PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES OF October 13, 2016 Meeting of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.
As Chairman Baden was not yet present, Vice Chairman Paddock asked everyone to stand for the pledge to the Flag.
The Secretary did roll call attendance.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Michael Baden, Chairman-7:15pm John Dawson
Lawrence DeWitt
Shane Ricks
Maren Lindstrom
Adam Paddock, Vice Chairman
Patrick Williams
Also present:
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney for the Town. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that the Board’s referral to the Town Board regarding solar was sent and that Chairman Baden would speak more about that later.
TRAININGS
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that the training sponsored by the UCPB on 9/26 that was given by our own Chairman Baden was excellent. It was nice to see him doing a really good job on behalf of the Board and the Town. He made us proud with the way Rochester represents around the area.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Ricks motioned to accept the September 12, 2016 Minutes. Seconded by Ms. Lindstrom. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Not yet present Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Absent
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
2016-05 LLI New Application
Lot Improvement
17 Blue Spruce LLC – Ridgewood Eco-Homes LLC
Proposes transfer of 0.676 acres of land between contiguous lots
Blue Spruce Lane and Tamarack Lane, S/B/L 60.1-5-3 and 60.1-5-4, R-2 zoning district
SEQRA: Type II (by definition)
Mr. Bob James was present on behalf of the application. He explained that Lots 3 and 4 of the subdivision that was approved in the early 90s. It’s finally getting built out. Some of Lot 3’s improvements were placed on Lot 4. So, they are doing the lot line revision to fix that. Lot 4 was vacant and the owners of Lot 3 didn’t pay to get the stakeout to place the home, so this is what happened. The plan was to do a swap, but the Lot 3 owner didn’t want go for that, so this is the plan that they came up with Lot 4 going from 6.5 acres to +/-5.9 acres and Lot 3 from +/-5.8 acres to +/-6.5 acres. All the setbacks will be met with these new lines. Lot 4 is vacant right now. They were right in the process of a sale when this was discovered. The sewage details are basically in the same areas that were shown on the filed map in 1991. Fortunately none of this really disturbs the proposed well, house or septic sites. There are about 5 or 6 lots left to build on or sell. There were 27 lots originally with one built on erroneously years ago.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that the required lot line language is on the plans.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to approve the lot line improvement as presented. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Not yet present Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Absent
Motion carried. 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions
At this time Chairman Baden arrived to the meeting.
2016-05 SPA Continued Application, Public Hearing
Site Plan – Agricultural Tourism Enterprises
Westwind Orchard Cidery, Lowell Deutschlander (applicant) and Fabio Chizzola (owner)
Proposes new construction of a 4500 sq. ft. building for the production and tasting of hard cider
215 Lower Whitfield Rd., S/B/L 68.4-5-12.110, AR-3 and AP Overlay zoning districts, Located in the Ulster County Ag District #3
SEQRA: Unlisted Action
Mr. Chizzola and Mr. Deutschlander were present on behalf of the application.
Chairman Baden noted that this application was referred to the UC Planning Board, TOR Highway, Accord Fire District and UCHD. The Board only heard back from the Highway Dept.
Mrs. Christiana noted that she spoke with Mr. Kelder regarding the Board’s question about having a cross walk on Lower Whitfield Road for the applicant to have parking on one side of the road and the business on the other side of the road. She noted that he was not in favor of doing that. He prefers not to put cross walks in as he is concerned about liability. The applicant also wrote to Supervisor Chipman, who conferred with Mr. Kelder, Highway Superintendent and he wrote back saying that the Town would help the applicants out if they wanted to obtain some signs to put on their own property, but they wouldn’t go the route of the cross walk. If the Board wants a cross walk, they could request it from the Town Board. It’s actually a TB decision to put in cross walks or signs.
Chairman Baden noted that one thing that he spoke with Mrs. Christiana about was the possibility of asking the Town to put up signs along the roadway and not a specific pavement crosswalk equivalent to the “slow children at play” signs or “pedestrian crossing” signs.
Mr. Dewitt questioned if that would raise the same questions of liability?
Mrs. Christiana answered that they’d have to make sure they were kept maintained.
Chairman Baden’s personal opinion was that it was less of a liability than a painted crosswalk.
Mr. Ricks noted that if someone sees a crosswalk and starts walking and assumes the car will stop and it doesn’t- then all of a sudden the crosswalk becomes the issue of litigation.
Chairman Baden agreed with Mr. Ricks. He noted that a sign at either side is more of just a warning device so a driver that is not expecting someone to suddenly come across. He has personally witnessed an example of it at the PineGrove where they have lodging on one side and their horseback riding on the other side. He used to live past the PineGrove and passed the PineGrove several times a day. A lot of time—especially kids—would be coming down the hill and see the horses and just run and not realize they were crossing a road. Even if there are signs on either side on the applicant’s property—maybe signs on the roadway could be a secondary precaution.
He then noted that the Board did not hear back from the County PB yet, but he noted that from being at the meeting that it was discussed, but the Board did not receive the reply. Sometimes they can get it back immediately, other times they cannot. They meet on the Wednesday prior to the Board’s regularly scheduled monthly meeting. He knows what the discussion was, but hasn’t seen the written reply yet. The discussion was primarily concerned with UCHD approval for the well and septic areas. The PB would have done that anyway, but because they are looking at it from a County standpoint, that is the only comment. He did speak with the County Planning Director privately about his opinion on the signs and he said it certainly couldn’t hurt, but they didn’t issue any comments back on that. Where he was leading to was that the PB could hold the Public Hearing at this meeting, but they cannot do any sort of decision until they get that letter back from them. He asked the Board that if they wanted to write a letter to the TB and get their feelings on the issue of signs along the roadway?
Mr. Ricks questioned what if the applicants just did it themselves?
Chairman Baden noted that they couldn’t because it was a Town right of way. They could do it off the right of way at the crossing on either side and the Board discussed that and Mr. Chizzola noted that he would be open to doing that anyway—but that was for the pedestrians as a warning. He was saying let’s double up and warn the cars in either direction. It wasn’t a heavily traveled road, but the applicant could probably speak to it better than the Board could.
Mr. Chizzola agreed that it wasn’t heavily traveled, but signs couldn’t hurt.
Chairman Baden questioned if the Board should find out the cost of getting the signs installed or if they could require the applicant to be responsible for that cost.
Mrs. Christiana noted that if the Town Board approved they could ask that.
In Chairman’s Baden opinion it wouldn’t hurt to ask the Town Board.
Mr. Ricks motioned to send a letter to the Town Board to request the signs.
Mr. Williams seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Dewitt questioned if the applicant had any other thoughts before they requested this?
Mr. Chizzola thought that the signs would be better than a crosswalk.
Chairman Baden noted that this wasn’t to say that if the TB agreed or disagreed that it would automatically be pursued by the PB. It’s to explore what options the PB has. If the TB says ‘no’, then the PB can’t require it.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Absent
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
Chairman Baden noted that he had a draft of Part 2 of SEQRA. They could hold off on reviewing that until they heard back from the public.
Mrs. Christiana suggested that the PB might want to hold off on the Part 2 because the signs might come into play with the whole section about traffic.
Chairman Baden agreed.
At this time the Chairman opened the hearing to the public for comment.
Mr. Chizzola noted that he was proposing to build a cidery and a tasting room to add to his orchard to make hard cider. He has his liquor license.
A member of the public was recognized to speak. He had several comments and questions that were not within the Board’s purview to consider:
– There was already a place like this within 26 miles- wasn’t that already enough?
Chairman Baden answered the questions/comments as follows:
– Under the Ag and Markets Law they allow what’s called tasting rooms or farm breweries. This one is hard cider. If a farm is doing onsite brewing like Arrowood is doing across the street, they have a license from NYS Ag and Markets. It’s not a liquor license per se, it’s a license that allows them to do tasting and to sell bottles.
Another member of the public asked a follow up question:
– Didn’t they already sell hard cider out of their farm stand? Then why did they need a 2,500 sf building to do it? Were their taxes going to go up? What was the benefit to the Town doing this?
Chairman Baden answered:
– In reality when you add value to a property, it raises the value of that property. This is going to raise the value of the property and potentially, under Ag and Markets law, not all buildings are tax exempt. Only buildings that are related to the farm. Because this is used as an Ag use, it may or may not be considered part of that, but it’s something that the PB cannot consider.
– Regarding tax assessment issues—whether things are being assessed or not—that is something that the PB has no ability to consider or do anything about.
Mrs. Christiana noted that by law the PB could not consider assessment issues. The PB can only consider zoning issues.
Chairman Baden took on several more questions from the same two members of the public.
– This is an Agricultural accessory to the orchard. Under Zoning, this is a use for the property. It does not matter who is living on this property. It doesn’t have to be the owner of the property. The person who does own the property does have to apply and in this case that is the situation, but it is not a requirement to develop your property that you live on your property.
– In response to another taxation question, the Chairman reiterated that the PB was not here to review anything to do with taxes. This property is located in an Agricultural District under NYS. NYS Ag Law allows property to be in an Agricultural District that is administered by the County. This property is part of Ag District #3 administered by Ulster County. Because of that and because of certain Ag uses on the property, they are able to apply for certain tax discounts based on the Ag use of the property. He doesn’t know what they do apply for or what they don’t apply for and again, the PB is reviewing this under the Zoning Law of the Town of Rochester. Taxation has nothing to do with Zoning. Zoning is chapter 140 and there are very strict criteria on what they can and can’t look at. They look at setbacks, access, the physical elements of what is being proposed. What is being proposed here is an allowed use as an accessory use to the orchard under the Zoning Law. The PB is reviewing it under Site Plan criteria of both NYS Law and Town of Rochester Law, which is in the Zoning Code. The members of the public points about taxation, while may or may not be valid, cannot be considered. Any taxation concerns need to be addressed to the Assessor and it is up to the Assessor on whether they will investigate further or not. The members of the public points are taken, but they are not something that can be considered.
– In response to the question about how many acres were actually agricultural- the Chairman noted that the whole property is zoned as Agricultural. This property is located in the AR-3 Zoning District of the Town of Rochester. Which means that you need 3 acres for every use on the property. The primary use is agricultural. If there is a residence on it, that is allowed. They would need 3 acres for the Ag use and 3 acres for the residence. It is 32 acres, they’ve exceeded that number. If they have 2 homes and the Ag use, they would need 9 acres. It is an allowed use under the District. He wasn’t sure what the member of the public was referring to in terms of acreage. It may be something for assessment purposes and he could not answer any questions pertaining to taxes. If they meet the Zoning criteria is what the PB is looking at here. They weren’t changing the Zoning classification of this property by adding this use. This is an accessory use.
The member of the public now viewed the map and had several questions.
Chairman Baden explained the layout of the site plan to the member of the public. Both sides of the road were one lot. The road between the two is called a natural subdivision. He owns 32 acres. The well that the applicant will be using is on their own property and not the neighbor’s. They will be bringing water from across the street to that structure. Mr. Vandemark’s well is shown to make sure that the septic is far enough away from Vandemark’s well. They are bringing water from their own property and they will need UCHD approval and any approval that the PB may do—that will be a condition of approval for that well. Without that approval they cannot move forward. In regards to the question about the fence along the back of the property, there is no “good side towards the neighbors” law in the Town of Rochester. In regards to the question as to if the Assessor would be at the next meeting, the Chairman answered that he would not be in attendance as the PB cannot consider the taxes in making any decisions. He highly encouraged submitting any further findings in writing to the PB, but anything in regards to taxes cannot be considered. Only the Assessor can fix any issues with taxes. This was re-iterated several more times. The Assessor is not involved in any PB discussions. If this application is approved, the Assessor is sent a copy of the building permit, the PB Decision and once the structure is completed, the Assessor then has the right to review it and determine if their assessment goes up or not. That is something that the PB has no say over and they cannot consider it. Having an Assessor involved in the PB process would be a change to NYS Law and should be followed up with NYS if the member of the public didn’t agree with it. If there were problems with the way the Assessor was doing his job, Chairman Baden suggested that the member of the public address the Town Board at one of their monthly meetings or go see the supervisor independently.
The member of the public who had been speaking, now asked about the potential of traffic from this application. Was the road going to be widened?
Chairman Baden answered that was something that the PB could consider. This was referred to the Town’s Highway Superintendent who issued back a letter that this application after he reviewed it stated: After reviewing the above mentioned, there appears to be no issues of concern in regards to the Highway Dept.
The member of the public noted that it was a concern to the public. They walk around there with their kids and the roads were narrow.
Chairman Baden noted that traffic was something that they could consider. This was a Town road and the impact of the potential increase in traffic is something that they look to the Highway Superintendent to inform them of concerns.
Mr. Chizzola noted that they are a pick your own orchard and this application wouldn’t bring more people in.
In response to the member of the public’s concern over the applicant’s goal of increasing his revenue- Chairman Baden noted that whether the applicant is looking to increase his revenue or not—this was not something the Board could consider. The Board considers impacts of health, impacts of safety. Those are the impacts being considered. If the applicant opens a business and it doesn’t make any money- the Town has no say in it. If the applicant wants to open this business—they have filled out an application with the Board where there is information supplied in regards to the traffic. The hours of operation that are projected are 9am-5pm for production of cider on weekdays and they are open to the public on Saturday and Sunday from 11am-6pm. That’s the same hours that they operate currently. What they are doing is expanding their use instead of just selling the apples they will be producing and selling hard cider. In some ways it is no different than if Kelder’s farm decided to build a cidery and start doing it. They may or may not have increased traffic. The Board will review this and discuss whether they think it will be a great increase in traffic. If it is a small to medium increase, as long as the Highway Superintendent tells the PB that the road is able to support the business, unless the PB has some sort of very solid information saying that he is incorrect, the PB pretty much has to follow his opinion as the Town’s Highway Superintendent. The roads are his jurisdiction. As the member of the public stated that his kids play on that road, Chairman Baden requested that the member of the public let the board know where he lived.
The member of the public noted that he and his family walks around the block and rides their bikes. They border this property and they have 5 other residents that have the same concern.
Chairman Baden noted that the PB hears the concerns about the traffic and they will continue to discuss that.
A different member of the public was recognized to speak. He lived behind the project. His concern was that the location of the building was in a really bad spot in regards to his property and his view of the mountains.
Chairman Baden noted that the building will be 24’ at the peak and will be a barn style. It’s one story and basically is a barn.
The member of the public purchased his house a year ago and has a very nice view of the mountains and now when he sits on his porch, that may not happen now. If these guys have 32 acres, why couldn’t they put it somewhere else? Why would they put it in a spot that would block someone’s view? He just thinks the location of it which is right on the line bordering his property wasn’t ideal. Would they consider another location?
Mr. Ricks noted that the building is bordering the property by Mr. Vandemark’s house. As far as the member of the public’s property it was still aways away from it.
Chairman Baden noted that the PB can ask the applicant if they would consider a different location, but they have a legal right to build it there, just as if it wasn’t an orchard, someone could build a house there. If they meet the setback requirements…
Mr. Chizzola noted that the reasons for the location were because the cidery would be on the same line as the farm store. He understood what his neighbor was talking about, but it won’t be changing the line- they are building on the same line as the farm store. This building will be 8’ higher than the farm store. They thought about putting it there so that when people come to the farm store, it’s almost like an extension of the farm store.
Mr. Chizzola’s neighbor didn’t think that the convenience for customers was a good enough reason for him as to why this needs to be built in this spot.
Chairman Baden noted that while he understood the concern, there was nothing in the Zoning Code that stopped the applicant from building there. The Board did hear his opinion, and that’s part of the reason why they are having this discussion. It does make it in a central area and being somewhat familiar with the property, that is the area that is cleared there already too. There is not a huge amount of site work in regards to clearing that they would need to do to construct that building. The Board will have further discussion on this and his point is heard, but there is nothing that the PB can require the applicant to do unless they have a valid reason why.
The neighbor noted that the PB is the opinion for the Town.
Chairman Baden noted that they can take it into consideration, but if it’s within the Zoning Law, if the PB denied it over a reason like that, they would have to have a valid legal reason to deny an application. If it’’s allowed under the Zoning and Building Code and the applicant says—no this is where I have to put it—the PB can’t turn the application down just because it’s in a location not where a neighbor wants it.
Vice Chairman Paddock noted that this is something that goes both ways. It’s not only something that affects the neighbor, but the applicant is legally allowed to put this where he wants to on his property and the PB can’t tell him he can’t so long as he meets the Zoning requirements.
Chairman Baden noted that they have had situations where a neighbor has requested that a fence be put up between a use and their property and the PB has approached the applicant and asked if they’d consider putting up a fence. In one case an applicant was going to put up a tree line and instead, they agreed to put up a fence instead of trees. So, sometimes they are able to work within the situation, but it’s not a reason that they can turn down and application.
In response to a question from the public about how far buildings needed to be away from each other, Chairman Baden responded- half the height of the building. So, if the building was 24’, the other building would need to be 12’ away. That is a code that varies from Town to Town. That is not a fire code, that is a Town by Town Code.
Another member of the public was recognized to speak. She questioned if this would be like the Arrowood Brewery. Her concern was noise and quality of life. Her family is a part of the Irish camp near this location. They have about 500-600 children and they always use this road. She is concerned that the gray water that comes from the bottling—is this going to be a bottling plant? Are they going to have trucks that come at 5am? Snapple used to have a warehouse up the road and the Snapple trucks went back and forth all day long. She just wants to know if this is something that would be mass produced eventually?
Chairman Baden noted that under the farm brewery license, they are limited as to the amount that they can produce. It’s not going to be massed produced and they can only sell it on site. This is a tasting room where people can come in and taste the cider and decide to purchase it by the bottle.
Mr. Chizzola noted that the difference is that they aren’t going to use any water—they are going to press apples and ferment the juice of the apples and there is no water in the cider—so they are only going to use water to wash the floors. Right now they are doing around 300 gallons of cider. They will be doing a maximum of 2500 gallons. That is a micro cidery. They are never going to be thinking to become an Angry Orchard type place. They don’t’ have the land or capacity to do that.
Chairman Baden believed they would need a different type of permit for that as well. Between now and the next meeting he would have that information as to what the maximum number is per year. There is a maximum of what they can produce under that licensing. There is also a very strict regimentation as to what they are allowed to do with the use. This isn’t going to be a restaurant or a café. They have also said that they are not doing major outdoor events in conjunction with this. The cidery is just a place to make this and people can taste it and it will be sold in the cidery.
The next concern from a member of the public was parking. Is the parking going to be increased?
Chairman Baden noted that they will be increasing the parking. Right in front of where the farm store is and in front of that is a driveway. On that driveway they are proposing 36 parking spaces- 18 per side additional to the parking spaces that already exist across the street that are in use for the orchard. The Board asked them to supply 24 minimum, it will be gravel parking so there won’t be stormwater runoff and all of that and it’s essentially just going to be an area that is designated for potential parking. People can still park across the street to do the apple picking and that is why with the parcel being on both sides of the road the Board had concerns with people crossing the road. The PB wanted to make sure that people do it safely. The PB’s proposal for that is that the applicant has agreed to post a sign at either side for the pedestrians and the PB is going to go to the Town Board and ask them to post signs at either end along the roadway warning the drivers that there is a potential pedestrian crossing. Based on the numbers of what the PB is looking at, they think that achieves the safety issue for that. He doesn’t think that based on what they have heard from the applicant that they are going to see huge numbers of increase in parking. They just added the potential of 36 cars.
Mr. Chizzola was asked if there would be any increased employment. He noted that he employs students and employs about 4 people.
A gentleman noted that he lived on Mettacahonts Road and was concerned with the width of the roads to this location. He has a pickup truck, if he is going up the road and another car is coming down the road- one of them has to pull into the grass. The Highway Superintendent said that area of the road was safe?
Chairman Baden noted that the Highway Superintendent issued a letter that says the following: After reviewing the above mentioned, there appears to be no issues of concern in regards to the Highway Dept.
Chairman Baden noted that the road is of legal width for Town roads. He noted that having to pull over to let a car pass would happen whether it was one car or ten cars. All the PB is considering is the increase in volume of traffic. They will be open weekends only just as they are now. Widening the road would be something that people would approach the Town Board and Highway Superintendent about if someone feels that a road is unsafe. He used to live on a road that was probably one of the narrowest in the Town and he has a large pickup truck and would have to pull over to let cars pass as well. Chairman Baden approached the Highway Superintendent and was told that was what the road is. Safety is something that the Board can consider, but the width of the road is not something that the Board can ask the applicant to fix. If there was enough volume, the Board could request a turning lane, but he didn’t think that they were looking at anything that would warrant that in terms of volume. Width of the road is a concern and something that the PB can consider.
Mr. Ricks noted that there has been an increase on that narrow road with the addition of Arrowood Farm and the orchard operating at the same time.
Another member of the public noted that the traffic that is shared between the brewery and the orchard has increased. She lives on this road as well and she doesn’t have any issues with any of this other than noise—specifically when people are ordering and picking up pizzas.
Mr. Chizzola noted that could be addressed.
Chairman Baden noted that the Board is also in receipt of emails on this date from Blake Arrowood and Jake Megglio also from Arrowood Farms. The Chairman read the emails to the Board. Both in support of the application.
Chairman Baden wanted to note something else that he had brought up earlier. This property is located in UC Ag District #3. Any property in a State Certified Ag District has with it certain rights of Ag use. This cidery is considered by Ag and Markets an extension of their current Ag Use. It naturally follows what an orchard may do. By that there is an even more strict criteria that the PB would have to review in order to deny something like this. The State Ag and Markets law pretty much exempts the majority of review of local boards—it trumps it. The PB has had a number of applications where the review is severely limited and the biggest reason that the PB is even allowed to review this is because there will be public entrance into the building. If this use was just a cidery and not the tasting room, the PB wouldn’t even be reviewing this. This would be an allowed use and they would be getting a Building Permit as long as they met all of the codes and moving on. The PB’s review is somewhat limited under Ag and Markets Law. Whether you agree with it or not, it’s unfortunately not up to the PB to decide- it’s a state mandate of Ag uses and expansion of Ag uses.
Ms. Lindstrom made a motion to continue the Public Hearing at the November 14th Meeting “because they had to”. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden: Yes Dewitt: Yes
Lindstrom: Yes Ricks: Yes
Paddock: Yes Williams: Yes
Dawson: Absent
Motion carried. 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions
2016-02 SPA Continued Application
Site Plan
LH Equine Properties LLC aka Crystal Creek Equestrian Center
Proposes a change of use and new construction of a +/-30,78 acre parcel for Commercial Stables with new construction of a 9800 sq ft indoor riding arena with attached barns. Proposed use to include riding lessons, clinics and student presentations. Existing 6 apartments to be converted to 1 office, 1 classroom, and 4 apartments to be rented to guests/students. Co-owner and instructor live onsite in existing residences.
5883 Route 44/55, S/B/L #76.3-2-35.11, ‘AR-3’ zoning district
SEQRA: Unlisted Action
The applicant was not present.
Pre-Application
Alex and Dru Kamboris
4747 Route 209, S/B/L 69.3-3-26, B zoning district
The applicant did not submit their Zoning and Classification Permit Application in a timely manner to be reviewed by the Code Enforcement Officer and referred to the PB.
OTHER MATTERS:
Chairman Baden noted that in regards to the Solar Law that is currently in front of the Town Board for review, the Town Board took the suggestion to remove the words, “of Statewide significance”. They have a meeting tomorrow and because this is a significant change there is a requirement to wait an additional 8 days. They are meeting at 9am tomorrow.
Ms. Lindstrom motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dewitt. No discussion. All Members present, in favor.
As there was no further business, Chairman Baden adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary