ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Walpole, NH 03608
Minutes-----15 August 2007
PRESENT: M. Mansouri, Ch., L. Weber, J. Galloway-Leclerc, B. Webb,
David Calhoun
ABSENT: L. Carignan, L. Britton, M. T. Lester
Note: These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed on 19 September 2007 for errors, omissions and corrections.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30pm. The Chair appointed Bill Webb and David Calhoun as voting members.
PUBLIC HEARING #1: Frank W. Whitcomb Construction Corp., by Richard A. Fraser, One Source Properties & Permitting, LLC., Gravel Pit Permit Application.
Mr. Fraser presented an overview of the project, following the plans and booklet submitted. The booklet also contains best management practices to be used in the project. The tract of land involved is 229 acres on the other side of Old Drewsville Road from the Old Drewsville airport. The actual excavation will be 1.4 acres. The total impact will be to less than 2 acres. Photos were shown and the excavated area will be where the trees are now. A photo was shown of the existing berm and of the existing property entrance. The existing access point will be used for trucks entering and exiting the property.
The first plan sheet shows the existing site using 2 foot contour intervals because the site is very flat. The notes show how the plan was drawn. The total area is just under two acres. Test pit #2 shows the water table is at 6 feet below the surface. The construction sequence shown is the best for the environment to lessen impact on surface waters. The State of NH Stormwater Management and Control Book references have been incorporated into the plans. Jonathan Sisson did the wetlands assessment. Two test pits have been drilled in the project area and two are outside the project area. Mr. Thomas Fitzgerald asked from the audience asked when the pits were dug. Mr. Fraser said they were put in just prior to the application in May of this year.
The second plan shows the final grading of the site. The existing berm is parallel to the road, and turns just before the place the project begins. They will continue the berm along the road and wrap it around at the end of the project to meet the existing tree line. All runoff will be contained within the project area. This is a natural treatment. There will be no migrating sediment. The gravelly soil will allow stormwater to perc easily, so there will be no runoff. Further reference was made to the Stormwater Management book. The final grade goes down from the surface at a 3 to 1 ratio. Mr. Fraser said this will work out close to an 18 degree slope. The excavation will hit the water table at six feet or so, and will continue to excavate down to recover further material. The slope will be such that a person or animal falling into the water would be able to get out…The resultant pond will be about 1.4 acres, and will have an average depth of 11.5 feet. The volume of the material to be excavated is just over 25,000 cubic yards. The material will be used for the Alstead project to fix damages from the flood. The project is not long lived and will not exceed three years.
The third sheet focuses on best management practices and reclamation. The right hand side has seed mixes for this type of site, taken from the state Reclaiming Sites in NH Manual. Three seed mixes have been proven effective for conditions in gravel sites. The site is simple and flat—best management practices include installation of a silt fence, hay bales, maintenance details, and how to design the swale. Also included is how to manage the construction. The entrances will be 50 feet of one and one-half inch stone to remove debris from truck tires. The last section addresses what areas are required by RSA 155:E(3) to be covered throughout the excavatihn process: fuel and chemical handling and site safety. Major points include reclamation, which is easy—build and seed a berm. A fuel storage facility exists across the street with a secondary containment tank. No fuel will be stored on site. Dust control is accomplished by the short distance to the road. The site will average 8000 cubic yards a year. The construction season is 270 days per year, for an average of two trucks per day, but there could be up to 10-20 trucks on any given day.
The site is 42 feet from other lands of FWW; 372 feet from the closest property to the northeast; 225 feet to the closest property to the east; 990 feet from the closest property to the south, and 1215 feet from the closest property to the southwest. Best management practices will be used for stump and brush management, which will be kept on site. The booklet addresses how to manage spills if a line breaks or petroleum spills.
Ms. Weber asked if chemicals would be stored on site. The only chemicals which would be needed would be calcium to hold down the dust and grease guns which are stored in the trucks. Ms. Weber asked if the Alstead project was expected to last three years. Mr. Fraser did not know if that job would extend past this year. Mr. Webb asked what the volume of water in the pond would be. Mr. Fraser said it could be calculated. Mr. Webb wanted to know if it was worth considering a dry hydrant. There is a dry hydrant in the ponds across the street. Water is taken from there to Lane Construction to suppress dust. Ms. Weber asked if there will be any blasting at this site. There will be none.
Ms. Mansouri asked about the amount of a reclamation bond. A figure has not been discussed, but figures for bonds are all over the map. A large project in Swanzey had a recommended bond of $2300 per acre. Danbury asked for $600 per acre. Reclamation will only be the pond area. Ms. Mansouri asked about the volume of gravel to be removed. The volume was calculated by computer software to be 25,000 cubic yards. Ms. Mansouri read into the record the letter from Southwest Regional about its review of the application for completeness. All checklist items and statutory requirements have been met. The ZBA must make a determination that the resulting body of water will be healthy and safe. A three to one slope is required to a depth of six feet below the waterline, plus thick vegetation to deter children from the pond.
Ms. Susan Warren asked if it was such a small project, why was it a three year project. Also, is there gravel available elsewhere? All material will be used for FWW projects. There will be no sales to third parties. The soil delineations on the property are shown on the plans. Chocura soils are wetlands, and will not be excavated. Ninegret soils are too fine to be used as construction materials. The only decent material is in the project area. Ms. Warren asked what if they hit solid ledge, will you come back and ask to use explosives. Mr. Fraser said it was not wise economically to blast in that area. Ms. Mansouri noted they would have to come back to the Board to ask for changes to the permit. Ms. Warren asked why three years? Ms Mansouri said they would have to reapply after three years. In the meantime the ZBA will inspect the pit once a year. The ZBA will listen to problems. Mr. Fraser suggested that before going to the ZBA they contact Mr. Frank Whitcomb directly about any problems. Several audience members said they had tried that in the past and that he was unavailable.
Ms. Marcia Frankiewicz raised the problem of current Lane Corporation blasting. She was told it was up to the state to control, then the state referred her to the Selectmen and nothing happened. Where is the power to get help? Ms. Mansouri said they can come and complain to the ZBA, which will refer the matter to the Selectmen for enforcement. The statement was made that Whitcomb’s is an eyesore now, and who is enforcing that? Mr. Thomas Fitzgerald said complaints have been made about FWW property on both sides of the road. He said junk has been buried in the present site. There is standing water in the treeline. There were three small ponds on the other side of the road. Now there is just one big pond. Whitcomb’s track record of running gravel pits in the state of New Hampshire is not good, and he doesn’t think he should do another one.
Mr. Fraser said that Jonathan Sisson is a certified wetlands specialist and soil specialist. He said that FWW cannot extend beyond what is permitted by the Board. Ms. Frankiewicz asked how do we know they won’t go on ten years down the road. There is junk everywhere now. How can we tell they won’t do that on this site? Mr. Fraser said he doesn’t know what plans are for the future.
Ms. Warren said she has been in residence four years now. Blasts in the Lane quarry have knocked her silver tea service off the shelf, and caused vertical cracks in their walls. She talked to the quarry and then to the selectmen, but did not get an answer back. The quarry won’t pay for the cracked wall. The Selectmen still would not help. She hears that the operation is regulated, but there is no help when the regulation is violated. Ms. Shirley Smith said that she lives right in back of the site and heard a blast at 1:30 today. Others noted the blast occurred at 1:18. Ms. Frankiewicz said her foundation was cracked from blasting on July 21st. She also expressed concerns about existing shallow wells on that side of the road. When the last pond was dug, her mother-in-law’s well dried up.
Mr. William Lundgren said there has been a track record of non-compliance, and the Selectmen do not have a good track record of enforcement. Why would they not re-open prior pits, unless their track record would not allow it? He doesn’t want the houses damaged by whatever FWW hides behind the berm. Ms. Warren asked if you can specify that the property must be maintained and reports of maintenance filed? Ms. Mansouri answered that the ZBA inspects the site once a year. The owners have to come before the Board if they are not maintaining the property according to the terms of the permit.
Ms. Rita Whitcomb noted that the existing berm is ugly, and wouldn’t it be more cost effective to dig the gravel elsewhere? Mr. Fraser said he thinks all the other FWW assets have been sold, so there is nowhere else for them to go. Ms. Whitcomb said they could buy from other people rather than starting a new pit. She does not want her property value diminished. In the past, properties maintained by FWW were allowed to generate dust. Mr. Jim Whitcomb was concerned that opening up this property will make it look like Lane Construction soon. This part of town has not been helped by the Zoning Board.
Ms. Fritzi Till said this is about credibility. She has lived for 22 years in Drewsville, and blasting occurs there that would not occur in the village of Walpole. Somewhere along the line the people need to be listened to. Ms. Warren said her house is already discolored by dust. Ms. Whitcomb said there was a huge outcry over the crane business proposed by Matt Phillips. He couldn’t build in town even though he is a good neighbor and would have kept his property up well. This part of town needs to be treated equally and to be listened to. Ms. Frankiewicz said when the Selectmen run for office, they never come to her house. They are excluded and do not have granite curbing. Mr. William Lundgren heard back in the day that Frank Whitcomb said he would not come any closer to Drewsville. He takes a man for his word.
Ms. Till asked if this excavation is solely for Alstead. Mr. Fraser said that in 2007 the material will go to Alstead. The 2008 contracts have not yet been awarded. The permit will last three years. He asked that they look at the positive. If all the material is used in one year, the project will be done. He has no idea what the 2008 projects will be. Ms. Till asked what about a one year permit? Ms. Mansouri said permits are for three years and are withdrawn if no substantial work is done on the site for one year. There is a procedure to ask for an extension, which requires the owner to come back to the Board. The Board may include reasonable conditions in the permit. Ms. Weber noted that there are two limits. The first is the three year time limit in the permit. Then the owner must come back to the Board for and extension. Then there is the area specified in the permit. If the owner wants to operate outside the specified area, he must come back to the Board to modify the permit.
Ms. Till asked if there would be no blasting, would there be monitoring of particulate matter. Mr. Fraser said most of the excavation would be below water, and there would be no fugitive dust. They would use an excavator to dig the pond. Ms. Till asked about the noise level. Mr. Fraser said it is pretty quiet when you dig in water. Lane is a quarry site. That is where you have this issue. This site is not a quarry and will have no huge haul trucks. He does not know the prior history of permits at Whitcomb’s.
Ms. Barbara Bragg asked if you don’t need a permit to build a pond. Mr. Fraser said you need a permit if you are impacting a wetland, but not if you dig on land that is not wet. If the pond sits, eventually, vegetation will come up and it will become a wetland when the area around the pond meets the Army Corps of Engineers definition of a wetland. It doesn’t happen overnight. Where does the water come from? Ground water finds its own level. Here it is at six feet below ground level. The closest wetland is 87 feet from the edge of the project line. Pink and black flags have been set out there and numbered. Ms. Bragg asked if the property across the street is a certified wetland and therefore cleaning up that property is a no-brainer. Mr. Fraser noted the state allows excavation within 25 feet of a wetland. Ms. Bragg suggested they should all get together and get people from their area elected to the ZBA and Selectboard.
Ms. Jackie Bujnevicie asked if the applicant needs to prove that property values of surrounding land will not be affected. Ms. Warren said that RSA 155:A(3)(b) says it must not cause diminution of property values or change the character of the neighborhood. Has a study been done? Ms. Mansouri said the town already allows excavations in the area, so she does not think this will be significantly different from what is already there. Ms. Warren said they were already getting thousands of dollars in damage to their homes. Mr. Webb said there has been no indication of how the project will affect surrounding properties in this presentation. It hasn’t been addressed. Mr. Fraser said that are of town has been unchanged for decades. The construction industry is indigenous to the area. No one will notice it.
Ms. Warren mentioned RSA 155:E(4) and her concerns regarding the effect on highways, and concerns about dust, safety and nuisance,. Mr. Fraser said the dust will be contained. The Board could require trucks to be covered. He suggested the abutters lean on the Board to be proactive. Ms. Warren asked isn’t it on Mr. Whitcomb to prove no impact? Mr. Fraser said the problems in the neighborhood go back years. Ms. Warren reiterated that a blast at 1:18 today and dust cloud at 1:18 affected her, and this project will add onto those effects. Mr. Webb reminded her that what Lane Construction does is not relevant to this application. Ms. Warren reiterated that no studies have been done to show how this will impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Britton said the quarry was there when Ms. Warren bought her home. Ms. Warren said she inquired of the town and did not get told about it. The issue here is a lack of a good track record. Ms. Mansouri said ttat this is the first this Board has heard of the problems. She suggested that Ms. Warren take pictures of the damage, bring them before the ZBA, and we can write to the Selectboard. Mr. Britton reminded that we should not confuse the Lane issue with this permit application. Ms. Warren said there was no way to remove aggregate without dust, big machinery and diesel emissions.
Mr. Jim Whitcomb said issuing this permit is going to open up 229 acres down their road. The whole mountain will be gone like the other side of Route 123. Whitcomb started that and will continue on this side of Route 123. He asked the Board to turn the permit down.
A comment was made that the Board should not think adding gravel pits is not a big deal. It is a big deal. Why not add more old trailers to other parts of town? Ms. Warren said she had checked the cost of midsize aggregate and FWW will have $55,000 to $100,000 savings if they buy aggregate rather than open this pit. So why not buy the aggregate unless they are looking to future projects? Mr. Paul Mascot said he had lived in Drewsville longer than anyone here. On the other side of Drewsville Road, FWW said they would remove 8-10 truckloads of material per day and no materials would be stored there, but now it’s a pigpen. He asked why no one from FWW was here tonight. He noted that FWW would not sell to third parties, but they could use the gravel elsewhere. The Alstead project was already bid, how did FWW figure their costs? He has not trust in FWW. Mr. Webb asked if anyone was there when the fire pond was dug. Mr. Mascot said there was no dust problem then, but they won’t load material directly from this pond, but will leave it to dry out first.
Mr. Britton asked Mr. Fraser if FWW had any long term plan for the rest of the 229 acres. Mr. Fraser said he had asked Mr. Whitcomb why he did not expand and go further into the property? Mr. Whitcomb said he did not want to. Mr. Webb asked if he just wants a foot in the door. Mr. Fraser said the issue is regarding only this proposed operation. Mr. Britton asked what kind of soils are on the rest of the property? Mr. Fraser said that had not been looked at. An audience member said there is gravel eight feet deep all over the property all the way down to the four corners. The cornfield is gravel. They will drain the wetlands into the pond. Houses in the area have sump pumps in their cellars. After the gravel is taken, there is still plenty of rock.
Mr. Michael Barnett asked if they were digging below the water line, how are they going to keep diesel contamination out of people’s wells. Mr. Fraser said best management practices for fueling address the problem. Storage of fuels is with secondary containment systems and covered containers. There is a secure gate at the entrance. There will be training for employees about containment of spills and contaminated soils, and reporting of spillage when required. Ms. Warren asked who watches to see this is done? Mr. Fraser said under state statute it is up to Board regulators. Ms. Weber asked if FWW would have a problem if the Board were to issue a permit conditioned on no storage of chemicals or fuel on the site. Mr. Fraser said that would not be a problem.
Ms. Galloway-Leclerc suggested that issues with the property across the street might be addressed by a Planning Board Site Plan, and they could address it with the Planning Board. An audience member stated they had been to the Planning Board, and had the same problem getting the Selectmen to enforce. Mr. Sawyer said that the only request he know of was an issue of non-compliance with the berm, and the Selectboard required the berm to be put in. We have no code enforcer other than the Selectmen. Ms. Mansouri noted the Selectmen meet on Thursdays at 7:30. An audience member asked doesn’t the Planning Board drive around to see the problems? Mr. Webb said that the problem must be brought to a Board meeting. Ms. Weber said that the town has no code enforcer. All the work is done by three Selectmen and the volunteer Planning and Zoning Boards. There is a limited amount of time and person hours available to deal with these issues, and a limited number of people willing to do these jobs. Zoning Board members have brought issues back to the Board when they are aware of them, but otherwise, our policy is to have someone either bring the matter up at a Board meeting or put in a written complaint.
Ms. Mansouri asked if anyone had anything to add at this time. Ms. Weber asked if a site view might be helpful. Mr. Webb asked to what avail. Ms. Weber said that she would like to get a clearer idea of the location of the wetlands. Ms. Warren asked about the timing to make a decision. Ms. Weber said that the statute requires a decision within 20 days. Mr. Fraser indicated he did not think his client would agree to an extension. Ms. Bragg said that the wetlands issue is huge, and really needs to be addressed so as not to expand the problem. Mr. Calhoun said he wouldn’t mind looking at the site. Ms. Galloway-Leclerc suggested we invite the Conservation Commission.. Mr. Sawyer said the Conservation Commission has mapped the wetlands in town, so it would be a good idea to include them. Ms. Weber asked if the soils expert could come as well. Mr. Fraser said yes.
