View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version










Harry J. Vlachos, Chairperson

Melissa M. Sambucci, Clerk

Stuart J. Bailey, Member

Deborah Elliott, Member

Carlos Fernandez, Member

Richard M. Moynihan, Alternate





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





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.