HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-15 Hearing Examiner Minutes Regular Caldwell Hearing Examiner Minute
Tuesday,September 15,2020, 7:00 p.m. . A`'PROVED
Community Room, Caldwell Police Departme
110 South 5th Avenue,Caldwell, Idaho D _ z-J0
Call to Order-Hearing Examiner, Mr. Bruce Eggleston opened the meeting for the public
hearing at 7:02 p.m.
II. Review of Proceedings-Mr. Bruce Eggleston outlined the procedures for the public
hearing.
Members Present: Bruce Eggleston (Hearing Examiner); Jerome Mapp (Planning and Zoning
Director); Debbie Root(Senior Planner); Robb MacDonald (City Engineer); Lori Colligan
(Administrative Assistant)
Members Absent:
Ill. Consent Calendar:
N/A
IV. Old Business:
1. Case Number SUP-20-02: Jeff Hatch, Hatch Design Architecture,on behalf of Venus
Development is requesting a special use permit for traditional ministorage consisting of
storage structures, landscaping and an office on approximately 5.4 acres of a 16.5 acre
parcel, R30881011,located on the west side of Middleton Road approximately 460 feet
south of the intersection of Ustick and Middleton Roads, Caldwell, Idaho. The subject
property is zoned C3 (Service Commercial).
Testimony:
Debbie Root, Senior Planner, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell,ID 83605,stated we are
requesting to continue this case to a date to be determined,it will be re-noticed.
The Hearing Examiner CONTINUED/MOVED Case Number SUP-20-02 (Special Use
Permit) to a date to be determined at which time it will be re-noticed.
2. Case Number SUP-20-07: A request by Mark Gepner for a special use permit for a
contractor shop [proposed sign shop] with storage yard on parcels R02190, and outdoor
storage on R02190013 located at 216 W. Madison Street,Caldwell. The subject properties
are zoned C-3 (Service Commercial) and are being utilized for storage of trailers,building
materials,vehicles and construction equipment which requires a special use permit
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
Testimony:
Debbie Root, Senior Planner, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell,ID 83605, stated the applicant is
requesting a special use permit for a contractor shop (Proposed sign shop) with storage
yard on parcels R02190,and outdoor storage on R02190013 located at 215 W. Madison
Street,Caldwell.
Mr. Eggleston asked where the current driveway was located.
Ms.Root showed him on the map.
Mr. Eggleston asked if the property owner had current water services at this time.
Ms. Root was not sure but services are available.
Mr. Eggleston asked about the specific use that would reside with the current owner and
that would be part of the special use permit.
Ms. Root said the special use is specific to the outdoor storage and contractor shop. The
sign shop is outright allowed. However,we can't issue a building permit for the sign shop
while the property is not in compliance.This will bring the property into compliance.
Mr. Eggleston asked if an auto body shop decided to come in would that be permitted.
Ms. Root said the point of putting the limitation on the current owner of the property is if
they were to sell the property the new owner would have to come in and obtain their own
special use permit.
Mr. Bart Gepner (applicant), 1821 W Verneal Ct., Meridian, ID stated his brother Mark is
interested in going ahead with this and getting it into compliance. They have reached out to
a design company and they are working on a plan for along the frontage,from the fence line
to the curb. Ms. Root pretty much covered it already.
Mr. Eggleston asked if he was ok with the landscaping plan for the ROW.
Mr. Gepner stated yes,they would much rather do it on the exterior of the fence.
Mr. Eggleston asked if the building would be 20'from the property line.
Mr. Gepner said if that was necessary,they would prefer to bring it closer but they will work
with whatever the requirements are. They would like to have it as close to the property
line they can.
Ms. Root said the landscaping on the right of way is not in lieu of the 20'buffer, it couldn't
be one or the other, if they had to do the 20'buffer inside the fence they are still required to
do the landscaping outside of the fence to the curb. We are providing them an option to not
further encumber them with a 20' buffer inside the fence due to the size and nature of the
ROW that is existing.
Mr. Eggleston asked if there would be a condition with the SUP to have a 10'setback on the
front for that building?
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
Ms. Root stated the landscape buffer essentially provides for the setbacks in commercial
zones. The density chart actually shows zero and so they would have a 20'buffer there,
they could reduce that by condition to a 10'but she wouldn't want to go below that. 20'is
what would be required if they had to do the landscape buffer inside the fence.
Mr. Eggleston closed the public testimony.
Comprehensive Plan Analysis for SUP-20-07 (Special Use Permit)The Hearing Examiner
accepted the comprehensive plan analysis as listed in the staff report
Findings of Fact for SUP-20-07 (Special Use Permit): The Hearing Examiner accepted the
general facts as outlined in the staff report,public testimony,and the evidence list.
Conclusions of Law for SUP-20-07 (Special Use Permit): The Hearing Examiner accepted
the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report
ORDER FOR SUP-20-07:The Hearing Examiner ORDERED that Case Number SUP-20-07
(Special Use Permit) BE APPROVED with the following conditions: 8.2 through 8.11
3. Case Number: CMP-20-03 &ZON-20-04&SUB-20P-04: A request by Providence
Properties,LLC for a comprehensive plan amendment, rezone and approval of a preliminary
plat for Mason Creek Grove Subdivision,a proposed mixed-use development,on 35.47 acres
located on the northeast corner of Middleton and Linden Roads, Caldwell,Idaho. The
subject property,parcel R34304,is currently zoned'R-1'(Low Density Residential). The
City of Caldwell 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Low Density
Residential (25.9 acres more or less) with the approximate 4.57 acre corner lying northeast
of the Noble Drain designated as Medium Density Residential. The applicant is requesting
that the southwest corner, approximately 5 acres,be designated Commercial and rezoned to
'C-2' (Community Commercial) with the balance of the property to be designated Medium
Density Residential and rezoned from 'R-1'to 'R2' (Medium Density Residential).
Concurrently the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to include 114 single
family lots with an average residential lot size of 6544 sq. feet and four(4) commercial lots.
Testimony:
Debbie Root, Senior Planner, 621 Cleveland Blvd.,Caldwell,ID 83605, Ms. Root provided Mr.
Eggleston Exhibits PA-10 and PA-11,a revised memorandum from the Engineering
Department PA-10 replaces PA-5.
Ms. Root stated the applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, rezone and
approval of a preliminary plat for Mason Creek Grove Subdivision,a proposed mixed-use
development,on 35.47 acres located on the northeast corner of Middleton and Linden
Roads.The applicant is requesting that the southwest corner,approximately 5 acres,be
designated Commercial and rezoned to`C-2'with the balance of the property to be
designated Medium Density Residential and rezoned from 'R-1'to'R2'. Concurrently,the
applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to include 114 single family lots with
an average residential lot size of 6544 sq. feet and four (4) commercial lots.The City of
Caldwell 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Low Density Residential
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
(25.9 acres more or less) with the approximate 4.57 acre corner lying northeast of the
Noble Drain designated as Medium Density Residential. The current zone of the property is
R-1 and has been R-1 since annexation in 2006-07. Development never occurred on that
property the applicant is now requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan and develop
that property with R-2 medium density lots and some commercial lots on the corner. The
property is located where there will be a roundabout in the Middleton Corridor Plan and
there have been some requests for adjustments of 20'to the North as well to accommodate
the canal that currently lies South of Linden Road. The applicant has met the open space
requirements with some redesign. They have included the pathway and connecting micro
pathways through the development. The preliminary plat is in compliance with the Medium
Density Residential zone but the underlying Comprehensive Plan calls for low density and
recently an adjacent development was denied a Comprehensive Plan amendment for low
density to medium density as well.
Mr. Eggleston asked about the NE corner that is designated medium density, what is the
size of that
Ms. Root stated about 4.5 acres.
Mr. Eggleston asked about the acreage of the noble drain.
Ms. Root stated she was not sure.
Mr. Eggleston stated this case hinges on the Comprehensive Plan amendment that was
adopted in February. He asked if there were any inquiries for this particular parcel about
changing that plan from the Low Density Residential.
Ms. Root stated she was not aware of inquiries on this particular parcel.
Mr. Eggleston added that part of the request was for 5 acres of commercial in the SW corner
of the property. There is a lot of commercial in the area. Within a mile of this property
there is all kinds of commercial and their substantiation is that the commercial on this
property would somehow provide amenities and trip capture. Is there any kind of
comparison, a traffic impact study that will show a trip reduction benefit to commercial in
that area?
Mr. Robb MacDonald confirmed if he is asking if the TIS analyzed a trip reduction to the site
because of the commercial?
Mr. Eggleston stated yes, if the commercial provide trip reduction for the proposed uses
here vs just having it all R-1.
Ms. Robb MacDonald stated he doesn't know off the top of his head but he would guess that
the commercial probably increases the traffic as opposed to what that acreage would have
been if it was R-1. But, at the end of the day,we don't know exactly what the commercial is
that would be proposed to go in there and so that could adjust up or down depending on
what is built.
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
Mr.Eggleston asked if anyone had done a calculation on the number of units that would be
buildable on the R-1 vs the proposal with the mixed zoning?
Ms. Root stated she did not do that calculation.
Mr. Eggleston stated there's a couple of things going on with the road configuration. First of
all,the bump north 20'to accommodate the canal and the other being the roundabout itself
that is looking for right turn approaches. He asked how much of that takes out of this
parcel for development.
Mr. MacDonald stated he does not know the exact acreage it would take out. The corner
parcel is the parcel that was purchased by Canyon Highway District 4 and that's the one that
the roundabout is going to impact the greatest. But there is frontage along the south
portion of this property that's going to be impacted but he can't tell you what the acreage is
that is encompassing.
Mr. Eggleston asked about the configuration and if it accommodated all the requirements
for the Highway District and the State on those two roads?
Mr. MacDonald stated he believes it does not. His understanding is that some of the
comments that came in more recently regarding the realignment of Linden and the
mitigation that would go towards that have not been encompassed in this and so that would
be something that we would work with the applicant for before it arrives at City Council.
Mr. Eggleston stated the preliminary plat is not 100% in compliance right now and they still
have a little work to do.
Mr. MacDonald said yes, it's not 100% correct based on the most recent comments and so
they would work with the applicant to get to that point before City Council.
Mr. Eggleston asked if City Council typically worked toward a completed acceptable
preliminary plat or would they hold the hearing off for that or how is it typically handled?
Mr. MacDonald said their intent would be they would want something that is correct before
it goes to City Council,they are going to want to see what the final product is most likely
going to look like.
Mr. Patrick Conner(Applicant) 726 N. Pierce St.,Boise, ID stated there are three objectives
for tonight's presentation.The Comp Plan Amendment,amending Low Density Residential
to Medium Density for about 30 acres and amending about 5 acres to Commercial and
Services. The second objective is the rezone,to rezone 30 acres from R-1 Low Density to R-
2 Medium Density and the 5 acres of Low Density to C-2, Community Commercial.And
lastly,the Preliminary Plat,a phased development of 100 single family lots, 18 common lots
and 4 commercial lots. The subject property is about 35 acres on the NE corner of Linden
and Middleton Road. They just recorded the first two phases of Mason Creek Landing
Subdivision. Mason Creek Grove is integrally connected to Mason Creek Landing through
roads,pedestrian and utility connections to the site to create an overall master plan
community. The majority of the site is Low Density Residential with a small portion
designated as Commercial. There are finished subdivisions that were previously done
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
under the only zoning ordinance and if those were categorized by today's standards they
would be essentially be R-2 subdivisions.Whereas, it looked like on the Comprehensive
Plan Map they are low density by their actual definition of their size of lots they are truly,by
today's standards, R-2 Medium Density Residential. So,as you can see by this map there's
now mostly a majority of the R-2 or Medium Density Residential here but there's a swath of
low density capped by their property. As previously mentioned, in 2016-2017 his
predecessor, 13 years ago,got Copper Creek Preliminary Plat approved and got it annexed
and zoned R-1. Most of these lots were less than 8,000 sq ft.average about 6,500 sq ft.The
project was built as the down turned happened. The old plan is 115 single-family units
whereas today's is 110 so it's actually more dense than the one he is presenting today, 3.2
units per acre vs. 3.1. Also in the old plan, there wasn't any usable open space,today's plan
they have 2.88 acres of open space. If you add in the noble drain it goes almost to 5 acres of
open space. In the old plan there wasn't any connections to neighboring properties, no
road, no pedestrian infrastructure. The plan today is integrated in every possible way to the
existing Mason Creek Landing subdivision. In his opinion, it is a major improvement,this
new plan. There have been significant advancements and investments into Middleton Road,
the Middleton Road overpass over 84,as well as the Middleton Road Corridor Plan,
roundabouts, medians,every quarter mile U-turn lanes,growth funded intersection
improvements,which they are a part of. Creating a safer and more accessible pedestrian
infrastructure. In addition, as you head down Linden you have the Caldwell Industrial
Airport, which is booming in activity, it's an economic anchor,there's plan for runway
extension,taxi area expansion,additional property acquisitions,hanger expansions-it's a
true economic anchor for this area and all of the residents in this area will contribute and
benefit from the airport. He believes they have a unique location at the corner of Middleton
and Linden and that it warrants more than just an R-1 Low-Density Residential subdivision.
While they are requesting Medium Density Residential it will live and breathe and feel like a
Low Density Residential as far as impact on density,impact of roads,public schools and
infrastructure. The reasoning for them going for the Medium Density Residential and the
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment is it allows for a greater variety of housing options,
and the ability to provide more useful green space and create a commercial services at this
primary major intersection point at Linden and Middleton Road. He believes they can have
both,the density,the diversity of product and they can also comply with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan . Mason Creek Grove is like the missing piece in this masterplan of
Mason Creek Landing. They will have their smaller lots,45'ft lots surrounding the
commercial on the north and southeast. Then they grow to their 52-55'wide single family
and eventually as Mason Creek Landing takes over you have your 60'and 70'lots the closer
you get to the future of Mason Creek City Park. They have also established Mason Creek
Landing a precedence of higher density along Linden Road and Middleton Road with the 4
plexes and duplexes that are already entitled and he thinks this shows a good example of
proper master planning for this major intersection. To allow for the communities,for
families,for children to work in the whole community all together and access that
commercial corner if needed. Again,everything will connect to the Mason Creek City Park
in the far NE corner. The intent for the commercial when they first brought this project to
planning staff about a year ago,there was a motivation and they did encourage us to explore
putting commercial on that corner to serve the greater community. Things like a daycare,a
bank,a dentist office,a local doctor's office, maybe a coffee shop or ice cream shop -to
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
provide commercial services for the neighboring community and as the area grows they
could access this commercial location. Lastly,the preliminary plat, it's about 35 acres, 110
single family lots. 8.2% of their open space,they were counting the space in the Noble Drain
as open space because they do put a pedestrian pathway and they do landscape along that
Noble Drain so it is a usable open space.They realize the code doesn't allow for that so they
removed that acreage so it's a little bit less than 2 acres that is not being counted in that
overall number. He hopes for support of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to
bring this whole Mason Creek Landing, Master Plan Community together.
Mr. Eggleston asked what the build out/timeline for the part that is not the project site we
are talking about
Mr. Conner stated they have already built the first 180 lots.
Mr. Eggleston stated he had the opportunity to apply for a PUD why did they take the path
of a rezone if they could achieve similar results with a PUD?
Mr. Conner stated that wasn't recommended to him by Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Eggleston asked if that recommendation was made prior to the adoption of the current
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Conner said yes.
Mr. Eggleston asked why they didn't do this in February before the new Comprehensive
Plan was adopted?
Mr. Conner stated it took them until March or April to get the application submitted and
then they had some staff recommended changes. They are still working through some of
that today. He is willing to work with staff to make sure it all works correctly.
Mr. Eggleston asked if the commercial is a make or break part of the plan? In other words,
would it fly strictly as residential?
Mr. Conner stated that he thinks the most appropriate use of that corner is commercial so
he is committed to that as a planner. It doesn't have to be commercial but he believes one
the of the conditions recommended by staff is that it stays as the intended use and not
multi-family.
Mr. Eggleston he mentioned the roundabout being somewhat awkward for ingress/egress
into the commercial site. Is that commercial location the best location on that site because
of the roundabout?
Mr. Conner stated the roundabout offers great visibility. What he was trying to explain by
that was is that it's not a typical suburban corner. It's actually better because it provides
two access points off Linden and off Middleton Road to that commercial area. It's a place for
a destination commercial location. Not for a convenience store but for a doctor/dentist
office,it almost softens that corner and makes it more inviting.
7
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
Mr. Eggleston stated it doesn't seem to be particularly integrated into the residential use, is
that something they anticipate to make more of a part of that community? It looks more
like 2 separate communities.
Mr. Conner stated the city has a strong landscaping plan between uses. While it doesn't look
like it's much if you were walking down the sidewalk you would have a park-like feel. They
don't know what the intended use is going to be and so it depends on the commercial use in
that area.
Mr. Eggleston asked if they contemplated a development agreement with the commercial
zoning to specify the uses.
Mr. Conner stated they have not talked about that,in their application they have stated their
intended use for the property.
Mr. Eggleston asked because he mentions uses that are low impact/low traffic,but with just
the straight zoning it could be anything allowed in commercial and the development
agreement would specify the types of uses allowed. That would be something to consider.
How did they come up for that particular acreage?
Mr. Conner said he worked closely with a broker and he said anything around an acre,
maybe less than an acre for users would be appropriate there. They both think it's well
positioned.
Ms. Root stated with regards to the development agreement,the DA is imposed with a
rezone and they have paid for that through the application process so we can propose
conditions through the development agreement. She would also like to mention there is still
an open question with regards to the Bolton lateral and the landscaping strip being overlaid
upon that Bolton Lateral easement. They haven't had confirmation from the irrigation
district whether or not that is even acceptable. If not, they will have a 25 ft. landscape buffer
outside of that easement that has to be applied as well.
Mr. Eggleston closed the public testimony.
Closing Comments:
The story of the property-it's gone through a lot of iterations with the overall development
of these couple hundred acres we're talking about. The commercial is a long ways away
from the residential. The community commercial proposed here could be just about
anything. He doesn't see it as a particularly good fit. Strictly looking at the Comprehensive
Plan he doesn't think the commercial is fully justified on that corner especially as it has Low
Density Residential surrounding it. The site itself has some problems,which have been
discussed. The roundabout there makes it more of a a-typical commercial corner, one that
provides a kind of drop in compulsive service that you would look for with something like a
C-store. The commercial also does not come with a development agreement even though
case is open for a development agreement; it would limit the kinds of commercial uses on
that southwest corner. The site plan doesn't give us a lot to go on as far as what may occur
there. The idea with a residential development like this would be something that feels like a
piece with the residential uses and he's just not seeing that in the proposal. Looking at the
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
staff report the discussion about the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan that it was
not particularly consistent with the land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan Map. The
plan was adopted just 7 months ago and he questioned the applicant about that. They had
other things on their plate at the time. It's a missed opportunity but it was an opportunity
available at that time. He agrees with staff that he can't find the consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan Map. Without being able to make a finding that it's in full compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan that puts in jeopardy the proposal because the
Comprehensive Plan itself has to be satisfied before we can move on to a rezone and
preliminary plat.
Comp Plan Amendment:
Comprehensive Plan Analysis for CMP-20-03 (Comp Plan Amendment)The standards for
compliancy and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan have not been successfully met.
Particularly in regards to the request for commercial land use. He does not feel that
commercial land use is appropriate at this site. The case hasn't been made convincingly.
The preliminary plat is not 100% complete; it is not giving us enough evidence to make a
secure decision in the land use change in the Comprehensive Plan. We have Low Density
Residential across the street and that was recently upheld as Low Density in a similar
application. One of the issues we have is that mending the land use plan should not be
something that is taken lightly and it should have full justification,a reasonable justification
other than just the fact that it might be an economic benefit to the land owner.
Findings of Fact for CMP-20-03 (Comp Plan Amendment):The Hearing Examiner did not
accept the general facts as outlined in the staff report,public testimony, and the evidence
list.
Conclusions of Law for CMP-20-03 (Comp Plan Amendment): The Hearing Examiner
accepted the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CMP-20-03:The Hearing Examiner RECOMMENDED that Case
Number CMP-20-03 (Comp Plan Amendment) BE DENIED
Mr. Eggleston stated there is some potential here for a planned unit development.
Rezone:
Comprehensive Plan Analysis for ZON-20-04 (Rezone) The Hearing Examiner did not
accept the comprehensive plan analysis as listed in the staff report.
Findings of Fact for ZON-20-04 (Rezone):The Hearing Examiner did not accept the general
facts as outlined in the staff report,public testimony,and the evidence list.
Conclusions of Law for ZON-20-04 (Rezone): The Hearing Examiner accepted the
Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report.
RECOMMENDATION FOR ZON-20-04:The Hearing Examiner RECOMMENDED that Case
Number ZON-20-04 (Rezone) BE DENIED with the following conditions: 12.2 through 12.4
9
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
Preliminary Plat:
Comprehensive Plan Analysis for SUB-20P-04(Preliminary Plat) The Hearing Examiner
did not accept the comprehensive plan analysis as listed in the staff report.
Findings of Fact for SUB-20P-04 (Preliminary Plat): The Hearing Examiner did not accept
the general facts as outlined in the staff report, public testimony,and the evidence list.
Conclusions of Law for SUB-20P-04 (Preliminary Plat): The Hearing Examiner accepted
the Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report.
RECOMMENDATION FOR SUB-20P-04: The Hearing Examiner RECOMMENDED that Case
Number SUB-20P-04 (Preliminary Plat) BE DENIED
4. Case Number CMP-20-04/ZON-20-05/SUB-20P-05: A request by Heartland
Townhomes Property Management LLC and Trilogy Development, Inc.,for a Comprehensive
Plan Map amendment,rezones and approval of a preliminary plat for AeroSky Park
Subdivision,a proposed commercial/industrial development of parcel 835305,35.4 acres,
located on the southeast corner of Hwy 20/26 and Aviation Road, Caldwell,Idaho.The City
of Caldwell 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the property as "Commercial and
Services." A map amendment is proposed to allow for industrial zoning. The 35.4 acre
subject property is currently zoned`C-4' (Interchange/Freeway Commercial).The applicant
is proposing 12.6 acres of"C-3"(Service Commercial) and 24.82 acres of"M-1"(Light
Industrial) zoned property.The proposed plat contains 6 commercial lots and 14 industrial
lots. The subject property is located in the APO-1 Land Use Limitation Zone.
Testimony:
Debbie Root, Senior Planner,621 Cleveland Blvd.,Caldwell,ID 83605,stated we are
requesting to continue this case to the October 20, 2020 hearing meeting.
The Hearing Examiner CONTINUED/MOVED Case Number CMP-20-04/ZON-20-05/SUB-
20P-05 to the October 20, 2020 hearing.
IV. New Business:
1. Case Number SUB-20P-07/SUP-20-08:A request by Highgarden LLC/Glen Winters to
develop parcel R32500, 10.69 acres,zoned"C3" (Service Commercial) as a multi-family
housing subdivision. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for
Highgarden Estates, consisting of 33 multi-family lots (66 housing units) and 3 common
lots. Concurrently a special use permit is requested for the proposed multi-family
duplex unit development. The subject property is located 2300 feet west of Cleveland
Blvd. on Laster Street.
Testimony:
Debbie Root, Senior Planner, 621 Cleveland Blvd., Caldwell,ID 83605,stated we are
requesting to continue this case to the November 10, 2020 hearing meeting.
10
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020
The Hearing Examiner CONTINUED/MOVED Case Number SUB-20P-07/SUP-20-08 to the
November 10, 2020 hearing.
Planning Issues- None
The next regularly scheduled Hearing Examiner meeting is scheduled for November 10, 2020.
The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Lori Colligan,
MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER,BRUCE EGGLESTON, ON THE
DATE NOTED BELOW:
Mr. Bruce Egglesto Date
Debbie t, Sen'•r Planner Date
For detailed Minutes,please request a copy of the digital recording.
11
Hearing Examiner Minutes 9/15/2020