SEL20091006

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

October 6, 2009

APPROVED &#= 8211; October 20, 2009

CALL TO ORDER – 6:30pm

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENT:

Mr. Robert Haverty, Mr.= Douglas Viger, Mr. Edmund Gleason, Mr. William McDevitt,

Mr. Harold Lynde, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos

ABSENT:

None.

MINUTES REVIEW

Septemb= er 29, 2009

MOTION:

(Gleason/Viger= ) To approve the Se= ptember 29, 2009 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

VOTE: To accept the following Donation – 26 Acre Land Donation, Map 9 Lot 9-5 to the Town of Pelham from Timothy Zelonis

Mr. Haverty stated that t= he Board had held two public hearings, September 8, 2009 and September 22, 2009 to accept the 26-acre land donation. The only action was to vote to acc= ept the donation.

Mr. Gleason stated that i= t was a worthwhile acquisition for conservation that the Selectmen should fully support. He was grateful to M= r. Zelonis for his contribution.

MOTION:

(Viger/Lynde) = To accept the 26-acre land donation of Map 9, Lot 9-5 to the Town of Pelham from Timo= thy Zelonis.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

OPEN FORUM

Mr. William Pultar began = to come forward. Mr. Haverty asked Mr. Pultar if he had anything new to bring to the attention of the Board. He said if Mr. Pultar was going to discuss the same item that he had brought in front of the Board numerous ti= mes, he would not be recognized (to step forward). Mr. Pultar wanted to discuss a pol= icy that had been given to him. M= r. Haverty stated that he wouldn’t recognize discussion on that subject. He thanked him for coming. Mr. Pultar began spea= king again about the subject of a policy. Mr. Haverty reiterated that the Board would not discuss the subject = and if Mr. Pultar continued, he would recess the Selectmen meeting. He asked Mr. Pultar if he had anyt= hing else to address the Board with. Mr. Pultar continued speaking about the policy. Mr. Haverty recessed the meeting.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

The Selectmen returned to= public session. There were no other persons wanting to address the Board.

APPOINTMENTS

The Selectmen then voted = to convene as the Board of Health with Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski as Chairman.

MOTION:

(Lynde/Gleason= ) To convene as the Board of Health.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

Mr. Zarnowski opened the = Board of Health meeting.

Article K Waiver Request - Map 24 Lot 11-379 6 Little Island Park, Owner David Reidy

Mr. Zarnowski stated that= the following waivers to Article K were being requested: 1) Section 295:16 R= 11; 75ft. required between a well and a leach bed, 55ft. proposed; 2) Section 295-16 – 50ft. required between a septic tank and well, 41ft. proposed; 3) 1= 0ft. required from septic tank to property line, 4ft. proposed;

4) Section 295- side slop= e 3-1 required, 2-1 proposed; 5) Section 295-16 – 50ft. required between a = well and a sewer line, 40ft. proposed.

Mr. Kevin Hatch of Corner= stone Associates (in Chester, NH) came forward to discuss the lot an= d why the proposed reductions in setback distances wouldn’t create a health hazard. The lot is just under= a quarter acre, typical of the area. The design would take the existing tank and bring it as close to sta= te standards as possible. By pla= cing the system as far out in the back yard as possible provides the greatest separation between the well and lot line.&= nbsp; Mr. Hatch said essentially the plumbing under the house needed to st= ay the way it currently was; the existing tank would stay in its present location. In order to get the elevation a waiver for slope was required.= By doing the proposed work, the leaching area would be brought up ou= t of the water table so the effluent could be treated prior to reaching the water table and leaving the site. I= t was the best scenario for the site.

Mr. Zarnowski asked if th= ere were signs of break out when they were testing the system. Mr. Hatch answered yes; the area a= t the end of the existing tank looked suspect.&n= bsp; Mr. Zarnowski noted that it was an existing seasonal property.

Mr. Gleason asked if the = existing leach bed was on the owner’s property. Mr. Zarnowski said it was difficul= t to determine without digging the whole thing up, but it was either right on the lot line or in the right-of-way. Mr. Gleason asked if the leach bed would be removed if it was problematic. Mr. Hatch said t= hey wouldn’t propose to remove it. He said it was likely crushed stone and the natural bacteria in the = soil would treat the effluent. By disconnecting it and sending the effluent to the new field will resolve the issues. Mr. Gleason asked if = the proposed complied with the state’s Shore Line Protection provisions.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Hatch answered yes. Mr. Zarnowski said the lot fell un= der the repair/replacement of an existing septic system which was exempt as lon= g as the sub-surface system was approved. = Mr. Gleason asked if the septic system would be a newly designed, mo= re efficient system. Mr. Zarnowski answered yes. He commented that the dwelling was seasonal and would work for six months out of the year and then have a rest= ing period of six months.

Mr. Lynde asked what the = water table elevation was. Mr. Hatch stated that the seasonal high (at the test pit) was twenty-six inches during the worst time of the year. I= t was noted that the abutter’s system was shown on the plan as a reference point.

Mr. Gleason confirmed tha= t the dwelling was seasonal and questioned what would happen if the occupants dec= ided to live there year round. Mr. Zarnowski said the dwelling was seasonal.&= nbsp; The occupants could not live in the dwelling legally without coming = in for a conversion. Mr. Zarnows= ki said as the lot stood today it couldn’t be converted because it didn’t meet the setback regulations without waivers. Mr. Hatch said the sizing and comp= onents wouldn’t change if there was a conversion to a year-round dwelling.

Mr. Haverty understood th= e system to be in failure. Mr. Hatch answered yes. He said there w= as no one living in the dwelling when he visibly inspected it, but felt if the sy= stem were to be used it would fail. Mr. Haverty confirmed that the proposed would be an improvement from what was currently in place. Mr. Zarno= wski answered yes.

MOTION:

(Lynde/Gleason) To appr= ove the five waivers to Article K as follows: 1) Section 295:16 – 75ft. required between a well and a leach bed, 55ft. proposed; 2) Section 295-16 – 50ft. required between a septic tank and well, 41ft. proposed; 3) Section 295-16 -10ft. required from septic tank to property line, 4ft. proposed; 4) Section 295-12 side slope 3-1 required, 2-1 proposed; 5) Sec= tion 295-16 – 50ft. required between a well and a sewer line, 40ft. proposed.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

Article K Waiver Request – Map 14 Lot 4-115 6-8 Washington Street, Owner John Dinitto

Mr. Zarnowski reviewed th= e waiver requests for Article K as follows: 1) Section 295-12 – Department of Environmental Services requirements for the proportion of the septic tank w= ith the capacity of the second septic tank.&nb= sp; (1^st tank must take 60% of the effluent) proposing a seco= nd tank with a 1000 gallon capacity; 2) Section 295-14 – distance of bed bottom to leach field above the seasonal high water table, 4ft. required, 3= ft. proposed; 3) Section 295-16 - setback of the field to poorly drained soils, 75ft. required, 20ft. proposed. Mr. Zarnowski said the existing system was approximately 8ft.-10ft. off the poo= rly drained soils.

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben= chmark Engineering came forward to discuss the waiver requests and discussed the reasons for the request. He s= aid there was an existing duplex on the property that was from a subdivision in= the 1960’s. There is an exi= sting pipe and stone leaching field from 1964-1965 which sits right above the wat= er table. Portions of the field = are exposed stone where the loam cover had washed away from the area. The lot is also encumbered by flood plain soils that surround the existing home that limit the available areas. Mr. Maynard said the p= lan was to replace the field in relatively the same area as the existing and to pull it as far away from the hydric B soils as possible. He discussed the requested waivers= and the purpose for each.

Mr. Gleason confirmed the location of the proposed tank. Mr. Maynard showed the location of the existing tank and where the proposed tank would be situated. He said th= e pump chamber tank would be replaced at the same time the capacity is increased w= ith a two compartment tank (septic in one portion, chamber in the other portion= ). Mr. Gleason asked if it would dist= urb the operation of the existing tank. Mr. Maynard said it wouldn’t because it was a pump system. The pump’s size will accommo= date the pump lift.

Mr. Viger had no concern = with two of the waivers, but wanted more information about the waiver request to 295-12. Mr. Maynard explained= what older systems were made of and how they were installed. He said the difficulty was with th= e soil type and the type of pipe (used in the 1960’s). He said to remove the pipe could possibly require excavation of the entire front yard and under portions of = the foundation which would turn into a large expense. He discussed the capacity requirements. Mr. Viger quest= ioned if the Town’s requirements was more stringent than the state’s requirements. Mr. Maynard sai= d the Town didn’t have a portion of the Ordinance that dealt with tank capacity; it was strictly a state requirement.

Mr. Lynde understood the situation. He asked if the applicant was restrained from moving further away from the wetlands. Mr. Maynard said he had a setback requirement to the street of ten feet.&nbs= p; He noted that the grade increased the closer he got to the street, w= hich would increase his waiver to the water table. Mr. Lynde asked if the Clean Solut= ions system would be more appropriate for the lot. Mr. Zarnowski said it might improv= e the quality of the effluent, however the pipe and stones had been around for a number of years and were providing adequate treatment with enough separation from the water table. He said= the proposed system would be raised higher than the existing. The new system would be further aw= ay from the hydric soils.

MOTION:

(Lynde/Gleason= ) To approve the waivers to Article K as follows: 1) Section 295-12 – Depart= ment of Environmental Services requirements for the proportion of the septic t= ank with the capacity of the second septic tank. (1^st tank must take 6= 0% of the effluent) proposing a second tank with a 1000 gallon capacity; 2) Sec= tion 295-14 – distance of bed bottom to leach field above the seasonal h= igh water table, 4ft. required, 3ft. proposed; 3) Section 295-16 - setback of= the field to poorly drained soils, 75ft. required, 20ft. proposed.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

Article K Waiver Request – Map 30 Lot 11-333 1 W= ood Road, Owner Joost Verhofstad

Mr. Zarnowski reviewed the requested waiver request to Article K.&nbs= p; The applicant was requesting a waiver to 295-15, minimum land areas; 1.33 acres is required.

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben= chmark Engineering discussed the waiver requests.= He said there was an existing structure on the property (15,900SF) t= hat was seasonal in use. He was w= orking with the owner to raze the existing structure and construct a new year-roun= d dwelling on the property. They were se= eking to install a new state-approved (Clean Solutions) septic system that would = meet all regulations. Mr. Maynard = said the purpose of the waiver was due to the lot size. The Article K requires a minimum o= f one acre and a lot within 250ft. of Little Island Pond are to be 33% larger in size. Mr. Maynard said the pr= oposed lot was created in the 1920’s and had an existing house. They had gone to every effort to m= ake the proposal meet every regulation. The proposal would be an improvement over the existing situation. A poorly drained soil situation ha= d been created (over the years) through grading and re-grading. The existing system now sat within= the water table. Mr. Maynard stat= ed before he took the job on he had (a representative from) the State Wetland’s Board and Shore Land Protection Division come to the site; = they all concurred that the wetland situation on the property was man-made and needed to be corrected. He discussed some of the improvements that would be done to be compliant with = the state departments. He said th= e lot area seemed to be the only thing holding the lot up from proceeding ahead. =

Mr. Gleason believed the applicant would need to go the Zoning Board of Adjustment because the footp= rint of the house would be expanded and the lot was non-conforming. Mr. Maynard knew he needed to go t= o the Zoning Board for a variance. = Mr. Gleason asked if the applicant had approval of the state for Shore Line Protection. Mr. Maynard said = he had both departments and the Conservation Commission out to the site for a site walk. They were working with = them to make improvements, but wanted to wait until reviewing the waivers to Art= icle K in case there was anything else that needed to be incorporated.

Mr. Lynde asked where the= leach field was located. Mr. Maynar= d said the leach field, according to the Town’s Regulations was a reserve area. He said the state didn’t recognize the Clean Solutions system to allow conversion from seasonal to year-round. He sa= id the state wants plans to show (by delineation or outline) that a conventional system could be installed on the lot; then the Clean Solution system could = be used. Mr. Lynde asked where t= he output to the tank was located. Mr. Maynard said it would go under the driveway and over to the field; the tank placement was such to meet the setbacks without waivers.

Mr. Zarnowski discussed t= he criteria for an expansion. He said the applicant had met all the setback criteria and the Town’s regulations except for lot area. He said = he had issues over the years in the area. He said there was trapped water under the camp. The existing tank was in the water table; dye tests had been done and there was nothing coming out of it. Mr. Zarnowski believed the propose= d system would be a great improvement to the lot and would provide treatment for anything that would go out. H= e also noted that the site met the lot loading per the state.

Mr. Lynde asked for the l= ot size. Mr. Maynard said the lo= t was almost 16,000SF. Mr. Lynde understood that the solution to the problem was to dredge and fill the area= . Mr. Maynard said that was correct.= Mr. Lynde asked if the waiver woul= d need to be requested whether the property had seasonal or year-round use. Mr. Zarnowski said if the use stay= ed the same, the regulation states that the lot sizing requirements could not rest= rict an owner from replacing a system. He said the dredge and fill was a requirement of the state and recom= mendation of the Conservation Commission. If the area was not going to be dredged and filled the applicant would come in front of the Board for a setback waiver to poorly drained soils and could n= ot be converted. Mr. Lynde asked= if the building had to go to fix the problem.= Mr. Zarnowski said the existing building was on pillars; the ground around had been filled creating an area (approximately 1ft.) under the camp with no outlet. Due to the wa= ter being trapped over the years, it has created a hydric soil conditions. The remedy to take care of it was to get a dredge and fill permit; once it’s accomplished there won’t be hydric soils and there wouldn&= #8217;t need a waiver to that situation. Mr. Zarnowski said the applicant will need to go to the Zoning Board= to move the structure with regard to having an existing non-conforming lot.

Mr. Lynde questioned if t= he waiver request would allow the dwelling to be converted to year-round. Mr. Maynard said allowing the waiv= er request would allow the applicant to proceed with the plans (as proposed) w= hich ultimately (if approved) would allow for the new structure to be year-round. Mr. Lynde confirm= ed that if the applicant wanted to replace the existing septic system with the proposed, a waiver would not be needed.&nb= sp; Mr. Maynard said he would need a waiver for the setback to the hydric soils. The only way to elimin= ate the hydric soils was to raze the existing structure.

Mr. Gleason believed the = proposed would be an improvement to the situation in the area. Mr. Zarnowski reiterated that the = system would provide treatment by having a modern septic system. Mr. Gleason understood that if the= proposed proceeded outside of the Selectmen, the applicant would go to the Zoning Bo= ard seeking a variance. Mr. Zarno= wski answered yes. Mr. Gleason ask= ed if the present owner was proposing the improvement or if it was speculation by someone else. Mr. Maynard sai= d he was working for owner.

Mr. Lynde said the system= was in failure and it either had to be fixed or not used. Mr. Viger added if the system was = not fixed it would fall into worse disrepair and have additional problems in the future.

MOTION:

(Lynde/Gleason= ) To approve the waiver request to Article K, Section 295-15 – minimum l= and area of one acre plus thirty-three percent as required for a lot within 250ft. of Little Island Pond so that the existing system that was in fail= ure, and which has in the past contaminated Little Island Pond, can be replaced with a system that will meet all Article K requirements relative to a sep= tic system and solve the problem of pond contamination.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

MOTION:

(Viger/Gleason= ) To adjourn the Board of Health.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

The Board of Health adjourned. The Selectmen reco= nvened their meeting.

Ron Hannon, RMark Inc. – Discussion of Transfer Station Bid Proposal

Postponed.

Paul Gagnon – Muldoon Park Equipment=

Conservation Chairman Pau= l Gagnon came forward to discuss a solution to move the road within Muldoon Park out of the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’). He said the only way he could see = to do it was to rearrange the park equipment and the fence around the playground.= The Selectmen were provided with a drawing showing the existing conditions and a drawing showing the proposed alterations. Mr. Gagnon then reviewed the cost proposal which totaled $13,900; the Forestry Committee proposed that the funds would come out of the Forestry Budget because the alterations would help for access and it complied with the regulations.

Mr. Gleason asked if anyo= ne had looked at reducing the area because it appeared to have a lot of open space. Mr. Gagnon noted that = he hadn’t drawn in all the existing playground equipment; he only showed three main pieces of equipment.

Mr. Gaydos asked if veget= ation would be added in the area between the gravel road and the wetland area. Mr. Gagnon said he didn’t ha= ve a lot of detail. There would be= loam, gravel and possibly grass and shrubbery.&n= bsp; Mr. Gaydos asked if the area would be maintained, or allowed to grow naturally. Mr. Gagnon said th= e area should be left alone because it was a WCD.= He said a couple trails down to the wetland may be appropriate.

Mr. Viger recalled a conv= ersation when the playground was first constructed about the order of how things were placed in the playground with a gradual progression of equipment for toddle= rs up to older children. He want= ed that kept in mind as the area was rearranged. Mr. Gagnon said that hadn’t = been taken into consideration and would discuss the subject with the Park & Recreation Director.

Mr. McDevitt said there h= ad been safety measures taken when the playground was constructed. He asked Mr. Gagnon to have the Pa= rk & Recreation Director review the information. He recalled that there was a stand= ard that had been met with the spacing around the swing set. Mr. Gaydos said he visited the sit= e with the Park & Recreation Director, who commented that the Local Government Center (for insuran= ce purposes) had sent someone to review the site and found that the proposed s= et up would be an improvement. M= r. McDevitt asked if the improvements would have any impact on the proposed se= cond egress. Mr. Gagnon said he at= tended the site walk with the engineering firm that was doing the second egress. The second egress would be located= to the south of the park (adjacent to the Major League field).

Mr. Lynde believed since = the playground company would be relocating the equipment, they would be aware of the equipment requirements. M= r. Gagnon stated that he would be forwarding a copy of the proposed plan to the playground company so they could look at it ahead of time.

It was noted that the pro= ject would be funded out of the Forestry Fund.&= nbsp; Mr. Haverty questioned how the Forestry Fund was funded. Mr. Gagnon said the Forestry Fund = was funded from logging operations (not from taxes).

Mr. Viger asked if the wo= rk would go out to bid. Mr. Gagnon sai= d he didn’t go out to bid and explained how each company was chosen. Mr. Lynde asked if the work would = be done this year. Mr. Gagnon sa= id they would like to have the work done this year (with implementation as soo= n as possible).

Mr. Haverty asked if the = cost estimates were accurate for what needed to be done. Mr. Gagnon believed they were; the= only variable would be the moving four trees and purchasing vegetation. Mr. Lynde said the proposal was to reprogram some of the money within the Forestry Fund and to stay within the budget. He said the Selectmen= would just need to give him approval to move forward with the project.

MOTION:

(Gleason/Viger= ) To authorize the Forestry Committee and Conservation Commission to expend a not to exc= eed number of $14,250 to complete the modifications to Muldoon Playground to accommodate the wetland requirements.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

OTHER BUSINSS

Discussion – Route 93 Widening

Mr. McDevitt stated after= asking for this item to be placed on the agenda, he saw that there was an October 2, 2009 deadline. He suggested that t= he Selectmen pass over the item. There were no objections.

Discussion – Open Forum Guidelines

Mr. McDevitt provided the Selectmen with a draft policy/guideline to guide them during open forum. He said there was a recent article= in the magazine published by the Local Government Center reviewed the issue of open forums. He reviewed the draft document, which would allow the Selectmen to h= ave rules regarding open forum, while still allowing people to speak to the Boa= rd. He asked that the Selectmen review= the document over the next several weeks and consider adopting it, or something close to it.

Mr. Lynde believed it wou= ld be good to have something in place. Mr. Viger agreed that the Board should have a guideline to follow and was in favor of supporting the document.&n= bsp; Mr. Gleason felt it was a reasonable policy to consider. He asked th= at the Board review the document and formally vote on it at the next meeting. =

There was further discuss= ion regarding the document. The Selectmen asked Mr. Gaydos to add an agenda item for their next meeting to discuss and have a possible vote regarding the policy.

NH Arborvirus surveillance Update

Mr. Gaydos provided the S= electmen with an updated of the NH Arborvirus surveillance. He said testing would continue and= if anything positive was found in Pelham the Selectmen would be the first to know so th= ey could decide what action to take.

Mr. Haverty questioned wh= ere the information could be found. M= r. Gaydos said residents could contact the Selectmen’s office or contact= the Department of Human Services.

Discussion – Repairs to Historic Society Building

Mr. Gaydos said the Selec= tmen and Budget Committee were invited to look at the Historic Society Building. He said the Building Inspector (Ro= land Soucy) also reviewed the building and came back with recommendations. Mr. William Hayes of the Historic Society indicated (during the building walk through) his feeling that the Historic Society would be willing to match $15,000, if the Town would put f= orth $15,000 (from the building account). Mr. Gaydos believed the next step would be to ask the Historic Socie= ty to put the offer (of $15,000) in writing.&= nbsp; He said the next step would be to obtain a list of work to be done.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Lynde said there was = already a list of areas that needed attention.&nbs= p; He believed the Historic Society should put them in order of priorit= y.

Mr. Haverty asked if they= knew what the urgent items were. M= r. Gaydos believed if there was a ($30,000) pool of money the list would be do= ne quickly. Mr. Haverty asked wh= at/if any of the project would need to be bid out. Mr. Gaydos believed the biggest pr= oblem (seen during the walk-through) was some of the wood around the windows need= ed replacement.

Mr. Gleason said he walked through the building and believed a portion of the items on the list were public safety issues. He was = in favor of letting the Historic Society put together a priority list and felt expedience was necessary because winter was two months away.

Mr. Viger felt $15,000 wa= s a lot to take out of the building account because they didn’t anticipate im= provement projects; they were in a ‘fix-it as they go’ mode. He didn’t want to be stuck i= n the event something catastrophic happened to another building. Mr. Haverty reiterated there was a= need to have a priority list of the work needing to be done. Mr. Viger said the believed if the= re were specific items they could be presented to the Budget Committee. Mr. McDevitt said all parties invo= lved understood about the budget cycle and that the building budget had been ‘squeezed’. He commented (for residents that didn’t know) that the Historic Society building was the old public library building and it was still owned by the = Town and was responsible for maintaining it.&nb= sp;

There was further discuss= ion how the Selectmen wanted to proceed.

Mr. Lynde agreed that the= re were some items that needed to be done now.&nbs= p; He said the Selectmen should schedule a discussion with all the information soon. Mr. Gaydos believed Mr. Hayes had a good idea of what was included on the priority list and what needed to be done this year and what could be done next year.

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT / SELECTMEN’S REPORTS

Mr. Gaydos repor= ted that the flu clinic scheduled for October 15, 2009 at the Senior Center had been can= celled due to a lack of the flu serum.

Mr. McDevitt had= no report.

Mr. Lynde stated= that he attended the High School Study Committee meeting. A web site would become active that would include extensive material for residents to review. Estimates have been put together i= n the event a new school is put forward. <= /span>An item that came up for discussion was if there was a plan for the Town, Scho= ol and Budget Committee to get together to discuss what would be presented. He felt there should be a coordina= ted effort so the total costs to the tax payers could be determined.

Mr. Gleason atte= nded the Council on Aging meeting and reported they were going to come forward with = an extension to the current building. <= /span>He said they were raising money to try to offset any costs to the Town. The drawing package from TF Moran = had been sent to the Building Inspector, who in turn will prepare a bid package that could be used. Mr. Gleas= on ended by reporting that the Rockingham Economic Development Corp. would mee= t on Friday; he would attend the meeting as the Selectmen’s Representative. He will repor= t back on their progress at the next meeting.

Mr. Viger had no= report.

Mr. Haverty told= the Selectmen that the Planning Board had voted to vacate their decision regard= ing the lot recently protested by Jean-Guy Bergeron. The applicant now has the right to appeal the decision.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Lynd= e) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, a and c (Personnel; Matters which if discussed publicly, would affect adversely the reputatio= n of any person)

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Haverty-Ye= s; Mr. Viger-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; Mr. Gleason-Yes

It was noted tha= t when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take = any other action publicly, except to possibly seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting. The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 8:50 pm.

The Board returned to public session at approximately 9:55 pm.

MOTION:

(Viger/Lynde) = To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Viger/Lynde) = To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:55 pm.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Respectfully submitted,

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Charity A. Landry Willis

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Recording Secretary