ON MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2008, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HELD A MEETING IN THE 2ND FLOOR COURTROOM OF THE WOODFORD COUNTY COURTHOUSE TO HEAR THE FOLLOWING APPEALS:
Chairman Sam Dozier III opened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. with those being in attendance as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Dozier, David Prewitt, Jennifer Steen, and Tim Turney
MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Stark
CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Paul W. Noel, Jr., Building & Zoning Inspector; Tim Butler, Legal Counsel, and Mary K. Woodrum, Recording Clerk.
MINUTES: Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Mr. Prewitt, to accept the December 3,2008 minutes as distributed. Motion carried with all members voting 'aye'.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chairman Dozier opened the floor for nominations.
Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Mrs. Steen, to retain the present officers for 2008, which are: Chairman, Sam Dozier; Vice Chairman, Tim Turney; Secretary, David Prewitt. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE : Joseph R. Schindler - 530
01-001-2008 Lexington Road - B-4 Zoning District - Section 508.2 - Applicant is seeking a 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback in order to install a pole sign 5 feet from the right-of-way.
Mr. Noel stated there is a pole sign that is presently there and is sitting on the right-of-way line which means it is encroaching 30 feet into the setback area. The applicant wants to move this pole sign five (5) feet back from the right-of-way which is the reason they are here asking for a variance. Mr. Noel explained that the present sign is non-conforming and deteriorating, so it does need to be replaced. The applicants will be doing some landscape improvements to surround the sign at the corner of Lexington Road and McDavid Road, but will not block the site lines. He also informed the Board that there have been no calls or comments on this request.
Mr. Joseph Schindler stated he would be glad to answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Dozier asked if the sign was going to be the same height as the present one? Mr. Schindler thought it was the same height as the old one.
Mr. Dozier asked if there were any questions or concerns from the Board or audience? With none, Mr. Dozier closed the hearing and asked for a motion?
Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Ms. Steen, to grant Joseph R. Schindler of 530 Lexington Road, a 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback in order to install a pole sign 5 feet from the right-of-way. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE: Scott Brian of Versailles Partners
01-002-2008 137 Clifton Road (Arbor Place Town Homes) - R-3 Zoning District - Section 709.6- Applicant is seeking a 7foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback in order to place a sign 18 feet from the right of way.
Mr. Noel stated this sign cannot be located within the building set back area or right-of-way. The circumstances indicate that without a sign in the area requested, it will be pretty much invisible from the road. He went on to explain that it is a customary and generally an acceptable practice to place a visible marquee sign at or near the entrance location to multi-family or townhome facilities. Strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the owner from the most desirable placement of such sign.
Mr. Noel went on to say the applicant has constructed his multi-famiy units according to all zoning subdivision regulations and has met all approval requirements. He noted that the sign will be constructed such that minimum site distance requirements will continue to exist.
At this point, Mr. Noel asked the members to look at the overhead view of this area in their packets. He explained where the sign would be located with the variance and where it would have to be located without the variance. Mr. Noel concluded by stating that no comments have been made in opposition or support for this request.
Mr. Dozier asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Malcom Endicott, representative for Versailles Partners, came forward and stated he has assisted Mr. Brian with this development before any of this took place and he would be glad to answer any questions the Board might have.
Mr. Turney asked if the sign was going to be lighted? Mr. Endicott did not know for sure but informed the Board that it is a very nice and expensive sign. Ms. Steen stated it is a masonry and wood sign so she felt if there was any lighting it would have to be a flood light. Mr. Noel thought it was not in a cabinet. Mr. Endicott stated it is not.
Mr. Dozier asked if this was going to be a ground sign? Mr. Endicott stated yes, it will be a 7' long by 4' wide by 1 ½' deep sign. Mr. Dozier was concerned about pulling out onto Clifton Pike, but realized that the sign sits back far enough to not be a concern. Mr. Noel noted that it is 17 feet back from the right-of-way.
Mr. Dozier asked if there were any other questions or concerns? With none, he closed the hearing and asked for a motion?
Mrs. Steen moved, as seconded by Mr. Prewitt, to grant Scott Brian of Versailles Partners at 137 Clifton Road (Arbor Place Town Homes) , a 7 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback in order to place a sign 18 feet from the right of way. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT :Thomas Post - d/b/a Kentucky
01-100-2008 Mansion - 105 Shannon Run Road - A-1 Zoning District - Section 701.4 (G) - Applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow a Bed and Breakfast/Inn in residence.
Mr. Noel stated the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in a dwelling on a thoroughbred farm at the corner of Shannon Run Road and U.S. 60 on the southwest corner. Mr. Noel explained that he would let the applicant's representative explain the request, but first, he read into record the following information that was sent to the office: a phone call from Lonnie Bland stating he had no problem with this request as long as an evergreen screen is installed to hide the parked cars; letters in support of this request from Hub & Kirsten Johnson, 258 Shannon Run Road, Bridget M. Parker, 460 Pisgah Pike; Paula W. Cline, 372 Shannon Run Road; Mayor Fred Siegelman, City of Versailles; and Anna L. Dearinger, 3435 Huntertown Road. Mr. Noel wanted to also included in the record, the minutes from the Agriculture Advisory Review Committee on November 14, 2007 which were approved. Mr. Noel went on to explain the Agricultural Advisory Review Committee is set up to review applications for businesses in the agricultural zone. The committee recommends to the Board of Adjustment approval of the Thomas R. Post d/b/a Kentucky Mansion, as a conditional use, a bed and breakfast/inn at 105 Shannon Run Road with five amendments to the application which were:
At this point, Mr. Bill Moore, representative for Mr. Thomas Post, came forward and stated he understood that the way the record works from this proceeding is that this Board has in the file for Mr. Post's application to operate a Bed & Breakfast, the file that this body developed two years ago when it heard and granted Mr. Post's application to have a tourist home at this same site in August, 2005. At this point, Mr. Moore passed out a copy of the application for the tourist home (exhibit A). Mr. Moore, explained that this is the same house on the previous application that the original owners (Stilz's)lived in. He explained that there is also another house on this property in which the farm manager lives. This is a 207 acre thoroughbred horse farm when it was purchased by Mr. Post. He went on to explain about how the property is situated to the adjoining property owners. He noted that the most affected area would be Glenhaven and with the map being on a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, he explained that the nearest house is about 800 feet from the house where the bed and breakfast will be.
Mr. Moore went on to say since this Board granted the previous Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Post began operating this residence as a tourist home. He had extensive repairs to the roof done and during this process, two of his neighbors across the road on U.S. 60, Mr. Keogh and Mr. Allen, filed an appeal that this was inappropriate because the definition "Tourist Home" was invalid as this was one of the conditions used to grant the request. The ordinance gave this body too much discretion to define what a tourist home was etc. They filed this with the Woodford Circuit Court and the court approved this body's decision and denied the appeal. Another appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals. Mr. Moore explained in October, 2007 they received an Opinion from the Court of Appeals which agreed with Mr. Allen that the zoning ordinance and the definition of a tourist home were insufficient. At this point Mr. Moore handed out a copy of the Opinion of the Court of Appeals (exh. B) to each member. He then explained that toward the end of the Opinion the Court says that Mr. Post has the option to apply as a Bed and Breakfast as they felt this is how his application should have been treated the first time. Mr. Moore went on to say that the Court seems to be pointing in the direction of applying for a Bed and Breakfast instead of a tourist home. He went on to explain that in the interim while the appeal was going on, the City of Versailles, Woodford County, and the Planning Commission got together and decided to amend the Bed and Breakfast ordinance including the number of rooms that could be located in the residence. The restriction of the owner/operator having to reside in the facility was amended to permit the agent or lessee to operate the bed and breakfast. So, this made this type operation more palatable to Mr. Post which is why he is here tonight to simply ask to operate the facility that he had operated as a tourist home for the last two years, now as a bed and breakfast/inn establishment.
Mr. Moore noted that the maximum number of bedrooms Mr. Post proposes to create will be nine. He explained that Mr. Post proposes to operate this facility in such a way that it will not be detrimental to the adjoining property owners and restrictions such as lighting and noise that would be created will be adhered to.
Mr. Moore then discussed the meeting they had with the Agricultural Advisory Review Committee for their approval. They discussed removal of trees in which the Review Committee felt they should be able to remove some trees as some were in bad shape and some needed to come down for parking. Mr. Moore stated his client has accepted all recommendations from the Agricultural Advisory Review Committee as far as objections to this application and has incorporated it into this application for the Conditional Use Permit before this board tonight. He noted there is one difference Mr. Post has with the Review Committee and that is he would request that he be permitted to conduct two outside special events per week which would be a total of 104 events instead of the one special event per week for a total of 52 events for the year. He explained that they discussed this issue to some length with the Agricultural Advisory Review Committee and their assessment was that 52 events should be sufficient. Mr. Moore explained that their position was to have a viable facility. He explained that one of the requirements the Commission came up with was that anything that is done is to be done in such a way that it will not create, light, or noise, or disturbance, or traffic detrimental to neighbors. So, if Mr. Post violates any of those requirements he will be in violation of his Conditional Use Permit and the permit will be revoked. If he meets all the requirements then he won't be bothering anyone whether it is 52 or 104 times a year.
At this time, Mr. Moore passed out a copy of his "Findings of Fact" (exh. C)to each Board member. At this point he pointed out that the factual situation has not changed as it is still 207 acres and is still located in an agricultural zone. There are two residences still located on the property, one residence faces Shannon Run Road and has been used for a residence for the farm manager and the other residence, which is the subject of this motion, faces U.S. 60 and has historically been used as a residence by the farm owners. This request proposes to limit the bedrooms to nine (9). The residence will also have a living room and a dining room available for use by the guests who would be accommodated overnight for a fee. Mr. Moore explained that only three rental bedrooms will be in the basement and five will be on the main floor and one will be upstairs. All health and safety requirements for a bed and breakfast have to be met for the Health Department.
Mr. Post is proposing to rent out rooms for people to stay there, temporary accommodations for a fee. Mr. Moore explained that is the definition of a bed and breakfast under the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Zoning Ordinance. He went on to explain that the Agricultural Advisory Review Committee recommended approval by this Board.
Mr. Moore went on to explain that the impact upon traffic for this application should be minimal and not adversely affect the public health and safety because there is a direct access to Shannon Run Road and this will enable guests to have access to US 60 via the existing stoplight at this intersection. He went on to say that the Ag Board has proposed 12 parking spaces on the site plan with no additional pavement to be added for use by the bed and breakfast/inn other than that as shown thereon. Mr. Post agreed to that because there is plenty of parking available for special events as there are paddocks that can be used which are located on the property. Mr. Moore felt there would be no need for any additional blacktop. Mr. Moore again reiterated the conditions that the Agricultural Advisory Review Committee thought should be added.
Mr. Turney asked if this request is approved would the condition of no additional blacktop be for the entire farm? Mr. Moore stated no, only for the bed and breakfast. Mr. Turney wondered if this should not be clarified on the request? Mr. Moore stated that this condition is the same as on his tourist home application which included the fact that if there were to be any conveyance of this land, it would be a minimum of a 30 acre tract. Mr. Butler thought Mr. Moore was speaking about additional paved areas, not additional pavement. Mr. Moore agreed and felt it would be helpful to clarify this in the application to say that this does not affect the existing farm operation.
At this point Mr. Dozier asked if any one in the audience would like to address this issue? Mr. Lonnie Bland came forward and stated he is an adjoining neighbor of this farm. He explained that he did not hear anything about evergreen buffer for parked cars. Mr. Moore responded saying one of the recommendations from the Ag Board (which Mr. Post accepted) was #7 which states "retain existing evergreen trees along the west and south edges of the parking spaces so that vehicles will be visually buffered from the adjoining properties in Glenhaven." Mr. Moore noted that they also added "add additional trees or privacy fencing to fill presently existing gaps in screening until existing trees mature." Mrs. Steen asked if Mr. Bland felt it was buffered now? Mr. Bland stated no. He can stand at his kitchen sink and can see the whole area, so he does not want to stand at this window and see a big parking lot there. Mr. Moore responded that this will have to happen as it is one of the conditions to operate this bed and breakfast at this location.
At this point, Ms. Sue Fosson came forward and stated she lives on Pisgah Pike and wanted to let the Board know she is in support of this bed and breakfast and just wanted to remind the Board to make sure the applicants follow the recommendations and requirements listed in the ordinance. She stated that was why she objected to the tourist home, because there were no stipulations for this. She also wanted to encourage the Board to consider the Ag Board's recommendations both about the screening and do some type of temporary screening until the evergreens mature. The other issue that is important to her is the issue of events. She realized that the amount of events that can be held at a bed and breakfast was left open in the ordinance for this body to be able to specify how many and what type. She could understood allowing events to be held at bed and breakfasts that are non-agricultural areas. But, in an agricultural area, she felt the Board should consider that this is a bed and breakfast facility and events are secondary as opposed to a primary event and she would support the Ag Review Board's restriction of one a week.
At this point, Mr. David Allen came forward and stated he lives at 4416 Lexington Road. He talked about the first application for a tourist home and the action of this Board being struck down by the Court of Appeal because it violated the Kentucky Constitution. He explained that in Article 27 of the Constitution, it says no governmental agency is permitted to act in an arbitrary manner. He went on to say there were no guidelines for a tourist home and it gave this body, presumably, full range of authority to do everything it wanted, as much as it wanted, however it wanted, etc. with no guidelines.
Mr. Allen stated the reason he has spoken on the prior application is because it dealt with an ordinance which was assumed to exist, but did not exist. He noted that tonight everything to do with a tourist home has no application here whatsoever. He explained that this Board is dealing with the regulations for a bed and breakfast. He stated that this Board has taken an oath to uphold the law and he hoped they do and take it seriously. Mr. Allen went on to say in Section 507 it states that a Conditional Use Permit may be granted only if the following conditions are met in the application. He stated there are several conditions that are not met or at least no proof that they are met and then there are some problems with the ordinance itself. Mr. Allen then spoke about Section 507 (F) which states "the bed and breakfast/Inn, whether located in the dwelling or other structure located on the land, shall be an incidental and secondary use of the dwelling." He noted that any use of any structure/s shall be residential. He wanted to know who is living in the residence now that they want to make into a bed and breakfast? He answered, nobody does. He claimed that there is no resident there so the operation proposed there is not incidental to the use of a residence because it is purely proposed for commercial prepossess. Mr. Allen stated the law requires that it be primarily residential and that this just be an adjunct to it. He felt this was not the intent of the application at all. He went on to say the application does not refer to this as a residence at all. Mr. Allen stated unless it satisfies the requirements of the law it should be denied on those grounds.
Mr. Allen also had fault with the ordinance as it is written. He stated tourist home was struck down because it did not define anything. He felt this has a similar weakness. He asked what is a special event? He noted you could read the ordinance front and back and it would not tell you what a special event is. He felt it is whatever anyone wants to make it be at the time. He then explained that the ordinance does not state that this Board can define what a special event is. He went on to explain that it gives the Board the authority to specify the size and the number of events, but there is still a void of what constitutes a special event. So, Mr. Allen felt this would put the tag of an arbitrary action on the Board's part. Mr. Allen wanted this Board to look at the facts. He stated it has not been labeled a dwelling, it is not a dwelling. It is purely a commercial venture proposed in an agricultural district. Mr. Allen went on to say it does not comply with the code and this Board can grant a permit only if all the conditions are met. Mr. Allen concluded by recommending the Board deny this request.
At this point, Ms. Anna Maria Leach came forward and stated she is all for this bed and breakfast and noted that most bed and breakfasts are either located in the middle of the city or out in the country and it is very relaxing and very beautiful to be there. She talked about having special events. She explained that she has parties at her home and she knows that the property owner is responsible for their guests. She felt there are numerous events that can be held like wedding reception, graduation parties, even special charities that might like to have a fund raising party, etc. She felt this establishment would be great for Versailles and would show off some of our beauty. She noted how quiet it is at this location and from the road you cannot hear anything up at this residence. She explained she is about a mile and a half away from this property and concluded by saying she is in support of this request.
Ms. Donna Allen then came forward and stated she is the wife of David Allen. She stated they have a small thoroughbred farm and she felt the agricultural community is being pushed and pushed. She felt it would create traffic, but beyond that she did not understand why events had to be held at a bed and breakfast in the country in an Agricutlral District. She felt that two events a week is just incredible.
She also thinks that the application that was sent to the neighborhood property owners (which she stated some did not get) did not tell them that Mr. Post was also applying for two events a week. She stated the title Bed and Breakfast sounds good, but doesn't mention events. She stated one a week is not very acceptable, but two a week is definitely not acceptable in an agricultural zoned area and asked the Board to take that into consideration.
Ms. Emma Mitchell from Glenhaven came forward and stated she is very concerned about the ill effects that the Bed and Breakfast with the events, along with the noise, and the lights will have upon Glenhaven Colony which are all tax payers in Woodford County. She ask this Board to think long and hard before they make their decision.
Mr. Dozier asked if there were any other comments from anyone? Mr. Moore came back again to respond to Mr. Allen's comments. He explained that two people resided on this property while it was operated as a tourist home. It was their job until the Court of Appeals decided that this was an invalid use. After closing it as a tourist home, he still has someone living there and is used as a residence. Mr. Moore went on to explain that the definition and description of the application is a Bed and Breakfast/Inn. When Mr. Post previously applied for the tourist home he did so, so he could have some of the events held there. He explained that some of the Bed and Breakfast establishment operators came to the meeting and stated they did not have any objections to the request, but they would also like the ability to do some of the same things at their bed and breakfast establishments. All of this discussion on these ordinances caused the "Tourist Home" definition to be thrown out and the Bed and Breakfast ordinance changed to include the word "Inn" which gave more options and be able to hold special events. He reiterated the fact that there will be restrictions placed upon this application and Mr. Post will have to adhere to all of those conditions, including the ones that the Agricultural Review Committee has recommended. This will assure there will be no loud noise, there will be no bright lighting, and parking will be screened, etc. Mr. Moore stated Mr. Post has been a good neighbor for Versailles, he has spent a lot of money in this community and has tried to do some good things for our community. Mr. Moore concluded by asking for this Board's consideration in support of this application.
Mr. Butler then asked Mr. Moore if the residents that live there now, is this their home now? Mr. Moore stated, yes, this is their home. Mr. Butler stated they are not coming in shifts? Mr. Moore state no, they are living there. Mr. Moore stated when the ordinance was updated, it was not a requirement that you live there. Mr. Butler thought, when the Planning Commission acted on the ordinance, that there would be someone on the property and it might be in another house, but someone would be on the property at all times. Mr. Moore stated in this case there will be someone in this building on the property. Ms. Steen asked if these people who live there now would be the ones operating the bed and breakfast? Mr. Moore stated no, M. Post would hire professional people to live and operate the establishment. He stated the person living there now is the assistant care-taker. He went on to say as soon as he gets a Conditional Use Permit he will hire inn-keepers who can cook, clean, and take care of his guests. Mr. Butler then asked if they understood if there is an event held that is conducted in a manner to create noise, light, or traffic conditions detrimental to the neighboring residents, that would be considered a violation of the conditions and the permit would be subject to being revoked. Mr. Moore stated they do understand that.
At this point, Mr. Allen came back and stated he comes back to the wording of the statute. If this application does not comply with the statute, this Board cannot grant it. He reiterated the fact that it must be incidental to the dwelling. He felt this approach is contrary to this fact. It is an approach to establish a commercial venture and not something incidental to a house where somebody lives. Mr. Allen stated if this Board should be of the frame of mind to grant this, he requested that they specifically point out the section in the ordinance that defines what a special use is and how you have conformed to it. He concluded by saying any action in favor of this use would be arbitrary.
At this point, Mr. Butler asked Mr. Moore what the square footage of this house is? After discussion it was thought to be 5600 square feet. Mr. Butler then asked the approximate size of the rooms? Mr. Moore stated the rooms would take up less than ½ of the square footage of the house. Mr. Butler then asked Mr. Moore if his testimony is that the 9 bedrooms would be less than one-half of the structure and that there would be a resident operator that would reside full-time on the property? Mr. Moore stated yes to both questions. Ms. Steen asked if the bedrooms in the basement would have a walk-out egress? Mr. Moore stated it is a requirement in order to have a license to operate a Bed and Breakfast to have an ingress/egress for safety reasons.
At this point, Mr. Tom Post came forward and stated he felt this is residential. It provides rooms for people to stay in. He went on to say, they closed it now because they didn't want to do anything that would hurt people making reservations, should he not prevail getting this Conditional Use Permit to operate this Bed and Breakfast. He did not agree with Mr. Allen as to what is a special event. He felt a special event is an event that does not present problems to everyone else and is what is special to whoever rents it. Mr. Post explained that this board can be assured they want to keep it in an agriculture format. They want to have hayrides and horses that can be seen and guided tours about 4:00 in the afternoon provided for any guest that stays there. He felt you have to use a little bit of reason. He feels they have made a substantial commitment to this community and he felt this Board will be proud of what they will hopefully do with this facility if they are given the opportunity. He encourage the Board to pass the motion that was outlined by Mr. Moore.
Mr. Turney then asked Mr. Post if he has held any special events in the last year? Mr. Post stated he has had special meetings there. Mr. Turney asked if there had ever been any complaints there? Mr. Post stated no. Mrs. Steen asked Mr. Post if he had held a special event there with a tent? Mr. Post stated no.
At this point Mr. Dozier asked Mr. Butler if he had any comments? Mr. Butler stated he wanted to disagree with Mr. Allen about the Court of Appeals' decision. He quoted a statement on the decision that stated "The Keoghs and Allens have not shown that the zoning ordinance grants such unfettered discretion to the Board." Basically, what the Court of Appeals said was the interpretation of the definition that Mrs. Wilson gave was essentially the same as a bed and breakfast and since those two terms merged, this Board should have been reviewing it under "Bed and Breakfast". They found that her action was proper, but this Board just did not apply the Bed and Breakfast standards. He went on to say that he is sure Mr. Allen disagrees with him.
Also, Mr. Butler felt the Board needed to be careful about the issue of "incidental". He then spoke about the "minority-majority" rule. He stated that is why he ask about the square footage of the residence earlier because he remembered having a concern when Mr. Post applied for the tourist home as he was asking for 18 rooms. So, if this structure would accommodate 18 rooms and they have reduced it down to 9, then it sounded like it was reduced down to a number that would be a minority as opposed to a majority use. The other thing Mr. Butler wanted the Board to consider is that this has to go through the Agricultural Review Board and has to meet a certain standard and he believed part of the standards were that it supports the continued agricultural use of the property. Mr. Butler felt it was important to note that the Agricultural Review Board had found that this request had met certain threshold requirements to even be considered. He explained that it does not supplant the agriculture, it actually helps the person to make money on agricultural property and thus continued preservation of the agricultural property.
Mr. Turney then asked Mr. Butler if a thoroughbred farm, boarding, and hay operation is considered the primary use of the bed and breakfast or is it incidental? Mr. Butler explained that Section 507 (F) states, "the bed and breakfast/Inn, whether located in the dwelling or other structure located on the land, shall be incidental and secondary use of the dwelling. He also cited 507 (K) which states, "The principal use of any such structure or structures shall be residential." Mr. Butler went on to explain that he doesn't put as much credence into the part called residential. A property is considered residential even though you have people renting out rooms, because they are not separate units accessed separately from outside like a motel where you go into your own unit and out of your own unit. He explained that you are inviting people into your residence. Also, when the Planning Commission looked at this, they broadened this out so people could have resident operator type operations. But, the key here, Mr. Butler explained, is "resident operator". He wanted to get Mr. Moore on record stating that it is someone who resides there, not someone coming in on shifts.
At this point, Ms. Steen stated she would like to move to table this hearing until the next meeting. She explained that she has reviewed all the documents that were sent to her, but Mr. Moore had given two documents that she had not had time to review and she would like to do that. Mr. Prewitt stated he would certainly like to hear if there are any other comments from the in-house public, but he would be acceptable to review the material. Mr. Butler thought the hearing should be closed tonight.
At this point Mr. Dozier asked if anyone else would like to address the Board? With no one responding, Mr. Dozier closed the hearing and asked for a motion?
Mrs. Steen moved, as seconded by Mr. Prewitt, to table this hearing until the next scheduled meeting. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.
Mr. Dozier asked for a motion to adjourn?
Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Mr. Prewitt, to adjourn at 7:20 p.m. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.
Sam Dozier, III, Chairman