Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 9, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Jack Currier, Vice Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Carter Falk, AICP, 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. 378 Main Street: Mr. Currier read a letter into the record stating that the case for 378 Main Street, which was tabled from the first meeting in May, has been withdrawn. It was originally scheduled for the May 12, 2015 meeting, but was not heard, and tabled to tonight’s meeting. He said that the request has been withdrawn. 1. John & Cristiane Chatfield (Owners) 4 Torrey Road (Sheet F Lot 633) requesting variance to encroach up to 8 inches into the 10 foot required right side yard setback to replace an existing 18’x18’ dining room with an attached 24’x30’ garage with rooms above, with encroachment only in the rear corner. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher John Chatfield, 4 Torrey Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Chatfield said that they’re asking to build a standard sized garage, which Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 2 would encroach into the side yard setback, by only as much as 8 inches. He said that they want to tear down an existing 18’x18’ dining room, so the footprint would be about 6 feet more. Mr. Chatfield said that the home does not have a garage, and most of the homes in the area do have a garage. He said they will be increasing the value of the property, and none of the neighbors will even know that there would be an 8-inch encroachment to the setback. Mr. Shaw said that in the application, there was some language that no special conditions exist. He said that he sees a special condition in the position of the house at an angle to the lot causes a corner encroachment, so that can be looked at as a special condition. Mr. Chatfield agreed, and said he doesn’t have the option of moving it up on the lot, because of power lines come down along the side of the house, so the electrical service would have to be moved. He said that the addition is set back from the front of the house by six feet. Mr. Currier said that the land drops down as it goes to the back. He asked if it will be above the grade level, or if the driveway would go down and level out. Mr. Chatfield said that the dining room is level with the existing floor, he said he’s going to drop it down three feet, and grade the driveway down to it. He said he’s going to have a frost wall going down four feet, and there would be a retaining wall. Mr. Currier asked if the second story roof line would match the house. Mr. Chatfield said it is set back from the existing roof line, it would be the same “A” frame, same pitch on the front. He said up above it would be a master bedroom, a closet and bath. Mr. Currier said his concern is that in looking at it from the back, it would be a huge wall because it drops off. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 3 SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. 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; the encroachment will be a very minimal incursion, about 6%, 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. He said that it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels; it is not contrary to the public interest. He said that substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Clarence J. Clark & Jordan’s Furniture, Inc. (Owners) Andrea James Realty, LLC (Applicant) 323 & 327 Daniel Webster Highway (Sheet A Lots 729 & 384) requesting variance to encroach 10 feet into the 10 foot required left side yard setback at 323 DW Highway, and 10 feet into the 10 foot right side yard setback at 327 DW Highway, to construct a second story building addition connection between Jordan’s Furniture and a proposed new building at 323 DW Highway. HB Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A, 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said that he objects to moving forward without a full Board, but will proceed anyways. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 4 Atty. Prunier described the property location on south Daniel Webster Highway. He said the properties involved are Jordan’s Furniture and New England Motor Car. He said that New England Car will be redeveloped, the plan is to construct a new two- story retail building, about 22,000 square feet total. He said that Jordan’s wants to use the second floor. Atty. Prunier said what is being requested in an overpass between Jordan’s and the new building. He said about 25 years ago, he did a similar request for BAE on Canal Street. He said that what would be done is to connect the second stories of both buildings. He said that the second story would be used by Jordan’s Furniture, and they will not have access to the first floor, except for emergency access. He said that the entrance to this second floor will be through Jordan’s Furniture. Atty. Prunier said that they need a 10 foot setback from the side yards, and won’t on either lot, since the buildings would be connected. He passed out some elevation drawings to the Board members. Mr. Shaw asked if there is going to be a lease arrangement, such that it’s a long enough term, and asked if Jordan’s decides to move out of there, or they have some dispute with the other ownership, he wondered what the provision would be if those two have issues. Atty. Prunier said that if Jordan’s doesn’t want to use it, the connection would come down. He said that both parties have discussed this, and it won’t just last five years, and it’s a great help to both parties, they both benefit by it. Mr. Currier asked if there was an opportunity for the lots to be merged. Atty. Prunier said that this was looked at as a business opportunity for both property owners, and that isn’t something he was made aware of. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: None. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 5 No One. Mr. Shaw asked if this will be going to the Planning Board. Mr. Falk said it will be. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance request on behalf of the owners as advertised. He said he believes that it is two variances. 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. He said that the Board considers this to technically be two variances, one for each lot, and they are to be used in unison, and not individually. Mr. Reppucci 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 not contrary to the public interest. He said that substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3. GTY MA/NH Leasing, Inc. (Owner) Nouria Energy Corporation (Applicant) 7 Harris Road (Sheet B Lot 3039) requesting the following: 1) special exception to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Salmon Brook for site improvements such as installing an underground holding tank for clean water for car wash, a trench drain at car wash exit, and additional pavement at car wash entry to improve turning radius; and, 2) variance to encroach 10 feet into the 20 foot required front yard setback to maintain existing parking spaces. HB Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 6 Anthony Guba, Ayoub Engineering, Pawtucket, RI. Mr. Guba said that for the special exception, they went to the Conservation Commission, and had a site walk at the property, and came away with a favorable recommendation. He said that they are applying to the NH DES for work in the prime wetland and buffer, and for work in the riverfront protection, being 250 feet within Salmon Brook. He said that they are planning on going to the Planning Board for site plan approval on June 18th. He said that there are no changes proposed to the use or to the basic overall operation, they are upgrading infrastructure of the facility, to make it work better. He said that there is a concrete pad at the end of the car wash, it’s heated, and in the winter-time when cars exit it, the water hits the asphalt before it gets to the driveway trench drain, and it has the potential to sheet flow, and could freeze, he said that they’re going to put a trench drain at the end of the pad, tie it to the trench drain at the street, and it will intercept the water and prevent the ice from forming in that asphalt area. He said they will be able to control the water better. Mr. Guba said that at the entrance to the car wash, with larger vehicles, they are having a difficult time getting into the car wash, and the plan is to expand the pavement a couple feet out to the north, and it will allow the radius to be a little better for the car wash entry. Mr. Guba said that they’re moving the trash enclosure, which is close to the wetland buffer, further away. Mr. Guba said that when Nouria inherited this property with the parking in the front, there is some diagonal parking across the front of the building. He said it’s probably the best parking on the site for any customer wishing to access the store in a safe manner, and not have to cross fueling lanes. He said that they’d like to maintain this parking area, and part of it is located in the front yard setback. He said it wasn’t shown on their site plan, and Nouria would like to keep it, and it’s been there for many years and has operated fine, and it’s still 30 feet from the gutter line, and there’s a planter area between the parking area and the street as well. He said that they really need these parking spaces because the site is busy and keep the operations of the site working as best as can be. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 7 Mr. Reppucci asked if they are going to be in compliance with the nine special wetland conditions. Mr. Guba said that they will all be satisfied. Mr. Currier asked about the small building addition to the front of the building. Mr. Guba said it’s about a 275 square foot addition, it would go out about 7½ feet from the front of the building. He said that there will be no change to the parking area. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Peter Derby, 5 Warton Rd, Nashua, NH. Mr. Derby stated that he is in favor of the request, it’s a nice establishment. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the special exception on behalf of the applicant as advertised. He stated that the request is listed in the Table of Uses, section 190-112. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety, it will actually improve traffic on site. He stated that it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, that special regulations are fulfilled, per testimony of the applicant, and approved by the Conservation Commission on May 19, 2015 with five stipulations of approval. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of residents, the improvements to the car wash will improve the safety of the site. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Reppucci said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 8 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 it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there is no evidence of any negative effects on surrounding property values. He said that it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be served, it’s just allowing the applicant to maintain what they’ve already been using for many years. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. Pennichuck Water Works, Inc., (Owner) H.L. Turner Group (Applicant) 200 Concord Street (Sheet 52 Lot 118) requesting special exception to work within the 75-foot prime wetland and wetland buffer of Harris Pond Dam to remove and replace existing 12’x20’ gate house, install a new gate, mortar repairs to the masonry dam, and related site improvements. R18 Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Robert Carter, HL Turner Group, Concord, NH. Mr. Carter passed out some handouts to the Board members. Mr. Carter said that Harris Pond is the primary drinking water supply for the City of Nashua and most of the surrounding communities. He said that the dam is an historic structure. He said that all dams in the State of NH fall under the jurisdiction of the State Dam Bureau. He said that it has to provide a low level outlet. He said that the dam has a low level outlet, as shown in the pictures with a timber gate. Mr. Carter said that the primary focus of the project is to reconstruct and rebuild the low level outlet gate, a coffer dam will be constructed with the top of the coffer dam at the top of the curved concrete cap on the spillway, as shown in the fourth Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 9 and fifth pictures in the package. He said that once the coffer dam is installed, the water level in the remaining impoundment will be drawn down to about 2-3 feet, consistent with seasonal variations in the elevation of Harris Pond. He said the area between the spillway and the coffer dam will be de-watered, and the new gate will be constructed first. Mr. Carter said that once the new gate is constructed, the old timber gate will be removed. He said that while the area is de- watered, Pennichuck Water Works also wants to do some repairs in the granite masonry spillway and the abutment walls, such as required cleaning, removing brick, removing any loose concrete, and replacing it with concrete and grout. Mr. Carter said that in the fifth photo, there are two 16 inch pipes, controlled by a knife gate in the crust of the dam, they will be removed and replaced with four 16 inch valves. He said these gates allow Pennichuck more control of the operations and maintenance of the headpond for processing the water. He said that they need to access the spillway area and the area of the impoundment. He said that all construction traffic will be on the access road to the gate. Mr. Reppucci said that the special exception request is to work within the wetland and buffer, and it goes on and describes what the work will be. He said the application mentions the stamp of a Certified Wetland Scientist, and relief from having that. He said that he didn’t see that as a special exception request before the Board. Mr. Falk said that the special exception is really to work in the wetland and wetland buffer as advertised. He said that the stamp issue is not mandated by the Code, although it is in the Code as something that should be done. He said that the real request doesn’t have anything to do with the plans being stamped by a Certified Wetland Scientist. He said that the Conservation Commission knew exactly what was being requested, and they approved it. He said that Planning staff advertised the case for what they are doing in the wetland and buffer, regardless of the plans being stamped, as that area is well defined and delineated. Mr. Reppucci said that if the applicant is asking relief from not having the stamp, that relief wouldn’t come from this Board. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 10 Mr. Carter said that the area is very well defined, the bank is the crest of the dam. Mr. Shaw said that the Board has the Conservation Commission letter, which is very straightforward, with three stipulations of approval. He said that there are also nine special wetland regulations that the applicant has said that they would satisfy. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the special exception on behalf of the applicant as advertised. He stated that the request is listed in the Table of Uses, section 190-112. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. He stated that it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, in fact, by testimony, this will actually improve the site. He said that special regulations are fulfilled, per testimony of the applicant, and approved by the Conservation Commission on May 19, 2015 with three stipulations of approval. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of residents. Mr. Reppucci said that for a special condition, the actual application that the City received spoke to asking relief to have a stamp by a Certified Wetland Scientist, and from the requirement that the wetlands on site be delineated by the CWS. He said that the Board is taking no action on those items, and they are not connected to this approval. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 11 5. Maxine & Peter Derby (Owners) 5 Warton Road (Sheet B Lot 1196) requesting variance for maximum driveway width, 24 feet allowed, 15 feet existing, 33 feet proposed. R9 Zone, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Peter Derby, 5 Warton Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Derby said that he is seeking a variance to widen the driveway, and install a small pad up at the top. He passed out some photos of the area. He said that they’re trying to widen the driveway to have a pad at the top, especially in inclement weather. He said that it is difficult for himself and his wife to get up and down the driveway in slippery conditions. He said it would be easier to park a vehicle up there in inclement weather until the driveway is salted and sanded. He said that it is imperative that his wife gets to work as well. Mr. Derby showed pictures of the steepness of the driveway, it is about a 14 degree angle, so it is extremely steep. He said that they want to re-do the driveway to make it better, but to also put in this pad. He said other neighbors have a similar parking pad, and there are some cutouts, and doesn’t believe that they are changing the nature of the neighborhood or anything like that. He said it’s just trying to help with their situation. Mr. Currier said if the pad was there, the snow plows will come along and plow the car in. He said that the last place you want a car in inclement weather is on that pad, because it will get plowed in. He said that the abutter’s pad is much wider, so that car would be further away from the curb. He said that the driver’s side door would be right over the curb, and the mirror would be hanging out. He said that a plow driver may purposely drive in a manner to swing out, and there would be even more snow in front of the car. Mr. Derby said that the proposed pad is 10 feet wide, and thought that was the requirement for the width. He said that Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 12 when the paving company was going to put in the pad, they were going to grade it so it would be a flat pad. Mr. Currier said that the neighbor’s pad is pre-existing, and it was there before the Code’s changed. He asked if the curb was going to be removed so that the pad is level with the street, or to drive over the curb and have the asphalt match the top of the curb. Mr. Derby said that he’s asked the City to see what is required or needed, as far as having the curbing stay there or not. Mr. Currier asked if the pad is 10 feet wide, would the car door stick out into the street. Mr. Derby said no. Mr. Reppucci asked if it is possible if the pad was off of the driveway, closer to the house, so it’s not right on the street, but maybe 15 feet in. Mr. Derby said there is too much of a slope there to do that. He said that the paving company was going to build up behind the pad, so that it’s level. Mr. Shaw asked if there is a possibility of leaving a strip of grass, perhaps three feet or four feet, and then putting in the pad, so it would almost be like a turnaround, and not right up against the street, it would be like how a sidewalk is separated from the curb. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: John Lowe, 3 Warton Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Lowe said he is supporting his neighbor, and confirmed everything he said. He said that there is quite a grade, either above or below street level, and parking in inclement weather is dangerous, and the slightest icy condition is dangerous. He said that the proposed pad is reasonable, and it’s safe for him, and it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood for him or anyone else. He said that the grades of the driveways at his home, and 4 and 6 Warton Road, the momentum required to get up them is of concern in the slightest of weather. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 13 Mr. Currier asked how far off the curb is his car when he parks it in his pad, which seems to be wider. Mr. Lowe said in general, the plows are very accommodating, they take the street very slowly due to the grade. He said they park there before a storm, and most times in winter, because the slope of the primary driveway is too severe with even the slightest icing. He said in general, the plows haven’t been an issue, and the closest to the curb is within 1-2 feet when the door is closed. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: E-mail letter from E.T.Durand, 8 Addison Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Currier read the letter into the record, the main opposition is that he lives on the downslope of the hill, and if there are any changes, it will cause more runoff and flooding on his property, and it’s already a constant battle to keep the basement dry. He said that the addition of more pavement will be more impervious surface will allow the rain to flow down the property into the abutting property. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Derby said that he spoke to the abutter about the water runoff and the driveway. He said that when he put in a new fence in, they put in crushed stone all along the bottom of the whole fence, to help provide a better drainage area. He said he’s trying to work with the neighbor. Mr. Reppucci said he understands what the applicant wants, and is amenable to accommodating him, either through a conventional variance, or taking advantage of the statute that allows the Board to give relief to someone that is handicapped, and limit that approval to that applicant. He said that he is concerned about the proposal, as the runoff could be an issue. He mentioned the possibility of Mr. Shaw’s idea of the pad being three or four feet in from the curb. He said that the Board also has to think about the aesthetics of it along the street, parallel to the road. Mr. Shaw asked about the process of a driveway set off from the road a few feet, with leaving the curb as is. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 14 Mr. Falk said that they are allowed a 24-foot curb-cut, he said he didn’t believe that they want a driveway offset and parallel from the street, separated by a grass strip due to the topography. He said it would still be parking in a front yard setback, and they’d need a variance. Mr. Boucher said that they’re allowed 24 feet of a curb-cut. He said that they have 9 feet extra to work with. He suggested that they can have their 24 feet, and not having a strip of grass separating it from the street. Mr. Currier said that it seems like the Board is willing to accommodate the applicant, but is somewhat uneasy about the proposed design that was submitted. He suggested that perhaps the applicant can take a second look and revisit the plan. Mr. Falk said that the Board should just consider what was submitted and advertised, a lot of ideas and designs have been discussed. He said that they have a 15 foot wide driveway right now, and have another 9 feet without even coming back to the Board. He said that parking spaces are 9’x20’. He said that they could go out an additional 9 feet, widen it out towards the house, and the driveway slopes down, they’d have to do a little grading work, and perhaps a small retaining wall to make it more level, so it would be perpendicular to the street, and literally right next to the existing driveway. He said a lot of people have these for campers. He said that no matter what, it will take up about 180 or 200 square feet of land. Mr. Currier said he’s reluctant to the current design. He said he’d like to give the applicant the most opportunity here, and perhaps tabling it for two weeks to give them a chance to take another look at it. Mr. Reppucci said he is concerned with the safety of it, and because of the possible problems it would cause by pulling out that much curbing. He said it just doesn’t look safe. He said that the Board also has the option of just approving this for only this applicant. Mr. Shaw agreed that it would be best to turn this back to the applicant and see if there is any alternative way to do this. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 15 MOTION by Mr. Currier to suspend the rules to ask Mr. Derby about dates for tabling the request, either two weeks out, or five weeks out. Mr. Derby said he’d prefer to come back in two weeks. MOTION by Mr. Currier to table the request to the June 23, 2015 meeting, and if the applicant isn’t ready, the Board is willing to give additional time, to study their options. He said when it comes back, it will be a Public Hearing, and it will be the first case heard whenever it comes back, with the purpose of this coming back is to for the applicant to see if there is an alternative for parking at the curb, given the reluctance that the Board has for the submitted application. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Stephany Houghton (Owner) Kathleen Bradley (Applicant) 226 Broad Street (Sheet E Lot 108) requesting use variance to allow a beauty salon within a portion of an existing building. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathleen Bradley, 6 Stillwater Drive, Nashua, NH. Ms. Bradley said she’s looking to install a beauty salon within the existing building. She said it is zoned residential, even though there is a dentist office there, and there are several other non- residential uses nearby, such as a dog groomer. Mr. Currier asked her if she is the business owner. Ms. Bradley said she will be. Mr. Currier asked her what part of the building she’d be located in. Ms. Bradley said she will be in the middle section. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 16 Mr. Currier asked her what is there now. Ms. Bradley said the owner’s daughter is using it for music lessons. Mr. Falk said that the beauty salon needs a total of three parking spaces, and there is sufficient parking on site, further, there is an approved site plan for the property. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance request on behalf of the applicant as advertised. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a beauty salon. Mr. Currier said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, as the building is already used for a light commercial area. He said that there shouldn’t be any negative effects on surrounding property values. He said that it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be served to allow the proposed beauty salon. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not find that any of the cases have Regional Impact. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 17 MINUTES: May 12, 2015: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the Minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. May 26, 2015: Mr. Reppucci said that the very last sentence states that Mr. Currier called the meeting closed, when in fact he wasn’t there. Mr. Falk said he’d make the appropriate change. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the Minutes with the small correction, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 12A-12B Hanover Street: Mr. Falk said that they’re still not ready, and we are waiting to see an approved building permit for them to go from two units to three units. He said that the Fire Marshall was out at the site, and to go to four units, there are some changes that need to be done to the building. He said he’s not sure when it will come back. MOTION by Mr. Currier to table the request to the 6-23-15 meeting, and leave it at that. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Currier called the meeting closed at 8:50 p.m. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 9, 2015 Page 18 Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing