Board of Adjustment Meeting Agenda Packet (PDF)

Notice in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: 1) Any person needing assistance to participate in this meeting should contact the Office of the County Clerk at (920) 746-2200. Notification 72 hours prior to a meeting will enable the County to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 2) Door County is committed to making its electronic and information technology (e.g., website and contents) accessible for all persons. If you encounter difficulty accessing the posted materials for this meeting, located on-line at https://www.co.door.wi.gov/AgendaCenter under the committee name, or have trouble accessing the virtual meeting, please call (920) 746-2323, or send a FAX to (920) 746-2387, or send an e-mail to Lriemer@co.door.wi.us so that we may determine how to best assist you. AGENDA 1.0 Call to order and declaration of quorum 2.0 Final disposition of the following case(s) considered by the Board of Adjustment on July 28, 2026. 2.1 Mike Kickbush; accessory structure on vacant parcel; Washington; PIN 0280102332931E (1061 Old West Harbor Rd.) 2.2 Kregg & Melanie Shilbauer; accessory structure on vacant parcel; PIN 0220112282511K3 (5049 Bay Shore Dr.) 3.0 Read and act on minutes of August 25, 2026, meeting 4.0 Future meeting schedule: • October 13th: Meeting canceled, no public hearings. • October 27th: Possible Public Hearing • November 10th: Possible Public Hearing 5.0 Address scheduling 6.0 Vouchers 7.0 Adjournment Deviation from order shown may occur. Jeff Schmeckpeper, Chair Door County Board of Adjustment c/o Door County Land Use Services Dept. Door County Government Center 421 Nebraska St. Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235 Notice of Public Meeting Tuesday, September 22, 2026 4:30 p.m. DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Door County Government Center Peninsula Room (C121, 1st floor) 421 Nebraska Street, Sturgeon Bay, WI USE THE 4TH STREET ENTRANCE, ACROSS FROM THE LIBRARY. Applicants and others who wish to speak must attend in person. Members of the public who wish to simply monitor/observe the hearings and meeting may attend in person or do so remotely by using the link below, or via the Zoom smartphone app, or by calling (312) 626-6799. Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84352010237?pwd=VlG avKKdWKBv4TfCOGWIIEEtQpIdKk.1 Zoom ID: 843 5201 0237 Passcode: 890915 1 1 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Decision – Accessory Structure Floor Area Variance APPLICANT(S) NAME(S): Mike Kickbush PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: 1061 Old West Harbour Rd./ PIN: 028-01-02332931E HEARING DATE: August 25, 2026 DECISION DATE: August 25, 2026 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Mike Kickbush, on behalf of the Bordeau-Jones Revocable Trust, is requesting a variance from Section 3.12(4) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which requires accessory structures on lots without an associated principal structure to be a maximum of 120 square feet, not greater than 13 feet 6 inches in height, and have no water service, sanitary waste disposal, or electricity connected to the structure. The applicant proposes a 30’ x 24’-6” (735 square feet), 15’ 1 ¼” tall, accessory structure on the vacant lot located east of the public road right-of-way with electricity. DECISION: On the basis of the Decision-Making Worksheets (attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full) and the record in this matter the Board of Adjustment finds and determines that: A. The requested variance from Section 3.12(4) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 59.694(7), Wisconsin Statutes. The Board of Adjustment voted to deny the petition for grant of variance from 3.12(4) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by the following vote. Bob Ryan: Aye Monica Nelson: Aye Jeff Schmeckpeper: Aye Cheryl Mick: Nay Chris Anderson: Aye Signed Signed Chairperson Recording Clerk Dated: September 22, 2026 Filed: September 23, 2026 Appeal: This decision may be appealed by a person aggrieved by this decision by filing an action in certiorari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of this decision. The County of Door assumes no liability for and makes no warranty as to reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. The privileges granted by this decision shall become void one (1) year after the filed date unless the zoning permits for the authorized project have been obtained within such time. 2 2 1 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION-MAKING WORKSHEET APPLICANT(S) NAME(S): Mike Kickbush PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: 1061 Old West Harbour Rd/ PIN: 028-01-02332931E HEARING DATE: August 25, 2026 DECISION DATE: August 25, 2026 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Mike Kickbush, on behalf of the Bordeau -Jones Revocable Trust, is requesting a variance from Section 3.12(4) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which requires accessory structures on lots without an associated principal structure to be a maximum of 120 square feet, not greater than 13 feet 6 inches in height, and have no water servi ce, sanitary waste disposal, or electricity connected to the structure. The applicant proposes a 30’ x 24’-6” (735 square feet), 15’ 1 ¼” tall, accessory structure on the vacant lot located east of the public road right-of-way with electricity. To grant an area variance, all three of the standards enumerated below must be met. In addressing each standard, express the reasons for the decision, i.e., why the facts did or did not satisfy the standards, the weight and credibility of the evidence presented (or lack thereof), and any other relevant considerations. 1. UNIQUE PHYSICAL PROPERTY LIMITATIONS. Are there unique physical property limitations such as steep slopes, wetlands, or parcel shape that prevent compliance with the ordinance? The circumstances of an applicant (growing family, need for a larger garage, etc.) are not factors in deciding variances. Property limitations that prevent ordinance compliance and are common to a number of properties should be addressed by amending the ordinance. The variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. In order for a variance to satisfy the unique physical property limitation test, the question below must be answered affirmatively. Does this property contain unique physical property limitations (e.g., wetland presence, parcel shape, steep slope, etc.) that would prevent compliance with the ordinance? YES _____ NO __X__ EXPLAIN: The lot being bisected by a public road right-of-way does not create a unique limitation specific to this property since several parcels in the area and around the county share this characteristic. 3 3 2 2. UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. Unnecessary hardship exists when a literal enforcement of the ordinance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or when conformity with ordinance standards would be unnecessarily burdensome. Considerations: • Unnecessary hardship should be determined in light of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance in question, as well as any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based. (See page 4.) The facts of the case should be analyzed in light of these purposes. Only after considering the purpose(s) of the statute and/or ordinance, and the nature of the specific restriction(s) at issue, may a decision be made as to whether or not failure to grant a variance will cause an unnecessary hardship. • Unnecessary hardship may arise due to a unique property limitation of a parcel (see #1, above). A variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. • Unnecessary hardship does not include considerations personal to the property owner (e.g., personal preference, desire to maximizing the economic value of the property, or financial hardship caused by ordinance compliance). • Any self-created hardship, and/or any hardship that existed irrespective of the zoning ordinance in question are not proper grounds upon which to grant a variance. • Alternatives to a variance (e.g., conditional use permit or restrictive covenant) may, as neither runs with the land, be preferable to accommodate a disability of the owner or owner’s dependent. In order for a variance to satisfy the unnecessary hardship test, one of the questions below (A or B) must be answered affirmatively. A. Does denial of the variance -- i.e., requiring compliance with the strict letter of the ordinance provision(s) in question (e.g., setbacks, height limitations, etc.) -- unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose? YES _____ NO __X__ EXPLAIN: The floor area limitation of 120 square feet does not prevent reasonable use of the property. The ordinance does allow for them to build a conforming accessory structure in the location the applicant is proposing or for them to include a dwelling unit in the proposed design. OR B. Is conformity with the regulation(s) unnecessarily burdensome? YES _____ NO _____ EXPLAIN: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 4 4 3 3. PUBLIC INTEREST/SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interests, nor thwarts the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In applying this test, the board should review the purpose statements of the ordinance (and any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based) in order to identify public interests. (See page 4.) The short-term and long-term impacts of the proposal and the cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the community, and even the state, should be considered. Review should focus on the general public interest, rather than just the narrow interests or impacts on neighbors, patrons, or residents in the vicinity of the project. Cumulative effects are a proper consideration. For instance, in the context of shoreland zoning, the general availability of variances permitting the horizontal expansion of structures so close to the water's edge may have the cumulative effect of enclosing our lakes within a wall of impermeable surfaces to the exclusion of vegetation and impairing the ecological functions of the shoreland buffer. A variance is not a popularity contest. The mere fact of public support or opposition is not, in and of itself, determinative of whether or not a variance is contrary to the public interest. The board may grant only the minimum variance needed, i.e., the minimum variance necessary to relieve the unnecessary hardship. For instance, if the request is for a variance of 30 feet from the minimum setback, and a finding is made that a 10-foot setback reduction would allow the petitioner to use the property for a permitted purpose, then only a 10-foot setback reduction may be authorized. Distinguish between hardships that are unnecessary in light of the unique conditions of the property and the purpose of the zoning ordinance from hardships that are inconsequential or not unique or because a variance would unduly undermine the purpose of the ordinance or the public interest. In order for a variance to satisfy the public interest test, the question below must be answered negatively. Does the granting of the variance result in harm to the public interest? YES _____ NO __X__ EXPLAIN: There would be no negative impact or harm to public interest. Has the applicant seeking a variance demonstrated that each of the three standards has been satisfied in this case? YES _____ NO __X__. If yes, then substantial justice will be done by granting the variance. Dated this: September 22, 2026 5 5 4 Door County Zoning Ordinance Purpose Statements "1.04 Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote and protect public health, safety, aesthetics, and other aspects of the general welfare. Further purposes of this Ordinance are to: (1) Aid in implementing the county development plan. (2) Promote planned and orderly land use development. (3) Protect property values and the property tax base. (4) Fix reasonable dimensional requirements to which buildings, structures, and lots shall conform. (5) Prevent overcrowding of the land. (6) Advance uses of land in accordance with its character and suitability. (7) Provide property with access to adequate sunlight and clean air. (8) Aid in protection of groundwater and surface water. (9) Preserve wetlands. (10) Protect the beauty of landscapes. (11) Conserve flora and fauna habitats. (12) Preserve and enhance the county's rural characteristics. (13) Protect vegetative shore cover. (14) Promote safety and efficiency in the county's road transportation system. (15) Define the duties and powers of administrative bodies in administering this Ordinance. (16) Prescribe penalties for violation of this Ordinance." Wisconsin Statutes Purpose Statement 281.31. Navigable waters protection law "(1) To aid in the fulfillment of the state's role as trustee of its navigable waters and to promote public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, it is declared to be in the public interest to make studies, establish policies, make plans and authorize municipal shoreland zoning regulations for the efficient use, conservation, development and protection of this state's water resources. The regulations shall relate to lands under, abutting or lying close to navigable waters. The purposes of the regulations shall be to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structure and land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty." (Emphasis added.) Examples as to how to use the above in conjunction with analysis of a variance request When considering a variance request to relax the required ordinary high water mark setback, county zoning ordinance purposes (8), (10), (11), and (13) are likely relevant to consider. Purposes (2), (3), (4), and (5) may also be relevant. Depending upon the nature of the variance request, any of the components of the statutory purposes behind shoreland zoning (above) may be relevant to consider. When considering a variance request to relax a required yard (setback), county zoning ordinance purposes (2), (3), (4), and (5) are likely relevant to consider. 6 6 1 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Decision – Accessory Structure Floor Area Variance APPLICANT(S) NAME(S): Kregg T & Melanie A Shilbauer Trust PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: 5049 Bay Shore Dr./ PIN: 022-01-12282511K3 HEARING DATE: August 25, 2026 DECISION DATE: August 25, 2026 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Kregg & Melanie Shilbauer request a variance from Section 3.12(4) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which requires accessory structures on lots without an associated principal structure to be a maximum of 120 square feet, not greater than 13 feet 6 inches in height, and have no water service, sanitary waste disposal, or electricity connected to the structure. The applicants propose to construct a 30’ x 40’ garage, 23’-3” tall, which includes a loft, on the vacant lot located east of the public road right-of-way with electricity. DECISION: On the basis of the Decision-Making Worksheets (attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full) and the record in this matter the Board of Adjustment finds and determines that: A. The requested variance from Section 3.12(4) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 59.694(7), Wisconsin Statutes. The Board of Adjustment voted to deny the petition for grant of variance from 3.12(4) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by the following vote. Bob Ryan: Aye Monica Nelson: Aye Jeff Schmeckpeper: Aye Cheryl Mick: Aye Chris Anderson: Aye Signed Signed Chairperson Recording Clerk Dated: September 22, 2026 Filed: September 23, 2026 Appeal: This decision may be appealed by a person aggrieved by this decision by filing an action in certiorari in the circuit court for this county within 30 days after the date of filing of this decision. The County of Door assumes no liability for and makes no warranty as to reliance on this decision if construction is commenced prior to expiration of this 30 day period. The privileges granted by this decision shall become void one (1) year after the filed date unless the zoning permits for the authorized project have been obtained within such time. 7 7 1 DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION-MAKING WORKSHEET APPLICANT(S) NAME(S): Kregg T & Melanie A Shilbauer Trust PROPERTY ADDRESSES / PIN: 5049 Bay Shore Dr./ PIN: 022-01-12282511K3 HEARING DATE: August 25, 2026 DECISION DATE: August 25, 2026 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Kregg & Melanie Shilbauer request a variance from Section 3.12(4) of the Door County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which requires accessory structures on lots without an associated principal structure to be a maximum of 120 square feet, not greater than 13 feet 6 inches in height, and have no water service, sanitary waste disposal, or electricity connected to the structure. The applicants propose to construct a 30’ x 40’ garage, 23’-3” tall, which includes a loft, on the vacant lot located east of the public road right-of-way with electricity. To grant an area variance, all three of the standards enumerated below must be met. In addressing each standard, express the reasons for the decision, i.e., why the facts did or did not satisfy the standards, the weight and credibility of the evidence presented (or lack thereof), and any other relevant considerations. 1. UNIQUE PHYSICAL PROPERTY LIMITATIONS. Are there unique physical property limitations such as steep slopes, wetlands, or parcel shape that prevent compliance with the ordinance? The circumstances of an applicant (growing family, need for a larger garage, etc.) are not factors in deciding variances. Property limitations that prevent ordinance compliance and are common to a number of properties should be addressed by amending the ordinance. The variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. In order for a variance to satisfy the unique physical property limitation test, the question below must be answered affirmatively. Does this property contain unique physical property limitations (e.g., wetland presence, parcel shape, steep slope, etc.) that would prevent compliance with the ordinance? YES _____ NO __X_ EXPLAIN: The lot being bisected by a public road right-of-way does not create a unique limitation specific to this property since several parcels in the area and around the county share this characteristic. 8 8 2 2. UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. Unnecessary hardship exists when a literal enforcement of the ordinance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or when conformity with ordinance standards would be unnecessarily burdensome. Considerations: • Unnecessary hardship should be determined in light of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance in question, as well as any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based. (See page 4.) The facts of the case should be analyzed in light of these purposes. Only after considering the purpose(s) of the statute and/or ordinance, and the nature of the specific restriction(s) at issue, may a decision be made as to whether or not failure to grant a variance will cause an unnecessary hardship. • Unnecessary hardship may arise due to a unique property limitation of a parcel (see #1, above). A variance is not warranted if the physical character of the property allows a landowner to develop or build in compliance with the zoning ordinance. • Unnecessary hardship does not include considerations personal to the property owner (e.g., personal preference, desire to maximizing the economic value of the property, or financial hardship caused by ordinance compliance). • Any self-created hardship, and/or any hardship that existed irrespective of the zoning ordinance in question are not proper grounds upon which to grant a variance. • Alternatives to a variance (e.g., conditional use permit or restrictive covenant) may, as neither runs with the land, be preferable to accommodate a disability of the owner or owner’s dependent. In order for a variance to satisfy the unnecessary hardship test, one of the questions below (A or B) must be answered affirmatively. A. Does denial of the variance -- i.e., requiring compliance with the strict letter of the ordinance provision(s) in question (e.g., setbacks, height limitations, etc.) -- unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose? YES _____ NO __X__ EXPLAIN: The floor area limitation of 120 square feet does not prevent reasonable use of the property. The ordinance does allow for them to build a conforming accessory structure in the location the applicant is proposing or for them to include a dwelling unit in the proposed design. Additionally, there is buildable area present on the lot west of the right-of-way. OR B. Is conformity with the regulation(s) unnecessarily burdensome? YES _____ NO _____ EXPLAIN: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 9 9 3 3. PUBLIC INTEREST/SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interests, nor thwarts the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In applying this test, the board should review the purpose statements of the ordinance (and any statute or administrative rule upon which the ordinance is based) in order to identify public interests. (See page 4.) The short-term and long-term impacts of the proposal and the cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the community, and even the state, should be considered. Review should focus on the general public interest, rather than just the narrow interests or impacts on neighbors, patrons, or residents in the vicinity of the project. Cumulative effects are a proper consideration. For instance, in the context of shoreland zoning, the general availability of variances permitting the horizontal expansion of structures so close to the water's edge may have the cumulative effect of enclosing our lakes within a wall of impermeable surfaces to the exclusion of vegetation and impairing the ecological functions of the shoreland buffer. A variance is not a popularity contest. The mere fact of public support or opposition is not, in and of itself, determinative of whether or not a variance is contrary to the public interest. The board may grant only the minimum variance needed, i.e., the minimum variance necessary to relieve the unnecessary hardship. For instance, if the request is for a variance of 30 feet from the minimum setback, and a finding is made that a 10-foot setback reduction would allow the petitioner to use the property for a permitted purpose, then only a 10-foot setback reduction may be authorized. Distinguish between hardships that are unnecessary in light of the unique conditions of the property and the purpose of the zoning ordinance from hardships that are inconsequential or not unique or because a variance would unduly undermine the purpose of the ordinance or the public interest. In order for a variance to satisfy the public interest test, the question below must be answered negatively. Does the granting of the variance result in harm to the public interest? YES _____ NO __X__ EXPLAIN: There would be no negative impact or harm to public interest. Has the applicant seeking a variance demonstrated that each of the three standards has been satisfied in this case? YES _____ NO __X__. If yes, then substantial justice will be done by granting the variance. Dated this: September 22, 2026 10 10 4 Door County Zoning Ordinance Purpose Statements "1.04 Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote and protect public health, safety, aesthetics, and other aspects of the general welfare. Further purposes of this Ordinance are to: (1) Aid in implementing the county development plan. (2) Promote planned and orderly land use development. (3) Protect property values and the property tax base. (4) Fix reasonable dimensional requirements to which buildings, structures, and lots shall conform. (5) Prevent overcrowding of the land. (6) Advance uses of land in accordance with its character and suitability. (7) Provide property with access to adequate sunlight and clean air. (8) Aid in protection of groundwater and surface water. (9) Preserve wetlands. (10) Protect the beauty of landscapes. (11) Conserve flora and fauna habitats. (12) Preserve and enhance the county's rural characteristics. (13) Protect vegetative shore cover. (14) Promote safety and efficiency in the county's road transportation system. (15) Define the duties and powers of administrative bodies in administering this Ordinance. (16) Prescribe penalties for violation of this Ordinance." Wisconsin Statutes Purpose Statement 281.31. Navigable waters protection law "(1) To aid in the fulfillment of the state's role as trustee of its navigable waters and to promote public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, it is declared to be in the public interest to make studies, establish policies, make plans and authorize municipal shoreland zoning regulations for the efficient use, conservation, development and protection of this state's water resources. The regulations shall relate to lands under, abutting or lying close to navigable waters. The purposes of the regulations shall be to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structure and land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty." (Emphasis added.) Examples as to how to use the above in conjunction with analysis of a variance request When considering a variance request to relax the required ordinary high water mark setback, county zoning ordinance purposes (8), (10), (11), and (13) are likely relevant to consider. Purposes (2), (3), (4), and (5) may also be relevant. Depending upon the nature of the variance request, any of the components of the statutory purposes behind shoreland zoning (above) may be relevant to consider. When considering a variance request to relax a required yard (setback), county zoning ordinance purposes (2), (3), (4), and (5) are likely relevant to consider. 11 11 MINUTES OF MEETING DOOR COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 25, 2026 1.0 Call to order and declaration of quorum. The meeting was called to order by Ryan at 4:35 p.m. on Tuesday, August 25, 2026, in the Peninsula Room (C-121) of the Door County Government Center, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. Present: BOA Members Staff Bob Ryan Adam Ferrell, Code Administrator Monica Nelson Tara McKeefry, Code Administrator Jeff Schmeckpeper Colleen McCauley, County Planner Cheryl Mick (Via Zoom) Chris Anderson 2.0 Vote for Chairperson 2.1 Motion by Nelson, seconded by Anderson, to nominate Schmeckpeper for Chair person. Motion carried (5-0). 3.0 Vote for Vice-Chairperson 3.1 Motion by Nelson, seconded by Schmeckpeper, to nominate Forest for Vice-Chair person. Motion carried (5-0). 4.0 Discuss and arrive at a decision on Petition for Grant of Variance. 4.1 Mike Kickbush; accessory structure on vacant parcel; Washington; PIN 0280102332931E (1061 Old West Harbor Rd.) Motion by Ryan, seconded by Schmeckpeper, to deny the variance. Motion carried (4-1; Mick “Nay”). 4.2 Kregg & Melanie Shilbauer Trust; accessory structure on vacant parcel; Sevastapol; PIN 0220112282511K3 (5049 Bay Shore Dr.) Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nelson, to deny the variance. Motion carried (5-0). 5.0 Final disposition of the following case(s) considered by the Board of Adjustment on July 14, 2026. 5.1 Betty Wall; ordinary high-water mark setback; Sevastapol; PIN 0220328282734E (4120 Glidden Dr.) Motion by Nelson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the variance. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). The basis for the decision is set forth in the Board of Adjustment decision document. 6.0 Read and act on minutes of July 28, 2025, meeting. Motion by Nelson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). 7.0 Future meeting schedule: • September 8th: Business Meeting • September 22nd: Public Hearing • October 13th: Business Meeting 8.0 Vouchers. All BOA members’ vouchers reflect a 1.5-hour meeting. 9.0 Adjournment. Motion by Ryan, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Schmeckpeper declared the meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Adam Ferrell, Code Administrator 12 12