Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
October 23, 2003
Members present: Michael A. Methe; Chairman, Daniel Baker; Clerk, Gerald Neiman; Alternate, Coni Porter; Alternate and Jane Roberts.
Members absent: Edwin Mattson
Chairman Methe opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and recused himself from the Board for the first hearing as he has a direct involvement with the property owner listed on the application. Daniel Baker agreed to chair this hearing.
Public Hearings
7:30 p.m. Case #03-12: Ronald Cormier of Blueberry Hill Sheds & Mini Barns requests a Special Exception under Article III: Section 127- 11 (A) to allow the display and retail sales of storage sheds on property located in a Residential District. The subject property is known as Tax Map 15; Lot 29, 179 NH RT 12 North and is in the Residential, Rural and Light Industrial Districts, with this business being located in the Residential District. – Acting Chairman Daniel Baker opened this public hearing at 7:35 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Mr. Baker noted that this application is for a Special Exception on the property and a signature from the property owner is required and is on the application. The property is Concord Industries located at 179 NH RT 12 North, and there is no one from
the company present this evening. Mr. Ronald Cormier, the applicant and his wife were present.
Mr. Baker told the applicant that he needs to advise him up front that they have four Board members present to hear this case and a full Board is five members, therefore, the applicant has the choice of postponing this until there is a full Board or he may proceed with the four member Board, however, he would need to have at least three votes in favor of his application, and the vote would be binding. The Board noted that if Mr. Cormier chose to wait that the expense of sending out new notices would fall on the Board and not him. Mr. Cormier chose to wait for a full Board and Mr. Baker told him that this would be rescheduled. Mr. Cormier then asked if he could speak with his wife about this, to which the Board told him that he could. Mr. Cormier came back into the meeting a
few minutes later and told the Board that he would proceed this evening.
Mr. Baker began by reviewing that this is a request for a Special Exception under Section 127-11 to allow retail sales, and then sought clarification as to the district. This property is located in three different districts, Residential, Rural and Light Industrial. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Cormier to explain to the Board what he is doing on this property.
Mr. Cormier told the Board that he basically displays the buildings in the parking lot at the Concord Industries property, and the sales are done over the Internet or by telephone. Mr. Cormier explained that people go to the lot, view the buildings and take a brochure, and then contact him to make a purchase. Mr. Cormier is not at the site all of the time and he originally planned to be there on Saturdays, but it is too long of a day and not worth spending all of his time there, so he utilizes the parking lot as a storage and display area. Coni Porter asked what exactly he is storing and Mr. Cormier said that they are storage buildings; the actual buildings that have been ordered by people. Mr. Cormier explained that the customer pays half of the cost when they place their
order and then pay the other half when they receive their shed. Mr. Baker clarified that this had been going on for some time and Mr. Cormier said that was correct, since March, and April was his first official month as a tenant. Mr. Baker noted that according to the Planning Board minutes, this is a seasonal business and the buildings could be pulled out. Mr. Cormier said that the plan is to sell all of them and not have a winter inventory, and he has one building now left to sell, so he does not see that happening.
Mr. Baker asked how the fact that this was not an acceptable use for the property was discovered. Mr. Cormier said that he thinks it was a procedural issue, and explained that he approached Dave Raitto at Concord Industries because they had a sign out for renting the building, and asked if he could rent some driveway space from them. Mr. Cormier said that he thought that they spoke with the proper people in town, which they did not, and it was suggested that he speak with Police Chief Newton, which he did, and Chief Newton did not have a problem with this. Mr. Cormier added that there was a question as to whether or not he needed a Vendor’s permit, so he applied to the Planning Board for this business. Mr. Cormier noted that this is a high traffic area and he needed
space for storage and displaying. He met with the Planning Board and they felt that this was beyond a Vendor’s Permit. Mr. Baker asked how many square feet he is occupying on this property or if there are some dimensions to the area and Mr. Cormier said that his goal is to fill the whole parking lot. Ms. Porter clarified that this is on one side of the building only. Mr. Michael Methe told the Board that this area is the south lower parking lot. Mr. Baker confirmed that Mr. Cormier is renting the whole parking lot. Ms. Porter questioned the length of the lease and Mr. Cormier said that there is no lease and it is a monthly rental, so he could basically be asked to leave at any time, and added that he does not see any kind of problem there as he displays the units well. Ms. Porter asked if he was worried about vandalism or anything and Mr. Cormier said that he was not and he has private insurance for this and his own flooring company that he has been running for a few years.
Mr. Baker asked if he had any future plans for expanding where parking may be an issue and Mr. Cormier said that he plans to buy some property in town at some point but he does not plan to expand at this site with a store or anything like that. Ms. Porter clarified that even if he filled the parking lot with buildings, it would be still be temporary and he would not be staying there permanently.
Mr. Neiman noted that the Planning Board minutes reflect that they determined that the lot was primarily zoned Residential where this business is located and this business use is allowed in certain districts, but this application is for a business under Section 127-11 A.; a retail store; and he read this definition aloud, and added that the way he takes this, it does not fall under that description, and he sees this as more of a display than retail sales. Mr. Neiman clarified that there is not an office at this site, and Mr. Cormier said that his office at his home.
The Board discussed this a little further and Mr. Neiman said that this touches on a number of things as the request for the Special Exception is for a use that is not exactly as written in the regulations, there is an open air display but the units are for resale, and they are not just display models because they are for sale. Mr. Baker said that even if this case were heard from the standpoint of a business district, it still follows the criteria for a Special Exception, regardless of the district and because this is a blended district and the Planning Board spent some time with this to interpret it and hear it as it was presented, he feels that they should consider this as presented. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Cormier if he had anything further to add, which he did
not.
Mr. Baker explained to Mr. Cormier that at this point there will be some discussion among the Board members and they will vote on the criteria. Mr. Cormier was told that he was welcome to stay if he chooses.
Mr. Neiman stated that he felt that Mr. Cormier’s application was appropriate for the location as it is a large, paved parking lot to be used for the display of merchandise without a presence of a retail establishment, and he likes the use of this property for this purpose but he is not sure that he would want to expand this allowed usage of this land under a Rural zone with this Special Exception, and added that if the town wants to allow retail in this area then they should rezone it. Mr. Neiman added that he does not think that a broad Special Exception for retail should be granted to Concord Industries because they do not know what could go in there and he is not sure how the town would feel about that. Mr. Neiman said that if the Special Exception is granted it
should be tailored to this application. The Board clarified that the Special Exception is for this business proposal only, and if granted, when Mr. Cormier leaves the property, the Special Exception would no longer be valid. Mr. Cormier questioned if he would be limited in the number of sheds that he would be allowed to have and said that he would keep the area looking nice, etc. The Board voted on the criteria next and found that the proposed use:
1.) Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the chapter – Mr. Neiman said that he feels that the display for retail purposes is appropriate and it makes good use of the land which is currently a paved parking lot and has not been used for years, and by making use of that location where it is helps to preserve natural resources elsewhere around town, and it is a commercial area with a busy highway and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the chapter. The Board agreed unanimously with this.
2.) Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place – Mr. Neiman said that he thinks it is the right operation for that neighborhood and Ms. Porter added that is as long as it is kept in the same condition that it has been in. The Board agreed unanimously that this would not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood.
3.) Is appropriate for the site in question – The Board agreed unanimously that this business is appropriate for this site.
4.) Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter – Mr. Neiman said that it is suitable under the requirements of this chapter and the Board agreed unanimously.
5.) With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome – Mr. Baker stated that this item is not applicable.
Mr. Baker stated that the Special Exception is granted by a vote of 4-0 and asked for a motion noting that any conditions should be considered at this time.
Gerald Neiman moved that the Special Exception be granted for this application for the purpose of displaying outdoor structures for resale provided that they occupy no more than 50% of the space of the lower south parking lot. Mr. Baker asked Margo to read this back and the Board changed outdoor structures to utility sheds and gazebos, and added Concord Industries after the parking lot description. The amended motion reads as follows: Gerald Neiman moved that the Special Exception be granted for this application for the purpose of displaying utility sheds and gazebos for resale provided that they occupy no more than 50% of the space of the lower south parking lot at Concord Industries. Coni Porter seconded the motion. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Mr. Baker closed this public hearing at 8:05 p.m. and told Mr. Cormier that he would receive a written notice of decision in the mail. Mr. Cormier requested a copy of the minutes for this meeting as well.
Chairman Methe took over chairing the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Chairman Methe asked the applicant for the next hearing if she wanted her applications heard in the order that she filed them. Ms. Lois Kelly stated that she did. Member Coni Porter asked the applicant if she had thought that through and the applicant stated that she had. Chairman Methe asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Porter said that she questions hearing them in this order since the third application; a Special Exception to allow livestock on this parcel located in a Residential District would need to be granted in order to allow the Variance for the business, and also the Variance to allow the livestock on a reduced size parcel, so she would suggest that they hear application #03-15 first, then #03-14 and #03-13 last. Chairman Methe told
the applicant that she would have to have all three applications granted in order to make her project doable. Ms. Kelly was agreeable to hear the applications in the suggested order.
8:00 p.m. Case #03-13: Lois J. Kelly requests a Variance under Article III: Section 127-11 (P) to conduct a commercial operation (llama hiking business) at 15 Perry Road, Tax Map 29; Lot 03 located in the Residential District.
8:15 p.m. Case #03-14: Lois J. Kelly requests a Variance under Article III: Section 127-8 (A) to have livestock (llamas) on a parcel less than five acres in size. This property is known as Tax Map 29; Lot 03, 15 Perry Road, and is located in the Residential District.
8:30 p.m. Case #03-15: Lois J. Kelly requests a Special Exception under Article III: Section 127-8 (A) to have livestock (llamas) on a parcel located in the Residential District. This property is known as Tax Map 29; Lot 03, 15 Perry Road. – This application was heard first and Chairman Methe opened this public hearing at 8:10 p.m. and read the case title aloud. The applicant Lois Kelly was present as well as several abutters. The abutters present were asked to provide their name and address in writing for the record.
Chairman Methe asked the applicant to explain her property to the Board and exactly what she wants to do. Ms. Kelly told the Board that what she is proposing hinges on all three applications before them. Ms. Kelly said that she hopes to have a hiking business with the llamas on the railroad beds and she is applying with the State for a permit to do this. Ms. Kelly added that the llamas would be housed on her property but the business would not be there.
Chairman Methe asked how many llamas she was asking to have and Ms. Kelly said three. Chairman Methe said that he was unable to make the site walk last night so he spoke with the applicant today and obtained permission to go out this afternoon and look around. Mr. Methe said that he was there at approximately 4:30 today and he saw some ducks also and asked Ms. Kelly if she had any other animals. Ms. Kelly replied that she also has some chickens and a dog. Mrs. Jane Roberts asked the applicant how long she has had the llamas and Ms. Kelly said that she has had them since the end of August. Mr. Dan Baker clarified that there are three llamas and they have been there approximately eight weeks.
Mr. Baker questioned the lot size and the applicant said that it is 1.1 acre roughly. and Mr. Andy Caouette, abutter, stated that it is only .7 according to the towns’ records. Chairman Methe noted that the survey done last year shows that it is 1.08 acre. Mr. Gerald Neiman asked if the property is serviced by a private well and septic system. Ms. Kelly said that it is. Mr. Neiman asked if there had been any problems or failure with the septic system in the recent past and if the drinking water had been tested for quality. Ms. Kelly said that there had been no problems with the septic and the water was tested in 1995 when they moved there and it was fine. It was determined that the animals are penned in on the rear, right hand side of the property and the well is
located outside of the penned area near the rear of the property towards the rocks. Mr. Neiman said that he had concerns about water quality.
Mrs. Bernadette Hietala, abutter, said that the animals would be in the back of the property and Ms. Kelly added that where they are currently is temporary. Chairman Methe clarified which property they were discussing and Mrs. Hietala explained that her property wraps around the applicants’ and she has offered to let Ms. Kelly use 2.9 acres of the 3.86 acres she has. Mr. Baker questioned if they were looking at an exception for all of this land and Ms. Kelly said no and that she doesn’t think that the llamas would need to go on that property, but it had been offered to her if it was needed. Ms. Kelly added that she has just cleared a large area for the llamas. The Board clarified that acreage between both lots and noted that together they still do not equal 5
acres. The Board asked about the pasture she is making and the cement pad for composting. Ms. Kelly said that the pasture is approximately 150’ long, about 1/3 of the lot, and the cement pad for the compost would be located within the penned area in the future.
Ms. Porter reviewed some of the information that Ms. Kelly provided to the Board with her application from the UNH Cooperative Extension noting that it said that llamas eat like sheep and not goats and they equate 1 llama with 1 sheep which requires .3 acre. Ms. Porter noted that Ms. Kelly has three llamas and asked her if she felt okay with having less than an acre for three llamas, as the paperwork indicates. Ms. Kelly said that llamas are not as hard on the environment as sheep and they do not live off the grass, they are less intrusive and would eat a lot on the trails. Ms. Porter asked how often they would be on the trails and Ms. Kelly said that she cannot gauge that at this time, but she is hoping for once a day at least. Ms. Kelly added that she would still hike with
the llamas even if she did not have anyone else to go along. Mr. Baker asked Ms. Kelly if she has owned llamas before and Ms. Kelly said that she had not. Mrs. Joan Martin, abutter asked how the animals would get to the hiking trails from her property. Ms. Porter stated that they are not reviewing that yet, and are reviewing the application to have these animals on property located in a residential area.
Mr. Baker asked if the animals require a structure and Ms. Kelly said that they have pretty basic one right now. Ms. Porter noted that Ms. Kelly already has the animals and asked her if she realized that this is after the fact. Ms. Kelly said yes and that it was a spur of the moment thing, she found a good deal and bought them. Mr. Neiman asked if she had been provided with the by-laws and Ms. Kelly said yes. Ms. Porter asked if she had thoughts as to what would happen if she were not allowed to do this, and what her plans were. Ms. Kelly said that she supposed she would have to sell her house and buy a farm. Mrs. Hietala said that she doesn’t understand who changed it in 1980 from farmland to residential and noted that it had been farmland for the Perry Farm located
on Perry Road since 1746. Chairman Methe explained that a Master Plan was done and the zoning was changed which was voted in at the annual Town Meeting. Mrs. Hietala continued and said that the 50 acre quarry is zoned residential and she really thinks that people should look at the zoning. She added that she bought her farmhouse on farmland and then after she moved here she was told that it was residential. Mr. Caouette said that the proximity of the water may have a lot to do with it as there is Collins Pond, the Quarries, etc. Ms. Porter said that this is an area that would need to be taken up with a different town department. Mr. Methe said that he spent a lot of time growing up in that neighborhood and he doesn’t remember any farms there in the past 60 years. Mrs. Hietala stated that he should check the old records because she has been researching her property. Mr. Baker said that the current issue is that the area is residential and we operate under zoning. Mr. Neiman
spoke of grandfathered uses and added that once zoning is adopted we operate under that, and if something is not in conformance with the zoning then despite its historical use, it would not be permitted without a Variance or a Special Exception. Chairman Methe asked the Board if they had any further questions, and then asked for abutter comment.
Ann Cramer introduced herself to the Board noting that she lives on the corner of Perry Road and Church Street. Ms. Cramer had several questions, the first being about the cement pad for the manure and asked if it would be poured concrete with liquid tight sides or just stacked on a pad, and Ms. Kelly said that it would have sides. Ms. Cramer then asked the Board about the request being for livestock and she questioned if this applied to just llamas or any form of livestock. Several Board members stated that they can set conditions and Mrs. Hietala said that Police Chief Newton told her that there was nothing stopping her from having chickens and ducks, etc. Mr. Baker said that the point is that this request is for livestock, and the Special Exception would extend to
anything that is classified as livestock, and if this was granted as written it would be a permitted use. Ms. Cramer then provided the Board with some of her concerns which include odor and noise, and she noted that the change made in the 1980’s was appropriate, and she spoke of the problems the neighborhood had endured with flies and rat infestation because of animals. Ms. Cramer said that her main concern is with her well water and she said that she was not aware that there would be a water tight place for the manure and noted that her well is approximately 300’ or 400’ away, but there are others closer. Ms. Cramer added that the wells are on a down slope from this area, there is a high water table and they sit on a granite ledge. Contaminants can reach groundwater, and this is her concern. Additionally, Ms. Cramer said that llamas also carry and transmit enteric diseases, and there is a high potential for an infectious disease to reach the neighbors. Ms. Cramer
said that it is her understanding that there is no USDA approved rabies vaccine for llamas, and if someone were exposed to a llama with rabies they would have to go through the proper care to treat this, and interestingly, contact between llamas and the public is not permitted in Massachusetts because of the potential risk for potential disease. Lastly she said that she does not feel this area is appropriate for livestock especially since what they went through before, and she feels that approving this would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Neiman asked Ms. Cramer if she is experiencing noise and odor problems and to please explain, and Ms. Cramer said that she did not know initially that there were llamas on the property but there is a pretty foul odor and she is not sure what it is from; the llamas or the poultry accumulation, and there is a lot of noise; rooster noise all day long. Ms. Cramer said that it is difficult in a close neighborhood like this and this is above
and beyond what is appropriate for the neighborhood.
Mr. Caouette told the Board that his biggest concern is the way Ms. Kelly went about this as she already has the llamas and now she is throwing herself on their mercy. Mr. Caouette added that if they let her do this then it tells everyone else in town that it is okay to do this without getting approval first. Ms. Porter noted that they are not enforcement and Mr. Caouette said that he understands that and he will go to the Selectmen about that. Mr. Caouette added that he has a problem with the llamas as he does not feel that livestock in this neighborhood is appropriate as they are big animals and the wire fence they put up will give way eventually, and when the snow is 4’ high they will walk right over it.
Mr. Dennis Troutman told the Board that he has a few concerns and read from the Planning Board minutes about the noise that the llamas made, which was described as a small mew or humming sound. Mr. Troutman then played a cassette recording that he made, of llamas to show the kinds of noise they make. The recording was not of Ms. Kelly’s llamas, but of others, and Mr. Troutman said that he was standing a fair distance away from the animals. Ms. Kelly and Mrs. Hietala were saying that this was not true and they do not make this noise and Chairman Methe told them that they had their first chance to speak, and he asked them to please refrain from doing this. Mr. Troutman then expressed concerns with odors and said that the animals are smelly and they can scream for up to
an hour at a time. Mr. Troutman noted that according to the Land Use Regulations this really needs to meet the qualifications for a Special Exception, and he explained that this residential area is not surrounded by a pasture; it is a densely packed neighborhood with most of the property being under an acre or even half an acre, and it is not in harmony with the use of the district nor the intent of the Land Use Code, it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and it could easily be injurious to the neighborhood as llamas can reach 450 lbs. and be very aggressive, especially if they have been raised close to people. Mr. Troutman expressed concern for a neighborhood this tightly packed with kids going to school, etc., and said that this is not an appropriate area for them.
Mrs. Joan Martin told the Board that she has her grandchildren and great-grandchildren over frequently and asked what if the llamas got out while they were outside. Mrs. Martin said that she cannot walk across her back yard without stepping in hen manure and now they have two red foxes hanging around the neighborhood that were never there before. Mrs. Martin told the Board that she lived on a farm when she was younger so she in not a stranger to this, but they have never had wild animals in the neighborhood before.
Mrs. Susan Caouette spoke of her property when they bought it and that it took years to get grass to grow in right because of the goats, horse, pigs and other animals that were on that property, and she knows about the huge issue with the rats and skunks, and she is afraid that the llamas are going to bring these animals and problems back. Mrs. Caouette said that she does not want to deal with the flies and smells and she doesn’t want to sell her house. She added that the whole neighborhood is approximately 12 acres in size and the towns’ regulations say that you need 5 acres for livestock, which they do not have, so they should not be allowed to stay.
Mrs. Hietala stated that she trusts her children to handle the llamas as they are completely safe, and she is not worried about her children with the llamas as they walk with them, etc.
Ms. Cramer asked if the grazing of these animals, the droppings and the clearing of the land could affect the wetlands in the rear with any kind of contamination.
Mr. Troutman asked how they know if the llamas are tame and said that even if they are now, they could turn, and he spoke of “bezerk llama syndrome” noting that it is a serious problem. Mr. Neiman asked Mr. Troutman where he had obtained his information and Mr. Troutman said that it was put out by the Llama Breeders Association and he obtained it from a Llama Q&A website.
With there being no further questions or comments, Chairman Methe closed this public hearing at 8:50 p.m. and asked for Board discussion.
Mr. Baker said that from what he has heard about this case, they have a situation with livestock that exists that generally doesn’t meet the criteria of the regulations or the harmony of the neighborhood that has developed, and they have heard from the abutters that they are not interested in continuing this, and typically in granting a Special Exception they try to look at the neighborhood and whether or not it is supported by the people who live there. Mr. Baker said that this is his impression and he feels that farming is great, but it has to be in the right spot.
Mr. Neiman said that he is concerned that this is not an appropriate use of this relatively small parcel of land in this neighborhood, and he is concerned that it could be detrimental to the health of the neighbors potentially, and he believes that this is a large part of the reason that a large parcel of land is required for livestock, and that the concentration of livestock on a small area with many people living there is detrimental to the health and welfare of the inhabitants there. Mr. Neiman added that he is also impressed by the amount of neighbors and abutters who turned out in what must be a difficult situation with your neighbors and voice an opposition as no one wants to be adversary with their neighbors, but apparently they feel strongly enough to turn out and
express their concerns. He added that he finds this unusual in his experience as a Board member to have a large number of complaints for a Special Exception, and they have had them in the past and they have granted Special Exceptions over objections, so it is not to say that if someone objects they would grant it, but he is impressed by the number of people that came and he thinks that they tried to be civil in what they said, and noted that this is where they live and they are here to tell the Board their side of the story as it is also the applicants’ opportunity to tell hers, but he does not feel that he would be in favor of granting this Special Exception.
Ms. Porter said that there is one other issue besides the people that are involved, and that is the animals’ welfare. She feels that it is important to follow the guidelines and she told Ms. Kelly that she is not following the guideline that she provided to the Board. Ms. Porter said that typically llamas are nice animals and they do not smell, but any animal is going to smell if it is not given enough room, and they could create problems that even the applicant would not want to deal with.
Mrs. Roberts stated that she agrees with everything that has been said and she is glad that they did the site walk because she sees two problems; one is that it is a crowded area with small lots and it is too much llama in a small area, and she sees that there is a reason for saying that a property needs five acres at a minimum for an assortment of reasons including the health of the animals.
Chairman Methe closed the discussion and moved on to voting on the five criteria. The proposed use:
1.) Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter – The Board agreed unanimously that it is not in harmony for all of the reasons discussed.
2.) Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place – Mr. Baker said that he thinks it would be detrimental and noted the testimony that they heard from the abutters in terms of noise and odor and the fact that it is a concentrated area, and the issue of the compost and manure with regards to the water quality. The Board agreed unanimously with this statement.
3.) Is appropriate for the site in question – Mr. Baker said that this does not qualify at all and Mr. Neiman added that it is too small and the neighborhood is too compact. The Board agreed unanimously.
4.) Complies with all applicable requirements if this chapter – Mr. Baker said that he does not think that this complies at all. The Board agreed unanimously.
5.) With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome – The Board agreed unanimously that the site obviously does not have the appropriate dimensions so it is an inappropriate site.
Chairman Methe stated that with this vote, the proposal does not meet the Special Exception criteria and it fails. Mr. Methe continued and said that the applications are contingent upon one another in that the Variance for having a parcel less than five acres in size was already taken up, and there is no point in asking for a business with the animals if they cannot be allowed there, which was the second Variance requested. Chairman Methe announced that that this public hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m., and told Ms. Kelly that she would receive a written notice of decision in the mail.
At 9:01 p.m. Chairman Methe moved to go into Non-Public Session under RSA 91-A:3 (a) to discuss personnel.
At 9:13 p.m. Mr. Methe moved to go out of Executive Session.
Administrative Work
*** Review and approve September 15, 2003 Meeting Minutes – Gerald Neiman moved to accept the minutes of September 15, 2003 as written. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken. Coni Porter moved to accept the Site Walk Minutes of October 22, 2003 as written. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
*** 2004 Budget – Chairman Methe has reviewed the drafted budget provided to him by Margo. Margo told the Board that she made a few cuts and the budget will only reflect an increase in the salary and related lines. The increase to this budget is minimal.
*** Meeting schedule-The Board discussed the recent survey done by all of the Board members as to their availability and preference for their meeting night. The Board agreed to change their meeting night to the second Tuesday of the month. Margo noted that she would advise the Planning Board that if they are going to hold additional work meetings, which they have been doing, they would not be able to meet on the second Tuesday unless this Board does not have any applications before them.
Chairman Michael Methe moved to change the meeting night for the Zoning Board of Adjustment from the third Monday of the month to the second Tuesday of the month. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Correspondence
*** Notice of Decision issued by the Planning Board – Reviewed
Chairman Methe told the Board that the Board of Selectmen is still looking for suggestions for alternate members for this Board. Margo reminded the Board that Mark Brockelman had been suggested some time ago. The Board asked her to pass this along to the Selectmen’s Office.
Chairman Methe noted that they still have to fill Kerry Gagnes’s vacancy as a regular member. Alternate member Gerald Neiman declined, and alternate member Coni Porter agreed to fill this vacancy. Margo told the Board that she would type up an appointment form and submit it to the Selectmen for their consideration.
Daniel Baker moved to adjourn at 9:22 p.m. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Respectfully submitted,
Margo M. Best
Administrative Assistant
Land Use
| 
