PB Minutes 02-05-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

= February 5, 2007

The Chairman Bill Scanzani called the meeting to order= at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Ken Dunne, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Paul Dadak, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Pla= nning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Alternate Bob Yarmo

Ma= p 39 Lot 1-55 LRL Development of Pelham/Leverone & Associates – Sherburne Road – Proposed 34-= Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

This plan along with the following was reviewed together.

Ma= p 39 Lot 1-53 LRL Development of Pelham/David & Lisa Gerniglia – Sherburne Road – Proposed 32 Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Drivewa= y

Mr. Gowan noted that the applicant had amended their plan to include a new parcel (to the north on Sherburne Road), therefore, the abu= tters (to the new parcel) were included in an abutter re-notification.

Ms. Ouellette 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 f= ile did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the two plans to the Board. He discussed the history and progression of the plan which involved finding a different access (with less impact to the wetlands) to the parcel through t= he applicant purchasing an abutting parcel.&n= bsp; The new plan shows a minimum Wetland Conservation District (“WCD”) crossing. Also, a landscape plan has been developed. Mr. Zohdi said there had been several meetings with the Planning Director, Fire Chief and Stantec (Town Engineer). He said in reviewing Stantec’= ;s report, there were several unresolved items, but he felt they could comply = with such. He said they had reques= ted waivers and was hopeful that the Board would grant a conditional approval.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Scanzani asked if any subdivision was being proposed for the purchased parcel. Mr. Zohdi answered no; they took four hundred feet of frontage to be able to provide the parcels with the required frontage. Mr. Scanzani asked if the wells we= re still proposed to be placed in the wetland. Mr. Zohdi said the wells were alre= ady drilled and were taking sufficient water.&= nbsp; He said he received a letter from Bruce Lewis of New Hampshire Depar= tment of Environmental Services who said they would be testing the quality and quantity of water.

Mr. Dunne reviewed the January 31, 2007 letter from = Stantec and questioned if sidewalks were proposed for the development. Mr. Zohdi answered no; they would = be using sheet drainage. Mr. Dun= ne believed sidewalks would make it easier for people to walk within the development. He suggested tha= t the Board request sidewalks for future developments. Mr. Zohdi said sidewalks had pros = and cons and briefly explained each. He said each project should be reviewed for its own merits. Mr. Gowan noted that sidewalks wer= e required for Senior Projects on any new applications. Mr. Dunne felt sidewalks should be= in any development.

Landscape Architect Jack Trembley said he was asked to put together a landscape plan for the project. He discussed the importance of hav= ing a landscape plan and reviewed the levels of landscaping he was proposing.

Mr. McNamara asked if the topography of the pa= rcel would have to be changed based on the proposed landscaping. Mr. Trembley answered no. He said they reviewed the heights/= size of the landscaping to fit with the available space.

Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services sa= id they were the Wetland Scientist of record and they also performed the Envir= onmental Impact Assessment. He reviewe= d the outstanding items noted in the Louis Berger report (done by Mr. Craig Wood)= . 1) proposed methods of waste= water treatment will be addressed by Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates; 2= ) potential important wildlife habitat associated with the dense Hemlock forest should = be discussed in the EIA – Mr. Gove showed the Hemlock area and said there was no evidence of deer yarding taking place in that area and there was no evidence of trails taking place; 3) cumulative wetland impacts and mitigati= on measures to be discussed and displayed – Mr. Gove said the previous p= lan would have required a lot of mitigation, but the revised plan only showed a wetland impact of 3000SF that wouldn’t need compensatory mitigation a= nd left the major wetland complex untouched; 4) a more detailed assessment of potential pollutant loading and removal efficiencies in the storm water man= agement plan due to the presence of downstream sense of receiving waters – Mr. Gove said he would let Mr. Gospodarek handle this; 5) water supply and potential impacts to other wells and water resources to be addressed – Mr. Gove said tests had been done and it appeared that there was a good wat= er supply in the area.

Mr. Scanzani asked if Mr. Gove had reviewed the parcel not yet developed (abutting Sherburne Road). Mr. Gove said he had only reviewed the parcel to the extent of having direct impacts. He said the proposed egress appeared to be an excellent spot to cross the wetland and access the upland areas.

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Zohdi if he had the opportunity to review the latest Stantec comments. Mr. Zohdi said he and Mr. Gospodar= ek had reviewed the comments. He said there were some items but felt they could work through them with Mr. Gowan = and Stantec to hopefully resolve them. <= /span>He said the comments were received January 31, 2007 and they had been working on such and revised the plans which would be forwarded to Stantec. He said if the Board wanted to approve the plan, he believed they co= uld subject to receiving a satisfactory letter from Stantec to Mr. Gowan.

Mr. McManus questioned why the entrance to the parcel wasn’t coming through lot 1-54. Mr. Zohdi showed where the drainage would flow. He showed the loc= ation where a right-of-way to the Town parcel would be located. He said eventually, if development= was done on the abutting lot (possible second phase), the access road would be looped to Sherburne Road.

Mr. Zohdi handed out a copy of the list of requested waivers. Mr. Scanza= ni noted that until the Subdivision Regulation are modified; on private drivew= ays there are a number of waivers. He said from the list of waivers submitted, there were two he asked the Board = not to consider: 1) base coarse; = and 2) top wearing depths. He said in the past the Board had = tried to keep these the same as the Town roads because, even though they are priv= ate subdivisions, they should last.

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the waivers and questio= ned the needed waiver for the 2.5 – 1 slope. Mr. Gospodarek said contained in t= he January 23, 2007 packet he said after Stantec’s review they added the cut and fill waiver to the requested list. Mr. Zohdi said Stantec was asking = the road to comply with the cross section, which would require a waiver for 2-1 slope instead of the required 3-1 slope.&n= bsp; He also noted if the Board wasn’t comfortable with the waiver request for the pavement, they would withdraw such. Mr. Scanzani said there was concern about having the roads built to the Town specifications so they would last. Mr. Zohdi said they didn’t have a problem withdrawing that waiver request.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dunne) To accept, for consideration, all the waivers to Appendix I regarding roads, except items 4 & 5 – bb, 6a,b&c and bb, 7,b related to base coat depth and top wearing coat.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dunne) To accept, for consideration, the Sp= ecial Permit for Wetland Conservation District crossing.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec comment regarding the technical issues on the plan. Mr. Gowan read aloud a letter date= d February 1, 2007= submitted by Park & Recreation Director Darren McCarthy which reiterated their support for the proposed project going in next to Pelham Veteran’s Memorial Park because it had the potential to help the park in many ways (i= .e. providing dedicated/gated emergency access road). He said the emergency access was a= lso referenced in the Highway Safety Committee’s letter who were also ‘keen’ on having the gated emergency access.

Mr. Hertrich said they had concern as to wheth= er the two projects would be built together because each relies on the other f= or access. He said the drainage = from lot 1-55 flowed to a detention pond on 1-55-1, so if 1-55-1 wasn’t bu= ilt at the same time, something had to be built for the drainage. He said they wanted to know what e= ffect the runoff would have to the wetland on the southerly side of the site. He said the roadways were narrow a= nd comment should be received from the Fire Department indicating if apparatus could turn around. He said the wells were on dry land on the other side of the WCD so there would be a bit= of filling that would impact the wetland and WCD; they questioned if the information was included in the Special Permit or Wetlands Permit. Mr. Hertrich said the remaining is= sues appeared to be technical that could be worked out.

Mr. McNamara asked if the waivers to Appendix I were justified. Mr. Hertrich believed a lot of what the developer wanted to do would be okay based on the design being a 20mph narrow roadway.

Ms. Ouellette questioned if a waiver for a com= mon driveway was needed. Mr. Scan= zani confirmed there were no private/individual homes off the driveway. Mr. Gospodarek said there were non= e. Mr. Scanzani said there were two separate parcels with one entrance in and out (loop road) with an island to split the traffic. He said the entrance may change with future development. Ms. Ouellette said the waiver indi= cates there is a common driveway. M= r. Scanzani didn’t feel it was necessary because it was an internal road, even though it was a private driveway.&nbs= p; Ms. Ouellette confirmed that it was not necessary to have a waiver request for a common driveway. Ms. Bousa disagreed; she said there was one driveway that serviced two separate properties. She said single f= amily homes would need the waiver. = Mr. Gowan said in this case he agreed with Ms. Bousa because they were two sepa= rate projects.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request for a common driveway (Section 11.05, 4,a,1,d).

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the items that were still outstanding the first being what kind of voluntary contribution to fix Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road intersection. Mr. Culbert questioned if the Board could request $5000 per unit. He also noted that the Town’s Senior Facility would be taxed due to the development being senior housing. Mr. Scanzani believed those items were negotiable. = Mr. Scanzani believed the proposed emergency access would also alleviate the concerns of Park & Recreation regarding Pelham Veteran’s Memorial Park and the concerns of the Highway Safety Committee. Mr. Gowan said he would like the d= etail of the gated access shown on page 7 of 17.= He could discuss further with Mr. Zohdi. He said he would also discuss poss= ible improvements to the camp access road with Mr. Zohdi as well as with Town Counsel to see if it needs to go to Town Meeting, or the Selectmen to be la= id out.

Mr. Scanzani said (with regard to Stantec̵= 7;s comments) regardless of how the project was phased, the roads/drainage would have to be built together because they interconnect (and would be a conditi= on of approval shown on the plan). He asked Mr. Gowan to get an opinion from the Fire Department regarding the tu= rning radiuses of their apparatus; a minor adjustment to the pavement at the turns may have to be made. Mr. Zohd= i said they didn’t have a problem doing so.= Mr. Scanzani said the location of where the access road to the well = and pump station should be noted on the plan.&= nbsp;

Mr. Gowan said he would pass the road name (Aspen) by the High= way Safety Committee. He also wan= ted to be sure it was shown on the plan. Mr. Zohdi noted that all the owners= of the parcels would sign the mylar before it was registered.

Mr. McNamara confirmed that the developer inte= nded to build both. Mr. Zohdi said= they would comply to build the whole road and that the drainage would work. Mr. McNamara asked if there would = be two separate condominium documents/associations, or just one. Mr. Zohdi said they would like to = have one. It would be presented to= the Board and Town Counsel to ensure everyone was satisfied. He said the reason the project was separate was to gain the number of units.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara confirmed that no development was proposed for the newl= y to be acquired parcel (through which the road was going). Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. McNamara confirmed that in the future when the new parcel was to be developed the applicant was not making= an argument that they are grandfathered; they would comply with whatever ordinances were in force at that time.&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi answered no; he made sure they had ten acres of land so if another elderly housing was done they would have proper acreage and frontage.

Mr. Culbert said there were two subdivisions a= nd felt there should be two condominium agreements.

Mr. Zohdi asked if the Board preliminarily wou= ld discuss the voluntary contribution. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would look for two separate contribution= s: 1) fix the intersection of Sherburne Road and Mammoth Road; and 2) minor contribution to the Senior Center. Mr. Gowan said he hoped to be cons= istent and reviewed the amount contributed in recent plans. There was further discussion regar= ding the proposed contribution. Mr. Go= wan said he had received advice from Town Counsel regarding the matter. Mr. Zohdi said he would work with = Mr. Gowan to come up with something that would be acceptable to everyone.

The plan was date specified to the February 22, 2007 meeting.

Ma= p 17 Lot 12-253 JRS Realty, LLC – Kennedy Drive – Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland a= nd WCD Crossing

Mr. Scanzani said all of the issues in Stantec’s (Town Engineer) review had been addressed except one. The one item dealt with a right-of= -way to an abutting parcel.

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates presented the plan to the Board. Mr. Zohdi said the plan had been previously been presented the Board, since then they had been going back and forth with the Conservation Commission and Stantec. Mr. Gospodarek said the Board acce= pted a number of waivers at the last meeting.&nbs= p; He said at that time there were a few remaining engineering items, w= hich have since been addressed in the current plan set.

Mr. Scanzani asked for an explanation of the proposed right-of-way. Mr. Gospodarek said Stantec wanted to know if it was necessary for a right-of-w= ay through map 12 lot 231. He sa= id there was an existing house on the lot.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani said it appeared that there was a single family home on= Ledge Road = and the right-of-way was not necessary. Ms. Ouellette asked how big the parcel was.&nb= sp; Mr. Gospodarek said it appeared to be approximately 20-acres. Mr. Scanzani asked if it was possi= ble to put a right-of-way along the property line between 12-253-1 and 12-153-2. Mr. Zohdi didn’t believe the= road could be continued. He said t= here was a wetland through the parcel that would have to be crossed; there didn’t appear to be a way around the wetland.

The Board then addressed the requested waivers= as follows:

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the waiver request to Section 11.04,c – 15K area.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= --------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the waiver request to Section 11.11,b,2 – well radius within the 15-foot setback. (The applicant understands that = the well must be placed within the lot.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= -------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the waiver request to App= endix I – maximum grade greater than 3%.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= ------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the waiver request to Section 10.03 – to not show existing structures (wells/septic syste= ms within 75-feet from the property).

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= --------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the waiver request to Section 12.02 – increase in post-development flow.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= -----------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the waiver request to Appendix I, bb,1,2 – horizontal curve.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= -------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the waiver request to Appendix I, 15,a&b – k value of the vertical curve at station 1= +25 and 7+75.<= /p>

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= ----------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the waiver request to Sec= tion 11.04,b – lot shape.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= ---------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the waiver request to App= endix I, bb,30 – sight distance.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= --------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Dunne/Culbert) To approve the Special Wetland Permit.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Scanzani also asked that the details of the guardrail were included on the latest plan.

Mr. Culbert asked if the cistern location was contained on the plan. Mr. Gospodarek said they met with the Fire Chief and it was agreed to place the cistern on the right of the entrance. This will be added to the plan.

Ms. Bousa was not convinced that lot 2 had 200-feet of frontage and asked that it be confirmed. Mr. Zohdi said he would check; if = they didn’t have the footage, they would come back to the Board.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Dunne/Culbert) To approve the plan.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Gowan confirmed that the plan was approved with the conditions that were not part of the motion, but were included in = the discussion. Mr. Scanzani answ= ered yes.

Ma= p 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120ft.x60ft. two-story Wa= rehouse Building=

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said at the last meeting there was a general discussion about items that ne= eded to be corrected. He said they= have since addressed the items and went on to explain each.

Mr. Scanzani noted that Fire Department had reviewed the plan and a location for a cistern would be shown on the plan (= the size and exact location will be determined at a later date). He said per Stantec’s (Town Engineer) review, the drainage had been slightly modified. Mr. Gospodarek said a leaching sys= tem had also been added as well as a note indicating there would be no repair o= f vehicles and equipment on the property. He said some waivers were requested. He also explained that the sight distance was investigated and there= was no way to adjust it to the right. Mr. Scanzani said the only open item (other than septic system installed under pavement and sight distance) was that a truck entering warning sign be plac= ed at the road per the Highway Road Agent’s discretion. Mr. Gowan said the recommendation = was to have signs at both approaches to the building.

Mr. Domenico noted that page 3 of the Emergency Response Plan should be updated to show Mr. Paul Zarnowski as the Deputy He= alth Officer and Ms. Marlene Demers as the Health Officer.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Dunne/Culbert) To approve the waiver allowing the s= eptic system to be installed under the pavement.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To reduce the sight distance, subje= ct to signs being placed at the discretion of the Highway Road Agent and a note being placed on the plan indicating such.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

There was a discussion regarding the reporting rules to the Fire Department in connection to any materials stored on site. Mr. Gowan said there we= re regulations in place that the owner would be bound by. Mr. Culbert said he would like the= owner to report twice per year. Mr.= Gowan understood Mr. Culbert’s concern, but was uncomfortable with the Board changing the method of oversight. Mr. Domenico said the Board couldn’t change the regulations, but he would discuss Mr. Culbert’s concern with the Town Administrator and the Fire Chief.

Mr. Scanzani asked that the note on the plan a= bout the restrictive covenants. Mr. Gowan said the plan contained a note and advised (per the recommendation of Attorney Paul DeCarolis representing an abutter) that the motion be worded to read ‘No motor vehicles shall be repaired, maintained, serviced, restored or refurbished on the property according to restrictive covenants recorded at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds, Book 7695, Page 2845’. Mr. Gowan said Attorney DeCarolis also ask= ed that the Board consider also making a condition of approval that the owner would consent to inspections by the Town as they deem appropriate to ensure= the covenants are followed. He sa= id he wouldn’t need that note to access the property. Mr. Gospodarek noted that the book= and page were included on the plan.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ma= p 38 Lot 155 Mopar Construction – Sherb= urne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Elderly Housing<= o:p>

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates were present to discuss the plan. Mr. Zohdi said the plan had been r= evised and submitted to Stantec (Town’s engineer) who reviewed such. He said they wanted to review the = plan with the Board and answer Stantec’s comments by the next meeting. He said the plan had previously be= en approved as an eight-lot subdivision (and recorded as such). Mr. Gospodarek handed out a waiver= list for the Board to review. Mr. = Zohdi said they didn’t object to paying $1250 toward the Sherburne Road improvement and also didn’t object to paying $500 toward the Senior (impact).

Mr. Gospodarek reviewed the waiver requests and noted they would withdraw the waivers (#2 & #7) for standard pavement w= idth and gravels. He said the waiv= ers were essentially the same as those requested for the LRL Development project. There was further di= scussion regarding the drainage and its flow.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To accept, for consideration, the w= aiver to Section 10.04, j – drainage work to conform to standard specifications of the Town.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= ----------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To accept, for consideration, the w= aiver to Section 11.11,b,2 – Well radius.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= --------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To accept, for consideration, the w= aiver request to Section 12.03 – Traffic Impact Analysis.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

----------------------------------------------= --------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To accept, for consideration, all t= he waiver requests to Appendix I, bb and dd (because the proposed is a priva= te driveway) except those in connection with – pavement width and base coat depth.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Scanzani asked if Stantec’s review comments had been received. M= r. Gowan said the Ja= nuary 2, 2007 comments had been reviewed. Mr. Gowan said the next review com= ments would be done for the next meeting. There was a brief discussion when the plan would come back to the Board. Mr. Zohdi felt they wo= uld have the opportunity to review comments within the next week. Mr. Scanzani said the plan would s= till need to come back to the Board meeting the review comments and noting a reasonable contribution to the Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road intersection. Mr. McNamara said he would like the applicant to address the 6 points brought up in the Louis-Berger Group lett= er of January 10, 2= 007; there was no objection by the Board.

There was a discussion regarding what was left= to discuss in connection with the plan. Mr. Scanzani said the Board was still waiting for the applicant̵= 7;s answers to Stantec’s comments as well as showing how the plan would address the comments contained in the Louis-Berger Environmental Assessment.

The plan was date specified to the February 22, 2007 meeting.

Ma= p 35 Lot 6-113-1 Sun Bridge Profes= sional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site P= lan Review of Proposed 6240SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

The plan was date specified to the February 22, 2007 meeting.

Ma= p 32 Lot 1-146, 148 & 149 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/Ro= ger Montbleau – Marie Av= enue & Spaulding Hill Road – Proposed 24-= Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage within the WCD

The p= lan was date specified to the February 22, 2007 meeting.

Map 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-= Unit Senior Housing Complex and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing=

The plan was date specified to the February 22, 2007 meeting.

DATE SPECI= FIED PLANS – February 22, 2007

Map 39 Lot 1-53 LRL Development of Pelham/David &a= mp; Lisa Gerniglia – Sherburne Road – Proposed 32 Unit Senior Housi= ng and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

Map 38 Lot 155 Mopar Construction –= ; Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Elderly Housing

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 Sun Bridge Professional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Revi= ew of Proposed 6240SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

Map 32 Lot = 1-146, 148 & 149 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/Roger Montbleau – Marie Avenue & Spaulding Hill Road – Proposed 24-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage within the WCD

Map 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC – = Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Senior Housing Complex and Seeking Special Permit = for Wetland Crossing

MINUTES

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To approve the minutes of November 27, 2006 as written. <= /p>

VOTE:

(5-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert and Mr. Dunne abstai= ned.

------------------------------------------------------= -

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To approve the minutes of December 4, 2006 as written. <= /p>

VOTE:

(5-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert abstained.

------------------------------------------------------= -

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To approve the minutes of January 4, 2007 as amended. <= /p>

VOTE:

(4-0-3) The motion carri= ed. Ms. Bousa, Mr. Domenico and Mr. Culbert abstained.

------------------------------------------------------= --

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve the minutes of January 16, 2007 as amended. <= /p>

VOTE:

(3-0-4) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Dunne, Mr. Culbert, Ms. Bous= a and Mr. Domenico abstained.

------------------------------------------------------= -

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne) To approve the minutes of January 18, 2007 as amended. <= /p>

VOTE:

(4-0-3) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Domenico, Ms. Bousa and Mr. Culbert abstained.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Dunne/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 pm

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

Charity A= . L. Willis

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