Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout200710 Oct PBM MINUTES OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 4, 2007 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Human Resources Training Room at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Melissa Gott, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director David Adams Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner Richard Collier Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist Sue Hayes Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner Ken Wrangell Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Absent: Sandra Spiers Jay Williams Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Sue Haves made a motion to approve the September minutes. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. Item 1: Text Amendment (A-366, 4/07) - Request by David Ward to amend Sections 72-31 Commercial Marina, to add a condition that dry storage of boats not be allowed in residential districts. Jane Daughtridge stated that the County has been petitioned by David Ward to amend section 72-31 of the County's Zoning Ordinance to add a condition to prohibit dry stack storage facilities in commercial marinas located within residential districts. Ms. Daughtridge stated that the amendment must be consistent with the Land Use Plan; reasonable; and in the public's interest. Ms. Daughtridge added that the Land Use Plan does contain a policy, " . to protect the residential character of existing neighborhoods." Ken Shanklin, an attorney representing Tim Ward, stated that he has filed a motion to continue the text amendment request by David Ward to allow for additional time for review. Bill Raney, an attorney for David and Violet Ward stated that a text amendment is different than a rezoning or special use and that general notice is given to the public rather than to specific property owners. Mr. Raney felt that there was no defect in the public notice process and that notice was given in the public notices sections of the newspaper. Sue Haves stated that although the Board is not legally required to grant a continuance, but given the history surrounding the marina and recent emails between the Board regarding potential, additional ramifications, she thought additional time to consider the item would be appropriate. Ms. Hayes suggested having a work session. David Adams stated that the text amendment appears to be a good idea and the petitioner has provided good evidence in the form of precedents set by other agencies but agreed that it might be a good idea to discuss the item further before voting. Bill Raney stated that if the Board was considering granting a continuance, to only continue the item for 30 days, not 60 days. Richard Collier agreed the amendment appeared to be a good idea on the surface and it would not be a bad idea to restrict dry stack storage but felt that additional time should be granted to allow for wordsmithing and for opponents to prepare. Richard Collier made a motion to continue the item for 60 days. Ken Wrangell seconded the motion. Sue Haves felt that 60 days was unnecessary. Chris O'Keefe stated that staff did not require any additional time. Richard Collier stated that given Board email exchange, that he felt Jay Williams would be in favor of a continuance. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to continue the item for 60 days. Item 2: Conditional Rezoning (Z-871, 8/07) - Request by Watertree Properties NC, LLC (Dean Satrape) to rezone approximately 42 acres located along the Northeast Cape Fear River near Brentwood Dr. in the Conservation Land Classification from I-2 Heavy Industrial District to Conditional Use District CD(R-15) for recreational amenities associated with a residential subdivision. (Continued from September meeting) Jane Daughtridge provided an overview of the site's history, land use, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS). Ms. Daughtridge showed the proposed site plan and stated that the petitioner is requesting a conditional R-15 to provide amenities for a residential subdivision including a community boating facility, boardwalk, and canoe/kayak launch. Ms. Daughtridge provided the following staff summary: STAFF SUMMARY The subject property is located in the northern portion of the county along the Cape Fear River in an area classified as Conservation on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is accessed from Brentwood Dr., off Castle Hayne Rd. Castle Hayne Rd. is a principal arterial road according to the Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. Level of service has been rated F along this segment, meaning dense traffic exceeds the design capacity of the roadway. The subject property is currently vacant swampland with one high ground "island" between the river and a newly rezoned R-15 area off Brentwood Dr. Surrounding property is otherwise zoned I-2 Industrial. The subject property is located within the Smith Creek watershed drainage area which is classified C(SW) and is listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. The property is all within the 100 year flood zone except the high ground "island" is shown as a 1% risk area. All soils are class IV, Dorovan soil. The site is chiefly a discharge area for groundwater rather than a recharge area for the aquifer. Public water and sewer are not present in the vicinity. Chris O'Keefe provided the following land use considerations and findings of fact: Land Use Plan Considerations: This rezoning petition proposes a change from heavy industrial zoning to Conditional Use District CD(R- 15) Residential designation. The proposed site plan creates an array of water oriented recreational amenities associated with a proposed subdivision in the newly rezoned R-15 high ground off Brentwood Rd. The proposed amenities include an 85 slip community boating facility, pedestrian boardwalk, canoe launch areas, nature overlooks and restroom and picnic facilities on the high ground "island." The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Conservation class as providing for effective long-term management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources while also protecting the rights of the property owner. Management of these areas may be required for a number of reasons, including natural, cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values, but are primarily flood prone areas. The area classified as conservation consists primarily of tidal marsh and is completely within the 100 year floodplain. Rezoning to a Conditional Use District R-15 zoning would limit use of the property to only those shown on the companion special use permit. Since the character of those uses is water dependent recreation, it would appear to be consistent with the Land Use Plan and the goals of the County's floodplain management ordinance. Staff supports this request and recommends approval. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. Public water will serve the property. B. The proposed restroom area must secure approval from the County's Division of Environmental Health to permit a septic tank. C. Access to the proposed recreational amenities will be from a proposed 85 lot subdivision. D. The number of boat slips may not exceed the number of lots within the subdivision served by the community boating facility. E. The proposed subdivision to be associated with this project has received approval for 85 lots. F. Vehicular traffic is not an issue for this proposal. G. Fire Service is available from the Wrightsboro FD. H. The property is located in a flood hazard area but the proposed uses are limited to water recreation types of facilities. L Stormwater control is subject to the requirements of the County's stormwater ordinance. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. The property is zoned I-2 Industrial District. This request is made concurrent with conditional rezoning to CD (R-15) Conditional District for residential use. B. A community boating facility is allow with a special use permit in an R-15 zoning district. C. Petitioner proposes 85 boat slips to serve an 85 lot subdivision. D. Traffic circulation is not applicable since this site is accessed only as a pedestrian or watercraft location. E. A traffic impact analysis is not required. F. Parking will be provided on individual lots associated with the boat slips. G. CAMA permits will be required. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of adjacent parcels. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Conservation class as providing for effective long-term management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources while also protecting the rights of the property owner. Management of these areas may be required for a number of reasons, including natural, cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values, but are primarily flood prone areas B. Water dependent amenities for residential subdivisions are in conformity with the policies of the CAMA Land Use Plan. Staff suggested conditions: 1. No acreage from the proposed recreational areas may be used toward allowable residential density on this or any associated property. 2. No dwelling unit shall be permitted within the area of this rezoning. 3. Approval of the restroom facility on the high ground "island" is subject to approval of local and state permits for a septic system. Tom Johnson, an attorney with Ward and Smith, representing the petitioner stated that they are requesting conditional R-15 zoning to allow for a community boating facility for the Sans Souci subdivision. Mr. Johnson stated that the item was continued last month to allow the subdivision to be reviewed by the County's Technical Review Committee (TRC) to determine the number of lots and approval. Mr. Johnson agreed with the staff's findings and agreed to the conditions. Mr. Johnson added that if necessary, he would amend the map to extend the CD (R-15) area to include the kayak area. Sue Haves asked if the kayak launch area would be available to the general public. Tom Johnson stated that the kayak launch area would only be available to the residents of Sans Souci. No one spoke in opposition. Chris O'Keefe recommended conditionally rezoning the entire parcel to R-15 in efforts to ensure that all proposed and future recreational amenities be permissible. Mr. O'Keefe drew a new CD (R-15) boundary on the property map. Tom Johnson stated that he was amenable to the new CD (R-15) boundary. Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval of the modified conditional rezoning boundary lines Dave Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit and staff conditions. Dave Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval. Item 3: Special Use Permit (5-354, 9/94 Modification 10/07) - Request by Wessell and Raney, LLP to expand an existing community boating facility by 4 slips in an R-15 residential zoning district on Masonboro Sound for Windchase Subdivision off Windchase Drive in the Conservation land classification. Jane Daughtridge presented slides and the proposed site plan of the property; provided an overview of the site's history, land use, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS); and explained that County has jurisdiction of the water body and the City of Wilmington has jurisdiction of the landward portion of the site. Ms. Daughtridge stated that the petitioner is requesting a modification to the existing special use permit by adding 4 slips to the existing 14 slip boating facility. Chris O'Keefe provided the following findings of fact: Preliminary Staff Findings 1. The board must find that the modified use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The subject property is accessed via Windchase Lane to Cabbage Inlet Lane to Masonboro Sound Road, which is identified as an urban collector road on the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan with Level of Service B. B. The landward portion of the project is within the City of Wilmington municipal boundary. C. Public Water and Sewer serve the area. D. Fire service will be provided by the City of Wilmington E. Stormwater will be regulated by the City of Wilmington. 2. The Board must find that the modified use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance. A. The site is located within the City's planning jurisdiction on the landward portion but the waterbodies remain in the County's jurisdiction, so county rules apply to the boating facility. B. The existing facility had 14 slips for 14 lots. Four additional lots have been incorporated into the subdivision. This request would add 4 additional slips to serve those new lots. C. Community Boating Facilities are allowed by Special Use Permit in the R-15 Residential Zoning District. D. Off-street parking will be accommodated at home sites in the subdivision. E. A 10-foot pedestrian easement will be provided and conferred to each owner for access to the community boating facility. F. Applicant states that riparian rights of waterfront lot owners will be deeded to the subdivision's dock association. G. No commercial activities are proposed or allowed for the facility. H. A CAMA permit will be required from the Division of Coastal Management I. A variance was granted to this project by the Environmental Management Commission to allow expansion of a marina in High Quality Waters in order to avoid additional piers on individual lots. (reword per application) 3. The Board must find that the modified use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. No evidence has been presented at this time that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting property values. B. Other private docks and community boating facilities are located along Whiskey Creek and Masonboro Sound. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the modified use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies this location Conservation. B. The 2006 Joint Land Use Plan encourages recreational access to estuarine and public trust waters. C. The waters of Whiskey Creek are classified as SA(Shellfishing); HQW(High Quality Waters) 303(d) impaired water quality. This facility is located outside the watershed in the waters of Masonboro Sound ICWW D. Surrounding land uses include single-family housing, some with docks and piers. Staff Comments: 1. This existing facility was approved by the county prior to annexation and has operated in compliance with the permit since 1993. Since the area is now in the City's jurisdiction, staff recommends including the following conditions taken from the city's ordinance: a. Community boating facilities shall be designed and maintained without dredging in any SA waters, Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Primary Nursery Areas (PNA). b. Use of facilities will only be allowed by residents of the subdivision in which the community boating facility is constructed and such use may not be transferred to a non-resident or commercially let to a non-resident of the subdivision. c. Waterfront properties included within the subdivision are prohibited from constructing private docks. d. Community boating facilities are required to adhere to the following restrictions and best management practices: (1) Facility uses are limited to mooring, landing, and storage of boats. (2) The number of boats maintained on the site may not exceed the number of mooring slips permitted. (3) No boat maintenance and no boats with heads are permitted at any community boating facility. (4) Exterior storage on the site is prohibited. (5) No underwater hull cleaning is permitted. (6) Manage boating activities to decrease turbidity and physical destruction of shallow water habitat by restricting boater traffic in shallow water areas; establishing and enforcing no wake zones to decrease turbidity, shore erosion and damage. (7) No impervious surfaces will be allowed in association with a community boating facility. Ken Wrangell asked the petitioner if the four additional lots have been platted into the subdivision. Bill Raney, an attorney representing the applicant, PSP Investment LLC, stated that his client has been contracted by the Windchase Home Owners Association to amend the existing special use permit to allow for four (4) additional boat slips. Mr. Raney stated that the four additional lots have been recorded and incorporated into the Windchase subdivision. Mr. Raney agreed with the staffs findings with the exception of 2F,"Applicant states that riparian rights of waterfront lot owners will be deeded to the subdivision's dock association" and suggested rewording 2F to state, "The Applicant states that individual dock rights of waterfront property owners will be prohibited by restrictive covenants" because North Carolina law does not permit the separation of riparian rights from the upland property. Lastly, Mr. Raney explained that that he could not comply with staff comment LD.(6) "Manage boating activities to decrease turbidity and physical destruction of shallow water habitat by restricting boater traffic in shallow water areas; establishing and enforcing no wake zones to decrease turbidity, shore erosion and damage" because Home Owner Associations cannot legally regulate no wake zones. Ken Wrangell asked the petition if he was suggesting deleting staff comment LD.(6) completely. Bill Raney stated that, "Manage boating activities to decrease turbidity and physical destruction of shallow water habitat by restricting boater traffic in shallow water areas" could remain but delete, "establishing and enforcing no wake zones to decrease turbidity, shore erosion and damage." David Adams asked the petitioner to clarify and identify the additional four (4) lots on the plan. Sue Haves asked staff if they were ok with Mr. Raney's amendments and if there were other ways to reduce turbidity and destruction. Chris O'Keefe stated that staff was ok with Mr. Raney's amendments. Bill Raney stated that the water is deeper where the additional slips are to be located so that the creek bed would not be disturbed. No one spoke in opposition. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval for the addition of four boat slips, with staff conditions, and Mr. Raney's amendments to staff finding 2F and staff comment LD.(6). Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval with staff conditions and Mr. Raney's amendments. Item 4: Subdivision Text Amendment (A-367) Request by the County's Technical Review Committee (TRC) to amend Section 41-1(7)(f) of the Subdivision Regulations clarifying the language on street connectivity. Sam Burgess provided a brief history of the County's street connectivity requirements and explained that the County's Technical Review Committee (TRC) has recently determined that the wording of Section 41- 1(7)(f) of the County's Subdivision Ordinance needed better clarification. Mr. Burgess outlined the proposed changes including the removal of outdated language and the clarification of the terms, "links" and "nodes." Mr. Burgess explained the formula for determining a street's connectivity index ratio, which is links divided by nodes; and anything greater than 1.4 is considered sufficient connectivity. Richard Collier asked why roundabouts were excluded from being considered nodes. Sam Burgess stated that a roundabout is a continuous street and is considered a link. Mr. Burgess added that the TRC and MPO concluded that a roundabout does not meet the definition of a node. Dave Adams asked for clarification regarding the difference between "interdependent" and "independent." Chris O'Keefe stated that term "independent" replaced "interdependent" at the suggestion of the Wilmington Metropolitan Area Planning Organization (MPO). Richard Collier stated that the word change should be made if the MPO suggested it. No one from the public spoke Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment. Ken Wrangell seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the item. Chris O'Keefe stated that he would verify with the MPO if independent or interdependent should be used. Sue Haves suggested leaving it to the staff's discretion to define and use the appropriate word. Discussion of the Traffic Impact Review Process (A-352, 4/07) remanded from the October 1, 2007 County Commissioners' meeting Chris O'Keefe provided the history of the item including that the text amendment (A-352) was heard before the Planning Board and was recommended for approval at the September 6, 2007 meeting; subsequent meetings with concerned citizens and members of the development community were held to receive additional recommendations; the text amendment was modified to incorporate recommendations; and the County Commissioners requested confirmation from the Planning Board regarding the amended language. Chris O'Keefe outlined the major changes including the removal of 1000 vehicle trips per day threshold and the dispute clause; both of which were contrary to the Planning Board's recommendations. Mr. O'Keefe also summarized the Planning Staff's additions which included where to submit an application, where to find details on how to perform a TIA, and that electronic communication may be utilized to facilitate the process. There was Board discussion regarding deletions and additions of the following proposed amendment: Section 69.18 Traffic ImpactAnalysis -Before a nonresidential project is submitted for site plan review, the applicant shall prepare a Traffic Impact Worksheet which will be submitted to the Planning Department for verification. (1) Where the worksheet indicates traffic generation of 100 peak hour trips or 1, 000 vehicle trips per day, based upon the most current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, then the applicant will be required to perform a Traffic Impact Analysis. (2) The applicant and/or his traffic engineer shall request a scoping meeting with the Planning Director or his designee, the MPO Coordinator and an NCDOT Traffic Engineer to determine the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis study. Electronic communication among parties may be utilized to facilitate the scopine process when necessarv. (3) All Traffic ImpactAnalysis studies shall be prepared by a licensed engineering firm that has relevant experience to perform the requirements defined in the scoping process, and shall be signed and sealed by a qualified professional engineer. To the extent applicable, general guidance and standards for traffic impact analyses is outlined in a publication entitled "Traffic Impact Study Standards" originally approved by the County Commissioners on May 20, 2002. (4) Seven copies of the completed study will be submitted to the Planning Director or his designee for review and approval. (5) In considering the results of the traffic impact analysis, the Planning Director, after collaboration with the MPO Coordinator and NCDOT, may accept the recommendations of the TIA or may require additional improvements based on identifiable cumulative impacts or special public safety situations. The collaboration shall follow procedures already established by the MPO for communication with all parties. (6) The applicant will be notified with comments within 30 days of receipt of the final TIA. (7) Once the mitigation measures are agreed upon by the MPO, NCDOT and County, the Wihnineton MPO will prepare a memorandum approving the Transportation Impact Analvsis and identifying the transportation improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Mitigation measures required as part of the TIA acceptance shall be included in the final site plan submitted for review. (8) Disputes - Within 10 working days of a decision on required mitigation measures, an applicant may dispute the decision through the County Commissioners (change to "Board ofAdjustment") in the form ofa letter staring the reasons for appeal and including documentation in support of the appeal. In hearing disputes, the County Commissioners Board ofAdjustment) may request an independent study by an outside source, chosen by the County and paid for b, the he applicant, to resolve questions of traffic impact and appropriate mitigation thereof. Carey Ricks representing the Commercial and Residential Realtors of New Hanover County inquired what the response time frame was for a TIA submission. Ms. Ricks asked for clarification whether a subsequent TIA would be required by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Ms. Ricks agreed with the staffs suggestion to remove the 1000 vehicle trip threshold. Ms. Ricks also inquired if the ordinance was applicable to redevelopment and up fits or only to new construction. Richard Collier stated that the amended ordinance stated that, "the applicant will be notified with comments within 30 days of receipt of the final TIA." Chris O'Keefe stated that it was his hope that one TIA would satisfy both the County's and the DOT's needs and requirements. Mr. O'Keefe also stated that the TIA would be applicable to all development (existing and new) if the 100 trip per day threshold was triggered. Tyler Newman , representing the Cape Fear Home Builders stated that they were in favor of removing the 1000 vehicle trips threshold; leaving the appeals process clause, and amending the appeals clause so that the Board of Adjustment would hear appeals instead of the County Commissioners. Melanie Cook representing Coastal Carolina Tomorrow thanked Planning Staff and Board for the efforts and the inclusion of the public. David Adams suggested that the Planning Board vote on each part of Section 69.18 individually. The Planning Board recommended the following: Dave Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the addition, which will be submitted to the Planning Department for verification." Sue Hayes seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend the addition. (1) Dave Adams made a motion to recommend deletion of, or 1000 vehicle trips Sue Hayes seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend the deletion. (2) Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of the addition, "Electronic communication among parties may be utilized to facilitate the scoping process when necessary." Dave Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend the addition. (3) Dave Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the addition, "To the extent applicable, general guidance and standards for traffic impact analyses is outlined in a publication entitled "Traffic Impact Study Standards" originally approved by the County Commissioners on May 20, 2002." Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend the addition. (4) Dave Adams made a motion to recommend deletion of, "Seven copies of Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend the deletion. (5) Dave Adams made a motion to approve, (5) In considering the results of the traffic impact analvsis, the Planning Director, after collaboration with the MPO Coordinator and NCDOT, may accept the recommendations of the TIA or may require additional improvements based on identifiable cumulative impacts or special public safetv situations. The collaboration shall follow procedures alreadv established by the MPO for communication with all parties. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend the language. (6) Dave Adams made a motion to recommend approval of the addition, with comments Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend the addition. (7) Richard Collier made a motion to recommend the addition of, "Once the mitigation measures are agreed upon by the MPO, NCDOT and County, the Wilmington MPO will prepare a memorandum approving the Transportation Impact Analysis and identifying the transportation improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development." Dave Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend the addition. (8 ) Sue Haves made a motion to delete the following: (8) Disputes - Within 10 working days of a decision on required mitigation measures, an applicant may dispute the decision through the County Commissioners (change to "Board of Adiustment") in the form of a letter stating the reasons for appeal and including documentation in support of the appeal. In hearing disputes, the County Commissioners (Board of Adjustment) may request an independent study by an outside source, chosen by the County and paid for by the applicant, to resolve questions of traffic impact and appropriate mitigation thereof. Hearing no second, the motion died. (8) Richard Collier made a motion to recommend the addition of the following, (8) Appeals - Within 10 working days of a decision on required mitigation measures, an applicant may dispute the decision through the Board of Adiustment in the form of a letter stating the reasons for appeal and including documentation in support of the appeal. In hearing disputes, the Board of Adjustment may request an independent study by an outside source, chosen by the Countv and paid for by the applicant, to resolve questions of traffic impact and appropriate mitigation thereof. David Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 recommend the addition. Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for the month of September: 1. Sans Souci - The TRC voted 4-0 to preliminarily approve 85 lots with requirements. 2. Riverside - The TRC voted 3-0 to preliminarily approve 160 lots with requirements. Sam Burgess stated that the TRC would meet neat on October 10, 2007. Melissa Gott stated that a work session needed to be scheduled to discuss teat amendment (A-366, 4/07). Chris O'Keefe stated that he would send out some possible dates, aiming for early November. Mr. O'Keefe added that he will try to identify other issues for discussion that have arisen including, water access. Sue Haves suggested discussion regarding incorporating some of the city's more strenuous requirements for community boating facilities Chris O'Keefe stated that the County Commissioners are still considering a recent amendment to the County's community boating regulations and added that incorporating language from the City's regulations could be considered at a later date. Hearing no further business, Melissa Gott adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.