Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on July 6, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. President Majic called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present President Majic Absent Board Member Joe Manchin, IV Board Member Shultz Board Member Deasy Board Member Ragan City Staff Present City Planner, Sandra Scaffidi Senior Staff Assistant, Maria Cipolla APPROVAL OF MINUTES President Majic asked for a motion to approve the minutes from June 1, 2017. Board Member Ragan motioned to approve the minutes. Board Member Shultz seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR July 6, 2017 1. Merit Development is requesting a variance from City Code Section 5.4.E which requires all parking lots to be set back from property lines a minimum of 5 feet; City Code 5.4.1.iii which states that spaces backing directly onto a street shall be prohibited and City Code Section 5.5.7.B.ii which requires a landscaping strip between the parking area and the abutting property lines. The applicant wishes to create 4 parallel parking spaces along Indiana Avenue. The subject property is located at 945 King Street. The property is located in a Main Corridor Commercial District and can be found on Tax Parcel 05-03-141.1. President Majic: Is there anyone to speak in favor of this request? Russell Bolyard, on the behalf of Merit Development: Merit Development purchased the Thompson building a couple of years ago from Buck Thompson. We have been making improvements to the building since we purchased it. We have been trying to maintain our current tenants and attract other tenants. We currently have tenants on the north and south end of the building, but we have a section there that has about 14,500 square feet of available space that we want to be able to attract a tenant with. One of the things we feel would be helpful is onsite parking to the tenant if they were to use that section. As our application stated, I believe we can create that parking in front of the building. There is a grass bank there now. It slopes to the building. If we construct a small raingarden area in front of the building, that will improve the look of the building and we could create some parallel parking right along the edge of the building. We have been around the building. People are parking on the street on a routine basis. We think it will be safer if we could have a couple of parking spaces of the street. The building has been there since the early sixty and someone has always parked there. We think we can improve the current parking situation and it won’t take away from community. I have worked with Sandra [Scaffidi] many times already. We need a variance to build the parking there. Board Member Manchin: Where do your tenants park now? Russell Bolyard: The park their vehicles at the north and south end of the property. Page 1 of 11 Board Member Manchin: Would there be enough parking spaces in the existing parking lot for the tenants at this portion of the building? Russell Bolyard: There would be, but it is not convenient. It is almost 500 feet away. Most of that parking is truck parking and parking for the current tenants. With the trucks coming in and unloading, you can’t park in front of the building. Board Member Manchin: So you want the four parking spaces on either side of the garage door? Russell Bolyard: Yes. Board Member Manchin: Is there an access door for the 14,000 square feet to the parking lot on the south side where people are parking now? Russell Bolyard: No. The building is partitioned off. There is no common hallway inside the building. Board Member Manchin: Looking at the slope coming off the street, it goes into the building. You will have to lift that up to make it flat. Does that affect the integrity of the building? Russell Bolyard: The building is solid, but we will be putting up a concrete wall that will add structural stability. We will also be putting in a drain there that will connect to the city sewage system. We will have the rain garden too. Board Member Manchin: Is that garage door still used? Russell Bolyard: It is not being used now, but a future tenant could use it. It is used for truck access to get inside that portion of the building. President Majic: Is there anyone else to speak for this request at this time? There were none. President Majic: Is there anyone here to speak against this request? There were none. President Majic asked Sandra Scaffidi for her staff report. Sandra Scaffidi: We have worked very closely with Mr. Bolyard. They are doing a fantastic job rehabilitating this facility. However, the major concern is the part of the property that is proposed for parking is in the City’s right-of-way. While on-street parking is allowed; using the City’s right-of-way is not allowed. According to City Code Section 5.5.7.b.ii, landscaping is required between the parking area and the building. City code also prohibits the use of the street for maneuvering. All parking lots in non-residential districts are to be setback a minimum of five feet from the property line. We didn’t have any comments from outside agencies. While we want to encourage business growth and development, this appears to be an unsafe way to create parking. The City’s right-of-way cannot be utilized for private parking. We have to go through the questions and answer them affirmatively before we can grant a variance. We have to questions that granting this variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the rights of adjacent property owners, residents or the neighborhood. We did have a call today and a letter should be in your packet about what the property owner expressed to us. He is concerned about the existing storm drain on the corner of the property and how building up that landscaping area might affect that storm drain. I don’t believe this variance will adversely affect the public health. I think the allowance of this parking is a safety concern. The next question is: Arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property seeking the variance. No. This request does not arise from special conditions which pertain to the property. There is on-street parking available. Would it eliminate an Page 2 of 11 unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land? No. There does not appear to be a hardship. There is on-street parking available. Will it allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done? No. This request is against the express standards of the zoning code and will not allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed. Is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose? It appears so. I support this business, but I have to recommend this variance be denied. Board Member Manchin: Sandra [Scaffidi], what is the safety concern? What are four spots going to do for a 14,000 square foot building? Maybe you could work out some sort of agreement with the business right next to you. Then you would have a parking lot right there off of the road. Russell Bolyard: Four spots are within your code for parking. You require a ¼ space per 1,000 square feet in a warehouse. So we would be slightly exceeding what is required. Often in a warehouse business, you have two or three people who work there. It would be very helpful. Board Member Manchin: If you have a truck that is trying to back in, and you have two cars on each side, the driver has to be pretty good. I am sure they have their license to do that. We don’t have a parking problem in Fairmont; we have a walking problem. I would love to park in front of the post office every day when I am mailing a package, but sometimes I have to park down the hill by Yann’s Hot Dogs and walk. I don’t know about giving this much of a non-conforming use especially when it does line up with what is required for us to grant a variance. Russell Bolyard: I recognize her concern and how it doesn’t line up with how the Planning Code as written, but if you look at the street, and you say we can park on the street, but if we park on the street, we will be in the intersection of Mill Street. So moving the cars in nine feet gets them off of the street. That would open the area up the road for traffic and would be much safer. I know it doesn’t sound like it according to the code. The business across the street parks on in right-of-way and on the street every day. The part I don’t understand about the code is when it says you park in the street, which is part of the right-of-way, but you can’t park on the right-of-way. It would be much safer if we could pull a couple of cars off the street. Sandra Scaffidi: Again, I am very supportive of Mr. Bolyard’s business, and as I understand it, the business across the street has a non-conforming parking that does back out onto the street. However, I think it is a different situation because it is not a parallel parking structure. It is more of a pull-in parking structure. Also, Mr. Bolyard is correct. Parking requirements for a new warehouse under 5.4.2.a is .25 per 1,000 square feet of non-office space plus parking for office area. That is the minimum off-street parking requirement. President Majic read the letter from Mr. Lynch’s visit in the Planning office today. He is the property owner next door to 945 King Street. President Majic: Mr. Bolyard do you have anything you would like to say pertaining to this. Russell Bolyard: Yes. I recognize his concern. I have done work around that edge of the building. If we are granted a variance and build the parking area, the drainage off of our parking area would go through a rain garden into a drain at the bottom of that. It would then carry the water directly to the storm drain. I have noticed in the past, the problem is more of a maintenance issue to the surface area of the drain. It gets covered with grass cuttings and trash. We are as concerned about that drain as he is because drain goes towards our building. If the drain is backed up, the water goes towards our building. We try to do all we can to keep the water going towards the drains. President Majic: Any other comments or questions from the Commissioners at this time? There were none. Page 3 of 11 President Majic: Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Board Member Manchin motioned to close the public hearing. Board Member Deasy seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Board Member Manchin: It is hard for me to go against the staff report. I have been told many times that this Board is here to see if something was done wrong when the property was created that now requires our action to correct it. This request is simply a variance request for four parking spaces. I am going to agree with Sandra [Scaffidi] ten times out of ten. Sandra [Scaffidi], is there any other remedy that would give them four spots? Sandra Scaffidi: We have tried a number of times. We couldn’t figure that out. Russell Bolyard: I did do a plan where we lessen the width of the rain garden and angle the parking. You can fit four or five spots in that way, but then you would have to pull into the street and back into the parking space. President Majic: It takes us right back to where we are. Board Member Majic: What are the safety concerns? Sandra Scaffidi: The concern is people backing out into traffic without proper visibility or enough room to maneuver. President Majic: Do I have a motion on this request? Board Member Deasy: I motion to deny this request. Board Member Shultz: I second the motion. Motion carried 5-0 to deny this request. 2. Michael DeVault is requesting a variance from City Code Section 5.10.4 which requires an accessory building be placed in the rear yard only. The applicant wishes to place an 8x10 storage building in the front yard. The property is located in a General Residential Zoning District and can be found on Tax Parcel 03-12-69. President Majic: Is there anyone here to speak for this request? Michelle DeVault: Listening to the last case, here is what we did wrong. We don’t know where our property line is. We didn’t have it surveyed when we purchased the property. So we are guesstimating where our property lines are. We had started putting up a metal building on the side of our house and we didn’t get a permit. The City happened to be driving by and noticed we were building something. They told us we had to have a permit and you have to have at least eight feet from your property line. We thought it was like a foot. So we knew we couldn't put the building on the side of the house because we knew we had less than eight feet. So then we thought we’d put it in the front yard because we don’t have a back yard. President Majic: Is your house sitting on the back of the property? Did you buy it that way? Michelle DeVault: Yes. So we thought ‘we have plenty of room on the other side of the house because there is ten feet between our house and the house on the other side of us. We need the building because we have too much stuff. President Majic: Do you have any other accessory buildings in the front? Michelle DeVault: There is a building right by the porch in the front yard. It is very small and doesn’t hold much. This one isn’t that big. It is 8x10. President Majic: What is the square footage of your home? Page 4 of 11 Michelle DeVault: I don’t know. It is a raised ranch-style home. It has two bedrooms. It is about 1,400 square feet maybe. President Majic: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else to speak for this request? Mike Amory: I live right next door to Mike & Shelly. I am probably affected by this more than anyone else because we are real close to each other. It will be maybe ten feet from my house. Property lines to cause a lot of confusion where we live. I don’t know where the property line is. I support them because they don’t have a back yard. I’m sure the house was built long before the ordinance was passed saying you can’t put a building in your front yard. They are super people; they are great neighbors. I know how to get in their garage if I need a tool. They can get in my garage if they need something. They are the best people in the world. I’m just here to support them. This is closer to my house then anyone else’s and I have no objection to it. Board Member Manchin: Are you saying you are in the house to the right of their property? Mike Amory: Yes. That is right. Board Member Manchin: Is there a place on their property where they can put their unit where it won’t obstruct you. Mike Amory: They have already done that. They were going to put it closer to their house, but if they had done that, it would have blocked our view off our back deck. I suggested they might want to go closer towards the street. That is exactly what they did. That is where their foundation sits now. Nothing else is on it. It won’t obstruct my view at all. President Majic: Is there anybody else to speak for this request? Amy Fox: I am the neighbor on the other side of them. We have no objections to the building being in the front yard. It doesn’t cause any obstruction or conflict in any way. President Majic: Is there anyone else to speak for this request? There were none. President Majic: Is there anyone to speak against this request. There were none. President Majic: It is interesting because the house was bought with the home being on the back of the lot therefore, it is a special situation. Board Member Manchin: They have no choice. This is when we let the people come and speak for the people asking for this. I have seen some meetings were there are 30 people against a request. This is a situation where they don’t have a back yard. President Majic: I agree. Board Member Shultz: I have to say though; they bought the house knowing there was no back yard. It is not like the back yard was empty and they didn’t realize it wasn’t included with their parcel. Board Member Manchin: I don’t know if everyone knows the zoning codes when they go to buy a home. That would be my only thing. They may have just loved the home. President Majic: Do you have any information for us, Sandra [Scaffidi]. Page 5 of 11 Sandra Scaffidi: I was under the impression that the house was subdivided. Is that true? Michelle DeVault: We bought that house for our daughter and we lived in the house next door. She moved to Washington State. So we had two mortgages. Sandra Scaffidi: Were there two houses on one lot? Michelle DeVault: No. That house and Amy Fox’s house use to be part of the same property. About fifteen years ago, the property was divided. President Majic: The deed was separated? Michelle DeVault: Yes. We didn’t realize where Amy Fox’s lot second began. President Majic: It sounds like a survey maybe in the future. Michelle DeVault: Yes. We have talked about that. Sandra Scaffidi: Just to be clear, you only need five feet for you setbacks for an accessory building in the zoning district. However, there is an existing assessory structure on the property. This house has no backyard. They are up against the alley. There is no side yard. However, Section 5.10.i states only one principal building and its customary accessory building shall be located on any lot. Accessory buildings, pools and other similar structures shall be constructed in the rear yard only. The Planning Department may permit the placement of an accessory building in a side yard, if no practical alternative exists; provided that the building meets the provisions of Section 5.2. Also, the City‘s Utility Department expressed that there may be an 8” sewer line in the area; which needs to be verified to determine if this request would have an impact on an existing utilities; if they did move forward. They know the sewer line is in the area, but they don’t know exactly where it is. Michelle DeVault: We know that it is on the other side, because we were going to dig for our clothes line holes so they came out and found the lines. It is on the other side of the driveway. Sandra Scaffidi: Are you looking to put this building on the same side as the existing assessor structure? Is the foundation underneath the blue tarp? Michelle DeVault: Yes. It is just boards. It is not concrete. Gia Deasy: So how did the existing accessory structure get there? Sandra Scaffidi: Yes. I don’t know. Board Member Manchin: Was that structure there when you moved into the home or was that something you put up? Michelle DeVault: We put it up. Gia Deasy: Did that come before this Board. Sandra Scaffidi: Not to my knowledge. President Majic: Probably before our time, if it did. Page 6 of 11 Sandra Scaffidi: Going through Section 8.9.7.B of the Planning Code; 1. Will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the rights of adjacent property owners, residents or the neighborhood; A second utility building will not most likely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the adjacent property owners. 2. Arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property seeking the variance; No. It does not appear so. The property owner just wants another storage shed. 3. Would eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land; No. There does not appear to be a hardship. It would just provide additional storage. 4. Will allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done; No. This goes against the standards. 5. Is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose? Yes. I believe it is. President Majic: Are there any other comments or questions from the Commissioners? President Majic: Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Board Member Manchin motioned to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. President Majic: Any questions, comments, or motions in favor or against this request? Board Member Manchin: In the last issue, where they wanted to put in parallel parking and the building was right there. They also had on-street parking. I can see where that would be a safety issue. They would be trying to get out while a car behind them would be blocking their vision. But this request, I don’t have a problem with, especially since their neighbors don’t have a problem with it. I know neighbors come and go. I get that, but in looking at their existing structure that they had built, it ties in nicely with the house. It looks like they are going to do the same exact thing. President Majic: It won’t be unpleasing on the outside. Board Member Manchin: Exactly. If this was a safety concern with people getting in or out, then I get it. But this is a situation where they don’t have a back yard. They don’t have a choice. Maybe if you come in knowing what you are buying, absolutely. In a perfect world, I would know that stuff too. I am still learning every day. That’s just me. Board Member Manchin: I make a motion to approve. Board Member Ragan: I seconded that. President Majic: Maria [Cipolla], can I have a roll call? Maria Cipolla: Commissioner Deasy: I have to vote against. Commissioner Shultz: I am also voting against. Commissioner Ragan: I vote for it. Commissioner Manchin: I am voting for it. President Majic: I vote for it. Maria Cipolla: The variance passes 3-2. You are approved. You can in tomorrow and get your building permit. Page 7 of 11 3. Steve Holbert is requesting to substitute one non-conforming use, State police offices, for another similar use (professional offices) at 1083 Country Club Road (Tax Parcels 3-12-9 and 3-12-10). Article 8.3.2.E, of the Fairmont Zoning Code, states the Board of Zoning Appeals may authorize a non-conforming use to be changed to another equal or less intense non-conforming use. This is currently zoned General Residential. President Majic: Is there anyone to speak in favor of this request? Steve Holbert: The State Police put this property up for bid and they were auctioning it off. So I called the State and I got the information. I got a copy of the appraisal from the State that was done by a reputable appraiser. In that, he said the property was zoned Commercial. So, I didn’t pay much attention to the zoning when I looked at the appraisal. Later, I found out the State property in Fairmont doesn’t have any zoning whatsoever. I went to the City about a year to see if I could do something about this. I was told I have to be the property owner first. The building was built around 1979. In has been the office for the State Police. It has paved-parking on it. It does have a right-of-way running alongside of it. President Majic: I think I used that alleyway in my driving test many years ago. Steve Holbert: it doesn’t get that much use now. As a professional office, it will either be an accounting, an attorney, a doctor, a dentist, or insurance office. Board Member Manchin: Is it big enough to have multiple businesses or just one of those businesses in there? Steve Holbert: There are probably about eight rooms in there. There is a room for a receptionist and eight offices. So, really just one business would be able to use this space. It is about 2040 square feet. You could add on to it. If it gets approved, one thing we might do is add on something really nice. Board Member Manchin: It is a great lot. If you extend the building out down the road, it could be a nice little plaza there. Down the street, you have the tax accountant offices that use to be Mario’s Fine Fashion. Steve Holbert: I don’t know what will happen to Say-Boys. Board Member Manchin: It is a great lot. Steve Holbert: It was a little bit confusing when Sheri and I did buy it because it wasn’t zoned. We figured it won’t be a problem since it was already an office. Board Member Manchin: And then you fell under General Residential. Steve Holbert: Yes. I don’t know how it falls under that. I guess that is because of what surrounds it. President Majic: Is the DOH across the street General Residential? Sandra Scaffidi: The DOH across the street is actually Neighborhood Mixed Use. We have spoken to Mr. Holbert about possibly rezoning this area because the Neighborhood Mixed Use in this area stops at Bison Street. So there is the parcel, which the DOH owns, and then there is his parcel. Steve Holbert: It is the DOH’s testing facility next door. They test concrete and other things. President Majic: So that is the yellow building next door? Sandra Scaffidi: Right. So that was standing in the way. That is not zoned Neighborhood Mixed Use either. Page 8 of 11 Steve Holbert: Is that something they missed in 2005 [when they did the Comprehensive Plan]. Sandra Scaffidi: I can try to pull out some of our old reports, but they are in storage and I haven’t come across it yet. We are going to work on that. We are working on our Comprehensive Plan now. Now is the time to reconsider zoning, but that is Planning Commission. Mr. Holbert is applying for a continuation of a non-conforming use. President Majic: Is there anybody else that wants to speak in favor of this request. Suzie Hinerman: Our back yards back up to each other. I have been there forty plus years. It has never been an issue with the State Police. At one time, that area was zoned Commercial/Residential because there was a photography studio across the street. My husband and I have no issues or problems with Steve [Holbert] putting professional offices there. There is an abandoned alley. It runs behind him. It normally is not a through way other than the few residents that live there because nobody takes care of it. President Majic: Is there anybody else to speak for this request? There were none. President Majic: Is there anybody to speak against this request? There were none. President Majic: Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Board Member Deasy motioned to close the public hearing. Board Member Shultz seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. President Majic: Sandra [Scaffidi], can we have the staff report, please? Sandra Scaffidi: I am just going to go over my findings. The application was in proper form. All notice requirements appear to be satisfied. The WV Department of Public Safety, previous owner of the building, was not obligated to follow the City of Fairmont Zoning Code due to the fact that it is a state agency. Therefore, the State Police Barracks which acted as an office as well as a residential facility was allowed to locate in this zoning district. The previous owner would also not have a City of Fairmont business license on file. Based on staff’s limited investigation, it appears that the barracks operated as such until a new state police barracks was constructed and the building was sold to the current applicant. The non-conforming uses do not appear to have ceased and the property has not been vacant for more than one year. The board may authorize, upon appeal, the substitution of one legal non-conforming use existing at the effective date of the zoning ordinance for another similar non-conforming use unless the non-conforming use has been abandoned or otherwise discontinued. It does not appear that any of the conditions constituting abandonment are satisfied in this instance. It is my recommendation that the non-conforming use request be granted. Board Member Shultz: Sandra [Scaffidi], do you know if the alley was officially abandoned? Sandra Scaffidi: I don’t know. If that was abandoned, that would give Mr. Holbert half of that property in the alley. I can check on that. It would just add a few extra feet to his property line. President Majic: Who keeps up with that abandonment? Is it mowed? Suzie Hinerman: We keep it mowed. Sandra Scaffidi: If it was not officially abandoned, it may just be an unmaintained alley. We can look into it. Page 9 of 11 Suzie Hinerman: We were told it was abandoned. We asked about having it graveled and was told it was abandoned. If I wanted anything done to it, do it myself. President Majic: If there no further comments or questions, I would be open to a motion. Board member Manchin: I make a motion to approve for a professional building capacity. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. DISPOSITION OF PAST CASES None OTHER BUSINESS None Staff Updates Sandra Scaffidi: I just want to say that some of you missed a great class that we had [Zoning 101]. Board Member Deasy: Just for the record, I came the week before. I had the wrong Thursday. Board Member Manchin: I was in Virginia that day. President Majic: Do you have any information or packets that they brought. Do have something we can take home and study. Sandra Scaffidi: Board Member, Madelyn Shultz attended. It was such a great class and we like to bring Jesse Richarson back for a class BZA specifically because we learned a lot of things. The basic gist of it was we shouldn’t be giving out variance like candy. President Majic: And we don’t. Sandra Scaffidi: I am not saying you do. I am just saying my eyes were opened a little bit. Board Member Shultz: It was really good. Board Member Manchin: They give facts as to why you shouldn’t give it out like candy. Then you back up your decisions. Sandra Scaffidi: Yes. A hardship should be a real hardship not that they don’t have room for their things. Madelyn [Shultz], do you have anything to add? Board Member Shultz: Being new to the Board, I found it extremely informative as far as the BZA’s actual role in the grand picture of it compared to the Planning Commissioners’ role; compared to the City Council’s role; and then how we play a part. Also, following those five questions and how critical that is. Once a variance is granted, it is there forever. We are not granting to the person that is in front of us presenting their request and maybe tugging at heart strings; we are granting to the property and it stays. So these neighbors may have a problem with it, but the next neighbors may have a problem with it. If we grant a variance against code, now they may want a similar variance. What is our reason to deny them? I found it very interesting. President Majic: With that particular case, there is no back yard. Page 10 of 11 Board Member Shultz: I know what you are saying, and Gia [Deasy] and Joe [Manchin] are saying you don’t always know what you are buying, but I purchased in Fairmont. I checked all of that stuff. To me, it seems strange that people aren’t checking these things when they are buying a property. So if I didn’t read the exact code of the neighborhood that I’m in, but I check property lines and a variety of other things. I did check about rental property in the area I am in because that was a concern for me. I find it amazing that people aren’t looking at that. President Majic: Sometimes they are misinformed and trust their realtor. Board Member Shultz: Sandra [Scaffidi] has talked with Jesse Richardson. They are willing to come back to talk just us about the role of the BZA and about variances specifically. I would love to hear what he has to say in more detail about our role. I did find the portion that he covered, during the session, I found to be very helpful. President Majic: Excellent. Sandra Scaffidi: I know zoning isn’t always fascinating and mind blowing, but he was interesting and funny; two hours flew by. I do feel it would be worthwhile to have him back. He is an expert in the state. One day, when we have nothing on the agenda; maybe in September. Board Member Shultz: He was interesting. President Majic: I would be open to it. We are all willing to learn. Sandra Scaffidi: I think we would all benefit. I think it is something we should do every year as we get new Commissioners. President Majic: Are there going to be any work sessions that are open on the Comprehensive Planning? Sandra Scaffidi: Yes, but when I don’t know because there is nothing scheduled at this time. As soon as we get the draft, it will be available for the public to comment on. I can tell you we have condensed it a little bit. There is about eight key points. Some of the areas of the last Comprehensive Plan overlapped. It is coming together nicely. It is just taking a little longer than anticipated. ADJOURNMENT President Majic asks for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Manchin motioned to adjourn. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 Page 11 of 11