In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM at the Narragansett Bay Commission Boardroom – One Service Road, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS
Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Ray Coia
Don Gomez
Dave Abedon
Neill Gray
Michael Sullivan
Joe Shekarchi
Bruce Dawson
Jerry Zarrella

MEMBERS ABSENT
Tom Ricci

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
David Reis, CRMC Environmental Scientist
Tracy Silvia, CRMC Biologist
Tim Motte, CRMC Biologist
Richard Lucia, CRMC Engineer
Brian Goldman, CRMC Legal Counsel

 

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Chair Tikoian gave a brief statement of clarification on the council’s permitting process.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING:

Mr. Shekarchi requested that his named be corrected to read “Joe” instead of “Jerry”. Director Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the minutes of the March 11, 2008 meeting as amended. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

Vice Chair Lemont reported that the Rights-of-Way subcommittee met this evening and considered the Overlook Drive issue in Warwick and voted to recommend to the full council that it be designated as a right-of-way. Vice Chair Lemont requested that it be given consideration in 30 days.

4. STAFF REPORTS

There were no staff reports

5. CONTINUANCES:

2007-04-007 MTM INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. -- construct and maintain: a residential boating facility consisting of a 4’ x 210.5’ fixed pier with a 4’ x 20’ “L” section fixed pier. The facility will extend 50’ beyond mean low water to a water depth of one foot. Also the facility will extend into an approved mooring field. Therefore variances are required to the water depth standard of 1.5’ (Ref. RICRMP 300.4.E.3.a Table 3) and the required 50’ setback from approved mooring field, (Ref. RICRMP 300.4.E.3.(m). Located at plat 142, lots 1 and 2; 221 Sauga Avenue, North Kingstown, RI.

Turner Scott, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Scott requested that the application be continued because before he left for vacation 10 days ago he received a memo from Mr. Fugate indicating that the remeasurement of the water at the terminus of the dock was not acceptable. Mr. Scott said he is concerned about this and he did not have a chance to review this with their engineer until today. Mr. Scott wanted to review with Mr. Fugate and staff before they go forward as they have some questions regarding the harbor line and the importance of the harbor and the variance with that. Chair Tikoian asked Mr. Fugate to update the council on the request for the communication to the applicant. Mr. Fugate explained that the dock that originally came into the council sought a variance on the 18-inch minimum depth. Mr. Fugate said when Mr. Scott discovered this and a variance would be necessary and the staff report was going to be negative as a result of some of the variances requested he had their engineer go out and remeasure the end of the dock to see whether that measurement was off. Mr. Fugate said when the second measurement came in it indicated that the dock met the 18-inch water depth. Mr. Fugate said staff required another survey and requested that a bench survey be done or they use a short-term tide method to establish the precise method in terms of the location of the mean high water mark and the mean low water mark. Mr. Fugate said he indicated to Mr. Scott that they would not accept the measurement until they used an acceptable method but Mr. Scott was on vacation when his memo want out and did not find out about it until this weekend. Chair Tikoian said as a result they missed the 24-hour rule to continue. Mr. Scott replied yes.

Mr. Scott noted that their engineer Mr. Hall said the second measurement was a benchmark measurement and it was the standard measurement that he has been using throughout his course at CRMC. Mr. Scott said they wanted to explore this further. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Coia moved to continue the matter for 30 days. Chair Tikoian explained to members of the audience that if Mr. Scott had known about the executive director’s memo he could have requested a continuance within the 24-hour period and they would have been given advance notice of the continuance. Chair Tikoian stated that the application would be continued to April 22ndso they could mark their calendars. An objector wanted to have the date they would go back out and do the measurement so people could be present. Mr. Scott agreed to notify a representative of the neighborhood of the date of the new measurement. The application was continued.

---

2005-08-101 KATHLEEN GALLANT – Seeks approval for the as-built residential boating facility. The facility location relative to the property line extensions was not correctly shown on the plans previously approved by the CRMC. The facility actually extends over the southern property line extension, while the previous plans showed that the facility lay 16’ distant from the property line extension. Located at plat Y-1, lot 243; 26 Wheatfield Cove Road, Narragansett, RI.

Joseph DeAngelis, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. DeAngelis stated that last October they entered into an agreement with the abutting property owner and that the agreement required four signatures and they only have three signatures. Mr. DeAngelis said it would involve sign-off between the two abutting property owners. Mr. DeAngelis requested a one-month continuance on the application. Director Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Shekarchi moved to continue the matter for one month and that this would be the last continuance.

6. APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OUT TO NOTICE FOR 30 DAYS AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2003-12-014 CHRISTOPHER LAVASSEUR -- Construct and maintain a residential boating facility to consist of a 4’ wide x 132 +/- L. F. fixed pier to a ramp to 4’ x 92’ access float to a 6’ x 25’ terminal float. Located at 51 Harris Avenue, Warwick, RI.

Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct a residential boating facility to consist of a 4'x24' fixed pier to a 3'x4' ramp which leads to a 4 1/2 ' x30' float. Mr. Reis stated that the terminus of the structure extends 114 beyond mlw which requires a 64' length variance from the 50' standard beyond mlw. Mr. Reis said the dock is in type 3 water which is a high intensity boating and staff recommends approval of the application. Chair Tikoian asked why the application was before the full council. Mr. Reis replied because of the variance. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Shekarchi moved approval of application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Shekarchi left the meeting at 6:30 p.m. to attend an East Greenwich Zoning Board hearing which starts at 7:00 p.m. at the East Greenwich Town Hall.

7. ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2006-11-037 REBECCA PRIMAVERA -- To construct an addition & decks onto an existing residence; To install a new ISDS with associated earthwork. Located at plat N-S, lots 603 and 604; 330 Colonel John Gardner Road, Narragansett, RI.

