 |
Minutes of the Taunton Conservation Commission February 10, 2014
Present: Chair Steven Turner, Vice Chair Debra Botellio, Commissioners Renwick Chapman, Ernest Enos, Luis Freitas, Marla Isaac, and Neil Kelly.
Motion to continue the minutes of the January meeting until the March meeting, DB, second MI, so voted.
Arthur Cleveland Bent Awards
Thank you to Councilors Estele Borges and Jean Quinn for attending.
2011- Russell Spooner, Pam is accepting on his behalf
2010- TRWA, no members were present to accept
2012- G. Lopes Construction Company- Gil Lopes and Rob Bradbury accepted their award
2013- Brian Marques- Donna Marques, and Lyndsay & Colby Marques accepted the award
Motion to come back from break and resume the meeting, DB, second NK, so voted.
(RC out)
Continued Certificate of Compliance
- Pioneer Way, Taunton Dev/Mass Dev, (COC), SE73-2524 Field report states that this project was for the construction of a 1,183 foot access road (Pioneer Way) off John Hancock Road to service a 165-acre, 5 lot, industrial subdivision. The work included utilities, stormwater management, and wetland replication. The work is partially completed and the applicant is requesting a Partial COC in order to comply with grant requests. There was a break in the siltation barrier which required cleaning out by hand the silt that ended up in the adjacent wetland along the south side of the access road. The area was cleaned out and is in compliance. The replication area needs one more growing season before a final COC can be issued. Roadwork and stormwater management systems are in
place and are in compliance. MR recommends that the TCC issue a Partial Certificate of Compliance for this project. Bob Field present for the applicant. Motion to approve partial COC, NK, second DB, so voted.
(RC in)
Public Hearing
- 38 Lakeview Place, Potter, (NOI), SE73-2568 Field report states that this project is for the razing of an existing house and garage and construction of a new house and garage on three lots, 25-33, -34, and -35. Once this project is approved, the applicant will be filing with ZBA to combine lots and build the house within 6 feet of the adjacent lot. The property is located on Sabbatia Lake and all work will take place outside of the 25 foot WPZ. A siltation barrier is depicted on the plan and will be the limit of work. An existing concrete wall is at the edge of the lawn. The work will involve razing the existing house and garage and erecting a 30’ x 55’ house with attached 24’ x 40’ garage. The house will be placed on a concrete slab and a 12’ x 20’ concrete patio will be built in the rear of the house. In addition, a 48” oak and 30” pine will be taken down. The stumps should be ground and NOT removed. The existing gravel driveway will be paved and the existing shed will
also be razed. A concrete washout area and dewatering area are depicted outside the 100-foot buffer zone. Roof drains are proposed to be connected to drywells. If the soils cannot support the drywells, MR recommends that the concrete dispellers be placed under the roof drains to lessen the risk of erosion. Prior to building permit sign-off, all ZBA approvals must be in place. The work as presented should not negatively impact the lake, therefore MR recommends that the TCC approve the project and issue an Order of Conditions to include the attached special conditions which include the above recommendations. Motion to open, DB, second NK, so voted. George Potter and Lisa Johnson present. RC plan shows erosion control barrier is that continuing northerly and southerly right up to Lakeview Place? Yes running right along the perimeter. RC suggests it run right up both sides of the property, using straw wattles. No change in
elevation, keeping it as is. Motion to approve with special conditions 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,15,19,21,24,25,25,27,28-no grubbing of the tree stumps, use stump grinder, 29- if soils do not permit, concrete dissipaters should be placed under roof drains to decrease erosion, and 30- straw wattles along northerly and southerly from lake up to the street, RC, second NK, so voted.
(LF out)
- Harrington Avenue, Rose and Castle, (NOI), SE73-2567 This project is for the excavation and removal of municipal trash waste. The applicant plans to excavate three to six feet down within the entire site, up to 977.78 cubic yards, and backfilling with clean fill. Wetlands were delineated by Walter Hewitson on August 7, 2007 and flags were refreshed in December 2013. All flags are off site and there is a clear separation of wetland to upland. A siltation barrier is noted on the plan and will be as close as 4 feet from the wetland so that the wetland applicant can excavate the property. The work as proposed should not negatively impact the wetland or result in siltation/erosion into the wetland area. It should improve the overall quality of the land and groundwater
once the trash fill is removed and replaced with clean fill. MR recommends that the TCC approve the wetland line, flags 1WH to 5 WH for reference purposes only, approve the project, and issue an order of conditions to include the attached special conditions. Motion to open, DB, second NK, so voted. NK wetland did not go on property? MR said all for reference purposes only, all flags are actually off property. Present property owner Joe Rose, Nathan Finness, and Steve Rumba from Collins Engineering. DB is there any hazardous waste? Rose says no its municipal waste from 1945-1948, dumped there by John Semas. Semas was the ash collector for the city, dumped ash and also trash on the site. He originally wanted to dump waste at the landfill but wanted to be able to salvage, dump men said no, they also wanted him to hire a bulldozer but all this would cost more money. Semas decided to just dump the trash, etc on the land he
owned. This began in 1945 and it was a small amount, that grew and grew. Eventually neighbors complained, Board of Health was called. They went down and told him to stop until he could meet with the city council. On 5/4/48 he went before the city council to request that he be allowed to work until the hearing. It was allowed, letter was sent to Board of Health stating he could work until the hearing. Semas was left alone to continue. In February 1949, the property had a mountain of trash, rats, etc. Neighbors signed a petition to go to the city council and petitioned county commissioners. A meeting was held, Board of Health said Semas was never given permission to dump trash on the property, he cannot do it and must stop. City Council said to stop and the site must be cleaned up. In July or August, after the meeting where he was told to stop, an inspector went out. Semas had a bulldozer onsite and was burying the
trash. Fast forward to when Mr. Rose (Joe Rose’s father) buys the land and runs his business there for 27 years. When he passes away, his son Joe decides to cleanup the site. He does a title search and finds as they are clearing titles that there is a swamp there, a stream that runs under School Street. At one point land was for sale, P&S was done, potential buyer has test pits done, found that there is tons of trash buried under the site and backs out of the deal. Now Mr. Rose has Mr. Finness do test pits, he finds in 2012 after doing 3 test pits, that there is trash 6.5 feet below surface grade. RC asked on test pits how much fill or trash? They dug down about 6.5 feet and found silty sand so about 6.5 feet of trash covering .11 acres of land. Mr. Rose was told the land is not buildable, it needs to be cleaned up. Mr. Rose canvassed all departments in the city, went to DEP, did his research and is pretty confident
that what is there is Simas trash that he dumped over that time period. RC asked if not removing from Harrington Ave? Rose said no that’s a paper street so its half his and half Mr. Peterson’s. Rose said the intent is to remove all rubbish and trash from there and replace with clean fill. Rose says his attorney told him the city has the ability to work with him as far as where it will be taken when removed. He is currently working with the city. There is an excavation plan done already. NK asked so you did 3 test pits, assuming based on what came out there is no hazardous waste? Mr. Finness said he did not say that, they did what they were asked. Rose states again he is confident there isn’t any hazardous waste, no business ever ran there that used anything that would have left any hazardous waste. It was an empty lot that his father parked cars on. Mr. Finness did state that they did 3 test pits, did
visual observations and screened soil with PID meters and came up with no volatiles. 2 test pits were done in the back and one in the front of the property in a triangular shape. Rose firmly believes if something on the lot was there it would have shown up in the tests. But Rose does state that if during the removal project anything if found they will stop immediately and contact MR. RC asked if there shouldn’t be a preliminary 21E process done? Yes it’s a process, went to boards, went to get records, collected data. Then Rose formulated this timeline of what went on with the property. All of this is part of the 21E process. RC usually the financial institute requires a 21E testing. Rose said no financial institute is involved right now. They will have tests done once cleanup and clean fill are put in. RC asked why not test now? Why perform further testing if removing and nothing was seen onsite yet
Rose said. RC in most cases the landfill receiving the materials will want lab results before accepting anything. Rose said that is not what Waste Management told him. They said if he can prove it’s not hazardous then they will accept it. Rose says he did the work and research now he and the city need to decide where it’s going to go. Then it will be cleaned up. He feels after research was done, no further testing is needed, now time to remove it. RC asked if Finsness has done enough work that he can say more than likely there are no hazards? Finsness said he cannot say that, he only did test pits and screening. RC is not sure TCC has legal rights to require further testing to issue an NOI. NK asked if there are hazardous materials onsite they will definitely affect the wetlands so why can’t the TCC require it? RC said even if it’s contaminated and they find a landfill to accept it and they
clean it, it reduces the current impact. Even if it is hazardous and they remove it and clean it up, it would be a positive thing. He thinks it’s a benefit if it is removed and disposed of properly. DB asked, you said you will keep an eye on things as it goes along, but who will be there to tell if you come upon hazardous waste? Mr. Finsness and his company will be there. RC said at this point they’ve done the test pits, no LSP as of record. No it’s not needed at this time. They will be onsite monitoring. NK asked Rose if he will get compensated at the end? Rose said because he owns the land he is responsible for cleaning it but if he can prove it was dumped there as history states then he will get compensated. Rose said he is just asking to go into the wetland buffer area and remove any and all material from the lot and replace with clean fill. RC asked if he was going to go in and do the work
before he has a resolution from the city? No this is just the first step, next he will be going to the city. He hasn’t sat down with the city yet to make a determination on where the materials are going. RC asked you will have people onsite to monitor? Yes. RC do you realize that if TCC votes to issue an Order of Conditions, it means that Rose must comply with all conditions and laws before just going right in and removing? No Rose knows there are many procedures and protocols to follow, this is just the first step, next he will meet with the city engineer and go from there. NK agrees it’s much better but more comfortable if they knew if the 21E will be required by the city. Rose is confused, they are in the process of a 21E, just not at the point where they need money for lab tests because nothing has come up onsite. NK at the end they will be able to go in and test and say there is no hazardous waste. Rose
says there is no reason for lab tests yet but it may be required further down the road. Finsness a complete hazardous waste characterization is done if required. ST is it sent out for this before it’s brought to landfill? That depends on the waste facility and if they require it or not. That is between Rose and the facility. But if they require testing then the testing will be done. NK so all part of a 21E process? Finsness said yes. Public Input- Richard Clark 16 Freitas Ave. Mr. Clark thinks its interesting that Mr. Rose can almost guarantee there is no hazardous waste out there when junk cars sat there everyday. Clark just asks that a 21E be made to be completed before the work is done there. With the history of this site, he feels it is necessary before they proceed. Clark does feel that Rose has begun doing a great job cleaning the site up. Finsness said Rose is going to remove all materials,
prior to backfilling they will test so before property is restored it will be a clean site. DB asked Mr. Clark what the timeframe of the pictures was? Mr. Clark said 2000/2001. Rose said they were there, Clark is correct then in 2007 Rose removed cars & buildings. Clark said the cars, etc just sat there for so long that to not test and to say there are no hazardous materials…..like the cart before the horse. Second speaker was Attorney Michael Suneson representing the neighbors. Due to the concerns from the neighbors and the history of the site. They feel the testing should be done right away. When materials are taken off property, before removed they want them tested. RC knows the laws are in place whether contaminated or not as far as TCC involvement. As far as the process, they cannot call for testing. RC said he can’t imagine during disposal, it not being required to test it. It won’t
stop the project, even if testing is made to be done. The neighbors are that much better off having the materials gone. Suneson asked is it different removal is hazardous vs just trash? Finsness said material would be removed below water table and some kind of dewatering would be done if hazardous. Suneson asked is it works or better to remove if its known hazardous or not? Is it a different removal procedure? Finsness said a screening was done if any petro, gas, chlorosolvents were in there they would have been seen or they would have been able to smell them. The testing came up with zeros across the board. Lead there? That doesn’t affect the water table even if present. Finsness agrees some landfills will require testing but financially it may not be Mr. Rose’s to pay for. If it comes to it that Rose would have to cover costs, he may be better just leaving it as is due to such a financial strain. That is between
Rose and the city. Rose stated his father was exonerated and tests were done in the past, no issues from anything leaking was found on site. Rose stated he is not here to ask to build, he is only here to clean the site. Suneson did state that another abutter who purchased property there was required to do a 21E . Rose asked if Suneson could prove that? He said yes, Mr. Freitas was required to have one done prior to purchase. Rose stated he is in fact doing a 21E process, the photos and articles brought in by abutters, that doesn’t exist anymore the site has been cleaned up for 7-8 years. MR asked DEP and nothing was in the conditions. DB asked did TCC ask it to be done? MR said it was not in the conditions. ST asked how much money would it be to do testing before vs after? If test prior to removal it is $750 per sample, plus other fees, it could be around $1700-$2000. Rose said for all he knows he
may go to the city engineer and then council and be told more testing needs to be done or they may say bring it to East Britannia Street landfill. RC what TCC is responsible for is to regulate how the applicant is going to go about removal of material and the cleaning of the site. Not a concern of theirs how they dispose of it as long as it’s according to the law. They have to comply with laws on record as to how it is disposed of. It’s highly unlikely that it would be contaminated so it cannot be disposed of. He understands the concerns but they are not a factor in the TCC’s decision. RC believes that there are laws in place to protect the environment and us in regards to the contamination. Suneson said given the nature of the property when they are saying they are going to allow removal, what is the best way to do that without making it worse? Rather than say another board will take care of it, why not take
care of it here? RC could see the TCC saying that any ground water that needs to be pumped, be filtrated. Steve Rumba (with applicant) said if is contaminated there, all covered under Mass Contingency Plan and will be covered under that. NK lot line to lot line? Yes excavated 6.5 feet right to the wetland. Removing all contaminated material will not be leaving it sitting there in trucks. If facility requires tests, they will test, if they take it without testing, so be it. ST said he would feel more comfortable knowing where the material is going. Mr. Clark said what if the dump says ok, then they start digging and there is hazardous materials so dump backs out. Then what? Then it goes to the facility in New Hampshire. Rose said it is all strictly regulated, nobody is cutting a deal. Rose said he could walk away and leave it as is but he’s trying to do what is right. If the city accepts it then
fine, it will go to the landfill in Taunton. If the city says test first, then they will. ST said again he would still feel more comfortable know exactly where the material was going. Rose said first thing city will ask is what the TCC said. DB so nothing further will be done until TCC gives their decision, then from there going to work with the city, not going out with the bulldozers right? TCC decision just makes him go to the city engineer. RC does the city require an earth removal permit? Yes so it requires an earth removal process. ST asked why don’t we test before or after? If we say test before removal then they will have to and will cost the same as the dump requirements. Tests take one week to return from lab. ST asked if they are optimistic about getting this done soon? Rose doesn’t know. ST asked can we wait and see what they say before we decide? No they will send him back
here, he needs TCC approval first. RC doesn’t care where materials go as long as they comply with the laws. ST said we have to care where it goes. DB and RC said no we don’t. MI asked if we can require a report on where the material goes? Yes and it is stated in Rose’s excavation guidance. Rose said he has no intention of doing anything underhanded. He has his people here ready to follow procedures and laws and remove the contamination. RC said if we issued an Order of Conditions and Rose gets his permits to do it, the TCC is not sitting here saying he can develop it and not have to come back here first. DB said it’s better for all concerned, get the site cleaned up. Suneson said nobody is saying Rose is doing anything wrong or underhanded, they just want the procedure followed properly. Rumba said in doing the testing they did do, they are required to report anything over 100. As stated
before the readings showed zeros across the board. Rose stated that when he reaches a negotiation settlement with the city engineer and city, he will come back to the board to let them know. By the time that backhoe shows up, all concerns will have been aired and met, all permits will be in place. Motion to grant an order of conditions with special conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28-copies of bill of loading to be submitted to concomm, 29-all reports copied to Conservation office, 30-to return to ConComm and state where material is going, 31-include all information given tonight as part of the record, 32- Lords Assoc to be onsite at all times, report to MR daily during earth removal, and 33-siltation barrier along both sides of the property, entire perimeter using straw wattles or silt fence, RC, second DB, so voted. Motion to close, DB, second MI, so voted.
LF back in
- Off Jos. E Warner Blvd, MA DEV of Marine Fisheries, SE73-2570 Field report states that this project is for the installation of a pre-manufactured metal steep pass fish ladder at the Draka Dam on the Three Mile River. A temporary access road will be required to reach the site and there will be some alteration to the dam structure in order to install the fish ladder. The official address of this project is 620 Spring Street in Dighton but the work is all within Taunton. The Town of Dighton administratively approve the work. NHESP has stated that the project “ will not adversely affect” the resource area habitat of rare wildlife species and “will not result in a take” of state listed rare species. This project will take place on the Taunton side of the
river and access will be through the storage lot at #761 Joseph Warner Boulevard. The owner of the dam has agreements for access with the owners/tenants of #761 Joseph Warner Boulevard and with the owner of the adjacent parcel, DI Trust. The installation of the fish ladder will require alterations to be made at the north end of the existing dam structure. This will involve cutting and removing approximately 17 linear feet of the existing 20 foot wide concrete apron at the downstream side of the dam in order to construct a concrete entrance channel, turning pool, and plunge pool. A concrete stub wall will be built against the apron to prevent undermining of the base soils. Approximately 15 linear feet of the 175 foot long dam will be raised 1.5 feet to accommodate the fish ladder. This section will include the fish ladder exit channel and a plunge pool return weir. A depressed pooling area will be constructed at the entrance to the fish
ladder. The base area will be covered by modified rockfill stabilized with geotextile fabric. The amount of fill below MAHW is estimated at 5.9 cubic yards. The area of the existing concrete apron proposed for removal and not occupied by the new structures will be covered with modified rockfill stabilized with geotextile fabric. This will reduce the area of Land Under Water which is covered with concrete in this location from 288 square feet to 112 square feet. A temporary 10 foot wide roadway will be constructed from the lot behind the Draka factory building where a walking path currently exists. A twelve foot wide temporary bridge will be installed over the perennial stream in the project area. Temporary disturbance in this area will be 24 linear feet of bank and the bank and roadway will be restored with plantings once the work is complete. This project will benefit the overall health of the river and Mount Hope Pond which is
downstream from the dam. The fish ladder will provide access to upstream spawning areas and will be an overall benefit to the freshwater mussel species in the watershed. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue an Order of Conditions to include the attached special conditions. Motion to open DB, second MI, so voted. Present Brad Chase and Rachel Calabrio. 5 trees need to be removed and replanted based on TCC recommendation. Natural Heritage wants them to use fiber rolls. MR put in siltation barrier but leave open for straw wattles. RC to divert water or anticipate dewatering? Mostly to divert and move water further down the spillway with sand bags. RC if dewatering is to be done discharge into a still basin. RC had a few questions about the access road. They said there is no proposal to put anything there just to simply remove brush. RC asked about clearing vegetation and ½ dozen
trees? He would like them to chip and spread as an anti-erosion mat. MI has been out and MR too. They don’t think it will get muddy. RC no wattles along roadway? MR no its upland. RC would like chips along roadway to stabilize. RC how will they stabilize the bridge? It is shown how it locks into the streamline but not mid-support on the bridge. Brad said the middle will be a pile of timbers or a steel beam. RC steel for 50 foot span or interim support by railroad ties. His concern is access and the disturbing the woods and stream. ST ok but don’t put anything in the stream or disrupt it. RC said Tibbetts or Brad prepare an 8x11 sketch of the bridge and will consult with the structural engineer. RC asked about storage? MR said they have a concrete washout. Motion to issue with an order of conditions with special conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 28 steel beam for bridge with
a 8x11 sketch, RC second, MI so voted.
- 30 Mozzone Blvd., Greene/The Greeneway Wellness Foundation, (NOI), SE73-2569 The field report states that this project is for the redevelopment of a portion of an existing building zoned as industrial use, to include the construction of additional parking. Work will fall within the 100-foot buffer zone of a BVW. The site work will be done on the east half of the building, which is currently vacant. The wetland is located along the south and east of the building, along the edge of the existing pavement. A railroad spur, which is significantly higher in elevation, runs along the southern portion of the property. The BVW along the eastern property line runs to a drain which has an outfall into a wetland system at the end of Mozzone Boulevard at County
Street. The wetland was flagged by Sabatia, Inc. on January 10, 2014. The wetland flags are all within the property and run from WF1 to WF17. The applicant will be reconfiguring the parking lot and in doing so will be removing pavement along the eastern edge and replacing it with a grass swale, thus increasing pervious surface on site. A siltation barrier is depicted and is considered the limit of work. As the existing pavement is at the edge of the BVW, work will fall within the 25 foot WPZ. This work can be considered redevelopment under 310 CMR 10.05 (6)(k) to (q). Stormwater Management practices need to meet DEP standards, and from review by the City Engineer, they meet the standards. The work as presented should pose no impact to the adjacent wetlands, but should rather improve the quality of water leaving the site with addition of impervious surfaces. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue an order of
conditions to include the attached special conditions. MR also recommends that the wetland delineation be approved. Bob Field present for the applicant. Motion to open DB, second MI, so voted. Mark has reviewed and approved the drainage calculations Motion to issue an order of conditions with special conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, and 27, NK, second MI, so voted. Motion to close DB, second MI, so voted.
Public Meetings
- Route I-495, MA DOT-Highway Division-District 5, (RDA), DSE-1065 Field report states that this project is for the proposed application of herbicides approved for use in sensitive areas within state highway rights of way at low pressure (60 psi) at spot locations. These locations include beneath median, roadside and ramp guardrails; within crevices between pavement and curbing or edging; on poison ivy; and within joints between and under jersey barriers within the project area. MassDOT will use approved herbicides for sensitive areas which have been approved by DEP and DAR, under 333CMR 11.00 “Rights of Way Management”. Much of MassDOT’s vegetation management will be done using mechanical methods such as mowing, hand cutting, and selective trimming. At mile 23,
24, and 25, MassDOT will use chemicals or herbicides for vegetative management. Two methods of herbicide application will be used-Cut Stump Surface Treatment, and Foliar Treatment. The Cut Stump method is used in difficult to access sites and sensitive areas where other methods are not possible and where there is light stem density. The majority of the application will be done using the foliar treatment method as it is the most effective and economical method especially when mechanical methods must be used rather than men for safety reasons. It is also the most effective on poison ivy which can be a hazard to pedestrians and maintenance crews. MassDOT will use post-emergent, low volume, low pressure herbicide applications only, which will include Oust Extra and Accord Concentrate, and will be performed by a licensed DAR approved contractor. All spray areas will be treated as limited spray zones, meaning that the herbicide may only be applied at
low pressure once within a 12 month period. A “No Spray Zone” of 100 feet on either side will be designated where I-495 crosses the Snake River (Mile 24), and at Exit 9 north-bound (Mile 25). This area is also an alternate year spraying as it is within a Zone II well district. Herbicides will not be applied closer than ten feet to any wetland area. The DOT will use colored reflectors to designate the no-spray, limited-spray, and alternate-year spray zones. The work as proposed is for safety purposes and meets all state and federal spraying requirements. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue a negative determination to include the attached special conditions. Motion to open, DB, second RC, so voted. Tom Maguire and Mike Clemens present. Motion to a negative determination, with conditions 1, 2, and 19, DB, second NK, so voted. Motion to close, DB, second RC, so voted.
- Route 24, MA DOT-Highway Division-District 5, (RDA), DSE-1066 Field report states that this project is for the proposed application of herbicides to the roadside, ramps, pavement, and curbing in order to remove poison ivy. This application will be selective and weeds beneath guardrails, within crevices between pavement and curbing, and within joints between and under jersey barriers and around sign posts. The majority of the application will be done using the foliar treatment method as it is the most effective and economical method especially when mechanical methods must be used rather than men for safety reasons. It is also the most effective on poison ivy which can be a hazard to pedestrians and maintenance crews. MassDOT will use approved herbicides for
sensitive areas which have been approved by DEP and DAR and included Oust Extra and Accord Concentrate. There are 11 sections that are deemed “No Spray Zones” and are located at Route 24 Exit 13 (Route 44SB) at the stream (100’ on each side); in Raynham at the exit for Route 44E at the stream (100’ on each side); and where Route 24 crosses over the Taunton River (100’ on each side). In all cases, herbicides will not be applied closer than 10 feet to any wetland area. The work as proposed is for safety purposes and meets all state and federal spraying requirements. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue a negative determination to include the attached special conditions. Motion to open, DB, second RC, so voted. Motion to accept field report, DB, second RC, so voted. Motion to issue a negative determination with conditions 1 and 2, RC, second DB, so voted. Motion to close, DB, second NK,
so voted.
Other Business
- Anything re: Duffy Drive & Mr. Farley? MR said this is currently a work in progress.
Motion to adjourn, EE, second LF, so voted. Meeting ended at 10:10pm.
| |
