Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 10/29/07
Approved December 3, 2007
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chair, Brendan Halligan, Clerk; James Kimball, and Harold Moody.
Absent: John Bear and Angela Scieszka.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:31 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Open Space Committee: Mr. Moody reported that the Open Space Committee hosted a Fall Foliage Festival on October 21, 2007. It was a beautiful day that was enjoyed by all. He stated that the Open Space Committee is a good group of committed townspeople.
State Zoning Legislation: Mr. Moody reported that he received handouts from a recent real estate law discussion on zoning reform with Mr. Greg Bielecki as a guest speaker. Legislative reform is scheduled to be introduced by the end of the year. Among the ideas under consideration for Massachusetts communities:
§ Retracting ANRs to allow for more subdivision reviews
§ Anti-mansionization through a potential law regarding smaller lots being grandfathered, and also reducing maximum floor-to-area ratios
§ Impact fees for certain projects to compensate for adverse effects to town infrastructures.
Local Housing Partnership: Mr. Wadsworth reported that he had attended a recent Local Housing Partnership (LHP) meeting in place of Ms. Scieszka, who was unable to attend. He stated that some LHP members are advocating by-right accessory apartments without income qualification or a deed rider. Ms. Stickney noted that the LHP is considering several approaches but had not come to a consensus on how to move forward.
Annual Town Meeting (ATM) 2008: Ms. MacNab reported that the Town Manager’s office had recently distributed a memo to boards and committees regarding accelerating the schedule for public hearings for ATM warrant articles so that the Finance Committee has time to consider public hearing comments and make an informed recommendation for ATM. She suggested that this is a perfect opportunity to ask the Finance Committee why they choose to make a formal recommendation to Annual Town Meeting on articles that do not have a financial impact on the Town.
APPOINTMENT: MR. DANIEL ORWIG RE: GURNET ROAD / HUMMOCK LLC
Mr. Daniel Orwig was present as the applicant’s representative. Mr. Orwig stated that he had submitted a written request to the Town Manager to meet with Town Counsel and review legal alternatives for Gurnet Road. The Board had withheld endorsement of an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan of land for three lots at its September 24, 2007 meeting. Ms. Stickney noted that she had met with Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, today regarding the ANR plan and had not heard back from Town Counsel.
Mr. Orwig explained that of the five lots that currently exist, two have been lived in continuously. Three of the lots are not non-conforming lots. He would like the Board to sign an ANR plan with a notation that it will be up to the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine if Lot 1A and Lot 3A are buildable.
Ms. MacNab noted that it is unusual for the Town to agree to foot the bill for an applicant to obtain Town Counsel advice regarding legality of a plan. She stated that it is clear to the Board that the plan presented at the September 24, 2007 meeting did not meet ANR requirements because of frontage. Mr. Orwig noted that Lots 2A and 3A have proper frontage. Ms. MacNab noted that Lot 1A has under 200 feet of frontage and contains a structure. Mr. Wadsworth stated that the Board has spoken with Town Counsel a number of times regarding ANR lots, and state law is clear that lots containing a structure must have 200 feet of frontage.
Mr. Orwig noted that the Board had signed a previous ANR for five lots with questionable buildability. Ms. MacNab noted that those five lots were created according to a Chapter 81L exemption, and further noted that the Board does not determine buildability with ANR approvals. Mr. Orwig stated that he would follow up with Town Manager. Ms. MacNab made clear the Board’s position that Town Counsel’s advice was not warranted in this case.
INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
95 TREMONT STREET (MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING) / STANDISH LLC
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:00 PM. Mr. Halligan read the public meeting notice and correspondence list into the record:
§ Administrative Site Plan Review Application, plans and supporting documentation submitted on 9/21/07.
§ Copy of Original Special Permit issued by ZBA in 1998.
§ Planning Board recommendation to ZBA on current special permit request dated 8/27/07.
§ Public Meeting notice advertised in the Duxbury Clipper 10/10/07 & 10/17/07. Also mailed to abutters on 10/09/07.
§ Transmittal memo to Vine Associates dated 9/25/07 re: materials in need of peer review on behalf of the Town.
§ Letter from 18 residents dated 10/5/07 recommending favorable action for expanded parking.
§ Development Review Team (DRT) circulation notice for meeting 10/19/07.
§ Parking data submitted by Ann Marie Oliver received 10/18/07 for 9/17-9/28/07.
§ Also included a list of employee breakdown by practice.
§ DRT Minutes of 10/19/07.
§ Memo from P. Williams, Vine Associates dated 10/22/07 re: peer review of plans.
Present for the discussion of this proposal to expand an existing parking lot at the site of a medical building were the applicants, Dr. Scott Oliver and Ms. Ann Marie Oliver, and their representatives, Attorney David Delaney and Mr. Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering. Also present was Town Consulting Engineer, Mr. Peter Williams of Vine Associates.
Atty. Delaney presented the project, noting that the building was constructed by a special permit that was granted in 1998 to allow medical offices on the first and second floors with general office space on the third floor, with the fourth floor to be used for storage. The third floor was designated as “other professional use” to reduce the number of parking spaces required. Since the special permit was granted, the Town has adopted Administrative Site Plan Review. Administrative Site Plan Review was triggered with this application because more than ten additional parking spaces are proposed. Concurrent with this application, an amendment to the original special permit has been filed as well.
Ms. MacNab asked how many offices were presently in the building. Atty. Delaney responded that the ground floor and first floor contain office space for twelve physicians. He noted that the Zoning Bylaws still require five parking spaces per medical office. The existing site contains 111 parking spaces, which the applicants believed to be ample for their original special permit, according to the Zoning Bylaws.Ms. MacNab asked for further clarification regarding use of the building. Atty. Delaney provided a detailed response pursuant to his handout.
The proposed additional parking area would be located at the south side of the building, at the apex of the triangular-shaped lot. A net of eighteen spaces would be added, for a total of 129 parking spaces on the lot. Currently overflow parking spills onto the grassy areas. Atty. Delaney noted that the applicants have gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in August and September, with the next hearing scheduled for November 8, 2007.
Mr. Brogna then presented the site plan, stating that it was identical to the plan the Board reviewed at their August 9, 2007 meeting for a ZBA referral regarding the special permit. The lot encompasses 2.55 acres. He stated that he had met with the Planning Director, Director of Inspectional Services, and Town Manager regarding ways to augment the current parking. The proposed plan adds 24 spaces to the rear of the building, and four existing spaces will be lost in order to accommodate the required two handicap accessible spaces.
Mr. Brogna stated that the owners had unsuccessfully attempted to purchase abutting land. He stated that the current site coverage is 56.2 percent. He said that the original plan was to replace the existing asphalt on the parking area to the east of the building with gravel in order to reduce the site coverage to 49.9 percent. At a ZBA hearing discussions indicated that the asphalt may not need to be removed as it would be considered “grandfathered.” However, the site coverage is not allowed to exceed the existing 56.2 percent.
Mr. Brogna stated that the proposed material for the new parking area is pervious and designed in accordance with materials approved for Low Impact Design. The soils on site are porous and conducive to the proposed pervious parking material.
Mr. Brogna noted that DRT minutes reflect recommendations for additional signage, ways to control parking in “no parking” zones, and provisions for snow storage.
Ms. MacNab asked for input from Board members. Mr. Wadsworth asked about the employee traffic count by hour. Ms. Oliver stated that she performed the count in September, which is traditionally their busiest month, so figures would be conservative. She noted that the count includes every employee, including physicians. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the employee count was up to 85 at one point, while the original special permit anticipated only 22 spaces required for employees. He also noted that the vehicle count reached up to 141, 23 spaces more than proposed with the current application. Atty. Delaney stated that the need for that many spaces is very infrequent. Mr. Brogna noted that the applicants performed a traffic count over a ten-day period, where a traffic engineer would have provided a 24-hour traffic count.
Mr. Kimball commented that the building is a victim of its own success. He noted that the traffic count indicates that Monday and Tuesday are the busiest days, while Thursday and Friday have a lower traffic count. He suggested that the applicants consider managing schedules to even out the traffic throughout the week. He stated that employee parking is an issue, and if the building is subdivided further the problem would intensify. He recommended that other options be pursued for additional parking.
Mr. Halligan asked if it might be possible to add another ten spaces in the proposed new parking area to the rear of the building. Mr. Brogna noted that setback, landscaping, and snow removal requirements prevent this.
Ms. MacNab stated that she is not convinced that the original special permit is being complied with. She noted that the third floor was permitted for professional use but is currently used for a physical therapy practice. She noted that the attic space appears not to be in use. She requested assurance from the Zoning Enforcement Officer that the use is in compliance with the original special permit. She agreed with Mr. Kimball that employee parking is a major issue with the current application and asked if alternative remedies had been investigated. Atty. Delaney stated that the applicants had considered satellite parking for employees, but rejected the idea because of lack of control over an offsite parking location and issues with future financing.
Mr. Kimball suggested that more passive tenants, such as professional offices, might reduce the demand for parking spaces. Dr. Oliver stated that the building was constructed with no knowledge of who would rent the office space. They developed the property so that the South Shore community would have convenient access to medical facilities. He pointed out that the number of parking spaces currently complies with Zoning Bylaws even without the proposed additional parking.
Ms. MacNab asked if Mr. Brogna had any questions or comments for Mr. Peter Williams of Vine Associates, Town consulting engineer. Mr. Brogna referenced Mr. Williams’ review letter dated October 22, 2007. He noted that the requested drainage calculations will depend upon the material used on the new parking area and asked the Board for direction.
Ms. MacNab responded that the Board believes that paved parking is preferred and groundwater is best treated. Mr. Williams stated that he agrees with the Board that paved surfaces are preferred to gravel. He noted that the proposed paving system features rings that hold gravel stones within its surface. The gravel can be raked periodically, and water is absorbed quickly. The surface cannot be sanded in the winter time. He stated that the applicants need to address treatment of pollutants.
Mr. Brogna stated that the proposed material provides separation of impurities through infiltration. A three- to five-year maintenance plan will be put into place. Ms. MacNab noted that the proposed material does not meet best management practices like an impervious system with stormwater drainage would. Mr. Brogna noted that the site is not within Zone II, nor are there wetlands on the site.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that because the current parking proposal does not meet current needs, if the applicants had considered contructing a parking garage. Mr. Brogna replied that both Zoning Bylaws and the public would not allow a parking garage.
Mr. Moody asked for examples of where this type of paving system has been used, and Mr. Brogna replied that Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut uses the same materials. Mr. Moody asked about a maintenance plan, and Mr. Brogna responded that the manufacturer defers to the local engineer to design a maintenance plan. Ms. MacNab noted that the consulting engineer will be reviewing the proposed maintenance plan once in place because this is an innovative treatment. She asked if there would be any catch basins, and Mr. Brogna replied that there would not.
Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Williams about a reference in his review letter regarding Architectural Access regulations, and asked if more handicap accessible parking spaces might be required. Mr. Williams confirmed that is the case. Ms. Stickney noted that the Director of Inspectional Services is looking into the matter. Mr. Williams added that it was noted during the DRT meeting that the current loading zone/fire zone is not in compliance. Mr. Brogna noted that the loading zone is exactly as specified in the original special permit. Mr. Williams responded that the Fire Department needs access.
Mr. Kimball asked about a DRT comment regarding a way to keep vehicles from parking on grassy areas. Ms. Stickney responded that it was suggested that a split rail fence could be installed as a deterrent. Mr. Kimball reiterated his earlier comment that satellite parking should be considered, ideally an offsite location such as a church that does not require parking during the week.
Ms. Stickney asked if the proposed parking material was subject to any seasonal restrictions or changes. Mr. Brogna responded that the materials work year-round in the contiguous 48 states. Ms. Stickney noted that required manufacturer’s specifications regarding the materials need to be submitted, as well as documentation regarding the longevity of materials. Mr. Brogna responded that the proposed material is no more labor intensive than any other type of surface. Mr. Kimball commended the applicants for seeking an alternative to gravel paving. Ms. MacNab advised the applicants that she would like Mr. Williams educated thoroughly regarding how the new material would work.
Mr. Wadsworth expressed his concern that oil and gas will not be separated as they enter the soil. Mr. Brogna replied that the soil contains sand and gravel to ten to fifteen feet below the surface, which acts as infiltration. Mr. Wadsworth stated his opinion that the oil and gas will eventually seep into the groundwater. Ms. MacNab noted that it is up to the applicants to convince the Board otherwise.
Ms. MacNab invited public comment.
Ms. Ann Marie Oliver, the co-applicant, reminded the Board that the proposal for additional parking was taken on at their own initiative as a way to improve the current parking for their clients and staff. She noted that in only nine out of 140 periods of the traffic study were cars in excess of capacity, so that for ninety percent of the time they are within a 129 vehicle count. She stated that the berm could be used for overflow parking during those rare times when needed. Ms. Oliver also noted that the building is at full rental capacity with five to ten year leases, so there is no increase in traffic expected. Mr. Williams noted that the Fire Chief discourages parking on ways because the Fire Department needs access for emergency equipment.
Ms. Oliver pointed out that a building owned by Mr. Fran Doran on Tremont Street used a porous material on a parking area that was not considered part of the coverage calculations. Ms. MacNab noted that Mr. Doran’s site coverage was determined through a legal case, not through Administrative Site Plan Review.
Attorney Robert Devin introduced himself as legal counsel for Bay Farm Realty Trust, an abutter to the property. He stated his client’s objection to the proposed project, stating that his client would like to see conditions that include a viable vegetated screen to prohibit the use of the berms for parking. He noted that the setback should be respected. Ms. MacNab noted that a tree line exists in the buffer area and advised the applicants to respect their request for viable screening. Mr. Brogna agreed to review the existing screening to determine the extent of additional screening that might be required. Atty. Devin also requested a landscape plan be submitted.
Mr. Thomas Coughlin of 18 James Road stated that he had visited the medical building as a patient approximately fifty times during the past year, and he usually finds a parking space. He stated that, with this application providing at least some additional parking, a half a loaf is better than no loaf.
Dr. Joseph Zabilski of 37 Beechwood Lane introduced himself as a physician who practices in the building and also an occasional patient. He applauded the Board’s care in coming to a viable solution to resolve this application because it is of concern to the general community. He agreed with Mr. Coughlin that half a loaf is better than no loaf, and commended the applicants for proactively trying to alleviate a problem
Mr. Jackson S. Kent, Jr. of 1351 Tremont Street stated that the applicants should be commended for providing local access to medical services. He noted that the additonal spaces will help and urged the Board to expedite their decision.
Dr. Scott Oliver, the co-applicant, noted that this application provides a 93 percent solution to the anticipated parking issues. He noted that five physicians who practice in the building reside in the Town of Duxbury. He stated that the medical building provides a place for residents to work locally.
Mr. John Jordan of 51 Temple Street commended the Board for ensuring safe and adequate access and protecting environmental concerns. He recently had a broken foot and appreciates that access is important. However, he urged the Board to take the necessary steps to alleviate the parking problem at 95 Tremont, noting that the current application is a step in the right direction. Ms. MacNab agreed that pedestrian traffic needs to be addressed. Mr. Brogna stated that signage and a foot path could be added to the plans. Ms. MacNab noted that both patients and employees deserve safe access.
Mr. Brogna asked the Board for their current comfort level with the plans as submitted. Ms. MacNab stated that she is not comfortable but she will keep an open mind. The Board needs more education regarding the proposed paving materials.
Mr. Kimball asked about the original plan to remove asphalt from an existing parking lot to the east of the building and replace it with gravel. Ms. Stickney responded that the Board of Health recommended against this proposal because removing the asphalt would compromise the septic system which is located underneath that parking area. Mr. Kimball stated that he would rather see a gravel parking lot for the proposed new parking area to the south of the building, although he is willing to consider the proposed paver system if the Board can get more information about it.
Mr. Wadsworth stated that the building is too big and the parking is inadequate. The current proposed parking expansion is also inadequate to resolve the parking issue. He recommended the applicants consider off-site parking. Mr. Brogna reminded the Board that the applicants are already in compliance with their special permit even without the proposed expansion.
Mr. Halligan stated that he agrees that the Board needs more education regarding the proposed paver system. He commended the applicants for trying to improve the parking at their own intiative. He also recommended that the applicants consider off-site parking alternatives. Mr. Moody also commended the applicants for proactively addressing the parking problem. He recommended that the applicants provide more scientific evidence of the viability of the proposed pavers.
Ms. MacNab summarized that, although two Board members were not present to provide their feedback, the remaining Board members clearly have unanswered questions concerning the proposed paving system. She directed Mr. Brogna to work with Mr. Williams to resolve any issues from his peer review and the DRT meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Administrative Site Plan Review of 95 Tremont Street / Standish LLC to December 3, 2007 at 8:00 PM, with revised plans and materials due by November 19, 2007 and a decision deadline of January 4, 2008.
DISCUSSION: Atty. Delaney noted that the extension is at the applicants’ request.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND (CONTINUED): BAY ROAD, SUMMERHOUSE, SANGER, AND SPRUCE / ZERO BAY ROAD REALTY TRUST (HAMADEH)
Ms. Stickney noted that the applicant has requested an extension of this discussion in order to resolve a minor surveying issue (getting plans stamped by the surveryor).
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to continue the discussion of an ANR plan of land off Bay Road, Summerhouse Lane, Sanger Road and Spruce Lane / Zero Bay Road Realty Trust, until November 5, 2007, at the request of the applicant, with a decision deadline of November 27, 2007.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
The Board signed a mutual extension form that had already been signed by the applicant.
WORK SESSION
Annual Report: Ms. MacNab commended staff for the draft annual report, which is ready to be submitted.
Affordable Housing Bylaw: The Board reviewed the proposed Bylaw to be submitted for Annual Town Meeting 2008 regarding the ability to develop certain non-conforming lots for affordable housing. Mr. Wadsworth asked if an asset formula is included, and Ms. Stickney replied that the asset qualification would be part of the lottery prequalification process of income eligibility which is designed by the State.
Ms. MacNab asked the maximum lot size that was considered during research on this bylaw. Ms. Stickney agreed to look into the matter. Mr. Wadsworth recommended a maximum lot size of 30,000 square feet. Ms. MacNab asked why not consider a 40,000 square foot maximum. Ms. Stickney noted that a formula exists. Mr. Halligan submitted revisions that cleared up some definitions that had not matched with other sections of the Zoning Bylaw. It was agreed to continue discussion on this topic at the next Board meeting.
Annual Town Meeting Warrant Articles:
§ Section 410.6 - Accessory Apartment Special Permit Regulations and Restrictions: Ms. Stickney noted that Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) may consider adding detached structures to the existing accessory apartment by special permit, as a result of the Local Housing Partnership (LHP) asking for their input. Ms. MacNab noted that, with the potential impact to abutters, a special permit should be required.
§ Section 560.6 (3) – Provisions Applicable to Affordable Housing Units on- and Off-Site Inclusionary Housing: Ms. Stickney noted a proposed change for the timing of cash payment in lieu of affordable housing for developments, to require partial payment with the initial building permit.
§ Section 615 – Administrative Site Plan Review: Ms. MacNab stated that she prefers to see this Bylaw remain intact if possible. Mr. Halligan noted that it would be helpful to determine if other towns with Administrative Site Plan Review have separated exempt uses.
Ms. MacNab recommended that the process be revised so that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approves the use before coming to the Planning Board for site plan review. Mr. Halligan agreed with this recommendation. Ms. Stickney noted that, in the case of Sun Tavern, it helped to have the process go this way. The applicants went before the ZBA to amend their special permit to expand their restaurant business to include a reception room. The ZBA denied this amendment so site plan review was never needed. Ms. MacNab noted that the Bylaw should leave some flexibility to allow for tandem review for some cases. She stated that the Planning Board would look to the ZBA to narrow down proposed uses with the applicant.
§ Section 906.5 (A) – Application Requirements and Determinants for Special Permits from the Board of Appeals: Mr. Halligan requested that the bylaws be amended to add the word “registered” in reference to a land surveyor preparing plans.
Other Proposed Bylaw Changes: Ms. Stickney reminded the Board that three Zoning Bylaw amendments that did not pass at the 2007 Annual Town Meeting may be reconsidered. Conservation Administrator, Mr. Joseph Grady, would like to see an amendment proposed to consider projections as part of lot coverage calculations. Ms. MacNab requested staff to send a memo to the ZBA to determine their interest in pursuing potential amendments regarding building height and building coverage.
Ms. Stickney noted that the Planning Board will once again sponsor the continuation of the GIS revolving account that is required to go before Town Meeting annually. In addition, the LHP may propose the creation of Affordable Housing Trust; the Board will be reviewing this at an upcoming meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mainstream Engineering Invoice:
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to approve payment of Mainstream Engineering invoice #21030 dated October 18, 2007 in the amount of $232.00 for services related to Ingall’s Grove.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Meeting Minutes: It was agreed to postpone approval of meeting minutes from a September 24, 2007 Executive Session.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of October 15, 2007 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Duxbury Farms: Ms. MacNab advised the Board that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met with the applicants on Thursday, October 11, 2007, against the advice of Town Counsel, regarding this Chapter 40B comprehensive permit. The ZBA advised the applicant at that meeting that the Planning Board would review subdivision plans within thirty days. Despite the applicants’ objections, they did submit plans to the Planning office the next day. The Planning Board will be reviewing Subdivision Rules and Regulations that were not waived in the Zoning Board’s comprehensive permit decision.
Ms. MacNab noted that review of unwaived Subdivision Rules and Regulations will require time for a peer review by a consulting engineer. She also requested that Town Counsel or his representative attend the Planning Board meeting at which the plans are reviewed. After conferring with staff, the Board agreed that $5,000.00 should be requested from the applicant for peer review, and also agreed that Town Counsel representation should be present at any Planning Board subdivision review for this project.
Ms. Stickney reported that the ZBA’s consulting engineer, Mr. Thomas Sexton of Mainstream Engineering, had advised her that he had conducted peer review on behalf of the Taunton Watershed in a case against the developer. Although Mr. Sexton did not perceive this as a conflict of interest, Board members agreed to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest by engaging an alternative peer review. The Board agreed to direct staff to determine if Amory Engineers could perform the review.
Ms. Stickney reminded the Board that Town Counsel has advised that Planning Board review should follow a process similar to the An-Co decision. There will be no Subdivision application, filing fee, public hearing notice, or abutter notification. The An-Co case was a Housing Appeals decision.
Ms. MacNab reported that when Ms. Stickney emailed a request to Atty. Shelmerdine for escrow funds, she received a response to this request not from Mr. Shelmerdine but from Mr. James Lampert, chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. MacNab noted that it appears that ZBA members may have communicated with the applicant outside a public hearing.
Ms. Stickney stated that she received a call on October 26, 2007 from the applicant’s attorney, Robert Shelmerdine, who then submitted two copies of full-sized plans (29 sheets each) along with a copy of the original comprehensive permit and the amended permit. She will contact Amory Engineers to find out if they are available for peer review. She also noted that she has made an initial inquiry with Town Manager regarding Town Counsel presence at a future Planning Board meeting for this project. Ms. MacNab noted that Town Counsel’s availability will determine the Planning Board meeting date for this agenda item.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Monday, November 5, 2007 at 7:30 PM in Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
