Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING March 10, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Rick Johnson, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Johnson explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson also explained procedures involving the timing light. Mr. Falk stated that variance #1 for the Alec’s Shoe Store case is not necessary, as staff determined that businesses in the D- 1/MU zone can have up to three wall signs per street frontage. The other three variances are still required. 1. 201 Main Street Realty, Inc. (Owner) Alec’s Shoe Store, Inc. (Applicant) 80 West Pearl Street (Sheet 81 Lot 3) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum number of wall signs per street frontage, 1 permitted, 1 existing, 1 additional wall sign proposed (facing Main Street), 2) to exceed maximum wall sign area per street frontage, 100 sq.ft permitted, 95 sq.ft existing, an additional 157 sq.ft proposed, 3) to exceed maximum wall sign height, 20 feet allowed, over 40 feet proposed, and 4) to allow for an off-premises wall advertising sign. D-1/MU Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 2 Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said he objects to moving forward without a full Board, but will do so anyways. He said they added the fourth variance later for the off-premises sign, he said the building is all connected, it’s the tallest part of the building, at four stories. He said that the first two stories are for storage and office space, and the two stories above that are apartments. He said that he’d leave it up to the Board to determine whether it’s an off-premise sign. He said he didn’t believe it’s an off-premise sign, as its part of the building. Atty. Prunier passed out a handout for the Board. He said the first page is a picture of the wall, showing a sign that said “Meet you at Millers”, and it was there up to the mid 1990’s, he said that is what they are looking for, to have the sign up there. He said that there is a drawing showing what the sign would look like, in Tab “B”. Atty. Prunier said that the old sign that was up there was part of Nashua for many years, and the owner would like to put a new sign up there announcing the store. He said that the handout explains exactly what is being requested. Mr. Currier asked if the sign is to be painted on the brick, and not illuminated. Atty. Prunier said when the application was made, it was shown to be non-illuminated. Mr. John Koutsos, Alec’s Shoe Store, Nashua, NH. Mr. Koutsos said that they’re looking for the sign to be an iconic landmark, like the old Meet you at Millers sign, which was there for decades. He said that they want the sign to be simple, and not too busy. He said he’d like to light the sign, very subtle lighting, the idea is certainly not to have light pollution in the downtown. He said that the downtown needs some nice things happening with progress being made, and new things happening. Mr. Currier asked if has put any thought into an internal or an externally lit sign. Atty. Prunier said an externally lit sign, with a couple lights on the top shining down on the sign, like the gooseneck shaped lights. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Shaw asked if they considered a sign that said “meet you at Alec’s”, to tie into the old Millers store. Mr. Koutsos said they’d prefer to leave that in the past, and just move forward with their own business. Mr. Johnson said there’s two arguments, one is signage for enhancing the business, and the other issue is that it is clear, from standing across the street, that you can see Alec’s Shoes, it’s identified. He said from the substantial justice aspect, he asked how that point is met by allowing the sign, and what is missed by the applicant if the request is not approved. Atty. Prunier said it goes back to the history of the building. He said there was a sign up there for a long time, “Meet you at Millers”, it was a historical sign for everyone to see. He said that they’re trying to get back that historical sign, and right now, it’s a blank wall. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Mr. Koutsos said that the reason that they want to put the sign up is that it will enhance the downtown, it will show vibrancy, and gives the business some more recognition. He said the sign will be like a little beacon, much like the Enterprise sign further north on Main Street that took the place of Slawsby Insurance that was there for decades. He said that they have been downtown since 1938, have been a very good neighbor in the downtown. He said that their storefront glass windows are clean, there are no posters or anything attached to the windows like other businesses. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Currier said he sees merit to the sign. He said that the owner has a vested, long-term interest in the downtown, and would prefer to see an externally lit sign. He said he understands the iconic factor, and does consider it to be a landmark business, a landmark sign. He said he feels the same about the Burque Jewelers sign that the Board recently approved. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Johnson said that he sees a lot of evidence of past performance and trust and credibility with the business. He said he’d support the sign with external lighting. Mr. Shaw said that there was a sign there historically, and there is an intent to maintain a sense of a long-term business that’s been in the downtown for a long time. He said it fits in the character of Main Street. Mr. Boucher agreed, and said that the scale of the sign is not out of proportion, it’s very reasonable. Mr. Falk said that internally lit signs are permitted in the D- 1/MU Zone, so, they do have the right for an internal lit sign. Mr. Currier said he appreciates that it’s being looked at as an off-premises sign, and is fine with the relief of the sign. He said he’d define it as an off-premises sign. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the request is to approve three variances, numbers two, three and four as advertised. He said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, the special conditions of the property is that it’s a very old brick downtown building that contains a landmark business, and previously contained a landmark sign on the proposed location, and the applicant is seeking to bring back. Mr. Currier said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said that it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is the Boards desire that this sign would increase the property values of surrounding parcels by hopefully bringing more people to the downtown area, and using downtown businesses. Mr. Currier said it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done. Mr. Currier said that for stipulations of approval, the sign will be externally illuminated. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 5 MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: 1. Alison T. Slater (Owner) Russell Slater (Applicant) 15 Colonial Avenue (Sheet D Lot 497) requesting variance for lot width, 105 feet required – 50 feet proposed, to subdivide one lot into two lots. R30 Zone, Ward 5. [TABLED FROM 1-13-15 MEETING; AND CONTINUED FROM 1-27-15 CANCELLED MEETING]. Voting on this case: Rick Johnson Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Mr. Johnson said that this was about the Fisher v. Dover issue. He said that the best way to handle this is to do it one point at a time. Mr. Johnson asked if there was any procedural error, which includes improper notice, denying someone the right to be heard, etc. Mr. Currier said that everything was followed properly, and said that there was no procedural error. Mr. Shaw said no. Mr. Boucher said no. Mr. Johnson said no, and the Board unanimously feels that there was no procedural error. Mr. Johnson asked if it was an illegal decision, in other words, did the Board fail to completely address each of the points of law required for the special exception and/or variance. Mr. Currier said in summary, no, but there are points in the letter that say we fail to. He suggested going over the points in their letter. He said that for point number one, the Board did address the totality, different members came to different Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 6 conclusions, it was a 3-2 vote, and two members felt that there was a substantial difference, and three members felt in totality that there was not a substantial difference. He said that is blatant evidence that the Board debated rather extensively on the totality of evidence, and it came up to a 3-2 vote that in total, there wasn’t a substantial change. He said that the Board as a whole addressed that ad nausea, it’s just that we weren’t in agreement. Mr. Currier said for point number two, the frontage for a cul- de-sac was substantially different, it was 150 feet, now its 50 feet. He said that is a big difference. He said that everyone on the Board was well aware of what it was then, versus what it is now. He said that just because that changed, it doesn’t mean that the Board has to rehear the case. He said the Board, in summary, even though it was a split-decision, felt that it was not a substantial issue, it’s less now than it was then, but there were still frontage requirements, and some members felt that they were trying to carve out a lot that was essentially the same as it was before. He said that the Board did consider that, and knew that, and some members felt that it was a big change, and others didn’t. He said he didn’t feel that it was an illegal decision. Mr. Johnson read point three. Mr. Shaw said that we did talk about that a lot, and we did answer and consider the nature of differences of various aspects of this case from 2003 to 2014/2015. Mr. Boucher said where he struggled, is that he looked at it as a material change, there were changes in the Code since the first initial application. He said that he could bring the case back, because the Code is not written the same. He said the guidelines for this lot to split the lot back then, today the guidelines are different, and asked if it can be denied for that reason, since the Code has changed. He said the design can be exactly the same, but the code requirements have changed, so that’s a change to the request. He asked if the change is significant enough for the case to be heard. He said he was on the minority side of the vote. Mr. Currier said he’s a little confused by point number three. He said he’s not sure what they’re asking, he read the point, and doesn’t know where they’re coming from. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 7 Mr. Shaw said it sounds like a tongue-twister. He thought the intent is to say that the case was denied in 2003, for a reason, and that the Board couldn’t now take the same case and deny it again for that same reason, he said some of the rules, and the codes have changed, so that the reason has changed, the old motion from 2003 doesn’t really say a lot, it says to deny basically for substantial justice. He said that there was a lot of discussion about the cul-de-sac and the T turnaround, and there was some further discussion about the number of lots in the 4 acre lot. Mr. Johnson said in the letter, what she says, is the fact that has something changed in our Code, or some sort of case law, and that’s when he stumbled upon the Brandt Development v. Somersworth case, on page 3. He said his rationale at this point is no, because that hung on the T versus the cul-de-sac issue, so even though the Code had changed, there are new standards, he said he felt that the answer is no. He asked if the T is actually different from the cul-de-sac, and the frontage and width requirements, those have changed. He said that their sentence isn’t well written, but thought the intent is to say that the Board didn’t acknowledge and deny the case for the same reason, so since you couldn’t say no, you should have said yes. He said on page 3, in the 2nd paragraph, they explain it a little more. He asked if the Board thinks that there is an issue with point 3. Mr. Johnson read point 4. Mr. Currier said this sentence is also very unclear. He said that sometime in the deliberation, someone probably said the proposed cul-de-sac, and if you listen to the minutes, you could pick out one or two things that are out of context. He said it is clear to him that in 2003, what came to the Board was the T- turnaround, and the Board denied it. He said that someone said that a cul-de-sac would be better. He said he thinks point 4 says the Board as a whole felt that the cul-de-sac was proposed. He said that he didn’t think that the cul-de-sac was proposed, it was the T shown to the Board. He said that perhaps someone just miss-stated. Mr. Shaw said perhaps the Board mentioned a proposed cul-de-sac, and it would be done for traffic concerns, and Mr. Maynard had language of what it would cost, but somewhere along the way, one Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 8 of the Board members may have referred to the proposed T turnaround and labeled it that way. He said he didn’t believe that there was any intent to say that there was some discussion about a T versus a cul-de-sac. He said he didn’t think that the point has much merit anyways. He said the Board discussed the T and the cul-de-sac, but this point doesn’t lead to one thing or another as far as this criteria goes. Mr. Boucher said he thought the point was irrelevant, he said it doesn’t matter to this case. Mr. Johnson read point 5. Mr. Currier said he looked back at the minutes, and recalled that Mr. Reppucci said, in short, is that he’s pretty much where he was at the first meeting, that it was not substantially different. Mr. Currier said that the Board went around the table, and said that he is where he was at the meeting before, and believed that it is substantially different. He said he felt all along that it was substantially different. He said on the other hand, he voted that it was substantially different, so it doesn’t apply to him. He said they shouldn’t have to cull out what they’re saying, because they’re not being specific, he said that statement 5 doesn’t bring anything up to that level at all. Mr. Johnson read point number 6. Mr. Currier said that one Board member said that this case is purely a legal issue. He said that statement isn’t speaking for him, it was one Board member speaking for himself. He said that statement wasn’t spoken on behalf of the Board. Mr. Falk said that everything the Board does could be looked at as a legal issue, the Board is a quasi-judicial Board, and you’re not required to consult Corporation Counsel on every decision you’re faced with. Mr. Boucher said that Mr. Currier’s statement is correct. Mr. Currier said that we are lay citizens, on a lay Board, and every decision we do has some legal consideration one way or another. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Boucher said that Mr. Reppucci was just talking out loud, it wasn’t like it was a stipulation. Mr. Shaw said that if someone wanted to really break down every word that we say, different inferences could be made. Mr. Johnson read point number 7. He said it appears to be more of a wrap-up point, and didn’t see it as an issue. Mr. Johnson asked if any point was an illegal decision made, for point two. Mr. Currier said no. Mr. Shaw said no. Mr. Boucher said yes. Mr. Shaw said that there is always this trickiness of someone being in the minority, and doesn’t agree with the original decision. Mr. Boucher said yes, and it’s not because he voted in the minority, he said he’s still struggling with the change in Code. He said he’s struggling with that. Mr. Johnson said it’s not necessarily how we vote, it’s the procedure, the process. Mr. Boucher said he may be saying yes at the wrong spot, he said he’d rather say yes and be unsure, than say no. Mr. Johnson said it looks like two of us that feel no, and two of us that may yes, but not at this point. Mr. Johnson asked about point of law #3. Mr. Currier said he didn’t see anything. Mr. Shaw said he didn’t either. Mr. Boucher said he didn’t think so. Mr. Johnson said he didn’t think so either. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 10 Mr. Johnson read point of law #4. Mr. Currier said no. Mr. Shaw said no. Mr. Boucher no. Mr. Johnson said no at this point, but wanted to go back to point number 2. Mr. Johnson said from what he recalls from this case, in going over the Fisher v. Dover issue, not the actual case itself, the outcome, it’s whether or not we should hear it. He said on their letter, page 3, it says the Board erred by stating that the law, or rules, did not change between 2003 and 2014, and the Supreme Court’s opinion of Brandt Development Co. vs. Somersworth, when the zoning rules change, a rehearing of a variance proposal would be merited if such a case could impact a Board’s prior decision. He said that the Land Use Code, in 2006, was changed. Mr. Currier said that when they referred to the 2006 material change of code, they’re talking about the length of frontage on a cul-de-sac. He said that the application in 2003 wasn’t a cul-de-sac, it was the T. He said the only thing about the cul- de-sac was deliberation among the Board, and the Board said maybe it would ease the blow here, but it wasn’t part of the application. He said if it was part of the application, city staff would have raised their hand and said that it’s a new application, because there is a 150 foot frontage minimum, but, it wasn’t a cul-de-sac on the application at the time. He said to mix those two is absolutely wrong. He said that the Board had a T design in front of us, in 2003, and then it was ultimately made into a cul-de-sac, and in 2006 it went from 150 to 50, but it had nothing to do with this Board. He said it’s inappropriate, or trickery on words, to say that since it’s a cul-de-sac now, that the Board must rehear it. He said he absolutely disagrees with that, it would open the door to any change in Code for anything that was heard before 2006 because there was a Code change. Mr. Johnson said if the Board were to go back even before the Fisher vs. Dover, and look at this application, the requirements are different, he said that the Board went through most of this Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 11 process, and the Board pretty much heard the Case. He said at the time, he thought if we take the 2003 issue, and put it aside, and with the new Code, it is different. He said that he’s reviewed the Brandt Development v. Somersworth case, and feels it has merit, like this case, he said he feels that this is a different request, as the T was there, and the change was made, so there was a substantive change to the environment. Mr. Johnson said that if the Board feels that it erred, and if it’s going to be reheard, the Board will hear the whole case in its entirety. Mr. Currier said the discussion focus is on those questions, is there something that would/could cause you to change your mind. He said in 2003 and 2006, the frontage went from 150 feet to 50 feet, it wasn’t a proposed cul-de-sac then, and said that the rationale from going from 150 feet to 50 feet was really a correction, because 150 was the standard frontage, and when you have a cul-de-sac, it doesn’t make sense to maintain that 150 feet. He said that this wouldn’t cause him to change his mind. Mr. Boucher said he looked at the Brandt Development case. He said that we can all look at this somewhat different. He said he’s hanging on the fact that if not for the original application, if this case was brand new today, and they come before us, with the 50 foot requirement, would it be approved. He said he’s reviewed the Brandt Development case, and right now feels more strongly that he’s concerned about that. Mr. Johnson said he was in the majority vote, and didn’t think that there was substantial difference in the T versus the cul- de-sac. He said that when you look at the frontage requirements, of 150 feet versus 50 feet, he said he wasn’t sure if it made any difference to the outcome of the application. He said he’s of the mind that he probably should have voted and reversed his vote. He said after looking at the first two pages of the letter, and after looking at the application and minutes and case information, and in looking back, should not have voted it was a Fisher v. Dover case. Mr. Shaw said the more he l Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 12 ooks at it, he said he’s more convinced that it’s the same application. He said that he believes that there is a discrepancy that even if the lot frontage is on the bulb of the cul-de-sac. He said it’s on a straight portion of the cul-de- sac, and it’s questionable. He said that there was a lot of discussion of the subdivision of the one lot into two lots, and now there are three lots, but feels that even though the Code changed and the whole thing about the no longer needing the second variance for lot frontage, and only needing the variance for lot width, the intent is to do the exact same thing with 50 foot frontage on the road, and 50 foot lot width measured at that setback that’s required. He said when you look at the totality of what’s being proposed, it’s at a very fine tipping point as to whether this should even be considered to be on the cul-de-sac, and have the 50 foot lot frontage required as a variance. He said even if you set that aside and look at what is being requested, is 99.99% the same thing. He said it’s not even a curved section of road, and the lot is the same. Mr. Boucher said it is the same lot, with the exception of that whether or not we like the shape of that cul-de-sac, he said he feels that it is a cul-de-sac, and is looking at it as a cul-de- sac. Mr. Shaw stated that the curve doesn’t begin until after the proposed lot frontage. Mr. Boucher said he’s going to go along with Staff, who has stated that it is a cul-de-sac. Mr. Johnson said that the Board has 30 days after our vote to change our vote, or reconsider, the Fisher vs. Dover determination. Mr. Shaw stated that the Board has a rehearing request, we either say yes, and we grant a rehearing, and it comes back and we go through everything again, or, we deny it, and they can appeal it to Court if they want to. Mr. Boucher said he’s not going to change his position, and if Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 13 someone else has the same position, we should just vote, and if it’s 2-2, it fails. Mr. Johnson said it doesn’t fail, if we look at our By-Laws and procedures, actually the Office of Energy and Planning states that we continue to resolve the matter. Mr. Boucher asked if it is a 2-2 vote, is it an automatic failure. Mr. Currier said when he went to the Planning sessions, there is conflicting interpretations, and the sessions he went to were stating that you need three votes to pass, and if you don’t get three, it’s a failure. He said that’s how he believes it, and understands that other members may not necessarily agree with that. Mr. Johnson said that if you have a 2-2 vote, a failure to pass, then you should have another motion to deny. He said if you can’t do that, you continue. He said we are looking at a 2-2 motion to approve, then the obvious thing is to have a motion to deny, and it looks like we’ll be at a stalemate until we table or continue. Mr. Currier said he thought that language is if we have five voting members. He said it is silent if you don’t have five. Mr. Johnson said he thinks that there is language where you have to have another voting member, which we may have to do. Mr. Currier said that the Board has 30 days in which to act on a rehearing request. He said that it may be more prudent to close on this within the 30 days or this will expire. He said another option is to table. Mr. Shaw said the rehearing letter is dated March 2nd. He said if the Board has 30 days to act from the date of this letter, we’re only 8 days from the date of this request, and we’ll meet again within 30 days. He said he didn’t see why the Board can’t table the request, as it is a decision. He said the Board shouldn’t feel rushed by anything. Mr. Currier said he believes that the 30-day clock for a rehearing starts when the rehearing request is received. He said if the Board makes a decision, and then 29 days, just Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 14 before the closure of the clock, someone comes in and delivers a rehearing request, at 4:45 p.m., that doesn’t mean that we have 15 minutes before that 30 day limit is up to act on it. He said the Board should have up to April 2nd, so we’ll have another meeting. He said typically, when we’re short on members, we’ll reach out and encourage others to muster a full Board. Mr. Shaw said a lot of this is in context with what the Courts would look at, if this Board is doing due diligence in trying to take proper action on coming to a decision. He said that the Board is giving this case plenty of weight and plenty of our time and attention. He said the clock is set to keep a Board like ours, in general, from just sitting on a case and not taking any action. Mr. Johnson said that even if the Board decides to rehear it, we can still vote one way or another to approve the application as a whole different process. Mr. Johnson said for the fourth point, is there anything that would or could have made a different decision. He said that his issue is under number four. He said the best thing to do with this case is to table it to a date certain, and continue it until we have a fifth member and come up with a decision. Mr. Shaw said he wants to make the point that anything about judging this Fisher vs. Dover to try to say that we should take the more conservative approach, that it is different, all we do is set ourselves up for the appeal through the Courts based on the fact that we should have never heard the case again, because Fisher vs. Dover. He said he doesn’t think that this is a thing about us potentially trying to lean towards what’s the most fair way or thorough way or conservative way of dealing with the case, all we do is tip things back and forth potentially giving an argument to someone that will not be in agreement with the decision. His feeling is that Fisher vs. Dover, just because we might come back and say it wasn’t met and we have to hear the case, doesn’t mean that we will be better off in this case in coming to a resolution. MOTION by Mr. Currier to table the rehearing request to a date certain of March 24, 2015, there is consensus amongst the Board that with four voting members present tonight, and with a potential tie, the Board feels that it would be appropriate, and would be acting within the 30-day window on the appeal dated Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 15 March 2, 2015, to deliberate on this rehearing request on March 24, 2015 with the hope and expectation that we come to a conclusion then. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. He said it is with the expectation that we will have five voting members present for that meeting. Mr. Currier said that when he was Chair, on several occasions, he’d call or email the other members to stress the importance of their attendance. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases that have Regional Impact. MINUTES: 2-24-15: Mr. Shaw said on Page 10, at the top, the voting should have been 3-0 on the minutes. Mr. Falk said that Staff would make the change and have the minutes filed. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the minutes with the proposed change, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. BY-LAWS: Mr. Johnson said that he’s been operating under a 2010 copy of the Code, and wanted to ensure that everyone has an updated Code. Mr. Falk said that he gave everyone a new Code book. He said that the only change from the 2010 to the 2012 version is one portion of the sign ordinance with reference to the Historic District. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 16 Mr. Johnson said that there is a word search in the Code on the City’s website, it’s easier to find terms. Mr. Johnson asked about the term “Zoning Administrator”, and asked if it’s used anymore. Mr. Falk said that no one actually has a job title called “Zoning Administrator”. He said that Roger Houston is actually the Zoning Administrator. He said that the term is used in the ordinance, and it also indicates the Zoning Administrator or his/her designee. It encompasses the Planning Department, and could be Roger or myself that can be called that term. Mr. Johnson asked if there are any other proposed changes to the By-Laws. Mr. Shaw said he looked through them and didn’t see anything that should be changed. Mr. Johnson asked what is done when a case is tabled to a date certain. Mr. Shaw said that if the full time members are present, they should be hearing and acting on all cases, unless there’s some reason why they need to recuse, or are unable to participate. He said that even if an Alternate member was here for a previous case, the members are the ones that vote. He said it has been codified. Mr. Currier said that it’s always been the practice since he remembers that it’s been that, if there’s five members, those five members vote hands down, and alternates kick in a voting privilege when there’s less than five members present. Mr. Johnson asked if anything needs to be done with the By-Laws. Mr. Shaw said that the Board doesn’t need to take any action, it’s only if something needs to be done, then it has to be in front of the Board twice. He suggested waiting until Mr. Reppucci or Ms. Vitale to see if they have any suggestions. Mr. Johnson agreed, and said that maybe the By-Laws can be finalized at the next meeting. Mr. Shaw said that if there are no changes, they just stay as- Zoning Board of Adjustment March 10, 2015 Page 17 is. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Johnson called the meeting closed at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing