Minutes
of August 21, 2007
Present were:
Louis Calabrese, Clerk; Michael Przybylowicz and Donald
Anderson.
Public Hearing Site Plan
Review – MacKenzie Vault, Inc.,
The Chair,
Bob Bartlett, contractor from
Hampshire Construction Co. introduced the owners,
Scott and Neil MacKenzie. Mr. Bartlett explained that they are proposing
to construct
a 6,400 square foot addition
(80x80) metal building to the east end of the existing warehouse at
Mr. Bartlett said the addition
would match the width and height of the existing building with a total lot
coverage of 17% and the sprinkler system will be extended into the new building
for fire precaution. He said that the
parimeter of the addition will be lawn area and the vegetation will be trimmed
back in accordance with the Police Department’s recommendations so they have
vision on all 3 sides of the building for security purposes, and 2 wall packs on each side of the building
will be installed. Mr. Bartlett said
that the wooded buffer will remain the same - that the residential area to the
north is heavily wooded. He did add that
although zoning calls for a 50 foot vegetated buffer zone when garden industrial
abuts residential, the property abutting
the project was in a zone that was changed 4 years ago to residential. Presently, the current driveway is
approximately 5 feet off the property line so there is no way they could put a
50 foot buffer zone between the residential and the industrial garden park. He said that the truck traffic to the
facility will consist of 1 UPS van per day for pickup and delivery; 1 tractor
trailer load out per week; and 1 tractor trailer load of raw materials arrives
approximately once every 2 weeks.
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for any questions.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if he could better explain what the company actually does?
Mr. Scott MacKenzie said that they
make 210 cubic inch memorial urns out of cultured marble, onyx or granite. Mr. Przybylowicz asked what their current hours are? Mr. MacKenzie said that they are open from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if they
have many visitors? Mr. MacKenzie said
rarely they have a box salesman or UPS representative but there is no retail
traffic and the closest they get to the public is through the funeral homes
which is only about 10% of the business, most of it is through distributors.
Mr.
Anderson asked how close does the developer of the Fields at Chestnut plan on
building next to their location? Ms.
Macdonald said that there is road there.
Mr. Anderson asked if there will be specific delivery times? Mr. MacKenzie said it is pretty consistent and
there will be no more nor less trucks, the trucks will just be fuller with raw
materials and fuller with out-bound materials.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if there was a dumpster on site?
Ms. Richards said that they do have an existing dumpster with a stockade
fence. She asked Ms. Macdonald when she types
up the decision if she would please include that the Board recognizes that the
location was pre-existing to the by-law change for the 50 foot landscape
buffer. Mr. Przybylowicz asked the color
of the split faced block. Mr. MacKenzie said that it is tan/beige and with red split
units above it.
Ms.
Richards addressed the audience for any questions, there being none, Mr.
Calabrese then read a request for waiver of traffic study into the record.
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to waive the requirement
for a traffic study. Upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted (5-0) to close the hearing. After discussion and upon motion made and
seconded, the Board voted (5-0) to approve the Site Plan conditioned upon adding
of the comment regarding the buffer.
Public Hearing Amendment to Special
Permit – Fusion Café
The Chair, Marilyn Richards opened
the hearing and introduced the Board Members. Clerk, Louis Calabrese read the
legal notice and correspondence into the record. Police Department recommended:
1.
The grass portion be
removed along the fence line as indicated on the site plan to increase the paved area
for parking and the travel lane.
2.
The four proposed 9' x 24' parking spaces be installed as
indicated on the site plan with vehicle parking in a Northbound direction only.
3.
A portion of the brick sign support be removed to increase the
paved area for parking and the travel lane.
4.
Additional pavement markings be made to clearly delineate the
travel lane.
5.
Additional pavement markings be made to separate the proposed
travel lane from the current parking spaces and to act as a guide for vehicular
traffic.
6.
The proposed travel lane be restricted to a "one-way"
traffic pattern in a Northbound direction and pavement markings be installed to
indicate the recommended traffic pattern.
7.
Additional concrete "curbs" be placed along the front of
the building in any of the parking spaces where none are installed, and an
additional concrete "curb" be placed in the first South side parking
space to separate the vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic.
8.
Additional pavement markings be made to eliminate parking at the
South end and North end of the front parking spaces.
9.
Outside tables be positioned adjacent to the front of the building
to maximize the separation between vehicle parking and seated patrons.
Dawn and Sid Starks,
The
following issues currently exist without any changes to the permit:
§
On a daily basis we have heavy kitchen odors permeating
the air. Fusion is supposed to have filtration systems which will handle this. This
should be addressed.
§
Trash pickup is taking place between the hours of 5 and 7
a.m. This is not what was agreed to in the first Special Permit issued. The
agreement was to have trash pickup after 7 a.m. as it is a residential area. We
have made formal complaints to the Planning Board office, and we know that the
office has on numerous occasion contacted and told Yummydough, as well as the
trash contractor, to abide by the agreement. The result has not been
successful, as trash pickup will abide by the law for one to two weeks after
complaints are lodged, and then they return to early morning pickups.
§
In the original application for Special Permit a fence
was to be constructed to protect abutters from headlights, and cut down on
noise. The fence does provide protection from the lights and noise at the rear
of the property as it does not extend to the back near the building.
Current
permit issues that concern us are as follows:
§
The live dancing indicates that bands or D's will be on
the premises, which seems to be a change of use from restaurant to
nightclub/tavern. We are curious to know why this would be considered for an
amendment to the Special Permit, and not trigger a new Special Permit as the
focus of the business will be new.
§
How many eating tables are to be removed to fit in a
dance floor? If the establishment is truly a restaurant, why would you remove
space for dining, to replace it with dancing space? We have been in the
establishment and it is very tight. As you cannot grow new space, what is being
removed to fit it all in and still be in compliance with seating/parking
regulations? A dancing floor will encourage less eating and more drinking. The
bar was supposed to be a service bar only. It has become a "bar" bar,
and is often standing room only currently. How will a dance floor help this situation?
§
Where are patrons going to be served outside? How much
noise will be generated? Will it be safe
for patrons, as any outside eating area will have to be near the parking lot?
§
Will any changes be made regarding use of the basement to
accommodate the change of use?
Fusion Cafe is zoned business, but it is
surrounded by a residential neighborhood, and needs to be sensitive to its abutters.
To date we have not seen sensitivity, and we just live with the noise and
smell. We have also seen violations of
the Special Permit in the past. After
the original permit was issued, which clearly stated that no additions were to
be made to the building, an addition was built. It was only after the fact that it was built,
and after neighbors alerted town officials to the violation, that the Special
Permit then was amended to allow for the addition. We are concerned this is happening again. Has the dance floor already been built? We ask
that the Planning Board give this change serious thought. We contend that
adding live dancing changes the use from a restaurant to a nightclub/tavern. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Attorney
Larry Levine, representative for Fusion Café, introduced Mike Chang, Owner and
Russell Chow, Manager. He explained that
there were 2 issues that they would like to address with the Board - 4 tables were
being requested for outside dinning and allowing dancing within the restaurant
for patrons. He said to their knowledge
there have been no complaints to the Police Department or Health Department and
to make accusations when they haven’t been notified is unfounded to begin with.
Attorney Levine continued by stating
that during his time representing Fusion Café they have abided by the rules,
they have not instituted any dancing before getting the approval of the Board
as well as the Selectmen, and the change for the tables needs approval from
ABCC as well. Attorney Levine said once
they get those approvals and only at that time they will initiate those
changes. He said the concern that he is
hearing about the dancing and that the character and flavor of the restaurant
will change is not their intent because Fusion is a restaurant and wants to
maintain it’s establishment and clientele.
Attorney
Levine also stated that they have no desire to turn it into a dance club or
have loud music, that currently they have entertainment. He said that he stood outside before the
meeting that evening and did not hear anything and asked the patrons going in
if they heard anything and they did not.
He spoke to some people that live on
Attorney
Levine then addressed the issue of the outdoor tables by stating that they run
a business and they have to be competitive with other restaurants in the
area. It is expected that the 4 tables
outside would bring extra business to them but
the same supervision that exists now within the restaurant would be continued
outside. He said that the owners
understand that it is a privilege to have their licenses and permits and they have
no intent of jeopardizing those privileges.
Attorney Levine said that the owners should be credited for the fine
establishment they have operated and assume and presume not only will they
continue within the same manner, but remember the Special Permit is issued to
the owners. He said if new owners come in
they have to go before the Planning Board again for approval of their Special
Permit.
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for any questions.
Mr. Morrissette asked if he could
address the odor and the dumpster issues that were brought up in the
letter? Attorney Levine said that they
never heard of those complaints, but
they would be glad to talk the owner.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked what the current hours were and if they expect them to change with the
improvements, should they be granted? Mr. Chang said that they are open 7 days a
week and 5 days for lunch from 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. they open at 5:00 p.m.
for dinner and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday they are opened until 10:00 p.m.,
Thursday until 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday until midnight, Sunday 4:00 p.m.
to 10:00 p.m. He said that they have no
intention to change the hours.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if the same kind of entertainment would still be offered or will it be
changing with their improvements? Mr.
Chow said it will still be the same and the idea for dancing was brought up by
the customers so they brought the idea to the Planning Board. He said that it would only be on Friday &
Saturday from about 9:30 to midnight.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked Mr. Chow what guarantee could they give the Board
that there would be no over crowding on the dance floor and prevent it from becoming
a big night club? Mr. Chow said when he
thinks about a night club he thinks about loud rock music but that is not their
intention and the music that they will be playing will be from the 70’s &
80’s, so he really does not know what his question meant. He just wants to keep his customers happy.
Attorney
Levine said if they are granted a license and define a certain size area, it is
up to them to supervise it just like they have done in the past. He said if they found that the area was not
large enough for whatever reason, have no noise problem and are still maintaining
the restaurant atmosphere, then they know either they have to eliminate it or
they have to eliminate it for the time being and ask for approval to enlarge it. He said the dancing application is not only
going to the Planning Board but it also to the Selectmen and State Department
of Public Safety for approval. Attorney
Levine said that the application has already been submitted to the Selectmen
for dancing only as a another entertainment portion of the restaurant but not
to be changed from the restaurant.
Mr. Przybylowicz
said the problem that he has is that the Building Inspector is classifying it as an A3 and because of the dancing it falls
as an A2 (night club). He asked how the Board
could support classifying it any differently knowing that another department in
town is classifying it as a night club?
Attorney
Levine said that he disagreed with the interpretation. He said if it was exclusively to be used for
dancing and serving alcohol maybe that would be the case but they have to
consider that it’s an ancillary use and not a primary use and the Building Inspector
did not contact him, so he was unaware of it.
He also said that they agree with Sergeant Bates’ recommendations and they
will add each and every one of them on the plan.
Ms.
Richards added that she is struggling with whether the Planning Board even has
the authority to move forward with the request for dancing. She said that the by-laws for the table of
uses says if it’s not listed it’s deemed not allowed and she believes when
dancing is added at 9:00 or 9:30 it does change the principal use to dancing. Ms. Richards said that the majority of people
have already dined and she understands that Fusion wants to keep the customers
there, but when people are dancing they are not ordering meals. She said that the people would probably eat
light or maybe not eat at all because they want to dance and does not believe
that the town has given the Planning Board permission to extend the use of a restaurant
in that way.
Attorney
Levine said in one of the Special Permits the Board granted a piano player and
no other entertainment. Ms. Richards
said correct, background music.
Attorney Levine said if he went there specifically to listen to someone
that he enjoyed was playing and had a light meal and a drink, as a opposed to
going there and dancing and having a light meal and a drink, he does not see
the distinction as far as primary versus ancillary use.
Ms.
Richards said that she did not want to debate it because the Board did agree to
it when it was added as part of the conditions in the previous Special Permit. She said speaking for herself, the Board
agreed to the entertainment because it was ancillary use to the actual dinning experience
and the Building Inspector’s interpretation is that dancing puts it into a
different category.
Attorney
Levine said that he disagrees with the interpretation and does not think it
fair at the last minute that they get notice of that because it has now colored
the Planning Board’s decision. At that
time Mr. Morrissette read the CMR 303 regulation into the record. Attorney Levine said that the Board is
presuming once the dancing begins that all of sudden people who might be
dinning there will not remain in the restaurant and a whole new flood of people
are going to come in and take over, that is not the intent.
Mr.
Anderson said regardless of the intent, he cannot say with certainty and he doubts
that the petitioners can as well. He said
the thing he is struggling with is if it was something that might become a destination
to dance as opposed to being a restaurant.
Attorney
Levine said he thinks that the Board is pre-judging and when the Special Permit
was issued they all heard the same concerns over a piano player and a singer. Ms. Richards said the concerns where more in
line with the extension of hours and abutting a residential district and one of
the arguments in favor of extending the hours was that there was no
entertainment that would become a nuisance issue or would increase the use of
the facility, that it would strictly be a restaurant. She said one of the things that was discussed
was that entertainment would not be an issue.
Attorney Levine said he thought
there were many concerns about the noise, the effect on the neighborhood and
the fear on the type of restaurant that it would be. He does not agree with their concerns and
thinks they are pre-judging again and he does not foresee it happening.
At that time Ms. Richards
addressed the audience for any questions.
David Smith, 23 Brook Street said the only noise he hears occasionally is the trash
pickup and asked what the interior capacity was, the size of the 4 tables and when
would the tables be put away? Ms.
Richards said that the capacity is 98 seats, the table would be 16 seats and it
would be management’s decision when the tables are taken in. Mr. Smith asked if Coldwell Banker ever moved
out, would Fusion be able to expand or move into that space? Mr. Morrissette answered that it could
expand, it is the owners’ decision and if they wanted to do that they would
have to come before the Board in order to do so.
Andrew Wilson 24 Elm Street said that Fusion should start thinking about the neighbors
and not just of themselves with regard to the trash pickup that is being pickup
at around 4:20 – 5:20 in the morning. He
said it was approved as a restaurant and now the restaurant is going to have
dancing and music that will classify them as a night club, he asked what’s
next? Attorney Levine said again that
was the first time they were hearing about complaints regarding the trash
pickup and they will address that immediately and they do not intend to turn it
into a night club.
Mr. Calabrese asked Ms. Macdonald
if she had any records of the complaints?
Ms. Macdonald said that there were a couple calls regarding the trash
pickup and she spoke to Mr. Chow and called the trash people and they agreed
that they were too early and she thinks what happens is that they do arrive
later for a while and then slack off.
She said that she called them about 3 or 4 weeks ago and they said that
they would check into it.
Lynn Jackson, 17 Brook Street said right now the music ends at 10:00 and asked if it
will it go on until 12:00 because of the dancing? Mr. Morrissette said they are not required
to end at 10:00 but they are stopping it voluntarily now. Ms. Jackson asked if the doors would be
opened in order for the people outside to hear the music? Attorney Levine said that the doors would be
closed.
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for any further questions.
Mr. Calabrese said basically a
night club in his eyes is a place where you hear a comedian or see a hypnotist
and those are the kinds of things he associates with a night club. He said that he never recalls dinning and
dancing being a night club so he guesses that interpretation is a big thing and
there are different organizations in town that have functions such as dancing,
are they all in violation of operating a nightclub? He said that was the biggest problem he was
having with the interpretation of a night club, dinning and dancing which is a
very common thing. He said that they have
already been approved to have entertainment and whether the people stay to sing
along and participate with the nice music that is there, is that a problem? He said that he does not see the dancing as a
problem and he thinks that the interpretation is being stretched as a night
club.
Mr. Przybylowicz
said he does not have so much of a concern with the interpretation because he
believes the truth comes out of the testimony.
He said the testimony has been that they voluntary turn down the music
or the music stops at 10:00 p.m. and if there is such a need for listening ‘till
they close then they would keep it on until they were closed. He said but now they are saying that they are
trying to keep the business there so instead of the patrons leaving after they eat
at 9:00 or 10:00 and go some place else to spend their money, why cannot they
keep them there to drink and dance, that is the trouble he is having with
it. He said that it is not so much an
extension of their business it is like they are creating another business for later
dancing and the drinking.
Ms.
Richards said that there is also a request for 4 out door tables (16 additional
seats) and asked if there were any concerns with that request before the Board
moved forward with a decision?
Mr. Przybylowicz
said that he was sure it was going to be seasonal and the Board has done it for other establishments in town and
as long as it is policed properly, there should not be a problem. Mr. Anderson said as long as the Building
Inspector who is in charge of ADA compliance, signs off on it and there is no
increase in seats inside, and no out door music he does not have an issue with
people eating outdoors providing it does not create a safety issue.
Ms.
Richards asked Attorney Levine if when the 16 seats outside are being used will
16 seats inside be removed? Attorney
Levine said no, it would be 16 + 98 to equal 114 seats. Ms. Richards asked if
that meant when the tables are moved inside that there will be additional
seating created inside to meet the 114 seats?
Attorney Levine said no that the seating plan inside will still stay at
the original 98 seats.
Ms. Richards
turned to the Board. Attorney Levine said
that they could go forward and decide on the outdoor seating and asked if the
hearing on the dancing issue could be continued so that they would have an
opportunity to talk to the Building Inspector to make sure that his
interpretation is based on the facts.
After further discussion and upon motion duly made an seconded, the
Board unanimously voted (5-0) to approve the 4 outside tables subject to the
Building Inspectors approval for ADA compliance. Upon motion duly made and seconded, he Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to continue the dancing portion of the hearing until October
2nd at 7:00 p.m.
Signage - Forastiere Funeral Home
Frank Forastiere said that the
only reason they want to make a change was because since the credit union opened
people are missing the driveway. He said
if people do not stack into the intersection they end up going around because
their signage is on the side of the building.
He said they were hoping, by replacing the existing entrance sign, it
would help take some pressure off the intersection and capture people better
into the common driveway they share with the credit union. Mr. Forastiere said what they would like to move
the Westwood sign to the north side of the building and put a lawn sign in
front on the corner. Ms. Macdonald said
that she explained to Mr. Forastiere that entrance or exit signs could be
erected without the name of the funeral home.
Ms. Richards asked Ms. Macdonald
if they are maxed out with their square footage for their structure? Ms. Macdonald said that their request would change
everything so the Board need ed to tell him what ones are approved, and then
the square footage could be worked out. Ms.
Richards asked if they could identity the funeral home on their driveway
entrances if it doesn’t exceed the total square footage? The members answered no and Mr. Morrissette
said that it was taken off of People’s Bank and SIS bank. Ms. Richards said they can leave the sign
because it is there but if they want to change it has to be just an entrance
and exit sign. She said that there is a ground
sign which is 3’ x 6’ (18 square feet) to
be placed beneath the window with a 25 foot set from the property line.
After further discussion and upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve an
18 foot square ground sign, however, in another motion as a result of the
applicant’s request, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to rescind the ground
sign approval to give Mr. Forastiere the opportunity to change his
request.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – PIP Printing, 175 Benton Drive
Clerk,
Louis Calabrese read a letter from Attorney Phillip Smith stating that the
restrictions that WestMasss had on the parcel had expired on June 1, 2004. Mr. Calabrese then read the request for Waiver of Site Plan Review from Robert
Pelzek and Michael Tarby to open a Professional
Printing Shop at 175 Benton Drive, East Longmeadow. Hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. and employee 17 people.
Michael Frisbie, Troon Realty said
that PIP Printing will occupy 12,000 ± square feet
of the interior building on the Benton Drive side.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if PIP was going to be like they were in the center?
Mr. Pelzek said that the location has been changed over to strictly
commercial printing services without retail.
He said that they have another location in the city that does all of
their production for several of their retail locations. He said their market has changed over the
years more towards commercial printing and their retail business has pretty
much disappeared. He said that they have
a few customers that occasionally go into that location, they have pretty much
changed their mind set and are now just going over to commercial printing and intend
to bring over all of their commercial equipment to service the customers.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Waiver of Site Plan
conditioned upon any proposed signage to be presented to the Board for approval
prior to construction and that no
retail sales will be conducted from the location because that
use is not allowed in that district and a use permit must be obtained from the Building
Inspector prior to occupancy in this location
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Academy of Dance, 175 Benton
Drive
Clerk,
Louis Calabrese read a request for Waiver of Site Plan Review from JoAnn Jebb to open a dance studio at 175 Benton Drive providing dance
education for children and adults. Hours
of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and employ 2
people.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Waiver of Site Plan
conditioned upon any proposed signage will be presented to the Board for
approval prior to construction and a use
permit obtained from the Building Inspector prior to occupancy in this location.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Hunter Development Co., 175 Benton Drive
Clerk,
Louis Calabrese read a request for Waiver of Site Plan Review from Hunter Development Company to open a Commercial Real Estate Development and Property Management
Office at 175 Benton Drive. Hours of
operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and employ 2
people.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Waiver of Site Plan
conditioned upon any proposed signage will be presented to the Board for
approval prior to construction and a use
permit obtained from the Building Inspector prior to occupancy in this location.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Commercial Training School, 175 Benton Drive
Clerk,
Louis Calabrese read a request for Waiver of Site Plan Review from Donna Chalfant to open a Commercial Personal Training School at 175 Benton
Drive. Hours of operation will be 6:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and employ 1 person.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Waiver of Site Plan
conditioned that a applicant fully understands that a membership club is not
allowed in that district, any proposed signage will be presented to the Board
for approval prior to construction and a use
permit obtained from the Building Inspector prior to occupancy in this location.
Temporary Signage for Caribbean
Fest Carnival
In a letter from Chris Graziano he
requested to display two temporary signs for the Caribbean Fest Carnival
sponsored by PTO’s of the Town schools to be placed in the center of town.
After discussion, the Board allowed
temporary signs to be posted for thirty (30) days or less and the placement of
the signs cannot be in the rotary for safety reasons with the decision to be
made jointly between the Board of Selectmen and the Police Department regarding
the placement signs
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – A.O.White, 78 Center Square
Clerk,
Louis Calabrese read a request for Waiver of Site Plan Review from Jayson Falcone on behalf of A.O.
White Sport, Inc. to open a clothing store approximately 4,300 feet at 78 Center Square. Hours of operation
will be 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday Wednesday, Friday & Saturday
and Thursday 10:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. and employ 4 people.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Waiver of Site Plan
conditioned upon obtaining a permit from the Building Inspector.
Request for Signage – Fare with
Flare, 48 Maple Street
The Board reviewed the signage
presented for Fare with Flare and upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously (5-0) voted to approve
the signage at an existing retail space located 48 Maple Street, conditioned
upon obtaining approval and a permit from the Building Inspector. The Board approved two signs, one for the
building, measuring 91 square feet and one ground sign, measuring 48 square
feet. The applicant agrees to reposition
the ground sign to meet the zoning requirements for setback – that being 25
feet from the property line.
Request for Signage – What’s Cooking
Kids, 41 Maple Street
The Board reviewed the signage
presented for What’s Cooking Kids and upon motion duly made and seconded,
unanimously (5-0) voted to approve the applicant’s request for signage at an existing
retail space located at 41 Maple street, conditioned upon obtaining approval
and a permit from the Building Inspector.
The Board approved two signs, one for the building, measuring 31 square
feet and one for the existing ground sign, measuring 14.25 square feet.
Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted (5-0) to close the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
For
The Board,
Louis
A. Calabrese, Clerk