Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Jack Currier, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Jack Currier, Chair Ryan Williams Gerry Reppucci Bob Carlson Carter Falk, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Currier explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Currier explained how testimony will be given by applicants, those speaking in favor or in opposition to each request, as stated in the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) By-laws. Mr. Currier also explained procedures involving the timing light. 1. City of Nashua, Nashua Airport Authority (Owner) 103 Perimeter Road (Sheet E Lot 60) requesting the following special exceptions: 1) to work in a prime and “other” wetland and wetland buffer to relocate and reconstruct Runway 14-32, and 2) to redevelop land within the Conservation Zone. AI Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Bob Carlson Ryan Williams Gerry Reppucci Colleen Mailloux, Gale & Associates, Bedford, NH. Ms. Mailloux stated that the airport is asking to come into compliance with Federal Aviation Administration standards. She said there are basic design standards for airports, based upon the type of air traffic that uses the facility. She said that the airport is proposing to relocate the existing runway about 400 feet to the ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 2 northeast towards Amherst Street, and extend it 150 feet towards the runway 14 end to the north, and an additional paved area at the south end of the runway. Ms. Mailloux said they are filling approximately 11.63 acres of wetland, a large amount of which is mowed and maintained, and vegetation removal of approximately 8.91 acres of tree clearing, which is selective in the approach to the airport. She said all of the improvements are required by the FAA, and the airport is currently not in compliance with FAA standards. Ms. Mailloux said that the request cannot be reasonably required, as it is required by the FAA. She stated that the least damaging route and methodology has been selected, and it is the best practical alternative. She said the project began in the 1990’s, and in 2008 an environmental assessment was completed. She stated that the airport has taken every measure it can to reduce all environmental impacts to avoid impacts to wetlands. Ms. Mailloux stated that appropriate measures have been incorporated, and they have gone through the NHDES and the Army Corp of Engineers permitting process, and they’ve received a standard dredge and fill permit from DES, and a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act from the Army Corp of Engineers. They said that appropriate mitigation for this project is a payment to the NHDES Aquatic Resource Mitigation Fund, of which the payment is calculated based upon property values in the City of Nashua the extent of the impact. She said that the Airport Authority was told that the mitigation is suitable, and the environmental agencies have agreed that it is acceptable mitigation. Ms. Mailloux said the project is necessary for productive use of adjoining land. She said the cost of the improvements are approximately 25 million dollars, of which 95% is funded through the FAA, so federal funding pays this, in order to maintain and receive these federal funds, the airport is required to be compliant with federal design standards. Ms. Mailloux said there are no rare or endangered species, but there are species that will require mitigation. She said the best erosion and sedimentation control methods are being used. She stated that the project will not impair wetland capacity for wildlife and fishery functions. She stated that he project will ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 3 not impair the stability of the water body’s bank, either, as there are no water banks. She stated that the wetland buffer function of the storage capacity of the wetland will not be impacted. She said there will be some grading within the Conservation Zone, about 54,000 sq.ft of turf area that is going to be regraded to construct the runway safety area. She said that Pennichuck Water has reviewed the plans for compliance with storm water management standards, indicating that the project is in compliance. She said there will be no increase of impervious area in the Conservation Zone, and all the storm water management standards are met. Mr. Williams asked about the alternatives to the mitigation. Ms. Mailloux said that they began this project about 3-4 years ago, and they’ve met with the Conservation Commission, and the Natural Resource Agency Coordination Counsel, a group in Concord that involves the Army Corp of Engineers, the EPA, DES, and other agencies in environmental permitting process. She said that due to the size of this project, the Army Corp of Engineers and the DES has taken jurisdiction, and the airport is required to meet their standards for mitigation. She said they like to look for on-site replication of wetlands. She said that the difficulty of re-constructing wetlands on airports, is that they attract wildlife and birds, that are hazardous to aviation issues, so they try to avoid it. Ms. Mailloux said the next step is the acquisition of land to be preserved, or to have off-site restoration of wetlands that have previously been filled. She said they were advised to stay within a one-mile square of the airport, around the Pennichuck and Witches Brook watershed, extending into Hollis. She said they expanded the area to a 3-4 mile square around the airport, to give additional areas for preservation. She said the Conservation Commission identified several parcels that could be suitable for mitigation as well. She said the parcels for mitigation have to meet the Army Corp of Engineers standards. She said the preservation requirements are for 15 acres of land for each 1 acre of wetland to be disturbed so they’d need about 175 acres. Ms. Mailloux said they’ve searched all over for land, and they can only offer fair market value to purchase land, and the FAA can’t pay over fair market value, and property owners won’t accept fair market value in this market, so, the preservation ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 4 prospects of finding 175 acres of land is not possible, to meet all the standards. She said the responses back were not favorable, and it looks like it will have to come from an in- lieu fee payment to an approved program that meets the Army Corp of Engineers guidelines. She said there is an Aquatic Resource Management Fund, which is an approved program instrument for issues like this, so the payment will need to be paid to the NHDES, it is about two million dollars. She said the money would be available to cities in the Nashua River Watershed area, which is a smaller geographical area than the Merrimack River Watershed area. Mr. Carlson asked about the weight tolerances for the new runway. Erik Strand, Engineer, Gale & Associates, Bedford, NH. Mr. Strand said it is designed for a G4, about 50,000 pounds. Ms. Mailloux said a G4 is a large aircraft, which is the largest, fastest aircraft that can conduct 500 operations, at a minimum, each year at the airport. She said a G4 is a D2 aircraft, and the airport exceeds this. She said the improvements are for similar aircraft that are using the airport. Mr. Reppucci said that the Conservation Commission is an advisory Board, and they have great weight. He said the only time he’d override their recommendation is if he thought they made a mistake. He said it looks like the Conservation Commission was concerned about the funding issue, and it didn’t look like they were confident that the money would be spent in Nashua, and to have control of where the money would go. Mr. Currier said he believes they have looked hard at the mitigation, and said he’s generally not looking to override the Conservation Commission. He said the rest of the application looks fine. Ms. Mailloux said the Airport Authority completely agrees that the Conservation Commission should be able to determine how the money should be spent; unfortunately, the airport is subject to the requirements of the NHDES and the Army Corp of Engineers, who have dictated that the in-lieu fee payment must be made to the NHDES program. She said there is no mechanism for a payment ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 5 to be made to the City of Nashua. She said there’s nothing the airport can do about this. Donald Davidson, 71 Browning Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Davidson stated that he is the Chair of the Airport Authority. He said the airport is managed and administered by the Authority, but the airport is owned by the City of Nashua. Mr. Williams said the payment to the State is dictated by law, and asked if the City’s legal office could issue a legal opinion on this. Ms. Mailloux said it is a federal regulation that dictates where the payment will be made, but it doesn’t dictate who the check is written to, there is a federal regulation that it must be made to an approved program sponsor, and NHDES is the only one in New Hampshire. Michael Gallagher, 9 Old Coach Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Gallagher stated that he is a member of the Conservation Commission. He said he was one of the members who voted against the proposal, and that they are an advisory Board. He said that when the Commission looked at the proposal, the impact is here in Nashua, and there is very little vacant land left in the City. He said they had concerns that if the money was put into this fund, that Nashua would be put into a cue with every other community in order to apply for that money. He said the mitigation is a hierarchy, to recreate the disruption. He said the issue that the Commission had was that in regard to that, it is required by law, that if that is the option they are going to use, the in- lieu cash donation, that a public meeting be held. He said that the Commission was not notified of that public hearing until after it took place. He said that they believe that the mitigation should take place in Nashua. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Donald Davidson, 71 Browning Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Davidson said he understands the principle behind the Conservation Commission’s ruling. He said they had no ability to look forward to this money coming to them to manage. He said the Airport Authority offered whatever they can do to encourage that to happen, but the regulations are pretty strict. He said the DES is going to look hard, and not listen to the concerns expressed by the Conservation Commission, however, in the ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 6 timeline, there have been scores of boxes checked off, over years, and the money has been allocated as federal money, about 23 million dollars, it’s the largest general aviation project in the United States. He said we can’t risk having the project fail. Mayor Donnalee Lozeau. Mr. Currier read a letter written by the Mayor into the record, dated November 9, 2010, indicating her support of the runway expansion project and the Special Exceptions applied for. Royce Rankin, Airport Manager. Mr. Rankin said that they have been mandated by the FAA, to improve all safety areas, as there were two accidents where aircraft went off the surface, and the safety areas didn’t support the aircraft. He said the project will protect lives and property. He said they need to move the runway three hundred feet to the northeast, towards the railroad tracks. Chris Williams, President, Nashua Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Williams said he is speaking in favor from a business perspective. He said it’s not just leisure flights at the airport, there are many local executives who use the airport on a regular basis. He said a thriving airport is vital to the City’s economic success, for national and global access. He said the runway is in need of repair, and it will hurt the airports viability. He said a vote in favor of this request is not to disenfranchise the Conservation Commission, as it has a different purpose, and criteria for approval. David Heath, 7 Casey Circle, Nashua, NH. Mr. Heath said he is in favor of this proposal, it will not bring in more, or larger planes. He said he owns a business at the airport, and his company gets great visibility from the airport. He said he is also involved with the Chamber of Commerce, and applauded the Conservation Commission for their efforts. Fred Britton, Vice Chairman, Nashua Airport Authority. Mr. Britton said it’s important to know that the Authority has diligently been saving for this project, and has over one-half million dollars ready to be spent on the project. He said for safety reasons, it is very important that this project moves forward. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 7 Bob DeMayo, 14 Bayberry Court, Bedford, NH. Mr. DeMayo said he owns an aircraft, and is president of a condo association, and directs flight operations for Kollsman. He said the runway is in a state that has to be repaired, and it needs to be moved. Greg Leeson, Hollis, NH. Mr. Leeson said he represents Infinity Aviation. He said they are in interface between the airport and the general public, with flight training. He said he is committed to promotion of the airport, and said that the maintenance of the airport, and the replacement of the runway is extremely important to solidify the airport’s presence in Nashua. Shane McLaughlin, Brookline, NH. Mr. McLaughlin said he’s been flying out of this airport for about 40 years. He said they own, develop and lease numerous facilities at the airport. He said the health and vitality of the airport is essential to the long term vitality of the City of Nashua. He said the runway is in serious need of repair, and showed pictures of the runway. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Pauline Lones, 1 Lear Drive, Nashua, NH. Ms. Lones said she lives within 500 feet of the airport, across the street from the Fire station. She said there’s been a lot of changes at the airport, and can never have her windows open, and said her property values are going down due to the airport. Robert Corsetti, 17 Massasoit Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Corsetti stated that he is an abutter, and is concerned about property values, with the noise and large jets. He said their plan does not take the neighbors into consideration. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Colleen Mailloux, Gale and Associates. Ms. Mailloux said the runway relocation will be 300 feet closer to Amherst Street, and as part of the environmental aspect, done back in 2008, a noise impact study was done, and they are moving the noise contours of the airport away from the residential neighborhoods, and they will be closer to Amherst Street. She said the airport won’t be experiencing an increase in operations, and there won’t be any increase on City utilities. She said this is a safety enhancement project. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 8 SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Pauline Lones, 1 Lear Drive, Nashua, NH. Ms. Lones said that one of the mitigation items is that the residents in the area are to be contacted, and questioned the process. She also asked if the plan goes through, how will the construction affect her, and who can she contact about it. MOTION by Mr. Currier to waive the rules to allow testimony from the applicant. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Ms. Mailloux stated that they contact property owners of nearby properties, but it’s generally smaller, vacant lots. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the special exception applications on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Currier stated that the special exception is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112 and 190-24 (f)(5). Mr. Currier stated that the runway relocation will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety, per testimony, Pine Hill Road is busy, but stated that the relocation should not have a substantial impact to make it worse. Mr. Currier said the Board finds that the case will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, per testimony, it will actually create less stormwater runoff to Spectacle Brook, which at times can flood, and slow the runoff into our watershed, so it’s improving the stormwater runoff. Mr. Currier said that the nine special regulations were discussed at length, and stated that he believes that they’ve all been satisfied, and back some years ago, with the different choices that the airport had, this choice to move it in this fashion is the best alternative, granted, it fills eleven-plus acres of wetlands, but all nine criteria are fulfilled, and to relocate the runway closer to the railroad will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, and it gets it further away from the residential area. He said he wishes they could tie the ARM fund to insure that the money is spent in this watershed, but the Board doesn’t have the authority to do that. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 9 SECONDED by Mr. Williams. Mr. Reppucci said the Conservation Commission meeting minutes of October 19, 2010 and November 3, 2010 should be incorporated. AMENDED MOTION by Mr. Currier to include these previous Conservation Commission meeting minutes into the record. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Reppucci). REHEARING REQUEST: 1. Shane R. & Kristi Tumpney (Owners) James Ducharme (Applicant) 32½ - 36 Summer Street (Sheet 44 Lot 78) requesting the following variances: Proposed Lot 1: 1) minimum lot area, 18,666 square feet required - 17,395 square feet proposed, 2) to allow two principal structures on one lot, one permitted, 3) minimum lot frontage, 50 feet required - 20 feet proposed, 4) minimum lot width, 60 feet required – 20 feet proposed; Proposed Lot 3: 5) minimum lot width, 60 feet required, 50 feet proposed; and Proposed Lot 4: 6) minimum lot width, 60 feet required, 50 feet proposed. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Ryan Williams Mr. Currier asked if anyone saw a procedural error, such as improper notice, or denying anyone the right to be heard. Board members all said no. Mr. Currier asked if the decision was illegal, and if the Board failed to completely address each point of law. Board members all said no. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 10 Mr. Currier asked if the request for rehearing contains any new information not presented or available at the original Public Hearing. Mr. Currier said that Exhibit B wasn’t in the original package. Mr. Williams said these used to be two separate tax parcels, and at some point, the City joined them together. He said this wasn’t before us at the original meeting, even though the issue was touched upon. Mr. Currier said he didn’t believe that the applicants’ attorney had this information at the meeting. Mr. Reppucci said it wasn’t the applicant that had this information, it was the property owner. He said the attorney was representing the builder. Mr. Falk said that there were six variances in the request, and four of them were approved. He said the two that were not approved were for the lots with frontage on Kendrick Street. He said that for Exhibit B, the Board will have to determine if it is relevant enough to grant a rehearing. Mr. Currier asked if there is anything which would/could cause the Board to make a different decision. Mr. Williams said there was a lack of a nexus between the actual evidence as being offered as hardship, in what was being proposed. He said the new map, or a narrative may help in changing his mind. Mr. Currier said he is not convinced it would change his mind, but would be amenable in allowing the applicant to present their information, and it would allow abutters the chance to comment again. Mr. Reppucci said he thought that mistakes were made, but didn’t agree that the Board should just err on the side of caution. He said if the Board thinks there may be a different outcome, then the Board should consider a rehearing for that reason. MOTION by Mr. Williams to grant the rehearing on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Williams stated that it is granted based on new ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 11 evidence that could potentially cause the Board to reconsider its decision. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. Mr. Reppucci asked if it is to be reheard in its entirety, the two denials in their entirety. Mr. Currier said yes. Mr. Falk said variance numbers 5 and 6. Mr. Reppucci said he’d like to rehear them for different reasons. Mr. Williams said we can make a motion to rehear without specifically saying it’s for a specific reason. Mr. Reppucci said the rehearing request has 12 issues. Further discussion ensued. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. AT THIS POINT, THE BOARD WENT BACK TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING. 2. David McCullough Revocable Trust (Owner) 237 Main Dunstable Road (Sheet E Lot 1502) requesting the following variances: 1) minimum lot area, 30,000 square feet required, 20,751 square feet proposed; and, 2) minimum lot width, 120 feet required, 50 feet proposed – both requests to subdivide one lot into two lots. PI Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Ryan Williams (left the meeting) Attorney Greg Michael, Bernstein Shur, Manchester, NH. Atty. Michael stated that he objects to going forward with three voting members, but will proceed forward. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 12 Atty. Michael asked if the variance for lot width was advertised correctly, he stated that he believed they had 90 feet instead of 50 feet. Mr. Currier said the lot width is measured at the front yard setback, which is actually 50 feet. Atty. Michael said the parcel is approximately 75,000 square feet in size, it is an odd shaped lot. He said the proposal is to subdivide off an area which contains the cell tower in the rear of the lot. He said the Winco industrial building lot would remain a conforming lot. He said the lots would have two disparate uses, and the tower lot would only need parking for one vehicle. He said there will not be a need for any site changes, it will still look the same, and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Atty. Michael went over the variance points of law. He said they are maintaining sufficient setbacks as well, and the lots will allow for safe, rational use of the land. He said the uses are passive. Mr. Reppucci asked how long the tower has been there. Atty. Michael said about 10-12 years, and the building has been there much longer. Mr. Reppucci asked what the reason is for doing this subdivision. Atty. Michael said that the current tenant has an interest in buying the Winco industrial building, and they don’t want to be involved with the tower site, and it makes it easier in the banking and financial dealings in the future, and allows greater flexibility. Atty. Michael said that a condition could be attached that if the cell tower goes away, that the lot it is on must be re- integrated with this parcel. The lots would just be merged together. Mr. Reppucci asked if the cell tower meets the requirements of Section 190-38, separate from the lot requirements, just the structure requirements. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 13 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION, OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. Mr. Reppucci said the tower needs to be greater than its height, or 100 feet from all lot lines, 190-38 (2). He said it’s to the residential lot lines. Atty. Michael said there is no residential lot line here. Mr. Currier agreed. Atty. Michael said that the tower is existing, and meets all of its setbacks. Mr. Currier said he is concerned with creating a nonconforming lot. Mr. Reppucci said the tower has been there for at least 12 years. He said the request sounds reasonable. He said that nothing changes, and the structures stay right as they are, and it will still look the same, and it’s an unreasonable hardship. He said if they sell the property, and start adding onto the buildings, then it would be a change in circumstances. Mr. Reppucci said he’d like to see a stipulation that the building that is presently there does not get expanded. Atty. Michael said there could be a covenant in the deed, a deed covenant, that would state that if the tower goes away, its to be deeded and consolidated with this parcel, likewise, if this changes hands and we sell it to the Winco people, they will understand that if the towers go away, that there will be a requirement to merge the parcels, and this would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds, that would be picked up in a Title. He said that this is binding on future owners. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the variances on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reppucci stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, and the benefit sought by ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 14 the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, it’s appearance will be transparent, and substantial justice will be done. Mr. Reppucci said a special condition will be that there will be a deed covenant on the tower property, that if the use of that property changes in any way, if the tower goes away, it would have to be merged, or conveyed, to the owner of the other property, as identified in the language that Attorney Michael used. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. REHEARING REQUESTS (CONTINUED FROM EARLIER): 2. Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester (Owner) Randy Turmel (Applicant) 65 Pine Hill Road (Sheet E Lot 2223) requesting the following: 1) use variance to allow elderly housing in the AI District portion of the property, consisting of single family detached units and two duplex units for a total of up to twelve units in the AI District; and, 2) variance to permit up to four elderly housing dwelling units per acre in the AI District portion of the property. AI & R9 Zones, Ward 1. (FROM 9-28-10 PUBLIC HEARING) Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Bob Carlson Mr. Reppucci stated, in reference to Mr. Davidson’s letter, that his position is that they don’t have standing in this matter, or a legal right to request a rehearing. He stated this because standing only exists when relevant factors lead the plaintiff, which is the Airport Authority, has a sufficient interest in the outcome of the proposed zoning decision, where the only adverse ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 15 impact that may be felt by the plaintiffs is that of increased competition of the business, and there is no insufficient harm to entitle the plaintiffs standing for appeal. He said the Airport Authority doesn’t stand to lose anything with this approval, and they’d have to be harmed in some way that is different from everybody else. Mr. Currier said he disagrees, and that they do have direct standing. He said abutters will be bothered by noise from aircraft. Mr. Carlson said he didn’t believe that they have standing either, and that 65 Pine Hill Road is not a direct abutter to the site. Mr. Falk said that anyone can ask for a rehearing, it’s up to the Board to decide whether or not they have standing, it doesn’t necessarily have to be an abutter, it can be an aggrieved party, and the Airport believes they’re aggrieved by this decision. Mr. Reppucci said that an applicant has to show that they’re aggrieved in a unique way, he said he doesn’t see how they are, and they’re not an abutter. Mr. Currier said this is the first residential, as opposed to airport industrial path, as you follow the flight path out, and believes that they are uniquely impacted, and have the right to be aggrieved. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny the rehearing request, based on the fact that the applicant for the rehearing has standing in the case. SECONDED by Mr. Carlson. MOTION CARRIED 2-1 (Mr. Currier). MINUTES: October 12, 2010, and October 26, 2010 MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the Minutes, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file as presented. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 9, 2010 Page 16 SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any items of Regional Impact. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Currier called the meeting closed at 10:20 p.m. Jack Currier, Acting Clerk, for Robert Shaw, Clerk CF Taped Hearing