HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-08-2015 1
I APPROVED 10/20/2015
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
5 September 8, 2015
6 7:00 P.M.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
9 Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on September 8, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building,
10 in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs,
13 Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
20 members Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, Paul Guthrie, Laura Nicholson, Andrea Rohrbacher,
21 Maxecine Mitchell, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, James Lea, Tony Blake
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman
23
24 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
25
26 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS
27 None
28
29 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
30 Chair Hallenbeck dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
31
32 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
33
34 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review an application requesting the rezoning of an
35 approximately nine acre parcel of property located at 4915 Hillsborough Road within the
36 Eno Township from Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE-1), Economic
37 Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection
38 Overlay District, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District to Economic
39 Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection
40 Overlay District, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
41
42 Patrick Mallet, Current Planning, presented the following PowerPoint slides:
43
44 BACKGROUND
45 PIN: 0803-30-5174
46 Size of Parcel: 9.87 (7.7 acres rezoned)
2
1 Future Land Use Element Map: Economic Development—Transition; Resource
2 Protection
3 Growth Management System Designation: Urban
4 Existing Conditions: The property is partially developed as the Jacobs Glass
5 Company.
6 Access: The property has direct access US70E/Hillsborough Rd.
7
8 REQUEST:
9 Property is split zoned EDE-1/EDE-2.
10 7.7 acre EDE-1 portion was originally part of Duke Forest, which was sold to applicant
11 as surplus property.
12 Applicant is seeking to EDE-2 zoning on the entire tract to allow for an expansion of its
13 glass assembly business.
14
15 FUTURE LAND USE MAP:
16
17 STAFF ASSESSMENT:
18 The application is complete.
19 The property is of sufficient size.
20 Rezoning consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Growth
21 Management System Map, and Eno Small Area Plan.
22 Eliminates split zoning on property.
23
24 RECOMMENDATION:
25 1. Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas.
26 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Board of County Commissioners
27 (BOCC), and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment.
28 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
29 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2015
30 BOCC regular meeting.
31 4. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
32 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
33
34 Maxecine Mitchell arrived at 7:1Op.m.
35
36 Chad Abbot, Summit Design and Engineering, said he is here representing Mr. Jacobs,
37 who has operated a glass company on the property since 1986. He said Mr. Jacobs has
38 needed to expand his business for about 10 to 15 years. He said Mr. Jacobs is willing to
39 contribute to the Economic Development District. He added that Mr. Jacobs does need to
40 expand his business and will need to move if he cannot expand on the current property. He
41 said Mr. Jacobs would like to remain on the current property.
3
1 Chad Abbott said as the land was originally part of Duke Forest, it is understandable that
2 it was designated as a Resource Protection Area. He added that Duke Forest has seen fit to
3 sell the land as it is separated from the rest of the forest by railroad tracks.
4 He said the application and all required materials have been submitted and the staff has
5 found them in compliance with the Future Land Use Map.
6 Commissioner Price asked if the zoning is granted will the property borders protect the
7 neighbors to the east as well as residential areas to the south of the railroad.
8 Patrick Mallet said the Railroad Right of Way (ROW) is 250 feet and a good portion of
9 this property is part of the Duke Forest property. He said there is a 100-foot buffer along the
10 County lines.
11 Chad Abbott said the buffer is not associated with the resource protection area. He said
12 that the whole Economic Development District is required to have a 100-foot buffer around it.
13 Commissioner Rich asked if it is common to have an EDD-1 and EDD-2 within the same
14 property and if there is any precedent
15 Michael Harvey said it is not uncommon and there other areas of split zoning in the
16 County.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if property owners are encouraged not to split the zoning.
18 Michael Harvey said the County works with property owners to try and find solutions.
19 Commissioner Rich asked if the Planning Board had any comments. She said she
20 would rather not be reactionary.
21 Michael Harvey said the County has been working for almost a year to reach out to
22 owners of split-zoned properties to work out the best solutions. He said a joint amendment to
23 the Zoning Atlas Map is moving forward. He said there are also properties that are split zoned
24 commercial and residential.
25
26 Public Comment:
27 NONE
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
30 approve:
31
32 1. Referring the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
33 to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2015 BOCC regular
34 meeting; and
35 2. Adjourning the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
36 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
41 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise the existing public hearing process
42 for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related items/amendments.
43
44 Perdita Holtz presented the following background and PowerPoint slides:
45 The purpose of this text amendment is to consider revisions to the current public hearing
46 process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas
47 amendments. County staff and elected officials received comments during development of the
4
1 Comprehensive Plan (2008) and Unified Development Ordinance (2011) about the perceived
2 need to streamline and speed up decisions on applications.
3 This topic was discussed extensively in 2014 after being heard at the September 2014
4 quarterly public hearing. The public hearing for the amendments, as proposed in 2014, was
5 closed in November 2014 when it became apparent that the proposal would change significantly
6 enough to require another public hearing. The topic was recently discussed at the May 12,
7 2015 BOCC work session.
8 The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC), a function of the Planning Board, reviewed draft
9 language in July and August 2015. At the time, internal staff/attorney review was ongoing and
10 the materials to be presented at public hearing have been modified from the versions the ORC
11 reviewed.
12 The following revisions are being proposed:
13 • Planning Board review/recommendation would occur prior to the public hearing for both
14 legislative and quasi-judicial (Class A Special Use Permit) items. (The existing process
15 is for Planning Board review/recommendation to occur after the public hearing).
16
17 • Notification of the Planning Board meeting would be mailed/posted for items requiring
18 such notice (e.g., map amendments or development projects) and the public would be
19 able to address the Planning Board at its meeting. The proposed process would allow
20 for public notification and involvement earlier than the existing process.
21
22 No longer require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a quarterly
23 public hearing. Planning Board members would still be expected to attend the hearing
24 but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order for the hearing to be held.
25 This revision would mean that the quarterly public hearings would no longer be
26 considered joint BOCC/Planning Board hearings since, without a quorum requirement,
27 the Planning Board could not be considered an official board in attendance.
28
29 Revise the Planning Board Policies and Procedures to require that the Planning Board
30 Chair, or Vice-Chair in the Chair's absence, attend the quarterly public hearings and also
31 the BOCC meetings at which a decision is scheduled for items on which the Planning
32 Board has made a recommendation.
33
34 Allow Comprehensive Plan amendments to be heard at any quarterly public hearing
35 (QPH). Existing language that states "principal" Comprehensive Plan amendments are
36 "generally" considered only once per year at the quarterly public hearing in February is
37 proposed for deletion (Section 2.3.7). Additionally, language that classifies
38 Comprehensive Plan amendments into "principal" and "secondary" amendments
39 (Section 2.3.4) is proposed for deletion because it is relevant only in conjunction with
40 Section 2.3.7.
41
42 Legal advertisement of quasi-judicial hearing items: the Attorney's office has suggested
43 that Special Use Permit applications (both Class A and Class B) no longer be included in
44 legal advertisements since the general public does not have standing to participate in
45 quasi-judicial hearings. Language modifications in Sections 2.7.6 and 2.12.6 reflect this
46 suggestion.
47
5
1 Closure of public hearings: Modifications in Section 2.3.11, 2.7.9, and 2.8.9 would mean
2 that the BOCC would close the public hearing the night of the hearing. At that time, the
3 BOCC could defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date; make a decision; or, as a
4 procedural right not included in the text of the UDO, send an application back to the
5 Planning Board for further review. If the BOCC chooses to defer a decision to a later
6 meeting date, legislative items could be listed on the future BOCC agenda as "Regular
7 Agenda" items and additional public comment could be accepted. The existing
8 requirement for only written comments after the quarterly public hearing is proposed for
9 deletion.
10
11 In order to meet legal sufficiency text of the UDO, send an application back to the
12 Planning Board for further review. If the BOCC chooses to defer a decision to a later
13 meeting date, legislative items could be listed on the future BOCC agenda as "Regular
14 Agenda" items and additional public comment could be accepted. The existing
15 requirement for only written comments after the quarterly public hearing, is proposed for
16 deletion.
17
18 The BOCC may wish to consider adding an additional heading to its agendas: Quasi-
19 Judicial Hearings, along with a note explaining that only persons with legal standing can
20 participate in quasi-judicial hearings. Quasi-judicial items deferred for decision to a later
21 meeting date or for which the hearing was continued in order to receive additional
22 evidence would be listed on the BOCC agenda under this new heading.
23
24 As has been discussed in the past, the bases for some of the proposed revisions are as
25 follows:
26 1. Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process.
27 2. Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a public hearing.
28 3. Streamline and speed up the review/decision process when possible.
29
30 The proposed revisions are expected to achieve these objectives. When the BOCC
31 discussed this topic at its May 12, 2015 work session members indicated that if the process
32 were revised it should be evaluated after one year to ensure it was working as intended and
33 satisfactorily. If the proposed revisions are adopted, an evaluation can be scheduled for a year
34 later. Any future revisions to the UDO would need to be brought forward to a future public
35 hearing.
36
37 Public Hearing Process
38 Quarterly Public Hearing
39 September 8, 2015
40 Item C.2
41
42 Purpose of Amendment
43 • To revise the current public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified
44 Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas Amendments
45 • Most recently discussed by BOCC at May 12, 2015 work session.
46 -Allow the public to make comments at the end of the legislative process.
47 -No longer require only written comments after the public hearing.
6
1 -Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a
2 quarterly public hearing.
3 -Streamline and speed up the review/decision process when possible.
4 -Have option to make a decision the night of the hearing on items with little
5 controversy.
6
7 If process is revised, evaluate after one year.
8 Proposal
9
10 Planning Board Review/Recommendation before the public hearing.
11 -Allows public participation earlier in the process.
12 -Would allow for decision on low controversy items the night of the hearing.
13 -Attorney's office has advised that having the Planning Board review/recommendation
14 prior to the public hearing provides for a greater level of legal sufficiency on quasi-
15 judicial items.
16
17 • No longer require a Planning Board quorum in order to hold a quarterly public hearing.
18 -Planning Board Chair (or Vice-Chair) would be required to attend QPHs and BOCC
19 meetings at which a decision is scheduled.
20
21 • Allow Comprehensive Plan amendments to be heard at any QPH.
22 • No longer include Special Use Permit applications in published legal advertisements
23 since the general public does not have standing to participate.
24 -Sign posting and mailed notices to adjacent property owners would still occur.
25
26 • Closure of public hearings (legislative items):
27 -BOCC would close the hearing the night of the hearing and do one of the following:
28 o Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date.
29 o Make a decision.
30 o Send an application back to the Planning Board (procedural right not
31 included in text of UDO)
32 -If deferred to later date or sent back to Planning Board, when item comes back to
33 BOCC, can be listed as a "Regular Agenda" item and additional public comment could
34 be accepted.
35
36 Closure of public hearings (quasi-judicial items):
37 -BOCC would close the hearing the night of the hearing and do one of the following:
38 o Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date.
39 o Make a decision.
40 -If additional evidence is requested by the BOCC the night of the hearing, the hearing
41 would be continued to a date/time certain so the additional evidence can be presented in
42 a quasi-judicial hearing.
43
44 Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee
45 • Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) reviewed topic in July and August.
7
1 Staff Coordination
2 Extensive coordination between Planning and Attorney staff, particularly for the quasi-
3 judicial process, to ensure legal sufficiency.
4 Public Notification & JPA Review
5 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
6 -Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks.
7 • Amendment package sent to JPA partners on August 7, 2015 since public hearing
8 process would apply to any requests related to the Rural Buffer.
9 -To date, no comments have been received.
10
11 Recommendation
12 • Receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance and Planning Board
13 Policies and Procedures.
14 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
15 the proposed amendments.
16 • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
17 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2015
18 BOCC regular meeting.
19 • Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
20 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
21
22 Effective Date
23 If amending Ordinance is adopted, the effective date should be a specific date so
24 submittal deadline schedules can be published
25 -Staff recommends starting with the 2016 meeting calendar, so January 1, 2016 effective
26 date.
27
28 Commissioner Pelissier said she understood the requirement of only the Planning Board
29 Chair and Vice Chair to attend the QPH but she asked if the other Planning Board members find
30 these QPHs helpful to attend.
31 Peter Hallenbeck said for some board members it is helpful to attend. He said there is
32 some relief of attendance not being required as it has had impact in the past of the meeting
33 being able to occur when there has not been a quorum.
34 Commissioner Price said, as of now, that she disagreed with the Planning Board being
35 exempt from QPH. She said public comments made at the QPH could affect decisions moving
36 forward. She said, as a result, the Planning Board might be making uninformed decisions.
37 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Planning Board discussed this item and if there were
38 minutes from said discussion.
39 Perdita Holtz said the minutes were included as a link in the analysis section of the form
40 and that they are meeting notes from the Ordinance Review Committee.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he recalled staff informing the BOCC that the County's
42 approval process was in line with other jurisdictions.
43 Perdita Holtz said yes.
44 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Price.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said he is uncomfortable with the Planning Board not hearing
46 public comment and then making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. He
8
1 said he understands the desire to make the process go more smoothly but the BOCC received
2 a letter today from the public that found these new amendments confusing.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said the notion that there would be no public notice for a quasi-
4 judicial hearing goes against the Board's social justice goals. He said people need to be
5 engaged or at least notified, and it is inconsistent with the values of Orange County.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said he trusts the County Manager but finds that one-year
7 reviews get lost in the shuffle over the years; they simply never happen.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said there are ways to deal with those wanting to come to a public
9 hearing and change the nomenclature of how hearings are noticed and what comments are
10 allowed.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said the public wants elected officials to know what they are
12 thinking. He said the County should be careful before adopting this amendment. He said
13 expedition is good but not at the expense of information gathering.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said he is still uncomfortable with some of these changes.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said he agreed and disagreed with Commissioner Price and
16 Commissioner Jacobs.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said if these amendments were in place tonight, the Board of
18 County Commissioners could approve these items. He said he finds this flexibility to be a good
19 thing.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said notification is important and the public should be able to
21 attend and listen, even if speaking is not permitted.
22 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that his initial concern was that currently the residents do
23 not have the last word. He said after the public speaks the item goes back to the Planning
24 Board. He said the desire is to engage residents earlier in the process, hopefully encouraging
25 more to go to the Planning Board meetings. He said then the public can come to the QPH and
26 will get to address the boards a second time. He said it would be ideal if the decision could then
27 be made.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC can still retain the option to send it back to the
29 Planning Board, if need be, for legislative items.
30 Perdita Holtz agreed.
31 Commissioner Dorosin said he does not agree that the Planning Board is being cut out
32 of the process but that the public is being more engaged.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said the distinction between the legislative and quasi-judicial
34 proceedings is what is most confusing to the public. He said the staff should take the time to
35 explain this to the public through pamphlets, the Internet, or on the abstracts. He said staff
36 should build this into the process to make things more clear to the public.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said he would support the change in the structure. He said even
38 though it seems the process is being streamlined really the public is being engaged earlier in
39 the process.
40 Commissioner Rich agreed that after the public speak there is no a chance to dispute
41 what the Planning Board is recommending to the Board of County Commissioners. She said it
42 is important to engage the public throughout the process.
43 Commissioner Rich referred to page 3 and the closure of public hearings. She asked if
44 there is new evidence, should it not be referred back to Planning Board.
45 Perdita Holtz said that is for legislative items only, not quasi-judicial items.
46 Commissioner Rich said she just wanted to make sure that the BOCC, the Planning
47 Board, and the public all have the same information.
9
1 Perdita Holtz said this goal is achievable with legislative items but more difficult for
2 quasi-judicial items, since that process is more difficult. She said there is a different process for
3 these items. She said an applicant could not be required to divulge all of their evidence at the
4 Planning Board meeting.
5 Commissioner Rich asked if the applicant does not want to show all their cards to the
6 Planning Board, but only to the Board of County Commissioners, then could the item be referred
7 back to the Planning Board, or must the hearing be closed.
8 Perdita Holtz said according to the Attorney's Office she said the item should not be
9 referred back to the Planning Board. She said there is better legal sufficiency if the BOCC
10 handles the item after the quasi-judicial hearing.
11 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board of County Commissioners got new information
12 the Planning Board might not have the opportunity to discuss it.
13 Perdita Holtz said yes, that is possible with quasi-judicial items.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if there was someone responsible for the evening's agenda.
15 Perdita Holtz said she and other staff compiled it.
16 Commissioner Rich complimented the way the agenda was created and would love for
17 them to be created similarly going forward.
18 Commissioner Price asked if would be possible to expand the notification area in rural
19 areas to 1000 feet as opposed to 500 feet.
20 James Bryan said it is better to have one standard applicable to everyone.
21 Commissioner Price said in rural areas there would not be many people within 500 feet.
22 She asked if this could be reviewed to reach an alternate solution.
23 Perdita Holtz said the County has a growth management system map which designates
24 urban and rural areas of the County. She said it is possible that the map could be used as a
25 guideline for notification especially with legislative items.
26 Commissioner Price said she is speaking of legislative items only.
27 Commissioner Price said she would like the process streamlined. She asked if the
28 Planning Board was at the QPH and there was more public comment, but the item was still
29 ready to proceed, could the Board of County Commissioners as well as Planning Board vote
30 right then for legislative items.
31 Perdita Holtz said yes for legislative items.
32 James Bryan said for legislative items the Board of County Commissioners could decide
33 the night of the QPH or refer back to Planning Board.
34 Commissioner Price said if it was an easy item could the Board of County
35 Commissioners refer it to the Planning Board in the room, and have the Planning Board decide
36 right then rather than wait two months for them to come back with an answer.
37 James Bryan said this was a novel idea. He said it could be procedurally awkward. He
38 said the Board of County Commissioners could recess and then poll the Planning Board.
39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Planning Board members could speak as a part of
40 the QPH.
41 James Bryan said there could be a straw poll which is not binding.
42 Commissioner Price said this change could be a way to move the process along, while
43 still giving all involved the chance to hear all information before making a decision.
44 Commissioner Pelissier stressed the need to distinguish between which process is being
45 discussed: legislative versus quasi-judicial. She said she could only see Commissioner Price's
46 suggestion working with a non-controversial item.
47 Commissioner Pelissier said her concern now is deciding whether to have just the
48 Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair present or to require a full quorum since it has been such
10
1 a problem over the years. She said there is not a problem with Planning Board members
2 having access to information since these meetings are web streamed and she would assume
3 that Board members would take their positions seriously and review the meeting if they did not
4 attend. She said a quorum should not be required.
5 Commissioner Pelissier said some of the comments that were written today in a letter to
6 the Board of County Commissioners (see below)were confusing. She said there should be a
7 flow chart to separate the two processes: quasi-judicial versus legislative. She said it should be
8 reiterated that public comment is not being eliminated in the quasi-judicial items, as public
9 comment was never allowed in these items.
10
11 September 8, 2015
12
13 To the Orange County Commissioners:
14
15 1 am writing to urge you not to approve the UDO text amendments proposed in agenda item #2
16 at tonight's Quarterly Meeting.
17
18 For the Orange County Citizens, opportunities to receive notice and raise questions
19 about Special Use Permit applications are limited. Please do not narrow these limited
20 opportunities further by amending the current SUP language, timelines and flow chart in the
21 UDO. The existing UDO requires advertising of SUP hearings in newspapers, a predictable
22 schedule of hearings at quarterly meetings, and a timeline to allow County residents to gather
23 resources and information, hire legal representation, and prepare for SUP hearings.
24
25 Tonight's proposal to revise the UDO in order to "streamline and speed up the
26 review/decision process" is hard to follow, and it is unclear how citizens may participate
27 at all in the SUP process. The faster, streamlined steps proposed tonight would significantly
28 reduce public participation of surrounding communities, and would benefit applicants at the
29 expense of surrounding property owners.
30
31 The proposed changes would further curtail public participation in multiple ways:
32 • Shortening written notice to adjacent property owners from 15 to 10 days
33 • Eliminating advertising and public notice (see footnote 22 below)
34 • Eliminating joint BOCC and Planning Board quarterly public hearing for Class A SUP
35 applications, a forum which currently allows public comments and requires a quorum of
36 Planning Board members
37 • Eliminating the option for interested parties to comment on SUP applications (see
38 footnote 21 below)
39 • Requiring the Planning Board to make a recommendation without first receiving
40 comments from the public.
41
42 The County's Special Use Permitting process benefits SUP applicants who have already
43 gathered the financial means to pursue a project, while presenting obstacles for County
44 residents without financial resources to hire an attorney in order to protect surrounding
45 properties.
46
11
1 In addition to financial obstacles, rural communities in particular are hindered by
2 notification limits in time to make a difference in outcomes affecting their communities and
3 property.
4
5 Challenges limiting citizens' ability to oppose SUP project applications:
6 • Cost of representation —The cost of hiring a lawyer precludes many citizens from raising
7 valid concerns at a public hearing. At quasi-judicial hearings in which County lawyers
8 represent boards, County staff, and applicants with financial interest, this is a great
9 disadvantage for citizens.
10 • Notification limit—The 500-foot County notification limit does not accurately reflect the
11 wider scope of affected properties in rural zones with expanses of farms, woodlands,
12 and waterways. Whether the project is an airport, kennel, shooting range or special
13 event center, its impact of safety, light, noise, traffic and property values extend well
14 beyond a tenth of a mile.
15 500 feet does not allow neighbors who would experience impacts to be notifies or have
16 standing to speak at a hearing. Neighbors more than 500 feet from an SUP applicant
17 are currently not notified or given standing to speak at public hearings about SUP
18 proposals affecting their properties.
19
20 Please do not approve the proposed revisions of the UDO. Instead, I urge you to clarify and
21 expand the ways in which county residents may share concerns with County boards making
22 critical decisions about our communities.
23
24 Thank you,
25
26 Laura Streitfeld
27
28
29 Proposed text amendments in agenda item #2:
30 (B) The Planning Director shall give publiG notice of the date, time and place of the
31 public hearing to be held to receive ^^ ts, evidence in the form of 21 testimony and exhibits
32 pertaining to the application for a Special Use.
33
34 (C) SUEh nGt}no shall be published in a newspaper of general nirnUlation in OrafK e
35 County enGe a week for twe SUGGessive weeks, with the first nGtiGe to be published not less than
36 ten days ner rnere than 25 days prier to the date of the hearing. in GOrnputing the netiGe peried,
37 zz
38
39 21 The Staff Attorney has suggested this language modification since SUP applications are
40 quasi-judicial in nature and require testimony rather than comments.
41
42 22 The Staff Attorney has suggested that published newspaper advertisements for quarterly
43 public hearings not include SUP applications since the general public does not have standing in
44 such matters and cannot participate. (State Statutes require mailed and posted notice but do not
45 require legal ads for SUP applications). As shown in the remainder of this section, a notice
46 would be posted on the affected parcel and adjoining property owners would receive mailed
47 notification of the hearing date (in addition to mailed and posted notice of the Neighborhood
48 Information Meeting and Planning Board meeting).
12
1
2 Commissioner Jacobs said he has often asked for a primer to be placed on the planning
3 website explaining this confusing process, and it has not been done. He asked if the other
4 Commissioners agreed with him, and the majority of the Board did so.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said he tried to read the Ordinance Review Committee minutes
6 but the link is broken.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said the new process makes it meaningless to have a Planning
8 Board caucus, for non-controversial items. He said the flip side is that if one or two
9 Commissioners have reservations about an issue, it can be referred back to the Planning Board.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said the question of distances in rural area has come up before in
11 the past. He said rural area impacts are different than urban and suburban impact.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if other commissioners agreed with him that staff should
13 look at different distances for rural and urban notifications, as long as it is legal.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said people expect to see a process run through the mill, and
15 the County's process is counterintuitive. She said this process extends the amount of notice for
16 neighborhood information meetings, allows the public to speak at Planning Board and Board of
17 County Commissioners' meetings. She asked if new information is brought forth at a quasi-
18 judicial hearing, could the public send in written comments afterwards.
19 Perdita Holtz said no written comments would be permitted.
20 James Bryan said that is a statutory requirement.
21 Commissioner Burroughs said she supports these new amendments and she also said
22 notice could be put in the paper for the public to attend to the meeting even though they cannot
23 speak. She said if notice needs to be further for rural areas, and it can be legally done, she
24 would be supportive.
25 Commissioner Rich said she does not want the Planning Board to feel unheard and she
26 does not want the Planning Board to be cut out at any point. She said if there is new
27 information the item should go back for the Planning Board's review and opinion.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not comfortable with the "non-controversial and
29 controversial" labels. He is not sure these definitions could be agreed upon.
30 Peter Hallenbeck reviewed notes from the Planning Board:
31 • Attendance at QPH - Planning Board members should be expected to attend the QPH.
32 The Board of Commissioners should be aware of the attendance of the Planning Board
33 members at the QPH, and if several are missed the BOCC should be able to excuse the
34 person from the Planning Board.
35 • The public does not like to show up to Planning Board meetings as much as Board of
36 County Commissioners meetings and he said it is assumed that this is because the
37 Planning Board does not make decisions. It is hoped that the public can be educated
38 that the minutes of the Planning Board meetings are given to the BOCC, and public input
39 is valuable.
40 • Neighborhood information meetings— it is new and it is evolving and the Planning Board
41 feels that the information the public gets should be about the process.
42 • Put QR codes on signs in the neighborhoods.
43 • 1000 feet notification in the rural areas can be worked with staff and an agreement can
44 be reached. There will be different rules for the two processes.
45 • Put time ranges between the blocks on the flow charts that lay out the processes. The
46 flow makes sense but time will be very informative.
47
13
1 Paul Guthrie said if disingenuous information is received in a quasi-judicial process, how
2 does one refute this information without re-examination.
3 He suggested that attendance at QPH, and other meetings, be studied. He said the only
4 thing the members can be excused from a meeting for is death, sickness, or some other similar
5 reason. He said Planning Board members are citizen volunteers with their own lives, who are
6 trying to be helpful. He said if too many restrictions are placed on the members volunteers may
7 be lost and new volunteers may not be as good.
8 Tony Blake said the 500 feet limit is not reasonable for rural areas, and encouraged the
9 BOCC to review this limit. He said he had to question the quasi-judicial process, and ex parte
10 communication. He said Statute 168-388 mentions ex parte communication once, saying that
11 "undisclosed ex parte communication" cannot be received. He asked if disclosed ex parte
12 communication is allowed, and asked if there is a point at which ex parte communication begins.
13 He asked if it begins when the application is made, or if it is after the QPH. He said it is
14 imperative for them to be able to talk to people in their community.
15 Tony Blake said the genesis about attendance of Planning Board members is that it was
16 never reiterated to them, as new volunteers, that attendance was expected. He said if this was
17 clearly explained, he expects attendance would not be a problem.
18 Tony Blake said the word "quasi" means the administrative agencies are not held to the
19 same rules as courts, unless it is spelled out in the statute. He said he does not see this spelled
20 out in the statute, and thus feels there is a lot of room for interpretation.
21 Andrea Rohrbacher said the attendance at the QPH is eroding is part due to some of the
22 late night meetings. She said she does not want the attendance requirements to be so
23 restrictive that turnover becomes a problem on the Planning Board. She said there is a large
24 learning curve on this board, and turnover would increase burdens on the staff that orient
25 Planning Board members.
26 Laura Nicholson said she believed that if the need for a quorum were clearly explained
27 in the beginning, this would help greatly with attendance. She said she supports the increased
28 notification in rural areas.
29 Maxecine Mitchell said the processes are confusing. She said she does not mind
30 coming to the QPH, but she does not want to be the one who holds up a meeting.
31 Pete Hallenbeck said the Planning Board members are encouraged to go to
32 neighborhood meetings. He said clear guidelines are needed regarding ex parte
33 communication, as it pertains to the quasi-judicial process.
34 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated all of the comments. He said ex parte
35 communication could be shared. He said that what matters is that the decision is made on
36 evidence heard in the hearing. He said guidelines would be a good idea.
37 Commissioner Rich thanked the Planning Board for their comments. She asked if there
38 are set rules for quasi-judicial processes, or do they change.
39 James Bryan said every Special Use Permit (SUP) will be quasi-judicial, and he said
40 there are pre-set standards. He said the Board is taking standards and applying facts to those
41 standards. He said within quasi-judicial there is more that is known than unknown.
42 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a definition of an expert witness.
43 James Bryan said generally it is some specialized knowledge in a particular field. He
44 said the statute spells out that for land values there must be an appraiser. He said the
45 applicant is represented by an attorney who might say, "this is an incompetent witness". He
46 said if there was a case in criminal court, an expert would be greatly vetted, but in quasi-judicial
47 hearings an expert is not so greatly investigated.
14
1 Commissioner Jacobs said that the quorum of the Planning Board is only required for a
2 meeting to start.
3 James Bryan disagreed and said a quorum is required for the duration of the meeting.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said he has never heard this information before. He said there
5 should be clarification given to all. He added that if Planning Board attendance is going to be
6 required at the QPH, this should be clearly stated in the Planning Board application, and added
7 to their orientation.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Commissioner Dorosin could clarify his concerns
9 regarding the proposed procedural changes.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said he is in favor of the BOCC voting at the QPH when there is
11 consensus from the Planning Board, and even when there is not consensus.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said he thought Commissioner Dorosin was arguing against that.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said he is trying to avoid the back door option of sending it back
14 to the Planning Board. He said if four Commissioners want to pass it at the QPH, the Board
15 should vote then whether the item is controversial or non-controversial.
16 Commissioner Price said she would like to see a forward moving process and if all are in
17 the same room let the vote move the process onward.
18 Planning Board Member Lisa Stuckey said if an item gets to the QPH, that it should not
19 be kicked back to the Planning Board unless it was a major and unexpected exception.
20 Chair McKee said he can support removing the requirement that the Planning Board
21 members attend the joint meetings, but highly encouraged the Planning Board to attend.
22 Chair McKee said the BOCC has never removed anyone from the Planning Board
23 because of unexcused absences.
24 Chair McKee said these text amendments do not need to make these processes any
25 more confusing than they already are.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
28 approve:
29
30 1. Referring the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
31 returned to the BOCC in time for the November 5, 2015 BOCC regular meeting.
32 Increase noticing of distance, and reinstating paper notification and language to be clear and
33 who is able to testify, and quorum recommendations.
34
35 2. Adjourning the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
36 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40
41 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government-
42 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding recreational land uses, including
43 shooting ranges.
44
45 Michael Harvey, Planner III, reviewed the following Planning Board Ordinance
46 Committee Notes:
47
48 July 1, 2015— Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
15
1 STAFF COMMENT. the ORC reviewed this item at its July 1, 2015 meeting where the
2 following comments/questions were made:
3 Could a resident, on his own property, sponsor a club in his name and finance
4 play on the field under this proposal?
5 STAFF COMMENT. As the Ordinance is currently written the property owner would
6 have to get a special use permit. The reason being the field is intended to serve the
7 needs of the general public, even if they are members of a club or other similar
8 organization, with respect to providing the use of a recreational facility.
9 • So I can't develop a putting green on my property?
10 STAFF COMMENT. You can have a recreational facility on your property and use it for
11 recreational purposes. This would include a putting green. From my standpoint the
12 problem occurs when you open the recreational amenity up for public use/access.
13 When this occurs you change the nature of the use of property and, I believe, it becomes
14 more than a simple accessory use to your residence. It becomes a recreational facility
15 used to satisfy the needs of the general public.
16 Could a farmer donate land to a non-profit organization to allow for the
17 development of a recreational facility?
18 STAFF COMMENT. Yes but they would have to obtain a Class B Special Use Permit for
19 the use. This is the current requirement and we are not recommending a change to the
20 existing process.
21 Is the intent with this regulation to control the development of gun ranges
22 specifically?
23 STAFF COMMENT. We are adopting regulations and development standards
24 associated with them but the proposed amendment seeks to do more than just establish
25 regulations on public or private gun ranges.
26 Could a local homeowners association develop a recreational land use on HOA
27 owned property for local residents to take advantage of?
28 STAFF COMMENT. Yes. This text amendment will not preclude that. The
29 homeowners association would, however, have to amend the previously approved
30 subdivision final plat to incorporate the new recreation amenity in accordance with the
31 UDO.
32 • Will this proposed amendment impact County parks?
33 STAFF COMMENT. No.
34 Staff and the County Attorney's office have determined existing definitions and
35 classification methodology for recreation land uses (i.e. relying on the profit/non-profit status of
36 said operation) is inappropriate and inconsistent with acceptable legal practice. The current
37 methodology has concerned staff for some time and has even complicated recent enforcement
16
1 efforts relating to the discharge of firearms on private property and addressing the purported
2 establishment of an outdoor recreational field off of Old Greensboro Highway. Staff is proposing
3 to overhaul our current regulations by:
4
5 a. Establishing a new definition for a recreational land use with no reference to its tax status;
6 b. Reviewing the types of recreational land uses permitted in each zoning district and
7 suggesting revisions to ensure consistency;
8 c. Developing new standards governing the development of recreational land uses for both
9 private and commercial purposes; and
10 d. Developing standards governing the discharge of firearms from both a business and personal
11 enjoyment standpoint.
12
13 Michael Harvey said with that frame of reference, staff began re-tooling the ordinance to
14 draw distinction between personal and commercial recreational activities on one's property. He
15 said staff has been locked in an enforcement effort over the purported operation of a
16 commercial cricket field. He said it is hoped that this proposal will address mounting concerns.
17 Michael Harvey said part of the reason for this proposal is to address two long-standing
18 enforcement issues:
19 1. Discharge of firearms, from a land use standpoint.
20 2. A longstanding issue of concerns and complaints, regarding the operation of what could best
21 be construed as motor cross facilities.
22 Michael Harvey said a new definition of recreational facilities is being proposed. He
23 referred to page 91. He said distinguishing between personal and commercial uses is the
24 purpose of the amendment.
25 Michael Harvey referred to page 80-81 and said linguistic changes will refer to facilities
26 simply as recreation facilities. He said the words non-profit and profit are being removed.
27 Michael Harvey said it is still being recommended that these facilities be processed in
28 the residential areas through a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP) process, being reviewed and
29 acted upon by the Board of Adjustment. He said it is also recommended that there still be
30 permitted uses in several commercial districts, where they are currently listed. Michael Harvey
31 said in Economic Development Districts, it is recommended that recreational facilities be
32 considered permitted uses in the high intensity districts. He said the rational for this is that
33 recreational amenities are already allowed in many of these districts, and it is not believed that
34 further specification is needed.
35 Michael Harvey referred to page 85 and said language is being added to formalize a
36 County Planning Department interpretation that has existed since before his tenure. He said
37 this states that recreational land uses developed on residentially zoned property (i.e. pool, pool
38 deck, tennis court, basketball court, etc.) are accessory uses, thus needing to meet all the
39 applicable set back standards. He said the typical residential set back is a 40-foot front, 20-foot
40 side, and 20-foot rear. He said language is being added here to formalize this interpretation.
41 Michael Harvey referred to page 86 that established standards for recreational uses as
42 accessory uses.
43
44 Recreational Uses as Accessory Uses5
45 (A) General Standards
46 (1) Accessory recreational uses shall not be open to the public or be designed to
47 serve as a recreation amenity for other lots.6
48 (2) Amenities, equipment, and/or facilities intended for spectators such as bleachers
17
1 or public address systems shall not be permitted.'
2 (3) Outdoor sports field lighting, as detailed within Section 6.11, shall be prohibited.
3
4 5There have been issues in the past with property owners allowing for the use of recreation
5 amenities on their property to serve others. To address this issue staff is recommending the
6 imposition of various standards to ensure this use does not become some form of commercial
7 operation.
8 6 Staff is not trying to say a property owner cannot have friends over who use a pool or
9 basketball court. What we are attempting to avoid is the de-facto expansion of an accessory use
10 on a parcel property to serve other lots recreational needs. Please note this will not prohibit
11 subdivision developers from establishing a recreational amenity for their projects. That is
12 addressed in Section 7.11 of the UDO.
13 ' Staff has received concerns from various property owners over the years with respect to a
14 private landowner's ability to erect amenities, primary athletic field lights, to expand the use of
15 their accessory recreation use. Staff is recommending language that would prohibit the
16 installation/use of equipment allowing for the expanded use of a recreation amenity beyond
17 what is considered customary for a residential setting.
18 8 This would prohibit the erection of sports field lights for accessory recreational land uses.
19
20 Commissioner Price asked if this applied to Home Owner's Associations.
21 Michael Harvey said no, it does not.
22 Commissioner Price asked if there was an example where this would apply.
23 Michael Harvey said if someone wanted to put a pool or basketball court on their
24 property, they would be able to do so, but could not put outside lighting in a residential area.
25 Michael Harvey said the next issue pertains to the discharge of firearms on private
26 property. He said the following standards have been established:
27
28 B. Specific Standards
29 (1) Shooting activities
30 (a) All shooting or targeting activities shall be designed or oriented to keep projectiles on the
31 property.
32 (b) A projectile-proof backstop consisting of concrete, steel, earth or any combination thereof, a
33 minimum 15 feet in height and 30 feet in depth shall be required behind all target and/or
34 shooting areas. All shooting activities shall be directed into this protective backstop.
35 (c) Shooting activities and required backstop shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from all
36 property lines, rights-of-way, or access easements and 1,000 feet from occupied dwelling units
37 external to the property.
38 (d) Warning signs indicating shooting activities are occurring on the property shall be posted at
39 one hundred-foot intervals along the perimeter of the property.
40 (e) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed within Section 6.8, shall be required around the
41 perimeter of the portion of property where shooting activities occurs.
42 (f) The use of exploding shells, targets, or other similar materials shall be prohibited. This will
43 preclude hunting activities.
44 (g) Nothing within Section 5.7.1 shall be construed as limiting or otherwise restricting hunting activities or
45 the use of fireworks.
46
47 9 There have been issued associated with the discharge of firearms on private property,
48 focusing on noise and public safety issues. Staff is attempting to establish reasonable land use
18
1 regulations to address safety concerns by requiring discharged items remain on the subject
2 parcel and for those areas where a gun is discharged to be set distances from a property line
3 and occupied dwelling units.
4 10 This will require either the erection of a land use buffer, or preservation of existing vegetation,
5 around the area of the property where shooting activities are occurring.
6 Chair McKee referred to the section regarding shooting ranges versus shooting
7 activities, and he noted differences in the backstop heights and set backs from adjacent
8 properties.
9 Michael Harvey said the reason for the distinction is that shooting activities are meant to
10 be in a residential setting. He said if the public is going to be present, then the nature of the use
11 becomes commercial, and the setback requirements et al will change.
12 Chair McKee said emails about this issue do not distinguish between a commercial
13 range, and a residential back yard target. He said the concern is about the safety, and he is not
14 so sure that there should be the same requirements for this issue.
15 Michael Harvey said the intent is to distinguish back yard recreational enjoyment versus
16 a paid, commercial, open-to-the-public range.
17 Chair McKee said he would question how it would be justified to have two people over to
18 target shoot on large open property with no neighbors, and not allow that same right to
19 someone that lives on two acres in another township.
20 Michael Harvey said there would be properties that will be unable to conform to
21 whatever standard is imposed. He said this is regrettable. He said in more densely populated
22 areas with smaller lots, there would need to be acceptable limitations.
23 Chair McKee said the acceptable limitations should be the higher.
24 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the requirement that public shooting ranges can only
25 operate between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. She asked if there could be a similar limit placed on
26 private landowners. She said the noise of a group of friends target shooting on the weekend is
27 the same as that of a commercial range.
28 Michael Harvey said firearms are exempt within the Orange County Noise Ordinance.
29 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Michael Harvey for trying to revise this ordinance. He
30 suggested inviting the many residents who have complained repeatedly about the shooting
31 ranges to a Planning Board meeting.
32 Commissioner Jacobs noted the standards for commercial shooting ranges of 600 feet
33 from any property line, and asked if there is a similar standard for a personal shooting target.
34 Michael Harvey said 300 feet.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is then a minimal lot size that would be required in
36 order to accommodate this standard.
37 Michael Harvey said he did not know, but would find this out.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said it might also be useful including slope on these ranges.
39 Michael Harvey said when trying to create uniform standards, it is difficult to allow
40 flexibility regarding slope of property as there could end up being many more problems. He said
41 on-site land differences cannot be taken into account, as it results in people being treated
42 differently.
43 Paul Guthrie said in his neighborhood there are both kinds of ranges, and the Sheriff's
44 office does come out to make sure that weapons are being discharged safely. He also said
45 other states allow the shooting of explosive targets.
46 Michael Harvey said this text amendment prohibits exploding targets, and does not
47 preempt the Sheriff's office from their duty of insuring safety.
19
1 Commissioner Jacobs said the way the Sheriff's measure decibels has never stopped
2 anyone from shooting, as the noise is measured from the property line and typically dissipates
3 enough by that point. He said he does agree with the possibility of reasonable hours being
4 enforced.
5 Commissioner Price asked if the warning signs will have a uniform look, and if the
6 Planning Board deems placing them at 100-foot intervals sufficient.
7 Michael Harvey said he did not recall the distance being a concern, and that the signs
8 are simply to serve as a warning of shooting activity.
9 Commissioner Price said she is concerned as to whether the time of day, or the decibels
10 of the noise, is a more effective enforcement. She said the lay of land would have an impact on
11 this.
12 Michael Harvey said if the Planning Board and the BOCC would like to see a reasonable
13 time limit he could pursue it, but he would prefer the issue of decibel levels be discussed directly
14 with the Sheriff.
15 Lisa Stuckey asked if it required that the backstops be maintained, in order to avoid
16 degrading.
17 Michael Harvey said the ordinance does not specify this, but if a permit is issued
18 indicating that the backstop will be maintained, it must be complied with.
19 Chair McKee asked what would happen if a member of the public purchased a new rifle
20 and went on his 10 acres of land to practice shooting, without a backstop or any type of buffer.
21 Michael Harvey said if someone complains to him, he would meet with the landowner
22 where the shooting occurred, and try to enforce this issue. He said it is a valid concern, and this
23 is an opportunity to educate the public on what the ordinance requires. He said ordinances are
24 living and breathing documents that can be changed.
25 Chair McKee said he appreciated this effort on the shooting issue. He said he hears
26 about repetitive shooting in the same areas over and over again.
27 Maxecine Mitchell asked questions and clarifications on issues surrounding residential
28 versus commercial recreational areas and Michael Harvey responded.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a limit on the number of people that may shoot at a
30 residential property at the same time.
31 Michael Harvey said there is no limit built into this ordinance to say how many people
32 can be at a place and discharging a firearm.
33 Michael Harvey said a distinction has been established between the recreational
34 accessory uses versus a non-residential land use activity. He said the Planning Board had a lot
35 of concerns at the ORC regarding his draft definition of a recreational facility. He said he met
36 with the Attorney's Office, and a workable definition, that can be enforced, was created.
37 Commissioner Price referred to the top of page 90, and said she had concerns about the
38 required frontage. She said there are properties in the County that are accessed by an
39 easement.
40 Michael Harvey said the goal of this provision is to stipulate that if one is going to have a
41 heightened level of traffic to access, what amounts to a commercial facility, then it ought to be
42 done through a public road rather than a private road of a subdivision. He said if there is an
43 easement, access across it should be properly negotiated.
44 Commissioner Jacobs suggested amending the list of general standards for evaluation
45 for recreational facilities from listing a variety of courts to using a global statement that covers
46 multiple courts.
47 Commissioner Price suggested further explanation be given to "turkey shoots, and other
48 similar activities".
20
1 Michael Harvey referred to page 89 where it says there is "nothing in this section shall
2 be construed as prohibiting the holding of turkey shoots or other similar activities as a fundraiser
3 or community event." He said the idea is a shooting event or fundraiser that can be held no
4 more than twice a year on a given parcel of property.
5 Commissioner Price asked if there are specifics that are seeking to be regulated.
6 Michael Harvey said fund raising activities are not being regulated.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
9 approve:
10
11 1. Referring the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
12 to the BOCC in time for its November 5, 2015 regular meeting.
13 2. Adjourning the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
14 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
21 adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25
26 Earl McKee, Chair
27
28 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
29
30