Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090824 APPROVED 10/6/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING August 24, 2009 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, August 24, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Jay Bryan, Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Dr. Larry Wright, and Mark Marcoplos PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Tommy McNeill and Pete Hallenbeck A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR- Chair Foushee and Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford introduced the agenda items. 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendment(s) to Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements Section 6.31 Outdoor Lighting Standards of the Orange County Ordinance revising existing regulations governing the review, approval, and use of outdoor lighting fixtures for residential and non-residential land uses. Planner Michael Harvey said that staff has received concerns about the outdoor lighting standards and these are on page 1 of the abstract. The concerns are as follows: 1. The lack of clarity on how lighting plans are submitted and reviewed by staff, 2. The `one size fits all' mentality of the existing regulations that treats projects within urbanizing and rural potions of the County the same, and 3. A lack of specificity on the types of lighting fixtures that ought to be allowed for use by outdoor sport fields and/or performance areas. The Board of County Commissioners asked staff to develop some minor amendments to respond to these concerns. Staff is proposing to amend Section 6.31 as follows: 1. Staff is proposing to develop an overall lighting limit on the development and use of outdoor lighting fixtures for non-residential land uses. This limit varies depending on the location of the proposed development within an urbanizing area (i.e. Transition Area) versus a rural area of the County. 2. Staff is proposing several amendments providing greater explanation on the level of detail required as part of the submittal and review of an outdoor lighting plan. Current regulations only make reference to the production of a lighting plan, which has led to multiple interpretations as to what is exactly required for submittal. Staff is proposing to formalize the submittal requirements to ensure that we obtain all necessary information to review and take action on a submitted lighting plan. 3. Staff is proposing to modify existing regulations governing the use of outdoor sports field/performance area lighting. Several residents have suggested that such lighting fixtures be banned within the rural areas of the County. This suggestion is not practical given the possible need to allow for such lighting at park and recreation facilities throughout the rural areas of the County and due to the presence of existing recreational facilities with such lighting already installed. Instead, staff is proposing to modify existing operational standards (i.e., hours of operation) as well as establish height limits in an effort to better regulate the potential impacts of such fixtures. Further work will be necessary to address the ancillary impacts of outdoor sports field lighting. This work will become a component of the proposed UDO revision. Michael Harvey went through the specifics of the amendments. Commissioner Yuhasz said that as he reads the exemptions to this, it only includes residential structures that existed at the time the first lighting ordinance was adopted. He asked if this was intended to require all new residential structures to provide a signed and sealed engineering stamp for residential lighting. Michael Harvey made reference to pages 7-8 and said that it was not the intention to have outdoor lighting for single-family residential structures regulated. Commissioner Yuhasz asked that this be made clear in the ordinance. Mr. Harvey indicated that this matter would be clarified in a future amendment. Commissioner Yuhasz pointed out that in the rural areas there is not going to be much lighting and maybe the residential areas could be allowed to have more lighting for security purposes, etc. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 6.31.9a on page 16, and he read, "Outdoor Sports Field/Outdoor Performance Area lighting shall only be allowed for those principal and accessory uses, deemed by the Planning Department, as needing such fixtures to properly function as intended during evening hours." He asked if this could be an illegal delegation of legislative function to allow the Planning staff to make that determination without a specific criterion. He asked if the Planning department would accept at face value the proposal that lighting was needed. Michael Harvey said that the intention of the statement was to signify that Planning staff would review each proposal relating to the erection and use of outdoor sports field lighting on a case by case basis to verify that the lights were an essential component of a proposed land uses operation. John Roberts asked Commissioner Yuhasz if he should research this issue and Commissioner Yuhasz said yes. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to section 6.31.6, which relates to the required certification on a subdivision plat that any and all street lights have been installed consistent with County regulations. . He said that he objects to additional statements on final plats requiring surveyors to make statements or to certify that specific actions have been, or will be done, in connection with the recording of a plat. He said that those kinds of requirements do not belong on final plats. It could be put in a declaration of approval. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is a petition at their places. He said that he would be interested in comments from the staff about the notion of requiring lighted athletic facilities to obtain a Class B Special Use permit prior to the commencement of operation. Michael Harvey said that lighting in and of itself is not a principal use or an accessory use and that it is ultimately a by-product of an approved use of property. Mr. Harvey said that he was not in favor of requiring the issuance of a special use permit solely on the erection of outdoor lighting fixtures and that if there was concern over their erection and use within rural areas of the County then the Ordinance ought to be amended to require the various principal uses that could require such lights to obtain a SUP. He said that he needs direction from the Board of County Commissioners on getting a special use permit for lighting. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 15, item M, and read, "...as determined by posted hours of operation for said land use..." He asked if all of the possible land uses were covered in "said land use." Michael Harvey said that anything in the County's jurisdiction would be covered by this. Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey to check on Cedar Ridge High School about this. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 18, section 6.3.10 B and asked if this includes digital signs and Michael Harvey said no. Commissioner Jacobs requested that they include digital signs and what constituted digital signs. He would like to look at Durham County's ordinances. Planning Board members: Jeffrey Schmidt said that he has been on the Planning Board for five years and this is the first time he has heard any concern about lighting by the Board of County Commissioners. He asked if there have been complaints by people that have brought this forward. Michael Harvey said that complaints on outdoor lighting became prevalent this year. Jeffrey Schmidt asked why the Planning Board could not have handled this on an isolated basis. Michael Harvey said that any time there are concerns brought up that have far- reaching implications, there has to be a uniform standard. Jeffrey Schmidt suggested that both boards find out what lumens are and what this looks like. He has never seen what this looks like. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sara Shields presented a handout. "To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners From: Sara Shields, 1600 Jimmie Ed Road, Hurdle Mills Re: Lighting and noise standards for athletic fields in rural areas My name is Sara Shields and I've lived in a rural part of the county 12 years. I am asking you to change the lighting and noise standards for athletic fields in rural areas and to require all athletic fields to get a Class B Special Use Permit. Last year I presented to you a request that the lighting standards for athletic fields and other lighted facilities in rural areas be reconsidered. I made this request because the Planning and Zoning Department allowed a church to erect a lighted ball field directly across a dirt road from my house with a Class B Special Use Permit. Therefore, none of the neighbors affected by the ball field had a say in whether the ball field should be built and lighted or how and when the field would be used. We have now lived with the field in its' completed state since May 29, 2009. Its impact on my home and others in our community has been very disturbing. Many games have gone past 11:30 p.m., and one tournament game had the lights on after 1:00 a.m. Sunday morning, with no relief given by the Sheriff's Department after 911 calls. Lights shine into my house. Port-a-potties have been in view from my front porch continuously since that May date. Sometime in late July a PA system was added to the field. One of my neighbors a mile away can hear it. I have endured countless people using my driveway as a turnaround. Noisy motorcycles rev their engines as they pull out from the dirt road onto the paved road. If this all sounds angry, it is. As a citizen of this country I am entitled to due process of law when the integrity and value of my home and property is being taken from me without an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, I ask that you amend the lighting and noise standards for rural areas. I also present to you a petition I started, but was unable to continue with due to illness in my family. Over 90% of the people I spoke with signed it, requesting that all lighted athletic facilities be required to have a Special Class B permit." Bonnie Hauser was speaking on behalf of Orange County Voice, who was working in cooperation with CHAOS, Chapel Hill Astronomical and Observational Society. She said that they are thrilled to see the County take a proactive stance on lighting ordinances and for keeping the rural community separate from the urban communities. She said that rural Orange County still has pockets of dark sky and they support recommendations to limit lights and noise on athletic fields. She said that they would like a complete ban on lights that go upward. They would also like to add incentives to use IDA approved fixtures. They support the Hurdle Mills group about seeing an ordinance extended to require a public hearing any time outdoor lighting is included in a public venue. She said that light and noise travel farther in rural areas. She said that CHAOS would be happy to help in any way because the members are experts on light issues. Robert Nichols asked if there would be a public hearing if the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board approve this as recommended and it was answered yes. If this ordinance is passed, the enforcers will be the Planning Department. He said that he is tired of the government telling him how to make every move he makes on his farm. Ben Lloyd said that he supports what Jeffrey Schmidt said and that they should not fix what is not broken. He spoke about the Efland Rodeo and how it goes past 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey to address the point Ben Lloyd just made about this scheduled event that may last past 11:00. Michael Harvey said that the current ordinance states that an outdoor sports field cannot have lighting past 11:00 unless it was to conclude a previously scheduled and commenced event. Mr. Harvey said that the proposed revision says that an outdoor sports field in a rural areas of the County cannot have outdoor sports field lighting on past 11:00 p.m.. Craig Benedict said that for certain outdoor events, it would be a determination by the Planning Department to decide to go past time limits. Commissioner Jacobs said that one could argue whether Efland is urban or rural and it should be specified that it is for a single scheduled event. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Planning staff for making a differentiation in the ordinance between urban and rural. He said that the County did consult at one time with a group about light pollution. He thinks that this improves the ordinance. Commissioner Jacobs made reference that he had some general comments on the wording on page 16, Section 6.31.9, of the proposed Ordinance and indicated that he would supply staff with those comments directly. Commissioner Gordon said she agreed with what has been said about distinguishing between residential and non-residential , and suggested that the distinction should be made clear throughout the whole ordinance. Commissioner Hemminger asked about the PA system and the port-a-potties and how this would be handled and Michael Harvey said that the Sheriff's Department would handle this. Commissioner Hemminger suggested that light timers might work. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the December 7, 2009 BOCC meeting and adjourn the Public Hearing until December 7, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Plan: To receive public comment on acceptance of the Strategic Growth and Resource Conservation (SGRC) Plan. The SGRC is a proposed program whereby development rights in specific areas of the county could be transferred to other specific areas of the county in order to preserve and protect sensitive areas and uses while allowing development and greater density/intensity in areas of the county better suited to accommodate it. The first two phases of the SGRC program (research and feasibility) were previously completed and were accepted in June 2006. The final third phase (specific program and administrative design) is the subject of this hearing, not as an implementation action but as a list of recommendations for future prioritization and specific text or map zoning amendment. Planning Director Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING Acceptance of the Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Feasibility Study Phase III (Program Implementation Plan) What is SGRC? It provides a system where an urban developer can pay a rural landowner to conserve their lands while transferring those potential development rights into an appropriate urban area to potentially allow for a more dense development project. SGRC Objective Direct growth and development activities away from important natural and cultural resources by shifting those activities to areas more able to accommodate them. SGRC Goals - Preserve the farm economy - Protect drinking water resources - Preserve environmental and cultural resources - Preserve the character of rural Orange County - Provide efficient and well-planned and situated water, sewer, and transportation services Rural Preservation - Promote the voluntary placement of conservation easements on farms - Water quality protection lands - Historic properties, and - Wildlife habitat to preserve them in their undeveloped state Strategic Urbanization - Provide incentives for increased development within the County's Urban Transition areas as well as: o Efland-Mebane Area and Buckhorn EDD o Hillsborough transition areas and EDD, o Eno EDD, and o Rural Community Activity Nodes Monitor Program Performance Identify