MINUTES – APRIL 12, 2004
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
Planning Commission: John Pazdera, Chairman
Karen Friedman, Secretary (joined meeting in progress)
Fred Allan, Member
Cynthia Harrison, Member
Others: Nancy Frick, Director Zoning, Inspection & Planning
John Koopman, Township Solicitor
Drew Wagner, Township Engineer
Steve Santarsiero, Supervisor (joined meeting in progress)
Absent: Andrew Strauss, Planning Commission Vice Chairman
TABLING OF MINUTES
Mr. Allan moved, Ms. Harrison seconded and it was unanimously carried to table approval of the Minutes of February 23, 2004 due to lack of a quorum able to vote on the Minutes (Minutes subsequently approved later in meeting).
#549 – FIELDSTONE AT
Mr. John Mahoney was present with Mr. John Hako, engineer, and Mr. Jeff Gaul from
obtain an Act II limited liability letter relating to the clean up of the site. He stated the
Board of Supervisors had asked that protection be provided to the Township, and the
Township has directed its engineer to actively monitor the remediation at the site. They
have not yet filed a notice of intent to remediate and feel it would be good for the
Township to join in this. They do not expect the Township to pay for this or engage any
of the subcontractors.
Mr. Mahoney stated they need some direction from the Planning Commission before
revising the Plans. Mr. Jeff Gaul noted the location of the area of concern on the Harris
Farm property. He stated they have been involved in the project since 1999 when they
were hired by the Quaker Group to do test pits and determine the extent of the landfill.
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 2 of 12
They did sixty-four test pits. He stated the stream edges have been filled up to the limit
of Brock Creek and the edges are unstable. They were subsequently hired by Hovnanian
to come up with a plan to remediate the site, close out and landfill, and make it safe under
EPA regulations. They did another eleven test pits within the landfill and took thirty-
three samples to come up with a plan to remediate the site. DEP agrees that the levels of
contamination are relatively low. The State has agreed that they should sift out all the
dirt. There is 65,000 yards of waste and soil mixed on the site. They will separate out
the soil, test it, place the soil back, and haul the waste off site. This is a regulated landfill
and they must therefore get approval from DEP for this process. They are coming up
with a plan and a screening protocol for the soil that will remain on the site. They will
also submit the samples they get from testing to the DEP as well. They will then get a
limited liability approval. They are also doing groundwater monitoring at this time.
Mr. Gaul noted the two locations of the wells which were installed in December, 2003.
Two others were installed last week Mr. Koopman asked that they provide copies of all
this information to the Township.
Ms. Friedman joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Koopman stated the current proposal is that they will build over the capped area.
Mr. Gaul stated this is incorrect, and they will not cap the site. They will strip off the
existing cap, sort it on the site, sort the soil, and then determine what portion of the soil
can stay on the site. They will bring the site to a condition that can provide an unlimited
use of the site. Mr. Koopman stated it appears that they will have to bring in fill to the
site, and Mr. Gall stated they have assumed 20% of the 65,000 yards will have to be
removed. The design engineer has come up with plans to make sure they have enough
fill on site to bring it down to the landfill section to make up the deficit. Mr. Hako stated
they estimate 13,000 to 15,000 cubic yards will have to be brought from other portions of
the site to the landfill area.
Mr. Allan stated the basements are proposed to be eight to nine feet deep, and they are
proposing to go down twelve feet and take out material. Mr. Koopman noted some areas
may be twelve feet and some may be more or less. Mr. Gaul stated the intention is to
have no waste on the site. Mr. Allan asked if the soil they plan to move to the landfill site
will be tested before they put it in the area where the homes will be located. Mr. Gaul
stated DEP may require them to do this. Mr. Allan stated he would not approve the Plan
unless they test the soil to be moved as this was previously a working farm. Mr. Mahoney
stated he does not feel this is a problem since they normally do test this anyway for
herbicides, pesticides, etc. Mr. Gaul stated usually this is in the first six to twelve inches
of the topsoil. He added they are going to sample additional areas and what they get in
the groundwater samples will drive the remediation process. Mr. Pazdera asked the
process for putting the soil back, and Mr. Gaul stated he would recommend that once the
soil is sifted out and dried, it would be placed back in twelve inch compacted lifts.
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 3 of 12
Mr. Pazdera asked how the streambed will be reconstructed. Mr. Gaul stated the slopes
are currently at one to one; and when the development is done, they will bring it back to a
three to one slope and install rip-rap at the bottom with bio-engineering at the top.
Mr. Allan asked if there is anyway they could construct the development without building
the twelve houses in the area of the landfill. Mr. Mahoney stated this would not be
possible because of the cost of the remediation which was required by the Township.
Mr. Koopman stated one of the prior plans was to cap and stabilize this area, but the
Board of Supervisors indicated they would only be in favor of the site being cleaned up.
Mr. Hako stated this Plan was before the Township in January. The PCS review letter
dated 12/22/03 was discussed at the January meeting, but they did not get direction from
the Planning Commission on certain items. He stated this is a thirty-nine acre site off
the other an extension of Long Acre Lane. The site is in the R-2 District and allows for
single-family dwellings. They are proposing public sewer and water. The sewer will go
to the Yardley Estates Pump Station. They propose four detention basins for stormwater
management and erosion and sedimentation control. He stated Basin #3 is in need of
relief with regard to the depth and side slopes and they would like the Planning
Commission to discuss this. They have been in contact with the Township engineer and
have agreed to re-configure the basins in accordance with his comments. They recognize
the requirement to reduce the run off by 50% post development.
Mr. Mahoney stated they need direction from the Planning Commission with regard to
the sanitary sewers as CKS has asked that they use Fox Hill pump station. Mr. Hako
stated they have looked at alternatives; and although it is impossible to take the entire site
to Fox Hill, they can possibly provide gravity service for the top thirty-two lots. The
bottom twelve would still have to discharge into the Yardley Estates pump station. There
are some other alternatives – one of which would direct it
into the system beyond
Court, but this would be quite costly. At the current time, the plan is to take the entire
site and discharge into Yardley Estates. Mr. Mahoney stated CKS also recommended
that they take the sanitary sewer lines to tie into adjacent properties. Mr. Hako stated they
have a thirty foot easement at one area for access to the stormwater detention basin #1
and they could reconfigure this plan so it is moved slightly to the east and run the thirty
foot easement to
three lots in this area.
Ms. Frick asked if they went back to CKS, and Mr. Mahoney stated they were waiting to
get a decision from the Board of Supervisors as to how they wanted them to proceed.
Mr. Mahoney stated the developer would prefer to have the Yardley Estates pump station
service the entire property. This would not require any ejector pumps. Mr. Pazdera
stated he feels they need to go back to CKS regarding this matter. Mr. Koopman stated
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 4 of 12
they should also contact the Sewer Administrator and the Sewer Authority. He noted
that normally the Planning Commission does not get involved in the sewer issues, and the
Sewer Authority makes the recommendation on this to the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Friedman asked about capacity at Yardley Estates. Mr. Hako stated as far as they
know there is sufficient capacity. He stated he did write to Mr. Hoffmeister about the
capacity and availability, but he did not receive back a response. Mr. Koopman noted
there is currently a moratorium on anything going to the Neshaminy Interceptor.
Mr. Santarsiero joined the meeting at this time.
The PCS review letter dated 12/22/03 was noted along with the Boucher & James
response letter of 4/8/04. Comment 1.A. was noted, and Mr. Mahoney stated they will
comply. He stated with regard to Comment 1.B., they will pay Fee-In-Lieu.
Item 1.C. was noted, and Mr. Hako stated each of the intersections will need relief from
this requirement. He stated there will not be any sight distance problems. He stated there
was concern whether the access point was the optimal
he and Mr. Majewski will go out to the site. Mr. Allan suggested they go to the site at
5:30 p.m. and sit at
because of the sun glare over the ridge. Mr. Pazdera stated they will have to meet with
Mr. Majewski before they do a re-design as the Planning Commission will rely on
Mr. Majewski’s recommendations.
Item 1.D. was noted and Mr. Mahoney stated they will need a waiver for Lots #41 and
#42 because of the location of the existing Long Acre Lane. Mr. Pazdera stated they had
indicated at the prior meeting that they would put a disclaimer on these lots about the
need for a Variance for anything to be placed in the rear yard.
Item 1.E. was noted and Mr. Mahoney stated they will pay Fee-In-Lieu.
Item 1.F. was noted which relates to soil disturbance for which they are requesting a
Item 1.G. was noted and Mr. Hako stated the Township engineer has indicated he would
be in favor of this Waiver.
Item 1.H. was noted, and Mr. Mahoney stated this is a comment only and a Wavier is not
Items 1.I. through 1.L are technical items relating to the detention basins. They are
working with the Township engineer on whether or not the Waivers can be supported.
Mr. Wagner stated he does feel Mr. Majewski is in favor of these Waivers.
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 5 of 12
Mr. Mahoney noted Item #2 and stated this is required because of the need to construct
this number of lots to offset the costs of remediation. Mr. Mahoney stated they would not
be able to have two cul-de-sacs as had been previously recommended because it would
result in a loss of lots. Mr. Koopman stated this would be a Zoning Variance, and the
relief would come from the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Koopman stated he feels there
are approximately five items where relief will be needed from the Zoning Hearing Board.
Item #3 was noted regarding pavement core samples, and Mr. Mahoney stated they will
come up with a figure for additional escrow.
Mr. Mahoney stated they will comply with Item #4.
Item #5 was noted, and Mr. Hako stated adjacent to
foot easement currently occupied by the proposed storm sewer. There is the potential for
expansion to forty feet.
Item #6 was noted regarding the special setback on
this would require a Waiver from the Zoning Ordinance, and the Township might be able
to resolve the pending litigation by approving this Plan with this Waiver. Mr. Koopman
stated the Applicant is indicating that because they are spending a significant amount of
money to clean up the site, they would like the Township to consider granting Zoning
relief as part of the Stipulation settlement.
Ms. Friedman asked if it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to know what the
litigation is regarding. Mr. Koopman stated there is litigation over prior plans. The
Township does feel it has a strong position with regard to that litigation and feels a better
argument from this developer is that he is going to clean up the site which is of
importance to the Township and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Koopman stated the
Planning Commission does need to know the extent of the relief being requested.
Ms. Frick stated in January of this year, the Planning Commission went through the
review letter and now they are getting different answers from the developer. She noted
the Minutes from January 12, 2004 when the developer provided different comments than
being provided this evening. Mr. Hako stated they are not changing their answers. He
stated they would give the forty feet as requested. Mr. Mahoney stated they would like to
know what the Planning Commission would be wiling to consider as to relief. He asked
if they would allow disturbance to the floodplain to allow for the clean up and asked if
they would agree to the ninety foot setback from
Planning Commission already addressed these items in January. Mr. Mahoney stated
they did not get a vote on this from the Planning Commission; and before they do a
re-design, they wanted to know the Planning Commission’s decision. Ms. Frick stated
each of these items is listed in the January 12 Minutes. Mr. Pazdera asked that they
discuss only the areas where they have outstanding questions.
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 6 of 12
Mr. Mahoney noted 1.C., and Mr. Pazdera stated they would agree to this if the developer
can reach an agreement with Mr. Majewski.
Item #2 was noted. Ms. Friedman asked what percentage would be disturbed. Mr. Hako
stated it would be only a small portion. He stated he feels it would be a 1% disturbance
in the floodplain. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would
support the Variance for the clean up.
Item #5 was noted, and Mr. Hako stated they will change this to forty feet so that the
Wavier is not required.
Item #6 was noted. Ms. Frick read from the comments made at the meeting on January
12 in this regard. Mr. Pazdera stated he would be in support of this Variance but they
must make it clear to people purchasing Lots #8 through #14 the limitations of their rear
Mr. Mahoney stated they will comply with Items #9 through #11.
Mr. Mahoney noted Item #13 and stated the Plans will be revised.
Item #19 was noted. Mr. Hako stated they now have access to the PennDOT review
letter and they will comply with these items. He stated
PennDOT roadway. He stated the Township was going to consider a larger roadway and
they are still waiting direction from the Township on this issue. Mr. Pazdera stated they
will have to discuss this with the Township engineer.
