MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin McCann, Louise Evans, Patrick Kennedy, Suzanne Choate, Marshall Montana and Sue Larsen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gary Bazzano
Roger Cottle sitting for Tim Wentzell
Bart Pacekonis
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 p.m.
Appl 03-59P, Chapel Woods Resubdivision, request for a resubdivision and special exception to 4.6.1 of the zoning regulations to create one conventional lot and one interior lot on 4.1 acres, for property located on the southerly side of Chapel Road, easterly of Long Hill Road, RR zone
Robert Mannarino requested a special exception for an interior lot and resubdivision located on the southerly side of Chapel Road abutting the 291 Corridor. Lot A is a standard lot and meets the zoning requirements except for a variance from Zoning Board of Appeals on July 10, 2003, to change the 90x90 buildable area to a 80x125 buildable area. Lot B is the interior lot and meets the zoning requirements. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the driveway plan and has approved the 18’ drive. Public water and utilities are available to the site.
Commissioner Larsen arrived at 7:45 p.m.
Lipe reviewed the Planning Report:
1. Request for approval of a Special Exception to create one interior lot and one conventional lot for property located at 727 Chapel Road, RR zone. This property is on the south side of Chapel Road, easterly of Long Hill and abuts the I-291 Corridor.
2. The conventional lot is 1.48 acres. The applicant received a ZBA approval on July 10 to allow the buildable square on Lot #1 to be 80’ X 125’. It appears to meet all other zoning requirements.
3. The requirements for the interior lot in the RR zone include 80,000 sf minimum lot size and 262.5 feet minimum lot width. This lot is 2.7 ac. with a frontage line parallel to the street of 364 feet.
4. The criteria for approval of interior lots include:
a. the subject area’s boundary configurations, topography, soils or other natural resource characteristics;
b. proximity to neighboring properties and dwelling units;
c. restriction of existing views;
d. proposed buffering/screening;
e. potential drainage, traffic & environmental impacts
f. driveway locations, slopes & sight lines
g. utility service capabilities
h. property value impacts; and
i. future land use alternatives.
5. Access to both the frontage lot and interior lot is shown from an 18’ wide driveway off of Chapel Road. Both driveways will include a turn-around.
6. Both lots will be serviced by public water and public sewers. This application is subject to WPCA approval.
7. There are regulated wetlands on both new lots, and the applicant is pending with the IWA/CC. At their meeting on 9/17/03, concern was expressed for the proximity of the new house to the existing wetlands as well as the width of the driveway. The application was tabled so the applicant could review house location and footprint size options. We have received a copy of memo from Fire Marshal Bill Lanning dated 9/19/03 in which he has indicated that the 18’ driveway width is required to allow fire apparatus to pass other vehicles that may already be in the driveway.
8. We note that driveway bisects the front lot due to the location of wetlands on both sides. The Commission may want to consider whether the current/future owners of the front lot are well-served by having a second lot using a driveway that has to cross through the middle of the front lot because of the large amount of wetlands on the site. There is no 100-year floodplain.
9. The property is currently wooded and the applicant has shown the limits of clearing on the plans.
10. The Planning Dept. requests that the public hearing be held open to report on the IWA/CC action.
Doolittle reviewed the Engineering Report:
Foundation Drains with sump pumps if necessary need to be shown for both houses.
Inside drops for sewer lateral connections into manholes are not usually allowed. Revise the plan to show an outside drop, chimney connection into the existing pipe, or constant slope into the manhole for lot B.
An application must be made to the WPCA for the Sanitary Sewer lateral for the proposed house on Lot 2 and this must be approved and any charges paid before this is installed.
It is noted that the driveway is very close (about 21 feet) to the proposed house on lot A.
Chairman McCann indicated the application would remain open to receive the Inland/Wetland Agency/Conservation Commission report.
There was no public participation on this application.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Choate commented that the driveway down the middle of the rear lot seems odd and inquired if the lots could be reconfigured.
Commissioner Evans inquired if all the lots on this subdivision are developed in Chapel Woods. Mannarino responded he could not comment. There could be additional lots down Chapel Road that have nothing to do with this subdivision.
Commissioner Montana commented any existing trees should be left between the two houses as a natural buffer. Mannarino indicated they plan to leave existing trees.
Chairman McCann questioned the variance for the 90x90 buildable area and inquired if there is buffering behind Lot B from the I291 Corridor? Mannarino responded the variance was needed to pull the driveway out of the wetland area, and there is a row of evergreens as well as a fence abutting the I291 Corridor.
Commissioner Evans inquired if a conservation easement over the wetlands would be placed on Lot A. Mannarino responded on Lot A, a split rail fence is being proposed with signage indicating the wetlands. Mannarino explained when a potential homeowner purchases a piece of property with wetlands, they sign off on the plot plan indicating they are aware of wetlands on the property.
Motion to continue the Public Hearing on Appl 03-59P, Chapel Woods until October 28, 2003 was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 03-63P, Metro Realty Group, Ltd, and the Public Housing Authority of South Windsor, request for zoning amendment to Elderly Housing Section 4.1.11.2c, to increase the maximum number of units in any development from 102 to 200 units; and to increase the maximum number of units in all developments from 200 to 350 units.
Attorney Edwin Lassman represented the applicants, Metro Realty Group and the South Windsor Housing Authority. The proposal is an amendment Section 4.1.11.2.c to increase the maximum number of elderly housing units allowed in town under this specific zoning regulation. Currently there are 244 units including the town owned units. This amendment would increase the total number to 200 in any development and increase the total number allowed under section 4.1.11 to 350 units. Lassman indicated there is still a need for this type of housing within the town.
The applicant would be showing to the Commission a proposed site plan and general intent in the event the amendment to Section 4.1.11.2.c is approved by the Commission:
A site plan amendment would follow to increase the Berry Patch from 102 units to 196 units.
A stage two application for site plan approval would be proposed under Section 8-30G of the General Status. A portion of the proposed expansion would fall within the Buckland Gateway Development Zone and Section 8-30G would allow the Planning & Zoning Commission authority to grant an approval for development within the Buckland Gateway Development Zone enacting a zone change.
Chris Nassau, Marketing and Leasing with Metro Realty Group, Inc., thanked the Commission for visiting the Watson Farm development. She presented statistics to the Commission regarding the need for elderly housing and where the tenants in the 72 units at Watson Farms came from:
32 tenants from South Windsor,
22 tenants from Manchester,
7 tenants from Vernon,
6 tenants from East Hartford, and
5 tenants from other towns.
She also noted that the average age at Watson Farms is 75 years old. Nineteen of the residents came from the South Windsor Housing Authority list.
Berry Patch is now advertising, and contacted the Watson Farm database first. There were 700 contacts. There has been an enormous response to the advertising and there is a very small duplication is responses. With the aging population there is a need for this type of housing. Nassau feels the Berry Patch will have no problem leasing maximum capacity.
Geoff Sager, Principal, Metro Realty Group, Inc., addressed the Commission regarding the application coming in under 8-30G statute. He indicated the applicant would not use any of the appeal processes under that Statute and would put that in writing; the intention is simply to allow the Commission to avoid having to enact a zone change to approve this application.
The Village at Buckland Court neighboring to the west would like to create an environment that would allow the Berry Patch to use the amenities at the Village at Buckland Court. If a Berry Patch resident should have the need for an assisted living facility, they would have an established relationship. Berry Patch is located in close proximity to many essential services. Sager discussed the tax revenue advantages this development would bring to the town.
DeMallie gave an overview of the previous approval of Berry Patch and continued with the proposed Berry Patch II development as follows:
There are two parcels of property proposed for the expansion, Calvary Church property and the Katten property,
Expand the Berry Patch with an additional 94 units to a total of 196 units (Berry Patch II),
The total acreage increase from the original approval of 14 acres to a total acreage of 34 acres,
The exits and entrances for the entire site will continue to be on Oakland Road and Felt Road,
You will not see the entire site from Oakland Road and there will be no sight line from Buckland Road,
Proposing pedestrian sidewalks within the development and connecting to the Village of Buckland Court,
There will be natural vegetation on the site that will remain undisturbed,
There are many amenities in close proximity to the site,
The density on the site would be 5.76 units per acre with the additional units,
The tax revenue would be increased to the town, and
The developer maintains the site—trash removal, snow removal, property maintenance
George Daniels, South Windsor Housing Authority, described the relationship between South Windsor Housing Authority and the Metro Realty Group regarding the Watson Farm development. The feedback from Watson Farm development has been very positive. There is a demand and many residents have left South Windsor due to the lack of senior housing.
Several residents from Watson Farm spoke in favor of the zoning amendment, indicating that Watson Farm is a very community-oriented development and they have all been very happy living there. The residents encouraged the Commission to vote favorably to allow an increase of this senior housing in town.
Lipe reviewed the Planning Report:
Request for amendment to Section 4.1.11.2.c, Elderly Housing, to increase the maximum number of units allowed in a development to 200 units; and to increase the cap on all units to 350 total units. The current regulations have an individual development maximum of 102 units, with a cap on all units townwide at 200 units.
There are a total of 246 senior housing units currently existing under this zoning category. Wapping Mews and Flax Hill, the two South Windsor Housing Authority developments, have a total of 70 units; the newly-opened Watson Farm has 74 units; and the under-construction Berry Patch has 102 units. The amendment request to cap the total number of units at 350 acknowledges the 70 Town-owned units, whereas the previous cap of 200 units did not. Thus, adoption of this amendment would allow for 104 new units to be constructed, not 150 as appears at first look.
The Town Plan of Conservation and Development includes senior housing and range of housing alternatives in Section II, Ongoing Considerations (subsection IIA, Housing):
Continue to pursue policies that accommodate a range of housing alternatives without sacrificing Town character.
Be mindful of the need to maintain a cross-section of housing types and costs when investigating alternative approaches to residential development.
Address needs for moderately priced single family homes and housing for the Town’s senior citizens, which may include non-profit, Town sponsored or co-ventures between the public and private sector.
If this amendment is approved, the Commission will need to make a finding of consistency with the Town Plan on the record.
The legislative act of considering zoning amendments includes an obligation to consider the infrastructure impacts of the amendments for the Town. As noted previously, if this amendment is passed, it could result in the addition of 104 senior units. There are no impacts to the most costly budget item, the school system. Addition of senior housing impacts the provision of Town senior services such as transportation and utilization of the Senior Center.
Traffic impacts for this type of senior development are small, as this development category has been providing housing for the older seniors, as compared to the SRD’s that seem to be attracting many of the younger seniors.
The Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed this amendment and has responded with the following comments: The CRCOG report was read into the record.
There have been no other staff concerns expressed.
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer, had no Engineering comments.
Cliff Slicer, Neiderwerfer Road, stated that in speaking with the senior residents of South Windsor, there is a real need for senior housing that would allow a resident to remain living in South Windsor within a development with a real community environment. Slicer encouraged the Commission to give the amendment great consideration.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Bazzano inquired if new units proposed would be seen from Oakland Road and the traffic pattern being proposed throughout the site? DeMallie responded the additional units would not be seen, they are quite a distance from Oakland Road and the site is heavily wooded. The traffic throughout the site will be a two-way traffic pattern entering and exiting on Oakland Road and Felt Road. There are restrictions on Oakland Road with right turn in, right turn out.
Commissioner Bazzano expressed concerns regarding the traffic and the number of cars a development of this size would create. Chris Nassau responded that 60-70% of the residents in Watson Farm drive, and to date there have been no problems.
Commissioner Larsen raised a concern that by increasing the size of a development you may lose the community environment. Commissioner Larsen asked for a spokesperson from Watson Farms to give a description of living at Watson Farms.
It was described that the each building group has nine units and it is similar to a neighborhood. The community room is a place to gather, residents have walking groups, and being a community of the same age group allows for more interaction between the residents.
Commissioner Larsen inquired how many are on the South Windsor Housing Authority list?. Daniels responded 40. A vacancy usually becomes available when a person dies or no longer can live on their own. Daniels stated he tells those on the waiting list to apply to other developments. Daniels did state he feels increasing the senior housing will allow more resident to stay in town.
Commission Montana complimented the developer for the Watson Farm development but expressed her concerns about increasing the size of a development to 196 units. There is a need for this type of housing, but she would not like to see developments of this size all over town.
Commissioner Evans inquired if the community hall would be increased if the units increased in the development. Peter Dunn, Metro Realty Group, Inc., indicated the community hall would increase in size.
Commissioner Choate asked for an explanation of the 8-30G State statute? Lassman responded 8-30G is a State statute that specifically allows the court to overrule a zoning commission on an application for affordable housing.
Commissioner Pacekonis inquired if a second application for the proposed additional units would be submitted as Berry Patch II? Sager responded there are two separate owners and it could possibly be submitted as a separate application.
Commissioner Cottle inquired if there would be any additional expansion of this development in the future. Sager responded no.
Chairman McCann complimented the Watson Farm development and noted that had the opportunity to visit the site and speak with residents. They are enthusiastic about their community and, after visiting Watson Farm, he has no concerns about expanding the size. There is a real sense of community and concern for each other within the Watson Farm development.
Chairman McCann stated he was under the impression that the residents of Watson Farm would come from the South Windsor Housing Authority waiting list first, and only 19 of the 72 units are from that list. Nassau indicated after closing the application submittals she sent a letter to all of those on the South Windsor Housing Authority list and only nineteen responded. Of those contacted, some had a change of circumstances, a death, or needed subsidized housing needing to pay only 30% of their income. The South Windsor Housing Authority waiting list would be given priority.
Chairman McCann inquired if the Fire Marshall had been contacted regarding emergency access to the additional units. DeMallie stated that they have not at his point met with the Fire Marshall.
The following are some concerns of the residents of Watson Farm at should be kept in mind when developing Berry Patch:
A number of residents suggested additional handicapped parking
Mechanical sheds attached to each building and noises for units next to those units
Water accumulation in front of a unit directly near a curb cut
Those items that are covered by maintenance agreements and those items that are not
Commission Montana commented on the connection between the proposed development and the Village at Buckland Court indicating there needs to be a safe connection between the two developments.
The public hearing closed.
Appl 03-66P, Poulin Interior Lot, request for a resubdivision and special exception to 4.6.1 of the zoning regulations to create one interior lot on 5+ acres, for property located at 432 Strong Road, RR zone
Galen Semprebon, Professional Engineer with Design Professionals, Inc., presented to the Commission a proposal for a resubdivision and special exception for an interior lot on Strong Road. In 1992 there were a number of variances approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the development of an interior lot. Lot 2 variances included lot area, lot width, and maximum number of lots accessed from a single drive. Lot 3 variances included lot area, lot width.
The Inland Wetland Commission approval was obtained for the property in 1995. The configuration on the property has not changed since the 1992 approvals. The applicant is proposing a resubdivision to allow the rear lot based on the variances granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The interior lot criteria for the approval of the rear lot meets the requirement.
No frontage on the rear lot
Residential neighborhood
Create separation with a natural buffer
Vegetation to the rear and side of the property exists and will remain
The site drains toward the rear, thus creating no drainage impacts
The driveway width has been increased to 18 feet for emergency access to the rear lot
There are no environmental impacts
Public utilities will service the lot
John Kelly, attorney for the applicant, indicated that a formal easement agreement has been prepared for the Tomel Drive right of way and the maintenance of the driveway between the owners of lot 2 and lot 3.
Lipe reviewed the Planning Report:
Request for approval of a Special Exception for an interior lot and subdivision for property located at 432 Strong Road, RR zone. There is an existing house located on rear land and the proposal is to subdivide an additional lot.
The requirements for the interior lot in the RR zone include 80,000 sf minimum lot size and 262.5 feet minimum lot width.
The applicant received ZBA variances in September of 1992 to allow the proposed interior lot to be 71,134 square feet in size and approximately 187 feet in width. In addition ZBA granted a variance to the zoning requirement that no more than two houses can be accessed by a single drive.
Access to the interior lot is through an existing private roadway, Tomel Road, which is off of Strong Road. There are currently three houses that are serviced through that drive. The driveway servicing the new interior lot will include a turn-around driveway.
We have asked the applicant to provide written documentation of the access rights.
The interior lot will be serviced by public sewer and septic system. The septic system has been reviewed by the Town sanitarian, and he does not anticipate any issues with a septic system on this lot.
There are regulated wetlands in the rear of the new lot, however, there is no activity near the wetlands (with the exception of the footing drain) and the applicant is not proposing to disturb more than 20,000 sf. There is no 100-year floodplain.
The criteria for approval of interior lots include:
the subject area’s boundary configurations, topography, soils or other natural resource characteristics;
proximity to neighboring properties and dwelling units;
restriction of existing views;
proposed buffering/screening;
potential drainage, traffic & environmental impacts
driveway locations, slopes & sight lines
utility service capabilities
property value impacts; and
future land use alternatives.
6. There is no screening proposed between the existing houses and the proposed interior lot. The new house recently constructed has planted a row of evergreen pines along the property boundary closest to the proposed house. The Commission may want to consider the addition of plantings on the east side to screen the new house from the existing lot.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. has the following modifications to request:
access rights for Lot 2 should be more clearly documented and subject to the review of the Town attorney
variances must be filed in the Town Clerk’s office
Doolittle reviewed the Engineering Report:
The majority of the engineering comments have been addressed but the outstanding issues to be addressed by the applicant is clarify the access easements and any necessary utility easement and they must be shown on the plans.
There was no public participation on this application.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
The site may predate the current zoning regulations
There are special exception requirements that need to be met, not the bulk requirements
Questions were raised regarding access to the site
Proposed buffer between the lots
The prior ZBA approvals were discussed
The public hearing closed.
Appl 03-67P, Podunk Farm Parking Lot, request for site plan reapproval for a parking lot with 75 spaces to service the Mill on the River on property located at 989 Ellington Road, A-20 zone
Galen Semprebon described the application as the construction of a parking lot across the street from Mill on the River restaurant, with 75 spaces from a previously-approved application that has expired. The applicant is seeking a reapproval of the parking lot. There is no change from the previous application. The applicant has gone before the DOT and is in the process of securing the proper approvals. The intent of the parking lot is for the employees and for overflow parking during the busy season. A pedestrian crossing signal will be installed for pedestrian safety.
Lipe reviewed the Planning Report:
Request for site plan approval for a 75 space parking lot located directly across from the Mill on the River Restaurant, on the westerly side of Ellington Road, A-20, FP zone.
Parking on the residentially-zoned premise at 970 Ellington Road had been previously approved through a temporary and conditional permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was specifically to allow employee parking for the Mill on the River restaurant across Route 30. ZBA originally granted a one-year T & C for employee parking for 35 employees in November 1989, and renewed the T & C in 1990, 1992 and 1994 for two-year periods. PZC approved it for a two year period suggesting to the applicant that they try to find a permanent solution.
The parking regulations states: the Commission may approve off-site parking for a permitted (lawful) non-residential use provided that:
adequate vegetative or other screening will be achieved;
available sight line meets CDOT minimum standards;
such additional off-site parking requirements of the existing non-residential use will be used exclusively for this use;
no area presently available on the site of the existing non-residential building to provide additional on-site parking;
the residential character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
the primary site should be able to be accessed without any pedestrian crossing of any public street. This provision may be waived only if the applicant demonstrates to the Commission that there is no other practical and feasible solution, and that the proposed roadway crossing does not create an unsafe condition.
The applicant has provided a site plan showing 75 parking spaces and has provided a landscape plan for screening the parking area. They have also designed a lighting plan which was reviewed by the ADRC after the original approval.
There are regulated wetlands on the site. The applicant is pending with IWA/CC.
This application was originally approved in 1998, however it was never built and the approval has since expired. At the time of the original approval there were several conditions placed on the approval. The PZC had required the following requirements must be adhered to:
a. The new lot will continue to be used solely for employee parking to the maximum extent possible.
On evenings where patrons are expected to exhaust all available parking in main lots, valet and/or supervised parking will be permitted in the new lot.
As indicated by the applicant, the services of a public safety officer will be retained on those evenings when patrons are anticipated to park in the new lot.
Staff continues to be concerned about pedestrians crossing Route 30, particularly at night. It should be noted that in the past there were vehicles parking along the grass at the Mill, as well as along Ellington Road and Beldon Road. There have been occasions over the last few years where parking has been occurring across the street without any personnel ensuring the safety of pedestrian crossing.
Pedestrian actuated flashers are shown to be installed as required with the previous approval
The South Windsor Police Services have reviewed the new proposal and submitted a memorandum that was read into the record.
If this application is approved, the planning department has no further modifications to request.
Doolittle reviewed the Engineering Report:
1. Show a detail for the sidewalk ramps with a slope no more than 1:12.
2. Label the bituminous curbing on the plan.
3. What are the two plants labeled “MS” in the north end of the island in the proposed parking lot?
4. The driveway construction needs to be clarified by the applicant.
There was no public participation on this application.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Bazzano asked if there are any comments on the safety concerns. Semprebon met with the DOT District One chief and discussed the issue of the in-pavement lighting. He commented that the pavement lights would be subject to damage by the snowplows. Relocating the crosswalk is difficult because of the guide rails that extend to the entrance. There is an approval in place that would require the applicant to put up advanced pedestrian warning flashing signs at the crosswalk with push button operation by the pedestrian.
Commissioner Evans inquired if a sidewalk could be located in front of the guide rails on Ellington Road.
Semprebon responded based on the grading there is not enough space to incorporate a sidewalk.
Commission Pacekonis asked how many employees would be using the lot and if there is a description of the lighting fixtures. Arturo Guerra, Mill on the River owner, responded seventeen employees would park in the lot. The lot will also be used during the weekends for weddings and during the holidays. The lighting fixtures were approved in 1998 and were resubmitted with the approval. Lipe indicated the lighting regulations were in not place at the time of approval and the Commissioner might want to reevaluate the height of the poles.
Chairman McCann’s concerns were as follows:
The sight lines where the pedestrians will be crossing are not great, the crosswalk needs all safety measures in place
There should be adequate lighting on both side of the road at the crosswalks
Valet parking only for the lot could be a solution for pedestrians safety in the crosswalk
Guerra responded valet parking would not be needed all the time. It would be difficult to determine when the lot would need a valet. A police officer would be at the crosswalk when there is an event or during the busy season. It was stated all safety precautions have been integrated into the crosswalk.
Chairman McCann stated he feels a traffic engineer should have been present to the address the safety concerns of a crosswalk on a state road. DeMallie addressed the Commission indicating it was an error on their part to not invite Traffic Engineer Jim Burbaris to address the safety concerns of the Commission.
Lipe stated the hearing would remain open pending an Inland/Wetland decision. DeMallie submitted a report from Jim Bubaris from the previous approval.
Guerra commented the additional parking needs to be in place before the busy season.
McCann asked if the additional parking could be employee only. Guerra responded he would post a sign for employee parking only.
Commissioner Evans inquired if the report submitted from Jim Bubaris is current or from a previous approval and indicated PZC should have that report (from February 10, 1998).
Commissioner Kennedy asked for clarification about the parking.
Chairman McCann asked if the lot could be limited to employee parking and valet parking for patrons on busy evenings. Guerra responded yes.
Motion to continue the public hearing until 10/28/03 was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and The vote was unanimous.
PZC-sponsored amendments: (1) Buckland Road Gateway Development zone, proposed amendments to sections 5.8.6.a, Bulk Requirements; 5.8.6.c, Site Appearance Requirements; 5.8.6.c.6, Buffers; 5.8.6.d, Site Improvements; to add standards for properties with a Gateway Zone designation but no frontage directly on Buckland Road. (2) Restricted Commercial zone, proposed amendment to section 5.1.2.4, to eliminate as permitted uses stand-alone fast food restaurants and restaurants with any type of drive-through window.
Chairman McCann inquired if there was anyone in the audience that was waiting to speak regarding the PZC sponsored amendments.
Peter DeMallie commented the Commission may want to notify area property owners, especially on Oakland Road.
Motion to continue the public hearing until 10/28/03 was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Chairman McCann stated Commission Pacekonis was appointed to sit for Commissioner Wentzell.
ITEM: ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Choate.
The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
_____________________________
Kelli Holmes
Recording Secretary
| 
