Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Rob Shaw, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Rob Shaw, Chair Gerry Reppucci, Vice Chair Jack Currier Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Shaw explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Shaw 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. Shaw also explained procedures involving the timing light. 1. Constance P. Gosselin Rev. Trust (Owner) 356 Amherst Street (Sheet G Lot 50) requesting variance to exceed maximum wall sign area, 57 square feet allowed, 41 square feet existing – an additional 41 square feet proposed. GB Zone, Ward 2. [TABLED FROM 11-22-11 MEETING] Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Brad Toothman, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Upton, MA. Mr. Toothman said that the side sign is very important to them, due to the access point. He said that the building is gray, and it’s hard to see the entrance into the right-in/right-out before the lights. He said that Route 101A is a very heavy travelled road, and if you miss the entry, the next turnaround is near the highway, about a quarter mile away. He said that Ruby Tuesday’s, Applebees, McDonalds all have three signs, as does Five Guys. He said they took down the tree in the front, and ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 2 the side road entry is dark, with not a lot of light, and no one knows to turn in until they see the pylon sign. Mr. Reppucci stated that he didn’t think the new side sign would give any additional visibility. He said the pylon sign and the building sign that is proposed are basically right in the same place. Mr. Toothman said there will be two tenants in the building, and the other tenant will be on the pylon sign. He said the front door is on the side that the parking lot is on, and drivers on 101A don’t realize that they can turn right onto the dark road/side street, to come around to the back and to the parking lot. He said the proposed sign is right over the front door area. Mr. Currier said that it appears as if the building does stand out, because of the dark side street, and said that they could light up the back parking/driveway area. He said that the size of the front wall sign could be reduced, and asked why that wouldn’t meet Chipotle’s needs. Mr. Toothman said that if they split the additional square footage from what is allowable, it gets to a very small sign. He asked if it’s possible to shrink the size of the sign on the west elevation. He said that one of the challenges is that 101A, it’s a 30 or 35 mph zone, and the pylon sign is about 15 feet from the light, and trees block the visibility of it, and they are afraid that customers will miss the restaurant. He said if people miss the restaurant, they need to go about a quarter mile before they can turn around, and with all the other food choices on the street, people will not turn around, they’ll just go somewhere else, to the next food option. Mr. Reppucci asked if the signs on Daniel Webster Highway are larger than the ones proposed. Mr. Toothman said he thought they were larger, but wasn’t exactly sure. He said they don’t have standard signage, other than the pepper symbol, that is used on buildings. Mr. Currier said the variance wouldn’t even be needed if the sign were to be smaller, if the sign was 14 feet. Mr. Toothman said if you look at Five Guys, they have three ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 3 signs. He said that Chipotle isn’t asking for anything that’s out of line. He said that Ruby Tuesday’s, McDonalds, and all the other food users on the street, actually, Chipotle is asking for a lot less than what the street area market has. Mr. Reppucci said that Five Guys has more signage because they have more frontage. He said that every restaurant has different circumstances, so you can’t really compare different sites. Mr. Currier asked if there were any sign variances for Five Guys. Mr. Falk said they did not get a variance, their signs meet the ordinance. He said they have a much larger building frontage, and if you multiply that times 1.5, they get a lot more wall signage. Mr. Shaw said that a directional sign is allowed by right, at the entrance. He said that it will help with visibility, and to have drivers react in a timely manner, and be able to get into the site. He said that it can be up to 9 square feet, with a logo/symbol not to exceed 3 square feet. He said it will help address the eastbound traffic, in getting them in the driveway before they go past Airport Road and go past the site. Mr. Toothman said they’ll consider it. He said one of the reasons why they didn’t pursue a directional sign is that they thought that only 6 square feet was allowed, and they don’t want to be known as a fast-food restaurant, Chipotle is a casual dining restaurant. He said they don’t want to have the drive- through mentality. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Reppucci said he’s sensitive to their situation, but they really have a responsibility to look at their signage, and everything they need, and it may have been irresponsible on their part to make and install the 41 square foot front sign, and then come back for another 41 square foot sign. He said it ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 4 could have been planned better. He said that under the circumstances, he thought it would be fair to have a 28 square foot sign on the side wall, so they know where the entry is, so it would split the permitted signage in half, and put two signs up. He said another 41 square foot sign would look like too much signage. Mr. Currier said he’s struggling to see the hardship. He said he could be persuaded by Mr. Reppucci’s concession with splitting the difference. Mr. Shaw said he was originally in favor of the request. He said if the sentiment of the Board would be the reduced amount of 69 square feet. Mr. Reppucci said if they meet the Ordinance, they’d be allowed to put a 16 square foot sign over their door. He said that is a pretty small sign. Mr. Currier asked how much signage would be allowed, as of right, on the other side of the building. Mr. Falk said it’s 1.5 times their building frontage. He said they have about the same size space as Chipotle, but, they have frontage on Airport Road, so they’d get something larger. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the request 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 the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Reppucci stated that the special condition that the total signage not exceed 69½ square feet, which will allow for a 28½ square feet additional wall sign, identifying the entryway to the business. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 5 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 2. Monarch Properties (Owner) “L” Shawmut Avenue (Sheet 55 Lot 57) requesting variance to allow an accessory shed as a principal use on a lot of record. RA Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Kenneth Grabeau, 26 Cabot Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Grabeau said that Monarch Properties is owned by him and his wife. He said that in 1995 a developer was interested in putting a house on the lot. He said that they purchased the lot, with the intent of keeping the lot vacant, with no house on it. Mr. Grabeau went over the relevant points of law for a variance. He said that the shed will be a small, 8’x10’ shed. He said that the lot is very nicely landscaped, with a walking path that the neighbors use. Mr. Currier asked why the variance is required. Mr. Falk said that the lot is a stand-alone lot of record, and the Ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be on them as a principal use. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the variance on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci said that the variance are needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property; and the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Reppucci stated that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is being done, this is more of a procedural matter, and the request is appropriate. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 3. Walter J. & Elena O. Solfiell (Owners) 13-15 Courtland Street (Sheet 66 Lot 15) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 11,600 square feet existing, 18,668 square feet required, to add one dwelling unit to an existing two- family dwelling. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Walter Solfiell, 13-15 Courtland Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Solfiell said they are asking for a variance to place a third unit in the basement. He said they bought the property six years ago, there was a unit in the basement, and it had a stove, sink, refrigerator, shower. He said it’s the same thing now. He said a few months ago, they were notified by the City that there was never an approval for the unit. He said they had no idea that the unit was illegal, and they’ve had guests stay in it. Mr. Solfiell said that they have two options, one would be to remove the appliances and make it into a two-family, the other option would be to apply for the variance. He said it would cost a lot of money to remove the appliances. He said the neighborhood has numerous multi-family buildings, it is a mixture. He said the structure wouldn’t change at all outside. Mr. Solfiell went over all the relevant points of law for a variance. He said the apartment is 300-400 square feet, and rectangular in shape, it’s like a Marriott suite, it has no rooms, it’s all one open concept. He said it would be great for a single person. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 7 Mr. Reppucci asked if it was listed as a two-family when it was bought. Mr. Solfiell said yes, and the listing paper was submitted in the package. Mr. Reppucci asked if the other room was rented downstairs, and how did this case get before the Board. Mr. Solfiell said a disgruntled tenant who lived there called the City, and said it was an illegal unit. Mr. Reppucci asked whether it was rented out, or if any income was gained by it. Mr. Solfiell said it was his wife’s friends from Russia who mainly stayed there from time to time. He said it’s not really a rental place. He said that no one ever paid to live there. He said the last tenant did some damage to the place, and two letters were sent to them. Mr. Reppucci asked how many electrical service meters are on the house. Mr. Solfiell said there are two. Mr. Reppucci asked where the electricity comes from to that apartment. Mr. Solfiell said it comes from the second floor. He said the second unit is on the first floor, and it’s on a separate meter. Mr. Shaw said the issue is that there weren’t proper permits originally pulled for the basement unit. Mr. Currier asked about the 3-car garage, and if the bays are available for parking. Mr. Solfiell said they are all available for parking. Mr. Currier asked about the parking spaces besides the garage spaces. Mr. Solfiell said there are ten parking spaces available. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 8 Mr. Reppucci asked if the stove would have to be removed if this request is not approved. He said that conversely, if it is approved, a new gas, electrical service will need to be added, so, the expenses to convert it legally are extensive. Mr. Currier said the estimated cost to come into compliance is overstated, he said there have been other cases before the Board, and the cost isn’t all that significant. Mr. Solfiell said if the stove is taken out, there are cupboards and cabinets that will have to be removed, flooring, and wall treatments will need to be revised, and it will be considerable expense to put it all together. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Reppucci said he was not in favor of the request, and found it hard to believe that someone has an apartment in their house, and they don’t make any income on it, and just use it for five years, but, once the City becomes aware of it, now, it’s a good idea to spend several thousand dollars turning it into a legitimate unit to rent. He said he can’t make any sense of it. Mr. Shaw said there are three functioning units in the building, and whether the basement unit has been rented out, it has had a lot of usage in the past. He said it’s plausible that the tenant could have used it, and not thought of it as rental income. He said there are many other multi-family units in the neighborhood, and no one came out in opposition, and there could be a plausible explanation why the unit was never used as an income generating unit. Mr. Currier said the Board should consider the lot size, they are required to have 18,668 square feet, and they only have 11,600. He said they’re only 60% of the required lot size. He said it’s a nice looking property, but with a shared driveway and the potential of ten cars. He said the proposed density is a major incursion to what the Code requires. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 9 Mr. Shaw said the Board should discuss the density, and if it’s reasonable usage of the property with the land area. Mr. Reppucci said they could take out the stove, and have no problems, the plumbing can stay there, and they can have as many bathrooms and bedrooms as they want. Mr. Shaw said it could be used as guest space, people can sleep there, use the bathroom, it just may not have full access to a kitchen, or to be a full independent living unit. He said the space can still have a lot of value, and function, consistent with their testimony. MOTION by Mr. Currier to deny the request on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Currier stated that the Board finds the variance is not needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is, giving the special conditions of the property, a proposed use of the property to maintain a three- family. Mr. Currier said that the Board realizes the special condition that it was purchased with essentially an illegal unit. Mr. Currier said it’s reasonable to maintain the use as a two- family. He said that the Board recognizes that there was an illegal unit in the basement all along, and the testimony was that it was never used for income, but the Board didn’t find a hardship to have a 60% overage on square footage, and the hardship is that the applicant purchased before the bubble burst on the market, but by law, the Board cannot take that into testimony as a hardship. Mr. Currier said that the applicant argued about the property values of surrounding parcels, the applicant argues that by having a third unit, it allows them to further invest in the property, and maintain it nicely, he said that the counterpoint to that is the high percent of density increase is a setback for the neighborhood, in that the density on the lot and the usage does go far beyond the limit that is stipulated in the regulations, and that does have an impact on the traffic and parking in the overall intensity of the neighborhood. Mr. Currier said that a lot of the hardship in the case presented to the Board was a pretty high expense to comply with the Code, and the Board finds that it’s pretty easy to comply, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 10 all they have to do is remove the stove and it’s not expensive to do that, it’s a minimal expense. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. Mr. Reppucci said that a re-application for a lesser use, i.e. an in-law apartment, wouldn’t violate the Fisher v. Dover case if they want to consider a lesser intensive use of the property. Mr. Currier agreed with Mr. Reppucci’s statement. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 4. Litchfield Vantage, LLC (Owner) Jennifer Hunter (Applicant) 4 Bud Way (Sheet E Lot 1349) requesting use variance to allow an animal daycare, boarding and grooming business with accessory retail in a portion of an existing building. AI Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rich and Jennifer Hunter, 4 Tucker Park, Pepperell, MA. Mr. Hunter said they’d like to use the property for a dog day care and dog boarding. He said he’s very familiar with the building, and worked at Resonetics for fourteen years, and they were the primary tenant. He said he knows the neighborhood very well. He said they are looking to use about 5,600 square feet, which would entail three of the twenty-three suites in the building. Mr. Hunter said that the daycare shouldn’t be in any way a threat to the neighborhood. He said the closest residence is about 400 feet away. He said the traffic in the area is typically during the commuting hours, and they have seventeen spaces to use, and the drop-offs will not affect any of the neighboring tenants. Mr. Hunter said the use will not impact the airport, or will do anything that will affect the ordinance. He said the dogs will be dropped off, and will be supervised inside the building, and there will be a small area in the rear of the facility that will be fenced in, and the dogs can go out there, also supervised at ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 11 all times. Mr. Hunter said that there are only five tenants in the building now. He said the owner of the property is in full favor of the proposed use in the building. Mr. Hunter said the proposed use will not diminish the value of surrounding properties. He said there was one letter of concern about barking dogs. He said the dogs will be contained inside the building, and that any abutting walls to another tenant in the building would be soundproofed. He said the area has a lot of diversity of use, there is an indoor skating park, and a handicapped pet’s use, and a drywall company, he said the proposed use will just add a little diversity to the area. Mr. Hunter said the Bud Way location will provide a great location, with very little build-out costs, without getting any financing. Mr. Currier asked if the unit connects from front to back. Mr. Hunter said the suites that they are proposing do not have front entrances, because it’s the corner of the building. Mr. Currier read the letter of opposition into the record. Mr. Hunter said that the letter came from 3 Bud Way, which is adjacent to Charron Avenue, and there is a considerable distance between the two buildings. Mr. Currier asked about the fenced-in area for the dogs. Mr. Hunter said his intent is to be a good neighbor to everyone; it’s not designed to be a drop-off and go use. Mr. Reppucci asked how many dogs will be kept inside. Mr. Hunter said they anticipate having up to 80 dogs. He said they need time to build the business up, but there’s three distinct play areas, for small, medium and large sized dogs, and cages. He said the dogs will be escorted outside. He said the third shift employees responsibilities will be housekeeping and dog care. He said when the dogs are awake, they’ll be released to play, supervised, as shown on the plan. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 12 Mr. Reppucci asked if they have ever done this business before. Mr. Hunter said his wife’s son and his fiancée have been in this business for six years, and they’ll be the number one and number two employees. He said their current kennel is 50-60 dogs. Mr. Reppucci said the letter of opposition is concerned about barking from 80 dogs. Jennifer Hunter stated that the dogs will have a routine where it’s an hour of play, and then an hour of rest. She said at nighttime, the lights are dim and the dogs sleep. She said on the second and third shifts, the dogs will have little exposure to anything but rest. Mr. Hunter said the nighttime dogs are not part of the daycare scenario. He said they won’t have 80 dogs in a boarding situation. He said they’d board less than 30 dogs, probably 20 dogs. Mr. Reppucci asked about the outside pen, if it will be dirt on top of the gravel. Mr. Hunter said they’d sanitize it, using disinfectants, and periodically replace it. Mrs. Hunter said there will only be a maximum of 20 dogs per person outside at a time. Mr. Reppucci asked if they have ever seen a dog daycare model where dogs are crated in the same area where the dogs play. Mrs. Hunter said yes, Gemini does something like that. Mr. Reppucci said he’s never seen a place where dogs are crated, and other dogs are free. Mrs. Hunter said it’s a very large facility, and if they have to make adjustments, they will be able to. Mr. Shaw asked to reiterate that there will not be any dogs crated outside. Mr. Hunter said that is correct, they are outside with a supervisor/employee. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 13 Donald Eaton, Property Manager, Litchfield Vantage, LLC. Mr. Eaton stated that he manages this building, and it has technical companies, R&D, and technology users. Mr. Currier asked if the other tenants know of this proposal. Mr. Eaton said they know about it, and didn’t raise any opposition. He said they know the owner of the business, and know that they will do a great job. Mr. Reppucci asked about the fenced-in area, with any health concerns. Mr. Eaton said they have talked to the applicant, and the area will be cleansed often, it will be on asphalt, and waste will be sheeted away with rain. Mr. Hunter said they’re not aware of anything that would prohibit them from doing this, there will be a neutralizing agent on a daily basis, and the third shift would have housekeeping duties. He said there will be gravel on top of asphalt. He said the solids will be shoveled away. Mr. Eaton said it’s a huge concern of theirs, too, and there will be very strong language in the lease that will require that this area be clean. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Mr. Shaw stated that Mr. Currier already read the letter of opposition into the record. Mr. Currier said he’s sitting favorable to the application. He said there was some expertise shown by the owners. He said this is a self-policing situation, people look for dog care in a similar way to day care for their children, and if this place becomes unsanitary place, people won’t go there, and dogs won’t like it. He said the opposition letter is from the next building away. Mr. Shaw said he feels favorable to the application as well. He ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 14 said he agrees with Mr. Currier’s self-policing comments, and the property management is well aware of this, and they’ll address the noise and sanitation issues, and they need to be on top of this in order to attract other prospective tenants or existing tenants. Mr. Reppucci said the issues presented are very significant. He said that enforcement complaints from barking dogs can be consistent all day long. He said that the noise from barking dogs can travel great distances. He said many other homes can be impacted by this. He said he didn’t get the impression that the applicant has a lot of experience in this field, not that they couldn’t do it, or be successful at it. He said he’d prefer to see the exact product that they plan on using for the sanitation. He said he didn’t think the outdoor pen area for the dogs was well thought out. He stated that he’d like to see something from the City’s Health Inspector, that they’re ok with this. Mr. Shaw stated that it’s not an outside kennel, it’s supervised, and a few dogs going in and out, and didn’t see the source of outside barking as an issue. Mr. Reppucci said with a total of 80 dogs, a lot will be outside at any given point. He said that the noise of barking dogs does travel. He said the people who live nearby could be affected by the barking dogs outside. Mr. Shaw said he didn’t see the barking dog noise issue coming from this pen, he said the testimony was that they were going to be supervised. Mr. Currier said besides the barking dogs, there are planes flying overhead. He said he’s not that concerned enough by it to deny the application. He said the only thing that concerns him is if it rains, all the excrement will sheet off, which is an environmental disaster. He said he didn’t think that it’s appropriate for this to happen, it shouldn’t happen that way by design. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the request on behalf of the applicant, as the zoning restrictions that apply interfere with the landowner’s reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment. Mr. Currier said that the unique setting is that it’s in the landing zone of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 15 an airport, it is an industrial based use, while a daycare is not permitted, it is documented that it’s a slow economy, very high un-occupancy rate, and doesn’t believe that this use would not negatively impact the neighbors, certainly not the industrial neighbors, there will not be any impact to that, there’s been a lot of debate on the potential impact for noise carrying to the residential properties along Pine Hill Road, and believes that the use will be self-policing, and if it wasn’t working for the dog owners and the dogs, that the business would dwindle, and if it isn’t working for the landowner, they would not renew the lease. He said he didn’t see a noise detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Currier said it will not negatively affect the property values of surrounding parcels, in fact, there’s been testimony that it will increase it by having a higher occupancy rate. Mr. Currier said there will be no sheeting of excrement off into the parking lot. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION FAILS 2-1 (Mr. Reppucci). MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to Table the request, with the intention of having the applicants gather and present much more detailed and specific information on the outside pen, and how it will be sanitized, and also confirm with the City that how they intend to use that piece of property, and how they intend to set up the outdoor kennel meets their standards. He said this will include any and all regulatory City or State review on dog care/kennel business, specifically the outdoor lavatory details. Mr. Reppucci said in addition, he also wants the Planning Department to notify all property owners on Pine Hill Road, from Charron Avenue to High Pine, on both sides of the street, to be paid for by the applicant. The request is tabled to a date certain, on January 10, 2012. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. MISCELLANEOUS: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 16 REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The agenda is not published yet, as there was an extra week in the schedule. Mr. Currier asked when the Agenda is set, if Mr. Falk could e- mail it to the members when it’s ready, as it can save some time in knowing what cases are on the agenda before the package is sent out. MINUTES: November 22, 2011: Mr. Currier said for the Pheasant Lane Mall sign request, an important element, relative to the two big signs at the street, aren’t any larger in size, although there were two legs that didn’t count towards the square footage, the new sign had more square footage, but the physical size of the sign is still the same. He said the Board felt that the sign was a more tasteful sign and more appealing. He said that this language should be encapsulated in the minutes. Mr. Shaw said on Page 4, the vote should not say that the case was unanimously approved. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the minutes with the changes, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. Mr. Reppucci said in the Bud Way case, it’s going back to the Public Hearing, it’ll be re-opened and re-done. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Shaw called the meeting closed at 10:00 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 13, 2011 Page 17 Submitted by Mr. Jack Currier, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing