MINUTES ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING.

TOWN OF SOMERS

PLANNING COMMISSION

P. O. Box 308

Somers, Connecticut 06071

Special Meeting Minutes

Monday, July 19, 2004; 7:00 p.m.

Town Hall Conference Room

I. PUBLIC HEARING:

a. Continuation: Resubdivision Application #377, 1-Lot, End of Eaglebrook Drive, Chen

Chairman Cliff Bordeaux called the public hearing to order at 7:03 p.m. Town Planner Patrice Carson read the legal notice dated July 1, 2004.

David Palmberg presented a letter from William R. Palmberg & Son, LLC, Land Surveyors, addressed to Karl Walton, Chairman of the Planning Commission, dated July 19, 2004, regarding the subject parcel. The letter stated that it was Mr. Chen's request to remove the parcel identified as "to be conveyed to the town" from the plan previously submitted. On Mr. Chen's behalf the letter requested that the open space requirement be met entirely by fee.

Mr. Palmberg added that Mr. Chen had decided to impose the same restrictions/covenants on this building site as were included with the sale of the other lots in the Eaglebrook Drive subdivision.

Mr. Bordeaux opened the hearing to comments from the public, requesting that information stated at the previous portion of the hearing not be reiterated because of time constraints and in fairness to those in attendance. He asked for comments from those in favor of the applicant first and, hearing none, then requested comments in opposition to the application.

James Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, asked if the open space was being considered now or not and then asked what affect the letter from Mr. Palmberg had on the application.

Mr. Palmberg stated that at the last portion of the public hearing everyone in the audience had spoken and many expressed concerns over the open space portion of the application. When he relayed this information to the applicant, Mr. Chen decided to agree if the Planning Commission decided to meet the open space requirement through a fee in lieu of land. Mr. Palmberg added that he had revised plans ready to submit showing the proposed application without the subject open space land should the Commission decide to consider this option further. Patrice Carson suggested that Mr. Palmberg submit the plans so that the Commission could review them and he did so.

Ken Prior, 364 Mountain Road, asked if Mr. Palmberg 's comments meant there will be no easement across the property. Mr. Bordeaux replied that this was definitely an option which the Commission would take into consideration. Patrice Carson added that the Commission had the right to consider either the fee, the open space land or a partial combination thereof.

Jim Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, stated that Mr. Palmberg's submission was unfair and that he was concerned over this being presented at the public hearing because it interfered with his ability to put forth a good presentation this evening. He then asked Mrs. Carson if she had spoken with Mr. Palmberg regarding this prior to this portion of the hearing and she replied that she had, briefly. Mr. Wysocki stated that she had no right to speak with the applicant outside of the hearing. Mrs. Carson replied that she did have a right to speak with Mr. Palmberg and, in fact, conversations and exchanges of information with applicants, as well as those in opposition to the applications, such as Mr. Wysocki, were often required.

Mr. Wysocki stated that he would make his presentation based on the assumption that the submission of Mr. Palmberg's letter and revised plans had never happened.

While Mr. Wysocki was re-situating his items for presentation, Mr. Bordeaux suggested that others from the audience wishing to speak come forward.

Mike Astone, 51 Eaglebrook Drive, stated that he was not against the private development of the lot, but was against the open space portion of the application.

Glen Toner, 32 Eaglebrook Drive, said that he had no problem with the construction of a house on the lot. However he did have a problem with the access to trails off of Eaglebrook Drive. He suggested that the Commission take property off of the back end of the parcel, with no abutment to the road.

Jim Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, asked Patrice Carson if the application complied with all Zoning Regulations. She replied that to the best of her knowledge it did.

Mr. Wysocki then stated that adequate notice of the public hearing was not made to all of the neighbors as required by regulation. He said that he had not been notified.

David Palmberg stated that this was a continuation of the public hearing and that it had been re-advertised and notice was given only as a courtesy to everyone involved because there had been concern over notification not adequately being given to all the neighbors for the first portion of the hearing. For fairness sake, he had once again sent notification, being sure to include Mr. and Mrs. Lockwood, who did not receive notice previously.

Patrice Carson stated that she had the white slips from Mr. Palmberg, serving as proof notification occurred. She added that such documentation was adequate for fulfilling the spirit and letter of the regulation. The slips included date of mailing and allowed for an adequate time frame for the receipt of the notice.

Jim Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, presented a letter he had received from the postmaster in response to a request he made regarding the correct format and procedure for certified mail, return receipt requested. He stated that the letter showed that the white slip was not adequate, but that a green return receipt was necessary as well. He stated that because procedure was not, in his opinion, followed correctly, the public hearing was illegal and should be ended.

Patrice Carson responded that the applicant was not required to determine whether or not the recipient was available to receive his or her mail. The Subdivision Regulations require that the applicant submit copies of all “returned” receipts to the Commission, but there is certainly no assurance that all would be received and accepted. The applicant surely cannot be held responsible for the addressee's receipt of his or her mail.

Brad Pellissier stated that this is technically not the correct forum for discussing procedure. He added that problems with process should be addressed in district court, should such a discussion be deemed necessary.

Jim Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, stated that notification was not sent to his current mailing address of 62 Eaglebrook Drive. He again stated that the hearing should not be held, adding that the applicant should have to resubmit his application.

Mr. Palmberg presented a copy of an assessor's card for Mr. Wysocki’s property showing the mailing address of Jobs Hill Road for Mr. Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki presented a copy of an assessor's card for his property showing his mailing address to be 62 Eaglebrook Drive and stated that this was the more current card.

Mr. Wysocki began reading from his notes regarding previously recorded information and was reminded by Mr. Bordeaux that presenting such information again was reiterating what the Commission had knowledge of already. Mr. Bordeaux asked that Mr. Wysocki confine his remarks to new information regarding the application. Mr. Wysocki stated that he wished to review this information for the record in an effort to show how individuals had changed their minds "back and forth" regarding the application.

Bob Minch, 26 Bridal Path Drive, requested that the discussion be tabled until the end of the public hearing so that others could address their issues with the Commission in a timely manner. He stated that Mr. Wysocki had been given in excess of 40 minutes in which to present his points, and if he required more time, he should be held in abeyance until others had completed their business with the Commission.

Cliff Bordeaux said that Mr. Wysocki needed to continue as a point of order, but that he should restrict his comments to 15 more minutes. Mr. Wysocki stated that he could not possibly do that and Mr. Bordeaux offered that he provide the Commission his statements in writing or offer a bullet listing of his important points. Mr. Wysocki stated that he had written a letter to Chairman Karl Walton prior to this section of the public hearing requesting that he be able to make his presentation without any time limit.

Ed Wysocki, 337 Jobs Hill Road, Ellington, asked that the Commission be aware of the lawsuit being formulated against the town and keep that in consideration when hearing his son, Jim Wysocki's, presentation.

Jim Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, began reading from a packet of letters on record with the town regarding the application, as well as letters he had received and minutes of previous Zoning Commission and Planning Commission meetings. He also made reference to a video made of the first portion of the public hearing, stating that he would like to show portions as part of his presentation in order to clarify certain points.

Cliff Bordeaux reminded him that he needed to confine his remarks to new information regarding the application and asked if Mr. Wysocki had any new, succinct points that he wished to add to the record as part of this hearing.

Mr. Wysocki asked that if it was true that the cul-de-sac is already owned by the town, then why was an open space fee being taken with regard to the application. He said that Mrs. Carson had referred to the cul-de-sac as "pre-existing" and already owned by the town. Also, by following the same logic, that because of his having an easement on property included in the application's open space portion of land, he can say that he owns the land as a pre-existing condition as well.

Mr. Wysocki read from letters and portions of previous town meeting minutes again, making reference to documents dating back to 1999 which he felt supported his statements, citing dates and authors for each as he read.

David Palmberg stated that Mr. Wysocki was reading the record back to the record and requested that the Chairman, in the interest of time, please close the public hearing and allow the Commission members to vote on the application before them.

Elaine Hayes, 176 County Road, stated that she had begun speaking at the first portion of the public hearing but had been "cut off". She stated that she requested several things from the town that had not yet been provided to her. She had set forth her opinions in the past, but was ignored by the Commission, and Mr. Wysocki was being treated similarly.

Jim Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, said that the driveway ordinance had not been followed. A condition should be put on the plan saying that once the commitment is made to move forward with the paper road, the driveway should be moved in conjunction with the 75-foot ordinance.

David Palmberg stated that he agreed with Mr. Wysocki's point. He added that he had submitted new catch basin information.

Patrice Carson stated that the applicant's notices were sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and she showed the forms used, stating that the usual method was to place the white form on the front of the envelope and the green card on the back. The applicant submitted all the white paper receipts to the Commission after mailing, as well as the green return receipts which had been returned to him. The records show that the notices were sent in a timely fashion and the requirement of notifying the neighbors was met. The public hearing is being continued within the 35-day time limit and was a legal public hearing. The Commission does not have the tapes of public hearings transcribed unless a legal action is commenced and the court requires them.

She also stated that the plans show the cul-de-sac to be in place and as being owned by the applicant. It is currently maintained by the town and the applicant is offering to convey the land to the town. She wanted it known that she had not suggested that the town already owned the cul-de-sac property, as stated by Mr. Wysocki. Patrice Carson also stated that there has been no open space fee or land taken previously for this subdivision as evidenced by no open space fees paid to the town as the land closings happened and houses were built, and no land shown on the approved subdivision plan as dedicated open space, and this parcel owned by Chen was left out of the original subdivision plan. Also, the building inspector does not review drainage or electrical plans until the lot is approved.

Merv Strauss stated that the Commission should consider the comment regarding the driveway and then read his letter dated July 18, 2004, in which he stated that he had reviewed the drainage and wetland plans from George Hicks and found them sufficient and feasible for approval. He had spoken with Mr. Hicks today regarding the letter from Pinecrest Environmental Services basically saying that a watershed study should be done. Mr. Strauss agrees that such a study should be completed and added that it is unlikely in his opinion that water from this single lot would have any impact on the stream.

Jim Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, stated that the map issue and the length of the street were not the only issues of concern. The applicant is only allowed to have 14 lots on the cul-de-sac.

There being no further comments from the public, a motion was made by Brad Pellissier, seconded by Georgeanne Kuzman, and unanimously approved to close the public hearing with regard to this application.

The Commission took a short recess beginning at 8:30 p.m. and reconvening at 8:38 p.m.

b. Subdivision Application #376, 5-Lots, Hall Hill Road (Bridle Path Ridge), Richard A. McCullough, Inc. Builders

Richard McCullough and Mike Mocko, environmental consultant for the applicant, presented the revised plans. Mr. Mocko described the application as being a 5-lot subdivision extending Bridle Path Road. Four of the lots will access directly onto Bridle Path and one, the largest of approximately 58 acres in size, will have a driveway connecting onto Hall Hill Road. The 4 remaining lots all range in size from 2 acres to approximately 3.5 acres.

He stated that the Conservation Commission has agreed that the roadways and construction areas avoid all of the wetlands in the area. As a condition of approval, it was requested that supervision be provided during construction in order to insure that the wetland areas were protected. In addition, he had been working with town staff regarding a few minor changes. Revisions to the plans presented this evening were done with respect to the latest set of comments received from them.

Patrice Carson said that the applicant had provided her with certified mail receipts from notices of the public hearing and she had checked them against town records and found that everyone required to be notified had been in accordance with regulation. She added that she had not yet received any comments regarding open space nor anything regarding street numbers.

Mr. Mocko replied that street numbers had been taken care of and were shown on the plans.

Mrs. Carson said that she received a letter of July 12 from Steve Jacobs containing his concerns regarding the application. Mr. Mocko said that he had taken care of those issues and Mr. Jacobs is currently satisfied, but has not as yet sent a letter regarding his approval to the town. The Conservation Commission issued their permit on July 7, 2004.

Town Engineer Merv Strauss said that his concerns included mostly housekeeping items as well as the line of site onto Valley View Road. The traffic engineer is still looking into this issue. The bond amount is also missing, along with drainage computations. With regard to road width, Mr. Strauss said that it was originally requested at 28 feet, but now it has been decided that this is not necessary. Subdivision Regulations allow that the width may be as low as 22 feet, but Mr. Mocko had suggested 24 feet. Mr. Strauss stated that 22 feet was fine. He is also concerned with the shrubs on the Liquory property as they do interfere with the line of site for motorists.

Michael Collins asked if Lot 4 would have a Hall Hill Road address and Mr. Mocko replied that it would.

Anthony Liquory, of 20 Valley View Drive, stated that the pines are on his property line and the root system goes beyond that line. He was concerned that if the root systems are damaged, the trees will be hurt as well. He said he understood the need to address them, but they do provide privacy for his lot.

Mr. Mocko suggested that the trees could be relocated or replaced if necessary. He added that any report made on the impact of construction to the trees would not be definitive regardless of how qualified the person making the report would be. Actual impact on the trees simply could not be predicted. Starting with a planting of new, smaller trees might be a sure way to secure success in the long run. He added that the trees are white pines which are known to be adaptable, but the roots will probably be sliced on one side which will create an imbalance to the root system lasting about 5 years. He offered to meet with Mr. Liquory on the site to discuss the issue further.

Mr. Liquory added that his in ground pool is close to the property line and for privacy reasons wondered how close the new home would be. Mr. Mocko said that there would be an approximate distance of 130 feet from the home to his pool. The distance of the home to the property line would be approximately 120 feet.

Mr. Liquory asked if the electricity in the new subdivision would be underground. When Mr. Mocko responded that it would, Mr. Liquory asked if they could also discuss the possibility of connecting his home to the system when Mr. Mocko visited his home site. Mr. Mocko said that he would be willing to discuss this further with him as well.

Mr Liquory asked if the home location was pretty much locked in and Mr. Mocko responded that there was still some flexibility but that the septic system position was predetermined according to soil test results and topography, and this would effect the home location as well.

Bob Minch, 26 Bridle Path Drive, said that he was also interested in the underground electrical system hookup. He asked about the construction involved and how far from the property line the first house would be. Mr. Mocko answered approximately 90 feet. Mr. Minch asked if there was any leeway in the placement of the transfer pad and Mike Mocko said there was.

Steve Rice, 623 Hall Hill Road, said that he had thought the subdivision was for 6 lots initially. Mike Mocko confirmed that the plan had been decreased by one lot. Mr. Rice then said that the frontage requirements were 175 feet, which was not included with Lot 4, and a variance would be required.

Patrice Carson said that a variance had been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically for frontage on Lot 4. Mr. Mocko added that there was an 800 to 900 foot buffer zone to Wright's Brook, which would not create any hardship hydrologically. Mr. Rice said that this was a cause of concern for him because of the water flow through the back of his property. He asked Mr. Mocko to guarantee that there would be no water flowing into his basement. Mr. Mocko said that Mr. Rice's property was upstream of the construction area. Topographically, the flowage was shown to be to the south of the Rice property.

Mr. Rice asked how many acres would be developed on the site. Mr. Mocko replied that approximately 5 acres would be developed. Mr. Rice inquired as to whether or not any discussion had been held with the Conservation Commission regarding the acceptable lawn sizes for each lot. He had also noticed that the lot crossed over into the wetlands and asked if the Conservation Commission was aware of this.

Mr. Rice again expressed concern over the flow of water and asked if the development would affect it. Mike Mocko assured him that development would not affect the runoff into Wright's Brook. He said that the drainage would only be affected on the 5 acres and that the majority of the acreage would not be touched. He added that features such as the infiltration swales will have a positive affect on drainage as well. He added that he would be willing to stop by and to review any possible effects to Mr. Rice's lot specifically.

Mr. Strauss asked Mr. Rice how his basement was currently protected from groundwater and Mr. Rice said that the home was built in 1810. Merv Strauss cautioned that they would only be able to provide their best judgment and that changes could occur as the result of other things such as climate.

Mr. Rice also asked that since the variance had been given for the frontage, he wondered if he and his neighbor agreed, would it be possible to subdivide in the future.

John DeAlba, 573 Hall Hill Road, came forward to look at the plan to see if there would be any impact on his lot. He determined that there would not be.

Bob Minch, 26 Bridle Path Drive, asked what the approximate time schedule was for construction. Mr. McCullough replied that he hoped soon, possibly this summer.

A motion was made by Brad Pellissier, seconded by Georgeanne Kuzman, and unanimously approved to continue the public hearing on this application to the Thursday, August 5, 2004 Planning meeting, beginning at 7:00pm.

II. CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Cliff Bordeaux called the special meeting to order. Members present were: Cliff Bordeaux, Michael Collins, Michelle Hayward and Brad Pellissier, and Alternates Greg Genlot (seated for Karl Walton) and Georgeanne Kuzman. Also in attendance were Patrice Carson, Town Planner, and Merv Strauss, Town Consulting Engineer.

A motion was made by Georgeanne Kuzman, seconded by Brad Pellissier and unanimously approved to take New Business items in which audience members were in attendance first, then return to Old Business items before finishing with New Business Items.

IV. NEW BUSINESS:

c. Release of Performance Bond/Acceptance of Maintenance Bond & Road, Work Performed in Hillcrest Subdivision, Buck Builders LLC

Patrice Carson stated that the Hillcrest subdivision construction is complete and Merv Strauss visited the site with Everett Morrill and confirmed the driveways, lawns and roadwork were complete. Staff recommended that the bond be released.

A motion was made by Michelle Hayward, seconded by Michael Collins and unanimously voted to approve the release of Buck Builders LLC's performance bond of $10,000.00 for the site improvement work required and completed in conjunction with the 3-lot subdivision on Hillcrest Drive in the Hillcrest Subdivision, in accordance with recommendations from the Town Engineer and Public Works Department.

e. Subdivision Application #379, 1-Lot, 240 Four Bridges Road, Raina

Mr. Raina said that with regard to his 1-lot subdivision and the open space issue, he doesn't want to give up the acreage and would like to pay the fee instead. No revisions had been made to his plan. All staff have made comments to be addressed on the plans.

Patrice Carson said that the town staff recommended the fee as well. She said that with regard to holding a public hearing, the Commission typically holds them on subdivision of five-lots or more. It was the consensus of Commission members that a hearing was not necessary.

Dennis Brenner, Real Estate Agent with D.W. Fish, stated that getting the plans had been very difficult and asked if there was some way the town could take a bond in exchange for approval. It was determined that the open space appraisal will take until the next meeting because plans were not yet received.

Karen Raina asked how notification was given to the neighbors and Patrice Carson told her that it was done by the applicant. She also asked about the fee for open space. Patrice Carson explained that it is based on 10 percent of the appraised value and was payable upon closing. She also stated that if the engineer could get the changes made to the plans, the notifications could be done for the next meeting.

At this point, the Commission returned to Old Business.

III. OLD BUSINESS:

a. Discussion/Possible Decision: Resubdivision Application #377, 1-Lot, End of Eaglebrook Drive, Chen

Michelle Hayward recused herself from this issue since she had not been at the first public hearing and Georgeanne Kuzman was seated for her.

When asked by Chairman Cliff Bordeaux about the time limits for making a decision on this matter, Patrice Carson said that they had 65 days from the end of the public hearing, with the clock starting this evening. She also distributed the revised plans, showing the application with no open space provision.

Merv Strauss said that considering the application without the open space strip, all of his concerns had been addressed. He was satisfied that the water will be contained on the driveway and will flow into an area that will take care of it in full. The home will be placed on the plateau portion of the lot and water will flow into a drainage system. There should be no connection to Mr. Wysocki's easement. If open space is taken, then rights that are below the system will remain the same. Wiring and telephone will be taken care of during the building permit phase. The catch basins have been moved and added to several times ensuring there will be nothing flowing from the driveway into the street. There could be a few housekeeping items.

It was decided to take a short break from the meeting at 10:10 so that Mr. Strauss could review the plans to ensure that all his check list items had been satisfied. The meeting reconvened at 10:15 and Mr. Strauss stated that all of the conditions had been met and he recommended a $10,000.00 bond. Items still to be considered were the open space issue and the driveway.

It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the fee in lieu of open space. The appraisal fee of $90,000.00 determined an open space fee of $9,000.00. It was also the consensus that a note be placed on the plans to require the driveway be moved at least 75 feet from the intersection should the paper street be continued into the Cook property.

Mr. Collins asked if the trail system would be negatively impacted by taking the open space fee. Mr. Pellissier said that there are many other accesses to the trails and the neighborhood is deeply opposed to the open space idea.

Patrice Carson added that in this situation, a subdivision had already been established and people had purchased homes without the trail access in place.

A motion was made by Brad Pellissier, seconded by Georgeanne Kuzman and unanimously voted to approve Chen's 1-lot resubdivision, application #377, in accordance with the plans known as "One Lot Resubdivision Prepared For Derrick Chen, Somers, Connecticut", dated: 12/10/03, 05-19-04, and 5-26-04, Revised: through 6-28-04, 7 sheets, which is conditional on the following:

1. A note shall be placed on the plans:

"The filing of a $9,000.00 fee in lieu of open space is required to be paid to the Town of Somers upon the sale or transfer of this lot (lot #61)."

The Town of Somers shall also place a notice on the land records to insure payment.

2. The $300.00 fee for the appraisal for open space shall be paid in full and proof of payment shall be submitted to the planning office.

3. A copy of the transfer of the lot shall be filed by the applicant with the Planning Office.

4. All appropriate seals and signatures of the design professionals and Soil Scientist for this plan shall be on the plans.

5. The signatures of the Town Engineer and Town Sanitarian be on the plans signifying their approval of the plans in accordance with Section 213-19 of the Subdivision Regulations.

6. Within 45 days of this approval all iron pins and monuments be set and certified in accordance with the plans or a $10,000 bond be received by the Town in accordance with Section 213-54.c. of the Subdivision Regulations.

7. The Commission waives the requirement in Section 213-11.A.(2) of the Subdivision Regulations which requires the plan to be at a 1"=40' scale map to allow the plan to be shown at 1"=60'.

8. A note shall be added to the plans: "If and when the paper street between the proposed lot and land now or formerly of Michael S. and Cynthia Astone is improved and extended, the driveway will be relocated, at the then current owner's expense, onto the new road in accordance with the then current driveway ordinance.

The Planning Commission finds with these conditions the plan meets the requirements of the Somers Subdivision Regulations.

b. Discussion/Possible Decision: Subdivision Application #376, 5-Lots Hall Hill Road (Bridle Path Ridge) Richard A. McCullough, Inc. Builders

A decision on this was deferred until after the conclusion of the public hearing.

IV. NEW BUSINESS (Continued):

Michelle Hayward resumed her seat at the Commission table.

a. Release of Performance Bond/Acceptance of Maintenance Bond and Road, Miller Road & Orchard View Drive, Mountain View Estates Subdivision, Gingras

A motion was made by Michelle Hayward, seconded by Michael Collins, and unanimously voted by the Commission to approve the release of Robert D. Gingras' performance bond of $104,550.00, and acceptance of a maintenance bond in the amount of $94,095.00, and the acceptance of Miller Drive and Orchard View, the roads in the Subdivision known as "Mountain View Estates", and recommend the same to the Board of Selectmen for their approval and Town Meeting, in accordance with the recommendations of the Town Attorney, Town Engineer and Public Works Department that all work in the subdivision has been completed according to plan. This release is contingent upon the presentation of a maintenance bond in the amount of $94,095.00 in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney.

b. Release of Performance Bond/Acceptance of Maintenance Bond & Road, Partridge Run & Haystack Land, Partridge Run Subdivision, Roulier

Patrice Carson reminded the Commission that they had already released this bond and that it was not an issue for this meeting.

d. Subdivision Application #379, 4-Lots, 47 Stafford Road, Kane

Patrice Carson explained that most of the property in this subdivision is located in Massachusetts, but that 9.62 acres are situated in Somers. She said the property is located at the westerly end of Stafford Road and there are open space issues involved. Staff will be sending review comments to the applicant.

V. STAFF/COMMISSION REPORTS:

Patrice Carson said that she had been helping Mr. Raina with his application and working on the McCullough application. She also said that there is a new 2-lot subdivision being considered for Colton Road. She had also submitted the quarterly DEP report to Ed Sullivan.

VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND BILLS:

None were presented.

VII. ADJOURNMENT:

A motion was made by Brad Pellissier, seconded by Michelle Hayward and unanimously approved to adjourn the July 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting at 10:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Robin A. Timmons,

Recording Secretary

MINUTES ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING.