Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant
Bob Hanvey, Township
Michael Kehoe, Township
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
CALL TO ORDER
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
following amendments to the agenda were suggested:
The February 3, 2004 Public Hearing minutes should read in the title, Special Meeting/
- RZN# 5-03 - Coddington Property should follow RZN# 4-03 – Family Golf on the
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Debra
TO THE PUBLIC
Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court, read a letter regarding dealing with the “Giant”, Giant of a
and a Giant of public perception.
“Do you want to be known as the over giant who stomps over the community saying, mine, mine, mine?
And the State says I can do it so I’m going to push it to the limit even if that means jeopardizing the
older giant corporate standing and its perception in the community. Or perhaps to the gentle giant
pound setter, (1), who lovingly stands tall on the land, looks around only to see virtually all surrounding
homes on one plus acre sites and freely decides that this is more in keeping with what is ethically the
right thing to do that will ultimately grow your corporate good citizen standing and the perception in your
community. We respectfully ask that you take your surrounding neighbors’ concerns and opinions and
questions very seriously before christening in some of these barge high
Lowe closed the Call to the Public.
12, 2004 Special Meeting Minutes
Root cited the following changes:
- Page 3 of 6 – Call to the Public – paragraph where Steve Cavaney commented “one element is
a wellhead protection zone that overlays all the zoning and wellhead protection zone,” “and
zone” should be deleted.
There was no
response to the comment from Norma Flaherty. Tape will be checked.
Page 5 of 6,
third paragraph, “Emily” should be inserted to read “Emily Court”
Page 5 of 6,
seventh paragraph, idea situation should read “ideal situation”
Page 5 of 6,
eighth paragraph, will be clarified with Jim Barnwell
- At the end of the discussion regarding Premier Farms, there was mention of a triangle piece of
property that was omitted that could be donated to the township as a park or fire station or for
public use. (This
is the Cedar Lake Road property)
- Under New Business, Rules and Procedures of 1996 should have been included in February
meeting. This should
be added to the March meeting
Dave Hamann made a motion to table the January 12, 2004 Special Meeting minutes for checking and
and bring back to the next meeting. Jim
Motion carried 5-0.
2004 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
Jean Root commented she did not review verbatim John Ambrose’s letter but it was verified that the
typed into the record verbatim. Jean
Root cited no changes.
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve as the January 27, 2004 Planning Commission Regular
Minutes. Jean Root seconded. Motion
2004 Special Meeting/Public Hearing Minutes
stated the title of the minutes should read “Special Meeting/Public
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the February 3, 2004 Special Meeting/Public Hearing minutes
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
RZN# 6-03 – Marion Oaks
John Lowe gave a quick overview stating the Public Hearing was at the last meeting on January 27, 2004 for the
public input of this project and has been entered into the record and has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission with all submitted documents by both the planner and township attorney and various other township
representatives. This evening is for the applicant to enter any new information and then will be discussed
amongst the board members and make a decision.
Tom Kalas, appeared on behalf of the petitioner, with a supplement to the last meeting regarding the traffic report.
Carlos Santia, traffic consultant for the Marion Oaks, LLC, developer, was also present to answer any questions
John Lowe requested a quick overview from Mr. Santia regarding his proposal. Mr. Santia stated 630 residential
dwelling units are being proposed, as well as approximately 50,000 square foot retail center. Access to the
development will be off of D-19 (Pinckney Road) and also
Wright Road (located east of D-19).
Existing traffic presently generated on D-19 currently is 14,034 vehicles per day on an average; a.m. peak hours
is 983 vehicles; p.m. peak hours is 1154 vehicles.
Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is a basic guide for estimating trips generated for new
developments, this development is anticipated to generate approximately 7,619 trips daily. Peak hours in p.m.
would be around 692 vehicles. These figures are based on a projection of 7-10 years for the development of the
Wright Road, majority of vehicles will exit out onto D-19. The remainder of the vehicles will exit out onto D-19
is A, which is considered free-flow conditions with minimal amount of traffic. D-19 is minimal level C, which is
stable flow with some congestion during peak hours. At project build out it would be approximately 2011 or 2013.
Levels of service at build out on Wright Road would be level of service A and then change to D, which is more
high density flow but still stable.
still be at level service A. D-19 would be level service F, which on a two-lane road is forced flow, stop and go,
which indicates improvements, will be required on Pinckney
Without the development, at build out, D-19 will still be operating at level of service D, which means that
some improvements will be required regardless if the
development was there or not.
A proposed high school is anticipated for the future to be built on Wright Road. That high school would
generate approximately additional 1600 to 2000 vehicles per day, possibly more depending on size of high
school. The Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC) was contacted for plans for additional
improvements on the road network in the area. The City of Howell does have plans for improvements to
widen Pinckney Road four to five lanes from I-96 to Mason. They also have plans for south of Francis Road
to I-96 to add a left-hand turn lane and also they have plans on D-19 from Coon Lake Road to I-96 they
have a plan in their long range plan for some intersection
John Lowe asked if anyone had any questions for the applicants and stated they would go through items one
through eight regarding the rezoning and the effects they
would have on the township.
Jim Anderson questioned the traffic counts in the data in the appendix. Some of the data goes back to 1995.
Where do these counts come from? Do they come from the county? The counts come from the Road
Commission. He also inquired regarding when the most recent traffic counts were? It was stated 2001,
which were used for projections to today’s count for
Jean Root questioned if the projected numbers they have are the numbers used for proposing to develop the
land and not as if it were developed under any of the terms under Urban Residential (UR) designation?
The projected numbers are based on SEMCOG database and expected growth for the region. They
anticipate anywhere between three to four percent, maybe five percent, for traffic growth rate with or
without this development. To clarify, the numbers that were used for increased traffic for this particular
project were numbers based upon what they intended to build it out and not at its maximum if they were to
go ten units per acre?
That is correct; 630 units and about 60,000 square feet as proposed.
Jean Root pointed out that Section 6.17 in the Township Ordinance book, deals with roadway networking,
Item I, says no new land uses except for unplatted single-family homes for developing required site plan
review under the ordinance shall be permitted which will reduce the level of service on an adjacent roadway
below the level of service C.
D or F as it’s proposed if they were to get their
In addressing that comment, Mr. Santia stated that even without their development, ten years from now the
township’s level of service will be C on D-19. John Lowe stated for clarification, it goes from a D to an F at
the build out even without their project and Mr. Santia agreed. John Lowe asked if their numbers would move
it up one? In answer, the level of service would not be changed. The existing number was approximately
1200 cars on D-19 as it was and their project would develop 692 per hour with a 50% increase from their
project to the build out date? The project build out would have about 1650 cars and with their development
they would have 2130, which is roughly 500 cars an hour. John Lowe stated he thought their figure was
around six hundred and something.
John Lowe stated that John Ambrose’s letter would include the impacts that will be addressed by skipping
the existing SR zoning and creating UR. Basically making a spot zoning out of this particular project by
bypassing some SR that is existing within the D-19 corridor at this point along with numerous other issues
that he addressed, with that in mind is there any discussion based on the criteria that the Planning Commission
is supposed to be looking at, Items 1-8:
1. Is the rezoning justified or are there changing conditions in the area? Is there any discussion on that?
Jean Root stated that she is in agreement with Mr. Ambrose’s letter; that there are a number of issues in
addition to the spot zoning and this particular piece of property does not have public water and sewer and there
is no plan thus far to extend it to that area. This is part of the issues within the township Master Plan that in
order to provide those sort of services and it has to be part of the build out and at this time it is projected to
include that area along D-19. Mr. Kalas stated that the development property is located within the sewage and
water district and is capable of being serviced with those services and is a matter of extending the facilities
that is just north of their site, which they intend to do. John Lowe pointed out that the Township Master Plan
speaks of being currently served. Mr. Kalas stated it is their intention to bring services to that area.
John Lowe also stated that this is based on the 1992 Master Plan that shows that to be one parcel per ten acres.
With the designated increase in this, it is still a drastic change in what is allowed for in the current Master Plan
. And, again, this would create an isolated district because it is not directly adjacent in reference to the Home
Town project that was developed basically as a buffer to the Suburban Residential (SR) and would leap frog
that Urban Residential (UR) district further beyond what the plan calls for to keep extending it out farther than
what the UR
2. What is the capability of providing public utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved? When the
sewer district was set up, it went to the overall plan is set up for that area to be SR which is half acre lots as
far as the sewer RE’s and so forth on the overall build out. Within the entire sewer district it lets the sewer
RE’s essentially match the build out within the total project and is basically good planning as far as not getting
the Township into a problem where there is no ability to serve future projects that are within the existing sewer
district if the density is increased. The roads are a major issue with that type of impact going from SR to UR
and the number of vehicles that would be increased on D-19 and the traffic congestion that would be created
3. Will the rezoning be compatible with the neighboring properties and so forth? This addresses that this is on
the fringe of the SR district and is surrounded by large parcels at this point in time and essentially a leap frog
4. Is it economically feasible to develop property under the current zoning? Mr. Ambrose’s letter addressed
the issue of doing a PUD under the SR district and that has been done within the township consistently on
large projects and it seems to be economically feasible.
5. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed land use? There is UR build outs
that are on the D-19 corridor that are adjacent to the expressway which are adequate at this point in time
the Master Plan.
John Lowe asked if there were any other issues and there were none. John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe,
Township Attorney, if each of these items should be addressed in the motion and, yes, they should be and with
specificity for their decision.
Jean Root asked if John Ambrose’s letter should be part of the motion also? Mike Kehoe stated if John
Ambrose’s letter and/or his recommendation was going to be used as part of a motion, then a specific
reference should be made to his letter, date and paragraph
In further discussion, Dave Hamann stated he agreed with the issues in Item 4 when both districts for the
sewer were set up they were based on the ’92 Comprehensive Plans for the capacity that the township has
in that Howell sewer is limited to that capacity and the Township does not have an alternative beyond that, which
poses a critical issue every time he looks at a rezoning
number that is going to change the density.
Jim Anderson also stated that he agrees with Dave Hamann on the township’s water and sewer capability of the
existing township system. Presently there are a number of high density developments going in to the north which
were part of the Township’s Master Plan and this development is not. The capacity of the water and sewer
system is one of his main concerns.
Jim Anderson also stated that he agrees with the points with regards to the neighboring properties, if you look
around that site to the east, west and south, those are larger plots of land with houses which lends itself to the
uncertainty of a development of this size would fit in the
township at this point in time.
Jean Root commented in regards to Item No. 5, that remaining properties that surrounds this area is mainly
designated as SR or agricultural in use. Density of this
nature is too great in comparing to what is around it.
John Lowe inquired in regards to Item 6, will rezoning adversely affect the value of these neighboring properties?
Jean Root commented that ultimately this Item is relatively subjective. The quality of life could potentially change
living near a development as this but does not
believe the value of property would go down.
Item 7, is it economically feasible to develop property under the current zoning? Jean Root agrees that they can
continue to develop it under the SR density using a PUD overlay and understand if the Township were to approve
this development to UR, there are a number of other uses, and the project cannot be looked at as a whole as it is
being presented. That would be considered contract zoning which is illegal in the state of Michigan. The township
can only look at it as the density would be increased and then the other things under Item 8 that would be included
under that use. The developer can present that to the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission is not
able to change. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated that can be changed according to what the economy is at that
time. Jean Root pointed out that if the development was sold to another developer, and another developer had a
different ideal of how they would like to see the project look, those things would be allowed in there. Another
procedure and applying for another special use would be
needed at that point.
Jean Root commented that there was an overwhelming response from the community at the Public Hearing on
January 27, 2004, that they did not want to see this project go forward with the greater density. Everyone was
opposed to the increased density that was being asked for.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson also commented that there were concerns regarding the new high school that is proposed
to be built on Wright Road.
John Lowe also commented that the Master Plan specifies that the streets and infrastructure are supposed to be able
to handle the capacity before the project is allowed to take place to prevent gridlock. Jean Root asked if this was
referring to Section 6.17 under roadway network, Item A,
number 1 and 2? Yes, it is.
Jean Root also commented as a point of clarification for the members in the audience, that the Planning
Commission is just a recommending board. This still has other steps before it goes to County Planning and
then it comes back with their recommendations to the
Township Board of Trustees.
Jean Root made a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Rezoning # 6-03, a rezoning
request by Marion Oaks Development, L.L.C, from SR to UR
for the following reasons:
1. Is the rezoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the area? The proposed rezoning request
identified significant changed conditions with respect to this site that
would justify SR to UR in that:
a) The surrounding properties to the west, north and east are zoned SR and the property to the south
across Wright Road is zoned RR. No surrounding properties are zoned UR, or Master Plan or urban
2. Is the rezoning consistent with the Township’s future land use plan and established land use pattern?
The proposed rezoning would set an undesirable precedent of extending the UR zoning into areas Master
Planned for open residential or low density suburban residential as well as areas that are located within the
3. Would the amendment create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts? The proposed rezoning
of the subject properties from SR to UR would represent spot zoning and is incompatible with surrounding
uses and is incompatible with the Township’s adopted Master Plan.
4. What is the capability of providing public utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved?
The proposed rezoning would have a detrimental affect on the Township’s ability to provide adequate public
services and facilities in that the subject site is located within the rural services district with no public water
or sewer and no public water and sewer extensions are anticipated. The Section 6.17 of the Marion Township
Item A, 1 and 2.
5. Will the rezoning be compatible with neighboring properties? The proposed rezoning would adversely
affect the features on the subject site in this way: the property is currently Master Planned for open space
Surrounding areas continue to be SR and rural in nature and
6. Will the rezoning adversely affect the value of the property? The property values that surround it is
subjective to the home market and, therefore, was unable to determine if it would affect the properties in a
7. Is it economically feasible to develop the property under the current zoning? The subject property can put
to reasonable economic use under its current SR zoning. Other options for SR zoning include site
cluster development, as well as the Planned Unit Development Overlay
8. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed use? It is the opinion of the
Planning Commission that developments of this density are to be established within the water and sewer
district already established within the Master Plan adopted in 1992. Under the Comprehensive Plan the
property sits within the rural services district which is not planned for water and sewer. However, this
property also sits within this District I or District II, which is within the water and sewer but is not currently
(Discussion: Debra Wiedman-Clawson suggested rewording to within the current service district. Jean Root
respectfully disagreed that they are not in the rural service district. Dave Hamann stated this is talking about
the ’92 Comprehensive Plan versus the District I and II for Howell sewage treatment plant services and
pointed out there is a semantic difference and that Jean Root is talking from a Comprehensive Plan, which is
correct, but it should also be mentioned that even though it is in the sewer district it is currently not served and
UR is reserved for along I-96. Dave Hamann suggested stating what she said about the Comprehensive Plan
and then adds to it the fact that there are two districts that are within the sewer district that currently this
property is not served.)
9. There was an overwhelming response of negative comments from the surrounding residents and current
residents of Marion Township that they wished for the SR to UR be denied believing it would have a negative
the Township as a whole.
The letter dated February 16, 2004
from John Ambrose is included.
Dave Hamann seconded the motion.
Jean Root amended the motion to add prior to the recommendation that it be sent to the Livingston County
Department of Planning and the Marion Township Board of Trustees. The Planning Consultant review letter
dated Janaury 16, 2004 be added to the minutes.
Dave Hamann seconded the amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
RZN# 4-03 Cresendo Homes - Family Golf
Kirt Anderson, Atwell-Hicks updated the Planning Commission. Clarification on the road right-of-way and/or easements
onto Peavy Road in respect to the tract of land between the subject site and Peavy Road. A letter dated 1-20-04 from
Brad E. G. Oliver, PS, Survey Project Manager for
Atwell-Hicks addresses these concerns.
Second issue capacity issues at the corner of Mason and Peavy Roads. A Traffic Impact Analysis was provided to the
Planning Commission. Turning counts were requested yet not provided. The data is being collected and a report will be
sent to the Planning Commission as soon as it is available.
Tonight Kirt Anderson is here to answer any questions.
John Lowe felt the critical information was the
Kirt Anderson agreed the intersection will need to be
improved yet he feels this is a site plan issue not a rezoning issue.
John Ambrose brought up proposed roadway between D-19 and
Peavy Road and asked this be part of the calculations.
Jean Root asked to see the minimum to the maximum numbers.
Jean Root motioned to table rezoning request RZN# 4-03. A rezoning request by Crescendo Homes to be tabled to the
next regular scheduled meeting March 23, 2004.
Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
RZN# 5-03 Coddington Property
Debra Wiedman-Clawson would like to abstain. Jim Barnwell of Design, Inc. gave a presentation describing property,
location and surrounding zoning.
John Lowe asked if there is any new information.
Jim Barnwell said no.
John Lowe stated they can use the factors for areas of
Number one. Is the rezoning justified by change or changing conditions in the area? I would state that since this
property was zoned, that we have rezoned the property in that area, this is an infill of the existing Urban Residential (UR)
on three sides. This sits within the mixed urban area as stated in the 1992
Number two. Is the rezoning consistent with the Townships Master Plan and the established land use patterns in the
area? Yes, property on three sides is UR. It sits within the partial services district of the Master Plan and is already
served by sewer and water.
Number three. Would
it create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts?
It is surrounded by UR on three sides.
Number four. Does capability exist to provide public utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved? Site is
currently served with both sewer and water and roads can to tie into through existing developments and exit near the
Jim Anderson asked that is one way to go if you go through the Meadows Development as an access point yet what
happens if they go to Peavy Road?
Discussion ensued as to potential density of this 11 acre
site and the impact it may have on Peavy Road.
Number five. Will the rezoning be compatible with neighboring properties? Again, the site is surrounded on three
sides by UR.
Number six. Will
the rezoning adversely affect the value of these surrounding proprieties?
John Lowe maintained as they are similar there would be
little impact if any.
Number seven. Is it economically feasible to develop property under current zoning? Yes, but it coincided with the
Master Plan for this to be uniform in the UR area.
Number eight. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed use? This is the proposed use
in the 1992 Master Plan.
Jean Root commented there were no negative comments from
the public at the Public Hearing.
Jean Root motioned to recommend approval for the rezoning request RZN# 5-03 known as the Coddington property
from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential.
Item one. Is the rezoning justified by change or changing conditions in the area? It is the opinion of the Planning
Commission given that most of the surrounding property sits within the mixed urban district for the Master Plan
of 1992. It
justifies this change.
Item two. Is the rezoning consistent with the Townships Future Land Use Plan and established land use patterns in
the area? It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the rezoning request is consistent with the Townships
Future Lands Use Plan as it sits within the partial services district is currently served with water and sewer and is
mostly surrounded currently by UR district.
Item three. Would the amendment create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts? It is the opinion of the
Planning Commission that by changing this zoning from SR to UR it would be consistent with current UR zoning it is
Item four. What is the capability to provide public utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved? The
property is currently served with water and sewer service it sits on a paved road as well as given its proximity to
other developed projects.
Their road systems could be used or accessed.
Item five. Will the rezoning be compatible with neighboring properties? Again, it is currently zoned SR to the North
but mostly surrounded by UR.
Item six. Will the rezoning adversely affect the value of these proprieties? It is the position of the Planning
Commission that it would not adversely affect the surrounding proprieties give that it is mostly currently surrounded
by UR zoning.
Item seven. Is it economically feasible to develop property under current zoning? Yes it is however it is Master
Planned as mixed urban and therefore it seems feasible to allow it to go to UR as it is currently surrounded mostly by
Item eight. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed use? The site sits directly where
it is Master Planned from 1992 to go under the mixed
Item nine. Reference
John Ambrose review letter dated December 30, 2003.
Item ten. It should be noted that the public hearing from January 27, 2004 fielded only one comment from the public,
mostly for clarification.
This is to be forwarded to Livingston County Department of Planning for review and recommendation. Then
forward the rezoning request to the Marion Township Board
of Trustees for their review and recommendation.
Jim Anderson seconded.
Mike Kehoe noted the motion made to forward to the Township Board for their “recommendation” should be change
to “its decision”.
Jean Root amended the motion. The last statement should be made as the Marion Township Board of Trustees for
their review and decision.
Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion carried 4-0 Debra Wiedman-Clawson abstained.
The Knolls of Grass Lake
Mike Boss, Boss Engineering addressed outstanding issues. Livingston County Drain Commission (LCDC) gave
approval for the additional grading they requested. There were questions whether lots 4 and 7 could accommodate
a driveway. Mike
Boss provided drawings of these lots with the placement of a home and
Additional landscaping along the some rear lot lines requested by the Planning Commission was discussed. The
Planning Commission did not ask for berms along the lot lines. They asked for additional plantings that would screen
year round. Mike Boss has deferred to the expert for advice, their landscape architect has reviewed the plans and
finds that the plans as submitted are appropriate and
additional berming and landscaping is unwarranted.
Mike Kehoe read section 6.24 Landscape Buffer. “The Planning Commission may require a landscaped, greenbelt
buffer between any use where it is anticipated that the impact of a proposed development will be negative on an
existing abutting development and/or use.”
The Planning Commission has been given authority within reason.
Mike Boss asked the Planning Commission to clarify where the have the authority along the buffers and what they
want and he will tell them where they do not have it and what they will not do and you do not have authority and that
is not a
The Planning Commission would like to see the height of the berms and trees increased. An agreement was made
between the Planning Commission and Boss Engineering to have their landscape architect meet with a Township
on site to discuss additional landscaping.
Letter dated 2/24/04 from Galina Zwerlein 2501 Clivedon Road was read by John Lowe Chairperson. Attached to
that letter was a copy of the International Fire Code Section D107.1. Letter dated 2/24/04 from Les Rodwell, Fire
Marshal, Howell Area Fire Department (HAFD) was read by John Lowe. Mr. Rodwell’s letter states the plans are
unsatisfactory as presented. Mr. Rodwell states this is clearly a violation of the adopted International Fire Code
Section D107.1, where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 a separate and approved fire access road will be
provided. Mike Boss stated the HAFD is a recommending body. The LCRC has given approval for the proposed
public road. Mike
Boss states the plans are alright.
He will do further research and provide the Township will a
letter regarding enforcement.
Jean Root motioned to table the Knolls of Grass Lake site plan review until the next regular meeting of
March 23, 2004 regular Planning Commission. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
TXT# 1-04 Article XIII Planned Unit
Jean Root motioned to send proposed text change for Article XIII Planned Unit Development District Heading to
now read: Planned Unit Development Overlay District to the Livingston County Department of Planning for their
review and recommendation. To forward to the Marion Township Board of Trustees for their review and decision.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
Site Plan Review Application
John Lowe asked the Planning Commission for discussion.
No discussion tonight.
Dave Hamann motioned to table the Site Plan Review Application. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
TXT# 2-04 Section 6.30 & TXT# 3-04 Section
3.02 Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment Facilities
John Lowe stated John Ambrose, Township Planner and Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney have put together
language for the proposed text amendment and definition.
for a public hearing.
Any changes can be discussed at the public hearing.
prohibit private facilities entirely.
John Ambrose answered no.
limited to what current zoning is. John Ambrose explained it is broken down two ways. If one is put in the sewer
service district you can enjoy the same lot areas, densities as if you were served with sewer. If you are located
outside the sewer district in Rural Residential (RR), you still have to maintain the one acre lot size. There is no
change in density.
John Ambrose answered no.
TO THE PUBLIC
Jean Root would like Planning Commission Rules and Procedures of 1996 to be placed on the March 23, 2004 agenda.
John Ambrose will review the current version and submit
Dave Hamann made a motion to adjourn @ 10:40 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.