Meeting Information
-Convene
-Pledge of Allegiance
-Consider approval of minutes of August 10, August 15, August 17, August 22, August 24, August 29, August 30, and <1/2xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />August 31, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Planning items:
(a) TA-07-02-05: Consider a text amendment to Chapter 21 of the City/County Subdivision Regulations regarding concurrent submissions of preliminary and final plats. Initiated by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2005. (Linda Finger)
(b) Z-05-32-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 18.5 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at the northwest corner of E 1600 Road and N 1000 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for David E. Mears, property owner of record. (Lisa Pool)
(c) Z-07-45-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 6.09 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of N 900 and E 1050 Roads. Submitted by Eldon R. Mize, property owner of record. (Paul Patterson)
(d) Z-07-47-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 10.09 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 771 Highway 40. Submitted by Elnora Burggraf, property owner of record. (Paul Patterson)<
Jones called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 with all members present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Jones moved approval of the minutes of August 10, August 15, August 17, August 22, August 24, August 29, August 30, as amended, and August 31, as amended, 2005. Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA 09-14-05
Johnson moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
- Approve Commissioners Order No. 5333
Motion was seconded by Jones and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 09-14-05
The Board considered Item No. 18 of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated August 24, 2005. This item is TA-07-02-05: Consider a text amendment to Chapter 21 of the City/County Subdivision Regulations regarding concurrent submissions of preliminary and final plats. Initiated by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2005. Linda Finger, Director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, presented this item. This item comes to the Board with a unanimous recommendation for approval.
Finger explained that this is a text amendment suggested by Staff in an effort to provide more flexibility in the concurrent plat requirements and to reduce the number of requests the Planning Commission receives to waive these requirements for specific properties. The existing text in Section 21-204 is provided in italics and the proposed text is shown in bold below.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
21-204. CONCURRENT SUBMISSION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS.
Concurrent submissions of preliminary and final plats for the same property shall be permitted if the following descriptions do not apply to the property being platted:
(a) Platting of large lot subdivisions. Plats that result in the creation of individual lots of one (1) acre or greater in area in the incorporated city limits; or 5 acres or greater in the unincorporated areas of the county, shall require preliminary plat approval prior to submission of a final plat,
(b) Dedication of multiple street or road rights-of-way. Preliminary plats which propose dedication of multiple street or road rights-of- way shall require review and approval prior to submittal of a final plat.
(c) Multiple zoning designations. Preliminary plats which include or propose lots for more than one zoning category shall require review and approval prior to submittal of a final plat.
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
21-204 CONCURRENT SUBMISSION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS.
Concurrent submissions of preliminary and final plats for the same property shall be permitted:
(a) IF the following criteria apply:
(i) Maximum size of the subdivision being platted is one (1) acre or less if located within the city limits of Lawrence or exceeds ten (10) acres if located within the unincorporated area of Douglas County; AND
(ii) No new street rights-of-way are required or are being dedicated; AND
(iii) The subdivision has no more than one zoning classification, excluding floodplain overlay or historic district designations.
(b) OR
(i) Subdivisions platted for the development of a public building, school building, or sports facility have a maximum size limitation of 50 acres; AND
(ii) Development of the land within the subdivision is subject to review of drainage and stormwater runoff requirements based on other regulations that apply to development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Johnson asked whether it made sense to reference ten (10) acres in section a(i) with the temporary moratorium in effect.
Finger replied that if someone were to get caught up, they would need to go through the preliminary and final plat process.
McElhaney questioned whether it would be beneficial to delay action until December when the moratorium expires.
Finger stated that the school expansion projects would get caught up.
Jones stated he would like to see the amendments reference one (1) building or one (1) house and eliminate the reference to acreage and place this item on a future Consent Agenda.
No action was taken.
PLANNING 09-14-05
The Board considered Item No. 13A of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated August 24, 2005. This item is Z-05-32-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 18.5 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at the northwest corner of E 1600 Road and N 1000 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for David E. Mears, property owner of record. Lisa Pool, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, presented this item. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request based upon the following Findings of Fact:
Zoning and land uses of surrounding properties. The applicant is proposing to rezone 18.5 acres from the A (Agricultural) District to the A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The land is currently undeveloped, and includes a tree line, which runs from the property's northeast corner to the southwest corner. The areas to the north, east, and west are zoned A (Agricultural) District, while the subdivision to the south is zoned A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. Within the vicinity of the subject parcel, the properties to the west of E 1600 Road comprise suburban residential development, while those to the west of E 1600 Road include mostly rural residential lots.
Character of the area. The area is characterized by a mix of agricultural uses with rural and suburban residential developments. While the area has a distinct rural character, several single-family residences surround the property in each direction. All parcels surrounding the subject property are zoned A (Agricultural) District, excluding those to the south, which are zoned A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The subject property is located outside of the Lawrence City Limits, but is within the Urban Growth Area (UGA).
Suitability of subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. All properties to the north, east, and west of the subject parcel are zoned A (Agricultural) District. The properties to the south are zoned A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The area features a variety of agricultural uses and single- family residences located on large tracts of land. The property is adjacent to a platted subdivision, is within the Urban Growth Area, is outside the FEMA designated floodplain, and has access to hard-surfaced roads. A portion of E 1600 Road, stretching from N 1000 to N 1100 Road, was chip sealed during the week of June 6, 2005.
Length of time subject property has remained vacant as zoned. The property has been zoned A (Agricultural) District since the adoption of the 1966 Douglas County Zoning Regulations. The subject property is unimproved and d s not include agricultural uses.
Extent to which removal of restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. As the subject property is located within the Urban Growth Area and is adjacent to a platted subdivision and other large lot single-family homes, approval of a rezoning of this property from the A (Agricultural) District to the A-1 (Suburban Residential) District will not alter the past trend for rural residential development and should not detrimentally affect nearby properties.
At the June Planning Commission meeting, the Commission had requested that the applicant provide site distance and stormwater information with the preliminary plat application. As the Intersection Site Distance (ISD) for the driveway between Lots 1 and 2 has no limitations and the ISD for the second driveway is limited to approximately 863 feet, which is 253 feet greater than the minimum required value of 610 feet, it has been concluded that the proposed location of the subject driveways provides adequate ISD. Regarding stormwater, the calculations resulted in a less than 1% increase in peak flows at both points. Thus, it was determined that the proposed development will have a relatively insignificant effect on stormwater flow within the project vicinity.
Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the petitioner's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowners. If the property retains its A (Agricultural) District designation, it would be able to function with any of the following permitted uses, among others: agriculture, hospital or clinic for large or small animals, commercial greenhouse, church, or school. Properties within the UGA may not be developed for residential purposes through the five-acre exemption, and must be rezoned to the A-1 (Suburban Residential) District in order to obtain a building permit for residential development.
Conformance with The Comprehensive Plan. The proposed request conforms to several Horizon 2020 policies related to low-density residential uses. Specifically, each lot conforms to the minimum lot size recommendation of three acres within the UGA.
AND subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Pool noted that this item comes to the Board with a 7-3 recommendation for denial based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. Arguments as raised in discussion;
2. No verifiable information to contradict public testimony about intersection hazards; and
3. Significant concern about the public health, safety and welfare.
Pool also noted that a valid protest petition was on file which will require a unanimous vote of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
John Selk, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained that this plat represents the second integration of the preliminary plat. Discussions with Public Works staff indicated that significant improvements were forthcoming on N 1000 Road which would make any access at that point not as desirable as coming off of E 1600 Road. It was the consensus to develop a flag lot for Lot 5 so access could be taken off of E 1600 Road. This also reduces the number of accesses on E 1600 Road from three (3) to two (2). While flag lots are not preferred, this was the applicant's attempt to address Public Works' concerns. Selk also noted there was a lot of concern about future redivision of these lots but he felt like this wouldn't be a problem because of the distance from the Urban Growth Area and the general character of other lots in the surrounding area.
Johnson asked if the property was located within one-half (1/2) mile of the outer edges of the Urban Growth Area.
Selk stated that it was. He noted that a traffic study was conducted which indicated that the site distance on E 1600 Road is about as good as it gets for any road. The highest speed recorded on a typical week day was 35 mph for northbound traffic and 46 mph for southbound traffic which is much less than the designed speed of 55 mph. He said that the site drains well, there is a waterway that crosses the site and it's pretty well wooded.
Jones noted that drainage on this site was an issue at the Planning Commission Meeting.
Selk stated that he did not believe there would be an increase in flooding because of the development of this property and the items brought up at the Planning Commission Meeting were not appropriate.
Jones noted that there was significant water in the watershed to the west and asked whether there was standing water on the subject property.
Selk replied that there was no standing water on the subject property.
McElhaney asked who conducted the traffic study.
Selk stated that he typically conducts the traffic studies, but in this case a professional was hired.
Jones asked whether it was possible that once all these subdivisions are put together, the cumulative flooding impact could be significant.
Selk replied that this was possible this would be the last undeveloped piece.
Jones asked for public comment.
Cindy Nau, 1039 E 1600 Road, presented a map showing the various waterways and streams. She demonstrated how the waterways flow and expressed concerns about flooding. Nau stated that just because there is a road and a water meter, it isn't time to build. She questioned whether the police and fire departments were prepared for this area to be built. Nau also discussed road improvements and accidents in the area.
Wendy Dalquest, 1004 E 1600 Road, noted concerns about the roads. She stated that these are county roads which are not designed for development. She said the average speed on these roads was much higher than the traffic study indicated. She questioned the time of day the traffic studies were conducted. Dalquest also noted concerns about septic tanks.
John Connett, 1035 E 1600 Road, expressed concerns about traffic and flooding.
Tom Nau, 1039 E 1600 Road, said he believed all the neighbors agree that development is going to happen, but they would like to see it planned better.
Selk said that there might be a one-half (1/2) percent increase in runoff -- the actual rise in floodwater based upon five (5) developed lots is less than one- eighth of an inch (1/8"). Selk further stated that the traffic study was done during peak hours.
Jones made a motion to close the public hearing; Johnson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Johnson stated that he would have a difficult time voting against this since it meets most, if not all, of all the guidelines set out in Horizon 2020. The proposal presented is the right way to go about it, it was recommended for approval by Planning Staff, it's on the outer edge of the Urban Growth Area, and is better than the old 5 acre exemption. This is a planning process to some degree.
McElhaney agreed that this request is consistent with the guidelines set out in Horizon 2020 and indicated he would vote in favor.
Jones stated that he felt it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to judge this on the basis of rules not yet adopted. He said that in his view, this d s cross the contiguity threshold. While he is persuaded there is a traffic issue at the intersection, he didn't believe this issue would make it worse by the presence of this development. He noted his concerns about the flooding issue. It may be true that this site would have a minimal impact, but he has concerns about the cumulative effect.
Johnson made a motion to approve Z-05-32-05, based on the Findings of Fact outlined by Planning Staff, and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 09-14-05
The Board considered Item No. 9 of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated August 24, 2005. This item is Z-07-45-05: a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 6.09 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of N 900 and E 1050 Road. The application is submitted by Eldon R. Mize, property owner of record.
Paul Patterson, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, introduced the item and explained that it comes to the Board with a unanimous 10-0 recommendation from the Planning Commission for denial, based on the following Findings of Fact, as set forth in the body of the Staff Report, dated August 24, 2005:
Zoning and uses of property nearby. The subject property is zoned for agricultural uses and is not being used for agricultural production. The surrounding area is similarly zoned and used for agricultural activities. Floodplains exist to the west, north and east of this property. Rural residential uses can be found to the east, south and across E 1050 Road to the west on the small area of higher ground outside the floodplain.
Character of the area. The character of the area is a mixture of agricultural uses and rural residential uses.
Suitability of subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. A-1 zoning will permit the continued use of this property for agricultural uses but will make it more suitable for development as a rural residential site. The property d s not currently have a rural water meter. It is unknown if the property owner has immediately available the access to a rural water meter in RWD #5. The proximity of this property to two FEMA designated floodplains enhances its suitability for some agricultural activities.
Length of time subject property has remained vacant as zoned. The property was zoned Agricultural with the adoption of the County Zoning Regulations in 1966.
Extent to which removal of restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Residential uses occur occasionally along both N 900 Road and E 1050 Road. They can be found to the east, southeast and west of the subject property. Although the development pattern within this area was primarily agricultural, there is a growing pattern of scattered rural residential uses occurring to the east. Floodplains prevent or discourage this pattern's extension to the north or future to the west, past the intersection.
Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the petitioner's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowners. There is no obvious gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the proposed request. This request was not initiated by the public and therefore there is no related destruction of value of the subject property since it may continue to be used for agricultural purposes. The hardship to the applicant is the loss of ability for residential development at this time. Approval of additional residential along E 1050 Road could impose hardships on the continued use of adjoining and nearby lands for agricultural purposes.
Conformance with The Comprehensive Plan. The proposed request is not consistent with land use recommendations found in Horizon 2020.
Eldon Mize, applicant, stated that he purchased 6.09 acres with the intent of building a home. He said that it is a beautiful place for a house and is more than the 5 acres he believed was required for this purpose. He noted that he would not be building in the floodplain. He expressed concerns regarding interpretation of the subdivision regulations and the determination that the property was not exempt.
Linda Finger, Director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, explained that the original tract has been split at least three times with one resulting parcel of less than 5 acres. That makes the property non-exempt from the subdivision regulations and restricts further divisions of property to the platting and zoning process.
Jones stated that he would not support this application. Jones stated that the division d s not qualify the exemption in the subdivision regulations. In addition, the County's Comprehensive Plan still requires some contiguity of a similarly zoned piece of property and there is no contiguity. As such, the property is not appropriate for an A-1 Suburban Residential zoning.
Johnson said that while he understood Mr. Mize's comments, he also could not support this request because doing so would be contrary to the Commission's prior actions on other similar issues.
Jones then made a motion to adopt the analysis of the Staff Report and the above-referenced Findings of Fact and to deny Z-07-45-05. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 09-14-05
The Board considered Item No. 10 of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated August 24, 2005. This item is Z-07-47-05: a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 10.09 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 771 Highway 40. Submitted by Elnora Burggraf, property owner of record. Paul Patterson, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, presented this item. Patterson explained that at their meeting, the Planning Commission had two (2) motions -- the first was to deny, which failed 5-5, and the second was a motion to approve, which failed 4-6. When there is no recommendation for approval, the default action is for denial, even though the motion failed. Planning Staff recommends approval based on the following Findings of Fact:
Zoning and uses of property nearby. The subject property is zoned for agricultural uses and is being used for agricultural production and contains a rural residence and barn. The surrounding area is similarly zoned and used for agricultural activities. Rural residential uses can be found in all four directions.
Character of the area. The character of the area is a mix of agricultural and rural residential uses.
Suitability of subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted.The suitability of the use of the subject property for agricultural activity is not questioned. The property lacks the ability to be developed with an additional residence because it is located within the Urban Growth Area. The property is suitably zoned for agricultural activity.
Length of time subject property has remained vacant as zoned. The property was zoned Agricultural with the adoption of the County Zoning Regulations in 1966.
Extent to which removal of restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Rural residential uses can be found in all directions. The property currently has direct access from Highway 40. Platting this property would restrict all direct access to Highway 40, with access to be provided from the adjacent E 767 Road. The request is consistent with the surrounding development pattern.
Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the petitioner's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowners. There is no outstanding public harm nor is there any obvious gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the proposed request. This request was not initiated by the public and therefore there is no related destruction of the value of the subject property since it may continue to be used for agricultural purposes and the existing rural residential use. The hardship to the applicant is the loss of ability for an additional residential development at this time. Staff d s not anticipate any hardship associated with either approval or denial of request on adjoining properties.
Conformance with The Comprehensive Plan. The proposed request conforms to several Horizon 2020 policies related to low density residential uses. Specifically, each lot conforms to the minimum lot size recommendation of three acres within the UGA, regarding Policy 1.2a. The number of total lots will be determined through review of the subdivision plat. The rezoning resolution will not be published until the recordation of a final plat.
AND subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Elnora Burggraf, applicant, stated she wanted to rezone so her daughter and son-in-law could build a house on the east side.
Jones stated that he would normally vote against this type of request because it is not contiguous to similarly zoned property. However, he expressed concern about having direct access onto Highway 40 and would be willing to go against his principal of insisting on contiguity if both properties would be willing to take their access off of E 767 Road.
Ms. Burggraf stated she believed that 767 Road was a private road. She said she would be willing to have her daughter take access from her existing drive way.
Johnson agreed with Jones that access should be taken off of 767 Road if possible.
McElhaney stated that he believed 767 Road was a township road maintained by Kanwaka Township.
Tom Sloan, 772 Highway 40, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood and indicated that everybody is in support of this request.
It was the consensus of the Board to table this item until Monday, September 19, 2005, so staff could get a definitive answer as to whether 767 Road is a private road or a township road. No action was taken.
PLANNING 09-14-05
The Board considered Item No. 11 of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated August 24, 2005. This item is Z-07-49-05: a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.5 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 1010 E 1500 Road. Submitted by Taylor Design Group, P.A., for Delores Clarridge, property owner of record. Paul Patterson, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, presented this item. This item comes to the Board with a 7-2-1 recommendation for denial, based on the following Findings of Fact:
- Arguments as raised in discussion (at the Planning Commission meeting)
- Concerns about the impacts of additional access cuts onto a major arterial;
- Pending regulations including recommendations by the County Engineer that would preclude this proposal; and
- Concern for the public health, safety and welfare based on the access management standards under consideration by the County Commission.
Patterson noted that staff recommended approval based on the following Findings of Fact:
Zoning and uses of property nearby. The subject property is zoned for agricultural uses and is not being used for agricultural production. The surrounding area is similarly zoned and used for agricultural activities. Rural residential uses can be found in all four directions.
Character of the area. The character of the area is a mix of agricultural and rural residential uses.
Suitability of subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. The suitability of the use of the subject property for agricultural activity is not questioned. The property lacks the ability to be developed with an additional residence because it is located within the Urban Growth Area. The property is suitably zoned for agricultural activity.
Length of time subject property has remained vacant as zoned. The property was zoned Agricultural with the adoption of the County Zoning Regulations in 1966.
Extent to which removal of restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Rural residential uses can be found in all directions. E 1500 is a paved road at this location. The request is consistent with the surrounding development pattern.
Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the petitioner's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowners. There is no outstanding public harm nor is there any obvious gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the proposed request. This request was not initiated by the public and therefore there is no related destruction of value of the subject property since it may be used for agricultural purposes and the existing rural residential use. The hardship to the applicant is the loss of ability for an additional residential development at this time. Staff d s not anticipate any hardship associated with either approval or denial of this request on adjoining properties.
Conformance with The Comprehensive Plan. The proposed request conforms to several Horizon 2020 policies related to low density residential uses. Specifically, each lot conforms to the minimum lot size recommendation of three acres within the UGA. Regarding Policy 1.2a., the rezoning resolution will not be published until the recordation of a final plat.
AND subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Jones asked whether this was contiguous to a zoned subdivision.
Patterson stated it was not.
Linda Finger, Director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, noted that this property was within the UGA and it is contiguous to a rezoned area across the road approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 18, 2005.
Steve Marino, Taylor Design Group, was present on behalf of the applicant.
Jones questioned how access would be taken.
Marino stated that access would be addressed at the preliminary and final plat stage.
Jones said he was concerned about the way this piece of property is configured - - the only for it to be done effectively is to have a number of road cuts out onto E 1500 Road.
Johnson stated he thought it would be one additional cut.
Jones noted that it is difficult to make a reasonable, rational decision on rezoning requests without some sort of preliminary plat in hand.
Marino said that would be a considerable expense for applicants if the rezoning request were denied.
Jones stated that it could be a conceptual plan which wouldn't be as expensive.
Johnson questioned whether this request could be configured with a shared access from either the existing cut or creation of a new cut.
Marino stated he believed it would be possible.
Finger suggested that a condition be added that would make it clear the access is to be shared.
McElhaney made a motion to approve Z-07-49-05 based on the above Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution; and
2. Shared access be taken as far North on the site as is feasible.
Motion was seconded by Jones and carried unanimously.
Jones asked if it would be appropriate to require that a preliminary plat be presented with rezoning requests.
Finger stated that changes could be made in the new regulations that would require a preliminary plat. She suggested that it be a conceptual design plan.
McElhaney agreed it wouldn't need to be a formal document. McElhaney then made a motion that Finger be directed to work with Evan Ice, County Counselor, to prepare a resolution adopting the requirement of a conceptual design plan showing a general layout of lots and access to roads in all A-1 zoning requests. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 09-14-05
Jones moved approval of accounts payable in the amounts of $98,514.94 to be paid 09/06/05 and $340,786.07 to be paid 09/12/05; and accounts payable manual checks in the amounts of $566.06 and $155,796.25. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT 09-14-05
Tony Medlin expressed concerns with bicycle traffic on the Dam Road, particularly during the construction of County Route 458.
Jones made a motion to adjourn; Johnson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Charles Jones, Chairman Bob Johnson, Member
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Jere McElhaney, Member
Time and Date