Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19930222 t r 1 APProved May, 310. 1993 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD of COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING HOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 The Orange County Board, of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the Orange County Planning Board for the regular Quarterly Public Hearing on February 22, 1993 at 7: 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, 3 North Carolina. BOARD B PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Alice Cordon, Verla Insko, and Don Willhoit. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis ( illness) PLANNING BOARD-MaERS PRESENT: Clint Burklin, Paul Hoeoke, Larry Reid, Vice- Chair Betty Eidenier, Chair Carol Cantrell, James Cray, Joan Jobsis, and Jean Hamilton. PLANNING BOA _ E ABSENT: William Waddell, Kent Scott and Virginia Boland.. COUN ATTORNEY ._PREBENT: Tf Geoffrey Gledhill TAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Assistant County Manager Albert Kittreli, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Planning Director Marvin Collins and Planners Emily Cameron, Mary Willis, and Gene Bell, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, and Library Director Brenda Stephens. A+ oPENIN R FR0j4 THE CHAIRMAN Chairman Carey welcomed everyone and made introductory remarks, B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Carey read the public charge. NOTE:, All documents referred to in these minutes are located in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Voluntary Farmland Preservation ordinance a. Section V-B-1 - Requirements for Inclusion ire a Voluntary Agricultural District The item was chaired by Commissioner Carey and presented by Marvin Collins; In summary this item was presented in order to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Voluntary Farmland Preservation. Program ordinance. When the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance was enacted in March 1992 , the minimum size of an agricultural district was set at: 1. At least 155 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or 29 At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 155 acres. On September 22 , 1992 , the ordinance was amended to reduce the minimum size of 2 r I an agricultural district to 30 acres. After discussion by the Agricultural Districts Board, it was decided that an amendment to correct "holes" in agricultural districts to "square up" district boundaries was needede It was determined that an ordinance amendment was necessary for small lots and tracts to be included as part of a voluntary agricultural districts THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COUNTS FRS THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOA; THE PHbLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN ANT* MR9 PEAR ON TEWART$ a member of the Agricultural District Advisory Boardo indicated that he and the members of this board recommend approval of this ordinance amendment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, A mot"ion was made by Commissioner W i l 1 ho i t, seconded by Chair Carey, to adopt the amendment as recommended. VOTE: AYES (3) NAYS (1) Commissioner Cordon voted against this motion as a matter of principal. She stated that she favors this amendment, however, she supports a Board policy prohibiting voting on ordinance amendments at the f i rst meeting they are presented Items C39 C3, and C4 were Chaired by Planning Board Vice-Chair Betty E i denier and presented by Marvin Collins with summary comments by Ted Abernathy. 2. Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendments - a. CP-1-93 Economic Development Activity Node hand Use Flan Category 3. Zoning Atlas (Map) Amendments a. Z-1-93 Economie Development Districts 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Article 4. 2. 19 - District Statement of intent/ Application Criteria. (Economic Development District b, Article 4. 3 - Permitted Use Table c* Article 5. 1 . - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements/Schedule for Non-Residential Development d. Article 6. 29 - Development Standards for Economic Development Districts e. Article 7. 20 - PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District f. Article 2 - Definitions (Economic Development Activity Node) These proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (text and map) and Zoning Ordinance (text and atlas) are necessary in order to establish "economic development districts" at targeted locations in Orange County. The proposals are based on a. four-year of fort involving the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission, and are not related to any pending development proposals. In December, 1982, the Orange County Economic Development Commission (EDC) was established and charged with carrying out an economic development program for all portions of the County and its constituent municipalities. The Commission' s purpose is to increase economic development through clear, effective strategies and policies which stimulate balanced development at appropriate rates in ■ y 1 3 suitable locations. The EDC prepared a Strategic Plan for orange County's Economic Development. That plan included 12 challenges, with challenge #1 being the identification of recruitment targets and. appropriate county areas for location of economic development. As one of its FY 1990-91 goals, the Board of Commissioners asked that specific parcels be identified for pre-zoning for economic development purposes in a. manner consistent with the orange County Land Use Plan. In December, 1990, the EDC Target Advisory Group completed a report identifying preferred locations and types of businesses for orange County. Consistent with the recommendations of the Target Advisory Group, four areas were identified by the Planning Hoard/EDC Work Group as focal points for its efforts. They included, 1. The northeast quadrant of the I-85/Buckhorn Road Interchange; 2. The I--40/01d NC 86 Interchange; 3,, The I-85/US Highway 70 Interchange including NC 10 and NC 751 ; and 4. The NC Highway 54-West area near White Cross and Morrow Mill Head* All of the work completed by the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission Work Group led to the formulation of a more definitive goal; i.e. , to develop an "economic development district" proposal with acceptable performance standards and streamlined approval procedures. This goal was adopted by the Board of Commissioners for FY 1992-9 . A second proposal involved the actual application of the category through changes to the Land Use Plan (Map) , including Township Plans. Finally, changes to the Land Use Element-Zoning District Matrix and applicable goals and policies are proposed to insure consistency between the Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance* TED ABERNATHY, Director of Economic Development, indicated that this proposal is intended to set higher standards. Population 'is increasing and many citizens desire concentrated growth rather than having it spread out over the entire county. Also, there are those who feel that living close to their place of employment is important to the quality of their life. He mentioned that there have been at least 10 newspaper articles over the last several years informing residents of how this plan was progressing. There has been a great deal of input from citizens, both individually and as a part of groups to which they belong. VICE-CHAIR EIDEHIER repeated that the proposal includes the creation of four economic development districts* If a developer meets the standards and conditions set for these districts they could begin their project without a public hearing and the long process that entails. If the design standards were not in compliance they would need to request a. special Use Permit which would require a, public hearing, She also indicated that the lack of courtesy expressed in past public hearings has kept citizens with minority viewpoints from feeling free to speak. She requested that there be no applauding or other disruptive noises. THE FSLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FWK BOARD of COMMISSIONERS AND/OR TAE PLANNING BOARD. COMMISSIONER GORDON assured the citizens that county staff and the members of the Hoard. of County Commissioners were committed to listening with an open mind. There are no foregone conclusions. RALPH WARREN, a resident of Bingham Township, stated that he is firmly in de 7. F 1 favor of planned economic growth for the county. His property is located within the boundaries of one of the proposed districts. He is concerned that there is a perceived rush to complete this project. He addressed specific problems which he has identified. The eastern boundary of the district is Collins Creek* His property is now a. buffer for this creek. This circumstance is not supported by the plan. He believes that conflicts of this type need to be reconciled. There is a recorded restrictive covenant on his property which precludes any commercial use. Lastly, he reminded. the Commissioners that the Bingham Township residents have been confronted With the Southwest By-Pass, Airport Industrial Park, consolidated sludge dumping, greenways and landfill siting. All of these uses are inconsistent with quality rural and residential life. He urged, that while planning for growth that the types of development that this community has rejected in the past be taken into consideration. ROBIN SNYDER, a Whispering Pines/Eno Township resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning in her area. Her primary concerns are safety and a citizen' s right to maintain a certain type of neighborhood. she mentioned if certain types of undesirable businesses were allowed property values would be affected. Also, new construction could cause additional water and sewer problems. WILLIAM HICKS, a resident of Bingham Township, indicated that he delivered a petition to the Commissioners office which had been signed by 80Z (86 owners) of his neighbors. This petition opposes rezoning this property. BECKY HOWELL, a resident of Whispering Pines spoke against this rezoning. CHUCK SNYDER, a Whispering Pines resident, spoke in opposition to this rezoning. He commented that Old NC 10 is the main artery into his residential area. The land adjacent to NC 10 is in the rezoning plan. For that reason he is opposed to this plan. WELDON RICOSBEE, a White Cross resident, indicated that he vans approximately one-third of the two hundred acres proposed to be Included in this economic development area and strongly favors the establishment