HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-28-ZBA-min.pdfMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals
Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom
August 28th, 2025, 7:00 p.m.
Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P.
Cohen, and James A. Osten
Alternate Member(s): Jeanne Krieger and Thomas Shiple
Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator,
and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant
Address: 79 North Street (ZBA-25-18)
The petitioner is requesting ONE SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law
(Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-6.7.6 to allow an expanded
accessory apartment.
The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification,
Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Height
Calculation Form, Historical Reference Photos, 3D Video of Proposed ADU, and Abutter
Support Letters.
Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building
Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Select Board, the Planning Director,
the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the
Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, the Building
Commissioner, the Building Commissioner on behalf of the Historical Commission, and the
Planning Department.
The Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m.
Petitioner: Joan and Don Goldmann
Mrs. Goldmann began her presentation by expressing her gratitude for the Town staff who
assisted her with the application process and also introduced her architect. Mrs. Goldmann then
explained the significance of her historical house and her family’s growing needs. Mrs.
Goldmann also explained how she plans to respect the historical heritage of her house and the
landscaping of her property. Mrs. Goldmann continued by explaining that their property has
adequate space to accommodate the ADU and also explained that they designed their ADU to
resemble a 19th century barn that once resided on their property. Mr. Donald Goldmann then
pulled up some plans that showed the property’s combined parcels, the location of the existing
dwelling, and the location of the proposed ADU. Mr. Goldmann stated that the location of the
proposed ADU will meet the Town’s setback requirements. Mr. Goldmann then pulled up
another plan that showed the specifics of the proposed addition, stated that they plan to
preserve the trees on their property, and detailed how the ADU will connect to the existing
dwelling. Mr. Goldmann concluded their presentation by showing the 3D video that provides a
visual of the proposed ADU and stated that the ADU will use the existing driveway and utilities
from the street.
Mr. Osten referenced a section of the zoning by-law that states that if the accessory apartment
has more than one entrance, then “…one entrance shall appear to be the principal entrance…”
(Ch. 135-6.7.4(2)). Mr. Osten then asked Mr. and Mrs. Goldmann to identify the front entrances
of the proposed ADU. Mrs. Goldmann explained that the ADU will have sliding doors to look like
the barn. Mr. Goldmann then explained that those sliding doors will serve as the main entrance
to the ADU and that the sunroom connector will serve as an alternate entrance. Mr. Osten
stated that the barn doors will not get easily confused with the front doors. Mrs. Andrea Russell
explained that the brick path leads to the entrance of the main house and that the two entrances
do not reside near each other.
Mr. Shiple asked Mr. and Mrs. Goldmann to explain how the ADU meets all the requirements of
Ch. 135-6.7.6. Mrs. Russell explained that when the project concludes, the existing house and
the ADU will serve as one dwelling, and hence the ADU will reside within the existing dwelling.
Mrs. Russell then explained that the existing dwelling has a gross floor area of 4,352 and that
the ADU has a gross floor area of 1,653, so the ADU does not exceed 40% of the gross floor
area of the existing dwelling.
No further questions from the Board.
Mr. David Kaufman, and his wife Mrs. Carol Millard, 85 North Street, stated that their property
abuts the side on which Mr. and Mrs. Goldmann plan to build their ADU. Mr. Kaufman then
expressed his support for the Goldmann’s petition and explained that they had reviewed the
plans, video, and had a site visit with Mr. Goldmann. Mr. Kaufman reiterated his enthusiasm for
the project as it will give the Goldmann’s an opportunity to have their family in Lexington.
No further comments or questions from the Public.
No further questions from the Board.
Mr. Goldmann concluded their presentation by reiterating his gratitude.
Mr. Clifford moved to close the Hearing at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:25 p.m.
The hearing closed at 7:25 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N.
Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes).
Mr. Clifford expressed his enthusiasm for the cupola on top of the barn.
No further discussion from the Board.
Mr. Clifford moved to grant the petition at 7:26 p.m. Multiple Board Members second Mr. Clifford
at 7:26 p.m.
The Board granted the petition at 7:26 p.m.
The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to
grant ONE SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code
of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-6.7.6 to allow an expanded accessory apartment (a
roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes,
Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes).
Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals
Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom
August 28th, 2025, 7:00 p.m.
Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P.
Cohen, and James A. Osten
Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger and Thomas Shiple
Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator,
and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant
Address: 33 Tower Road (ZBA-25-16)
The petitioner is requesting ONE SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law
(Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow a modification
to a non-conforming structure.
The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification,
Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Existing Floor Plans, and
Abutter Support Letters.
Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building
Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Select Board, the Planning Director,
the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the
Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, Building
Commissioner, and the Planning Department.
The Hearing opened at 7:26 p.m.
Petitioner: Jason Choi on behalf of Eugene T Pong Trust and Winnie Tsiang-Pong Trust
Mr. Choi began his presentation by introducing his other panelist, which consisted Mr. Dion
Kaskarelis, team member, Mr. Robert Njoroge, engineer, and Mr. Eugene Pong, property owner.
Mr. Choi explained that him and his other panelist seek a special permit to modify an existing
non-conforming structure. Like Mrs. Goldmann, Mr. Choi expressed his gratitude for the Town
staff. Mr. Choi then explained the house currently has a detached one-car garage and its
location makes it a legal, pre-existing, non-conforming structure. Mr. Choi then explained that
the proposal seeks to make the garage a two-car garage, to add a second story above the
garage, and to connect the garage to the main house. Mr. Choi further explained that the project
will keep the new ridge line below the ridge of the main house, and that the project will not
introduce any new uses or negatively impact traffic. Mr. Choi further clarified that that the project
seeks to increase the functional living space and reduce the on-street parking. Mr. Choi then
showed a plan that has the existing conditions of the property with the new proposal over it. Mr.
Choi then showed a before and after of the first floor and explained that they seek to expand the
garage and connect it to the dwelling with a hallway. Mr. Choi then showed a before and after of
the second floor and explained the use of the second floor. Mr. Choi then showed the front and
rear elevations of the house and explained that the house will have matching windows.
No further questions from the Board.
No further comments or questions from the Public.
Mr. Cohen asked if the neighbors knew about the project. Mr. Pong stated that they had sent in
a few abutter support emails with the application. Mr. Pong explained that the most direct
abutters have expressed their support for the project.
No further questions from the Board.
Mr. Clifford moved to close at 7:34 Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:34 p.m.
The hearing closed at 7:35 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N.
Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes).
No further discussion from the Board.
Mr. Clifford moved to grant the petition at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Osten second Mr. Clifford at 7:35 p.m.
The Board granted the petition at 7:35 p.m.
The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to
grant ONE SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code
of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow a modification to a non-conforming
structure (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C.
Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes).
Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals
Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom
August 28th, 2025, 7:00 p.m.
Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P.
Cohen, and James A. Osten
Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger and Thomas Shiple
Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator,
and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant
Address: 24 Hilltop Avenue (ZBA-25-19)
The petitioner is requesting ONE SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law
(Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow a modification
to a non-conforming structure.
The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification,
Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Height Calculation Form,
Recorded Property Deed, Existing Plot Plan, and Abutter Opposition Letter.
Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building
Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Select Board, the Planning Director,
the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the
Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator and the Building
Commissioner.
The Hearing opened at 7:35 p.m.
Petitioner: Duo Yu on behalf of Yubo Chen
Mr. Yu began his presentation by stating that the owner seeks to redevelop the existing non-
conforming dwelling. Mr. Yu then expressed his gratitude for the Town staff and explained that
the property has some Town-owned ground in front of the property line. Mr. Yu further specified
that they seek to redevelop the dwelling into a two and a half story house with an attached
garage, and that they also seek to maintain the existing setback on the right side. Mr. Yu also
stated that the property has a driveway easement on the left side. Mr. Yu continued his
presentation by giving an aerial view of the property, and explained where the town land, the
setbacks, and property lines all reside. Mr. Yu reiterated that they seek to keep the setback on
the right side and also seek to keep the set back on the left side. Mr. Yu then explained that the
easement stops about sixty feet into the property while the driveway goes back further. Mr. Yu
then showed a plan with the exact setbacks, including the roof overhand. Mr. Yu explained that
the proposal will keep the right-side setback, and that anything on the left side and rear will
meet the current setback requirements. Mr. Yu then explained that the proposal will remove the
existing garage and make it a part of the addition. Mr. Yu further explained that the driveway
easement goes six feet into the abutting property and that the easement does not contain part
of the proposed driveway. Mr. Yu also explained that the homeowner currently rents the property
and does not currently reside in it, but has made efforts to connect with the abutting neighbor.
Mr. Yu continued his presentation by showing a diagram with the elevation, the average natural
grade, and the height of the proposed dwelling. Mr. Yu then showed what the proposed dwelling
footprint over the existing footprint and reiterated that the project will not change the setback on
the right side. Mr. Yu then stated that the dwelling currently has a gross floor area of 2,200
square feet, which includes the basement, and that the proposed dwelling will have a gross floor
area of 4,200 square feet, which will include an unfinished basement and a partly unfinished
attic. Mr. Yu then showed a table that demonstrated how the gross floor area for the proposed
dwelling fell just under the maximum allowed gross floor area. Mr. Yu then explained that a
structural engineer currently works on the project and that the project will likely keep part of the
foundation with an extension towards the rear yard. Mr. Yu stated that they will assess condition
of the foundation and make the decision for owners. Mr. Yu then showed plans with the existing
conditions and the proposed conditions. Mr. Yu explained that they plan to remove the
preexisting garage and remove most of the existing footprint, and also reiterated that the
addition will contain the new garage. Mr. Yu then stated that the project will improve the non-
conformity by removing some of the non-conforming setbacks. Mr. Yu then showed the second-
level and attic floor plans, and reiterated that they will only finished part of the attic. Mr. Yu then
showed the roof line, and elevations with windows and siding. Mr. Yu then stated that the project
tries to stay within the character of the neighborhood, and that the projects falls just under the
40-foot height requirement. Mr. Yu also stated that the proposed dwelling goes much deeper
into the property than the current dwelling, and then gave a 3D view of both the existing and
proposed plan. Mr. Yu then showed the elevation form, signed by a land surveyor, with the
ground water still pending. Mr. Yu concluded his presentation by reiterating that a civil engineer
and a structural engineer currently work on the project.
Mrs. Wood asked about the unfinished portion of the attic and what would prevent the attic from
becoming finished. Mr. Yu explained that the unfinished portion of the attic will serve as a
mechanical space and that the project will include a small door to provide access for
maintenance. Mr. Yu explained that nothing would prevent the attic from becoming finished in
the future other than the mechanical equipment occupying the space. Mrs. Wood then asked
about how the garage access works. Mr. Yu then explained that the project plans to minimally
modify the driveway to provide enough space for a turnaround for a car to access the garage.
Mr. Osten asked Mr. Yu if he had considered the amount of shadow that the proposed dwelling
would cast on the right-side neighbor, whose house resides lower than 24 Hilltop Ave. Mr. Yu
expressed his willingness to conduct a study and highlighted that the right side already has
heavy shading due to the trees located there. Mr. Yu also stated that the new project will only
have a slightly taller height than the existing dwelling. Mr. Osten also asked about the lot
frontage as one plot plan shows a lot frontage of 52 feet rather than 50 feet, which would result
in a ten-foot side yard setback rather than a seven-and-a-half-foot side yard setback. Mr. Osten
noted that the project would impose on the neighbor significantly and that the existing non-
conforming setback only applies to the length of a first-floor porch. Mr. Osten then explained the
Board’s purview and asked Mr. Yu how his project does not detrimentally affect the
neighborhood. Mr. Yu explained that when measured from the property line to the street, the
property has a lot frontage of 50 feet. Mr. Yu further explained that when measured from the
curved front property line, the property has a lot frontage of over 50. Mr. Yu stated that they will
have to comply with the ten-foot setback. Mr. Yu stated that the project will improve the existing
non-conformity by improving the rear setback. Mr. Yu further stated that the setback will not
have any adverse effects on the neighbor that and the homeowner will work with the neighbor.
Mr. Yu reiterated his willingness to conduct studies on the project and that the project removes,
rather than increases, non-conformities.
Mr. Barnert asked if Mr. Yu plans to save the tree to the right of the existing garage. Mr. Yu said
that they will likely remove or relocate the tree, and expressed his willingness to talk to an
arborist. Mr. Yu reiterated that they will get a civil engineer on the project and make tree
protection plans if necessary.
Mr. Cohen asked about how much room a car would have to clear the garage and turn around
to come out the street, and asked if a car would have to go on the neighbor’s land to turn
around. the length of the proposed two car garage. Mr. Yu explained that the garage has a 20-
foot depth and that they typically provide about 20 feet for a car to turn around. Mr. Yu then
explained that due to the conditions of the property, they plan to provide a little more depth in
the rear for a turn around. Mr. Yu also stated that the garage and the property line have about
20 feet of distance between them and expressed his willingness to show a car-turning diagram.
Mr. Cohen asked if they will need an easement expansion. Mr. Yu showed where the easement
ends but explained that the driveway goes back further. Mr. Yu further explained that the
proposal will not touch the driveway beyond the easement and will only increase the hardscape
on the garage side so that a car can turn around. Mr. Yu then stated that the owner will try to
connect with the neighbor on the easement. Mr. Cohen asked if the neighbor would willingly
expand the easement. Mr. Yu reiterated that the new driveway will not require any new
easement, however the owner will need to discuss the driveway that extends beyond the
easement with the neighbor.
Mr. Osten stated that since the owner currently rents the property, renters may not know where
the lot line ends and may back into the neighbor’s property. Mr. Osten then asked Mr. Yu what
he would do if the neighbor put in a fence. Mr. Yu responded that he does not know what his
client will use the property for after redeveloping it and reiterated that the owner needs to talk to
the neighbor to work out the easement details. Mr. Yu stated that if the owner and the neighbor
cannot reach an agreement, then they will have to find another way to reach the garage from
the existing easement.
Following up on Mr. Osten’s question, Mr. Clifford asked how a car would get to the garage if the
neighbor put up a six-foot fence at the end of the easement, to which Mr. Clifford expressed his
doubt that a car could reach the garage under that condition. Mr. Clifford then stated that the
Board cannot grant a special permit if a car cannot reach the garage. Mr. Clifford then stated
that he does not see how the parcel of land can function unless the neighbor agrees to extend
the easement. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board cannot grant a special permit should the
neighbor not agree to expand the driveway easement, as that would prevent a car from
accessing the garage. Mr. Clifford then explained to Mr. Yu how a straw vote works. Mr. Clifford
explained that with a straw vote, the Board will not vote on the actual proposal but will give Mr.
Yu an idea of whether or not the Board supports granting the special permit. Mr. Clifford further
explained that should the Board vote to deny the proposal, then Mr. Yu cannot ask for the relief
again for two years. Mr. Clifford also explained that the straw vote would give Mr. Yu an
opportunity to withdraw his petition so that he can work on it with the staff to modify the
proposal. Mr. Yu expressed his desire to see what the Board thinks of his petition but stated that
he does not want to make the decision without discussing it with his client. Mr. Yu clarified that
he can use the two-year time period to work with the neighbor to modify the plans to everyone’s
satisfaction, to which Mr. Clifford responded that he could use that time to do that, but cannot
come back to the Board until the end of those two years. Mr. Clifford further explained that
legally, Mr. Yu has the right to a vote and that a straw vote will determine if the Board will likely
grant the petition or not. Mr. Clifford also explained that should the Board likely not grant the
petition, he recommended that Mr. Yu withdraw the petition. Mr. Clifford also stated that the
Board will share the problems that they have with the petition so that Mr. Yu can rework it into
something the Board will approve. Mr. Yu expressed his desire to have a straw vote and also
clarified that straw vote will not count against him, which Mr. Clifford affirmed. Mr. Clifford then
explained that Mr. Yu can either push the straw vote into a real vote or during the discussion,
the Board can give recommendations about whether to continue the hearing to another meeting
or withdraw the petition. Mr. Yu reiterated his willingness to do a straw vote and clarified when
public comments would take place. Mr. Clifford explained that before the Board grants a special
permit, they will give the public an opportunity to testify.
Mr. Clifford conducted a straw vote. The Board voted unanimously to not grant the proposal as it
stands. Mr. Clifford then recommended that Mr. Yu withdraw the application and the Board will
inform him of what he needs to fix before filing a new application. Mr. Clifford clarified that he
recommends a withdrawal as he believed that the concerns will take some time to work out. Mr.
Clifford then told Mr. Yu his issues with the proposal, which included not violating the easement
agreement and using the easement as it stands, finding the estimated seasonal high ground
water, coming up with a water plan to prevent problems in the neighborhood, gross floor area
considerations, and coming up with a more concrete design.
Mr. Osten stated that he does not like the massing on the 6.7-foot non-conforming set back. Mr.
Osten also stated that as he understands it, the proposal will tear down and replace the
dwelling, with a recommendation of replacing the foundation. Mr. Osten then stated that should
the proposal remain like that, Mr. Yu could do much of the work by right. Mr. Osten then
highlighted the neighborhood opposition to the proposal, and Mr. Clifford stated that the property
has a small lot size, as reflected in the proposed gross floor area.
Ms. Krieger noted that the property has a small lot size and expressed her concerns about snow
removal. Ms. Krieger asked that Mr. Yu include snow removal in future plans.
Mr. Clifford reiterated his recommend that Mr. Yu withdraw and reapply as these concerns will
take time to resolve. Mr. Clifford then stated that Mr. Yu can withdraw without prejudice, continue
the hearing, or proceed with the application, although the Board will likely vote it down. Mr. Yu
asked if he could continue tonight so that he can discuss the matter with the owner. Mr. Yu then
asked what the Board would think if they kept the existing garage, to which Mr. Clifford
explained that he would still violate the easement and that the Board cannot grant a special
permit if the garage has illegal access. Ms. Lawler stated that the next meeting will take place
on September 25th, and Mr. Yu agreed to continue the hearing to that date. Mr. Clifford then
stated that if Mr. Yu decides to withdraw, he can contact the staff.
No further questions from the Board.
Mr. Clifford moved to authorize the continuance of this hearing until September 25th, 2025, at
8:16 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford.
The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to
grant a CONTINUANCE to the September 25th, 2025 ZBA meeting (a roll call vote took place:
Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen –
Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes).
Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals
Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom
August 28th, 2025, 7:00 p.m.
Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P.
Cohen, and James A. Osten
Associate Members: Jeanne Krieger and Thomas Shiple
Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator,
and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant
Other Business:
1. Minutes from the July 24th, 2025 Meeting
Before approving the minutes, Mr. Clifford updated the Board that the Lowell Street housing
project is expected to come before the Board sometime in October or November and cautioned
the Board about deadlines. Mr. Clifford also informed the Board the they will have a peer
reviewer to assist with the more technical aspects. Mr. Clifford asked that all associates join for
the hearings, but clarified that they will not vote. Mr. Clifford noted that the project may require
extra meetings depending on the amount of public comment. Mr. Clifford then advised that the
Board read Chapter 138 of the Bylaw and review the materials from the 40B training session.
Mr. Clifford suggested a more coordinated site visit so that the applicant can show the Board
what will go where. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board will act as a quasi-judicial reviewer of
this plan and that the Board cannot advocate for one position or the other. Mr. Clifford further
stated that if a Board member had advocated for one position or another, they may need to
consider recusing themselves from the decision.
Mr. Osten stated that most of Board members and associate members also are Town Meeting
members who dealt with the Lowell Street project in the past. Mr. Clifford said that the Board
members needs to make the decision of whether or not they advocated for it, or whether they
only voted for it in Town Meeting. Mr. Clifford expressed his willingness to discuss the matter but
stated that the Select Board will make the decision.
Mr. Cohen clarified that the September 11th meeting will not take place, which Ms. Lawler
affirmed.
Ms. Anjoorian informed the Board that she had drafted the 2026 ZBA calendar that the Board
will re-elect officer positions. Ms. Anjoorian also stated that she will send out the calendar for
review. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board usually re-elects officers in October.
Mr. Clifford moved to approve the minutes at 8:26 p.m. Mr. Osten second Mr. Clifford at 8:26
p.m.
The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to
approve the minutes from July 24th, 2025 Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford –
Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A.
Osten – Yes).
Mr. Clifford moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Multiple Board Members second Mr.
Clifford at 8:26 p.m.
The Board voted to Adjourn at 8:27 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes,
Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A. Osten –
Yes).