Loading...
2010-01-26CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing or public meeting of the Board of Appeals. Reviews of the decision or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board's Decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: January 26, 2010 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, Joel Margolis, and Jane Brusca. Alternate Members Pamela Gougian and Sally Koen. Others Present: Building Commissioner — Director Steven Frederickson and Clerk for the Board — Diane Rogers. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p .m. 23 Pickman Road — R -10 Zone — Beniamin T. & Barbara O. Healy Variance Request The Healy's went before the Board on November 24, 2009 and had their application continued to the January 26, 2010 meeting. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley stated she received a letter dated January 26, 2010, requesting for the variance to build a detached garage on their property be withdrawn without prejudice. A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to allow the petition at 23 Pickman Road to be withdrawn without prejudice. Seconded by Ms..Koen. Motion carried unanimously. 70 Herrick Street — R -10 - Zone — Cross Roads Realty Trust Modification of existing variance Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on his client's behalf. He requested the application be modified to allow for the use of the premises for a coffee shop /cafe and variety store in addition to the existing beauty salon and tanning salon already allowed be withdrawn without prejudice. A motion was made by Ms O'Brien to allow Cross Roads Realty Trust of 70 Herrick Street to withdraw without prejudice their application. Seconded by Ms. Koen. Motion carried unanimously. 138 Conant Street — IR Zone — Goodman Networks/H. Carlisle Special Permit Request Heather M. Carlisle of Goodman Networks spoke on behalf of Clearwire US LLC. She was requesting to install wireless communications facilities consisting of five (5) antennas and one equipment cabinet and related cables and ancillary equipment on the rooftop located at 138 Conant Street in the IR Zoning District. Ms. Carlisle introduced Vineet Khurana an engineer with the company. He explained that this will provide a substantial benefit to Beverly in the form of wireless services for the public. These district antennas will have a minimal impact on surrounding residences and businesses. All materials will be painted so they match the existing building. A Site Plan dated August 14, 2007 along with photographs of the exterior of the building was submitted for the Board to review. A letter of authorization signed by S.J. Connolly IV, Operating Manager of 138 Conant Street authorized Clearwire US LLC to act as a nonexclusive agent for the sole purpose of filing and consummating any land use or building permit application (s) necessary to obtain approval for the applicable jurisdiction for Clearwire's modification and or installation of telecommunications equipment on the above - described property. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public have any comments or questions. Mr. David Earl of 32 Mac Arthur Road, a ham operator him self asked what frequency the new wireless system would be operating on. Mr. Khurana responded that this frequency is located high above the frequency used by Mr. Earl. Ms. Kelley then asked the Board for their questions and comments. Mr. Ferguson asked what the anchoring system was on the roof? Mr. Khurana responded that the roof anchoring drawings are indicated on the structural details on drawing S -5. Ms. O'Brien confirmed that this is a new service that one could use rather than Comcast or Verizon. Chairman Kelley stated the Board has to decide how does this request impact the area and does it have an impact on the Beverly Airport. She asked what the proportions on the canister, cabinets and height of that would be. Mr. Khurana responded the cabinet is 4 -feet 2- inches high and enclosed by a 10 -feet by 10 -feet screened area as shown on drawing A -5. He added that the height is 85 -feet from the ground. Ms. Kelley commented that the wireless antennas should not be visible from the street. Ms. Brusca asked if the equipment would interfere with the airport was answered when Mr. Khurana responded that the proposed equipment shall be in compliance with the FCC guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation, and will also comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations relating to radio frequency emissions. 2 Ms. O'Brien made a motion to grant the special permit to Goodman Networks to install wireless communications facilities consisting of (5) antennas and one equipment cabinet and related cables and ancillary equipment on the rooftop at 138 Conant Street with the following conditions being met: A. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. B. That no factual evidence is found that the property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use. C. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. D. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. E. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. F. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Seconded by Mr. Margolis. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Brusca voting in favor. 42 Neptune Street - R -10 Zone - Robert Edelstein an Appeal from an Administrative Decision Attorney Marc Kornitsky spoke on behalf of Mr. Edelstein. He stated he was requesting to appeal the decision of the Building Commissioner as set forth in the attached letter dated October 26, 2009, which he submitted to the Board. Mr. Edelstein explained there are 8 PVC tubes, approximately 2 '/z inches wide and 7 inches high, held in the ground with concrete. These tubes were used for the 4 supports and netting which has been removed for seasonal storage. Photographs of the "batting cage" were submitted for the Board to review. Mr. Edelstein stated the Building Commissioner issued a letter proclaiming that the petitioner's have constructed a batting cage which is an "accessory building" in their front yard and is not permitted. The petitioners deny that they have constructed a building, but rather have used a net with supports for preventing balls from flying out of the yard during their children's T -ball, softball or golf practice. Attorney Kornitsky submitted a (6) page document stating facts, issues, arguments, common permitted uses, and case laws. He is of the belief that the batting cage is not an Accessory Building as defined by the City of Beverly Zoning Ordinances. He added that the batting cage does not have a roof, it is not an accessory building and not subject to the front yard restriction. He stated that the Batting Cage is covered with netting not a roof as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Alan Lipkind representing Mr. Thomas Wilburn of 40 Neptune Street ( Mr. Edelsteins abutting neighbor) is of the opinion that the front yard must remain open to the sky and unobstructed. In his letter to the Building Inspector dated September 24, 2009 he stated his clients request enforcement of the Beverly Zoning By Law. He added that the Batting Cage is located in the front yard, and the large metal pillars, which hold up the roof slide into PVC tubes, which are anchored in cement footings. The Batting Cage is approximately 45 -feet long and 12 -13 -feet wide, and 12 -feet high. He stated the batting cage is approximately 2 -3 -feet from the front lot line and 2 -3 -feet from the side lot line, each of which borders the Wilburn Property. His client would appreciate an order to be issued for removal of the Batting Cage. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone in the public had questions or comments. Margaret Mahoney of 52 Pickman Road asked the Board to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector. Joan Stein Streilein of 44 Neptune Street stated she was requesting that the Board of Appeals uphold the decision of the Building Inspector barring the existence of the batting cage previously constructed. A letter dated January 24, 2010 from Edmund & Lois Johnson of 51 Pickman Road and Jean & Rick Wilson of 37 Pickman Road stated they were in favor of upholding the Building Commissioners Decision. Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. Kelley asked how it was determined that the batting cage was in the front yard of this pork chop lot. Atty. Lipkind responded that Mr. Frederickson made that determination. Mr. Wilburn stated he opposes that the Batting Cage is located 2 -3 feet from his property line. He added he cannot install a fence to block it out because of its height. Mrs. Brusca asked if a permit was needed for a 6 feet fence. Commissioner Frederickson responded a permit is not required for a fence unless it would be higher than 6 -feet tall. He added the issue here is that the Batting Cage is located in the front yard. Mrs. Edelstein stated the Batting Cage has been used approximately 7 times since it was erected in August. She added the children use rubber balls. Ms. O'Brien asked if the Batting Cage could be moved on top of the sports court. Ms. Kelley stated the Board has to discuss if this use is allowed in the front yard. Ms. Brusca commented that this Batting Cage is not only 600 square feet, it equals to 50 -feet by 12 -feet. Ms. O'Brien stated Mr. Frederickson is the expert in zoning and she therefore would back up his decision. Ms. Brusca, Ms. Gougian and Mr. Ferguson concurred. A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to Uphold the Decision of the Building Commission stating that the petitioner has constructed an accessory building in his front yard, in violation of zoning, which the petitioner denies. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca and Gougian voting in favor) 30 Fairview Avenue — R -10 Zone — Arthur V. & Sylvia Di Paolo Section 6 Finding Request (CONTINUED TILL FEB.2010) Mr. Di Paolo spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to erect a 1 '/z -story wood frame 2" floor addition and attic, attached to the rear of the existing nonconforming one - family structure. The proposed 24' by 24' addition meets all other zoning requirements. The proposed new rooms will contain (1) full bath and (3) bedrooms on the 2nd floor. Photographs of the dwelling along with proposed floor plans, 11 elevations and plot plan were submitted to the Board to review. Mr. Di Paolo stated he had spoken to his neighbors regarding his proposed plans. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if any member of the public had any questions or comments. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. Brusca asked why the proposed addition was on stilts. Mrs. Di Paolo responded the stilts would be used because they were going over an outside room. Mr. Margolis asked if the petitioner had plans to enclosing that area. Mr. Di Paolo responded in the future that area might be enclosed. The Board examined the plans submitted and Ms. Kelley stated she believed this proposal needed a better design especially in the front. She suggested the hearing be postponed to the next scheduled meeting in February and during that month a new design plan be drawn up. Ms. Brusca and Ms. O'Brien concurred. They commented the petitioner would not be happy with the design they presented this evening. Mr. Ferguson suggested the petitioner obtains elevations drawings. Mr. Ferguson made a motion to continue this proposal to the February 23, 2010 hearing. A waiver of time to be signed. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Brusca, Ferguson, Margolis, and O'Brien voting in favor) 79 Boyles Street — R -22 — Charles Palmer Variance Request Mr. Robert Gulla, architect spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to construct a proposed extension to an existing attached one -car garage that extends beyond the side yard setback line by 12 -feet. He added that the existing dwelling layout and ledge outcroppings on the East side make locating the garage in that area fiscally and functionally impractical. The proposed addition would be 25 -feet by 22- feet 6- inches. The edge of the proposed driveway is plus or minus 3 -feet 1 -inch. The Site Plan, the proposed 1 st Floor Plan, Elevations, South, West, and North (rear) and photographs were submitted for the Board to review. A plot plan dated September 4, 2009 was prepared by The American Land Survey Associates, Inc. by Kirk W. Benson, President, PLS from Gloucester, MA. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if any one from the public had any questions or comments. There being no one present she asked the Board for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien stated there would be no obstruction of the view along the street. Mr. Ferguson asked if Mr. Palmer has spoken to his neighbors'. Mr. Gulla submitted the petition with the following neighbors in favor of this proposal: Nestor A. Real of 73 Boyles Street and Edward W. Packard of 123 Cross Lane. Mr. Ferguson asked if the height of the proposed new 2 -car garage would remain the same. Mr. Gulla responded the height would remain the same. Mr. Ferguson asked if the existing garage would be demolished and Mr. Palmer responded that this was probable since the garage was built in 1950. A motion was made by Ms. Brusca to grant the variance for the proposed extension for a two -car garage at 79 Boyles Street. The hardship being the shape of the lot, the topography including ledge and the existing position of the dwelling upon the lot. There will be reasonable relief granted. The variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, Brusca, O'Brien, and Margolis voting in favor) 7 Lakeside Avenue — R -10 Zone — Neil Overbem Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Overberg spoke on his own behalf. He stated he is requesting to erect a proposed 2nd level addition over the (12 -feet by 26 -feet 1 st floor addition granted by "finding" July 28, 2009) to contain (2) — bedrooms. Also, to expand the rear entry that is 4 -feet wide by 12- feet 6- inches. The present structure of the legal nonconforming lot does not meet the required setback but the proposed addition will not create a new nonconformity. The lot contains 7,678 sq. feet of area and has 90 -feet of lineal frontage. The property is currently a two -story single - family residence and will remain so. Mr. Overberg added that the property has adequate parking, utilities, drainage, and will not require any additional service. The photographs, 1 st and 2nd floor plans along with elevations drawings were drawn by Robert Nelson. Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson asked if anyone from the public has any questions or comments. There being no one present she then asked the Board for their questions and comments. Mr. Ferguson stated the following surrounding abutters were in favor of this petition: Jill M. Mandia 5 Lakeside Avenue, Robert Levin, 6 Lakeside Avenue, Kerry Combs 6 Hoover Avenue and Carol Post 5 Hover Avenue. Chairperson Kelley commented that Mr. Overberg was granted the first finding in July of 2009 and if he is granted this 2nd finding it will enable him to start the project. Mr. Overberg did not want to begin the project and then return to the Board for the 2nd phase. A motion was made by Mr. Margolis to grant the Section 6 Finding to Neil Overberg at 7 Lakeside Avenue being that the proposed reconstruction to this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board finds there is support from neighbors based on letters. The plans submitted with the application are to be incorporated into the Board's decision. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Margolis, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis voting in favor) 10 Pineknoll Drive — R -15 Zoning District — James E. and Patricia A. Fortin Temporary Conditional Permit and a Variance Request 31 Attorney Philip Lake spoke on behalf of the Fortin's. He stated he was requesting a Temporary Conditional Permit (Special Permit) and a Variance to construct an addition for an Accessory Apartment/ to accommodate a person to live in proximity to, but with independence from, a relative. Mary and Robert Davis to reside in the same dwelling as their daughter and son -in -law, during their elderly years, per Section 29 -24C (1 -11). Atty Lake seeks to construct a two -car garage with an associated accessory apartment. The garage /apartment will comply with all setback and other dimensional requirements; be attached to the existing single - family dwelling; and utilize the same front entrance as the existing single - family dwelling. Atty Lake stated the existing single - family home does not contain sufficient area or rooms for the installation of an accessory apartment. He added this property does not have an existing garage with associated living area. The petitioner could construct an addition and come to the Board after for a temporary conditional permit at considerable cost without knowing that the addition could be utilized as an accessory structure. The Fortins' in -laws would have to move from Pennsylvania, without knowing that the addition could be utilized as an accessory structure. Attorney Lake feels this creates a substantial practical and financial hardship for the petitioner. Attorney Lake stated the lot is large and drops back down with pine trees on three sides. He added Ms. Kelley asked if the addition would meet all setbacks. Attorney Lake responded yes. A field survey was drawn by Gerald R. Marsella on December 7, 2009. Proposed addition, front elevation, rear elevation, right side elevation, first floor plan, foundation and first floor deck plans were drawn by Robert Nelson. Photographs of the dwelling were also submitted to the Board to review. Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson asked if anyone from the Public had any questions or comments. There being no one present she then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Margolis asked if the addition would be 1,000 square feet in area. Atty. Lake responded that was correct. Ms. Kelley commented that the entrance is within the existing dwelling as it should be. She added whether its two individual's or one she did not see what difference that makes. Ms. Kelley believes the requirements in the ordinance should be amended to allow for a temporary conditional permit to include mother and father in -law. Ms Gougian stated in the zoning ordinance it says the City Clerk renews the temporary conditional permits every 4 years. Ms. Kelley stated she does not believe that happens. Mr. Ferguson stated he believed requesting a variance for the other in -law to reside in the apartment was flawed. He thought the name would be on the deed and could be transferred on a title search. The attorney responded that the variance recorded at the Registry of Deeds would be specific to Mary and Robert Davis and therefore would not be transferable for use by any other individuals. A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to grant the temporary conditional permit for an accessory apartment for two in -laws to reside at 10 Pine Knoll Drive be granted per Section 29 -24 -C conditions. To grant the variance to allow Mary and Robert Davis to reside in the dwelling per Section 29 -24 -C 1 -11. Also, approve that the proposed addition be subject to the plans provided; whereas the apartment is usually within the existing dwelling. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 7 69 Grover Street — R -22 Zone — Richard Wilson Variance Request Mr. Richard Wilson spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to construct a roof over the existing open front deck with a setback of 9.4 -feet instead of the required 15 -feet. He added the front deck roof measures 15 -feet 8- inches by 6 -feet. Mr. Wilson stated the addition of a porch roof above the deck will prevent water damage to the current door and provide shade. He commented that most of the neighborhood dwellings have some type of coverage over their entrances. Photographs of the dwelling and plans were submitted to the Board for review. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked members of the public if they had any questions or comments. There being no one present she then asked Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Ferguson stated abutters in the immediate area signed off on this proposal. He added the proposed addition was very small and close to the property line. Ms. Kelley stated this was a long and narrow lot and the porch was close to the lot line but in direct line of the existing home. She believes the addition was located there because there was no other solution. Ms. Kelley does not see any problems with this proposal. Ms. O'Brien concurs. A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to grant the variance at 69 Grover Street in that the shape of the lot, position of the house on it, would make it impossible to place it any other place. This is a reasonable relief asked by the owner. Will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public. Seconded by Mr. Margolis. Motion carries 5 — 0 (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 15 Bancroft Avenue — R -10 Zone - Julie A. Peterson Section 6 Finding Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to allow for a 22 -foot by 22 -foot addition to the rear of the property, on a lot that is legally nonconforming due to having 9,498 sq. ft. of land where 10,000 is currently required. The addition will contain (2) new garages under, new kitchen and sunroom on 1 st floor and master bedroom and full bath on the 2nd floor. He added the existing use is a legal pre- existing two - family. Attorney Alexander stated the property has been owned since 1992 by the petitioner. He added that 18 years ago this lot was zoned R -6, a two - family zone. Atty Alexander provided new elevation plans to the Board members and explained the design existing and then the proposed. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any comments or questions. There being no on present she then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien asked about street access. Atty. Alexander responded the garages would be accessed from Lovett Street no longer from Bancroft. Mr. Ferguson stated the garages will drop down in grade 8 —feet. Ms. Kelley asked if the proposed addition is almost as big as the dwelling. Attorney Alexander stated he did not believe so. Ms. Kelley stated the elevation drawings made it look like that. Atty. Alexander stated the addition was approximately 984 sq. feet. He stated there would be more room on the lot when the existing garage was removed. A petition was submitted to the Board of 13 direct abutters signing in favor of this petition. Ms. O'Brien asked if #85 signed off on the proposal? Atty. Alexander responded, "there is no #85 it's actually 2 Ives Street. Atty. Alexander stated the second apartment is occupied by the owners brother. Ms. Kelley stated that it was a beautiful house and a nice design, although the addition may look tall from Lovett Street. She commented that it will be back away from the street. Ms. Brusca asked if any trees could be saved out back. Mr. Ferguson asked what was the reason for the small bump out on the side of the house? Atty. Alexander replied the bump out has to do with the garage size. Mr. Margolis made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding at 15 Bancroft Avenue to allow for a 22 -foot by 22 -foot addition to the rear of the property, on a lot that is non- conforming. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Margolis, Ferguson, and Brusca voting in favor) 10 Smithson Drive — R -10 Zone — John R. and Mabeth Q. Richards Section 6 Finding and Variance Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner's. He stated the request is to allow the expansion of a 2nd floor dormer within the building footprint since lot area of 7,194 sq. ft. (10,000 required) is nonconforming. He added that the petitioner is also seeking to extend the dining room by 6 -feet on one side in the front and a covered porch of 6 -feet width on the other side of the front, resulting in an 8.38 front yard setback where 20 -feet is required. (The dining room would go from 11 -feet 11 to 11 -feet —17) The extension of the second floor dormer will not enlarge the footprint of the dwelling and will allow for an attractive expansion of the second floor. ( Master Bedroom with dressing area on the left side and (2) bedrooms on the right) Atty Alexander stated the lot is narrow and without zoning relief as requested the lot will not be properly utilized. He added the relief would result in an attractive addition to the property and increase the property values and improve the appearance of the neighborhood. Photographs, plot plan and drawings were submitted to the Board for review. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if there was anyone in the public that had any questions or comments. There being no one present, she then asked the Board members for their input. Mr. Margolis stated he had concerns with Atty. Alexander's definition for hardship. Ms. Kelley stated the rear addition proposal is fine but the variance request is also concerning to her. Atty. Alexander stated half of the variance is for a 6 -foot enlargement to the dining room on one side and a covered porch on the other. That it was really a minimum request. Mr. Ferguson stated he was in favor of the Section 6 request. Atty. Alexander stated what he believed to be the hardships in regard to this property. Ms. Kelley said that the lot is not unique and the other lots in the neighborhood are very 9 similar. Ms. Brusca stated that she did not like the addition to the dining room to the front of the dwelling. She asked the Board members if they limited the variance request to the porch only? Mr. Ferguson stated he did not see the location and would like to see the character of the neighborhood before he votes. Mr. O'Brien mentioned that the addition into the front yard setback impacts the streetscape. Mr. Margolis said that we had a similar request several months ago for a farmer's porch. That request was withdrawn after the Board expressed concerns. A motion was made by Ms. Brusca to approve the Section 6 Finding to allow for the expansion of the existing dormer on the rear of the existing dwelling. The specific site is an appropriate location; that no factual evidence is found that the property values in the district will be adversely affected; that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the property and there are no valid objections, in fact just the opposite. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries unanimously. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca and Margolis in favor) Ms. Kelley stated to Atty. Alexander that there were not enough Board members in favor of the variance. She asked if he want to withdraw the variance without prejudice. Attorney Alexander asked "would it possible to continue the variance part of the request for a month at which time he would either go forward or withdraw without prejudice the proposal. A motion was made Mr. Ferguson to allow the variance portion of this petition to be carried over until the February 23, 2010 hearing. Subject to signing a Waiver of Time. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion Carries Unanimously. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Brusca voting in favor.) ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS DISCUSSED Chairperson Day Ann Kelley stated that every January a Chairman is voted upon, for the Board of Appeals. Mr. Ferguson made a motion to designate Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson for the year 2010. Ms. O'Brien seconded. Motion carried unanimously. (Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, Margolis, Gougian , and Koen voted in favor) Ratify Minutes Ms. O'Brien stated she read Diane's October minutes. Found a few type -Os Ms. Brusca stated she read the November minutes. Mr. Ferguson stated he read Diane's minutes of Dec. 10 (Special Meeting) Found one type -0. 10 A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson and seconded by Ms. O'Brien to ratify the minutes of October, November, and December subject to a few corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, Margolis, Koen, and Gougian in favor) Ms. Kelley stated that a new alternate Board members name was being submitted to the Mayor for approval. She commented he would not be present at every meeting but his architectural specialties would be appreciated. Chairperson Kelley asked the Board members if they were interested in serving on another board. Ms. O'Brian stated she just got off the Design Review Board and could not manage another evening. Jane Brusca stated she was now on the Design Review Board and did not have any other free time. After a discussion on this matter there were no volunteers at the moment for the Ad `Hawk Committee / on elderly housing, definition in the zoning ordinance. 11