Board of Zoning Appeals

Special Meeting BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES December 17, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Street and South Scatterfield Road in the City right-of-way. The property (2003 Rudy Williams, Chairperson Charles Street) consists of a 10 ft. by 30 ft. Connie Klungness, Member permanent sign easement (.006 of an acre) Greg Spencer, Member located in the City right-of-way. This petition Willie Rayford, Member was tabled at the December 3rd meeting and is now ready to go before the Board. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Stires stated the petitioner (Hoosier Park Harold Smith, Vice Chairperson Racing and Casino) is proposing the placement of a 35 ft. high pylon sign in the 10 OTHERS PRESENT: ft. by 30 ft. sign easement as permitted by Ordinance #12-08. The petitioner’s proposed Michael Widing, Development Director pylon sign will be supported by a sizeable base Tim Stires, Assistant Development Director measuring 6.5 ft. by 11.6 ft. Mr. Stires added Dave Wilbur Sr. Zoning Administrator the City Sign Ordinance specifies the width of Stephanie George, Board Secretary; and the covers on a pylon sign base shall not William Kreegar, Attorney exceed 18 inches or 1.5 ft. wide. The proposed pylon sign measures 11.6 ft. wide, which is ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A more than seven times the maximum QUORUM: allowable width for a pole sign base cover. Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is requesting a Mr. Williams called the meeting to order at variance from the allowable width a pole sign 4:33 p.m. Ms. George took roll call and base covers. declared a quorum with four members in attendance. Mr. Williams performed the Mr. Stires stated the proposed Hoosier Park Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. sign has a total face size (square footage) of approximately 336 sq. ft. The maximum BUSINESS: allowable sign face size (square footage) for a shopping center pole sign is 250 square feet. PETITION #45-08 Mr. Stires added the proposed casino pylon sign exceeds the maximum allowable square Submitted by Hoosier Park Racing and footage by 86 sq. ft. or 25 percent. The Casino for a Variance from the Maximum petitioner is seeking approval of this size Width of the Pole Sign (Base Cover) pylon sign because it will increase Hoosier Requirement. Park’s visibility. PETITION #45A-08 Mr. Stires stated Staff is recommending approval of the two variances (sign base width Submitted by Hoosier Park Racing and covers and sign face square footage) because Casino for a Variance from the Pole Sign the two (2) sign variances will increase the Face Size (Square Footage) Requirement exposure or visibility of the Hoosier Park located at 2003 Charles Street. Racing and Casino complex. Mr. Stires stated this property is located on Dick Donnelly, 1615 Broadway, stated Hoosier the southeast corner of the intersection of Park obviously didn’t put up a big enough sign 1 and nobody will take the responsibility of why to move it onto 53rd Street, but all those it didn’t go to 35 ft. in the first place. They options have been talked about. have met with the owner of the properties both to the north and south, they would like to Mr. Williams asked this sign would fit all of put this sign on the north side of Charles Hoosier Park’s needs? Mr. Donnelly answered Street, but in order to work out a cooperative Hoosier Park believes it does. arrangement with Mr. Nicholson we have agreed to locate the sign on the south side of Mr. Williams asked if this petition gets the street. Mr. Donnelly stated since there is approved how long would it take to get the no press here, he thinks the sign will cost in sign up? Mr. Donnelly answered they would of the neighborhood of $200,000 for this sign. It liked to have started about middle of is not a cheap little sign, not that the first one September. was cheap little sign, but this is an expensive big sign. Mr. Williams asked do they have the sign already to go? Mr. Donnelly stated yes, they Mr. Williams stated since the press isn’t here would have to cut down the base if they don’t he never liked the way the sign looked get the variance but they are still dealing with personally. Mr. Donnelly asked the first sign? the neighboring landowner for a cooperative Mr. Williams answered he looks at it from a agreement for liability. Mr. Donnelly stated Las Vegas standpoint, as to the type of sign once that gets worked out, they would really that should be out on Scatterfield Road, but like to start digging tomorrow, but they won’t that is just him. Mr. Donnelly stated this sign because they don’t have the agreement done. is modeled after several casino signs around the country. Mr. Donnelly added since there is Mr. Williams asked does Hoosier Park own all no press, including the land, the cost of the the land from Virgil Cook Boulevard to the sign along the interstate cost was west or back yards of all the property owners? approximately $1.25 Million, so you could Mr. Donnelly stated Hoosier Park only owns imagine what it would cost to go up higher. the ground that the track, parking lot and the area to the north that they use for the horse Mr. Spencer stated the press could read the trailers. Anything that is farmed out there, minutes. Mr. Donnelly stated that’s okay. they do not own. Mr. Cook and various family corporations own all the remaining land. Mr. Donnelly stated those are just estimates on what the signs would cost. Mr. Donnelly stated at some time in the future when their development capital Mr. Williams asked would this sign be improves, there has been talk of a hotel, adequate in the minds of Hoosier Park? Mr. parking garage and a convention meeting Donnelly stated yes, when they spend this room area and there has been talk of at the amount of money, they believe that they have north end of one parking lot putting an exit figured it out. onto Virgil Cook Boulevard North so they could undo some of the congestion. Mr. Mr. Williams asked would they move the Donnelly stated all of those projects have to current sign over to Virgil Cook Boulevard? wait until the financial market gets better. Mr. Donnelly stated there are three options. What they plan to do right now is to move the Mrs. Klungness asked whose property is this sign to Virgil Cook Boulevard South. The sign going to be on? Mr. Donnelly stated the other option is to move it onto Virgil Cook City’s. Boulevard North at 38th Street, but that is probably not going to happen. Mr. Donnelly Mrs. Klungness asked who owns the property added the final option is to put it into storage on the other side where you wanted the and when they redo the 53rd Street sign, put proposed sign originally? Mr. Donnelly stated up a sign like this. Right now, they are going this is in the City right-of-way on both sides. 2 Mrs. Klungness asked what does CSN race track and it is a destination. Mr. (Contos, Singleton and Nicholson) have to do Donnelly added it is a section of the Ordinance with this? Mr. Donnelly answered without that was written in an extremely short time getting too complicated, we would like to keep frame and there was a great deal of thought CSN as good neighbors. They have been very given about placement, but less thought given gracious in letting Hoosier Park use the old about size, lighting and they adopted another Wal-Mart property for overflow parking on section of the Ordinance to pull it in. our big nights and it works out better when we all get along. Mr. Donnelly added on the Mrs. Klungness asked would it be fair to say south side it requires them to set 10 ft. further that other than the interstate sign, there is back from the street than on the north side really no directional signs along Scatterfield approximately. The 10 foot would be nice to Road? Mr. Donnelly answered there is not ease it forward, there is an advantage that because State highway limits what you can do since most of Hoosier Parks traffic comes from in directional signs. the south the theory behind the signage is the sign should be before the drive rather than Mrs. Klungness asked on the width of the after. pylon base, that is because you want it to look similar to the Interstate sign? Mr. Donnelly Mrs. Klungness stated she doesn’t understand answered yes, because it is the same design as what that has to do with why you can’t locate the interstate. the sign on the north side. Mr. Donnelly stated they are trying to be nice neighbors. Mrs. Klungness asked it would be more This works out pretty good for us. Mr. aesthetically pleasing than the current sign? Donnelly added when you move the sign closer Mr. Donnelly stated this pylon sign would look to the street, it helps in certain sight lines, but funny on a skinny pole. there is that set of ugly tall power lines along Scatterfield Road on this side. If you move this Mrs. Klungness asked the width of the sign is too close to the street, as you are coming from all architecture, not just the information but the south, you would be looking through the for the entire sign? Mr. Donnelly stated it is row of power poles and wires and it blocks it a part of a theme that has been developed over little more. Mr. Donnelly added they have Hoosier Park’s history. spent much time driving around looking at this site and they are happy with this. Mr. Spencer asked is there any system in place where public service announcements can Mrs. Klungness stated she still does not go on the sign? Mr. Donnelly answered they understand what that has to do with where have agreed to put up public service you want to locate the sign. Mrs. Klungness announcements and he will check if there is a asked what can make them happy or unhappy organized or methodology to get that done, but about locating a sign there? Mr. Donnelly Hoosier Park has agreed to do that. stated his understanding directly from Mr. Nicholson is they would like a fourth shopping Mr. Widing stated that all video billboards or center sign on the north side. Most of us don’t any sign that is video in nature within 300 believe that is permitted by the Zoning feet of an interstate comes under the Federal Ordinance. Mr. Donnelly added if they ever Highway Act which is suppose to have public get that fourth sign or our situation changes, announcements on it such as Amber Alerts. this being on the north side would conflict and Mr. Widing added whether Hoosier Park it they would get the shopping center sign and realizes it or not, their big sign is suppose to the Hoosier Park sign was there, our sign have those announcements. Mr. Donnelly would block it as would their sign. stated they probably do, since they had to go through INDOT (Indiana Department of Mrs. Klungness stated she would see that Transportation) to get that permit. being an issue. Why would that make this peculiar? Mr. Donnelly stated this is the only 3 Mr. Williams stated Nestle had the discussion Mr. Williams asked Mr. Donnelly about the also when they came about their sign, that lighting around the circle at the last meeting, they would commit to public service did he ever mention that to Hoosier Park announcements. about the darkness? Mr. Donnelly stated they are going to work with the City because it is Mr. Spencer asked what are the requirements officially City lighting but Hoosier Park has for the time the messages have before they an agreement in terms of maintenance of can change or have motion? Mr. Widing stated some of the issues. That lighting was the Federal Highway Act also has that too. It prescribed by the head of Anderson Light and states that it can’t be any less than eight (8) Power as meeting the State Standard for seconds. street lighting. Mr. Spencer asked has Mr. Widing seen the Mr. Spencer made the motion to approve Nestle sign? Mr. Widing stated that is for Petition #45-08 based on the following billboards and the Nestle sign is not a findings of fact. The approval of the proposed billboard. variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of Mr. Spencer asked what are the requirements the community, because this sign is simply for flashing? Mr. Widing stated that comes replacing a sign that is already in existence. under our Ordinance and they can’t flash, The approval of the proposed variance would blink etc. Mr. Spencer asked how about not adversely affect the surrounding motion? Mr. Widing stated it can change its properties, because this sign is simply image, but it can’t burst, blink, and flash. Mr. replacing a sign that is already in existence. Widing added, the question is, and they don’t The strict application of the terms of the have any specifications and that is one of the zoning ordinance would result in practical issues that he has discussed with the Plan difficulties in the use of the property, if the Commission and they need to come up with proposed variance were denied because the specifications for video billboards. visibility of the existing sign is inadequate to meet the needs of Hoosier Park and its Mr. Widing stated this is a whole new area customers and this new sign will meet those that a lot of communities are getting into, and needs. Mr. Rayford seconded. Motion passed 4 South Bend, Indianapolis, Fishers and Fort yes, 0 no. Wayne have created moratoriums, until they can address this. Mr. Widing added that is Mr. Spencer made the motion to approve why he asked for a moratorium on behalf of Petition #45A-08 based on the following the Plan Commission to the City Council and findings of fact. The approval of the proposed they have agreed to a six (6) month variance would not be injurious to the public moratorium to let us get something written. health, safety, morals and general welfare of This does not constitute a billboard. the community, because this sign is simply replacing a sign that is already there. The Mr. Williams asked how long would it take to approval of the proposed variance would not get this sign up if it is approved? Mr. Donnelly adversely affect the surrounding properties, stated as soon as our attorney and the because this sign is simply replacing a sign neighbor’s attorney can work out an that is already in existence. The strict agreement that is acceptable to both. They application of the terms of the zoning agree in principal what it needs to say. Mr. ordinance would result in practical difficulties Donnelly added they are dealing with a big in the use of the property, if the proposed Indianapolis law firm, hopefully they got us variance were denied because the visibility of the agreement last Thursday and our attorney the existing sign is inadequate to meet the has reviewed it and they can reach an needs of Hoosier Park and its customers and agreement soon. They want to start this new sign will meet those needs. Mrs. immediately. Klungness seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no. 4  approvals from the sidewalk requirement over PETITION #46-08 the past two years. Submitted by City of Anderson Redevelopment Commission for a Charles Braddock, 1106 Meridian Plaza, Anderson, Indiana stated he is representing Variance from the Sidewalk Requirement the Redevelopment Commission. Mr. located in the 2800 through 3000 blocks of Braddock stated the City took the property South Scatterfield Road on the east side. from or received by deed from General Motors (Former GM Plants #17 and #18) in 2006 and they kept Plant #20 as a structure and they had it sold and the National Tile fire Mr. Stires stated this property is located in took the tenant away. They are still hopeful of the 2800 through 3000 blocks of South having plant #20 leased, they have a couple of Scatterfield Road on the east side. This is the nibbles that look like it would still be a site of two (2) former General Motors Plants industrial site. (#17 and #18). Mr. Stires added this property, plus around former Plant #20 to the southeast Mr. Braddock stated that Plant #18, the office received primary plat approval for a ten (10) building facing Scatterfield Road, has a lot industrial subdivision from the Plan pending offer on it and it will remain an Commission on January 23, 2007. An industrial site. They are asking not only for amended primary plat was accepted by Staff the sidewalk variance because it will be on November 20, 2008. Mr. Stires stated remaining an industrial area and it appears secondary plat for a five (5) lot industrial the City wants to complete Virgil Cook subdivision to be known as Anderson Boulevard North someday and it would tie Redevelopment Industrial Park III, Phase into International Way. International Way is Three received Plan Commission approval on the driveway into Plant #18. Mr. Braddock December 9, 2008. added they have broken that area down into four (4) large lots and it would be hopefully an Mr. Stires stated the proposed five (5) lot industrial operations, but the roadway we industrial plat fronts along South Scatterfield hope to one day, Virgil Cook Boulevard North, Road, East International Way and Virgil Cook make that an another entrance to Hoosier Boulevard. The petitioner (Anderson Park. Redevelopment Commission) appears before the Board seeking approval for a variance Mr. Braddock stated right now the need for from the sidewalk requirement. Mr. Stires sidewalks is not there, if that area were to added staff notes the submitted site plan ever be developed, then it would have to be shows the sidewalks along South Scatterfield rezoned and then a tenant would have to come Road, East International Way and Virgil Cook back, but as an industrial site it is Mr. Boulevard amounts to over 4200 sq. ft. or .8 of Braddock’s feeling with the parking area and a mile. Staff would note there are sloped Plant #18 that they would not need sidewalks. roadside drainage ditches along South Along Scatterfield Road the State Highway Scatterfield Road and Virgil Cook Boulevard, they have had issues with State about that which would make it difficult to construct the and they feel like they have everything 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalks. Mr. Stires added worked out with them, but sidewalks would the first five (5) lots received variances from not be something advantageous for the City to the sidewalk requirement from the Plan have along Scatterfield Road. Commission in 2007 and 2008. Mr. Braddock stated they are ready to move Mr. Stires stated staff is recommending forward and hopefully have a tenant in the old approval of the sidewalk variance because of Plant #18 which would be Lot #9 and they drainage concerns and due to the fact Phase would be using Lot #10 as a parking area and One and Two of the Anderson Redevelopment they are hoping to have that done shortly Industrial Park III received variance after the first of the year. 5 Mr. Williams asked the sidewalk variance is Mrs. Klungness asked those are not on for Lots #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10? Mr. Braddock Scatterfield Road? Mr. Braddock answered no, added Lot #6 is a little piece that is less than they are off of East 38th Street and they will two acres and Lot #7 and #8 are in the back connect by Virgil Cook Boulevard when it is and Lot #9 and #10 front Scatterfield Road. completed. Mr. Williams asked if that ever develops, Mrs. Klungness stated she is looking at that maybe not as an industrial site, they would be having two (2) different fronts, one on required to come back before the Board? Mr. Scatterfield Road and she can maybe see you Kreegar stated it depends on what they are not wanting to put sidewalks over on the other wanting to do, whether it fell into a special side, but we have to start somewhere. Why exception category. can’t we have sidewalks on Scatterfield Road? What is down the road there is a strip mall Mr. Williams asked if the Board grants this that goes in there, would they have to come variance for the sidewalks and something back before the Board? Mr. Kreegar stated if changes, then would they be required to come they put in a strip mall in there they would be back, say if they put in a small strip mall? Mr. coming back to the Board anyway. Kreegar answered it depends on whether they are going to change the zoning. If they change Mr. Williams stated along Scatterfield Road the zoning and they have a development plan, there is a drainage ditch the whole length of then they definitely have to come back and that property and would be pretty hard to put seek the Board’s approval. Mr. Kreegar added in sidewalks as much as Mr. Williams would one thing the Board needs to consider is that like to see them, it would hard to put them in. the lower area has already received a variance from sidewalks and you probably need to be Mrs. Klungness stated it is always hard to put consistent for the second one. sidewalks in. Mrs. Klungness stated she didn’t understand Mr. Spencer asked does Virgil Cook Boulevard if they don’t have anything going in yet, why exist down there? Mr. Braddock stated they are we doing this now? Mr. Braddock would bring it out from the racetrack up to the answered they do have someone coming in on driveway to Plant #20. Lots # 9 and #10, a pending offer. The old Plant #18 building that is the blue building is Mr. Spencer asked why do you need a on Lot #9 and that is going to be an industrial variance for sidewalks along Virgil Cook site. Mr. Braddock added the pending tenant Boulevard then? Mr. Braddock answered will be in the back of the building and the Virgil Cook Boulevard has already been condition of the front of the building is granted the variance from sidewalks along the probably going to be demolished. lower half, and the upper part there is a section that is going to called Virgil Cook Mrs. Klungness asked the front of the office Boulevard also. Mr. Braddock added it would building would be demolished? Mr. Braddock be called Virgil Cook Boulevard from there all stated is it almost becoming an unsafe the way to 53rd Street. structure. Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Kreegar is that how it Mrs. Klungness stated the blue building works? Mr. Kreegar answered yes and then might be torn down, and the lower half we you would add sidewalks on Virgil Cook have already granted the sidewalk variances? Boulevard would be required also. Mr. Kreegar stated the sidewalk variance has already been granted. Mrs. Klungness asked Mr. Spencer asked even though the road does what would be the lower half? Mr. Braddock not exist you still need to get the variance? stated those are Lots #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5. Mr. Braddock answered yes. 6 Mr. Williams asked Virgil Cook Boulevard Mr. Williams asked at Plant #18 coming up will go up towards Plant #20 and there is a along where the guard shack use to be in the road that runs around, are you going to empty front? Mr. Braddock stated it would be sold to out on Scatterfield Road? Mr. Braddock the developer and he is going to be responsible answered yes, they have renamed that street for maintaining that. that comes out at the old traffic light on Scatterfield Road and they intend to improve Mrs. Klungness stated she is not saying the that to an 80 ft. wide street and bring it back sidewalks need to be there, but she thinks it is and turn it and bring it south and that would weak as to why we are denying it along be connected to Virgil Cook Boulevard. Scatterfield Road. The Board needs to be tougher, not just because, it’s hard to put Mr. Williams asked since Scatterfield Road is them in, but they can put them in. Mrs. a gateway into the City, are the developers Klungness stated she wants to look on down going to do anything about the parking lot? the line too, and she would like to see a Mr. Braddock answered that is part of the stronger argument. Along Scatterfield Road plan and they have stressed that with the we have had sidewalks along Scatterfield developer, because he is getting the front Road before and then they have been taken parking lot for his people, but he understands out. Mrs. Klungness asked do you have to ask he is going to have to maintain it to City the State to not put sidewalks in? Mr. Widing standards. stated the City Engineer’s opinion along this section of Scatterfield Road is in favor of not Mr. Williams asked would that be a City putting in sidewalks. There are certain right-of-way? Mr. Braddock answered yes, and sections of Scatterfield Road where there is they have already dedicated it, and are high impact retail that he is in favor of maintaining the easements. putting sidewalks. Mr. Widing added when he sees an industrial use he feels differently. We Mr. Williams asked are they changing the will take the lead from the City Engineer. name of the streets to Virgil Cook Boulevard for the whole thing? Mr. Braddock stated the Mrs. Klungness stated she wants to see a Virgil Cook Boulevard will run north / south stronger argument here for sidewalks, and when you turn west onto East because in her field she knows that a lot of International Way and that is the way it has people are on foot getting back and forth to been platted. work. It really doesn’t matter if that is an empty field which we have sidewalks in front Mr. Braddock stated they have had the lots of, and she believes sidewalks should have renumbered and the sidewalks are a been there all along. Mrs. Klungness added requirement of the plat. They cannot record just because its Scatterfield Road you should the plat until they receive the approval of this be able to do sidewalks on one side, which Board. would be important for foot traffic. Mrs. Klungness asked who would have to put Mr. Williams stated he doesn’t disagree with those sidewalks in, the City or the developer? Mrs. Klungness, but what he sees with that Mr. Braddock answered right now it would be drainage ditch present, if the ground was flat the City, because they own the majority of the it would be a no brainer that you would have land. to have sidewalks, but that ditch is very severe. Mr. Williams added this is one that he Mr. Williams asked any damages done to the feels comfortable without the sidewalks there sidewalks that are existing, would that be because of the drainage ditch. taken care of? Mr. Kreegar stated there are no sidewalks now. Mr. Widing stated staff has taken a pro-active step in supporting sidewalks over the last three or four years. If you drive around the City you are starting to see new sections of 7 sidewalks appeared. Mr. Widing added many Mr. Widing stated if that happens they would people have appeared previously in front of have to come back in front of this body. the Plan Commission and now they will start appearing before this Board. The City Mr. Williams asked he wanted to make sure Engineer’s opinion is that we need sidewalks that they realize how important that property around retail activity and not necessarily is and the way it needs to look and hopefully around industrial activity. Mr. Widing stated they maintain it. It is going to be very there is a higher need of pedestrian activity important to the City of Anderson, and we around retail uses versus industrial uses. have a lot of vacant land around it would look nice at that property if they really make an Mr. Spencer asked this property could be effort appearance-wise. Mr. Braddock stated retail down the road? Mr. Widing answered they have stressed that with the developer yes and if the developer comes in and tries to and asked about the front of Plant #18 and redevelop this property, it may be back in what he intends to do with it. Mr. Braddock front of this body. Mr. Kreegar added if they added if they were going to take it down, in come before this body, the Board can request what manner would they do it and what sidewalks at that time, that is one of the would they do with the rest of that property. requirements they would have to come seeking a variance or waiver. Mr. Williams asked do you feel comfortable in your talks with the developer? Mr. Braddock Mrs. Klungness asked would it be fair to say stated yes. that is likely to happen, isn’t that the direction of the City to have retail through Mrs. Klungness asked Mr. Kreegar to explain there? why the Board is granting variances on sidewalks? Mr. Kreegar stated it use to be Mr. Spencer asked is it fair to consider the part of the Planning process but there was a City Engineer’s testimony through Mr. court case that came out and said the Plan Widing? Mr. Kreegar answered yes Mr. Commission could no longer grant variances Widing can state that. and that is why it has reverted back to the BZA and you are going to see more of this. It Mr. Braddock stated they took the property would have been part of the plat, but it is no from General Motors, based on the agreement longer permissible. and the environmental issues of most the property. It is never going to be residential, Mr. Kreegar stated now what has happened is but they are looking at it, they are trying to they can’t record the plat until the Board attract commercial business. Mr. Braddock decides the variance from sidewalks. The plat added they have not been successful on the is being held up. commercial side, they are looking at this being hopefully a good first tenant to get this Mr. Spencer asked why did this Board grant property developed. There are so many issues the variances to the previous one, or was that with these two particular pieces of property on done by the Plan Commission? Mr. Kreegar the east side. stated he doesn’t remember, but it wasn’t that long ago. Mrs. Klungness stated we already have Meineke and other stuff developing on that Mrs. Klungness made a motion to approve side. Mr. Braddock answered yes, but it is Petition #46-08 based on the following commercial business. findings of fact. The approval of the proposed variance would not be injurious to the public Mrs. Klungness stated she could see it staying health, safety, morals and general welfare of industrial back there but still have another the community, because in conversation Starbucks and things like that in that area. tonight the City Engineer established that sidewalks would not be wise in an industrial area and that is what we are looking at, this 8 being as it is now and will be in the future. The approval of the proposed variance would not adversely affect the surrounding properties, because there is no existing sidewalks there and at this point they would not connect to anything and we would not want to encourage pedestrian traffic within an industrial area like this. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, if the proposed variance were denied because if sidewalks were required to be put in the middle of these two lots because they would not connect to anything, there would be some major reconstruction of an existing drainage ditch in this area. Mr. Spencer seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 5:29 pm BY: ______________________________ Rudy Williams, Chairperson ATTEST: ___________________________ Stephanie George, Board Secretary 9