I.            NEW BUSINESS:

A.     The application of Kim White, Applicant and Owner of property located at 82 Sodom Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 49, Block 4, Lot 37; a request for a special use permit under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.10, B. for the proposed use of a kennel, class 2.

Chair Richard Booth introduced this petition and asked who was present to speak.  Kim White stepped forward and was sworn in.  Ms. White explained that she pet sits for dogs and has a horse farm on her property that she has owned for almost 30 years which consists of 16.62 acres of land.  She stated that she has been pet sitting for the past few years and did not know she needed special permission from the Town until recently.  She then came to the Town Hall to obtain the information required to apply for this special use permit (SUP).  Ms. White explained that she does not do “daycare;” she uses the website “Rover” for bookings that are typically for a week at a time and that she usually just boards 4-5 dogs.  During the busy season, holidays and vacations, she may have up to 7-8 dogs.  These dogs are kept inside her home; not outside in a dog kennel.  Ms. White stated she does have a fenced in area outside for the dogs to run, but she does not leave them outside unattended and has no intention of building any kennel or additional out buildings for her dog sitting.  Her barn/out buildings are for the horses only.

The Board members each proceeded to ask questions of the applicant.  The Chair then asked if there was anyone from the public who wanted to speak.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

1.      Paul Ward, of 94 Sodom Trail, stepped forward and was sworn in.  Mr. Ward stated that he and his wife are direct abutters of Kim White, and to date, they have not had any concerns.  However, when he learned that Ms. White was on the website “Rover,” he went onto the site and saw that she currently has 90 reviews and concluded that she must have been pet sitting for a lot of customers.  He then read something he found on-line (via Chat GPT) pertaining to what dog kennel licenses typically allow as follows: “to operate a facility where multiple dogs are kept, bred, boarded, trained or groomed.”  He is concerned that this opens the door and could become obnoxious; and they do not need this in the neighborhood.  Mr. Ward went on to state that Sodom Trail is a private road that is owner maintained; not Town maintained.  He then spoke about Ms. White boarding horses as well and that she has two horses outside in a pen, closer to his house than hers, and feels bad that they are outside all day/all winter long.  Mr. Ward also stated that he just doesn’t get the sense that all the rules are followed and does not agree with this permit/license request.

2.      Angela Aurelio, of 58 West Shore Drive, stepped forward and was sworn in.  Ms. Aurelio stated she is not an abutter but is testifying as a character witness for Ms. White and shared that she has boarded her own horse and dog with Kim White over the years.  Ms. Aurelio stated that Kim Whites skills with animals is “above and beyond” and shared that she takes excellent care of all the animals in her care.

At this time, The Chair asked the Solicitor if the Board could set restrictions as part of a special use permit.  Solicitor Ruggiero replied in the affirmative stating that the Board can set conditions and restrictions that they believe are in the best interest of the neighbors.

3.      Kathleen Ward-Bowen, of 106 Sodom Trail, stepped forward and was sworn in. Ms. Bowen stated that she and her husband are abutters to Ms. White’s property.  She shared that Kim has been a good neighbor and no one has had any problems with her boarding dogs or horses.  However, she stated that her and her husband are concerned that this has now become a business which is not allowed in a residential zone.  Ms. Bowen is also concerned with the traffic on what is a narrow road.  Her other concern is if Ms. White is granted the SUP that it will run with the property, even if she decides to sell the property.  Chairman Booth stated they can place a restriction on this.

4.      Asa Davis, of 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, stepped forward and was sworn in.  Mr. Davis asked Ms. White questions about being on “Rover” and did a quick calculation that over the five-year period of her being on this website, she averages about 14 visits a year, which comes out to about 15-20% of the year she has one customer.  He stated he wouldn’t consider that a lot of traffic but the Board may want to consider restricting the annual volume which would keep the business at the size it is today.

5.      Colleen Jordan, address unknown, stepped forward and was sworn in.  Ms. Jordan stated that she is a friend of Kim White and boards her dog with her.  She feels that the relevant question before the Board is what Ms. White is able to do on her property, adding that she could have 16 horses on her land, and be giving riding lessons every day which would create a lot more traffic than what her pet sitting generates.  She could also be building several houses on her land.  Ms. Jordan also shared that Kim loves animals like they are her children, loves living in Exeter and loves her land. She stated that Kim does not want to do anything to disrupt the quiet enjoyment around her, and in fact, is trying to find a way to make a living off her land in the least disruptive way.

6.      Stephen Domenicone, of 93 Sodom Trail, stepped forward and was sworn in.  Mr. Domenicone is an abutter to Ms. Whites property and shared that there have been no issues at her property to date.  However, he is concerned, that there is the possibility of dogs getting loose and attacking/fighting with his dogs; as well as noise/barking.  Alternate Board Member, Susan Franco-Towell asked Mr. Domenicone if there have been any issues there since 2019; Mr. Domenicone replied no, there have not.

7.      Carl Knott, 219-B Hallville Road, stepped forward and was sworn in.  Mr. Knott voiced that he has no concerns with what Kim is asking for and feels that she is wonderful with the animals in her care.

Kim White asked to submit a letter to the Board.  Chair Richard Booth accepted it from the applicant and entered into the record as exhibit A; a letter from Christine Venditti of 219A Hallville Road (an abutter to the applicant).

Board member, Loren Andrews asked to clarify some points with Ms. White about her operating this business since 2019; that she recently learned a special use permit was required.  Also, that up to this point, there have not been any issues or complaints that she is aware of.  In addition, Ms. White agrees to modifications of the SUP to limit her to continue with operating the way she has up to now, and will not expand into a traditional “kennel business.”  Ms. White stated she is willing to allow an amendment indicating that she will not build a kennel or new structure.

Chair Richard Booth asked for a motion to close the public hearing.  Loren Andrews made the motion; Tom McMillan seconded the motion.  The vote was all in favor.  The public hearing was closed.

At this time, the Board deliberated and discussed some of the publics concerns and their ability to place restrictions on the special use permit, to appease these concerns.  A question was raised about the exact definition of a class II kennel.

Zoning Official, Hal Morgan stepped forward and was sworn in.  Chair Richard Booth asked Mr. Morgan if he would explain what a class II kennel license is defined as.  Mr. Morgan stated that a class II license allows up to 4-10 dogs.  If this special use permit is approved by the Board this evening, the applicant will then have to go before the Town Council to pull a license, which requires advertisement and sending to notice to abutters within a 300-foot radius.  This hearing is only the first step in the approval process.  Mr. Morgan also stated to clarify that the special use permit runs with the property and the license does not.  He then referred to the Solicitor to verification; Solicitor Ruggiero stated that the special use runs with the land and the license is personal.  Susan Franco-Towell then asked the Solicitor if the Board can restrict the SUP so it does not run with the land.  The Solicitor stated yes, you can have “sunset.”

Chair Richard Booth and the Board began to review the following restrictions that the Board is considering to place upon the SUP: limit to no additional structures (without ZBR approval), SUP will be “sunseted” upon transfer of title of the property, limit to boarding only (no breeding, training or grooming). 

The Chair asked for a motion; Loren Andrews made a motion regarding the application of Kim White, Applicant and Owner of property located at 82 Sodom Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 49, Block 4, Lot 37; moves to approve the request for a special use permit under Zoning Ordinance Article II, Section 2.4.1.10, B. for the proposed use of a kennel, class 2 with the following restrictions: no additional structures without approval; the activity will be limited to boarding only; and the special use permit will dissolve with the title transfer of the property from the current land owner.  Richard Quattromani seconded the motion.  A vote was taken and was all in favor.  The motion passed 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews and Sovet).

II.            NEW BUSINESS/APPEALS:

A.      Asa S. Davis III, Applicant and Owner of property located at 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 77, Block 6, Lot 24.  Grounds for the appeal is based on the failure of the Zoning Inspector to fill his responsibilities per State Statute 45-24-54, Section 608 (b) of the Town Charter, and Appendix A.I. 1.6.A of the Town Ordinances, regarding the issuance of two zoning certificates and enforcement on two zoning complaints.  The applicant is also appealing fees and costs charged to prosecute this appeal.

For the record, alternate Board member, Susan Franco-Towell recused herself from this appeal. 

Chair Richard Booth introduced this appeal; Asa Davis stepped forward and was sworn in. The Chair asked Mr. Davis to give the Board a brief overview.  Ms. Davis began to read his prepared statement and spoke to a case back in 2019 when Ashley Sweet was the Town Planner and he was declined a refund a portion of a $30,050.99 charged for his master plan application.   Mr. Davis then thanked Peter Ruggiero for his comments made to the Planning Board about excessive fees being considered an illegal tax, as he believes this played a role in him being reimbursed by the Town recently.  Chairman Booth noted that the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction over refunding or reducing any fees. 

Mr. Davis then spoke about a few recent ethics cases that have been filed in Town, as well as a couple of other cases that have been filed with the Attorney General’s office. The Chair then asked the applicant to please stay on point.  Mr. Davis stated that he does not have a good track record coming before the Zoning Board and shared that he is batting zero, so does not expect this case to be any different.  He stated he wants to establish some facts and history which will be relevant to the court cases that might follow.  He continued, by both State law and Town ordinance, the Zoning Inspector is required to issue a zoning certificate, whether it is conforming or non-conforming, it is his job to issue that certificate.  When he doesn’t, he fails his basic responsibility.  The zoning certificate needs to be issued within a certain number of days, and there are consequences when this doesn’t happen.  Mr. Morgans delays have created consequences for both him and the Town. Mr. Davis then reviewed the first issue regarding house rentals, and feels that Mr. Morgan has been forcing home rentals into a different use of bed and breakfast, which is defined and taxed differently by State law. Mr. Davis stated that he has filed multiple requests for zoning certificates beginning on January 11, 2024; he never received one and still has not. He stated that Mr. Morgan did send him an email stating four areas that violate the zoning code, which Mr. Davis does not agree with, but continued that a zoning certificate should specify what is violated so he can appeal it. This was five months ago.  Since then, Mr. Davis stated that he rented his house; paid the State and Town taxes.  The only difference in what he did and the others that were issued cited, is that he did not advertise on Airbnb.  Otherwise, it is the exact same use. Mr. Davis then began to review the Solicity project and Solicitor Ruggiero interrupted the applicant and asked the Chairman to have the applicant stay on the first appeal and not go to the second appeal yet. 

At this time, the Chair asked Mr. Davis to stop his presentation and addressed Mr. Morgan and asked if there was a reason we couldn’t issue him a zoning certificate.  Mr. Morgan stepped forward and stated that Mr. Davis would have to clarify what he intends to do; that in the correspondence he sent to Zoning Inspector, Mr. Davis was vague stating that he may rent long or short term, with or without contract, and that he may or may not advertise on Airbnb.  Mr. Morgan stated that he did respond to Mr. Davis asking for clarification and that Mr. Davis did not respond back to him.

Chair Richard Booth asked Mr. Morgan if he would issue Mr. Davis a zoning certificate for a short-term rental, stating whether he can do that or not.  Mr. Morgan stated if he declares that he is applying for a special use permit for a B&B, I would issue one stating that he would have to come before the Zoning Board for a SUP.  If Mr. Davis says that he is going to operate as a short-term rental, he would give him a zoning certificate stating that it is not allowed.  Mr. Morgan then stated that the answer is yes, but in neither case would it be positive.

The Chair asked if we could do this.  Mr. Davis stated if the Zoning Inspector would issue him a ZC for a short-term rental stating that it is not allowed, that would be sufficient for what he’s asked for; he’s been waiting for 5 months for this.  Further discussion ensued.  In conclusion, the parties agreed if a zoning certificate could be issued within the next 2-3 weeks, there would be no reason to continue the appeal to the July meeting.  Solicitor Ruggiero then recommended that we schedule a continuance for the July 11, 2024 meeting and can always cancel if not necessary. The Board members and Mr. Davis agreed with this plan.

Board member, Loren Andrews then moved in the case of Asa S. Davis III, Applicant and Owner of property located at 146 Beechwood Hill Trail, Exeter, RI; Zoned RE-2 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 77, Block 6, Lot 24; a motion for a continuance of this appeal to Thursday, July 11, 2024 Zoning Board of Review meeting.  Richard Quattromani seconded the motion; the vote taken was all in favor.  The motion passed 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews, Sovet).

B.      Asa S. Davis III, Applicant and Owner of property located and listed as follows: 0 Ten Rod Road/740 Ten Rod Road/0 Estate Drive/50 Estate Drive/85A Hallville Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 2.  Grounds for the appeal is based on the failure of the Zoning Inspector to fill his responsibilities per State Statute 45-24-54, Section 608 (b) of the Town Charter, and Appendix A.I. 1.6.A of the Town Ordinances, regarding the issuance of two zoning certificates and enforcement on two zoning complaints. The applicant is also appealing fees and costs charged to prosecute this appeal.

Chair Richard Booth introduced this next appeal. The Chair then asked the same question of Mr.

Morgan, “Is there a reason for not issuing Mr. Davis a Zoning Certificated for these properties?” Mr. Morgan, replied yes. The Chair then asked why that would be? Inspector Morgan stepped forward and stated prior to answering, that he wanted it noted with regard to the second issue on the agenda, for the record, with the understanding that the clerk had to file a notice for the meeting and had to create the agenda the way she did, because she was given what she was given, but he objected to the use of Estate Drive as an address for this property. He stated that both the Superior and Supreme Courts have said that Mr. Davis does not have access to that property from Estate Drive. He said that he asked Mr. Davis, when he submitted his zoning certificate, what the size of the proposed solar field was, that Exeter’s ordinance depends on the size; small, medium, large, etc. for utility scale. Mr. Morgan noted that Mr. Davis just replied that the solar field will take between 0 OMG and 20 sq. acres, 5 megawatts as proposed. Mr. Morgan stated that this was a wide variation and that they never got into a discussion about the access for the low-income housing on Estate Drive. Mr. Morgan stated that he told Mr. Davis what he needed to do in order to perhaps gain access from Estate Drive.

Asa Davis then spoke from his prepared statement referencing his “Solicity” project as a conceptual development aimed at providing renewable energy and affordable housing, both key Town and State roles. Mr. Davis stated that it would be built and run by a nonprofit. He indicated that once the preapplication meeting was completed he requested a zoning certificate from Mr. Morgan, a requirement as the next step in the comprehensive permit process. That the zoning certificate was requested on January 11, 2024, followed by repeated follow-ups, and that he had not received the necessary zoning certificate. Mr. Davis stated that his application could not be certified complete without the required zoning certificate, that Mr. Morgan’s delay has prevented him from submitting a completed application. 

Mr. Davis also noted that a number of circumstances had changed since the submission of his original application, which changed and jeopardized his proposal. He noted that the Town had cleared a 10 percent threshold for LMI housing, using a changed definition which now includes group home beds and that this increased the number of steps required for the “Solicity” Project comprehensive permit process, significantly. Secondly, he indicated, since the time of his original request for a zoning certificate to present, a new comprehensive plan was adopted which included more hurdles and restrictions for his proposal. That because of Mr. Morgan’s delay his project will require more costs and lower chances of approval. He indicated that this was a Federal and State Constitutional violation of due process and is illegal by State and local law.

Mr. Davis then stated, that when he was asked about the size of the project, Mr. Davis told Mr. Morgan, it would be 5 megawatts, pretty much 20 acres, and would be smaller and take up less space.  He also noted that in another part of his proposal he had indicated that if the solar could not be ground mounted it would be placed on the roofs of the houses. He felt that, that decision would be part of the Planning Board process. Mr. Davis felt he should have been able to receive a zoning certificate, even if it says nonconforming, allowing him to proceed with his application.

Chairman Booth then asked Mr. Morgan if he could issue a zoning certificate with clarified information. Mr. Morgan indicated that they do not rate solar fields on their output, we rate them on area. Chairman Booth asked Mr. Morgan if Mr. Davis was to provide him with an area of the solar panels, could you issue him a zoning certificate? Mr. Morgan replied, yes, if he gives him specific information. That he would need the space between the panels, the space for the equipment and space inside the fence, as defined in the ordinance. Chairman Booth then said, you would need a site plan?  Mr. Morgan indicated that Mr. Davis had submitted a site plan, but that he could not tell him what the area was on the site plan. Mr. Davis then indicated 43,560 feet, 20 acres, including the inner spacing and the area inside the fence, provided to Mr. Morgan on January 26th and again on January 27^th. Chairman Booth asked Mr. Morgan, again, if he could issue a zoning certificate based on Mr. Davis’s information? Mr. Morgan indicated, no.

Chairman Booth asked what was needed? Mr. Morgan needed something more than his response, that he needed specific information and that had not been provided by Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis indicated that the comprehensive permit application allows combination of uses through the Planning Board, that he needed a zoning certificate, even if it says nonconforming, that he needed it months ago, in order to certify his application complete. Chairman Booth asked Mr. Morgan if there was a reason why Mr. Davis couldn’t have two zoning certificates. Mr. Davis indicated that he didn’t care if he had two zoning certificates, if Mr. Morgan plans to issue them that way. Mr. Davis noted that his comprehensive permit is a single application and does not need two zoning certificates, but did not have a problem with Mr. Morgan issuing them separately. Chairman Booth asked Mr. Davis to provide Mr. Morgan with an enumerated list of required information for the solar field. Mr. Davis stated that he had already given Mr. Morgan the required information. Chairman Booth asked if it was definitive? Mr. Davis felt he had completed the necessary information as required on January 11, 2024 for a zoning certificate. Mr. Morgan stated he will issue a zoning certificate based on accurate information regarding the gross area of the solar facility.  Mr. Davis indicated that it would in compass 873,000 sq. ft.

Discussion moved to the LMI housing project portion of the application and the need for more specific information. Mr. Morgan indicated that the information based on Estate Drive was determined in both Superior and Supreme Courts that there was not legal frontage on Estate Drive. That when he has access on Estate Drive, we will deal with the zoning process.

Solicitor Ruggiero was asked what were the next steps? Mr. Morgan asked if he should be giving zoning certificates for hypotheticals? Solicitor Ruggiero indicated that Mr. Morgan could give Mr. Davis an answer regarding his request for a zoning certificate. Mr. Davis stated that by State and Town law he is required to issue a zoning certificate. Mr. Morgan stated that by State and Town law, all he is required to do is respond withing 15 days, which he had done in both instances.

Mr. Morgan indicated that he would issue a non-conforming zoning certificate, because there is no access on Estate Drive. Solicitor Ruggiero noted that by law, a certificate or required information has to be provided, that there is no question about that. He continued, the only question is if the Zoning Official will issue a certificate or the Zoning Board will issue it. That a reply is needed, that’s all. There is no content regulation that is required, and once the reply is issued, case law is very clear and it is not an appealable action, even if you disagree with the response.

Solicitor Ruggiero indicated that the requirement is to issue a response, which could be that the information is incomplete and more information is needed. Solicitor Ruggiero noted that there is clearly a disagreement here and the only remedy is, the Inspector issues a certificate or reply, or the Board does. Some sort of reply has to be issued.

Mr. Morgan indicated that he would issue a certificate for the housing development, if he gets the necessary information, within the next 2-3 weeks.

Zoning Board member Loren Andrews made a motion for a continuance in this case of Asa Davis, Applicant and Owner of property located and listed as follows: 0 Ten Rod Road/740 Ten Rod Road/0 Estate Drive/50 Estate Drive/85A Hallville Road, Exeter, RI; Zoned RU-4 and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 36, Block 2, Lot 2, to the July 11, 2024 Zoning Board meeting. Richard Quattromani seconded the motion. A vote was taken and was all in favor,

5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews and Sovet).  The motion passed.

Chairman Booth indicated that if the certificate(s) has been issued then we will close these two issues as resolved, and will not need to continue to the July meeting.

Continued under IV (B):

Solicitor Ruggiero stated that Mr. Davis had filed two zoning complaints alleging that Mr. Morgan had not done his job in enforcing his complaints. Both have been filed and are part of this appeal. This was for the two lots at the end of Estate Drive, Lots 13 and 14. The Solicitor stated that the first matter, because Mr. Davis does not own this property, he had to establish standing. Mr. Davis needed to articulate facts on how he was aggrieved in order to prove standing, and then the Board would make a determination, once that determination is made, then the Board could take up the actual complaint that Mr. Davis had filed with the Board.

Asa Davis then addressed statements made by Mr. Morgan with regards to the access at the end of Estate Drive. He noted that there was a court case that was dismissed due to his failure to pursue administrative remedies. He understood that to mean that before he could file lawsuits against the Town, he should have tried the three or four ordinances provided by the Town. He felt he has tried all of the suggested remedies proposed, but was unsuccessful on any of the options recommended.  He has indicated that the Town is trying to take away his access and use of his property, while simultaneously granting it to the abutters.  The Town is trying to force the burden of paving that entire area (280 ft.) to bring it up to Town standards, which makes no sense to him, as the abutters will gain street legal frontage which they don’t have now.  This is why he believes he has standing.  Mr. Davis continued his presentation regarding Estate Drive and provided exhibits. 

Mr. Davis presented the following Exhibits:

Exhibit A: Robidoux vs. Pelletier Map

Chair Richard Booth asked if this falls under the Board’s jurisdiction.  Solicitor Ruggiero concluded that in the end, even if Mr. Davis proves standing, it is a legal problem going forward. The Zoning Board has no jurisdiction over whether or not the Zoning Inspector enforces a complaint filed against him. Solicitor Ruggiero indicated to the Board, that they do not have the authority to direct the Zoning Inspector to enforce a complaint. That there is no remedy available, even if Mr. Davis files these appeals. Mr. Davis would have to seek other venues if he feels there is an actionable item. The Zoning Board does not have this authority.

Mr. Davis is asking for a solution. He also provided additional documents to the Board as follows.

Exhibit B:  C.A. No.: WC-2023-0139 -- Asa S. Davis, III, vs Wood Estates, Inc. and its final shareholders if defunct; John Assalone; the Town of Exeter; Mark and Rosemary Iannuccilli; Martina Baligian as Trustee; Michael Perras; Gregory and Stephanie Cyr; Stephen and Sandra Carroll; Anthony and Nancy Caliri; Marc St. Jean; Matthew and Jaqueline Mears; Mark Driscoll; Adrian Lim; Abraham Montufar; and Rosamond Fisher as Trustee, Defendants.

Exhibit C:  C.A. No.: WC-2019-0228 – Asa S. Davis, III vs. Town of Exeter; Martina E. Baligian a/k/a Martina E. McKenna, or her Successor, Trustee of the Living Trust Agreement of Martina E. Baligian-1966, as the same amended, Mark R. Iannuccilli and Rosemary J. Iannuccilli, Defendants.

Exhibit D:  C.A. No.: WC-2024-0136, Land Use Calendar – Asa S. Davis, III vs. Town of Exeter; Maia Lawler, in her capacity as Treasurer of the Town of Exeter; Town of Exeter Planning Board; Scott Millar, in his capacity as Chairman of the Town of Exeter Planning Board; Michael DeFrancesco, in his capacity as Vice-Chair of the Town of Exeter Planning Board; William Haas, in his capacity as Member of the Town of Exeter Planning Board; Joseph St. Lawrence, in his capacity as Member of the Town of Exeter Planning Board; Gina Thurn, in her capacity as Member of the Town of Exeter Planning Board; Michael Viveiros, in his capacity as Member of the Town of Exeter Planning Board; donna DiDonato, in her capacity as Member of the Town of Exeter Planning Board, Defendants.  

Exhibit E: Map 273 Review

Mr. Davis presented each of his Exhibits to the Board in his attempt to clarify his standing with regards to Estate Drive.

Inspector Hal Morgan asked to submit documentation to the Board.

Exhibit F: February 3, 2003 – Regular Town Council Meeting, 2 Pages – Page 2, No. 10 Unfinished Business.  Some further discussion ensued regarding the peer review process, or lack thereof.

Chair Richard Booth made a motion to close the Public Hearing; Tom McMillan seconded the motion.  All in favor, the motion passed 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews, and Sovet).

Loren Andrews then made a motion regarding the two zoning complaints made by Asa Davis, III, he moved that the Zoning Board deny the appeal on complaints, on the advice of counsel, that the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction in this matter. Tom McMillan seconded the motion.  A vote was taken and was all in favor, 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews, Sovet).  The motion passed.

C.     Discussion and/or Possible Action: Change in Start Time for Zoning Board Meetings.

Chairman Booth asked for feedback on this suggested change. The meeting time would change to 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., with no more testimony taken after 10 p.m.  The Board discussed briefly and agreed to the change.

A motion was made by Loren Andrews to change the Zoning Board of Review meeting hours to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end no later than 10:00 p.m., at which time no more testimony will be taken; seconded by Tom McMillian. A vote was taken and was all in favor 5-0 (Booth, McMillan, Quattromani, Andrews, and Sovet).  The motion passed.

III.            ADMINISTRATIVE: