9/17/02 Meeting Minutes, Town of Holly Springs

5a. Public Hearing: Ordinance 02-12 (02-ZOA-06); Waivers – Ms. Bobber explained that the proposed ordinance would effect a Zoning Ordinance amendment to further extend a “bridge” between the Town’s current zoning regulations and those proposed in the draft Unified Development Ordinance. She reported that the Town has been receiving many contacts for proposed development within the Town but that, after reviewing the proposed UDO regulations, most developers and engineers have expressed an interest in utilizing the “design-based” regulations of the UDO as opposed to the “regulatory” requirements of the current ordinance.

The proposed amendment would allow for developers and design professionals to use various elements that are proposed within the UDO prior to the ordinance actually being in effect, pending approval of the Town Board, Ms. Bobber said. She added that the Planning Board had reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment and recommends approval.

With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the public hearing. The following comments were recorded: None.

There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.

Action: The Board approved a motion to adopt Ordinance 02-12 (02-ZOA-06) adding Section 9-4042.8, Waivers, to the Town of Holly Springs Town Code.

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Atwell

Vote: Unanimous

A copy of Ordinance 02-12 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.

5b. Public Hearing: Rezoning Petition 02-REZ-05, Ridgeston Townhomes – Ms. Bailey explained that the Town had received a petition for rezoning of 5.20 acres located south of Arbor Creek and east of NC 55. This previously landlocked piece of property, Ms. Bailey said, will now have the opportunity to gain access through the Windcrest Planned Unit Development.

The applicant requests that the subject property be rezoned from Traditional Neighborhood to R-10 Single or Multi-Family Residential District. Ms. Bailey reported that the R-10 zoning district would be appropriate for this property. Additionally, rezoning would make the property more compatible with the surrounding zoning and approved developments, she said.

Ms. Bailey reported that the Planning Board had reviewed the petition and recommends approval.

With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the public hearing. The following comments were recorded: None.

There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.

Action: The Board approved a motion to approve Rezoning Petition 02-REZ-05 to change the zoning of 5.20 acres (part of PIN 0659.01-08-2287) from TN: Traditional Neighborhood to R-10: Single- or Multi-Family Residential as submitted by Spaulding and Norris, P.A.

Motion By: Tedder

Second By: Dickson

Vote: Unanimous

5c. Public Hearing: Rezoning Petition 02-REZ-09, 536 Country Lane – Ms. Bailey explained that the Town had received a petition requesting the rezoning of .94 acres located west of Avent Ferry Road off of Country Lane inside the Country Lane Subdivision. The request, she said, is to change the zoning of the property from R-15: Residential Subdivision to R-10: Single- or Multi-Family Residential.

Ms. Bailey reported that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the 10-Year Comprehensive Growth Plan, which has this area designated for moderate density residential development. However, Ms. Bailey pointed out, the proposed rezoning request would appear to be “spot zoning” due to the fact that it is a small piece of land surrounded by lots zoned R-15: Residential. Despite their zoning designation, the surrounding residential lots correspond with the lot design standards for the R-10: Single- and Multi-Family Residential District more so than the R-15 as they are currently zoned.

Nonetheless, staff is concerned about the rezoning of less than an acre to a different zoning district than the surrounding developed properties.

The Planning Board has reviewed the petition and recommends approval. Staff, however, recommends denial of the request due to the thought that such action may be considered spot zoning.

With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the public hearing. The Town Clerk called the Board’s attention to an email submitted by a resident who is opposed to the rezoning. Each of the Board Members had received the email, a copy of which is incorporated into these minutes as an addendum page.

The following additional comments were recorded during the hearing:

Don Mizelle, representing the applicant – Mr. Mizelle spoke in favor of the rezoning. He agreed that from a “paper standpoint,” the rezoning of this parcel of land from R-15 to R-10 when surrounding property is zoned R-15 would appear to be spot zoning in normal circumstances. He pointed out, however, that the surrounding property is not developed to the R-15 zoning standards are many parcels are actually non-conforming to the R-15 zone. The properties, however, are developed to the R-10 zoning district standards.

He said, in this instance, it would be appropriate to rezone the subject property to R-10 as requested and then to actually consider rezoning the other lots in Country Lane to R-10 as well so that would be conforming properties.

There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.

In discussion, the Board discussed why the other properties in Country Lane were developed to R-10 standards when they were zoned R-15. Ms. Bobber explained that the development of Country Lane Subdivision pre-dates her and that she could find no records to indicate how this came about.

Action: The Board approved a motion to approve Rezoning Petition 02-REZ-09 to change the zoning of .94 acres from R-15: Residential Subdivision to R-10: Single- and Multi-Family Residential as submitted by Stafford Land Company.

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Tedder

Vote: 2-2. Commissioners VanFossen and Tedder voted for the motion. Commissioners Atwell and Dickson voted against. Mayor Sears broke the 2-2 tie by voted for the motion.

5d. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit Application 02-SUP-02, Ridgeston Townhomes – Ms. Bailey explained that the proposed Ridgeston Townhomes development consists of 39 townhome units on an approximately 5-acre site. The property is located south of Arbor Creek and east of NC 55, and is proposing to gain its access using one of the main road arteries in the approved Windcrest Planned Unit Development.

She noted that the Town’s Zoning Ordinance has specific requirements for townhomes as a Special Use in R-10 zoning. One of those requirements is that a 50-foot perimeter buffer be provided; however, this project has obtained a variance from the Board of Adjustment (02-VAR-11: Approved July 9, 2002) to reduce that perimeter buffer to a 20-foot perimeter buffer with opaque screening. There is an indication on the landscape plan that foundation plantings would be placed around the perimeter of each building.

The applicant has provided a set of very schematic elevations, Ms. Bailey said, adding that the developers currently do not know what type of design would be used for the townhomes.

The applicant has indicated that it would not be utilizing the Town’s waste pick-up services. Waste would be picked up by a private company. The plans indicated that the trash Dumpsters would be screened with a brick enclosure; however, it is recommended that the Dumpsters be designed to match the elevations of the buildings when that design is finalized.

Although access for this site would be extended off a street proposed in the Windcrest PUD, Ms. Bailey said approval of the Ridgeston plan would not grant access to this property. The Town would in no way be responsible for the schedule of the Windcrest development or the access to the site.

Ms. Bailey said the Planning Board had reviewed the application and recommends approval with conditions.

With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the public hearing to accept sworn testimony and qualified evidence in the matter of Special Use Permit Application 02-SUP-02. The following witnesses, under oath administered by the Town Clerk, testified:

Tom Spaulding representing Jewel Stephens – Mr. Spaulding testified that because of the draw of this particular plat of land, the only reasonable use for the property is as proposed.

Commissioner VanFossen asked if any provisions are being planned to provide for greenway trail along the creek running through the property.

Mr. Spaulding said staff did not request greenway trail, but that it would not be a problem.

Commissioner VanFossen asked why staff had not requested the provision. Mr. Bradley explained that greenway would be located just across the opposite bank of the creek, pursuant to the development plan for the property adjacent to the subject property.

Commissioner VanFossen agreed that this would probably be adequate.

Glen Myrto, 405 W. Ballentine Street – Mr. Myrto testified that he felt that greenway should be provided on the subject property side of the creek, at least in the form of easement.

Commissioner Tedder asked Ms. Bailey why the Board of Adjustment granted a reduction in buffer for the property. Ms. Bailey said that riparian buffers required on the property would be adequate and that the Windcrest Planned Unit Development that backs up to the property would have its own buffer as well. Together, the resulting buffer between land uses would be more than 50 feet.

Commissioner asked about interconnectivity of streets in the proposed townhome development.

Mrs. Sudano said that the street connection suggested by Commissioner Atwell would cross wetlands. She said that what the application and site plan propose is actually a better solution.

There being no further witnesses, the public hearing was closed.

At this time, the Board set about making the following findings of fact on the application and site plan.

This proposed use requires the satisfaction of five specific conditions:

1. Minimum lot area, width and lot coverage requirements shall be as indicated in Section 9.4037.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Board found that the application and site plan satisfy this condition.

2. The yard requirements around the perimeter of townhouse projects with more than two attached townhouses shall be increased to fifty (50) feet.

The Board found that the site plan illustrates that adequate buffering will be provided, pursuant to a Zoning Ordinance variance granted July 9, 2002 by the Board of Adjustment reducing the required perimeter buffer to 20 feet of opaque screening.

. 3. Townhouses shall meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Holly Springs, North Carolina, including the requirements for dedication of park, recreation and open space land.

The Board found that the application satisfies this condition.

4. The minimum number of townhomes attached to each other shall be two (2) and the maximum shall be eight (8).

The Board found that the application satisfies this condition.

5. Any common areas and common open space shall be deeded to a homeowners’ association which meets the requirements of Section 9-3058.2 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Holly Springs, North Carolina.

The Board found that the application satisfies this condition.

Action #1: The Board approved a motion that the Board agrees and accepts its findings of fact that Special Use Application 02‑SUP‑02 and its related site plan satisfy the specific conditions.

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Atwell

Vote: Unanimous

This proposed use requires general conditions to be met as follows:

1. That all Specific Conditions have been or will be satisfied.

The Board determined that the application and site plan satisfy the specific conditions.

2. Access roads or entrance and exit drives are or will be sufficient in size and properly located to ensure automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control and access in case of fire or other emergency.

The Board found that the application and site plan satisfy this condition.

3. Off street parking, loading, refuse, and other service areas are located so as to be safe, convenient, allow for access in case of emergency, and to minimize economic, glare, odor, and other impacts on adjoining properties and properties in the general neighborhood.

The Board found that the application and site plan satisfy this condition.

4. Utilities, schools, fire, police and other necessary public and private facilities and services will be adequate to handle the proposed use.

The Board found that the application and site plan satisfy this condition.

5. The location and arrangement of the use on the site, screening, buffering, landscaping, and pedestrian ways harmonize with adjoining properties and the general area and minimize adverse impacts.

The Board found that the application and site plan satisfy this condition.

6. The type, size, and intensity of the proposed use, including such considerations as the hours of operation and numbers of people who are likely to utilize or be attracted to the use, will not have significant adverse impacts on adjoining properties or the neighborhood.

The Board found that the application and site plan satisfy this condition.

Action #2: The Board approved a motion that the Board agrees and accepts its findings of fact that Application 02‑SUP‑02 and its related site plan satisfy the six general conditions relating to all special uses.

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Atwell

Vote: Unanimous

Action #3: Having made satisfactory findings of fact, the Board approved a motion to grant Special Use Permit 02‑ SUP‑02 for Ridgeston Townhomes, as submitted by Spaulding & Norris, PA, Project Number 360-02, dated Revised 4/29/02 and the related Preliminary Plan 02-MAS‑07 with the following eight (8) conditions:

1. The Dumpsters must be installed before the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

2. Construction drawings must be submitted and approved prior to beginning construction.

3. A fee-in-lieu-of land dedication will be required at the rate of $750 per unit.

4. The trash Dumpster screening is to match the materials and design of the townhouses.

5. The Town is not responsible for providing access to this property. The developer will be required to obtain access to this site.

6. If the proposed elevations for the buildings are modified, they must be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Board and the Town Board.

7. The following items are to be included on construction drawings (later in the approval process):

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Atwell

Vote: Unanimous

Copies of the application and site plan as submitted as evidence are incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages and are a part of the sworn record.

5e. Joint Public Hearing: 98-PUD-01-A01: Amendment to Sunset Ridge North PUD – Ms. Bobber explained that the developer of Sunset Ridge North is proposing to modify the proposed land use designation for 15 acres to the west of the Jones Building as specified on the Sunset Ridge North master plan. The master plan currently calls for this portion to be commercial with up to 2.5 units per acre in residential. However, this phase of the PUD was approved for 70 lots maximum, and all 70 lots already have been developed.

The developer would now like to reduce the 15 acres of commercial to only a few acres with the remaining acreage designated for townhomes and “Village” style single-family lots at a density of 5 units per acre.

Staff does not have the authority to grant administrative PUD amendments to change the land use designation on a mater plan or increase the maximum number of lots or density; therefore, this proposed amendment is required to go through the full Planned Unit Development review procedure, Ms. Bobber advised.

With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the joint public hearing to receive input before the Planning Board and the Town Board on the proposed PUD amendment. The following comments were recorded:

Jim Earnhardt – Mr. Earnhardt provided some background for this request. He said the property originally was slated for commercial development; however, it has been determined that the location of the property is probably not marketable for commercial use. He said the developer feels that the property needs to be developed in someway, however, to provide the connection from Kingsport Road to Holly Springs Road.

There being no further comments, the joint public hearing was closed.

Action: The Board approved a motion to forward the proposed Sunset Ridge North PUD Amendment 98-PUD-01-A01 to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation.

Motion By: Tedder

Second By: Dickson

Vote: Unanimous

6. Consent Agenda – All remaining items on the Consent Agenda were approved following a motion by Commissioner Dickson a second by Commissioner Atwell and a unanimous vote. The following actions were affected:

6a. 02-MAS-05, Newbury Park - This item was removed during agenda adjustment.

6b. Resolution 02-R-28 - Resolution 02-R-28 directing the Town Clerk to investigate the sufficiency of annexation petition A02-05 and fixing a public hearing date of Oct. 1, 2002 was adopted. A copy of the Resolution 02-R-28 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.

6c. Minutes. - Minutes of the Board’s regular meetings held on Aug. 20 and Sept. 3, 2002 were approved.

7a. Bass Lake Road Signal – Mrs. Thompson explained that current development that has taken place and continues to take place at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Holly Springs Road will be generating enough traffic to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. The future design and realignment of Bass Lake Road will increase the number of approaching lanes at the intersection, she added.

In order to design a signal, she said, phasing has to be designed, and coordination with the North Carolina Department of Transportation has to be initiated. The Engineering Department has established an extremely aggressive schedule for this project, and the experienced firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates has committed to providing any and all information to the Town and NCDOT in a timely manner, Mrs. Thompson said.

Action: The Board approved a motion to approve a proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $29,000 for professional design services of a traffic signal at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Holly Springs Road with funding provided from the Town’s Street Reserve Fund.

Motion By: Tedder

Second By: Atwell

Vote: Unanimous

A copy of the Kimley-Horn and Associates proposal is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.

7b. Resolution 02-29: Irrigation Restrictions – Mrs. Sudano explained that the end of the Town’s annual Water Conservation Season for this year is approaching. Normally, the Town lifts those irrigation restricts as of Sept. 30.

In light of continuing drought and water shortages being experienced by all communities in this area who share water sources, however, staff recommends continuing the restrictions indefinitely.

Action: The Board approved a motion to adopt Resolution 02-29 extending the Town’s annual Water Conservation Season indefinitely, during which time water customers will be required to observe irrigation restrictions until such time as the Town Board deems it appropriate to lift those restrictions.

Motion By: Tedder

Second By: VanFossen

Vote: Unanimous

A copy of Resolution 02-29 is incorporated into these minutes as an addendum page.

7c. Gable Ridge Lane – Mrs. Sudano explained that Town staff has been requested by different residents in the vicinity of this roadway connection to both (1) enforce a condition of approval for Sunset Ridge Phase 11 that related to keeping the roadway connection closed until construction was near completion, and (2) to open the roadway to access for new residents living in the new Phase 11 section of the development.

Since keeping Gable Ridge closed was a condition of plan approval and is being enforced as such during the construction stage of the project, it would take Board action to remove the condition of approval, Mrs. Sudano said. Accordingly, some of the residents have requested that this subject be brought up before the Board for consideration.

Staff recommends that the condition of approval (April 3, 2001) be amended to state that the connection should be opened, yet clearly identified by the developer as not permitting construction traffic (builders, trades, etc. working on house construction and/or infrastructure) and that the developer shall set up another marked entrance for construction traffic and shall be responsible to enforce the condition as much as possible.

In discussion, the Board talked about how to define construction traffic and then how to enforce the prohibition of construction traffic on the roadway. It was determined that the roadway should be open to local traffic, but that the intent of the Board is to minimize construction traffic. A separate construction entrance is available off Holly Springs Road.

Mrs. Sudano recommended that the onus of enforcement and marking the street as being closed to construction traffic should be on the developer, and the Board agreed.

Action: The Board approved a motion to modify a condition of its April 3, 2001 approval of the preliminary plan for Sunset Ridge Phase 11 to state that the northern-most connection to Gable Ridge Lane will remain closed to construction traffic until 80% of the homes in this phase have received a Certificate of Occupancy.

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Tedder

Vote: Unanimous

7d. Finisterra Developer Agreement – Mrs. Sudano explained to the Board that another group of developers have expressed interest in taking on the Finisterra golf community project with the same terms that were approved by the Town Board in a developer agreement in December 2000 (the agreement was never fully executed by the development group involved at that time).

During initial meetings with this new group of developers, the December 2000 version of the agreement was used as a base for discussions; however, at one point, the developer presented a draft revised document to the Town, which included some amended terms.

The developer intends to modify the approved Finisterra PUD plan that is currently on file with the Town. For this reason, the Town Manager and staff have advised the developer that a new comprehensive developer agreement cannot be finalized and entered into by the Town until the revised PUD plan is ready to approve concurrently with the new developer agreement.

The developer, however, requests that action be taken by the Town Board to assure the development group of the Town’s intent to enter into an agreement with them with terms similar to those outlined in the original draft and subsequent draft versions. The developer desires approval in principle with the terms of a “Preliminary Developer Agreement” prior to proceeding with development plans.

In discussion, Mrs. Sudano explained that the developer and the Town would be agreeing to work together to develop a full developer agreement with the intent of the original document. Both parties, she said, would work toward the final version, and the developer would modify the PUD plan for submittal within six months. She added that this action would provide the Town the opportunity to make grant application for the wastewater reuse grant.

Action: The Board approved a motion to approve in principle the terms set out in the “Preliminary Developer Agreement” related to the Finisterra Planned Unit Development.

Motion By: Tedder

Second By: VanFossen

Vote: Unanimous

A copy of the Finisterra Preliminary Developer Agreement containing these terms is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.

7e. Eckerd Payment-in-Lieu of Road Widening – Mrs. Sudano reported that when the Town Board approved the Eckerd site plan, it was with the condition that road improvements be installed with the development of the site. Since that time, the Town has embarked upon an intersection improvements project that will incorporate those improvements. At the Town Board’s direction, staff has worked with the developer on these arrangements, resulting in a payment in lieu estimate of $65,154.50, Mrs. Sudano said, adding, that the amount is subject to increase if costs associated with the improvements related to the Eckerd site increase.

She asked for the Board’s approval of this amount.

Action: The Board approved a motion to approve $65,154.50 as the amount of the payment in lieu of road widening for Eckerd Drug Co., to be due at construction drawing approval and placement of the funds into the Town’s intersection project account.

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Atwell

Vote: Unanimous

7f. Walgreens Payment-in-Lieu of Road Widening – Mrs. Sudano explained that when the Town Board approved the Walgreen’s site plan, it was with the condition that a pyament in lieu would be provided by Walgreen’s to the Town for required off-site road improvements. The Town has incorporated those improvements into its NC55 / Holly Springs Road Intersection Project, as directed by the Town Board.

Since the referenced decision of the Town Board, NCDOT has added a requirement to the Walgreen’s plan for an additional left turn lane to be constructed along New Hill Road, which the developer has also requested be incorporated into the Town’s plans, for which the developer would make a payment in lieu.

Staff is working with the developer’s engineer to insure that the turn lane could be accomplished by the Town in time to satisfy NCDOT’s requirement.

Assuming that NCDOT will permit both components of the off-site improvements to take place on the schedule that the Town’s intersection improvements will happen, Mrs. Sudano said, the developer’s payment in lieu is proposed to total $83,000 (original estimate) pluse $27,000 (staff’s estimated cost of the new left turn lane), for a total of $110,000, subject to an increase if construction costs of the improvements that are the responsibility of Walgreen’s increases.

Action: The Board approved a motion to approve the amount of the payment in lieu for Walgreens, to be due at construction drawing approval, and placement of the funds into the Town’s intersection project account.

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Dickson

Vote: Unanimous

7g. Town Clerk’s Position – Mr. Dean explained that the Town Clerk had requested that the position of Town Clerk be removed from a list of positions in the Town of Holly Springs Personnel Policy section on the employment of relatives. This request, he said, led to a general discussion of the Town’s organizational structure and how the position of Town Clerk has changed, especially with the addition of new positions in the last two years.

Mr. Dean said that if the Town Clerk position was formally moved under direct administrative management of the Town Manager (rather than the Town Board), then the position would be seen as similar to any other department head reporting directly to the Manager. He added that if the Board were to make this change in the relationship between the Town Clerk, the Town Manager and the Town Board, then he would support the removal of the position of Town Clerk from the “Employment of Relatives” section of the policy. He added that the position of Assistant Town Manager needs to be added to this section.

Mr. Dean stressed that the Town Clerk’s position no longer has over-sight or access to personnel files and inter-office communications on topics related to personnel matters and that no real conflict of interest issue would exist.

He also noted that the Town Board would retain its statutory authority to select a Town Clerk and to dismiss the Town Clerk at any time and to assign duties to the Town Clerk as needed. What would change, he explained, is if the Town Board were to decide as a Board to discontinue a Town Clerk’s service to the Board, the Town Clerk would not necessarily loose his or her paid position with the Town as duties could be reassigned by the Town Manager.

Action: The Board approved a motion affirming that the Town Clerk shall work under the direct administrative management of the Town Manager and that, since the Town Clerk’s position is like any other department head reporting directly to the Town Manager, the Town’s Personnel Policy is amended to remove the position of “Town Clerk” from the positions listed in the “Employment of Relatives” section; and that the policy should be further amended to add the position of Assistant Town Manager to the positions listed in the “Employment of Relatives” section..

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Dickson

Vote: Unanimous

8. Public Comment – At this time, an opportunity was provided for members of the audience who had registered to speak to address the Board on any variety of topics not listed on the night’s agenda. The following citizens were heard: None

9. Other Business: Mr. Pearson reported to the Board that he recommends that the Town go forward with Sunset Ridge pump station landscaping and fencing as promised and complete the project, regardless if one property owner refuses to sign the waiver of liability. He said, and the Board agreed, that it would not be fair to penalize the remaining residents because of the position of one, who is not particularly effected by the project.

The Board consensus was to go forward with landscaping and decorative fencing as promised.

The board discussed formulating a policy regarding the funding of committees. The issue arose from the Solid Waste Committee’s booth fee from the September Fest event. Committee member Glen Myrto provided the $35 booth fee and requests reimbursement.

Action: The Board directed that the Town Manager be authorized to allocate up to $250 per committee for petty cash expenses and that expenses, whenever possible, be given prior approval before an expenditure is made.

10. Manager’s Reports – None.

11. Closed Session – None

12. Adjournment – There being no further business for the evening, the Sept. 17, 2002 meeting of the Holly Springs Board of Commissioners was adjourned following a motion by Commissioner VanFossen, a second by Commissioner Atwell and a unanimous vote.

Mayor Sears then reconvened the meeting to discuss one other item of Other Business.

Mr. Bradley reported that Holly Ridge Middle School has requested that the Town buy a softball/soccer/football scoreboard. Mr. Bradley said he has determined that the scoreboard could cost as much as $8,500 and could be funded from park impact fees.

The Board directed that Mr. Bradley make contact with a local industry that makes lighted electronic signs to see if it could make a scoreboard and if it could provide it at a better cost. Mr. Bradley said he would investigate the options and report his findings to the Board.

At this time, Mayor Sears entertained another motion to adjourn, and the meeting was closed.

Respectfully Submitted on Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2002.

_______________________________________

Joni Powell, CMC, Town Clerk

Addendum pages as referenced in these minutes follow and are a part of the official record.