11-8-10

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

November 8, 2010

The Chairman David Hennes= sey called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 pm.

The Secretary Robert Moll= oy called roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

David Hennessey, Svetlana Paliy, Robert Molloy, Peter McNamara, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Chris LaFrance, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gowan

Alternate Bill Kearney, Alternate= Lance Ouellette

Mr. Gowan noted that the = Board received advanced warning from Mr. Kearney that he would be unavailable.

CONTINUED HEARINGS

Case #2447 BOUTWEL= L, Nathan - 33 Windham Road - Map 22 Lot 8-138 – Seeking a Variance to Article III, Sections 307-7, 307-16 & 307-18 to permit development of a parcel of land (currently zoned Residential) under the Tow= n of Pelham Business Zone to allow the construction of a 15,000SF professional office building

Mr. Hennessey noted that = the case was continued from the previous month.&nbs= p; He asked that the variance criteria be read aloud.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis, representing (property owner/applicant) Nate Boutwell addressed the Board.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>    Mr. Boutwell and Mr. J= oseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering came forward. Attorney DeCarolis stated that the= laws had changed slightly since he had been before the Board last winter. He stated that RSA 673:33 pointed = out the criteria for a zoning ordinance. The Supreme Court Case of Malachy Glen pointed out that the first two criteria are similar. Attorney DeCarolis said as they offered last time, a stipulation regarding the desig= n of the building, additionally if the matter was approved they would be require= d to go to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval. The Planning Board would consider = such factors as hours of operation, lighting, parking, noise abatement, landscap= ing, buffers for the neighborhood, as well as health safety factors, septic syst= ems, drainage etc. The (proposed) = septic and drainage would be an improvement to what was currently there. The Malachy Glen case also address= ed the Substantial Justice criteria and stated that perhaps the only guiding rule = in this factor was that any loss to the individual that was not outweighed by = gain to the general public was an injustice.&nb= sp; Attorney DeCarolis believed the Board should question what gain would the public have by denying the variance.&n= bsp; If the variance was denied than the only lawful use of the property would then be residential; there would be a single-family home across the street from a very busy American Legion, whose time schedule would conflict= with a residential use (busiest in the evening and on weekends). The location of the property was o= n one of the busiest streets in Town and would only get busier once the rotary was completed (in the Town Center). Attorney DeCarolis believed an arg= ument could be made that a commercial property/office space would not be detrimental to neighboring uses because of the restrictions that could be put on at the Planning Board level. On the weekends/evenings the property would have very minimal use. The forth criteria regarding dimin= ution of surrounding properties was addressed by a letter submitted by Mr. Ed Ros= amilio of Re/Max who provided the opinion that the proposed use would enhance the surrounding property values. Attorney DeCarolis noted that the Master Plan talks about rezoning t= his area for this type of mixed use within the district; the proposed was consistent with the Master Plan. He pointed out that the area presently was a mixed zone, given the American Legion, the saddle shop, the churches, Senior Center, Senior Housing were all in the area. The parcel being discussed only abutted one residential parcel which was located immediately to the south. In addressing the hardship criteri= a, Attorney DeCarolis stated that health, safety and welfare would be addresse= d by having a proper septic design, drainage, fire protection, hours, architectu= re, buffer, noise and parking. He= said with all the conditions the Board could place made it so the plan was reaso= nable; they were not proposing retail space or manufacturing that would conflict w= ith residential use. The proposal= was for professional office space, which would have minimal intrusion on servic= es provided by the Town.

Attorney DeCarolis stated= that the property could be developed as residential, but the question was whethe= r it was reasonable for them to do so. By denying the variance, the Board would require the property to be developed = as residential with a very busy commercial operation across the street, a reta= il space next door and other mixed uses in the immediate area. Attorney DeCarolis submitted that = it would not be reasonable for the property to remain under residential use un= der these circumstances. The Mast= er Plan (August, 2002) addresses any areas in Town, but with respect to Pelham= Center, the recommendation was to continue to permit institutional uses in the residential zoning district to allow for mixed uses while protecting residential amenities. Attorn= ey DeCarolis stated that was exactly what they were proposing. He said they would also try to pre= serve the historical character through their plan. He said when the state adopted RSA= 674, the intent was stated for the Simplex standard to be incorporated for the hardship. In Simplex the Supr= eme Court said applicants for a variance may establish unnecessary hardship by proof that a zoning restriction as applied to their property interfered with the reasonable use of the property considering the unique setting of the property in its environment. = And no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and the specific restrictions of the property and the vari= ance would not injure the public or private rights of others. Attorney DeCarolis believed they m= et all the criteria with the proposed use not being out of character with the surrounding; it was a unique situation being so close to the American Legion and therefore the Simplex criteria were also met.

The criteria as submitted= read as follows:

The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because= : Many of the surrounding propertie= s are currently utilized as commercial properties.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed because: Property is in an area that has m= any commercial uses. Commerc= ial development will fit the character of the area. Once granted all other Town Ordinances will be met to the greatest extent possible.

Substantial justice is done because: Would allow property to be developed commercially as many neighboring properties are already developed. Granting this variance will a= llow development consistent with the surrounding area.

The values of surrounding properties are not diminished because:= Property has old home in poor shape. New development w= ill be in charter with the down town area and will be large improvement over = the existing situation.

Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it = from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:

&n= bsp;

(A)   For purposes of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means tha= t, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area:

&n= bsp;

i.      =            no fair and substantial relationship exists between= the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific applicat= ion of that provision to the property because: Property is located in part of Town with many small properties utilized commercially. Lot has good gr= ades, soils and Pennichuck Water. A commercial development of this property fits the character of the neighborh= ood.

ii.      =           the proposed use is a reasonable one because: Site is in area with water available f= orm Pennichuck. This along with s= andy soils make potential for a commercially sized septic system. These conditions along with this property’s location and the way many of the abutting properties are utilized make this an ideal property to be developed commercially.

(B)   If the criteria in subparagraph (A) above are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditio= ns of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. Many of the properties in this area are utilized commercially. This property’s location in = Town and the available services in this area make this an ideal location for some small commercial development that this property can provide. The Town’s own Master Plan h= as recommendations for the T= own Center that included mixed uses.

Mr. Maynard reviewed the plan. One question was the pe= rcent of green space; on the plan in front of the Board, 52% was shown as green space. He said there was an a= butter to the side of the parcel so they agreed to add additional screening by hav= ing a four foot (in height) berm on that side of the property. From a parking standpoint, if the variance were approved, they would discuss the issue (in conceptual form) w= ith the Planning Board. The would= work with the parking space numbers to bring it into some sort of conformance wi= th the amount of square footage (conceptually) that the Planning Board felt was acceptable.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= green space calculation anticipated the 15,000SF building. Mr. Maynard answered yes. Mr. McNamara questioned what parki= ng it anticipated. Mr. Maynard repl= ied that it anticipated the entire parking lot shown on the plan. Mr. Molloy wanted to know what per= cent of green space was currently available.&nb= sp; Mr. Maynard believed the lot was over 80% green presently. He noted if the lot was to be deve= loped residentially, they could construct a very large home, have a large parking area and a garage, which would whittle the green space number down. He said the existing home was constructed in the 1800’s and sat on the right of way line at the fro= nt of the property; the only improvement was a garage located in the rear of t= he home. There was over 300ft. o= f frontage with the property.

Mr. McNamara questioned h= ow long Mr. Boutwell owned the property. Mr. Maynard said it had been purchased this year. Mr. McNamara asked if the property= was purchased with the knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Boutwell indicated in the affirmative.

Mr. Molloy asked if the B= oard could address the proposed berm, or if it was something that was the Planni= ng Board’s purview. Mr. Hennessey said the Board could make conditions.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Henry Zannoni, 5 Mossey Lane came forward to speak in favor of the proposal.= He said he approved of the plan because he felt it would bring more people into Town to utilize the office space. He said it would also bring additi= onal revenue into the Town, which the Board should consider.

Attorney DeCarolis read a= loud the proposed condition they drafted for the Board’s consideration to addr= ess the design/style of the building and the concerns about the historical preserva= tion of Pelham Center : If the Variance = be granted the Board consider a stipulation that the exterior of the structure= be constructed in a manner and design consistent with the historical and colonial character = o f the existing structures, homes, churches and the former Town Hall as reason= ably determined by the Pelham Planning Board with input from the Pelham Historic= al Society.

Mr. Michael Moore, Jericho Road said he saw the existing building and thought it would be nice to put up a build= ing, such as was being proposed. H= e was in favor of beautification in the Town.&nb= sp; He has resided in the Town for over thirty years and looked forward = to driving on the roads and seeing the improvements. Mr. Moore said he was proud to sup= port the project.

Mr. Tim Zelonis, 2 Vassar Drive stepped forward to comment on Pelham’s Strategic Plan for Economic Development. He stated he was pro-development for this type of proposed development in Town. He said in the vision statement for economic development, they were looking for mixed use development that complimented the Town’s character.&n= bsp; He also read that the Town’s land use regulations would be streamlined and easier to navigate, sacrificing the appropriate care and scrutiny to allow such things to happen.&n= bsp; He said by allowing a little growth it would help stabilize the taxe= s.

Mr. Mike Hammar, 65 Garland Drive spoke in favor of the proposal for the same reasons discussed by Mr. Zelonis. He said it would also bring revenue into the Town. = It was his understanding that the property had not brought anything into Town for years and believed it would bring in a sizable amount of money to help offs= et taxes. Mr. Hammar felt it was= a great location for a professional building. The proposed building would be a pleasant change to the existing and would be a great thing to have.

Ms. Kelley Hazlewood, 23 Windham Road came forward to discuss the proposal. She had previously submitted a letter (dated October 15, 2010) to the Bo= ard, which Mr. Hennessey read aloud. Ms. Hazlewood was opposed the rezoning (development) of the property and felt business use belonged on Route 38. <= /span>She did not find it desirable to have the proposed building (and parking lot) adjacent to her property, given that the land for the senior center addition had been cleared (behind her property) and the American Legion was located across the street. She said f= encing had been put up on her property across from the Legion to maintain some sor= t of privacy. She noted in her let= ter that she had an above-ground pool beside the proposed parking lot and wante= d to enjoy its use and felt the proposed establishment would affect her quality = of living. She wrote that rezoni= ng the area would open the floodgates to others applying for a change of use. By allowing the development it cou= ld potentially change the neighborhood’s future. Ms. Hazlewood didn’t ‘= feel the proposed type of development was consistent with the neighborhood or the historical nature of Pelham’s center. She believed the property was purc= hased as residential and should remain as such.&= nbsp;

Ms. Hazlewood told the Bo= ard when they purchased their property six and a half years ago it was to raise their family in a residential area in the historical center of Pelham. They had worked hard to establish = a fun and safe environment for their children; a fence was put up to maintain that privacy from the Legion, and also to provide a safe environment for their children and pets. She said h= er children as well as other children were being picked up and dropped off by = the school bus on Windham Road= ; more traffic concerned them. = Ms. Hazlewood said a professional office usually came with referrals from other businesses, which would generate traffic from out of Town. She commented that most GPS device= s were not providing the correct addresses for the area due to the E911 number cha= nges which she felt would provide confusion and have vehicles turning around in = the nearest road/driveway available. She was concerned about the use of the entrance/exit of 33 Windham Road (American Legion) a= nd the volume of vehicles not being in comparison with residential use. She noted one of the entrance/exit points for the proposed was directly in line with the Legion parking lot, w= hich could make the area susceptible to accidents. Ms. Hazlewood said they felt the proposed business/professional use of the property would undermine the residential character of the neighborhood in the sense of making it too commercial. The rezoning of t= he property would make their house located in more of a business district and = have an impact to their property value due to the significant change of use. The owner purchased the property as residential and therefore didn’t have a hardship placed on him to kee= p it residential. Ms. Hazlewood sa= id the abutter (Alfred Huard) located at 15-17 Windham Road had an oversized garag= e on his property and fought the Town to allow a transmission business at the location; after a Supreme Court decision, such use was not granted. She told the Board that the Senior Center was located to the rear of her property, an oversized garage was on one side and the American Legion was across the street. She said the saddlery was the other abutter at 33 Windham Road= ; they would be surrounded by businesses in a residential zone. One of the parking lots would resi= de by the property line and had just a few trees that lost their leaves in the fa= ll; more trees would have to be taken down to fit the building onto the property making it overburdened with commercial use. The Hazlewoods used their outside property in the spring, summer and fall for entertaining. Ms. Hazlewood said it was stated t= hat the proposed building would have no windows on the second floor to protect their privacy, but from their standpoint they would be looking at the front= of the building. She said she wo= rked from home most weekdays and would be impacted by the sound of vehicles pull= ing in and out, vehicle doors opening/closing, snow removal, dumpsters being emptied, etc. They also heard= the dumpsters being emptied at the Legion and the Huard properties. She wanted to know what type of bu= ffer would allow them to maintain their privacy and eliminate the noise. She said they would always have co= ncerns about future changes with the variances.&n= bsp; Ms. Hazlewood noted that the (Town Center) rotary proj= ect had yet to begin and believed the proposed business could generate signific= ant traffic. They appreciated bri= nging new businesses into Town, just not in this neighborhood. Ms. Hazlewood said Route 38 had one hundred acres available for this type of use and didn’t feel it was justifiable to impose the business on them or the other abutters. Ms. Hazlewood provided the Board w= ith photographs of her property.

Mr. Hennessey asked if the Hazlewoods were the abutters on the side where the berm was being proposed. Mr. David Hazlewood= and Ms. Hazlewood answered yes. M= r. Hennessey asked for their reaction to the offer of the berm. Mr. Hazlewood said Mr. Boutwell to= ld them he would comply and put in a berm to their satisfaction. He questioned what the proposed fo= ur foot berm would block and noted that their swimming pool was four to six fe= et in height.

Jeannette and Thomas McCo= y 8 Greenwood Terrace came forward to oppose the proposal. Ms. McCoy didn’t want to see= a residential area turn into commercial.&nbs= p; She said it would be the biggest building in the Town Center. She wanted to know how the proposed parking spaces/traffic would affect the round-about. She asked if the proposed driveway= would be directly across the street from the Legion’s driveway.

Mr. Hennessey explained t= hat the applicant was in front of the Board to change the use of the Zoning from residential to commercial. If approved, the Planning Board would review the parking, design, driveways et= c.; the Zoning Board would not do that directly. The issue presently before the Boa= rd was if the applicant would be allowed to change the residential use to put in a commercial building. Mr. McCo= y said he wanted to protect the center of Town because there were other properties that contained 300ft. of frontage. He was concerned about others coming forward if the Board granted the variance for the applicant. B= oth Mr. and Ms. McCoy would like to leave the area as residential.

Mr. Ken Frechette, 52A Windham Road felt as though the property should be left as residential.

Mr. Frank Kirkpatrick, 7 Mossey Lane wasn’t sure if he was an abutter.&nb= sp; He said he moved into Town in 2007 and chose to do so because of the great atmosphere that the Town catered to.= He said when he was first approached about the project, he understoo= d it would be a small property with a cape style for a family real estate business. He said it caught h= is ear when the previous speaker mentioned the Supreme Court case regarding the transmission shop that was turned down.&nb= sp; Mr. Kirkpatrick stated the downtown area was quaint; the neighborhoo= d area was slim and losing a residential property would take away from neighborhood. He told the Boa= rd that he and his wife opposed the proposal.=

Ms. Mary Hayes, 12 Windham Road told the Board that she was not an abutter, but lived close enough to the property to see it from her home. She strongly disagreed with making the property commercial and didn’t understand why there was even a question because it was a residential zone. She understood about wa= nting more businesses in Town for the taxes etc., and pointed out that Route 38 w= as zoned commercial and suggested development occur there. Ms. Hayes stated Mr. Boutwell indi= cated during the site walk that he didn’t have tenants yet, so it was still unknown who would occupy the space. She said if there were no tenants, it could possibly end up being re= tail and a strip mall. She said the parking spaces were increasing. First she heard there would be forty spaces, now the applicant was saying it would be sixty spaces. She said she was home most of the week and didn’t appreciate the fact that there could be hundreds of cars going in and out of the parking lot all day long, all week long. Ms. Hayes noted that a round-about was going to be put in the center of Town and questioned what the proposed businesses would do to it. She told the Board that her son go= t on the bus in front of her home and there were three other bus stops in the immediate area. She felt it c= ould be a problem with children getting off the bus in the afternoon between 2:00pm and 3:30pm.= She wanted to know if she would have to worry about her other neighb= ors deciding to sell their houses and add office buildings if the applicant was allowed to receive a variance. She reiterated her feeling that the center of Town should be kept residential.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Attorney DeCarolis inform= ed that there was no proposal for retail use and agreed to a stipulation regarding such. He felt the point raise= d by Ms. Hazlewood about the conflict of the residential uses in the area unders= cored their argument about the reasonableness of the proposal. He said if the site was required t= o be residential the conflicts in the neighborhood would be more acute than what= the Hazlewoods experience because the proximity of the proposed property to the tack shop and the American Legion were closer. Attorney DeCarolis said the abutte= rs raised concerns regarding buffers to which they agreed completely that they were issues that need to be addressed by the Planning Board. He said the buffers, noise, lighti= ng and parking at the Planning Board level if they were to get there.

Mr. Gowan said the issue regarding the round-abouts and how the traffic from the project may/may not impact those round-abouts. The subject parcel was approximately 700ft. from the round-about. The design of the round-abouts was= to ease the congestion at the intersection and make it safer. Mr. Gowan didn’t believe tha= t the round-abouts would either be impacted or impact the ability for a parking l= ot to function.

Ms. Hayes wanted to know = how many tenants there would be if the building were to be office space. She commented if there were to be = six doctor’s offices, those doctors could have patients every half hour making it so each doctor had sixteen patients per day making a lot of traff= ic accessing the parking lot.

Mr. Hazlewood said it see= med the Legion kept coming into the discussion.&nb= sp; He questioned if it made it right to add more business to the neighborhood just because there were already businesses in the area.

Mr. Kirkpatrick discussed= the round-abouts and commented that 700ft. was not a long distance. He spoke of the current traffic and believed it would be made more difficult by having the proposed business.

Mr. Hennessey brought the discussion back to the Board. Mr. McNamara said one of the hardship prongs was that the use had to be a reasonable use. He believed f= rom a legal standpoint, given the surrounding, the Board would be hard pressed to= say that the use was unreasonable; the intensity of the use was a different question. Mr. McNamara stated= that the Board, under the case law following Simplex (under Malachy), was allowe= d to inquire as to the economics of a scaled back usage. He said the applicant purchased th= e land knowing there was a restriction, but judging on the use itself it would be difficult for the Board to say it was not a reasonable use. He felt the issue of intensity was= on a somewhat different level. Mr. Hennessey understood that when they (court) got rid of two prongs of the criteria (use vs. area) the economic analysis was also gone. Mr. McNamara believed the ‘reasonableness’ was included in Simplex criteria.

It was Attorney DeCarolis= ’ understanding under the new criteria they weren’t addressing financial hardship, but felt it was a legitimate question to ask why 15,000ft versus 10,000ft. Mr. Maynard said th= ey were involved with a lot of similar projects; the first thing reviewed was = what the property yielded, then they reviewed zoning. He said they always try to have a = fall back position if the Board didn’t agree with the proposal. It all came down to what they coul= d get for rent, to will it support the mortgage for the type of work there was. Mr. Maynard said when they determi= ned the ‘going rate’ for professional office space in Pelham, and t= he cost to construct the building, it was on the borderline of being feasible = for the investment.

Mr. McNamara said he had = been concerned about the green space, but hearing 52% somewhat calmed him.

Mr. Molloy asked if a stu= dy had been done for the relationship between the square feet of the building and = the number of parking spaces. Mr. McNamara said the regulations currently in place were (he felt) arbitrarily high. He said the Planning Bo= ard, in cases such as the proposed, typically received waivers for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces.&nbs= p; He didn’t recall a time when the Planning Board ever denied a waiver request. Mr. Maynard s= aid the waiver they would request would be for a reduction down to sixty spaces. Mr. Hennessey comment= ed that the site regulations called for approximately 150 spaces.

Mr. McNamara spoke about = the residential versus commercial use aspect.&= nbsp; He said it was a residential space, but based on the map provided to= the Board, the area was actually mixed use.&nb= sp; He believed the Board would legally on thin ground were they to say no. He realized putting anoth= er commercial development in the area impacted the residential people directly, the Board could do what they could to ease the burden, but didn’t see= how they could deny the request based on the criteria for use variance. Mr. Hennessey said the Board had a specific proposal before them, which was an extremely large structure in an area that has many small pieces in it.&nbs= p; He discussed the other case (Huard) that had previously been before = the Board. Mr. McNamara said there was a sepa= rate set of arguments for that case. Mr. Hennessey said his problem was not with having a commercial use on the property, it was the size of the proposed structure that altered the character.

Ms. Paliy believed the Bo= ard was trying to impose decisions on the Planning Board. She questioned if cutting the buil= ding down (in size) was in front of the Board (for decision). Mr. Hennessey said he wasn’t looking to negotiate; the plan in front of the Board was that currently bei= ng reviewed. Ms. Paliy felt the = Board should simply review the plan before them, not discuss previous cases. She was reviewing the plan asking = the question if it was reasonable to put a house on the lot given the surroundi= ng lots, business in the area, traffic and round-abouts. She said the abutters were providi= ng testimony to the fact that the area was already busy. She reiterated her question if a p= erson would invest to build a residential house.= Mr. Molloy said testimony was given that people purchased residential homes in the area six years ago. At that time the Legion and Pelham center were there. Mr. Hennessey referred to the opin= ion letter submitted by the applicant from Mr. Rosamilio who stated that the highest and best use for the property was probably commercial. He said there was a strong argument about the difficulties of building a new 1800SF-2400SF house and the abilit= y to recoup the investment.

Mr. Molloy said intensity= of use was also a factor. Mr. O’Sullivan commented that the case was interesting and couldn’t remember the last time that the decision seemed to be down the middle with = both the public supporters and the Board.

Ms. Paliy wanted to know = what was in front of the Board, either the size of the building, or that the building was to be commercial. Mr. McN= amara believed the only way the building size came under the Board’s consideration was because (in his opinion) the law incorporated some of the decisions in the Simplex case to interpret the language. He felt the only way the Board cou= ld discuss a scaled down version was if there was evidence of economic considerations. He believed t= he fact that the applicant purchased the property knowing there was a restrict= ed use played into the situation.

The Board reviewed the va= riance criteria. Attorney DeCarolis = asked if the Board would accept a point of order; they agreed that the courts fro= wned on ‘horse trading’ but would like to add a stipulation. The stipulation was that the varia= nce be approved on the condition that the size of the building be limited to 13,500SF. Mr. McNamara didn&#= 8217;t object to the stipulation. Mr. Molloy felt the Board should limit discussion to the point at hand. Attorney DeCarolis said he raised = the point of order on his belief that the Zoning Board had the authority to iss= ue conditions during an approval. Mr. Hennessey said the Board could make a motion for a stipulation, but he wasn’t going to accept a back and forth dialog. The Board continued their discussi= on regarding the variance criteria.

Mr. McNamara made a motio= n to condition a variance based on the language submitted by the applicant as follows, and as seconded by Mr. Molloy:&nb= sp;



MOTION:

(McNamara/Molloy) The e= xterior of the structure be constructed in a manner and design consistent with the historical and colonial character o f the existing structures, homes, churches and the former Town Hall as reasonably determined by the Pelham Planning Board with input from the Pelham Historical Society.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. McNamara then made a = motion to limit the square footage of the building to 13,500SF. There was no second to the motion.=



BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Hennessey – 1= ) No; 2) No; 3) Yes; 4) Yes; 5a) Yes; 5b) Yes

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – 1) Y= es; 2) Yes; 3) No; 4) No; 5a) No; 5b) No

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211; Yes to all criteria

VOTE:

(<= st1:date Year=3D"2000" Day=3D"2" Month=3D"3" w:st=3D"on">3-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Hennessey and = Mr. Molloy voted no.

VARIANCE APPROVED

MINUTES

MOTION:

(Molloy/McNamara) To ap= prove the September = 13, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Henness= ey abstained.

MOTION:

(McNamara/O’Sulli= van) To approve the O= ctober 14, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Molloy abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Molloy/O’Sulliva= n)To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:30 pm.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;   Respectfully submitted,

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;   Charity A. Landry Willis

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;   Recording Secretary