2019, Historic District Commission, Minutes, Uncategorized|

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 4, 2019

Chairperson Alexa Silver called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. along with Commission members Jeffrey Coomer, Barbara Jorgenson, Ed Minch and Alice Ritchie, Kees de Mooy (Zoning Administrator), Jennifer Mulligan (Town Clerk) and guests.

Ms. Silver stated that the Chestertown Historic District Commission takes its authority from Chapter 93 of the Code of the Town of Chestertown and operates under the Historic District Design Guidelines that were adopted by the Mayor and Council of Chestertown on October 7, 2002 and revised March 7, 2012.

Ms. Silver asked if there were any additions or corrections the minutes of the Historic District Commission meeting of August 7, 2019. Ms. Jorgenson moved to approve the August 7, 2019 minutes amending the signature line to be Mr. Minch’s name and the second paragraph on the first page to have Mr. Minch giving the statement, was seconded by Mr. Coomer and carried unanimously.

The Consent Calendar for September 2019 was as follows:

  • BP2019-114 – Gordon/Faulkner, 206 Philosophers Terrace – Fence;
  • BP2019-122 – Hurley, 221 Mount Vernon Avenue – Demolition;
  • BP2019-125 – High Street Vintage, 335 High Street – Sign;
  • BP2019-126 – Hartwig, 115 N. Queen Street – Fence;
  • BP2019-127 – Fluke/Edge Construction – 109 S. Queen Street – Roof.

Mr. Coomer stated that he had issues with the agenda that he would like to address before anything else was discussed.

Andrew Meehan, Esquire spoke from the audience stating that he would like to address an item regarding the Consent Calendar.

Mr. Coomer stated that he would like to move 206 Philosophers Terrace to old business for discussion. Ms. Silver asked why it was being removed from the consent agenda. Mr. Coomer stated that unless something changed from the last meeting there is known to be a legal dispute as to the location of the fence. Ms. Silver stated that the Commission decides on the design and material of the fence and no other issue should remove it from the consent agenda. Mr. Coomer stated that the location of the fence is within the purview of the Commission. Ms. Silver stated that the location of the fence is based on the survey that is supplied with the fence. Mr. Coomer disagreed stating that he felt as though the location of the fence is within the purview of the Commission and their approval of the application would be a certification that the survey and location of the fence are legally correct. Mr. de Mooy stated that the Historic District Commission has never certified or made legal the location of fences.

Mr. Coomer asked, if someone proposed to put a diagonal fence going from one front corner of their lot to the other, would that not be within the purview of the Commission to comment on and to reject or approve based on the location of the fence. Ms. Mulligan stated that she has seen permits where fences go midway through a yard that was approved. Mr. Coomer stated that it didn’t answer his question as it would affect the appearance of the streetscape. Mr. de Mooy stated that this application does not affect the appearance of the streetscape and there is a presumption that the fence will be located on the property line. If it not, that is a matter for a court and not the Historic District Commission.

Mr. de Mooy stated that the request to initially remove the application from the consent calendar came from Ms. Jorgenson who is a party to the contested property line and her action to remove the application was inappropriate. Ms. Jorgenson stated that she wanted to address that. Ms. Jorgenson asked if she could read a section from Chapter 19. Mr. de Mooy stated that she could not as she was obligated to remove herself from this matter. Ms. Jorgenson stated that she was not testifying, she was saying what is in the Guidelines. It says that if there is a party opposing the application it will be taken off the consent calendar. Andrew Meehan, Esquire stated that he represents Ms. Jorgenson, Mr. Bowering and Mr. and Mrs. Van Name and disagreed with what Mr. de Mooy said. He said that Section 19-6(H)(6) of the Historic District Commission Rules of Procedure clearly says that an application may be removed on the consent calendar only if there are no parties opposing the application and there clearly was an opposition.

Mr. Meehan stated that he also objected to the item being on today’s agenda because Rule 19.1(e) states that the agenda shall be established five days prior to the meeting date and this matter was put on the agenda this morning and was totally inappropriate. Mr. Meehan stated that ownership has everything to do with whether an application is appropriate. The definition of an applicant is that the person must be an owner of the property and ownership is in dispute.

Ms. Silver stated that this application was not submitted this morning and that the legal issue has nothing to do with the design of a fence. She said that this application was submitted for the August meeting and should have never been removed from the Consent Agenda in the first place. The only reason it was pulled from the agenda was because Ms. Jorgenson, in her role as Commissioner, instructed staff to do so without divulging her conflict of interest.

Ms. Silver stated that she was angry that this was taking place in a Historic District Commission meeting when it was not a matter for them. Ms. Silver stated that this was an inappropriate place for this discussion and the way it was handled by Ms. Jorgenson in the first place was inappropriate.

Mr. Meehan stated that he wanted to correct the record in that Ms. Jorgenson recused herself from the application and there was no quorum to discuss the issue at the August meeting. It was not on the consent docket. Ms. Silver stated that it was not on the consent docket because Ms. Jorgenson instructed Ms. Mulligan to remove it from the consent docket before the meeting and did not inform anyone she had personal involvement with the application when she did so.

Mr. Coomer stated that regardless of everything just mentioned, the Guidelines stated that something is only on the consent calendar if the Commission desires and there are no opposing parties. He said that there are opposing parties, and this should be removed and discussed later in the meeting.

Ms. Ritchie asked if when an application is approved a permit is issued. Mr. de Mooy stated that was correct. Ms. Ritchie asked how long permits remain in effect after issuance. Ms. Mulligan stated that a permit is good for 6 months and generally is renewed for 6 months without any issue if the work has not been completed. Ms. Ritchie stated that if there was a court case and the fence could not be erected then the fence would be a moot point.

Mr. Minch asked if the Commission approved the fence how it would have bearing in a legal case. Mr. Meehan stated that he could not answer that but the fact that the Commission would be moving ahead would give it legitimacy. He thought it was inappropriate to give approvals when litigation is pending in court.

Mr. Miles Barnard, present for the application, asked if he could speak. Ms. Jorgenson asked who he was and to identify himself. Mr. Barnard stated that he was Miles Barnard, the landscape architect for 206 Philosophers Terrace. He said that the location of the property line is not in dispute and has been confirmed by three (3) different surveyors, one of which was hired by Ms. Jorgenson. The issue is that Ms. Jorgenson would like to take his client’s property because her fence was built on their property. The location of the property line is not in dispute. Mr. Coomer stated that the issue at hand is whether this is on the consent calendar.

Mr. Coomer moved to remove the application from the Consent Calendar, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously. Ms. Jorgenson asked that it be noted she abstained from the vote.

Mr. Coomer stated that he would also like the application under old business for BP2019-82 to be changed from “New Construction” to a “Modification of an Approved Plan”. He said that their drawings were approved with conditions at the August meeting and now they were seeking modifications to the conditions.

Mr. Coomer stated that BP2019-109 on the agenda for a solar array was denied at the last meeting. Ms. Mulligan stated that the applicant was told that he could return if decided to make changes to the roof. Mr. Coomer stated that there should be a new application. Mr. de Mooy stated that they were making the modification that the Commission requested. Mr. Jorgenson stated that was not in the application. Ms. Mulligan stated that she had not modified the application because she found the discussion with the application in August confusing as they were directing him to paint a roof and commented that if the application had come when the entire Commission was present the outcome may have been different. Mr. Dan Baugher of Sunrise Solar was present and stated that after the conversation last month he thought there could be a second discussion on the matter and if they did not agree, the owner agreed to paint the roof. Mr. Coomer stated that the application is denied, and an applicant can’t shop their meeting. Mr. Coomer stated that the problem this month was that the permit had not changed. Ms. Mulligan stated that she did not modify the permit. Ms. Jorgenson stated that the applicant should formally modify his application.

Mr. Coomer moved to approve the Consent Calendar as follows as the applications were in accordance with the Historic District Commission Guidelines:

  • BP2019-122 – Hurley, 221 Mount Vernon Avenue – Demolition
  • BP2019-125 – High Street Vintage, 335 High Street – Sign
  • BP2019-126 – Hartwig, 115 N. Queen Street – Fence
  • BP2019-127 – Fluke/Edge Construction – 109 S. Queen Street – Roof

 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2019-90 from David Wright at 102 Church Alley for a front porch. Ms. Mulligan stated that Mr. Wright has not completed the drawings and does not know when he will be able to complete them since he broke his arm. Mr. Coomer moved to table the application indefinitely with the consent of the applicant, was seconded by Ms. Ritchie and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2018-140 from Turley/First Bridge at 117 N. Water Street for modifications to an approved plan. Mr. John Hutchinson, architect, was present for the application. Mr. Hutchinson said that the project will be done in two phases with an exterior stair tower and windows followed by an interior renovation of the first floor. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was no way to safely exit the second and third floor of the building at this time.

Mr. Hutchinson stated that there were old additions on this building that will be removed, taking the building back to what existed originally. The interior first-floor flight of stairs will be removed but the landing to the second floor will be kept with risers to the third floor. The exterior entry ladder system will be removed, and a new exterior stair tower will be built.

Mr. Coomer asked for an overview of changes from the original approval. Mr. Hutchinson said that the 2 first floor apartments are being combined into 1 unit. Andersen 400 series windows will be used for the replacement windows and a fiberglass fire-rated fire door will be used with a panic bar. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there are different window styles existing throughout the building. There are 2-over-2 and 6-over-6 windows and he thought what was original were the windows on the Water Street facade. He said that the existing windows are not energy efficient, and he would like to replace them all with Andersen windows. Ms. Jorgenson suggested that Mr. de Mooy walk through the building to see the condition of the other windows and make a second application including his recommendations..

Mr. Hutchinson stated that until all windows are replaced this phase of construction will have matching windows on the first floor except for the 2 small transom windows. The window style on the second floor will match, as will the third-floor windows.

Mr. Hutchinson stated that a new walkway will be constructed of brick and concrete.

Mr. Coomer moved to approve Phase I as submitted for the exterior stairwell as described in the application, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

Mr. Hutchinson stated that Phase II was mainly an interior renovation, but they were looking to remove one portion of the building where there is an existing kitchen, which is a clear addition to the building. The windows will be 400 series with Anderson French doors. There was an existing screen porch where they would install a double-hung sash system that is used for enclosing screen porches and can be removed. He said that combining the two apartments into a single unit alters two (2) existing entries. French doors will be added near the stairway.

Ms. Jorgenson asked if there would be any original windows left on the riverside of the building. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there will be original large double-hung windows with low sills that are left in place.

Mr. Coomer moved to approve Phase II plans for the rear elevation of the house as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

Mr. Coomer stated that before the next application was heard he wanted to comment that he had a chance encounter with the applicant (Mrs. Kent) and Mr. Holmes (KRM), who were at the site when he came out of his house. He said that he engaged in a conversation about the application at that time which was an early look at the plans submitted for this meeting.

Mr. Chris Holmes was present for application BP2019-82 from KRM Construction for new construction at 416 Cannon Street. Mr. Holmes stated that since the last meeting there were changes made to the garage roof and the metal roof was extended over the proposed screen porch. Mr. Holmes stated that the one item they cannot accommodate is moving the front door closer to the street. He said that if the door moved any further there would be no window in the master bedroom.

Mr. Holmes stated that the new drawings show the architecture from the street. Mr. Hutchinson, architect, stated that the porch roof pitch was slightly changed from the last meeting. He said that the garage roof was also rotated so it looked more like a separate piece. Mr. Coomer stated that this drawing gave a good idea of how the house will fit into the streetscape and looks in keeping with other houses on the 400 block of Cannon Street. He said that he wished the front door could be closer to the street but thought it was a fine-looking building and that the front step addition to the porch goes a long way to the appearance that Cannon Street was the front of the house.

Mr. Holmes stated that although there was landscaping shown in the drawings, he would submit a formal landscaping plan at a future meeting.

Mr. Coomer moved to approve the plan with the modifications submitted in this meeting noting that a landscaping plan will be approved by the Historic District Commission before occupancy, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2019-109 from Michael Lamb at 106 ½ N. Water Street for a solar array. Mr. Dan Baugher of Sunrise Solar was present for the application. Mr. Baugher stated that the owner wanted to cover the entire roof with solar panels but could not do so due to the 3’ setback code requirement and wanted to modify the application to paint the front of the roof that would show through the solar panels facing Water Street. Mr. Minch stated that there were 2 roofs that faced the street but only the roof with the solar panels would have to be painted.

Mr. Coomer moved to approve the application with the modification that the portion containing the solar panels will be painted in a color keeping with the solar panels, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2019-114 from Gordon/Faulkner at 206 Philosophers Terrace for a fence. Ms. Jorgenson recused herself from the application. Mr. Miles Barnard, landscape architect, was present for the application.

Mr. de Mooy stated that it was his fault that the application was left off the agenda for today’s meeting. He said that the application was tabled for lack of a quorum at the August meeting and he was under the impression that the owners were going to install the approved fence that was part of the application for renovations submitted before this legal issue came to light. He said that the Historic District Commission does not issue building permits; the Town Manager does. He said that if there was a legal issue concerning the location of the fence, a permit will not be issued until the issue is resolved. Mr. de Mooy stated that the Commission does not legitimize the location of a fence. Mr. Coomer stated that he did not want the HDC to be put in a legal position.

Mr. de Mooy stated that the Faulkner’s already have approval for a fence, that this was a modification of the existing approval to a different fence style. Mr. Minch asked if the only change was that the fencing will now be a shadowbox design. Mr. Barnard stated that there was no other change to the plan.

Ms. Jorgenson stated that she would like to see the original application. Mr. de Mooy reminded Ms. Jorgenson that she had recused herself from the application. Ms. Jorgenson stated that she could ask questions. Mr. de Mooy stated that Ms. Jorgenson cannot speak during the application. Ms. Silver stated that Ms. Jorgenson should not even be sitting at her chair, she should have moved to the audience. Ms. Jorgenson stated that she was not leaving her chair and was happy to recuse herself and was represented by Council. Mr. Meehan stated that Ms. Jorgenson should be sitting in the audience and asked her to move her seat. Ms. Jorgenson vacated her chair.

Mr. Meehan stated that he was present to have a conversation and said that he would like to speak after the person representing the application made their case. He said that when a proposal is approved a certificate of approval is provided by the HDC and the Town’s Zoning Administrator will issue a building permit to the applicant. Mr. de Mooy stated that he already said publicly that a building permit was different than a ruling from the Historic District Commission and he stated publicly that a building permit will not be issued until the legal issue is resolved. Mr. Meehan asked why the matter cannot be tabled until the legal issue is resolved.   Mr. de Mooy stated that the owners already have a permit, they are simply looking at a different design.

Mr. Meehan asked if the change was for 103’ of 5’ tall solid fencing. Mr. Barnard stated that the style of the fence was changing, not where the fence is proposed to be installed or the height of the fence. He said that this fencing is being held hostage by a single member of the Commission and that it is up to the courts to decide property issues.

Mr. Minch stated that he did not think that changing a style of fencing would prejudice either side in a legal matter. Mr. Meehan stated that he would like to see the previously approved application. Ms. Ritchie stated that the application should have indicated that this was a modification and this application had a new number. Mr. de Mooy stated that whether the application had a new building permit number does not change the fact that the application was for a modified style of fencing.

Mr. Meehan asked when the original fencing was approved. Ms. Mulligan stated that she was working to find the original permit and left the meeting to produce it for Mr. Meehan.

Mr. Barnard had photos showing existing conditions at the property. Mr. Barnard stated that a solid wooden fence was previously approved by the Commission with a piece in the back of the driveway between the house and property line that would separate the driveway and the street side from the back garden which remained unchanged. The changes to the fencing are in the back garden along the rear property line where instead of using the same solid fencing they are proposing a shadowbox style of wooden fencing to match a neighboring fence.

Mr. Coomer asked if the fence will be painted or stained. Mr. Barnard stated that the fence will be painted or stained and that the site plans show where the fencing will be placed.

Ms. Silver asked if there was a motion to support the application. Mr. Meehan stated that he wanted the opportunity to speak. Mr. de Mooy stated that procedurally a new number was issued for this modification and he did not want anyone to think that a vote to approve this would piggy-back onto a previous submission. He said that if there was any other issue on setback or property lines that it was a separate issue that will affect the issuance of the permit.

Mr. Meehan stated that there was nothing in this first permit about a fence anywhere other than the north side. Ms. Mulligan read the portion or the permit where the fence in question was described. Mr. Coomer stated that it did not make a difference to him if this was on an older permit and said that a separate point of decision on issuance of the permit was better in the long run.

Mr. Minch stated that the Historic District Commission was not legally adding or subtracting prejudice for either side by voting on the application. Ms. Silver stated that the Commission voted on the design only.

Mr. Meehan stated that he would like to see the minutes of the meeting where the application was first submitted stating that he would have reviewed all of this if he had known it was approved earlier. Mr. de Mooy stated that the plans were submitted and approved, and they included a fence. Ms. Silver stated that the objection being made was based on an issue that the Commission does not control. She said that these were delay tactics to make the Commission weigh in on something that they don’t rule upon and was not appropriate.

Ms. Kate Van Name, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, stated that she felt as though the Commission was railroading through the application instead of taking the time to talk about it. She said that there seemed to be a rush to a vote without the proper amount of time to really look at the situation. She said that this was a serious legal issue, from their point of view, and the Commission’s vote is going to impact negatively on the outcome of the lawsuit. She said that they were excited and flustered but wanted the time to come up with an understanding of what needed to be done.

Ms. Silver stated that the Historic District Commission’s vote in no way impacted the lawsuit or how the court would rule. Mr. Minch stated that their vote changes nothing that already exists.

Mr. Bowering stated that he has seen the design documents, including the limits of the fence. and he had no problem building a new fence; they were objecting to the building of a fence on what they believed to be their land. He said that if the Commission approves the design, they were approving the length of the fence and therefore, approving an encroachment on their property. Mr. de Mooy stated that he specifically said that a permit will not be issued while there is an ongoing legal matter. Ms. Van Name asked that be included in the vote.

Ms. Silver stated that the Town Manager issues the permit. Ms. Van Name stated that the Commission could make it part of their findings that the permit will not be issued. Mr. de Mooy stated that the Historic District Commission does not issue permits and the Town Manager will not issue a permit if there is a legal matter. All that was being ruled on by the Commission was the design of a fence. Mr. Bowering stated that Mr. Ingersoll could sign a permit tomorrow and the only thing that would stop him is if the Commission did not approve the design. Mr. de Mooy stated that he already said publicly that a permit would not be issued.

Mr. Barnard stated that the true issue with the application was that the location of the property line is not in dispute. Three different surveyors have surveyed the property and noted that there were fences built on the Faulkner’s property at some point. Now, the Van Names and Bowering’s are trying to claim the Faulkner’s land as theirs through adverse possession and are threatening to sue his clients to take the 3’ or 4’ of their property that was on their side of the fence. Mr. Bowering stated that the lawsuit has already been filed.

Mr. Coomer asked what anybody had to lose if they don’t approve the application today. Mr. Barnard stated that his client can’t build any of the fencing as part of the application because of the section in dispute by the neighbors. Mr. Coomer asked if they could build the parts of the fencing that are not in dispute. Mr. Barnard stated that they can’t do that if the fence design is not approved.

Mr. Barnard stated that Ms. Jorgenson used her position on the Historic District Commission to derail the project. Mr. Meehan objected. Mr. Barnard stated that they have now fallen into a hole where the Commission is trying to decide how to rule on a property line issue which is not within their purview. He said that today they were talking about the fence design and the courts should figure out the property line issue.

Mr. Coomer asked if it would be okay for a motion to approve the application with a provision that no permit be issued until a legal dispute is settled on the placement of the fence. Mr. de Mooy stated that a motion could also be made to approve the fencing, except for the fencing that is part of the dispute.

Mr. Bowering stated that if any part of the fence was approved on the other two sides the Commission would in effect be approving fencing on their property. Ms. Silver stated that they were talking about the fencing on the property that was not in dispute. Mr. Coomer stated that no fencing should go where there is a question of ownership. Ms. Ritchie stated that this would impact the linear footage of fencing on the application. Mr. Barnard stated that dimensions on the drawings are irrelevant if the Commission was going to allow the other areas of fencing.

Mr. Bowering asked if a motion would include that their fence would remain in place until the dispute is resolved. Ms. Silver stated that she couldn’t answer that question as that was not in the Commission’s purview.

Mr. Meehan stated that he was the representative for the plaintiffs in this matter and as a threshold matter he objected to Mr. Barnard’s characterization of Ms. Jorgenson’s derailing the process as it was removed from the consent agenda and she abstained from voting, noting that there was no quorum to hear the application. Ms. Silver stated that was not accurate, adding that Ms. Jorgenson instructed Ms. Mulligan to remove the item from the consent calendar before the August meeting and did not inform anyone that she had a conflict of interest. Ms. Silver stated that the conflict did not become apparent until the August meeting, and the item should have never been removed from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Coomer stated that Ms. Jorgenson has standing as an interested party, so aside from her status as a Commissioner, she is a party as defined in HDC procedures. Mr. Coomer stated that he was not too hung up over whether this was a consent calendar item or not. Mr. Meehan stated that he did not appreciate the characterization as being “derailed” and the fact that the Van Name’s and Mr. Bowering have a right to object to the application.

Mr. Meehan stated that he appreciated Mr. de Mooy’s confirmation that no building permit will be issued with respect to the application until the legal dispute is resolved. He said that the definition of an applicant in the rules states that the applicant must be the owner. He said that the complaint and answer to the lawsuit filed in Kent County Circuit Court were now part of the record and reflect that Ms. Faulkner’s ownership of the disputed property is in question. He said that it should not be presumed that the applicant is the owner and if the fence indeed was built in 1965, the plaintiffs adversely possess the property.

Mr. Coomer moved to approve the fencing design as submitted for the property, except for the property areas in dispute with the neighbors on Washington Avenue, as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda is BP2019-124 from Glenar and McFarlin for a roof at 103 S. Kent Street for a roof. Mr. Coomer asked Ms. Mulligan why this application was not part of the consent calendar. Ms. Mulligan stated that any time an application is changing original materials, it is not part of a consent calendar, and this application proposed to remove an original metal roof and replace it with asphalt shingles. Ms. Jorgenson stated that as a point of order, questions on applications should be made to the Chairman as it was her prerogative to create the consent calendar. Ms. Jorgenson moved acceptance of BP2019-124 as submitted, was seconded by Ms. Ritchie and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was from Kent Attainable Housing for a concept approval at 204 N. College Avenue. Mr. Minch recused himself from the application as he was the Vice-President of Kent Attainable Housing, a non-profit organization offering affordable housing in Kent County.

Mr. Minch stated that the first property to be built upon was at 204 N. College Avenue, a corner property on College Street and Hawkins Court and across the street from Bethel Church. He said that Kent Attainable Housing would like to build a modular house designed by a pro-bono architect to blend in with Chestertown. He said that the house would be situated on a corner lot with a row of 7 townhouses on one side and a single-family cape cod dwelling, approximately 14 years old, on the other.

Mr. Minch showed two different conceptual site plans, labeled “A” and “B” showing different placement of the house on the lot. Mr. Minch stated that he would like conceptual approval to situate the house on Hawkins Court. There was also already a curb-cut on Hawkins Court which would allow parking for two (2) cars.

Mr. Minch stated that there was a copy of the Sanborne Maps showing the lot as “public school” with a photograph of the original Garnet School. He said that the foundation of this house would be within the footprint of the former school and no other structure has ever been built on that lot. He said that they were trying to duplicate the front porch of the new house to match the front porch of the schoolhouse.

Ms. Jorgenson stated that she would like to see a landscaping and fencing plan included with the formal application for the house. The Commission did not have any opposition to have the house facing Hawkins Lane. Mr. Coomer added that Kent Attainable Housing should try to have the address changed to Hawkins Court instead of College Avenue.

Ms. Ritchie asked if the Commission has reviewed the entire design for the houses on the 400 block of Cannon Street. Ms. Mulligan stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan but there are no other house plans at this time. Mr. Minch stated that the alley off Cannon Street was to eliminate on-street parking for all houses in that development, as garages will be in the back. Ms. Ritchie stated that the she thought in planning they should keep with the street grid and this took houses off the grid.

There being no further business, Ms. Jorgenson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 p.m., was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

Submitted by:                                                 Approved by:

Jennifer Mulligan                                          Alexa Silver

Town Clerk                                                     Chair

Comments are closed.

Close Search Window