Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 9/11/2012
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 9/11/12

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, Mark George, Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.

Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:07 pm.      

Tim Ready made a motion for a moment of silence to remember the attacks of September 11, 2001, seconded by Tim Kavanagh.  A moment of silence was observed.


Approval of Minutes
July 19, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Ready. All approved 9-0.

Request of BVS CORPORATION for release of lots and acceptance of bond for the two-lot subdivision located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567).

Mr. Puleo gave a quick overview of the last time the applicant was before the Board and stated that the applicant has a $10,000 bond.  Ms. McKnight informed the Board that the city does have the bond.  The city engineer has determined that this amount is sufficient to finish the outstanding work.   Tonight they are being asked to vote to release the two lots of the subdivision and accept the $10,000 bond.

Tim Kavanagh motioned to accept the $10,000 bond and release the two lots at 15 and 16 Scotia Street from the covenant, seconded by Mark George. All approved 9-0.

Continuation of public hearing:  Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • “Site Development Plans for 162 Federal Street located in Salem, Massachusetts,” dated 1/25/12, last revised 7/26/12               
Attorney Scott Grover represented the applicant, William Wharff, who has an agreement to purchase 162 Federal Street and a portion of the property at 150 Federal Street, which is the old St. James Parish. He reminded the Board of the past meeting and the revision requests and comments made by the Planning Board.  He introduced Mark Novak who is the civil engineer from Meridian Engineering, and asked Mr. Novak to walk through the changes made since the last meeting.  Mr. Novak reviewed the issues related to the project that were raised at the July 19, 2012 Planning Board meeting.  
  • The first issued raised was in relation to the environmental impact statement, which has been submitted to the Planning Board.
  • The second comment was in regards to the driveway, which they graded the driveway to direct the water towards the spillway to prevent flooding;  
  • The third issue was a proposed drain basin which was mislabeled as a catch basin, and they changed it to include a solid top;  
  • The next issue was in relation to that same area in terms of elevation differences which have been updated;
  • The next comment was in relation the material used for the pipe draining to the street; it has been changed to a concrete enforced pipe;
  • The next comment was in relation to the existing utilities for the building. In speaking with Ms. McKnight and the Planning Department this will be a condition which states that the size, age, and type of the connection should be shown on the plans.  
  • The last one was a request for dimensions in the building and the parking lot, which has been added.  
Mr. Puleo asked if they have not changed the note to the parking lot.  He stated that the note should be changed to 18 spaces to which Mr. Novak said that he forgot to change it.  The other issue Mr. Puleo questioned was in relation to the bituminous Cape Cod berm rather than granite curbing at the entrance to the site.  Mr. Novak agreed and stated that he will provide the Board with an updated plan with this detail. Ms. McKnight asked for the date of the latest revision, to which he responded that it was dated 7/26/12.  Mr. Novak stated that they would have another revision submitted.

Ms. McKnight stated that she received a letter from a resident, Connie Haine, 17 North Street, Unit 1, which addresses the issues they have had at 17 North Street regarding flooding and parking issues thus she requested that the city make certain requirements on this site that was not part of the previous site requirements.  Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight what the issues were, to which she stated that they were electrical wiring issues, flooding problems, sump pump malfunctioning issues, a fence that was not constructed, and parking. The resident recommended a $25,000 bond to be held in escrow after the initial one year warranty.  Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight if they had an as built plan for this project, to which she said they should.   Ms. McKnight said that she shared the letter with the Building Inspector, who did not see any violations.  Mr. Puleo asked if the city would require a bond for the site plan review, to which Ms. McKnight explained that the conditions would need to be met before issuance of an occupancy permit, and if there are any violations after the property has been met then it is up to the Building Commissioner enforce any violations, but there is not usually a bond involved in that.   Mr. Puleo asked if the applicant would be required to post a bond for the concrete pipe drainage.  Mr. Novak said the Building Department would bring this up at the time of construction and would be done prior to issuing a building permit.

Issue opened to the public for comment
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked if the property has been purchased and if not, when they plan to purchase the property, to which Attorney Grover responded no, and that they expect to purchase the property on November 1st.

Cindy Sekandi, 17 North Street, Unit 5, stated that they did have a lot of difficulties with the owner of their property, who is the applicant’s brother and they recommend exercising caution.  Mr. Grover said that the ownership structure is different on this project.  The other brother does not have any relation nor involvement in this project as he did in the other project.  Ms. Sekandi said that she sent checklists to the developer and nothing has been done and recommended a bond be issued for longer than one year.  

Ms. Strauss asked if it is appropriate to have this discussion if the property has not been purchased. Mr. Puleo explained that this is contingent on the purchase going through.  Atty Grover said that they submitted with the Planning Board application letters of approval from the current owners to go ahead with this application.  Ms. Strauss said that she understood that the closing has been postponed several times, to which Atty Grover said that it has been postponed by mutual agreement.

Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, supports.

The board discussed if there are any outstanding issues with this project to which Ms. McKnight said that there are now just corrections to be made on the plans (parking spaces and curbing).  

Mr. Ready noted that many of the comments about 17 North St. do not have any relevancy to this particular project -  they should not consider other issues at another property owned by another brother and would move to vote.

Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Helen Sides.  All approved 9-0.

The Board reviewed what was required of the applicant for the next meeting.

Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the September 20, 2012 meeting, seconded by Helen Sides, all approved 9-0.

Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit.  The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Letters from Jim Treadwell, 18 Felt St., dated July 25th and August 9th
Letter from Ward 6 Councillor Paul Prevey dated Sept. 11, 2012
Memo from Lynn Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of Planning & Community Development, dated Sept. 4, 2012
  • Letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer, dated Sept. 5, 2012
  • Photo of 14 Beaver St. view from ground in winter, submitted by 14 Beaver St. resident Tricia Meyers
  • PowerPoint Presentation of MRM Project Management dated May 2012 and delivered at the Sept. 11, 2012 meeting
  • Response memo from Griffin Engineering dated Sept. 24, 2012
  • Revised site layout plan sheet C-3, dated 12/20/11 and last revised 9/10/12
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners from MRM Project Management and he stated that they have been working on the issues that have been raised during previous meetings.  They have completed their initial presentation and are answering any issues and questions that have been raised.  He reminded the Board that at the last meeting on July 5, 2012 they had received opinions from the Assistant City Solicitor, Robin Stein, and Mark Bobrowski.  They are meeting tonight and next Thursday night, and they will continue to get through the issues to try to move forward. They began the presentation on the engineering revisions.

Mark George asked if they are clear and satisfied with the land use questions, to which Mr. Puleo said they will address this later in the presentation.

Mr. Griffin stated that they would discuss the outstanding issues in Woodard and Curran’s letter, which he emailed to Ms. McKnight.  He began with the percolation tests which were good and the depths showed that it was appropriate and will send the numbers to Woodard and Curran.

The second item had to do with the lowest point of a pipe (invert) that was carrying water, which was on the Harmony Grove side of the project.  He believes there was a typo and they have corrected the invert elevation.

The third item was in regards to limiting the disturbance to the Beaver Street side of the project. He showed the board several slides with revisions which included the landscaping plan and a “limit of work” line.  The limit of work will show where the landscaper is planting rather than clearing.  There was also a concern about the retaining wall and the swale on top of the retaining wall.  He agreed with the comments and they are going to put some stones to prevent eroding and then a pipe in the trough, which is a flexible system.  This will prevent cracking.

Fourth and final item was a request for a sewer calculation.  They noted that there will be a slight increase when the updates to the commercial side of the property are taken into account. Mr. Puleo asked how this impacts the pipes, to which Mr. Griffin said it is minor.

John Moustakis asked for further clarification about the riprap to which Mr. Griffin described it, and Mr. Moustakis said that they do not want it to look like Swampscott Road.  Mr. Griffin said it would not be like that, but also he does not think anyone will see it from the road.  Mr. Moustakis recommended making a note about it.  Mr. Puleo asked if the planting is actually in the stone.  Mr. Griffin stated that the plants would go about 6 inches below the stone and is like a top dressing in a garden.  Mr. Puleo asked if this would affect the trees’ ability to survive.  Mr. Puleo is concerned that the plants will not survive like this, and asked if this has been done before to which Mr. Griffin said yes.  Mr. Moustakis said that he is concerned about how this will look.  Mr. Puleo said that this is for drainage and will be located on the top of the wall.

Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, asked if it would be helpful for her to walk through her letter which outlines her concerns about the residential space, to which Mr. Puleo said yes.  Based on public comments and legal opinions from Robin Stein and Mark Bobrowski, she took a very close look at the plan in terms of residential and non-residential use.  She quoted Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein’s memo.  Ms. Duncan then looked more thoroughly at six specific areas with improvements: Areas adjacent to residential buildings, walkway, and area between walkway and canal; parking areas; driveway entrances; buffer area between retaining wall and southwesterly properly line abutting Beaver St. residences; and space abutting the existing commercial building.
 She offered to the Board the following comments:

- areas adjacent to building, landscape areas between buildings are classified by applicant as residential – she concurs;
- Open space between buildings 2 & 3 and the walkway or a portion thereof may be considered an improvement associated with the residential, and this is a change.  Mr. Puleo & Mr. Clarke asked for further clarification on that area – it’s the edge of the building to the walkway.  This was designating as not in residential use, which she questions.  She has two reasons: one which is related to the landscaping and the second is that the area could be used as private space for residents rather than the public.   She says it’s incumbent upon the project proponent to show why some or all of this land should not be included in residential use.
-The landscaped area adjacent to Building 1 was designated as in residential use, and she concurs.  
-The walkway itself and the area between it and the canal – the purpose of the walkway is to encourage public access to the canal.  However, she thinks that it can only be considered public space if there is a public easement on this space.
- The landscaped areas within the residential parking areas are considered residential use; she concurs.  However, there is one small area within that specific spot that is shown as not in residential use, which she was looking for a clarification on.  Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification on where landscaping picks up around the bend from Beaver street to Harmony Grove Road.  Ms. Duncan said she sees a separate open space area there, but she will address that in a later comment.  The driveway entrances – at the Harmony Grove entrance, it appears some of the area is associated as residential but landscaping is not; she is looking for clarification.  Some of the Grove St. entrance is classified as residential and some is not; she is looking for clarification of this too.    
-The buffer area she sees as an open space area, and would be whatever the development would be on this site.  It was buffer when it was Salem Oil & Grease.  She is satisfied with this being classified as not in residential use.
-The last area she addressed was the area associated with the commercial building, and she agrees the commercial use classification is accurate there.  

She recommends that the applicant address these issues and recalculate the land use area in residential us or used as an improvement to a residential use.  Mr. Puleo asked about usable open space and open space.  Ms. Duncan said that in terms of relevancy to residential use or not, they do not have to deal with that issue and she quoted Assistant City Solicitor Stein, who said any land used exclusively by residents of the development would be considered residential.  She suggested on the walkway that the portion open for public use should have an easement.  Mr. Puleo asked if there was a specific amount of open space that had to be useable; Ms. Duncan said no.   

Mr. Moustakis asked about the parking areas, specifically how that is not for a residential purpose.  Ms. Duncan said she is saying that it is residential.  She said each of the areas needed to be broken out and looked at closely.  

Mr. George asked for clarification on how the land between the wall and the rear upper contiguous properties gets assigned to commercial use.  She said no; she explained that there is another category, which is open space, and that is not used exclusively by residents.  The development could be residential or commercial, and the vegetated slope would be there in any event.  It’s not used by the developer one way or the other.  Mr. Puleo then asked about the usable open space provision in 7.35 of the zoning ordinance.  He asked about the requirement for usable open space in a PUD.  Ms. Duncan said this is why she is recommending an easement for public access on the walkway.  Mr. Puleo then asked if there is a formula for usable open space, to which Ms. Duncan said no.

Mr. Correnti stated that they have tried to clarify how the land is calculated and noted that this is the first project its kind coming before the board. They are going to walk through their plans so just the residential is hatched and now they are going to address the comments in Ms. Duncan’s memorandum. The open space requirement of the PUD will be met by the passing of the easement.  The passive recreational use on this site is significant, as an easement will be granted for public use.

Mr. Griffin continued his presentation showing the differences in the residential space area between their last presentation and tonight.  They had reviewed Ms. Duncan’s memorandum and addressed issues raised in her memorandum.  First, addressing the walkway, he explained that originally the entire 40 foot wide strip of land was dedicated to non residential use.  They have moved the line back a little, showing some of the area adjacent to the building as being in residential use.  However, he said that extending the residential area much more may harm the goal of having a beautiful walkway.  It would restrict users.  In response to Ms. Duncan’s memo, they have moved the line to five feet from the building.  As they continue along the walkway he identified other areas identified as residential.  They did overlay the landscaping plan on the whole plan to figure out where to draw the lines.  He reviewed each area describing how and why each one was designated residential and non residential.  He noted that they are now at 49.6% residential space allocation.  Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to outline property lines on the Harmony Grove side of the property, to which Mr. Griffin described the areas on the plans.  Mr. Puleo clarified which parts of the property that they own.

Lewis Beilman asked Mr. Griffin to clarify the area between buildings 2 & 3 and asked where the easement would go.  Mr. Correnti stated that it would go about 5 feet off the building.

Mr. Clarke asked what the percentage was of each section of the site to which Mr. Griffin said he didn’t have this breakdown, but could calculate this when he sits down. Mr. Puleo stated that this is a crucial question for the Board.   Mr. Correnti stated that the numbers are still very close but this plan which they think is reasonable does not exceed 50%.  George McCabe asked for clarification on the hatched space on the plan, which he was told is all residential.  Mr. Clarke asked if engineering or the peer reviewer have reviewed the calculations.  Ms. Duncan stated that they would ask the city engineer or the peer reviewer to do this as it had not been part of Woodard and Curran’s scope.

Ms. read a letter from Ward 6 Councilor Prevey into the record.

Issue opened to the public for comment
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he wants to counter some of the accusations made this evening.  The areas that are being discussed now are very important. He referenced his two memoranda submitted to the Board on July 25th and August 9th.  He walked the Board through his memo, but first noted that he thought that there would have been a new landscaping plan by now. He does not believe that Attorney Bobrowski had all of the information.  He quoted the landscaping plan which relates to the whole complex.  He addressed the “limit of clearance”, now being called the “limit of work”, and he stated that if the proposed lilac bushes are not part of an associated improvement then he does not know what one is.  He addressed the northern strip of land designated as common areas, and if they are not going to recreate here, then where are they going to recreate, and it is clearly an associated improvement.  Mr. Clarke asked if they did not do any landscaping would it still be considered an associated improvement. Mr. Treadwell stated that the intent is to serve as a buffer to prevent erosion, and it should be considered an associated improvement.  Mr. Treadwell continued that the site plan review requires that the actual areas be shown and they are not.  He guesses that based on figure C-3 that the amount of space allocated for residential use, is over 54%, and if the landscaping along the parking field it goes over 60% of the total area.  He reiterated that these improvements are associated with the residential uses and they do go over the 50% required.  Mr. Treadwell then moved onto his other memorandum which addresses useable open space and gave a brief history of the ordinance.  He also described the ordinance for “cluster development,” which also contains an open space provision.  He stated that there is no open space requirement in the PUD and pointed out that lot size has not been covered in the other aspects of the development. He focused on useable open space which in Sec. 7.35 relates only to ownership, and he further explained the ordinance.  If it is useable open space it will be owned by the public and must be accessible, otherwise according to the zoning the Planning Board would not approve it.  He referred to the residential space plan and argued that there are areas that are questionable. He reiterated that they must find that the site plan is in harmony with the master plan.  He recommended referring to a memorandum he sent to Ms. Duncan on June 18th.  He would argue that the zoning is not in compliance with the master plan.  Mr. Moustakis asked why he thinks the retaining wall should be considered residential to which Mr. Treadwell responded that the retaining wall is an associated improvement that is required to protect the parking area and other areas.  He concluded stating that as it is currently configured the plan should not be given a permit because it exceeds the requirements.

Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street, asked what the sizes of the buildings are.  Mr. Griffin stated that they are all the same number of stories and they all have garages underneath.  She stated that she is curious why the height issues aren’t being addressed and wondered why the developer has not considered taking off a level.  Mr. Puleo stated that the Board has been listening and they are thinking about all of this.  She also submitted a picture from her neighbor’s house which showed that they will definitely see the development.  

Mr. Griffin responded to the earlier question about the residential land area breakdown by saying the overall development is 6.81 acres, of which 3.38 acres are non-residential in total.  Ms. Duncan said that they are going to ask the engineering department to check their numbers, but wants to know how their numbers were calculated.  Mr. Griffin stated that they used AutoCAD to measure out the whole site and he will provide that information to Ms. Duncan.  Mr. Ready recommended that Mr. Griffin return with the exact calculations.  Mr. Clarke agreed and stated that having this reviewed by the engineering department is very important.

Mr. Puleo asked if the 6/20/12 is the latest version of the plan to which Mr. Griffin said that it is.  He then described the landscaping plan and noted that there is a lot more planting on the 6/20 plan than there was on the previous plans.  He then described the new plantings in relation to the locations of the abutters.  He described the plantings slated for the newest plan and noted that there are scheduled to be Frasier firs.  Mr. Beilman asked what the purpose of those plantings is, to which Mr. Griffin said to provide screening for the Beaver Street residents.

Ms. Ross asked where exactly the plantings will be located- above or at the bottom of the retaining wall and Mr. Griffin stated that they will be on top of the wall.  Ms. Duncan asked where the top of the slope will be and where the Frasier firs will be located.  Mr. Griffin then went through the plan to show the locations proposed for the fir trees on the Beaver Street.  Ms. Duncan then asked if the Frasier firs could be planted on top of the slope.  Mr. Griffin briefly described the landscape plan. He showed the view from 14 Beaver and explained that they would see Colorado spruce at the top of the slope and rhododendrons at the bottom.

Tricia Meyers, 14 Beaver Street, stated that the pictures submitted show that the trees there are leafless and she will be able to see the tops of the buildings inside her house, and she will see buildings.  Mr. Griffin stated that they have done a good job of screening.

Susan Strauss, 29 School Street stated that the landscaping described is an associated improvement, and therefore connected with the residential.  Mr. Beilman stated that the only reason that they are putting it in there is for the abutting residents.

Todd Siegel, Ward 3 Councilor, 28 Brittania Circle asked how the calculations are done and how much actual space is going to be allocated. He wants the board to note that when this was voted on by the City Council they determined that anything associated with the building such as a buffer is also associated with the residential and he would be interested to see how much is left over for the commercial space.

Jane Arlander 93 Federal Street, feels that the view goes two ways, and whether you are a resident of the new development or an abutter, you will see the same trees.

Mr. Treadwell stated that in Ms. McKnight’s memo dated 9/6 there is a note that there will be a discussion on the bridge and the locations of the bike racks.  Putting the bike racks at the front areas in the same spaces as the handicapped areas and the loading areas.  He recommended putting the bike racks in the lower levels and he would like to hear about the pedestrian bridge.  Mr. Griffin referred to the site plan of 6/20 to describe the pedestrian bridge.  In regards to the bike racks, they will be located at the lower levels next to the elevators and they will also have ones at the front doors.  Mr. Treadwell asked if the interiors have been changed to reflect this and recommended putting the as many bike racks in the basement.

Arthur Sargent, Councilor at Large, 8 Maple Circle, asked to look at this as a commercial tax base.  He noted that his biggest concern is losing the commercial tax rate.  He compared this to Pickering Wharf.  He said it looks like it is 70% residential.  The assessor will have to determine the tax rate.

Ms. Meyers asked about the location of the substation and if this is part of the ratio.  Mr. Griffin described the proposed location of the electrical equipment and his expectations for the electrical service.  He noted that there will be transformers located at the roadway.  Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification, to which Mr. Griffin described the wiring locations to each of the buildings. Mr. Puleo asked if it will look different to what is there now and what kind of screening will be installed.  Mr. Griffin stated that there isn’t a lot of screening.

Mr. Puleo asked for some further clarification on if there are going to be HVAC units on the ground and what they will look like.  Mr. Griffin stated that they will all be on the roof and none on the ground.

Ms. Ross asked what happened if they knocked off a level, and Mr. Griffin stated that in that scenario, that would remove about 36 units which is about a 25% of the units. Mr. Puleo asked her if she was asking this question in terms of height, not density to which Ms. Ross said that she asked this in relation to the tree height.  Mr. Correnti reminded the Board of previous meetings and the unique layout of the site, which is critical to the project.  He stated that this is a “brownfield-designated” site and reminded the Board of the presentation by the LSP.  The number of the units makes it critical to go forward, but if they start talking about lopping off floors then they don’t have a project.

Ms. Meyers discussed the profit for renting all of the 141 proposed apartments as something to keep in mind.

Mr. Treadwell addressed a concern with the HVAC on the roof and reminded the Board of the Derby condos, and Mr. Puleo stated that there have never been any complaints from that building.  Mr. Treadwell recommended a condition to be added to the decision.  He recommended that the environmental impact be further examined, to which Mr. Puleo said that they can look into this.

Mark Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, stated that his property backs right up to the old buildings and once they are removed, his yard is going to collapse.  He said that the applicant offered to meet him out at the property, but he didn’t know what good that was going to do as that has not happened.  He sees it on a plan that the retaining wall is going to end way before his property, but his property is 10-12 feet above the building they are proposing to demolish.  Mr. Puleo initially responded stating that Mr. Griffin gave a detailed description of how that was going to work.  Mr. Griffin said that they had tried to arrange a meeting to which Mr. Pattison said that they called him at the last minute and asked him to meet him there while Mr. Pattison was at work.  Mr. Griffin described how they will remove a portion of the building and then fill in to the top part of the foundation which should keep his property in tact.  Mr. Pattison asked if they are going to take everything below the yard, to which Mr. Griffin responded that they would punch holes in the concrete slab to allow water to drain, though there is no reason to remove all of the foundation.  Mr. Pattison asked the Board what happens if this is not met.  Ms. McKnight stated that this would have to be shown on the as-built plans to the plan specifications, and that has to match exactly what they are going to do.  Mr. Puleo said that they do follow-up on these things, as it is part of what the Board does.  Mr. Clarke asked if the city engineer has to review the as-built plans to which Ms. McKnight said that the building inspector reviews them.  Mr. Correnti said that the least effective remedy is with the Planning Board if they collapse his yard – there are other ways to remedy that.  The building permit has to show how they will address that and they understand that.

A letter from Tom St. Pierre, Building Commissioner was read into the record by Ms. McKnight regarding compliance of the building height with the zoning ordinance.  

John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing on September 20, 2012, seconded by Randy Clarke.  All approved 9-0.  

Old/New Business
The September 20th meeting may be rescheduled due to conflicts.  

Adjournment
John Moustakis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke.  All approved 9-0.  Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:31pm.


Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk

Approved by the Planning Board 10/18/12