APPROVED
OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, June 14, 2004
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held its Public Hearing on Monday, June 14, 2004, in the auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Members present were Ted Kiritsis (Chairman), Eric Fries (Vice Chairman), Joan Bozek, Howard Tooker (Alternate - seated), John Johnson (Alternate - seated) 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, Anchor Engineering, was present to explain the application. He noted that the Public Hearing was continued from May 10, 2004, and he believes they have addressed all of the outstanding comments.
Mr. Otis stated that Tom Metcalf issued a letter on April 26, 2004 with comments on the application and he responded to those comments on May 7, 2004. He noted that at the May 10, 2004 Meeting of the Zoning Commission it was noted that they could not take action because the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission had not acted yet on the application and Tom Metcalf had not reviewed the drawings revised through May 7, 2004. Mr. Otis stated that Mr. Metcalf indicates in a letter dated May 21, 2004, that the May 7 revisions are adequate and address his comments. He noted that Mr. Metcalf suggests a few conditions of approval in this letter. Mr. Otis stated that they revised their plans again through May 25, and these changes include a recommendation from Inland Wetlands and Mr. Metcalf’s
proposed conditions. He noted that a revised light fixture detail was included in the May 25 transmittal.
Mr. Otis stated that one of the Commissioners wanted Mr. Metcalf to confirm his intent when, on April 26, he talked about a NPDS Permit requirement. He noted that Mr. Metcalf’s May 21, 2004 letter does clarify the permit requirement.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the 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.
2. 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.
Gary Sharpe, McDonald/Sharpe Associates, was present to represent the applicant, along with Wayne Gerrick, Architect and Sarah McCracken, Landscape Architect. Mr. Sharpe noted that there were a few outstanding items from the May 10, 2004 meeting. He noted that the first was that the propane tank should be buried and in the latest revisions the tanks are shown underground. Mr. Sharpe stated that the means of access to the site for a variety of purposes was also discussed. He noted that the access to the site will be from McCurdy Road, over the existing access leading into the Country Club. He explained that Richard Ermler, President of the Country Club, has issued a letter indicating that to be the case. Mr. Sharpe stated that the gate located in the northeast corner of this project area
is to be closed and kept locked during the months in which the pool is in operation so that the public cannot access the site through the gate.
Mr. Sharpe stated that there were questions about parking on Johnny Cake Hill Road, specifically by personnel from the Country Club. He noted that Mr. Ermler has advised their employees that they are not to park on Johnny Cake Hill Road. Mr. Sharpe stated that the parking area to the east of the proposed pool on the latest revision has been expanded to conform to the current Regulations with respect to dimensional considerations.
Mr. Johnson questioned whether the plans refer to specific dates that the gate will be shut. Mr. Sharpe stated that they do not have a definite date of when the pool will be open or closed, which is why the note reads that it will be shut when the pool is open. Ms. Bozek stated that a note that read “for such time the pool is open during each year” would work just fine.
Mr. Sharpe pointed out that the two parcels have been officially merged and a copy of the deed was submitted for the file. Mr. Fries noted that the following new exhibits have been entered into the record since the last Public Hearing:
Exhibit S – Letter dated May 27, 2004 from Gary Sharpe outlining additional submissions.
Exhibit T – Photograph and Specification of fence.
Exhibit U – Letter dated May 20, 2004 from Richard Ermler to Zoning Commission.
Exhibit V – Quit Claim Deed
Exhibit W – Architectural Plans revised through May 26, 2004.
Exhibit X – Lighting details.
Exhibit Y – Landscape Plan dated May 12, 2004 as prepared by Sarah McCracken, Landscape Architect
Exhibit Z – Site Plan revised through May 14, 2004.
Wayne Gerrick, Architect, stated that the structure at the north end of the pool area would be a pergola and not an awning. He noted that the idea of having an awning or pergola by the kiddy pool has been eliminated so there is only one structure. Mr. Gerrick distributed copies of the architectural plan for the pergola. He noted that the pergola is 42 feet long and 14 feet front to back. Mr. Gerrick noted that the structure is approximately 12 feet tall. He noted that they have also submitted the cuts for two lighting fixtures. Mr. Gerrick indicated that one of the fixtures will be at each of the doorways and there are four doorways involved. He noted that there are no lights on the pergola. Mr. Gerrick stated that there are two spotlights, one on each gable. Mr.
Gerrick stated that the wall-mounted lights would be small lights mounted low on the wall.
Ms. McCracken submitted a photograph of the style of fence they are planning to use. She noted that the fence they have specified is four feet high, although the fence depicted is 8 feet high. Ms. McCracken showed the location of the fence on the site plan. She indicated that the wooden fence would be approximately 75 feet long. Ms. McCracken stated that there is a double gate at the far end of the property. She noted that the gate will be locked at all times and the intention is to use it for only emergencies.
Ms. Bozek questioned where the dumpster was being relocated to and questioned whether there is any screening associated with it. Mr. Sharpe stated that they do not know where the dumpster will be relocated to, but he can say that it will be located such that it will be less obtrusive then it is today.
Stanford Brainerd, property owner in the neighborhood and member of the Country Club stated that the building that was demolished for this construction was an eyesore. He stated that the building was derelict and the property has overgrown bushes, vines and trash. Mr. Brainerd stated that the removal of that building would enhance the value of neighboring properties. He indicated that the people parking along the roadway in the winter are not club members. Mr. Brainerd stated that the issue of parking along the roadway for sledding has absolutely nothing to do with this application. He noted that the average age of members is well over seventy. Mr. Brainerd stated that the swimming pool season in Connecticut is really only 90 days and from these 90 days one must subtract days of
inclement weather. He asked that the Commission take these points into consideration.
Rick Ermler, President of Old Lyme Country Club, indicated that the membership voted on this proposal back in December and 88 percent of the members voted for it. He noted that the pool is an asset to the Country Club and will add tax revenue to the Town.
Jim McMann, Meetinghouse Lane, agreed with Mr. Brainerd’s comments. He indicated that the pool will be a great addition to the Country Club.
Mary Poulin, member, stated that she is in favor of the proposal. She noted that many good things would come from this pool. She noted that memberships are open to any one who wants to apply.
Sissy Gio echoed Ms. Poulin’s comments.
Bob Arrowsmith, neighbor, stated that he is glad to hear that members will not be parking on Johnny Cake Hill Road. He stated that he has received calls from the company that will be doing the blasting. Mr. Arrowsmith stated that his home sits on top of the ledge and he wants assurance that these people know what they are doing and that they are adequately insured.
Mary Broughton asked to see the drawing of the pergola and questioned the height. Mr. Gerrick stated that it is 12 feet tall and will be made of cedar. She questioned whether lights would be on in the evening. Mr. Sharpe stated that the lights that face away from Johnny Cake Hill Road and are at a low level would be left on for security purposes. He noted that the lights on the building would not be left on all night.
Peter Gerster, member, stated that he is concerned because he lives on Johnny Cake Hill Road. He noted that a lighting plan would typically show spillage and he is concerned about the 17’ high lights.
Jerry Ward, resident of Johnny Cake Hill Road, stated that he is concerned about the traffic on Johnny Cake Hill Road. He questioned whether the fence would keep young kids from parking along Johnny Cake Hill Road and finding a way into the pool. Mr. Ward stated that if more parking is not provided, people will look for parking spots and Johnny Cake Hill Road will probably be their first choice.
Jeff Flower, 4 Meetinghouse Lane, stated that he would like to see a 6’ fence. He indicated that the response to that was that they would add landscaping because a 6’ fence would require a variance. Mr. Flower noted that at the last meeting there was testimony that construction would not start to September. He stated that his point is that if construction is not starting until September, it would appear that the Country Club would have time to apply for a variance for the fence. Mr. Flower noted that all the neighbors would be in favor of a 6’ fence. Mr. Flower presented a drawing depicting a person walking down Johnny Cake Hill Road and the view they would have over the 4’ fence. This item was marked as an Exhibit. Mr. Flower emphasized that the pool is in
a residential area.
Mr. Flower stated that it was mentioned that there will be approximately 100 people at the pool and the Club House requires additional parking. He noted that 31.2.1(d) requires that the applicant supply an estimate on the type of vehicular traffic and the number of vehicle trips generated on a daily basis, to make sure that there is adequate parking on the site. Mr. Flower stated that if there were adequate parking on the site people would not park along Johnny Cake Hill Road. He noted that the parking shown on the site plan is not adequate as there are multiple uses on the site. Mr. Flower stated that he has roughly figured parking for the site and his calculation is 106 spaces and they are providing 65 spaces. He noted that in the past week the Club has enforced no parking on Johnny Cake
Hill Road, which the residents appreciate. He noted that the spaces near the pool location were unoccupied during the past week and in the past they had typically been filled. Mr. Flower stated that the Board has the obligation to get the proper information from the applicant, i.e., vehicle trips per day. He indicated that his calculations would result in over 200 vehicle trips per day, which would require a traffic study. Mr. Flower stated that although he does not feel a traffic study is in order, he does feel that the number of parking spaces should be carefully calculated.
Mr. Flower stated that the Country Club requested a waiver to not provide a plan of the entire site, only the area of activity. He indicated that the plan exists and is on file in the Town Hall and he feels that waiver should be denied.
Barbara Kosky, Meetinghouse Lane, stated that she would like clarification on the cooking facility and whether there will be a grill. She indicated that her concern is odors traveling up the street.
Ray Kosky, Meetinghouse Lane, stated that the area is historic and he would like the Commission to keep that in mind when reviewing this proposal.
Mr. Sharpe stated that Mr. Arrowsmith had a question about the blasting that would occur. He indicated that the State of Connecticut regulates blasting very heavily. Mr. Sharpe indicated that the blasting company has to be licensed, bonded and insured. He noted that if there are nearby structures, the company is required to do a pre-blast survey, which is perhaps why Mr. Arrowsmith was approached. Mr. Sharpe stated that this survey would help them determine if the blast does any damage, and if there is damage the blaster would be responsible for it.
Mr. Sharpe stated that the lights proposed are residential scale lights 17 feet off the ground. He noted that they are incandescent bulbs in the 60 to 100 watt category. Mr. Sharpe stated that the Club will be sure that light does not spill over the property line and would be willing to include shields on the fixtures, if necessary. It was pointed out that the proposed lights do have shields and they are spotlights, not flood lights. Ms. Bozek noted that the plans show floodlights but the details submitted show spotlights. Mr. Fries suggested that the site plan be updated to clarify the lighting issue, as the plan still shows lighting under the pergola.
Chairman Kiritsis stated that there is not a critical time line for the construction of the pool and questioned whether the applicant has given any thought to applying for a variance to install a fence higher than 4 feet. Mr. Sharpe stated that the Club is not opposed to a six foot fence, but the fact that the “neighbors want it” is not a basis for the Zoning Board of Appeals for granting a variance. He indicated that there does not appear to be a proper hardship.
Mr. Sharpe stated that the snack bar would provide hot dogs, hamburgers and cold cut sandwiches. He noted that the predominant wind in the summer is from the southwest, which would carry odors in a northeasterly direction. Mr. Sharpe noted that this would not affect any residential properties. Mr. Johnson questioned whether they would use a deep fat fryer. Mr. Sharpe replied that they would not.
Mr. Sharpe stated that his May 7, 2004 document indicated a rudimentary analysis of the parking on the property. He explained that the purpose of that calculation was to demonstrate to the Commission that within reason, there is general compliance with the parking requirements. Mr. Sharpe stated that the Old Lyme Country Club is a pre-existing use and he does not believe that the Commission can go back and require additional spots at today’s standards. He noted that if the parking for the country club use is a nonconformity at all, it is pre-existing. Mr. Sharpe stated that the pool and cabana project has a maximum capacity of approximately 100 people. He noted that based on the assumption of 100 people, they would require an additional 25 parking spaces under the current Regulations. He indicated that there are 25 parking spaces in the area of the pool.
Mr. Sharpe stated that the paddle tennis courts are not used in the summer months when the pool is in operation and the pool is not used in the colder months when the paddle tennis courts are being used. He noted that there is no conflict in that regard and he does not believe there is any shortfall in the parking provided for the pool facility.
Mr. Sharpe stated that the Club has addressed traffic concerns, particularly on Johnny Hill Cake Road. He noted that they have agreed to block off that entrance so that cars will not be coming and going in that direction. He noted that this should actually decrease the traffic on Johnny Hill Cake Road.
Mr. Sharpe stated that the Country Club has a large parcel and could put in hundreds of parking spaces if they are needed. He noted that a condition of approval could be that additional parking would be provided if deemed necessary by the Zoning Commission.
Ms. Bozek questioned the total number of parking spaces currently provided on site. Mr. Sharpe stated that there are 40 spaces in the vicinity of the restaurant and 25 spaces in the vicinity of the pool area. He noted there are additional spaces in the maintenance area, although not specifically designated spots. Mr. Sharpe stated that there is parking near the tennis courts. He noted that there is an area across McCurdy Road that has been graded and graveled and is sufficient to park another 20 vehicles. Ms. Bozek noted that the current plan shows only two additional parking spaces plus the handicap space. She noted that the spaces near the proposed pool area are pre-existing and have already been figured in to the general assessment of the parking. Ms. Bozek stated that as she
understands it, when the Commission is looking for a new use, they have the ability to look at parking appropriate for that new use.
Mr. Sharpe stated that the parcel across McCurdy Road was acquired from Amtrak and is adjacent to the tennis court area. He noted that a portion of it has been graded and graveled and is available for parking. Mr. Sharpe stated that this is new parking.
Ms. Bozek questioned the capacity of the restaurant. Mr. Sharpe replied that the restaurant capacity is 130 people. Ms. Bozek stated that there was a representation made that the Club would be willing to consider a condition in an approval about additional parking. Chairman Bozek stated that she might ask, as a condition, that a reserve parking area be shown on the site plan. Mr. Sharpe indicated that he does not think his client would have a problem with that.
Mr. Flower stated that one of the reasons in support of a variance is the geography of the site. He indicated that he does not believe there is not a good reason why the Club cannot at least try to get a variance for a 6-foot fence. Mr. Sharpe stated that he does not believe a variance pertains to the situation and without knowing the details of the variance it does not have a bearing on this discussion. He indicated that he does not believe there is a hardship. Mr. Sharpe indicated that the 4-foot fence, along with the vegetation designed by Ms. McCracken, would protect the neighbors.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Eric Fries and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the 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.
3. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct an outdoor dining patio, 85 Lyme Street, Old Lyme Acquisitions, LLC, applicant.
Mr. Fries read the legal ad as published in the Main Street News on Thursday, June 3 and June 10, 2004 and the Exhibit List for the record. Attorney Childress was present to represent the applicants, Keith and Candy Greene. He explained that they would like to provide diners with a 30’ x 30’ outdoor dining space at the Old Lyme Inn. Attorney Childress stated that this would be a seasonal relocation of a portion of an accessory use to an existing nonconforming use. He indicated that the Old Lyme Inn exists today by virtue of a nonconforming use. Attorney Childress stated that the restaurant portion of the nonconforming use is technically speaking an accessory use to that nonconforming use. He explained that they would like to relocate a portion of that accessory use on a
seasonal basis from one of the dining rooms inside to a location directly outside as shown on the site plan. Attorney Childress submitted a letter from June of 2001 from Harry Smith, Town Planner, outlining the status of the property. This letter was marked Exhibit H.
Attorney Childress stated that because of the minor nature of the proposal, the applicant is requesting waivers as listed on the application and as follows:
31.2.2d(vi), schedule specifying area of lot, floor area, building and ground coverage, total coverage.
31.2.2e(v), existing and proposed grading contours.
31.2.2e(vii), soil types.
31.2.2i, landscaping with respect to the entire site.
31.2.2k, 31.2.4, soil erosion and sediment control plan.
31.2.5, traffic study.
Attorney Childress stated that the site plan shows the patio area. He noted that the surface would be brick laid in sand so that it would be pervious. Attorney Childress stated that there would be ten tables, with four chairs at each table. He indicated that the tables would also have umbrellas, perhaps 60” umbrellas over a 48” table.
Attorney Childress stated that a hedge would be planted around the perimeter of the proposed patio area and lighting would be a continuation of the ground lighting along the current walkway. He noted that there is currently a light at the base of the tree shining up and that with the ambient lighting from the Inn and the street would be adequate for this particular use. Attorney Childress stated that alcohol would be served by waiters and all the food would be prepared inside. He noted that there would not be a bar outside either. Attorney Childress stated that the Inn currently has a hotel liquor license for hotels in towns with a population of less than 10,000.
Attorney Childress stated that they have gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals because the Zoning Regulations do not allow a nonconforming use to be altered or relocated except to a conforming area. He noted that since the entire use is nonconforming, they needed ZBA approval. Attorney Childress stated that the Regulations also talk about service of alcohol in a dining room and the patio is not quite a room. He indicated that they have requested a variance of that Regulation as well. Attorney Childress stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals heard the case at their May meeting and the decision is pending, in part because they wanted to know what action the Zoning Commission would take. He noted that the ZBA’s deliberations are scheduled for a Special Meeting this coming Wednesday.
Attorney Childress stated that the lot is of sufficient size and dimension to accommodate the use. He indicated that the shrubs will provide a nice boundary for the patio and the existing trees will remain on the property.
Attorney Childress explained that when the outdoor dining facility is in use, one of the dining rooms, of more than comparable seating capacity, would be closed so that this will not be a intensification of use, rather a relocation of the use. He noted that the candlelight room, which contains 60 seats, would have a comparable number of seats that will be closed when the outside dining is used. Attorney Childress stated that if this room were being used for a special event, then the outside seating would not be used. Mr. Johnson questioned how that would be enforced.
Chairman Kiritsis questioned whether the applicant could provide a history of usage of the various dining rooms. Mr. Greene stated that they are trying to increase their business and are trying to offer an amenity that is available in other locales. Attorney Childress stated that Old Saybrook has several restaurants where one can dine outside, as well as Sherlock 221 right in Old Lyme.
Mr. Fries questioned whether there would be any change in the liquor permit. Attorney Childress stated that there would not be any change to the permit. Mr. Greene stated that the State would put a “patio” stamp on the current liquor license. Attorney Childress read a portion of the State Statute to the Commission.
Mr. Greene stated that the most popular request received from current customers is outdoor dining. He reiterated that they would like to increase their business. Mr. Greene stated that 12 months ago they showed a sketch of the plan to the Historic District Commission and they unanimously felt that the patio area should be where it is being proposed. Mr. Greene stated that he is aware that they still need to go before the Historic District Commission formally. Mr. Green submitted a photograph, which was marked Exhibit I.
Mr. Greene stated that when he purchased the property, he added a walkway where there was a driveway. He noted that the walkway is asphalt and lined with brick. Mr. Greene explained that in front of that they added a 10’ x 20’ brick in sand terrace. He explained that the walkway would be continued passed this pad to the proposed 30’ square patio under the tree. Mr. Fries noted that there will be a four foot wire fence around the north and west sides of the patio. Mr. Greene stated that the intent of the fence is to have it eventually blend into the hedge. Mr. Fries stated that he would like a little more detail on the patio construction and the look of the fence. Mr. Greene stated that he intended to take the least expensive approach to start. He indicated
that the fence would be a welded wire fabric on posts, 4 feet high. Mr. Greene stated that it is their intention to move the boxwood that are currently in the front of the Inn and these boxwood are approximately 3 feet in height. He indicated that they need to investigate whether it is more cost effect to move these shrubs or buy new.
Mr. Greene stated that there would be no music outside. Mr. Tooker questioned where the septic is located. Mr. Green replied that most of it is under the driveway. He indicated that Mr. Rose reviewed the plan and indicated his approval.
No one present spoke in favor of this application.
Betty Chamberlain, resident of condominiums to the north, stated that she is concerned about noise and light and the disruption of the neighborhood quiet.
Lee Baldwin, resident of Wyckford, asked to see the site plan. She questioned whether there would be outside music or weddings. Mrs. Greene indicated that there would not be music outside. Mr. Greene indicated that currently they occasionally have weddings on the front lawn.
Mary Poulin indicated that her concern is not the Greene’s, but a future owner. She noted that when the property was known as the Elegante Restaurant in the early 1970’s, it was a tacky, seedy environment with unattractive patrons. She indicated that this is a great concern of hers if the Greene’s ever sold the Old Lyme Inn.
Attorney Childress stated that the first speaker identified an incorrect location for the Wyckford Condominiums. He pointed out that the 30’ x 30’ patio is screened from the condos by the northerly portion of the Inn. Mr. Green stated that the mathematics make it impossible for a future owner to treat the Old Lyme Inn in the cavalier fashion in which it existed in the early 1970’s. He explained that this is a fact based on what Old Lyme Acquisitions paid for the property and what they would have to sell it for. He indicated that no one could make a living without renting rooms and making it a nice environment for transients. Mrs. Greene pointed out that there are Inn rooms right near the patio so they have an interest in keeping the noise to a minimum.
Ms. Brown stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has not made a decision and noted that she would urge the Zoning Commission to keep this Public Hearing open unless they are certain they can accommodate any conditions that the ZBA might put on their approval.
Mr. Johnson stated that he believes the Zoning Commission can act and would endorse closing this Public Hearing and making a decision as soon as possible.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct an outdoor dining patio, 85 Lyme Street, Old Lyme Acquisitions, LLC, applicant.
4. Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 17 Ferry Road, Nicholas and Lizabeth Haskos, applicants.
Mr. Fries read the legal ad as published in the Main Street News on Thursday, June 3 and June 10, 2004, along with the Exhibit Lists, for the record.
Gary Sharpe and Nicholas Haskos were present to explain the application. Mr. Sharpe stated that the applicant is proposing a boardwalk and dock on his property to the Lieutenant River. He indicated that the applicant has received DEP and U.S. Corps of Engineers approvals. Mr. Haskos stated that these approvals took two and one-half years. Mr. Sharpe explained that part of the delay was the review of environmentally friendly construction materials. He noted that because this boardwalk spans a tidal wetland area, they were interested in seeing what alternative materials could be used to construct the dock. Mr. Sharpe stated that they like to see the dock elevated sufficiently so the sunlight can penetrate and the dock does not hinder the growth of the vegetation. He noted that in
the cross sections the Commission would note that the dock is 5 feet above the tidal wetland. Mr. Sharpe stated that the DEP stipulated that the dock couldn’t be constructed between June 1 and August 31 of any given year because of terns nesting in the area.
Mr. Sharpe read the material list as approved by the DEP. He indicated that the applicant has not completely decided which materials he will use. Mr. Johnson asked that aluminum be eliminated from the list, as 175’ of aluminum could be very noisy. Mr. Sharpe noted that most clients like to use aluminum for the ramp.
Mr. Johnson questioned whether Mr. Haskos was able to put a mooring out. Mr. Haskos replied that he could not as he would block the channel.
Ms. Bozek questioned the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Sharpe indicated that he believes the Commission has jurisdiction 50 feet landward of the mean high water line. Ms. Brown agreed. Mr. Sharpe pointed out the mean high water line, indicating that it is half way out on the marsh. He indicated that the DEP publishes a set of elevations that they believe is indicative of various tidal conditions throughout the State. Mr. Sharpe stated that he does not feel they are entirely accurate and that in this instance, the mean high water line probably belongs higher up at the bottom of the embankment.
Mr. Haskos indicated that he has no plans to light the dock but there would be electricity and water supplied to the dock.
Sissy Keough, neighbor, indicated that she is in favor of the proposal. No one present spoke against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Kiritsis asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by John Johnson, seconded by Joan Bozek and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan/Special Exception Application to construct a dock, 17 Ferry Road, Nicholas and Lizabeth Haskos, applicants.
The Public Hearing adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
