MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Gary Bazzano, Louise Evans, Bart Pacekonis, and Mike Sullivan
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Dave Sorenson sitting for Cliff Slicer, and Viney Wilson sitting for Suzanne Choate.
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Bazzano read the legal notice into the record as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, May 31, 2007 and Thursday, June 7, 2007.
1. Appl 07-24P, Stevenson Amendment- request for amendment to Section 6.1.5.6 and 10.2 of the zoning regulations to increase the maximum permitted height of buildings from 40 feet to 65 feet in the Industrial zone subject to certain criteria; and for a waiver provision in the Industrial zone to increase the maximum permitted height of buildings to 90 feet if certain criteria are satisfied.
Craig Stevenson, Town Economic Developer, presented the following overview.
The Economic Development Commission took action at their last meeting to endorse this Amendment and wish to be signed on as co-applicant. The proposed amendment increases the allowable height of a building from 40 ft to 50 ft, or 4 stories; the building must be 350 ft from the nearest residential zone and 350 ft from a public roadway. There is a waiver provision for up to 75 ft or 5 stories.
This amendment allows for a more modern industrial structure, which assists us in attracting modern users. The amendment was crafted to have no negative impact on residential areas. It requires loading docks and service areas be screened from public view and public streets. There is a five percent reduction in maximum impervious surface coverage-as the building gets taller.
Banach gave the following planning report.
Request for amendment to Section 6.1.5.6 and 10.2 of the zoning regulations to increase the allowable height of buildings in the Industrial zone under certain conditions. The current regulations allow a maximum height of 40 feet no matter where a building is located. The applicant and Planning Department have a proposed revision to the amendment which is lesser in scope than the applicant’s original proposal. The revised amendment would increase the allowable height to 50 feet if a building is located at least 350 feet from a street and from any residential zone; and add a waiver provision for a maximum of 75 feet with those same standards if certain criteria are met.
The waiver criteria that must be met for a 75-foot building include:
· The taller building does not unduly disrupt the character of a residentially-zoned neighborhood.
· A 5% reduction in maximum impervious coverage is required for each additional floor above four stories. The additional green areas are to be distributed around the taller building, not isolated in a portion of the site with low visibility in relation to the subject building. This 5% reduction is applicable to the impervious coverage assigned to the tall building based on the applicable formulas for the minimum required lot size.
· Service areas and loading docks must be screened from public streets and residential areas.
The Town Plan of Conservation and Development is silent on this topic. The Plan does discuss redevelopment of Route 5 and addressStreetSullivan Avenue, where the majority of industrial areas are located.
There should be no infrastructure impacts of associated with this amendment. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed amendment and has no concerns with the taller buildings provided that emergency access is available around the entire building.
There should be no environmental impacts associated with this amendment.
There should be no traffic impacts associated with this amendment.
The Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed this amendment as required. CRCOG reports that they have found no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns.
If this application is approved, Planning Dept has no additional requested revisions.
Public input was requested.
Fred Bachelle, addressStreetPleasant Valley Road, spoke against this application. His concerns center on the height of buildings obstructing the sunlight onto other properties, blocking of sight lines by large buildings, and accumulation of ice in the winter on parking lots and streets.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.
· Concerns with public safety issues and can the town fire protection services handle these types of buildings. Banach responded that the Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed regulations and has no concerns.
· How do you compute the height of buildings—if someone wanted to put an antenna on the top of a building how would they calculate that? Banach: The average grade is used to make the calculation; the type of roof will determine where the calculations will be made. The height of flat-roof building is measured right at the roof line; on a peaked roof the determination is made halfway between eave and the peak. Towers are permitted up to a “reasonable and necessary height;” there is no height limitation on chimneys and towers.
· The original Stevenson amendment has five stories or sixty feet as the maximum; the commission needs more clarification as to what a “story” really is. Banach: It varies between 10 and 15 ft. This amendment is geared more toward manufacturing buildings.
· What is the topography of the purple areas on the plan? Banach: For the most part, our industrial zone does not have distinct topography, e.g., addressStreetSullivan Avenue is flat.
· What type of facility would need this amount of height? Manufacturing facilities, composite business, or aerospace industry would need this height. These businesses often use very large machinery that takes up a large amount of space. Any building that uses heating or cooling would need the space and height.
· Concerns with the architectural appearance of buildings this height, can the commission recommend architectural improvements on building? Stevenson: The commission can make any suggestions when needed. The larger buildings require the commission’s subjective review. The commission can also work with each individual applicant regarding architectural look of the building. The amendment could be strengthened by specifying architectural requirements if needed.
· The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.
2. Zoning Regulations Update—PZC-sponsored comprehensive rewrite/update of the entire zoning regulations. This is a substantial revision. All sections of the existing regulations are affected, and there are many modifications to existing provisions within the regulations.
Banach presented a planning report as follows.
The commission as well as the Planning Department staff have worked hard on the regulations update over the last several years. Extensive research was done, especially on the horse and animal regulations and on signage. A matrix that outlines all of the major revisions has been prepared.
Public input was requested.
Karen Bachelle had the following comments and suggestions.
o Delete the requirement: “Electric fences will not be used.” Modern electric fence systems are commonly used and should be permitted. Add a requirement that barbed wire fencing should not be used for horses since they can be seriously injured by barbed wire.
o The section on “Commercial Horse-Related Activities” should be revised to reflect both horses and large farm animals. The bond posting requirement should be deleted.
o Institute an agricultural advisory committee for the Town of CityCityplaceSouth Windsor.(see exhibit 1)
Judith Pack, addressStreet1862 Main Street, had concerns regarding the proposed Zoning Regulations. Her concern centered on acreage requirements for goats and other small animals; definition of commercial animal agriculture and definition of farm need clarification. What will be the effects on people who are currently raising farm animals, will they be grandfathered in?
Merle Dinse, addressStreet535 Clark Street, spoke against the proposed Zoning Regulations. His concerns centered on section 3.2.2 Interior lots of the Zoning Regulation. Mr. Dinse sold 5 acres of back land which now prevents him from selling his property as an interior lot according to the Zoning Regulations that have been in effect since 1990.
Kevin E. Woolam, addressStreetMain Street, spoke against this Zoning Regulation. His concerns centered on electric fencing to control predators like coyotes, revision on the regulations regarding smaller animals like sheep, cattle and goat. He needs more clarification on the definition of animal agriculture/commercial; the length of trailers is not specified in the new regulations. Definition of buildings for animal housing should be clarified.
Peter DeMallie, addressStreetPetersen Way, had concerns regarding the SRD cap and buffer requirements for houses of worship.
Kevin E. Woolam, section 71.12.2 regarding storage trailers for feed and bedding materials should be reconsidered. He noted that regarding section 7-8 farm stands the State was working on new legislation that would define where farm stands will be permitted.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.
· Could we word it to say that “modern electric fences would be permitted”? Banach suggested that it could be worded, “Industry standard electric fences would be permitted.”
· Is there anything in the regulations that discusses not using barb wire for horses currently? That needs to be added to the regulations.
· Need clarification on proposed regulations for goats. Goats are in units of five, five goats equal one horse. We see a problem in the residential subdivisions where people are keeping a large number of animals on a half acre or one acre lot. The size requirement was designed in order to make sure that if someone wanted to keep animals in a residential subdivision there would be enough land around them to avoid creating nuisances for other residents.
· Clarification on the effect on current and existing farms. Any lawfully existing agricultural use is grandfathered in, if it meets existing regulations. The resident can write a letter to put in the street file indicating that they had animals prior to the new regulations.
· Clarification on wording regarding commercial animals. The smaller number of animals requires a staff permit; more than three animal units requires PZC approval in order to get a higher lever of review. The section on commercial horse related activities needs to be amended in order to fill in the gap on acreage, so that anything more three acres or three animal units would come in front of the commission for approval.
· Addressing the resident that sold some of his acreage prior to 1990 under the old regulations, what do you recommend for him? The interior lot regulations written in 1990 were meant to handle leftover pieces of property that didn’t have much frontage, for example areas like addressStreetMain St. If you sold pieces of your land after 1990 you preclude yourself from being able to have interior lots. Property that has had the same boundary since 1990 is eligible for not more than two interior lots.
· Regarding commercial trailers for storage of feed, what is the proposed regulation? The main issues centered around recreation vehicles that are very large and are parked on small lots, with neighbors objecting. If the commission would like to increase the length for the livestock or horse trailers I don’t think that would be a concern. The length on the RV’s was not increased because those are the ones that are causing the concern. Bazzano noted that the neighbors were complaining about large RV’s in their yard, the intent was not to limit size but to limit the location where the RV’s are kept.
An e-mailed letter was read into the record dated 6/12/2007 from Wayne Kasacek regarding proposed agricultural regulations (see exhibit 2).
Bazzano noted that when working on the animal regulations, the Subcommittee wanted to keep the animals in Town but didn’t want to cause nuisances for neighbors in small-lot neighborhoods. We appreciate all the comments that were brought up tonight and we will take these into consideration.
· There is a concern with electric fencing in residential areas where children or people could be harmed by them. Karen Bashell said that there are different types of electric fences; it can be a plastic rope with strands of stainless steel on it. Regarding your concerns about safety to people, this is not designed to be lethal. Fencing should be flagged or marked.
· Concerning road side vendors, it will be a prohibited use, except for people who will be grandfathered who are doing it in specific locations. Should we exclude food vendors from that? At the time of deliberation we should address this issue.
Karen Bachelle requested the commission to keep the public hearing open to revisit and possibly rewrite the commercial animal agriculture section. Chairman Kennedy indicated that it was not the intention of the commission to keep the public hearing open; the Commission can seek further information and make appropriate modifications without having to discuss it at another public hearing. Banach noted that the Commission could hold the public hearing open for two weeks and she can make the changes that need to be made before the next hearing.
Pacekonis made a motion to continue the public hearing to June 26. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
REGULAR MEETING – Madden Room
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
None.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
Extension of meeting
Sorenson made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 PM. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
1. Request for Site Plan change order to address parking needs – Lindsey Limousine, addressStreet170 Strong Road, I zone
Mike Lindsey, Lindsey Limousine presented his request. The business has grown and they have run out of parking for their vehicles. He met with planning staff to discuss the proposed expansion of the parking area and what the regulations were concerning this. The proposed parking spaces are ten feet by twenty feet to have extra room. Some of the parking is designated “free form” parking since many of the vehicles would not fit in a traditional parking space.
Banach had the following planning report.
1. Lindsey Limousine was approved by this Commission in 1996. At that time, Mr. Lindsey had 7 vehicles and the vehicles were parked inside. Currently Mr. Lindsey’s fleet has grown to 26 vehicles and parking needs to be addressed. Mr. Lindsey has provided a revised plan showing outside parking for 26 vehicles.
2. Staff have no concerns regarding the parking plan itself. Engineering has no concerns. Staff’s sole concern with the site is the mobile billboard that is currently the subject of a ZBA appeal. If the Commission is comfortable with the parking plan, staff would note on the change order that approval of the parking change order does not constitute approval for the mobile billboard to be parked where it is visible from the street.
Engineering had no concerns.
Bazzano made a motion to approve the change order. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 06-61P, Lots and More – request for approval for a site plan modification for outdoor display and storage of products for property located at addressStreet700 Sullivan Ave., GC zone
Elaine Abouakar presented the following overview. They have received IWA/CC approval on the site plan. There are three “display” storage bins toward the front of the site; the working storage bins are all in the rear of the site. There are two greenhouses in the front screened by the vinyl fence. Lots and More would like to continue to display a small rental bobcat and excavator near addressStreetSullivan Avenue when the store is open; the equipment is moved to the west side of the building when the store is closed. Seasonal outdoor storage is requested under the front canopy of the building, as well as the food truck that has been previously discussed.
Banach had the following planning report.
Request for site plan approval for outdoor storage and display at Lots & More, addressStreet770 Sullivan Avenue, GC zone. Outdoor storage is governed by the provisions of Section 3.15, Commercial and Industrial Storage: “Storage, display…of any material outside of a building is prohibited if such storage, display…is visible from any public way, street, or passage, but any such storage, display…shall be subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission to insure the character of the area is not destroyed.”
As you will recall, Lots & More appeared before you in December with a request for outdoor storage and the commission directed the applicant to get a site plan prepared by a professional engineer. Since that time the applicant hired an engineer as well as a soil scientist to prepare a site plan and also submitted a site plan to the IWA/CC for approval of regulated activities in the wetlands upland review area.
The IWA/CC approved the application on 5/16/07 with a $5,000 erosion and sedimentation bond and a $5,000 stormwater structure bond. Staff would like the commission to establish a timeframe by which the applicant must complete work shown to be done (as the applicant is fully operational on site).
The food cart is also shown on this site plan. The applicant received approval for the cart in the summer of 2006 with the requirement that the cart be removed from the site on a daily basis. The cart never left the site and therefore was again the subject of zoning enforcement.
The food cart is shown in the same location where it was previously located, with paths and potential for picnic tables. If the Commission feels strongly that no outside eating areas should be provided, the approval letter needs to include that condition.
The site plan shows 16 bins for mulch and stone, 3 of which are about 60 feet from Sullivan Avenue and 13 of which are farther back on the east side of the site. The mulch bins along the addressStreetSullivan Ave frontage are proposed to be screened with 5 arborvitae, 3 feet all, 6 feet on center. Staff would recommend additional screening be added, such as a four foot high vinyl fence along the easterly side of the bins, to screen them from addressStreetSullivan Ave. (heading west).
The mulch bins outline the eastern perimeter of the proposed outdoor storage area. There is also an area shown up against the building for palletized outdoor display.
There is also an enclosed double greenhouse proposed. There is an existing six foot high, white vinyl fence on the southerly side of the proposed greenhouses, which will screen the greenhouses and ultimately the storage bins.
There is an 220 foot long fence shown along the westerly property boundary which encloses two fenced in areas. The front portion of the area is proposed to be used for rental equipment display area. The rear fenced in area shows the trailers used as storage containers proposed equipment storage area. The applicant is requesting approval to continue to use the storage containers as well as an equipment storage area to the rear of this site. .
There is a phase 2 addition shown in the area of the existing trailers, approximately 8,500 sf, that will be placed in the area of the trailers.
There are no storage or display areas shown directly in front of the store or within the parking lot except for the three mulch bins. All of the mulch bins are made of large concrete blocks. Currently there is a large variety of product being displayed in front of the store/within the parking lot. If the Commission approves this plan, the applicant needs to be very clear that the areas shown as outdoor storage and display on this site plan are the only areas that can contain outdoor items; and the items currently outside the areas shown on the site plan must be moved into those areas.
Staff are aware that there is an existing access easement from Lots & More property to Battiston’s Cleaners on the west. A recent site visit revealed product (landscaping blocks) being stored on that property. If approved, the applicant should move the all product onto their own property into approved display/storage areas.
Questions for the Commission include:
· Is the amount of outdoor storage/display acceptable?
· Are the mulch bins near addressStreetSullivan Avenue acceptable? and
· Is the proposed screening adequate, both at the front mulch bins and for the storage on the sides of the building?
If this application is approved, staff request an approval modification that clearly states outdoor storage/display is limited to the areas shown on the site plan; and that no outdoor storage or display of equipment is allowed along Sullivan Ave.
There were no Engineering comments.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.
· Mulch bins in front, are they necessary? They are for display purposes only. The display is more noticeable than a sign would be.
· In the past we have seen a tent sale; will that be an annual sale or will it happen more frequently? . This was for a one day tool sale.
· The person who runs the food cart understands that he has to take it away at night? Last year it needed to be taken away because it was not part of an approved site plan, we put it on the site plan so that it could become permanent and not have to be moved every night.
· Will the bob cat be seasonal? It’s seasonal only.
· The commission wants to set a time frame for outdoor display of equipment. The seasonal displays should be coded on site plan for future sales. The site plan should be updated to reflect any holiday sales.
· Concerns with storm water. Much of the development has not been completed. The back section has not been developed.
· Need clarification on the food cart area? There is no food cart operating on the site at the moment.
· What about the palletized outdoor storage? Does it include fertilizers? Fertilizers cannot be outside because they are not waterproof. We have bagged stone and marble chips in sealed plastic bags. The pallets are only one row deep, with a row on top.
Banach requested that the commission set a time frame; at the moment they are running their business as usual and waiting for the site plan to be approved. Once approved the applicant will begin to make the changes on the site. The applicant noted that they are anticipating about 120 days or 4 months to complete the work.
Sullivan made a motion to approve the above mentioned application with the following conditions.
Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $5,000 erosion and sedimentation control and $5,000 to ensure constriction of stormwater control structures.
All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of placeCitySouth Windsor.
This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
The building street number must be included on the final plan.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.
One bobcat and one excavator are permitted to be displayed for rent/sale along the addressStreetSullivan Ave. frontage while the store is open but must be moved into the equipment storage area while the store is closed. The equipment shall only be displayed on addressStreetSullivan Avenue during the months of April through October.
The pallet storage/display along the east wall of the building is limited to one row with one rack on top.
The arborvitae screening for the three concrete display bins must be increased to 4-6 feet height with trees planted not more than 4 feet on center.
Seasonal display of merchandise is permitted under the covered walkway along the front of the building.
This approval does not include approval for a permanent or semi-permanent food cart.
The areas shown as outdoor storage and display on this site plan are the only areas that can contain outdoor items; and the items currently outside the areas shown on the site plan must be moved into those areas. The plan should be revised to show all areas to be used for storage or display (the equipment display area at Sullivan Avenue; the display area under the covered walkway in front of the store; and the 80 feet by 18 feet proposed outdoor display area located next to bin 13).
The improvements associated with this approval must be completed, and all outdoor storage and display items must be contained within designated storage areas, within 120 days of the date of approval. The biofilters must be installed prior to constructing the concrete storage bins.
The second phase building expansion is not included in this approval. Site plan of development approval from this Commission is required prior to any expansion.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. Pacekonis, Sorenson, Kennedy, Wilson, Bazzano, and Sullivan voted to approve the application. Evans voted no. The motion carried 6-1.
3. Appl 07-23P, Roy Als Automotive Refinishing - request for site plan approval for a general repairer’s license for property located at 1265 John Fitch, Unit 10 & 11, I zone
Jason Roy , Roy Als Automotive, said that he is looking for a site plan approval and a general repairers license. He is proposing to open an automotive repair shop to do alloy wheel repair and small repairs.
Banach gave the following planning report.
Application for site plan approval to occupy a portion--approximately 4,800 square feet--of an existing industrial building to operate a general repairer’s facility for motor vehicles at addressStreet1265 John Fitch Boulevard, Units 10 and 11, I zone.
With this request, the applicant is seeking approval for a general repairer’s license which is issued from the DMV after receiving local zoning approval. His business is an automotive reconditioning shop and their services include cosmetic bodywork and spot panel repairs, alloy repair and refinishing.
This use is being proposed under Section 6.1.2.7. This section relates to permitted uses in the industrial zone and states: “any other industrial uses except those specifically regulated as Special Exception uses under section 6.1.3, when authorized by the Commission. In determining the appropriateness of the use, the Commission shall consider the criteria listed under section 6.1.3.
Criteria include:
The goals and objectives of the Plan of Development are met;
Adverse traffic impacts are not created;
Negative impacts on property values are not created;
The land is physically suited for its proposed use;
Adverse environmental impacts are not created;
There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community need;
Present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage system, and other improvements have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use
Historic factors are adequately protected; and
The overall physical appearance of the development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goals for the neighborhood.
The Commission may recall other similar type applications have been approved in the industrial area.
The applicant has submitted a plan which outlines the lease area as well as the parking spaces that will be dedicated to his use. His narrative indicates that the turn-around on cars is about 1-2 days, and he will not accept any collision work.
There is public water and public sewer available to the site. Fred Shaw, Sup’t of Pollution Control has indicated since there are no floor drains, no WPCA approval is required.
The fire marshal has visited the site and has expressed no concerns.
If this application is approved, the planning department has no modifications to request.
There were no engineering concerns.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.
· This is a good use for the zone, will there be any waste management concerns. It was an existing business; the waste pick up is already set up in conformance with DEP requirements.
· How many vehicles will be on site? 20 to 25 vehicles.
· Any anticipated problems with venting of fumes? The DEP will inspect the paint booth for compliance.
Bazzano made a motion to approve the above mentioned application. placeCityWilson seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. Request for determination of use for dog grooming/dog daycare/dog training for property located at addressStreet1678 Ellington Road, RC zone
Bazzano recused himself from the above mentioned discussion since he is related to the applicant.
Judy and Larry Lunds presented an overview of the proposed Dog Daycare.
Banach reviewed the Zoning Regulations for RC zone. Commission members recommended that the applicant should apply for a temporary and conditional permit for the dog daycare, since this is not a permitted use in this zone. The permit should be renewed every two years.
5. Preliminary discussion with Scott Leonard re: Buckland Road Properties.
Attorney Peter Alter, representing Scott Leonard of Buckland Road Properties, reviewed a proposed grading plan. Attorney Alter requested for Commission’s recommendations on how to best develop the site. Ideally, the applicant would prefer a zone change to General Commercial, as the setbacks and other requirements are smaller than other commercial zones, thus creating a more workable property.
Banach does not recommend General Commercial Zone for this site due to the large number of permitted uses that are not desired in the Gateway Zone area. Doolittle had a number of concerns on grading issues that were previously expressed in a memo to the applicant, including the height of the proposed retaining wall (up to 26 feet, terraced, along the west property boundary.
Commission members discussed the access to the site, future concerns with a retaining wall, and potential uses for site. Commission members recommended restricted commercial as a possible zone for site. Attorney Alter mentioned that his client is willing to work with the Town Engineer to develop a plan.
6. Banach read a letter from Michael Switzer from MK Construction Inc., regarding vehicle storage inside of building and whether this is a permitted use.
Commission members had no objections to this.
OTHER BUSINESS:
None
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Evans made a motion to release the landscaping bond for Appl 02-76P, Summerwood SRD, in the amount of $5,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Evans made a motion to release the landscaping bond for Appl 05-63P, Hartford Truck, in the amount of $2,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Evan made a motion to release the landscaping bond for Appl 03-08P, Podunk Ridge SRD, in the amount of $10,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the Inland and Wetlands bond for Appl 04-72P, Brightman Circle E & S, in the amount of $10,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the Inland and Wetlands bond for Appl 04-62P, placePlaceNameWentworth PlaceTypePark, in the amount of $5,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the Inland and Wetlands bond for Appl 02-23P, Post Road Stages E & S, in the amount of $5,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the Inland and Wetlands bond for Appl 02-23P, Post Road Stages Detent, in the amount of $5,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the Inland and Wetlands bond for Appl 05-12P, MASSCONN E & S, in the amount of $5,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the Inland and Wetlands bond for Appl 05-12P, MASSCONN Detent, in the amount of $5,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES:
The minutes of 4/24/07 and 5/8/07 were accepted by consensus with minor corrections to be made.
ADJOURNMENT:
Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
____________________________
D. Maria Acevedo
Recording Secretary
| 