and track appropriate, cost-effective measures to determine the degree to which the program is meeting the rural preservation and strategic urbanization goals SGRC Program Timeline - 2005—Louis Berger/UNC-C Urban Institute selected consultant - 2005-2006 TDR Task Force work - June 27, 2006—TDR Feasibility Study (Phases I and II) report received and approval to proceed to Phase III - 2006—Phase III contract work Three Phases of SGRC Study I. Background Research and Data Gathering II. Feasibility Study and Concept Plan (Phases I & II complete—June 2006) III. Program Design and Implementation Plan (Presented for acceptance as a Plan, not a zoning ordinance amendment) Phase Ill Program Design Receiving (Strategic Development)Areas - Economic Development Districts - County Land Use Plan Urban Transition Areas, and - Rural Community Nodes Phase Ill Program Design Sending Areas—(Strategic Rural Areas) Properties with the following characteristics: - Not already protected by easement - Not already developed to its maximum density - More than 50 acres in size - National Historic Register site - In a Critical Area Water Supply watershed - Within 150' of a lake, river or perennial stream - Adjacent to an already protected property, or - Not in Strategic Growth Areas Important Design Program Issues - Strictly Voluntary (Rural Participation) - For now, only County-to-County Transfers - County will not Maintain a "Bank" of Conservation Credits - Title of Program (Strategic Growth and Resource Conservation—effectively transferring development rights (TDR) - Use Existing Enabling Legislation - Smart Growth (Low Impact Design standards, Development Credit bonuses to promote Green Building, Affordable Housing, etc.). Hypothetical Application of SGRC Concept 200-acre Sending Area parcel determined to have a 100-dwelling unit development potential. The owner, through the SGRC process, desires to sell 90 of the possible 100 residential units for transfer into a Receiving Area. Staff is asking the Board to accept the plan, which would not change the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Pelissier made reference to the EDD's being some of the receiving zones and said that she would like to see more clarity and the advantages of going into an EDD. She would not want these EDD's to go into residential areas. Craig Benedict said that EDDs would not be brought into purely residential areas—mixed use at minimum. Commissioner Pelissier asked how this would affect the current conservation easement policies. Craig Benedict said that Planning is working in parallel with the Environment Resource Conservation Department to make sure that this is a complimentary program. Commissioner Gordon said that she does have concern about conditional use zoning details. She thinks that residents and developers value certainty. Judith Wegner said that the Planning Board members have talked about this and most members of the retired Planning Board members did not like this. She said that there was not adequate thinking in relation to the comprehensive plan. She said that she is an attorney and this is something that could be sustained, and there are better approaches to preserve the rural land and nodes. She said that she would wish that the County not go forward with this. Jeff Schmidt said that over the past 12 months, everyone has become familiar with the word driven. He said that in this case there are demands by external commercial interests to come to the County. He asked if this was of such significance that would justify the Planning Department putting in water and sewer in rural areas and having an economic development plan that is robust enough to attract this type of people. He does not think this is the case. He suggested that this item be deferred and dropped completely since there is no infrastructure or demand for it. Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board has spent time on the Comprehensive Plan and the Small Area Development Plan. He said that this TDR program is going to be a huge use of staff time and energy, and the Planning Board would prefer that staff focus on the other two plans and not this one. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bonnie Hauser spoke on behalf of Orange County Voice. She said that Orange County Voice supports the Planning Board on this issue. They would like to see TDR discontinued in favor of more progressive and flexible development options such as tax incentive financing for economic development districts and density-based zoning. Orange County Voice also likes small area plans where zoning and development priorities are developed in concert with the community. Orange County Voice is hoping to participate in a small area plan with Bingham Township. She said that development projects should stand on their own merit. She said that effective use of development incentives can help encourage desired and appropriate development, especially in the economic development districts. She said that Orange County Voice asks that the County discontinue its interests in Transfer of Development Rights and instead seek zoning and incentives that encourage the development that is wanted. Ben Lloyd said that he has been hearing about TDR for 15 years and no one has proved to him yet that this is a feasible or workable option. He said that taxes keep going up to pay the bills in Orange County. Alan Rosen said that he is interested in strategic growth and this program is too complicated. He said that until Orange County has water and sewer in these receiving areas, then this is not appropriate. He encouraged the County to do small area plans, the comprehensive plan, unified development rights, etc., and think about the places that have water and sewer and zone for minimum density irrespective of receiving area potential. He said that the County has a shortage of housing for moderate-income families and he believes that this could be improved if there were developable areas. He asked the County Commissioners to put this program aside. Commissioner Jacobs asked Craig Benedict why he is pursuing this without the Planning Board's support. Craig Benedict said that the Board of County Commissioners in 2004 had put $50,000 in the budget to hire a consultant to look at this program and also in 2006 had said that this was feasible and to pursue Phase III. The consultant did his work and then this bumped up against the Comprehensive Plan Update. At that time, staff, the County Commissioners, and the Planning Board agreed to finish the Comprehensive Plan and then come back to TDR. He would like the Board to accept the work that was done by the consultant, close the contract and finish paying the consultant, and then move on to other things. Commissioner Jacobs said that there are still a number of issues that can be addressed through the Comprehensive Plan Update, such as high densities in rural activity nodes. His two biggest concerns about the work on the task force were that they were not able to come up with a good method of converting residential density to commercial density. He said that he does not think it is the intention to transfer more housing to economic development districts. Another concern is that he does not want to add more hurdles to development in the EDDs. Frank Clifton said that the retirement incentive program will create vacancies in the Planning Department and this will probably go on the to do list. The consultant's work will still be there but there are other priorities now. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to item 3 of the recommendation and suggested keeping this on the "to do" list, but directing Planning staff to set this program aside. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to accept the Phase III Final Report of the Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation study by the Consultant. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close out the contract by paying the $21,344.65 remaining balance to the consultant. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to direct the Planning staff to delay the implementation program outline until further directed by the Board of County Commissioners. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Processes for Small Area Plan Implementation, Unified Development Ordinance Completion, and Comprehensive Plan Implementation: Staff will present for BOCC consideration proposed processes and work plan for 1) Implementing Small Area Plans, 2) Completing a Unified Development Ordinance, and 3) Ongoing Comprehensive Plan implementation. Craig Benedict said that this is an outline for the Planning Department work plan. He went through a PowerPoint presentation. INTRODUCTION • Comprehensive Plan includes 38 Goals and 263 Objectives • Annual review, identification of action strategies, prioritization, and implementation • Ongoing implementation • Monitoring and evaluation —State of the Comprehensive Plan Report every other year PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH BOCC • "Existing Ideas" and "New Ideas" presented during '09-'10 budget, priority setting, and regular BOCC work sessions. • Existing Ideas —Small Area Plan implementation and Unified Development Ordinance • New Ideas—Through a process of annual review, identification of strategies, and BOCC approval. • Adopted budget- $21,300 for Small Area Plans; $36,700 for UDO PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S STAGING OF WORK • SAPs and UDO addressed first— '09 -'10+ • Annual comprehensive plan implementation actions to follow with BOCC Retreat Priority Process • Quantity of work dependent upon ongoing assessment of retirement incentive program impacts and determined with Manager and Human Resources • Table in next slide provided in packet, Att. 2, p. 4. Proposed Processes 1. Implementation of Small Area Plans 2. Completion of a UDO 3. Ongoing Comprehensive Plan implementation Each process is described in detail in the agenda packet and summarized in upcoming slides. PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT SMALL AREA PLANS • Staff has reviewed recommendations in Efland-Mebane, Eno EDD, and NC 57 Speedway Area SAPs. Staff Recommends: 1. Starting with items shaded in grey as provided in packet (Att. 3.2, pp. 6-9) 2. Staff and Planning Board revisit SAP recommendations annually for prioritization and recommendation to BOCC PROCESS TO COMPLETE UDO Purpose and Goal of Initial UDO: 1. Make existing regulations more customer-friendly and understandable 2. Eliminate existing contradictions and inconsistencies 3. Combine all existing land use regulatory standards into one document 4. Identify if the development review process can be streamlined or enhanced 5. Update graphics 6. Begin to modernize zoning districts and permitted uses 7. Revise existing development regulations to encourage redevelopment in targeted areas UDO Work Program (agenda packet pp. 13-18) The Planning Department is recommending a work program consisting of three (3) primary tasks to be completed within 13-months: 1. Project initiation and development of outline [(incl. identification of Consultant scope of services and outreach) (Aug. — Nov. 2009)] 2. Development of draft UDO (Oct. 2009— Feb. 2010) 3. Development of final draft and public hearing in May 2010 (Feb. —Sept. 2010) Each of the three proposed tasks is to include community outreach and opportunity for input from applicable advisory boards. Task 1 Meetings: Public outreach (2); Joint advisory board (1); BOCC (1); Planning Board (1) Task 2* Meetings: Public outreach (2); BOCC (2); Ordinance Review Committee (1) Task 3* Meetings: Public outreach (2); BOCC (1); public hearing (1) *Includes advisory board courtesy review. PROCESS FOR ONGOING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION Ongoing Implementation (Agenda packet pp.19 &20) Staff Recommends: 1. Staff/Planning Board develop prioritized implementation strategies for BOCC consideration at its planning retreat(s) each year. 2. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Strategy form (provided as handout) used to convey key facets. Monitoring & Eval. (Agenda packet pp. 20 &21) • 2030 Comprehensive Plan suggests development of evaluation criteria, including sustainability indicators for each Plan Element. This would be a mid-term project. Staff Recommends: 1. Comprehensive Plan status report to BOCC every other year starting this November. 2. BOCC directive for coordination among respective departments to complete reports. RECOMMENDATION Authorize Planning Staff to proceed with implementation of: • Small Area Plans; • Development of a UDO; and • Ongoing Comprehensive Plan implementation as proposed. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the SAP implementation, page 7, attachment 3-2, and said that conditional zoning is complicated and she would rather focus on the other areas of the SAP first. She mentioned that the Planning Department would have three fewer staff members to do all of this work. She suggested moving first on the Comprehensive Plan implementation since so much time has been spent on this and it is the top priority. Commissioner Yuhasz disagreed with Commissioner Gordon. He said that in going through the NC 57 Small Area Plan, what came out of that was a need for flexibility in addressing the concerns of people who want to do things there and the residents there. This flexibility is not available in the current ordinance. He thinks that the fact that it is complicated is not a reason to delay. He thinks that any delay in trying to implement or create the conditional use construct is going to delay the County further in the effective implementation of the small area plans. He said that the UDO should be repackaged and the inconsistencies should be repaired in order to be able to use this tool. Commissioner Jacobs said that these documents are not public friendly and they need to be. He made reference to the shaded areas and asked if ERCD would be involved in this process. He wants this to be coordinated with ERCD. Craig Benedict verified that ERCD would be involved and Planning will be working closely with this department. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Yuhasz about not being afraid to approach conditional use zoning. He said that the County started talking about agricultural support enterprises about seven years ago and there were meetings about how to streamline this process for agricultural enterprises. He said that he will support conditional use zoning. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Efland sewer project needs to be completed. It has been several months since the last report. He wants regular updates on the progress of this project. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs that the Board receive regular updates on the progress of completion for the Efland sewer, perhaps along with the reports on the state of the reservoir. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Pelissier said that she is thrilled to see this outline because she wants to see the comprehensive plan implemented. She thinks that the three major steps are a great sequence. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to authorize Planning Staff to proceed with processes as proposed in Sections 1, 2, and 3. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon said that she thinks this is too ambitious and she thinks it should come back to the Board to determine priorities. Commissioner Nelson said that it is too ambitious but this can be determined in a couple of months with the staff situation. Frank Clifton said that staff may come back and say they cannot do it and they may want to contract some of it out, but he will keep the Board informed. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board