Inland Wetlands, Water Courses & Conservation Commission

Regular Meeting Minutes June 6, 2024 CITY OF NORWICH INLAND WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION ZOOM MEETING A. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Richard Morell called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. B. ROLL CALL and SEATING of ALTERNATES: Chairman Richard Morell stated that all members present would be seated and voting during the meeting. Present: Chairman Richard Morell, Douglas Lee (ZOOM), Chris Seery, Peter Chalecki (ZOOM), Brandon Hyde and Nicholas Fortson. Absent: None. Also Present: Walter Schaller; Mike Faenza, CSG; Meghan Fogarty (ZOOM); David Dickson (ZOOM); James Barrett (ZOOM), Matt Sanford (ZOOM) and Greg Smolley (ZOOM), DRA; Katherine Rose, Recording Secretary; Deanna Rhodes, Director of Planning and Neighborhood Development, and Dan Daniska, City Planner/Wetland Agent C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Douglas Lee put forth a motion to APPROVE the May 2, 2024 regular meeting minutes. Chris Seery seconded. Chairman Richard Morell, Douglas Lee, Chris Seery, Peter Chalecki and Nicholas Fortson. Brandon Hyde abstained. The motion passed. D. COMMUNICATIONS: Dan Daniska reported that Algonquin Gas was putting robotic equipment in their regional pipeline to inspect it, which would go in and out of the 100 foot upland review area in the area of the Yantic River. Dan Daniska stated that nothing was being disturbed but they provided a notification as a courtesy. Dan Daniska stated that the pond at 289 New London Turnpike was treated on or about June 3, 2024. Dan Daniska reported there was an informational meeting for the Long Island Sound Watershed Outreach Project in person at Fort Trumbull June 5, 2024 from 2PM to 4PM and virtually on June 18, 2024. Dan Daniska stated the RSVP was required the next day and he would send the information to members that night. E. OLD BUSINESS: 1. SHOW CAUSE HEARING: Unauthorized Land Disturbance 520 Asylum Street Ext. Norwich, CT Dan Daniska reported that his city office received a call regarding land clearing and filling on the property at 520 Asylum Street, which he shared with the commission at last month’s meeting. Richard Morrell stated the photographs provided clearly showed disturbance in the wetland area that needed to be addressed and redressed. Richard Morrell asked if a wetland scientist had delineated where the wetlands were located on site. Walter Schaller, property owner, responded one had not but the entire neighborhood had dumped organic debris in the area previously before he lived there, and that any heavy equipment was only in place temporarily. Walter Schaller stated he did remove vegetation such as two dead ash trees, a lot of bittersweet, grapevine, autumn olive and other invasive species. Walter Schaller stated he did selectively cut some swamp maples from the area, but he did not clear cut and did leave  stumps. Walter Schaller continued that he added meadow to a quarter of the property that had been previously mowed. Andrew Burnett, who keeps bees in the area, stated that aside from the neighbors he had witnessed City of Norwich vehicles dumping organic debris in the area. Walter Schaller stated that no more dumping would occur and that he spoke to the neighbors to make them aware of the cease and desist. Dan Daniska noted that the GIS showed a huge swathe of wetlands on the property. Douglas Lee stated that the pictures provided showed a lot of fill and questioned the origin of that fill, as it looked more like there was a gravel pad which was laid over the wetlands. Walter Schaller responded that the gray spot in the photos was washout from the road. Richard Morrell asked the property owner if he added any sand or fill to extend the road, as shown in the pictures. Walter Schaller stated he had not and what was shown was compacted wood chips, leaves and other materials dumped by neighbors that had compacted over time. Walter Schaller stated at one point a neighbor had dumped masonry waste in the area that he had them remove, as he did not feel as though it should be dumped in that space. Dan Daniska discussed the options listed within the cease and desist order. Douglas Lee stated he felt the best option was to have a soil scientist map the wetlands and affected areas, as well as for the homeowner to submit a wetlands application and pay any associated fees. Douglas Lee stated there clearly had been a disturbance to the wetlands, and although the history of which was in question, it did not change that the disturbance had taken place and therefore an application needed to be filled out. Brandon Hyde stated he did not feel comfortable making a vote without seeing an application put forward, which was a minimal fee, and without additional history, GIS Mapping and pictures from the previous years to assist in telling the story of the property. Richard Morrell asked how long the existing property was owned by the existing owner, to which Walter Schaller responded since 2016. Richard Morrell agreed that the best course of action would be for the property owner to submit an application so that the commission can develop a remedial solution by working with GIS maps and to determine what could be done to remove all dumping from the wetlands without the use of heavy equipment. Dan Daniska brought up aerial shots of the property from 2012, 2016 and 2019 on screen for all to view. Discussion ensued. Douglas Lee asked what the time limitations were for planning a site walk. Dan Daniska suggested members visit the site individually so a special meeting would not be required, and a vote could be tabled until the following month. Brandon Hyde made a motion to table the hearing until an application had been submitted. Chris Seery seconded. Chairman Richard Morell, Douglas Lee, Chris Seery, Peter Chalecki, Brandon Hyde and Nicholas Fortson voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 2. IWWCC #24-06: 164+165 Golden Street; Boswell Avenue Application for construction of a new elementary school building and associated development at the site of a former school. Proposed land disturbance activities within a regulated wetland and associated upland review area. Application and Property of City of Norwich. Assessor’s Map 86, Block 3, Lot 13, 14. Map 94, Block 1, Lot 23. Zone MF. Greg Smolley, project manager from DRA, stated that the City of Norwich undertook the development of a city-wide master plan for the school district a few years prior and determined that consolidation of the elementary schools was needed to provide a better learning environment, as well as lessen operational costs. Greg Smolley continued that one of the sites identified for development was the former Greeneville Elementary School. Greg Smolley showed a site plan on screen for all to view. Greg Smolley explained that the new school would be a three story building, minimizing the overall footprint and containing the storm water flow as much as possible, which would be directed to the southwest corner of the site. David Dickson, senior project manager and registered landscape architect for SLR, reported that the Greeneville site was in a multifamily zone surrounded by residents on all sides. David Dickson stated that proposed improvements for the site were composed mostly of the building, parking, circulation, roads and playground areas. David Dickson stated that all of those improvements were carefully laid out, as the landform was quite challenging with exposed ledge in several areas. David Dickson stated the wetland area was at a low point of the site and contained approximately .66 acres of wooded wetlands. David Dickson noted that the wetland delineation and impact assessment report for the site were submitted within the application. David Dickson noted the circulation patterns on the site plan and where the primary access and drop off area for the buses and parents was on Golden Street. David Dickson stated the storm water quality basins were the low portions of the site aside from the wetlands, which were lower. David Dickson explained there was a sequence of movement of the water between the basins before discharging into the wetlands. David Dickson showed the 100-foot upland review area on the site plan for all to view. David Dickson explained that single, limited disturbance under 5,000 square feet within the wetlands was necessary to achieve the program required to satisfy the school. David Dickson stated that city administration was aware of this and requested that wetland mitigation minimally be provided to represent at least 50 percent of the total disturbed wetland area. David Dickson continued that DRA was able to accomplish and exceed that request. David Dickson showed the wetland creation mitigation area on screen for all to view. David Dickson explained the upper area of the building contained the gym which was at the same elevation as the playground for students ages five through twelve, which had a paved area and basketball court. David Dickson showed the existing conditions map on screen for all to view, and noted the areas of exposed ledge which provided an indication of what would need to be dealt with in the future. David Dickson noted that ongoing geotechnical investigations were occuring on site. Ryan McEvoy, licensed engineer for SLR who was also heading the site utilities and storm management, showed on the existing conditions map for all to view where the site primarily drains to; which was a wetland area on the southwest corner of the site and a formal storm drainage sewer system on Golden Street. Ryan McEvoy stated that the site historically was served by a combined sanitary sewer system on Golden Street. Ryan McEvoy stated that SLR was working to accomplish several different features in their utility plan such as collecting and conveying storm water from improved surfaces; increasing any rates of runoff for major storm events through the 200-year storm; and aiming to treat and cleanse any stormwater discharge to the maximum extent possible. Ryan McEvoy continued that SLR was working to direct all some or all of the runoff from the upper parking lot, portions of the building and parent dropoff loop to the two stormwater retention basins located in the southwest of the property. Ryan McEvoy continued that both basins were designed with water quality features in the lower portion of the pond, which would treat the first 1.3 inches of runoff in accordance with state DEEP guidelines. Ryan McEvoy stated that discharges from these ponds will enter into the wetland system in a low velocity manner to prevent erosion. Ryan McEvoy continued that remaining portions of the site were collected in a portion of the bus loop and parent drop off area and discharged into the drainage system on Golden Street. Ryan McEvoy stated that overall this work would decrease the rates of runoff to the wetlands, decrease the rates of runoff to Golden Street, and by virtue of reducing physical area that drains to existing properties, it would reduce runoff to properties in the east. Ryan McEvoy continued that the building would be served by sanitary sewer which would discharge through the combined system on Golden Street Ryan McEvoy stated that drinking water, public water, and fireflow would be served by a connection from Golden Street that would run through the building and come out onto Boswell Avenue. Ryan McEvoy stated that similarly gas and electric would come from Boswell Avenue to serve the building. Ryan McEvoy discussed the sediment and erosion controls for the property which included temporary sediment traps, silt fencing and hay bales. Matt Sanford, soil scientist and professional wetland scientist with SLR, stated that their first step was to review the National Wetlands Inventory and the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil mapping, which did not show the wetlands on site. Matt Sanford continued that the mapping dictated that the soils on site belong to the Cartland Chatfield and Hollis Chatfield series. Matt Sanford stated that while on site their team found a pocket of wetlands at the lowest point of the site, which were fed by brown water breakout from the north and west as well as an intermittent watercourse to the west. Matt Sanford noted the wetland itself is a plush and shrub scrub wetland. Matt Sanford stated that the wetland eventually drains off site through a pair of residential properties into a culvert. Matt Sanford stated the function of value for the southern wetlands was limited due to being fragmented, isolated and due to its size. Matt Sanford stated the principal functions provided were nutrient retention, sediment retention, wildlife habitat and groundwater discharge. Matt Sanford continued that the direct wetland impact was roughly 4,500 square feet for the construction of a retaining wall that would support the upper parking lot. Matt Sanford noted the wetland area had been significantly disturbed in the past and that a lot of the debris still showed signs of impact from historical disturbance. Megan Fogarty, environmental scientist and wetlands professional in-training for SLR, reported that their team developed a comprehensive mitigation plan to offset any wetland impacts. Megan Fogarty showed on screen for all to view where the wetland creation area would be situated in the western portion of the property, which was identified as a great area for mitigation purposes as it is currently a mixture of native and non-native vegetation. Megan Fogarty continued that 3,000 square foot creation area was proposed in that location and the plan was to excavate that space down to match the existing grade of the wetland, as well as carry a bit upslope to intercept ground water that currently feeds the wetland in addition to storm water and high groundwater that may discharge from the intermittent watercourse. Megan Fogarty continued that after their team excavates down and spreads topsoil they would plant a variety of native hydrophytic vegetation. Brandon Hyde stated he had concerns with the amount of ledge on site and if it could be excavated. Brandon Hyde asked if the depth of the ledge in the area planned for mitigation was known. Matt Sanford responded that in the south part of the site there were shallow ledges with rock outcroppings and further north on site their team augered down approximately three feet using hand augers. Matt Sanford stated that SLR did not believe the bedrock would be an issue to achieve the grading needed at the particular location given the field investigation. Dan Daniska asked if the applicants could briefly discuss the construction and staging process. Greg Smolley responded that construction staging would come through the construction manager in concert with the design team and would be prepared with a set of plans that would come in for review for building permits, which would overlay on any plans approved by the wetlands commission or other regulatory boards. Greg Smolley stated any sediment and erosion controls would be included in that phase and were not a part of the applicant presented that evening. Discussion ensued. Ryan McEvoy there was a sediment and erosion control plan included in the presented portion of the package but the final phasing elements typically came in closer to construction. Ryan McEvoy continued that the ENS plan put before the committee had to be implemented as part of that phasing plan, and contained protections for all downgrading areas such as sediment traps, diversion berms, silk fencing, hay bales, etc. Ryan McEvoy further described the sediments and erosion controls for the site. Brandon Hyde made a motion to approve IWWCC #24-06 with the following comments and notes from the plan review memo.  That the approval is valid for FIVE YEARS and will expire on 06/06/2029.  That final revised plans be submitted and reviewed by City Staff.  That the City’s letter of approval be placed on the final revised plan set (cover page preferred).  That the required bond, if determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, be submitted for Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration. Bonds must be submitted in a form acceptable to the City (check or letter of credit) prior to any land disturbance activities occurring.  That all site activities shall be conducted in accordance with the plans, specifications and documents of record. Any deviation from the approved plans or construction sequence shall be cause for enforcement action by the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Commission.  That the permittee shall notify the Inland Wetlands Agent prior to the commencement of work and upon its completion.  That all work and all regulated activities conducted pursuant to this authorization shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this approval. Any structures, excavation, fill, obstructions, encroachments or regulated activities not specifically identified and authorized herein shall constitute a violation of this approval and may result in its modification, suspension, or revocation. Upon initiation of the activities authorized herein, the permittee thereby accepts and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this approval.  That no equipment or materials including without limitation fill, construction materials, or debris, shall be deposited, placed, or stored in any wetland or watercourse on or off site unless specifically authorized by this approval.  That the General Provisions stated in Section 11.9 of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations are applicable to this permit.  That the permit shall not be assigned or transferred to another entity without the written permission of the Commission.   That all erosion and sediment control measures shall be in accordance with the Connecticut Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and inspected prior to site disturbance. It is the permittee’s responsibility to schedule the inspection with the Norwich Planning Department. Additional erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed if determined to be necessary by the Designated Agent. The permittee shall take such necessary steps consistent with the terms and conditions of the approval, to control stormwater discharges and to prevent erosion and sedimentation and to otherwise prevent pollution of wetlands and watercourses.  That this permit will be strictly enforced. The Commission may suspend or revoke this permit, may direct the  Commission’s Agent to issue a cease and desist order or may require the applicant to modify, extend, or revise the site work or restore the area to its original condition if it finds that the applicant has not complied with the conditions set forth in this approval or if the applicant exceeds the scope of this approval as set forth herein or if the intended use or actual use of the general site is not as represented by the application or the plan of record. Douglas Lee seconded. Chairman Richard Morell, Douglas Lee, Chris Seery, Peter Chalecki, Brandon Hyde and Nicholas Fortson voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 3. IWWCC #24-07: 386 New London Turnpike Application for construction of a new elementary school building and associated development at the site of a current school. Proposed land disturbance activities within a regulated wetland and associated upland review area. Application and Property of City of Norwich. Assessor’s Map 108, Block 1, Lot 12, 14. Zone R- 20. Greg Smolley from DRA showed the site plan on screen for all to view. Greg Smolley stated the current p;lan was to retain the two existing curb cuts on New London Turnpike for various entrances. Greg Smolley discussed various aspects of the proposed new building and grounds. Greg Smolley stated the proposed two-story building, with some single-story structure to the west, was roughly the same square footage as the one proposed for the Greenville site. David Dickson stated there were primary constraints on the property, which accounted for the footprint of the proposed building shown on the plans on screen for all to view. David Dickson stated the first of which was the wetlands, as there were 3.3 acres overall with some separation between the areas. David Dickson continued that another constraint was the Ford Brook which flowed under the existing site in a culvert down to a lower location which presented certain lines that were unable to be built upon or have the grade of that area changed. David Dickson stated that additionally there was a 100-year flood plain in place that goes into the existing building. David Dickson stated that while working with city administration it was suggested that SLR send a Letter of Map Amendment to FEMA, which had been granted. David Dickson continued that therefore the 100-year floodplain had been adjusted accordingly, which benefited the project and insurance purposes for the school. David Dickson stated that another constraint was the school itself and all the existing infrastructure that could be utilized, which is why the new building is proposed in the location shown on the site plan. David Dickson stated that an assessment report for the wetlands was completed and submitted along with the delineation report. David Disckson discussed traffic circulation for the proposed site plan. David Dickson noted that the playground was initially in a different location, but due to the fact above ground structures could not be within the floodway is why the configuration is as shown. David Dickson stated that unlike at the Greeneville site, there was not enough area available to take advantage of above-ground detention and storm water quality, so that would occur below ground. David Dickson noted on the site plan the 100-foot regulated area as well as the areas of wetland disturbance. David Dickson stated that the total disturbance was approximately 4,000 square feet. David Dickson stated that between wetland creation and invasive vegetation control there would be approximately 1,700 square feet of wetland mitigation on the site. Ryan McEvoy showed the existing conditions map on screen for all to view. Ryan McEvoy stated that 99 percent of the site drained either directly or indirectly into Ford Brook, which was located in about the center of the floodway limits. Ryan McEvoy stated that much of the offsite runoff drains was diverted through the wetland corridor out to a tributary stream that enters into Ford Brook offsite. Ryan McEvoy stated the parking areas and building all drain directly into the culvert itself or indirectly into Ford Brook. Ryan McEvoy stated the existing building is served by public water off of New London Turnpike and sanitary sewer via a pump station located in that south portion of the building that pumps via a one-and-a-half inch horse line up to Will Road. Ryan McEvoy stated the construction of the new building would occur to the south of the existing building in a phased approach as the existing building would be demolished. Ryan McEvoy parking and draining would be installed in varying phases as well. Ryan McEvoy stated the new building would be served by public water from New London Turnpike and a connection up to Will Road, and sanitary sewer would continue to discharge out to Will Road, however the new elevation was a higher grade so there would not be a need for a pump. Ryan McEvoy stated that due to the limited above ground area, the runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces would be collected and discharged into underground stormwater systems using Retain-It. Ryan McEvoy noted the three locations proposed would allow for stormwater to enter, be treated and isolated, and detained through the volume of storage in the structures themselves. Ryan McEvoy continued that before runoff reaches the underground structures would first be routed through a water quality proprietary unit. Ryan McEvoy stated all products are approved by the Connecticut Department of Transportation for use as water quality treatment systems. Ryan McEvoy stated the discharge from the three underground systems would be diverted to a level spreader at the far southwest corner of the site, which was the lowest elevation topographically. Ryan McEvoy stated the level spreader discharge was designed in a manner to allow storm water velocities to exit the site in low numbers. Ryan McEvoy stated the northernmost driveway would continue to follow the bridge patterns that exist today where discharge occurs, but just upgrading to the culvert inlet at the southernmost edge of the wetlands before it enters into the underground system. Ryan McEvoy discussed the drainage patterns of the existing wetlands. Ryan McEvoy stated the end result was that flows would be reduced or match existing conditions; water quality would be provided through the introduction of proprietary hydrologic separators; the prevention of any increases in grading or filling within the floodplain; the maintenance of existing drainage pattern to the maximum extent possible; and a detailed sediment and control plan which demonstrates how the prevention of any sedimentation occurring in downgrade areas. Matt Sanford stated that similar to the Greeneville School, the first approach at the Stanton site was to review the National Wetlands Inventory and the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil mapping, where again no wetlands were indicated but once on site it was determined there were extensive wetlands in the central portion of the property. Matt Sanford stated that the wetland system itself was likely historically connected but now hydrologically connected by a culvert. Matt Sanford stated that the wetland system in the northeast was relatively disturbed by a man-made drainage ditch but was still categorized as forested wetlands. Matt Sanford stated that the area flowed into two different directions. Matt Sanford noted some flow went west into Ford Brook and south through a pipe into the water larger wetland area. Matt Sanford stated the larger area was also a forested wetland but had been historically filled along its northern edge. Matt Sanford stated the wetlands principal functions of value were nutrient retention, sediment retention, wildlife habitat and groundwater discharge. Matt Sanford noted that some of the wetlands offsite and to the southwest had flood flow attenuation as they were located within the floodplain. Matt Sanford stated there were four impact areas to the wetlands with the direct impact areas totaling about 4,000 square feet. Matt Sanford noted the impact was along the very edge of the wetland and not disturbing the interior area. Matt Sanford stated additionally there were some smaller regulated grading and clearing activities. Meghan Fogarty stated their team developed three different types of mitigation for the site totaling 17,540 square feet. Meghan Fogarty explained the first was a wetland bio-swell creation area that would not be connected to the stormwater system. Meghan Fogarty continued that the approach was to develop a wet meadow where pollinators would be the prime educational activity. Meghan Fogarty stated they would first excavate downward, add top soil and then plant great hydrophilic vegetation such as Boneset, New York Ironweed, and Joe-Pye Weed. Meghan Fogarty continued that further south from this spot would be the true wetland creation area, which was in a spot that was likely previously a wetland however there were currently fill piles which allowed for invasive vegetation to encroach into the wetlands. Meghan Fogarty stated their goal in that area is to remove the fill piles, restore the space to what it once was and supplement with native hydrophilic vegetation. Meghan Fogarty stated that the area would be approximately 3,700 square feet and the smaller area was 3,400 square feet. Meghan Fogarty stated the other areas on the plan above and below the true creation zone are both in the existing wetland and adjacent to it in the upland review area. Meghan Fogarty reiterated that because these areas are on the edge of the previously disturbed wetlands they had been colonized fairly heavily with invasive vegetation that would be mechanically or hand-pulled, then seeding with a native wetland mix to attempt to restore those areas and provide additional functions of values. Chris Seery asked if in regards to the abandoned septic system on site if anything remained such as tanks that would leach or open up. Ryan McEvoy stated that to their knowledge the leaching field was abandoned and would need to be removed completely so it could be replaced with a suitable material for the new school. Richard Morrell asked if the access road would still bisect wetland areas, to which Ryan McEvoy responded it would. Matt Sanford stated that one of the reasons the road was remaining was for emergency purposes and to allow a dry exit out of the east. Matt Sanford stated the road was more beneficial to leave as a functional access-way and it could also lead to a future of hiking or educational trails. Brandon Hyde made a motion to approve IWWCC #24-07 with the following comments and notes from the plan review memo.  That the approval is valid for FIVE YEARS and will expire on 06/06/2029.  That final revised plans be submitted and reviewed by City Staff.  That the City’s letter of approval be placed on the final revised plan set (cover page preferred).  That all site activities shall be conducted in accordance with the plans, specifications and documents of record. Any deviation from the approved plans or construction sequence shall be cause for enforcement action by the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Commission.  That the permittee shall notify the Inland Wetlands Agent prior to the commencement of work and upon its completion.  That all work and all regulated activities conducted pursuant to this authorization shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this approval. Any structures, excavation, fill, obstructions, encroachments or regulated activities not specifically identified and authorized herein shall constitute a violation of this approval and may result in its modification, suspension, or revocation. Upon initiation of the activities authorized herein, the permittee thereby accepts and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this approval.  That no equipment or materials including without limitation fill, construction materials, or debris, shall be deposited, placed, or stored in any wetland or watercourse on or off site unless specifically authorized by this approval.  That the General Provisions stated in Section 11.9 of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations are applicable to this permit.  That the permit shall not be assigned or transferred to another entity without the written permission of the Commission.  That all erosion and sediment control measures shall be in accordance with the Connecticut Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and inspected prior to site disturbance. It is the permittee’s responsibility to schedule the inspection with the Norwich Planning Department. Additional erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed if determined to be necessary by the Designated Agent. The permittee shall take such necessary steps consistent with the terms and conditions of the approval, to control stormwater discharges and to prevent erosion and sedimentation and to otherwise prevent pollution of wetlands and watercourses.  That this permit will be strictly enforced. The Commission may suspend or revoke this permit, may direct the Commission’s Agent to issue a cease and desist order or may require the applicant to modify, extend, or revise the site work or restore the area to its original condition if it finds that the applicant has not complied with the conditions set forth in this approval or if the applicant exceeds the scope of this approval as set forth herein or if the intended use or actual use of the general site is not as represented by the application or the plan of record. Chris Seery seconded. Chairman Richard Morell, Douglas Lee, Chris Seery, Peter Chalecki, Brandon Hyde and Nicholas Fortson voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. F. NEW BUSINESS: None.  G. OTHER BUSINESS: None. H. VIOLATIONS: None. I. ADJOURNMENT: Brandon Hyde made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 PM. Chris Seery seconded. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Katherine Rose - Recording Secretary