BOA 10-14-2004

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

October 14, 2004

The Chairman, Mr. Peter McNamara, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30= pm.

The Secretary, Mr. David Hennessey, called the roll:

PRESENT:

=

ABSENT:

Peter McNamara, Edmund Gl= eason, David Hennessey, Jeff Gowan, Svetlana (Beloritsky) Paliy (arrived after t= he meeting had commenced), Alternate Cindy Ronning

None.

Mr. McNamara appointed Ms. Ronning to vote for Ms. Pal= iy, until such time as she arrived.

REHEARING<= o:p>

Case #2289= – Golden Brook, LLC – Off Hobbs Road/ML 8/9-41 – Seeking A Varian= ce concerning Article III, Section 307-12 & 14 to permit the construction = of a single family dwelling on a lot without frontage within the Residential Zon= e

Mr. Hennessey read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Attorney David LeFevre of Bossie, Kelly, Hodes, Buckley & Wilson, P.A. appearing on behalf of Golden Brook, LLC and Mr. Donald Glass, Manager Golden Brook, LLC, met with the Board to discuss the reheari= ng of the Variance. Attorney LeF= evre said the argument was that the same variance had been given to people in an identical situation (same road, variance, use, section of the ordinance). He said they didn’t feel it = was fair and the denial of such rose to a level of unconstitutional taking, as = well as a violation to the applicant’s rights to equal protection. They preserved all other issues in= their motion for rehearing. In summ= ary the applicant was seeking a variance for the frontage requirements containe= d in the Town’s Zoning Requirements. The lot was located off a private deeded way (easement) not Town own= ed. They took the position that they w= ere entitled to the variance because the standard for unnecessary hardship has recently changed, and it was necessary for the applicant to make use of his property; there was no alternative to make use of the property without the = area variance. It is being propose= d as a residential use in a residential area.&nbs= p; It was noted that the parcel was approximately twelve acres, two of which are buildable. If neces= sary the application would put a turn-around for emergency vehicles exclusively = on the property; Attorney LeFevre said he spoke to the Town’s Fire Chief, who had no problem with a building being built in the back. He reiterated that substantial jus= tice would be done by giving the applicant what others had received. He ended by saying the home would = be of equal or greater value than the surrounding properties.

Mr. Gleason asked that the applicant address two points contained in the appeal attempt: 1) reach a deal with the current variance holders, which was denied by the neighbors. - Attorney LeFevre understood t= hat the Mr. Glass met with the neighbors but was not welcomed into whatever agreement there is; 2) availability of electric services (copy of right-of-= way was provided) – Attorney LeFevre said there was an easement to the po= wer company which clearly states utility easement for underground system that contemplates extending the system to other lots besides Mr. Pace’s lot.

Mr. Hennessey said point #14 addresses a policy; he clarified that there had been a change in the Town’s policy which required abutters on private ways to come to an agreement to maintain the roads. Attorney LeFevre under= stood that the Board was not prepared to grant a variance unless there was some s= ort of agreement in place by the abutters to take care of the maintenance. He said in this case the risk was already there because the variances were already there. Mr. Hennessey discussed the Town&#= 8217;s policy and was hesitant to grant a variance for a lot that may not be able = to be accessed. Attorney LeFevre= said the applicant had a right to get to his property and use it; it was underst= ood that the Town would not maintain the road, however, he took objection to the Board denying a variance prior to an agreement being in place (for reasons contained in his memorandum). He said one reason in particular was that three family members were residing in the neighborhood ‘holding out’ and affectively depriving the applicant use of his land; he pointed out that the family members may not always own the lots. He didn’t feel it unreasonable that if the Board so chose, it could requ= est a waiver, limits of liability, as a condition.

Ms. Ronning asked if the three family members had an agreement in writing. Attorney LeFevre didn’t know if an agreement was in place. Ms. Ronning asked if the family me= mbers had been approached. Mr. Glas= s said he asked Mr. Pace if he could participate in the maintenance/enhancement of= the road; the answer received was no, and if the lot was put in Mr. Pace would = be interested in subdividing his land. Attorney LeFevre noted that his client had originally purchased the = land to they could build their retirement home, but the undesirable situation occurring made his client not want to live there.

Ms. Paliy arrived.

Mr. McNamara asked if the crux of the argument was bec= ause the Board had granted three variances and the applicant was similarly situa= ted in all aspects (except he was not related); by rights/law the applicant was entitled to a variance. Hypothetically, Mr. McNamara wanted to know what would happen in the future if there was available land further up the road (and it was still no= t a public road), and that person gave the same argument being made today. He said the Board had to decide ea= ch case individually and wanted to know if the Board was now stopped from doing anything on this road and ‘rubber stamp’ variances ad infinitum= . Attorney LeFevre said right now th= ere were no other lots out there; there was however land out there and there wo= uld need to be a subdivision which would kick in the planning board’s authority. He said the applic= ant was identical to the other variances granted. Mr. McNamara asked when the o= ther variances were granted. Attor= ney LeFevre didn’t know. He= said his client was no different than anyone else, regarding purchasing the land with knowledge of restriction.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Kimberly Craven, who had resided in Town for twenty years, was interested in purchasing the applicant’s lot because their current house is too small. S= he said they were looking for land for a long time and would like to stay in t= he Town.



Ms. Deborah Elwell, 44a Hobbs Road, felt the applicant shou= ld be allowed to build on his property.

Mr. James Knight, 48 Hobbs Road, asked if the access road would be maintained by the Town. Mr. McNamara answered no. Mr. Kni= ght said the applicant had not approached the applicants regarding maintenance. He noted that the lot had been den= ied three times, and because it had been denied the last time, had spent $6000 = to grade and hot top the road. H= e was concerned that heavy equipment would destroy what he had just put in and wa= nted either the applicant or the Town should reimburse him for any damages.

Mr. Bob Pace, 31 Ken’s Way, asked what the front= age off Ken’s Way the proposed lot would have. Mr. McNamara was unsure. Mr. Pace said originally the width= was approximately 16ft. and believed a 25ft. easement was necessary to get powe= r to the lot. Mr. McNamara said so= me of the evidence presented was that there was an easement in place. Mr. Pace said he obtained an easem= ent from Mrs. Albertson and the Town to get power to his own property. He said there were two sections to= the power, the last box (end of Ken’s Way) was completely on his property= ; an easement would be needed to pull from it.&= nbsp; He noted that he owned five dry acres in the back that he could subdivide (with better frontage) and the owners of such would be coming in front of the Board for a similar variance.= He also noted that Mrs. Albertson had two lots in the back that could possibly be subdivided. In referenced to the maintenance, Mr. Pace said the burden was on his shoulders because he had the equipment to do so.&nbs= p; He ended by saying if the variance went through, he would be subdivi= ding his land.

Mr. Robert Chatel and Ms. Cathy Masson, Hearthstone Road, said they were th= e last family on Ken’s Way building. They reiterated that they had to ‘pull teeth’ to get the= ir variance, at which point the Board’s final words were that it would be the absolute last house without a Town approved road. Mr. Chatel clarified that the land= had been owned by Ms. Masson’s father, who gave it to them. He questioned how the applicant co= uld testify that he would maintain the property, if a different family would be living there.

Mr. William LeBoeuf, Pelham Realty Trust, an abutter o= n the other end of the swamp (off Woodlawn), said he didn’t know what was g= oing on with other variances, but said if the requested variance was granted, he would expect the same. He said there was approximately eighty acres. Mr. Hennessey said if a subdivision were to be done, it would go to = the Planning Board and a road would be put in.= Mr. LeBoeuf said the Town had rules; if there’s no frontage, there’s no lot.

Mr. McNamara asked the applicant if they had contacted= the abutters. Mr. Glass said he h= ad the opportunity to meet Mr. Pace who tracked out the property line. He said he told Mr. Pace that they= would be happy to participate in the maintenance of the road or in an association= to which Mr. Pace said he didn’t want anything to do with it. Mr. McNamara asked for response regarding construction trucks (and the like) going over the road. Attorney LeFevre said it was a pri= vate deeded right-of-way, which could be reasonably used by anyone that had it contained in their deed. He believed one of the problems with the abutters is that they didn’t understand what it meant to own property encumbered by an easement. Mr. McNamara asked for testimony regarding frontage. Attorney LeFevre said none of the lots had any frontage along a public right-of-way. Mr. Gleason wan= ted to know the width of the right-of-way. Attorney LeFevre was unsure, but believed it was approximately 15ft.= -20ft. Mr. Glass noted that large dump tr= ucks/backhoes had gone in to clean out the soil and had lots of room to turn-around. Attorney LeFevre said the Fire Chi= ef said he would be able to get in with his equipment, which he believed was t= he standard to go with.

Ms. Ronning asked for the length of Ken’s Way. Attorney LeFevre provided a copy o= f the tax map. Ms. Ronning believed= it was approximately 1000ft. or more. <= /span>

Mr. Gowan asked if a turn-around would need to be accommodated on the applicant’s property. Attorney LeFevre discussed the cur= vature of the right-of-way; the Fire Chief said he would be able to negotiate his trucks. The applicant was wil= ling to have a turn-around entirely on his own property if needed. Attorney LeFevre said another issu= e was cistern placement, but wouldn’t be an issue because they were located= on the water.

Mr. Hennessey said testimony was given that the road w= as improved by abutters ‘at their own risk’; he asked if the road = had been improved to ‘all weather’ to the corner of the applicant’s lot. Attorn= ey LeFevre said a portion was paved, but then turned into dirt road.

Mr. Gleason discussed the history of the variance, whi= ch had been denied (several years ago); the opposition was that there were toxic materials/gasoline on the site and was unfit. He also recalled that the statemen= t ‘this is the last time’ was in connection with a variance that had been all= owed to lapse and believed the statement was related to the specific applicant; = it was unknown that there was an additional lot in the back. Mr. Gleason said he read the appea= l and believed there was some logic in the fact that the Board had granted varian= ces in the past. He said he would rather there was an agreement in place with the applicant and the abutters. He said it appeared= that the circumstances were the same for the applicant as for the other families. He ended by saying = he felt there was some basis for a rehearing and for him revaluating his position. He said it had been clearly demonstrated that the applicant could secure access from the electr= ical terminal on the site. He didn’t think it was appropriate for people to come before the Board a= nd indicate if a variance was granted to a taxpayer/resident of Town that there would be a form of retribution of other land being opened up.

Mr. Hennessey said his emphasis on the agreement was b= ased upon his experience that a lot of lenders insist on seeing some sort of maintenance agreement on a road to get to a lot in the absence of a public right-of-way; values could be affected.&nb= sp; He felt there should be an agreement. He believed there was a difference= in the lot compared to those granted a variance in the past; there had been a chan= ge in state and the Town’s policy toward private rights of way. He believed the last variance was = an exception because it was a lapsed variance; the Town’s policy was discussed and the Board expressed the reluctance to grant the lots; what ‘tipped the balance’ was the fact that the variance had been approved before the Town’s policy changed.

Ms. Ronning said there had been trouble on the other s= ide of Town with private right-of-ways, building houses and having family members trying to sell.

Mr. Gowan felt the applicant made a persuasive argument. He said this was a = case that homes should not be built on any private roads, but that isn’t h= ow things are. Based upon the arguments made, he was inclined to support the variance.

Mr. McNamara believed that everyone could agree that t= hese kinds of homes on private ways aren’t particularly good. He believed the applicant had met = the hardship criteria and the second prong (access); he went on to review the o= ther criteria.

Ms. Ronning asked if betterment fees could be collecte= d when new houses were built. Mr. Mc= Namara said at the last Planning Board meeting it was found out that such fees cou= ld not be collected on certain properties.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara believed the Planning Board could impose an off-site fe= e to develop the road. Ms. Ronning= asked if there was a way to play money into an escrow account for further development. Mr. McNamara ans= wered no. Mr. Gowan said that would be at the Planning Board level, not the Board of Adjustment.

The Board further discussed the variance request.

BALLOT VOTE= :

=

Mr. McNamara – 1) Yes; 2) Yes; 3) Yes; 4)Yes; = 5) Yes

Mr. Gleason – 1)Yes; 2) Yes; 3) Yes; 4) Yes; 5= ) Yes

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

Mr. Gowan – 1) Yes; 2) Yes; 3) Yes; 4) Yes; 5)= Yes

=

VOTE:<= /o:p>

Ms. Ronning – 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) Yes; 4) Yes; 5= ) Yes

(3-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. Henne= ssey and Ms. Ronning voted No.

VARIANCE APPR= OVED

CONTINUED<= o:p>

Mr. McNamara informed that Ms. Paliy would vote for the remaining cases.

Case #2295= – BOUCHER, Barbara – Gibson Road/ML 6/4-166 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 & 14 to permit the creation of a= lot with frontage on a class VI road within a Residential Zone. =

Mr. Hennessey read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis, representing the applicant, m= et with the Board to discuss the requested variance. He said procedurally, meeting with= the Board was the first step in creating a single family lot; they would still = need to go before the Planning Board as well as the Board of Selectmen (because there was frontage on a Class VI road). He said they would nee= d to sign a declaration (waiver of liability) for the frontage along the Class VI road, that would be presented to the Town.= He noted there was over 500ft. of road frontage along Old Gibson Road (Class VI) and the termination of the Class V portion was at the applicant’s property. Attorney DeCarolis said there woul= d be sufficient frontage on the Class V road for the existing driveway; the crea= ted lot would be separate and would come off of Gibson Road. There will be no increase in use o= f the Class VI roadway. Attorney DeCarolis felt this met the hardship criteria, which are outlined (as submitted) below:

Item #1= . The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: There will be no impact on the surroun= ding property as the proposed use is a residential home on approximately 2 acres= and over 200 feet of frontage on a Class VI road. The use is permitted in the zone a= nd consistent with the area.

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The use is permitted. The Town will not be responsible to maintain the roadway frontage. The driveway servicing the propert= y will be off the Class V road.

Item #3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because: =

a) the zoning restriction as applied to their property interferes with the reasonable use of the propert= y, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that= : The applicant owns approximately 37 acres, but only one home is presently allow= ed because of its unique setting on a Class IV road.

b) that no fair and substan= tial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because: The property could be developed by a conventional subdivision.&n= bsp; The proposed variance allows reasonable use of the property with min= imal disturbance to the environment.

c) the variance would not i= njure the public or private rights of others since: The proposed use is consistent with the rural residential use of the area.

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would permit a lot that exceeds all dimensional requirements of the zoning ordina= nce, not create any new road for the town to maintain and permits use consistent with the zone. All state and = local regulations regarding well, septic, drainage and wetlands will be adhered t= o.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: The area is zon= ed residential and that is what is proposed.

Mr. Hennessey asked if the Class VI portion of the roa= d had been closed by Town Vote. Att= orney DeCarolis didn’t know. = Mr. Hennessey said the fact that the Class VI portion wouldn’t be touched made the variance attractive. Attorney DeCarolis confirmed that there would be no work on the Clas= s VI portion. Mr. Gleason question= ed where the frontage would be. Attorney DeCarolis reviewed the plan and showed the cul-de-sac, the existing driveway and where the proposed driveway would come in. It was reiterated that the plan would need to be reviewed by the Planning Board as well as the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. McNamara asked if the Police and Fire access would= be through Hudson. Attorney DeCarolis said all of Gibson Road= was served through Hudson (there were six parcels, including AT&T). It was understood by Attorney DeCa= rolis that every variance stood on its own merits.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. William Hayes, Pinewood Drive, who had been involved with this part of Pelham for the past thirty years assembling parcels that have resulted in t= he Park Complex, was in favor of the variance. He believed granting the variance = would be consistent with what they were doing in the area. He showed a map of the area. Mr. Hayes said he had discussed the variance with the Fire Chief and the Highway Agent neither of which had problems. He said he hadnR= 17;t seen a case that he felt more closely fit the new standard for a frontage variance.

Mr. Gleason said based upon the testimony and data, he= would lean in favor of the variance. Mr. Hennessey pointed out that the protection of the Class VI road was unique a= nd different from other variances that had been before the Board.

BALLOT VOTE= :

=

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Gleason – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Gowan – Yes to all criteria

=

VOTE:<= /o:p>

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

(5-0-0) The motion ca= rried.

VARIANCE APPR= OVED

Case #2296= – KOBRENSKI, Derrick – 148-136 Old Gage Hill Road North/ML 17/12-271 &a= mp; 269 – Seeking a Special Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307= -76 (III) to permit a Firewood Business within the Residential Zone.

Mr. McNamara said the case was heard at the last meeti= ng after which, the Board (Mr. Gowan, Mr. Gleason, Mr. McNamara) had conducted= a site walk and heard the machinery proposed to be used for the business. Mr. Hennessey said he came in late= at the hearing, but has since heard the entire hearing (via television); he sa= id he would recuse himself if the Board wanted. The Board didn’t have a prob= lem with Mr. Hennessey remaining seated for the case.

Mr. Derrick Kobrenski met with the Board to discuss hi= s request for a Special Exception. Mr. McNamara asked if anything had transpired since the last meeting. Mr. Kobrenski said he had not hear= d back from the Building Inspector regarding constructing a building. He said it was not feasible to tak= e the lot out of current use to be able to put a building up; it would be very costly.

Mr. Gowan gave a description of what occurred during t= he site walk. He noted the conce= rns of the abutters (i.e. noise, traffic, environmental) and what suggestions had = been made to help alleviate the concerns (i.e. enclose portion of area where wor= k is done, replace chain saw with hydraulic, time of delivery, capture hydraulic fluid/fuel, pad to hold fluids). Ms. Paliy asked if the neighbors could hear the noise. Mr. Gowan said they went to the abutter’s site; the noise could be heard (like a lawnmower in the distance), the chainsaw could also be heard. Mr. McNamara noted that there were= a lot of things heard in the area (i.e. music, another chainsaw that went on for = some time).

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Arthur Buxton, Kennedy Drive, said his opposition was the noise and t= he hours of operation, which he didn’t feel fit in a residential area. He was also concerned with spillag= e in the area and the deliveries. = Mr. Hennessey said he noticed a lot of trucks when he visited the site and want= ed to know if the abutters were currently bothered by truck traffic. Mr. Buxton answered no.

Mr. Ron Belden, Kennedy Drive, was concerned not only about traffic, b= ut also how other business would be stopped from coming in if the variance was granted. He noted the traffic safety issue with trucks coming through.&n= bsp;

Mr. Doug Brandin, 142 Old Gage Hill Road, said he was the closest abutter to Mr. Kobrenski. He = said he had spent a great deal of money on his property and didn’t want to hear the noise all the time. = He said the operation had already stopped, but wood was still being delivered. He believed there = would be a dust issue once the area dried out.&n= bsp; He was concerned if the variance was granted it would open it up to everyone.

Mr. McNamara said in the event that the special except= ion was granted, the applicant would need to go before the Planning Board for s= ite plan approval. Mr. Gleason re= viewed the provisions of 307-76 which included that a harmonious balance was needed between the occupation and the abutting residences. He then reviewed the issues and sa= id he believed the noise was the most significant issue; regarding the traffic, the road currently has a lot of traffic; concerning environmental issues, he didn’t feel there was an environmental issue, that it could be addres= sed. Mr. Gleason was disappointed that = the operation would not be enclosed. Mr. Hennessey said there were two criteria regarding traffic; one be= ing ‘…delivery of goods and materials being associated with residential deliveries..’= ;; he didn’t feel a lumber truck could be called a ‘residential delivery’. Mr. Gowan sa= id this part of Town was not just residential, but was also an agricultural ar= ea; which to him was the distinguishing factor of the request. He said were this to come to a vot= e, he had a list of conditions (which he usually was not in favor of).

Mr. Hennessey asked if the property would still be eli= gible under current use even if the business was in effect. Mr. Kobrenski said according to the Department of Agriculture, it is a grey area (there was nothing that said firewood could, or could not be done); however they were willing to leave i= t in current use as long as there were no structures put up. He noted that the road was a state= road with no postings (for trucks, or weight limits).

Mr. McNamara asked how frequently the logging truck wo= uld deliver to the property. Mr. Kobrenski said he was able to schedule deliveries. Mr. McNamara asked how many delive= ries would be made from the property. Mr. Kobrenski said it was a seasonal business; he loaded his truck during the weekday evenings and would take his delivery with him to work; on Saturday he would make a lot of trips (anywhere between 5 to 15). Most of the cutting was done in the summer.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the conditions that must be met = for a Special Exception to be granted.

Mr. Gowan reviewed the list of conditions that he had compiled: 1) noise – either build a structure to enclose the cutting/= splitting operation or purchase hydraulic splitter to replace chainsaw component; 2) applicant mentioned he had disabled the backup beepers on the loaders (which may not be able to be a condition); 3) traffic safety- limiting delivery of logs to times well beyond the typical school bus pick up/drop off times; 4) environmental – build a pad of some type (Planning Board could specif= y) under the cutting/splitting apparatus that would be sufficient to hold all liquids (hydraulic/fuel) in the pad should there be a leak also some sort of pad where the loading equipment sits and is fueled to contain any spillage during fuelling; 5) no additional lighting accept over the actual cutting machine; 6) no trees from the property to be cut as part of the operation (= retaining rights for intent to cut); 7) business remaining as what was reviewed (not adding employees or growing to a larger scale); 8) restriction of hours = 211; weekdays 4pm -7pm – Saturday 8am-4pm – Sunday 10am-2pm.

After a brief discussion by the Board the following mo= tion was made:

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Gowan/McNamara) Conditions for any approval would b= e as follows: 1) Noise - To either construct an enclosure for the cutting/splitting equipment or to purchase a hydraulic splitter to elimin= ate the chainsaw component; 2) Traffic safety- the delivery of logs to be lim= ited to hours outside school bus pick up/drop off; 3) Environmental – a = pad be build under the splitting/cutting equipment capable of holding the tot= al of all fluids held in the equipment – a similar pad is also to be constructed under the loaders and the truck adequate to capture any fuel/hydraulic fluid from them; 4) Hours – limited to weekdays from 4pm-7pm; Saturday 8am-4pm; Sunday 10am-2pm.

=

VOTE:

(2-3-0) The motion failed. Mr. Gleason, Mr. Hennessey and M= s. Paliy voted no.

BALLOT VOTE= :

=

Mr. McNamara – Yes

Mr. Gleason – No

Mr. Hennessey – No

Mr. Gowan – Yes

=

VOTE:<= /o:p>

Ms. Paliy – No

(2-3-0) The motion failed. Mr. Gleason, Mr. Hennessey and M= s. Paliy voted no.

SPECIAL EXCEP= TION DENIED

Case #2297= – MELANSON, Carl & DRISCOLL, Cheri – 57 Mammoth Road ML 33/1-46 = 211; Seeking a Variance concerning Article III & V, Section 307-8 & 18 to permit the operation of a pre-existing convenience store in a Residential Z= one.

Mr. McNamara said the applicant requested that their c= ase be postponed until = November 8, 2004.

