 |
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 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, September 21, 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 and voting for the meeting.
Present and voting were Susanne Stutts, Chairman, Judy McQuade, Vice Chairman, Kip Kotzan, Secretary, Joseph St. Germain and Marilyn Ossmann, alternate, seated for Richard Moll
Present: Richard Smith, alternate, Kim Barrows, Clerk
Absent: Richard Moll and Fran Sadowski, alternate
The meeting was then called to order at 7:40 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:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 10-09 John Maloney, 19 Saltaire Drive
Present: Thomas McGarry, Esquire, attorney for the applicant.
Attorney McGarry gave a brief presentation and apologized that his client could not be there this evening. The house was built in 1950 with the existing garage. With today’s standards for car size, the garage is not suitable for modern day cars, they just don’t fit. There is a small bathroom to the rear of the garage and the intent is to incorporate the kitchen into the garage area and refurbish the bathroom. The area will be brought up to current building and fire code. There will be no exterior changes, the garage doors will also remain as they are today. The only exterior change will be that a window to the side of the house which will be blocked up and sided over and a new window over the kitchen sink will be installed. There will be no additional bedrooms proposed in
the dwelling. All of the work will be interior work. The hardship is unique because it is a 1950’s house that needs to be brought up to current codes and modernized.
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow the kitchen to move to the existing garage and renovate existing bathroom in garage. The existing nonconformities Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area of 10,000 sq. feet required, 8,000 sq. feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 sq. feet required, 8,000 sq. feet existing, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from street line, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line. The proposal does not comply with Section 8.0.c (Yards and Lot Coverage) and Section 9.1.3.1 (General Rule).
S. Stutts stated that there is a current permit to re-roof. This permit is to move the kitchen into the garage. The bathroom in the garage will be the second bathroom for the house, and there are three (3) bedrooms. S. Stutts asked about what the existing space in the garage is used for. Attorney McGarry stated that the space is currently used for storage, but they are willing to give it up for the kitchen/bath renovations. S. Stutts stated that this is a common problem and not a hardship, since a lot of the houses have the same problem in the beach area. Attorney McGarry stated that it is an element of bringing the present facilities already there up to code to provide a safe environment for those who use it. J. St. Germain asked if the applicant gets this variance is it
his intent to ask for a variance for a garage down the road. Attorney McGarry responded no, he stated that his applicant recognizes that there is not an area on the property to construct a garage. S. Stutts stated that there is only 5.4 inches between the garage and the property line on that side, Attorney McGarry stated that there would be no further encroachment on that side. S. Stutts asked if there was another alternate place for the kitchen expansion. M. Ossmann asked how the space that currently houses the kitchen will be used. Attorney McGarry stated that it would be part of the expanded kitchen and an eating area. The Board members and Attorney McGarry reviewed the plans submitted. K. Kotzan asked about the dimensions of the garage, they are 10 feet wide and 24 feet deep. K. Kotzan asked about the specs for a one story house would be, the gross living area for this house currently is 832 square feet, there is a 224 square foot
enclosed porch and a garage of 240 square feet, according to Vision Appraisal. J. St. Germain asked if there were letters in support, there were none.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing was closed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 10-11 (a) Appeal of Leonard J. Corto, Manager of On the Beach, LLC
Present: Stephen Penny, attorney for the appellant, On the Beach, LLC, Leonard J. Corto and Leonard T. Corto, Members of the appellant limited liability company, Frank Noe, Manager-Member of the property owner, Sound View Property Management, LLC
Also present: Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Eric Knapp, Esquire, attorney for Ann Brown
S. Stutts stated that this is an appeal by Leonard Corto, Lenny’s on the Beach, LLC of a Cease and Desist Order issued the by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Ann Brown. Ann Brown then gave her reasons for the issuance of the Cease and Desist Order and stated that she has been the Zoning and Wetlands Enforcement Officer since 2002. In July of this year she sent out a Cease and Desist Order for the activities going on at Lenny’s On the Beach, which was formerly the Oceanspray, it’s a restaurant/bar on Hartford Avenue on the beach. The three violations cited were for bands being allowed to play without Zoning Commission approval, the installation of a deck without permits and Zoning Commission approval and a food cart on the premises without approval from the Zoning Commission. All of the
activities listed in the Cease and Desist required Zoning Commission approval. A number of complaints had been received by the Health Department, the Police Department and surrounding neighbors regarding all of those activities, which then precipitated the sending of the Cease and Desist Order. The Order has been appealed and that is why they are here this evening. The Zoning Board of Appeals has seen the file and the pictures of the violations. The Fire Marshal submitted a letter and photo with respect to the violation of the deck, not just the original deck but an extension of the deck as well. The Zoning Enforcement Officer stated that the liquor permits are approved by the Zoning Commission by Special Permit. When something about the liquor permit changes, the Liquor Control Commission requires a new application to be submitted to the Liquor Control Commission and there is a sign off for the Zoning Commission, if there are no changes to the
sort of permit that it is, the Zoning Commission just signs it and does not hold a public hearing or meeting about it. If there is a change in either the type of permit or the character of the permit, such as change in entertainment, the Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and they decide whether it is appropriate or not. A. Brown submitted copies of the Zoning signatures on four different applications. She stated that when the operators of the establishments change, the Liquor Commission requires that the applications be filled out and signed by the Zoning Commission. One of the permits was signed on April 13, 2008 by Tom Risom, Chairman of the Zoning Commission for Lenny’s on the Beach, for a 12 month café liquor permit with solo acoustic entertainment. There was not a hearing held on this since it was not a change in the type of permit. Ann Brown also signed an application on June 11, 2003 for “Smells like the Sea”, Jib 88, which was a café permit, solo acoustic
as well. After 2003 the Zoning Commission began to sign the liquor applications. K. Kotzan asked if the applications included food service with the “café’ permit. A. Brown stated she did not know. A Notice of Violation was sent out on July 8, 2010 from the Health Department for the hot dog cart. The takeout food aspect requires a Zoning Special Permit. A. Brown stated that Mr. Corto came to the Zoning Commission on April 12, 2010 to discuss what he needed to do to get a number of things done on the property, she submitted the minutes from that meeting. The Zoning Commission then told Mr. Corto that he needed to apply for the Special Permit and have a proper site plan, but that was never done and the activities continued, thus necessitating the Cease and Desist Order.
Attorney Knapp then spoke on behalf of Ann Brown the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Attorney Knapp went over the photos in the file, stating the deck is a new structure without approvals, with a band playing on the deck which neither solo nor acoustic. He then went over all of the liquor permits again. Attorney Knapp stated that this was a simple matter for the ZBA, there are two questions to answer. One is whether the change from multi-person amplified music to solo acoustic was a change of use, if it was, then having changed to solo acoustic, was it a change in use. Did the permits they filed for solo acoustic music constitute an abandonment of their ability to use the site for amplified, multi-person music. He states whatever their previous nonconforming use may have been,
whatever the affidavits may show regarding prior use of this property for amplified music by more than one person, if they have applied for a permit seeking solo acoustic music, it is the position of the ZEO that that permit application constitutes a decision to abandon whatever prior rights they had to use it for amplified music. Attorney Knapp then went on to discuss relinquishing of prior rights by giving up amplified music and how the applicant needed to seek proper Zoning approval. That is the position of the ZEO. With respect to the food cart, there is nothing in the records, so far, evidencing prior outside service of food. The same for the deck, a permit is needed and one has never been obtained, therefore it is an illegal deck without the proper permits. K. Kotzan asked if the ZBA could take each matter separately, i.e. deck vs. food cart, or the music. Attorney Knapp stated that the statute reads that the Board can uphold, overturn or
modify the Cease and Desist Order to the extent that it is modified by saying the Board agrees with the deck but not with the food, or however, the Board has the power to re-write it or modify it in some way.
Attorney Penny then gave his presentation by stating that this is an appeal of a Cease and Desist Order issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer under date of July 15, 2010. The Order alleges that the property owner permitted bands to play, a deck to be installed, and a food cart for the sale of take-out food items to be installed, all without the benefit of approval from the Zoning Commission. He further states that the Order was issued based on the following sections of the current zoning regulations:
1. Section 5.13.3, which provides for zoning commission site plan review and approval for any new use or development, changes in use, demolition of buildings, and new construction or development within the Sound View Village District (SVVD);
2. Section 5.13.4.3 e, that requires the issuance of a Special Permit for “entertainment and recreational uses” in the SVVD zone;
3. Section 5.13.4 n, requiring a Special Permit for “take-out restaurants where the patrons pick up their food on foot, and there is no delivery service or drive-through service to persons located on or in vehicles” in the SVVD zone; and
4. Section 20.3.1, providing that “no premises, building or other structure, or part thereof, shall be used, or changed in use…until an application for a zoning permit has been submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and a Zoning Permit therefore has been issued by such Officer”.
Attorney Penny states that is it their position that the amplified live band entertainment is a legal nonconforming use of this premises to which the current zoning regulations, with their special permit requirements, do not apply, the same is true for the take-out food use, and that the deck is not a permanent structure subject to the regulations.
Attorney Penny goes on to describe the location of the property, it is located on the easterly side of Hartford Avenue, directly on the beach of Long Island Sound and the parcel is .36 acres in size. According to town records, the 2,394 square foot building in which the appellant’s business is located was constructed in 1880. The restaurant and bar business is conducted on the 1412 square foot first floor, and also on a 1488 square foot beach-side patio. The property was zoned C-10, a commercial zone district classification, for at least three decades and is reflected on the exhibits in the file which are the 1957 Zoning Map, Rev. to 3/10/74 and the Zoning Map adopted effective May 31, 1991, showing no revisions] In 2005, the property was incorporated into the Sound View Village District then
being established, and reclassified SVVD (listed as an exhibit in the file as Zoning Map effective 1991, revised to 5-1-09). He notes that revision #7 of this map dated 8-18-05 notes that the south end of Hartford Avenue was reclassified from C-10 to SVVD. The abutting parcel to the east of the subject property has always been in a residential zone, houses, and has housed for decades, a restaurant and bar operation with live band amplified music just like the appellant’s. Per the records on file in the Zoning Office as reviewed, this use on that parcel has time and again been recognized by the town zoning authorities as a legal nonconforming use.
Attorney Penny goes on by stating that by letter dated June 28, 2010, his office requested a ruling from the Zoning Enforcement Officer that the playing of live amplified music at the subject property constituted a legal nonconforming use, and attached four affidavits regarding the history of such use at the property in support of that request. He also submitted several affidavits to that affect. The ZEO’s response was to issue a Cease and Desist Order under date of July 1, 2000 (a typographical error that was corrected by reissuance of the Order under date of July 15, 2010), and to refer the request for a ruling to the Board’s attorneys at Branse, Willis & Knapp. He further states that Attorney Knapp responded by letter dated July 13, 2010, indicating that our client’s continued
use of the property for that purpose pending a ruling had prompted issuance of a Cease and Desist Order, and so decision in the matter would shift to the ZBA. An analysis of the Zoning Enforcement Officers Cease and Desist Order must, of necessity, begin with the zoning regulations themselves. Attorney Penny reviews the Zoning Regulations from 1991 forward. (A copy of his outline in the file for further review) Attorney Penny then states that this is the first time that a special permit approval was required under the regulations with respect to the “restaurants with entertainment” use. Of course, as a pre-existing legal nonconforming use, this regulation also would not apply to the subject property. Pursuant to Section 5.13.3 of the SVVD regulations, at subsections ‘a’ and ‘b’ requires that the following activities obtain “site plan review and approval by the Zoning Commission”: “new use or
development”; “any full or partial demolition of any building or structure”; “changes in use”; and “demolition of buildings and new construction or development.” Attorney Penny alleges that, as a pre-existing legal nonconforming use, the amplified live band music does not fall into any of these categories. Specifically, it’s not a “new use or development”, or a “change of use”. Meanwhile, Section 5.13.4.3 of the SVVD regulations requires certain uses to have a Special Permit under Section 13B, and these uses include at subsection ‘e’, “Entertainment and recreational uses (e.g., rides, arcades)”. As Attorney Penny previously stated, these regulations would only apply to uses established or changed after their effective date, and would not apply to the “entertainment” use on the subject property given its status as a pre-existing legal nonconforming use. Attorney Penny then called several witnesses to evidence the legal nonconforming use status without abandonment. Mr. Leonard
J. Corto was his first witness with respect to the abandonment issue.
Attorney Penny states that it is possible for such a use to be abandoned by a property owner, however, the burden of proving such abandonment is upon the one claiming such abandonment. Such proof must be of an intent to permanently abandon the nonconforming use. Mere nonuse is insufficient to establish abandonment because state law provides that zoning regulations “shall not provide for the termination of any nonconforming use solely as a result of nonuse for a specified period of time without regard to the intent of the property owner to maintain that use.” CGS Sec. 8-2. Indeed, a Connecticut court held that the owner of a nonconforming hotel had not abandoned the use by closing the hotel in 1966 because he had always intended to renovate and reopen it, in this instance 1991. Davis v. Fairfield
ZBA. Mr. Frank Noe then gave testimony regarding abandonment, he stated that he never intended to abandon the band aspect.
With respect to the deck cited in the C&D Order, the ZEO cited the appellant for failure to obtain a zoning permit to construct a deck pursuant to Section 20.3.1 of the regulations. That section of the regulations deals with “buildings” or “other Structures” being “constructed, reconstructed, extended, moved or altered” without a permit. The “deck” in question is a free-standing temporary construction that is not attached to anything, and is moved and doubles as a loading platform in the off-season. Section 3 #45 of the regulations defines a “deck” as an “Accessory Structure” consisting of one or more horizontal surfaces attached to and extending from a Dwelling and used for Accessory residential uses…”. Attorney Penny states that that is clearly. Section 3 #192 of the regulations defines “Structure” as “Anything which is constructed or erected and the use of which requires more or less permanent location on ground or water areas…”. Attorney Penny states that this
construction doesn’t meet that definition either.
Consequently, this construction is not subject to the zoning permit requirement. Mr. Corto stated that the decking is used in the off season as a loading platform, it is temporary and is moveable. K. Kotzan asked if the platform would not be classified as a structure under the Zoning Regulations. Eric Knapp stated that with respect to the definition section the difference and interpretation of a “ ,” and a “;” is very, very important. J. St. Germain asked if the primary use of the deck is to hold the bands during the summer season, the answer was yes.
Attorney Knapp stated that abandonment is more than nonuse, more than simply stopping. There have been liquor permits since 2003 that specifically stated solo acoustic.
Mr. Leonard T. Corto, Jr. testifies to the amplified music and the food service. There has always been food service. Mr. Noe stated that a grill was on the patio where hot dogs were served to those on the beach, but no “food cart” per se. He states there was not a deck outside put a patio. There was discussion about the photos submitted.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Frank Noe stated that he purchased the property in May of 2006 and due to the time constraint to open before Memorial Day, never challenged the fact that he had to have solo acoustic per the ZEO, he was under duress. He never intended to abandon the previous use of having bands. Attorney Knapp then asked if Mr. Noe had bands, Mr. Noe stated no. Mr. Victor Dellaripa of 10 Fifth Avenue stated he has been complaining for years about the noise, he also sent a letter to the Attorney General; Russ Carlyle of 64 Swan Avenue, stated that his quality of life has been diminished; Mr. Gary Gnazzo of 8 Pond Road stated that he never minded the amplified music before, but now it goes on until 1:00 or 2:00 in the
morning.
There was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board but the Board did decide to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting for input from their counsel. An opinion from Zoning Board of Appeals counsel is requested with respect to the abandonment of use.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by K. Kotzan, to CONTINUE the public hearing to the October 19, 2010 Regular Meeting on Case 10-11 (a) Appeal of Leonard J. Corto, Manager of On the Beach, LLC in order to obtain advice from counsel. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, M. Ossmann In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Case 10-12 Lyn & Maryann Menard, 4 Ridgewood Road
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Lyn Menard, applicants
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow 6’ x 12’ deck in front, raising of the roofline of the entire house, change in the pitch of the roof over the existing porch and reconfiguration of existing interior space. The existing nonconformities Section 8.8.1, minimum lot area of 10,000 sq. feet required, 5,000 sq. feet existing, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 sq. feet required, 5,000 sq. feet existing, Section 8.8.3, minimum dimension of a square on the lot 75 feet, currently 50 feet exists, Section 8.8.7, minimum setback from street line, 25 feet require, 16 feet existing and Section 8.8.9, minimum setback from other property line, 12 feet required, 10.5 feet existing on the east side and 9.5 feet on the west side. The proposal does not comply
with Section 8.0.c (Yards and Lot Coverage), Section 9.3.1 (enlargement) and Section 9.1.3.1 (General Rule). The hardship is the small lot and there will be no expansion of the footprint.
Mr. Menard gave a brief presentation. He stated that they originally proposed to put a 6’ x 12’ deck in the front of the house but have decided against it. S. Stutts asked the applicants to note that on the plan in the file. The building was constructed in 1949 and the roof is sagging and needs to be structurally supported and reframed. Since it has to be reframed, they propose to raise the height of the roof and also update the roof over the existing porch structure. At the same time, they will also be reconfiguring the inside space. The porch during the reconfiguration process will become a part of the actual living space. The front entry will also be moved from the side to the front of the porch now living space, this was also noted on the plan in the file.
There was discussion of the different dimensions shown on the plan and on the Assessor’s card/Vision Appraisal. The applicants will be upgrading the roof and putting in insulation. K. Kotzan didn’t feel that the raising of the roofline was an issue, but removing the porch to expand the living space could become an issue. The existing house is very small (760 square feet) and by incorporating the porch, it adds an additional 150 square feet to the house. After discussion the Board felt this was a modest sized home. There were no letters submitted either in favor or in opposition. The bedrooms will remain two and there will be a shower added to the existing bathroom.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. There was no audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The public hearing closed.
Case 10-13 Karen Montanaro Kingston & Richard J. Kingston, Jr., 12 Old Colony Road
Present: Michael Cronin, Jr., Esquire, agent for the applicant, Mr. & Mrs. Kingston, applicants
S. Stutts stated that this is a request for variances to allow occupancy of the existing premises for year-round use. The existing nonconformities are Section 8.8.1, minimum lot size, required 10,000 square feet, existing is 7,470 square feet, Section 8.8.2, minimum lot area for each dwelling unit 10,000 square feet required, 7,470 square feet existing, Section 8.8.5, maximum number of stories is 1 ½, currently there exists 2 stories, Section 8.8.8, minimum setback from rear property line, required is 30 feet, existing is 29 feet to rear steps of house and 2 feet to garage, and Section 8.8.10 maximum floor area as percent of lot area 25% required (1,867.75 s.f. permitted), 28.6% exists (2,139 s.f.). The hardship is
The proposal does not comply with Section 9.1.3.1 (General Rule), Section 9.3.1 (Enlargement) and Section 11.19.B 1 (a), the lot shall contain a minimum of 10,000 square feet and there shall be no more than one dwelling unit located on the lot.
Attorney Cronin gave his presentation. He went over the variances requested and the history of the property. The applicants went before the Zoning Commission on November 10, 2008 and received a Special Permit to convert the property from a two family dwelling to a one family. The Special Permit stated that the property was seasonal and that is why the applicants are now applying to the ZBA for year-round status. The applicants put in a new septic, new electrical, and the house complies with all the regulations except for the size of the lot. There is no additional land available to make the lot comply with the 10,000 square feet requirement in the Zoning Regulations. K. Kotzan asked if the applicant was asking for a variance to become year-round or are they claiming that the designation
of seasonal use is in fact incorrect. Attorney Cronin stated that they are asking for a variance of the 10,000 square foot requirement. Attorney Cronin stated that the dwelling is physically a year-round dwelling except for the zoning aspect of lot size. J. McQuade asked about the hardship, Attorney Cronin stated that the hardship is that even though they meet all the technical requirements for year-round use they can’t use the property year-round and the applicants are being deprived of their right to use the property for a use that is specifically allowed in that zone. J. McQuade stated that that hardship is shared by everyone in that neighborhood, it is an R-10 zone, it is not unique. Attorney Cronin stated that it is unique in this sense because many of the properties in the non-sewered areas of the Town can’t comply with the health code requirements. The Sanitarian has signed off on the system as a “year-round”
system. Attorney Cronin stated that this property has special characteristics that allow it to meet everything except one simple requirement. K. Kotzan stated that when the Board varies a regulations, it has to view the hardship with regard to that regulation as being unique, which this is not. Attorney Cronin stated that the Board deals with substandard lots all of the time. Attorney Cronin stated that if the applicant came before him two years ago, he would have told the applicant to knock down the house and rebuild in accordance with the regulations, it would become a year-round use just by doing that. J. McQuade, stated no, not on an improper sized lot. S. Stutts stated that sometimes they have borderlines, i.e., if it is 9,000 plus, but granting a variance for over 2,500 square feet. Attorney Cronin stated that maybe if it was a new structure, or expanding it further, but this structure is already there, the footprint did not change. K. Kotzan stated that it is an
established nonconforming use, but he feels the applicant is asking for an intensification of that use (going from seasonal to year-round). K. Kotzan discussed the intent of the regulation and the expansion of a nonconforming use on the property. J. St. Germain asked how are they expanding? S. Stutts stated that they are using it six (6) more months out of the year. J. St. Germain stated that originally there were two (2) families in the house for six months of the year, now you have one family all year. J. St. Germain stated now there are fewer bedrooms, so is this an expansion. The Board further discussed this topic. Mr. Kingston stated that at the time of the Zoning Commission Special Permit approval, one of the Commission members stated that this approval did not preclude them from applying for year-round status. Mrs. Kingston stated that there are only two people in the house now, her and her husband. When it was a two
family rental unit, there were up to 10 people there at a time. So in this respect, it is a decrease in the use, not an intensification. J. St. Germain stated that probably the rationale of the Zoning Commission and allowing the applicants to get the Special Permit, that it was a decrease in the intensity of the use. K. Kotzan stated that they are not debating that. S. Stutts, stated that the Zoning Commission would like everything to be more conforming, so anything going towards that direction they probably wouldn’t want. The Board discussed this topic at length. J. McQuade stated the Board has to grant variances on hardship and this property does not have a unique hardship. Attorney Cronin brought up another point about the new regulations in effect and the property list of 400 names who are automatically granted zoning, year-round status because they are on the list. Attorney Cronin stated that his clients tried to get on the
list, but the list is closed. He stated that there is such a thing as equal protection of the law, and this is reflected in the statutes under Section 8-2, all such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building, structures or uses throughout each district. The Board discussed the outcome of the settlement. Attorney Cronin stated that the Zoning Regulations reference the law suit resolution, but he has not been able to find such a document, there is no Judgment entered into the Court record, there is nothing on the record other than that list in the regulations that exempts the 400 plus or minus individuals. Attorney Cronin asked how does that work into the hardship aspect? Traditionally hardships are shown when people have been deprived of the use of their property by unconstitutional procedures, and if it turns out that they are being treated in an unconstitutional way, that in itself is a basis for a hardship that will justify the
granting of a variance. K. Kotzan stated that the Board had been told that the Board should look at it when someone comes in, who is not on the list they are to be treated as a normal applicant. Attorney Cronin then stated that the Board should seek an opinion from its counsel.
The Chairman opened the floor for comments from the audience either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Richard Calitro of 11 Old Colony Road in favor and Mr. Douglas Whalen, 41 Old Colony Road, who is also President of the Old Colony Beach Association, there was no further audience participation and no further comments from the Board. The Board decided to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting for counsel input.
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by K. Kotzan, to CONTINUE the public hearing to the October 19, 2010 Regular Meeting on Case 10-13 Kingston, 12 Old Colony Road in order to obtain advice from counsel i.e. whether use intensified, Zoning Commission Special Permit condition to remain seasonal implications. No discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, M. Ossmann In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Due to the lateness of the hour:
A Motion was made by J. St. Germain, seconded by K. Kotzan to schedule a Special Meeting for Monday, September 27, 2010 to decide the following cases: Case 10-09 John Maloney, 19 Saltaire Drive and Case 10-12 Lyn & Maryann Menard, 4 Ridgewood Road. No further discussion and a vote was taken: In favor: S. Stutts, J. McQuade, K. Kotzan, J. St. Germain, M. Ossmann In opposition: None Abstaining: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-0-0
Approval of Minutes of the July 20, 2010 Regular Meeting
Deferred to the Special Meeting scheduled for Monday, September 27, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the Mezzanine Conference Room, Town Hall.
Adjournment
A Motion was made by K. Kotzan, seconded by M. Ossmann to adjourn the September 21, 2010 Regular Meeting; no further discussion and a vote was taken. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. 5-0-0 The meeting adjourned at 11:35p.m.
The next Regular Meeting of the ZBA will be on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall, Auditorium/Meeting Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim N. Barrows, Clerk
Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals
Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371 Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371
| |
