Planning Board
September 21, 2010
Approved November 2, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Members; Ron Williams, Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Russell Smith, Alternates; Ken McWilliams, Advisor; Jim Powell, ex-officio member.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Mr. Vannatta requested that the Board review the minutes at the end of the meeting. The Board agreed.
CASE: Case 2010-008: Conceptual Site Plan Review- Julianne Morancy. 938-5550. 206 Village Road. Map/Lot 043-363-081.
Ms. Morancy presented to the Board. She said her property contains her house and a separate building that was a day care center for two and a half years. She said the 1,000 square foot building is currently empty and she would like to open a retail shop featuring her clothing designs and upscale resale clothing and jewelry. She said much of the business will be done online but there will be customers visiting the building.
She presented a survey of the property that shows parking spaces for eight to ten cars.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the number of parking spaces was established when the building was used as a day care center. She said the parking lot has remained the same.
Mr. Vannatta asked if she was requesting a change of use for the building. Ms. Morancy said yes, adding that nothing in the building has changed since its original use.
There was discussion about whether the proposed business is a home occupation or a retail business. Mr. Weiler asked how many employees will be involved in the new business. Ms. Morancy said she will be the only employee.
Mr. McWilliams said the proposed business is defined as a cottage industry. Ms. Morancy indicated that her property is in the commercial/residential district and that she went through a site plan review prior to opening the day care center.
There was discussion concerning whether another site plan review was needed for the proposed new business.
The Board determined that a site plan review was not needed for Ms. Morancy’s request for a change of use and that a copy of the minutes stating the same should be put into the property file as a record.
Mr. Vannatta appointed Mr. Williams and Mr. Geddes as voting members for this meeting.
Mr. Weiler moved that the site plan submitted be noted that a change of use has been requested and should be granted to a cottage industry for retail. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. McWilliams told Ms. Morancy that a sign permit is required from the Code Enforcement Officer.
CASE: Case 2010-006: Conceptual Subdivision- Diane Heller. 763-2902. Rollins Road. Map/Lot 030-666-76.
Diane Heller (Ms. Heller) presented to the Board on behalf of her mother, Rheta L. Heller. Ms. Heller said she wants to apply for a minor subdivision on Rollins Road. She said the proposed subdivided lot is 12.1 acres, follows old stone walls, has a gentle slope, good drainage, and uses existing intersections as the property boundaries. Ms. Heller noted that the property’s road frontage on Rollins Road is 1600 feet and over 1200 feet on Route 103-A. She also cited two waiver requests.
Mr. Weiler questioned whether the Board should consider waiver requests at the conceptual stage. Mr. McWilliams said Ms. Heller needs to know from the Board what to include in her final application and therefore needs the Board’s input concerning her waiver requests.
Ms. Heller reviewed with the Board the following waiver requests:
Waiver Request: To use the USGS figures for the original 71.9 acre parcel, the Heller Tree Farm.
Mr. McWilliams referred to Section 9.5 Topographic Map of the Newbury Subdivision Regulations which calls for two foot contours when the slope is between 1% and 15%. Additionally, he cited the following: “… The Planning Board at its discretion may permit interpolations of USGS maps for instances where the remainder of a subdivision tract encompasses a large area where accurate contour mapping is not critical.”
Mr. McWilliams indicated that the above applies to the 71.9 acres noted in the waiver request. He added that detailed topography for that area would be required if further subdivision is requested in the future.
Mr. Weiler asked if the 71.9 acres represents the entire parcel before subdivision. Ms. Heller said yes.
Mr. Weiler asked if the requested 12.1 acre lot will show two foot contours. Ms. Heller said if that is the Board’s request then that’s what will be done.
Mr. McWilliams referred the Board to the letter from ALW Surveys, Grantham, NH, dated September 20, 2010, which reads in part, “U.S.G.S. topography used for the overall parcel was verified by onsite GPS measurements at key locations. The topography of the Proposed Lot B was arrived at by onground measurements and based on U.S.G.S. datum.”