The case will be placed on the November 8, 2004 meeting agenda.

Case #2298= – AUGENSTEIN, Linda – 303 Gage Hill Road/ML 16/13-116 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the construction = of a duplex on a lot that does not meet the required 2 acres of land in a Residential Zone

Mr. Hennessey read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with= notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. McNamara told the Board that he knew Linda Augenst= ein from Town and church but did not socialize with her. He did not feel that it would affe= ct his ability to make a fair and impartial decision in the case. The Board did not object to Mr. Mc= Namara remaining seated to hear the case. <= /span>

Ms. Linda Augenstein came before the Board to discuss = her Variance request. She explain= ed that her understanding was her lot contained two acres; however when she was having her septic design done, the survey showed her lot to be 1.86 (short approximately 6000SF). She no= ted that she had an approved septic design from the state. Ms. Augenstein read the variance criteria aloud as follows:

Item #1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: The proposed structure will be of lesser or equal value than the surrounding properties and will be aesthetically pleasing, adding to the property and having no adverse effect on surrounding property.

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The proposed use will add to the taxes paid on the property.

Item #3 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance result in unnecessary hardship:

a= )      = the area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property because: I will not be able to use my land to its fullest potential if this variance is denied and non-conforming lines already exist.

b= )      = the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: There is no addition= al land to be purchased in order to conform to zoning.

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: The use being requested is a permitted use for the district.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: The use being r= equested is consistent with use of surroundings.&nb= sp; The variance being requested is to waive only one of the zoning requirements, and will meet all other setbacks and codes.

Ms. Augenstien said her original deed said two acres (= plus or minus). She went on to exp= lain that originally she had planned to tear the existing house down and build a larger home, but after a discussion with the Building Inspector made the decision to instead construct a duplex (keeping the existing home and constructing an addition). Sh= e said that the setback requirements were met and informed that the addition would= be built toward the back of the existing home, thereby increasing the setback.

Mr. Gowan asked if the entire property was high and dry. Ms. Augenstein answered = yes.

Ms. Ronning asked if the septic design was for six bedrooms. Ms. Augenstein answ= ered yes.

Mr. McNamara read a letter (dated October 9, 2004) aloud that h= ad been submitted by Adam & Marie Wolf (299 Gage Hill Road), abutters who were in favor of= the variance.

BALLOT VOTE= :

=

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria.

Mr. Gleason – Yes to all criteria.

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria.

Mr. Gowan – Yes to all criteria.

=

VOTE:<= /o:p>

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria.

(5-0-0) The motion ca= rried.

VARIANCE GRAN= TED

Case #2299= TWO M CONSTRUCTION – Off Benoit Avenue/ML 6/4-180-17 – Seeking a Vari= ance concerning Article III, Section 307-13 & 14 to permit the creation of l= ots without the required 200ft. of frontage within the Residential Zone

Mr. Hennessey read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Michael Farris and Mr. Michael McCarthy, property = owners, met with the Board to discuss their Variance request. Mr. Farris said they had been befo= re the Board a couple years ago for essentially the same variance, but the Board w= as uncomfortable making a decision and asked them to speak to the Planning Boa= rd for a recommendation. He said= when they went before the Planning Board, the Planning Board felt they had no jurisdiction and felt the only concern was the adjacency to the wetland whi= ch the Board of Adjustment would need to make a decision regarding that issue. Mr. Farris said he app= lied for and received a state wetlands permit to allow a bridge to access the property in the back (that would have little/no impact on the wetlands); th= is process took approximately one year. He then reviewed the plan and showed what they were proposing (2-lot subdivision, with one lot having reduced frontage). He showed the current Town open sp= ace area and said they were willing to donate open space (with a 23foot frontage access).

Contained in the application was the variance criteria= form; the applicant completed both the use and area criteria questions; Mr. Farris read such into the record as follows:

Item #1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: The proposed lot for residential use exceeds normally required standards.

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The proposed residential use supports the reasonable use of the property and will add additional tax revenue currently being paid on the property.

Item #3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because: =

a) the zoning restriction as applied to their property interferes with the reasonable use of the propert= y, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that: Available upland area exists, as well as land area; however a wetland water course prohibits its use as available contiguous upland area directly adjac= ent to the right-of-way.

b) that no fair and substan= tial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because: “Backlot” standards are provided as an option for lot shape for reasonable developmen= t of the property.

c) the variance would not i= njure the public or private rights of others since: The proposed use is currently= on an existing public right-of-way and is adjacent to existing residential use= s.

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would allow reasonable use of the property.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: “Backlot&= #8221; standards are provided as an option for lot shape for reasonable developmen= t of the property.

Area variance criteria:

Item #3 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance result in unnecessary hardship:

a= )      = the area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property because: Available la= nd area is available by meeting “Backlot” standards of the subdivi= sion regulations.

b= )      = the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: A wetland water cour= se prohibits contiguous area of which is available by crossing a wetland.

Mr. McNamara confirmed that the lot was currently conforming. Mr. Farris answer= ed yes. Mr. McNamara went on to confirm that the applicants were requesting the Board to grant a variance to create a non-conforming lot so they could go to the Planning Board and say = that the parcel met ‘backlot’ criteria. Mr. Farris answered yes.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman Conservation Commission, said = the parcel was originally part of a subdivision plan that was presented to the Planning Board in the spring of 2001 which was then referred to the Conservation Commission for environmental input because it was adjacent to/= and abutted a prime wetland. On A= pril 11, 2001 the Conservation Commission heard the plan and at that meeting felt there was an adjacency issue (to prime wetlands requiring additional protection), at which point the plan was deferred to the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’). Mr. Yarmo wrote Dr. Frank Richards= on, DES Wetland Bureau on April 23, 2001 requesting him to review the site and = determine if an adjacency existed; subsequently a meeting was held at the site with P= eter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, Jim Gove of Gove Environmental, Dr. Richardson= of DES, Mr. Yarmo and other members of the Conservation Commission; during the site walk Dr. Richardson said (to everyone present) that the parcel was too environmentally sensitive and the prime wetland could not withstand construction activity, nor could it withstand the subsequent human activity= of having a house lot there. In summary Dr. Richardson determined that an adjacency issue existed (which wo= uld require a public hearing within 90-days).&= nbsp; Mr. Yarmo said there was further conversation of how to avoid the ad= jacency issue and determined it could not be done, other than deleting the lot. An agreement was made on that day,= on the site with the members present that the lot would be deleted; subsequent= ly the lot was deleted and the plan continued to the Planning Board and was approved. It was Mr. Yarmo= 217;s opinion that Dr. Richardson made a mistake, or forgot the previous meeting = when signing the permit.

The history of the case was reviewed; Mr. McNamara dis= cussed the action that had been taken by the Planning Board, specifically that the former Planning Director had indicated that the case was ‘withdrawn’ in 2003 both the subdivision and the request for a variance. However, the applic= ant was under the impression that the application was ‘tabled’.

Mr. Hennessey asked if the access and open space are b= eing proposed would offset the adjacency issue.= Mr. Yarmo discussed the property and answered no. Mr. Hennessey pointed out to gain = access to the open space the wetland would have to be crossed.

Mr. Darren Martin, 21 Benoit Avenue handed the Board a memo that outlined his reasons for opposing the requested variance. In summary the issues were as foll= ows: 1) original subdivision approved for 7-lots; 2) increase in traffic; 3) allowing developers to bypass frontage laws will decrease property values; = 4) builders were aware of frontage requirements when parcel was subdivided = 211; had the opportunity to reconfigure; 5) character of street would be diminis= hed; 6) allowing developers to sidestep laws shows it pays off not to follow laws – not fair to make exceptions for convenience; 7) additional houses n= ot in Town’s or neighbor’s best interest; 8) additional tax revenue not worth bypassing laws; 9) offered land to state, Planning Board and Boar= d of Adjustment – can’t offer something that is a condition of approval. Mr. Martin ended by informing that he had been in contact with the State requesting a rehearing because abutters not properly notified when permit was issues.

Mr. Tim Lepine, Benoit Avenue, said he was the first person to build a house in the area and noted that he had a fax from Prudential stating for an additional $10,000 one house could be built on the lot in question. He said there were some major engineering issues that would need to be reviewed. He said the additional lot appeare= d to be motivated by wanting additional money.&= nbsp;

Mr. Tom Domenico, Benoit Avenue, submitted a letter that was composed by one of the abutters to the parcel. He then read aloud a petition that had been signed by every resident within 1000feet of the parc= el in question. In summary the petitioners concurred that granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest (a brief history was included in the summary) and had the potential to destroy the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Domenico ended by noting that = the developer purchased the parcel (three years ago) with knowledge of the situation. He felt the laws in place should be followed.

Mr. William Hayes, 9 Pinewood Drive, spoke as someone interested in= the park, which he noted was the largest abutter to the lot. He circulated an enlarged copy of = the tax map that classified the area as ‘conservation land’. He described the area to be a recreation, conservation and steep-sloped area that is next to a prime wetl= and. He said there were no special cond= itions inherent with this property that were not shared in common with other properties in the area (there are forty-two lots with two acres with less t= han 400ft. frontage). He cited the Crossley v. Town of Pelham case which he felt was similar to the present case. He continued review of the criteri= a and didn’t know what distinguished the parcel in question with the approximately forty-two other lots in Town that had similar conditions.

Mr. Farris was then allowed to respond to the abutter&= #8217;s concerns. He explained that t= hey purchased the seven lot subdivision, and it was the previous developer that= had met with DES. He also said th= at the Town developed steep slopes all the time (using Meadowview as an example).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> In closing Mr. Farris said he beli= eved that the original plan didn’t address the adjacency issue, and was not approved; however, the proposed plan addressed the issue and was signed off= on by Dr. Richardson. He said the bridge would not have much of an impact to the wetlands. He said if the lot was approved th= e Town would have better control over the ‘human’ activity. He said the testimony was that the original developer conceded the lot in an effort to save time in Planning B= oard review; and he therefore took the time to come up with a plan that met both= the state’s and Town’s needs. He then noted that the prime wetland located in the area proposed for access was a small stream that could be stepped over.

Mr. Hennessey asked if there were no cut restrictions currently placed on the lot by the Planning Board. Mr. Farris said the Planning Board= would review after the Board of Adjustment; the only issue they addressed was the wetlands.

Mr. McNamara, who was on the Planning Board when the p= lan was reviewed in 2002 said a site walk was conducted and noted that the abutter’s testimony was correct regarding the hills, wetlands and the adjacency. The former develop= er had planned to build a steel bridge; the Planning Board was extremely skeptical; this is a very unusual/difficult spot to build that was withdrawn (after in= put from the Conservation Commission and Dr. Richardson) because of such. He said the most recent permit fro= m Dr. Richardson was troubling. Mr. McNamara said the present lot had a sufficient amount of frontage and the B= oard was being asked to create a non-conforming lot so that non-conformity could= be brought to the Planning Board and used to create a backlot situation. He believed the purpose of the bac= klot was to allow people who don’t have frontage (or access) to gain access.

Mr. Gleason had serious concern with the case because:= 1) the disturbance to the wetlands; 2) if lot (and bridge) created the Town wi= ll have to take care of it; and 3) contrary to preference to create a conformi= ng lot. He was not in favor of the propose= d.

Mr. Hennessey reviewed the application submitted to the Board in comparison to the hardship criteria, which he felt was not met.

BALLOT VOTE= :

=

Mr. McNamara – 1) No; 2) No; 3) No; 4) No; 5) = No

Mr. Gleason – 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) No; 4) No; 5) = No

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

Mr. Gowan – 1) No; 2) No; 3) No; 4) No; 5) No<= /p>
Ms. Paliy – 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) No; 4) No; 5) No=

VOTE:<= /o:p>

(0-5-0) The motion fa= iled.

VARIANCE DENI= ED

HEARING(S)=

Case #2300= – PARECE, David & Florence – 21 Jones Road/ML 39/1-75 – Seeki= ng a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 & 307-14 to permit the construction of a house and remove and existing house on a lot with 100ft. = of frontage on a private road.

Mr. Hennessey read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Gleason said he was familiar with the applicant th= rough Little League, but believed he could remain impartial. The Board did not have a problem w= ith Mr. Gleason remaining seated.

Patricia and Mark Parece (son & daughter-in-law to= David & Florence Parece) met with the Board to discuss the requested variance. Ms. Parece discussed their intent to demolish the existing home and construct a new home (approximately 60ft. further from the water than the existing home is now).

Item #1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: Constructing a new house will add to the property value and the surrounding lots (every surrounding house is new – photographs showing the surrounding construction was submitted).

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: Increase the value taxes being paid for the property, with no detrimental impact to the public.

Item #3 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance result in unnecessary hardship:

a= )      = the area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property because: The property currently already has a year-round house on it the applicant merely wishes = to maintain the same, but construct a new home meeting all the setbacks.

b= )      = the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: The proposed use does not conflict with any of the purposes stated= in Article I, Section 307-2 since all of the work would be done within the boundary of the owner’s property.

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: Will all= ow the applicant to maintain a similar use on the property but be able to repl= ace an older building with a new building which would meet all building health safety codes and would be comparable to surrounding homes.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: It is an allowed use in a residential zone already. <= /span>

Mr. Gleason asked if the septic had been approved. Mr. Parece said the design was bei= ng sent to the state. Mr. Gleason asked what the setbacks would be. It was noted that the setbacks would be met.

Mr. Gowan asked what the current house was using for s= eptic system. Ms. Parece said the c= urrent septic system was in place since 1949; the proposed new system is brand new. Mr. Gleason asked if the surrounding lots were also non-conforming (small) lots. Ms. Parece answered yes (with the exception of Mr. Michael Farris who had two lots). Mr. Hennessey confirmed that they = would be further away from the pond than the existing home. It was noted that the new home wou= ld be approximately 160ft. from the pond.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Michael Farris, Jones Road, said he recently built = a home in the area. He said his brot= her torn down a house and constructed a new one with an approved variance, whic= h is what the applicant’s were requesting. He was in full support of the variance.

Mrs. Florence Parece, the applicant’s mother, wa= s in favor of the variance being granted.

A letter dated from Mark and Pat Parece dated October 12, 2004 informed that the abutters had been notified regarding the proposed plan and were in favor of such.

Mr. Steven Rancourt, 7 McGrath Road, asked for clarifica= tion if a larger house was considered a ‘hardship’ since there was an existing home. He asked if ot= her alternatives had been exhausted. He said as a member of the Board stated earlier, addition to taxes being paid = is not a reason for a variance. = He wanted to know if a new well would be drilled. Mr. Rancourt asked if the proposed= would meet Planning Board regulations/approval.&= nbsp; He also wanted to know how Jones Road would be affected and if it wo= uld be put back in shape since there had been concerns regarding drainage (off Cindy Circle)/elevations/grade during construction of other homes, in relat= ion to additional water to the pond. He asked for clarification of where the house would be located in relation to = the pond. It was noted that the proposed home would be located approximately 160ft. from the pone. He said there was a lot of concern regarding Jones Road when he was constructing and wanted to know. He found it interesting that when = he was improving property there were problems with the abutter, but now that they wanted to improve the property the same concerns weren’t being raised= . Mr. McNamara said if the variance = were granted the applicant would still need to meet all building requirements and subdivision regulations. He reviewed the concerns of Mr. Rancourt.&nbs= p;

Mr. McNamara asked if the applicants were drilling a n= ew well. Ms. Parece shook her he= ad yes. It was noted the proposed septic system would be an improvement (and would provide additional protect= ion to the pond) from what was currently there. Mr. Hennessey felt one of the bene= fits was that the home would be further away from the pond. He also noted that the proposed ho= me appeared to be compatible to the surrounding homes.

Mr. Hennessey pointed out that based upon the photogra= phs submitted it appeared that there were violations to the Shore Line Protecti= on Act with placing fertilizer on the lawns.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara agreed with the concern.

Mr. Gleason said if the variance were approved he woul= d recommend that it be contingent upon state approval of the septic.

The Board discussed the variance request and made the following motion:

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Gleason/Hennessey) If approval of variance is grant= ed, it would be contingent upon state approval of the septic design.

=

VOTE:

(5- 0 - 0) The motion carried.

BALLOT VOTE= :

=

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Gleason – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Gowan – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes to all criteria

=

VOTE:<= /o:p>

Ms. Ronning – Yes to all criteria

(5-0-0) The motion ca= rried.

VARIANCE GRAN= TED

Case #2301= – VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS – 6 Main Street/ML 22/7-251 – Seeking = an Appeal of the Zoning Administrator that a Special Exception is required for fraternal organizations & membership clubs.

Continued to the next scheduled meeting (November 8, 2004)

Case 2302 = – VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS – 6 Main Street/ML 22/7-251 – Seeking a Special Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307-73 & 307-75 to al= low a change of use from a Municipal Office to a VFW (fraternal organization &a= mp; membership club). Seeking a Variance concerning Article XII, Section 307-75 (c) is being sought to allow parking within the setback and without being screened from view.

Continued to the next scheduled meeting (November 8, 2004)

Case #2303= – ASORED REALTY TRUST – 7 Main Street/ML 22/8-119 – Seeking Clarification of Case #2258 for a Variance granted July 14, 2003 to permit a por= tion of an existing building to be used as professional office space within the residential zone.

Mr. Hennessey informed that he was a realtor, but not = in direct competition; however there were people in his company that competed = with Innovative Realty. He asked i= f the Board or applicant objected to him remaining seated for the case. There was no objection either from= the Board, or the applicant to Mr. Hennessey remaining on the Board.

Mr. Hennessey read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

* Please note = that references made herein to either the ‘barn’ or ‘garage= 217; are actually the same area.

Mr. Chris DeRosa, Trustee for Asored Realty Trust, exp= lained that he was informed by the Planning Board that the approved variance was n= ot what he believed it to be. He said= that he purchased the property from Peter Milnes, who had come before the Board = and received the approved variance. He purchased the property, in part, because of the variance; it was presented = to him that the variance was for the building’s use. He reviewed a portion of the minut= es from the July 14, 2003 Board meeting when the variance was granted (Attorney Paul DeCarolis was acting Counsel) in which the motion to approve read: ‘Variance approval conditioned upon professional services of the buil= ding being restricted to the following: insurance, real estate, mortgage brokera= ge, financial services, law office, general consulting practices and related businesses. The colonial exte= rior of the building shall be retained.’&= nbsp; Mr. DeRosa felt the reference to the building was clear because it is all one building. He pointed out that the ‘garage’ had been in continuous use by the insurance company for storage and other uses. It wa= s his opinion that the variance stated that the building could be kept in its cur= rent state (with an upstairs apartment), or it could be used totally commerciall= y. Mr. DeRosa reiterated that he did = not submit the request for a variance, but purchase the building based upon the Board’s decision.

Mr. Gleason recalled the discussion of the Board at th= e time Mr. Milnes came before the Board; there were concerns regarding traffic, bu= t no discussion regarding expanding the barn or additional parking spaces. In his opinion, additional parking spaces and progression into the barn was an expansion of the variance that = was requested from the Board. It = was his belief that the variance was to renovate/upgrade the building, bring professionals in, not to expand the parking and office space into a part of= the building that was not currently in use.&nb= sp;

Mr. Hennessey reviewed a portion of the Board meeting minutes of July = 14, 2004; he believed that it was a non-conforming use with a condition that it would= not be any more non-conforming than what was already there. His position was that the Town Center should be re-zoned for professional. Mr. DeRosa said the square footage had been in existence for 80-100 years and the garage had always= been part of the building. He said= he was not seeking to expand the building, he was looking to utilize the building. He believed that he= was complying with the variance and relied what on what says the building; to him adding on to the building would require an additional variance. He was seeking use of the building as it exists today. He discussed what improvements he = had made to the building, which included repaving the front of the building, rewiring, addition of fire exists, replaced windows with those looking like= the original (from one hundred years ago).&nbs= p;

Ms. Ronning asked what was intended for the garage space. Mr. DeRosa wanted to a= dd to the office space, not add additional people. Mr. McNamara asked for the square = footage of the barn and wanted to know what use it had prior to Mr. DeRosa coming before the Board. Mr. DeRosa = said there was approximately 800SF and had been used (not for people) but for storage. Mr. McNamara said the Board had not sanctioned an expansion and questioned if a portion of the building (that had not been used) was now going to be used constituted an expansion. Mr. DeRosa’s contention was that the (garage/barn) had been used. Mr. Gleason said his understanding= , at the time the variance was granted, was nothing more would be done to the bu= ilding other than what was currently there.

The Board further discussed the request for clarification. Mr. McNamara reviewed the test case (New London Land Association) for non-conforming use= .   Mr. Hennessey reviewed liter= ature that spoke of expansions/non-conformity and quoted ‘ZBA members must = keep in mind that some expansion of pre-existing non-conforming uses is permitted without requiring a variance as long as the four criteria are established….the expansion is a natural activity closely related to t= he manner in which the piece of property was used when the ordinance was enact= ed..’ Given this information Mr. Henness= ey felt this case met the language.

Parking was addressed; Mr. DeRosa explained the parkin= g was the reason he originally went to the Planning Board because he didn’t want to expand the parking to forty plus.&= nbsp; He reiterated that he didn’t request the variance, but has tri= ed to interpret what was written; he is not requesting to expand, but rather to use the space that is currently there.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara said it was understood that the size of the building was not being expanded; but the question was if the use inside was being expand= ed. Mr. DeRosa explained the problems = he had regarding the parking when he was simply trying to comply with the request = of the Fire Chief regarding building access.&= nbsp; He also noted there had been a slight problem with the parking spaces because Main Street is a state road and the state had certain requirements that needed to be followed regarding such spaces being located in the back of buildings.

Mr. Hennessey made a motion and noted that this was a pre-existing non-conforming use that was granted a variance. Mr. Gleason wanted to know how many offices would be added if the renovation was continued into the barn area.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. DeRosa said the space would be= open with cubicles. Mr. Gleason sa= id he did not have a problem with the parking being relocated (since it’s a state requirement) and the barn being an open area (one office). He then seconded Mr. HennesseyR= 17;s motion.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/Gleason) Based upon the information provi= ded to the Board, and that there would be one office (not built/reconfigured/or additional tenants)- the renovation in the barn space was not an expansio= n of a non-conforming use, but rather within the scope of the variance - ‘the expansion is a natural activity closely related to the manner in which the piece of property is = used when the ordinance was enacted.

=

VOTE:

(4- 1 - 0) The motion ca= rried. Mr. McNamara voted no.

The Board’s action clarified that what the appli= cant was planning to do was consistent with the intent of the variance granted (= July 14, 2003).=

MINUTES

July 12, 2004- Deferred to the next scheduled meeting.

August 9, 2004= - Deferred to the next scheduled meeting.

September 13, 2004 – Deferred to the n= ext scheduled meeting.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

To adjourn the meeting.

=

VOTE:

(5- 0 - 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12 am.

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Respectfully submitted,

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Charity A.L. Willis     &n= bsp;

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Recording Secretary