STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON DECEMBER 11, 2001
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 3:00 p.m. in the Commissioners= Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chair Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Charlie Messer, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Planning Director Karen C. Smith and Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.
Absent was: County Manager David E. Nicholson.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. The purpose of this meeting was to continue work on the Zoning Ordinance and the changes to our current Zoning Ordinance.
Karen Smith reminded the Board that Staff had distributed to the Board about a week earlier a ADraft in Progress@. It is the newest draft of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. Since the Board=s last workshop, Staff has tried to follow direction the Board had given about maintaining some of the existing districts, carry those forward as we move into the new ordinance, make use of some of the districts that were proposed in the New Zoning Ordinance, and also take a look at including a draft of a mixed or a more general residential district the Board had looked at at the prior workshop. At that time it was known as mixed residential. The Board had also wanted to prevent the pre-existing residential units from being used in the future. The Board wished them to continue for those areas that currently have them in place but to prevent them from being used in future rezoning.
The approach Ms. Smith and Ms. Beeker took was to incorporate the new zoning ordinance into the old rather than the old into the new. It was a challenge. They found that what sometimes seemed to be a simple cut and paste turned out to warrant making changes in ten different sections and trying to analyze the impact, etc.
At the October 11, 2001 workshop, the Board had indicated that it thought the new draft would benefit from some formatting changes, particularly with regard to the standards section of the Ordinance. In addition, the Board granted staff the latitude to make modifications for clarification purposes to the residential districts that will be retained from the current Ordinance. The Board had specifically directed that staff not yet modify any sections of the ARewrite@ that had not been discussed by the Board.
While staff had done its best in the time since the last workshop to prepare a draft that would fulfill the Board=s direction, staff stressed that there were numerous items and issues that still need to be resolved. Some of the outstanding issues require additional discussion and direction by the Board, while others simply require more work on the part of staff. Staff also stressed that the text of the ADraft in Progress@ had not been fully edited for content and that the Board should not rely on section number cross-references.
The Board had told staff that the new draft did not need to show all of the changes (with strikes and shading) that have been necessary in order to merge the two documents. However, staff felt that the Board might wish to see the changes that had been made to the retained residential districts, therefore those portions of the draft contain strikes and shading. A few of the other paragraphs had been shaded as well to remind staff of particular areas that need follow-up analysis by staff.
Structure of the Document
Ms. Smith reviewed the format of the ADraft in Progress@ with the Board, explaining the tabs in the notebook (draft) which were marked as AArticles@. Some of the more significant elements and changes made to the draft of the new zoning ordinance were as follows:
Article I. General Provisions
This general provision section covers the Board=s authority, purpose statement, etc. and the Board has looked at these items before in workshops. Where staff felt that the new ordinance was more thorough, they incorporated that text into the new zoning ordinance. They cross checked the sections and tried to make sure that things would work out.
The purpose section was one the Board had spent some time on at a workshop. Some of the language was straight out of the statutes and staff left that in.
Ms. Smith mentioned the North American Industrial Classification System or NAICS. The Board has seen this before. It was the basis for the table of uses in a prior draft of the new ordinance. It used to be called the Standard Industrial Classification or SIC. The NAICS is a system for classifying business and industry. It is used for analyzing business activity, for reporting business activity, etc. It was established by the US Government. Every business issue listed in a manual that was produced by the US Government has a code. There are 20 different industrial sectors and there are subsectors. Staff had ordered the Board desk reference copies of the NAICS. Since the initial draft came out, Ms. Smith has had a hardcover copy in her office. It had just been made available in paperback. She expressed that she felt it would be valuable to the Board of Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Board and staff. The NAICS is also available on the Internet.
Ms. Smith further explained that staff had not tried to convert uses in the preexisting districts to NAICS codes.
Commissioner Ward raised the question of the definition of a bonafide farm here. Ms. Smith explained in answer to a question that raising horses may not be an agricultural use but rather the horses might be pets. Personal pets are not regulated. A bonafide farm is not regulated through zoning. Some discussion followed. Any farm, regardless of the size, would be exempt from zoning under State Statutes. Ms. Beeker stated that the only farms that the Board can regulate are swine farms over a certain size, NC Statutes allow regulation of them.
Article II. Establishment of Districts
Article II addresses the use districts. It explains how the districts and requirements in the two ordinances have been integrated and organized.
General Use Districts - This section encompasses new districts from the previous draft of the ordinance. Some district names are similar to those used in the current zoning ordinance, therefore, as suggested by the Board, staff had distinguished most of the so-called Anew@ residential districts from those that will be retained from the current ordinance with an AN@ in the map code abbreviation of the district name (e.g. NR-40). Note: Ignore the AN@ in the map code for the Conservation District.
The MU district proposed in the previous draft of the new ordinance had been replaced with the draft of what was previously presented to the Board as the MR (mixed residential) district. The rural districts on which the MU district were based (RM-2 and RC) are expected to be retained where such districts are currently applied, and the new mixed use district seemed to be more appropriate as the district to carry forward.
General Use Districts - Pre-existing.
This section encompasses districts that are being retained from the current ordinance. Includes language to prevent the application of such districts to other areas of the county once a new zoning ordinance is enacted. Note: The C-2P District should no longer be listed as a pre-existing district.
Overlay Districts - This section explains generally how overlay districts operate and lists the overlay districts available.
Zoning Map - Staff needs to revise this section to discuss electronic version of the zoning map and other issues.
Article III. Use Districts
Ms. Smith explained that this is where the Board will see the most changes.
As requested by the Board of Commissioners, Article III attempts to maintain the organizational structure of the current zoning ordinance while establishing some consistency between the retained sections of the current zoning ordinance and the sections excerpted from the new zoning ordinance. Staff had made some changes to improve the consistency between the two documents used to create the new draft. There are a number of items, however, that staff was not comfortable changing without Board discussion or that required additional time to prepare.
Article III has 3 subparts:
$ Subpart A - General Use Districts (texts for the proposed new zoning districts that will be used for future zoning actions).
$ Subpart B - General Use Districts - Pre-existing (texts for the districts to be retained from the current zoning ordinance).
$ Subpart C - Overlay Districts (texts for overlay districts from the new zoning ordinance).
More explanation of the subparts follows:
1.Subpart A - General Use Districts
1. The shaded paragraph on page 28 had been added from the new ordinance for clarification.
2. Sections 200-12 through 200-22 contain the basic texts for the new zoning districts proposed for future use and which, in the case of non-residential districts, will replace certain existing districts.
3. To make the district texts resemble those in the current ordinance, staff produced the lists of permitted uses, permitted uses with special requirements, conditional uses and special uses for each use district using the Table of Uses from the prior draft of the new ordinance. The Table of Uses has also been retained.
4. For ease of reference, the NAICS codes for each use were provided. As in the Table of Uses in the prior draft, when an NAICS code was not available (such as for residential uses) or when a use has a specific definition that differentiates it from the description provided by the NAICS , then a A000000" code was used.
5. Category headings from the Table of Uses will be added to the list of uses in Subpart A to make it more comparable to the Table of Uses.
6. As in the prior draft of the new ordinance (and as in parts of the current zoning ordinance), standards for uses have been consolidated into other Articles and references to those Articles are provided in the district texts. Article IV contains specific standards for particular uses and is organized into a Table of Standards for the General Use Districts (which contains standards for many uses in Subparts A and B unless such standards are too long - see Table IV-1, green pages), a Table of Standards for the Open Use District (see Table IV-2, yellow page) and the more lengthy standards for Planned Unit Developments, Manufactured Home Parks, Residential Apartment Developments, and Communications Towers. Article V contains more general development standards such as parking, landscaping, signs, etc., as well as standards related to the number of buildings per lot, measuring setbacks, etc.
7. Planned Unit Developments have been treated as Special Uses (as in current ordinance) rather than as an overlay district. Staff has limited the uses allowed in a PUD to those allowed in the underlying zoning district (for example, see S200-12B(1), pg. 29).
8. Dimensional requirements have been organized into a table, similar to that used in the current zoning ordinance. The method of measuring setbacks in the new ordinance has been carried over to all districts in the new draft. [Note: The Dimensional Requirements table for NR-40 on page 29 is incorrect as it contains the standards for R-40 instead of NR-40.]
9. As previously directed by the Board of Commissioners, the proposed R-8 district has been changed to NR-6 [see S200-15, pp.33-35].
10. The C-2P district in the current ordinance allows a mix of some residential and commercial. C-2P, however, is not intended to be carried forward into the new ordinance. In order to provide some of the benefits of the C-2P district and for discussion purposes, staff had added some residential uses to the proposed NB Neighborhood Business District [see S200-16A (7), (8), and (9), p. 36].
11. The Table of Uses from the previous draft of the new ordinance had been retained and is now found in Table III-1 in Article III (see blue pages). S200-23 [p. 76] introduces the Table of Uses, explains the symbols used in the Table of Uses and also reviews the relationship of the Table of Uses to the NAICS.
12. As proposed in the previous draft of the new ordinance, the OI District (which is intended to replace the O & I district in the current ordinance) did not allow residential uses. The O & I district in the current zoning ordinance allows residential uses at an R-30-type density. After reviewing the two ordinances, staff decided to add some residential uses back to OI by allowing them in a Planned Unit Development [see S200-17B(8), p. 44]. This is an item for Board discussion.
13. If there is a discrepancy between the Table of Uses and the list of uses in the district text in Article III, the district text will control, as noted in S200-23C [p.77]. However, at this time, please be aware that the Table of Uses and the list of uses in the district text does not always match. Staff will work on this aspect of the draft in the future.
2. Subpart B - General Use Districts - Pre-existing.
1. The shaded paragraph on page 78 has been added from the previous draft of the new ordinance for clarification.
2. Sections 200-28 through 200-35 (pp. 78-103) contain the basic texts for the districts that are being retained from the current zoning ordinance, including the Open Use District.
3. The language that is shaded in the first paragraph of S200-26 [p. 78] for the R-40 district has also been added to the other districts that will be retained from the current ordinances to clarify that such districts will not be available for future zoning actions once the revised zoning ordinance is enacted.
4. The listings of permitted uses, uses permitted with special requirements, conditional uses and special uses are structured similarly to the current ordinance. However, to be consistent with the new districts in Subpart A but to distinguish the uses in Subpart B from those in Subpart A, staff had assigned a code of A++++++@ to the uses in the pre-existing districts. Some uses in the new districts with a A000000" code have, in the pre-existing districts a code of A++++++@. The uses in the pre-existing districts are not listed in the Table of Uses (Table II-1). Staff would like to further discuss whether the Commissioners wish to make a more complete transition to the NAICS codes for all uses, regardless of whether they are in the new or pre-existing districts.
5. All standards that were listed after a specific use in the district texts in the current ordinance have been moved to other Articles, to be consistent with Subpart A (see discussion above). However, uses in the pre-existing districts uses have been listed at the end of the Table of Standards.
6. The listing for Civic and Cultural Buildings had been shown with strikes in all of the pre-existing residential districts [for example, see S200-26A, p.78]. The term ACivic and Cultural Buildings@ includes a broad range of uses including auditoriums, theaters, museums, art galleries, concert halls and historical societies. Such uses are not allowed in the new residential districts. Staff does not recall the issuance of any permits for galleries or concert halls in residential districts, however over the years, uses such as fire stations, which are not specifically listed as being permitted in the residential districts have been allowed under a broad interpretation of Acivic and cultural.@ Therefore, for discussion purposes, the new draft proposes to delete the broad use of Acivic and cultural@ buildings and specifically permits uses such as police, fire and rescue stations as proposed in the new districts [see S200-26A (18) and (19), p. 79, for example].
7. For clarification and consistency purposes, Home Schools have been specifically added as permitted uses in all of the pre-existing residential districts [for example, see S200-26A (9), p. 79]. The only reference to home schools in the current ordinance is in the definitions section. The definition, which was added with the adoption of the amendments related to the Open Use District, states that home schools are permitted uses in all zoning districts, however the use was not specifically listed as a permitted use in each district. The new draft lists home schools but indicates that they do not require a zoning compliance permit.
8. Agriculture and Bonafide Farms have been specifically listed as permitted uses in all pre-existing districts for clarity [for example, see S200-26A(13) and (14), p. 79]. Under state law, such uses are exempt from zoning requirements (see also S200-5, Farm Exemption, on p. 1 of the draft).
9. Common Area Recreation Facilities, such as open space within a subdivision, PUD, etc., have been allowed by interpretation. Such use is specifically listed as being permitted in the new districts, therefore staff has added it to the pre-existing districts for clarification and consistency [see S200-26A(15), p. 79, for example].
10. In the current ordinance, Swimming Pools for residences have been allowed in the pre-existing districts under provisions for accessory structures. The new ordinance specifically lists pools as permitted uses in the Table of Uses, therefore staff has proposed that they be specifically listed in the pre-existing districts for clarification and consistency [see S200-26A(16), P. 79, for example].
11. In the current ordinance, the only reference to Yard Sales is in the definition, which states that yard sales are incidental uses in all residential districts. For clarification and consistency, staff has listed Yard Sales as a permitted use with special requirements in the pre-existing districts with the notation that a permit is not required [see S200-26A(16), p. 79, for example]. Standards similar to those in the current ordinance are proposed in the Table of Standards.
12. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) continue to be allowed in the pre-existing districts as Special Uses. However, staff would like the Board to discuss at some point whether standards for PUDs from the current ordinance and those proposed in the new ordinance should be merged, modified, etc.
13. In the new draft, staff had proposed that R-0 Residential Open Space Developments be deleted from the list of uses allowed with Special Use Permits in the pre-existing districts
[see S200-26B, p. 79, for example] because such uses can be accommodated through the provisions for Planned Unit Developments, as had been proposed in the previous draft of the new ordinance.
14. R-A Residential Apartment Developments continue to be allowed as Special Use in the pre-existing residential districts. Such developments have not been incorporated into the PUD concept at this time because of the differences in the development and ownership of apartments and units/lots for sale.
15. For discussion purposes, staff had proposed that MICD Medical Institutional Care Developments be deleted from the list of uses allowed with Special Use Permits in the pre-existing districts in which they are currently allowed [see S200-27B, p. 81, for example]. MICDs are not allowed in the new residential districts and staff is not aware of any sites in existing districts where permits for such developments have been granted. Also, in the new ordinance, multiple principal use buildings are allowed on one lot which may further eliminate the need for the MICD. Based on previous workshops, staff will be adding nursing homes and continuing care retirement communities as uses allowed in the new residential districts. At some point, the Board may want to consider allowing such uses in the pre-existing districts in a similar manner.
16. In accordance with a previous decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the standards for Customary Incidental Home Occupations have been modified to specifically allow small in-home daycare centers to have outdoor play areas as required by state law [see Table IV-1, Table of Standards, p. xxx].
17. Accessory Dwellings are allowed in the new districts, subject to special requirements, and either by right or with a Conditional Use Permit depending on the district. Similarly and for discussion purposes, staff had added Accessory Dwellings to the list of uses allowed in the pre-existing districts. Currently, the Zoning Board of Adjustment has the authority to issue temporary use permits for additional dwellings on the same lot with the main dwelling for short periods of time. In the new districts, standards limit accessory dwellings in terms of size, type, etc. Providing more opportunities for affordable housing is one reason that the concept of accessory dwellings was included in the draft of the new ordinance. The Commissioners may want to discuss this issue, including options for standards, at a future workshop.
18. A listing for Community Clubs has been added as a Conditional Use in each of the pre-existing residential districts because most of the existing community clubs in the county are situated in residential areas. Staff is working with the Cooperative Extension Service to define the use and suggested that Community Clubs also be added to the new districts [see S200-26C(9), p. 79, for example].
19. Staff has slightly modified the Dimensional Requirements tables that have always been contained in the pre-existing districts. Specifically, the new tables show how the minimum front yard setback would change if the Board converts from the current method of measuring setbacks (using the centerline of roads) [see S200-26D, p.80]. This is an item for discussion by the Board. In the notes to the Dimensional Requirements table, staff had also added references to other sections that contain height standards.
20. Subsections E through I (references to Landscaping/Buffering Standards, Parking Standards, etc.) which mirror similar sections in the texts for the new districts, have been added to each pre-existing district for consistency with Subpart A [see S200-26E-I, p.80]. For now, Subsections E through I indicate if no standards are applicable. The Board may prefer to have the actual sections to which these subsections refer state that no standards apply.
21. The new draft presumes that the pre-existing RM-2 and RC districts will be retained. The RM-1 district had been deleted because it is not currently in use.
22. For now, the WR Waterfront Residential and SW Surface Water Districts are proposed to be retained since they apply in the Lake Summit area. Staff would like the Board to determine if it would like to have similar districts (or a combination of the two) available for future use. The previous draft of the new ordinance did contain a Waterfront Residential District because of the Lake Summit area.
23. The Open Use District has had minimal modifications compared to what was adopted by the Commissioners in May of 2001. The paragraph regarding future use of the district had been added. The specific standards chart had been inserted in Article IV (see Table IV-2, yellow page). Also, because other stand-alone ordinances such as the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance, the Communications Tower Ordinances, etc., have been folded into the new zoning ordinance, S200-35C is shown with strikes. All of the relevant standards from such ordinances have been included in Article IV. Application requirements have been moved to Article VII.
24. The following zoning districts from the current zoning ordinance have been deleted; R-T, T-15, T-20, C-1, C-2, C-2P, C-4, I-1, I-2, O&I and RM-1. The new draft presumes that any districts that currently bear these zoning designations will need to be rezoned to other general use districts that are being carried forward. Some of the old districts will translate easily into new districts while others will require more study. The zoning map amendment process is going to be a project in itself.
3. Subpart C - Overlay Districts
1. As requested by the Board at a prior workshop, the Special Use Districts have been removed.
2. The PUD Overlay District proposed in the new ordinance had been deleted and, as discussed in Subpart A, PUDs have been allowed as Special Uses in the new districts and continue to be allowed as Special Uses in the pre-existing districts.
3. The Board has had some discussions about the Manufactured Home Park Overlay District that was proposed in the previous draft of the new ordinance. For purposes of additional discussion, the new draft no longer contains a Manufactured Home Park Overlay District. Staff proposed that manufactured home parks be listed in the new districts as permitted and/or conditional uses, depending on the districts, subject to the standards that already apply to new manufactured home parks.
4. The other overlay districts proposed in the previous draft of the new ordinance (Watershed Protection Overlay, Corridor Overlay and Airport Overlay) have been included in the new draft but have not been modified because the Board has not yet discussed them in detail.
Article IV. Specific Development, Site and Performance Standards
1. S200-51. Table of Standards.
As described previously, a Table of Standards (see Table IV-1, green pages) has been included in the new draft. The Table of Standards applies to uses in the new and the pre-existing districts. In the previous draft of the new ordinance, standards for particular uses were listed in a separate article similar to the new Article IV, however the uses were grouped by the type of permit required. Staff prepared the Table of Standards to simplify the standards section to some extent. Uses in the new districts are listed first in the Table, in the same order as they are found in the use district texts and in the Table of Uses to replicate the order of the new districts and the pre-existing districts in Article III, staff added uses from the pre-existing districts and their associated standards after those for the new districts, beginning on page xxvi of the Table of Standards. Standards that are more lengthy, such as those for Planned Unit Developments, Towers, etc., are located on pages following the Table of Standards. A second table, Table IV-2 (yellow page), contains the standards for uses in the Open Use District.
5. S200-51A. Table of Standards - General Use Districts.
1. The AApplicable Standards@ column in the Table of Standards contains a number of blanks for several reasons: (1) standards had not been proposed for certain uses in the previous draft of the new ordinance, (2) staff is waiting to propose standards for uses in the proposed MU (previously known as MR) district until the Board has the opportunity to review the list of uses in the district.
2. Staff intends to add to the AApplicable Standards@ column references to the general standards that apply to conditional and special uses.
3. Staff would like the Board to determine whether permitted uses that have no standards should be deleted from the Table of Standards to save some space. Special and Conditional Uses, even if they have no specific standards should continue to be listed in the Table of Uses since, at a minimum, they must meet general standards.
6. S200-51B. Table of Standards - Open Use District.
The Table of Standards for the Open Use District is the same table that appears in the current zoning ordinance.
2. S200-52A. Planned Unit Developments - General Use Districts.
The Standards in this section are those that applied to the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay District in the previous draft of the new ordinance. While staff has now listed PUDs as Special Uses in the new districts, it has not yet modified the standards in this section pending Board discussion of how to treat PUDs throughout the ordinance.
3. S200-52B. Planned Unit Developments - Pre-existing Districts.
The standards in this section are those that are contained in S200-33 in the current zoning ordinance and that currently apply to the pre-existing districts. Staff had not yet modified them and, as noted previously, would like to discuss with the Board how it would like to treat PUDs throughout the ordinance.
4. S200-53. Manufactured Home Parks.
The standards in this section are identical to those that currently apply to manufactured home parks developed under the current zoning ordinance and to those developed under the County=s Manufactured Home Park Ordinance, however they are presented in SD200-53 as shown in the previous draft of the new ordinance, which established a Manufactured Home Park Overlay District. Staff had previously noted that the new draft no longer contains a Manufactured Home Park Overlay District, therefore this section will need to be modified to delete references to the overlay district.
5. S200-54. Residential Apartment Developments.
The standards in this section have been carried forward from the current ordinance. Some modifications will be needed based on decisions related to the pre-existing districts.
6. S200-55. Communications Towers - All General Use Districts and General Use Districts - Pre-existing Except Open Use.
The standards for communications towers are in two sections, this one, which covers all districts except Open Use, and S200-56, which applies to towers in the Open Use District. No modifications have been made to these standards, which are the same as those in the current zoning ordinance. The Board should discuss at some point whether it wants the same standards to apply to towers, regardless of whether the towers are in the Open Use District or other zoning districts.
7. S200-56. Communications Towers - Open Use District.
The standards for towers in this section are from the Communications Towers Ordinance, which currently applies to the Open Use District. As stated above, staff will be seeking further direction from the Board as to the future treatment of towers in all zoning districts.
Article V. General Development, Site and Performance Standards
This Article contains standards governing the number of buildings on a lot, the calculation of setbacks, projections of structures into setbacks, building height, and visibility at intersections as well as the standards for parking, loading, signs, buffers, open space and development on protected mountain ridges. All of the language in this Article is from the previous draft of the new ordinance, except for S200-74, Buffering Requirements for RC (pp. 154-155), which needs to be reviewed and incorporated better into Article V. Since the Board of Commissioners has not previously spent time in a workshop reviewing the content of Article V, staff had not yet proposed any changes to it.
Article VI. Accessory and Temporary Uses
This Article had been moved from the previous draft of the new ordinance to replace sections from the current zoning ordinance. It must be reviewed in detail and edited for consistency with the current zoning ordinance. Based on direction at a previous workshop, staff still needs to add back language to allow manufactured homes as a temporary use.
Article VII. Procedures and Amendments
This Article had also been moved from the previous draft of the new ordinance to replace the sections from the current zoning ordinance. Procedures had been added for several ordinances that are currently stand-alone ordinances in the County Code. The Article needs to be reviewed in more detail and edited for consistency once the Board has had the opportunity to make some decisions regarding other relevant sections of the ordinance.
Article VIII. Decision-making, Administrative and Advisory Bodies
This Article had been moved from the previous draft of the new ordinance and replaces sections from the current zoning ordinance. It, too, needs to be reviewed and edited, if necessary.
Article IX. Nonconformities
This Article is from the previous draft of the new ordinance and replaces several sections on nonconformities in the current ordinance. Based on some recent cases, the Zoning Board of Adjustment may have some suggested changes to aid with interpretation of this section. The Article needs to be reviewed and edited, if necessary.
Article X. Violations and Enforcement
This Article was taken from the previous draft of the new ordinance and replaces a very similar section in the current ordinance. It needs to be reviewed and edited, if necessary.
Article XI. Legal Status
This Article is from the previous draft of the new ordinance and replaces a similar section in the current ordinance. It needs to be reviewed and edited, if necessary.
Chairman Moyer asked if the Board was comfortable with how the current draft was put together. He felt that staff had done a good job of blending the two ordinances together and how far they had gotten so far in that task. He asked that the Board approve the organization of the new draft but stated that they were not blessing any of the substance of the ordinance at this time.
Chairman Moyer stated that the Board would begin to focus on the list of open questions at the next workshop. He stated that the Board needs to review the substance on Articles IV, V, and VI. He questioned whether we could eliminate NR-10 and NR-20 and go with NR-15. There are also two conservation districts. Can we do away with the old one?
Direction to staff
Chairman Moyer stated that he would like the Board to take a detailed look at Articles IV, V, and VI at the next workshop, provision by provision. He also asked that staff have a list of the open questions for the Board=s review. (Karen Smith stated that she would put the list of questions in each Commissioners= mailbox today).
Commissioner Hawkins raised a question of the MU(mixed use) district vs. The OU (open use) district.
Chairman Moyer stated the Board would set the date for the next workshop at the December 19 meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Moyer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:13 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman