Planning Board minutes 6-26-08 Print E-mail

MONTVILLETOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2008

No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM

ROLL CALL

Mr. Maggio  - present               Mr. Karkowsky - present        

Ms. Kull - absent                    Mr. Daughtry - present

Ms. Nielson - entrance noted   Mr. Visco - absent

Mr. Lipari - present                 Mr. Lewis – present

Mr. Hines - present                 Mr. Canning (alt#2) – present

                                                Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present

Also in attendance:

Kevin Kain, Planner

Stan Omland, Engineer

Michael Carroll, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Mr. Karkowsky indicated that some of the sidebar conversations are being picked up and that the mikes should be cut back when board members are talking since some of the dialogue and testimony is hard to keep up with when another board member is listening to recording. 

Gary Lewis acknowledged Mr. Omland on a recent appointment.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated that he and the Board congratulates Mr. Omland on his recent appointment to the Morris County College Board.

PLANNING BUSINESS

Master Plan/Re-examination Proposal from J. Burgis

Mrs. White indicated the proposal from Mr. Burgis is updated reflecting pricing for review work totaling $81,500.  She indicated the Board allocated an additional $30,000 on top of this figure to cover other expenses, publications, and other board professional input and reviews totaling a request for $111,500.  Mrs. White will send this proposal along with request for additional funds amounting to $111,500 to the Township Committee so we can start preparing for workshop meetings in immediate future.

Moved by:  Russ Lipari

Seconded by:  Art Maggio 

Gary Lewis:  wanted assurances that the number of copies of the draft and final due to vast distribution of the documents should be in the proposal.  Mrs. White indicated this is reflected on page 3 of the proposal, where Mr. Burgis indicates 12 copies.  It is her opinion that these 12 copies will be of all draft and final documents.  Mr. Kain will discuss and clarify this with Mr. Burgis.  Mrs. White indicated that if and when we need additional copies, she will see if we can provide in house copies and/or compare different copy companies at that time.

Roll call:  Unanimous

Morris County Wastewater Management Plan – County of Morris

Mrs. White indicated that the County has requested municipalities to appoint a committee to work on the wastewater management plan per State Plan requirements.  Towards this goal, the Township Committee has appointed a committee consisting of Township Engineer and Water and Sewer Department.  We will get updates as this goes forward. 

Letter of Opposition – COAH rules

Mrs. White indicated she prepared a Resolution opposing the adoption of the bills relative to COAH legislation Bill A500 and S1783.  Mrs. White noted that A500 passed assembly on Monday.  The opposition indicated that these bills eliminates a voluntary, affordable housing compliance mechanism, regional contribution agreements, and provides no incentives for the provision of affordable housing.  It also establishes a 2.5% statewide commercial development fee, which relieves commercial developers of their housing obligation.   It does not, however, relieve property taxpayers. The presumption by League is that taxpayers will be compelled to provide this offset.    And finally, these bills create a new State Housing Commission.  The League also questions how the creation of additional layer of government will provide any better guidance from the State on affordable housing policy.   Motion to adopt and transmit to legislators made by:  Russ Lipari Seconded by:  Art Maggio Roll call Vote: Unanimous  

Permit Extension Act

This Act was recently passed extending all approvals to 2010.  Mrs. White indicated she is working with the Township Attorney and Engineer to insure that bonding be reviewed annually to ensure there are adequate funds available to the municipality should any development under way goes defunct. 

Mr. Omland indicated that certain environmental permits are not extended.  Mrs. White indicated she is working with these professionals reviewing DA’s in order to determine status of their projects (i.e. completion of roads/lighting/landscaping) and to make sure there is adequate bonding available. 

Referral Ordinance from Township Committee – Ordinance No. 2008-28 permitting industrial and retail uses in a new I2A zone

Mrs. White indicated this is the ordinance drafted by the Planning Board that provides for allowance of retail within the blocks and lots referenced on the attached map along Changebridge Road corridor.  This is scheduled for adoption by Township Committee on July 8th.

Motion made by Gary Lewis who indicated he makes this recommendation of adoption despite the fact it doesn’t concur with our current master plan but his feeling is that the benefits outweigh the negatives and that we intend to correct this with our upcoming rezoning/re-examination review.  Seconded By:  Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

Jack Ulikowsky who owns property on Changebridge asked what the ordinance is about.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated that this will be discussed at a public hearing on July 8th at Township Committee level which will be a public meeting.  A copy of the ordinance was given to Mr. Ulikowsky.

Ms. White voiced concerns that we must go forward with insuring that the master plan for B6 ordinance is addressed and asked Mr. Kain to discuss this issue with Mr. Burgis since we are processing and scheduling an application within this zone in immediate future.

WAIVERS

None

Note:  Mr. Canning left - Ms. Nielson present

RESOLUTIONS

PMSP/F05-06 Francisco, Bicalho – 236 Changebridge Road, B: 138.01, L: 3 Extension of approval to May 25, 2009 Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale & Vic Canning

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis

Seconded Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

Minutes of 5/22/08 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowksy, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale & Vic Canning

Subcommittee Minutes of 6-19-08 – Eligible:  Deb Nielson, John Visco, Art Daughtry

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded by: Art Maggio   

Roll call:  Unanimous

INVOICES

          Michael Carroll, Esq. – O/E for: $101.25; Trust for: $406.25,

$31.25, $93.75, $33.75, $67.50, $33.75, $33.75, $540, $540, $67.50, $67.50, $101.25, $33.75, $33.75, $67.50, $675, $67.50, $33.75, $33.75, $33.75, $67.50, $67.50

          Omland Engineering – O/E for: $67.50; Trust for: $887.50, $405,

          $542.50, $67.50, $303.75, $472.50, $101.25, $67.50, $67.50,        $945, $742.50, $202.50, $270, $135, $135, $573.75

          Burgis Associates – O/E for: $600, $240; Trust for: $240, $570,

$570, $2,587.50, $810, $270

          Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $875

          Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $202.50

Motion made by: Art Maggio   

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

         

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

OLD BUSINESS

          PMSP/F07-10 - K & K DEVELOPERS, Inc., Major Subdivision – 10 Woodmont Road, Block: 159, L: 6 – 10.2 acre parcel into 11 lots    (Ten SF) – R27A Zone – Notice Acceptable & carried from 2/28/08;   4/24/08; 6/12/08)– Eligible:  Art Maggio, Ladis Karkowsky, Marie           Kull, Deb    Nielson, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Art Daughtry, John           Visco, Tony           Speciale (Alt#1), Gary Lewis, Vic Canning                                                                                                ACT BY:  6/26/08

Present:

Michael Sullivan, Esq. – summarized past testimony, indicating there are no variances and request for sidewalks on one side of street under RSIS and slope exceptions.

Sworn by Mr. Carroll. – traffic expert:  Gary Anderson

Credentials stated - No objections

Traffic impact assessment reviewed and Exhibit A4 marked in.  Dated June 13, 2008 Traffic Impact Assessment.

Mr. Anderson summarized:  Installed traffic recorders; explored how he obtained his data, and trip data developed.  This data is compiled from similar developments, and assumed for this application 10 SF homes, deleting the one existing single family home.  Took this traffic and distributed it to the surrounding roadways.  Assumptions offered.  Did a traffic analysis of how the traffic will impact surrounding roadways and intersections.  The other alternative is if roadway is connected to Windsor Drive and how will it affect roadways? 

Open to board discussion: 

Gary Lewis voiced concerns with the report indicating there was speeding on Windsor and how can we respond to this.  Is parking on one side a deterrent?  Mr. Anderson indicated it is his opinion that 24’ with parking on side is a deterrent.  Mr. Lewis:  is there anything that can be done to this stretch of roadway to further reduce speed?   Mr. Anderson:  Speed is an enforcement issue.  An option that would work is before the Board and that is to make a cul de sac, having no other suggestions.  Mr. Lewis asked about comments offered by Mr. Omland in his report as to installation of a traffic circle.  Mr. Anderson didn’t feel it is needed to reduce speed.  But felt installing it couldn’t hurt.

Mr. Karkowsky:  has been out riding in this area and his feeling is that part of the geometry of the road makes you go slowly.  Not being familiar with the road drove slowly to begin with.  Newcomers wouldn’t be speeding on this road.  Mr. Anderson:  one of the ideas of traffic calming is to make it a windy road which naturally slows people down vs. making perfectly straight.  Bend in road also helps this area.

Mr. Hines:  as to Speed.  If Windsor Drive was connected, would speed increase on Windsor.  Mr. Anderson:  no.  Current speed average is 44mph.  Mr. Anderson does not see it is likely for a draw for more traffic.  South bound is 19 cars in peak an hour which is a worst case scenario. 

Ms. Nielson:  voiced concerns on speeding and enforcement noting she would discuss this with the Chief of police. 

Mr. Omland:  wanted assurances that the applicant’s expert was aware of the police department dated June 25th from Lt. Petersen who indicated there was no accidents at this location.  The police department did respond to any accident incidents.

Mr. Burgis report of today was received late and was not sent out.  Mrs. White handed it to board this evening, as well as applicant.  Mr. Kain, on behalf of Mr. Burgis, indicated Windsor is a minor roadway.  The Master plan discusses roadways and cul de sacs. It specifically says cul de sacs are discouraged.  It also discusses minor streets which say it should be designed for safe and to make connection to future streets and properties.  This master plan wording is encouraging connection between existing streets discouraging cul de sacs.  These are comments from the master plan.

Opened to public

Hedri (indistinguishable) lived in this area for 15-16 years.  His feeling is logical:  the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Traffic will be increased.  This has existed as a cul de sac, leave it as such.  Traffic moving on Woodmont road and opening a cul de sac will affect this tranquil area asking board members to keep this in resident’s minds. You have to assume people drive erratically and this neighborhood will be disturbed.  Please don’t ask for connection.

Brian Fleisig, Esq. – speaking as an individual

Offered:  People speed on Windsor.  Discussion ensued.  He asked traffic expert some questions on his on site inspections, his path of driving, if he drove down Windsor, how far down from Rutledge is roadway straight, how many times expert drove down Rutledge?  Mr. Anderson answered.    There were other associates assisted with counters, the amount of time e spent on report and his observations, noting again he did not conduct the traffic counts. 

Mr. Fleisig continued to ask questions on driving down Windsor from Rutledge, is there a hill, would there be more speed in this case, and re-examining some of the statements contained in the Traffic Impact Statement. 

Mr. Karkowsky asked as to issue before Board and Mr. Fleisig indicated that he would like to retain a traffic expert on this case.  He then proceeded to ask more questions on traffic report pertaining to parking restrictions imposed, with traffic calming devices would cars go to center of a roadway, and what happens if you don’t slow down at curves. 

Ultimately his request for a traffic expert was discussed with the chair indicating that there was more than adequate time to hire a traffic expert.  Discussion ensued on this report issued ten days prior to this meeting and lack of time for his ability to get a traffic impact statement.  Discussion ensued with Mr. Sullivan indicated that this is a protracted process with a net increase of 9 homes, starting with notice in 07, and applicant has done every thing above and beyond; went with extended notice, and as early as Feb., the Board directed a thru street, and this is now June, and time for traffic reports and experts was done finalizing with the applicant didn’t want to bring a traffic expert, and keeping with spirit of what was done, they did and the applicant objects to any further delays to the extensive time this has been before the Board.

Mr. Fleisig wants their own expert to review this subdivision feeling refusing would be unjust.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated that our experts responded to this report.  Mr. Fleisig continued reminding board that at last meeting the Mayor asked for more information.  He felt it would be an injustice if they were not able to get their own expert. Discussion continued with Mr. Fleisig summarizing that he felt the applicant created a delay in getting in traffic reports.  If applicant is entitled to present this report, and there are people here that should be heard.  Their positions and views should be heard. 

Mr. Karkowsky indicated he felt there was more than adequate time for Mr. Fleisig to obtain a traffic import expert.  Mr. Fleisig felt applicant was afforded ability for adjournment, and felt neighbors should be afforded same rights.

Maria Renda - 17 Sylvan Drive – is part of this community and ask that this road not be opened.  There are kids and people who walk in this area.  They moved here because of tranquility.  She asked that the road not be open.  She stated her reasons why: she lives here, and sees cars fly by, every house on this block has 2-3 children, and people would be flooding down roadway. She asked that the Board not open this road and leave as is.  Woodmont Road is curvy and will take the Windsor cut.  If you lived in this area, you would see how dangerous it will be.  What would happen if Hilltop Care opens up? She indicated the fire dept and police department doesn’t object, so asked that the road not be opened.  .

Mr. Sullivan.  The applicant came in with proposal of a cul de sac.  This was applicant’s first choice, and it is the Board’s directive that this road be opened up.  He wanted to make sure it was clear that the applicant would prefer approval with a cul de sac being approved.

Richard…, Windsor Drive asked the traffic expert where the counters were put?  There is really only one curve.  Mr. Anderson:  South of Tudor Place – midway on straight area.  Roadway layout discussed.  Measured speed at the ½ of descent.  It was a flat section at base.  Homeowner disagreed with report and doesn’t feel impact is minor and asked for clarification in counts.   What are counts going down Windsor Drive?  Mr. Anderson:  Southbound in AM peak, there were 7 going to 19 which is a worst case scenario.  Looking at percentage, it sounds high, but overall numbers is low.  Resident felt the cul de sc should remain.  This expert indicated there is no fix, so there is no problem, but this board is considering a thru street that will create a problem asking the Board to allow cul de sac to remain.  He also felt that you were lowering property values with this, felt circulation is not a problem and why, just open it for snow plowing.

Deborah LeBlanc 14 Windsor Drive – there are many service vehicles in the area, and many young kids going to a Hilltop near the cul de sac.  There are young kids screaming around.  The young kids and service vehicles have no regards to neighbors.  It is not neighbor’s speeding.

Mr. Anderson was asked by Ms. LeBlanc and answered the location of the recorder which was placed at beginning of a curve after a straight line.  Discussion ensued on driving near a curve and the designation for a 25 mph roadway.  Who posted it this way?  Mr. Omland indicated this is an old road and when originally applied it was posted at 25 mph. 

Ms. LeBlanc asked Mr. Anderson if he took Hook Mountain facility into consideration, and asked if this opening and this approval would affect an increase.  Mr. Karkowsky indicated this not relevant since te facility is accessed off another road, indicated Mr. Karkowsky.

With respect to volume coming down Windsor Drive, Mr. Anderson estimated 19-20 vehicles, discussing more details of traffic impact study and traffic counts taken.   Asked about reviewing traffic at Tudor and Windsor, and why it wasn’t looked at?  Mr. Anderson felt there was no reason to look at this sight distance.  Ms. LeBlanc asked if there would potentially be traffic coming out of Tudor onto Windsor?  Mr. Anderson indicated possibly, and Ms. LeBlanc was advised that the Planning Board directed the traffic expert what to look at.

Gary Lewis voiced opposition as to resident’s indicating members of this board are not caring about children in neighborhood which is totally inaccurate.   

Mrs. LeBlanc finished with a question on a statement in report which indicated that there would be any significant impact in opening up the road and based on what was heard and professional conclusion, why?  Mr. Anderson: indicated felt whether roadway was opened or not is insignificant since traffic would be no different.  There is no impact on safety if cul de sac is opened.

16 Windsor Drive – Syed Khalid indicated she a college professor, her grandkids play basketball all day, and she is delighted to be here to see democracy in action noting the people who spent time listening to both sides of issues, and thanks the board in expressing joy and true democracy will come thru and meet the will of people will come thru.

Jim Walsh – 42 Windsor Drive – sounds like sight distances were measured but was anything done to look at Windsor Drive?  He lives about 200 yards south where the hill starts to drop down.  Sight distance is limited here and he has to back out of his driveway.  Mr. Anderson did not look at sight distance along this area on Windsor. 

Seems that the residents of the area and applicant want to have a cul de sac design and feels the Planning Board should address best interest of town and a thru road is not what people want.

Mr. Fleisig asked Mr. Anderson what is the benefit the town will receive in opening up roadway.  Mr. Anderson:  Nothing.  In report, figure no. 3, 2009, on this figure, shows a sketch of the roads in the area, and in looking at this diagram, Sylvan Drive and Windsor Drive intersect and if roadways open up, the roadway will be called Windsor Drive.  If you are travelling south on Windsor and south on Sylvan drive, who will have ROW in continuing on the thru street.  Discussion ensued on this subject ultimately Mr. Fleisig advised that there will be traffic signage and controls that will be imposed by the Township and which will be enforce, noting right now this is not necessary since it is not a thru road.  Once it is a thru road, it will be required.

Mr. Jack Ulikowski –Changebridge Road – this may be an inconvenience to some people so understands this, but we all go thru this.    Flow of traffic in this area may be the same traffic going thru this Sylvan Drive area.  The other thing is that with the the traffic on Woodmont Road, the blind corner and lack of drainage, this cut through might take some traffic off this road especially at intersection of Rutledge, and this might help.  Mr. Karkowsky asked how many people come up Rutledge to take Sylvan.  Mr. Ulikowsky indicated a few people that do this. 

Motion made by:  to close Art Daughtry

Seconded:  Larry Hines

Mr. Sullivan:  applicant’s first choice is cul de sac and this design is based on request of Planning Board.  Regardless of this issue, he summarized reminding board that there is relief required:  exceptions and waivers on 8 of 10 lots for slopes, and only small portions of 15% which is unique and goes thru the center of property; majority of waivers are for small pockets of steep slopes, ,and calls for protection of slopes and there are drainage problems in this area.  It is consistent with intent of ordinance.  RSIS request was reviewed and Mr. Burgis finds ‘no problem’.  He asked that the Planning Board approve this subdivision, and the  choice of roadway will be made, stipulating on the record that the applicant agrees to comply with requirement of compliance of sight triangle easements at Woodmont and new street; correct the soil movement number on sheet 2 on note 8, indicated that in response to Ms. Nielson, there will be no commercial truck parking/construction parked on Woodmont Road and applicant will make sure everything is housed internally off street, applicant will supply details of post and rail fence and will ensure there is have mesh around it, would also comply with all agencies, states, regulations with regards to blasting, would create a uniform travelled way, will comply with board professionals reports, would have no soil movement, and will agree to comply with his memo of 4/17/08 which was applicant’s response to the Required Reports summary.  He indicated if the board wants a cul de sac, the plans on file address both designs but understand if Board doesn’t want a thru street, there is a light modification needed and also agrees to comply with all testimony offered, compliance with map as submitted, subject to any revisions determined, subject to conservation easement.   In summary, requests approval. 

Art Daughtry:  Listening to Mr. Sullivan’s comments, indicating that the applicant is stipulating he will agree with all comments offered to the Board during the entire subdivision hearing, and concurs with any  and all stipulations made on record.

Mr. Lewis:  before going forward, wanted to make sure about the road width along Woodmont Road.  Mr. Sullivan indicated the agreement is to to make this uniform at 24’.  .

Mr. Daughtry:  indicated he heard nothing that changes his position and original concept where as a board we voted we wanted it as a thru street, noting we said we would want to retain enough property at the end as ROW deeded to Township should we need it in future.  The traffic study was a result of our desire to make sure there was no affect.  He saw nothing that changes his position. 

Ms. Nielson:  reviewed traffic and planner’s report, and heard residents, and don’t want to hurt children, but traffic counts and reports other than the speeding which she will discuss with our police chief, feels in some small way, there will be some reduction of traffic on Woodmont.  She believes planner’s report, and do sympathize with residents.

Mr. Lipari:  agreed with Mr. Daughtry and have same feeling.

Mr. Lewis:  for the record, verified he certified to the hearing and gave his certification to the applicant’s file.  He indicated he listened to this missed meeting when the straw poll was taken.  And in looking at site plan can understand the cul de sac and residents input, and as one that deals with this on regular, , it is apparent that if the subject property along Windsor was constructed at the same time as the adjoining area originally was, this roadway would have been a thru street to Woodmont.   He has no idea what the planner’s were thinking, and if it was done at that time, it would have been required.  It is the township’s need to do what the master plan requires, and although sympathetic to safety, our plan says ‘don’t do this’.  The RSIS exception for sidewalks on one side is not unreasonable.  Would like to have traffic engineer’s recommendation that parking be restricted to one side and in a binding agreement, send this as part of findings to the Township Committee that this will be a public roadway to have parking on one side only. 

Ms. Nielson:  this is a new public hearing if we do this and this would affect all of Windsor Road and many other streets in towns. 

Mr. Lewis:  Having said this, and listening to reports and testimony, he concludes that we support the application with thru street.

Art Maggio:  He indicated he also took the time to drive this area during school time, etc to investigate and review the subdivision/roadway, indicating that as a board member you want to protect residents and do best for the town so you have to personally evaluate and see for yourself.  In this regard, he spent some time looking and feels that this opening of road would actually help.  He also spoke with Talked to residents outside area to see their opinion, wanting to make an educated decision.  Went back to county, water, engineer and professionals all of whom said they thought this was a better plan.  Nothing this evening changed his mind. 

Tony Speciale:  disagreed indicating he spent a lot of years on Windsor Drive.  If this was 500 yards or more south, there wouldn’t be discussion at all.  From fire department end, even if opened up, they would take the same route.  He leans towards people who pay taxes and disagrees with making this a thru street preferring to see it remain as a cul de sac.

Mr. Hines:  based on review of materials he read, including reports and traffic impact, and he also has been reviewing this area for past three months agrees with others that this should be a thru road. 

Art Daughtry : Offered a Motion to grant preliminary and final approval of slope intrusions/exceptions, RSIS design exception, compliance with all testimony offered and agreements made during board hearing, all county, federal and state approvals, development of a DA, bonding in form and manner agreeable to township attorney and board engineer, ROW for possible future cul de sac at end of subject parcel, as shown on earlier versions of plans, agreement of maintaining 24’ on Woodmont Road along frontage tapering to existing width beyond frontage, normal applicable provisions of major subdivision approval. 

Clarification requested by Mr. Sullivan:  are the two existing ROW’s being design back to back, or are we leaving existing cul de sac with round bulk as thru road.  The Board is requesting back to back ROW’s for future use if needed.

 Mr. Lewis:  seconded.  Question arose as to with cul de sac bulb laying in place, with a thru street, wanted assurances with the ROW’s and both cul de sacs, that there are no variances required should there  be a thru street in future?  Mr. Sullivan: indicated applicant is granting easement where cul de sac proposed, understands board is asking for a ROW, and that the improvement for the cul de sac is not going in, and wanted to know if the front yard setbacks would be granted.  His general notice provided for it.  Discussion ensued on having a house location right on top of a roadway design if you build cul de sac.  Mr. Omland continued:   Fix this one house now and make it a condition of approval.  Illustration:  show the thru street and give a distance of intrusion of cul de sac on 6.04.  Consider giving applicant a five minute recess and ask for specific relief.  Lot area is big enough, and front yard setback appears to be ok, but there may be encroachment into yard. 

Five minutes recess….

Motion made by:  Gary Lewis; seconded Art Maggio

After recess, Mr. Sullivan indicated as to clarification, applicant will provide dedication, and requests the setback be 25’ off the cul de sac which makes sense which prevents you from having this house right off road feeling this would be acceptable compromise.  Variance granted for front yard setback on 6.04.  It was also required to have a deed restriction to make sure that 6.04 have this notification for future owners to be aware of possibility of cul de sac creation.

Agreed by Mr. Daughtry; Second by Gary Lewis

Roll call vote:

Art Maggio – yes

Gary Lewis– yes

Russ Lipari– yes

Larry Hines– yes

Tony Speciale – no

Art Daughtry – yes

Ladis Karkowsky– yes

Ms. Nielson – yes

NEW BUSINESS

None

CONCEPTS

None

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by: Larry Hines

Seconded by Art Maggio.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

With explanation

With explanation

Mr. Canning left meeting early – see area noted

Certified to 2/28/08 meeting

Must certify to 2/28/08 meeting

 

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 30 July 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack