Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> Mr. Boyd stated that they had extended the closing date and the homeowner planned <br /> to use it,as a second home. He didn't think there should be an occupancy issue. H <br /> knew that they would have to do the repaving of the driveway and the re-sodding of. <br /> the grass. <br /> Mr, Harrington was more concerned with the structural changes to the house. <br /> Mr. Boyd told the board to advise therm as to what they granted and they would do it. <br /> Ms. harden stated that what usually happened was that they hold the certificate of <br /> compliance. They could not pass papers until they had that in their harms, <br /> Mr. Boyd understood what she was saying. <br /> Mr. Ball made a-motion to grant the one-Moot variance to groundwater with the <br /> stipulation that the certificate of compliance was withheld until the alterations were <br /> made in the home as presented tonight. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion <br /> passed. <br /> Ms warden added that there had to be a six-foot entranceway between the bedrooms <br /> P <br /> n the apartment in the living. Both bedrooms would be opened up to six feet. The <br /> bonus room on the second level would have a six-foot knee-wall or railing. <br /> OLD BUSINESS <br /> A. Deer Crossing Septic System F eyiew C rbo's, Gi vanni's, 1 Michelle's, Subwa y <br /> 2005 Food Fcrrnits <br /> Ms. Grady began by stating that they tentatively had ideas in mind on how they <br /> wanted to handle the Title V regulations as far as seating goes. They thought they <br /> would throw out to there in detail what they were looking at. Then they could ask <br /> therm questions,.but, they were not going to take any formal votes. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that it would be next Thursday night.that they would hold a <br /> special session with the town counsel at 2:00 PM in the afternoon. He continued by <br /> stating that the way it was left at the last meeting was that counsel wanted him to g <br /> through each unit and find out Title v flows for each ofthe buildings. He wanted him <br /> to see if there 'was any other action that could be taken through violations and <br /> compliance oriust the overall design flow for the property on a unit-by-unit basis. He <br /> did that. The thrust ofhis research was for Building A and Buildings D because the <br /> original design flows and the entire property was built out as a retail and office <br /> facility. There were restaurant seats that were on the original design flow for Building <br /> A. But, there were not for the other buildings as far as the original design flows. So <br /> Buildings C, E, and D right now had retail and office. Building B did have a proposed <br /> innovative alternative system because it was over 600 GPD. Buildings C and E had <br /> 18 <br />