The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the
Commissioners' Conference Room of the
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chairman
Also Present were: Planning Director Anthony Starr, Senior Planner Autumn Radcliff, Planner Matt Card, and Planner Matthew Cable.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Commissioner Messer made the motion to approve the agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – Text Amendment Application #TX-2006-01
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer stated this is a public hearing with respect to Text Amendment Application #TX-2006-01. He called Planning Director Anthony Starr to the podium.
Anthony Starr explained that on July 14, 2006, Angela Beeker on behalf of her clients, Jeff Naber, Rodney Rogers, and the Sedgewood Property Owners Home Association submitted an application to amend sections 200-21 (C2 neighborhood commercial), 200-22 (C4 Highway Commercial District), 200-23 (I1 Light Industrial), and 200-24 (General Industrial Zoning District) of our Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Starr informed the Board that Planner Matt Cable would provide an overview of the application with Staff and Planning Board recommendations.
Matt Cable informed the Board that notices of the Public Hearing regarding the Text Amendment Application were published in the Times News on September 27 and October 4, 2006. On October 4 notices of the hearing were sent to the applicants as well. The Henderson County Planning Board considered the Text Amendment Application at its regularly scheduled meeting on August 15, 2006. During that meeting the Planning Board voted 7 to 2 to send a favorable recommendation, with all modifications suggested by Staff, for text amendment application #TC-2006-01, to amend Sections 200-21, 200-23, and 200-24 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Text Amendment Application #TC-2006-01, which was submitted on July 14, 2006, requests that the County amend four sections of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance (HCZO). The proposed amendments include:
Anthony explained that it was
staff’s position to address this issue with the new draft of the Land
Development Code but the applicant desired to proceed with the application. Therefore it was processed and evaluated based
on merit, and the Planning Department does support the application. Anthony stated there was a situation related
to this matter regarding an existing case at Highway 191 and
Chairman Moyer questioned if it was still the Staff’s position that the Board should adopt the text amendment if it did not apply to this case, considering a new code would be adopted soon.
Anthony Starr responded that he felt at this point it depends if the Board wants to wait until the new code is in place, that will address the issue, or if there were issues somewhere else in the County that may come along in the next two to four months between now and when the Planning Department gets the Land Development Code in place. The text amendment would apply in that respect and would apply as any industrial uses that might be applied for in a neighborhood commercial district which might occur in the time between. Based on the case itself the Planning Department does support the text amendment principles and will incorporate the principles into the Land Development Code.
Chairman Moyer noted that with the current draft Land Development Code he did not see the changes requested here.
Anthony Starr informed the Board that the text amendment removes the industrial uses from the neighborhood commercial district.
It is correct to consider the adoption of the
Text Amendment with the understanding of who it applies to. The developers believe that based on the
Robins versus Town of
§ If the Board decides this is a comprehensive change or should be part of the comprehensive change and placed in the November hearings, then the developers would support this. They do think that this should be debated and would have liked to have had the opportunity at the Planning Board. They do think that this sort of throws the baby out of the bathwater because you would have to convince yourself that the Board of Adjustment really didn’t make good decisions because this mini-storage is going to present a problem for the public health and safety and welfare. There is no way any mini-storage could be at this property pursuant to a conditional use permit.
§ There are other light industrial uses that you could think about that might not be appropriate regardless of how much conditions are imposed but for this particular project they think it is a fine project at this location. The five impartial appointees of the Board of Adjustment are going to be presented with information regarding traffic, crime, etc. in which the developers addressed during two public hearings.
Mr. Justus presented the Board of Commissioners with a packet, which is included as an attachment to these minutes, including the case law referred to from Robins versus Town of Hillsborough and the Curry Beach case, the current zoning map, (which shows how much of the property is C-2), and minutes from both public hearings to show that it wasn’t two pages of debates, it was pages upon pages of debate that went on, and at the end of the day the Board of Adjustment unanimously agreed that requirements had been met. Mr. Justus also included a copy of the affidavit submitted by his client to the court showing that $40,000 every month is going out the door of loss because he had not been able to get his project up and running based on the rules at play. The developer does not support the application presented at this meeting if it is going to be applied to this property.
Naber –Mr. Naber resides at
5. Angela Beeker – Ms. Beeker works at
Chairman Moyer asked Ms. Beeker if her position was that the Board adopt the text amendment and let the law sort it out.
Ms. Beeker stated that this is her position and that the Board should adopt the Text Amendment without addressing whether it is retroactive or not. Both sides would have an argument if it were to go to court as to whether it applies retroactively or not.
Anthony Starr said that it has been the custom in the past that Staff and the Board of Adjustment allow applicants to proceed even with zoning map amendments such as in this case and others and process their applications. It would have been up to the courts to flush that out had it been challenged. The interpretation of warehousing and whether self-storage is included in that definition on a zoning administrator level and on a Board of Adjustment level there are prior interpretations at the County level that warehouse did include mini-storage or self-storage. It would take a court to reverse that interpretation and say that Staff and Board of Adjustment were incorrect in that interpretation.
Mr. Craig Justus commented on the statement by Ms. Beeker in regards to approving the Text Amendment and letting the courts settle it. His concern is that these folks are not going to be excited about another Board of Adjustment hearing especially if they go through it and don’t win. They are likely going to challenge it. If the Board does not give a clear signal of whether or not this applies retroactively, Mr. Justus’s concern is they are going to seek an injunction that prevents the Board of Adjustment from having their hearing next week saying that has been adopted and applies in order to prevent them from going forward with the Board of Adjustment. They are going to fight that battle and the County’s resources are going to be applied. They will await that decision and then ultimately go back to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Justus is alerting the Board to these possibilities.
Chairman Moyer did not recall every retroactively applying to change a definition or interpretation in the fourteen years he has served.
Ms. Beeker stated that they were not planning to seek an injunction to stop the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Commissioner McGrady supported the Board of Commissioners accepting the Planning Board’s recommendation with respect to three of the four proposed amendments.
Commissioner Baldwin was in acceptance of the proposed amendments and felt that the Board would be moving closer in the direction they would like to go by accepting the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Young supported the Board of Commissioners accepting the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Commissioner Messer was in agreement.
Chuck McGrady moved to accept the application with the Staff suggested modifications as recommended by the Planning Board to amend sections 200-21, 200-23 and 200-24 of the Zoning Ordinance and further moves that the Board deny the amendment to section 200-22 of the Zoning Ordinance as suggested by the Staff and recommended by the Planning Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Five Minute Break
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING – Special Use Permit Amendment Application #SP-05-01-A1
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer explained that a quasi-judicial proceeding is somewhat like a court proceeding and that anyone who wished to speak should come forward to explain how this project would affect them. The following were named as parties to the proceeding:
Those individuals came forward and were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board.
Matthew Cable informed the Board that Mr. Don Hunley with William Lapsley and Associates, on behalf of Windsor-Aughtry Company and Mr. Drew Norwood, the applicant, and Windsor-Aughtry and Mr. Kevin Minish, property owners, had submitted an application to amend the special use permit SP-05-01 for the planned unit development (PUD) known as River Stone and located near the intersection of North Rugby Road and Butler Bridge Road, to allow for the addition of a portion of a parcel of land (PIN 9652-10-1814) totaling approximately 3.68 acres. The PUD known as River Stone is located in an R-10 (High Density Residential) zoning district and an R-15 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district (See Attachments 2 and 3, Site / Current Zoning Map and Aerial Photo Map). The PUD, as originally proposed, was to contain 175.52 acres of land, 524 single-family detached dwellings on individual lots, and approximately 45 acres of open space (See attachment 1, Special Use Permit Order SP-05-01). The PUD, as a result of the amendment, is proposed to contain 179.22 acres of land, 538 single-family detached dwellings on individual lots, and approximately 47 acres of open space.
Pursuant to §200-33.A of the Henderson County Code, before the Board of Commissioners may act on such a request, this matter requires “the advice and recommendation” of the Henderson County Planning Board. On August 2, 2006, the Henderson County Board of Commissioners accepted and referred the Special Use Permit Amendment Application (SP-05-01-A1) to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation. During the August 15, 2006 Planning Board meeting, amendment application SP-05-01-A1 was reviewed and the Planning Board offered a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Board recommendation, along with Staff comments, was submitted as evidence to the Board of Commissioners during the public hearing.
In accordance with Sections 200-56D and 200-70A (6) of the Zoning Ordinance (See Attachment 4, Required Findings of Fact), the Board of Commissioners must make findings of fact regarding compliance with the ordinance in order to grant a Special use Permit Amendment and may impose conditions on the permit to assure that a proposed use will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 200-56D lists the general site standards that apply to all special uses. If a general site standard cannot be met and, based on evidence provided during the hearing, the Board finds that imposing conditions (such as increasing minimum specific site standards), will allow such general site standards to be met, then the Board may impose the conditions. However, the applicant does not bear the burden of demonstrating that all of the general site standards have been met. Section 200-70A (6) requires that the Board of Commissioners also make findings to demonstrate that the proposed use complies with any specific requirements for the use and that provisions have been made for the following, if applicable: ingress/egress; parking and loading; utilities; buffering; playgrounds; open spaces; yards; access ways and pedestrian ways and building and structure location, size and use.
In accordance with the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, notices of the hearing on the Special Use Permit Amendment Application (SP-05-01-A1) were published in the Times-News on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 and on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 (See Attachment 5, Notice of Public Hearing). On October 4, 2006 the Planning Department posted notices at the project site to advertise the hearing. On October 4, 2006 the Planning Department sent notices of the public hearing via certified mail to the applicant and adjacent property owners.
Since the matter requires a quasi-judicial public hearing, the Board of Commissioners must consider the evidence presented at the hearing and make findings of fact based on that evidence in order to take action on the Special Use Permit Amendment Application. The Board must issue a written decision within 45 days of the conclusion of the hearing.
Matt Cable – “The staff has
provided a Power Point and we’ve indicated there the addition of section 11 by
the red highlighting. The Amendment
request is to add a 3.68 acre portion of a tract which is currently owned by
Mr. Minish to the Planned Unit Development.
The property to be added is located adjacent and to the Northeast
section of the Planned Unit Development as it exists now between the North
Chairman Moyer – “Charlie”
Matt Cable – “On August 15, 2006 the Planning Board reviewed the application and voted 9 to 0 to send a favorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Board, by their favorable recommendation, requested that the applicant provide additional information which Staff would review to ensure the adequacy of the provisions. Uh, Should the Board of Commissioners approve the application, Staff and Planning Board recommend that such approval would be subject to the following recommended conditions in addition to any other conditions that are discussed during the hearing and any conditions that the Board of Commissioners may impose? Staff recommended conditions and comments include: As related to ownership - Proper Assurances (a legal title or binding sales agreement for Section 11 Property). Um, for ownership of the McKinnish Property should be provided prior to construction. As related to height limitations - the applicant indicated a two story limit for structures within Section 11 uh, which relates to privacy and the protection of adjacent property
owner’s privacy. We would also include that as a condition. As related to Privacy Fencing and Cut Slopes - they are proposed along the Northern and Eastern boundaries of Section 11. As noted on this slide the applicant is proposing a fence along the Northern boundary of lot 8, Staff suggests that a fence of the same type be provided along the Northern boundary of lot 9 to provide additional privacy measure for the adjacent property entrance to the North. The applicant is proposing a six foot “Dog Ear” Fence for lot 8 and again Staff is suggesting that they provide the same fencing along the Northern portion of lot 9. The applicant has also proposed cut slopes uh, that they say will be approximately 12 feet in height um, along the boundary of lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Staff suggests that all the privacy measures would be a condition of the approval. As related to Perimeter Requirements – Staff suggests that to provide reasonable privacy the 15 foot rear and side yard setbacks be applied to the Northern and Eastern Perimeter of Section 11 and that’s indicated by the red line on the slide. Um, again just to those portions of those lots as they would abut um (could not understand – coughing in room). Staff is specifically recommending that a 15 foot rear yard setback be applied to lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and also we ask that the Board consider applying the 15 foot side yard setback on lots 8 and 9. This would be a 5 foot increase in rear yard setbacks and would require a 10 foot increase in side yard setbacks from what’s already required within the Planned Unit Development uh, order. As related to compliance with the original orders, Staff suggests that Section 11 should adhere to the conditions of the original Special Use Permit order um, which would of course need to be revised to reflect the addition of acreage, lots and open space to the Development. I would like to also enter Exhibit E which includes additional Staff comments um, which did not result in any proposed additional conditions for the Development. Uh, just to ensure that everyone knows that it was reviewed thoroughly and not allowed the requirements of our ordinance and I would certainly be glad to answer any questions that you may have.”
Chairman Moyer – “Anybody have any questions for Matt at this time? What we will do as each party presents their uh, statement or evidence the other parties, under Quasi-Judicial, will have the uh, right to ask them any questions, you don’t make statements now, but you have the right to ask the other party any questions you have with respect to what they said. Does the applicant have any questions for Staff at this time? Does the applicant have any questions, not statements, now I mean questions for Staff at this time? Mr. Norwood you’re gonna need to come to the mic come to the phone, indic - no there, indicate who you are and uh, what your question is.”
Drew Norwood – “My name is Drew Norwood and I am President of Windsor-Aughtry Company and the applicant and the only questions I had was why we would have a 15 foot set-back on Northern boundaries of 8 and 9 – 9 in particular since we have 30 feet of driveway all the way to the adjoining property owner and we’re also gonna put up a fence. That seems excessive to me.”
Matt Cable – “Again Staff was just suggesting this condition. It’s based on the adjacent zoning of the property to the North which is R-15. Um, as the Board is aware um, as the Board is aware there is 20 foot uh, buffer setback required along a near by properties with a three to four foot swell. It’s again only an increase in 10 feet um, it’s a suggested condition to ensure privacy measures for those adjacent property owners at that density.”
Chairman Moyer – “Was that condition supported by the uh, Planning Board?”
Matt Cable – “When it was initially presented there wasn’t a strong clarification from them on that point of view. It was specifically indicated for the Eastern portion of that property and at that time there was question about where that boundary line was gonna exist at the flag lot. The applicant had since revised the um, subdivision plat to add a flag lot so there wasn’t a very precise and clear um, recommendation on that Northern boundary with the 15 foot setback that, but on the Eastern boundary it was very clear that they supported that.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I have a question for Matt if I may. Um, Matt after you subtract the right of way out of that uh, 4.68 parcel what’s the density? Do you know?”
Marr Cable – “Um, we calculated on a project wide basis.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “But you don’t know for that individual piece what the density is.”
Matt Cable – “I wouldn’t be able to tell you for that specific piece again we used the whole development.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Thank you.”
Chairman Moyer – “Are there other questions for Matt at this time? Mr. Darity, Mary Cunningham, Mr. Suber do you have any questions in respect to what’s been presented so far?
All right, we will then move to uh, petitioner applicants statement and evidence. You can just start and pass it off to the next when you’re ready. You’ve already been sworn just when you get there introduce who you are, each of you, and then speak.”
Drew Norwood – “I’m Drew
Chairman Moyer – “What’s the issue with respect to ownership that was referred to in Staff conditions?”
Drew Norwood – “Well, we have it under contract with him, so it’s subject to this being approved. If this is approved we’ll close it.”
Chairman Moyer – “I see, okay all right.”
Drew Norwood – “After that Don Hunley will talk about the technical aspects and answer any of those questions… (Left the mic and drifted off)”
Kevin Minish – “Good evening I’m Kevin Minish uh, the property owner. I wanna show you over here currently”
Chairman Moyer – “You’re gonna need to go back to speak, you can point and you have to go back because we don’t pick you up.”
Kevin Minish – “If you look um, to where the house is now you can see that...”
Chairman Moyer – “Stan can, may be able to help you there. Can you?”
Commissioner Young – “On the TV here”
Chairman Moyer – “Can you point on your screen? Come on up here and point if you would please.”
Kevin Minish – “My driveway comes in”
Commissioner Young – “Point on the TV, we can’t see that on the wall.”
Kevin Minish – “From um, the best way I know to describe it from the right side of the property there my drive comes uh, I access through an apartment complex it’s a forty unit apartment complex that I share a drive with. So, it was my desire to sell this piece of property to Mr. Norwood to gain access through his development versus this apartment complex I’m having to share my drive with. So, that was my incentive uh, to sell this property Mr. Norwood. Um Uh, I think it uh, would certainly uh uh, help my property value to be able to enter through that development versus the current situations.”
Don Hunley – “Good evening I’m Don Hunley, Project Engineer with William G. Lapsley and Associates and I’d like to address how we design the buffers in conjunction with Mr. Minish’s desires and I’m available to answer any other questions that y’all might have. Basically what we’ve outlined (he left the podium and mic)”
Chairman Moyer – “We’re not getting ya.
Commissioner McGrady – “You, because of the television and the speaker”
Don Hunley – “I’m with you.”
Chairman Moyer – “You have to sorta hold it in front of you and that’s”
Don Hunley – “Let’s see if I can do this”
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah that’ll be close”
Don Hunley – “Where this addition to the PUD shares a boundary with neighboring property owner that’s not Mr. Minish we’ve proposed to put up a six foot privacy fence much as we’ve put at other locations in the PUD that was originally supported. Um, where the boundary will be shared with Mr. Minish there’s been discussion with him about providing screening down here at his house but he hasn’t requested any type of buffer or screening where the boundary would be with him. Um, in particular to um, to the 15 foot setback, as Staff has requested in addition to that fence for this lot right here would make that one extremely narrow in terms of building and for this one right here it would actually make it too narrow to build upon using the the the layout that we presented last year to you all with the five foot setbacks in either, both side lines.”
Chairman Moyer - “Well, on that map are there homes on the other, well you have do you have names there I see or something”
Don Hunley – “Right this is the only property that’s gonna border the project directly and there is a home there and that’s where the fence is laid out to be. Along this boundary there homes appears Mr. Minish’s driveway will provide a 30 foot buffer naturally for that and then he hasn’t indicated any need for anything else for his property.”
Chairman Moyer – “But Staff has and you’re questioning that – Staff has requested that and you’re challenging that.”
Don Hunley – “Yes, yes we feel like that’s in excess to what was approved last year and uh, and there was no real discussion of that in the Planning Board meeting.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “What is the density on that piece of property when you take out the right of way on the 4.68 acres?”
Don Hunley – “If someone has a calculator they could divide the uh, basically the 14 lots into 3.68 acres. Because we’re taking”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Do you have 14 or 15 lots?”
Don Hunley – Well there’s 15 lots laid out but portions of the lots down here are being taken out of the original property.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Its 3.68 acres.
Don Hunley – “3.68 acres”
Chairman Moyer – “Anthony will have that in a minute.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “But after you subtract the right-of-way out from the 3.68 what square footage is left?”
Don Hunley – “Right, the 3.68 does not include that right-of-way.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Gotcha”
Don Hunley – “Because it’s not actually gonna be (couldn’t understand – coughing) its gonna be retained.
Chairman Moyer – “What is the answer Anthony? From that”
Matt Cable – “It’s um 3.8 units per acre in that particular section.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “3.8 units per acre?”
Chairman Moyer – “Okay, anything else”
Don Hunley – “Well I think that’s the basic thing that we just feel that those buffers are unnecessary in this case given where we’re gonna put the fence.”
Chairman Moyer – “All right”
Don Hunley – “and I’m available for any other questions”
Chairman Moyer – “Well will the Board have any questions at this time? Staff – Commissioner Baldwin do you have a question?”
Unsure – left the microphone.
Commissioner Baldwin – “How many bedrooms?”
Drew Norwood – “Probably in the 1800 to 2500, three and four bedroom has two baths, two car garage.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any other questions?”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Yep one more. The houses that you are proposing uh, which market are looking for uh middle income families with children, retirees, based on your bedrooms.”
Drew Norwood – “If you if you recall back to when we talked about the original one we got 525 now and add fourteen – twenty four – add fourteen 538. We originally said we were going to have about 220 of our 250 starter homes about 125 retirement homes and about 140 of what we call first move-up. We have revised that we’ve taken away from the starter family homes reduced it down to about 176 and increase the retirement homes up to about 225. But these homes in this section right here would be more specifically targeted to families in this little cul-de-sac here.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Okay”
Commissioner Young – “Uh, Mr. Norwood are are these houses gonna be larger than the ones previously or the same or the same size?”
Drew Norwood – “Previously what sir?”
Commissioner Young – “The previous development the one that you came before us last year.”
Drew Norwood – “There will be this is the section where as I said where we we have three different neighborhoods in here. We have a retirement neighborhood, patio homes in a 1500- 2000 square foot range. We have the starter what we call the starter entry level home which runs about 1300 up to about 1800. And then we have what we call the third neighborhood would be the first move-up and that would take you up from about 1800 up to about 2800 square feet and that’s, this cul-de-sac falls in that section where that we haven’t started yet, won’t probably start for a couple of years. Hopefully”
Commissioner Young – “I guess the reason I was asking that was in the previous proposal last year or whenever uh, the best I can remember that we you were gonna put a house uh, on basically twenty hundredths of an acre five houses to an acre and now your looking at basically four houses with an acre is gonna be on twenty five hundredths of an acre. Is that right?”
Drew Norwood – “Well eh, all our lots in there those are bigger than the most of those are bigger than the other lots just because the way the property is shaped. But the they’re basically you know 7500-8000 square foot lots. The the program back then was to reduce it down to smaller lots and then therefore have the open space. So they basically the same lots they a little bit bigger than the lots in the rest of the community.”
Commissioner Young – “That’s what I was thinking according to what he had said 3.8 houses an acre and I remember it was about five houses to an acre on the previous”
Drew Norwood – “No it wasn’t five houses an acre was it?”
“Someone answered no”
Drew Norwood – “We got the same density that’s what there we were we can eh eh we’re asking for the same density that we would had in the rest of the development.”
Chairman Moyer – “Are there any other questions for Mr. Norwood at this time?”
Commissioner Messer – “Mr. Norwood in the open space your gonna increase it from 47 or 247 from 45. Where does that space come from?”
Drew Norwood – “I can address
that. There were just a couple uh,
things that needed to be changed and one of the slides, it was not actually an
increase in the open space, in our very initial application we said approximately
45 acres and then it ended up being 47 – so it’s not an actual increase in that,
it’s just we were approximating when we said 45 and I think that was the very
first application. It was also a slight
inaccuracy I think in one point it said that 132.12 and that actually should be
134.2 on one of Matt’s that same slide the these are just minor numerical
Chairman Moyer – “Any other questions from the Board? Staff do you have questions for Mr. Norwood or any of his witnesses? All right again Mr. Darity, Cunningham, Suber do you have any questions for Mr. Norwood or any of his people? All right! We will then give each of you starting with Mr. Darity a chance to make a statement if you would like to or whatever. Anything further? Ms. Cunningham? All right! Mr. Suber? Okay! Technically we now get to the point where each of the parties can have a chance to make a closing remark if they wish. I would assume we are to the point where we don’t need that but I’ll give each of the parties a chance and start – Mr. Norwood you have closing comments to make. Staff”
Matt Cable – “I just wanted to eh point out clarification. The reason that we are suggesting fencing along lot 9 why there is a physical buffer the 30 foot separation created by the driveway there would be no visual buffer from that property for those adjacent owners that would just be again a physical separation.”
Drew Norwood – “We don’t object to the fence or we would gladly put in the fence we just object to the 15 foot side setback on that lot given that we got a fence and we gotta 30 foot buffer with Mr. Minish’s future driveway.
Commissioner McGrady – “Mr. Matt could you address that issue? Why the recommendations with respect to lots 9 through 15 uh, particularly given the fact that the adjoining land owners in requesting this”
Matt Cable – “Again on 9 lots 9-15 we did suggest that to the Planning Board. Um, we were trying to take into consideration the zoning that does exist on that parcel and the potential for that parcel to be developed at higher densities as well. Um, thinking of the current owner as well as future potential owners and providing that 15 foot setback along those properties seemed to be in keeping with the adjacent properties as they were zoned R-15 in that case.
Chairman Moyer – “You look like your not finished Commissioner McGrady and I’ll give you some time.”
Commissioner McGrady – “Go ahead”
Chairman Moyer –“Well we’re gonna close the hearing so”
Commissioner McGrady –“I know”
Chairman Moyer – “All right! Thanks Matt. That’s certainly an open issue that we need to discuss further. All the evidence has been presented. All the parties have had an opportunity to make their closing statements and ask any questions they want. Um, now it’s appropriate for the Board to discuss um the issues presented. We can vote today directing Staff to bring back findings of fact and conclusions consistent with the decision to a future meeting of the Board for our review, or we can continue our discussion. I remind the Board however that the Board must have a written decision within 45 days of the conclusion of this hearing. Can we motion to go out of public hearing?”
Commissioner Messer – “So moved.”
Chairman Moyer – “All in favor say aye”
In unison – “Aye”
Chairman Moyer – “We are out of public hearing, We cannot have any further participation from the parties or anybody here but now the Board will discuss the issues and decide how they wish to proceed.”
Board discussion followed.
Commissioner McGrady recommended approval of Special Use Permit Application with conditions established by the Planning Board and recommended by Staff but striking of recommendation for fencing on Eastern edge of lots 9, 10 ,11 ,12, 13, 14 and 15 but requiring a vegetative buffer on lots 8 and 9 and striking all Perimeter Requirements.
Commissioner Baldwin recommended that the motion be amended to specify the size and species of vegetative buffer.
Commissioner McGrady directed Staff to provide the Board with specific language with respect to appropriate species of plants and size in the order that will come forward.
Chairman Moyer stated that a motion was on the floor to give guidance to attorney and Staff with respect to drafting of an ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried.