 |
These minutes are not verbatim - they are the secretary's interpretation of what took place at the meeting. - Open Meeting Law - Section III.
Board Members: Loring Tripp, III, Nicholas Filla, Larry Rosenblum, Malcolm MacGregor, and Paul McAlduff.
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form A's:
A4115- Map 123, Lot 1P-1282 - Gunning Point Road - Subdivide into eight lots.
Larry Rosenblum moved to deny the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Form A/Covenant, Camp Child Settlement - A 4174 - Map 72, Lot 4N-H - Subdivide into Lots 4N-44 thru 4N-49 and open space lot 4N-J.
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to release lots 4N-45 and 4N-48, Bayden Path subject to the following conditions:
Any sale of said lots is for use as model homes.
No occupancy permit for dwelling purposes is to be issued prior to the satisfactory completion of work on the ground, or prior to the posting of a performance guarantee.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
A4175 - Map 54, Lots 3-38 and 3-39 - Lot line adjustment to create lots 3-41 and 3-42.
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
A4176 - Map 101, Lots 32B-3, 32H, 34A, 37-1G, & 52 - Easement Relocation (replaces A4171)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing (cont.): Nestle Down VOSD
Continued from 12/5/05
Atty. Robert Betters stated that the applicant was willing to proceed with the four members present. Atty. Betters stated that at the last meeting, a concern was raised regarding the safety at the intersection of Stage Point Road, Manomet Point Road and the existing driveway. The applicant presented an alternative plan to staff today, that utilizes Stage Point Road as the access way for the proposed subdivision. Atty. Betters stated that Staff has recommended withdrawing the current plan and filing the revised plan if the Board feels the newer plan is more acceptable. Greenman-Pedersen Inc., the traffic consultants for the project, has determined that there is adequate sight distance using Stage Point Road as the access. Atty. Betters also informed the Board that the inclusionary bylaw does not apply to
this project as the original filing was submitted prior to the adoption of the inclusionary bylaw. The applicant has eliminated the affordable housing lot in the revised plan.
Randy Parker, Land Management Systems, Inc. presented a new handout to the Board, that included the revised plan and pictures of Stage Point Road. The revised plan showed access from and improvements to Stage Point Road, for ten house lots, fifty-five percent open space, two drainage areas and three fire hydrants. The AndersonPaul McAlduff felt that the alternative plan was an improvement. It would increase traffic and fire safety.
Malcolm MacGregor felt the revised plan was a better option. He felt that adequate buffering was essential.
Nicholas Filla questioned the fifteen-foot pedestrian right of way.
Mr. Parker stated that it is for pedestrian access, and could be made smaller if that is the BoardValerie Massard stated that in the original plan the grade and sight distances were of concern. The alternative plan reduces the grading and improves the sight distances.
Nicholas Filla suggested reducing the pedestrian right of way to six or eight feet, so no vehicles could travel it. Mr. Filla also suggested pulling the cul-de-sac away from the lot line and toward the Hoover property in order to increase the buffer area.
Atty. Betters stated that the applicant agrees to withdraw the current filing and will forward a withdrawal letter to staff tomorrow and proceed with a formal filing on the revised plan. He requested that the Board allow them to withdraw without prejudice, so they can file a new VOSD special permit.
Paul McAlduff moved to withdraw the current petitions for a VOSD, Adequate Facilities and Inclusionary Housing without prejudice; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing - B530, Grace Estates
Def. Subdivision/off Valley Rd (Bracken & Angley)
Nicholas Filla read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Timothy Grandy, Planning Board Alternate, joined the Board for the public hearing.
Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, presented a plan to subdivide two separate lots; lot 77-8 and lot 77-9 on Map 56. Each lot has an existing single family dwelling with driveway access on Womponoag Road. Lot 77-8 would be subdivided into two additional house lots with open space and lot 77-9 would be subdivided into five additional house lots with open space. These lots are to be created and developed for family members. The total open space would be 6.25 acres, which are approximately 41 percent. The new lots range in size from between 30,000 sq. ft. and 96,000 sq. ft. Each lot would have well and septic systems. The proposed road would be 1600 feet long with emergency access through Womponoag Road. They have requested a waiver for road width (18 ft.) in order to minimize the impact of the
development. Drainage would be subsurface where applicable with cape cod berms where necessary. Utilities would be underground. The roadway standards were modeled after the OSMUD specifications.
Mr. Bracken stated that the roadway grade and retaining walls at the entrance could be revised.
Atty. Edward Angley informed the Board that they could not reach an agreement to use Womponoag Road for access, so they had to create another way to access the lots. He stated that the plan really is showing two subdivisions, with one lot owner creating two new lots with open space and the other owner creating five new lots with open space. In lieu of providing affordable housing, the applicants have offered to provide $25,000 to the affordable housing fund. Atty. Angley stated that there is an easement that comes off Valley Road and runs to the rear of the property. The owners are willing to abandon their portion of the easement.
Valerie Massard stated that the presentation covered most of staffNicholas Filla questioned whether the applicant had filed with Natural Heritage. He suggested that the Board notify Natural Heritage.
Don Bracken replied that it would take time to fill out the MESA application.
Valerie Massard stated that the Board could notify Natural Heritage and add a condition that any changes required by the State would require further review by the Planning Board.
Timothy Grandy questioned whether there would be combined septic systems and whether they would be nutrient loading systems.
Mr. Bracken stated that they would be non-nitrogen loading systems and that they would be applying to the State for permits to construct systems adequate for four-bedroom homes.
Mr. Filla asked what the cost savings relative to the waivers would be.
Ms. Massard replied that they would be approximately $111,000.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested that the open space could be utilized as a trail link through the southern part of Plymouth in the future.
Atty. Angley stated that they could look at providing a trail through the open space.
Mr. Filla suggested that a note be put on the plan that prohibited any further subdivision.
Larry Rosenblum was concerned with the steep grade at the access point.
Loring Tripp joined the Board at 8:05 p.m.
Paul McAlduff suggested that the applicant provide a gift to the affordable housing fund in the amount of $5000 per lot in lieu of inclusionary housing.
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision plan with waivers, and the Village Open Space Development plan subject to the following conditions:
MODIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN AND GRANTING OF WAIVERS:
The Planning Board modifies and approves the definitive subdivision plan for Grace Estates. Waivers of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations may be granted, after a finding by the Planning Board that said waivers are in the best interest of the Town, and because waivers of certain of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations are found to be in the best interest of the Town and appropriate for this site, the Planning Board grants the following waivers, subject to the conditions noted below:
Section 305 Easements Section 307 Streets Section 309 Alignment Section 310 Grade Section 311 Dead End Streets Section 314 Drainage Section 315 Design Analysis Section 406 Curbing Section 407 Sidewalks and Grass Plots Section 410 Street Lights
The GRANTING of Special Permit, pursuant to Section 205-66 Village open space development:
The GRANTING of the Special Permit per Section 205-66 of the Bylaw for Village Open Space Residential Development (VOSD) and associated waivers for a total of seven (7) new and two (2) additional lots encompassing existing single-family residential dwellings on the PetitionerThe proposed use is appropriate in the R25 zone through a VOSD special permit, and to the site in question because the area is zoned to encourage compact development within the various villages of the Town and thus to discourage haphazard sprawl or scattering of development further into rural areas, and to provide permanent open space and an increased variety of planned cluster and planned residential development, as proposed. The VOSD is intended to encourage a mix of attached and detached housing types and designs. The site contains adequate area and dimension for construction of these dwellings.
There are or will be adequate and appropriate facilities in place for the proper operation and use of the site for dwellings. The means of ingress and egress to the site will facilitate traffic circulation, there will be no adverse impact relative to drainage runoff or structures, and when the project is completed, all necessary facilities will be provided.
