Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 09/15/2015
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman Darren Cunningham opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:33 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Patrick Spaulding, Andrew O’Connor, Jim Morrison, Donna Beinstein, and Donald Rieger. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Cunningham seated Commissioner Morrison for Margaret Sexton and Commissioner Beinstein for the vacancy.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
Town Staff advised approval was granted for a deck replacement following review with the Commission Chair for replacement of an existing deck in mapped wetland soils with the same size deck at 38 Woodhaven Drive.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
1. Application #15-33 of Leonard and Mary Melanson, Owners, to construct a 24'x30' garage on concrete piers in the wetland on the property located at 10 Paine Road (Assessor's Map C18, Block 606, Lot 052). Zone R-25. (received 09/01/2015; decision must be rendered by 11/05/2015)
Application #15-33 was read into the record.
The Applicant requested approval to construct a garage indicating there was only one place to put it and showed the Commissioners the location on the map, which he said was 10 feet from the house. The Applicant indicated the garage would only have electricity coming from the house and no water. Town Staff indicated about 1/3 of the lot is mapped wetland soil and part of a larger 5+-acre area of wetlands in mostly back yards. The Applicant clarified that the piers are 8 inches and not 8 feet, and there would be no additional driveway. The Applicant noted that the land is all grass lawn currently. The Applicant indicated the garage would be used to store vehicles and gasoline.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion that this is a regulated activity because it occurs in the Upland Review Area and wetland.
Commissioner Spaulding seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion that it is not a significant activity because it looks like there will not be any direct impacts to the functioning area wetlands.
Commissioner Rieger seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve the Application noting that there will be 8-inch piers, not 8-foot diameter piers; that the utility line will be taken as directly as possible from the house to the garage, and the other conditions in the 09/09/2015 Staff report, and noting that the garage will be approximately 10 feet from the existing building.
Commissioner Spaulding seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
2. Application #15-35 of Girard Brothers Corporation, Owner; Sunlight Construction, Inc., Applicant for Chapter 128 review of the erosion & sedimentation control plan for development on the property located at 42 and 54 Hoskins Road (Assessor's Map H05, Block 404, Lot 005). Zone I-1.
Application #15-35 was read into the record.
The Applicant noted they are requesting approval of their Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans for proposed construction on the contiguous properties in both Application #15-35 and 15-36 totaling 28 acres. The Applicant submitted to Town Staff for the record a soil scientist report indicating there are no wetlands on the property and noted soils on the western side of the property’s former sand/gravel pit are very pervious with soil stabilization occurring as a result of their plan.
The Applicant’s engineer provided the Commissioners with an updated site rendering, and sequence of 3 phases of construction. The engineer added that the sandy site soil works well for infiltration to comply with Town LID regulations; the site grade works with the infiltration basin design and erosion/sedimentation controls; the western half of the site was described as a depression in which the site center is lower than its surroundings with the properties it borders at a higher grade with infiltration under existing conditions, which they will try to mimic with their proposed storm water design in their phased construction approach; on the eastern half of the site, runoff is easterly with some offsite runoff along the northern border which they will need to manage; the remainder of the entrance property to the site runoff flows easterly and grades toward Hoskins Road. The engineer noted their intent to keep disturbance at any time under 5 acres; in C5.01 of the phased construction plan for the eastern side of the site in Phase 1 they would establish the perimeter erosion controls, construct all subsurface utilities, diagonal hatched areas indicate where trees would be cleared with stumps and top soil left in place without regrading/disturbing the area – these areas would be set aside for construction of the buildings; for each of the phases, only areas associated with underground utilities, the road base, parking area base, and drainage system would be disturbed during this phase; erosion control measures would be installed at all the storm water system outlets; along the northern border a temporary sediment trap would be installed utilizing an existing depression for the onsite runoff which would be redirected to a proposed permanent storm drainage pipe and treated through a temporary sediment outlet control structure (a perforated pipe wrapped in stone) and the runoff would be directed around the site to where it currently goes in order to handle runoff in the event of a large storm event without compromising the developable building area; all infiltration basins/systems which are subgrade chambers would be protected during construction with wood chip berms around the perimeter serving to keep sediment from clogging infiltration systems and to provide a physical/visual barrier during construction so the systems are not driven over.
The engineer provided the Commissioners with a narrative showing before the next phase of construction begins the area of construction must be substantially stabilized with installation of the road and parking base to allow for development of apartment buildings, patio homes, and single-family homes; the units will be constructed as sold with no more than 5 acres disturbed on the site at any time.
The engineer indicated, similar to Phase 1, Phase 2 continues the work of roadway construction, storm drainage and erosion control measures; the gravel pit area is already cleared of trees with the only disturbance installing the roadway area and storm drainage; as agreed with Town Staff, construction would begin on the west side 2 ½:1 slope area broken up into 1/3 of the area at a time; construction would be from top down and have permanent erosion control matting anchored at the top/bottom of the slope, stapled, and overlapped; before the matting is in place, the subgrade will be set, top soil placed, and a specified erosion control/slope stabilization seed mix put in with seed allowed to grow through the matting to help stabilize the slope.
The engineer noted they would then proceed to Phase 3 with roadway and utilities already in place, the 2nd 1/3 of slope would be constructed and home building around the site would continue.
The engineer indicated Phase 4 construction would be for the final 1/3 of the western slope. The engineer noted that as each unit is built there would be perimeter erosion controls around those units with only clearing and grubbing of stumps necessary for each unit. The engineer indicated also in Phase 4 an emergency access only 16-foot wide gravel driveway would be constructed to Hoskins Road, as required by the Fire Marshall for safe passage of emergency vehicles and restricted for normal use.
Once Phase 4 is completed, units will continue to be built, with curbing, sidewalks, and landscaping also constructed, drainage and infiltration systems would be inspected/cleaned, final installation of pavement, and erosion control measures would not be removed until vegetation is established.
The Applicant indicated 22 Hoskins Road is at the southeastern-most portion of the property near the entrance. The Applicant noted there intent to leave stump grindings on the site, which are very effective for erosion control. Regarding whether working with the 2 ½:1 slope and site soils was a challenge, the engineer responded there were no issues and they are cutting it back only as necessary to develop the lots and would not be going back to the existing property line; he noted an existing unit with a driveway provides access to the property, although the building will be removed; also, in the conservation easement area, no disturbance would occur. The Applicant added the existing slope was re-vegetated as part of the gravel pit restoration and is holding firm; however, as noted by Town Staff the slopes need to be disrupted with the right amount of top soil, rooting, and grass. Regarding other steep slopes on the property, especially on the eastern side, the engineer indicated retaining walls to a maximum of about 4 feet would be used in require areas and any slope 2 1/2:1 and steeper would also have fabric.
Regarding the access road play area, the Applicant indicated it was a 30’x40’ fenced in playscape area.
The Applicant reiterated the site with its pervious soil works well with LID techniques and the Town Engineer requested an emergency overflow; the engineer indicated they designed for a 100+-year storm and the backup system connects to the existing road drain system in the event of a failure of any of the systems. Town Staff clarified because the total area of disturbance exceeds 5 acres a State storm water permit is required, but no more than 5 acres will be disturbed at any one time.
Regarding timing, the Applicant indicated if approval were gained in the next 60 days, they could begin work on Phase 1 because this project can be worked on during the winter to get a lot of the infrastructure in by the spring; the whole project is estimated to take 18 months, but they will not open ahead of their sales.
The Applicant confirmed that the roads would be private and all structures associated with storm water would be privately held with a narrative of continuing obligations for the homeowners association, e.g. maintaining the storm water protection permit, catch basins are cleaned out, the road is swept, etc.
The Commissioners asked about an O&M plan for the gravel emergency access road and the engineer indicated it must be plowed to allow emergency access, etc. The Commissioners asked whether the road should be paved; the Applicant believed it would be better to keep it as gravel, but they will comply with Police and Fire Marshall requirements. Regarding the emergency road topography, the engineer noted it grades from the higher west side of the road to the lower east side with runoff towards Hoskins Road; at a point where the road is lower than the property, they cut into the hill with runoff directed to the onsite roadway system. The engineer noted the material they will use is a dense gravel mix that compacts well and should not come loose during winter plowing; the material allowed by DOT allows a specified amount of recycled materials; the track pad at the end of the emergency road would be removed; the proposed plan shows a 60-foot setback from the road edge allowing a fire truck to pull off the road to unlock the area and access the site.
Town Staff requested that Applications 15-35 and 15-36 be voted on separately.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that the Conservation Commission find the Plan of Erosion and Sedimentation Control meets the requirements of the regulations, and with the conditions included in Staff's memo which has been referred to, the Commission approves the Plan.
Commissioner O'Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
3. Application #15-36 of Condev Associates, LLC, Owner; Sunlight Construction, Inc., Applicant; for Chapter 128 review of the erosion and sedimentation control plan for development on the property located at 22 Hoskins Road (Assessor's Map H05, Block 403, Lot 021). Zone I-1.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that the Conservation Commission find the Plan of Erosion and Sedimentation Control meets the requirements of the regulations, and with the conditions included in Staff's memo which has been referred to, the Commission approves the Plan.
Commissioner O'Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
4. Application 15-37 of Town of Simsbury, Owner, to construct a sewer crossing of Grimes Brook and install a sewer within the wetland and upland review area to a wetland on the sewer easement located at 1 Russell Lane (Assessor's Map F06, Block 302, Lot 039), 3 Russell Lane (Assessor's Map F06, Block 302, Lot 040), 5 Russell Lane (Assessor's Map F06, Block 302, Lot 041), 7 Russell Lane (Assessor's Map F06, Block 302, Lot 042), and 9 Russell Lane (Assessor's Map F06,Block 302, Lot 043). (received 09/01/2015; decision must be rendered by 11/15/2015)
Application #15-37 was read into the record.
The representative engineer reviewed the Town request for a wetlands permit for construction of sanitary sewers on the west side of Russell Lane serving properties 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 initiated by a homeowner request for public sewers. The engineer noted there are advantages to serving these homes from the rear yards because of shorter lengths, as well as elimination of considerable wetland interference and construction areas. The engineer noted on a map surrounding area sewers with many public sewer lines depicted in blue that enter the main Grimes Brook interceptor running parallel to Grimes Brook. The engineer indicated in looking at alternatives to serve these properties, they considered every home having their own connection, but that resulted in considerable wetland disturbance with long 90-degree crossings for each property, so they felt it best to cross at the narrowest neck of the wetland through the URA to serve the properties.
The engineer noted all of the septic systems are older and in back and designed to a less square footage filtration area with mature lower use residents currently, as opposed to new families that would place heavier use on a septic system; soils are generally good. The engineer also discussed the expense of coming down Russell Lane with an existing line where residents on the east side are already connected, which would increase costs in a very mature neighborhood with significant land disturbance; the expense would be about 30% more at $42K or an extra $12K, as well as greater individual costs in each yard.
As a result, they propose the alternative indicated in green at the narrowest crossing point at Grimes Brook outside of the wetlands; they would stay at a shallow 4-5 feet; the URA is about 150 feet from the wetland line almost touching the back of the houses and involving much less disturbance for this design than for the wetland area. The engineer noted for the homeowners’ septic systems to come up to standard they would likely have to fill over the top of the slope disturbing the URA 5,250 sq. ft. and crossing the wetlands disturbs 2,430 sq. ft. vs. the shallow trench disturbance using a small excavator. The areas they are working would be 20-80 feet from the wetland at a considerably higher elevation; the total wetland area is about 23 acres and the wetland and URA disturbance about 27%. The engineer noted past work in the wetlands with Scarborough loam soils and underlying sandy gravel; the last time they crossed Branch Brook in this area no water was lost and they believe, given the low-rain currently, this would be a good time to do this work.
Regarding vegetation, plant materials would be replaced and the URA seeded with shade mix; they see no long-term wildlife impacts. The Commissioners asked what animal is indicated for the National Diversity Database Area; the engineer noted they could find out; however, their access would generally follow existing utility right of ways, as the Town has access rights along their service road and along the sewer; they would cross at a brook culvert at the brook with a new pipe entrance and their most extensive work at the 12-foot deep manhole coring a new pipe entrance at 6 feet deep using a hydraulic machine; then they would use hay bales, silt fence, and dirt to berm both sides pumping around the site at the stream area. The Commissioners believed it important to identify the Database animal. Regarding the timing, the engineer indicated a total of 7 days including, crossing the stream and wetlands soils 3 days and 4 days for restoration; their route avoids any significant Oak and Maple trees in the URA with minimal tree cutting along the line about 4 feet deep. The engineer explained that a hydraulic driven concrete coring unit utilizes an 8-inch pipe which cores slightly larger and then the 8-inch pipe is put in; they will use 6 feet as their deepest point because they have to cross the stream. The engineer noted they are not near or affecting any adjacent communities and expect to perform the work quickly. The engineer reaffirmed this plan to be the most cost-effective and the least disturbing to wetlands.
Regarding the stream crossing, the engineer noted past experience putting in silt fence and hay bales creating a dam and pumping water so it doesn’t back up, and they do not expect to use a pit, as the area is not saturated; the dam would be placed about 8 feet up and 8 feet down. Regarding the seasonality of the water table between 0 and 8 feet, the engineer indicated it is currently very low and based on their most recent experience no pumping was required with no water in the trench. The Commissioners asked if ground protection mats would be placed under equipment brought in for trenching and the engineer noted the surface is well established and a mini wide track excavator would be used with no past problems using larger machines; the engineer did not believe this job would benefit from mats with the work area shifting, unless the area was very wet with long-term work in one spot and a deep area – they can re-evaluate if there is a rain storm.
Regarding the Russell Lane alternative using the road and the additional cost, the engineer indicated it was not a prudent and feasible alternative due to both the cost and disturbance to property.
Commissioner Spaulding made a motion that it is a regulated activity because of work in the Upland Review Area and activity in the Wetlands Area.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
The Commissioners reviewed 1-9 areas to be considered regarding significant impact and believed #5 applied that “any activity which causes a substantial diminution of flow of a natural watercourse or groundwater levels of a regulated area”, although temporary, there will be a portion of the brook without flow during construction; and #2 was also applicable “substantially changing the channel”. The Commissioners noted there would be substantial activity disturbing 2,430 sq. ft., but believed it would be temporary and return to normal.
Commissioner Spaulding made a motion that it is a significant activity in the wetlands because of the amount of disturbance at the back line Upland Review Area.
Commissioner Rieger seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Commissioner Spaulding made a motion to grant the permit conditioned upon: finding out what animal would be affected in the wetland area; that we respond to the Planning Commission's special conditions and Staff comments that were and special conditions noted in the Application; that the timeframe to perform the work is 3 weeks; that we have concluded there is not a feasible and prudent alternative; and that the present septic systems are old and with replacement would result in a very large disturbance in the Upland Review Area.
Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
4. Application 15-38 of Royce Palmer, Owner; Mansour Prime Properties, LLC, Applicant; for Chapter 128 review of the erosion & sedimentation control plan for development on the property located at 80 Climax Road (Assessor's Map D20, Block 608, Lot 001). Zone R-40.
Application #15-38 was read into the record.
The Applicant’s engineer noted a review letter submitted by Town Staff outlined the project very well and would be used as a guideline in his presentation. The engineer described the mapped layout of the 4.4-acre Climax Road parcel with residences to the north, east and south; they are going before the Zoning Commission to request approval for a Workforce Housing Overlay Zone (WHOZ). The engineer indicated they are before this Commission for review of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the 4.4-acre parcel with 3.3 acres disturbed; the State permits would be sought separately. The engineer noted the site presently has an existing house and drive with open areas and woods with site drainage toward Climax Road; some depression areas currently allow for site infiltration and they propose mimicking that utilizing roof water retention using LID to retain it onsite and a storm drainage system for the public road with a collection system and overflow in a similar pattern toward Climax Road; there is a decrease in discharge from the site for a 100-year storm and no discharge anticipated for the underground system due to a 25-year storm. The engineer noted the site has standard erosion control measures including, silt fence, construction control entrance, protection of inlets and underground storage throughout construction; they anticipate individual plot plans with their own erosion measure controls as each individual lot is developed and marketed; there is a proposed public road, with public sewer and water with the infrastructure and town road developed first and consecutively with much of the land clearing; and lots will be marketed on an individual basis as sales occur. The engineer added they would work with Staff regarding erosion control plan details and they would comply with the standard and special conditions.
Regarding test borings, the engineer indicated the average loam soil is why they have a significant overflow storm drainage system; the loam is to 3 feet and percolates well with no water ponding in the basins observed; and there are no wetlands in the area. Town Staff noted the site is 1.5 miles east on Bushy Hill Road at the Avon town line and .9 miles to Rte. 44. The engineer confirmed they are working with Staff to develop a detailed construction narrative; Town Staff noted the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan should reflect information regarding clearing and stumping and whether temporary sediment traps are needed during initial stages of construction, and limitations placed on areas cleared. The public was informed this was not a public hearing allowing public comment.
Town Staff and the Commissioners noted the difficulty of addressing approval without the narrative leaving the option of Tabling the Application to the next meeting or authorizing Staff to address it; however, the Commission has denied plans for less information. Town Staff clarified this review by the Conservation Commission is administratively under Chapter 128; a public hearing is scheduled for this project by the Zoning Commission on Monday, on 09/21/2015 at which time members of the public can speak. Town Staff indicated that returning to this Commission with more information following the Zoning Commission Public Hearing would not delay the project; the E&S Plan has to be approved and it has to go the subdivision route.
Commissioner Beinstein made a motion to Table Application 15-38 at this time until the Commission has more information.
Commissioner Rieger seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger noted he would have to recuse himself from hearing Item #6 and requested it be moved to the end of the Agenda.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to amend the Agenda to move the item to the end before adjournment.
Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
7. WITHDRAWN 09/10/2015: Application #15-11 of Daniel and Rebecca Moran, Owners, for the clearing, grading, and installation of a lawn irrigation system within the upland review area to a wetland on the property located at 19 Talcott Mountain Road (Assessor’s Map I12, Block 109, Lot 011). Zone R-80. (received 05/19/2015; decision must be rendered by 09/26/2015)
Town Staff indicated there was an issue with advertising the Application due to the Hartford Courant changing their deadlines and will be advertised for the next meeting with a public hearing set; following discussion with the property owners, they will come in with the map amendment and the other application will be reassessed.
RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATION
Town Staff indicated there is one application from the Water Pollution Control Authority for river bank stabilization; they have received a State permit and are in the process of obtaining an Army Corps of Engineers permit, who advised them to get the local Wetlands permit now; the area on the Farmington River is near the sewage treatment plant outlet structure where there is river bank failure and extensive regrading and stabilization required.
CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Town Staff noted the Commissioners are invited to contact him if they wish to attend the 11/14/2015, Saturday CACIWC day-long seminar, at Town expense, at Villa Capri in Wallingford; the registration form was provided.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the September 1, 2015 Regular Meeting
July 21, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes:
Chairman Cunningham accepted the September 1, 2015 minutes, as written.
Chairman Winters accepted the August 4, 2015 minutes, as amended.
July 21, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes:
Chairman Cunningham accepted the September 1, 2015 minutes, as written.
Chairman Winters accepted the August 4, 2015 minutes, as amended.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION (continued)
6. Discussion regarding the 0804/2015 SPECIAL MEETING Site Walk on the properties located at: 28 Iron Horse Blvd (Assessor's Map H09, Block 226, Lot 003B), Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map H09, Block 226, Lot 005), Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map H09, Block 226, Lot 004), Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map H09, Block 226, Lot 003), 22 Iron Horse Blvd (Assessor's Map H09, Block 226, Lot 003A), Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map H09, Block 226, Lot 003C), Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map H10, Block 226, Lot 002) 36 Drake Hill Road (Assessor's Map H11, Block 226, Lot 001-1A)
Commissioner Morrison noted he might have a potential conflict in that his firm’s client is a responsible party for some groundwater pollution close to this area and the client and Town have been in communication regarding the Senior/Community Center, and if those topics were discussed, he would recuse himself; also, he would need to recuse himself from any wetlands discussion. However, Commissioner Morrison had no conflict regarding discussing the nature of the parking areas and their material composition. Should any potential conflict issue arise during discussions, Commissioner Morrison would recuse himself.
Town Staff indicated the plan was for Commission to provide consensus/direction for Staff regarding comments/questions for further Staff research. The Commissioners discussed the wetland area plan showing the parking areas, soccer fields, etc. provided for the walk; a summary of Commission actions for the parcel was previously provided to the Commissioners. The Commissioners discussed the mowed buffer zone between the soccer fields and wooded areas which was part of the permit; walking east from the main parking area is an overflow parking area with a north section, which was part of the original permit, and a south section, which was not part of the permit – the areas were permitted for clearing, not for bringing in new material; they observed a couple of feet of material was brought in, as well as a phone pole and light near the recently flagged and clearly visible wetland; the main PAC parking area is mostly unpaved and was permitted for grading and 4 inches of gravel allowed to be brought in; it was unknown if the parking area near the Dog Park was permitted, as well as the Dog Park, – it was unknown if those areas were included in the 4-inch gravel cover, and there was clearly more than 4 inches of gravel; a wetland report on the Town website indicated that test holes dug in the parking area found 3 to 3 ½ feet of fill in the wetlands. The Commissioners asked about the trailers and Town Staff was informed by PAC that the area would be cleaned up at season end. The Commissioners discussed gravel dumped behind the red sheds to the east of the band shell near the Dog Park which seemed closer to the wetland line than indicated on the map; Town Staff noted the wetlands were recently flagged and the current map is out of date.
The Commissioners noted extensive gravel on the site, including the playground; the previous Assistant Town Planner indicated gravel was permitted; however, the Commissioners noted that gravel is native material larger than sand size with a 2 mm. cutoff, and does not include sand, silt, or finer material with the term “gravel” often used too loosely; aggregate is composed of silt, sand, and gravel mixed together and put through a sieve to filter out something like 1 ½-inch size minus aggregate to meet compaction thresholds and the material placed on this site appeared to be recycled aggregate which including construction debris, like asphalt chunks, bricks, and concrete – the problem with those materials from demolished structures being mixed with native materials is the ancillary material attached, e.g. paint, adhesives, caulk and those materials from a certain age contain pahs, pcbs, lead, etc. and the porous ancillary materials leach those pollutants out. The Commissioners noted the State regulations are developing and under the Property Transfer Program or Voluntary Remediation program would tell you this material is not clean and must be removed; however, DOT allows use of this material without testing. The Commissioners noted there are appropriate uses for the material, but erosion into wetlands needs to be controlled.
Regarding how often the area is being re-graveled, Town Staff noted two issues: 1) what was permitted; and 2) site maintenance; if it is a Town property, the Town Engineer or Director of Park/Rec in coordination with the Planning Department monitor site activities. Town Staff noted “as of right” activities are permitted under regulation, but if the flood plain is being filled in, that is a significant issue. The Commission recognized that it would take some time for Staff to gather information regarding these issues for discussion at upcoming meetings. Regarding activities that have occurred and were not permitted, the Commission would take action to remove it or the parties would come in for an after-the-fact permit to ask for forgiveness. The Commissioners expressed concern regarding the potential Senior/Community Center, that if the after-the-fact permit were allowed, that a guideline be established going forward and revisited. The Commissioners agreed to put this item on the next meeting’s Agenda for further discussion.
Commissioner O'Connor made a motion to table discussion to the next meeting.
Commissioner Spaulding seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Spaulding made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Commissioner O'Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.