BOA20061211.mht

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

December 11, 2006

The Chairman, Mr. Peter M= cNamara called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 pm.

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Peter = McNamara, David Hennessey, Svetlana Paliy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Robert Molloy, Alternate Bob Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

None.

CONTINUED

Case #2357 REDIMIX COMPANIES, INC – Bridge Street ML 41/6-126 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Secti= on 307-12 to permit the construction of a concrete batch plant with less than = the required front setback and one of the side setbacks.

Mr. McNamara discussed th= e fact that the case had been heard last month.&n= bsp; Since that time, a site walk had been conducted.

Mr. Dan Blais of TFMoran = and Mr. Dave Bissonnette, President of Redimix Companies, Inc were present to answer any questions the Board had. =

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara believed the= site walk resolved the questions he had regarding the application. He felt the plant was reasonable g= iven the surrounding area. He note= d that the plan was also going before the Planning Board to resolve any other issues. Mr. Hennessey discuss= ed the proposal and also believed the site walk took care of the Zoning issues and= the application met the criteria for granting the variance. He said there were other issues the Planning Board would need to resolve.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

VOTE:

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211; Yes to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

(5= -0-0) The motion carried.

VARIANCE APPROVED

Case #2358 GILLIGA= N, Karen & Timothy – 9 Mammoth Road= ML 39/1-57 – Seeking an Equitable Waiver concerning Article II= I, Section 307-12 to permit a four (4) family home on two (2) acres of land. <= o:p>

This case was withdrawn b= y the applicant. (See below for var= iance request by the same applicant).

HEARINGS

Case #2361 GILLIGA= N, Timothy & Karen – 9 Mammoth Road= ML 39/1-57 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 to permit to continue to reside and operate the property as a legal 3-family owner occupied dwelling.

Mr. Timothy and Karen Gil= ligan met with the Board to discuss their variance request. Mr. Gilligan provided information regarding the property. He sa= id they purchased the property in 2004; on the P&S it listed the home as a four-family, when in reality it was a three-family with an in-law apartment. He said that he an= d his sister occupied two of the units; the other unit and the in-law apartment w= ere rented out. However, when the= y were informed by the Board that it was improper to rent the in-law apartment, a notice was sent to the tenant and they moved out last week. Mr. Gilligan said they were seekin= g to legalize the home as a three-unit building.

Mr. Gilligan read the var= iance criteria aloud (as submitted):

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: It will not change in use.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: The property was subdivided in 2000 for a subdivision and reduced to 2.01 acres. We were led to be= lieve we had purchased 3+ units and three acres.

ii. The = benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: = We have no other options. <= /i>

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: If the variance is granted we will meet all Town Requirements.<= /p>

4. Substantial justice is= done because: The property was purchased= as a 3-family.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The property would continue to be used the same as it has been for the past 20+ years.

Mr. Gowan reiterated the information from the previous meeting.&nbs= p; In his opinion, the issue was that the property was subdivided in 20= 00; there was an oversight by the Planning Board, Planning Department and possi= bly the Zoning Administrator in order to maintain a multi-family the lot needed= to retain three acres. He said s= omehow that fact was missed and when the subdivision was done, the lot ended up wi= th two acres. He said the only r= eason the applicant was in front of the Board was essentially to fix a defect in a subdivision that the Planning Board didn’t have the authority to appr= ove, because it was in violation of zoning.&nbs= p; He also noted that the person who sold the property to the applicant= was the developer of the subdivision. He strongly encouraged the Board to grant the variance.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara questioned i= f there was any other land available for the applicant to increase their property.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gilligan answered no. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the applicant understood if the variance was granted, they could never use the in-law apartment as an in-law apartment.&n= bsp; Mr. Gilligan answered yes. He said he would use it as his unit.

Mr. Molloy asked how many= feet of frontage the property had. Mr. Gilligan said there was 200-feet frontage.= Mr. Molloy asked if the setback was in compliance. Mr. Gilligan reviewed the plan for= the setback requirements. Mr. Gowan noted= that the house was built approximately 100-years prior to zoning.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

VOTE:

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211; Yes to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

(5= -0-0) The motion carried.

‘AREA’ VARIANCE APPROVED

Case #2359 BENNETT= , Lisa & MESSIERI, William – 83 Pelham Road ML 10/13-163 – Seeking a Var= iance concerning Article III, Section 307-13 (4) to permit the designation of a two-family lot containing 92,832 square feet with 25% slopes > 10,294 sq= uare feet, thus leaving a total of 82,538 square feet of land less than 25% slopes. The lot also contains= 690 square feet of wetland which would result with 81,848 square feet of remain= ing land that can be used in computing the minimum lot size, where as 87,120 sq= uare feet is required for a two-family dwelling.

The case was withdrawn; t= he applicants will go directly to the Planning Board. Mr. Gowan said he met with the applicants and their engineer and spoke about zoning and the 35,000SF (high & dry minimum). As a resu= lt of the meeting there was some mis-communication; the applicant thought they ha= d to increase the minimum lot size,which was not how zoning reads. Mr. Gowan said he instructed the applicant to go directly to the Planning Board.

Case #2360 LOUF, R= ita – 15 Spaulding Hill Road ML 38/1-133 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 = to permit a lot front with less than 200ft. frontage and two(2) backland lots (approximately 1.62 and 1.37 acres each) with less than 50ft. frontage.

Ms. Paliy read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters. It was noted that the receipt for two abutter notifications (Brian & Diane Hurd, 7-9 Nicholas Lane and Thomas & Donna Roy, 5 Spaulding Hill Road) had not been returned to = the Town. Mr. McNamara informed if there was subsequently an objection to the case, the applicant would have to come back to the Board. The applicant decided to proceed.

Mr. Bob Cormier of Cuoco = & Cormier, representing the applicant began by providing the Board with a ske= tched conceptual plan, tax map of area and an aerial photo outlining the proposal= . He said the applicant owned an odd= ly shaped 4.5 acre lot on Spa= ulding Hill Road with a majority of the land being to= the rear. The frontage was curren= tly 200-feet. The proposal was to reduce the current home’s frontage down to 170-feet to allow two 15-f= oot strips of land as frontage for two rear lots (1.67 acres and 1.62 acres). The new lots would share a common driveway so there would only be one curb cut onto <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Spaulding Hill Road.

The submitted variance cr= iteria was as follows:

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: These two(= 2) variances will allow the Applicant to subdivide her property to create two = (2) additional backland lots on property that is approximately 4.52 acres. All the surrounding properties are considerably less in size than this property, ranging mostly in size from o= ne to two acres. Creating two additional lots in Pelham would be in the public interest in that it will provide additional housing in a section of Pelham where there is not much l= and available for further housing. Furthermore, the new lots would provide additional tax revenue with minimal additional services required by the Town. The shared driveway will be mainta= ined by the homeowners at no expense to the Town.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: The property is unique in that it is a relatively large piece of la= nd (approximately 4.52 acres) the majority of which is situated behind the existing house at Spauldin= g Hill Road. The unique ‘L’ shaped property has thus kept this proper= ty from being subdivided into smaller one to two acre lots as is in the case of most of the surrounding lots. As such, it has denied the Applicant the opportunity for fair and reasonable u= se of her extra acreage. In summ= ary, this property is unique in that it is a relatively large piece of land that= can be subdivided into two (2) backland lots, but with access only off the exis= ting 200-feet of frontage at 15 Spaulding Hill Road.

ii. The = benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: = An area variance is needed on the prop= erty frontage in order to allow access to the backland lots. The reduction in property frontage= is from approximately 200 feet to approximately 170 feet. This will result in approximately = 30 feet of total frontage, or approximately 15-feet of frontage for each of the two backland lots. All the la= nd on the abutting lots was developed with minimal area, thus precluding an opportunity for the Applicant to purchase additional land to make this subdivision conforming or more conforming.= In summary, the proposal is the most practical option for access to = the backland lots.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: The intent of this ordinance for a minimum of 200-feet of frontage is to allow = for reasonable spaced lots along Town roads.&n= bsp; The reduction in frontage from 200 feet to approximately 170 feet is consistent with many of the lots on Spaulding Hill Road and Applewood Road, which is parallel a= nd west of Spaulding Hill Roa= d. For example, just north of the pro= perty is a lot with 184-feet of frontage, to north of that is a backland lot with 54-feet of frontage and to the north of that is another lot with 184 feet of frontage. Hence, 170 feet of frontage is not unreasonable given that other lots in the area have similar frontage.

The backland lots will also be larger than many of the surrounding = lots. For example, the abutting lots alo= ng Applewood Road range in size from 1.01 acres to 1.74 acres. Similarly, lots abutting lots alon= g Spaulding Hill Road range in size from1.07 acres to 2.51 acres. Most of these lots, as determined = from the Assessor’s on-line information, are less than 1.5 acres. Hence, the proposed subdivision wi= ll create backland lots that are larger (approximately 1.6 acres), than most of the surrounding lots.

The arrangement and dimensions of the backland lots will meet the i= ntent of the Ordinances for adequate space and setbacks for single family residen= ces.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: Granting this variance would result in substantial justice to the applicant since it would provide her the opportunity to subdivide the lot in manner consistent with many other lots on Spaulding Hill Road and Applewood Road. The existing 4.52 acre lot is considerably larger than most of the surrounding lots, which largely range = from one to two acres; hence it does not appear unreasonable for the property ow= ner to ask for a subdivision and creation of two backland lots. =

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: Surrounding property values would not be impacted if this variance is approved. The main reason is that the lots t= hat would result following subdivision will be similar or larger in size as man= y of the abutting and adjacent properties. Furthermore, the lots will not be very conspicuous from either Spaulding Hill Road or Applewood Road. From Spaulding Hill Road, the two backla= nd lots will not be visible since the future residences would be at least 350-= feet back and will be obscured due to heavy tree cover in the area. Similarly, a tree buffer will prov= ide privacy for the back of the houses that abuts properties on Applewood Road.

Mr. Cormier commented tha= t one of the handouts depicted a preliminary conceptual sketch of a subdivision that would meet the ordinances, but they felt it would be contrary to the public interest. The roadway would be approximately 600feet and maintained by the Town. Also more trees would have to be cleared. Mr. Cormier said the= re would be unnecessary hardship because the cost of the road would be prohibi= tive based on the receipt of two additional lots. He noted that the proposed lot siz= es would be substantially greater than those of the abutting properties. He referred to the Simplex Case wi= th regard to reasonable use of land and informed that the applicant had been paying taxes on more land (5.02 acres) than what was actually there. He said the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved with a subdivision, but they felt it was not in= the public’s interest and it was cost prohibitive. They believed the common driveway = would fit into the landscape better. Mr. Cormier discussed the abutting lot sizes and pointed out that they were proposing the two lots to be approximately 1.7 acres which would provide a similar density to the surrounding lots.&n= bsp; He said the Subdivision Regulations allowed them to approach the Planning Board for a common driveway. He believed substantial justice would be done by granting the varian= ce because it would afford the applicant reasonable use of her property and wo= uld afford her better use of the property.&nbs= p; Mr. Cormier believed that the surrounding property values would not = be diminished because the values of the new homes would help improve the value= of the older properties. In clos= ing, Mr. Cormier believed it was in the applicant’s best interest and it w= as fair and reasonable to request two more house sites in the area.

Mr. Hennessey questioned = why it was not in the Town’s best interest to have a conventional 3-lot subdivision. Mr. Cormier said= there would be 600-feet of road to maintain and the proposal was for a privately maintained common driveway. M= r. Hennessey asked how far back the last lot would be located and if emergency vehicles would be able to access through the 15-foot driveway. Mr. Cormier said the ‘throat= ’ to the divide in the driveway was approximately 260-feet; common driveways = were allowed to be reduced by 25%; the width would be approximately 22-feet which was substantially adequate for emergency vehicles. Mr. Hennessey asked if three houses would share the common driveway. Mr. Cormier said that could be done, or they could arrange for the existing house to continue being served by Spaulding Hill Road. Mr. Hennessey said there appeared = to be several parcels with similar acreage. Mr. Cormier said the other lots had substantially more frontage on Spaulding Hill and weren’t shaped in the same manner. Mr. Hennessey asked if there was adequate high and dry land and if each of the parcels sloped less than 25%. Mr. Cormier said it was = a nice piece of land.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d if this was the first subdivision of the parcel. The applicant, Ms. Rita Louf answe= red yes.

Mr. McNamara said in the = past the Board had been reluctant to divide a conforming lot into multiple non-conforming lots. Mr. Corm= ier agreed, but felt it was a unique situation.

Ms. Louf said she lived o= n Spaulding Hill Road for forty-two years. She said twenty-seven years ago she and her husband had the opportunity to purchase = the back lot and felt it would be a good investment since house lots only had t= o be one acre and they had two children. She explained after she retired, she lost her husband suddenly and h= er income has been cut in half. = The taxes have escalated to the point of it not being reasonable for her to keep the property. Ms. Louf said d= uring the time she resided there the property had been improved and they had never caused the neighbors any distressed. She said it would be advantageous for her to sell the back lots and provide income. Mr. McNamara = said Ms. Louf’s circumstances were appreciated; however, the Board had to concern itself with the property itself.&n= bsp; The owner’s circumstances couldn’t come to bear on the variance except in so far as the hardship criteria exists. Ms. Louf said it was good land and= they had farmed/gardened on the property (for twenty-five years) and never recei= ved a tax break because of that, or because of it being a back lot. She also noted that for twenty-sev= en years she had been taxed on 5.02 acres.&nb= sp;

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Laurie Hogan, 6 Cindy Circle was asked to come before the Board on behalf of Mr. John Nelson, 10 Applewood Road. She said based on the number of pe= ople in attendance of the meeting, there were significant concerns about the proposal. One concern was tak= ing one conforming residence and making three non-conforming lots. Attorney Hogan felt the applicant’s reliance on the Simplex Technologies v. Town of Newington case was= somewhat misplaced. She said Simplex w= as a ‘use’ variance and the applicant was seeking is an ‘area’ variance. She said there possibly could be o= ther alternatives for the lot. She= said no indication had been given that the lot couldn’t be used; it curren= tly existed as a single-family residence and it could continue to be used as such. She said an applicant&#= 8217;s personal situation couldn’t be used as reasons for a variance. Attorney Hogan said there were con= cerns that the proposed houses would be visible from the abutter’s back yar= d and would be an interference with the use and enjoyment of their lot. She asked that copies of the hando= uts be made available to the abutters. The applicant’s representative provided Attorney Hogan with copies of the handouts. Attorney Hogan said representation was made that the proposed lots were fairly flat and believed there were persons present that could attest to the fact that the lot did s= lope into the abutting properties. There was concern that additional houses would further burden well water because there were existing conditions. Mr. McNamara asked if the reference was being made to the quality, or velocity. Attorney Hogan said= it was both.

Attorney Hogan discussed = the fact that a variance couldn’t be granted unless there was special conditions. She said they nee= ded to be mindful that zoning by its nature restricted and regulated land use. She said the applicant’s use= of the property was not unduly restricted at this point in time. She said testimony was given that = there were properties of similar size. She reviewed RSA 31:72 and noted that a variance was granted on a property not the owner.

Mr. Hennessey questioned = what other uses the land could be put to that would conform to zoning. Attorney Hogan said the applicant = indicated that the land had been used for agriculture purposes. Mr. Hennessey asked when it was fo= und that the lot was not 5.02 acres. Mr. Gowan said it was brought to the Town’s attention when the plan came in. He said by righ= t the applicant had the option of building a duplex or building road access as lo= ng as the regulations could be met. Mr. Hennessey said there was a hardship inherent in the land dependi= ng on what caused the acreage shortfall. He said under current zoning, the applicant could put senior housing in. Mr. Gowan said verbiage h= ad been posted that 10-acres were required for senior housing.

Mr. Haverty questioned wh= at could be attributed to Attorney Hogan’s client losing use and enjoyment of their property if the proposed were approved. Attorney Hogan said the current pr= operty was considerable in size and the area was fairly quiet; people purchase property knowing the land was undeveloped.= Any homes put on the property could interfere with the use and enjoy= ment of the property (i.e. noise). Attorney Hogan said one of the biggest concerns was the issue as it related to water and the availability to such. She discussed the fact that people= had to redrill. There was concern= that pressure and availability would be decreased.

Mr. John Nelson, 10 Applewood Road said he currently had runoff and was unable to use part of his backyard until May. He said currently he cou= ld see from Applewood Road to Spaulding Hill Road. He said if the houses were built a family would move in and there would be additional draw on the water. He said everyone in the area had w= ater problems. He didn’t want someone living in his back yard. He felt his property values would decrease.&n= bsp; He said when he purchased the property he did so with the understand= ing that there would not be any additional development. Mr. Nelson asked the people agains= t the proposed to stand. Several me= mbers of the public then stood in opposition to the proposed.

Mr. Doug Campbell, 11 Spaulding Hill Road said when he (and others in the neighborhood) purchased his property he did= so with the impression that it was landlocked land and that no one would be building in their back yard. = He said property values would be decreased if the homes were put in because it would give the appearance of ‘cluster housing’. He then discussed the water situation. He said his well h= ad been hydro-fraced and noted the average well in the neighborhood was 600-800 feet deep. He wanted to know who would be liable/responsible when the neighborhood dried up. Mr. Campbell said the request was = not met by any of the criteria. <= /p>

Mr. Bob Larose, 17 Spaulding Hill Road, said he had a 20-foot right-of-way on the applicant’s property and provided the Board with documentation of such. Mr. McNamara read the document (da= ted August 21,1998)= aloud. The document was then added into t= he record. Mr. Larose understood= what the applicant was proposing financially, but was concerned with adding structures. He said he wished= Ms. Louf could subdivide the property and sell it to the abutters so similar pr= oposals wouldn’t come forward. = Mr. Larose discussed the garage location and how the right-of-way was being used. He said if development = was done, he felt it should be done to specifications. Mr. Paliy asked if Mr. Larose had = the plan that accompanied the deed document.&n= bsp; Mr. Larose answered no; that was the only document he was provided.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Bob O’Connell, = 6 Applewood Road said he resided on Applewo= od Road eighteen years (in May) and reiterated that the area was sloped from Spauld= ing Hill to Applewood Road. He discussed the current drainage situation and believed with trees/vegetation removed there would be additio= nal drainage problems.

Mr. Roger Deroche, 7 Applewood Road said he recently moved into Town, and noticed the water problems immediately. He was afraid if= the proposed houses were allowed that the water situation would worsen. He didn’t feel that the area= had the well support that it needed to support the proposed.

Mr. John Nelson (differen= t person from who previously spoke) of Precision Environmental and WL French Excavat= ing, was not an abutter, but lived in Pelham (on Westfall Road). He said he was very familiar with = Applewood Drive and felt that it was not an educated project or well thought. He discussed the water runoff and = said a majority of the property ran off onto Applewood. He questioned where the water woul= d flow if the project was allowed. He asked the Board to consider the application responsibly and work in the par= ameters of what was allowed to deny the project.&n= bsp; Mr. Hennessey confirmed that Mr. Nelson was familiar with runoff. Mr. Nelson answered yes. Mr. Hennessey asked Mr. Nelson to compare/contrast the two plans being shown (conventional subdivision versus= the 15-foot right-of-way) and discuss which would be preferable for the abutter= s in terms of runoff. Mr. Nelson s= aid there were many considerations. He discussed the fact that he had a relative who lived in the neighborhood and didn’t feel it was right to allow drainage to flow on other’s properties.

Mr. McNamara discussed th= e fact that even if the variance was denied, the applicant had other options, such= as to go before the Planning Board with a three-lot subdivision, or to build a duplex. He said if the varian= ce were allowed, the applicant would still have to go before the Planning Board and would have additional review. He said the water conditions pre- and post-development would have to remain the same.

Mr. Campbell re-addressed= the Board said he didn’t have the opportunity to review the plan with the cul-de-sac. He said he was a = site supervisor for a major excavating company in the area and went on to discuss the runoff and the slope of the land.

Mr. Cormier said the prop= erty was unique in its shape and size and it was felt that substantial justice/fairn= ess would be adhered to by giving the applicant better use of her land by allow= ing more than one house site. He understood that they would have to go to the Planning Board for review of t= he water and run off. He said buffering, landscaping etc. would also be issues for the Planning Board. He said the abutter to the right h= ad a right-of-way on the other side of the existing house lot wouldn’t aff= ect the access of the proposed lots.

Mr. McNamara said he woul= d like to walk the site but would go along with the Board’s preference. Mr. Hennessey said the proposal wo= uld be an incredible change from past policy (creating three non-conforming lots) = and couldn’t allow it. Mr. McNamara noted that the vast majority of the surrounding lots were relative= ly small in comparison to the applicant’s lot. The Board continued their discussi= on regarding the proposal. Mr. G= owan discussed the level of oversight that the Planning Board would do for eithe= r of the proposals.

The Board then addressed = the criteria. Mr. Hennessey said = it had been established to grant variances sparingly and to create three non-conforming lots was not in the public interest in an ecologically sensi= tive area. He didn’t feel th= at Simplex was in effect. He didn’t feel that the lot size (coupled with the lack of frontage) was= that unusual in Town. He noted tha= t the Board was shown that the benefits sought by the applicant could be achieved= by some other method reasonably feasible.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara said in trying to decide that criteria, the Board could= not inquire about alternatives (under the Boccia case). Mr. Hennessey didn’t feel the Boccia case held in this instance because that was a case of density. Mr. McNamara pointed out that the = area criteria was much easier to meet than Simplex. Mr. Hennessey didn’t see the hardship in this case. He the= n addressed the frontage, the issue of which was the two back lots being serviced by 15-foot. There were no other = lots in the area that had 25-foot frontage.&nbs= p; In terms of substantial justice, Mr. Hennessey said because of the l= ack of frontage he couldn’t understand how there could be any expectation= of development. As far as proper= ty values, Mr. Hennessey didn’t feel new construction would diminish property values.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. McNamara – 1) No; 2) Yes; 3) No; 4) No; 5) = Yes

Mr. Hennessey – 1) No; 2) No; 3) No; 4) No; 5) Y= es

Ms. Paliy – 1) No= ; 2) No; 3) No; 4) No; 5) Yes

VOTE:

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211; No to all criteria

Mr. Molloy – No t= o all criteria

(0= -5-0) The motion failed.

‘AREA’ VARIANCE DENIED

MINUTES

November= 13, 2006

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To approve the meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:10 pm.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Respectfully submitted,

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Charity A.L. Willis     &n= bsp;

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Recording Secretary