Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-30 ry ... 7:0:: ,~ U--:;;I;'~....-:-r~J ,--.-- - - ----~~ ~ rrr~ CLA-L l(~ Ir ~~Y-o k~ .~ ~;c~ . waUtJ-. o-v ... ~ 2&14 . a . ~~ i\ . ... Meeting of the Board of Appeals, March 30,1990 at 1:00p.m. at the Town and County Buildin~, Nantucket, MA 02554 The meetinF was called to order by Chairman Bill Sherman at 1:08p.m. All repular members of the Board were present as well as alternate member, David Le~~ett. Linda Williams noted that Michael O'Mara had a conflict of interest with several of the applications, They were numbers 16-90,17-90, and 23-90. Chairman Sherman also stated that Attorney David Moretti asked that application 24-90 be continued until the next meeting as he was unexpectedly called off island. ~FJ1~~!iQn 027-901 ~own of Nantu~ke~- Space Needs Com~itte~/ E;!!I~_r:~!1cy_ !~~lA~_f was a request to allow the Buildin~ Commissioner to issue a Temporary permit for nonconforminF structure. ~he criterion the Board uses for doinF this comes under "promot~nf proper development of the community., Town Code #139-26H. The building requested for Town office space is situated on Assessor's' Map 42.Lt.2, parcel number 70, near the corner of Oak Street and South Beach Street. Bernie Grossman spoke on behalf of the Space Needs Committee describinF the building and adjoininF lot, parcel #27, which would allow for parking. Chairman Sherman asked Building Commissioner, ~nn Santos, if he had seen the parkin~ plan. He replied that he had looked at it briefly and that the plan would allow for 10 leval parking spaces but could actually fit 16 usuable ~ parkinp- spaces. Dale Waine asked Mr. Grossman what the cost would be to renovnte the building. He said there were no cost estimates as yet. The Buiding Department, Wiring Department, Health, Conser- vation Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals would be housed in this building with the possibility of expansion. Dale Waine asked about the lease. Mr. Grossman said it was a lon~ term lease with option up to 5 years. Chairman Sherman said that there would be conditions upon approval'of a temporary permit. The building would & Meeting of the Board of Appeals, March 30,1990 at 1:00p.m. Page 2 be for Inunicipal use only and that a formal request for a Special Permit to validate under Zoning the plans to convert the building for Town use be submitted by the June hearing. Spencer Cowan, 70ninp Board Administrator, questioned whether or not a Temporary Permit should be granted today or not since the Town had to come back anyway with a formal request. He said it would allow the Board time to research the proposal and the Space Needs Committee time to provide details requested by the Board. ~r. Grossman said the Space Peeds Committee waG unwilling to po ahead with the expe~Ee of a renovation atudy without at least n Temporary Perrelt. Chairman Sherman reminded the Board that the risk is always on the applicant and that the main concern should be if the proposed plan has a negative effect on zonin~. If it does not have a nepative effect on 7.oning", then the question is does the plan "promote proper development of the community"? Linda Williams voiced concern over the traffic flow and the other applicants in the neighborhood who had had requests denied. Mr. Grossman said that the congestion caused by the proposed Town office building would be far less than what is now caused by several hundred mopeds. He outlined the traffic route. Nichael O'Mara asked Ron Santos what the restrictions would be on the parking spaces. He answered that the parlcing- would be for municipal employ.ees who worked,'at the building and for To\~ vehicles over the weekend. Votion was made by Dale ~aine to approve the Temporary Permit with the following conditions: 1. The Temporary Permit is restricted to ~unicipal use of the building and parking area. 2. Temporary Permit is pood for two months when application is filed for a formal hearing. At that time the Temporary Fermit is extended until the June Board of Appeals hearing. Motion was seconded, and voted approved. Peter Dooley joined the Board at 1:J8p.m. The Board then consisted of Peter Dooley, Bill Sherman, Michael O'Mara, David Leggett, Meeting of the Board of Appeals, March JO,1990 at 1:00p~m. Page J and Linda Williams. Application 012-2.Q.L-9.harles and Mona Glidden/ Salros Road/ Reade was continued from the March 9,1990 meeting. Arthur Reade,Esq. represented the applicants. He made several sug~estions to modify the request for a Special Permit. The request for convertin~ the ~arage space into additional bedrooms for dormitory use was w:th- drawn. ~r. Reade asked that the existin~ seven bedrooms in the main building 'te confirmed for dormitory USE:, and that the limitatjon of ten occupants be removed. He also persisted with the request that the Special Permit not be personal to Mr. Glidden as it is now. The use of the premises now is contin{!ent upon r,~:r. Glidden ownin,e- the property and he would like to sell it. A detailed parking plan was provided. There would be eipht parkin{! spaces. ~r. Reade maintained that there would be a responsible on island manager present at all times when the property is occupied as employer dormitor~T. A request was made to convert the ~ara{!e into a sinple- family dwelling not to be used by employees. The dwelling would be used by the mana{!er or a family and hopefully would avert any situation ar:i~dnp" in the employee dormitory because of the close proximity of the two. The single parking space that foes with the sin~le-family dwelling would not be prohibited from backing out on Salros Roa.d. rh'lirl1lRTl Sherman questioned Mr. Reade on the septic requirements and recognized that the plem for the sinp"le-family dwelling was approved by the Board of Health and the Board had received a letter from ), irhard hay. Linda vJilliams commented that if the single-family dwelJinF waS allowed three bedrooms the total number of bedroo~s would te tack up to ten and there would be eroployees living in the sinple-family dwellinf. ~r. Reade said he would have no problem with a restrjction on the single-family dwellinf to family members, with no more than two unrelated persons. Chairman Sherman asked if there were anymore people to speak in favor of the applicntion. ~here heinf none, he asked if anyone was present to speak in opposition. Meetinp of the Board of Appeals, March JO,1990 at 1:00p.m. Paf"e h Mr. Allen of Nobska Way asked the Board to require a resident mana~er to be on the property for the whole season and that there be one commercial owner and his employees. Linda Williams asked how this would be monitored to assure there was only one employer and his employees. Mr. Reade said it would be specified in the decision. Ms. Williams said she would like to see a limit on the number of occupa~cy. Richard Berthelet was present and asked the Board to l00k into this npplieation more before comin~ to a decision becaus€ the building was not up to code a;-ld haci fire v5..ulations. Mr. Glidden said he would be willin~ to fix everything that was in violation. Ron Santos, Building Commissioner, said he had been through the building and that if the buildin~ were a new building it could not operate as it is now but it carne under the 'frandfathering' provision. Anne Balas said she would like to see the building subject to inspection and licensin~. Chairman Sherman asked for a consensus from the Board. Michael C'Mara made the motion that the Special Permit be approved with the following stipulations: 1. Resident manaper over the ape of 21 who would be an employee of the owner and listed with the Nantucket Police Department. 2. Limit the number of occupancy to 14 persons. J. Transferability of the Special Permit approved so that the Special yermit is not personal to Mr. Glidden. 4. Cff street parking available for eight cars and one parking space for the sin~le-family dwelling. 5. Garave space converted to single-family dwelling with two bedrooms. No more than two unrelated people in the single family dwelling. h. No more than nine employers housing employees in the buildinF. 7. The building would be brought up to code and inspected by the Buildinp Department.~T6wn sewer tie in when available. Peter Dooley seconded the motion. Four members of the Board voted in favor; one opposed. Motion carried. Meetin~ of the Board of Appeals, March JO,1990 at 1:00p.m. Pa~e 5 Arthur Reade, Esq. asked that the next three applications be taken to~ether because they are all interrelated. Applications 015-90/Ronald Bamber/ Swift Rock Road/Reade, 016-90/Christine Bamber/ Swif~ Rock Road/Reade, 017-90/Elizabeth Moschella/ Swift Rock RoaQ/ Reade were requests for Variance from minimum lot size and frontage requiLements or determination that no zoning relief is required. Nan~ucket Zoning By-Law Section 1J9-16.A requires a minimum lot size of 80,000 sq'llal'e feet and frontage of 150 feet for building purposes. Application 015-90, rtonald Bamber, Lot 5 of Land Court Plan J7055-B, has a square foot area of 43,560 and a frontage of 1JJ.JJ feet. rlpplication 016-90, Christine Bamber, Lot 6 of Land Court Plan J7055-B, has a square foot area of 4J,560 and a frontave of 1JJ.JJ feet also. Application 017-90, Elizabeth Moschella, Lot 12, Land Cour"t .Pia!! j,!u))-B, nati a tiquare foot area of 4J,560 and a fronta~e of 172.79 which does conform to zoning requirements. Mr. Reade arFued that each of these lots was endorsed by the r;antucket Planninp Board as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 41, Section SlF, on March 17,1972, in File No. 992. No zoning requirements were in effect durin~ this freeze period. These lots were put in a Limited Use General Zoning District with a minimum lot size of 50,000 square feet and minimum frontaFe of 200 feet by the approval of the initial Nantucket Zoning By-Law which became effective on July 27,1972. In 197J the lots were placed in a Limited Use General-2 Zoning District with minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft. and 150sq. ft. of minimum frontage which are the requirements in effect today. At the time that Lots 12 and 1J carne into separate ownership on September 11,197J and Lots 5 and 6 carne into separate ownership on February 25,1977, each lot had the benefit of a five-year residential freeze period provided by the former Chapter 40A, Section SA. Chairman Sherman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition or in favor and Elizabeth Moschella spoke stating that she has Meetin~ of the Board of Appeals, March 30,1990 at 1IOOp.m. Pap-e h paid taxes on property that she has not been able to use as a buildable lot. Marshall Beale spoke askinp- the Board to limit the lots to one dwelling if the Board approved the relief. Arnur Reade said his clients would have no problem with limitin~ buildin~ to sin~le dwellin~s. Chairman Sherman said that if relief was granted, the Board w~uld be inviting building on empty lots. I'lotion was made by Peter Dooley to grant re:ief with a limitation of only one dwellin~. Motion seconded by Linda Williams. Three voted in opposition; two in favor. Relief denied. The Board consisted of David Leg~ett, Bill Sherman, Linda Williams, and Peter Dooley to hear clarification of application 010-90/ Paul_~ru~~ Killen/HinEdale RoadLLoftin. Attorney Loftin asked for clarification of the decision already entered, citin~ paravraph six which states that the buildin~ would be sited "twenty feet north" when it should read "fifty feet north". This is consented to by the applicant and the abbutters. Linda Williams made the motion to approve the clarification. Motion seconded; all in favor. ApJ?1l-~9:~iEn 18-90/Ennest Jaxtl-me!:L..1om Nevers_Heal ty Tr~~.!I ~,g_~j.JJ'9-E9~.!~Ly,evin Dale,Esq. was continued from the IVlarch 9,1990 meeting. The request was for modification of a previously Franted Variance to allow increase in ground cover on an undersized lot. The property is located at 22 Willard Street, Assessor's Parcel 29-79. Kevin Dale,Esq. presented the Board with a new plan that eliminated the entire second story that had been pro- posed at the earlier meetinf. The new plan would add a ten foot by fourteen foot bedroom which would add 144 sq. ft. of ~round cover to the existing p-round cover. A twelve by seventeen foot deck was also proposed but that was not considered fround cover. Mr. Dale said that he had met with Mr. Anderson, Secretary of Meetin~ of the Board of Appeals, March JO,1990 at 1:00p.m. Pa~e 7 Brant Point Association, and with Rhoda Weinman who represented an a~butter, Andrea Dobbs, in an effort to work out an acceptable paan. He also added that there would be a restriction on the relief that limited construction until after Labor Day,1990. Plannin~ Board recommendation was favorable. Rhoda Weinman,Esq. stated that the plan was acceptable to her client with the condition that no construction be started until after September 15,1990 and finished before June 15,199~. Mr. Dale added that the relief should include construction of a chimney that raised the ground cover sli~htly. Peter Dooley made the motion to ~rant the relief conditional upon HDC approval of the chimney and no construction until September 15,1990 and no construction after June 15,1991. Michael O'Mara seconded the motion. All were in favor. ~lication o26-9Q{Richard Arnol~inn Lane/Ted Tillotson,EsQ~ was a request for a Special Permit to allow the placement and stora~e use of an P' by 40' box-like container on the premises at 14 Winn Lane, Assessor's Parcel 56-204, Lot 12. Furthermore, in the alternative, the Applicant appeals from the decision of the Buildinp Commissioner that the storage container use on his vacant lot is not a use permitted under the zoning code,e.~. Section 1J9-SA, -17 or -20D. Attorney Tillotson argued that if the container were put on wheels, it could be left in front of the lot on the street. He asked that the container be allowed on the other lot owned by ~lr. Arnold. Chairman Sherman said that the container was not a trailer and ~ii not have a permitted use. The applicant has a building permit for 8 Winn Street and wants this permit to apply to a container located at 14 Winn Street. A building permit is only valid for uses on the lot for which it was issued. The container is not on the same lot as construction and Chairman Sherman Meetin~ of the Board of Appeals, March JO,1990 at 1:00p.m. Paf"e 8 asked if it was used for construction or commercial use. {' Richard Arnold said it was not used for commercial use. Linda Williams commented that the house had been under construction for ten years and asked how long the container had been on the property. She expressed concern that it could be a fire hazard. Chairman Sherman said that unless it could be shown how the container had a permitted use, relief could not be granted. Mr. Tillotson maintained thatllo relief was necessary because the container is not defined in Zoninf" By-Laws. Paul I,ei~htontEsq. was present representing Richard Fite of 15 Winn's Lane in opposition to }~r. Arnold. Mr. Fite bou~ht in this residential area and is adamantly opposed to havinv the L}O' container remain at 14 Winn's Lane. He maintained that property values have declined because the container is an eyesore and that it can be seen from hif"her ground such as Prospect Cemetery. };s. Shelia DeBurren was present with pictures of the container. She said that there was an awful lot of activity in the early hours with lumber and build~ng supplies being taken from the container weekly and sometimes daily. She maintained that the container was used for commercial purposes. John Becker was also present and spoke in opposition. He said .the container was used for commercial purposes and had witnessed lumber corning and goinv from the container. Richard Arnold denied that the container was used for commercial use. Chairman Sherman asked Mr. Arnold why lumber was coming and goinF from the container and Mr. Arnold replied that he had viven it to someone. Mr. Sherman noted that there were many letters in opposition and that the Planning Board Recommendation was unfavorable. Motion was made by Dale Waine to grant relief. Motion was seconded. All opposed. Ap~lication 020-90/reller et al/Safe Harbor/Polpis Road/Reade was a request for a Variance from the J% maximum ground cover ratio allowed by Section 139-16A for their 3.59 acre lot to enable them to retain a 204SF E,~d, said to have historic significance. ~ J J MeetinF- of the Board of Appeals, March JO,1990 at 1iOOp.m. Page 9 With the completion of a 3J9 SF addition to the existing dwelling, ~round cover would be increased from 2.93% to 3.13%. The property is located at 256 Polpis aoad, Assessor's Parcel 25-025, Lot 2 of Land Court Plan 13443-F. Chairman Sherman asked if there was any opposition to this because of its historic value. Attorney Reade said that the shed had marginal utility at best and it had been ~ranted a demolition permit by the HDC. I,inda Williams said the Board should not allow people to ~o over the p-round cover. r.hairman Sherman sUFP-ested that reli..ef be Franted conditional on the removal of the shed. Anne Balas said she was not in favor of that motion. Dale Waine made the motion to ~rant the relief requested. The structure could not be used for storaF"e or habitation. Linda vvilliams seconded the motion. Two voted in favor; three opposed. Request denied. ~plication 024- 0 Michael Scott Realt St. David T\1oretti ,E~. David I~loretti asked for a continuation until the May 4,1990 meetin~. Anne Balas made the motion to continue the application until then. Dale Waine seconded. All in favor. 6PpliqatlQ!l-.Q.f..2~.QLB?-Fvard and Spruce ~Issadore,Esq. was an appeal from the Buildin~ Commissioner's decision of February 22,1990 denyin~ a buildin~ permit for a dwelling on grounds the .34 acre vacant lot lacks the requisite frontaF"e. The property in question lies between Harvard and ~pruce Streets in Miacomet Park, Assessor's Parcel 81-107, Lots 125-129 & 166-170 of Plan File i-E, Section A, and zoned Limited Use General-2. The applicant is Bruce H. ~oor. Attorney Issadore disputed the claim that the path now being used is a private way crossinp- pr~vate property. He claimed that this is a traveled private way that the public has use of to ~et to the beach. Mr. Issadore said the path goes back to 1902 and has 9~n used to build on. Chairman Sherman asked what frontap-e th;r~ts have on that road. He asked if ~ path was brUE~ut or unimprovc&~ Dale Waine noted that there Meeting Page 10 ~~~ ~. ~i't /-z. ~~ c--- March JO,1990 at 1s00pm.m .~~ is no wa. out without crossing priva~tY. ~is pat~~ ay1 Chairman Sherman ;aid :~a~~;IIPt must be~lidated ~~ ,c,.,...,. '~-:-. ~ d~'v..,;'~ ~ " IJ' before A.tA,Qp~an he Azoning-: 'Ilh l"e 13 tIle qU1!l!Stioh of' fronta~e IV-'f~ ~ h.~te way e# access .~~:::: :~~u: =~ ~ a BuiDiHle--Pl<rrni~.~~SSlle~ ~llrn or~-^^^~ Mrs. Conway has not given permission for people traveling on her road. Attorney Issadoremaintained that this is a private way: ~ it would te'a cost~y procedure to get an easement over someone's land. Linda William~ asked if the road has shifted over the years. She was told that the road has moved because of heavy equipment travelin~ on it. Dawn Darby asked if the road was a paper road. Dale Waine said that he wanted more information. Spencer Cowan, Zoning Board Administrator, asked wh~the intervenin~ lot was A lanrourted:' He said acquirin~ an easement over tandioul'ted prope~ty G~uld be very difficult. Mrs. Conway wants to block the acces~/ so there really is~~c~ss at all. Attorney Issadore said thele was a question as to the !ri~ht Of~. HeA sa~.:.hA Town could take the path by eminent domain because of the/in~ent to build. Dale Waine made a motion to continue this case until the ~ay 4,1990 meetin~. Linda Williams seconded. All in favor. Application 021-90/Miklos et al/Watts et all East Dover St./ Philbrick was a request for a Special Permit to alter and extend a pre-existinp- nonconforming dwelling as to ground cover. The applicants are Robert Miklos and Paul Morrison for themselves as buyers and the owners, Priscilla F. Watts, June Johnson, and Glen McGarvey. The premises are located at 9 East Dover Street, Assessor's Parcel 55.4.1-02J, Plan Book 8, Pa~e 12, and zoned Residential- Old Historic. The applicants want to add 49 SF of Fround cover to construct an enclosed stairway as a second means of egress to the second floor of the two-family dwelling to meet building code. tJ' j ~\ ~ .1 "'t r~ J)r Meeting of the Board of Appeals, warch 30,1990 at 1&00p.m. Pa~e 11 Existing groundcover is 1330 SF, which is 232 SF over the 1098 SF allowed on the 3659 SF lot. The groundcover is said to predate zoning. The addition would bring groundcover to 1379 SF, or 37% groundcover. There would be two off-street parking spaces and the Planning Board Recommendation is favorable. Mr. Miklos represented himseLf and said he had a Purchase and Sale Agreerrent from the current owners. He showed the site plan and saiB he use space in t~e garage as a GUmnler room. Robert Leichter asked if the garage was a two car garaFe. Mr. Mik~os said that the garage space was for storage and the summer room, but that additional parkin~ space could be provided. He provided two perspective sketches. Shairman Sherman asked what the loss in structure space would be with the staircase. Mr. Miklos said the loss would be 50 SF on each floor. Robert Leichter asked why the relief of 49 SF couldn't be taken out of the ~arage. Mr. Miklos said that he needed the garage for outside storage and he would rather not tear it sown. Chairman Sherman said that normally the Board ~ants pToundcover to cover cars, but N:r. Miklos was aSking to push the cars into the street. Spencer Cowan, Esq. said he questioned the Residential-Old Historic restrictions and did not think this could be used as a two-family dwellinR. Arthur Reade, Esq. represented Mr. McGallister in opposition. Mr. McGallister resides at 51 Union St. Mr. Reade said that Dover Street is a very narrow one-way street that cars cannot turn back out on. It is a heavily traveled street which has had many accidents already. r.1r. Reade showed the street plan of Dover Street. He said that in three years there has been no active two-family dwelling and Mr. McGallister would like to see it remain a single- family dwelling. Vehicles would be a problem and to have a two-family dwelling would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. David LegFett said it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Melissa Philbrick,Esq. commented that two Meeting of the Board of Appeals, March 30,1990 at 1:00p.m. Paf:e 12 families have two cars so the traffic situation is not changed that much. Chairman Sherman asked if leases could be produced to prove proof of occupancy. non Santos, Building Commissioner, said that there was a letter on file that showed the e~istence of a two-family dwelling. It is a duplax now and it could still receive a permit as such. The stairway could be put inside if there is no tenant in there. Chairman Sherman saic. there was a question of abandonment of use. Linda williams said that it was rented. Robert ~eichter said the Board should ask for a continuance so that proof could be provided. Chairman Sherman said the Board did not want to encoura~e non-conformin~ use. Robert Leichter said that the Bo&rd should require the proof and look for an alternative to the 49 SF. Motion was made by Robert Leichter to continue the application until the May 4,1990 meetinr. Linda Williams seconded. All in favor. Application 022-90/ G. Kelly/ Glowacki/ Haney Ann Lane/Dale was a request for a Special Permit under Section 139-9B(3)(v) to conduct an auto body repair business on the premises, with a finding that such use will not be in violation of Section 139-20 (esp.-20A) setting forth prohibited uses. The property is located at 1h l'ancy Ann Lane, Assessor's Parcel 68-135, Lot 163 of Land \J ourt Plan 1651J~-2 and zoned Residential-Commercial. The applicants are Georre Kelley dba K's Auto Body and the owners Walter J. and Ann Glowacki. Geor~e Kelly was present to speak for himself. He described the 2400 SF steel building that would house an auto repair shop with a paint booth. He said there would he adequate parking and landscaping to screen the site. Mr. Kelley said there would be no engine work and no petroleum products. He listed his qualifications to conduct such a business Meeting of the Beard of' Appeals, March 30,1990 at 1IOOp.m. Page 1:3 and that the business would not be injurious to the neighborhood. He said that he generated less than 10 gallons a month of harmful waste. There will be a fire-proof steel locker for paint and the environment would be protected from hazardous waste. Mr. Kelley would like to move his business from 14 Nancy Ann Lane to 9 Nancy Ann Lane by i~ovember 1,1990. Chairman Sherman asked if the new building waE up to Building Code and was told that it was. Ron Santos, Building vommission~r, was present and said that he had not seen the plans. ~pencer Cowan, Zoning Board Administrator, asked if there had been any problems with Mr. Kelley's business, any complaints. Linda Williams said Mr. Kelley was very conscientous and there had been no complaints. Kevin Dale, Esq. spoke for Mr. Kelley saying that there had never been any hazardous waste or' danger to the environment. He said the business was limited to auto body repair and painting with no petroleum products on the premises. The applicant is obligated to meet local and state codes and he has shown consistent good faith. Liz Zimmerman of the Hantucket Land Council expressed concern about contaminants reachinf the water table. Mr. Kelley said he was also concerned about the water supply and was careful that no contaminants were spilled and that he ran a clean operation. Kevin Dale, Esq. outlined the parking plan and said that a 40' by 40' space would be used. Chairman Sherman asked if there was any dual ownership of the lots and how the hazardous waste was collected. Anne Balas asked if collecting the hazardous waste was a difficult procedure and was told that it was not. Linda Williams made a motion to grant the Special Permit for the auto body repair business. David Leggett seconded; all were in favor. Ap-plication 023-90/~. Toole/H. Hobart/ South ~oad/,Hobart was a request for a Special Permit to reduce the side and rear Meeting of the Board of Appeals, March 30,1990 at 1z00p.m. Page 1h line setbacks from 10 ft. to 5 ft. in order to allow construction of a garage. The propery is located at 5 South Road in Siasconset. Rachel Hobart, Esq. represented herself and her h~sband, Edward Toole. She presented the Board with plans for the proposed construction stating that her hus~and owns the lot next door. The relief would allow the proposed 366 SF single car garage to sit 6 ft. from the westerly property line at the rear of their validly existing undersized lot of 9178 SF in an R-2 zoning. Ms. Hobart said that Cedar trees have been planted at the rear of the lot to provide screening between the lots and a privet hedge separates the property to the west. There was one letter in onposition and that letter was withdrawn. Chairman Sherman questioned Ms. hobart on the setback. Motion was made by Linda vJilliams to approve the application. Motion seconded by Robert Leichter. All in favor. There being no further business before the Board, the Board met for discussion of the budget, Inquirer and Mirror litigation. Recognition was made of Spencer Cowan who was now officially the Zoning Board of Appeals Administrator. He as yet had no contract and is unpaid. Meeting was adjourned at 6:02p.m. by Chairman Sherman. ~J~ 4L----- William Sherman, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS