Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING August 25, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Jack Currier, Vice Chair, conducted the meeting Gerry Reppucci J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale 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. 1. 238 Amherst Street, LLC (Owner) OKORP Associates (Applicant) 238 Amherst Street (Sheet E Lot 305) requesting variance to allow an off-premises directional sign. HB Zone, Ward 1. [TABLED FROM 8-11-15 MEETING] Voting on this case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher MOTION by Mr. Currier to remove this case from the Table, as it was tabled from the August 11th meeting. Ms. Vitale said that she is recusing herself from this case. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Peter Proko, 280 Amherst Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Proko said that the business is Peters Bump Clinic, and Peters Auto Sales. He said that he apologized for missing the last meeting. He said that they seek approval for a 3’x4’ painted wood directional sign on what used to be the Bahama Beach Club property. He said Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 2 that people come down Diesel Road, which is a dead end street, and there is an entrance to the other side, and people get confused and get up in the back. He said that this sign is just to get people to the Bump Clinic, it’s non-intrusive, all it says on it is Peters Bump Clinic, with an arrow. He said that it is not a lit sign, either. He said that it’s just one sided. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Peggy Proko, 280 Amherst Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Proko said that it’s just a basic directional sign. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised, on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci said 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 stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Daniel L. & Karen L. Theriault (Owners) Gate City Remodeling (Applicant) 11 Verona Street (Sheet 101 Lot 133) requesting variance to encroach 5 feet into the 6 foot rear yard setback to construct a 13’x14’ carport addition onto an existing detached garage. RB Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 3 Kathy Vitale Steve Torla, 30 Anvil Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Torla said that it is his sister and brother-in-law’s property. He said that there is a garage in the corner of the property, and the garage is 20 inches from the rear property line. He said that the plan is to leave the garage intact, remove the roof, and extend the roof and build a carport on the side. He said that they tried to have a canvas type roof before, and they just get torn up. Mr. Reppucci asked if the peak of the roof will be in the center of the roof, or where it is. Mr. Torla said it would be in the center, it’ll just have posts on the far side where the carport will be. Mr. Currier said it looks as if nothing will be built closer to the property line, the carport would just be an extension of what is there now. Mr. Torla agreed. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Greg Andreoli, 233 Pine Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Andreoli stated that his property is directly behind. He said that with the garage only being 20 inches away, a couple years ago he put up a fence, and the driveway goes right up to it, and it’s around the fence poles. He didn’t want to see his fence damaged. He said his other concern is debris, it’s a 6-foot tall stockade fence, going the length of the property, and with a small child and a puppy, didn’t want any construction debris coming over the fence. He said if they’re tearing up the driveway, it’ll do damage to the fence. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Torla said that he is the general contractor, and does this on a regular basis, and during construction, there will be daily clean-ups. He said that he has no problem relocating the fence and re-installing it, and if that can’t happen, he could put up Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 4 a screen and keep all the debris out of the neighbor’s yard. He said it’s possible that he could sawcut the driveway and get it away and off from the fence. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Andreoli said if all those issues are covered, he has no issues with the request. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised. Mr. Reppucci said 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 stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice would be done. SECONDED by Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Denise Salvato (Owner) 149 Hills Ferry Road (Sheet 56 Lot 95) requesting variance to encroach 5 feet into the 25 foot required rear yard setback to enlarge an existing 9’x11’ deck to an 11’x14’ deck. RA Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Denise Salvato, 145 Hills Ferry Road, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Salvato said that they had to take down their old deck and are replacing it with a new, slightly bigger deck. Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Currier said you can’t see it from the street, it’s in the rear. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Madeleine Kopka, 8 Royal Palm Drive, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Kopka passed out some information to the Board. She said that the extension of the present deck would be an intrusion of her property. She said that the land slopes down, and the support beams are 25 feet from her property line, and the new one would extend even further. She said that her property would be devalued. She said that there is a drainage easement running along the back of the property, and any improvements on it will cause additional problems such as flooding. She said that heavy equipment for this deck would be disturbing. Mr. Reppucci said that he believed that this, at the most, would just be posts in the ground to support the deck, and it would be just replacing posts that are already there, or maybe even using the same ones. He said that the posts may even be hand dug. He said he didn’t see how this would be an impact. He said that the deck would only be 2 feet further back, and 3 feet wider. Carolyn Fluke, 6 Royal Oak Drive, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Fluke said that they’ve had problems with the culvert breaking, and they’ve had issues with very heavy rain as the brook will overflow. She said the larger deck will be going against her peace and quiet. Gail Donaldson, 14 Royal Oak Drive, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Donaldson said that their cellar had water after the 2nd day after it was put in. She said that she has concerns about drainage and the easement. Ann Livermore, 17 Broad Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Livermore said that she loves the neighborhood, and is aware of the brook. She said that the Planning Department has no plans of this being a brook, and Pennichuck had information about the area. She said she is concerned about people having water in the basement. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 6 Mrs. Salvato said the deck would be 11 feet out from the house, and 14 feet wide, it’s going to be two feet further out. She said that they’d be using the existing footings and posts. She said the stairs would be coming out and down the back edge. She said that they won’t be using any big machinery to construct it, it’s just one guy. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mrs. Kopka said its 5 feet into the setback, and asked where the stairs are going, which was explained to her by Mr. Shaw. She said she is not happy with the encroachment. She feels as if her privacy is being taken away. Mr. Currier said that the new deck wouldn’t be any higher than the existing deck. Mr. Shaw asked if the steps would be included for the encroachment, or is it just the level part of the deck. Mr. Falk said that stairs that are not enclosed or roofed can go up to 3 feet to the property line. He said it’s just the deck itself. Ms. Vitale said she likes the fact that the builder is using the existing footings. She said that the impact looks like it would be out of the easement area that was discussed in testimony. Mr. Currier stated that with a drainage easement, you can’t build a house over it, but other times, a driveway or a shed could be. He asked about a deck. Mr. Falk said he didn’t believe the deck is over the easement, but staff doesn’t measure setbacks to easements, they are measured from property lines. He said that they may have to talk to the owner of the easement to ask if its ok, and it’s not something staff measures to or from. Mr. Reppucci said that this is an unfortunate situation, the neighbors have lived there for a long time, and they’ve had a lot of prior trouble with the culvert and drainage. He said that by the deck going out another two feet will not in any way impact the culvert. Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 7 Mr. Currier agreed with Mr. Reppucci, and said that the water coming off the roof or off the deck will infiltrate just as it does without the deck being extended two feet. He said he didn’t see any negative impact. He said that the extra encroachment shouldn’t be a negative impact as well. Mr. Boucher agreed, and said that there would not be any impact to the water, and with the deck extended another two feet, it’s a reasonable request and would not have any negative impacts, and supports the application as it stands. Mr. Shaw agreed, and didn’t see the deck extension having any material effect on the easement or the culvert. He said the additional encroachment is what he focused on, and didn’t see it as a negative impact. He said the slope adjacent to the deck is fairly minimal. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised. Mr. Reppucci said that the incursion is two additional feet towards the back of the property. Mr. Reppucci said that 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 same size deck could be replaced, but the Board determined that it would be an undue hardship on the applicant to prevent them from making it two feet further. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, there was not testimony on that one way or another, the neighbors issue mainly focused on drainage issues that the Board feels are unrelated to this application. He said it will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice would be done. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Reppucci said that by replacing an old deck with a new deck and adding two feet onto it will only add value, and will enhance the property and the properties around it. Mr. Shaw said that it will be positive, or even neutral. Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 8 Ms. Vitale said she didn’t see a detrimental effect. Mr. Boucher said he sees it as a positive effect. Mr. Currier said he sees it as a neutral effect, and the two extra feet doesn’t make much difference. He said that for the Motion, there was testimony about property values, but the Board feels that there is not a concern with values, if anything, it’s a positive effect. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. Prabhakar L. & Kalindi P. Nanavati (Owners) 48-50 Hunt Street (Sheet 101 Lot 86) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 9,000 sq.ft existing, 18,668 sq.ft required, to convert a two-family building into a three-family building – approved by ZBA on 8-21-89, but a building permit was not obtained. RB Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Prab Nanavati, 48-50 Hunt Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Nanavati said he bought the property in 1988. He said in 1989 he applied for a variance to convert the property into a three-family unit and was approved, however, did not obtain a building permit to make it official. He said it’s been a three-family all along. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the application as advertised on behalf of the owner. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is an existing three-family building, and by testimony, Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 9 has been this way for many years, with no problems, and it’s a perfectly functioning three-family home. Mr. Currier stated that it 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. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 5. Brian & Marcia Carpenter (Owners) 11 Fowell Avenue (Sheet 108 Lot 36) requesting variance to exceed maximum driveway width, 24 feet allowed, 23 feet existing – 39 feet proposed. RA Zone, Ward 6, [REHEARING FROM 5-26-15 MEETING]. Voting on this case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Brian Carpenter, 11 Fowell Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Carpenter said that they applied to widen the driveway, and the Board approved the request, so they went ahead and did it, and the case was contested, so we are here for the same approval. Mr. Reppucci asked if the driveway was done before the first approval. Mr. Carpenter said it was not. Mr. Reppucci asked what had to be done to the driveway from the time he got the approval to now. Mr. Carpenter said he had to finish it, lay the pavers, and finish the wall. He said that when the Code Officer came by, there was no stop work order, and were told that they could continue. Mr. Reppucci said that after any approval, there is a 30-day appeal period. Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 10 Mr. Carpenter said that going back 23 years ago, the driveway was there when he bought the house, and the apron is still there under the sod. He said that they filled it in to create a patio area. He said that one of the concerns was a reduction in green space, and they used permeable pavers, as shown by the brochure that was submitted. He said that the abutter said it is in direct view of his property, which is not true, and another concern was that when he parks in the driveway, it makes it difficult for people to walk their dogs down the sidewalk. He showed a picture of the original driveway of the area that he didn’t widen, and it’s not impacted in any way. He said that the opposition stated that the property values would go down by 5%, and he submitted a letter from a real estate agent stating that it isn’t true, and didn’t think that a retired architect can predict property values. He said that the camper is a moveable vehicle. He said that the request was approved once before, and the Code does allow for campers, Section 190-35, and all those requirements are met. He said that he believes that the biggest concern is that there’s a camper parked there. Mr. Reppucci asked if he can get the camper in and out of there without going over the curb-cut. Mr. Carpenter said he can do it without going over the curb-cut. He said that they took the sod out of there and you can see the original curb cut. Mr. Reppucci asked if Mr. Carpenter remembered what was going to park on those spaces. Mr. Carpenter said that they’d park cars there, guests could park there. He said that there’s been a car parked there when the camper is not there. Mr. Currier said that his recollection was that the space was just going to be used for car parking. He said that cars parked occasionally there, versus a camper, is a lot more of an intensive use of the property. He said it is a difference, and is struggling with it. Mr. Carpenter said that the camper is not going to be there in the winter, it is stored somewhere else. He said that they purchased the camper after the driveway was put in. He called Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 11 and verified if the camper is allowed, and the City said it’s allowed. Mr. Falk said that the camper is registered, it’s mobile, and it’s all permitted by the Code. He said the only variance required is the driveway width. Mr. Currier said that there used to be a driveway off of Zellwood Drive, and now it’s gone. Mr. Carpenter said that when Mr. Reppucci made the motion to approve this last time, there was a stipulation that it had to be removed, and now, it’s all fenced in and you can’t park anything there now, as shown in the picture. He said that there is virtually no place to store snow in the winter. Mr. Shaw said it seems as if from the tone of some of the communication that there is a long-standing disagreement about the way things are being done, and with neighbors getting along or not getting along with one another. Mr. Carpenter said that anything that they do, the neighbor calls the police. He said that his house is meticulously maintained, and he’s lived in the neighborhood since 3rd grade. He said that he’s gotten about 18 tickets. He said it’s one thing after another with complaints. He said he’d go down tomorrow and re-expose the apron if that’s what the Board wants. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Wayne Sargent, 13 Fowell Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Sargent said he lives right next door to Mr. Carpenter. He said that their yard is neat, he has a nice stone wall, and the driveway is neat. He said that there’s no evidence of a vehicle driving over the grass. He said that he and his wife have no objections to the request. He said that the neighbor that complained is not very friendly. He said that he sees nothing wrong with this request, and if it would affect anyone, it would affect him, and he sees nothing wrong with this. Mr. Currier asked if he sees a parking problem at the site. Mr. Sargent said no, he feels as if there is plenty of parking. He said that adding the camper there has not created any problem. Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 12 SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Letter dated 8-18-15 from John Rudolph, 6 Fowell Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Currier said that Mr. Carpenter has read the letter, and the Board has read it as well. He said that the applicant has responded in his testimony about the letter. Mr. Reppucci said that he’s looking at this application as if it’s from scratch, for the first time. He said that they have a right to park the camper on their property. Ms. Vitale said she is looking at it like the last time it came before the Board, and is supportive of the request. Mr. Shaw said in general, this property is highly constrained for parking, and one of the aspects of this was giving up the Zellwood driveway, which they did. He said it was neutral for parking. He said that if we are looking at this fresh, as it is, he is supportive of it, and the net overall parking is not changed from what it was before the original application. Mr. Boucher said he agrees with what Mr. Shaw just stated. He said that there are obvious issues in the neighborhood. He said that there may be some parking issues when people come over, but that’s for the whole neighborhood. He said that he is supportive of the application. Mr. Currier said that the removal of the Zellwood driveway and the new driveway is a good way to go. He said that was a fair trade-off. He said that some people do care if a camper is there, and on a tight lot, it is a more intensive use. He said he’s struggling to find support for the request. Mr. Reppucci said that to not support this case now would be harsh, as there was a stipulation to remove the Zellwood driveway, which he already did, it was a good balance. He said that if it’s denied, he’d probably have to put the Zellwood driveway back in, or get rid of it, that is a little harsh. He said the neighbor who spoke in favor was very unbiased and said it from the heart. He said he remains supportive. Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 13 MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the owner. Mr. Shaw said that the Board has heard numerous testimony both from the original case and the rehearing request, and there has been a lot of consideration for basically the applicant’s use of the property, which is to add the additional driveway width on the Fowell Avenue side of the property while removing the driveway on Zellwood Drive. He said that the original case, that was a stipulation of approval , and that action has already been taken and that driveway was already removed. Mr. Shaw said that there has been a lot of discussion about the use of the curbcut versus going over the curb, and the intent of the request, and even now, is that the driveway still be used for access to and from the street. He said that the property is highly constrained by a fairly small lot, and fairly limited parking in the existing area on Fowell Avenue, and there are no other means of achieving the additional parking area other than this proposal. Mr. Shaw stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, he said that there has been some discussion about adverse effects on property values, as noted by the notification from Mr. Rudolph, but at the same time there was testimony from Mr. Carpenter and his other neighbor are in conflict with that, and the Board doesn’t find any significant effect one way or another on property values. He said it will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Boucher asked about any future challenges, if it can be challenged again. Mr. Reppucci said it cannot be challenged for the same reason, so, there has to be a different aggrieved party. He said if Mr. Rudolph wants to appeal it, he’d have to go to Superior Court. Mr. Falk said that there has to be a finality to decisions, so this was their chance to ask for the rehearing. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (Mr. Currier) Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 14 6. The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. (Owner) 327 Amherst Street (Sheet G Lot 48) requesting variance to allow 100% of a ground sign to be an electronic message center, 50% allowed, to replace an existing ground sign with a new ground sign. GB Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Mike Gill, Owner, Mortgage Specialists, 69 Conley Grove Road, Derry NH. Mr. Gill said he wants to reduce the size of the sign. He said he’s used the sign for public service, and the last two years, hasn’t advertised an interest rate on the sign. He said that all he’s doing is public service at this point, which is why the sign has been damaged repeatedly, and sabotaged. He said that the sign has been damaged beyond repair. Mr. Currier asked what the sign dimensions are. Mr. Reppucci said the existing sign is 10’x15’. Mr. Falk said that the proposed sign is 44 square feet. He said that the Code allows up to 50% of an electronic message sign to be electronic, and this entire sign would be electronic. He said that the size and height is ok. During the applicant’s presentation of this variance request, it became apparent that the sign application submitted to the Planning Department was for a significantly smaller sign than the applicant believed he was requesting. The Board offered the applicant the opportunity to table the application to give the applicant an opportunity to resolve the discrepancy. The applicant acknowledged the offer to table, but decided to withdraw his application. 7. James Njau (Owner) 53 Worcester Street (Sheet 36 Lot 67) requesting the following: 1) special exception to expand a non-conforming use; and, 2) variance to encroach 8 feet into the 10 foot required front yard setback (on Howard Street) Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 15 to repair existing porch and construct new 5’x12’ porch. GI Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale James Njau, 53 Worcester Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Njau stated that the existing porch is in disrepair and is looking to repair and slightly expand its size. He said the new porch would be 5’x12’ and would meet the Code. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to grant the special exception on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Shaw stated that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-119 (D)(4). Mr. Shaw stated that the use will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety. He said it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. Mr. Shaw said that no special regulations apply, and 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 the residents. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the owner. Mr. Shaw said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, and the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 16 achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Shaw stated that it 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. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: July 28, 2015: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 (Mr. Currier abstained). August 11, 2015: MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 (Mr. Currier abstained). REHEARING REQUESTS: None. Slate of Officers: MOTION by Mr. Boucher to nominate Mr. Reppucci as Chairman. Zoning Board of Adjustment August 25, 2015 Page 17 SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Currier) MOTION by Mr. Shaw to nominate Mr. Currier as Vice Chairman, and Mr. Boucher as Clerk. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Currier called the meeting closed at 10:15 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing