|
Minutes
of Town of Emerald Isle
The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Ceil Saunders at 7:00 P.M. Recommendation to Rezoning Request by Martha
Howe to rezone a portion of Island Harbor Mobile Home Park from B-3 to Mobile
Home I (MHI). Ms. Georgia Murray was representing the request for
the rezoning. Mr. McLaughlin said that it had been determined that
everything beyond the arch (entry) to the park was the property of Ms. Howe.
He went on to make a motion to recommend approval of request to rezone
that portion from B-3 to Mobile Home I. Mr.
Vance seconded the motion. The
vote was unanimous in favor of the recommendation with no discussion. A. Sunset Harbor Preliminary Plat, Blk 38, Lot 5, 8626 Sound Dr. – Mr. Rick Farrington and Mr. Billy Farrington represented this project.Mr. Josey asked Mr. McLaughlin if the fire lane to the building was good enough to get the ladder truck in? It looks like they are stopping quite a way back from the building. Mr. McLaughlin said he could not say for sure, it would be tight. Mr. Josey is concerned that the fire department can get close enough. He wants the fire chief to check this on the reinforced ground. Mr. Taylor, Building Inspector, advised that this
same method has been used on the other buildings throughout the project. He
believed it to be sufficient for vehicle fire access. Mr. Josey asked if it is close enough to get the
ladder truck in so it can do anything, being 20’ away from the building?
Mr. Rick Farrington said Chief William Walker had
requested that distance on the last three buildings because he didn’t want
the ladder trucks any closer or it over extends.
Mr. McLaughlin asked how it will interfere with base
flood line? Mr. Farrington said there is an unshaded X zone where the buildings
are. There is no baseline on a
shaded or unshaded X zone. When
you drop down closer to the water, there is an AE 9 Zone, with another zone AE
10 further toward the water. The 9
and 10 are base flood lines. No
portion of this building is in a flood zone.
There is no setback required from the flood line delineation. The lines
on the map are merely the designation of the actual flood line zones as
determined by a surveyor. Mr. Dowling asked about the calculation of the
impervious area on individual sites, adjacent to high quality waters, cannot be
more than 25 percent. Mr. Taylor
said that all of the impervious was calculated, roof drip line, parking and
driveway brings it to 21.2%. Mr. Dowling asked how much fill is going in?
Mr. Rick Farrington said all the fill will be used from the site. There
will be no fill brought in from outside. Mr.
Dowling reiterated that no sand was going to be brought to be deposited on this
site? Mr. Rick Farrington said they do no anticipate using any fill
from off the site; no off site fill or sand. Mr. Dowling then asked, “You will disturb the
lots?” Mr. Rick Farrington, said
they do have to disturb the lot. Mr.
Dowling said, “I went on the last lot done and most of the trees were cut
down, 15’ on both sides. You
have a lot of trees out there. Have they been counted and marked by the
inspector so they are not taken off the site?”
Mr. Taylor said he is not required to mark all vegetation.
He added that what is approved here for clearing is what he inspects.
This is there survey for clearing or impervious surface or any need we have. Mr. Rick Farrington added that a lot of the area is
septic tank area. That is calculated back as natural area.
This project is at 25% impervious, the engineered drainage system
actually calculates back to 12.5. That
is almost like 10% nobody’s thinking about on the sound. All roof water goes
under ground, nothing goes to the water. Everything
behind it goes to retention ponds out near the street or into the ground.
It is zero tolerance. Mr. Dowling said he can accept that statement on this
plan. Mr. Farrington added that the ridge where the septic
tanks are located is about the best place you can put a system on the island. Mr. McLaughlin said he felt Mr. Dowling was trying to
address the fact that if you are standing on lot 5 you are looking up at lot 4.
The concern being, is lot 5 being brought up to the level of lot 4? Mr.
Farrington said he did not think they will be quite as high as 4. Mr. Josey said you have on site containment for the
impervious surface, but not for the landscaping? Mr. Farrington said if it should were a problem he will
install a berm to contain the water on 4.
Mr. Josey returned to the trees issue. There are some really nice big
trees. How many of them will come down? Mr.
Farrington replied they have marked every tree on the site and want to keep as
many as possible and even to replant trees. The largest ones are out by the
street. They move driveways to
protect trees. They want to save as many trees as they can. Mr. Josey said it also worries him that the building
height is at 39.8’, which gives about 2” before the code is exceeded.
Mr. Farrington replied that the roof is measured from the mean average,
which is the center of the roof. So it is half the distance to the roof plus
the 2” below that. Mr. Taylor asked at what point the building height was
referenced, was it Mr. Taylor said the mean roof average would be below
the ridgeline itself. From the top
plate of the wall where the rafter sits on, to the overall ridge height, you
use half that distance. That is
mean roof average. Don’t measure
to ridgepole. Mr. Rick Farrington replied that they are working
with tight tolerance. Mr. Almeida made the motion to recommend Lot 5, Sunset Harbor, to review committee on Wednesday, October 17, 2001. Mr. Vance seconded the motion with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. B.
Sunset
Harbor, Preliminary Plat, Blk 38, Lot 6, 8624 Sound Drive – Represented by Rick and Billy Farrington.
Mr. Josey asked if it is just his copy, or did the
contour lines fail to get on the copy? It was determined the contour map was on the
stormwater map. Mr. Almeida said it does not show the elevation.
He asked Mr. Farrington look at his copy of the map. He said there is no
number identified. A more legible copy would help.
Mr. Farrington said there is an entire subdivision plat on file that
shows the entire project prior to subdivision of the property.
Chairman Saunders produced a copy of the original
subdivision map for review. Mr.
Farrington was able to point out the elevation contours.
He advised that he has applied for and a Major CAMA Permit is in
process. It is all within the
575’ CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC), with a required 40’ setback
from the high water mark within the AEC. Mr. Dowling revisited the sand (fill) issue.
Mr. Farrington said he will be moving the sand that is on all three lots
to fill where needed. Land disturbance could not be done through this means with a
Minor CAMA Permit. That is what
has triggered a Major CAMA Permit. All
the lots will average out. Mr. Farrington said the original intent was to do
subdivision through Minor CAMA permits on each of the seven lots.
They would have had to work within each lot.
It was requested that it needed to be done a different way, from the
very beginning, and that is the way it has been done, through Major CAMA
permits for lots 1-4, then again for lots 5-7. Chairman Saunders asked if CAMA had requested this be
done. Mr. Farrington said no, that
the Town of Emerald Isle and ‘and a certain few people’ requested it be
done that way. Mr. Dowling asked if it was done by vote of the
Planning Board? Mr. Farrington,
said it would be in the Town Board records, not the Planning Board records.
Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Dowling said he would rather have a homeowners association with a covenant with all this, but that’s just his opinion. Mr. Farrington replied there is a covenant, with a homeowners association. Mr. Farrington pointed out, for the benefit of those not on the planning board from the beginning, the location of the three new fire hydrants that were installed by the developer to improve the loop water system. They increased it from a 2” system to a 6” system. Mr. McLaughlin asked what will be done with the drain located under lot 6? Mr. Farrington said that is a Town street drain, so to leave it there. It will be located and see if it can be relocated. Mr. Almeida said the pipe is corrugated pipe, if so, it is not allowed under buildings. You would have a failure of the slab on grade. They may want to look at that. Mr. Almeida went on to add that if all the three lots were leveled, lot 7 is much higher than the other lots with lots of trees. During leveling you might cut the base of the trees and lose a lot of them. Mr. Farrington said if he must bring in fill to keep from knocking down too much then he would like that option. Mr. Almeida said that should be decided before you bring it to the planning board rather than keeping it open-ended. Mr. Billy Farrington asked to be heard. He asked that the members look at the other lots that were cleared (1-4). None of the trees were undermined. They stayed about 10’ from the trees then back cut the other way. He then wrapped the trees with yellow ribbon for all the ones to be saved. They are still over the 45% of the required undisturbed. Mr. Almeida said he wants to discuss it more at the Review Committee. Mr. Dowling said he wants to discuss the pipe at review committee as well. He said, “I think the only way to do that is to put cement in it, fill it up, or remove the pipe and pipe should be 4’ by 6, I believe, underground.” Mr. Almeida reminded Mr. Dowling that that is a town pipe. Mr. Farrington said he will be glad to give the town an easement to relocate the drainpipe so it won’t be a problem for the building. Mr. Almeida, “You need to locate the pipe on the survey, to show whether it interferes with the building or not.” There was a question as to whether it might be done in time for the review committee on Wednesday, more possibly by the next Planning Board meeting.” The pipe ends at a pond near Bogue Sound. Mr. McLaughlin asked if the sedimentation pond connect with the sound. Mr. Farrington replied that it does, but it is a great system to sit in before it goes to the sound. Mr. Billy Farrington said there are about 75 other such ponds throughout the island. Mr. Dowling said this must addressed as an outfall of a drainage ditch. It needs to be addressed for the classification for stormwater runoff. The cost should pass from the town to the developer. Mr. Billy Farrington said they did not put it in. Mr. Dowling said that should have been ascertained when you bought the lot. Mr. Almeida said he thought there should be some sort formal agreement about the pipe. Mr. Rush said he certainly did not want to abandon the drainage pipe and wants to work out some type for easement. It appears to him to be near the property line and away from the building. Mr. Almeida made the motion to proceed with Sunset Harbor, lot 6, to the review committee. Second by Ed Dowling with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. C. Sunset Harbor Preliminary Plat, Blk 38, Lot 7 – Represented by Billy and Rick Farrington. Motion was made by Frank Vance to proceed with Sunset Harbor, Lot 7, to the review committee. Unanimous approval in favor of the motion. D.
Review of Amendment to Chapter 18 and 19 to allow private streets in
both Chairman Saunders advised the members that the Town Attorney had drafted the amendment before them. Therefore, the board is to only vote on the wording and return it to the commissioners. Mr. Rush said it had come from the commissioners for comments from the planning board. It is the subdivision ordinance primarily, but there is a change made to the zoning ordinance to make sure that the two are consistent. It specifically authorizes private streets within the Town of Emerald Isle, whether commercial or residential. Mr. Rush went on to advise, as the subdivision ordinance allows private streets in planned unit developments and commercial condominium developments and group housing developments. There are many private streets in Emerald Isle, most in gated communities. One that serves the Emerald Plantation Shopping Center. This ordinance as it is written, does not distinguish between residential or commercial. Mr. McLaughlin asked what was first, the Emerald Plantation housing or the shopping center? Ms. Angus advised that the housing came first, in 1983, the shopping center in 1987 or 1988. Mr. Almeida said, “The private street that was approved was primarily for the residential units. Then later on part of it was used as access to the commercial subdivision. If that is so, there is not really a question of precedent being set.” Mr. Rush replied that that certainly within their purview to make that comment to the commissioners. In the existing ordinance private streets are allowed for commercial condominium development. So there certainly is precedence within the ordinance private streets are allowed for commercial condominium developments. There is precedence within the ordinance to apply this to commercial development. The town does not have any commercial condominiums that access a private road. Mr. Almeida said “That was different from commercial shopping centers or anything like that, right?” Mr. Rush said it may or may not be, it depends on how the property actually develops in the future. It depends more on the use of the property, whether condominium or single-lot development in terms of traffic impacts and other impacts.” Mr. Almeida asked, “Do you think there is any probability that it would be a residential condominium?” Mr. Rush said it could be commercial condominiums. At this point in time there is just subdivision on the table with no specific development plan. If there were a specific development plan for the Reed Drive Commercial Park, perhaps it would be commercial condominiums, or may be one seven acre tract development.” Mr. Almeida brought out that the agenda read Chapter 17 and 18 for amendment should it not read Chapter 18 and 19. Mr. Rush agreed, there are no changes for Chapter 17. Mr. Almeida asked to address “Chapter 19, paragraph two; isn’t it superfluous. Because you already covered under……current ordinance already covers that issue if you look at page 71, Section 1-5. Severability of parts of Code.” Mr. Rush replied it does talk about the severability of the code. But in reviewing this potential ordinance amendment, we did look at the zoning ordinance and are trying to be as consistent possible in the ordinances. Mr. Almeida, “You tell me that every time you revise a particular ordinance for a chapter you put that clause again? Or you seek relief under that section 1-5.” Mr. Rush said that we ought to be doing a good job of reviewing the ordinances up front and making those changes as they occur and trying to maintain consistency in the ordinance. That is what is before you this evening. Mr. Almeida, “That’s begging(?) the question. The point I have is Sec. 1-5 really covers any changes that are made. If parts of it are illegal or thrown out, it doesn’t violate the other parts of the ordinance.” Mr. Rush said you could make that case, but it would be much easier for everyone, including staff and the public, to understand if it were consistent throughout the ordinance. Chairman Saunders said she remembers that in the past, for instance with building heights, they tried to make it consistent with each zoning or section. Mr. Almeida, “That was a clause like that for each revision, that’s my point. You already cover it with Section 1-5. If you do it for one case you have to do it for every other case.” Mr. Daniel made a statement regarding this issue, but was not discernable. Finishing with “If you have a word or two that is out of order you strike that and still haven’t invalidated the entire ordinance.” Mr. Rush said that is correct, but he wants to catch things up front with maximum extent possible. Mr. Dowling said he went to a couple libraries and sent to each member “A North Carolina better site design street narrow residence streets. Initially, I am still in favor of narrower streets in residential areas. The rational is impervious surface and the surface drainwater. I feel the applicability of this is based on the following: Narrower streets can be used in residential development settings. I think everybody can accept that fact. That generate 500 or less average daily trips (adt), which is generally about 50 single family homes and may sometimes also be feasible for streets that are projected to have 500 to 1000 adt. This is the crunch factor that made me change my mind. However, narrower streets are not feasible for arteries, collectors, or other street types that carry greater traffic volumes; or are not expected to have a consistent traffic volume over time. I think that also falls in line with the rationale we’ve all been pursuing, an adt of 6000 additional vehicles, cars, trucks, trailers, etc. that we will experience when we build. I am not against the right of the builder, McLean’s in this case with 70,000 square foot shopping center. But I do think that narrower streets are not in order, based upon that subject, and the studies that you’ve had. In addition to that, we have five studies that were submitted. This one gives me ten including the Institute of Traffic Engineers, for 1997, for additional neighborhood developments, street design guidelines, which is out of Washington, D.C. I can go through the rest of them if anyone wants to have them cited. I think all your evidence, at this point, points not to changing your ordinance. I think we need to think in terms of the larger lineal footage or the street in Reed Drive Extension. I know this isn’t being tailored for Reed Drive Ext., that was just given a new look at development, in the ordinance in Emerald Isle. Don’t you agree?” Chairman Saunders reminded the members, “We’ve got to remember that we are here just for the wording of this amendment. I don’t want it to get sidetracked.” Mr. Dowling said, “You, as the Chairperson, need to convey these things to the Board of Commissioners, that’s what we’re here for.” Chairman Saunders said, “The Board of Commissioners conveyed this to me, I didn’t have anything to do with this.” Mr. Rush said, “To recap, at your September meeting, this was discussed and there was general sentiment among the members to discuss with the commissioners about amending our subdivision ordinance, specifically authorizing private streets. That was discussed with the Board of Commissioners on September 24th at their workshop. They expressed an interest in moving forward with it and directed myself and the Attorney to draw up this ordinance. It was brought back to them in October (9th) and they voted 3 to 2 to schedule a public hearing and also send it to planning board for comments. One thing to keep in mind, the ordinance does not address the standards for private or public streets. Those are remaining the same. The only thing the ordinance does is authorize the use of private street in all subdivisions. In terms of the standards for construction and right-of-way width, those will remain the same as in Chapter 17.” Mr. Daniel made the motion that the Planning Board suggest to the Town Board that it consider amending the town codes to authorize private streets in all types of subdivisions. Second by Fred Josey. Mr. Almeida said, “I think you gave me a summary of the neighboring towns that have private streets. My concern is, really, with the town standards. You might want to say, ‘hey, you shouldn’t look at the standards because you are working only on the ordinance.’ What we are really doing is carrying the standards forward and say they can apply to other things. We need to look at the basic standards itself. I question whether the standards we have are adequate or not. What I’d like to share with you is, the widths of private streets that we have, widths of right-of-way. For instance, Morehead City has 50’ minimum. Atlantic Beach has 50’, Beaufort has 40’, Jacksonville has 50’ would prefer 60’. This is all for private streets, Swansboro has 50’, Cedar Point 40’, and King is 30’.” Chairman Saunders added that Cape Carteret, Newport and Havelock do not allow private streets. Mr. Almeida went on to add, “So when you look at the towns around in our neighborhood they all require 50’ right-of-way for private streets. Now I would like to go and put on the board a sketch showing what the private street design standards. A mistake was made when it was changed from 50’ to 40’, all they did was compound the error by extending the ordinance forward.” Mr. Almeida then approached the chalkboard and drew his thoughts regarding this issue. There was some discussion between Mr. Almeida and other members of the Planning Board regarding right-of-way, slope, ditching, and width. Mr. Daniel added, “In this instance we are looking at 40’ Private Street with 5’ utility easement on each side. This gives you the benefit of 50’ of property. I agree, as far as standard right-of-way designation, you have to provide for the entire infrastructure required by the street network itself. This ordinance does not direct the standards and does not address the standards, which implies that the standards need to be revisited. But to me, it doesn’t imply the standards need to be revisited before you take action on a particular item on the agenda.” Mr. Almeida responded, “There are two issues here. One is the issue of that particular subdivision…” Chairman Saunders interrupted him to advise that, “That issue is not here.” Mr. Almeida continued, “We are amending the ordinance to take the private road 40’ and apply it to everything. That is where I have a problem. Knowing that the standards are wrong, should we proceed on that path? Or should we advise the commissioners that for only this particular case amend it. Then look at the ordinance again. That should be the direction we should go.” Mr. Dowling said, “I agree, in other words you are giving a variance? Which isn’t our job. I would be in favor of a variance.” Mr. Almeida continued, “If you know the standards are not adequate, you have to raise the standards, and not revise the ordinance and simply look at the standards afterwards.” Chairman Saunders then called for a vote on the motion to approve the wording to the amendment as submitted by Mr. Taylor, Town Attorney for a change to Chapter 18 and Chapter 19. Voting in favor of the motion: Frank Vance, Art Daniel, Fred Josey, and Ceil Saunders. Opposing the motion: Ed Dowling, George McLaughlin, and Phil Almeida. Motion carried with vote of four to three with Chairman Saunders breaking the tie vote. Mr. Dowling asked that Chairman Saunders see that the Commissioners are aware of this issue. Ms. Saunders said she was going to rely on Frank A. Rush, Town Manager to see that is done. Mr. Daniel added that “just because you have a 40’ right-of-way doesn’t mean that anyone can come and make an application and get a 40’ private road. You can always go up from there. They say that private road is not applicable for a certain situation.” Mr. Almeida said, “Have you ever seen a dam? When the water builds up, you open the floodgates. What happens, everything goes. That’s exactly what you’re doing.” Mr. Daniel said he did not agree with that. Let the commissioners handle that. This is something that we need to go through. We can make a ‘laundry list’ of what we want to discuss with the board. Mr. Dowling said fire hydrants need to be revisited too. COMMENTS: Mr. Dowling said, “I’m still concerned that the reason for Reed Drive Extension, in granting of the 401 public law 92-500 and 95-217 was not recorded and reflected on the plat. I believe we need to put forth a resolution that that be put on the plat. We have a way of losing things, for example, the letters that I’ve introduced, this is the third time I’ve talked to the Planning Board about this now. (It)Never appeared until six weeks ago. We worked over 18 months, and all of a sudden we get the letter and the rational for issuing a certification to fill in the wetlands. I’m going to read for your interest again; and going to recommend that it be put item 7 on the plat and whether or not you accept it and recommend the board to that is germane. The deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with jurisdictional wetlands to prevent future wetland fill. Fill is not for the largest wetlands on the site except for a road crossing fill for the largest wetlands near the old Look Realty building. And last, written approval from DEM for stormwater management is required for this development. That’s the whole reason for Reed Road being approved. And that needs to be on the plat, so that future people can see it. If it’s on the plat, as we all know, it goes to the county and becomes part of the deed and is binding on any new developer or anybody that buys that land and works on the land. I think it’s incumbent with this board to see that that is put in place for the protection of the citizens of Emerald Isle. I would like the OK before I make the resolution.” Mr. Daniel said he believed that this issue had been brought up before and Mr. McLean said he would add it to the plat. Mr. Dowling said that was correct, but is still not on the plat. Chairman Saunders said this item is not on the agenda for discussion. “We don’t have it anymore.” Mr. Dowling said, “You can entertain it or throw it out, I respect your right.” Mr. Almeida asked if the commissioners were aware of that particular permit requirement? Mr. Dowling said, he was sure they were not. Mr. Almeida asked that Mr. Rush make sure the commissioners are aware of that requirement. Chairman Saunders then referred to a memo she had received from Secretary, Carol Angus, as to whether the members may be interested in having the review of projects the same night as they are accepted at the planning board. This had been the procedure a number of years ago, and had been extended to a review committee meeting because of the workload the board was experiencing. This would save the members a meeting each month for review of the plans. Mr. Dowling said, “I told her I was opposed to it. I’m open to it if we can get all the material a week to 10 days before we come in. It’s very hard and very demanding to be able to review things at the last 15-20 minutes or a day or two days before. So if we’re able to get all the material, I am open to it with a flexible mind. If we are hit with something cold, it’s hard to think through and come up with a yes or a no. Whatever you want to do, I can live with it if you get the material.” Mr. Daniel, “Make the imposition on the applicant. They have a checklist to follow. If they follow the checklist, they get consideration. When it gets to the point where there is missing information, then they will wait until the next meeting. Tonight we were referring to three lots for map review, which will be Wednesday. We’ve asked him to scramble and try to get a survey, which he can’t do in two days anyhow. So two of those lots will get reviewed and forget the third one.” Mr. Farrington asked why? “Because we have to give an easement to the town for a drainpipe? Let me explain something. I’ve been coming since 1994 to almost every planning board meeting. The planning board tonight, should have taken our plans and done no discussion, no review, no questions, and everything should have been discussed at review committee on Wednesday. I’ve never been to a planning board meeting when all the questions start coming. You’re reviewing the plan tonight! The process is the formal acceptance of the plan. One of us have to be here. There shouldn’t be any questions. Wednesday is the review committee, that’s protocol of the process.” Mr. Daniel responded that they were discussing changing the process. Mr. Farrington replied, “Please don’t change it in the middle of the stream, thank you”. Mr. Daniel continued, “You could do review at the meeting if all the package has been submitted, all the pertinent information, then it gets acted on. If it is not then it goes to the following month.” Mr. Farrington asked, “So you’re talking about reviewing it the same night as the acceptance.” Farrington asked, “If someone has all their ducks in a row, they could go straight to the Town Board the next month?” Chairman Saunders responded that was correct, if you had everything prepared and on hand. Mr. Daniel simplified the discussion, “To me it’s just moving Wednesday in the middle of the day to Monday night at the meeting.” Ms. Angus added, that if it went that smoothly, it would move things up for the developer one full month. If there is one thing out of place, the developer has a problem and would have to return to the Planning Board the following month. There was then discussion about the time to begin the meeting. Mr. McLaughlin said he would like to see a time limit set, so that they didn’t stay all night. Recessing was discussed, but Mr. Almeida said that does not solve the problem. Mr. Almeida, “I had agreed to having it consolidated into one meeting. Some meetings might last a long time. George has a good point. After all you go from 6:30 beyond 9:30 everyone is a lame duck. You can’t think straight. What we could do is try it at one meeting and see how it works. Then decide what to do on a permanent basis. We still need to put a cap on the closing time.” Mr. Daniel, “You could have a 6:30 to 9:30 agenda. If that doesn’t work and you have an item that hasn’t been taken care of you can adjourn and reconsider at a later time.” Mr. Vance, “Do you recall how long the meetings used to last when they were held the other way?” Ms. Angus replied that some were 10:00 or 11:00 P.M. But at that time numerous subdivision and condominium projects were coming together on the same meeting. Maybe we could start the new year with this proposal. You can see that the agendas are not as long. Chairman Saunders said it should depend on the number of agenda items. Secretary Angus replied that it might not be a good idea then, because the meetings would not be consistent. The applicants would not know which procedure to follow. Mr. Daniel said he has missed some review committee meetings, but never a planning board meeting. The 3:00 in the afternoon is not convenient for him. If you anticipate 6:30 to 9:30, and if that’s not going to work, then don’t do it. Mr. Dowling reminded the members, “You’ve still got a lot of commercial land still that hasn’t been built up, with trailers and things like that on them. When you look at what you’ve got……so you might be flooded in the next year or two with a lot of those lots coming on line to do something with along Rt. 58. That should be part of our thinking too. I just throw that out.” Mr. Daniel said, “Part of our problem is that we discuss the same thing too many times.”
Mr. Josey said he likes the 6:30 to 9:30 and get it over with. If it goes too much, then recess, and come on Wednesday, if we have to. I haven’t seen that other workload.” Mr. Daniel responded that they are getting better too. It was agreed to set the agenda for January 2002 to begin at 6:30, if that does not work out the previous method can go back into effect. Motion to adjourn by George McLaughlin second by Fred Josey. Motion was unanimously approved. Respectfully submitted by:
Carol
Angus
|
