View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Telephone (617) 972-6428
Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman
Melissa M. Santucci, Clerk www.watertown-ma.gov
Stuart J. Bailey, Member
Carlos Fernandez, Member
On Wednesday evening, April 29,
2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing. In attendance: Harry J.
Vlachos, Chairman; Melissa M. Santucci Clerk; Stuart J. Bailey, Member; Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member; Richard M. Moynihan, Alternate Member; Nancy
Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Danielle Fillis, Senior
Planner; Louise Civetti, Clerk.
Chair Vlachos opened the meeting, introduced the board and supporting staff, swore in the audience and proceeded with the posted agenda, explaining that after the approval of the administrative items, the case under "other business" would be heard and then the cases would be presented out-of-order as the Chairman would recuse himself from the last agenda item and would leave the chambers.
Ms. Santucci motioned to accept the minutes as written for the February 2, 2009 (January 28, 2009) meeting. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0. Approved.
Ms. Santucci motioned to accept the minutes of the March 25, 2009 meeting. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0. Approved.
This case is listed as "Other Business". Ms. Santucci read the legal notice for the record:
Antonio Enciso, 81 Lexington Street, Watertown, MA herein requests the Board of Appeals to grant a Special
Permit Finding in accordance with §4.06(a), Alts/Additions to Non-Conforming Structure, Side Yard Setback; Variance in accordance with §5.04, Table of Dimensional Regulations, Maximum Building Coverage, so as to raze rear deck 8?-10?x 29?-7, construct and enlarge enclosed porch 11.4?x29.7?, providing 6.2? easterly side yard setback, where house is non-conforming at 5.9?, and where minimum 10? is required. Further increase building coverage from 29% to 35.3%, where maximum 30% is allowed at 81-83 Lexington Street, located in the T (Two-Family) Zoning District.
Ms. Scott explained that the Petitioner was granted a Special Permit Finding (SPF) and Variance at the Board's meeting on Mach 25, 2009. The SPF decision was filed with the Town Clerk; however, the Variance decision was held, (with the required extension agreement with the petitioner) to allow for a corrected plot plan as required by Condition #7, of the SPF decision which stated: Revised plot plan shall be submitted indicating the corrected existing building coverage, which includes the raised patio and the proposed and final building coverage with the extension of 2.5? of the enclosed porch and minus the 96 square foot shed.
A Variance petition was sought by the owner, as it showed an increase of building coverage from erroneously stated 29% to 35.3%. It was evident that the existing deck that the petitioner extended had a full-solid basement under and that should have been included in the "existing" building coverage, which exceeded the allowable 30%, but considered non-conforming.
A memorandum dated April 24, 2009, with an attached revised plot plan dated 4/9/09 by O.S.C.S. Co., Robert Bibbo, RLS, Waltham, MA. was received by this Board from the Zoning Officer. She points out that the existing building coverage is 33.9% and with the extended enclosed porch plus the removal of the shed, the proposed building coverage will be 33.5%, less than the existing non-conforming figure of 33.9%.
Ms. Scott indicated that the petitioner has already removed the shed and recommends that the Board rescind its Variance decision and grant the petitioner a Leave To Withdraw.
Ms. Santucci motioned to withdraw the Variance it is not required (upon recalculating). Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0.
Ms. Santucci motioned to amend the Variance decision. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0.
Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman Facsimile
Melissa M. Santucci, Clerk www.watertown-ma.gov
Ms. Santucci read the legal notice for the record:
Michael B. Spillane and Kellie Arena, 59 Longfellow Road, Watertown, MA, herein requests the Board of Appeals to grant a Special Permit Finding in accordance with §4.06(a), Alts/Additions to Non-Conforming Structures, Side Yard Setback, Zoning Ordinance, so as to permit construction of a second floor window dormer, 6?8? x 8?3?, located 10? from southerly side lot line and a rear shed dormer 12? x 9?6? both dormers maintaining non-conforming 8? southerly side setback, where 12? is required at 59 Longfellow Road, located in the S-6 (Single Family) Zoning District.
Michael Spillane, owner and petitioner appeared before the Zoning Board and stated that his single-family home, a cape, has two small bedrooms on the second floor and a third room, which is that portion of the area with a sloping ceiling that they would like to dormer. He presently utilizes this area as a baby's room, and is relatively small. He is in need of additional room for his growing family. He is requesting a Special Permit Finding under §4.06(a) in order to alter the nonconforming structure by constructing two new dormers on the existing gable roof of the southerly segment of the home that contains the garage and living space above. The Board notes that the main portion of the home has a shed dormer existing. The proposed rear dormer will match the existing slope (3/12) of the main dormer and the front window dormer will match aesthetically with the existing two front window dormers.
The proposed gable window dormer (6?8? x 8?3?) would be located on the front side of the sloping roof. The rear plane of this sloping roof would be removed and replaced with a new shed dormer (12? x 9?6?) that would extend the existing pitch (of the rest of the rear roof plane) to the southerly exterior wall of the dwelling. A new second floor window would be added to the new extended rear exterior wall. The dormers would maintain the existing non-conforming southerly side yard setback of 8?, where 12? is required.
The Chairman notes that the Planning Board suggested a design change to the submitted plans by slightly setting back the proposed shed dormer to preserve the roof rake of the original gable-end. Mr. Spillane indicated that he would like the submitted plans remain unchanged. The Board considered the Planning Board's suggested design change, but decided that the Petitioner as requested at this meeting not make those changes.
There was no one in the audience who spoke on this petition
After a brief discussion on the petition the members find that the proposal of two dormers as described by the petitioner and as shown on the control plans maintaining the non-conforming 8? southerly side setback will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing home. There is no further increase the non-conformity.
Ms. Santucci motioned to grant. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0. Approved.
Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman Facsimile
On Wednesday evening, April 29, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing. In attendance: Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman; Melissa M. Santucci Clerk; Stuart J. Bailey, Member; Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member; Richard M. Moynihan, Alternate Member; Nancy
Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Danielle Fillis, Senior
Planner; Louise Civetti, Clerk.
Corrado M. Guerra, 43 Loomis Avenue, Watertown, MA, herein requests the Board of Appeals to grant a Special Permit Finding in accordance with §4.06(a), Alts/Additions to Non-Conforming Structures, Front, Side and Rear yard setbacks, Zoning Ordinance so as to raze existing roof and construct second floor 25?9? x 42?2?, maintaining non-conforming front setback at 9.5? ? 9.8?, where 15? is required; maintaining northerly side yard setback at 6.6 ?- 7?, where 10? is required and maintaining rear yard setback varying at 6.9?-18?, where 20? is required at 43 Loomis Avenue, located in the T (Two-Family) Zoning District.
Corrado M. Guerra and his architect, Wayne Pellitier, appeared before the Board and detailed his request. He seeks a Special Permit Finding under §4.06(a) in order to alter the nonconforming single-family home by razing the entire roof and constructing a 1,074 s.f. second story (25.4? x 42.2?). The second floor would contain four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The proposed height at the peak of the new gable roof would be 34?6? high.
The third level (attic) of the home (of which 443 square feet would have a ceiling height over 4 feet) would consist of an attic crawl space for storage that would be accessed via pull-down attic stairs. Also proposed is a rear exterior staircase with a 3? x 6? deck/landing on the second floor level.
The new second floor and roof addition will maintain the existing non-conforming front setback at 9.5? and 9.8?, where 15? is required, as well as the rear yard setback varying 6.9? to 20.78 at the furthest most northeasterly corner, where 20? is required. The Board notes that this is a corner lot and is a pie-shaped from the point of Gertrude Street.
The Board commented on the unusual height of the partially above-ground basement, which together with the proposed new second floor will have a proposed height of 34?-6?. The dwelling is a raised ranch-style having two small bedrooms on the second floor. The proposed addition will result in this 1- ½ story dwelling into a "colonial-type" 2 ½- story. Per the Zoning Ordinance, basements are not considered a story.
Much discussion occurred on the "optional deck" and staircase at the rear second floor. Mr. Guerra stated he wanted an "emergency exit" for his kids in case of fire. All members concurred that every single-family home in Watertown with a second floor has the same setup and issue. It is determined that this stairway and landing/deck be eliminated from this proposal as it is not required and that it leads to the appearance of a second dwelling unit. It further encroaches into an already non-conforming rear yard setback.
Mike Mendell, 124 Maplewood Street expressed his concern that the property could be used as a two-family home.
Member Fernandez expressed concern with the massing that the new second floor would bring due to the raised basement. Also, the lot is very tight. He is opposed to this proposal for those reasons.
Discussion of the Board then focused on landscaping and visually screening the high basement wall. Member Santucci believes the front and rear should be included in the landscaping. However, Mr. Guerra stated that the rear yard has crushed stone and proposes a patio. Landscaping along the rear wall does not require the visual screening as does the front wall. The Board finds that a landscaping plan must be submitted for Staff review. The intent of this plan is to provide a visual screening of the front basement wall.
Member Bailey noted that there are two existing bedrooms and that the Petitioner is adding three bedrooms. He stated that there should not be an exterior stairway to the new floor as it could definitely be used as a separate unit. The plans will need to be updated to show the second floor door to the outside stairway is changed to a window.
Wayne Pellitier, Architect, agrees with the Board's suggestion of additional landscaping in the front of the property to screen the raised basement and will be included on the landscaping plan that will be submitted to Staff.
Member Fernandez does not think the landscaping on the front will deter from the visual massing of the second floor. He is still in opposition to this project.
Member Santucci questioned the square footage of additional living space as noted on the supporting statement. Mr. Guerra stated that they were wrong because he was proposing a dormer and then it changed - he didn't change the supporting statement when he decided to go to a full second floor. Chairman would like the supporting statement changed and submitted for the record. The second floor addition will have four bedrooms and two baths. The original plan contains 1480 square feet of living space (two bedrooms, kitchen, bath, with one bedroom in the attic) and with the new second floor, the total living area for this home will be 2,148 square feet. Zoning does not require additional parking for the 4 bedrooms.
Chairman Vlachos understands Member Fernandez's concerns; however, the petitioner cannot be penalized for an unusual raised basement, plus the lot has a unique shape, both of which must be considered.
Member Bailey as well as Member Elliott support this project with the conditions as mentioned.
The majority of the Board finds that the proposal, as conditioned, will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood as it maintains the non-conforming front and rear setbacks.
Ms. Santucci motioned to accept the finding with the conditions. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 4-1. Mr. Fernandez voted against.
On Wednesday evening, April 29, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing. In attendance: Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman; Melissa M. Santucci Clerk; Stuart J. Bailey, Member; Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member; Richard M. Moynihan, Alternate Member; Nancy Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Danielle Fillis, Senior Planner; Louise Civetti, Clerk.
Ms. Santucci read the legal notice for the record on this continued case:
Peter J. Kaloostian, 575 Mt. Auburn Street, Watertown, MA 02472, herein requests the Board of Appeals grant an Amendment to Special Permit Finding, #97-35, to construct a front one-story sunroom addition 13.6?x33.8? wrapping around westerly side 13.6? x10.7? increasing restaurant seating from 29 to 59 seats and further alter entrance/exit and extend paved parking area to accommodate 21 parking spaces (inclusive of 1 HP space ) at Uncommon Ground 575 Mt. Auburn Street, located in the LB (Limited Business) Zoning District.
John Townsend, Sandcastle Group gave an overview of the project to date. The plans as submitted in March have not changed. At this meeting Mr. Townsend submitted a signed letter dated April 22, 2009, addressed to Zoning Officer Nancy Scott. This letter represents an agreement between the parties, Kapadoukakis; (abutters) and Peter Kaloosdian relative to the abutters' concern outlined in the March 25, 2009 letter. A memorandum was also received from Nancy Scott dated April 24, 2009 detailing a meeting at the site on April 21, 2009. To ensure compliance, the Board finds it necessary to include additional conditions to this approval; additional 5? high arborvitae to be planted to screen bathroom window of abutter and parking area.
The Board acknowledges the various revisions. The site plan has been updated - Revised March 23, 2009 which incorporates a reduction in the curb opening allowing for 2 additional metered parking spaces on Mt. Auburn Street; new bike rack with 4 bike parking; handicap parking, including ramp and sidewalk; and the radius of the cars entering the parking area.
Discussion then went to the size of the patio. At last revision, the patio was cut back to the width of the addition-13.8?; however, the latest site plan notes the patio at 18.9?-larger. Chairman states the size of the patio is inconsequential as the continued issue of additional handicap bathroom needed, if the seating capacity exceeds 60 people. Mr. Kaloosdian acknowledges this issue and will need to comply with the requirements of the Plumbing Inspector and Code. Board notes that the existing parking permits 68 people.
Having discussed this project over several months and the abutters concerns have been addressed, the Board finds that the approval for this addition can be issued with specific conditions as noted.
Ms. Santucci motioned to approve the case with the conditions stated including Ms. Scott's condition on Plumbing, Building and Licensing. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0. Granted.
Ms. Santucci read the legal notice for the record for this continued case:
Roger D. Linquist, Manager, MetroPCS, 2250 Lakeside Blvd., Richardson, TX 75082, herein requests the Board of Appeals grant a Special Permit Finding in accordance with §4.06(a), Nonconforming Use & Building/Structure; Special Permit in accordance with §5.14, Wireless Telecommunications Facility, Zoning Ordinance, and Use Variance from Telecommunications Act so as to install 6 panel antennas - 2 attached to existing elevator penthouse, 4 mounted to proposed 10?x 16? faux screened penthouse where 3 equipment cabinets will be installed on the rooftop at 462 Mt Auburn, an apartment building located in the T (Two-Family) Zoning District.
Brian Grossman, Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye, explained the revised request. The location of the proposed faux penthouse (to which four (4) antennas would be façade mounted) screening the equipment cabinets will be setback 14 feet from the roof edge (where the original request proposed a 1 foot setback from the roof edge.)
Cindy Launch spoke again and stated that the FCC doesn't call for 100% of coverage - adequate is 75%. She asked what the total wattage is for public record. The RF Engineer likened the antennas to a light bulb which is misleading. A cell antenna has so many watts times how many channels per sector antenna. Is there no more than 2000 watts because you would then have to evaluate it per the FCC guidelines. She had several questions regarding items verified by the RF Engineer and asked why the board would just take their word and wouldn't consider hiring an independent RF Engineer. She also believes a master plan for the town would be an advantage of an independent RF Engineer.
Mike Mandell, 124 Maplewood Street states that the zoning ordinances are not enforced to accommodate and protect the residents. There are contested issues in health hazards and the board is not interested in them. Chair Vlachos explained that the board is not able to deny a request based on health issues and if we do, it is a needless exercise as the town then has to litigate the issues and lose taxpayers money. Mr. Mandell persisted in a request for hiring an RF Engineer for "us" for radiation measurements, etc. He said he will fight with Congressman Markey and Senator Kennedy. He said architecturally these boxes are unsightly. He believes the decisions are willy-nilly and based on what size the box is. He will be involved in political action and if that is what it takes, the town might have to fight his political action and suggests the board take this under advisement.
Angie Kounellis, District A Councilor, has appeared before the board before on cell antennas and this room has been filled before with residents with good intentions and one of the denied cases is still being litigated and may end up having antennas on the site. She is here to state her opposition to this and all the others. She asked that consideration be given to mailing a legal notice to the tenants of the apartment building and not to just the abutters who are property owners. A tenant would not suspect anything on the roofline. The door on 2 Belmont has a "Danger" sign on the door and there must be a reason for it. We are making a mockery of our Zoning Ordinance with allowing antennas within 50? of a residence.
Chair Vlachos said when cell antennas first came before the board, there were lots of questions and lots of testimony and that has "petered" out over the years. The only opposition was The Oakley CC, a little bit on Nichols Ave., and the community church but most do not have a lot of opposition in the town. We all have cell phones. If people want to petition their congress, that is the right forum. The board is limited to deny and just to make a vote for a public show will cost the taxpayers money.
Ms. Santucci asked for clarification on the use variance and special permit as they are for the same thing. Mr. Magoon said it doesn't matter which it is processed as. We have an ordinance that says these are not to be in a residential zone but a federal law that says except for a very specific set of reasons, it has to be allowed. There have been internal discussions, as well but it doesn't matter how it is processed. Ms. Santucci is more comfortable with the use variance as the special permit implies it is allowed by special permit and it is not. We need to be consistent and act as the zoning board of appeals under the telecommunications act in regards to a residential zone. Attorney Grossman agreed that the use variance was granted for T-mobile although it was petitioned as a special permit. There was discussion on the special permit for the non-conformity.
Mr. Fernandez stated that he read the FCC Documents: "Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Field Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites" as well as The Local Government Officials Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emissions Safety Rules, Procedures and Ethical Guidance. He is not a supporter of responding to one application at a time. These documents are clear on how the power effects people and the critical point is the amount of time you are exposed to it. The door has a "danger" sign on it to alert people other than technicians that may be there longer. No zoning board has any choice in rejecting any location that is preapproved by another carrier but then determines that they need coverage. The zoning board cannot deny it. If you are below the antenna, you are not exposed to any levels that are detrimental in any way - purely straight out. He then addressed the neighbor with concerns regarding the direct impact on her home - the readings at her house are well within the FCC Maximum Levels. If the FCC says these are acceptable - end of discussion. The town should have a strategic plan for how we approach this in a comprehensive way. He stated that our zoning guidelines are incorrect. We should have a strategic plan.
Ms. Fillis agreed that our ordinances are not correct and other cities encourage antennas to be on city or town property so they can get the revenue. We can require the applicant to hire an independent RF engineer on our behalf - the town would not have to pay.
Ms. Civetti stated that the board was advised by Pat Cantor to hire an independent RF Engineer. She followed-up and encouraged the board to do so via electronic mail after their meeting.
Chair Vlachos asked Mr. Fernandez if he would condition this petitioner to hire an independent RF engineer. Mr. Fernandez said it would be unfair for this applicant to be forced to do that but he would like to see that in the future.
Chair Vlachos stated that this is a new vendor and it wouldn't show much. Ms. Santucci said that people are not in the business to put up antennas, pay the money, sit at meetings, if they didn't need coverage. Mr. Fernandez said the concerns of the residents are not being considered in the procedures we are following - there is a need for a strategic plan to look at the whole town.
Ms. Fillis asked Mr. Fernandez is he knows of any town that has a strategic plan in place so that we may incorporate some of these ideas. Ms. Santucci said this would have been a good idea when the technology first came out - the town she works in came up with a telecommunications overlay 10 years ago. They picked town-owned land and other sites based it on elevations, topography and other features. A town like this that is significantly built up and we are fortunate not have monopoles, towers, etc. With these types of installations, they are better than some that are seen throughout the commonwealth. This petitioner has a new network and they found a location that already has a telecommunications company on it, they felt it is appropriate and it makes sense. Mr. Fernandez said a meeting to educate and understand would be beneficial. Mr. Magoon stated that there has been discussion on amendments to the ordinances - specifically the telecommunications ordinance. He will take Mr. Fernandez's suggestions and think about how we might approach the bigger issue for the town. We do have the ability to hire a third party to get confirmation of the need. He is not convinced of an over-all plan for the town but he would be willing to listen to the expertise of people with different information in the industry. The Administration will look into this and get back to the board separate from this discussion or this petitioner.
The board was satisfied with the revised request and the location of the faux penthouse.
Ms. Santucci motioned to grant the request for the Use Variance with the revised request. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0. Granted.
Ms. Santucci motioned to grant the request for the Special Permit Finding for the pre-existing non-conforming building. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0. Granted.
Ms. Santucci motioned to Leave to Withdraw the Special Permit request as it is not required. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0. Withdrawn.
Chair Vlachos recused himself from the case below and appointed Ms. Santucci to be Acting Chair.
Ms. Santucci asked Mr. Fernandez to act as clerk and to read the legal notice:
Araxie Margosian and Haigaz Markarian, 15 Carlton Terrace, Watertown, MA, herein request the Board of Appeals to grant a Special Permit Finding in accordance with §4.06(a), Alts/Additions to Non-Conforming Structures, Side and Front Yard Setback, Zoning Ordinance, so as to permit removal of existing roof, 46.2?x 26.9? and reconstruct roof with easterly side shed dormer, 13.375?x 34?, maintaining non-conforming side yard setback of 6.2? to 6.3? where 10? is required and further raze front entry porch, 8.5?x 6.8? and reconstruct to two-story and enlarge to 10.2?x 6.8?, maintaining non-conforming side yard setback at 6.3? where 10? is required and n/c front yard setback of 12.9?, where 15? is required at 15-17 Carlton Terrace, located in the T (Two-Family) Zoning District.
Peggy Ann Walman, Attorney with The Law Offices of Ara Margosian, representing Haigaz Markarian on behalf of Roxy Margosian and Haigat Markarian, the owners of 15-17 Carlton Terrace, explained the construction/reconstruction for additional living space for the second unit.
Mr. Fernandez asked why there is no landing at the entry door. Mr. Markarian said the architectural drawing shows the landing - sheet A-2 which shows a 4? landing.
Mr. Fernandez said the plot plan is not clear as the landing would be less than 12.9? away from the street. He said the landing increases the non-conformance. Ms. Santucci asked Ms. Scott to confirm that the steps and landings are not subject to setbacks in the front and the rear. Ms. Scott stated that the side yard is subject to the landing. Ms. Fillis said it is section 4.11 exceptions to setback requirements, zoning ordinance.
Ms. Santucci asked if the ½ story has to be so large. Ms. Fillis said it is a lot smaller than when he first applied two years ago. Ms. Walman said this is to increase the 3rd floor which would be connected to the second floor. There is just an attic there now.
Mr. Fernandez wanted to know the ridge height. Mr. Markarian said the ridge at the existing hip roof and the entire roof is coming off. Ms. Santucci said the existing elevations do not show on the plans. Ms. Scott said S-2 shows the average grade existing is 33.9? and proposed is 34.8?. Mr. Bailey said it would be 36? at one end and 33? at the other.
Ms. Santucci asked why they didn't come up with something more symmetrical - one side is pitched and the other is almost flat. The plans are not consistent - especially the balcony.
Ms. Elliott asked how many bedrooms will the house have. Mr. Markarian said there will be 3 bedrooms on the second and third floors with another area for sitting.
Mr. Fernandez asked why there is a lower roof. Mr. Markarian said so there would be more living space in the dormer. He lowered the roof so it would not count as living space - the percentage is 49.7%. His parents own the house.
Ms. Santucci asked again why they didn't opt for a better roof line with the living space in the middle. Mr. Markarian said if he made the dormer lower, there wouldn't be any walking area because the height inside is about 7? on the easterly side.
Mr. Fernandez said the second floor increases the volume at the entry - what is the room immediately inside the house on plan A-2. Mr. Markarian said it is an entryway and an entryway to the attic - the stairs exist in a little room. The entry is falling apart and he is going to rebuild it with a little more room on the third floor.
Ms. Santucci said the left side elevation does not look good. The front and the rear are okay.
No one spoke from the audience. The public hearing is closed and the business mode opened.
No further comments were made by the board.
Mr. Fernandez motioned to grant the proposed addition with a condition to revise the plot plan - this was not acceptable and was not conditioned. Ms. Scott said to accept the proposed conditions by the Planning Board.
Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 3-1 with Ms. Santucci voting against - stating she is concerned with the side view and the alterations are more detrimental as they are maxing out what they can do there.
Ms. Elliott asked if the board would consider allowing the petitioner to continue the case. Ms. Scott asked if the board would rescind the vote and allow the petitioner to make changes to the plan without starting over and going back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Fernandez asked what the difference between this case and the Loomis case before this.
Ms. Santucci stated that if someone wanted to make a motion to rescind the vote, she would consider it. Ms. Scott said the petitioner would be able to hire a real architect and be granted a continuance.
Mr. Bailey motioned to rescind the vote just taken. Ms. Eliott seconded. Voted 4-0. Based on the applicants willingness to revisit his plans. Ms. Scott suggested two months time to work out the plans and asked if the board would be willing to look at the elevations when they are available. Mr. Fernandez said his time is not free anymore. Ms. Santucci said she would look at them.
Ms. Elliott motioned to continue the case to the June agenda. Mr. Bailey seconded. Voted 4-0 to continue.
Ms. Elliott motioned to adjourn. Mr. Bailey seconded. Voted 4-0 Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.