PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 20, 2003
The Henderson County Planning Board met on May 20, 2003, for its regular meeting at 7:05 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the Land Development Building, 101 East Allen Street, Hendersonville, NC. Board members present were Tedd Pearce, Chairman, Walter Carpenter, Vice-Chairman, Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Tommy Laughter, Kevin Keefe, Mike Cooper and Todd Thompson. Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner; Josh Freeman, Planner, Autumn Radcliff, Planner, Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary. Board member Cindy Dabaibeh was absent.
Chairman Tedd Pearce presided over the meeting and introduced the new Planning Board member, Tommy Laughter.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce asked for the approval of the April 15, 2003 minutes. Mike Cooper made a motion to approve the minutes and Todd Thompson seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda. There were no adjustments to the agenda.
Staff Reports. Ms. Smith informed the Board that there were no Staff reports.
OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business.
Mr. Cook showed photos of the proposed subdivision and roadways. Ms. Smith stated that the “Future Development” portion of the combined Master and Development Plan would require that the developers come back to the Planning Board for review.
Mr. Carpenter asked if Canterbury Way is a private right-of-way? Mr. Cook stated that it was. Mr. Carpenter asked if that is what Ms. Freeman has developed and is it a part of a subdivision that she created? Mr. Cook stated that it is and showed a map indicating the entire area of what she owns. Jon Laughter agent for Ms. Freeman stated that Canterbury Way is an area where she has been selling lots for many years and Mr. Cook agreed.
Chairman Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Oak Meadows Subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in the Technical and Procedural Comments section of the Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant; and moved that such Plans be approved subject to the applicant satisfying comment 1 on a revised Development Plan and comment 2 by the Final Plat and that the “Future Development” portion of the combined Master and Development will require Planning Board review. Mike Cooper seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Zoning Map Amendment Application # R-03-01 to Rezone 3.82 Acre Parcel Located on Kanuga Road, Southeast of the Intersection of Kanuga Road and Crooked Creek Road, from R-40 (Estate Residential) to R-20 (Low-Density Residential)- Bernie Mann, Applicant/Executor for the Estate of Philip A. Mann. Mr. Todd Thompson recused himself because he is an adjacent property owner and wishes to speak on this matter. All members approved. Chairman Pearce asked Tommy Laughter if he has a conflict of interest since he is employed by Crooked Creek Golf Course and would in any way affect my opinion on this matter? Mr. Laughter stated that he did not feel it would since the golf course has nothing to do with the property owners’ association. Mr. Freeman stated that this rezoning application was submitted on April 1, 2003 and is requesting that the County rezone one parcel totaling 3.82 acres located on Kanuga Road just southwest of the intersection of Kanuga Road and Crooked Creek Road, from R-40 (Estate Residential District) to an R-20 (Low-Density Residential District). He stated that the applicant is Bernie Mann, Executor for the estate of Philip A. Mann, and the applicant’s agent is Luther E. Smith and Associates, P.A. Mr. Freeman demonstrated on an area map the area where R-40 zoning is and the area of R-20 zoning as it exists at present. He mentioned that the area south of the subject parcel is zoned R-40, but that it is Crooked Creek Subdivision which has an R-O (Residential Open Space) Special Use Permit. He said R-O means smaller lot sizes and setbacks than are allowed under R-40 zoning in exchange for open space that was set aside for the golf course. He stated that the overall density is the same as it would be in R-40 zoning but that the parcels are a little smaller. He said that the split between R-40 and R-20 follows Kanuga Road, which is fairly close to the City’s extra-territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Freeman stated that the subject parcel has access to City of Hendersonville water service and that the nearest public sewer line is approximately one mile northeast of the property. Mr. Freeman said that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendation of the Henderson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1993. He said that under R-20, the subject parcel would develop with smaller minimum lot sizes and slightly greater setbacks than Crooked Creek Subdivision, but without any required open space contribution. As such, rezoning the subject parcel to R-20 would not be in keeping with the character of the immediate vicinity. Mr. Freeman did state that he feels there is one specific objective of the Henderson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan with which the proposed rezoning conflicts: “to promote new residential development that is compatible with the character of existing neighborhoods and community standards.” He said that R-40 and R-20 differ from one another by almost ½ acre in lot size, which is a sizeable difference. Mr. Freeman also discussed “spot zoning” and defined the term as a relatively small tract of land, which is zoned differently from the surrounding area. Mr. Freeman stated that there are specific matters that Staff studied regarding this rezoning issue:
Size of the tract. Mr. Freeman stated that the subject parcel is of inadequate size in the
context of the R-20 district and surrounding area, to be construed as a distinct district.
Compatibility with existing plans. It is consistent with the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan map. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan also states that urban densities are appropriate in the vicinity of the subject parcel when urban services are provided but goes into no greater detail regarding density, which leaves only the Zoning Map for guidance. The Zoning Map clearly delineates Kanuga Road as the break between the R-20 and R-40 zoning districts and granting the proposed rezoning would bring R-20 zoning across that boundary and begin the fragmentation of the R-40 district, which would be inappropriate in the absence of widespread sewer services and the absence of additional parcels participating in the rezoning.
Benefits and detriments (is the applicant unreasonably harmed by current zoning?). Mr. Freeman said that currently the subject parcel is 3.82 acres in size and under the R-20 zoning could result in as many as 8 or fewer lots at approximately .45 acres per lot which is twice as many lots as would be permitted under R-40 zoning. R-40 zoning would allow the creation of 3 lots, more or less. Also, the subject parcel is currently developed with two residential structures. He said that, as such, Staff could identify no unique circumstances or unusual hardship that would justify singling out the subject parcel for differential zoning.
What impact would the change have upon public services? Mr. Freeman said as a single, relatively small parcel the impact upon public services would be minimal.
Has there been a change in conditions that would warrant a rezoning of the subject parcel? Mr. Freeman stated there has been none since the Comprehensive Plan.
What policy precedent would the change set for future requested amendments? Mr. Freeman stated that granting the proposed rezoning would be unjustified and would set a precedent for future and similar applications. Mr. Freeman stated that there was an almost identical application before the Board of Commissioners several months ago. Mr. Gary Barnwell submitted an application to rezone a tract along Willow Road from R-40 to R-20. He said the Commissioners denied the application on the basis that Willow Road made a good break between R-40 and R-20 zoning. He stated that he feels that roads do not necessarily make a good break between zoning districts, especially when there is a dramatic difference in density, but that there is no reason to break from that precedent at this time.
Mr. Freeman stated that the Staff recommendation is to deny the application as submitted to the Board of Commissioners based the facts previously reviewed.
Mr. Luther Smith, agent for the applicant, stated that one of the key elements is that there are two single-family dwellings on the property. He stated that Staff presented a number of reasons why this application should be denied but he feels that Board members should also consider several things. He said the Comprehensive Land Use Plan shows this area as generally being residential and does not make a distinction. He said that R-40 and R-20 both say in the Ordinance “low-density residential use” and if you look at the property and the lot sizes around the subject parcel, it is not only one acre or more sized parcels, there is a mix in sizes of lots in the neighborhood. One of the reasons for rezoning this R-20 is the increase in density. In this case, an increase from four units to possibly eight units on this parcel. He said the other issue is the Planned Unit Development, which is needed in the R-40 district. Mr. Smith stated that from his client’s standpoint, they need to look at what they can do with this parcel in order to close out the estate. He said they have two options: try to sell the parcel with two single-family residences that are presently on the property, which can be a difficult item to market. The other option would be a planned unit development, but in the R-40 district they do not recognize this type of development, so because of this there was no other option but to request a rezoning on the property. He stated that if the property were vacant from homes, they would not be seeking a change in zoning as they could subdivide the land and put several homes on the property in the R-40 district. He said they decided to go with R-20 as this district is adjacent to their property. He feels that rezoning the property would be the most effective manner. Mr. Smith said that because of the two homes, subdividing would create nonconforming lots and they would have to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance under Board of Adjustment rules, this could be difficult to justify. He said they could come back with a planned development and come before the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners for a planned development under a Special Use Permit, then they could address the issues of protecting adjacent property owners. He does not feel that spot zoning is an issue as the property is contiguous to nearby R-20 zoning. Mr. Smith stated that he agrees with Staff’s comments but his client needs to utilize the property and make it more marketable. Mr. Carpenter asked whether Mr. Mann built both of the homes on the property. Mr. Smith stated that he did. Mr. Smith showed a diagram of the layout of the two homes on the property and said they are located in a situation where the two houses, the adjacent lines and the septic would make it difficult to cut lots. Mr. Allison asked whether they would have room for a R-40 lot at the rear of the property? Mr. Smith stated there would be some access issues. Mr. Freeman stated that what Staff had figured out on the property with the R-40 district and leaving the two homes where they are, they could create a third lot, but it would be difficult in R-40. Chairman Pearce reminded the Board members that on a rezoning application, the Planning Board only makes a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners and the Commissioners make the final decisions on these matters. He also added that the applicant is not required nor generally is the Board to take in consideration the future plans on the rezoning application. Mr. Carpenter added that the Planning Board needs to look at the whole spectrum to see whether it would be suitable for R-20 versus the present zoning of R-40. Mr. Allison asked what would be the overriding reason for the Planning Board to approve this application? Mr. Smith stated that the main reason for rezoning is marketability because of not having the option of being able to use the planned unit development for that area. Chairman Pearce stated that Mr. Mann was not only the owner of this property but a developer and should have known the zoning requirements and would have understood the zoning implications of what he had done on the property. Mr. Allison stated that upon reviewing the differences in the zoning districts he noted that in R-20 with a Special Use Permit a medical park (MICD facility) could be approved. Upon checking, Staff stated that a stand-alone medical facility would not be permitted because a minimum of 10 acres is needed. Chairman Pearce opened public input.
Todd Thompson. Mr. Thompson stated that he owns property adjacent to Mr. Mann’s property and asked whether anyone has tried to get a legal right-of-way to get to the back of the property? He stated that the reason he is questioning this is approximately ten years ago Mr. Mann had approached them asking to purchase 25 feet. Mr. Thompson did not agree to sell. Mr. Thompson said if he needed 25 feet at that time, he would probably need 75 feet today. He said that if development would occur in the back portion there could be a problem. Mr. Smith said in relation to the existing Subdivision Ordinance, if they were granted the rezoning request to R-20 and went to a planned unit development, then different standards for roads can be set, if they are accepted by the Commissioners. Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Mann was not planning ahead when he built the second home at the location. He added that the only portion of the property, if they leave the two homes, is to build in the back portion of the property. He felt that after the setbacks and the road, it would not work. Mr. Freeman stated that the Planning Board could consider if there is a meaningful difference on the parcel between the two districts. He added the Board needs to consider whether R-20 is practical and useful to adjacent property owners or will the change be negative to the adjacent property owners. He said that these matters can be weighed but without site plans you cannot get into any details. Mr. Carpenter stated that the Board can look into the access issues as to whether or not it would be appropriate for R-20 District. Mr. Freeman stated that there are ways to get right-of-ways that are either 30 or 45 feet in width into the property to maintain the lots but did not know whether those right-of-ways will be on the same tract of ground as the actual access road itself. Mr. Freeman said if they use the current road configuration to create the right-of-ways, there would be no way they could meet those setback requirements. If they put in a theoretical right-of-way that runs down the side of the property, that could possibly be done, but it might not be practical. Mr. Thompson said that he is against the rezoning request and that he feels it would have an adverse affect on his property and the surrounding property owners.
Ken Gregory. He stated that he is representing the Crooked Creek Homeowners Association and they are concerned about the environmental aspect of the rezoning request. He stated that at present there is a forest area in the back portion of Mr. Mann’s property, and he is concerned about destroying the trees for more homes and would like to keep it the way it is, so therefore they are against the rezoning of this property.
Mr. Allison noted that there is nothing in Zoning that would prevent tree cutting.
Otis Leonard. He said he owns property between Crooked Creek Road and Mr. Mann’s property. He said that a portion of Mr. Mann’s driveway is on their property and that they had an agreement some years back to allow use of the road between them. He said that he would be against the rezoning.
Lee Mager. He stated that he too is a recent adjacent property owner and is against the rezoning, as he bought his land because of how the area is at present and would not like to see the change to R-20.
Jim Ferrell. He stated that he is a nearby property owner and does not want to see the district change to R-20.
Boyce Orr. He stated that he is an adjacent property owner who recently built and moved into a new home last August, 2002, and that he likes the area and how it is preserved, and is against changing the zoning of Mr. Mann’s property to R-20.
Leon Allison made a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners regarding rezoning application # R-03-01 by the Estate of Philip A. Mann. Mike Cooper seconded the motion. Staff asked for reasons for the denial. Mr. Allison stated that the reason for the denial is because all along that side of the road is presently zoned R-40, and he would not like to see a medical and institutional development under the proposed R-20 district as he does not feel that Kanuga Road would be able to handle the traffic at that location. He also mentioned that he is recommending denial of the application because of the precedence set by the Barnwell rezoning. Mr. Cooper felt that approving this application would create two spot zonings, one being the parcel and the remainder of the R-40 towards the City. Mr. Carpenter stated that he does not feel that there is a necessity for the rezoning other than the fact that the deceased owner and his estate built some houses in a configuration that does not work well with the zoning that is presently there. He added that is not a reason to rezone it. These conditions have apparently been there for some time and that would not warrant a rezoning. He feels that rezoning this to R-20 might open “Pandora’s box” on the rest of the R-40 in that area. He stated that he feels that granting this rezoning would make it difficult to deny future rezonings on the same side of the street, which would be a concern and the reason why he would favor the motion. Chairman Pearce stated the reason why he would favor the motion is, because he feels there is no change in the area that would substantiate or justify a change in the zoning. He feels there is no compelling reason other than the specific request by the applicant. All members voted in favor of the motion to deny the rezoning application. Ms. Smith stated that this item will go to the Board of Commissioners to set a public hearing and adjacent property owners (property owners who touch the subject parcel) will receive notice.
Review of Conditional Use Permit #CU-03-04 – Justus Business Center, LLC –Construction of Two Commercial Buildings, Corner of South Allen Road and Upward Road – (Shopping Center in C-4) - Pursuant to Section 200-69C(5), Henderson County Zoning Ordinance - Jeff Justus, Owner. Ms. Smith introduced the new Zoning Administrator, Mr. Brad Burton, and stated that initially former Zoning Administrator Suzanne Godsey, had been working on both of the conditional use permits and had anticipated presenting them to the Board to help Mr. Burton but that she was unable to attend the meeting due to illness. Mr. Burton stated that Mr. Jeff Justus, the property owner and developer, has submitted an application for a conditional use permit located on the corner of South Allen Road and Upward Road to allow a shopping center, consisting of two buildings in a C-4 zoning district. The property is approximately 8.45 acres and currently has an existing building on it that is used as a warehouse. He stated that the portion of the property with the existing structure was issued a conditional use permit in 1996 for a warehouse/distribution center for Haverty’s Distribution Center. This permit is also under consideration for an amendment at this time, which is a separate request. He further stated that Conditional Use Permit # CU-01-14 was issued to allow a shopping center in a C-4 zoning district in 2001. This development was built on approximately 1.68 acres (the site plan shows on 1.77 acres) and this building is labeled on the site plan as “Existing Building #2).
Mr. Burton stated Staff had reviewed the application for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and that the following is a list of items the applicant needs to address with regard to the site development plan:
1. Hours of Operation.
2. Buffering and Landscaping.
4. On-Site Safety.
6. Future Development.
Mr. Burton stated that Staff would support a favorable recommendation by the Planning Board on this application with a finding that the use of the property as a shopping center meets the minimum requirements of the conditional use permit. Mr. Allison stated that regarding the buffering and landscaping condition, the last time Mr. Justus was before the Board we did not require him to have buffering because it joined the road and because of the terrain of the area near Haverty’s warehouse. Ms. Smith stated that the Board of Adjustment would review this issue. The Planning Board had discussed the prior shopping center permit but not the warehouse permit. Mr. Burton showed on a map the location of the property dealing with this conditional use permit. Mr. Justus pointed out the areas of the proposed buildings and the approximate three acres for future development. Ms. Smith stated that she can not explain why there were separate conditional use permits on the property and why it was not all together, but the Board of Adjustment did it separately so that is the reason why it is being dealt as a separate issue. Mr. Justus reviewed the conditions mentioned by Staff. He stated that regarding the hours of operation, he suggests retails hours of approximately 6:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. Chairman Pearce stated that he feels the hours of operation is a non-issue as well as the buffering, because it is already buffered by nature. Mr. Carpenter asked whether future development will have the same elevation as present or will it be built up? Mr. Justus stated that it will be approximately the same elevation but might be slightly lower. Mr. Allison added that since the facility is located in the County and the County does not have any signage ordinance, why do we have a condition regarding signage? Ms. Smith stated that because under the conditional use permit process it allows the Board of Adjustment to have this as a condition as well as landscaping. The “group development” section of the Ordinance also requires the developer to show landscaping on plans. Mr. Justus stated that he has not decided on specified signage as of yet. Chairman Pearce stated that it might be advantageous to have a proposal on signage for the development regarding size and location when he goes before the Board of Adjustment for their information purposes. Chairman Pearce stated that he does not feel, after reviewing this permit, that it will adversely affect anyone pertaining to this property. Mr. Allison asked whether Mr. Justus is bound to certain hours of operation? Ms. Smith stated that not by the Planning Board, but that the Board of Adjustment can establish hours of operation, but can not bind him to those hours unless they make it a condition in the permit. Planning Board members felt that they will not vote on any specific hours of operation. Mr. Justus stated that in regard to future development on the property; he would postpone any development until the widening of Upward Road is complete and then would consider some type of commercial development for that area at that time.
Mr. Allison made a motion that the Planning Board sends a favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment for Conditional Use Permit # CU-03-04. Todd Thompson seconded the motion. Mr. Patterson stated that he has concerns with stormwater drainage because at some point in time this property will produce more stormwater runoff than can be handled by the NCDOT storm pipes. He stated that he feels that NCDOT will not repair or fix that problem and that it will need to be handled by the property owner. He asked Mr. Justus how he plans to handle this matter? Mr. Justus stated that he has not considered this issue at this point. Ms. Smith stated that the Board of Adjustment could discuss this issue, if this subject came up as part of the hearing, dealing with health, safety and welfare issue. Mr. Allison stated that he does not want to address this issue in the motion as the State would probably deal with it when Upward Road is widened. Mr. Carpenter asked that the Planning Board recommend that the applicant look at lighting on the back portion of one building and the side of the other building (specifically the eastern sides of both buildings) but that any lighting should not adversely affect property owners to the east of the proposed buildings. The motion was amended to state that any lighting on proposed buildings should not adversely affect residences on the eastern side of the property. All members except for Paul Patterson voted favorably on the motion as amended.
Review of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit # CU-23-96 to Allow Machining and Assembly in Addition to Warehousing – South Allen Road – (Light Industrial in C-4) – Pursuant to Section 200-69C(5), Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, Jeff Justus, Owner. Mr. Burton stated that Mr. Jeff Justus, property owner, has submitted an application for an amendment to a conditional use permit issued in July 1996 to allow machining and assembly in addition to warehousing. This permit was approved to allow a light industrial use in a C-4 zoning district. Any light industrial use is allowed in a C-4 district with a conditional use permit. The original permit was for the specific use of warehousing only. The original approved site plan showed an area for future expansion and this area was 14,924 square feet. He stated that the property is currently being leased by Haverty’s Distribution Center. Haverty’s wishes to sub-lease the property to Caraustar, Incorporated. An amendment is required to allow for machining and assembly in addition to warehousing. He stated that the amendment also addresses an expansion to the existing building that is approximately 842 square feet and is proposed within the previously approved expansion area. He stated that the application and site plan were reviewed for compliance with the technical requirements stated in the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and Staff comments are based on the findings that are required in order to grant a conditional use permit. The following is a list of items the applicant should address with regard to the site development plan:
1. Hours of Operation.
5. Future Development.
Mr. Burton stated that the conditional use permit issued for the Haverty’s Distribution Center required a planted buffer strip along the eastern property line adjacent to Acorn Manor Manufactured Home Park as a condition of the permit, but that this buffer was never installed. He stated that Staff would support a favorable recommendation by the Planning Board on this application # CU-23-96 as amended with a finding that the use of the property as a warehouse with machining and assembly meets the minimum requirements of a conditional use permit. Chairman Pearce asked if Haverty’s will no longer occupy that portion of the building? Ms. Smith stated that from what she understands, they plan to vacate the building. Chairman Pearce inquired whether the conditional use permit needs to approve the change in use of what it is going to be used for? Ms. Smith stated, “yes.” She indicated that if the warehousing operation was replaced with another warehouse they would be fine under their current conditional use permit, but because they are adding a component, which she understands will be cutting and drying of the product, this is not warehousing but goes a bit further in the operation. She stated that this amendment is to add that use, but does not restrict that additional use to the expansion. Ms. Smith added that this change in use will cover the existing Phase I and the future expansion, whether it is in the small, proposed expansion or the larger expansion area.
Mr. Craig Rollins, Division Manager for Caraustar, explained their operation deals with recycled paperboard. He stated that they make recycled fiber out of old corrugated containers and then make it into packaged products. Mr. Rollins stated that due to a local customer, they prefer to remain locally and like the area of the Haverty’s building. The operation includes cutting the corrugated tubes, drying them and then shipping the product out. He did not consider it manufacturing. Ms. Smith stated the use goes beyond warehousing and that “machining and assembly” appeared to cover it. The interpretation of this operation would be up to the Board of Adjustment rather than the Planning Board. Chairman Pearce asked, “What are the noise factors involved in the cutting process, as he feels this is the only major issue that he would be concerned about.” Mr. Rollins stated that the types of machinery will be two motors running a dryer along with blade cutting machines and saws that will be cutting the tubes. Mr. Rollins said the drying may be done inside the existing building or in an addition. Chairman Pearce said he expects the Board of Adjustment would need to know where the requirement will go. Mr. Carpenter stated that the issue he has dealing with the machinery is whether it will keep nearby property owners awake and be offensive. Mr. Rollins stated that the days and hours of operation would be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Al Worley, Manager of the new facility, stated that there have been studies in the past done by OSHA on their operation and that it was determined that there it is not at a decibel level to require them to wear earplugs from the machinery that the plant runs. Mr. Carpenter stated that what the Board needs to consider is future companies dealing with machinery, not just this operation. Mr. Carpenter stated, “Could the Board consider requesting that a certain degree of decibels at the property line?” Ms. Smith stated that if the Board of Adjustment had evidence presented, they can apply conditions that are specific to the use but the conditional use generally runs with the property unless the use has changed. Chairman Pearce said that is the only matter he is concerned about for future uses under machinery and assembly operations because there could be a problem with adjacent commercial uses as well as the adjacent property owners. He feels that the Planning Board should recommend to the Board of Adjustment setting some reasonable noise mitigation standards that would allow this company to operate properly but would protect any adjacent property owners from any future uses on that property. Mr. Carpenter stated that the issue of buffering, which was apparently required in 1996 but never installed, needs to be settled as an amendment to this permit. Mr. Justus said at the time there were obstacles in the way to be able to do buffering. Ms. Smith stated that we should have gone back to the Board of Adjustment, then, on the buffering issue. Chairman Pearce stated that regarding any additional lighting; it should not interfere with any adjacent property owners. Mr. Rollins asked that the Board look at it favorably for his company as there have already been delays in continuing operation. Chairman Pearce made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment regarding Conditional Use Permit # CU-23-96 as amended, noting that the Planning Board suggests that the Board of Adjustment look at whether or not the buffering is necessary as previously required under the original conditional use permit. In addition, that any lighting installed would be done in such a way that it would not adversely affect the residential uses adjacent to the property as well as that noise mitigation be strongly considered so any possible future uses that would fall under the “machining and assembly” use would not adversely affect any adjacent residential uses as long as they are being used for residential purposes. If the area is changed from residential to commercial use, then the Planning Board would recommend that the nose mitigation requirement be discontinued. Leon Allison seconded the motion. All members except for Paul Patterson voted favorably on the motion.
Status Report on Planning Initiatives – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated that the Planning Board member’s packet provides an update of what the CCP Committee has been working on since the last update report from last month.
Paul Patterson asked whether the new regulations on the appendices would become effective at the next Planning Board meeting? Ms. Smith stated that they will and that there are two subdivisions for review for next month and that they are looking good.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Tedd Pearce made a motion to adjourn and
Mike Cooper seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:09 P.M.
Tedd Pearce, Chairman Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary