Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (2) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 7 April 29,2009 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S.Moore,Jr. - Chairman Stuart W. Ivimey,Vice Chair Jean Healey Dippold, Clerk Charles A. Samuelson Clark H. Brewer Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Meeting called to order at: 7:10 P.M. 7:10 P.M. 215 CJC HWY, COHASSET HEIGHTS WIND TURBINE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT DELIBERATION, APPL: JAMES SWEENEY, CCI ENERGY; OWNER: PAUL BARRY Attending for applicant: Appl. Jim Sweeney, CCI Energy; Paul Barry, Land Owner; Gordon Deane,Palmer Capital Corp.;Attorney Kenneth Ingber. Attending for Planning Board: John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc; Town Counsel Richard Hucksam. Applicant James Sweeney signed SPR extension to July 16,2009 . Began with review of Section 19 of the Bylaws: 19.3.1.2: not applicable (n/a) 19.3.2: Site control docs. not submitted yet. Applicant has lease with land owner. Town Counsel advises condition to obtain copy of lease and land owner's deeds prior to issuance of building permits. Member Brewer noted that all deed references are on plans. 19.3.3.1: OK 19.3.3.2a: OK 19.3.3.2b: n/a (not a residential district) 19.4.1: Condition compliance with all applicable local,state,federal requirements to all applicable criteria 19.4.1.1: applicant did attempt to conduct balloon tests and did submit photosims. Member Moore questioned Town Counsel re: visual impact relative to"what"? Town Counsel indicated that turbines are a"special" permitted use which is different from a use that is allowed by right and that SPGA'have great deal of discretion and have to make judgment calls. In Town Counsel's opinion, it would be appropriate for the Board to consider that the bylaw allows for wind turbines of a particular height and to consider what type of visual impact any turbine of that height in any part of town might have and then consider the visual impact that the turbines being applied for in this particular application would have on the Town. Member Brewer explained his analysis and interpretation of the visual data and the existing buildings and how he determined that from Sandy Beach,the turbines fill a very small%of a person's visual field. Brewer also explained his interpretation based on mass of the turbines compared to mass of the surrounding bldgs. -while the turbine mass is in the vertical orientation, the total mass is no greater than the existing buildings. Member Ivimey did not entirely agree with the discussion about how the turbines compare to the buildings that are already on the site, but did offer that it is possible that by passing this bylaw, Cohasset indicated acceptance of any visual impact. To Ivimey,the question is—is the character of the turbine,meaning its size, at the proposed site too much and, is there really anything that can be done to minimize the visual impact of turbines? Town Counsel indicated that this section of the bylaw allows the Board to exercise discretion as to whether visual impact on the Town is acceptable or not. Brewer mentioned that the back turbine seems to be less of a visual impact issue than the front turbine and,the front turbine has been moved further away so there has been some project siting mitigation—there has not been buffering mitigation along Rt. 3A for example although he is not sure that buffering would have an effect. Brewer did note that there is a stand of trees at the north end of Sunrise Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 7 April 29,2009 that provides some screening and he would recommend that the stand of trees remain in place. In addition, he noted that a turbine is what it is—it is an industrial piece of equipment to which Ivimey added that by mass, it is one of the smaller pieces of equipment at an industrial site. Town Counsel advised that this is a section of the bylaw does give the Board an opportunity to make a decision as to whether it considers the visual impact of this proposal on the Town to be acceptable or unacceptable,too much or not too much. Brewer added that the quantifiable reference he has found that he considers reasonable to apply is the 1:3 height to distance ratio cited in the RERL standard. Ivimey calculated(from their plans)the closest tower to Avalon is about .25 miles and, .36 miles from the front tower to the first house at Rose Hill and .56 from the back tower. Ivimey spoke to a family in Hull that lives about .25 miles from the turbine and they did not have any problem with the turbine. Ivimey also suggested the Board consider if 1 turbine has less visual impact than 2. Member Samuelson noted that larger turbines are more efficient and asked if Ivimey would vote for a single, higher turbine instead of the two,or is he suggesting just eliminating one completely. Town Counsel indicated that, speaking hypothetically, a condition that only one of the turbines be allowed would require a finding that 19.4.1.1 would not be satisfied with two turbines but would be satisfied with one turbine and,that the SPGA can condition its grant of a special permit tying into appropriate sections of the bylaw. Member Brewer,who studied the visual impact very closely, added that the front turbine has more visual impact than the back turbine from close up and within a half a mile(near view). However, from greater distances, such as from Sandy Beach(far view), both turbines have equal impact—a class of large objects including the water tank on the site would be seen. Brewer added that the most visual impact is heading south along Rt. 3A, and planting a bank of screening element on the edge of Graham Waste property, could block some of the near view of the front turbine,however,he does not think the visual impact of the turbines heading north on Rt. 3A is any greater than that of the water tower. Member Moore proposed the members think about the visual impact for awhile and that the Board temporarily move on to other criteria. 19.4.1.2: pale grayish color is the usual. Could condition the pale grayish color if not already in the does and, add that it must be"non-reflective" color 19.4.1.3a: Planning Board did receive FAA doc. indicating FAA acceptance of original location and lighting. Since front turbine location has moved, condition new FAA doe for latest front turbine location. Condition that only the red FAA aviation light can be used(specifications have been submitted and Modzelewski will check to confirm this is the same lighting used in Rhode Island). Member Ivimey does not want the white strobe that might light up the blade, although the people he interviewed in Hull did not indicate that the lights were an annoyance factor for them. Modzelewski can research if lights can be synced so they don't flash when the blade is in the vertical position. Samuelson mentioned that they have to blink by aviation requirements. 19.4.1.3b: No sign mock ups have been submitted. Condition requirement for warning and education signs. 19.4.2.1: OK—dots have been submitted—no endangered species in area. Land is already clear. 19.4.2.2: footprint is small—no other impervious surface except transformer pad. Service roads are gravel. Does not trigger stormwater management bylaw. Condition that they must meet Stormwater Mgmt.Review. 19.4.2.3: Modzelewski summarized that noise analysis was prepared by a PhD who specializes in noise and sound. Charge was to demonstrate compliance with MA noise regs. &be consistent with DEP guidance for noise measures. Modzelewski mentioned that applicant has indicated areas where the property lines as a minimum are higher than a certain decibel level—the question is, do these areas meet noise regulations with or without waivers (Modzelewski not aware of submission of any waivers —Planning Board Administrator confirmed)? Member Samuelson mentioned that the DEP has published its "Noise Pollution Policy Interpretation" (Samuelson previously submitted this as part of the record)which explicitly states how noise at sensitive receptors should be measured—at residential, at the nearest permanently occupied residence in existence at the time of the permit and, for industrial areas,the standard is not to be interpreted as meaning the property line but rather at the location of a sensitive receptor such as a hospital etc. Samuelson would therefore submit that the Planning Board's concern is not associated with the property line but rather at the nearest permanently occupied residences. Town Counsel generally agreed with this—that the DEP considers their standard satisfied if there has not been a 1 OdB increase at a residence or other sensitive receptor and if the 10 dB increase measure were exceeded at the property line or at some other kind of industrial or commercial use,the DEP would not consider their standard exceeded(standard would be considered satisfied). Member Ivimey asked if the Board should consider Avalon since it is has not yet been constructed? Town Counsel will review and advise. Samuelson suggested that if there were noise at Avalon, it could be mitigated by conditioning that applicant cover the additional expense for noise abating windows or additional insulation. Town Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 7 April 29,2009 Counsel will have to take this under advisement. Further,Town Counsel noted that the Mass.Noise Regulations (3 10 CMR 7.10)are a particular law that are really being applied. There is guidance from the DEP in terms of interpretation of that regulation and Town Counsel is comfortable in using that guidance and interpreting what violates or does not violate that standard,however, it does not say that the applicant shall obtain whatever noise permits it needs from the DEP. Modzelewski feels every member should have the actual guidelines that Samuelson and Hucksam are referring to in front of them when they discuss this. Town Counsel will be happy to provide these documents to the Board. In response to a question about whether waivers can be accepted, Town Counsel advised that in his opinion,while accepting waivers from abutters might be a practice of the DEP,the DEP regulation and guidance do not say anything about waivers, so in his opinion,he does not see where waivers are allowed—the applicant must either meet the bylaw or apply for a variance. Modzelewski noted that if the property line is to be considered,the applicant is not in compliance but if the nearest residence or sensitive receptor is to be considered,the applicant is in compliance. Town Counsel's reading of the regulation and the guidance is that the DEP considers that regulation satisfied when the 10 dB increase has not occurred at a residence or other sensitive receptor like a hospital. Town Counsel further noted that the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance is the applicant's and that the Board must determine if the applicant has demonstrated compliance. Member Healey Dippold questioned if the issue is "shall conform with the Mass Noise regulations" or "shall conform as the DEP enforces the regulations?" Town Counsel did not think it was a question of enforcement but rather of using the DEP guidance to interpret the noise standard. Samuelson proposed that the real question is what happens when the turbine is actually turned on—he would like to have the burden on the applicant to mitigate in the future is there is a problem with the noise—in other words, a condition of long term compliance. Member Ivimey has a low level of confidence in the applicant's data and conclusions—he questions if sufficient quality and quantity of evidence has been produced and has concerns that the applicant's engineers did not seem to understand what the computer was doing with the data they input, only that the computer asked them to input certain data. Member Samuelson disagrees—as an engineer,he feels there are reliable noise research and models but that the models take input as assumptions so the argument is not whether the sound engineers can be trusted, the question is about the assumptions. Modzelewski asked the Board to review the April 8 and 22, 2009 Acentech letter: • some parameters of noise reflection are less conservative than are currently being used • Tech Environmental stated that some sound levels at some property lines are over the 1 OdB standard • No indication of hypothetical problem at Avalon residences—no pure tone at the residences • Applicant's consultant says there is no problem—the highest increase is 8 dB at a hypothetical Avalon Bay residence at either the original or the proposed location. Modzelewski's consultant says the measures are so close that a margin of error could put it over the top. Member Ivimey questioned if the applicant's engineer should have amended his statement that the DEP guidelines for tonal sound quality at the 1,000 Hz octave band was not met at the ground floor of Avalon?The Planning Board consultant has opined that this problem has gone away,but the applicant's consultant has not established this. Modzelewski provided explanation that the two consultants spoke about this to determine why the discrepancy exists and determined where the input problem was and the applicant's consultant agreed that Modzelewski's consultant was correct,but this has never been put in writing. Town Counsel did not think this was significant issue. Member Brewer wanted to note that the baseline measures taken were measured at an extremely conservative time—early March,middle of the night—which he feels produced a very conservative baseline without the 3 dB range recommended by Acentech. Modzelewski explained that Acentech assumes that even though there are two sources of noise,the wind direction is blowing towards the receptacle which cannot physically happen, they also added ground reflectivity which is not as conservative and, it was determined at the public hearing that the sound profile that was used was not the proposed AAER turbine and the Board never received a noise profile on AAER letterhead confirming that AAER turbine noise profile conforms with the noise profile used in the model. 19.4.2.4: Modzelewski noted that there is no specific standard or regulation that cites a definite amount of flicker that should be allowed at a particular receptor or location. Germany cites a desirable threshold of 30 hrs/yr. and 30 min/day. He further noted that"Best Practice" is to use worst case(which assumes there are never any cloudy days)—the applicant used expected values (as does RERL at UMASS)that lowered the worst case. Modzelewski thinks it is fair to reduce the worst case by 30-40% to account for cloudy days. Brewer did find a flicker standard from the Dept. of Energy Resources—Mass Office of Environmental Affairs model bylaw which states that shadow flicker diminishes rapidly with distance and should be minimal at> 10 rotor diameters (in this case, 800 meters or 2600 ft.)which is consistent with this flicker analysis. Samuelson added Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 7 April 29,2009 that the statistical nature of the combination of the wind blowing in the right direction so the blades are perpendicular to the receptor,the condition that the sun is at the correct angle and,the condition that the sky is not occluded to the point that shadows do not occur is not an average bell shaped curve, it is a poisson event which has a sharp rise, a peak and a long tail. In applying a poisson distribution,best practices indicate that worst case is not used—the worst case likelihood is a miniscule percent. The modeling done here does show that the expected flicker butterfly does not even overlay Sunrise Assisted Living or Avalon, so it comes down to what happens once the turbines are operated—if the flicker then exceeds the expected data,the question becomes what can be done to mitigate it—for example, don't run them. Member Ivimey thinks they should be limited to the number of hours they are saying are the maximum number of expected hours and have the applicant write a program to maintain that level of flicker hours by shutting down the turbines when that number is reached. Modzelewski suggests the Planning Board set the number of maximum hours because the models really present a(10 year?)average number of hours. Ivimey noted that a couple of people he interviewed in Hull did mention feeling occasional nausea from the flicker. 19.5: condition that no telecommunication devices or changes to the turbines are allowed without Planning Board permission. 19.6: condition bollards and fencing protection 19.7: must come up with a figure for a bond and should be airtight to hold up in the event of some unexpected event such as the company going bankrupt. Town Counsel mentioned cash deposit. Member Ivimey: expressed concerns about safety—specifically ice throw. He is also not comfortable with ice falling on the two buildings under the blades(owned by land owner Paul Barry who indicates the buildings are used for storage of portable toilets and paperwork storage—neither houses permanent employees—employees enter several times a day)although it might be possible to condition that those buildings can only be used for storage, not for daily work purposes. Modzelewski mentioned that it is not feasible to heat the blades to prevent ice build up and,that over a period of years, it is not just a"possibility"icing will occur, it will occur. Member Brewer commented that because something is"possible"does not mean it is"likely". Member Samuelson added that nothing in life has zero risk and if everyone gave in to risk, nothing would ever be built and, judgment should be exercised to make insure the risk is mitigated. Member Moore thought the applicant demonstrated pretty well that they have built-in multi-layer safeguards for shutting down the turbines when weather is conducive to icing or if icing is sensed but he understands that Ivimey's concern is also ice throw once the turbines are restarted.Members Brewer and Moore mentioned other possible conditions such as fencing/gating to prevent people or cars from getting near the turbines during icing conductive conditions. Moore also mentioned that he would be more concerned if this was public property like the turbine next to the Hull High School with kids running around under it,but since this is private property,this is a risk the owner assumes. Section 12.4: Town Counsel indicated this section must be satisfied also. The words are intended to give the Board a lot of discretion. He did note that there is some case law out there that says that the SPGA's discretion includes denying an application even when the criteria are met—not that Town Counsel would recommend doing that as it can be a tough road depending upon the judge,but it does show the amount of discretion the SPGA has. Board should tie these criteria to data, evidence and documents submitted at the public hearing—more rational decisions are more likely to stand up in court. Must look at the community as a whole. 12.4.1.b (1), (2), (4), (6), (8), (9): not applicable 12.4.Lb (3). this defines excessive noise as being at the lot line which, according to Ivimey,might resolve the issue as to where you measure the noise level. "excessive"not defined, although could argue that it is defined by the DEP regulation of 10 db. 12.4.1.b (5): applies and covered in earlier in tonight's discussions. 12.4.Lb (7): already discussed. District means industrial zoning district. Not applicable. 12.4.Lb (10): OK Member Moore asked the Board if they would like to express their concerns at this point or if they would like to proceed with a vote. Moore added that if there were a vote,he would hope for consensus among the members rather than have the application go down to denial because of a split vote. Applicant's Attorney mentioned that he was of the impression that the applicant team would have an opportunity to have input on the big picture and on the conditions and that there have been some things discussed and speculated upon tonight that the applicant can help the Board clarify by pointing to specific documents in the record and that they would love to have that opportunity —Town Counsel responded that this is not appropriate however, if the Board seems to be moving to the point of approving with conditions, it is possible that some communication about whether some conditions would be acceptable to the applicant would be appropriate. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 7 April 29,2009 Member Ivimev: would like to get this filing over with and noted that Modzelewski recommended that there is the regulation of noise that they have all been wrestling with. Ivimey added that he does not need this to vote—that he is as ready to vote as he is going to be. Member Brewer noted that 12.6 has not yet been discussed. Town Counsel indicated this could be voted on separately. Member Ivimev: inclined to approve only the rear turbine—two turbines on the highest point in Town puts visual impact over the top. He is specifically underwhelmed and unconvinced by the vast majority of the data submitted by the Applicant's sound engineer whereas he considers the information submitted by the Town Engineer's consultant convincing. He does not think he could be convinced that the Applicant's sound engineer's data is sufficient to give him a comfort level to approve both turbines. Thinking that both turbines will comply with the noise standards of this bylaw and specifically taking of every variable that is most favorable to the applicant and assuming that it would occur particularly bothers him. He also finds it very telling when the Town Engineer will not put his signature on the conclusions of the applicant's sound engineer. Town Engineer indicates that the impact of only one turbine would be 3dB less which would fall within the suggested margin of error. Adding up all the little things that were wrong with the sound engineer's data is indicative of what continued to happen during the sound discussions—something was always a little bit wrong— which would add up to being over 10 dB. Overall, he is very suspect of the conclusions they have made and of the assumption that the surface will absorb sound when it is hard packed gravel,rock, dirt and asphalt at the site. He will find it very difficult to vote for two turbines. Member Samuelson: expressed concerns that the Town benefit financially and not be put at risk financially or otherwise. Would like financial instrument to protect the Town, indemnify against harm,protect legal fees that might be incurred in litigation and any other liabilities the Town should be protected against. He would also like to see Town benefit financially via cheaper electric rates and the equivalent of the assessed real estate tax value. Samuelson is completely comfortable with the sound analysis—as a professional engineer in the field he does not see anything wrong with the sound or flicker analysis. The only issue is visual impact which he believes is completely subjective and,personally,he likes them. Member Brewer: Green energy and these turbines have been in discussion for a while, certainly prior to passing the zoning bylaw at Town Meeting last year. He has wanted to like everything about the proposal but has found some problems with it,but on substance, he does not find a safety risk to the public nor does he see—based on what is in the public record—enormous detrimental impacts from either noise or from flicker. It would be easy to take a conservative approach by approving only the rear turbine. He sees Green Energy as a national and a state priority but can see where it might make sense to take a conservative approach for our little Town even though Hull has already stretched out their necks in providing a full scale model for wind turbines. Brewer is ready to vote for the two turbines with exhaustive conditions,but, if the Board is trying to get a unanimous decision and demonstrate leadership,and that meant only one turbine,he would consider a motion for one turbine. Member Moore: Part of him could be convinced to vote against the turbines because of the visual impact on the Town. He is not convinced that one turbine will look a lot different than two, although siting one at the rear of the site might have some benefit visually and in terms of noise. He does not know the economic impact that might have on the project. He does share Brewer's sentiments on Green Energy and feels it is something that everyone has to face up to. The Town does have a bylaw that was a long time in the crafting,which speaks to the fact that the Town should have these. He would like the decision—whatever that is—to be a unanimous decision rather than not come to a consensus. Town Counsel indicates that if there was a denial,the applicant could not apply again for two years but if there were an approval of just one turbine,the applicant could come back and reapply for a second. Member Samuelson: would like to ask applicant if approval of only one turbine would make the project economically unfeasible. Town Counsel advised against this because the public hearing has closed and, in his opinion, the Board should not make a decision based on that fact. Samuelson stated strongly that he would not therefore vote for just one turbine—if the Board is going to vote to approve one,they should vote to approve both. The applicant applied for two, did all analysis and presentation on two and it is not fair to the applicant to completely change their application by voting only for one. Member Ivimereiterated that he, like Brewer,wanted to like this project but he just cannot be convinced by the data submitted that the sound requirements this will be met. Member Moore: asked Town Counsel guidance on what various votes might mean. Town Counsel indicated that if there were a motion to approve the application and it does not get the requisite number of votes,then in his opinion, the application fails. If however, a motion to deny the application did not receive the requisite number of votes, he would advise to make another motion. Moore asked Town Counsel opinion if there were a motion to approve with Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 7 April 29,2009 conditions, could the conditions be tacked on afterwards as long as the Board were still in session. Town Counsel advised the conditions could be tacked on afterwards. Applicant Attorney Ingber wanted to be recognized for a point of order(OK by Town Counsel): suggested that one way to accomplish this without having to commit further than the Board need to go is to gel the conditions before a dialogue ensues—the Board is not precluded from voting for the application with conditions that have addressed tonight and then find later on that the conditions cannot be satisfactorily met—leading to a denial but after an opportunity to flush out the conditions and whether they can be met. Town Counsel does not advise this approach. Member Ivime ran down list he had been keeping of other concerns mentioned that he wanted to make sure were addressed: insuring economic advantage to the Town; nsuring that a procedure is in place to guarantee that the lower flicker numbers will be all that residents will be allowed to endure; economic benefit to the Town via taxes and lower electric rates; sound testing at the applicant's expense; escrowing money to pay for the sound engineer; bonding to ensure demolition; gating to prevent public access to the south turbine; escrowing to fund the training of Cohasset and regional emergency response personnel. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve this application subject to: a. A condition that the front turbine(north)will not be built and, b. Conditions addressing the other issues and concerns that were identified and addressed by the Board during deliberations NOT SECONDED MOTION: by Member Samuelson to approve the current application subject to the list of conditions that address the concerns that have been identified and discussed during deliberations. SECOND: Member Brewer Member Ivimey commented that he will not vote on this motion. Member Samuelson commented that when confronted with an issue that is not within his expertise,he consults with those who have appropriate expertise and, relies on their expertise. Samuelson feels, from an engineering and scientific viewpoint, that the issues raised with this application have been sufficiently addressed and that because of the complexity of some of the issues,that there are no guarantees of future performance and future provisions. He would submit that the risk should be on the developer so that in the end, if all else fails and some condition is not met, it is the developer's risk and money and he must correct it or will not be allowed to operate the turbines. If there was a large distance between the calculated data and the measures deemed acceptable by the bylaw, the decision would be easy. But,if the data and the acceptable bylaw numbers are very close, there may never be resolution without building the turbines,having the applicant assume the risk that if the turbines are built and the numbers fail, they may have to tear the turbines down. Samuelson is not comfortable making a decision based on mistrust and failure to understanding the data submitted. He suggests that perhaps more work needs to be done for them to understand. Ivimey and Samuelson discussed Acentech April 8,2009 and April 22, 2009 letters to which Samuelson concluded that the key is the measurements at the property line which the Board has learned from the DEP that the measurement criteria is not at the property line but at the nearest residence and that the Board is discussing 1-2 dB measures which are inaudible to the human ear and not something that Samuelson sees as a concern. Samuelson added that if after construction, the measures exceeded the estimates, it would be the problem of the applicant to mitigate,not the Town. Town Counsel responded that, in his opinion,from a legal standpoint, Samuelson's last statement is an indication that the applicant has failed to meet his burden of proof of satisfying the criteria before the special permit is granted. Samuelson replied that from a scientific standpoint, asking for absolute certainty is an impossibility. Member Ivimey reiterated that he will not vote for this. Member Samuelson withdrew his motion MOTION: by Member Brewer that the two turbines be approved with conditions that the Board can discuss and resolve later albeit there is imperfect data and there may be questions about it and the accumulation of information over time, this may be a leap of faith in the technology. Member Ivimey: stated the opinion that he does not think the Board can approve the back turbine, see how it goes and then approve the front one later. This has to be approved as submitted one way or the other. NOT SECONDED Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of 7 April 29,2009 MOTION: by Member Ivimey to deny the special permit Member Ivimey: stated the opinion that he does not know why anyone who thinks that all the data is there to support two turbines would want to take their ball and go home if all they can get is one turbine. NOT SECONDED MOTION: by Member Ivimey to reassert his earlier motion to approve this application subject to: a. A condition that the front turbine(north)will not be built and, b. Conditions addressing the other issues and concerns that were identified and addressed by the Board during deliberations NOT SECONDED MOTION: by Member Ivimey to deny the special permit NOT SECONDED MOTION: by Member Samuelson to continue deliberations to May 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM NOT SECONDED Samuelson withdrew his motion MOTION: by Member Samuelson to continue deliberations to May 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM SECOND: Member Moore VOTE: 3—1 MOTION CARRIES MOTION: by Member Brewer to adjourn at 12:00 A.M. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD DATE: MAY 20,2009