Members present:                                                                Ted Deremer
                                                                                                Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                                Jim Giulitto
                                                                                                John Juergensen-Alternate

Zoning Administrator:                                                          John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                   Joni Poindexter

Mr. Deremer stated that this is the first meeting of 2004, so the board needed to vote on a Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Mr. McDonnell nominated Mr. Deremer to continue as Chairman of the board and stated that he thinks Mr. Deremer has done an outstanding job and doesn’t see any reason to change.

Mr. Giulitto agreed with Mr. McDonnell.

There were no further nominations.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to elect Mr. Deremer as Chairman.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-abstain.

Mr. Dodson nominated Mr. McDonnell as Vice Chairman and stated that Mr. McDonnell has done a very good job in the absence of Mr. Deremer and he sees no reason to make a change.

There were no other nominations.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to reappoint Mr. McDonnell as Vice Chairman of the board.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-abstain, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #1893 – David Behrendsen, property owner, 531 Stuart NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 5 ft. (south) rear yard setback where 15 ft. is required and a 5 ft. (east) right side yard setback where 10 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 531 Stuart NW, Sect. 32SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by David Behrendsen with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “I wish to have a larger shed than my existing shed (8 x 12) to give us more storage space.  Both of my neighbors have given their consent to a larger structure and leaving 10 and 15 ft. from the lot lines would put the shed too close to a large existing oak tree”.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the shed.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in David Behrendsen, 531 Stuart NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646.

Mr. Behrendsen stated that he would like to put up a larger building than the existing one.  He doesn’t think it would be a problem or a detriment to the neighbors due to the fact that he already has a building that is within five feet of the lot line to the east and south.  Mr. Behrendsen stated that his neighbor to the rear received a notice of the hearing and told him that his only concern was if the roof was a shed style roof that some provisions are made for the water because his lot slopes toward his neighbors.  He assured his neighbor that he would put gutters on the building.  Mr. Behrendsen stated that his neighbors shed is only 3 ft. from the rear lot line; however, his property is located in the city of Massillon.

Mr. Behrendsen stated that his neighbor would not be able to see his shed because it would be in line with his neighbors shed.

Mr. Deremer asked if the building would be pre-fabricated.

Mr. Behrendsen stated no.  He would have the building built with a concrete base.

Mr. Deremer asked why the building couldn’t be moved closer to the house.

Mr. Behrendsen stated that there is a large oak tree and the lot slopes up pretty steep.

Mr. Deremer asked if there would be a garage door on the side of shed that is shown as 16 ft.

Mr. Behrendsen stated that it would not be a garage.  It would be a barn and he is not sure where the door would be located.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Behrendsen if he knew how steep the slope is in degrees or feet.

Mr. Behrendsen stated that he is not sure, but would guess the slope is about 1-1/2 ft. from the tree to the back lot line.  There is a garden to the west that is fairly level, but there is a slope from the garden to the house.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the building couldn’t be moved so the side lot line would meet the requirements.

Mr. Behrendsen stated that he could do that.  There is a pine tree further over, but he is pretty sure that he would have room to meet the side setback.  Mr. Behrendsen stated that the rear setback is the real problem.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the shed couldn’t be moved all the way to the west.

Mr. Behrendsen stated that there are two slopes on that side of the property with a pine tree in the corner.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Behrendsen if he is willing to move the building 10 ft. to the east to meet the required side yard setback.

Mr. Behrendsen stated that he would rather keep it at 5 ft., but if it is a necessity that it be 10 ft. from the east lot line he could do it.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Behrendsen if he indicated that with the building being located per the request it would be even with the neighbor’s shed behind him.

Mr. Behrendsen stated yes.  If moved 10 ft. it would go past the end of his neighbors shed.  The water runoff from the roof was his neighbor’s biggest concern.  Mr. Behrendsen stated that in the same area of the lot is a leach bed from the old septic tank.  It shouldn’t be too much trouble finding it and running the roof water into it.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated based on the slope of the property, the existing building, and lack of opposition, he is tempted to grant the rear setback but deny the east side yard setback because the shed can be 10 ft. from the side lot line.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that he thinks a practical difficulty has been met for the rear setback but not for the side setback.  The shed meets the sardine theory of not putting too much on the property.

Mr. Deremer stated that he believes the other board members are correct when it comes to the rear yard setback, but he disagrees with the side setback.  There is an existing shed already there that is 5 ft. from each property line, so he believes this merits some consideration for approval.  Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Behrendsen is not asking for any more than what was there originally, so he believes the request should be approved.

Mr. McDonnell suggested that the board separate the two requests into two votes.

The board agreed.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1893 for a 5 ft. rear (south) yard setback where 15 ft. is required.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1893 for the portion of the request for a 5 ft. east (right) side yard setback where 10 ft. is required.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that the 5 ft. rear setback has been approved and the 5 ft. side yard setback has been denied.

APPEAL #1896 – Richard LaRowe, WD Partners, 1201 Dublin Road, Columbus, Ohio 43215 agent for Westfield America LLC, property owner, 4230 Everhard Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests variances for 1) A zero (0 ft.) west side parking setback where 5 ft. is required, 2) A 6 ft. front parking setback where 20 ft. is required, 3) A 5 ft. rear (south) building setback where 16 ft. is required, 4) A 25 ft. front (north) building setback where 50 ft. is required, 5) A variance to allow four wall signs (one on each side of the building) where a wall sign is only permitted on the north side of the building, and 6) No trees along the street frontage where trees are required, all per Art. IV Sect. 411.5, 411.8 & 411.9 and Art. V Sect. 502.4 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4230 Everhard Rd. NW, Sect. 24 Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Richard LaRowe.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, two pages labeled request of approval of variances, a preliminary site plan by WD Partners consisting of five pages dated January 2004, a page consisting of ten photos of the property in question and three photos of the proposed restaurant, a page with two front views of the proposed restaurant and a page with two rear views of the proposed restaurant.  Mr. Deremer stated that two 11 x 17” sheets were just received that would replace what is in the file.  One is a sheet labeled C-1, dated January 21, 2004 and the other is a sheet labeled L-1, which is a landscaping plan dated January 21, 2004.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Richard LaRowe, 1201 Dublin Rd. NW, Columbus, Ohio and Phillip Drake, 7862 Harriett Rd., Dublin, Ohio.

Mr. Drake stated that Max & Erma’s had a restaurant in the township thirteen years ago, but they were forced out when the Hotel that their restaurant was in closed.  They now have one hundred restaurants in eighteen states.  It took them thirteen years to find another location in the township.

Mr. LaRowe stated that his company is the architect for Max & Erma’s throughout the country.  They are leasing property from the mall, which was previously Mountain Jacks, for a Max & Erma’s restaurant.  They readjusted the lease line and in the process they lost approximately 34 parking spaces.  It was found that the right of way line that was presented to them was not correct and the green area they thought they had in front of the existing parking curbs did not exists.  The existing parking curbs are essentially on the right of way line which caused a change in their plan, so they need to remove item #2 which is the request for the front parking setback and item #4 which is the request for the front building setback.  Mr. LaRowe stated that they intend to come back next month, but it depends on the feedback that they receive at this hearing.  Mr. LaRowe stated that the other requests should be able to remain as noted.  There are two items that he would like an interpretation on from the board because the intent is if the board feels that their requests are unreasonable he doesn’t know if the project can go forward.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is a formal hearing, so the board can offer questions but there is no guarantee on how the board will vote.

Mr. LaRowe stated that he understands, but the reason he is removing two of the items is because they have changed and have not been advertised, so the board couldn’t vote on them anyway.  He would like to present what is proposed to get a feel if the board thinks they are being reasonable or totally off base with what they are asking for.

Mr. Deremer asked if item two and four would still be part of the requests but more extreme.

Mr. LaRowe stated yes.  They need to request an additional five feet because of what was found in the survey.

Mr. Deremer stated that it could be worked as a whole project, but the board would not discuss the removed items.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the initial site plan had 144 parking spaces, the building had a 25 ft. front setback, and there was space from the right of way line for landscaping.  The new plan shows a 20 ft. front setback for the building and the existing parking on both sides of the building is at a zero ft. setback from the right of way.  Mr. LaRowe stated that there is a one foot difference in the rear of the property which does not have an impact because it is further in.

Mr. Drake stated that they are basically following the same footprint that is already there.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the dotted line represents the existing building on the property.  The building isn’t any bigger, but it is a little longer and less square and the trash enclosure is a little wider than the existing building.

