MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Dick Elkins, Anna Rosenblum Palmer, Claude LaPierre, J.D. Landry, Kay Kraushaar.

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator; Dean Pierce, Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            John Saar, Angela Zaikowski, Frank Alexander, Dereck Woolridge, Gregory Rabideau, Karen Lebiecki, Linda Vinci, Carolyn Brown, Douglas Brown, Will Vinci, Gwen Webster, Dennis Webster, Richard Becker, Joan Lenes, Larry Williams, Erik Hoekstra, Sean Folley, Chris Kapsalis, David Webster, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Final Plan, Land Transfer and PUD-C (Tractor Supply), 2009 Shelburne Road & 3640 Shelburne Road, Primax Properties (SUB09-05)

·        Sketch Plan, Modify R-PUD (renovate motel structure), 5247 Shelburne Road/11 Falls Road, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC (SUB05-09R3)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Announcement was made that J.D. Landry will recuse himself from the Tractor Supply application. Anna Rosenblum Palmer disclosed she has had past business dealings with the Redstone group, but feels she can judge the application before the DRB without being biased.

 

John Saar, Shelburne resident, mentioned his experience with the application process before the DRB two years ago (the process was speedy and efficient, though the results were not what was wanted) and his awareness of the Shelburne Wood project and being increasingly disturbed by the unending delay and requests for new information without regard to the expense to the developer in terms of time and money. Since the start of the application the real estate market has collapsed and the deadline is approaching when the land will go back on the market for sale. It will be tragic and a manmade calamity in the town if a deal is not signed, said Mr. Saar, adding people will lose their homes and future inhabitants will be denied the opportunity to live in socially responsible housing. There will be no jobs from the construction of the project and no tax revenue.  The project was an economic and cultural engine. The delays by the DRB are unacceptable, and from an outsider point of view it is not unreasonable to feel the board was against the project from the start and used delay to force withdraw of the project by the developer which is not a good message to other developers who will go elsewhere because of so much delay. Mr. Saar said he hopes collectively the board recognizes the responsibility to “pull the chestnuts out of the fire”. The developers have jumped through hoops and now it is up to the board to make sure the proposal gets signed and put into effect. If not, and the project falls by the roadside the board should collectively accept responsibility and make way for a new board that is more receptive to balanced, sensible growth.  Peter Gibbs thanked Mr. Saar for the comments, adding the DRB will not address them now because the application which did receive Preliminary approval with conditions is in the appeal process.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, stated the Shelburne Wood project has been a five year process because that is when the property owner decided the project would be pulled. The application has been before the DRB for only one year. The zoning bylaws that were rewritten to accommodate the project were adopted last March. The application could not be heard until the bylaws were adopted.

 

Mark Sammut noted that the developer withdrew the original application and resubmitted another. Mr. Sammut suggested the timeline of the review process for the application be reviewed by Mr. Saar. Anna Rosenblum Palmer added the DRB granted Sketch and Preliminary plan approval with conditions.

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

 

Dereck Woolridge, Dennis Webster, and Frank Alexander appeared on behalf of the application. J.D. Landry recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dereck Woolridge stated the dumpster location was returned to the original site. Full sized plans showing the dumpster location were provided to the DRB. A masonry block wall will be built around the dumpster. The plans also show the accessible route from the bus transit stop on Route 7 to the building main entrance. There are handicap ramps at the curbs or raised elevations. There is no ramp at the entrance to the building because the pavement is flush. Landscape has been added for screening on the western edge by the Brown property and by the retention pond. The narrative has been revised for the security plan. Merchandise will be within the fenced area or cabled to the building. Security lighting is necessary to protect the merchandise and to provide lighting for employees going to the dumpster after hours. The plans by VTrans show the location of the water line that goes across the road. The valve is on the Hoechner property across the road.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the easement on the southeast side of the lot, noting lot coverage is 50% now and the easement is not included. If the easement is used the lot coverage will be exceeded. Also, there is more parking that the standard.  Derek Woolridge corrected the lot coverage is 48.5%. Frank Alexander stated with regard to the parking Tractor Supply likes the amount there from a functional standpoint, but if some spaces must be cannibalized to true up the ratios that is not a problem.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer referred to Section 1900.3.b.5 regarding outdoor storage being screened from view. Frank Alexander stated a definition of ‘storage’ is needed. The merchandise that will be outside is more like “rotating inventory” which does not meet the test of storage as long term placement.

 

Derek Woolridge showed aerial photographs of the site relative to the neighbors’ views, noting the existing trees block up to 75% of the view of the building and the site.

 

Dennis Webster reviewed renderings showing the southeast corner of the building (the elevation that faces Route 7 and the parking lot). The large expanse of glass on the building is to meet the requirement that 30% of the elevation must be glazed. The design is atypical for Tractor Supply stores. The red stripe around the building is branding as is the eight foot high base (concrete block) around the building. Earth tone colors of grayish brown on the bottom and beige on top will be used on the buildings. Vertical elements standard for Tractor Supply buildings will be installed.  The north face of the building shows the dumpster enclosure with six foot high split face concrete block to match the base of the building. There is a narrow green belt around the building.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/21/10. Dick Elkins suggested the easement be depicted on the site plan. Derek Woolridge confirmed the easement is on the site plan to be recorded.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

Carolyn Brown, neighbor to the site, said they have a direct view of the property. The existing trees do not provide much screening. There are only scrub trees and a couple of pine trees. Lighting is a concern as the bedrooms which are at the back of the house face the site. Water drainage is another concern. Presently, water ponds in the ditches, and adding a concrete parking lot could have an impact. Derek Woolridge stated the lights will be down shielded. The building will be seen, but not the light itself. Regarding storm water drainage, there is a storm water pond and all the drainage is directed to the pond through the existing catch basin and pipe system. The water will be retained and treated in the pond before being piped to Bay Road and the lake. The proposal will actually be reducing flows. Frank Alexander added water from the site will be directed to the pond, not adjacent properties. Per state requirements drainage flow cannot be greater than pre-construction conditions. The proposed system may actually improve flows. Ms. Brown asked about mosquitoes and animals being attracted to the pond. Mr. Woolridge stated the pond is the standard design for subdivisions. Standing water will occur in the first pond collection (four feet deep) to the second pond collection (four feet deep) than to a pipe. The water drains out so there is no breeding ground for mosquitoes. Ms. Brown asked about recourse if drainage problems occur after build out. Mr. Woolridge advised the property owner, town, or state can be contacted if there are problems that were caused by the development. The drainage system will be inspected every six months. Ms. Brown asked if the trees along Shelburne Road will remain because the existing vegetation acts as a sound barrier for noise from Shelburne Road. Derek Woolridge said two trees by the driveway will be relocated. Additional trees will be planted out front as well. The building will reflect noise.

 

Douglas Brown, neighbor to the site, asked about a fence around the pond to prevent access by young children and pets. The type of fence and height of the fence is a consideration. Mr. Woolridge said a four foot high chain link fence is planned. There is a safety bench (flat area) on the bank of the pond. Mr. Brown stated a chain link fence is unsightly and four feet is not high enough. The fence should be at least six feet high. Frank Alexander stated Tractor Supply installs fence around their retention ponds even when there is not a requirement, and tries to balance safety with aesthetics. Derek Woolridge added the fence is a permit condition for the storm water permit from the state. Mr. Brown suggested a green vinyl coated fence with hedges or evergreens. Mr. Woolridge listed the types of plantings that are planned (white pine, arborvitae, cedar hedge). Mrs. Brown asked if a fence on their property line can be requested to block a direct view of the building (there is a deck on the house and the backyard is not deep) and to deter people from coming onto the property. Mr. Alexander asked if this is happening now with Tennybrook. Ms. Brown said it is not.

 

William Vinci, neighbor to the site, asked about lighting on the back and sides of the building. Derek Woolridge assured Shelburne’s lighting requirements will be met for all lighting. The majority of the lights will be shut off after hours. Security lighting around the perimeter will cast light only onto the product. The distance from the parking lot to the property line is between 75’ and 110’. The distance from the display area to the property line is between 130’ and 160’. Frank Alexander stated the parking is not heavily used behind the building (inconvenient location). Most of the customers come to the site, make a purchase, and then leave.  Mr. Vinci said he is concerned with water drainage, lighting, and noise, and questioned the need for a tractor specialty store in town when one just went out of business after only six months of operation and Lowe’s is right down the street.  Frank Alexander said all the Tractor Supply stores in Vermont (five stores including the Shelburne site) have performed well. The company investigated the market and feels the store will be successful. Mr. Vinci stated the area is quiet now because all the activity takes place in the front of the lot. Mr. Vinci spoke in support of a high fence across the back perimeter because there is a tremendous amount of noise from Route 7 and the possibility of more noise and cars as well as direct access into backyards is a concern. Mr. Alexander conceded the neighbors will be aware there is a business on the site, but Shelburne has a healthy buffer requirement and much of the existing screening will remain and be augmented with plantings. All that has been asked and required has been done. The project fits and should stand on its merits, said Mr. Alexander. The store has low traffic counts, less than other retail establishments. The store sells pet supplies, clothing, log splitters, riding mowers, snow blowers, horse and animal health products. Anna Rosenblum Palmer recalled discussions of having the developer and the neighbors present when the plantings are done so the trees can be located where it is best for all. Mr. Alexander said a truckload of trees and bushes will be planted and help from the neighbors as to where to plant them would be welcomed. Rather than a fence the way the project is designed and the landscaping will meet everyone’s goals. There was a question as to the size of the trees to be planted. Mr. Woolridge said the largest trees available from a nursery (8’) will be planted. Frank Alexander stated Gardenside has been hired to determine the plantings that will thrive in the area. Tractor Supply takes pride in what they build and being a good neighbor, said Mr. Alexander, urging everyone to talk to the other stores in Vermont and the people who live nearby for their opinions.

 

Joan Lenes, Shelburne resident, thanked Tractor Supply for using a Shelburne business for the project’s landscaping and for the jobs and economic development potential of the project. Frank Alexander stated the store’s manager will likely be a transfer from another store, but the workers will be hired locally. Also, the construction will use local tradespeople.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Larry Williams, Erik Hoekstra, Richard Becker, and Gregory Rabideau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Larry Williams explained the proposal to convert the existing motel behind Shelburne Inn into 16 rental units. Previous proposals for the site were not feasible from a market standpoint. The current proposal is the concept that works. The same footprint essentially will be used. The renovated building has essentially the same setback as the existing building. The existing building has 20,000 s.f. that is structurally sound so it is more responsible to reuse the building rather than tear it down. The scope of work includes removing interior walls to create a good thermal envelope and installing a high efficiency mechanical system and lights.

 

Greg Rabideau reviewed the design of the buildings to house eight single bedroom units and eight two-bedroom units. The general configuration of the building is the same. The two bedroom units will be 1,050 s.f. and the one bedroom units will be 700 s.f. The failing roof will be replaced with an asphalt shingled roof. The siding will be repaired/replaced. New windows, doors, and exterior lighting will be installed as will a fire suppression system and elevator. More windows will be added on the back of the building. The pattern will be consistent with what is there now. More relaxed setbacks per the R-PUD regulations is being requested.  Mr. Rabideau reviewed the building materials to be used and decorative elements to be added to tie into the Shelburne Inn. The cedar shake fascia will be replaced with cement composite siding. There will be a light fixture by each unit’s entry door and low level cut-off lighting along the walkway corridors. There will be emergency lighting that goes on when the fire alarm is activated. The colors of the buildings are still being discussed. Rain/snow guards may be added. A bike rack will also be installed on the site.

 

There was discussion of parking. The applicant indicated a waiver of 26% for parking is requested. There are 50 public parking spaces generally available within 500’ of the building (public parking is available at the municipal center lot, railroad station lot, and on Falls Road). The public bus stop (CCTA) is located on Route 7 in front of the project. One bedroom apartments justify having less than two parking spaces. Larry Williams added the site requires 96 parking spaces per the regulations. The original project required 90 spaces, but a waiver was granted to supply 72 spaces. A waiver of 18 spaces is requested for the current proposal because there are fewer bedrooms (24) with the apartment units versus the condominium units (32) in the previous proposal, and the use with one and two bedroom units does not need as many spaces. The DRB clarified that 96 parking spaces are required for the entire site and 32 are required for the proposed project (two spaces per unit).

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer expressed concern about the expanse of roof line. Larry Williams said the next step up would be a metal roof. Erik Hoekstra said the aesthetics of the building were discussed with the Design Review Committee. The style was modern in the 1960s when the building was designed and constructed (building design by Freeman French Freeman). The building was always meant to be a background building. The important structure was the Shelburne Inn. In the future the building could be architecturally significant. Adding gables or dormers on the roof would ruin the architectural style of the building according to the Design Review Committee. Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested the decorative appliqués be eliminated to keep a clean 1960s style building.

 

Dick Elkins asked about having mixed use in the downstairs portion of the building. Larry Williams stated there are fire separation issues. Presently there are solid eight inch thick masonry walls every 15’. The building is 26’ deep. The shared use nature of the site with retail, office, and restaurant establishments works well with the apartments.

 

Peter Gibbs mentioned sewer allocation for the project. Erik Hoekstra stated allocation for 40 units is still there. Larry Williams will further investigate the sewer allocation which was previously based on the number of bedrooms.

 

There was mention of traffic. Mr. Hoekstra said the traffic impact study done by RSG in 2005 is being reviewed and updated. The refreshed report will be submitted. It is anticipated that the project will not have an adverse impact on traffic and circulation in the village. The proposal is not much different than the 14 unit project that was used for the study.  There was mention of emergency vehicle access. Larry Williams noted the buildings will have a sprinkler system and there is a drivable grassed entrance from Route 7 for emergency access. The code requirements for access will be met. Anna Rosenblum Palmer mentioned having sidewalk from the buildings to the sidewalk along Route 7 so residents can walk to the CCTA bus stop.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/21/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Angela Zaikowski on behalf of Stuart Bennett and the business to the north, asked for further explanation of plans for the north side of the building. Greg Rabideau explained the windows on the back of the building are for the living room area of the units and to provide front to back ventilation. There will be no outside access. Ms. Zaikowski stated there is concern about access to the back of the building and impact on the adjacent property. Larry Williams said outdoor living space is not being proposed behind the building. There are no doorways or steps. The existing screening of mature plants will remain. Erik Hoekstra said restrictions to prohibit use of the area can be written into the lease. Ms. Zaikowski asked if there will be control on material that is used for window coverings or items hanging out of windows. Mr. Hoekstra said typically restrictions in the lease will prohibit using sheets for window coverings. Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested a sample lease be submitted at Preliminary Plan review.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, expressed concern about run off onto the sidewalk and on properties to the north. Ms. Webster said she has storm water run off in her basement after storms. Larry Williams stated there is no site work proposed with the project except paving the other half of the parking lot. The existing water line may have to be replaced to service the new sprinkler system, but this has not yet been confirmed. Erik Hoekstra said the storm water issue was discussed with the Design Review Committee and it was agreed public works should handle the matter.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

Chris Kapsalis said he reviewed the DVD of the 3/3/10 DRB meeting and gave a synopsis of what transpired for discussion relative to deliberative session and thoughts by board members on conditions for the Shelburne Wood project. Mr. Kapsalis suggested the 3/3/10 be amended to include missing statements. Peter Gibbs interjected his comments were his view of what he heard in deliberative session and how that translated into conditions on the application. The DRB did provide a bulleted list for the applicant as was promised, said Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Kapsalis said he lost credibility in the board when he did not hear what he thought he would hear (several members of the board said they were willing to speak, but this did not happen). Kay Kraushaar rebutted the DRB is a board and the members work as a board though there may be different insights and concerns. The conditions that are drafted reflect the concerns. The majority of the board determines the conditions. A condition is not included if there is dissent. The conditions are supported by the findings of fact. All conditions are written so a proposal can be approved and comply with the town plan, stressed Ms. Kraushaar. Dick Elkins stated any change to the minutes that were already approved needs to be properly warned. John Adams advised changes can be noted in the minutes of the current meeting (4/21/10) and this would not require a separate warning. Request to modify the rules and procedures of the board requires receipt 24 hours in advance, said Mr. Adams.

 

Sean Folley confirmed the DRB received the request to change the procedures and practices within the required timeframe. Mr. Folley submitted the following statement:

April 21, 2010

I would like to read a statement that explains our requests to the Development Review Board, but first I will reintroduce myself for those members who were not in attendance when I last spoke before the Board. My name is Sean Folley.  I live in the Gardenside development at the end of Harvest Lane, just across the Laplatte River and I am a small business owner. My wife and I moved to Shelburne 9 years ago from Morrisville, where I served as Chairperson of the Morrisville Revitalization Committee, as Vice Chair of the board for River Arts, and on the executive committee of Helen Day Art Center in Stowe. I have always held an interest in how communities create and sustain vitality and how towns deal with growth on the way to actualizing the vision they hold of themselves.

Chris Kapsalis and I went before the Selectboard on April 13th to apprise them of the proposal we have presented you. To anyone who attended or viewed that meeting it’s clear that we were not there then, nor are we here now, to vilify the DRB or to take the DRB to task over their performance with regard to the Shelburne Wood application.  On the one hand, I would characterize the Shelburne Wood process as somewhat messy, on the other, I would agree with comments I’ve heard describing Shelburne as still transitioning from a phase of intense town planning to a phase of implementation.  The DRB is on the frontline in that effort, and like it or not, you were tested early on by a project of unprecedented scope for Shelburne. There are bound to be some growing pains. From attending meetings and reviewing materials (and we reviewed a lot of materials) it is apparent to us that the process has been a difficult for all parties – the Board, the applicant, as well as community members. Our intention is to introduce modifications to DRB procedure, which would bring more clarity to the process that in turn would benefit everybody, including the Board. We have two proposals before the Board. With your indulgence, I’ll touch on them in reverse order.

Concerning the documenting of decisions, we ask that each condition of approval reference the specific findings of fact on which it is based. The findings of fact are what make sense of all the evidence and testimony relative to the Town Plan and the Zoning Bylaws.  As I said before the Selectboard, it’s of the utmost importance that the public as well as the applicant be able to trace the DRB’s reasoning from their decision to either or both of these instruments. This measure would require the board, as well as individual members, to more precisely substantiate their concerns or objections. The resulting increase in exactness will improve the review process as a whole, along with reducing the possibility of future appeals. The Environmental Court should be the place of last resort when resolving matters of ambiguity. We believe much more could be done before reaching that point.

With this in mind, we are also requesting that the Board apply these new measures in constructing addendums to both their decisions concerning the Shelburne Wood application (the decision of February 18^th and the reconsideration decision of April 2^nd). In addition to reducing the chance of appeal, the additional clarification is the best and perhaps only way to dissipate the misunderstanding and controversy surrounding the DRB’s position regarding this project.  The ongoing upset and division in the community is unlikely to go away until there is more specificity given to the reasoning behind the Board’s decisions.

Regarding deliberative sessions, we are asking that the current rules be modified to be concordant with the rules that are followed when making decisions during open session, in so far as, motions are made and recorded along with the maker of the motion and the vote of each member, and as is already stated in the rules of procedure, abstentions are strongly discouraged.  In this way, there will be a clear record of where each member stands on each issue and, in particular, on each condition that is part of a DRB decision. This information is critical in order for the public, which is not privy to discussions during deliberative session, to follow the Board’s reasoning and decision-making process. Clearly we are not asking for the elimination of deliberative sessions.  We feel they are a necessary tool for the DRB to have in dealing with complicated issues.  Although not expressly requested in our written proposal, we are asking here tonight that the DRB use such sessions exceedingly sparingly. We suggest that deliberative sessions be utilized only to resolve a technical or legal matter, or to discuss an exceptionally sensitive issue. We recognize this would represent a shift in current Board attitude and approach concerning deliberative sessions. The careful use of deliberative sessions is especially important in situations when there is so much at stake for the general community.

The reforms that we propose will require a higher level of discipline from the Board in substantiating its decisions.  We are convinced this will create a more exact, effective, and confident Board as a result. We made sure to get both our proposals to the Board Administrator, John Adams, well before the mandatory 24-hour notice period for you to make a decision. We ask that you vote tonight on the measures that we’ve put before you.  We further request that the aforementioned addendums be completed in time for the Selectboard meeting of April 27^th. These addendums would address the needs and concerns of the public as well as the applicant.

We know you give much of yourselves – your time, your attention, your effort. The community appreciates this. At the same time, we want to better comprehend and feel confident in the decisions you make. Knowing the results from what happens behind closed doors, along with better understanding how your decisions are based on the town’s guidelines, would eliminate a lot of unnecessary confusion and upset. The reforms we are asking the Board to adopt throughout its review process would improve transparency, create clearer understanding and increase support from the community.

I will end by thanking you for your time this evening, and for all the time and work you have devoted to this Board.

 

Chris Kapsalis told of his work experience at IBM as a facilities manager before retirement. Mr. Kapsalis reiterated he tried to “connect the dots” between the findings of fact and the conditions for the Shelburne Wood project and could not so the DRB is being asked to help. Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked if the same critique exists for the second decision on the project. Sean Folley said not to the same degree. Mr. Folley said he tried to trace where the conditions were founded in the findings, bylaws, and town plan. Kay Kraushaar stressed the findings have to be relative to the plan. The conditions come from the relevance of the findings to the plan. Mr. Folley said he could not find the specific connection of the condition to the finding, bylaw, or town plan. Ms. Kraushaar assured as a quasi-judicial board the DRB is careful to ensure the conditions and findings are substantively relative to the town plan.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer opined the process is not working with the DRB, but it is not necessary to list individual votes and voter by name. Concerns do need to be described to the applicant so the applicant can address the concern and there can be public discourse. Peter Gibbs said all the hearings on the [Shelburne Wood] application should be reviewed because questions were asked at the beginning of the process that were not addressed by the applicant. Mark Sammut added the applicant requested a phased review to avoid spending the money if the project was not a good investment. The phased review allowed the applicant to address areas of concern by the board so the project could move toward approval. The DRB tried to give the applicant an indication of the issues during the review process so at approval the conditions were very straight forward. Tying the findings to the statutory requirements and bylaws can be done, agreed Mr. Sammut. Dick Elkins recalled all the data were not provide for phased review, and the project was going from Preliminary to Final review. Now the process is changed so that a phased review is done and the application returns to Preliminary review. Mark Sammut clarified ‘phased review’ does not mean constructing a portion of the project rather than the entire project. Phased review means phasing of information and breaking apart the application. Chris Kapsalis recalled the applicant wanted to focus and solve any problems, and not come back to the matter. Mark Sammut urged Mr. Kapsalis and Mr. Folley to review all the tapes and minutes of the meetings rather than take a narrow purview of a much broader picture. Mr. Folley reiterated the intent is to present modifications that will help the board and would be in the best interest of the board, the applicant, and the public. It is hoped that is the spirit in which the suggested modifications are received, said Mr. Folley.

 

John Adams mentioned formally extend the meeting with a motion to allow discussion to continue beyond the three hour timeframe.

 

 

There was continued discussion of the review process and making changes to the process. The DRB will take the suggestions submitted by Mr. Kapsalis and Mr. Folley under advisement. Peter Gibbs noted the rules and regulations adopted by the DRB are reviewed annually. Amendments can be made at that time by the DRB if desired. Chris Kapsalis said he suggested to the Selectboard that the members speak to the DRB in mass and individually, rather than simply make appointments to the board. Peter Gibbs explained the Selectboard interviews applicants for vacancies on the board, but does not have the ability to speak to the DRB as a board.

 

Joan Lenes commented that the paid administrator to the DRB announced the need to extend the meeting beyond three hours, but discussion continued for eight minutes beyond the regulations before action was taken.

 

Discussion returned to Mr. Kapsalis’ position that statements are missing from the 3/3/10 minutes. Mr. Kapsalis provided the missing statement by Peter Gibbs which read: “I might agree with John Giebink’s request to speak to our concerns.” Peter Gibbs clarified he was referring to his personal concerns about the project and cannot ask the other board members to speak. The other members can speak if they wish, but Mr. Gibbs said he wanted to go on to ask the applicant for any new information.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM.