HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-17-2008 Joint Public Hearing
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 1 of 10
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, January 17, 2008
7:00 PM in the Gordon Battle Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Frances
Dancy, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, and Brian Lowen.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
: Dan Barker, Edna Ellis, Kate Faherty, Neil
Jones, Dave Remington, Barrie Wallace, and Elizabeth Woodman.
ABSENT:
Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd, absence excused.
STAFF PRESENT
: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik
ITEM #1:Call to Order.
Mayor Stevens called the public hearing to order at 7:04 p.m. He did not read the Public Charge
but noted it would be followed. Mayor Stevens stated that because the Chair and Vice Chair of
the Planning Board were not able to attend, he would serve as Chair of the meeting.
ITEM #2: Rezoning Request from Kim Steffan to rezone 0.2 acres at 128 West
Margaret Lane from Residential-20 to Office Institutional (TMBL
4.36.A.11).
Ms. Hauth stated that the first newspaper notice for this meeting contained an error, in that it said
the applicant was requesting rezoning to Central Commercial rather than Office Institutional.
She said the notices sent to property owners had been corrected, and the applicant was aware of
the notice failure but wished to proceed. She said no Protest Petition had been received. Ms.
Hauth said the packet contained one email letter of support from a property owner in the
notification area, the Martins.
Kim Steffan, speaking as the applicant, provided a handout and a slide presentation. She
indicated the location via a Google Earth map, noting that everything around the property was
already commercial or office use with the exception of the Payne?s residential property to the
west. Ms. Steffan said there was a new government building to the south, parking to the east,
and to the north was Judith Hauser?s law office.
Ms. Steffan said the house was built in 1952 and had vinyl siding. She said she would like to
remove the vinyl siding and restore the wood siding underneath. Ms. Steffan stated the house
was not historic and she did not want to falsely portray it as such. She displayed photos of the
existing structure, a view of the construction across the street, and other commercial sites in the
vicinity. Ms. Steffan said that the existing concrete area behind was sufficient for staff parking
and should have enough space for employee and handicap spaces on site. She said that customer
parking was available in the vicinity. Ms. Steffan indicated she was willing to extend the
existing fence, if preferred, between this lot and the Payne?s. She said she understood there
might be concerns about how a future owner might use the property, and that was the reason she
was requesting OI rather than Commercial. Ms. Steffan said the height restrictions in the R-20
1
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 2 of 10
zone allowed a 45? tall building but OI allowed only 40? tall. She acknowledged that any
building would require Historic District Commission approval.
Ms. Ellis said regarding traffic into the alley parking lot, could it loop around this house and not
access the alley. Ms. Steffan replied yes, there was room to do that.
Commissioner Gering stated the map she had displayed did not show the neighbors. Ms. Steffan
said the map was actually a survey of the parking lot. Commissioner Gering asked was that the
Town parking lot. Ms. Steffan responded that the alley was a Town lot and the next lot to the
east was private.
Commissioner Hallman said they had to consider the list of permitted uses, not what Ms. Steffan
intended to do.
Mr. Barker asked had Ms. Steffan talked with Judith Hauser about a cross access. Ms. Steffan
replied she had, but Ms. Hauser was not willing to because she had trouble with people parking
in her lot.
Mr. Barker asked how much grass would remain on that lot. Ms. Steffan referred to the scale
drawing, which showed the house.
Ms. Woodman asked what the height of the fence was between this site and the Payne?s. David
Payne commented it was about five feet.
Ms. Woodman asked were there provisions for a sidewalk along the frontage. Ms. Steffan
responded no, because it would not connect to anything.
Ms. Woodman asked if the ordinance required a sidewalk. Ms. Hauth replied only if enough
changes were made to trigger a site plan review.
Mr. Barker asked who owned the slope between this lot and the alley parking lot. Robbin
Taylor-Hall stated it had not been surveyed, but she expected the riprap was the Town?s.
Mr. Barker asked how far from the house was the parking lots. Ms. Steffan replied it was 13.26?
from the house to the fence.
Jim Boericke, of 153 West Margaret Lane, said that a law office was not all bad, but rezoning
was not the way to go. He said it did not qualify under the minimum lot size, noting it was only
about 9,000 square feet when 10,000 was required. Mr. Boericke said a Type 2 screen was
required between residential property and OI, and this lot was just too small. He said he was
opposed, adding this was not the appropriate way to grant the small business use of the property.
David Payne, the immediate neighbor to the west at 134 West Margaret Lane, stated their main
objection was that their mud porch was 30? from the driveway. He said they would be looking
right in their kitchen window. Mr. Payne said they objected to the vehicle traffic and the
2
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 3 of 10
proximity of the driveway. He said there was a natural boundary on West Margaret Lane
between residential and commercial, formed by the alley.
Susan Frankenberg said that she had not received the notice for this meeting, although she owned
property directly across the street. She said her property was rezoned well before she bought it
and it was surrounded by commercial uses. She said she objected to the rezoning based on the
size of the lot. Ms. Frankenberg said there was a need for a boundary from commercial uses and
this house was a good one. She said she did not want a domino effect, and felt strongly that the
property should not be rezoned.
Commissioner Hallman asked with the notification problem in mind, was it okay to close the
public hearing. Town Attorney Bob Hornik responded yes.
Ms. Wallace asked was a rezoning the only option. Ms. Hauth replied yes, unless the applicant
intended to live there and run it as a home occupation.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved
to close the public hearing on this issue. The motion was adopted unanimously.
ITEM #3: Rezoning and Special Use Permit request from Leland Little LLC to rezone
2.5 acres at the northwest corner of Cornerstone Court and NC 86 from
Limited Office to Entranceway Special Use. The application also includes a
Special Use Permit to construct a 9,683 square foot building for office,
auction, and storage with 68 parking spaces (part of TMBL 4.40.A.8t).
Mayor Stevens swore in Ms. Hauth, and she provided a short introduction to this item. She
stated speakers would need to be sworn in before speaking. Ms. Hauth said that NC 86 frontage
north of I-85 was down-zoned to Limited Office a number of years ago to encourage property
owners to take advantage of the special use rezoning district and voluntarily bring in plans under
the special use district to ensure high quality development within the Entranceway Corridor to
the Town.
Ms. Hauth said the application was substantially complete, but they were waiting for one written
review by an outside agency. She said the applicant was asking for a few waivers on the site,
noting that the property was a part of the Cornerstone Park subdivision. Ms. Hauth said when
that subdivision was approved in the 1990?s, a stormwater plan was approved along with it, and
the applicant was asking that that stormwater plan be deemed as appropriate and sufficient and
that they not be required to submit a new plan under the Phase 2 stormwater rules.
Ms. Hauth said the application also did not include sidewalks along the adjacent roadways due to
pending road construction projects and the nature of development in the area. She said a detailed
Environmental Protection Plan had not been submitted because the site was partially developed
in the 1990?s.
Ms. Hauth said the landscaping plan in her opinion was creative, noting there was a requirement
for screening between the curbing and the road right-of-way and rather than creating a long row
3
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 4 of 10
of trees, the applicant had placed them in groups and staggered them to allow some visibility
onto the site but also meet the ordinance requirements. She said the building was somewhat
utilitarian in nature, but it was not visible from the road.
Ms. Hauth said this site brought up a transportation issue, in that the Town was aware from
NCDOT that there would be some changes to access on Valley Forge Road if the Elizabeth
Brady Road was constructed. She said this site provided an opportunity for a cross-connection
from Valley Forge Road to Cornerstone Court, which the plans did not indicate but may need to
be discussed at some future time.
Responding to several comments by Ms. Ellis, Ms. Hauth said that all the uses in the
Entranceway predated the Entranceway Special Use District and could be construed as a reason
why the Town implemented an Entranceway Special Use District, to not see more uses like that.
She said in terms of stormwater, there was a detention facility right there that was styled for the
development of this property, and flowed from there into another pond and then into Cates
Creek. She said so, there were two stops on the way before it entered the water body, and at the
time it was designed it met the Town?s ordinances in place at that time. She asked that the
applicant address the stormwater issue in more detail during their presentation.
Tracy Parrott with Summit Consulting was sworn in. He introduced Leland Little, Chad Abbott,
Jim Parker, and Alan Pytcher, and provided some details of the business, how it had grown, and
what it contributed to the community. Mr. Parrott said this was a home-grown business and was
unique, adding they wanted to develop a new gallery building. He stated their traffic generation
would be during off-peak hours, generally on Saturdays and Sundays. Mr. Parrott said the new
building would also provide space for community events, that it was a convenient and prominent
locale, and that it complied with the Strategic Growth Plan. He added that this business was
beneficial to the Town.
Chad Abbott was sworn in. He displayed photos as he walked the Board through details of the
site:
?
The property was already rough graded ? 4% slope.
?
Utilities already exist (water, sewer, electrical, and stormwater).
?
No environmental sensitive areas on the site.
?
Steep slope to the west would not be disturbed.
?
Adjacent properties had similar uses.
?
Brick and block facades, which was better than adjacent metal buildings.
?
Closest structure is 67? on adjacent parcel.
?
Proposing a 10,000 square feet of building space, with 68 parking spaces and accessible
spaces and ramps.
?
Proposing 42% impervious surface ? 50% district limit.
?
Building height was well below what was required at 26.85 feet.
?
Driveway would be 24 feet wide.
?
Sight distance would be at least 350 feet looking towards Cornerstone, and coming from
the intersection of NC 86 and Cornerstone the sight distance would be roughly 150 feet.
4
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 5 of 10
?
Dumpster pad and recycling center would be provided.
?
Stormwater ? displayed photo of the existing pond. Collects run-off from this site to a
facility and routed to a detention pond for slow release into Cates Creek.
?
Grouping and staggering of trees on the right-of-way were more natural and more
attractive to the site.
?
Would request that they not be required to build a sidewalk along NC 86 because the
widening project would remove it. Nothing else on Cornerstone generates foot traffic
and none have sidewalks, so they would like to skip it.
?
Two loading spaces were required. They were showing adequate loading space that was
smaller to match the trucks common with this use.
?
Stormwater facility was sized to accept 17 cubic feet per second (cfs) from their site; they
were at 9-10 cfs. Volume was adequate.
?
Increased the landscaping to 3 feet on center rather than 2 feet on center to allow for their
success.
Mr. Parrott stated it was clear this was not traditional retail, adding they hoped to begin
construction in the summer/fall. He said the builder identified was a Green builder, and those
aspects would be incorporated into their plans. He said this was a good project for Hillsborough,
and the unique aspects of the Town and this business complimented each other.
Ms. Faherty said the plan was very attractive, but asked had they considered landscaping that
was more drought tolerant, especially on a non-shaded site like this that would not be built on for
some time. Mr. Parrott said they would be happy to look at that, adding they had counted on the
shade canopy providing some protection, and that the evergreens would compliment the other
species of plants.
Mr. Remington asked why they had chosen barberry shrubs, and asked if they had long spikes.
Mr. Parrott said they might be a different variety, noting they had gone by the plant list in the
ordinance and would consider whatever was appropriate.
Mr. Barker said the requirement was to keep the exterior lights to ½ footcandle at the property
line, but plans showed much more than that. Mr. Parrott agreed that needed adjustment. He said
they had initially had higher poles and the revision was made later to drop the height of those
poles, so the plans needed adjustment. He said they would meet the ½ footcandle limit.
Ms. Ellis asked about the drive coming to NC 86 from the former steakhouse. Mr. Parrott stated
they were not on the former steakhouse site, and there was no drive onto NC 86. He said this
project would not impact the old steakhouse site at all. Ms. Ellis commented that they needed a
left-turn lane into Cornerstone as well as turning lanes to the left at the turn in. Mr. Parrott said
there was a northbound left-turn lane and a right-turn lane for southbound traffic. Ms. Ellis said
that NC 86 needed to be widened for bicycles.
Ms. Woodman asked about the finishes on the building. Mr. Parrott said it was a combination of
split textured masonry concrete block on the lower façade, and the wall that faced Cornerstone
would be brick. He said along the frontage that faced NC 86, the building would be a
5
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 6 of 10
combination of the split concrete block along the bottom with a mix of brick masonry and
textured concrete panels. Mr. Parrott said the building itself would be steel framed.
Ms. Woodman said regarding watering of the landscaping, had they considered a cistern for
watering or other recycling options. Mr. Parrott said they would look at that as they move into
the construction phase.
Mr. Barker asked how the stormwater facility would be different under today?s requirements.
Mr. Parrot said the requirement for nutrient/nitrogen removal through sand filters or bioretention
was different now. Mr. Barker asked had they compared the price difference. Mr. Parrott stated
not yet.
Ms. Ellis asked who was responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater ponds. Mr. Parrott
said he was unsure, but it likely would be the owner or a property owners association.
Mayor Stevens asked were there alternatives for sidewalk construction. Mr. Hornik responded
the Town?s ordinance was tough on sidewalks and those requirements were under review. He
said if they wanted sidewalks later on when the road was reconstructed it was easier to get a
sidewalk from NCDOT if it was already there rather than after the construction project came
through. Mr. Hornik said if they waited until after the construction project to put in the sidewalk,
the Town would have to pay for it.
Mr. Parrott said DOT?s policy was that it was automatic if it was a replacement, and it was
negotiated if it was not already there. Mr. Hornik stated it was important to be conscious of
unintended consequences. Commissioner Hallman said because that project was not fully
funded, he doubted that NCDOT would add features.
Jess Peter was sworn in. He said he was speaking in support of the project, noting it was a clean
industry, it was well established and becoming a leader, it would not contribute to pollution, that
it would bring more people to Hillsborough to shop in its stores, and that it would expand the tax
base. He said Mr. Little had contributed to the museum and to the Burwell School, and had
made his current site available for community activities. Mr. Peter stated the Town needed to
keep Mr. Little in Town.
Susan Frankenberg was sworn in. She said this was an orderly, clean, quiet, and well-run
business, and that it brought in people without necessarily bringing traffic downtown unless they
wanted to shop there. She said she strongly supported the project.
Craufurd Goodwin was sworn in. He stated he was an ?auction junkie,? and Mr. Little was the
best he had come across and they were extraordinarily lucky to have him. He said he had
initially thought the moving was tragic, and was pleased Mr. Little wanted to stay in
Hillsborough. Mr. Goodwin asked the Town to do what was needed to keep him in Town.
Mike Troy was sworn in. He said it was sad that they had to build a sidewalk so it could be
destroyed and built again. He said Mr. Little was a special user applying for a special use. He
6
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 7 of 10
added that Mr. Little?s kindness and generosity to this community was well-documented, and
that he would always carry his fair weight.
Dennis Bouchet was sworn in. He said he was an antique dealer, and Mr. Little?s business had
enhanced his business and increased his sales. He said he would very much like Mr. Little to
stay in Hillsborough and was very much in favor of the project.
Bryant Warren was sworn in. He said this project would be a great asset to the Town, but as
Chair of the Parks and Recreation Board he did believe that NC 86 needed sidewalks. He said it
may be some time before NCDOT stated its road construction, and if anyone built on either side
of this site they would also be required to put in a sidewalk.
Cyrus Hogue was sworn in. He said he believed you could use sidewalk assessments, such as
that seen in other cities and towns, in that the property owners would be assessed along the street
so that sidewalks could be built when it was appropriate to do so. He said that would be a
possible solution, and there may be other ways that it could be done.
Ms. Wallace agreed that sidewalks were needed on NC 86.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved
to close the public hearing. The motion was adopted unanimously.
ITEM #4: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to amend Section 25 and 5.27 to delete
the prohibition of outside storage for vehicle restoration businesses and
provide standards to allow outside storage.
Ms. Hauth stated this was a privately-sponsored Zoning Ordinance text amendment from the
owner of the Vintage Auto Shop on Allison Street, and was an amendment to revoke Section 25
of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 5.27 and to amend the standards for outside storage. She
said this was a vehicle restoration business, and the definition of that business under the current
ordinance prohibited outside storage. Ms. Hauth said the applicant was asking that that provision
be removed to allow outside storage at vehicle restoration businesses in the Town.
Mr. Hornik said that the proposed text amendment did add more specific language about storage
of vehicles and vehicle parts. So, he said, it was only clarifying to some extent the language
already in the ordinance.
John Rigsbee, owner of Vintage Auto Shop, said his business was not a junk yard and he did not
sell parts of the vehicles, adding that everything that was on site would be restored or used to
restore another vehicle. He said that storage was not allowed when permitted but when it was
zoned GI, storage would be allowed, adding they would like the two to match. Mr. Rigsbee said
all the cars were 1972 or older, and that his clientele were out of Town and many times out of
State. He said on many occasions his clients came into Town and stayed overnight, visiting local
restaurants and generally bringing additional revenue into the Town. Mr. Rigsbee said he
planned a combination of fencing and landscaping, and would appreciate any consideration the
Town could give him.
7
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 8 of 10
Mr. Barker asked what he had done to get into compliance. Mr. Rigsbee said he had been
moving vehicles and had obtained storage containers for parts. He said he was currently looking
at fencing for security and screening.
Alex Gold, owner of the Hillsborough Business Center, asked that the Board not delete the
outside storage prohibition. He said the current operation was an eyesore and detrimental to his
business. Mr. Gold said a fence was not sufficient due to the topography, and that this site was
very visible from the Business Center. He displayed and explained several photos of the existing
fence and existing conditions in and around the site. Mr. Gold said it was difficult when you
were dealing with neighbors, and he was trying to be cordial. He admitted that he was the one
who had lodged the compliant.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Gering, the Board moved
to close the public hearing. The motion was adopted unanimously.
ITEM #5: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to amend freestanding sign
requirements in Section 8.
Ms. Hauth stated this text amendment would implement some of the recommendations from the
Churton Street Corridor Plan to reduce both the height and size of freestanding signs in non-
residential districts. She said the agenda packet contained the ordinance section with the
language to be removed crossed out and the new language added in italics so that you could
compare what was being proposed.
Ms. Hauth stated the proposal was for signs to begin at 20 square feet rather than 32 square feet,
and step up from there to 32 square feet and 50 square feet, with 75 square feet being the largest
permitted. She said the proposal would also limit the height of freestanding signs to 7 feet rather
than the recommended 5 feet in order to allow for landscaping under the signs.
Ms. Hauth stated the Planning Board had asked how many signs on Churton Street would
actually comply with the new guidelines, and she had determined there were 3 that were lower
than 10 feet: at Dr. John Marshal?s office, at the carwash, and at Casa Iberra.
Ms. Hauth said the new guidelines would require that freestanding signs not be mounted on poles
but be mounted on a base that was at least half the width of the sign, so if a sign were 8 feet wide
its base must be at least 4 feet wide. She said they had also amended the section regarding the
grandfathering in of existing signs to establish a phase-out process for existing signs.
Responding to a comment by a Planning Board member, Ms. Hauth stated she had done some
research on what neighboring communities required. She said that Carrboro had the exact same
standard that Hillsborough currently had, that Chapel Hill was much more restrictive, and other
jurisdictions, such as Graham, Apex and Cary, were in the same range. Ms. Hauth said she had
not found any neighboring jurisdictions that allowed anything larger than 75 square feet of sign.
8
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 9 of 10
In response to a question asking if anyone had 400 feet of road frontage, Ms. Hauth stated that
the most likely ones would be Larry King Chevrolet and the Ford dealership.
One Board member wondered if capping the size at 50 square feet would lead to a more
realistically shaped sign.
Commissioner Gering stated he had been interested in sign ordinance revisions for some time,
and that it had been extraordinarily difficult to get even this far in that process. He said it was
unlikely that once it was amended, that it would be amended again for quite some time.
Commissioner Gering asked the Planning Board to give this serious consideration, noting this
might be last time for some time to come that they would have a chance to modify it and make it
tighter. Ms. Hauth said they were getting ready to start the ordinance rewrite, so they could do
this now and then look at it in more detail as they proceeded through the rewrite. Commissioner
Gering stated they had held off making amendments for this long because they had not wanted to
tell businesses to change their signs but once.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Gering, the Board moved
to close the public hearing. The motion was adopted unanimously.
ITEM #6: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to add a Multi-Family Special Use
zoning district to Section 2 and relevant standards to Section 4.
Ms. Hauth stated this would add a new zoning district to the Zoning Ordinance, in light of two
possible multi-family projects that wanted to have the special use option. She said this would
create the Multi-Family special use district which would allow the developer to apply for one of
the Town?s attached housing or multi-family housing types and then meet the requirements for
the multi-family district. But, she said, if you needed some special consideration, because it was
a special use you could ask for something different during the review process. Ms. Hauth said
the most common use she would expect the Board to see a request for would be a density
increase.
Mr. Hornik said he and Ms. Hauth had discussed how simple or complex to make this
amendment, and had opted to make it a simple method. He said if an application came before
the Town Board and the Town Board did not like it, they would not have to worry about the
details but simply deny the rezoning.
Ms. Hauth stated that all the things that would normally go along with every type of Special Use
Permit would go along with this type of Special Use Permit as well. She said that this would
simply be another option. Ms. Hauth stated this was a separate zoning district, and someone
would have to apply to become Multi-Family. She noted they had not established a minimum lot
size for this district.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved
to close the public hearing. The motion was adopted unanimously.
9
January 17, 2008 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 10, 2008
Page 10 of 10
ITEM #7: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to amend the site plan and conditional
use requirements to create a tiered system whereby smaller plans are
reviewed by staff or a staff committee and larger plans become conditional
uses. Amendments are proposed in Sections 3.4.1, 4, 5, and 21.
Ms. Hauth stated the reason for this series of amendments was to change how they reviewed site
plans. She said it would set up a tiered system whereby the first tier would be that site plans of a
certain size could be reviewed by a single Planning staff person; the second tier would be a
group of staff from a variety of departments which could include the Fire Marshal, the Town
Engineer, and others; and, the third tier would be to say that regardless of what the use was, if the
size of the building or disturbed area gets to a certain size or intensity, that use automatically
became a Conditional Use within that district.
Ms. Hauth said they were also proposing that places of worship and schools, which were
routinely allowed in residential districts, would become a Conditional Use, regardless of their
size. She said they had found that it was difficult to review a commercial site plan, which was
essentially what a church or a school was, when the zoning was residential and there was not a
requirement for parking or screening or other things that tended to be in the ordinance and based
on zoning and not on the use of the property. Ms. Hauth said it could become very disruptive,
especially in a neighborhood which was where such uses tended to locate, to not have the proper
controls in place to actually protect the residents of that neighborhood.
Mr. Hornik emphasized that whether it was a staff review or a staff committee review, the same
standards applied. He said the only difference was they were establishing thresholds for smaller
impact site plans.
Ms. Hauth said that if an applicant disagreed with the staff person or the staff committee, they
had the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Adjustment to resolve the issue.
Mr. Hornik said the point was to streamline the process for things that should be easy, and to
give the higher level of review to those site plans that should have it.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Dancy, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved
to close the public hearing. The motion was adopted unanimously.
ADJOURN
Upon a motion by Commissioner Dancy, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved
to adjourn the meeting at 9:19 p.m. The motion was adopted unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth, Secretary
10