HomeMy Public PortalAboutPleasant_st_192_Decision_StampedTOWN OF WATERTOWN
Department of
Community Development and Planning
PLANNING BOARD
Administration Building
149 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
Phone: 617-972-6417
Fax: 617-972-6484
www.watertown-ma.gov
PLANNING BOARD DECISION
MAR 2 2013
RECEIVED BY
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
WATERTOWN, MASS.
1013 FIAR 21 A 11:
Board Mem els:
John B. Hawes, Jr., Chairman
Linda Tuttle -Barletta
Jeffrey W. Brown
Fergal Brennock
Neal Corbett
The Planning Board is the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) for a Special Permits within the
Pleasant Street Corridor District. On March 13, 2013 with four (4) members of the Planning Board ("the
Board") present, case number PB-2013-01 SP/SR was denied (three in favor, one opposed) a Special
Permit with Site Plan Review.
Case#:
Subject Property:
Parcel ID:
Zoning District:
Petitioner:
Owner:
Agent:
Zoning Relief Sought:
Special Permit Granting Authority:
Site Plan Review Meeting:
Date of Staff Report:
Staff Recommendation:
Date of Planning Board Meeting:
Planning Board Vote:
Date Decision Filed with Town Clerk:
20 -Day Appeal Period
PB-2013-01 SP/SR
192 Pleasant Street
201 21 2
Pleasant Street Corridor District (PSCD)
John B. Wise, Burkhard Corporation
51 Knox Trail, Suite 1, Acton, MA 01720
Richard S. Cass
65 Warren Drive, Wrentham, MA 02093
William York, Esq.
• Special Permit w/ Site Plan Review -§5.01.1(0 multifamily 4+
o Subject to §5.07 Affordable Housing Requirements
• Special Permit §5.06 Construction in the Flood Plain District
• Special Permit- Development Incentive Credit
o Reduction in parking §5.16(e)(3)
• Special Permit- Development Incentive Credit
o Increased FAR §5.16(d)(4)(B)
Planning Board
November 20, 2012
January 4, 2013
Conditional Approval
January 9, 2013
Denied (3 in favor, 1 opposed)
March 27, 2013
April 17, 2013
“AR 2l2013
192 Pleasant Street March 27, 2013
PB-2013-01-SP/SR Planning Board Decision
RECEIVED BY
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
I. PUBLIC NOTICE (M.G.L.C.40A,&11) WATERTOWN, MASS.
A. Procedural Summa
1013 MAR 21.AII: Ili
Petition PB-2013-01 SP/SR was filed and stamped into the Town Clerk's office on December 17,
2012 and was heard by the Planning Board on January 9, 2013 and was subsequently continued to
February 13, and then March 13, 2013. As required by M.G.L. c. 40A, sec.11 and the Watertown
Zoning Ordinance, notice was given as follows:
• Published in the Watertown Tab & Press on December 21, 2012 & December 28, 2012.
• Posted at the Town Administration Building and on the Town Website on December 19, 2012.
• Mailed to Parties in Interest on December 19, 2012.
B. Legal Notice
"192 Pleasant Street, John B. Wise, Burkhard Corporation, 51 Knox Trail, Suite 1, Acton, MA 01720
herein requests a Special Permit with Site Plan Review in accordance with §5.01.10 -Multi -Family
4+ (subject to § 5.06-Floodplain District and §5.07 Affordable Housing Requirements) and §5.16(h).
Development Incentive Credits for §5.16(d)(4)(B)-Maximum Floor Area Ratio and §5.16(e)(3) -
Parking Reduction, Zoning Ordinance, so as to raze existing industrial structures and construct 14
residential units with structured parking (12 plus approximately 10 stacked spaces) under the
building and 8 surface parking spaces in the side yard, all within the Floodplain District and PSCD
(Pleasant Street Corridor District) Zoning District. PB-2013-01.”
II. DESCRIPTION
A. Site Characteristics
The site consists of a 17,683 s.f. lot that contains a two-story (part of which is a single story) industrial
building with an approximate footprint of 5,693 square feet as well as two small garages at the
southwestern corner of the lot. The building is nonconforming regarding front and rear yard setbacks,
maximum impervious surface, and minimum open space requirements. The building is set back
approximately 20 feet from Pleasant Street and is located very close to the rear lot line (less than two feet
at its closest point.) Accessed by two driveways, the majority of the lot (including in front of the building)
is paved and striped for parking. A 20 feet wide and nearly 90 feet long sewer easement runs diagonally
from the front lot line to the easterly lot line. The site is partially located in the 100 and 500 year flood
zone, the 50 foot no -build zone, and the 100 foot wetland buffer zone.
B. Surrounding Land Use
The project site is located in the easternmost part of the Pleasant Street Corridor District (PSCD) Tess than
half a mile west of the heart of Watertown Square. The site abuts Massachusetts Department of
Conservation and Recreation property containing the Charles River Bike Path to the south, a single-
family home to the east, a two-family home to the west, and three two-family homes and Town -owned
land in the Two -Family zone across Pleasant Street to the north.
C. Nature of the Request
The request was for a Special Permit with Site Plan Review under §5.01.1(0, Multi -family, 4+, Table of
Use Regulations of the Watertown Zoning Ordinance (WZO), to raze the existing industrial building and
Page 2 of 9
192 Pleasant Street
MAR 2 201
March 27, 2013
PB-2013-01-SP/SR Planning Board Decision
RECEIVED BY
garages in order to construct a new four story building that would contain 14 residential co8el€nEILginK' S OFFICE
units. The building would be clad with a combination of brick and hardiplank (or similar) 'dla Fo`1iT8WN. MASS.
siding. Of the 14 units, 13 would be two -bedroom units and (1) one unit would be a one -bedroom unit.
In accordance with the Affordable Housing Requirements under §5.07 of the (WZO), one l �i�ii p 1 1 , 4
would be set aside as affordable with a permanent deed restriction. The Petitioner also requests a Special
Permit for increased FAR under §5.16(d)(4)(B) in order to increase the FAR from 1.0 to 1.1, where a
maximum of 2.0 is allowed upon satisfying criteria for Development Incentive Credits under §5.16(h).
A total of 20 conforming parking spaces along with eight (8) tandem spaces would be provided for
resident and guest parking. Accessed from the rear of the building, twelve conforming spaces (of which
one would be handicap accessible) and eight (8) tandem spaces would be provided beneath the building in
a garage that would be open on three sides. The remaining eight (8) conforming parking spaces would be
located in the surface parking area along the eastern portion of the property. The WZO requires that 24
conforming spaces be provided. The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit under §5.16(h)
(Development Incentive Credits) for a reduction in parking requirements for providing Alternative
Transportation Incentives. As the property is located in the Flood Plain District, a Special Permit under
§5.06 of the WZO is required. The Conservation Commission met and issues an Order of Conditions for
the project.
M. PUBLIC COMMENT
Prior to the first public hearing, Staff received a letter from two residents in the neighborhood, and the
Petitioner held a community meeting at the site, with no Staff participation. During the January hearing
and the continued hearing in March, numerous residents of the surrounding neighborhood testified in
opposition to the project with comments ranging from concerns about traffic, mass, safety, parking, etc.
There was also some testimony in favor of the project.
N. FINDINGS
Within the PSCD Zoning District, the Planning Board is the Special Permit Granting Authority for a
Special Permit with Site Plan Review. The request must meet four conditions of approval for a Special
Permit as set forth in §9.05(b) of the WZO as well as consider the ten criteria for Site Plan Review as set
forth in §9.03(c) of the WZO. As the property is located in the Flood Plain District, a Special Permit
under §5.06 of the WZO is required. Further, as required by MGL 40A Section 9, four members of a five
member Special Permit Granting Authority must vote to approve a special permit.
A. Plan Consistency
The proposed development supports several goals and implementation strategies of the Pleasant Street
Corridor - Concept Plan and Implementation Study (11/01/2007) as follows:
• Enhancing connections and open space by creating a public pedestrian access from Pleasant
Street to the Charles River Bike Path.
• Creating "eyes on the park" by putting a residential use adjacent to the Charles River Bike Path
and the river.
B. Special Permit with Site Plan Review $5.01.1(f) (multi -family), Special Permit X5.06
(flood plain district)
This proposal must meet the four conditions of approval for a Special Permit set forth in §9.05(b) of the
WZO. In addition this proposal is subject to the review procedures under §9.03 Site Plan Review of the
WZO, in which the ten criteria listed in §9.03 (c) must be evaluated.
Page 3 of 9
192 Pleasant Street March 27, 201 J 1AR 2 1 2013
PB-2013-01-SP/SR Planning Board Decision
RECEIVED BY
TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
Special Permit Criteria $9.05(b) V/AT E R T O W N. MASS.
1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure, or condition. 1013 MAR 2 A 1 1 - U
Not Met: While a residential development is allowed by Special Permit with Site Plan Review in this
district, the Planning Board found (one Board Member out of four present voted in opposition) that
the proposed structure would not be appropriate for the site because the four-story massing and
overall building size does not fit within this part of the Pleasant St Corridor. This site has several
difficult constraints so development should not "max out" the development potential outlined in the
WZO and should provide a transition in density between the Two -Family Zone to the east and this
area of the PSCD. Despite this finding, the project did also represent an improvement in many ways
because it would clean-up the contaminated site, create a much larger buffer between the built area
and the river, and would reduce the amount of impervious surface at the site. The Conservation
Commission issued an Order of Conditions for the development with the rear drive area modified to
be pervious.
2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
Not Met: The proposed development would benefit the neighborhood by eliminating the blighted
industrial building and front yard parking. The development would introduce a new public pedestrian
connection to the Charles River Bike Path. The project would diminish impacts on Charles River by
moving the building away from the River and managing stormwater runoff by increasing on site
infiltration by reducing the amount of impervious surface and introducing bioretention areas.
Despite these benefits, the Board found (one Board Member out of four present voted in opposition)
that the massing at the street was too high and the project would adversely affect the neighborhood,
creating shadows and obstructing views of the river.
3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles and pedestrians.
Met: The reduction from two driveways to one driveway would reduce the number of conflict points
on Pleasant Street, therefore creating a safer environment for motorists and pedestrians. A new
pedestrian access path would be installed along the eastern portion of the site to connect Pleasant
Street to the Charles River Bike Path. Parking facilities for residents and visitors will be provided on
site and site circulation has been designed for safety concerns with appropriate sight lines and aisle
widths. The traffic study predicted that the development would have a minimal impact on traffic as it
would generate 6-7 peak hour trips, which is equal to an increase of one (1) peak hour trip from the
previous industrial use. The traffic study predicted that once non -motorized trips are taken into
account, there would likely be a reduction in automobile trips to the site.
4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed
use.
Met: The proposal would meet all building, health, and safety requirements. The site, which
currently has a negligible stormwater management system in place, would incorporate bioretention
areas to retain much of the stormwater on site and treat runoff before its discharge into the Charles
River. The Conservation Commission found that the compensatory flood storage is adequate and an
Order of Conditions was issued for the project.
Page 4 of 9
192 Pleasant Street March 27, 2013
PB-2013-01-SP/SR Planning Board Decision
RECEIVED BY
Site Plat Review Criteria 59.03 (c) TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE
WATERTOWN MASS.
Prior to the official filing of the Application, a meeting of the Site Plan Review Committee was held on
November 20, 2012. Present at the meeting were the Site Plan Review Committee (cons; nfi TvnA I I . -'
Staff) and the Petitioner who presented the proposal after which members of the Committee were vited
to respond with questions, comments, and suggestions. Incorporating comments from the Site Plan
Review Committee and Planning Staff, the Board reviewed the ten criteria for Site Plan Review provided
in §9.03(c) of the WZO and makes the following findings:
MAR 171013
1. Preservation of Landscape: "The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as
practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and any grade changes shall be in keeping with the
general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Adequate landscaping shall also be provided,
including screening of adjacent residential uses, provision of street trees, landscape islands in the parking
lot and a landscape buffer along the street frontage"
Met: Because of the previous use as an industrial building and surface parking lot, much of the landscape
has been significantly disturbed from its previous natural state and has negligible landscaping. The
Petitioner proposed to provide significant landscaping along the front, rear, and western sides of the
building.
2. Relation of Buildings to Environment: "Proposed development shall be integrated into the
terrain and the use, scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity and shall be in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan or other plans adopted by the Town guiding future development. The
Planning Board may require a modification in massing so as to reduce the effect of shadows on abutting
property in all districts or on public open space.
Not Met: Although the redesign (flat roof with a substantial step -back) reduces the apparent size of the
building, the building placement near the street with four -stories still creates a building that has an
appearance of substantially greater mass than the surrounding neighborhood and does not provide enough
of a transition in density from the two-family residential neighborhood to the PSCD.
A shadow study was prepared showing the shadows that would be cast from the proposed buildings at
three different times of the day (9am, noon, and 3pm) during Spring Equinox, Summer Solstice, Fall
Equinox, and Winter Solstice. As expected, the building's most impactful shadows occur on the shortest
day of the year (Winter Solstice- December 21St) when the proposed building would cast a shadow upon
the abutting property to the west in the morning, upon one of the properties across the street at noon, and
across all three properties across the street at 3pm. The remaining periods of the year the proposed
building would have minimal impact with a shadow cast upon the abutting driveway to the west in the
morning hours.
3. Open Space: "All open space required by this Zoning Ordinance shall be so designed as to
maximize its visibility for persons passing the site, encourage social interaction, maximize its utility, and
facilitate its maintenance."
Met: The proposed development would increase the amount of open space from 7% to 32%, which would
be visible from both Pleasant Street and the Charles River Bike Path. In addition, the proposed pedestrian
path connecting Pleasant Street to the Bike Path would be publically accessible for the enjoyment of the
residents and the general public.
Page 5 of 9
192 Pleasant Street
MAR 212013
March 27, 2013
PB-2013-01-SP/SR Planning Board Decision
RECEIVED [3Y
4. Circulation: Special attention shall be given to traffic circulation, parking areas iipinibetisE $iilfitO F F I C E
to public streets and community facilities in order to maximize convenience and safety of J MASS.
bicycle and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets.
2013 MAR 2 1 1 A 1 1 . U -
Met: Vehicular access to the site would be via a single 24 foot wide curb cut on Pleasant Street and site
circulation was designed for safety with appropriate sight lines and aisle widths. The reduction from two
driveways to one driveway will reduce the number of conflict points on Pleasant Street, therefore creating
a safer environment for motorists and pedestrians. The traffic study predicted that the development would
have a minimal impact on traffic, as it would generate 6-7 peak hour trips, which is equal to an increase of
one (1) peak hour trip from the previous industrial use. The traffic study predicts that once non -motorized
trips are taken into account, there would likely be a reduction in automobile trips to the site.
A total of 20 conforming parking spaces along with eight (8) tandem spaces would be provided for
resident and guest parking. Twelve conforming spaces (of which one would be handicap accessible) and
eight (8) tandem spaces would be provided beneath the building. The remaining eight (8) conforming
parking spaces would be located in the surface parking area along the eastern portion of the property.
The current proposal requires that four (4) bicycle spaces be provided on site. The plans show four
exterior bicycle racks (two at the entrance of the proposed pedestrian path at Pleasant Street and two near
the pedestrian path at the rear of the property) that would accommodate eight (8) spaces. In addition, the
Petitioner proposed a bicycle storage area in the garage that would provide long-term sheltered parking
for 28 bicycles. Planning Staff had recommended an additional bicycle rack close to the front entrance.
Pedestrian and bicycle opportunities for the public would be enhanced by adding public access to the
Charles River Bike Path. The new path would provide a safer pedestrian connection as it would be
located close to the existing signalized crosswalk on Pleasant Street and formalize an existing cut -through
that experiences significant erosion currently.
5. Surface Water Drainage: "Special attention shall be given to proper site surface drainage so that
removal of surface waters will not adversely affect neighboring properties or the public storm drainage
system. Proposed developments shall seek to retain storm water runoff on site to the maximum extent
possible, incorporating best practices in storm water management and Low Impact Design techniques. In
cases where storm water cannot be retained on site, storm water shall be removed from all roofs, canopies
and paved areas and carried away in an underground drainage system."
Met: The proposed development would improve the existing conditions as there currently is minimal
stormwater management at the site. The impervious surface of the site would be reduced from 93% to
68.1% . The site would feature a bioretention/rain garden area along the rear of the site. In response to
DPW concerns, the westerly side yard would be planted with a native moist site seed mix to enhance
infiltration.
6. Utility Service: "Electric, telephone, cable TV and other such lines and equipment shall be
underground. The proposed method of sanitary sewage disposal and solid waste disposal from all
buildings shall be indicated."
Met: The Petitioner stated that all utilities on the site would be below grade except as required to connect
to existing utilities on adjacent utility poles and that sanitary sewage would connect to locations that were
stubbed prior to the Pleasant Street reconstruction. Trash and recycling would be collected by a private
waste management company.
Page 6 of 9
192 Pleasant Street March 27, 2013 MAR 2 2013
PB-2013-01-SP/SR Planning Board Decision
�E EIV. �[) BY
7. Environmental Sustainability: "Proposed developments shall seek to diminf �t e e r jFF ICE
effect; employ energy conscious design with regard to orientation, building materials a lt1 cfiit llti►iiz'�SS.
energy -efficient technology and renewable energy resources; and minimize water use."
Met: The Petitioner would reduce the amount of impervious area by providing the majorityIor te parlkingg . Ll 1
spaces underneath the building. The development would comply with the Energy Stretch Code and
would employ stormwater best management practices.
S. Screening: "Screening, such as screen plantings, shall be provided for exposed storage areas,
exposed machinery installations, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures, and
similar accessory areas and structures in order to prevent their being incongruous with the existing or
contemplated environment and the surrounding properties."
Met: There are no proposed exposed machinery installations or storage areas.
9. Safety: "With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces shall be designed to
facilitate building evacuation and maximize accessibility by fire, police, and other emergency personnel
and equipment."
Met: The Petitioner stated that the proposed building would be built in accordance with all applicable
Federal, State, and Local laws including an NFPA 13 fire suppression sprinkler system and that
centralized alarm panels will be located for easy use by emergency responders. The drive aisle would be
24 feet wide, which would meet the requirements to accommodate fire and emergency vehicle access to
the building.
10. Design: "Proposed developments shall seek to protect abutting properties from detrimental site
characteristics resulting from the proposed use, including but not limited to air and water pollution, noise,
odor, heat, flood, dust vibration, lights or visually offensive structures or site features."
Met: The increase in landscaping and open space in excess of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
would help to reduce the "heat island effect" that results from large areas of impervious paved area. The
provision of a stormwater management system would treat and minimize runoff, which would be a vast
improvement from the existing site conditions of untreated stormwater that sheet flows into the Charles
River. In addition, there would be no exposed mechanical installations and the site lighting would
incorporate full cut offs and be designed so as to minimize spill over lighting to surrounding properties.
Special Permit- Development Incentive Credit
• Reduction in parking45.16(e)(3)- Alternative Transportation Incentives
In accordance with §5.16(e)(3), a 15% reduction in the number of required parking spaces may be granted
by Special Permit for providing Alternative Transportation Incentives outlined in §5.16(h)(3). Staff has
found that the Petitioner has met the criteria by encouraging cycling and walking with its proposed
pedestrian connection to Charles River Bike Path.
It should be noted that although the Petitioner is requesting a 15% reduction (4 spaces) in conforming
parking spaces, eight (8) nonconforming tandem spaces would be provided on site bringing the total
number of parking spaces to 28, which is four (4) more spaces than is required by the WZO.
• Increased FAR 45.16(d)(4)(B)
In accordance with §5.16(d)(4)(B), non -mixed -use development projects may be granted an increased
Floor Area Ratio (up to 2.0) by Special Permit for achieving Development Incentive Credits (DICs) under
Page 7 of 9
criteria for the granting of the requested increased FAR allowance of 1.1:
192 Pleasant Street March 27, 2013
PB-2013-01-SP/SR Planning Board Decision
MAR 17 iij
§5.16(h). Staff has found that the Petitioner achieved the following DICs and therefore 1134t %c 0 F F I C E
WATERTOWN, MASS.
• Enhancing Public Open Space- Charles River Bike Path Connections
• Structured/Underground Parking
• Alternative Transportation Incentives
C. 45.07 Affordable Housing Requirements
7013 MAR 211A
In the PSCD district, a residential project that creates more than 5 dwelling units is subject to the
Affordable Housing Requirements set forth in §5.07 of the WZO, the purpose of which is to "provide
opportunities for conventional residential and mixed -use development to contribute to increasing the
supply of affordable housing". Ten percent (10%) of the 14 dwelling units must be affordable. One'
affordable unit will be provided onsite, which satisfies this requirement. Consistent with the other units,
the affordable unit would be offered for sale. The sales price of the affordable unit will be no higher than
the maximum purchase price affordable to a household with an income at or below 80% of the area
median income (AMI) adjusted for household size. The Petitioner is required to prepare and file a Local
Action Unit application under the State's Local Initiative Program and comply with all the requirements
of the State Department of Housing and Community Development in order for the affordable unit to be
included on the State's Subsidized Housing Inventory, which includes the development of a regulatory
agreement, an affirmative marketing plan, and all required monitoring and reporting requirements.
In addition to review by Planning Staff, the project was reviewed by the Watertown Housing Partnership
(WHP) at their December 18, 2012 meeting. In accordance with §5.07(j), the WHP has made findings in
reference to the proposal's fulfillment of the affordable housing requirements.
1. Affordable units shall be proportionately distributed throughout the building in a covered
development.
Met. The affordable unit would be "fixed" and was designated as a first floor unit with market rate units
located on either side.
2. Affordable units shall be indistinguishable from market -rate units in exterior building materials
and finishes; overall construction quality; and energy efficiency, including mechanical equipment and
plumbing, insulation, windows, and heating and cooling systems, as determined by the Building
Inspector.
Met. The Petitioner has indicated that the affordable unit would be built to the same specifications as the
market rate units.regarding exterior building materials and finishes; overall construction quality; and
energy efficiency, including mechanical equipment and plumbing, insulation, windows, and heating and
cooling systems.
3. Affordable units may differ from market -rate units in type of appliances, finishes; however, the
affordable units shall be comparable to the base market -rate units in such instances.
Met. The Petitioner indicated that the appliances and finishes of the affordable unit would be comparable
to the base market -rate units.
Page 8 of 9
192 Pleasant Street
MAR 2/2013
March 27, 2013
PB-2013-01-SP/SR Planning Board Decision
4. Affordable units shall have the same gross floor area as the average market -rate urj t RliWil BY # S 0 F 1 I C%
margin of 20%; provided, a one bedroom affordable unit shall be not less than 800 s.f.; a tw}mt Ldmo � F.✓ , r.l Ass.
not less than 1,000 s.f.; and a three -bedroom unit not less than 1,350 s.f.. The bedroom mix in the
affordable units shall be proportionate to the market -rate units, unless the SPGA authorize leet.l A I f
mix by special permit upon the recommendation of the WHP. 41
Met. Of the 14 units, 13 would have two bedrooms and one would have one bedroom and the average
two -bedroom unit size would be 1,027 square feet. The affordable unit would have two bedrooms and
would be approximately 1,188 s.f and therefore meets this requirement.
V.
PLANNING BOARD DECISION:
Linda Tuttle -Barletta motioned that, based on the finding that the proposed project meets the criteria set
forth under §9.03(c), §9.05 (b), §5.07, and with the general purpose of the Ordinance outlined in §1.00 of
the WZO, the Board approve a Special Permit with Site Plan Review under §5.01.1(f), Special Permit -
Development Incentive Credit for Reduction in Parking under §5.16(e)(3), the Special Permit -
Development Incentive Credit for Increased FAR under §5.16(d)(4)(B), and the Special Permit
§5.06 Construction in the Flood Plain District. Fergal Brennock seconded. Voted 3-1, denied.
Petition # PB-2013-01-SP/SR IS DENIED by the vote (3-1) of the Planning Board.
The Planning Board:
John Hawes (approve)
Linda Tuttle -Barletta (deny)
Jeffrey W. Brown (absent)
Fergal Brennock (approve)
Neal Corbett (approve)
Attest, by the Head Clerk to the Planning Board:
Ingrid E. March:. ano
ct,/
Page 9 of 9