PLANNING
COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 308
Thursday, June 24,
2004
7:00 p.m.
Town Hall Conference
Room
I.
PUBLIC HEARING:
a.
Resubdivision Application #377, 1-Lot, End of Eaglebrook Drive,
Chen
Chairman Karl Walton called
the public hearing to order at 7:05 p.m.
Town Planner Patrice Carson read the legal notice.
David Palmberg from William
R. Palmberg, Land Surveyors, stated that the subject parcel was just under 19
acres and was the remaining land at the time Mountain Brook Heights Subdivision
was completed in the 1980’s. The
property is part of and adjacent to a cul-de-sac at the end of Eaglebrook
Drive. As part of the application
Mr. Chen is conveying to the Town a strip of land which will connect to Northern
Connecticut Land Trust property which provides access to the Blue
Trail.
Mr. Palmberg stated that the
parcel meets all current zoning regulations and the applicant is proposing
building a single-family home on the premises. He added that the project has been
approved by the Conservation Commission.
The site has been tested and found suitable for septic as well. All of the Town Planning issues have
also been addressed satisfactorily.
Merv Strauss said that he
had reviewed the plans as well as a letter from the applicant dated June 9,
2004, which contained comments regarding the plans. One concern he had was with regard to
the sheet of plans which included the driveway (Sheet 4). He asked that the catch basins be moved
closer to the road in order to provide better drainage. Mr. Palmberg advised that this should be
no problem.
The only other concern Mr.
Strauss noted was that the strip of land has been designated to the Commission
as being 75 feet and the plans show it as being “75 feet, more or less”. This would need to be changed to read
“75 feet”.
Patrice Carson received a
letter from David Askew dated June 24, 2004, stating that he had reviewed the
plans and they sufficiently addressed all of his concerns regarding the
application. She also had received
a letter from Steve Jacobs dated June 4, 2004, stating that the plan meets all
of the regulations for sewage and water supply.
Mrs. Carson also stated that
she had reviewed the initial plans in May and reviewed the current plans which
she had received today. All 11 of
her concerns had been adequately addressed. The Commission had waived the scale size
of the plan so that the entire site could be seen on one sheet. Appraiser Dave Petursson had appraised
the property for $90,000.00.
Chairman Karl Walton said
that he’d like to take public comment in two phases. First, he’d like to hear from those
opposed to the project, and then to hear from those who supported
it.
Kathleen Andrzejewski, 19
Eaglebrook Drive, stated that she was
concerned about people parking at the end of the street so that they could go
walking on the trail. She was also
concerned that people may be riding vehicles on the trail and questioned why a
trail was needed as there are other trails very nearby. She likes the quietness of her street
now. She added that if the Town
were to become in control of the land, the neighborhood would lose control over
how the land was used. She stated
that she had no objection to the house, but it was the trail over which she held
concerns.
Kenneth Prior, 364 Mountain
Road,
stated that a trail currently goes right by his home and he occasionally has a
problem with people who wander off the trail and come onto his property. He stated he had no objection to the
home being built, but to the “easement onto the property.”
Wayne Keesee, 11 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that he was concerned with the “easement” and concerned with people having
access to the trails. In addition,
“people drink up there”. They may
make a mess on the street and start driving ATV’s on the street as well. He objects to the trail, but not to the
home.
David Clark, 35 Eaglebrook
Drive,
expressed concern about a trail being put on the land. There is not adequate parking for a
trail and safety issues are a concern as well.
Tom Parvenski, 5 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that he moved into the neighborhood because it was a quiet road, without a lot
of traffic. He said “one house or
even 5 houses would be fine, but not a trail.”
Fran Cook, 256 Mountain
Road, said
he has access only to piece of property to the south and has no objection to a
house. He asked if he could assume
that Eaglebrook Drive will not be extended once the house is built. Mrs. Carson answered that their might
still be access onto his property, but from a different
direction.
Scott Wyllie, 20 Gillette
Lane, said
that he was opposed to the trail for all of the same reasons as the previous
speakers. He wanted to add,
however, that much value had been built into the homes in the area through the
covenants built in at the time of the sale of the lots. This parcel will not be included in
those covenants, which caused him much concern.
Len Sophinos, 11 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that at the time he moved into this home from East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, he
was led to believe that all the homes in the Eaglebrook Drive neighborhood were
governed by the same rules and regulations. It concerned him to learn this property
would not be under those same restrictions.
Chairman Karl Walton
interjected that the covenants and restrictions were not under the jurisdiction
of the Planning Commission. When
Mr. Sophinos asked how he could check to see whether or not the property was
affected by the same rules and regulations, Patrice Carson stated that the home
owner would be required to meet the Town rules and regulations as to the
size of the house, the use of commercial vehicles on Town property, among
others.
David Palmberg stated that
he didn’t know anything about the covenants, but felt that if the neighbors
purchased the property themselves, the property could be governed by the same
covenants.
Glen Toner, 32 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that open access would deteriorate the character of the neighborhood. A trail would not be good as ATV’s would
use them.
Mr. Walton said that if
ATV’s were seen on any trails, people should call the DEP to complain. Patrice Carson stated that the Town does
not allow them either and should also be notified. She said the regulations of the Open
Space Committee allow for walking, mountain biking and horseback riding
only. Karl Walton also added that
the lack of parking would discourage people who had to drive to the site from
using the trails.
Cindy Astone, 51 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that a new home would not be a concern, but she didn’t buy her house only to
have to call the DEP or the Town to complain about ATV’s. She said that the cul-de-sac would be
used for parking by those utilizing the trail.
Debbie Sharland, 12 Gillette
Lane,
expressed concern over the traffic and said that she wanted to keep the quiet
neighborhood. A house would be
fine, but a trail would not be.
Bob Lockwood, 54 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that he doesn’t want parked cars in the cul-de-sac.
Wayne Keesee, 11 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that ATV’s use trails all the time and leave trash as well. No one polices the
property.
Sherry Douville, 29
Eaglebrook Drive, said that she is very
concerned for the children in the neighborhood.
Jeanne Wysocki, 62
Eaglebrook Drive, said that she, too, is
very concerned for the children.
She said that the trail would be accessible right next to her home. Her children would not be able to play
outside.
Fran Cook, 256 Mountain
Road, asked
if anyone could comment on whether or not there had been a problem in the
area.
James Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that Dave Palmberg had stated that the plan had the Conservation Commission’s
approval, but failed to mention that there is a superior court action over the
approval.
He added that as far as the
catch basins are concerned, he agrees with Mr. Strauss to a certain extent. However, he feels that the current catch
basins shown on the plan should remain, and additional basins be added closer to
the road. He would rather see one
more than less. He hasn’t seen any
studies done on this and wondered if any had been done.
Mr. Wysocki expressed
concern that the plan before the Commission “looks different that the one the
Conservation Commission approved.”
He stated that he had had a
conversation with David Pinney with regard to motor vehicles and hasn’t seen a
written policy regarding them.
Mr. Wysocki then questioned
Mr. Walton as to the purpose of a public hearing. Mr. Walton said it was to gather
information for the Commission. Mr.
Wysocki said that he was concerned that the Commission was not in receipt of all
the information it needed to make an informed decision.
He expressed concern that he
couldn’t get updated copy of Zoning Regulations until two days ago. Patrice Carson reminded him that this
was the Planning Commission and not the Zoning Commission. Mr. Wysocki asked if the Planning
Commission didn’t have to conform to the Zoning Regulations, and she replied
that it did.
Mr. Wysocki stated that he
had written 21 letters to the Town and until yesterday they were not on file,
and he expressed distress that letters of September 10, 1986, April 10, 1986 and
April 11, 1986 were missing. In
addition, he had not received adequate answers to his
letters.
He then referred to his
letter of September 26, 1986, regarding the original intent of the
subdivision. He asked why wasn’t
the land subdivided originally.
Karl Walton answered that he
wasn’t on the Planning Commission when the subdivision was originally planned
and was unable to state what the original intent of the developer was with
regard to the parcel. The intent of
the Planning Commission now was to review the plans currently being
presented.
Mr. Palmberg offered that
originally there was not enough frontage on the parcel to develop it. That has since
changed.
Mr. Wysocki stated that the
Town regulations provide that a cul-de-sac cannot extend beyond 1,200 feet;
therefore, it was breaking its own regulation because the cul-de-sac is
currently longer.
Mr. Strauss responded that
at the time the subdivision was approved originally, if there was a feasible
outlet, then the Town was allowed to go beyond the restricted limit. Mr. Wysocki felt this was not acceptable
and the road should not be allowed to go beyond regulated
limits.
Mr. Walton said that the
road is already in place and stated that if Mr. Wysocki would like to change it
to meet regulation, then his residence at 62 Eaglebrook Drive would need to be
taken down. Mr. Wysocki stated this
might be a good idea. Mr. Walton
added that since the regulation as currently worded has been in place, he has
not known of a cul-de-sac to have been approved that doesn’t meet the required
footage limitation. He said that an
existing road is not an issue.
Mr. Wysocki commented that
the road was very wet when constructed and is still very
wet.
He also added that Zoning
Regulation 213-11, Section 211B-13, states that with regard to final plans any
existing or proposed trails across a lot need to be shown on the map. He stated that the Commission must
follow regulations with regard to the use of the land.
Mr. Wysocki stated that when
he purchased his lot on Eaglebrook Drive an easement had to be put in so that
proper drainage could be maintained for his lot. He said that the Town must be sure that
nothing to do with this application will effect his easement. He saw no erosion control on the current
plan. Also, there was no provision
for off street parking, which the trail would require according to
regulation.
Mr. Wysocki presented
Chairman Karl Walton with a letter dated June 24, 2004, showing a listing of all
the letters he had sent to the Town with regard to the
project.
Mr. Wysocki gave a video
presentation of a school bus turning around in the cul-de-sac on two different
occasions, struggling with maneuvering around parked vehicles. He also presented a letter from
Mehan-Goodin Engineers regarding the cul-de-sac as proposed. The letter states that the cul-de-sac is
for turning purposes only and should not have cars parking in
it.
Also he said that the trail
was initially included as part of the application and must be treated as
such. He presented a handout of a
trail map that showed that there is already a trail from upper Scully Road to
the Blue Trail. He presented to the
Commission a petition that had been signed by his neighbors stating that a trail
was not wanted.
Mr. Wysocki added that he
felt the trail was “unfairly being snuck through”. He felt there was nothing in the
regulations that allows the town to take land for re-subdivision. He commented that when Mr. Miller
granted open space to the Town, he had to stake out trails. No trails were staked on this
application.
Patrice Carson explained
that the trails were not staked out on Mr. Miller’s plan; rather, the boundaries
of the land being given to the Town were marked by Mr.
Miller.
He then began reading his
list of reasons why the application should not be approved. Included on the list were the
non-regulatory length of the cul-de-sac, no soil or erosion control being shown
on the plan, no marking of the trails on the plan, no proposed construction
schedule for the site, no topography plan, as well as his 49 “unanswered
questions” presented in the 21 letters to the Town, which he opted not to read,
but presented to the Commission in letter form. He also mentioned that notice of the
hearing was not presented to the neighbors.
Mr. Lockwood, 54 Eaglebrook
Drive, said
that he had not received notice either and lives “within 200 feet” of the
proposed project.
Patrice Carson examined the
receipts of the certified letters sent out and found that indeed no notice had
been sent to Mr. Lockwood.
Scott Wyllie, 20 Gillette
Lane, asked
if there were any members of the Commission that are on the Open Space
Committee. Karl Walton answered
that yes, he was the Chairman of that Committee and that it was a requirement of
the Town that at least one member of the Open Space Committee also be on the
Planning Commission.
Wayne Keesee, 11 Eaglebrook
Drive,
asked if anyone on the Planning Commission was a resident of Eaglebrook
Drive. Mr. Walton told him
no.
David Palmberg stated that
most of the issues discussed, while of genuine concern, don’t apply to the
application before the Planning Commission. He suggested that those in attendance
express their concerns regarding a possible trail on the site with the Open
Space Committee.
The applicant is not
proposing the construction of a trail.
The Town expressed interest in the property on behalf of the Open Space
Committee for access to the Land Trust property. The application did not include the
construction of a trail and deals only with the granting of land to the Town for
its own purposes.
Mr. Palmberg said that with
regard to additional catch basins being constructed, it is important to take a
look at the spacing of the drains, which needs to be adequate and within
regulation. Hence the request of
Mr. Strauss that the proposed drains be relocated, not added to, made sense and
would be addressed.
He also stated that the
plans have been reviewed by all Staff and Commissions involved as the project
progressed, and all changes made are editorial in nature, resulting from a need
to address Town requirements. At no
time was a trail part of the applicant’s plans.
Mr. Palmberg stated that
with regard to the length of the cul-de-sac, “it’s already there” and comes from
a temporary easement granted to Mr. Chen, who owns the property and is granting
it to the Town. The Town currently
maintains the cul-de-sac. The
cul-de-sac has been in existence for over three years and is “really a
non-issue.”
With regard to drainage,
this issue was considered by Mr. Palmberg to have been adequately addressed when
the subdivision was originally created.
He also added that Mr. Wysocki did not have the right to trespass and
bring in inspectors to check out Mr. Chen’s property, only his
own.
On the topic of erosion
control, Mr. Palmberg referred to Sheet 6 of the plans submitted which included
a detailed analysis of erosion control, and which, he added, David Askew had
approved.
Mr. Palmberg reiterated that
while he fully understood the concerns of the neighborhood, no trail is part of
the plan being presented.
Patrice Carson stated that
in the event a trail is constructed at some time in the future, there is a
committee that sets trails, checks and maintains them regularly (the Open Space
Committee). Also, no one is asking
for the property to be cleared to make a trail. It is a policy to stake out the
boundaries of property as it is given to the Town, as was done with the Miller
Subdivision and with the Kerenski property. She added that there is an ordinance
prohibiting motor vehicles from being on property that is owned by the Town of
Somers.
In addition, Mrs. Carson
said that no open space was taken with regard to the subdivision at any prior
time. She has checked and no open
space was donated to the town and no open space fees have been collected by the
Town from any of the sale of the lots in the subdivision.
She also added that David
Askew has signed off on the plans and she is confident in the staff’s
decisions. Steve Jacobs, the Town
Sanitarian and a soil scientist, has said that all the requirements have been
met.
With regard to parking on
the cul-de-sac, Patrice Carson said that all parking issues remain under the
purview of the Board of Selectmen.
She also took exception to
Mr. Wysocki’s concern that trails are not maintained by the Town. She said that the Open Space Committee
was a volunteer committee very dedicated to caring for the trails, maintaining
them, policing them, and teaching the community how to use
them.
She also expressed concern
that Mr. and Mrs. Lockwood were not notified of the hearing, as they should have
been.
Mr. Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook
Drive,
stated that Patrice Carson could not personally attest that no open space had
been granted previously because the fee requirement was put in place by statute
after the subdivision was created.
He said that the missing information from the file could have included
information with regard to open space, or waivers of such, but he had no way of
knowing that. He also addressed Mr.
Palmberg’s comments by stating that his easement allowed him to have people on
the property and he had a right to study issues with regard to maintaining the
easement property.
Robert Lockwood, 54
Eaglebrook Drive, presented photos of water
problems within the subdivision and said that if drainage issues had been
addressed in the past, they certainly needed to be revisited as there is, as the
photos show, still a problem with regard to water
drainage.
Kathy Andrzejewski, 19
Eaglebrook Drive, stated that it only takes
a small number of people to break the rules and a large problem can result. Simply saying that when something is not
allowed it doesn’t mean that the rules will be followed. She stated that it is a beautiful
neighborhood with some of the highest paying taxpayers in Somers, why “is the
Town angering us?” The people are
concerned as a preventative measure.
She stated it is a shame to take such a nice neighborhood and open it up
to the public.
Karl Walton said that until
tonight he didn’t realize so many were upset about the situation. Many in the audience responded at once
that the reason for this was that they didn’t know about the proposed
project.
Robert Lockwood, 54
Eaglebrook Drive, stated that if the Town
has no intention of creating a trail, why don’t they accept a portion of the
land at the back of the parcel instead.
Mr. Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook
Drive,
stated that the project would cause difficulty in regard to his easement because
now it will be on two separately owned parcels of land, rather than on just
one.
Sherry Douville, 29
Eaglebrook Drive, said that the lot next to
her was built with no curtain drains and all drainage pointed toward her
lot. Two years ago after much rain
their lot came down on hers. They
were able to get a settlement from their insurance company. Now a new driveway must be installed and
there is a big mess. She said that
neighbors are looking at what happened to her and are worried that if something
happens they will have difficulties with the Town. She also said that she thinks it is
unfair for Mr. Chen “to turn around and give this land to the Town to do with
whatever it wants.”
Georgeanne Kuzman, 34 Miller
Drive,
stated that her experience with the trail near the Miller Subdivision has been
very positive. The only time there
has been any traffic has been when the committee was clearing the
trail.
Dave Palmberg stated that on
Mr. Chen’s behalf, he didn’t offer the land to the Town, but the Town had asked
him to give it to them. There are
very few ways in which the Town can get open space land, and this is one of
them.
Jim Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook
Drive,
stated that the Blue Trail will not come back to Somers. Also added that with the application the
Commission would be adding another approved lot, which would make it a 15-lot
subdivision with a cul-de-sac. He
said that the Subdivision Regulations require a Town cul-de-sac to serve no more
that 14 lots, except where a future connection could be
made.
Merv Strauss said that the
14-lot regulation does not apply with regard to this application. It applies when there is no way to get
out. Additionally, this is an
existing temporary cul-de-sac.
Jeanne Wysocki, 62
Eaglebrook Drive, asked why a trail
here? It would merely provide a
possible connection to land already obtained. Why does the Town need this in a
neighborhood that doesn’t want it?
Mr. Walton said that the
Commission would take this into account when making its decision, but for her to
please remember that no trail is currently being proposed.
Ed Wysocki, 336 Jobs Hill
Road, Ellington, who owns property in
Somers, asked that if the Town should choose to construct a trail in the future,
would a public hearing be held?
Cindy Astone, of 51
Eaglebrook Drive, said that she had come
this evening to see how well her Town government worked and to give her children
an opportunity to learn. She did
not come to be ridiculed. She
stated that the public hearing was “disgraceful.”
Alice Wysocki, 336 Jobs Hill
Road, Ellington, stated that she wished she
had brought a camera so that she could show the Commission members their faces,
including their rolling eyes and downward looks.
A
motion was made by Brad Pellissier and seconded by Greg Genlot to continue the
public hearing at the July 15th meeting. Merv Strauss stated that he would not be
able to attend that night. Mr. Pellissier amended his motion, which was seconded
by Greg Genlot and unanimously approved by the Commission, to continue the
public hearing to Monday, July 19th, beginning at 7:00pm at which
time the Planning Commission’s next meeting would also be
held.
II.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Karl
Walton called the regular meeting to order at 10:00 p.m. Members present were: Michael Collins, Greg Genlot (seated for
Cliff Bordeaux), Georgeanne Kuzman (seated for Michelle Hayward), Brad
Pellissier and Karl Walton. Also in
attendance were: Patrice Carson,
Town Planner, and Merv Strauss, Town Consulting Engineer.
At this time, a short break
was held. The meeting reconvened at
10:10 p.m.
Patrice Carson
reminded the Commission members that they could not speak about the Chen
Subdivision outside of the public hearing.
III. AUDIENCE
PARTICIPATION:
There was
none.
IV.
OLD BUSINESS:
a. Discussion/Possible Decision: Resubdivision Application #377, 1-Lot,
End of Eaglebrook Drive, Chen.
Discussion and a
decision on this item will be deferred until the public hearing
closes.
b. Subdivision Application #376, 5-Lots,
Hall Hill Road, (Bridle Path Ridge), Richard A. McCullough, Inc. Builders –
Extension of Time for Decision.
Patrice Carson
stated that she had received a letter from Mr. McCullough granting the
Commission an extension to July 15th. She requested that he extend this to
July 19th. Mr.
McCullough agreed and crossed out the July 15th date on the letter,
changed it to July 19th and initialed the
change.
A motion was
made by Brad Pellissier, seconded by Greg Genlot, and unanimously approved by
the Commission to accept the extension of time as granted by the
applicant.
Mr. Strauss
asked for Page 8 of the plans and was told by Mr. McCullough that revisions are
very close to final format in terms of lot layout, septic locations (working
with Steve Jacobs on septic), revised drainage and the changes in the proposed
detention pond which is now planned to be a detention
swale.
Merv Strauss
said that since he is leaving very shortly on a trip, he needs the plans
immediately for review. Mike Mocko,
environmental consultant for the applicant, said that he had addressed comments
from the various staff. The only
issue left to discuss is road width.
Merv Strauss said that a width of 24 feet is
adequate.
Patrice Carson
said that he needed to talk to the Assessor’s Office and the fire chief with
regard to the name of Bridal Path Drive.
House numbers and a final street name were needed.
Patrice Carson
also told the applicant that with regard to the open space issue and his offer
of property off of Stafford Road, regulation says that the land must be located
“near by” the applicant’s property.
Unfortunately, this would not apply in the case of this application. Therefore, it had been the consensus of
the Commission to take a fee in lieu of the land exchange. She would get the appraisal process
started.
Mr. Strauss
asked about the radial lot lines.
He explained to the Commission that the lines were a practical problem
for homeowners when finding where their property lines are. The applicant stated that concrete pins
would be installed at the property lines rather than simple markers as a help in
avoiding neighborly boundary disputes.
Patrice Carson
said that by the July 19th public hearing the 4 or 5 remaining issues
could be addressed.
Mike Mocko said
that he was having a difficult time fitting everything on one page because of
the land layout. Mr. Strauss said
it was necessary for everything to be on one page and that the scale could be
adjusted to 200 if that helped.
Patrice said
that she hadn’t heard from David Askew or Steve Jacobs
yet.
A motion was
made by Brad Pellissier, seconded by Georganne Kuzman, and unanimously approved
by the Commission to schedule the Public Hearing on this application for Monday,
July 19th, beginning at 7:00pm.
c. Subdivision Application #378: 11-Lots, Isabella Drive Extension, KRL
Builders.
Patrice Carson
had received a letter asking to withdraw this application. The applicant also requested that no
refund be given on the application fee but rather be applied to any future
application. The developer was
awaiting the completion of a traffic study on the project.
A motion was
made by Greg Genlot, seconded by Brad Pellissier and unanimously approved that
the Commission accept the withdrawal of the application and that a refund not be
granted of the application fee but rather be held pending a future application
on this lot by the builder.
V.
NEW BUSINESS:
a. Zoning Referral: Special Use Permit Application for
Gravel Bank, Egypt Road, Charter.
The Commission
expressed gratitude for Merv Strauss’s photos. Mr. Strauss said that as of Monday
everything looked fine. All issues
had been corrected.
A motion was
made by Greg Genlot, seconded by Georganne Kuzman, and unanimously approved that
the Commission recommend approval to the Zoning Commission for this
application. It was noted and
strongly recommended that given the number and severity of violations at this
gravel operation, the ZEO regularly visit the banks to ensure
compliance.
b. Zoning Referral: Special Use Permit Applicaton for Gravel
Bank, South Road, Pleasant View Farms Realty.
Mr. Strauss said
that all of the problems had been corrected as of the time of his inspection and
he had taken photos.
A motion was
made by Greg Genlot, seconded by Georganne Kuzman, and unanimously approved that
the Commission recommend approval to the Zoning Commission for this
application. It was noted and
strongly recommended that given the number and severity of violations at this
gravel operation, the ZEO regularly visit the banks to ensure
compliance.
VI.
STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORTS:
Patrice Carson
stated that many letters had been received from Jim Wysocki. The correspondence was answered and
checked with the Town Attorney. Mr.
Wysocki had not been denied access to any files.
She stated that
with regard to Worthington Pond Farm a new A-2 survey had been submitted by the
applicant.
In addition, a
new subdivision on Colton Road is being looked at. David Gould is trying to subdivide 2
lots there.
Merv Strauss had
reviewed Mountain View Estates and will be looking at accepting Miller Drive and
Orchard View Road.
VII. AUDIENCE
PARTICIPATION:
There was
none.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND
BILLS:
Patrice Carson
stated that a letter had been received from the DEP about approval of the DOT’s
plans for utilities and drainage at the intersection of Route 190 and Gulf
Road.
Chairman Karl
Walton had received a letter from Blaine Buck requesting release of bond for
Hillcrest Drive. The Commission
asked to put this item on their next meeting agenda.
No bills were
presented.
IX.
MINUTES APPROVAL:
A motion was
made by Georgeanne Kuzman, seconded by Brad Pellissier, and unanimously voted by
the Commission to approve the minutes of the June 10, 2004 meeting as
written.
X.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was
made by Georgeanne Kuzman, seconded by Greg Genlot and unanimously voted by the
Commission to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 2004 at 10:45
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin A. Timmons,
Recording Secretary