The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday January 11, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, David Cappello, and Marianne Clark and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner and Christian Gackstatter. Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Gackstatter sat for the meeting; Mr. Cappello did not sit. Absent was Edward Whalen. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Primeau motioned to approve the minutes of December 14, 2010, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Mesdames Primeau, Clark and Griffin and Messrs. Starr, and Thompson. Ms. Keith abstained but noted that she has read the minutes and is familiar with the content. Mr. Gackstatter was not sitting when the vote was taken.
OUTSTANDING APPLICATION
App. #4519 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Midwood Management Corp, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct new retail building and expand parking lot with modifications to traffic circulation, Nod Brook Mall, 287 and 315 West Main Street, Parcels 4540287 and 4540315, in a CR Zone.
Discussion continued from December 14.
Present to represent this application were Kevin Cornell, Midwood Management Corporation and David Carson, OCC Design.
Mr. Cornell noted that a formal recommendation from the State Traffic Commission (STC) will be ready on Friday, January 14. He explained that the STC has indicated that they have concerns with the first internal intersection. He noted that the concerns of the STC, as well as those of the Commission, resolve around the traffic exiting Fresh Market and merging with incoming traffic from Route 44. Mr. Cornell noted that he believes that the STC will ask for the merge to be closed and force the incoming traffic for Fresh Market towards the existing shopping center and then be filtered back up. He explained that this anticipated request from the STC was reviewed with Fresh Market who has reluctantly agreed to the change. Mr. Cornell added that he did not want to formally submit a revised plan
until final comments are received from the STC.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels that this change has the potential to create more interaction with pedestrian traffic. Mr. Cornell noted his agreement with Mr. Starr and added that that point was argued strongly with the STC. He indicated that he asked the STC if the internal traffic pattern was something that they should be concerned with as long as the traffic reached the State road, Route 44. He explained that the STC indicated that they are concerned with internal traffic patterns and will be looking at everything. He added that the STC’s proposed change makes it easier for cars but at the expense of pedestrian ease.
Mr. Carson displayed a map of the site and noted that a sidewalk has been extended out to Route 44 to where the crosswalk button is located. He noted that brick paver crosswalks are proposed which should help to slow down traffic and alert motorists that they are entering a pedestrian area. He explained that he believes these changes are what the STC is looking for but noted that no formal recommendation has been received from the STC.
Ms. Keith asked whether the islands separating the cars will have landscaping or sidewalks so pedestrians can step away from cars. Mr. Carson explained that the islands are proposed to have plantings. Ms. Keith asked that it be considered for two of the islands to have sidewalks rather than landscaping. Mr. Carson noted that there are other sidewalk areas proposed. He noted that typically, shoppers head for the front door and as a result, the likelihood is that most patrons would walk up the sidewalk and cross over rather than cross directly which requires a 90º turn. Mr. Carson noted that the best that can be done is to slow traffic down and added that the applicant feels that the planted island is needed as a landscape feature and also to define a break between plaza parking and the
connection to Fresh Market.
Mr. Carson addressed the right in, right out driveway and noted that it was discussed with the STC. He explained that this entrance/exit does have the look of a normal entrance because the center median is so small; it doesn’t look like a one-way access. He noted that by opening up the area it is felt that maybe the new look, in combination with signage that says “Do Not Enter No Left Turn”, will be more effective at keeping motorists from making illegal left turns. Mr. Carson noted that this proposed change will be discussed with the STC.
Mr. Cornell referenced a letter from LRC Group, dated January 10, 2011, that indicates that the proposed landscape buffer elements to Bailey Road should meet the intent of the buffer requirements. He noted that site lighting has been reviewed with Town Staff and a modified plan will be available for the next meeting. Town Staff has requested that the typical fixtures located along Route 44 be removed and more decorative fixtures (i.e., old gas light style) be installed. Staff also requested that the same fixtures to be used along the proposed building be used along the main parking area to identify the area as the interconnection between the existing shopping area and the new building. Mr. Cornell noted that the applicant agrees with Staff’s recommendations on the lighting.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Carson explained that the only stop sign is for traffic entering Fresh Market from the main shopping area to allow for free flow of incoming traffic from Route 44.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Cornell agreed that he would like to ask that App. #4519 be tabled to the next meeting to allow time to make plan revisions in response to receipt of a formal report from the STC. Mr. Cornell stated that he would consent to an extension of the statutory time limit, if necessary, to provide the Commission an opportunity to conclude their review of this application.
Mr. Kushner explained that the State will not grant final approval until local approval has been granted. He added that he feels that tabling the application is the best approach because there is no sense in approving a plan that is not approvable by the STC. He commented that once the STC issues a final report revisions can be made to the plans and presented to the Commission at the next meeting.
Ms. Keith motioned to table App. #4519 to the next meeting, scheduled for January 25. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Capital Region Education Council (CREC) - to discuss possible public school at 59 Waterville Road
Present were Don Walsh, Deputy Executive Director, and Roger LaFleur, Director of School Construction, CREC; David Friar and Luke McCoy, architects, Friar Associates.
Mr. Walsh explained that CREC has investigated a site located at 59 Waterville Road as a possible school location in the event that the parcel on Climax Road does not work out. Mr. Walsh noted that CREC very much wants to build a permanent Reggio School in Avon.
He commented that CREC continues to propose and greatly prefers to build the school on the site located on Climax Road but acknowledged that there are issues that need to be resolved favorably in order for that to happen. Mr. Walsh explained that CREC needs to develop a contingency plan now because of the timetable associated with the “Sheff” agreement. He asked for the Commission’s guidance with respect to fitting the existing building concept, as developed to date, and fitting it on the site at 59 Waterville Road. Mr. Walsh noted that the details would remain the same for a school located at 59 Waterville Road. The proposal is for a 64K square foot building; parking for 150 students, Pre-K through Grade 5; 450 students with 16 to 20 buses a day; and estimated parent drop off 40
to 60 children a day.
Mr. Walsh extended his appreciation to the Commission for their time.
Mr. Friar displayed a site plan and noted that it is very preliminary, very conceptual in nature. He noted that he has walked the 10-acre site and reiterated that the building program is the same. He noted that the proposal is for a two-story building with the access drive from Avonwood Road. He explained that the land area that would encompass the school is approximately 8.5 acres, which is identical to the site on Climax Road. He noted that the site is relatively flat but the back portion is sloped and heavily wooded. He explained that there is a condominium complex and apartment building nearby as well as a single-family house with a Christmas tree farm behind it. Mr. Friar noted that, preliminarily, he feels the site would work very well but added that no in depth analysis has been
done, as feedback from the Commission is needed beforehand. He noted that both sites are being investigated simultaneously.
Mr. Starr commented that one of the issues that has been expressed relative to the site on Climax Road is that a lot of the traffic would occur on many internal roads located in Avon Park North. He noted that the subject location, being much closer to the highway, has less potential for interfacing with other types of residential traffic and, thus, is a better site from a traffic flow perspective. He commented that a traffic signal at the intersection would have to be investigated with the State Traffic Commission (STC).
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels the subject site is much better and flatter. She noted that there is a secondary driveway so that traffic would not back up on Avonwood Road. She agreed that a traffic light may be necessary but added that she likes this site much better.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comment, Mr. Friar commented that he doesn’t know the exact distance but noted that the apartment complex to the rear of the subject site is quite far away. Mr. Friar added that a natural, heavily-wooded buffer exists between the site and River Mead.
Mr. McCoy reiterated that that site is relatively flat and noted that the different elements of the school could be moved around on the site depending on adjacent uses/properties.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Friar explained that the proposed school would occupy/utilize approximately 8 acres on either site.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Friar explained that the parcel for sale at 59 Waterville Road is 10 acres in size. Ms. Keith noted that she is very against a school on the other site because she doesn’t want the school driving what happens in the Town Center. She commented that she feels the subject site is a much better choice but added that she would like to see more work go into the configuration.
Mrs. Clark noted her agreement with Ms. Keith that the subject site is a better location. She commented that there wouldn’t be a problem with internal traffic like there would be at the Ensign Bickford property on Climax Road.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Friar explained that it is not known at this time whether the new cider mill barn would be used for administrative purposes.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he is open minded to either site but asked how long the parallel planning process can continue before a decision must be made. He noted that the Commission needs time to discuss the available options for the emerging master plan for Avon Park North.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter, Mr. Wilson noted that a decision needs to be made in early spring. He acknowledged that it is rather unconventional to be discussing two sites simultaneously.
Mr. Starr pointed out that a school on the subject site could be presented without having to wait for the resolution of details in connection with the proposed master plan for the village center.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Wilson reiterated that CREC continues to prefer the site on Climax Road; however, of course, the Commission’s feedback on the subject site will impact that preference. Mr. Wilson explained that CREC prefers the Climax Road site because they have a developer who is reputable and interested in having CREC be a part of a larger plan. He further explained that CREC thought the Town would like a school to be a part of the master plan configuration. He acknowledged that the Town has not taken the position that they don’t like the idea but noted that there are issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Wilson explained that CREC is in communication with the owner of the Waterville Road site. He noted that while the owner is very interested
in discussing this proposal there are challenges to negotiate on this site as well. Mr. Wilson noted that the Commission’s feedback will influence CREC’s thought process.
Mrs. Griffin noted that she is very opposed to the site on Climax Road but commented that she feels the subject site makes a lot more sense. She noted it would keep the school buses out of the center of Avon, which is already congested with traffic. She noted that she has no problems with the subject site.
Mr. Thompson noted that he feels the site on Climax Road would be a better location with respect to citing the building, as more potential exists for constructive building ideas. He commented that 59 Waterville Road is a rather bland piece of land but added that because traffic is driving the decision he agreed that Waterville Road is a better location in that regard. Mr. Thompson noted that from a practical standpoint he would rather see the school located on Climax Road.
Mrs. Primeau reiterated that she feels Waterville Road is a much better site.
There being no further input, Mr. Wilson expressed his appreciation to the Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS
Presentation by Vince McDermott (Milone & MacBroom) - Avon Center Master Plan
Village Center Regulations and Low Impact Development (LID) Regulations
Present were Vince McDermott, Senior Vice President, and Mike Looney, AICP,
Milone & MacBroom, Inc. Also present were Gus Jasminski and Andy DiFatta, Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation.
Mr. McDermott noted that he was hired by the Town of Avon to develop a plan and regulations for the Avon Village Center. He noted that the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development identifies the center of Avon, the village area, as a special place. He commented that the Town received a grant from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to investigate low-impact development techniques.
Mr. McDermott commented that Avon is looking at low-impact development techniques in a much broader, global sense (i.e., conserve resources while developing land and retaining a sense of place) than many other towns. He noted that tonight’s discussion will revolve around the regulatory process and copies of the proposed regulations and design guidelines will be submitted to the Commission.
Mr. McDermott explained that the largest stakeholder in Avon Center, aside from Town residents, is Ensign Bickford, who has been working both independently and now collaboratively on what the Village Center could become. He explained that structure and setup will be discussed tonight rather than the details of the proposed regulations. The intent is to capitalize on the favorable items that currently exist, such as architectural design and scale, while recognizing that, over time, the large amount of vacant land can be developed but a starting point needs to be determined.
Mr. McDermott displayed a map showing potential future development in the Avon Village Center and explained that the subject area, generally, encompasses the land from Climax Road to beyond Route 10 into the residential area located east of Route 10 and the area from Route 44 into the rear of Avon Park North. He noted that a mix of uses is proposed, both residential and non-residential, but nothing is set in stone at this point; the displayed map is not a site plan. He explained that the term “village districts” are really subsections of the overall new zone to be created for the Avon Village Center; the concept is still in process. He noted that the Commission will have much discretion over phasing plans, submitted as special exception applications, by applicants. He commented that
there are parcels within the Avon Village Center that Ensign Bickford does not own but individual land owners would be allowed to submit applications under the proposed Special Exception - Mixed Use Development, or “SE-MUD”. Everything that currently exists would be considered conforming once the new regulations are adopted.
Mr. Kushner referenced the Hunter’s Run development and noted that it is a simplified version of the current proposal. Hunter’s Run covers 264 acres and the Commission approved 264 units in 4 phases. An overall master plan was reviewed but did not include the details of an actual site plan; the Commission approved a special exception application for 264 units and then a separate site plan application was submitted for each individual phase. There were various conditions of approval imposed in connection with the initial special exception application.
Mr. McDermott concurred that Hunter’s Run is a good analogy, as the Commission set the framework for a development that was later proposed in phases. There are certain milestones that must be reached in connection with the proposed regulations for Avon Center; these milestones must be accomplished before the plan can move forward. He emphasized that the proposed plan is long term, possibly 15 to 20 years.
Mr. Looney addressed the “draft” of the Avon Village Center Zoning Regulations and noted that the goal is to create a comprehensive village center with a mixture of land uses by implementing design controls/guidelines. He explained that Milone & MacBroom recommends that the Avon Village Center Zone be designated as a Village District under the State Statutes. He noted that all the uses in the new zone would be permitted only by special exception (i.e., retail, offices including medical, personal services, martial arts/dance studios, hotels, banks, public buildings, municipal, civic, and educational uses, multifamily and elderly housing, restaurants, and recreational facilities). He noted that the Commission would have the discretion to add other uses they deem appropriate and consistent
with other uses already listed.
Mr. McDermott pointed out that while single-family housing in the form of common interest ownership is expected to be part of this proposal, single family homes on individual lots are not expected. The density would have to be compatible with a village district and, therefore, proposals for traditional subdivisions would not be permitted.
Mr. Looney reviewed the “process chart” and explained that once the regulations and map amendments are in place, an applicant could submit a Special Exception-Mixed Use Development (SE-MUD) application. He noted that if the applicant wishes to development only one small piece, a plan for the entire area must be submitted so it is visible what the future development may look like. The next step involves design detail and the Village Design District (VDD) Plans. He noted that the VDD’s are the individual “pods” within the SE-MUD application area.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. McDermott explained that some of the property on the map is not located in the SE-MUD district, as some of the land is Town-owned. If the Town wished to develop its property within the contents of the proposed district, an application would be required.
Mr. Kushner commented that Town Staff discussed their recommendations as to where they feel the new district should be established. He explained that his suggestion is to start on a smaller scale and maybe expand in the future. The planning study, initially, encompassed more geographic area, including Town-owned land (Sperry Park and former Towpath School), but the suggestion is to start off slow and define the area more narrowly, initially, and could be added to as time goes on. He noted that the map displayed by Mr. McDermott is part of the earlier study where a broader area was included.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether it would be better to continue little by little or get the boundary established now so that there doesn’t have to be a discussion about it numerous times. Mr. McDermott explained that the focus has been narrowed, in part, because Ensign Bickford is ready now and wants to move forward. He explained that the Town may want to do something else with its land, in a different form than the current proposal. Mr. Gackstatter asked about the areas across the street. Mr. McDermott noted that the area located across the street has been included on the display to show a tie to the village center but, at this time, is not included in the SE-MUD but could be added in the future.
Mr. Kushner commented that from the property owner’s perspective there and costs and benefits associated with either being included, or not included, in the proposed boundary zone. The benefits include a possibility of mixed uses and relaxation of some of the traditional zoning standards. The level of sophistication required for development and planning in this new zone comes at a cost and may not be well suited for small individual parcels.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concern that while the current needs of the major landowner may be optimized it could prove detrimental to the future needs of other landowners. He commented that the Town needs to ensure that the design guidelines will result in a village center that everyone wants.
Mr. Starr commented that the necessary components of a village center would be part of a larger discussion as the proposed regulations progress.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that the most critical part is the overall master plan that will be submitted by the applicant and require a special exception approval by the Commission. This overall plan will need to be quite comprehensive in order for the Commission to make an informed decision. For example, there may be 6 or 7 individual sections, or Village Design Districts (VDD) included in the master plan and the Commission may allow some flexibility as to how and in what order these areas get developed while, at the same time, certain requirements with time limits may be imposed (i.e., road construction, bridges, open space).
Mr. McDermott reviewed the “Avon Village Center Zone Process Chart” and explained that the Commission will have architectural control via the adoption of design guidelines. Once a SE-MUD is established, some refinement and control will already be in place such that when a Village Design District (VDD) is proposed a range already exists (i.e., a residential housing project within a certain range ± for square footage and units). He further explained that some flexibility in the overall master plan concept allows the landowners to work with changing market conditions that typically occur over a 15 to 20-year time frame. The VDD’s would always be measured against the approved SE-MUD. He commented that proposals for VDD’s will require significant discussion with the
Commission as well as support from traffic studies, environmental studies, and fiscal impacts (i.e., property values, services demanded, and/or benefits received).
Mr. Looney addressed infrastructure improvements and explained that language has been added with regard to development phasing to ensure that, for example, if there was a proposal for a residential development that the applicant could only build 25% of the units before a specific percentage of the infrastructure was required to be completed. He noted that a stepping stone process would be in place as part of the SE-MUD such that the needs of one use would not dominate the entire area.
Mr. McDermott explained that an ownership and management plan of the infrastructure requirements would need to be in place; all the details would need to be worked out between the property owners. He reiterated that these issues would also be part of the Commission’s discussion as things move forward. He commented that other important elements to discuss include use descriptions, square footages, number of units, etc.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. McDermott explained that the proposed regulations for Avon Center would be added to the Zoning Regulations all at one time; applications for SE-MUDs come in one section at a time.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that a property could be included in the village center zone and not be part of a SE-MUD. He added that the Commission would take steps to rezone Avon Park North to the new proposed downtown zoning district (currently the area is zoned Industrial Park) which would result in new guidelines/rules for this area. The property owners with land located in the new district have the ability to apply for a special exception, as there are no longer uses permitted by right. Property owners are also no longer permitted to develop individual parcels of land.
Mr. McDermott provided clarification by noting that the Avon Village Center District is contained within the white outline shown on the aerial map; however, he noted that the area studied for the proposed regulation changes involves a much larger area. He added that an application for the first special exception, Mixed-Use Development application is for the entire property.
Mr. Kushner suggested that the Avon Village Center District be viewed as an overlay zone to the existing zone.
Mr. McDermott addressed the Process Chart and explained that the “green” caption (New Avon Village Center Zoning Regulations Adopted) is to establish the boundary and the enabling regulations. The “blue” caption (Submission of Special Exception - Mixed-Use Development (SE-MUD) Application) is the applicant’s first application to the Commission. He further explained that if the boundary is made larger to include more tracts of land, the owners of those tracts would be subject to the same special exception mixed-use development rules. He noted that the Commission needs to decide which land areas they want to be mixed uses and which uses they want to stand alone within the Village District governed by a different set of regulations.
Mr. Kushner explained that what is generally thought of as “Avon Village” includes a much larger geographic area than the boundaries discussed for the proposed special regulations. He noted that the Town would like to try to mimic some of the existing town center areas (such as Old Avon Village) in Avon Park North but explained that it isn’t possible under the current regulations, as the buildings are close to the street and things like lot coverage and parking could not conform. He added that he doesn’t think it would make sense to increase the boundaries too much at this time but noted that the rules are being setup such that the boundary could be expanded; the concept is essentially no different than the way the Town has operated for the last 50 years. He commented that the
process is more conceptual in the early stages and allows issues to be discussed up front and ironed out early on (i.e., timing of infrastructure, open space, construction timelines, overall ratio of residential to retail). There will be zone changes and special exception approvals required in the later stages, which gives the Commission more discretion.
Mr. McDermott noted that it could be an added bonus to a prospective land purchaser to know, up front, that certain uses are already approved if certain guidelines are met. Mr. McDermott added that he and Mr. Looney would be happy to come back to review the proposed regulations and guidelines. He commented that the proposed regulation changes are a refinement of the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development. Once a public hearing is held to adopt a boundary and new regulations, applications could be submitted to the Commission.
Mr. Jasminski noted that Ensign Bickford plans to present and review their master plan at one of the Commission’s upcoming meetings. He noted that specific uses would be addressed along with a discussion on how the process would evolve.
Avon Booster Club - request for additional detached sign at Avon High School
Present were Colleen Donohue and Peter Conrad, Avon residents.
Ms. Donohue explained that the Avon Booster Club have set aside funds to erect a sign in front of Avon High School. The purpose of the sign is to advertise current events (i.e., athletics, clubs, and town-wide activities). She noted that the intent is to get rid of the temporary sandwich board signs and banners to make the area more aesthetically pleasing and promote greater community spirit. She submitted to the Commission pictures of signs, as examples, from Cheshire and Farmington high schools. She noted that the Director of Public Works has indicated that the existing detached sign could not be moved to the Senior Circle, as it would be cost prohibitive and the sign would most likely break. She added the proposed location for the additional sign is adjacent to the football fence; she
noted that both sides of the front of the school are lined with trees. She commented that the proposed sign would be setback from the road as far as the existing sign; the sign would be one sided
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Ms. Donohue noted that 72 inches (6 feet) is the reader board part of the sign; there would be dressing above that height if permitted.
Mr. Kushner noted that the maximum height for all signs permitted under the current Regulations for all business is 5 feet (60 inches). He noted that height would have to be discussed.
Ms. Donohue noted that she has been told that the sign could not be internally illuminated and added that if that is the case, flood lights would be proposed. She noted that internal illumination would be easier. She stated that the letters are proposed to be 4 inches high and added that research has shown that 4 inches is sufficient for vehicles traveling below 30 mph.
Mr. Starr explained that the Commission has to investigate how the Regulations could be modified to take into account similar facilities with this request (i.e., schools, non-profit businesses, churches). He noted that the concept of having an information board is good, as it should eliminate the rest of the sign clutter.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she doesn’t want people reading the sign boards and not paying attention to the road. Ms. Donohue noted that there is a stop sign near the proposed area. Mrs. Griffin asked if the proposed sign could be installed on the building located at the football field. Ms. Donohue noted that no one would see the sign.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Ms. Donohue commented that the sign for Farmington High School is located on Route 4 right on the road.
Mr. Kushner commented that, currently, the only type of sign that is permitted to have changing letters is gas station price signs but added that the Regulations could be modified. He explained that the Regulations would also have to be modified to allow 2 detached signs on one parcel and noted that he could discuss this issue with the Town Attorney, if the Commission wishes. He noted that the Town has never exempted itself from its own Regulations but noted that he could ask the Town Attorney if it would be possible to exempt the schools. The impact on adjoining land uses must be considered.
Ms. Keith commented that it is already difficult to read all the existing signs on West Avon Road for the high school, the middle school, the senior center and the churches.
Mr. Cappello commented that he doesn’t think people would mind if the existing sign at the high school were moved to the circle where the flag is. He added that he feels the proposed sign would look nice in the middle island.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether the proposed sign needs to be on the road and whether it is intended for individuals not intending to enter the school. Ms. Donohue commented if the sign were placed inside the site it would defeat the purpose, which is to inform the community about school and Town events.
Mr. Starr suggested that the Staff work on some concepts to review with the Commission. He noted that some controls are needed to prevent a displeasing sign atmosphere in Avon. Mr. Starr noted that, conceptually, he likes the idea.
Mrs. Donohue asked about the time frame for forthcoming information, as the funds have been set aside for the sign.
Mr. Kushner asked how much it would cost to demolish the existing concrete sign.
Ms. Donohue noted that she did not get an estimate because she didn’t know if people are attached to the sign.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
| 
