Village of Gurnee
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
January 16, 2013
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
Planning and Zoning Board Members Present: Chairman James Sula, David Nordentoft, Gwenn Broughton, Richard McFarlane, Sharon Salmons, Edwin Paff, and Richard Twitchell
Planning and Zoning Board Members Absent: None
Other Officials Present: David Ziegler, Director of Community Development; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Booth, Associate Planner; and Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Public Comment
Chairman Sula asked if anyone from the public has any comments or questions regarding any item that is not on the agenda this evening. As there were no comments or questions from the public, Chairman Sula closed the floor on this item.
3. Presentation and Review of the Zoning Ordinance Update: “Technical Review Report”
Chairman Sula stated that the Planning and Zoning Board (PZB) is here this evening to review a report completed by the Village’s consultant that was hired to assist staff with the update of the Zoning Ordinance. He said that the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980 and that updates have occurred over the years to try to keep the code up-to-date. He noted that it is impossible to process the necessary amendments on a piecemeal basis and that amendment on top of amendment over the years has created additional problems. Simple text amendments become complicated as 30 years of changes make it difficult to cross-reference interwoven sections and prevent unintended consequences. He stated that in late 2011 the Village issued Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) to potential planning consulting firms for the update of the Zoning Ordinance. The Village received responses from 6 firms and the top 4 firms were interviewed by a panel comprised of planning/zoning and administration staff, Trustee Park, and himself. Consistent with the recommendation of this panel, the Village Board approved a contract with Camiros in early summer of 2012. The consultant has broken the Zoning Ordinance update process into 3 phases: Phase 1 is the period where the existing ordinances are evaluated, Phase 2 is the drafting of the revised ordinance, and Phase 3 is ordinance adoption. He noted that the project leader from Camiros is Arista Strungys. Ms. Strungys has already met with staff, toured the Village, reviewed existing ordinances and plans, and conducted stakeholder interviews, which were interviews with select members of Village Board, PZB, former Zoning Board of Appeals, business owners, and business leaders in the community. Based on this, the consultant prepared a “Technical Review and Approaches Report” that introduces new concepts and regulatory approaches to be included in the new ordinance. On Dec. 11th a workshop was held where this report was presented to the public. The feedback from the public was favorable and the decision was made to send the report to the PZB for review. Chairman Sula noted that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to review and discuss this report to ensure that the direction proposed for the ordinance update is supported by the PZB. Once consensus is received on the direction, the consultant will proceed with completing a full and complete draft of the ordinance.
Ms. Arista Strungys, Principal with Camiros, Ltd., stated that, as Chairman Sula said, they have outlined the issues they found with the current ordinance based upon their review of Village ordinances, best practices, and discussions with stakeholders in the community. The report presents some approaches for revisions which will help set the drafting direction. Based on any concerns that are expressed this evening, they will take these as their marching orders and start with the first draft of the ordinance.
Mr. Strungys stated that one of the first things they want to do is update how the ordinance is organized. The ordinance will be compartmentalized; all provisions that are similar will be put together in one article (all parking regulations together, all landscape regulations together, all residential regulations together, etc.). This makes it very easy to find regulations. She noted that they also want to make sure that there are a lot of illustrations in place, as graphics can help to explain text. She stated that the ordinance would also include matrices, bringing as much as they can into tables which are much easier for people to understand. The ordinance would include a full set of definitions, not only for general terms in the ordinance but also for every use. This will help clear-up interpretation issues that have arisen by making sure that every use is defined. The goal is to make an ordinance that is user friendly, easy to understand, and can be logically amended when needed. Zoning Ordinances generally need to be amended from time to time.
Ms. Strungys noted that one of the bigger issues that they are going to tackle with the ordinance update is to move to a more modern use list, which is called a generic use approach. It gets rid of the specific list of uses and groups them into larger use categories. For example, instead of having shoe store, pet store, clothing store, record store, and book store each listed individually, they would be grouped under the category “retail goods establishment”. This approach will provide greater flexibility to allow uses as they come in and are found to be part of the overall category grouping. New uses can be allowed without having to process a text amendment. She was clear to point out that this approach is not proposed in order to allow every use under the sun in the Village. Rules will be put into place to ensure that the character of each of the districts is safeguarded. If a use isn’t listed in a district then it’s not allowed in that district. There will still be permitted and special uses. Once a use is interpreted as part of a generic use group it cannot be grouped under any other generic use group; if a cell phone store is interpreted to be under the “retail goods establishment” use group it cannot also be grouped under the “personal services” use group. She noted that there are some uses in the Village that are unique and need to be handled specifically, and those are the ones that they will pull out of the general use group and list separately. She gave the example of adult uses. This would be a use that would be pulled out of the “retail goods establishment” so that they could be regulated separately.
