Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 05162011 MANSFIELD CONSERVTION MINUTES MAY 16, 2011 Present: Colin Cauldwell, Chairman; Michele White, Vice Chairman; Joe Mulkern; Paul Boyden; Carole Matthew; Jack Smith; Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation and Environmental Planner. 11.< Meeting called to order at 6:45 pm. Discussion: "Vote to approve amendments to Conservation Restriction language for Artide 43 of 2010 Town Meeting" Lou Andrews of NRT. Elizabeth, Mr. Cauldwell, Ms. White and Mr. Andrews met with Louis Ross, Town Council, last Wednesday, May 11, 2011, regarding the deeds to Conservation Land. The board signed off on the Conservation Restrictions approved at the 2010 Town Meeting. The Restrictions went to the Board of Selectmen for review. The Selectmen asked that town council review the deeds. Because America's Disabilities Act regulations for the trails on public as well as private land have been rewritten. William Ross wanted language induded in the Conservation Restrictions that would protect the town in case there were issues with the trails regarding the new regulations. Mr. Ross did not want the Conservation Restriction to have language that would prohibit or have any limitation of any of the ADA requirements. Any changes in the language would require approval from the Commission. Mr. Andrews said the Conservation Restriction drafts would then be sent to the state for comments or recommended changes. An application would then be sent to the state with the Conservation Restrictions for final approval. Mr. Boyden made the motion to accept the Conservation Restrictions with the ADA-compliant language. Ms. White seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. During the meeting with Louis Ross, the two parcels of land that were taken by eminent domain at the 1993 Annual Town were discussed. The parcels were never recorded at the Registry of Deeds and since the parcels were taken so long ago, Louis Ross recommended a deed research as well as an appraisal be done on these parcels. Mr. Andrews said any action taken on these parcels would have to be approved by the board. Mr. Andrews has forwarded the information on the prior appraisal and the deed restriction to Elizabeth. Mr. Boyden made the motion to proceed on the 1993 land for the proper taking. Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. Mr. Andrews told the board NRT is having a Conservation Fair on October 1, 2011. He invited the board to be co-sponsors of the fair. Ms. White made the motion to become official co-sponsors of the NRT 40th Anniversary Environmental Fair. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. 2. Notice of Intent: Stan Feck, Christian & Feck Development - Dolan Estates, Ware Street, Map 32, Parcel 13. #211-0856 The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a four lot duster subdivision with related grading and utilities. Due to limited access, approximately 6,190 square feet of wetland filling and a stream crossing are proposed. Ms. White made the motion to continue the Notice of Intent, DEP #211-0856, to June 20,2011. 1 Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. 3. Request for Determination of Applicabiiity: Chris Cox, Mansfield Municipal Electric Department, High Street storage yard, Map 21, Parcel 137. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the High Street storage yard. Work to include trimming trees and cutting back brush along the fence line between the storage yard (at parcel 21-137) and the Rumford River. The application has been withdrawn. Elizabeth told the board the trees that were taken down were not grubbed and are starting to re-sprout. Photographs have been taken of the area. She will respond to EPA and send the photographs with the response. 4. Request for a Certificate of Compliance: Edward and Ellen Jacobs, 11 Lauren Lane, Map 35, Parcel 31 - #211-544. Edward and Ellen Jacobs, the homeowners, were present. Elizabeth told the board DEP #211-544 is for the roadway for the sub-division originally named Ciassic Court. She said a partial Certificate of Compliance should be issued for 11 Lauren Lane. Michael Trowbridge, as a representative of Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs, requested the Certificate of Compliance. Following a site inspection, he said the work done was in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions on the entire development. The house was constructed as per plan. The land in the back of the house was cleared and a lawn put in within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. The clearing and the lawn were the only work done in the buffer and the closest point is approximately 35 feet from the actual edge of the wetlands. All disturb areas have been stabilized. Ms. White made the motion to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance for DEP #211-544 for 11 Lauren Lane. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. 5. Request for a Certificate of Compliance: Michael & Lisa Smith, 3 Keli Lane, Map 40, Parcel 277. #211-0854 Michael Smith, the homeowner, was present. Michael Trowbridge requested a partial Certificate of Compliance be issued for the property. Following an inspection of the property, he found the work done is in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions. The pool has not been constructed at this time. The partial COC will be issued for the patio area only. Mr. Smith told the board the pool would be done at a later time. Mr. Smith was told the Order of Conditions is valid for 3 years and can be renewed for an additionai 3 years. Ms. White made the motion to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance for DEP #211-0854 for 3 Keli Lane. Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. I 6.W~qUest for a Certificate of Compliance: Wading ~iverRealty Trust, 12 Douglas Drive. #211-548 Attorney John Michelmore, representing the homeowner, Dorothy Powers, was present. Attorney Michelmore told the board the Order of Conditions was issued in May 1996. An as built was approved by the Board of Health in Juiy 1996. 2 The homeowner is now selling the property and during a title search it was discovered the Order of Conditions had never been closed out. A letter from Michael Trowbridge states the work has been done in accordance with the Order of Conditions. All disturbed areas have been stabilized. Mr. Boyden made the motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP #211-548 for 12 Douglas Drive. Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. 7. Request for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield Engineering Department, Richard C. Alves, Town Engineer - Kingman Pond Dam, Spring Street, Map 26, Lots 51 & 89. Mr. Richard Alves, Interim Town Engineer, was present. The Engineering Department is proposing to cut approximately 6 trees that are currently obstructing the flow within the existing streambed of the Rumford River. In some locations the bank has eroded from beneath the trees creating a safety concern for the public who utilize the access path for recreation. The erosion was caused by the March 2010 storm. Heavy equipment needed for the work will remain within the existing right- of-way (the access path) and care shall be taken to prevent any adverse impacts to the resource area. The disposal of any material into the wetlands, streams or other resource areas will not be permitted. Trees are to be cut at grade and roots left in place to stabilize bank. The area is in a flood zone. Mr. Alves told the board this needs Immediate attention because kids are not utilizing the access path; they are climbing over the trees to cross the streambed. Elizabeth said some of the trees are in danger of falling over. Mr. Alves told the board there is a huge amount of outwash of granular material up against the bank, obstructing the water flow, causing the re-routing of the streambed. This is causing erosion problems on the west side of the stream. He said this area needs attention to prevent more loss of trees. He said a Notice of Intent might need to be filed to eliminate the outwash; part of the bank will have to be removed to eliminate the obstruction to the water flow. The RDA is only for the removal of the trees. Mr. Boyden made the motion to proceed with the work proposed in the RDA and to issue Negative 3 Determination was issued - the work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. 8. Notice of Intent: Town of Mansfield Engineering Department, Richard C. Alves, Town Engineer, Otis Street, Assessors Map 7. #211-0867 The Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed for proposed drainage upgrades to an existing culvert within the Town Right-of-Way located at 210 otis Street. The wetland line was flagged by Elizabeth. The proposed project consists of removing an existing 18" PVC pipe due to inadequate cover and replacing it with an 18"x36" H-20 load concrete box culvert. The Department of Public Works is planning to repave otis Street In this vicinity. Upgrades are necessary to maintain public safety. The work will be performed by a contractor hired by the Town of Mansfield Electric Department who will be installing their duct work during the summer months with assistance from the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department will perform the construction layout and inspection. 3 The proposed work will be performed within an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife as indicated on NHESP maps. A letter from NHESP to the Mansfield Engineering Department, dated April 21, 2011, states the project will not adversely affect the actual Resource Area Habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species and will not result in a prohibited "take" of state-listed rare species under MESA. The project meets the requirements of 2.2 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. The Division of Fisheries & Wildlife has been notified. Mr. Alves said a Category 1 Form has been submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers and was assigned the file number NAE-2011-00669. The only response was that the contractor information was not listed. Mr. Alves said this is to be determined; the project went out for bid a couple of weeks ago. An erosion control barrier consisting of hay bales and silt fencing will be installed prior to construction and will remain in place until disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Once stabilized, the silt fence will be removed and discarded off-site and the hay bales spread to deteriorate naturally. If the board decides to issue the permit, because the contractor information is missing, Elizabeth suggested the Order of Conditions be issue pending receipt of an acknowledgement of the completed Category #1 application. DEP comments: Mass Stream Crossing Standards should be consulted. Mr. Alves said GIS does not show any intermittent or perennial streams in this area. He said Streambed Crossing Standards state that you should provide 1.2x the bank full depth and width. The top of the bank is approximately 10 ft. If the standards are met, a 12 ft. wide culvert would have to be proposed. He is going to replace an existing 18" PVC pipe. The upgrades are benefiting the Streambed Crossing Standards because they do not allow plastic pipes in streams; the PVC pipe will be replaced with an 18"x36" box culvert with the same elevations. He said this is a drainage system that acts as an emergency overflow. The wetland up-stream is a huge bowl and when it reaches a certain elevation the overflow goes down stream. He said if you increase the size of the box culvert you could change the natural characteristics of the stream, if in fact it is a stream. Elizabeth would like to be informed when the work begins. She is to be called when the erosion controls are installed for inspection. Ms. White asked if a three-sided culvert could be used in place of the proposed culvert. She also suggested the position of the proposed culvert be lowered so there is a natural bottom. Mr. Alves said he is dealing with existing utilities under this area and does not want to disturb the area anymore than necessary; on the downstream side there is a gas main, on the upstream side there is an existing water main. Ms. Matthew said the project meets 2.2 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. Ms. Matthew made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions for the Otis Street project, issuance pending receipt of the Category 1 form completion. Elizabeth is to be on site to inspect the erosion controls and called when the work begins. Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. I 9. Request for Determination of Applicability: Thomas and Janet Kallio,24 Erin Drive, Map 35, Parcel 121. Attorney Edward Valanzola and Janet Kallio, the homeowner, were present. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the replacement of an existing deck with a 16'x30' deck with a 2'x4'x6' concrete stair pad and an 8'x16' grade level deck where there is an existing brick patio. The new deck will require up to 13 concrete piers to be constructed using 12-inch diameter sono tubes installed to a depth of four feet below grade. Excavation will be done by hand; no earth-moving equipment is to be used to construct the piers and/or deck. No earth disturbance beyond that required to Install the sono tubes is proposed. The proposed deck includes the area of the existing deck and extends over the existing lawn area to the edge of the bulkhead. The existing deck materials will be removed by hand and disposed of at an appropriate facility; no existing deck materials will be disposed of on site. A portion of the work will be completed within the buffer zone. 4 A pool and the existing deck were permitted in 1989. The pool is approximately 35 feet from the fence line. The existing deck stairs are approximately 85 feet from the wetlands. Elizabeth told the board she does not agree with the wetland delineation as depicted on the plan. Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination - the work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but wili not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent - for 24 Erin Drive. The wetland delineation was not approved under the filing and wili be noted in the Determination. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. I 10. Notice ofIntElnt:Helen Sauvageau, 220 Plain Street,MClp4,Parcel 24. #211-0868 Ms White recused herself. Cherie McDevitt was present. The Notice of Intent was filed for the removal of existing stairs and landing and the construction of a new 6\(24' deck, landing and stairs with associated landscaping and yard maintenance. The work is within 100 ft. of Greenwood Lake. The property is not in a Natural Heritage area. Ms. McDevitt told the board the applicant would like to remove a portion of the lawn and replace the lawn with cobblestones. She said they would like to put a stone wall down by the lake and an existing fence would be replaced. Mr. Cauldwell said he would like to see details of the fencing and patio with the distances from the lake. He told Ms. McDevitt she would need to do an amendment to the Order of Conditions for anything not called out on the plan submitted tonight. The existing foundation is 49 ft. from the water. The proposed work wili bring the project approximately 34-35 ft. from the water. DEP had no comments. Elizabeth asked about the drainage ditch on the property; what flows into the ditch? Ms. DcDevitt said the ditch is probably used for run-off water but she was not sure. Elizabeth told the applicant the code requires 48" holes for the deck footings. She said the Assistant Building Inspector, Lee Day, was concerned about the footings for the deck; he said the holes will fill with water at 30". He said there is a company that twists the poles into the ground. He can get the information for the applicant. Because the project is so close to the water, Elizabeth would like double-staked hay bales at the proposed silt fence line. Before any work starts, she is to be called to inspect the erosion controls once they have been Installed. Mr. Cauldwell reminded the applicant the permit is only for the deck, landing and stairs with associated landscaping. He told the applicant she should do research on the drain ditch and the drain invert before any future filings. Mr. Boyden made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions for 220 Plain Street, DEP # 211-0868 with the following conditions: 1.) double-staked hay bales to be added to toe-in silt fence line at limit of work; 2.) Conservation Office to be notified to conduct an inspection of the erosion controls before work to commence; 3.) Research to be conducted regarding the drain invert before any future filings for the property. Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1. 5 111.R~quest for D~termination of Applicability: ..RogerBergeron, 285 Plain StreetiM1!P4, Parcel 88. Robert Bergeron, the homeowner's brother, was present. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the replacement of a platform with stairs at the rear of the property. The stairs will face the fence. Mr. Bergeron has also replaced the cement stairs at the front of the hbuse with wood stairs. Elizabeth recommends erosion controls for the disturbed areas because run-off from the property is going into the pbnd. She told the board anything forward of the house would be in the 25 ft. no-touch area. Mr. Bergeron was told the determination was only for the replacement of the stairs; any more work such as deckS and waikways would require a Notice of Intent. The new steps at the rear of house are approximately 35 feet from the water. Elizabeth said wetland grasses are growing between the yard and the pond. Mr. Bergeron was told to let this area grow naturally to provide a buffer to the iake. The board asked about the lawn. The board told Mr. Bergeron the lawn should be re-vegetated. Mr. Bergeron told the board he has tried to plant grass but it does not grow. He asked if he could use rolled sod. For this filing; in place of erosion controls at the limit of work, Elizabeth said sod can be rolled between the yard and the pond to prevent further run-off from entering the pond. She said native grass and other vegetation is to be encoUraged between the house and pond. No other work beyond the stairs and plantings is permitted under this tiling. Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination - the work described in the Request is within the BUffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but wiii not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent - for the construction of two sets of stairs, noting that one set of stairs has already been replaced. In place of erosion controls, sod is to be placed between the yard and pond; rolled sod wiii be used to re-vegetate the lawn area; no digging allowed for the lawn replacement. Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. 112. New and Old Business: Violations: 72 pratt Street: Thomas Reiiiy and Kevin Guerrini of Guerrini Landscaping were present. The Conservation Department received a report of work being done within 100 ft. of wetlands. Kevin Guerrini apologized to the board for the work done without a permit. Mr. Reilly said the work was being done on a very small portion of lawn that had been decimated over the winter when the parking lot was plowed. He said there is a small stone wall in this area that was also destrbyed. Mr. Reilly said every year this area has needed to be repaired in the spring. Over this past winter the area was destroyed and Mr. Guerrini suggested putting stone in this area instead of replanting. The board was concerned material had been pushed into the wetlands. Mr. Guerrini said at no time did anything get pushed into the wetlands. Elizabeth said she notice the area had been flagged recently by RIM Engineering, but Mr. Reiiiy said the flagging had nothing to do with this violation. 6 The board asked Mr. Reilly to draw up a plan for replanting the area and a proposed restoration plan. Elizabeth said Mr. Reilly does not need to file with Conservation; the work can be done under an Enforcement Order. The board asked that Elizabeth work with Mr. Guerrini to develop a restoration plan. Elizabeth will draw up the Enforcement Order tomorrow, outlining what needs to be done. Mr. Cauldwell told Mr. Il.eilly the Enforcement Order will be rescinded as soon as an approved planting scheme/restoration plan has been submitted. Mr. Cauldwell told Mr. Reilly the board would require an Inspection of the plantings within a year to make sure the plants are healthy; any dead or dying plants would have to be replaced. The Conservation Department was contacted by a neighbor that work was being done without a permit at 27 Lakeview Avenue. A letter was submitted documenting the changes to the property: a dock was removed; concrete was added to the retaining wall where the dock had been attached; fencing on both sides of the property was removed and replaced with new fencing; trees were removed and a new driveway/parking area was made; fencing across part of the front of the property was removed, earth removed and replaced with a driveway/parking area beside the house; the new driveway/parking area was filled with stone; plants were removed and new plantings were done on all sides of the house; front steps were removed and the area was dug out. A certified letter was sent on April 29, 2011 to Mr. and Mrs. Verrochi asking that they come to the May 16, 2011 meeting to discuss the non-permitted construction activities on their property. A certified ietter was also send on March 15, 2011. Both letters were also sent regular mail. The homeowner has ignored both requests. Elizabeth told the board there is a removable dock along with a fioating dock, all of which require a Chapter 91 license from the Army Corps of Engineers. Pictures were taken of the property last fall. Ms. White asked that the minutes state the homeowners have been contacted twice by certified mail asking them to come before the board. The homeowners have not responded. Elizabeth said some of the new work should have been permitted but more information and photographs are needed if the board Is going to take action. Ms. White said some of the work, the fencing and garden planting would be exempt under 2.4 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law; normal maintenance, repair, replacement or improvements are allowed after the homeowner has checked with the Commission or the agent. She said the whole property is within the 100 ft. area; any work on the property Is within Conservation jurisdiction Elizabeth said concrete was added to the retaining wall but said if they have a Chapter 91 license for the wall, the work is allowable. Mr. Cauldwell asked if a permit application should have been submitted for the dock. Elizabeth said the homeowners should have pulled a permit and there should be an Order of Conditions for the dock. She said there should have also been an Order of Conditions for the garage constructed in 1984. Mr. Boyden asked why an Enforcement Order has not been issued. He said work was being done while the adjacent property was being looked at for violations. He said the homeowner was installing a fence and doing work close to the water. He told the board at the time he asked the homeowner to stop working and contact the agent. He said 2.4 is an exemption pending notification of the board or the agent. Ms. Matthew said if Mr. Boyden is a "confident" source and he is saying work was done, the board should go forward with the Enforcement Order. Elizabeth will do the Enforcement Order tomorrow. The Order will state the homeowner is required to appear before the board because there are alleged violations. 111 School Street: Homeowner was removing the existing driveway within 200 ft. of the Rumford River. The board asked if a Cease and Desist Order was issued. The homeowner was asked to stop all work but was not issued a Cease and Desist Order. Mr. Cauldwell and Mr. Boyden asked that the order be issued. Mr. 7 Cauldwell also asked that a hay bale line be established immediately to prevent any material from entering the river. The homeowner should submit a plan of the work to be done with photographs of the driveway prior to the violation. Ms. White said if the homeowner is replacing an existing driveway and there are photographs of the driveway before the violation, a Request for Determination of Appllcabiiity (RDA) would be sufficient to replace the driveway. If there is an expansion of the driveway, that would be a separate issue. The homeowner will be asked to submit an RDA. Mr. Cauldwell asked if there was any additional information from the engineer for the Elm Street property. Elizabeth spoke to the engineer, who agreed to ask the property owner to remove the material from the stream by hand. She said they are supposed to be filing. Ms. White made the motion to accept the April 11, 2011 minutes. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. The motion passed S-O-l (Mr. Boyden abstained) Agent's Report: Michele White updated the board on Out Reach programs: On May 12th from 6-8 pm, Christine Odiaga, Southeast Regional DEP Wetland Circuit Writer, presented a DEP Stormwater Management Standards as they pertain to the Wetland Protection Act. Ms. Odiaga was unable to do the Powerpoint presentation but will redo the presentation on June 16th. The workshop will be taped, to be shown on the cable channel. Ms. Odiaga has offered to do an on-site erosion discussion/workshop at a later date. The exhibit booth at the Green Schools Organization Environmental Affair at the Mansfield High School on April 30, 2011 was successful. Elizabeth did a PowerPoint presentation on wetlands and vernal pool species at the High School. It was well received. Mr. Cauldwell's bird walks through Great Woods on Sunday May 8th and May 2200 went well The Corporal Robert Francis Hardy Walk was held Sunday May 15th. Ms. White discussed the possibility of having 2 alternate members appointed to the board. The board asked if the alternates would be non-voting members. Mr. Cauldwell said this is something that should be looked into; it would probabiy be a change to the general by-law or the town charter. The board had voted to make the Corporai Robert Francis Hardy Conservation Area a non-hunting area. Ms. White said she would like to purchase "No Hunting" signs for this area. She also told the board she has asked the town's GIS staff to generate maps of all conservation areas. The maps will show areas designated for hunting on conservation land and the street set-backs and occupied dwelling set-backs. Mr. Mulkern made the motion to purchase and install 20 "no hunting" signs to be placed at the Corporal Robert Hardy Conservation Area. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. Mr. Cauldwell said York Conservation Area (Strese property) is also a "no hunting" area. NRT will be doing site visits on the parcels of conservation land they own to put up boundary markers along the property lines. Ms. White would like to purchase some of these signs to identify the boundaries of conservation owned land. Mr. Cauldwell said the signs could also be used to mark the trails. Mr. Boyden made the motion to order 250 signs for marking the boundaries of conservation land. 8 Mr. Mulkern seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. Mr. cauldwell would like to purchase 10-20 signs "Motorized Vehicles Excluded by Order of Conservation". Ms. White made the motion to purchase the signs for Conservation Land. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. The JUdy's Lane bridge project has been completed. The ribbon cutting ceremony was held on April 23rd. The board made changes to the purposed Wetland Protection Rules and Regulations of the Town of Mansfield Wetland Protection By-law. No-Disturb Zone - 50 Foot Set Back: "In any instance where the scope or nature of the project is likely to require a greater spatial offset to the wetland resource areas, the Commission reserves the right to increase the No Disturb Zone width to 50 ft. ". It was recommended that this language be removed from the text. Ms. Matthew made the motion to strike the 50 ft. set back language but leave in "set back shall consist of no buildihgs, no work, no structures and no alterations. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. Under Emergency Projects, page 6 of 8: The folloWing emergency projects may be exempt from the requirements of 2.6 of the By-law; 1.) If an existing structure that was in existence prior to the effective date of the By-law (August 3, 1999) has a septic system that is currently in failure and 2.) the applicant receives a written statement from the Mansfield Board of Health certifying that the system is currently in failure; and 3.) the applicant demonstrates through clear and convincing evidence that there are absolutely no alternatives to placement of a new system outside of the 100 foot buffer of a certified Vernal Pool and/or Rare Species Habitat. It was recommended that language be added, "under no circumstances should the septic be increased in size. The septic system can not be upgraded from 3 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms". Mr. Boyden made the motion to add language under Definitions: Emergency Projects - "In no case shall the septic system be rebuilt larger than is necessary to adequately service the needs of the existing structure". Ms. White seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. ,. 1:3. Adjournment Ms. White made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Boyden seconded the motion. Passed. NEXT MEETING: JULY 18, 2011 4!tL~ (iJ~p Colin cauldwell, Chairman r;Aol/ Date I 9