Mr. LaRowe stated if they turned the building then their coolers and trash enclosure would be facing Everhard Rd. and it would not look good.  If the building was turned the other way the rear of the building would face the I-77 ramp entrance and he does not feel this is appropriate.

Mr. Drake stated that they feel it is important that the trash enclosure is part of the building not only for esthetic purposes but also for security reasons.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the rear lease line is at the curb of the existing road to the mall.  If they push the building back they would be forcing the mall traffic to serve around the leased area.  They are only a tenant to the mall and are committed to the developer to have minimal impact on the mall operation.

Mr. LaRowe asked given the conditions and the property exists, if it is unreasonable for them to request the two front setbacks for the building and parking.

Mr. Drake stated that if they were to use the existing building as it is then they would be grandfathered and would not need any variances.  However, they cannot use the building because it has a lot of problems.

Mr. Deremer stated that it is hard to give an opinion, but he understands their basis for the location of how they want to orient the building and the lot as it stands.

Mr. LaRowe asked if it would be easier to go ahead with the items on the agenda and if the board votes yes then they would come back to the board for the additional five feet.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board would probably split the items up unless it is all one package and if one fails then it is not a valid decision for the organization.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the elevation difference between Everhard Rd. and where the building is located is almost 15 ft.  Given the height difference he doesn’t believe the road would ever get close to where the building is.

Mr. Drake stated that the setback is not really a deviation from what is existing.

Mr. Deremer stated that the building is shown closer than the original building.  Mountain Jacks property may be at a 25 ft. setback so it could be a valid argument that they will stay within the same footprint.  The fact that it is being pressed another 5 ft. may not hold well for them, but he cannot offer an opinion.  Mr. Deremer stated that Eat-N-Park was in the same predicament when they built their facility.  They had various requests and did not get them all.  The Zoning Administrator works well with people as they come in to try to make things fit the best possible way with the restrictions they may have.  They could proceed and if Mr. LaRowe sees that things are not turning out the way he wants then he could withdraw the request and bring it back to the board, but if a vote is taken and it is no then it is basically a done deal and they would have to come back with a different concept because the board can’t revisit the same thing.

Mr. LaRowe stated that he thinks it would be best to proceed and ask for a vote on the presentation.  Otherwise, he would be leaving without knowing if the project is a go or not.

Mr. Deremer stated that the fact that Mr. LaRowe is telling the board that he needs 20 ft. for the front, but they can’t consider that, it may be better to withdraw at this time and re-advertise and go with a solid argument a few weeks down the road.

Mr. LaRowe stated that number two and four would be withdrawn as stated in the beginning and he would present the rest for a vote.

Mr. LaRowe stated that item number one was a request for a zero parking setback along the west side with no landscaping.  He believes the intent of Section 411.8B, if looked at as a combined site plan, that particular revision allows the board to waive the parking setback in the interest of traffic flow.  They coincided their lease line with the existing parking of the mall so they match up to the traffic flow and it would not be a hazard.  They also show two way isles with perpendicular parking rather than the one way that is there because the restaurant would have more traffic in and out and it might be observed away from the mall building.  Mr. LaRowe stated that he hopes Section “B” applies for their first item and they really were following the intent for the ordinance.

Mr. LaRowe stated essentially at this time the existing trash enclosure is in the same spot as their proposed trash enclosure.  The building is back far enough to meet the 16 ft. setback, but their coolers and trash enclosure are attached to the building and will violate the 16 ft. setback.  They are not asking for anything greater then what exists today.

Mr. Deremer asked where the main entrance is located.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the main entrance would be located on Everhard Rd.  The landscaping plan that was submitted showed some landscaping along the street but after having a survey done they found that the curb is right on the property line, so they cannot put landscaping within any parking setback.  They will provide landscaping islands with shade trees except for two of the islands that will have two canopy trees.  They have over and above the required shrubs along the parking areas to the side of the building along Everhard Rd. but there’s no way they can put them in front of the building along Everhard.

Mr. LaRowe stated that they have requested a variance for the trees along the frontage and would also like a ruling on the shrubs as to whether they have met the intent of where they are shown on the plan.  Mr. LaRowe stated that he would also like a ruling as to if the two canopy trees are ok in place of the shade trees in the islands.

Mr. Deremer referred to the photos that were presented and asked if the curb ends would be new.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the curb ends would remain the same and explained what the photos that were given to the board represented per the caption under each photo.

Mr. LaRowe stated that they will meet with the staff of Stark County Regional Planning on February 2nd and they will have a meeting on February 3rd.  Mr. LaRowe stated that he believes the plans will be accepted by Regional Planning.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many parking spaces would be provided.

Mr. LaRowe stated that 81 spaces are required and they have provided 105 parking spaces.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there is a request for a zero foot parking and landscaping setback along the west side.

Mr. LaRowe stated that they are required to have a setback at the lease line even though it is not a property line.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. LaRowe’s testimony that the west lease line is not a property line.

Mr. LaRowe stated that it is a property line between the mall owner that they are going to lease from and Dillard’s, which is another one of the mall owners.  It is a property line, but it is invisible to everyone and is platted.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there is currently a parking and landscaping strip along the west side.

Mr. LaRowe stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated that item two would not be discussed because it was withdrawn.  Mr. McDonnell asked if the proposed building would be any closer to the line than the previous building.

Mr. LaRowe stated no.  The trash enclosure would be in the same area as the existing trash enclosure.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. LaRowe’s testimony that the south side of the building is currently 5 ft. from the rear lot line.

Mr. LaRowe stated yes as long as they are talking about with the trash enclosure.

Mr. McDonnell stated in looking at the north property line photo he sees a curb along the parking lot and asked if the parking would extend any further than what is there.

Mr. LaRowe stated no.  They only straightened the existing parking.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the reason they want the additional signage is for marketing purposes or it is actually required.

Mr. LaRowe stated that each site is looked at based on the height compared to the road and where the traffic is coming from so the customers can see the restaurant before getting to it.

Mr. Drake stated that the building can be seen from all four sides, so they would like to have signage on all four sides.

Mr. LaRowe stated that Everhard is their only road frontage and the code provides for 400 square feet of signage. They are under the permitted square footage with all signs put together so they are not asking for more square footage.  They are only asking to have signage on all sides so the customers know what the building is.  The sign on the east and west is for people driving along Everhard.  The only people who would see the front sign are those coming off of I-77 and those driving through the mall could see the sign along the access road.

Mr. Giulitto asked if there would be a monument sign.

Mr. LaRowe stated yes.  It is shown on the site plan and would be at eye level.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Eat-N-Park came before the board and asked for more wall signage and they were turned down.  Mr. McDonnell asked what is different between them and the Eat-N-Park restaurant.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the property sits 8 to 15 ft. higher than Everhard Rd.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is a restriction on the orientation of the building by the developer.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the developer would like to see it where it is because he doesn’t want the parking lot all tore up.

Mr. Deremer stated if the building were turned 90 degrees with the entrance still on the south side they would be allowed two signs.

Mr. LaRowe stated that he was told he could have a sign on the other side because it would be the front of the building, but it wouldn’t get him two signs because the access drive is not another road.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks if the entrance is not on the street side then they can have a sign where the entrance is and on the street side.

Mr. Phillippi stated that Mr. McDonnell is correct but Mr. LaRowe indicated that he did not want his entrance on the access drive side.

Mr. Deremer stated in his opinion if the building is turned 90 degrees and revamped a little bit then they probably can do everything that they want to do with less of a variance than what they are seeking.

Mr. LaRowe stated given the fact that there is parking on two sides of the building if it is turned then they would be asking all of their customers to walk a large distance to get to the front door and they try to make it so the customers can park as close as possible to the front door.

Mr. Drake stated if the building were turned then the people driving along Everhard Rd. would have to look at the rear of the building.

Mr. Juergensen asked if all the restaurants are shaped the same way.

Mr. Drake stated no.  It is a case by case basis.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the building is broke into two pieces for fire code purposes.  The dining area is separated from the kitchen area and utility area and the coolers are located outside.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the other Max & Erma’s restaurants have signs on all four sides of the building.

Mr. LaRowe stated no; however, they are open to discussions regarding the signage.

Mr. Drake stated because the building can be seen from all four sides he believes it is beneficial to have signage on all four sides.

Mr. Juergensen asked if they would have four signs on all the restaurants if they were permitted.

Mr. LaRowe stated no.  Not if it didn’t make sense because there may be another building next to them and no one would be able to see the sign.

Mr. LaRowe asked what the board would suggest if they feel the requested signage is a problem.

Mr. Deremer stated that the request is for four signs and that’s what the board will act on based on testimony and what the code says.

Mr. LaRowe stated that they would like to amend their request from four signs to two signs with one on the north side, which is permitted, and one on the east side.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the reason they can’t put the building more to the east is because they don’t want to disrupt the flow of traffic to the mall.

Mr. LaRowe stated that they would tear up the parking lot and the developer does not want this.

Mr. Drake stated that if the building were moved then all the parking would be stacked on one side.

Mr. LaRowe stated that he would like an interpretation on putting in canopy trees for shade trees.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the trees would meet the code because there is some discretion used when the plans are reviewed and he looks at the overall plan.

Mr. LaRowe asked if the shrubs are allowed to be in different areas.

Mr. Phillippi stated that they can be aggregated.

Mr. Deremer asked if they would be within the original footprint for the Mountain Jacks building along the front if the 5 ft. rear setback request was changed to a zero foot rear setback, which is basically for the trash container.

Mr. LaRowe stated that he doesn’t think the trash receptacle would be harmed because traffic flows parallel to it.  They would be willing to put the trash enclosure right at the curb.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board couldn’t grant this because it would be more extreme than what was advertised but if they wanted to consider it as an option they could bring it back to the board.

Mr. LaRowe stated that he would remove request number three from the vote and come back with a revised request to minimize the front request and asked for an additional request in the rear.

Mr. Deremer stated that it is not in stone that it will be given a green light but it may be something to look at.

Mr. LaRowe asked if there are any comments regarding no trees along the street frontage.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is a fairly new requirement for a lot of the properties in the township and there has been modifications where some people take some of the trees and disburse them else where on the property because not everyone wants trees in the front yard that will hide the building.

Mr. LaRowe stated that the property frontage is 356 ft., so he believes 20 trees are required.

Mr. McDonnell stated in looking at the plan he sees some trees that are compacted and located basically in front of the building and asked if any of the trees are 6 ft. in height with a minimum caliper of 2 inches.

Mr. LaRowe stated that there are two that meet that requirement.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is one in the northeast corner and also one adjacent to the parking area on the west side.

Mr. LaRowe stated this is correct.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. LaRowe if he would like to modify request number six to two trees along the street frontage.

Mr. LaRowe stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that the only items the board would be voting on are item number one, five and six.

Mr. LaRowe stated this is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if they would be required to meet the current regulations if they were going to use the exact same building.

Mr. Phillippi stated they would only have to meet the current regulations if they are changing the site.

There was no one else in the audience to speak in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.
Mr. Deremer stated that item number one would be voted on as requested, item two, three and four have been withdrawn, item five has been modified from four signs to two sign along the north and east side of the building, and item six has been modified from zero trees to two trees.

Mr. Dodson stated that he believes request number one is basically maintaining what is already there so he does not have a problem with this portion of the request.

Mr. McDonnell concurred with Mr. Dodson.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve request number one for a zero (0 ft.) west side parking setback where 5 ft. is required.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that request number five has been modified from four wall signs to two wall signs but it seems that it is for marketing purposes.  Historically the board has been pretty stringent on signs.  Eat-N-Park came before the board for a request for additional signage and was turned down and he does not see anything different from them.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not see practical difficulty to allow the extra signage.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. McDonnell and stated that they will have a monument sign facing east and west, and he believes that sign will do basically what a wall sign would do.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to deny request number five as modified to two wall signs where one wall sign is permitted.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that the last item to be voted on is item number six regarding the modified request for two trees along the north side of the property where trees are required.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he likes the landscaping and having two trees along the street frontage is actually improving what is there.

Mr. Dodson agreed with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve request number six as modified to two trees.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held December 4, 2003.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer stated that the trustees are in the process of requesting people to volunteer for the Steering Committee.  They are looking for volunteers from the board to serve on the committee and asked if anyone is interested.

Mr. Juergensen and Mr. McDonnell stated that they would be interested.

Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Poindexter to inform the trustees that Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Juergensen are interested in serving on the committee.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary