Loading...
1998-11-17City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: November 17, 1998 PLACE: Beverly Senior Center, 90 Colon Street BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Barry Sullivan, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Dunn, Peter Thomas, Robert Rink, BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: John Thomson, Salvatore Modugno OTHERS PRESENT: City Engineer Frank Killilea, City Planner Tina Cassidy RECORDER: Florence Sagarino Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Sullivan: motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #100-98: reconstruction of gasoline station within the City's Watershed Protection Overlay District / 38 Enon Street / Gibbs Oil Company Cassidy reads legal notice. Attorney Nancy Attaya McCann addresses the Board stating that Gibbs Oil Company is seeking permission to renovate the gas station at 38 Enon Street which has been operating for about twenty years. She states that the project will not add new pumping stations at this facilit_~. .There will be an installation of new double-wailed tanks, a total of eight pumping stations, and a new retail mart with a drive through window. The existing building is 1,200 sq. tt. in size and they are requesting a new building of 1,431 sq. ~. The project will also include upgrading the handicapped access features of the site. The property is located within the City's Watershed Protection Overlay District, and a special permit will be required for this commercial use. John Flynn, the applicant's engineer, states that he has previously discussed the site with the City Engineer. He states that they have agreed to install new tanks to meet all codes. In addition, they will not be altering the right of way servicing the neighboring property owned by the Beverly/Salem Water Supply Board. BP, the present owner, will work with Gibbs to remove any contaminated soils that might be found during excavation. Dinkin asks if there are any questions. Sullivan asks the applicant to explain the nature of the drive through. Flynn states they intend to sell coffee and donuts. The plan has Planning Board minutes November 17, 1998 meeting Page two been amended following discussions with the Police and Fire Departments to insure that the access driveway behind the building is at least 18' wide. Sullivan asks if they will be operating a 24-hour establishment, to which Flynn responds that they typically will be open until 11 or 12 p.m. Attaya-McCann states that a drive-through is an allowed use in this district. Dinkin states that any removal of dirt means the DEP (the State's Department of Enviroamental Protection) will be involved. Attaya states that DEP is already requiring remedialion and that this project will speed up the process because of the upgrading of the tanks. Dinkin asks what the capacity of the tanks is and fithey will be identical in size to the ones that are coming out. Flynn states they are 30,000 gallon tanks. Flannery asks for an explanation regarding the lighting on the site. She states that there is an apartment complex behind the property and wants to know if the lights will be adjusted. Attaya states that they will be adjusted and set up so they won't shine on the residences in the immediate arem Flynn states they are standard 14' high lights. Rink asks if the new tanks will be in the same location. Flyun states they are in the same location, only.they will be in an angled position. Dinkin asks if there are any further questions. Sullivan asks about the parking. Attaya responds that the parking spaces at the pumps cotrid also be used by people fi'equenting the store. Dinkin states that there are six spaces set aside for the retail space, and asks if there are any futher questions. There being none, Dinkin asks Cassidy to read the correspondence received regarding this application. Cassidy reads letters from the Parking & Traffic Commission dated 10/27/98, the Police Department dated 10/27/98, the Board of Health dated 10/27/98, the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board dated 10/15/98, and the Engineering Department dated 11/17/98 Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the Board regarding the letters. There are none. David Sabatinl, a direct abutter on two sides, states that he has discussed some issues with Gibbs and they have been worked out satisfactorily. He states he has been there since 1980 and would like to know at this time what the hours of operation will be in the evening. Attaya states they now close at 11:00 p.m. and they do not plan on any changes. Dinkin asks for any other comments. Joan Murphy of Longmeadow Road asks if there are membranes below the tanks that may have sensors. Flynn explains there will be geomembranes with plastic containers which will be monitored at the tanks. Dinkin asks Phnning Board meeting November 17, 1998 meeting Page three if there are any other questions from the Board or the audience. There are none, so Dinkin declares the public hearing closed at 8:50 p.nk Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Board back to order, and asks whether members need further discussion on this applicatiork There is none. Sullivan: motion to grant the special permit in accordance with Section 29-30.C.5. of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconstruction of the gas station at 38 Enon Street subject to the conditions outlined in the letters received from the Parking and Traffic Commission, Police Department, Board of Health, Engineering Department, and the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board. Flannery seconds the motion. All members in favor, no one in oppositior~ Motion carries. Cassidy states that there is a City ordinance prohibiting 24-hour operation establishments if the establishment is within 65' of a residence. Dinkin returns the Board to regular session. SubdiVision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) Cassidy explains this ANR plan for property at 8-I0 River Street owned by T & J Realty Trust. It is a very small parcel of land on which an existing building owned by the Sherwoods has encroached. The encroachment would be corrected by the transfer of ownership of the parcel shown on the plan. The properly is located in an IG zoning district with no setback requirements. She states that the person who is buying the property is present to answer questions from the Board. Delaney: 'motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Cassidy explains that the second ANR is for land at 24 Coming Street owned by the Bell family. The property is located along Coming Street and Pearl Street Extension. One lot with proposed lionrage on Coming Street has 100' of frontage as required by zoning. The applicant is not present. Dinkin asks if there are any questions for the Planning Director. There are none. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Phnning Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page four Chairman Dinkin recesses the Board for public hearings. Public Hearing: Request for modification to the Birch Woods Definitive Subdivision Plan / Joseph Dandreo, Trustee, Cross Lane Trust Cassidy reads the legal notice. Alan Grenier, attorney representing the owner of the subdivision, Joseph Dandreo, states that the subdivision originally approved included a pumping station for the sewer system. He states that in 1996 a prospective developer asked to change this system to a gravity sewer system, which is allowed. The new purchaser wants to construct a force-main sewer line with a pumping station. He states they will conform to the original plan in all respects. He will answer any questions the Board members may have. Dinkin asks Grenier to describe the standing of this subdivision at this point. Grenier states that the outstanding court case was settled last month. He states that a prospective buyer requested and received a modification to the approved subdivision plan several years ago, but he never bought the subdivision. The new buyer is requesting approval to revert hack to the original subdivision design. Delaney asks who the abutters are to lots #6 and #7. Grenier responds that lots #6 and 7 abut property owned by Bartlett. Delaney suggests the applicant file grading plans. Grenier states that they have and are on file with the City' s Conservation Commission. He states they are required to submit plans of individual home sites as well. Cassidy reads letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea dated 11/17/98. Delaney asks Grenier if he wants to delay a vote this evening to resolve outstanding issues with the City Engineer. Grenier states that he would consider any modifications and is willing to work with the City Engineer. Dinkin asks for additional questions from the Board. There are none. He asks for questions from the public. Mr. Hun, 71 Cross Lane, asks Grenier for clarification on the sewer system and whether he would need a pump in his house to access the new system. He asks what the diameter of the pipe is coming down the street, and whether homeowners would be able to use bathroom facilities during a power outage. Grenier states that the pump station will be on the developer's property and does not know the specific details of Mr. Hutt's house. Killilea states that the homeowner would need a pump in his basement to pump into the proposed 4" force main and that he would need his own generator in times of power failures with the current design. He suggests Planning Board minutes November 17, 1998 Page five talking to the proposed developer for improvements to the plan, since he is not in favor of the current design. Cassidy states that the Board's 1990 approval process requires the developer to provide sewer line stub-outs to all properly ownerS along Cross Lane. Dinkin asks what the situation would be for the residents on Cross Lane if a gravity line was not installed. Killilea responds that they would each need an ejector pump. City Councilor Virginia MeGlynn asks if the neighbors were informed. Grenier states that ten years ago the plan were presented to the neighbors to show where the line was going, and that he will abide by the plans submitted and approved. They would like to go hack to the original proposal for a force main sewer. Gary Ciavola, 109 Cross Lane, states that at the time of the first modification in 1996 they asked the developer about a gravity system and they agreed to change. Grenier states that the developer prefers a force main system. Ciavola states that a petition was presented to the Mayor asking for sewer to be installed in the rest of Cross Lane. He would like the Planning Board to make sure that any approved plan does not preclude a design for such a sewer line extension being drafted by the City Engineer for the five or six houses beyond this subdivision. Debbie Heslop, 111 Cross Lane, asks about any power outages and how the pumps will wore She asks who will be responsible for maintaining the pumping station. Grenier states that the City will maintain the pump station and that it will be constructed to meet all City design standards. Dinkin declares the public hearing in recess until 8:35 p.m. Piblii/'Hearing: Site Plan Review applic,~,tion #41-98: second story addition and facade improvements to the Beverly Cooperative Bank at 245 Cabot Street Cassidy reads the legal notice. The architectural firm of Royal Designs presents the plans to the Board. He states the proposal calls for a 12' addition to the rear of the existing building. This will include egress and an elevator for handicapped access. There will be five parking spaces along the back portion of the building which will include one handicapped space. There will be a new entrance ~om the back of the building. He shows the view of the building from Cabot Street. There will be no encroachment with the new facade. He states they will be refacing the facades with brick veneer on all sides. There will be a new gable roof46' above grade and the maximum height allowed is 55'. He states that the cupola is an Planning Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page six additional ten feet in height. He states that there are no proposed modifications to the first floor of the building except for an additional stairwell in the ~'ont. He states that the first floor plan will not change and the second story will house administrative offices. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read communications received by the Board on this filing. Cassidy reads letters from the Engineering Department dated 11/17/98, the Design Review Board dated 11/5/98, the Conservation Commission, Parking and Traffic Commission dated 11/8/98, the Police Department dated 10/26/98, and the Fire Department dated 10/27/98. Dinkin ash for clarifying questions from the Board. Rink asks for an explanation of roof drainage. The architect responds that there is internal drainage with gutters on the side walls from roof leaders. This design will not change. Thomas asks for clarification regarding the parking spaces out hack and how many are for handicappod customers. The architect states there will be live spaces, two of which will be for handicapped. Delaney asks fithere will be any negative effect on surrounding businesses. The architect states there will be no issues with the abutting businesses. Dinkin asks for questions from members of the public. There are none. He asks if anyone,wishes to be recorded as being in favor of or in opposition to this project. There are none. Dinkin declares the public hearing closed. Dinkin calls the Board hack into regular session for the purpose of discussing the hank's site plan. He asks if there are any additional comments from the members at this time. There are none. Delaney: motion to approve the site plan review application for the Beverly Cooperative Bank at 245 Cabot Street, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries %0. 5. Public Hearing (continued): Birch Woods subdivision modification request Dinkin calls the public hearing back into session fi'om its earlier recess and asks the developer's attorney to address the Board. A member of the audience asks for clarification on the pumps. Killilea explains that when the developer has meet all requirements of the approved subdivision, the project will be accepted by the City. This pumping station will be one of 35 pump stations across the City. They are unmanned and tied into the Fire Department with an alarm allowing them to know when there is a malfunction. The pumping station would have a generator on site which will start automatically if there is a power outage. He adds that Planning Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page seven the pumping station will discharge through a 4" line down Cross Lane into the existing sewer system. He states that all homeowners will have to pump into the force main, and that is why he hopes to compel the developer to change the design. Grenier states the system is oversized and will handle more than this development if necessary. Councilor MeGlynn asks if anyone has purchased the subdivision yet. Grenier responds that there is a prospective buyer who is interested. Flannery asks if the developer would be willing to change from the force main to a gravity line, to which Grenier responds that the force main is preferred because it will require less of a cut in the roadway. He adds that they have resolved all outstanding issues with the Conservation Commission and several abutters. Dinkin asks if there are any comments in support of or in opposition to the application. Hutt states that he feels that the Board should not make a decision on this proposal this evening. G-renier.requests a continuation of the matter to the next Board meeting so the owner can meet with the City Engineer. Dinkin declares the public hearing to be recessed to the Board's meeting on December 15, 1998. 6. PublicHearing:SitePlanReviewapplication#42-98:constructionofcarwash and auto repair facility at 2 Margin Street Cassidy reads the legal notice. Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board stating that Mr. Jeff Bunk purchased this propeffy iSn the Bass River in 1997 when it was in disrepair. He states that the Environmental Protection Agency sent a Cease and'Desist Order to the prior owner, so Bunk removed a wharf that was in serious disrepair. He states that at~er Bunk rebuilds the wharf area he hopes to construct a car wash and auto repair facility on this site. He states that Mr. Bunk has received a variance fi'om the Board of Appeals to allow this use and has filed a plan with the Conservation Commission for approval. A license application is also pending with the State's MEPA agency. He states they have satisfied all the concerns of the EPA regarding the car wash and auto repair activities. He states that the Parking and Traffic Commission has approved the parking plan and they have done a number ofredesigns of the project. Bunk has also agreed to construct a 10' wide public walkway along the Bass River. Cassidy suggests retaining the public way at 10' wide, but to have it paved to a width of only 5'. Bunk has agreed to increase the amount of iandscaping in the remaining 5'. He Planning Board Meeting November 17, 1998 Page eight states there will be signage indicating the walkway is open to the public and that all are welcome to the site. The car wash will have a water recycling system and the water will be captured on site and none will go into the Bass River. He comments on the elevations of the proposed new building. The door openings are on Margin Street and Bridge Street as shown on the plan. The building design has been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Dinkin asks if there are provisions for barriers between the entrance to the property and egress fi'om it. Alexander responds that there are none. He questions whether there could be such a barrier, to which Alexander replies that it would be tight because of the number of cars which would make it difficult to do so. Delaney questions the traffic pattern on the site, and asks if it will be fully paved. Dunn questions if there will be any vacuum areas. Btmk answers that eight vacuums will be located in the rear of the building. Flannery questions the hours of operation. Bunk states that they do not know what the hours will be at this time. Sullivan asks questions regarding the lighting on the site. Alexander states that the lighting along the walkway will be the same design that the City approved for the park adjacent to the Stop & Shop supermarket on Elliott Street. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read correspondence regarding this application. Cassidy reads letters tiom the Design Review Board, the Parking and Traffic Commission (10/27/98), the Fire Department (10/27/98), the Police Department (10/27/98), the Engineering Department (11/17/98) and the Conservation Commission. Cassidy states that there is a discrepancy in the plans regarding the correct location of the doors to the facility that must be corrected before the plans are accepted by the Board. Dinkin informs the audience that the hearing must be recessed at this point. 7. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #40-98: construction of new manufacturing/office facility on Sam Fonzo Drive Cassidy reads the legal notice. Dinkin places the public hearing on this petition in recess, and returns the Board back to the site plan review public hearing on the car wash and auto repair facility at 2 Margin Street. He asks if there are any questions llcom members of the public. Joan Murphy, 36 Longmeadow Road, asks how wide Margin Street is. Alexander answers 50'. She states that the car wash is too close to the street and is wondering if there is a dividing line on the roadway. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, asks about the 15% of the water that will be lost in the process and where it will be sent. Alexander replies that the 15% waste water will be sent to the sewer system. Planning Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page nine George Whitney, Chairman of the Beverly Harbor Management Authority, states that he attended a meeting with Alexander, the DEP, Waterways personnel, and Mr. Bunk. All these agencies have endorsed the plan. Dinkin asks for any comments from the public. There are none. Delaney questions Alexander on the beation of catch basins on the site. Alexander indicates where the catch basins will be and adds that they are concrete and will flow into the drainage systen~ Dinkin asks if there are any other questions. Hearing none, he declares the public hearing closed. 8. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #40-98: construction of new manufacturing/office building on Sam Fonzo Drive Cassidy addresses the Board regarding Sam Fonzo Drive and states that this hearing was opened at the last meeting of the Board and continued to this evening because the Design Review Board had not yet completed its review. They have recommended approval of the site plan. She reads letters from the Design Review Board, the Board of Health and the Engineering Department which were received since the last meeting. Alexander adds that in addition to the site phn, the Design Review Board has also approved the facade plans for the facility. The Conservation Commission has requested the construction of a retaining wall at the back of the building, and shows a plan with the wall depicted. Dinkin asks for comments in support of; or in opposition to, the plan. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, states there is a concern by many citizens regarding the wetlands. She states that there is water flowing down the slope that could be a problem for the homes downstream. She states the building is on the edge of the wetlands and that the detention pond will not hold all the water. She requests the Board order additional studies. Dinkin asks if there are any other questions or comments. Hearing none, Dinkin declares the public hearing closed. Chairma/i de6tares a recess until 9:30 p.m., and reconvenes the Board at that time. Public Hearing: Request for Waiver of Frontage Requirements of Zoning in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R and approval of plan in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-T / 495 Cabot Street Cassidy reads the legal notice. Walter Ewaschuk states that they are looking for approval for two buildings on the property. The owner hopes to split the property into three lots and he wants to have two crafismen's shops on the two lots he will purchase. Mr. Tom DiPaolo is also present as the owner of the property. DiPaolo states the property was formerly run as a flower business by his parents. Ewaschuk states that part of the property was a cement block business, and that it was taken down when the DiPaolo family bought the property. The Planning Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page ten property is landlocked and he presently leases fifteen spaces to the doctor on the adjoining property. He states it will not be disruptive to the neighborhood. The business will not generate many cars. He has received frontage and use variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and now seeks approval from this Board. He states that the Fire Department has written a letter statin~ this development will not pose any problems. The lots contain 20,000 sq. ~. +/- of land. The remaining portion oftbe lot will be reserved for the existing home. Cassidy reads letters received from the Parking and Traffic Commission dated 10/27/98 and the Fire Department dated 10/27/98. Dinkin asks if members of the Board have questions. There are none. Dinkin asks for questions from the audience. Mrs. Tuner, 5 Roosevelt Avenue, asks what the business will be. Ewaschuk explain.q the site will be used for storage of equipment and trucks only. He states that there will be no filling of the land in connection with his use of the site. Delaney questions the fight of way, which is proposed to be 14' wide through Dr. Kaplan' s property. Ewaschuk explains that the road is gravel and that the doctor' s employees and customers are parking in the area~ He states there is a hot-topped area near the doctor's house and that he will pave an area in the front of his lot so that it will be clean for the people to park their cars on. Dinkin asks if be is going to purchase beth of the two back lots and erect structures, and asks what will be stored outside overnight. Ewasohuk states that nothing will be kft outside overnight, that all equipmere will be stored inside. He states that the trucks will be backed in and that supplies will be stored them. Delaney expresses concern about the fight-of-way width. Ewaschuk states they are parking there presently. He states that the present concrete building will remain and another building will be built on the second lot. Dinkin questions the size of the trucks that will he entering the site and Ewaschuk responds they will be dump-truck size. Dinkin asks for any additional questions from the public or Board. There are none. Dinkin asks if anyone wishes to be recorded in favor of or in opposition to the proposed development. There are none. Dinkin declares the public hearing closed. Dinkin returns the Board to regular session. 10. Discussion/decision: Site plan review application to construct ear wash and auto repair facility at 2 Margin Street planning Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page eleven Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions or comments on the application. There ale none. Delaney: motion to approve site plan review application//42-98 to permit the construction of a car wash and automotive repair facility at 2 Margin Stxeet subject to the applicant revising the elevation drawings so that the door locations are as shown on the site plan, seconded by All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 11. Site Plan Review application for construction of manufacturing/office facility on Sam Fonzo Drive Dinkin asks fithere are any additional questions or comments on the application. There are Bone. Delaney: motion to approve site plan review application #40-98 to permit the construction of a new manufacturing/office facility on Sam Fonzo Drive, subject to the incorporation of all comments from the Board of Health and Engineering Departments into the plans, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. 12. Request for waiver of frontage requirements of zoning in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-R and approval of plan in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-T Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments or questions from Board members. There are none. Sullivan5 ": motion to approve the request for a waiver of the frontage requirements of zoning in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81 -R and plan approval under M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81 -T, subject to the conditions that a) no trucks with more than two axles may access the site, and b) that no vehicle in excess of 12.5 tons may access the site, seconded by Thomas. Thomas, Sullivan, Dinkin, Dunn, Flannery, Rink in favor, Delaney in opposition. Motion carries 6-1. 13. Request for permission on repetitive petition / 449 Cabot Street / Fouad Saade Cassidy updates the Board members and explains that the new owner of the Texaco station at this address previously applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances on Planning Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page twelve the size of the lettering on the canopy and the setback of the canopy from the right-of- way. The Zoning Board denied the variance requests, and the applicant is seeking the Planning Board's assent to reapply to the Board of Appeals within two years of that denial. The applicant has changed the distance into which the canopy would project into the front setback requirement, and has agreed to have no lettering on the canopy itself. Two sides of the canopy will contain a Texaco "star" logo instead. Cassidy also explains that the Stale law requires all but one member of the Board must assent to the reapplication in order for the vote to carry. She explains that member Salvatore Modugno was unable to attend this evening's meeting to vote on this matter, but was informed of the changes to the petition by the applicant. She presents the Board with a written statement from Mr. Modugno voting in favor of the applicant returning to the Zoning Board of Appeals. She adds that she has discussed this method of voting with City Solicitor Marshall Handly, who assures the Board that Mr. Modugno's written statement is valid. Board members hold a brief discussion. Dehney: motion to fmd that a specific and material change has been made to the proposed Zoning Board of Appeals application for this project and to grant the applicant's request to reapply to the Board of Appeals within two years of a variance denial, seconded by Sullivan. Sullivan, Delaney, Dinkin, Dunn, Flannery, Rink, Modugno in favor, Thomas against. Motion fails 7-1. 14. Chapel Hill Estates: Expiration of construction completion date and performance bond Cassidy updates the Board, stating that the applicants are requesting a three month extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement posted as surety to guarantee completion of the subdivision and a corresponding extension of the construction completion date referenced in it. She reads the letter of request from the applicant and informs members that the bank has submitted an executed extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement for three months. She also reads a letter from City Engineer Frank Killilea recommending the extension. Delaney: motion to accept the request for a three-month extension to the Tri-Partite Agreement posted as surety to guarantee completion of the Chapel Hill Estates subdivision and to extend the construction completion date for three months, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 15. Morgan's Island Subdivision: expiration of construction completion date Planning Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page thirteen Cassidy informs the members that the surety posted for this five-lot subdivision is a passbook in the amount of $32,175, and the developers have requested a six month extension of the construction completion date l~om 11/30/98 to 5/30/99. Delaney: motion to extend the construction completion date for the Morgan' s Island subdivision ~'om 11/30/98 to 5/30/99, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. 16. Subdivision Approval No/Required Plan / Sam Fonzo Drive Cassidy states that the owners of Aero Manufacturing have filed this plan to divide the lot they own on Sam Fonzo Drive to create a new building lot for the new Aero facility. The lots have the required ~'ontage on Sam Fonzo Drive. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Dinkin calls for a five minute recess, and then reconvenes the Board meeting. Dinkin asks Cassidy to update the Board. She states that the previous discussion regarding the Texaco station on Cabot Street failed because the law requires all but one of the members to vote in favor of the repotitive petition. She asks if the Board is willing to reconsider the previous finding. It is the consensus of the Board that the matter be discussed a second time. Thomas states that he objected during the first vote because he was unconvinced that the changes made to the original application that was denied by the Board of Appeals were signi~canl'en0ugh to warrant a second hearing. He states that if the applicant were willing to agree that all faces of the canopy would be opaque and have no lighting prol~ruding from them, he would consider the design changes significant enough to change his vote. The applicant agrees that this can and will be done. Dehney: motion to find that a specific and material change has been made to the application and plans and to consent to allow the applicant to reapply to the Zoning Board of Appeals within two years of denial of a variance, subject to the condition that the sides of the canopy will he constructed of an opaque material and no lighting will project through it. Motion seconded by Sullivan, Sullivan, Delaney, Dinkin, Flannery, Modugno, Dunn, Rink, and Thomas in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries by an 8-0 vote. Harming Board meeting November 17, 1998 Page fourteen Cassidy states that she will inform the applicant of the Board's vote first thing in the morning. Delaney: motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 10:35 p.m.