BOA20050509

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

= May 9, 2005

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

The Secretary, Ms. Svetlana Paliy, called the roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Peter McNamara, David Hen= nessey, Svetlana (Beloritsky) Paliy (arrived after the meeting commenced), Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Robert Molloy, Alternate Cindy Ronning

Jeff Gowan

REMAND

Case #2286= – BIBEAU, David – 36 Atwood Road / ML 29/7-41 – S= eeking a Variance concerning Article VII, Section 307-41(b) to permit the construc= tion of a 30ft.x40ft. garage partly within the 50ft. wetland buffer.<= /u>

Mr. McNamara informed that Mr. Molloy would be voting.=

Attorney Paul DeCarolis representing Mr. Lynch (an abu= tter) said this case was frustrating when it went to Superior Court. He said his clients weren’t necessarily opposed to the garage, but proposed certain conditions that wou= ld offer protection to the property. &nb= sp;

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

Mr. McNamara provided the new Board members with a bri= ef history of the case which had come before the Board and the Planning Board several times. He said he had= been informed by the Planning Director that he had been in contact with Mr. Bibe= au and that Mr. Bibeau would attend the meeting. Mr. Hennessey said he was also inf= ormed of such. Mr. McNamara then no= ted that there were only four members present and if the applicant were present= he would have the opportunity to decide whether or not he wanted to proceed.

Mr. McNamara asked if Attorney DeCarolis had been in c= ontact with Mr. Bibeau. Attorney DeC= arolis said he asked the Planning Director to request Mr. Bibeau’s presence = at the meeting. He felt it would= be appropriate to issue a Cease and Desist if a variance was not granted. He reiterated his clients were not against granting a variance, but would like it to have certain conditions.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara said when the Board originally granted the variance there were certain conditions that were iss= ued along with it. He said some o= f the conditions had not been met. = He believed if a variance was granted the Board would be interested in imposing the same conditions.

Neither the applicant, nor their representative was pr= esent. Mr. McNamara said the Board would revisit the case later in the meeting.

See below for further action.

Ms. Paliy and Ms. Ronning arrived.

RE-HEARING=

Case #2307= – ERICKSON, Craig & Pam – 27 South Shore Drive/ML 30/11-218 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article VII, Section 307-41(b) to permit a 8ft.x33ft. addition within the 50ft. WCD setback on an existing non-conform= ing lot that does not meet the current minimum lot size and frontage requiremen= ts in the residential zone

Mr. McNamara noted since Ms. Ronning had background pertaining to the case, he appointed Ms. Ronning to vote, rather than Mr. Molloy.

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

Ms. Pamela Little, JD of Baldwin & Callen, represe= nting the applicants met with the Board to discuss the revisions to the plan. She circulated a memo dated May 9, 2005 that= had been faxed to the Planning Department earlier in the day. She said a second proposal had been submitted to the Planning Department and presented to the Conservation Commission and it was her understanding that the Conservation Commission had submitted a recommendation letter to the Board. Mr. McNamara read aloud the letter, dated April 20, = 2005, submitted by the Conservation Commission to the Board. The Conservation Commission could = not support the plan presented; however in additional conversations with the applicant a number of alternatives were considered which explored locations= for an addition that would avoid wetland buffer impacts. The final recommendation by the Conservation Commission the was that the plan return to the originally prop= osed 14ft. addition locating it 17ft. or more away from the front (pond side) of= the house, hence 50ft. from the lake outside the wetland protective buffer. The Conservation Commission voted unanimously in favor of supporting the revised location of the addition loc= ated outside the buffer; the vote was with the understanding that previous commitments associated with the perched beach and environmental considerati= ons of reduced asphalt and reworked roof drainage location and treatment swale = would still remain in effect.

Ms. Little reviewed her memo dated May 9, 2005, which contained= a sketch of the proposed addition (#3) (done with the recommendations of the Conservation Commission), which would not encroach into the wetland conservation district and would be the same height as the existing structur= e. The only Zoning requirements not m= et would be lot size and road frontage.

Mr. McNamara asked how the square footage of the propo= sed compared to the last plan. Ms. Little said the addition would be 1092SF (including the basement); the prior addition (that encroached into the wetland) was 792SF.

Ms. Little read aloud the five criteria for an area va= riance as submitted to the Board as follows:

Item #1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: The proposed use will be aesthetically pleasing and the building materials will= be compatible with the existing home. There will be no adverse effect on the neighboring properties.

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The proposed addition will add to the taxes being paid on the property. Residential homes a= re a permitted use in this zone, and home additions are common in residential ar= eas and in this neighborhood. The proposed addition is consistent with the permissible uses in the Residential district, and is appropriate in style and size.

Item #3 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance result in unnecessary hardship:

a= ) = the area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property because: The property is a pre-existing non-conforming lot. As stated= in Boccia, if the landowner’s p= lans are for a permitted use, but special conditions of the property make it impossible to comply with some of the requirements, then from a practical perspective a landowner would not be able to make use of the property, as proposed, without a variance. The proposed location for the addition violates no requirements of the Zoning Ordinance except the minimum lot size and minimum lot frontage. Clearly, a variance to these const= raints is needed to allow any addition to the home.

b= ) = the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: The home exits on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. The lot size and road frontage can not be increased. There is no other reasonable feasi= ble method for achieving the benefits sought because of the location of the sep= tic and well on the property, and the cost that would be incurred in moving the kitchen, well and septic to accommodate an addition directly behind the hou= se.

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: Single family homes are permitted in the residential district. Allowing these applicants to make = their house more livable, and more consistent with the neighborhood norm is simple justice.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: The proposed addition is within the setbacks required by the Zoning Ordinance, and the ordinance allows for single family homes in the residential district.

Ms. Little asked that the Board consider the legal ana= lysis of the Boccia case as was done when the variance was granted for the garage.

Mr. Hennessey asked if the plan being presented to the= Board was precisely the same plan the Conservation Commission saw at the time they wrote the recommendation letter dated April 20, 2005 supporting the proposal. Ms. Little answered yes; proposal = #2 went before the Conservation Commission.&n= bsp; Ms. Erickson said the Conservation Commission drew the plan on the o= ld one. Mr. Hennessey reviewed t= he April 20, 2005 = Conservation Commission letter and confirmed that their recommendation for support was t= he same proposal before the Board. Ms. Little and Ms. Erickson answered yes.

Mr. O’Sullivan asked if the abutters were given = the opportunity to review the proposal. Ms. Little answered no due to the fact they received the plan earlie= r in the day.

Mr. McNamara provided a brief history of the case to t= he new Board members. He said the on= ly item before the Board for decision was the new addition. Ms. Little said she had spoken wit= h the Planning Director a week ago and informed him they were trying to come up w= ith another proposal and questioned if it would be appropriate to present at th= is meeting. She said Mr. D’Andrea informed her since the notice had already gone out for the meeting, and it would be fine to bring in anything they had.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney James Troisi, representing the direct abutters across the street Mr. & Mrs. Donald Crossley, addressed the Board. He said when comparing the submitt= ed plan to the Conservation Commission minutes, there was a suggestion by Mr. Gagnon for a 14ft.x17ft. addition. He questioned if the submitted sketch was for a 14ft.x17ft. addition. Mr. McNamara said p= er the Conservation Commission letter (dated April 20, 2005) they indicated that the final recommendation was to return to the originally proposed 14ft. addition loca= ting it 17ft or more away from the front side of the pond. He was unsure if the figure was ju= st a coincidence, or if the Conservation Commission was speaking of a 14ft.x17ft. addition. Attorney Troisi ask= ed what the dimensions of the addition were and wanted to know the height of t= he house. Ms. Erickson said the addition was 14ft. x26ft.; the height of the house was unknown, but she informed the addition would not go higher than the house.

Attorney Troisi wanted to make certain that everything= that had been presented (i.e. documentary, testimonials) would be incorporated by reference= so it would be part of the record. = Mr. McNamara said he had no disagreement (to the extent that the Board had control); this also went to any materials presented by the applicant. He wanted it understood that the B= oard was now dealing with a third proposal.&nbs= p;

Attorney Troisi noted that the Crossleys had started u= sing and purchased the home over forty years ago. He said a huge part of the value w= as the scenic view to the lake. He p= rovided a brief history of the site and previous court cases. He said the applicant’s atto= rney was submitting that the initial test was that the site had to have special conditions that made it unique and distinguished it from other properties in the neighborhood. He did not = feel that the property had special conditions, or was unique when comparing it to the neighborhood. He reviewed= a portion of the Crossley’s 1990 court case. He said some of the houses had two= -car garages, but through photographs and testimony previously submitted, the ar= ea around the site was not different that the site itself; mostly all the lots were non-conforming, many have no garages and many have ‘cottage̵= 7; type garages. He said there w= ere no special conditions that separated this locus from the majority of the neighborhood surrounding it and/or Little Island Pond. Mr. McNamara noted that the Boccia= case had been refined by the Hudson= case. His reading of the case= (in the absence of any action by the Legislature) was that a requirement of hardship was eviscerated in an area variance; although he disagreed with the decision, it appeared the decision was saying all that had to be shown was = that the use was allowable in the district.&nbs= p; Attorney Troisi disagreed because in the case, the lot had wetland, slope etc. which distinguished it from surrounding lots. He said in this case, there was no evidence that distinguished the applicant’s lot from the surrounding neighborhood lots. He believe= d the Hudson case emphas= ized the Boccia case. Mr. McNamara sai= d he felt the Hudson case made it extremely difficult to deny an area variance based upon hardship.

Mr. Hennessey questioned if the existence of the WCD o= n the applicant’s lot made it different from others. Attorney Troisi said the WCD encro= ached all the lots around the pond. Mr. Hennessey said he was referring to the WCD to the right of the house. He said the DES spoke about basica= lly ‘trading off’ the improvements to the beach area (creation of perched beach) and diverting the storm drain from going into the pond to go into the wetlands. He said th= at was one of the reasons they granted the waiver from the Shore Land Protection A= ct based on this he questioned if it made the lot unique and different. Attorney Troisi answered no. He said geographically the applicant’s lot was no different from most of the lots in the neighborhood surrounding the lake. Mr. Hennessey said the Conservation Commission addressed the non-veg= etated area under the porch was in fact not valuable and by allowing the addition = it would not increase the impermeable area.&n= bsp; He questioned if the existence of the porch/deck on the applicant’s lot make it different.&n= bsp; Attorney Troisi answered no. He said most of the homes around the lake had decks and porches and = if they all wanted to enclose them the lots would become overcrowded and the l= ake area would be infiltrated.

Attorney Troisi discussed previous submissions (from December 13, 2004) that included a copy of the Boccia case, photographs sho= wing the Crossley home and the view of the lake as well as a diagram depicting t= he sight distance lines from the Crossley’s home to the water. He said the Board conducted a site= walk which made it clear that the proposed addition would interfere with the Crossley’s view. He sai= d the garage (14ft. in height) prev= iously allowed by the Board would be superceded by the three-story addition which would further block the Crossley’s view. He said it was in the record that a Board member had commented that there was no question that the Crossley property would be adversely affected; another member said that there was too much mass being proposed on the applicant’s lot. He said proposal #2 8ft.x33ft. (approximately 700SF) and now the proposed addition was 1092SF (three stori= es) which was an approximate 45%-50% increase in the building space. Attorney Troisi said the appraisal= done in the late 1980’s in effect stated that the garage proposed by the former owner of the applicant’s lot would block the Crossley’s = view of the water and thus would diminish their property value by approximately 10%. He said at a previous me= eting, Board members discussed the fact that there was no written easement in place for the view. He said an ease= ment was not needed for a view and if a neighbor built a house that blocked the = view and diminished property value, it was enough to show that the first criteria (no diminution of property value) was not met.

Attorney Troisi submitted a copy of the 1989 Divany v.= Windham case; whic= h he read a portion of. The case d= ealt with property on Cobett’s Pond which was similar to the Oganowski case and the one being presented to the Board.&= nbsp; He highlighted the Statement of Opposition he submitted on January 5, 2005 = in which he discussed the variance, view and history.

Mr. Hennessey said the Board turned the request for va= riance down and it was back before the Board on the basis of the change being presented. He asked if the pr= oposal was equally, or more adverse than the previous proposal. Attorney Troisi said it was blocki= ng the view more the previous proposal. The angle cuts off the view to the lake. He reviewed a portion of the Bacon case. In regard to substantial justice, Attorney Troisi said Mr. Crossley had fought the same issues many times before the Board of Adjustment in the 1980’s then to the Superi= or Court and all the way to the Supreme Court, and now he is having to do it a= ll over again. He said the appli= cants were charged with the knowledge of the history of the property (which was a= ll recorded) and knew when the rented the property prior to purchasing. He in weighing the substantial jus= tice argument, it should be done in favor of the Crossleys based upon the time, effort and money.

Attorney Troisi said in connection with the spirit of = the ordinance, the Town’s Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose in a l= arge part was to prevent the overcrowding of land and to conserve property values. He reviewed the porti= on of the Bacon case where it discussed overcrowding. He said the proposed room had chan= ged its purpose and noted the septic was only approved for two bedrooms; he wan= ted the Board to inquire if the room was going to be a bedroom. He ended by thanking the Board for= their time and consideration to the matter over the last few months.

Mr. McNamara asked if the additional room would be a bedroom. Ms. Erickson said the additional room would be a family room.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara asked if there would be an additional bathroom. Mr. Erickson said there would be a= total of three bathrooms. Mr. McNam= ara asked what the septic was rated for. Ms. Erickson said the septic was rated for two bedrooms.

Ms. Little addressed some of the comments made by the abutter’s council. She = said from the beginning the applicants wanted to keep a view for the abutter, bu= t it had gotten out of hand with the amount of proposals they had to come up with. Mr. Hennessey asked tha= t the applicant acknowledge that the current proposal hindered the abutter’s view more than the last proposal. Ms. Little answered no because the garage was already approved. Ms. Erickson said the abutter couldn’t see over the garage because the abutter had a one floor house. Mr. Hennessey understo= od that the garage was shorter than the addition. He said the Board was trying to we= igh the two proposals. The last proposal had a major issue regarding the Conservation Commission which had = been addressed, Mr. Hennessey said he was now trying to weigh the increased affe= ct on the abutter. Ms. Erickson = said the addition would not go out farther than the garage. She noted that the first plan didn’t block the view, the view would be altered not blocked. Ms. Little pointed out that there = was no legal right to a view in New = Hampshire. She didn’t agree with Attorn= ey Troisi’s analysis of the Boccia case. She said each individual property = should be looked at.

Mr. Hennessey asked that criteria #2 be reviewed (not permissible to presupposing an increased assessment) and wanted to know if there were other public benefits to granting the variance other than the increase in taxation. Ms. Lit= tle said it was consistent to other homes in the area. She was unsure if public interest = could only apply to one person. Mr. Hennessey asked if waiver issued by DES for the perched beach and alteratio= n of storm drain was subject to the addition being built. Ms. Little answered yes.

Ms. Little said the addition would increase the size by approximately 30%, not 50% larger as the abutter’s council had stated. She noted that additi= on would be 20feet from the first floor to the roof line. She discussed a new case (Harringt= on) that discusses knowledge of prior variances and in summary says that’s not something that needs to be taken into consideration. Ms. Erickson said she was aggravat= ed with her integrity being questioned regarding the plans. It was noted that this was the applicant’s dream house. Ms. Erickson wanted it known that they and the Oganowskis had spent a lot of mo= ney to try and improve the home. = She submitted photographs showing surrounding homes.

Attorney Troisi said all cases on special conditions compared them to the neighborhood. He said in the Harrington case the lot in question was unique had special conditions compared to those in the neighborhood. He pointed out that the applicant admitted that the view was more altered (reduced) with the current proposal compared to the last proposal, which would affect the market value and aesthetic value of Mr. Crossley’s property. He noted that the previous additio= n was 8feet wide and now it was being proposed at 14feet wide and closer to his client’s site.

Mr. Hennessey discussed the case. He said he voted to deny the origi= nal variance, but had also voted to rehear the case on the basis of the changed proposal that had come back from the Conservation Commission with a strong recommendation on the basis that it would no longer encroach on the WCD sideline. He felt the Conserv= ation Commission provided indications on the effects to the public per the zoning laws. He was weighing the inc= reased mass on the property, possible hardship to Mr. Crossley (possible decrease = in view) as well as the positive improvements recommended by the DES and the Conservation Commission. He believed the public would gain from the change in the proposal against the possible loss to Mr. Crossley. He believed the applicant’s lot had unique characteristics that made Boc= cia obvious due to: 1) DES says the lot is unique or they wouldn’t have r= equired a perched beach or movement of the storm drain; 2) peculiarities regarding = WCD (located to the right when facing the pond); 3) peculiarities because of the existing porch (that nothing could be done with) with un-vegetated space underneath.

Ms. Paliy said she would like to see the full design.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Ronning said reviewing the pla= n was difficult because it didn’t show the relation of the addition to the garage placement. Ms. Erickso= n said the addition would be directly behind the garage. She said in plan one, the addition= was going to be 14ft.x33ft. and the only difference is the addition had been mo= ved out of the WCD. Ms. Paliy reiterated it would be great to have a drawing of how everything would work together. She had a problem (= as with the past proposal) with the amount of square footage being added and didn’t feel the new drawing showed the three stories for the addition.

Mr. O’Sullivan asked for the approximate garage height. Ms. Erickson said the garage would be 14ft in height. Mr. O’Sullivan asked if the space to the right of the proposed addition w= as heavily wooded. Ms. Erickson answered yes.

Mr. McNamara said a positive recommendation had been received from the Conservation Commission, and the addition would be entire= ly out of the WCD and there would be a positive impact. He discussed the criteria and the abutter’s view and noted if the applicant planted trees in the same a= rea (which is encouraged by the Shore Land Protection Act) the abutter’s = view would be obliterated. He said= it was hard for him to say property values would be diminished (in the sense of the criteria) when there was not an absolute value. He noted that the neighborhood had= changed considerably since the 1980’s and when variances were requested the B= oard reviewed such in terms of improvements to the septic systems, property valu= es and further protection to the wetlands.&nb= sp;

Ms. Ronning said there were problems with the photogra= phs submitted by the applicant in that they didn’t indicate if there were additional properties owned by the homeowners that would change the square footage of the lots.

The Board then voted regarding the area variance being requested:

BALLOT VOTE= :

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria.

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria.

Ms. Paliy –&n= bsp; No to all criteria.

VOTE:<= /o:p>

Mr. O’Sullivan – Yes to all criteria.

Ms. Ronning – Yes to all criteria.

(4-1-0) The motion carried. Ms. Paliy voted no.

VARIANCE GRAN= TED

HEARING(S)=

Case #2316= – DICESARE, John Sr. & Grace – 141 Old Gage Hill Road North / ML 17/13-50 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 & 307-14 to permit a single family home to be built on an existing .58 = acre lot with approximately 120ft. of road frontage in the residential zone.

Ms. Ronning recused herself. She said neither the applicant, nor their representative was present.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Armand Berard, 134 Old Gage Hill Road North, questioned how the B= oard would proceed in the absence of the applicant. Mr. McNamara said the Board would = not hear the case because the applicant and/or their representative were not present. He said the Board wa= s not informed that they would not be present.&n= bsp; He told Mr. Berard he could speak regarding the matter and come back= to address the Board when the case was heard.=

Mr. Berard said he resided across the street from the = lot in question. He explained that t= he road at his parcel was ‘U’ shaped and felt that the proposed lot would be of no benefit to the Town or him.= He said he moved to the area forty-one years ago and since that time there had been numerous subdivisions, which would tax the Town’s municipalities. Mr. Berard di= scussed the increased traffic volume and speed.&nb= sp; He said he petitioned the state to remove part of the ledge to ease sight distance and noted that he used mirrors to help negotiate exiting his parcel. He then submitted photographs to the Board showing the area.= Mr. McNamara informed that the Board was bound to follow the law of variances as explained in the Zoning Ordinances and as defined and interpre= ted in the New Hampshire Supreme Court and Legislature. He said the concerns were legitimate. The Board had to,= by law, take each request for variance and special exception on a case-by-case basis; if the applicant can meet the criteria, the Board has to grant the variance.

Mr. John Fendelander, 2 Kennedy Drive, confirmed that a l= ot in Town had to be a minimum of one acre with 200feet of frontage. Mr. McNamara answered yes. Mr. Fendelander asked if lots unde= r one acre came before the Board often. Mr. McNamara said it happens infrequently. Mr. Fendelander was concerned if t= he variance was granted that other lots would come forward for variances. Mr. McNamara said the Board would continue the case to the next meeting (June 13, 2005).&nbs= p; Mr. Fendelander questioned the process if the applicant didn’t show up for that meeting. Mr. McNamara said the Board would try not to continue the case a second time. Mr. Fendelander indicated he was o= pposed to the request.

In the absence of the applicant and/or their represent= ative, the case was continued to the June 13, 2005 meeting.

Ms. Ronning returned to the Board.

Mr. McNamara noted that the applicant was still not present. He said Council for = the abutters provided a one-page document containing conditions for approval. He said they indicated they would = not be in opposition to a variance being granted provided the conditions were made= a part of such. Mr. McNamara sa= id the Board’s position was a little bit delicate because they had agreed on= the remand; the case was decided, it went to court; the Board had applied the w= rong standard (use rather than area) and it was agreed by council for both parti= es that the case would come back to the Board to apply the correct standard (area). He said the Board was= under an obligation to hear the variance but could not hear it without Mr. Bibeau= or his representative present. <= /p>

Mr. Hennessey said there was currently a building erec= ted on the basis of a variance that should not have been. He said that building should not h= ave gone up while the case was under appeal.&n= bsp; He made a recommendation that the Board instruct the Zoning Enforcem= ent Officer to issue a Cease and Desist effective immediately. Mr. McNamara said the abutter̵= 7;s attorney had written to the planning office requesting such.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/O’Sullivan) To recommend that a Cea= se and Desist be issued and enforced by the Town Zoning Enforcement Officer.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

<= /u>

Mr. McNamara submitted the conditions of approval into= the record.

The case was continued to the June 13, 2005 meeting.

MINUTES

April 11, 2005=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/O’Sullivan) To approve the April 11, 2005 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

<= /u>

CONTINUED = CASE(S) – June 13,= 2005

Case #2286 – BIBEAU, David – 36 Atwood Roa= d /= ML 29/7-41 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article VII, Section 307-41(b) to permit the construction of a 30ft.x40ft. garage partly within = the 50ft. wetland buffer.

Case #2316 – DICESARE, John Sr. & Grace R= 11; 141 Old Gage Hill Road North / ML 17/13-50 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-12 & 307-14 to permit a single fami= ly home to be built on an existing .58 acre lot with approximately 120ft. of r= oad frontage in the residential zone.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30pm.

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

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

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