MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
Land Use Office Regular Meeting
31 Pecks Lane, Newtown, Connecticut April 5, 2007
Present: Mr. O’Neil, Chair; Ms. Dean, Vice Chair; Ms. Brymer, Secretary. Alternates: Mr. Mulholland seated in place of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bloom seated in place of Mr. Poulin. Also present: Elizabeth Stocker, Director of Community Development. Clerk: Margaret Wilkin
The meeting was opened at 7:40 p.m. Notice is made that the entire meeting was taped and can be heard in the Land Use Office, 31 Pecks Lane, Newtown, Connecticut.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
APPLICATION BY P.W. SCOTT ENGINEERING & ARCHITECTURE P.C., FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF NEWTOWN ZONING REGULATIONS AT SECTIONS 4.18.300, 4.18.310c., 418.400 AND 418.475 CONCERNING A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
The Commission discussed new information received from Elizabeth Stocker regarding the acceptance of the community to this kind of activity. They discussed whether this should be a special exception or by right. Ms. Brymer had a problem with by right. Mr. O’Neil thought it might be preferable to support some activities there. Mr. Mulholland also thinks special exception would be preferable. Mr. Bloom preferred by right. Ms. Stocker thought special exception. The size of the project should be considered as well as lighting and buffering. Indoor/outdoor uses could have some issues with noise. It did not appear traffic would be an issue due to off-peak use. Mr. O’Neil said that the project could grow and special exception would give the Commission a little more
control.
Ms. Brymer moved the following:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission that the application by P. W. Scott Engineering & Architecture, P. C. to amend the zoning regulations for the M-2A Zone to allow recreational facilities as a principal use subject to obtaining a special exception approval
SHALL BE APPROVED as follows:
4.18.300 Planned Commercial Development M-2A Zone
Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the M-2A zone is to provide for significant economic development activities without adversely impacting the character of the surrounding neighborhoods or overburdening the natural or built environment.
The Planned Commercial Development (M-2A) Zone is intended to encourage a large tract commercial development that will result in a stronger economic base for Newtown. It is intended that the land in the district will be developed as a cohesive unit where the development on any parcel will complement the district as a whole. The land use mix features a variety of principal uses including office buildings, a hotel/conference center, light industrial uses, recreational facilities and research and development facilities. Limited retail and service establishments are permitted as accessory uses and are intended to support the permitted principal uses. A pedestrian friendly environment and transit access must be considered in the design of all sites. (Amended effective 4/17/2000, 4/16/2007)
4.18.485 Recreation Facility in the M-2A zone. Such recreation facility may include indoor and/or outdoor golf courses, dance studios, health and exercise facilities, racquetball, squash, basketball, volleyball and tennis courts, baseball, football, soccer and lacrosse fields, field hockey, track and field, swimming pools, ice-skating rinks, and any other recognized collegiate sport. The Recreation Facility may include seating for spectators. (Added effective 4/16/2007)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reason for the amendment is to allow for additional opportunities and diversity of uses in the M-2A Zone where such recreational uses are envisioned to complement the commercial uses currently permitted within the zone.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission finds that the amendments are consistent with the Newtown Plan of Conservation and Development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendment shall become effective on April 16, 2007.
Seconded by Mr. Mulholland.
Vote: Mr. O’Neil Yes
Ms. Dean Yes
Ms. Brymer Yes
Mr. Mulholland Yes
Mr. Bloom Yes
Motion approved
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
APPLICATION UNDER CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTE #8-30g OF DAUTI CONSTRUCTION LLC FOR (1) AMENDMENT OF NEWTOWN ZONING REGULATIONS (2) RE-ZONING OF 4.568 ACRES AND (3) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, EDONA COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 95 & 99 CHURCH HILL ROAD, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT. ASSESSOR’S MAP #39, BLOCK #1, LOTS #10/11
Ms. Brymer moved the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 4, 2006, Dauti Construction, LLC (“Applicant”) filed a single application with the Planning and Zoning Commission for Newtown (“PZC”) in three parts for (1) an amendment of the Newtown Zoning Regulations to create a proposed Mixed Income Housing Development (MIHD) zone; (2) a Change of Zone (“Rezoning”) of a 4.568 acre parcel of land; and (3) a Site Development Plan in connection with a proposed 26 unit residential development at 95 and 99 Church Hill road to be known as “Edona Commons” (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Applications”). The Applications are submitted pursuant to Connecticut General Statute
Section 8-30g, the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act.
2. The proposed site (the “Property”) consists of two parcels totaling 4.568 acres of developed land and is zoned R-2. One of the parcels is improved with an existing dwelling and the other a barn. The existing structures will be demolished as part of the Project. The Property has moderate to severe slopes with rock outcrops. The topography of the Property rises up from Church Hill Road at elevations of 287 to 293 feet to a maximum elevation of about 357 feet, a total relief of about 60 feet. The Property has two wetland areas. The Property has frontage along Church Hill Road and is bordered on the north side by private open space land for the Walnut Tree
Village condominium and single family residential uses to the south, east and west.
3. The intent of the Applications is to permit the development (the “Project”) of 26 dwelling units in six residential buildings each consisting of between 3 to 6 units. The Applicant proposes to designate eight dwelling units as affordable units. A total of 69 parking spaces will be provided including 17 visitor spaces. The Project building coverage will be 17,982 square feet or 9.04% of the Property. The total impervious coverage will be 55,331 square feet or 27.81% of the Property. The Project will be divided into two sections, each served by a separate private drive. Twenty-three units will be served by a 24-foot wide private drive with a divided,
boulevard entrance ending in a cul de sac. An emergency access drive will connect the end of this driveway to Church Hill Road. Three units will be served by a separate 22-foot wide private driveway. The Project will have three curb cuts on Church Hill Road. The Property requires extensive site work to regrade it for the Project. The main development area will be lowered from present elevations of about 336 to 348 feet to finished roadway elevations of approximately 322 to 334 feet. The Property requires the removal of approximately 12,840 cubic yards of earth materials.
4. The Project is proposed to be serviced by public sewers. The projected discharge is 8,550 gallons per day of sewer effluent. No other alternative method of sewage disposal has been proposed.
5. The Application proposes the creation of a new zone to be called the Mixed Income Housing District Zone (“MIHD”). The proposed text of the zone is included in the application and the application states that it’s closely based on the Town’s existing Affordable Housing Development (“AHD”) zone. The Property is proposed to be Rezoned to MIHD.
6. The Newtown Zoning Regulations contain provisions for Affordable Housing Development (“AHD”) at Article IV Section 4.22. The AHD regulations were originally adopted by the PZC effective on January 13, 1992 and subsequent amendments to various subsections were adopted effective July 31, 1995, October 7, 1996, December 16, 1996 and December 18, 2000. The AHD regulations contain provisions for affordable housing within all residential districts consistent with the requirements of CGS Section 8-30g. The Applicant has not made any attempt to comply with the existing regulations. The proposed MIHD zone departs from the existing AHD in the following ways:
a. requires that the MIHD be serviced by public water and sewer systems;
b. increases density (from 4 units per usable acre to 8 units per usable acre or 5.75 dwellings per gross acre);
c. decreases the lot size of eligible sites (from minimum of 6 acres (AHD) to a minimum of 4.5 acres (MIHD);
d. decreases lot frontage (300 feet to 100 feet);
e. increases building height (height in front is greater than any zone;
f. increases building length;
g. increases the number of units per building;
h. reduces buffering;
i. eliminates the need for an aquifer impact review for a MIHD;
j. eliminates the need for recreational areas upon the site;
k. reduces setbacks from property lines; and,
l. makes this type of development allowed by right rather than being subject to special permit review.
7. The Property is not eligible for an AHD because it does not meet the lot area or lot frontage requirements of an AHD as set forth in the Newtown Zoning Regulations.
8. The existing AHD regulations at Section 4.22.322 require the connection to the public sewers provided that the lot is approved for connection in accordance with the policies procedures or regulations established by the WSA. However, if there is no sanitary sewer available, the site plan application must provide the Commission with an on-site subsurface sewage disposal system approved by the applicable state and/or local agencies in accordance with local and state statutes and regulations.
9. The Water and Sewer Authority of the Town of Newtown (‘WSA”) adopted A Water Pollution Control Plan (“Plan”) on April 28, 1994 which was amended most recently on June 24, 1999. (See Memo of Fred Hurley dated October 19, 2006). The Plan adopted a priority matrix for the central sewer service area to ensure that the limited treatment plant capacity of 332,000 gallons per day is allocated in a logical manner.
10. The Property is located within the central sewer service area. The Project for 26 units and a sewer discharge of 8,550 gallons per day is not eligible for sewer service as explained in the three memos from the WSA dated October 19, 2006, January 16, 2007 and February 7, 2007 for the reason that none of the priorities set forth in the Plan matrix are applicable to the Project. The AHD regulations meet the current zoning as defined in the Plan (see section IV) as they were in effect when the WSA adopted the Plan matrix on April 28, 1994.
11. A total of 29 properties are located on arterials or major collector roads, are in the central sewer district, have public water service available and would be eligible to be zoned for development under the proposed MIHD zone. (See attachment to the February 14, 2007 memo from the Community Development Director to the PZC and as discussed by the PZC at their meeting of February 15, 2007.) Four of the 29 properties are not qualified under the AHD regulations.
None of the 29 additional properties made eligible for the proposed MIHD zone and subject to potential development as affordable housing sites can qualify for the WSA Plan matrix relative to sewers because they cannot meet the criteria of being “potential development meeting current zoning within the sewer service area”. (See memo from Fred Hurley dated October 19, 2006.)
12. The Project is located within the primary recharge area of the Pootatuck Aquifer Protection District (“APD”) which is a federally designated Sole Source Aquifer. The Newtown Zoning Regulations at Article IV, Section 4.04 provides restrictions and a requirement for an Aquifer Impact Review process. In a January 16, 2007 letter to the PZC from the Newtown Conservation Official, it was noted that the Conservation Commission voted without prejudice on March 22, 2006 to recommend against a finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”) for the Aquifer Impact Assessment report. The Inland Wetland Commission (“IWC”) action of February 28, 2007 reconfirmed this. The lack of a sewer hookup for the Project was a determining factor against the FONSI.
13. On March 14, 2007 the IWC approved a modification of the wetlands license for the Project. The approval is subject to nine conditions. (See letter of March 15, 2007.)
14. On November 8, 2006, the Newtown Police Commission acting as the Traffic Authority for the Town of Newtown accepted the traffic report presented by Frederick P. Clark & Associates, Inc., for the Applicant’s project. No improvements to Church Hill Road are recommended by the traffic consultant or the Traffic Authority. The PZC raised concerns to the applicant that for vehicles waiting in the driveway for the school bus to pick up or drop off children there is inadequate room on site to turn their vehicles around. The applicant responded by indicating that they would be willing to add an area for parents to pull their vehicles off the driveway travel way, but this may not be
adequate to turn around.
15. In its Plan of Conservation and Development (2004) (the “Plan”), the PZC articulated a broad policy to “Strive for a more balanced supply of housing types that will accommodate the housing needs of Newtown residents and those working in Newtown.” Five strategies were provided to reach the goal.
16. The PZC duly noticed a public hearing on the Applications. The dates of publication were November 24, 2006 and December 1, 2006.
17. The public hearing was opened on December 7, 2006. The hearing was continued to January 18 , 2007, on which date, the Commission closed the public hearing.
18. At the hearings, the Applicant submitted and the Commission considered, inter alia:
· Engineering drawings, site plan and reports by .Trinkaus Engineering, LLC;
· Architectural plans/elevations by Aldridge and Burns;
· Affordable Housing Plan by Ryan K. McKain; and Timothy S. Hollister,
· Traffic Study by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.;
· Aquifer Impact Assessment by Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.
19. At the public hearing, no member of the public spoke in favor of the Applications, but many spoke in opposition to the Applications.
20. At the public hearing, the PZC heard testimony from the public relating to concerns including aquifer protection, drainage, density, traffic, safety, building height and length, wetlands, concerns related to the fact that the Project will be located in an area with many unique historic homes and adjacent to the gateway for the recently revitalized Sandy Hook Center.
II. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE INFORMATION ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE Plan of Conservation and Development (2004) AND AFTER BALANCING THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NEWTOWN AGAINST THE NECESSITY TO PROTECT SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION OF AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS SET FORTH ABOVE, THE COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES TO DISAPPROVE THE APPLICATON FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. Proposed Amendment to create the MIHD Zone:
a) There is a substantial public interest in assuring that adequate sanitary sewer disposal is available to the properties affected by the MIHD zone:
(i) Pursuant to the provisions of the MIHD zone all affected properties will require sewer service. There are 29 sites which would be eligible for future development of affordable housing under the provisions of the proposed new zone. At least four of the 29 affected Properties are in addition to those which would already be permitted to be developed under the existing AHD zone.
(ii) The WSA Water Pollution Control Plan does not allow any of the 29 affected parcels to be connected to the Newtown Waste Treatment Plant if developed under the provisions of the proposed new zone.
(iii) Because an adequate sewage disposal plan has not been provided to meet the needs of future residents for the affected parcels the substantial public health interest in providing adequate sewage disposal needs for development outweighs the need for affordable housing.
b) There is a substantial public health interest in assuring that some form of sewage disposal or sewer service treatment would be provided for the newly created zone for moderate income housing development (MIHD):
(i) The findings herein clearly support the conclusion that public sewers will not be available to development where the density would be greater than what previously existed based upon the communications from the WSA that the new zone is not entitled to a sewer allocation sufficient to support the new zone.
(ii) Because the applicant has failed to provide an adequate sewage disposal plan to
meet the needs of future residents of the MIHD zone, the evidence supports the conclusion that the substantial public health interest in providing sewers outweighs the need for affordable housing.
c) There is a substantial public health and safety interest in protecting against degradation of the public water supply.
(i) Section 4.27.348 of the MIHD exempts applicants from complying with the provisions of 4.04 and 4.04.100 through 4.04.700 of the Zoning Regulations (which are the Newtown Aquifer Protection Regulations).
(ii) Because the applicant has failed to provide a regulation that would ensure that adequate measures are taken to protect the sole source of the Public Water Supply, the substantial public health interest in providing protection of the public water supply outweighs the need for affordable housing.
2. Proposed Change of Zone for the Property to MIHD classification.
a) There is a substantial public interest in assuring that adequate sanitary sewer disposal is available for development under the proposed Zone Change.
(i) The findings herein clearly support the conclusion that public sewers will not be available to the Project based upon the communications from the WSA that the Property is not entitled to a sewer allocation sufficient to support the Project.
(ii) Because the applicant has failed to provide an adequate sewage disposal plan to meet the needs of future residents of the Property (assume it is changed to a MIHD zone), the evidence supports the conclusion that the substantial public health interest in assuring that adequate sanitary sewer disposal is provided, outweighs the need for affordable housing.
b) The Commission disapproves the application to change the zoning classification of the Property because of its disapproval as set forth above of the creation of the MIHD zone.
3. The proposed application to approve a site development plan for the Project:
a) There is a substantial public health interest in assuring that adequate sanitary sewer disposal is provided for the proposed Project:
(i) The findings herein clearly support the conclusion that sewers will not be available to the Project based upon the communications from the WSA that the Property is not entitled to a sewer allocation sufficient to support the Project.
(ii) Because the applicant has failed to provide an adequate sewage disposal plan to meet the needs of future residents of the Project, the evidence supports the conclusion that the substantial public health interest in providing sewers outweighs the need for affordable housing.
b) The proposed application is not in conformance with the requirements of Section 8-30 g and the regulations promulgated by the Department of Economic and Community Development to implement such statute, for the reason that the affordable units are not comparable to the market value unit in one or more of the following respects:
The affordable units have one fewer bathroom than the market rate units;
The affordable units are smaller in size (floor area) than the market rate units
Seconded by Mr. Mulholland.
The Commission discussed and modified the Resolution after which Ms. Dean made a motion to accept the changes. Seconded by Mr. Bloom. The vote for the changes was unanimous.
Vote with changes: Mr. O’Neil Yes
Ms. Dean Yes
Ms. Brymer Yes
Mr. Mulholland Yes
Motion approved
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION BY JOE RIOS FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY APARTMENT, SHUT AND POOR HOUSE ROADS, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP #8, BLOCK #1, LOT #14
The hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m.
Ms. Brymer read the call for the hearing
Mr. O’Neil read the correspondence in the file, after which he asked to hear from the applicant.
Joe Rios, 2 Shut Lane, Newtown, Connecticut explained the application and made himself available to answer questions.
The Commission considered the application straightforward and had no comments.
There were no comments from the public.
The hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m.
ACTION
Ms. Brymer moved the following:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission that the application by Joe Rios for a special exception for a detached accessory apartment in the cottage structure located at 2 Shut Road (parcel 1) pursuant to Section 4.06.1000 through 4.06.1050 of the Zoning Regulations as shown on a certain map entitled “Lot Line Revision Map revising Parcel One & Parcel Two, Town Clerks Map #5062, #2 & #4 Shut Road, Newtown, Connecticut” dated January 17, 2007, scale 1” = 40’, for property shown on the Assessor’s Map 8, Block 1, Lot 14.
SHALL BE APPROVED with the following condition:
That this approval for the accessory apartment shall become effective upon the filing of the lot line revision in the Newtown Land Records which will provide a lot area of 3 acres for the subject property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission finds that the application meets the standards and criteria for a special exception as set forth in Sections 8.04.710 through 8.04.790 of the Zoning Regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application is consistent with the F & R – 2 zone.
Seconded by Mr. Mulholland
Vote: Mr. O’Neil Yes
Ms. Dean Yes
Ms. Brymer Yes
Mr. Mulholland Yes
Mr. Bloom Yes
Motion approved
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATON BY TOM BROOK LLC. FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING, 75-77 CHURCH HILL ROAD, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP #27, BLOCK #7, LOTS #2A&B
The hearing was opened at 8:34 p.m.
Ms. Brymer read the call for the hearing
Mr. O’Neil read the correspondence in the file, after which he asked to hear from the applicant.
Bill Denlinger, Esq., 1 Washington Avenue, Sandy Hook, Connecticut gave a brief history of the project. They had three variances from ZBA, approval from Wetland Commission and approval from the Police Commission. He distributed packages of information. He noted that this would be an improvement to the Town’s gateway. There are contaminants in the soil that will be handled accordingly. Everything meets regulations. He submitted a letter
Mr. O’Neil stated that the applicant will need DEP monitoring of the soil.
Gordon Anderson, 2 Glenmore Drive, Newtown, Connecticut stated that Mark Gottleib, Catalyst Environmental Consulting Inc., Simsbury, Connecticut would be monitoring for the State. There is nothing in the file to confirm this.
Jim Palmer P.E., 52 Turkey Plain Road, Bethel, Connecticut explained the technical aspects of the proposal, including drainage, lighting and landscaping. A landscaping plan should be submitted. Because the building is situated close to the wetland they had to design the building with the least disturbance possible.
Chris Busnell, architect, 17 Buckboard Lane, New Milford, Connecticut described the proposed design of the building.
Ms. Stocker noted that there were more parking spaces planned than required. A traffic study was waived.
Mr. Mulholland expressed concern about turning traffic on what he considered one of the most dangerous roads in town.
Mr. Anderson had discussed traffic with the State who had no problem due to the good sight lines.
There were no comments from the public.
The hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION BY STEVE AND KATALIN POYAK FOR A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION, 5 TWIST HILL LANE, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP #19, BLOCK #6, LOT #1
Ms. Brymer read the call for the hearing
Mr. O’Neil read the correspondence in the file, after which he asked to hear from the applicant.
Charles Spath, Principal, Stuart Somers, Co. Inc., 1211 Main Street South, Southbury, Connecticut submitted Affidavit of Mailing and gave a brief history of the property. He distributed plans #1629 and a letter from the Conservation Commission dated 3/6/06 denying the original application. He addressed comments from the Town Engineer and Elizabeth Stocker. They will protect the vernal pool against invasive species.
Ms. Dean asked if there was going to be a mitigation report every six months or year to ensure follow-up. The Conservation Official will send his findings to the First Selectman.
Ed Scoville, P.E., Stuart Somers, Co. Inc., 1211 Main Street South, Southbury, Connecticut addressed the Town Engineer’s comments further.
Mr. O’Neil asked to hear from the public.
Lisa Cohane, 15 The Old Road, Newtown, Connecticut had concerns about the unimproved road. She submitted a letter to the Board of Selectmen dated 4/3/07 requesting that it remains as it is.
Eric Vignola, 2 Overlook Drive, Newtown, Connecticut also did not want to see the road improved.
Patsie Beddo-Stephens, Twist Hill, Connecticut was opposed to the development.
Elizabeth Foster, 11 The Old Road, Newtown, Connecticut did not want Old Twist Hill Road paved.
Anthony Genovese, 9 The Old Road, Newtown, Connecticut agreed. He expressed concern about value of homes and safety. He submitted a letter dated 4/5/07.
Kristen Grenier, 17 Middleton Road, Newtown, Connecticut appreciated the cul de sac, opposing a through connection.
The hearing was closed at 10:02 p.m. A recess was called
The meeting reconvened at 10:12 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION BY NEWBROOK LLC FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION, 7 OBTUSE ROAD, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, ASSESSOR’S MAP #3, BLOCK #7, LOT #15
Ms. Brymer read the call for the hearing
Mr. O’Neil read the correspondence in the file, after which he asked to hear from the applicant.
James Murphy, Esq., Gregory & Adams, P.E., 190 Old Ridgefield Road, Wilton, Connecticut, representing the applicants Diego and Robert Valente noted that this was the second application for this property. The original one was withdrawn in 2006. He submitted the Affidavit of Mailing. Binders entitled “Newbrook Ridge, Section 1, April 5, 2007” were distributed to the Commissioners explaining the changes. He explained how the open space meets ratios. The driveway needs reconfiguration in order to meet regulations. They would like to use Cape Cod curbing, donating the mold to the town. Trees that would be felled are flagged. He addressed the Town Engineer’s comments. They need to make further revisions for the Conservation Commission. The homes are site specific, so
owners would have to return if they wanted a design change. He asked to have the hearing open for 35 days in order to submit potential revisions.
Steven McAllister, Landscape Engineer, McChord, Wilton, Connecticut explained the water treatment and drainage.
Matthew Popp, Environmental Land Solutions, LLC, 8 Knight Street, Norwalk, Connecticut explained the plans, detailing the vegetation and trees on the site. They checked the land out for endangered species, which were found off site. There would be no direct impact to the wetland or watercourses.
Marjorie Carmody, 30 Dinglebrook Road, Newtown, Connecticut submitted a letter from the Lands End Cemetery requesting a fence between the properties.
The hearing was left open so the Conservation Commission could discuss revised maps to be submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission discussed a letter from Robert Hall, Esq.,
MINUTES
Ms. Brymer noted the adjournment time on the Minutes of March 15, 2007 should read 11:05 p.m.
Mr. Mulholland moved to approve the Minutes of March 15, 2007 as amended. Seconded by Mr. O’Neil. The vote was unanimously approved
Ms. Dean moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Bloom. The vote was unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
________________________
Jane Brymer, Secretary
| 
