MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY,
FEBRUARY 10, 2005 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#514 – TOWN OF
BOARD OF
EDUCATION
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Bernard Beauchamp
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
=
;
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Martha Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Susan Atwood
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Peter
Peluso
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:33 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record:
“Rules For Conduct of Public
Hearing
1. =
The
applicant, or his representative will make his formal presentation to the
Commission stating the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, =
and
the alternatives, which were considered by the applicant.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 2
2. =
All
comments, discussions and observations shall be made through the Chair, aft=
er
proper recognition by the Chairman.
This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speaks on=
any
issue, thus making it easier for everyone to understand and for clearer, le=
gal
transcription.
3. =
All
persons addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their
name and address for the record. If
necessary, the person may be asked to spell his name for the record.
4. =
Following
the presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland
Wetlands Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant.
5. =
After
the Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow=
any
members of the public who wish to speak either in favor of this application=
or
against it, to address the Commission.
6. =
I
shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of=
the
general public.
7. =
I shall then allow any members of the general public who wish to
present any additional information or clarifying discussion, to do so.
9. =
I
shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these addition=
al
remarks if he or his representative so wishes.
9. =
The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has 35 days from the date th=
at
the Public Hearing commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Commission may ask the applica=
nt for
a 35 day extension of the Public Hearing period if the Commission requires =
any
additional information or wishes to schedule a Site Walk to observe the
situation for themselves.
&=
nbsp; 10. The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has 65 days from the date when
the Public Hearing is Closed to render its decision.”
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing from January 13, 2005, Application #514 of Town of Watert=
own,
Board of Education, for Swift School Improvement Project, 250 Colonial Stre=
et,
Oakville, CT in an R-12.5 Residential Zoning District.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by February 10, 2005 unless applic=
ant
grants a time extension.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 3
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: In addition I&#=
8217;d
just like to state to the applicant to confine our presentation tonight to =
the
list of responses to Chuck Berger's original letter and I think that’s
what I have here in my hand.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: You have a copy of=
the
same letter dated January 31, 2005 in the packet. After I sent the packet they made =
some
revisions to the letter and I (inaudible) that today and the date should be
February 7th on top of the letter, and all the changes they made=
are
underlined.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: So we need =
both
of these?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes. Just pay attention to the one I ga=
ve you
tonight; that has all the issues in the old letter and some of the changes =
that
they made.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Whitney
Talcott, Landscape Architect, Kaestle Boos Associates
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Talcott: With me tonight is Emily Marti=
n from
Civil One, a Civil Engineer, and we will confine our remarks to the memo th=
at
Chuck issued on the site and they are principally drainage issues so I̵=
7;ll
let Emily take it from here.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Emily Martin, Civil Engineer, Civi=
l One
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Martin: I’ll be reading from the let=
ter
dated February 7th. Some
of these comments we went over a little bit at the last meeting, but there =
have
been a few changes. Would you=
like
me to read directly into the record, the letter, or paraphrase?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: I guess we need=
to
read it into the record, don’t we?
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Martin: The letter itself=
is
not as long as the full packet. I’ll just read it. From Mr. Berger:
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Note: 1. is Mr. Berger’s comments
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 1R.
Italicized Text denotes Ms. Martin’s typed responses.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 1R. Underlined, Italicize=
d text
are Ms. Martin’s comments made after responses were typed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 1R.
Text not Italicized are Ms. Martin’s responses as of this evening.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; 1. = The outlet to the interior courtyards (existing and proposed) should be identif= ied to ensure there will be no backflow during storm events. Any other interior building drain outlets should be identified as well.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 4
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; 1R The outlets for the interior courtyard drains have been located for both the existing and proposed conditions. The existing courtyard drains tie into the existing storm sewer syst= em for the building and the rooftops. A diagram has been included with this letter to depict where each portion of the rooftop and courtyard outlets and these outlets have been ad= ded to the plans to show where they will tie into the existing or proposed storm drainage system. (The diagram is immediately following the letter in the packet several colors in it.) A large portion of the existing bui= lding and one of the existing interior courtyards drains through an existing pipe= and outlets directly to Wattles Brook and therefore will not tie into the propo= sed storm drainage system. After accounting for the additional water to the proposed storm drainage system it was determined that the last segment of pipe from the existing catch basin = to the outlet in the front turnaround area will need to be upgraded to an 18” pipe. The supporting calculations are attached.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; We did also find that the top of frame elevations for catch basins in the inte= rior court yards are above the 100 and 500 year flood elevations so there is no potential for backwater into the courtyard.
2. &nb=
sp; Evaluate
the need for storm water treatment on the other two storm water outlets on
site.
2R The plans have been
revised to show proposed hooded outlets and 3’ deep sumps on the last=
3
catch basins in the front turnaround area and also on the last 3 catch basi=
ns
that outlet to the existing 18” pipe. This will provide additional oil/g=
rit
separation for these two outlet points.&nb=
sp;
Also the impervious area draining to catch basins 9 and 10 have b=
een
re-routed to outlet through the Vortechnics unit instead of the existing
18” inch pipe.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: Just show on the map where those a=
re
located.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms. Martin: The two outlets that he’s ta=
lking
about now are the outlets that don’t go through the Vortechnics
unit. The first is the existi=
ng
18” pipe here and the second is the front turnaround area. (Inaudible) we modified the draina=
ge system
in this area to drain this portion of the bus loop that tied into these,
originally they tied into this manhole and out into the existing 18” =
pipe
but we were able to tie them into this system so that they would be treated=
by
the Vortechnics unit so that we have more drainage area being treated by the
oil grid separator and less going through this existing pipe.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 5
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: Which is the bus loop so anything
that’s draining off of the bus loop or anything that’s . . . is
going back to the Vortechnics unit?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Martin: Correct.
3.&n= bsp; = ; Evaluate discharging the new 15 inch storm water pi= pe from the front turnaround area at the existing headwall. Consider a new outlet in the exiti= ng wall or an addition to the existing headwall instead of a flared end adjacent. Evaluate the need f= or erosion protection.
3R.<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> W=
hat
he’s talking about is in this area and as we stated before, we did ne=
ed
to upgrade this section of pipe to an 18” pipe. As noted above, the =
new
15” storm water pipe has been modified to an 18” pipe. The outlet of the pipe is propo=
sed at
the typical water elevation of the brook and the plans and construction
sequence have been revised to outlet the pipe through the existing headwall
instead of a new flared end. =
This
eliminates the potential for erosion.
4.
4R. The o=
utlet
pipe near Davis Street is an existing 12” pipe, which will be upgrade=
d to
a 24” pipe. The existin=
g pipe
outlets through an existing headwall onto a concrete pad that connects to t=
he
bottom of the box culvert under Davis Street, eliminating any potential for
erosion. This will remain=
in
the proposed conditions.
Field
inspections of the existing 18” outlet show that the outlet to the br=
ook
is approximately at the water level and there are currently no signs of ero=
sion
in the area. Therefore, no ou=
tlet
protection is proposed because it would be impractical, ineffective, and wo=
uld
create disturbance in the wetlands area that we are currently not proposing=
.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 6
5. = Evaluate the drainage impact of the re-grading of the overflow parking area and remo= ving the curb along the northwest parking area.
5R. The
re-grading of the overflow parking area will cause minimal change to the
existing drainage patterns due to the fact that the change in grading is sl=
ight
and the area will remain entirely grass-covered, promoting infiltration of
storm water. Removing the curb
along the northern parking area will allow for creation of a grass-lined sw=
ale,
which will help renovate storm water prior to discharging to the wetland.
6. = Limits of disturbance should be minimized as well as incorporate all site developm= ent activities.
6R. The p=
lans
have been revised to show the limits of disturbance associated with all of =
the
proposed development activities.
7. = Silt fence should be located down slope from all disturbed slopes. The total area to be disturbed at = one time should be evaluated and the need for sediment traps evaluated and intermediate erosion controls.
7R. The p=
lans
have been revised to show silt fence located down slope from all disturbed
areas. The need for temporary
sediment traps has also been evaluated and it has been determined that there
are no points on site during each phase of construction that will draw more
than 1 acre of drainage area.
Therefore, silt and sediment will be adequately managed through the =
use
of silt fences and hay bale barriers.
This information can be found on sheet C8.01 of the plans.
8. = Specific erosion and sediment controls should be incorporated to protect the wetlands located in the northern area of the site.
8R. &n=
bsp; Silt
fence was added in the vicinity of the northern wetlands specifically to
protect that area from any disturbance.
9. =
The
two steep slope areas should be evaluated for safety concerns, benches, ero=
sion
control, and/or water control at the top of slope.
9R. Both areas noted for steep
slopes have been provide with retaining walls to bench into the hillside and
allow for a 3:1 maximum slope.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 7
10. The need for soil stockpile areas should be evaluated, shown on the plans and a detail provided consist= ent with the 2002 Guidelines. A d= etail of the silt/silt fence combination should be provided and added to the lege= nd.
10R. The
amount of topsoil to be stockpiled during the development was estimated and=
the
soil stockpile areas shown on the plans were revised to more accurately dep=
ict
the size of the areas that would be needed. Also, a detail was added to the pl=
ans
consistent with the 2002 E & S Guidelines. A detail of the hay bale filter to=
be
used in conjunction with the silt fence has been added to the plans next to=
the
silt fence detail. The silt/s=
ilt
fence combination was also added to the legend on the Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan.
11. Remove the note on the catch basins (two places) regarding the sumps.&n= bsp; Two foot minimum are required as shown on the detail.
11R. The
note on the two catch basin details regarding the depth of the sumps has be=
en
removed. The details now clea=
rly
state that the sumps should be a minimum of 2 feet.
12. The erosion control narrative and construction sequence should be site specific. Include site construction, drainag= e and building construction (in general). Include sensitive site conditions and resources and measures to protect. Review general state= ments for applicability to this site and remove statements that are not applicable. Be sure it is consistent with other information on the plans. I.e.: seed mixture, sweeping of street, etc. The E & S checklist previously provided should be completed and submitted.
12R. The
erosion control narrative and construction sequence have been modified to
include more site specific information.&nb=
sp;
Statements that are not applicable to this project have been removed
from the narrative. Also the E
& S checklist is included with this letter as requested. It’s actually not included in
these copies; it was included in the original letter that was submitted.
&n= bsp; Mr. Zawadzki: What’s that E & S Checkli= st?
&n= bsp; Ms. Martin: Something that the Town provides for erosion and sediment control checklist, as you go through your plans and yo= ur engineering report that you should be able to check off or say not applicab= le to all of the items.
&n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: They use the 2002 Guidelines for (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 8
13. Identify a person (and 24 ho= ur phone) responsible for the E & S Plan.= Identify responsibilities, inspections required, notification proces= s if problems arise, etc.
13R. The E
& S Plan has been revised to identify responsibilities and processes for
the project, as well as adding a person and phone number for emergency
contact. That person is T=
odd
LoFrese.
14. Evaluate potential on-site activities to mitigate the impacts to inland wetlands. Consider restoration of the wetlan= d in the northern section of the property. The wetland report notes the significant presence of invasive specie= s.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 14R. The northern wetl=
and
area is degraded and has minimal function due to invasive species and the
accumulation of trash. Re-gra=
ding
and re-seeding with appropriate groundcover materials will help to naturali=
ze
the area; this has been shown on the Site Grading and Site Planting Plans.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Procedures and directions for remo=
val of
invasive species have been shown on the Site Demolition Plan, additional
measures are incorporated in the specifications.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 15. Provi=
de
specifications for the grass pavers and the installation details.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; This is for the overflow parking and at the end of your packet you’ll see = that response #15:
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; 15R. Specifications and installation details for the grass pavers have been provided as requested.<= o:p>
Ms. Martin: That was the end of =
the
comments from Mr. Berger. Doe=
s the
Commission have any questions?
Mr. Duplissie: In #9, 2 slopes that s=
hould
be evaluated for safety concerns.
It says here that you put retaining walls to bench into the hillside=
and
allow for a 3:1 minimum slope.
What’s the height of those retaining walls?
Mr. Talcott: <=
/b>The wall right here is=
5
feet high, about 4.5 feet in that area.&nb=
sp;
And that actually is a good thing because it provides a nice flat ar=
ea
where you can also drive around the building which is what the authorities
there want to do in order to police the area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 9
Mr. Duplissie: So you were able to pu=
ll
back the toe of the slope and raise it and level it out just a little?
Mr. Talcott: Yes, enough so that
it’s not getting too close to the sidewalk on the side of the road he=
re,
we have enough room in between here so there’s no fall potential and
there’s also a gentle enough slope so there’s not a hazard.
Mr. Duplissie: And the other retainin=
g wall
was where?
Mr. Talcott: <=
/b>There are a couple of
retaining walls down in this area.
This slope right here is a 3:1 slope outside of the gymnasium,
it’s a 3:1 slope so we actually revised that a little bit. We had to put a little retaining w=
all in
front of the new boiler room so that we could make sure that the boilers co=
uld
breath, we have a louver system that we have to, but actually that works out
pretty well because it’s kind of hidden behind the hillside as it gra=
des
down there, there’s sort of a hidden area there that allows the louve=
rs
to work.
Mr. Duplissie: And how tall are those
retaining walls?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Talcott: That’s about 7 feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: Is that that little “L”
shape?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Talcott: Yes.
Mr. Duplissie: What page is that?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Talcott: That’s on C2.01.=
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Duplissie: And this is a =
7 foot
retaining wall?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Talcott: Yes.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: So is there going to b=
e any
protection? You’ve got =
a 7
foot fall for a 12 year old kid . . . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Talcott: There’s no
doors. We may eventually put =
one of
those there. At this point we
don’t have one there. We
don’t have any doors out here, there’s no sidewalks along this =
side
of the building, so it’s really not an area where people will be walk=
ing
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but those are kids, 12 ye=
ar old
kids.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Talcott: We can put a lit=
tle
parapet or something. It is
possible that we will put some wall protection.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Duplissie: And this is a =
curved
retaining wall?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Talcott: Yes.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: And this is a scale of=
1 to
40, so we’re about 20 feet from the side wall?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Talcott: That’s right.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I just want to rem=
ind
the Commission members that this (inaudible) go to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for their review too. I
want us to concentrate on the wetland issues. Those are issues for the Planning =
and
Zoning Commission.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Any other quest=
ions
from the Commission?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Item #13, ident=
ify a
person responsible for E & S Plan; now this person is provided by whom?=
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Martin: It’s Todd
LoFrese, who is the Director of Operations for the public schools in
Watertown. And he’s bas=
ically
in charge of the project from their side.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: So the Town is basical=
ly
providing the person.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Martin: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Do you have a site manager dur=
ing
the construction from your company is there anybody who is in charge of the
site to manage it?
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Martin: Not from our comp=
any,
no.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: If there is any erosion and
sedimentation control problems, is Todd the gentleman we should contact?
Ms. Martin: Yea, and they’ll
probably contact us.
Mr. Talcott: <=
/b>It would be whoever the
Clerk of the Works or Construction Manager is. Right now they have not been selec=
ted
and they would be the representative on the site at all times, and they wou=
ld
report to Todd and call in the Civil Engineer if necessary, or ourselves, t=
he
land planners.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 211
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I think Chuck Berg=
er
means that gentleman, whoever is responsible for the site.
Mr. Talcott: <=
/b>He’s not there y=
et.
Mr. Rafey: In the future you will=
let
us know?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Talcott: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: So on your response for #13 the
person and phone number actually hasn’t been established yet?
Mr. Talcott: <=
/b>No. Todd is actually a pretty good per=
son to
act in that position because he’ll have constant monitoring and contr=
ol
over what happens out there, so he is a good person on the Town’s sid=
e,
but again there will be people who are doing the construction who need to be
involved as well, but he’s the one who approves their checks so
they’ll listen to him.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Plus we will have a preconstru=
ction
meeting and at that meeting we will need the exact name and phone number of=
the
person in charge.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Any other quest=
ions
as it pertains to wetland impacts?
At this point I’ll ask if there is anyone in the public who wi=
shes
to question or comment on this proposal at this time, please step forward?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Any other comments from you people=
?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Martin: No.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #514 of =
Town
of Watertown, Board of Education, for Swift School Improvement Project, 250
Colonial Street, Oakville, CT in an R-12.5 Residential Zoning District.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Closed at 7:58 p.m.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #514 – TOWN OF WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
SWIFT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
PAGE 12
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 Minute Recess at 7:58 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary