‑‑ MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
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.
Those present
were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chair
Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Don Ward,
Commissioner Charlie Messer, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney
Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present
were: Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Finance Director J. Carey McLelland,
Assistant to the Manager Selena Coffey, Public Information Officer Chris S.
Coulson, County Engineer Gary Tweed,
Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Coordinator Rocky Hyder, and Property Addressing Technician Curtis
Griffin.
Absent were:
Commissioner Hawkins and Deputy Clerk to the Board/Volunteer Coordinator Amy
Brantley.
CALL TO
ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer
called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner
Gordon led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
Rev. Gus
Martschink, Pardee Hospital Chaplaincy Program, gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT
OF AGENDA
Commissioner
Ward asked to add one closed session item to discuss a personnel item.
David Nicholson
asked to add one item to the consent agenda - School System - Sale of a
Vocational House. He had distributed the information in the Commissioners’ mailboxes
yesterday.
The Board will
also be asked to set a public hearing on Mills River Environmental Assessment
under Important Dates.
Chairman Moyer
made the motion to approve the revised agenda.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item AG” was pulled - Resolution
honoring Hugh Randall. Commissioner
Gordon read it in its entirety. The
resolution is attached hereto and incorporated as a part of the minutes.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion to approve
the consent agenda including AG” (resolution)
and AH” (the
add-on). All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The remainder of
the consent agenda included the following:
Minutes
Minutes were
presented for Board review and approval of the following meetings:
August
21, 2002, regular meeting
September
4, 2002, special called meeting
Tax Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda,
Tax Collector, had provided the Tax Collector’s Report dated September 6 as well as one
dated September 16 for the Board’s information.
Petition for
addition to State Road system
Staff had
received one road petition for addition to the State Road system for Mountain
Ash Circle.
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 NC DOT to change
the priority for roads on the paving priority list.
Tax Refund
Requests
A list of six
refund requests was presented for approval by the County Commissioners. The requests had been reviewed by the County
Assessor and he found them to be in order.
Tax Release
Requests
A list of
fifteen release requests was presented for approval by the County
Commissioners. The requests had been
reviewed by the County Assessor and he found them to be in order.
Revised Request
for Improvement Guarantee for Portions of Oleta Falls
On July 8,
2002, the Board of Commissioners approved a draft Performance Guarantee
Agreement for a revised request for an improvement guarantee submitted by
Waterside Properties, LLC. Waterside
Properties proposed posting a total of $107,740.00 with Henderson County to
cover the costs of alleviating a curve radius problem and to make shoulder
improvements in various sections in Phase II of Oleta Falls.
Mr. Paul
Dunnavant of Waterside Properties contacted the Planning Director on August 5,
2002, about language in the July 8, 2002 Agreement. He was not comfortable signing the Agreement as he felt that
Paragraph 1 (following the Awhereas” clauses) limited Waterside Properties to
complying with the road standards as shown on the Master and Development Plan
approved in April of 2000 and that it would not allow Waterside Properties the
opportunity to comply with proposed amendments to the Subdivision
Ordinance which may reduce the standards for curve radius and shoulder widths.
The Board of Commissioners has scheduled a public hearing on such amendments
for October 7, 2002.
To date,
neither Waterside Properties nor the County has executed the July 8, 2002
Agreement. At the request of Mr. Dunnavant, Staff had prepared a draft of a new
agreement for the Board’s consideration which contains revised
language intended to address Mr. Dunnavant’s concerns. Specifically, the significant changes include: (1) adding the
final Awhereas” clause shown
in the revised draft Agreement to refer to the proposed amendments to the
Subdivision Ordinance and (2) revising paragraph 1 to allow the Developer the
ability to complete the required improvements in accordance with applicable
standards in the Subdivision Ordinance if such standards are reduced (through
amendments approved by the Board of Commissioners) provided the Developer
follows certain procedures for amending its Master and Development Plans and
revises its cost estimate for the improvement guarantee. Mr. Dunnavant had discussed the draft
Agreement with staff and was comfortable with its language.
Mr. Nicholson
recommended that the Board approve the revised Performance Guarantee Agreement
for Oleta Falls as presented unless the Board agrees to further modify language
in the Agreement based on comments from Waterside Properties.
The Board of
Public Education requested that the Commissioners approve the sale of a home
built through their vocational education program. The School Board must first offer any property considered as
surplus to the County before selling it.
Mr. Nicholson
knew of no interest on behalf of the County for this property and recommended
that the Commissioners approve the sale of this property by the Board of
Education.
NOMINATIONS
Notification of
Vacancies
The Board was
notified of the following vacancies which will appear for nominations at the
next meeting:
1.
Community Child Protection Team - 6 vac.
2.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community
Advisory Committee - 1 vac.
Nominations
Chairman
Moyer reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1.
Equalization and Review - 1 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
2.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community
Advisory Committee - 1 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
3.
Zoning Board of Adjustment,
Hendersonville City - 1 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
4.
Zoning Board of Adjustment, Fletcher - 1
vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5.
Transportation Advisory Committee - 1
vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
ADOPTION
OF THE 2003 SCHEDULE OF RULES, STANDARDS, AND VALUES AND THE 2003 PRESENT-USE
VALUE SCHEDULES
Henderson
County Assessor, Eddie Mitchum, came forward and asked the Board to adopt the
2003 Schedule of Rules, Standards, and Values and the 2003 Present-Use Value
Schedules.
The
Schedule of Values had been presented to the Board at an earlier meeting. They had advertised that it was open for
public inspection. A copy was placed in
the library and it was published on the Internet. The next phase is to get the
schedule adopted.
Angela
Beeker reminded the Board that Legislation is pending that would amend some of
the verbiage in the Use Value Statutes.
She suggested the Board might want to delay adopting the Use Value
Schedule until the next meeting to see if the legislation passes. It has passed both Houses, the second House
made some amendments that have gone back to the original House for concurrence.
Stan
Duncan was present from the Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division. He
came forward to address that issue. That Bill has gone through the concurrence
phase and the revision was accepted by the first House so it is on track. Yesterday afternoon there had been no action
but he was expecting action this week. He suggested the Board consider adding
language into the document stating that these schedules will reflect any future
changes as made effected by the General Assembly. You adopt schedules this year for next year but if there is a
change in the General Assembly that effects property taxes next year we would
follow that. He also suggested that the
Board adopt the schedules under two separate motions so if there is a challenge
on one set of the schedules it would not hold up the other schedule.
Chairman
Moyer made the motion to adopt the”Order Adopting the Market Value Schedule of
Values” with the amendment to the schedules as presented - that they would
reflect any changes made in the law that would be applicable. A vote was taken and the motion passed three
to one with
Commissioner
Ward voting nay.
Chairman
Moyer made the motion to adopt the “Order Adopting the Use Value Schedule of
Values”
with
the amendment to the schedules as presented - that they would reflect any
changes made in the law that would be applicable. A vote was taken and the motion passed three to one with
Commissioner Ward voting nay.
ANIMAL CONTROL ENFORCEMENT
Angela
Beeker reminded the Board that the County has received a request from the City
of Hendersonville to enforce the County’s Animal Control Ordinance within the
City limits. The City Council passed a
resolution giving the County this authority.
A
couple of months ago a concern was raised by the Legal Department with the
Health Department that they did not believe the County had legal jurisdiction
to enforce the County’s Animal Control Ordinance within the City of
Hendersonville. This issue came before
the Board and the Board authorized that an interlocal agreement be entered to
fix the problem temporarily by agreeing to assist the City with the enforcement
of their own Ordinance. Until the City
gives permission to the County to enforce the County’s Ordinance in the City,
the County’s Ordinance does not apply. At that time that was the limit that we
could do for the City. This has gone
before City Council this past month and City Council did not like the idea of a
contract. The City Council felt that
they were not being treated the same as the other municipalities and would like
to be. Ms. Beeker stated that we don’t
have an agreement like that with the other municipalities. So City Council passed a Resolution
requesting the County to enforce the County’s Animal Control Ordinance within
the City limits.
Ms.
Beeker stated that if the Board chooses, they can vote to make the Animal
Control Ordinance effective within the City limits and then our Animal Control
Officers would be providing animal control services per the County’s Ordinance
only within the City’s jurisdiction.
The County Animal Control Officers would not have jurisdiction to
enforce the City’s Ordinance.
Much
discussion followed.
Mr.
Nicholson stated that within the next couple of weeks he expects to receive a
new Animal Services Ordinance from the Health Department which could affect
some of these discussions.
Ms.
Beeker stated that there seems to be some disagreement among the City and the
County as to whether the municipalities could basically force the County to
make its Ordinance effective within the
City. With regard to the new Ordinance
the Board will soon receive for review and consideration, it seems that it
would be a good time to evaluate the level of service the Board wishes to
provide to the municipalities across the Board. It was Ms. Beeker’s opinion that they cannot force the County to
enforce its Ordinance within their jurisdiction, they have to give permission
first and then the Board makes the decision to do so. If the Board chooses to approve the Resolution from the City
today Ms. Beeker advised that it be limited to the current Ordinance that is in
place now.
Commissioner
Gordon explained that this fundamentally has to do with the level of service
that a municipality or a county is expected to provide. The Statute does not require a county to
provide any level of service on animal control, it is something that is done by
choice. She stated that it is not uncommon
for municipalities to have their own responsibility for animal control within
their limits and to contract with counties.
Chairman
Moyer made the motion that the Board send a letter to the City of
Hendersonville stating that we will enforce our current Animal Control
Ordinance but we are studying a new Ordinance and this agreement will terminate
upon the adoption of a new Ordinance. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner
Gordon sits on the Board of Health and in that capacity stated that there has
been a substantial amount of money bequeathed to the Animal Control
department. Details are not known at
this time but they hope to get going on a new facility.
Mr.
Nicholson asked the Board to allow him to put a working committee back together
to study the issue of construction of an Animal Shelter. It was the consensus of the Board for Mr.
Nicholson to proceed.
PROPERTY
ADDRESSING APPEAL - Quasi-Judicial Proceeding
Chairman
Moyer stated that we have an appeal from a decision with respect to
addressing. Under our rules this is
handled as a quasi-judicial proceeding unless the appellant waives his right to
a quasi-judicial proceeding.
Designation of
Parties to the proceeding: Rocky
Hyder
Curtis Griffin
Neil Van Syckle
Joan Van Syckle
Pursuant
to Section 142-7 of the Henderson County Code, the property owners of 178
Schoolhouse Road were appealing the proposed change to 45 Libbey Lane. The affected property is located on the
corner of Schoolhouse Road and Libbey Lane in the Mills River community.
No
one else expressed an interest in being a party to the proceeding.
Neil
and Joan Van Syckle, appellants, waived their right to a quasi-judicial
proceeding. Therefore, it will be a
more informal proceeding.
Rocky
Hyder explained that the general area is off Schoolhouse House which is very
close to Hwy. 280 or Boylston Highway. Under Section 142-17 the appellants are
appealing the decision of staff to change their address from 178 Schoolhouse
Road to 45 Libbey Lane. The appellants’
house is the first house on the left on Libbey Lane. Mr. Hyder called attention to two photographs with figure one
being a picture from Schoolhouse Road looking down Libbey Lane. He pointed out the residence on the
picture. Figure two or the lower
picture was a picture of the residence from Schoolhouse Road. These two
pictures constituted Exhibit A. Mr.
Hyder’s Exhibit B was a map which demonstrated that there are more than three
particular houses located on Libbey Lane.
He then presented an aerial photograph of the area showing the residence
in question and more. He pointed out
the requirements of the Henderson County Property Addressing Ordinance;
142-7(e) states that we must name roads with three or more houses. Section
142-13(c) states that property addresses for corner-lot properties shall be
determined by where the driveway entrance meets the street. From staff’s perspective the driveway to
this residence comes off Libbey Lane, not off Schoolhouse Road.
Neil
VanSyckle stated that he maintains the driveway on both sides, as he always
has. He cuts the shrubbery, fills any
potholes, etc. The VanSyckle’s did not
see the reason to change the address to a place when nothing has changed. He contends that they are not on Libbey Lane
but they are on their driveway. He
feels that their driveway comes off Schoolhouse Road and an extension of their
driveway serves the homes in back of them.
He stated later that they feel Libbey Lane should begin at the south
border of their property or rather to serve the homes behind them.
Mr.
VanSyckle had submitted a letter with his appeal to the Board dated July 11
which will be made part of the record.
Legal
Advice
Angela
Beeker referred the Board to the definition of “driveway” in the
ordinance. She also reminded the Board
that anything they do today could be setting a precedent as interpretation of
the ordinance. She advised the Board
that in interpreting what a driveway is they would be making local law.
Mr.
VanSyckle had eluded to a hardship for his daughter and was asked to elaborate
on that. Mr. VanSyckle stated that in
addition to her regular job she writes.
Numerous publishing companies have her current address and she has
professional letterhead, etc. He stated
that it would be a hardship to have to replace letterhead and to contact all
her correspondence about a new address.
Ms.
Beeker stated that it is the Board’s job to determine the facts and interpret
the ordinance. It appears to her as the
situation is currently that the piece that meets the definition of driveway is
the short piece from Libbey Lane to the house.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion for the Board to go out of this hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Reopen
Hearing
Chairman
Moyer made the motion to reopen the hearing briefly. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman
Moyer asked Mr. VanSyckle if Libbey Lane were a deeded right-of-way for the
homes in back. It was discussed and decided that it must be a deeded
right-of-way. Mr. VanSyckle stated that
it is one lane, about ten feet wide.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion for the Board to close the hearing. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Following
discussion, Commissioner Ward made the motion to deny the appeal of the
address change to 45 Libbey Lane pursuant to the ordinance and upon
recommendation from the County Attorney.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Angela
Beeker will draft the written decision to bring back to the Board consistent
with the decision made today.
UPDATE
ON PENDING ISSUES
Legislative
Update
Angela
Beeker informed the Board that there have been a lot of Bills introduced to
pass a referendum on a State Lottery.
One of the earliest Bills introduced was brought up yesterday and
failed, officially it was re-referred back to committee. It is being read that the lottery has failed
for now.
House
Bill 1490 that limits the Governor’s authority to withhold local revenues has
been ratified by both houses and was presented to the Governor for signature on
the 13th. He has about 60
days to consider it before it would automatically go back to the legislature
for a vote on whether they’re going to over-ride.
David
Nicholson stated that the budget was voted down yesterday because of the issue
of the referendum. The Speaker has
indicated that he wants it back by the end of the week. The Sales Tax issue has been separated from
the budget. The Speaker has indicated
that next Tuesday that vote will be taken on the Sales Tax issue. There are a lot of people who believe
clearly the Governor had no authority to keep the utility franchise tax. We learned yesterday at LGCCA that the
municipalities received those monies yesterday. We do not get those funds, the State and cities do. The ball is
clearly now in the Governor’s court. He
is acting as the State’s Budget Officer with the powers that he has. There has been a law suit filed or it will
be filed on behalf of many local governments to challenge the Secretary of the
Department of Revenue’s ability to withhold these payments.
INFORMAL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1.
Dick Baird - Mr. Baird stated that he wished to
address four items:
1
He again mentioned the item of non-taping
of the informal public comments at the Commissioners’ meetings. He felt that it sent the message that only
the Commissioners’ views were important and that public views were unimportant.
2
He mentioned the lawsuit that six
counties (Alamance, Cabarrus, Stokes, Caldwell, Davies, New Hanover) and three
municipalities (Valdese, Garner, Yanceyville) joined yesterday against the
Secretary of the Department of Revenue.
He asked this Board to join in that suit.
3
He expressed concern about the number of
fatalities on our roads in this county.
For the short-term he said “let’s enforce the traffic laws, fines will
slow people down and stop them from doing these things which are causing the
accidents.” The Sheriff’s Office and
the Highway Patrol should enhance traffic enforcement. Long-term he suggested getting a
traffic-net/road-net put in this county.
4
He mentioned the different meetings of
the governing boards in our county, stating that it was obvious there was some
animosity between Councils and Boards and some lack of coordination. He felt that a member of one Board should
attend the others’ Board meetings for coordination purposes and to understand
what is going on.
Response
from Chairman Moyer
Chairman
Moyer stated that the Board would likely wait on item #1 until the new Board
comes on board. With respect to the
lawsuit - the Board will take a look at that.
The NCACC advised that there was little or no merit in such a suit and
it would be very difficult if not impossible to win it. Chairman Moyer agreed 100% with the fact
that there are too many fatalities on our roads.
Closing
of Public Roads
Angela
Beeker reminded the Board that there have been two roads that have come up
recently where the Board had voted to request the NC DOT to abandon the
road. At those times the question came
up as to exactly what this Board could do if anything to close the road, not
just to ask NC DOT to abandon it but to close it. She has researched this issue and informed the Board that they
lose jurisdiction when NCDOT abandons the road. There is nothing this Board can effectively do to close either of
those roads.
Update
on Vehicle Leasing
David
Nicholson had distributed a hand-out entitled “Analysis of Lease vs. Purchase
of Henderson County Vehicles”. Chairman
Moyer questioned whether the Board wanted to address this issue without
Commissioner Hawkins present as he was very interested in this issue.
Mr.
Nicholson was asked to prepare some back-up information on this issue and to
also share that information with the three Commission candidates. Chairman Moyer also requested that Sheriff
Erwin be at the next meeting to address this issue.
Recess
Chairman
Moyer called a brief technical break.
PUBLIC
HEARING FOR ROAD NAMES
Commissioner
Ward made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Rocky
Hyder reminded the Board that they had established September 18, 2002 at 11:00
a.m. as the date for a Public Hearing for the following road names:
Old Name Proposed
Name
Theo Branch Ln Galloway
Trl
Brad Harjus Ln Our
Boys Ln
Marinwood Ln Angels Cove
Trl
Marion
Dr J
P Huggins Dr
Layton Ln Old
Farm Cir
Calumet Dr Dotson
Nelson Dr
Buckeye Trl Kids
Way
Dainty Ln Freedom
Rd
Messenger Ln Misty
Woods Ln
Clutch Rd W.
Ton A Wondah Rd
Vivian Way Stoney
Creek Mountain Ln
N. Sewell Dr. Bugtussle
Ln
Massey Rd
(portion of) Massey
Road Ext.
Mountain Trail
Park Rd Mountain
Trail Ln
Culture Cove Craigs
Cove Ln
New Road Names
Searcy
Ln
Mr.
Hyder asked for one road name to be pulled from the list - the change of Marion
Dr to J P Huggins Dr.
Public
Input
There
was none.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion for the Board to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
Gordon made the motion to adopt the list as presented with the deletion of one
name as requested by Mr. Hyder. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC
HEARING - CDBG - HIGHLANDER WOODS APPLICATION
Commissioner
Ward made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Selena
Coffey reminded the Board that this public hearing was held to receive public
input on a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application proposed by
Habitat for Humanity for the Highlander Woods development. The public hearing had been duly publicized
in accordance with CDBG regulations.
She stated that this is the second of the two required hearings.
Ms.
Coffey pointed out a correction on the application summary concerning
administration funds. She had initialed
the correction and it had been entered on the formal application. She also reminded the Board that in
approving this application, the Board would be committing $78,225.75 of its
future HOME 2003 planning allocation to the Highlander Woods project. Henderson County typically gets about
$160,000 as planning level allotments for our projects; however, Habitat has
stated in a letter dated September 11, 2002, that they will provide the balance
of funds necessary should this HOME 2003 funding not be approved.
Malcolm
McCormick, Habitat for Humanity, came forward to answer any questions from the
Board. Chairman Moyer stated that he
would be more comfortable if Habitat for Humanity would rephrase their letter
that they would cover the $78,225.75 with the understanding that they would
request a portion of our allocation at the appropriate time to be used for this
project. Mr. McCormick would be glad to
clarify that Habitat will cover the $78,225.75 but they will request that it come
from Henderson County’s 2003 allocation. Mr. McCormick stated that this is a
three year project.
Kate
O’Hara, Housing Planner with Land-of-Sky Regional Council, has been working
with Habitat for Humanity to prepare this application. She stated that the project application is
based upon the future request of Habitat for Humanity to the Board of
Commissioners to apply for FY 03 HOME funding in January 2003. The total project costs are $128,225 and of
that $50,000 has been approved by the HOME Consortium for FY02 funding. Habitat intends to request that the Board
apply on their behalf to the HOME Consortium in 2003 for the balance of $64,640
minus $50,000 which comes to $14,640 as well as the $63,585.75.
It
was the consensus of the Board that they were not comfortable making a
commitment until they have followed the procedure and heard from the other
parties.
Kate
O’Hara stated that they could rewrite the application budget page to reflect
that Habitat will provide the $78,000 balance.
Chairman Moyer stated that they could even state that they would be
requesting the funds from next year’s allocation of HOME funds to Henderson
County.
Public
Input
There
was none.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion for the Board to go out of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion to approve the amended application consistent with the
letter dated Sept. 11 from Malcolm McCormick of Habitat for Humanity. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC
HEARING - CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
Chairman
Moyer stated that this is the continuation of a quasi-judicial public hearing,
continued once before. The Board had a
site visit on August 21 and continued that hearing to today.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion to continue the Quasi-Judicial Proceeding (Application for
Statutory Vested Rights for Mini-Storage/Mini-Storage & Office Buildings on
Howard Gap Road). All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman
Moyer - “When we last left this we were leaving it for some clarification of
some information and - and uh oral argument if you will with respect to the law
from the attorneys. When we had the
site visit there were a couple people who attended that wished to make - thought
they were going to have the opportunity to make public comment at that
time. The attorneys weren’t present and
people weren’t there and - and nothing was being recorded or taped so I was
uncomfortable having that testimony and I said I would give a couple people the
opportunity to speak today - to make their comments - that felt they wished they
had to - so Mrs. Corn do we have people
signed up?”
Elizabeth
Corn - “No sir.”
Angela
Beeker - “There probably wasn’t a sign-up sheet, was there?”
Elizabeth
Corn - “Yes, there was.”
Angela
Beeker - “There was, oh.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I’ll ask the people in the audience cause I see the gentleman
there. Are there people here that would
like to comment as part of this proceeding?
Sir, I think you’re the man.
Would you like to comment as part of this proceeding? You tried to comment at the site visit.”
James
Collins - “I have a hearing problem”
Commissioner
Ward - “Maybe Janice can assist - can you”
Mr.
Collins was saying something but the microphone did not pick it up well - “I
wish to say a few words”
Chairman
Moyer - “Do you? Alright would you please come up to the podium.”
Angela
Beeker - “Mr. Chairman, he would need to be sworn and”
Mr.
Collins - “I apologize for my hearing.”
Angela
Beeker - “And we need to”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK would you move over to the Clerk, over this way, would you then
swear him in Mrs. Corn?”
Elizabeth
Corn - “I need you to place your left hand on the Bible”
James
Collins - “OK”
Elizabeth
Corn - “and raise your right hand.”
James
Collins - “alright”
Elizabeth
Corn - “Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 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?”
James
Collins - “I do”
Elizabeth
Corn - “Thank you sir”
James
Collins - “You want my name right here at one”
Elizabeth
Corn - “Yes sir.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Now Mrs. Beeker I noticed that none of the attorneys are here.”
Angela
Beeker - “I’m baffled by that as well.”
Karen
Smith - “I understand Mr. Justus is on his way and I’m not sure about Mr.
Fritschner.”
Janice
Moore - “I consulted with him, he is not”
James
Collins - “Do you need the mailing address too?”
Elizabeth
Corn - “Yes sir”
Janice
Moore - “I have a question. One of the
other.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Wait a minute, wait a minute.
We’ll deal with one - one at a time.”
Angela
Beeker - “We need to um have him state where he lives to establish his
standing.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Right”
Angela
Beeker - “And then ask Mr. Schenimann if he has any objection to adding him at
this time.”
Karen
Smith - “You do have a letter from Mr. Collins that was submitted at the very
first meeting and you should have that with your material already.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK. Sir”
Elizabeth
Corn - “Back to the podium”
Chairman
Moyer - “Back to the podium and state - state for the record your name and
address, where you live and why you are interested in this proceeding.”
James
Collins - “OK. My name is James A.
Collins. I live at 11 Nestlewood Drive,
that’s the new county uh address system.
It’s Hendersonville North Carolina, 28792.”
Chairman
Moyer - “And what is your interest in this matter? Why are you interested in this?”
James
Collins - “Well, my interest in this matter is the fact that I live on the
other side of Howard Gap Road directly opposite the mini-storage area.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK”
James
Collins - “Uh it’s directly opposite and I don’t recall the exact length of
frontage on the road but it’s over - way over a thousand feet.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK”
James
Collins - “Right on the other side.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Just a minute. Mr. Schenimann,
do you have any objection to Mr. Collins making some comments today. Would you please come up to the mike and
just indicate yes or no.”
Harry
Schenimann - “No, I don’t have any objections.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you, Mr. Schenimann.
Alright Mr. Collins, proceed.
Proceed with your comments.”
James
Collins - “OK. Well I know Mr.
Schenimann personally and I have nothing against him. He’s a fine man. He’s a
businessman and being a businessman he is in business to make money and he - in
my opinion he got uh sucked into this thing because of some shortsightedness of
the Commissioners and uh the Zoning Ordinance to start with. This - this area including mine is an old
established neighborhood and it existed long before I was there. My plot of land - it consists of about 16 2
acres along Howard Gap Road and uh it was an old farm when I took - when I took
title to it and incidentally I’m a retired farmer so uh I would from my
personal standpoint I would like to see it stay in the same condition but from
uh from another standpoint I can understand Mr. Schenimann’s problems here and
personally I uh I think that the whole thing was wrong from the very
start. In my opnion and I’m pretty sure
that it’s a strong opinion and it’s shared by all the other people surrounding
this - this development and uh I uh - I can sympathize with Mr. Schenimann but
I place the blame originally on lack of proper zoning and the zoning in my
opinion was completely wrong and uh I uh - in other words I - my problem is
that I can understand both sides here.
I can understand Mr. Schenimann’s side and I can understand the
surrounding property owners’ side so I would like to - I would personally like
to see for some - in some way or the other that the - the development that is
there now should be allowed but I would not like to see it expanded any - that’s
uh - that’s my main - main point.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you Mr. Collins”
James
Collins - “Do you have any questions?”
Chairman
Moyer - “Does the Board have any questions? Mr. Schenimann, do you have any
questions in the absence of your Counsel that you’d like to ask Mr. Collins?”
Harry
Schenimann - “No sir.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Staff, do you have any”
Karen
- “No”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK. Thank you Mr. Collins”
James
Collins - “Thank you”
Chairman
Moyer - “I appreciate your coming out again.
Sorry I couldn’t hear you on the 21st but I think this is the
better way to handle it. Uh Janice I reco - you had a question so I recognize
you to come up to the - please come up to the podium and - so everyone will
hear what your question is”
Janice
Moore - “One of the neighbors on Lexington Lane brought a letter to my home the
other night and asked me to present it in lieu of her being here. She had supervisory duties at her job and
they would not let her off and so she asked me to bring a letter stating her
opinions on this project.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Has Mr. Schenimann seen this letter?”
Janice
Moore - “I just got it last night, no”
Chairman
Moyer - “Would you show a copy to Mr. Schenimann and our Counsel and we’ll
see. It’s Lexington Lane which is the
one right behind - that borders on the I guess North side of the uh - would it
be north? North side of uh”
Janice
Moore - “She called me yesterday and asked me if I would bring that to the
hearing since she was unable to come.
She wanted to be here.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Do you have - is that just one copy you have? Would you give a copy to Mrs. Beeker also
and then we’ll make a determination with respect to the letter.”
Janice
Moore - “Also my other question - are we each gonna have another opportunity to
state anything at this point after you talk or is this our opportunity?”
Chairman
Moyer - “This will be the final opportunity - now I will have to consult with
the Board and Mrs. Beeker cause there was suppose to be Counsel here to make
closing comments and we asked them specifically to be here. Uh I hate to put this off yet again cause I
think we need resolution of this but uh.”
Attorney
Craig Justus arrived at this time.
David
Nicholson - “50%’s here.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well, that may solve the problem.
Mr. Justus is here and if Mr. Fritschner isn’t coming.”
Janice
Moore - “He’s not coming.”
Chairman
Moyer - “He’s not coming? Alright well then”
Janice
Moore - “He said he couldn’t make it.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Then we can proceed and uh I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I will give you the opportunity to make
closing comments with respect to your side instead of Mr. Fritschner. Is that
alright with the Board?”
Angela
Beeker - “With regard to the letter. We
would just need to ask uh Mr. Schenimann if he has any objection. He did not object to the other letter coming
in so he may not object to this but to it coming in and then I would just uh
remind the Board that um this would be considered hearsay evidence and so you
would have to bear in mind that”
Chairman
Moyer - “That’s right”
Angela
Beeker - “That it’s secondary evidence.”
Chairman
Moyer - “It can’t be cross examined and everything so we’d have to take that
under consideration”
Angela
Beeker - “Take that into consideration”
Chairman
Moyer - “Mr. Justus, now that you’re here can - can we - would you agree to
admit this letter into evidence for it’s face value?”
Craig
Justus - “Uh yes, that’s fine.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you. Alright, Mrs. Corn
then will need a copy of the letter”
Angela
Beeker - “She can have the original”
David
Nicholson - “This is the original”
Angela
Beeker - “And here’s a copy for the Board.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK”
Commissioner
Ward - “We don’t want to impose any fines for tardiness do we?”
Several
people were talking here and I couldn’t make out what they were saying.
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright and I’ll ask - now once again because of what happened at the
uh the site visit everyone - I’m sorry - that had wished to be able to speak
that I put off at that time now has had the opportunity to speak? Yes sir.”
“I’d
like to speak”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright would you come up and sign in. You’ll have to establish your interest in this proceeding before
I can allow you to speak and. No,
please go over there and sign in.”
Angela
Beeker - “Be swear - be sworn in.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Be sworn in.”
Elizabeth
Corn - “You know the drill. Do you
swear or affirm that the testimony 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? I need your name here
and your mailing address.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Please state your name, address, and why you’re interested in participating
in this proceeding and then we have to make a determination whether that is
appropriate to make you a party.”
Leon
Lamb - “OK, my name is Leon Lamb and uh I own a house directly across from
... and Mr. Collins and uh directly
across from the - the storage building and I - the only thing I would”
Chairman
Moyer - “No, before you start”
Angela
Beeker - “Ask again, see if they have any objection.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Mr. Justus?”
Craig
Justus - “No, Mr. Chairman, no objections.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Do any of the other parties have an objection to Mr. Lamb
speaking. Alright then we - if the
Board is in agreement we’ll admit Mr. Lamb as a party and you can go ahead and
make your comments.”
Leon
Lamb - “OK, I don’t have - the main reason I’m here is I have no problem with
Mr. Schenimann’s project at all. Uh
looks to me like he’s doing a very nice job there and I have no problems for
any - what he does with his own property there, now or in the future. Thank you.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright. Any questions from
any of the other parties. I’m gonna
streamline this.”
In
unison - “No”
Chairman
Moyer - “Janice has a question.”
Angela
Beeker - “Come to the mike”
Chairman
Moyer - “Come to the mike and - just stand aside a minute Mr. Lamb and we have
a question for you.”
Janice
Moore - “My only question for Mr. Lamb is if he personally lives in that home
that faces the mini-storage building or if he uses it as a rental property only?”
Leon
Lamb - “Uh I do use that as - it’s been a rental property ever since I’ve had
it and I’ve had it several years.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Any further questions uh for Mr. Lamb from anyone? Alright, thank you Mr. Lamb.”
Commissioner
Ward - “I can’t recall the lady’s name.”
Angela
Beeker - “Mrs. Conley.”
Commissioner
Ward - “Mrs. Conley.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Yes mam, did you have a question or do you have.”
Mrs.
Conley - “I just had one or two comments.”
Chairman
Moyer - “No, we’ll get to those - this is not with respect to what Mr. Lamb
said. Does it have anything to do with
Mr. Lamb’s statement?”
Mrs.
Conley – “Well, Mr. Lamb does not live next to the storage building like we are
in Tanager Lane.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Yea I think - I think Mrs. Moore made that point with her question so
we understand that. Alright uh - what I’m gonna do because of the time that has
elapsed is to uh to allow - so closing
comments from each side and then ask the attorney for comments with respect to
the law as Mr. Fritschner apparently is not coming so we’re gonna - we’re gonna
move on and uh”
Craig
Justus - “Mr. Chairman, we had prepared a - since there had been several
changes as this has been an ebb and flow in talking with neighbors and trying
to figure out what their concerns are and trying to address them - there’s been
somewhat of an ebb and flow of changes.
We’ve prepared a page showing what the changes have been since the
original application just so you’d have it in front of you if there was ever
any questions and based on a discussion that - that Harry Schenimann had with
Karen uh he had intended to have as part of the mini-storage and rental to have
a rental truck there because it’s customary and incidental typically to storage
buildings to have rental trucks as part of the facility and he asked Karen if
that needed to be clarified for purposes of our discussion and she said >we
need to bring it up’ we need to - to let you know that this was to be part of
the facility to have a - a rental truck so we’re bringing it up so it’s clear
on the record that that was part of the intended use. Harry didn’t think - had not thought through that needed to go in
that great depth but it was suggested
that we go ahead and do that.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Do you have copies of the listing of proposed changes?”
Craig
Justus - “Yes uh if I could”
Chairman
Moyer - “Could you give them to all the parties and I’m gonna ask Mr. Justus if
you’d go through that list and uh clarify your understanding of what some of
these changes.”
Commissioner
Ward - “Well can I ask a question?”
Chairman
Moyer - “Sure”
Commissioner
Ward - “Of Mr. Justus. What pertinence
does it have if he has rental companies there
to his vested rights issue?
Remember we’re stretching the right anyway but - but what”
Craig
Justus - “Legally or as a practical matter?”
Commissioner
Ward - “As a practical matter - how it pertains to vested rights if he has
rental units there - I mean”
Craig
Justus - “The rental trucks well - since Karen’s got to enforce if you approve
a vested rights plan Karen would have to enforce that plan. I don’t know what you’re gonna do as it
relates to this rezoning out there. Let’s
assume for argument’s sake that you change it to residential and - but we’re
vested. We have a plan and we have an
intended use. We simply alerted Karen
to the fact cause we hadn’t heretofore that the”
Commissioner
Ward - “The possibility of rental”
Craig
Justus - “The possibility of rental trucks for - for the customers to use in
moving stuff in and out. It’s - it’s typical - I know in Asheville. If I need a rental truck I’m gonna go to a
storage place and rent one. We wanted
to make sure Karen knew about it and we said would you - based on the
information you have today would you be able to interpret that we could do
that? And she said well you need to go
ahead and bring it up and I’m paraphrasing but you need to go ahead and raise
it with the Commissioners and get it on
the record so it’s clear.”
Commissioner
Ward - “OK”
Craig
Justus - “And that’s what we’re attempting to do.”
Angela
Beeker - “Are there any other - are there any other changes besides what - the
changes that you made at the last convening.”
Craig
Justus - “There is uh the buffer along the uh driveway on the Lexington side -
has actually been beefed up. There was
a comment made by someone who did not live along that drive. I think Mrs. Moore had said or somebody had
said well what about those people and so had made a comment about a buffer
intended for adjoining property that really wouldn’t affect them. Harry absorbed that information and has
beefed up the buffer along the left-hand side of the property and so that’s the
change. We just added better buffer
there. So that was the only - that was
the only change Angie from last we met.
On page uh - page three is the . . . of the changes since the original
application. Mr. Chairman, I would be
happy to - to walk through these.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well let me ask Mrs. Beeker >What is the effect of this? Do we have
to have - is this automatically an amendment or?”
Angela
Beeker - “I think that the - the petitioners can request that their application
before you be amended and as long as everyone is - first of all that no-one has
an objection to it being amended and second that everyone is given a full and
fair opportunity to comment on the amendments then I think that you can allow
that if you choose. Um I think that as
far as the changes um - except the beefing up of the buffer um at least by
implication at the site - the Board kind of indicated that those amendments
would be accepted by the Board so - and I didn’t hear any objection from the
other side to those - to those amendments being added at this time.”
Craig
Justus - “And if - and if I could just add to that what we did from the
original application we sort of - I wouldn’t say retreated but we have tried to
develop an application that is the best one we could for the surrounding
neighborhood so with one change.”
Chairman
Moyer - “ . . . Let me - again let’s get the procedure set so - are you
requesting that your application be amended to reflect the seven changes set
forth on the page that you’ve given to us?”
Craig
Justus - “We’re requesting that the - the September 3, 2002 revised information
be considered as the application and that would include the changes that are -
from the original application shown on page three.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK”
Craig
Justus - “Does that make sense?”
Chairman
Moyer - “I think that’ll work won’t it Mrs. Beeker?”
Angela
Beeker - “Yes sir. And again as long as
the other parties have an opportunity to comment on it.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I’m gonna let Mr. Justus go through this and make whatever comments
you want then we’ll open it up to the other parties that might have any
questions or comments with respect to the amendments. Now does everybody have a copy of what Mr. Justus is speaking
from?”
Angela
Beeker - “And just as a technicality - um I would like for Mr. Schenimann to
under oath adopt this as his statement because it is written as a letter from
him to the Board.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Do I need to get sworn in again?”
Angela
Beeker - “No sir”
Craig
Justus - “No just”
Angela
Beeker - “You’re - you’re already under oath.”
Craig
Justus - “You take this September 3, 2002 exhibit that we’ve handed out today
as your statement to this Board.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Right, yeah this would be the statement to the Board - this
September 3, 2002 revision.”
Angela
Beeker - “OK”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK, thank you. Alright, Craig, go ahead and highlight whatever you
wish and then we’ll get comments.”
Craig
Justus - “OK, well as to the changes uh and I - and I mentioned this as an ebb
and flow uh as you know we - we have certainly argued that we - we are already
vested to our facility because of the building permits we’ve pulled. What we’re looking for is flexibility in
time to allow those improvements to be put in at a more reasonable pace uh in
return for that we have offered to do a lot of things out there that otherwise
if we just proceeded with the building permit and vested rights we would not
have to put in. With the original
application, as you recall we had an option - plan A and plan B for simplicity sake and so that there
wasn’t going to be any confusion of enforcement hereafter we deleted plan B,
the offices with mini-storage. Uh for
purposes of reducing the density which we uh we heard was a concern uh we
reduced the mini-storage buildings from seven to six. Uh we had - the concern
was expressed about the RV rental boat storage area topographically being up
high and can be visible - more visible from uh Howard Gap Road and a concern
was expressed about that so we revised our plan to move that facility down at a
lower topography uh behind some of the rental storage buildings and that’s what
number three attempted to do. Uh we had some concerns expressed about lights so
we amended the plan to delete a couple of lights. The uh - a concern was expressed about the - the sufficiency of
the buffer and how dense it was and how it would be uh a - a - an evergreen
year-long buffer and so to clarify and beef that up we made the change to
Leland Cypress out there which will provide a double layer of protection for
Mrs. Conley and the neighbors of - on that side of the line. Because of - I mention this because of the
comment expressed by someone here that did not live along Lexington but who had
expressed the concern over the buffer over there, Harry has also amended that
buffer to beef it up with the wax leaf and I can’t even guess how that -
Vibernum”
Chairman
Moyer - “Vibernum is right”
Craig
Justus - “And as a clarification of the use, uh we just want to clarify that
the incidental use of this facility
included a truck rental.”
Angela
Beeker - “Craig, didn’t you offer one other change out there that the number of
RVs and boats would be limited.”
Craig
Justus - “Uh yes and uh and I apologize that uh - if that was the case and
Harry is it on here? No. Uh it’s the
same number that was - that’s on the application that was handed out on the
site. I believe it was 45.”
Angela
Beeker - “I - I don’t recall what it was.”
Chairman
Moyer - “42 to 45, somewhere was in there.”
Craig
Justus - “I think it was 45. The
concern was that uh - the expression was while you could put 100 up there and
so - OK. Oh I’m sorry, bottom of page
one.”
Angela
Beeker - “Oh there it is, OK. So I
guess my question would be since that area is going to be for now rental trucks
also would that number include those or would they be in addition to the 45.”
Craig
Justus - “Those would be in addition to the 45 cause this only deals with RV
and boat and in terms of a number of rental trucks, four would be the maximum”
Angela
Beeker - “OK”
Craig Justus - “So we’ll - I’ll - uh Mr.
Chairman with the concurrence of my client whose sitting there nodding, we
would add to the application on page one the verbiage >maximum number of
rental trucks four’.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK, any questions for Mr. Justus on the amended application? If you’ll step aside I’ll ask any of the
other parties that have questions or comments with respect to the revised
application. Janice? Sir?”
Angela
Beeker - “If he could restate his name for the record.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Yeah and we’ll have to have everybody”
Robert Johnson - “Yes, I’m Robert H. Johnson, property owner to the direction I
don’t - north or south - my directions in this country - coming from Colorado a
little hard to know what - which way the directions are. We’re to the right side of the
property. My only concern now it seems
like we’re adding things again. We made
some exceptions and I’ve been pretty happy with the changes but my concern now
is rental trucks too added now. That’s
just advertising for the rental trucks isn’t it - company sticking there - what
kind of signs and things and stuff like this.
I don’t know how many rental facility has rental trucks. I’d be interested to know what the
percentage of places require to have a rental truck available right there or
just what the situation is but I think we’re just opening up a few more worms
in the situation. After the meeting and
visit out there I was quite pleased with what - what we’d gone over. Uh another point is uh I don’t see a - a -
along the drainage system - I don’t see on the map here that we’re doing any
receiving of any drainage there in a pond or stuff that we talked about. I wondered if that is in consideration yet
or just what - what we have to deal with there. That’s all the comments that I would have.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK Mr. Johnson, thank you. Mr.
Justus do you - or why don’t we respond as we go through these.”
Craig
Justus - “Right. The rental trucks is
just a clarification. Uh it is
incidental to a storage building operation to have rental trucks for people to
move in and out stored things and we just wanted to clarify that so that Karen
could be sure - you know. So we didn’t
have any problems looking forward with this.
Uh this is in an area where the rental trucks would be - that is once
again not topographically at a level where you could see these trucks. It is hidden back in there if - I think Mr.
- Commissioner Ward walked back in there and can see the changes in the
topography and how much lower that area was to the property that’s left blank
up here, left-hand corner. Uh so we
were just clarifying something, we didn’t add anything. Uh secondly the - the whole discussion of
the detention basin - we basically left that up to you all to tell us what to
do. So we didn’t presume that you’d
already made a decision on that. We
indicated a willingness to follow your lead in leaving a detention basin on the
property or not and so we left that up to you and didn’t presume your decision
in that so we’re - whatever as a consensus everyone wants to do with that we’re
fine with it.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Yes mam, please come forward.”
Mrs.
Conley - “My name is Dorothy Conley and as you all know my property on Tanager
Lane adjoins Mr. Schenimann’s property.
First I want to thank him for the changes he has made. But now I’m very very concerned. We were out there with Mr. Schenimann two
weeks ago going through the property and like Bob Johnson, I am pleased - I was
pleased with the changes he had made but now I’m very concerned. They have added without saying anything to
us four more truck rentals so what else could be added to that property that we
don’t know about? Also it says nothing
about how far the fence of his storage
facilities will be from my property.
Now Mr. Schenimann said and it isn’t on here that his fence for the
storage units would be no closer than 60 feet from my property line, the fence
for the RV and boat storage would be no closer than 40 feet. That does not say anything here so we had
nothing in writing that tells us exactly how close the fence can be to the
property but now our concern as I said is that something else might be
added. Now while we were out there
looking at the property I asked Mr. Schenimann what he planned to do with the
vacant land behind and he said probably build duplexes or four plexes - well he
- whatever he does seems to be attractive and done well so I think that would
be just fine but we don’t want anything more added without us knowing like this
truck rental. Thank you.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you Mrs. Conley. Mr.
Justus.”
Craig
Justus - “Uh thank you. Uh the whole
point of bringing up the rental truck thing was so that we didn’t have folks
later on coming back and saying well why didn’t you bring that up. We’re
bringing it up. We’re putting it on the
table so that everybody understands it.
We can’t change the plan later on without your approval. It is our contract with you of what we
intend to do. It’s just good business
sense you try to spell out everything that you intend to do. That’s why we’re doing it today. Uh as to the uh delineation of the set back
of the building - the building closest to Mrs. Conley’s property. We could do that on the record. The fence - I will say that the fence is -
its incorrect where the fence is. The
fence is located directly behind the buffer that is shown on the plan and the
scale it’s closer to thirty feet. The
actual building though is located uh closer at the sixty foot point and if for
purposes of the record we can do that - put it on the record about that. We don’t have a problem. Mr. Schenimann would really need to do that.”
Chairman
Moyer - “So can we get Mr. Schenimann up there and to clarify that?”
Craig
Justus - “Yes and now we’re talking about really building six.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Building six plus the RV boat rental storage.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I assume you’re gonna have a fence around that and I guess the issue
was how far would that be? And we did
discuss that when we were out there.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Yeah, we can do a forty five foot where the fence would be a
minimum of forty-five feet from her property line for Mrs. Calans.”
Craig
Justus - “This is the fence for the rental RV area and then this building right
here - there - the corner of that building.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Well right here is where she was concerned about. See her house is right.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Would you clarify for us where right here is. Are you talking about the corner of building
six? No, no just speak from there.”
Craig
Justus - “The - the - if you’re looking at the plan where it says uh”
Harry
Schenimann - “It’s on the screen if you”
Craig
Justus - “Oh, well there we have it.
Right there?”
Harry
Schenimann - “Yeah”
Craig
Justus - “This is - that corner right there.”
Harry
Schenimann - “The point we were talking about is right there - from - that was”
Mrs.
Conley - “I understood you to say that the fence for the storage and this would
be sixty feet from my property line and for the RV would be forty feet from my
property line. That’s what you said
when we were out there two weeks ago.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Mrs. Conley, we won’t pick you up on the tape for any of your
questions. You’re gonna have to come
back to the microphone please. Yes,
please come up. We’re gonna have to share the microphone for a few
moments. But would you repeat and then
Mr. Schenimann can clarify.”
Mrs.
Conley - “Two weeks ago when we were out there with Mr. Schenimann I understood
Mr. Schenimann to say that the fence would be sixty feet from my property line,
the fence for the R - for the storage units.
The fence for the RVs would be forty feet from my property line. That’s what I understood Mr. Schenimann to
say and nothing was ever said about the four rental trucks but I do thank Mr.
Schenimann for the changes he has made.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Wait before you leave - so we’re sure we’re clear. So the fence around the RV-boat rental
storage, your understanding was it would be 45"
Craig
Justus - “40 feet”
Chairman
Moyer - “You’re saying 45, she said 40 right?”
Harry
Schenimann - “40, 45 and we can make.
That’s not - that’s not a problem.
We can make that 40 - 45 foot there.”
Craig
Justus - “Which one, 40 or 45?”
Harry
Schenimann - “40 feet”
Craig
Justus - “Alright.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Now the other, the - the minimum from the property line to the
building is gonna be sixty feet, not to the fence around the building because
the fence is gonna go straight along there so that the building itself would be
- the corner of the building - had we put the building where building seven
was.”
Craig
Justus - “You can’t see on that.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Then the distance from that property line to the corner of the
building would be sixty feet but there’s no building there, that’s RV storage
so actually the distance from the property line to the corner of building six
would be sixty feet.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Let’s see - from Mrs. Conley’s standpoint then - I think this is the
way you said it the first time. The
distance from your property line to the fence at the closest building which is
building six would be at least forty feet and the distance from your property
line to the corner of the building would be sixty.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Yep”
Chairman
Moyer - “And I think Mr. Schenimann is saying he will - he will honor that.
Harry
Schenimann - “The - the forty to the fence and sixty to the corner of the
building. Are we talking about the same
thing?”
Chairman
Moyer - “Is that”
Harry
Schenimann - “Right from here to this fence would be forty feet and then from
here to the corner of the building would be sixty feet.”
Mrs.
Conley - “OK, I guess I misunderstood.”
Harry
Schenimann - “And - and from here to the corner of this where . . . put that
stake would be forty feet from your property line.”
Mrs.
Conley - “OK”
Harry
Schenimann - “That’s where that - that would be the minimum.”
Mrs.
Conley - “If that’s the - yeah. Let’s
have it more if possible please.”
Harry
Schenimann - “That’s the minimum.”
Chairman
Moyer - “So your - your remaining concern Mrs. Conley is the addition or
clarification of the trucks.”
Mrs.
Conley - “Yes, that was a surprise.”
Harry
Schenimann - “Well and the - well and the - at the time I just - I just took it
for granted - you know that that would be just part of it and then it just
dawned on me - I woke up and I thought well
golly does this have to be in writing?
Well so I thought well I’d better do something. But this was just - what was it last
week? I’d called about that - it - it
just dawned on me. But now there’s no -
it’s no extra space added or no extra fence or anything added for that, at
all. There’s nothing expanded for it.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright, thank you.”
Mrs.
Conley - “Now could we possibly have all this in writing signed so there are no
changes that we don’t know about and no additions. That way it’s not Mr. Schenimann said this and we said that but
it is in writing so we know exactly what’s going on.”
Several
people were talking here . . . ?
Craig
Justus - “The - the vested - if - if you did approve the plan you would have a
vested rights ordinance which would have as an attachment our exhibits and to
the extent that you needed to clarify - well and I’m speaking on Angie’s
behalf. And to the extent that you needed
to clarify the conditions in there, you would spell them out. That would be our road map to work from and
that would be in writing.”
Mrs.
Conley - “We need to know exactly what . . .”
Several people were talking here - ?
Chairman
Moyer - “But you’re saying and Mr. Schenimann has stated for the record that
forty feet from the fence to her property line - to two points you mentioned”
Harry
Schenimann - “Yes uh sixty feet”
Chairman
Moyer - “To the corner of building six would be satisfactory to him as a
condition?”
Craig
Justus - “Yes”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK. I just wanted to clarify
that.”
Commissioner
Ward - “I believe that was what was stated on the site, Mr. Moyer, when”
Chairman
Moyer - “Yeah I think that’s where we were.”
Commissioner
Ward - “When the three of us went down there to that corner.”
Chairman
Moyer - “But I think she’s right. It’s not in this uh.”
Commissioner
Ward - “It’s not on the plan.”
Chairman
Moyer - “In the application or in the plat for sure and so it did need to be
clarified. Uh other parties with
questions, Janice.”
Janice
Moore - “I don’t know if I have a lot of new questions but I’d just like to
make a few comments?”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well we’re not to that point yet.”
Janice
Moore - “Oh we’re not to that point yet?
So just questions just on the?”
Chairman
Moyer - “Questions with respect to the amended application and what”
Janice
Moore - “Yes I do have a question because the copy that I have right here says
the maximum number of RV/Boat spaces is 45 so you’re telling me we’re adding
trucks on top of that. That has never
been brought up, in fact I asked Mr. Schenimann back when this project first
started if he intended to do that and I understood that he was not intended to
put rental trucks at that point. We
have U-Haul trucks at the Naples Storage Place which is less than a mile away
and to me that is one of the most unsightly things of that whole project down
there are these great big old rental trucks parked right in front of the
storage buildings there stretched out.
And I strongly object to that.
That was not on the original plan.
That’s an addition. Uh I don’t
think that’s fair to add that at this point.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK, thank you.”
Janice
Moore - “The other amendment questions that I have - um - no I’m pleased that
he is reducing the number of the buildings from seven to six. Again, the first time we had a conversation
I only understood there was two buildings going up, the rest was going to be in
office or warehouse or something and closed on the other portion of the
property so that’s already gone way up from what it was. My uh - my concern with that is we just have
- we just have too much density for the road to handle that kind of density -
that - we’re talking two hundred and - two hundred and fifty occupants plus the
RVs - forty-five RVs - these are long long vehicles pulling in and out you know
uh you just had this.”
Chairman
Moyer - “This is getting beyond the amendments”
Janice
Moore - “Well, it’s part of the amendment but you were just having this
conversation earlier about the horrendous traffic on Howard Gap and I think it’s
just - it seems to me just real irresponsible of the Planning Board to hand out
planning and building permits without ever taking anything like this into
consideration. The uh - and the
buffering is the other I guess the change.
I’m pleased with the changes that are on here. I think there needs to be way more buffering than is even on
here. The buffering that’s out there
right now is very very minimal - there’s just - it’s just totally exposed and
it’s gonna be years before anything’s put in there that will even start to
cover the fences or anything. I’d like
to see some heavy duty buffering that covers clear up these fences and the
fronts of these buildings somehow so we don’t have everything just wide open
exposed but that’s all I have on”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright. Mr. Johnson or
anybody else have - any of the parties have any questions with respect to the
amended application?”
A
gentleman in the back was talking (not at the microphone).
James
Collins - “I would definitely be against the truck storage facility - James A.
Collins.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you Mr. Collins.
Alright, Craig.”
Craig
Justus - “Just a couple of comments if - I think Ms. Moore mentioned the horror
of seeing a large bed truck and so if we want to delineate the size of the
truck you know cause there are different
varieties. There’s the really
large one, almost like an eighteen wheeler, then there are smaller
varieties we’re happy to do that as
well. We’re trying to be up front with
everything - I - you know - I obviously get the sense that no matter what we do
it’s not going to be enough and that’s just the reality of it. We’re trying to do more than what right now
we have anyway with out vested rights - just to give us some flexibility with
time so.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I think we’re to the point to wrap this up with some closing
comments. It’s not necessary to repeat
- and we certainly don’t want you to repeat everything that’s in the - the
record.”
Commissioner
Ward - “I hope they don’t.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Or we’ll be here for awhile.
Did you want to make a comment?”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Uh I need to recognize something because when we did make the site
visit we were in a van and toured the area and I did make a comment to the
other Commissioners that - and an observation that there were many boats and
vehicles and uh I think even a storage trailer or two in that immediate area
that were not screened and a number of them on - on one parcel in particular
and I want that to be a part of the record that that was observed.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright I’m going to start with uh - with staff uh. Do you have any closing comments that you’d
like to make at this time?”
Karen
Smith - “I really don’t uh Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that the plan that
was attached to the documents Mr. Schenimann introduced today is also a revised
plan and so I wanted to make sure that that would be part of the record. It’s my understanding that that was to
be. The other issue that I had had had
to do with the addition of the uh the
truck rental and what I had explained to Mr. Schenimann was that if he had come
in later that would have been something that under the vested right I wouldn’t
have understood to have been permitted and again today as we speak he could do
that out there. Once again we’re
thinking ahead to if some . . . changes occur that would not have been
allowed possibly in the district that he’s looking to change to. Um and so as the Board has allowed other
amendments, I wanted to make sure that they raised that today. That’s all.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Mr. Justus, would you just state for the record that it’s your
intention that the revised plat is what was intended to be put forth today as
your proposal?”
Craig
Justus - “Yes.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you. I’m gonna go to the
other - any other parties? Mr. Johnson,
do you have any closing uh comments? Uh
Mr. Collins? Ms. Conley? Janice, this
is your chance to make a few closing, whoa, Mr. Collins is coming forward. This is not - this is just closing comments
to sum up everything.”
Mr.
Collins - “OK. As everybody in this
audience knows that are familiar with Howard Gap Road and the traffic - the
traffic there is abominable and it’s all kinds of accidents and it’s building
up more and more all the time and for that reason I’m against having any more
truck traffic than - than we have now and uh just backing up my original
statement that I would be against attracting even more trucks into that area.
Thank you.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you Mr. Collins. Craig,
I assume you’re just gonna let that pass.
OK, Mrs. Moore.”
Janice
Moore - “Well I think I stated most of what I had to say. This whole project really is just a
devastating project for our neighborhood.
We all know that and I appreciate the concessions Mr. Schenimann has
made and I hope he can continue to make it so it’s a little more friendly to a
neighborhood. Uh the other thing I didn’t
address was I’m still not sure what we’re gonna have to do on lighting. Uh I just wanted to submit this picture of
the lighting as it is right now which is two buildings and that’s with not even
all the lights on on each of the two buildings. I’m real concerned about getting another five buildings with
lights that go all night long - I mean this is - this is just why industrial
type things do not belong in residential areas. You just can’t mix the two and so far this is just not working
but we are trying to - you know trying to deal with it as a community the best
we can. I’d just like to see whatever
limitations can be put on this to be put on it - the time frame to be put on as
limited as possible to make this the least amount of devastation that we can
get by with there. And the bigger this
thing gets the worse it’s gonna get for the neighborhood and this neighborhood
really cannot tolerate that kind of traffic and that kind of lighting and
exposure and run-off and - it’s just - the whole thing is just bad and he’s
made the right comment when he said there’s no way we can ever make it to our
liking because it’s never going to be to our liking - there’s just no way you
can do that but I’m just asking at this point that you limit our - our
liability and our destruction, our - well I don’t know if I have the right word
for it - limit whatever it’s doing to us that’s so bad so I just uh - I don’t
have a whole lot more to say than that but I really am against them adding the
trucks at this point.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Let me ask you a very specific question based on where we are cause I
think if what I’m hearing - I just want you to clarify whether I’m right - that
you basically are saying to grant the vested rights and get as many conditions
as we can on there because I think from a legal standpoint if we deny the
vested rights, all of the things that he’s agreed to do would not be
obligations under the current law. Now
Mrs. Beeker, isn’t that correct?”
Angela
Beeker - “That’s correct.”
Janice
Moore - “Is this what I understand that the building permit department gave out
permits without considering any of these items before they gave out the
permits?”
Chairman
Moyer - “And by law they’re not allowed to.”
Angela
Beeker - “That’s right.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I mean it shouldn’t - the zoning should have dealt with it. You can’t - it’s not the zoning or building
- I mean they’re not permitted to do that.
They can’t say well traffic is there so we’re not going to give you a
building permit.”
Angela
Beeker - “Right”
Chairman
Moyer - “That would be a violation of the law and”
Janice
Moore - “But it seems like when you present a - a lot of this I’m asking
because I’m just trying to learn some of this procedure myself but when I - if
I would have presented a plan for a subdivision I understand that I would have
had to - you know have - have all the roads down there. I would have to show what the drainage was
gonna be. I’d have to have all that
stuff approved before I would be allowed to have building permits for a
subdivision. Now why is it not the same
for a commercial development. They can
just go in and obviously walk down and get a permit to put anything up without
any”
Chairman
Moyer - “But this - the problem is”
Janice
Moore - “Restrictions on them.”
Chairman
Moyer - “The problem is there is a subdivision law that deals specifically with
subdivisions. We have an ordinance that
deals with that. If they - if he would
have divided the property into separate plots to sell, he would then have been
a commercial subdivision and he would be subject to certain rules. He’s not subdividing the property so he’s -
he’s not subject to any of the subdivision requirements of the law. Mrs. Beeker isn’t that?”
Angela
Beeker - “That’s correct.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Can I inter - and it’s my understanding too that uh - even if there -
a subdivision permit cannot be denied based on the main roads’ ability to
handle the traffic. Subdivision
ordinance does establish standards for roads within the subdivision and
immediate access to it but it cannot - we cannot turn down a subdivision
application simply because it will add more traffic to a main road so - I hope
we’ll be clear on that. Uh and I think
it’s gonna be very important to understand the difference between grandfathered
rights and vested rights and how they can play into what kind of limitations
can be put on this.”
Janice
Moore - “Well, I think a major disservice has been done to our neighborhood
just by not having the comprehensive land use put into effect when it should
have been ten years ago because this would have never happened and never would
have come up if that would have been the case. We are proceeding with our
zoning.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “I’m sorry I don’t agree with that, that might not necessarily have
been true. It could have but it could
certainly well have not.”
Several
people were talking here - hard to make out who said what.
Chairman
Moyer - “ . . . this is outside the scope of the hearing. We can’t address”
Janice
Moore - “OK”
Chairman
Moyer - “We can’t address the past problem of whether it should have been
zoned.”
Commissioner
Ward - “Besides none of this was here ten years ago.”
Chairman
Moyer - “or not and uh”
Janice
Moore - “Well, I’m just asking that you minimize the damages. I assume we go ahead with vested rights with
limitations. I don’t - I don’t
understand exactly the limitations that you can place on it. Uh”
Chairman
Moyer - “The limitations I think concerning this would be the ones that have
been discussed with the parties that have already the - the applicant has
already agreed to.”
Janice
Moore - “OK”
Chairman
Moyer - “The other two things are retention ponds. We can address the truck issue and”
Commissioner
Ward - “Flow control”
Chairman
Moyer - “And flow control. That’s
right, there’s a couple of things we still can address.”
Janice
Moore - “Well, I feel like the truck issue is”
Chairman
Moyer - “. . . clear that if you oppose the vested rights, that we cannot - if
we do not grant it”
Janice
Moore - “No, I’m not opposed to the vested rights”
Chairman
Moyer - “We can’t do anything.”
Janice
Moore - “I’m not opposed to the vested rights but I am opposed to adding the
trucks at this point and this late in the game cause that was not part of the
original.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “I’d like to ask our attorney to clarify for us because it would be my
understanding that the truck issue would be a mute point if - if the applicant
chose not to pursue the vested rights, that he would still have that ability as
a grandfathered use no matter what uh with this facility and uh - so I - I
guess one thing that does need to be weighed in is that if the restrictions
that are placed in granting vested rights are so restrictive uh the applicant
certainly has the alter - option of walking away from the vested right
restrictions and going back to uh what he already has which would not include
uh landscaping or - or any of these things - provisions that have been
discussed so I think there really needs to be a weighing out uh because I think
what we do come up with is gonna have to be uh reasonable.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK, Janice, thank you.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Am I right?”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well”
Commissioner
Gordon - “I’m asking my attorney”
Angela
Beeker - “Do you want me to comment?”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Yeah, I want the attorney to comment, yeah.”
Angela
Beeker - “Uh it is very complicated as everyone is realizing at this
point. Uh the granting of the vested -
there are many ways to grant vested rights just as a quick recap, getting a
building permit is one of them, common law vested rights is another and this is
what you consider a statutory vested right.
With regard to the trucks in particular - a couple of things. I’ll get to the vested right question in a
second but the Board would need to determine whether you consider that to be an
addition or a clarification. Uh as far
as enforcement later, it is better that the issue be clarified up front so I do
appreciate them bringing it up because then I would have been called on to make
a judgment call as to whether that would be an allowable use later so I do
appreciate that but you need to determine if it’s an addition or
clarification. If you determine that it
is truly an addition then you need to make the decision as to whether you’re
going to allow the addition to the application or not. Of course if you do not allow it, they
always can come back next week and make an application to amend. You know - say if you granted the vested
right but did not allow as part of this the trucks, they could come back next
week and make an application to amend their vested rights and then the question
would be before you ultimately, could be before you ultimately anyway so that’s
something to consider. With regard to
vested right, the uh granting of a building permit gives them the vested right
to build the building, OK, and to make the - I guess to make the use of the
building. I don’t know that it would
grant them a vested right to have the trucks in place right now. That’s where common law vested rights would
come into play and then it’s gonna be a factual determination based on how much
they’ve spent, how much they’ve spent in furtherance of that particular use uh
without knowledge of impending zoning, based on some sort of permission - it
gets really factual specific at that point so I would hesitate to comment as to
whether they would or would not at this point have a vested right on uh the
truck portion - if that helps at all.
It may not help you at all. Uh
and then again with regard to what they’re asking for today - the statutory
vested right - it will be delineated one way or another I believe by your
decision today as to whether - you know that would be included or not.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright. I’m gonna ask Mr. uh Justus - I think all the other parties
have had a chance to make closing comments and . . . I’ll ask Mr. Justus to
make his closing comments on behalf of Mr. Schenimann and any legal arguments
that he would like to make at this time.”
Craig
Justus - “Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of - of the Board of
Commissioners. Uh thank you for your
patience throughout this. It’s not an
easy decision to make. Uh we’ve tried
to make it an easy decision uh I think Commissioner Gordon did express where at
least we’re coming from which is the proposition that we are vested right now
with ability to put in seven buildings, not six, seven buildings and that with
that we are entitled to do whatever is incidental to a mini-storage building
facility which we would contend includes rental trucks. Uh that has been my client’s intent uh it’s maybe unfortunate that we’ve had to
clarify it today but we wanted to make sure everything was on the table uh so
we intend to proceed with the project as we have outlined to you whether you
give us vested rights or not. Uh what I’ve
said from the beginning - the reason we’re here today instead of just not
wasting his resources paying me and not wasting your time with this is that we’re
asking for flexibility of timing. Mr.
Schenimann is not the richest man in the world and doesn’t purport to be and he
wants some ability to more reasonably expand out the time to build the
improvements and market the improvements and it is true that if we - if the
restrictions you impose - if you adopted a plan far too onerous then my client
won’t accept it and we’ll just move on to our first alternative. We would rather have clarity of what’s going
on out there from our standpoint, from your standpoint, and from the neighbor’s
standpoint and that’s what this site specific plan gives you. It is and I’ve said it before I don’t think
we’ll be able to appease everybody, make everybody happy but as you know there
is no zoning out there and our client proceeded with buying this property in
good faith, knowing there was no zoning that would prohibit his use and I would
disagree with the comment that Howard Gap Road is a residential neighborhood
road, it is not. It is a mixed use
community, if you drive up and down it is very mixed use. The hospital is right down the road with all
the development that’s going on there.
There is a - there’s a mini-storage building that’s just less than a -
probably 500 yards that’s toward the hospital, there’s the intersection of the
- of the uh - of uh - what is that road, it starts with a B - it’s just escaped
me”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Brookside Camp”
Craig
Justus - “Brookside Camp. It’s just
right down the road. It is not an
internal residential street with cul-de-sacs.
It is a major road in your county.
My client proceeded in good faith to buy it. He is here today to have a give and take with the county, with the
neighborhood, and try to reach some concessions and we believe we’ve done all
that we can with the buffering concept, reducing the density and everything we’ve
stated to you is trying to work in good faith with this body in the
neighborhood and we’ve met with the neighbors on several occasions outside of
this process to try to do that. Uh I
don’t know anything more we could possibly do uh and so I would ask that you
approve this plan with the time-frame that we have asked for so that we can
build this project as it’s laid out before you today and everybody understands
what’s going out there.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you Mr. Justus. I think
uh with the closing comments having concluded we will - we are in a position to
close the record and then proceed with discussion of the Board. I thank you all for your patience. This has been a long time but we wanted to
try to get all the information out, everything on the record and it is
complicated from a legal standpoint to try to understand what all the ramifications
are.”
Commissioner
Ward - “I’ll make a motion to go out of quasi hearing.”
Chairman
Moyer - “All in favor of that motion, say aye.”
In
unison - “Unanimous aye”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright what is the Board’s pleasure it passed unanimously - we can
proceed today to make a decision, we can ask the uh - the uh - our legal
counsel to come back with a draft of - of an order that we can review. I think there are a couple issues that we
need to uh clarify as we move forward but what is the Board’s pleasure. Do you want to act on this now?”
Commissioner
Ward - “Mr. Chair, I - we’ve drug this out for two months and there’s another
issue pending on it that will have precedence on our decision here. Uh I’d like to act on it today.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Any disagreement?”
Commissioner
Gordon - “No”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well let’s proceed on the basis that we’ll act on it today. Open for discussion.”
Commissioner
Ward - “Well, I guess the first thing I’d like to discuss is flow control of
the water. I think as our site visit
surely indicated that uh there is water that flows through Mr. Schenimann’s
property uh how you control it - if our visit was probably after this little
rainy spell - you know it would probably be a true determination from what Mr.
Johnson’s property and other properties would do but we’re not taking that into
consideration because we’re not there.
I think there’s some method of - of flow control of uh run-off water
that needs to do into - into that valley.
Uh if nothing else a uh rock divider of uh and I can’t know the size of
the rock but basically it’s like landscape rock to stop the water flow and from
flowing down on the adjoining property.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well under retain - you mean to retain the rock line basically basin -
that we retain water for a certain time”
Commissioner
Ward - “Yeah where basically it’s not the hard flow of water and trickles it
down to a - to a flow. I think that’s a
necessity because as we looked at on Howard Gap Road there was two or three
points of water through a culvert was coming across and really no one could
define how much water was coming across, either from the side- the north side
or even from Ms. Moore’s property coming down her road, no one could tell me
how much water it is so I had to assume to my experience and I guess the
Times-News can verify that. Uh . .
. how much water it is so I - I really
believe there is gonna be foreseen trouble of flow control and I think some
rock barriers to break down the speed of the water is necessary uh”
Chairman
Moyer - “So if we had an order - if we had a vested rights order you would like
to see”
Commissioner
Ward - “If we - if we contend there’s a vested rights issue I think that would
be one of the requirements that I would like to see.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “If I’m - if I might suggest rather than going into a lot of detail on
what we might like to see in a vested rights or not, I think the first thing we
need to uh determine is if we think vested rights if appropriate and then uh
once we discuss another basic”
Commissioner
Ward - “We could go in that way”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Yeah, yeah, we need to decide if this is uh - if we think it’s
appropriate to uh approve a vested rights”
Commissioner
Ward - “And the length of it”
Commissioner
Gordon - “For this and the length and then talk about the details of it and it
could - depending on what we decide, it could save time or - or at least we’d
know where we’re going and I think that’s where we need to start.”
Commissioner
Ward - “Well, and I was taking a foregone conclusion uh that both parties
indicated that would - they would like to have some sort of vested rights and I
would agree if - to a point that vested rights is. I think really - you know I’ve said here and I’ve said it over
and over again eight years and saw numerous cases and I really believe this may
be a stretch for vested rights to a point uh I’ve never saw one truly like it
uh so but I - I think there’s a vested rights to protect both sides in it but
five years I’ll - I can’t say there’s a five years vested rights there. The length uh is basically in my opinion
determined on what requirements be placed in the vested rights issue.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I think it is uh Don - I tend to agree with you - I think it’s a very
unusual situation for vested rights, not what you would normally - not - what I
would not normally apply to statutory vested rights but I think under the
circumstances the residents of the area stand to benefit a lot more with the
type of order that we can - we can fashion and with some of the protections we
can build in than if we don’t uh grant it so I would be in favor - the length
of the time also bothers me and I would - I’ll tell you where I am in a minute
but again I think that that’s gonna be part of our order and then they can
decide - the parties can decide, particularly the applicant - whether it fits
their needs or whether we have to consider it again but uh I would think that
uh based on the conditions we’ve set up including the retention pond and
including a proper delineation of the size of trucks as has been offered by Mr.
Justus and Mr. Schenimann that they - a three year period would be - would be
appropriate from my standpoint.”
Commissioner
Ward - “And I - and I true - I agree on what requirements and - that we would
place on it. I was - before - just all
this additional information come in - I was more leaning toward the two year uh
vested rights uh and it depends on what we decide on the flow control.”
Commissioner
Messer - “You know I’d like to make a comment.
I kinda agree with both of you and I don’t say either two or three years
but if you look to the vested right request and then all these changes that
have been brought forth today and it’s like Marilyn said - you can - you know
you - you know you can vote either for vested rights or not - you know I don’t
think that five years is adequate but it might have some dec- but it might have
some impact on my decision with these changes uh just like going from six to
five rentals - going to six to five is going to have a big impact on lighting -
you know, traffic and a lot of things on that road and in the future. But then on the other hand the truck issue
was not - I mean I - I personally hadn’t heard the truck rental uh before and I’ve
got some questions about where it would go at the site or whatever - if that
would be adequate to ask because I hadn’t heard it before but I don’t know if
that is standard procedures for storage but I think - but as far as the vested
right issue, the five years, no but I do have some questions containing the
other vested rights . . .”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Then you’re saying you’d consider vested rights for a shorter period
of time?”
Commissioner
Messer - “Right.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “OK. Uh cause - I do know uh
storage units that do have rental trucks and it is very much a normal part of
doing business for mini-storage uh facilities so uh I think having a small
number on site maybe with some limitation on the size of the vehicle or
something I think might be something that needs to be there just - in order to
ensure that this is a viable uh operation and I think it’s in the best interest
of the neighbors that it - since it is there that it be - be a viable operation
and able to maintain the appearance and the landscaping - the things that it
needs to fit into the community. Uh my
concern with uh not granting any vested rights and being - saying essentially
no way is that you lose any control at all of these things. I think there has been a lot of negotiation
that’s gone on on both sides and I compliment the - the community and uh Mr.
Schenimann for doing that uh and you have come up with a set of restrictions
that uh probably if there had been some other sort of regulation in place,
wouldn’t have been any better than what you’ve got. You’ve got good landscaping and distancing from property lines
and things that need to be there so I - and I would hate to just walk away from
that and say uh - no you don’t have to do any of it because in this case we’ve
got people that agree to it and uh want to do it so uh I think we do need to uh
maybe fine tune these provisions uh and do some sort of a vested rights and I
too - I think five years may be too much but I think two - two years probably
in the economic situation we’re in isn’t enough so I think we need to - to be
reasonable on that and I think in the long term it would be better off for the
community to see that all of this is completed as it’s been shown.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well let’s - it sounds to me like we agree that at least going forward
to phase - to put together a recommendation - that we are in favor of some type
of vested rights. And we can start with
the application, with the amendments that were made today and the changes and
typically with respect to the fencing and - which has been agreed upon. Uh with respect to the retention pond, can
we - we agree to put in the order that at the lower end towards Mr. Johnson’s
property that there would be some type of retention pond, preferably stone
lined that would slow down the - the
water and provide for a more orderly release from the property.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “My only reservation and I heard some of the people mention it while
we were out there is that we don’t create a situation that’s going to be a
health hazzard and just a mosquito pond and so I think that there really needs
to be the ability for Mr. Schenimann and the neighbors there to - to see how
this - what’s needed as this goes along and if there needs to be a change made
at a later time on what’s done to prevent that kind of thing then they need to
be able to do it if there’s some way to work - structure it that way.”
Commissioner
Ward - “I think if you go with rip rap rock your detention pond basically flows
down the flow of the water under my experience and basically uh the water can
slow down where it’s not gonna be an erosion type situation plus it retains the
silt.”
Chairman
Moyer - “And then it drains out.”
Commissioner
Ward - “On the first - on the first phase of it and then you can remove the
silt if it mounts up.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “OK”
Commissioner
Ward - “Uh you know its just - that’s what I’ve always done on some of my
property and I think - and we’ve got a professional engineer sitting back there
that’s probably worked with the same type of rock on flow and maybe we can ask
him to assist in some way.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Charlie, where are you on the retention pond? Are you agreeable to that part of the order?”
Commissioner
Messer - “Well, it goes back to some of the comments that were made earlier -
you know - I mean I - I would personally like to vote on vested rights. He has rules and regulations that he - that
he has to follow containing water and etc. and I think uh - like I say there’s
a lot of questions on this - on this that he’s asked for is - is - you know we
need to look at.”
Chairman
Moyer - “But if we’re”
Commissioner
Ward - “Well”
Chairman
Moyer - “But if we’re gonna talk about a retention pond, say if we’re gonna- if
we’re gonna write a vested rights order, we have - there is no law we’ve got to
build in whatever conditions we want and clarify them with some flexibility
like Marilyn was saying so that he can do it.
But we need to build that into our vested rights order or you’re back to
the existing law.”
Commissioner
Messer - “Well I don’t - Bill I don’t see how we can build uh anything
containing these flood plain if he’s doing what he says - if the State says he’s
doing what he says that he has to do - now if we get some hard rain or whatever
it could be - you know it definitely could be a different situation overnight
and - and - you know I mean I don’t see how we can make a dec - you know a
decision on - on a pond out there because I don’t think it’s adequate”
Chairman
Moyer - “Yeah but wait - the applicant and their counsel have both indicated
today that if we wanted to put in some type of retention pond to facilitate
granting vested rights, they would be willing to work with developing something
that would . . .”
Commissioner
Messer - “Well I don’t have a problem - I don’t have a problem with that as
long as it’s you know as long as both parties can agree. Right now uh - you know that was one of my
questions brought up from day one about that pond out there and then you go
back behind Mr. Johnson’s house uh - course we did have two inches or so of
rain this past week-end and I don’t know if you had any problem there but
somewhere down the road I think there’ll be a problem and for this Board to
make that call - I don’t think that - that you know”
Commissioner
Ward - “Well maybe I don’t fully understand the direction that you’re going
Charlie but I think it’s plain and simple.
The vested rights length is determined in my mind on what requirements
we are placing on the applicant. I mean
that’s the only way I see it.”
Commissioner
Messer - “Well, like I said I don’t have a problem with that but I think to ask
to make us make certain rules and stuff about a pond - I don’t think that we
should be qualified to do that”
Commissioner
Ward - “That’s our job”
Angela
Beeker - “Well”
Commissioner
Messer - “Right but I think we need to do it whenever all of us are here and
whenever all of us really understand the matter”
Commissioner
Ward - “Oh, OK.”
Angela
Beeker - “I - I do want to weigh in a little bit and tag onto what Commissioner
Messer is saying. I guess - what I
recall them saying they would be willing to do and Craig can correct me if I’m
wrong is that the pond that is there, they would be willing to leave.”
Chairman
Moyer - “No they went beyond that.”
Several
people were talking at once here ... ?
Angela
Beeker - “You said you would actually build a pond?”
Craig
Justus - “The clarification is that in the construction of building six - five
and six.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Five”
Angela
Beeker - “Uh huh”
Craig
Justus - “There would be an erosion control plan submitted for approval”
Angela
Beeker - “Right”
Craig
Justus - “And within that plan a new pond would be constructed. The question was would you, after
construction is complete, would you want us to keep it there or fill it in?”
Angela
Beeker - “Right, but you weren’t talking about doing some special thing other
than - I understood it to be in connection with the erosion control plan.”
Craig
Justus - “In connection with the erosion control plan would you want us to keep
the pond there permanently or the base detention basin or remove it?”
Angela
Beeker - “Right”
Craig
Justus - “And that’s where the discussion of mosquitos and - from some people
but some people like the idea”
Angela
Beeker - “Right”
Craig
Justus - “And the rip rap is a fine idea so that’s why”
Chairman
Moyer - “We’re - Don and I are trying to say that we’d like the pond to have
like an overflow valve so it doesn’t accumulate water long time but it protects
and stores water when you get the excessive run off and then you have a pipe
that - it will gradually take it back down and you have the rock and catches
the silt - that’s the way I normally would construct it.”
Angela
Beeker - “Which is not normally what necessarily you were gonna do but”
Craig
Justus - “That - it’s just - it’s an overflow valve that would reduce the
water, keep the water going down and then the water would hit a - flow out and
hit a rock - hit rocks”
Chairman
Moyer - “Right”
Commissioner
Ward - “Yeah”
Commissioner
Messer - “But Craig”
Chairman
Moyer - “Same thing you have to give you some volume control.”
Commissioner
Messer - “So basically what you’re saying - or you all are willing to do that
if we make that call, right?”
Craig
Justus - “With that specific issue uh I don’t know that - I’m not an
engineer. You said you had an engineer
out here”
Angela
Beeker - “Well”
Chairman
Moyer - “We can’t engineer it for you”
Angela
Beeker - “Well that’s - that’s where I was going that we’re not qualified -
that I do not want the Board to stake itself out with the community as putting
a requirement in there that they’re later going to come back to you and say hey
you ask and you thought this water or you said this would control the water and
it’s not” Several people were
talking while Angela was. I hope I got
this right. “I don’t want you to hold yourselves out so if it’s as simple as
them retaining whatever control measures they have to put in place for the
State, pass the State, pass the - when they complete the project - that I’m not
as concerned with as staking yourself out to try and determine what would be
adequate to control the run-off.”
Chairman
Moyer - “We can’t do that”
Commissioner
Messer - “Right and that’s - and that was my point from day one right.”
Craig
Justus - “It is a question of - as long as you know there’s not a conflict in
what the State requires and what you would require I assume it’s a question of
whether the State sets a minimum and
then you’re asking for us to do something on top of that. Obviously we couldn’t
abide by an order of the county that would violate a State requirement uh so I
- I don’t know where to go with that.
I- I”
Chairman
Moyer - “But once you’re - wait a minute - once you’re construction is finished
the State requirement will end”
Commissioner
Ward - “Yeah”
Chairman
Moyer - “We’re talking about what you do after the State requirement. All we’re asking is that you retain some
type of retention uh but not that you have water sitting there and create a
health hazzard, some way to reduce that volume, overflow valve or whatever you
think is appropriate so that we don’t end up with a unsightly pond there.”
Craig
Justus - “OK. And all I can say is we
don’t know enough at this point. If you
want to say that that’s a condition what we would have to do before we accepted
the vested rights permit or whatever is
have to go back and find out what the cost associated with that is. Uh we don’t know and whether it can be
engineered or - you know we’re talking about a nightmare of enforcement. I just don’t know.”
Chairman
Moyer - “OK”
Commissioner
Ward - “That’s fair”
Chairman
Moyer - “Uh the other issue I think we need to address specifically is the
trucks uh I think as Commissioner Messer indicated that was new to me
also. I don’t remember seeing anything
about trucks and I think in fairness there are some storage units that have em
and some - some that don’t so I don’t think you can automatically assume that
that’s part of it but I think if there’s - we don’t want an issue later so we
need to clarify that - do we limit the size, do we limit it entirely, or what
do we do with respect to that?”
Commissioner
Messer - “I’d like to ask - I’d like to ask a couple questions containing to
trucks if - if”
Commissioner
Ward - “The public hearing’s over”
Chairman
Moyer - “The hearing’s over”
Commissioner
Messer - “Well maybe you can answer the questions or somebody can answer
questions if not I’ll - you know I - I don’t know if I would be willing to make
a decision. I’d like to know where on the map would the trucks be placed, how
many trucks would be uh on site”
Commissioner
Ward - “Four trucks”
Commissioner
Gordon - “No more than four, no more than four trucks”
Chairman
Moyer - “And they’re willing to limit the size.”
Angela
Beeker - “And that they would go where the RVs and boats go. They - the word rental - where it says RV,
boat, rental - I’m assuming that’s referring to the trucks”
Commissioner
Messer - “Alright if you look at the uh storage units where the rental goes in
the back which is 250 and 45 RV spaces- I mean I don’t - I don’t see how you
can get four trucks back there if they’re twenty foot trucks, sixteen foot
trucks, fourteen foot trucks.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Well if - if they don’t have - if that’s where they’re gonna keep em
then they’re not gonna be able to rent as many spots for other things so either
way you’re gonna have - the space is gonna be filled one way or the other,
whether it’s rental trucks or RVs, that’s where they go.”
Commissioner
Ward - “I tell ya - Mr. Moyer, the way I stand on it - I think rental trucks is
part of doing business - if that’s his option of - of making a living and it
gives him a little bit of uh a chance to make uh a better living. I’d do it if we - he’s already volunteered
to put a limitation on the size of it, a ton and a half size rental truck would
probably meet the need on most everything and it’s way smaller than a mobile
home - I mean a motor home - if he’s agreeable to that cause a two ton truck
you very seldom see if you go out Tracy Grove Road to that one the majority of
those are ton and a half. I don’t know
if it’s Ryder or whoever he’s got - gonna contract with uh he might put - see
in our uh vested rights that a ton and a half is available for - if it’s a
problem on - it’s gonna be - I don’t think he’ll ever get 45 units there but
make the rental trucks part of the 45, compromise that way. I don’t think he’ll ever have 45 storage
units there it’s just the possibility of one day uh majority I’ve saw my
storage unit - the storage unit that joins one of my properties, I counted the
other day and he had sixteen in there, over there next to Coopers they had 22
and uh it’s a pretty good sized units, 45 I think he has ample room and I would
go for ton and a half.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I think that’s a reasonable way to deal with it. I think in fairness this was something added
since we had our last discussion and if we said the ton and a half and the 45
would have to include the four and put that in the order, I would think that
would be a reasonable and fair way to address it cause I don’t want to have to
argue whether it’s a difference between a boat or a truck rental but between a
ton and a half I think it would be reasonable to just stick with the 45 and put
the ton and a half on it.”
Commissioner
Ward - “Cause whose to say that a man wouldn’t come in there and put a - I mean
I’ve got two or three trucks that’s van trucks that’s ton and a half that one
day I could store next to my neighbor - I’d say could you store these in your
lot for x amount of days, it wouldn’t be different. It setting there, it being yellow or orange than mine being
white.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well are there any other main issues that we missed. That covers my notes.”
Angela
Beeker - “Was there anything with lighting?”
Chairman
Moyer - “The only thing with respect to lighting was brought up again by Janice
but the - when we discussed the lighting out there it’s what - what they’ve
agreed to is what is in the uh summary of changes.”
Angela
Beeker - “OK.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “And I do - you know I live in a neighborhood where many of my
neighbors have all night lights so it’s not - I know that commercial lighting
is an issue but I’ve - I - it did appear that Mr. Schenimann was trying to
reduce the uh the impact there as much as he could and still keep things safe
and uh there’s really no neighborhood in this day and age that doesn’t have
some impact from lighting and I don’t always like it but the - it’s there.”
Chairman
Moyer - “And I think the wattage is all delineated in the exterior lighting”
Commissioner
Ward - “Uh huh.”
Angela
Beeker - “It was.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Well, if it’s the Board’s uh agreement, I would ask that staff draw up
a vested right - I guess it’s agreement.”
Angela
Beeker - “An ordinance.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Ordinance which takes the revised application plus the additional
changes that we made today with respect to distance from property lines,
fences, and things like that in accordance with what the Board has indicated
today that uh we would designate that we want some type of retention area
continued, hopefully in - building on what the State requires but with the
request that we try to make it so that it will have a system for reducing the
amount of water so we won’t have standing water sitting there after construction
is completed and I would think they would want that as well uh and that we - we
would make clear that truck rental can be there. The maximum number would be four, they’d be ton and a half but
that the total number of spaces for RV/boat spaces and truck rental would be
45, so the four would be included in the 45 so it would be 41 and 4.”
Angela
Beeker - “What about the duration - duration?”
Chairman
Moyer - “That’s right that’s what we have to get to now.”
Commissioner
Ward - “I think the additional requirements that we have imposed - I would go
along with your recommendation of three years.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “I - I think that is kinda like playing . . . but I think that - I can
live with that. I think that’s
reasonable.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Charlie, I know you were leaning towards two?”
Commissioner
Messer - “I can live with three years if people out there - and I mean if - you
know I can’t agree with all the - the vested two - three years I can live with.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I think the trade-off has to be all the things that they’re willing to
do and I think they’re entitled to something for that and I think the other
year, year and a half, two years is uh - I think will be a good trade-off for
the community if the applicant can live with it. We’ll have to see when he sees the order. Is there anything else we need to advise the
attorney on this matter that uh before you can draft the ordinance?”
Angela
Beeker - “No sir. And I will also submit it to both attorneys and talk with
them about different wordings and things before I bring it back to you.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright”
Angela
Beeker - “OK”
Chairman
Moyer - “Thank you.”
Craig
Justus - “Mr. Chairman, is there any way for us to comment cause I know there’s
gonna be a lot of energy drafting something and you’ve come up with conditions
and I do have an idea on one point that is a potential deal breaker.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright.”
Craig
Justus - “And I just”
Chairman
Moyer - “Go ahead Mr. Justus, we’ll hear your comment. We’re not a part of the public hearing so
this is just comment”
Craig
Justus - “I un - I understand. The
whole reason of all the conditions that we have been willing to impose us is to
get back time and I will tell you that three years is - is a potential deal
breaker for us. I -I talked to my
client cause we were asking for five and there was good reasons for that. I did talk to my client and he had said that
he could live with three and a half years but three years would be a potential
deal breaker and instead of - and I’m not trying to create a ballistic
situation here I just want to let you know that cause my client does have a
concern with being able to complete the facility under more reasonable
circumstances in the time frame of three years and so we’re asking - we agreed to modify the application if
necessary or we just indicated a willingness to set 3 1/2.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Comments from the Board?”
Commissioner
Gordon - “I’m not real sure what we’ve got to lose by saying 3 1/2 years uh I
don’t know and I can appreciate the economic considerations that would have to
go into it. There would be more money
spent here than there would have otherwise for sure without the vested right.”
Angela
Beeker - “The - in the ordinance the time frame to go beyond two years and I
apologize, I don’t have my ordinance with me but I believe and Karen you can
correct me if I’m wrong - based on prevailing economic conditions and so if you
all could include some comments as to that when you’re considering your time
frame.”
Chairman
Moyer - “You know negotiating like this piece meal is always uh difficult and I’m
gonna - I’m gonna make a statement in return Mr. Justus. I’m sure you’ll know as an attorney that I’d
be willing to do that assuming you’d buy the - all of the other conditions as
we have them. I’m not gonna have you
change this and then come back to me and say well now we don’t like this. And I know that puts you in a difficult
position but you’re doing the reverse to me so.”
Craig
Justus - “Well and I apologize for doing the reverse to you. Uh - uh - we have listened to the conditions
that you’ve imposed upon us and that’s one of the reasons why I had to come
back up and say about the time frame - three and a half years is what we’re
asking for and the conditions as you’ve outlined them today we - are acceptable
to us. The only hanging”
Chairman
Moyer - “You’ve seen the wording and I will accept”
Craig
Justus - “That and the only handing issue is of course the engineering concept
of this overflow cause I don’t know that”
Chairman
Moyer - “Right”
Craig
Justus - “And I don’t know what the cost of that is and at the next meeting we
can finalize that but if you’re looking for a - a - sorta a letter of intent -
what you’ve said before with the three and a half years is acceptable.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Mr. Ward, is that satisfactory to you then?”
Commissioner
Ward - “That’s 42 months. Uh yeah I could stretch it, I just - I really don’t
want to, to tell you the truth but to leave the community with no help at all I
think it’s in the best interest for us to do it.”
Chairman
Moyer - “I’ll support 3 1/2 years.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “And I think you have to remember and if Mr. Schenimann’s a
businessman and I’m sure he would like to have it built out in eighteen months
if that were economically possible - I don’t thing that you’re setting up a
situation where he’s going to deliberately try to string this out. I think uh what he’s asking for is a
reasonable amount of time to get it done uh and I’m sure we’ll be trying to get
this thing finished.”
Commissioner
Ward - “And the other drawback that I see and I ain’t got nothing to win or
gain by this meeting as everybody knows but uh the alternative of a commercial
piece of property that doesn’t succeed as a storage building I don’t want and
that’s - that would be the downfall, to give him the extra month in the economic
session that we’re in right now which is almost a depression, the alternative
of some goldmining person to come in and put an establishment in there that
would really set the community on ear I think is unceivable.”
Commissioner
Gordon - “Well, and I think you have to bear in mind too if that - if that
property were zoned residential and - and he did not succeed and went back to
residential zoning the chance of someone putting something good residential on
that piece of property are very very slim uh so I think really the community
since we’ve got the situation we’ve got now will be better served if he is able
to build out what he has proposed and it does uh - does pay it’s bills - able
to pay it’s bills and keep itself up.”
Chairman
Moyer - “We’ll modify then what we - the direction we gave the County Attorney
to make it that 3 2 years but all the other conditions and obviously the other
comments with respect to general agreement is just - just that - indication of
present intent and uh - but I think that was helpful. I appreciate that Mr. Justus.”
Angela
Beeker - “Mr. Chairman, I would also request the latitude to review all the
things that have been submitted by everyone and if other things come up that we
haven’t remembered to mention today that I be able to bring those - those back
to you for instance I think Karen had submitted some proposed conditions and
things like that from staff and I would like to be able to - to bring those to
you and I don’t have those with me today either.”
Chairman
Moyer - “Alright that will be fine.”
Angela
Beeker - “OK”
Chairman
Moyer - “Now when you I think follow the procedure you said, come up with a
draft ordinance, have the other parties - all the parties take a look at it,
and when it’s ready bring it back to the Board, hopefully as - as soon as
possible. Alright, I think that
concludes uh that very difficult matter.”
IMPORTANT
DATES
Set
Workshop and Set Public Input Session on the Draft of the New Zoning Ordinance.
The
Board set the Workshop for October 3 at 2:00 p.m.
Set
Public Hearing - Environmental Assessment for Mills River Sewer Project
Chairman
Moyer made the motion to set the public hearing for November 20 at 11:00
a.m. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
CANE
CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT - no business
CLOSED
SESSION
Commissioner
Ward made the motion for the Board to go into closed session as allowed
pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the following reasons:
1.(a)(6) To consider the qualifications,
competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment or
conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or
prospective public officer or employee or to hear or investigate a complaint,
charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee.
2.(a)(5) To establish or to instruct the
public body’s staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken
by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating (l) the price and other
material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real
property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease or to the amount of
compensation and other material terms
of an employment contract or proposed employment contract.
All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
There
being no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Messer made
the motion to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth
W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William
L. Moyer, Chairman