There was general discussion about the relationship between contour measurement and the density report and how contour measurement influences the development of a lot.
There was further discussion regarding steep slopes and contour measurements on the property survey.
Mr. Weiler moved that the Board require two foot contours for Lot B, subdivided out, and accept the USGS contours for the balance of the property for the density report. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Waiver Request: To create a Minor Subdivision within the five-year limit of the total number of subdivisions with the understanding that any further subdivisions will be considered a Major Subdivision.
Mr. Weiler moved that the second waiver request be approved. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Ms. Heller asked if she may proceed to a final application or if a preliminary application is necessary. Mr. Vannatta said she may choose to proceed either with a preliminary or final application.
CASE: Case 2010-011: Conceptual Subdivision- Raymond Schilke. 763-2963. 307 Mountain Road. Map/Lot 022-273-043.
Clayton Platt, Pennyroyal Hill Land Surveying, agent, presented to the Board. The property is described as a 51 acre parcel called Birch Field Farm. The house and barn are located on the whole parcel. There are two septic systems in place.
Mr. Schilke proposes to convert the barn into living quarters for himself and rent out the house which has become too large for him to manage.
Mr. Platt asked for guidance on what is required regarding the topography for the remaining 43 acre parcel.
Mr. McWilliams asked Mr. Platt what information he has on steep slopes, wetlands, deer wintering areas for the 43 acres for purposes of the density calculation. Mr. Platt said at this point there is no information.
There was general discussion about using USGS figures for the remaining 43 acres and the presence of steep slopes.
Mr. Weiler noted that the Board ensures that the land being subdivided is suitable for septic systems.
Mr. McWilliams asked if there is a boundary survey for the larger parcel. Mr. Platt said a survey was done in 1989 and nothing has changed since then.
Mr. Powell made a motion to accept two foot contours for the 7.4 acre lot, subdivided out, and accept the 20 foot contours for the remainder of the property for the density report. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
CASE: Case 2010-007: Final Hearing/Minor Subdivision- Jeffrey Bates. 927-4066. 323 Sutton Road. Map/Lot 048-588-287.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for a Minor Subdivision from Jeffrey R. Bates Revocable Trust, for property located on Sutton Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 048-588-287 on Tuesday, September 21, 2010, at 7:45 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting.
The application was reviewed for completeness. Mr. McWilliams noted that the application contained two waiver requests.
Waiver Request: From Section 9.6 Soils Report and Map and Section 9.3 Density Report, Item 6 Deer Wintering Areas, to omit the soils report from a Soil Scientist and submit to the Planning Board a septic system design approved by the State Department of Environmental Services.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board for discussion. There being none, he called for a motion.
Mr. Weiler moved that based on examination of the septic approval, the waiver request from the soils report be granted. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Waiver Request: From Section IX 9.6 Soils Report and Map, to provide a letter from a Licensed Professional Forester in lieu of a delineation by a Wildlife Biologist.
Mr. Vannatta read into the record the following statement signed by Jeffrey A. Evans, Evans Land Consultants, PLLC concerning deer wintering areas as cited in the above waiver request:
“…Licensed Professional Foresters due to their continuing education requirements are well versed in bio-diversification and ecosystem definition. The property of Jeffrey Bates contains neither suitable forest cover types nor site aspects (southern exposure) suitable for deer wintering areas (deer yards).”
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board for discussion. There being none, he called for a motion.
Mr. Williams moved that the report by Mr. Evans stating that there are no suitable deer wintering areas be accepted and the waiver be granted. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. All in favor.
There was discussion concerning the lack of a written waiver request regarding the topo. Mr. Evans said a waiver request was not submitted because it was discussed during the conceptual. The Board requested that Mr. Evans submit a written request for a waiver. Mr. Evans wrote a waiver requesting two foot contour lines for Lot 2.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the contour differential.
Mr. Weiler moved that the Board accept the contours as drawn on the submitted plan. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta informed Mr. Evans that a formal written waiver letter is still required. Mr. Evans agreed to supply same.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Evans presented on behalf of the applicant. He said Jeffrey and Darcy Bates are trying to subdivide a three acre lot from the existing acreage to build a single family house for their daughter and family who are currently living with the Bates.
Mr. Evans said Mr. Bates has a driveway permit for the three acre lot, an approved septic system and has no intentions for further subdivision.
Mr. Vannatta called for discussion from the Board. There being none, at 8:10 p.m. he opened the meeting to the public. There being no comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting and returned to session.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Powell moved that the Board accept and approve the application for a minor subdivision as presented subject to receipt of a written waiver request on the contours. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Bates asked the Board if the Code Enforcement Officer could be notified of the Board’s approval of the former’s application so a building permit may be issued. Mr. Vannatta told Mr. Bates that a Notice of Decision will be forthcoming within five days and offered to give the Code Enforcement Officer verbal confirmation of same if needed.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 8:15 p.m.
The Board resumed session at 8:24 p.m.
CASE: Case 2010-003: Preliminary Hearing/Site Plan Review- Davis Revocable Trust/Agent: Community Action Program, Ralph Littlefield. 225-3295. Newbury Heights Road. Map/Lot 020/-072-043 and 020-223-195.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Site Plan Review from Community Action Program on behalf of Clark & Evelyn Davis Revocable Trust, for property located on Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 020-072-043 & 020-223-195 on Tuesday, September 21, 2010, at 8:15 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting.
The application was reviewed for completeness. Mr. Vannatta noted that the application was missing the following required items as stated in the Town of Newbury Regulations for Site Plan Review: Article 10.8 Landscaping Plan, Article 10.9 Drainage Plan, Article 10.10 Structure Plan, and Article 10.11 Written Summary.
Mr. Vannatta stated that the application is incomplete.
Gary Spaulding, manager, G.R. Spaulding Design Consultants, LLC, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Spaulding said the drainage and landscaping plans were discussed during the previous conceptual meetings as elements to be decided at a later stage in the proposed project.
Mr. Vannatta noted that the Board discussed the above but did not make a motion regarding same.
Mr. Weiler said the four missing components from the application are requirements of a site plan review and without them the Board is not able to make a thorough review of the application.
Mr. Spaulding said it was his understanding that the missing components were not required for a residential site plan review application but were required for a business site plan review.
The Board reviewed the application requirements and the Regulations for Site Plan Review, Article III Types of Developments Requiring Site Plan Review, 3.1.1 which reads, “all new principal buildings and accessory buildings for multi-family and non-residential use;”.
Mr. Spaulding referenced Article VI Procedure for Site Plan Review, 6.3 Phase II: Preliminary Review, noting that it does not list the required components of the application. He added that 6.4, Phase III: Final Application Review calls for submission of an application “as outlined in Article X”.
Mr. McWilliams noted that the applicant has concepts for drainage on the second sheet of the conceptual layout, showing proposed bio retention areas and culvert locations but that the concepts do not show flow.
Mr. Weiler questioned if there was any difference between the application requirements for a preliminary and final application. Mr. McWilliams said no.
There was general discussion about the amount and kind of information that should be presented at a preliminary application review versus the final hearing. Mr. McWilliams said a preliminary plan should show the direction in which the applicant is going and the final should fill in all the details.
There was discussion about whether the applicant has submitted enough information to warrant a preliminary hearing. Mr. Healey and Mr. Powell agreed that there was enough information. Mr. Vannatta said the Board could request that the missing information be provided at the next meeting.
Mr. Weiler moved that the application be considered complete enough to proceed to a preliminary. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Spaulding presented to the Board. He thanked the Board for allowing the preliminary review to proceed. He noted that there are zoning variances that must be applied for and added that the site plan review application is a long way from the final review of the proposed project.
Mr. Spaulding reviewed the proposed project using visual aids which showed the project plan including proposed building(s), parking areas, wetlands, steep slopes, shoreland and buffer zone setbacks, boundaries, and the access road within the 28 acre site. The proposed project contains 34 units within one two-story building. He said several alternative sites in Newbury were considered before settling on the current site.
He said the current design calls for about four (4) acres of impact on the site and a 732 foot access road off Newbury Heights Road. He referred to the project’s proposed parking and noted a waiver request for same. He said the access road width will be 20 feet with two foot shoulders, drainage will be handled through two leach fields and a cul de sac will be constructed at the end of Newbury Heights Road to accommodate turnaround requirements for Town vehicles.
He said an Existing Condition Survey was conducted on Newbury Heights Road and added that he met with the Town Fire Chief and Road Agent on site to discuss an alternative access to the site. He discussed the Survey, noting existing structures and wells. He said the proposed project indicates an access road length of just over 1150 feet from the center line on Bell Cove Road to the project property line at the end of Newbury Heights Road. He said the proposed road improvements from Bell Cove Road to the project property line will result in a road width of 18 feet, adding the road will have to be readjusted in order to get a consistent 18 foot width. He noted that cross sections and topo will be provided for this part of the project.
Mr. Healey asked if the 18 foot road includes a sidewalk. Mr. Spaulding said a sidewalk is not included in this proposal. He added that there has been discussion regarding the possibility of doing something for pedestrian access along the railroad bed but such a project would require help from the Town. He noted that there are multiple owners of the right-of-way for the railroad bed.
Mr. Spaulding referred the Board to the list of requests for waivers. Mr. Spaulding reviewed the following list of waivers from the Town of Newbury Regulations for Site Plan Review:
- Article VI Procedure for Site Plan Review, 6.5 Fees for Consultants;
- Article X Application Requirements, 10.3 Check for fees, 10.7 Site Plan Scale 1”=20’, 10.7.7 Names, mailing addresses, tax map # and lot # of abutters, 10.7.9 Location of large existing trees, 10.7.10 Existing grades 200’ beyond boundary, 10.7.11 Existing streams, wetlands, marshes…Within 200 feet of boundary;
- Article XII Standards and Requirements for Proposed Developments, 12.4.8.7 Outdoor amenities, 12.6 Recreational areas, 12.8.8 Parking requirements (requires 51 parking spaces for multi-family dwelling); and
- Article XV Security for Construction on Improvements.
Mr. Spaulding discussed the zoning variances needed for density and steep slope and a permit for the wetlands crossing. Mr. Weiler noted that a DES conditional use permit is needed for the wetlands buffer zone.
Mr. Spaulding said additional required state permits include alteration of terrain, subdivision approval for onsite wastewater disposal, and community well approval.
Mr. Weiler asked if the wetlands surrounding the streams on the property fall within 10,000 contiguous square feet. Mr. Spaulding said yes. Mr. Weiler asked if Mr. Spaulding will provide the delineation of buffer boundaries on existing conditions. Mr. Spaulding said yes.
Mr. McWilliams noted that the conditional use permit for the wetlands buffer is issued from the Planning Board, not the ZBA.
Mr. Vannatta raised the topic of regional impact and its applicability to this case. He noted that Town counsel advised the Board to review RSA 36:55, RSA 36:56 and RSA 36:37. He said the Board must determine if there is the potential for regional impact and reviewed RSA 36:55 Definition which reads as follows:
“In this subdivision ‘development of regional impact’ means any proposal before a local land use board which in the determination of such local land use board could reasonably be expected to impact on a neighboring municipality, because of factors such as, but not limited to, the following:
- Relative size or number of dwelling units as compared with existing stock.
- Proximity to the borders of a neighboring community.
- Transportation networks.
- Anticipated emissions such as light, noise, smoke, odors, or particles.
- Proximity to aquifers or surface waters which transcend municipal boundaries.
- Shared facilities such as schools and solid waste disposal facilities.
Mr. Vannatta said Town counsel advised that the Board must decide at this point if the project has regional impact.
Mr. Healey asked about the significance of regional impact. Mr. McWilliams said it gives the designated communities as well as the regional planning commission(s) an opportunity to comment on the project.
There was discussion concerning identifying the communities and regional planning commissions potentially affected by this project. Mr. Vannatta said notification to the parties must occur within five days of this meeting. He referred the Board to RSA 36:57, II. Procedure.
Mr. McWilliams said the notice sent to the communities and regional planning commissions must identify which of the six criteria listed in RSA 36:55 could impact the respective communities/commissions.
Mr. Vannatta recommended that the Board decide if the proposed project presents a regional impact and, if so, respond accordingly.
There was further discussion concerning which communities and groups should be notified regarding regional impact.
Mr. Williams moved that the project be considered of regional impact under RSA 36:55, I., III., and V., and that the towns of Bradford, New London and Sunapee, and the regional planning commissions be notified. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Dezotell noted that it is questionable whether the Board was in a position to hear anything further on this case, given the above motion.
Mr. Powell asked if a service road around the perimeter of the proposed building is being considered to allow for access to the building for service vehicles.
Mr. Spaulding said the Town Police Chief and Fire Chief noted that there should be a gravel based perimeter road provided for the building so safety vehicles can access the perimeter of the building “at least seasonally”.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if waiver requests and public comments should be heard at this time, given the fact that additional towns and regional planning commissions are to be notified. The Board agreed that public comments should be heard.
At 9:20 p.m. Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting. The public commented as follows:
Patricia Sherman, a Newbury resident, said she is in favor of the project because it belongs in the town and will serve the town well. She said the applicant’s request for a waiver for a professional review of the project should be denied. She said the project needs a professional registered engineer and, to date, the project plans as presented do not contain the stamp of a registered engineer. She said the preliminary application does not contain any engineered plans and recommended that the Board require same. She added that the Board should hire its own registered engineer to review the plan.
Ms. Sherman voiced concern over the Newbury Heights Road as the only access road and questioned why a second access off of Route 103 was not pursued. She said she was concerned about what the project will be like when it is done.
Ms. Sherman said 50% of the proposed units face north and will never have any sun, which is not a positive thing for an elderly population. She said the entrance faces northwest which is the direction of the prevailing winds and will remain snow and icebound until spring. She urged the Board to examine the quality of the units proposed in the project and look at the quality of life for the residents.
Daryl Mooney, 26 Lakeview Drive, Newbury, said the project is a great idea but questioned the location. She said travelling Newbury Heights Road off of Route 103 is challenging, especially with increased tourists visiting the area and using Route 103. She said the proposed location for the project is the “worst possible place” because of the terrain, the high volume of traffic on Route 103, the difficulty in accessing Route 103 with increased traffic and the lack of walk-able road on Newbury Heights Road. She expressed her hope that the project can be moved to another location in town that will be more appropriate. She added that she felt it was unfair that the residents on Newbury Heights Road were not notified until now that this project was being considered.
Mr. Vannatta responded to Ms. Mooney’s concerns regarding notification saying there have been several conceptual meetings with the applicant but conceptual meetings are not required to be noticed. He said during the conceptual the Board made no commitments to the applicant because the meetings were discussion-based only. He said this meeting was the first noticed hearing on the proposed project. He stated that the informational meeting held on September 15, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Office had nothing to do with the Planning Board or the Town of Newbury. It was a meeting conducted exclusively by CAP.
Michael Marzelli, 2 Bell Cove Road, Newbury, said the Newbury Heights neighborhood was never canvassed or contacted for input concerning this proposed project. While not opposed to the project, Mr. Marzelli voiced concern over the access road to the project. He questioned why the access road is being built through an existing neighborhood and changing the dynamics of same when there might be an alternative to Newbury Heights Road. He said the regional impact is the neighborhood. He said he’d like to see an engineer look at the proposed plans and suggest another access to the site.
Lynn Neuwirt, 910 Route 103, Newbury, said she has lived at this address for two years. She said she is supportive of CAP but questions the access road and the ensuing traffic concerns. She added that when she purchased her property she did so with the understanding that her children would have a safe environment in which to play. She requested that CAP prove that the proposed project will, in fact, be dedicated to senior citizens and that younger family members will not be allowed to move in. She asked for clarification on the amount of traffic expected on the access road and how the roads will be cared for. She added that area building tradesmen should be allowed equal access in the bidding process for the project jobs.
Eric Schmidt, 31 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, said he does not have a problem with the concept of an elderly housing project in the town. He said he purchased a home in a residential neighborhood with the understanding that it will remain a residential neighborhood and not become commercial. He said a 34 unit complex is considered commercial because of the density, parking and amount of traffic. He asked if there are variances required to permit a commercial building in a residential zone. He expressed concern over the access road and asked if there is another way into the site and said he would like the Board and the applicant to investigate that. He said Newbury Heights Road is currently a 14 foot width of asphalt with some spots measuring 15 feet wide. He requested more
information on how the road will be widened especially in light of the existing buildings and wells adjacent to the road. Mr. Schmidt asked for clarification regarding Mr. Spaulding’s reference to a 20 foot road with two foot shoulders, and an 18 foot road.
Mike Mooney, abutter to property on Lakeview Drive, Newbury, questioned the assertion that Newbury Heights Road will be improved. He said property owners along the road will see their properties do just the opposite. He said Newbury Heights Road is a country camp road and said it would be very unfair to the proposed elderly residents to expect them to negotiate such a road on a daily basis.
Anne Lally, 18 Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, raised the issue of safety on Newbury Heights Road during the construction phase of the proposed project. She said heavy equipment will be travelling the road for six to nine months during construction and pointed out the inherent safety concerns for the residents on the road.
Patricia Sherman requested of CAP that they work with the town and residents on Route 103 to investigate the possibility of an alternative access to the property from Route 103. She expressed concern for the safety of the elderly drivers who must negotiate Newbury Heights Road every day. She recommended using the Newbury Heights Road as the emergency access road and find another entrance to the property off Route 103.
Mr. Vannatta referred the question to Mr. Spaulding. Mr. Spaulding said research was done to find another access and the findings presented issues of increased project cost, major impact for wetland crossings and the number of abutters involved.
Daryl Mooney said she understands why CAP finds the current location to be attractive because it presents itself as offering residents the ability to walk to the town center. However, she said, walking Newbury Heights Road is not easy – it is hilly and windy and narrow – and she questioned whether elderly residents would consider doing that.
Eric Schmidt said if 18 feet is the projected width of the improved Newbury Heights Road it is not possible to have two cars pass one another comfortably within 18 feet of road surface. It would require one of the drivers to pull off onto someone’s land to allow the other vehicle to pass. He said he drives trucks and knows what is required in such a setting.
At 9:40 p.m., there being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Vannatta addressed the public on behalf of the Board, saying the proposed project is at the early preliminary stage and that the process involved in reviewing the project will be executed by the Board in a thorough, careful and responsible way. He added that public input at the upcoming hearings is very welcomed and important to the Board. He reminded the public that the Board members are elected officials who are dedicated to providing Newbury and its residents with its very best effort. He encouraged the public to attend upcoming meetings and to contribute their thoughts and suggestions.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to continue the hearing with this applicant until October 19, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Spaulding asked if a zoning variance may be applied for at this time. Mr. Powell said it is premature to do so.
Mr. Williams suggested placing a copy of the plans of the proposed CAP Newbury Elderly Housing Project in the lobby of the Town Office for public viewing. Mr. Vannatta recommended that the Recording Secretary contact the Land Use Secretary to coordinate that.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of August 17, 2010 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Geddes seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
