Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 11/27/2018Town of Mansfieldr RECEIVED Zoning Board of Appeals Minutalm CLERKS OFFICE November 27, 2018 1919 FES �t�. 1p� Present: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Clerk; Matthew Cummings Aa"br �'NGa✓'lagher; Associate Member Eric Correira; Associate Member Ryan Maxwell. MANSFIELD 1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm. MASSACHUSETTS 2. Nelson Alvarez, 310 West Street, Map 11, Parcel 21. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Nelson Alvarez for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Front Yard Setback, for the construction of a porch with a 22.5 -foot front yard setback where 30 feet is required at 310 West Street (Assessor's Map 11, Parcel 21) in the Residential 2 (112) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on November 9, 2018 and November 16, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on October 1, 2018; • Nelson Alvarez, 310 West Street, Mansfield, MA, Sheets A-1, A-2 and A-3 dated September 26, 2018, prepared by Rod Rivera, C/s & Designer. • Plot Plan in Mansfield, MA dated 8-17-18 The Applicant was not present. Mr. Cummings made the motion to continue the application of Nelson Alvarez for a Variance to December 18, 2018. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 3. David and Amy Walsh, 1781 West Street, Map 2, Parcel 362. The chair read the public hearing notice for the application of David and Amy Walsh for a Variance from Zoning By - Law Section 230-4.2.A to allow for the demolition and reconstruction of a pre-existing, non -conforming house with an existing 16.3 -foot side yard setback where 25 feet is required at 1781 West Street (Assessor's Map 2, Parcel 362) in the Residential R1 (R1) Zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on November 9, 2018 and November 16, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on October 25, 2018; • Proposed House Location at No. 1781 West Street Mansfield, MA dated October 24, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. • November 27, 2018 letter from Leslie R. Holander, 1775 West Street; • November 27, 2018 letter from Colleen Wade, 1779 West Street. Mr. Correira was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering Co., Inc.; homeowners David and Amy Walsh; and Dennis Colwell and Christopher Drinan of Colwell Architects, Inc. were present. Mr. Cygawnoski explained the pre-existing, non -conforming house, which is located at 1781 West Street on Greenwood Lake, will be removed. He said last week the applicant received approval from the Conservation Commission to move the proposed house away from the lake and out of the 25 -foot No Touch Area; he said by moving the house back toward the street, the new pump chamber and septic tank will not be disturbed. He said the existing deck is 16.3 feet from the side property line, where a 25 -foot side yard setback is required. He said the proposed house will be moved back toward the street, but will be angled to maintain a view of the lake. He said the square -footage of the proposed house will stay the same, but a two -car garage will be added. Mr. Cygawnoski said the new deck will be 16.3 feet from the property line and the closest point to the property line from the house and garage will be 27.3 feet. Ms. Pruitt read two letters dated November 27, 2018 from direct abutters, Colleen Wade, 1779 West Street, and Leslie R. Holander, 1775 West Street; neither abutter had any objections to the new house. Barry Young, 1785 West Street, said he fully supports what David and Amy are doing. He said the new house is in the same footprint and it will be a huge improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Cummings made the motion that the request for a Finding at 1781 West Street is an increase in a pre-existing, non -conforming condition. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garber -Miller said the side yard setback non -conformity at the deck remains the same. Mr. Correira said they are moving everything away from the lake. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr. Cummings made the motion that the increase in the pre-existing, non -conforming condition, per the plan at 1781 West Street is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Cummings said this is very straight forward. Ms. Garber -Miller noted the shape of the lot. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:47 pm. 3. Evan Sohn and Stanley Sohn, 601 & 619 East Street, Map 33, Parcels 18 and 119. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Evan Sohn and Stanely Sohn for a Finding/Special Permit from Section 230-3.106(2)(a) and 230-7.2(8)(2) and (13)(4) to allow for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre-existing, non -conforming use at 601 and 619 East Street ( Map 33, Parcels 18 and 119) in the Business 3 (133) Zone to allow the expansion of a single family dwelling/kennel and doggy day care. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on August 31, 2018 and September 7, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on June 25, 2018; • Site Plan 601 & 621 East Street dated January 8, 2017, prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc.; • Petition from the residents of Heron Crest; • Memorandum submitted in support of the application from Bernkopf Goodman, LLP; • Copy of Special Permit for the expansion of existing animal hospital to add premises for boarding kennel and associated services and sale of product dated October 2, 1986; • Petition from Mansfield residents, neighbors, clients and customers of Kozy Kennels' application; • Letter from Officer David W. Kinahan, Traffic Division; • Request to continue dated October 30, 2018 and November 28, 2018. Attorney Gary P. Lilienthal and Adela Wojtasinski, Bernkopf Goodman; Attorney Edward Valanzola; and Stanley, Linda and Evan Sohn were present. Associate Eric Correira was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Attorney Lilienthal, representing the Sohns, said he was the attorney who appeared before the Planning Board in 1986 to obtain a special permit for the kennel. He said there is a 6 -foot high barrier/buffer on top of a large berm with dense plantings behind it to buffer Heron Crest, which at the closest point, is 60 -feet away from the proposed building. He said the proposed building will dimensionally comply with the Mansfield by-law and it will house a use that is already ongoing there, which was referred to and permitted in the 1986 special permit, doggy day care; he said there has been some issues about whether the doggy day care should be limited to a certain number of dogs, but the special permit certainly did identify the fact that part of the site use would be doggy day care and has been so for 32 years. Attorney Lilienthal submitted a copy of the special permit and asked the Board to take notice that there is a covenant and there is acknowledgement of the use and activities, which will go on the site next door; he said people living at Heron Crest knew when they bought their units that there would be an animal hospital, breeding facility and kennel next door and steps were being taken to mitigate that use. He said this is a permitted, pre-existing, non -conforming, grandfathered use and, while this use is no longer allowed in this zone, it is allowed by state law and the Mansfield zoning by-law to continue. Attorney Lilienthal said the Sohns believe they are providing a service to the community and presented a petition of over 200 signatures, at least 100 of which are Mansfield residents, supporting Kozy Kennel's expansion. He said the Sohns believe the service they are providing and the existing use will enhance and benefit the community at large in all respects as required under Section 230: 310 B(2)(a); they believe the employment of local residents and having a safe and secure place for the dogs to be boarded enhances the lives of the owners and the dogs, payment of more real estate taxes helps the community and removing a septic system benefits the environment. Attorney Lilienthal said widening the entrance to allow for sufficient access for fire trucks and improving the traffic patterns are in the best interest of public safety and he believes both fire and police support these safety changes. He said adding 100 cars to the 12,000 cars per day that pass in front of the business would be less than a 1% increase and is de minimis. He said the current use of the property is allowed to exist both by grandfathering and the 1986 special permit. Attorney Lilienthal said the Applicants are providing extensive sound proofing for the proposed building, including sound board, metal studs, 6 -inches of side wall insulation, sheet rock and, on the outside of the building, solid material like particle board or plywood and finished siding. He said doggy day care was a contemplative use in 1986 and no way did it limit the number of dogs in doggy day care and he asked the Board to find that the Applicants have met the requirements of 230: 310 B(2)(a) and grant the request for the addition of the building for use as doggy day care and to allow the existing residential lot to be expanded, to be used for a parking lot and driveway for the kennel and doggy day care. He said the proposed building will house 1,000 feet of office space with 2,600 square feet dedicated to doggy day care. He said the building could be lawfully built and used as an office by right under the zoning by-law but they are asking the board to allow the use of the site for a kennel, boarding, breeding, veterinary services and doggy day care to be expanded into this new building; he noted both Heron Crest and the kennel are located in a B3 zone. Mr. Cummings asked how many dogs are anticipated at any given time for doggy day care. Attorney Lilienthal said they have given an estimate of 50 dogs per day. Mr. Cummings asked how many dogs are there normally on a daily basis for doggy day care and how many are kenneled. Attorney Lilienthal said there are 20 dogs. Ms. Garber- Miller said at the first hearing Mr. Sohn said there was the capacity for 48 dogs. Evan Sohn said currently the kennel has 48 individual runs inside so when asked for a number he said 20 more dogs for a total of 70 dogs for the day care but the kennel is separate. Attorney Lilienthal said often there are two dogs to a run because people will bring two or more dogs to doggy day care. Ms. Garber -Miller asked where the dogs that come in for doggy day care are kept. Evan Sohn said it depends on how many dogs are in the kennel at the time because they only have a finite number of runs. She asked Evan Sohn to clarify how many dogs there would be on the property and where they would be on the property; she said she thought the building was going to be an exercise area. Evan Sohn said they would pen off the inside area and separate the dogs by small, large, old and young, and the dogs would all have their spaces inside the building to run, play and exercise, but he said they would also have to be let outside. He said the proposed building would hold the 50 dogs but the kennel would not change. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the dogs in day care would be in the kennel area and if the dogs being boarded in the kennel area might also go into the play area. Evan Sohn explained that would be an option for their clients and, because these dogs would already be in the kennel, the number of people coming in and out of the property would be reduced. He said they are trying to serve their current clientele, but they are also getting requests to expand their business. Mr. Cummings asked if they pick up any of the dogs. Evan Sohn said that would be a service they would like to implement and it is definitely in their plans to pick up and drop off the animals. Attorney Edward Valanzola, representing Heron Crest and members of the Association, said he believes the Applicant is here tonight because they could not go directly to the building inspector to get a building permit. He said they are expanding a permitted, non -conforming use that is now in a zone where it is not permitted and the main problem with this expansion for the residents at Heron Crest would be the noise from the dogs using the doggy day care. Attorney Valanzola, referencing item number 3, Section C on page 1 of his opposition document, explained in 1986 Attorney Lilienthal said "the Applicants estimate the so called day care service will be a minimal part of their business and it is estimated that this will probably account for an average of no more that five (5) animals per day". Attorney Valanzola said it was understood as an incidental part of their business. He said at the last hearing they said they wanted to expand the business to include 20 more dogs each day and that they currently accommodated 5-10 dogs in day care; he said now there is a new filing saying they are going to have 50 dogs with 100 vehicle trips. He said at the first hearing he questioned and disputed that they were building a 3,600 square - foot building and the costs associated with that to house 20 dogs, which does not make financial sense. He said they have provided no business plan, nothing explaining how this would all work and now there are 50 dogs; this is not de minimis, it is not minor, and 100 vehicles going in and out of the property a day is not insignificant; it is a detriment. Attorney Valanzola said the suggestion that they are going to change the traffic direction is something they can do anyway and if it is the police department's determination that the current traffic pattern on their property is unsafe, they do not need a special permit; they can correct this to make it safe by making it right turn only out of the property with one way in. Attorney Valanzola challenged the Applicant's memorandum asserting the Fire and Police Departments support and approval; he said the fire department's primary concern is whether they can get a ladder truck and emergency vehicles into the property. Attorney Valanzola also contended Police Officer Kinahan wrote he had no major concerns with the project, that he was writing that letter on the Sohns representation that it would be for a service already used; Attorney Valanzola said it does not appear that Officer Kinahan understood that 50 dogs would be brought to the site with 100 vehicle trips. Attorney Valanzola said at the first hearing he asked for objective, verifiable information regarding noise, specifications, and acoustical engineering. He said it has been two months now and the Applicants have not provided a plan from an acoustical engineer or from anyone else regarding sound proofing, building specifications, what materials will be used, flooring, roof, walls, where the windows will be located or whether the windows would be sufficient enough to keep the noise out. He asked where the HVAC systems and other mechanical systems would be located and about trash pick up and other facilities surrounding the buiding. He said he does not think this board has anything that they can base a decison on to say the residents of Heron Crest are not going to hear 50 dogs barking, which would be a significant detriment and greatly outweigh any personal benefits to their customers and to the community at large. He said this case is primarily about noise and barking dogs. Attorney Valanzola said the by-laws to be looked at are Section 230: 7.28(2), that the application and plans meet the submission and technical requirements of the by-law and Section 230: 3.10 B(2)(a) that such change, extension or alteration does not create a new non-compliance with any other use or dimensional requirement of the by-law. He said no plans have been filed showing landscaping and screening on the Sohns property that satisfies the statute: sub -section 2 states buffer strips adjoining or facing residential uses shall provide the strongest possible visual barrier between uses at pedestrian level and create a strong impression of spatial separation; he said nothing has been provided to the Board other than the landscaping that already exists in connection to the earlier developments or suggests that even the existing landscaping is sufficient to help mitigate the noise as they contend in their filing. Attorney Valanzola said sub -section 4 states all the landscaping shall be located entirely within the boundaries of their parcel. Mr. Farias said those trees are on Heron Crest property and Attorney Valanzola noted they can not use as their buffer/screen trees or vegetation that are on the abutters property. He said they will need a basic plan that shows landscaping and buffering that complies with the by-law. With Section 230: 4.3F of the by-law, Attorney Valanzola said nothing has been provided regarding opaque screens that exist on the Sohn property, other than the existing condition showing trees on Heron Crest's property; he said they should show where the opaque screen is located and provide the Board with some information from an expert that the Board can objectively review and make a determination that it will mitigate the noise. Attorney Valanzola said in the Declaration of Covenants, the term activities is what is protected; activities are a full time veterinary hospital, personal dog breeding facility, boarding kennel for dogs and other small animals and grooming facility with incidental sale of pet and animal products; doggy day care is not part of that declaration, which specifically states that only those activities are protected as currently and/or previously operated in 2005. Ms. Garber -Miller asked Attorney Valanzola what the fundamental difference is between a boarding facility and a doggy day care. Attorney Valanzola said a kennel usually has specific areas within the building where dogs are kept and doggy day care, as they are proposing in the new building, is more of an open area where the dogs run among other dogs. Ms. Garber -Miller said she does not see anywhere in the special permit that they are limited to a certain number of dogs or that they made a distinction between doggy day care and boarding. Linda Sohn said one stays over night and one goes home when people come home from work. Evan Sohn said at the kennel they have indoor and outdoor runs and the proposed facility will have an outdoor and indoor space. Attorney Valanzola said they are clearly permitted for a kennel, but are here to expand that and both are non -conforming uses in this zone. He said they are trying to increase that by adding a 3,600 square -foot building and 50 more dogs with 100 vehicle trips, which is why the building inspector sent them to zoning because it is a non -conforming use and the expansion of their use is not permitted or grandfathered in a B3 zone. Attorney Valanzola said an expansion of those uses requires a finding that the benefits outweigh the detriment and the Board needs objective information that tells them that residents nearby are not going to hear these 50 dogs barking. Attorney Lilienthal said the reason they are here is because they went to the building inspector to get a permit to expand that use in a new facility and were told they would need to come before the Board for the proper relief that is provided under 40A(6) and a section of the zoning by-law. He agreed they must submit to the Board there are great benefits to the community and few detriments and said he believes they have achieved that goal. With respect to trees being on their property, he does not think it says anything about the trees having to be on their property; he said this buffer was negotiated in 2005 as a part of the approval process for Heron Crest, not part of the approval process for Kozy Kennel. Attorney Lilienthal said there have been two complaints about this site in five years and the Applicants have given a list of measures that are being taken; he said the sound board is an expensive proposition and he believes they have satisfied the requirements for the mitigation they are taking. He said they also believe that, not withstanding the mitigation, if there is some noise, they are mitigating as best as they possibly can. He said they have minimized or diminished the amount of space being used for the doggy day care and they are asking for relief for 2,600 square feet instead of 3,600 square feet. Attorney Valanzola said what was done in 2005 had to do with the two adjoining properties and that agreement and landscaping had to do with those properties as they existed in connection with the Heron Crest development. He said this is a new application for a building, which is an expansion of the use; 230 Section 4.3(b) clearly states all required landscaping/buffering strips shall be located entirely within the bounds of the parcel; you can not use the adjoining property's buffering. Attorney Lilienthal said the Applicant would put a row of trees on their side of the fence. Attorney Valanzola said the Applicants could bring in a contractor to give a simple report about the insulation that is being used, measure the noise and how the soundproofing would contain the noise of the dogs barking. He said the Applicants have to show on a plan the row of trees, the berm, opaque screening, the type of insulation inside the building and materials that will be used for the building, and where the windows and maintenance systems will be located. Mr. Cumming said the Applicant needs to provide a plan with a proper landscaping barrier. Attorney Lilienthal noted Heron Crest will not be able to see the new building. Ms. Garber -Miller questioned Attorney Lilienthal about the location of the fence, the buffering that is there now, if there is an easement and the size of the fence. Attorney Lilienthal said 1/3 of the fence and buffer is on the Sohns property and this portion of the buffer directly faces the proposed building. He said it is a six-foot fence but they could construct an eight -foot fence. Attorney Valanzola said this does not satisfy the by-law that they provide opaque screening and buffering on their own property. Liz Rogers, 631 East Street, G202, said there is a glut of doggy day care services, both in home and facility based, in and around Mansfield; she said there are seven services within five miles, twenty-six options within ten miles and, if you go further out, there are eighty-eight options; she said she believes the plan in front of the Board is really more about a revenue generator than about offering and fulfilling a service and a need to the residents of Mansfield. Jean Doran Kearns, 631 East Street, G103, said when she goes out her front door she is looking at a chain link fence for the kennel. She said she was refused a building permit to build a three -season room because she was too close to the Canoe River but noted the Sohns property is closer to the Canoe River than she is. Ms. Garber -Miller said this would be a Conservation or Planning Board issue. Margaret Hein, 631 East Street, F102, explained this was not an ideal situation but one she and her husband found acceptable after understanding the agreement made between the Sohns and Callahan Construction and said they did not feel their home's value would be jeopardized by the Sohns business. She said the dogs are put out at 7 am and bark until 8 am, as well as various other times during the day and evening; she noted that recently, on numerous occasions, the dogs have been put out at 6:50 am and, during the summer, were often outside and barking until 8:30 pm; she wondered if these were violations of a noise ordinance. She said the agreement applies to the business as it was at the time of the signing in 2005 and, if the Sohns request for a variance is approved, the noise will increase as the number of dogs increases; she noted fifty more dogs would bring the total to 98 dogs within a small area immediately adjacent to her home and the barking would be continuous as the dogs arrive twice a day, six days a week. She said Attorney Lilienthal stated that the benefits outweigh the detrimental effects but the benefit will be reaped by the Sohns and their customers only. She said the Sohns contention that the sound buffers, which already are ineffectual in muting the noise, will suddently be sufficient to eliminate double the magtitude, is absurd. She said the large proposed structure immediately abutting her house will effect her physical and mental health. She said for her and the other 82 homeowners in this over -55 community, this will significantly decrease the value of their homes and said as tax payers, their investment should not be allowed to be de -valued by changing existing and long-standing zoning rules. She said in addition to the above negatives of the Sohns proposed expansion, is the increase in traffic this would bring to the very busy intersection at Route 106 and Franklin Street at the commuter hours when most drop offs and pick ups to and from their business would occur. She said once the new Police and Fire station on East Street, which is less than % mile away, opens, the negative traffic patttern could also affect public safety. She asked that the Sohns request for a change in the B3 zone to allow for expansion and change from a kennel to a kennel and doggy day care be denied. Pat Buckley, 631 East Street, 8202, said she has lived there for nine years and the reason there has been only two complaints from Heron Crest is they want to be good neighbors. She said they hear the dogs bark all the time and it would be unimaginable that they would hear twice the noise. She hoped the Board would take their quality of life into consideration when they make their decision. Rick Farias, 631 East Street, K201, said he is the current president of the Condo Association and they have heard several times tonight that a section of the by-law requires the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the detriments. He said they want to have assurances that all efforts are being made to mitigate the noise and traffic. Sarah Langmead, 575 East Street, said she is not concerned with the dogs inside the building, but with the turnover of the dogs outside and the amount of noise this would create throughout the day. She said they want to be good neighbors and encourage business in town but to double the noise is a concern. Joe Robichaud, 631 East Street, K101, commented that counsel represented that there would be a 1% increase in traffic with 100 cars for the 50 dogs, but the traffic at their location would be increased twice every day. Ms. Garber -Miller said the traffic study did not account for the potential of more than one pet being brought in by one person. She said, according to the report, this road currently carries 12,000 car trips a day. Mr. Gallagher said with the amount of traffic they would be adding to the 12,000 cars a day, you are not going to notice that and it would be considered de minimis; he said it is not a traffic issue at this point but is more a noise issue. Attorney Valanzola said the issue is the 50 cars in the morning and in the afternoon have to negotiate in and out of the parking lot, so it is not the volume but the introducing of those vehicles by having them cut across and through traffic. Attorney Lilienthal said the information that was submitted in their memorandum shows that there has been only two (2) incidents in five years at the intersection. Attorney Lilienthal said this comes down to whether or not they should hire a sound engineer and his clients do not feel, for the expense this would incur, which would be several thousand dollars, that anything more will come out of it than the information already given about the mitigation efforts that will be taken. Attorney Lilienthal said if the Board feels the Applicant should retain a sound engineer, he will discuss this with his clients. Ms. Garber -Miller asked Attorney Lilienthal if this might be a good way to allay the Heron Crest residents concerns. Mr. Gallagher said there is a lot of confusion about how this property is going to be used. Ms. Garber -Miller said clearly even the Board still has questions about exactly what is going on, where and at what time. Mr. Gallagher said you currently have 48 runs in the kennel and could have another 50 dogs on the property at any one time and said he wanted to know when the dogs would be outside and how long they would be outside because that is the noise the residents of Heron Crest are going to hear, not when the dogs are indoors. He said he would perfer to see all this in writing. Mr. Correira agreed. Attorney Valanzola said if this Board is inclined to grant the finding and special permit, a condition could be put on the finding/special permit that if the dogs can be heard at the residential properties, the applicant needs to stop or reduce the usage. Attorney Lilienthal said they want to provide the Board with as much information as they need to make a decision. He said he talked with Attorney Valanzola and everything Attorney Valanzola asked to be addressed was in the memorandum. Attorney Valanzola said if the hearing is going to be continued and the Applicants are going to submit something further, he asked that the Chair request it be provided to his office at least a week before the hearing so they have an opportunity to review the information. Ms. Garber -Miller asked Attorney Lilienthal to submit any new information to the Board at least a week before the next hearing to give the Board time to go through the material. Mr. Correira made the motion to continue the hearing for the application of Evan Sohn and Stanely Sohn for a Finding/Special Permit from Section 230-3.10B(2)(a) and 230-7.2(B)(2) and (B)(4) to allow for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre-existing, non -conforming use at 601 and 619 East Street ( Map 33, Parcels 18 and 119) in the Business 3 (B3) Zone to allow the expansion of a single family dwelling/kennel and doggy day care, to December 18, 2018. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr.Correira said it would be nice if everyone involved tried to have a conversation between now and the next hearing. Hearing ended at 10:00 pm. 4. Old Business: West Church Realty, LLC, 51 West Church Street, Map 21, Parcel 135 for a Special Permit presented at the July 2018 meeting. Attorney Valanzola said they are still talking with the abutter, Milhaus Condominiums, and they are in the process of finalizing the plans; he noted they have now been before the Planning Department. He mentioned some things have changed on the property line; Milhaus Condominiums has removed some trees and will put arborvitae on their side of the property. He said the Applicant will put up a white fence, the height of the fence still to be determined, because Milhaus Condominiums wants some sections of the fence to be more than six feet in height and the Applicant thinks it should be just six feet. He said he will have something for the next hearing. Next meeting dates will be January 15, 2019 and February 5, 2019. Mr.Gallagher made the motion to approve the minutes of September 18, 2018, approval pending the correction of minor typographical errors. Mr. Correira seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Ms.Pruitt made the motion to approve the minutes of June 12 and July 31, 2018. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 5. Adjournment: Ms. Pruitt made the motion to adjourn at 10:20 pm. Mr. Cummings seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Next meeting will be December 18, 2018. Ddflene Pruitt, Clerk Date