PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 17, 2002
The Henderson County Planning Board met for its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Land Development Building, 101 East Allen Street, Hendersonville, NC. Board members present were Tedd Pearce, Chairman, Vice-Chairman Walter Carpenter, Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Jack Lynch, and Roger Wolff. Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner; Dan Gurley, Zoning Administrator; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; and Joyce Karpowski, Acting Secretary. Also present was William Moyer, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners and ex-officio, non-voting member of the Planning Board. Members absent were Mike Cooper, Kevin Keefe, and Todd Thompson.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to order. He asked for the approval of the August 20, 2002, minutes. Roger Wolff made a motion to approve the minutes. Walter Carpenter seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda. Chairman Pearce said he would like to add below Public Input, #10, to discuss the location of meetings. There were no other adjustments.
Staff Reports. Mrs. Smith informed Brookside Camp Road the Board that the Board of Commissioners has scheduled a workshop for the Howard Gap Road Zoning Study on Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 3:00 PM in the meeting room in the Administration Building, 100 North King Street.
Chairman Pearce reminded everyone that reviews of subdivisions will be conducted informally unless the applicant or anyone qualified to participate in the proceeding requests that such review be conducted as a formal quasi-judicial proceeding and that item #7, Carriage Park, will be conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding. Mrs. Smith said that the agenda had been revised because of the election of officers and all items had moved down one. The revised agendas were mailed late Friday.
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment – Application #R-04-02 to Rezone Approximately 1.25 Acres Adjacent to Cely Drive, off US Highway 25 North, from R-T (Transient Residential) to C-4 (Highway Commercial) – Nathan Benson, Applicant. Mrs. Smith is filling in for Mr. Freeman, who is on vacation. This item was seen last month. There is a map on the easel and the parcel of property is highlighted in red with commercial properties along US 25 marked. At the August meeting the Planning Board received agreement from the applicant to table the matter while developing a study area for future recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Freeman was asked to communicate with Mr. Benson about time frames and, when he did, Mr. Benson said he would like the Planning Board to reconsider his application. There is a letter in the packets from Mr. Benson requesting the reactivation of the Rezoning Application. So this will be the first consideration and the Board has 45 days to make a recommendation, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of time. There was no one present representing Mr. Benson. Mrs. Smith said the Staff recommendation from the last meeting has not changed, in terms of sending an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. This is because it is not in accordance with the Land Use Plan of 1993, which calls for residential in that area; it is a single parcel of highway commercial disconnected from other commercial districts; and it would project commercial into the existing R-T district. Staff is not saying that commercial in this area is unwarranted, and DOT is working on a widening project there, so this may be the first of many rezoning applications and suggests that the County should look at the corridor and do some planning for the future. Additionally, Staff would still like the Board to consider recommending a corridor study, knowing it won’t be done immediately.
Chairman Pearce asked if the Board of Commissioners gave permission to proceed, could it be started by January? Mrs. Smith said it seemed a little too soon. Mr. Lynch said this should be coordinated with Fletcher and Hendersonville and anyone affected by the widening project.
Mr. Moyer said that the Board of Commissioners is in agreement that the corridor should be studied and is part of the plan and this was discussed with the LGCCA (Local Government Committee for Cooperative Action), but there is the matter of workload and they have not asked for it to be done. But as soon as Staff is ready, he’s sure there will be support because it is long overdue.
Mr. Lynch spoke about the timetable for the widening project.
Mrs. Smith said they just don’t know how the widening will affect the corridor. One consideration is the elevation changes and they don’t have that information to make recommendations. The Board has 45 days to make a recommendation on the rezoning application.
Chairman Pearce said the Board has three choices; send it to subcommittee, not act on it at all and it would go to the Board of Commissioners after 45 days as an affirmative recommendation, or make a decision tonight. Mrs. Smith asked for any comments or questions.
Mr. Carpenter said that this is one of the few R-T districts in town and the new zoning rewrite may do away with the R-T district. If the zoning districts are reduced and R-T is one of those reduced, something will have to be done anyway. He feels it should go to subcommittee. Doing nothing is not fair to Mr. Benson or the Board of Commissioners. He doesn’t feel he knows enough about it to make a decision tonight.
