Planning Commission

STERLING HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL July 13, 2017 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held July 13, 2017. Mr. Reinowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Lori Doughty, Geoff Gariepy, Stefano Militello, Donald Miller, Leonard Reinowski, Gerald Rowe Members absent at roll call: Paul Jaboro, Edward Kopp, Parmpreet Sarau – Excused Also in attendance: Chris McLeod, City Planner Clark Andrews, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Mr. Rowe, supported by Mr. Gariepy, to APPROVE the Agenda. Ayes: Rowe, Gariepy, Militello, Reinowski, Doughty Nays: None Absent: Jaboro, Kopp, Sarau Motion carried. Mr. Jaboro is now present. PZ17-0006 – North Point Development, LLC Requesting approval of a conditional rezoning from M-1 (Light Industrial) to C-3 (General Business District) to allow for the construction of an indoor self-storage facility – west side of Merrill, north side of 18 ½ Mile Road. Property address: 6263 Eighteen ½ Mile Road Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is proposing to develop a three-story, 108,000 square foot storage building with a 1,200- square foot office building. The adjacent properties are zoned M1 and M2. The building would house approximately 750 units and 12 outdoor spaces for recreational vehicles or boat trailers. Mr. Reinowski asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. McLeod. Mr. Rowe asked Mr. McLeod what is the length of the outdoor spaces. Mr. McLeod stated about 40 feet, intended for RV or boat trailers. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. McLeod to further explain the reason for the existing outdoor storage rules so he could better understand the need for a variance. Mr. McLeod explained the self-storage provision is contained within the C-3 district and that is the reason rezoning is being requested. Within the C-3 district there is not an allowance for outdoor storage. The request is for a minimal amount of outdoor storage. He stated if an industrial building were to be built under the current zoning, they would be allowed to have outdoor storage. Mr. Reinowski asked if the Commissioners had any further questions for Mr. McLeod. Being none, he asked for the petitioner to come forward to the podium. JJ Jenkins, of Northpointe Development, came forward to the podium. He stated the company is based in Kansas City and have multiple locations in various states. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Reinowski asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. Jenkins to repeat the hours of the facility. Mr. Jenkins stated the storage access hours are 6 a.m.–10 p.m. The office hours are 9 a.m.–6 p.m. Monday–Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays and 10 a.m.-4 p.m. on Sundays. Mr. Gariepy asked what would prevent someone spending the night in their storage unit. He also asked if the units are heated and cooled. Mr. Jenkins explained there are security cameras all over the entire building and site. They would see movement and react appropriately. He also stated there is climate control in entire facility. Mr. Miller asked how many employees would be present. He also asked how many customers are anticipated at the facility at one time. Mr. Jenkins stated there is typically a maximum of two - one manager per store and a district manager for every two stores. He described their unit in Kansas City and explained there could be approximately four at a time. Mr. Miller stated he felt more parking was needed. He asked if there are sprinklers in the building. Mr. Jenkins stated yes. Mr. Miller then asked how they plan to keep hazardous materials from being stored. Mr. Jenkins explained storing hazardous materials is prohibited by lease. There are security cameras that monitor what is being brought in. The manager on duty also does routine walk-throughs and would report anything suspicious. Mr. Rowe asked if there will be restrictions for the RV/trailer size and asked how will they be able to back them into the spaces. Mr. Jenkins stated there will be restrictions according to the space size. They would enter from 18 ½ Mile Road, and then exit to Merrill Road. Mr. Reinowski asked for any other questions from the Commissioners. Being none, he asked for public participation. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any other public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any further questions/comments. Mr. Miller stated to Mr. McLeod he is very concerned about the parking being inadequate. Mr. McLeod explained the size of the drive-in area in the building and stated a number of cars would fit in there. He also displayed the site plan and discussed where additional parking could go if the Planning Commission felt it was necessary. Mr. Gariepy asked if there will be separate signage for making sure motorcycles, lawn equipment, etc. have been drained properly. Mr. Jenkins stated at this time it is in the contract and they had not planned on having separate signage. Ms. Doughty asked if their other facilities are similar in size and how many parking spaces are available at those locations. Mr. Jenkins described a couple of their facilities and the parking. He stated the number of spaces depends on the layout of the property and size of building. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 3 Mr. Reinowski asked for any further questions or comments. Being none, he called for a motion. Motion by Mr. Miller, supported by Mr. Gariepy, that the Planning Commission move to POSTPONE case number PZ17-0006, North Point Development LLC, to conditionally rezone the subject property from M-1 (Light Industrial District) to C-3 (General Business District), to allow the development of a 109,815 square foot indoor storage facility along with minor ancillary outdoor storage as shown on the proposed plans for the following reasons: The Planning Commission believes that the site plan for the proposed development and requested number of variances suggests that the proposed development of the subject property may be overbuilding the property, and the Planning Commission requests that the applicant review its proposed development plans in order to determine whether it can be redesigned in order to reduce the density, reduce the number of requested variances, and increase the landscaping. Mr. Reinowski asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Andrews asked for a specific date to be recorded in the motion. Mr. Miller stated to be postponed until the next meeting. Mr. Gariepy stated he supported the motion because there are many variances being requested. Also, because he has a concern regarding the possibility of possible fuel being stored and there not being any signage to address that. He stated addressing the variances would take time. Mr. Rowe stated he would not support the postponement because he feels this is a good fit for the property. Mr. Jaboro, Ms. Doughty, and Mr. Militello agreed with Mr. Rowe’s statements. Motion by Mr. Miller, supported by Mr. Gariepy, to WITHDRAW postponement. Ayes: Miller, Gariepy, Reinowski, Rowe, Doughty, Jaboro, Militello Nays: None Absent: Kopp and Sarau Motion carried. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Jenkins what could be done in regards to the parking. Mr. Jenkins stated he would make an “employee only” space in the back of the building and have only one handicap space instead of two. This would give four spaces for customers with one being for handicap. He stated he could also put two more spaces in the northeast corner area of the property (“in the curve” as shown on the site plan). Motion by Mr. Rowe, supported by Mr. Militello, that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE case number PZ17-0006, North Point Development LLC, to conditionally rezone the subject property from M-1 (Light Industrial District) to C 3 (General Business District), to allow the development of a 109,815 square foot indoor storage facility along with minor ancillary outdoor storage as shown on the proposed plans for the following reasons: 1. Approving a conditional rezoning for this parcel based upon the proposed conditions contained within the development plans will ensure that the development will be constructed in accordance with a specific mutually agreeable conditional rezoning agreement between the petitioner and City prepared by the City Attorney, which will incorporate the conditions offered by petitioner, to the benefit of surrounding property owners and the City; 2. That the proposed rezoning for the specified use along with the associated site plan is generally consistent with the newly adopted City Master Land Use Plan for this area of the City by proposing an indoor and minor outdoor storage facility; Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 4 3. That the character of the site and building are cohesive with the City’s industrial corridor in terms of building design, size, materials, and use. 4. That the building as proposed is conducive to reuse as an industrial building should the proposed use ever be discontinued. This recommendation for approval is based on the following conditions: 1. That the applicant agrees to obtain site plan approval for the proposed development on the property within twelve (12) months of the effective date of the ordinance amendment approving the rezoning or map amendment, to obtain a building permit for the proposed development within eighteen (18) months of such effective date, and to complete development of the proposed development within thirty (30) months of such effective date. 2. That a mutually agreeable conditional rezoning agreement be prepared by the City Attorney delineating the terms and conditions of the proposed rezoning to be executed by the property owner, (and facility operator, if different than the owner), and the City and recorded with the Macomb County Register of Deeds within sixty (60) days of approval of the conditional rezoning. 3. That revised site plans addressing the proposed site plan comments noted within the Office of Planning Staff Report be provided. 4. Based on the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, that three (3) additional parking spaces be provided to accommodate customers and staff. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Rowe, Militello, Doughty, Gariepy, Jaboro, Miller, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Kopp and Sarau Motion carried. PZ17-0007 – MRFR, LLC Requesting approval of a conditional rezoning from R-60 (One Family Residential District) to RM-1 (Multiple Family Low Rise District) to allow for the construction of a 54- unit attached single family residential development – west side of Mound Road, north side of 17 Mile Road. Property address: 5701 Seventeen Mile Road Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is proposing the development of a 54-unit attached single family residential development on approximately 7.7 acres of land. This acreage also includes the development of four individual home sites along Ajanta Court. The majority of the single family attached units will be developed as four-unit buildings, with several of the overall buildings only being three units. Each individual unit will include a standard outdoor living space that is approximately 10 feet by 13 feet. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Rowe asked if there was a rendering of the single-family units. Mr. McLeod stated there was not. Mr. Rowe also asked Mr. McLeod to explain the tree preservation ordinance. Mr. McLeod explained the applicant is aware of the tree preservation ordinance and has provided the city with a tree survey. If the case gets to site plan review, a permit will be Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 5 necessary for tree preservation. They will have to have 37 percent preservation. He also explained if the Planning Commission wanted anything stated regarding tree preservation, it should be done during this meeting. If the case gets approved through the Planning Commission and then the City Council, then changes would be done administratively unless otherwise stated. Mr. Gariepy stated concern for the southeast corner where there is little screening between the development and the single-family home. He asked Mr. McLeod what is feasible in that location. Mr. McLeod stated the area in southeast corner does need additional screening. Mr. Gariepy asked if there was water drainage in the northeast area. Mr. McLeod stated yes and if the development moves forward, they are proposing to enclose the drainage. Ms. Doughty asked if there is a wall between the single-family home and the business in the southeast corner. Mr. McCloud stated yes. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any further questions. Being none, he asked the petitioner to come forward. Mr. Phil Ruggeri, representing the petitioner, came forward to the podium. He gave an overview of the site plan and stated there was discussion with the resident in the southeast corner, Maria, and they discussed putting in more green space for buffering. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions from Commissioners. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. Ruggeri approximately how long is the distance of the buffer that runs along the western edge of Maria’s driveway. Mr. Ruggeri stated about 19 feet. Mr. Gariepy asked if there is room for some sort of berm to add as a buffer. Art Kalajic came to the podium. He stated he discussed with the home owner, Maria, that they would install two rows of evergreens to make the buffer denser. He also stated they would put in some sort of berm. Mr. Miller asked about the visitor parking and what would be done with the overflow. Mr. Ruggeri stated there are four parking spots per unit and 32 parking spaces throughout the site for visitors. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any other questions from Commissioners. Being none, he asked for public participation. Maria Nishanian, 5789 17 Mile Road, Sterling Heights, came forward to the podium. She asked for the buildings to the west of her home to be moved back about five feet. After discussion with Mr. Ruggeri, it was agreed there would be heavy landscaping as a barrier around the north and west sides of her property. Marty Danowski, Ajanta Court, Sterling Heights, stated concern for visibility with the trees/shrubs so close to 17 Mile Road. John Penzik, owner of one of the lots to the north, stated he is concerned about water issues if the drainage is put underground. He also stated concern regarding the barrier of just trees/shrubs between the properties. He stated the survey “pins” were removed when the brush was cleared and they cleared more than should have been. Sharon Tiberski lives in the Victory Gardens Condominium complex. She stated concern for emergency vehicles getting through the complex, especially at the north end. Tom Tenniswood, 5554 Nathan East, Sterling Heights. He stated he is very concerned about his privacy being affected. He would like to see some kind of privacy fence go in Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 6 besides the landscaping. He also stated concern for the water at the back of his property. Dan Tenniswood, 5554 Nathan East, Sterling Heights, stated the natural barrier that exist on the site rendering, is no longer there. It was cleared last fall. He also stated the noise level from the construction of the two homes on Nathan East has been excessive. He would like to see cement or stone barrier go up to cut down on the intrusive construction and provide privacy. Paul Smith, Sterling Height resident for 40 years, thinks the development is a bad idea for the suburbs. He also stated current residents built to specifications and this development should not be allowed to rezone to suit his needs. Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod to address any of the concerns. Mr. McLeod explained the steps the petitioner will have to take, through the city, to have proper drainage and the end result should make any issues better. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. McLeod to address the allegations of trees being cleared from adjacent residents’ properties. Mr. McLeod stated the removal was not done under a city permit so it would be an issue between the property owners. Ms. Doughty stated if the city gave the developer clearance to remove brush, why would the issue be between the property owners. Mr. McLeod stated the developer provided an assessment to the city of the trees that are six inches or larger. Once that happened they could brush their property with no permit needed. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. Ruggeri when the basements are dug for the development, what is going to happen with the fill. Mr. Ruggeri stated they just don’t elevate property; it will have to meet the requirements of the city’s engineering department. What has to be trucked out will be taken out. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ruggeri if the fire department turnaround is in compliance. Mr. Ruggeri answered yes. Mr. Miller then asked where the enclosed drain will start and stop. Mr. Bill Moser, Apex Engineering, came forward to the podium. He stated they are preparing the plans with the city engineers to enclose the Moore Drain. He stated they are responsible for the portion within the confines of the development. Mr. Miller stated he is very concerned about the survey pins being removed from the resident’s property. After conversing with someone in the audience, Mr. Ruggeri stated the “pins” are still there and they can show the homeowner where they are. Ms. Doughty asked if they are going to work with the resident on Nathan East regarding putting up a wall between the properties. Mr. Ruggeri stated they plan on putting in heavy density landscaping to address the issue. He stated their aim is to have a “natural wall”. Mr. McLeod explained one of the variances is for a natural wall. The Planning Commission, and ultimately City Council, have the ability to dictate what goes there. They can approve or reject the variance. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 7 Mr. Militello asked Mr. Andrews if it is required to have a wall between residential properties. Mr. Andrews stated a wall is not required between two single-family residential properties. There are, however, screening requirements between multi-family residential and single-family residential properties. Mr. Militello asked Mr. McLeod if there are other situations similar to this one where there have not been walls put up. Mr. McLeod stated some kind of substantial screening would have been put in. Based on the current ordinance, they would need a variance approved to do anything less. Mr. Rowe asked Mr. Ruggeri to state what they actually plan to do regarding the screening between the development and the current residents. Mr. Reinowski called a ten-minute recess. Mr. Ruggeri stated they will provide a wall with landscaping for the resident on Nathan East and they will work with the homeowner and the Planning office to remedy any issues. Also, in the southeast corner they will provide the intense landscaping (as noted in the record) and provide the safeguards from trespassers going through her property. Mr. Ruggeri stated after discussion with the homeowner on Nathan East, the petitioner has agreed to put up a six-foot decorative wall. He stated they will add landscaping on the petitioner’s side to give a more natural appearance. Mr. Reinowski asked for a motion. Motion by Mr. Gariepy, supported by Mr. Militello, that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE case number PZ17-0007, MRFR, LLC, to conditionally rezone the subject property from R-60 (One Family Residential District) to RM-1 (Multiple Family Low-Rise District), to allow the development of a fifty-four (54) unit attached single family residential development in addition to four (4) additional detached single family residential units along Ajanta Court, as shown on the proposed plans, with the amendments discussed with the Planning Commission tonight, for the following reasons: 1. Approving a conditional rezoning for this parcel based upon the proposed conditions contained within the development plans will ensure that the development will be constructed in accordance with a specific mutually agreeable conditional rezoning agreement between the petitioner and City prepared by the City Attorney, which will incorporate the conditions offered by petitioner, to the benefit of surrounding property owners and the City; 2. That the proposed rezoning for the specified use along with the amended site plan is generally consistent with the newly adopted City Master Land Use Plan for this area of the City by proposing a lower density attached residential development; 3. That the proposed use will act as a transitional use between the commercial development along Mound Road and the single family residential development to the west. This recommendation for approval is based on the following conditions: 1. That the applicant agrees to obtain site plan approval for the proposed development on the property within twelve (12) months of the effective date of the ordinance amendment approving the rezoning or map amendment, to obtain a building permit for the proposed development within eighteen (18) months of such effective date, and to complete development of the proposed development within thirty (30) months of such effective date. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 8 2. That a mutually agreeable conditional rezoning agreement be prepared by the City Attorney delineating the terms and conditions of the proposed rezoning to be executed by the property owner, (and facility operator, if different than the owner), and the City and recorded with the Macomb County Register of Deeds within sixty (60) days of approval of the conditional rezoning. 3. That revised site plans addressing the proposed site plan comments noted within the Office of Planning Staff Report be provided. 4. That a six (6) foot decorative wall be added along the shared property line along 5554 Nathan E. Mr. Reinowski asked for any discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Gariepy, Militello, Jaboro, Miller, Reinowski, Rowe, Doughty Nays: None Absent: Kopp and Sarau Motion carried. PSP17-0031 – Gallo Companies, LLC Requesting approval of a 44-unit single family residential detached site condominium in the (R-60 One Family Residential) district – west of Ryan Road, south of Metropolitan Parkway. Property Address: 36095 English Drive Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is proposing the development of a 44-unit conventional site condominium. The applicant is intending on building homes which will range from approximately 1,450-2,100 square feet. A letter was received from The Rakowski’s asking about snow removal and a stop sign addition. Mr. Reinowski asked the Commissioners for any questions. Mr. Militello asked Mr. McLeod to show on the screen the layout of the homes which would be built. Mr. McLeod complied and displayed the different floor plans. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. McLeod to explain “site condominium”. Mr. McLeod explained what site condominium entails. Mr. Reinowski asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Tony Gallo, 6303 26 Mile Road, Suite 200, on behalf of Gallo Companies, came forward to the podium. He stated they are sensitive to developing the property in accordance with the ordinances of the city. Mr. Militello asked Mr. Gallo if there is a price point in mind for the homes. Mr. Gallo stated they anticipate $240,000-$300,000. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Being none, he asked for public participation. A resident which lives on Lancaster came forward. He is concerned about the amount of traffic that will be coming and going out of the one street for this development. Mr. Mirqvic, lives on English Dr., voiced he is devastated about this project and is against it. He stated concern for the condition of the roads when the construction is done. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 9 Rita Oaks, has lived on English for 44 years, stated she is also devastated about the development. She is concerned about the debris from the construction. In addition, she stated concern for the traffic and the utilities. Mr. Gallo stated they believe there will be significantly less traffic than when the elementary school used to be there. He stated the roads are city roads and built to the City’s standards and should not be affected by construction trucks. He stated the construction debris is handled under a building permit. There will be sanitary sewers provided connecting to the existing infrastructure. They will be providing rear yard drainage and appropriate run-off. They will be adhering to the highest standards in regards to the water system. Mr. Rowe asked Mr. Gallo to address the distance in rear yards. Mr. Gallo stated it is a minimum of 35 feet. Mr. Rowe also asked when the start and end times are for construction to occur. Mr. McLeod stated 7 a.m. – 7 p.m. Mr. Reinowski asked for any other questions/comments. Being none, he asked for a motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Jaboro, that the Planning Commission APPROVE case number PSP17-0031, Gallo Companies, for the development of a conventional forty-four (44) unit site condominium, for the following reasons: 1. That the development of the site condominium shall remain consistent with the scale and layout as described in the proposal, at Public Hearing and reflected on the site plan; 2. That the petitioner shall develop, maintain and operate the development in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. 3. The decision of the Planning Commission shall remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Commission are found to be correct and the conditions upon which this motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Commission. 4. That appropriate site plan and engineering plans meeting all other requirements of the City of Sterling Heights be provided for each phase as it develops. This action is based on the following findings: 1. That with the noted conditions, the proposed site plan will be compliant with all City Ordinances and requirements. 2. That the preliminary plans as presented are compliant with the City’s Site Condominium Standards within the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the preliminary plans, as presented, are compliant with the City’s Design Standards within the City’s Subdivision Regulations. 4. That the lots/units as proposed are consistent with the lot area, height, and bulk requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 5. That the proposed development integrates well with the surrounding existing single-family subdivisions. The approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross access easement between the Rite Aid site to the west and this site. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 10 2. Parking for the child care facility shall not be permitted on the Rite Aid site to the west. 3. The applicant shall execute and deliver to the City in recordable form a hold harmless agreement relating to development of the site with vehicular access to the child care facility through the Rite Aid Site to the child care facility parking area rather than a dedicated drop-off and pick-up area. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions/discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Jaboro, Miller, Reinowski, Rowe, Gariepy, Doughty Nays: None Absent: Kopp and Sarau Motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Rowe, supported by Mr. Militello, to APPROVE the minutes of June 8, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any discussion on the motion. Mr. McLeod stated there should be a statement added under case PPCM-1175 Macomb Christian Schools, regarding statements made in reference to the RLUIPA law. Motion by Mr. Rowe, supported by Mr. Militello, to AMEND the minutes by adding under case PPCM-1175 “The Planning Commissioners questioned how the RLUIPA would impact this application. The Planning Commissioner could act on it appropriately.” Mr. Reinowski asked if there was any other discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Rowe, Militello, Gariepy, Jaboro, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Kopp and Sarau Abstained: Doughty and Miller Motion Carried. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from The Rakowski’s Michigan Planner OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. McLeod to address the Commissioners being able to download the backup material instead of getting a paper copy. Mr. McLeod stated it is the intention of the Planning Office to eventually go to e-packets. He explained it will be a transition that will take some time. For now, there will be the option of a paper packet or an e-packet. Mr. Jaboro asked if they would bring in their personal computers to use. Mr. McLeod stated yes they could use their computers, iPads, etc. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2017 Page 11 Misters Gariepy, Jaboro, and Rowe stated they would like e-packets. Misters Miller, Militello, and Reinowski stated they would like paper packets. Mr. Reinowski asked Ms. Doughty, a new board member on the Planning Commission, to introduce herself. Ms. Doughty stated she is happy to be serving on the Planning Commission. She has been a resident of Sterling Heights since 1973. She has a deep concern of how the city looks and how the city is progressing in its economic development. She has formerly served on the LDFA and the Local Officials Compensation Commission. She has been an employee of AT&T in government relations, external affairs for 31 years. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Jaboro, supported by Mr. Militello, to ADJOURN . Ayes: Jaboro, Militello, Miller, Reinowski, Rowe, Doughty, Gariepy Nays: None Absent: Kopp and Sarau Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stefano Militello, Secretary Planning Commission