PLANNING BOARD
September 8, 2010 - 5:00 p.m.
MINUTES
PB Members Present: Don Andersen, Michael Cole, Dan Coppelman, Tom Johnson, Leslie-Ann Morse, Lisa Panaccione, Howard Sandler, John Knox - Alternate, Lee Verrone - Alternate
PB Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Sarah Raposa - Town Planner
Chairman Michael Cole opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. and explained hearing protocols. Mr. Cole recused himself from Case #PB2010-11.
Case No. PB2010-11 - John & Debbie Seliga of Eastham & David Karam of Brewster - 6 Penny Lane - Map 10 - Parcel 299 - Residential Site Plan Approval.
(Sitting: Andersen, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Sandler - Recused: Cole)
Mr. Seliga presented changes to the plans for 6 Penny Lane. Mr. Sandler said that with the kind of limitations on the lot and the neighborhood it is a well thought out plan and a credit to the neighborhood. Mr. Coppelman said the plans have improved and the parking is OK, would add condition that the pitch of the patio is toward inside of lot, not the neighbor. Mr. Andersen opened the meeting to the public.
Don Wentworth, an abutter, said the plan is better. Fisher Road is two story homes and Penny is one story homes. Feels house is too tall in relationship to the road, 133% increase in the footprint, went from 8% to 18% site coverage, and is 2 times taller than the original. The drawing is not to scale for 2nd floor and having 2 cars parked is a tight squeeze. Doesn’t want to see the road blocked so that police, fire or rescue vehicles can’t to get down the road. Wants no upward expansion, no habitable space in the basement, and should be kept to 4 people.
Ms. Raposa stated for the record that she placed the poorly scaled plans in the packets for the board to have a better look at the 2nd floor.
H. Edward Jans of 2 Fisher Road, abutter to abutter, would feel more comfortable with this plan if the building was restricted to 15% of total lot coverage not ZBA approved 17%. The lot already has non-conformities to the other side only 15" from Leland Road instead of 35'. If you demo a building you have to be 35' from right of way. Has concerns about the porch and environmental concerns regarding effluent and water quality.
Mr. Seliga stated that there are 2 houses on Penny Lane that have a 2nd story. The public portion of the hearing is closed.
Findings of Fact
1 The existing cottage is situated in the center portion of the lot.
2 The proposed dwelling is sited in the center portion of the lot.
3 The proposed dwelling is in harmony with the physical features of the lot.
4 The proposed dwelling is in harmony with the character, scale, height and massing of existing homes in the neighborhood.
5 The proposed development avoids impacts to steep slopes, flood plains, hilltops, dunes, wetland and scenic views.
6 There will be no increase in the amount of bedrooms. The existing structure and the proposed structure both have 2 bedrooms.
7 The application was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 8/12/2010.
8 The applicant has agreed to pitch the patio into the property to avoid flooding.
9 Storage area on 2nd floor will have no plumbing.
10 There are 9 letters from neighbors supporting the application as submitted.
11 Proposed site coverage is 18.6% as numerated on the applicants application.
A MOTION to by Tom Johnson to approve the findings of fact as stated, seconded by Leslie-Ann Morse.
The VOTE: 5-0
In Favor: Andersen, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Conditions
1 Impervious patio centered in a way not to run off on neighbors property.
2 Storage on 2nd story and basement not to be used as habitable space.
3 Require Board of Health and Conservation Commission approval if applicable
4 No building permit may be issued until the applicant complies with all sections of the Town of Eastham Zoning By Laws. Any changes to the project stamped by the Town Clerk on 8/26/2010, except those that are de minimis, must be reviewed by the Planning Board. If the board finds a change to be substantial, renotice is necessary for a new hearing.
5 Any changes to the final grade must be reviewed by the Planning Board.
6 The Planning Board reserves the right to monitor the on-going construction for compliance with the approved plan. The member assigned is Lisa Panaccione.
A MOTION by Tom Johnson to approve Case No. PB-2010-11 with the conditions as stated, seconded by Leslie-Ann Morse.
The VOTE: 5-0
In Favor: Andersen, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Case No. PB2010-12 – Patricia & Timothy Daley, Eastham & Michael Smith, Orleans, seek Residential Site Plan Approval in relief of Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section IX.D.2. & XIV (site coverage exceeding 3,000 sf), for renovations to existing structure (sunroom & roof deck; relocating outdoor shower to lower 13.5’x10’ deck) located at 39 Cranberry Ln, Map 13 Parcel 60.
(Sitting: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Panaccione, Sandler)
David Lyttle presented the landscaping plan for 39 Cranberry Lane noting types of trees. Conservation Agent recommends planting 8 - 5-gallon cedar trees instead of the 8 - 15 gallon cedar trees originally planned. Project still requires administrative review by the Conservation Commission for planting in the dune. Mr. Cole referred to landscape plan dated 08/19/10 showing 15-gallon cedars and Mr. Lyttle requested that be changed to show 5-gallon cedar trees instead. Mr. Cole suggested board members mark their plans and should this be approved by Conservation, the plan then could be initialed by Mr. Lyttle.
Mr. Johnson asked about the outermost cedar. Mr. Lyttle said the purpose was to screen the house not to disturb the neighbors view. Mr. Cole asked about Board of Health approval and Mr. Lyttle said it had already been approved. Mr. Cole opened the hearing to the public.
Mr. Keith Harrison of 37 Cranberry Lane, abutter to the south, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Harrison referred to the minutes of 7/14/10 which stated an 8' deck which should be a 10' deck. The Harrison’s offered the Daley’s a compromise stating that they would have no interest in screening if the Daley’s would agree to move the addition back 10'. The compromise was not accepted. Mr. Harrison then discussed survivability of the plantings, screening height and permanence of the screening, and said the landscaping plan should show the height, size and specifications of all plantings. The sunroom wall facing the Harrison’s property is 50% glass which is a highly reflective material. Site Plan Approval criteria states that building materials should relate harmoniously to others in
the neighborhood, and all of the homes in this neighborhood, except one, are finished in weathered shingles. The design, particularly the second story observation deck is totally inappropriate in terms of our privacy, while the odds of successfully and permanently developing a vision barrier in this very hostile environment are virtually zero. The Zoning By Law’s purpose for Residential Plan Approval is for the rational protection of the legitimate interest of the adjoining property owners. The Harrisons believe their interests are valid, appropriate and legitimate and are asking the Planning Board for rational protection.
Marilyn Harrison of 37 Cranberry Lane, immediate abutter, is mainly concerned with privacy in relation to the glass wall and observation deck.
Mr. Cole read a letter from abutter Carol Levison of 40 Cranberry Lane in opposition of the project.
A MOTION by Howard Sandler to close the public portion of the hearing, seconded by Don Andersen.
The VOTE: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Mr. Sandler said the addition will not affect massing and as far as landscaping, he wouldn’t do a thing because nothing will grow there.
Ms. Morse would turn the project down.
Mr. Coppelman said it was the best job possible done by a knowledgeable profession who said plants will survive. Would require a landscape bond be posted to survive many years.
Mr. Andersen said the plantings will take care of the first floor but there is a lot of glass and is intrusive in regard to neighbors privacy.
Mr. Cole said the case is a singular potential issue, if it wasn’t for the Harrison’s concerns, which is a rational concern, everything about this project would be approveable under Residential Site Plan Approval. The lot is well treed on the Cranberry Road side and only the Harrison’s will be able to see it. Addition will not affect public vistas. The proposal by the applicant to plant what they can is the best the board can get and beyond that the neighbors can plant the screening.
Mr. Johnson said this is a large piece of property on the water and 2nd floor to 2nd floor visual is the concern. The addition is small and appropriate for the lot.
Ms. Panaccione agrees that it is a small addition and the owner gets what they want but the neighbors lost privacy.
Mr. Sandler said the setbacks assure equal privacy. The lot is adequately sized and suited to take this addition.
Findings of Fact
1 The proposed addition that will result in less than 1% site coverage has received approval by Conservation Commission on 1/21/10.
2 The proposed landscape screening plan, as requested by the Planning Board, will be handled under an Administrative Review by the Conservation Commission.
3 Significant details regarding the methods of construction have been proposed by the applicant and accepted by the Conservation Commission. These details minimize the potential disturbance of the dune.
4 While the proposed structure will be one of the larger homes in the immediate neighborhood, it is in keeping with the size and massing of waterfront homes in the overall neighborhood.
5 The proposed construction is not situated on a steep slope or wetland.
6 There will be no increase in the amount of bedrooms.
7 The present driveway turning movements will remain
8 A landscape plan has been submitted which will provide screening for the adjacent dwelling to the south, as much as practical.
9 The total proposed site coverage is 9.74%
10 The applicant has agreed that all excavations to be done by hand
11 All construction materials are to be manually carried into the site.
12 A drywell will be located for the proposed outdoor shower
13 Material storage will be in the driveway area only.
14 There is a deed restriction on the property for a maximum of 3 bedrooms.
15 The planting plan is revised to indicate a maximum of 8 - 5-gallon size red cedars.
16 Board of Health and Conservation Commission approval is required if applicable. Already approved.
17 No building permit shall be issued until the application complies with all section of the Town of Eastham Zoning By Law.
18 Any changes to the proposed project stamped by the Town Clerk on 6/3/2010, except those that are de minimis, must be approved by the Planning Board. If the Planning Board finds a change to be substantial, renotice is necessary for a new hearing.
19 Any changes to final grade must be reviewed by the Planning Board.
20 The Planning Board reserves the right to monitor the on-going construction for compliance with the approved plan. The member assigned is Don Andersen.
A MOTION to approve the findings of fact as stated by Howard Sandler, seconded by Don Andersen.
The VOTE: 5-1
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Sandler
Opposed: Panaccione
Motion Passed
Ms Panaccione said she voted no because she believes there was not enough screening as listed in the findings.
A MOTION to condition approval upon a $10,000 performance bond on landscaping for a period of 5 years by Don Andersen, seconded by Howard Sandler.
The VOTE: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
A MOTION to approve Case PB-2010-12 with the condition of Landscaping Bond, Board of Health and Conservation Commission approval by Howard Sandler, seconded by Dan Coppelman.
The VOTE: 3-3
In Favor: Cole, Coppelman, Sandler
Opposed: Andersen, Johnson, Panaccione
Motion Failed
Mr. Steven Wasby questioned failing motion with no reasons for denial listed. Ms. Morse said it was a tie vote. Mr. Cole said it needed a majority vote. No members offered reasons for denial.
Case No. PB2010-14 – Edward J. Kearns, of Eastham and Tim Brady/East Cape Engineering, of Orleans, MA, request to modify existing condition of subdivision approval as per MGL Ch. 41 §81W for 1982 subdivision located at 210, 220, 215 & 225 Bayside Drive, Eastham, Map 5, Parcels 153A-D(reference PB1982-1 & Registry Land Plan Book 361 Page 56). Specifically to amend Roadway Plan to allow issuance of Building Permit at 220 Bayside Drive.
Mr. Cole stated that a majority vote is required for modification.
Mr. Tim Brady of East Cape Engineering summarized modification request.
Mr. Coppelman - no advantage of gravel as there is a higher level of maintenance on property owners
and pavement was on original plan. Prefers paving.
Ms. Morse noted truck delivery over gravel road - prefers paving.
Mr. Andersen road layout - leave center vegetated. Agrees with Ms. Morse about trucks, prefers paving.
Mr. Johnson no additional comment
Ms. Panaccione no addition comment
Mr. Sandler prefers paving.
Mr. Cole opened hearing to the public.
Arthur Merkin of 215 Bayside Drive said the 1982 subdivision plan was paved. Gravel is expensive to maintain and so far 12 of the 14 owners chip in on expense. Bayside Court remains a turn around.
Mr. Cole questioned rights over the road. Mr. Brady checked the deed for lot 2 but is not sure who has rights.
Mr. Sandler said layout needed for lot 2. Mr. Brady said that if paving is required he would ask for a reduction in width to 14'.
Ms. Morse has no issue with 14' width
Ms. Panaccione said 14' width minimizes impact to O’Connors.
Mr. Cole asked about materials.
Mr. Sandler said paving
Ms. Panaccione said paving
Mr. Coppelman said paving
Mr. Andersen said paving.
Mr. Cole said there would be a visual jolt of clearing and paving and hoped abutters on record of wanting paving were aware of this.
A MOTION on Case #2010-14 to approve modification of existing subdivision plan by allowing applicant to construct road 14' in width by Leslie-Ann Morse, seconded by Howard Sandler.
The layout will remain the same as on plan dated 8/2/2010 at off center location with vegetation remaining and drainage as on original 1982 plan location. Mr. Brady will submit new plan after 20 day appeal period.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Mr. Brady said there is no schedule for building at this time. Mr. Anderson will be tracking this project for the Board.
Case No. PB2010-18 – Jannette MacDonald, of Eastham & Tim Brady/East Cape Engineering, of Orleans, MA, seek Residential Site Plan Approval in relief of Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section IX.D.2. & XIV (site coverage exceeding 3,000 sf), for the addition of mudroom/garage and relocation of existing bedroom at property located at 45 Russell Ave, Map 7 Parcel 294.
Mr. Tim Brady presented plans for an addition at 45 Russell Avenue. The proposed site coverage is 14.5%, but exceeds 3,000 square feet.
Mr. Coppelman said the plans were appropriate for the site. Addition is logical and the driveway is already there. There is no landscaping but a good distance to the neighbors house.
Ms. Morse has no problems with the project
Mr. Andersen said it is appropriate, improves the looks and gives it some character.
Mr. Johnson no comment
Ms. Panaccione no comment
Mr. Sandler good project.
There were no comments from the audience.
Ms. Panaccione asked if there was an interior access to the master bedroom from garage. Mr. Brady said no.
Findings of Fact
1 The lot is 22,380 square feet.
2 The proposed site coverage is 14.5%, an expansion of 5.6%.
3 The project does not impact existing native vegetation, soil or grade changes.
4 The proposed project has no significant environmental impact.
5 The project relates harmoniously to terrain and use scale proportion of existing buildings in the neighborhood.
6 the proposed project has no significant environmental impact.
7 The proposed project has all necessary Board approvals
8 The character of the neighborhood is preserved by the plan as presented.
A MOTION to accept the findings of fact as stated by Tom Johnson, seconded by Leslie-Ann Morse.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
A MOTION by Leslie-Ann Morse to grant Residential Site Plan Approval for Case #2010-18 in accordance with plans filed with the Town Clerk, seconded by Don Andersen.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
The member assigned to track the project is Lisa Panaccione.
Case No. PB2010-19 – William T and Cheryl S Lamb, of Avon, CT & Tim Brady/East Cape Engineering, of Orleans, MA, seek Residential Site Plan Approval in relief of Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section IX.D.2. & XIV (site coverage exceeding 3,000 sf), for alterations to existing structure (remove existing kitchen, garage & deck and construct new kitchen, sunroom, garage & living/family room) at property located at 20 Galway Lane, Map 17 Parcel 705G.
Mr. Tim Brady presented plans for a new 2-car garage, kitchen, family room and screen porch with workshop space above garage. The lot has a Title V septic system and a septic inspection has been done.
Mr. Sandler no comments
Ms. Panaccione OK with project
Mr. Johnson OK with project
Mr. Andersen OK with project
Ms. Morse no comment
Mr. Coppelman asked if workshop had plumbing, heat, or electric. Mr. Brady said there is no plumbing. There is electricity but unsure about heat. Access from kitchen and Garage.
Mr. Johnson prefers no heat and no plumbing. There will be town water in 20 years which will affect this property. Mr. Brady said that the number of bedrooms could be restricted by the Town when Town water comes in, just like Orleans just did for their proposed Town sewage.
Mr. Cole opened the hearing to the audience.
Mr. Steven Wasby of 85 Limerick Way, abutter to abutter, cannot see this house. Referenced the Seliga Case for consistency. He noted the size of surrounding houses.
Findings of Fact
1 The lot is 20,300 square feet.
2 Proposed site coverage is 17.67%, an expansion of 7.8%.
3 The proposed project does not impact native vegetation and soil or grade changes.
4 The proposed project does not significantly impact environmental issues.
5 The proposed project is required by Board of Health to have septic system inspection for a functional Title V septic system.
6 The characteristics of the neighborhood are preserved by the plan as presented.
A MOTION by Tom Johnson to approve the findings of fact as listed, seconded by Leslie-Ann Morse.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Conditions
1 There will be no plumbing in the Workshop.
2 Board of Health and Conservation Commission approval is required if applicable.
3 No building permit shall be issued until the application complies with all sections of the Town of Eastham Zoning By Laws.
4 Any changes to the proposed project stamped by the Town Clerk on 7/28/2010, except those that are de minimis, must be approved by the Planning Board. If the Planning Board finds a change to be substantial, renotice is necessary for a new hearing.
5 Any changes to final grade must be reviewed by the Planning Board.
6 The Planning Board reserves the right to monitor the on-going construction for compliance with the approved plan. The member assigned is Leslie-Ann Morse.
A MOTION by Dan Coppelman to approve the Conditions as stated, seconded by Don Andersen.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
A MOTION to approve Case #2010-19 with conditions as stated by Tom Johnson, seconded by Lisa Panaccione.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Case No. PB2010-20 – Patricia Ryder, of Eastham seeks a Site Plan Approval – Special Permit (§XIII) in relief of Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section XX for a 30’/1.2 kW windspire monopole vertical axis wind turbine with a 2’x7’deep concrete foundation at property located at 330 Silver Springs Beach Rd, Map 4 Parcel 477.
Lisa Panaccione recused herself from Cape #PB2010-20.
(Sitting: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Sandler, Verrone - Recused: Panaccione)
Mr. Richard Ryder, Ms. Patricia Ryder and Mr. Mark Robinson of Windspire Company were present.
Mr. Sandler said information supplied was good. Mr. Cole stated that he had visited the Wellfleet Windspire site on Chequessette Neck and it was very quiet. Mr. Robinson said the Windspire in Wellfleet is 23' high and sits on an ancient dune. Installation of the unit was discussed and Mr. Robinson stated that only 12" around the base was disturbed during installation. Mr. Cole said there was a 10' distance from the ground to the bottom of the unit.
Mr. Johnson said he also visited the Wellfleet site and said the noise level was 10 db above ambient. Mr. Johnson also questioned the height to ground, what if someone hit it with a rake, and asked if it could be raised 5' to meet the minimum height requirement. Mr. Robinson said it could be done. Adding more concrete to the base would add an additional $900 to the cost, or possibly adding a 5' extension adding approximately $1,500 to the cost. The average rotation speed is 150 to 250 rpms. Mr. Johnson asked about screening on bottom of unit around the ring so nothing could go up inside of it. Mr. Robinson said that to date with over 500 installs, none were altered.
Mr. Johnson asked about maintenance requirement. Mr. Robinson said that no maintenance was required. There is no chaffing of electric wires it is a non-contact airbath generator with no brushes in it. Mr. Johnson asked about a hurricane. Mr. Robinson said that during hurricane force winds, the unit will automatically disconnect and shuts down at 37 mph winds. There is no mechanical braking. The top 3' of the device would have deflected.
Mr. Ryder said he has his grandchildren under control and it will be inaccessible to others. Mr. Robinson suggested a piece of Lexan.
Mr. Cole mentioned the waiver provision of the by law for a waiver of minimum height requirement found in Section XIII. Mr. Ryder said that the disadvantage of adding to the height is that the elevation drops significantly nearby and they want to have more dirt around the base. If we go with what is proposed, it will be 30' away from the house
Mr. Coppelman said he visited the site and it was a good location. Will have 6 dba above ambient 6' from the pole. The code is 10 at property line and you are another 65' from that. There will be no impact on the neighbors or the area.
Mr. Ryder said he contacted the neighbors and the neighbor to the north, Griffin, supports the project. He said he would be digging the holes himself.
Mr. Cole opened the hearing to the audience.
Mr. Eric Kosaric of 405 Higgins Road said that his only long term concern is protection against mechanical problems and noise and what will the board do to protect him from that. Mr. Cole said that in the Zoning By Law under General Wind Facilities Section D.3 Complaints the procedure to file a complaint with the Building Inspector is listed. Mr. Kosaric said that was reassuring and he supports the concept.
Hearing closed to the audience.
Mr. Johnson said a waiver to the 15' and allow it to be 10' because it is not a vertical blade. Mr. Coppelman agrees that 10' is appropriate. Mr. Cole mentioned a structural engineers statement as to the structural integrity of the installation, and a maintenance plan. Mt. Johnson asked how long the company had been running. Mr. Robinson said they had a 5 year history. Mr. Coppelman asked if they had a licensed structural engineer under Massachusetts Building Code. Mr. Robinson said yes and the unit survives in excess of 115 mph winds. Rated 110 mph for residential and 120 mph for commercial. The foundation base is hinged and can be lowered. Mr. Ryder said it can also be raised and when it creates more power than we can use, the meter runs backwards.
Mr. Coppelman proposed the following waivers to code guidelines:
1 Under Section G3 - Safety Standards indicates a Clear Area being the lowest point of the blade to the ground shall not be less than 15'. With a non-vertically mounted blade this could be reduced safely to 10'.
2 Under Section D - Maintenance Plan - D2 to waive maintenance plan as the applicant has indicated that a normal maintenance plan is not required for this type of installation.
A MOTION by Dan Coppelman to waive requirements stated, seconded by Tom Johnson.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Sandler, Verrone
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Findings of Fact
1 Application is in compliance with Zoning Regulations - Section XX - General Wind Facilities, except with the 2 waivers previously granted.
2 The proposed installation is a 30' high monopole generator and is situated in the center of the lot.
3 The visual impact of the project is minimized by the existing vegetation on the site.
4 The closest dwelling to the proposed monopole is the applicant’s house.
5 There are no proposed maintenance shutdowns.
6 There are no proposed hazardous materials.
7 Sound level will be 6 dba above the ambient noise levels measured 6' from the base of the unit.
8 There will be no flicker effect to neighborhood properties.
A MOTION by Don Andersen to approve the findings of fact as listed, seconded by Leslie-Ann Morse.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Sandler, Verrone
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
A MOTION by Dan Coppelman to grant Special Permit to Case #2010-20 with the condition that all construction shall conform to the documents submitted including the proposed design drawing, seconded by Leslie-Ann Morse.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Sandler, Verrone
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Tom Johnson volunteered to track the project for the Board.
Approval of minutes has been continued to 9/21/10.
A MOTION to adjourn the meeting by Tom Johnson, seconded by Leslie-Ann Morse.
The VOTE: 7-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Morse, Sandler, Verrone
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
as prepared by Madelynanne Magill
___________________________
Dan Coppelman, Clerk
Eastham Planning Board
| 
