WALKERTOWN
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
WALKERTOWN
LIBRARY
MINUTES
1. WELCOME
Chairperson Peggy Leight opened
the meeting at
Present for the Planning Board were: Peggy Leight
Howard Benfield
Larry Marshall
Mike Warren
Arlyn Wilson
Present for the Staff were: Attorney Bo Houff
Glenn Simmons
- AGENDA
APPROVAL
The Agenda was approved by a unanimous motion made by Mike Warren and seconded by Larry Marshall.
- MINUTES
FOR APPROVAL
·
Minutes of
The minutes for
- PUBLIC
HEARING #1 -
GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT CO.
Continued from August 17th
· Zoning Docket WA-015
· Zoning map amendment of Glenwood Development Company, LLC, for property owned by Raymond Harold Neal et al,
· From RS-20 to HB-S
Mr. Glenn Simmons stated this case:
WA-015, is a request by Glenwood
Development Company to re-zone 31.1 acres of land from the existing RS-20
(Residential-Single Family) to proposed HB-S – 2-Phase (Highway Business,
Special Use District, whereby the first phase site plan shows the locations of
driveway connections into the property; the uses of the zoning, if it were to
be approved, would be established, in this case, shopping center use – which
includes all the uses allowed in the HB zoning classification, which would
include various types of commercial development, offices, restaurants of
various sorts and that type of thing. This property has been reduced in its
size from the previous 31 acres down to about 24 acres. The northern part of
the property has been truncated so that that portion has been withdrawn from
consideration by the petitioner. The Board would have to accept that request
for withdrawal of that portion of the property and before the Board would send
this up to the Council, we probably would want to have the new legal
description of the property that would define the new boundaries so that if
this were to be approved, it could be mapped into the County’s zoning map
system. The Public Hearing was opened and closed last meeting; obviously, the
Board may entertain additional comments from the petitioner and anyone else in
the audience. The property is on the
northeast corner of
Public Hearing was opened at
IN FAVOR
1) Patrick Hennigan
Glenwood Development Company
“We were here a couple of weeks ago but after that meeting, we had a ‘roll-up your sleeves’ workshop meeting where I met with Peggy, Toby, Horace, actually Wallace was there, and Doc just to see if there was anything we could do about the project to make it more favorable.
1) We made the project smaller.
2) The Withers home and their driveway – we stopped so we would not get
involved with their home or their driveway access.
3) The town currently does not have an actual sidewalk ordinance today for
commercial property. We’re commercial property so the question was would we pretend the ordinance is already in place and go along with it and we said ‘sure’ so we show sidewalks on the project currently. We could say that’s not the rule today, so I’m not doing it, but obviously, that’s not a very smart attitude so that’s not the way we went about it.
4) With regard to the traffic of the project, I just thought I’d address that
upfront. D.O.T. has told us they will require concrete medians on 66 to the full movement intersection and then on 158 to the full movement intersection and that is to ensure that people have to do a right in, right out only – which, in my business, is a big deal. If you’re a merchant, you want the most access and the most ease of access you can have for your potential customers. But this would be limited to right-in, right-out only and we’d have full-movement driveway here on 158 and here on 66.
Also speaking in favor of the project were:
1) Kathryn Sell of 6695 Belews Creek who said that the land was being held to pay for their parents’ upkeep and it was now time to sell;
2)
John Tingen of
3) Wilma Hendricks who said that Glenwood is the best developer for the project;
4) Marilyn Martin who would rather see it zoned commercial than residential;
5) Robert Neal of
Speaking against the project were:
1) Glen Eaton of
2) Johnny Berry of
The Public Hearing was closed at
Planning Board Discussion continued:
Ms. Wilson asked that if the traffic impact analysis was not done now by the petitioner, then the D.O.T. could come back and say there were too many stores or too much traffic there and you’ve got to stop developing.
Mr. Simmons said that would be very difficult for them to do, to say that they couldn’t develop maybe the last third of the property. It does raise a question: to what extent, if this developed out with really high intensity uses, what potential problems may exist? The D.O.T. is pretty good about getting what they need, when driveway permits are asked for. “In a worse case scenario, I don’t think they would say the property couldn’t be developed; what they would say potentially is, for example, they anticipate that a left turn movement would not be allowed here (pointing to map) yet on review of the total development, it was determined that the intensive development was so great they might not allow left turn movements here. I think what would happen is that they would not say the development couldn’t occur, they would just design the improvements along 158 and 66 to accommodate the expected traffic and whatever that translates into, turn lanes or divided medians, would be what they would ask for.”
Ms. Wilson: Since this is a 2-phase zoning, this means that every time a business comes in to your development, they have to come back before this Planning Board and we have to approve it. Is that it?
Ms. Leight: The individual lot, we will see again, but the project as a whole --- if you like the project as a whole, which would include the street layout, the sidewalks, the bufferings, all the things that you look at in total --- that would be the responsibility and the conditions we put on this hearing here.
Mr. Simmons: What you are doing is the site plan --- the zoning would already be in place. You really could not deny a plan that comes before you that meets the criteria of the Unified Development Ordinances and any additional conditions that you all might add as part of the first phase development approval. The illustrative plan you have is just that – it’s an illustrative plan. There are a lot of elements on there that are not part of the written conditions. So if someone brought in a plan for review in second-phase development, and the lots have changed in some way and the plan didn’t show it – say, for example, a pitched roof with dormers on it – then, unless you make that a condition of this plan, then what you’re reviewing, the engineering plan, that’s what is being reviewed – not the illustrative plan. It’s important to keep those two separate. I think the illustrative plan is useful in terms of giving you some idea but it’s certainly not, unless you make it a condition of approval, that individual parcel that may come in will look like what is showed on that plan.
Ms. Leight: Two conditions that I heard today – one, the addition of a buffer along the two back sides. Adding a berm along the area where the landscape was not very thick. The other condition is to add sidewalks to both sides of the street, whether they are public or private – all internal streets.
Mr. Simmons: For clarification, going back to the sign, the way it’s written, it may be subject to some ambiguity. What we want to say is all signs should be limited not only by their type but also maximum height of six feet. Ordinarily, we’re talking about one sign per site. On the corner, there may be a need for perhaps two signs – I don’t know if you want to specify that now as part of conditions for a second-phase approval or wait until each project comes in and look at that as a factor for consideration at that point. It’s just a thought for your consideration as to whether you want to specify the number of signs on each out parcel or wait until each parcel comes in and have that decision made at that time.
Ms. Leight: Right now it’s stating that all signs shall be limited – we’re saying we want to limit it to one or two?
Mr. Simmons: That’s up to you. Right now the sign on there will be six feet high maximum. It doesn’t say anything about the number of signs.
Ms. Leight: This
is per out parcel. Wouldn’t there be also signs for the development as a whole
and would it be limited to a six-foot sign as well? Walkertown Landing.
Mr. Simmons: Again, for clarification – right now it just says any sign would be six foot maximum; it doesn’t say the number or limit of signs.
Ms. Leight: This is for a free-standing sign only. They can still put signs on the sides of the building themselves? All four sides? There’s nothing in the UDO to limit that?
Mr. Simmons: That’s correct.
Ms. Leight: Is there any restriction in the UDO that says the size? I mean, you could have something that’s as long as this table and still be six feet high – is there a size description as well, a requirement?
Mr. Simmons: Ordinarily, through the final development plan review, those kinds of discussions can take place about the sign size and the height and other things. We are saying just generically for the overall development, no sign shall be higher than six feet. The problem would be that if you don’t specify at this time, say, McDonald’s comes in wanting a 35-foot high sign, this would say they could not go 35 feet. They could potentially have two signs, six feet high and maybe 50 square feet or something. Really, the intent of this is to send a signal in the first phase development that we’re not looking for really tall signs out here. So I think this achieves the overall intent of what you’re trying to get to, perhaps with not having signs taller than six foot, but as far as the number, it’s really not specified.
Ms. Leight: I would recommend that an additional requirement would be that we limit the signs to six feet and no parcel could have more than two – maximum. At the intersection, the D.O.T. has some say over that. But, in the second phase, this restriction will be on there for that out parcel, that says a maximum of two – if we put it as a condition on this one. Another thing, we could end up with a maximum of two per out parcel but then allow for possible “x” number if we want to specify – project identification signs. Any recommendations? There are four entrances/exits; so with a maximum of four project identification signs? (Walkertown Landing – this is for the entire project – not individual out parcels). One sign on each of the entrances – a maximum of four……
Mr. Simmons: Looking at a conventional shopping center, we would recommend a maximum of 15-foot high shopping center sign, with each out parcel sign having a maximum height of six-feet.
Ms. Leight: Does the Board wish to put a restriction on the height of the project identification sign?
Mr. Warren(?): I would say no higher than 15-feet.
Ms. Leight: Fine. Okay. One thing that Glenn mentioned is that this is truly a nice version of what could happen because individual landscaping will be up to each lot as we see it and will go by specific regulations.
Mr. Simmons: Right. Right now, on each of these out parcels except for those conditions that are specified about the sign size, the lighting, and the sidewalks is that they be subject to the minimum requirements of the UDO and the UDO has street yard requirements and interior landscape requirements, etc. Something I didn’t mention earlier, it’s not part of our conditions, is particularly along those loop streets, if the landscape trees in those street yards could be large variety trees, it would provide a lot of character to the site. They could all be uniform in character so it would have a unifying effect. If each of the out parcels when they come in use the same type of tree on those streets when they’re developed, it would go a long way towards unifying the project, make it look like a cohesive project. A large variety tree is not intended to obscure views but they grow up and limb out and so you have visual effects underneath the canopy of trees. It’s a recommendation. I didn’t discuss this with Patrick nor is it part of our previous criteria for recommendations or conditions but it might be something you could consider.
Ms. Leight: Would put a number that says either on the public streets, internal streets, or per parcel there would be “x” number of type 3, type 4 trees?
Mr. Simmons: I would just suggest that you may have a condition saying that all streets as part of street yard plantings be of the large variety as specified in the Unified Development Ordinances, just incorporate that into the conditions, if Patrick is agreeable to that and that’s what is the wish of the Board. Basically, what we’re saying is all required trees is part of street yards and the street yards pertains to street yards along 158 and 66 as well as interior streets. If you just specify street yard requirements of large variety of tree shall be required in locations where street yards are required - then that should take care of it.
Ms. Leight: Then, in regard to the individual parcels, I believe the current UDO is 85% maximum that they can have impervious cover on? So the rest have to be green?
Mr. Simmons: That’s correct. The UDO maximum for Highway Business zoned property is a maximum impervious cover of 85% --- this not being in the watershed, which, unlike the other properties, there is a maximum of 70% impervious cover allowance, it could go up to 85%. Essentially, by the time you get in your street yards and your interior landscape islands and things that are part of the UDO requirements, you are going to be right at about 15% anyway unless you all wanted to make it more pervious coverage and limit it beyond 85%, you can expect that’s probably what you would wind up with, something pretty close to 85%.
Ms. Leight: What it would be is that each individual parcel would have to have some green thumb, some landscaping? It could not be completely asphalt.
Mr. Simmons: Absolutely. That is correct.
Ms. Leight: Patrick, the white area that is shown is the 150-foot right-of-way for 158, the bottom portion. What is your intention with that piece? Admittedly, that is part of the D.O.T.’s right-of-way but should you develop this, what would be on that white strip? Would that be grass? You wouldn’t want a real high buffer or anything because it block the buildings.
Mr. Hennigan: They require grass.
Ms. Leight: One of the things we discussed at the last meeting was the traffic and one of the conditions we had talked about before we continued was doing traffic impact analysis. One of the conditions we can add here is that a traffic impact analysis be performed.
Mr. Hennigan: The current law is that if there’s over 150 trips per peak time I have to do a traffic study. D.O.T. has told me point blank that we can’t develop – not one acre – until we do about $400,000 worth of highway work, which is unusual. Median’s going back almost a thousand feet each direction……. So I would like to do the traffic study when it is required by law. If we get a drugstore and that trips the requirement, I’d like to do a traffic study. If we get a restaurant that trips it, I’d like to do a traffic study.
Ms. Leight: What you’re saying is that the corner lot is pretty much the one that’s the big ticket one – it’s the one that’s going to generate the most. If it’s a drugstore, it’s going to generate – it would probably get that initial – so it’s going to be required pretty much with your first parcel. What does the council think?
Ms. Wilson: If the law demands it, I think we have to go along with the law says.
Ms. Leight: Just wait until it trips over.
Mr. Marshall: I’ll agree with that.
Mr. Benfield: I see no reason to go with that ---- like Patrick says, he doesn’t know what’s going in these. They could be high impact traffic. Or they may not be.
Ms. Leight: One thing we have clarified from the meeting last week was in the staff report, it said “all HB uses” but Patrick has clarified that it will only be the uses that are listed here. So it is limiting the number of HB uses to what is on the list.
Mr. Simmons: What I would suggest is that Patrick, or someone, get a list of those uses on a separate piece of paper as an attachment and those become the uses that become a part of the ordinance assuming this is approved. You have it on the site plan also, but when you have a separate attachment, that becomes – it would need to be written into the ordinance itself. I’m just saying that for the record, before it goes to the ----- when it comes out of council, the actual ordinance itself needs to refer to all those uses.
Ms. Wilson: I just don’t want to see another gas station there!
Mr. Simmons: Just for definition purposes, a convenience store also allows for fuel sales – like Sheetz is a convenience store. A fuel dealer would be a gas station without the convenience store or component to it. So that’s the difference. A convenience store also allows for gas sales.
Mr. Hennigan: We don’t think there’s going to be one but you just never know. Tomorrow Walgreen’s might go bankrupt; we can’t make this type of investment ----- I don’t think that’s the way it would go but you never know.
Mr. Warren: It seems like the permitted uses have been limited as I guess they are on the site plan already. I’m just looking over the uses that are outlined. Nothing really jumps out at me as something that would take away from the project, or the town, as a whole.
Ms. Wilson: I think they’re fine. If you’ll just put my trees in, we’ll be okay.
MOTION: TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE TOWN COUNCIL OF ZONING DOCKET WA-015 FOR GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, FROM RS-20 TO HB-S WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AS STATED:
1)
REQUIREMENTS AS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT;
2)
ADDITION OF THE BERM;
3)
SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES, WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREETS;
5)
MAXIMUM OF TWO SIGNS PER PARCEL, NOT TO EXCEED 6-FEET IN HEIGHT OF MONUMENT
SIGN;
6) ADDITIONAL
ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF FOUR PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS NOT TO EXCEED 15-FEET IN
HEIGHT; AND
7)
LIMITED TO THE PERMITTED USES AS ON THE SITE PLAN WHICH IS INCLUDED AS AN
ATTACHMENT.
BY: LARRY
MARSHALL
2ND
BY: MIKE
WARREN
VOTE: MOTION PASSED -
UNANIMOUSLY
Ms. Leight: This will go before the town council next month?
Mr. Linville: No. This Thursday.
(NOTE:
5. PUBLIC HEARING #2
· Zoning Docket WA-017
· Zoning Map Amendment of Kevin T. and Paula M. Anderson
· From RS-20 to HB
·
Property is located on the west side of
· Property consists of ±0.82 acre
·
Property is Tax Block 5357,
Mr. Simmons spoke:
The thing with thoroughfares is where do you draw the line? When you have a smaller tract of land, you’re setting up for the domino effect where, unlike a 10 or 20 acre tract of land, you can control your driveway access; work with D.O.T. to put in turn lanes, etc. Incrementally, these parcels may come in one at a time ---leads to a lot of congestion and potential sprawl type of development where you have multiple driveway cuts, lot of turning movement activity and a lot of uses that could create a lot of traffic that you don’t have the opportunity to control those movements as you might if you had a larger, more comprehensively planned, tract of land. The question for us is, presuming this is zoned HB, that’s a formula for sprawled development and so our concern to this site is establishing an inappropriate precedent. We, as you know, did not recommend for this site putting one here – we have same concerns for this property except probably more so to the extent that it’s a small tract of land, with a guarantee to its own driveway access. There’s no real opportunity to consolidate driveway access for commercial property and we just think it’s not good planning to take that approach. As an alternative, we did say in our report that perhaps some type of neighborhood business type use where a house could be converted to an office or something that could be more in transitional use between the undeveloped properties to the east and the commercial development that are proposed for development farther back toward the west. Our recommendation is for denial of this based on those concerns.
Neighborhood Office (NO) is by
definition a transitional type of use.
Ms. Leight asked:
The median that Mr. Hennigan would build for D.O.T. standards would go past this property, correct? This would limit access to that property in terms of left and right turns.
Mr. Simmons responded: Partially, if we’re looking at the same thing. My guess is D.O.T. would really not like to have grant driveway access at this location. They would be obligated to do that if the zoning were in place and someone came in for a driveway permit. According to our maps, this property is in the watershed unless it can be determined that the water actually drains somewhere else; therefore, it would be limited to maximum 24% impervious cover. They could ask for a SITA but unless the town were willing to grant the SITA, it would not be just an automatic thing, but they would be limited to 24% impervious. The report does specify the watershed – it’s not in the body of the analysis.
Public Hearing was opened at
IN FAVOR:
1) John Wolfe, Attorney
Wolfe and Associates
I represent Kevin and Paula
Anderson who live on this property, with their 4-year old son. The property was
purchased in 1992. Let me give you a little bit of background. Things were a
great deal different back in 1992 and through the 90’s. There’s been a service
station, now abandoned, about a tenth of a mile from this property. Produce
stand, pizza place, auto service – about four-tenths of a mile away.
Landscaping down about seven-tenths of a mile. But now, virtually next to them,
is a new tremendous shopping center and what we assume will be high density
residential to the rear. Certainly a great deal has taken place over those
10-12 years and particularly as of late. They were approached by Glenwood
Development and you may recall. Glenwood obtained an option on their property
and Kevin and Paula agreed to join in that effort because access was needed to
66. They felt in doing this, this is what Walkertown wanted and needed and they
agreed to go along with the petitioning of their property, along with the other
properties which Glenwood petitioned for. In fact, they allowed Glenwood to
petition for annexation and Walkertown annexed their property. That certainly
led the
2) Kevin Anderson
Just like Mr. Wolfe said, my property was part of the original agreement at the beginning. Mr. Glenwood (sic) had to have an access on 158 and on 66. No one on 66 would talk to him, give him the time of day. Nobody wanted to mess with him. I didn’t want to be blamed for stopping Walkertown’s progress. I was the only one on 66 which agreed for them to have this option where they could have access on 66. And that is all I am asking. And I was part of the original plan and I just recommend that just hope that ya’ll will approve it. Thank you.
OPPOSED:
1) Glen Eaton
Again, I think the domino effect is beginning. I think Glenn’s aware of that and I think it is starting. I think it is probably going to happen at some point in time. I’m not against progress. Let me just go on record stating that I own a business. I have been before planning boards; I have been told no on certain things. Currently my business does not have a dumpster because two people behind me don’t want to look at a dumpster and I’m okay with that. You have to make provisions. Currently, your decision has probably just made it to where I am going to have to turn right out of my property in the next few short months as they put that median strip down there again, trying to control traffic. And that’s what this is all about again is trying to control traffic. Again, look at Kernersville. They have to do what you have to do. The center lane concept doesn’t work so you’re limited to what you can do. I like it – it doesn’t work for most people and there’s a problem coming down the street. It just is. Sure, if it could be tied into what Patrick’s project was, it might have been a positive and a very good thing. Maybe an additional traffic would have been put there. Maybe it would help; but, again, I don’t know what the answer is. Obviously, that road needs to be widened – that’s not your responsibility, obviously. It’s not going to happen anytime soon, obviously. So, I’m not against progress. I’m all for it. Who knows? Somebody might want to build on my own property at some point in time. But, again, it’s a problem right now.
2) Johnny Berry
I live here. I’m being boxed in.
The dominoes are starting to fall. You’ve got this request and there’s going to
be more, probably. It’s going to spread. There’s got to be some kind of order
and development. Old
Public
Hearing was closed at
Planning Board Discussion:
Mike Warren: I guess the first item I would note is that the original request is for it to be all Highway Business uses as opposed to specific uses. I think the other properties included are kind of limited in that they’re specifically spelled out the types of businesses that could be included.
Peggy Leight: That’s the difference mainly between Highway Business, by itself, what they’re requesting versus Highway Business-Special …. which is where they would have to have a site plan and conditions could be put. With just straight Highway Business, no conditions can be placed on the property – no site plan review.
Glenn Simmons: It is true that all the uses allowed in HB are available to the site that we’re approving. I think the size of the property limits certain types of uses that it might not be practical to put on that site. But also, as I mentioned earlier, there is a 25% impervious cover limitation on this site and that’s going to have substantial limitation as to what could occur on this property in terms of ---- I mean, 24% --- totals like in either rooftop, pavement or sidewalks of that nature – unless they were to come back in and ask for a Special Intense Development Allocation in which case they could bring it up to 70%. So if that were required, you would have some review of the plan – you’d have a site plan required for the SITA request. So, not to counteract what I just said while ago – I mean, all these uses are allowed but the site is substantially limited in terms of the size and impervious cover allowances.
Ms. Leight: You spoke with the petitioners about Neighborhood Office? About the recommendation or not? No? Okay.
Kevin Anderson: When Mr. Weavil’s property was submitted, Glenwood came to us with a paper. We signed a paper for them to come represent us. We had signed a petition to have the watershed changed on that property. Instead of them submitting that application, they withdrew and submitted Mr. Weavil’s application.
Ms. Leight: What that means, though, is that your property was not included in either the Highway Business Special nor the SITA request. Okay.
……………With straight Highway Business zoning, we can’t request that the petitioners to be more specific.
Bo Houff: Can’t even consider anything that they might mention as to what the potential uses might be in a General Use zoning; certainly, you can entertain the possibility of going back and allowing them to seek to amend the petition in some way, but that would be separate and apart. As to whether you might direct them not to…..the nature of your discussion up there may give them some thoughts about that. As far as directing them to do that, that’s not an option, it’s a technical matter you have but certainly that’s something the petitioners, in light of what they may hear from your presentation, may want to consider doing. There are going to be limitations on any seeking of a rezoning, if this one is denied………. It’ll be two years from seeking HB-General again, and one year from seeking any other zoning. For example, if this were to be denied – recommended for denial and council were to deny it – not putting words in your mouth – if that were to happen, then they would be restricted for a period of one year from coming back. For example, for the Neighborhood Office zoning that was referenced in staff report. Whereas if they were to seek to amend their petition, it may be able to be sent back down to staff where conceivably, they could be allowed to withdraw their petition if they saw the writing on the wall.
Ms. Leight: I would ask the petitioner would they be willing to either amend or withdraw their petition, based on what the attorney said.
Mr. Wolfe: I think at this point, we appreciate it….there is no way to market the property……No………..
MR. WOLFE DID NOT GO TO PODIUM SPEAKER AND MOST OF HIS REPLY COULD NOT BE HEARD CLEARLY.
Ms. Wilson: From every Land Use Committee, one of the points brought out in every meeting that I’ve been in is that we’re against sprawl development as such. We want to bring Walkertown together – into Walkertown – and this would lead to sprawl development if we gave approval.
MOTION: TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN COUNCIL DENIAL OF ZONING DOCKET WA-017 FOR KEVIN T. AND PAULA ANDERSON FROM RS-20 TO HB
BY: LARRY
MARSHALL
2ND
BY: MIKE
WARREN
VOTE: MOTION PASSED 4 TO 1
FOR
DENIAL:
BENFIELD
LEIGHT
FOR
APPROVAL:
6. PUBLIC HEARING #3
· WA-UDO-03
· Zoning Text Amendment proposed by the Walkertown Planning Staff to amend Chapter C “Environmental Ordinance” of the Unified Development Ordinance regarding Stream Buffers and Riparian Areas
Mr. Simmons:
This is merely a technical classification. When Walkertown took over its own zoning authority and there were changes made to the UDO to recognize what’s unique to Walkertown relative to other jurisdictions in the County, there was not an incorporation of Walkertown as a jurisdictional entity in with the watershed regulations that are required by state law – it’s more of a technical clarification, but what we’re essentially doing is adopting, in Walkertown, the provision that previously existed when Walkertown’s zoning was under the authority of the County Commissioners. So, basically, all we are doing by this request is clarifying that in the stream buffer requirements in Section 4-7, of the Environmental Ordinances, that we’re adding just a “WA” – a Walkertown designation, in addition to Forsyth County, to recognize that these stream buffer requirements apply throughout the Town of Walkertown, as it did previously, and does currently in the other areas of Forsyth County. So, again, it’s a state law requirement and basically what we’re doing, is just codifying that in the ordinance with the addition of the “WA” designation, in addition to the “F”, which stands for Forsyth County, in the ordinances.”
Ms Leight: So what restrictions is Walkertown under currently?
Mr. Simmons: Well, technically, I guess it’s sort of in limbo. I think the state requires it but it’s not in the ordinances – it’s required to be in the ordinances. If the issue were to come up, I’m not sure legally how it would be dealt with, but it’s kind of limbo right now. This just codifies it, clarifies the fact that Walkertown has the same provisions that it previously had before it took over zoning authority and it’s consistent with the rest of the county.
Ms. Leight: Is this the same ordinance that applies to all the others? Clemmons, Tobaccoville, Kernersville??
Mr. Simmons: They have different watersheds. What’s proposed here is this is consistent with the county’s jurisdiction. I believe Lewisville had some separate provisions – I’m not sure exactly what those are but the WA, I know, was left out when the conversion occurred with the adoption of the UDO in the transition from the county to the Walkertown zoning jurisdiction.
Ms. Leight: I guess it’s just understanding but Section I – it already had the watershed protection provision? But Section 4.7 – we needed to add it.
Mr. Simmons: The 4.7 – all we’re doing to that underlined portion there, is just adding “WA” because right now there are no watershed provisions in the UDO that pertain to Walkertown and this just clarifies that the required watershed protection provisions are codified in the UDO.
Mr. Houff: The impact is to put things the way they were just before you assumed zoning jurisdiction. Now, during the period from which you assumed it until such time as this may or may not be passed – and I don’t know if I’m prepared to be able to speak adequately to what happens if you were to decline to pass it. I would assume that the state would come at some point and indicate that you might want to rethink that but as it is right now, you would be putting yourself in the position that you were in, in terms of zoning and watershed protection, just prior to your assumption of zoning jurisdiction. There is no substantive change.
Public Hearing was opened at 4:50 p.m. and closed at 4:50 p.m. with no speakers for or against this item.
MOTION: TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF ZONING DOCKET WA—UDO-03
SECTION 4.7 – TO BRING WALKERTOWN INTO CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW
BY: LARRY
MARSHALL
2ND
BY: MIKE
WARREN
VOTE: MOTION PASSED -
UNANIMOUSLY
- BUSINESS
ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED
· Procedure for assigning a new Planning Board member
· Procedure for assigning new alternate(s)
Ms. Leight: Right now, there is a very high-level procedure in place for assigning a new Planning Board member. From reading the original ordinance that the Town Council voted. What it says is that “Vacancies occurring for reasons other than expiration of term shall be filled as they occur for the period of the unexpired term.” That would mean that the Town Council would need to make a recommendation to fill Sleepy’s position til the end of his term, which ends December 31st, 2004 --- so for the next three months. My reading, again, of the membership and vacancies is saying after that point in time, the terms of office, is that members will be appointed on a three-year rotational schedule. So, as of December 31st, the Town Council would need to approve or appoint a person to replace that position – the one-year term, for a three-year term. I will speak to the Town Council on Thursday concerning this recommendation ---- also asking that this Walkertown ordinance be amended to formalize the procedure for selecting alternates because alternates are not mentioned in the formal ordinance, even though we have three alternates at this time. So to formalize that procedure for selection and the responsibilities of the alternates and formalize the procedure for transferring the chairmanship, too, and how that selection ---- I don’t know what the board feels. I would recommend that the chairman be selected from within the board, itself, of the five members, every year --- I assume at the beginning of January, at their first meeting. Are there any other issues you would like me to bring up to the Town Council concerning assignment and procedures for application??
Mr. Linville: We missed that whole conversation, there. What’s your recommendation for council? Sorry.
Ms. Leight: Well, I haven’t actually spoken to one of the alternates yet, so we don’t have a person yet, at this point in time. We’re recommending that they formalize for selecting alternates – make that part of the ordinance – also listing their responsibilities. Maybe specifying how often alternates are appointed and what their rotation would be; are they going to be on a three-year rotation so that if they do get selected to be one of the members of the board then they have some time for preparation. And, also, at what point in time does the chairperson rotate through? I think it’s just written that the chairperson is a one-year term; how that position transfers from one person to another?
- PUBLIC
SESSION
Public Session was opened and closed at 4:55 p.m. with no speakers.
- ANNOUNCEMENTS:
· Town Council will meet this Thursday at 7:00 p.m. at the Library.
· Next Pre-meeting of Planning Board will be Monday, October 18th and the Planning Board meeting will be Tuesday, October 19th at the Library.
- ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: TO ADJOURN @ 4:57 P.M.
BY: ARLYN WILSON
2ND
BY: LARRY
MARSHALL
VOTE: MOTION PASSED -
UNANIMOUSLY
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED:
By:___________________________
Town Clerk