The project will not create a hazard for pedestrians or vehicles. No sidewalks exist in this area. The means of ingress and egress to the site will facilitate traffic circulation. Overall projected new traffic trips will not negatively impact existing service levels on the roads.
There will be no objective nuisance or adverse effect upon the neighborhood. The proposed development is consistent with the Bylaw, and concerns regarding walkways, buffers and design comments from the Planning Board have been incorporated into the plans.
The proposed VOSD plan is superior in design and land use to a conventional development, which could be done without trails or open space. The VOSD plan is superior to a conventional development plan, which depicts 12 residential lots with no open space. In addition, the Town will be gaining 6.5 acres of open space adjacent to the existing Boy Scout camp property known as requirements under the VOSD Bylaw are met with regards to minimum land area. The open space within the PetitionerThe proposal meets the criteria in the Intent clause of the zone and is an appropriate location for the proposed condominium project. The VOSD is intended to encourage a mix of attached and detached housing types and designs. The objectives of the VOSD zone are to permit residential development consistent with the TownAdequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the use. The means of ingress and egress to the site will facilitate traffic circulation, there will be no adverse impact relative to drainage runoff or structures, and when the project is completed, all necessary facilities will be provided.
There will be no nuisance or adverse effect upon the neighborhood and there is substantial natural vegetation that will remain on the site, which will serve to buffer the project from the town park and open space, and significant landscaping is proposed. Many comments from the Planning Board were incorporated into the design process regarding open space, access, and siting of structures.
GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADEQUATE FACILITIES:
The proposed development does not meet the definition of village density development (density in excess of one (1) unit per 60,000 SF in this zone) at an estimated density of one (1) dwelling unit per 70,561 square feet (after accounting for the road). The petition is not subject to Adequate Facilities Special Permit conditions per Section 205-67B of the Bylaw.
GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING:
The GRANTING of the Special Permit for Inclusionary Housing under Section 205-71 of the Bylaw is based on the following reasons, and is subject to the conditions set forth below:
Planning Board and Planning Staff have encouraged the two separate property owners to file jointly with a VOSD application in order to reduce impacts to the land. The Planning Board recognizes that each of the applicants could have filed separate applications/petitions to develop the two parcels. In light of the VOSD plan which proposes a total of nine (9) residential lots with 6.5 acres of open space, which is superior to a conventional development plan, which could create 12 residential lots with no open space, the Planning Board finds that the two separate petitions each individually could have been filed and would not on individual standing be subject to the Inclusionary Housing requirement.
CONDITION OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT:
Prior to issuance of individual Certificates of Occupancy, the petitioner has agreed to make a gift in the amount of $5,000.00 per each new residential building lot (total of $35,000) to a mutually acceptable non-profit entity for the purposes of creating affordable housing in the Town of Plymouth, or to the Town of Plymouth for the same if no non-profit entity is identified, again for purposes of creating affordable housing in the Town of Plymouth, in lieu of constructing an affordable dwelling unit on the subject property.
CONDITIONS of the Village Open Space Special Permit, Inclusionary Housing Special Permit and Definitive Subdivision Modification and Approval:
The Village Open Space Density Development entitled of this restriction. Said restriction shall be in place prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
The Petitioner has agreed to waive its right to any further residential development of the premises that results in a more intense or dense use, regardless of any local, state or federal criteria to the contrary, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 40A and 41, and this shall be noted on the subdivision plan, as well as incorporated into the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the lots within the VOSD development.
Prior to endorsement of the definitive plans, revised plans and associated drainage calculations will be submitted to the Planning Board, addressing the concerns of the Town Engineer, Earth Tech and other advisory reports, and said definitive subdivision plan must be approved by the Planning Board prior to any work on the subject site. Said plans shall include the following:
a. Detail or noted minimum standards for photosensitive driveway lampposts on each individual lot shall be shown on the plans.
b. Easements should be shown for utility locations, to allow for access and maintenance of the utilities shown on the plan.
c. A pedestrian walking trail easement a minimum of four (4) feet wide, within the open space, which will allow for a potential trail connection in the event that public/private trails are established in this area. The physical location may be altered through a field change approved by the Planning Board without further modification of the subdivision approval.
d. Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for this property, if any.
The project is located within a mapped Priority Habitat of Rare Species as prepared by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Natural Heritage Program, and is subject to review under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) Regulations. If significant changes are made to the plans as a result of the MESA review process, the plans may require modification through another public hearing process.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit:
a. Four (4) sets of full size copies of all drawings comprising the VOSD plan with one complete set of reproducible plans (mylars) will be delivered to the Planning Board and one (1) electronic copy of the plans shall be delivered in a format acceptable to the Town Engineer.
b. The Petitioner shall obtain a sign-off for the proposed curb cut improvements from the Town of Plymouth Department of Public Works if required.
c. A pre-construction meeting will be held with Town Hall staff.
d. Evidence that (1) the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restriction(s) per the Conditions of this decision to be imposed by Petitioner on the subject property, approved as to form by Town Counsel; the Homeowners Trust documents in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, approved as to form by Town Counsel and (2) this Decision have been recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board.
e. All no-cut and open space areas in the vicinity of any construction on the site will be staked off to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, and shall remain staked off until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on each individual dwelling, individual lampposts will be installed per the plans.
Prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy unencumbered easements for maintenance and title to all fire alarm conduits, water lines and hydrants, if any, constructed and installed in the subject property shall be conveyed to the Town.
Petitioner has agreed to include within the Protective Covenants and Restrictions and/or Deed Restriction provisions on the open space lots or areas within the VOSD project as shown on the approved plans, in a form acceptable to Town Counsel. Said provisions shall limit the uses of said open space for conservation and recreation, with an allowance for maintenance of utilities and permitted recreational uses subject to plans approved by the Planning Board, or its appointed representative(s). The use of the designated open space is for walking trails, footpaths, and conservation, with an allowance for drainage use as shown on the plans. The Protective Covenants and Restrictions may also reflect that any violation shall result in a fine of $100.00 per day for the first thirty (30) days, and $200.00 per day thereafter, and
provide that the Protective Covenants and Restrictions shall be in place for as long as allowed under Massachusetts law.
The Petitioner agrees to record a homeownersThe Petitioner agrees to provide a maintenance program for drainage facilities and appurtenances, drainage lots, wells, open space, parking and common drive/emergency access areas to be maintained by the homeowners
In the event that the homeownersAny signage shall comply with the bylaw or additional permits will be required.
CONDITIONS OF THE MODIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF THE DEFINITIVE PLAN:
The Petitioner agrees to the endorsement of the plans and profiles within 120 days from the date of approval, or in the case of an appeal, endorsement of the plans and profiles within 120 days of the settlement of an appeal, or such additional time as the Planning Board may allow.
Conditional upon the provisions of a performance guarantee in the form of a covenant duly executed and approved, to be noted on the plans and recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds. Said form of guarantee may be varied from time to time by the Petitioner with mutual agreement on the content of said guarantee by the Petitioner and Planning Board without amendment or modification of this approval.
The Petitioner agrees to complete all ways and the installation of all municipal services in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Board within two (2) years from the date of endorsement. Upon a finding by the Planning Board that the construction of all ways and the installation of all municipal services has not been completed with two (2) years, the approval of the plan may be rescinded by the Planning Board.
The Petitioner agrees that it will guarantee to protect, repair, replace, and where necessary, and upon written acceptance by the Planning Board, redesign the works constructed and submit revised plans and profiles for the Planning Board's approval and for recording at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds so that said works actually carry out the purposes for which they were intended. Said repair, replacement, or redesign will be based upon experience in the field, which demonstrates the existing construction and/or design to have been improperly installed or wholly inadequate.