Chair Tikoian recused himself. Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.
Rebecca Primavera, the applicant was present. Joseph DeAngelis, the applicant's attorney, James Blink, the applicant's architect, Amy Sonder, the applicants’ landscape surveyor and Richard Carrigan, the applicant’s engineer were also present on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Silvia gave council members a brief summary on the application. Ms. Silvia stated the property is located in Bonnet Shores, Narragansett which is an existing five-bedroom house. Ms. Silvia said the proposed project consists of two additions one small porch and a larger addition to the south as well as some additional decks and new denitrifying ISDS. Ms. Silvia noted there have been several revisions to the proposal. Ms. Silvia said the final proposal requires a 13-16' setback variance depending on where you measure it from which is seaward of the existing house by 7-10 feet. Ms. Silvia stated that the existing house does not currently meet the 50' setback that is required. Ms. Silvia said staff had several meetings and discussions with them and requested that they stay no further seaward than the existing house foundation. Ms. Silvia said the applicant prefers to request the variance and that staff recommended denial of the application as they felt the applicant did not meet the variance criteria. Vice Chair Lemont asked if there was any condition that she could see or discuss with the applicant or their representative that they would have supported. Ms. Silvia replied yes there were numerous designs. Ms. Silvia referred to page 7 in the packet. Ms. Silvia said they were not concerned with the size of the addition or the configuration just that they not go further seaward than the existing house and create more of a variance on the lot. Vice Chair Lemont asked if Mr. Fugate had anything to add to the application. Mr. Fugate said this is an application that they have gone back and forth on numerous times. Mr. Fugate said they are concerned about Bonnet Shores and the southerly facing point. Mr. Fugate said there is quite a fetch in this area and a storm dominated coastline. Mr. Fugate said even with the revetment there during a storm event they are likely to experience quite a bit of damage in the area. Mr. Fugate said one of the particular concerns are when the sea level rise and allowing people to encroach further seaward if they don’t meet the current setback. Mr. Fugate said they typically use Section 140 for the measurement for setbacks for foundations. Mr. Fugate said there had been discussion about using sonar tubes for the footings of the porch. Mr. Fugate noted that accessory structures which use smaller foundation types are exempt from the setback provisions. Mr. Fugate said they find themselves in the position if they accept the applicants reasoning a person can come in and put a deck in and then call this their foundation and then start to encroach out further seaward. Mr. Fugate said they felt it was appropriate to hold the existing foundation line as the hardened foot foundation and they asked the application to try to relocate the structure or put the addition anywhere along the line behind the setback but that the applicant was concerned with the aesthetics about how it would look and therefore are seeking a variance. Mr. DeAngelis disagreed with the executive director. Mr. DeAngelis referred to Section 300.3.A.5 referenced by Mr. Fugate relating to structural foundations. Mr. DeAngelis noted that there are two significant cement 2’x’2’ pilings at the site which support the columns of the porch. Mr. DeAngelis stated that the applicant wanted to build a 792 s.f. addition to their home. Mr. DeAngelis said this would not affect the abutting property owner. Mr. DeAngelis noted that the applicant would be putting in a bottomless sand filter which would be 3 feet elevated in the front yard of the Primaveras but also in the direct view of Mrs. Galleshaw. Mr. DeAngelis said they are seeking the variance to follow the staff recommendation. Mr. DeAngelis stated that if the variance were granted then the bottomless sand filter would be at ground level. Mr. DeAngelis stated that the bottomless sand filter was a 30’ x 13’ area of pea stone and is not the nicest thing to look at. Mr. DeAngelis had a legal argument which was two- fold. Mr. DeAngelis said one there is a significant foundation. Mr. DeAngelis said staff recommendation is to build the addition at 38 feet and they propose to build it at 34 feet and if they can do this the bottomless sand filter can be built at ground level. His second argument was that the executive director determined this is not a minor modification because under Section 140, minor modifications are permitted without having to adhere to the setback requirements. Mr. DeAngelis said there was no minor modification definition in the CRMC plan and its whatever the Executive Director determines is a major modification. Mr. DeAngelis said this is a 1,100 s.f. residence and they are proposing to build a 790 s.f. two story addition. Mr. DeAngelis said they would be putting the addition in the same line of the two significant concrete structures that support the porch and do not plan to go out any further than that. Mr. Zarrella asked if they were going to pour any more concrete or are they going to use the two existing footings that are there. Mr. DeAngelis said they are not going to pour any concrete and they would use the existing footings. Mr. Zarrella asked how does building it this way affect the sand filter. Mr. DeAngelis replied they are able to angle the addition to the 34-foot mark from the coastal feature and the bottomless sand filter can fit into the area where it will be at ground level.

Mr. Fugate noted that the first definition Mr. DeAngelis was citing was for a structural lot coverage and this is to determine whether a buffer kicks in or not which refers to Section 150. Mr. Fugate stated that neither DEM nor CRMC required the applicant to put in a bottomless sand filter they could put in a standard ISDS. Director Sullivan suggested that Mr. DeAngelis review the cesspool phase-out act of 2007 which would require over a period of time the phase out of the cesspool and the replacement of it with an appropriate denitrifying feature in this position. Director Sullivan noted according to the drawing the addition represented a 48% increase in the square footage which is more than minor. Mr. DeAngelis responded that the applicants offered to put in the bottomless sand filter prior to the passage of the 2007 act. Mr. DeAngelis disagreed with Mr. Fugate’s interpretation and felt it did not reference Section 150. Ms. Silvia clarified that the existing house is about 1,600 s.f. not 1,100 s.f. according to the site plans. Ms. Silvia said as to the minor modification it states “Of stretches that conform with all other policies and standards of the program” which the existing house does not. Ms. Silvia noted that the original plan that came in on P11 was a slightly larger addition further seaward than this and the applicant redesigned it and tried to move it back. Director Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Dawson moved to concur with the Executive Director’s designation of this as a substantial change. Mr. Zarrella asked if Mr. Goldman agreed with Mr. DeAngelis or Mr. Fugate. Mr. Goldman said it was a policy issue and he would defer to Mr. Fugate. Mr. Coia and Mr. Zarrella were opposed the motion carried. Mr. DeAngelis submitted a 5-page packet of exhibits to the council. Mr. Coia asked if they determined what the size of the house was. Director Sullivan replied 1,620 s.f. Mr. Blink, the applicants’ architect, stated that he designed the addition to the applicants’ home. Mr. Blink stated that he took the existing condition of the site into consideration when he designed the addition. Mr. Blink said the house is 19’ at the living room area which is not a lot of room for maneuvering or for arranging furniture. Mr. Blink said if they put in a 19’ wide addition it would look like a railroad car and would destroy any privacy from the applicant’s home and the abutter’s home. Mr. Blink said they made modifications to the original plan to try to accommodate the CRMC requirements. Mr. Blink stated they are trying to orient to the view , the neighbors and the aesthetics of the whole neighborhood. Mr. Blink stated they wanted to create something that was livable from the interior standpoint and also attractive from an exterior standpoint. Mr. Blink referred to exhibit 1B and said they would be deleting the deck that they had requested. Mr. Blink said the addition on the second floor would be the new bedroom for the owners. Mr. Blink stated the bedroom is 11’x19’ which is tiny in respect to any modern house and that the roof lines slope making it difficult to do any decorating or arranging furniture. Mr. Blink said they designed the house to fit the area and felt it would not degrade the scenic vista. Mr. Blink said if they designed the house the way staff wanted it would look like a long railroad car and affect the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Director Sullivan asked Mr. Blink about his comment that a 11'x19' bedroom was tiny. Director Sullivan asked what the standard size or most common size of the average bedroom of a home constructed in RI. Mr. Blink replied that it just is not the size but how the room is proportioned. Mr. Blink felt the by today's standards the room was small. Director Sullivan asked if the improved shape is better than their current view of the ocean. Mr. Blink replied yes. Director Sullivan asked if he thought his client's view was more important than the abutting neighbors. Mr. Abedon said aesthetics a side, CRMC's role is how do they protect the coastline, preserve and protect it, not how do they make it necessarily more beautiful or subjectively more beautiful for a person. Mr. Blink felt any building that is well built and the foundation put in well is going to help stabilize rather than create an erosion problem.

Mr. Zarrella supported his argument that a 19’x11’ bedroom was small in this type of home. Mr. Zarrella felt a home should a 400 s.f. master bedroom minimum, 20’x20’. Mr. Zarrella said having a septic system 3-feet out of the ground was not likeable. Mr. Zarrella thought the bottomless sand filter was good. Mr. Zarrella felt that a person who owns property has the right to enjoy it to its maximum. Mr. Gray had a questions on the design of the septic system on page 7 in the packet and asked whose diagram this was. Ms. Silvia replied it was the staff engineers.

Mr. Gray asked what prohibits turning the septic system 90 degrees and run it along the 20 feet line going in. Mr. Gray said right now it is running perpendicular to the road. Mr. Zarrella said you need to have a water table. Director Sullivan had a question on the measurements and said looking at existing basement excluding the garage there looking at 1,400 s.f. and an addition of 900 to 1000 feet. Director Sullivan asked if these numbers were accurate. Mr. Blink said 1600 s.f. is accurate and the addition is 790 feet when they do the cutoffs. Amy Sonder, the applicants’ landscape surveyor, stated that she worked on the applicants ISDS system. Ms. Sonder stated that when the applicants originally came to her they thought they could keep their existing cesspool but she informed them that they would have to upgrade the septic system. Ms. Sonder said she worked with the architect and owners to design a septic system that would be harmonious with the surrounding area. Mr. DeAngelis submitted a packet of 9 photographs as an exhibit. Mr. Goldman marked them for identification. Ms. Sonder stated that plan submitted to CRMC is for a bottom sand filter to be located in the front yard of the applicant’s property. Ms. Sonder said one of the reasons they positioned the and filter where it is to follow the existing contour grades of the site and she followed the contours to minimize the elevation of it. Ms. Sonder said they have to maintain 25 feet distance from the road and they also need a 50’ setback from the coastal feature. Ms. Sonder stated they were able to design the system without any variances from DEM. Ms. Sonder said they went with a bottomless sand filter with pre-treatment because of the 5-bedroom dwelling with ledge constraints. Ms. Sonder said the bottomless sand filter is 30’x13 1⁄2’ with a pea stone bed which would be consistently level in the front yard. Ms. Sonder said there is a little slope at the front berm of the yard and then it levels off in front of the house so it would be at ground level. Ms. Sonder said her plan addressed the staff recommendation to the site the proposed addition at the 38-foot mark. Ms. Sonder explained what effect putting the addition in the location had on the bottomless sand filter and said the contour and ledge constraints would raise the bottomless sand filter up 2 1⁄2 feet higher. Ms. Sonder stated that the filter was close to the Galleshaw property line. Mr. DeAngelis referred to the Town of Narragansett topography map which showed all sites in Narragansett with structures and seawalls. Mr. DeAngelis asked what the average setback distance of the structures at their foundation were to the seawalls from the coastal feature were. Ms. Sonder replied the average was 24.7 feet. Mr. DeAngelis noted that some of the structures were closer to the coastal feature than the applicants. Ms. Sonder addressed Mr. Gray’s question regarding turning the filter 90 degrees along the side lot line. Ms. Sonder said the highest elevation was triggered by the size of the leaching field which would have to be carried down the side of the lot line which would make the bottomless sand filter stick out of the ground eight feet. Mr. Gray said the structure has to come out level so as the ground falls away the end of it ends up showing more. Ms. Sonder replied exactly. Ms. Sonder said if the proposed addition was built as suggested by staff they would need a variance from the Town of Narragansett for the side lot line. Ms. Sonder felt the application met the variance criteria. Ms. Sonder said the full variance from the 50-foot setback would be 15.9 feet allowing for a 34.1’ setback from the coastal feature to the addition. Ms. Sonder said the foundation would be 38 feet from the coastal feature which is a 3.9 feet difference. Mr. Fugate noted that the plan number 10 was dated yesterday and staff had not seen it. Ms. Sonder said plan number 10 was her interpretation with the recommendation from CRMC staff on how they could redesign this. Mr. Gomez had a question on page 8 of the applicants’ exhibit and asked if the existing cesspool is in the location on the map. Ms. Sonder replied yes. Mr. Gomez asked about the deck which comes 27 feet from the coastal feature. Ms. Sonder replied that the proposal does not have the deck.

Mr. Gomez asked if a zoning setback from the road was required and if they needed a variance. Ms. Sonder said yes there is a 30-foot setback and they did not need a variance. Mr. Gomez asked if the deck they took off the application could they come back for that deck in the future. Mr. Fugate replied yes and it would not be subject to the setback provision. Mr. Gomez asked what about if they put a roof on it. Mr. Fugate said they can, they have allowed people in the past to do roof structures and that is a problem their having right now. Mr. Zarrella said if the board did not approve the septic system, the railroad ties would have to be put in and they may have a problem with the Town setback. Ms. Sonder replied it’s a possibility. Mr. Gray stated that the plan from the town regarding the distance between the existing houses in the neighborhood and the coastal feature was nice information but was not going anywhere in his mind. Mr. Gray said he would like to see the applicants get something they are trying to achieve. Mr. Gray felt that the bedroom and the design of the structure did not have to be blocked but could look aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Gray felt the septic system was driving the location of the design of the addition. Mr. Gray said this is not a required septic system but a chosen one by the applicant. Mr. Gray felt the design of the addition should drive the location of the septic system not the other way around. Mr. Gray said he looked at the contour lines and the longitude run of them coming across the corner and said he saw flexibility. Mr. Gray felt this could be moved in a southwest direction along those contours coming closer to the property line and dropping down along those contours. Mr. Gray said after listening to the testimony he felt the 50-foot setback by staff was reasonable. Mr. Gray felt the addition could be moved closer to the street and the septic system could be shifted or they could use a different style of septic system. Mr. Gray said they would be staying away 25 feet away from the waterline and it’s a win-win for everyone. Mr. Fugate said he asked staff and indicated it was possible to lengthen and narrow the leach field. Ms. Sonder said she spent many hours on this and said she would be glad to look at whatever Mr. Gray wanted to send her. Mr. Gray said it’s the option of the applicant what is before the council right now is not flying. Mr. Gray stated he asked the executive director if this was the one and only style septic they could have. Ms. Sonder felt this system took up the least amount of space and meet the conditions. Mr. Zarrella noted they did 3-test holes and how far down the ledge was. Mr. Sonder replied there was 48-52 inches of ledge and they have ledge constraints. Mr. Zarrella asked how far they have to design over ledge. Ms. Sonder replied 4 feet above ledge and they are starting at grade with the system. Mr. DeAngelis asked how she designed the bottomless sand filter to address the scenic value for the neighbors. Ms. Sonder replied they are maintaining a low impact system and the system required no variances from DEM. Ms. Sonder felt aesthetically this system works with the addition. Mr. DeAngelis requested that the exhibits be marked as full. Mr. Goldman marked exists 1-5 and 12 as full exhibits and exhibits 9 and 10 for identification as staff had not seen. Mr. DeAngelis had an exception. Mr. Carrigan testified on the footings supporting the porch structure, exhibits 6, 7 and 8. Mr. Carrigan said these support columns hold up the roof structure of the porch. Mr. Carrigan said they are poured concrete structures that look like cinder blocks. Mr. Carrigan believed the house was built back in 1930. Mr. Carrigan said the footings are two feet wide with an “L” shaped underneath the porch. Mr. Carrigan testified that he felt the application met the requirements of Section 300.3.A.5. Mr. DeAngelis said these structures have been there for sometime and go far beyond what is contemplated by this definition of structural foundation. Mr. Carrigan agreed. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the footings seem to be sitting on top of the ground level and asked if the extent into the earth. Mr. Carrigan replied he did not know how far they extended but they do extend. Mr. Dawson noted that pictures 6 and 8 were the same. Mr. Carrigan agreed. Mr. Zarrella asked if these footings could handle any additional weight. Mr. Carrigan replied he did not do the calculation but they have handled the weight there now. Director Sullivan asked in his professional option if these were adequate structures consistent with the current code with the load they appear to carry now. Mr. Carrigan replied yes but he did not know if they met the current code. Mark Sevegny, the applicants’ general contractor, testified that he has been working on the design of the addition. Mr. Sevegny said the aerial photographs were of the applicant’s property during the summertime. Mr. Sevegny authenticated photographs 2 and said photographs 3, 4 and 5 were of the new addition with the cutouts. Mr. Goldman marked photograph 2 as exhibits and photographs 3, 4 and 5 for identification. Mr. DeAngelis had no further witnesses and asked for a recess to talk to his client.

Vice Chair Lemont called for a recess at 7:58 p.m. Vice Chair Lemont called the meeting back to order at 8:02 p.m.

Mr. DeAngelis requested that the matter be continued until the next meeting to allow staff an opportunity to look at their submissions by Ms. Sonder and for the opportunity of Ms. Sonder to look at the suggestions raised by Mr. Gray and consult with the Primervaras. Mr. DeAngelis said they want to start the addition on their home this year and did not want a denial on the application. Mr. DeAngelis said it is either going to be built the way they propose or in a location agreeable to Mr. Gray and other members of the council. Mr. DeAngelis felt something needed to be approved so they could move on. Vice Chair Lemont noted that it may not be heard at the next meeting and may be 30 days before it could be heard. Mr. Fugate noted that it appears the applicant is close to what staff suggested and they may not need to come back before the full council. Mr. Gomez asked if he could do this administratively. Mr. Fugate replied yes. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved to continue the application at the applicant’s request to allow staff an opportunity to look at their submissions by Ms. Sonder, an opportunity of Ms. Sonder to look at the suggestions raised by Mr. Gray and Mr. DeAngelis to consult with the Primervaras. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

8. Enforcement Report – February 2008

There were none held.

9. Category “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate, Executive Director

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX