HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment 01-24-08 ST. CROIX COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Thursday, January 24, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Government Center, Hudson, Wisconsin- County Board Room
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
B. OPEN MEETING LAW STATEMENT
C. ACTION ON PREVIOUS MINUTES
D. DATE OF NEXT MEETING: February 28, 2008
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Elert After -the Fact Special Exception Permit- Tabled October 25, 2007
2. Kingston - Lenzen Special Exceptions and Variance - Tabled January 3, 2008
3. Kingston - Lenzen Administrative Appeal - Tabled January 3, 2008
4. Bast Administrative Appeal — Tabled January 3, 2008
5. Murr Court Case Update — Tabled January 3, 2008
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
G NEW BUSINESS
1. Closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 19.85(1)(g) to confer with legal counsel
concerning strategy to be adopted by the Board with respect to litigation in which it is
involved. Reconvene in open session.
2. Suspension of the Rules and By -Laws and reconsideration of the Board's revocations of
two special exception permits for Michael Feist, Micabren Acres, LLC (File SE0102)
H. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
I. ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda not necessarily presented in this order.)
SUBMITTED BY: St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department
DATE: January 18, 2008
COPIES TO: County Board Office County Clerk
Board Members News Media/Notice Board
* CANCELLATIONS /CHANGE S /ADDITIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING MINUTES
January 24, 2008
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Malick at 8:34 a.m. A roll call indicated
that Sue Nelson, Jerry McAllister, and Linda Luckey were also present. Chuck Struemke
arrived at 8:40 a.m. Staff included: Jenny Shillcox, Zoning Specialist; Kevin Grabau,
Code Administrator; David Fodroczi, Director; Steve Olson, Land and Water
Conservation Department; Becky Eggen, Recorder.
Staff confirmed to the Board that this was a properly noticed and published meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. in the
County Board Room of the Government Center in Hudson.
Unfinished Business
Gary Elert — After - the -Fact Special Exception (Tabled October 25, 2007)
On October 25, 2007, the Board of Adjustment tabled its decision on the applicant's
after - the -fact special exception request for a limestone stairway that he installed on his lot
in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District in the Town of St. Joseph.
Staff presented the application and the staff report. The Town of St. Joseph did not
submit any additional comments on the tabled matter. The St. Croix County Land and
Water Conservation Department did not submit any additional comments on the tabled
matter. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources did not submit any additional
comments on the tabled matter. Staff recommended that the Board table their decision
until its regularly scheduled March 27, 2008 meeting as requested by the applicant.
Nick Vivian, applicant's current attorney, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the
request. Survey Map (Exhibit 5) was distributed. Ogden Engineering did the survey
regarding the issues with the stairway and the retaining wall. The City of Stillwater is
going to get their adjoining land surveyed as well. The City of Stillwater is going to deal
with the property owners on a one -by -one basis. Elert has done what he could do and the
rest is up to the City of Stillwater. He is going to work with the City on an easement.
The stairway was already in place when Elert purchased the property in 2000, but he has
enhanced it. Vivian would like to have this application tabled to allow the City to have
more time.
Motion by Nelson, second by Luckey to table the application until the April 2008
hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Board recessed at 9:08 a.m.
The Board reconvened at 9:14 a.m.
r `l
Kingston — Lenzen Administrative Appeal (Tabled January 3 2008)
The appellants are appealing an administrative decision that a proposed principal
structure in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District would require a variance to be located
within 40 feet of the bluffline of non - direct facing slope preservation zones in the Town
of Troy.
Staff summarized the appeal and staff report. Staff provided the Board with two
additional exhibits, including a letter from the St. Croix County Planning and Zoning
Committee supporting staffs interpretation of the Ordinance (Exhibit 9), and a revised
color drawing illustrating the appellant's determination of the slope preservation zone
(Exhibit 10). The Troy Town Board did not submit any comments on the appeal for the
Board's review. The St. Croix Land and Water Conservation Department commented on
the revised plans submitted on December 19, 2007, and did not support the encroachment
of the southwest corner of the proposed principal structure within the 40 -foot setback of
the bluffline as depicted in the plans. They stated that the bluffline drains directly
towards the river and allowing a structure to be constructed within the setback increases
the potential for slope failure due to vegetation removal, heavy equipment operation, and
concentrated flow of runoff. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources stated that
the Department does not have record of the 2002 bluffline determination referenced in
the application, nor does the Department agree with the appellants' statement that the
current interpretation of the Ordinance would not allow the proposed single - family home
to be placed within the allowed area on the site. They did affirm that the Department
believes that St. Croix County staff made the correct interpretation of bluffline and
setback in accordance with the County's Riverway Ordinance language.
Stu Krueger, attorney for the appellants, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the
administrative appeal. He provided the Board with a definition of "Slope Preservation
Zone" as he felt was read by staff (Exhibit 11). He testified that the area southwest of
where the homestead will go should not be considered bluffline because it does not slope
towards or riverward to the River. He said geographically it does not go toward the river.
If it does not drain directly towards the river, it shouldn't be considered bluffline or slope
preservation zone.
James Filkins of Ogden Engineering, surveyor for the applicants, signed an oath and
spoke in favor of the appeal. He described how he determined the boundaries of the slope
preservation zone for the drawing he had prepared for the appellant. He also described
how he did the cross sections indicated in the drawing. He provided the Board with the
compass bearings for the cross sections (Exhibit 12) and a large version of the drawing he
had prepared for the appellant (Exhibit 13).
Dan Bauman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, signed an oath and spoke to
the request. He stated that the intent of the state administrative code for the Lower St.
Croix Riverway District, NR 118, was not only to protect the view from the river, but
also to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. He testified that "towards" as defined by
the appellants addresses only natural scenic beauty, and does not address pollution. He
also testified that the Department does not agree with the appellants' statement that the
2
current interpretation of the Ordinance would not allow the proposed single - family home
to be placed within the allowed area on the site, and reaffirmed that the Department
believes that St. Croix County staff made the correct interpretation of bluffline and
setback in accordance with the County's Riverway Ordinance language.
The Board recessed at 9:59 a.m.
The Board reconvened at 10:05 a.m.
Kinp,ston — Lenzen Special Exception and Variance (Tabled January 3, 2008)
The applicants requested two special exception permits in order to construct a principal
structure and associated accessory structures in the Lower St. Croix Riverway in the
Town of Troy. Item #1 is a special exception permit for filling and grading within 40 feet
of a slope preservation zone. Item #2 is a special exception permit for filling and grading
10,000 square feet or more outside of the slope preservation zone. Item #3 is a variance to
construct an accessory structure (bridge /walkway) in the slope preservation zone in the
Lower St. Croix Riverway.
Staff presented the application and staff report. The Troy Town Board had conditionally
approved the revised plans (excluding the bridge) under the Town of Troy's Riverway
Ordinance. The Town Board did not submit any comments on the special exception and
variance requests for the Board's consideration. The St. Croix County Land and Water
Conservation Department reviewed the revised plans and found the storm water and
erosion control plans to be in compliance with the applicable standards in the St. Croix
County Zoning Ordinance. They also recommended that the applicants record an
affidavit referencing the storm water, erosion control, and vegetation management plans
against the property. They also stated that they do not support the location of the
southwest corner of the proposed house encroaching within 40 feet of the bluffline since
it drains directly toward the river and allowing such structure to be constructed within the
setback increased the potential for slope failure due to vegetation removal, heavy
equipment operation, and concentrated flow of runoff. The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources reviewed the original application and stated that the Department does
not have record of the 2002 bluffline determination referenced in the original application
materials. They affirmed that the Department believes that St. Croix County staff made
the correct interpretation of bluffline and setback in accordance with the County's
Riverway Ordinance language, which is the subject of an administrative appeal. Staff
recommended tabling the decision pending the decision on the administrative appeal.
Dan Baumann with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources signed an oath and
spoke to the request. He agreed with staffs recommendations.
Bruce Lenzen signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. He handed out the
special exception decision of the land division and CSM from 2002 (Exhibit 11). He said
that the structure with full tree coverage and leaf off conditions cannot be seen from the
250 feet mark of the OHWM. He felt that the gazebo was part of the structure. His
position is that the bridge would not be in the slope preservation zone. The bridge would
3
have the least environmental impact. He said it would not have to be a wood bridge. It
could be a clear span bridge. He said the purpose of the bridge is to get over the ravine to
get to another part of the property to access the river. He stated that the bridge is 40 feet
back from the bluffline. No trees would need to be replaced, because there are no trees
being removed in the slope preservation zone or bluffline. The structure is 30 feet high.
Louie Filkins, Ogden Engineering, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the request. He
testified that the storm water management plan met County, DNR and Town of Troy
requirements. He has worked with this property for 10 years. The 100 year peak storm
flows are reduced after the structure has been created. The bridge is going to disturb less
ground compared to a stairway or a lift. The home will be placed at 4 % -6% slopes.
The Board recessed at 11:17 a.m.
The Board reconvened at 11:26 a.m.
Kernon Bast Administrative Appeal — (Tabled January 3, 2008)
The appellant appealed an administrative decision that filling and grading in excess of
10,000 square feet within 1,000 feet of the OHWM of a navigable pond requires a special
exception permit per the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance.
Staff previously presented the application and staff report at the January 3, 2008 meeting.
Dan Bauman with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources signed an oath and
spoke to the appeal. He calculated the OHWM for the ponds in question. This site was
one of the better ones he has seen in terms of erosion control. He agreed with staff's
determination of the Ordinance. Since the developer is the one maintaining the storm
water, the DNR did not have any issues with a blanket special exception permit being
issued for the development. The department is willing to work with county staff to
research the 10,000 square feet rule to see if it is still adequate.
Jon Sonnentag, Ac /a Consulting, Inc., signed an oath and spoke in favor of the appeal. He
said that Bast felt that he had met the intent of the ordinance to protect the bodies of
water when the subdivision was being reviewed by county staff and would not need
individual special exception permits for each individual lot. He said there will be average
homes on each lot. They would like to see a blanket special exception permit to be issued
for all of the lots and allow more time for discussion. Bast would just like the issue
resolved and get the fees and designs all ironed out. There could be general standards for
all lots and a process for review of the individual lots. The spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance has been met other than the 10,000 square feet for filling and grading.
Brent Johnson, appellant's attorney, signed an oath and spoke in favor of the appeal.
They are appealing that they need a special exception permit for each and every lot.
They would like one special exception permit for the entire Cottonwood South
subdivision. He would like to have the appeal granted so they can submit their special
exception application for all the Cottonwood South lots and keep the process moving.
4
Motion by Struemke, second by Nelson to deny the administrative appeal without
prejudice to their right to submit a group special exception application.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Board recessed for lunch and site visits at 12:30 p.m.
The Board reconvened at 2:13 p.m. Struemke was excused and absent.
Struemke arrived at 3:35 p.m.
Decisions
After hearing the testimony and reviewing the material in the record, the Board rendered
the following decisions:
Kinston — Lenzen Administrative Anneal (Tabled January 3 2008)
Motion by McAllister, second by Nelson to deny the administrative appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's determination that a proposed structure would require a variance for
encroaching within 40 feet of 12 percent slopes that do not directly face the St. Croix
River in the Lower St. Croix Riverway based on the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
1. The appellants are Terrence and Peggy Kingston, property owners, with Bruce
Lenzen, Bruce Lenzen Homes, Inc., acting as their agent.
2. The site is located at 292 Brugler Court, Part of Government Lot 2, Section 12,
T28N, R20W, Town of Troy, St. Croix County, Wisconsin.
