January 4, 1999

The Town Council of the Town of Easton met today at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the President, Mr. Willey, with the following members present: Mr. Ford, Mr. Mayer, Mrs. Clem and Mr. Heinmuller. Also attending the meeting were the Mayor C. Eugene Butler, Assistant Town Engineer Mr. Glass, the Town Planner Mr. Tom Hamilton, Chief of Police George Harvey and Captain Robert Hobbs of the Easton Police Department.

The meeting was opened with prayer by Mr. Mayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

A presentation was made to the Mayor by Mr. Hoyt Heinmuller and Ms. Trish Weise who was the co-chair of the Duck Stamp Exhibit for the Waterfowl Festival. Mr. Heinmuller thanked the Town for the use of the facility and presented in conjunction with Ms. Weise a 1997-98 Duck Stamp for the offices. The Mayor thanked Mr. Heinmuller and Ms. Weise and stated that the room is available for anyone.

A memo was received from the Assistant Town Planner regarding the request of the Retirement Community of Easton, Inc. for an amendment to the approved CM site plan at Londonderry.

The Town Planner reported on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s discussion of this. He displayed the original approved drawing. He discussed what is currently built. He discussed the Assisted Living Facility and subsequent amendment with more cottages in the vicinity of the Assisted Living Facility and an additional change from a two-story to a one-story Assisted Living Facility. He stated this will reduce 74 units to 55 units. He displayed the elevation drawings. He discussed the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Mr. Bill Stagg was present on behalf of the applicant and he stated that the Council needs to decide whether to hold a public hearing or to approve this.

The President of the Council noted that the Planning Commission was unanimous in their recommendation and that it was unusual to reduce the requested number of units.

Mrs. Clem discussed positive comments regarding Londonderry and made a motion to move forward.

Mr. Ford questioned when the original proposal was approved. The Town Planner stated that it was 1996.

Mr. Heinmuller made a second to Mrs. Clem’s motion and that motion passed.

A letter was received from Mrs. Pickall, Chairman, Easton Planning and Zoning Commission, regarding the requested annexation of approximately 75 acres of land owned by Mr. Paul Elmer Swann. This land would be used for further development of the Matthewstown Run Subdivision.

The Town Planner displayed an overhead of the location and discussed the location. He asked the Council to schedule a public hearing and stated that the earliest could be the second meeting in February.

The President of the Council set the Public Hearing for February 15 at 7:15 P.M.

The President of the Council brought Resolution No. 5645, which would authorize the Town Clerk to abate and/or refund taxes totaling $5,151.85 to the floor.

Resolution 5645 was moved for passage by Mr. Ford, seconded by Mr. Heinmuller and carried unanimously following a roll call vote.

At approximately 7:13 P.M., the President of the Council discussed the ground rules for the upcoming public hearing. He stated that he would like to have a time limit of approximately 9:15 P.M. for testimony for this evening since there is other business. He stated that people will be permitted to continue comments on January 25 if they are unable to speak tonight.

The President of the Council opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. for the annexation and zoning for the lands of Argonaut Land Company L.L.C. which is 386.44 acres lying contiguous to the existing boundaries of the Town of Easton generally located on the west side of Easton south of MD Route 33 (St. Michaels Road).

The Town Planner displayed an overhead of the location. He discussed the requested A-1 zoning. He discussed the current RC zoning in the county. He stated that this would automatically be RCA in Town with one unit per twenty acres due to the critical area. He discussed the tie-in to the Comprehensive Plan with the potential for annexation and PUD. The Town Planner discussed designation in the Comprehensive Plan of a passive recreational park along St. Michaels Road and the bypass intersection. The Town Planner stated that the Comprehensive Plan supports the annexation and the zoning and that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended annexation with the A-1 zoning.

The Town Planner discussed the additional steps which would be required prior to any development beyond the one unit per twenty acres.

Joe Stevens, Esquire, was present representing the applicant, Argonaut Land Company, L.L.C. He passed out a handout to the Mayor and Council and asked the Town Attorney if he needed to formally introduce the petition for annexation. The Town Attorney stated that there was no reason for the annexation to be formally introduced during the hearing since it is required under the law for annexation.

Mr. Stevens discussed the requested annexation and A-1 zoning. He discussed the property owned by the Smith family. He discussed the metes and bounds description of approximately 350+ acres. Mr. Stevens stated that they are not requesting critical area growth allocation with this annexation. He discussed the RCA zoning with one unit per twenty density allowed. He discussed the County RC zoning equivalent to the Town of Easton’s RCA. He discussed 56 acres of property which are currently designated Town residential under the County Ordinance. He stated that the presentation would be three parts. The first was from Mr. Bill Stagg. The second was the matter consisting with the Town, County and State policies and the third would be the legislative process required prior to any future development.

Mr. Stevens introduced Mr. Bill Stagg. Mr. Stagg was present representing the applicant and was present to discuss the landscaping. He stated that Mr. Hamilton has covered many of the points. He discussed the location of the property and the proximity to downtown Easton. Mr. Stagg thought this was a better location than other developments within the Town. He discussed locations in the vicinity and nearby developments to date. Mr. Stagg discussed the TR zoned county land adjacent to the property. Mr. Stagg discussed the Commercial and Light Industrial zone to the north of the subject property. Mr. Stagg stated that the County Comprehensive Plan shows this property, outside of the critical area, designated Smart Growth Priority Funding Plan Area. Mr. Stagg stated that this property consists of primarily of two farms. The first being Glenwood Farm and the second being Ratcliffe Manor Farm. He stated that there is 357 acres of which 56 acres are outside the critical area. Mr. Stagg discussed a power line right-of-way over the property. He stated that the property is approximately 85% farm and 15% forested currently. Mr. Stagg discussed the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Environment and The Department of Natural Resources mapping and approving the non-tidal wetlands designations. Mr. Stagg discussed the 1996 visioning process and desires for steady attractive growth in the Town of Easton. He discussed the PUD designation over the entire area as a way to treat for special development beyond the typical residential areas. Mr. Stagg noted that there is no land plan on the table yet. He stated that this property could be used for a myriad of things and asked for any questions.

Mr. Heinmuller asked if there were any historical sites on the property. Mr. Stagg stated that Ft. Stokes was on the property. He discussed the location. Mr. Stagg stated that he believes that most of Ft. Stokes has probably eroded into the river.

Mr. Stevens presented from materials and handouts and discussed excerpts of the Comprehensive Plan and similar plans. Mr. Stevens discussed Article 66B regarding Plan Visions and the background of the provision. Mr. Stevens referred to page seven of the Town of Easton Comprehensive Plan where he discussed Vision No. 1 having to do with the theme of growth occurring near the infrastructure. Mr. Stevens discussed the Talbot County Plan reiterating those thoughts on page 12 of his handout. He stated that page 15 of his handout shows the county policies of growth adjacent to the Town with service being the underlying theme. Mr. Stevens stated that on page 18, 19 and 20 of his handout, the Planning Commission minutes were present and he read the extract with the Planning Commission recommendation to annex the subject property.

Mr. Stevens discussed the reason for the A1 zoning request, which is the lowest density allowed doing the interim period.

Mr. Stevens stated that the Town has set up an annexation policy with a separate extensive development review process.

Mr. Stevens discussed the annexation versus the review process that is listed on page 21 of his handout. He discussed the steps involved. Mr. Stevens discussed conditions which can be set or denial which can occur for growth.

He discussed the PUD process following the growth allocation and the deliberate steps required with various denial aspects. Mr. Stevens stated that the question is should development be within the county or the town and other aspects for the PUD and growth allocation process. Mr. Stevens suggested that the Town thought through the process of the annexation and subsequent development requiring additional processes. He referred to page 25 of the handout of what is permitted now by the county and under the Town rules currently. He discussed there being no recourse under the County Plan currently for farming operations. Mr. Stevens discussed the Easton A1 district having more restricted uses with no water and sewer provision. He requested A1 zoning for this property. Mr. Stevens reiterated many concerns which are legitimate but they should occur at another forum. Mr. Stevens addressed the buffer maintenance issue. He stated that Argonaut had met with the county and received approval. He stated that they have already begun to work and that the county had found nothing in violation today on the site in response to a newspaper article.

Mr. Stevens asked the Council to consider the annexation separately from the development and he stated that this has seemed to work successfully for the Town in the past. He thanked the Council for the opportunity and asked for any questions.

Mr. Ford asked the non-tidal wetlands acreage. Mr. Stagg stated that he was not sure of the total but he discussed the location with the chart.

The President of the Council asked if there was anyone else from the applicant who needed to make a presentation. Mr. Stevens answered that there was no one.

The President of the Council thanked Mr. Stevens and opened the floor for public comment. He discussed the ground rules again.

Mr. Dave Thompson, Esq., 130 N. Washington Street, Easton, stated that he represents a number of citizens in the vicinity of the property. He noted that regional planning officials have a right under the law to speak first and noted that Judge North, Chairman of the Critical Area Commission was present.

Judge North, Chairman of the Critical Area Commission, stated that for nearly ten years he had been in that position. He pointed out the Critical Area Law and the responsibility for developing local critical area programs based upon local circumstances. He stated that he has worked closely with Mr. Cowee and found him cooperative except regarding disagreement over buffer policy. Judge North stated that the practice has been much more liberal in Talbot County than in other counties. He discussed the required review every four years and proposed tightening of the cutting of brush in the buffer zones. Judge North stated that he understands the growth allocation is not before the Council presently but stated that this is around the corner and this is the first step. Judge North stated that he understands that the application will be made to change the 1 in 20 designation to a 1 in 1 designation. He stated that this is a call to attention and that the Town is dealing with complex and dangerous situation.

Judge North discussed the lack of flushing action in the headwaters in the Tred Avon and the potential for harm in those areas of the critical area. Judge North urged the Council to consider these facts. He discussed developing residential properties near existing infrastructure makes sense but the Council must consider the other impacts. Judge North stated that he would have minimal concerns if this property was not within a critical area. He asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Ford asked for the 1 to 20 density versus the 1 to 1 density referred to by Judge North. Judge North stated that he understood that the proposed development would be one house per one acre if the development coming is what he had been told.

Mr. Dave Thompson, Esq., stated that development is coming and is already here. Mr. Thompson discussed buffer clearing prior to this hearing. He discussed the steps and the process required. Mr. Thompson discussed the issues as being site specific and suggested looking at the property and is appropriate for use if the annexation doesn’t happen for any reason.

Mr. Thompson discussed rights to develop versus issue of growth.

Mr. Thompson displayed Talbot County’s Comprehensive Plan overhead and discussed growth areas and areas of the property which are not scheduled to grow since they are in the critical area. He stated that the Town is not bound by the County Plan. Mr. Thompson stated that the Town of Easton Plan’s only specific reference is to a waterfront park and a PUD area. He stated that it is not specifically marked for residential under either plan. Mr. Thompson discussed concerns with the divide and conquer process and steps which are necessary. He stated that at some point, the argument will be made regarding the A1 designation implying that that was a precursor to later actions. Mr. Thompson stated this is the beginning of a long process. He discussed uncertain legal precedents regarding growth allocation. He stated that if the annexation with A1 occurs, there is a likelihood of having density greatly increased. Mr. Thompson stated that the Town of Easton’s Zoning Ordinance provides an intent to control congestion in the streets and he stated that he did not see how that will be controlled with this annexation. Mr. Thompson discussed other intents of the Zoning Ordinance. He discussed the lack of buffer protection in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Thompson discussed the developer proposing 500 homes and a golf course, etc., as was recently reported in the newspaper. He suggested a go-slow approach without re-zoning and worrying about that later. He stated that there is no inconsistency between the underlying zoning and the critical area designation. Mr. Thompson stated that if changed, there were various concerns with the growth allocation which he discussed.

Mr. Thompson discussed concerns with traffic, transportation, etc., and he thought should be a part of the annexation deliberation.

The President of the Council invited comments from the public.

Mr. Bill Boykin, 4330 Lowrey Lane, Trappe, discussed the environmental impact of the annexation. He stated that his prime concern is runoff of nutrients and the reason for the buffer strips. He thinks it is essential to know the quality of the water present and stated that this information does not exist currently. He discussed buffer strips, which have been found to work. He stated that the worst impact is at the long narrow end of water with little flushing action. He discussed nutrient runoff being a concern, whether it is directly or through a sewer system into the Choptank River. He offered thanks to the Council for their time.

Mr. Tom Hughes, 9282 Chenar Farm, discussed from a handout he provided to the Council various concerns with sewage if annexation concerns. He discussed fecal coliform contamination in the Choptank and the Tred Avon Rivers. He discussed water quality problems. He stated that the Easton Sewage plant contributes to these problems and referred to his handout. Mr. Hughes stated that the Chesapeake Bay Agreement has mandatory reductions and stated that the Easton Sewage Plant levels have not been reduced at all. He discussed nutrient levels increasing when farmland has been decreasing. He discussed concerns for marine life and the health of humans. He stated that the State is now testing Talbot County waters and that point source pollution regulations will be required. He discussed commitments already made by Easton.

Mr. Hughes discussed the Talbot County River Protection Association and their reasons for concern.

Mr. William Reed, 8117 Lee Haven Road, Easton, stated that he lives across the creek from Ratcliffe Manor. He offered comments about the quality of life and he stated that he is troubled by the land being under contract to a developer for a golf course community. He stated that he has witnessed the preparation. He stated that he thinks that people are entitled to have the development information since it is coming. He stated that the Council is being asked to accede in the blind without a plan for the use of the property. He stated that it is presumable that the County Council will receive a growth allocation request. He urged both the Town and the County Council not to go along with this request. He stated that this is for growth by developers without any local stake. He discussed the rapid build-out due to financial reasons. He discussed creating growth instead of natural growth. He discussed changes in the community and the need to watch this now. He discussed how big Easton and St. Michaels will be in the future and again discussed uncontrolled growth.

Mr. Mayer asked Mr. Stevens concerning the plans and asked if these have been divulged or if there is knowledge of where these plans are coming from.

Mr. Stevens discussed submitting the annexation in August and stated that nothing was developed when the annexation request was submitted. He stated that recently, in the last 60 days, a company named EYA has received an option on the property. He stated that he has no plans, which have been seen yet, but Argonaut is proceeding and stated that they do not have the development plans. He thinks that EYA has talked to some of the people in the vicinity.

Ms. Candy Backus, 27318 Rest Circle, stated that her concern is traffic. She discussed up to 1000 cars with three trips per day if the proposed development occurs as people understand. She discussed St. Michaels road being their only direct route to Easton. She discussed the bottlenecks envisioned. She discussed the dangerous congestion and limitations on existing roads with limited state funding. Ms. Backus asked that the Town not move forward until these matters have been resolved.

Mr. Mark Bower, 28348 Old Country Club Road, stated that he is president of the Talbot County Historic Trust. He stated that they owe a great debt to Ambassador Smith for saving Ratcliffe Manor. He discussed the concerns they had with Wickersham Farms. He asked that his group be allowed to work with the Town of Easton and the developer before any plans are finalized.

Mr. Tony Harrington, 7768 Ratcliffe Manor Lane, stated that he owns 65 acres south of the subject property. He discussed the history of the property and asked for a balance between the Town’s interest versus the developer’s interest. He discussed pollution concerns and traffic concerns on both land and water. Mr. Harrington discussed wildlife concerns and buffer concerns. He discussed the allowable building under the current zoning. He discussed the contract purchaser advising that up to 500 homes near the waterfront were proposed and the Town Planner recently advising that there are currently 2,000 homes proposed in the vicinity of Easton.

Mr. Harrington stated that the signers of the petition have received Notice of Eviction from their homes. He discussed community concerns and asked for rejection of the annexation and the zoning requested until the plan is disclosed. Mr. Harrington asked assurance that any plan will have state and local protections required. He stated that they are asking the County Council not to give the growth allocation until after the review and testing has occurred. He stated that he believes this inconsistent with the county growth plan.

The Town Attorney asked Mr. Harrington whether access to his property is through the annexation property. Mr. Harrington advised that it was.

Mr. Al Goetz of the Talbot County River Protection Association, did not give his address and discussed his concerns with the lack of data on water quality testing and efforts to get such data. He gave the Council a handout regarding his efforts to get that data and questioning how the annexation could proceed absent the data being provided. He stated that he thinks that people should be cautious about proceeding absent the data to support.

Mr. Heinmuller discussed the packet that he had received this evening from Mr. Hughes with the information and inferred that there was no data for certain topics. Mr. Goetz discussed his being familiar with the data. He stated that MDE is reviewing the Stormwater Management regulations. Mr. Hughes stated that the data provided is for the upper Choptank River. He discussed this being only fecal choliform for the Tred Avon.

Mr. Joe Ravenstein, 28212 Widgeon Terrace, discussed the County Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he believes that the public trust has been violated and that developers can put money on the table and cause these kinds of zoning protections to change.

Mr. Glen Reinkleburger, 8245 Ingleton Circle, echoed the traffic problems. He passed out an extract of the Montgomery Weekly from the Washington Post. He stated that most concerns regard traffic and sprawl and developers typically causing this.

Mr. Kinnard McKee, Morris Street, Oxford, pointed out that this will create a precedent for large development. He thinks that the Council is responsible for the entire product.

Mr. Tim Kearns, President, Historic Easton, 218 Bay Street, stated that he concurred with most of the comments. He reiterated comments made in the past and asked if Easton has the need for this development.

The President of the Council asked Mr. Thompson if he had further comments.

Mr. Thompson stated that he had located no state, county or town plans recommending the annexation of this property or changing the zoning. He stated that they are not saying no to growth. He stated that in the sensitive area, this should not occur unless all of the specifics are known. Mr. Thompson discussed the uniqueness of this subject property. He thinks that the public interest is served by not moving ahead with this annexation and urged the Council to go slow and deliberately.

The President of the Council asked Mr. Stevens if he had comments. Mr. Stevens asked the President of the Council if the Public Hearing would continue. The President of the Council responded that it would. Mr. Stevens stated that they are following the Town process and they believe that the regulatory mechanisms are set up to handle this. He discussed the implications of A1 and justifying a later PUD density isn’t supported in the Ordinance.

The President of the Council stated that the Public Hearing would be continued at 7;15 P.M. on January 25. He appreciated everyone’s comments and stated that written comments would be accepted if people do not have the opportunity to speak until the next meeting.

The President of the Council declared a recess at 9:20 P.M.

At approximately 9:30 P.M., the President of the Council called the meeting back to order.

The President of the Council reiterated that the next meeting is scheduled for January 25 due to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday and stated that the meeting would not occur on January 20 as previously advised.

The President of the Council read the title of Resolution No. 5642, "A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF EASTON TO ANNEX CERTAIN LANDS OWNED BY ARGONAUT LAND COMPANY L.L.C. LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF MARLYAND ROUTE 33 AND CONSISTING OF 386.44 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION" for inclusion into the record.

The President of the Council also read the title of Ordinance No. 381, "AN ORDINANCE3 OF THE TOWN OF EASTON AMENDING THE OFFICAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF EASTON TO APPLY AN ORIGINAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A-1 (AGRICULTURAL) TO CERTAIN LANDS ANNEXED TO THE TOWN OF EASTON LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARYLAND ROUTE 33 OWNED BY ARGONAUT LAND COMPANY L.L.C. AND CONSISTING OF 386.44 ACRES MORE OR LESS" for inclusion into the record.

The President of the Council brought Ordinance No. 383, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF EASTON ADDING ARTICLE 8 TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE EASTON TOWN CODE TO RESTRICT THE HOURS DURING WHICH COMMERCIAL REFUSE HAULERS MAY MAKE PICK-UPS OR DELIVERIES OF REFUSE CONTAINERS WITHIN THE TOWN" to the floor.

Mr. Mayer moved Ordinance No. 383 for passage, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried unanimously following a roll call vote

The President of the Council brought Ordinance No. 384 , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF EASTON AUTHORIZING THE UNBUDGETED EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO CONTRIBUTE AN EMPLOYER MATCH TO THE TOWN OF EASTON SECTION 457 PLAN" to the floor.

The Town Attorney, Mr. Kehoe stated that there was a correction necessary for the Easton Utilities number, which needed to be increased by $375. He asked the Council to suspend the rules and then amend the Ordinance. He stated that then they could proceed with passage of the Ordinance.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried, the rules of the Council were suspended and the Ordinance As Amended including the additional $375 was moved for passage by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried unanimously following a roll call vote.

Mr. Phil Curry was present of behalf of the Easton Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. He discussed the year-end statistics and the December fire report. He discussed there being 80 calls in December. On the ambulance report, he stated that the 94 paid responses had an average response time of one minute. The 68 volunteer ambulance calls had an average response time of 5 minutes, 35 seconds. He discussed the yearly report with 671 calls for the year which 55% were the Town and 45% were within the county. He discussed fire fighters spending 6,537 hours on calls. He discussed assists, drills, work details, miles traveled, and top responders. Mr. Curry advised that an EMT had resigned to go to work at St. Michaels Fire Department. Mr. Curry stated that the Fire Department advised that Christmas trees should be taken down due to possible fire hazards. He discussed the annual awards dinner on February 6 at the Elk’s Club.

Mr. Heinmuller discussed the response time for the 74 seconds being reduced to 60 seconds being a good job. He hoped that the dual responders were as good. Mr. Curry stated that he was told that people are still working on the TCALS issue.

Ms. Libby Dawkins, 11 N. Thorogood Lane, questioned nationwide the number of fire calls caused by Christmas trees. Mr. Curry suggested contacting the Fire Marshal for this statistic. Ms. Dawkins discussed a supplier advising her that the percentage was very low. She discussed recycling of Christmas trees if they are natural versus polyethylene. She suggested that the Fire Department educate the public on the best way to buy Christmas trees and objected to the inference that Christmas trees were somehow a fire source.

Mr. Curry stated that the comments were not meant to stir that much controversy and that this is a recommendation that they receive from the State Fire Marshal.

The Mayor thanked the volunteers for First Night Talbot and stated that it was a good crowd.

Mr. Heinmuller discussed snow during First Night Talbot and stated that Mr. Tim Glass and another member sanded the sidewalks. He offered congratulations and thanks for their assistance.

The Chief reported that as of January 1, the Easton Police Department went to twelve-hour shifts. He stated that a supervisor and six officers were on patrol when the recruits were trained. He discussed a call for a girl with a gun. Captain Hobbs then displayed look-a-like weapons versus real weapons. The Chief stated that these were sold legally and he stated that they had been seized and purchased within the Town. He discussed an officer seeing the gun, which is actually a cigarette lighter appearing with a muzzle flash from the look-a-like. He issued a warning. He stated that the merchant involved was very cooperative but there were 26 items like these on the streets.

Mrs. Clem stated that a resident on Goldsborough Street had advised that policeman go too fast in cars on the street.

Mr. Mayer stated that the police do that with their lights and sirens on.

Mr. Glass stated that the Town does recycle Christmas trees. They are cleaned and then chipped.

The President of the Council, regarding the nutrients to the Choptank from the Wastewater Treatment Facility, asked that comparison levels be developed for what is going into the river versus permitted or questioned whether those statistics existed.

Mr. Glass stated that they do and that the information was the load without the comparable, allowable load. He assured that the Town has a very good record of accomplishment through the Easton Utilities Commission and the Waste Water Treatment Facility.

Mr. Heinmuller discussed an award, which was received from the State of Maryland for performance of the Waste Water Treatment Facility. He stated he had discussed those numbers during the recess but there was no reference to the limit allowed.

The President of the Council stated that the next meeting would occur January 25. He reminded everyone that January 19 was the Legislative dinner and on February 23, there would be a meeting with the County and the other municipalities.

Mr. Mayer questioned whether he was on the Fire Board. The Town Clerk advised that he is currently on the Police Board.

Mrs. Clem offered a happy New Year for everyone.

The President of the Council asked if there were any further audience comments. There were none.

The President of the Council stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Jim Urbanczyk, the Acting County Manager, requesting the Town waiving a $250 permit fee for a water main extension at the Airport.

Upon motion by Mrs. Clem, seconded by Mr. Mayer and carried, permission was granted.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried, the Town Clerk’s letter regarding Mr. Disimone’s problem and the Town Clerk’s action was accepted by the Town Council. Mr. Heinmuller abstained.

There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Ford, seconded by Mr. Mayer and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M.

Town Clerk