Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
September 6, 2006
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, DeGood, South,
Huizinga, Pearson, Stasiak
Absent: none
#060906-01 - Agenda for September 6, 2006
Moved by
South, seconded by Pearson, to approve the agenda for September 6, 2006, as
presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060906-02 - Minutes of
the August
23, 2006 regular meeting
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by South, to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2006 meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060906-03 - Preliminary Plat of Cedar
Lake No. 11
Todd
Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows:
REQUEST
The request is for tentative
preliminary plat approval of Cedar Lake No. 11.
The Township Board granted tentative preliminary plat approval of Cedar
Lake No. 11 on June 27, 2005 and the approval expired one year later on June
27, 2006 (as per Sec. 50-29 in the Code of Ordinances-a copy is provided after
the review). Therefore, the applicant
has submitted the plat for preliminary plat approval again.
SUMMARY
No
public hearing is necessary for an extended phase of a preliminary plat because
an initial public hearing was required for the overall preliminary plat. Therefore, no property notices were sent (as
per See Sec. 50-28 in the Code of Ordinances-a copy is provided after the
review).
All
applicable zoning and general ordinances appear to be met (as demonstrated
below) with the exception of the temporary cul de sac length exceeding the maximum of 600 feet allowed in Sec. 50-51
(3)(c) and the whole street length (connecting to Fillmore for a future phase)
is shown longer than the maximum of 1500 feet allowed in Sec. 50-51(3)(a). The Planning Commission has the authority to
recommend and the Board to approve a variance as per Sec. 50-52.
Following is the documentation showing
compliance with Ordinance requirements.
|
I D number |
|
|
|
|
Date |
8-1-06 |
|
|
|
Name |
Cedar
Lake No. 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
24th
Ave./Fillmore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Preliminary
Plat |
|
SUP
required |
No |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north
arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of property owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal
description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in
acres of the property |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Property
lines and required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of
existing structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location
and dimensions of existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of
existing and proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
|
a. street length |
||||||
|
Sidewalks,
non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs,
exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Curbing,
parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
|
||||||
|
Calculations
of parking spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location,
pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Existing
zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
of existing vegetation-parkway
association |
|
|
|
|
NA |
|
||
|
Location,
type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Location,
height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
NA |
|
|||||
|
Size,
location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
size of surface water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use
Standards, general and specific |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|||
|
Residential
development extra requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
|
|||||
Additional
Comments
Sec.
50-28. Approval of preliminary plat
formerly reviewed as extended phases of preliminary plat.
(a)Application for tentative approval
for former extended phase of preliminary plat. The proprietor shall submit as a
preliminary plat for tentative approval any proposed subdivision previously
submitted as an extended phase of the preliminary plat in accordance with
section 50-26, but shall not be required to resubmit all additional information
as required by subsections (1) and (2) of section 50-26.
(b)Review by zoning administrator. The
township clerk shall submit one copy of the preliminary plat to the township
zoning administrator, who shall determine whether or not it conforms with the
extended phase of the preliminary plat, as originally submitted, and shall
submit his report to the planning commission and to the township board.
(c)Review by planning commission. The
planning commission shall review the proposed subdivision and make a report of
its findings in the same manner as set forth in section 50-26(c). However, the
commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing on the preliminary
plat or require a notice to be sent to adjacent property owners.
(d)Recommendation for approval or
disapproval. After consideration, the planning commission shall report its
findings and make recommendations for approval or disapproval to the township
board.
Sec. 50-29. Final approval of
preliminary plat.
The proprietor
must resubmit the preliminary plat to the township board for final approval within
one year from the date of tentative approval, unless such time has been
extended by action of the township board.
Sec. 50-51
(3) Blocks;
exceptions. The maximum lengths of blocks shall be 1,500 feet, measured between
the intersections of centerlines, with the following exceptions:
a. In
subdivisions where the proposed minimum street frontage of width of lot at the
building line is at least 200 feet, the 1,500-foot maximum length of blocks may
be exceeded by not more than 500 feet.
b. Under
extreme topographic conditions, the planning commission may approve exceeding
the 1,500-foot maximum length of blocks.
c. The
maximum length of a cul-de-sac street shall be 600 feet, measured from the
centerline of the closest intersecting street, which street itself is not a
cul-de-sac or dead-end street.
Sec.
50-52. Variances.
When the subdivider can show that a literal enforcement of the standards
of this chapter would cause unnecessary hardship if strictly enforced or where,
because of topographical or other conditions peculiar to the site the standards
require adjustments, departure may be made without destroying the intent of
such provisions. The planning commission may recommend a variance, or the
township board on its own initiative may approve a variance; provided, however,
that such variance from the terms of this chapter may not change or amend the
requirements of the township zoning ordinance.
Notes:
a. The temporary cul de sac is
longer than the maximum of 600 feet allowed in Sec. 50-51 (3)(c) of the Code of
Ordinances and the whole street (connecting to Fillmore for a future phase) is
shown longer than the maximum of 1500 feet allowed in Sec. 50-51(3)(a). The Planning Commission would have to
recommend and the Board approve a variance as per Sec. 50-52. There was discussion during previous
reviews regarding the strip of land between the rear lines of lots 170 to 173
and the water. Since that land is not
owned by the applicant, there is nothing that could be done. The determination was made that the street
could have one name even though it changes directions twice.
Stasiak
asked if the lots located off the lake would have access to the lake and the
applicant said no.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to make comments on this item. The chairman closed the floor to public
comments.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by Stasiak, to
recommend to the Township Board to grant tentative preliminary plat
approval of Cedar Lake No. 11 as shown on the drawing dated revised Aug. 16,
2006 and to recommend a variance for the length of Cedar West for both the
temporary cul de sac and the future length of the street under Sec. 50-51(1) in
the Code of Ordinances which allows a maximum length of a street to be 1,500
feet and a maximum length of a cul de sac to be 600 feet. Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to
recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance for the length.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060906-04 - Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds
(hold the public hearing, review and
take action)
Steve
Smit, Focus Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the
request. He explained that the property
at the northwest of the site, which is at the corner of 48th Ave.
and Baldwin, was split into three parcels and sold. He said that this should address the Planning
Commission’s concerns with a request for NS zoning at this corner.
The
zoning administrator stated the following.
A stub street connection should be shown to the property at the
northwest of the site regardless of the fact that it was split and sold. The applicant mentioned that there should be
no concerns about NS at the corner; however, the day after the applicant
submitted the application, the Township received a call from someone who wanted
to rezone the area to commercial. The
most important concern was limiting access to 48th Ave. and to
Baldwin. The Township has adopted the 48th
Ave. North/South Corridor Plan that designates 48th Ave. as the
primary north/south corridor. The plan
stresses limiting access to 48th Ave. and the Planning Commission
has an opportunity to plan for the future to provide interior access to this
area that would help to eliminate some driveways at this busy
intersection. She had contacted the Road
Commission and found that the Township still has the authority to require the
stub to this property no matter how the property was split or who owned
it. The Township received the
information about the property splits and even though the names were different,
the addresses were the same for the owners of each lot, which was also the same
address as the applicant for the Crosswinds plat. In addition, a letter was submitted from
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows:
REQUEST
The request is for tentative preliminary plat approval
of Crosswinds. The site is located at the southeast corner of Baldwin
and 48th Ave. and the parcels are zoned LDR. Water is available to the site; however, dry
sewer will be installed since sanitary sewer is not available to the site at
this time. Twenty-seven lots are
proposed. The first application for
approval for the Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds was recommended for denial by
the Planning Commission and denied by the Township Board because a connection
had not been provided to the property to the east as directed by the Planning
Commission. A revised plat drawing has
been submitted as a new application with the connection to the northwest
eliminated and a connection to the campground property to the east shown. The Planning Commission had required a stub street
connection to the property at the northwest and one had initially been provided
(but has been removed in this submission).
The reason for the requirement was to provide access to the property at
the northwest from an interior street to eliminate driveway access on 48th
Ave. (which has been determined by the Township and other government entities
to be the north/south corridor intended to be a route to carry traffic) and
driveway access on Baldwin since this was a busy intersection and would become
busier in the future.
SUMMARY
a.
A connection should be shown to the property at the
northwest of the site to provide interior access (even though the property has
recently been split and sold as a way for the applicant to avoid providing this
connection). The Road Commission has
informed the Township that there is still authority to require the stub and
authority is given in Sec. 50-51(1) of the Code of Ordinances and in the State
Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, MCL 560.182(4)(a). The temporary cul de sac is shown as 1,350
lineal feet and Sec. 50-51(3)(c.) in the Code of Ordinances allows a maximum
length of a cul de sac to be 600 feet.
Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and
the Board to grant a variance. The
Planning Commission previously determined that the temporary cul de sac was
acceptable with a note on the plan that the owners of lots 14 and 15 would be
responsible to add sidewalks at the time the street is extended.
b.
According to Chapter 24 footnote (d), dry sewer
fulfills the requirement of sewer. A
note was added to the plan stating that all property owners shall hook up to
sewer within six months of the date that it becomes available. However, at the time of final preliminary
plat approval, documentation should be provided to the Township that a plat
restriction will require all property owners to hook up to sewer within six
months of the date that it becomes available.
Following is the documentation showing
compliance with Ordinance requirements.
|
I D number |
|
|
|
|
Date |
8-17-06 |
|
|
|
Name |
Preliminary
Plat of Crosswinds |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Single
family residential |
|
SUP
required |
No |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north
arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of property owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal
description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in
acres of the property |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Property
lines and required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of
existing structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location
and dimensions of existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of
existing and proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
|
a.
connection |
||||||
|
Sidewalks,
non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs,
exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
Curbing,
parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
|
||||||
|
Calculations
of parking spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location,
pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Existing
zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location of
existing vegetation-parkway association |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Location,
type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Location,
height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
NA |
|
|||||
|
Size,
location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
b. must
hookup |
||||||
|
Location,
size of surface water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use
Standards, general and specific |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|||
|
Residential
development extra requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
|
|||||
Steve
Smit stated that the construction plans were already drawn according to the
elevations given on the Sewer Master Plan.
He said that the stub street should not be required because the three
lots were now owned by different individuals.
The
zoning administrator stated that it was irrelevant who owned the parcels and
how the land was split. She stated that
the Planning Commission could still require the stub street and had dealt with
a similar situation with four different property owners on Port Sheldon, but
still had required that four lots be developed as one site.
DeGood
said that the stub street was needed to limit access to the two busy streets,
48th Ave. and Baldwin. He
said that there were still questions about the dry sewer.
Stasiak
asked about providing a stub street to the property at the corner when the lots
were already split.
The
zoning administrator said that this was an opportunity for the Planning
Commission to plan for the future to help limit driveway accesses to 48th
Ave. and Baldwin, especially at this busy corner and with the fact that 48th
Ave. was the designated north/south corridor.
Poskey
said that the Planning Commission should take this opportunity to limit access
to 48th Ave. and Baldwin. He
said that the stub street should be required to provide interior access to the
northwest property.
Pearson
asked about the process to rezone the property to NS at this corner.
The
zoning administrator stated that the Master Plan called for this area to be LDR,
but anyone could request anything and the Township would review and consider
it.
South
said that the interior access to the northwest corner was needed to limit
access to 48th Ave. and Baldwin since they were busy streets and
would get widened and only get busier.
He brought up the Fire Department memo and noted the following. The 8 inch water main located on the west
side of Berens Lane would have to be located on the east side per Township
Water Department specifications. Fire
hydrant placements were designated. The
proposed street with the name of Brzezinski Ct. should be renamed because
Ottawa County Road Commission specifications state that named roads utilizing
the word “Court” are for permanent dead-end roads. South said that Brzezinski Court should be
renamed according to Road Commission specifications and the sewer question
should be answered.
Honderd
asked what zoning designation the Corridor Plan called for in this area.
The
zoning administrator said that it called for LDR with limited access.
Huizinga
said that the stub street should be provided to the property at the northwest
of the site.
The
chairman clarified that property notices had been sent for the public hearing
and opened the public hearing.
Drew
Thorpe, 1216 Lorrie Dr., asked if the three parcels would be allowed to have
access to 48th Ave. or Baldwin.
Honderd
said that it is a goal of the Planning Commission to limit access to the major
streets through the planning process by directing that interior accesses be
provided.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
Steve
Smit said the following. The three
parcels were zoned LDR for single family residences. There would be only two drives onto 48th
Ave. and the corner property would most likely have access from Baldwin because
that was common sense. Due to the size
of the parcels, the uses would most likely be single family residences. The corner piece was a little larger to meet
the setback requirements on both streets.
It made no sense for the single family residences to have access through
a back door driveway. The Road
Commission would not approve a road access to these parcels. For the sewer issue, he visited the Township,
checked the Master Plan, and talked to
Steve
Smit asked about the person who inquired about changing the corner to NS.
Honderd
said that there are real estate signs on the property and someone was probably
checking into what uses would be allowed there if the property was to be
purchased.
Steve
Smit said the following. It was
possible. His client always intended to
use the corner property as split parcels for single family homes. It was common sense. If it could work, they would put the stub in;
however, it did not work and they eliminated it. Lots would not work after all the setbacks
were provided for 48th Ave. and Baldwin. These lots were not under the same
ownership. It made more sense to stub
the street to the south because it was a larger parcel.
Poskey
said that the request should be tabled to give the applicant an opportunity to
address the issue of the stub street and sewer, as well as the other issues such
as the name change and other issues listed on the Fire Department memo.
Pearson
asked if it was possible to look at a previous plan with the street stubbed to
the northwest property and one was provided that had been submitted by the
applicant during the previous application process. Pearson said that it might not be possible to
get what the Township wants with an interior stub street now that the three
lots are sold to different owners.
Honderd
said the following. The Planning
Commission should look at the property at the northwest as vacant land, or at
least he looked at it that way. If it is
vacant, regardless of who owns it or how it is split, the Township wants the
access to come from an interior street.
The ball is in their court to come up with a way to develop it within
the Township’s requirements. The
Planning Commission should always look for opportunities to prevent what
happened with the parcel at the southwest corner of Baldwin and 36th
Ave. when the corner property was not included in the development and there was
no interior access. This site at 36th
Ave. and Baldwin has presented problems for the Township. The Township received a request to rezone
that property and did rezone it because it probably would not be developed as
single family homes since there was no interior access. Now a bad situation was created for that
southwest corner of Baldwin and 36th Ave., and the Planning
Commission should take the opportunity through the planning process to avoid a
similar situation and not create this corner property without interior
access. Regardless of the owner’s
intention, a process is in place for the Planning Commission to use good
judgment for future planning opportunities.
Poskey
stated that he agreed.
Pearson
said that he worried about this situation because the property was split into
three parcels.
Honderd
said that it should be looked at as vacant land on the corner. He said if needed the Planning Commission
could ask the planning consultant to design a layout for residential lots with
an interior access street.
Pearson
said that as a former fire fighter, there was an issue with the name Brzezinski
Court because a dispatcher would have a difficult time. He suggested an easier name.
South
said that there should be an interior access to the corner property because the
lots would probably not be sold for LDR single family residences due to the
busy roads and intersection, and the request should be tabled until the
Township Board decided on the sewer issue.
Stasiak
asked about the corner property being split into three parcels.
Steve
Smit said the following. The north and
south parcel were purchased by one individual and the middle one was purchase
by a different individual. It was
curious that the Planning Commission would look at vacant property since they
required the stub street to the east where a campground was located and it was
not vacant. He could understand the
vacant perspective, but he asked that they look at it from a practical
perspective. The corner piece could not
be developed as a PUD since there was not live sewer and it was less than 10
acres.
Honderd
said that with all of the information given to the applicant at this meeting
and all the previous meetings, the Planning Commission was basically saying that
development of this property was really premature at this time, especially
since sewer is not available at this time.
He said that the Planning Commission directed that a stub street be
installed to the east because that property owner requested it and indicated
that she planned to develop it in the future into something other than the
current use of a campground.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by Pearson to table the request.
MOTION
CARRIED.
It
was noted that the item was tabled to give the applicant time to address the
issues raised by the Fire Department including changing the street name with
the word “Court,” to clarify the sewer issue and the interior stub street issue
to the northwest on the site.
#060906-05 - Ordinance Amendments (review only on September 6—On September 20, 2006 hold
the
public
hearing, review and take action)
1.
Sec. 29.6
2.
Sec. 28.8
3.
Sec. 28.2
4.
Sec. 13.3(H)
5.
Chapter 20
The notice was published with
a date of September 20, 2006 for the public hearing and action can be taken on that
date. The item is on the agenda only for
discussion on September 6, 2006.
The following Zoning
Ordinance amendments were initiated by the Planning Commission at the August
16, 2006 for the following reasons:
A.
Sec. 29.6, Sec. 28.8, and Sec. 28.2 – to bring the
Zoning Ordinance in compliance with the new Zoning Enabling Act.
B.
Sec. 13.3(H) – to allow the use of a daycare in the OS
district with a special use permit.
C.
Chapter 20 – to clarify the title of the title of the
Special Use Chapter
The
Township Board is authorized and empowered to cause this
Ordinance to be amended, supplemented or changed. Proposals for amendments may
be initiated by the Township Board, the Planning Commission or by petition of
one or more owners of property in Georgetown Township affected by such proposed
amendment. The procedure for amending this Ordinance shall be as follows:
(A) Each petition shall be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator, accompanied by a fee as established by the Township Board, and then referred to the
Township Clerk to set a hearing date and publish notices. The petitioner shall attend a pre-application
meeting with the zoning administrator prior to submission of the application in
accordance with the established Township policy.
(B) The
Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing, the notice of which shall
be given by two (2) publications in a newspaper of general local
circulation, the first not more than thirty (30) nor less than twenty (20) days
and the second not more than eight (8) days prior to the date of said hearing. in accordance with the statutory
requirements of the State of Michigan.
(C) If the
property involved borders another local government, the Clerk of said
municipality is also to be given notice of the public hearing and said
municipality to be given an opportunity to comment on any coordinated action or
review deemed necessary.
(D) Notice
of the public hearing shall be mailed to property owners, as reflected on the
tax rolls, of property which lies within three hundred (300) feet of the
affected property.
(E) If the
affected property is within five hundred (500) feet of a Municipal boundary,
the Planning Commission, following the public hearing, shall transmit its
recommendation to the Ottawa County Planning Commission which shall review and
comment upon the request within thirty (30) days of its receipt. Following such
review period, if applicable, the Township Board shall deny, approve, or approve with
conditions such amendment.
(F)(C) The Township Board may hold additional hearings if it considers it
necessary. Notice of such hearing shall be published not more than fifteen
(15) days nor less than five (5) days before the hearing. in accordance with the statutory
requirements of the State of Michigan.
(G)(D) No petition for rezoning or Special Land Use ,
which has been disapproved , shall be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year
from the date of disapproval, except as may be permitted after learning of new
and significant facts or conditions which might result in favorable action upon
resubmittal.
When a
notice of appeal has been filed in proper form with the Board of Appeals, the Secretary shall
immediately place said request for appeal upon the calendar for hearing, and shall
cause notices stating the time, place and object of the hearing to be served
personally or by mail addressed to the parties making the request for appeal,
at least five (5) days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing. All notices
shall be sent to the addresses given in the last assessment roll. notice of such hearing shall be
in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Michigan. The Board may recess such hearings from
time to time, and, if the time and place of the continued hearing be publicly
announced at the time of adjournment, no further notice shall be required.
(A) The
Township Board of Appeals shall consist of five (5) members. The first
member of such Board of Appeals shall be a member of the Township Planning Commission;
the second member may be a member of the Township Board; the additional three
(3) members or four (4) if no member
is a member of the Board shall be selected from the electors residing
in the Township. All members shall be
appointed by the Township Board. None of
the additional three (3) members or
four (4) if no member is a member of the Board shall be elected
officers of the Township or employees of the Township Board; Members shall be
appointed for three (3) year terms, except the Planning Commission and Township
Board representatives who shall only serve while holding membership on those
respective bodies. (revised Nov. 24, 2003)
(B) Members
of the Board of Appeals shall be removable by the Township Board for nonperformance of duty or misconduct in
office upon written charges and after public hearing. A member shall disqualify
himself or herself from a vote in which the member has a conflict of interest. Failure of a member to disqualify himself or
herself from a vote in which the member has a conflict of interest shall
constitute misconduct in office.
(H) Day care
centers.
#060906-06 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.