TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

 

September 5, 2006

Approved September 19, 2006

 

DRB Members Present:  Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Clint Emmons, Greg Waples,  George Munson, Robert Gauthier, Joe Donegan.

 

DRB Members Absent: Lisa Godfrey.

 

Also Present:  Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning & Zoning), Mark Ames, Mike Charney, Nick Nowlan, George Dameron, Tom Hackett, Steve & Joanne Hoke, Bob & Beth Quackenbush, Mac Rood, Rob Bast, Peg Montgomery, Chantal Beliveau, George Bedard.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 pm

 

Minutes of the August 15, 2006 Meeting:

Tom MOVED to approve the August 15, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0 with Robert abstaining.

 

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – 3012 Baldwin Road – Applicant is Mark Ames

**continued from August 15th meeting.

A site visit was conducted prior to the meeting at 5:30pm, attended by:  Tom, Joe, Greg, Peter, Alex, Mark Ames (applicant), Bill Lippert (neighbor).  The following observations were made:

·        Walked up the proposed driveway to the new house site on lot 2.

·        Mark pointed out the proposed septic area for the new lot.

·        Noted ledges to the west of the house site on lot 2.

·        Lot 2’s house site is on a high spot that is wooded with large trees.

·        The existing barn is set up for milking (although a bit dusty) with a bulk tank and assorted equipment.

·        Observed the proposed driveway access on to Baldwin Road for lot 2, and noted that this portion of Baldwin road has trees along it.

·        Mark pointed out the location of a well house and water source (near Baldwin Road) for 1 or more adjacent properties across Baldwin Road.

 

Mark explained that he’d like to request an “L-shaped” building envelope for lot 2 to include the proposed house site as well as an area to the southwest around the corner of the ledge.  He said the alternate area around the corner of the ledge will allow him an alternate building site less visible from lot 1, should the person who buys lot 1 decide to build a new house further back on that parcel.  He thinks this is likely since the existing house on lot 1 is so close to the road, and since there is a nice building area behind it.  The Board discussed the value of having building envelopes for both lots.

 

Greg asked what is the purpose of the “Y” intersection along the proposed driveway to the house site on lot 2.  Greg wondered if this indicated another road for the back portion of lot 2.  Mark said that is merely indicative of his existing farm access to the back portion of the property, and that it would stay a simple farm access.

 

Tom MOVED to close the sketch plan public discussion, classify the project as a minor subdivision, and direct staff to draft approval language for review at the next meeting.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

5-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Burritt Rd/Baldwin Rd- Applicants are Robert and Elizabeth Quackenbush and Stephen and Joanne Hoke

**continued from August 15th meeting.

A site visit was conducted prior to the meeting at 6pm, attended by:  Tom, Joe, Greg, Peter, Alex, Stephen Hoke, Robert Quackenbush, George Bedard, John McGowan, Bill Marks.  The following observations were made:

·        Walked from the Quackenbush home to the primary septic area; noted that power would also come to this point for a pump station.

·        Walked from septic area along woods road/trail to the proposed road to lots 1-4.

·        Noted large trees that separate the subject property from the Baldwin property to the south.

·        Noted approximate building locations for new lots.

·        Saw the VELCO power easement area.

·        Noted wetland areas on lot 1.

·        Noted the largely forested nature of the parcel near lots 1-4, and heard a barred owl calling here.  George Bedard noted some of the large trees that would be retained.

·        Noted that with the exception of lot 1, the lots will be south facing.

 

George Bedard said the building envelopes for lots 1-4 will be laid out to minimize the impact on the bigger, more magnificent trees.  He explained that all the septic will pump to a common septic area, and that all new power will be underground either from the existing power to the Quackenbush house or along the new road.  He said that lot 5’s house site will be screened from the road by a well-developed, existing hedgerow, and that access to this lot will be shared, via the existing Quackenbush driveway cut on to Burritt Road.

 

Tom identified 2 major issues for additional discussion – 1) the use of the agricultural fields; 2) use of the existing, informal trails.  George Bedard said that they plan to encourage continued agricultural use of the field area through homeowners covenants, easements, and the like.  He felt that dividing the agricultural fields amongst 3 owners would not negatively impact their use – e.g., hobby farming, horse owners, etc.  He said the trails were created and are maintained by the landowners for their own private use.  He said these trails will likely become amenities for the new lot owners in the subdivision.  Joe asked if the lot owners would have deeded access to the portion of these trails that were not on their particular lot.  George Bedard said the Applicant will consider options for homeowners covenants along these lines prior to the final plat review.

 

Greg noted the recommended 200’ buffer between residential and agricultural uses in order to minimize conflicts with adjoining agricultural operations (section 6.10.8 #1).  Greg asked how the design for the subdivision would change if the 200’ buffer was followed.  George Bedard said the wells for residential lots will be set back further than 200’ from the Baldwin agricultural operation, but that he wants the houses to be closer.  He said the drainage is such that agricultural runoff won’t impact the proposed house sites.  He also said the agricultural activity on this portion of the Baldwin farm is not very intensive without much (if any) manure spreading.  Joe felt a 100’ separation to the house sites would be OK with a substantial deciduous tree buffer in between.

 

Alex asked why not put the houses on the north side of the woods closer to the Applicant’s field instead of closer to the Baldwin land.  George Bedard said this would prevent the houses from being south facing.  He said they are better hidden on the south side, and provide the Applicant (Quackenbush house in particular) more of the desired privacy.  He also said house sites on the northern side of the woods would have more drainage issues.

 

Peter felt there was a bit of a contradiction with the stated desire to have screened houses in the woods, and the plan to clear trees in a building envelope that is close to the southern edge of the property, next to open field on the Baldwin property.  Joe discussed his concerns about the project’s proposed density and the related issue of compatibility with the Agricultural zoning district.  He was concerned that this district would not function as envisioned in the regulations if other lands on Baldwin Road were developed at the same density as proposed here.  Joe reiterated 2 main points: 1) the proposed density should be addressed by providing some sort of offsetting community asset like access to the trails; 2) he would like to see a better way to address the long term agricultural use of the fertile agricultural soils.

 

Alex asked if the entire property was enrolled in the State’s Current Use tax abatement program.  Robert Quackenbush said over 60 acres is enrolled in the program – some as agricultural land, but most as forest land.  George Bedard noted that lot 6 will remain in the Current Use (approx. 30 acres of forest) program.

 

Tom MOVED to close the sketch plan public discussion and to direct staff to draft decision language.  Clint SECONDED the motion.  Greg said he was inclined to deny this sketch plan because of concerns he has with the number of lots proposed and the proximity to the Baldwin farm.  George Bedard asked the Board to be specific in any decision about what sections of the regulations are cause for denial.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

2-Lot Subdivision Preliminary (Final?) Plat – 85 Texas Brook Road – Applicants are Mike and Meri Charney

**continued from the August 1st meeting.

Nick Nowlan (Applicant’s engineer from McCain Consulting) reviewed Peter’s 8/31 staff memo and responded to the 7 issues raised.

1.      Proposed house location – Nick said the house had been moved down the hill somewhat from what was presented at the sketch plan, but that it didn’t come down as far as originally anticipated because the septic replacement area for the existing house is in the way.  He said they didn’t put the proposed house location below this septic replacement area because they wanted to give the Montgomery property more privacy.

2.      Stormwater plan adequacy & culvert #3 issue – Nick said the stormwater plan has been redesigned so that culvert #3 discharges in the opposite direction so as not to impact the Montgomery house site.  He said that the receiving culvert under the Montgomery driveway has the capacity to handle the proposed post-development flow.  Nick distributed a hydro-cad software analysis of the pre and post development stormwater runoff.  This analysis also assessed the capacity of the proposed culverts.  Nick explained that the soils on the site do not absorb much runoff; therefore, the pre and post development runoff calculations at critical points (i.e., culverts) is very similar.  He explained that even with forest clearing for the driveway, new house site, etc., the runoff levels will only be slightly more than the present condition.  He said the driveway will not concentrate enough of this runoff to pose an issue to the culverts during a storm event.  Alex read Lisa Godfrey’s comments based on her review of the plans submitted ahead of the meeting (which did not include the hydro-cad calculations).  Lisa still had concerns with culvert #4’s potential impact on the neighboring property as well as culvert #2 due to concentration of the flow along the proposed driveway.  Furthermore, she felt the proposed level spreader won’t be effective on the steep slopes of the site.

3.      Forest Management Language – Peter proposed specific language regarding the management of the forest outside of the building envelopes.  Ted thought Peter’s proposed language was good and would serve well as a condition of any approval.  Peter asked Mike if there is currently continuous forest cover outside of the proposed building envelopes.  Mike said there is, but that he has removed most of the birch to encourage the development of sugar bush (i.e., sugar maple and some ash).

4.      Building Envelope for Existing House – Mike agreed to delineate a building envelope around the existing house.

5.      Shared Road Legal Language – Peter’s memo proposed specific decision language recognizing the 14’ wide road and its specifications.  Mike said this language would be acceptable.

6.      Force Main Corridor from Existing House to Septic Replacement Area – Peter proposed specific decision language to require that this area be restored to its previous state (minus the trees) and that it not become another stormwater runoff channel.  Mike said this language would be acceptable.

7.      Legal Language – Peter’s memo mentioned this issue, but he said after further review, he doesn’t see the need for changes beyond what is listed above.

 

Peg Montgomery listed her concerns:

1.      She felt the stormwater plan will still negatively impact the existing culvert under her driveway and a 2nd smaller culvert downslope of that one, which goes under a tractor path.

2.      She asked what the road width would be.  Alex said the plans show a 14’ wide road from Texas Hill Road to the new/proposed Charney driveway (shared portion of road).

3.      She was concerned about the force main easement area along her property line.  Mike reiterated that this area will remain forested until/unless the existing house’s septic system fails.  He said this force main area will only be impacted if the replacement septic area has to be used.

4.      She was concerned about the future owner of lot 1 cutting firewood off the property.  Mike said he doesn’t want to restrict all cutting on the property, especially for a valuable resource like firewood.  He presented a landscaping plan that detailed spruce and pine plantings in 6 specific locations to try to address privacy and view concerns.

5.      She is concerned about the road association language that enables the association to place a lien on a member’s property if that person doesn’t pay their obligation.  The Board clarified that this is a normal means to assure all association members honor their responsibilities.  Mike said that Peg is not required to join the road association.  It will include the 2 lots of the subdivision and will allow others to join, but not require it.

6.      She wondered how the DRB’s conditions of approval would be enforced.  She also asked if the Charney subdivision would impact her ability to subdivide in the future.  Tom and other Board members said it would not.

7.      She wondered if a ranch style house (proposed by Applicant for new lot) would lower the property values of the surrounding 2-story homes.  Alex said it would not.

8.      She expressed concern about the 1st culvert under Texas Brook Road as you come in from Texas Hill Road (not shown or addressed in the plans).  She said this culvert doesn’t carry water properly because the ditch leading to it is too deep.  Peter said the proposed decision language would require that an engineer certify that this and other culverts at least meet the Town’s standards.

 

Clint asked if Nick had sized all the culverts along Texas Brook Road.  Nick said he did not.  He simply sized those proposed, and the one of concern under the Montgomery driveway.  Nick reiterated the rationale for the stormwater runoff design including the pre and post development flow calculations.

 

Joe said he can’t vote for this subdivision because of the precedent it would set for all the nearby 10-acre narrow lots that simply can’t support more than 1 primary dwelling each.  Tom MOVED to close the preliminary plat public discussion and take up the matter (including a decision about whether to combine preliminary and final in this review) in deliberative session at the end of the meeting.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 7-0.

 

3-lot, 35-unit (8 existing, 27 new) Subdivision/PUD Preliminary Plat – Route 116 & Charlotte Road – Applicant is Green Street LLC

Mac Rood and Rob Bast (representing Green Street LLC) explained their Preliminary Plat application for a 3-lot, 35-unit (8 existing, 27 new) subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the Village Zoning District.  The project includes 2 adjacent parcels of 13.83 acres (parcel #20-50-43.000) and 0.33 acres (parcel #20-50-44.000).  The project is located west of VT Route 116, south of Charlotte Road, and east of the LaPlatte River.  Lowlands adjacent to the LaPlatte River occupy the western 2/3 of the property.  This portion is largely coincident with the LaPlatte flood hazard area and associated wetlands.  The remaining portion of the property is upland and gradually climbs to the Route 116 frontage.  A Town sewer main runs south to north through this portion of the property.  The Route 116 frontage of both parcels is currently developed with a 5-unit multi-family dwelling on the larger Green Street parcel, and a 3-unit multi-family dwelling (1 unit of which is actually a commercial use – massage business) on the smaller Bast & Carlsmith parcel.

 

The preliminary plan is similar to the sketch plan, and calls for the retention of the existing 5-unit and 3-unit multi-family dwellings (apartment houses) on Route 116.  New units include: 16 single-family dwellings; 2 two-family (duplex) dwellings (4 total dwelling units); 1 five-unit multi-family dwelling (5 total dwelling units); and 1 commercial building with 2 “units”/businesses.  In total, lot 1 will have the existing 5-unit multi-family dwelling and 25 new residential dwelling units; lot 2 will essentially be the same as the existing Bast, Carlsmith parcel with the existing 3-unit multi-family dwelling; and lot 3 will be a new commercial lot with 2 new commercial “units”/businesses in a single new building.  With that in mind, the plan shows no internal lot lines within the new residential portion of lot 1.  Instead, each residential unit would have its own defined yard space, and all other areas would be managed in common by a homeowners association.  Aside from the new single-family and 2-family townhouses, the association would also manage the existing 5-unit multi-family dwelling (apartments) on VT Route 116.  Town water and sewer are planned, and the necessary allocations have been obtained.  The 2 existing accesses from VT Route 116 would be preserved to serve the existing apartments.  A new private road with access to Charlotte Road will serve the new units.

 

The streetscape and unit design is quite unique in its use of vertical space.  The Applicant proposes to “cut” the road (at least that portion running between the new units) into the hillside and provide parking under the units.  The main living portion of the units will be above the road, so that front doors open on to a pedestrian area that is actually above the street.  These elevated pedestrian walkways and plazas provide a distinct vertical separation from the vehicular traffic below.  Green space or lawn will be created in between many of the units by using retaining walls and fill where necessary.  The intent is to create a seamless pedestrian environment towards which most of the units will be oriented.  Conceptual architectural renderings were provided at the sketch plan review along with a table-top model.  Additional building elevations/facades are included in the preliminary application materials.

 

Mac clarified that the common land would be available to everyone in the project; however, the common barn would be for the use of the new units on lot 1 (e.g., not including existing apartments).  He said that the agricultural soils/land in the common area or open space on lot 1 would be preserved in perpetuity, potentially with garden space for the development or even the community at large some day.  He said the VAST trail that currently runs through this open space area would retain access through the parcel.  He said that the general public will have pedestrian access over the proposed sidewalks and pedestrian plazas and bridges.

 

Mac clarified that the pedestrian access both out to Route 116 and to Charlotte Road will have reasonable slopes so as to be ADA compliant for wheelchairs.  This will allow easy pedestrian access throughout the pedestrian portion of the project.  He said each unit will have 2 indoor/garage parking spaces and 2 outdoor parking spaces.  The outdoor parking spaces will be immediately behind the garage and underneath the pedestrian plaza for most units.

 

Mac said they had addressed staff concerns about street tree placement by preparing a new landscaping plan showing additional trees (in green) in between the units so as to be planted essentially at the pedestrian level.  He said the street level trees shown on the plan will also be retained.  He said the electrical transformer/vault conflict with certain trees has been solved by relocating the electrical service and associated vaults to the west of the proposed houses.

 

He explained the design of the proposed commercial building on lot 3, and presented pictures of existing flat roof multi-story buildings in the village (e.g., Dick’s Barber Shop building).  He said their commercial building was meant to be similar in many ways – e.g., stacked windows, clapboard siding, parapets at the roof line, etc.  They explained that they need a height waiver for this building as well as the H1/H2 building which they would like to use as a centerpiece by building it with a cupola or clock tower.  They are seeking formal approval for the height waiver on the commercial building.  They only want the board to consider the principle of a height waiver for the H1/H2 building in order for them to have feedback.  They would formally apply for a height waiver for this building prior to construction.

 

Clint asked for clarification about necessary frontage and front yard setback waivers on the Charlotte Road.  The project engineer (Chantal Beliveau) explained that the commercial building will require front yard setback waivers from both Charlotte Road and Green Street – standard is 50’ from road/ROW center, proposed is 20-25’.  George expressed his desire to have the commercial building interface with the Charlotte Road streetscape, especially since this is an entrance to the village.  He felt the building and overall site should be better integrated into the Charlotte Road frontage to help give people a sense of arriving in the village.  He also felt the western and northern facades of this building should be architecturally compatible with the surrounding village area, since these will be very noticeable when approaching the village on Charlotte Road.  Various options were mentioned, including a door facing Charlotte Road, sidewalk extending along the building’s Charlotte Road frontage, street trees and street lights on the Charlotte Road frontage, additional architectural design features on the western and northern faces of the building (e.g., decks, porches), accessory structures (e.g., gazebo), etc.  Mac pointed out that the parking lot for the commercial building will be screened on the western side by a cedar hedge.

 

Mac and Rob discussed the proposed outdoor lighting.  They are very flexible on this, and would prefer to have the minimum amount of lighting.  They referred to the staff report and discussed the possibility of reducing some of the lighting – e.g., type, wattage, location, etc.  They felt natural/ambient light would be sufficient for the outdoor parking areas underneath the pedestrian plazas.  They presented pictures of similar situations in which natural lighting was sufficient during the day, and lighting was only used at night.

 

Greg asked for clarification about the space between each unit.  Mac said these areas will be “limited common elements (LCE)” for the benefit of the adjacent unit owner as shown on the plans.  He said these areas will be largely level to the back of the building and the unit owner will have the flexibility to treat it as they see fit – grassy area, pavers, etc.

 

Greg said that snowplowing will be difficult and asked where the snow will be stored.  Mac indicated a couple of snow storage areas – 1 between unit K and the commercial building, and 1 at the end of Green Street on the western side of the road.  Rob said that they had consulted with a local snow removal contractor (Gary Clark), and felt confident that snow removal would be manageable – both for the street and for the pedestrian walkways, bridges, etc.

 

Tom opened the discussion up for public comments.  George Dameron stated 4 concerns:

1.      He would like the Applicant to install fencing along his property line to prevent residents of the new development from shortcutting through his property to get to Charlotte Road.  The Applicant said this was mentioned at the Act 250 hearing, and that they are working with Mr. Dameron on this.

2.      He was concerned about stormwater back up on the property.  The Applicant said they will address this.

3.      He feels the planned traffic light at the Route 116, Charlotte Road intersection is critical to address the additional traffic this development will create.  He said he understands that the State plans to install this light in 2007, but wants to make sure this happens prior to the full build out of this development.

4.      He feels this development will also require that a sidewalk be built along Charlotte Road from the proposed street to Route 116.  He said this pedestrian connection will be important for the residents of this new development – e.g., more direct access to Lantmans, Town Hall, Firehouse Plaza, etc.

 

Tom Hackett discussed his concerns:

1.      He feels the outdoor lighting for the recently approved Norris project (adjacent to subject parcel) is too intense, and that less lighting in the Green Street project would be advisable.

2.      He is concerned about his privacy, and feels that the original village aesthetic was one of properties with both front and back yards, especially with views to the west from the back yards of properties on the west side of Route 116.  Mac said Mr. Hackett requested a plan showing the view/perspective from his property at the Act 250 hearing.  Mac presented this plan showing what the 5-unit dwelling unit (condos) would look like from Mr. Hackett’s property.

3.      He feels the proposal has too many units that are packed too closely together, and are too tall.  He is concerned that the development represents a departure from the traditional village design, and unduly impacts views and privacy on his property.

 

Alex asked the Board for thoughts on the suggestion (from staff report and made by George Dameron) that this development necessitates and should contribute toward a sidewalk along Charlotte Road to Route 116.  Mac said such a sidewalk would be approximately 400’ in length, and that they are also interested in this, and are willing to negotiate based on the cost.  Tom said he feels a sidewalk along the west side of Route 116 is also important for the residents of this development and the community at large.  Alex explained that the Town is working on a feasibility and preliminary engineering study for a sidewalk along the west side of Route 116 from Charlotte Road to the Hinesburg Community School.  He said the Town is doing the study to be ready to apply for grant funding for construction of this link in the coming 1-2 years.  He said this is a State highway with many existing driveways/accesses, so the planning/permitting process will be more involved.  George Dameron pointed out that a sidewalk along Charlotte Road should be easier to accomplish since there are only 2 driveway cuts (including his own), and since the Town controls the right of way rather than the State.

 

Joe wondered if the community garden space will be viable given the wetlands and floodplain area where it is proposed.  Mac explained that this area is considered to have prime/statewide agricultural soil by the State Agency of Agriculture.  They are conserving the bulk of the agricultural soils both by design and at the request of the Agency of Agriculture.

 

Tom MOVED to continue the preliminary plat review to the September 19 meeting.  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion passed 7-0.

 

Other Business:

6-Lot Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – 1515 Hollow Road – Applicant is Radcliff Romeyn – Review Draft Decision

The Board discussed the intended use of the open space and how that related to condition #4 and #7 regarding allowed structures outside of the building envelope on lot 5.  The Board agreed that the use of the open space on lot 5 was agriculture; therefore, agricultural structures directly related to the open space use could be constructed outside of lot 5’s building envelope.  Peter asked if the Board wanted to use the State’s definition of agriculture.  Board members said yes, as this is what the Applicant proposed, and Alex said the decision also stipulates this in conclusion #6.  Tom MOVED to approve the decision language (approval) as drafted.  Robert SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-2 with Greg and Joe voting against.

 

Minor 2-Lot Final Plat – Drinkwater Road – Applicant is Inez French – Review Draft Decision

Greg MOVED to approve the decision as drafted (with the insertion of appropriate plan dates).  George SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 5-1 with Joe voting against and Robert abstaining.

 

2-Lot Subdivision Preliminary (Final?) Plat – 85 Texas Brook Road – Applicants are Mike and Meri Charney - Deliberation

Joe said he didn’t feel this lot should be subdivided due to the site limitations (largely because of the long, narrow configuration and steep slopes), non-compliance with intent of this zoning district (especially with regard to large, undivided forest area to the south), and the bad precedent this would set for all the other similarly shaped lots in this area.  Clint MOVED to instruct staff to draft an approval.  Tom SECONDED the motion.  The motion failed 1-6 with Clint voting in favor.  The Board discussed the stormwater calculations presented by the Applicant’s engineer.  Various Board members were still uncomfortable with the results of the analysis and the design.  George said he was having trouble commenting on Joe’s concerns because he missed the original site visit, and because the plans had been changed substantially from that time, so the site visit observations from other Board members may be dated.  George MOVED to reopen the preliminary plat review public discussion, schedule another site visit, and get a review of the stormwater plans and calculations by an independent engineer.  Greg SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 6-1 with Clint voting against.

 

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – 3012 Baldwin Road – Applicant is Mark Ames - Deliberation

The Board instructed Peter to draft an approval for review based on the earlier discussion.  Ted said the approval should include a provision that a building envelope for lot 1 (with existing house) be created, and that it not include the entire lot – i.e., be specific as to the alternate building location suggested by the Applicant.

 

5-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Burritt Rd/Baldwin Rd- Applicants are Robert and Elizabeth Quackenbush and Stephen and Joanne Hoke - Deliberation

The Board discussed the concerns and comments made during the public discussion of this application.  Ted reiterated his concern about the sketch plan’s conformance with section 6.10.8 #2 of the Subdivision Regulations, which provides a rural area design standard, and says, “Areas in agricultural and productive woodland use should be of a size that retains their eligibility for State and Town tax abatement programs and enables effective agricultural or forest management.”  He felt that breaking up the front agricultural field into 3 separate lots, all of which would be too small to qualify for tax abatement programs, would not conform to this standard.  Various Board members felt there might be alternate lot layouts that could meet the Applicant’s subdivision intent while still complying with this standard by keeping the agricultural area intact.  The Board will deliberate on this application further at the September 19 meeting.

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Alex Weinhagen

Director of Planning & Zoning