STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON JANUARY 7, 2000
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 11:00 a.m. in the Commissioners= Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chair Bill Moyer, Commissioner Renee Kumor, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Marilyn Gordon, County Manager David E. Nicholson, Assistant County Manager/Interim County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Planning Director Karen C. Smith and Zoning Administrator Brian Gulden.
Absent was: Commissioner Don Ward - was not present at the beginning of the meeting but did come in late.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. The purpose of this meeting is to hold two Quasi-Judicial Proceedings: 1. Creekside, and 2. Carriage Park.
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 for Carriage Park, A Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Application #SP-93-13A4 by Carriage Park Development Corporation, Applicant.
Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go into Quasi-Judicial Hearing for the Amendment to Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 for Carriage Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Angela Beeker=s recommendations to the Board
Angela Beeker - AThank you, Mr. Chairman. We have received a position statement from the Carriage Park Property Owners Association alleging a violation of the Special Use Permit and requesting that it be terminated. It would therefore by my recommendation to the Board that the proceeding today, requesting an amendment to the Special Use Permit be continued to a date that you determine today, and that another quasi-judicial proceeding be scheduled prior to that date to hear and decide the issues raised by the position paper. Because your rules of procedure allow anyone to file a formal document called a ARequest for Quasi-Judicial Proceeding@, a document that looks much like a legal complaint, it is also my recommendation that the Carriage Park Homeowner=s Association be given until close of business Friday, January 28, 2000 to file a formal ARequest for Quasi-Judicial Proceeding@ that outlines all the allegations that they are making against Carriage Park, and that then Carriage Park Development Corporation be given until close of business on Friday, February 18, 2000 to file a written response to that Request for Quasi-Judicial Proceeding. Both documents would be filed with the Clerk, copied to the Board, and to me. I would recommend that then this hearing concerning the allegations of the Association be held prior to the hearing on the Special Use Permit amendment. Both could be held in March. I have discussed this recommendation with both parties to the proceeding today and both are in agreement. It is within your discretion whether to postpone today=s hearing or not. Regarding the allegations made, however I believe that due process would require that Carriage Park Development Corporation be given ample time to respond and prepare to defend themselves with regard to those allegations. Therefore, if you don=t postpone today=s hearing, I would recommend that it be limited only to the issue of the amendment and that you hold another - still hold another hearing to just hear and decide those allegations. If you decide that you do want to go ahead with the hearing, I would need time to contact the parties and let them know. I told them that I would give them that courtesy so that they can come because they aren=t - they aren=t here. I told them I would be making this recommendation to the Board.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK, thank you Mrs. Beeker. I think essentially what - if I could try to paraphrase the - all that into a couple words. The Board basically has a couple of areas to look at: One is some allegations on the permitting process of Carriage Park, the other is basically a special use permit #93-13 which is a separate issue. And of course our Attorney is recommending that we consider the allegations prior to considering the special use permit #93-13 for Carriage Park and I=d ask the Board if that=s - if they would concur with continuing and reconvening this quasi-judicial hearing which was to actually look at #93-13 until such time that we had heard the other allegations.@
Commissioner Kumor - AAnd if I understand, we would then be setting that at - at another Board meeting.@
Chairman Hawkins - AAt a date@
Angela Beeker - AAt another Board meeting.@
Chairman Hawkins - AReconvening this hearing probably sometime in March@
Angela Beeker - ARight@
Chairman Hawkins - AAnd I think you=ve contacted the parties involved and was looking at some dates - January 28, I think to have information back to the - for the Board to consider.@
Angela Beeker - ARight, have the Owner=s Association submit whatever they=d like to submit by January 28 and then give Carriage Park you know time to respond to that before you would have your hearing. I would also recommend that you wait to set the date for that particular hearing until you get that request for the quasi-judicial proceeding. Your rules of procedure call for such a document to be filed to initiate this type of a hearing.@
Commissioner Kumor - AMay I ask you one question? What are the ramifications if this request is not received by that date, either - just if that request is not received by January 28?@
Angela Beeker - AThen you would have the discretion to give them more time or not to hold the hearing.@
Commissioner Kumor - AOn the issues that they have raised but then we would still be obliged to hold the hearing on the original request from Carriage Park.@
Angela Beeker - ACorrect, and I have put in your box a copy of the position paper and we also received a letter from Carriage Park Development Corporation concurring, I guess, with my recommendation. Both of those I placed in your box with a - with an explanation, so@
Chairman Hawkins - AAre you recommending that we set a date for the - to reconvene the quasi-judicial proceedings or not at this time?@
Angela Beeker - AIt would be up to you, if you simply recess this to reconvene and a date, I would say it would have to be mid to late March to give all those time periods time to run. Uh, then we wouldn=t have - have to do new notices because you would be recessing and reconvening. If you choose just to close out today=s hearing then we=d have to renotify, if you=re going to wait to set the date for the new hearing.@
Commissioner Moyer - ABut since a lot of the parties are not here to give due notice I think we should terminate this hearing and reschedule it so people - we=re sure they get adequate notice. If we continue it and people come in and say they didn=t know about the new date then we=ll just have additional problems.@
Angela Beeker - AOK.@
Commissioner Moyer - AAnd there should be ample time to do that.@
Angela Beeker - AYeh, there should be plenty of time and I could bring it back to you at your mid-month meeting, that way I would have time to contact the parties to see what dates might be - look good for them and you all as well to reschedule. The motion would still need to say to continue it to a date to be determined.@
Commissioner Kumor - ASo when we come out of the quasi-judicial hearing, that=s the motion that we should be making, or in the hearing.@
Angela Beeker - AWell, you=re gonna - I think you would make it in the hearing, right.@
Commissioner Moyer - AThe allegations that are being made, would you repeat what they go to.@
Angela Beeker - AThey have alleged basically that Carriage Park Development Corporation has a duty to convey open space to the Association and because that hasn=t occurred, they feel like they=re in violation of their permit and would like their permit to be terminated. Uh, we only got this Wednesday afternoon and so therefore, Carriage Park should be given an opportunity to prepare to respond to that and not just be hit with that in the middle of a hearing today.@
Commissioner Moyer - ABut they=re raising questions as to the validity and the continued existence of the permit.@
Angela Beeker - AOf the permit, yes sir.@
Commissioner Moyer - AWell then I think it=s definitely the case that we ought to have that hearing first, before you talk about an amendment to it.@
Angela Beeker - AYes.@
Commissioner Kumor - AThen, Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we adjourn this meeting and at a later date set a new meeting for a quasi-judicial hearing.@
Commissioner Moyer - AI guess you want a motion to continue it to a date to be determined.@
Angela Beeker - ANo@
Commissioner Kumor - ANo, we don=t want to continue it. We want to@
Angela Beeker - AYes, to continue - well you would continue it to a date to be determined.@
Commissioner Kumor - ATo be determined, OK.@
Angela Beeker - AWe would still have to renotify.@
Commissioner Kumor - AOK, that was, alright, that was my motion.@
Commissioned Moyer - AThat will get both things done.@
Angela Beeker - AAnd uh, could you also include in you motion the two dates for filing and@
Commissioner Kumor - AAlright, then uh, my motion includes that the property owners have the - until January 28 of 2000 to file a formal request for a quasi-judicial hearing and that Carriage Park have until February 18 to respond.@
Angela Beeker - AYes@
Chairman Hawkins - AIs there any other discussion on the motion on the floor that uh - I=ll just kinda reparaphrase it - means that we=re going to give both concerned parties ample time to answer each others allegations, at which time then we=ll have - really proceed with the quasi-judicial hearing and there will be other notifications for same. All those in favor of that motion, say aye.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK@
Commissioned Moyer - AUnder these procedures, who will have the responsibility to see that each of the parties receives copies of the other parties documentation, you or the other parties?@
Angela Beeker - AI have sent them a notice that they are expected to do that, to file with the Clerk, to copy each other, and@
Commissioner Moyer - ATo copy each other?@
Angela Beeker - AYes sir and to copy me as well so I can stay apprized of it. You can make another motion requiring that and it would be then in the written correspondence from the Board that I would you know draft for you to send out if you would like.@
Commissioner Moyer - AWell I would like to move that because many times - too many times people get in and say they haven=t seen the other person=s allegations and it makes for a very difficult hearing. I think we need to be sure that they each are notified of the other person=s allegations and response so that that=s not the focus of the hearing.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK. Mrs. Kumor, would you amend your motion to include that and we=ll revote on it.@
Commissioned Kumor - AYes sir, I amend the motion that all parties in our letter will be directed to share their information with each other and with the Clerk and with Ms. Skerrett, Mrs. Beeker, I=m sorry, I forgot@
Angela Beeker - AThat=s OK.@
Chairman Hawkins - ANew motion on the floor then. All those in favor of that motion please say aye.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK, that should insure that everybody is informed of what everybody else is doing and also establishes the dates for filing your information with Ms. Beeker and with the Board so that we can reconvene at - probably some time in March would be my guess. OK. Then we need to go out of our quasi-judicial hearing for@
Commissioner Kumor - AMr. Chairman, I make the motion that we leave the quasi-judicial hearing on the special - amendment to the special use permit for Carriage Park.@
Chairman Hawkins - AAll those in favor of that motion say aye.@
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Special Use Permit #SP-93-02 for Creekside, A Residential Open Space (R-O) Development - Application #SP-99-02A1 by Mr. Maxie Small, Agent for the Old Bowen Farm LLC, Applicant.
Chairman Hawkins - AI would like to make some opening remarks. We have one remaining quasi-judicial proceeding scheduled for today and that=s on the petition of Maxie Small for Creekside. I=ll give you just an overview of the procedure. All persons who speak and participate including any witnesses that will be called, will be placed under oath. Staff will give a brief introductory remarks and the Board will ask the petitioner what evidence he wishes to present in support of his application for a special use permit. After the petitioner is finished, anyone else who has expressed a desire to be a party and who the Board has recognized as a party would then be allowed to present their evidence. All parties will be given an opportunity to ask questions of all witnesses testifying in this proceeding. The Board will be given an opportunity to ask questions also. After the evidence is presented, the Board will discuss the issue raised and will make a decision. The Board=s decision must be made in writing within 45 days of the hearing. Before we begin, I would ask the County Attorney if there are any matters that the Board needs to address or resolve prior to identifying the parties and beginning the presentation of evidence. Mrs. Beeker.@
Angela Beeker - AMr. Chairman, the only thing I can think of is that once we go into - never mind.@
David Nicholson - ANever mind.@
Commissioner Don Ward arrived.
Angela Beeker - ANo sir. I would have no comment.@
Chairman Hawkins - AWe=ve not started. Glad you could be with us this morning.@
Commissioner Kumor - AWould you like a motion?@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK, and if I could entertain a motion to go into quasi-judicial public hearing.@
Commissioned Kumor - AMr. Chairman, I make the motion that we go into a quasi-judicial hearing on permit - special use permit #99-02 for Creekside, a residential open space development.@
Chairman Hawkins - AAll those in favor of that motion, say aye.@
Chairman Hawkins - AThank you.@
Commissioner Moyer - ACould I just mention one thing before you start. I think I may have heard part of this proceeding at the Planning Board but I don=t - I=m certainly not prejudiced in any way and I think I can make an impartial decision unless one of the parties would object, I would intend to participate in the deliberations.@
Chairman Hawkins - AMrs. Corn, if you=ll just read that into the record. The Board acknowledges the petitioner, Maxie Small, and the staff as parties to the proceeding. Are there any other persons present who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome of this proceeding and who wish to be a party to the proceeding. If you=re going to be a party to the proceedings then we need to be sworn in and if you would when you come forward, if you=d state your name and address and how you=ll be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, then we=ll have you - have you sworn in.
As I mentioned, we=ve already acknowledged the petitioner and staff as parties. Is there anyone else that plans to testify. If not, if you all would have the Clerk swear you in please.@
Clerk to the Board - AOK, place your left hand on the Bible and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you shall give to the Board of County Commissioners shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.@
In unison - AI do@
Clerk to the Board - AThank you.@
Chairman Hawkins - AAnd uh - we already have their names I think.@
Sworn in: Maxie Small, petitioner
Karen C. Smith, Planning Director
Chairman Hawkins - AOK, Mrs. Smith, if you want to continue with your introductory remarks.@
Karen Smith - AAs I talk, I=m gonna have Brian Gulden pass out copies of my comments with some attachments to the Board and the others who are participating. Creekside is a residential open space or R-O development that was approved by the Board of Commissioners back in September of 1999 under Special Use Permit #99-02. A copy of the order that granted the original application is attached in the packet that was just distributed. The old Bowen Farm owns the development which is located off NC Hwy #191 between Long John Mountain Estates and Carriage Park and a map showing - excuse me, the Master Plan that was originally approved by the Board of Commissioners is shown on the easel and also on the screen at this time. The subject property is zoned R-20 and is within the WS-IV watershed protection area. RO developments are allowed as special uses in the R-20 district. As originally approved, Creekside contained 50.81 acres to be subdivided into 64 lots in two phases. Section 200-35 of the Zoning Ordinance allows dimensional requirements in RO developments to be reduced based on a percentage of open space being reserved and in the case of Creekside 30% open space is proposed or was proposed at that time and their dimentional requirements were allowed to be reduced by 30%. As originally approved over 15 acres of Creekside were designated as open space. In addition there was a green, that was approximately .9 of an acre in size, that=s the circle that you can kinda see in the center of the map. That was also approved. It is not counted as part of the required open space because it is less than an acre. By reducing the dimentional requirements by 30%, Creekside was allowed to have minimum lot sizes of 14,000 square feet, front set-backs of 35 feet from the center line of the roads and side and rear set-backs of 17.5 feet. Creekside was also approved as a cluster development under the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance because it offsets the smaller lots with open space. In October, Mr. Maxie Small on behalf of the Bowen Farm submitted an application to amend Special Use Permit 99-02 as well as a major subdivision application which presented a revised master plan, a revised development plan for phase I and a development plan for phase II. We had not previously had that development plan for phase II. The new applications were submitted because the old Bowen Farm purchased an additional 2 acres, formerly known as the Perry property adjacent to Creekside and I=ll have Brian put the new master plan up on the screen and I=ll - put this one up. The Perry property on the old was shown in yellow, OK. And this new master plan incorporates the Perry property. The two acres would add an additional seven lots to the RO development as some lots have been reconfigured in phases I and II. They=ve also reconfigured the road in phase I as you can see it now loops around rather than ending in a cul-de-sac. Approximately 15.89 acres of the total tract size will be designated as open space. The green has been maintained. Again, it is not counted as part of the 30% open space. That would conclude my overview - uh just for the record I would like to state that the hearing today has been advertised in accordance with state law and the Zoning Ordinance.@
Chairman Hawkins - AKaren, where was the .88 acres again. I=m sorry - it was - that was back on the other - OK - OK. You want to make your presentation or give us your evidence now?@
Mr. Small - AWell don=t - I appreciate you all holding this hearing and taking your time for this. It=s been a big help to us to have somebody like Karen do her job as well as she has. I don=t really have a whole lot of other comments. We like the new arrangement much better. It services the residents much better. It provides for additional fire protection, better water service, better sewer service and its a winner all the way around for us. Can I answer any questions or.@
Chairman Hawkins - AWe=ll get to those in a second I think.@
Mr. Small - AOh, OK.@
Chairman Hawkins - AKaren, do you have some evidence to present?@
Karen Smith - ABrian is now gonna pass out the only evidence that I wish to enter is the Planning Board=s recommendation regarding this matter. Again, it=s a memo from myself with attachments and as I=ve done at other hearings - I am probably going to be close to reading this word for word as it is their recommendation.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK.@
Karen Smith - AAt it=s November 30, 1999 meeting, the Henderson County Planning Board reviewed the application #SP-99-02-A1 for an amendment to the Special Use Permit #99-02 for Creekside as well as the major subdivision application for the revised master plan, revised development plan for phase I, and development plan for phase II of Creekside. Both applications and the accompanying plans were reviewed for compliance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance, the Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance, and the Zoning Ordinance. And I have attached copies of the minutes from the November 30 meeting for reference.
Regarding the proposed amendment to the Special Use Permit, the Planning Board voted unanimously to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation subject to two conditions: the first being the removal of condition 4-d from the order granting special use permit 99-02 and again a copy of that original order is attached. That order and condition 4-d had some specifications for buffering because of the Perry property. If the Board remembers at the last - the hearing there was some concern by a property owner about that and because the Perry property has been incorporated, condition 4d is no longer applicable and should be so stated in a new order if the proposed amendment is approved. The second condition by the Planning Board was that the other conditions imposed by the Special Order Granting Special Use Permit 99-02 be maintained. All of the other conditions imposed should remain effective for the term of the development with the exception of condition 4d as I previously indicated. In addition, if the amendment is approved a new order should note the addition of the 2.02 acres of property, the addition of seven lots to the development and the reconfiguration of the road in phase II and the reconfiguration of some of the lots in both phases.
The Planning Board also, at that meeting on November 30, voted unanimously on the subdivision approval which was for the Master Plan, the Development Plan for phase I and the Development Plan for phase II and they also had a list of conditions for that approval. Some of these do duplicate conditions that were specified in the previous order and some may be new:
1. Shoulder Stabilization. Road shoulders shall be seeded in permanent vegetation to stabilize soil and prevent erosion.
2. Road Name Signs and Regulatory Signs.
Each subdivision shall provide road name signs and regulatory signs in accordance with@
Commissioner Moyer - AKaren, let me say - stop you for a minute. The Master Plan is not before us though, is it?@
Karen Smith - AYou - the Planning Board has the authority to approve the Master Plan and the Development Plans. I believe the previous order referenced that the Planning Board=s approval of those was kinda contingent on your approval of the Special Use Permit and the same would be true here. That these conditions were incorporated as part of the order but actually the Planning Board is the approval authority on that, unless for some reason you want to be.@
Angela Beeker - AActually, also it=s a good idea to incorporate them into your order so it=s clear as to what the Special Use Permit is for.@
Chairman Hawkins - ASo these eight items that are listed here actually are at the prerogative of the Planning Board but if I hear, Mrs. Beeker, you want those included in our consideration for the two items that are listed on item 1 and 2.@
Karen Smith - AThese are requirements of the subdivision ordinance that had been satisfied at the time of plan approval. Some of them can=t be satisfied until the development is actually constructed and so these are the outstanding items that the Planning Board had.@
Commissioner Moyer - AWell, my concern is the only thing we=re looking at is an amendment to the Special Use Permit and if you incorporate these into that, we don=t want these as part of the Special@
Angela Beeker - AI=m not saying necessarily to incorporate these conditions, I=m saying the plans. The plans that are attached to the application so you know - so it=s clear what the special use permit is being granted for. We don=t have to put these conditions in there.@
Karen Smith - ASome of them are actually already in there.@
Angela Beeker - AAre they?@
Karen Smith - AFrom the previous approval.@
Angela Beeker - AAre they, OK. You have some overlapping jurisdiction I guess is what I=m saying, from a zoning standpoint you want to make sure that what is being proposed is acceptable to you as an RO development. From the subdivision standpoint, the Planning Board has to make sure that it complies with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance so there is a little bit of overlapping jurisdiction.@
Karen Smith - AI suppose you could just make the condition that it comply with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance-@
Angela Beeker - ASure you can.@
Karen Smith - ARather than@
Commissioner Moyer - AAnd if we put these in and for some reason they need to be changed because something in the development changes, I don=t want them having to come back to us@
Angela Beeker - ARight@
Commissioner Moyer - ABecause they are a part of the order.@
Angela Beeker - ARight. My main point is to attach the - because the plans themselves are - do any of these relate to the plans? Looks like most of these are external to the actual maps that are submitted and so it just makes our job a lot easier in the future to interpret the Special Use Permit or the amendment if we have the map incorporated into the order.@
Karen Smith - AIn the old order, if I might, on page 8, that=s exhibit 2 I believe. Yeh, exhibit 2, page 8. At the bottom there. I think the Board last time just did it and specifically noted that the Planning Board had approved the Master Plan and Development Plan for phase I contingent on approval of the Special Use Permit. Something similar to that could be done. In this case the Development Plan for phase II has been presented at this point which we did not have previously and I think that we might need to recognize that because it is part of this amendment. Some of it does overlap with phase II.@
Angela Beeker - AYes, also condition F, what number is that? On that same page. Well, it=s just condition F, incorporates the requirements that comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. On page 8 of the old order, item F. And I=m certain we=d put something like that in this and that should satisfy all the Planning Board=s concerns.@
Karen Smith - AThe only other thing@
Commissioner Moyer - AI would think so. The one I=m particularly concerned about is #3, if we start getting into that.@
Angela Beeker - ARight@
Commissioner Moyer - AThat=s a specific Planning Board authority and if we=re gonna either review this or approve it, in fairness to the rest of the Board, we=d have to go into a lot of detail which I don=t think we need to.@
Angela Beeker - AI agree.@
Karen Smith - ADo you want me then to not review the remaining@
Chairman Hawkins - AI don=t mind you reviewing them but I don=t know that - I think what Commissioner Moyer is saying is that - you know- as far as the action that we=re contemplating taking probably deals with the first two items you covered.@
Karen Smith - ARight@
Chairman Hawkins - AAnd the others are pretty much the prerogative of the Planning Board. If you just want to go ahead and review those.@
Karen Smith - AI=ll just review the categories - have to do with:
3. Lot Configuration and Frontage.
The Planning Board specifically approved four lots as flag lots.
4. Stream Setbacks.
They have to maintain a 30 foot minimum setback for buildings and other structures along all perennial streams.
5. Water Plans.
They have to submit evidence that water plans serving the development have been approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
6. Sewer Plans.
They have to provide evidence that their sewer plans have been approved by the same State Department of Environment and Natural Resources as well as the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department.
7. Restrictive Covenants.
This is something that is part of the RO provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. It=s part of the Subdivision Ordinance also but they have to have their restrictive covenants reviewed by the County Attorney for conformance with the requirements of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and that would be if there=s a change to the previous set that she reviewed last time.
8. Approval of Amendment to Special Use Permit.
The Planning Board conditioned the subdivision approval on the granting of the Special Use Permit.@
Chairman Hawkins - ALet=s see, I don=t think we had any additional parties= evidence to present, do we Mrs. Beeker since we didn=t have any additional parties.@
Angela Beeker - ATo my knowledge it would be appropriate if the Board has any questions for either Mrs. Smith or Mr. Small. I would like to ask Karen a question. Have you reviewed the application and the maps?@
Karen Smith - AI have, for compliance with all three of the ordinances that I have previously stated.@
Angela Beeker - AAnd taking into account the Planning Board=s conditions, would it be your testimony that they are in compliance with the requirements of all three ordinances with this application?@
Karen Smith - AYes.@
Angela Beeker - AOK@
Chairman Hawkins - ADoes any of the Board members have any questions of the witnesses at this time? Anybody. Is there any rebuttal evidence to be presented? I would assume not.@
Angela Beeker - ACould someone state for the record the total number of lots then that would now be in the development. It was@
Mr. Small - AThere would actually be 71 that would be in that development, 69 would actually be subject to the restrictions and we really haven=t decided yet if we=re going to go through the thing of the other two which are currently - one of them is owned by my myself and one of them is owned by Mrs. Pryor. So there=s really 69 new lots.@
Angela Beeker - AOK@
Mr. Small - AOK@
Chairman Hawkins - AIs there any other questions that anyone wants to ask or does anyone want to give any closing remarks. Mr. Small, do you have any closing remarks to make?@
Mr. Small - ANo sir, I don=t.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK. Then, it would be appropriate then for the Board to make some considerations of any directions we want to give staff. As I mentioned earlier, we can have - reach a consensus and have staff bring us back within 45 days written findings of our facts. If you want to do any discussion at this time, any of the Board members@
Angela Beeker - AYes sir, you could also vote and then just ask staff to bring back a written order in alignment with that vote which I believe has become the practice of the Board. I would ask that if you do that, that we be allowed to reincorporate by reference all the previous conditions with the exception of 4d, that were in the other order >cause they are still all applicable except for that one.@
Chairman Hawkins - AWhich is essentially item #2 of the Planning Board=s recommendation I think.@
Angela Skerrett - AYes@
Chairman Hawkins - AAny discussion, anybody want to talk to any other issues?@
Commissioner Moyer - AWell, I think we should take action. I would move that we approve the proposed amendment subject to the conditions laid out on our materials, #1 and #2 and that we have a map as requested attached to it to show what the latest approved - of the@
Chairman Hawkins - AExhibit 2, is that the map you=re looking for?@
Commissioner Moyer - AYeh.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK, any other discussion on that motion that=s on the floor which is essentially to approve the Planning Board=s recommendation, I believe Bill is essentially what you=ve got.@
Commissioner Moyer - ARight@
Commissioner Kumor - AAnd then we=d be directing - if we accept Mr. Moyer=s motion, we=d be accepting, giving the staff the responsibility@
Chairman Hawkins - ATo bring that back as findings for us within 45 days.@
Angela Beeker - AYes@
Chairman Hawkins - AAny other discussion. All those in favor of the motion, say aye.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK. We=ll direct you to do so.@
Angela Beeker - AOK@
Chairman Hawkins - AAnd I would entertain a motion to go out of quasi-judicial public hearing.@
Commissioner Kumor - ASo moved.@
Chairman Hawkins - AAll those in favor of that motion, say aye.@ At 11:45 a.m.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board
Grady Hawkins, Chairman