APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, May 10, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Public Hearing on Monday, May 10, 2004, in the auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Eric Fries (Vice Chairman), Jane Marsh (Secretary), Tom Risom, Joan Bozek, Howard Tooker (Alternate), John Johnson (Alternate) and Steve Ames (Alternate). Also present was Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
The Public Hearing convened at 7:31 p.m.
1. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to reconstruct the existing transfer station per DEP Consent Order of 2002, 109 Four Mile River Road, Town of Old Lyme, applicant.
James Otis, Professional Engineer with Anchor Engineering Services, was present to represent the applicant. He noted that the Public Hearing was continued from the April 12, 2004 Meeting. Mr. Otis explained that since the last meeting they have received comments relative to the transfer station improvements and the landfill closure from the Zoning Commission and have received a letter dated April 26, 2004 from Tom Metcalf who reviewed the submission on behalf of the Zoning Commission. He noted that the drawings have been revised to address all the comments and these plans were provided to Ms. Brown.
Mr. Otis stated that the drawings have been modified to indicate that the wall panels of the DPW building will be an earth tone gray or brown. He explained that the building would be used to house the Town’s pay loader and the curbside recycling truck. Mr. Otis stated that the Director of Public Works has confirmed that the pay loader will be used at this site after the landfill closes to manage the leaves that are on site, as well as the bulky waste which will continue to be managed on this site after the landfill closes. He stated that the driveway has been adjusted and is now centered in front of the building. Mr. Otis stated that the note on the light fixture has been changed to indicate that the light fixture shall direct light downward. He noted that the dimensions of the proposed
scale house have been added to the drawing and a note has been added to the site plan which states that the trees to the north of the proposed building shall not be removed without prior Zoning Commission approval.
Mr. Otis stated that Mr. Metcalf had comments regarding the detention pond outlet structure detail, which has been clarified. He indicated that Mr. Metcalf asked that the proposed grass swale be shown, and the 2-foot grade contours associated with the swale is now shown, as opposed to a dashed symbol indicating where it would be. Mr. Otis noted that on Sheet 2, they made minor adjustments to the grades in the vicinity of the building and west of the gravel access drive and proposed signage was added. He explained that a guide rail was added along the southern-most segment of the entrance drive in the vicinity of the wetlands area. Mr. Otis stated that they also answered other questions of Mr. Metcalf’s. He noted that on Sheet 3 of 4, Mr. Metcalf indicated that they should specify
material as per CT DOT Form 814A. He noted that this has been done. Mr. Otis stated that Mr. Metcalf asked for confirmation on several other issues, which was provided.
Mr. Otis stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission has not acted on this application. Ms. Bozek questioned the status of the application with the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Otis stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission met on April 27, the day he received Mr. Metcalf’s comments. He indicated that he was not able to address all of Mr. Metcalf’s comments at that meeting and they were unable to act because they did not have revised drawings. Mr. Otis agreed to grant an extension to keep the Public Hearing open awaiting a decision from the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Fries indicated that the Commission also needs to receive a letter from Mr. Metcalf indicating that he is satisfied with the resolution of his comments. He requested that the applicant supply the
lumen distribution pattern for the lighting showing how much goes out and how much goes down. Mr. Fries noted that this is a standard catalog item.
Ms. Bozek questioned whether the Town Sanitarian has approved the plans. She noted that Mr. Metcalf commented that there is no domestic water supply. Chairman Kiritsis asked Ms. Brown to get an answer on this item from the Sanitarian. Mr. Otis stated that the application notes that bottled water will be available and a portable restroom will be provided.
No one present spoke in favor of or against this application. The Public Hearing for this application is continued to the June 14, 2004 Regular Meeting.
2. Special Exception Modification Application, Restaurant Liquor Permit Application, 90 Halls Road, Old Lyme Marketplace, Sherlock 221, Lynne Sherlock, applicant.
Secretary Marsh read the legal notice for the record as published in the Main Street News on April 29 and May 6, 2004. Attorney David Condon and Lynne Sherlock were present to represent the applicant, WJ’s Restaurant, Inc. He submitted a notebook and asked that it be marked Exhibit G. Attorney Condon stated that Page 6 of the notebook is the definition of a Restaurant Liquor Permit. He stated that this is updated up to and including the 2003 Public Act and the copies supplied by the Zoning Commission marked Exhibit F are the 2001 version. Attorney Condon briefly reviewed the content of Exhibit G.
Attorney Condon stated that Section 45.2.2 of the Regulations deals with the spacing of liquor serving establishments. He noted that the distinction between 1,500’ and 750’ spacing of liquor serving establishments is the full service restaurant. Attorney Condon stated that there is an existing Special Exception for a liquor permit for Sherlock 221 and there have been no other changes to the establishment. He noted that the applicant is requesting a modification of the Special Exception and emphasized that there is no change to the physical layout of the premises.
Attorney Condon stated that when the C-30S zone was created, the separating distance was reduced from 1,500’ to 750’ provided that the liquor use was an accessory use to the primary use of a full service restaurant. He noted that after the zone was approved, the current Special Exception Application was submitted and approved. Attorney Condon noted that the minutes do not reflect a discussion of beer and wine, but rather refer to liquor. He explained that the previous owner, Anne Haviland, applied for a beer and wine permit in February of 2002. Attorney Condon stated that Anne’s Bistro applied for a tavern permit in June of 2003 and subsequently a café liquor permit was issued for this premises. He noted that they are asking for several waivers of the Site Plan/Special
Exception process.
Attorney Condon explained that the reason for this application is that a café permit was issued and café permits are prohibited in Old Lyme. He noted that the permit was issued in error and is the subject of an enforcement action, which is a separate action from this proceeding. Attorney Condon explained that they are seeking a modification of the Special Exception to specify that the restaurant permit would be acceptable for this location.
Ms. Sherlock stated that Sherlock 221 is a gourmet restaurant. She indicated that her operation is very similar to that of Anne’s Bistro. Ms. Sherlock indicated that the restaurant does not have a bar, but has tables where lunch and dinner are served. She noted that liquor is not served without food. Ms. Sherlock stated that she originally applied for a tavern permit on the advice of her agent from Consumer Protection. She explained that she then applied for a café permit, which was granted. Ms. Sherlock stated that after receiving the café permit quite a bit of plumbing work was done to enable the establishment to serve liquor. She noted that the counter shown on the site plan is the service area. Attorney Condon submitted photographs of this area, one taken
before the renovations and one taken after the renovations.
Chairman Kiritsis stated the quandary is that a café permit was issued, which is not allowed, and it was issued by some one who is not empowered to issue it. He noted that there was considerable discussion when the tavern permit was issued that the serving of liquor was limited to beer and wine. Mr. Fries agreed with Chairman Kiritsis’ recollection. Ms. Bozek questioned whether the establishment was limited to beer and wine because that’s all she wanted or did the Commission want to restrict the liquor license to beer and wine. She indicated that her memory is not clear on that issue. Attorney Condon read the statement of use from the Special Exception Application dated November 2001 which was eventually granted; “The subject property, Old Lyme Marketplace, designated
as Lot 79 on Assessor’s Map 21 is located in a C-30S Zone and is in use as a shopping center. The property includes the existing restaurant Anne’s Bistro. Anne’s Bistro LLC is requesting a Special Exception to permit the sale of liquor for onsite consumption in the existing restaurant as a “full service restaurant” as defined in the Zoning Regulations.”
Attorney Cronin stated that the minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meetings do not reflect a discussion of beer and wine. He explained that the Regulation change that reduced the separating distances permits the selling of alcoholic liquor for consumption on the premises provided that all sales of alcoholic liquor allowed in this section shall be an accessory use to the principal use of the serving of meals at a full service restaurant with alcohol served only to dining patrons.
Attorney Condon submitted 100 signatures in favor of Sherlock 221 being granted a full service restaurant license.
Chairman Kiritsis stated that a full service restaurant as defined in the Zoning Regulations is more stringent then the State. He indicated that the application before the Commission is for a full service restaurant with liquor. Ms. Marsh questioned whether the applicant would be willing to not use the counter for the service of meals. Ms. Sherlock stated that there are some customers that really enjoy eating at the counter. Ms. Marsh noted that it looks like a bar. Ms. Sherlock stated that she would be willing to move the alcohol from the wall and put it down below.
Mr. Fries questioned the minimum amount of food served with an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Sherlock stated that one has to at least order an appetizer. Mr. Fries stated that that is not what he had in mind, as he envisioned liquor being served with full meals.
Mr. Harold Obstler stated that he is in favor of the application. He indicated that he has never seen anyone sitting at the bar using it as a place to sit and drink. Mr. Obstler stated that it is a lovely restaurant.
Ms. Carol Venable and her husband Bill indicated that they have eaten at Sherlock 221 several times. She noted that they have eaten at the counter.
Mr. Ed Harrigan stated that he has lived in Old Lyme for 12 years and has eaten at Sherlock 221 many times because of the great food. He indicated that he also likes to support local businesses that hire local school children.
Ms. Celine Sullivan, Library Lane, stated that she supports the application. She noted that eating at counters in restaurants has become very trendy.
Mr. Robert Lindy stated that he is in favor of the application. He indicated that there would be recourse if the owner did not use the counter appropriately.
Rebecca Griffin, part-time employee at Sherlock 221, stated that she has seen Ms. Sherlock tell people that they must order food with their drinks. She indicated that the Commission should look favorably on the application.
Chuck Applebee stated that he is in favor of the application.
Arthur Hurst indicated that he is in favor of the application.
No one present spoke in opposition to the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the hearing.
A motion was made by Jane Marsh, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to close the hearing for the Special Exception Modification Application, Restaurant Liquor Permit Application, 90 Halls Road, Old Lyme Marketplace, Sherlock 221, Lynne Sherlock, applicant.
3. Site Plan/Special Exception Modification/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a pool, cabana, bathroom and shower facilities and a snack bar, 40 McCurdy Road, Old Lyme Country Club, Inc., applicant.
Secretary Marsh read the legal notice for the record. Gary Sharpe, McDonald-Sharpe Associates, was present to represent the applicant. He noted that the architect for the project is Wayne Gerrick and Sara McCracken the Landscape Architect were both also present. Mr. Sharpe displayed an aerial photograph to orientate people to the site. He noted that the area of activity is toward Johnny Hill Cake Road in the vicinity of a newly purchased house that was demolished. Mr. Sharpe gave a brief overview of the proposed site plan. He noted that the pool would be protected by a four-foot chain link fence. Mr. Shape stated that neighbors recently met with the Country Club and expressed an interest in a more solid barrier and the club has indicated that they would be willing to change it to
a four-foot solid wooden fence.
Mr. Sharpe stated that Mr. Metcalf discussed parking in his review letter. Mr. Sharpe explained that the Regulations do not directly address this particular situation so he has compiled a list from the Regulations. He noted that there are a few principal uses located on the property, one being the restaurant facility with 130 seats. Mr. Sharpe stated that the Regulations call for one space for each three seats, which would dictate 43 or 44 spaces for the restaurant use on the property. Mr. Shape stated that they currently have 41 spaces. He explained that the Regulations address recreation facilities and call for one space for every four uses of the recreational facility. Mr. Sharpe stated that the pool would be limited to 100 persons at a time, which would dictate 25 parking spaces. He noted that there are presently 23 parking spaces in this area and they are proposing to install two additional. Mr. Sharpe stated that the Club has found historically that they have adequate
parking and they don’t anticipate the need to expand parking for this facility.
Chairman Kiritsis questioned whether the newly purchased parcel has been merged with the Country Club property. Mr. Sharpe stated that it has been merged. Ms. Marsh asked that a copy of the deed be made part of the application.
Mr. Johnson questioned whether there is a cap on membership. It was noted that there are currently 440 active members of the Club, which is the maximum. Mr. Johnson questioned whether an additional fee would be charged for use of the pool. Mr. Sharpe stated that it is his understanding is that the pool is to enhance the club environment and all members would have access to the pool.
Wayne Gerrick, Architect, stated that the pool cabana consists of two locker room facilities and the facilities contain sinks, showers and water closets. He noted that there is a small locker area adjacent to each of these facilities. Mr. Gerrick stated that there is a connecting gate, which is the main entrance gate that comes from the parking lot. He noted that this is how the use of the pool will be controlled. He indicated that adjacent to this area is a small snack bar, primarily serving hot dogs, hamburgers, ice cream and drinks.
Mr. Gerrick stated that the entire roof area is approximately 1,500 square feet. He stated that the elevation of the pool deck and buildings is at elevation 65, which is approximately 7’ below the elevation of Johnny Cake Hill Road. Mr. Gerrick stated that the design of the building is wood shingles, with fiberglass shingles for the roof. He explained the elevation drawings to the Commission. Mr. Gerrick stated that to the highest point of the cupola it is 25 feet. He noted that there is a pergola at the far end of the pool, which is intended to provide shading for people by the pool. Ms. Marsh questioned whether there is a lighting plan. Mr. Gerrick indicated that the only lighting they are planning is at each doorway and perhaps a spot light on the building. He
indicated that no other outdoor lighting is proposed. Mr. Gerrick explained that the pool would be open from mid-morning to dusk. Mr. Sharpe explained the lighting, noting that there will be two 100 to 150 watt flood lights, one on the south side of the building to illuminate the parking area and sidewalk and the other on the north side of the building to light the pool deck. Mr. Sharpe noted that the lights will be shielded so that they do not spill out to Johnny Cake Hill Road. He stated that there is an 18” high wall on the east side of the pool deck and there are five low-intensity wall lights mounted in the wall. He indicated that there are eight lights in the pool itself. Mr. Sharpe stated that there is existing lighting, such as the lights on the paddle-tennis courts.
Mr. Fries questioned how they intend to protect themselves from unauthorized use of the pool after hours. Mr. Sharpe stated that they are required to install fencing and the Club currently has a security service that polices the area. He explained that the security company would make more frequent rounds through the area. Mr. Tooker questioned whether this facility would be used for weddings. Rick Ermler, President of Old Lyme Country Club, stated that there might be very limited use for a cocktail party on the pool deck. He indicated that they do not intend to use the facility in this manner on a regular basis. Mr. Fries questioned whether a cocktail party or such might extend into the night. Mr. Ermler replied that they could extend to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Fries questioned
whether they would be extending their liquor permit. Mr. Ermler stated that they do not have a liquor permit. He indicated that they would use liquid chlorine in the pool.
Mr. Sharpe noted that there is a proposed construction entrance from Johnny Cake Hill Road and it is his understanding that the club will not use this as a vehicle entrance. Mr. Gerrick stated that the construction schedule is to begin in September and have the pool in by December so that it would be ready to open in the spring of 2005. Mr. Gerrick stated that there will be fewer trucks on site then there would be to build a residence.
Mr. Johnson questioned the parking. Mr. Sharpe noted that there are currently 23 spaces and they are adding two more parking spaces. He noted there is parking for forty cars at the clubhouse, which is approximately 400 feet away. Mr. Johnson suggested a gate at the Johnny Cake Hill Road entrance to prevent use of this entrance by Club members.
Mr. Ermler stated that a very productive meeting was held with the neighbors and the use of the Johnny Cake Hill Road entrance was of great concern to them. He noted that the Club indicated that they would agree to close that entrance during the hours of operation of the pool. Mr. Sharpe stated that a waiver has been requested of an A2 Survey for the entire site, the topographic survey of the entire site, and for showing all utilities on the entire site. He indicated that Mr. Metcalf asked that utilities be shown on the plans and they have been added in the latest revision.
Sara McCracken was present to explain the landscaping. She noted that the plantings break down into three zones: 1) along Johnny Cake Hill Road; 2) the slope to the west of the pool decking; and 3) the zone within the pool fencing area, including the entrance area. Ms. McCracken stated that there is a stonewall along Johnny Cake which will remain, along with the evergreens and mature deciduous trees. She explained that there are forsythia and other shrubs and daffodils on the outside of the stonewall which will remain. Ms. McCracken stated that they are trying to keep this area looking as nice as it does now, without making it too pretty or suburban. She explained that to provide a further screen for the neighbors, they plan to add some deciduous shrubs between the wall and the fence. Ms. McCraken provided a plant list. She noted that the concern on the slope is erosion control, yet they would like all planting to be easy to maintain. Ms. McCraken stated that she has chosen
a group of ornamental and native grasses planted across the slope. She explained that these grasses would provide a nice backdrop, almost like a grass meadow.
Jeff Flower, Meetinghouse Lane, stated that he is not opposed to the project, but he is concerned with details such as the awning is now a pergola and there is no elevation drawing. He noted that there was no chain link fence on the plans last week, there is one now, but now it will be a solid wooden fence. Mr. Flower noted that again, there is no illustration as to what it will look like. He indicated that he reviewed the plans today in the Zoning Office and there were no landscape plans on file. He requested that the Public Hearing be continued so that neighbors have a chance to review the intended plans. Mr. Flower stated that he was not able to attend the meeting that was held with the neighbors. He indicated that he questioned what the parking situation would be and he was told
that the parking would be provided from their other property on McCurdy Road and people would be shuttled back and forth. Mr. Flower indicated that there needs to be a gate to stop Johnny Cake Hill traffic from going to the pool. He noted that he would like to see as little of the pool as possible and questioned whether the fence could be increased to 6’ in height. Mr. Flower pointed out that this pool is in a residential neighborhood and 100 people around a pool will create noise. He stated that he does not think the fence and landscaping will protect the neighbors from the noise. Mr. Flower stated that he would like to see limits and controls on evening parties at the pool.
Ms. Marsh read a letter dated May 3, 2004 from Frank Massa, 49 McCurdy Road, in favor of the application; letter dated May 9, 2004 from Raymond and Barbara Coste, expressing their concerns with the proposal; and a letter dated May 10, 2004 from Thomas F. McGarry in favor of the proposal and expressing concern over the use of Johnny Cake Hill Road for access to the site.
Mr. Fries questioned whether the four-foot wooden fence would be effective in controlling the noise. Mr. Ermler stated that he believes it will be effective because the pool deck is 7 feet below the road and the top of the fence is 10 feet above the pool deck. He stated that he believes the Club would be agreeable to a 6’ fence, but the Zoning Regulations would not allow a 6 foot fence in the front setback.
Mr. Sharpe stated that the parking lot would be a bituminous concrete surface as it currently is. He reminded the Commission that they would be agreeable to a condition that requires the gate being closed to traffic on Johnny Cake Hill Road when the pool is in use. Ms. Marsh stated that maintenance vehicles currently park on Johnny Cake and questioned whether would be spaces available to these vehicles in the new plans. Mr. Sharpe stated that he was not aware that the maintenance vehicles parked there and indicated that no spaces are marked solely for their use on the plans.
Peter Gerster, Johnny Cake Hill Road, stated that there are people parked on the side of the road every day. He indicated that the Club told him that this situation would be addressed and the parking would not be allowed on the road. Ms. Marsh suggested that the plans be revised to indicate how this will be accomplished.
Mr. Ermler stated that there are no definite plans for the pergolas because the building committee has not decided the exact design. Mr. Fries stated that the plans could be approved without the pergolas and the applicant could come back at a later date for approval on this item.
Hugh Fiore, Meetinghouse Lane, requested that closing the gate during pool hours be a condition of approval. He indicated that he feels some of the details have not been provided and indicated that he would like to see the Public Hearing continued so that information can be provided. Mr. Fiore stated that he believes this is a good time for both the Town and the Club to do something with the parking for the people that come to sled. He indicated that he would not like the people using the pool to park in this same area and requested that it be addressed. Mr. Fiore stated that the landscaping does not appear to be complete either, noting that the area where the sledders park should have some low growing shrubs to discourage parking in that area. Mr. Ermler stated that the Club could
discipline the members for parking in that area. He indicated that the sledders in the winter are more of a Town problem, but indicated the Club’s willingness to work with the Town in this regard.
Mr. Johnson questioned the number of employees that would be on site. Mr. Ermler stated that there are 10 people in the kitchen, three or four people in the golf shop and six to eight landscape people. He noted that the landscape people are done for the day by noon and the kitchen people come in mid-morning and the golf shop hours are 8:00 to 6:00. Mr. Johnson noted that that would be approximately 22 to 25 employees and questioned where they currently park. Mr. Ermler stated that 6 to 8 of them park at the maintenance facility and the remaining park in the parking lot by the club house or down at the tennis courts.
Jeff Flower asked that the Commission ask Gary Sharpe to locate all the houses on the plans in relation to the pool. He noted that it would give the Commission a better perspective in terms of noise and parking.
Sam Riccards, 14 Johnny Cake Hill Road, questioned whether the pool would be filled by a truck. Mr. Sharpe replied that the water would be supplied by truck.
Mr. Sharpe stated that he received comments from Marcy Balint, OLISP, and her only question was whether the property was located in a flood zone. He noted that a very small part is down toward the Lieutenant River. Ms. Brown stated that the Wetlands Commission provided a report that indicated they had no jurisdiction.
David Dongrabodum, 18 year member of the Club and adjoining property owner, stated that he is in favor of the proposal after many of the neighbor’s concerns were addressed at the meeting with the Club last week. He stated that he too would like to see a six-foot fence.
Mr. Johnson requested that Gary Sharpe stakeout the pool so that the Commission members could visit the site. Chairman Kiritsis agreed and asked for a motion to continue the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Tom Risom, seconded by Eric Fries and voted unanimously to continue this Public Hearing to the June 14, 2004 Regular Meeting.
Chairman Kiritsis encouraged Commission members to visit the site.
4. Site Plan/Coastal Site Plan Application to construct a 15,000 square foot lawn maintenance facility, 61-1 Buttonball Road, Ronald Swaney, applicant.
Ronald Swaney was present to explain his application. He noted that his application was previously approved but the mylars were not filed and the approval expired. Mr. Swaney stated that he has made some changes to the driveway. He indicated that he closed off the driveway and by doing that water problems were created. Mr. Swaney stated that he has put in a pipe to take care of the water problem. He explained that he is resubmitting to the Wetlands Commission for approval, after engineering review. Mr. Swaney stated that if the Wetlands requests a change in this area, he will do whatever it is that they request.
Mr. Swaney stated that he does not have a tenant for this building. He indicated that he has met a few times with Blackhall Country Club and they have discussed their leasing the building. Mr. Swaney stated that if they were to lease the building, 90 percent of it would be used for storage and perhaps 10 percent for office space. He noted that their employees number less than twenty. Mr. Swaney stated that they would access the property through the existing trees directly from the golf course. He indicated that they have also discussed additional screening. Mr. Swaney stated that the drainage and the lack of a tenant are the only two changes in the application. He noted that he would like to construct the building so that he may find a tenant.
Ms. Marsh questioned whether it was Mr. Swaney’s intention to come back to the Commission when he had an actual use for the building. Mr. Swaney replied that he would. Mr. Swaney indicated that he has made some changes to the siding and windows. Ms. Marsh suggested that he stick to the approved plans since he does not have plans to show these changes. She noted that he can than apply to make modifications to the plan. Mr. Tooker stated that the approved hours of operation is 24 hours a day. He questioned whether this aspect should be amended. Ms. Marsh explained that the approval will be made and if there is a different tenant Mr. Swaney will have to apply for a modification to the site plan and at that time submit a modified statement of use. She indicated that the
Commission could change the hours of operation at that time, depending upon the use being requested.
Mr. Risom suggested that this application be withdrawn and an extension be granted to the original approval. Ms. Brown questioned whether the Commission could extend an expired application.
Mr. Risom cautioned Mr. Swaney that the changes would have to be made by site plan modification application.
Mr. Swaney stated that Mr. Metcalf’s comments from the original approval have been addressed on the site plan. Ms. Marsh suggested that the plans be sent to Mr. Metcalf for evaluation. Ms. Brown stated that approval was originally given on November 25, 2002. Ms. Marsh questioned when the approval expired. Ms. Brown stated that he would have had to start within a year of that time, in which case he would have had to file mylars in that time period. Mr. Swaney stated that he was not aware until this past February that the mylars had not been filed. Mr. Risom questioned why Mr. Metcalf had not reviewed the plans submitted for this Public Hearing. Ms. Brown indicated that it appears the plans have not been submitted to him. She indicated that she would send him a copy of
the plans so that he may begin his review. Ms. Marsh stated that she would like to see a requirement that Mr. Swaney file the mylars within 60 days.
Mr. Fries questioned whether the Commission would be voting on the Site Plan/Special Exception Application before them this evening. Ms. Marsh said they are not. Mr. Fries questioned whether Mr. Swaney should then withdraw his application. Ms. Marsh stated that they are acting on a request to give Mr. Swaney more time to file his maps. Ms. Brown read the Regulation concerning expiration of approvals and suggested that the Commission act on the application before them as a resubmission of the original plan and have Mr. Metcalf confirm that the plans are in compliance with the original approval. She indicated that she does not think the Commission can extend an approval that has already expired. Ms. Bozek agreed. She suggested approving the application subject to the same conditions
imposed as part of the original approval.
Dave Vitali indicated that he is in favor of the proposal. Howard Wood, 20 Buttonball, indicated that he is in favor of the proposal.
Hearing no further comments Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Tom Risom, seconded by Eric Fries and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for this item. The Public Hearing adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
