MINUTES OF THE Local Planning Panel  HELD VIA ADUIO-VISUAL MEANS ON Tuesday,  21 June 2022 AT 3:30pm

 

PRESENT

 

Stephen O’Connor (Chairperson), Michael Evesson, Lindsay Fletcher and Maree Turner.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF LAND

 

The Chairperson, acknowledged the Burramattagal people of The Darug Nation as the traditional land owners of land in Parramatta and paid respect to their ancient culture and to their elders past, present and emerging.

 

WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

 

The Chairperson advised that this public meeting is being recorded. The recording will be archived and made available on Council’s website.

 

APOLOGIES

 

There were no apologies made to this Local Planning Panel.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Lindsay Fletcher, declared a conflict of interest in Item 6.1 – Refusal of the Planning Proposal for land at 168-176 Parramatta Road and 89-90 Cowper Street, Granville. He retired from the meeting during consideration of this matter.

 

Reports - Development Applications

 

5.1

SUBJECT         PUBLIC MEETING:
44-46 Wattle Street, RYDALMERE (Lot 8 and 9 Section 5 DP 977669)

 

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a three storey boarding house comprising 44 rooms above basement car parking for 22 car spaces.

 

REFERENCE    DA/860/2021 - D08534396

 

APPLICANT/S  Wattlepine Developments Pty Ltd

 

OWNERS         Wattlepine Developments Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF    Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.1 and the attachments

to Item 5.1.

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

1.   Lucy Capener spoke against the report recommendation to approve the development application.

 

 

 

DETERMINDATION

 

(a)    That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council, pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, grant deferred commencement development consent to DA/860/2021 for a period of five (5) years within which physical commencement is to occur from the date on the Notice of Determination, subject to conditions of consent contained in Attachment 1.

 

(b)    Further, that submitters be advised of the decision.

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

 

1.     The development is permissible in the R4 zone and satisfies the requirements of all of the applicable planning controls;

 

2.     The development will be compatible with the emerging and planned future character of the area; and

 

3.       Approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

The Panel decision was UNANIMOUS.

 

5.2

SUBJECT         PUBLIC MEETING:
48 Norfolk Road, EPPING NSW, (Lot 1 in DP 862266)

 

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including demolition of the existing detached garage and carport at rear, tree removal, relocation of the existing dwelling, construction of a new front fence and a new double carport at the rear, and Torrens Title subdivision of one lot into two lots.

 

REFERENCE    DA/65/2022 - D08527224

 

APPLICANT/S  Just Planning

 

OWNERS         W X Dou

 

REPORT OF    Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.2 and the attachments

to Item 5.2.

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

1.     Janet McGarry, President, on behalf of Epping Civic Trust, spoke against the recommendation to approve the application.

 

 

DETERMINATION

 

(a)    That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council pursuant to Section 4.16(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, grant consent to DA/65/2022 for a period of five (5) years in which physical commencement is to occur from the date on the Notice of Determination, subject to conditions of consent contained in Attachment 1.

 

(b)    Further, that submitters be advised of the decision.

 

REASON FOR APPROVAL

 

The development application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons:

 

1.     The development is permissible in the R2 zone and satisfies the requirements of all of the applicable planning controls,

 

2.     The development will not create adverse impacts onto the locality and will be compatible with the existing area,

 

3.     The proposed development ensures the conservation of the existing dwelling while maintaining its contribution to the East Epping Heritage Conservation Area,

 

4.     The development will be compatible with the emerging and planned future character of the area, and

 

5.     For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

The Panel decision was UNANIMOUS.

 

5.3

SUBJECT         PUBLIC MEETING:
43-47 Murray Farm Road, No. 13 and No. 19 Watton Road, CARLINGFORD NSW  2118 (Lot 1 DP 210512, Lot 16 DP 238510, Lot 6 DP 259726)

 

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a part (2) and part (3) storey residential care facility comprising of 110 beds, with one (1) level of basement parking. This Application has been identified as Integrated under Section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000.

 

REFERENCE    DA/1057/2021 - D08521983

 

APPLICANT/S  HB & B Property Pty Ltd

 

OWNERS         HB & B Property Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF    Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.3 and the attachments

to Item 5.3.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

1.           Philip Baker spoke in support of the report recommendation to refuse the development application.

 

2.           Lynton Kallmier spoke in support of the report recommendation to refuse the development application.

 

3.           Brian Lin spoke in support of the report recommendation to refuse the development application.

 

4.           Walid Bou Haidar spoke in support of the report recommendation to refuse the development application.

 

5.           Haoren Wang spoke in support of the report recommendation to refuse the development application.

 

6.           Suzanne Kennewell and Evert Ladrak provided a written submission in support of the report recommendation to refuse the application.

 

7.           Benjamin Black from Avenue Town Planning spoke against the report recommendation to refuse the development application.

 

8.           Andrew Francis from Henry and Hymas spoke against the report recommendation to refuse the development application.

 

9.           Danny Kataieh from HBB Property spoke against the report recommendation to refuse the development application.

 

10.       Anthony Whealy from Mills Oaskley spoke against the report recommendation to recufuse the development application.

 

11.       Robert Puflett from Thomas Adsett spoke against the report to refuse the development application.

 

Lindsay Fletcher does not support refusal of the development application. He notes the comments of the Land and Environment Court in relation to the previous larger development proposal for this site and agrees that the supply of additional seniors housing and, in particular, that relating to residential care is in the public interest. As the Court noted, the Central City District Plan highlights the need for such housing given the very large projected increase in aged persons in the Parramatta and The Hills local government areas over the next decade or so.

 

The Court found that the previous development proposal for this site was compatible with the character of the locality despite non-compliances with FSR, building height and setbacks. The current proposal is significantly smaller and now fully compliant with those planning requirements.  Amongst other changes, the previous top floor level has been deleted.  In particular, the Court’s concern about the adverse amenity impact on 49 Murray Farm Road has, in his opinion, been adequately addressed by the design changes.

 

He also notes and agrees with the comments of Council’s Design Excellence Advisory Panel that it was satisfied “the proposal does generally achieve compatability with context and streetscape; acceptable visual and acoustic privacy along side boundaries; a minimisation or visual bulk and shadow impacts to adjoining properties; an appropriate scale and density for the site; high-quality landscape treatment of all interfaces and communal open spaces; and a high standard of internal amenity.”

 

For these reasons he does not support the recommendation for refusal of the application and would prefer deferral of the determination pending receipt of a further report from Council staff providing recommended conditions of consent, including potentially deferred commencement conditions to resolve the stormwater on-site detention concern.

 

 

DETERMINATION

 

(a)    That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel, exercising the function of the consent authority, pursusant to Section 16(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, refuse development consent to DA/1057/2021 for the for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction of a part two (2) and part three (3) storey residential care facility comprising of 110 beds on land at 43-47 Murray farm Road, No.13 and No 19 Watton Road, Carlingford, for the following reasons listed below.

 

(b)    That the objectors be advised of the Panel’s decision.

 

(c)    Further, that Council staff are encouraged to work with the applicant to achieve an outcome for this site which accommodates the type of development proposed in the development application.

 

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

 

1.     State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

a)     Clause 26: The proposal does not adequately address that the residents of the proposed development will have access to local retail, commercial, and medical facilities.

 

b)     Clause 29: The proposed development is not compatible with surrounding land uses.

 

c)     Clause 30: The submitted site analysis was not prepared in accordance with Clause 30 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

 

d)     Clause 33: The proposed development does not maintain a reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by failing to adopt a building height that is compatible in scale with adjacent developments.

 

e)     Clause 35: The proposed development fails to provide adequate solar access to the living areas and private open space for the future residents of the Residential Care Facility.

 

f)      Clause 36: It has not been demonstrated that the disturbance and impacts on adjoining properties will be minimised.

 

g)     Clause 38: Safe pedestrian links from the site that provide access to public transport services or local facilities are not provided.

 

h)     Clause 40(4)(b): The proposal breaches the number of storeys control stipulated under this Clause.

 

2.     Parramatta (former The Hills) LEP 2012

a)     Clause 1.2(a) and (d) ‘Aims of Plan’: The subject application fails to provide an orderly and sustainable built environment that is compatible within the local context of the area.

 

b)     Clause 2.3: the proposal fails to comply with the objectives of a low density residential zone objectives in that it does not satisfactorily maintain the existing low density residential character of the area.

 

c)     Clause 7.2: The proposal fails to ensure that earthworks will not have a detrimental impact on the subject site, and its likely future use being a Seniors Living facility.

 

3.     The Hills Development Plan 2011

a)     Part 2.5 (Streetscape and Character): The proposal fails to comply with the Objectives of Part 2.5 (Streetscape and Character).

 

b)     Part 2.12 (Stormwater): It has not been demonstrated that the disturbance and impacts on adjoining properties will be minimised.

 

4.     The Public Interest

a)     The development would result in an adverse environmental and amenity impact on the surrounding built environment and not be consistent with the existing streetscape.

 

b)     The development is considered an overdevelopment of the site as the operation of the facility results in undesirable amenity impacts for future residents and adjoining properties, and unacceptable pedestrian safety impacts within the locality.

 

c)     The adverse impacts by the development due to non-compliances with the applicable planning controls are not beneficial for the local community and as such, are not in the wider public interest.

 

The Panel decision was NOT unanimous as Lindsay Fletcher voted against the refusal of this development application.

 

5.4

SUBJECT         OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
2 O'Reilly Street, PARRAMATTA (Lot 1 Sec 30 DP 758829)

 

DESCRIPTION Construction of a 4 storey Boarding House containing 38 rooms and a managers room with at grade parking.

 

REFERENCE    DA/422/2021 - D08540285

 

APPLICANT/S  CK Design

 

OWNERS         O'Reilly House Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF    Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.4 and the attachments

to Item 5.4.

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

1.     Andrew Martin from AM Planning was available to answer questions raised by the Panel.

 

2.     Chris Khoury from CK Design was available to answer questions raised by the Panel.

 

 

DETERMINATION

 

(a)    That, the Parramatta Local Planning Panel support the variation to Clause 4.3 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 under the provisions of Clause 4.6 for the following reasons:

 

1.     A written request to vary the building height has been received and is well drafted; and

2.     The variation sought is minor and will not have any adverse impacts. As such, comlicance with the standard is unnecessary. Accordingly, Council believes that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation and fnds that the application is satisfactory. Council is therefore satisfied that the Applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated in Claure 4.6 (3) of Parramatta LEP 2011 and that the proposed development will the public interest because it is not inconsistent with the objectives of the building height control and the objectives for development within the R4 zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

(b)    That, the Parramatta Local Planning Panel, pursuant to Section 4.16(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant development consent to DA/422/2021 for a period of five (5) years within which physical commencement is to occur from the date on the Notice of Determination, subject to conditions of consent, contained in Attachment 1 except for the deletion of Condition No 103 and No 115.

 

(c)    Further, that objectors be advised of the Panel’s decision.

 

REASON FOR APPROVAL

 

1.       The written request to vary the building height development standard was considered well justified.

 

2.       The development is permissible in the R4 zone and satisfies the requirements of all of the applicable planning controls.

 

3.       The development will be compatible with the emerging and planned future character of the area.

 

4.       For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

The Panel decision was UNANIMOUS.

 

5.5

SUBJECT         OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
11Z Haines Avenue, CARLINGFORD (Lot 32 DP 250279)

 

DESCRIPTION Alterations to an existing Scout Hall with associated works for drainage and car parking

 

REFERENCE    DA/870/2021 - D08537661

 

APPLICANT/S  Nimbus Architecture and Heritage Pty Ltd

 

OWNERS         City of Parramatta Council

 

REPORT OF    Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.5 and the attachments

to Item 5.5.

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

There were no public forum submissions for Item 5.5.

 

 

DETERMINATION

 

That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel (PLPP), exercising the functions of Council, pursuant to Section 4.16(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, grant consent to DA/870/2021 for Alterations to an existing Scout Hall with associated works for drainage and car parking on land at 11Z Haines Avenue, CARLINGFORD (Lot 32 DP 250279).

 

 

 

 

THE REASONS FOR APPROVAL

 

1.     The development is permissible in the RE1 Public Recreation zone pursuant to the Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012 and satisfies the requirements of all the applicable planning controls.

 

2.     The development will not create adverse impacts onto the locality and will be sympathetic with the existing area.

 

3.     The proposed development is considered satisfactory in respect to bushfire protection with measures imposed to ensure the safety of the site and surrounds.

 

4.     The proposed development will seek to provide the greater community with well-maintained public amenities.

 

5.     For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

The Panel decision was UNANIMOUS.

 

5.6

SUBJECT         OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
574-584 Church Street, 1-7 Ferris Street and 6-12 Barney Street, NORTH PARRAMATTA (Lot 100 DP 1008491, Lot 1 DP 800654, Lot 181 DP 997700, Lot 1 DP 128020, Lot 1 DP 981422, Lot 1 DP 128037, Lot F DP 363707, Lot B DP 330106 and Lot 11 DP 583409)

 

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal, site consolidation and the construction of a part 2 and part 3 storey motor vehicle showroom and service centre with associated signage and fencing.

 

REFERENCE    DA/80/2021 - D08538478

 

APPLICANT/S  Urbanesque Planning Pty Ltd

 

OWNERS         Burbot Properties Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF    Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.6 and the attachments

to Item 5.6.

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

1.     Stephen Craig from Greenwich Projects spoke in support of the report recommendation to approve the development application.

 

 

DETERMINATION

 

(a)    That, the Parramatta Local Planning Panel support the variation to Clause 4.3 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 under the provisions of Clause 4.6 for the following reasons:

1.          A written request to vary the building height has been received and is well drafted; and

2.          The variation sought is not significant and wll not have any adverse impacts. As such, compliance with the standard is unnecessary. Accordingly, Council believes that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation request has adequately addressed that matters required to be demonstrated in Clause 4.6(3) of Parramatta LEP 2011 and that the proposed development will be the public interest. The proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives for the development within the B6 zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. The applicant has provided sufficient environmental planning ground to warrant departure of the building height control in the circumstances of this case.

 

(b)    Further, that the Parramatta Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council pursuant to Section 4.16(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, grant deferred commencement consent to DA/80/2021 for a period of five (5) years within which physical commencement is to occur from the date on the Notice of Determination, subject to conditions of consent contained in Attachment 1, noting the following changes to the following conditions:

 

·             Deletion of the Deferred Commencement conditions

 

·             Replace Condition No 5 with the following “Trees to be retained are: Tree No. Name Common Name Location Tree Protection Zone (m)* 7-12 Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Myrtle Barney Street verge 2m Reason: To protect significant trees which contribute to the landscape character of the area. *Refer to Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report by Arboreport for individual TPZ dimensions.”

 

·             Condition No 10 becomes Condition No 10(a)

 

·             Creation of an additional condition, being, Condition 10(b), as follows:

 

10(b) Submission to Council of suitable documentary evidence issued by NSW Land Registry Services, prior to the release of any construction certificate, confirming the creation of an appropriately wide easement over the proposed 900mm stormwater pipe in favour of Council to drain water burdening the subject lot known as 574-584 Church Street, 1-7 Ferris Street and 6-12 Barney Street, North Parramatta (Lot 100 DP 1008491, Lot 1 DP 800654, Lot 181 DP 997700, Lot 1 DP 128020, Lot 1 DP 981422, Lot 1 DP 128037, Lot F DP 363707, Lot B DP 330106 and Lot 11 DP 583409).

 

a.          The easement must be appropriately wide to accommodate:

                                 i.            The relocated and upsized Council stormwater pipe; and

                               ii.            Overland flow in a 1% AEP storm event.

 

b.          Calculations shall be submitted demonstrating that the easement is appropriately sized to accommodate the overland flow referenced in Condition 1.a.ii.

 

·             Replace Condition No 15 with the following “A ‘shelter in place’ refuge facility shall be provided on the first floor at or above the PMF level and must be maintained in perpetuity. This flood refuge facility shall be accessible by stairs from all levels, must be of sufficient size to accommodate occupants and visitors to the building and must be equipped with appropriate provisions, facilities and services for people to remain in safety and reasonable comfort there for the duration of severe floods and for some time afterwards. Such facilities must include permanent fresh drinking water supply, bathrooms and toilets, flashlights, radio, food and essential provisions and furnishings. The design and equipping of this facility shall be planned in accordance with Council, the SES and NSW Health Guidelines. Details of this facility, its equipment and provisions shall be submitted as part of the Flood Emergency Response Plan for approval by Council’s Group Manager DTSU prior to release of any Construction Certificate. The ‘shelter in place’ refuge facility can be a dual-purpose space and not a designated empty room. Reason: Flood safety”

 

·             Replace Condition No 44 with the following “The final Landscape Plan must be consistent with plans numbered L-01 to L-03, rev B dated 26.10.2020, prepared by Ecodesign together with any additional criteria required by the Development Consent to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority addressing the following requirements: (a) Ensure landscape plans are coordinated with latest Stormwater Management Plans and Architectural lower ground and ground floor plans. (b) Tristaniopsis laurina ‘Luscious’ (Tll) on southern side to be relocated away from substation and repositioned at the north-eastern end of carparking bay adjacent to driveway entrance / exit. Planting below to be adjusted accordingly. Page 5 of 7 (c) Tristaniopsis laurina ‘Luscious’ tree rootball size to increase to 100L. Tree planting detail to be updated accordingly. (d) Update the proposed plant schedule to include the above changes, including the street tree sizes as per condition LA003. € The location of all proposed overhead and underground service lines shall be clear of the dripline of existing trees and the dripline of proposed trees shall be clear of all existing overhead and underground service lines. Reason: To ensure restoration of environmental amenity.”

 

·             Delete Condition No 45.

 

·             Replace Condition No 60 with the following “If the basement cannot be drained by gravity a basement pump-out system shall be designed and installed as flows to the satisfaction of the PCA: (a) A holding tank capable of storing the run-off from a 100 year ARI (average reoccurrence interval) - 2 hour duration storm event, allowing for pump failure. (b) A two pump system (on an alternate basis) capable of emptying the holding tank at a rate equal to the lower of: (i) The permissible site discharge (PSD) rate; or Page 6 of 7 (ii) The rate of inflow for the one hour, 5 year ARI storm event. (c) An alarm system comprising of basement pump-out failure warning sign together with a flashing strobe light and siren installed at a clearly visible location at the entrance to the basement in case of pump failure. (d) A 100 mm freeboard to all parking spaces. (e) Submission of full hydraulic details and pump manufacturers specifications. (f) Pump out system to be connected to a stilling pit and gravity line before discharge to the street gutter. Plans and design calculations along with certification from the designer indicating that the design complies with the above requirements are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. Reason: To ensure satisfactory storm water disposal.”

 

·             Delete Condition No 74 and replace with the following “The required Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) are to be established and in place prior to any works commencing according to the schedule below. The area is to be enclosed with protective fencing consisting of 1.8m high fully supported chainmesh. The area enclosed is to be a designated “No-Go Zone” and is to be kept weed free for the entire duration of works. “Tree Protection Zone’ signage is to be attached to protective fencing; this must include the name and contact details of the Project Arborist. Tree No. Species Common Name Location Location of fence Page 7 of 7 7, 8 9 10 Lagerstroe mia indica Crepe Myrtle Barney Street 2m eitherside of trunks, along edge of footpath and back of kerb. Reason: To protect the trees to be retained on the site during construction works.”

 

·             Delete Condition No 97 and replace with the following “Trees to be removed are: Tree No. Species Common Name Location 1 Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum Church Street verge 2 Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Apple Western boundary (Church St side) 3 Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum Church Street verge 4 Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum Church Street verge 5 Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Apple Western boundary (Church St side) 6 Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Mrytle Barney Street verge 11 Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Mrytle Barney Street verge Reason: To facilitate development.”

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

 

1.     The request to vary the building height development standard is considered well justified.

 

2.     The development is permissible in the B6 zone and satisfies the requirements of all of the applicable planning controls,

 

3.     The development will be compatible with the emerging and planned future character of the area, and

 

4.     For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

The Panel decision was UNANIMOUS.

 

Note: Having previously declared a conflict of interest in Item 6.1 – Refusal of the Planning Proposal for land at 168-176 Parramatta Road and 89-90 Cowper Street, Granville, Lindsay Fletcher retired from the meeting during consideration of this matter.

 

Innovative

 

6.1

SUBJECT         Refusal of the Planning Proposal for land at 168-176 Parramatta Road and 89-90 Cowper Street, Granville

 

REFERENCE    F2013/01409 – D08502398

 

APPLICANT/S  Planning Ingenuity

 

OWNERS         JFC Developments Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF    Project Officer

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 6.1 and the attachments

to Item 6.1.

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

1.     Troy Loveday from Planning Ingenuity spoke against the report recommendation to refuse the planning proposal.

 

 

DETERMINATION

 

That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel consider the following Council Officer recommendation in its advice to Council:

 

(a)    That Council refuse the Parramatta Planning Proposal at 168-176 Parramatta Road and 89-90 Cowper Street, Granville for the following reasons:

 

i.      The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the height of development envisaged by the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (PRCUTS), which sets the strategic planning framework for the precinct.

 

ii.      The Planning Proposal is premature given that an implementation plan is required to be prepared and adopted by Council, now that the precinct-wide traffic study is complete, to ensure road network upgrades and other infrastructure requirements are agreed, funding sources secured and able to be delivered consistent with the PRCUTS.

 

(b)    Further, that the applicant be advised of Council’s decision.

 

The Panel decision was UNANIMOUS.

 

The meeting terminated at 5:38pm.

 

 

P431#y1

 

 

 

Chairperson