200609 Sept PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 7, 2006
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 5:30 p.m.
in the County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC to hold a public
meeting.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Sandra Spiers, Vice Chairman Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
David Adams Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner
Melissa Gott Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner
Sue Hayes Robert Harris, Planning Specialist
Kenneth Wrangell Holt Moore, Assistant County Attorney
Sandra Spiers opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam
Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The approval of the August Planning Board minutes were postponed until October to
allow for time for review.
Item 1: Special Use Permit (S-567, 8/06) - Request by Lewis Martin & Jussara
Bastos to locate a Bed & Breakfast Inn on 1.28 acres at 1731 Castle Hayne Road in
the R-15 zoning district.
Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information.
The applicant was not present.
There was no one to speak in favor of the item.
Karen Hufliam adjacent property spoke in opposition to the bed and breakfast. Ms.
Hufliam stated that there is a bend on Castle Hayne Road directly in front of the property
that makes it difficult to see traffic beyond the property.
There was discussion among the Board and counsel whether to continue the item until the
neat meeting due to the petitioner's absence. Holt Moore stated that the applicant needs
to be present for a special use permit hearing.
Sue Haves made a motion to table the item until the neat planning board meeting. Ken
Wrangell seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to table the item until the
October meeting.
1
Item 2: Rezoning (Z-847 8/06) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for GLT
Properties, LLC and GSSC Properties, LLC to rezone approximately 18.58 acres
located at the end of Clayton Horn Dairy Road near the intersection of Piner Road
and College Road from R-15 Residential Zoning District to R-10 Residential Zoning
District.
Jane Daughtridge presented maps, slides, land use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and
related information of the property and surrounding area
Cindee Wolf, landscape architect with Withers & Ravenel, spoke on behalf of the
petitioners stating that the rezoning request is appropriate given that the property is
located in a transition area, located near services, and would only result in 30% more
units than what is currently permitted in an R-15 zoning district. Ms. Wolf stated that
this project would foster the completion of interconnectivity, which would provide better
access for the Greenbriar residents.
Don Huovinen, adjacent property owner and Greenbriar resident spoke in opposition to
the item stating that the rezoning would decrease his property value. Mr. Huovinen
stated that interconnectivity would exacerbate the amount of traffic cutting through the
Greenbriar subdivision and endanger public safety.
Cindee Wolf provided rebuttal stating that the rezoning does not guarantee the
devaluation of adjacent property. Ms. Wolf stated that interconnectivity could potentially
alleviate the cut-through traffic through Greenbriar because motorists will not have to
cut-through as far as Greenbriar to get to Piner or College Road.
Jane Daughtridge summarized the Planning Staff report (see below). Ms. Daughtridge
stated that the Planning Staff recommended denial of the rezoning request because it
would exacerbate traffic issues and is not in the public's best interest. Ms. Daughtridge
added that the Planning staff felt that this decision would not eliminate the petitioner's
ability to develop their land, only reduce the number of units.
STAFF REPORT
The subject property is located on an interior parcel of land northeast of Piner
Road near its intersection with S. College Road at Monkey Junction in the Mott's Creek
watershed drainage area Adjacent and to the west is an existing business and office park.
In February of 2006, Gulf Stream Shopping Center, LLC was granted a rezoning of that
property from R-15 to O&I. The staff summary for that proposal indicated that the "rear
portion of the property will remain R-15 residential. This allows for compatible uses with
the adjoining property owners who will be able to share improved road access to Piner
Road."
Land Use patterns near the Monkey Junction area have undergone a significant
2
transformation since the early 1980's when most of the real estate was zoned residential.
A large commercial node has evolved during the past 20 years that includes restaurants,
offices and major retail type centers. Changes in these land use patterns near Monkey
Junction during this time have been a result of the extension of the County's sewer.
Pressures to rezone in this area will continue, especially with its proximity to a major
intersection, the demand for goods and services and the development community's desire
for higher density opportunities in the southern part of the County. Public water and
sewer is available in the vicinity.
This rezoning petition proposes a change to allow higher residential density in a
new R-10 district. Such a change would allow a residential policy shift from 2.5 units per
acre to 3.3 units per acre on performance residential design. High density residential
would not be allowed because the property does not front on a collector or higher level
street. For this parcel, the resultant maximum potential would increase from 46 units to
61 units under optimum conditions.
The area is currently dominated to the west and southeast by commercial or office
use and to the north, south and east by lower density R-15. One sub-division further east
is zoned R-10 (Waterford Place). Access to the site will be a significant issue. Clayton
Horn Dairy Rd. is currently the only access. It is an unimproved right of way connecting
to Piner Road just at the end of an existing traffic median. Road stubs exist on the east
side of the property on Mallard Crossing Dr. in Wood Duck Forest Subdivision and north
of the property on Wood Ridge Dr. in Greenbriar Subdivision for future connectivity.
The existing Junction Park office complex adjoins to the west. A defunct preliminary plat
within the office complex showed a street stub into this property.
Traffic in the area is significant. LOS is F on both Piner Rd. and S. College Rd.
Piner Rd. is a major collector which has experienced about a 12% increase in traffic
between 2001 and 2005. The Monkey Junction intersection traffic increased about 10%
between 2001 and 2003.
A flood zone special hazard area exists on the interior of the property. The bulk of
property is located on pocosin, but only a small area at the northeast corner exhibits
protected Dorovan soils. These factors make up the Conservation portion of the property.
The Transition Classification allows for densities higher than 2.5 units per acre
where urban services are provided. Policies in the land use plan encourage preservation
of the character of existing neighborhoods and quality of life with the primary strategy to
integrate development and growth with input from residents, and also to develop design
standards to replace use standards.
Although the land classification does not discourage higher density in this
location, the character of the surrounding residential development would be somewhat
compromised by higher density since the county requires interconnectivity with these
neighborhoods. Weekday average trip generation for single family detached units is
estimated to generate 9.57 trips per day (ITRE manual). At current zoning, allowed
3
residential development would bring an added 440 trips per day through the
neighborhoods and into already failing traffic flows. With the requested change of zoning
and the associated increase in density, trip generation would be approximately 584 trips
per day or an increase of 33% over what is currently anticipated.
Based on the foregoing analysis, staff recommends denial of the rezoning.
Ken Wrangell asked Cindee Wolf for clarification regarding ownership of parcel #26, 18,
and #32 on the zoning map.
Sandra Spiers asked Cindee Wolf if the commercial and residential entities would
connect. Cindee Wolf responded that there would be interconnectivity.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request stating that it
would not be in the public's interest. Ms. Hayes also stated that the adjacent O&I
property was rezoned February 2006 with the understanding that the proposed property
would remain R-15.
David Adams expressed concern about the increase in traffic given the Planning Board's
recent statement not to approve projects that would make traffic worse on streets that
were already over capacity; but questioned whether the increase of 140 out of 38,000
trips per day would be significant.
Melissa Gott stated that the increase in traffic would be minor given the main
thoroughfares and the creation of interconnectivity.
There was discussion regarding the February 2006 rezoning of the adjacent O&I property
and whether the proposed property was intended to remain R-15. Staff stated that it was
not a condition of the February 2006 rezoning that the proposed property remain R-15.
David Adams seconded the motion.
Cindee Wolf, who represented the petitioner in the February 2006 O&I rezoning case,
stated the R-15 property was ineligible for rezoning at the time because it was defined as
Resource Protection by CAMA. Ms. Wolf stated that the property could now be rezoned
to a higher density due to recent changes in CAMA regulations.
The Planning Board voted 2-3 to recommend denial of the item. The motion did not
carry.
Kenneth Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Melissa Gott
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-1 (Hayes) to recommend approval of
the item.
4
Item 3: Rezoning (Z-848 8/06) - Request by Jonathan W. Washburn for
Wrightsboro Plaza limited partnership, Edwin Ennis Sr., Edwin Ennis, Jr. and
Nancy Ennis to rezone approximately 98 acres located behind Wrightsboro Plaza
Shopping Center near Kerr Avenue and Castle Hayne Road from R-20 Residential
Zoning District to R-15 Residential Zoning District.
Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land
use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information.
Jonathan Washburn representing the petitioners, stated that the property is classified as
Transition and the rezoning is consistent with the CAMA Land Use Plan. Mr. Washburn
stated that the proposed rezoning would benefit the surrounding area because of required
improvements to the area's water and sewer system, the signalized intersection of Castle
Hayne Road and N. Kerr Avenue, and the storm water retention systems.
Eric Matzke, adjacent property owner, expressed concern regarding storm water runoff
and retention. Mr. Matzke detailed the location of the current drainage ditch and
direction of flow. Mr. Matzke stated that his property is flooded frequently and wants to
be certain that the proposed rezoning takes adequate measures to ensure against at least a
25-year storm.
David Adams asked Mr. Matzke the direction of water flow. It was stated that the water
flows west, towards the Cape Fear River.
Earla Pope, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Pope
stated that greater density is not appropriate for the area because water and sewer is not
installed in the existing subdivisions and will pollute the wells and septic systems of
Chadwick Acres residents.
Ellen Parker, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Parker
stated that she opposes the rezoning because development will exasperate the flooding
and drainage issues in the area. Ms. Parker expressed concern about the additional traffic
that would be created by the rezoning and stated that there are already three preliminary
subdivisions slated for development in the area. Ms. Parker submitted a petition
opposing the rezoning and two photographs to the record.
James Ponder, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request citing
traffic issues along Castle Hayne Road including congestion and blind spots. Mr. Ponder
expressed concern for the number of developments slated for the area
Preston Winslow adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating
that his property's soil is heavy clay and not developable. Mr. Winslow expressed
concern regarding increased surface runoff from driveways and roofs as a result of the
rezoning. Mr. Winslow inquired if there would be a 100-year retention pond to handle
the storm water.
5
Jonathan Washburn stated in his rebuttal that the drainage issues are pre-existing but the
petitioners have agreed to address the drainage issues of the adjacent commercial
property that fronts Castle Hayne road in hopes of improving the area's drainage
situation. Mr. Washburn stated that the subdivision will have a drainage plan and he
hopes to include the neighbors' concerns and input into the planning of the subdivision.
Mr. Washburn stated that the construction of a mobile home park was not economically
feasible and that the proposed subdivision would most likely have a covenant restricting
mobile homes.
Jane Daughtridge summarized the staff report (see full report below). Ms. Daughtridge
stated that the staff recommends approval of the rezoning based on factors such as
adjacent R-15 zoning and a signalized intersection. Ms. Daughtridge stated that
subdivision plans would be subject to the Technical Review Process (TRC) and issues
such as drainage, traffic, and right of ways would be addressed at that time.
STAFF REPORT
The subject property is located off Castle Hayne Road at the signalized intersection with
N. Kerr Avenue. Access to the site is via an access easement through the shopping center
driveway (roughly and extension of N. Kerr Ave.) onto Castle Hayne Road. Level of
Service was F on Castle Hayne Road as of April 2005. Kerr Avenue is not rated for LOS
on this westernmost segment. Castle Hayne Road is classified as an arterial roadway
which experienced a 23% increase in traffic volume between 2001 and 2005. The impact
of opening of the I-140 bypass has not been evaluated at this time. N. Kerr Ave. is a
major collector which has experienced about a 4% increase in traffic between 2001 and
2005.
The subject property is currently vacant. Adjacent property to the south is zoned R-15
and is developed in single family residential use. North of the subject property, zoning is
R-20 Residential and is developed along Horn Place Drive. To the east, zoning is a
combination of B-2 Highway Business and SC Shopping Center occupied by
Wrightsboro Plaza Shopping Center, another small strip center and associated out-
parcels.
The property is relatively near the airport and is identified within the airport transition
zone indicated by the Airport Height Ordinance, however, elevations below 182' would
not need special authorization from the FAA. The property is located within the Ness
Creek watershed drainage area and is slightly influenced by flood zone on the extreme
west portion of the site.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the Transition classification as areas
providing for future intensive urban development on lands that have or will have urban
services. The property is within the Urban Services Boundary and public water and
sewer are available in the vicinity.
6
This rezoning petition proposes a change to allow higher residential density in an
expansion of an exiting R-15 district (Chadwick Acres). Such a change would expand the
residential density policy in the area and increase density on this acreage from 1.9 units
per acre to 2.5 units per acre on performance residential design. High density residential
would not presently be allowed because the property does not front on a collector or
higher level street. However, a public right-of-way extension of N. Kerr Avenue into the
property would potentially qualify it for high density proposals. For this parcel, the
resultant maximum potential under current conditions would increase from 186 units to
245 units under optimum conditions. Should high density become an option, potential
units could reach about 1,000.
The Transition Classification allows for intensive development where urban services are
provided. Policies in the land use plan encourage preservation of the character of existing
neighborhoods and quality of life with the primary strategy to integrate development and
growth with input from residents, and also to develop design standards to replace use
standards.
The character of the surrounding residential development is low density to the north and
moderate density to the immediate south. Connectivity with these neighborhoods is not
likely.
Traffic in the area is a significant consideration; however, the adjacent neighborhoods
have not been designed with street stubs for interconnectivity. Weekday average trip
generation for single family detached units is estimated to generate 9.57 trips per day
(ITRE manual). At current zoning, allowed residential development would bring an
added 1,780 trips per day into the signalized intersection of Castle Hayne Road and North
Kerr Avenue. With the requested change of zoning and the associated increase in density,
trip generation would be approximately 2,345 trips per day or an increase of 32% over
what is currently anticipated for the area
Based on the adjacency to existing R-15 zoning and on the anticipation that the I-140
bypass has improved the flow of traffic on Castle Hayne Road, and based on the ready
accessibility of a signalized intersection to help manage the additional flow of traffic,
staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
Sue Haves asked staff if there were other subdivisions approved along Castle Hayne road.
Ms. Hayes stated that the property should not be rezoned to a higher density because of
the level of service along Castle Hayne road and the impact of the new roads was
unknown.
Sam Burgess responded that there was one subdivision, the Park Lake project, located to
the south, slated for development.
7
Kenneth Wrangell asked staff what the minimum lot size was for a septic system; if staff
thought the increase in traffic would be mitigated by the creation of a right of way and
the existing traffic light; and if County Engineering would determine if drainage
improvements were necessary.
Staff responded that a minimum of 15,000 square feet were required for conventional
residential but that there may be challenges; that a TIA scoping would be performed
during the TRC process; and that County Engineering would look at the subdivision
plans to determine if drainage improvements were necessary.
Sandra Spiers asked staff if the subdivision necessitated County water and sewer.
Staff responded that due to the lot size and soil type, in all likelihood County water and
sewer services would be necessary. Staff further commented that at the present only
rezoning from R-20 to R-15 was at issue not subdivision plans.
David Adams commented that rezoning would make traffic and drainage issues more
severe.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request. David Adams
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 2-3 to recommend denial of the
rezoning request. The motion did not carry.
Sandra Spiers stated that she votes against denial given the petitioner's proposed
measures to address pre-existing drainage issues and traffic signal to mitigate traffic.
Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Kenneth
Wrangell seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-2 (Hayes, Adams) to
recommend approval of the item.
Item 4: Subdivision Appeal (SA-27, 8/06) - Request by Ellis & Sherry McElroy to
appeal the decision of the County's Technical Review Committee (TRC) to approve
Nautical Green subdivision for 35 lots.
David Adams recused himself from this item.
Holt Moore provided background information regarding the subdivision appeal process.
Mr. Moore explained that it is the petitioner's responsibility to demonstrate that a
violation or failure to meet the regulations of the subdivision ordinance has occurred.
Chris O'Keefe showed slides, photos, and a site plan of the area Mr. O'Keefe provided a
summary of the TRC process and a history of the case:
In February 2005, the County's Technical Review Committee (TRC) approved the
preliminary site plan for Becker Woods subdivision for 29 single-family lots. The vote by
8
TRC was 3-1. The preliminary approval of the project required that a road stub be created
and platted between lots 2 & 3. In lieu of constructing the road stub due to the
uncertainty of the adjoining property to the north becoming developed (future Nautical
Green plan) and to provide legitimate access to the property, the TRC required that the
road be cleared, graded, and curb cut from Spencer Court to the property boundary. This
action by TRC would allow potential buyers of lots 2 & 3 notice that a road would be
built sometime in the near future. The road stub was required by TRC to reduce the
required length of the Spencer Court cul-de-sac in accordance with Section 41-1(7h) of
the Subdivision Regulations and also improve the Street Connectivity requirements as
specified in Section 41-1 (7f) of the Subdivision Regulations. Roads within the Becker
Woods project are private. The road system within The Cape subdivision is also private.
In March 2006, the County's TRC reviewed the preliminary site plan for Nautical Green
for 35 single-family lots. In a vote of 4-0, the TRC denied the project due to the lack of
improved access through Becker Woods as required by Section 41 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Primary access from the Linksider Townhome project was questionable by
the TRC due to the lack of platted right of way and the fact that the area was recorded as
"common area." The developer for Nautical Green officially appealed the TRC's decision
to the Planning Board based on the fact that a recorded and platted right of way existed to
the project and that the developer was willing to construct the stub road in Becker Woods
to his property boundary. The appeal was set to be heard by the Planning Board in May
2006 but was "continued" by the developer in the hopes of working with the developer of
Becker Woods in order to determine a cost share of the road stub improvements.
In July 2006, the developer for Nautical Green approached the County and indicated his
willingness to construct the platted road stub from Becker Woods to his property and
build a road to the property line of Linksider Townhomes. Based on the developer's
willingness to build the roads and in consultation with County Legal staff, the appeal to
the Planning Board was placed on hold in favor of placing the project back on the TRC
agenda for their reconsideration. On July 26, 2006 the TRC reversed their March decision
and voted to approve Nautical Green for 35 lots. The approval of the plan required the
construction of the road stub located in Becker Woods subdivision leading into Nautical
Green prior to final plat approval. Road construction connecting to the Linksider
Townhome project was also required.
Ellis McElroy, applicant and Becker Woods resident provided clarification of the history
of the item.
Ann Bowman, Cape resident, showed an aerial photo of the Nautical Green, Linksider,
and Becker Woods subdivision. Ms. Bowman stated that she and other Cape residents
are present to show their opposition to the Nautical Green subdivision.
Ellis McElroy stated that The Cape is a gated community, with private roads, and no
through access. Mr. McElroy stated that he does not oppose development of Nautical
Green, only the connectivity of it to Spencer Court. Mr. McElroy opposes the
connectivity because of increased traffic and noise; drainage issues caused by increased
9
impervious surface; and a decrease in his property value due to the construction of
smaller lots. Mr. McElroy argued that approval of the Nautical Green subdivision should
be rescinded because the developer does not have legal access to Spencer Court. Mr.
McElroy requested that the connectivity requirement be waived as has been done in the
past. Mr. McElroy also requested that the Nautical Green development have larger lots to
be consistent and harmonious with the character of the Becker Woods subdivision.
Neil Bergmark, Cape resident, read from a letter he sent to the Planning Department on
April 29, 2006 opposing the connection of Becker Woods to Nautical Green. Mr.
Bergmark opposes the connection because it would create additional impervious surface
and exasperate the drainage problem and increase the cost of road maintenance in The
Cape.
Gary Shipman, an attorney representing SECOF construction, argued that the appeal
should be denied and the decision to approve Nautical Green upheld. Mr. Shipman
referenced a case recently heard before the North Carolina Court of Appeals (Sanco
Homes vs. New Hanover County) in which the court ruled that in the subdivision plat
approval process the applicant must meet the technical requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance and issues such as density and character of the neighborhood are not to be
considered. Mr. Shipman stated that the stub to Spencer Court is a platted right of way,
intended for access into Nautical Green subdivision. Mr. Shipman further stated that the
developer for Becker Woods signed an agreement stating that he would not obstruct the
road stub off of Spencer Court in exchange for approval of three remaining lots in the
Becker Woods subdivision.
Ellis McElroy stated in his rebuttal that Cape residents oppose the connectivity between
Becker Woods and Nautical Green and that County Planning and TRC members ignored
Cape residents' petitions and requests opposing the connection. Mr. McElroy stated that
connectivity requirements have been waived in the past. Additionally, Mr. McElroy
stated that the TRC process should be more accessible to the public.
Kent Lawless, Linksider resident stated that the Nautical Green development does not
have legal access on either side of the property and that the residents of Linksider own
the parcel of land that could provide access for the northern entrance into Nautical Green
subdivision. Mr. Lawless stated that someone should speak to the Linksider residents
about using their parcel of land for access.
Roger Cross, President of the Telfair Summit Home Owners Association spoke in
opposition to the Nautical Green subdivision and submitted a petition of approximately
42 Telfair Summit residents' signatures opposing the Nautical Green subdivision. The
residents of Telfair Summit oppose the Nautical Green subdivision because the lot size
and the devaluation of their property.
Holt Moore stated that Mr. Shipman objected to the submittal of the petition stating that
the petitions are hearsay testimony. Mr. Moore suggested accepting the petitions with the
understanding that they are not sworn testimony and hearsay.
10
Don DeMuth President of The Cape Home Owners Association stated that The Cape
residents do not want connectivity. Mr. DeMuth stated that the land on either side of
Nautical Green is privately owned and not part of the homeowners association. Mr.
DeMuth also stated that The Cape HOA has held meetings with Matt Murphy, developer
for Nautical Green, in efforts of increasing the lot sizes and reducing the number of
homes in the Nautical Green subdivision
Sue Haves asked Holt Moore for clarification regarding the legal access into Nautical
Green.
Holt Moore stated that the County has always intended for the strip of land between
Nautical Green and Becker Woods to provide access for the Nautical Green subdivision.
Mr. Moore stated that the strip of land is shown as a private right of way on the Becker
Woods preliminary plat. Mr. Moore further stated that the TRC minutes in which the
Becker Woods subdivision was approved (2/9/05) indicate that the land was dedicated as
access but would temporarily remain unimproved and unpaved until future utility work
was completed.
Planning Board members confirmed with Holt Moore that they were to decide whether
the Nautical Green subdivision had violated any subdivision ordinances but not whether
the access is legal. Mr. Moore stated that the access issue is a private matter.
Sue Haves inquired what the objection was of the one TRC member who voted against
the approval of the Becker Woods subdivision in February 2005.
Sam Burgess explained that the TRC member who voted in opposition, dissented because
the TRC member wanted the access paved immediately to prevent future problems.
Sandra Spiers asked staff if Nautical Green met all the subdivision ordinances.
Sam Burgess replied that Nautical Green did meet all the technical standards of
subdivision review by all of the agencies.
Ken Wrangell stated that he empathizes with the Cape residents' issue but that the
Planning Board does not have the authority over the access issue only whether Nautical
Green met all the technical requirements of the subdivision review.
Kenneth Wrangell made a motion to recommend denial of the appeal. Sue Haves
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to deny the appeal.
Sam Burgess provided an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity for the
month of August 2006.
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed five projects:
11
1. Copperfield Extension at West Bay Estates - The TRC voted 4-0 to
approve 38 lots with conditions.
2. Marsh Landing Place - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve 28 lots with
conditions.
3. West Bay Estates - The TRC voted 4-0 to continue the project until several
issues could be addressed.
4. Mason Landing Yacht Club - The TRC voted 4-0 to continue the project
until several technical adjustments were made.
5. Winds Harbor at Middle Sound - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve 27 lots
with conditions.
There was discussion regarding moving the start time of the Planning Board meeting to
6:00 P.M. It was decided that the start time of the meetings would remain at 5:30 P.M.
Sue Haves asked staff what the status was of the commercial development traffic review
process.
Chris O'Keefe stated that staff presented a proposal to the Planning Board that was
rejected and no additional proposals have been submitted since. Mr. O'Keefe stated that
he would further research whether the Commissioners were still interested in developing
such a process.
Sue Haves made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Sandra Spiers seconded the motion.
The Planning Board unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned
at 8:10 P.M.
Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
12