Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20060522APPROVED 8/22/2006 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING May 22, 2006 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Alice M. Gordon COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Brian Dobyns, Craufurd Goodwin, Michelle Kempinski, Sam Lasris, Renee Price-Saunders, Sandra Johnson-Quinn, Judith Wegner and Jeffrey Schmitt PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bernadette Pelissier and Joel McKnight NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Jacobs reported that Commissioner Carey could not attend because he was called out of town unexpectedly. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Director Craig Benedict said that there are four items tonight and there will be PowerPoint presentations for each of these items on the agenda. 1. Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Craig Benedict said that there were several task force members in attendance and he recognized them. There were over 12 meetings in 12 months and the members also assisted in community outreach and have done presentations. May 22, 2446 Quarterly Public Hearing Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan ^ Task Force created in December 2004 - Comprised of 12 citizens, primarily people who live in the planning area - Two City of Mebane representatives - BOCC representative (Commissioner Jacobs) ^ Task Force met throughout 2005 and early 2006 developing the draft plan. Considerations Task Force Charged to Address ^ Have the goals and objectives included in the 1991 Study been met? ^ Is the pattern for development set forth by the existing Land use Element Map relevant today? ^ Since 1991, have there been significant changes to community character and form? ^ What changes need to be made to the goals and objectives? ^ Is there demand for additional infrastructure in the study area? (Illlith particular consideration in respect to sewerage issues} ^ Da Transition Areas need to be expanded, contracted, ar moved? ^ Are locations for economic development appropriate? ^ What is the development potential of existing Transition Areas? ^ Which areas of the study area are most suitable far develapment? ^ Are there areas appropriate for higher density/intensity residential development? ^ What role may Mebane play in the future of the study area? Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan ^ Draft plan contains four (4) Sections and two (2) Appendices ^ "Current Major Issues and Solution Recommendations" section spans approximately 20 pages ^ A synopsis of the most significant Recommendations is contained in the Executive Summary at the beginning of the plan Recommendations have been made in the fallowing topic areas: ^ Water and Sewer ^ Land Use (including community character issues) ^ Transpartatian ^ Housing ^ Parks, Recreation and Open Space ^ Communications ^ Intergovernmental Issues ^ Other Recommendations "Other" Recommendations include: ~ Potential TDR (Transfer of Development Rights} Program ~ Emergency Shelters • Impact Fees • Historic Preservation • Incorporation • Plan Updates • Implementation Synopsis of Recommendations Water and Sewer ^ Develop a Master Water and Sewer Plan ^ OAWS water system engineering study ^ Infrastructure concurrent with development Land Use ^ Corridor overlay plan and zoning district far Highway 70 corridor ^ Mixed Use Development areas (with Design Guidelines) ^ Village Cluster design subdivisions ^ Planning Area is a designated area for growth Transportation ^ Realignment of the Efland-Cedar Grove RoadlForrest Avenue/Mt. Willing Road to Interstate 4Q-85 corridor ^ Connection from Highway 70 east to the existing 4-lane Interstate connector Housing ^ Preserve affordability through preservation of existing neighborhoods and encouragement of affordable housing policies with new growth ^ Designate the planning area as a possible TDR Receiving Area Economic Development (Office, Light Industrial, and Commercial} ^ Job creation and boasting the tax base are important while ensuring the non-residential development does not overpower the area with traffic or be permitted at an incompatible scale Parks and Recreation ^ Small neighborhood parks with playgrounds -Could also include a "Village Common" concept ^ Trail system along McGowan creek with tie-in to future Eno River greenway ^ Future expansion of community center at Efland-Cheeks Park IntergovernmentallCammunity Issues ^ Wark cooperatively with the City of Mebane to create and agree to a Joint Planning Understanding or Agreement to allow for orderly growth within Orange County ^ Hald an annual `open house' with community residents to discuss local issues Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Possible Adoption Timeline May 22, 2006 -Draft Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan on Quarterly Public Hearing Agenda June 7, 2006 -Planning Board to review and comment on draft plan at regular Planning Board meeting. June 27, 2006 -Regular BOCC meeting. Draft plan considered far adoption. Direct staff on timeframe and method to proceed. Possible Implementation Timeline Two Potential Options Water and sewer services are going to be available in the Buckhorn EDD area in Fall 2006. It may be desirable to update regulations in the Buckhorn EDD area and the Buckhorn CIN (recommended for a change in Land Use classification in the draft Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan) prior to these public services being available. Other recommendations such as design standards in the Efland Village area may be more time- consuming. Option 1 ^ Request for Legal Advertisement for August 28, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing (6127106) - {Land Use Map/Text,~ Zoning Ordinance Map, Text, Permitted Use Talales) ^ Staff to prepare amendments ^ Notices of proposed land use and zoning changes mailed to property owners by 8/11!06 ^ August 28, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing ^ Adoption consideration after Planning Board Recommendation (minimum 6-$ weeks} Option 2 ^ Request for Legal Advertisement for November 20, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing (1112106) - {Land Use Map/Text; Zoning Ordinance Map, Text, Permitted Use Tables) ^ Staff to prepare amendments ^ Notices of proposed land use and zoning changes mailed to property owners by 1113106 ^ November 20, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing ^ Adoption consideration after Planning Board Recommendation {minimum 6-8 weeks} Craig Benedict reviewed the proposed map and pointed out that the area between US 70 and I-4011-85 has been designated as an overload area. There is discussion about realigning the road because at this time there are two 90-degree turns to get to the interstate. The recommendation is to hear from the public and refer it back to the Planning Board for its review of the overall plan and put it back on the agenda for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the plan on June 27tH Chair Jacobs thanked the members of the task force, who worked very hard for a long time. He noted that Ms. Phillips and Mr. Greene from the Mebane City Council attended regularly and they had an honest interest in working with this group. He thinks that this is a positive sign for future efforts with Mebane. Commissioner Gordon thanked the task farce members far all of their work. She said they need to go far option 2 to have mare input from the citizens. She said that June 27t" is very optimistic to adopt this plan. Bryan Dobyns said that the southeastern portion of the planning area is heavily impacted by the Seven Mile Creek Critical Watershed line. He said that there has been some talk of re- designating that if there is not going to be a reservoir. In addition, he said that in the land use element, the critical area lines, the zoning, and project area lines da not correspond. He would like to put some attention in addressing those inconsistencies. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, second by Commissioner Faushee to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon asked if this hearing could be held open for written comments and Craig Benedict said yes. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan to the Planning Board for consideration no saonei than June 7, 2006. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Craig Benedict said that on June 27t" the Board could determine which track to fallow far the adoption time frame. Commissioner Halkiotis endorsed Commissioner Cordon's comments to take a mare gradual amount of time and go with option 2. Chair Jacobs said that this will come to the June 27`" meeting but not advance to the public hearing in August. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C)ran~e County Comprehensive Plan Update Process The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC} has restarted the Land Use Element Update process except for the Commissioner approved principles and the assignment of other elements to specific departments and boards. Otherwise, the BOCC has placed the Planning Board in charge of developing a new process far BOCC consideration. The BOCC has also asked the Planning Board for their suggestions an an approach/process for updating the overall Comprehensive Plan. A brief update on the progress of the Planning Board will be provided. The Planning Board has set up a work group of the Planning Board that consists of six members as well as staff. They have met twice and they are developing a process for the Planning Board and then the Board of County Commissioners to review. He said that they sent a letter to the Chair regarding clarification of the charge. The Chair's response was presented to the Planning Board tonight. The next meeting is June 15t at 6:30 p.m. Tom Alteiri, Planning staff, made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that, up until recently, they have been working to address several different items as part of the Land Use Element Update process. The more significant items are the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, Agricultural Support Enterprises, and NC 57/Speedway Area. With the new direction of the comprehensive plan, it may be some time before they are able to implement these projects if they are part of the land use element update. He said that staff wanted to see if there may be County Commissioner support to pursue certain projects independent of the land use element update. Regarding the Speedway area, he said that at the November Quarterly Public Hearing last year on the draft land use element, there were some people that spoke about this area and were in general support of the preparation of a small area plan there and voiced a desire to amend the land use element text and the map and the zoning text and the map. The Planning Department and the Economic Development Commission have worked together to prepare a possible boundary area for the study, but he will refer to the area in a general fashion tonight. In general, the area is located in the extreme northeastern part of the County along NC 57. In the vicinity of the speedway, there is a go-cart raceway, an asphalt plant, and scattered low-density residential housing. Just over the County line in Durham Caunty, there is a quarry associated with the asphalt plant. He said that the existing land use element and zoning maps both classify the speedway area as agricultural-residential. The speedway, go-cart raceway, and asphalt plant are not permitted uses within the AR district, but are non-conforming uses. They only exist because they predated the zoning of the Little River Township in 1994, and were grandfathered in. He showed a chart with the connection between the special projects mentioned above and ordinance amendments. Both the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and the NC 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan, if pursued, would both require land use element text and map as well as zoning text and map amendments. The Agricultural Support Enterprises project would require only text amendments to the land use element and zoning ordinance. He said that staff has the direction already for the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. He thinks that the Agricultural Support Enterprises project can be addressed as part of the next item on the agenda. Staff is asking the Board for authorization far Planning to work with the Economic Development Commission staff to develop a draft process to complete a small area plan for the Board's consideration. Tom Altieri said that the Caunty has already begun the process of preparing a small area plan for the Durham Economic Development District and there is a meeting on this plan tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. at the Government Services Center. Craig Benedict said that a fourth item that could be on this map as far as special projects is the Durham area EDD. This process was started at the end of last year. They have been meeting with community residents and have been looking at the permitted uses in the area. Chair Jacobs spoke in favor of the NC 57 Speedway area small area plan. He said that they started an effort to re-look at the non-conforming uses in the rural activity nodes. In the process of that, the small group from the EDC started looking at the speedway area. There is a lot of interest by property owners. He thinks that it would be important to let Durham know what they are doing with this because this area is in a Durham watershed. Chair Jacobs spoke in favor of the Durham County EDD and making sure that the Board of County Commissioners endorses this effort. He thinks it is important to have the Board endorse the effort. Durham should be involved in this also. Commissioner Halkiotis asked Craig Benedict if that was the last remaining asphalt plant in Orange Caunty and Craig Benedict said yes. Commissioner Foushee agreed with Chair Jacobs about the speedway area plan and the Durham EDD. Renee Price said that in previous meetings there have been people complaining of noises and she asked if these small area plans have something to address this. Jay Bryan asked why this was called the Durham EDD and not Orange-Durham and Craig Benedict said that it could be Orange-Durham, but it is called Durham because Durham will probably be the utility source for this area. Also, part of the urban growth area for the City of Durham comes into this area. Commissioner Gordon agreed that it should be called Orange CountylDurham EDD. PUBLIC COMMENT: Alan Rosen spoke on behalf of The Village Project. He said that last week he attended the Planning Board subcommittee meeting on the comprehensive planning process, and it seems clear that they have taken their charge seriously. So far, it seems that The Village Project will be supportive of the recommendations. He said that the main reason he is here is to offer comment before the budget process. He thinks that it is important to make an investment in the comprehensive planning process to get it caught up with the small area planning processes. Representatives of The Village Project believe that the Board of County Commissioners need to address staffing needs for the land use element update and the comprehensive plan. They believe that hiring outside consultants is a justified expense that should yield substantial benefits. He said that in some of their investigations in the process, they discovered there was a project that began in 2000 that is now the McGowan Creek development in Efland. This plan started out as a 220-unit plan on 244 acres with 60% open space and ended up being only 17 units with 10+-acre lots. He said that this is a poor outcome for a piece of property this well located. He said that they would encourage the County Commissioners' consideration in investing the resources to bring the comprehensive plan update into the existing uses instead of dealing with so many non-conforming uses. 2. Update an Rural Enterprises Project iAgricultural Support Enterprises) Planning and Economic Development staff will propose draft text amendments to allow far changes to the Orange County Zoning Atlas through a new conditional district rezoning process. This new mechanism would be used to rezone properties for agriculturally related businesses as an extension of the existing Agricultural Services floating zoning district. Staff will respond to questions and requests direction from the Board on how to proceed. Economic Development Director Dianne Reid said that a farmer staff member reminded her that the Orange-Durham EDD was previously known as the Eno EDD. Dianne Reid said that the Agricultural Support Enterprises Initiative was designed to offer farmers supplemental revenue options with agricultural products and services related to farming, and also to allow uses to occur in rural areas. Specifically, this was designed to provide real additional opportunities for local farmers and to provide a clear process -one that is user-friendly and streamlined. She made a PowerPoint presentation. With this project, applicants could decide on a general rezoning or a conditional district rezoning. It would be a legislative decision -the Board would consider zoning and the staff would review the site plan. Craig Benedict said that if someone asked far an AS designation, they would not have to show any plan to the County Commissioners on what exactly they are proposing; it could be any of the uses an the list. He made reference to the Proposed Use Categories and Permitting Requirements Based on Intensity chart and said that the staff came up with the new planning construct called a General or Conditional District. General would be the full list of uses and the conditional district would be a more specific use. This process should be able to go a lot faster than the present one. Tina Moon said that with conditional district rezoning, approval only allows 1-3 uses, so the staff is suggesting a less rigorous approval process. They are recommending a new step for agricultural service districts where projects would be submitted to the Planning Board, the Economic Development Commission, and the Agricultural Preservation Board. At that point, the materials would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners either at a quarterly public hearing or at a regular meeting (conditional district}. She said that this proposal could cut the process almost in half. There will be a lot of amendments if this proposal is implemented. Tina Moon continued with the PowerPaint. The recommendation is for the creation of a new Article 20A called Amendments to Rezone for Agricultural Service Districts (page 11 of the agenda packet): - Serves as companion to existing Article 20, Amendments - Outlines two parallel tracks: general rezoning for AS and conditional district rezoning for AS-CD - General AS applications considered only at quarterly public hearings - Conditianal District AS applications considered at any BOCC regular meeting - so long as public notice requirements can be met - All applications go to the Planning Board, Agricultural Preservation Board and Economic Development Commission for input prior to BOCC consideration All Agricultural Service Conditional District (AS-CD} applications will include a Site Specific Development Proposal - a simplified version of our existing site plan focusing an those items the Board will need to determine the compatibility of use with the surrounding community -size, scale, buildings, trips, hours, screening, soil suitability, road capacity, etc. Conditional District Zoning appears to be the most appropriate mechanism to allow commerciallindustrial farm uses in the rural parts of the County without disrupting the existing residential zoning designations, and provide a more streamlined alternative to our existing general rezoning process. Planning staff requests authorization from the Board to further the Agricultural Support Enterprises initiative by providing: Direction on the draft zoning text amendments, particularly the proposed Article 20A; Authorization to develop minor revisions to the Land Use Element, only where required to establish support and/ar consistency; and Permission to continue the preparation of the remaining zoning text amendments to complete the project far consideration at the quarterly public hearing in November 2006. Commissioner Gordon said that for these kinds of intents and uses, it is quite a variation from the County's normal process. She said that they generally have a hearing and then refer it to the Planning Board and have nat made decisions an the same night as the hearing. She said that this proposal is a major change and they should think about these changes. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the rural buffer zoning district and said that it is time to take the rural buffer zoning district out of this process. Orange County already has an agreement with Chapel Hill and Carrboro about the rural buffer. There is a lot of concern about preservation in the rural buffer and this includes that the uses in the rural buffer would not be changed. She cautioned against a unilateral approach with the joint planning partners. She thinks that this is the time to go to Chapel Hill and Carrboro and tell them that Orange County is thinking about this approach for new uses in the rural buffer and get some feedback. Chair Jacobs said that he thinks he agrees with Commissioner Gordon regarding the intensive uses not being a conditional use permit. He thinks that these are of sufficient impact on a neighborhood that it ought to go through the same deliberative process that includes the Planning Board. He said that large-scale rural ventures could proceed on a conditional use basis. He would hesitate to do an accelerated approval process for something that tends toward an industrial use. Chair Jacobs said that he thinks that they should try and get this to the public hearing in November. There is an Assembly of Governments meeting in September and they can inform partners in the joint planning agreement that they are taking this matter to public hearing in November and invite comment from the partners. He would be interested in knowing what the Planning Board thinks. He added that when the Joint Planning Agreement was adopted, they promised the people who lived in the rural buffer that they would revisit some of the restrictions that are placed on property owners there. He thinks that this is a responsible way to consider how people in agricultural operations might consider remaining economically viable in helping to maintain the character of the rural buffer. Commissioner Gordan said that she would like to let the partners know now and not wait until September. She said that she feels very strongly about this. She wants this to be forwarded formally to Chapel Hill and Carrboro now. Chair Jacobs and Commissioner Halkiotis agreed with this. Craig Benedict said that he was never suggesting to not taking it to them and he said that they would forward this to Chapel Hill and Carrboro as soon as possible. Renee Price asked what uses would be introduced that are not already covered. She asked why a rezoning was proposed instead of just a redefining of some areas. Craig Benedict said that they have come up with some new categories in their permitted use table. There is also different intensity categorization. He said that this could be independent of the land use element update. Renee Price asked more clarifying questions and Craig Benedict said that he would meet with her individually because of the complexity of the questions. Judith Wegner said that this is a great approach and she thinks that it is very responsive to keep agriculture alive here. She said that it is advisable to take this to planning partners and she suggested having the Planning Board highlight any other topics that could be communicated. Michelle Kempinski asked for a larger version of the timeline. Chair Jacobs said that this came up several years ago when someone wanted to put a sawmill in near NC 10. He suggested that, as part of this process that they look at bumping some of the things out that they know that people object to. There are some logical things that should not be permitted in neighborhoods. Chair Jacobs said that when they da forward this to Chapel Hill and Carrboro, he would suggest making changes that he and Commissioner Gordon recommended about going back to the way things are done now in terms of the approval process so that it is clear that they are not opening the floodgates without sufficient public comment and Planning Board and elected board purview. Craig Benedict said that they would make modifications consistent with the discussion and accent those general principles so that they know that it is still in the discussion stage. Commissioner Foushee agreed with Chair Jacobs and she would like to ensure that the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board get documentation before it goes out to the partners as a courtesy. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested taking grinding operations off of the list because of the controversy. Geof Gledhill said that a process could be developed for all of the single purpose districts with the flexibility of the County Commissioners to create the process. Commissioner Gordon said that it is very important to have a process that is predictable. She said that when you short-circuit this it is not good for the public. The Board agreed with Commissioner Gordon. Jay Bryan asked if the public still has the right to petition against the rezoning and Geof Gledhill said that this process does not apply to counties but only to cities. John Link made reference to page 20A-11 and the Statement of Intent and said that this would be very hard to explain to a farmer. He said that this is not a very effective tool. The goal is to help farmers. He suggested that this be rewritten. 3. Update on Transfer of Development Rights {TDR) Feasibility Study The BOCC will review the issues and concerns raised during the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Feasibility Study and consider the TDR Task Force recommendations on whether to proceed with the completion of the study. Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. Orange County Transfer of Development Rights {TDR} Program ^ Decisions are still in draft form. ^ No Task Farce recommendations yet. ^ Sending Area aspects of the program are strictly voluntary. ^ Consultant and Planning Staff Work Product / Phase I (Background Research and Data Gathering) Done / Phase II {Generate and Review TDR Options -Feasibility Study and Concept Plan) Nearly complete / Phase III (Program Design and Ordinance Development) To be determined Task Force meetings were in August 2005, November 2005, January 2006, February 2006, and April 2006. ^ First Public Meeting -May 9, 2006 ^ Advisory Boards and Commissions invited include the following: - Planning Board, - Commission for the Environment, - Affordable Housing Advisory Board, - Economic Development Commission, - Agricultural Preservation Board, - Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Task Force, and the - Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Steering Committee. TDR Program Major Decision Paints ^ TDR Program Participation Area. ^ TDR Transfer Roles. ^ TDR Credit/Ualue System, with Bonus Incentives. ^ Sending Area Prioritization and Participation System Options. ^ Administrative Process. TDR Program Participation Area - Transfers would only occur from lands within the Orange County planning jurisdiction to lands within the Orange County planning jurisdiction, and - At this time the TDR program does not include local municipalities, which may require local enabling legislation. Staff suggested this should happen later. TDR Transfer Roles: - Allows voluntary TDR transactions in an open market between willing sellers in the sending areas and willing buyers in the receiving areas - Follows the "paired properties" transaction system to purchase value from one or more sending area properties and transfer such value to a receiving area property. TDR CreditNalue System (Staff's Suggested Example) - Sending area purchase price based on appraised market value in dollars. The use of land market value as the exchange medium means: • Easy conversion to non-residential uses • Simplifies the private negotiations • No certificates or intangible property rights Bonus Incentives for Receiving Area Density Increases: - Development proposal - Affordable housing - Smart Growth principles - Energy efficient design - Historic properties Sending Area Prioritization and Participation System Options Either: 1. In all cases participation is voluntary 2. Entire rural area, outside of receiving areas 3. Limited area based on higher development pressures 4. Limited area based on higher environmental and farm preservation criteria. Receiving Areas, based on areas designated on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: - Transition areas - Rural Community Nodes - Economic Development Districts Administrative Process County Planning and amulti-departmental team staff review and approval of both the sending area conservation easement and receiving area plan Note: Planning Board, BOCC, and other advisory boards and commissions shall develop energy efficient design, smart growth principles, and affordable housing criteria Future Contractual Events - 6th Task Force meeting in May or June to discuss the economic feasibility model. - 2nd Public Meeting in June with BOCC. - BOCC to consider Phase 3 {TDR Program Design and Ordinance Development) advisability. - If advisable, then BOCC to budget funds for Phase III TDR consultant services. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he would like to see where this has been used in other parts of the country and Craig Benedict said that they could provide that. Judith Wegner said that she would like to see if this has been used in rural settings before, as does Commissioner Halkiotis. She said that if you have more sending areas than receiving areas, you might be making an artificial promise to the farmer. She said that this has to be very targeted and that there has to be something precious that is being preserved. She said that it should be brought to a simpler level to make it understandable to farmers. Brian Dobyns said that he has problems with the sending area and it may take parties up to two years to craft an easement. He said that there has to be a way to provide developers with a mechanism to participate in the existing program. Jay Bryan asked for any public comment. Brian Dobyns said that there are about 20 people on the list now that are interested in participating in the TDR program. E. ADJQURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chair Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board