Mr. Lynch agrees with Mr. Carpenter. He said that DOT feels it will be a commercial area. Mr. Lynch does not like the idea of looking at separate pieces of property but feels the Board should look at the total picture (US 25 North area) to develop it well.
Mr. Wolff said he didn’t see the benefit of sending it to subcommittee because there is no clear directive from the Board of Commissioners to study this. He doesn’t feel it should be done piecemeal, though. He feels it should be sent to the Commissioners as Staff recommended, with an unfavorable recommendation.
Mr. Allison said that the property is across the highway from the I-1 district and Bernie’s was commercial. He said that the man needs to develop his property, so he would vote for it. He does not see a problem with C-4 across from I-1.
Mr. Wolff asked Mr. Carpenter what he felt the benefit would be to send it to subcommittee. Mr. Carpenter said that, based on experience, his opinion has been changed by a more in-depth study. Maps can be obtained from the DOT so you will know where the road will be changed. Mr. Allison asked Mr. Carpenter what his vision was of the area if R-T district disappears. Mr. Carpenter said his opinion is that the property there will be some kind of commercial, especially with a 4-lane road. Chairman Pearce said that the determination may be which commercial district.
Mr. Wolff moved the request be sent to subcommittee and Mr. Lynch seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion. Chairman Pearce read the members of the subcommittee and will schedule a meeting at the end of this meeting.
Mr. Allison asked Mr. Moyer about the districts in the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Moyer said that the Board of Commissioners has eliminated some of the districts and wants to go to more flexible districts. He sees a number of changes there and sees the need for a study. If the Board feels there shouldn’t be any rezonings until there is a study, the Board should recommend that to the Commissioners. The Board discussed whether any changes made would stand under future zoning.
Mr. Lynch moved to forward to the Commissioners a recommendation that no further rezonings take place on US 25 North until the study is complete and Mr. Wolff seconded. Mr. Carpenter said that should perhaps come from the subcommittee that is studying it. Mr. Lynch and Mr. Wolff withdrew their motion and second. Chairman Pearce said that the subcommittee would be in a good position to make recommendations and he believes that is one of the recommendations that should be made, although no decision will be right for everyone. There was a suggestion of a target date, which should be set by the Commissioners. Mr. Moyer suggested Mrs. Smith give the Board the tentative schedule on the Zoning Ordinance rewrite. Mrs. Smith said the Board of Commissioners requested that Angela Beeker and herself have a draft ready for their meeting tomorrow, so they could set a date for a public input session and possibly have it wrapped up by the end of the year as far as the text is concerned. Map amendments will be done after that. Chairman Pearce asked when the Planning Board would have a copy of it. Mrs. Smith said she would ask the Commissioners which draft they wanted the Planning Board to have. Mrs. Smith said that the Planning Board would have to make another recommendation on the draft anyway.
Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, Section 23, Carriage West – Proposed Amendment to Approved Development Parcel – Dale A. Hamlin, Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Owner/Developer. Paul Patterson recused himself from this item. All members voted in favor. Chairman Pearce read the procedure for the quasi-judicial proceeding under which this agenda item would be held. The Board acknowledged the parties to the proceeding: Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Planner Derrick Cook, Planning Director Karen Smith, Virginia Burke, and Donn and Priscilla Enggren. All parties were sworn in.
Derrick Cook gave a history of the Carriage Park development and Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 and amendments. He said this proposed amendment involves a request to amend the approved plan for Section 23. The request involves Lot 2303 and a portion of the adjacent utility easement that was previously classified as open space. The adjustment annexes approximately 700 square feet of open space from the utility easement. The open space lost from Section 23 is being provided in Section 9.
Dale Hamlin, representing Carriage Park, said there was a clerical error in the sale of Lot 2303. The frontage that the owners received by deed wasn’t what the plat said. The frontage could be taken from the adjacent utility easement. They would like to take 15 feet of the frontage to give to the Enggrens and run it as a triangle piece of property to the back property line. This would bring the property up to the original plan. The utility easement stays the same and the Enggrens cannot build in the easement. In anticipating approval, they added enough square footage in Section 9 (the last section on record) to make up for this.
Mrs. Smith asked Mr. Hamlin if he complied with the notice requirements in the Special Use Permit for notice to the Homeowners Association and the posting. Mr. Hamlin said that they did.
Virginia Burke asked about open space in another section that they never received confirmation of in writing. Since she is the Chair of the Records and Documents, she cannot find any documentation for that. She would like to know how they can be sure the lost open space in Section 23 will be replaced in Section 9. Mr. Hamlin said that he will check his records for the lost open space. He said concerning tonight’s decision, the Staff will prepare an order and that will define the additional square footage that has to be taken out of the Section 9 excess that they currently have. Mr. Hamlin said that every time they have to provide to Staff how many houses will be in R-20 and R-30 and how much open space is required to be on record. Mr. Carpenter asked if their Section 9 plat has been recorded. Mr. Hamlin said yes. Mr. Carpenter asked if Section 9 has the extra open space on it. Mr. Hamlin said yes. Chairman Pearce asked if Staff keeps an eye on all the requirements. Mrs. Smith said yes. The Enggrens had no questions for Mr. Hamlin.
Neither Virginia Burke nor the Enggrens had any statements to make. Chairman Pearce asked if anyone wanted to make any comments or had any questions of the applicants or the interested parties. There was no one.
Derrick Cook said that Staff notified Carriage Park residents and the Homeowners Association of tonight’s meeting and the proposed amendment. The Planning Board is the approval authority for Carriage Park as designated by the Board of Commissioners. He requested that the agenda item and attachments be entered into the record. The agenda item contains a brief chronology of the prior background material. The proposed amendment appears to comply with Special Use Permit SP-93-13 as amended and the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance. Staff requests that if the amendment is approved, that it be approved with conditions that the applicant record a new plat for Section 9 showing the changes to the open space, utility easement and lot 2303 and that such plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for non-standard subdivisions. The applicant has already confirmed that the Section 9 plat showing the additional open space was recorded. Chairman Pearce asked if there were any questions for Mr. Cook. There were none.
Chairman Pearce asked if anyone wanted to make any closing remarks. There was no one. Chairman Pearce asked the Board for any comments and said that they could vote today and direct Staff to bring back findings of fact and conclusions consistent with the decision or we can continue and wait until a later date – the Board has 45 days.
Mr. Wolff moved that the Planning Board find and conclude that the proposed amendment appears to comply with the Special Use Permit SP-93-13 as amended and the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and that we approve this subject to the applicant recording or confirming the recordation of the new plat showing the changes to the open space, utility easement and lot 2303 with such plat meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for non-standard subdivisions. Mr. Lynch seconded the motion. All 5 members voted in favor of the motion. Chairman Pearce thanked everyone for their help and attendance.
Chairman Pearce said that the Board is out of the quasi-judicial proceeding.
Group Development Application – Proposed Office Complex in a C-4 (Highway Commercial) District at the Corner of US Highway 176 and Mill Street - Ernest Williams, Applicant. Mr. Daniel Gurley said that this was something new before the Board. He said Mr. Ernest Williams has submitted an application requesting that the Henderson County Planning Board grant a Group Development Permit to construct three office buildings in addition to the building already erected on the parcel. This building was granted a Conditional Use Permit by the Henderson County Zoning Board of Adjustment for warehousing. This office complex will be developed on a 2.42-acre parcel that is located at the intersection of US Hwy 176 and Mill Street, just south of Highland Lake Road. The property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial). As required by Section 200-52(B) of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, this application for a Group Development is being submitted to the Planning Board for approval.
Henderson County Zoning Staff has reviewed the site plan submitted by the applicant and makes the following recommendations to the Planning Board:
1. Parking: The applicant has indicated that the intended use of the buildings will be professional/business offices. The requirement for this type of use is 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor space (ref. Section 200-40.A). If another use is intended, it is staff’s recommendation that the larger number of spaces be required. Also the spaces for the already established building shall not be included in this calculation (ref. Section 200-42) and it is part of the order issued by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
2. Off street loading and unloading: For nonresidential uses, the ordinance requires there to be sufficient space to accommodate the maximum number of trucks to be stored or to be loading or unloading at any one time (ref. Section 200-42). The applicant will need to discuss the amount of possible loading and unloading (if any) that will be occurring on the property.
3. Ingress/Egress: The applicant shall have any new driveway cuts approved by the NCDOT.
4. Lighting: The applicant should address whether lighting is proposed and, if so, should discuss how he intends to deal with any potential glare of the lighting onto adjacent properties, US HWY 176, and Mill Street.
5. Landscaping: The applicant should discuss the specifics of the landscaping proposed for the property (ref. Section 200-52.B).
6. Buffering: Section 200-52.B requires a buffer strip along the rear and side lots lines abutting residential property. The applicant should indicate on his plan the location and typical sketch of the buffer strip provided on the property. The buffer strip should meet the definition of Section 200-7 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance.
After satisfying the aforementioned conditions, staff offers a favorable recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the granting of this application.
Mr. Gurley said there is a copy of the application in the packets and also a zoning map with districts of the surrounding properties, an adjacent owner property map, and photographs which were shown and described. Mr. Gurley also showed a larger site plan.
Mr. Allison asked where buffer strips would be required. Mrs. Smith said that buffer strips were required abutting residential zones. Mr. Gurley said that the property adjoined O&I district, so wouldn’t require a buffer strip. He said the Board could consider the landscape requirement in Section 200-52.
Chairman Pearce asked the applicant to come forward. Ken Stubbs from Carolina Specialties Construction Co. said he was the project manager. Mr. Stubbs said that this property had the old mill on it and Mr. Williams redid the building and cleaned up the area. He has more than 1½ acres. At the time the original building was built, it was slated to be warehouse, but it has 2 tenants, businesses who store their product there. Now the Conditional Use Permit is in place and they cannot have another primary building on the property, so they are applying to have more than one building on the 2½-acre plot. He said he would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Wolff asked Mr. Stubbs to address the parking and off street parking. Mr. Stubbs said there would only be business buildings there. The buildings would only occupy about 40% of the 2.43 acres so there is adequate room for off street parking and off street loading and unloading. There are 2 accesses to the property; one off the corner of Mills and the other off Spartanburg Highway. They are not planned to be changed. The location of the building will allow the road to stay in place. The first new building will be built on the corner and Mr. Williams would like to have the option to change the size of the proposed future buildings. They will meet the setback requirements and, of course, the building code. There is plenty of room for truck traffic on the property. Mr. Wolff asked if the intended use is professional and business offices. Mr. Stubbs said primarily like insurance companies, a shop (such as vacuum cleaner), like that. Mr. Stubbs said he doesn’t think anything will be there that zoning doesn’t cover. Mr. Wolff said he was concerned with the statement of Staff, that if another use was intended, the larger number of spaces be required. Mr. Stubbs said there is more than adequate room, plus the lot behind this property is owned by Mr. Williams. Mr. Stubbs said there is no residential zoning around the property, but Mr. Williams is going to landscape the area behind the buildings to make it look attractive.
Chairman Pearce asked if the locations of the buildings were flexible or fixed as to the Board’s approval. Mrs. Smith said the Board was being asked to issue a Zoning Permit because of the multiple buildings on one lot. Chairman Pearce asked for the parameters as the Board looked at this request. Mrs. Smith said that this is the first time for the Group Development request. She said as long as they keep within setback requirements, separation between buildings (if necessary), and parking requirements, etc., there could be some flexibility if it’s built into the decision. Chairman Pearce asked if the square footages could be changed, as long as it met parking and everything else. Mrs. Smith said she didn’t believe the Ordinance had a built in coverage. Mr. Stubbs said the 40% coverage seems to be a reasonable balance between parking and buildings and open space and setbacks. Chairman Pearce was concerned about subsequent users being a more intensive usage requiring more parking. The Board discussed parking requirements for usage as opposed to square footage. Mr. Wolff asked what use requires more parking than 300 sq. ft. Mr. Gurley said a bank is one space for 150 sq. ft. of space, retail shops is 1 space per 200 sq. ft., restaurants are 1 space for each 3 seats or stools; this is in Section 200-40. Mr. Wolff said if this was a regularly approved use by Mr. Gurley for an office, what would happen if the use changed to restaurant? Mr. Gurley said it was usually caught when a remodeling permit was issued from inspections. Mr. Gurley said that this was different because with multiple buildings and the office and business use, the Ordinance didn’t cover that. If it was a shopping center, it would go before the Board of Adjustment. The Board discussed other situations similar to this. Mrs. Smith said the important thing in the Group Development is that it is multiple buildings on a lot. The decision can be made flexible and let the Zoning Administrator make decisions such as building locations. Mr. Carpenter asked if the Board could approve just the Master Plan, subject to the specifics of the different buildings. Mr. Wolff asked about approving it to a maximum of 19,500 sq. ft., which is what the plat asks for. Mr. Allison said if he meets all the requirements, the Board can’t limit him. There was discussion about the approval and limits. Mr. Stubbs said that every building starts with the Zoning Department.
Mr. Gurley said that he would like guidance with the lighting issue and landscaping. The Board discussed different lighting recommendations. Mr. Stubbs said the only lighting proposed would be for the buildings and parking areas. A suggestion was “lighting not to be intrusive to the neighbors.” The Board consulted Section 200-52.B, which Chairman Pearce read. Chairman Pearce asked if there was a landscape plan. Mr. Stubbs said there is some existing growth and trees, which will not be removed. Mr. Williams said that he is definitely going to landscape and shrub. Chairman Pearce said that no development is allowed until the Board has a landscaping plan. This would be difficult with a flexible plan. The landscaping was discussed. Mr. Stubbs suggested that any landscaping be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Chairman Pearce asked how to insure the landscaping is actually installed. Mrs. Smith said there are a couple of ways such as installing landscaping prior to the issuance of a CO. Chairman Pearce said that with 3 different phases of building how could we insure landscaping. The landscaping and timing was discussed. Chairman Pearce suggested the landscaping plan be staged and if the building plan changed, then the landscaping plan would have to change. This would be flexible, but also expected. There was a suggestion about dividing the plan into sections. Landscaping plans were discussed with the Zoning Administrator. Chairman Pearce suggested a total landscaping plan for the 4 buildings that the Zoning Administrator could be flexible with and use his own judgment.
The Board spoke about buffering which was a moot point. It was pointed out that adjacent property has to be zoned residential, not used residential to require buffering.
Mr. Wolff asked if Staff was satisfied with the parking. Mr. Gurley said yes, because if he switched to retail uses, he would have to get a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Wolff said that Staff would approve the request subject to the intended use as office/professional at 1 parking space per 300 sq. ft. Mr. Wolff asked if Staff was satisfied with the loading and unloading as designed or, if modified, done to the Zoning Administrator’s satisfaction. Mr. Gurley agreed. Mr. Wolff said that lighting would be non-glare. Ingress and egress would be DOT. Landscaping would be done incrementally and a Master Plan would be submitted up front. Mr. Stubbs asked if there were a C-4 usage, then they would just have to get a Zoning Permit and have parking for that usage. Mr. Gurley described the difference between storage and a professional office building, in that the office stores paper clips and staples but if they were doing warehousing type use, that would require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit as required by the C-4 district under light industry. Warehousing was only approved for the first building. Mr. Wolff said they are only asking today for office/professional. Mr. Stubbs said they are asking for usage as defined for C-4. Nothing done here today would preclude them getting a Conditional Use Permit if necessary in C-4. Mr. Gurley wanted the applicant to clarify asking for a professional/office building and now talking about the additional uses in C-4. There are other uses in C-4 that don’t fit in office/professional setting, such as gasoline service stations, retail business making products and sold on the premises, theater, restaurant, manufactured homes, automobile sales, and building material sales. Mr. Wolff said that he would not grant the request to do anything allowable under C-4 because it was against Staff recommendation. Mr. Wolff moved that the Board approve the request for 3 professional business offices requiring 1 parking space for every 300 sq. ft., adequate off-street loading and unloading, driveway cuts for ingress and egress approved by NCDOT, lighting which is not a public hazard or nuisance to adjoining properties or highways, landscaping incrementally as each building is built without any buffering requirements with a master design at the time of submission of the plans. The landscaping plan was discussed again. It was decided that the landscaping plan could be hand drawn. Section 200-52 says there must be a landscaping plan up front.
Mr. Stubbs wanted the Board to hear Jon Blatt speak about the parking requirement. Mr. Blatt said that he would likely be the leasing agent of this project. Mr. Blatt said there are certain uses that will not be there. The uses will be inside the buildings, but he cannot say if it will be a small retail store or a person with a lawnmower shop with sales in front and a shop behind it. He feels saying 1 parking space for 300 sq. ft. would not be a good thing to do. He would not like to be specific until they know what the use is. Mr. Wolff said his motion was, as requested, for professional/business offices and that use requires 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Mr. Blatt said they would like to think on that. Mrs. Smith said that C-4 uses would be allowed but if they are grouped, it becomes a shopping center, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Pearce asked if he wanted to open a lawnmower place in one of these buildings, would he be able to get a Conditional Use Permit from the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Smith said she didn’t think so. Mr. Gurley said that could be a problem because first there would be one, then another retail shop and then it would become a shopping center without a Conditional Use Permit which would be a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gurley said the applicant asked for a professional/business office. Mr. Gurley suggested subdividing the property, which they did not want to do. So we went forth with this. If the applicant is not clear about the uses, then we may have to review this application. The Board discussed the professional/business office use. The Board and applicant discussed retail sales versus the professional/business office.
Chairman Pearce asked if this was approved tonight, could a retail business operate in any of the buildings? Mr. Wolff added under the motion that’s on the floor. Mr. Gurley said he’s not sure because there is already one commercial retail use operating on the property now and you’re adding additional retail uses to the property. The definition of a shopping center says a group of retail uses. Mr. Lynch said the concern is the addition of another unit. Mr. Gurley said without knowing clearly what the applicants want to do, they may want to consider going for a shopping center Conditional Use. Then they would have more latitude. Mr. Blatt asked about the Conditional Use Permit. That permit is granted by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Blatt asked about putting one building per lot and the Board said that then there is only one business per building. The Board discussed the difference between the Group Development and Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Stubbs said that it was his understanding when he talked to Mr. Gurley, that they would have professional offices and do business there. Knowing that retail sales couldn’t be done would be doing an injustice to his client. Mr. Carpenter said that he may want approval under this group development and the shopping center. Mr. Carpenter suggested that the request be tabled, then if he still wanted it, he would not have to refile. Mr. Patterson asked if he wanted retail and office, would he come to the Planning Board. The answer was for a recommendation most likely, but it would go to the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Wolff withdrew his motion. The Board and applicant’s representative discussed if the request could be amended and the Board said they have to work within the Ordinance. Chairman Pearce asked about the timeframe to act. Mrs. Smith said there was none. Chairman Pearce asked for a motion to table the request until the next meeting. Mr. Wolff so moved and Mr. Allison seconded. All members voted in favor.
Public Input. None
Location of Meetings. Chairman Pearce said he would like to discuss permanently changing the location of the Board’s meetings. Although it doesn’t happen too often that there are large groups at meetings, when it does, it is difficult to get a larger meeting room on short notice. Mr. Pearce discussed the difficulty of keeping order and quiet when there are large amounts of people in the small room. Chairman Pearce said it would be nice to have more separation and a slight elevation change. The Board discussed the necessity of changing the location. Mr. Lynch suggested, based on the agenda, that meetings be scheduled to a larger meeting room. Mrs. Smith said the problem was availability. Several members felt there might be a problem with the future US 25 study. The Board members spoke about problems with the current meeting room during meetings. Chairman Pearce suggested that Mrs. Smith and he visit some facilities and take pictures and report back to the Board. Chairman Pearce suggested the Board follow more closely Roberts Rules of Order to keep better decorum. He said he will need everyone’s help to do that.
Subcommittee Assignments and Dates. The Short Term Issues Subcommittee to study the rezoning for Nathan Benson will meet on October 2, 2002 at 3:00 PM. Chairman Pearce asked about the Subdivision Subcommittee. Mrs. Smith spoke about an amendment for roads that could present a problem. She spoke about a recent application. The Subdivision Committee will meet on October 10, 2002 at 4:00 PM.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Mr. Lynch made a motion to adjourn and Mr. Carpenter seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM.
Tedd M. Pearce, Chairman Joyce Karpowski, Acting Secretary