OLD LYME ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of Memorial Town Hall. Those present and voting were Tom Risom, Chairman, Jane Marsh, Secretary, Jane Cable, Vice Chairman, John Johnson, Patrick Looney, Beth Sullivan (alternate), and Ted Kiritsis (alternate). Also present were Ann Brown, Zoning Enforcement Officer, John Radshaw, Counsel, and Eric Knapp and Mark Branse, Commission Counsel.
Acting Chairman Cable called the Public Hearing to order at 7:36 p.m.
1. Special Permit Application to convert to year round use and install 172 seats within the existing Church structure on property located at 287 Shore Road, Shoreline Church, Inc., applicant.
Chairman Risom noted that this Public Hearing has been continued from the September Regular Meeting. Attorney William Childress was present to represent Shoreline Church, Inc. He explained that the seasonal church has existed in this location for a decade. Attorney Childress stated that he would like to first address Ms. Brown’s letter stating that the application does not meet the Site Plan Regulations. He indicated that he prepared a memorandum, which he distributed to the Commission members (marked Exhibit R).
Ms. Marsh read the Exhibit list for the record. Mr. Looney recused himself and Ms. Sullivan was seated.
Attorney Childress explained that the chapel, as it exists, is nonconforming as to height, certain setbacks, maximum coverage and maximum total lot coverage. He stated that the use is not changing, and the use is an allowed use in the R-10 District by Special Permit. Attorney Childress stated that it is their intent to use the church year round, with a maximum of 159 seats. He noted that there would be no change to the exterior of the building. Attorney Childress stated that the Regulations require 40 parking spaces for 159 seats and 44 parking spaces are shown on the site plan.
With respect to the legal issue of whether they should be proceeding with the Zoning Board of Appeals, Attorney Childress explained that State Statute allows for the continuation of a nonconforming use, building or structure existing at the time of the adoption of the Regulations. He indicated that Section 9.3.1 of the Zoning Regulations seems to define the use of a building outside the seasonal period as an extension of the building itself. He indicated that one question seems to be whether the structure is a valid, nonconforming structure and the second issue is whether Section 9.3.1 of the Zoning Regulations would violate State Statute. Attorney Childress stated that Ms. Brown is relying on Section 9.3.1 in determining that the applicant should proceed with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Attorney Childress stated if year round use was an extension of the building, then the regulation would also have to contain an exception to the rule in that section, such as, the extension would be allowed if the extension were conforming. He explained that the Zoning Enforcement Officer has not communicated that she believes it to be a nonconforming use. The Zoning Regulations specifically prohibit the conversion of seasonal dwellings to year round use in Section 11.19; he noted that they are not converting a seasonal dwelling to year round use.
Attorney Childress reiterated that Statute protects nonconforming structures and uses in existence at the time of adoption of regulations. He noted that this protection is a vested right. Attorney Childress stated that the constitutional issue is routed in the State and Federal Constitutions which prohibit the taking of property.
Attorney Childress stated that they are providing the required parking, upgrading the septic system and doing everything they can to reduce nonconformities. He pointed out that they have made the property more conforming; he noted that the current use allows 680 people and they have reduced that to 159 people maximum. Attorney Childress stated that the proposed use is conforming and the structure is pre-existing nonconforming, which is protected by Statute. He indicated that the extension of the use is not considered an extension of the building as indicated in Ms. Brown’s letter. Attorney Childress stated that there is no Statutory or Regulatory condition that would prohibit the Zoning Commission from considering and action upon this application.
Ms. Marsh stated that she hears Attorney Childress’s comments to mean that because there were subsequent applications approved for this site, it does not constitute the use of the structure as a church to have been abandoned. Ms. Brown stated that a Regulation was approved that would have allowed a different use on this particular property. Ms. Marsh noted this correction. Ms. Marsh questioned whether the fact that the previous owner sold the lot across the street changes the pre-existing nonconforming status. Attorney Childress stated that it never had anything to do with the lot that the church is on. Ms. Marsh stated that it was used for parking. Attorney Childress agreed that it may have been used informally for parking in the past.
Attorney Mark Branse stated that he just received Mr. Childress’ memorandum this evening and wants to be sure of the issue. He noted that it appears Attorney Childress believes that the Zoning Enforcement Officer has taken on the position that a variance is required for the building height and coverage. Ms. Brown indicated that that is not correct. Attorney Branse stated that the second issue is that of nonconforming use. He indicated that it is his understanding that in this zone the use is allowed by Special Permit. Attorney Branse stated that the fact is it is a permitted use in the District and the Commission has the authority to grant the use by Special Permit. He noted that the only issue left is total lot coverage. He stated that he understands the Zoning Enforcement
Officer’s issue to be that because they are creating a new parking lot, they are now creating a new nonconformity in regard to setback and ground coverage. Attorney Branse stated that they are creating an impervious lot which brings in a new nonconformity. Ms. Brown stated that she has not received any evidence that the portion of the lot between the Church building and Swan Avenue has ever been used for parking. She indicated that she sees this area of parking as new and creating a new nonconformity. Ms. Brown pointed out that most of the new parking will be pervious, but regardless, it would count toward coverage.
Attorney Branse questioned whether Attorney Childress has found any case law in terms of nonconforming use and parking areas. He questioned whether the Public Hearing would be left open for the engineer’s report. Ms. Brown indicated that the engineer has not been authorized to review everything yet so his report is outstanding. Attorney Branse stated that there is an Appellate Court Case in Enfield similar to this and the Court ruled that it is not an expansion of a nonconforming property. He indicated that this would not be the case for the proposed parking on the north side of the lot. Attorney Branse stated that total ground coverage includes all parking areas, not just impervious ones. He indicated that the only outstanding issue he sees is the proposed parking on the north
side of the lot.
Attorney Branse stated that the sale of the lot across the street is a little harder. He indicated that if the applicant complies with parking as it is proposed, then the sale of the property across the street would not be an issue. He explained that if there are deemed to be new parking areas on the site plan, then there is an issue.
Attorney Branse stated that there is not an issue in regards to seasonal or year round because the regulations allow a house of worship by Special Permit in this zone, be it seasonal or year round; there is no distinction in the Regulations.
Attorney Cronin was present to represent the church. He indicated that he has a witness that will testify tonight as to the previous parking on the church lot in the area in question. Ms. Janet Sturges stated that the parking area in question has been used for a very long time and this should be taken into consideration by the Commission.
Attorney Branse stated that the Commission could hear testimony in regard to the parking and if they are using their own knowledge, they should state so for the record.
Ms. Brown corrected her earlier comment regarding the parking and stated that she is not questioning the parking on the Swan Avenue side, but rather the Old Colony side.
Under questioning by Attorney Childress, Ms. Sherman stated that she has lived in the area since 1959 and has observed parking in the area in question. She pointed out the area on the site plan, noting both parking areas on the site plan were used in the past.
Charles Dutch, Land Surveyor, stated that when doing test pits he observed crushed stone in the area in question which would lead him to believe it was a parking area. He indicated that he has no personal knowledge but pointed out that the evidence is still there if one were to go to the site. Mr. Dutch stated that they have met all requirements of the Zoning Regulations with the exception of setbacks for the parking. He noted that the septic system, to be located underneath the parking, is Code compliant. Mr. Dutch stated that they are using porous concrete for the parking areas. Chairman Risom questioned whether the septic tank was certified to be driven over. Mr. Dutch replied that the proposed tank is H-20.
Ms. Brown questioned whether the driveway along Old Colony Road previously existed. Mr. Dutch indicated that he did know. Mr. Johnson questioned the required sight line from the driveway along Route 156. Mr. Dutch stated that it would be 400 or 500 feet but it is an existing curb-cut and he does not believe the State would require the applicant to get another permit.
Mr. Dutch stated that a lighting plan was designed by a company that specializes in lighting and was submitted as part of the site plan. He pointed out the lighting on the site plan, noting that the poles shown are 16 feet in height.
Attorney Branse noted that only certain contractors who have gone through a special training class are qualified to install impervious concrete. Mr. Dutch indicated that he is aware of that. Attorney Branse questioned whether they would be agreeable to a stipulation that would require a certified contractor installing the concrete. Mr. Dutch replied that they would be agreeable to that requirement.
Attorney Childress stated that the easterly wing of the building will be used for a reception area after services or a funeral. He noted that there are no seats in there and there will be no additional people attending from those that are already in the sanctuary. Attorney Childress noted that this information is provided in the Statement of Use. He indicated that he needs to correct the Statement of Use as to the number of seats and the type of concrete.
Bruno Hayne, design engineer, explained that they are taking space and creating offices, larger bathrooms, rooms for children and the choir. He pointed out the 159 seats in the interior. Mr. Hayne stated that the upstairs will have 3 offices. He noted that the building will not contain a kitchen. Mr. Hayne stated that the four exterior doors will not change but they are creating a vestibule.
Attorney Childress stated he believes that they have submitted all required documents and request waivers for any additional submission. Ms. Cable noted that the engineer’s report is still outstanding.
Mr. Whelan of 41 Old Colony Road, stated that he is neither in favor or against the proposal. He stated that he was a parishioner of the church and there was always available parking. He stated that he would like to be assured that there will be no light glare from the 16’ lights as it is a residential area.
Janet Sturges stated that she has heard the Monsignor of Christ the King state that he would be very happy to have another church occupied in Town. She stated that she and many others share that sentiment.
Michael Calo, 17 Sea Breeze Road, Old Saybrook, CT, and senior Pastor of Shoreline Church. He indicated that it is frustrating for a layman such as himself to go through this process. Pastor Calo stated that they are not asking for favors, but looking for a house of worship. He stated that the spirit of the law is what they should be looking at tonight, not the letter of the law. Pastor Calo stated that they have spent thousands of dollars getting to where they are today and he would like future generations of the Commissioners’ families to be able to look back and take pride in the fact that there grandparents were involved in the creation of this church.
Mr. Pappilardo stated that he cannot think of a better use for the property. He indicated that he grew up on Swan Avenue and attended the church for years. He stated that the parking was always as shown on the proposed site plan. Mr. Pappilardo questioned when some of the listed events would take place. He also questioned how they would control beach parking in this area, especially if people leave their cars there and go right from church to the beach. Mr. Pappilardo stated that he is also concerned about the parking for the beach on the parcel across the street. He indicated that he would like to be sure there are some limitations set, such as how often there will be events, how long they will take place and how much disruption there may be to the neighborhood.
Chairman Risom asked Mr. Pappilardo how the previous church handled beach parking. Mr. Pappilardo replied that they chained the lot after services. Ms. Cable indicated that she thought the concern was that churchgoers would leave their cars and go directly to the beach after church. Mr. Pappilardo replied that he is concerned because there is the possibility of 40 additional cars of people at the beach and/or room for bus parking.
Pastor Calo stated that the only extra events that they would have are funerals, weddings, or normal church type services. He indicated in the past they have held large events outside the church. Pastor Calo stated that when the service is over people often leave directly. He indicated that many of these people are local and live near the beach. Pastor Calo stated that his services now typically have 100 people in attendance.
Ms. Sullivan questioned how the food would be prepared for a funeral reception. Pastor Calo stated that it would be prepared elsewhere and delivered.
Attorney Branse stated that because it is a public beach there is nothing that the Zoning Commission can and should do about people leaving their cars after church and going directly to the beach. He stated that the church could not rent out the parking spaces as it would not be accessory to a house of worship and would not be allowed without approval from both the Zoning Commission and the Board of Selectmen.
Attorney Childress consented to leaving the Public Hearing open to the November Regular Meeting.
Chairman Risom stated that this extension of the Public Hearing will allow additional public comments and a review response from the Commission’s engineer. He noted that the November Regular Meeting will be held on Monday, November 9, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.
The Commission took a five-minute recess at this time.
2. Petition to amend Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, Section 3, Definitions, to include “Seasonal Dwelling,” “Seasonal Use,” “Year-Round Use” and “Year Round Dwelling” and a new Section 11.19A, shall replace the existing 11.19 which shall set up a new system for the regulation of seasonal uses, including a registry of which properties contain seasonal dwellings and which contain year-round dwellings. As proposed, the registry will include all properties within the R-10 Zoning Districts of the Town of Old Lyme; Old Lyme Zoning Commission, applicant.
Chairman Risom stated that there are five separate R-10 Districts. He noted that the Public Hearing was continued from September to give any additional people the opportunity to be heard. Chairman Risom noted that all five regular members would be seated for this application.
Ms. Marsh read the list of new exhibits received since the September Public Hearing (Exhibit J through Exhibit M). Ms. Brown submitted Exhibit N, list of South Lyme Property Owners. Ms. Brown stated that she has revised text provided by Attorney Knapp in response to the Zoning Board of Appeal’s comments. She noted that they met just last evening and their comments were relayed to him. Ms. Brown stated that the Zoning Commission should evaluate whether the changes requested in the Zoning Board of Appeal’s letter are adequately addressed in the revised text.
Attorney Knapp stated that after the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting last evening he went over his notes from the meeting and attempted to revise the text to address their comments. He indicated that he has not seen their letter and can not assure the Commission that he has addressed everything contained in the letter.
Chairman Risom explained that the Commission is the petitioner for the Regulation change and has now revised their proposed text as requested by the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that at the September Meeting the Commission left the Public Hearing open to give the public another opportunity to comment. Attorney Knapp stated that he made another change in definitions under seasonal use which is not shown in bold. He read this proposed change to the Commission. Attorney Knapp noted that he has additional copies of the new proposed text for anyone that would like a copy.
Attorney Knapp pointed out and explained the text changes as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Looney questioned the application fee. Attorney Knapp explained that the application fee referred to is a registry fee. Mr. Looney noted that the Zoning Commission had previously discussed the fee being $30.00, the same as a Zoning Compliance Permit. He suggested that they review the minutes. Attorney Knapp stated that there are administrative costs associated with this process. Attorney Branse stated that the text already stated there would be a fee, they have only added a dollar amount. Chairman Risom stated that the Commission can discuss the fee further during deliberations or after public comment.
Mr. Joseph Kelly stated that he is speaking as a realtor, rather than a property owner. He indicated that he sells many properties in Town where people will use their seasonal house on Thanksgiving, Christmas, spring breaks, etc., with the hope to live in their home full time when they retire. He stated that this proposal strictly prohibits this from constituting year round and he believes it is discriminatory. Mr. Kelly stated that if the house is lived in for a period of time it should be granted year round status. He indicated that last year at Town Meeting money was put aside for administrative work associated with this registry.
Mary Howley, 16 Sea Spray Road, stated that her parents also live on Sea Spray Road and they converted to year round 15 years ago. She indicated that her parents are elderly and on a fixed income; they have had numerous medical issues. Ms. Howley stated that her parents would like to do a reverse mortgage, which requires certain certifications. She noted that her parents are one of the many people who have illegal water systems (bladder system), however they have lived there for 15 years year round, 21 years in total. Ms. Howley stated that they are asking that their seasonal designation be removed so that they can be provided for by obtaining a reverse mortgage. She stated that they meet every aspect of every code, yet have not been able to get year round designation. Ms. Howley stated
that there are people who will continue to reside in their homes year round, regardless of their designation.
Chairman Risom stated that he wants it to be clear that the registry process is only getting people through the Zoning process; there are other Codes such as Health and Building that must also be met.
Attorney Church, attorney for the Point ‘O Woods WPCA, suggested that the “appropriate” Water Pollution Control Authority be changed to Point ‘O Woods WPCA on Page 8. Chairman Risom stated that at this time only Point ‘O Woods has sewers but that may not be the case in the future. Attorney Church stated that there may be confusion because the Regulation indicates that the Zoning filing will be transmitted to the homeowner but in many instances there is better information in the Building and Health Department files. Ms. Brown stated that it was always her intention to send the Zoning, Building and Health Department files for convenience. She noted with this expectation they have laserfiched all of the department files. Attorney Church stated that as much as they
say it is a Zoning issue, Building and Health Regulations are also involved in the conversion.
Bill Folland questioned whether this process would change Town ordinance. Chairman Risom stated that this is a Regulation change and would not affect ordinances of the Town. He indicated that this issue will not be addressed at Town Meeting. Mr. Looney questioned whether the Board of Selectmen would approve the fee. Ms. Brown stated that the Ordinance allows the Zoning Commission to set and adopt fees. Attorney Branse read the Ordinance for the record.
Ken Robert stated that on Page 3 it refers to a list of properties designated year round. He questioned whether that list is available. Chairman Risom stated that it is; it is Exhibit N.
Mr. Kingston, Old Colony Road, questioned why people who don’t want to change their status have to pay the fee to be on the registry. Chairman Risom replied that there will be at least two additional staff for two years to take care of up to 2,000 potential applications. He indicated that these administrative fees have to be offset somehow. Attorney Knapp pointed out that any property is not registered will be seasonal. He indicated that if a house is seasonal and the owner intends to keep it seasonal, he could choose not to register. Ms. Cable indicated that people should think to the future.
Mr. Kingston of Old Colony Road, stated that he has an issue with the fee. He noted that many of these property owners are elderly people with fixed incomes.
Frank Lishing stated that it is not right for the Town to charge a fee to a year round property. He indicated that there are houses that are designated year round already and these people should not be required to pay a fee. Attorney Knapp stated that the registry includes everyone in the R-10 zone whether they are seasonal or not. He indicated that setting the fee is up to the Commission and they have the option of taking this comment into consideration. Attorney Knapp reiterated that the purpose of the fee is to cover the cost of this new program. Attorney Branse stated that there are too many variables and it would be virtually impossible to charge people exactly what it will cost to process their application.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Risom asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by Jane Marsh and voted unanimously to close the public hearing for the Petition to amend the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations, Section 3, and new Section 11.19.A, Old Lyme Zoning Commission, applicant.
3. Special Permit Application/Coastal Site Plan Application to permit renovations and expansion at Lyme-Old Lyme High School, 69 Lyme Street, Regional School District No. 18, applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the legal notice, as published in the New London Day on Wednesday, September 30 and Wednesday, October 7, 2009 and the Exhibit List for the record. She read a portion of Marcy Balint’s (OLISP) letter outlining her recommendations (Exhibit K).
John Rhodes, Director of Facilities and Technology for Lyme/Old Lyme Schools, was present to explain the application. Ms. Cable stated that her husband is on the High School Building Committee and questioned whether anyone had a concern with her being seated for this hearing. Mr. Rhodes indicated that the school did not have a problem. Ms. Cable stated that she does not feel that there would be a conflict. Chairman Risom indicated that the five regular members would be seated.
Dick Webb, Landscape Architect, was present to explain the site plan. He noted that the beige area is the footprint of the existing school. Mr. Webb stated that there are new circulation improvements, noting a separate bus drop-off area which is separated from the parent drop-off area and again separated from the parking area. He stated that this should improve traffic flow dramatically. Mr. Webb stated that there will be a new service drive around to the back of the school. He noted that the basic location of the entrance will remain intact, they will be reducing the width from 25 feet to 22.5 or 23.5 feet and adding an 8 foot wide path for pedestrian access. Mr. Webb stated that the number of parking spaces will remain the same for students and teachers. He stated that they will
be putting three handicap parking spaces at the varsity baseball field and one parking space near the maintenance garage.
Mr. Webb pointed out a new athletic field which is to support soccer and lacrosse activities and to the north of that field is the area for the relocated varsity baseball field. He noted that the lower fields will become a geo-thermal well field and there will be disturbance and grading of that area. He noted that this will be the heating and cooling system for all three schools. Mr. Webb stated that there are several drainage improvements. He noted that they are currently before the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Webb stated that they are correcting some of the existing poor drainage associated with the Center and Middle Schools. He explained that they are installing a storm water detention basin just north of the existing varsity baseball field. He noted that the expansion of the basin is inward onto school property, not out toward the wetlands. Mr. Webb stated that there is a small wetlands area near the student parking lot and they are installing a storm water management basin that is in the upland area adjacent to this wetland area. He explained that there is currently a drain pipe that carries water underneath the high school and in the proposal it will be rerouted around the school. Mr. Webb stated that they would rather not have water flowing underneath the school and they are changing that
now because they have the opportunity. Mr. Rhodes stated that the additional cost associated with this is only the cost of the pipe and they considered carefully what might happen if the pipe under the school had a leak.
John Sheib, Architect, was present to explain the building design. He indicated that there were two main goals, one of which was achieving the programmatic requirements of the school. Mr. Sheib stated that there will be a new cafeteria/commons area to connect the existing buildings. He explained that there will be a new main office and guidance area. Mr. Sheib pointed out the additions/expansions on the site plan. He noted that there will be the same number of classrooms on the second floor, just larger. Mr. Sheib stated that the music program will be relocated to the upper level.
Mr. Sheib stated that the objective was to physically change the building but have it look like the entire structure was built at the same time. He showed the Commission the architectural drawings. Ms. Marsh stated that the existing school looks cold as there seems to be a lot of metal and cement and very little landscaping close to the building. Mr. Rhodes agreed and noted that it was the institutional architecture of the time when it was constructed.
Mr. Rhodes stated that there are no tidal wetlands or coastal resources on the site. Chairman Risom questioned whether the Beaver Pond was connected to Duck River and whether it was tidal. Mr. Rhodes stated that the DEP has determined that it is not tidal on the school property. Mr. Webb pointed out that the tidal point is approximately 500 feet down from the school property. He noted that best engineering practices are being proposed for the construction. Mr. Webb stated that there are no proposed structures in the flood plain. He indicated that they are not within 100 feet of the Connecticut River and have asked for a waiver of this.
Mr. Webb noted that as part of the project they are construction a 3,000 square foot maintenance facility for the District. He noted that a key component of this facility is one bay for washing trucks. Mr. Webb stated that that drain is connected directly to the holding tank and will be monitored and pumped out. He reiterated that there will be no discharge of this water.
Mr. Webb stated that Mr. Metcalf’s comments are mostly clarifications and they fully intend to make his requested changes/additions to the plan.
Mr. Sheib explained the site lighting, pointing out the poles on the site plan. He explained that the doors will be lit for egress, as required. Mr. Sheib stated that they are proposing LED lighting.
Chairman Risom noted that they see many commercial applications where the first inch of water must be retained. He questioned why the school project did not have to meet this requirement. Mr. Rhodes replied that they do meet that requirement. Mr. Rhodes explained fire truck access to the different areas of the site.
Ms. Brown noted that the applicant is awaiting Wetlands approval and suggested that the Commission leave the Public Hearing open. Chairman Risom acknowledged that the applicant still needs to address Mr. Metcalf’s comments on the site plan.
Bill Folland, 6 Dunns Lane, indicated that he is an adjacent property owner. He stated that he and his neighbors are very pleased with the new drainage system that was installed for the track. Mr. Folland stated that he is hoping that this project’s drainage design will be as effective.
Chairman Risom noted that this Public Hearing is continued to the November 9, 2009 Regular Meeting.
4. Special Permit Application/Coastal Site Plan Application to permit a three-car garage with studio above at 23 Binney Road, William Bansavage, applicant.
Ms. Marsh read the Exhibit List for the record. Chairman Risom noted that the Legal Notice was read earlier. Chairman Risom noted that the five regular members will be seated for this application.
William Bansavage was present to explain his application. He indicated that he would like to build a three-car garage, placing it where it will not be visible from the river. He pointed out the proposed site on the site plan, noting that it would be placed at the top of the existing driveway and constructed at the same height as the house. Mr. Bansavage stated that the proposed garage will not be visible from the Connecticut River.
Ms. Brown stated the application was required because the total of the house and garage square footage was slightly over 4,000 square feet; 3,200 for the house and 960 for the garage. Mr. Bansavage stated that the garage has been staked by a surveyor and there will be no blasting required. He indicated that they currently have a two-car garage underneath the house. Mr. Bansavage stated that because the garage is under the house, he only has half a basement. He noted that the three-car garage will provide more storage area and an artist’s studio for his wife. Ms. Cable stated that the letter from Torrance Downes of Gateway raises a number of issues that Zoning should consider, such as the color of the structure and the color of the roof. Ms. Marsh stated that the reason the project
is good is because it is not visible from the river because of the existing trees. She suggested a stipulation that would require that the trees not be cut down. Mr. Bansavage indicated that he would be agreeable to a condition of that nature.
Ms. Brown questioned whether the Commission wanted to indicate on the plan with yellow marker the trees that they would like to see remain. Mr. Bansavage pointed out the five or six trees that would have to be taken down to construct the garage. He indicated that the remainder of the area will remain as it exists today.
No one present spoke in favor of or against the application. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Risom asked for a motion to close this Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Jane Cable, seconded by John Johnson and voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing for this item.
Chairman Risom adjourned the Public Hearing at 11:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Bartlett
Recording Secretary
| 
