Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 07-26-99CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 26, 1999 The regularly scheduled meeting of July 26, 1999 of the Carmel /Clay Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Earlene Plavchak, James Quinn, Pat Rice; Charles Weinkauf; and Tom Yedlick. The minutes of the May meeting were approved as submitted. Steve Engelking, Director, and Terry Jones were present representing the Department of Community Services. Terry Jones reported that Docket UV- 31 -99, Lowell Rolsky, Pro Care Landscaping, was inadvertently omitted from the Agenda. Legal notice has been properly given for this evening's meeting, and it would necessitate a motion from the Board to hear this item. James Quinn moved to add Docket UV- 31 -99, Pro Care Landscaping to the Agenda for this evening's business. APPROVED 5 -0. In view of the lengthy Agenda for this evening's meeting, the Board voted to continue any Agenda items not heard by 11:00 PM to an additional meeting -to be announced later in the evening. H. Public Hearings: lh. Ameritech Telecommunications Tower (SE -7 -99) Petitioner seeks Special Exception approval to allow a telecommunications tower in a residential zoning district. The site is located just south of the intersection of 131 Street and Cherry Tree Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Matt Price of McHale Cook and Welch. 2h. Ameritech Telecommunications Tower (V -8 -99) Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 26.1.4 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the allowable height of the tower in a residential zoning district from 120 feet to 130 feet. The site is located just south of the intersection of 131 Street and Cherry Tree Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Matt Price of McHale Cook and Welch Matt Price, attorney with McHale Cook and Welch, appeared before the Board and requested that the above items for Ameritech be TABLED to the August meeting. s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 1 ADD -ON ITEM: Pro -Care Landscaping, (UV- 31 -99) Petitioner seeks Use Variance approval to allow an office expansion to the existing facility. The site is located on the northeast corner of 98 Street and North Augusta Drive within the North Augusta Subdivision. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residence and is located within the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Lowell Rolsky of Pro -Care Landscaping. Lowell Rolsky of Pro -Care Landscaping, 9801 North Augusta Drive, appeared before the Board seeking approval for a Use Variance for a storage facility. Mr. Rolsky stated that he had appeared at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in January, 1998, and was granted approval for a Variance. However, sufficient time has elapsed and approval must again be granted in order to obtain a building permit. The storage facility will allow equipment to be stored out of sight on the property. In the original proposal, the storage facility was positioned north/south; the current proposal provides for an east /west orientation. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: Michael Norris, attorney, appeared both as an adjacent property owner and on behalf of two other neighbors to the north and west. Mr. Norris stated that he had spoken with Mr. Rolsky via telephone, but at this time, he was unclear as to whether or not certain improvements in landscaping for the purpose of screening would be made. The neighbors were also unclear as to the usage of the proposed facility, and heavy equipment operation on the weekend, hours of operation, etc. Mr. Norris asked that time be given to adequately review the proposal and work with Mr. Rolsky on these matters for the benefit of all parties. Mr. Rolsky stated that per the original agreement and contingencies as set forth by Hamilton County, additional landscaping has been done directly behind the new office building; additional trees have yet to be placed in the neighbors' yard to the south for a visual screen, but this will be completed. Mr. Weinkauf requested more information that would clarify the proposed project as far as the landscaping and construction of the storage /office facility. Mr. Rolsky agreed to TABLE Docket No. UV -31 -99 until the August meeting, thereby allowing time to work with the neighbors on outstanding issues. s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 2 3h. Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower (SE- 32 -99) Petitioner seeks Special Exception approval to allow a telecommunications tower in a residential zoning district. The site is located at 2135 West 141 Street. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by James Burroughs of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan. James Burroughs, attorney, One American Square, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board to present an application for a Special Exception to allow a telecommunications tower on West 141 Street. The structure will fit within the requirements of the ordinance, 120 feet, and the application will be amended to reflect same. If the structure is approved at 120 feet, the petitioner will proceed to request a variance for a 150 foot structure. Mr. Burroughs represents Omnipoint communications, a wireless provider, and Unisite, Inc., a tower construction and management company whose only business is to construct telecommunications towers and to lease space to wireless providers. Omnipoint has endeavored to locate as many of its antennae facilities on existing structures of height as possible, such as other existing cell towers and water towers. The proposed site will connect with existing cellular sites already approved or already co- located. The connection will provide continuous coverage in the western part of Clay Township. Mr. Burroughs submitted letters from other providers who are willing to co- locate onto the proposed tower; Cellular One, GTE, and Nextel. It is believed that the location of the tower will not be detrimental because the tower itself will be located within a wooded area shown on the aerial photograph. Mr. Burroughs submitted a letter from the property owner assuring the Board that the trees would not be removed as long as he owns the property. The petitioner has also agreed to landscape around the exterior of the base of the tower. Mr. Burroughs referred to the Findings of Fact for the Special Exception and the responses of the petitioner to the issues stated. The use and value of the area adjacent to the premises will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the tower is to be located on a large tract of land, surrounded by other large tracts of land that are undeveloped, with mature trees that are being preserved. The need for the Special Exception arises from the applicant's responsibility to provide public utility service and not for any condition peculiar to the premises under consideration. Mr. Burroughs stated that it will cause an unnecessary hardship for the applicant if the Special Exception is denied in that there are no existing or approved towers or other structures in the vicinity under consideration that would be suitable for co- location of equipment. Mr. Burroughs also stated that approval of the Special Exception does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan in that there are no alternative sites suitable. s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 3 The Ordinance states that the equipment needed by the applicant needs to be located in the vicinity, either in business, industrial, or manufacturing districts, or on property outside the jurisdiction or otherwise exempt from the requirements and procedures of the zoning ordinance. Alternative sites were explored that the City might have available, none was received by the City, i.e. fire stations, etc. were not interested and there are no business, industrial, or manufacturing districts where such a tower can be located. It is the petitioner's belief that facts have been established that prove and establish the five requirements in the ordinance for the granting of a Special Exception. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Chuck Weinkauf took this occasion to advise the public of the Board's responsibility in considering this petition under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act expressly pre -empts State and local governments from regulating personal wireless communications facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions. Radio Frequency Radiation: Only the FCC may regulate personal wireless and service facilities, cellular and PCS sites regarding RFR. As long as the operators of those facilities comply with the applicable FCC regulations, the State and local land use authorities are pre empted from taking action based on RFR. In contrast, zoning boards and planning commissions may continue to regulate RFR levels for other facilities such as television and radio stations. As the FCC has observed, most tower mounted cell sites emit RFR at levels that are hundreds to thousands of times below the applicable exposure limits Therefore, where tower mounted antennae are more than ten meters, the equivalent to about 33 feet, above ground level, the FCC categorically excludes cellular providers from having to prove compliance with the FCC's RFR regulations. In other words, the FCC presumes compliance. Members of the public were then invited to speak in opposition to the petition. Claudia Pryor, 2626 West 141 Street, Westfield, stated that Omnipoint must prove denial of the 150 foot tower would cause a hardship on them and this has not been done. There is currently cellular phone service in this area without their tower. The only hardship proved is on Claudia Pryor's family farm contained in the appraisal by Dale Snelling, licensed real estate appraiser and broker. According to Ms. Pryor, Mr. Snelling's appraisal states that the Pryors will lose between $62,000 and $102,000. in their lifetime investment in their home. Ms. Pryor questioned whether or not Omnipoint's appraiser could find any comparisons for a 150 foot tower property evaluation, when currently there is no tower in Clay Township that approaches this height. Ms. Pryor suggested that the towers be sited along 131S because that is a commercial area rather than in a residential or agricultural area. Point of Clarification, Charles Weinkauf: The petition being heard at this time is for a cellular tower at a height of 120 feet. s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 4 Ms. Pryor thought that service could be provided at much lower levels than that which is being proposed. Also, Article VI, Section 6 requires that the petitioner place a sign on the property. According to Ms. Pryor, Carmel has violated its own ordinance in not requiring that these signs be placed. Ms. Pryor is requesting that the petitioner re -file and comply with the requirement. Also, Ms. Pryor suggested that the two towers be combined. Ms. Pryor referred to a previous court ruling against AT &T Wireless brought by the City of Virginia Beach denying AT &T's request for the construction of a tower based on the complaints of ordinary citizens, that the tower will damage the neighborhood; that denial of a tower siting request is not inherently discriminatory; and that provisions of the Telecommunications Act which state that a city may not enact laws prohibiting the provision of cellular services do not prevent a city from denying individual applications for approval of a siting request. Andy Crook, 2288 West 136 Street, east of the proposed tower site, stated that he had never had difficulty with cellular phones as far as service coverage and that from a utility standpoint, there are options available to the public. Mr. Crook stated that the picture was not an entirely accurate representation, and that there is a major subdivision being added to the south of the site and small farms in the area. It is Mr. Crook's belief that the addition of the tower will have a negative impact on land immediately surrounding the Tyner property and farther out. The perception of the public is different than the FCC's perception, and Mr. Crook asked that the Board deny the petitioner's request. Jill Pegram, 2731 West 146 Street, spoke at last month's meeting and wanted to clarify that she did not submit an appraisal to the Board, in fact, it was Claudia Pryor. Ms. Pegram stated that she is representing residents between 146 and 131S Streets, between Shelborne and Ditch Roads. There was a question of notification to surrounding residents; at this time, Ms. Pegram presented a petition with 84 signatures in opposition to the proposed tower at the 141 and Towne Road site. Ms. Pegram was concerned about buffering that would occur only at the base of the tower; the tower would be clearly visible above the tree line. Ms. Pegram asked that the Board deny the petitioner's request. Helen Stanley, 3361 West 141 Street, two houses west of the Tyner property, stated that she was not notified of the proposed tower and she is deeply concerned with the environmental health hazards of a tower. Ms. Stanley stated that she had requested a copy of an air space study and has not yet received it as yet. Ms. Stanley would like to review the study before any towers are approved. Don Craft, 4988 St. Charles Place, Kingswood Subdivision, spoke as to the definition of "need" for a tower. There has been no definition of financial need criteria that must be met by the applicant, and there is no listing of other towers available or alternatives considered. There should be an overall plan of the towers presented by the petitioners. Rick Vanderhart, 14239 Esprit Drive in the northwest corner of 141 and Ditch Road, stated great concern that the investment in his home will be placed in jeopardy without s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 5 benefit or compensation. Mr. Vanderhart asked that the Board deny the petitioner's request. Corinne Waters, 14119 Ditch Road, stated that she was informed on Friday of the intention to construct the towers in her own neighborhood. Ms. Waters stated concern with serious health risks, noise pollution that could occur, and abominable site of the antennae across from her home creating an electro- magnetic environment in a residential area. The two do not belong together. Ms. Waters did not want the towers in her neighborhood and requested that they be re- routed or placed underground. Ms. Waters also stated concern with depreciation of property values. Paula Stebbin, 13811 Royal Saddle Drive, Saddlecreek Development, stated that there were no towers in the area when she purchased her home; there was only a horse farm across the street. There would now be a tower outside her front door. Ms. Stebbin thought the tower would be better suited at another location, not in a residential area. Jim Burroughs rebuttal: In regard to the appraisal referred to by Mrs. Pryor, the appraiser was not present at the last meeting, the appraisal was not submitted in writing, and the appraiser's credentials were not presented. There is no knowledge of the basis of conclusion regarding the effect of the tower on Ms. Pryor's property. It is believed that the appraisal carries little weight in relation to the report presented by the petitioner that is substantiated by a written report followed by support based on observations of similar situations in the market place. With respect to the sign on the property, Mr. Burroughs deferred to the Department. Mr. Burroughs referred to the Ordinance that requires the petitioner to substantiate that they cannot locate on existing or approved towers. The petitioner has no objection to persons making complaints, and has never stated that the law pre -empts their concerns. The petitioner merely believes that the public's fears are not substantiated by the facts. Case law in Indiana states it doesn't matter how many people object, that is not the basis for making a zoning decision -it's whether or not the objections are based in fact. A lot of objections are based on fears and misinformation. Mr. Burroughs stated that the hearing is supposed to be an impartial hearing -due process requires it. Mr. Quinn applauded at the end of a remonstrator's presentation and clearly demonstrated that he is not being impartial in this hearing -this was done prior to hearing the rebuttal and before all evidence was presented. Mr. Burroughs respectfully requested that Mr. Quinn recuse himself from this matter. Mr. Quinn responded that he had heard and attended many, many public hearings. Mr. Quinn stated that the remonstrator had made the best, most thought -out, most comprehensive presentation that he had heard since 1992 and that it was the remonstrator's well thought out presentation that he was applauding. s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 6 Mr. Burroughs stated that his objection still stands and that Mr. Quinn's response is taken to be a rejection of his petition. At this point, there was consultation between the Board president and Counsel. Terry Jones reported for the Department that the ordinance does state that if there are towers within one -half mile of one another, co- location is to be considered. There is no Department recommendation at this time. James Quinn moved for the approval of SE- 32 -99. The public hearing was then closed on SE- 32 -99. Pat Rice commented regarding the trees as a visual buffer, and commitments from the owner of the property where the tower is to be situated. Mr. Burroughs stated that the tower would be above the trees. Mr. Burroughs reiterated the petitioner's offer to limit the type of antennae to ones that are parallel to the tower and resemble baseball bats. Patrick McElviny responded that Mr. Tyner's plan was to always preserve the trees as long as he is the living owner of the property, and he is willing to guarantee that. Ms. Rice requested that the commitment regarding the trees be binding on subsequent owners of the property, just as the tower itself. Mr. McElviny could not address this request. Earlene Plavchak asked if the tower could be located closer to U.S. 31. Jason Bechtel of Omnipoint, stated that the intent is not to merely cover U.S. 31 but as much area as possible in order to minimize the towers. The intent is also not to overlap coverage areas because of interference with other radio sites. Mr. Quinn commented that there was a significant change in land values on Carey Road in 1991 at the time a cellular tower was installed prior to an ordinance that pre -dated the current one. The ordinance that disallowed the construction of cellular towers in a residential area was enacted in January, 1992 and remained until the current ordinance. There is no ordinance in place that would provide for the preservation of trees on the site. Mr. Quinn recommended that the petitioner look at a school site north of 106 on Shelborne that might be more appropriate for the location of a tower. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the placement of additional towers in commercial districts on 32 and 421 and on 31 is warranted. Tom Yedlick stated that as he understands the Ordinance, a report is required to be submitted by an R.F. Engineer. That report should address the array of issues being discussed at present. Mr. Burroughs was not aware of that pertinent section of the Ordinance All the factors are based on the assumption that there is a tower in the area; a certification was submitted from an R.F. Engineer that there were no such structures, therefore item #4 is established s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 7 showing no other towers or structures in the vicinity that can provide this need. Mr. Burroughs did not believe that the Ordinance requires the submission of an R.F. study. The petitioner is willing to condition approval upon obtaining the "binding on the heirs" language limited to a 30 foot area around the compound rather than the entire property. Tom Yedlick suggested that this item be tabled until further study. Mr. Burroughs stated that Omnipoint is willing to build the tower to accommodate Sprint. Tom Yedlick was insistent that the petitioner work with Sprint to combine the towers into one location. There was further discussion regarding the Federal Government's ruling. Tom Yedlick asked if antennae were considered on the inside of the tower; Tim Haley, zoning and land acquisition manager for Omnipoint, responded that an inside antennae was considered. There are problems with limitations as to the number of carriers on the structure. At present, the maximum number is three; Carmel's ordinance calls for a potential of four co- locators at one site. Due to height restrictions, the area serviced is not as great and the number of towers would have to be increased. There was much discussion regarding proposed locations, co- locating, the area serviced and the number of towers to service an area. More towers provide more flexibility in designing the systems. Earlene Plavchak suggested that the Tower be disguised as something more in tune, visually, with the surroundings, perhaps a silo or watertower, etc. Mr. Haley responded that it was rather expensive and would make Omnipoint less competitive. In response to Jim Quinn's questions, Mr. Burroughs stated that the placement of the tower on the site is approximately 30 to 40 feet inside the trees in either direction. At the end of the lease term, the property owner could require the removal of the tower by the petitioner. Mr. Burroughs stated that Omnipoint has a 5 year lease with five options to renew for five years each at Omnipoint's election, or up to 25 years on the property. Mr. Burroughs asked for clarification of his earlier request for Mr. Quinn's recusal. Mr. Weinkauf explained that there were two alternatives to Mr. Burroughs' request. A Board member may move to have the Board recuse Mr. Quinn; or Mr. Quinn would have to voluntarily recuse himself. Jim Quinn moved to have the Board recuse him from this petition, based on Mr. Burroughs' request, seconded by Pat Rice. Mr. Quinn commented that his record of 8 or 9 years of public service in the community demonstrates that he has a keen working knowledge, particularly of this issue, and many others, irregardless of his personal feelings, and /or his impressions of an individuals quite eloquent presentation which he approved of and was impressive because it dealt with the s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 8 issues at hand rather than radio waves or any other thing, and Mr. Quinn found it to the point and on the issue, well put together, well thought out and well researched and an impressive presentation and not dealing necessarily with the merits. Pat Rice commented that she, too, had the same reaction, however, she did not show it as Mr. Quinn did, not because of either side presented, but rather the presentation itself- even though it may have been inappropriate. The motion for the Board to recuse Jim Quinn from the Omnipoint petition was defeated. Tom Yedlick asked that the petitioner furnish a report by an R.F. Engineer evaluating the request as to how it fits with the information presented height is a factor, distance is a factor, and coverage. Pat Rice asked that a report be submitted in terms of Special Exception decision No. 2 the use and value of the area adjacent to the premises under consideration will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner Ms. Rice also felt that there was not enough information available to make a determination whether or not the tower would substantially affect the value of the property of adjacent landowners. The Board requested further information from the petitioner in order to make a decision. The Board would like to be furnished with an industry grid showing the location of existing towers within the City of Carmel and Clay Township and the range of coverage. The existing tower locations would be helpful as well as projections where they might be located. Tom Yedlick questioned the nature of the hardship on Omnipoint if the tower is not approved. Mr. Burroughs responded that the petitioner had met with Mark Monroe and looked at various areas in Clay Township and sites that might be workable such as church towers, water towers, grain bins, etc. One of the sites was a fire station -the fire department simply said they were not interested in leasing their property. At this time, the Board took a five minute recess. Mr. Weinkauf asked if the petitioner were willing to have the Board vote on the motion on the floor or if the petitioner would prefer to attempt to submit additional information at the August meeting. Mr. Burroughs stated that the petitioner would attempt to submit additional information, but needed a clear understanding of exactly what the Board is requesting. Mr. Burroughs asked that the applicant not be the only provider of wireless service required to submit such information. Mr. Burroughs was concerned that the Board is requesting the applicant to furnish information about other companies' towers; it is not known how this information would be obtained. s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 9 Mr. Weinkauf stated that due to the hour and the items still remaining on the Agenda, another evening would be set aside to hear those items. Wednesday, July 28, 1999 is suggested for the special meeting and business would start with item 11h. The meeting would be in Council Chambers. Mr. Burroughs agreed to TABLE SE- 32 -99, V- 33 -99, and V- 34 -99. Jim Quinn moved to hear item 8h. at this time before proceeding with the regular Agenda. APPROVED 5 -0. Jim Quinn recommended to the Board that all items listed on the BZA Agenda for July 26, 1999, with the exception of lh 2h 2a 3h 4h and 8h remain open for public comment and extended to the special meeting on Wednesday, July 28 APPROVED 5 -0. 8h. Lakes at Hazeldell Clubhouse (SU- 37 -99) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to construct a private recreation facility in an S -1 residential district. The site is located at the intersection of Hazel Glen and West Lake Boulevard. Filed by Richard Henderson of The Schneider Corporation. Richard Henderson of The Schneider Corporation, 3020 No. Post Road, Indianapolis appeared before the Board representing Zaring Homes. Approval is being requested for an amenity area at the Lakes at Hazeldell Subdivision, located on either side of Hazeldell Parkway, on the south side of 126 Street. The special use is on the west side of the project just inside the entrance area off Hazeldell Parkway. Within the special use area is a grassed playing field area, a basketball court, swimming pool, and pavilion with a parking area providing 14 spaces. The required spaces are based on the open space in the Ordinance and numbers 11. There are also a number of sidewalks that will connect within the roadways and common areas within the development to provide pedestrian access to the pool, pavilion building, basketball court, etc. The parking lot also provides for a turn- around area for access to the pool. The pavilion will be constructed of red brick with a gray, shingled roof, consisting of bathroom facilities, storage area and equipment room for the pool. The pool has an iron fence around the perimeter. The lighting consists of only those street lights proposed within the subdivision that are provided by Public Service Indiana. There is no special lighting proposed for the pool or parking lot. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the proposed development; none appeared. Terry Jones reported that all Technical Advisory Committee matters have been addressed and the Department has no further issues with the project. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of SU- 37 -99, Lakes at Hazeldell Clubhouse. s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 10 There were questions as to the size of the pool (48'X30') and whether or not there would be a lifeguard on duty or if the residents would have a key. Mr. Weinkauf commented that the Board has seriously considered making recommendations to the City Council concerning restrictions on minimum size of pools. In order to participate in neighborhood competitive swim leagues, the minimum size would be 75 feet in length and 24 or 25 feet in width to provide four lanes. Mark Schumaker with Zaring Homes responded that previous communities developed by Zaring have not included a pool as large as that being suggested. The proposed pool is more a social gathering place rather than a competitive one. There will not be a lifeguard on duty. Richard Henderson stated that the capacity of the pool is one person per 10 square feet. Mr. Schumaker commented that based on other communities and previous experience, the maximum usage is approximately 40% of the residents. Mr. Quinn stated that as it relates to the Findings of Fact for the Special Use, he did not feel that it was inappropriate for a Board Member to say that the pool size is inversely related to the size of the community and therefore may present a risk to the health, safety and welfare of the people who would reside within the subdivision. Pat Rice asked if there were any standards in terms of size of swimming pools. Terry Jones responded that there were no standards other than those indicated by Mr. Henderson for the calculation of capacity. There was further discussion and concerns expressed by the Board as to an unguarded pool, the risk factor, liability, key entry, and the serious threat to the public's health, safety and general well being of the community. Jim Quinn moved for the re- ordering of Agenda items 6h, 7h, 9h and 10h to the Wednesday meeting of July 28 There was discussion on Mr. Quinn's motion to perhaps hear those items at the August meeting rather than Wednesday, the 28 of July. Jim Quinn's motion was APPROVED 5 -0. Mark Schumaker of Zaring Homes stated that Zaring was willing to incorporate into the covenants and restrictions that a lifeguard must be on duty at all times, paid out of the HomeOwnersAssociation account. NOTE: This restriction is enforceable by the property owners and not by the City. s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 11 Jim Quinn suggested that the Board make a statement to the Carmel City Council requesting that the Council send to the Plan Commission an Ordinance for review that creates proportionality in pool sizes within subdivisions. Earlene Plavchak stated that the main issue is not the size of the pool -it is public safety and health risk. There was further discussion on the size of the pool being proposed and whether or not the petitioner would be willing to increase the size, if not the depth, at least the length. Mr. Schumaker stated that he would look into increasing the length to 60 feet, however 75 feet would take away from the green space area behind the deck and the walks. Mr. Schumaker also stated that he could address the safety issues but as far as changing what has already been designed, he personally cannot accomplish that without getting other persons involved. Jim Quinn moved to continue Docket No. SU- 37 -99, Lakes at Hazeldell Clubhouse, to Wednesday, July 28 APPROVED 5 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 PM. Ramona Hancock, Secretary Charles W. Weinkauf, President s:ABZA \Minutes \1999ju1y26 12