HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2006-06-13 MinutesDate Approved ~ ~ a1~
Vote
Page 1 of 10
TOWN OF BREWSTER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
]une 13, 2006
Meeting Minutes
Chairman Harvey Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members present were; Brian
Harrison, Paul Kearney, Harvey Freeman, John Nixon, Suzanne McInerney, Arthur Stewart, and Bruce
MacGregor, Philip Jackson and Neva Flaherty.
OLD BUSINESS
• Minutes of Ma 9 2006 a
Y pproved as written. Motion made by Arthur Stewart. Second by Paul
Kearney. VOTE 9-0-0.
Minutes of May 10, 2006 presented to Board. CONTINUED until next meeting for approval.
Extension of Variance; Request from Attorney Dwayne Landreth of behalf of client to extend
Variance 05-07 for six month period of time. Building Permit applied for; septic issues in question
this reason for request. No discussion. Motion to GRANT extension as requested made by Mr.
Harrison. Second by Mr. Nixon. Board voted 9-0-0.
NEW BUSINESS
05-38 )ohn L. Hooper, 10 Nancy May Path, Map 7 Lot 11-1. CONTINUANCE. The applicant
seeks a Special Permit and/or a Variance under MGL 40A-6 and Brewster Bylaw Article II, Section 179-
6; Article VIII, Section 179-25, Paragraph A and B; and Article X, Section 179-51 to alter, extend and
replace apre-existing, non-conforming single-story dwelling with atwo-story dwelling.
05-39 James E. Walsh, 16 Nancy May Path, Map 7 Lot 11-2. CONTINUANCE. The applicant
seeks a Special Permit and/or a Variance under MGL 40A-6 and Brewster Bylaw Article II, Section 179-
6; Article VIII, Section 179-25, Paragraph A and B; and Article X, Section 179-51 to alter, extend and
replace apre-existing, non-conforming single-story dwelling with atwo-story dwelling.
Members hearing these cases were Messrs. Jackson, Harrison, Freeman, Kearney and MacGregor.
Both cases were begun in November of 2005, continued three times previously on December 13,
2005, February 14, 2006 and April 11, 2006.
Attorney William O'Brien of Singer and Singer represented both applicants in these cases. Also
present; Steve Hayes, Architect, John Hooper, applicant, and Bob Perry, engineer. These two cases
will be presented together but voted upon separately. Mr. O'Brien was asked to give a brief history of
these cases.
The case was originally opened in December 2005. Lengthy discussion in February 2006.
Supplemental design discussion regarding intensification of dormers proceeded new alternative design
that will be presented tonight.
The original design included gable structure with dormers on second floor. The Board felt the
applicant should lower the mass of the building but could still provide 2"d floor living space. As a result
they present a building 23 feet in height with approximately 1200 square feet in space. Same number
of bedrooms as replacing. Altered elevation due to elimination of dormer on one side of structure and
Page 3 of 10
• Mr. Landreth said the photos seem to have been taken from quite a way off shore with only 32'
apart the there seems to be a density issue.
• Ms. Demonkos said there are 6 single-level beach cottages in a row.
• Mr. Landreth presented an old Ellis Cottaoe brochure to depict how the cottages sit on the
properly.
• Mr. Freeman asked Ms. Demonkos what was the square footage of her cottage.
• Ms. Demonkos said about 700 square feet.
Motion made by Mr. MacGregor to Close to Public Input. Second by Mr. Harrison. VOTE 5-0-0.
Board Discussion
• Mr. Jackson asked the difference in total square footage at Kingfisher and proposed here?
• Mr. Perry stated slightly larger- full second floor- 1400 square feet. These are a story and 1/2 at
1200 square feet.
• Mr. Harrison said he is not sure about this, character of the neighborhood has already changed.
Look at the larger picture. Trouble with a Variance on the hardship issue. He feels #16 is OK at
this point but he has issues with #10.
• Mr. Kearney stated it is not an easy call. Precedent has been established. The Architect
considered the Boards request with regards to the design. He is leaning toward approval.
• Mr. MacGregor feels a Variance on #16 increases intensity. He can see #10 as a Special Permit as
suggested by Town Counsel.
• Mr. Kearney noted that they were required to move by Cons Com, not that much of a detriment.
• Mr. MacGregor said he spent time in the neighborhood and doesn't see a problem. He likes what
was done there. More concern about year round residency.
• Mr. Jackson feels that Kingfisher has set the tone for the entire neighborhood. The applicant tried
to be consistent and smaller. The Board should show some consistency.
• Mr. Freeman noted that Kingfisher is set back and no one behind as well as on a hill. Approval of
those are different than those directly on the shore. Mr. Freeman asked if the Board wished to
consider both as Special Permit.
• Mr. O'Brien made note to the Board there is a discrepancy in the plans.
• Mr. Perry stated this is misleading; Plat Plan for #16- dimension to superstructure not to deck.
Critical dimensions related to deck means a reduction in setback. Setback to let line as is existing
today (eliminate minimum reduction) thus a difference in non-conformity.
Open to Public Input
• Mr. Landreth noted to proceed on amended plans. Town Counsel should weigh in if changes. He
wishes the Board to note his objection to these changes.
Motion by Mr. Jackson to Close to Public Input. Second by Mr. MacGregor. Vote 5-0-0
Further Discussion
• Mr. Freeman noted proposed revisions. Decrease outside setback at least one foot.
• Mr. Harrison stated he could go along with that.
• Mr. MacGregor- OK
• Mr. Jackson- OK
• Mr. Kearney agrees
• Mr. Freeman asked the Board to accept these drawings dated 3-29-06
Motion made by Mr. Jackson to GRANT a Special Permit to 10 Nancy May Path, Map 7 Lot 11-1 under
MGL 40A-6 and Brewster Bylaw Article II, Section 179-6; Article VIII, Section 179-25, Paragraph A and
B; and Article X, Section 179-51 to alter, extend and replace apre-existing, non-conforming single-
story dwelling with atwo-story dwelling according to subject and sketch plans dated of 1-23-06 by
Page 4 of 10
Cape Code Engineering making it not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Second by Mr. Kearney.
VOTE 5-0-0.
Mr. MacGregor YES
Mr. Jackson YES
Mr. Kearney YES
Mr. Harrison YES
Mr. Freeman YES
Motion made by Mr. Jackson to GRANT a Special Permit to 16 Nancy May Path, Map 7 Lot it-2 under
MGL 40A-6 and Brewster Bylaw Article II, Section 179-6; Article VIII, Section 179-25, Paragraph A and
B; and Article X, Section 179-51 to alter, extend and replace apre-existing, non-conforming single-
story dwelling with atwo-story dwelling according to drawing dated 3-29-06 and sketch dated 1-23-
06. Existing drawing shows decrease of a feet in existing Eastern extremity of proposed deck and
otherwise according to drawing of 1-23-06 not more detrimental. With the following condition; plan
revised before Building Permit is issued.
Second by Mr. Kearney. VOTE 5-0-0.
Mr. Kearney YES
Mr. Harrison YES
Mr. MacGregor YES
Mr. Jackson YES
Mr. Freeman YES
Motion made by Mr. Jackson to withdraw Variance as previously requested. Second by Mr. Kearney.
VOTE 5-0-0.
06-10 William J. Carroll, III, 160 Brier Lane, Map 19 Lot 33-2. The applicant seeks a Special
Permit and/or a Variance under MGL 40A- 9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52, Section 6 to locate a
detached garage in the soil conservancy.
Members hearing these cases were Messrs. Stewart, Harrison, Freeman, Nixon and MacGregor.
Mr. William Carroll was present. Mr. Corey VanWyhe of MetroWest Engineering, Framingham, MA was
also present.
Mr. Carroll was asked for a brief summary of the application. The property was purchased in 1988. It
is a1.75 acre lot. Renovated single family house with a barn on the property. HDC has approved the
plans. Building permit was applied for, septic system replaced first when it was discovered the garage
would be in a soil conservancy area. It is Amostown soil according to the soil survey of Barnstable
County. On January 19, 2006 Mr. Carroll met with the Building Department and on May 2006 he was
notified they issued the permit in error.
The 3-car garage is complimentary to the structure, plenty of land for setbacks. Impact is minimal on
the lot, well off wetland buffer. The neighborhood has many detached garages.
Mr. Corey VanWyhe spoke regarding the soils in the area; Amostown is a sandy loam. Test pits were
dug in February and proved the same as the County survey. Amostown was mapped correctly, strictly
related to the garage area.
Mr. Carroll added they do not deny the soil issue.
Board Questions
Page 5 of 10
• Mr. Stewart stated it was indicated in the Variance request this was unique to this property yet
they area around (Doran Drive and Swamp Road) all have this issue.
• Mr. Carroll said not the whole town is in soil conservancy,
• Mr. VanWyhe said only 1%of the county is soil conservancy, which equals 285 acres in total.
• Mr. Freeman asked if there was any placement of the garage where they did not encounter this
soil issue.
• Mr. Carroll indicated where the addition and septic system went but they were already in place.
• Mr. VanWyhe said that Amostown, Walpole and Freetown are all within 50 feet.
• Mr. Freeman asked where the septic system was placed.
• Mr. Carroll said North of the addition.
• Mr. Stewart asked if the were plans for living quarters above the garage.
• Mr. Carroll said nothing upstairs- this was eliminated and signed from the Building Permit.
• Mr. Freeman noted the septic is SAS type, which is an enhanced system.
• Mr. Harrison asked if the soils that we are talking about are of typical thickness.
• Mr. VanWyhe said not on the boundary but a solid 24" on site.
• Mr. Harrison asked what are we giving up on the whole scope.
• Mr. VanWyhe answered; slab on grade adds nothing to the water table, nothing will be harmed.
• Mr. Harrison asked if there would be any leeching effect, said he is not a construction expert but
sees nothing critical to standard building practices. It is an upland site.
• Mr. Nixon added as far as the addition goes is there is another test pit for that site.
• Mr. Carroll said yes and the permit was issued.
Open to Public Input
No one spoke to the application.
Motion by Mr. Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second by Mr. MacGregor. Vote 5-0-0.
Further Discussion
• Mr. Stewart felt the Board should walk through the Variance process.
• Mr. Nixon agrees
• Mr. Harrison also agrees.
• Mr. Stewart noted Amostown soil, unique-not to this lot.
• Mr. Harrison stated the issue is the uniqueness of the soil. There is some hardship (not brought
to the applicant's attention before work started.)
• Mr. MacGregor noted that if more had been known about the soil perhaps the options would have
been different. Is not having a garage a hardship.
• Mr. Freeman asked if diminishing the size of the garage make it more palatable.
• Mr. Nixon asked if it was easier to find a spot on the lot without soil conservancy.
• Mr. Harrison said a smaller size would make it easier, the impact is the footprint.
• Mr. MacGregor asked if there are other options, it seems the soils testing was not extensive
enough.
• Mr. Carroll said Amostown soil is on the lot.
• Mr. VanWyhe said the coverage was extensive, these are formalized, recorded tests.
• Mr. Freeman asked if Test Pit #3 was Amostown.
• Mr. VanWyhe said YES.
• Mr. Carroll added the size of the garage should make no difference-still in soil conservancy. A
three-car garage is less than 1% of the lot. This cannot be moved elsewhere on the property-
septic and wetlands. Change may not fit into style and area is unique. Over all town and county
only 285 acres contain this soil. They would have designed the addition differently if they have
been told previously. They were told it was OK and pay full taxes as if it can be used as a regular
lot.
• Mr. Freeman asked if there was any value in doing further soil survey.
Page 6 of 10
• Mr. VanWyhe said N0.
Motion made by Mr. Stewart to Close to Public Input. Second by Mr. Harrison. Vote 5-0-0.
Board Thoughts
• Mr. Stewart sees the uniqueness (pervasive in that area) and he feels the Town gave the wrong
information in the beginning.
• Mr. MacGregor mentioned doing more testing. He feels not much impact with just a slab.
• Mr. Nixon said the applicant was misled but he can't justify a Variance for primarily financial
hardship.
• Mr. Harrison said he is disappointed the applicant didn't know up front. He feels the slab will not
have impact on soil or ecology.
• Mr. Freeman said he is leaning toward approval. He would suggest decreasing to a two-car
garage because of bulk. Difficult to find another place for the garage.
• Mr. Stewart said he is leaning toward reducing the size of the garage.
• Mr. Carroll said he would have to start again with atwo-car garage.
Motion made by Mr. Stewart to GRANT a Variance under MGL 40A- 9 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52,
Section 6 to locate a detached garage in the soil conservancy with conditions; a standard tow-car
garage with no living quarters above. Located according to site plan 2-23-06 by Metrowest
Engineering. The Board feels the Town has contributed to meeting the hardship. Uniqueness of the
soil does not effect the whole district but makes it difficult to find placement. It is not detrimental to
the neighborhood and no impact on the Town Bylaw. Second by Mr. Harrison. Vote 4-1-0. (Mr. Nixon
voted NO due to criteria)
06-17 Steven and Eunice Harrigan, 27 Thousand Oaks Drive, Map 42 Lot 73-2. The applicant
seeks a Dimensional Variance under MGL 40A-10 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52, Section 16, Table 2 to
maintain the existing deck on the rear of the home with relief of the side/rear lot line requirements.
Members hearing these cases were Messrs. Harrison, Stewart, Nixon and Ms. McInerney and Flaherty.
Present for the applicant was Mr. William Marsh from Eastward Homes as well as the applicants.
A brief overview was presented. In January the Harrigan's appeared before the ZBA at which time
was discover the deck setback distance was discussed. This is a long and triangular site. Constructed
in the late 1970's thus non-conforming and preexisting. The 12-foot deck is only 13' from the sideline.
Mr. Harrigan stated original backdoor was one step down to the backyard. They then built a deck from
this exit. The deck was extended when the dining room addition was added. They wish to keep the
deck as it is built.
Board Discussion
• Mr. Harrison notes the deck is about li years old. Is there anything to substantiate this, if so it
meets the statute of limitations (10 years).
• Mr. Harrigan said it was added to when the addition was built 11 years ago.
• Mr. Harrison asked if there was a building permit.
• Mr. Freeman says Mr. Staley's letter refers to permit 95-229.
• Ms. Flaherty asked if it was on the plan for the dining room.
• Mr. Harrison asked when the Assessors office picked it up.
• Mr. Freeman feels this should be continued to obtain proof of time.
• Mr. Stewart feels they should find plans to prove this was at least 10 years ago,
Mr. Harrison made the motion to CONTINUE until August 8, 2006 to find positive proof of pre-
existence of deck. Second by Mr. Stewart. Vote 5-0-0.
Page 7 of 10
06-18 Mr. and Mrs. Thomas ]. Copley ]r., 26 Agassiz Street, Map 33 Lot 285. The applicant
seeks to overturn or amend the Zoning Agents decision and/or seek a use Variance under MGL 40A,
Sections 8 and 15 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52 regarding vehicles on property.
Members hearing these cases were Messrs. Harrison, Stewart, Nixon, Kearney and Ms. McInerney.
Mr. John Copley represented the applicant.
Vehicles are parked on the street 50% of the time and a job sites 50% of the time. No signs, no
advertising on the trucks or on the street. Mr. Copley then presented three abutters letters.
Board Discussion
• Mr. Kearney said refereeing to the first abutter's letter (Mr. Schneider) traffic is an issue.
• Mr. Copley said not before 7:30 AM
• Mr. Stewart asked about the pictures presented showing quite a few vehicles and activity.
• Mr. Copley said one was his brother's truck and trailer, one his truck and the third was his father's
vehicle. He did have snowplow but he has downsized. He takes care of his parent's home 4-5
months of the year.
• Mr. Freeman noted the Planning Board had concerns regarding the number of commercial vehicles
being allowed in this residential neighborhood.
• Mr. Nixon asked what was acceptable to the Building Department.
• Mr. Copley said it is a private road with no traffic.
• Ms. McInerney asked about he cease and desist order from Mr. Staley. Are the trucks still there?
She also asked if Mr. John Copley lives at that property.
• Mr. Copley stated he lives in East Dennis for 8 months of the year and here the other 4.
• Mr. Kearney asked To clarify the March 30 letter from Victor Staley, is it still "business as usual",
has anything changed.
Open to Public Input
• Helmut Schneider (19 Agassiz St) Trailers and trucks are on Town property. The number of
vehicles is extensive; one truck and 2 trailers, from Jan-April there were 12 vehicles, 2 trailers, 2
trucks, snowplow, building supplies, sub-contractor from Franklin, additional private cars and
brothers car or truck. All in and out on a regular basis. The Police have been called at various
times. Mr. Copley presented a total distortion. This is being treated as a Commercial area not
Residential.
• Kevin Wells (656 Millstone Road). Mr. Wells said he does not see this. He has lived there a long
time. There are trucks and some equipment. Copley's have been a good neighbor. His house is
the closest to the property. He sees some activity come and go but not all the time.
• Thomas Copley (property owner) they have been there 20 years. In April complaints started. As
to the Town property-it was unknown owners now the Town owns it. The neighbors were asked
if the trucks bothered them. His son has run this business for 11 1/2 years.
• Mrs. Schneider said they have been their 25 years. It is upsetting to see a "parking lot" of trucks.
Business has escalated and equipment is stored through the woods. They don't want this
Commercially zoned. It is inappropriate for the street.
• Mr. Schneider said he would provide more pictures if needed.
• Mr. Wells noted that they had not been notified that the land now was Town owned.
• John Copley noted there were 2-3 trucks at a time unless he was having a party.
Motion made by Ms. McInerney to Close to Public Input. Second by Mr. Kearney. Vote 5-0-0.
Board Comments
Page 8 of 10
• Ms. McInerney said going back to Mr. Staley letter the focus should be on observed Commercial
activity.
• Mr. Stewart said he saw the shed, an open trailer, a closed trailer, snowplow and 1-2 trucks.
• Mr. Nixon noted less equipment today. The situation is what is their now. Obvious a difference of
opinion.
• Mr. Harrison asked how much is too much.
• Mr. Stewart noted it seems to increase in the winter. Are you running a business out of the house
for that period of time?
• Mr. Kearney said it is hard to react. Perhaps we should give conditions and guidance.
• Mr. Freeman said we should stick to the Appeal of ZA decision.
• Paul said that perhaps we should get Victor Staley's (ZA) input.
• Mr. Stewart noted we should find out the conditions Victor observed.
• Mr. Freeman asked what the Board feels is appropriate to run a small commercial business.
• Mr. Kearney said storage of materials
• Mr. Stewart said sub contractors in and out.
• Mr. Freeman asked if that was not condoned in a residential area. The level of activi
appropriate. ty is not
• Ms. McInerney said it is up to the Board to take the ZA's letter at its word and to consider
upholding his decision.
• Mr. Harrison noting his findings of a business add into the decision.
• Mr. Stewart asked what did Victor see, did it continue and we should ask Victor what he
specifically saw.
• Mr. Nixon said the letter was dated March 30, it is entirely different in March from June. He was
directed to clean up and it seems to be done.
Motion made to CONTINUE until August 8, 2006 to get details from Victor Staley as to what has been
going on. Second By Mr. Harrison. Vote 4-1-0
Harrison YES
Kearney YES
McInerney NO
Stewart YES
Nixon YES
06-19 Richard Eble and Lee Sullivan, 125 Underpass Road, Map 27 Lot 15-2. The applicant
seeks a Variance under MGL 40A-10 and Brewster Bylaw 179-52 for a sign 48 X 60 inches.
Members hearing these cases were Messrs. Harrison, Stewart, Nixon, Freeman and Ms. Flaherty.
Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Eble were present. Mr. Eble gave a brief overview of application.
Atlantic Realty opened in Brewster in 1990. They just recently moved to the Underpass Road location.
This building is not considered "row commercial". It is high density commercial. Most buildings are
close to the road, this building sits way back thus a sign of this size is needed to create visibility. The
sign is smaller than the previous Brewster Video sign. Individual signs are smaller.
Board Discussion
• Mr. Stewart asked what is the square footage of sign? All seem larger than 20 square feet.
• Mr. Eble said the sign code was written in 1982.
• Mr. Stewart remarked why have a sign code if anyone can put up what they want.
Mr. Nixon asked if this was a single business?
Mr. Eble said it is 3 separate businesses under a real estate umbrella.
Open to Public Input
Page 9 of 10
No one to speak to this issue
Motion made by Mr. Harrison to Close to Public Input. Second Mr. Nixon. Vote 5-0-0.
Further Discussion
• Mr. Harrison feels he could approve for 2 businesses but 3 no.
• Mr. Stewart asks 8 square feet per business or per sign?
• Mr. Nixon feels 8 square feet per business.
• Ms. Flaherty noted row commercial or planned business. Row is 40000 square feet and 150'
frontage, planned bus. district one than one building.
• Mr. Eble noted there are two entrances with firewalls between.
• Mr. Stewart said how do you justify this?
• Ms. Flaherty asked if they could satisfy conditions for a Variance?
• Mr. Harrison feels they would have a hard time with that.
• Ms. Sullivan asked a procedural question; can they pole the vote first
• Mr. Harrison cannot support Variance
• Ms. Flaherty not satisfied
• Mr. Nixon the same.
• Mr. Freeman suggests a continuance or withdrawal.
Motion made by Mr. Harrison to CONTINUE until August 8, 2006. Second Mr. Stewart. Vote
5-0-0.
06-20T. Edmund Daly and Karen Lieberman-Daly, 12 Six Penny Lane, May 19 Lot 73.The
applicant seeks a Special Permit and/or Variance under MGL 40A, Section 6 and Brewster Bylaw 179-
25 for the change, extension or alteration of apre-existing nonconforming single family dwelling on a
pre-existing nonconforming lot
Members hearing these cases were Messrs. Nixon, Freeman, MacGregor and Ms. McInerney and
Flaherty.
Attorney Steven Jones represented the Daly's.
Mr. Jones gave a brief overview. There are two issues in Victor Staley's letter; soils conservancy and
setback of a deck. Three letters from abutters have been presented all in favor of this project. After
the application was in there was a letter regarding soil conservancy? No soils testing has been done.
Mr. Freeman noted he had spoken to Mr. Jones regarding enough materials available.
Mr. Jones continued. The setback for the deck should be allowed, as it is more than 10 years old
(built in August 1995). Proposal now is to turn an existing porch into living space. To the west is all
new construction-soil conservancy, septic already done in that area, soil has already been disturbed.
Hardship is topography- low lying into marsh area, not usable. RM area not generally a problem.
Financial hardship if not allowed to build as soils conservancy district, they cannot add on at all.
Addition to this house is to provide a separate area for mother-in-law. Currently 4 bedrooms and will
remain 4 bedrooms. Not substantial detriment to the public good- house already there. Close to
wetlands, meets setback requirements, pre-existing nonconforming lot and already moved back at
Cons Com request.
Discussion
• Mr. Freeman asked to clarify over the deck on the N side. Propose 2°d floor deck over existing
deck? Also 1000 gallon septic (defunct) if construction feels it should be removed?
• Mr. Jones noted that it was just as easy to leave it there, they will take out if needed.
• Mr. Nixon questioned another dotted line on plans; limit of work.
Page 10 of 10
• Mr. Freeman noted a memo from Keith Johnson (Conservation Agent) that the soil is Walpole soil
in that area.
• Ms. McInerney asked if this is a request for amother-in-law unit.
• Ms. Flaherty noted it is not amother-in-law apt.
• Mr. Jones said there is no separate cooking facilities.
• Mr. Freeman asked if plans are sufficient to act upon.
• Ms. McInerney said that this is a renovation same for same but increases in height. There will be
a 2"d story over the proposed porch.
• Mr. Jones answered a screen porch with deck above is planned.
• Ms. McInerney noted this increases the non-conformity.
• Mr. Jones notes that abutters are in support of the proposed changes.
• Mr. Freeman mentioned Mr. Jones wrote Variance findings in application.
• Mr. Jones stated they couldn't get around soil conservancy with wetlands and 50' setbacks.
• Mr. Freeman asked if all additions are appropriate and necessary to test Variance.
• Mr. Jones stated the south side is in compliance with zoning.
• Mr. Freeman said the deck is 12.5 feet from sideline.
• Ms. Flaherty asked if the following was correct; Variance for deck (north side), Variance for
addition into wetlands setback and General Variance in Soils Conservancy District.
• Mr. Jones noted that the last requires a Special Permit, as it does not increase the setback.
1. Motion by Mr. Harrison to GRANT a Special Permit for extension of currently 15 x 12 first floor
porch with upstairs living space above. Second by Mr. Nixon. Vote 5-0-0.
2. Motion by Mr. Harrison to GRANT a Special Permit for Deck on North side to become acovered-
screened porch with 2nd floor deck with stairs (deck in existence over 10 years).
• Mr. Freeman stated there were too many issues to consider at this hour.
Motion made by Ms. Flaherty to Continue until August 8, 2006. Second by Mr. Harrison. Vote 5-0-0
Additional Business
• Alternate Members need to be reappointed
• The following members need reappointment by Selectmen; Bruce MacGregor and Harvey Freeman
• New Chairman designated; Motion by Mr. Jackson to nominate Harvey Freeman as Chairman for
the next year. Second by Mr. Stewart. VOTE 9-0-0.
• Motion made by Mr. Stewart to nominate Philip Jackson as Vice-Chair. Second by Mr. MacGregor.
VOTE 9-0-0.
Motion to adjourn by Mr. MacGregor. Second by Mr. Stewart. VOTE 9-0-0.
Meeting adjourned 12:29 AM.
l l: Old V l ~IU 90.
~,~a~_; ~ ~.rr"~~ i :~; i1 sM32~8