MINUTES

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON MAY 17, 2000

The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioners= Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.

Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chair Bill Moyer, Commissioner Renee Kumor, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Marilyn Gordon, County Manager David E. Nicholson, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.

Also present were: Finance Director J. Carey McLelland, Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson, Staff Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, County Engineer Gary Tweed, and Office Assistant Amy Brantley.

Absent was: Assistant County Manager/Interim County Attorney Angela S. Beeker.

CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME

Chairman Hawkins called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Commissioner Ward led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.

INVOCATION

Bill Byrnes, Risk Management Director, gave the invocation.

DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA

Commissioner Kumor asked for an addition to Update on Pending Issues as #2 - a question regarding readdressing.

Chairman Hawkins pulled two items from the Consent Agenda for comments, item AC@ and AD@.

AC@ - Distinguished Budget Presentation Award - He just wanted to bring it to the attention of those in attendance and for those who watch the meeting on cable tv that this is an award that is presented for the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting. The award was presented to our Budget Analyst Selena Coffey. In order to receive the award a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria, that=s a policy document, an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communications device. Those criteria were met with the FY 1999-2000 annual budget.

AD@ - Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Our Finance Director Carey McLelland received this award. This certificate of achievement is for the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government in its management.

Chairman Hawkins congratulated Carey McLelland, Selena Coffey and the entire Finance Department staff for their fine work.

Commissioner Ward asked that item AF@ be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Bill Byrnes was in attendance and was asked to update the Board on the detention center.

Mr. Byrnes stated that the project in general is on schedule in spite of the fact that we have had some periods of rain. The anticipated substantial completion date is April of 2001. There have been a few change orders and he briefly discussed those. We=re essentially six months into the project.

Commissioner Moyer asked the County Manager to comment briefly on item AE@ - Notification of Purchase - Influenza Vaccines.

David Nicholson explained that the Disease Control Centers actually project what the strains of influenza will be a year in advance and make the vaccine. Actually they are working on what strains we will have in 2001 based on what strains are in other countries. The vaccine for the fall of 2000 is budgeted in the FY 2000 - 2001 budget. The vaccine would be ordered now and paid for in the coming fiscal year. Henderson County=s order is for 8,200 doses of the vaccine. If we do not use all the vaccine, we can return up to 10% of it.

CONSENT AGENDA

Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda. The CONSENT AGENDA included the following:

Minutes

Minutes were presented for the Board=s review and approval of the following meetings:

November 17, 1999, regularly scheduled meeting

May 3, 2000, special called meeting

Road Petition

We had received the following road petitions for addition to the State Maintenance System:

1. Atwood Drive

2. Greenfield Lane

It has been the practice of this Board to accept road petitions and forward them to NC Department of Transportation for their review. It has also been the practice of the Board not to ask NCDOT to change the priority for roads on the paving priority list.

Distinguished Budget Presentation Award

The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada had awarded Henderson County the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for it=s annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1999. This is the third consecutive year the County has received this prestigious award.

Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting

The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada has awarded Henderson County the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for it=s June 30, 1999 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. This is the tenth consecutive year the County has received this prestigious award.

Notification of Purchase - Influenza Vaccines

The Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution on August 20, 1997, authorizing the County Manager to advertise, receive, reject and award bids on the purchase of apparatus, supplies, materials and equipment valued at less than $100,000.00. The County Manager has recently exercised his authority under this Resolution and, pursuant to the terms of the Resolution, reported the following to the Board of Commissioners.

On April 3, 2000, the County Manager authorized the advertisement of bids for the purchase of influenza vaccines for the Health Department. The taking of the bids was advertised on April 10, 2000 and bids were received and opened on April 28, 2000. Caligor Roane Barker submitted the only bid. The County Manager declared its bid in the amount of $38,950 as the lowest, responsive, responsible bid and, on May 1, 2000, awarded the purchase contract to that company.

No Board action was necessary as this was provided for information purposes only.

Detention Center Project Report

The Board received the monthly Capital Improvement Project Report for the new Detention Center.

State ADM Fund Application - Fletcher Elementary School Project

As part of the funding plan for the new Fletcher Elementary School Project, the Board of Commissioners approved the use of Public School Building Capital Funds (ADM Fund) in the amount of $1,200,000.00. The County is required to match one dollar of local funds for every three dollars of State ADM funds. Therefore, the required match for the County will be $400,000.00. The required match will be covered from capital outlay funds, which as of the current date, has already been met by paid expenditures for site preparation, electrical construction, mechanical construction, and utility construction.

After approval by the Board of Commissioners, this application must also be approved by the Board of Education before submission to the Office of State Budget and Management.

The total budget of $10,550,313 for this project includes funding of $6,750,000 in installment contract proceeds, $2,600,313 in capital outlay funds, and the $1,200,000 in State ADM funds requested above.

Tax Collector=s Report

Terry F. Lyda, Tax Collector, had provided the Tax Report to the Board through May 11, 2000.

All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Mayor=s Cup Raft Race

Commissioner Moyer stated that based on Henderson County=s excellent past performance, they have been invited to participate in the Raft Race again. It was the consensus of the Board to authorize Commissioner Moyer to serve as team captain and recruit a full team. Commissioner Ward has volunteered.

David Nicholson explained to those in attendance that Henderson County has a strong tradition of finishing last in the raft race. Last year we actually finished next to last.

NOMINATIONS

Notification of Vacancies

The Board was notified of the following vacancies which will appear under ANominations@ on the next agenda:

1. Henderson County Child Protection Team - 1 vac.

2. Board of Equalization and Review - 1 vac.

Both vacancies were due to resignation.

Nominations

Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:

1. Hendersonville City Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.

Commissioner Ward nominated Larry Young. He has talked with Mr. Young who stated that he would be willing to serve. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Young. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

2. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 2 vac. plus 4 additional vacancies for the year 2000.

Chairman Hawkins nominated Sara Jones and Nancy Mitchell to fill two of the designated positions. Commissioner Kumor made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint these two ladies. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

3. Henderson County Industrial Facilities & Pollution Control Authority - 1 vac.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.

4. Solid Waste Advisory Committee - 1 vac.

According to the by-laws, the Board of Commissioners also needs to appoint the Chairman of this committee. There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting. Commissioner Gordon will inquire at the committee meeting tomorrow concerning a suitable Chairman and asking the members to try to help recruit an additional member.

5. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.

This vacancy must be filled by someone under the age of 21. There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.

6. Mountain Area Workforce Development Board - 1 vac.

Commissioner Kumor nominated Cindy Dabaibeh to fill the Chamber of Commerce position. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Ms. Dabaibeh. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

7. Henderson County Board of Health - 1 vac.

This vacancy must be filled by a veterinarian. There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.

8. Henderson County Hospital Corporation Board of Directors - 1 vac.

At the last meeting Chairman Hawkins nominated John Swanson and Commissioner Ward nominated Dr. John Bell. Commissioner Moyer asked that this be rolled to the next meeting.

9. Child Fatality Prevention Team

Commissioner Gordon had received an expression of interest in serving on this Board. She would like to check back with the person and asked that this item be rolled to the next meeting.

TRACE PROPERTY - Assignment of Lease

Jennifer Jackson explained that as authorized by the Board of Commissioners, on May 3, 2000, the County purchased approximately 5.92 acres near the Solid Waste Management Facility from the Traces. As a part of that closing the County accepted an assignment of the lease of the 9.43 acre tract of property that was purchased by Henderson County in 1996. As required by the purchase contract, the Traces have already provided notice to the tenant of the termination of the lease and the lease is due to terminate on October 24, 2000. The monthly rental as prescribed by the lease is $1,500.00 and includes the following farm equipment which is still owned by Dr. Ian Trace: John Deere 970 tractor, dump trailer, manure spreader, box scraper, hay elevator and pulverizer. A copy of the lease and the termination letter were both reviewed.

By way of the letter dated May 5, 2000, Dr. Trace is seeking a $350.00 portion of each of the lease payments for the lease of the farm equipment. Thus the remaining amount of $1,150.00 per month will accrue to the County for the lease of the 9.43 acres and the improvements thereon.

Don H. Elkins, who represented the County in the closing, recommended that the County accept an appropriate division of the rental payments as a resolution of the matter. It is up to the Board to determine if the suggested division of $350.00 to Dr. Trace and $1,150.00 to the County is an appropriate division of those rental payments.

Following discussion, Commissioner Kumor made the motion to approve the request as suggested. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF CANE CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT

Gary Tweed reminded the Board that they were presented with a proposal to extend the boundaries of the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District in accordance with NCGS 162A-87.1. The extension of the District as proposed would include approximately 1300 properties in the vicinity of the French Broad River and Highway 280. In light of the proposal and in accordance with law the Board approved a Report and directed that it be filed with the Clerk to the Board, and scheduled a public hearing for May 4, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.

In accordance with the Board=s direction and applicable law, the County Engineer filed the Annexation Report with the Clerk on March 22, 2000, and caused the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the Times-News on April 16, 2000. In addition, on March 23, 2000, letters were mailed to all properties

Following discussion, Commissioner Moyer made the motion to approve the extension of the boundary of the Cane Creek Water & Sewer District.

There was additional discussion then a vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Gordon complimented the staff on holding the informational session prior to the public hearing. It helped the process of the hearing and answered a lot of questions for people up front.

CONTRACT FOR UPM-RAFLATAC, INC.

Jennifer Jackson reminded the Board that on Monday, April 3, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved an Offer of Economic Development Incentives for UPM-Raflatac, Inc., contingent upon the approval of an economic incentives agreement between the County and Raflatac guaranteeing the job creation and capital investment requirements. The County offered an amount not to exceed $1.0 million as a reimbursement for site preparation and possibly road construction. Included in that $1.0 million would be the County=s cost to install a water line to extend to the site.

Based upon the County=s offer, Raflatac has announced that, contingent upon an acceptable incentives agreement being negotiated, they will build a $45.0 million facility in Broadpointe Park, which will result in the creation of 180 new jobs, and the 40 jobs currently in Henderson County would be retained. The average (weighted) wage would be $20.00 per hour for the plant employees. Additionally, the company will provide a full benefits package. Creation of at least 80 jobs will be in the first phase.

Staff was finalizing negotiations with Raflatac while the agenda was being prepared; however, the Board had received a copy of the proposed agreement in their mailboxes on Friday, May 12, 2000.

Jennifer reviewed the annual incentive payments with the Board.

Following some discussion, Jennifer Jackson asked the Board to consider adopting the proposed Resolution which approves the Agreement, authorizes its signature, and authorizes staff and appropriate Board members to take any further action to carry out the terms of the agreement.

Chairman Hawkins made the motion to adopt the Resolution as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

COUNTY SERVICE BUILDING

Architect Selection

The construction concept for the County Service Building includes the renovation of the building located on the Carolina Apparel Trading property and an addition to that building. An architect will need to be selected to assist the Board with the concept and detailed design of such improvements. A Request for Qualifications is required for that selection process. The County Attorney had developed the necessary documents for that process and requested approval to go forward with the advertisement and selection process. The proposed process involves Staff interviewing the candidates and recommending one firm to the Board with the expectation that the Board will make the final selection of the architect at its July 3, 2000 meeting.

The Board might wish to consider whether it prefers that the Board or one of its members be involved in earlier stages of the selection process. As alternatives to the proposed process, a Commissioner could work with Staff in the selection process or Staff could forward a recommendation of three firms for the Board of Commissioners to interview.

Staff requested direction from the Board on the desired selection process and authorization to proceed with the selection of an architect.

There was much discussion concerning the possibility of doing this project in phases. Commissioner Moyer moved adoption of the Resolution with respect to qualifications for architectural services with the changes discussed, subject to the Chairman and the County Manager=s approval of the language. Also to authorize Commissioner Kumor to work with staff and the architectural proposals and bring three to the Board for consideration. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Reimbursement from Financing Proceeds

It will be necessary for the County to seek some type of financing for the project. Prior to that financing, however, the County will have spent funds on the purchase of property, architectural and engineering fees and other related expenses. It is therefore advisable for the County to declare its intention to reimburse itself from financing proceeds for the expenditures that the County incurs on the project prior to financing.

As an initial estimate, Staff anticipated that the overall cost for the County Service Building project could run as much as $16.283 million, excluding the application of any proceeds of sale of property that will be vacated due to the project. This cost includes (1) the purchase price for the Carolina Apparel Trading property and five adjacent and contiguous properties including Hill, Seabaugh, and Campbell; (2) estimated construction expenses; (3) estimated expenses for furniture, fixtures and equipment; (4) estimated architectural and engineering fees; and (5) project contingency. A revised project cost summary was reviewed which detailed this preliminary estimate of the overall project cost.

Following discussion, Chairman Hawkins made the motion to adopt the reimbursement Resolution as presented at $16.283 million. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Budget Amendment

Due to the timing of several of the purchases discussed above, an amendment to the FY 1999-2000 budget in the amount of $318,450 will be necessary. This amendment will cover all the expenses that the County will incur and owe in this fiscal year as a result of this project, including the following: environmental and geotechnical assessments for the Hill, Seabaugh and Campbell properties; the $10,000 earnest money deposit for the purchase of the Carolina Apparel Trading property; and the expenses related to the purchases of the Hill and Seabaugh properties which will occur prior to July 1, 2000. A budget amendment is attached which appropriates fund balance for these expenditures.

Carey McLelland distributed a one page hand-out of the AProposed Budget Amendment Detail@. Following discussion, Commissioner Moyer made the motion to take this money out of revenues for this year (1999 - 2000) and if there is not enough there, then to take it out of fund balance and directed staff to do this budget amendment based on that direction. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

UPDATE ON PENDING ISSUES

This is an effort to keep the lines of communication open. It gives the Chairman an opportunity to bring the Board up to date on issues that occur between meetings. It is also the time to ask for direction so that the Board can develop a public position on current and upcoming topics.

This is also an opportunity for Commissioners to report on related committee work and assignments. Items to discuss during this meeting are as follows:

Mayor Henry Johnson=s letter dated April 28, 2000

Chairman Hawkins had received a letter from Mayor Johnson expressing the Town of Laurel Park=s interest in extending their ETJ into an area that the County currently has zoned R-20. He asked to meet to discuss it. Chairman Hawkins felt it more appropriate to bring this before the Board first to get their comments.

Karen Smith showed the area in question on a zoning map.

It was suggested that Commissioners Moyer and Gordon and staff from Planning meet with Laurel Park representatives to hear their request and express County concerns.

Readdressing question - this was an add-on by Commissioner Kumor

Commissioner Kumor had received an e-mail that said AWe were notified very quietly by the post office last week that we now have a new route number. This means that our address will change again in about six months. Do the County Commissioners have any influence over the post office to delay this? Anyway, you may be hearing some complaints from other residents about this. I think it is really ironic that you all have caught such heat about this issue and the post office has pulled this off with no fanfare.@

The County Manager and other staff have been working on that issue for some time now of how to deal with the post office.

Chairman Hawkins stressed that we do not currently have an enhanced 9-1-1 system in the county. We have the software but when a telephone call comes in, we do not get a map on the screen. Staff has been working diligently on this trying to accomplish it. The post office would like for the county to implement addresses by route numbers rather than by emergency service numbers (ESNs). ESNs is how BellSouth has the numbers packaged. Without route numbers we can=t get the zip plus four.

It was the consensus of the Board that Chairman Hawkins meet with Robert Baird and look at the problems we=re facing with the post offices and try to come up with a solution.

Chairman Hawkins called a short recess.

INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS

1. Katie Breckheimer - Ms. Breckheimer works for the Environmental and Conservation Organization (ECO). She informed the Board that this Friday, May 19, is Strive Not To Drive Day. She asked the Board to try to limit driving and to help to make our county user friendly for biking and walking.

2. Bill & Sandy Ballard - Mr. Ballard reminded the Board of a letter they had written to the Board last week about the junkyard ordinance. They requested an amendment to the junkyard ordinance. Neighbors of theirs have an on-going yard sale and leave the items out with tarps covering them. The neighbors say that they are selling antiques and yard sale items. The Ballards fear that their property values will go down because of the neighbor=s property.

PROCLAMATION - STRIVE NOT TO DRIVE

Mrs. Breckheimer had proposed a Proclamation for the Board to adopt proclaiming Friday, May 19, 2000 as AStrive Not To Drive Day@ .

Commissioner Moyer made the motion that the Board proclaim Friday, May 19, 2000 as AStrive Not To Drive Day@ and ask all the citizens to examine their personal driving choices to commute via transit, sharing a ride, bicycling, walking, or telecommuting during Srive Not To Drive Day. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

IMPORTANT DATES

Chairman Hawkins reviewed the Board=s calendar and stated the need to set several meetings.

Special Order Setting a Public Hearing - To Consider the Rural Operating Assistance Program Application for Western Carolina Community Action

Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to Adopt a Special Order Setting a Public Hearing for June 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Set Public Hearing on Road Name - Dolly Case Lane/Bourbon Street

Staff had requested that the Board set a Public Hearing for this road name for June 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.

Commissioner Ward stated that he wished to be excused when this comes up. This is his Mother=s Church. He stated that he is highly objective to naming a road next to a Church Bourbon Street.

The Board set the hearing for June 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m

Budget Workshop Set

The Board set an additional budget workshop for Thursday, June 1 at 1:00 p.m. and hope to be able to adopt the FY 2000 - 2001 budget on June 5, at the regular first of the month meeting.

JUNKYARD ORDINANCE

Commissioner Kumor asked the Manager to speak to the junkyard ordinance. We had a couple who addressed the junkyard ordinance during informal public comments. They requested an amendment to the ordinance.

David Nicholson stated that the County=s current junkyard ordinance is administered by the Environmental Health Division of the Public Health Department. He stated that there are two ordinances that might apply - The Junkyard Ordinance through the Environmental Health Division and the Solid Waste Ordinance which is enforced by the Solid Waste Department and addresses illegal dumping. The issue that Mr. & Mrs. Ballard spoke to is people storing items on their private property. This may be something that the Board would want to put on the agenda for the Environmental Advisory Committee to study to see if they can expand some of the litter issues. Currently neither of the ordinances would address the issues the Ballards raised.

It was the consensus of the Board for the legal staff to address the Environmental Advisory Committee and explain the two ordinances mentioned (neither of which is designed to address the issue that was raised during public input) and to give some alternatives. Then the Environmental Advisory Committee can evaluate the ordinances and make a recommendation/s to the Board of Commissioners and the Board can decide which avenue to follow.

Jennifer Jackson stated that as a part of the Safety Net Zoning issue, junkyards are dealt with in the ordinance. If the Board wishes to proceed with Safety Net Zoning it is contemplated that the junkyard ordinance would be repealed and would be folded into the Zoning Ordinance.

The junkyard ordinance was identified in the Aquality of life@ issues and staff has been working on it in the context of Safety Net Zoning.

PUBLIC HEARING - To Consider Request for Economic Development Incentives for Metromont Materials

Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go into Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Jennifer Jackson informed the Board that this public hearing was held to consider the request of Metromont Materials Corporation for economic development incentives based upon a proposed expansion. They have indicated that if assistance with public sewer were provided by the County, they would be interested in developing a new manufacturing facility in Henderson County. The total capital investment associated with this facility would be $11.0 million. The proposed location for the new facility is Brickton Industrial Park, located near Fletcher. The new facility would result in the creation of 6-12 new jobs, paying $11.00 - $16.00 per hours, with full benefits. The estimated cost to provide the public sewer is $128,600. Pursuant to the Board=s Guidelines for economic development incentives, Metromont should qualify for annual incentives in the amount of $36,800. The Board has previously indicated that it would be willing to consider reimbursement to Metromont Materials for a partial reimbursement of the costs for public sewer in the form of three Annual Incentives Payments of $36,800 each, totaling to a reimbursement of $110,400.

Jennifer Jackson stated that during final negotiations with Metromont, they agreed to commit to creating 12 new jobs.

This public hearing was properly noticed in the Times-News on May 5, 2000 as required by NCGS 158-7.1.

Public Input

1. Scott Hamilton - Mr. Hamilton spoke on behalf of the Hendersonville Chamber of Commerce in support of the economic development incentives for Metromont Materials Corporation.

2. Jeff Hardig - Mr. Hardig is the Regional Manager for Metromont. He thanked the Board for considering their request and stated that they look forward to many prosperous years in Henderson County.

Jennifer Jackson reviewed some revisions to the proposed agreement.

Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go out of Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept the Resolution as presented noting exhibit A was the document the Board had just heard revisions to. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING - Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Budget

Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go into Public Hearing on the FY 2000 - 2001 Budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

The purpose of this public hearing was to hear public comment on the FY 2000-2001 budget. Mr. Nicholson informed the Board that this hearing had been duly advertised as required by NCGS.

Public Input

1. Betsy Armstrong-Price - Ms. Armstrong-Price, President of the Alliance for Human Services. She introduced speaker # 2 as Mike Oliphant, Executive Director of the Alliance for Human Services.

She informed the Board of the mission of the Alliance for Human Services ATo strengthen the delivery of human services to the Henderson County community through close collaboration of funders and facilitate an effective and efficient distribution of human service resources.@ In doing that work with three main funders in Henderson County which include: Henderson County Government, United Way, and the Community Foundation.

In the past year the Alliance has completed a needs assessment which was presented to the Board of Commissioners last fall. They also have accredited the nonprofit organizations that are funded by the three funders. They have provided technical assistance and education to the nonprofits in the area. They have set funding priorities based on research and the needs assessment and have made recommendations to the funders.

She was aware that the Board had set aside $180,000 for the Alliance Budget. They reviewed the agency applications and the information that they provided along with financial information. They gathered additional information and asked difficult questions. She made the following recommendations:

Blue Ridge Community Health Services (new allocation)

To provide pediatric, dental, surgical programs $21,000 grant

to buy equipment for the new programs

Blue Ridge Literacy Council $12,500

They help improve the employment situation for individuals

as well as life skills by working with illiterate adults

Boys & Girls Club $ 4,000

For their at risk program - dealing with at risk youth

Council on Aging $38,000

For home delivered meals (will provide meals for

approximately 30 individuals for one year)

Dispute Settlement Center $12,000

Youth and community mediation - part of this is a match

of State funds for youth mediation

Housing Assistance Corporation $12,000

For home repair for low income elderly and disabled

Interfaith Assistance Ministry $0 (this year)

For emergency assistance or basic needs

Mainstay $20,000

Support for their shelter - providing protection for

victims as well as a safe place to get their lives back

together and become productive citizens

Pisgah Legal Services $10,000

This is their Henderson County assistance project -

provides legal services to those who would have no

means of getting it

SSEACO (formerly Something Special) $50,000

Adult vocational activities program, transportation, and

instruction - they train disabled adults to become employable

The Healing Place $ 500

Serves victims of sexual abuse in our community

They are in a strong financial position right now

Total = $180,000

2. Mike Oliphant - Mr. Oliphant distributed a packet of information to the Board which was a summary of all the applications (I did not get a copy).

3. Diane Bowers - Ms. Bowers, Executive Director of the Blue Ridge Literacy Council. She stated that they are one of the accredited agencies spoken of above. She thanked the Board for the support for the Literacy Council and for commissioning the Alliance to do the needs assessment.

Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go out of Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Chairman Hawkins called a short technical recess to take care of videotaping needs.

QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Amendment to Special Use Permit # SP-93-13 for Carriage Park Planned Unit Development (Application #SP-93-13-A4)

The Board of Commissioners scheduled for this date a Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing on an application by Carriage Park Development Corporation (CPDC) for a proposed amendment to Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Carriage Park.

SP-93-13 was granted by the Board of Commissioners in 1993. Since then, the Commissioners have approved three amendments to the permit. Through the current application, CPDC is requesting to increase the size of the PUD from 377.6 acres to 392.3 acres by adding 14.7 acres of property to the development. The applicant would also like to increase the number of dwelling units permitted within the PUD from 663 to 695. Finally, the applicant has requested that condition A3e@ be removed from Exhibit A in the order for a prior amendment, #SP-93-13-A1.

The Board of Commissioners referred the application to the Planning Board on November 17, 1999. The Planning Board met on November 30, 1999 and voted on a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. As in past Quasi-Judicial Proceedings, the Planning Board=s recommendation and other evidence will be presented by staff during the hearing.

Interim County Attorney Angela Beeker was not present at the hearing; however, Staff Attorney Jennifer Jackson was available to assist the Board, if needed.

Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go into Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing on the proposed amendment for a Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 for Carriage Park Planned Unit Development. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Chairman Hawkins - ALadies and gentlemen, a quasi-judicial proceeding is scheduled for today on the petition of Carriage Park Development Corporation for an amendment to Special Use Permit #93-13, a Planned Unit Development. A quasi-judicial proceeding, much like a court proceeding, is a proceeding in which one=s individual rights are being determined. The proceedings will be conducted under the Henderson County Board of Commissioners Rules of Procedure for Quasi-Judicial Proceedings. Only persons who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome of the decision are allowed to participate in the proceedings.

Just an overview of the procedure:

All persons who speak and participate, including any witnesses that will be called, will be placed under oath. Staff will give brief introductory remarks then the Board will ask the petitioner what evidence he wishes to present in support of his application for a special use permit. After the petitioner is finished, anyone else who has expressed a desire to be a party and who the Board has recognized as a party will then be allowed to present their witness testifying in this proceeding. All parties will be given the opportunity to ask questions of all witnesses testifying in the proceeding. The Board will be given the opportunity to ask questions also. After the evidence is presented the Board will discuss the issues raised and will make a decision. The Board=s decision must be made in writing within 45 days of the hearing. The Board acknowledges the petitioner, Dale Hamlin, on behalf of Carriage Park Development Corporation and the staff as parties to the proceeding. Are there any other persons who present who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome of the proceeding and who wish to be a party to the proceedings?@ AYes, would you please come forward. Will you please state your name and address and why you - or how you=ll be affected by the outcome.@

Lady from the audience who had stepped up to the podium - AYes, my name is Lynn Redmond, I live at 111 Valley Hill Drive. I will be a party to this by virtue of the fact that I am a homeowner in Carriage Park, I have a financial interest in how this is developed as well as I am concerned about the buffer situation.@

Commissioner Kumor - ACan you spell your last name, Lynn.@

Lynn Redmond - AR-e-d-m-o-n-d.@

Commissioner Kumor - AOK, thank you.@

Chairman Hawkins - AMrs. Jackson, I think we need - the Board needs to decide whether or not to allow Ms. Redmond as a party.@

Jennifer Jackson - AYes sir.@

Chairman Hawkins - AIt would seem, I assume that your property is not only in Carriage Park but adjacent to this or how are you situated?@

Lynn Redmond - AIt is not adjacent but because of the fact that they will be doing work on the road - it is a road that I utilize on a daily basis and I truly believe that the removal of the tree buffer will affect the road base and I am concerned about it.@

Chairman Hawkins - ASo the road buffer is adjacent to your property or on the road that you transverse.@

Lynn Redmond - AI live off of Valley Hill which is - I utilize Carriage Park Way on a daily basis on numerous occasions.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, I don=t have any objections. Does anyone on the Board object to Ms. Redmond being a party? Mrs. Jackson, do you have any advise for us?@

Jennifer Jackson - ANo sir. I - I think it would be appropriate to make her a party to the proceeding.@

Chairman Hawkins - AIs there any other - any other parties? I think we=ve already recognized Mr. Hamlin, Luther are you going to be a part. OK.@

David Nicholson - AI guess they will be witnesses that would be called.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK.@

Jennifer Jackson - ACarriage Park has been recognized as the party and I - I=m assuming there will be several of you that will be called upon to testify and at the appropriate time you can all come up and be sworn.@

Luther Smith - AThat was my question. They recognized Dale specifically so I didn=t know.@

Chairman Hawkins - AWell, at this time, I=d just ask for the - all the parties and the witnesses to come forward so you can be sworn. You were headed in the right direction.@

David Nicholson - AMrs. Redmond please.@

Jennifer Jackson - AMrs. Redmond, if there will be any witnesses that you would like to call. OK, great.@

Clerk to the Board - AIf you could all come forward and put your left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand. Do you swear (or affirm) that the testimony that you shall give to the Board of County Commissioners shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.@

In unison - AI do.@

Chairman Hawkins - AMrs. Corn, are there any of the witnesses or parties that you do not have their address that you need to get at this time?@

Clerk to the Board - AI don=t know that I have any of their addresses.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK.@

Clerk to the Board - AI have their names.@

Those sworn in were: Karen Smith, Luther Smith, Dale Hamlin, John Jeter, and Lynn Redmond.

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, well we can - we can get in contact with them down there, OK. And I=d ask staff to make your introductory remarks, Karen, are you going to do that for staff.@

Karen Smith - AI am, I have a copy of my remarks, I=ll pass that out to the Board and the parties at this time.@

Karen distributed a 2 page hand-out.

Karen Smith - AGood Morning.@

Chairman Hawkins - AMorning@

Karen Smith - ACarriage Park Development Corporation has submitted an application for an amendment to Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 for Carriage Park which is a Planned Unit Development. The Board of Commissioners granted SP-93-13 in October of 1993. Carriage Park is located on NC Hwy. 191 and it is in the county R-30 and R-20 zoning districts as well as the WS-IV watershed protection area. As the Board previously approved SP-93-13, the plan for Carriage Park consisted of a total of 663 dwelling units on 377.6 acres of land. Since granting the permit in 1993, the Board of Commissioners has approved three amendments. Commissioners should have copies of the orders granting those amendments as well as the original permit in your notebooks. If anyone needs copies, I have those available. Through the current application, SP-93-13-A4, Carriage Park Development Corporation is requesting to increase the size of the Planned Unit Development from 377.6 acres to 392.3 by adding 14.7 acres of property it owns adjacent to the development which was formerly known as the Corn property. The applicant would also like to increase the number of dwelling units permitted within the PUD by 32, from 663 to a total of 695. The applicant has also requested that a condition in amendment #SP-93-13-A1, #3-E be removed and I=ll read that condition. It says applicant shall be required to maintain an undisturbed buffer 30 feet in width along both sides of the 60 foot easement covering the new portion of Carriage Park Way. Said buffer must meet the requirements of an undisturbed buffer as outlined in condition #4 of SP-93-13. The applicant has requested that all other conditions established in SP-93-13 and amendments that followed remain unchanged and in effect. The 14.7 acres of property to be added is shown on the research master plan which is included in your agenda packet, I=ve also got it up on the television screen. It adjoins the southeast boundary of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, just south of the entrance to the development. The Board of Commissioners referred the application that=s before you today on November 17 of 1999 to the Planning Board. The Planning Board met on November 30 of 1999 and has developed a recommendation for the Board of Commissioners and I will present that as evidence later on in the hearing. After making it=s recommendation, the Planning Board did want me to note to the Board of Commissioners that there had been an issue during it=s consideration about the public notice requirement for times when the Planning Board looks at amendments to Special Use Permits and makes recommendations and at the suggestion of the Planning Board, I will be bringing this Board something in the future for your interpretation and I also wanted to note that since we received the application SP-93-13-A4, the Planning Board has met and approved another development parcel and that was for section 20, Carriage Meadows. Staff approved the plats for section 20 and the requisite open space on April 20 of this year. I did want to review just briefly for the Board and for the parties, um what the Board of Commissioners needs to look at as far as the Special Use Permit amendment is concerned. It - the review is very similar to what you do for a Special Use Permit when it starts from the beginning. Um, you have to make findings that it will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and that the use will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or public improvements in the neighborhood. You can impose conditions to assure that the use will conform to the requirements and spirit of the zoning ordinance. There also are other findings, uh, that you can make to certify compliance with the rules governing special use permits for a planned unit developments and you can also find that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made and I have provided a list of the items out of the zoning ordinance of things where applicable. They deal with ingress and egress, off street parking and loading, utilities, buffering, playgrounds, open spaces, yards, access ways and pedestrian ways and building and structures as far as location, size, and use. And finally, I wanted to note that for the record in accordance with State law and the Zoning Ordinance, we did publish two notices of today=s hearing, on April 30 and May 7 in the Times-News. We sent notices of the hearing via certified mail to the property owners adjoining the current Carriage Park boundary as well as to the property that is to be added and we have posted signs to advertise today=s hearing.@

Chairman Hawkins - AThank you Karen. Uh, Mr. Hamlin, are you going to present your evidence at this time?@

Dale Hamlin - AMr. Smith will.@

Chairman - AOK, Luther do you want to@

Luther Smith - AMy name is Luther Smith, Luther Smith Associates, here in Hendersonville and our firm are the planners - have been the planners for Carriage Park. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, it=s a privilege as always to be here. Hopefully today=s hearing will be a little less involved than some may have been in the past but I=m here on behalf of Carriage Park Development Corporation and we have what we feel is a very simple amendment to the planned unit development that was approved by the Board of Commissioners, uh, I guess originally in - what was it - >93. I=m gonna have to get my glasses out to read my notes here. Uh, Karen ran through a brief history and I=m sure you all are familiar with the history of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development. The original permit approved in >93 was for approximately 377 acres and permitted about 663 units. Uh, those of you that were on the Board remember that the development of that permit was a very long and sorta drawn out process, uh, but we feel in general it has worked very well over the past number of years. Since then, including today=s request, there are four amendments to the original permit, two of which have been proposed by the applicant, two of which came out of some interpretations that staff needed in terms of developing the permit. The first of those that was requested by Carriage Park is part - ties with part of this request today so if I can I=ll step to the map and explain. 93-13-A1- during this period of time that we were trying to develop the original permit with the County, Carriage Park was able to acquire the property that we=re looking at today, called the Corn property. It was not however at that time included as part of the PUD simply because we were halfway through the process and we didn=t want to stop, back up, and say let=s change it and go forward. Shortly thereafter as we started developing the - the parkway and the first section, we really started looking at - came around here - the original parkway plan went back up through here and came out basically in that area. When we were able to acquire this property, we wanted to readjust the parkway so it went down through the Corn property and made a much better access of the mountain, grade wise and everything else. So our first request in amending the permit was to relocate that section of road that went from here over to here and down through the Corn property. One of the conditions at the request of Mr. Edney that was included in that permit and I believe it was condition 3-E, yeh 3-E was that because that section of the parkway was running through property that was not part of the PUD, we do consider it and did at that time part of Carriage Park but it wasn=t part of the PUD - that an additional 30 foot buffer was established - an easement was established along that section of the road as it went through these properties that were not part of the original planned unit development; therefore, in our application at this time since we are asking to incorporate this property as part of the overall development - or the planned unit development, we are asking one of the request is for that condition of the 30 foot buffer which was there for protection because the adjacent property wasn=t part of the development to be removed on that section of road; however, all the other conditions that are established in the base permit that deal with the parkway in terms of set backs and everything else would remain.@

Commissioner Moyer - ALuther, the condition with respect to buffer at the outside edge of your property where you abut against the part@

Luther Smith - ARight here@

Commissioner Moyer - AYeh, part you don=t own.@

Luther Smith - AAt the exterior - at the moment the Corn property of course is - is not covered in any of the PUD requirements. If this Board decides to make it a part of the PUD then the 30 foot buffer requirement that we submitted as part of the original application will immediately come into play on this property as well along - that=s McCarson cemetery road and what=s that development called?

Commissioner Kumor - ACreekside@

Luther Smith - ACreekside development ................ but what we=re asking for - the 30 foot buffer was not on this property - it was in addition to the 60 foot right-of-way just along this section of the road and that was simply because these properties were not part of the planned development at that point in time.@

Commissioner Gordon - ASo if I understand correctly then would that make the - if that provision is removed - then that would be consistent with what is in place in the rest of the PUD.@

Luther Smith - AThat=s correct.@

Commissioner Gordon - AOK@

Luther Smith - AWe have - where it=s a 60 foot right-of-way on the parkway plus a set back. I can=t remember off the top of my head but there is a minimum development set back that occurs as well as the - uh, we=ll talk about the development parcels in a moment but as well as a 25 foot buffer between the development parcels in addition to normal building set backs.@

Commissioner Gordon - ASo, it would be in compliance with everything else that=s in there.@

Luther Smith - AAll the other conditions that were set up in the original permit would now be applied to this 14 acres. As Karen indicated the uh former development or the PUD as it stands I guess covers 377.6 acres, we add this 14.7 acres, it will increase the land area to about 392.3 acres. The Corn property is zoned R-20, again if you remember with Carriage Park right about here is a zoning boundary - this portion of the property toward 191 is zoned R-20, this portion is zoned R-30. That becomes an important part of the whole process because as we sit down and put parcels on record - if the parcel is split between R-20 and R-30 we have to calculate the amount of open space and everything differently. So that - that zoning boundary sorta stays enforced from that standpoint. The existing number of proposed units is 663, what we are asking for is an increase of 32 units to 695 based on the addition of the 14.7 acres of land. We have come with this request because section 200-33-F of paragraph 6 - on changed all numbers I guess when you codified everything but indicates that=s in the PUD section of the ordinance - allows for certain minor changes to take place by action with staff; however, uh it does not specifically say that when you=re adding land to the PUD or increasing the number of units you have to come in but it implies that in the sense that it talks about an increase in density or a change in the use - intensity of the use requires a formal amendment by the Board and that=s part of why we=re here today. Uh I believe in the booklets that - that we gave you we had four items listed as - as part of our request. There is actually a fifth item that we forgot to include in that list - it was I think demonstrated to the Planning Board to the best of my recollection and sorta becomes a follow through thing here. The first of those is obviously in adding this property will we=ll increase the size of the planned unit development, the second the addition of the units that would be allowed - 32 units, the third the removal of the condition I mentioned earlier which shows up in the first amendment - A-1. Uh, the fourth that all of the other conditions that are in the amendments today will stay in place and in force with the exception of that one we are asking to be changed. And the fifth - if you will notice on - on the master plan this is section VII which is a development parcel, section IX - what we are asking to do is a realignment because of the addition of these properties of essentially these two parcels to allow them to come down the road and the creation of the 26^th parcel. We currently have 25 development parcels in the original plan. But this area between the parkway, excuse me, and 191 will become development parcel #26 so that the master plan will be changed - the master plan from the county=s standpoint ............ standpoint of the PUD boundary will be changed to reflect these changes in this development parcel as well - or excuse me the changes in the two development parcels and the addition of a 26^th development parcel.@

Commissioner Moyer - ALuther, is that just for information? That=s not part of the application is it?@

Luther - AWell, that=s what I said - we noticed that it was not written here as one of the things in the application and even though we did bring it up I think at the Planning Board meeting, we need to include that as part of the application. I think in the process of putting this thing together it=s one of those things that you kinda think is an automatic thing - I think we simply forgot to list it as a specific thing. I think it=s the Board=s decision to include that as a part of the - of this property - we=re adding this property if you decide to do it - that we adopt a new master plan - an official master plan as it=s shown with the development parcels. I=ll be happy to answer any questions the Board may have about this or things that have occurred in the development. We also have Mr. Hamlin.@

Commissioner Moyer - AWas #5 considered by the Planning Board, Karen, when they reviewed the overall application?@

Karen Smith - AI need to go back and look at the minutes which I have to pass out to you. Um, again I - I don=t know that it was specifically discussed in the way that Mr. Smith has just mentioned. It was on the plan and actually has been on the plan uh in fact I think with your last amendment I believe it was even on the plan but I don=t know that there was specific discussion about realigning development parcels so you can ...............@

Commissioner Moyer - ABut doesn=t a revision under the subdivision ordinance - doesn=t a revision to the master plan require initial approval by the Planning Board?@

I=m not sure who said AYes@ (maybe Luther Smith)

Karen Smith - ANot under the subdivision ordinance, maybe - I think it=s all part of the special use permit review because the development parcels aren=t fixed boundaries per se - I=m not sure what you meant by the subdivision ordinance.@

Commissioner Moyer - AWell, I thought if there was amendment to a master plan that@

Karen Smith - AFor - yeh@

Commissioner Moyer - AThat met certain conditions@

Karen Smith - ABut an amendment to the master plan under - under the PUD is an amendment under the zoning ordinance as well and would need to be considered or approved. I just didn=t know that this was a specific request at this time.@

Commissioner Moyer - AJennifer, you=ve got an interesting question to deal with.@

Jennifer Jackson - AAnd if I can find just a provision in here - at the Board=s last amendment which is amendment 3 which was adopted in >97 - you did spend some time in talking about amendments with regard to this - this project. Uh, unfortunately I don=t know that there - there is a specific provision with amendments to approve development parcels and including boundary line changes but that presumes that they have been approved and gone through the - the Planning Board process. Uh I think that it was always contemplated that those boundary lines were a little - a little flexible um and I do believe that it was contemplated with this amendment that some adjustments to - to the development parcels 7 and 9 and the addition of this new one was contemplated - how specific - specifically the Planning Board reviewed that I don=t think that they specifically reviewed - specifically addressed that. Now the notice that - notice of public hearing did speak to as - shown as portions of sections 7, 9 and 26 on the Carriage Park research master plan so I do believe that - that anyone getting public notice of this certainly could be aware that - that those development parcels would be affected. Now how comfortable the Board is in proceeding on that fifth amendment um if you=re uncomfortable we can certainly bring that back as - Carriage Park can bring that back as a specific amendment and get all of those development parcel realignments done as a separate amendment but if the Board is comfortable proceeding with this amendment or with that specific amendment in this - in this hearing - you may wish to see if there is any objection from any of the parties on that issue.@

Chairman Hawkins - AJennifer were you talking to - uh I guess it=s - in the A-3 - the special permit 93-13-A3 amendment.@

Jennifer Jackson - AYes sir.@

Chairman Hawkins - AAre you looking at the review and approval of common areas which talks to the research master plan under A under that - is that the area that you=re looking at cause I - it says that it has to be in accordance with paragraph 19 if I=m following you but I can=t find out what paragraph 19 said - is that the area you=re looking in?@

Jennifer Jackson - AHang on just a second@

Commissioner Ward - ANo, it=s this one here.@

Karen Smith - AParagraph 19 is probably back in the original permit, I think.@

Luther Smith - AThat=s one of the conditions in the original permit - it sets out the review process.@

Chairman Hawkins - ASo then that would have to still go back to the original paragraph 19?@

Jennifer Jackson - AI think that=s correct. The problem is this portion was never considered a part of the PUD because it has never been made a portion of it so this permit does not really apply to it yet or until action of this Board - so it would be that action that would bring this - bring this permit sort of into - into that. Now the only - the only two portions that are currently - the only two parcels that are - that are affected currently are 7 and 9 as they are - at least a portion of them as drawn today are in the original permit - are contemplated in that original - original plan so with respect to that - um@

Commissioner Moyer - AHow bout 26?@

Jennifer Jackson - A26 would be - let=s see@

Luther Smith - AA portion of 26"

Jennifer Jackson - AYou=re correct@

Luther Smith - AA portion of 26 would be included in the agreement.@

Jennifer Jackson - AYou are correct. There=s a small portion of 26 that is in the original.@

Commissioner Moyer - AWell, are any of the boundaries of 7 and 9 and 26 changing other than the addition?@

Luther Smith - ANo sir, just the extension of those two - the current PUD master plan - of course these parcels stop 30 feet back@

Commissioner Moyer - ARight@

Luther Smith - Afrom that property so it=s simply the extension of those two into that - that ridge area.@

Commissioner Moyer - AThe same true with 26"

Luther Smith - AThe same is true with 26, yes sir. This - this property here was actually ......... before the road was relocated on the original master plan that was part of #9 and it was split by the road and sorta lost its designation at that point.@

Commissioner Moyer - AIf you superimposed the last map you gave to the Planning Board on top of that - the boundaries of 7 and 9 would be exactly the same as@

Luther Smith - AThat=s correct - this map with these parcels shown has been even for prior amendments has been the official master plan submitted to the county since A-1 which relocated the road. In other words these parcels have been shown. This has never been a part of the PUD - there=s a line in here that says PUD boundary but in terms of the project master plan - those parcels have been shown since the relocation of the road.@

Karen Smith - AMr. Chairman, there is a little bit of discussion in the minutes. If the Board would like, I can distribute those at this time if you=d like a chance to look it over - from the Planning Board meeting.@

Chairman Hawkins - AThese are the Planning Board=s recommendations to us.@

Karen Smith - AIt=s the Planning Board minutes attached to the recommendation, yes.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, if you want to give them and let the Board look at those and we=ll.@

Commissioner Moyer - AI would think where I would come out is if the other boundaries of 7 and 9 and 26 have not changed and this is just the addition - it is part of - consistent with the amendment that we be acting on as long as the findings stipulate that the other boundaries weren=t changed - I would think we could be - we could go ahead and act on that. Jennifer I would certainly be subject to your agreement but.@

Jennifer Jackson - AI think I=m comfortable with that given that the notice was broad enough I think to - to indicate that those three parcels would be affected by the addition.@

Commissioner Moyer - AI think if any of the other boundaries were changing I would have to go the other way but based on your statement that they haven=t.@

Luther Smith - AYou can see in the notebook we gave you there is a - both a colored and rendered master plan and then an 11 x 17 as part of the application master plan and again those are the master plans that have been used - submitted to the county since the road relocated. Um I guess the most recent revision on the black and white one was October >99 when - um - section 10 was added after it was - that=s the one that=s kept up to date and continually submitted to the County.@

Chairman Hawkins - AWe=ll take just a minute to read through these minutes.@

Jennifer Jackson - AIt - it may be appropriate to see if Mr. Smith has any other evidence because there are other parties that - that will be entitled to submit evidence and I believe Ms. Smith will be speaking to the recommendation of the Planning Board when she is given an opportunity to review that.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, do you have anything else.@

Luther Smith - ANothing other than I=ll be happy to answer - address any other questions the Board may have.@

Chairman Hawkins - ADoes anyone have any questions of Mr.?@

Commissioner Moyer - AWell, before we leave this let me just ask Jennifer again, would it be appropriate to ask Mr. Hamlin or Luther to make a statement that they specifically want to amend their application to add # 5 and it be considered as part of this.@

Jennifer Jackson - AI think that would be appropriate.@

Luther Smith - AI=ll make such a statement. On behalf of the applicant, we wish to specifically amend our request to include a fifth item and that is the restructuring, reallocation of land areas and development parcels 7, 9 and 26 to include the property in the Corn property if it=s added as part of the PUD.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK@

Commissioner Moyer - AWhich merely adjusts the existing parcels to reflect the addition that you=re - which is the subject of the main application.@

Luther Smith - AThat=s correct ....... any other questions.@

Chairman Hawkins - AAnybody have any questions of Mr. Smith? Karen, you want to give your evidence now?@

Karen Smith - AI was just going to review the Planning Board=s recommendation. As I said earlier, the Planning Board met November 30, 1999 and reviewed application SP-93-13-A4. During its review, the Planning Board did hear comments from Carriage Park Development Corporation, staff, and - um - other interested parties. They discussed the application, voted unanimously 7 to 0 to send the Commissioners a favorable recommendation on the request provided that the condition 3-E as stated in SP-93-13-A1 be removed and I did attach those minutes for your reference.@

Chairman Hawkins - AWe=ll take just a minute to look through these.@

Commissioner Moyer - AYou ready for questions?@

Chairman Hawkins - AWe gotta get additional parties evidence.@

Commissioner Moyer - ANo, I have a question for Karen.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOh, oh yes, go ahead.@

Commissioner Moyer - AKaren, I=m gonna need to ask you to clarify the recommendation of the Planning Board. I don=t understand the - maybe it=s just me - the provided language - try to state that a different way. Is the - is the reco - favorable recommendation covering condition 3 as well as the expansion of the@

Karen Smith - AIt was for the entire application, yes, but they specifically - they - they made a favorable recommendation on the application as presented basically.@

Commissioner Moyer - AWell it says provided that the condition be removed.@

Karen Smith - AThey specifically want to acknowledge that the applicant has requested that condition be removed or not applicable - um from this point forward. And that=s the condition about the buffer.@

Commissioner Gordon - AYou mean they=re saying that removing that buffer - they give that approval to remove that@

Karen Smith - AFor removing that buffer.@

Commissioner Gordon - AOK@

Karen Smith - AAlong the road, yes.@

Chairman Hawkins - AThat clarify it for you?@

Karen Smith - AI just wrote down what the minutes said.@

Commissioner Moyer - AThe way they wrote it was@

Commissioner Gordon - AYeh, they=re just wanting to emphasis that they approve@

Karen Smith - AYes@

Chairman Hawkins - AThe removal of that@

Commissioner Gordon - AThe removal of the buffer.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK. Anybody else have any questions of Karen at this time. Or any - anybody have any questions for Karen, OK. Let me ask then the additional parties evidence and Mrs. Redmond I guess you have that.@

Lynn Redmond - APardon me.@

Chairman Hawkins - AAdditional parties evidence for you to present at this time.@

Lynn Redmond - AChairman Hawkins, Vice-Chairman Moyer, and respected Commissioners, Carriage Park Development Corporation is requesting that you amend the 30 foot tree buffer previously established by the County Commissioners between the Corn property and the Carriage Park PUD. The City Planning Board previously stated that the buffer was established to protect the Carriage Park PUD from being encroached upon. Carriage Park Development Corporation has since acquired the land and they wish to remove the buffer. The Commissioners acted with great wisdom when they made the decision to preserve this tree buffer. I ask you to carefully consider my concerns. I use Carriage Park Way every day as a homeowner and have financial and safety concerns regarding this road and buffer. A variance to remove the tree buffer will present serious problems to the homeowners who regularly use Carriage Park Way. The tree buffer acts as a natural reinforcement to the embankment supporting the road. The mature root system which maintains the embankment supports the soil which then supports the road. This road presently has serious failures which have not been addressed. Written assurance from CPDC that Carriage Park Way will be properly reinforced upon removal of the mature root system maintaining the embankment is important. Has CPDC detailed aggressive measures that they will take to prevent erosion of the road base once the mature root systems have been disturbed? Carriage Park Way presently supports tremendous vehicular traffic due in no small part to concrete trucks, lumber trucks, logging trucks, dump trucks, bulldozers and other construction vehicles utilizing it as it accesses further development. The road is becoming more and more damaged due to lack of maintenance by CPDC as they continue to utilize it to develop the upper portion of the mountain. There are presently safety hazards. Has CPDC submitted a plan for road maintenance, repair, and structural reinforcement detailing their responsibility for the roadway as they develop the Corn property? If such a written document has not been submitted to the County Commissioners or Carriage Park Homeowners Association, then it doesn=t seem feasible to allow a variance to remove the existing tree buffer. The buffer is a main support of the road and should not be disturbed without a good stabilization plan in place. There has been a history in Hendersonville of developers filing bankruptcy and failing to finish promised work. This has been evidenced most recently in the bankruptcy of Middleton Place and Haywood Townes. Carriage Park is a lovely place in which to live. Variances are granted to encourage growth but full development and sell of property is not completed in one area before another is allowed to be opened, laid bare, stripped of the very plant life that keeps the mountain from eroding. Carriage Park Homeowners have a vested interest in a successful development of the land within the PUD. We must as good stewards of our home and land be certain that the County Commissioners do not expose us to undue financial hardship for preventible road repairs. The Commissioners can help us avoid a potentially expensive situation by insisting there be a plan in place to avoid erosion of the existing road base. Maintaining protection afforded by the tree buffer along Carriage Park Way can be a major contribution to the protection of the Carriage Park homeowners insisting that CPDC develop and implement an acceptable stabilization and reinforcement plan prior to removal of the trees and root systems can be an alternative protection to our community. I feel strongly that it is incumbent upon the County Commissioners to determine whether removal of the tree buffer on the Corn property will impose a large unnecessary and unforseen expense to the homeowners of Carriage Park prior to granting any disturbance of the support to the road base. It would seem prudent to have a written document from CPDC outlining their plan and remedies regarding the serious situation. Money put in escrow for the support and repair could offset some of this concern.

My second concern is whether the County Commissioners have done an adequate study of the proposed widening of 191 with regard to the development of this property. It is likely that individuals purchasing lots in this area might find themselves in the way of the proposed corridor and have to relinquish substantial land to the DOT. This is a large concern for those of us in the PUD. Undue hardship should not be placed upon potential owners of this property. Property in Carriage Park is not inexpensive. I, myself, have paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars to live here and would be devastated to find I had to relinquish my home or part of my property to progress or to find my country home directly next to a five lane highway. It would seem to be incumbent upon the Commissioners to consider this as the Corn property is developed. If 191 is widened as proposed, the tree buffer is the only protection the homeowners have from the noise that will be generated from such an expansion. A visit to the site would give you a good understanding of the situations in question and it is hoped that you will try to resolve some of these issues prior to granting the variance. I would like to thank each and everyone of you for your kind attention to my concerns. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Redmond. Thank you.@

Chairman Hawkins - AThank you, Mrs. Redmond. Is there anyone that has any questions of Mrs. Redmond. Mr. Hamlin, do you have a question for her?@

Dale Hamlin - AYes, I do. How far do you live from the development parcel that=s being discussed today?@

Lynn Redmond - AI - I live at the top of the hill - I live@

Dale Hamlin - AWould it be a mile?@

Lynn Redmond - AI - I don=t know how long that is. You probably would know better than I but I would say probably a half mile.@

Dale Hamlin - AOK. What knowledge do you have that Carriage Park Development Corporation is going to be removing what you call tree buffers?@

Lynn Redmond - AUm, I think that=s part of your proposal is to remove the tree buffer.@

Dale Hamlin - AHave you heard that today?@

Lynn Redmond - AWhat I heard - um - in the Planning - I went to the City Planning Commissioners and I did hear it there.@

Dale Hamlin - AAt the City Planning Commissioners?@

Lynn Redmond - AYeh, the Planning - the City Planners.@

Dale Hamlin - AThe City Planners?@

Lynn Redmond - AOr is it the County Planners? One of the Planners.@

Dale Hamlin - AHave the County Planners submitted any evidence today that we=re going to remove tree buffers and according to what you=re saying - take down trees?@

Lynn Redmond - AIt was - what you=re - what you=re asking is that the tree buffer be removed so it would be an indicator that you would like to remove trees.@

Dale Hamlin - AAre you familiar with buffer that - that is currently in existence for Carriage Park Way?@

Lynn Redmond - AYes, I am.@

Dale Hamlin - AOK, how - how wide is that?@

Lynn Redmond - AIt=s suppose to be 30 feet.@

Dale Hamlin - AAnd it is 30 feet. Does it - does it affect your trafficking when you drive through the 30 foot tree buffer areas? Does it cause you safety hazards?@

Lynn Redmond - AIt does - it - presently it does not.@

Dale Hamlin - AWell the area that you traverse most of - you=re traveling on is a 30 foot tree buffer which the County Commissioners established when Carriage Park was built.@

Lynn Redmond - ARight but you=re asking for that to be removed.@

Dale Hamlin - AWe=re not asking for anything - we=re not asking for that to be removed.@

Lynn Redmond - AIsn=t that what - I believe that the 30 foot tree buffer@

Dale Hamlin - ANo, that=s not going to be removed.@

Lynn Redmond - AAnd what is the plan for that?@

Dale Hamlin - A........ just asking that the additional 30 foot buffer beyond the 30 foot be removed. Did you understand the - the evidence that has been presented so far?@

Lynn Redmond - ATo my knowledge I understood that the tree buffer in question is the Corn property which you would like to develop and if the tree buffer is removed from the road base which some of the tree buffer at the lower end has already been removed from the road base - for a parking area.@

Dale Hamlin - AOK. There has been no tree buffer allowed to be removed because there is going to - what we=re asking the County is that the 30 foot buffer that exists on all of the balance of Carriage Park Way be allowed for this section, which has double - a double section because we=re now going to ask to have this included within the PUD and just have the same buffer on that piece of land as all the rest of the parkway.@

Lynn Redmond - AAnd you have no intention of removing any more of the buffer.@

Dale Hamlin - AWe can=t - we can=t - its - the County doesn=t allow us to touch the tree buffer.@

Lynn Redmond - ABut in the Special Use Permit - what it - what it appears that - and then that=s what I have to say - what it appears that you=re requesting is that the existing tree buffer be removed.@

Dale Hamlin - AThat was very clear that we=re not asking for the - the existing tree buffer to be removed. We=re only asking for the excess tree buffer to be removed.@

Lynn Redmond - AAnd what do you@

Dale Hamlin - ATo have this piece of land comply.@

Lynn Redmond - AWhat do you define as the excess tree buffer?@

Dale Hamlin - AThrough the section of the Corn property there was an additional 30 feet on each side making it 60 feet on each side instead of the 30 - which the parkway currently has.@

Lynn Redmond - AAnd you will be maintaining a 30"

Dale Hamlin - AWe will be taking only the extra 30 - if the County approve it we=ll take the extra 30 off and it will comply with everything else in Carriage Park.@

Lynn Redmond - ABut there will be a maintenance of a 30 foot tree buffer?@

Dale Hamlin - AAbsolutely - absolutely.@

Lynn Redmond - Acontinued@

Commissioner Moyer - AMr. Chairman, that was - that was the purpose of my questions when we first started because I had the same concern. I think they made it very clear that they are not looking to change that. It=s the sixty which was imposed as an additional 30 - is the only piece that we can stipulate that and will stipulate that very clearly in the order so that you don=t have to be concerned about that. The other - they=ve covered it by saying all the other conditions but as I asked Mr. Smith - what is - what did he clearly mean. He made it very clear that that 30 feet - all the other 30 feets will stay and the buffer around the side - the outside of the property will be maintained. It=ll - it will become applicable to that piece of land. And we can so provide in the order to that effect.@

Lynn Redmond - AI see and- and will - in your treatment of that order will you also be looking at the possibility that 191 will be coming into that property and protect the homeowners - the potential homeowners in those areas?@

Commissioner Moyer - AI doubt whether I will be looking at that >cause that goes beyond what I think I can look at at this present time.@

Chairman Hawkins - AI - I think that from what you see when you drive up - you know - out 30 feet:

Lynn Redmond - ACorrect@

Chairman Hawkins - AI don=t think you can see the other 60 feet anyway just from visually - but the - but as I understand the discussion is what you see when you drive up is not gonna change - I mean that 30 feet from the road that you=re looking at is gonna be undisturbed and that makes it in compliance with the rest of the 30 foot buffer in the park.@

Lynn Redmond - AAnd that will be on both sides of Carriage Park Way or one side?@

Chairman Hawkins - AOn both sides as it is the rest of the way through the park.@

Lynn Redmond - AI appreciate the clarification.@

Commissioner Moyer - ABut on the outside edge you=ll still have - what=s the outside edge boundary, Luther?@

Commissioner Kumor - AThirty foot buffer.@

Luther Smith - AOutside - you mean the - out the@

Chairman Hawkins - AOn the perimeter@

Commissioner Moyer - AYeh@

Jennifer Jackson - AThe perimeter buffer@

Luther Smith - AThe perimeter of the property is a 30 foot buffer currently on the PUD and does not exist in the current Corn property. If you all include the Corn property in the PUD, then the outbound - or outside property line of the Corn property would automatically have that 30 foot buffer with with exception as - as is in the permit where it joins 191 down there - that=s - that corridor on 191 was specifically left out of the permit in terms of buffer because that 30 foot was already developed - the road and everything else. But in terms of going up McCarson Cemetery Road, uh, which would really be the only outbound portion of the property - from here up to there - the thirty foot buffer - perimeter buffer would immediately go into place if this property were included in this - and if I might address Mrs. Redmond=s?@

Lynn Redmond - ARedmond@

Luther Smith - AQuestion with regards to 191 - when Carriage Park was originally started back in >88 - uh - 60 foot right-of-way 30 foot from the center of existing 191 was set aside for DOT in terms of expansion - that=s what they required at that time so@

Lynn Redmond - AIn the event of@

Luther Smith - Ahuh@

Lynn Redmond - AIn the event of@

Luther Smith - AIn the event of expansion - so DOT has - the center line of 191 has a 30 foot right-of-way back into the property to expand@

Lynn Redmond - AThank you for the clarification.@

Dale Hamlin - AI have one other question.@

Chairman Hawkins - AGo ahead@

Dale Hamlin - AMrs. Redmond, in your prepared comments you alleged developer bankruptcy. What do you know about that?@

Lynn Redmond - AI know that - I=m not alleging that you are going bankrupt. What I am saying is there has been a history recently and I have a concern as a homeowner of seeing places like Haywood Townes going bankrupt with Middleton Place having problems and finding .........@

Dale Hamlin - AAre you suggesting that Carriage Park is in that same ...@

Lynn Redmond - ANo, I am not - I am not suggesting that but I do have a concern once I had seen this.@

Dale Hamlin - AOK@

Lynn Redmond - AThank you@

Chairman Hawkins - AThank you. Uh, Luther do you have any rebuttal evidence, other than what you=ve covered or do you want any.@

Luther Smith - No, other than just - I was gonna say if the Board has anything - any additional clarification of that condition 3-E - we=re not asking as Mrs. Redmond was talking I understood and I understood what she was saying - we are not asking for permission to remove all the trees - we=re asking simply to remove that buffer addition and - at which time that this becomes a part of Carriage Park a 30 foot perimeter buffer will go into place around the .... the McCarson Cemetery Road.@

Commissioner Moyer - ABut you=re only asking for the additional 30 foot to be removed, not the entire@

Luther Smith - AWell there=s a sixty foot right-of-way and then thirty foot on the outside of that right-of-way so we=re asking for that 30 foot - in other words - that was Mr. Edney=s thing - in addition to the right-of-way he wanted from the edge of the right-of-way an additional 30 foot out each side to protect that corridor since the land was not part of Carriage Park. That is the strip on each side that we are asking to be dropped - that=s just on the road.@

Commissioner Ward - AYou just want it to mirror what=s in the PUD@

Chairman Hawkins - AIn the rest of the PUD@

Luther Smith - AThrough the rest of the Planned Unit - now that doesn=t change the set-backs for example we=ve got - you know in - I=m trying to remember - I think 40 - 40 foot or 50 foot from the center line of the parkway - either 40 or 50 foot ... the permit that no construction can occur - no houses or structures can occur within 40 or 50 feet from the centerline of the parkway so - you know all that right-of-way as well as whatever the set back requirements are is still maintained there.@

Commissioner Gordon - AIf I understand correctly you just want this 30 feet to be able to be calculated into your density requirements and your usable land - it doesn=t mean you=ll necessarily use every inch of it or cut the trees off of it.@

Luther Smith - AThat=s correct.@

Commissioner Gordon - ABut it just needs to be incorporated in the calculations.@

Luther Smith - AThat=s correct.@

Commissioner Gordon - AYeh@

Lynn Redmond - AMay I ask one more question?@

Chairman Hawkins - AYes mam@

Lynn Redmond - AWill that be part of the stipulation, uh, when this is - when this is written that that 30 foot tree buffer will not be removed? In other words, will that be in writing or is that just something that=s sort of an agreement?@

Chairman Hawkins - AI think if its - if we - if we approve this to make this piece - these pieces of land in accordance with the rest of the PUD that=s already in writing as part of the original PUD.@

Commissioner Kumor - AWell I thought what she was requesting is that we just make it specific in this@

Lynn Redmond - ACorrect@

Commissioner Kumor - AThis place so that there is no - it appeared everybody knows that that=s what we mean@

Lynn Redmond - A ....... that we=re talking about specifics.@

Commissioner Kumor - ASince we all seem to agree on what=s being said that we make sure it=s listed - written there.@

Commissioner Ward - ASo it won=t be undisturbed@

Commissioner Gordon - AI don=t think that=s appropriate. I think - I think that that language is already a part of the existing PUD and I would not want to start trying to - I don=t see justification to change that.@

Luther Smith - AThat=s not@

Commissioner Kumor - AWe=re not changing anything. I thought what - what was being requested is that we just make sure that everybody understands that=s something we=ve all agreed to - is what we all agreed to.@

David Nicholson - AYou could reference that@

Luther Smith - ANo, I=m sorry I understand what she=s saying is - I=ll give you an example - when we developed let=s say section - section III which was the original thing. The development and clearing and so forth extends to the right-of-way and there is lawn and it comes down to the right-of-way; however, when we just over here to 24, adjacent to the right-of-way is this whole hillside of trees. My interpretation of what - what Mrs. Redmond is saying is she would like a condition through here that regardless of what the development is in the development parcel - that 30 foot requirement that currently exists in the ... be maintained as an undisturbed area as opposed to the rest of the development where the development parcels come up to the right-of-way - in some cases the development does not take down all the trees, in other cases - you know the trees as part of the entrance to that particular parcel and some of the trees disappear - that was my interpretation of what she is asking and I - you know - we - if you want to make this like this where the development parcels come to the road right-of-way and we have the right to develop those parcels consistent with the conditions that are already established in the permit.@

Commissioner Kumor - AThat=s not - well see I just understood that she was - uh - once Mr. Hamlin, I believe answered her question then I thought that was the - what everybody was saying.@

Chairman Hawkins - AI think if you - if you did that as Marilyn indicated you=d actually be changing what the rest of your conditions is in the PUD which were - is slightly different from the way Luther explained it and I would agree with Marilyn, I don=t think that that would be appropriate because then it wouldn=t be aligned with the conditions in the rest of the permit.@

Commissioner Kumor - AOh, I=m getting so confused.@

Commissioner Gordon - AWell, it seems that what=s already existing in the PUD has been - has worked.@

Commissioner Kumor - ABut that=s what I=m saying, that=s my@

Commissioner Gordon - ASo I - that=s why I don=t think we need to change or single this out.@

Commissioner Kumor - AThat=s not what I=m saying. That=s not what I=m saying. It was my interpretation of what was being said that there just be validation that that=s exactly what was gonna happen.@

Commissioner Gordon - AI just - I don=t think it=s necessary to do that. I think that=s what=s gonna happen.@

Chairman Hawkins - AUnless, you do what David said - suggested and that it becomes in compliance with the other visions in the PUD.@

Commissioner Kumor - AWell, I=m telling you, based on eight years of this stuff, if you don=t say it specifically, somewhere showhow somebody is gonna question and/or misinterpret what everybody meant.@

Commissioner Gordon - AWell, I=m not sure how you can be more - more clear or concise ...@

Commissioner Kumor - AThat=s what I=ve said the last eight years.@

Commissioner Gordon - Athan to just say that it becomes a part of the PUD and the restrictions or perimeters are the same as those within that existing PUD and to me that=s clear and if we start trying to pull this out and define something different, then we muddy the water and I - I would not want to do that.@

Chairman Hawkins - ALet me ask you@

Commissioner Kumor - ABut I thought that=s what I was just saying that we put in there - what you just said.@

Commissioner Gordon - ANo, you=re saying the other way. You=re saying pull it out.@

Commissioner Kumor - ANo, I=m not saying that.@

Commissioner Gordon - AI don=t want to pull it out.@

Commissioner Kumor - AI just said be as specific as possible, experience over time has - has told me that if we aren=t as specific as we can be - that - it adds just more confusion to both the builder - the developer and the people who are buying property there.@

Chairman Hawkins - ALet me - let me come back to that specifics when we get ready for a recommendation and move on and ask if there is any other questions of any of the witnesses from any of the - any of the parties or the Board has of any of the witnesses at this time. Then I - I=ll assume that all the evidence has been given, that we=re gonna take and ask Mr. Hamlin if you have any closing remarks or Mr. Smith either that you wish to make.@

Dale Hamlin - ANo sir.@

Chairman Hawkins - AStaff do you have any closing remarks.@

Karen Smith - ANo sir@

Chairman Hawkins - AMrs. Redmond, do you have any closing remarks that you wish to make?@

Lynn Redmond - AI don=t@

Chairman Hawkins - ANow that we=ve got all the evidence and the closing remarks, it would be appropriate to close the quasi-judicial hearing and discuss the issue that we=ve been presented. If there=s no more closing remarks.@

Commissioner Kumor - AMr. Chairman, I make the motion that we close this quasi-judicial hearing.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, all those in favor of that motion say aye.@

In unison - AAye@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, we=ll move on then with our discussion. Several ways I guess that you can approach it. Jennifer, I don=t know, do you have any comments for us?@

Jennifer Jackson - AYes, Mr. Chairman, just to remind the Board that there are certain findings that you have to - to make with regard to an amendment if you wish to - to approve it. One finding is that the use for the amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and that the use will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or public improvements in the neighborhood. And those would all - those findings would apply to all five aspects of the - the applicant=s amendment.@

Commissioner Kumor - AAnd how are we going to state that fifth finding - factor - that just@

Jennifer Jackson - AThat portion of the - amendment.@

Commissioner Kumor - AJust that the three will be expanded.@

Jennifer Jackson - ARealignment of parcels 7, 9, and 26.@

Commissioner Kumor - AOK@

Jennifer Jackson - ANot to include the additional - the additional property.@

Commissioner Kumor - AOK@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, the - thank you Jennifer - I=m looking back at the information that=s been presented and as Jennifer indicated in each one of the actually five now requests for amendments to 93-13 - we can either look at those individually or if you think there=s any particular one of those that both of those requirements doesn=t - does not apply to then we need to have some discussion on it. Any - anybody have any thoughts on any of them as far as meeting those two requirements.@

Commissioner Kumor - AIt=s just going back to - is there is statement then as Marilyn said - I don=t see that here in this request that there is any statement that this will be - this new parcel is added to the PUD and will then follow all of the regulations of the PUD. It just says all the conditions established in 93-13 shall remain unchanged but it doesn=t say that@

Chairman Hawkins - AI think when you come down and look that #5 actually puts those two parcels - or three parcels of land into - back into the original PUD then@

Commissioner Ward - AThen it would have to comply@

Chairman Hawkins - Athen condition four would mean that - uh - or the # 5 would mean that all those conditions in SP-93-13 as originally - which included the buffer requirements - then would be applicable to that particular - those three parcels that are now in that new Corn property and they would be applicable as they are throughout the rest of the PUD. And I think that=s the way I see and I would think that would be fairly - fairly straight forward.@

Commissioner Kumor - AI=m the ghost of Christmas past here - nothing is straight forward unless you are straight forward and say it.@

Chairman Hawkins - ADoes the Board wish to make a decision on this today or you wanta have the staff bring back some findings of fact for you to consider at a later meeting?@

Jennifer Jackson - ABefore we=d be in a position to do that, we=re going to need to hear sorta where the Board is going with this, whether you are - your tendency is to support the applicant=s amendment - request for an amendment or oppose it. I haven=t heard any discussion on - on how you feel about the amendment based on the evidence that was presented.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK. Anybody have any discussion on that - I@

Commissioner Kumor - AI think its - its@

Chairman Hawkins - APretty straight forward.@

Commissioner Kumor - Apretty straight forward it is. I just - am just gonna keep harping on the fact making it just as explicit as possible for both the protection of the developer and the people who are living there.@

Chairman Hawkins - ADoes anybody have any objection to supporting the findings of the Planning Board.@

Commissioner Gordon - ANo, I - I think the Planning Board made a good recommendation@

Chairman Hawkins - ARecommendation - yeh@

Commissioner Gordon - AI have no problems@

Chairman Hawkins - AWould you be comfortable with directing staff to come back with finding of facts to support that?@

Commissioner Ward - ABut I will agree with Mrs. Kumor - it=ll come up and bite you if you=re not real - specific@

Chairman Hawkins - >Be as specific on the buffer and that area and we can consider that in your findings.@

Commissioner Ward - AWe could have two or three more meetings to try to define what we said.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK@

Commissioner Ward - AAnd we have.@

Commissioner Moyer - ABut as Marilyn said, when you start putting in words that are different from what .... you get into problems@

Commissioner Ward - AWell I know know - I don=t want anything any different@

Commissioner Kumor - AWe didn=t say be different.@

Commissioner Gordon - AWhat will happen - what will happen.@

Commissioner Kumor - AThat=s not what we=re saying.@

Commissioner Ward - AI just want you to state exactly@

Commissioner Kumor - AJust state - just state what we - what we really mean.@

Chairman Hawkins - ARestate what=s in here. Well that=s something certainly we can look at when we bring it back and see if it=s@

Commissioner Moyer - AIf you specifically state all the conditions and what=s there apply to all these parcels, I think you=ve said it.@

Chairman Hawkins - AThat=s it.@

Commissioner Kumor - ABut that=s what we=re saying, you better say it. You better say that.@

Commissioner Gordon - ABut that=s all we=re asking but that=s all you need to say. You don=t need to say anything more.@

Chairman Hawkins - ADifferent than what=s in 93-13 already@

Commissioner Moyer - ANo@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK. OK, is that enough for you to@

Jennifer Jackson - AYes sir, we will put together a draft of findings and conclusions and a decision for you and hopefully have that back on your June 5 agenda. Now the Board - since you have closed the - the hearing, you=ll have 45 days in which to put your decision in writing so we do hope to get that back to you on the next meeting.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK. Any other business before the Board?@

Commissioner Moyer - ASo if it slides to the mid June meeting that=ll be alright@

Laughter.

Chairman Hawkins - AThen we need a motion to close the public hearing.@

Commissioner Kumor - AWe did that@

Chairman Hawkins - ADid we already get that? OK. Any other business before the Board for today. We=ll be adjourned.@

Attest:

Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board Grady Hawkins, Chairman