 |
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
TOWN OF GROVELAND
183 MAIN STREET
GROVELAND, MA 01834
(978) 374-1863 FAX (978) 372-6105
March 2, 2005
Present: M. Dempsey, S. Benanti, T. Schaefer, C. McKee
RDA 4 Pandora Drive
Present: Ann Marie Interrante, 4 Pandora Dr.
Meeting opened at 7:18 pm. Submitted two ads she put in the Eagle Tribune. This is Groveland RDA under the local bylaw. She’s got 3 dead trees in her yard that she expects will fall over on the home, the pool or on someone. They are located on the perimeter of where the woods end and the yard begins. She would like to take them down. C. McKee asked what resource area is near there. A. M. Interrante said Argilla Brook. She said they are tall trees, past roof of house. She got an estimate for removal, and was told they were dead and should come down. C. McKee asked how far from the brook approximately. A. M. Interrante said at least 100’. T. Grim, J. Stewart and J. Termini knew about the trees and told S. Benanti that
ConCom should give her a letter right away, that she can cut them right away, and leave stumps. She should have it done before the frost leaves. C. McKee proposes that she hire someone to do the work, advise ConCom when they will do it, and then one ConCom member will go there that day and tell them best way to approach project. M. Dempsey made a motion that ConCom approve the tree removal based on fact that Ann Marie Interrante will call ConCom and observe the site before they will take them down. Claudia requested that she call S. Benanti at least two days before. T. Schaefer 2nd. All in favor. Unanimous. C. McKee said it’s most important that they don’t fall in stream or within 25’ of it. No equipment within 25’. M. Dempsey said he will write her a letter.
ConCom Business
M. Dempsey made a motion to hire Mary Rimmer as the consultant for 784 Salem Street to assist ConCom, particularly on the storm water plans. ConCom hired her to be the consultant on ANRAD for this. S. Benanti 2nd. All in favor. Unanimous.
ConCom Business
M. Dempsey made a motion to accept the minutes from January 24, 2005 as submitted. T. Schaefer 2nd. All in favor. Unanimous.
94 B Main Street - Discussion with Developers on Bond Requirements
Present: Larry Kelly, Savory Woods; Mark Lopez, LLC, Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental
Hearing opened at 7:30 pm. M. Dempsey said they filed under the Groveland NOI last year. ConCom filed positively that they could move forward with conditions. L. Kelly said he was happy with the Orders of Conditions. They didn’t fall under any state guidelines. He said they were surprised at the $20,000. M. Lopez said through the Board of Appeals process, they were granted a waiver from local bylaw. In a spirit of cooperation, they filed through the ConCom. He said he didn’t think they had to be here tonight. But he wanted to continue the spirit of cooperation and say that $20,000 is excessive. He said he’d go for $5,000. M. Dempsey said, rather than discuss whether or not they should be here or not, we should discuss why are we
doing these bonds. That might give him a better idea of where ConCom is coming from. L. Kelly said he’s seen a lot of lousy work. So, he said he agrees with us, and that he didn’t even have to go there. He just thinks $5,000, or something in that area is fine. L. Kelly said you can’t bond conservation like you can road construction because the bonding agencies don’t want to get involved. He asked if has to put of cash, if $5,000 is a realistic number? He said there’s no replication area and no crossing. The works that’s in the buffer is a deck. L. Kelly said he was surprised at the amount, and that the ConCom Board has been very fair to him. M. Dempsey said ConCom has changed over the past few years. ConCom has been in a very situations where we couldn’t take care of a problem and got behind the curve. So, to get ahead of the curve, ConCom has tried to
anticipate any problems before they come up. ConCom has successfully negotiated a good sized bond with Center Place, for instance. Fortunately, ConCom had it in place, then had a problem and had to use money they put aside. ConCom more convinced than ever that we should be doing these bonds or money in escrow. M. Dempsey said the point is it’s difficult to determine what number makes sense. T. Schaefer told him ConCom needs enough to cover ourselves if something happens. M. Dempsey said anything can happen, and the faster that we can respond, the better off the environment is. C. McKee said when ConCom first established the numbers for the bonds, it was depending on type of filing, based on research number of possible failures, different types of things that could go wrong, or some things that a developer said he would do that he left and didn‘t do. Some were catastrophic events, ie a diesel truck
spilling near a resource area, vandalized, or something as small as putting up a sign that said “no salt area” and they didn’t. So, based on those number is what we came up with. $50,000 for NOI and $25,000 for RDA. An NOI tends to be more involved and closer to resource area, and is required for the bond to be larger. An RDA is less complicated and usually has less impact on area.
L. Kelly said Center Place was 7 million project with multiple crossings. His project has no crossing, not in a culvert, not in the buffer zone, just a little bit of the deck, and doesn’t fall under the state. He said this never entered into previous discussions. C. McKee said she feels strongly that we need to be careful. We established $50,000 for NOIs and $25,000 for RDAs, and depending on the project, we could go higher. We set our low threshold at $25,000, and are we going to start making concessions with that number as well? M. Lopez said if the Board is worried about setting a precedent, he can say that they are not even subject to our bylaw. The ZBA granted them a waiver from the bylaw. L. Kelly said they still filed with ConCom. M. Dempsey said he
appreciates that. He said once they’ve filed, they can’t go back and say they didn’t like the decision and decide not to follow it.
Patrick Seekamp said they filed because they were in process with ZBA and it was unclear whether or not they were going to get granted variance. Then through the NOI process, they did get variance through the ZBA. He said they stayed through the process because of ConCom’s concerns. He said at that point they didn’t have to address the buffer zone issues under the bylaw, but they stayed on the table for ConCom‘s input. He thinks $5,000 from his experience is reasonable for a buffer zone project. L. Kelly said they will put up cash and will not get a 2% construction bond. C. McKee said if the cash is up front and there is no bond, we can enter into a discussion.
S. Benanti asked how many houses? L. Kelly said 12; 8 dwellings, one road that’s a cul de sac. One deck in 75’ no build zone. Nothing else within 100’ no build. P. Seekamp said it’s further away than sewer easement. He said it’s an isolated wetland, it’s town jurisdictional, fairly level, gentle slope to the wetland. During construction activities, the proper erosion control will protect the wetland. P. Seekamp said $5,000 is adequate amount to cover follow up, monitoring, etc..
C. McKee said the amount always has to be kept at the $5,000, ie, if use $2,000, they would have to bring it back up to the $5,000 amount. M. Dempsey does not feel $5,000 is adequate. He said it doesn’t matter how project is big. C. McKee said the bills start piling up quickly when something goes wrong. P. Seekamp said that ConCom’s concern is valid, but the potential there is low risk for impact for wetland. He said the construction activities are not the kind that would warrant a large level of concern. C. McKee pointed out that if nothing happens, they get their money back anyway. M. Dempsey said he would feel more comfortable with $10,000. T. Schaefer said he agrees based on what has happened at other places. M. Lopez said $10,000 sounds as arbitrary as
$25,000. M. Lopez said ConCom is trying to plan for possibility not probability. The probability is that nothing is going to happen. He said ConCom never had to spend five cents to look after what he‘s doing. T. Schaefer said we’ve seen good plans, but if people don’t execute on the plans, that’s when things go wrong. Then we have no recourse but to have pool of money to use to rectify the problem. M. Lopez said the point that keeps getting lost here is that they have a waiver from the bylaw. He said he never had to come here. He could have stopped this process right from the beginning. In retrospect, with the attitude ConCom is taking, we probably should have done that. But in spirit of cooperation and keeping a good name in town, we said we‘d follow through with it. This is the thanks that we get. We get what you’re calling an arbitrary number for a bond. T. Schaefer
said he wouldn’t call it totally arbitrary, based on some of the expenses that we’ve had. M. Dempsey said he is willing to agree with $7,500 put in an escrow account, that’s refilled as required. M. Lopez asked if it was an amendment to the Order of Conditions. M. Dempsey said ConCom will issue a letter to him. T. Schaefer made a motion to accept $7,500 to put in an escrow account. S. Benanti 2nd. All in favor. Unanimous. Hearing ended 8:00 pm
97 Rear King Street
Present: Francis Green, 112 King; Gerald Charron, 23 Pinewood Lane; Frederick and Sharon Ryer, 29 Pinewood Lane; Jeanne Sandler, 17 Pinewood Lane; David and Sandra Nalchajian, 21 Pinewood Lane; Theodoros Voulgarir, 19 Pinewood Lane; Joseph M Donlan, 31Pinewood Lane; Lisa V. Mini, 117 King Street; Patti Logan, 118 King Street; Denise Kinel, 118 King Street; Paul C. Cl???; 2 Brierwood Lane; John Scanlon, 2 Brierwood Lane; Thomas Scanlon, 2 Brierwood Lane; Paul Raimondi, 95 King Street; Arthur Candage, 7 Clark Road
Hearing opened at 8:03 pm. M. Dempsey said this is a hearing for an ANRAD which is a wetlands determination under the state rules for 97 R King Street. T. Schaefer has recused himself because he is an abutter. He left the table, and is sitting with the audience. Steve Sawyer with Oak Engineers is representing the filers. M. Dempsey explained to him that we have two problems. Because one member is abutter, we don’t have a quorum, and need one more person to be reviewing this. M. Dempsey gave him the option of ending the hearing right now and continue to another day; or waive an appeal under Mullins rule, meaning the fourth person wouldn‘t have to be here. The applicants are waiving all appeals to ConCom’s decision under the Mullins rule.
Steve Sawyer from Oak Engineering is overseeing this project. Patrick Seekamp, from Seekamp Environmentals went to the site on multiple occasions to flag the wetlands. He submitted the green cards. Patrick Seekamp will talk about wetland line and how he came up with the delineation of it. P. Seekamp said they are here tonight to just get wetland resource boundaries on the site verified. He’s asking ConCom to sign off on the wetland delineation, so Mr. Bowden and the engineer can know where they stand. Seekamp Environmental flagged onsite. It’s an old farm field with some wooded areas, most of the wetlands are wooded swamps. There are some open meadow portions that were part of the hayfields. He said they were on the site 3 or 4 occasions, August,
2004, September, 2004, and November, 2004. They went back to pick up areas missed because they weren‘t sure of where all the property boundaries were. They saw the site in summer, fall and early winter. Familiar with 3 seasons. There are wetlands both offsite and on site. Described flagging, wooded swamps, intermittent stream, and property using map. He said he saw the stream in August of 2004 and it was basically dry. He saw it flowing both September and November. That is interior to wetland. There are also wetlands off of Clark Road. (Used map to show where flagged) Did not flag on neighbors backyard properties because he did not have the permission. He said there was really no reason to flag that side. He brought attention to one area called “B flag line“ which is an area of break-out from the steep slope. It’s an area that historically has broken out there. There’s an old trow, bathtub out there likely used for the cattle to water, to catch springs for water.
That is a small wetland, and has been flagged as a small wetland. He said it is not jurisdictional under State Wetlands Protection Act, because it’s a sloped wetland. He said it’s not big enough to be called isolated land subject to flooding. It’s also under 5,000 square feet in size, so it wouldn‘t be jurisdictional under the town of Groveland’s Wetlands Protection bylaw. It’s basically an area where the water breaks out close to surface. It part of the area that was historically mowed. He’s asking to get wetland line reviewed and approved tonight.
C. McKee asked him to show on the map the property boundary . P. Seekamp showed her on the map. C. McKee asked him to show what was there for resource areas - what are we looking to protect. P. Seekamp said there is BVW throughout the entire portion and a mix of both wet meadow because flagging comes up to the hay field. Flagging leaves tree line breaks out and goes back almost to ditch and back to tree line. Inside the tree line is all wooded swamp, Red Maple, Glossy Buckthorn, Arrowwood in the understory, some American Elm, some White Pine. It’s a secondary growth stand, probably 70-80 years old. A lot of area that’s hay fields that are mowed. C. McKee asked him to point out the 100’ buffer zone on the map. P. Seekamp said a good portion of the site
does occur within the buffer zone. M. Dempsey asked him what happens to the wetland line when it leaves the property on the east or west side. P. Seekamp said it continues straight out on the slope. (Shown on map) C. McKee asked how it was determined that it was an intermittent stream? P. Seekamp said he saw it when it was dry and has photos of when it was dry in August. M. Dempsey asked what is topology of the land? He asked if there is a flow from one end to the other. P. Seekamp said it is generally a saddle. It’s a very steep long slope to up through King Street, cuts across to the top of the hill, so you have a water shed above King Street that comes down. Most of this wetland is fed by ground water breakout because it‘s in the saddle, at the base of a very long slope. (Used map to show flow and slopes)
Abutter: We have a little stream that comes down, there is a pond off King Street. The stream goes under the highway, under the road and feeds right into that.
Abutter: It hasn’t been dry for years.
?: It’s not on the map.
P. Seekamp said it’s probably a littler further out down King St. It’s off property so I didn’t flag it.
Abutter: But it feeds right into that whole area, a flowing stream, all year round. The pond is very full.
M. Dempsey asked her to indicate where she was talking about. Two abutters showed where it flowed. Abutter said she lives next to the pond, it’s very wet and full all the time.
M. Dempsey asked if they’ve ever seen it dry up?
Abutter: No. Never, and we’ve been there 21 years.
M. Dempsey asked if there was anything on the maps indicating that? P. Seekamp said it‘s off the site and he never saw it.
Abutter: If the culvert gets blocked, King St. is washed out.
?Said he can get an aerial photograph and locate that. It sounds like that is a perennial stream. He will get the 200 limit on that.
P. Seekamp showed the stream feature from the town assessors map. Obviously the concern would be a perennial stream has a riverfront area associated with it 200’ from edge of that stream and both directions are regulated by the Conservation Commission. He said anyone living within 200’ , has certain regulations placed on their lots under the Rivers Protection Act because it is a perennial stream. He will take a look at it and said it’s important to establish it’s location with respect to the property.
Abutter: Fred Ryer, 29 Pinewood Lane, said in the back of our homes there is that stream. He said he said never really seen it dry. He said they were told at meeting back in 1998 that there was an underground stream running across Pinewood Lane, and almost under the Franklin’s house. (pointed out on map)
?Said it was the drain from Pinewood Extension. It’s the surface water drain.
Fred Ryer said they were told it was an underground stream. They had to put in a sump pump along with everything else.
?Knows there’s 2 pipes.
Fred Ryer said also 26 Pinewood, and they said there was a stream running through their property feeding this stream in back of us. I’ve never seen it dry. I’ve been there 16 years. He’s on a slope too. It catches a lot of water coming down his hill too. He noticed P. Seekamp flagged almost to his property line - #29. Does buffer zone start there? P. Seekamp said that it establishes the wetland boundaries, the buffer zone and then 100’ up slope. Fred Ryer said the stream goes in, and out, underground, up again, down, and then comes around to the retention pond.
P. Seekamp said it was quite a perplexing area. There’s a lot of ditching and piping there.
Fred Ryer said in spring when the rain runs off, the area in the back of all of the homes on Pinewood Lane gets flooded and it spreads more or less back up the hill.
P. Seekamp said it cut some good size channels. It get’s through there quickly. There are a lot of little finger ditches.
Fred Ryer said in the springtime, there’s a lot of run off. It gets filled and gets spread out both directions.
P. Seekamp said when he was out there, he put a photo station at reasonable spot on site.
Fred Ryer said there‘s a big stand of trees in - deer feeding. He asked Richard what the plan is for the site. Richard replied that it’s all dependent on how the flagging goes. He’s leaning toward conservation zoning. Substantial amount of open space remaining on site. He’s planning on residential building.
Fred Ryer said he a problem with that, because back in 1998 at the meeting, Attorney Cronin said… M. Dempsey asked which meeting this was. Fred said he had the minutes of the meeting: Notice, Wednesday, February 11, 1998 at 7:30 pm, Groveland Zoning Board of Appeals. He said at the last part of meeting, it was proposed stipulations, variance special permit for 128 foot frontage to continue the use of non- conforming lot under Section 106 of Groveland’s zoning bylaws. And that was for Richard’s building a new house. Also on that, it said no further subdivision of the lot, 18.2 acres, Lot 5 shall occur. This variance shall run with the current and future deeds associated with this lot. He said a new single family house will replace the existing single family house that
exists. Fred Ryer said he’s wondering if he’s going to build any dwellings on this lot, is this going to do something to this variance? M. Dempsey said it could, but it’s nothing ConCom knows here. He recommends that he ask the Zoning Board about that.
M. Dempsey said ConCom is going to go out and walk property and look at it. ConCom will have a consultant go too and determine if the line is correct.
Abutter: She said where the dotted lines are at the top, is a very steep hill. If they excavate that, it will change the drainage.
Abutter: Tom Scanlon: He said the hill is virtually wet from drainage all the time. He asked if the running water or drainage from up above King St. impact this or not?
M. Dempsey told him there’s a rule that when building a project, they can’t allow any more runoff that is coming now. They can’t have any more or less.
P. Seekamp said part of the development will be how to drain the property.
Abutter: She said that seems to have been done in the three dry seasons? Will it be done in the spring when it‘s maxed out so we can get an accurate?
P. Seekamp said, yes, surface flow, sheet flow often occurs in wetlands. When he flags wetlands, he looks at wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology characteristics. Sometimes wetlands happen at the top of a slope. In general springtime - I don’t have to be out there. It doesn’t bias my wetland delineation that I flagged it in August. It doesn’t have to be super wet to call it a wetland. Surface water might be one of his parameters. I might not see water, but still call it a wetland. It’s not just standing water.
Abutter: Said he’s lived 12 years on Pinewood Lane. Before they started building the project, it was dry in summer time. As soon as they started building homes, the water never stops being strong every month of the year.
P. Seekamp asked when the were homes built?
Abutter: About 7 or 8 years ago.
Abutter: On the other side, it’s muddy all year long. Instead of building more homes, we might get drown in there.
M. Dempsey said, unfortunately when one house is built at a time, you never get as good a review as a development. No one might have paid attention to storm water runoff issues. This time, it has to pass a storm water management review that is very strict. That mean that no matter what is there now, they can’t increase it.
Abutter: Years ago it was dry, now it’s a swamp.
M. Dempsey will go out in April. M. Dempsey invited the abutters to go to the site walk and show him areas of concern, wet areas, pond, stream, blockage and voice your concerns. C. McKee said ConCom is asking you them come, because they have lived there for many years, if they have any videos or pictures that would help ConCom make their decision where the boundaries are. P. Seekamp said as a point of clarification, the applicant in this process has the right to say “no”. I want only the Commission and it’s agent on the walk. M. Dempsey told him he’s never seen once anyone foolish enough to exclude everybody.
P. Seekamp said it’s hard for him to do his job if he’s answering 12 or 13 questions vs. trying to review it with a professional.
Abutter: Tom Schaefer said, speaking as an abutter, he has been down to the end, but never walked across into what is flagged as wetlands. He said on his property there is breakout. His property is wet ten months out of the year. He’s familiar with the pond down the road. He said he’s never been in backyards. On the other side of King St., there’s a lot of water coming out of that hill.
Abutter: Asked about a well that’s going to river or under ground stream?
P. Seekamp said all wells cap into underground water.
Abutter: I don’t know the rules about how deep did well went? How does that effects wetlands with building?
P. Seekamp is willing to get together with the consultant and review the wetland boundary and get feedback to the ConCom. M. Dempsey schedule site walk for Saturday, April 23rd. Continue the hearing until April 23rd. It will be posted as a hearing. An abutter asked if they were allowed on the site walk. M. Dempsey said it’s up to discretion of owner. 8:30 am Meet at cul-de-sac at 29 Pinewood (end of Pinewood).
M. Dempsey asked him to send check for $2,500 put in escrow account and ConCom will hire a consultant. Hearing closed at 8:56 pm.
Veasey Items
Present: Claire Walsh, Christina Maher, Marty Camp
M. Dempsey said this meeting was to discuss the status of Veasey Park. The VP Management Committee met last night. They meet twice a month. M. Dempsey put together a summary of the last year. He introduced the VP Management Committee. Over the last year, they made a decision to hire an Assistant Caretaker. Marty was promoted to caretaker when Martha left. They decided to hire a Program Manager, Christina, who comes with a lot of experience. Veasey needs to be self sustaining . All these things listed, have been done with no money from the town. The town does pay for its insurance, to be plowed, and cut grass in summer time. Rents, events, weddings, parties, etc., help pay for expenses. All income has been spent on maintaining the building
and fixing things. In the last months, have worked on the purposed of Veasey Park, and currently working on goals for next year. There are a few issues that he wants commission to be aware of.
Management Plan for Property: The management plan was drawn up by Dorna in 1996, it’s outdated and needs to be rewritten and submitted to the state. C. McKee said she spoke to Stacey from Mass. Association of Conservation Commissioners, who told her that if ConCom has a yearly updated management plan, there is actually funding from the state for some of these things. ConCom has to maintain the management plan and show that they’re adhering to it. Some of the grants are not a lot, and some are upwards of $10,000. She feels it’s important to get involved in updating that and it’s important to take advantage of the funding. Marty asked if the money could be used for any purpose? C. McKee said she is not sure what the parameters are. M. Dempsey
suggested taking the current plan and throw it away and start from scratch. C. McKee asked for a copy of the current plan.
Roadway Improvements and Highway Dept. Request - The road has never had work done on it in the 7 years since the town bought it. The road is starting to degrade, the runoff is ruining the road. It needs to be maintained or completely redone. Bob Archalean said he is willing to do work on it if ConCom is willing to designate it as a town road. C. McKee what would be disadvantage of naming it a town road. M. Dempsey said the disadvantage is Bob Archalean would be taking care of it because of his track record with us. We may lose control over what he can do there. C. McKee said as long as we can establish parameters for him. T. Schaefer asked if it was a town road, could people park on the side of the road or do something that wouldn’t be in the best interest?
M. Dempsey said we don’t know, and would have to ask what else it would mean. Christina said it is currently dawn to dusk, so there is a limitation for public access. She said the local police does nightly rounds. Anyone here in the evening needs to register in office, ie the astronomy club. C. McKee said we should find out what the pros and cons are. She will find out if that’s one of the grants they can get. She will call Stacey. M. Dempsey will call Jen Soper and Bob Archalean. He would like to have it a town road if it gets paved within next year. T. Schaefer asked how that would work, because every year, he has to come up in front of the town and ask for money to continue the paving that was supposed to be finished supposedly in 2002.
Lucille’s Cottage Plan - 3,500 sq ft building which used to be a dorm when the church owned the property. It has no electricity, no heat and used to leak until they had a new roof put on this year. Board of Health tear it down, but they thought same about Good Shepherd property. These buildings have historic value. They are among the oldest and most historic still standing in Groveland. They’ve come up with a short-term plan, they’ve put a new roof on it. They’re planning on having a work day to clean it up and removing the mold from the rain that had seeped in. They have a potential donation of electrician to do electrical work, pursuing putting heat in with Keyspan. Marty said it used to be up and running, but the electrical got
disconnected. He said there is water in there now, showers and toilets are in the far end. M. Dempsey said the purpose of this building needs to be decided. Should it be a historic preservation restoration? Maybe we could qualify for some CPA money if they did it that way? Put a Museum there? Fix it up as office space and rent it out? Should it be fixed up as office and residential space and have another staff person come on board? Should we look for a large non profit group to lease it long term? These are things to thinks about. C. McKee asked if any of those things he mentioned be in conflict with the passive recreation? M. Dempsey said he didn’t think so if it was educational or a community-based organization. T. Schaefer suggested a day care or day camp in summer or a theatre camp. M. Dempsey said that is how it is being used now. There’s a day camp that uses it in the
summer time, and also day-school, day care that uses another room in this building.
T. Schaefer said he would rather not see someone living in building, then you lock the building use up. M. Dempsey said use perhaps portion of the building ie a studio or small apartment. C. McKee asked what rooms and what are the rates that are rented out. Christina said she has list, ie the conference room we were in was $50 for 4-6 hrs; $150 for the big hall, or the function room with commercial kitchen off of it. She said she can have eight different groups going on at the same time, plus the outside as well. They use the backyard area for weddings, etc. T. Schaefer asked if we advertise. Christina is working on bylaws for non profit 501C for Veasey, in addition to a web site for advertising. Claire does submissions to locals newspaper. They had a
winter festival which Veasey hosted. C. McKee asked if the seniors are involved? Claire said yes, for the last three years, people have signed up for tax advantage. C. McKee asked about community service for the high school? Christina said the main problem is overseeing and coordinating volunteers? C. McKee asked if they could use middle schoolers and high schoolers? She said if they can use them, it’s simple to organize because the parents oversee and coordinate i.e. paint a room. C. McKee said she is involved with that. It looks good on their resume. She said some of the kids are so talented, they can put a website together. T. Schaefer said they should also pursue the Votech ie, getting a chimney built, and it’s all done to code. Claire said she had someone come out to look at Lucile’s and they didn’t want to get into it because it wasn’t new construction.
The ConCom members then took a tour of Veasey.
M. Dempsey made a motion to close the meeting at 9:55 pm. S. Benanti 2nd. All in favor. Unanimous.
ConCom Business
*note: Center Place will coming in at the next meeting instead of tonight. 784 continued. March 16th at town hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Felch
| |
