TOWN OF HARWICH
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
Wednesday, March 26, 2008, 7:00pm
Donn B. Griffin Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Brown, George Cavanaugh, Dean Hederstedt, Geoff Wiegman, Richard Flink, Murray Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT (EXCUSED):
MEMBERS ABSENT (UNEXCUSED):
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: 7:00 PM
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Leven, AICP, Town Planner, Kathleen Girouard, Board Secretary
On Wednesday, March 26, 2008, the Harwich Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing at the Harwich Town Hall, Donn B.Griffin Room, Harwich, MA 02645 at 7:00 PM to hear the appeals of the following:
#08-04: The petition of Richard A. Weiler, Jr. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property at 527 Long Pond Drive as shown on Assessor’s Map #111, Parcel A-2 in the RR and Water Resource Protection zoning districts, East Harwich, seeks a Special Permit to construct 2 additions to a pre-existing, non-conforming use (dental office) and a Variance to exceed the maximum site coverage. Moved to end of meeting to hear new case first upon applicant’s request.
#08-10: The petition of Steven A. Cove. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property at 222 Chatham Road, as shown on Assessor’s Map #34, Parcel E4 in the RR zoning district, South Harwich, seeks a special permit pursuant to Section V Table 1 of the Harwich Zoning By-law for an agricultural use on a property under 5 acres, and a variance to construct a greenhouse within the sideline setback.
DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATIONS: Applicant requested a continuance to April 30, 2008.
VOTE: Mr. Brown motioned to continue to April 30, 2008, Dr. Johnson seconded, unanimous vote in favor.
#08-13: The petition of the Harwich Taxpayers’ Association, represented by James B. Stinson, Esq. The petitioner, who is the president of the organization, seeks a review of the decision of the Building Commissioner to issue a violation for temporary signs displayed on public property without the permission of the Board of Selectmen and for displaying temporary signs without filing proper notification with the Building Commissioner.
TIME OPEN: 7:03pm
DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATIONS: Chairman Flink and Mr. Wiegman recused themselves and sat in the audience. Mr. Brown chaired the hearing. Mr. Brown read the legal notice into the record. Attorney Stinson informed the Board of his authorization to present the case and distributed the letter dated December 5, 2007 from the Buidling Commissioner to Mr. Wiegman, President of the Taxpayers’ Association. Attorney Stinson reviewed the bylaw requirements for placing temporary signs that require notification to the Building Commissioner and the Historic Commission if the proposed signs are within the historic district but does not state you need authorization from the Board of Selectman to place temporary signs on a public way. He said the only reference to signs on public
property in the bylaw was the prohibition of campaign signs on public property.
He compared the old bylaw to the new suggesting the reason for the changes was most likely to eliminate the need for permits for temporary signs for events that would be over before a permit could be obtained. He also questioned how the public way is determined and asked if applicants are required to hire a surveyor to make such a determination. He distributed Section VII of the old bylaw to the Board stating the problems could be a violation of the first amendment.
At the Annual Town Meeting in 2003 the bylaw was rewritten and he read a section of the bylaw on the Building Commissioner’s authority over signs on public property and distributed a copy to the Board. He restated the bylaw does not require a permit from the Board of Selectman and noted this is not about zoning but the interpretation of the bylaw. He referred to pages 87 and 88 discussing signs allowed without permits and those for special events. Stating the need to file with a building official and posting not more than 2 weeks before an event and removed within 30 days. There is no mention of a requirement for a permit from the Board of Selectman. Mr. Larsen, the Building Commissioner clarified that while a permit is not required, the petitioner has the burden to secure
authorization from the Board of Selectman and Historic Commission. He read a memo dated February 25, 2008 into the record describing the need for authorization to place temporary signs on Town owned land. Attorney Stinson argued the bylaw states notice to the Building Commissioner and not authorization or permit. If the bylaw intended authorization it should have been so stated.
Ms. Leven referred to State Ethics’ opinion that anyone sitting on the case who is also a member of the Taxpayers’ Association must file disclosure with the Town Clerk and Board of Selectmen and asked if any members did so. Mr. Hederstedt stated that he was a member of the Taxpayers’ Association but did not file a written disclosure.
Mr. Brown asked if there was anything else in the bylaw discussing signs on Town property and the historic districts and Ms. Leven responded that there was not a specific reference. She also added that the bylaw doesn’t address getting permission from the property owner to put a sign up. Ms. Leven read the Planning Board’s opinion into the record. The opinion summarized the importance providing information to officials to ensure that traffic hazards and sign pollution do not result. The Planning Board supports the actions of the Building Commissioner and suggested that it is very easy to file for temporary signs.
Dr. Johnson questioned the old and new bylaws regarding the language of signs on public ways. He referred to paragraph 3 subsection (a) in the old bylaw and paragraph 1.08 sub-paragraph b in the new stating both address public health and safety of sign placement. Attorney Stinson agreed with Dr. Johnson but said it should fall on the Building Commissioner not the Board of Selectman. Dr. Johnson asked about the bylaw language and Ms. Leven reported that although not specifically stated it is implied that someone should have the property owner’s permission before placing signs. The Board of Selectman are the representatives of Town owned land. Mr. Hederstedt stated he did not interpret the bylaw as requiring authorization or notice to the Board of Selectman and did not
feel Mr. Larsen has a right to require it.
A conversation ensued as to whether the signs placed were campaign signs and if the agency was considered a lobbying organization. The petitioner claimed the signs were merely directional stating the time and date of the meeting and therefore not a political sign. Mr. Hederstedt questioned how many notices for signs were received by the Building Commissioner and Mr. Larsen reported about 13 enforcement cases in the last 2 ½ years, 2 this year.
TIME CLOSED: 7:33pm
VOTE: Mr. Cavanaugh motioned to uphold the decision of the Building Commissioner. Dr. Johnson seconded. Mr. Cavanaugh pointed out that the applicant concedes that signs require property owner’s permission. He stated the Board of Selectman are the executive authority of the Town representing Town property and have control of the property. It was added the Board of Selectman represent the tax payers in the Town and are the spoke persons much like a Board of Directors for a company. Mr. Hederstedt stated they are not here to rewrite the bylaw and the requirement is not in the bylaw and disagreed based on what is in the bylaw today. Dr. Johnson gave an example of private property owner’s rights to remove signs if placed on their property without
approval. Mr. Brown agreed that anyone could choose to take action or not on their own property and thought it to be the same for Town owned property. Mr. Cavanaugh noted as a practical matter if the Board of Selectman are the property owners they have a right to remove the sign and the decision here tonight is irrelevant. He added it was a good thing the organization exists and to make the public aware of meetings but there is a procedure for placing signs on public and private property. Mr. Hederstedt said he understands if the signs were a hazard or adding an extra burden but he takes issue that it’s not in the bylaw. Dr. Johnson noted he is sensing a 2 to 2 split and suggested tabling and getting Board of Selectman or Town Counsel opinions. Mr. Larsen added that the assumption is a property owner has granted their permission if an applicant is filing a notification form. Attorney Stinson stated the property owner is the taxpayers
and the Board of Selectman do not have the right to move signs but has no objection to seeking advice of Town Counsel. Mr. Cavanaugh agreed with Dr. Johnson to seek opinion of Town counsel.
VOTE: Mr. Cavanaugh motioned to withdraw original motion. Dr. Johnson seconded the withdrawal.
VOTE: Mr. Cavanaugh motioned to continue the matter to April 30, 2008 to seek an opinion from Town Counsel on the zoning bylaw and rights of the Board of Selectman to regulate the use of temporary and other signs on town owned property. Mr. Hederstedt requested the Board review the request before it is submitted to counsel. Ms. Leven agreed to e-mail a draft of the letter to the 4 members sitting on the case. Dr. Johnson seconded 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Hederstedt abstained.
Mr. Flink and Mr. Wiegman returned to the table at 7:52pm.
#08-18: The petition of Mary E. Farragher, Trustee, Mary E. Farragher Trust 1991, represented by Duane P. Landreth, Esq. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property at 1 Phipps Lane, as shown on Assessor’s Map #2, Parcel B1-21 in the RH1 zoning district, West Harwich, seeks a variance to construct an addition to a pre-existing, non-conforming dwelling that encroaches on a street setback.
DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATIONS: Letter from the attorney was received requesting a continuance to April 30, 2008.
VOTE: Dr. Johnson motioned to continue to April 30, 2008, Mr. Cavanaugh seconded, unanimous vote in favor.
#06-14: The petition of the Peterson Realty, Inc., represented by James Stinson, Esq. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property at 255 Route 28, as shown on Assessor’s Map #12, Parcel P3 in the RH1 zoning district, Harwich Port, seeks a special permit under Section X.J. of the Harwich Zoning By-law to extend a non-conforming use by the construction of an apartment on the second floor of a garage which the petitioner proposes to construct on the property. This is a remand by the court of this case, which was appealed following a denial of the petition in 2006.
TIME OPEN: 7:53pm
DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATIONS: Mr. Flink read the notice into the record. Attorney Stinson presenting. Mr. Wiegman disclosed he did not hear previous case and it was noted this was a new petition and he was eligible to vote. The case was heard back in 2006 and the petitioner received 3 votes in favor and one opposed. This is a remand order that is required to be reheard by the Board and the facts remain the same.
Attorney Stinson distributed site plans to the Board and explained they are seeking a special permit for extension of a non-conforming use. There is already an apartment in the front of the real estate office. They are proposing to erect a garage which is allowed by right if it meets the 10 foot set back but needs a special permit for a residential use above. The use will meet parking requirements, site and building coverage. Issues that have been brought up include substantial detriment to public safety based on the access through the church parking lot but stated the church can use spaces on Sundays in exchange for which the applicant has access to the parking spaces. The existing office is 2,145 square feet which requires 14 parking spaces, based on maximum shift and the
apartment requires 1 ½ spaces which totals 15 ½ spaces. To add the new apartment, they would need 17 spaces, they have 20 and thereby meet the requirement. The septic system will be upgraded to Title 5 and they have space to expand the leeching area.
The Church had a concern with parking but feels it can be resolved. The Holy Trinity School playground is fenced in. The rental income from the proposed apartment will pay the expense of putting in the addition. The one apartment will not increase the noise in the area; it will be a studio apartment with 672 square feet and the garage will be used for storage for real estate files, and a classic car.
Public Comments: No public comments or correspondence from the Town Planner or Planning Board.
Mr. Wiegman asked if there was another apartment and the response was yes over the front of the real estate office since the 1950’s. Pre-existing, non-conforming use. It will be a market rate unit and not anticipated that it will be an employee of the office but would like to get someone they know.
Dr. Johnson revealed that although he didn’t sit on the previous case he was in the room and had concerns about the traffic flow and safety of the school. Attorney Stinson responded the Church has created the flow of traffic for parents picking up children. Mr. Flink asked about the daycare which is located on the opposite side. Dr. Johnson ran through the traffic pattern past the front doors of the garage and asked if the renter could park in the garage. The response was no, but could park in front of the garage.
Mr. Wiegman asked if the plans were worked out with the church and it was agreed to use the 19 feet between the property line and the garage which should fit most cars. The renter would have access to any spaces on the property or they could direct use of the last spot of the real estate office and could place reserved parking signs if desired. Mr. Brown asked if two apartments qualify for apartment incidental to commercial. Ms. Leven replied they already determined approved. Dr. Johnson noted that the property lines exist on paper but if you stood on the parking lot you wouldn’t see the line, it’s all asphalt. Again stated his concern with safety in which the attorney replied it is only busy on Sundays and during the day.
TIME CLOSED: 8:15pm
VOTE: Mr. Brown motioned to approve the special permit under Section X.J. of the Harwich Zoning By-law to extend a non-conforming use by the construction of an apartment on the second floor of a garage which the petitioner proposes to construct on the property with the condition the tenant is required to park on the Peterson property while school is in session. Mr. Cavanaugh seconded.
Mr. Flink commented the construction would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. The lot is already jammed. He disclosed that he abstained in the past hearing but intends to vote against it now. Mr. Wiegman thought the back location won’t impact the visibility from the front and it was worked out with the church. The day care center is on the other side. Dr. Johnson restated his concern for traffic flow and noted that he passes by the site several times a day and it is always busy. Adding density could potentially lead to child trauma and he would not put his name on it. Mr. Brown understood his concern but thought adding 1 person would be the same as adding 1 more child and didn’t think it made that much difference. Mr. Quirk
from the Diocese of Fall River stated they are concerned with traffic related issues and Mr. Wiegman asked why they haven’t objected tonight. Mr. Quirk responded the position of the church is they are aware of the traffic and wish to keep parking off the lot and leave it to the Board to decide. When Mr. Wiegman asked if there are safety concerns Mr. Quirk replied that safety is an issue every day of the week. They can’t change the parameters or layout and have done what they believe is the best way to address the traffic and monitor the children. They need to ensure the right children get to the places they need to be.
In Favor: Mr. Brown, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Wiegman
Opposed: Dr. Johnson, Mr. Flink
3 to 2 vote does not carry, petition denied.
#08-20: The petition of Daniel Shea. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property at 29 Sequatton Lane, as shown on Assessor’s Map #7, Parcel A22 in the RH1 zoning district, Harwich Port, seeks a special permit to construct an addition to a pre-existing, non-conforming dwelling that increases the non-conforming nature of the structure but does not create a new non-conformance.
TIME OPEN: 8:20pm
DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATIONS: Mr. Flink read the notice into the record. Attorney Stinson, Mr. Shea, Mr. Collins presenting. Location was formerly a double lot that was combined and acquired last summer. Large Cape style home with a full cellar under a portion of the house but most is crawl space. The easterly side of the structure is only 3 feet off the property line and are proposing to go up to raise the height of the garage for architectural reasons to blend in with the rest of the house. They want to add a shower about 15 feet from the property line. They will take the existing 5 bedrooms and make 4 bedrooms and a study.
The septic system is approved for 5 bedrooms and the changes will not be more detrimental than the existing non-conformity. Many structures in the neighborhood encroach on property lines and distributed a copy of the zoning map that depicts the neighborhood. Mr. Collins explained the purpose of the proposed changes was to raise the roof of the garage and finish the space over it and add a small addition to enlarge the sun room on the southern side. The 2 sheds on the property will be removed along with the existing concrete patio. Attorney Stinson did not add the proposed is a single family home which remain a single family home and will not increase traffic, noise, nor have an environmental impact.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: No comments from the public, the Town Planner or Planning Board.
TIME CLOSED: 8:31 pm
VOTE: Mr. Brown motioned to approve the special permit to construct an addition to a pre-existing, non-conforming dwelling that increases the non-conforming nature of the structure but does not create a new non-conformance. Mr. Cavanaugh seconded, unanimous vote in favor.
#08-19: The petition of Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, represented by Warren Brodie, Esq. The petitioner, who is the lessee of the property at 0 Driftwood Lane as shown on Assessor's Map 53, Parcel G301, in the RR zoning district, East Harwich, seeks a comprehensive permit under MGL Chapter 40B Sections 20-23 and 760 CMR 30.00 and 31.00 to develop 13 condominium units of housing as single family and duplex dwellings.
Mr. Flink suggested the next hearing will take a while, probably an hour and suggested calling a special meeting to discuss the Habitat for Humanity case only. Representatives for Habitat agreed.
VOTE: Mr. Brown motioned to continue #08-19 to 6:30pm April 7, 2008, with a meeting place to be determined, Mr. Wiegman seconded, unanimous vote in favor.
#08-21: The petition of R. Boyden Brodeur for the Brodeur Family Trust. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property at 18/20 Bank Street, as shown on Assessor’s Map #7, Parcel F16, in the RH1 zoning district, Harwich Port, seeks a variance or in the alternative a special permit to construct an addition that encroaches on the Braddock Street setback.
TIME OPEN: 8:40pm
DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATIONS: Mr. Brodeur expressed his desire to add a small addition 35 square feet to enlarge an existing bathroom that is 4 feet by 5 feet, to make it handicap accessible. The corner is too close to the property line of a right of way. The cottage was built in 1949 when zoning was not in place and it is not known when the right of way was established. The issue is 6 inches on the north-west corner. Pictures were submitted to the Board showing there is a 6 ½ foot fence and the little addition would be in the corner. Ms. Leven noted that it should be approved as filed as a variance.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Leven read a letter received from neighbor. Letter received form Mr. Winston and Mr. Plunkett, the closest abutters, had no issue with the proposed. The Collins Family of 1 Braddock Street also submitted a letter in support. Planning Board commented the hardship was not specified. Mr. Hederstedt asked how much encroachment and the answer was plus or minus 6 inches in the northwest corner but is contained within the fenced in area. He also asked the applicant if it could be designed without the encroachment and the applicant said it could but would put a jog in. Mr. Cavanaugh added the size of the existing bathroom was a hardship.
TIME CLOSED: 8:46pm
VOTE: Mr. Brown motioned to grant the variance to construct an addition that encroaches on the Braddock Street setback with minimal encroachment and relieves an unfortunate position. Mr. Wiegman seconded, unanimous vote in favor.
#08-22: The petition of Richard A. Weiler, Jr. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property at 527 Long Pond Drive as shown on Assessor’s Map #111, Parcel A-2 in the RR and Water Resource Protection zoning districts, East Harwich, seeks a variance to exceed the maximum site coverage, and a use variance to allow construction of two additional dental offices in a residential district
TIME OPEN: 8:49pm
DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATIONS: Attorney Cahoon, Dr. Weiler, and Mr. Clark expressed their desire to add dental surgeons and specialists to both sides of the existing dental office to offer more complete dental services. These services would offer residents an alternative to driving to Hyannis for these services and relieve pressure on Cape Cod Hospital. There is a unique right of way for the Fontaine Medical Center with sloped topography that doesn’t allow for relocating the entry way. They tried to landscape to appease the abutters. They stated it was a public need that would not add noise, and operates during the daylight hours at this unique structure in a residential zone. It will cause a financial hardship if not able to construct the additions and they
will not be able to offer additional dental services. It will not be detrimental to the neighborhood but will enhance the public good. They asked for a favorable vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mrs. Shrake read a letter dated March 24, 2008 written by Mr. Shrake (her son) a direct abutter who could not be in attendance; he is a merchant marine and is away at sea. The letter described concerns with the use of the property that is not permitted within the zoning bylaw, the inadequate parking on the site, that the hardship was not clearly stated, and the availability of an appropriate site in a commercial zone less than 2 miles down the road. It will be detrimental to the surrounding rural character, non-permitted use will be tripled on the site located in a water resource district, will create a demand for parking and increase traffic and suggested referring case to the Cape Cod Commission for review. Planning Board is reserving comment until they
see the site plan. START HERE Ms. Leven added that medical use is allowed in commercial districts in the Water Resource Protection District. Mr. Wiegman asked if the driveway could be moved to accommodate parking. Attorney Cahoon responded they did not want to do that because of the slope stating it would make the entryway worse. Mr. Hederstedt asked what the parking requirements were and Dr. Johnson asked why is there a reduction in the amount of parking spaces from the original building code to the one active today. Mr. Clark responded the requirements are higher for a new structure than for renovating an existing one. Mr. Flink asked why the existing portion of the building was not used for the parking calculation and the Attorney would not respond except to state the planning board approved last year. Ms. Leven noted they are not asking for a parking variance. Mr. Flink thinks they should. Ms. Leven noted the Planning Board cannot
deny site plan review if the use is permitted and suggested the Board reach an agreement. She explained the by-law requirements for parking. Mr. Flink asked how many spaces are required and the response was 43 spaces and they are proposing 37. Mr. Brown added variances required hardship based on soil, shape, or topography. Attorney Cahoon explained the hardship is they can’t expand on the existing structure. Mr. Flink responded the hardship claimed does not relate to topography, slope or soil. Mr. Brown asked what the applicant can do to mitigate views from residential properties and Mr. Clark responded they could plant evergreens relatively close together on the neighbor’s side. Dr. Weiler said there is only one visible area which is occupied by a barn but if more is needed they could increase screening. Dr. Johnson added that not being able to expand a business is not considered a hardship and gave the example that he too
cannot expand his existing business in Harwich because parking is too tight. Mr. Wiegman added that when the Fontaine Medical Center was re-done, a traffic study was required by the Cape Cod Commission and asked that if looking to expand, the existing facility should be considered in the parking count requirements. Another discussion on the parking calculations as defined in the old and new bylaws. Mr. Wiegman asked if there was room to add more parking spaces the engineer responded maybe 5 more spaces could be added without encroaching. Mrs. Shrake asked if increasing site coverage from 40% to 55% how that would impact runoff to abutters. She also mentioned that increase to 3 separate businesses would increase parking needs to more than 43 spaces – to accommodate staff and patients for the 3 businesses would probably require closer to 70 spaces. In addition, the abutters have witnessed the dental practice is open on Saturday’s and was
open Easter Sunday which contradicts the applicants statement they are only open on weekdays. Dr. Weiler admitted he did open on Easter Sunday. Mr. Flink asked how many total chairs would be in the new facility. The response was 14 treatment rooms if a surgeon joins. Mr. Flink asked again how many chairs and employees will be in the facility. Ms. Leven said it looked like 3 in the small office, 13 in the middle with 2 exam rooms and Attorney Cahoon stated that they currently don’t have a contract for the other side. Mr. Flink asked again stating they can’t seem to get a straight answer. Dr. Johnson asked how many employees in each of the offices. Dr. Weiler responded 3 on the right side, 7 on the left and 13 in the middle making a total of 23 employees with 14 treatment rooms and 40 waiting room chairs. Dr. Johnson stated 37 parking spaces would not be adequate for that use. Mr. Brown added that run off could
not go through other people’s property. Mrs. Shrake referred to section 9 of the zoning ordinance regarding off street parking stating existing buildings cannot expand.
TIME CLOSED: 9:40pm
VOTE: Mr. Wiegman motioned to approve the variance for site coverage not too exceed 56% with the following provisions: five (5) more spaces will be added in the North East corner; they will increase the vegetation border to the best of their ability. Mr. Brown seconded.
Ms. Leven added the minimum number of parking spaces would then be 42 spaces and all run off will be contained on the property. Dr. Johnson stated he is still not satisfied with the parking accommodations made and questioned the number of reception room chairs in relation to the number of treatment rooms. He stated that typically 4 treatment chairs would equate to 12 reception room chairs. Ms. Leven suggested separate motions for each of the two variances. Mr. Wiegman disclosed he is a patient of Dr. Weiler’s and he has never seen more than 3 other people in the waiting room. Dr. Johnson questioned the basis of the parking calculations. Ms. Leven noted they could condition the revised plan to go through the planning department and submitted to the clerk.
In favor: Mr. Brown, Mr. Wiegman, Mr. Flink
Opposed: Dr. Johnson, Mr. Cavanaugh
Motion denied.
VOTE: Mr. Wiegman motioned to grant the use variance to construct two (2) additional offices as requested. Mr. Brown seconded.
Mr. Cavanaugh stated the petitioner has not show evidence of hardship as required by law to approve the variance.
In Favor: Mr. Wiegman, Mr. Brown, Mr. Flink
Opposed: Mr. Cavanaugh, Dr. Johnson opposed.
Motion for variance denied.
#08-04: The petition of Richard A. Weiler, Jr. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property at 527 Long Pond Drive as shown on Assessor’s Map #111, Parcel A-2 in the RR and Water Resource Protection zoning districts, East Harwich, seeks a Special Permit to construct 2 additions to a pre-existing, non-conforming use (dental office) and a Variance to exceed the maximum site coverage.
VOTE: Mr. Wiegman motioned to approve. Seconded by Mr. Brown.
Attorney Cahoon asked consideration that a hardship was determined when the Board approved a year ago. Ms. Leven suggested obtaining an opinion of Counsel because the variance application was just denied. If site coverage is denied use cannot stand alone. Mr. Flink added a Special Permit is not the appropriate vehicle for this case. Ms. Leven added if coverage variance was approved and use is not, there is an open permit. Also stated this is the same application as 08-22 which was just denied and is a repetitive petition. Mr. Wiegman noted in fairness to the applicant if they have a special permit in hand can they get a building permit and the answer was no they need the variance for coverage. Mr. Cavanaugh added the applicant cannot file the same request
it is repetitive petitions.
Mr. Wiegman and Mr. Brown withdraw the motion.
Mr. Cavanaugh expressed his opinion that if the use and site variances were denied the existing special permit is moot. Ms. Leven requested the opinion of counsel.
Mr. Wiegman motioned to continue to April 30, to seek opinion of town counsel on whether the denial of the variance in case 08-22 terminates case 08-04. Mr. Brown seconded, unanimous vote in favor to continue.
TIME CLOSED: 10:09pm
Ms. Leven presented bill for the Cape Cod Times to the Board for approval.
VOTE IN FAVOR: Mr. Brown motioned to approve, Dr. Johnson seconded, unanimous vote in favor.
Meeting adjourned 10:10pm. _____________________
Richard Flink, Chair
Respectfully submitted by Kathleen Girouard.
| 