Ms. Strungys stated that the ordinance will be crafted to mitigate use impacts by going through the various uses in the ordinance and making standards for those uses, whether they are permitted or special uses. This would include regulating the impacts typically associated with specific uses by providing operational requirements. A lot of times this can be done by examining typical conditions that a municipality places on certain businesses and then integrating those conditions into the ordinance as standards. She noted that there may be uses that should be permitted as long as they meet a certain set of standards. They want to make sure that they bring those standards into the ordinance. The uses will also be tailored to each of the districts, as the purpose of each district is defined. They will make sure that the uses that are allowed in the districts fit the form and function of that district. She stated that, through the stakeholder interviews and their knowledge of uses that might be more impactful, they have come up with a list of uses that typically have impacts that will need to be mitigated through additional standards. Some examples of these include, alcohol-related uses, pet day care, wireless facilities, salvage yards, tattoo parlors, etc.
Ms. Strungys said that they want to address temporary uses and create a comprehensive set of controls for these uses. Temporary uses are uses that occur for short periods of time in parking lots. Examples include, but are not limited to farmers markets, outdoor sales, and outdoor entertainment. She noted that they want to make sure that provisions are in place for how and how long they are allowed to operate on the site. The will also include new temporary uses, such as mobile food trucks/ mobile retail, which was a topic of a recent email the board received.
Ms. Strungys said that they will be taking a look at the districts to see how they can make them easier to manage. One of the things that they are recommending is the elimination of floor area ratio (FAR). The reason this is recommended is because FAR started as a way to regulate height of high rise buildings/towers in New York City. It really doesn’t work to control volume like people think it does, especially in residential districts or low scale commercial districts. There are a number of different ways that volume can be controlled besides FAR. They are recommending a sliding scale side yard. A sliding scale side yard simply means that if your building is taller then it would have to be pushed back further from the side yard. Control of volume would also include possibly putting into place a maximum impervious surface ratio (ISR) requirement. This would include all the paved surfaces on a lot; not just buildings but driveways and patios as well. It could also include a lot coverage requirement. The idea is to control volume through a set of simplified controls that are still sensitive to the built environment but accomplishes what FAR might not.
Ms. Strungys stated that they are looking at design standards for higher intensity uses such as multi-family, townhouse, commercial, and industrial. The design standards will be objective so that staff is not in a position of trying to determine whether a development meets the standards or not. They will provide a concrete list that can be used to check-off whether a development meets the design standards or not. This will ensure that the Village gets good building designs. The commercial districts will be revised to reflect the form and function of each district, including sorting the uses appropriately. At the same time, they will be looking at simplifying the districts by creating one set of bulk and yard standards. Currently, each commercial district has lot area and yard standards separated by different types of use categories (retail, institutional, office, etc.). It’s better to create one set of standards because areas may transition and the Village doesn’t want to create non-conformities unintentionally, which could make development harder to achieve. She stated that they are looking at simplifying the transitional yards, where a development is abutting residential, with the right type of landscape standards. She noted that they are looking to eliminate the C/B-2A district, which is the Village Center Overlay District, as currently nothing carries this zoning district.
Chairman Sula asked for clarification on where the C/B-2A district is located.
Ms. Velkover stated that this district was located at the northeast and northwest corners of Washington Street and O’Plaine Road. However, the Police Station developed on one side and then the Post Office purchased and built on the other side. Currently, there is no land that carries this zoning classification.
Chairman Sula stated that he just wants to make it clear that this was not the district located along Old Grand.
Ms. Velkover stated that is correct. Old Grand Avenue is zoned C/S-3.
Ms. Strungys stated that they are looking at the possibility of eliminating the C/S-2 district, which is a heavy commercial district found principally along Skokie Highway. She noted that maybe one of the other commercial districts might be more appropriate for this area. She said that they have spoken with people from Six Flags and Great America. They understand that both developments have special approval processes in place. She said that they don’t know what will be done with these two larger regional centers, but that they are looking into the possibility of creating new districts or looking at their current approval processes and finding ways to make it easier for them to do things at the center of their districts, as opposed to the edges, where there may be more concern to the community. She noted that this ordinance update process is currently viewed from 30,000 feet and that they have yet to get down to the detailed view.
Ms. Strungys noted that the C/S-2 and C/B-2 EGG districts have a very lengthy special use process that they are looking at simplifying. There is no reason why environmental and architectural studies and plans are required in these areas for special uses. She stated that they are also looking to simplify the names of the commercial districts to more modern names that might be easier to say and remember. As an example, she noted that the C/B-1, Neighborhood Business District, is proposed to be renamed C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. She stated that they would be keeping the same provisions, but refining as she previously noted. An equivalency would be provided on the Zoning Map to show how the new districts equated to the old districts.
Ms. Strungys noted that they want to clarify measurement methodologies, so that the ordinance is clear for anyone trying to use it. If someone wants to know how to measure building height, they can pick up the ordinance and see text and graphic for how it’s measured, which will reduce the potential for multiple interpretations. They are also looking to create standards for general applicability. This includes such things as corner visibility to ensure that no one is blocking views at an intersection, how many principal buildings can be on a lot, etc. These are things that apply Village-wide and would be found in a specific section of the ordinance. They will also be creating a comprehensive list of accessory uses and structures, so that all of the different things that people do on their lots, other than their principal building, are regulated in this ordinance. This makes it easier for people to figure out where they can build their deck, place their detached garage, place their gazebo, and determine how home occupations work. This includes making sure that each of these accessory structures is defined and specifying where they can go on a lot and what setbacks they can encroach into and how far.
Ms. Strungys stated that they are also proposing to do select update to some of the district standards and add some new standards. They will also be looking at permissions by land-use and at distinctions between what is an accessory use and what is an ancillary use (i.e., large grocery store with an outdoor area that is year round is an ancillary use and not an accessory use). She noted that they plan to add some sustainability accessory structures, such as cisterns, chicken coops, and apiaries, and specifically indicate where they can locate and how they can operate. Accessory structures for chickens and bees tend to be some of the more controversial accessory structures. However, if the Village has been hearing from residents already about these types of accessory structures, it might be time to address. She clarified that eggs from chickens and honey from bees would all be for private use and would not be allowed as a business enterprise. She noted that they would also make it clear where permitted encroachments would be allowed (an encroachment is an architectural feature or an accessory structure that goes into a required yard). She gave the following example: If someone builds their house right at the required side yard setback, the permitted encroachments table would indicate that the home’s eaves could overhang into the required side yard by 18”, or whatever the allowed encroachment was determined to be. The intent is to clarify where things are allowed (i.e., detached garage in the rear yard, gazebo in the rear yard, etc.). The benefit of allowing certain encroachments, especially architectural ones (bay windows, eaves, cornices, etc.), is that it allows for more architectural flexibility which gives designers something to work with.
Ms. Strungys stated that they will be looking at parking standards; the full range of standards that apply, including where you can locate off-street parking, remote parking, and valet parking. They want to make sure that the standards are clear. Regulations will be included on how parking lots are designed, such as how big spaces need to be, striping, curbing, etc.; not how they are constructed, which is engineering. They will also address standards for compact spaces and update the number of parking spaces required per use, which would be linked to the revised use list. Uses in the use list would have a corresponding number of required parking. She noted that there would be clear standards for stacking for uses with drive-throughs, such as how many spaces are needed and how they are designed to ensure that stacking is not interfering with traffic or circulation on the site. They will be looking at adding bike parking standards for larger businesses and not small businesses, as small businesses typically cannot accommodate bike parking. She stated that they want to recommend that, for off-street parking, uses be able to share spaces. They want to create a series of calculations based upon what happens on a site in terms of parking. She noted that for a mixed use development, where there is office, residential, and commercial, that people don’t all use the site at the same time. Requiring parking in aggregate can actually require more parking than what is really needed. The use of a formula, as proposed, provides more flexibility for multi-tenant sites, so that site’s aren’t overburdened with parking requirements. She noted that they will also be updating the location and number of off-street loading spaces.
Ms. Strungys stated that they will be examining the Village’s landscape requirements. A lot of the landscaping that occurs with developments in Gurnee is required through the PUD process. She noted that they want to incorporate the standards in the Village’s PUDs into the ordinance. They want to create a reasonable set of landscape standards, that include such things as proper design, sustainable aspects, interior and perimeter parking lot standards, buffer yard standards including standards for transition yards, and standards for screening of things such as refuse disposal (dumpsters, recycling containers, etc.). She noted that they will also be reviewing the woodland ordinance to make sure that the tree preservation aspects align with the direction that they are proposing for the landscape chapter of the ordinance. The idea is to balance the existing site conditions, creating reasonable requirements, and maximizing landscape benefits. Very onerous landscape requirements can block views of shopping centers, making it very difficult for people to find stores. This can become a dangerous situation.
Ms. Strungys stated that they want to update the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, including streamlining it as much as possible. She noted that the process is currently in-line with modern practices, but indicated that there are some tweaks that can be made. For instance, when a project is at Final PUD plat approval they are proposing to eliminate the Village Board approval because at the Final Plat stage the plan should be in conformance with the preliminary plat that has already received approval. There shouldn’t be anything new/different occurring. She stated that having the Final PUD process in front of the Village Board gives residents the idea that they have another “bite at the apple” in terms of obtaining change to the plans. She noted that, at this point, it is essentially an administrative step, as the Village is obligated to approve the Final PUD plans if in conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat plans. She also stated that they are looking to establish clear timeframes for each of the steps. They are also recommending eliminating the Concept Plan review process because it’s not being used. She noted that, if it is maintained, then the process would be clarified and simplified, including simplifying the application process and making it clear what is required to be submitted. In place of the Concept Plan review process they are recommending an administrative process; a pre-application process with zoning staff. They are looking at updating the standards for approval, both in terms of what the board is evaluating the project on, as well as looking at the idea of public benefits and amenities. She stated that a PUD is a negotiation; it provides flexibility outside of the strict application of the zoning ordinance in exchange for some public benefit. They are proposing to create a menu of items that are considered public benefits and amenities, so developers know what they will need to consider in their design in order to achieve approval.
Chairman Sula clarified that the Concept PUD process is almost as onerous, in terms of submission requirements and details, as the Preliminary PUD process. It is not the informal review process that the board uses fairly frequently.
Mr. McFarlane stated that maybe the Concept PUD process should be changed to reflect the informal process that we use.
Chairman Sula noted that they are looking at putting the informal review process into the ordinance.
Ms. Strungys stated that the current ordinance has some setback/spacing standards in the PUD section that are counter to a PUD. She noted that setbacks and spacing requirements should actually reflect back to the zoning district the PUD is in, so they are recommending the elimination of these existing setback/spacing standards. She also stated that they are looking at building some flexibility into the processes to amend PUDs. Large portions of the Village are under PUDs and because of that they are looking at creating thresholds and processes for administrative change, minor change, and major change to PUDs. She stated that each would be defined clearly (i.e, % of change to plan), so that it is clear what process applies when a plan change is proposed.
Mr. McFarlane asked if the percentages established in the ordinance would be tied back to the original plan or if someone could ask for a change at a percentage that is a minor change and then come back 3 months later and ask for another minor change in order to avoid having to go through the major amendment process.
Ms. Strungys stated that they would phrase it so that it is based on the original approved PUD, so that if someone wanted to do a 15% change to the height of a building and it qualified as a minor amendment, they would not be able to come back for another 15% change to the height of the building, because that is a 30% change to the originally approved PUD. This prevents an “end-run” around the process. She noted that these details would be worked out in the draft document.
Chairman Sula reminded the board that the purpose of the meeting is to review the direction that the consultant has identified for the Zoning Ordinance update and not to get into specific regulations. There will be plenty of time for that in the future.
Ms. Strungys stated that, moving on to the Administrative Section, they are proposing to re-organize it so that it is easier for people to use. They are proposing 3 articles within this section. First would be who administers the ordinance, including the powers and duties of the board, the application procedures (which is really just outlining the public notice/public hearing process and application procedures), and then the application process listed out for each type of application. She noted that they try to address each zoning application process in a parallel structure, so that no matter what process someone needs (variance, special use, etc.) they will have an understanding of how that section will flow. She said that this is where they would get into some of the other procedures that she talked about earlier. She noted that they would add a completeness review process. For instance, if someone comes in with a special use permit application, the Zoning Administrator would check to make sure that all the required materials have been submitted. This prevents incomplete applications from going forward. She also stated that they want to provide an optional pre-application meeting with the Zoning Administrator. This would allow anyone wanting to come in with a request for a variance, special use, rezoning, etc., the ability to meet with the Zoning Administrator and staff and even appear before the PZB prior to submitting a formal application. This would allow petitioners to fully understand what they are doing and have a chance to get non-binding feedback from the PZB. Also, they are proposing to create clear approval standards for every process.
Ms. Strungys stated that, in terms of variations, there are limitations currently in the ordinance on what a variance can be applied for and they want to eliminate these limitations. For instance, some ordinances only allow a 15% variance to the height of a building. She stated that there are several problems with limitations such as this. First, variations, by their nature, can’t be predicted; that is the whole reason behind a variation. They exist because there is something unique about a lot, so it’s impossible to put a numerical value on a variation. Second, by having thresholds like these in ordinances, applicants tend to feel that they are automatically approved or entitled to this degree of a variance. These thresholds should be eliminated so that variances are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. She noted that it is important to reduce the need for variances. Therefore, when they provide the Village’s new district regulations they will do their best to make sure that most of the Village is conforming. Ms. Strungys stated that they also want to create an administrative variance process; to streamline variances that are very minor. These would be reviewed and potentially approved by staff. There would be a tailored notice that goes out to adjoining neighbors. There would be very strict thresholds for staff to guide them on when this process could be used. An example of when administrative variances could be used include: lot width up to a certain percentage (usually 10%), setbacks of 10% or 2 feet, 10% of off-street parking requirements, bike parking requirements, and sometimes lighting requirements. Anything over these thresholds would get kicked up to a regular variance process.
Ms. Strungys stated that they are proposing a clear process for amendments to special uses. This process will mirror the process for amendments to PUDs (administrative, minor, and major amendments) with very specific and clear definitions so that staff can determine which process is needed for any proposed amendment. Another process that they are proposing to include in the ordinance, and one which is actually occurring right now but which is not codified in the ordinance, is an administrative site plan review. This is a process to review select types of new development, especially larger scale developments such as multi-family and new commercial. Three components are addressed to create this process. These are: 1) what would require a site plan review (preliminary suggestions include residential subdivision, townhouse, multi-family, and non-residential); 2) what would be the standards for the review (site design, landscape and screening, circulation and parking, and drainage); and 3) who conducts the review (site plan review committee comprised of key staff and linked to other zoning approvals). This process allows staff to review a development that may adhere to all the standards in the ordinance and which may meet the letter of the law, but does not meet the spirit of the law. For example, a site may be designed in a manner that meets all the parking standards but staff can see that there are conflicts between parking spaces where cars backing out may hit each other. This process provides staff the ability to point this situation out so that the site plan can be adjusted to improve site circulation safety.
Finally, Ms. Strungys outlined how they are proposing to organize the ordinance; compartmentalizing regulations so that everything has a place and there is a place for everything. Articles 1 & 2 are the introduction to the ordinance (title, purpose and intent), Articles 3 through 7 (Article 7 is where the special purpose and overlay districts are pulled out) are the district standards, Article 8 addresses uses and includes a global use table that will have every district and indicate whether uses are permitted, special or not allowed. Article 9 will house the PUD regulations. Site development standards will be addressed in Article 10 (permitted encroachments, accessory uses). Article 11 will address off-street parking and loading, and Article 12 will be landscaping. Articles 13-17 address the administration of the ordinance (ordinance administrators, application procedures, application approval processes, non-conformities, and enforcement).
Mr. Twitchell stated that he believes that the Village is on the right track. Working with the ordinance for the short time that he has, he recognizes that the ordinance is convoluted. He stated that it will be great to get the ordinance better organized and more streamlined so that it is easier for applicants and the board to use.
Mr. McFarlane asked whether, in the section that outlines the steps for the different processes, there would be expected time frames for each step. Specifically, he asked if someone would be able to look at the ordinance and know how long a specific process should take.
Ms. Strungys stated that, for the standard zoning applications, there are set standards that these approvals expire after “x” period of time. For a PUD you have to take into account a phasing plan; someone may be doing a development where one section of it is developed right away and other sections develop over time. In this case, timeframes are within the overall PUD.
Mr. McFarlane clarified that he was wondering whether there would be timeframes in the ordinance to let a person know how long a process would take; not necessarily how long their approval lasts after approval is granted.
Ms Strungys stated that typically there wouldn’t be set hard and fast timeframes established in the ordinance. However, the ordinance would include language such as “within 60 days of submittal of a complete application form the PZB will conduct a hearing on the matter”.
Mr. McFarlane stated that he liked this as it provides a developer some idea of the timing of an application moving through the process.
Mr. Nordentoft stated that he likes the report and believes that the Village/consultant is on the right track. He said that he has witnessed the board and staff struggle with an ordinance that is unclear in certain areas and believes that the approach outlined by the consultant will result in a significantly better ordinance that will be helpful to developers, citizens, staff, and members of the PZB. He also believes it will be a more friendly process for those wanting or having to go through a process in the Village. He thanked her for the work that they have done to date.
Chairman Sula agreed with Mr. Nordentoft. He stated that the Village has become over-reliant on PUDs. This becomes very tedious as these projects are all special uses and anytime someone wants to change some aspect of a PUD it has to go through a process, sometimes lengthy. He noted that this is not an appropriate way to implement a zoning plan/ordinance. He said that the work the Camiros has done is a giant step toward correcting these problems. He asked board members if they see any issues/areas that have been overlooked.
Mr. Paff stated that he didn’t see any areas/issues that were overlooked. However, he asked about the likelihood of another PUD in the Village.
Chairman Sula stated that right now the chances of a PUD are very likely. In the future, after a new zoning ordinance is approved, the chances will be less.
Mr. McFarlane stated that, if he understood correctly, uses would be delineated clearly and then standards would be provided that uses would have to follow in order to be allowed. If this is correct, he likes this approach.
Ms. Strungys stated that this is correct. However, she noted that uses that are very straightforward, that don’t have any external impacts, would not have any standards. Those uses that have typically had operational conditions attached to special use permits would have those standards incorporated into the ordinance as requirements. Some uses may still require a special use, while others may be allowed by right.
Mr. McFarlane stated that he believes that small businesses should be required to install bike parking, just like larger businesses. He believes that it is no more difficult for a small business to provide this than a large business.
Ms. Strungys stated that, if this is the direction that the board wants to go, this would be a very simple edit.
Mr. Twitchell stated that he will email Ms. Strungys some of his comments. He wants to make sure that the ordinance provides a strong section on landscape maintenance. He said that it doesn’t make any sense to require landscaping if there isn’t any ordinance requiring maintenance. He also expressed concern about natural landscaped areas being trimmed and pruned into formal/non-natural areas. He noted that this defeats the purpose and would like to have strong standards to prohibit this practice.
Chairman Sula stated there are also issues with sites becoming overgrown.
Ms. Strungys stated that there are ways to address the issue of landscape maintenance and enforcement in a zoning ordinance.
Ms. Salmons stated that there is only one thing in the report that she does not like and that is allowing chickens in residential areas. She asked if this is a serious proposal, because if it is, she will never vote for it. She expressed concern about the sanitary conditions of chickens on residential properties.
Ms. Velkover stated that the Village received an e-mail from Donna Rochino concerning the commercial vehicle parking ordinance on residential lots, specifically requesting the re-examination of the gross vehicle weight rating threshold. She noted that the threshold is currently 11,500 lbs and Ms. Rochino is requesting a limit of 16,000 lbs. Ms. Rochino also requested examination of a food truck and mobile retail ordinance. Ms. Velkover reminded the board that the commercial vehicle ordinance was recently reviewed and adopted.
Ms. Strungys ended by introducing Mr. Chris Riale, who is working on the project with her.
4. Next Meeting Date: February 6, 2013
Ms. Velkover noted that there may be an informal matter for discussion on February 6th.
Ms. Broughton made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to adjourn the meeting.
All "Ayes", no "Nays", none abstaining
Motion carried: 7-0-0
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M.
Planning & Zoning Board Secretary
|01-16-13_PZB_Minutes.pdf ||169.28 KB|