of these districts. He stated that newer Orange County residents are attempting to decide how long-term residents will be allowed to use their land. He asked that the Board understand the issues involved for the land owner. MARTY BUTTS, of Oak Hollow Road, spoke in opposition to this rezoning. He believes that there has been a lack of citizen input into location, standards, design and permitted uses in the proposed districts. He also mentioned that more time needs to be made available to respond to this proposal. Laastly, he asked that higher standards to protect the neighboring land be implemented. He suggested rewording the proposal so that "should or may" would read "will or must" JOYCE McOUIRE, a Collins Creek residents local school teacher and environmental educator, stated that most of the wells in southern Orange County are heavily contaminated. Continued economic development in this area will prove to be hazardous to those wells. She also mentioned that the roads in the White Cross area are already hazardous and increased traf f is resulting from additional development will greatly compound this problem. DAVID HENRY, a resident of Charles Lane, spoke in opposition to this r proposal. He mentioned that he was raised in a rural area that became residential and then commercial. Change was not properly planned and the community was destroyed. He believes that commercial development needs to be established throughout the community. PATRICK CLAYTON, a Hingham Township resident f spoke in support of this plan. He indicated that he owned the land on which the. 1-40 and Hwy 86 Interchange was built. Until that development he assumed he would use the land for residential development. Prior to I-40 cutting through his land the taxes were $700 per year-, now they are $7000 per year* He has paid $40,000 in taxes over the last 6 years. He feels that commercial development is the only option for this land. He requested that the area be zoned commercial so that it could be developed. LINDSEY EFLAND, an Orange County resident and member of the Economic Development Commission, indicated that this hearing is the end of a long process. The executive committee which developed the strategic plan consisted of thirty- four members who represented the entire community. Citizen input and participation were solicited at every ,puncture. The plan that was developed included a mission statement to which the Economic Development Commission is reacting. "Geographic Focus" Item 1 included developing a geographically targeted economic development plan to address the economic development needs of the three areas of Orange County - southern Orange/Interstate Corridor/Northern Orange. A "Target Advisory Committee" was created. They met for 2 years, pleading the entire time for citizen input. This plan envisions a campus area buffered from the neighboring areas. The White Cross area needs a lot of study before a final decision is made. VICKY BERRY) a resident of the old NC86 and I-40 area, requested that this area be reconsidered before rezoning is finalized. She spoke in opposition to the rezoning. PHYLLIS HOFFMAN spoke in opposition to the rezoning of the white Cross area. She requested that if rezoning is granted that many of the permitted uses be deleted. She also commented that rezoning is not in the best interest of the water supply. RACHEL CLAYTON, an Eno Township resident, spoke in opposition to rezoning. Her home borders on a proposed district and she does not want economic development adjacent to her home. GUI DO DeMAERE� a member of the Economic Development Commission and an Orange County citizen, spoke in support of this proposal. Over the gears hundreds of people have had input into this process. He stated that he believes that this community needs economic development. The question that needs to be answered is will it be forced upon the citizens or will it be done in an orderly fashion. DEON LETEGAN, of stage Coach Road, indicated that he strongly supports a 200 foot buffer zone if commercial development is going to be placed near residential areas. He also supports tightening the guidelines and soliciting more input from residents. He feels that high standards need to be in place in order to attract companies with quality standards. RICHARD HOWERTON, a Whispering Hines resident$ indicated that his property will be surrounded by commercial development if this plan is approved. He is 4 1 6 r strongly against being completely surrounded by this type of development. His neighborhood needs to be protected by the Hoard of county Commissioners. The lots in his area are just under one acre. if it is true that they would not be allowed to rebuild after a fire unless they had at least one acre, that needs to be addressed before the fact, not after. DWIGHT NICHOLS, an east orange County/Highway 70 resident, indicated that he totally supports Ibis plan RICHARD MORRISON, a Collins Creek area resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. He visited most of his neighbors and discussed this proposal with them and they all were opposed to the proposal. LYNNE CHYTILO, a white Cross resident, questioned who this economic development would benefit -- the community or the developers? She indicated strong opposition to this plan and asked that the county continue to require a ` Special Use Permit for each development. CRAIG HOXIE, a whispering Pines resident, spoke in opposition to economic development in or near his neighborhood. He feels that the issue of safety is extremely critical to the well-being of his community. He also mentioned that he believed that Durham would be tempted to annex any commercial development that is close to its border. RAY GREEN, a resident of the West Brook subdivision, spoke in opposition to this development proposal. He indicted concern for urban storm water runoff, erosion and other pollution that might originate on that site. He would prefer that the zoning remain the same as it was when he purchased this property. He expressed sympathy with the overall goals of this proposal. He understands the need for gobs and commercial development, however, he perceives problems with the current proposal. The buffers need to be at least loo feet, however, this is inadequate for many of the permitted uses. The present proposal would permit utilities and access roads in the buffer stripe He stated that in order for buffer strips to be effective the land must be undisturbed. He also requested that the requirement for a buffer not be waived for any reason TED BRYANT, I-40/01d NC 86 property owner, plans to build on that property in the future. He read a letter into the record in which he requested that his properties, (Tax Map Plots 7. 20024, 7* . . 29E & 7. 2. . 29F) , excluding that which is in the Rural Buffer, be included in the Comprehensive Plan (cP-1-93) under the proposed rezoning economic development district as soon as practical, This letter, with attached map, is located in the permanent agenda file. CYNTHIA ELLIOTT, a. resident of Collins Creek Road, spoke in opposition to this proposal. Highway 54 is becoming increasingly more dangerous each year and commercial development will only compound this danger; A letter from Ruth and Bruce Carney who also reside in this area was read expressing their opposition to this proposal. CYNTHIA MAEY, a white Cross resident, hopes that this area will remain residential and is opposed to this plan. VIRGINIA LESLIE, a Collins Creek resident, spoke in opposition to this plan; She stated that air and water quality could be adversely affected by commercial i 7 r development. Commercial ventures would have difficulty obtaining grater. She mentioned that she had not received official notice of this hearing. WILLIAM FARLEY spoke on behalf of Madeline Curl , a property owner in this area. Me. Curl is strongly in support of the creation of the Economic Development District on her property on Morrow Mill Road and Hwy 54 on the East and South side. He felt that it was noteworthy that the neighbor to the East is the fourth largest employer in orange County and the neighbor to the crest is a filling station and to the North is the vacated Crawford Country Store. There are a number of small developments around this particular crossroad* Ms. Curl has faced obstacles to the development of this lanai in the past and for that reason is especially supportive of a planned district for commercial development. A copy of a letter supporting this proposal from Ms; Curl is located in the permanent agenda file. CALLIE WANNER, a Stony Creek resident, indicated that although she does not live adjacent to any of the proposed economic development districts she is concerned about how this 'is going to impact the quality of life in orange County. She believes that preparing complete impact studies is critical to good planning* The infra-structure needs to be addressed before, not after, these districts are created. She also commented that having commercial development located in only one area of the County would likely cause "sprawl" in the community, CHERIE RoSEMOND, a resident of old NC 10, indicated that although she does not live near one of the current nodes she would favor this kind of development only if it protects the current residents. She believes that grater and sewer needs have not been adequately addressed in this proposal. She requested that the white cross area be deleted as it is distinctly different from the other three proposed sites in that the residents have chosen to live there primarily because of the rural character* A copy of her comments in their entirety is located in the permanent agenda file. BOB HADDAD, a resident of orange County, spoke in opposition to any economic development at the 1-40 and Old NC 86 intersection. MARTHA LoRANTOZ lives off of New Hope Church Road and is against the I- 40/Hwy 86 rezoning. She believes that this type of development will make a difficult traffic situation worse* She asked that commercial development not be allowed in this area.. PATRICK MULKEY, Chairman of the Bingham Township Advisory Council, stated that he does not own land in or adjacent to any of the proposed districts. He feels that the way this has been presented has not fostered support from the community. He believes that the proposed white Gross district should be trimmed in size, the buffers enlarged to 260 feet and the permitted use table revised so that DoT will not be encouraged to widen Hwy 54. After the revisions are made, the Planning Department and the Economic Development Commission geed to schedule meetings with the Township Advisory Councils and the local residents in order to receive comment. He also asked that the wrong message not be sent to the people who want to move Horace Williams Airport. These proposed districts are not windows of opportunity for a relocation of the airport. DAN EDDLEMAN of Bingham Township and a past member of the orange County Planning Board, asked that these proposals be revised and returned to the local 8 Township Advisory Councils* The local citizens are committed to maintaining the rural character, agriculture and natural environment of this community. This is an important element of the current Bingham Township Land Use Plan. There is a real possibility that the two proposed districts located near each other could grow together. This is in conflict with the desire of the residents to maintain a rural community. He suggested allowing neighborhood and community uses in that area that would allow some expansion; however, he is opposed to having 400 acres of expansion. He reminded the Board that several years ago a position was taken against the expansion of Highway 54. This type of development might very well require the eventual expansion of this highway. Separate permitted use tables for the transition area and the rural area need to be developed. A copy of his comments in their entirety is located in the permanent agenda file. LEE RAFALOW indicated that he is not immediately in or adjacent to any of the proposed districts. He is opposed to a process being put into place which does not permit citizens to have input into the process. Although many people voice support for economic development, they oppose that same development if it is located in their neighborhood.+ This needs to be taken into the equation when planning for commercial growth. He supports special use permits for any development that is not already in keeping with the character of a neighborhood. PAUL MchAIN, a resident of the Collins Creek Subdivision, indicated that he is opposed to this proposal. VERNON DAVIS, a White Cross resident, urged the Board of commissioners to reject this proposal. He indicated that he supports economic development but this plan does not fit in the White Cross community. ERIC DUMAIN recently became a land owner in the White cross area and is against this rezoning proposal. ROBERT GREEN, a resident of the White Cross area, spoke in opposition to this plan. He commenter) that although economic development is necessary, it is not appropriate for the Highway 54 corridor. As a member of the Rescue Squad he has responded to four serious traffic accidents in recent months and that would surely increase if the area was further developed.. In response to a question from Commissioner Insko, Mr. Abernathy indicated that the property owners south of Hwy 10 petitioned at a Township Advisory Council meeting to be excluded from this plan. MARGARET BROWN, a resident of orange County, indicated that the economic development districts strategies is an interesting plan* She questioned the underlying assumptions. The goals need to be more clearly stated. The infrastructure needs to be in place before the commercial development is planned. MARY AVERS spoke as a representative of property owners Robert Ayers and Harold Harris. She indicated that they very strongly support this economic development proposal. orange County' s tax base desperately needs additional commercial development. As a local surveyor, she mentioned that the Special Use Permit is an expensive, time consuming gamble that many developers choose not to pursue. Lastly, she mentioned that as a land owner in this county she has been aware of this study process for at least a year. DOLLY HUNTER, a member of the Rural Character Study Committee, spoke in support of this proposal* These districts can become the key to preservation of the farmlands They have the potential to broaden the tax base which would give tax relief to the farmers* The extension of water and sewer into these districts will make it possible for greater residential development in that area. Lastly, economic development districts would make it possible to have voluntary transfer of development rights. That would preserve farmland for its agricultural uses. BARBARA ROBERTSON of N 10 asked how many jobs are proposed over the long term as a result of the development of these four areas. Mr. Abernathy indicated that an increase of 30,000 jobs would be realized if these districts are fully developed over the next 45 years. A copy of her comments in their entirety is located in the permanent agenda. file. MARK MARCOPLOS stated that people have a sense of uncertainty about this proposal. He suggested that these large changes may not be in the best interest of this community. He suggested that a small experimental economic development district be developed in an area where the residents are willing to have this rezoning. After several years, the County could review the results and see if the residents would like to add more districts. BRUCE BULEY, a new resident in this community, spore in opposition to the establishment of these districts. He suggested that Special Use Permits be used to determine all commercial development. EDWARD MANN, a white Cross president, spore in opposition to this plan. He felt that the land owners, not County Governments needs to determine the character of the community. MARTIN BROWN delivered a letter to the Board of Commissioners office. He indicated that he supports the concepts of economic development districts, however, he has concerns regarding the type of businesses which would be permitted. He also indicated that several residential lots which are currently part of Section 3 Stagecoach Run have been included in the proposed district. He included a map which reflects his understanding of the boundaries of the subdivision. He asked that the zoning of property around Stagecoach Run subdivision not be changed. CAROLE AND LEE ZINN delivered a letter to the Board of Com®lssioners office. They indicated that the buffer requirement is inadequate and that the schedule is too tight. They also expressed other general concerns regarding the establishment of these districts. Letters in opposition to this development were received from the fallowing citizens: Mary Allman and Sherman Tate, Mark Botts, Amanda Briggs, Jane Brown, Bruce and Ruth Carney, Robert Luebke and Barbara Bunker, Cynthia Elliott, Peter Pickens, Dr* Alice Kuzniar, Elizabeth Foreman, Phyllis Hoffman, Cynthia, D. Massey, Richard Morrison, Victor Recondo, John and Deborah Santucci , and Janice Wereszczak. Two petitions were received opposing this proposal. These petitions included a total of 166 names 10 ■ r Letters of support were received from the following citizens, representing themselves and/or the indicated businesses,-, Ann Moss Joyner, Gregg Sandreuter,, Owner/Manager Timberlyne Shopping Center, Jon Richardson, A-OK Home Services, June Haas with a. 13 signature petition of support attached. In response to a. question from chairman Carey, Mr. Collins suggested that this be referred to the Planning hoard and the Economic Development commission as well as the Work Group. If they come back with a recommendation, it will probably be related to the May Public Hearing. The Public Hearing notice and the proposal would be considered at the first board meeting in lay. Chairman Willhoit commented that adding Bingham Township to this proposal is creating a problem in that they have always been very protective about their environment. They do not want urban growth* A motion was made by Commissioner Wi l lho i t to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board/Economic Development Commission work Group, the Planning Board, and the Economic Development Commission for recommendations to be returned to the Board. of Commissioners no sooner than April 20, 1993. However, he suggested that they set priorities and possibly single out the Buckhorn Road node to work through the process. This motion was withdrawn. Commissioner Insko suggested increasing citizen input at this point of the planning. Commissioner Gordon requested that the cost/benefit analysis be completed also. In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Collins indicated, that the Commissioners were not required to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board at this time. However, several groups have been working on this proposal and it seems that they should be given an opportunity to resolve some of the issues. They would also like to be fully informed as to the suggestions and comments of the Board of Commissioners before beginning the process again. A motion was made by Commissioner Wi llho it, seconded by commissioner Gordon, to schedule a Board of Commissioners Work Session and invite the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission to participate. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments a. Section IV-B-3-d-1 - Private Road Justification Criteria This item was chaired. by Planning Board Vice-chair Betty Eid.enier and presented by Mary Willis. In summary, this amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance was presented to receive citizen comment on an amendment to provide for the approval of private roads in situations which may not have been antic ipa,ted when the current standards were developed, but for which private road access is deemed appropriate. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CONKgNTS OR QUESTIONS F!M THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND/OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon questioned the criteria which rewires that the subdivision be at least 90% developed and therefore little or no change to the existing use of the property would. occur. Ms. Willis indicated that they had begun with a criteria of 75% developed but determined that in an extremely large r t development problems could arise. Commissioner Gordon suggested "stepping" these percentages in some way. She suggested that more review and consideration be given to the issues addressed on page 174 #6 of the agenda,. She also mentioned that the percentages of 9 and 1 were both usedf This needs to be corrected. A motion was made by Commissioner Wi l lho i t, seconded by Commissioner I nsko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a. recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April loth, VOTE: UNANIMOUS A OUIRMU M There being no further items to consider, the meeting was adjourned, The next regular meeting of the Board of Commiss�.oners will be held on March 8, 1993 in Bingham Township at the white Cross School at 7: 30 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk