PB Minutes 12-06-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

December 6, 2004

The Chairman, Paddy Culbert called the meeting to orde= r at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Bill = Scanzani, Henry DeLuca, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Plan= ning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Raymond Brunelle

ADMINISTRATIVE<= /p>

Map 9 Lot 9-9 – First Realty Trust – Golden Brook Estates – Request= for Bond Release

Ms. Ouellette said the as-built had not been reviewed and therefore the request could not be addressed by the Board.

Map 36 Lot<= /st1:place> 10-110 & 361 V&G Development – Appletree Estates – Requ= est for Bond Reduction

Mr. DeLuca stepped down.

Ms. Ouellette said a letter had been received = from TFMoran dated November 12, 2004 that stated the original bond amount as bei= ng $606,140.62; first bond release December, 2002 was $424,298.43; current bond remaining $181,842.19. TFMora= n also stated based upon approved subdivision plans and spreadsheet all work had b= een 100% completed and recommended a reduction of $121,228.13 which would retain $60,614.06 as a maintenance bond.

Mr. Culbert questioned the problem with the ro= ads and drainage. Mr. D’And= rea said there were several areas that were experiencing drainage problems; TFM= oran had the developer rework some of the areas to redirect some of the water. During the last rainstorm there wa= s some ponding on Dutton, but once the catch basins were cleaned, the drainage appeared to be adequate. Mr. D’Andrea said there was still one area (Garland & Appletree) wher= e a water sheet crossed the road to be picked up further down into a catch basin (which was done per the plan). There was a brief discussion regarding the drainage situation and agreement that water shouldn’t be going across a road. Mr. D’Andrea said the engine= er looked specifically at the portion of the road where the water went across = and confirmed that it was designed per the plan. Mr. Culbert asked if the design was proper. In Mr. D’Andrea’s opinion, it was not. He said he could request a more de= tailed response from TFMoran. The Bo= ard wanted more information.

Mr. Culbert said there was also an issue regar= ding the loam/seeding on Garlan= d Drive (at the portion of the road that enters into the subdivision which was brou= ght up to the developer approximately six months ago). Mr. D’Andrea said the develo= per stated they had loamed and seeded to their own satisfaction; also, modifications had been made to the area around the telephone pole (next to = 18 Garland Drive). Mr. Culbert said he reviewed the l= oam and seeding, and it didn’t appear that the developer had done anything.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Henry DeLuca, 16 Garland Drive, didn’t feel= that the drainage problem would be a big fix.&n= bsp; He said a catch basin could be added that would catch all the water. He said he mentioned t= he drainage situation to several people and the developer could have fixed the problem prior to the top coat being done, however the developer insisted th= at the top coat would fix the problem. He noted there was already a patch in the middle of the new road nea= r Dutton Road= . He said when there were torrential rains, there were approximately eight drains that didn’t work (there wasn’t enough of a pitch – the water passed around the drains). Ms. Ouellette said t= here were pictures showing the drainage areas.&= nbsp; Mr. DeLuca said one of the drains had been corrected by heating the = hot top and reforming the area, but the other areas had not been fixed. He then addressed the loam and seed situation (on the portion of Garland Drive leading into the subdivision that was 6’ to 8’ into the properties along the length of each) and info= rmed that where the areas had been disturbed it all rocks and was now swaling (s= inking). He said the residents had resided = in the area for 25 -35 years and with the amount of loam that was removed, some of= it could have been put back. He reiterated his concerns regarding drains, lawns and patches in the road.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board should recognize t= hat the Town had changed engineering firms.&nb= sp; He discussed the drainage and said an indentation was needed around = the catch basins, or the drainage wouldn’t work. Mr. Culbert suggested that the Boa= rd not reduce the bond until the issues were corrected.

Mr. D’Andrea said he could have TFMoran attend the next meeting to review with the Board what had been done, and not done, relative to the design. The Board wanted to speak to the engineer.

Mr. DeLuca returned to the Board.

Ma= p 22 Lot 8-20 & 22-9 – Fireside Homesteads, LLC – Heather Lee Lane – Request for Bond Reduction

Ms. Ouellette reviewed a letter dated December 3, 2004 that had an attachment outlining the estimate for the remaining work and recommendat= ion for the bond amount to be retained. Original bond amount $293,000; bond amount for the remaining work $97,700 which reflects a 30% retainage.&nb= sp; Ms. Ouellette reviewed the remaining work outlined in the letter.

There was no public input. Mr. D’Andrea was not aware o= f any problems, other than the remaining issues outlined in the December 3, 2004 letter.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To reduce the bond for Map 22 Lo= t 8-20 & 22-9 and retain $97,700.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ma= p 7 Lot 4-185 – Geoffrey Detellis – Rocky <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Hill Road &= #8211; Request for Bond Reduction

Ms. Ouellette reviewed a letter dated December 3, 2004 that contained an estimate and list of remaining work to be done. Original bond amount $164,520.63; recommended reduction of $90,619.63 to retain $73,901. Ms. Ouellette read aloud the remai= ning issues outlined in the December 3, 2004 letter.

There was no public input. Mr. D’Andrea didn’t kn= ow of any problems, other than the remaining issues outlined in the December 3, 2004 letter.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/McNamara) To reduce the bond for Map 7 Lot= 4-185 and retain $73,901.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-254 – Century Builders – Nature’s Way – Request for Bond Reduction

Ms. Ouellette reviewed a letter dated December 2, 2004 submitted by TFMoran that contained the recommended bond reduction amount. Original bond $160,000 (first bond release June 17,= 2003 in the amount of $89,280); current bond $70,720; recommended release of $54= ,720 which would retain $16,000. B= ased upon approved subdivision plans and spreadsheet TFMoran wrote that all work= had been completed.

Ms. Ouellette asked if there was a problem with the curbing (being installed correctly) and the Board was going to wait a y= ear. Mr. D’Andrea said the develo= per had submitted a letter that stated they would correct any problems at whate= ver cost.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To reduce the bond for Map 30 Lot 11-254 and retain $16,000.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 22 Lot 8-119 – Asored Realty – 7 Main Street – Proposed Parking Lot and Internal Expansion of Office Space

Mr. Scanzani stepped down.

Mr. Ken Brown of Brown Engineering, representi= ng Asored Realty and Mr. Chris DeRosa (who was unable to attend the meeting), = presented the plan to the Board. He said essentially the plan reflected parking improvements to be done at the facility. He said the parallel parking (to the left of the building) would be redesigned to provide clear access to the parking in the back. Additional landscaping would be added to buffer the side properties. Mr. Brown explain= ed that the intent was to get the drainage in the back to flow from left to ri= ght to a small detention/infiltration area that would allow the water to keep t= he off-site flow as it currently was. <= /span>

Mr. Culbert asked if any impervious surface wo= uld be added. Mr. Brown said the intention was to pave the back area and add the infiltration area to handle= the drainage.

PUBLIC INPUT

President of the Historical Society, Mr. Willi= am Hayes, 5 Main Street, circulated a color-coded copy of the plan that depicted water drainage onto Town owned property. He said = the water had been accelerated due to the area being repaved/slightly re-graded. He noted that the = Town (former Library building) had a field stone/concrete foundation and there w= as concern regarding increased moisture aggravating the situation. He recommended that a curb be inst= alled the entire length, which would solve the problem for the former Library, but would create a new problem with the water be out into Main Street. He said the septic system had also picked up additional water. M= r. Hayes said the drainage should be addressed and noted there were also regulations regarding shielding the parking areas. He said the Steepletop playground = was also in close proximity and the children utilize the grass area, which may = lead to an issue of children running into the proposed parking lot.

Mr. Bill Scanzani, 1 Victoria Circle, stepped down fro= m the Planning Board because as an officer of the Historical Society he wanted the opportunity to speak regarding the site from a tax payer’s point of v= iew. He felt the applicant had brought = a good plan forward, but wanted the sensitivity in the Town Center noted (i.e. drainage, foundation and septic system of the former Library).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said it was felt that the Town Center would be used for a long period of time as an activity center for the community. He noted when Town functions were held there was never enough adequate parking, therefore, he recommended that parking requirements weren’t waived and the area in = the back be used and paved as parking because parking would always be needed in= the center. He felt a small buffer (landscaping/fence) would suffice in the back for the daycare (Steepletop).=

Mr. Culbert asked if impervious surface would = be added to the colored are on Mr. Hayes’ map. Mr. Brown believed Mr. DeRosa woul= d be sensitive to the abutter’s concerns and suggested that they meet disc= uss such. He said it was not the = intent of the applicant to exacerbate an existing problem, or create a new one. He confirmed the issues with the B= oard that would be discussed with the Historical Society: 1) effects the drainage may have on their foundation/basement; 2) screening to the daycare.

Mr. Brown said Mr. DeRosa would like to have a paved parking area, but wanted to know the Board’s disposition regard= ing the area being gravel. Mr. Da= nevich said at the last meeting, the Board had requested that the parking be paved= .

Mr. Brown asked if the Board had any other issues. Ms. Bousa said she ha= d a couple concerns regarding the three parallel parking spaces in front west s= ide (and the potential for cars to back into each other); also the traffic acce= ss if the spaces were full. Mr. = Brown said the intention and the belief was that the current circulation would be improved. He said they would = review the ‘backing out’ issue expressed. Ms. Bousa questioned if delivery t= rucks entered the site. Mr. Brown s= aid they didn’t anticipate trucks larger than Federal Express type vehicl= es, which would have adequate space to turn around.

Mr. McNamara said the Board should be particul= ar about what the landscaping would be because of the location of the building being in the Town Center.

Ms. Ouellette questioned if someone was renting the second floor as a living dwelling based upon references that the first floor would be business and the second floor would be residential. Mr. Brown was unsure. Mr. McNamara said during the Board= of Adjustment meeting there was testimony that in the past the second floor had been used as a residential unit and would continue. Ms. Ouellette asked if there was designated parking for the residential use. Mr. Brown answered no. He said the plan being presented w= as a reconfiguration to improve the circulation, not to create a new site plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Danevich wanted it recognized that the Historical Society was not an abutter, the Town of <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Pelham is. He felt curbing and screening was = a good idea. However, he believed the daycare (Steepletop) should be revisited with the church.

The Board discussed whether they would grant a conditional approval as follows: 1) front landscaping design; 2) review of = the parallel parking spots and making it for two spaces (versus three); 3) buff= ering the daycare (fence/plantings); 4) drainage issue, possibly adding a curb on= the west side. Drainage seemed to= be an issue that the Board wanted to further review/discuss. The Board did not grant a conditio= nal approval.

The application was date specified to the January 3, 2004 meeting.

Ma= p 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 &= 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Site Plan Review and re-open pre-existing variety store

There was no one in attendance to present the application. Mr. D’Andr= ea said he spoke with Ms. Cheri Driscoll earlier and expected her to be present to provide the Board with an update. He said they had gone before the Board of Adjustment for reaffirmati= on of their variance.

It was noted that the Board originally accepted the plan July 19= , 2004. There was a brief discussion how t= he Board would proceed. A motion= was made to deny the plan, because the applicant’s submission had exceeded the time limit with no request for extensions; the previous conditions had = not been met. Mr. D’Andrea = said when the application was accepted it was done with the knowledge that the applicant had to go before the Board of Adjustment (which was resolved at t= he November, 2004 meeting) and he felt the applicant had continued on in good faith to pursue approvals. Mr. Danevich suggested continuing the application to January 3, 2004 at which time the Board = would take action one way or another. Mr. D’Andrea agreed. Mr. Cu= lbert said the applicant would need to submit a letter in writing requesting an e= xtension.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 22 Lot 8-109-1 – Ideal Disposal – 213 Gage Hill Road – Change of Use – Proposed Office for proposed Hauling Company<= o:p>

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Dave Brouillet of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, presented the change-of-use (from a wrecker com= pany to a disposal company) plan to the Board.&= nbsp; He said trucks and empty trash containers would be stored. He said a survey plan had been don= e and was included in the full application submitted to the Board. He focused on the areas that were discussed during the preliminary conceptual review by the Board on August 1= 6, 2004 1) empty storage containers on= ly; 2) signage (and if it would be changed); 3) Fire Chief review of the property;= 4) note added for the number of parking spaces; 5) hours of operation; 6) addi= tion of locus map with respect to Beaver Brook; 7) lighting (type of); 8) propos= ed fence location shown on plan; 9) statement indicating no hazardous (combustible) materials; 10) possible berm for Beaver Brook protection (whi= ch would come from a more detail site plan).&= nbsp; Mr. Brouillet said the purpose of the plan was to clean up the abandoned/miscellaneous cars, fencing for security, add landscaping, securi= ty lighting and designated parking areas; there would be no change to impervio= us surface or regarding.

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the summary of comments/concerns: 1) Are there any restrictions in the drainage easements that would preclude storage containe= rs- Mr. Brouillet was unsure, and wanted to review the easement documents; 2) only empty storage containers would= be stored – Ms. Ouellette said that had been addressed; 3) would signage, if any, be added changed = or enlarged – Mr. Brouillet said there were no proposal for signage,= a note was added to the plan that stated if any signage was added it would ne= ed to comply with the regulations; 4) review of property by Fire Chief &#= 8211; Mr. Brouillet said he spoke with the Fire Chief whose concern was access to three = sides of the building. He explained= that a security fence with a locked gate may be added provided with a knox box f= or emergency entrance – notes have been added to the plan that the sides= of the building must be kept clear for fire apparatus. Mr. Culbert said a letter in writi= ng from the Fire Chief would be needed. 5) note regarding number of parking spaces – Mr. Brouillet said the number of truck and employee park= ing spaces were noted, but the areas could be defined. 6) hours of operation – Mr. Brouillet said the hours of operation we= re noted on the plan – 5am – 6pm. 7) locus map with respect to Beaver= Brook – Mr. Brouillet said a tax map sketch had been provided on the pl= an that showed the location of both Golden Brook and Beaver Brook; 8) breakdown of the lighting – <= /i>Mr. Brouillet said a note was added to the plan that states any lighting would = have to comply with regulations. M= r. Culbert said downward lighting would be needed to ensure it didn’t sh= ine onto Route 38 or onto abutter’s property – the wattage would al= so need to be noted. 9) proposed fencing location as shown = on the plan – Ms. Ouellette noted this had been done. 9) statement indicating no hazardous/combustible materials – Mr. Brouillet said a note had been added to the plan; 10) berm for Beaver Brook protection – Mr. Brouillet said= the drainage had been reviewed – there were no proposed changes to gradin= g or impervious surfaces and therefore didn’t feel it would be warranted f= or this application. He discusse= d the drainage/culverts in the area and noted because the 100-year flood plain wa= s in close proximity didn’t feel the site would influence the overall watershed to Beaver Brook would be affected. Ms. Ouellette questioned the prote= ction of the water and wanted to know where on-site vehicles would be stored so t= hat gas/oil would not get into the water. Mr. Brouillet said the trucks and storage containers would be located outside the 100-year flood plain. He noted that the site was built-up. Ms. Ouellette asked if a berm would provide any protection. Mr. C= ulbert didn’t believe it would. Mr. Brouillet also didn’t feel a berm would do anything.

Mr. Scanzani questioned the landscaping. Mr. Brouillet said the landscaping= would be dramatically different than the current condition. Mr. Culbert used Yarde Metals as an example of the type of landscaping that would look good. Ms. Cheryl Colletti nodded her hea= d yes regarding landscaping looking nice. Mr. Brouillet noted that twenty-two trees/shrubs would be added to t= he site.

There was a brief discussion regarding the gra= vel access way. Mr. Brouillet sai= d some of the voids/dips would be improved during site improvements, however it was not entirely owned by the applicant.

Mr. Danevich said he was in support of the plan but wanted to add two additional notes: 1) designated parking area outside = the fence to be limited to employee/customer/vendor use only; and 2) all equipm= ent associated with the business (trucks/containers) remain inside the fence. He wanted to clarify that the Fire= Chief comments should be in writing. He pointed out if this was a new site plan, rather than the change-of-use, the= Board would do things different. Mr. Danevich ended by saying that the erection of the fence was contingent upon= his approval.

Mr. McNamara asked for an explanation of what = the storage containers were. The applicant, Mr. John Augusta, said they were small storage containers rangin= g in size from 2-yard to 10-yard. = It was noted the containers are dumpsters, different from roll-off containers.

Ms. Ouellette said the Safety Committee questi= oned if fuel would be stored on-site, if so would it be protected and/or greater than 275-gallons. Ms. Collett= i said if any type of fuel was to be stored, it would require State and Town permi= tting and approval. She said it had= not yet been addressed. Mr. Scanz= ani said the zoning district would not allow fuel stations. Mr. Culbert asked how large a tank= would be if reviewed. Ms. Colletti = said it would be 500 gallons. Mr. Scanzani said it would be a violation of zoning – Yarde Metals had ma= de a similar request, was told no, and therefore goes off-site for fueling.

=

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Richard Guziejka, an abutter was concerned regarding the noise from the dumpsters being dropped from the trucks at 5:30am. He said Jay-Mor currently started = their vehicles at approximately 5:= 30am – 6am which could also be heard. He disliked the current traffic pa= ttern of trucks exiting the site and wanted to know if they would follow the same. In summary his concerns= were noise and traffic. Mr. Guziej= ka said containers were not always totally empty and didn’t want to see rubbish.

Mr. James Morgan of Jay-Mor Company discussed = the traffic pattern and noted in the past he resided in the area and there were other trucks that traveled early in the morning.

Ms. Ouellette read the Board’s concerns aloud as follows: 1) letter of compliance and okay from the Fire Chief; 2) breakdown of proposed lighting in accordance with the Town’s regulati= ons; 3) as indicated on the plan, the propane tank is to be relocated; 4) breakd= own of fencing proposed – exact location and style type; 5) improve areas= of gravel driveway within property limits; 6) breakdown in writing of landscap= ing design; 7) note on plan that designated employee/company vehicle parking re= main as only employee parking; 8) any on-site storage of fuel is in violation ag= ainst zoning/aquifer area – none currently proposed; 9) all equipment/compa= ny trucks/containers to be contained within the fenced in area - note to be added to the plan; 10)= fencing is contingent upon the business operation.=

Ms. Colletti said they were proposing an 8ft – 10ft stockade fence along the front of the building, which would ch= ange to chain link along the side.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Scanzani) To accept for consideration the proposed plan.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ms. Ouellette said there were no waivers being requested.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Scanzani) To approve the plan based upon the list of conditions read aloud by Ms. Ouellette: 1) letter of compliance and okay from the Fire Chief; 2) breakdown of proposed lightin= g in accordance with the Town’s regulations; 3) as indicated on the plan, the propane tank is to be relocated; 4) breakdown of fencing proposed = 211; exact location and style type; 5) improve areas of gravel driveway within property limits; 6) breakdown in writing of landscaping design; 7) note on plan that designated employee/company vehicle parking remain as only empl= oyee parking; 8) any on-site storage of fuel is in violation against zoning/aqua-fir area – none currently proposed; 9) all equipment/company trucks/containers to be contained within the fenced in area - note to be added to = the plan; 10) fencing is contingent upon the business operation.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

DI= SCUSSION

Pr= oposed Zoning Amendments

The Board was provided with proposed amendment= s to Article IX – Elderly Housing and will review and discuss during the n= ext scheduled work session.

Mr. D’Andrea provided the Board with proposed zoning amendments for the 2005 Town Meeting ballot as follows:

Item #1 – Amend Article IX Elderly Housing Sections 307-50, 51, 52, 53 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify/provide for/modify standards/etc.

Item #2 - Amend Section 307-88.A of the Zoni= ng Ordinance to provide a more detailed description of the criteria necessary = to meet the ‘hardship’ criterion. Mr. D’Andrea felt that the Z= oning Ordinance should reflect current New Hampshire law as stipulated by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Mr. McNamara (= also a member of the Board of Adjustment) will seek comments from the members of t= he Board of Adjustment and discuss such with the Planning Board.

Item #3 – Amend Section 307-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that no lot= s of record, not just lots approved by the Planning Board, as of January 1, 1975 = shall be deemed undersized non-conforming lots. (or that lots of record that existed prior to planning board approval shall be allowed to build in compliance wi= th regulations)     <= /span>

Item #4 – Amend Section 307-74.B of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the size= of accessory dwelling units from a maximum of 500 square feet to 750 square fe= et.

Item #5 – Amend Section 307-76.II of the Zoning Ordinance to define that the = sale of three (3) or more vehicles per year shall be considered a home occupation and shall not be permitted.

Item #6 – Amend Section 307-90 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the amount= of fines imposed from not more than $100.00 to not more than $550.00 for each = day violations may exist.

Item #7 – Amend Section 307-40.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to also allow well= s to be located within the Wetland Conservation District by the granting of a special permit.

Item #8 – Amend Section 307-69.LL of the Zoning Ordinance to limit temporary signs to specific lengths of time, require it be for special events, and require a permit for each sign.

Item #9 – Amend Section 307-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that areas within a WCD setback may be counted toward the minimum lot size.

&= nbsp;

Item #10 – Amend Sections 307-28 and 307-41 of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the removal from the Town’s above ground water resources or below gro= und aquifers more than 1000 gallons of water per day, unless said water is for = the purpose of redistributing that water to the landowners of Pelham.

The Board will review and discuss further at t= he public hearing to be scheduled for December 20, 2004.

Te= mporary Uses

Mr. D’Andrea said there were two areas: = 1) traditional – itinerant vendor uses (current Site Plan Regulations require Planning Board approval); 2) home occupations – currently doesn’t include retail.

The Board was asked to think about the current regulations for further discussion at a later time.

=

MI= NUTES

November 1, 2004

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Scanzani) To approve the November 1, 2004 meeting m= inutes as amended.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. DeLuca abstained.

November 15, 2004

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Ouellette) To approve the November 15, 2004 meeting= minutes as amended.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Scanzani abstained.

DATE SPECI= FIED APPLICATIONS

January 3, 2004 -

Map 22 Lot = 8-119 – Asored Realty – 7 Main Street – Proposed Parking Lot and Internal Expansion of Office Space

Map 33 Lot = 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 & 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Si= te Plan Review and re-open pre-existing variety store

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Ouell= ette/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:10p.m.

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Respectfully submitted,

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Charity A. L. Willis

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Recording Secretary