on the lot 75’, 55’ existing, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline 25’, from Sea Spray Road to the house is 6.2 feet, from Sea Lane to the garage is 14.1’ and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 12’, existing for the garage is 6.5’. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverage, Section 9.1.3.1, General Rule, Section 9.3.1, Enlargement, Section 8.8.7, minimum
setback from streetline, 25’ required, existing from Sea Spray Road to the new deck, 13.4’ (variance of 11.6’) and from Sea Spray Road for porch, 18.4’ (variance required of 6.6’), Section 4.2.12, Construction or Enlargement of Certain Buildings adjoining coastal resources, this enlargement is within 50’ of the beach and Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot coverage 25%, proposed 27.3% (variance of 2.3%).
Mr. McNiece gave a brief presentation. The applicants would like to build a small sunporch on a year-round dwelling on the south side to enjoy the ocean view and stay out of the sun. S. Stutts read the DEP e-mail letter from Marcy Balint, DEP dated December 21, 2010 in its entirety into the record which stated that the Office of Long Island Sound Programs does not recommend approval of the application as currently designed. J. St. Germain asked what the hardship is. The hardship is that the property is a corner lot with a right-of-way on one side. The existing house is in the 50’ beach area. Mr. McNiece stated that this is a small project, extending 10 feet out x 22 feet (the length of the house), with two columns and a roof overhead to screen out the sun. There will be no
rails or sides and will be built close to existing grade. J. St. Germain stated that there is already a deck on the side. Mr. McNiece stated that the existing deck is not covered. J. St. Germain asked why the applicant doesn’t cover the existing deck and not propose an expansion of the nonconformities. Mr. McNiece also stated that the water side has a manicured lawn and a sea wall that separates it from the beach. S. Stutts discussed with Mr. McNiece the difference between the coverage on the plans and the coverage figures the Zoning Enforcement Officer determined, which included open stairs, storage area and shower.
The following letters in support were submitted for the record: a form letter, all dated December 15, 2010 - Carl and Tina DeLeo of 73 & 75 Sea Spray Road; Constance L. Gray, Secretary of Old Lyme Shores Beach Association, 317 Shore Road; Mary and John Wertenbach of 70 Sea Spray Road; George and Mary Finley of 68 Saltaire Drive; Lee Finley of 68 Saltaire Drive; Tom Smith of 67 Saltaire Drive; June Markel of 71 Sea Spray Road; Mark and Mary Ellen Phelan of 77 Sea Spray and Mr. & Mrs. Patafio of 3 Sea Lane.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or opposed. In favor: Sally Howley of Sea Spray Road. Richard Moll of 72 Neck Road stated that he agreed with Marcy Balint of the DEP that it would be setting a bad precedent. There was no further audience participation and no further Board comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Case 09-28 – Frank Morelli, 244 Shore Road
Present: Mr. Frank Morelli, applicant
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow encroachment of half the minimum setback for the side yard to build a 12’ x 16’ shed 10’ from side yard. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.9.1, minimum lot area for a C-30 zone is 30,000 s.f., 24,000 square feet existing lot area, Section 8.9.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit is 30,000 s.f., 24,000 s.f. existing, Section 8.9.3, minimum dimension of square on the lot 150’, existing 100’ and Section 8.9.4, wetlands/watercourses restriction 20%, existing is unknown. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverage, Section 9.1.3.1, General Rule and Section 8.9.9 minimum setback from other property line 20’ required, proposed is 10’ (variance of 10’).
Mr. Morelli gave a brief presentation. He would like to erect the shed 10 feet from the right-of-way property line so that he can utilize his backyard. There are wetlands in the rear of the property and he has obtained wetlands approval. The lot has 100 feet of frontage but it tapers towards the back to 80 feet. The soils to the rear and middle are not as stable as the soils on the right-of-way side of the property. The shed would be used to store the lawn mower, motorcycle and lawn equipment. The Board discussed the design of the shed. The design in the file is what will be built if the Board grants the variance. Mr. Morelli has also received Health Department approval. Mr. Morelli stated that the hardship is that this is a residence in a commercial zone and the setbacks are more
restrictive. If he was in a residence zone and the shed was 200 square feet or less, it could extend into the required side setback by a distance equal to one half of the minimum required setback. The shed will be on the right-of-way side, the right-of-way is used for vehicular for access to the storage business to the rear.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or opposed. There was no audience participation and the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Case 09-29 – Sandra Y. Rueb, 5 Lieutenant River Lane
Present: Michael E. Cronin, Jr., Esquire, agent for the applicant; Mr. Joseph Wren, P.E. and Mrs. Rueb
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow renovation of existing older single-family dwelling to contemporary standards, including compliance with ADA regulations and present bldg. and safety codes. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area 15,000 s.f., existing 9,955 s.f., Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 15,000 s.f., existing 9,955, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline (narrow street) 37.5’ required, existing 34.46’, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property 30’, existing 14.83’ house, 8.45’ shed, Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line 15’, existing 14.36’ southwest side of house, .29’ southwest side shed and Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot
area 20% existing 25.4% and Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area 20% permitted, 20.5% existing. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c, Yards and Lot Coverage, Section 9.1.3.1, General Rule, Section 9.3.1, Enlargement, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from streetline (narrow street) 37.5’ required, 34.46’ proposed for dormers (variance of 3.03’), Section 8.88, minimum setback from rear property line 30’, proposed 14.83’ (raising the roof of the family room) (variance of 15.17’), 26’ for the kitchen addition (variance of 4’), Section 8.8.10, maximum floor area as percent of lot 20% permitted, proposed 26.5% (variance of 6.5%) and Section 8.8.11, maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area, 20% permitted, 21.3% proposed (variance of 1.3%).
Attorney Cronin gave a presentation. The house was built in the 1950’s prior to zoning on a 100’ x 100’ lot that is not quite square making it slightly under 10,000 sq. ft. The zone the property is in is an R-15 zone, which requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet, the R-15 designation came into play several years after the house was built on this lot. According to Attorney Cronin, the house is “tired” and needs to be renovated. The current structure is not up to the American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and the applicant would like to make the house comply since this will eventually be their retirement home. By doing the renovations presented, it will bring the house up to code, open it up for more light and improve the flow within the house. There is
no available land to acquire to make the lot a conforming lot, the abutting neighbors, the Donovans, are not amenable to selling any of their land, but do not object to the project. Attorney Cronin went over the floor area and maximum building coverage percentages which are slightly over the required percentages. Attorney Cronin then discussed the reason for the variance for the front yard setback. The addition of dormers in the front are being added to provide more light and as a form of egress due to the fire codes. By raising the ceiling height in the family room, it takes away the window in the rear for one of the upstairs bedrooms leaving no way out. The proposal presented is just a minimal proposal to make the house livable.
Mr. Joseph Wren, P.E. then discussed all of the technical aspects of the changes to be made. The addition to the house is the smallest addition possible to make it more livable, the chimney needs to be redone since it is not high enough as currently built. The roof height will be increased from 10’ to 17’. Mr. Wren discussed the second floor dormers to be added in one room for “solar access” and the other for fire safety. The dormers are not there to increase the useable floor area. The septic exists on the eastern corner of the property. The drywell/cesspool has been abandoned. There was discussion that if the existing septic system fails there is an alternative area for septic and well keeping within the 75’ separation distance. There is
currently an underground oil storage tank, the owners are to remove the underground oil tank and replace it with an underground propane tank. The air conditioning unit already exists on the property and is not included in the variances requested with this proposal. Attorney Cronin mentions the letter from the Sanitarian, Ron Rose, stating that the septic system is not up to code and that a letter has been recorded on the Land Records. The two bedrooms on the first floor will be converted into one master bedroom suite. So the house will go from four bedrooms to three bedrooms.
The following letters in support have been received and read into the record: Sandy Garvin Cameron of 8 Lieutenant River dated January 17, 2010; Mary P. Pullen of 6 Lieutenant River Lane dated January 17, 2010 and Drs. Bill and Lisa Donovan of 11 Ferry Road dated January 15, 2010.
The Chairman then opened the floor for comments either in favor or opposed. In favor were Sheri Johnston of 4 Lieutenant River Lane and Steve Aird of 15 Ferry Road. There was no further audience participation and the Chairman closed the public hearing.
VOTING SESSION
Case 09-25 – Daniel W. O’Connell d/b/a Dan & Bill’s, 96 Shore Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow placement of a carport on the southeast side of the garage. This is a property in need of organizing, she doesn’t know if the placement of the structure is going to help in the neatness of the property but one of the vehicles on the property will be removed shortly. There is a 35 foot variance from the Shore Road side and a 5 foot variance from the Bailey Road side. It is better to keep the distance from the Bailey Road side which is a residential neighborhood. The hardship is the lot configuration, the footprint of the structure would be 372 square feet and open on all sides and it will be placed where the wrecker is currently parked along side the building. Covering the wrecker will help during the winter months with snow and
ice.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by F. Sadowski, to GRANT the necessary variances, to build as per plans submitted, an open structure with a roof that is as close as is manageable to the current garage. The structure dimensions as listed on the plan, 12’ x 31’ x 11’, regarding Case 09-25, 96 Shore Road. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to GRANT passed unanimously 5-0-0.
It is a reasonable use for this property for a garage to have a space to keep a wrecker during a storm with a roof. It is agreed that this location of the structure will have the least impact.
Case 09-26 – Christine Wysocki, 19 Brighton Road
Existing bridge requested a variance of 16’, the hardship is a topographical hardship. The White Sands Beach Association (WSBA) who was opposed the last time, found the requested bridge modification to be a solution that is a lot less offensive, but would like a condition for a timetable for completion of the modification. WSBA would also like the applicants to erect a fence to deter the debris into the wetlands. If the bridge structure was to be removed, it would damage the wetlands. K. Kotzan stated that if there is to be a fence, the WSBA should erect the fence, he feels the only condition should be the timetable to make the modification. S. Stutts stated that if this modification is granted, she would strongly recommend that a fence be erected to make a happier relationship between
neighbors. J. McQuade stated that the fence can’t guarantee that the debris would still not end up in the wetlands. There was discussion of being “good neighbors”. J. St. Germain stated that Mrs. Wysocki has come back with a revised plan cutting back the bridge and the letter from WSBA is a plus. J. St. Germain stated that if the two neighbors had gotten together prior to the building of the bridge, this application would not even be before the Board. J. McQuade stated that this modification is a good solution and a reasonable method to clean the wetlands.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to GRANT the necessary variances to allow for the modification, as per the plans submitted in the new proposal with the reduction of the bridge ending now at the last pylon (labeled D on the drawing) which will pull it back 11’5” from its current location with the condition that they put together a timetable so that the project is completed before Memorial Day, if it can’t be completed by this date, the Chairman can negotiate an extension, regarding Case 09-26, Christine Wysocki, 19 Brighton Road. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to GRANT passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Case 09-27 C– Frank Farrelly, 1 Sea Lane
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow a small sunporch (10’x22’) on the south side of the dwelling. The letter from the DEP, Marcy Balint, regarding the Coastal Site Plan Review is to recommend that the Board not grant the variance request. This request will exceed the required lot coverage without a valid hardship, the increase would be 2.3%. K. Kotzan stated the beach/dunes is an important area and a reason to not increase the lot coverage. K. Kotzan also states that if this was a reasonable use that was prevented by strict application of the regulations he would consider it. There is an alternative, i.e. there is another deck that can be used. It is not taking the use away from the applicant. Discussion as to whether or not the house was built to
be a year-round use, with the smaller lot, there can be a picnic table with an umbrella, or something else to be out there on the water side to enjoy the view. Just to increase the pleasure of the property is not a hardship. S. Stutts stated that there were neighbors who were in favor. K. Kotzan stated that there are others, in the neighborhood, who are looking to eventually do the same to their property. There is no hardship involved.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade, to DENY the application to grant the variances regarding Case 09-27 C, Frank Farrelly, 1 Sea Lane. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to DENY passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Reasons for denial: The letter from Marcy Balint of the Office of Long Island Sound Program dated December 21, 2009 played a large part in the decision when it was stated in the letter “OLISP does not recommend approval of the above application as currently designed . . .”. Also there is an alternative opportunity to sit on the west side of the property and there is no hardship.
Case 09-28 – Frank Morelli, 244 Shore Road
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow encroachment of half the minimum setback for the side yard to build a 12’ x 16’ shed 10’ from side yard. This is a residential property in a C-30 zone classification abutting the wetlands and a right-of-way for a commercial driveway for a storage facility. The applicant is seeking to reduce the property line setback by 10 feet. The applicant has health approval and wetlands approval. K. Kotzan stated that the applicant made an interesting argument that should be considered, as stated in Section 7.1 c of the Zoning Regulations. This is a residential property in a commercial (C-30) district. The applicant would like to utilize his back yard for “residential purposes”. There was discussion of the
stability of the ground, the wetlands on the property and the shape of the property to use what remains as a “residential use”. The property narrows as it goes towards the back of the property where the wetlands are located. The shed is a reasonable use on the property.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by K. Kotzan, to GRANT the shed in the location shown on the plans and the size is to be 12’ x 16’ x 14’8”, regarding Case 09-28, Frank Morelli, 244 Shore Road. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to GRANT passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Case 09-29 – Sandra Y. Rueb, 5 Lieutenant River Lane
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow renovation of existing older single-family dwelling to contemporary standards, including compliance with ADA regulations and present bldg. and safety codes. The applicants have a 9,955 square foot lot in a 15,000 square foot zone. S. Stutts went over the increases in coverage, maximum floor area as percent of lot 20% permitted, proposed 26.5% asking for a variance of 6.5% and maximum lot coverage by buildings and structures as percent of lot area, 20% permitted, 21.3% proposed asking for a variance of 1.3%. The house and lot were described as the smallest in that area. The Board felt the house is usable as it is and there was no valid hardship to warrant the increase in size and exceeded coverage. S. Stutts felt this was a
very ambitious project. K. Kotzan agreed that it is an ambitious project. It is difficult to justify exceeding the maximum floor area or lot coverage in such a substantial way. The Board felt it was hard to justify the variances, the plans were wonderful but the house could be changed around internally to meet the ADA regulations. J. St. Germain stated that an argument could be made that even though the area allows 20%, the applicant is starting with 25% and increasing only to 26%. The bedrooms will go from 4 to 3. K. Kotzan stated that granting this variance is inconsistent with the Boards voting record. He feels strongly that the existing rooms can be reduced in size and reconfigured. S. Stutts asked about clarifying the dormer height with the Zoning Enforcement Officer and if dormers are included in the coverage percentage. J. McQuade did not have a problem with the dormers and height. F. Sadowski stated that she likes the
plan but can’t see a basis for granting the variances. The Board did not find a hardship.
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by F. Sadowski, to DENY without prejudice the application to grant the variances, as per plans submitted, regarding Case 09-29, Sandra Y. Rueb, 5 Lieutenant River Lane. No further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to DENY without prejudice passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Approval of Minutes of the November 10, 2009 Regular Meeting
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan, to approve the minutes of the November 10, 2009 Regular Meeting, as amended by adding the word “further” to the motion on page 4 relating to Coty, 8 Spruce to read “No further discussion and a vote was taken”; no further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to approve passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Election of Officers
A Motion was made by S. Stutts seconded by K. Kotzan to re-nominate the exiting slate as follows: S. Stutts, Chairman, J. McQuade, Vice Chairman and K. Kotzan, Secretary. No further nominations and a vote was taken; the motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
Richard Moll brought to the Board’s attention a letter written by the First Selectman on January 4, 2010 to Mr. Sheffield trying to rectify a matter that has been ongoing since 2005. Mr. Moll stated that the matter has a date of May 1, 2010 to move a stone wall back to its original location.
New Business
S. Stutts welcomed the new alternate, Marilyn Ossmann, to the Board.
Fee Schedule
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by J. McQuade to change the Zoning Board of Appeals application fee from $160.00 to $260.00; no further discussion and a vote was taken and the motion to increase the fee passed unanimously 5-0-0.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by S. Stutts, seconded by K. Kotzan to adjourn the January 19, 2010 Regular Meeting; the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:45p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371
| |
