MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1994

Mayor Broun called the hearings to order. Council Members in attendance were Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Lee Pavão, Barbara Powell, Jim Protzman and Rosemary Waldorf. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Development Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Item 1 Public Forum on Land-Use Plans for University Development

Expressing concern that some citizens had received only one day's notice of the hearing, Council Member Brown suggested that the public forum be continued to a date in September. She also suggested that the report from the Committee on Committees should go to the Council for discusssion before a public hearing.

Dan Coleman requested that staff do a better job of informing the general public about holding another forum on the matter. Mayor Broun inquired about the process for notifying citizens of public forums. Mr. Horton said notification procedures for public forums did not differ from those used for public hearings. He noted that a display advertisement had appeared in a local newspaper on June 19th.

Noting that other local governments wanted to be involved in the University's land planning processes, University Vice-Chancellor Wayne Jones requested that a joint panel with elected representatives from the Town of Carrboro, Orange County and the Town be formed, rather than holding three separate hearings on the proposal.

Mayor Broun inquired about the University's anticipated time frame for the planning process. Vice-Chancellor Jones said the University needed to negotiate a contract with a land-use planning consultant. He stated that this process would likely take until the end of August to complete. Mayor Broun inquired whether it was adequate for the joint panel to be formed by the early fall. Vice-Chancellor Jones said he believed this was a suitable timeframe.

Council Member Brown inquired whether the University's planning document had been changed after the first hearing on the matter.

Vice-Chancellor said the matter had been revisited since earlier discussion of the proposal. He stated that the University was aware of the need to address transportation-related concerns.

Council Member Capowski thanked Chancellor Hardin and University officials for their openness concerning the proposed planning process. He noted that the possibility of joint consideration of the proposal might be discussed at the Assembly of Governments meeting on June 29th. Council Member Brown said the Council had previously adopted a resolution agreeing to have joint discussions with Orange County and the Town of Carrboro about the proposal.

Mayor Broun suggested the possibility of having joint discussions at the staff level about the proposed University planning process. Mayor Broun said he was not comfortable adopting a joint political planning process without consulting the Town of Carrboro and Orange County on the matter.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC FORUM BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER, WITH AMPLE NOTICE BEING GIVEN OF THE HEARING TO TOWN RESIDENTS AND RESIDENTS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. COUNCIL MEMBER POWELL ONLY SECONDED CONTINUATION OF THE FORUM TO SEPTEMBER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Brown suggested that staff review the Council's April 18th minutes and incorporate other items discussed at that meeting about decision-making principles and suggestions by citizens.

Council Member Waldorf said the Council needed to look into and discuss which points of the proposal needed follow-up, rather than making a blanket referral to the staff. She suggested that the item be brought back to the Council on June 27th or July 5th for additional discussion.

Council Member Brown emphasized the need to incorporate citizen comments into the process.

Mayor Broun said there was not a need to have another discussion of the matter next week. He suggested that information summarizing the positions of citizens be included in staff's follow-up report to the Council, with items to be discussed at a future public hearing if desired by the Council.

Item 2 Hearing on Possible Changes to Development Review Procedures

Planning Director Roger Waldon briefly reviewed possible changes to development review procedures, including greater flexibility concerning special use permit time limit expirations and the addition of a mid-sized category of subdivisions for proposals having four to twenty-five lots. Mr. Horton noted that there was a minimal need for transportation impact statements for subdivisions of twenty-five lots or less.

Mayor Broun called on members of the Council Committee on Committees for their report. Council Member Capowski said each non-statutorily created committee needed to periodically justify its continued existence. Council Member Protzman said the Committee had discussed the possibility of shuffling some of the existing boards and commissions around. Council Member Evans said some concerns had arisen about the possibility of sunsetting the Public Arts Commission. She stated that the Commission did good work and should be continued.

Design Review Board member Michael Hining said the Planning Board and other boards had many similar tasks relative to development reviews. He stated that the Design Review Board only saw about ten percent of development projects. Mr. Hining also said the Board was recommending the creation of a long-range Planning Board and a Design Commission, responsible for site-specific reviews. Stating that the existing development process was fragmented and conflicting, Mr. Hining said a better approach would be for one board or commission to see projects at several different stages of the review process.

Design Review Board member Alice Ingram said the Town was faced with two very large projects, Lowe's and Meadowmont, in the near future, with no definite long-term plans in place. She stated that the Design Review Board's proposal could bring order and tighten controls on the design review process. Ms. Ingram said that people most likely to be effected by proposed developments needed to be involved in review processes as early as possible.

Design Review Board member Bob Stipe presented a prepared statement noting that no power or turf was being grabbed by the Design Review Board, Planning Board or other boards or commissions relative to the proposed changes in the review process. A copy of Mr. Stipe's remarks is on file in the Clerk's Office.

Transportation Board member Dan Coleman said the Board supported a new category of subdivision of up to ten units, which could be approved by the Council on its consent agenda following staff review. Mr. Coleman also said the Board supported time limit flexibility relative to special use permits. He noted that the Board opposed changing the threshold for special use permits, stating that the current threshold was a liberal one. Mr. Coleman requested that the Transportation Board be given an opportunity for input on the proposal to minimize the number of transit impact statements required for smaller subdivisions. He said the Board supported the concept of joint planning hearings as an efficient means of ensuring diverse perspectives.

Transportation Board member Ruby Sinreich said she liked a lot of the concepts proposed by the Design Review Board. Ms. Sinreich said she especially favored opportunities for early citizen awareness and comment on proposed developments. Ms. Sinreich also stated that she did not see the logic in requiring that four design professionals serve on the proposed Design Commission. She stated that citizens, rather than experts, were neither on Town advisory boards and commissions. Ms. Sinreich also said an emphasis needed to be placed on making the development review process better rather than more expedient.

Planning Board member Mary Reeb said the Board agreed with all but one of the Manager's recommendations. She stated that the Design Review Board's proposal to have projects go before the proposed Design Commission on three occasions would likely slow down the overall development review process. Ms. Reeb also expressed concern that the proposal did not allow for adequate public input. She stated that the membership of the proposed commission appeared to be awkwardly construed, limiting the potential applicant pool. Ms. Reeb said the Planning Board's primary concern was that poor designs might result if the proposal were implemented. She also said it would not be a good idea to have self-referencing experts decide what designs and projects would be good for the community.

Citizens Energy Task Force member Jane Sharp said she was surprised to learn that the Council was considering abolishment of the Task Force in the near future. Ms. Sharp stated that some of the Task Force's proposals had yielded returns of up to thirty percent. She emphasized the importance of energy efficiency and potential savings. Ms. Sharp expressed hope that the Council would not abolish the Citizen's Energy Task Force.

Citizens Energy Task Force member Martha Drake expressed her concurrence with Ms. Sharp's remarks. Ms. Drake stated that the Town of Osage, Iowa had a vigorous energy program which resulting in average annual savings of $1,000 per household.

Appearance Commission Chairperson Milton van Hoy said the current development review process operated poorly, primarily due to poor communication between boards. Mr. van Hoy said he favored the proposed change to the development review process.

Tree Committee member Joe Herzenberg requested that the Council not increase the permitted disturbance area for sites.

Claire Cooperstein, a member of the Sierra Club and the Alliance of Neighborhoods, said some of the proposals aimed to fine-tune development regulations while other proposals might make irrevocable changes which might change the Town forever. Ms. Cooperstein respectfully requested that the Council listen to ideas about managed development. She also requested that the Council not take any action during the summer break at the University. Ms. Cooperstein suggested that the Council continue the public hearing until after Labor Day.

Bob Woodruff said he favored the proposed changes to the design review process. Stating that it had taken approximately one year to have the Village Companies' most recent development project reviewed, Mr. Woodruff said it was difficult for business to grow when there were long development review periods. Mr. Woodruff said streamlining of the development process would be helpful.

Ralph Abrahams, a resident of Chandler's Green subdivision, said there was room for improvement in the Town's current development review process. Mr. Abrahams emphasized the importance of having adequate opportunities for input by citizens and joint input by advisory boards and commissions. He said although the development review system was not broken, it did need a little bit of repair.

Valerie Broadwell said many of the community's citizens had their life savings invested in their homes. She stated that many residents felt encroached upon by proposed development on many sides. Ms. Broadwell also said that efforts to streamline the development process would give less time for citizen involvement. She urged the Council to take as much time as needed to make certain that quality development took place.

Planning Board member Marianna Chambless said the mean application review time was currently 5.7 months. Stating that few people outside the development community wanted to reduce review time, Ms. Chambless said reducing this average time would be irresponsible.

Ms. Chambless also expressed concern that the proposed Design Commission would have discretion over whether other boards reviewed development proposals. She said it was likely that citizen participation would be reduced under the proposed development review process.

Gay Eddy said she was pleased about the proposal for changes in the development review process. She noted that citizen participation in the process was very important. Ms. Eddy also said it was important to revise development procedures and make them less complicated. She stated that it would be a good idea to have one advisory board or commission with an opportunity for lots of citizen participation early in the process. Ms. Eddy said proposed amendments to the ordinance were a step in the right direction.

Estelle Mabry said she did not like the idea of creating a Design Commission to make development-related decisions which should be made by elected officials. Ms. Mabry stated that she strongly favored having a process with a lot of opportunity for citizen input.

Callie Warner said she concurred with Bob Stipe that once significant structural changes were made, it was not possible to go back. She expressed concern that the Design Review Board proposal would result in less citizen participation in the development review process. Ms. Warner emphasized the importance of maintaining a good quality of life and sense of community. She encouraged the Council to continue to use small area plans as a means of permitting good citizen involvement in long-term growth decisions.

Paul Aliosio said the Sierra Club found the development review proposal to be unacceptable. Mr. Aliosio expressed concern that the proposal would result in less scrutiny about quality of development and less opportunity for citizen input. He stated that the ultimate responsibility for development-related decision-making should continue to lie with the Council. Mr. Aliosio also expressed concern that the proposal contained no stipulations relative to the provision of affordable housing.

Bernadette Pelissier representing the Sierra Club said the proposed composition of the Design Commission was too narrow, limiting input from other boards and commissions. Ms. Pelissier also expressed concern that the proposed review process would circumvent the opportunity for active citizen involvement throughout the process.

She also noted that public information meetings were a strength of the current development review system. Ms. Pelissier said the Sierra Club urged rejection of the Design Review Board's proposal.

Charlie Zimmerli, past president of the Timberlyne Neighborhood Association, said his organization had actively opposed a proposal for a gas station and convenience store in the Timberlyne neighborhood. He noted that the Council had unanimously denied the applicant's development proposal. Mr. Zimmerli emphasized the importance of having public meetings as early as possible in the development review process. He also stated that the developers of the proposed Meadowmont project needed public input on their development proposal.

Stick Williams, representing the Chamber of Commerce, commended the Council for even considering possible changes to the Town's development review procedures. Mr. Williams said he was very much opposed to the Council not addressing pending issues during the University's summer break. He suggested that long-range planning matters would be discussed at the Assembly of Governments meeting on June 29th. Mr. Williams also said he did not think that the Council would adopt a proposal which would restrict citizen input in the development review process. He noted the importance of economic opportunity. Mr. Williams said he favored the Manager's recommendation concerning possible changes to the development review process.

Tom Gunn expressed concern that medium-sized subdivision developments of up to twenty-five lots would likely be infill projects having Resource Conservation District, steep slope, traffic and greenway-related concerns. Mr. Gunn emphasized the importance of providing adequate information to citizens early in the process. Mr. Gunn requested that the Council not make the proposed amendments to the Town's existing Development Ordinance.

Allan Snavely urged the Council not to reduce requirements relative to traffic and transit impact statements for smaller projects. He also urged the Council to make provisions for citizen input early in the review process.

Johnny Morris said some sensible changes to development review procedures were proposed. He expressed concern that citizens and developers too often took adversarial positions early in the development review process. Mr. Morris said the City of Wilmington had a development process which permitted his firm to secure approval of a simple site plan within sixty days.

Former Council Member Julie Andresen, speaking as a member of the

Alliance of Neighborhoods Steering Committee, said many of the suggestions made this evening were helpful and good. She stated that a principal objective of the Design Review Board was to reward good design. Ms. Andresen stated that developers wanted clear expectations which they could count on as guidelines. She also said the staff's revision recommendations were generally very good. Ms. Andresen expressed her concurrence with Mr. Gunn's concerns about changes in the review of medium-sized subdivisions.

Jane Williams, a member of the Alliance of Neighborhoods, said the proposed process did not offer adequate opportunities for citizen participation or adequately address citizen safety concerns. Ms. Williams suggested that the Town hold joint board meetings on proposed development projects, allowing for more citizen input early in the process.

Mark Campbell said he disagreed with the Design Review Board's proposal for changes in the development review process. Mr. Campbell stated that the current review process had adequately addressed his neighborhood's concerns about a recent development proposal.

Diane Bloom, representing the Alliance of Neighborhoods, said development review currently moved at a fair pace. Ms. Bloom expressed concern that the Design Review Board's proposal abolished a lot of committees and limited membership on the proposed Design Commission to Town residents of five or more years. She requested that the Council take what was good in the present review system and remold this into any revised development review system.

Bob Reda, President of the Alliance of Neighborhoods, said the Design Review Board was underutilized in the current review process. He noted that many people were speaking against the new development proposal but not against the Design Review Board. Mr. Reda said the Alliance of Neighborhoods believed that the current process should be refined, including the present Design Review Board. He urged the Council to develop a process which would produce a better community in the long term.

Mike Hoffer, co-owner of Yarnell-Hoffer Hardware, said he was excited about any proposal to make the development process less cumbersome for smaller projects. Mr. Hoffer said it had taken eight months to receive a zoning compliance permit for his new hardware store. He suggested that the Council consider establishing quicker reviews for smaller-scale commercial projects.

Scott Radway said he supported the Planning Board recommendation with two exceptions. Mr. Radway said he concurred with Tom Gunn's earlier remarks about the potential for medium-sized subdivisions to be infill-type projects, such as North Street subdivision, Phase IV and Mill Race subdivision. He emphasized the importance of the Planning Board knowing about recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Transportation Board and other boards relative to development projects. Mr. Radway emphasized the need for any new process to emphasize good design. Stating that Town staff did not currently have adequate time for long-term planning activities, Mr. Radway suggested that the Council consider providing funding for additional staff or consultants to focus on long-term planning matters.

Weezie Oldenburg, a Town resident and design professional, said it was important to realize the need for earlier review of development proposals by advisory boards and citizens. She also emphasized the need to have a body focusing on long-range planning matters.

Lightning Brown said that approximately ten years ago while serving as a Planning Board member, the Town was experiencing a period of rapid growth. He stated that the Board's power to determine the character of individual projects was not very great since as few as one Board member had visited some sites. Mr. Brown expressed concern that some development recommendations were proceeding in the wrong direction in terms of opportunities for citizen input. He urged the Council not to exclude the public from development review processes.

Former Council Member Art Werner said the principal purpose of development review was to protect the Town and its neighborhoods.

Noting the importance of citizen involvement, he urged the Council not to establish a Design Commission with professional experts.

Dr. Werner stated that existing boards had a good deal of expertise not available elsewhere. He also said that density bonuses were worth more to developers than speeding up the development review process.

Martin Rody, a current member of the Design Review Board and Planning Board, said an emphasis needed to be placed on early review. Mr. Rody stated that it was almost impossible to change staff recommendations by the time the Planning Board reviewed projects. He also expressed concern that there was no opportunity in the current process to consider building designs in context with their surroundings. Mr. Rody urged the Council to make changes to development procedures relative to design and regulatory flexibility provided to the Planning Board.

Nancy Gabriel expressed her concurrence with Mr. Rody's remarks about the importance of early citizen involvement in the development review process. Ms. Gabriel noted that the Town's Development Ordinance required that the Design Review Board and Appearance Commission have a majority of design professionals. She expressed concern that some citizens were downplaying the importance of design professionals on Town advisory boards and commissions.

Noting that some citizens had not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposal, Council Member Waldorf inquired about the possibility of continuing the public hearing. Mayor Broun said the Council had received a wide variety of comments this evening. He suggested that the Council ask the staff to review comments and make a report back to the Council, synthesizing remarks made this evening. Mayor Broun said the Council could discuss options at its first meeting in the fall. He said alternatively the Council could schedule a future work session on the proposals or have a discussion at the July 5th Council meeting.

Council Member Evans suggested that Council Members could receive citizen comments through their mailboxes at Town Hall. Stating that there was no need for a staff report or synthesis, Council Member Waldorf said she like the idea of discussing options at the July 5th Council meeting. Mayor Broun said it was reasonable not to request a full staff report for the July 5th meeting.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE UP DISCUSSION OF THE PROCESS AT THE JULY 5TH COUNCIL MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 3 Springcrest Cluster Subdivisions

Persons wishing to testify in the matter were sworn. Mr. Horton requested that materials pertaining to the applications be entered into the record of the hearing. Development Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper presented an overview of the proposal and key issues, including the possible future alignments of Sage Road through the proposed subdivisions.

Phil Post, the applicant's representative, said the applicant supported the proposed stipulations of approval contained in Resolutions A, C and D.

Planning Board representative Mary Reeb said the Board had voted to approve the application with conditions.

Bruce Ballentine, speaking on behalf of the adjoining Silver Creek subdivision, requested that drainage and sewer easements from the proposed Springcrest subdivision be connected along the western property line of the Silver Creek subdivision. He said OWASA and Town engineering staff had identified several options in this regard.

Adi Dota, a resident of the Covington Place subdivision, expressed concern that a proposed connecting road into Covington Place subdivision would result in increased traffic and noise levels. Mr. Dota also said he was not sure how speed limits would be enforced in the area. Mr. Dota said he opposed connection of the street into the Covington Place neighborhood.

Council Member Capowski inquired whether the connecting road would result in cut-through traffic from Erwin to Weaver Dairy Road via Sweeten Creek Road. Ms. Culpepper said there were a total of three points of access from Erwin Road which could be used for connections. She added that there was no fast cut-through to Weaver Dairy Road. Council Member Evans asked whether access between Weaver Dairy Road and Sage Road Extension was proposed. Ms. Culpepper said this was the ultimate plan. Mr. Post reiterated the applicant's concurrence with proposed Resolutions A, C and D.

COUNCIL MEMBER POWELL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO TO RECESS THE HEARING AND REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 4 Southern Orange County Human Services Center Rezoning

Parties wishing to testify in the matter were sworn. Mr. Horton requested that materials pertaining to the application be entered into the record of the hearing. Development Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper presented an overview of the proposal. She stated that staff had considered the findings had to make relative to rezoning and found that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.

Mark Zack, the applicant's representative, said he was available to answer questions. Planning Board representative Mary Reeb said the Board had recommended approval of the rezoning request. There were no other citizen comments on the proposed rezoning.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PROTZMAN, TO RECESS THE HEARING AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 5 Orange County Human Services Building Special Use Permit

Parties wishing to testify in the matter were sworn. Mr. Horton requested that materials pertaining to the application be entered into the record of the hearing. Development Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper presented an overview of the proposed site plan, noting that a 186 space parking lot was proposed on the western part of the property. She stated that the principal issues related to access and circulation. Ms. Culpepper said staff recommended that the entry drive to the property be realigned to accommodate buses. She also stated that although staff was not recommending dedication of public right-of-way, the Town and University were talking about possible future connections to the Horace Williams property.

Mark Zack said the proposed building would house the County's Health Department and clinics, the Departments on Aging and Social Services and satellite offices for the Cooperative Extension and Sheriff's Office. He said Orange County wished to provide human services from an attractive, friendly and tranquil site. Mr. Zack stated that Orange County had secured the assistance of environmental specialist Randy Croxton in designing the proposed site.

Randy Croxton presented an overview of the proposal, noting that buffers were proposed to protect adjoining properties. He also stated that the site would have a number of other environmentally sensitive features such as on-site stormwater purification. Mr. Croxton said the building had been selectively located on the site to be placed away from the roadway frontage. He said minimal cut and fill would be needed for development of the site. Mr. Croxton said the issues of well-being, health and safety were very much embodied in the site design.

Mark Zack said the applicant would take steps to mitigate the flow of rainwater and slow down traffic movements onto Homestead Road. Mr. Zack also said entire site would be developed for use by the community, including opportunities for outdoor recreational activities.

Planning Board representative Mary Reeb said the proposed project was the type of project influenced by long-range planning. She also emphasized the importance of making the site transit-friendly for future connections. Ms. Reeb said the Planning Board concurred with the Manager's recommendation.

Transportation Board member Paul Killough said the plan had major transit-related difficulties. He stated that young, elderly and handicapped clients who could not drive needed public transportation to access the site. Mr. Killough said that using existing bus routes to service the site would necessitate longer headways, creating a disincentive for some people to ride buses.

He also stated that it was an American tradition to construct public buildings within public view.

Transportation Board Chairperson Richard Franck said in the first meeting with the applicant, the Transportation Board had indicated that it would be difficult to serve the site with public transit.

He said the Town might decide that it was not feasible to serve the site with buses. Mr. Franck said bicycle riders and pedestrians would find it difficult to reach the building due to site contours. He also said the Board was aware that it would be unpleasant for the Council to disapprove a project owned by another governmental jurisdiction. Mr. Franck stated that if the special use permit were denied, it would send a message to the applicant about the need for a more easily accessible building.

Council Member Protzman asked whether there were plans for other types of facilities on the site such as a temporary shelter. Orange County Purchasing Agent Pam Jones said a shelter was being considered by another agency. She added that no other facilities were being considered to the best of her knowledge. Ms. Jones said the property's owner had approached Orange County about the possibility of constructing a human services facility on the site.

Council Member Evans asked whether the architectural firm had located other footprints for possible future expansions. Ms. Jones said yes.

Council Member Capowski inquired about possible bus service to the site. Mr. Horton said there was no current plan to provide such service. Council Member Capowski inquired whether Orange County saw a need to bring Town and Carrboro residents to the site for services. Ms. Jones said yes. Council Member Capowski inquired about the possibility of using smaller County buses for transit to the site. Ms. Jones said there were restrictions on how the County's shuttle system could be used. Mr. Horton said he believed Orange County could provide shuttle service to the nearest bus stop. Council Member Capowski inquired about the possibility of finalizing transit details. Mr. Horton said staff could provide the best answers possible.

Council Member Brown inquired about the closest transit service to the site. Mr. Horton said the nearest bus stop was on Airport Road. Council Member Powell inquired about the distance from the proposed building to Airport Road. Mr. Zack said approximately a quarter mile. Council Member Powell said she had the same concerns as the Transportation Board about access to the site. Council Member Brown inquired about the applicant's response to the Transportation Board's concerns. Mr. Zack said the applicant was attempting to minimize the need for site disturbance and clearing of trees, while maximizing daylighting of the proposed building. He also stated that an effort was being made to make the campus a pleasant place to visit. Council Member Powell said clients were more concerned about services received rather than what the building looked like.

Mayor Broun requested that the applicant provide their statement about the proposed conditions of approval. Mr. Zack said the applicant was concerned about an easement proposed to provide a future pedestrian connection to Brookstone Apartments. He said the Brookstone Apartments did not want to encourage pedestrian traffic through their site.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PROTZMAN TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JULY 5TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

The hearings concluded at 11:50 p.m.