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garage on their property be withdrawn without prejudice.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O'Brien to allow the petition at 23 Pickman Road to be withdrawn without prejudice.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addition to the existing beauty salon and tanning salon already allowed be withdrawn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