Harry J. Vlachos, Chairperson
Melissa M.
Sambucci, Clerk
Stuart J. Bailey, Member
Deborah Elliott, Member
Carlos Fernandez,
Member
Richard M.
Moynihan, Alternate
MINUTES
On Monday evening, February
2, 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;
Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member;
Richard M. Moynihan, Alternate Member; Nancy Scott, Zoning
Enforcement Officer; Danielle Fillis, Senior Planner;
Daphne Collins, Senior Planner; Louise Civetti, Clerk.
Absent: Stuart J. Bailey, Member.
This meeting was originally
scheduled for Wednesday, January 28, 2009; due to a snowstorm, it was postponed
to tonight.
Chair Vlachos opened the meeting,
introduced the board and staff, announced that 81-83 Lexington Street has been
continued at the Petitioner?s request, and asked for comments on the last
meetings? minutes.
Ms. Santucci motioned to accept the
minutes of November 24, 2008 as printed. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0.
Approved. Chair Vlachos noted that he was not in attendance for the first two
cases at the November meeting.
Chair Vlachos explained that due to
the meeting day change, this meeting is being recorded and will air on the
local cable channel after tonight. The School Committee meeting is being shown
live. He then conducted the swearing-in of the audience.
Ms. Santucci read the legal notice for the first
case:
Donald and Lucille Barbato, 84 Townly Road , Watertown, MA 02472, herein request the Board of
Appeals to grant a Special
Permit Finding in accordance with §4.06(a) Alts/Additions to Non-Conforming
Structures, Front Yard Setback, so as to raze existing attached garage 17.5?
x22? with deck above, located 15? from front lot line and rebuild a two-car
garage 24?x28.5?, located 18? from front lot line, where 25? is required at 84
Townly Road, located in the S-6 (Single-Family) Zoning District.
Don Barbato, owner, stated that the
existing garage is falling apart, holds moisture and he wants to tear it down
and rebuild a two-car garage for his antique motorcycle and his 18? car. The
area above will have a pitched roof and will be used for storage only ? no
living space.
Ms. Santucci asked why the garage
is so long in depth as the average is 24?. Mr. Barbato stated that his car is
18.5? long and he wants to put shelving in the rear of the garage. His lot is
a double-size lot and their yard is huge.
Keith Brown, Architect, 116 Church Street, asked if the concern was the depth of the garage or the placement in
relation to the front. Ms. Santucci stated the depth. Mr. Brown explained
that the 10? side setback requirement determined the width of the garage and
the first 8? back from the front is a 10? foundation wall which decreases the
interior space, which takes away 2? from the 28?, leaving 26.5?, then when you
take out 18? for one vehicle, it leaves just enough space for a work bench and
for the angle of the roof to meet the existing angle. They wanted to improve
the situation on the street, as well, so they moved the front line of the
garage 3? back from the building, which was the furthest they could go and
still accomplish what they needed to on the interior.
No one spoke from the audience,
business mode declared:
Chair Vlachos stated that the
original Staff Report concluded that they did not like the proposed garage and
the amendment to the report has revisions with proposed conditions, one being:
all existing asphalt and gravel stone outside of the 12? wide driveway shall be
replaced with grassy lawn or living vegetation. Mr. Vlachos continued reading
from the report regarding the existing 31+? curb cut, and asked either Ms.
Fillis or Ms. Collins to explain the concerns.
Ms. Fillis said that she started it
and went on vacation and Ms. Collins finished it. Ms. Collins explained that
the amended report states concerns regarding the existing asphalt, gravel and
stone outside the 12? driveway area should be replaced with grassy lawn. This was
talked about by the architect at the Planning Board meeting. No more that one
car shall be permitted to park in front of the garage and no additional surface
parking shall be permitted on the property. The garage allows for two cars.
The other main condition was regarding the 18? non-conforming (length) as it is
an improvement over the existing setback.
Ms. Santucci asked about the
original report, which stated that this was an unlawfully existing
non-conforming garage. Ms. Fillis said the Director, Steve Magoon and herself
were led to believe that the garage was built without a permit, which would
mean it was protected by the statute of limitations. As an unlawful structure,
it would not have the same rights as a pre-existing non-conforming structure
and being able to alter or extend it with the finding that it is not more
detrimental but if they wanted to make changes they would have to bring it into
conformance with the current code, and that was the basis for the
recommendation to push the garage back so that it was conforming with the front
yard setback with the length of the driveway to permit parking in the driveway
with 18? in length and an additional 5? setback to allow front yard parking as
front yard parking is not allowed in Watertown except under these
circumstances. Further research showed that the garage was built with the
required permits and proven to be a lawful pre-existing structure and could be
altered or extended. It only requires a finding and not a variance.
Mr. Fernandez asked if there are
three parking spaces in front now. Ms. Fillis said there are two spaces in the
garage and one in front ? existing shows asphalt, gravel and parked on grass.
Mr. Fernandez said this is a single house with two bedrooms so why three
parking spots and not two and why not just the two parking spots inside the
garage and none outside. Ms. Scott said there are other vehicles in the
house. The photos show a pick-up truck and a Lincoln. Mr. Vlachos noted that
the photos show three spaces in the snow. Mr. Barbato stated that in this day
and age, both parents work to support the family. His son has a $100,000
student loan and is living at home. Years ago, the wife stayed home and the
husband went to work. His son has a vehicle, his wife has a car, the pick-up
truck is a gift from his best-friend who died of a heart attack at 47 years old
and his wife insisted he take the truck as they were part owners of it. He
then stated that every family has more than one car. The house does have two
bedrooms.
Mr. Vlachos asked what the door in
the front of the house is. Mr. Barbato said it is to the basement.
Mr. Vlachos stated that the
Planning Board recommended that they approve the garage, with the condition
that all of the asphalt and gravel stone outside of the new 12? wide driveway
be replaced with grassy lawn ? he asked Mr. Barbato if he would abide by this
condition if the board approved it. Mr. Barbato said, ?absolutely?. He wants
to make the place look better for the neighborhood as it is a wreck right now.
Mr. Vlachos asked about the
condition for one car in the front of the garage. Mr. Barbato said that if it
is a two-car garage, why can?t they put two cars in front of it.
Ms. Santucci asked what the
rationale is or why is the Staff concerned about two-cars parked in front of a
two-car garage. Ms. Fillis said the concern is that it is a non-conforming
situation even when it is pushed back to make a longer driveway and the maximum
curb-cut can?t be two car-lengths wide to accommodate the two cars as the
driveway is not long enough and if the driveway was extended back far enough
there might be a way to get two cars side-by-side but the way it is now?Ms.
Santucci said it can be 22? wide. Ms. Scott said this follows what the
Planning Board in our new Zoning regarding garages is stating that mimics that
you can have a garage for a single family with 12? side at the street and then
go out to meet the width of the garage.
Ms. Santucci asked why he cannot
continue his non-conformity ? he already has a non-conforming, over 22? curb
cut anyway so anything less than what is there?backing out of this garage will
be difficult. Ms. Scott said this is going to be a nightmare to enforce for
one car parking. Ms. Santucci said even if they parked the car on one side or
the other so they could easily get out of the garage without moving a car. Mr.
Vlachos asked what would it mean if they were to make the width of the street
the same width of the garage. Ms. Scott said that you can?t make it 24?, but
you can make it the maximum 22?. Mr. Vlachos asked if it can be the same
width, without the flare, and bring it straight down. Ms. Elliott asked if it
could be 18?, just the width of the doors and then go straight to the street.
Mr. Brown said there is 18? width at the entrance to the garage with 2? between
both doors. Ms. Scott said it is 16? plus 2.5?, which is 18.5? wide. Ms.
Santucci said this makes more sense. Ms. Scott said the Planning Board
indicated one car only, is the board allowing two cars? Ms. Santucci said if
they have a guest?Mr. Fernandez said they can park at the school like the rest
of us. Mr. Moynihan said that they have a spot at the house. Mr. Vlachos said
there is currently three cars out front and if they allow two, they are
reducing it from what it is and if they go to one? Mr. Moynihan said if they
allow two, they are reducing the opening at the curb, reducing the asphalt
surface from the current condition and it is still an improvement to the
status-quo.
Mr. Fernandez said the norm for the
town is to have tandem parking spots, particularly if there is one family so
you coordinate the set of keys to be hung from the door to move the cars. If
the intent is to improve the quality of the neighborhood, getting cars off the
front yard is a requirement and two-car garage is great and the third car can
be in the driveway. He supports the Planning Board?s recommendation.
Mr. Vlachos stated that there is
plenty of green space on the other side of the house. Ms. Santucci said this
is not a two-family where they cannot make a 4? buffer along with the issues
that the board normally faces.
Mr. Fernandez asked how much
asphalt is there and if it comes all the way over to the front steps. Ms.
Fillis started to explain that there is crushed, packed stone when Mr.
Fernandez stated that it is an eye-sore. If that is to be restored, doesn?t
make sense to him and one car wide driveway would reduce the asphalt from what
is there.
Mr. Vlachos said he is in favor of
allowing two-cars and to make the driveway straight ? especially when there is
so much land around the house and it is not a congested area. Ms. Santucci
said the new garage would make it look a lot better visually. Mr. Vlachos added
intuitively, he would see two spaces, but enforcement would be difficult as it
would not look out of compliance. Mr. Moynihan agrees. Ms. Elliott also
agrees. Mr. Fernandez said the quality of the street is dependent on how many
cars and asphalt is there and he will vote against it. Mr. Vlachos said the
scale on the street has a lot of space between houses and the houses have low
roof lines.
Ms. Santucci motioned to approve
the petitioner?s request and not to go along with the Planning Board?s recommendation
and to allow an 18? wide uniform driveway as discussed. Ms. Scott corrected it
to be 18.5? wide. Mr. Vlachos added that all else that is not impervious will
be grassy or a living vegetation. Ms. Santucci added that condition #5 should
change to maximum of 2 cars outside and other revisions as needed to the
condition ? condition #4 makes it sound like the entire driveway is 12? wide
and that was never the case. Ms. Scott is clear on the changes to the
conditions and the maximum curb opening will be 18.5? wide and a revised plot
plan will have to be submitted. Mr. Brown asked who he should submit it to.
Ms. Scott said to submit it to the zoning office as soon as possible. Ms.
Elliott seconded the motion. Voted 4-1 with Mr. Fernandez voting against.
Relief is granted.
Harry J. Vlachos, Chairperson
Melissa M.
Sambucci, Clerk
Stuart J. Bailey, Member
Deborah Elliott, Member
Carlos Fernandez,
Member
Richard M.
Moynihan, Alternate
MINUTES
On Monday evening, February
2, 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;
Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member;
Richard M. Moynihan, Alternate Member; Nancy Scott, Zoning
Enforcement Officer; Danielle Fillis, Senior Planner;
Daphne Collins, Senior Planner; Louise Civetti, Clerk.
Absent: Stuart J. Bailey, Member. This meeting was originally
scheduled for Wednesday, January 28, 2009; however due to a snowstorm, it was
postponed to tonight.
Mr. Vlachos announced that 81-83 Lexington Street is being postponed to next time.
Other Business: Ms. Scott
announced that Attorney Crane is submitted a letter regarding his client for a
special permit from this board at 264 Arlington Street a year ago,
February. He has just received approval from all departments and he is looking
for a 6 month extension for the use of the special permit. Attorney Crane
agreed that is what he is requesting. Ms. Santucci asked if he had two years ?
Ms. Scott said not here. Mr. Vlachos repeated that he is in favor of granting
an extension to the special permit, special permit finding and variance. Ms.
Santucci motioned to grant the extension to #05-25 special permit and #07-25
special permit finding for a period of 6 months. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted
5-0.
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.
Chair Vlachos swore in Mark
Styles. Chiar Vlachos stated that he was not here for the first half-hour of
the last presentation and then this was continued. He stated that the
petitioners can chose to start from the beginning so all board members can vote
or to continue. He suggests they start from the beginning. Mr. Fernandez said
the first date was a request for a complete petition and although they heard
it, it was not a completed request.
John Townsend, Sand Castle Group
introduced Mark Styles and stated that they are the design-build contractors
for Peter Kaloostian, owner of Uncommon Grounds. The proposal is to add a
one-story sunroom addition to the front as shown on the site plan and there has
been a number of improvements. The sunroom area will be used for dining space
and the proposal is to increase the total number of seating from 34 patrons to
59.
Mr. Vlachos said the original
license, the Common Victular license states 27 seats. Mr. Townsend said it was
later amended to 34, seating in-general. Ms. Scott clarified that the
information she handed out tonight is a copy of the 1998 decision with the
chairman but not a hearing with the licensing board, states that 4 tables, 8
seats outside. The 8 are not included in the count. Mr. Townsend continued,
the structure is pre-existing non-conforming due to the rear yard setback and
will not be further exasperated by the proposal. The traffic flow and the
safety on the site will be significantly improved as it was an old gas station
prior with another entrance and exit to Melendy and Mt. Auburn and that will be
closed off to customer access and owner parking and dumpster removal will use
the entrance. There will be 18 spaces total - the requirement for seats to
spaces is 4 and the allowable seating is 72. The changes to this plan at the
request of the board and a meeting with Ms. Scott, clarifies the metered
parking on Mt. Auburn Street and the additional proposed metered parking space;
the bike rack showing 4 bike parking spaces and the handicap parking was
clarified as well as the radius of the cars entering the parking area. A
couple of small zoning analysis tables were added to the plan to help clarify
what was stated about parking and the bathrooms. The owner?s parking space and
a proposed chain limiting access to that area, two ballards with a chain and
sign to that entryway. There was a letter received asking about snow removal
and trash pick-up and the stormwater management system is greatly enhanced by
this proposal. The back right south side of the lot show the parking spaces
for snow removal management with catch basins directly below and the lot is
pitched to make the best use of the stormwater management system. Peter has a
staff member on schedule to pick up trash around the lot twice a week and
including debris from neighboring businesses. Prior to the last meeting, a
landscape plan was requested and they did not have enough time to submit one
but it has been now produced, stamped and signed and submitted for review.
Ms. Elliott asked if the Planting
Plan or the Layout Plan is the accurate one as they are different. The parking
has a proposed landscaped area that is 8? wide but the Landscape Plan does not
show the 8? or the plantings. Mr. Fernandez added that the sidewalk does not
show in the Landscape Plan. Mr. Townsend said the landscape architect has a
design for the sidewalk area to come up to the side of the patio area and the
bike parking can be accounted for in whichever one the board would prefer.
They tried to get all of the plans together for the meeting and the plan from
VTP has taken shape from the meetings with Nancy Scott and the Planning
Department. The plan by VTP is correct in regards to zoning and dated January
19, 2009 and is the control plan. The landscaping plan was done by someone
else and they tried to get as much detail as possible and since then, VTP has
updated their plans based on the discussions.
Tape 1 of 1, Side B
Ms. Scott stated that an updated
Landscaping Plan would be submitted prior to any building permit being issued.
Mr. Vlachos asked if the seating
plan is final ? sheet A2, March 24, 2008 but it has a proposed patio. He does
not have a complete layout of the interior with every seat. Ms. Scott said A2
is the interior plus the addition.
Mr. Fernandez asked if they are
preparing coordination plans as the design-build consultants. Mr. Townsend
said they will prepare construction documents. Mr. Fernandez said there are
loose ends and we get into trouble if we approve things with loose ends and
then they come back to clarify the application. He requested last time to have
a landscaping plan that was not noted by hand on top of the topo plan and since
November, the landscaping plan is still not correct. These are simple requests
and as a design-build firm, you have to put all of these notions together. It
is not just the perimeter. Mr. Townsend said they are trying to respond to
every request. Mr. Fernandez it won?t matter where the door to the new
entryway is and if the walkway is properly shown and whether the landscaping is
properly designed as they will just take out a couple of trees and put the
walkway where they need it. He is not comfortable stating again that they have
to provide a plot plan that is properly documenting what the proposal is. A
complete set of control plans must be provided.
Mr. Vlachos said they are asking
for almost double the seating capacity and he was here at the original
request. The refrigerator on the side is one of the few votes that he regrets
and there are residents near there. He wants to be sure that this is done properly.
They need complete plans that show all of the landscaping, all the seating, all
of the walkways, every parking space, a legend that says how many parking
spaces are required and provided, etc. The plans have to be consistent and if
different people are doing the plans, they have to communicate. He is not
ready to vote on this tonight.
Mr. Fernandez added that the
handicap ramp changed three times but the construction plan does not show how
it will be constructed. Placing a boulder at the edge of the green house is a
good idea but put a dimension of 5? there so a wheelchair can pass by. A
layout plan should be complete. They have to do the coordination. He is in
support of this proposal but he will not vote until the application is complete.
Mr. Vlachos asked if the
refrigeration unit could be incorporated into the building instead of sticking
out like a trailer. The rendering looks attractive and that unit retracts from
it. Mr. Kaloostian said he feels the same way but that is a plan for the
future. This plan is costing a lot but he would like to enclose it and make it
part of the building but zoning may not allow that. Mr. Vlachos asked if they
could screen it. Mr. Kaloostian said that is the entryway to the side of the
building ? if he could make an entryway in front of that to go into the
building and that unit would be inside the building. Compressors would go on
top of the roof but that is after this project.
Mr. Vlachos said this project is
not ready for a vote but he would like to hear from the public.
Mr. Kaloostian said he thought the
landscaping plan didn?t have to be approved with the control plans ? he thinks
that may have been the Planning Board that didn?t need it but needed it before
the building permit is issued. Mr. Vlachos explained that there are times that
the zoning board suggests working out the final landscaping plan with the
planning staff but the landscaping may be a big issue here. Mr. Kaloostian
didn?t know it was a major issue and they have been working with zoning on
changes on a daily basis and the plan he gave to the landscape architect would
show the details except in front of the patio because he didn?t know what he
wanted there. He didn?t think not knowing what landscaping in front of the patio
would stop the hearing. Ms. Santucci clarified that the control plan states
proposed landscaping around the entire perimeter and there is not one plant
shown on the landscape plan. The existing conditions should show the trees
that are existing. There are none on the plan and there is nothing proposed.
Mr. Kaloostian asked what other
information besides the landscaping plan does the board need. Mr. Vlachos said
he wants to see the interior layout, as well. He asked if this is a coffee
shop or a restaurant. Mr. Kaloostian said he opened as a coffee shop then
Starbucks opened and Dunkin Donuts expanded and he couldn?t compete. He was
trying to stay in business and proposed opening at night which didn?t work out
and then they opened for breakfast and lunch. It is now a breakfast and lunch
place. They close at 2 p.m. during the week and 3 on Saturday and 2 on
Sunday. He?d like to stay a coffee shop but cannot compete.
Mr. Fernandez said the planting
plan is important as the greenhouse plans are important and it is the way they
are going to be executed. Until the loose ends are eliminated, they are at
risk. They need to coordinate the plans ? where the walkway and the bike
parking is related to the entryway is not a simple uneventful decision. It
must be committed to.
Mr. Kaloostian asked if they could
have someone look at the plan before the meeting. Mr. Fernandez asked them to
do their due diligence. Mr. Vlachos said things like they ran over the number
of seats, they need another bathroom, they need a handicap bathroom, they come
back to the board for additional relief.
Mr. Vlachos announced that the case is still
open but welcomed anyone to speak from the audience.
Angie Kounelis, 55 Keenan Street,
District A Councilor, said that she sent correspondence November 24th
and she read the first paragraph. She is not here to speak against the
proposal it is a destination in the east end. It is important in the east end
that they are very congested where commercial properties abut residential
properties. Someone lives next door and someone pays taxes and it is important
to address the issues prior to not after the fact. She doesn?t want to see any
side-bar comments with abutters that later on fall by the wayside and
everything should be brought forward and conditioned. She did not attend the
previous meeting but there were abutters here addressing concerns of traffic,
parking, etc. The immediate abutters have comments as well and she contacted
them. She hopes there are registered survey plans, clear delineation of
property lines, fencing, retaining walls should be addressed. There shouldn?t
be any comments about someone should move a fence or someone will address the
parking and lot lines ? they should be part of the conditioning. The snow
removal should be addressed ? will there be 5 parking spaces lost because of
snow compiling or will it go over the fence into someone else?s yard. How will
the sidewalks be maintained-will they be cleared of snow as the Watertown ordinance states? The planting strips should be maintained and all property
owners are responsible. These things should not go by the wayside. They
should all work together.
Mr. Fernandez asked Ms. Kounelis
what was the damage she referred to in her letter. Ms. Kounelis said she will
have to defer that to the property owners. There is a question as to the
property line and the fence there has been damaged ? she will defer to the
property owners and Ms. Scott.
Dennis Duff, 33 Spruce Street,
asked if there is adequate parking now. Mr. Vlachos stated that they do have
sufficient parking now. Mr. Duff said if they could flip-flop the sunroom and
put it where the freezer is. The neighbors at the last meeting mentioned the
corner exiting onto their street and he thought it would be better to have the
sunroom on that side and incorporate the freezer into the other end and cut a
curb opening straight in to the parking lot instead of the turn. Put the
dumpster back there, too. Put all of the vehicles on one side of the building
and let the restaurant take the other side. This might be expensive but it
would be more attractive and a better use of the space.
Ms. Santucci asked about the
reduction to 24? curb cut and asked what the site lines are coming out of
there. Ms. Scott said there are cars parked on both sides. The first proposal
back in 1998, a curb opening was closed off as it was a gas station without
curbing at all. The town picked up on-street parking. Mr. Fernandez added
that they also put a street light in for the fire station. Ms. Santucci asked
if the proposed parking on the street is by the town. Ms. Scott explained that
there was a concern by the Traffic Division that they would lose one parking
space on the street and this is showing that in closing up the curb opening to
24?, they will gain one space on the street. Showing this on the plan is to
give Sgt. Deignan the assurance that spaces will not be lost on the street.
Mr. Fernandez said the change in
the curb does not alter the site lines. He thinks that it mediates the issue
of the drive-thru which the use of the corner curb cut is more problematic than
the one across from the fire station. The cars staying on one side is an
improvement to this plan, except the owner?s car which is not an issue. Ms.
Elliott added that the dumpster has to have a truck come in to empty it. Ms.
Scott asked if they wanted the dumpster within the 10? buffer in the rear.
Someone asked if they wanted to walk out to the dumpster in the rear with all
of the food waste.
Ms. Kounelis said the location of
the dumpster is critical as she receives complaints about the odor of the
dumpster in the summer, not this one but others in the east end. She said
there is a residential property to the rear of this location.
Mr. Vlachos clarified that the
board would like to them to be more specific on the whole project and specify
as much as possible on these plans and make sure they are consistent. Ms.
Scott asked if VTP has put in stakes indicating the rear property line. Mr.
Kaloostian said they recently re-shot the line at her request and he doesn?t
believe they put in stakes but he is sure the original marks are still there.
Ms. Scott asked that they put in new stakes to indicate where the rear property
line is. Mr. Vlachos stated that if there is any question about fencing or
putting up new fencing or screening, it is important to know exactly where the
property line is. Mr. Kaloostian said the edge of the parking area and the
property line have quite a distance between then.
Ms. Santucci asked if the snow is
pushed up against the fence. Mr. Kaloostian stated that the property is up
high and the snow is not pushed that far back ? he told the plow contractor to
take up a couple of parking spaces to put the snow in. All of the snow is on
their property ? either on the side or along the back. It is not pushed beyond
the actual parking area.
Mr. Fernandez asked if the property
line on the plan is correct. Mr. Townsend said that it is the correct line.
Ms. Santucci asked if the catch
basins are there now. Mr. Kaloostian said they are there and they are in
grass. He said his dad had a dirt parking lot for over 60 years and they never
had a problem with runoff. The catch basins went in 10 years ago plus now it
will be asphalted and pitched with berms. Ms. Santucci asked if they were ever
cleaned out. Mr. Kaloostian said no. The opened them after years to see the
oil separator and there wasn?t any significant water in there. They never have
water issues in that parking lot. For 50 years it was only a dirt parking
lot.
Mr. Fernandez asked if the stockade
fence belongs to the abutter. Mr. Kaloostian said that it does and they are
not sure if it is on the property. Mr. Fernandez said the abutter is concerned
with the snow being pushed over the embankment. Mr. Kaloostian said it is not
pushed over the embankment. Mr. Fernandez said there isn?t any delineation and
the abutter is wondering if the snow is coming down to their property. Mr.
Kaloostian said there is 8? to the fence and the snow is not close to the
fence. Ms. Scott said that when VTP puts up the stakes, they will all know
where it is.
Mr. Vlachos asked if it is their
request is to continue the case to next time. Ms. Civetti stated that there
will be a missing member in February and do they chose to go forward with a
four member board, requiring a unanimous vote or wait for 5 members at the next
meeting after that. Mr. Vlachos further explained that they could have a vote
of 4-1 and still pass but he doesn?t have to make that choice tonight.
Mr. Kaloostian said he hopes to do
this project as soon as possible.
Ms. Santucci motioned to continue
the case to February. Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0 to continue.
Ms. Santucci motioned to adjourn.
Ms. Elliott seconded. Voted 5-0. Adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
