PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

January 2, 2007

County Board Room – Administrative Center

6:00 p.m. – 7:25 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

The recessed meeting and Public Hearing of the Planning, Resources and Development Committee was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Committee Chair George Hammes.  Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

Procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 759  Peggy S. and William G. Maricle  N6124 Apple Valley Rd  Onalaska WI.  Petition to operate a portrait studio in their home with outside landscaping used for settings, also requesting two small signs to be used on the shared driveway, all on land zoned Agricultural District “A”, on 1.79 acres described as: Lot 2 of Certified Survey Map No. 2 in Volume 2.  Town of Onalaska.

Appearing in favor:  Peggy Maricle  N6124 Apple Valley Rd  Onalaska  WI  54650.  Would like to use home as a studio specializing in children’s photography.  All photography is digital and is printed at an off-site lab.  Would use front yard, dining room, computer room for photography with clients, eventually create an “enchanted forest” in front woods.  Would require a walking path through the woods and steps leading up to the house.  Like to include small garden type landscaping in yard including small foot bridge, garden arbor, small section of split rail fence.  And possibly a short section of stone wall to use as settings.  Small unlit sign at bottom of driveway and since it is a shared driveway also asking to put a secondary sign at the split of the driveway to avoid confusion.  Plan to operate studio by appointment only, appointments available 9:00 am to 8:00 pm Mon-Fri and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Sat & Sunday.  Currently plan to limit schedule to 10 sessions per month to allow time with my children.  Would create similar traffic as if I were coming & going from a full time job.  Portrait studio would cause minimum noise, most photography indoors, outdoor photography noise would be normal conversation level.  Only lighting would be some outdoor fill flash but with woods shouldn’t disturb neighbors.  Usually one client on property at a time with rare occasion for extended family session, do have optional parking available.  Plan to keep studio small for time being.  Need no additional employees. 

Question RAUK: Could you elaborate on off street parking?

Answer MARICLE: At the garage I have enough room for 3 vehicles.

Question RAUK: In front of the garage?

Answer MARICLE: In front and then a spot to the side that is black topped.

Question RAUK: If you had 3 vehicles there how would they get out?  Back down the driveway one at a time?

Answer MARICLE: That’s how it’s been done before, yes.

Question BLUSKE: Peggy how would you describe your driveway and do you have an easement over neighbors land?

Answer MARICLE: What do you mean easement?

Question BLUSKE: Something recorded that says you can travel over that lot?  And do the neighbors, in turn have something that says they can travel over this portion (on map) of your property?

Answer MARICLE: Don’t know that there is anything in writing just that when we purchased the house it was declared as a shared driveway.

Opposition:

Eric Witzig  W6504 Woodland Pass  Onalaska  WI  54650.  Reads letter into record in opposition.  Eric and Leanne Witzig.  Conditional use would violate covenants of Apple Valley Estates II on file with La Crosse County Register of Deeds.  Vol 1476 PG 843 most recently extended on June 29, 2001.  Business use not compatible with residential use of the area.  Signs not compatible with land use of the area.  Concerned for business use in residential area.  Granting a conditional use could set a precedent for other business uses in the area.  Negative impact on property values of residential properties.

Question RAUK: Can you provide committee with any instance when covenants have ever been used to enforce in your area?

Answer WITZIG: Not aware if has or has not, have lived in this home for 6 years.  Believe original covenants date back to early 1970’s.

Dave Drazkowski  N6096 Apple Valley Rd  Onalaska  WI  54650.  To answer that previous question I believe they were used a few years back when someone in our area wanted to open a dog kennel covenants were used at the township level, I think, and as a result they were denied permission to open a kennel. 

Reads letter on file in opposition David & Lisa Drazkowski.  Covenants state lots to be used for residential use only.  Dead end roads in area naturally limit traffic, clients & customers would add additional traffic.  Town roads in area used frequently by residents.  Additional business traffic, from persons not familiar with the area will pose additional hazards to pedestrian use.  Covenants prohibit the use of advertising signs in this area.  Granting a conditional use would set a precedent for other home businesses in the area.  That will negatively impact property values. 

Question HANSON: Is there a committee that enforces these covenants over there that you know of?

Answer DRAZKOWSKI: Met as a neighborhood committee to renew these restrictions.

Question HANSON: So that’s the committee that would enforce?
Answer DRAZKOWSKI: We’re a little confused as to how this application got this far.

Reply HAMMES: Covenants are yours to enforce but something for our consideration.

Correspondence: Received December 19, 2006 from Town of Onalaska.  Town approves Maricle conditional use permit.

Department recommendation: Deny based on safety reasons.  Driveway very steep single lane, no turn-a-round area.  No legal easement for driveway.

Question BINA: Since this is more of an issue at local level than county, don’t you think town is going against own regulations put together when this addition put in there?  Shouldn’t they be monitoring this rather than us?

Remarks HAMMES: Covenants are done by the homeowners not by the town.

Question HANSON: Jeff, as we go through this zoning should be looking at what the caveats are in subdivisions?

Answer BLUSKE: As chairman stated that is something this committee could use to weigh if something should happen or not.  This committee, our department or the County cannot enforce local declarations of restrictions or covenants.  Up to the majority of the property owners.

Question HANSON: If someone in an area with a caveat that says they can’t have a business and they go through the application and the homeowners association or whoever is supposed to enforce it (covenants) isn’t aware of it and it goes through the town and the County and back to the homeowners association, where does their enforcement come in?  Is that a civil matter at that point?

Answer BLUSKE: It’s all civil.

Question HANSON: That would be a civil matter for the courts, even though we gave the approval that would be civil matter for the court to decide?

Answer BLUSKE: That’s right.

Motion by Rauk/Meyer to deny. 

Motion passed unanimously.

ZONING PETITION NO. 1736 Ferdinand L. Jr and Sam LA Roth  N5491 Moos Rd  Onalaska WI.  Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A”, a 38.49 acre parcel for continued single-family residential and horse ranch purposes, on land described as: Part of the W½-SE of Section 28, T 17 N, R 7 W described in tax parcels 10-760-4 and 10-762-1 for 2006.  Town of Onalaska.

Appearing in favor: Sam LA Roth  N5491 Moos Road  Onalaska  WI  54650.  Two years ago we were here kinda on the same subject, my son-in-law and daughter were going to use 35 acres to build a horse arena and home, I followed the County Zoning recommendations because some of

our land was AG “A” and some was Exclusive AG.  So when we went to rezone this they said, since they were going to have a 35 acre parcel and restrict this to horses and one house, I was told that we should go for Exclusive AG which was granted on February 28, 2005.  Since that time my son-in-law and daughter have bought a 10-acre ranch in Brussels, Belgium, so they will no longer be building in Wisconsin and so would like to change our land back to Agriculture “A”, potentially, down the road.  I am next to Krause Addition, don’t know if my land will ever be used for any such thing, right now just be used for our houses, no intention of changing anything, want it all to go back to AG “A” please.

Question HAMMES: Are you going to build a house on that?

Answer ROTH: No, our home is there now, it’s 40 acres, we were going to keep 5 and they would have 35. 

Roth indicates on map previous AG “A” area that was rezoned.

Opposition: None

Correspondence:  December 27, 2006   Town of Onalaska.  Roth appeared before Plan Commission but not the Town Board therefore no recommendation at this time.

Remarks SAM LA ROTH: Appeared at the Town Board meeting December 8, 2006.  Approved.  Thought this was all taken care of.

Remarks BLUSKE: I will verify with the Town.

Department Recommendation: Approve as conditional zoning for single family residential only.  Minimum lot size 2 acres contingent on Town approval.

Motion Meyer/Bina to approve as conditional zoning.

Question HANSON: If they want to develop that into a subdivision they would have to come back?

Answer BLUSKE: They could do that but plat would still be subject to this Committee’s approval.

Question HANSON: But with the 2 acres could go through without coming back here?

Answer BLUSKE: Yes.

Vote on motion. 

Motion passed unanimously.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 760 David L. and Monica L. Brecklin  N4371 Krause Rd  Bangor WI.  Petition to run a boarding establishment for 8-10 dogs in an existing 24' x 30' detached accessory building, on 4.8 acres zoned Agriculture District “A” and described as: Part of the SW-NW of Section 10, T 16 N, R 5 W described in tax parcel 1-199-0 for 2006.  Town of Bangor.

Appearing in favor:  Monica Brecklin  N4371 Krause Rd  Bangor WI  54614.  Have submitted some paperwork already, can review that.  Facility will be a 24-ft x 30-ft building, accommodate up to 8 dogs, each suite is a 6-ft x 6-ft room.  Door to each room is 5-ft high with 3-ft plexi-glass on top part.  Exterior walls are 10-ft, interior walls 8-ft high.  Ceiling above for proper ventilation.  Exterior of building has front entrance door with exterior lighting sign on the door.  Inside a door that leads to a covered dog run, dog run leads to a fences play area 10-ft x 30-ft.  Hours of operation for pick-up and drop off will be 4 – 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday.  Parking is in a 35-ft x 45-ft driveway black topped.  Anticipate limited traffic since scheduled times for drop-off & pick-up.  Safety of pet is of utmost concern.  Require that all dogs have an updated proof of vaccination from their veterinarian.  Sanitation of our facility kept to very high standard as well as outside.  Waste will be composted approximately 50 yards from the building.  Have spoken with all neighbors before this – copy of signatures from neighbors submitted.  As recently as yesterday one of Town Board members Robert Manke came to our home to discuss a few things because there was some confusion on procedures.  Assured him that this is not a breeding kennel.  That this is a doggy day-care, it’s babysitting.  No babies coming out of there, this is not a breeding establishment.  Have spoken with Animal Control, have made our application and paid the $65.00 fee, so we are waiting on that. 

Question HANSON: Why the television?

Answer BRECKLIN: There are people who leave the TV on when they leave the house so the dog doesn’t tear the place apart.  TV comforts the dogs.

Question HANSON: On south side of building, looked like a cement sidewalk going south?

Answer BRECKLIN: That was dug up for the electrical – trench dug.

Question HANSON: Where is that play area?

Answer BRECKLIN:  Side entrance where the concrete is – will be part concrete and part grass, will be all fenced, will face our house.

Question BINA: Compost pile located not near creek or anything?

Answer BRECKLIN: No, no creek on our property.

Question RAUK: List of signatures – did signature indicate they agreed or just that you had communicated with them?

Answer BRECKLIN: Actually took this paperwork with us that we had submitted to you and went to each home to make sure they were all ok. 

Question BLUSKE: Sounds like you contacted County Health Department for inside standards.

Answer BRECKLIN: Yes – will meet all standards.

David Brecklin   N4371 Krause Rd  Bangor  WI  54614.  Here in favor. 

Opposition: None

Remarks Town Chair KEN MANKE:  We did not have knowledge of this until we received a notice, no action on this yet.  Board meeting will be January 15, 2007.  Request extension.

Remarks HAMMES: So this will go to the February business meeting after we hear from the Town.

Department recommendation: Approve with 13 conditions.

Motion Bina/Meyer to approve with conditions pending Town approval.

Motion passed unanimously.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 762 Leslie J. and Nancy J. Manske  W4839 Chipmunk Rd N  Stoddard WI.  Petition to strip, stockpile and sell topsoil from their farm on 4.96 acres zoned Exclusive Agricultural District, lying Easterly of a previous Conditional Use Permit No. 342 for the same purpose, on land described as: Part of the SE-SW of Section 31,

T 15 N, R 6 W commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 31; thence East along the south line thereof, 650'; thence North 450' to the northwest corner of existing Conditional Use Permit 342; thence S 87° 43' E 750' to the northeast corner thereof and the pob: Thence North 202.87'; thence S 67° 34' 35'' E 645.58'; thence S 11° 24' 11'' W 291.41'; thence Northwesterly 551.6', more or less, to the southeast corner of said Conditional Use Permit No. 342; thence North 250' to the pob.  Town of Shelby.

Appearing in favor: Les Manske  W4839 Chipmunk Road N  Stoddard  WI  54658.  Would like to continue to remove black dirt from North Chipmunk.  We’ve been removing it for many years and we are pretty much out of the area that we were working in and actually have been into this area a little bit already, unknowingly.  Checked with the neighbors, don’t think anyone opposed to it, talked to Jeff Brudos, Town Administrator, a while back and he said they didn’t have any problem with it.

Question BLUSKE:  Excavation across road from driveway here (indicates on overhead), area here being excavated as well.  What’s going on here?

Answer MANSKE: There is a plumber that got a little bit of material there because it was clay for a mound in the valley.  I just told him he could have it, probably shouldn’t have I realized later.

Question BLUSKE: This area right now is not included even in this application. 

Answer MANSKE:  No, but that’s not an ongoing thing there, we can close that up, just shape a little and seed it, I can do that.

Remarks BLUSKE: For Committee’s information this is the area of the first conditional use permit, this shaded area on the map.  Asking to expand to this area (indicates on map).

Remarks MANSKE: I think that this is about half the size of that original area.

Question RAUK: Work has already started, what have you done about after-the-fact approval?

Remarks MANSKE: Fees paid to date.

Remarks WEIBEL: Treated this as an ongoing permit that needed to be modified to include this area not as a new permit after-the-fact.

Question RAUK: Upper black line on map parallel to Chipmunk Road, to me seems to be very snugged up to Chipmunk Road and that is a very steep embankment from road to your property.  I’d be concerned if you started removing a lot of dirt.  You would be engendering some serious erosion issues especially along the length of that line.  Why do you feel it needs to be that far to the north along the road?
Answer MANSKE: The reason I wanted it that high was that when I get done taking dirt below I can go up there and rob enough black dirt to use to cover and still continue to farm that.  There is also an area in that existing barrow area that needs some shaping and topsoil to get that back to where I can plant some corn there next summer.  Weren’t able to get that done.

Opposition: None

Correspondence: August 2, 2006 letter from Department of Natural Resources regarding a July 2006 site visit – record read into record.

DNR requirements for the site are enumerated.

Department recommendation: Referral until compliance with DNR requirements for previous site.

Question HANSON: If we delay this what kind of date do we use?

Answer BLUSKE: Just as soon not have a date but after compliance with DNR requirements.

Motion Hanson/Kapanke to defer until site is in compliance with DNR requirements.

Question BINA: That wouldn’t be automatic, may take 6 months until he’s done then he comes in automatically, he doesn’t reapply?

Answer BLUSKE: When we find he’s in compliance with the last site, not allowing anything additional until the previous site is done.

Remarks HAMMES: This is a referral.  Wouldn’t reapply; will come back with same number.

Question RAUK: Full compliance with previous but also enumerated some written documented plans required for the new one that have not occurred yet.

Answer BLUSKE: Right, this is something different that this committee isn’t used to seeing, the proximity of this site to the creek.  DNR regulates the nonmetallic site, not La Crosse County or this Committee.

Question MEYER: Does Mr. Manske understand all this – maybe set it up and meet with him to explain all this.

Answer BLUSKE: Yes he can come in and we’ll go over this.

Vote on motion

Motion passed unanimously.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 763 Mark Anderson  W6668 Hidden Valley Rd  Holmen WI, acting on behalf of Thomas A. and Sharon L. Anderson, W6668 Hidden Valley Rd  Holmen WI.  Petition to operate a massage therapy business in the existing residence at W6668 Hidden Valley Rd, on land zoned Agricultural District “A” and Transitional Agriculture District described as: Part of the SW-NE of Section 17, T 17 N, R 7 W described in tax parcel 10-341-1 for 2006.  Town of Onalaska.

Appearing in favor: Mark Anderson  W6668  Hidden Valley Rd   Holmen WI  54636.  Petition to use part of family home that I live in to work as a massage therapist.  Have attended school for last 2 years in Rochester at Healing Touch Therapeutic Massage School and this last year attended the East – West Massage School in Madison, Wisconsin.  Have traveled to China and have been trained in Chinese Foot Reflexology.  Summary of impacts – business inside the home, one on one business, little impact to surrounding properties.  One car at a time, could use our driveway to come up, sufficient parking available off-street.  Appointment only business, assume no more than 4-5 cars a day, most ever customers might be 6 in a day, but again may only be a few a month.  No signs or lights, overall very small impact to surrounding properties. 

Question RANK: Where exactly would you ask your customers to park?

Answer ANDERSON: Indicates on map area for parking – driveway locations.

Question BLUSKE:  Area used inside the house?

Answer ANDERSON: Will operate a therapeutic massage room that is about 14-ft x 20-ft, will be on first level of the home, entrance would be through a side door directly into the business.  Right side rear sliding glass door as entry.  Be using a therapeutic massage table, therapeutic massage chair, some tools for foot reflexology, sheets for the table, lotions for massage.  Know acupressure, would work with some people with chronic pain.  Again just finished school here, this is a start for me, would like to be able to work in my home as a therapeutic massage therapist. 

Question BLUSKE: So you have national certificate for training, do you have a State license or license from the County?

Answer ANDERSON: I’m applying for that, I haven’t taken them yet.  I know that until I’m certified you can say that you are a massage practitioner.   Again, these are tests I’m going to be taking so I can be certified as a massage therapist.

Question BLUSKE: The 14-ft x 20-ft room is the only room to be used?  Not used by anyone else?

Answer ANDERSON: No, would enter there would be a door so I could exit while they disrobe and to get on the table for the massages, then I would come back in.  The use of the home would be downstairs, enter what I would call the office or reception area, then I would take them into the therapeutic massage room, explain to them the massage techniques and determine type of massage.  So it would be the 14-ft x 20-ft massage room and the small entry area for introductions and to profile them.

Opposition:  Paul Berge  W6664 Hidden Valley Rd  Holmen  WI.  Have nothing against capitalism, want to know a few more things.  Right down here (points out on map) there’s an easement between us, we own the easement between us and Sutherlands.  Cars come down there right on the corner where Hidden Valley Road is kind of a blind corner, that’s one concern.  If there was a lot of traffic, that’s a north slope there and can get slippery.  For safety reasons I was worried about that.  The other worry was already Rupprecht owns that up through here (indicates on map).  They have an interior decorating business that I think he’s moving, not sure if that’s grandfathered in.  Last summer we had a lot of UPS traffic, kind of a noise issue.  You move out in the country for the quiet so I didn’t like that a lot.  The other concern with one business already on that road, if we were trying to sell our property, kind of a repeat of the Apple Valley deal.  People may be skeptical of having 2 businesses out in the country like that, or semi-country.  I don’t know what the other neighbors think, it is a cul-de-sac community, want to keep the traffic down for noise and quality of life.  Don’t know how many, Mark said 4-6.  Didn’t know if he was working alone, be more people coming and going than he thought.  For that Ruppecht thing I was told just car traffic.  I didn’t come to the meeting.  Turned out to be UPS traffic and truck traffic.  So I guess in a nutshell my concerns are safety at the bottom of the driveway, that’s kind of a blind corner and it’s a steep hill, cars coming in 3 directions there.  Other one is property value, don’t know if this would impact that at all, hard to say if someone was looking at your property and it had 2 businesses behind it.  Those are basically my concerns. 

Question HAMMES: Does he have a conditional use up there, Rupprecht?

Answer BLUSKE: Rupprecht did have one for there but that was moved to a new property located in the Town of Holland. 

Remarks HAMMES: They’ve moved that, that’s done now.

Remarks BERGE: That was one of my concerns.  If that’s gone I’d be less worried.  If there would only be one then my concern would be for the safety of the driveway.

Discussion by Committee and Berge regarding Berge Driveway location.

Remarks BLUSKE: Hoping Tom Anderson  W6668 Hidden Valley Road   would appear even though we have a written statement that he is in favor.  I have some questions.

Appearing in favor: Tom Anderson  W6668 Hidden Valley Road  Holmen WI.

Question BLUSKE: Are you in favor Tom?

Answer T. ANDERSON: Yes I am.

Question BLUSKE: Looks like another business being run there with the schools for car training or drivers licensing?

Answer T. ANDERSON: Not really a business run up there.

Question BLUSKE: Why would cars be there then?
Answer T. ANDERSON: Well, like WWTC they want me to take the driver ed car home, they don’t want me driving back down there.  Most driver ed trainers at TC do take the cars home.  For Anderson Driving School our business is at 307 Ryan Street but I bring the car home.

Question BLUSKE: Like the other petition earlier tonight, do you have a maintenance agreement with the other neighbors that use that driveway?  Didn’t look like any gravel on the road.  Who does maintenance and plowing on that road?

Answer T. ANDERSON: Rupprecht used to plow that and when he built up there I used to have a blacktopped one.  He wanted to dig it up and brought in a black gravel type mix and that’s what’s laying on top of that and goes all the way up to his house.

Question BLUSKE: So there is no maintenance agreement between the two of you?

Answer T. ANDERSON: No, not really, I guess I would have to take care of mine.

Correspondence: Town of Onalaska – e-mail received.  No recommendation.  Have not appeared before Town Plan Commission or Town Board.

Department recommendation: Bluske reviews Health Department requirements for licensing.  Our issue is basically safety reasons.  Recommend denial for safety reasons.  If we project the number of cars based on 4 or 5 clients that would be 100 cars a month on this site.  Site has no driveway maintenance agreement, if the Committee does decide to approve this there would have to be a maintenance agreement because this is a commercial activity on a private road, a private residential road and we have to recommend denial based on that right now.

Question BINA: You seemed pretty definite Mr. Chairman that these other people behind them were moving.  Do you know that for a fact or not?

Remarks HAMMES: They were here and applied for a conditional use permit, what two months ago.  It’s in the Town of Holland, it’s been approved.  It’s up by the Holland Air Park. 

Remarks BINA: Ok well then if they were not moving the conditions you’ve stated (Bluske) would have to apply too.  But if they are definitely moving then it doesn’t make any difference.

Motion Rauk/Keil to deny.

Question HANSON: If this is denied he could still come back in a year after making some of these changes?

Answer BLUSKE: Yes, they could have some of those things in order, lined up.

Question RAUK: Is there some action we could take that would not force them to wait a full year?  If they wanted to come in, figure out what conditions required and achieve compliance.

Answer HAMMES: The only other thing they could do would be withdraw it.

Remarks BLUSKE: Maybe Mark didn’t see this because Tom made the application, in the requirement for an application that we go through there is a statement about withdrawing the application if it looks like it may fail.  If they do get things in order, satisfy the concerns that are there, talk to Rupprecht, they have to also disclose to a potential buyer that there is a commercial use of that easement that they have to give because they enjoy the use of that easement and it has to be unobstructed.  So if they are going to encounter someone else that should be taken care of as well.  So withdrawal or referral, it’s up to the Committee.  They would need to make a new application if it’s deferred.  They would pay the additional fee for publication and mailing to bring it back up again.

Question MEYER: Jeff you said one of your concerns was safety.  Is that on the road on their property or on the other road?

Answer BLUSKE: On the road on their property.

Question MEYER: So it’s the safety concern on their property that you’re asking them to deal with?

Answer BLUSKE: Well the neighbor had stated a concern for his driveway, the neighbor’s driveway and the town road all coming together there but that’s not what I’m addressing on this property.

Question MEYER: So if we went with referral Tom would have to withdraw his motion.  Would you put a time limit on that?

Answer BLUSKE: Referral or withdrawal?  Withdrawal would be cleaner.

Remarks MEYER: Yes, that’s what I was thinking too.

Remarks BLUSKE: But they have to request that or otherwise wait a year.

Remarks HAMMES: Do you understand what we’re saying Tom?  You’ve heard the concerns from the Department.  If you withdraw it you can reapply.  If we go ahead and it is denied then you have to wait a year before you can bring it back.

Question T. ANDERSON: Then we would have to pay the $310.00 next time?

Answer BLUSKE: Yes.

Question MEYER: So what’s the motion on the floor now?
Question T. ANDERSON: If I withdraw who do I meet with?

Answer HAMMES: All you have to do is tell us you wish to withdraw this then you can meet with Jeff.

Remarks T. ANDERSON: At this time I would like to withdraw the application.

RAUK: I will withdraw my motion.

KEIL: Withdraw second.

Motion Kapanke/Meyer to accept request to withdraw Anderson conditional use application.  Motion passed unanimously. 

Motion Hanson/Meyer to adjourn.

Motion passed unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.

Mike Weibel, Recorder