February 4, 2013


The Planning Board Chairman Peter McNamara called the joint meeting to order at approximately 7:00 pm. 

He then called roll:   




Peter McNamara, Roger Montbleau, Paddy Culbert, Tim Doherty, Jason Croteau, Alternate Joseph Passamonte,  Selectmen Representative William McDevitt, Alternate Mike Sherman,  Planning Director Jeff Gowan




 Paul Dadak


Mr. Sherman was appointed to vote in Mr. Dadak’s absence.







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





 Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Lance Ouellette, Alternate Pauline Guay


 Mr. LaFrance was appointed to vote in Mr. O’Sullivan’s absence.





Map 20 Lot 3-137  -  RAYTHEON COMPANY – 50 Bush Hill Road


Zoning Board of Adjustment – Case# - ZO2013-00002 - Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-(C) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of new mechanical & electric buildings, new retaining wall, new concrete pads at grade, additional underground power service.  Associated scope of work shall include new bituminous pavement driveway, temporary crushed stone construction access road installation of new equipment trailers and electrical power wiring for equipment units under test (UUT’s); all per the accompanying plans c1.0 and c1.1


Planning Board - Case# - PL2013-00002 – Applicant is Seeking Site Plan Review


Mr. McNamara explained the process the Boards would take to conduct their separate hearings. 


The acting Secretary, Mr. Doherty read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present whose name was not read, or who had difficulty with notification.


Mr. Joseph Croteau, Engineer and Project Manager for Raytheon Company came forward to discuss their application.  He provided a brief history, indicating that Raytheon had been a part of Pelham’s community since 1968.  Their test site was used for the development of radar systems for field testing.  Currently they had contracts with the government related to national defense that were being built at the Andover, MA production facilities.    They would like to test the radar units at the Pelham test site.  Mr. Croteau said they have come before the Board seeking approval to make site development improvements of the test site.  He then introduced Mr. Michael Phillips of GMA Architects & Engineers. 



Mr. Michael Phillips, President, GMA Architects & Engineers, P.C. came forward to review and discuss the site plans submitted to the Boards.  He told the Board he had been associated with Raytheon for approximately thirty five years.  He said they were able to participate in some fairly exciting programs that had previously come before the Boards (i.e. 2007-JLens Program, 2009-addition to Patriot Program).   He told the Board they were coming forward this evening to discuss Hawk Hill (fka Cambridge Hill).  He expressed Raytheon’s gratitude for the Boards coming together during the same venue.  He commented time was always of the essence for Raytheon and the program was important.  Using a slide show presentation, Mr. Phillips provided the Boards with a general overview of the existing Pelham Raytheon facility and the locations that were proposed for renovation, which represented approximately 1.5 acres (3%) of the site’s total 47 (+/-) acres.  The renovation consisted of constructing an underground electrical duct bank, temporary construction access road (of crushed stone) and tree clearing (to prevent interference with equipment).  Proposed structures were: 1) mechanical and electrical services buildings (both approximately 20ft.x30ft.), 2) external chiller; and 3) new reinforced concrete pad and retaining wall to hold test equipment.  Mr. Phillips showed the location of a proposed security fence that would necessitate clearing a 20ft. wide area, which would be then be replaced with ground cover.  Associated with the proposed buildings will be mobile test trailers containing electronic testing gear and office components.  There are some existing trailer units on site that will be relocated to other areas within the site so as to avoid interference with test equipment.  Mr. Phillips pointed out the existing pavement.  The proposal shows the pavement to be reconfigured in a ‘U’ shape to allow access around the new reinforced concrete pad. 


Mr. Montbleau questioned if the site was manned 24hours.  Mr. Phillips answered yes; at the base of the testing operations, it would potentially go on day and night (not continuous).  He said there was a security control gate at the base of the site (Hillsborough Building) with a guard.  There is a camera security system throughout the site that is manned 24 hours a day.  From time to time there are security contingents and personnel at the top of the hill.              Mr. Montbleau asked if there were people that lived on site.  Mr. Phillips understood people purely worked on site.  Mr. Montbleau questioned if the fencing was live.  Mr. Phillips answered no; it was an 8ft. in height chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire at the top that ran along the entire periphery of the site.  He outlined the location of the existing fence and reiterated the proposal to erect an additional fence for security level located within the range of the look pattern of the equipment.  He noted the test equipment would be situated at the highest point on site (elevation roughly 428ft.above sea level); the elevations around Bush Hill Road at the edges of the site were approximately 290ft-300ft. above sea level.  It was explained that the units were meant to look up in the air to the extent of 40degree from vertical angle.  Mr. Montbleau questioned if there would be any explosives involved with the new buildings or equipment.  Mr. Phillips answered no; it was electronic testing. 


Mr. Steve Keach of Keach-Nordstrom (Board’s engineering review firm) came forward to discuss his review letter (dated February 4, 2013) of the revised plans.  He stated he initially looked at drawings that came in a few weeks ago at the time of application and issued a report on January 30, 2013 which was fairly brief.  He commented part of the brevity of that letter was due to the civil and land use planning portion being very simple.  The proposed extent of site work to implement the improvements (repurposing) of the facility was limited.  There would not be a tremendous amount of earth work being done and was estimated to be approximately 10,000 cubic yards or less.  Mr. Keach told the Board that he issued some comments that GMA (Mr. Phillips) addressed and in turn forwarded revised plans for review.  He said based on those revised plans he issued his February 4th letter.  It was noted there were no State permits required under the application.  He said in the event the Zoning Board granted a Variance, he would like acknowledgement of such to be included on the final plan in the form of a note.  He commented that the proposed plan brought in very few design standards from the Site Plan Review Regulations and was a pretty straight forward application. 


Mr. Doherty recalled seeing a comment about the chiller and electrical buildings moving further away from the property line.  He asked if that point had been reconsidered.  Mr. Keach replied in his first report he noted the Residential District setback provision in the Zoning Ordinance.  He noted there were a series of proposed structures and after speaking with Mr. Gowan, believed the setbacks for commercial / industrial uses was appropriate.  He said the structures were originally located approximately 22ft. off the northerly property line and were subsequently relocated at their request so as to be compliant with the Zoning Ordinance, having a setback of 30ft. or more. 


Mr. Gowan told the Board they were provided with a copy of the revised plan dated February 4, 2013 that showed the buildings being pulled away from the property line. 


Mr. McNamara noted that Mr. Keach had not commented on the Radio Frequency Report or the Air and Noise Compliant Report.  Mr. Keach stated he had no questions about the sound portion of the report.  He said he was not qualified to comment on radio frequency.   


Mr. Gowan indicated the plan was ready to be accepted for consideration by the Board. 


Mr. McNamara noted unless the Zoning Board approved a Variance, the Planning Board would not be able to act on, or approve the site plan.




(Doherty/Montbleau) To accept the plan for consideration. 




(7-0-0) The motion carried. 


The Planning Board stepped down.  The members of the Zoning Board came forward to convene their meeting and hear the case (#ZO2013-00002).


Mr. Hennessey called the Zoning Board meeting to order.  Mr. Molloy called roll. 


Mr. Hennessey stated that the Zoning Board would accept the roll call of abutters done during the Planning Board hearing.  He alerted the applicant to an issue that one of the Board members had to leave the meeting at 8pm.  He said if the Board had not finished at that time the applicant would have to make a decision as to whether to continue the hearing.  In the past applicants were given the right to postpone the meeting to the next meeting since having a four-member board would require a minimum of three votes in the affirmative. 


Mr. Michael Phillips, President, GMA Architects & Engineers, P.C. thanked the Board once again for conducting a joint hearing.  He said his firm had been asked by Raytheon to function as their agent under the submittal process.  He then read aloud the Variance criteria as submitted with their application. 


Mr. Hennessey said the Board heard the presentation made to the Planning Board, and asked if there was any additional information the applicant would like to add specific to the Variance application.  Mr. Phillips commented that they were keeping with the original intent of the Variance granted December, 1968 and would not stray from that intent. 


Mr. Molloy questioned if the additional construction would create more employees in the area.  Mr. Joseph Croteau, Engineer and Project Manager for Raytheon Company answered by saying during testing of the radar there would be between four and six employees on the site. 


Mr. McNamara wanted to know how many buildings/trailers were currently existing at the site.  Mr. Phillips showed a projection slide of the site and pointed out the locations of the existing buildings/trailers (possibly 25-30 trailers).  Mr. McNamara asked if the site would use additional electric power beyond what they currently used.  Mr. Phillips answered yes; it would be underground.  Mr. McNamara questioned if the testing to be done was the same manner of testing presently being performed.  Mr. Phillips understood the testing would be very similar and described the angles the units under test (‘UUT’) would face.  Mr. McNamara asked if the cooling unit or trailers would be emitting any noise.  Mr. Phillips said they had done as much as they could in considerations of the design of the site.  He said the water based chiller was similar to that for an office building and was not abnormally noisy.  The chiller was not encased; it sat on a concrete pad with a fence around it.  The pumps for the chiller were located within the mechanical building.  The electrical systems were all underground and geared to go into the existing electrical building.  The transformer was located downhill and not abnormally loud as with any transformer within a neighborhood.  Electrical testing within the office-type trailers was virtually sound free.  Mr. Phillips stated UUT1 in of itself generated no sound.  Mr. Phillips told the Board that Raytheon had taken specific steps to further reduce what manufacturers predicted the sound levels would be for UUT2 and UUT3 and they would further mask and bring those sound levels down. 


Mr. McNamara questioned if the radio frequency exposure (or potential exposure) was limited to a certain area or direction.  Mr. Phillips replied it was directional.  He noted one of the reasons for instituting the proposed security fence was to keep people away from the area if they came onto the site.  He believed the anticipated radio frequency levels from the operations were significantly less than ever achieved on a cell phone.  Mr. McNamara wanted to know how close the nearest resident was located to the proposed area.  Mr. Phillips showed a projected image of the site and pointed out the closest resident as being approximately 650ft.; residents along Bush Hill Road were upwards of 700ft-800ft.  away. 


Mr. Hennessey addressed the criteria pertaining to the values of surrounding properties.  He asked if there would be any increased noise from the expansion of the non-conforming use that would affect abutters.  Mr. Phillips stated they didn’t predict an increase noise or sound level emanating from the property or new test equipment.  Mr. Hennessey asked if there would be any lighting that would be visible off site that would be worse than present.  Mr. Phillips answered no; as with previous developments the lighting would be shielded and in a downward direction.  Mr. Hennessey questioned if there would be any cause for concern over increased traffic (albeit equipment or employees).  Mr. Phillips answered no. 




Mr. Paul DeCarolis, 148 Bush Hill Road told the Board he objected to the proposal.  He believed it was strictly a variance and not an expansion of a prior non-conforming use.  He said variance was granted in 1968 when the property was zoned Residential and was not pre-existing at the time of the Zoning Ordinance.  He provided the Board with an information packet containing the December 9, 1968 variance.  The wording of such stated “No additional buildings or peripheral equipment shall be erected or installed without prior approval of the Board of Adjustment”.  Mr. DeCarolis said to the extent that there was some implication that an approval would be granted in the future, he couldn’t find such in the record.  Mr. Hennessey agreed that a prior Zoning Board couldn’t hold the current Zoning Board.  Mr. DeCarolis felt an implication was made that the Zoning Board would grant further expansions if the applicant came back before them.


Mr. DeCarolis provided a copy of the Zoning application from 2001.  He said at that time Raytheon came before the Board for new radar test equipment and to expand their facility.  He said former Board member Peter LaPolice asked the applicant how long test equipment had been tested, and the response from the applicant was they had been testing the equipment since 1984.  When the Board further inquired about testing, the applicant indicated the scope of the testing was included in the 1980 variance.  He said that statement was not correct; it was not addressed in the 1980 variance.  Mr. DeCarolis referred to the language in the 1980 variance, where it was represented to the Board that there would be two passive radars on the site and fifteen employees.  In 1980 the testimony was the tower would receive radio signals and it wasn’t a transmission tower. 


Mr. Hennessey saw in the Zoning Board meeting minutes from August 11, 1980 it read “To the extent a variance would be required, it would seem to be a variance to enlarge a non-conforming use.”  He asked if Mr. DeCarolis disagreed with that statement.  Mr. DeCarolis believed the distinction was important.  He said the Supreme Court has said with a prior non-conforming use there can be needs anticipated to expand.  He said there was a distinction addressed in the NH Supreme Court case of  1808 Corporation v. Town of New Ipswich.    The Supreme Court said it was not a use that lawfully existed before the zoning ordinance was enacted and thus was not a non-conforming use.  Mr. DeCarolis said when Raytheon came to the site in 1968 it was a vacant piece of property in a Residential zone and they asked for a variance, as opposed to being pre-existing and the Town developing a zoning ordinance.  He said the standard for allowing an expansion of a non-conforming use may be different from a variance, but what was before the Board was strictly a variance. 


Mr. DeCarolis again referenced the Zoning Board meeting minutes from 1980 during which representation was made that it would not be a transmission tower.  He reiterated it was an incorrect statement in 2001 to make a representation that the issue of transmission or emitting radar was addressed in 1980.  Mr. DeCarolis stated the applicant came before the Board in 2007 for ‘JLens’, a sophisticated military system.  There was discussion at that time about how long testing would occur.  The applicant stated that testing would be done on a temporary basis, occurring over a two-year period during approximately 90-days in each year.  From Mr. DeCarolis’ experience, testing has gone on for more than two years and a lot more than 90 days.  He noted testimony was given (in 2007) when radar was going up the entire perimeter was checked to make sure nothing was going on.  He believed this point was important when the Board has to consider health, safety and welfare.  He said it was significant that Raytheon had to check the perimeter for radiation emissions. 


Mr. DeCarolis discussed his standing to be at the meeting although he was not a direct abutter.  He said he lived nearby, could see the lights and in the summer he could hear the equipment running.  He said he lived on the next hill immediately on the West with approximately the same elevation on Bush Hill Road.  It was disconcerting to know this given the type of equipment was on the applicant’s site.  He said there was no disclosure regarding the equipment and noted that the Town engineer stated he was not qualified to review it. 


In regard to Mr. DeCarolis’ standing, Mr. Hennessey asked the Board members if they had any objections.  There was no objection to Mr. DeCarolis’ standing or his testimony. 


Mr. DeCarolis continued his discussion.  He pointed out the subdivision plan for Blue Jay Drive, which he felt was significant given the 50-wide access to the Raytheon property.  He said it was a difficult site (that would go toward the hardship criteria).  He spoke about the JLens technology, which was tested in other areas of the country (i.e. Utah, New Mexico).  He found it interesting that they had to close Highway 70 in White Sands to conduct testing. 


Mr. DeCarolis then addressed the Variance criteria, which he didn’t feel were met.  He believed granting a variance would be contrary to the public interest because of being in a Residential zone; the area was never zoned for the massive complex Raytheon has on site.  He said it was inconsistent with public interest and the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.  He said the intent was to have separate zoning districts and adequate space and separation for residential properties and commercial uses.  He said it would affect health, safety and welfare; having someone monitor radiation emissions was evidence of such.   Mr. DeCarolis read the response to the criteria 2 – spirit of ordinance that indicated Raytheon would meet all Town requirements, building codes, obtain necessary permits.  He said that wasn’t the standard for the variance, the standard was the spirit of the ordinance and residential zoning requirements being observed, as addressed in the Malachy Glen Assoc. v. Town of Chichester case.  He felt the site significantly changed the character of the neighborhood, which was Residential. 


It was 8:00pm; Mr. Molloy left the meeting.  Mr. Hennessey explained to the applicant if the Board continued to a vote, three of the four seated members must vote in the affirmative for the Variance to be granted.  He asked the applicant if they would like to continue with the hearing.  Mr. Phillips answered yes. 


Mr. DeCarolis continued.  He stated a Variance had to be in the public’s interest; however, the testimony given by the applicant was the Variance would be in the applicant’s interest.  He said the units were made in Andover, MA and it was convenient for Raytheon to test in Pelham. He said the Variance would be in their best interest and didn’t believe the Variance would serve the public interest.  Mr. DeCarolis commented that the answer provided to criteria #3 – substantial justice indicated the request was consistent with the 1968 variance, which he said was not the standard.  With regard to diminution of property, Mr. DeCarolis felt he was qualified as an owner (of over twenty years) to say that being near an industrial complex affected the value of a residential neighborhood.  He addressed hardship.  It had to be an unnecessary hardship owing to special conditions of a property that distinguished it from other properties in the area.  He said there was nothing special with the applicant’s property as opposed to the other properties of Bush Hill Road, Bear Hill, Blue Jay, Sky View etc.  all of which were tough to develop having a lot of granite and being hilly.   He felt the applicant’s site was more suited for Residential than a lot of other properties in that area.  He pointed out that the site had hundreds of feet of frontage on Bush Hill Road that required no road construction.  He said the site’s main access (Robideaux Drive) was a substantial road nearly Class V.  He said by the fact that the applicant was able to do all the work on site that they had was evidence of the feasibility for developing the site.  He said the applicant indicated they were going to have underground utilities and felt it would be nice for a development to have such utilities.  He felt it was a perfect piece of property for residential use and gorgeous views. 


Mr. DeCarolis pointed out that the applicant didn’t argue that there was anything unique with the property that distinguished it from other facilities, which was an absolute criteria that would have to be addressed.  He said they also didn’t address the hardship criteria of no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public  purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property.  He said also under hardship the proposed use must be reasonable.  He said it was unreasonable to have a massive industrial complex in a residential zone.  He felt the intended reasonableness in a residential zone would be something such as a convenient store, bakery, cleaner, office space, all being compatible with residential uses.  He said there was not a single piece of commercial property abutting the applicant’s parcel; every adjoining property was residential.  Mr. DeCarolis noted under the hardship criteria if the first prong wasn’t met the applicant could try to get approval under the second prong, but the unnecessary hardship would be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area.  He said this wasn’t discretionary; they would have to meet the burden.  He pointed out that the rational provided by the applicant didn’t meet the criteria.  The applicant said the unique topography and elevation of the property meet Raytheon’s criteria.   He said they had to meet the criteria under Section 674, not their own personal criteria; the answer was not the legal requirement for a variance. 


Mr. DeCarolis ended by saying he appreciated the good work that Raytheon did, but it wasn’t appropriate in a residential zone surrounded by residences.  He said it couldn’t be monitored and felt the applicant should be obligated at a minimum to provide for testing, engineering and consultants.  He stated the Town’s consultant couldn’t monitor because the applicant wasn’t going to disclose all the specifications for the equipment.  He further commented that the information has been taken down off the Town Appraiser’s site; it had to be viewed at Town Hall.  He said justifiably so the applicant was keeping information close,   however, the Town couldn’t confirm what was being emitted from the site.  He stated they didn’t meet the criteria for variance and felt it should be denied. 


Mr. Hennessey brought the conversation back to the Board, but left the public hearing open. 


Mr. Gary Ross, Senior Engineer for Raytheon as well as a resident of Tenney Road came forward to speak.  He said he wasn’t an abutter, but was a neighbor.  He stated he had worked on most of the radar on the site and the radar coming.  He worked with the people who had done the planning and safety studies.  He told the Board if he wasn’t comfortable with the safety and the sound associated with the expansion, he would not have come forward to speak for the Raytheon Corporation, he would speak as a neighbor.  Mr. Ross said based on their studies and what they know about the radars, if someone was at the perimeter of the outside fence with an RF meter, they wouldn’t be able to measure.  He compared the emission to that of a cell phone.  He said having a wireless LAN in a home or living in the line of sight to a cell phone tower a person would probably get more electromagnetic radiation from those sources than they would from any of the radars.  Mr. Ross stated in reaction to the site, there was a reason for being on top of a hill; they wanted the ability to look up and not be affected by any of the surrounding terrain.  He said they wanted to be a good neighbor. 


Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Ross was suggesting that the topography of the site was well suited for what was occurring and what was being proposed by Raytheon.  Mr. Ross answered yes. 


Mr. DeCarolis asked that the photographs shown by the applicant be submitted for the record.  Mr. Hennessey asked the applicant to submit the photographs for the record. 


Mr. Hennessey addressed the legal aspects discussed by Mr. DeCarolis.  He noted that the five variance criteria was set up in New Hampshire through a combination of court rulings and legislature.  He began with criteria #1 – variance not contrary to public interest.  He said Mr. DeCarolis stated that the variance was in opposition to the public interest.  He asked the applicant how they defined public interest.   Mr. Phillips said it was defined as what was good for the public.  Mr. Hennessey said the variances are instituted in New Hampshire by State Statute and was enforced by a Board of Adjustment using the Town’s Zoning laws.  He said the argument was the public interest for the Town of Pelham.  He said in the past the Board had been harsh if the only answer given by an applicant was the variance would increase tax base.  He asked the applicant if there was anything else that would help the Town by granting the variance.  Mr. Phillips said there was nothing Raytheon plans within the development and expansion of a non-conforming use that would injure, hurt or affect negatively the public interest within the Town.  He said by what was being proposed, there was nothing contrary to the public interest. 


Mr. McNamara said the Board hadn’t discussed the two reports received by the applicant regarding the radio frequency and noise.  He felt they spoke to the question (of public interest).  Mr. Phillips stated the reports were submitted to the Board because they had been issues of concern by the abutters.  He said they were confident they had done as much as they could to limit the sound projections from the equipment.  He told the Board Raytheon had further instituted a significant program to reduce sound at its source and was seeking to do so to maintain levels below the accepted/standard criteria within the Country for both daytime and nighttime decibel readings.  He said they were currently below those levels with all the testing equipment currently on the hill and they propose to make every effort to further lower the effect on the neighborhood and the abutters.  Mr. McNamara questioned if the proposed activities be conducted at night.  Mr. Phillips replied there would be limited testing conducted at night.  Even at that, he said the levels they were predicting would be below the standard accepted criteria.  Mr. McNamara asked if the testing was on a regular 5-day a week schedule, or intermittent.  Mr. Phillips replied it was intermittent testing.   Mr. McNamara wanted to know how frequently testing would be conducted.  Mr. Croteau said the majority of the antennas they proposed to bring up would probably be at the test site for approximately a month to six weeks for testing.  There would be a rest period prior to having another radar set brought up to the test site.  They anticipate on some of the radars to have no more than two sets of tests per year.  They would like to see the testing period for field demonstrations within a month.  Mr. McNamara looked at the radio frequency report and confirmed that the proposed emissions would be less than that from a cell phone.  Mr. Phillips said they were indicating that the sensed or measured reactions from any of their operations would be 1/10,000 of that expected from a cell phone.  He commented about the length of time testing occurred and noted that the JLens system was not currently testing.  He said testing had periods of dormancy, active testing and non-testing.  Mr. McNamara asked if the new testing had a name. Mr. Phillips said they were specifically defining it as units under test (UUT), numbers 1,2 and 3. 


Mr. Hennessey was surprised that an attorney wasn’t present on the applicant’s side to review the application.  He was upset and the answer to criteria #5 was answered poorly.  He said it had nothing to do with the hardship that Raytheon would incur if the variance was denied.  He explained that criteria #5 was in relation to what unique aspects of the property made it necessary for the Board to grant a variance in place of its residential use.  Mr. Croteau said the primary benefit of the site for Raytheon was the elevation and proximity to the production facility in Andover.  Mr. Hennessey said they understood why the property was important to Raytheon, but the request was for a Zoning variance; they were looking at the land.  Mr. Phillips said he was not an attorney and didn’t have a legal response.  He told the Board that the phrasing used in response to the question were very similar to responses by the applicant under prior submittals for very similar programs.  He said he chose not to deviate from the successful attempts in the past. 


Mr. Phillips asked the Board to have the opportunity to have someone else come in to speak to the criteria.  Mr. Hennessey said if the applicant was requesting to have the hearing continued (to another meeting), he would be in favor.  Mr. McNamara was also in favor of continuing the hearing as a matter of procedural fairness since a lot of material was submitted during the hearing.  Mr. Hennessey felt it was fair to provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond to the information submitted.  Mr. Phillips asked if there were other issues, discussions or decisions the Board wanted to go through prior to offering a continuance.  He asked if there was additional public testimony to be heard beyond the present hearing.  Mr. Hennessey said he had not closed the public hearing and believed it to be fair to leave it open until the Board heard the applicant’s response at the next hearing.  He said his concern was with the five criteria.  There may be other items for the Planning Board. 


Ms. Paliy said the Town had no zoning for what the applicant was proposing.  She said the topic was National safety and security.  She said an attorney should answer why the application was different.  She said the area was zoned Residential, but the Town had nothing zoned for National security.  Mr. Hennessey said the Board had already granted two variances on the site and the applicant’s ability to use the site under those to variances remains.  Ms. Paliy said the Board was dealing with something that wasn’t local.  She said the question was how much of it did they have jurisdiction over.  She questioned if the applicant was in front of the Board as a courtesy.  She said if a continuance is granted she wanted something to happen with the application rather than having the same discussion.  Mr. Hennessey said the continuance would be to answer the Board’s questions regarding the five criteria. 



To grant the applicant a continuance.




(4-0-0) The motion carried. 


There was a brief discussion regarding what date the case would be continued to.  The Case was date specified to February 11, 2013. 


Mr. Gowan asked if the Board would allow the applicant to modify their application, if they were inclined to do so.  Mr. Phillips commented that they would have to come up with more appropriate wording to address the criteria.  Mr. Hennessey said the Board would accept amendments. 


Mr. DeCarolis came forward and asked that he be sent a copy of the submission.  Mr. Hennessey felt that was fair. 


The Board of Adjustment adjourned their meeting.  The Planning Board reconvened their hearing. 


Mr. McNamara opened the hearing up for public input.  No one came forward.    


Mr. McNamara asked the applicant if they would like to provide any additional testimony.  Mr. Phillips reserved his comment for the next hearing. 


The Case was date specified to February 21, 2013. 


Mr. McNamara adjourned the Joint Meeting at approximately 8:49pm.




Mr. Gowan told the Board he was going in front of the Selectmen to ask for their resolution to allow him to apply for a Community Development Grant on behalf of the Planning Board.  He said he was applying to seek a $20,000 grant to get professional assistance to completely revise the Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations.  There was no objection by the Board to support the request. 


Mr. Gowan noted that the Flood Study contract was about to be signed and the results of such should be available in June. 




January 24, 2013 – deferred.






(Culbert/Montbleau) To adjourn the meeting.




(7-0-0) The motion carried. 


The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:53 pm.

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Charity A. Landry

                                                                                                Recording Secretary