HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 11/09/20221
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 9, 2022
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in Regular Session at 6:0 0 p.m. on
November 9, 2022, in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The following members were present:
Rob Bowers, Leah Patton, Leila Ammar and Chad Schneider. Michael Zenor was absent. Also
present were Assistant City Attorney Jane Chang, and City Planners Eloise Sahlstrom and Ray
Anderson.
Approval of Minutes; July 13, 2022: Moved by Bowers seconded by Patton to approve the
minutes of July 13, 2022, Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes; October 26, 2022: Moved by Schneider seconded by Bowers to approve
the minutes of October 26, 2022, Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 22-11
Public Hearing on a Request for an Appeal of 802 Burnett Ave from a Decision of the
Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding encroachment of a structure within the front yard.
Planner Eloise Sahlstrom stated that this property located at the corner of 8th Street and Burnett
Avenue in the Old Town Historic District. The request is an appeal of the decision of the
Planning Director regarding a proposed fence in the rear yard. The Planning Director’s decision
is that a proposed structure located along the rear property line is a “fence,” as defined in Section
29.201 (74). As a fence, the structure is limited in its height and location on a property. The
appellant’s proposed fence exceeds the maximum height of six feet for fences in the rear yard
setback for posts utilized in the design of the fence. The appellant asserts that the extended pos ts
are not part of a fence, but instead landscape accents, which would then exempt them from
height limits.
The property is occupied by a single-family residence and attached garage and has non-
conforming side and rear building setbacks. Fences may be constructed without regard to the
required building setback, as long as the height of the fence meets the height limitations
described in Section 29.408(20). Properties in the Old Town Historic District are required to
receive a Certificate of Appropriateness for certain improvements, including fencing.
The Zoning Ordinance defines a fence as an unroofed barrier or enclosing structure. Fences in
the Old Town Historic District are required to comply with the height standards described in the
Zoning Ordinance. In this instance the height limit is six feet in a rear yard setback.
The appellant’s proposed structure includes a 3-foot brick wall with three brick columns that are
proposed to extend to at a height of 6’-6”. The brick columns surround support posts that extend
to 12 feet with 8-foot arms at the top of the posts extending inwardly toward the house at an
angle, resulting in a total height over 12 feet. The extended features are to be built into the brick
wall and located along with the hip wall one foot from the property line. The 12-foot extensions
are physically part of the fence design and were determined to be subject to the fence height
limitations.
On July 11, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a Certificate of
Appropriateness to construct a brick fence with extended features in the rear yard of the house at
802 Burnett Avenue and referred the request back to staff or the applicant for additional
information.
On September 15, 2022, staff met with the applicant and presented a letter to the applicant
explaining next steps (see Attachment C.). One of the options described to the applicant, was to
appeal the decision of the Planning Director. The item tonight before the Zoning Board of
Adjustment is that appeal.
2
The Zoning Ordinance applies setback and other development regulations to all structures. The
front porch structure is attached to the house. The proposed structure in the rear yard is not
attached to the house. It is freestanding and is only attached to the hip wall as part of the fence.
The Ordinance also allows for exceptions to setbacks for certain features. In this situation, staff
determined that a proposed structure was classified in its entirety as a fence, and that as a fence it
does not meet the allowable fence height for being in a rear yard setback.
Additionally, as discussed with the appellant’s appeal, if the structure is determined to not be a
fence and is a “landscape accent” it is still subject to fence limitations due to the design and
configuration of the structure.
The Zoning Ordinance considers essentially all constructed improvements above ground to be
structures. The structure varies in height between six feet and twelve feet. The definition of a
fence means an unroofed barrier or unroofed enclosing structure, including retaining walls.
Staff finds that the structure is a barrier enclosing an area. The structure is proposed to be located
one foot from the rear property line, defining the property boundary and enclosing the patio
space on one side.
All individual components of the structure together comprise the structure. The proposed
extended features are to be built into the brick wall. The appellant has indicated that the intent of
the extended features is to create a sense of place. As currently designed, the extended piers,
posts, and arms are integral to the proposed structure, both visually and structurally in creating a
boundary.
The entire structure, along with the extended features, define the property edge and create
enclosure, meeting the definition of a “fence”.
The Zoning Ordinance requires all structures to meet setbacks based upon the applicable
standard for the zoning district and type of structure. The Ordinance does provide for certain
specific projections into the setbacks as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. At issue in this appeal is
Section 29.402(2) which gives a list of permissible projections: minor projections, architectural
projections, and full projections.
(c) Full projections allowed. In addition to the minor projections listed in the previous
section, the following features are allowed to fully project into required setbacks:
(viii) Landscape accents that include but are not limited to arbors with a coverage
area no greater than 15 square feet; fountains and statuary up to four feet in
height, and constructed ponds and waterfalls at or below finished grade, and
similar incidental landscape accents. The design and location of accent
features shall not have the effect of creating a continuous wall that does not
meet fence standards.
(xi) Fences as allowed in Section 29.408(2);
(xii) Planter boxes/walls at allowable fence heights;
The Appellant has requested that the extended piers, posts, and arms be classified as “landscape
features,” (landscape accents). However, as currently designed, the fence is one structure,
comprised of components that visually and structurally form the fence. For the extended features
to be considered landscape accents, they would have to be disconnected from the other
components of the fence as a separate and detached structure. Staff has conveyed this to the
appellant.
The proposed fence varies in height from three feet to greater than twelve feet and does not meet
the maximum height of six feet. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Department of
Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment uphold the decision of the Planning
Director that the classification of the proposed structure as a “fence” is correct, and therefore, the
height of the proposed structure must therefore meet the height restrictions of a “fence” as
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
In this case, the appellant believes the Planning Director has incorrectly interpreted the Zoning
Ordinance by determining the proposed structure to be a “fence”.
3
The appellant asserts that the tall parts (extended piers, posts, and arms) of the structure:
• are not part of the fence
• should be classified as “landscape features” (landscape accents).
He states, although “they touch walls”, “they do not include lines of sight or movement in the
way a fence would, and certainly not in a way which would represent a danger, given their shape
and location.”
The appellant also states, “Although I agree that we, in this design and choice of materials, have
tried to make these vertical features part of a harmonious whole, they are not in themselves what
one would consider a fence nor do they further the purposes of a fence, regardless of what
objects they touch.”
The Zoning Board of Adjustment is authorized to consider an appeal of an administrative
decision per 414.12 of the Code of Iowa to determine if there was an error. The appeal process is
not an exception or variance process, it is an interpretation of zoning standards that apply
uniformly across the City. The Board must determine there was an error in the interpretation of
the Planning Director that the entire structure including the extended piers, posts, and arms
proposed at 802 Burnett Avenue is a “fence” per Section 30.2(30). At issue is not the
appropriateness or adequacy of the standards, only if staff made an incorrect interpretation.
Chair Leila Ammar called for questions for the staff.
Chad Schneider questioned the requirements for a trellis. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that those
requirements are listed under the Full Projections Allowed for landscape accents. Planning
Director Kelly Diekmann asked if Mr. Schneider’s example was attached to a house. Mr.
Schneider gave the example of a deck that had a vertical trellis with horizontal elements. Mr.
Diekmann stated if it was attached to the house than it would be treated as the primary structure
it would not be an accessory structure. All heights of it would have to meet height and setback
requirements if it is attached to the house. When it is freestanding that is when the other
allowances are under consideration. Mr. Schneider clarified that an arbor would be free-standing.
Mr. Diekmann agreed. Mr. Diekmann stated that anything attached to the principal structure is
part of the principal structure. Ms. Ammar stated that they can have a fence, but it would have to
be six feet. The Board discussed definitions of accessory features and the setbacks required.
Mr. Diekmann stated the Zoning Ordinance covers all structures. The principal structure such as
the house has standard front and rear yard setbacks and lot coverage. If there is a structure that is
detached from the house, there is a list of when those are allowed to be in the setbacks. There is
also an allowance for detached accessory buildings, that would have different setbacks than the
main house. The setbacks are dependent upon whether it is the principal building, an accessory
building or another type of structure to determine which layer of setback would be applicable.
Rob Bowers stated that it is currently non-conforming. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that yes, it is non-
conforming because of the garage.
Chair Ammar invited the applicant to come forward to speak: Daniel Kolz, 802 Burnett, was
sworn in. Mr. Kolz stated that it doesn’t look like a fence. He stated that it is their understanding
if the extensions were being built one foot closer or further away than it would meet the Code. If
it wasn’t attached to the hip wall, then it would be fine. But with the extensions on the hip wall
then it becomes part of a fence. Doesn’t make sense the way the Code is written. Doesn’t disrupt
sight lines which is what he would have deemed a reason for the fence code.
Mr. Schneider asked the applicant if they had considered a design where the extensions were
free-standing. Mr. Kolz stated that yes, they will look at a redesign but didn’t want to give up the
physical space.
No public hearing. None
Discussion by the Board: Mr. Schneider asked if the extensions were removed or freestanding
what would be the limits? Mr. Diekmann stated that if they were free-standing, with no roof or
close enough together to make another barrier they would be considered landscape accents and
there would be no height restrictions.
4
Chair Ammar asked for clarification of full projections. Ms. Sahlstrom stated if the landscape
features are part of the fence, then they must meet the fence requirements . Mr. Diekmann stated
that once something is affixed to the fence it must meet the fencing requirements so that
regulations can be consistent.
Chair Ammar stated that the vertical columns would have to be lowered to meet the fencing
requirement. Mr. Bowers said the charge before the Board is to determine whether this was
correctly interpreted.
Moved by Bowers to approve Alternative 1; the Zoning Board of Adjustment can find
that the Planning Director correctly interpreted the Ames Municipal Code that the
proposed structure at 802 Burnett Avenue in its entity is a fence and that the fence
exceeds the maximum height allowed for a fence in the rear yard; Seconded by Schneider
Roll Call: Schneider, aye; Ammar, aye; Patton, aye; Bowers, aye
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 22-12
Public Hearing on a Request for an Appeal of 3207 Oakland from a Decision of the Zoning
Enforcement Officer regarding encroachment of a structure within the front yard.
Planner Ray Anderson stated that this is an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director
regarding a fence in the front yard. The Director’s decision is that the unroofed structure that
encloses an area is determined to be a fence, as defined in section 29.201 in the Municipal Code.
A fence is limited to height and location on the property under the Zoning Ordinance. The
appellant’s fence exceeds the maximum height of the fence, which is four feet for a front yard.
The structure varies in height from six to eight feet. Mr. Thompson (Appellant) who lives at
3207 Oakland asserts that the decision of the Planning Director is an incorrect interpretation of
the Zoning Ordinance and that the structure, should not be classified as a fence. The structure is a
“landscape accent” that does not have the same height and location restrictions as a fence.
Note the appeal is regarding the definitions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance, it is not a
property specific exception or variance from a standard of the Zoning Ordinance.
City staff viewed the property on August 31, 2022, and a “Notice of Violation at 3207 Oakland
Street” was sent from the Department of Planning and Housing to the property owners (Grant
and Thressa Thompson) on September 1, 2022. The owners were to respond by September 15 as
to the plan to bring the fence into compliance with the requirements. Mr. Thompson has chosen
to appeal.
Staff determined the structure is a fence which exceeds the maximum height of four feet for a
fence in the front yard. If this structure is considered to not be a fence and is a landscape accent
as the appellant states, it would still need to meet the requirements of fence limitations due to the
design and configuration of the structure.
Definitions are as follows:
Sec. 29.201 DEFINITIONS.
(223) Structure means anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires,
directly or indirectly, a permanent location on the land.
Staff has determined that the constructed object using wood materials with a permanent location
on the ground qualifies as a “Structure,” defined in Section 29.201(223).
(74) Fence means an unroofed barrier or unroofed enclosing structure, including
retaining walls.
5
Staff finds that the structure is a barrier or structure enclosing an area. The purpose of the vertical
structure is to enclose, visually and physically, the garden space. This is supported by the
appellant’s statements in the email received from Grant Thompson on September 2, 2022, in
which he states, “Given the tree cover of the neighborhood and exceedingly strong deer presence
this is why I sought to locate the garden where I did and at the height I did”
The Zoning Ordinance requires all structures to meet setbacks based upon the applicable
standard for the zoning district and type of structure. The Ordinance does provide for certain
specific projections into the setbacks as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. At issue in this appeal is
Section 29.402(2) which gives a list of permissible projections.
Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS
Landscape accents that include but are not limited to arbors with a coverage area no greater
than 15 square feet; fountains and statuary up to four feet in height, and constructed ponds and
waterfalls at or below finished grade, and similar incidental landscape accents. The design and
location of accent features shall not have the effect of creating a continuous wall that does not
meet fence standards.
The Staff determined that a vertical structure forms a fence, based upon the definition of a fence
and it is not a landscape accent. If it were a landscape accent it would still be subject to fence
limitations.
Under the Municipal Code:
Sec. 29.408(2) Fences.
(2) Fences.
(c) Location and Height.
(i) Height in Front Setbacks & Yards. The maximum height of fences in front setbacks
and front yards is four (4) feet.
This section of the Code identifies the applicable definition of fences in this situation that make
up the violation. The appellant feels that the structure is not a fence but a garden trellis which is a
landscape accent which falls under Code Section 29.402(c). Staff agrees that a trellis as a stand-
alone feature is a landscape accent but when it is connected together, it is subject to fence
regulations.
Appellant states, “The stipulation in the landscape accents code stating ‘The design and location
of accent features shall not have the effect of creating a continuous wall that does not meet fence
standards’ is ambiguous since it does not clearly indicate a defined threshold where a landscape
accent becomes a continuous wall or fence and would be subject to those regulations.”
The definition of “continuous,” as provided by the appellant is, “marked by uninterrupted
extension in space, time, or sequence.”
The appellant asserts that “The trellis of the structure has two gaps-interruptions-that are
approximately four feet wide and align along the north-south axis, as shown in Figure 3 (see
Supporting Information), thus it is not continuous.” Staff notes that the structure is connected
across the top of the “gap” and the “gap” is only on two sides of the enclosure.
The Board must determine that there was an error in the interpretation of the Code to grant the
appeal from the Planning Director’s decision.
The appellant asserts that the structure constructed in the front yard is a landscape accent under
Sec. 29.402(2)(c)(viii) and that the purpose of the structure is to function as a trellis for the raised
bed vegetable garden to support plant growth for climbing plants. Furthermore, the appellant
asserts that the structure is not continuous and therefore not limited to fence heights.
The full projection exception language Section 29.402(2)(c)(viii) was modified at the end of
2020; at which time, the language originally referenced structures such as arbors. Text changes
were written to clarify that certain features previously permitted to project fully into setbacks
without limitation were not appropriate within setbacks. It was at this time that the language
6
pertaining to “having the effect of creating a continuous wall that does not meet fence standards”
was added to address the potential abuse of the allowed landscape accent projections.
Staff views the structure in its totality to enclose a defined area as a fence, it is not stand-alone
trellises as landscape accents. With the appellant’s interpretation it would make defining
structures that enclose areas somehow distinguishable from the basic definition of a fence, which
would be inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance having specific regulations for
fences.
In the event that the structure is a landscape accent, it would be subject to the fence limitatio ns.
Although “Continuous” is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance, the structure is connected
together with a horizontal element that spans each four-foot opening. In its totality the structure
has the effect of being a fence, even if there were to be small gaps between components of the
structure and is therefore subject to the landscape accent qualification of fence height standards
for the front yard regardless of what the structure is defined as.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning Director that the Zoning Board of
Adjustment approve Alternative #1, which is to find that the Planning Director correctly
interpreted the Ames Municipal Code that the unroofed enclosing structure at 3207 Oakland
Street is a fence and that the fence exceeds the maximum height allowed for a fence in the front
yard and front yard setback.
Chair Ammar called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Schneider asked for the orientation of this structure on the property. Mr. Diekmann stated it
is approximately ten feet from the sidewalk and is in the front setback which is the first 25 feet of
the property. He also stated that for any fence in the front yard the maximum height requirement
is four feet. Chair Ammar stated that the Board is to decide whether it is or is not a fence. Mr.
Diekmann said the decision is based on whether the definition of the fence is applicable. If it
does not apply, then as a landscape feature it would still be subject to the fence standard.
Mr. Schneider asked for clarification under Section 29.402 that planter boxes would be included
in the same height restriction of four feet in the front yard. Mr. Schneider stated that these are
clearly planter boxes, but this would still be subject to the same limitations.
Rob Bowers reiterated that it is the interpretation that is to be determined not the appropriateness
of the definition of the Code. Mr. Diekmann stated that in this case there is some discretion and
that it is a two-part argument. First is it a fence, if it is determined to be a fence than the appeal is
over. If it is a landscape accent, then the question becomes has Staff applied the fence standards
appropriately.
Mr. Bowers asked if this could be a text amendment to City Council. Mr. Diekmann stated that
any request could be made to Council for a text amendment. The Council didn’t create a process
for unique types of structures with the updates to the encroachment allowances. There isn’t a
current avenue to decide if this is compatible or not. A variance, which is defined under state
law, Staff advised the appellant they wouldn’t be able to prove a hardship on the use of the
property. It is possible for them to file for a variance but then all the findings would have to be
met.
Leah Patton clarified that if the structure was brought down to four feet it would be allowed. Mr.
Diekmann stated that it would be an average of four feet to allow for grade of the property.
Chair Ammar invited the applicant to come forward to speak. Grant Thompson, 3207 Oakland
was sworn in. Mr. Thompson stated that the application of the Code is ambiguous and arbitrary.
This is a trellis attached to the garden boxes for the plants. The phrase “is it continuous” that was
added in 2020 still is not a sufficient definition. How far apart does the opening need it to be to
disrupt the “continuous”. The Code doesn’t address any of this in the language thus making it
the determination of the Planning Director, in several instances the Code states “grouping of
trellis’”. There is no definition of trellis groupings, continuous, enclosures (in the landscape
accents). The clause was added but is not adequate in all situations. Thus, making this ambiguous
for residents, city officials and Board members to decide. Since there is not a permitting process
for fences or landscape accents then the Code is being applied retroactively. There were
7
numerous emails that were sent in support and five people present in the audience that are
supportive. The Planning Code should be standard, distances, feet, heights. This structure is well
within the property and does not affect sight lines. It has encouraged neighbor interaction. This
has many elements from the Ames Plan 2040. There is text in the plan that includes materials
that enhance the visual appearance of the properties and neighborhood, environmental
stewardship and sustainability should guide what we do in the 21st century (page 47). Putting a
garden in the front yard so that food miles and carbon emissions can be reduced, defines
sustainable. Community Character improve design quality seek to expand good design in private
development as well as city infrastructure. The goal is to create a positive investment in the
aesthetics and image of the city and not just for the sake of density. Embellishment in the
surroundings to create interest and whimsy and identity included focus on people and the
environment. This is a garden, the language that is being used to deny this is ambiguous. There is
no mechanism for residents to do this on the front end. This is an arbitrary ruling.
Mr. Schneider asked if the trellis and the planter boxes are connected and is this the case on all
four sides. Mr. Thompson stated that there is an opening on the north and south sides that align
with the door of the house. There are not gaps on the east and west sides. There is no text
information in the Code regarding gaps and regarding whether it is a fence or a trellis it is
arbitrary to which one is applied.
Chair Ammar questioned the purpose of adding the vertical elements. Mr. Thompson stated that
this is for growing plants in a healthy manner.
Mr. Bowers asked what was meant by the appellant’s statement “Given the tree cover of the
neighborhood and the exceedingly strong deer presence this is why I sought to locate the garden
where I did at the height I did.” Mr. Bowers questioned if this was an accurate statement and for
an explanation. Mr. Thompson confirmed that this was a true statement. On September 2, Mr.
Thompson stated his response to the city on that day explaining the intent was putting the garden
where there is the most sun. There is heavy shade in the back. The lot is 600 feet deep and there
is just a little bit of sun in the front yard. The deer are all over the neighborhood and need
protection. City also built a city garden and installed significant fencing around it.
Chair Ammar opened the public hearing.
Sarah Nusser, 3312 Oakland, was sworn in. Dr. Nusser stated in her professional life she has
dealt with research regulations and are arcane and difficult to understand. Whether she agreed
with them or not their purpose was clear. After hearing the discussion at this meeting, it is
unclear as to what is being safeguarded. As one of the neighbors and had her yard destroyed by
the deer this structure is beautiful and look forward to seeing this grow. It is a place for
neighbors to gather. The neighborhood has been stunned by the response of the city. Expressing
support for this garden structure to go forth unaltered.
Mike Pedersen, 536 Forest Glen, sworn in. This structure is visible from their front porch and
window. He has attempted to also start a garden unsuccessfully because of the deer presence.
Have enjoyed the process and encourage keeping the structure as designed.
Chair Ammar closed the public forum.
Mr. Diekmann stated that trellis is not in the zoning ordinance. The perception of a trellis has a
wide interpretation. The definition of an arbor is 5’x3’ structure, 15 square feet. A small structure
in a yard. Trellis is not in the code and is another version of a landscape accent. We are looking
at scale and scope. The other boundary is whether it becomes a barrier as a fence and has a sense
of enclosure. He stated that the entire structure is being considered a barrier, so cutting the
boards at the top of the gap would not change it as an enclosure and is acting as a fence. It is
being used for the purpose of protection and is not just a garden feature. That is where the
definition of a fence comes in. Council can decide about gardens but currently they are not
exempt from the Code. Fence permits have not been required in the history of the zoning
ordinance.
Chair Ammar called for questions from the Board for Staff.
8
Chair Ammar asked if the Applicant had final comments. Mr. Thompson stated that if the
residents don’t have clear definition from the text it puts them at a disadvantage.
Chair Ammar stated to the Board that the first task is to decide whether the Planning Director
correctly interpreted that this structure is a fence. The arguments are whether this is continuous.
Chair Ammar said that all fences are non-continuous, they have some type of opening.
Mr. Schneider stated that under the Code these are defined as planter boxes but would still be
subject to the same fencing requirements.
Jane Chang, Assistant City Attorney asked if the motion would be to affirm the decision of the
Director that this structure has to conform to the fence height standards.
Mr. Schneider moved for Alternative #2 The Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the
Planning Director incorrectly determined that the unroofed enclosing structure at 3207 Oakland
Street is a fence but are planter boxes. Therefore, agree with the decision as the planter boxes
need to be conforming to the fence height standard.
Ms. Chang said that this is not an option, which is why she earlier questioned if the motion
should be “to affirm the decision of the Director that this structure has to conform to the fence
height standards.”
Mr. Diekmann stated that this would be declining both options which would lead to
administrative review which would result in coming back to the Board.
Chair Ammar stated if the Board says this in incorrect and it is not a fence than it goes back to
the Director and it will come back calling it a planter box. Mr. Schneider stated that there is clear
code that affects planter boxes.
Motion dies with no second.
Chair Ammar moved for Alternative 1: The Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the
Planning Director correctly interpreted the Ames Municipal Code that the unroofed enclosing
structure at 3207 Oakland Street is a fence and that the fence exceeds the maximum height
allowed for a fence in the front yard and front yard setback. Bowers seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Schneider stated for precedence reasons for the future, planter boxes with an
enclosure would also need to meet the fencing requirements. Discussion continued about arbors
and planter boxes. Mr. Schneider asked if an arbor was inside a four-foot fenced area would that
be allowed. Mr. Diekmann stated that would meet the requirement as they are not connected.
There is no limit to the number of arbors you can have inside a fenced area.
Roll Call: Schneider, aye; Ammar, aye; Patton, aye; Bowers, aye
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Schneider seconded by Ammar to adjourn the meeting at
7:24 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Natalie Rekemeyer, Recording Secretary Leila Ammar, Chair