The regular meeting of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, February 22, 2006, was called to order at 7:30 p. m. by Chairman William Cook in the Board of Supervisors Chamber of the Stafford County Administration Center.

Members Present: Cook, Carlone, Di Peppe, Kirby, Mitchell, Rhodes, and Pitzel

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Harvey, Gregor, Knighting, Roberts, Stepowany, Sehl,
Kaminsky and Zuraf

Declarations of Disqualification

None

Mr. Cook stated he would like to amend the agenda by adding one item under unfinished business, which would be Ordinances that have to be set for Public Hearing and one under new business which would be a PAE on Brent Point Road Division.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to amend the agenda. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion to amend the agenda passed 7-0.

Public Presentations

None

PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CUP2501451; Conditional Use – Celebrate Virginia North Goodyear - A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an auto service facility in a B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on Assessor's Parcel 44Y-7, consisting of 5.23 acres, located on the west side of Warrenton Road, approximately 600 feet north of its intersection with McWhirt Loop within the Hartwood Election District.

Mr. Cook stated item 1 was cancelled.

2. RC2501629; Reclassification – Mid-Atlantic - A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on Assessor's Parcel 19-71 consisting of 11.87 acres, located on the north side of Garrisonville Road at the intersection with Shelton Shop Road within the Rock Hill Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Urban Commercial and Suburban Residential uses. The Urban Commercial designation would allow development of Commercial Retail and Office uses and the Suburban Residential use would permit single family residential development at a density of three (3) dwelling units per acre.

Mr. Harvey stated items 2 and 3 are related, staff will make a joint presentation.

3. CUP2501630; Conditional Use Permit – Mid-Atlantic - A request for a conditional use permit to allow vehicle fuel sales with convenience store and two drive-through facilities in the Highway Corridor Overlay Zoning District on Assessor's Parcel 19-71 consisting of 11.87 acres, located on the north side of Garrisonville Road at the intersection with Shelton Shop Road within the Rock Hill Election District.

Mr. Sehl presented the staff report. He stated Clark Leming would be representing Mid Atlantic Commercial Properties. He gave a power point presentation showing the location of the property and zoning of the adjoining properties. He stated the property currently had a single family dwelling, which would be demolished. The property shows 3 access points, with one being a full service entrance at the existing traffic signal on Shelton Shop Road. He stated inter-parcel access easements would be provided as well as a continuous turn lane at the front of the property. He stated a revised traffic impact study was just recently provided and staff has not had an opportunity to review. He stated staff recommends the revised traffic study be analyzed prior to the Planning Commission taking any action. He stated the request does meet the intent of the land use plan. He read the proffers and stated staff recommends additional proffers being construction of a third through lane, provide elevations of the vehicle fuel canopy and notification to staff prior to the demolition of the existing structure on the property to allow for documentation of the structure. He stated the Conditional Use Permit would allow a drive through restaurant on the western edge of the site, a vehicle fuel sales and convenience store located at the center of the property and a drive through for the pharmacy on the eastern edge of the site. He read the conditions of the CUP. He stated staff recommends the Planning Commission take no action at this time on the Reclassification, based on the review of the revised traffic impact study. He stated staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.

After a brief discussion by the Commission and staff concerning parking, sidewalks, location of the gas pumps and the relocation of the CVS, Mr. Cook called the applicant forward.

Clark Leming, representing the applicant, stated there were some last minute changes and the applicant decided to put office space at the rear of the property, which is why the revised traffic study. He stated the entrance would line up the existing light at Shelton Shop Road, and the relocation of the CVS was a decision by CVS Corporate. He stated they made a decision to move all stores to a free standing facility to allow a drive thru pharmacy. He stated discussions are currently underway concerning fuel sales. He stated the purpose of this location was to cater to residential areas which are further out on Route 610 and Shelton Shop Road. He stated the western side of the property could also be a bank.

Mrs. Carlone asked about renderings for all buildings on the site.

Mr. Leming stated he would provide a rendering for the fuel sales and would work on a rendering showing all three sites.

Mr. Pitzel stated sidewalks are not shown on the GDP.

Mr. Leming stated the revised GDP will show sidewalks.

Mr. Cook stated the rendering shows the headlights of the cars will be shining into Route 610.

Mr. Leming stated possible a berm will be designed.

Mr. Cook suggested, when considering a berm, also keep the CEPTED principals in mind.

The Public Hearing was opened.

Bonnie Carlson-Vance stated in her opinion with this property being across from North Stafford High School, there would be an increase of foot traffic. She stated currently coming out of North Stafford High School or Eastern View subdivision, it was very difficult to go straight or left. She asked if the CVS would be open 24 hours and suggested the lights may interfere with the adjoining Eastern View subdivision.

Alice Juda stated she was an employee at the animal hospital for 7 years. She stated with the amount of traffic in the area, a left turn was almost impossible.

Lee Olyniec asked if the applicant plans to keep the existing trees in the buffer and add more trees. He asked if the buildings would be one or two story.

Shahram Fard stated his concern with drainage from the property because there was no curb and gutter in the adjoining neighborhood.

With no one else to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.

Mr. Leming stated based on the Stormwater Ordinance, the drainage should be better after the development of the property. He stated CVS would be located away from the existing subdivision, and did not see any lighting impact to the residents. He stated the area was very difficult, but this development would be accessed by an existing traffic signal.

Mrs. Kirby asked about 3 access points, stating the main access would be the best entrance. She stated she has received numerous calls concerning the property, stating they don't want any more fast food restaurants and there was currently a fuel sales facility close by. She stated the CVS should be all brick and glass, and the office buildings should be earth tone colors. She stated her concern with the current CVS site being vacant.

Mr. Leming stated CVS would be moving either way, since corporate wants all free standing buildings. He stated based on market study, fuel sales is needed.

Mrs. Kirby asked where a delivery trailer would park to deliver food to the restaurant.

Scott Chapman, Vanasse, Hangen and Brustlin, stated the deliver truck would enter through the main entrance and use the internal traffic pattern and go to the area where they are delivering.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to put item 2 in Committee. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to put item 3 in Committee. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Harvey asked for the benefit of the applicant, which committee meeting would the Commission discuss these issues.

Mr. Cook stated April 5, 2006.

4. Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance – Proposed amendment to Section 22-58 of the Stafford County Subdivision Ordinance. The amendment will require that each preliminary subdivision plan proposing private wells or on-site sewage disposal systems.
· Show the proposed location of any such well and/or sewage disposal system.
· Include a signed statement from a certified Authorized Onsite Soil Evaluator
(AOSE) that the soils in the proposed location for each on-site sewage disposal
system are adequate to accommodate the system and that all of the lots have been
evaluated.
· Include a letter from the Virginia Department of Health approving the AOSE
statement.

The amendment will require that the locations of all private wells and on-site sewage disposal systems meet Virginia Department of Health requirements.

Mr. Stepowany presented the staff report. He gave the history of the Ordinance with a power point presentation. He stated staff recommends approval.

The Public Hearing was opened.

Charles Carrington, stated in his opinion this was premature. He stated the engineering should be done at the construction plan stage. He asked the Commission to deny the Ordinance. He stated if the Commission does approve, he suggested the plans already submitted, be vested. He also suggested the preliminary plan stage be optional and the applicant could go directly to the construction plan.

Marne Sherman stated she agrees with Mr. Carrington. She stated the cost for drainfield packages cost between $1,000 and $2,000, and there would be a possibility of the locations shifting. She stated these expenses would be passed on to the purchaser. She stated in her opinion, the requirement for soils work for individual lots is overkill. She suggested good preliminary soils work to be done and not require the septic field packages.

Spencer Hudson, representing Stafford Council for Progress, stated after reading the information concerning this Ordinance, the purpose of a preliminary plan is to estimate the growth for the County. He stated a preliminary plan does not guarantee a house would be built. He suggested using other methods to estimate the growth, not a preliminary plan. He stated requiring the work at the preliminary stage will require it to be repeated at the final plan. He did suggest considering the applications already submitted.

Robert Burner stated if you look in the dictionary for the word preliminary the definition is "before the final act". The preliminary plan is not intended to be a final document. He stated the developer deserves to estimate what would be developed on the property and not have the process delayed 1 to 2 years to have AOSE work, which could be invalidated, if new Ordinances come in effect.

With no one else to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.

Mr. Di Peppe stated in his opinion the Commission needs all the facts when making decisions concerning preliminary plans. He stated this was a good ordinance and should apply to everyone.

Mr. Rhodes asked the implications of going directly to construction plans instead of preliminary plans.

Mr. Harvey stated the preliminary plan shows the entire property, how the project will be developed, how it will be connected with adjoining neighborhoods, stormwater and things of that nature.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to approve item 4. Mrs. Kirby seconded.

Mr. Mitchell stated he was not a fan of this Ordinance. He stated in his opinion this is a no growth measure. He stated too many regulations and not good regulations and this regulation will not help the school count.

Mr. Rhodes asked about grandfathering the applications in the pipeline.

Mr. Harvey stated generally when Ordinances are adopted the Board of Supervisors makes the decision as to when it applies. He stated the Commission could certainly make a recommendation to the Board as to when it would apply.

The motion for approval of the Ordinance passed 6-1 (Mr. Mitchell voted no).

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

5. RC2500919; Reclassification – Central Stafford Commerce Center – A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural to M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District on Assessor's Parcels 38-102, 38-102A, 38-102B, 38-102C, 38-102D and 38-104 consisting of 80.70 acres, located on the east side of Big Springs Lane approximately 1,000 feet from the intersection with Eskimo Hill Road within the Aquia Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Light Industrial and Rural Residential uses. The Light Industrial designation would allow light industrial, light manufacturing and office uses. Rural Residential use allows single family residential development at a density of one (1) dwelling unit per three (3) acres. (Time Limit: December 6, 2005) (Deferred to February 22, 2006 Work Session at applicants request)

Mr. Cook stated item 5 was deferred to the April 5, 2006 work session.

6. RC230334; Reclassification; Brentsmill, LLC – Proposed reclassification of Assessor’s Parcels 21-145, 22-20A, 20B, 21 and 22 from R-2, Urban Residential-Medium Density and A-1, Agricultural, to PD-1, Planned Development-1, Zoning District, consisting of 425.34 acres, located on the east side of Telegraph Road, approximately 500 feet south of Denrich Road and on the south side of Flippo Road at its western terminus, within the Griffis-Widewater Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends Suburban Residential and Rural Residential uses, which would allow up to three single family detached or duplex dwellings per acre and one dwelling per three acres respectively. This request would allow various dwelling types at a maximum density of seven dwelling units per acre and low and medium intensity commercial retail and office uses. (Time Limit: April 5, 2006) (Deferred to February 22, 2006 Work Session)

Mr. Cook stated item 6 was deferred to the April 5, 2006 work session.

7. SUB2500983; Berea Knolls Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A preliminary subdivision plan for 31 single family residential lots, zoned R-1, consisting of 34.28 acres, located on the west side of Berea Church Road approximately 500 feet north of Warrenton Road on Assessor's Parcel 44-108, within the Hartwood Election District. (Deferred to February 22, 2006 Work Session) (Time Limit: February 24, 2006)

Mr. Harvey stated item 7 was discussed in the work session and was recommended for approval. He stated the applicant was not present during the work session but is present now.

Mr. Cook called the applicant forward.

Mrs. Carlone asked about the fencing in the RPA area.

Doug Brown, applicant, stated the plan has a note stating there would be a split rail fence on the lots discussed.

Mrs. Carlone made a motion for approval. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

8. CUP2501633 – Terans’ Bed and Biscuit – Conditional Use Permit - A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial kennel in an A-1, Agricultural Zoning District on Assessor's Parcel 44-151J consisting of 5.23 acres, located on the west side of England Run Lane approximately 300 feet south of Sanford Drive within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: April 25, 2006) (Deferred to February 22, 2006 Work Session)

Mr. Harvey stated item 8 was also discussed at the work session.

Mrs. Carlone stated based on the property rights of the current surrounding property owners, and the concern about a commercial kennel she would like to make a motion to deny the CUP. Mrs. Kirby seconded.

Mr. Mitchell stated during the break he spoke to a listing agent for this property. He stated she informed him the property was for sale but was taken off the market by the owner. He stated the packet received tonight was erroneous. He stated of the 3 abutting property owners, 2 have signed letters for approval. He stated in his opinion it was a good plan.

Mr. Rhodes stated he was uncomfortable making a decision, based on the misinformation presented.

Mrs. Carlone stated you have to look at the basic issue.

Mr. Cook stated the Commission was also presented a letter from one of our animal control officers endorsing the project.

Mr. Rhodes stated in his opinion the basic issue is the use of the gravel road.

Mrs. Carlone stated no it is not.

Mr. Mitchell stated he would like to make a substitute motion to retain item 8 in Committee. Mr. Rhodes seconded.

Mr. Cook asked Mr. Pitzel to call roll.

Mr. Di Peppe - No

Mr. Mitchell - Yes

Mr. Rhodes - Yes

Mr. Cook - Yes

Mrs. Kirby - No

Mr. Pitzel - No

Mrs. Carlone - No

Mr. Cook stated the substitute motion failed and asked Mr. Pitzel to call the roll again for the original motion.

Mrs. Carlone - Yes

Mr. Pitzel - Yes

Mrs. Kirby - Yes

Mr. Cook - No

Mr. Rhodes - No

Mr. Mitchell - No

Mr. Di Peppe - Yes

Mr. Cook stated the application was denied on a 4-3 vote.

Mr. Cook stated there was one other item under unfinished business. He stated at the last work session there were several Ordinances that the Commission voted to send to Public Hearing, but a formal vote was not taken during the Commission Meeting.

He stated item one was the RPA setback. He stated staff has recommended a revision. He stated if sent to Public Hearing it should be the second meeting in May.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send the performance regulations on the RPA setback to Public Hearing for the second meeting in May. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Cook stated item 2 was the decision on a completed application to change from 60 to 90 days to be consistent with State Code.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send item 2 to Public Hearing at the second meeting in May. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Cook stated item 3 was the Historic Gateway Corridor Overlay Districts.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to hold Public Hearing for item 3 at the second meeting in May. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Cook stated we have received request to send item 4 back to Ordinance Committee for further review. He stated he would need a motion since the Commission had already made a motion to hold a Public Hearing.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send item 4 back to the Ordinance Committee for further review. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

NEW BUSINESS:

9. SUB2500899; Woodstream Preliminary Subdivision Plan Revision - A revision to a preliminary plan for a planned development of 451 single family attached and semi-detached residential units, zoned R-2 and R-4, consisting of 142 acres, located on the east side of Staffordboro Boulevard approximately 1,900 feet north of Garrisonville Road on Assessor's Parcels 21-8F, 21N-1 and 21N-3 within the Aquia Election District. (Time Limit: April 14, 2006)

Mr. Sehl presented the staff report. He gave a power point presentation which showed the location of the property. He stated the property would be served by water and sewer and the primary access would be Staffordboro Boulevard and Woodstream Boulevard. He stated all roads would be state roads except for the townhouse lots, which would be private roads as well as one private street in the rear of the subdivision which would serve 18 lots, for which the applicant has requested a waiver. He stated the site was vested by the 1978 Zoning Ordinance which did not require any protection for streams. He stated the plan has been revised because the layout of the site has been altered due to the environmental permits required. He stated the amenities provided would include a community center with a pool, basketball courts and tennis courts located on the private road and the townhouse portion of the subdivision would have two tot lots. He stated the applicant was requesting two waivers, one being the block length, because of the stream crossing and the other request was for the number of lots of a private road. He stated it was simply because the private road allows less of an impact on the stream. The road would still require to be constructed to state standards, the waiver is for the number of lots on a private road. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan with the two waivers.

Mr. Pitzel asked it there would be any pedestrian access to Smith Lake Park from the development.

Mr. Sehl stated no, not at this time.

Mrs. Kirby asked if there was a maintenance agreement recorded on the three stormwater facilities to be maintained by the HOA.

Mr. Sehl stated there would be one recorded prior to the approval of the construction plan.

Mr. Mitchell asked about a time frame for the construction of the pool.

Mr. Sehl stated nothing is specified at this time.

Mr. Mitchell questioned the regional stormwater management facility located at the south end of the property.

Mr. Sehl stated that facility was approved by the County in 2000, but the County has gone away from those types of facilities and towards Low Impact Development.

Mr. Mitchell asked how close Smith Lake was to the project, stating his concern for run off into the lake.

Mr. Sehl stated the lake was actually higher than the development.

Mr. Rhodes asked if pedestrian flow will be allowed to Stafford Marketplace.

Mr. Sehl stated yes, Woodstream Boulevard will have sidewalks.

Mr. Rhodes questioned the traffic impact on the light at route 610.

Mr. Sehl stated a traffic study was not required as part of this application.

Mrs. Kirby asked about the future phase.

Mr. Sehl stated that would come back before the Planning Commission, and believes that would be additional townhomes.

Mrs. Kirby stated Garrisonville Road already has gridlock and all of these homes will exit out on Garrisonville Road.

Mr. Sehl stated this is a by-right development with zoning in place, and VDOT stated this meets their requirements.

Mr. Cook asked exactly what the two revisions were to the plan.

Mr. Sehl stated the revision is for the layout of the subdivision and the applicant is requesting two waivers.

Mrs. Kirby asked what would happen if the Commission did not approve the waivers.

Mr. Sehl stated the applicant would have to revise to show a state maintained road.

Steve Arther, representing Brookfield, stated this development proposes townhouse development, single family sized dwelling that are joined as duplexes and courtyard townhomes that will be 3,500 square feet or more. He stated in 2005 when the comments were received from the Corp of Engineers it was suggested that changes would be made to the plan. He stated this plan was a rearrangement of the lots. He stated conservation easements would be placed throughout the property. He stated the recreation center would have a handicap accessible pool facility and water park facility for the children, which would be on the private road which would allow less impact to the stream.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the recreation center would go away if the waivers were not approved.

Mr. Auther stated they would not build a community of this size without a recreation facility. He also stated they normally construct the facility by the time the 100 units are constructed.

After a brief discussion by the Commission concerning the waivers, Mr. Mitchell made a motion to deny the application. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion to deny passed 5-2 (Mr. Rhodes and Mrs. Carlone voted no).

10. SUB2500024; Colonial Forge, Section 4-8, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A preliminary subdivision plan for Phase 2 for 244 single family and townhouse lots, zoned R-3 with proffers, consisting of 211 acres, located on the south side of Courthouse Road approximately 1,500 feet east of Ramoth Church Road on Assessor's Parcels 28-94, 28- 94A, 28-100, 29-27, 29-31 and 29-31A within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: April 1, 2006)

Mr. Stepowany presented the staff report. He stated this Preliminary Plan was a part of Augustine, which was approved in 1990. He stated Augustine Central was changed to Colonial Forge. He showed the location of the site with a power point presentation, stating the applicant proposes 64 village lots and 180 townhouse lots. He stated all lots would be served by County water and sewer and read the proffers. He stated primary access would be Courthouse Road with Woodcutter Road being the primary access through the development. He stated staff recommends approval.

Mr. Harvey stated Dale Allen, from the Utilities Department, was present to answer any question the Commission may have.

Mrs. Carlone asked about the recreational amenities.

Mr. Stepowany stated this site would have a community center with a pool, 6 tot lots in the townhouse area and pedestrian trails.

Mr. Cook asked Mr. Allen to come forward.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Allen and the Commission concerning pipe size, water pressure, pump station location, historical areas and upgrades to the systems.

Bryan Council, representing the applicant, stated an architectural survey was being done and should be complete by Friday afternoon. He stated the survey would encompass the entire area, not just the area the sewer line was going in. He stated they were working on possible re-routing around the historical site and the impact on the stream.

After a brief discussion concerning the historical house site and the sewer line, Mrs. Carlone made a motion to approve item 10. Mr. Pitzel seconded.

Mr. Mitchell stated he had concerns with the VDOT comments.

Mike Proctor, Greenhorn & O'Mara, stated the road improvements include left and right turn lanes into the project. He stated the applicant has expressed a willingness to install a signal, but can not without approval from VDOT.

The motion to approve item 10 passed 5-2 (Mr. Mitchell and Mrs. Kirby voted no).

11. Comprehensive Plan – Consider a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding timing and public participation for the Comprehensive Plan revision.

Mr. Cook stated he would like to move item 11, Comprehensive Plan, down to Standing Committees report and at this time here the Brent Point Private Access Easement.

Mr. Sehl presented the staff report for PAE2500935, a Private Access Easement for Brent Point Road division, which would be item 12 as voted earlier. He stated the applicant was Regency Homes, LLC. He stated the Assessor's Parcel was 31-90, which is located on the west side of Brent Point Road, south of Decatur Road. He showed the location by power point presentation. He stated the parcel was 5.25 acres and is currently zoned A-2, Rural Residential Zoning, and the number of lots would be two. He stated the length of the PAE was 500 feet with a width of the easement is 10 feet. He stated the easement would run along the eastern portion of the site. He stated the request does meet the requirement for a PAE, and staff recommends approval.

Mr. Cook stated he was contacted concerning this item as were members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department. He stated he saw no problem with the application and asked the Commission approve the request.

After a brief discussion concerning PAE requirements, Mrs. Kirby made a motion to approve PAE2500935. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion was approved 7-0.

MINUTES:

March 24, 2004

Mr. Pitzel made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 4-0 (Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Di Peppe and Mrs. Carlone abstained).

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Harvey stated the Board of Supervisors has referred another version of the Widewater Plan to the Planning Commission. He stated this proposal would have the Widewater area reflect the current zoning, exclusive of the area that will be the State Park.

Mr. Cook explained the Board of Supervisors is asking the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing and eliminate the Widewater Plan. He stated the Public Hearing would be set for April 5, 2006.

Mr. Harvey stated the Sensitive Resources Committee met and made some recommendations. He stated they have requested an additional meeting which was scheduled for March 6, 2006. He asked Mrs. Kirby what time she would like to schedule the meeting.

Mrs. Kirby stated 6 P. M.

Mr. Harvey stated the Board of Supervisors has asked the Comp Plan Committee to attend the initial Steering Committee meeting with the consultant for the Comp Plan. He stated there is no date set as of yet, but suggested possibly the third week in March.

Mr. Cook stated that would be Mr. Pitzel as Chairperson, with Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Di Peppe.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

No Report

SECRETARY/TREASURER REPORT

No Report

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Pitzel stated the Comprehensive Plan Committee of the Planning Commission met on February 8, 2005. He stated the Committee went through the contracts and the time frame was a major concern. He stated the Comp Plan Committee of the Planning Commission has a Resolution requesting six more months after the plan is written and to further educate the public on the contents of the plan.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send the Resolution to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Pitzel seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Cook stated the Ordinance Committee needs to schedule another meeting.

Mr. Harvey asked if the Ordinance Committee would like to have a meeting outside of the normal scheduled meetings, and if so when.

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Mr. Cook asked the Commission if they would like to change the meeting date from the first and fourth Wednesday to the first and third Wednesday. He stated it would help staff in the preparation in the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission meetings and would relieve some of the Commission members who attend TRC. He asked Mr. Harvey when the change would be effective.

Mr. Harvey stated room availability would have to be checked and the change would have to be announced.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the By-Laws would have to be amended.

Mr. Harvey stated yes.

Mr. Cook stated the By-Laws could be amended in March and the announcement made then.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 11:01 P.M.

______________________________
William Cook
Chairman