HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 08202012TOWN OF MANSFIELD
CONSERVATION MINUTES
AUGUST 20, 2012
Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chairman; Michele White; Michael Healey; Carole Matthew; Elizabeth Leidhold,
Conservation and Environmental Planner.
1. Request for Determination of Applicability: Frank Gagne, 271 Otis Street, Map 3, Parcel 229.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the demolition of two decks, construction of a 20'x 20'-
10" family room, 20'x20' -6 "screen porch and 20'x43' -6 "garage within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated
wetlands. The property is also in a Natural Heritage area.
Frank Gagne was present.
The scope of work includes renovations to an existing single - family home with the demolition of a portion of the
existing residence including two wood decks, a blacktop drive and wood retaining wall and construction of a one -story
addition over a walk -out basement in the rear of the structure. There will be a four -foot frost wall.
Elizabeth's Comments: Sweet's Pond is approximately 80 -86 feet from the proposed project and the work will be
done on the existing lawn. There is a vegetated buffer between the proposed work and the driveway to the Otis
Street ball fields. She has no concerns with the project.
Mr. Healey said there will not be a risk to the pond given the topography and the separation by the paved roadway.
Mr. Healey asked if any of the excavated material from the frost wall and addition would be stockpiled on site. Mr.
Gagne said the material would be used in the back of the property to fill in a deep depression in the area to the right
of the existing shed. He said this area is approximately two feet lower than the top of the driveway and is at least 50
feet from any resource area. He said the asphalt from the driveway will be removed to an off -site location.
Mr. Healey made the motion to accept the project as submitted for 271 Otis Street and issue a Negative 3
Determination with the understanding there will be no stockpiling of excavated material on site; the material will be
utilized on the property. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -0. Plan "Plan of Land in Mansfield,
belonging to Susan Brown 105 Balcom Street with hand drawn proposed addition ", dated August 13, 1986, received
July 20, 2012.
2. Request for Determination of Applicability: Donna Snow, 438 School Street, Map 12, Parcel 50.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the construction of a 16'x22' elevated deck on sonotubes
within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. The property abuts town -owned land.
James Borrebach of OH] Engineering, Inc., and Donna Snow and Donna Peck, the homeowners, were present.
Mr. Borrebach explained the proposed work consists of the construction of a raised 16'x22' deck. He said the existing
ground level deck will remain in place. The soil excavated for the sonotubes will be placed in the area under the
proposed deck and this area will be loamed and seeded. The corner of the proposed deck is a minimum of 66 feet
from the edge of the wetland. Mr. Borrebach said the holes for the sonotubes have already been dug but not
installed; the work was started without a permit.
1
Mr. Borrebach said the area is relatively flat and is approximately 1 -2 feet higher than the bordering vegetated
wetlands. He told the board there is a stone wall behind an existing chain -link fence where the land slopes down.
Mr. Healey made the motion to approve the project at 438 School Street and issue a Negative 3 Determination with
the condition that no machines be used during the installation of the sonotubes. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4 -0 -0. Plan "Sketch Plan proposed deck, 438 School Street ", dated August 2, 2012.
3. Request for Determination of Applicability: Town of Mansfield, 311 Plain Street, Map 1, Parcel 26.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the upgrade of a gravel roadway leading to the Morrison
Well site to reclaimed asphalt pavement.
Richard Alves, Town Engineer, was present
Mr. Alves said the Engineering Department is proposing to upgrade the existing hard pan, 14'x18' gravel roadway
leading to the Morrison Well Site to reclaimed asphalt pavement. He said there will be an increase in material and in
run -off from the roadway. Mr. Alves said the run -off from the existing roadway goes to a low area at elevation 154.2
as shown on the site plan provided and the increase in flow consists of approximately 174 CFS. Mr. Alves explained
drainage calculations were done to verify the height elevation of the existing depression. He said with an assumed
infiltration rate of 6 inches per hour, which is very conservative in a gravel pit, the height elevation is increased to 7/8
of an inch with the impervious material. He told the board the existing street flow does not go off -site so it stays
within the site.
Mr. Alves said a vegetative cover will be provided on the downstream side of the superelevated 14' wide roadway to
help eliminate soil erosion and remove any pollutants.
Mr. Alves told the board it has been brought to his attention that motorized vehicles are accessing the area upstream
near the treatment plant, an area that contains three potential vernal pools. He suggested placing boulders in this
area to prevent the vehicles from entering the area. Elizabeth said they are riding through the vernal pools and
suggested signage be put in this area. Ms. Matthew asked if the pools have been certified. She said anyone caught
riding through a certified vernal pool would be under state regulations and could be fined. Mr. Alves said it would be
impossible to keep people out of this area even with the placement of the boulders or a fence and said there are
already "No Trespassing" signs on the utility poles in the area.
Mr. Alves said erosion controls, including silt fence, are proposed. Ms. White asked where the erosion controls will be
placed because the location is not noted on the plan. Mr. Alves said erosion controls will be placed on the upslope of
all vegetative areas, from the fence to the existing utility pole. Ms. White asked what the vegetative cover will be on
the downstream side of the roadway. Mr. Alves said this area will be loamed and seeded. Ms. Matthew suggested
straw wattles be used instead of the proposed silt fence and hay bales. She said straw wattles are less expensive and
work better than silt fence and hay bales.
Ms. White made the motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for the Town of Mansfield at 311 Plain Street with
the condition that staked straw wattles be used in place of silt fence between the roadway and the wetlands and that
the erosion controls be inspected by the Conservation Agent prior to the start of work. Ms. Matthew seconded the
motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -0. Plan "Proposed Roadway Improvements Morrison Well Site" dated July 9, 2012.
4. Notice of Intent: Town of Mansfield, High Street, Map 23, Lots 119 & 170 and Map 21, Lot 213. DEP #211 -0890
The Notice of Intent was filed for the removal and replacement of existing collapsed granite block retaining walls on
the left and right sideline of the Rumford River.
Richard Alves, Town Engineer, was present
Mr. Alves explained the Notice of Intent was filed for repairs and upgrades to an existing retaining wall on High Street.
The proposed project consists of removing and replacing the existing collapsed granite block retaining wall on the left
and right sideline of the Rumford River off High Street and replacing it with a gravity wall. He told the board the
existing granite wall poses a threat to public safety due to erosion and settlement behind the wall caused by the
March 2010 high intensity storm. The proposed wall is greater than four feet in height and has been designed by a
structural engineer from SDC.
An erosion control barrier on the downstream side consisting of a turbidity curtain will be installed prior to
construction and will remain in place until the disturbed areas have been permanently stabilized.
Mr. Alves said the proposed work is within Flood Hazard Area Zone AE as determined by the flood insurance maps
dated September 7, 2009. Because there will be no filling in the construction area, compensatory storage is not
required.
DEP had no comments.
Elizabeth has been working with Mr. Alves to create the best solution for both the town and the fish that may use the
culvert in this area.
Mr. Alves said the work will be performed by a contractor hired by the Town of Mansfield Department of Public Works
Department. The work will be done during the dry months, with assistance from the Engineering Department.
Robert Avery of 50 High Street asked if the project would include a fence or railing on his property to prevent anyone
from reaching the wall. He said when the bridge was redone a chain -link fence was installed from the end of the
bridge to the front walkway for safety. Mr. Alves said at this time there are no plans to install a fence, the work is only
to remove and replace what is already there. He said he will talk with DPW about installing a fence in this area.
Mr. Avery said it is unfortunate the work cannot be extended further down the river. He said as you look towards
Fulton's Pond, you can see the roots of every tree and eventually these trees will collapse.
Ms. White made the motion to issue an Order of Conditions for the Notice of Intent, DEP #1211 -0890, for the Town of
Mansfield at High Street with the following special conditions: a turbidity curtain is to be placed downstream of work
and inspected by the agent prior to the start of work; depth and placement of rip rap is to be agreed to between
Conservation Agent and the Town Engineer prior to placement; the design and depth of the outlet pool is to be agreed
to by the Conservation Commission or its Agent prior to construction. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion
passed 4 -0 -0.
S. Notice of Intent: David Oberlander, 29 Mill Street, Map 35, Parcel 26. DEP #211 -0888
The Notice of Intent was filed to raze an existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling with driveway and associated
work. Hearing was continued at the July 16, 2012 meeting.
David Oberlander was present.
K
Mr. Oberlander told the board this is an existing lot with a house that was built in 1850. The house will be removed
and a new house constructed. He said revisions have been made to the plan based on the concerns raised by the
board at the July 16, 2012 meeting.
Mr. Oberlander said one of the concerns was the uncertainty of whether the project should be considered new or old
construction. Mr. Oberlander said he reviewed the definition of reconstruction as defined in the zoning regulations
(1.5.49) and said the Town of Mansfield's Zoning By -law clearly defines reconstruction as "the demolition of a
structure and the rebuilding of a new structure on the same lot ". He said some towns do require that a new house be
put on the same footprint or a portion of the existing structure be saved and incorporated into the new house but the
definition for reconstruction as defined in the Mansfield zoning regulations does not require that a new structure be
built on the same footprint nor does it require that a portion of the existing structure remain in place. Since the
existing house has been on the lot for over 150 years, it is clear that this is a reconstruction project, not new
construction.
The second concern involved the driveway, particularly runoff and grading and the amount of fill within the 25 -foot
buffer zone. He said the new driveway has been relocated further south on Mill Street and to the other side of the
large ash tree on the property to lessen the slope and minimize the grading within the 25 -ft. buffer zone. He said the
driveway will be a little steeper but, by relocating the driveway, it will not be necessary to fill in the 25 foot buffer
zone. He cited Section 2.5 of the Mansfield Wetland Protection By -law which allows certain activities to occur within
25 feet of wetlands including grading work associated with additions to single - family homes.
Mr. Oberlander said he has added a stone trench along the down gradient edge of the driveway to allow run off from
the driveway to infiltrate into the ground. He said he has also added a pipe through the trench to collect the water
from the down spouts.
Elizabeth said she had contacted Town Council for clarification as to what constitutes new or existing construction and
how the Town of Mansfield's Wetland Protection By -law and Wetland Regulations may apply to this project. Town
Council's opinion is that the complete razing of an existing single- family residence and construction of a new single -
family residence that will not use any part of the existing residence does not constitute normal maintenance, repair,
replacement or improvement to an existing private residential property or component. Section 2.5 of the By -law
authorizes but does not require the Commission to allow "grading work associated with additions to existing single -
family homes, "within 25 feet of a resource area ". This provision of Section 2.5 authorizes the Commission to allow
grading work only in conjunction with an addition to an existing single - family home, not a driveway or the home
addition itself. The Commission may apply Section 2.4 of the By -law and may prohibit, or significantly condition, other
work such as the home addition between 25 -50 feet away from a resource area ".
Mr. Mulkern told Mr. Oberlander the board has to make a decision based on the by -law; if the house is considered
new construction, the 50 -foot rule applies.
Elizabeth asked Mr. Oberlander if a part of the original structure could be incorporated into the new house. He said
he could do this but feels what he has proposed is an improvement to the property. He asked where new
construction is defined in the by -law; he said he could find the definition of new construction only in the zoning by-
law.
0
Mr. Oberlander said the existing house is 20 feet from the wetland and if he were to put an addition on the existing
house, a portion of the addition would be within the 20 -ft area. Mr. Mulkern said the original house is grandfathered
in but anything added on to the house would be held to the 25 -ft. no touch area. Mr. Oberlander asked if he were to
keep the original house, will he be able to add a new driveway. Ms. Matthew said the driveway would have to be
outside the 25 -ft. no touch area.
Mr. Oberlander said if he renovates the existing house, which will need a significant amount of work, it would
probably become a much bigger project and potentially cause more impact to the property. He said the existing
foundation, which is 20 feet from the wetlands, will need to be re -set and the foundation might even be determined
to be insufficient for the work needed to repair the original house. Mr. Healey said the existing house is non-
conforming to the existing regulations and told Mr. Oberlander that he would be allowed to maintain what is there
now but once the original house is torn down it becomes new construction.
Ms. White made the motion to continue the hearing for DEP #211 -0888, 29 Mill Street, to September 24, 2012. Mr.
Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -0.
6. Request for Determination of Applicability: Paul and Denise Mahoney, 6 Winslow Way, Map 41, Parcel 36 and
38.
The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the clearing of vegetation within 100 feet of a stream
The applicants were not present.
Ms. White made the motion to continue the hearing for 6 Winslow Way to September 24, 2012. Mr. Healey seconded
the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -0.
7. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Regina Buckley, Scheier & Katin, 23 King Arthur Way. DEP If 42 -24
Elizabeth said a representative apparently does not want to attend the meeting. She said the request is for the
original filing and suggested the board might want to ask them to withdraw the request. She told the board the
original file, 42 -24, for Camelot Estates, was superseded by DEP SE 211 -138 and a Certificate of Compliance was issued
for the property under this number. The former agent, Richard Lewis, stated in the letter that at the October 3, 1988
meeting, he recommended a Certificate of Compliance be issued for DEP ##42 -24 to clean up the file for Camelot
Estates.
Ms. White suggested a certified letter be sent to inform the applicant that if a representative does not appear at the
September meeting, the request will be removed from the agenda.
Ms. White made the motion to issue a certified letter for a request for a Certificate of Compliance for 23 King Arthur
Way, H42 -24. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -0.
8. Agent's Notes
Mass Highway issues: The wetland monitor for the project, Meredith Borenstein from New England Environmental,
Inc. and James Ramos from J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc. were present.
F
On August 14, 2012, Elizabeth and Colin Cauldwell, Vice Chairman of the Commission, Gary Dixon, Mike Deveix and
Wilfrid Sidney from the Mass Highway Department, Mr. Ramos and Meredith Borenstein met on site to discuss the
5
eroding slope next to the wetland mitigation area, the end of the culvert that may need sloping and the eroding slope
at the airport riverfront restoration area.
Elizabeth said sedimentation has been moving downslope to the wetland replication area. She explained that Mass
Highway has removed the sediment, replaced the silt fencing and done calculations to determine that the square
footage of the replication area is still the same. Ms. Borenstein said the slope has been re- graded and seeded twice in
the past and the sediment has also been removed. She said a long term solution needs to be found to stabilize the
slope to prevent further erosion and sediment from entering the adjacent wetland. She said the top half of the slope
is stable. The bottom of the slope will be repaired using a modified stone slope with composted mulch and seeding.
Fabric will be put down first, 12 inches of crushed stone will then be added, 12 inches of modified rock fill will be
installed over the crushed stone and 6 inches of composted mulch and restoration mix seeding will be hydro- seeded
on top of the rock. The grade of the slope will remain the same.
Elizabeth said the area needs to be watched for continued erosion and will need to be reseeded if necessary.
Ms. White asked how much material from the bottom of the slope will have to be removed to make the repair. James
Ramos told the board 2.5 feet will be removed.
Elizabeth said the riverfront restoration area at the airport at the end of runway #14 has no vegetation and the soil is
unstable. The area needs to be loamed and seeded and the dead shrubs replaced. She said the original plan
requirements for this area need to be looked at.
Mr. Ramos said the airport has concerns with trees growing in this area and does not want loam put down in the area.
Mr. Ramos said without the placement of loam, there will never be vegetation in this area.
Elizabeth said the original conditions for the riverfront area have not been done. She said any impacted riverfront
area needs to be restored 2:1 and the landscaping done with plantings that would be beneficial to wildlife habitat,
such as low- growing shrubs with berries. She said the original Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has expired so a
new VIVID will have to be submitted.
Mr. Healey made the motion to accept the modified rock stabilization along the 1 -495 ramp and the airport. Ms.
Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -0.
Elizabeth told the board the area that Bristol County Mosquito Control damaged has been stabilized.
71 Balcom Street, Mr. Kevin Mulkern and Kerri Jewkes: The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of a 30'x32'
detached single -story garage on a slab and a patio within the 100 ft. buffer of bordering vegetated wetlands. An Order
of Conditions was issued at the July 16, 2012 meeting but the wrong plan, dated June 13, 2012, was referenced in the
motion and in the Order of Conditions. Elizabeth asked that the correct plan, dated July 6, 2012, be approved as the
plan of record.
Mr. Healey made the motion to approve the 71 Balcom Street (DEP #211 -0889) revised plan dated July 6, 2012 as the
plan of record. Ms. White seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -0.
Norbert Burbach, 36 Dean Street (Enforcement Order): Mr. Burbach has submitted a restoration plan with two (2)
American Beech and four (4) Silver Maple trees. Elizabeth said Red Maple trees would be more appropriate for this
area.
R
Mr. Healey made the motion to accept the restoration plan for Norbert Burbach at 36 Dean Street as per the
Enforcement Order with the exception that the Silver Maple trees be changed to Red Maple trees. Ms. White
seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -0.
Ware Street, Dolan Estates — wetland monitor. As stated in the Order of Conditions, the monitor must be approved by
the Commission. Mr. Feck has suggested three wetland monitors: Brad Holmes of ECR, Mark Manganello of LEC and
Robert Grey.
The board approved LEC as the wetland monitor for the project.
Proposed planting plan from OHI for 305 Forbes Boulevard: Approximately 1,045 square feet need to be restored.
Elizabeth said a lot of the vegetation has already grown back. The board asked that the restoration at 305 Forbes
Boulevard duplicate the plantings on the Route 495 side.
Sam Patel, Chauncy Street: The contractor is preparing to put in the erosion controls. Elizabeth asked if the
commission agreed to allow the use of construction fencing instead of chain -link fencing around the entire wetland
within the work area as stated in the Order of Conditions. The contractor was under the impression that at a
subsequent meeting, Edward Tartufo asked that construction fencing be allowed instead of the chain -link fence. The
Orders state "Environmentally Sensitive Area — Do Not Disturb" signs are to be attached to the chain -link fence. The
board agreed the chain -link fence is to be installed.
Letter from Attorney Gregory F. Galvin, dated August 13, 2012. He represents the estate of Vincent Moscardelli, the
owner of a 5.4+ acre parcel of land located to the rear of Stearns Avenue. The representatives of the estate would like
to discuss the possibility of gifting this property to the Town of Mansfield. Elizabeth told the board the town owns the
land abutting this parcel of land. She has also forwarded the letter to NRT but she said Mr. Andrews does not think it
is a parcel the commission should take. Any land the Commission takes, requires maintenance. She asked if the board
would like the attorney to come before the board to discuss the land. The board asked that more research be done on
the property; does the property have any value, is the land being donated for relief of taxes?
9. New Business:
The Great Woods Conservation Area mowing: According to Mr. Andrews, the cost per hour is $185.00, for
approximately $1,500.00, each time the land is mowed. Elizabeth said she looked into paying for the mowing through
the land account but this would not be sustainable. Elizabeth suggested it would be better to get estimates for the
work and maybe place an ad to cut the hay. Mr. Healey asked how much it would cost to purchase an attachment for
the equipment DPW might already have. Ms. White said the Commission could ask if DPW would split the cost of a
piece of equipment or attachment. Ms. White would prefer to see if anyone would like to cut the hay for their own
use. She said this should be done first before spending the money to mow the property. Flint's Farm has mowed the
land in the past.
Ms. Matthew voted to approve the minutes for June 18, 2012 as written. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion
passed 4 -0 -0.
Jeff Watterson, 190 Mill Street. Mr. Watterson said he was under the assumption the driveway to the right of the
house was to be removed from the wetlands to the back of the house but when he spoke with Elizabeth, he was told
the driveway was to be removed and relocated to the left side of the property. He said at the July meeting he asked
that the tape of the February meeting be reviewed and asked that once the tape was reviewed that he be called.
7
Elizabeth told Mr. Watterson the driveway on the south side of the house was to be removed from the wetland area
to the back of the house and the area foamed and seeded with vegetation placed around the wetlands. Elizabeth said
permission to put a driveway on the left (north) side of the property was extended as a courtesy by the board to Mr.
Watterson so he would be able to access the garage. She said the board does not want Mr. Watterson to use the
driveway on the right side of the property that was added without a permit. She said the property needs to be
brought into compliance with the plan of record.
Mr. Watterson said putting a driveway on the north side of the property was never mentioned at the February
meeting.
Mrs. Watterson said the driveway was to be removed from the wetlands to the back of the house but an 18 foot wide
driveway from the remaining asphalt was to be allowed to the back of the garage. Mr. Mulkern said if this driveway
was allowed, it would be in the 25 -ft. no touch area.
Mr. Watterson said he does not see why there is a problem with extending the driveway in this area. He said the
driveway was to continue from the asphalt and wrap around to the northern side of the property.
Elizabeth suggested Mr. Watterson apply for an amended Order of Conditions and have the other party and their
attorney and engineers present at a meeting to resolve any misunderstanding concerning the driveway. She said the
original driveway was on the north side of the property and the driveway on the right side of the property was a
violation of the original Order of Conditions. She said she does not feel the board should be discussing this issue at
tonight's meeting.
Mr. Watterson said the board asked that the pile of loam located on the north side of the property be removed and
this area loamed and seeded instead of the proposed wood chips. Mr. Watterson said it is not stated in the original
Orders that the board gave him permission to put a driveway in this area to provide access to the garage. He said if
the area is to be loamed and seeded, how can a driveway be put here?
Elizabeth said the board needs to review the file
Mr. Watterson said he would remove the new driveway from the corner of the house to the wetlands but he would
like to continue this driveway around to the north side of the property.
Mr. Healey said if the driveway was located on the north (left) side of the property, it would be outside the
jurisdictional areas. It would still be within the 100 -ft area but out of the 25 -ft no touch. Mr. Watterson said the
neighbors do not want the driveway here. Elizabeth said she has spoken with the neighbors and explained that he has
a permit to put the driveway in this area.
Mrs. Watterson said she would contact the Attorney General's Office.
Ms. Matthew said an error was made in the wording of Section 6, Rare Species Habitat that was previously voted on
and adopted. Ms. Matthew said it has not been filed with the Town Clerk, so the change can be made.
She said the error was made in Rare Species Habitat, fourth paragraph, Section 6 of the Regulations The applicant
may demonstrate, through a wildlife study performed by a qualified consultant approved by the commission that the
vernal pool or wetland area is not a significant habitat area. The words "vernal pool" should be removed.
Ms. White made the motion to accept Ms. Matthew's change as written. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion
passed 4 -0 -0.
8
Ms. Matthew spoke about Rare Species Habitat concerning driveways and the definitions of additions and disturbed
land. She said the definition of an addition is anything added as a separate structure. A driveway is not considered an
addition. Disturbed land is land including but not limited to a parking lot, driveway, or lawn.
Ms. Matthew asked if the Commission wants to spell out specifically, for all intent and purposes, in Regulation #6 —
Rare Species Habitat, paragraph four, referencing driveways: Driveways are not defined as an addition, driveways are
defined as land legally disturbed, pertaining as it relates to 2.6 for existing houses only.
Ms. White does not feel the driveway issue needs to be clarified further. Ms. Matthew asked if the Commission
wanted the definitions moved from regulation #6 Rare Species Habitat to #2 Jurisdiction, where they would apply to
everything. The definitions for additions and disturbed land will be moved from Rare Species Habitat to Jurisdiction
of the Rules and Regulations under (1) and (m).
Ms. Matthew said because the board is not creating a new regulation or changing the language, it is not necessary to
advertise and hold a public meeting.
Hiring outside consultants: Mr. Healey said the Commission occasionally feels it is necessary, in the interest of
protecting the resource areas of the Town of Mansfield, to require that an applicant hire a consultant to oversee the
work. That consultant actually works for and is paid by the applicant. He feels this is a conflict of interest.
Ms. White said this is a problem the Commission always had with consultants and has always made it a point to meet
with the consultants so they know they are working with the interest of the Commission in mind.
Elizabeth said Mr. Healey would like to set up a bond to pay for the consultants. Mr. Mulkern said the town requires a
bond when a sub - division roadway is built to ensure there is money to finish the work if the contractor is unable or
willing to complete the work.
Mr. Healey said right now the consultant is being hired and actually works for the applicant. It would be better if the
applicant deposited money in to a dedicated account and the consultant be paid by the town.
10. Adjournment
Motion to adjourn at 9:25 pm: White /Healey. Passed.
NEXT MEETING WILL BE SEPTEMBER 24, 2012.
Joseph Mulkern, Chairman Date