Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING September 22, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair Jack Currier, Vice Chair J.P. Boucher, Clerk Rob Shaw Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Reppucci explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Reppucci 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. Reppucci also explained procedures involving the timing light. 1. Aldebaran Properties, LLC & Peter Q. Nash Rev. Trust (Owners) The Lenny Dobens Agency, LLC (Applicant) 87 Amherst Street (Sheet 60 Lot 21) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum number of ground signs, 1 allowed, 1 existing, 1 additional ground sign proposed; and, 2) to exceed maximum ground sign area for the premises, 10 sq.ft permitted, a total of 17 sq.ft proposed. RA Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Attorney Charles Dobens, son of the late Lenny Dobens. Atty. Dobens said that the last ten to fifteen years of his father’s life, his focus was on Medicare supplements and Medicare policies. He said that his clientele was strictly 65 years of age and over. He said that the office is on one floor, and seniors can pull right up and walk right in. He said that one of the problems with the site is that some of the clients cannot find the location, as the only sign available is inside the building. Atty. Dobens said that what they are requesting is a variance to Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 2 add another ground sign on the premises, on the Sargent Avenue side. Mr. Reppucci asked if the sign would be on the Amherst Street frontage. Atty. Dobens said it’s actually on the Sargent Avenue side. He said that with the way the building is built and arranged, it has a feel that there are two separate buildings and properties. He said that their sign will be in front of their unit, and Century 21 Cardinal will have their sign in front of their unit. Mr. Currier asked if the sign will be parallel to Sargent Avenue or perpendicular. Atty. Dobens said it will be at a slight angle, its focus will be out towards the edge of Amherst Street and Sargent Avenue, at an angle. Mr. Currier asked if there will be any obstruction from the sign for drivers coming down Sargent Avenue. Atty. Dobens said that as you’re approaching from Sargent Avenue, all you’ll see is the edge of the sign. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Jim Tamposi, Aldebaran Properties, Nashua, NH. Mr. Tamposi said that he believes that the test for the variance meets the five criteria. He said that the request is certainly reasonable, it will help people find Lenny Dobens Agency, and it will alleviate people who are slowing down because they can’t find the location. He said that people will see the sign and know where to go, he said that the sign is tastefully done, and it will not diminish the property values in the neighborhood, and the sign will complement the building it serves. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Stanley Stoncius, 4 Sargent Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Stoncius passed out a handout to the Board members. Mr. Stoncius said that he’s an abutter to the subject property. He said that he’s canvassed the neighborhood, and has found out that everyone is not in favor of the sign. He said in 1982, Mr. Forest asked for a variance to build the building with only one business, one Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 3 entity, with one entrance, not two. He said that there were limitations put on the property, and one of them specifically addressed the signage, it could only have the number and the street. He said that this is not a commercial area. He said that the one sign should identify it, it’s not two buildings. He said that the proposed sign is not meeting the essential character of the neighborhood. He said that he didn’t believe the sign met any of the criteria for the points of law. He said that this is a residential neighborhood and is against the sign. Mr. Reppucci said that his take on the area is that over the past thirty years, the traffic has gotten substantially different. He said that the safety concern is there, if people are trying to identify a location, and driving on Amherst Street and Sargent Avenue, and going through the intersections there, he said that proper signage there actually helps people, and it’s safer for vehicles. Mr. Stoncius said he has no problems finding any location, and if people have difficulty, they’ll bring a family member with them to assist them. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Dobens said that he understands Mr. Stoncius’s concerns. He said that they want to be a good neighbor, and do everything correctly. He said that they frequently hear from their clients that they have a hard time finding the business coming down Amherst Street, because there is no signage. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Stoncius left the building. Mr. Reppucci said that the only thing that Mr. Stoncius could speak to, according to the By-Laws, is what Atty. Dobens just said, not in the totality of the application, and said that Mr. Stoncius and Atty. Dobens have already gone over the request in detail, plus, his concerns were addressed in writing. A copy of it was given to Atty. Dobens. Mr. Currier said that both sides had testimony that had merit, and there is certainly more traffic than in 1982. He said that the 1982 case had a stipulation about the sign, and said that he’s struggling to find support for the request. He said that Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 4 the Board didn’t get any written evidence from Mr. Stoncius, but takes his word that all the abutters have similar thoughts about the sign. Mr. Reppucci said it’s a terrible crossroads there, and knows the intersection well, and doesn’t consider it safe, it’s not unsafe, but it’s certainly has the potential when you’re going through there. He said that the testimony was that a lot of the clients are elderly, and many of them may not be as connected as others may be with the technology available. He said that the sign is a beautifully designed sign, very low-key, and it’s really not much bigger than a directional sign, it’s tastefully done, it’s not lit, and it can only do what the applicant presented that it will do, which is to identify the building for people looking for it. Mr. Boucher said that the sign will identify the location of the business, he said he can see the merit for a sign to identify the location. He said that the proposed sign is not intrusive, and it fits in and looks good. He said it’s not a big sign, it won’t be lit, and it won’t be such a visually large sign. Mr. Shaw said that there were a lot of good points raised by both sides, he said it’s an RA Zone, and they’re right against a traffic corridor that has a lot of businesses on it. He said that the sign is very understated, it fits really well, and they’ve done a good job of having the sign blend in. He said that the identification of the property is important, and because of the nature of the parking at this property, in the rear side of the businesses from Amherst Street, even if you plug in 87 Amherst Street on your GPS, it’s not readily apparent if the phone app will tell you that the parking is in the rear of the building, it may just tell you that you’ve arrived at your destination, so a driver could still be driving along Amherst Street looking for a place to park, without a sign identifying the business. He said that what is being proposed is very reasonable and tasteful, and is a relatively small scale, ideally, there would be one sign with both businesses on it, but it’s not certain if the applicant could consider it. Mr. Reppucci said he’s reviewed the 1982 approval, and line number one says no medical or retail uses, but the proposed sign is a NH Medicare Specialist, perhaps the applicant can clarify if the purpose of the business is medical-related, is it a conflict with the variance approval. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Shaw said that the business is insurance-related, it’s not a pediatrician office or a medical practice business. Mr. Falk said it’s an insurance business, a medical use would have patients coming in all day long; the insurance use is a more low-impact use. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised, on behalf of the applicant, with both requests considered collectively. 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, it was the testimony of the applicant that the sign is needed to identify the business location. 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, he said that the Board did hear testimony of concern, but the Board feels that overall view of the sign, to add it, will be a benefit to the community as it will identify the building for people driving by, and will make it safer, traffic-wise. He said that the request is not be contrary to the public interest for the reasons just stated, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Reppucci said for a special condition, the sign will be non- lit. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Shaw said that the sign on Amherst Street is much less impact than the one on Sargent Avenue, but the net effect is almost what was originally envisioned in a way. He said the ability to identify and direct drivers is important. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (Mr. Currier). 2. Timothy & Carmen J. Latham (Owners) 59 Wethersfield Road (Sheet B Lot 704) requesting variance to encroach up to 2 feet into the 10 foot required left side yard setback to construct an attached 5’x11’ roof overhang. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 6 Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Frank LaMarche, First Choice Remodeling, and Tim Latham, 59 Wethersfield Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. LaMarche passed out some pictures to the Board. Mr. Latham said that he has an in-law that lives in the house, and it’s the main entrance for them. He said that the last few winters, there hasn’t been safe access due to the snow, and the overhang will provide safe entrance in the winter, and the elderly residents will have an easier time accessing the house. Mr. Lamarche said the roof overhang will go over the walkway, it’ll be eleven feet, centered to the door on the walkway, coming out five feet. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a safer entrance to the in-law unit on the left side of the house, the applicant said that the roof is necessary to keep the area free of snow. He said that the Board finds that it is a minor encroachment of only two feet, and it’s only in the corner and it gets less as it goes back to the rear of the house. Mr. Currier 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. He said that the request is not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 7 SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3.Joshua S. & Melanie J. O’Neil (Owners) 68 Concord Street (Sheet 65 Lot 159) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum driveway width, 22 feet existing, 24 feet permitted, 32 feet proposed; and, 2) to allow a portion of proposed driveway addition to be within 50 feet to the intersection of Concord Street and Hall Avenue, 48 feet proposed. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Mr. Falk said that the owner came in this week, and are going to have the driveway two feet narrower, thereby negating the need for the second variance, also, instead of 32 feet proposed, it would be reduced to 30 feet. Mr. Reppucci said that since it is a lesser request, they can go forward with the case, and it doesn’t need to be re-advertised. Melanie O’Neil, 68 Concord Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. O’Neil said that they’re doing this because they have a multi-family building and there isn’t enough parking for both of the tenants there and themselves. She said it would look better, it would keep vehicles off the street, and it would be better for snow removal, also, it would help with everyone not jockeying for spaces in the driveway. Mrs. O’Neil submitted a letter from her direct abutting neighbor, who is writing in support of the request. Mr. Reppucci read the letter into the record. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 8 No one. Mr. Currier said that the wider driveway will work well, it’ll be a defined parking area and will suit the owners needs more, and keep cars off the street. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised. He said that 30 feet is requested, not 32 feet, and variance #2 is no longer needed. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is for adequate parking for a multi-family building Mr. Currier 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. He said that the request is not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. Joseph H. & Deborah A. Robbins (Owners) 6 Richmond Street (Sheet F Lot 239) requesting variance to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 78% proposed, to maintain an after-the-fact 10’x16’ shed. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Joseph Robbins, 6 Richmond Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Robbins said that he is asking to maintain an after-the-fact 10’x16’ shed. He said he’s addressed the five points of law in his application. He said that the shed is necessary because they care for their elderly in-laws, and the shed is needed for a lot of their items. Mr. Reppucci asked when they built the shed. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Robbins said the shed was installed in June, 2014, professionally installed, and he thought that the shed supplier had gotten the proper permit to install the shed, and they didn’t. He said that he recently received a letter from the City stating that the shed wasn’t permitted. Mr. Currier said that the lot is somewhat busy, but the shed seems to be passively working well within the neighborhood, and didn’t see any concerns with it. Mr. Reppucci said that there are no setback incursions with this, it’s just the accessory use area, and is supportive of the application. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. 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, for an after-the-fact shed, it’s already there, the nature of the property is that the lot has a carport which is in close proximity to the house. Mr. Shaw stated that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said 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 4-0. 5. Donald R. Dube (Owner) 2 Sheridan Street (Sheet 59 Lot 30) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 67% proposed, to maintain a 10’x20’ garage extension; and, 2) to encroach 4 feet into the 6 foot required rear yard setback for garage extension. RA Zone, Ward 2. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 10 Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Donald Dube, 2 Sheridan Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Dube said that for a couple years, he had a 10’x20’ tent back there, and last winter it collapsed. He said he started building the addition to store his lawnmower and riding mower and other items hanging around to keep the lawn neat and clean. Mr. Currier asked if there is any erosion after a rainstorm. Mr. Dube said no, it has a metal roof on it, and hasn’t had any problems. Mr. Currier asked if the abutters have any concerns with it. Mr. Dube said that all the abutters are here tonight. He said that he’s anticipating that the winter will be bad, and wants to keep the stuff in the garage addition and not under a tarp. Mr. Reppucci asked if the structure will be used for anything besides storage. Mr. Dube said only storage. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Chris Kelly, 3 Hooker Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Kelly said he lives directly behind Mr. Dube’s property. He said that he fails to see how he’d meet any of the five criteria in the application for approval. He said that the addition virtually sits all within the setback, he said that he already has a two- car garage. He said that the new structure doesn’t even look good. He said that when it was first erected, it was right at the property line, and he did shorten it up a little. He said that when he takes walks in the neighborhood, no other house has Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 11 two sheds. He said that what he built is just squeezed in between the rear of the garage and his property line. He said he didn’t feel that it’s in the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, and there’s a reason why the City has setbacks. He said that he could store everything in his two-car garage. He said that he believes that it does diminish the nearby property values, it’s an ad-hoc structure that’s being built right by the property line and it’s an eyesore, and it’s not built to last. He said he doesn’t see any special conditions to justify the granting of the variance, it’s a residential neighborhood, he has a two-car garage, he has another tool shed there, and doesn’t see the need for another shed. He said that there is an RV parked in the back, a trailer, lawnmower, and many cars being worked on. Mary Levesque, 4 Sheridan Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Levesque said she lives next door. She said that by allowing this structure to remain will diminish her property values, and add to the distress of the neighbors, because there’s a lot that goes on next door. She said it looks like the structure will have tire rims, car parts and other equipment, however, the garage holds car repair equipment and it has a lift. She said that they have a shed on the property too. She said that she’s talked to the City Code Enforcement Office, and they determined that there was a car business going on, and they gave them a cease and desist order, and there are cars parked in the front yard, the RV is parked on the front yard and the back yard has cars parked there, and another RV parked there, and there have been tow trucks dropping off cars to be repaired, and it’s a problem in the neighborhood. She said that they constantly hear the hydraulic tools and cars revving. Nancy Chabot, 5 Hooker Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Chabot said she lives diagonal to Mr. Dube’s home. She said that the structure in question was built in the middle of the night for a solid week during Spring vacation. She said that they had huge spotlights and there was a lot of noise. She said she’s called and complained several times. She said the structure itself is very unsightly and it’s right against the lot line. She said that there’s already too much in this yard, there’s an RV, other equipment, there’s already an existing shed, and there were fires in the back yard. She said that she feels that the structure is to support the existing business that we’ve heard about, and the noise factor is intolerable. She said she’s been Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 12 communicating with her Alderman as well. She said she’s very concerned about her property values. Sue Newman, 25 Charlotte Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Newman said that when she got the notice, she was unaware that anything had been done. She has heard that there is a car repair business going on there. She said that she doesn’t think that this is a good idea, it impacts the surrounding properties, and the significant encroachment onto the property line is significant to the direct abutter. She said that there are a number of cars that are generated from the property. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Dube said he’s just looking to put this structure up for a place for storage for the winter. He said there is no business being run out of the garage, he said his son needs work at home, and needs to be occupied by working on the vehicles. He said that there is one RV, and it’s a project that he and his son are working on, it’s been gutted inside, and it’s a good project for his son to work on. He said that he’s told his son to keep the noise level down, and he does the best he can. He said that 90% of the people that come over with car repairs cannot afford standard garage prices per hour. He said he just wants this approved to put his stuff away for the winter, otherwise, it will be on the lawn with a tarp or cover over it. He said he’s restoring a 1961 T-Bird in the garage, and that’s one of the things that takes up a lot of space in the garage. He said that there is an old Datsun in there too. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: None. Mr. Currier said he’s struggling to find support for the application. He said that the setbacks are there for the abutters so that there isn’t stuff right up next to the property line. He said he’s very sensitive to what the abutters have said, and believe that their testimony is credible. Mr. Reppucci said he empathizes with what Mr. Dube is saying about his son, but our consideration here is strictly with land use. He said it seems like the abutters have legitimate concerns with the structure. He said it looks as if the Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 13 structure is violating exactly what the setbacks are supposed to protect the neighborhood from. Mr. Currier said that the Board is here to impartially serve, and to look at the zoning laws, and it’s sometimes not easy. Mr. Shaw said he feels similar. He said he doesn’t see how he’d support it, the intensity of use, the encroachment into the setback is a lot, and didn’t see it as being consistent with other properties in the area, and the unfortunate part of it is that it appears as if there is roughly a 12 foot space there between the back of the existing garage and the property line, and they could build a 6-foot extension. He said there is still the question of whether the building inspector would approve it or not. He said that the structure is just too impactful on the neighbors, and didn’t see the hardship to justify the usage. Mr. Reppucci said it wasn’t demonstrated to him that there is a handicapped issue. Mr. Boucher said he feels similar to everyone else. He said that he can appreciate the situation the owner is in, it’s a tough situation when someone may have to remove something, but maybe not all is lost because perhaps there is a way to re- structure it to be compliant. Mr. Reppucci said that he believes that you still need a building permit to demolish the shed. He said that anything that Mr. Dube does, the first thing he should do is to contact the Building Department and get their approval for any modifications he’s going to make ahead of time, so he’ll know he’ll be in compliance before he does anything. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny the variance requests as submitted. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board finds that a variance is not required as the proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, do not deserve relief, and does not deserve an exception to the setback requirement as defined in the Ordinance. He said that the Board also finds that there is no demonstration of any kind of hardship that would be required of any approval of exceeding the maximum accessory use area of 40%. Mr. Reppucci said the request is not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance to approve this application, in fact, Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 14 the Board finds that approving it would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it’s exactly why the ordinance exists. Mr. Reppucci said that it will adversely affect property values of surrounding parcels, testimony of several abutters said that it is detrimental to the neighborhood, and the Board finds agreement with that, and it would be contrary to the public interest. He said that substantial justice would be done to the surrounding properties by denying this application. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Plato A. Spilios, Trustee, for Indian Head Realty Trust (Owner) Barlo Signs (Applicant) 10-88 Technology Way (Sheet 77 Lot 13) requesting variance to remove 2 non-conforming roof signs, and install 3 roof signs at 99.3 square feet each, where roof signs are not permitted. GI/MU Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Tim Sullivan, Barlo Signs, Hudson NH. Mr. Sullivan said that the building is 250,000 square feet, and one-third of the building is occupied by Crown Linen, the rest of it is leased to about 50 tenants, and the building employs about 150-200 people. He said that the building will have a great advantage with the Broad Street Parkway. He said that they are seeking to identify the building, not to advertise the tenants in the building, as there will be a lot more vehicle traffic in this area. Mr. Sullivan said that the client has put in a lot of money to revitalize and renovate the building. He said that presently, the building has two roof signs, one facing north and one facing south. He said that they are seeking a third roof sign which will face Main Street, because it is visible from Main Street. He said that the building has a unique architecture, and there’s really no place on the building to put a suitable wall sign, Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 15 which would be allowed. He said that the walls have a lot of vertical structures and pediments, so by putting the signs on the roof it allows for the architecture of the building to maintain its integrity and not interfere. He said each of the existing signs are 3’x40’ and the proposed signs will have individual letters instead of the solid boxes that are existing, they’ll be internally illuminated. He said that it is a unique property in that it’s so large, the letters proposed are 2½ feet tall. He said the signs are large because there are a lot of letters in the name. Mr. Shaw asked about the signage pictures that are in the packet. Mr. Sullivan said that those other signs are allowed by right, and it reflects the minor name change for the property. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Lou Flanders, part-owner of the building. Mr. Flanders said that one of the reasons why the existing signs need to be replaced is that they are almost illegible because of their size. He said that they’re going for a different look which will be better, it’ll be lighter, and the signs won’t be a big block on top of the roof, they’ll be individual letters. He said that they’re trying to preserve the structure and the feel of the building. The tenants in the building have the feeling that they’re at someplace special, and the proposed signs should offer great identification to the building. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a unique consortium of businesses in an old mill building, which is a very unique situation with a new parkway going in next to it. Mr. Currier stated that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 22, 2015 Page 16 SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: Mr. Falk said that there is an extra week in the schedule, so the agenda is not ready yet, once it is ready, he’ll email it to everyone. MINUTES: August 25, 2015: Mr. Reppucci said he’s already given some changes to Mr. Falk relative to the Mortgage Specialists request. Mr. Falk said that he has already made the changes. Mr. Currier said that the bottom of page 13, the case for Fowell Avenue, he said that the vote should be 3-1, not 4-0. Mr. Falk said he’ll make the appropriate changes. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the minutes with the changes as discussed, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. REHEARING REQUESTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 9:12 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing