Chichester Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Members Present: Chairman Kevin Mara, Vice-Chairman Thomas Jameson, Ex-Officio Jeffrey Jordan, Stan Brehm, Thomas Houle, Allen Mayville, Richard Moore, and Jamie Pike, Secretary.
Others Present: Jonathan Halle, Atty. Richard Uchida, Fire Chief Alan Quimby, Deputy Fire Chiefs Matt Cole and Ed Millette, Jaan Luikmil, Stacey Luikmil, JoAnn Luikmil, Betty Thompson, Tim Pitman, Doug Pitman, Richard Millette, Edwin & Diane Mott, William Surran, Craig McIntosh, Scott Tepper, John & Catherine Snow, for CATCH Housing; Rosemary Heard and Kate Kittle and others.
Vice-Chairman Jameson called the meeting to order at 6:35pm.
The minutes of March 5, 2015 were reviewed. A motion was made by Mr. Jordan and seconded by Mr. Jameson to approve the minutes as written with minor non-substantive correction. Motion passes.
Waiver Request Hearings: Map 4 Lot 161 & Lot 161A – Chichester Commons, LLC
1. Section 2.04F; VI-12 – to permit the construction of a building with a footprint of 13,550 sq/ft where only 5,000 sq/ft is permitted.
2. Section 2.04F: VIII-11(b) – to permit the development of a 41 unit multi-family structure on 2.369 acres, where 22 acres is required.
3. Section 2.04F; VIII-11(h) – to permit the development of a building with a maximum height of 45 feet, where the building cannot exceed 35 feet from its foundation at ground level to the highest point on the building.
4. Section 2.04F; VI-12 – to permit the construction of a building with a footprint of 10,000 sq/ft where only 5,000 sq/ft is permitted.
Atty Richard Uchida and Jonathan Halle were present to speak on the merits of the requests.
Mr. Halle presented an overview of the potential layout for the development of the property with elderly (55+) housing and a 10,000 square foot retail building. Mr. Halle explained that he does not currently have an agreement with CATCH housing and they are present as they may be interested in the development and management of the proposal. Mr. Halle explained in great detail the particular construction and fire suppression standards of the multi-family building.
Atty Richard Uchida explained to the Board and audience that if the waivers are granted, that formal application for Site Review will follow in the future. Mr. Uchida explained the types of housing for older persons (55+). There are two types of housing, those with 80% of 55+ and 100% of 62+. The proposed project is to be restricted to 100% occupancy by a person of at least 55 years. There are proposed 36 1-bedroom suites and 5 two-bedroom apartments. The typical demographic is persons over 60 years of age. There are rarely children in the demographic due to the lack of a younger social atmosphere. Persons desiring apartment style housing rely on the total solution that this type of facility provide; with staff and management on site along with recreational facilities and other support/social
programs contained within the building. Atty Uchida submits the narrative accompanying the application into the record versus reading the entire document:
Granting the Waiver would not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare, or cause injury or damage to other property or fail to promote public interest because:
WAIVERS 1, 2 AND 3: The footprint (WAIVER 1) and height (WAIVER 3) of the housing for older persons building do not pose public health, safety or welfare issues, nor does the number of units per acre on the property (WAIVER 2) pose such issues, given the proximity of the Chichester Fire Department and other nearby municipal and emergency services, as well as the management required for such facilities to be successful. As noted below, granting the waivers actually promote the public interest because they enable the creation of a building with enough units and enough residents under one roof to encourage the development of a community – a factor that is very important to the success of older persons facilities. A building of this size also permits the applicant to house age-appropriate services and amenities
(as required by RSA 354-A:15, IV(a)) and staff for the management of the property - both important to the success of an older persons facility. Between these services and the professional management which must be housed in the building, the residents and the property are actually better monitored, managed and maintained than typical multi-family residential properties – militating in favor of public health, safety or welfare. Moreover, given the demographic that will occupy the complex, it is in the public interest and better serves safety, welfare and health if the complex is proximate to municipal services, as well as other services and retail needs along Dover Road and Main Street on which such residents depend. As to WAIVER 2, literal enforcement of the acreage requirement would mean that this development would need to be built on a 20-plus acre parcel – a rarity in the districts that permit multi-family housing. Thus, without WAIVER 2, the older
persons facility would not be built.
Likewise, given the uses of surrounding property, the intensity of the development on surrounding properties on Dover Road, the location of the older persons facility behind the retail uses fronting on Dover Road (so the building will generally be obscured from Dover Road), the 10-foot drop in grade from Dover Road to the area around the building (such that the building will appear lower), and the well-buffered nature of the Premises and those lands abutting the rear of the Premises, the applicant is not aware of any injury or damage to other property if the building size waiver (WAIVER 1), the acreage waiver (WAIVER 2) and the height waiver (WAIVER 3) are granted. As a result, because the development of elderly housing is important to the town (as set forth below in the section pertaining to the Master Plan),
granting WAIVERS 1, 2 and 3 would actually be beneficial to the public safety, health and welfare, and will not cause injury or damage to other property or fail to promote public interest.
WAIVER 4: Granting a waiver for the size of the retail building (WAIVER 4) is not detrimental to public safety, health or welfare, and will not cause injury or damage to other property or fail to promote the public interest. The town already has evidence that a comparably-sized building on the same property – the 8900 +/- square foot strip mall facility – has not detracted from public health, safety or welfare, nor has it harmed or damaged the Premises, other property or the CV Zoning District. The town also has evidence that a building of this size has promoted the public interest in that it has enabled the “mix of land development opportunities”, which the CV Zoning District explicitly encourages. See Ordinance, Article II, Section 2.04(F), District CV: Commercial Village, subsection (II).
Granting the Waiver would not vary the intent of the Town of Chichester Master Plan because:
WAIVERS 1, 2 AND 3: The Master Plan and the survey which supported the Master Plan recommendations encourage the development of “elderly housing complexes in the zones that support such development.” It is obvious from the Master Plan that this is an important objective because the Plan noted that a third of the town’s residents have lived in Chichester for at least 21 to 50 years – denoting a population which could take advantage of such a facility. One of the two zoning districts that allows multi-family housing is the CV Zoning District. However, housing for older persons facilities are not successful without a critical mass of older persons who can live together and develop their own sense of community. Sprinkling a few age-restricted units within neighborhoods containing non-age
restricted housing is not a successful model. Buildings must be of a critical size and mass to house a generous number of residents, and therefore require numbers of units, room for services/facilities/amenities, and management of the property, to create a successful housing for older persons facility. Experience in surrounding communities, including Concord and Bow, demonstrates that a facility size in the area of 40-50 units, at a minimum, creates the critical mass for a successful community. However, in housing that many units under one roof, the building footprint must be in excess of the 5000 square foot building footprint limit in the Ordinance (WAIVER 1) and the height of the building, as measured in the Ordinance, must be in excess of 35 feet (WAIVER 3), even with a majority of one-bedroom units. While the applicant considered two to three smaller buildings – all under the 5,000 square foot footprint threshold -- these smaller buildings (and a
corresponding requirement that older persons must travel outside to other buildings to enjoy their fellow residents, as well as services, amenities and facilities in such communities,) are not as attractive or successful to an aging demographic, and tend to diminish the success of such complexes that are otherwise encouraged by the Master Plan. It would also lead to greater lot coverage (and thus, the diminution of open space), which the Ordinance and Master Plan discourage.
Likewise, the requirement of two acres for the first two units in a building plus a half acre for each additional family unit (WAIVER 2) means that virtually every property in the CV Zoning District (and many in the CI/MF Zoning District) would be disqualified from housing a successful elderly housing development that needs critical mass. (The Master Plan notes that substantially less than 10% of the land in Chichester consists of 20 acres or more, and most of those lands are in non-commercial zoning districts.) Thus, like the previous waiver, this would frustrate the development of a use favored by the Master Plan because of the lack of available land in the district. While it would be easy to encourage the applicant to find a larger parcel in the CI/MF district (the only other district which permits
multi-family housing), a key to the success of such elderly housing complexes is access to goods and services, including retail services, gas, food, etc., on nearby properties, as well as municipal services. The Premises is much closer to such services than other lands in the CI/MF District, and thus better serves the goal of the Master Plan in encouraging elderly housing opportunities.
The Master Plan does not directly address building height (WAIVER 3). As noted above, if the height limit is literally enforced, it would lead to either additional buildings on site and thus, consume open space – a goal disfavored by the Master Plan; or a flat-roof building, which is not in keeping with the character of the CV Zoning District which the town hopes to preserve (another Master Plan goal). It is notable that if the building height (WAIVER 3) is measured as it is in most communities (to the mean height of a sloped roof from the mean ground level around the building), the height would be just over 36 feet – closer to the Ordinance requirement. Additionally, the building is about 10 feet below the Dover Road grade, and will be located behind the existing and planned retail development
on Dover Road. Thus, from the front of the site, the building, although larger and higher (WAIVERS 1 and 3) than the Ordinance permits, will appear to be in compliance with the Ordinance, and its height and massing will be obscured by the intervening retail uses. In this regard, the building height and size (WAIVERS 1 and 3) does not cause a departure, in terms of a visual perspective, from the Ordinance.
WAIVER 4: The Master Plan salutes the development of small and mid-size businesses along Dover Road. While the Plan expresses doubt over the ability to draw further commercial growth in the area, the Plan certainly does not discourage such growth. The scale of the proposed retail building, at 10,000 square feet, is in keeping with the character of the businesses along the Dover Road corridor, and especially the 8900 +/- square foot existing mall facility on the eastern end of the Premises. A larger building would also promote the influx of a variety of service and retail-oriented businesses similar to those that proliferate the Dover Road corridor. This would not only encourage the success of the elderly housing facility to the rear, but enhance the tax base of the town and put the Premises to
its highest and best use – critical goals inherent in the Master Plan.
Granting the Waiver would not substantially compromise the goals, objectives, standards, and requirements of the Commercial Village District because:
WAIVERS 1, 2, 3 AND 4: As noted in the Ordinance, the CV District is an innovative zoning district which encourages a variety of uses, and by its very nature, encourages the Planning Board to provide for innovative development within the district. The Ordinance notes that the purpose of the district is “to provide for a mix of land development opportunities in the vicinity of the Main Street/Horse Corner Road intersection.” See Ordinance, Article II, Section 2.04(F), District CV: Commercial Village, subsection (II).
The granting of WAIVERS 1, 2, 3 and 4 actually accommodate, rather than detract from, this purpose, and enhance the goals, objectives, standards and requirements of the CV Zoning District. For the reasons set forth above, strict adherence to the provisions in the Ordinance means that the elderly housing use would not be built, or if built, would not be nearly as successful in generating the sense of community, as well as building areas for services and property management critical for such complexes. The need to attain a certain number of units for a successful facility drives the size of the building (WAIVER 1) and its height (WAIVER 3). The ideal nature of this location and its ability to house an older persons development militates in favor of the Premises, but requires the acreage waiver (WAIVER 2).
Likewise the proposed retail development, complementary in size to the existing building on the Premises, could not be built – which would actually reduce “land development opportunities” within the district. Were the retail building size (WAIVER 4) out of scale with the development on the Premises and along Dover Road, the waiver on the retail building size would not be appropriate. However, a building size of 10,000 square feet, which will bookend the western end of a property already containing a building of 8900 +/- square feet, speaks to the appropriateness of this waiver as a way to encourage complementary land development opportunities. This is perfectly consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and requirements of the CV Zoning District.
Granting the Waiver would be reasonable and appropriate due to the scale and size of the proposed project because:
WAIVER 1, 2 AND 3. As set forth above, the number of units, the number of residents, the need to house those residents under one roof, and the need for such a building to house age-appropriate services and amenities in order to successfully create an older persons facility dictate the size of the building (WAIVER 1) and the height of the building (WAIVER 3). In fact, to accommodate the 41 units in a 5000 square foot footprint (and thus, obviate the need for WAIVER 1) would necessitate constructing a building much higher than the 45 foot height waiver (WAIVER 3) sought by the applicant, or constructing a series of smaller buildings – which is not as appropriate for such a facility, as noted above. The combination of the building footprint waiver (WAIVER 1) and the height waiver (WAIVER 3) create the best
development outcome for this particular property – encouraging an older persons residential facility that is appropriate in terms of size and scale. Likewise, to achieve a critical number of units (and thus, residents) for such a complex, a waiver (WAIVER 2) which would obviate the need to locate a 20-plus acre parcel in the CV or CI/MF Zoning Districts to accommodate the scale and size of such housing, is also reasonable and appropriate. Put differently, Chichester Commons, LLC, submits that the proposed design of the facility, and thus, its size and scale, is critically important to the success of such a project – and as a result, the dimensional waivers described above, are reasonable and appropriate.
size (WAIVER 4) would not be appropriate. However, a building size of 10,000 square feet, which bookends a property already containing a similarly-sized building, is a way for this Board to encourage the complementary land development opportunities sought for the CV Zoning District, and thus, is reasonable and appropriate.
Granting the Waiver would protect natural features that would otherwise be impacted because:
WAIVERS 1, 2 AND 3. By constructing a building to house older persons which is larger and higher than the Ordinance intends (WAIVERS 1 and 3), rather than develop a series of smaller, lower buildings on the same site, Chichester Commons, LLC, is preserving open space, and thus, the natural features that accompany such open space, on the Premises. Aside from the important objectives that are achieved with the ability to house residents under one roof, as described above, it is apparent that a series of smaller, lower buildings would encourage the applicant to clear more land, develop closer to nearby wetlands, and diminish nearby buffers to accommodate the number of units it needs for a successful community. Likewise, with the location of the building behind the retail development, below the grade of Dover
Road, and well-buffered to the rear, natural features such as views impacted by the building height and size are no more affected than if the building were built at the 35-foot level. Thus, the building size and building height waivers (WAIVER 1 AND 3) encourage the protection of natural features and incentivize the applicant to build on areas already partially disturbed/developed. As to the acreage waiver (WAIVER 2), literal enforcement of the Ordinance would mean that a facility with a population that relies on nearby goods and services featured on Dover Road and Main Street would need to locate to a 20-plus acre parcel on Dover Road or Route 28 to achieve its critical mass of housing units. While a 20-plus acre parcel for a non-age restricted 41-unit multi-family development has great merit, the population that typically occupies housing for older persons developments has little need for larger expanses of open space, especially if housed in one building
offering age-appropriate services and amenities. Thus, in a practical sense, granting the acreage waiver (WAIVER 2) preserves those larger land parcels and their natural features for the highest and best uses that properly suit parcels of that size. Because the waiver provision, above, does not limit itself to protection of natural features on the property to be developed, the observation in the previous sentence is relevant to the Board’s consideration of this waiver. It is also worth noting that areas to the rear of the Premises where the housing would be located are already partially disturbed/developed. Thus, granting the acreage waiver in this instance (WAIVER 2) simply encourages the re-development of a property already disturbed for a use favored by the Master Plan, and does not lead to substantial disturbance of natural features elsewhere on this site or other properties.
WAIVER 4. Granting the building size waiver for the proposed retail development (WAIVER 4) on already-developed portions of the Premises preserves the natural features remaining on the Premises which have not yet been disturbed, and simply allows the applicant to develop a comparably-sized building on the same property as that which already exists. Literal enforcement of the building size provisions in the Ordinance – that is, requiring Chichester Commons, LLC, to reduce its retail building to 5,000 square feet -- would not lead to any preservation of the property’s natural features, given their prior disturbance. It would simply prevent the applicant from putting already-improved portions of the Premises to their highest and best use, given existing conditions.
Finally, it is worth noting that based on the proposed development of the Premises, including the height, location and size of the buildings, the waivers will allow the development to:
* Protect the wetland and watershed with appropriate (and improved) surface mitigation of surface runoff.
* Implement smart planning initiatives including reductions in water use with drought- tolerant landscaping, and onsite storm-water mitigation.
* Save electricity with LED lighting within the building and low impact LED site lighting minimizing night sky glow.
* Be environmentally sensitive during construction by managing and recycling construction waste.
* Preserve the local snowmobile trail which crosses through the Premises and connects to hundreds of miles of recreational snowmobiling.
Dr. Mara asked the members of the Board to review the application and ask any questions that they may have. Mr. Brehm asked why the design of the zone (Commercial Village District) restricted the area to 5,000 sq/ft structures. Dr. Mara discussed that the primary intent of the zone was to encourage smaller service related businesses. Mr. Moore explained that he is currently of the mindset of not granting the waivers primarily on the scope of the project in size as related to the limits authorized by the ordinance. In referring to the Master Plan, the vision discusses limiting the growth of the Town and guiding well planned growth. Mr. Moore furthered that Town services, especially Fire and Ambulatory services are currently not prepared to support the development as currently proposed. Mr. Moore also
believes the proposal is inconsistent with the vision of maintaining rural character within the community and the scope of the project is inconsistent and greatly exaggerates “strict” conformance with the ordinance. Mr. Jameson expressed his concern about the scale of the project and feels the size limits requested too greatly exceed the design of the district. Mr. Houle, referring to the Master Plan, noted that there is great citizen encouragement of this type of development with consideration of life safety services. Mr. Jordan stated that he feels that all towns are given a duty to provide elderly housing and feels similar to other comments about the extreme scope of the project, but as it is designed away from the road and down from the level of the road, the project provides a significant buffer and will fit with the design of the district. Mr. Mayville feels there are many efficiencies provided by the development. While there are
concerns with impact on the traffic pattern of Route 4 in the vicinity of the property, he is assured that DOT will mitigate these issues satisfactorily. Overall, Mr. Mayville stated that he is in favor of the project. Mr. Houle feels the Master Plan supports the project and that the size of the project is consistent with the intent of the Master Plan. Dr. Mara feels that the impact to Route 4 will require diligent review. Further, Dr. Mara is concerned about the design of the septic system. Mr. Halle affirmed that the final design and size of the building will be dictated by the size of the system that can be designed upon the lot. Dr. Mara also expressed concern with the potential for children living in the complex and the impact that it may have on the school system. Dr. Mara expressed that the Planning Board will have to review in detail and encourage attractive landscaping of the lot to develop a pleasing appearance. Dr. Mara
furthered that he feels the Master Plan supports the development along with the location of the proposal. It fits a need of the community. With respect to height, Dr. Mara has spoken to Chief Quimby with regard to the 35 foot limit. This limit is primarily based upon the equipment currently available within the community. Chief Quimby spoke to potential life safety issues of the development. It was explained that a fully sprinklered structure to include the attic area, and with integrated alarm systems, there are not any major life safety concerns. These precautionary designs will be sufficient to provide safe escape from the structure for the residents of the building. A further request is that a Fire Protection engineer be included in the review process. Mr. Jameson asked what impacts are anticipated by the Fire Department. Chief Quimby explained that there will definitely be immediate impacts to the department due to smoke
alarm activations etc. Deputy Chief Cole explained that they have looked at similar projects in Loudon, Epsom and Concord, and they average approximately 40 calls per year. This would be a 10% increase to the current call volume experienced by the department. With respect to the acreage limitations within the zone, Mr. Brehm explained that this was based on an antiquated method of septic design. Mr. Moore feels that hearing the application is beyond the bounds of the Planning Board in that while the Master Plan encourages the development, there has been the effort laid out to prepare and amend the existing ordinance to allow the proposal. Mr. Jameson has certain concerns about the setting of precedence for the concentrated development of possibly undesired uses. Mr. Jordan feels that the requirement of 22 acres for the 41 units is extreme and would be a waste of land. Mr. Jordan also stated that there are limited natural features with the
exception of minimal wetlands. Mr. Mayville furthered that there is not an unlimited supply of sites for this type of development and that the proposal fits the area and need of the community. Dr. Mara concurs that there has to be caution in the setting of precedence, but furthers that this project is specific in nature. Mr. Jameson asked what prevents the future release of the 55+ restriction. Mr. Uchida explained that covenants are put into place that grants the power to release age restriction to the Town. Mr. Halle explained that the structure would be fully sprinklered along with fire and smoke detectors and alarm system. Mr. Brehm added that the limit of 35 feet in height was also an aesthetic consideration for the district. Mr. Brehm in furtherance of life safety concerns asked about escape procedures as designed. Mr. Halle explained that there are three stair cases within the building and two that evacuate directly to the outside of
Rosemary Heard, the president of CATCH Housing presented an overview of the purpose and scope of the organization. Ms. Heard stated that they are very excited about this type of housing and the type of community that is provides for its residents. Ms. Heard feels that the area needs to provide a broad range of housing opportunities. Ms. Heard also discussed the inefficiency of scattered site housing and the advanced energy efficiency that a singular multi-level building provides. With respect to children, with these types of housing projects, most children are limited to grandchildren in nature and are typically visitors, but their residency is not restricted. Although there are only 5 units proposed consisting of two-bedrooms. Mr. Moore referred to the requirements imposed upon the ZBA in making its
decisions, and feels that the proposal does not follow the spirit and integrity of the ordinance. Mr. Brehm disagreed with Mr. Moore in the interpretation of the word “strict” in relation to the ordinance and that there is no degree of strictness with respect to the limits imposed by the ordinance. Mr. Jameson concurs that the spirit and intent of the zone is met, but there needs to be consideration to a measured degree of strictness in conformity.
Richard Millette feels the proposal of the 10,000 sq/ft retail building is reasonable but the housing project is premature and undesirable. He feels the need for excess acreage is for the passive recreational enjoyment of the residents. Mr. Millette feels that the granting of the waivers would impose precedence.
Betty Thompson asked about the impact to the welfare services of the Town. Mr. Halle explained that he is proposing “market rent” housing attracting a certain type of resident. Ms. Thompson also expressed that the proposal is premature and should require approval by the Town in the form of a new or amended ordinance.
The Pitman’s expressed their support for the project.
JoAnn Luikmil asked about the design of lighting of the lot. Dr. Mara explained that the Town’s lighting ordinances are very strict and will be reviewed in the Site Review process.
Mr. Uchida argued that the CV ordinance is the answer to providing the master plan………
A motion was made by Mr. Brehm and seconded by Mr. Jameson to move forward with voting for each individual waiver individually. Motion passes.
A motion was made and seconded to grant a waiver from Section 2.04F; VI-12 of the zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a building with a footprint up to 13,550 square/feet.
Roll Call Vote: Brehm YES, Moore NO, Jameson NO, Mara YES, Jordan YES, Mayville YES, Houle YES
A motion was made and seconded to grant a waiver from Section 2.04F; VIII-11(b) of the zoning ordinance to permit the development of a multi-family structure with up to 41 units on 2.369 acres, conditioned that the housing shall be restricted to at least one occupant of 55 or more years of age and further that the septic system design be completed by a certified engineer and approved by NHDES.
Roll Call Vote: Brehm YES, Moore NO, Jameson YES, Mara YES, Jordan YES, Mayville YES, Houle YES
A motion was made and seconded to grant a waiver from Section 2.04F; VIII-11(h) of the zoning ordinance to permit the development of a building with a maximum height up to 45 feet, conditioned that the structure be designed and constructed with a fully integrated sprinkler system to include the unoccupied attic space and that the building design be reviewed by an independent Fire Protection Engineer at the direction of the Planning Board with all associated costs to be borne by the applicant.
Roll Call Vote: Brehm YES, Moore NO, Jameson YES, Mara YES, Jordan YES, Mayville YES, Houle YES
A motion was made and seconded to grant a waiver from Section 2.04F; VI-12 of the zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a building with a footprint up to 10,000 square/feet.
Roll Call Vote: Brehm YES, Moore YES, Jameson YES, Mara YES, Jordan YES, Mayville YES, Houle YES
Whereas the proposal involves a potential lot-line adjustment, the above waivers are granted on the basis of the project as a whole, encompassing Map 4 Lots 161 & 161A, and are not specific to any individual parcel.
Home Occupation Renewal: Law Offices of J Brandon Giuda, Map 10 Lot 9, located at 81 Pleasant St.
The Board reviewed the application for permit renewal. Finding no change to the original approval, a motion was made by Dr. Mara and seconded by Mr. Brehm to grant the renewal without further review. Motion passes.
Zoning amendment follow-up: Mr. Brehm discusses that after 2 years in a row with the failing of the signage amendment, that the Board should send a letter to the Selectmen urging strict enforcement of the existing signage ordinance. Mr. Houle expressed his dismay that there was not great support from the Board in campaigning for the amendment. Mr. Jordan asked how strict enforcement of the existing ordinance would change the public’s image. Mr. Brehm expressed that current signage looks like too much of a free-for-all for the businesses, and there is no confidence in the town’s people regarding the enforcement of the codes in place. Dr. Mara and Mr. Pike shall draft a letter for submittal to the Selectmen.
Being no further business, a motion was made by Mr. Mayville and seconded by Mr. Houle to adjourn the meeting at 9:39pm. Motion passes.
Jamie A Pike
Kevin J Mara, DVM