October 12, 2000


The Chairman, Walter Kosik, called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.


The Vice Chairman, Edmund Gleason called the roll:



Walter Kosik, Edmund Gleason, Peter McNamara, Alternate David Hennessey, Alternate Carolyn Carter, Alternate Jim Bundock



Peter LaPolice, George LaBonte, Jr.


The Chairman announced that Ms. Carter and Mr. Hennessey would be voting for Mr. LaPolice and Mr. LaBonte.


CASE #2186 – ML 1-146/SECOND GENERATION PROPERTIES, LLP – 40 Spaulding Hill Road – Seeking a Variance to permit construction of a communications tower within a residential district


Mr. Bundock stepped down for this case only.


Mr. Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.


Mr. Gleason read aloud Article III, Section 307-58.


Attorney, Jim Tamposey, representing Second Generation Partnership, LP, appeared before the Board to present Case #2186.  He began by reading aloud the five criteria:


Item #1.  There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties:  The applicant proposes to construct a 250’ telecommunications tower on a 95 acre parcel of property accessed off Marie Avenue and Spaulding Hill Road.  The tower will be located far from surrounding residential structures.  Donovan Appraisal performed an inspection of the area, and research on property values, and concluded there would be no demunation in value of surrounding properties.


Item #2.  It is in the public interest:  There is a demand in the Town of Pelham and also surrounding towns, both in New Hampshire and Massachusetts for cellular telephone service.  This site is necessary for proper cellular telephone coverage.  Additionally, the proposed tower will increase the tax base in the town of Pelham.


Item #3.  There is significant hardship to the land:  Spaulding Hill is a necessary component of proper cellular telephone and other telecommunications coverage in the town of Pelham and in surrounding towns.  Experts and potential tower users will testify that this site is necessary for proper coverage.  Additionally, the only areas in town in which telecommunications towers are permitted, as a matter of right, are low line commercial and industrial areas, and no number of towers in those permitted areas will provide the necessary coverage of telecommunications services.   The telecommunications act has somewhat preempted the traditional hardship criteria.


Item #4.  There is substantial justice to be done:  Spaulding Hill is a necessary  tower site in order to provide proper telecommunications coverage in Pelham and surrounding areas.  Without such coverage, there will be gaps between the coverage.  There are no substitute sites in Town, which could make up for this gap in coverage.   The surrounding residential area will hardly notice the telecommunications tower and the same will have no adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses.  The telecommunications tower is a quiet use of property, no parties, dogs, children or traffic and mixes well in a residential area. 


Item #5.  This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance:  The proposed use of the property as a telecommunications tower is less intensive than the use presently allowed in a residential zone.  This is a quiet neighbor, which would be located far from any surrounding homes.  The spirit of the ordinance is served by a use such as this, which will mix nicely with the surrounding residential area.


Mr. Tamposey introduced the following group of people which he intended to have speak regarding the case he was presenting: Sam Tamposey General Partner of Second Generation Properties LLP;  Andy Schulman of Getland, Stacy, Tamposey, Schuldus and Steer; Steve Height, Engineer of Herbert and Associates; Ken Kozyra and Scott Polister of Telecorp; Mike Notini of Omnipoint. 


Mr. Tamposey said they had appeared two years ago to seek a special exception, for the same piece of property, which the Board denied.  The matter went to court, and the court upheld the Town due to the lack of committed users for the tower. 


Mr. Steve Height, Herbert Associates came before the Board and explained the acreage size of  ML 32 & 33-146.  He said the proposed location of the facility was approximately 1000’ from any abutting residence.


He informed that access to the parcel would be through an existing right-of-way from Marie Avenue.  He also informed that the tower would be made of steel, approximately 250’ tall and the fall radius would be within the boundaries of the property. 


Mr. Tamposey added, that in order to access the tower, a gravel driveway would be needed along the right-of-way.  He said there would be a small building at the base of the tower that would be out of view.  He noted that due to the topography, the first 100’ of the tower would also be out of view.  He said that the gravel driveway would have a locked gate, and the facility would be fenced and locked , except when employees checked the equipment.  Mr. Tamposey said that each user would have to access the tower one to two times per month. 


Mr. Ken Kozyra of WFI who represents Telecorp for site acquisition, zoning and construction appeared before the Board and gave a brief explanation of his company.  He said that Telecorp has two facilities within Pelham, and a third tower would help them cover an expanded area, however they would still need to have additional towers to cover the entire Town.  He informed that they have investigated the area thoroughly for existing facilities to mount their equipment, however it was a residential zone and the majority of structures were single family homes, which they have never mounted their equipment on.  He said they have signed a lease agreement with Second Generation to co-locate on the proposed facility, which would allow them to cover a large area in Pelham and link their current facilities to ensure seamless coverage for their clients. 


Mr. Tamposey provided the Board with a map of the Town, which was highlighted to show coverage areas, and he explained the necessity of locating on higher hills in Town to provide adequate coverage.  He noted that within Article III, Section 307-58 it states the preference of pre-exiting towers and existing structures, and went on to say that within the Town there are no existing facilities that would make up for the proposed tower.  Mr. Tamposey reiterated that the tower would be 1000’ from any residence.  He submitted information to the Board from Donovan Appraisal, which concluded that in cell tower situations that there is no demunation of value to surrounding properties. 


Mr. Blain Hopkins, representing Second Generation Properties, LLP, appeared before the Board and explained that his company has been constructing towers for the past five years and have been able to gather significant evidence regarding the impact of towers to the surrounding properties.  He said they have performed market analysis to track sales and thus far have had no instances of demunation of property value due to the presence of a tower.  He informed that his company has spoken with assessors throughout approximately twenty communities in Southern New Hampshire. The assessors were asked their professional opinion regarding demunation of property values in the presence of towers.  He said there were no instances known.  Mr. Hopkins provided the Board with a copy of his company’s study.


Mr. Tamposey expressed his opinion for the need of cellular phones and the importance of telecommunications towers.  At this point, Mr. Hopkins handed out line of site maps, and discussed the areas in Town that have terrain blockage, which would inhibit servicing certain areas.


Mr. Tamposey asked that the Town take the same approach as the Town of Meredith with regard to #3, the hardship criteria.  He explained that because of the overriding Federal Telecommunications Act, they have not been as strict with that criteria.


Mr. Tamposey discussed the necessity for this type of telecommunications service.  He ended by saying there are significant gaps in coverage in which the tall structures in the Town are not suitable.  He informed they have two signed leases for co-location, and last, at 250’ they can provide maximum coverage as well as co-location.


Mr. Sam Tamposey, General Partner, Second Generation Partnership, LP, informed that in addition to the two signed leases, they are actively in negotiation with two additional users for co-location. 




Mr. Jim Bundock, 20 Scenic View Drive, expressed his opinion that the case doesn’t meet the criteria for a variance and the uniqueness of the property could have other uses.  He said Article 10 doesn’t, and in effect doesn’t prohibit personal wireless services.  He believes it is in the Board’s right to deny the variance because the threshold for prohibiting personal wireless services is not completely seamless coverage.  He spoke of the Virginia Beach case.  Mr. Bundock then asked for clarification of Mr. Kozyra’s credentials, to which Mr. Kozyra explained that there is no designation for an R.F. Engineer in New Hampshire.  Mr. Kozyra said that he was accompanied by one of the senior R.F. Engineers of Telecorp and he informed that Telecorp has a staff of seasoned  R.F. Engineers who prepared the documentation presented.  Mr. Bundock  informed he has fifteen years experience of designing integrated circuit systems as well as modulated systems.  He further explained that Article 10 provides for the use of utility poles and the like and feels that the proposed use is not a hardship to the land, but a business proposition.  He said the threshold for preemption of local zoning by the Telecommunication Act has not been met, and was tested during the previous meeting for this case.  Mr. Bundock then spoke of the hardship criteria and explained that if the Board granted this variance they would have to for just about anybody because there is nothing about the property that distinguish it from other properties in the same area for suitability.  He then discussed Mr. Tamposey term of ‘necessary cell coverage’ and said it was relative to their company.  He said there could easily be multiple towers placed on telephone poles to cover a difficult corridor.  He ended by saying the threshold of a variance has nothing to do with how variances are granted in other towns, but has to do with hardship to land.  He said neighborhoods are about children laughing and community, not about commercial structures that desecrate the view.  He informed there is evidence, which demonstrates after a tower is put in place in an area where homes already exist, there was a decrease in property value of 20%-30%.


Mr. John Caradonna, Marie Avenue, spoke about the five criteria and noted the State’s regulation of hardship and discussed two cases.  He said the property owned by Second Generation Properties LP is a residential zone and therefore could be used for other purposes, such as residential development, agricultural, tree harvesting or elderly housing.  Therefore he feels that is the most important point in which the variance could be denied.  He said as a home owner, he prefers not living next to a tower and feels that if he were to sell his house, he wouldn’t get the customer base as compared to not living next to a tower.    He then spoke of the spirit of the ordinance and believes it was to promote competition in the Town, which the Town already has multiple carriers.  He ended by saying the biggest part of the test that fails is the hardship issue.


Mr. David Parola, 26 Scenic View Drive, agrees with the other people that spoke regarding the hardship criteria.  He said he will have a hardship looking at the tower everyday and doesn’t want it constructed.  He said the Town voters are not excluding wireless, but are controlling it.  He has a digital phone which he has had no problem losing the signal.


Ms. Holly Saurman, 6 Scenic View Drive, said she didn’t see that much difference from the last time they appeared before the Board, except the height is shorter.  Her concern was not so much the decrease in property value, but the quality of her life.  She asked if the tower would have blinking lights, Mr. Kozyra answered yes.  She ended by saying she hopes the Board would deny the plan.


Mr. Mike Soby, 9 Marie Avenue, wanted to point out that last time this case was heard (approx. 1998), he inquired if the value of his home would decrease and he found out it would by 10%-15% and now in 2000, the value would decrease by 15%-20%.  He informed that the street is a cul de sac and the tower would have a devastating effect on the neighborhood.  He also said that Marie Avenue floods during rainstorms and adding a road up to the tower would flood the area even more, which would devalue homes.


Mr. Tamposey reappeared before the Board to speak of the issues discussed.  He began with saying that the Telecommunications Act states that it is okay to have holes in coverage, but without the proposed tower, there would be broad no coverage areas.  He then had Mr. Kozyra speak.


Mr. Kozyra started by explaining that without the proposed tower, there would be a significant coverage gap of no service.  He said subscribers wouldn’t be able to use their phones at all in this area.  He informed that Telecorp has attempted to comply with the spirit of the ordinance in this area and others.  He said, to the best of their knowledge, they have exhausted all possible remedies (i.e. lack of water tanks, existing flag poles of appropriate size) in this area. 


Mr. Hopkins appeared again to say the Town could not be served from solely from the industrial/business zone.  He said the former Planning Board Chairperson, Heidi Griffin, asked if he would submit a map with the areas necessary for towers noted, which he did and should still be on record. 


Ms. Saurman stepped before the Board to speak again.  She said that a 250’ tower with blinking red lights is not a good neighbor.  She ended by saying it isn’t right and hopes the Board denies the case.


Mr. Caradonna  came before the Board again and asked for clarification regarding the gap coverage and if they are representative of a single service provider/carrier. 


Mr. Mike Notini, Omnipoint answered by saying that Omnipoint has the same large gap in service coverage as Telecorp. 


Mr. Caradonna said there are other carriers in the Town that provide coverage.  His house is located in the gap Telecorp shows, but he informed that three separate companies, with no problems service his residence.  Mr. Caradonna asked for clarification of a statement made by Mr. Hopkins at the prior meeting.  He said that Mr. Hopkins was asked if the Town would have coverage if a communications tower was located in the Southern part of Town and also in the Northwest corner at 200’.   He said that previously Mr. Hopkins answered yes to this question.  Mr. Hopkins stood by his previous statement and said that there should be a map with his notations on record, which was given to Ms. Heidi Griffin.


Mr. Bundock stepped before the Board once more to inform that when the map is closely viewed, it is clear that the proposed tower’s coverage radius would benefit Dracut MA, not the Town. 


Mr. Hennessey said that the marketing analysis didn’t show anything and noted that the first page shows that comps from 1995 - 2000 were used.  He said that doesn’t represent a fair sampling of property values due to the market appreciating approximately 1.5% a month.  Mr. Hopkins respectfully disagreed and said they have cataloged the property sales since the wireless industry began to become very active in New Hampshire.  Mr. Hopkins said if each year was viewed individually the information would validate there is no diminution of property value.  Mr. Hennessey said he questions the use of the comps and further stated they were insufficient to support the data.  He then asked Mr. Hopkins if the information on the maps that were provided to the Board contain the same information as the maps being presented.  Specifically he was interested to know if the maps show a hole created due to utilizing the Town’s commercial sites and that they support the information being presented.  Mr. Hopkins said the maps handed to the Board just highlight one of the issues of the industrial zone being authorized/allowing towers.  Mr. Hopkins explained that the maps being presented are the existing service facilities.


Mr. Hennessey asked why the mile range was changed on the second to last page of the information provided to the Board.  Mr. Hopkins said it just shows the blockage as being over a mile.  Mr. Hennessey then asked if the same range of data was being used on all the graphs.  Mr. Hopkins explained that the red lines are at different lengths, therefore the scale is changed on each page. 


Mr. Hennessey asked if the Pulpit Rock tower was noted on the maps being presented.  Mr. Kozyra answered yes.  Mr. Hopkins said the maps provided to the Board were only for representative purposes, and have nothing to do with Telecorp’s service.  Mr. Hennessey asked what the normal radius for a signal was.  Mr. Kozyra answered approximately 2-3miles based on topography.  Mr. Hennessey asked for clarification of the blockage shown on the information provided to the Board and the maps presented.  Mr. Kozyra answered by saying the maps provided only show line of site.  Mr. Hennessey asked if given the existing zoning, adequate coverage couldn’t be given to the ridgeline of Spaulding Hill to the West to the Hudson line.  Mr. Kozyra answered yes.  Mr. Hennessey then asked if the majority of property to the East of the Spaulding Hill ridge line could receive adequate coverage under the current zoning.  Mr. Kozyra answered no. 


Mr. Hennessey asked if it would be less torturous to the zoning laws to ask for a variance for the height restrictions, rather than the usage restrictions.  Mr. Kozyra said he was asked the same question by the Planning Board in January and said that no matter how tall the facility is made, it would create enough coverage for the Town because the signal eventually drops off.


Mr. Hennessey asked for a response regarding the hardship of land and if there could be other uses.  Mr. Tamposey said the land is zoned for residential, but the property hasn’t been reviewed for other uses. 


Mr. Hennessey asked how they have a hardship, if they could use the land for it’s zoned use since they are not asking for a special permit.  Mr. Tamposey asked to view from a telecommunications standpoint.  Mr. Hennessey ended by saying his understanding is that hardship is from the use of the land.


Ms. Carter asked if the owners of the tower in Hudson have been approached.  Mr. Kozyra answered no.  Ms. Carter then asked if Telecorp approached Second Generation.  Mr. Kozyra said that the proposal occurred before his employment, therefore, he wasn’t able to answer the question.  Ms. Carter wanted an explanation of why Telecorp isn’t able to service the Town as other companies do.  Mr. Kozyra answered to say that each company uses different technology, which creates different types of signals.  He went on to explain that the tower in Hudson (as informed by Mr. Hopkins) is a radio tower.  Ms. Carter said she was concerned with future variance requests if this one was granted.


Mr. McNamara asked what percent of the Town would be covered when the proposed Pulpit Rock and Pentecostal towers go online.  Mr. Kozyra said approximately 1/3 of the Town would be covered with those two sites as well as the Atwood Road tower.


Mr. Gleason asked why they are requesting a variance for 250’ when the ordinance specifies 199’.   He also asked if the gap of coverage is unique to their services.  He also wanted to know if the Town’s assessor had been approached.  He informed that they are required to investigate other sites and he hasn’t seen any documented evidence of such efforts.   He ended by saying he is concerned with granting a variance in a residential area for telecommunications where hardship hasn’t been demonstrated.   He asked if they have any documented evidence that research has been done on other sites and they were found to be inadequate.


Mr. Tamposey answered by saying they have no written documentation, but their engineers have informed that without this site, there would be gaps in coverage. 



Mr. Hennessey - No (not in the public interest, no hardship, may decrease value); Mr. McNamara - No (has not met hardship requirement); Ms. Carter - No (does not meet hardship criteria); Mr. Kosik - No (does not meet hardship requirement); Mr. Gleason - No (failed to adequately show hardship)





Mr. Bundock asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting.


CASE #2187 – ML 11-17/INDELICATO, Annmarie – 31 Woekel Circle - Seeking a variance to Article III, Section 307-12, Table 1 to waive the requirements for a lot to install a foundation and change the house from seasonal to a year round non-conforming lot.


Mr. Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.


Mr. Gleason read aloud Article III, Section 307-12.


Ms. Indelicato,  appeared before the Board to present Case #2187.  She explained that the frontage to the three-season cottage is 50x100’ and the existing house is 22’ wide which leaves 14’ on the sides, rather than the required 15’.  She said they would like to add a full-block foundation and make the cottage a year-round home.  Mr. Kosik asked if they would exceed the footprint.  Ms. Indelicato answered no.  Ms. Indelicato  informed that they are planning on buying the cottage and would like to add the foundation and also would like to add a second story.  Mr. Kosik asked the condition of the septic system.  Ms. Indelicato informed that it was checked and has passed inspection.  She said the well was tested and they will need to replace it. 


Ms. Indelicato read aloud the following five criteria:


Item #1.  There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: The existing dwelling will be of equal or greater value than the surrounding properties.  The proposed renovation will be esthetically pleasing and add to the property, thus having no adverse effect on surrounding properties.


Item #2.  It is in the public interest: The proposed use will add to the taxes being paid on the property.


Item #3.  There is significant hardship to the land:  There is no additional land to be purchased in order to conform to zoning.  We will not be able to use our land to it’s fullest potential if the variance is denied and non-conforming lines already exist.


Item #4.  There is substantial justice to be done:  The use we are seeking is a permitted use for that district.  The use we are seeking is consistent with uses of the surrounding lots.  The variance being granted will allow us to use our property in the same manner.


Item #5.  This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance:  If the variance is granted  we will meet all the other requirements the Town will place on us by just following the building code obtaining all necessary permits, etc.


Mr. Hennessey pointed out that 307-84 requires that the property owner should be the one to sign and appear before the Board.  Ms. Indelicato informed that the property owner signed a document, which states that they are acting as the property owner’s agent for securing any and all permits.  Mr. Kosik informed that Ms. Indelicato had authorization to represent the owner, he also informed that the application should have been made out in the property owner’s name. 


Mr. Hennessey added that when answering the public interest criteria (#2) the addition of taxes is not allowed to be sited.   


Ms. Indelicato asked to withdraw without prejudice.



CASE #2188 – ML 1-106/MORAN, James & Nancy –  3 McGrath Road – Seeking an equitable waiver of a 30’ setback pursuant to RSA 674:33-A


Mr. Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.


Mr. Dave Groff, appeared before the Board to represent the applicants.  Before he began, Mr. Kosik clarified that the house is existing.  Mr. Groff explained that the house has existed for 20 years.  He said the house had been sold and on record, a plan was discovered which violated the setbacks. 


Mr. Groff informed that the old plans are in archives, but went on to explain that in 1994 a subdivision was approved which showed the existing house with the setback.  He said now it is on record.  He discussed that in 1979 the former owner’s land was taken to improve McGrath Road and at the same time McGrath Road was raised and subsequently there is a large slope down to the house. 




Eleanor Burton inquired if the Town and/or State were liable, if the change was due to the road being put in.



Ms. Carter-Yes; Mr. Kosik-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes; Mr. Hennessey-Yes (meets 10 year equitable waiver); Mr. Gleason-Yes (meets equitable waiver)




CASE #2189 – ML 11-147 & 11-155/JACKSON, Sandra – Gaston Road - Seeking a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12, Table 1 to permit the reconstruction of an existing two-bedroom seasonal home and a lot containing 13,000 square feet and a non-conforming frontage and side setback into a year-round home situated in the same footprint as the previous building


Mr. Gleason read aloud the list of abutters.


Mr. Bill Mason, appeared before the Board to represent the applicant.  He began by reading aloud the answers to the five criteria.


Item #1.  There will be no decrease in the value of the surrounding properties: The proposed structure will be new and will be of equal or greater value of the surrounding properties and the use will be consistent with the surrounding properties.


Item #2.  It is in the public interest:  While the new residence will add tax revenues that’s being paid, the proposed new building will represent an improvement to the building and the grounds that presently exist on the site.


Item #3.  There is significant hardship to the land:  There is no additional land to purchase by the applicants to bring  the parcel in conformance with the current zoning.


Item #4.  There is substantial justice to be done:  The existing structure is in poor condition, and granting the variance will allow the applicant to rebuild a new and sound structure.


Item #5.  This request is within the spirit of the zoning ordinance:  Permits the applicant to use the property in an orderly fashion with upgrades in construction of electrical, plumbing and sewage disposal systems in conformance with the current municipal regulations.


Mr. Mason gave a brief history of the home.  He said currently the property has been condemned by the Town and is uninhabitable.  He said his clients would like to rebuild on the existing footprint a year-round two-bedroom home.   He noted that the septic design has been approved by the State and submitted to the Board.  He explained that the septic system design application submitted to the State noted that it was for a three-bedroom home.  He said the applicant wanted to ensure that the septic was over designed for sewage disposal. 


Mr. Kosik informed that the board doesn’t have copies of the recently stamped septic design.  Mr. Mason provided a copy and said that last month he submitted the required amount.  He went on to explain the location of the septic design and said that the plan contemplates a new artesian well.   Mr. Gleason asked where the approval stamp was.  Mr. Mason said he made a specific inquiry and was told that the plan had been approved. 


Mr. Hennessey asked if there was a dredge and fill on the plan.  Mr. Mason said there hasn’t been a request in conjunction with this request.  Ms. Carter said the notes referred to a dredge and fill.  Mr. Hennessey said there was a request in 1996. 


Mr. Hennessey asked if this house falls under the Shore Protection Act because it’s a non-conforming use that hasn’t been used for over a year.  Mr. Mason said the structure still exists and he isn’t aware of the date last occupied.  Mr. Hennessey read from the Model Shore Land Protection Ordinance (1996) which states:


“Existing uses which are non-conforming under this Ordinance may continue until the use ceases to be active or is discontinued for a period of one year.  The existing non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use.  Existing non-conforming uses should be required to meet the Shore-Land natural buffer, drainage and related water quality protection requirements of this Ordinance.  The maximum extent feasible.”



Mr. Hennessey said he didn’t know if the Board could approve because the house hadn’t been in use for more than a year.  Mr. Mason stepped in to say that he was unclear if it had to be in use.  He said as long as the structure exists and it hasn’t been abandoned and torn down.  Mr. Hennessey said his understanding is once a structure has been condemned, it can’t be used for residential use.  He asked if it was condemned more than a year ago.  Mr. Mason didn’t have that information.  Mr. Hennessey said there is a question if this has gone a year as a non-conforming use and said further he didn’t have a problem continuing this so the Board can inquire of Town Counsel.  Mr. McNamara would like to know the date that the structure was condemned.


Mr. Geason asked if there was any way to bring the building into conformance.  Mr. Mason said he went through the abutter’s list and said Gaston Street bisects the parcel. 


Mr. Kosik further discussed building on the parcel.  Mr. Hennessey said the Shore Line Protection Act provides that “existing, individual, undeveloped, non-conforming lots of record within the shore line may be used for purpose of constructing a single-family residential dwelling”.  Mr. Kosik referred to treating this as a piece of land, not an existing structure.  Mr. Hennessey said the Act allows for that.


Mr. Kosik said he would like to see an updated septic design with a recent State Stamp.  He also informed that traditionally the Board insists that the footprint remains the same, however, he wanted to know if the variance was granted would it be possible to move the house to more or less conform to the side setbacks.  Mr. Mason said if the Board found it more appropriate to center the house on the lot, it could be done. 



Mr. Hennessey-Yes (subject to State approved septic design on record at Pelham Planning Department); Mr. McNamara-Yes (condition upon showing approved septic system); Ms. Carter-Yes (with approved septic design); Mr. Gleason-Yes (contingent upon State approved septic design); Mr. Kosik-Yes (conditional approval, septic design from State)






August 14, 2000



(Gleason/Hennessey) To accept the minutes of the August 14, 2000 Board meeting as read



(3 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.


September 11, 2000



(Gleason/McNamara) To accept the minutes of the September 11, 2000 Board meeting as read.



(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.


Mr. Hennessey requested a session with Town Counsel to review the regulations and suggested that an annual meeting be set up and put into a request for budget.  He also noted if there are insufficient funds for a recording secretary, there should be a request for budget.


There was a brief discussion regarding the regulations and the type of information allowed to be sited by the State.



(Hennessey/McNamara)  To request money to meet with Town Counsel to discuss the regulations.



(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.





(Carter/Gleason) To adjourn the meeting.



(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.


The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 pm.


                                                                        Respectfully submitted,


                                                                        Charity A.L. Willis       

                                                                        Recording Secretary