Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_11_13 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD NOVEMBER 13, 1985, IN THE AUDITORIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGEWOOD AVENUE, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the chairman at 8:10 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Sanford Bell, Chairman Mrs. Mary Carlson Mrs. Caryl Mahoney Mr. Lester Bliwise Mr. Anton Schramm Absent: Mr. Gaetano Scutaro Mr. Emil Nicolaysen Also present: Mr. Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. , Counsel to the Town Mr. Gary Trachtman, Engineering Consultant APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion made by Mrs. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Bell, the minutes of the meeting of August 14, 1985, were unanimously accepted as presented. AUTO SPA SITE PLAN APPLICATION 178 Myrtle Boulevard The Chairman reviewed the voting at the last meeting with two in favor and two opposed and one abstention, resulting in no action being taken. The Chairman referenced a proposed resolution for approval, drawn up by the Attorneys to the Town, which sets forth conditions for the Site Plan: WHEREAS, Auto Spa Realty Corp. has submitted an application for Site Plan Approval for premises located on Myrtle Boule- vard, Town of Mamaroneck, New York, and Public Hearings having been held on August 14, 1985, and September 12, 1985, pursuant to Notice, and the Planning Board having considered the appli- cation for Site Plan Approval, the plans, the comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town, both written and oral, and the Engineer for the applicant, and having heard interested members of the public, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board approves the application of Auto Spa Realty Corp. for site plan approval for premises on Myrtle Boulevard, Town of Mamaroneck, as shown on a revised drawing entitled "Alterations to Existing Building" dated September 9, 1985, prepared by Mr. G. Darsey Gibson, R.A. , of Architects Planners Associates, subject to the following terms and conditions: November 13, 1985 1. The applicant shall transmit ten prints of the approved drawings to the Town under separate cover and shall also transmit one set to the Consulting Engineer to the Town. 2. The applicant shall provide inspection of all on-site utilities, including the connection to the existing storm drainage system, by a licensed professional en- gineer who shall certify compliance with the approved plans and specifications. 3. The applicant shall submit to the Town one mylar repro- ducible and four sets of sealed drawings, certified by a licensed professional engineer, showing the "as built" condition. 4. All such conditions must be complied with prior to the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall comply with the tree ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck in all respects. 6. No illuminated signs on the premises shall be operational and lighted between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and the open- ing hour on the following day. The motion to consider this resolution for approval was made by Mr. Schramm and seconded by Mr. Bliwise. The Chairman opened the floor to discussion on the proposal, but there was none. The motion was made and seconded to adopt the resolution as drafted by Counsel. It passed with four votes in favor, and Mrs. Carlson opposed. The applicant asked what the next step would be, and Counsel answered that the work of the Board was complete and the applicant should pro- ceed to apply for a building permit. The applicant then thanked the Board. OLD ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Old Road Development Corporation (Zelnick property) Block 330 Parcel 350 The Chairman noted that at the last meeting the Board had unanimously supported the concept of the "through road," as did all other Town departments. The Board had requested that Counsel draft a proposal, which had been distributed to the Board members and the applicant, and which reads as follows: WHEREAS, Old Road Development Corp. has submitted an applica- tion for preliminary subdivision approval for a parcel of land currently owned by Dr. and Mrs. Zelnick and located on Old White Plains Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has conducted and completed pro- ceedings pursuant to SEQR, and November 13, 1985 WHEREAS the Planning Board has reviewed all submissions by and on behalf of the applicant, all correspondence from Town officials, the Consulting Engineer to the Town, and interested residents, and a public hearing having been held, and WHEREAS it appears that the major controversial issues are the location of the roads in the subdivision and the control of necessary blasting, and all Town departments requested a through street from Marbourne Drive to Gate House Lane, and the Consulting Engineer to the Town having expressed his opin- ion that any necessary blasting can be adequately monitored and the effects of such blasting limited, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED preliminary subdivision approval is hereby granted on the application by Old Road Development Corp. , subject to all terms and conditions set forth below: 1. General requirements All public streets and other public places on such plats shall be suitably graded and paved and that street names, traffic signs, street lighting facilities, curbs, gutters, suitable monuments, water mains, storm drains, sanitary sewer facilities, street trees, and other public facili- ties shall be installed, all in accordance with the latest standards and specifications in force at the time work is started and in accordance with the approval plan, par- ticularly with respect to Sketch Site Plan SP 4 (Grading and Drainage Plan) . All easements and other deed restrictions which are imposed as conditions of this preliminary subdivision approval and any subsequent final subdivision approval must be ap- proved as to form and content by Counsel to the Town prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Chair- man of the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board. 2. Compliance with SEQRA A. Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations of State policy, to the maximum extent practicable from the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action to be carried out or approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects, including the effects disclosed in the relevant Environ- mental Impact Statement; and B. All practicable means will be taken in carrying out or approving the action to minimize or avoid adverse en- vironmental effects, including effects disclosed in the relevant Environmental Assessment forms and addendum thereto and all special requirements and modifications set forth herein. 3. Special requirements A. Water retention and drainage 1. Plans for water retention facilities, if any, and November 13, 1985 drainage facilities shall be submitted in the appli- cation for final subdivision approval or site plan approval on this application. 2. The applicant shall execute a drainage facility main- tenance agreement with the Town of Mamaroneck, in a form approved by the Consulting Engineer and the Counsel to the Town, for all drainage facilities which are not on property which is to be offered for dedication to the Town. 3. On lots on which there are swales, retention areas, or drainage facilities, there must be deed restric- tions which prevent any construction in retention areas and provide that the owners must maintain the grades within swales or retention areas. The deed restriction must be approved as to form by Counsel to the Town. 4. On any lots on which there are drainage pipes or other drainage facilities, there must be an easement for the Town for access to the drainage pipe(s) for maintenance. The easement must be 15 feet wide, with a specific provision for the pipe to be 5 feet from a property line. 5. All easements shall provide for additional agreements between the owner of the premises and the Town for the Town to provide, at its option and without obliga- tion to the Town, emergency maintenance in the event the owner of the lot does not, and also to provide for the Town to restore retention areas and swales if the owner does not. These easements and agree- ments shall provide that any expenses incurred by the Town shall be charged back to the particular lot on the next tax assessment. All such easements and agreements shall be approved by Counsel to the Town as to form. B. Blasting 1. All blasting on the premises shall be done in accord- ance with the most stringent, currently accepted en- gineering standards, and as preliminarily set forth in a supplement to EAF, dated July 3, 1985. 2. All blasting must be preceded by a series of test blasts. These test blasts must be made and all in- formation gathered presented to this Board prior to final subdivision approval. To the extent practi- cable and as advised by the Consulting Engineer to the Town, the final subdivision approval will include a detailed plan for blasting, covering such areas as any limitations on charge sizes, any designation of delays, requirement of inspection of neighboring houses prior to blasting, completion bond, timetable, and scheduling. November 13, 1985 3. The applicant shall provide the services of a li- censed engineer or other individual with extensive experience and credentials in blasting to insure that all blasts are in accordance with the final subdivision approval. 4. No blasting may be conducted without first obtaining a permit from the Town Building Department. 5. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall hold harmless and indemnify the Town, its offi- cials, elected or appointed, employees, agents, and the Consulting Engineer from and against all claims, losses, damages and expenses, direct, indirect or consequential (including but not limited to fees and charges of attorneys and other professionals and court and arbitration costs) arising out of or re- sulting from the blasting performed by the appli- cant, its employees, contractors or agents. 6. Applicant shall purchase liability insurance, in- cluding contractual endorsement of the indemnifica- tion agreement contained in 5. above in amounts and coverage specified by the Town's insurance advisor, which insurance policies shall name as Additional Insureds the Town, its officials, elected or ap- pointed, employees, agents, and the Consulting En- gineer. C. Building envelopes and specific drainage requirements 1. Prior to any construction, specific on-site soil in- vestigations shall be conducted on each lot and the areas of the proposed roads. The findings shall be discussed with the Consulting Engineer with a view toward designing proper mitigating measures to con- trol the ground water (footing drains for foundations/ underdrains for roads) . Recommendations of the Con- sulting Engineer shall be determinative. D. Erosion and sedimentation control -- during construction 1. Erosion and sedimentation control plans should be based upon the standards presented in the Westchester County Best Management Practices manual for construction re- lated activities, and as preliminarily set forth in a supplement to Environmental Assessment Form, dated 7/3/85. 2. The control plan shall include a construction time- table and an inspection schedule. E. Plans prior to final approval 1. Prior to the approval of the final subdivision plan, the applicant shall submit an improvement plan show- ing all proposed improvements. This plan shall be in conformity with the requirements of the Department of November 13, 1985 Highways, Town of Mamaroneck, and shall be approved by the Consulting Engineer and shall be in accord- • ance with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan (Sketch Site Plan SB-5 dated May 8, 1985) prepared by Peter Rolland & Associates and Marbourne Drive Grading and Drainage Plan SB-4 dated July 3, 1985, by Raymond Keyes Associates, and any condi- tions set forth herein. 2) Prior to the approval of the final subdivision plat, the applicant shall submit a grading plan showing all proposed grading. This plan shall be in conformity with the requirements of the Highway Department of the Town of Mamaroneck and shall be approved by the Consulting Engineer. All grading shall be in accordance with Marbourne Drive Grad- ing and Drainage Plan SB-4, dated July 3, 1985, prepared by Raymond Keyes Associates. F. Performance Bonds/Letter of Credit 1) Prior to issuance of any building permits or the commencement of any construction activities, a Letter of Credit and/or a Performance Bond to the Town of Mamaroneck shall be filed in amounts and periods of time to be determined by the Con- sulting Engineer. A Performance Bond will be accepted only up to seventy-five percent of the amount determined by the Consulting Engineer to ® the Town, and the balance shall be secured by a Letter of Credit. 2) The final subdivision plat shall contain the nota- tion concerning an irrevocable offer of dedication required by Town Law 278. G. Access to Lots 7 and 8 from Gate House Lane 1) The applicant shall construct a road to Town stan- dards, except for providing curbing, between Gate House Lane and the property line of the applicant in the vicinity of the boundary line between lots 7 and 8. 2) The applicant also agrees to provide a gravel park- ing area on this roadbed or on Town property adja- cent to the roadbed and further shall make certain improvements on property owned by the Town adjacent to this road and lot 8. The road, parking area, and improvements shall be shown on the final sub- division map and/or the Site Plan Application. H. Trees Trees on the site are to be retained in conformance with the Tree Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck. I. Preliminary approval. 4111 Preliminary approval should be construed as such and not as final approval. November 13, 1985 J. Westchester County Recommendations A. There shall be a deed restriction on the twenty-five feet of lots 9, 10, and 11 abutting Saxon Woods Park which will preclude any construction or the placement of any appurtenant structures within that area. Such deed restriction shall be approved by Counsel to the Town and by the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation. B. The park/subdivision boundary shall be clearly identi- fied and staked out prior to any construction on the site, and shall be verified by field inspection. In addition, all individuals and entities doing construc- tion on the site shall be informed of the physical limit of authorized operation to minimize the possibility of intrusion onto County parkland. Applicant shall notify the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation when the park/subdivision boundary line is completely marked. The applicant shall comply with the requirements and procedures in Best Management Prac- tices Manual of Westchester County during all phases of construction, and this requirement shall be binding upon any individual builders other than the applicant. The applicant shall refrain from cutting trees, dumping debris, stumps, fill or any other material into or onto parkland owned by the County of Westchester. C. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation Dis- trict. The Chairman noted that additional letters have come in since then, one from Joel Negrin and another from Mr. Trachtman concerning the Traffic Study. Both were read by all members of the Board present. The Chairman suggested that the Board review the proposed conditions section by section. Counsel added that since the last meeting the Supervisor had forwarded copies of three letters from residents favor- ing the through road. There were no comments on the "WHEREAS" clauses. For Section 1. General Requirements, Mrs. Carlson asked about Town requirements for curbs, and the Engineer responded that these types of details would be considered later during the Final Site Plan Approval. Discussion followed concerning the exact names of numerous plans submitted to determine that the particular plan under consideration was the plan with a through street, including drainage and grading plans. Apparently, a number of plans are all consistent, illustrating more or less detail with regard to drainage and grading, subjects which also will be considered later during the Final Site Plan Approval. There were no more comments regarding Section 1 or Section 2. , which concerns compliance with SEQRA. November 13, 1985 Discussion on Section 3. Water Retention and Drainage, under Special Requirements, raised questions. The applicant's engineer noted, per past discussion, that they planned to eliminate the water retention area by draining it for the roadway, which he illustrated to the Board with numerous charts and plans. The drainage pipe would be the responsibility of the home owner. The Chairman stated that there may be places where water will be re- tained mistakenly, but this does not involve the conditions of the current resolution. It was noted again that such details will be considered later during Final Site Plan Approval. It was agreed that some of the conditions in paragraphs 1. - 5. , Section A. , are a technical measure that may or may not be necessary; the final location will determine their applicability. Discussion pertaining to paragraph 4. led to the understanding that pipes should be at least five feet from the property line in order to prevent problems with trees, etc. , on other properties. It was clarified that paragraph 5. acts as a protection to the Town, leaving no further comments on Section 3.A. Section 3.B. - Blasting elicited lengthy discussion regarding the qualification stipulations for both the person doing the actual blasting, as well as that person who certifies the blaster. The discussion clarified that these were, by definition, two different people and that a blaster could not self certify. The Chairman questioned what recourse any individual has if the blasting does not go correctly. Mr. Schramm answered that it then becomes an insur- ance problem and that the Board cannot guarantee success. With the intention of assuring that the blasting would be done and certified by people of utmost competence, the Board amended the resolution to read as follows: B. Blasting 3. The applicant shall provide the services of a competent individual with extensive experience and credentials in blasting who will certify that all blasts by a licensed blaster are in accordance with the final subdivision approval. The applicant requested that the word "reasonable" be added to paragraph 6. , to read: "Applicant shall purchase reasonable lia- bility insurance . . .". This addition was made to the resolu- tion, concluding discussion on Section 3.B. Technical corrections were made on Sections E. and F. The plan itself is "SB-4", the date is "7/3/85", and the plan was prepared by "Raymond Keyes Associates." In F.1) , the term "consulting engi- neer" is corrected to "Consulting Engineer to the Town." In discussing Section G. - Access to Lot 7 and 8 from Gate House Lane, the applicant said he did not understand the need for the November 13, 1985 restriction in paragraph 2. Discussion followed regarding the original thinking behind it, and the Board agreed to eliminate this paragraph altogether. Discussion pertaining to paragraphs 1. and 3. , G. , clarified that these paragraphs are necessary in order to assure the Town access to its own property. The need for this clause also depends on the details of the Final Site Plan Approval. With regard to Section H. - Trees, Mr. Mason offered his services in planning tree removal. "Speaking as a conservationist," he said, "some larger trees are not as good as the younger ones," and added that there was not much understory, that the area has an "older canopy" and requested that a tree survey be part of the file. The applicant answered yes, thus concluding discussion on this section. Section J. was addressed by the applicant. Discussion resulted in the elimination of Sections A. and B. , following the reading and clarification of Town ordinances, which seemed to be reason- able guidelines. Mrs. Carlson alone remained in favor of a more restrictive clause. Section C. will remain in the resolution and states that conditions for final subdivision approval shall in- clude implementation of the recommendations of Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District (letter dated 8/14/85) and the Westchester Department of Parks and Recreation (letter dated 10/10/85) . It was noted, however, that the Park Department letter states that this issue is the jurisdiction of this Board. There was no recommendation. Brief discussion followed regarding the status of construction on an extension of Marbourne Drive. A member of the audience clari- fied that paving is proceeding and illustrated progress, to date, on the map. Regarding the Traffic Study, the Chairman stated that it will be necessary to address the need for appropriate signs at the appro- priate places upon finalization for the Traffic Commission to review. With discussion concluded, the Chairman requested a motion to vote on the acceptance of the resolution with the changes as stated at this meeting. Mr. Bliwise moved, Mrs. Mahoney seconded, and the vote was unanimous to adopt the changes and the resultant resolu- tion. The question of what happens next was raised, with Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval both necessary. The applicant stated that he does not expect to be ready by December 10, due particularly to arrangements concerning blasting. Since the paperwork must be submitted 9 to 10 days prior to the next meet- ing, the Board agreed to tentatively schedule another working meeting for January and a public hearing for February. November 13, 1985 COURTHOUSE PROPERTY The Chairman said that this issue will be dealt with by the Town Board, which has requested a report on the opinion of this Board. There are numerous choices as to what to do with the Courthouse and surrounding property. Mr. Schramm said he believes the property should remain zoned R15. He disagreed with a report on the Traffic condition on Weaver Street, stating that this intersection is the worst in this jurisdiction, contending that the accident reports bear this out not only for cars but pedestrian and bicycle traffic, as well. Because of this traffic situation, Mr. Schramm contends that any increase in resi- dents would worsen the problem, adding that he believes the land should be put back on the tax rolls. He had no preference for rent- ing or selling and advocates Town use only if there is a need. When questioned about his reasons for maintaining current zoning, Mr. Schramm stated that Rl5 zoning is one-third of an acre and changing this would necessitate changing the zoning on "that stretch all the way down." It was noted that in this area there are structures that predate zoning. Mrs. Carlson suggested that the Courthouse should go back on the tax rolls and the Palmer Avenue frontage should be looked at for Landmark Classification, saving the Courthouse and rehabilitating it back to its original use as a private dwelling. She said the Courthouse is in one of the oldest residential areas in the unincor- porated areas and, originally, was never considered a permanent loca- tion for VAC. It is central, but there is a lot of traffic, and she suggested that behind the firehouse or the parking lot by the sta- tion would be a better location for VAC. Mr. Bell said that VAC would then have to go through all the traffic in town, and it was suggested that there may be a better location for VAC in the Village, which is also served by VAC. Mrs. Carlson said that with R15 zoning, VAC would be a serious obstacle for that qual- ity of development. Counsel questioned if R15 houses could be sold along the railroad tracks, and Mr. Schramm said that anything could be sold. No Board members seemed to feel a strong need for tennis courts and a commun- ity and/or Art Center. Mrs. Carlson's first preference was for hous- ing but not necessarily R15 for the back parcel, possibly bringing in recreational use, and for higher density housing such as Senior Citizen housing or townhouses, similar to Elkin Park which is not far away. Cluster housing would make money for the Town which will be needed for rehabilitation of the Courthouse. Mr. Bliwise pointed out that the Town could sell the Courthouse as is, possibly with an historic clause. Counsel confirmed that this option was legally permissible. Mr. Bliwise contended that the area should remain residential, main- taining the character of the area, with either R15 or R75 zoning, and opposed the use for tennis courts or a recreation center, ques- November 13, 1985 tioning the need for a recreation or art center. He stated that moving VAC would be fine if there was another suitable location, but that keeping VAC there would not destroy the subdivision. Mrs. Mahoney opposed use of the area for cluster housing, agreeing that the Courthouse should be maintained and that VAC should stay since speed is critical for them and their location on Weaver Street gets them in and out quickly. Mr. Bell agreed with Mr. Bliwise and Mrs. Mahoney and emphasized the amount of school traffic. He thought it erroneous to add 25 to 35 more units to that little spot and said low density zoning would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. A recreation area would be good, but he was not in favor of tennis courts there. He said the Courthouse should remain as a presence, one way or ano- ther, and pointed out that financial implications of these proposals have not been addressed. He said cluster housing would be the most advantageous option for the Town in terms of finances but the worst for traffic,and even garden apartments would make more traffic, with Mrs. Carlson pointing out that the proposal was for garden apartments, not townhouses. Mr. Bell noted that if the Town advocates changing zoning on its own property, this opens the Town up to controversy when private developers want to do the same in the future. In answer to a question from Mrs. Carlson, Mr. Schramm stated that the acreage in the property is 2.5 acres without the Courthouse property and 3.09 acres with. The Chairman asked if the report to the Town Board should be indi- vidual opinions or some sort of consensus. Mr. Schramm summarized that four members support lower density use, keeping the character of the area, and all agree on preserving the frontage of the Court- house. Disagreement concerns the parcel in the back, though resi- dential use is supported more strongly than any other. Two Board members felt strongly that VAC should remain but others felt mov- ing VAC would be acceptable if there is a suitable location, and the police property was suggested. Mrs. Carlson mentioned that Police Headquarters was never a house but the old firehouse, moved from another location, would be hard to convert, and is condemned. She said it should be sold, but the lower part is a substandard lot and suggested the Town acquire a ten-foot strip from an adjacent property in order to make it a standard lot, enabling the Town to tear down the building and sell the lot. When asked how much she thought the Town should pay for such a strip, she responded that she had no idea. As a standard lot, the value was approximated at $35,000 to $40,000. Another possibility would be to sell it to a developer as is and let the developer worry about it. The Chairman asked the Board if Mrs. Carlson was correct in saying that the police station could not be remodeled into a one-family and Mrs. Mahoney agreed. 1/ November 13, 1985 Counsel asked if VAC could go into the old police station on Myrtle, and Mr. Schramm said it would require a lot of excavation. The Chairman concluded that he will write a memo incorporating the opinions expressed and send it to all Board members prior to submitting it to the Town Board. SATELLITE EARTH STATIONS The Chairman noted that either the Planning Board or the Zoning Board will be addressing this. Counsel added that since this is an amendment to the Zoning laws, the Town Zoning Code requires that the Planning Board give the Town Board a report on the proposed change. In answer to a question from Mr. Bliwise, Counsel stated that this was drafted in the office of Counsel to the Town and was based on Larchmont's amendment, as well as others. The Chairman asked Counsel if this amendment was meant to be preventive, and Counsel stated that it certainly limits the places where satel- lite earth stations can be put. Discussion followed about sizes and installations. Mr. Bliwise warned that since this requires special permits, this Board would get into the same situation as with Auto Spa: when a special permit exists, the Board almost has to grant it, with lit- tle authority to do otherwise. Mrs. Carlson said that this should be an administrative process where residents apply for a permit and get what they need. Mr. Bliwise contended that if the Board had the right to actually review it, then it would make sense coming to the Board members. Counsel noted that since satellite earth sta- tions relate to interstate commerce, municipalities cannot ban them. The Chairman asked if inquiries could be made to determine if an applicant could have a special permit and said that carrying out the amendment appeared to be administrative. Counsel confirmed this, saying that the only authority of the Board would be in re- stricting the types of antennas and such details. Installations could not be limited to business uses. The Chairman stated that he believed that variations from the con- ditions set forth are an issue of the Zoning Board. This issue does not impact on traffic or environmental issues but solely on aesthetics whereas the Planning Board is usually concerned with many factors, the Chairman contended. Again it was noted that there is little recourse for the Planning Board; if public hearings and notification of the neighbors are required, a lot of people would protest, but the Board would not have the authority to do anything about it. A fee requirement was suggested, and figures from $200 to $750 were mentioned. It was agreed that a lack of technical information limited the Board's ability to discuss the issue, but, hopefully, technology will evolve smaller, unobtrusive discs. November 13, 1985 Counsel urged the Board to suggest to the Town that before passing a law they should investigate the technology and determine the true differences between sizes, etc. , as possibly there is little need for the larger discs. The Chairman reminded the Board that the Town Board wants to do something now, even if it is temporary, so the Board agreed to allow permits, with a fee of $250 to $500, and concluded that any variances are a Zoning Board matter. PLANNING BOARD MEETING, DECEMBER 1985 The Chairman noted that there is a meeting scheduled in December, but currently there was nothing on the agenda. The Board was told to expect a letter either cancelling the December meeting or con- firming the date, with the agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting, it was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. C thia F`a cett, Secretary