Beacon City Planning Board
June 10, 2008
A Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Jay Sheers; Members John Gunn, Spring Attaway, Anne Rapalje and George Mansfield; City Engineer John Russo (in for Art Tully); City Planner Chan Timmis (in for David Stolman); City Attorney Richard Wolf; and Building Inspector Tim Dexter in attendance. Member Jim Svetz and Alternate Member Liz Strianese were excused; Member Randall Williams was absent.
Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2008 meeting as submitted, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Rapalje made a motion to go into executive session to discuss possible litigation, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Members went into executive session at 7:12 p.m. Upon returning from executive session, Ms. Rapalje made a motion to reconvene the meeting, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting reconvened at 7:21 p.m.
Item No. 1 Continue public hearing on application for Subdivision (two residential lots), submitted by David Verdile, 19 Crescent Drive
Jon Bodendorf, Hudson Land Design, described his client’s proposal to subdivide a .35 acre parcel of land at 19 Crescent Drive into two lots, one for an existing single family home and one for a new single family dwelling. Mr. Sheers explained the hearing has been held open awaiting an engineering report from a neighboring property owner which was submitted yesterday. Mr. Bodendorf reported a copy of that report was faxed to him earlier in the day; he did not agree with the recommendations within the report. He explained they have been before the board for six months and have stood by the proposed design the entire time. He believed the City’s consultants agree with the drainage report that was submitted therefore he preferred not change the plan at this point. Mr. Russo explained the report submitted by J. Robert Folchetti & Associates, LLC, suggested stormwater from the existing house roof gutters be piped to a catch basin rather than empty out to the grass in an effort to further reduce water flow onto downhill properties. Secondly the report suggested construction of a retaining wall to reduce the steepness of the grade in the rear yard which is approximately 30%. Mr. Bodendorf said a retaining wall could be considered however he felt it would not reduce stormwater. Mr. Russo agreed that it may not reduce the amount of stormwater but it may reduce the rate that water comes off the hill allowing it more time to percolate into the ground. Lastly, Mr. Russo explained the report suggested the single family house show a typical rear porch or deck in order to provide a true representation of the house. Mr. Bodendorf explained the owner does not want to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for any additional variances. If a deck is built in the future, only Building Department approval is required. Mr. Bodendorf asked for more time to discuss these suggestions with his client.
Steve Gold, 46 Pleasant View Avenue, spoke in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Beacon, addressed the Planning Board about general policies regarding water runoff and more specifically about this case. Generally, Mayor Gold said he has seen where the Planning Board has done due diligence as is being done with this item. The engineers have reviewed plans for development and come up with the best way for development to take place. Mayor Gold believed that although review takes place, many times it is difficult to foresee what actually occurs in the field. He reported hearing from property owners who live below new developments who have experienced water problems that never occurred before. Mayor Gold felt the Planning Board should advance on the side of caution when reviewing drainage studies. He believed that homeowners affected by damaging storm water runoff have no recourse other than to spend money on corrective measures. Mayor Gold supported development and additional revenue in Beacon, appreciated development of vacant lots, and had no criticism for the development Mr. Verdile is proposing. However, he felt recommendations outlined in an engineering study done on behalf of a homeowner who is worried about being affected by this development should be considered. Mayor Gold advised the Planning Board to consider higher standards and methods that may not normally be required. He visited the Kelly property which has no retaining wall yet has similar sloping as adjacent properties with retaining walls. Mayor Gold felt it would be a decision of the Planning Board whether or not to require a retaining wall to be on safe side. In general, he expressed concern because Beacon is situated on a mountain and similar circumstances will continue to arise. Mayor Gold asked the Planning Board to err on the side of caution when choices are presented.
Sara Pasti, 57 Fulton Avenue and City Council representative in Ward 4 where the proposed development is to take place, presented a letter outlining her concerns. She was called to look at the property because it is in the area she represents, and it impacts more than one neighbor. As she walked onto the property, the steepness of the slope caused her concern due to unease about steep slopes in general. Ms. Pasti reported legislation exists to address issues related to development on steep slopes, including tree removal, excavation, etc. She was aware that the original developer was required to install a retaining wall before mortgages would be approved. Ms. Pasti asked that the City’s steep slope law be looked at carefully when considering this application. She felt this development may have a negative impact by financially harming neighbors, affect enjoyment of their property, and further influence property values over a long period of time. In closing, Ms. Pasti asked that mitigation measures be seriously considered for this particular property.
Tom and Johnna Kelly, 20 Heaney Drive, provided a letter outlining their comments, a copy of the City’s steep slope legislation, and a copy of an email from their engineer, J. Robert Folchetti & Associates, LLC, that came as an addendum to their initial report. Ms. Kelly read the following statement:
We are
Johnna and Tom Kelly from 20 Heaney Drive . . . directly below the proposed
building site on 21 Crescent Drive. We
are joined here tonight by neighbors from our Mt. Beacon Park Development.
Ms. Kelly reported the neighborhood has approximately 100 homes and she estimated 90% have had, or continue to have, water problems. For the 38 years she lived there, every single parcel of land has been built on except this one piece which raises the question as to why. The lot was not big enough for building to take place without a variance and no one ever purchased or built on it. Looking at the property from Crescent Drive all that can be seen is a flat piece of property but there is a very steep slope to the rear. Ms. Kelly continued reading:
To begin
with, I would like to thank several of the Board Members, Mayor Gold and
Councilwoman Sara Pasti for taking the time to come to our home and view the
proposed site and its inherent problems.
I believe the pictures presented demonstrate, to some extent, the
issues.
Those
who came saw the more than 305 slope leading down into our yard, the retaining
wall theat extends behind 14, 16 and 18 Heaney Drive and the amount of foliage
on the slope that will cause problems if it is cut down for building. For the record, allow me to briefly review
the events leading up to today’s meeting:
*At the
Planning Board’s suggestion, we had the B-Dry representative, who recently
waterproofed our basement, look at the proposed site. He told us that he believed we would receive
additional amounts of ground water (if the property behind our house was
disturbed). He could not guarantee our
system, at a cost of $10,000 which took many years to save, if the water was
beyond what the original calculations estimated.
*Also at
the Planning Board’s suggested we consulted an engineer to independently review
the plans. Mark Day looked at the
property and had 6-8 concerns. In fact
his first reaction to building such a large house on that property with the
little flat service was ‘ridiculous’.
Ms. Kelly reported that for the first time, the email provided by her engineer states that 50% of the lot is more than 30% slope. She continued reading:
We
withdrew our offer to hire Mr. Day because he consulted with Mr. Tully, without
our knowledge or concsent, regarding a swale to be put in our yard. This was unacceptable.
*At the
May 13th meeting, the Planning Board kindly granted us additional
time, until tonight, to present the written report and opinions of an unbiased
Engineer regarding the slope and the storm water runoff.
*On June
3rd, we met with Todd Atkinson, a licensed New York State Building
Engineer whose firm sits on an adjacent County’s Planning Board.
*On June
4th Councilwoman Sara Pasti visited our home, the retaining wall
next door and even trudged up the slope on the neighbor’s property to view the
site.
Essentially
Ms. Pasti believes, based on the degree of the slope, and the upsetting of the
land where building will take place, not to mention the cutting down of dense
foliage, that storm water will be a problem in our yard.
*On June
7th, Mr. George Mansfield from the Board visited our home to view
the site. He also looked at the FHA
required retaining wall that protects my neighbors’ homes, which were in the
direct flow of water runoff from that very hill. I believe he also viewed the homes further
down the block on Heaney Drive, built before number 14, 16, and 18. These homes, built years before, suffered
from what was built above them . . . just as I now look at my home and
anticipate damage and destruction cause by this proposed building almost,
literally in my back yard.
If you
ever suffered water damage in your home, you know firsthand that you would have
done anything to prevent it from happening in the first place. That is what we are trying to do.
There is
so much left to question about this building plan . . . I know that the drains
that the new house will have, will protect the new home, but, what will protect
ours? The pump and the drains being
installed acknowledge there is a water problem . . . but, what about the water
that will drain down that hill on the sides of that new house right into our
yard when the land is disturbed.
I have
read extensively about building on a steep slope (15-20%) . . . theirs is at
least 30% . . .
Questions
that need to be asked are: Sometimes a
Geotechnical investigation is required for an area with steep slopes that may
affect neighboring properties. This
determines the stability of geological materials such as the soil and moisture
content and vegetation cover of the land.
Is the erosion control plan offered by the applicant sufficient?
Ms. Kelly noted that Mr. Atkinson’s email strongly recommended a geotechnical study be done and questioned the proposed erosion control plan. She continued reading:
The
stability of that slope (during and after the construction) was one of the
major concerns voiced by the office of Ed Hoxsie, the Director of the Dutchess
County Soil and Water Conservation Department.
It was also cited that the building may cause potential drainage CHANGE. It is to be noted that the runoff groundwater
seepage and the exposed sub soil will be more apt to have seepage.
Sometimes
these site disturbances have short term impacts, but if not properly treated,
may have long term impacts on personal property and personal safety (ours and
theirs) . . . our pool is right directly below the construction site.
I know
Beacon has a steep slope law . . . who is monitoring how it affects this
building?
Ms. Kelly reiterated that no one had mentioned steep slopes until they brought it out and Councilwoman Pasti investigated the issue. She continued reading:
The
Planning Board has our Engineer’s report, remarks from the Councilwoman, the
Mayor of the City of Beacon’s concern, to rely upon making this decision.
Even Mr.
Tully, who, came to see the properties, had concerns. He saw the water running into our yard and
the neighbor’s at 22 Heaney Drive. He
saw the site and commented on the area just beyond the retaining wall near to
our property. The slope is vacant of
grass and water runs downhill like a stream even during normal rains.
Ms. Kelly explained no one is in attendance to speak on behalf of the house at
22 Heaney Drive because it is currently unoccupied. She reported water comes into that basement as well and from what Mr. Tully indicated, it looks as though the drain-off will probably get worse. She continued reading:
We know
you will do the right thing. We thank
you for the indulgence you have granted us in stating our case. We think avoiding a devastating situation
will be an example of how our community listens, rather than trying to
remediate afterward.
I have
read the minutes of Council meetings from four years to the present and one
must shake their head at how broken hearted people are when they have suffered
costly water damage, when they knew it would happen beforehand, and no one
would listen.
Please
see that this proposed building presents many more problems than might have
been originally anticipated and please do not approve it. Thank you.
Mr. Gunn felt the Kelly’s may have legitimate cause for concern based on his experience on West Center Street where only a small slope affected his property. He asked what affect steep slope legislation had on this application. Mr. Russo read the definition of “very steep slope” as outlined in the City’s zoning code: “An area of land with a gradient of twenty-five percent (25%) or more extending over a horizontal length of at least one hundred (100) feet and extending over a horizontal width of at least one hundred (100) feet.” Mr. Russo explained this lot is 100 ft. deep but not 100 ft. wide, therefore based on the definition only half of the property would be considered a very steep slope.
Discussion took place regarding the merits of the application, the possibility of requesting a geotechnical study of the property and historical issues that should be considered. Everyone agreed they should do whatever possible in light of concerns over the steepness of the slope and various engineering information that has been presented. Mr. Sheers suggested continuing the public hearing to allow the City engineer and applicant time to review and consider findings presented in the report drafted by Todd W. Atkinson, P.E.
Applicant Anthony Verdile, 19 Crescent Drive, explained this proposal was to subdivide the property to put up a small house for his family; he was not looking to flood anyone out. The application has been before the board for six months and seems never ending. Mr. Verdile reported he hired a qualified engineer to review and devise a reasonable subdivision, and never thought such problems would occur. In addition to his qualified engineer, the City has a qualified engineer to review the plan and now that is not good enough. Mr. Sheers reported there is another qualified engineer who has presented another opinion that must be considered. Mr. Verdile explained they once had a pool on this property and never had a problem. He understood there is a slope but ultimately, Beacon is at the bottom of a mountain and water will take a natural path. Now, through mitigation measures developed into this plan, stormwater will be carried to the front of the property and directed to the City’s storm drainage system which should improve conditions downhill. Mr. Sheers explained concern also exists for conditions that may occur during the construction phase and the board is trying to be cautious. He thanked the applicant for his patience.
Ms. Rapalje made a motion to continue the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Gunn. Mr. Mansfield asked what information would be provided in a geotechnical study. Mr. Russo explained a geotechnical study provides information on the type of soil that exists and would formulate recommendations based on their findings. If such a study were required, it would be paid for by the applicant and cost would depend on the level of testing requested. If the stability of the slope is in question they may only need to go down 10 ft.; if the location of ground water is in question, they may need to go deeper.
Mr. Bodendorf requested time to discuss the application with his client and provide time to respond before being asked to conduct a geological study. After some consideration to allow time for additional information, Mr. Gunn made a motion to continue the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Robert Galloway, 16 Heaney Drive, said he has lived in the neighborhood for 37 years. He reported the developer put in their retaining wall and thereafter drains were installed around his house yet it doesn’t prevent water from going into the basement. He asked that members come to the neighborhood to see the retaining wall.
Item No. 2
Public hearing on application for Site Plan Approval, new
retail/apartment building, submitted by FIR Properties, 416 Main Street
Aryeh Siegel described his client’s proposal to construct a new three-story building at 416 Main Street on the corner of Schenck Avenue. The building will consist of retail space on the Main Street ground level with a one-bedroom apartment to the rear and two upper floors with four one-bedroom apartments. The building will be similar to those on Main Street and elements from neighboring buildings were incorporated into the design of the structure. There will be on-site parking and a variance was issued to waive two required off-street parking spaces. The parking lot will be improved with pavement, landscaping, and appropriate lighting. Mr. Siegel explained the engineer is working on final drainage details which will be provided to the City’s engineer when complete.
Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street, was previously informed the vacant lot was a privately owned parcel. Because that end of Main Street has very limited parking, he suggested looking into ways to create additional spaces.
There were no further comments from the public and Mr. Gunn made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Rapalje made a motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA process, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Members reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and Ms. Attaway made a motion to declare the project has no substantial impact on the environment. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
After reviewing the architectural design of the proposed building, Ms. Attaway made a motion to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to recommend the City Council issue a Special Use Permit for the new building at 416 Main Street with no need to return to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant Site Plan approval subject to submission of approved drainage details to the City Engineer, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item No. 3
Continue review on application for Site Plan Approval, car wash/oil
change facility, submitted by Marcelino Vorgas, 285 Main Street
Aryeh Siegel explained a determination was made since the last meeting that the proposed use of this property is a matter for the Planning Board rather than the City Council. Mr. Timmis provided a number of comments that were not reviewed at the initial meeting. He felt queuing was somewhat confusing between existing and proposed uses and although the layout was revised, vehicles can only exit the express lube service area via the car wash. Practically, some patrons may only want an oil change and not a car wash so some type of exit must be created to accommodate those customers. Mr. Siegel explained the owner will be promoting a package deal where a car wash comes with an oil change. Mr. Timmis explained the site provides enough space to add another queuing lane east of the existing car lube lane to create an additional exit.
Mr. Gunn asked where waste oil would be stored and how often it would be taken from the site. Mr. Siegel explained the drums will be stored in the lube area and will be picked up on a regular basis.
Mr. Mansfield asked what type of arrangement will be made if the business is wildly successful and vehicles are forced to line up on the street. The nature of quick lube businesses is “in and out” and most times people will return when the line is shorter. Mr. Timmis explained there should be ample queuing room as he has seen larger facilities with less space. A revised layout can be developed to provide space for “K” turns so vehicles are not backing out onto Main Street
Item No. 4
Continue review on application for Subdivision, 5 building lots,
submitted by Clark Gebman, Liberty Street
Clark Gebman presented a certified copy of the original Liberty Street subdivision plat approved three or four years ago for one house. Mr. Gebman reported his latest submission for a five lot subdivision was modified to replicate the same layout as used for one house.
Mr. Russo reported some comments were addressed – lot areas were increased and setback requirements were provided. However, a significant number of comments that remain have now been incorporated into a new review letter. Post grading for the
site, construction details, and information related to the proposed retaining wall in the rear, lowest sewerable elevations, driveway site distances, and an erosion settlement control plan remain outstanding.
Mr. Gebman disputed the methodology of the approval process. Mr. Gebman reported to date the Planning Board has accepted and acknowledged that no wetlands exist, and that fill will be allowed on the site. This plan is a complete change in terms of the way the structures are situated on each lot, and engineering elements approved in the original plan have been applied to this new proposal. Mr. Gebman asked the board to determine whether the originally proposed concrete retaining wall along the creek can be changed to natural grading in one portion and boulder/soil retention wall in the other portion to allow a more permeable surface. He explained if that approach is determined to be acceptable from an ecological viewpoint, then a grading and fill plan can be developed.
Ms. Attaway asked if the applicant’s responses to engineering and planning comments were complete. Mr. Sheers explained modifications can be evaluated however several questions remain unanswered. Therefore, he told the applicant to address the consultants’ comments so the application can be put back on the agenda for further review. Mr. Gebman asked if the board would consider setting a public hearing on the application. Mr. Sheers explained the application was not ready for a public hearing because substantial engineering information has yet to be provided for review.
Mr. Gebman announced the City has not responded to his inquiry about what will be done with storm water that runs off Liberty Street onto his property since curbs and sidewalks are not required. He explained the street banks toward his property and the City has not come forth with a method of managing their stormwater runoff. Mr. Gebman said he cannot have the necessary engineering done without understanding how the City proposes to deal with stormwater from the street.
Mr. Gunn felt the subdivision proposal should be engineered without involvement of the City Engineer; further, the Planning Board cannot direct the City to address a street issue when subdivision plans are the applicant’s responsibility. Mr. Gebman said a considerable amount of water runs off Liberty Street therefore felt it would be the City Engineer’s responsibility to come up with a solution. Mr. Sheers advised Mr. Gebman that he must provide engineering plans as every other applicant is obligated to do. Mr. Gebman felt it incumbent upon the City Engineer to formulate a lead position as to what the City plans to do with the water runoff. Mr. Sheers explained that with regard to roadwork, the City Engineer works under the direction of the City Council, not the Planning Board. Mr. Gebman reported he was ignored by the City Council. Mr. Sheers asked the applicant to return with more detailed information on the subdivision plat.
Item No. 5
Review application for Special Use Permit, Nursery/Day School, submitted
by Catherine Street Properties, LLC, 95 Catherine Street
Paul Epstein, representing Catherine Street Properties, LLC, described his client’s proposal for a nursery/day school facility at 95 Catherine Street. He reported this property has been in his client’s family for over 60 years and was originally built as a light industrial use sometime in the 1940’s prior to zoning. In 1991, the Astor Home for Children came before the Planning Board and the City Council granted a Special Use Permit for a child/day care and early education type program. They occupied the property for ten years under that permit. After they vacated, Dutchess County Community Action Agency came before the Planning Board for approval to use the building for as a community service agency and related offices. They occupied the property until late 2007 or early 2008. Mr. Epstein reported the owner would like to go back to the same use that Astor made of the property as the application is essentially the same. There have been no changes to the property; it has been in the same condition and configuration since 1991 when the City Council approved a Special Use Permit application of this nature. Mr. Epstein they now have a tenant that would like to make use of the property for the same purpose. He reported Astor vacated the building sometime in 2001 and then it became occupied under a use variance as primarily office use with a significant number of community service programs.
Mr. Timmis took notice that Catherine Street Properties owns an entire parcel that flows over into a multi-family use and construction firm, therefore asked to see all existing uses listed on the new plan. He had concern whether the properties will remain in common ownership into the future due to the parking arrangements. Mr. Epstein believed an easement was granted to one of the tenants which can be done again if necessary. Mr. Timmis said the nursery school at one time had use of a house for a training center for new mothers. Mr. Epstein explained that was not part of this property and the building has since been sold. Mr. Timmis had concern for student and family transportation because uses on the property are shared with a construction operation.
Mr. Russo shared concern for vehicle movement and parking which extends onto neighboring lots therefore asked that appropriate easements be secured. Concerns for the mixed uses on the property were discussed. Mr. Dexter reported the Building Department has never had complaints or issues regarding the mixed use when the daycare facility was in operation. Mr. Timmis asked that the handicap space be redesigned to provide an access aisle but reported they exceed off-street parking requirements. Debate took place over an area for bus drop off and possible creation of a larger space for them. The parking lot needs to be restriped as well.
There was no further discussion and Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA process, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of July, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item No. 6
Review application for Special Use Permit, accessory apartment,
submitted by Jose Henao, 1258 North Avenue
Aryeh Siegel described his client’s proposal to create an accessory apartment on the basement level of his single family house at 1258 North Avenue. Mr. Timmis explained the site plan conforms to zoning regulations. The rear parking area is adequate however consideration should be given as to whether the gravel driveway should be paved. The accessory apartment is well within the required maximum square footage and building percentage requirements.
Ms. Attaway asked if the property is located in a single family zoning district. Mr. Dexter explained accessory apartments are permitted in single family zones with Special Use Permit approval. Dwellings with accessory apartments must show no exterior appearance other than that of a single family home, the apartment must be 650 sq. ft. or less, must be less than 30% of the overall area, must be owner occupied, and are subject to inspection every two years by the Building Department.
There was no further discussion and Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA process, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of July, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Architectural
Review
Electric Windows – One East Main Street
Mr. Sheers explained the Electric Window project at One East Main Street has been installed for over a month and as noted at the last meeting, the provisional Certificate of Appropriateness will be reviewed to make certain the artwork is appropriate for the historical overlay district. Mr. Dexter reported they were made aware of minor complaints over some of the art choices but had no objections to the overall display. After some consideration, Mr. Gunn made a motion issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the artwork display known as “Electric Windows”, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Tillott Street – Single Family House
Developer Paul Bernasconi and potential property owner Michael Witkowski presented a proposal for a new single family house at the corner of Tillott Street and Anderson Street. After discussing and reviewing the proposed elevation drawing, Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the single family house, subject to the addition of two windows on the gable end, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Sheers asked Mr. Dexter if his department would consider taking photographs of neighborhood housing stock for review at meetings when new single family houses are proposed. He explained that although members visit the neighborhood, it is difficult to recall the various types of housing when reviewing an application. Mr. Dexter agreed to provide the requested photos in the future.
Item No. 7
Public hearing to adopt rules regarding submission procedures, as
outlined in City Code Chapter 45-7 Adoption of Rules and Regulations
Discussion took place regarding establishing a rule that all applications and written information be submitted to the Planning Board secretary two weeks prior to the regular meeting no later than 4:00 p.m. Applications and materials will be reviewed for completeness by the City Planner and Engineer before being placed on the agenda. The only exceptions will be when the Planning Board Chairman or Acting Planning Board Chairman determines an item should be added thereafter for the benefit of the City as a whole. Mr. Gunn made a motion to recommend the City Council enact the above noted legislation, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
There was no further business to discuss and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the meeting, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.