Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
19 September 2006
7:00 p.m.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present:        Robert Emerson, Jane Huber, Marjorie Harlow
Jim Squires, Bob Weidlich and Chairman Okum

Members Absent:        William Reichert

Mr. Okum stated that Mr. Reichert is out of town.

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE


IV. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 15 AUGUST 2006

Mrs. Huber moved to adopt and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

V. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Zoning Bulletin – August 10, 2006
B. Zoning Bulletin – August 25, 2006
C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – August 8, 2006

VI. REPORTS

A. Report on Council – No Report
B. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum reported that the Golden Leaf project was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Outdoor display at Lowe’s was discussed and continued to the October meeting. Vineyard Church addition to existing building was very well done and approved. The Enterprise Rent-A-Car project (previous Gateway Mortgage) received approval contingent upon their getting the variance from this board for side yard setback.

VII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS

VIII. OLD BUSINESS

IX. NEW BUSINESS

A. Approval of variance to allow the placement of a swimming pool 9’-6” feet from the property line at 376 Cameron Road. Said variance is requested from Section153.488(C) (1) “..shall be located 15 feet from the rear or side lot line.”

Craig Broenner approached the board and said I had a permit approved for the pool to be 15 feet off the property line. The excavator noticed underground electric lines closer than the 15 feet so they placed the pool 9’-6” from the property line, and we need a variance.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE TWO

IX A SWIMMING POOL 9’-6” FROM PROPERTY LINE – 376 CAMERON ROAD

The staff comments were read by Mrs. Webb. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow their 18’ x 33’ above-ground swimming pool to remain at 9’-6” from the side lot line (south). Section153.488( C ) (1) requires pools and their equipment to be located not less than 15’ from the side or rear lot lines.

A permit was issued for the pool and the site plan indicated the required 15’ minimum setback from both side lot lines. When an inspection was made of the installation, Building Inspector Gordon King found the pool to be only 9’-6” from the fence on the south property line. The owner was advised to move the pool to comply with the Zoning Code or seek a variance.

The applicant has indicated that the installer placed the pool in the current location because of underground electric lines. The national Electric Code requires underground wiring to be 5’ minimum from the inside wall of the pool unless it serves the pool. The applicant shows the underground wiring to be 8’ from the pool, and has indicated that a pool was located in this general location in the 1980’s. We have no record of a permit for a previous swimming pool on this property.

There are a few points that may not be readily evident on what has been presented. For example, both the approved site plan and the revised site plan show the pool to be 20’-6” from the north property line. The discrepancy lies in the incorrect lot width dimension that the applicant showed on the approved site plan at 54’. The correct lot width is 50’. Please note also that if the pool were to be located as required on the actual 50’ lot, it would allow the pool location to be shifted only +/-2’ (15” + 33’ = 48’).

Should the board choose to approve this variance, the distance should be clarified (9.5’ or 10’).

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if it were 9.5 or 10 feet and Mr. Broenner answered that it is 9’-6”.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed it.

Mrs. Huber moved to grant the variance and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Mrs. Huber said since we are not allowed to go on the property, it was difficult to see where the pool is. Mr. Broenner answered it is 200 feet from the front of the lot.

Mr. Okum asked where the power lines are running and Mr. Broenner answered that they run from the garage to the shed, 12 feet off the right hand property line.

Mr. Okum said so the pool itself could not be placed any closer to the property line because of the electrical lines in the way, and this created a hardship.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE THREE

IX A SWIMMING POOL 9’-6” FROM PROPERTY LINE – 376 CAMERON ROAD

Mr. Squires commented it is clear that it would be expensive to move that pool two feet. How much would it cost?

Mr. Broenner answered I would say it is close to the cost of the pool if not more.

Mrs. Harlow commented I can understand the situation, and I do not have a problem with this.

On the motion to grant the variance, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Approval of variance to allow the construction of a driveway closer than 10 feet from the non-residential property line at Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 12123 Princeton Pike. Said variance is requested from Section153.502( C) “..In no case..shall..access drives be located closer than…10 feet from any non-residential property line….”

Kelly Simon of Enterprise said the revised site plan indicates that the drive is wider at the front and narrows down in the back so that the asphalt is 10 feet from the property line in the back.

The point where the asphalt is the widest is where the drive is next to the building because we are looking for a two-lane clearance for safety.

The staff comments were read by Mrs. Webb. This property is zoned General Business, and the applicant is proposing to redevelop a portion of the property for their business. Redevelopment includes demolition of a portion of the front of the building and constructing a new store front and parking field in front of the building. Additional pavement is also proposed for a portion of the south drive aisle to obtain a 24’ wide aisle. It is this improvement that generates the need for a variance.

The existing pavement is currently non-conforming with regard to pavement setback from property lines in several locations on the north and south sides. The proposed plan causes the south setback to be less conforming and therefore requires a variance.

The Planning Commission issued a conditional approval of the Enterprise development plan on September 12, 2006. One of the conditions was acquiring a variance for this pavement setback.

Should the Board decide to grant this variance, it should be specific to the south property line only.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Okum said they mentioned the .77% impervious surface approval by our board. By taking part of the building out in the front, the green space area will be increased.


BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE FOUR

SETBACK FOR DRIVEWAY ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 12123 PRINCETON

Mr. Okum added the safety issue was a concern for Planning in terms of ingress and egress. If there is a solid wall, even though it is 21 or 24 feet, you tent to stay away from the wall.

Mrs. Harlow moved to grant the variance for a 24 foot wide aisle driveway closer than 10 feet from the e south property line as indicated on the attached drawing. Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Approval of variance to allow the conversion of a garage to living space at 919 Ledro Street. Said variance is requested from Section 153.105(B) “A single two-car garage..is required.”

Steve Garity of 919 Ledro Street stated I want to convert a 7’ x 9’ garage door to a 7’ x 3’ entrance door. The new door would mean an energy savings for us.

Mrs. Webb read the staff comments. The property is zoned Residential Single Household – High Density and the current district requirements state that the dwelling has a minimum 400 s.f. garage. The existing dwelling is non-conforming in that it only has a one-car garage, which was required prior to the Zoning Code amendments adopted in2000.

The applicant is requesting to replace the 9’ wide x 7’ high garage door with a 3’ wide x 7’ high pedestrian door. The applicant is not clear as to whether the garage was previously converted to living space without a variance, or if this is the initial conversion of the garage. We have no record of a previous variance.

The applicant has not indicated what use is proposed for the garage, or what the construction on each side of the 3’ door will consist of. This information should be considered by the Board.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Huber moved to grant the variance and Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Mr. Weidlich asked if this is a new conversion, and Mr. Garity answered that it would be new. Mr. Squires asked the number of cars at the residence, and Mr. Garity said one.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires asked if he couldn’t save energy by insulating thoroughly. Mr. Garity answered no, because of the heat loss when you open and close the garage door.

Mr. Weidlich added there have been a number of people who get variances who retain a portion of the garage for storage. Will you do the same? Mr. Garity said no.


BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE FIVE

CONVERSION OF GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE – 919 LEDRO STREET

Mrs. Harlow asked the material that would be used on both sides of the new door. Mr. Garity answered it will be a pressure treated wood frame with metal lapping cement and stone.

Mr. Emerson said evidently you will have two front doors on the front of your house, and Mr. Garity confirmed this.

Mr. Okum asked how many cars can fit in the driveway the garage, and Mr. Garity responded two in the driveway and one in the garage. Mr. Okum wondered if he had a storage shed, and Mr. Garity answered that he did, a 10’ x 10’.

Mr. Okum said we have had applications for conversions and there have been conditions placed on them because of storage issues and adequate off-street parking as well as change in appearance. Would you remove the concrete along the front of the door and place landscaping in the area for appearance. There have been other variances granted on properties in Heritage Hills and The Terrace.

Mr. Okum commented I would much rather see you increase your garage space and use it for storage with insulation in the wall. I lived in Heritage Hills and I know those homes had no insulation. I am more concerned about the availability of storage and the look of the home. If you were to create a small storage room and keep the garage door, you could have that plus a family room. This door is very attractive; is your other door similar? Mr. Garity answered I could match them up.

Mr. Squires asked if he had a need for additional living space. Mr. Garity answered this would be a work area as much as a living area.

Mr. Okum commented it appears that you could have matching front doors. Do you have any problem with eliminating the concrete and having landscaping on both sides? Mr. Garity answered no. Mr. Okum added I would rather see a change in the brick facing to match the brick on the house. Mr. Garity said fine, I like that too.

Mr. Okum said Mr., Garity has indicated that he would remove the concrete and have additional landscaping in front of the space. He also would change the opening sides between the overhead door space and the new door to be brick of a similar color to match the existing brick.

Mr. Garity commented I think that is overkill. I would rather the brick is straight up. Weaving it in is not my strength.

Mrs. Harlow commented the concrete goes all the way back to the foundation. Will it look funny to have it removed three feet on each side of the opening of the door?

Mr. Okum commented it would be a hard match for the brick. Mrs. Harlow added I would rather see something else than the brick that might not really match. I would like to see something that would complement it and not be an eye catcher.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE SIX

CONVERSION OF GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE – 919 LEDRO STREET

Mr. Okum said the applicant has indicated synthetic stone. Mrs. Harlow commented I have seen some that are bricked up the door and some are good and some not so good.

Mr. Emerson suggested a window rather than a door. Mr. Garity answered I would consider a window and a door, not a window only. Mr. Emerson responded a bay window would add to the look of the house. Mr. Garity answered I like the freedom of movement

Mr. Okum said the extenuating circumstance is that he wants the additional space for a workshop and living area. He has agreed with the brick, but Mrs. Harlow said the removal of concrete would make it look a little strange. Mrs. Harlow said I would like to see him soften that somewhat, but that is up to him. Mr. Okum said he prefers to do the stone because he might have problems matching the brick.

Mrs. Harlow moved to amend the motion to include that the two matching doors and front façade be of stone or matching brick. Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the motion was amended.

On the amended motion, all present voted aye, and the variance as granted with six affirmative votes.

D.    Approval of variance to allow the construction of a fence 6’-10” to 7’-2 ½” on the west and north sides of the property at 388 Naylor Court. Said variance is requested from Section153.482(B) “fences and walls shall not exceed six feet in height…”

Robert Percival owner of the property approached the board.

Staff Comments – The property is zoned Residential Single Household – Low Density and the applicant is requesting to install a wood “dog ear” privacy fence around a portion of the rear yard.

The applicant is proposing to increase the height of the fence to 6’-10” high at the northwest corner and gradually increase to 7’- 2 ½” at the northeast corner. Section 153.482(E) allows fences to be constructed to a maximum 6’ height.

Typical installation of the fence would involve stepping the sections of fence at each post to accommodate grade changes. For the minimal grade changes indicated, the stepped fence section would be barely noticeable (14 ½” in 56’). The applicant’s proposal is to construct the top of the fence level. It is not clear how the difference in height will be made up at the bottom of the fence.

The applicant’s reason for the request is because of the loss in privacy due to the top of the fence being 14 ½” lower at the back corner.





BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE SEVEN

CONSTRUCTION OF FENCE 6’-10” TO 7’-2 ½” – 388 NAYLOR COURT

Mr. Percival said we plan on using 8’ boards on the back and trimming it at the bottom so it remains level at the top of the fence.
On the west side it will be 6’-10” on to the east at 7’-2 ½”.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Weidlich moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.

Mr. Percival added the six-foot fence is at the end of the swimming pool right now, and then it drops off. There is a privacy fence along the neighbor’s back yard, so they will not notice it. The pool was constructed about 10 to 14 inches above ground based on the topography. We plan to landscape along the back of the fence. The neighbor at 329 Cameron Road would be the only one who could see this, and they have a six-foot fence along there. The Lutheran Church is behind this area.

We are doing this for privacy. Once we build the deck, the height of the fence would be consistent and it would be around the pool.
Mr. Squires said so the fence would be six feet high from the deck.

Mr. Percival said on the northeastern corner, there is a six foot gate to have access to the storage building. That 7’-2” height would terminate at the gate. We also have a drainage situation where we have water puddling now because of the landscaping next door.

.Mr. Okum said this is an unusual request. I do not see how you will have privacy. Mr. Percival responded once the deck is built the fences would look funny. This is for aesthetics as much as anything else.

Mr. Okum commented I am trying to understand who it will affect, but I cannot see that it will affect anyone, and under 30% of the fence will be higher than the code allows.

On the motion to approve, all present voted aye, and the variance as granted with six affirmative votes.

E.    Approval of variance to allow a home business at 288 West Kemper Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.488 (C) “Only members of the household residing within the dwelling shall work or assist in the occupation.”

Mr. Bremanis said my wife and I are the only ones who would be
working on that property. There would not be customers dropping
off checks since everything comes through the mail. A couple of employees would be driving the trucks home so they would not be on the property.






BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE EIGHT

HOME OCCUPATION USE – 288 WEST KEMPER ROAD - continued

Staff Report - The subject property is zoned Residential Single Household – Low Density (RSH-L). The applicant is requesting a variance from the Zoning Code requirements for home occupations (153.486); however, the applicant has not provided adequate information with regard to his home occupation to determine the necessity for a variance.

The restrictions under the home occupation Section 153.486 include:

1. The use must be incidental and subordinate to the residential use on the property.
2. The occupation is conducted wholly within a building (no outside storage.
3. The space used for the home occupation may not occupy more than 20% of the gross floor area of the building. This would mean that the business equipment and supplies should not exceed 360 s.f. of the recently approved garage. Or, if the garage and house are combined, not more than 840 s.f.
4. Only household members residing in the residence shall work or assist in the occupation.
5. The residential character of the property shall not be changed.
6. The number of vehicles attracted to the premises (customers) shall not exceed two at any time, excluding delivery vehicles.
7. No expansion of off-street parking is permitted.

We believe that the applicant may be requesting a variance from item #4 above and maybe item #3.

With regard to #4, the Springdale Building Department has not precluded home occupations to have employees who do not reside on the property, provided they do not visit the residential property for any reason, including coming to pick up equipment or to be dispatched from the property to a job site. We have experienced violations of this kind on several recurring occasions. They include:

a) An HVAC contractor on Ledro Street where his six employees would park on the street and congregate in the front yard of the residence until they were dispatched in company vehicles from the property.
b) A tree service on Harmony Avenue where equipment was parked on the street and employees would come to load up and be dispatched from the property.
c) A lawn irrigation contractor with similar violations as indicated in b above.

The intent of the home occupation provisions in the Zoning Code is to allow a resident to operate an extremely limited business from his home with very little impact on adjacent residences and very little visible signs of the occupation from the exterior.



BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE NINE

HOME OCCUPATION USE – 288 WEST KEMPER ROAD - continued

Conventional zoning applications would present that once the occupation grows to the point that employees are necessary or additional space is required, the business should be located in a business district and not a residential district.

Should the Board decide that there is evidence of hardship meriting a variance, the limitations of use need to be specific, such as:

1) Number of employees coming to the residence.
2) Times employees may come to the residence.
3) Floor area that may be used for equipment and supplies related to the occupation.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Huber moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Harlow seconded the motion. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said the staff comments indicated that variances would be needed for the floor space needed for the business and the number of employees working on the property.

Mr. Bremanis responded that the work is not being done at the house. Only my wife and I would be working on the property. They do the work outside of the residence. Also, I would not need more than 20% of the building area for my business. I need a variance to allow my employees to come, get the equipment and then bring it back.

Mr. Squires asked where the employees would park, and Mr. Bremanis answered three of them are dropped off, and two will be driving the trucks in. They can park inside the garage once we bring the equipment out or on the concrete outside.

Mr. Weidlich commented so with the apron in front of the garage, there will not be a reason for the employees to back into your property, so there will not be any traffic tie ups.

Mr. Weidlich asked the number of crews, and Mr. Bremanis answered usually two every day, three if there are other landscaping jobs. A crew is two or three and usually three trucks. Nobody would even see us in the back yard.

Mrs. Harlow said you don’t have any reason to store pipe, mulch or gravel outside; everything would be inside the building. Mr. Bremanis answered yes, I needed the big building to store the equipment.

Mrs. Huber commented on our street (West Kemper Road) we have a gentleman who has his equipment and I don’t know how many employees. Down the street we have a single family residence with eight pick up trucks parked at any given time, and we don’t say anything about that. This is going to be in a confined building and the people come and leave. It is beyond me that we have such selective enforcement.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE TEN

HOME OCCUPATION USE – 288 WEST KEMPER ROAD - continued

Mr. Squires wondered if this were a seasonal business. Mr. Bremanis responded it is March to November. The only other thing is snowplowing in the winter months.

Mr. Emerson asked if when the equipment is in the garage to do maintenance, it would cause excess noise. Mr. Bremanis answered no, there is no noise.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said if there were conditions put on your variance concerning the number of employees, number of trucks and the hours, would that be a problem for you? Mr. Bremanis answered it would depend on the number of employees.

Mr. Okum said you are on Kemper Road, and you have a huge lot and a huge building. We as a board have to be concerned about long-time precedence. I do not want to legislate by variance what happens to Kemper Road. I don’t want to see Kemper Road turn into Nilles Road. When I was on Council, there was an enormous resistance to any change to Kemper Road.

I am also concerned about this board functioning as judges. I get aggravated when courts make laws by decision making. We should not be legislators.

I am concerned that by granting variances and ignoring requirements, we are establishing a major precedent.

Your hardship is self-imposed; you created the issue, but you have a class business, and everyone appreciates what you do in the community, but I am more concerned about the long term effects on this community. That is why this type of application is tough. I also understand your situation and that the properties on Kemper Road are unique. Possibly legislation should be looked at that would allow businesses like yours.

I think limitations are appropriate because of what type of business might come after you. I do not have an axe to grind. I have to look at the big picture and how this variance will affect this community long term. For us to be judges and in effect make legislation is not what should be done.

Mrs. Harlow commented this has been a difficult one for me. Addressing Mr. Okum, she added earlier you stated that by issuing a variance like this we were rewriting the code. We had a conversation with the law director and the mayor, and we were told that is exactly what this board is for. I brought up before council the possibility of adding an overlay district to oversized properties such as this one.

They said this is exactly what this board is for, so we do not have to rewrite the code. The purpose of this board is to offer relief for a property which does not fit the requirements.

I looked at the HVAC contractor on Ledro, and his property is only ¼ of an acre or less. The property on Harmony is not close either.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE ELEVEN

HOME OCCUPATION USE – 288 WEST KEMPER ROAD - continued

Mrs. Harlow added I have been on Harmony and you could not see the oncoming traffic. There is no parking on Kemper Road. There is a dog grooming business in Springdale and people go to the home, drop off their animals and come back and pick them up.
I don’t like the requirement on number of employees coming to the residence. What if he is successful and needs to increase his crew? I don’t want to see a huge convoy going out of there, but I don’t think that is what we are looking at, and I don’t want him to be limited. I don’t see a problem with setting out a time frame for the employees to come and go, that they not come before daylight and leave before dark. I do think we need to stipulate that he needs more square footage than currently allowed because of the size of his property and what he wants to use it for.

Mr. Emerson asked the applicant how long he had been in business, and Mr. Bremanis said 10 years. I started out with another guy and now have seven employees. Mr. Emerson commented I agree with the limitations, because if you would buy out another lawn care business, you might have a fleet of 10.
Mr. Bremanis responded I don’t plan on getting much bigger than now. If I would add all that, I don’t think it would fit in that building.

Mr. Emerson said if we approve and your business is booming, you will have trucks and trailers parked outside and employees coming to help maintain the business.

Mr. Bremanis said if you want to have limitations, I can live with it.

Mr. Squires said would it be appropriate to restrict the variance to a lawn care business only with no more than three trucks?

Mr. Okum responded I think three is way too limiting. Five trucks with trailers would be a more reasonable number. I don’t have a problem with making it for the landscaping business, or maybe landscaping and snow removal. Mr. Squires asked Mr. Bremanis if he could live with no more than five trucks and trailers. Mr. Bremanis indicated that he could.

Mr. Weidlich commented Mr. Bremanis is comfortable with five trucks for snow removable and landscaping usage. I would be 100% in agreement with that.

Mr. Okum said there are seven employees involved in the business; what about setting an employee limit of 10? Mr. Bremanis responded fine, since not all seven work year around.

Mr. Okum said in terms of the area allowed for the equipment, I think that you will need 60% of the garage for the business. Mr. Bremanis said we do not keep any of the trucks at the warehouse in the winter. The employees take them back to their homes.

Mr. Okum said I don’t like the dawn to dark time restriction. What about specific times? Mr. Bremanis reported we start at 8 a.m. so 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. would work very well. I would only need 60% of the floor area to store the equipment (1,080 s.f.)


BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
PAGE TWELVE

HOME OCCUPATION USE – 288 WEST KEMPER ROAD - continued

Mr. Okum said this is a unique property in size, but a use variance has to identify the unique conditions of the property specific to this use. That needs to be part of the deliberations incase this was ever challenged. The restriction for the equipment to be inside the garage is there.

Mr. Squires moved to amend the motion to include the following conditions:

1. That there be a maximum of 10 employees
2. Work hours shall be 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
3. 60% of the garage area shall be for business purposes
4. There shall be no more than five trucks

Mrs. Harlow seconded the motion.

On the amendment, all present voted aye, and this was approved 6-0. On the amended motion, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

X. DISCUSSION

Mrs. Huber said our not being allowed to go on the applicant’s property makes it very difficult. Mr. Okum commented I would like to see photographs depicting the applicant’s request. Mrs. Harlow added the applicant could submit photographs. Mr. Okum answered yes, but staff photos would be better, and I agree that we need pictures. You want to physically see it, but the danger is of expartee discussion with the applicant.

Mr. Weidlich added since we are employees of the Building Department, could one of us take on the responsibility for that? Mr. Okum wondered if someone could come onto the applicant’s property without discussing the project.

XI. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Weidlich moved to adjourn and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By voice vote, all resent voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,



______________________ 2006    __________________________
                    David Okum, Chairman



______________________,2006    __________________________
                    Jane Huber, Secretary