Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 12/18/2018Town of Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 18, 2018 ro AVN RECEI CEO CLERKS OFFICE I�i9 FE8 16 q /k 39 Mq S �yt,SET TS The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall at 7:30 pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Clerk; Matthew Cummings; Philip Shannon; Associate Members Eric Correira and Ryan Maxwell. 1. Meeting opened at 7:35 pm. 2. Daniel and Sonia Gyves, 299 Elm Terrace. The Chair read the hearing notice for Daniel and Sonia Gyves for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of a two -car garage with a 20 -foot side yard setback where 25 feet is required at 299 Elm Terrace (Assessor's Map 7, Parcel 109) in the Residential 1 (131) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk on November 8, 2018; • Copy of public hearing notice, published in the Mansfield News on November 30, 2018 and December 7, 2018; • Plan of Proposed House Addition at No, 299 Elm Terrace Mansfield, MA dated November 8, 2018. Mr. Correira was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, Co., Inc., and homeowners Daniel and Sonia Gyves were present. Mr. Cygawnoski said the existing house was built in 1984 in the R3 zone, where a 25 -foot setback is required and the Applicant is proposing to build a two -car garage. Ms. Garber -Miller asked why the proposed garage was not moved back instead of making it flush with the front of the house. Mr. Gyves said it was done for aesthetic purposes and because there is an existing doorway there. Mr. Correira asked how far the front corner of the garage is from the lot line. Mr. Cygawnoski said the distance from the front corner would be 23.5 feet. There were no public comments. Mr. Cummings made the motion to approve the request of Daniel and Sonia Gyves for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of a two -car garage with a 20 -foot side yard setback where 25 feet is required at 299 Elm Terrace (Assessor's Map 7, Parcel 109) in the Residential 1 (111) zone, in accordance with the plan, Proposed House Addition at No. 299 Elm Terrace Mansfield, MA dated November 8, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Pruitt said this is an odd shaped lot. Ms. Garber -Miller said even if they move the garage forward, it would still be non-compliant and, given the shape of the lot, there is no other place to put the garage. Mr. Cummings said if it was a detached garage, it would be closer to the lot line. Ms. Garber -Miller said it is not an oversized garage, it is the minimum size for a two -car garage. Mr. Correira noted the closest point is 20 feet from the lot line, but the front of the garage is 23.5 feet away. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:40 pm. 3. Peter Kuplast, 254 Chauncy Street. The Chair read the hearing notice of Peter Kuplast for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition for a cold storage unit with a 3.2 -foot sideyard where 20 feet is required at 254 Chauncy Street (Assessor's Map 20, Parcel 156) in the Business 4 (B4) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Application for a Variance filed with the Town Clerk on November 13, 2018; • Copy of the public hearing notice, published in the Mansfield News on November 30, 2018 and December 7, 2018; • Plan of Proposed Cold Storage Unit at No. 254 Chauncy Street Mansfield, MA dated November 9, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Correira was appointed a voting member for this hearing Owner Peter Kuplast was present Ms. Garber -Miller said the proposed cold storage unit will be on the right side of the building and asked what will happen to all the storage units that are located there now. Mr. Kuplast said the storage units would be moved toward the back. Ms. Garber - Miller asked about the existing fence. Mr. Kuplast said he was not sure who own the fence, but he will replace it because it will be removed during the construction of the storage unit. Mr. Cummings asked if there was an existing exterior cold storage unit and if the proposed unit would be attached to the building. Mr. Kuplast said the existing cold storage unit is inside the building and the proposed unit will be attached to the building. Ms. Pruitt asked what is the existing storage unit outside used for; Mr. Kuplast said it is for dry storage and will not be removed. He said the proposed storage unit will be about 15 feet from the dry storage unit. There were not public comments. Mr. Cummings made the motion to approve the request of Peter Kuplast for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition for a cold storage unit with a 3.2 -foot sideyard where 20 feet is required at 254 Chauncy Street (Assessor's Map 20, Parcel 156) in the Business 4 (B4) zone, in accordance with the plan Proposed Cold Storage Unit at No. 254 Chouncy Street Mansfield, MA dated November 9, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Cummings said putting the cold storage unit on the left side of the building would not work because of the traffic in the parking lot. He said having the unit on the left side of the building would make more sense from a zoning aspect, but for practicality and for the sake of the other stores sharing the parking lot, putting the unit on the right side of the building would be better for public safety. Ms. Garber -Miller said the right side is actually preferable because it abuts another parking lot and there is a fence. Mr. Cummings said there is a hardship because of the shape of the lot and because putting the unit on the left side of the building would be more detrimental. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:50 pm. 4. Panduka and Sharmila Dabare, 23 Horace Street. The Chair read the hearing notice of Panduka and Sharmila Dabare for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Rear Yard Setback and Front Yard Setback for the construction of an addition and garage with an 18.1 -foot rear yard setback where 30 feet is required; a 21 -foot front yard setback [on Horace Street] where 30 feet is required and a 17.4 -foot front yard setback [on Davis Street] where 30 feet is required at 23 Horace Street (Assessor's Map 27, Parcel 17) in the Residential 3 (R3) zone. The following documents were introduced at the hearing: • Application for a Variance filed with the Town Clerk on November 15, 2018: • Copy of the public hearing notice, published in the Mansfield News on November 30, 2018 and December 7, 2018; • Plan of Proposed House Addition at No. 23 Horace Street Mansfield, MA dated November 15, 2018. Mr. Correira was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. and homeowners Panduka and Sharmila were present Mr. Cygawnoski explained this is a very small corner lot with less than 8,000 square feet and the Applicant would like to expand the existing house. He said because of the way the zoning by-law is worded, the lot's frontage is on Davis Street, but the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement also applies to the Horace Street side of the lot. He said the side yard setback on the left of the house conforms at 15.1 feet; the Horace Street front yard setback of the addition is 21.0 feet where 30 feet is required; the Davis Street front yard setback is 17.4 feet where 30 feet is required; and the rear yard setback is 18.1 feet. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if there was already a variance on this property. Mr. Dabare said the Board granted a variance for an addition on the Davis Street side in 2013, but it was not built. She asked about lot coverage. Mr. Cygawnoski said with the addition, there would be 33.4% lot coverage; he noted the requirement is for 50% open space. There were no public comments Mr. Cummings made the motion to approve the request of Panduka and Sharmila Dabare for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Rear Yard Setback and Front Yard Setback for the construction of an addition and garage with an 18.1 -foot rear yard setback where 30 feet is required; a 21 -foot front yard setback on Horace Street where 30 feet is required and a 17.4 - foot front yard setback on Davis Street where 30 feet is required at 23 Horace Street (Assessor's Map 27, Parcel 17) in the Residential 3 (133) zone, in accordance with the plan, Proposed House Addition at No. 23 Horace Street Mansfield, MA. Dated November 15, 2018. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Shannon commented this is a big addition. Mr. Cummings said the board has made exceptions before where it is a corner lot. Ms. Garber -Miller said this is the hardship because the lot has two front yard setbacks. Mr. Maxwell said the existing garage is closer to the lot line than what is proposed. Ms. Garber -Miller said this is an old house on a very small lot. Mr. Cummings asked the square -footage of the house. Mr. Dadare said it is 1,400 square feet. Mr. Shannon asked If the proposed second story would be higher than the existing house, Mr. Cygawnoski said the existing house already has 1.5 stories, and it will go to 2.5 stories, which is allowed. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 8:01 pm. 5. Sky Blue Sky, LLC, 960 East Street. The Chair read the hearing notice of Sky Blue Sky, LLC for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Sections 1.5.17a, Lot Width and 4.2.A, Lot Frontage to create a lot shown as a non -conforming, non -buildable lot, with less than the required lot width and lot frontage at 960 East Street (Assessor's Map 41, Parcel 48) in the Residential 2 (112) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Application for a variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on November 16, 2018; • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on November 30, 2018 and December 7, 2018; • Proposed Lot Division at No. 960 East Street Mansfield, MA dated November 15, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering Co., Inc.; Mark Steele, the potential buyer of Lot 2; and Renee Tepper, the new owner of 960 East Street, were present. Mr. Correira was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Mr. Cygawnoski explained 960 East Street is an existing, non -conforming lot in the Residential 2 (R2) Zone, with 117.26 feet of frontage, where 150 feet is required. He said because the street is on sewer, the minimum area is 22,500 square feet, and this lot is approximately 48,000 square feet. The existing lot at 984 East Street, Parcel 50, has 112,381 square feet with 22.94 feet of frontage. Mr. Steele wants to purchase the proposed Lot 2, a non -conforming, non -buildable lot, to create a second access point to 984 East Street. Mr. Cygawnoski said the existing house at 960 East Street has the required side and rear yard setbacks, but lacks the required frontage. Mr. Maxwell asked if the proposed Lot 2 would be a secondary or primary access. Mr. Cygawnoski said it would provide a second access; he said there is only one way into the property and in the past, trees have fallen across the driveway, leaving the owner with no way in or out. Andy Ortiz, 962 East Street, said he is opposed to this project for safety reasons because he has young children. He said this would result in two non -conforming lots with a 20 -foot roadway between them. He said he already worries about traffic on East Street and this would create a road next to his property, which he said would be a safety issue for his family. Paul Tarallo, 9 Suzanne Lane, said he also opposes the project and asked if this secondary road could be accomplished with an easement instead of a variance. Mr. Cygawnoski said an easement was proposed but was rejected by the Fire Department. John Kennedy, 15 Suzanne Lane, said he opposes the project because the Steeles' have been there for fifty years and never had a reason for another entrance. He said he was concerned they would come back in the future because they want a subdivision. Christopher Mancuso, 974 East Street, said he is ok with the proposal, but noted he owns a little parcel of land on that driveway and there is no egress to the back lot. Tom Farrell, 5 Suzanne Lane, said he was concerned what the addition of a foundation and driveway would do because they already get standing water on their properties. He said it would probably be an improvement to the property, but he does not know if it is the right thing to do. Mark Steele said he is buying the property because he would like to have another means of egress to the property because his mother, who is in her mid -eighties, is still living there. He said the fire department has said there should be another means of access to the property. He explained he is not looking to build a house or disturb any of the existing vegetation or landscaping. He mentioned there is already an existing sidewalk with a curb cut and a gravel driveway on the land he wants to purchase, and it would remain a natural driveway with landscaping, which he would maintain. John Schlichte, 946 East Street, said he has no objections to the proposal. Richard Coffey, 7 Mill Street, said he has no objections to the project. Ms. Tepper said the existing driveway with the curb cut is on her property at 960 East Street and said Mr. Ortiz currently parks on the driveway. Mr. Ortiz said his concern is that it is currently a driveway, and if it were used as a road, he would be worried about his childrens' safety. Mr. Steele said this would not be a paved road and, if it is a safety concern, he would install a fence to mitigate any concerns Mr. Ortiz has. Mr. Steele said the road would not be used every day, but only for emergency access to the back of the property. Mr. Correira asked why an easement would not be an option. Mr. Cygawnoski said an easement might work. Mr. Steele said this is a matter of safety for his mother and would not be invasive at all. He said the property is landlocked and this is an opportunity to get access to the back of the property. Ms. Garber -Miller noted the existing 960 East Street property has 147.31 feet of frontage and asked what is being divided to create the new lot and where the 30.05 feet of frontage for Lot 2 is coming from. Mr. Cygawnoski said the 30.05 feet of frontage is coming from the 117.26 feet of frontage at 960 East Street, which would leave that property with 87.21 feet of frontage. Ms. Garber -Miller noted there is a real estate sign on the property now and asked about a sub -division. Ms. Tepper said she purchased the property three months ago and was told they cannot build anything more on this property. She said they will be renovating the existing house at 960 East Street and then will sell it. Mr. Cygawnoski said there is not enough room to build a conforming road with a cul-de-sac, so there is no additional buildable lot. He said 50 feet is the minimum size for a road and Mr. Steele is purchasing only 30 feet. Mr. Shannon asked if it could be reworded to state that it could only be used as a driveway. Mr. Cummings made the motion to approve the application of Sky Blue Sky, LLC for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Sections 1.5.17a, Lot Width and 4.2.A, Lot Frontage to create a lot shown as a non -conforming, non -buildable lot, with less than the required lot width and lot frontage at 960 East Street (Assessor's Map 41, Parcel 48) in the Residential 2 (R2) zone, in accordance with the plan, "Proposed Lot Division at No. 960 East Street Mansfield, MA" dated November 15, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Pruitt asked if the Board could put a restriction on the variance so it could only be a driveway, not a road. Ms. Garber -Miller said her issue is the change of one property that is already non -conforming and the creation of two non- conforming properties. Mr. Correira asked what the actual hardship is. Ms. Garber -Miller said the statutory considerations for a hardship are soil, shape and topography. Mr. Cummings said one of the alternatives would be an easement. He said the argument about there being no second means of access could be made about almost any dead-end street. Motion failed 0-5-0. Hearing ended at 8:25 pm. 6. Evan Sohn and Stanley Sohn, 601 & 619 East Street, Map 33, Parcels 18 and 119. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Evan Sohn and Stanely Sohn for a Finding/Special Permit from Section 230-3.30B(2)(a) and 230-7.2(6)(2) and (8)(4) to allow for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre- existing, non -conforming use at 601 and 619 East Street ( Map 33, Parcels 18 and 119) In the Business 3 (83) Zone to allow the expansion of a single family dwelling/kennel and doggy day care. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on June 25, 2018; • Site Plan 601 & 621 East Street dated January 8, 2017, prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc.; • Petition from the residents of Heron Crest; • Memorandum submitted in support of the application from Bernkopf/Goodman, LLP; • Copy of Special Permit for the expansion of existing animal hospital to add premises for boarding kennel and associated services and sale of product dated October 2, 2986; • Petition from Mansfield residents, neighbors, clients and customers of Kozy Kennels' application; • Letter from Officer David W. Kinahan, Traffic Division; • Requests to continue dated October 30, 2018 and November 28, 2018 and December 18, 2018 • Letter from Officer David W. Kinahan, Traffic Division; • Updated Opposition and 3 page email trail dated December 17, 2018 from Attorney Edward Valanzola; • Supporting Documentation for an Extension of a Special Permit if Dr. Stanley Sohn and Evan Sohn at 601, 619 and 621 East Street, Mansfield, MA dated November 16, 2018; • Signed cover letter with Kozy Kennels Inc. And Doggy Daycare Option Schedules from Adela Wojtasinski, Bernkopf Goodman LLP; • Final Signed Cover Letter wtih Attachments Re: AcoustiFence. Mr. Correira was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Attorney Edward Valanzola; Attorney Lilienthal and Adela Wojtasinski, Bernkopf Goodman; and Evan Sohn were present Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the Board members had any additional questions at this time. Mr. Correira asked if the parties involved had come to or were close to a resolution. Attorney Lilienthal said he has provided a schedule with two options showing existing and proposed times the dogs would be outside. He said he reached out to the abutters and offered certain mitigation for their concerns and submitted the Applicants proposal and Attorney Valanzola submitted his response. Attorney Lilienthal said Evan Sohn researched and found there is a product called AcoustiFence that could be applied in such a way to reduce the noise from the dogs barking; he said specifications and product information were submitted. He said the Applicants propose to install 350 feet of this fence, starting in the parking lot in front of the proposed kennel/doggy day care and it will be extended further to give extra sound attenuation opposite the existing kennel even though there is no requirement to include the kennel; he said the fence will be six feet in height. Attorney Lilienthal said Attorney Valanzola's response was that the acoustic fence be put around the entire 18 acre+/- Heron Crest property. Attorney Lilienthal said he also suggested each party pay their own legal fees. Attorney Valanzola said that the Sohns should pay Heron Crest's legal fees. Attorney Lilienthal said the Sohns agreed to put sound board on top of sheet rock, insulation, sheathing and siding on the proposed building. Attorney Valanzola asked that their own acoustical engineer agree to the proposed sound proofing for the proposed doggy day care. Attorney Lilienthal said the Sohns also suggested that Heron Crest would withdraw their opposition to the Applicants permitting, acknowledge the Covenant and allow the doggy day care and the use, the construction of the proposed building. He said both parties would agree that there were no defaults under the Covenant by either party and the Sohns would be allowed access to the land to install the acoustic fence. He said Attorney Valanzola responded that they would like to revise the Covenant, giving Heron Crest rights to any future use on the Sohns property, the Sohns would assume responsibility for maintaining the berm on the Sohns side of the fence, asked for the doggy day care scheduling and site information, which has already been provided, and asked that the hearing be continued. Attorney Lilienthal said Attorney Valanzola contemplated additional berms and plantings and there was a statement about traffic direction and other terms. Attorney Lilienthal said they have a petition signed by 270 people, 137 of which are Mansfield residents, in support of the proposal and said at this point, after three hearings, he believes there is sufficient evidence on which to act. Ms. Garber -Miller asked where the dogs are exercised now. Evan Sohn said there are individual runs with indoor and outdoor sections with a fenced -in, wood chipped area but there is also a fenced, grassed area bythe proposed building. Attorney Valanzola mentioned that a few members of the board have not attended all three hearings and said under the statute they are required to watch the hearing tapes in order to participate in the hearing. Ms. Garber -Miller, Mr. Correira, Mr. Cummings and Ms. Pruitt were present at all three hearings; Mr. Shannon missed the November hearing and has not reviewed the video and Mr. Gallagher could not attend tonight's meeting. Mr. Maxwell did not attend the September meeting. Attorney Valanzola said the Applicants have provided information and documents about the acoustic fence and his clients were encouraged that this type of fencing might work. He said Attorney Lilienthal's response was they considered the list of demands to be in complete rejection of their proposal, not made constructively or in good faith, and rejected the demands. Attorney Valanzola said they did not want to revise the Covenant but believe the Covenant is clear it only protects the current activities in place there and doggy day care is not defined as an activity in the Declaration. Attorney Valanzola said years ago when there was litigation between the developer and the Sohns, Heron Crest had to pay the Sohns legal fees so he suggested, as part of this settlement with Heron Crest, that their legal fees be paid by the Sohns. Attorney Valanzola said the question is will the people at Heron Crest hear the dogs barking outside the proposed building. He said in September, the Applicants said there would be twenty dogs but in 1986 Attorney Lilienthal said there would be no more than five dogs per day for doggy day care. At the November hearing it was stated there would be no more than fifty dogs with one hundred vehicle trips. He asked where the outside area for the proposed building would be located or would they use the existing outside area. He said the real issue here is that the residents of Heron Crest are going to hear fifty dogs barking from inside the building that is now closer to the Heron Crest property; he noted this case is unique because there is. not just one or two abutters, there are 77 residents. Attorney Valanzola said the police and fire departments do not support this as the Applicants tried to represent to the Board. Ms. Garber -Miller said the Applicants attached those letters to their application but she does not believe they characterized the letters as support from the police and fire departments. Attorney Valanzola said Officer Kinahan made his decision based on Stanley and Evan Sohn stating that the proposed doggy day care building would be used to house and improve a service they already provide; they did not write that it is going to be expanded and there would be a 3,600 square-foot building. He said three months after the first hearing there still is no independent, verifiable documentation regarding sound proofing, nothing about the proposed building as far as actual specifications about the thickness of the walls, positioning of windows and doors, nothing from a contractor that builds these types of facilities or anyone that could address the noise issue. Attorney Valanzola said they cannot create a new non-compliance and they have to meet the technical requirements of the by-laws, which says they have to show landscaping and screening on their own property, not on Heron Crest property, and they have not shown opaque screenings. He said the test here is do the benefits outweigh the detriments. He said in the initial filing the Applicants wrote the boarding kennel and animal hospital already exist and the affects on the adjoining property will be minimal, if any at all, but there are 70+ people who would tell you it is not minimal. He said the business has been operating for four decades with virtually no complaints from Heron Crest because when the residents bought their units they were made aware of the Declaration and, as it currently exists, they do not object. Attorney Valanzola mentioned a new sewer connection will benefit the environment but this would not benefit the community at large. He said they agreed with the driveway and traffic pattern, with a right turn only, but again this is site specific and not a benefit to the project because this is something they could do anyway. He said the residents of Heron Crest do not want this to expand to 3,600 square feet and 50 dogs. Ms. Garber-Miller said there are four members of the board who have attended all the hearings but if a decision were to be made tonight, it would have to be a unanimous decision. She said the hearing can be continued to allow Mr. Shannon and Mr. Gallaher to watch the tape so the parties involved can have the opportunity to have a full board. Attorney Lilienthal asked if the hearing could be closed tonight. Sarah Langmead, 475 East Street, said there is a proposal for a fence for the Heron Crest side but there is no fence on the opposite side; she said they are only addressing the most number of abutters, not the abutters on the other side of the Sohns property. She noted the noise definitely flucuates with the business. George Ferro, 631 East Street, K203, said he understands the Applicants want to make this a bigger and more prosperous business and serve more people and he is not against it but it should not be in this tight area. He said the residents of Heron Crest will have more noise and traffic. Margeret Hein, 631 East Street, F102, said it is true the noise is not all the time but from the time the kids are out of school until the schools open again the noise will be continuous all through the summer. Mr. Farias, 631 East Street, K201, clarified the acoustic fence would not be installed along the entire Heron Crest property, only on the perimeter that borders the Sohns property. He said the Sohns should consider the acoustic fence for the rest of the neighborhood. He asked if the 130 Mansfield residents that signed the petition in favor of the project are within listening distance of the Sohns property. Evan Sohn said he would get this information. Mr. Farias said they have talked about the detriments but they have not heard what the benefits of the project are; he said the only benefit is the increase in business for the Sohns and he has not heard anyone testify in favor of the their proposal. Attorney Valanzola said the Heron Crest people have nothing against the Sohns and consider them to be good neighbors but they are now concerned adding 50 more dogs to the equation will increase the noise In a zone that no longer allows this use. Robert Fluckiger, 276 Ware Street, said he supports the doggy day care. He said he currently takes his dogs to doggy day care in Norwood and believes this provides a lot of value for him as a dog owner and for the dogs as well. He said he thinks the Sohns do a good job to make sure the dogs at the kennel are not out all day and they are aware of the noise; he noted under the current use, they could leave the dogs out all day, which would create more noise, so adding the new building for indoor doggy day care would help the situation. Ms. Garber-Miller suggested continuing the hearing so Mr. Shannon and Mr. Gallagher can review the videos of the hearings they missed. Attorney Lilienthal said if the Board wants to keep the hearing opened until everyone has reviewed the tapes, they will support that. Attorney Valanzola asked, if the hearing is continued, that the Applicant sign a document tonight agreeing to extend the date to the next hearing and the date by which the Board has to make a decision; he said otherwise you have put yourself in a position where they can move to have the application constructively granted. Ms. Garber-Miller said this is not the case as long as the hearing is opened. Mr. Farias asked if the Board could vote tonight with four voting members. Ms. Garber-Miller said only if the Applicant elects to go forward tonight. She said she got the impression they would be more comfortable waiting until there was a full board. Attorney Lilienthal said he already agreed that the time to make a decision would be postponed until the Board members have watch the tapes. He said they have no interest in a constructive grant. Ms. Garber-Miller said she wants Attorney Lilienthal to fill out the form stating they want a continuance to the next hearing, January 15, 2019, but the Board has until February 5, 2019 to make a decision. Mr. Shannon made the motion to continue the hearing for the application of Evan Sohn and Stanely Sohn for a Finding/Special Permit from Section 230-3.10B(2)(a) and 230-7.2(8)(2) and (B)(4) to allow for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre-existing, non -conforming use at 601 and 619 East Street ( Map 33, Parcels 18 and 119) in the Business 3 (B3) Zone to allow the expansion of a single family dwelling/kennel and doggy day care to January 15, 2019, with a decision to be made by February 8, 2019. Mr. Cummings seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 7. Nelson Alvarez, 310 West Street Mr. Alvarez applied for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Front Yard Setback, for the construction of a porch with a 22.5 -foot front yard setback where 30 feet is required at 310 West Street (Assessor's Map 11, Parcel 21) in the Residential 2 (R2) zone but was not present at the December hearing. Mr. Alvarez will be contacted. The hearing was continued to January 15, 2019. 8. Old Business: West Church Realty, LLC, 51 West Church Street: Attorney Edward Valanzola requested the application for the Special Permit for West Church Realty, LLC, 51 West Church Street, filed in July 2018, for a proposed 61 -space commuter parking area be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Cummings made the motion to approve the request to withdraw the application of West Church Realty, LLC without prejudice. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 9. New Business: Ms. Garber -Miller asked that the reorganization of the board be added to the January 15, 2019 agenda. March meeting date: March 12, 2019. 10. Adjournment: Mr. Cummings/Ms. Pruitt. Passed 5-0-0 Next meeting will be January 15, 2019. /Z Y/ Darlene Pruitt, Clerk Date �—