PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 17, 2002
The Henderson County Planning Board met for its regular meeting on Tuesday, December 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, Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Kevin Keefe, Jack Lynch, and Mike Cooper. Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; Daniel Gurley, Zoning Administrator and Joyce Karpowski, Acting Secretary. Board member Roger Wolff, Todd Thompson, and Walter Carpenter were absent.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to order. He asked for the approval of the November 19, 2002, minutes. Paul Patterson indicated that there should be a change to the minutes dealing with Park the Ridge Medical Office Subdivision motion to reflect that he had opposed the motion because he was not in favor of the flag lot being used as a means to circumvent the rules. Chairman Pearce indicated the change and asked for a motion reflecting this change. Mike Cooper made a motion to approve the minutes with the change indicated and Jack Lynch seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda. Chairman Pearce indicated that Item 5, Subdivision Plan Review Issues, would be moved after Item 8 in the interest of time. Ms. Smith asked that a brief informational item be added regarding the Eastgate of Solomon Jones Subdivision. Chairman Pearce stated that it would be heard after Item 5. All Board members agreed.
Staff Reports. Ms. Smith informed the Planning Board that on November 20, 2002 the Board of Commissioners made the last bit of action on the Howard Gap Road/Brookside Camp Road Study and that there were some materials sent out to all Planning Board members reflecting this action. She indicated that the Board of Commissioners, on that same date, denied the rezoning of a portion of the US 25 South study area. It was a proposed map amendment to change some R-40 areas to R-20, between Erkwood Drive and Rutledge Drive. She stated that there were some comments from citizens in that area and the Board of Commissioners decided to leave that area alone. Ms Smith indicated that at the Board of Commissioners meeting on December 18, 2002, they would be looking at the amendments to the Planning Board Rules of Procedure.
Sweetwater Oaks, Phase 3 (File # 2002-M20) – Combined Master and Development Plan Review (14 Residential Lots Off Howard Gap Road) – Jon Laughter, Agent for Nathan Benson, Owner. Chairman Pearce indicated that the Board had some new information including a revised plan and restrictive covenants for a prior section of Sweetwater Oaks. Mr. Cook stated that the Major Subdivision is located off Howard Gap Road across from Patty’s Chapel Road and is Phase III of the existing subdivision. Phase III will have 14 single-family residential lots on 14.07 acres of land. The development will have individual water and sewer and is located in an Open Use zoning district. He stated that Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and stated that all the requirements regarding the Master Plan have been satisfied. Regarding the Development Plan, Staff reviewed the following comments in the Staff memo:
3. Culverts and Drainage Plans – Mr. Cook indicated that this had been satisfied.
4. Road Design – Mr. Cook indicated that a cross-section of a typical street (including culs-de-sac) with design standards of paving has been provided on a revised Development Plan .
5. Restrictive Covenant – Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant should present a copy of the restrictive covenants for the development or certification indicating none will be used (HCSO 170-30).
6. Road Name – Proposed road names shall be preapproved by Henderson County in accordance with the Henderson County Property Addressing Ordinance. Prior to Final Plat approval, the road name “Caroline Court” needs to be changed and approved by the Henderson County Property Addressing Coordinator (HCSO 170-23).
7. Fire Protection – On a revised Development Plan the location of the proposed or nearest water supply point for fire protection should be shown or stated since hydrants on a public water system will not be available (HCSO 170-20C and Appendix 5).
Mr. Cook stated that there is a proposed right-of-way easement going across lots 18 and 19 in Phase I from Phase III. Mr. Cook stated that the question that has been brought up is if the developer has the provision to be able to grant a right-of-way easement across this property. Mr. Cook stated that Staff investigated and reviewed the restrictive covenants that the developer created for Section 1 and in Section 19, quoting from the second paragraph, “Subdivider reserves the right to utilize any lot for purposes of providing ingress, egress, and regress to and from additional property adjoining the property shown on the subdivision plat.” Chairman Pearce asked whether it was safe to assume that these restrictive covenants, since they do not particularly state that they are for the subdivision, are the actual covenants for that Section 1? Mr. Cook stated in the Register of Deeds records it refers to Section 1. Paul Patterson stated that this reserves the right, but will it reserve the right once these lots are sold? Chairman Pearce stated that they still own the lots. Mr. Laughter, agent for the developer, clarified that Nathan Benson Builders, Inc. owns Lot 18 and William and Sandra Worthen, the son-in-law and daughter-in-law of Nathan Benson, own lot 19. Ms. Smith stated that she feels that the Planning Board should address the dedication of the easement issue in the motion. Chairman Pearce agreed and said that when the motion is made for this subdivision, it would be appropriate for one of the requirements being that the right-of-way be dedicated prior to recordation of the plat. Mr. Cook also brought up another issue dealing with the question whether the property had right-of-way access off of Howard Gap Road. He stated that Mr. Benson is discussing with the landowners (Layman Foundation) to get official right-of-way access off of Howard Gap Road. Mr. Laughter, agent for the developer, stated that the property line appears to run with the old roadbed and that Mr. Benson had mentioned to him that he did not feel he would have any problems getting property easements from the Layman Foundation. Ms. Smith stated that the Planning Board should also include a condition that there is some evidence that this issue has been resolved, whether it is a right-of-way from the Layman Foundation or a sale or transfer of property before the final plat approval. Chairman Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the combined Master and Development Plan submitted for the Sweetwater Oaks Phase III, complies with the Technical and Procedural Comment section of Staff’s memo that have been satisfied by the applicant. He added that he further moves that such Plan be approved subject to the following Conditions: The applicant satisfies comments 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 by submitting a revised Development Plan prior to beginning construction, and that the applicant, before recordation of the Final Plat, provide proof of the recordation of the right-of-way easement which is proposed to cross lot 18 and lot 19 of Section 1 presently owned by Nathan Benson Builders, Inc. and William and Sandra Worthen. Also, that the developer provides evidence that the right-of-way situation as it relates to the Layman Foundation property overlapping on the plat at the intersection of Howard Gap Road and the entrance to Sweetwater Oaks, Phase III, has been resolved prior to final plat approval. Leon Allison seconded the motion and members voted in favor.
Review of Special Use Permit Application # SP-02-01 for Proposed Expansion to Existing Mining and Extraction Operation for Hoopers Creek Quarry (Off Hoopers Creek Road in an Open Use Zoning District) – William G. Lapsley, Agent for Junius D. Grimes, Applicant. Leon Allison recused himself from this issue, as he owns property adjoining this proposed development. All members were in favor of his recusal. Mr. Gurley stated that Mr. Junius D. Grimes, who owns Hoopers Creek Quarry, submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for an expansion to an existing mining and extraction operation. The Quarry expansion is proposed on property owned by Hoopers Creek Quarry, LLC, which is located off of Hoopers Creek Road. The entrance to the subject property is located approximately 635 feet west of the intersection of Hoopers Creek Road and Jackson Road. Most of the subject property, except for the entrance and part of the access road, is within the County’s Open Use Zoning District. The subject property contains approximately 32.53 acres, 5 of which are currently governed by a State mining permit and the Quarry also has a Federal mining permit. Staff has attached a copy of the State permit application. Mr. Gurley stated that the only item the Board can consider, with regard to what the Ordinance says on what this use would need to meet, is the expansion. The expansion is to construct a sedimentation basin and to move the sedimentation basin. He stated that there would be no additional mining area. They are already permitted for five acres with the Federal and State mining permit. He stated they intend to expand the operation by approximately 0.72 acres in order to relocate a sediment basin and enlarge its waste fill site. He stated that a Special Use Permit is required when there is an expansion to one of the uses listed. Staff has also interpreted this to mean that only the expansions to the pre-existing non-conforming use can be regulated under the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the area containing the new sediment basin and enlargement to the waste fill area is the only portion of the operation that can be considered under the Ordinance. He said that this being the case, only certain specific and general site standards could be considered during the review of this application. Mr. Gurley stated that there are a few items that the Board needs to look at regarding approval of this request as follows:
1. Buffer. Mr. Gurley stated that proposed location, use and dimensions of the stated minimum buffer for a mining and extraction operation are 500 feet. The current property and where it is going to be located, there is not 500 feet of property to provide a buffer. Mr. Gurley referred to Section 200-38.2 which states that needs to meet the specific site standards set forth to the extent possible for the expanded or altered portion of the operation only. There is no minimum setback for mining and extraction operations.
2. Fencing. Mr. Gurley stated that basically the Ordinance states that the applicant needs to fence the surrounding expansion area. The applicant is not indicating fencing and they are planning on asking and have submitted a variance to the Board of Commissioners to not require fencing. He stated that the Planning Board couldn’t look at the variance they are requesting, but only reviewing the Special Use Permit.
3. Compliance with all Federal, State, and Local Laws. Mr. Gurley stated that Staff would offer the condition of requiring the applicant to obtain approval of the amendments to his State application before the initiation of construction of the sediment basin.
4. Residential Density. Mr. Gurley stated that this is required by the Ordinance. He stated that the applicant is compiling this information and if the applicant has not completed this, to make it a condition of the motion made for this request so that the Board of Commissioners can look at this when they are reviewing the Special Use Permit.
5. 1993 Henderson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Gurley stated that this area was designated on the 1993 Henderson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Rural-Conservation, which is intended for housing at a density of approximately 1 unit per 5 acres, summer camps, active and passive parks, and major public and private recreation areas. Although the overall facility is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan Map, its existence preceded the 1993 comprehensive Land Use Plan. One of many goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to preserve and protect the environment for future generations. There is an unnamed tributary running through the middle of the subject property that drains into Hoopers Creek. Mr. Gurley stated that it is Staff’s opinion that to the extent that the proposed action should enhance water quality protection in the County by keeping the sediment onsite and not contaminating nearby streams, the application is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Gurley stated that subject to the applicant satisfactorily responding to and/or completing the aforementioned items, the Planning Board could consider sending a favorable recommendation on the application to the Henderson County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Gurley showed on a map the area in relation to the proposed expansion to the existing mining and extraction operation for Hoopers Creek Quarry. Chairman Pearce asked that Mr. Allison show his property in relation to this proposed operation. Board members discussed the fencing regarding the proposed operation and Staff mentioned that there is barbed wire fencing on the high wall at present. Chairman Pearce stated that the fencing is a standard condition and would need to meet it and or get a variance. Ms. Smith stated that regarding the residential density information, Staff requires that the applicant submit a separation information from the Tax Assessor’s Office, but that this requirement is not critical for the decision of the Planning Board.
Mr. Lapsley, agent for the applicant for this project stated that this project started in late July with a submittal for an erosion and control permit to move the sediment basin approximately 40 feet. He stated that this triggered a mandatory request by the State for modification of the mining permit and the modification of the mining permit required that the applicant do a number of things. He said among some of the items required was that they were required to send out a registered copy of the plan to all the property owners adjacent to the project. He added that since the project was in the Open Use District and the Special Use Permit required to come before the Planning Board, we are trying to abide by the procedures. He said the actual quarry area is approximately 20 – 30 years old with periods of non-operation. Mr. Grimes has had the operation for approximately 10 years and Lapsley and Associates obtained the original mining permit for Mr. Grimes in 1993 when Mr. Grimes opened the mining operation up again. He said the quarry is for decorative stone that are sold for houses for walls. He pointed out that he had recently been contacted by the State mining engineer, which they have decided they do not want the sediment basin on the top of this hill as it is at present, but want it moved to the toe of the slope as they are concerned the developers are creating a dam that might be under the State’s jurisdiction. He stated that the basin rather than being proposed at the top of the slope would be modified to show at the bottom of the slope, which will not change the concept. He stated that the reason they are doing all of this is the developers want to condition a better sediment basin to control any run-off but the more important issue is while the applicant is excavating the rock there is a waste material and he needs a place to put the material and this is the waste material pile that creates at the foot of the quarry. He said because of this, he has run out of room, so by moving the waste pile he is able to continue his operation. He stated that the plan has been submitted and made the Town of Fletcher aware of the project as well as meeting some of the adjacent property owners to discuss their concerns and so far the State has mentioned they have not received any letters of objection or additions to this requested change. Mr. Patterson asked about the dam issue and asked whether that is the down stream? Mr. Lapsley stated that this issue is that the slope is greater than 15 feet high but if it is moved down this issue will go away and we agreed. Chairman Pearce stated that the Board should make a recommendation and indicate that there will be some minor changes to the drawings as reflected with his conversations to the State. Jack Lynch made a motion that the Planning Board, in the matter of the Special Use Permit application submitted by Junius D. Grimes for an expansion to a mining and extraction operation (SP-02-01), send forth a favorable recommendation to the Henderson County Board of Commissioners subject to the following conditions. The applicant satisfy comments 2 and 3 in the Staff memo and that the adjustment would be made concerning the sediment basin rather than being proposed at the top of the slope, will be modified to show at the bottom of the slope as discussed by Mr. Lapsley and requested by the State. Paul Patterson seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Review of Conditional Use Permit Application #CU-02-15 for Proposed Summer Camp at the Former Camp Riley at Lake Osceola (on South Lakeside Drive in an R-20 Zoning District) – Richard Hallberg and Kathy Harshman, Applicants. Chairman Pearce stated that he feels there is enough outstanding informational issues on this particular review that the Planning Board should send a letter to the Board of Adjustment indicating that the Board has several informational items that we have requested but have not been provided and that the Planning Board is not in the position to make a recommendation at this time and suggests the Board of Adjustment table the hearing on this matter until the Planning Board receives the information required to send a recommendation and made a motion as such. Kevin Keefe seconded the motion and all Board members voted in favor. Chairman Pearce requested that Staff draft a letter reflecting the motion given tabling the recommendation regarding this proposed camp.
Subdivision Plan Review Issues. Ms. Smith stated that on October 15, 2002 Planning Board meeting, the Board briefly discussed the completeness or incompleteness of certain subdivision applications and that the Planning had asked that this subject be put on the agenda the checklist of the items that are required and that the Board would discuss what should be submitted in terms of making an application acceptable for review. She stated that she prepared an issue sheet that outlines the requirements of the Ordinance as far as different periods at which they need to measure completeness. One being, when Staff needs to notify the applicant when we have received their application as a confirmation and what is needed to be sent out to the review agencies before the Planning Board can review the subdivision at the next meeting. She stated that the applicant needs to meet certain deadlines, 45 days prior to the application there is a pre-application conference and 30 days prior to the meeting there are material requirements. She stated that over the years, it has been a given that certain items will not be available before the Planning Board’s review unless they start much earlier, such as erosion control plan approval and water plan approval, etc. Chairman Pearce stated that the first issue is really a non-issue for the Planning Board and that the Board would not see any information on this until Staff has received all the requirements from the applicants. He asked whether Staff ever submits anything to the Planning Board that you don’t have confirmation for? Ms. Smith stated that this would be very rare and maybe something that has not been signed, but Staff tries to work on the required information before it is presented to the meeting. Chairman Pearce stated that he does not feel it should go to an agenda until Staff ascertains that there is a complete application for purposes of the Planning Board or Staff review. Ms. Smith stated that if that is what the Planning Board agrees the policy should be, then Staff will follow through with the Board’s request, as the Ordinance is not explicit with these rules. Chairman Pearce asked Paul Patterson, since he is a surveyor and works with the Planning Department on requirements for subdivisions he presents, whether these requirements are unreasonable? Mr. Patterson stated it bothers him that sometimes in the past there seemed to be some bias toward certain things. Speaking personally, he stated that he likes to have everything in order that is required before presenting it to the Planning Board. Chairman Pearce asked him what he meant by biased? Mr. Patterson stated that certain engineers, surveyors or planners did not have things ready and brought the items required in late to be on the agenda and he does not feel that should be the case. He added that when the applicant submits the application, it should be ready then instead of the applicant waiting until the last minute and the Planning Board receiving the information the night of the meeting, making it difficult to review the items. Mr. Allison said what it boils down to is that the owner of the property needs to be willing to pay for the people to prepare what is required during the required time. Ms. Smith stated that she has seen the same issues for some time that applicants have not addressed before the meeting. She stated that if Staff says something about this, the applicant will still try to come before the Planning Board incomplete. Mr. Lynch stated that Staff needs the backing of the Planning Board. Ms. Smith stated that sometimes the information is sent out to other agencies for review without some items that they need. Mr. Lynch asked if Staff tells the applicant no and that Staff will not accept submittal, pending certain issues, what action does Staff take? Does the applicant plead their case? Ms. Smith stated that Staff does not have a lot to back up saying “no” to the applicant. Chairman Pearce stated that he feels that as an interim measure, the Planning Board should have a policy that can be shared at the Staff’s earliest conference with the applicant, that the Planning Board expects that the following list of items will be complete 30 days prior to the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Lynch stated whatever the policy is, it should list the specific conditions required. Chairman Pearce stated that it should read in the policy that a complete application for Planning Board consideration consists of the following items….” Mr. Allison referred to the “Stormwater Drainage” item, which states “off-site points of discharge (in order to be approved by the Planning Board and adjoining property owners). He stated that it bothers him that adjoining property owners have to approve this. He feels that an applicant would never get full agreement from adjoining property owners regarding stormwater run-off. After some discussion, Board members felt that this should be discussed with the Subdivision Subcommittee. Mr. William Patterson, who had attended the meeting, stated that all major drainage changes should be addressed. Chairman Pearce stated that the Planning Board and Staff need to look at this from a legal standpoint, and how far we need to carry it and what should be handled between the property owners. He added that this is a valid point that should be discussed with the subcommittee. Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Smith whether the Planning Board should require that the Development Plan and Master Plan be on two separate pieces of paper? Ms. Smith stated that the Ordinance states that they can be one and that it must meet the more restrictive of the requirements. Chairman Pearce, referring to the subdivision earlier reviewed tonight, Sweetwater Oaks, said there is a notation to the fact that the contours did not meet the Subdivision Code requirements. Mr. Cook stated that this was discussed but this is something that Staff has not been a stickler about. Chairman Pearce feels that the Planning Board is opening up for more problems by not having certain requirements. He said that if we have something that the Planning Board does not really care if it is in there, then we need to see if it can be taken out. Ms. Smith stated that the Planning Board can modify the appendices of the Subdivision Ordinance without having to go to the Board of Commissioners for approval. She added that if the Planning Board wants to amend the appendices and that that is the requirement, then the applicant will have to make an appeal to the Planning Board to waive that requirement. Chairman Pearce said that he feels if it is in the Ordinance and in the appendices and is part of what the Board is requiring, then the applicant either meets it or it is an exception and the Board addresses it at its meeting. Ms. Smith stated that the Board needs to then strike in the appendices, “waived by the Subdivision Administrator.” Chairman Pearce said that he feels that if there is something Staff is going to waive, then Staff should sign-off a waiver on some form as it is being processed. He stated that it either needs to be covered or waived but every item needs to be addressed if it is a requirement. He stated that Staff knows what is required and what should be waived and not waived. It needs to be addressed by Staff or the Planning Board. Mr. Allison suggested making a standard form and list all the requirements with indications whether they have met the requirements or not and that way the Board can know what has been met and what hasn’t. Chairman Pearce noted that all items on the Master Plan should be presented at the time of submittal. Paul Patterson noted that in relation to the scale, a sufficient scale needs to be shown. Ms. Smith stated that there are some things in the Ordinance that are not in the Appendices and some things in the Appendices that are not in the Ordinance. One of the things is the scale and when one refers to the language in the Ordinance, it states that the scale needs to be legible. Chairman Pearce suggested that some of the language should perhaps be discussed when the Subcommittee meets.
Ms. Smith reviewed the Development Plan requirements including General Legend, Title Block and Plan Details and under the Miscellaneous section, she noted that these are the items that often are not available at the time of the Planning Board meeting, (water and sewer acknowledgment, erosion and sedimentation control plan approvals, approvals by Federal, State, and Local agencies, etc.). Chairman Pearce said he does not feel that we need every letter of approval submitted at the time of the Planning Board meeting, but he said he does not like not having items such as road drainage and culverts. In review, he stated that the Board would need on the combined Master and Development Plan (or Development Plan) in addition to the other items required are the road drainage and culverts, specification of the water supply system capacity, and stormwater drainage. Ms. Smith discussed the following conditionally approved list:
Air Quality. Chairman Pearce stated that this would be handled administratively.
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan. Chairman Pearce felt that this item is an acceptable one to wait rather than require it at the time of the meeting.
Water Supply and Sewer System. Chairman Pearce felt this item was also an acceptable one to wait rather than require it at the time of the meeting.
Road Name Approval. Ms. Smith stated that Staff sends the Property Addressing Department the plans when we receive them for their road name approvals and approval can happen at that time. Board members agreed with this procedure.
Affidavit Regarding Farmland Preservation. Chairman Pearce asked what is involved in getting that affidavit and what is the real purpose of this form? Ms. Smith stated that it puts the applicant on notice that they are within ˝ mile of a voluntary district to increase protection from nuisance suits, undesirable non-farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms. This was determined to be a Development Plan submittal requirement of the Planning Board.
Restrictive Covenants. After some discussion among Board members, they felt that this issue needs to be discussed with the Subcommittee.
Street Disclosure Requirements and Any other approvals required by Federal, State or Local Agencies and all Final Plat Requirements. Board members decided to leave these as open items.
Board members discussed the following items and when the information was needed:
Minimum Curve Radius & Intersections. Ms. Smith noted that she would like some sort of acknowledgement on the Development Plan. Ms. Smith stated that sometimes the Plan shows a cross-section, but if the numbers are not right, are we going to hold the applicant to the figures written on the Plan? Mr. Patterson stated that the problem that arises is that the developer himself usually does not do this unless he is an engineer, surveyor or planner. He said that this is done by professionals that should know the rules. Say they did not know the rules are no excuse. Ms. Smith suggested that the applicant could be required to show an approximate curve radius on the plan.
Stream Setbacks Ms. Smith stated that she would like this noted on the Development Plan.
Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Smith, “If Staff receives incorrect information, why would Staff consider this a complete application?” Ms. Smith said that then the Planning Board is asking Staff to do a full review the day a developer submits an application, and Staff does not usually do that. Chairman Pearce said that if Staff receives an incomplete application, after Staff has done its review, it then should go back and start a new timeline whenever you get the corrected information, excluding typographical errors. Ms. Smith suggested that if the Planning Board is going to establish this as a policy, the Board, as a courtesy, should send something out at least the list of surveyors and engineers that we have. Staff should also note the reason why we are sending a Plan back to them to redo. Chairman Pearce noted that Staff should bring a revised set of Appendices, based on the Board’s discussion of the changes to the requirements for major subdivision review at tonight’s meeting and any additional items that Staff thinks the Board should consider. Chairman Pearce added that when Staff has the proposed changes to the Appendices together, he suggested that they be sent out to all Planning Board members for their review. He also suggested sending them to some of the major companies that provide the most information to the Board so they can provide the Board with any comments before the January Planning Board meeting.
Eastgate of Solomon Jones. Ms. Smith briefed the Board that this subdivision is located north of Champion Hills on Indian Cave Road, which adjoins The Pathways of Solomon Jones. There is a Lot 12 in that development which was shown as a lot, but at the time the developer was unsure what they were going to do with the lot. The developer had previously said they had planned on developing eight town homes on it and the Planning Board suggested at the time when they approved the overall Master and Development Plan that the developer comes back to the Board when they have a site plan for Lot 12. Ms. Smith stated that the developer at this point, based on the way sales are going, has discovered that eight town homes in that area would probably not do very well and has decided instead of making four townhouse lots with two homes each to do four single-family lots. She distributed the latest plan to the Board members, which shows how they want to divide Lot 12. She said they want to now divide it into four lots, three of which will access on Gateway Drive and one, which will use an existing 25-foot right-of-way. Ms. Smith mentioned that Lot 11 is the fire department, which was worked out after they originally presented the subdivision to the Board. Ms. Smith stated that the developer is not increasing the residential density and there are no changes to the road system, but it is before the Board because it was in the Planning Board minutes and in their conditions that they would bring back a site plan to the Planning Board. Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Smith whether this is presented as an informational item or if it needs Planning Board approval? Ms. Smith stated that this could be approved administratively, but that she felt better bringing it before the Board and presenting the changes that have been made. Jack Lynch made a motion to allow Staff to approve the changes administratively on Lot 12 of Eastgate of Solomon Jones. Paul Patterson seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates. Chairman Pearce requested that Ms. Smith call Walter Carpenter, who chairs the Subdivision Subcommittee, to schedule an upcoming meeting. No other subcommittees were scheduled at this time.
Ms. Smith informed the Board members that at the Planning Board meeting in January 2003 there would be three rezoning applications, one of which is near the Marlow Elementary School area. Carriage Park, Section 15, will also be on the agenda as well as one subdivision review and possibly three other items to discuss. Chairman Pearce asked that when reviewing January’s Planning Board meeting, if it looks that it will be very long, would any Board member object to break it up into two meetings? Ms. Smith stated that if the Planning Board gives a public notice to that affect, that might be okay, but she stated that she would look into the rules to see if that would meet the stipulations of the meeting procedures. Mr. Allison stated that he would table his item for Planning Board discussion until February 2003.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Tedd Pearce made a motion to adjourn and Jack Lynch seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM.
Tedd M. Pearce, Chairman Joyce Karpowski, Acting Secretary