Minutes
of March 20, 2007
Present were: Acting Chair
Upon motion duly made and seconded
the Board voted by roll call to return to regular session – voting:
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Diane &
Clerk,
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the
Request for Waiver of Site Plan with the condition that she will be limited to
1,200 square feet at this location.
Further, this approval is not final until after the expiration of the
appeal period of the Special Permit granted on this property. After April 5, 2007, Ms. Gomes may apply for
the proper permits to begin the renovations for her new place of business. Ms. Richards said with respect to the signage
the applicant needs to be informed that they need to submit a formal application
for each sign and that the Board will take it up at another time.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review and Signage – Forrest Insurance,
Clerk,
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the
waiver of site plan.
The Board reviewed the signage
presented for Forrest Insurance and upon motion duly made and seconded,
unanimously (3-0) approve the signage subject to the square footage being
verified by the Building Inspector.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review –
Clerk,
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the
Waiver of Site Plan review with the understanding that no parking spaces will
be lost and/or compromised and that the addition of the cooler/freezer will not
extend any further back than existing stairs and fencing located at this
address.
Public Hearing – Great Woods
Phase XI Definitive Subdivision –
At 6:30 p.m., Acting Chair,
the Board members. Clerk,
Attorney Jim Martin present on behalf of the owner Sivad
Nominee Trust with the plans submitted by Dan Roulier. He said that the project is a 19 lot subdivision
in Great Woods, Phase XI that will
complete
Ms. Richards addressed the Board for any questions.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked what is the line that is going through the
lots? Attorney Martin said that is to
show the zone change from A to AA.
Ms.
Richards addressed the audience for any questions. There being none and upon motion duly made
and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to close the hearing. With no need for further discussion, and upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (4-0) to approve the subdivision
definitive plan for Phase XI subject to the reports from Police, Fire and DPW.
Attorney
Martin said he will work with Ms. Macdonald to provide the appropriate bond
prior to the endorsement of the plan.
Public Hearing –
At 7:00 p.m., Acting Chair,
the Board members. Clerk,
Dr. Costa said as they mentioned
the last time they where in front of the Board that they were contemplating a
revision on the Mapleshade project and, as promised, they have brought it back
before the Board. He then introduced
John Strandberg, Architect for the project who would explain the revision.
Mr. Strandberg presented the
revised floor plan of the Mapleshade School and said the original scheme showed
4 classrooms (pointed out the location on the plan) which involved a lot of
work with utility, drainage, sewer, etc.
He said after the bids where received they negotiated with the
contractor to relocate the addition and get a small credit from the contractor
and they went back to their original concept which was to provide the 4
classrooms along the single loaded existing corridor on the other side of the
school. He said as suggested in during
the review they did included a second means of egress so that each classroom
exits directly onto this main corridor.
He said also a second means of egress out of each end classroom to a
door and a new walkway that connects with an existing walkway as been added. Mr. Strandberg said that it saves quite a bit
of site work and they will be connecting into the existing drainage that goes
under the existing school and, as suggested, a light will be added at the back
of the school with a light by the new exit doors.
Ms. Richards asked aside from the
relocation of the modulars everything else is the same? Mr. Standberg said everything is the same and
the playground area is not being disturbed or the flow for access.
Dr. Costa said that this was their
initial plan and the estimates were too high so they went to the free standing
proposal, then once they awarded the bid the contractor said that they could
actually save us money by doing the first proposal.
Ms. Richards asked the Board for
any questions, there being none addressed the audience for any questions.
Heather Eager, 131 Elm Street said that she was concerned with the drainage and wanted
to make sure that there wasn’t going to be anymore drainage problems.
Mr. Strandberg said that there
should not be because there is a drainage swale in the area and there is a
brook that runs under the site which is in a pipe. He asked her if she has water backing up at
that location? Ms. Eager said they get a
lot of surface water in their yard and as do the three houses over from her.
Ms. Richards asked if it was safe
to say that situation will not change but you won’t be adding to it? Dr. Costa said he doesn’t think the situation
will change and it sounds like some additional drainage work has to be done by
the homeowners.
With no further discussion and
upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to close
the hearing. Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board unanimously (4-0).
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review and Temporary Signage – United Bank,
Mr.
Anderson abstained from voting due to a possible conflict of interest.
Ms.
Richards said that the Board actually started to discuss their request for
waiver thinking they could move it along but the Board does have some
questions. She asked if they had a floor
plan? Mr. Keavney said yes that they had
one. Ms. Richards said one of the
questions that came up was the square footage of the Bank. Mr. Keavney said that it was 2,411 square feet. Ms. Richards asked if the ATM machine was shown
on the plan? Mr. Przybylowicz said that would be the drive up ATM and then the
other 2 islands will service as the drive up teller. Mr. Keavney said yes and those were on the
site plan.
Mr.
Morrissette asked if they were three lanes?
Mr. Keavney said yes everything is the same. Mr. Morrissette said, so everything on the
outside footprint is the same as the approved plan? Mr. Keavney said everything is the same as in
the original plan that was submitted and approved.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked how many employees will they have? Mr. Keavney said 6 employees.
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the
Waiver of Site Plan.
The applicant then requested a temporary
construction sign on the property. Ms.
Richards asked how long will the temporary sign be up? Mr. Keavney said they are hoping for a very
short period of time because they are looking to occupy the building in the
fall so he thinks about 6 months to 8 months.
The Board reviewed request for
signage, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (3-0) to
approve the temporary signage as presented,
measuring 30 square feet to be erected during construction and
immediately removed upon completion of the building, as set forth in section
5.826 paragraph b. of the East Longmeadow Zoning By-laws and upon applying and
obtaining a building/sign permit from the Building Inspector for the Town.
Mr. Keavney came back into the
meeting and said he was looking to change the site plan and the Board told him
that he would have to file an amendment to the site plan and he asked what the procedure
was. Mr. Anderson said they would have
to send all the changes to all of the people in the round table? Mr. Morrissette said that they would have to
have another hearing to amend the site plan.
Mr. Henshaw asked if there would be
any way to expedite the process of the round table given the small amount of
change? Ms. Macdonald said as you know she has to get hold of everybody and she
is not in control of their schedules.
Mr. Morrissette said once their
decision is made on what the revisions will be, they need to get the plans to
Ms. Macdonald.
Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Macdonald
if she could put a formal request in the following morning? Ms. Macdonald said not until she has a plan
because the department heads need to see the plan a week before the meeting in
order for them to review it and she said what ever their schedules are, she
can’t say.
Mr. Morrissette said the hearing
has to be advertised for 2 weeks and then hold the public hearing.
Ms. Macdonald said that she could
do it as fast as she can which she did before but she needs the plan with the
applications and she needs to schedule with 5 other departments.
Mr. Keavney asked if the round table were scheduled on a per
project basis? Ms. Macdonald said
yes. He asked if they did multiple
projects in a day? Ms. Macdonald said
sometimes if she has multiple projects at one time.
Ms. Macdonald said now is probably
a good time because most everyone is around right now and the sooner she gets
the plans in, they could figure about a month.
Mr. Henshaw asked so it’s
technically an amendment to the site plan which either gets approved or not
approved. He asked if there was anything
that prevents them pulling a building permit?
Ms. Macdonald said that they can’t
pull one on a new plan because they have to give the building inspector their
plans showing him what they are doing. Mr.
Henshaw asked if they could show him the plan that they are going to request to
have approved? Ms. Macdonald said no not
if it’s not approved by the Planning Board – the building permit would go with
the approved plan.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if they gave him the old plan. Ms. Macdonald said they can’t get a building
permit for a plan they are not doing. Mr. Przybylowicz said a lot of times
plans are submitted, he’s not just saying here, he’s saying other communities,
other states, where something effects the overall building design and sometimes
it’s even on site plan. He said where
they may come across some ledge where they have to alter the building plans and
they don’t stop construction they just file an amended plan because the
building doesn’t go up to all the sites all in one day. He said that it takes time to build a
building especially if something is as large as this one - they are going to be
starting at one corner and by the time get to other corner of the building they
could already have amended their plan.
Mr.
Morrissette said first is that the foundation will be dug. Mr. Przybylowicz said but they don’t pour it
all at once, they pour it in sections.
He said any big box like Wal-Mart or Lowe’s it takes them months to pour
foundations that large.
Mr. Henshaw
said that they altered plans all the time when they are actually building them. Mr. Keavney asked what if they put the
foundation in and Smith goes out there and measures it and the foundation is
what it is?
Mr.
Morrissette said they would be playing with fire but it would be up to them. Ms. Macdonald said that the plan would have
to be changed and the temporary Building Inspector would not give a building
permit if their plan is not approved by the planning Board. She said anyone else that makes a change to a
plan has to come before the Board and amend their plans.
Mr. Henshaw
said that he understands that they are just doing their job but it has been a
very long process that he feels that have been pretty patient as they have gone
through it. He said if there is a way,
he understands that there is a rule but if you think they are asking he doesn’t
think it’s anything that they do not do all of time which is build less than
what’s actually is approved, he thinks it’s a problem to build more than what’s
approved. He said but building less than
what’s approved and just in the context of almost going on 10 months of
permitting, he thinks have actually been hopefully pretty good to deal with and
want to continue to have a good relationship with the Board.
He said
thinking about that it would take another 2 months. Ms. Macdonald said no that it’s not 2
months. He said but they have been
through it and that’s how long it took and it’s taken 10 months thus far and he
is not being critical of anybody so misunderstand what he is saying but the
facts are the facts. He said that they
started in May or June and now it’s March - he is not being critical but he is
just saying that it has been a cumbersome process.
Mr.
Morrissette said that the Board understands his point that it’s a couple
hundred square feet and you’re making it smaller, the Board understands all of
that but the Board’s responsibility is to do what the Town of East Longmeadow
‘s by-laws say what they have to do. He
said the Board can’t make exceptions to that even though we would love to.
Mr. Henshaw
said that he doesn’t think they would have a problem coming back and amending the
plan. Mr. Morrissette said that he
understood that they are frustrated with the length of time and the process.
Mr. Henshaw said they would be
happy to go through the process of amending the plan – it is very cumbersome to
them saying that we can’t do anything until we amend the plan, that becomes
very cumbersome to them.
Mr. Morrissette said that was just
like the people who are trying to get out of the property they have now, the
hairdresser. He said that she could not
go into the new place that she wanted go into and start putting in her sinks
and everything else until the 20 day appeal period and the site plan for the
building itself is approved. He said so
they share the same problem so he doesn’t know how they could say yes to them
and no to her.
Mr. Henshaw said so they do have
an approved plan? Mr. Morrissette said
yes they do and if they want to build that plan you go ahead and build it. Mr. Henshaw said if they say they were willing
to build this plan they want to proceed with the plan, worst case scenario they’ll build the plan if
they can’t have an approved amended plan, is that anything that’s going to
cause a problem?
Ms. Richards asked if he was
fearful that the Board won’t approve it?
Mr. Henshaw said that he wasn’t
at all fearful that the Board isn’t’ going to approve but what he is trying to
say is to sit there at a steady stage, lets say for another 6 weeks, to go
through the process again for something that he would guess that most people
would say that it’s a no brainer we don’t need to spend a lot of time talking
about chopping the back off the building.
He said that does become a cumbersome process to them and he thinks if
they said that they have a building plan now that we are willing to build we’d
like to pull a building permit based on this plan, concurrently they’d like to
come back and say they want to amend the plan.
He said that they do that at their own risk, if we can’t get it approved
we won’t build this, in the mean time while we’re doing this - we want to come
back and amend it. He asked if that
seemed like anything that would cause any trouble?
Mr. Anderson said if you pull a
permit on the original plan it still has to be signed for an occupancy permit and
if you build anything off of that it you’re doing at your own risk and as long
as you understand that you won’t get your occupancy permit until that particular
plan is done, until pending approval if you build anything short of that.
Mr. Morrissette said he would be
surprised if he goes out to the site and he’s looking at your foundation to
approve it and he sees that it’s not the same plan, maybe he will maybe we
won’t, maybe he won’t even notice it because it’s such a small change.
Mr. Henshaw said that they don’t
have a problem with him noticing it but in the mean time if we say that we are
going to proceed with this plan subject to knowing that we are coming back for
an amendment, if we can’t get an amendment approved then we will build this
plan and come back for an amendment - hopefully we can get back in front of you
fairly soon. Mr. Anderson said as long
as you know you are rolling the dice on it but you won’t get your permit until
that plan is shown as-built to the plan. Mr. Henshaw said that it’s been a long process
for them and he doesn’t want to sound like he is complaining about that he just
saying the facts are the facts it has been sort of a long process and he is not
blaming anybody for that and he thinks they’ve all been great to work with and
Ms. Macdonald has been definitely good to work with but just in the interest of trying to move it along we may try
to do a dual track thing that hopefully works well for everybody.
Public Hearing Zoning By-law
Amendment – Accessory structures
At 7:30 p.m. Acting Chair,
Acting Chair, Ms. Richards
addressed the Board for any questions and said there was some concern that we
might want to clarify the language and in our by-law to basically reflect how
the by-law has been interpreted. She
said that there was an original addition to the by-law which said that any
accessory building shall not be used for residence purposes except by a person
employed on the premises and his immediate family and if only located in the
rear of the principal building and with no immediate street frontage. She said that has been part of the by-law for
a long long time and it’s her understanding that the intent of the by-law
language was to address agricultural uses in where there were people that
resided on the premises as they worked the property and that doesn’t apply
anymore. She asked the Board if they had
any questions or concerns about this?
Mr. Przybylowicz said that it’s fairly clear and he think that the by-law
is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect the current times and uses.
Mr.
Morrissette said that they are talking about a separate accessory building not
a anything that’s attached to the house that could be considered an in-law
apartment? He said that they weren’t
dealing with that they are not getting into any of that whether it’s legal or
not, we are just talking about a separate building.
Ms.
Macdonald said people are building garages and then building apartments over
the garages. Mr. Morrissette asked if
they are detached or detached? Ms.
Macdonald said that they were detached in the back yard so they created two
residences on one property.
Ms.
Richards said that she also understands that there was some form of confusion
as to what it meant being a person employed on the premises. She said that her response was that the town
would require a W-2 form or a 1099 that identifies that this person is duly
employed as some sort of caretaker of the premises, whose income was reported
to the IRS, but there was potential for abuse or a different interpretation of
the by-law and she thinks that this will clarify that.
Mr.
Anderson asked what if somebody has a garage or barn and uses it for
residential but not for sleeping purposes.
He said for instance a recreation room or a shop where there’s a heating
system in there, where there’s things of that nature? Mr. Morrissette said that they can even have
a kitchen for a party room or something like that.
Ms.
Richards said that it was the sleeping part.
Mr. Anderson said so the key is sleeping quarters and asked if they had
a definition of residence? Ms. Richards
said no but when in doubt and she didn’t have a dictionary in front of her but
common sense would tell them they have single family dwelling that are allowed
in residence districts, that’s all. She
said they might be able to get some help with Webster’s dictionary with regard
to the definition of residence. She said
to her residence purposes mean you are living there, you are sleeping there,
you are conducting all of your business there. She said to have a hobby room over the garage
doesn’t qualify, having a bathroom over the garage doesn’t qualify. Mr. Anderson added a bar or game room. Ms. Macdonald said as long as you don’t
reside there.
Ms.
Richards asked the audience for questions.
Phil
Abair, Fifth Street said just for discussion he said you talked about a residence
above a garage. Mr. Anderson said a detached
garage. Mr. Abair said in today’s world
you get a lot of teenagers that are growing up and if you have upstairs in
garage it’s not unusual for them to have a room that might be separate from the
house like above the garage they might want sleep up there. He said so think about that when you make
this by-law.
Mr.
Anderson said so are you saying if you just had a bedroom not a kitchen. Ms. Macdonald said no. Mr. Anderson said he could see his
point. Ms. Macdonald said that the Fire Department would have a problem with
that because if there was a fire they would not know if someone was sleeping
there. Ms.
Richards said that it’s not a separate apartment, it’s not a separate
residential dwelling and the by-laws do not promote or encourage or authorize two
residential dwellings on the same parcel.
Mr. Abair said that the Board
should take into consideration a family who has kids that have separate rooms
that are available to them and there are going to sleep out there or reside out
there. He said that they may not have a kitchen
and all that but if you have a strict rule says they can’t reside in there
because it’s an open space, the have to reside in the main house then you may
have a problem.
Ms. Richards said that the issue
was that the law already reflects that, there’re not allowed to do that
now. She said the only reason why they
are clarifying the language us that in prior years when agricultural uses were
flourishing in our community there were actually farm workers that lived on
premises and the town was sensitive to that.
She said that no longer exists.
Mr. Abair said if you are making a
rule that pertains to outside members of the family then he would say yes, but
all he is saying if they make the rules so strict even family members can use
the space to reside in that’s a different story.
Ms. Richards said that residing is
residing and single family dwellings is all that is permitted on a residential
parcel. Mr. Morrissette said maybe that
should be added that this by-law means that only one residence per lot.
Attorney Donahue said it was his
understanding the way this issue may have to come to the Board because a son
and daughter-in-law were taking care of the son’s parents and because of that
they petitioned the Building Inspector for a permit to erect a second building
saying that they were employee’s of the parents. He said that the Building Inspector wrestled
with that before he left for
Attorney Donahue continued to say
that if the Board says a person can have a kitchen but you can’t have a
bedroom, so you put a cot up there that folds up - the building inspector is
never going to be able to prove that it’s not being used for residential
purposes. Attorney Donahue said if the
by-law states clearly that accessory structures shall not be used for
residential purposes and then define residential purposes as sleeping, eating
or how ever you want to define it, then he thinks they clarified the issue if
that is where they are looking to go.
Ms. Richards said that the current
by-law wasn’t being changed from the stand point that an accessory building
shall not be used for residence purposes, it’s already there. She said that they were changing the
exception that they allow an accessory building to be used for residence
purposes if those individuals and his family are duly employed on the premises,
whatever their responsibilities are and that component of the by-law as she
said, stemmed from agricultural uses years back. Further, if you have grandparents living in
the accessory structure because they are going to baby sit the grandchildren
that to her doesn’t satisfy the person employed on the premises in his
immediate family. She said that was what
they are trying to eliminate.
Mr. Anderson said basically what
we are saying “reside” is the same as living in.
Attorney Donahue said what you are
saying is that you have an interpretation that the building inspector’s over the
years have applied to this situation, you are taking away the exception so
whatever was done in the past in that interpretation or how the building
inspector interprets resides or residence in the future. Mr. Anderson said so it’s still going to be
left to the building inspector. Attorney
Donahue said that they might want to say an accessory building shall not be
used as a residence.
Ms. Richards asked Ms. Macdonald
if the Selectmen have gone to printing for the warrant? Ms. Macdonald said that she didn’t know
yet. Ms. Richards said because if the Board is
supportive of this and since it is the Planning Board’s article, she doesn’t
know if they would still have to as printed currently or can they change it
now. Ms. Macdonald said that they could
amend it on the floor if it has already gone to print. Ms. Richards said that she was trying to
avoid that if they don’t have to. Ms.
Macdonald said that she could call Nick and ask him and then she asked Attorney
Donahue if he reviewed all of the warrant articles? He said no. Ms. Macdonald said then the answer is no, it
has not gone to print because Attorney Donahue reviews the articles first. Attorney Donahue said no they were pushed
backwards because of the change in town leadership. Ms. Macdonald said then she could make the
change tomorrow.
Upon motion duly made and seconded
the Board voted unanimously, (4-0) to
close the hearing. Upon motion duly made
and seconded, the Board unanimously (4-0) to recommend the article as revised
based on the comments at the public hearing.
Public Hearing Zoning By-law
Amendment – New Zoning Map
At 7:45 p.m. Acting Chair,
Acting Chair, Ms. Richards said
that the by-law requires the town to bring back to the town meeting any zoning
changes to the zoning map after the zone changes have been approved at a prior
town meeting. She said that that
particular map references one change to
a parcel on Maple Street that had been a multiple zoned parcel zoned industrial
and residential and after lengthy discussion after the last town meeting it was
approved by the town 2/3 majority to change the zone to a commercial zone, She said so this map is reflection that zone
change and was approved by the Attorney General’s Office.
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for any questions, being none addressed the audience for any questions.
Mr. Abair said his main purpose
was to find out what was the purpose and to what lot it was pertaining to.
Ms. Richards asked the Board for
any other questions, being none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the
Board unanimously voted (4-0) to close the hearing. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
unanimously (4-0) to approve the article for the zoning map along with map.
Miscellaneous
Ms. Richards said that Ms.
Macdonald sent a resolution regarding a proposed Aero Space Metal Business
interested in the industrial garden park with a question of use, question of
impact, etc. and the question of the Board’s capability of signing a resolution
and she personally had some problems with it and some concerns. She said that Attorney Donahue also had some
concerns.
Attorney Donahue said there were a
couple problems with it - first of all it represents that the Board has the
authority to make a determination as to whether the use of the property is
going to comply with the zoning by-laws.
He said that was not accurate - that the interpreter of the by-laws is
your building inspector, as the enforcer, to determine whether he feels it’s a
violation or not. He said secondly, he
questions why is this petition coming to the Board if it’s not going to be an
outdoor facility used for metal parts? Why
else come to the Board ? He said unless
you specifically know what it is they are going to there and how it’s going to
be operated, that’s a tough document to sign.
At this time, the Board, by roll
call, voted to go into Executive Session for purposes of litigation strategy
–going back into regular session.
At this time, the Board, by roll
call, returned to regular session
Discussion regarding
unregistered motor vehicles
Ms. Richards informed Mr. Przybylowicz the meeting that he missed there was someone
from the public petitioned article to change the by-law for unregistered motor
vehicles to require current mass registration, inspection stickers. She has asked if the Board would please
consider supporting it - we heard the presentation but have not made a decision
whether we vote not to support, vote to support as written or vote to support
with some amended language.
Ms.
Richards continued by stating that she thinks at their next meeting when Mr.
Calabrese is back -if we really feel that it’s an area we really want to get
into – if we think there’s a need to modify the language - then maybe we should
consider possibly changing the language, making an amendment on the town
meeting floor. Mr. Morrissette said that
he felt strongly the way it was written was not good but he does think that the
Board should support some form of that but it needs to be amended because it
was too restrictive. Mr. Przybylowicz asked how
restrictive was it?
Ms.
Richards said she explained to a person who approached her about the article
that the Board is going to support an article that’s in the best interest of
the whole town. She said that the Board
would not focus in on this one isolated case, although we are sensitive to it and
we certainly agreed that there is an issue but what is that issue, is it really
enforcement? She said that the article
that she proposed was to amend the zoning by-laws, Section 3.308 Unregistered
Vehicles by deleting quote “or other wise out of sight of all abutters and
public ways” and adding the following “any unregistered motor vehicle must be
able to pass Massachusetts State Inspection motor vehicles with broken windows,
flat tires, etc. shall not be permitted on premises for no more than 30 days. Tractor trailer beds shall not be permitted as
storage at anytime insight or out of sight on residential properties.
Mr.
Anderson asked how could an unregistered vehicle pass inspection, don’t you
have to show a registration? Mr.
Morrissette sad that it would have to be a registered vehicle to go to
inspection. Mr. Anderson said so isn’t
that like a contradiction if somebody wants a unregistered vehicle they have to
register to keep it an unregistered vehicle?
Mr. Morrissette said that she is saying that it has to, at
least, be acceptable and capable of being an inspected vehicle. He said there are too many people in town who
have cars they are restoring and there are so many different ways you could
have a unregistered car in your yard. He
thought the rule now was you could have one unregistered car outdoors, you can
have as many as you want in your garage and this didn’t even allow for the in
garage thing.
Ms. Richards asked the Board what they wanted to do with
it? She said that Ms. Macdonald e-mailed
the Board three options, four pages. She
thinks that it goes without saying that the Board owes this woman at least some
discussion which we are and if we can’t come to some kind of an agreement then
she can go at her own and probably not succeed but she would like to see the
Board try to maybe come up with some language.
Mr. Anderson asked if it was proper to invite her in and
have a general discussion. Ms. Richards
said that the Board did talk about letting her know what we were doing and she
doesn’t think that it would be improper she thinks if they have a scheduled
time to talk about it, as long as we are prepared. Ms. Macdonald suggested that perhaps the Board would like to determine what they want
to say and before town meeting we can have her come to one of the meetings and inform
her of your decision? Mr. Morrissette
said that he would like to give her at least the opportunity to discuss their
thoughts together.
Ms. Macdonald asked if they would like to it on their first
meeting in May? The Board agreed to have
her come in on May 1st meeting.
Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Very
truly yours,
Donald J.
Anderson, Clerk