Welcome to the new Governmental Affairs page of the Fayetteville Regional Association of REALTORS® web site.  On this page you will find the latest local government updates issued by Angie Hedgepeth, the Governmental Affairs Consultant we are sharing with the Home Builders Association of Fayetteville.  This page is updated frequently, so check back often.

Local Government Update

Governmental Affairs Reports - September 2010
To Review the Governmental Affairs Summary only, please click here. 
_____________________________________________________________________

Fayetteville City Council - Work Session
August 2, 2010

What Happened
The following item was discussed pertaining to both industries.

Charles Hunter (Police Captain) gave a presentation on the proposed revisions to the City of Fayetteville Alarm Ordinance and a new fee Schedule for false alarms.  Below is information that comes directly from the City Council Action Memo.

Background
As a result of Council’s direction to periodically review all fees during the budget process, the alarm fees were reviewed.  Since the fees had not been adjusted in several years and due to the high number of false alarm activations, staff recommended the fees be increased.  Staff’s presentation included information regarding fees charged in other cities.  Due to an oversight by staff, information was presented to Council that was inaccurate.  As a result, staff was directed to review the fees and to consider revisions to the appeal process.

City staff met with alarm industry representatives on July 20, 2010.  The topics of discussion included the Fee Schedule, Alarm Permitting Process, and the Appeals Process.

Fee Schedule
The consensus of the group was to recommend the following fee schedule. (For residential and commercial)

Alarm Permits
At this time, industry representatives are not in favor of instituting an alarm permit process.  Staff remains interested in developing a registration process and will initiate further discussion with industry representatives.

Appeals Process
While industry representatives expressed confidence in our current alarm coordinator, it was agree that there should be an appeal step available in which the “enforcer” of the fines was not the final say.  The proposed revision allows an appeal to an administrative hearing officer under Section 1-9 of the City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances.  This additional appeal step would allow an appeal within ten days after receipt of the decision of the alarm coordinator and is the same as the appeal process for several other civil citations.  This change would necessitate an amendment Section 4-7(a) of the City Code.

After the presentation a motion was made and approved to bring this formally back to the City Council for a final vote and in six months revisit this item for review with the police department.

What Was Said
Councilman Hair – “If an alarm goes off and the police are called and the homeowner cancels are they still charged?”

Captain Hunter – “No, it is a canceled call and is not held against them.”

Councilman Meredith – “What if you have four different buildings but one parcel id, are we addressing that?”

Captain Hunter – “We will look at the alarm industry to address that. It’s been a good thing working with the stakeholders and we have opened up communication.  It is something to look at.  Right now it is by parcel.”

Councilman Hurst – “What will determine if we have permits?”

Captain Hunter – “Are we seeing a reduction and reasonable improvement for next year.  The important thing is the stakeholders.” 

Councilman Bates – “Will a letter go out for false alarms, will the information be on the ticket?”

Captain Hunter – “Yes, the letter will inform you of the road you’re going down.  The information will be included on the ticket.”

Bates – “What if there is a 5^th alarm…not paying it? How do we enforce it?”

Attorney McDonald –“We can’t make a homeowner change their behavior.  Monetary amount is usually the deterrent.”

Dale Inman (City Manager) – “We have met with stakeholders and talked about this.  A large percentage of false alarms come from commercial.  New employees and training them.  This is the leading cause.”

August City Council Schedule
August 9^th – Regular Meeting
August 18^th – Agenda Briefing and update on the Unified Development Ordinance
August 23^rd – Regular Meeting

Fayetteville City Council - Regular Meeting
August 9, 2010

Absent:  Councilwoman Applewhite

What Happened
The following agenda item was APPROVED by the Council unanimously.

Charles Hunter (Police Captain) gave a presentation on the revisions to the City of Fayetteville Alarm Ordinance and a new fee Schedule for false alarms.

Alarm Permits
At this time, industry representatives are not in favor of instituting an alarm permit process.  Staff remains interested in developing a registration process and will initiate further discussion with industry representatives.

Appeals Process
While industry representatives expressed confidence in our current alarm coordinator, it was agree that there should be an appeal step available in which the “enforcer” of the fines was not the final say.  The proposed revision allows an appeal to an administrative hearing officer under Section 1-9 of the City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances.  This additional appeal step would allow an appeal within ten days after receipt of the decision of the alarm coordinator and is the same as the appeal process for several other civil citations.  This change would necessitate an amendment Section 4-7(a) of the City Code.

What’s Next
City Council Agenda Briefing August 18^th @ 4:00 – The city staff will be briefing the Council on the Unified Development Ordinance after their regular agenda briefing.

Sidebar
Councilmen Mohn and Bates will not be running for re-election in 2011.

Cumberland County Commissioners - Regular Meeting
August 16, 2010

Present: Full Commission

What Happened
The following UNCONTESTED public hearings were voted on as they pertain to both industries.

The rezoning of 100 acres from R10 Residential and CD Conservancy to R7.5 Residential.  The property is located on both sides of NC Hwy 210 (Lillington Hwy) and north of SR (Chapel Hill Road).  The property is owned by Thomas Brooks for McCormick Farms. The rezoning PASSED.

The rezoning of 7.91 acres from R10 Residential to C(P) Planned Commercial.  The property is located on the north side of Camden Road and west of Wipperwill Drive.  The property is owned by March Riddle.

Background
Members present at the June 15^th, 2010 Cumberland County Joint Planning Board voted to recommend denial of the C(P) Planned Commercial district but did recommended approval of the C2(P) Planned Service & Retail district.  The applicant verbally agreed to the recommendation.

At the end of the public hearing a motion was made to deny the rezoning.  The motion PASSED with Commissioners King and Council voting against the motion.

What Was Said 
Ten speakers were signed up to speak in opposition but time ran out. There was no one to speak in favor of the rezoning.

Homeowner Camden Woods – “Personally I don’t see why the County thinks that this area…we need the goods and services.  I don’t know what could possibly be put here to help us out. There is commercial everywhere.”

James Mitchell (Resident) – “We moved here for the availability of the stores and Wal-Mart in this area but still be in a rural area. Traffic is getting backed up in this area. I don’t know if the road widening will make it better or worse.  I think it will increase the risk of children in this area. I don’t see the point of adding a new commercial area that is also possibly going to stay vacant and possibly put our children at risk.”

Regina Ramos (Resident) – “My concern is the safety of our children and the value of our neighborhoods. You’re bringing in retail and there is no safety for our children. We do not need another road in there and we do not need other services in our area.”

Commissioner King – “If you put a commercial development will it greatly alter the character of the community?”

Tom Lloyd (Planning Director) – “No." There is a sidewalk that will be installed. The road will be widened and so is the connective road.  There is commercial on Strickland Bridge Road and commercial to the north. There is an immense amount of housing along Rockfish Road.  You’re going to have to put commercial along with the utilities and its going to meet the criteria and it has the potential to build up and it needs to be served by some commercial.” 

Commissioner Council – “This adheres in spirit to the 2030 plan?”

Lloyd – “Correct.”

Commissioner Keefe – “One of the things that I look at is not what potentially might be put in by the developer because that is his right…it’s our responsibility to see if the plan is done in a strategic way.  Personally for this commissioner although it’s on the 2030 plan I don’t believe this area is ready for commercial with a two lane road…when it becomes a four land road and there is more commercial in that area I might consider it.  Without the road there I think it’s still a community area and that is how I would like to keep it.”

Commissioner Council – “Both the planning board and planning staff voted in favor of this.”

Commissioner Faircloth – “Mr. Riddle was at the meeting in June and probably thought he had an uncontested case tonight so he’s probably not here tonight for that reason.  If he could be here making some compelling arguments maybe it could go another way.  The best arguments have been made against this tonight.”

Sidebar
Due to a conflict of schedules with the City and County Planning Commissions, I was unable to attend the county meeting.  The Cumberland County Joint Planning Board DENIED the following rezoning on Tuesday evening.  The rezoning will continue on as a contested case at a future County Commissioner meeting.

The rezoning of 302 acres from A1 agricultural land and R40 residential to R20 residential/CUD conditional use district for a 565 lot residential development.  The property is located on the south side of Gainey Road and west of McFayden Road.  The property owners are Robert Townsend, Weldon Jackson, Sarah Matthews and John Koenig for River Landing Center LLC.

The Planning and Inspections Staff recommended approval of the requested rezoning because the request for an average lot size of 20,000 square feet is consistent with the 2030 Growth Vision Plan, which calls for “rural areas” at this location.  The use will maintain or enhance the value of adjoining or abutting properties if developed as proposed.  The proposal is for a high quality residential development on approximately one half acre lots, including neighborhood amenities such as a regulation sized soccer field, clubhouse, neighborhood pool and the preservation of 33 percent of the tract (97 acres) as green space.

City of Fayetteville - Planning Commission - Regular Meeting
August 18, 2010

Present: Commission

Others Present: Fayetteville Mayor Chavonne, Fayetteville Councilwoman Davy

What Happened
The public hearings were voted on.

Consider a waiver of the condition to complete a street connection for the Summer Grove Phase II Subdivision, located off Fisher Road at Carula Lane. According to city staff, the purpose of the connectivity would be to improve public safety, implement a new urban design, adhere to the 2030 plan which recommends and supports connectivity and the future Unified Development Ordinance promotes fewer cul-de-sacs and promotes more expansive street connectivity.  At the end of the hour long discussion, Commissioner Cox voted to deny the request for the waiver due to no financial hardship on the developer.  The motion PASSED with Commissioner Speight voting against the motion.

What Was Said
Scott Brown (engineer) – “On the original approval the connectivity was not required but we had a resubmittal.  We are not opposed to connectivity.  There is no benefit to this connection.  Its two different types of development.  Phase II is a lower price point.  This will be a hardship on the developer.  They will lose $35,000 on lots and does not include the cost for road construction. It will be an additional $200,000 hardship for the developer with no benefit to the community.”

Commissioner Speight – “Is the city able to serve fire protection without the connectivity?”

Rob Anderson (Chief Development Officer) – “It would provide quicker access.”

Consider approval of the final draft of the Unified Development Ordinance (August ’10) which includes recommended changes to the May 7 public hearing draft.  Karen Hilton (Planning Director) and Rob Anderson gave a generic presentation on the current UDO draft.  They have cataloged 209 comments from the community.  Below are some of their UDO talking points. At the end of the public hearing a motion was made to continue discussion of the UDO between the Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 24th at 7:00 p.m.  The motion passed with Commissioner Speight voting in opposition.

Desirable Neighborhoods – strong, clear sidewalks, Traffic Impact Analysis studies, multi-family development is no longer allowed next to single family residential.

Leisure and Beauty – more landscaped parking and more buffers

Three areas of major change in the UDO – Parking, Tree Protection and Open Space

Parking – minimum requirements (deferred parking), cross access, shared parking, off-site

Trees – permits, focus on specimen/heritage, flexibilities built in, clearing allowed in return for increased replacement, incentives for protecting existing trees

Open Space/Parkland – separated open space set aside and public parkland, reduces set aside for residential development to 15%, eliminated the “CAP”, strengthened public parkland requirements 800/1000/2000 sq. ft. unit

What Was Said 
Below are only some of the comments that resulted from the 2 ½ hour discussion.

Malcolm McFadyen (2010 President of the Home Builders Association) – “Thank you for letting me speak and we are at an extreme disadvantage when staff has unlimited time to speak and we are given three minutes. This document is not ready.  The stakeholder process has not been honored in the end…it has stopped.  The May document has not even been reviewed.  Our sixty items have not been addressed.  There is no Administrative Manual.  It’s just as critical as the UDO.  When the Administrative Manual is produced then we will see the entire document.  No one has talked about the light transparence issue. We would like to look at the standards for Linden Oaks. On parkland/open space there has been no discussions. The fees for a planned review for a 300 unit apartment building and has nothing to do with the UDO have gone from $200.00 to $6,500 dollars…so how much of this is beautification and how much is a money grab? We are not saying do not pass the UDO. We have been a positive engaged process along the way.”

Anderson – “Across the nation night sky standards are for the quality of life standards so that people in their backyards don’t have to look at light bulbs in their neighbor’s yards.”

McFadyen – “BRACS cutting edge we just want to look at their standards versus ours.”

Commissioner Cox – “I don’t believe it’s any of your business.”

McFadyen – “Who’s going to be the light police and tell me to change it? I’d say it’s in the Administrative Manual.  I don’t know that there is an objective but we haven’t’ discussed it. We haven’t discussed light standards at all.”

Jimmy Kizer (Engineer) – “As a stakeholder member, we haven’t finished the May document and haven’t finished the August document. There has been a disconnect.  We need to slow down.  We haven’t even finished reviewing.  There are issues with the tracking form.  I’ve sat through the meetings.  The light transparency issue is going to create a problem.  When I submit a site plan I don’t have a light study done.  Staff wants things that financially we can’t do on the front end of these projects. The banks won’t let you get a modification on a loan. You’re going to drop the project. There are a lot of desires that staff wants. I could go on for hours.”

Bob Averitte (Developer) – “Everything I was going to say has already been said. I’m here to add credence to what Jimmy has said.  Staff has done a great job and we’ve come a long way. The document is not ready to go forward.  We were told that we would have an Administrative Manual before this went to Council.  We go burned bad on the stormwater ordinance. A UDO is going to happen we just want it to be right when it comes off the presses.”

John Gillis (Developer) – “This document is too important to the community not to get it right.  There are huge economic implications.  The request for the connectivity waiver tonight…the project probably was approved by the bank and did not include the additional $200,000.  The bank is not going to fund it.  If you thought tonight’s discussion took a while….the UDO will create more difficult discussions. Linda Lee Allen used to say you don’t have a Gucci purse and wear a K-Mart dress.  You don’t buy an expense lot and put a cheap house on it.  Our market can market can absorb the $175,000 dollar houses very quickly but $300,000…it’s going to sit there.”

Commissioner Lavoie – “Since everyone is talking about finances, that seems to be the only concern here tonight um…if this question is out of line please let me know. What would be the typical profit for a multi-family dwelling?”

Gillis – “I do not build multi-family, that’s a different world. It’s going to be related to cash flow and rental rates.  The housing market is tough and there are houses being sold at a loss.

Lavoie – “Your concerns are the parkland and open space are too expensive and that would be the issue with the multi-family dwelling correct?”

Gillis – “It’s also impacts the single family housing.”

Lavoie – “Yea but both those issues…so if you want us to consider financing we need to know what kind of profit you’re looking at.”

Gillis – “If you have to take 15% of the land that you set aside for open space.  That’s 15% percent that’s like you’ve been given a hundred dollar bill and you have to give fifteen dollars of it to the city for open space.”

Lavoie – “That doesn’t seem like a large amount.”

Gillis – “If gas goes up 15% percent tomorrow.”

Lavoie – “What kind of profits are we talking about?” 

Gillis – “Well that goes from development to development and company to company.”

Lavoie – “Well that’s the kind of information that I need.  Obviously they are not doing this thing for charity.”

Anderson – “These are complex questions. There are a lot of factors when we throw numbers into it.  Clearly there are changes. They are not going to tell you their ROI (return on investment) that’s proprietary information. The one thing that’s missing is the value and the investment in the neighborhoods. What value are we creating for the homeowner? The long term appreciation of the home?”

Chairman Smith – “We are not going to get all of what we want out of this document but we are going to get a better city and that’s what I’m hearing.  At what point do we find some realistic figures that we can work with?”

What’s Next
September 7th – City Council Work Session UDO Discussion
September 27th – City Council Public Hearing on the UDO
April 1, 2011 – Proposed Full UDO Implementation

Fayetteville City Council - Upcoming Agenda & Unified Development Ordinance Briefing
August 18, 2010

Absent: Councilmen Mohn and Haire

What Happened
The Council was briefed by city staff in regards to the latest draft on the UDO.  The presentation that was made was the same one made at the Tuesday August 17^th Planning Commission Meeting. The staff provided the following timeline of the UDO proposed approval.

September 7th – City Council Work Session UDO Discussion
September 27th – City Council Public Hearing on the UDO
April 1, 2011 – Proposed Full UDO Implementation

What Was Said
Kristoff Bauer (Asst. City Manager) – “The Planning Commission public hearing was last night.  They did not take action and have set a meeting for August 24^th …how they are going to deal with the process moving forward I would say is a little uncertain. Mayor you were there.”

Mayor Chavonne – “I don’t think it’s going to meet that schedule.”

Councilman Meredith – “What about the Administrative Manual?”

Rob Anderson (Chief Development Officer) – “The manual is lagging behind this process.  The real impact is situated in the standards not the manual.”

Dale Inman (City Manager) – “There needs to be a schedule for the manual.”

Karen Hilton (Planning Director) – “We have a shell right now and we have a meeting next week.  We will get a rough draft in a month to six weeks.”

Inman – “It is only fair to have both….we need to encourage them to speed it up (manual).”

Bauer – “They say they have been burned by a prior process…stormwater and as I understand it we don’t have a stormwater manual.

John Gillis (Developer) – “Yes, we do.”

Bauer – “Well how did the stormwater manual change the regulations? At the last stakeholders meeting only 1/3….no one showed up, they didn’t come with their issues…I think that process…the energy is just played out.”

Chavonne – “When was this UDO tracking form sent out? I just got a copy of it today.”

Anderson – “That whole document was just sent out Monday night.”

Chavonne – “Monday night with a public hearing on Tuesday night? And you’re complaining? That’s what is reinforcing this; it’s a train on its own. So they had 24 hours to digest this?”

Councilwoman Applewhite – “Who is the talker for the stakeholder group?  Who stands up and says we believe…..”

Bauer – “There is no talker for the group. Each one of this group came from a different perspective.”

Inman – “Stakeholders are diversified and therefore don’t have the same opinion. The intent is to bring different opinions.”

Councilman Bates – (looking at a slide of the stakeholder group) – “If that’s the group where are the developers?”

Councilwoman Davy – “Are the stakeholders part of putting the manual together?”

Anderson – “The manual is a cookbook, an advisory piece.  If someone came from New Orleans to develop they can find this thing on line and know what to do.  Our thought is once we’ve gone through it 3 or 4 times we would share it with the stakeholders and know what they think.  Their input has made this document better. After 26 meetings at the last meeting no one was prepared…it’s kind of run its course.”

Councilman Crisp – “Are you going to ask for a critique after the manual or before you right it?”

Anderson – “The idea is to give them something to react to.”

Councilman Massey – “Now we get down to the cookbook….the how to and you really still need their input on how to get to point A to point C.”

Anderson – “We’ve chronicled hundreds of changes; it’s like writing the book while you’re writing the book.”

Anderson – “Last night Jimmy Kizer (engineer) gave an example of how the UDO will extract $750,000 from his project and I’m not going through this with explicit detail but after looking at it ….the analysis under a previous version um….the input is erroneous. Their claiming $125,000 dollars per acre when in fact when you look at the taxable values it was from 2004 to 2005. It’s actually 75,000 per acre.  The development community wants to offer post development value for these payments in lieu which we would be glad to take it but that’s not what we are asking for.  Today we checked the current taxable value and it comes out to $79,000…I don’t know where $125,000 came from.  All this discussion is about cost cost cost and not about value. We have to invest in our community.  We are going to deal with this Tuesday night. Now Mr. Mayor we will talk about the subdivision review fee that was mentioned last night.  In the past it was $200 now it is $500 for review plus $20 per lot. There is an enormous amount of staff time in reviewing a project. Three hundred units turns out to be $6,500 dollars as opposed to $200…that sounds scary when you think of $20 per lot per home site…it’s not so scary…so anyway.

Applewhite – “Wow that’s a lot.”

Anderson – “Yea it’s a lot of money but a 300 unit subdivisions is millions and millions of dollars…many millions of dollars.”

Chavonne – “The fact it’s million and millions of dollars doesn’t mean that’s it’s an open door for you to take in more money.  From $200 to $6,500 is a lot money with a stroke of a pen and that’s a lot of money.  Even with a big project it’s still a lot. In addition to the UDO stuff and there is a lot still in place. Sixty five hundred? Overnight?

Anderson – “Our goal in presenting that fee is called “real pricing” We are trying to coordinate a fee to the more complex projects.”

Chavonne – “The atmosphere that we are creating…we voted on this I know but…the atmosphere is one of distrust. The people are asking what is the next thing that is going to happen? All of a sudden you are doing a project that last week was $200 and this week is $6,500! That creates this atmosphere of distrust.  That’s what is bogging a lot of this down.”

Meredith – “It’s cost recovery.”

What’s Next
August 23^rd – Regular City Council Meeting
August 24^th – Special Meeting Planning Commission Discussion of the UDO

City of Fayetteville - Planning Commission - Special Meeting
Unified Development Ordinance
August 24, 2010

Present: Full Commission

Others Present: Mayor Chavonne

HBA Members Present:  Malcolm McFadyen, Dohn Broadwell, John Gillis, Jim Graves, Natalie Woodbury, Jimmy Kizer, Bob Averitte, Jackie Trinchitella

What Happened
Jim Smith (Planning Commission Chair) opened the meeting. The only item on the agenda was discussion of the proposed UDO.  Karen Hilton (Planning Director) gave a brief response to questions raised from the last planning commission public hearing held on August 17^th regarding 1.)”Dark Sky” requirements in the Linden Oaks subdivision and 2.) Westlake Apartments parkland dedication calculations.  

The following information comes directly from Hilton’s email and presentation.

Dark Sky
In response to questions about Linden Oaks and Fort Bragg:  (1)  Sandhills
Utility provided services in Linden Oaks; the utility uses dark-sky
compliant lighting, so all streetlights and utility-provided security lights are dark-sky compliant -- see attached specs for cobra-head fixture.  (2)Glen Prillaman responded that "Fort Bragg typically uses cut off type shoebox type light fixtures or other types of light fixtures that direct the light downward (with an upward shield) in most of our development.  We do this as part of the light shielding/dark sky standards."

Westlake Apartments
In response to questions about Open Space and Parkland, staff has completed a few analyses of recent developments.  Two are reviewed in detail in the attached documents, and there is a summary table for these two – Westlake Apartments and Patriot Park (on Andrews Road).  Because of the distinction between parkland which is required only if the property is also a part of a subdivision process, and open space, it is noteworthy that Westlake would not have been subject to parkland requirements and would have been required to provide less open space under the UDO.  Even if it had been subject to parkland requirements, the cost, while it sounds high, would have been about $422,130, which represents a one time cost per unit of $1,296 toward public park or recreation facilities.  It is an unusually high-value property, and there are provisions for considering adjustments to assessed value. Compare Westlake's per acre value with Patriot Park, where the tax value per acre is only $6,970 in comparison to Westlake's assessed tax value of $70,355 per acre.  As with Westlake, the open space requirement would have been met by areas provided in the project.  The parkland requirement could possibly have been met but staff has assumed it has not; the in-lieu cost would have been $16,384 for 2.35 acres for 128 single family units.  Again, no parkland would have been required for the 192 multi-family units, but if it had, the cost 3.53 acres of parkland or an in-lieu fee of $24,604 would have been required, a one-time payment of $124 per unit toward public park and recreational facilities.

A quick review of developments over the past 2 years indicates approximately one-half of the group developments -- typically condominium, townhouse or apartment developments -- involved a subdivision as they came through site plan review, and so they would have been subject to the parkland requirements.

At the conclusion of the UDO discussion, Commissioner Mark Ledger made a motion that the Planning Commission take no action at this time but to move that city staff hold (3) UDO Stakeholder Committee Meetings for discussion of open space/parkland, single-family subdivisions, multi-family, commercial/mixed use and transitional.  The motion PASSED with Commissioner Speight voting in opposition.

If there are other issues than mentioned above that the development community or other industries have regarding the UDO, staff will receive emails by close of business Friday, August 27th for possible discussion at the upcoming stakeholder meetings.

What Was Said
Rob Anderson (Chief Development Officer) – “What we are trying to achieve (re: parkland) is that multi-family is an equity issue.  Staff did research and ½ of 19 multi-family projects…10 out of 19 were sub-divided. One project had the burden of parkland and one did not.  Maybe we need to talk to our state legislatures. Multi-family should contribute at some measure.”

Commissioner Speight – “What’s the cost for this legislature?”

Anderson – “No cost, just staff time and trying to get legislators to bring initiatives forward.”

City Attorney – “Basically municipalities asking legislators for municipalities to have authority to do something.  There is no cost involved.”

Anderson – “Other communities have done it.”

Hilton – “its special legislation called (adequate public facilities) and its purpose is to even out the cost and share the cost.”

Anderson – “We need to stick with the program that we have established….go back to the stakeholders if it needs more work.  Not fair for an industry (development) to monopolize the Planning Commission.  Fee increases are not part of that discussion with the stakeholders.”  Open space, parklands, multi-family, commercial…those are points of contention. If everyone is available we will meet for the next six weeks and come back to you on or around October 14^th.”

Anderson – “People feel like we are not done. Resolve the comfort level that doesn’t exist now.”

Commissioner Cox – “We’ve spent two years talking about this.  We’ve got to have something to go from.  Make a decision and go for it and stop nit picking.”

Chairman Jim Smith – “If we want a quality document it’s going to take extra time.”

Anderson to the attorney – “Will another public hearing be required?”

Attorney – “I don’t know.”

What’s Next
September 14^th - Planning Commission Regular Meeting (Last meeting for Chairman Smith and Commissioner Speight)
October 19^th – Planning Commission Regular Meeting (1^st meeting for Commissioners Snuggs and Watts)
October 21^st – Proposed meeting for UDO final adoption by Planning Commission
UDO Stakeholder Meetings (3 meetings) - TBA

Helpful Links