Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-5-2024 PB meeting Minutes Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 5, 2024 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on September 5, 2024, at 6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.  Members Present    Colin Tarrant, Chair   Cameron Moore, Vice Chair  Pete Avery Kevin Hine Clark Hipp Hansen Matthews Kaitlyn Rhonehouse Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use    Ken Vafler, Planning Operations Supervisor  Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor  Katia Boykin, Community Planning Supervisor Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney  Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner  Amy Doss, Associate Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator Chair Tarrant called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience. After the welcome remarks, Planning and Land Use Operations Supervisor Ken Vafler led the Pledge of Allegiance, and Vice Chair Tarrant provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read the Approval of Minutes The minutes from July 30, 2024, Planning Board Agenda Review and August 1, 2024, Planning Board Regular Meeting were unanimously approved following a motion by Cameron Moore and a second by Pete Avery. Chair Tarrant noted that items from the night’s meeting would proceed to the County Commissioners meeting scheduled for October 7, 2024. He also noted that Board Member Clark Hipp would be the Planning Board representative at that meeting. Chair Tarrant then reminded the Board of the Code of Ethics as adopted on January 4, 2016, emphasizing that board members must avoid confiicts of interest. Board Member Clark Hipp declared a confiict of interest with Agenda Item 2, as the applicant involved is a contractor in his architecture practice. A motion to excuse Mr. Hipp from that item was unanimously approved. Regular Business Rezoning Request (Z24-17) Request by BDLCT, LLC, applicant and property owner, to rezone approximately 27.55 acres located in the 3500 block of Castle Hayne Road from the R-20, Residential District, to a Planned Development (PD) District for mixed residential and commercial development. Associate Planner Amy Doss gave a brief overview of the application providing a detailed overview of the site’s zoning history, existing conditions, and the proposed development. She stated that the site is largely undeveloped and includes a mix of residential and commercial uses. She explained the proposed development’s commercial and residential components, including a large grocery store and multifamily residential housing, noting that the residential density would be approximately 14 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Doss also highlighted the necessity of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the infrastructure improvements required for the project, including road expansion and traffic signal installations. She stated that several updates had been made to the concept plan based on staff feedback, including clariflcations on transitions between commercial and residential areas and adjustments to the density in speciflc sections of the development. Ms. Doss recommended approval based on consistency with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and if approved, development of the site would be subject to additional technical review. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant to their presentation. The applicant team, comprised of Matt Nichols (Attorney), Burrows Smith and John Lennon (Development team) provided a summary of the project. They emphasized the proximity to major employers like GE and the inclusion of a mix of residential, retail, and commercial uses. They addressed recent changes based on community feedback, including reduced density and the creation of transitional zones between commercial and residential areas. Mr. Nichols also discussed planned road improvements, including new traffic lights and road expansion, with the developer funding the necessary infrastructure. Mr. Lennon, expanded on transportation impacts, explaining that the project had been coordinated with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and would result in signiflcant road improvements. The applicant concluded their presentation. In response to questions from the Board regarding what types of residential units planned and access to the cemetery. The applicant conflrmed that residential density had been reduced in the transition zones and that access to the cemetery would be preserved and improved. Chair Tarrant opened the hearing to opposition. Several community members spoke in opposition to the project: • Michael Reed, 127 McDougald Drive, raised concerns about traffic congestion on two-lane roads and argued that road improvements should take priority before allowing further development. • Logan Secord, 2900 New Tow Drive, expressed frustration with the timing of the new information presented at the hearing, noting that it left insufficient time for public review and called for a continuance to allow more community feedback. • Stephanie Galanis, 4628 Castle Hayne Road, voiced concerns over the potential impact on wildlife and overcrowded schools, emphasizing that the area lacked the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development. • Emerson Whitley, 3502 Emerson Drive, although acknowledging traffic issues, supported the development, believing that the beneflts outweighed the drawbacks, and that the community needed additional infrastructure. Chair Tarrant reminded the applicant that they had a flve-minute rebuttal period if they would like to come up and speak. Mr. Nichols addressed public comments by clarifying that the proposed site plan updates are not a new plan but rather reflnements aimed at enhancing the development and its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He provided assurances that the updates involve no changes to density, access points, or proposed uses, while limiting residential density to eight units per acre and restricting building heights to three stories in designated areas. Additionally, the reflnements ensure that the transitional commercial area will not include any commercial buildings. Mr. Nichols highlighted that these updates align with standard practices and were informed through collaboration with staff to deliver a more effective and community-friendly project. Mr. Nichols emphasized the substantial beneflts of the development, including infrastructure upgrades, roadway improvements, and sewer system enhancements, all funded by the developer. On the topic of traffic, Mr. Lennon explained that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was comprehensive, factoring in future regional growth scenarios such as the full buildout at River Bluffs, the development of Providence Christian Academy, and the expansion of the GE facility. The TIA also accounted for delays in the Castle Hayne improvement project, now pushed to 2029, while noting the planned installation of a traffic light at Castle Hayne and Chair Road in the near term. Addressing concerns about transparency, Mr. Nichols reiterated that adjustments to the site plan were made in response to feedback from staff and residents to minimize impacts, such as reducing density and building heights. Mr. Lennon added that the TIA robustly accounted for regional growth and future demands, reinforcing the development's preparedness to address traffic concerns. Chair Tarrant stated that there was a flve-minute rebuttal period that was offered to those in opposition of the application if anyone would like to speak. Michael Reed raised concerns regarding the transparency of the community meeting, with perceived inconsistencies in addressing questions related to traffic impact and prospective tenants. Mr. Reed expressed great concern about the anticipated increase in traffic, citing a lack of detailed information to mitigate these concerns. Additionally, the necessity of a new grocery store was questioned, given the proximity of existing options, with doubts about whether new developments would significantly alter current consumer habits. Logan Secord expressed a general position of not opposing the project but advocated for a one- month delay to allow for due process and comprehensive community engagement. Mr. Secord emphasized that this postponement would provide the community with sufficient time to review new information presented during the meeting and a reasonable measure to foster a more informed and unifled stance from the community, potentially resolving opposition and ensuring the development aligns with community interests. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. The board discussed whether the newly presented information warranted a continuance or if they had sufficient details to move forward with a recommendation. Some board members, including Mr. Hipp and Mr. Matthews, stated that the applicant had adequately addressed both staff and community concerns, particularly regarding traffic and density. Vice Chair Moore made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed PD rezoning finding it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provided uses in line with the Community Mixed Use Place Type, and finding approval of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the project provides for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use and General Residential place types, and the project will create a new commercial node in close proximity to nearby residents. Additionally, it would provide housing diversity to the area and increase vehicle and pedestrian circulation. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommended approval of the Rezoning Request (Z24-17) passed 7-0. Rezoning Request Z24-18 by, Seth Huntt the applicant, on behalf of Storehouse Holdings, LLC, seeks to rezone approximately 0.47 acres at 1132 South Seabreeze Road from a Conditional Residential Moderate Density District (R7) to a Conditional Regional Business District (B2) to allow the development of an 8,900 sq. ft. office building for a contractor's office and private business activities. Senior Planner Zach Dickerson gave an overview of the rezoning request, stating that the applicant seeks to rezone approximately 0.44 acres from a Conditional R7 Residential District to a Conditional B2 Regional Business District. The proposed project would involve an 8,900-square-foot office building. Staff reminded the board that the parcel had previously been rezoned to Conditional R7 in February of the same year. Mr. Dickerson continued with aerial photography showing the site’s location. The property is bordered to the south by an existing bed and breakfast, and the site is on the banks of the Intracoastal Waterway. Staff provided various images of the property from different angles, as well as a comparison of residential developments and a three-story office building with parking underneath located at Wrightsville Beach. The proposed concept plan includes a three-story office building with a boardwalk that would be used by employees and customers. The site plan shows the building set back an additional 25 feet from the required 75-foot conservation resource setback, making the total setback from the mean high-water line 100 feet. The plan also includes parking in front of and underneath the principal structure, with proposed satellite parking on a B2 lot across the street. The applicant is expected to work with NCDOT to install signage and striping for a pedestrian crosswalk to connect the satellite parking lot to the site. Mr. Dickerson noted that the proposed development would generate approximately 15 AM peak-hour trips and 19 PM peak-hour trips. The property is in the historic Seabreeze community, which has been the focus of the Seabreeze Small Area Plan since 1989. Recommendations from this plan emphasize the revitalization of businesses and redevelopment of the waterfront. In February 2024, a nearby parcel was rezoned from residential to business, refiecting a shift in development patterns in the Seabreeze area. Mr. Dickerson further mentioned that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifles this area as Community Mixed Use. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for properties in this place type. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request based on policy guidance, zoning considerations, and technical review. Conditions accompanying the recommendation include tree preservation, usage restrictions, outdoor storage limitations, parking arrangements, and a pedestrian connection. In conclusion, Mr. Dickerson noted that public comments had been received and provided to the board. Should the rezoning be approved, the development would still need to undergo Technical Review Committee (TRC) and zoning processes to ensure compliance with all applicable ordinances. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant to their presentation Madeline Williams (attorney) introduced herself, along with representatives of the applicant, including Seth Huntt, Brad Schuler, Tim Clinkscales and Toby Keeton. Ms. Williams provided a GIS overlay of the property, highlighting its location in red. To the south of the property is a bed and breakfast, and to the north is a small, undevelopable parcel, as well as a residential structure. The property across the street is owned by the applicant and will serve as the site for satellite parking. Ms. Williams emphasized that the surrounding properties in the area are zoned B-2, and the applicant’s request is to revert the zoning back to B-2 from its recent R-7 designation, which had allowed for a maximum of two single-family homes. She mentioned that the applicant acquired the property in May and now proposes the office building project. The proposed building, as shown in the concept plan, adheres to a 100-foot conservation setback instead of the 75-foot setback required under the R-7 zoning. In response to a previous condition regarding tree preservation, the applicant has agreed to protect all four live oaks on the property, not just the two originally designated for preservation under R-7. Ms. William explained that the applicant is proposing only two uses for the site as part of the conditional rezoning: contractor office and office for private business and professional activities. She clarifled that the applicant is primarily focused on using the property for office activities related to their construction business, which has around 15 employees. Regarding the site plan, Ms. William highlighted several features, including a pedestrian sidewalk connecting to the satellite parking lot, a proposed crosswalk with signage and striping (subject to NCDOT approval), pervious surface parking under the building, and a boardwalk connecting the building to the Intracoastal Waterway for employee and client use. She noted that feedback from the community meeting resulted in the addition of a 6-foot fence between the property and the neighboring bed and breakfast to provide separation and address concerns about noise. Ms. William then referenced the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which places this area in the Community Mixed Use place type. The proposed rezoning to B2 is consistent with the intent of this place type, which supports small-scale, compact, mixed-use development, including office uses. She reiterated that the proposed project aligns with the County’s strategic goals of reducing residential development in fiood zones and preserving trees. Ms. William concluded by reiterating that the applicant’s proposal aligns with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations and the County’s goals, while also preserving important site features like the live oaks and the waterfront conservation area. Chair Tarrant opened the hearing to opposition. Several community members spoke in opposition to the project: • Michael Dinkins, 1124 South Seabreeze Road, Mr. Dinkins expressed concern that the proposed building, unlike the established residential character infiuenced by local supporter Bill Caster, would disrupt the harmony of the primarily residential beachfront. Mr. Dinkins further argued that the building’s substantial size and minimal setbacks are excessive for the area, attending the meeting speciflcally to voice his opposition to the rezoning plan. • Cate Scanlon, 1068 South Seabreeze Road. Ms. Scanlon expressed concern for the preservation of the area’s residential character. She noted that the recent R-7 designation aligns with Seabreeze’s ongoing residential trend, as no commercial buildings have been added since the B-2 zoning was established in 1971. Ms. Scanlon questioned the appropriateness of a large, commercially zoned building in the area, citing low commercial tax revenue, high fiood-zone building costs, and a lack of community beneflts in the proposed structure’s design • Kathy Tylee, 1056 South Seabreeze Road, Ms. Tylee expressed strong support for maintaining Seabreeze’s residential zone, emphasizing that the community’s natural development path is residential. She stated that the area lacks infrastructure such as sidewalks, gathering spaces, and pedestrian amenities—needed to support a successful community mixed-use project. While acknowledging the company’s reputation, Ms. Tylee voiced concerns that its proposed four-story building would overshadow neighboring homes and fail to provide meaningful beneflts to residents, ultimately disrupting the area’s residential character. Chair Tarrant reminded the applicant that they had a flve-minute rebuttal period if they would like to come up and speak. Ms. Williams addressed public comments by clarifying several key points regarding the proposed project and its alignment with existing regulations and community expectations. Regarding the neighboring property to the south, it was noted that this area is permitted as a bed and breakfast, and the proposed development would not obstruct views of the Intracoastal Waterway due to the required 100-foot conservation setback. Concept designs and elevations for the proposed office building are still under review, with the intent of adopting an office-oriented aesthetic. The applicant emphasized that the project remains consistent with the recent rezoning of the area to R7 and aligns with other commercial developments closer to Carolina Beach Road. While the project is designated as commercial, it is characterized as a "less intense use," with minimal impact on noise, air, or light pollution, thus maintaining compatibility with nearby residential properties. Ms. Williams also addressed concerns about the Comprehensive Plan and its guidance for the mixed-use place type, stating that the proposed contractor’s office aligns with the plan’s goals and permitted uses. The area’s historical zoning as B2 for decades underscores the appropriateness of the proposed commercial use, and the applicant noted that surrounding property owners with similar zoning have not sought rezoning to residential. Height restrictions were also clarifled, with the proposed development adhering to the three-story or 50-foot limit applicable to B2 zoning, which is comparable to surrounding properties. The applicant highlighted that the fiood zone designation allows for slightly greater building height compared to residential zoning but argued that this difference is minimal. Concluding the remarks, the applicant reiterated the project’s compatibility with existing regulations and expressed willingness to address any further questions from the board. Chair Tarrant stated that there was a flve-minute rebuttal period that was offered to those in opposition to the application if anyone would like to speak. Michael Dinkins clarifled misconceptions regarding their property’s use, addressing claims that it operates as a B2-zoned bed and breakfast. They explained that, due to county regulations 20 years ago requiring a 100-foot separation between the well and septic system, the property was designated as a guest house instead of a bed and breakfast. The property primarily serves as a family residence with occasional use as a guest house or vacation rental, as well as hosting community events like the Seabreeze Community Festival in the past. The speaker emphasized that their property’s use aligns with its zoning designation and remains focused on familial and community purposes rather than broader commercial operations. Cate Scanlon raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposed development on the Seabreeze community's character. They speciflcally cited worries about parking lot lighting from the office building disrupting the area’s serene, residential atmosphere, which currently allows for clear views of the stars. Ms. Scanlon urged the board to consider imposing conditions, such as limiting the hours of outdoor lighting, should the project be approved. She expressed a strong desire for the area to maintain its identity as a peaceful waterfront residential community, opposing any shift toward a commercial mixed-use designation. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. The board discussion centered on the complexities of zoning and development management in Seabreeze, a historically signiflcant area characterized by a unique blend of residential and commercial land uses. Concerns were raised about reverting the property to B-2 zoning following its recent rezoning to R-7, emphasizing the community's long-standing preference for residential development over commercial uses. The historical signiflcance of Seabreeze was highlighted, noting its origins as a community established by free Black individuals in the early 1800s and the subsequent subdivision of land among heirs, which has shaped the area’s distinctive character and ongoing development challenges. Additionally, the lack of water and sewer infrastructure was identifled as a signiflcant obstacle to both residential and commercial growth, further complicating efforts to align development with community aspirations. Key issues discussed included the height and design of the proposed structure, with some board members suggesting its scale might be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Parking and lighting were also points of concern, particularly the potential for parking lot lights to disrupt the community’s quiet and residential character. The property’s B-2 zoning was noted to restrict allowable uses to contractor or professional offices, signiflcantly narrowing the scope of future development. However, some board members expressed apprehension about reintroducing B-2 zoning, fearing it could reverse progress toward a more residential-focused vision for Seabreeze and set a precedent for future zoning requests in the area. Ultimately, the discussion refiected the broader challenge of balancing community desires, historical zoning designations, and the applicant’s right to utilize the property under current regulations. The board concluded by considering the potential to impose additional conditions that would better align the project with community preferences while remaining within zoning requirements. Following additional discussion, the board debated the merits of the project, and the various conditions proposed. Mr. Avery made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning, flnding it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provided uses in line with the Community Mixed Use Place Type, and flnding approval of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would place the parcel back into its original zoning designation, more closely matching with the surrounding Seabreeze area. Proposed Conditions 1. The use must be generally consistent with the site plan. 2. Uses are restricted to the following B-2 uses Contractor Office and Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities. 3. No outdoor storage of construction materials shall be permitted on the site. 4. All live oak trees on the property will be preserved as part of this development. 5. Subject to approval by the NCDOT, the applicant will install striping and signage for a crosswalk on S Seabreeze Road, connecting the off-site parking with the subject property. 6. The project must meet the county’s minimum parking requirements through either a satellite parking arrangement or other alternative parking approved by staff under Section 5.1.3 Alternative Parking Plans during the Technical Review Committee review. The motion was SECONDED by Vice Chair Moore. The motion to recommended approval of the Rezoning Request (Z24-18) passed 6-0 Rezoning Request (Z24-19) by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, Applicant, on Behalf of Harry Wilson of HN Investments LLC to Rezone Approximately 5.17 Acres Located at 308 Hermitage Road from Conditional Commercial Services District (CS) to a New Conditional CS District for the Use of a Wholesale Nursery and Limited Prohibited Uses. Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell, provided a detailed overview of the rezoning request, noting that the applicant seeks to rezone approximately 5 acres from the existing CS district to a new, separate conditional CS district. The property is located at 308 Hermitage Road and was originally zoned conditional CS in February 2022 as part of a 30-acre commercial business park, which also included a wholesale nursery. Aerial photography was used to show the flve-acre project area, currently undeveloped, located north of the existing wholesale nursery. Staff shared images of the site from different angles, along with examples of business parks and wholesale nurseries. The slide presentation included the existing approved concept plan for the business park, which detailed approximately 130,000 square feet of commercial space, two driveways to Hermitage Road, a stormwater pond, and areas set aside for septic systems due to the lack of public sewer service. The rezoning under consideration is for the area highlighted in blue, which includes a new driveway that would serve a 10,000-square-foot office and warehouse, outdoor storage, and the stormwater pond. The applicant has proposed that all uses in the CS district be allowed except for a limited list of prohibited uses, such as educational services, food services, and government services. Mr. Farrell explained that because this rezoning request seeks to carry out flve acres from the overall business park plan, it is considered a new project in a separate zoning district. Staff also noted that, while the site has full access from Hermitage Road and received a driveway permit from NCDOT, the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the overall business park would no longer apply to this site if it were rezoned separately. Further, staff shared that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as an employment center, which allows for office, light industrial, and commercial uses. However, due to the uncertainty surrounding the impact of removing this project from the overall business park, staff recommended denial of the rezoning request. They suggested that further coordination be undertaken to modify the TIA and rezone the entire 30-acre business park site to fully analyze the potential impacts. In conclusion, Mr. Farrell acknowledged that no public comments have been received about this request. If the rezoning is approved, the site would be subject to additional review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to ensure compliance with all necessary requirements. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant to their presentation Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions, on behalf of Harry Wilson, Property Owner expressed disappointment with the staff’s recommendation for denial, providing background on the site. She explained that the wholesale nursery already operates on a land-leased portion of the site, and the current request seeks to move the business to a newly purchased flve-acre section. The applicant intends to maintain the same use, with the only difference being that the nursery would be on a separate, owned parcel instead of leased land. Ms. Wolf emphasized that the existing zoning of CS remains the same and that the request is to create a separate conditional CS district for the wholesale nursery. She displayed site plans, detailing the proposed layout, which includes a 10,000-square-foot office and warehouse, plant storage, outdoor storage, and stormwater management. The applicant has already secured a driveway permit from NCDOT for this tract. She asserted that this request should be considered a minor modiflcation, as it does not signiflcantly change the original business park plan. Ms. Wolf explained that the applicant’s land purchase was intended to allow them to own their portion of the business park while remaining compliant with all applicable zoning requirements. Additionally, Ms. Wolf highlighted that the new conditional district would retain many of the restrictions from the original zoning, including prohibiting uses like educational services, restaurants, and government services. She emphasized that the wholesale nursery is consistent with the overall intent of the CS district and the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of the area as an employment center. Ms. Wolf concluded by stating that the request is reasonable, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and in the public interest, as it supports the transition of the area into a service and employment node without affecting adjacent properties. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. During the Board’s discussion, questions arose about the applicant's plans for relocating an existing wholesale nursery onto a newly acquired parcel. It was conflrmed that the applicant, who previously leased the land, had purchased a separate tract to house their business operations. Concerns were raised about potential downsides of approving the rezoning request. Staff noted that a key issue would be the impact on the rest of the business park, as the new parcel would lack direct connectivity to the existing development, requiring a separate driveway. This separation could complicate future planning or development for the remaining 25 acres in the business park. The discussion included concerns about whether the adjacent property owner, who had sold the land to the applicant, was fully informed of the potential implications that the rezoning might have on the broader business park. Staff conflrmed that the owner had been notifled, but no feedback had been received. This prompted deliberation over whether it was appropriate to proceed with rezoning approval without direct input from the adjacent owner. Ultimately, it was agreed that the applicant should provide proof of communication efforts with the neighboring property owner to ensure awareness of the project’s potential impact before the rezoning decision is flnalized. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Moore made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning, flnding it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it allows the types of commercial use encouraged in the Employment Center place type, and flnding approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would allow the relocation of an existing business that would support the area’s transition into a service node. Proposed Conditions 1. All uses in the CS district are permitted except for the following uses and use categories listed in Table 4.2.1 Principal Use Table: o Civic o Educational Services o Government Services o Heath Care Services o Food & Drink (including Bar / Nightclub) o Convenience Store o Food Market o Grocery Store o Pharmacy o Bank and / or Financial Institution o Carwash o Commercial Recycling Facility, Large Collection, Small Collection, Processing, and Processing and Collection 2. Outdoor storage, except for plants, for the Wholesale Nursery and any future uses is restricted to the Rock & Mulch / Bulk Materials area as shown in the southeastern corner of the concept plan. 3. Provide sufficient evidence of communication and attempted communication with the adjacent property owner regarding the pending application and its potential impact on that property owner’s lot. SECONDED by board member Clark Hipp. The motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request (Z24-19) passed with a majority vote (6- 1), with Mr. Pete Avery voting against the motion, citing concerns about the additional conditions. with Mr. Avery voting against the motion, citing concerns about the additional condition and stating that he considered it unnecessary as the original owner had sold the property to the applicant Chair Tarrant asked if any Board member had additional items to discuss. Ms. Roth reminded the Board of the upcoming joint meeting with the Board of Commissioners scheduled for September 16, 2024, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting will focus on discussions regarding the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan update, and it will provide an opportunity to share flndings from recent analyses and to hear insights from the Board of Commissioners based on their experiences and observations over the past few years. Board Member Clark Hipp made a motion to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned.