HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 10 1995 PC Minutes10-10-95
OCTOBER 10, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 10, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica
Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the October 4th Board of Supervisors
meeting.
SP-95-31 Wendell Wood - Petition to establish outdoor storage and display of autos on
11.3 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
[30.6.3.2b]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A is located on the
west side of Route 29 near Timberwood Blvd in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is
the location of the Maupin Store. This site is recommended for Regional Service in the
Community of Hollymead.
Staff requested deferral to October 24, 1995.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-95-31 for Wendell Wood be deferred to October
24, 1995. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 95-15 Peter Easter - Petition to rezone one acre of property created by the
relocation of Route 631 from R-2, residential to C-1, Commercial. Property is adjacent
on three sides to Tax Map 76, Parcel 46H and is remnant of Tax Map 76, Parcels 46A
(part) and 54Q. It is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 631
and 780 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This area is recommended for
Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 5.
Staff requested deferral to October 24, 1995 due to an error in notification.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA 95-15 for Peter Easter be deferred to
October 24, 1995. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
05
10-10-95 2
` SP-95-29 Christopher Yates - Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class B for a
cabinet shop on approximately 2.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. [10.2.2(31)] Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 59B
is located on the north side of Rt. 250 approximately 600 feet east of Route 744 in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural
Area 2).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request
subject to conditions.
The applicant, Mr. Christopher Yates, addressed the Commission. He described the
use as being a "small cabinet shop, more of a hobby -type craft thing." He estimated his
hours of operation would be 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. He said he had spoken with all his
neighbors and none had expressed any objections.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Bill Johnson asked for a clarification of the location. He had no other comments.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff said it appeared this would be a modest -type of operation. Noting there
were no adjacent neighbor objections, she said the applicant's comments had
addressed any concerns she had had about the use.
Mr. Jenkins wondered if a condition should be added addressing the hours of operation.
Ms. Huckle agreed.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-95-29 for Christopher M. Yates be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Use shall be limited to existing garage structure.
2. No employees other than family members residing on the premises.
3. No signage shall be permitted.
4. No outdoor activities involving power equipment nor storage of materials shall be
permitted.
5. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 7 days a week. [NOTE: This
condition was originally proposed with no definition as to days of operation. After
further discussion (see below), it was amended as stated here.)
10-10-95
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
M
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not the limitation on hours applied to
weekends. The applicant confirmed that he would like to have the option of being able
to work on weekends. Mr. Nitchmann thought the applicant might need those extra
days as he is trying to get his business established. Mr. Jenkins said he had no
objection to Saturday operation. Ms. Imhoff thought Sunday should be included also.
Mr. Jenkins had no objection. There was determined to be a general consensus that
condition No. 5 be amended as stated above.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-95-30 Crozet Church of God - Petition to establish a day care center on
approximately 5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. [10.2.2(7)] Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A is located in the
southeast corner of the intersection of Route 250 and 1-64 near Crozet in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is the new location of the Crozet Church of God.
This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval, subject to
conditions.
Noting the potentially large number of children involved (60), Ms. Imhoff asked why
there were no comments from the Health Department. Mr. Keeler said he thought
some other issues had arisen which had interfered with the applicant's ability to get in
touch with the Health Department. He deferred to the applicant for further explanation.
Ms. Imhoff asked if staff had information on the size of other day care operations in the
rural areas. She thought 60 was a high number for the Rural Area. Mr. Fritz said an Ivy
center is 60-80 children and one at Chestnut Grove Church in Earlysville is 40-50
children. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the applicant's immediate plans are for 20 to 30
children, thought the request is for a maximum of 60. Mr. Keeler added that the
applicant's State exemption from licensure limits the operation to 29 children.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed the church will be served by
a private well. Ms. Huckle asked if the water will have to be tested periodically. Mr.
Keeler was not aware of a Health Department testing program for churches. He said
that uses which are open to the general public come under a testing program, but he
was uncertain whether churches, or day care centers, fall into that category. Mr.
Dotson thought it might fall under a "non -transient, non -community, but still public"
11
10-10-95 4
because it serves the public, designation. He thought that might make it come under
public water supply regulations.
Ms. Huckle asked about the VDOT requirement to "daylight" the sight distance. Mr.
Keeler explained the church had to obtain a grading easement from an adjacent
property owner to cut back some vegetation in order to achieve adequate sight
distance.
Mr. Dotson asked how staff would handle condition 5(a), related to licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare. Mr. Keeler responded: "I would get a response from
the Zoning Administrator before this got to the Board of Supervisors. It may be fine as
written and if it's not, then the Board would be in a position to modify it."
The applicant was represented by the Reverend Les Rousey. His comments and
answers to Commission questions included the following:
--The church was not aware, until receipt of the letter from VDOT, that there was
a problem with vegetation. Part of an embankment had to be graded in order to obtain
sight distance. VDOT told him they would maintain the embankment, which is actually
on adjoining property.
--The number of children allowed will be determined by Health Department
requirements and also by requirements of the State Department of Welfare.
--The area to be used as a day care is 3,800 square feet.
--Once the property on St. George Ave. has been sold, the present day care
operation will need to be moved to the new site. Thus, the reason for this request.
--There are currently 17 children in the day care center, some of whom are part-
time. This results in approximately 28 vehicle trips/day. The traffic is spread out at
different times of the day.
--There were no objections from the neighbors when the permit for the church
was applied for (SP-92-20). (Day care was not proposed at that time.)
--A Health Department permit for the septic system has been issued to the
church. [NOTE: It was later determined a day care operation had not been a factor in
the issuance of that permit.] A commercial type well is planned. No mention of
periodic testing has been mentioned, but the church would have no objection to such
testing. The church will comply with all Health Department regulations.
--The church does not know if 60 children will ever be served by the day care,
but the number was proposed so as not to limit the possibilities.
--The day care operation is a ministry of the church and is not a money -making
venture.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Frank Biscardi, the adjacent property owner whose property was graded for the
sight easement, addressed the Commission. He expressed no objection to the church
91
10-10-95 5
usage, but he read a petition of objection to the request for the day care operation. He
said he had acquired 6 signatures on the petition. His reasons for objection were as
follows:
--A day-care operation is a business which is out of character with the rural area.
--The area is not zoned for businesses.
--Additional traffic will increase the danger at the intersection of Rts. 824 and
250. This intersection is used by several elderly residents who already find the
intersection difficult to negotiate.
--Increased noise.
--Drainfields from the site will drain towards several streams.
--He questioned the suitability of the soils for drainfields.
--A well on this property will draw from his groundwater supply.
--Decreased property values.
--The grading done on his property removed many yards of dirt and many trees
were lost. The property for the easement was in the State right-of-way so he could do
nothing to prevent the grading. The grading removed lateral support from his property.
Promises that the embankment would be maintained have not been followed through.
He has re -seeded the bank twice at his expense. Removal of more vegetation will
make his property "geologically unstable."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Biscardi if he would object to a smaller number of children. He
�r• replied: " I moved there thinking this was a rural area and not a business community."
He said he had understood when he purchased his property that a church would be
locating on the site, but he had been told there would be no day-care operation.
cm
Ms. Plummer addressed the Commission and expressed her support for Mr. Biscardi's
comments.
Mr. Bill Johnson addressed the Commission. He said he had concerns about the water
and septic situation. He pointed out that the church site is on a knoll and the drainfields
will drain down toward his property and toward some small streams. He said Stockton
Creek also runs close to the base of the property.
Rev. Rousey was allowed final comments. He again pointed out that he has received a
permit for the septic system. Mr. Blue explained to him that his permit had been issue
for the church, but the Health Department will have to review the permit again for the
day care operation and some changes may be needed. Rev. Rousey said the well has
not yet been drilled. He understood that there must be 100 feet between the well and
the septic system. He pointed out that the site is 5 acres so he did not anticipate a
problem. He said the building is approximately 75% complete and the well will be
drilled as soon as funds are available. The church hopes to be able to occupy the new
building by December 1995.
9/
10-10-95 6
Rev. Rousey answered questions about the day-care operation's fees. He said the
church often must absorb some of the costs but it sometimes makes a small profit. Mr.
Nitchmann asked if the church plans to erect a sign for the day-care center. Rev.
Rousey said a sign may be used if allowed by the ARB.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Rev. Rousey said the center provides no meals
for the children. Children bring their lunch. There is no plan to provide meals with the
new facility.
It was determined the State's limitations on number of children is determined by the
square footage of the use, including the play area. Mr. Dotson asked: "So in a larger
facility you could have more children and still come under the church exemption." Rev.
Rousey responded affirmatively.
Ms. Vaughan asked how the older, school age children arrive at the center. Rev.
Rousey explained some of the children are delivered to the center by their parents and
are then picked up by the school bus in the morning and returned to the center by the
school bus in the afternoon. He said the church plans to use a van to bus some of
the children from the new location to Crozet Elementary.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue wondered if the application was premature given the number of unanswered
questions.
Ms. Imhoff said she was concerned about the scale of this use in the rural area. She
said she needed further reassurance before she could vote on the request. She
thought 60 seemed like a large number and it has not been proven that the septic
capacity exists to accommodate that many students.
Ms. Huckle agreed that the request was premature. She said the applicant needs to
determine if there is an adequate water supply on the property and if a well can be sited
so as not to conflict with the septic system.
Mr. Blue noted the applicant has stated they need to sell the present building to get the
funds to complete this project, but if they sell the present building, they will not have a
place for their existing day care operation until the new building is complete.
Ms. Imhoff commented: "I think the problem is that when they got the special permit
they didn't include day care. To me, when you set this aside and look at the bigger
question, I think we keep coming back, time and again, to 'what do you do in the rural
areas, what is our vision for the rural areas?' Our Comp Plan says it is to support
agriculture and forestry and water protection and that is why churches and these kinds
qa
10-10-95 7
of uses are special permits because they might fit in and they might not fit in. In some
ways I hate to have us defer it on the basis of the uncertainty of the capacity of the
septic system if there are other people who are wondering if this is a use that should be
there at all in the rural area. I don't argue that it provides a very worthwhile service.
The question is, should it be providing the service in this location and, if so, at what
scale?"
Mr. Dotson said he tends to be sympathetic to day care centers, whether in churches or
otherwise. He said many churches now provide this service and he had no problems
with a church and accessory day care in a rural area. He said the Health Department
will address the question of the septic system, so the issue remaining for him is the
concerns of the neighbors. He viewed churches and day care as a neighborhood asset.
He concluded: "So the question for me is 'is 60 too many?' I could entertain some
lesser number which would still give the church some expansion room over what they
have now and might reduce some of the neighbors concerns. If after a number of
years, it proved to be an asset, then the church could come back and expand and,
perhaps at that point, the neighbors wouldn't be opposed. In terms of the deferral
question, I would want to know what information we would want to have as a result of
the deferral."
Mr. Jenkins commented: "I am not bothered by it very much. I am sympathetic to the
fact that they have not been able to sell their old building and take those funds and
complete this project and get on with it. But I understand why members of the
Commission feel this is premature to be in front of us, but I'm not certain about that
either. I'm comfortable with it. I'm sorry the neighbors don't like it, but we've got these
kids and we've got these kinds of services that are needed and if they don't do it in the
rural areas they would probably look for a site in Crozet or look for a site someplace
closer.... But you find a site you can afford and you proceed from there. That's where
we are and I'm not that uncomfortable with the request."
Ms. Vaughan said her only concern was the adequacy of the septic system and those
concerns about the septic mentioned by the neighbors. Mr. Blue noted those items
would be handled by the Health Department.
Ms. Huckle commented: "When I came in here I had anticipated voting in favor of this,
because I'm sure it provides a worthwhile service. But I still feel there are so many
unanswered questions that a deferral is in order so the Health Department can confirm
there is actually a well site and septic system site which do not interfere with the
neighbors' wells."
Mr. Nitchmann thought this was a unique situation for the Commission. He
commented: "If you look at what is going on in society today with Welfare reform and
,- trying to put people to work, one of the first things that comes to mind is 'what do I do
is
10-10-95 is
with my kids?' We've got just as much responsibility to the working people who live in
the rural areas as we do to the people who live in the city. I think we, as citizens, have
an obligation, to some extent, if we are going to make things better in this community
and in the world, we have to stretch ourselves a little and try to help our fellow man. If
we provide a place for someone to drop off their children so they can go to work and
earn a living so they can become solid responsible citizens, I think that is what we need
to do. I have some concerns, though. I have a concern about the size. I think 60 is a
big number for the rural area. It is also pretty risky to start building something before
you determine whether or not you have water, or the adequacy of the water for a
particular use. I think this question needs to be answered and I don't know if it can be
answered until the well is dug. I don't know if there is any way to determine if a well will
have an impact on neighboring wells. From my perspective, there are still a couple of
questions that I think it is only fair to the neighbors that we get answered. I know that
puts a burden on the church because they may not have the funds right now to drill the
well. We need more day care centers because it is a major roadblock for many people
trying to enter the work force."
Mr. Blue said there was no way to determine the yield of a well without actually drilling
it, nor is there any way to determine how the well will impact adjacent properties.
Mr. Biscardi was allowed to speak briefly. He thought the social issue of providing
*MW community day-care was negated by the potential degradation of his property which
further grading will cause. (Mr. Keeler pointed out that VDOT has not recommended
any further grading. They are only recommending that brush be cleared.)
For the Commission's information, Mr. Keeler said that a 60-child day care facility has
the same Health Department water usage requirements as a 4-bedroom dwelling.
Mr. Dotson summarized the questions which the Commission hoped would be
answered through a deferral:
--Septic capacity or limitations on the site.
--A comparison of the water demands for a church vs. day-care vs. a single-
family dwelling.
--Any rules of the Virginia Department of Welfare which, based on the square
footage of the new church, could set a maximum size which might be different from 60.
--Will public water supply regulations apply regarding testing of the quality of the
water?
--A clarification of the VDOT responsibility for the maintenance of the sight
easement.
Mr. Nitchmann added:
--What is the minimum number of children the church must have in order to
make this a worthwhile venture?
9�
M
10-10-95 9
Ms. Imhoff thought the answer to these questions could influence how she votes on the
request.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-30 for the Crozet Church of God be deferred to
October 24, 1995, to allow time for the questions listed by Mr. Dotson to be answered.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 95-16 Commonwealth Central Investments - Petition to amend agreement 3 of
ZMA 92-08 to allow for pole mounted lighting. Property, described as Tax Map 61 M,
Section 12, Parcels 1 B, 1 B1, 1 B2, 1 B3, 1 B4, 1 B5, 1 B6 and 1 E1 is located in the
southwest corner of the intersection of Rio Road and Berkmar Drive in the Rio
Magisterial District. This is the site of Berkmar Crossing. This site is recommended for
Community Service in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jeff Dreyfuss. He explained the change is to
provide better security lighting for the parking area. He stressed that the lighting will be
focused downward and the glare will be considerably less to surrounding properties
than lighting which is mounted on a building.
Mr. Dotson thought the proposed change would be an improvement to the site.
Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant was locked in to those locations shown on the plan.
Mr. Fritz explained that minor changes could be made so long as the plan remained in
general accord with what has been presented.
There was no public comment.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA 95-16 for Commonwealth Central
Investments be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Ms. Huckle
seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-95-088 Airport Mobile Home Park Final Site Plan - Proposal to locate 96 mobile
home units on approximately 30 acres, zoned, R-15, Residential. Property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcels 53, 54, 55, 56 is located on the east side of Route 606
1?5
M
10-10-95 10
approximately 0.6 miles south of Route 649 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This
property is recommended for high density residential in the Community of Hollymead.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Though Mr. Fritz said conditions 1 and 2 have been satisfied by the applicant, it was
decided the conditions would remain.
Mr. Fritz explained the number of lots was decreased to address concerns about
drainage and also because 1 parcel could not be used due to a question of ownership.
Ms. Huckle asked about the width of the streets and the parking areas. Mr. Fritz
explained that each lot had a 2-car parking area. Mr. Glen Brooks (County Engineering
Office) said the majority of the roads are 18 feet wide, with the entrance being 22 feet
wide. Ms. Huckle asked if there is space for on -street parking. Mr. Brooks said there is
a 4-foot shoulder along the road.
Ms. Imhoff expressed dissatisfaction with the Executive Summary format of the staff
report. She thought it did not provide enough information and a more substantive
approach was needed. She commended Mr. Brooks for his letter. She said: "Reading
between the lines (of Mr. Brooks' letter) I can tell that the staff has worked very hard
making sure some of the conditions have been met.... I didn't like some of the tone that
I picked up from the applicant (which implied) staff was getting in their way with a lot of
these details. The applicant is lucky they did not have to walk every step of the way
with the Planning Commission --it would have been much more difficult." Mr. Cilimberg
said no changes to the Executive Summary were anticipated, but he suggested it might
be helpful to have a visual presentation in the future.
Mr. Blue pointed out that the Commission always has a chance to request review of a
final site plan.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Wood. He said all three conditions of
approval on the site plan have already been met.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Airport Mobile Home Park Final Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with September 19, 1995 letter from Engineering Department.
2. Provide fencing adjacent to the inlet and outlet of drainage pipes near tot lots.
Fencing shall be designed to prevent children from entering the pipe.
9(1
ILIW116•1•91
11
' 3. In the event that vegetation west of August Lane is removed/damaged additional
plantings will be provided to achieve screening equal to a double staggered row of
screening trees planted 15 feet on center.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Noting the many items listed in Mr. Brooks' letter which were previously incomplete, Ms.
Huckle said,: "I think this makes it incumbent upon us and the staff to make sure that all
these things are done in the proper order and expeditiously."
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Nitchmann reported he had visited Reston recently and had been favorably
impressed with a type of commercial development which he found "hidden in the midst
of a subdivision." He wondered if this was something the County should consider in
trying to create cohesive neighborhoods. Mr. Cilimberg said the County tries to get this
type of development through the Planned Unit Development approach. Ms. Imhoff
noted that the Proposed Land Use Plan has "floating" neighborhood commercial areas
designated by a "C" inside a circle. She said it might be helpful to have more verbal
description in the Comp Plan.
Ms. Huckle asked staff to look into regulations for mobile homes to see if there are
requirements that they be fastened to the ground.
Commercial Stables - Ms. Imhoff said she had received a lot of calls about
Commercial Stables. (She was absent when the Commission took action on the
proposed amendment.) She wanted the record to be clear on her position. She said:
"We spent a lot of time talking about special exception vs. by -right with supplemental
regulations. Somehow the minutes did not convey much of that discussion. I just
wanted to say that, personally, I was glad to see that the Planning Commission voted it
as a by -right use. I personally had some concern about the number of supplemental
regulations on it, and I know the Board is going to be taking it up this week. But since
many in the horse industry seem to feel that I was pushing supplemental regulations, I
just want the minutes to reflect that this is not true...."
Mr. Nitchmann said he, too, has had some calls and he feels there are some
misconceptions on the part of the public as to what was actually recommended by the
Commission. Some people are under the impression, if the amendment passes,
existing structures will have to be moved to meet new setback requirements. He was
under the impression existing uses will be grandfathered. He also talked to someone
who thought there was a monetary limitation involved, i.e. "if a person only has 5 horses
PAU
10-10-95 12
*ftw but earns more than $5,000, they will be required to get a special use permit." He said
money had never been discussed by the Commission. (Ms. Imhoff interjected: "We're
not even talking special use permit any more.") Mr. Nitchmann wanted staff to be
prepared for such questions at the Board hearing.
Ms. Imhoff suggested staff might want to have on hand the information compiled by Ms.
Scala, on how other localities deal with commercial stables.
Mr. Nitchmann requested that staff check to determine "what is the percentage of radio
coverage which the Police Department now has with the County?" He asked in
particular about the Scottsville area.
Comp Plan Schedule Update
A work session will be held at 5:15 on October 17th to finalize the Land Use Plan that
will be taken to public hearing. (A joint meeting with the City Planning Commission will
follow at 7:30.) The Land Use Plan is to go to public hearing on November 21 st.
Ms. Karen Dane, representing Citizens for Albemarle, was allowed to address the
Commission. She expressed concern about the Comp Plan time schedule for the Land
Use Plan public hearing. She did not think two weeks was sufficient time for the public
to comment on the proposed plan. She also objected to a the public hearing being held
during a holiday week (Thanksgiving).
Mr. Blue said it is the Commission's desire to try to complete the Land Use Plan with
the same Commissioners who have worked on it for many months. He did not think the
concern about the holiday week was legitimate given the fact that it is a couple of days
before the holiday, children are still in school, etc. He concluded: "It may be hard on
organized groups like yours to have something in time, but you're just going to have to
suffer through it." He asked other Commissioners to comment.
Ms. Imhoff said: "I think it is not ideal, but... I do think it behooves us to get as much
done before a new Planning Commission comes on board."
Ms. Imhoff felt strongly that the Commission should discuss the Rural element of the
Plan before November 21 st. She felt it was hard to finalize the Land Use Plan without
having a discussion about the Rural portion of the County. She thought the biggest
debate will be about how much growth area expansion there should be. She said a lot
of her decision on that question depends on the capacity of the rural area. She said it
was important to her to hear other Commissioner's ideas on that question.
cm
WOLIVOR
13
`*AW Mr. Cilimberg responded to Ms. Imhoff: "I think that is important to address. We have a
session set next week and if we need a 5:15 session the following week we will do it to
get the Land Use Plan wrapped up and ready for the public, and then we can move on
to that --to the next step, the rural areas discussion." Ms. Imhoff said she was not
"comfortable" with that schedule. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would try to fit the rural areas
discussion in before the November 21 st hearing.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
M
M