The site visit was scheduled for Monday, August 27th at 10:00 AM at the site on Old Drewsville Road. The continued hearing will be resumed immediately after the site visit at the Town Hall. The hearing was adjourned and continued to August 27th, at which time all issues may still be addressed.
****Please note that after this meeting, the site visit and continued hearing were rescheduled at the request of the applicant. The site visit will be held on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007, before the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, and the continued hearing will resume on Wednesday, September 19th, at 7:30 PM at the regularly scheduled September Board meeting.****
Mr. Britton arrived during the Public Hearing. At this time, Ms. Mansouri recognized his presence, and asked Mr. Calhoun to step down as a voting member. Mr. Webb continued as a voting member to replace Mr. Carignan. Ms. Lester also arrived during the hearing.
NEW BUSINESS: Robin Casey of KC Signs for Walgreens sign replacement. Ms. Casey presented drawings of the current Rite-aid signs and the signage Walgreens would like to install. The initial proposal was for two signs in addition to the signage already in place. One sign was proposed to have flashing bulbs to advertise specials. Ms. Casey was informed that that type of sign would not be permitted under the ordinance. Ms. Mansouri explained that Walgreen’s may replace the existing signage with Walgreen’s signs if they do not change the size of the signage. Mr. Webb said that if new signs are wanted, Walgreen’s must apply for a variance, as any new signs would be too close to the existing signage. Ms. Casey said that they will simply reface the existing signs for now, and will return for a variance if more signage is needed.
Virginia Carter, 114 Barnett Hill Road, questions about permitted uses of her property. Ms. Carter’s home is located in the Rural/Agricultural District. She planted 950 grape vines on the property in 2003, and is doing business as Barnett Hill Vineyard and West Mountain View Winery. These are farming activities under Article VIII of the Walpole Zoning Ordinance. Currently, 100% of products sold are produced on the property. The State of NH says activities constitute farming activities if 35% of what is sold is produced on the property. Ms. Carter wanted to know about the sale of vineyard-related items such as corkscrews, etc. not produced on the property. Ms. Weber said that Article VIII of the Ordinance permits farm stands to sell items produced on the property without a permit. It does not have language similar to the state’s requiring only 35% of items sold to be produced on the property. Mr. Sawyer pointed out the town can be more restrictive than the state. Ms. Lester asked if the Ordinance specified dimensions for roadside stands. Ms. Mansouri said there were no specifications in the ordinance. Ms. Carter read the definition of a farm from the state statutes. Ms. Weber read the Special Exception provisions of Article VIII. These conditions would have to be met for any commercial use of the property other than the sale of farm products raised on the premises, which is already a permitted use of the property. Ms. Carter inquired about obtaining a Special Exception now to ensure she would be able to sell items in the future. She questioned how specific an application needs to be. Ms. Mansouri said the application needs to be as specific as possible, and we cannot give general advice on what might or might not be acceptable, either to this Board or for future Boards. We can only act on a specific application before us. Mr. Britton reminded the Board we had some discussion in the past about perhaps setting time limits on permits. Ms. Weber said it had been discussed, but we have no power under the current Ordinance to set time limits for action under a Special Exception. Ms. Carter was assured that for so long as she is selling only items produced on the property, she is in compliance with the ordinance.
Barbara Bragg, 26 Old Drewsville Road, Sign question. Ms. Bragg makes pottery in her home, which is in the Rural/Agricultural District. About three times a year, the Walpole Artisan’s Tour is held, and she would like to install a wooden post and a small sign that could be easily seen from the road. Under the ordinance, a permanent sign must be 20 feet from the road or a variance is needed. Ms. Weber suggested a temporary sandwich board type sign which could be set out when and where it is needed. Because Ms. Bragg does not want people coming to her house at other times, she proposed a post and a small moveable sign that could be hung on the post. The Board agreed that if the sign was brought in at night, it was a temporary sign that did not require a permit.
Local Government Center Q & A on the Role of Alternates: Ms. Lester was given a copy of the article. Ms. Mansouri gave an overview of the article. The article suggests that alternates should sit in the audience and take no part in hearings unless they are appointed to replace an absent member. Our practice has been to have alternates participate in the debate, but not in the vote. Mr. Webb said it was contrary to what this Board has been doing for years. He disagrees with it but will go along if the majority of the Board agrees. Mr. Calhoun said the article was discouraging to alternates. Mr. Webb said that he believes that we should have alternates sit with the Board and not as members of the audience. They are in fact appointed members of the Board. Mr. Calhoun asked how the alternates could even participate in the present discussion. Ms. Mansouri said she was very discouraged at reading the article. Alternates have always sat on the Board, and participated in discussion. Mr. Sawyer asked why you would have a ten person Board? Mr. Webb said the state specifies we have a five member Board. The problem here is this is one attorney offering an opinion this is what to do. The present format has worked well for us, and he is hesitant to abandon it. He suggested we go back to the table formation of a 3 sided square. The three alternates would sit on one side. We could label them as alternates with the regular members on the other sides, and the alternates could change their seats when they are appointed to vote. The audience would be more aware they are alternates. Ms. Mansouri said she was thinking of a similar solution. Ms. Weber said she thought it would only be a problem if there were a contested hearing and an aggrieved party wanted to argue that the Board was not properly constituted. Mr. Webb said that whether the alternates sat in the audience or with the Board is not to their detriment. This is an opinion put forth by a state agency, and he is willing to gamble on sitting alternates where they are separated. Ms. Mansouri suggested we give the alternates a special spot to sit at, and that they could participate in the discussions and give their opinions to the same extent as any other residents, but would not participate in deliberations once the public portion of the hearing ended. They certainly have the right to as much participation as other residents. Ms. Galloway-Leclerc likes the suggestions from Mr. Webb and Ms. Mansouri, with specific chairs for the alternates. Mr. Britton said the members can change seats to clarify their role. Mr. Webb said we all contribute to the discussion, and ten different attorneys would interpret this ten different ways. Mr. Calhoun says they recognized that the alternates are no different than members of the public. Mr. Webb said that he thinks the alternates are different from the audience. We cannot just pull people from the audience to decide cases. Mr. Calhoun said they are already designated as alternates. He was frustrated reading the article. They have to be appointed and sworn in. Ms. Lester commented on the article’s analogy to a ball team, noting that all ballplayers sit together. Alternates would miss out on the maps and plans if they had to sit in the back. Ms. Weber read from RSA 673:3 and 673:11, which is all the guidance the statutes give as to Zoning Boards and alternates. She said that private citizens are allowed to present their knowledge and opinions at hearings. Mr. Webb said that having the alternates there does not add any extra pressure, it is a good thing. Ms. Mansouri said we will go back to the U shape for the tables with five seats for the voting members to make it clear who is deliberating. Mr. Sawyer said perhaps we need legislation to clear it up.
Ms. Mansouri thanked the Board members for their indulgence for the time the meeting took, but said it was important for all to have had their say.
Home Businesses in the Rural/Agricultural Dictrict. Ms. Weber raised the issue of asking the Planning Board to recommend including the home business language now allowed in the Residential and Commercial Districts to be included in the Rural/Agricultural District as well. More and more people are working from their homes, and we do not want to burden them unnecessarily. Mr. Britton moved, and Ms. Galloway-Leclerc seconded that we send a letter to the Planning Board asking them to present this change for the next town meeting. All were in favor.
Ms. Mansouri reminded Board members of the OEP Conference on October 13th at Loon Mountain, and the Gravel Pit Training to be held here in Walpole at the Town Hall from 9:00 AM to 12:00 noon on October 9th. All Board members are urged to attend if at all possible.
Minutes of July Meeting. It was noted that Dr. Pena lives on Watkins Hill Road, not March Hill as written. With this correction, acceptance of the minutes was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 PM. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 19 September, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
****Please note that the site visit and continued hearing on the proposed FWW gravel pit on Old Drewsville Road have been rescheduled as follows:
Site visit: 6:30 PM on Wednesday, 19 September, 2007, at the proposed site on Old Drewsville Road.
Continued hearing: 7:30 PM on Wednesday, 19 September, 2007, the Board’s regular meeting time.****
Respectfully submitted,
Lucy Weber,
Secretary.