BOA20080714

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

July 14, 2008

The Vice Chairman Robert Molloy called the meeting to = order at approximately 7:00 pm.

The acting Secretary Peter McNamara called roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Robert= Molloy, Peter McNamara, David Hennessey, Alternate Bill Kearney, Alternate Lance Ouellette, Alternate Chris LaFrance, Planning Director/Zoning Administrat= or Jeff Gowan

Svetla= na Paliy, Kevin O’Sullivan

Mr. Molloy appointed Mr. = Kearney and Mr. LaFrance to vote in place of Ms. Paliy and Mr. O’Sullivan.

CONTINUED



Case #2401 – ARISTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC - 151 Bridge Street -= Map 29 Lot 7-119 & 7-120 – Seeking a Variance to Articles = III & VII, Sections 307-12, 307-13 & 307-40 (B) to permit the construct= ion of a retail pharmacy with setbacks of 77.8 feet and 76 feet where 105 feet = and 81 feet, respectively, are required. To allow site development on a lot with 27,400SF on contiguous dry upland where 35,000SF is required; also to permit the construction of a building and related lot improvements and alterations within the WCD

Mr. Molloy read aloud an = e-mail dated July 1, 200= 8 submitted by Ms. Deb Brewster, Project Engineer TFMoran, representing the applicant. The applicant requ= ested a continuation of the hearing to the August 11, 2008 to allow ample time for review of the hydraulic study.

The hearing was continued= to the August 11, 2008 meeting.

Case #2404 BOUMIL, Michael & Jennifer – 20 Pulpit Rock Road /= Map 41 Lot 6-140 – Seeking an “Area” Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-7 & 307-12 to permit construction o= f a building for a conforming use (industrial-commercial) on a lot that is undersized by current standards.

Mr. McNamara read the lis= t of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification.&nb= sp;

Mr. Shane Gendron and Pet= er Zohdi of Herbert Associates, along with Attorney William Mason, representing the applicant, came forward to speak with the Board regarding the variance requ= est. Mr. Gendron reviewed the contents = of the application package submitted to the Planning Department. He then read aloud the variance cr= iteria as follows (as submitted):

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: The propos= ed use is allowed in the industrial district and will replace a use (residential) = that is nonconforming. Also this w= ill add to the taxes being paid on this property.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: The lot was subdivided and approved by the Planning Board in Decemb= er 1961 as a 1-acre lot prior to the current 2-acre requirement in the industr= ial zone, so there is no conforming use that can be made of this lot without a variance.

ii. 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: = There is no other land available that = can be added to this lot to get to a conforming size (2-acres).

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: We are requesting a variance for area only and will provide a permitted use and meet all other setbacks and codes.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: The Variance will allow fo= r a use that is consistent with neighboring properties.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The new building will substantially increase the value of the property and enha= nce the value of the area.

Mr. Hennessey asked if th= e lot (under the Boccia prong) could be used as a residential lot. Mr. Gendron said the lot was zoned Industrial. Mr. Hennessey wan= ted to know if building a residential property on the site would impose a financial hardship on the applicant. Mr. Zohdi answered yes because the surrounding properties were used as industrial. He said industria= l was the best use for the property.

Mr. Gowan stepped forward= and discussed the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that by right, within the Industrial zone, there could also be a commercial or residential use. (during the August 11, 2008 meeting Mr. Gowan inform= ed the Board that he had a discussion with Attorney John Ratigan and found his statement to be incorrect. In= the Town’s zoning, a residential use was allowed in the commercial zone, = but not within the industrial zone.)

Mr. Ouellette asked for clarification why the applicant stated the lot was non-conforming if it currently was an acre lot with an existing residential house. Mr. Zohdi explained that they want= ed to use the lot for industrial use as it was zoned for. He had a difference of opinion wit= h Mr. Gowan regarding the zoning. He noted that the lot had been set up prior to the Town changing the zoning; by the zoning being changed it made the lot non-conforming. Mr. Ouellette questioned the wordi= ng submitted by the applicant indicating that the lot was ‘non-conforming’. Mr. Gowan agreed with Mr. Zohdi that because the area was rezoned, it was a non-conforming lot within the Industrial Zone; the lot contained one acre, where two acres were required (for industrial). He noted that the Town had always allowed ‘lower’ uses within a zone. Mr. Ouellette asked if the applica= nt was requesting a non-conforming industrial lot. Mr. Zohdi referred to the Zoning Ordinance zone table. He expl= ained his opinion, which was that the lot was preexisting and could be used for residential because there was a residential dwelling on it; however, it was= not permitted. He said if the hou= se was taken down and the owner wanted to build a new house they would have to schedule a variance hearing. = Mr. Gowan agreed with Mr. Zohdi about what was shown in the table of permitted uses. He wanted to consult wi= th Attorney John Ratigan (Town Council).

Mr. Molloy asked for the = square footage of the proposed building. Mr. Gendron stated the building would be 6000SF. He showed the Board the site and t= he proposed building which would mainly be one floor with a storage/drive-out = area underneath.

Mr. Zohdi discussed the p= roposed building, which was originally proposed to be larger (125x60). They previously requested to be postponed to have the opportunity to work with the neighbors who objected to the building. Since that time= , the applicant had agreed to reduce the size of the building. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan and fu= rther explained that they would work with the topography when building the struct= ure, which would have four units. =

Mr. Kearney asked for the= height of the proposed building. Mr.= Zohdi stated the building would be 18ft. in front. They would comply with the building height setback; the front setback was proposed to be 76ft. where 54ft. was required.

Mr. McNamara asked how ol= d the house was and if it was presently occupied. Mr. Zohdi believed the house was possibly built prior to the 1960’s.&= nbsp; Mr. Gendron indicated that the house was not occupied. Mr. McNamara saw that the applicant purchased the property in 2005 and therefore had presumed knowledge of the = fact that it was a non-conforming lot. Mr. Zohdi said the owner purchased the lot as an industrial lot; they understood they would have to go for a site plan.&nbs= p; He suggested that the Board review the case from six-eight months pr= ior, for the lot next to the adjacent lot. He indicated it was a similar case; where the applicant was requesti= ng a variance for a one acre lot of record.&nbs= p; He believed in the present case that his client had the right (accor= ding to zoning) to have a building on their lot if they complied with everything else. Mr. McNamara noted at t= he present time, the applicant was requesting a variance. His point was that the applicant, = at the time of purchase knew (or was presumed to know) that two acres was needed f= or industrial use. Mr. Zohdi sai= d the applicant didn’t know. = Mr. McNamara questioned the proposed use indicated to be ‘dry goods store’. Mr. Zohdi expla= ined that the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (‘DESR= 17;) defined the ‘use’ based on the leach bed (septic use). Mr. McNamara asked if the proposal= would meet the Subdivision Regulations with regard to setbacks. Mr. Zohdi indicated they would with regard to zoning. Mr. McNamara understood that the street contained mixed uses. It was his opinion that the propos= ed was an intensive use for the site. He said the applicant proposed to put four businesses along with parking on the one acre lot. This wouldnR= 17;t leave a lot of room to buffering the neighbor. Mr. McNamara understood under ‘area’ criteria the Board wasn’t allowed to argue ‘intensity of use’ except in so far as economic feasibility is indicated as a matter of concern. He noted that there was a house currently on the site and questioned= if it could be used. Mr. Zohdi s= aid the house could be used. He proposed items such as setback, landscaping etc. could be discussed at the Planning Board. He then expla= ined that they had reduced the building size and showed four units because they = had an agreement with the abutter that there would be a maximum of four units (= it could be less). With referenc= e to having a residential house in the area, Mr. Zohdi said it wouldn’t wo= rk; it wouldn’t be the full use of the property. He indicated if the size of the bu= ilding bothered the Board it was something they could work on. He showed the Board how the lot co= uld be altered regarding landscape etc and explained that the request was for the = lot size only.

Mr. Hennessey stated that= the Boccia analysis depended upon an economic analysis, which was the basis of = the hardship. He said if the size= could be reduced, it challenged the essential element of the Boccia analysis. He questioned if the owner needed = the specified building size and variance to economically do what they wanted. Mr. Zohdi indicated that his clien= t had a business that needed 100ft.x60ft. He said they didn’t want to reduce further. Mr. Hennessey explained that he was looking for testimony that the applicant needed a building (with the propos= ed size) in order to economically construct what they were looking for. Mr. Zohdi said Mr. Hennessey was correct. Mr. Hennessey explai= ned that he was asking the question because the state told the Board to figure = out not just the size of the building, but also economics.

Mr. Kearney stated that t= estimony had been given about an agreement with an abutter and he wanted to know if = that abutter was residential. Mr. = Zohdi stated that the abutter was a condominium/apartment across the street. He explained that they were concer= ned with the other site plan as well and worked out the same type of agreement with = the previous plan as they did with the present.

Mr. Ouellette was concern= ed that the lot would be clear cut without knowing what was surrounding the property. He said it appeared= to be heavily wooded on one side.

Mr. McNamara noticed that= the deed was subject to an easement and questioned what that was. Mr. Zohdi indicated that the easem= ent was for the road.

Mr. Zohdi understood Mr. Ouellette’s concerns and suggested that the Board walk the site. He explained how the surrounding l= ots were situated. He indicated t= hey could provide a minimum 20ft. buffer to the residential property to the lef= t of the site.

Mr. Gowan said Pulpit Rock Road was like another industrial park, even though that’s not what it was called. He encouraged the Board, if they entertain a variance that they not call the plan presented as ‘the= 217; plan required so the Planning Board would have the opportunity to work with= the applicant and the plan. He ha= d a particular dislike for the term ‘dry goods’ which was an old te= rm. He believed calling the use by its proper name, such as industrial condominium, would be an accurate descripti= on. Mr. Zohdi didn’t have a prob= lem calling the use as Mr. Gowan described.&nb= sp; He said the only reason they called it ‘dry goods’ was f= or the DES septic loading.

Mr. Hennessey questioned = if the front or back of the lot was going to be dug out. Mr. Zohdi stated that the front of= the lot would not change much, they would dig in the back to drop the foundation.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Paul DeCarolis, representing Prolyn Corporation, informed the Board what they had been discussing with the applicant over the last several months. He explained that Prolyn was sever= al (forty-eight) apartment units on the other side of Pulpit Rock Road.&nb= sp; The apartment units were in existence prior to the area being rezone= d as industrial. The apartments are serviced by private wells making the owners obligated to ensure the water supply. There are also a lot = of complaints regarding noise from the surrounding (commercial) properties so = the owners (of Prolyn) are sensitive to their tenants and try to protect them f= rom such. Attorney DeCarolis info= rmed the Board that they negotiated with the applicant and prepared a Declaratio= n of Restrictions and Covenants, which they felt would minimize the impacts from= the proposed. He stated they had = an agreement with the abutter was in the event that a variance was granted, th= ey would consent to (as a condition of the variance being granted) the covenant being recorded at the Registry of Deeds at the same time the site plan was recorded (and prior to any building permits being issued). Attorney DeCarolis stated (on beha= lf of the neighbor) they didn’t have an objection to the proposal on the ba= sis of the covenant.

Mr. McNamara asked if the restrictions and covenants had been agreed to. Mr. Zohdi stated that they were ag= reed to. Attorney DeCarolis summar= ized the agreement for the Board. =

Mr. Hennessey didn’t understand what was meant by Item 1,b – property shall not use excess= ive amounts of water or have high sewage demands. Attorney DeCarolis explained since= there was no specific tenant, they made the request. Mr. Zohdi stated that ‘dry goods’ store was the minimum use of sewage. Attorney DeCarolis noted that the = Board of Adjustment or the Planning Board may have other conditions as well, the document contained the minimum that the neighbor agreed to.

Mr. Kearney questioned if= there were any wetland issues. Mr. = Zohdi stated that there were no wetland or Wetland Conservation District issues.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

The Board discussed their opinions regarding the application.

Mr. Ouellette didn’= t understand where the hardship was for the lot. Mr. Hennessey explained that the hardship was the size of the lot; t= he use was okay. Mr. Ouellette c= ommented that at the time of purchase (in 2005) the owner must have known about the status of the lot being industrial. Attorney Mason pointed out that the house dated back to the early 1960’s and the industrial uses were not there at that time. He explained as time moved forward= the Town ended up with pieces of property that originally were used as one purp= ose and currently were not suitable for use as that purpose due to zoning chang= es. He stated that they appreciated the concerns/issues of the apartment being located in the mixed use area, which= is what lead to the discussion to create the (restrictions and covenant) docum= ent that the applicant found acceptable (subject to further conditions of the B= oard or Planning Board).

Mr. McNamara asked if the applicant was arguing that the residential use had been abandoned. Attorney Mason stated that he aske= d the question, and didn’t think that people had lived in the house for ove= r a year. He knew the non-conform= ing status would be lost if people didn’t live there for over a year. He said he asked the owner’s representative if there had been tenants at the site and was advised that t= here had not been.

Mr. Ouellette questioned = what would happen to the two residential structures if the Board permitted the variance and the proposed building was constructed. He wanted to know if it would star= t a chain of events where those residents move out and the Board would be faced with approving another non-conforming industrial lot. Mr. Gowan informed that a lot̵= 7;s conformity depended upon what district it was located in. He said the chain of events was established when the district was rezoned.= He said it was not an unusual occurrence and the Board had dealt wit= h other properties in that same neighborhood. He noted if the Board entertained the variance, much of what was discussed would be discussed again at the Planning Board. To maintain consistency, Mr. Gowan suggested (as he had with a previous case) that he Board not make the coven= ants part of a variance. He noted = the items contained in the covenants could be items that the Planning Board addressed. Mr. McNamara infor= med that the covenants stood on its own legal basis and would not be the Town’s or Mr. Gowan’s responsibility.

Mr. Hennessey mentioned t= hat Mr. Zohdi was correct that the zoning table did not show ‘down’ zoning. He said that point ha= d been previously brought up and asked that the Board request a legal opinion regarding such. Mr. Gowan sai= d he would research where the confusion was.&nb= sp; He noted that his actions were based on how the table currently read.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the zoning of the lot and recent court cases that pertained to it.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Mr. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

VOTE:

Mr. Kearney – Yes to all criteria

Mr. LaFrance – Ye= s to all criteria

(5= -0-0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/McNamara) Re= commend that the Planning Board, in connection with the site plan, consider extra screening on the street side of the site (because of the residential buil= ding across the street).

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

“AREA” VARIANCE GRANTED



Case #2405 FICHERA, Frank Jr. & CROOKER, Constance - Dutton Road -= Map 36 Lot 10-358 – Seeking an ‘Area’ Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-7, 307-12 & 307-14 to permit the cr= eation of a residential building lot with no frontage on an approved Town Road. Access to the new lot (10-358-2) w= ill be over a 50ft. right-of-way to Diamond Hill Drive.

Mr. McNamara read the lis= t of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification.&nb= sp;

Mr. Shane Gendron and Mr.= Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board= to review the variance request for a lot with non-conforming frontage. Mr. Gendron reviewed the applicati= on package submitted to the Planning Department. He then read aloud the variance cr= iteria (as submitted) as follows:

   1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: The propos= ed use is permitted in this zone and it will increase the tax revenue generated by this lot.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: Given the area and configuration of the existing ten-acre lot, the owners are denied meaningful use of the southerly five acres due to no available town approved road frontage.

ii. 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 owners only wish to set up 2 five-= acre lots, and believe that given the size of their parcel it is not reasonably feasible to build a new road to access one lot.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: We are only seeking a variance to waive one zoning requirement and will meet a= ll other setbacks associated with the lot.&nb= sp; The new dwelling will meet all other building, health, and safety co= des for the Town of Pelham as well as approval= s from State of New Hampshire Depart= ment of Environmental Services.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: The owners only wish to cr= eate one non-conforming lot that will be greater than five acres in size and meet all other zoning requirements as well as meeting all the requirements of the subdivision regulations section 11.04(B)7 pertaining to back lot subdivision standards.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The dwelling that will occupy the new lot will be of greater or equal value of = the surrounding properties maintaining the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. McNamara indicated th= at he had difficulty with the application. He explained that the first of which was in the mid-1990’s whe= n an adjoining property was sub-developed. He referred to meeting minutes dated October 7, 1996 which read ‘Mr. Tucker recommended that the right = of way that goes to ML 10-358 (with a proposal for a driveway for two houses) be constructed to town road standards so that in the future the driveway would= not have to be torn out for a road to go through. The owner of the property is in agreement with this recommendation as well as the applicant.’ He believed Mr. Zohdi was the engineer on the project at that time. Mr. McNamara stated that the reaso= n the right-of-way was created was in contemplation to connect a road through to = the Fichera’s property. He = said that the fact was zero frontage. He said if what was being requested occurred throughout Town, it would be a dismantling of an important part of the Planning Board scheme. He explained if everyone that had a 50ft. right-of-way to their property requested a variance, the whole purpos= e of putting rights of way in to connect property and enhance Town roads would be wiped away. He said currently= there was no frontage and there was one driveway connecting two homes on the right-of-way. He stated the applicant was requesting access to five acres, which would then create more properties with no frontage on a right-of-way. He didn’t recall the Board e= ver granting a variance for a lot with absolutely no frontage.

Mr. Zohdi stated that the= lot had 102ft. of frontage onto Du= tton Road. He explained that the right-of-way was dedicated to the lot (for whi= ch the meeting minutes were provided). He agreed with Mr. McNamara that he was the person that submitted the plan that first began with Mr. Stephen Patrick. He explained that the owner of the parcel attended the meetings and was promised by the Planning Board and (fo= rmer Planning Director) Mr. John Tucker on October 7, 1996 that the road was rec= ommended to be a Town approved road; the developer agreed to build that Town approved road. He noted that his clien= t got nothing, there were two driveways built, but the road wasn’t built. Mr. McNamara reviewed the minutes = which indicated that the driveway be built up to Town standards, not that a road = be built. Mr. Zohdi showed on th= e plan where right-of-way was located and where the two driveways were built. He reiterated that his client was promised that a Town approved road would be built.

Mr. Kearney stated that he didn’t see any indication of a promise from the Town contained in the material that he read. Mr. Zo= hdi referred to the meeting minutes dated October 7, 1996 and the recommendation of the former Planning Director. Mr. McNama= ra asked if there had been a condition of approval on the plan. He reviewed the (October 7, 1996) meeting min= utes and didn’t see that a promise was made to build a road. Mr. Hennessey read the same portio= n of the minutes (from October 7, 1996) ‘…so that in the future the drivew= ay would not have to be torn out for a road to go through.’   He believed it was anticipate= d for development to be off that driveway. He asked if that plan (without a road) was now in front of the Board= .   Mr. Zohdi said that was correct. He explained it was = the recommendation of the (former) planning director (John Tucker) to build a r= oad according to Town specifications. He noted that the two driveways were built, but the road was not.

Mr. McNamara wanted clari= fication if a condition of approval was included on the plan. Mr. Gowan (who was on the Planning= Board at the time) didn’t recall the specific project. In reviewing the information/meeti= ng minutes from that time, Mr. Gowan believed it was clear that there was anti= cipation for a roadway to the back land. Mr. Hennessey felt it was clear that Mr. Tucker anticipated if there was further development on the vacant land (being discussed at the present meeting) that there be a requirement for the driveway be converted to a road. Mr. McNamara indicated if a promise= was made and not done, the owner of the parcel (from 1996) should have come in = and complained.

Mr. Zohdi informed the Bo= ard that the road was not part of the motion for approval of the plan (in 1996). Mr. Gowan stated although certain = points should be part of a motion, it was not always the case. But if representation was made at a meeting, it carried some weight. With respect to this case, Mr. Gowan believed it was inferred that w= hen the driveways were put in a short length of road would be built to access t= he driveways and when the remaining parcels were developed the rest of the road would be developed.

Mr. Ouellette recalled a = similar case (two or three years ago) off Hobbs Road where the owner built a traffic circle to access the homes. Mr. McNamara recalled the case and pointed out that the owner had come in every couple y= ears requesting an additional lot. Mr. Hennessey also recalled that case. For the present case, Mr. Hennessey believed that Mr. Tucker anticip= ated that the lots would come up for further subdivision and by granting the variance two subdividable lots would be created. Mr. Zohdi said the Board could add= a stipulation to the five acre lot that it couldn’t be further subdivid= ed without constructing a road. = Mr. Hennessey said the Board had learned that type of stipulation was not bindi= ng on future boards. He explaine= d that Mr. Tucker (in the past), as well as himself (reviewing the present plan) s= aw very clearly that the 50-foot driveway was intended to be a 50-foot road. Mr. Zohdi stated that was the inte= ntion.

Mr. Zohdi finished his presentation. He stated their= claim was they had 100ft. frontage on Diamond Hill Road.&nb= sp; Mr. Hennessey saw no frontage on Diamond Hill. Mr. Zohdi stated they had 200ft. of frontage onto Dutton Road<= /st1:address>. He reviewed the Subdivision Regula= tions (Section 11.04,B,7) – backlot standards. Mr. Hennessey explained that the b= acklot provision was intended for one specific reason; the recommendation from the Planning Board (for good planning) to the Board of Adjustment so they could= allow proper cul-de-sac design and other unforeseen matters.

Mr. Zohdi requested to ‘table’ his plan (without prejudice) so he could meet with the Planning Board and then come back in front of the Board of Adjustment. There was a brief discussion regar= ding the timeframe needed to meet with the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission.

Rather than date specifyi= ng the plan, it was suggested that Mr. Zohdi withdraw his plan (without prejudice). It was noted that= if the plan was resubmitted, the abutters would be re-notified.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/McNamara) To= allow the application to be withdrawn without prejudice.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – August 11, 2008

Case #2401 – ARISTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC - 151 Bridge= Street -= Map 29 Lot 7-119 & 7-120 – Seeking a Variance to Articles = III & VII, Sections 307-12, 307-13 & 307-40 (B) to permit the construct= ion of a retail pharmacy with setbacks of 77.8 feet and 76 feet where 105 feet = and 81 feet, respectively, are required. To allow site development on a lot with 27,400SF on contiguous dry upland where 35,000SF is required; also to permit the construction of a building and related lot improvements and alterations within the WCD

MINUTES

June 9, = 2008

MOTION:

(Kearney/LaFrance) To a= pprove the June 9, 200= 8 minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. McNamara abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Hennessey) To= adjourn the meeting. <= /b>

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:50 pm.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Respectfully submitted,

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Charity A.L. Willis     &n= bsp;

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Recording Secretary