Per the subdivision Rules and Regulations, the applicant is required to submit as-built plans.
The vote was (5-0) with Mr. Grandy participating. Loring Tripp did not participate in the vote.
BOA 3340 McDonalds
Atty. Edward Angley began the presentation for a request for a special permit in order to demolish and reconstruct the existing McDonalds restaurant on Rte. 44. The proposed plan would improve the flow on the site and provide better handicap access.
Al McCally, Ayoub Engineering, presented the plan for the site. The new restaurant would be 41,000-sq. ft., with no basement. It would be just over 90 feet long and wider than the existing restaurant, which would allow for improved site flow, handicap access and interior flow. There would be a double menu board for the drive-thru and a double trash enclosure to handle the recycling. The parking would be reduced from 74 spaces to 70 spaces. Handicap parking spaces would be provided in front of the building.
Malcolm MacGregor and Loring Tripp were concerned with the lack of landscaping along the front of the property to screen the parking from the street.
Mr. McCally stated that there would be 20 feet between the street and the parking spaces, but they could look at reducing the parking in order to increase the green space.
The Board and DPW had many concerns regarding the access and egress to the site and the traffic circulation within the site.
The Board suggested that the applicant present different styles for the building including a retro look and one similar to the McDonalds at Exit 5.
The applicants agreed to revisit the site layout and building design and return on January 9, 2005 for further review.
Conceptual Review VOSD Loring Tripp recused himself from the review.
Valerie Massard presented the conceptual review for a Village Open Space Development on Map 30, Lot 74, off Oak Ridge Road. There are two existing attached single family dwellings on one lot. The plan would separate the structures onto individual lots and provide 0.50 acres of open space. Ms. Massard suggested that a restriction could be placed on the property to prohibit any further density. A paved road ends at the driveway to the property and house has a paved driveway and one has an existing driveway. Ms. Massard suggested that the existing sheds could be moved to conform to setback requirements and that the applicant consider buffering along the perimeter of the property. Ms. Massard also suggested reshaping the open space lot.
The Board supported the proposed plan, with the changes suggested by Staff.
The Board took a five-minute break.
BOA 3341 Allen Drive/Variance of setback requirements
Atty. Amy Kwessel presented the request for a variance of area, depth, width, and frontage on property shown on Map 49 as Lot 2-200, located on Allen Drive. This lot was held in contiguous ownership with other parcels prior to 1984, at which time it was conveyed into separate ownership. Atty. Kwessell stated that the lot is a legal non-conforming parcel as it has been held in single ownership for more than ten years. Atty. Kwessell informed the Board that the applicant is seeking to construct a small, single family home. She stated that one side setback is in compliance, and that the proposal meets the front yard setback and lot coverage standards. Atty. Kwessell stated that there have been five variances granted for similar cases in the area and that a house on this lot would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Lee Hartmann stated that the issue was whether the Board would support making a 6,000-sq. ft. lot buildable.
Loring Tripp and Paul McAlduff felt that the lot was not buildable.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend denial of the petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Conceptual Review Samoset Street
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, Inc. presented a conceptual review for a proposed 20,000 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts office and distribution building to be located behind the existing Dunkin Donuts retail building on Samoset Street. The building would be a multi level structure with the office in the front and the commissary in the rear. There would be a fifty-foot buffer along the rear of the property. There is a possibility of creating a pedestrian walkway through this site to the KMart site. The applicant is considering adding concrete structures to the front of the site to direct traffic as right turn only.
Lee Hartmann was supportive of the mitigations for the right turn only as the existing signage is not enforced. He also encouraged the opportunity for shared access with adjacent properties. Nicholas Filla suggested eliminating the parking spaces in the front of the existing building and connecting with the KMart site.
Malcolm MacGregor questioned what type of trucks would be accessing the site.
Mr. Shaw replied that small box trucks, which are used to service each Dunkin Donuts, as well as, tractor trailers delivering supplies in the off peak hours would be accessing the site.
Paul McAlduff stated that the tractor-trailers would be backing up on their blind side and suggested redirecting the circulation.
Loring Tripp was supportive of mitigations that would make it a right turn only out of the parking lot. He also supported removing the parking space in the front of the existing building. He also suggested creating a loop road that would go right through the commissary.
Mr. Shaw stated they could review that option and return with revised plans at a future date.
Informal Review 19 Dublin Drive
Donald Correa presented a proposed Chapter 40B project consisting of six duplex units for a site located on Lots 5-2B-6, 5-2B-7 and 5-2B-10 on Map 54, off Dublin Drive. The existing drainage area would be held in common ownership. The project has been reviewed by the Conservation Commission informally to determine allowed uses. Under the VOSD, previously reviewed by the Board, Mr. Correa had presented a plan for six single-family units. At that time the Board had suggested reducing the density to five units.
Lee Hartmann stated that he was very disappointed with the proposal for six duplex units when the Board had requested a density of five-single family units.
Tim Bennett stated that there is an ATV trail around the drainage pit, which could be utilized as a walking trail through the open space. The applicant plans to leave as much vegetation as possible.
Mr. Correa stated that he was indifferent as to whether there were 12 Chapter 40B units or six single-family dwellings, but did not want to reduce the density to the six units.
Nicholas Filla suggested allowing one of the six units under the VOSD to be a duplex with one deed restricted, affordable unit or selling one of the lots to a nonprofit group for affordable housing.
Paul McAlduff felt the project should be five units and if the applicant wants the sixth unit it should be an affordable housing unit.
Loring Tripp questioned the selling price and size of the units.
Mr. Correa replied that the units would be three bedroom and sell in the range of $305,000 to $310,000. He preferred six market units or five market units with the duplex with one affordable unit.
Elspeth Franks questioned the amount of sand and gravel to be removed and encouraged the applicant to provide basements and garages for storage. Ms. Franks suggested that the applicant provide financial information as to the viability of the Chapter 40B proposal and/or the five market units with the duplex with one affordable housing unit before the Board made a decision.
Mr. Filla stated that there would be no sand and gravel removal.
Malcolm MacGregor supported the five units and one single family dwelling as an affordable unit. He felt it would not be appropriate to one duplex.
Mr. Correa informed the Board that he would return with a plan under a formal submission, which would be six-foot prints with one duplex with an affordable housing unit.
Minutes:
November 21, 2005
Loring Tripp moved to approve the minutes of November 21, 2005 as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
December 5, 2005
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of December 5, 2005 as presented; the vote was (3-0-2) with Malcolm MacGregor and Loring Tripp in abstention as they were not present.
Administrative:
B478 The Board endorsed a Certificate of Performance for Phase One of the Armstrong Road Extension.
B520 - Beaver Dam Ridge Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse a Lot Release for lots 9-15 and 9-16 subject to the following conditions:
Any sale of said Lots is for use as model homes.
No occupancy permit for dwelling purposes is to be issued prior to the satisfactory completion of work on the ground, or prior to the posting of a performance guarantee.
The vote was (4-0-1) with Nicholas Filla in abstention.
Loring Tripp suggested that the Board should comment on the relicensing of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. He informed the Board that the Nuclear Advisory Committee would be having more meetings to discuss the issue. He was supportive of the 1,500 acres surrounding the plant remaining as a buffer, which should be held in perpetuity. Mr. Tripp did not want to see that property developed.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that the northeast utility companies have predicted a shortage of utilities and are looking at the future of nuclear power.
Nicholas Filla suggested that wind turbines should also be considered. Mr. Filla suggested that the Board approach the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee to discuss the issue at the next joint committee meeting.
Loring Tripp moved to add the discussion of the nuclear power plant and alternative energy sources to the next joint committee meeting agenda; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Loring Tripp moved to adjourn at 10:10 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne
Administrative Assistant Approved on: January 9, 2006
| |
