Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-13The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, June 13, 1989. The meeting was opened at 7:35 p.m, and the following members were present and voting: Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman, Alfred Frizelle, Vice-chairman, Walter Soule, Raymond Vivenzio, Acting Clerk, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. The first order of business was the presenting of a plaque to Alfred Fr£zelle for his 15 years of faithful service to the Board of Appeals and the Town of North Andover. Frank Serio, Jr., Chairman presented the plaque to Mr. Frizelle and the North Andover Citizen took pictures. Mr. Frizelle's term ends on June 30, 1989 and he has decided not to continue as a member of the Board. The Board thanked him for his help as a Board member over the p~st fifteen years, and he will be missed by all. PUBLIC HEARINGS In-law, Inc. - Variance - 200 Sutton Street Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio, Acting Clerk. Mr. McAllister, Sr. spoke for the petitioner stating that they wanted a new look for the station, as well as a new loQk for the area. The new canopy would be larger than the one now there and would have no signs on it. A question was asked about the closeness to the street, and it was stated that the canopy would b~ not the pumps. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was opposed to this petition, no response. Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, said the petitioner had tried to remove the existing signage be- cause the bylaw states only one (1) sign. If the petition is granted, no new signage should be allowed on the box sign. Mr. Nicetta wants the petitioner to paint out the Tulsa sign and remove the Sunoco sign.(a front sign over the office and the front sign). The petitioner stated that he wants to remove all of the signs and needs the variance to do this. Wants to remove them all at once. Mr. Nicetta stressed the fact that the signs should have been removed in December, 1988. Mr. Serio said that the signs were to come down tomorrow. Mr. Nicetta read a letter that he had sent to the petitioner. (see file) The petitioner stated that the T-sign had been removed except for one side. Mr. Serio asked why the signs were not taken down in December and the petitioner said that they tried to get permission from the Sunoco Company to do so, but they would not consent. The Sunoco Company drew up the plans so it should be done soon and they want to put in new tanks so it could be sooner than September. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this matter UNDER ADVISEMENT.(Serio, Vivenzio, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin) Robert J. Seideward Variance - Lot 12, Coventry Est. Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Mr. Seideward spoke for himself stating that he worked for the Glidden Company and is a new resident to the Town of North Andover. He purchased Lot 12 and his family is still in Ohio. He wants to build a home on the lot. Front and rear setbacks are 30' but most of the neighbors are back about 50' and he wants the 10' variance so that his house can be put further back on the lot to fit into the neighborhood better. He has discussed with Paul Sharon, Town Manager, about deeding some of the land in the back to the Town and it would be more than the land used by the petitioner. Mr. Donald Stanley, owner of Lot 14 spoke in favor of this petition. Letter from C. Huntress, Enviromental Planner read by Mr. Vivenzio, also letter from Adm. Assistant read and the minutes of a Selectmen's meeting(see file) Mr. Seideward said he talked with Charles Salisbury and explained what he wanted to do. He explain- ed that he was a private citizen and told him that he was willing to give the rear lot to the Town. He said that Mr. Salisbury seemed to be in favor of this. Mr. Serio asked the petitioner if he now owned the land and the petitioner said yes. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was opposed to this petition. Ms. O'Connor asked why he would buy the lot if he could not build on it, also he stressed that the house could be built 30' from the rear as well as 30' from the front. Mr. Seideward said that he had asked if the house could be pushed back and the Town said it was a possibility. Seideward - con'd Page 2 Bob drew up a plan of what they would deed over to the Town. He also said that when he came into the Building Department he showed a house on the 50' buffer. The Planning Board amended their decision and they did away with the buffer zone and let them plant two rows of evergreens and thereby eliminated the buffer zone. The house on the original plans and the house on the plans now are two different sizes. The Selectmen feel the house should fit the lot, not the lot fit the house. Mr. Vivenzio asked if it was legal to exchange a 50' buffer zone for Town land? The petitioner stated that they would not be removing the wall. Mr. Vivenzio stressed that all of the restrictions kept chipping away, and it has to stop. The petitioner stated that the house would fit on the land better if the variance was granted. Mr. D. Barrett stated that the letter from the Selectmen is a mistake, he is only going to be within 10' of the Town land and will be 30' from the line. The neighborhood is asking for this as well to make the area look better. Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.(Serio, Vivenzio, Soule, Rissin and O'Connor) Kenneth W. Rea Variance 44 Rea Street Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Mr. Serio asked Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, if everythink was in order and he said yes. He asked if any one was in favor or opposed to this petition and no response. Letter from Mr. Nicetta read by Mr. Vivenzio(see file). Upon a motion made by Ms. O'Connor and seconded by Mr. Vivenzio, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variance as requested.(Serio, Vivenzio, Soule, Rissin and O'Connor). Joseph Finocchiaro Variance Upland Street Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Mr. Finocchiaro spoke for himself and he wants to build a single-family dwelling with a two-car garage on Upland Street. He has 10,765 sq. ft. and needs 12,500 sq. ft, and also is 6' short on frontage. Mr. Serio asked if any- one was opposed to this petition, no response. Mr. J. Belanger spoke for his mother and stated that the only concern of the neighbors was that only a one family home be put on the lot. Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to take this MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.(Serio, Soule, Rissin and O'Connor). Joseph & Karen Mulcah¥ - Special Permit - 57 Third Street Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Mr. Mulcahy spoke for himself and stated that he wanted an apartment for his father-in-law. He wants a small addition to the back of the house. A corner of the existing house will be removed to cover the 25% bylaw. The addition will be 780 sq. ft. Mr. Charles Foster pointed out that in an R-4 zone you do not need a Special Permit for a multi-family home. Mr. Serio questioned this and Mr. Foster said that if it is an old lot you do not need a variance. Mr. Vivenzio agreed with Mr. Foster's opinion that the petitioner does not need a Special Permit or variance to convert from a one-family to a two-family dwelling in an R-4 district on an undersized lot. Mr. Serio stated that the existing building would be grandfathered in but not a new addition. He also said that the petitioner is not properly before the Board because he does not need a Special Permit for a family suite. Attorney Willis said that under the new bylaw he would need 12,500 sq. ft. but not under the old bylaw, so it would be a legal lot. Mr~ Serio said he feels this is an improper application because the petitioner does not need a Special Permit for a family suite in an R-4 district and he recommended that the petitioner withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Vivenzio stressed that it is a lawful size lot. Mulcahy - con'd Page Mr. Rissin again stressed that the petitioner is allowed to have a two-family house in an R-4 zone. Mr. Serio suggested that the petitioner withdraw and go to the Building Inspector for a building permit. The petitioner agreed to this. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to allow the petition ~ WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDUCE.(Serio, Vivenzio, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin). Albert J. Ouellette - Special Permit 155 Water Street Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. The petitioner spoke for himself and said that he would be making no outside changes. Mr. Serlo asked where the parking would be and the petitioner stated that they already had a two-stall garage and a carport, and they could park two on the paving and 3-4 on the other side of the building. Mr. Serio stressed that they would need 8 parking spaces for four units. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor or opposed to this petition, no response. They would be 2-bedroom units upstairs and 1-bedroom units downstairs. Ms. O'Connor asked what would happen to the pool on the property and Mr. Ouellette stated that it would be taken down and said that there are two multi-family dwellings near by. Upon a motion made b9 Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously to take this matter UNDER ADVISEMENT(Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin). John Rizza, DMD Special Permit - 7 First Street Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Doctor Rizza spoke for himself stating that the office at 7 First Street has had great success and he would like to expand to the second floor at that location. He showed plans of the rooms to the Board and said that he would not be adding anything to the outside of the building. On the side of the building they have four (4) parking spaces and he and his secretary park elsewhere, so they do not use the side spaces. They book their appointments by half hours so they do not have two patients there at the same time. There would only be one chair on the second floor to be used. Mr. Serio asked if a fourth chair would mean another employee? Dr. Rizza said no. He also stated that they have not had any problems with the park- ing by their patients. Mr. Nicetta, Building Inspector, stressed that the Architect Barrier Board of the State had to be notified regarding handicapped access to the building. Dr. Rizza said that the first floor was available for the handicapped but he would also make sure of this with the State. Mr. Vivenzio said that the petitioner has restrooms on the first floor and they can be used by people in wheelchairs. The equipment on the first floor can be used for most things so that handicapped people ~o not have to move around. Mr. Serio asked if the downstairs would have to be changed because of this and Dr. Rizza said no. Mr. Nicetta stated that we have a handicapped board in Town and they are very busy finding out any violations. The bylaw changed January, 1989. Dr. Rizza asked if he would need a building permit to have the chairs on the second floor, if we grant him permission to use the second floor. Dr. Rizza said that he was under the impression that he did not need to apply to the handicap Board if he didn't need a building permit. Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted to GRANT the Special Permit as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner must check with the Handicap Board and follow their requirements. 2. Cannot have more than three (3) employees. (Serio, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin) Bessie A. Daher Special Permit 4 841 Chickerin~ Rd. Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Attorney Willis spoke for the petitioner and said that the house would still look like a one-family house after the addition of the family suite. The Building Inspector has seen the plans and the gross area of the principle dwelling, the family suite is more than the allowed 25%. Mr. Vivenzio asked if they needed a variance for the difference from 950 sq. ft. to the 814 sq. ft. allowed? Attorney Willis asked if the Board could allow this under the Special Permit or would the petitioner need a variance plus the Special Permit. Attorney Willis showed the plans to the Board and indicated where the family suite would be located. He said that the addition would be at the back of the building and there would be some roof line changes. Mr. Vivenzio said that he felt a variance would be needed to cover the 25% bylaw. Mr. Soule questioned if the Board had the authority to grant this and include it in the dec~sion. Ms. O'Connor said that the petitioner does not have any neighbors near them. Attorney Willis said that everything will fit within the lot area so no setbacks are needed. Mr. Soule felt that granting this without a variance for the 25% would set a precedent. Attorney Willis questioned if they could ask for the family suite and that the family suite be made the correct size, per the bylaw? Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor or against this petition, no response. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Soule, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the Special Permit as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans be modified to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector to qualify for the 25% bylaw. 2. The premises be occupied by Bessie A. Daher. 3. The Special Permit shall expire at the time Bessie A. Daher ceases to occupy the family suite. 4. The Special Permit shall expire at the time the premises are conveyed to any person, partnership or corporation. 5. The applicant, by acceptance of the Certificate of Occupanc~ issued pursuant to the Special Permit, grants to the Building Inspector or his lawful designee the right to inspect the premises annually. (Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin) Patricia Be~le~ Special Permit - 37 Waverl¥ Road Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Attorney Willis spoke for the petitioner and said that last month the petitioner was denied a petition and they were advised to come back with a new petition. A duplex is an allowed use in an R-4 district. The construction proposed by the applicant will occur within the setback requirements of the exception provisions of the Bylaw, and will comply with the definition of a two (2) family dwell- ing under the Zoning Bylaw Section 2.34. The applicant therefore believes that the Building Inspector's determination that the construction proposed, requires a Special Permit under Section 4.122, Paragraph 14A and 18, is incorrect. Attorney Willis said that he had checked building permits issued during the last year and there have been conversions of this type in the Town, and he read some of them to the Board. Mr. Nicetta said he did not grant any permits for this type of thing. He does not feel the bylaw covers a duplex, must be attached by 75% of the wall area and be for no more than two families. An R-4 needs 12,500 sq. ft. or an exception lot, legal lot as long as you meet the setbacks. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor of this petition. Mr. Charles Foster spoke and is seriously alarmed that there are different interpretations of the bylaw. They are getting many people upset because of the strictness. An R-4 district is a two-family area and a one-family dwelling can be converted to a two-family if all the bylaws are met. Mr. Finocchiaro, brother of the petitioner, said it will not be income property, just used for the family. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was opposed to this petition and Ms. Brennan spoke saying that it was her understanding that the petitioner was going Begley - con'd Page 5 against the law and she has 42 signatures from neighbors and they are all opposed to this petition. They do not feel that the petitioner meets the conditions of the bylaw. Attorney Willis spoke for the petitioner stating that he does not feel that they need a Special Permit because they have a lawful lot and do not need any Special Permit and he does not feel they should be in front of the Board for this. He stated that the only restriction in the bylaw is that the configuration of the building be a certain way. He stressed that if the Board does not feel this way, he will ask for a Special Permit. Mr. Brennen said that no lot sizes had been discussed, and Attorney Willis and Vivenzio agreed that it is a legal lot, but is non-conforming. Mr. Finoc~hiaro said the lot is covered by Section 7.8, Paragraph 1, the lot was registered in 1874 and the law does not apply to this lot. The lot meets the requirements and this is allowed under the bylaw for a two-family dwelling in R-4. The conversion privilage is for 3-5 units. 9.1 says you can use this as anything you want in the non-conforming use. Mr. Brennan asked if he was saying that every lot in an R-4 district can be turned into a multi- family area, and Attorney Willis said yes, until this is changed by Town Meeting. At present, you can do just what you want in the R-4 district. Mr. Finocchiaro feels that Mr. Brennen is wrong because you have to have 5,000 sq. ft, a 50' frontage and side set- backs of 12' in order to comply with the bylaw. Mr. Nicetta stressed that they cannot have any adjoining land, you have to look back historically for this. Mr. Rissin said that the~ needed 20' setbacks and they are not shown on the plan. Mr. Finocchiaro stressed that this house is in line with all of the houses on the street. Attorney Willis asked if the Building Inspector was correct in saying that a Special Permit was needed for this addition because he does not feel that the petitioner does. He feels that the bylaw can be easily misinterupted and change it to your own use. Edna Bixby, an abutter, said her ~ome was built a long time before this house and ~he does not want any addition to it. It will cut off the light and the garage is much too small so where are the four (4) cars going to go? Mrs. Brennan said she does not feel that this is grandfathered in and there are some ones in Town that are offensive now and do not want any more. The parking is a definite problem and adding another house is certainly a structural change. Mr. Ficocchiaro, Jr. stressed that he feels it is alright. Irene Pawlick is opposed to this petition. Mr. Soule remarked that the purpose of the bylaw was to prevent overcrowding and asked for Attorney Willis's opinion of this. Attorney Willis said the bylaw gives the petitioner a legal right to do just what he requested and he wants the Building Inspector's decision overturned. Mr. Serio asked what the number of the house would be and Attorney Willis said that the Water Dept. would give it a number. A lengthy discussion was had on the bylaws and zoning book rules and regulations and Attorney Willis again explained the purpose of this petition. Mr. Serio said it is terrible to have two houses together, and stressed that it is not a duplex, it is two houses, and feels that we need to get to Town Meeting and have the bylaw changed. Mr. Vivenzio said that it is a legal lot but a non-conforming lot and need a Special Permit to change this to a two-family house. Attorney Willis said they do not have to come to the Board for an addition in an R-4 district. The Board discussed the legal notice and decided they would determine the Party Aggreived tonight and take the Special Permit up at the August meeting. Attorney Willis said that renovations have been start- ed on the house some time ago. The house is not the way they want it so they want to expand, so his two children can live there, and would like two units on the lot. Mr. Finocchiaro will change the house to up and down if the Board wants it. Mrs. Brennan presented a petition to the Board signed by abutters opposed to this petition. Attorney Willis said that there was a divorce in process and that is why it has taken so long. Mr. Serlo stressed that the Board votes on the legal points and not on any personal feelings and that everyone gets a fair hearing. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to take the Party Aggreived UNDER ADVISEMENT and continue the Special Permit to the August meeting.(Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin) Robert Reed Special Permit Page 6 206 Pleasant Street Legal notice read by Mr. Vivenzio. Mr. Reed spoke for himself stating that the Town needed a daycare center and it would be good for the townspeople. He said that small children are not as noisy as the older ones. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor of this petition? No response. Letter from the Building Inspector read by Mr. Vivenzio. (see file) Mr. Reed said the 1988 petition was for 58 children and the new petition is for 18-20 toddlers. Mr. Nicetta said that the buses are still parked in the yard. Mr. Reed stated that there is plenty of room for the children and only four (4) employees, so only four (4) cars involved. He feels that the 18 cars or so a day will not mean a hill of beans as far as traffic is concerned. He knows that this is a hazardous situation and this will be handled as it should be. The people of the town have a very hard time finding a place to send their children. He also stated that they have a site in Bradford and a lot of people from North Andover go to this place. One of the abutters stressed that it is avery bad spot for a daycare center because of the bank, etc. on Route 125. Ms. O'Connor asked about the parking. As it is legal to park on the street, people could park there. Thais 35 sq. ft. per child and it will be fenced in if granted. He stated that they own the property and behind the First E~ex Bank. Mr. Serio asked if anyone was in favor or this petition. Letter from Scott Stocking, former Town Planner, read by Mr. Vivenzio and from the 1988 file. Mr. Reed said that the hours would be from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. According to the State you can have a group of nine (9), so we will be having eighteen (18) children. Mr. Vivenzio said that this is about the same petition as before and the petitioner has not addressed any of the issues in the prior petition. He questioned where is the fence, the parking and the other things that are asked for in Scott Stocking's letter? He said that the petitioner had not shown the fence or the parking area, and these should be on the plans submitted. Chris Huntress, Planner, said that he would talk with Mr. Reed about the things needed and what to do. Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO THE AUGUST MEETING.(Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin). DISCUSSION - EXECUTIVE SESSION Coolidge Construction Co. At the request of Mr. Chris Huntress, Planner, the Board had a discussion on the legal aspects of the Coolidge Construction Co. suit. Mr. Vivenzio read the letter to the Board(see file), Letter sent to Mr. Huntress from the Board as follows: "Please be advised that the Board of Appeals held an Executive Session on Tuesday evening, June 13, 1989 on the above subject. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, un- animously~ to allow the Planning Board and Town Counsel to settle this matter without further involvement of the Zoning Board of Appeals." DECISION Robert Batal, Builders Boston Hill Ski Area Variance Route 114, Turnpike St. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to CONTINUE THIS petition to the August 8, 1989 meeting. Mr. Batal's attorney provided the Board with a letter extending the time limit on this hearing to August 20, 1989. Page 7 RECONSIDERATION Andrew & Irene Soucy - Variance - 485 Andover Street Attorney Scalise spoke for the petitioners stating that the petitioner wants to be able to use the second floor of the building. The dentist will not be taking the space and they are now having a problem getting someone to rent the space. Area is about 1,550 sq. ft. on first floor. The first floor is larger than the second floor, so that would mean that they would need fewer parking spaces. The other homes in the area have been changed to offices. There is sufficient area to have as many parking spaces as required. Mr. Serio asked what the property is used for? Petitioner stated it was to be a dentist office but now they are trying to find someone that would only use the first floor and they are having a problem marketing the property. Mr. Rissin said the original plan showed it as 2,400 sq. ft. and we did not want them to use the second floor. Mr. Serio said that with the new information, what Board members would reconsider it and Mr. Soule and Mr. Rissin said yes. The marketing of the property should not be our concern said Mr. Soule and Mr. Rissin stated that the petitioner would only need five (5) parking spaces and have provided more than they need. Mr. Serio asked what will happen to the land in the back, and was told that it may be used for parking . Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to RECONSIDER this petition, due to an error in the measurements of the building in the first petition. Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variances subject to the following conditions: 1. Parking for ten (10) cars be provided. 2. The garage be razed prior to a building permit being issued. 3. Ail the measurements be determinded accurate by the Building Inspector before an Occupancy Permit is issued. (Serio, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin) CONTINUED HEARING Elbridge C. Leland Party Ag§reived - 11 Marblerid~e Road Mr. Rissin reviewed the discussion of the petition from the last meeting. Letter from Town Counsel read by Mr. Vivenzio(see file). Building Inspector, Robert Nicetta stated that it is a clean operation and the work shops are in good condition. The interior and exterior are tip-top. Mr. Vivenzio suggested that a document that a machinary business was there in the 1940/50's be presented to the Board. Mr. Rissin said that it is a contract/glass glazing business and most is done on the job. Mr. Vivenzio said that if they show a business prior to 1972, that it could continseas such. The Board requested Mr. Leland to provide this information for the August meeting. Upon a motion made by Mr. Vivenzio and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, to CONTINUE this hearing to the August 8, 1989 meeting.(Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin). DECISIONS Robert J. Seideward Variance Lot 12, Coventry Estates Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted to approve the petition, the vote was as follows: In favor; Mr. Soule and Ms. O'Connor, opposed; Mr. Serio, Mr. Vivenzio and Mr. Rissin, therefore the variance was DENIED. (Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin). Page 8 IN-LAW, Inc. - Variances - 200 Sutton Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted unanimously, to GRANT the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The Sunoco sign be taken down on the side. 2. Pylor signs to be repainted or removed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. (Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, Rissin and O'Connor) Joseph Finocchiaro - Variance - Upland Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Soule and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variances as requested subject to the following condition: 1. Only a single family dwelling be built. (Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin) Albert J. Ouellette Special Permit - 155 Water Street Upon a motion made by Mr. Rissin and seconded by Ms. O'Connor, the Board voted, unanimously, ' to DENY the Special Permit as requested.(Serio, Vivenzio, Soule, O'Connor and Rissin). Patricia Be~ley Special Permit 37 WaverlY Road Mr. Vivenzio is going to write to Town Counsel for a clarification of the rules and regulations covering multi-family homes in an R-4 zone and if a Special Permit is needed for an addition to a single family home in this zone. Form for legal opinion signed by Town Manager and given to Mr. Vivenzio on June 14, 1989. The Board voted, unanimously, to CONTINUE this hearing to the August 8, 1989 meeting.(Serio, Soule, Vivenzio, O'Connor and Rissin). The next regular meeting will be Tuesday evening, August 8, 1989 in the Conference/ Library room in the Town Building. There is no meeting in the month of July. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Taylor, (Secretary