Loading...
2014-06 June 5 2014 PBM Page 1 of 24 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board June 5, 2014 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Tamara Murphy, Acting Chair Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Donna Girardot Kenneth Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Lisa Mesler Benjamin Andrea, Current Planner Ted Shipley, III Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner David Weaver Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Absent: Chairman Richard Collier Vice Chairman Dan Hilla Acting Chairman Chris O’Keefe opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Nomination of Temporary Chair Lisa Mesler nominated Tamara Murphy to serve as Temporary Chairman. David Weaver seconded the nomination. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to elect Tamara Murphy as Temporary Chairman. Acting Chair Tamara Murphy reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of May 2014 Planning Board Minutes Ted Shipley made a motion to approve the May Planning Board minutes. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-0 to approve the May 1, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes. (Lisa Mesler and Tamara Murphy were absent at the May meeting). Page 2 of 24 Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-932, 6/14) – Request by Michael Shepard to rezone 3 acres located at 5525 Blue Clay Road from I-1, Light Industrial, to R-15, Residential District. The subject property is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Benjamin Andrea provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Ben Andrea then presented the following staff report.  Michael Shepard, applicant and owner, is requesting a rezoning of approximately 3 acres of a 6 acre tract from I-1, Light Industrial, to R-15, Residential District.  The subject property is located in the Castle Hayne area, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of Blue Clay Road and Holly Shelter Road.  The property is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection Area according to the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County Joint CAMA Land Use Plan.  The area subject to the rezoning request is currently undeveloped, and the remainder of the parcel outside of the subject area is used for single family residential.  Existing land uses in the area consist largely of single family residential uses along Berwick and McGregor roads, as well as along Blue Clay Road.  The large parcel directly north of the site is currently undeveloped, and the large circular area to the northwest is a buffer area for an FAA air traffic control device under ownership by the federal government.  Existing zoning in the area consists mostly of R-15 to the south, east, and north, as I-1 zoning to the north and west. Further away from the subject area are some areas of I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning.  Several slides provide a visual depiction of this residentially-oriented section of Blue Clay Road.  Because this is a general rezoning, future uses of the subject area will be dictated by the uses allowed in the R-15 district.  The R-15 district is primarily focused towards residential uses, and a rezoning to this district would be in harmony with the land use classification of Aquifer Resource Protection Area.  The management strategies for this land use classification are to encourage minimal intrusion to aquifer recharge, as well as protect the aquifer from land uses that may pose a risk of aquifer contamination.  The uses allowed by the R-15 zoning district are more supportive of these management strategies than the current zoning of I-1, which allows for more intensive uses than the current zoning.  Twenty adjacent property owners were notified by mail about tonight’s public hearing, and a sign was posted on the property on May 20th.  Staff received one call about the rezoning request, and after an explanation of the request, no support or opposition was voiced from the caller.  In summary, staff supports the rezoning request and recommends a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning. Page 3 of 24 Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Hearing no questions from the board, Acting Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Michael Shepard, the applicant, declined to make a presentation in regard to the request. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the rezoning request. Acting Chair Murphy closed the public hearing and entertained a motion from the board. Ted Shipley inquired if there was a proposed use for the property when it was originally zoned I- 1 in 2006 that didn’t develop or if the rezoning was done as a prospect by the developer. Mr. Andrea explained the previous owner requested a rezoning in 2006 from R-15 to I-1, which was approved. Because it was a general rezoning no particular use was proposed at that time. In research of the previous case file, it didn’t appear that any specific use was proposed. Donna Girardot noted the property is currently served by well and septic, but is located in the CFPUA service area. She inquired if that meant the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority has infrastructure there or that future service would be available. Mr. Andrea stated no infrastructure from the utility authority is currently available to serve this site; however, because it is in the utility authority’s service area, it is part of their plan to potentially extend services to that area. Ms. Girardot commented the Board of Commissioners approved a request to rezone this same three acres from R-15 to the I-1 Industrial in 2006. Now, we’re being asked to rezone it back to R-15. Noting the staff report indicates the area surrounding the subject property remains largely undeveloped, she inquired if there is any industry currently on the subject property. Mr. Andrea explained the only use on the subject property currently is located outside of the area subject to the rezoning and that use consists of single family residential. Acting Chair Murphy informed Mr. Shepard of the consequences of a denial by the board and inquired if he wished to proceed to a vote on the item or continue the matter. Mr. Shepard confirmed he wished to proceed with a vote on the rezoning request. Acting Chair Murphy entertained a motion from the board. Donna Girardot made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning because the rezoning would be a less intense use of the property and the subject property is in an area classified as Aquifer Resource Protection Area and is within the CFPUA service area and is more in harmony with the County’s Land Use Plan and can support the rezoning request. Ted Shipley seconded the motion. Page 4 of 24 The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-932. Item 2: Special Use Permit Request (S-619, 5/14) (Continued from May 1, 2014) – Request by Inlet Watch Development Partners to develop a mixed use development on three parcels totaling 7 acres located at 7261 & 7275 Carolina Beach Road. The property is currently zoned B-1, Business District, and classified as Transition and Conservation Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ken Vafier reported the proposal for a mixed use development was continued from the May meeting. Staff has been informed that the Inlet Watch Homeowners Association is present to request a continuance for an additional month. The applicant’s representative has provided written confirmation of their consent to the continuance request to continue dialogue to address issues between the applicant and the adjacent neighborhood. Acting Chair Murphy thanked Mr. Vafier and asked for a motion from the board to continue the item to the next month. David Weaver made a motion to continue the item to the next meeting. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman asked the Chairperson if someone was present to request the continuance and recommended that person if present make the request. Acting Chair Murphy asked the representative requesting the continuance to come forward. Steven Kunkin stated he represented the Inlet Watch Homeowners Association and expressed appreciation to the board for working with them. Acting Chair Murphy explained the board would like a request for the continuance from Mr. Kunkin for the record. Mr., Kunkin explained that after meeting with the developer, they realized it was much more complicated than the board could handle so they hired an attorney, who is unfortunately out of the country and unable to attend the meeting tonight. In response to Acting Chair Murphy’s inquiry regarding procedure, Ms. Huffman explained she thought it best the record reflect that someone asked for the request to be continued. The board can proceed with a motion and vote on the continuance request. She noted the additional question was whether the item would be continued to a date certain or just continued. Acting Chair Murphy again entertained a motion from the board. David Weaver asked Mr. Kunkin when they might be ready for the Planning Board hearing. Mr. Kunkin responded that the item should be ready for the July Planning Board meeting. Page 5 of 24 David Weaver restated his motion to continue the item to the July Planning Board meeting. Lisa Mesler seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to continue Special Use Permit Request S-619 to the July 10, 2014 Planning Board meeting. Item 3: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (A-419, 6/14) – Request by L.P. Britton, Jr. to amend Section 62.2-3, Penalty – Withholding of Permits of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance to amend penalties addressing the unauthorized clearing of trees. Ken Vafier presented the following staff report. The text amendment proposed by L.P. Britton, Jr. would amend the penalty imposed upon an applicant when unauthorized clearing of trees is undertaken. Currently, Section 62.2-3 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance states unauthorized clearing of regulated and significant trees on any site without first obtaining a tree removal permit or an exemption letter is subject to a 3-year withholding of permits on the site or a 5-year withholding of permits on the site if the violation was willful and intentional. This penalty mirrors NC General Statute 153A-452 and was adopted into the County’s Zoning Ordinance in 2008 to address clear-cutting of large tracts which was an issue then during the building boom around the state, as well as here in New Hanover County. The applicant has proposed the text amendment in order to provide some additional measures to atone for tree clearing violations. In particular, the applicant is proposing a reduction of time for the withholding of permits in certain circumstances. In addition, staff has added some supplemental recommendations that include fees should the period of time be reduced. Ultimately, if and when this situation occurs, staff is trying to offer more options for atonement of the violation rather than a 3-year stay on permits which can be particularly burdensome on a landowner. Mr. Vafier then reviewed the applicant’s proposal and staff recommendation. pplicant’sAProposal (Additions are shown in red. Proposed deletions are shown in red strikethrough. New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance 62.2-3: Penalty-Withholding of Permits After the date of adoption of this section, failure to obtain a tree removal permit from New Hanover County prior to removal of any regulated or significant tree or any timber harvest on property will result in the following: (1) A building permit, site plan approval or subdivision plan approval shall may be denied, subject to the following: Page 6 of 24 (A) a period of up to six (6) months after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all regulated or significant trees from the tract and the harvest was performed by an independent professional tree removal company hired in good faith by the property owner or an agent of the owner; (AB) a period of up to three (3) years after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all regulated or significant trees from the tract and does not meet the criteria in subsection 62.2-3(1)(A); or (BC) a period of up to five (5) years after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the regulated or significant trees from the tract if the harvest was a willful violation of County regulations. (2) This enforcement provision shall run with the land. Therefore, change of ownership does not alleviate the penalty for unauthorized cutting of trees. Staff Recommendation (Staff recommended deletions are in red and strikethrough, recommended additions are in red and underlined.) New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance 62.2-3: Penalty-Withholding of Permits After the date of adoption of this section, failure to obtain a tree removal permit from New Hanover County prior to removal of any regulated or significant tree or any timber harvest on property will result in the following: (1) A building permit, site plan approval or subdivision plan approval shall be denied, subject to the following: (A) a period of three (3) years after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all regulated or significant trees from the tract; or (B) a period five (5) years after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the regulated or significant trees from the tract if the harvest was a willful violation of County regulations; or (C) a period of six (6) months after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the regulated or significant trees from the tract and an accompanying fine of four hundred Page 7 of 24 dollars ($400.00) or fifty dollars ($50.00) per inch diameter at breast height (DBH) for each removed regulated or significant tree; or (D) a period of six (6) months after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the regulated or significant trees from the tract and an accompanying fine of $10,000 per acre is submitted for payment to the New Hanover County Tree Improvement Fund if the number of regulated or significant trees removed cannot be determined. (2) This enforcement provision shall run with the land. Therefore, change of ownership does not alleviate the penalty for unauthorized cutting of trees. In staff’s recommendation, staff certainly agrees that there should be additional measures of atonement to correct a violation should it occur; therefore, staff is proposing an accompanying fine of $400 per tree or $50 per inch diameter at breast height for each removed regulated or significant tree if the time period of the penalty goes down to 6 months after the completion of a timber harvest. There is a firm definition of what each of these trees are based on the diameter or caliper of the tree. The proposed figures are consistent with the figures in the City of Wilmington’s regulations. Alternatively, there could potentially be a case where unauthorized clear-cutting is undertaken and there might not be evidence of what was there in order for the applicant or staff or forester to provide an evaluation of the calipers or number of trees. In that case, staff proposes a fee of $10,000 per acre be paid into the New Hanover County Tree Improvement Fund. Staff arrived at that value as a close approximation of what the mitigation requirements would be if an applicant obtained a tree removal permit. Prior to undertaking tree removal, an applicant can obtain a tree removal permit if he provides mitigation for the trees that were removed or if they pay into the County’s Tree Improvement Fund at a rate determined by staff in conjunction with the zoning ordinance and the parks department. That rate is $295 per 3 inches of diameter at breast height. The zoning ordinance instructs staff to inventory the total calipers, double them and then plant a minimum of trees at a minimum of 3 inches caliper. To calculate the value of the replacement trees which should be paid into the tree fund, the total amount of caliper is doubled, then that number is divided by three and multiplied by $295. Staff feels $10,000 per acre is a reasonable amount and roughly equates to the cost of mitigation. Mr. Vafier concluded the staff presentation and entertained questions from board members. David Weaver stated while he understood the $50 per inch fee, he was unsure how staff would choose between the $400 and $50 per inch fees. Page 8 of 24 Mr. Vafier noted there appeared to be an omission of language. The language taken from the City of Wilmington’s ordinance language should read “…$400… or $50 per inch, whichever is greater.” He noted the phrase whichever is greater should be added to the staff’s proposed language for clarification purposes. In response to Mr. Weaver’s inquiry, Mr. Vafier confirmed in Section (D) the $10,000 fine per acre would be prorated and calculated based on the total acreage, for example the fine for one and one-half acres would be $15,000. Mr. Shipley stated in regard to the term or following each of the four options seemed to indicate the options were mutually independent of each other and couldn’t be doubled up. He also asked who would choose the punishment. Mr. Vafier confirmed Mr. Shipley’s statement was correct and noted the landowner violating the ordinance would choose the method of atonement to come into compliance with the ordinance. The only exception would be when it could be established that the landowner willfully violated the county regulations. In that instance, staff would hold the landowner to the atonement required in Section (B). One example of that situation would be if somebody came in, asked for and received information about the tree clearing process and the discussion was documented by staff; and then the project was undertaken without obtaining tree removal permits. Mr. Shipley commented it is pretty much a “go out to pick a switch off a tree in the backyard and bring it to me” scenario. The person violating the ordinance would be given the option to pick the least punishment or the one that would be the least harmful to them. Mr. Vafier agreed, but noted it was staff’s viewpoint they would like to provide some other options other than preventing the landowner from doing anything on the site for a period of three years because in almost all cases, this situation occurs because the person violating the ordinance simply didn’t know what the regulations were. Staff recognizes that preventing a landowner from doing anything on the site for a period of three years certainly inhibits economic development in the county, as well as inhibits the landowner’s ability to develop their site. Ms. Girardot commented she was glad staff had clarified the applicant of the $400 and the $50 fines, but asked where the City of Wilmington got those numbers. Mr. Vafier stated he wasn’t certain where the City of Wilmington obtained their numbers and would need to conduct further research. Ms. Girardot noted on five acres the fine would be $50,000. She then asked for a clarification of the terms willful violation and in good faith, and inquired who would make those determinations and if any criteria had been established for in good faith and willful violation. Mr. Vafier responded that no criteria had been established for willful violation. Acknowledging Ms. Girardot brought up a good point, he asked to defer that question to the applicant because that particular language is within the applicant’s proposal. Page 9 of 24 Mr. Vafier stated in regard to subtle differences between the applicant’s proposal and the staff recommendation, staff would prefer to retain the term shall and not include the term up to because those terms bring tremendous subjectivity into the determination. In the scenarios proposed by staff, ultimately it would be up to the landowner to decide how they atone for the violation. He explained staff didn’t want to put themselves in the position where they must decide where a penalty may have to be applied or have to say up to three years, noting they would be very difficult for staff to apply. In response to Ms. Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. Vafier confirmed the appeals process would be through the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Weaver inquired if any of the four scenarios would cover a situation where a person gets a piece of property, harvests all the timber and finds out later there’s a tree ordinance, but he can prove that no significant or regulated trees were harvested. Mr. Vafier explained none of those scenarios would apply because there wouldn’t be a penalty for that because a landowner can take down trees as long as the regulated or significant trees are preserved. Mr. Vafier confirmed Mr. Weaver was accurate that a landowner could show evidence that a stump survey was conducted proving there weren’t any significant or regulated trees and simply proceed with his development plans. Acting Chair Murphy inquired if board members had any questions for staff. Hearing none, she opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Matt Nichols, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Pat Britton, stated Mr. Britton was also present. He explained the history behind the text amendment request. Mr. Britton purchased the lots back in 2013 with the idea to sell them or accommodate his son’s business, Eco Express, which is located across the street on Hermitage. This area of the county is basically zoned industrial and is in the vicinity of the General Electric in Castle Hayne. Mr. Britton is a semi-retired farmer and was unaware of the tree cutting permit requirement in the County. He consulted with a reputable company and obtained references for tree removal from a professional tree removal company, who came out 3-4 weeks after he purchased the property, but they didn’t mention anything about permits. Perhaps some of this should be directed toward the companies cutting the trees. Regardless, the tree removal company then cut the trees without a tree removal permit. When Mr. Britton’s son, Russ Britton, who was unable to attend the meeting, submitted the site plans for a lay down yard for their business, it prompted an inspection by the County as the usual course of business and at that time it was determined that the trees had been cut. Mr. Nichols said Mr. Britton would like to make things right and is not trying to skirt any ordinances. He genuinely did not know that he needed to obtain a permit and the penalty for that violation as it sits now is a mandatory three (3) years. Staff can’t take into account any circumstances when applying the penalty and that creates real problems for Mr. Britton’s business, which is trying to expand. This is an example of one of many Wilmington-based businesses that are the backbone of the economy here. Growth is good. The Britton’s went Page 10 of 24 before the Zoning Board of Adjustment in February and I accompanied Mr. Britton to a second Board of Adjustment hearing in March. The ZBA board was very sympathetic to the situation, but the way the ordinance is written makes it mandatory that it shall be three (3) years and there’s really no accommodation for the circumstances. Mr. Nichols stated the Zoning Board of Adjustment did not ever officially rule. They instead tabled the matter and it remains tabled. The applicant decided to pursue some type of legislative solution and that is why we are appearing before the Planning Board to change the ordinance, which seems to be in this instance a rather harsh penalty. Mr. Nichols distributed several handouts to explain the proposed text amendment. He noted Mr. Britton had asked him to mention that he is originally from Hertford County, not New Hanover County. He then explained the first tab of the handout contained their proposal. The second tab marks staff’s proposed amendment. He noted they were both very similar. Mr. Nichols pointed out that his proposal is a provision from the NC General Statutes, 153A- 452. The provision that this tree cutting ordinance arises from is located in a strange part of the statutes, in Section 153A-452. He pointed out the term “may,” noting the statute says a county may deny a building permit or refuse to approve a site or subdivision plan for either a period of up to, then it sort of tracks the statute. The first change we suggest is that it seems like the ordinance should follow the statute and the shall should be may because the General Assembly probably intended was that you don’t have to do it in all instances, but the way the county adopted it, it’s “shall” and there is no discretion. That’s why we asked for the word shall to become may. Mr. Nichols stated the applicant felt six months was reasonable. For this board’s discretion. You may think more or less, but essentially what we wanted to create was a good faith innocent exception. Some people may fall into that category, some people may not. We certainly don’t want to change anything related to someone who willfully violates the ordinance. That’s not appropriate in any circumstance, for instance, when someone hires a tree removal company to do a job, much like we might hire an electrician at our house. While uncertain what should be done in certain instances, he felt in this case where a professional company consulted to cut down the trees, no permit was mentioned, and the landowner truly didn’t know about the permit requirement the ordinance should provide some flexibility to mitigate the three (3) years penalty. Mr. Nichols felt good faith could be determined. The Board of Adjustment hearing was one mechanism that determined good faith. There was evidence regarding what the circumstances were. This amendment is directed at someone who genuinely acts in good faith, not at a situation where someone hires someone they know or has their own tree company, etc. The second component staff suggested was the fines. He also questioned where the City of Wilmington came up with their numbers. Other jurisdictions have these same types of what I would say are fairly excessive fines. He distributed handout addressing fines in other jurisdictions, noting he had seen five and six figure fines, which is a lot of money, especially for a small business. The section in the general statutes talks about a maximum fine of $500. That’s the first page of the second handout I distributed. New Hanover County’s ordinance, in Section 132, Enforcement of Ordinances, states this may be enforced by any one or more of the remedies authorized in Page 11 of 24 GS153A-123. Then it talks about fines and things like that. NCGS 153A-123, references 14-4 and says the maximum penalty is what’s imposed under GS14-4. Mr. Nichols stated uncertain about the fines, some of which exceed those assessed for petty criminal events or drug-related offenses. The maximum fines in those cases don’t even approximate some of the fines I’ve seen in some of these tree cases. Mr. Nichols then made the board aware of a bill pending in the General Assembly entitled House Bill 1191, noting he wasn’t sure what prompted the bill, but had heard it was basically a suggestion that there had been overreaching with regard to tree fines. The actual bill that has passed a first reading would make it impossible or illegal for any town, city, or county to regulate the removal, replacement, or preservation of trees on private property. He noted it may be anecdotal and could be the culmination of these types of endless emails and calls to legislators. Mr. Nichols stated he wasn’t speaking about whether it’s a good idea or not. He felt tree ordinances are very good tools and are necessary. We are by no means advocating the elimination of tree removal ordinances, but I think it puts it in context that there has to be some middle ground and we’re looking to this board to help us shape that. He noted they have proposed what they feel is reasonable – six months in an innocent landowner’s defense. But I think you’ll see more and more of what some may characterize as overreaching. This is what the result is and this may pass. We don’t know, but it did pass first reading. He noted this could be a moot point in a few months because there may be no tree ordinances in New Hanover County. In conclusion, Mr. Nichols stated he was not in favor of that and didn’t think most people are in favor of that, but pointed out Mr. Britton’s case is another situation because it is located in an industrial area. This is not an area where it is in a neighborhood. It’s not a business where landscaping is especially important. It is where people go to work in industrial jobs and provide industrial type services so the trees are important. We aren’t saying they are not important, but we ask you to consider our proposal and appreciate your time and consideration. Acting Chair Murphy thanked Mr. Nichols. No one else from the public spoke in support of the text amendment. She then opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. No one from the public spoke in opposition to the text amendment. Acting Chair Tamara Murphy closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the board. Ted Shipley stated support for the proposed amendment, noting it was very well worded. He liked the culpability language. He noted he doesn’t like strict liability. He liked the negligence aspect that is brought in. There are three very distinct levels and no one has to choose a certain punishment. It is all based on the culpability of the landowner. He noted he has worked with local municipalities on behalf of landowners, some of whom were simply negligent, some were based on not a good reading of the contract, and the fines that can come with them. Based on his experience, the fines in Forsyth County were just ridiculous. The fines in the thousands of dollars kept building and building and when they reached the $50,000 to $60,000 range, then the local government would offer to decrease the fines as long as the owner promised to do x, y, and z and sign on the dotted line. They basically had the owner over a barrel. They are well intended because they want to protect the trees, but often times they violate people’s property rights. Page 12 of 24 Mr. Shipley reiterated he felt the text amendment is very well worded and the punishments are just. Allowing a punishment of up to three years rather than saying a hard line three years gives some flexibility based on the culpability of the person and the contract. He stated he would move for approval of the text amendment as soon as the comment period for board members concluded. David Weaver stated having been a regulator; he felt the regulator would be put under a real burden with the inclusion of language like “up to.” He noted it really puts a lot of pressure on a regulator to make a judgment that a violation was done in good faith or not or was possibly done willfully so he felt it would be unfair to put staff in that position. Mr. Weaver then asked the attorney, Ms. Huffman, if the information provided by Mr. Nichols meant the County can’t have a fine of more than $500. Ms. Huffman explained the fine of $500 applies to someone who is charged criminally. Mr. Britton has not been charged criminally so it has absolutely no relevance to this issue. Mr. Weaver commented he wasn’t talking about Mr. Britton or Mr. Nichols, but wanted clarification that the County can or cannot charge the amount that is already in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Huffman explained the $500 fine that Mr. Nichols referred to is found in the criminal statute and applies to someone who violates the ordinance and can be charged criminally and then when they go to court and are in front of a criminal judge and are convicted of a misdemeanor of violating an ordinance, the most fine the judge can give that person is $500. That fine doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion. In response to Mr. Weaver’s query, Ms. Huffman confirmed the fines proposed by staff are legal. Donna Girardot stated she would like to hear comments from the rest of the board members because she didn’t like the mitigation option offered by staff. She expressed deep concern about how the criteria would be measured to decide whether a violation was a willful violation or was just a mistake. Ms. Girardot noted she did like the way the amendment was written and felt adding up to three years would provide some flexibility to the ordinance; however, she would like to hear more input from the rest of the board. Lisa Mesler agreed with Ms. Girardot and expressed concern about the harshness of the fines, particularly in a situation like Mr. Britton’s. While she does like the flexibility, she is definitely a proponent of having ordinances for protection of the trees. Acting Chair Murphy stated after reviewing the language proposed by the applicant and by staff, she favored staff’s version based on the fact that it eliminates some of the subjectivity the applicant has proposed with the terms may and up to. She agreed with Mr. Weaver that it may place an undue burden on staff to determine what level of atonement the person in violation Page 13 of 24 would be required to serve. She stated she was in agreement with Mr. Shipley on moving forward with the amendment as proposed by staff. Ted Shipley clarified that he was in favor of the text amendment as proposed by Mr. Nichols. Ms. Girardot asked Mr. Shipley to elaborate on his experience with this type of issue, particularly on how he handled the subjective part of it and whether it was ever a problem. Mr. Shipley explained with regard to the subjectivity, they did have some flexibility, which allowed for settlement, which was good. However, the fines were so high in those cases that you were pretty much forced into some type of settlement rather than fighting it out and risking them coming back being perturbed that you had taken it through the appeals process and being required to pay the original amount. If the statute was $50,000 and you want to contest it rather than accept their plea deal for $5,000 or some other remediation, part of the appeals process and you lost, then you are looking at paying the full $50,000. It was nice having some subjectivity and the ability to settle. If you were saddled with the full $50,000 and unable to have the fee reduced because of statute, it would be unfair. Being unable to be permitted for years and the amount not being able to go below a certain threshold also seems somewhat unfair in any circumstance whether in civil penalties or criminal penalties without having some flexibility for mitigating factors that would reduce from a threshold what is by statute. That is consistent with what is in our criminal and civil code. The NC General Statutes state a county may deny a building permit. The general statutes give flexibility there by not saying shall. He feels it is inherent in the law that we aren’t going to actually say that somebody who does something willfully and chops down a thousand acres forest and someone who does something negligently and chops down one acre are going to automatically receive a three year prohibition. It seemed outrageous to him. Mr. Weaver stated in regard to removal of flexibility, it really can be difficult for a staff person to handle a violation when one person in authority says to give the person a break and another person in authority says to nail the person to the wall. He felt staff should not be placed in the position of having to determine how many years for good faith. He noted determining good faith is a horrible thing to determine accurately. It’s a great concept, but it would be very difficult for a staff member to tell someone he didn’t think he acted in good faith and hope to have his job the following month. Mr. Weaver agreed there may be a way to make the staff’s amendment less onerous, noting $10,000 per acre could be tough if you made a mistake and cleared five or ten acres, which would be a $50,000 or $100,000 fine. He reminded board members that it won’t be a problem if there aren’t any regulated or significant trees on your property that you cleared. In that case, you can obtain a building permit and move forward with your plans without paying a fine. Ms. Girardot asked Mr. Nichols if there was a timing factor on this amendment for his client. Mr. Nichols explained there is and there isn’t. The Board of Adjustment tabled the case for 120 days and that hearing was in March. The next hearing would be up for consideration in July, but the applicant is certainly amenable to asking the Board of Adjustment for another continuance if Page 14 of 24 they will grant it. He noted they are requesting the amendment for a specific instance, but he understands the board must consider the entire county and the ordinance in its entirety. Ms. Girardot expressed the opinion that she would like to look at other tree ordinances that may be used as a template if that is acceptable to the rest of the board. Mr. Shipley stated understanding of the purposes of Ms. Girardot’s comment, explaining he felt the current is poor. The redraft by Mr. Nichols is an improvement, but basically keeps the law as it stands now so no re-education or other research needs to be done. It simply makes the ordinance more fair and flexible. He didn’t see the need to look at other jurisdictions because as the amendment stands written by Mr. Nichols, it is really complete. Mr. Nichols added the applicant is certainly fine with the board’s decision to vote on the amendment or continue the item; however, at some point Mr. Britton would need some finality in order to have the lay down yard operational. Mr. Britton has always wanted to cooperate with the county to reach a solution. He noted certainty that the board of adjustment would also not want the case tabled forever. Mr. Nichols noted in regard to the discussion about what is or is not good faith and Mr. Weaver’s point about discretion and the difficulty for someone at the county to determine good faith, those types of determinations are made in any variety of contexts and there is an appeal process to the Board of Adjustment. Any person making the determination, the applicant, or the person that was cited didn’t agree with the decision, they could appeal to the board of adjustments through a fairly speedy process. He pointed out decisions are made by staff members all day, every day, that are potentially appealable. Mr. Shipley asked Mr. Nichols if in good faith was a rather innocuous term that could be deleted because it is contingent upon a person hiring a professional tree removal service. It implies they have been hired as your agent and done your due diligence. Removal of that language would keep the amendment the same because hiring a professional tree removal company puts the owner one step away from the actual removal; therefore, that negligence should be the least penalized of all. Mr. Nichols agreed and noted they struggled with the language. He was thinking of a scenario where someone was cleverly trying to get around the ordinance by hiring someone they knew to clear the trees. The thought was ensuring the process was above board with no intent to get around the ordinance. Mr. Shipley asked Mr. Weaver if substituting the requirement of an arm’s length transaction for in good faith would suffice. Mr. Weaver felt that would make it even worse because there are many fly-by-night tree removal companies that have no standards applied to them whatsoever and they are not liability in any way for violating the ordinance even if they are aware of the tree ordinance. An unscrupulous landowner could hire ABC Tree Company from another county to cut down all of the trees on their property and there would be no safeguard or retribution at all. He agreed that judgment calls Page 15 of 24 are made by employees all the time, but it’s always nice to have a specific ordinance with specific requirements you can point to. Then if someone doesn’t like the way their property is affected by the ordinance and feels they are being treated unfairly, they can appeal the decision to the board of adjustment. Mr. Weaver stated it was very dangerous to the employee and can be dangerous to the business also if an employee is put in the position of having to make judgment calls. Mr. Nichols added only one other incident similar to Mr. Britton’s situation has come before the board of adjustment over the course of a few years. He didn’t think this would situation would be a common occurrence. Mr. O’Keefe stated staff would say this is an effective ordinance because this type of situation has only happened one other time where someone clear-cut their lot without going through the property process. Mr. Nichols agreed, but stated the main point is that there is no flexibility in the ordinance. If the ordinance said “may” or “up to”, this would probably have been resolved at the board of adjustment meeting. Unfortunately, as the ordinance is currently written, the penalty is simply three years with no flexibility. Because nothing can be done with the property for three years the business has to look for other areas to expand. This raises many difficulties for the landowner and the business. He also stated understanding that there are many issues to be considered by the county in regard to this ordinance. Mr. Weaver agreed there should be an ability to reduce the three year penalty to six months and follow one of the options staff has suggested. He also felt $10,000 per acre was an excessive fine. David Weaver then made a motion to recommend approval of the staff’s version of the text amendment with the following changes: in 1(C) add whichever is greater; 1D. Add or fraction thereof after acre and reduce the fine to $5,000 per acre. Mr. O’Keefe stated the ordinance contains a section where the county manager is allowed to review fines and determine if fines are exorbitant and lower fines. If a reference is added to Paragraph 1(D) that fines may be reviewed in a manner consistent with Section 132-1.1(F), which states after a violation has been remedied if penalties have accrued to over $5,000, owners may request an alternative equitable settlement of penalties through a letter to the county manager. He suggested that might address the concerns about the exorbitant fines. Mr. Weaver was amenable to adding that to his motion. Mr. Shipley stated that still doesn’t address how the four options are awarded or punished against the person. There is no system by which culpability is a factor. He felt there is a better way to address the ordinance. He suggested a compromise by eliminating subparagraph (A) in paragraph 1 of Mr. Nichols text amendment and using may. Page 16 of 24 Mr. Weaver stated to address Mr. Shipley’s first point; we were told that it would be up to the person who violated the ordinance to select which one of these four options to go with and what we could do. He offered to add that explicitly in his motion to clear that up and address that concern. Mr. Shipley explained overall the minimums in the amendment, the breast height calculation, etc. are overcomplicating something that is pretty simple and a pretty easy fix in the law right now as it is written. Mr. Weaver offered to add language to his motion to address Mr. Shipley’s concerns. Acting Chair Murphy commented it seemed there were two competing motions on the floor – one from Mr. Weaver and another from Mr. Shipley. Ms. Huffman asked if Mr. Shipley had made a motion. Mr. Shipley stated he did not make a motion. He thought it was a reasonable compromise in order to get rid of the controversy surrounding the first paragraph in red to simply change the threshold so there is some flexibility by staff as to the amount of years under which permitting cannot happen. Assistant County Attorney Huffman explained the reason she asked was because she didn’t think Mr. Shipley had made a motion. Mr. Weaver made a motion that did not receive a second. It would be appropriate if someone wished to make an alternative motion. Mr. Shipley stated he would like to make a motion regarding his previous statement and hoped someone would second it. Assistant County Attorney Huffman asked Mr. Shipley to restate his motion. Ted Shipley made a motion to recommend approval of Mr. Nichols’ text amendment, accepting paragraph one, eliminate subparagraph (A), accept subparagraph (B) except for the reference to subparagraph (A) and accept in total subparagraph (C). Donna Girardot seconded the motion. During discussion, Mr. Weaver stated objection to the motion because of the undue pressure it would place on staff in regard to the up to three years and up to five years language. He also felt without any other penalties, the amendment would basically gut the enforcement of the tree ordinance by providing anyone of influence the ability to sidestep the tree ordinance and hire someone to clear their land of significant and regulated trees and put pressure on staff to reduce the penalty. The Planning Board voted 3-2 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-419 with changes to include elimination of subparagraph (A) and the reference to subparagraph (A) in subparagraph (B). (Ayes: Shipley, Girardot, and Mesler; Nays: Murphy and Weaver). Page 17 of 24 Item 4: Rezoning Request (Z-933, 6/14) - Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions to rezone 6.9 acres located at 5112 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential District, to CZD B-2, Business District Conditional Zoning District, for the use of retail, self-storage, and recreational vehicle and boat trailer storage. The subject property is classified as Urban and Conservation Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Benjamin Andrea presented the staff summary and provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Andrea also showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Ben Andrea then presented the following staff report.  Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions is applying on behalf of AMJB Properties, LLC for a rezoning of 6.89 acres from R-15, Residential District, to CZD B-2, Highway Business Conditional Zoning District.  The subject property is located in the southern portion of the county along the 5100 block of Carolina Beach Road, approximately 0.65 miles south of Monkey Junction.  The site is mostly classified as Urban by the Land Use Plan, with some Conservation Area classification near the rear of the property.  The site features 200’ of frontage along Carolina Beach Road, and is currently undeveloped aside from an existing residential structure and some accessory buildings.  Existing land uses in the area consist of a modular home park to the southeast of the property, multifamily residential across Carolina Beach Road called Willoughby Park and a variety of commercial uses to the southeast around Monkey Junction.  Directly adjacent to the property to the northwest is Monkey Junction Self Storage, the existing business that seeks to expand onto the subject property with this rezoning request.  The level of service of Carolina Beach Road is considered an “F” in the vicinity of the site, with a volume to capacity ratio of 1.03. This information is based on traffic counts performed by the WMPO last August.  Existing zoning in the area includes areas of both conventional and conditional B-2 zoning. Across Carolina Beach Road from the site is multifamily zoning within the City’s jurisdiction. Areas of R-10 and conditional R-10 are within the vicinity of the site. The current zoning of the property is R-15, as well as other areas within the vicinity of the site.  As mentioned, the petitioner is seeking to rezone to conditional B-2 for the expansion of the adjacent self-storage business.  The expansion would include three 21,000 SF climate controlled storage buildings, one covered boat trailer and recreational vehicle storage area, and a 10,000 SF building for specialty retail use.  Along with the new buildings and storage areas, landscaping, parking, and access improvements are proposed. Access would be provided by a new driveway to Carolina Beach Road, subject to an NCDOT Driveway Permit.  An additional access point to the storage areas would stem from the existing ArchMil Way, which parallels the northwestern property boundary line. Page 18 of 24  Flood hazard areas are located near the rear of the property, mostly outside of the rezoning area. Motts Creek transverses this portion of the property, thus the designation of AE Floodway and AE Flood Zone.  A 20’ wide buffer yard would separate the new development from the existing residential uses to the southeast.  A 20’ wide buffer area would also separate the new development from the existing residential land uses on both sides of the property.  The proposed stormwater management area is located outside of the area subject to the rezoning request.  Across the street is a drive-through convenience store currently under development as a result of the approval of a SUP in 2012.  Staff recommends approval of the request. Staff feels that the rezoning would allow a logical expansion of the existing business onto the subject property, which staff opines is not best suited for residential development. Staff feels that the proposed development would not diminish the quality of life in the nearby residential areas.  Further, the proximity to the commercial node of Monkey Junction supports Policy 4.3 of the CAMA land use plan.  The proposal mostly avoids development within the flood hazard areas near the rear of the property, ensuring some degree of hazard mitigation, consistent with Policy 3.9 of the Land Use Plan.  Finally, the proposal would offer a buffer area between the existing and proposed development and Motts Creek, which is a tributary that drains to the Cape Fear River. This would support Policy 3.3 of the Land Use Plan.  160 adjacent property owners were notified by mail about tonight’s public hearing, and a sign was posted on the property on May 20th.  Additionally, a community meeting was held by the petitioner on April 16, but no members of the public attended. As a result, no changes were made to the petition as a result of the meeting.  Staff received one call about the rezoning request, and after an explanation of the request, no support or opposition was voiced from the caller.  In summary, staff supports this rezoning request, finding it consistent with the zoning ordinance and supported by several policies in the Land Use Plan. Staff opines the proposal is not in conflict with any policies within the Land Use Plan or provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Acting Chair Murphy entertained questions from the board. Hearing none, she opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf spoke on behalf of the applicant, Monkey Junction Self-Storage, which she has represented for many years. It has been a successful business since its first phase of construction was completed in early 2000. Most folks are very familiar with the attractive brick features and the heavy landscaping along the business’s frontage that has been maintained very nicely over the years. She noted she had appeared before the board many times over the years for several phases, economic changes, and some changes in the concept. She happily reported the applicant Page 19 of 24 is requesting the rezoning because the facility has continued to thrive. It has been an excellent business and there is no better scenario that an expansion right next door. Ms. Wolf explained the expansion will mimic the existing facility as far as buildings, landscaping, and the general architecture. We know that traffic is always somewhat of a concern, but we agree with staff that this site isn’t best used as residential. If it were developed as residential it could support 25 residential units and the traffic created by those residential units would be much more that what it would be for this type of use. Ms. Wolf noted the retail building in the front is envisioned as something along the lines of the Blue Moon Gallery on Racine Drive, which is a specialty retail shop with storage behind it. As you clean out your storage space, maybe you want some consignment. The concept is the type of building that would have little individual leased spaces where you could sell on consignment or sell your crafts so it would not be a strip center. It would be a destination type of retail establishment. People would not be constantly driving in and out to pick up subs or coffee, etc. which addresses some of the traffic concerns. Overall traffic will still be less than it would be for single family residential. Ms. Wolf pointed out the required setbacks are provided. There is a small piece of floodplain that goes over the back turnaround. None of the buildings are in the floodplain and obviously the turn-around will be constructed so that it won’t be in the floodplain either. Ms. Wolf confirmed the owner agrees with staff’s recommendations. She feels the site plan is fairly well thought out and certainly fits into their management style and the security that they provide to it. Adjacent properties to the north are basically owned by family so they are leaving that residential, but their family is certainly in support of the request. Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions from the board members, noting the applicant believes the request is reasonable and consistent with New Hanover County’s vision for future plans. Acting Chair Murphy thanked Ms. Wolf and entertained questions from the board. Donna Girardot inquired if the project would be built in phases. Ms. Wolf stated the project would absolutely be built in phases. The three buildings along the southeastern boundary will most likely be constructed as Phase 1, 2, 3, etc. The covered boat storage, which will be three sided, may be part of the first phase. The retail in the front would absolutely be completed in a later phase so that area would remain natural. She also confirmed the retail building would be staffed on a daily basis. In response to Mr. Girardot’s question, Ms. Wolf confirmed the buildings along the western boundary would serve as their own fencing. Fences would be installed between the corners of the buildings to protect the entire internal site. Standard 20’ buffer yards and not incorporate the fences as part of the buffer yard so they would just be chain-link style with buffers. Along the frontage would be the standard brick and wrought iron fence that they’ve been consistent with in all of their other development. Page 20 of 24 Ms. Girardot noted she found it very refreshing that the existing facilities had the enclosed storage in the front and all of the RVs and boat trailers were towards the back of the site, not along the road frontage. She stated the site plan indicated that is the intention for this site as well. Ms. Wolf confirmed it was their intention to locate the RV and boat trailers storage toward the back of the site. Ms. Girardot asked about the current facility’s hours of operation due to the proposed site’s location abutting the mobile home park. Ms. Wolf explained they feel like the operation of the climate control buildings, which abut the mobile home park, have internal access so they block any type of noise and vision because the access to those buildings would be through several doors into the internal fronts of the buildings. In regard to the hours of operation, customers can access the site with a key fob from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. She also confirmed that an engineer would be engaged for stormwater management. David Weaver commented he liked the way the site plan is laid out with the RV and boat storage being insulated from the surrounding residential areas. Acting Chair Murphy thanked Ms. Wolf and asked if anyone else from the public would like to speak in support of the agenda item. Lloyd Bowden stated support for the project, noting he owned the property next door to the proposed site. He commented he couldn’t ask for a better neighbor than a mini-storage warehouse. He felt it would be a great neighbor and didn’t foresee any issues. Acting Chair Murphy then opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Acting Chair Murphy closed the public hearing and asked for comments from board members. David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request as presented. Donna Girardot seconded the motion. During discussion, Ms. Girardot commented that due to the fact this is an extension of an already established business and there are a lot of significant commercial project there in nature, she supports the rezoning. She assumed that the lighting would be motion based in accordance with the county code, which requires directional control lights and the applicant would be respectful of the adjacent Bowden Mobile Home Park. Ms. Wolf confirmed the lights would be the lights would also be shielded by the buildings. Ms. Girardot also noticed a number of significant trees on the side of the property along the mobile home park and that side of the property. It creates a very lush natural border, almost a Page 21 of 24 buffer. She noted she would like to encourage the applicant if there’s any possible way to use that as part of a buffer. Ms. Wolf explained because it’s a buffer the first 20’ and then a 30’ setback. Other than maintaining the back side of the building, at least 25’ of that is required to be preserved. The applicant can’t take that out other than general bush hogging the underbrush. All of those trees within the buffer have to be saved if they are in the buffer, along with supplementing it to meet the buffer requirements. Ms. Girardot stated understanding that NCDOT will require the necessary driveway improvements and expressed hope they will require the extension of the already current access road that is there. Ms. Wolf explained that won’t be the case initially as the front retail will be phased so they won’t be looking for that front driveway onto Carolina Beach Road, but they are of the opinion that NCDOT will require the extension of that right turn lane when that part of the project is developed. Ms. Girardot noted previous conversations with Ms. Wolf before about signage. She expressed hope that any additional signage needed will be monument type signage and not a LED sign due to the distraction to the driving public that would be created by placing another LED sign in close proximity to the existing LED sign. Acting Chair Murphy asked if board members had any other comments. Hearing none, she informed Ms. Wolf of the consequences of a denial and asked if the applicant wished to proceed with the vote or wished to continue the matter. Ms. Wolf stated the applicant would like to proceed with a vote on the rezoning request. David Weaver then amended the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request finding the rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest. Donna Girardot seconded the amended motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-933. New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan Update Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner, presented the following update on the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan. In November, we presented a timeframe along with a public engagement strategy for you to approve by resolution and also to our Board of Commissioners to approve by resolution. As indicated in this public engagement strategy, we held a public launch in February. We also shared this timeframe with you. We held this public launch in February and we had over 150 people in attendance for that public launch. At that time, an inventory of existing conditions was presented and an overview of the process and how individuals could become involved within the comprehensive plan was presented. Page 22 of 24 We have held two of those meetings to date and we are working on our third round of theme committee meetings. We are receiving a lot of great comments from these committee meetings. We have had a lot of good participation in these meetings. Various theme committee meetings have had varying numbers of participants, but the smallest participation has been twenty participants involved in these committee meetings. We continue to remain on our timeframe and on schedule with the plan. In April, we spoke at the national American Planning Association conference and participated as a pilot community for the comprehensive plan standards for sustaining places. We are currently working on our theme committees and we will hold four theme committee meetings Ms. Rigby stated staff mentioned in regard to our public engagement strategy that we would have an ongoing review and evaluation of our public engagement strategy to make sure we are engaging the right individuals and a diverse representation of our community. We do have some concerns that we have not reached everyone at this point. We are working as staff, brainstorming ideas to reach the underserved population and we hope to adjust our public engagement strategy to incorporate those. I will share with you that any suggestions that the board may have or any recommendations we are open to those and we would like to share those so if you know of groups or organizations that would like to hear about the comprehensive plan that we have not reached, please do let us know because we would genuinely like to make sure we get feedback from everyone. Ms. Rigby briefly went through the framework that we have received or put together for our committee. With the Livable Built Environment. Eventually these same committees are going to be creating policies and then short term and long term recommendations of how we can achieve those policies. Today we are in a very draft policy framework save so it’s a very exciting place to be in, we’re starting to see a lot of ideas enlarge and a lot of recommendations emerge so that’s an existing place to be. We still have some of the policy guidance that we have received thus far, individuals would like us to preserve agricultural land, sustainable development, invest in community infrastructure, enhance and protect residential areas, build efficient multi-modal transportation for all users, create safe, walkable communities and revitalize commercial corridors. With our Harmony With Nature policy framework, they have been putting together policy statements and they want to preserve open space, farmland, natural heritage and critical environmental areas, link natural habitats, promote the region through natural resources, water access, quality and conservation, air quality and renewable energy, solid waste and recycling, and sustainable growth and green infrastructure. The Responsible Regionalism Theme Committee is working toward is a regional approach to housing development, a regional approach to economic development, a regional approach to transportation planning and management and a regional approach to environmental management. For the Interwoven Equity Theme Committee, the policy framework they are recommending is – providing a range of housing types, opportunities and choices, upgrading housing development with infrastructure, strengthening neighborhoods through redevelopment of blighted areas and environmental equity, creating opportunities for health care and services to disperse throughout the community in an effort to equitably reach all New Hanover County citizens, increase workforce housing and workforce development. Page 23 of 24 Our healthy community, the policy framework is to create safe walkable spaces and accessible destinations, increase physical activity and healthy lifestyles, access to healthy food, parks, recreation, and hospitals and a reduction of crime, and public safety, and a healthy economy. We want to encourage redevelopment and infill development for commercial corridors, create unique and special places that attract a variety of uses, look for win-win opportunities and focus on common interests, create mixed-use nodes, blended with each neighborhood and keep them vibrant. There are a lot of overlapping policies. Many ideas merge together in these cross cutting theme committees and it’s been very interesting to hear the conversations within our community from individuals and see a lot of the other themes that are starting to emerge. With this, the next step is the comprehensive plan recommendation committee, which consists of six individuals appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, along with one representative from each of the theme committees. Each theme committee will have one individual to represent their views and thoughts on the comprehensive plan policy recommendation committee. The comprehensive plan recommendation committee will take all of the policy recommendations and merge them together, look for duplication and any conflict, and try to resolve those conflicts such that the policies that move forward to the Planning Board and ultimately to the Board of Commissioners will be a cohesive document. Ms. Rigby outlined the next steps of the plan. Chapter 1: Public Engagement Plan – The public engagement plan has been adopted. We will maintain and revisit the public engagement strategy to ensure it stays up to date and fresh and keeps the right individuals engaged in the process. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Report – We are currently putting the final touches on this report. This report was presented to the public at the February public launch. Staff expects to have a final report this summer for the board. Chapter 3: Policy Framework – Staff expects to share the policy framework with the board in the fall. The different development scenarios and future land use recommendations will be prepared over the winter and the final report is anticipated in June of 2015. Ms. Rigby concluded the comprehensive plan update and offered to answer questions from board members about the process. Acting Chair Murphy thanked Ms. Rigby and entertained questions from the board about the comprehensive plan process. She then thanked staff for working so diligently on the process, noting it is a huge undertaking which requires a tremendous amount of work and effort. Technical Review Committee Report (May) Acting Chair Tamara Murphy reported that the Technical Review Committee did not meet during the month of May. Page 24 of 24 With no further business, Acting Chair Murphy entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ted Shipley made a motion to adjourn the planning board meeting. Acting Chair Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m.