MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Timothy Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Bart Pacekonis, Patrick Kennedy, Sue Larsen, Clifford Slicer, and Gary Bazzano
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Michael Sullivan
Louise Evans
STAFF PRESENT: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Joe Perna, Project Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Larsen read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on August 4 and 11, 2005.
1. Appl 05-42P, Birch Mountain Earthworks, request for special exception to 6.1.3.2 and site plan of development for the construction of a 5,000 sf building for the operation of a landscaping business on property located at 11, 23, and 55 Kimberly Drive, I zone
Galen Semprebon, engineer with Design Professionals, Inc. and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ Project incorporates 3 lots which will be combined into one lot containing approximately 6.06 acres.
§ The landscaping company builds retaining walls, stone walkways, and typical landscape type work.
§ Approval has been obtained from IWA/CC.
§ A 6,000 sf building is proposed that will contain offices (600 sf), maintenance area (4200 sf), and a showroom for products that potential clients can view and purchase (1200 sf).
§ The showroom will be utilized as a display area for the services of Birch Mountain Earthworks, not a garden center type of use, (commercial sales will not be held, e.g. bulk loading of stone or landscaping materials).
§ A paved parking area will be provided in front of the building with the remainder of the lot will be left as gravel.
§ Area on lot #2 will be used for storage of equipment and fenced with a gate for security.
§ Area on lot #3 will be used for storage of materials that are used for the business (no storage of fertilizers will be done); a basic layout for bins has been shown on the plans.
§ Water quality basins are being proposed that will collect runoff from the gravel areas and paved areas – piped into the storm system.
§ The site discharges to the wetlands on the property.
§ A free standing sign will be placed in the front of the property and one sign on the building.
§ Two lights on the building are proposed for the site, one in front and one in the rear of the building.
§ The business has 4 full time employees and 6 seasonal employees.
§ Traffic studies were accomplished using ITE; studies resulted in 70 vehicles trips per day – use of the site will not generate a significant amount of traffic.
§ Two driveways are being proposed for the site; the one for main material storage yard will be gated and vegetation to provide visual buffering; the immediate frontage will have to be trimmed slightly to afford a qualified sight line.
Lipe provided the following Planning Report to the Commission.
Request for special exception and site plan approval for approval of a 6,000 sf facility located on the southerly side of Kimberly Drive, westerly side of John Fitch Boulevard, I zone. The proposal includes a 1,800 sf area for a showroom and office area and a 4,200 sf shop area. They have indicated a note that there is the possible expansion to include 1,800 sf additional warehouse area on the second floor.
The zoning data block has identified criteria for two separate lots; however the applicant has indicated that the lots will all be combined. Lot size is 6+; minimum lot size allowed is 20,000 sf. Frontage is in excess of 870 feet; minimum allowed is 100 feet. Front yard setback is 46.5 feet with a 10’ overhang, 35 feet allowed.
Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65% allowed. The applicant will need to calculate that based on the combined lot proposal and add it to the plans.
Proposed building height has been given as something less than 40 feet; 40 feet allowed.
Two driveways are proposed along Kimberly Drive to access the site. Parking requirements based on uses (retail, office and warehouse) is 15 spaces; 15 spaces have been provided.
The special exception proposed is to section 6.1.3.2 which is for “yards for storage of and sales of lumber, building materials, and construction equipment.”
The Special Exception criteria include:
· The goals and objectives of the Plan of Development are met;
· Adverse traffic impacts are not created;
· Negative impacts on property values are not created;
· The land is physically suited for the proposed use;
· Adverse environmental impacts are not created;
· There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs;
· Present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage system, and other improvements have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use
· Historic factors are adequately protected; and
· The overall physical appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goals for the neighborhood/corridor.
The Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on July 7th with the following comments:
· Gate detail must be provided
· Shrubs must be added along the kicker wall facing out to Kimberly Drive
· Storage and display areas must be clarified on the plans
The applicant is proposing a display area in the front of the building for which they have provided a separate colored plan. They have also included two display spaces, between the building and the road, for vehicle surplus equipment for sale and/or rental equipment. There is a note on the plans that this area should be accessed from the interior of the site (can not be brought out into the street and over the curb as presented to the ADRC).
There are two storage areas shown on the site. The first area, shown on what is lot 2, is for the storage of trucks and equipment used in commercial business and short term storage of pallets containing landscape products.
The storage yard shown on lot 3 is for bulk storage of mulch, landscape stone, and landscape materials such as patio blocks and retaining wall units. The landscape plan shows a possible layout for storage on site.
Along Kimberly Drive, a small berm is proposed and it will be planted with white pines, 15’ feet on center, to screen the parking areas.
Lighting proposed includes wall paks on the building with cutoff fixtures, fc.
They are proposing a 24 sf free standing sign and a building sign, approximately 60 sf on the side of the building facing out to John Fitch Boulevard. Designs of the signs have been submitted.
There are regulated wetlands on the property. The applicant received approval from the IWA/CC on July 6, 2005 recommending a bond in the amount of $5,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures and a bond in the amount of $5,000 to ensure installation and establishment of the water quality structures. Other conditions include: The biofilter areas must incorporate a clay liner to maintain hydrology; a berm must be constructed along the south side of the interior roadway to maintain the integrity of the slope; and a pre-settling area must be constructed prior to the western biofilter to trap surface sediments.
There are public water and sewer available to the site. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
There is a dumpster shown on the southwesterly side of the building on a concrete pad. The detail show that it will be screened by landscaping, however that is not reflected on the landscape plan. Is that the intent or will this area be fenced?
If this application is approved, the planning department has no additional modifications to request.
Joe Perna, Town Engineer, noted that all engineering comments have been addressed.
Wentzell requested input from the public.
Gary Carman, spoke in favor of this application.
William Krawski, Jr., 178 Foster Street, spoke in favor of this application.
No one spoke in opposition to this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of outdoor storage of materials, i.e. mulch. Dark colored mulch from the bark of trees is used only.
· Cutting of vegetation noted on plans to provided needed site lines. Yes and the cutting will take place on the property and along the frontage.
· Clarification of 2 spaces for display of rental equipment. It is intended to create a showplace area for the products, i.e. walkways etc; at times there is surplus equipment that needs to be sold off and this would be placed there also.
· It is not desired to have a garden center where people come in and purchase, i.e. cash and carry – people to come in, purchase their materials and installation of their plan and materials are carted to the respective properties.
· It is contrary to the uses permitted in the Industrial zone to have a rental component. People can come and order – an example – 3 pallets of a material and the material is delivered to their homes and people can rent a bobcat and the bobcat is delivered to this home; it is a critical part of the business to have the bobcat displayed.
· It is not desired to have rental display or purchase of material from the site by the public.
· Assurance is to be had that a rental component is not the predominant part of the business. The rental portion is just an accessory to the business, i.e. more utilization of the equipment by renting it as well as being used by the business
· Clarification of ADRC recommendations: ADRC added some landscaping along the kicker wall, a gate detail was provided and the layout of storage on lot #3 was provided.
· Clarification of size of building. Applicant did notify abutters regarding the 6,000 sf building and adequate notice was provided for interested parties; it is also noted on the plans with an additional 1,800 sf. possible in the future.
· Clarification of storage of rental equipment. The equipment for rent will be put inside for the night.
· Clarification of fence location. The only fencing would be the gated portions, vegetation will be along the border of the remaining property; there will be no fencing along the street.
· Clarification of percentage of business that is rental. Currently it is zero percent, goal is to incorporate diversification into the business to utilize surplus within the business that is on hand for larger projects; it is projected as probably 10% of the overall business would be rental.
· Advertising rentals. Yellow pages, and relying on display; there will be rental signs on the machines to be rented.
· Clarification of additional rental machines. They will be stored in the rear area.
· Total of machines on property. Currently there are 8 trucks, 12 machines, and 2 trailers; there are4 machines that could be rented. In addition, there are 6 bobcats which range in weight from approximately 6,000 lbs. up to 10,000 lbs.; also a 36,000 lb caterpillar excavator.
· Willingness of the applicant to accept a restriction that 2 machines (less than 10,000 lbs) only to be displayed is desired. This is accepted by the applicant.
· Use is not compatible with the uses along the Route 5 corridor. Display is what is desired by the business along the Route 5 corridor.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8.15 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Appl 05-38P, The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, request for site plan approval for the construction of 3,158 sf dentist office on property located at 498 Buckland Road, GD zone
Barry D. Guliano, Town Attorney submitted copies of his memorandum dated August 16, 2005 regarding variances granted by ZBA with conditions for property at 498 Buckland Road (Exhibit A) This had been requested at a previous meeting regarding the validity of the variances granted for this property. His comments are as follows:
§ ZBA is authorized to impose conditions when a variance is granted.
§ Conditions were imposed with the 4 variances granted for this property.
§ Opinion, after the first three variances were granted, is that the existing structure was not to be knocked down but to be used with renovation plus an addition to be placed in the rear.
§ The three variances dealt with the addition and not with the existing building.
§ Review of the last meeting resulted in the opinion that the footprint must be the same as displayed on the plan to allow the same floor area and cubic content (could this apply only if the building was destroyed by fire or act of God) then rebuilt under the stated restrictions.
§ It is not clear as to what was determined by ZBA. It should be noted the law makes it clear that ZBA can interpret its own variances and conditions.
§ The option for PZC is to have ZBA be the interpreter as to what they intended.
§ Opinion is that the condition would allow a rebuilding of the existing structure but only with the limitations that are placed, e.g. same footprint, same floor area, and same cubical content.
§ One of the options that PZC has is to deny the application without prejudice to allow the application to return to ZBA for their determination.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification if submitted plans contain the same floor area and cubic content. This has not been reviewed by the Engineering Department or the Building Department.
· Approval can consist of same floor area and cubic content.
· It should be noted that variances run with the land and are recorded on land records.
· If ZBA wants a restriction they are capable of doing it and being aware of what they are doing.
· Variances has been approved for the setbacks of the additions to the existing structure, location of the existing structure with respect to setback from the road, and included a condition that the footprint must be the same etc.; the submitted plan shows the footprint of the existing building and the additions to it – this would be in compliance with what is required by ZBA. Would the building be better if the applicant returned to ZBA? PZC should act on what the record is presently.
· It should be noted that what is presented before PZC does not meet the requirements, i.e. building proposed is not the same size in dimension – does not meet variances granted.
· Building a two story on a one story building would change the footprint and would alter the cubic content, etc.
Peter DeMallie, of Design Professionals, Inc. and representing the applicant, stated that the intent was to have an one story building with a floor area the same as was presented to ZBA.
· It is desired by some Commissioners to have the applicant return to ZBA for their determination.
· Questioning the design of this lot and why it was put in the Gateway Zone, i.e. setbacks etc.; questioning what would have been done differently with this piece of property if had it had no building on it.
· Assumption has been made based on the building, the application should be reviewed as if there was never a building there because of the application system the building is being built as if there was never a building there – upon examination PZC would have had a different view of this application; application is being viewed with an imaginary barrier that has to do with one little piece of a foundation which became the reasons for the variances, and the placement.
· This is a small lot which contains 1.1 acres.
· The only issue is the setback for the existing building.
McCann read into the record the following approval letter from ZBA dated May 14, 2004. “At the meeting of the South Windsor ZBA held on May 6, 2004. The Board approved your request for a 27.1’ variance to Section 10.2 to allow the front yard setback of the existing structure to remain at 39.7’ for property located at 498 Buckland Road, GD zone. The Board concluded the hardships on this property to be as follows: on the placement of the original structure conformed at the time it was building and the resulting of the property from Buckland Gateway Zone requires larger setbacks. 2. The government takings for road widening have created the existing structure to become significantly non-conforming making it difficult to use the property in conformance with the Town’s
comprehensive plan. The Board placed the following conditions on this approval. 1. Approval is based on the plans prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. dated 2-26-04. 2. The use is subject to the sight line approval by the PZC. 3. The use is subject to a permitted use in the Zoning Regulations. Any new building or alterations, additions to existing buildings requires a building permit prior to start of construction. These actions are effective upon your filing of the endorsed form in the Town Clerk’s office.”
After a lengthy discussion regarding interpretation, clarification of the above letter, Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-38P, The Grillo Family Partnership with the following modifications:
Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $5,000 for erosion & sediment control, and a bond in the amount of $5,000 for detention basin establishment.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
Footing drains are required if the building has a basement.
A landscape bond in the amount of $2,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
At such time as a site plan is approved for the property to the north and/or to the south, interconnections shall be constructed in the areas shown on the subject site plan OR as agreed by the two property owners and further approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. After the interconnections are constructed, the driveway for 498 Buckland Road shall then serve as the primary site access drive for the northern and southern abutting properties. Failure to construct the driveway interconnections shall be construed as a zoning violation and shall be pursued via the remedies available to the Town for zoning violations.
The Town Engineer’s review comments dated July 8, 2005, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
Parking waiver of 4 spaces with the maximum of five operatories to be equipped under this approval. Additional operatories require further approval from this Commission
This approval is for an office of general dentistry only.
This approval must be in compliance with the ZBA approval that limited any rebuilding of the existing structure to the same footprint, floor area and cubic density.
McCann seconded the motion. The motion failed, 3-4 with McCann, Kennedy and Bazzano voted for the motion. Wentzell, Larsen, Pacekonis, and Slicer voting against the motion. .
McCann made a motion to deny without prejudice application 05-38P, The Grillo Family Limited Partnership. McCann also requested that an additional application fee not be required. The motion carried and the vote was 6-1 with Wentzell, McCann, Larsen, Pacekonis, Slicer, and Bazzano voting for the motion. Kennedy voted against the motion.
2. Appl 05-34P, Evergreen Run, request for site plan approval for an 11,220 sf and 16, 530 sf retail buildings on property located at 90 Buckland Road, Buckland Gateway Development Zone
Alan Lamson, representing the applicant, had the following comments in his presentation:
o Lowe’s has been contacted regarding participation in the sight line issue.
o Expectation is that this will take months to resolve.
o The applicant is committed to acquiring Lowe’s assistance and requests assistance from town staff.
o The southern half of the driveway is on Lowe’s property and the northern half belongs to parcel L.
Wentzell noted that this application could be approved potentially if sight line approval is acquired, the island will be extended slightly, and right in and right out only, until approval has been gained from Lowe’s.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in Italics.
· Eliminating left turns in and out is not desired because people need an alternative way to turn around.
· Place a condition of approval requiring half of the driveway to be closed. Yes, because Lowe’s controls the curb cut.
· It is not desired to have u-turns occur around the island. Experience has shown that unless there’s a reasonable and direct way to achieve all of the movements, people will make u-turns along with other undesirable maneuvers regardless of posted sings.
· The 180’ – 200’ sight line is not safe.
· Traffic calming approach is desired. Staff is comfortable with traffic calming techniques because they have been well educated in this, e.g. raised tables, tighter radius, narrower lanes, and planted median. The curvature itself, by the book, is enough to bring the speed down to 20 mph.
· Clarification of allowed cushion for reaction time. All of the intersection/sight distance calculations are from the Federal Design Manual based on tire skidding studies conducted in the late 1930’s; most people have quicker reaction times, better mechanics etc.; stoppage is much quicker and that is factored in studies, plus adjustment for the grade.
· It is desired to have a three-way stop and a sign on the curve stating “stop ahead”.
· It is not desired to have a serious accident at the intersection caused by an inadequate sight line.
· When approval was granted to Lowe’s it was made clear that they had to provide access to this property.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-34P, Evergreen Run with the following modifications:
1. Prior to commencement of site work a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk’s office.
3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $50,000 for wetlands.
4. An as built plan is required prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
5. A landscape bond in the amount of $5,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of the mylars.
6. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp mark or signature of the Town of South Windsor.
7. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
8. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
9. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas using Connecticut DOT standard epoxy paint.
10. The future access area to the northern abutting property must be shown. At such times the site plans are approved to the property to the north and interconnection shall be constructed in the area shown on the subject site plan whereas agreed by the two property owners and shall be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Failure to construct the site interconnection shall be construed as a zoning violation and shall be pursued via the remedies of albeit to the Town for zoning violations.
11. Engineer comments dated 6/28/05 must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
12. The traffic signal control or easement needs to be shown in its entirety in dimension.
13. The sewer easement needs to be added to the plans.
14. The traffic calming measures as shown by the plan prepared by Hesketh Civil and Traffic Engineers must be incorporated into the final plans. In addition the applicant will diligently pursue modifications of Lowe’s existing parking lot to include the sight line.
15 Signage for a three way stop including a “stop ahead” sign on the curve to give motorists adequate warning (a red flashing light must be placed at the entrance to the site) and must remain until such time as the Lowe’s improvements are completed and the appropriate sight lines have been accomplished. If the sight lines are achieved, the stop signs and light can be removed.
16. The Town of South Windsor will provide assistance to the applicant in achieving the necessary approvals from Lowe’s to modify the parking area to accomplish the desired sight line.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Lamson stated that he will submit a monthly progress report to the Director of Planning.
3. Appl 05-41P, Charbonneau Lot 4, request for site plan approval for a 9,600 sf manufacturing facility on property located at 75 Kimberly Drive, I zone
Tim Coon, engineer with J R Russo Associates, and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
ü Submitted new plans indicating changes proposed including the relocation of transformer pad from northwest corner of building to the southwest corner of the building.
ü The northwest corner will have a 15’ x 15’ concrete pad for compressed air tanks which will be fenced in.
ü A retaining wall is being proposed in the area where it was to be graded onto the abutting property.
ü The landscape plan has been modified to show additional screening around the compressed air storage area and the southwest corner.
ü It is proposed to construct a 9600 sf building which will contain office space, machine shop, a 3rd area shown as tenant space, but will be used as a warehouse until a tenant is there.
ü Materials will consist of concrete block, upper portion of exterior wall will be a split rib decorative concrete block, stucco panels over entry doors, and lower portion of exterior wall will feature split face decorative concrete block. (Exhibit B)
ü Colors go from brown, white to slate gray. Approval was acquired from ARDC.
Lipe provided the following Planning report to the Commission.
1. Request for site plan approval to construct a new manufacturing building at 75 Kimberly Drive, I zone. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%, 52.5% proposed. Proposed building height is 28 feet; 40 feet allowed. Lot size is 1.14 acres; minimum lot size allowed is ½ acre. Front yard setback is about 105 feet feet, 35 feet required.
2. There is no outdoor storage proposed.
3. The parking requirement is 15 spaces, 15 spaces have been provided.
4. Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this application on July 7. ADRC was satisfied with the application as presented.
5. The only site lighting proposed is building lights with full cutoff fixtures, no parking lot light poles.
6. There is no free-standing sign proposed.
7. There is no buffer requirement as this lot does not abut a residential zone.
8. There are no regulated wetlands. This application received IWA/CC approval on July 6 with a $5,000 for erosion & sediment control and no unusual approval conditions.
9. Public sewer and water are available. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
10. There is a dumpster proposed on a concrete pad with screening.
If this application is approved, Planning Dept has no modifications to request.
EXTENSION OF MEETING
Kennedy made a motion to extend the meeting. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Height of retaining wall. The retaining wall is approximately 7’ in height.
· Fence on top of wall? No, grade on each side of parking lot will be higher.
· Enough room for wall? Yes because there is 10’ between edge and parking lot.
· Fence required on top of the retaining wall? A fence is not required unless it abutted a walkway.
· The fence shall be part of the Engineering review.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-41P, Charbonneau Lot #4, request for site plan approval for a 9,000 sf of manufacturing facility on property located at 75 Kimberly Drive, I zone with the following modifications:
1 Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2, No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk’s office.
3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $5,000.
4. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
5. A landscape bond in the amount of $1,000. is required and must be submitted prior to filling of mylars.
6. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
7. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
8. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
9. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
10. The Town Engineer’s review comments dated July 21, 2005, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
11. A detail of the retaining wall must be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer.
Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. Appl 05-02P, Emerald Green, request for two 90 day extensions for filing of mylars
Kennedy made a motion to approve the request for two 90 day extension for application 05-02P, Emerald Green. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES
The minutes of June 28, 2005 and July 12, 2005 was accepted by consensus of the Commission.
APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED
1. Appl 05-49P, Hunt Accessory Apartment – request for special exception for an accessory apartment at 1090 Avery Street, RR zone
2. Appl 05-50P, T’s Auto Service, request for a renewal of a 2-year temporary and conditional permit to display two vehicles for sale at property located at 718 Ellington Road, RC zone
3. Appl 05-51P, Juknis Interior Lot, request for special exception to 4.6.1 and resubdivision to create one new building lot on property located at 477 Foster Street, AA-30 zone
4. Appl 05-52P, Charter Oak Education, Inc. request for special exception to 4.1.8b and site plan of development for reuse of the building for a small private school on property located at 414 King Street, RR zone
5. Appl 05-53P, Rebecca Fusco & Daniel Galovich, request for special exception to 7.1.2.3.a.5 and site plan of development for the construction of a barn and creation of an outdoor arena in the 100 year floodplain, on property located at 215 Main Street, A-40 and FP zone
ADJOURNMENT:
Kennedy made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
________________________________ respectfully submitted
Date Approved
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary.
| 
