Loading...
200402 Feb PBM MINUTES OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2004 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, February 5, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wihnington, NC to hold a public meeting. Members Present: Staff Present: Ken Dull, Chairman Dexter Hayes, Planning Director Walter Conlogue, Vice Chairman Baird Stewart, Senior Planner David Girardot Sam Burgess, Planner Frank Smith Debbie Grymes, Administrative Secretary David Adams Holt Moore, County Attorney Robin Robinson Members Absent: Michael Keenan Chairman Ken Dull opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chairman Dull proceeded with the approval of the minutes. Several of the Board members had not had sufficient time to review the December 2003 minutes, therefore Chairman Dull asked that the approval of the minutes be postponed until next month's meeting. Chairman Dull proceeded with the first hearing item. Item 1: Special Use Permit: Request by John Sawyer Architects for Plantation Village to modify an existing Special Use Permit for a personal care facility by adding a maintenance building and associated parking area in the northeastern corner of the project in an R-20 Residential District located at 1200 Porters Neck Road (5-211, 02/04). Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use, zoning and related information. Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward. John Sawyer of John Sawyer Architects presented the request on behalf of Plantation Village. He explained that Plantation Village is close to being fully developed and has outgrown the existing combined resident workshop and maintenance building. They are requesting to modify the existing Special Use Permit to allow for a new maintenance building and parking area, and will continue to utilize the existing resident workshop. Mr. Sawyer stated that the plan depicts the strategic placement of the new building with the least amount of intrusion into the nearby neighborhood. The building structure will 1 be characteristic of residential construction and the proposed fence will be an eight-foot high solid screen fence providing greater opacity. Walter Conlogue asked what type of maintenance work would be done at the site. John Sawyer responded that the work will include repairing air conditioner units and keeping the golf carts charged and in good running condition. There will be little noise or weekend work hours and no major woodworking will be done on the site. The facility is needed to store the golf carts and materials. Chairman Dull asked how many people work out of the maintenance facility and also commented that he noticed on the plan that phase two of the building proposal, if built at a later date, would be within a one hundred foot radius of the existing well and asked if the well would have to be relocated. John Sawyer replied'that ten to fifteen people work out of the maintenance facility and that the development is anticipating being serviced by the New Hanover County water system in the future. When the new water system is available the existing wells will not be abandoned, but will be used for irrigation purposes only; building construction over the well site can also take place. Frank Smith asked if the existing well site could be paved over. John Sawyer stated that they had been told that they could pave over part of the existing well. David Girardot asked if they had considered-any security lighting at this point in the design. John Sawyer advised that the development had not had any security problems, and planned to continue with the same low-level lighting they currently use. Frank Smith asked why they chose to build at the back corner of the property and not in proximity of the existing workshop. John Sawyer responded that it was their intention to separate the resident's gardens and workshop from the employee's maintenance area. Chairman Dull asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the request. There were none. Chairman Dull asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the request. Paul Knott, a resident of 621 Wild Dunes Circle and board member of the Hunters Green HOA, stated that John Sawyer and the others involved in the project have been terrific in working with the residents of the neighborhood. Mr. Knott felt that a lot of progress had already been made since the original design of the proposal. He expressed that his two remaining concerns were the location of the building, and the nature and use of the project, including the impact it would have on their homes, their property values and the quality of their lives. 2 Chris Goggin, a resident of 637 Wild Dunes Circle, stated that he had moved into his home seven years ago and during the last few years a lot of the trees have been cleared from the area. He said he would be very upset to see the trees cleared to the point of being able to see through them, which would in turn eliminate some of the natural habitat. Mr. Goggin stated that he would like to preserve as much of the natural environment as possible. David Adams agreed with Mr. Goggin and stated that the developers have done away with much of the natural environment and that the best means of preservation is to let it grow naturally and undisturbed. Chairman Dull offered the petitioner an opportunity for rebuttal. John Sawyer stated that the building style is barn like, the proposed lighting is low-level lighting and that the largest equipment used is a gas powered lift. Mr. Sawyer emphasized that the plan shows exactly what is being proposed. The large paved area will facilitate the needs of the maintenance shop for deliveries and employee parking. The storm water management system has been designed and approved. Mr. Sawyer explained that the gardens are important to the residents and that they too appreciate the environment. He stated that he had tried to come up with a good compromise, acceptable to both the residents and the neighbors. Chairman Dull closed the public comment segment of the hearing and asked the Staff for their findings. STAFF NOTE: The petitioner is requesting a modification to an existing Special Use Permit to add a maintenance area with a building, employee parking and vehicle staging area on the northeast perimeter of a 55t acre nursing and personal care facility. Plantation Village was originally approved as a nursing and personal care facility in 1983. Since that time there have been 3 revisions, which ultimately increased the acreage of the project and reduced the number of units. The most recent revision in 1996 includes a 1625 s.f. maintenance building with associated parking area. However this facility has not been constructed and the maintenance operations share space with a woodworking shop amenity for the residents. The proposed maintenance facility, which is in a different location than originally planned, shows a 2500 s.f. building with a future 2500 s.f. expansion area. The proposed location for this facility is adjacent on the North to five or six residential lots in the Porters Neck Subdivision and adjacent on the East to the Porters Neck maintenance facility. John Sawyer, the architect for the proposed project has been in contact with the adjacent owners as outlined in the attached narrative. The project exceeds the minimum setback requirements and can accommodate buffering, however the existing dense canopy may make it difficult to establish a thick buffer between the ground and 6-8'. 3 Frank Smith expressed his concern regarding the location of the gardens. He stated that he understood the sensitivity of the issue, however fifty per cent of the gardens have already been relocated. If all of the gardens were relocated the proposed maintenance building could be constructed closer to the existing workshop, alleviating some of the storm water run-off issues as well as the concerns for the residents of the adjacent properties in proximity to the proposed building site. In response, John Sawyer explained that portions of the gardens were moved due to the growth of the plants creating too much shade. The placement of the road behind the building would allow better access to the gardens. Mr. Sawyer stated that they were attempting to keep the garden and the workshop together, providing an amenity to the residents. Bill Crittenden, the Executive Director of Plantation Village, emphasized that the residents have a great investment in the gardens and that relocating the gardens would be devastating to theirs. David Girardot stated he would like to see some elevations included in the plan. Walter Conlogue commented that the plan has been revised three times; each time the building is a little larger. Mr. Conlogue suggested that Mr. Sawyer talk to the neighbors again and hopefully reach a middle ground with a revised plan that will satisfy all of the parties involved. Chairman Dull asked Mr. Sawyer if it was critical to act on the proposal today, or if it would be worthwhile to come back next month, now that some of the controversial issues have been brought forward. John Sawyer responded agreeably, that he would be glad to come back next month. David Adams moved to recommend continuing the item to next month's meeting. Walter Conlogue seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-0 in favor of the continuance. Item 2: Rezoning: Request by Michael Nadeau for Ida Gutherie Heirs to rezone approximately 0.88 acres of property located at 142 Gordon Road at the intersection of Gordon Road, Blue Clay Road and 23~d Street, from R-15 Residential to I-2 Heavy Industrial (Z-773, 02/04). Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use, zoning and related information. Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward. Michael Nadeau, a commercial real estate broker with Creative Properties, represented the heirs of Ida Gutherie in the request. Mr. Nadeau explained that the Gutheries had purchased the property in the early 1950's, since that time there have been many changes in the development and characteristics of the area. The majority of the surrounding 4 properties are zoned for business or industrial uses. This particular section of Gordon Road, as well as the adjacent 23`d Street, Castle Hayne Road and Blue Clay Road, all experience a heavy volume of truck traffic. Mr. Nadeau felt that the I-2 Heavy Industrial zoning district would allow the best use of the property. Walter Conlogue questioned what appeared to be a sliver of R-15 abutting the proposed parcel. Dexter Hayes explained that this small corner of the property had been the old right of way. Frank Smith questioned the use of the residential property adjacent to the road. Michael Nadeau explained that the owner resides on the property, with his dwelling located at the rear of the parcel. Mr. Nadeau stated that when he spoke with the owner, he too expressed an interest in rezoning his property. Chairman Dull asked if there were any speakers in favor or in opposition to the petition. There were no other speakers. Chairman Dull closed the public comment segment of the petition and asked the Staff for their recommendations. STAFF SUMMARY: l The property is located at the intersection of Gordon Road, Blue Clay Road and 23`d Street and is in the Urban Transition land classification. Zoning in the area was established in 1972. The I-2 heavy Industrial zoning district was established approximately 225 feet south of the Gordon Road right of way at the rear property line of most of the residential lots fronting Gordon Road. A large industrial flex space building occupies the majority of the I-2 district south of Gordon Road. Some of the residential lots including the subject property extended outside the 225-foot district boundary creating lots with residential and Industrial zoning. The petitioner is requesting a rezoning of the frontage of the subject parcel from R-15 Residential to I-2 Heavy Industrial consistent with the zoning on the rear portion of the parcel. The subject parcel is also bounded on the southeast side by the rail lines that run along Blue Clay and Division Drive. The property across Division Drive is zoned Al Airport Industrial and is the current location of a State operated Jail. The parcels on the east side of 23`d Street across from the subject property are zoned Al Airport Industrial, and the Northwestern quadrant of the intersection across Gordon Road is still zoned R-15 Residential. The realignment of the intersection has also affected the desirability of the property for residential use. Given the surrounding land uses, the busy intersection, and other limitations on the subject property Staff recommends Approval. Chairman Dull questioned the access to the property if the bordered property owned by DOT is not used as a right of way. He also asked the amount of buffer required between the residential and industrial districts. Michael Nadeau explained that access to the property is provided at the old section of Gordon Road. 5 Dexter Hayes responded that the buffer requirement would be a minimum of twenty feet. David Girardot stated that he could not perceive the property ever being used for residential purposes and moved to recommend approval of the petition with the staff recommendations. Robin Robinson seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in approval of the recommended motion. Item 3: Subdivision Appeal: Request by Kenneth Shanklin for Wilson Ki to appeal the decision by the County Technical Review Committee to Deny a request to extend the preliminary approval for Deer Crossing, a 159 lot preliminary performance residential subdivision originally approved in 1999 (SA-21, 02/04). Walter Conlogue asked Attorney Holt Moore if he should excuse himself from his position on the Planning Board in relation to this case, since he also serves on the Technical Review Committee. Attorney Holt Moore concurred that Mr. Conlogue should excuse himself from participating in the deliberating and/or voting in regard to the request and advised that all speakers be sworn in or affirmed by the clerk. Pursuant to this case being the first TRC appeal to come forward, Holt Moore recommended that the following procedure be considered. The Staff will give an overview and history of the case, the applicant will 11 come forward and present his case, a representative of the TRC will give their presentation and lastly the applicant will be given the opportunity for rebuttal. The cleric administered an oath to the following intended speakers; Kenneth Shanklin, Wilson Ki, Philip Tripp, Cindee Wolf, Walter Conlogue, Dexter Hayes, Sam Burgess and Baird Stewart. Chairman Dull asked the Staff to give the project history regarding the petition. Sam Burgess stated that Deer Crossing was preliminarily approved by the TRC in December 1999 for one hundred fifty nine lots. In October 2001 the TRC granted an extension request by the developer for the same number of lots. Since that time one final plat had been recorded, extending the validity period of the plan to December 2003. On January 14, 2004 the TRC reviewed the developer's request for an additional two-year extension. The TRC denied the extension request by a vote of 5-0. At that time the developer was given the option to incorporate the adopted regulatory changes into a newly revised preliminary plan. However the developer chose to appeal the TRC decision to the Planning Board, which brings us to tonight's public hearing. Chairman Dull asked the applicant to come forward. Attorney Kenneth Shanklin represented the developer, Wilson Ki, in his request. He distributed a time line of major events, detailing the progression of the Deer Crossing development to the Planning Board. The time line captured the period from July 1999 6 thin January 2004. Mr. Shanklin explained that many changes have occurred during this time frame in relation to the requirements of developing land and emphasized that this has not been a situation of submitting a plan and not moving forward with the development process. The Engineering Department and the Corps of Engineers have placed many requirements on the project, including the installation of sewer lines, which has taken several years and an extensive amount of work to accomplish. Mr. Shanklin stated that his client has no control over the requirements placed on the project by other entities and that he does not want to start over. The infrastructure is ready to be put in place and he is ready to move forward with the project. Referring to the New Hanover County Subdivision Regulations, Mr. Shankin stated that Section 33 of the regulations is confusing. He stated that Section 33.2 of the regulations makes no mention of the TRC having the right to make decisions on extension requests, and in fact gives the Planning Board the authority to grant or deny such requests. Based on the county regulations stating that the Planning Board decides originally on extension requests and the fact that the developer has complied with the October 2001 letter granting the extension and on the basis of fairness, Mr. Shanklin requested that the Planning Board allow the developer to proceed with the j lan as presented. David Adams stated that Mr. Shanklin's presentation has referenced two levels of concern that need to be addressed. First it is Mr. Shanklin's belief that the Planning Board did not give the TRC the authority to approve or deny the extension request and secondly that the TRC had no legal grounds for denial. Mr. Adams asked attorney, Holt Moore for his position. Attorney Holt Moore replied that historically, the TRC had acted as a deferral board to the Planning Board. However, it still consisted of Planning Board members and is typically chaired by one. The most pertinent issue in this case is that this item would not have been brought before the Board if the TRC had granted the extension. Because of the unfavorable outcome in the decision, there seemed to be a waiver of objection against the TRC as being the proper avenue for this recourse. However County and Staff felt it was the appropriate place to bring an extension request. His recommendation for this matter is that the procedure was followed correctly by the guidelines of the County Subdivision Regulations. As with an original petition, the applicant can still present every argument on his behalf for the Board's review in an appeal. The issue regarding the belief that the Planning Board did not give the TRC the authority to approve or deny the extension request was moot and void. David Adams responded that it is important to the Board whether or not the petition is an original review or appellate issue. If not an appeal than the legality of the second issue is also void. Attorney Holt Moore replied that it was the position of Staff and the legal department that this was a proper appeal. David Adams asked the petitioner if he was willing to accept this recommendation. Attorney Kenneth Shanklin replied that he felt that the Planning Board had the original jurisdiction in this case. He had filed this request as an original petition as well as an 7 appeal. His client had filed a request for an extension to the County and he does not see the waiver of objection. The point in fact is whether or not the TRC had the authority to deny the extension or not. If in fact it did not have the authority then the applicant is here on an original petition. Frank Smith stated that since the legal department said that it was a proper appeal then the Board should handle it as an appeal. David Adams moved to handle as an appeal. Chairman Dull asked Staff what was the intent of restructuring the language of the New Hanover County Subdivision Regulations in regards to the extension process. Staff replied that the intent was to reconstitute the TRC with the authority to approve or deny subdivisions and extensions. In regards to an extension hearing, first the petition goes to the TRC for'r6view and then goes to the Board on appeal. Chairman Dull asked if Staff could reword the language. Staff replied affirmatively. Robin Robinson stated that the language in the new revision states that the Planning Board grants extensions. She questioned if there was some sort of implicit authority in the wording that allowed the TRC to be the designee of the Planning Board to grant or deny an extension. Staff replied affirmatively. Robin Robinson seconds the motion to treat this issue as an appeal, which carried by a unanimous vote. The discussion then moved to the second issue. Attorney Kenneth Shanklin replied that when one looks at the recommendations that the TRC has made in regards to Subdivision Regulations there exists no standard. There was no checklist or regulations for the TRC to follow in these matters. The only stated regulation is that an applicant must file within a twenty-four month period for the extension to be granted. He felt that his client had complied with enough activity to be granted an extension by the Board. Philip Tripp owner of Tripp Engineering had worked with the developer on the Deer Crossing project since late 1999. He stated that he had worked with the Engineering Department and the Corps of Engineers on the many requirements of this project including the various permits, the installation of sewer lines, erosion and easement issues. During these complex processes the developer had in no way tried to hinder its completion and was ready to move forward with the development process. 8 Frank Smith asked Mr. Tripp what had happened since the approval of the Erosion Control Plan and the Construction Permit by the County Engineer when the Plat was approved. Philip Tripp replied that the majority of the time had been spent obtaining the easements for the project. The County Engineer would not release it for construction until these easements were in place. He also added that the largest impact with this project was the latest request of County Staff that the entire drainage system would have to be revised. The plans that had been permitted, designed and in place met all of the State Requirements. These plans were in force prior to the County even having a Storm Water Ordinance. He hoped that the Board would also overturn this requirement. Wilson Ki, developer for Deer Crossing, referred back to the time line that was discussed earlier by Attorney Kenneth Shanklin. He explained that in the hearing that occurred in October 2001 his extension had been granted. For some time now he had been involved in a joint effort with the County to provide sewer access to his property and other properties in the area` Not only did he have to wait for approval from the County Engineers for Deer Crossing but also for other properties extending all the way to Inlet Watch. He explained that a lot of work had occurred with the many requirements for developing the land. He asked the Board to grant approval for the extension. David Girardot expressed concerns about what had happened during the first two years of approval. Chairman Dull stated the Board would hear more once the TRC's position was presented. David Girardot stated that he felt four years was an excessive amount of time to get approvals for this subdivision. Frank Smith stated that the whole purpose of a developer returning after two years was the developmental standards that could take place in County Regulations. These would include traffic patterns, sewer issues and storm water conditions. The applicant would want to be able to look at everything again to make sure it is still pertinent. However now four years later, the biggest issue seemed to be the Storm Water Ordinances. It seems that in this case, the original plan was approved even before the first Storm Water Ordinance was in place. Mr. Smith then asked Staff whether this was the basis for TRC's denial. He asked did the developer agree to make the adjustments in compliance with the new Storm Water Ordinances in 2001 and now refused to comply. Staff replied that there were other changes to the Subdivision Regulations besides the addition of the Storm Water Ordinance where the developer had not gone forward with construction improvements. Philip Tripp replied that there was an exemption included in the County's Ordinance for similar cases where projects had already obtained State Storm Water permits. It stated that these projects were exempt from complying with new County Regulations. 9 Frank Smith asked Mr. Tripp if he had obtained a Storm Water Permit by the October 2001 hearing. Philip Tripp replied that he had obtained a permit in 2000. Chairman Dull moved to hear the TRC reasoning for denial of extension. Walter Conlogue, as spokesman for TRC, stated a few things about the Deer Crossing project that started five years ago. The development was on a piece of land that was very environmentally sensitive and over 20% was classified as wetlands. The entrance to the development crosses the wetlands and the developer was required to get permits to cross over the area. This project had been extended twice before and the extension expired in December 2003 so it did not fall under the guidelines for an automatic extension. There are so many changes affecting projects like this that the TRC had to create a cut off date of two years. Since TRC is now comprised of people from all parts of the County, there were several different agencies that supported the denial of an extension. Taking this into mind, he reminded the Board that the TRC's denial was not solely based on the noncompliance with the Storm Water Ordinances. Sam Burgess in support of the TRC's denial of the extension, stated that the denial was based on the insufficient amount of construction improvements made to the project and the number of adopted regulatory changes since the original preliminary site plan was approved in 1999. Mr. Burgess continued by stating that the developer was given the option by the TRC to incorporate the adopted regulatory changes into a revised preliminary site plan. Revisions needed included recreation space, improving street connectivity, adding sidewalks and streetlights, and providing a significant tree survey (within the roads' right-of-way), along with-a, current traffic study. Chairman Dull asked if anyone had questions for the applicant or the TRC. Wilson Ki stated that Walter Conlogue was incorrect in his statement that the entrance to Deer Crossing crosses wetlands. Chairman Dull clarified that Staff meant up along the narrow partisan of the subject property. He also added that the reason for a vesting period is to prevent taking an excessive amount of time to complete a project after the initial approval. In order for the Board to matte a decision, it needed to see if the developer had incurred many changes during this time frame in relation to the requirements of developing land or had just submitted a plan and did not move forward with the development process. Wilson Ki stated that the joint effort with the County to bring sewer to his area and the surrounding areas should be considered work progress. Chairman Dull asked Staff if County sewer was required to be in place before selling of the lots could begin. Staff replied that the property could not be developed without the availability of sewer. Even though there had been a lot of time spent getting easements for the installation of 10 the sewer lines, it did not affect the design of the project within Deer Crossing. This task would have to be accomplished no matter what you were doing to the property. Chairman Dull asked Staff if the delays were caused by agencies other than the developer himself. Staff replied that it was not fully aware why the delays had occurred. However there was still a sewer capacity question to serve the subdivision of Deer Crossing. Wilson Ki stated that he had obtained a half a million-dollar bond for the subdivision. There was no reason to go back to preliminary plans because of the time spent, the contracts that had been signed and the fact that one of the lots had been mapped and registered with the County. He reiterated the point that he was ready to proceed with the plan as presented. Attorney Kenneth Shanklin stated the major problem that he sees is the amount of work that had to be done off site with this project. Developing land was a tough and complicated process. He asked the Board for the ability to continue with development as planned under the time constraints of one year. In all fairness, he felt that forcing the developer to start all over would incur a lot of time and money for all those involved. Chairman Dull asked Staff how the Board could revise the original plan of development to prevent the developer from starting over. Staff replied that developer should go back and discuss with Engineering Staff how to retrofit his original plan with the new regulations. Chairman Dull asked Staff if these same questions had been asked and answered at the January TRC meeting. Staff replied affirmatively. The conflicting issue that they faced had been whether there was enough commitment made on the project to go forward under the old regulations or should the Board implement new regulations based on the lack of improvements. As far as Staff was able to tell, all of the permitting agencies still had not approved the plans. This factor alone bared any construction to begin on the subject property. Robin Robinson stated that if the Board follows the new regulations, the maximum time for development had already expired. She asked attorney, Holt Moore if the Board had discretion to approve such an extension. Attorney Holt Moore replied that under the new regulations there is an absolute maximum of a twenty-four month extension, which had already been granted for this project in December of 2001. However, if the Board is willing to apply the old standards, j a recording of a final Plat qualifies the petitioner for a two-year extension. This occurred in December 2001 through December 2003. Since there has not been another Plat recorded the Board must decide if there has been enough development activity not to warrant application of the new regulations. 11 Robin Robinson asked if the Board should base its decision on the old ordinances. If not f would this bar the petitioner from going forward with his project. Staff replied that it would not. No one was refuting the petitioner's right to go forward L with his project. All Staff was asking for was a revised preliminary plan that reflects the new standards. David Adams replied that he felt that the Board could not make a technical determination because of the lack of information. However, he could not prove that TRC had made an unreasonable or arbitrary decision. The decision that had been rendered was based upon input from several cognizant agencies with in the County. He could find no reason to throw out TRC's decision from a procedural standpoint. He also felt that the petitioner was trying to develop a project under conditions that in past months had been found undesirable. After review of these conditions, the Planning Board and County Commissioners found it necessary to change the rules and regulations for better development in the County. From the evidence of tonight's hearing, it appeared that the petitioner was trying to avoid making those needed improvements. Therefore he argued for denial of the requested extension. David Adams motioned to affirm TRC's decision. David Girardot seconded the motion. Frank Smith expressed concern over the lack of construction for six months during the period of July 2003 to December 2003 when the request for the extension was submitted. Wilson Ki responded that County Engineering had required him to obtain a CAMA permit. He was still in the process of obtaining this permit. Chairman Dull asked the petitioner if that had prevented him from starting construction. Wilson Ki replied affirmatively. Staff added that several other agencies had not signed off on the plans for the development as well. Chairman Dull stated that if the petitioner had done everything in his power to move forward with the project then he would not have a problem in granting him the extension. The Board voted 3-2 in favor to affirm TRC's decision, with Chairman Dull and Frank Smith opposed. Other Items of Business: Sam Burgess gave an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity during the month of January 2003. Mr. Burgess stated that the committee met twice during January, at which time five projects were reviewed. The projects included Walnut Hills Ext.- Apple Valley, Demarest Village, The Cottages and Mason's Bluff, all of which were approved. Deer Crossing was also reviewed and denied. Mr. Burgess advised the Board 12 that the Technical Review Committee meeting scheduled for February 12, 2004 had been cancelled. In other business, Frank Smith asked if there had been any response from the County Commissioners regarding the Planning Board's request for a work session concerning the Capital Facilities Review Process. Dexter Hayes responded that it is his understanding that the Commissioners plan to schedule the work session prior to the next meeting. Mr. Hayes advised the Board that as soon as confirmation of the date is received he would forward the information to the Planning Board members. Dexter Hayes also asked the Board whether or not to continue the UDO meetings with its present membership. Frank Smith expressed concerns about the lack of unification since the City hired the consultant for these meetings. He felt that the zoning issues might not be pertinent to the County and their regulations. Dexter Hayes replied that Staff could delay any decisions and wait to see if the final product was beneficial to the County. Walter Conlogue replied that it was important for the County to continue to participate. Dexter Hayes replied that some of the work had been beneficial in the past. Chairman Dull and Board agreed to continue the UDO meetings at this time. Being no further business, David Girardot moved to adjourn the meeting. Robin Robinson seconded the motion, which the Board unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Dexter Ha e*Plain ector 13