Item #20 was noted and they have agreed to do a sidewalk which was acceptable to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Allan stated if they are going to install sidewalks, they
should try to include the existing homes in the area so that they can connect to Yardley
Estates. It is estimated that this would be 500 feet. Ms. Frick stated she felt the money
was already set aside for this. Ms. Frick read from the Minutes when this was previously
discussed, and Mr. Mahoney indicated at that time that he was going to look into this.
Ms. Frick stated Mr. Tettemer had indicated that the funds were not included to re-locate
the utility poles. Mr. Hako stated provided they can run it in a manner that does not
involve the utility poles, they should not have a problem. Mr. Pazdera asked that they
meet with the Township engineer on this matter.
Mr. Hako stated they will comply with all remaining items in the PCS letter.
Mr. Koopman stated Lots #41, #42, #6, and #7 do not meet the yard requirements, and
they will need relief from the Zoning Hearing Board. Ms. Harrison stated she had
previously expressed her concern with the lots being so close to the railroad tracks.
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 7 of 12
It was noted Lots #41 through #44 are going to be fenced in with a six foot high fence.
Ms. Harrison stated she is still concerned about the proximity to the railroad tracks.
Ms. Frick read from the Minutes of January 12 when they discussed this matter, and
Mr. Mahoney stated that they do a good job notifying potential homeowners about the
proximity of railroad tracks and the limits of use of the rear yards.
Mr. Koopman asked if they have an estimate on the cost of the remediation, and
Mr. Mahoney stated it will be more than $1 million.
Ms. Harrison stated she would be in favor of eliminating Lots #41 and #42 because of the
proximity to the railroad and the depth of the lots. Mr. Mahoney stated it is economically
not possible for them to eliminate any lots. Mr. Allan asked that Mr. Mahoney go back to
the developer to see if they can do something to eliminate one of these lots in order to
make the other lot more palatable. Mr. Mahoney agreed to do so.
Mr. Stephen Heinz,
work on this project. He stated they had this same conversation in January. He stated he
is not sure what the plan is for the streambed restoration. Mr. Gaul stated the stream has
not been impacted by garbage as most of the garbage is on the edge. This will be
removed and they will reconstruct the edges to have a more gentle slope. Mr. Heinz
stated they have indicated that the material in the ground is stabilized. He asked if they
found evidence of oil infiltration. Mr. Gaul stated in all the samples they did, they did not
find any volatile organics or any significant semi-volatile organics. They did find several
families of contaminants including low levels of lead, arsenic and pesticides but 99% of
this was below levels. Mr. Heinz stated he is aware of at least two whole vehicles which
were buried on the site. Mr. Gaul stated they did not find any evidence of this in any of
the test pits which were dug. Mr. Heinz asked that the Township require that at each of
the points of the houses, test boxes be placed. Mr. Gaul stated the entire site will be
backfilled with twelve inches and compacted and they will submit information to the
Township engineer to prove that it was done properly. Mr. Heinz asked that a note be
added to the plan about the points of bearing. He noted at adjacent locations, houses have
sunk because of the water in the area. Mr. Heinz stated he is asking for test boxes not
just bearing capacities. Mr. Gaul agreed to work this out with the engineer.
Mr. Heinz stated he understands they are suggesting that here is enough room to allow for
the adjoining neighbors to connect to the sewer system. Mr. Heinz stated he wants to
make sure that the engineering is taking into consideration the existing conditions. He
stated when the previous development was built and they indicated that there would be an
accel/decel lane in front of his home, the engineer neglected to take into account that this
was his septic dispersal area. Mr. Mahoney stated they will work with the sewer
engineer to provide for stub lines out to
400 feet to provide service to the adjacent homes. Mr. Heinz stated if the stub line does
not have enough depth, it will not help his situation.
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 8 of 12
#550 – PRIME PROPERTIES – PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN DISCUSSION
Mr. Nicholas Rose, engineer, stated this is a one and a half acre property located on Big
Oak Road west of
The proposal calls for this site to be split into two. It is considered a Major Subdivision
because of a note on the prior subdivision plan. The lots will front on
Public water and sewer are proposed. They will exceed the required minimum lot size.
The 3/16/04 PCS review letter was noted. Mr. Wagner stated their only concern was the
Ms. Friedman asked why they are putting the driveways across the front of the properties
and suggested they “flip” the house. Mr. Rose stated the downhill side of the house
would be the basement so they could go deeper. Ms. Frick stated they also indicated that
this would be the safer access. Ms. Friedman asked if they could reconfigure the grading.
Mr. Wagner stated what they are showing does work although it does appear that they
could flip the house. The garage would then be on the low side of the house. Mr. Rose
stated they can look at this again and review it with the Township engineer.
Ms. Friedman stated she feels it would look aesthetically more pleasing and would result in less impervious surface.
Ms. Sandra Guzikowski,
are too much for this one and a half acre property. She stated this is a wet area and
putting two homes will create too much impervious surface. She stated she does not want
to have extra water in her fields. She stated they must also recognize that there is a
working farm adjacent to these proposed homes. She stated during construction she
would like to see a fence installed. She stated they have a long history of developers
leaving garbage on their property. She stated she would like a permanent fence installed.
She would also like them to advise the purchasers exactly where their property lines are
located. Mr. Rose stated concrete monuments are required. She stated there should be as
much of a buffer as possible between the residences and the farm. Mr. Rose stated they
will notify the potential homeowners that they will be adjacent to a working farm.
Mr. Koopman asked Ms. Guzikowski if her farm is in the Agricultural Security District,
and Ms. Guzikowski stated it is not currently.
Mr. Rose stated he will discuss a fence with the developer and will advise
Ms. Guzikowski of their decision.
Mr. Rose stated they do have a stormwater management system in place to handle the run
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 9 of 12
Ms. Harrison asked Ms. Guzikowski if she would prefer fencing or a natural barrier, and
Ms. Guzikowski stated she would prefer both and would like to see evergreens.
Mr. Allan stated there are problems with the Farmland Preservation Corporation
properties with evergreens growing over onto the farm property and creating shade.
Mr. Rose agreed to meet with Ms. Guzikowski.
Mr. Hildebrandt stated he owns the property on the opposite side of the street, and there
are existing water problems. Ms. Janet Hildebrandt stated this also drains into their
creek. She stated the
rain. Mr. Wagner stated they are going to contain the roof run off. He is not concerned
that there will be an increase in run off but agreed to look into this again.
Mr. Hildebrandt stated the site does have a spring under it, and it is a very wet piece of
Ms. Harrison asked what type of fence they are considering. Mr. Rose stated they would
propose a split rail fence with evergreens to be planted on the developer’s side of the
Mr. Pazdera stated they will need an extension, and Mr. Rose agreed to provide this to
#552 – UNIVEST NATIONAL BANK SKETCH PLAN DISCUSSION
Mr. Michael Macaninch, attorney, Mr. Dominic Marziani, architect, and
Mr. Rhett Chiliberti, engineer, were present. Mr. Macaninch stated they have submitted a
sketch plan for a bank to be located at
He noted on the plan the existing buildings on the site. They propose to remove the
ancillary buildings behind the tenant house. They are proposing to provide parking for
sixteen cars. They plan to rehabilitate the existing residence (Stapler House) as a
community building in the Township making use of the first floor as a conference room
or something of that nature. The footprint is 600 square feet. He stated if the use of this
building was off-hours, they could both make use of the parking. The other building has
a footprint of 900 square feet and is in significant disrepair. Mr. Troilo is the owner of the
Mr. Koopman asked who would own the structure. Mr. Macaninch stated Mr. Troilo will
own the property and the bank will be a tenant. They have not made a decision as to who
would own the building in the front. Mr. Macaninch stated they have no particular use
for this building. They are trying to get the bank as far away from the intersection as they
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 10 of 12
Ms. Michele Stambaugh was present and stated the Historic Commission was not advised
about this presentation. She understands that this is in the Edgewood Village Historic
area and she feels they need to adhere to the design guidelines that have been worked on
for several years. Ms. Frick stated while this is only a Sketch Plan, she did advise
Ms. Helen Heinz, Chair of the Historic Commission, that this matter was on the Agenda
for this evening.
Mr. Macaninch stated they have received a copy of the Design Guidelines and have just
started reviewing them. He stated they are only at the very preliminary Sketch Plan
Mr. Marziani stated the property does have unique setbacks off the road. He stated they
would like to have a 33,000 square foot bank facility with a drive through. Univest has
certain criteria as to how they treat their customers including a customer lounge and
personnel area. They wanted to try to keep as far away from the intersections as possible
with their drives. The Plan as shown does work for the bank and as such does create
issues in terms of relief needed. He stated they are over with regard to the impervious
surface requirements. They can meet the setbacks although they may need relief from the
ultimate right-of-way. Ms. Frick stated she does not feel they meet the special setbacks
required from the two State roads. Mr. Marziani stated they have not really looked at the
engineering, and the primary issue is the removal of the buildings they would like to
Mr. Macaninch stated the property itself is within the Historic District and listed on the
Historic Register. Mr. Allan asked if the building they plan to take down is on the
register. Mr. Stephen Heinz stated he is representing HARB and they have a good track
record of working with banks. He stated they are trying to establish guidelines to make
the Village more “Village-like” and this plan does not lead to that Village atmosphere.
He suggested that the Planning Commission defer to the HARB and the Historic
Commission in order to come up with alternatives which are in keeping with what they
have already arranged. He feels it is premature to get into the discussion on the building
at this point.
Mr. Macaninch stated they need to know if the Township would support removal of the
second building. Mr. Heinz stated the frame building is an historic building. He stated
they would be willing to listen to their discussions adding that they recognize that the
building is a “wreck” and would take a major amount of work.
Ms. Friedman stated she agrees with Mr. Heinz and feels they should network with that
group first; however, she does feel what they have proposed is crowded, and there is
potential for accidents the way it has been designed. She stated she feels this could also
be used as a cut-through going through the bank parking lot in order to avoid the light.
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 11 of 12
Mr. Allan stated he is not sure this is the right place for a bank. He asked how many
people they would anticipate going to the Bank in a day and a bank representative
estimated it to be 500 to 600 cars on a Friday.
Ms. Harrison stated she too is concerned with the potential for cutting through the bank
parking lot. She asked that the Historic Commission and HARB look at this and provide
input to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Pazdera stated he feels they are going to have a major problem with stacking and he
has concerns with the turning radius as well. He recommended that they go to the
Historic Commission and HARB before they come back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Frick stated they should also look at the special setback requirements since both of
these are collector roads.
Mr. Allan stated they may want to put this before the Board of Supervisors to see if they
are even in favor of having a bank at this location before they get too involved with a lot
of the other Township groups. He stated this is one of the busiest corners of the
Township. Ms. Harrison stated this is probably why they want to have a bank at this
Ms. Frick asked how many employees they would have, and a bank representative
indicated there would be five or six employees.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they should go to the Board of
Supervisors so that they can save time and money. Mr. Macaninch agreed to look into
the special setbacks as suggested.
Ms. Stambaugh stated there is a playground in the area so there are a number of children
in the area to be considered.
Mr. Ernest Samino stated he is the adjacent property owner and asked if they can have a
two-way driveway on
drawn to show what the bank would optimally like to have. Mr. Samino stated there is a
possibility that they could bring their traffic onto his property if they could work out a
deal. He stated his property does have a “grandfathered” driveway. He stated his
building is historic and there is also a second building that was built in the 1950’s and
even though it is not historic, he is required to go through HARB because of the location
of the property.
April 12, 2004 Planning Commission – page 12 of 12
APPROVAL OF MINTUES
Mr. Allan moved and Ms. Harrison seconded to approve the Minutes of 2/23/04 as
written. Motion carried with Mr. Pazdera abstaining.
Ms. Friedman stated she and Mr. Santarsiero went on a tour of the Farmland Preservation
Corporation properties. She stated there are issues regarding liabilities because of people
encroaching onto the Farmland Preservation Corporation properties. She stated residents
who abut FPC properties should probably be sent a letter indicating the fines for
encroaching on FPC space. Ms. Frick stated the FPC did send out letters to adjoining
residents. Ms. Friedman stated she feels something should be sent out again advising
them that these are working farms. She stated the FPC will be dealing with this in more
There being no further business, Ms. Friedman moved, Ms. Harrison seconded and it was unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Karen Friedman, Secretary