City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, October 15th, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, October 15th, 2014 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Curran calls the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy, Tom Watkins and Richard Dionne. Also in attendance - Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, and Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner
REGULAR AGENDA
Project: |
Continuation of the petition requesting a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. |
Applicant: |
RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ |
Location: |
38 CABOT STREET (R2 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application dated April 22nd, 2014 and revised architectural drawings dated September 10th, 2014
Ms. Curran states that the application was before the Board in May 2014, requesting a variance from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a previously- approved garage.
Raynaldo Dominguez 38 Cabot Street presents the petition and revised architectural drawings. The petitioner states that the proposal is for a 16 x 20 kitchen addition and second story deck.
Ms. Curran asks for clarification on the design and asks the applicant if the stairs drawn are for access to the second story proposed deck.
Mr. Dominguez confirms that the stairs are to access the second story deck.
Curran states the issue that the side-yard and rear-yard dimensions are proposed to change. The proposal is conforming to rear-yard and more non-conforming with the side-yard. Ms. Curran asks Mr. Saint Pierre, for clarification on the building code requirements for minimum stair width. Mr. Saint Pierre confirms that the requirement is 3 (three) feet.
Ms. Curran asks for clarification about the proposed size of the deck.
Mr. Dominguez clarifies that the proposed addition is a one-story kitchen extension with a second story deck on the kitchen roof.
Mr. Saint-Pierre clarifies that the lower structure is a kitchen extension with a conventional deck off of the back of the kitchen addition. Then there is a proposed roof deck on top of the propose kitchen roof that runs the length of the second story façade.
Ms. Curran opens discussion for comments from Board members.
Mr. Dominguez also shows the Board pictures of the existing structure.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant about the proposed materials for the siding and decking, specifically, whether the proposed materials will conform to the existing materials of the current structure.
Mr. Dominguez confirms that the proposed materials for the decking and kitchen addition siding will be the same as the existing materials of the current structure.
Mr. Copelas asks Mr. Saint Pierre about whether the density calculations were addressed. Mr. Saint Pierre clarifies that the applicant proposes 50% (fifty percent) lot coverage. The existing lot coverage is 34% (thirty- four percent).
Mr. Watkins asks Mr. Saint Pierre for clarification of proposed plans and whether the proposed second-story deck requires another special permit.
Mr. Saint Pierre clarifies that the proposed second story deck is an open deck does not need an additional special permit because it is factored into the total lot coverage. The second story deck would be treated as a two story addition. If the project only proposed a deck, the applicant would have to apply for a special permit for the extension of a non-conforming use. However, the applicant is asking for relief from the entire new structure.
Mr. Copelas clarifies that the maximum lot coverage density number considered all pieces of the proposed project. Mr. Saint Pierre clarifies that the calculation for maximum lot coverage considered the garage, deck and kitchen addition.
Ms. Curran states that the relief sought by the applicant is for side-yard dimensions and percent lot coverage.
Ms. Curran opens hearing to the public. No (0) members of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Ms. Curran opens discussion for Board members.
Mr. Dionne states the applicant did a good job on the sketches and plan revisions.
Ms. Curran states that the existing deck structure is in disrepair and the proposed changes will be an improvement to the structure. The location of the proposed side-yard as 2 (two) feet away from the lot-line is close, but no members of the public spoke in opposition to this circumstance.
Mr. Watkins states the findings that there is no impact on social, economic or community impact is beneficial; there are no traffic flow and safety impacts; capacity utilities are not affected by the project; proposal improves neighborhood character and improves the property and helps with the City’s tax base to improve the structure.
Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure with seven (7) standard conditions.
Mr. Saint Pierre states that the Board did not address that the applicant needed to request relief from maximum lot coverage requirements with a variance.
Ms. Curran states that the applicant did not request a variance for relief from maximum lot coverage requirements. Ms. Curran states that a Variance was approved that applied to a garage.
Board members discuss that a variance was approved on May 21, 2014 from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage and not for a variance for relief from maximum lot coverage. The entire applicant was reviewed by Ms. Curran and it was determined that the applicant did not request a variance for relief from maximum lot coverage. Mr. St. Pierre on April 14th, 2014 advised the applicant to request a special permit to expand a non-conforming two-family structure to add a kitchen addition, a variance from side-yard setback requirements for proposed garage and a variance from maximum lot coverage requirement.
Mr. Watkins states that the agenda and legal advertisement also did not reflect that the applicant needed to request a variance for relief from maximum lot coverage.
Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Curran read the June 11, 2014 Decision and confirm that the variance for relief from the requirements of Sec. 2.3.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage was granted. However, request for a variance from maximum lot coverage requirements was not considered because it was not requested by the applicant.
Mr. St. Pierre asks the Board to consider asking the applicant for a continuation.
Ms. Curran states that the Board would like to consult with the City Solicitor to determine how to best proceed. Ms. Curran asks the applicant if they would like to continue and clarifies to the applicant that the Board considered and granted a variance of Sec. 2.3.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a previously-approved garage and the applicant has asked for a special permit Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addition at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure. However, the applicant needs to request a second variance from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to allow the lot coverage to exceed the maximum allowable limit.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins makes a motion to approve the applicant’s request to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 19th, 2014. The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed.
Project: |
Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 9.4.1 Special Permit Granting Authority and Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a bed and breakfast use and a Variance per Sec. 5.0 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow 2 off-street parking spaces instead of 4 off-street parking spaces required. |
Applicant: |
MICHAEL SELBST and BRADLEY WILLIAMS |
Location: |
329 ESSEX STREET (R2 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application dated August 26th, 2014 and accompanying materials
Attorney Correnti, representative for the applicants, requested a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 19th, 2014. No evidence was heard and the public hearing was not opened.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 19th, 2014. The motion is seconded by Mr. Watkins. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Watkins) and none (0) opposed.
Project: |
Petition seeking a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room. |
Applicant: |
IAN HUNTER |
Location: |
75 CANAL STREET (B-4 Zoning District) |
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application dated September 24th and accompanying materials
Mr. Richard Dionne, Zoning Board of Appeals Board Member, states for the record that he is not an abutter to the property located at 75 Canal Street, nor is an abutter to an abutter of the property where this project is proposed.
Mr. Ian Hunter, petitioner, presents the petition. The petitioner states that the proposed distillery will be producing and distributing small batch craft spirits. The petitioner also states that if a Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Farming Series License is obtained, the petitioners will also operate a visitor center/tasting room where the product may be sampled and merchandise can be sold. Samples will be limited to four quarter ounce samples. The applicant states that a Massachusetts State Pouring license will not be sought in connection with the Farming Series License.
The applicant states that the hours of operation will be on Friday and Saturday afternoons from 12pm-5pm or 1pm-6pm with the possibility of expanding hours into Thursdays and Sundays seasonally. Mr. Hunter also states that the company will actively direct customers to park their cars along Canal Street through directions on the company website and social media.
The petitioner states that the business expects to see between 25-50 visitors on a busy Saturday. It is anticipated that there will be limited truck traffic to one (1) inbound truck making deliveries to this business per week finished product will be self-distributed by the applicant in personal vehicles.
Mr. Hunter discussed distillery safety and states that in international building code, safety risk anticipated in association with distilleries is comparable to the level of risk associated with auto repair facilities that are allowed by right in a B-4 zoning district. The petitioner states that safety is priority. The process will be powered by low pressure steam, atmospheric monitor systems will be tied to active ventilation to ensure that internal conditions are properly maintained. The distilling process is a closed and contained process with no anticipated odor or sounds.
Ms. Curran asks the applicant to clarify what will occur in the proposed tasting room.
Mr. Hunter states the tasting room is an outreach opportunity and a chance for visitors to meet distillery employees, learn about the distilling process through scheduled guided tours, sample limited portions of product and purchase merchandise. The petitioner refers to the tasting room as a visitor’s center. Mr. Hunter states that the allowable limit of a sample of spirit in Massachusetts is limited to four (4) samples of a quarter ounce (1/4 ounce).
Ms. Curran asks for clarification that tastings, tours and merchandise sales at the distillery will occur only during set hours of operation.
Mr. Hunter confirms that the tasting room/ public space will be open to the public during set hours and days.
Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to clarify what kinds of spirits will be produced.
Mr. Hunter states that a type of rum and gin will be produced and has historical significance in relation to the story of Deacon Giles.
Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to clarify the proposed square footage of the facility.
Mr. Hunter states that the entire facility will be slightly under 6,000 square feet (approximately 5,925 square feet) and the proposed visitor center will be slightly under 800 square feet.
Mr. Dionne asks the petitioner to clarify how many people will be employed by this business.
Mr. Hunter states that the total initial staff is anticipated to be three (3) full-time employees with the anticipated expansion to have between eight to ten (8-10) employees by the end of 2018. The petitioner clarifies that additional staff will be a mix of sales people, production and delivery staff.
Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre whether the distillery and tasting room are an allowable use in a B-4 zoning district.
Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that a brewery, distillery, or winery with a tasting room is a use that is allowed by special permit from the Board of Appeals in accordance with Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Prior to a recent zoning amendment, the proposed use would not be an allowable use in the City.
Mr. Copelas asks for clarification on whether the special permit applies to a brewery, distillery, or winery separately from a tasting room.
Mr. St. Pierre clarifies that the special permit applies to a brewery, distillery, or winery in addition to a tasting room.
Ms. Curran states that the Board of Appeals has recently reviewed and approved 102 Jackson Street in accordance with this recent zoning amendment.
Ms. Curran confirms that the primary use for the proposed distillery is for the production and distribution of spirits and samples are provided at no charge.
Mr. Hunter confirms that samples are provided at no charge.
Ms. Curran states that the special permit would have to be contingent on having a Massachusetts issued Farmer Series License.
Mr. Hunter confirms that the Farmer Series License is one among many that are needed for the proposed business.
Mr. Dionne asks about parking availability.
Mr. Hunter confirms that there is only on-street parking available for customers along Canal Street and states that 75 Canal Street is a grandfathered building.
Ms. Curran confirms that any use in this building does not require additional parking beyond the publically available spaces.
Mr. Hunter restates that it is anticipated that not more than ten (10) people per hour will visit the business. In addition, it is likely that people will travel to visit the distillery in groups of two (2) or 4 (four) people.
Ms. Curran asks for clarification that the petitioner proposes that the distillery be only open to the public on Friday and Saturday afternoons.
Mr. Hunter confirms this information.
Ms. Curran asks for the petitioner to confirm that hours of operation for public access are open to the public on Friday and Saturday afternoons and all other hours of operation will be for employees to distill product among other non-public business operations. Ms. Curran also asks the petitioner to confirm that there will be no retail sales during non-public hours.
Mr. Hunter confirms the proposed public hours and states that no retail sales from the facility will take place during non-public hours of operation.
Mr. Dionne restates concern about parking availability.
Ms. Curran asks the Board for additional comments before opening the hearing to the public.
Mr. Watkins asks for clarification from the applicant, in response to Mr. Dionne’s concerns, that parking is available on the opposite side of 75 Canal Street.
Mr. Hunter states customers will be directed to park on the opposite side of Canal Street through the distillery’s website.
Mr. Watkins states concern for customers who need to cross Canal Street to access the proposed distillery particularly because there is no crosswalk located in close proximity to the business and vehicles travel fast through this corridor.
Mr. Dionne expresses concern about possible vehicular traffic accidents resulting from a left turn out of Gardner Street onto Canal Street.
Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner whether customers who purchase a bottle of spirits in the visitor center may continue to drink what they have purchased on the premises.
Mr. Hunter clarifies that customers can buy beverages by the bottle for off-site consumption only.
Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner whether there will be someone at the proposed distillery who will be checking identification.
Mr. Hunter states that all staff will be TIP certified.
Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner and the Board to confirm that a Certificate of Occupancy has been granted for the operation of a daycare center in the same mixed-use building as the proposed distillery.
Mr. Copelas confirms that a daycare center is located at this site and faces Canal Street.
Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner whether they have reached out to the daycare center to talk about the proposed plans for a distillery.
Mr. Hunter states that the petitioner did reach out to the daycare center and discussed concerns. Mr. Hunter restates that safety is a priority for the distillery operation, which was a concern expressed by the daycare center.
Mr. Dionne asks the petitioner whether the business had considered directing customers to the parking lot on Hancock Street.
Mr. Hunter states that the petitioner has not discussed the possibility of asking for parking from other tenants. Mr. Hunter also requests from the Board that the building owner of 75 Canal Street, James Miller speak.
Mr. James Miller, 45 Ralph Road Marblehead, clarifies that the parking lot on Hancock Street is currently parking for other tenants.
Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner to clarify what materials will be transported on trucks making deliveries to the facility.
Mr. Hunter states that trucks will deliver raw materials to the facility including grain and molasses needed for their operation.
Mr. Watkins asks the petitioner to clarify anticipated hours of deliveries.
Mr. Hunter states that deliveries will be made during normal business hours between the hours of 8am to 4pm.
Mr. Watkins states concern about the possibility of truck deliveries being made during drop-off and pick-up times for the existing daycare center.
Mr. Hunter anticipates that deliveries will not be made during daycare drop off and pick-up hours and will coordinate with the delivery service to plan a window of delivery times that do not overlap with the daycare center pick-up and drop-off times.
Mr. St. Pierre asks the petitioner to clarify the volumetric size of bulk materials anticipated to be delivered and truck size.
Mr. Hunter states that grain deliveries will be 50 pound bags each and generally delivered as 4,000 pound pallets. For perspective, a pallet of grain is approximately enough raw materials for five (5) to six (6) batches out of mash time of three (3) to four (4) weeks.
Mr. St. Pierre asks for clarification on anticipated volume deliveries for liquid raw materials including molasses.
Mr. Hunter states that the molasses will be delivered in approximately three-hundred (300) gallon totes or pallets with fifty-five (55) gallon drums. Approximately sixty (60) gallons will be needed per batch.
Ms. Curran opens discussion for public comment.
Rachael Schmied- 22 Hanson Street states that there are cross-walks on Canal Street.
Jen Sell- 26 Hancock Street concerned about pedestrians crossing and walking along Canal Street particularly during winter.
Josh Turiel- 238 Layfayette Street statement of support for the proposed distillery and recognizes the need to address pedestrian access and safety.
Vallerie Carnivale- 55 Canal Street in opposition to the distillery due to concerns about distillery operation safety
Chris Hudson- 28 Gardner Street expresses concern about parking and asks the Board to consider the possibility for Gardner Street to be posted as resident parking only
Mary Goodwin- 30 Belmont Street expressed concern about the possibility of people accessing the daycare through a shared back egress
Mr. James Miller, 45 Ralph Road Marblehead, owner of 75 Canal Street expresses support for the proposed distillery
Ms. Curran states that some of the public comments heard were relevant to the proposed distillery and some are not. Ms. Curran asks the petitioner for clarification on the possible nature of special events and potential hours of operation.
Mr. Hunter discusses that special events could be a local office wanting a private tour. Mr. Hunter goes on to state that the company will not be seeking a Massachusetts pouring license. If the distillery chooses to offer the consumption of spirits on sight beyond the allowable four (4) quarter ounce (1/4 ounce) samples, the distillery will seek a one day special event license through the Licensing Board. Special events would be held on days or hours outside of proposed public hours.
Ms. Curran confirms that members of the public may only purchase spirits from the distillery during public hours.
Ms. Curran states that parking and traffic on Canal Street is a problem for all businesses and residents in the area. Ms. Curran also states concerns about associated risks of distillery operations and asks the petitioner for more information regarding proposed safety measures and operation.
Mr. Hunter states that the process of distillation is that the wash goes into the boiler and will be heated by a low-pressure steam rather than an open flame or electric coils. There will also be two (2) to three (3) VOC (volatile organic compound) monitors tied to an active ventilation system should levels of ethanol in the facility reach a certain level. Ethanol is flammable, but not explosive.
Mr. Brenneman states that alcohol flammability is dependent physical state. Alcohol needs to be at least fifty (50%) percent alcohol in liquid state to be flammable. In the distilling process there is only one point in the process where the alcohol is fifty (50%) and the alcohol is completely contained and chilled so it cannot vaporize. This is a high tech facility and safety is priority. During the barrel aging process there is a possibility that volatile organic compounds will evaporate. The atmospheric concentration of volatile organic compounds must reach 3.3% to reach the risk of ignition. With a 6,000 square foot facility, the distillery would have to store approximately 4,375 barrels with 55 gallons of product in each and age for a full year for the possibility of reaching the 3.3% atmospheric concentration of volatile organic
compounds for a possible of flammability. Mr. Brenneman states that it is not possible for a facility of this size to store this amount of barrels to pose a high risk of flammability.
Ms. Curran asks the petitioner to clarify how many barrels are anticipated to be produced and aged in this location.
Mr. Hunter states that by the end of 2018 between twenty to thirty (20-30) barrels will be in storage
Ms. Curran asks the applicant whether the fire department has special regulations for this proposed use
Mr. Hunter states that under the Building Codes distilleries F2, moderate fire hazard, that requires proper construction with concrete block and fire suppression
Mr. St. Pierre adds that the general automotive repair facility is listed as S2 which is equal to risk associated with F2.
Ms. Curran states that the public comment regarding the possibility of resident parking only was a good idea, but not in the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Copelas asks whether the petitioner will be required to provide a flammability license from the Fire Department.
Mr. St. Pierre states that this is a Fire Department question each department has the opportunity to review this project through a routing slip for comment and any regulations that need to be in place.
Mr. Copelas states that any industrial use has risk and the point of regulations is to minimize risk. Auto body repair and paint shops have equivalent or greater risk to the public than the proposed distillery.
Mr. Hunter states that distilleries are the most heavily regulated uses to make this use as safe as possible.
Mr. Dionne concerned about the daycare in relationship to the proposed distillery. Mr. Dionne states that it does not seem that these uses go together.
Ms. Curran states that any tenant located in 75 Canal Street with the daycare center will have to address the concerns about a shared back egress.
Mr. Hunter states that from a safety perspective, the proposed distillery will be equipped with approved deadbolts and security cameras.
Mr. Dionne suggests that this business may be better suited for Technology Way.
Ms. Curran states that it is not up to the Board to decide the location of a proposed project.
Mr. Hunter states that the craft model is based on the ability for the company to personally connect with the customer base. A place like Technology Way does not accommodate a small batch craft business.
Ms. Curran states that distilleries are not allowed in any of the residential districts. A distillery is allowed in the following zoning districts by special permit: B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, BPD. A distillery is allowed by right in an Industrial zoning district.
Ms. Curran asks for clarification about the zoning district for a brewery located on Jackson Street that recently received a special permit.
Mr. Copelas states that Jackson Street was located in a B4 zoning district.
Ms. Curran opens the discussion to the public for any last comments.
Councilor Turiel- Ward 5 states that the Board should expect to see at least one more brewery, distillery, winery come before the Board. Mr. Hunter was part of the original group of petitioners to follow through on the process to amend the City ordinance to allow for a brewery, distillery, and winery. It is anticipated that Ipswich company is looking to open a small batch facility and tap room in Salem.
Mr. St. Pierre- if there are any discussions to be had around cross-walks and traffic calming measures on Canal Street, the engineering plans are about finished. So any comments and requests for changes must be submitted to David Knowlton in engineering immediately.
Ms. Curran states findings of criteria required for a special permit:
Traffic, in a B4 district there are a number of uses that could potentially be situated in this zoning district by right that would also impact traffic. The proposed distillery will have minimal traffic impacts because this is a small business, with few deliveries, and with very limited public hours. If approved, the Board will place special conditions in association with the special permit to limit hours of operation and delivery times to ensure that traffic impacts are limited. Adequacy of utilities and other public services will not be changed. Impact on the natural environment including drainage will not be impacted. The neighborhood character will remain the same as there are no significant changes proposed for the exterior of the building. The potential fiscal impact on the City tax base is positive.
Mr. Duffy states that there are drawings suggesting that there are some drawings to show that there are proposed changes to the doors on the façade of the building. However, the structure will not be changing in any dramatic fashion and will still present as a commercial space and warehouse that is consistent with the existing structure. In terms of traffic impacts, there will be a low number of people that will access this building as employees that will access the building on a regular basis and slightly more people that will come visit the tasting room during limited hours. There are other types of uses that could be located on this site by right that would have more traffic impacts in comparison. On crosswalks, one of the issues raised is that speed and volume of traffic on Canal Street poses risk to pedestrians crossing the
street. Mr. Duffy asks about the possibility that the Board may be able to have a special permit condition for the petitioner to request a crosswalk be included in the Canal Street improvement plans.
Ms. Curran states that the Board cannot require that the petitioner be successful at having a crosswalk be constructed, but can request that the petitioner look into the possibility by speaking with the engineering department.
Mr. Duffy states that as to the issue of safety, there could be other uses in this building that are equally as “dangerous” as the proposed distillery as a fire hazard risk. This use and application does not need to be considered as highly dangerous as compared to other possible uses allowed by right in this area. One of the standard conditions of a special permit is that any other approvals or permits must be obtained by the petitioner.
Mr. Dionne is un-decided.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Copelas makes a motion to approve the applicant’s request for a Special Permit per Sec. 3.0 Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow brewery, distillery or winery with a tasting room with eight (8) standard conditions and five (5) special conditions. The five (5) special conditions include: 1) public hours are limited to Friday and Saturday afternoons from 12-5pm or 1-6pm 2) If the business would like to expand public hours the petitioner must come before the Planning Board for approval 3) Loading will be limited from 8am-4pm during normal business hours 4) the petitioner is required to speak to the Engineering Department to investigate pedestrian safety
5) all customer parking will be limited to Canal Street only
The motion is seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed.
Motion Copelas to approve petition. 8 standard conditions + 5 special . Special conditions to be added are the hours of operation open tot the public F S afternoons 12-5pm or 1-6pm. Maybe a condition to expand to Thrusday in the future to come back to the board. No retail sales except during hours of public operation
Normal business hours for loading limited from 8-4pm during normal business hours.
Parking only on Canal Street and deliveries to approach from Canal Street. Request that petition ask to look at pedestrian issues in the vicinity.
Condition 9: in addition to the federal and state licenses needed.
Signage- decal on the door
Second Duffy: Dionne opposed. 4 in favor.
Minutes:
Copelas Aug 27th meeting as printed Watkins Duffy Abstain not here
Sept 17th. Dionne seconds Watkins Abstains. Duffy Abstains (check)
Motion to Adjourne
| 