3. The appellants own a 7.04 -acre lot that is within the Lower St. Croix Riverway
District and directly abuts the St. Croix River. Over half of the lot is comprised of
steep slopes over 25 percent, with ravines to the north, south, and west, and a
large plateau area along the east end of the lot closest to Brugler Court. The
appellants propose to construct a 3,660 square foot single - family residence with a
1,700 square foot attached garage, 900 square foot deck, 244 square foot gazebo,
483 square foot front porch, and 272 square foot screen porch on the plateau area.
The proposed principal structure will be located approximately eight feet from the
steep slopes and bluffline to the north and west, and 40 to 100 feet from the steep
slopes and bluffline to the northwest. A circle driveway and parking area will add
another approximately 15,500 square feet of impervious coverage to the site.
Storm water runoff from the impervious coverage will be directed to two
infiltration trenches located adjacent to the bluffline, and one infiltration pond in
the center of the circle driveway. The total disturbed area for the project will be
approximately 45,300 square feet. The appellants have already clear cut much of
the proposed building site and have been working with County code enforcement
staff and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to bring the property
5
back into compliance with the vegetation management standards in the Lower St.
Croix Riverway District.
4. The appellants filed an application with the St. Croix County Board of
Adjustment for an administrative appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
determination that the appellants' proposed structures would require a variance
for encroaching within 40 feet of 12 percent slopes that do not directly face the St.
Croix River in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District pursuant to Section
17.70(6)(a) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance.
5. Section 17.36 G.5.a.c(2) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance)
requires that all structures be set back 100 feet from the bluffline in the rural
residential management zone, in which the appellants' property is located. This
setback can be reduced to a minimum of 40 feet from the bluffline if the
following performance standards can be met:
• The structure does not protrude above the bluffline as viewed from at or
near the mid -line of the river or from 250 feet riverward from the OHWM
whichever is less.
• The structure is not located in a slope preservation zone.
• The structure utilizes building materials that are earth tone in color and of
a non - reflective nature, except that windows may be made of ordinary
window glass or non - reflective glass, but may not be made of glass
designed to reflect more light than ordinary window glass.
• The structure is visually inconspicuous.
6. Section 17.09 of the Ordinance defines bluffline as: "A line along the top of the
slope preservation zone. There can be more than one bluffline. "
7. Section 17.09 of the Ordinance defines slope preservation zone as: "The area
riverward from the bluffline where the slope towards the river is 12% or more, as
measured horizontally for a distance of not more than 50 feet or less than 25
feet. "
8. For the purpose of this application, " riverward" and "towards the river" mean
draining directly or indirectly to the St. Croix River, and /or being able to see the
St. Croix River. Upon visiting the site and viewing the river, including viewing
the river along the compass bearings provided by the appellants, the Board
concludes that the 12 percent and greater slopes to the north, west, and south of
the proposed homesite are " riverward" of the bluffline and "towards the river," as
originally interpreted by the staff.
9. Section 17.36 F.3.a.4. of the Ordinance identifies filling and grading standards
applicable to slope preservation zones that do not directly face and do not drain
directly to the river. Section 17.36 H.3.c. of the Ordinance states that no filling
and grading is allowed in slope preservation zones that directly face and /or
directly drain to the river. These standards clearly establish that a slope need not
6
directly face or directly drain to the river to be defined as a slope preservation
zone.
10. The definition of bluffline does not differentiate between direct facing/draining
and non - direct facing/draining slope preservation zones. It is the top line of any
slope preservation zone. Therefore, setbacks from the bluffline of a non - direct
facing/draining slope preservation zone must be met.
11. In 2005, staff from the St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department,
together with staff from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
developed a conceptual diagram illustrating direct and non - direct facing slope
preservation zones and the presence of the bluffline in accordance with the
definitions in NR 118. This conceptual diagram was presented at public
information meetings, public hearings, and County Board meetings prior to the
enactment of amendments to the Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District
regulations on July 1, 2005 that established the current definitions and setbacks.
County staff has received further clarification from the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources on the correctness of its interpretation on these issues.
12. Steve Olson, St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department, stated
that the bluffline drains directly toward the river and allowin g a structure to be
constructed within the setback increases the potential for slope failure due to
vegetation removal, heavy equipment operation, and concentrated flow of runoff.
13. Dan Baumann, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, testified at the
hearing on January 24, 2008 that the intent of the state administrative code for the
Lower St. Croix Riverway District, NR 118, was not only to protect the view
from the river, but also to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. He testified
that "towards" as defined by the appellants addresses only natural scenic beauty,
and does not address pollution. He also testified that the Department does not
agree with the appellants' statement that the current interpretation of the
Ordinance would not allow the proposed single- family home to be placed within
the allowed area on the site. He affirmed that the Department believes that St.
Croix County staff made the correct interpretation of bluffline and setback in
accordance with the County's Riverway Ordinance language.
Motion carried unanimously.
Kinston — Lenzen Special Exception and Variance (Tabled January 3, 2008)
Motion by Nelson, second by McAllister to table the application for two special exception
permits and a variance indefinitely for the applicant to submit a revised application and
plans consistent with the definition of slope preservation zone and bluffline as determined in
its denial of the administrative appeal based on the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
7
1. The appellants are Terrence and Peggy Kingston, property owners, with Bruce
Lenzen, Bruce Lenzen Homes, Inc., acting as their agent.
2. The site is located at 292 Brugler Court, Part of Government Lot 2, Section 12,
T28N, R20W, Town of Troy, St. Croix County, WI.
3. The applicants own a 7.04 -acre lot that is within the Lower St. Croix Riverway
District and directly abuts the St. Croix River. Over half of the lot is comprised of
steep slopes over 25 percent, with ravines to the north, south, and west, and a
large plateau area along the east end of the lot closest to Brugler Court. The
appellants propose to construct a 3,660 square foot single - family residence with a
1,700 square foot attached garage, 900 square foot deck, 244 square foot gazebo,
483 square foot front porch, and 272 square foot screen porch on the plateau area.
The proposed principal structure will be located approximately eight feet from the
steep slopes and bluffline to the north and west, and 40 to 100 feet from the steep
slopes and bluffline to the northwest. A circle driveway and parking area will add
another approximately 15,500 square feet of impervious coverage to the site.
Storm water runoff from the impervious coverage will be directed to two
infiltration trenches located adjacent to the bluffline, and one infiltration pond in
the center of the circle driveway. The total disturbed area for the project will be
approximately 45,300 square feet. The appellants have already clear cut much of
the proposed building site and have been working with County code enforcement
staff and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to bring the property
back into compliance with the vegetation management standards in the Lower St.
Croix Riverway District.
4. The appellants filed an application with the St. Croix County Board of
Adjustment for an administrative appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
determination that the appellants' proposed structures would require a variance
for encroaching within 40 feet of 12 percent slopes that do not directly face the St.
Croix River in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District pursuant to Section
17.70(6)(a) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance.
5. Section 17.36 G.5.a.c(2) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance)
requires that all structures be set back 100 feet from the bluffline in the rural
residential management zone, in which the appellants' property is located. This
setback can be reduced to a minimum of 40 feet from the bluffline if the
following performance standards can be met:
• The structure does not protrude above the bluffline as viewed from at or near
the mid -line of the river or from 250 feet riverward from the OHWM
whichever is less.
• The structure is not located in a slope preservation zone.
• The structure utilizes building materials that are earth tone in color and of a
non - reflective nature, except that windows may be made of ordinary window
glass or non - reflective glass, but may not be made of glass designed to reflect
more light than ordinary window glass.
8
• The structure is visually inconspicuous.
6. Section 17.09 of the Ordinance defines bluffline as: "A line along the top of the
slope preservation zone. There can be more than one bluffline. "
7. Section 17.09 of the Ordinance defines slope preservation zone as: "The area
riverward from the bluffline where the slope towards the river is 12% or more, as
measured horizontally for a distance of not more than S0 feet or less than 25
feet. "
8. For the purpose of this application, "riverward" and "towards the river" mean
draining directly or indirectly to the St. Croix River, and/or being able to see the
St. Croix River. Upon visiting the site and viewing the river, including viewing
the river along the compass bearings provided by the appellants, the Board
concludes that the 12 percent and greater slopes to the north, west, and south of
the proposed homesite are "riverward" of the bluffline and "towards the river," as
originally interpreted by the staff.
9. Section 17.36 F.3.a.4. of the Ordinance identifies filling and grading standards
applicable to slope preservation zones that do not directly face and do not drain
directly to the river. Section 17.36 H.3.c. of the Ordinance states that no filling
and grading is allowed in slope preservation zones that directly face and /or
directly drain to the river. These standards clearly establish that a slope need not
directly face or directly drain to the river to be defined as a slope preservation
zone.
10. The definition of bluffline does not differentiate between direct facing/draining
and non - direct facing/draining slope preservation zones; it is the top line of any
slope preservation zone. Therefore, setbacks from the bluffline of a non - direct
facing/draining slope preservation zone must be met.
11. In 2005, staff from the St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department,
together with staff from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
developed a conceptual diagram illustrating direct and non - direct facing slope
preservation zones and the presence of the bluffline in accordance with the
definitions in NR 118. This conceptual diagram was presented at public
information meetings, public hearings, and County Board meetings prior to the
enactment of amendments to the Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District
regulations on July 1, 2005 that established the current definitions and setbacks.
County staff has received further clarification from the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources on the correctness of its interpretation on these issues.
12. Steve Olson, St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department, stated
that the bluffline drains directly toward the river and allowing a structure to be
constructed within the setback increases the potential for slope failure due to
vegetation removal, heavy equipment operation, and concentrated flow of runoff.
9
13. Dan Baumann, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, testified at the
hearing on January 24, 2008 that the intent of the state administrative code for the
Lower St. Croix Riverway District, NR 118, was not only to protect the view
from the river, but also to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. He testified
that "towards" as defined by the appellants addresses only natural scenic beauty,
and does not address pollution. He also testified that the Department does not
agree with the appellants' statement that the current interpretation of the
Ordinance would not allow the proposed single- family home to be placed within
the allowed area on the site. He affirmed that the Department believes that St.
Croix County staff made the correct interpretation of bluffline and setback in
accordance with the County's Riverway Ordinance language.
Motion carried unanimously.
New Business
A motion by Malick to go into a closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes
19.85(1)(g) to confer with legal counsel concerning strategy to be adopted by the Board
with respect to litigation in which it is involved. Luckey seconded the motion. A roll
call vote was taken; Chairperson Malick, yes; Sue Nelson, yes; Jerry McAllister, yes;
Charles Struemke, yes and Linda Luckey, yes.
The Board reconvened into open session at 4:37 p.m.
Michael Feist, Micabren Acres, LLC
Motion by Struemke, second by Nelson to suspend to suspend its rules and by -laws for
reconsideration, Article VIII, Section 5, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit the $225 reconsideration fee in cash no later than 5:00
PM, February 7, 2008.
2. The applicant must submit a $3,000 cash deposit and a $7,000 letter of credit no
later than 5:00 PM, February 26, 2008.
3. The applicant must be in full compliance with the all conditions of both special
exception permits as verified by staff, including an inspection.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by McAllister, second by Luckey to schedule a hearing for reconsideration on
February 28, 2008.
Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes
Motion by McAllister, second by Nelson to have the Chair work with staff on any
revision to the minutes.
10
Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m by Chairperson Malick.
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Nelson, Secretary Becky Egge cording tary
11