ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 28, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice-Chairman; Robert Loeffler, Roderic Cole and Daniel Lloyd, Alternate. Peter Bealo and Paul Boniface, Alternate, were excused.
, D. Lloyd was appointed as voting members for this meeting.
Minutes of April 30, 2009 and Non-Public Minutes of April 30, 2009
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Loeffler, to approve the minutes of the April 30, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-1 (R. Cole abstaining).
L. Ordway moved, second by J. Matthews, to approve the minutes of the April 30, 2009, non-public meeting. There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 (R. Cole not voting as he did not attend the non-public meeting).
#09-07: A request from John W. Doherty for a special exception under Article X, all sections, to permit a home occupation, namely and office for a construction company. The property is located at 97 Main Street, Tax Map 39, Lot 77, in the CII District. The owner of record is 16 Ford St, LLC (Michael G. Sullivan), Mark E. Sullivan, Manager.
It was noted for the record that the owner’s written permission had been received with the application.
John Doherty, 97 Main Street, was present for the application. He explained that he has owned a construction company since 1980 and moved from Derry to Plaistow within the last year and would like and office in his home for his construction company.
L. Ordway asked if Mr. Doherty rented or owned the property.
J. Doherty replied that he rented.
The Board reviewed the requirements for the granting of a special exception to permit a home occupation, noting the following:
- The use would be secondary to the residential use of the home
- The application qualifies under §220-66C – Contractors
- There are no noxious uses by way of noise, odor, dust, fumes or electrical fluctuations, no equipment would be stored outside on the property
- There would be some limited storage in either the basement or the garage of some staging, small tools such as pump jacks, but nothing would be visible
- Written permission from the owner was submitted with the application
- Residential use of the property was established before the business use
- The office would use 4% of the living space
- The residential character of the dwelling would not be changed
- There would be no outside storage, only the limited storage earlier talked about in the basement or garage
J. Doherty noted that some of his equipment was currently located outside, but he was using it to do some landscaping work on the property itself and it would be removed as soon as the work was complete.
- There was no current application for a sign at this time, though the applicant states he may decide to have one in the future and will comply with the sign ordinance
- Mr. Doherty was currently the only employee of the business
- There would be no outside merchandize display
- There was sufficient off-street parking as all work is done offsite. Mr. Doherty noted that he does have a trailer but it is stored in Haverhill, MA
- There are no covenants in the deed to prevent a home occupation
- The property is not a condo
L. Ordway reminded that all home occupations are subject to random inspections by the Code Enforcement Officer and must be renewed every three (3) years.
L. Ordway asked what kind of construction Mr. Doherty does.
J. Doherty responded that he does residential additional and renovations and that most of his current work is in Reading, M.
L. Ordway questioned if Mr. Doherty had any heavy equipment, such as cranes.
J. Doherty replied that he did not.
R. Loeffler asked the name of the company.
J. Doherty answered that it was J. W. Doherty Construction.
R. Loeffler reminded that any signage would require an additional fee.
J. Doherty offered that he was doing okay without advertising at this time but was considering a sign in the future and would get the proper permit.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition of the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
L. Ordway, noting that the rest of the applications were inter-related and could take some time, suggested that the Board make an immediate determination on this matter.
DELIBERATION:
R. Cole moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for a special exception for a home occupation, an office for a construction company, at 97 Main Street.
L. Ordway summarized the evidence submitted in support of the application. He noted that except for the equipment currently being used to landscape the property, all equipment would be out of site, all other requirements were met.
J. Matthews noted it to be a classic application.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and the request was granted.
#09-08: A request from Rite Aid for an appeal of the administrative decision of the chief building official regarding a decision made on a sign permit application(s) by Sign-A-Rama on behalf of Rite Aid and under Article IX, §220-59. The sign(s) was/were to be located at 31 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 49, in the CI District. The owned of record is Soraghan Realty Trust, John Soraghan, Trustee.
Attorney John Rattigan, Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, PLLC and Alex Dittani, Sign-A-Rama, were present for the application.
It was noted that written permission from the property owner was received with the application.
L. Ordway asked if there were some applications that would go away based upon other applications being either granted or denied.
J. Rattigan replied that there may be a couple.
L. Ordway suggested that in the interest of clarity that each matter be heard and then deliberating before continuing on to the next one. The Board agreed.
J. Rattigan noted that the Building Inspector had approved signs for the pharmacy, one-hour photo and drive-thru for the front of the building in a letter dated July 21, 2008, and that his client relied upon that decision and moved forward. He continued that in March of 2009, without any kind of outside appeal, and after considerable passage of time, the Building Inspector overturned his own decision, determining them to not be directional in nature, but noting available services. Mr. Rattigan offered that it was their contention that these signs did direct the public to available services on the property and the Building Inspector improperly reversed this decision.
L. Ordway asked Mr. Rattigan why he thought the Building Inspector changed his mind.
J. Rattigan replied that there was not a lot of explanation in the letter from the Building Inspector other than they he did not see them as directional. He added that he thought these signs could be construed as directional because of the nature of the information these signs convey.
L. Ordway offered that it was a fine line and if the signs were suggested to be located in the parking lot, and not attached to the building, he might see where they would be directional.
J. Rattigan noted that long time between the two letters, without any appeal of the Inspector’s initial decision. He offered that he has always advised his clients that they can rely on any decision after the passage of thirty (30) days, and now there had been considerable financial resources committed to these signs that his client thought had been approved.
A. Dittani explained that Rite Aid contracts with a sign manufacturing company for all their signage. He noted that once a sign permit is approved that company is contacted and the approved sign is taken out of inventory and committed to a particular store. Mr. Dittani continued that in the past economy that sign would have been immediately remanufactured and replaced in the manufacturer’s inventory, but in the current economy, inventories were not being replaced as quickly, if at all, until a new sign was needed. He added that the signs that he had been told were approved had been long committed to the Plaistow Store and taken out of the manufacturer’s inventory.
J. Rattigan added that this represented a more than $10,000.00 loss to his client.
A. Dittani added that the signs could not be used at another store.
R. Cole noted that the second letter from the Building Inspector noted a revised application.
J. Rattigan called attention to the last paragraph of the March 2009, letter where the Inspector apologized for any confusion.
L. Ordway suggested that the revised application showed more definitively the location of the signs, triggering the subsequent denial of the permits.
There was a discussion of the location of the signs.
A. Dittani offered that it was signs on the exterior of the property that changed, not those attached to the building. He noted that it was his experience that these types of signs where very important as it had been shown that many people didn’t have a lot of common sense and these “labels” were important. He related some stories about experiences at other locations where they had put signage.
L. Ordway noted that no one was questioning the need for directional signage, but the question was whether or not these particular signs were directional.
A. Dittani suggested that, based upon his experience with other sign jobs, these types of signs were very important.
L. Ordway asked if there was any room for a compromise by placing these signs inside the windows on the front of the building.
A. Dittani replied that putting the signage up higher on the building façade was a better location.
J. Rattigan distributed photos of signage from the Rite Aid store in Exeter NH.
L. Ordway likened this application to a similar one that had been filed by Home Depot when they were opening their Plaistow store. He reminded that they had been looking for a number of additional signs, such as “tool rental,” which the Board found to be advertising and available service, not directional.
R. Loeffler offered that those signs were not part of that stores original application but had come after.
J. Rattigan reiterated that his client relied on an approval for eight (8) months and had spent considerable monies, which was not going to be absorbed by Rite Aid, but by the local sign company.
D. Voss noted that this was a good example of why the Department of Building Safety Office was reluctant to review and approve sign permits so far in advance of the building permit being issued. She added that to the best of her knowledge this property had not even yet been officially purchased by Rite Aid.
D. Lloyd asked if all Rite Aid signs were standard in nature and whether or not these signs could be used at another store.
A. Dittani offered that he has had to go back and repair a number of these signs that were not properly placed and caused confusion on parking areas. He noted that many people who use Rite Aid stores are either elderly or taking medication and can benefit from these types of signs. He noted that they were probably not specifically entitled to these signs under the ordinance, adding they he felt that these signs, which were now just gathering dust, made good sense.
R. Loeffler asked if the drive-thru was solely to pick up medications or could other items be purchased.
A. Dittani replied that he believed it was for pharmacy only.
L. Ordway summarized that this application was based upon the Building Inspectors decision to initially approve certain sign applications and then reverse that decision eight (8) months later in a second decision letter.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition of the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATION:
R. Loeffler moved, second by D. Lloyd, to grant the request for an appeal of the Administrative Decision of the Building Inspector, which reversed approval of certain sign permits for Rite Aid.
L. Ordway offered that it boiled down to supporting the Building Inspector or supporting Rite Aid.
R. Cole likened it to a student going to a teacher and questioning whether or not problem #4 was correctly graded and the teacher then regarding the entire test.
J. Matthews reminded that there was testimony that the revised plans did not affect the signs in question and said shame on the office for allowing someone to push them to approve applications.
L. Ordway agreed, noting the lack of a building permit meant that the decision did not have to be made.
D. Lloyd offered that he did not see these signs as directional.
J. Matthews noted that she could see “pharmacy” and “drive-thru” as directional.
D. Lloyd reminded that location of the “drive-thru” sign was over the front door, not over the drive-thru itself.
J. Matthews offered that the length of time to reverse the decision was too long.
R. Loeffler reminded that the Inspector’s letter noted that the sign was initially thought to be behind glass.
J. Matthews noted that, looking at the drawings, she would have assumed the sing to be behind glass as well.
R. Loeffler added that the issue of the sign being behind glass was in the first letter and no one from Rite Aid immediately corrected that opinion.
R. Cole agreed that the time lapse between letters was a concern.
L. Ordway offered there could be many reasons for time lapses in a project.
R. Loeffler reiterated his concern that the opinion that some of these signs were behind glass was not immediately challenged.
L. Ordway suggested that the Building Inspector found compelling enough reasons to reverse his own decision, even months later, which he offered took “balls” to do and that he would support that decision.
There was no further discussion. The motion was recalled and clarified that a yes vote would favor Rite Aids application and a no vote would support the Building Inspector.
The vote was 2-3-0 (Ordway, Cole and Lloyd dissenting) and the motion was defeated and the appeal denied.
#09-09: A request from Rite Aid for a variance from Article IX, §220-59 to permit a back lit “Pharmacy” sign, which would exceed the limit of 2 signs on a building. The property is located at 31 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 49, in the CI District. The owned of record is Soraghan Realty Trust, John Soraghan, Trustee.
Attorney John Rattigan, Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, PLLC and Alex Dittani, Sign-A-Rama, were present for the application.
It was noted that written permission from the property owner was received with the application.
J. Rattigan offered that the most difficult criterion to meet in any variance application is the hardship. He offered that in this instance the hardship is in this being a corner lot and the ability of client to get adequate signage from both directions. He added that good signage was important to any business, particularly to identify the location of a business and its services to people from out of town who may not know what Rite Aid has to offer. Mr. Rattigan further added that he respected the Board’s decision in the appeal of the building inspector’s decision, but that he felt that granting this variance would provide good direction and information to the general public.
L. Ordway asked why Rite Aid would not just include the word “pharmacy” on its “Rite Aid” sign, providing the information on the allowable signage.
J. Rattigan replied that his client has a recognizable brand name in their “Rite Aid” signage, which does not include the word “pharmacy” and they would not be making this argument before the Board were it not for the fact that they had frontage on Westville Road as well as Route 125.
L. Ordway questioned if there would be Rite Aid signage on both Route 125 and Westville Roads.
J. Rattigan offered that Westville Road would have signage. He added that it can’t always be assumed that out of state travelers will know what the local brand names are and what they offer.
R. Loeffler likened this application to a local business (Spindell Eye) where the applicant wanted signage on three (3) sides of their building because they were on a corner lot.
L. Ordway offered this was slightly different in that Spindell Eye wanted three (3) signs that were the same where Rite Aid is looking for three (3) signs, but they won’t all say the same thing.
R. Loeffler suggested that it came down to what was considered advertising and what was considered information.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition of the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATION:
D. Lloyd moved, second by L. Ordway, to grant the request for variance from Article IX, §220-59 and to allow a third sign to read “pharmacy” exceeding the two (2) allowable signs at 31 Garden Road.
L. Ordway summarized the information presented noting the that applicant contends that the hardship is in the fact that this is a corner lot parcel on two heavily traveled roads and the “pharmacy “ sign would tell people exactly the nature of the business offered at this store.
R. Loeffler offered that would be true for people not from the area who didn’t know the brand name; in that instance the sign would be information.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance with the following findings:
- There would be no decrease in the surrounding property values with the addition of a single sign as this was a commercial district
- The question as to whether or not there is benefit to the public interest is in balancing the businesses need for advertising with the Town’s desire to not have more than two (2) attached business signs
- The applicant notes the hardship to be in the corner lot
R. Loeffler suggested that there could be confusion with drivers who might drive by the site before noticing the signage and with the median there weren’t many places to turn around.
- There is an alternative available to the business by placing signage inside the windows of the store
- There would be justice in allowing the public a means to located the pharmacy and allowing the business additional means to advertise
- The spirit and intent of the ordinance was to prevent a “Las Vegas” environment on Route 125, but this sign would not be out of line with other signs on that road
J. Matthews questioned if this were Papa Gino’s (9 Plaistow Road) would this Board allow a “Papa Gino’s” sign on either side of the building and then “Pizza” in the middle simply because it was in the corner of the property.
D. Lloyd pointed out that Rite Aid was not the national chain the Papa Gino’s is.
J. Matthews expressed concern over the precedent that this would mean for future applications.
D. Lloyd asked how many other corner lots where there.
Examples of signage such as Staples and Bed, Bath and Beyond were cited.
J. Matthews offered that it made perfect sense that they would want the additional signage, but the Board needed to consider the precedent.
R. Cole asked if anyone knew what the business “Crystals” offered. No one did, and Mr. Cole explained that it was a regional hamburger business. He offered that some businesses are just “regional delights.”
L. Ordway offered that the Board needed to consider the health, safety and welfare of the community and suggested there was a difference between a “pizza” sign versus a “pharmacy” sign.
J. Matthews offered that the community is the local community and know well what a Rite Aid store is and what it offers.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 2-3-0 (Ordway, Matthews and Cole dissenting). The motion was defeated and the variance denied.
#09-10: A request from Rite Aid for a variance from Article IX, §220-59 to permit a “Photo Center, GNC Live Well, Drive Thru” sign, which would exceed the limit of 2 signs on a building. The property is located at 31 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 49, in the CI District. The owned of record is Soraghan Realty Trust, John Soraghan, Trustee.
Attorney John Rattigan, Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, PLLC and Alex Dittani, Sign-A-Rama, were present for the application.
It was noted that written permission from the property owner was received with the application.
J. Rattigan offered that much of the discussion would be the same in defense of the need for these signs, adding that the signs would give people good information about where to find specific services on the site.
L. Ordway questioned whether or not “GNC, Live Well” was a brand name or not. It was confirmed that it was.
R. Loeffler suggested that this went back to the same as the Home Depot application, noting most Rite Aid stores have a photo-center and most Home Depots have a tool rental center, and these requested signs are more advertising.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not these were three separate signs or one sign. The applicant contended that the verbiage would all be on a single blue band (as shown in color photos) and should be considered as one sign. Members of the Board noted that any one (1) of the three (3) suggested words on the sign could be changed independently of the others and would normally be considered as three (3) separate signs.
J. Rattigan offered that if there was a problem with a particular element of the sign, such as “GNC, Live Well” they could work with that.
D. Lloyd noted that the picture of the Exeter sign read “Live Well,” no “GNC.” He added that he had been lead to believe in the earlier discussion that all the signage had to be uniform.
J. Rattigan explained that he hadn’t intended to imply that there was no flexibility at all, but that his client had relied on the earlier decision of the Building Inspector to order the signs.
Reviewing the photos of other Rite Aid signage there was a discussion of the size of the sign and whether or not they were directional in nature. The size of the subject sign was between 31 and 32 square feet.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition of the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATION:
L. Ordway moved, second by R. Cole, to grant the request for variance from Article IX, §220-59 and to allow a third sign to read “Photo Center, GNC Live Well, Drive Thru” exceeding the two (2) allowable signs at 31 Garden Road.
The Board reviewed the requirements for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- There would be no decrease in surrounding property values as this was a commercial district
- Another large sign on the face of the building (seen as some board members to be more than one (1) additional sign) could be seen as contrary to the public’s interests in limiting the number of signs, which is to be weighed against the business’s need for advertising
- Limiting the number of signs, while perhaps creating a hardship for the corporate image, is not seen as a hardship in the actual land where the building is to be located and there is an alterative to put additional signage in the building
- There no significant gain to the business that is outweighed by a loss to the public
- The additional signage is contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance which it to restrict the number of signs preventing a “Las Vegas” type atmosphere in the downtown area.
R. Loeffler suggested that the blue stripe on the building could be retained as a recognizable symbol of Rite Aid just without the wording.
J. Matthews offered that even without these signs people will figure out the available services.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 0-5-0. The motion was defeated and the variance denied.
#09-11: A request from Rite Aid for a variance from Article IX, §220-59.B(3) to permit a second freestanding sign, where only a single freestanding sign is permitted. The property is located at 31 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 49, in the CI District. The owned of record is Soraghan Realty Trust, John Soraghan, Trustee.
Attorney John Rattigan, Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, PLLC and Alex Dittani, Sign-A-Rama, were present for the application.
It was noted that written permission from the property owner was received with the application.
R. Loeffler questioned the proposed location of the second free standing sign.
J. Rattigan offered that it would be located near the entrance on Westville Road so that people on that road would be able to easily find that entrance and/or know what was being offered on special in the store. He added that he felt it made good sense from a planning perspective, since both Westville Road and Route 125 were so heavily traveled.
There was additional discussion of the location of the second sign as shown on the drawing submitted with the application.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition of the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATION:
R. Loeffler moved, second by L. Ordway, to grant the request for variance from Article IX, §220-59.B(3) and to allow a second freestanding sign for a single business to be located at 31 Garden Road.
L. Ordway offered that this was a property on a corner lot with access from both Route 125 and Westville Road and it made good traffic safety sense to have signs at both the entrances.
J. Matthews agreed that there could be confusion created without the signage at both entrances.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-1-0 (Lloyd dissenting). The motion passed and the variance was granted.
#09-12: A request from Rite Aid for a variance from Article IX, §220-61F to permit a freestanding digital sign, where digital signs are not permitted. The property is located at 31 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 49, in the CI District. The owned of record is Soraghan Realty Trust, John Soraghan, Trustee.
Attorney John Rattigan, Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, PLLC and Alex Dittani, Sign-A-Rama, were present for the application.
It was noted that written permission from the property owner was received with the application.
J. Rattigan acknowledged that this application was a difficult sell and that the Board had denied applications in the past for not wanting a “Las Vegas” type appearance. He noted that the current LED technology was such as the appearance was much “crisper” and didn’t produce the same blinking effect of past signs. Mr. Rattigan added that the digital sign would offer the motoring public information that would allow them to make turning decisions earlier.
A. Dittani added that the current genre of digital signs could be programmed not to flash or to be completely stationary, which he suggested could be a condition of an approval.
L. Ordway explained that was not the concern that caused the prohibition.
A. Dittani offered that the color of the sign message could also be restricted. He suggested that these digital signs offered better safety for store employees as they do not have to be out in rain and snow and near the heavy traffic, where letters could be blown into the street, to make manual changes in the signage. He added that the ability to restrict how the technology is used should overcome objections.
L. Ordway offered that the problem with putting in a condition restricting the digital displays is that there is no way to effective police the signage afterward to enforce the condition, particularly when there is a change in management of the store and they may not know of any conditions.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition of the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATION:
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for variance from Article IX, §220-61F and to allow a digital sign to be located at 31 Garden Road.
L. Ordway offered that they made a very good case for the benefits of a digital sign.
R. Loeffler agreed, adding that the Town may have to eventually move forward and consider these signs but that was not that case now.
L. Ordway suggested that this application could also potentially be a violation of §220-61A.(2) which prohibited flashing and animated signs, which would mean there would be two strikes against such a sign. He added that until the residents of the Town voted to approve these signs any variances would be against the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He added that the public’s interest is in not having digital signage.
R. Cole added that one of the reasons for zoning is to preserve the character of the town.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-5-0 and the motion was defeated and the variance denied.
#09-13: A request from Rite Aid for a variance from Article IX, §220-61F to permit a 98.76 sq. ft. digital sign where a 50 sq. ft. sign with a 20 sq. ft. dedicated to a manual reader board is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 31 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 49, in the CI District. The owned of record is Soraghan Realty Trust, John Soraghan, Trustee.
Attorney John Rattigan, Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, PLLC and Alex Dittani, Sign-A-Rama, were present for the application.
It was noted that written permission from the property owner was received with the application.
J, Rattigan requested to withdraw this application, noting that based upon the decision on the previous matter, the application is moot.
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Cole, to approve the request to withdraw application #09-13. There was no discussion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
#09-14: A request from Rite Aid for a variance from Article IX, §220-B(3) to permit a 50 sq. ft. sign with 18 sq. ft. dedicated to reader board, leaving 32 sq. ft. to a Rite Aid sign, which would exceed the maximum allowable of 30 sq. ft. The property is located at 31 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 49, in the CI District. The owned of record is Soraghan Realty Trust, John Soraghan, Trustee.
Attorney John Rattigan, Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, PLLC and Alex Dittani, Sign-A-Rama, were present for the application.
It was noted that written permission from the property owner was received with the application.
J. Rattigan explained that they were not seeking to enlarge the sq. footage of the free standing sign, but to change the proportions of the sign versus the manual reader board. He offered that the reason for was in the size of laminates used to make the signs. Mr. Rattigan noted that the standard size if 4’ X 8’ for 32 square feet, which would leave the balance of 18 square feet for the manual reader board. He added that this request was for both the freestanding signs (a second free standing sing being granted earlier in the meeting).
L. Ordway moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request that this application be considered for both free standing signs. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and the request was granted.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition of the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATION:
R. Cole moved, second by R. Loeffler, to permit a 50 sq. ft. sign with 18 sq. ft. dedicated to reader board, leaving 32 sq. ft. to a Rite Aid sign, which would exceed the maximum allowable of 30 sq. ft. to be located at 31 Garden Road.
L. Ordway offered that granting this variance would make the manufacturing process easier, have less waste and would not impact the over all size of the sign.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and the request was granted.
There was no further business before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
