Loading...
12/18/1990 Regular TT. 0185 Regular Meeting/Comprehensive PIc 1 Board of County Commissioners Tuesday, December 18, 1990 Tavernier A Regular Meeting of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners convened at 10:30 a.m. on the above date at the Elks Club in Tavernier. Present and answering to roll call were Commissioner Earl Cheal, Commissioner Douglas Jones, Commissioner Jack London, Commissioner John Stormont, and Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey. Also present were Danny Kolhage, Clerk; Randy Ludacer, County Attorney; Tom Brown, County Administrator; County Staff; members of the Press and Radio; and the general public. All stood for the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. Bob Herman, Director of the Growth Management Division, Lorenzo Aghemo and Mark Rosch of the Planning Staff addressed the Board concerning the progress of the Comprehensive Plan, receipt of the comments from the State agencies, and the future course of action by the Board. The Commission recessed for lunch. * * * * * The Board reconvened at approximately 1:15 p.m. The Board discussed the items set out in Staff's presentation, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Staff recommended Alternative 3(b), Items (1) and (2), as follows: "b) Adopt the plan by February 4 with the revisions described below. Assume the plan will be found in non-compliance. Begin negotiating a compliance agreement with the DCA as soon as possible. Edit the plan to eliminate redundancies and divide the plan into two documents: 1) a policy document containing only the following items which the Board must adopt: ---- - goals, objectives and policies - capital improvement implementation requirements - evaluation and monitoring procedures - future land use and traffic maps - adoption ordinance 2) a technical document containing the data and analysis, which the Board is not required to adopt." Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner London to approve Staff's recommendation of Alternative 3(b) above. During discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Cheal to amend so that the Board simulta- neously ask the Legislative Delegation to modify State law to allow the County sufficient time to do the job right; TT 0186 also, that this action would not preclude the hiring of additional expertise. These amendments were accepted by the maker of the motion and became part of the original motion. Roll call vote was unanimous with Commissioner Jones not present. Motion was made by Commissioner London and seconded by Mayor Harvey to approve as follows Item 2(b) concerning the public hearings on modifications to the plan: "The County Attorney has determined that the minimum requirements for adoption of the plan are as follows: 1 more public hearing before this Board and 2 more advertisements in the newspapers." .- - Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey No Yes Yes Yes Motion carried with Commissioner Jones absent from the meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Mayor Harvey directing Staff to prepare an RFP to obtain consulting services if necessary. Roll call vote was unani- mous with Commissioner Jones not present. Motion was made by Commissioner London and seconded by Commissioner Jones requesting Staff to prepare a paper with specific recommendations, including consequences, con- cerning Item 4 of the Staff presentation regarding the future of The Keys. Roll call vote was unanimous. Dagny Johnson addressed the Board. . Mark Rosch addressed the Board concerning the pro- posals received for Implementation Of A Concurrency Management System, and Revision Of Impact Fees. Based on recommendations of Staff, motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Jones to accept a single entity to perform both the Concurrency Management and Impact Fee services. Roll call vote was unanimous. The Clerk advised the Board of the receipt of a late bid. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to reject the late bid. Motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to employ the firm of Tindale-Oliver/ Freilich, Leitner, Carlisle & Shortlidge for the Concurrency Management/Impact Fee Services. Roll call vote was unanimous. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. * * * * * \ ...-- BOCC MEETING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PORTION 10:30 AM, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1990 TAVERNIER ELKS CLUB STAFF PRESENTATION: Bob Herman, Grqwth Management Director Lorenzo Aghemo, Planning Director Mark Rosch, Capital Improvements Coord. 1. Where are we in the preparation and adoption of the comprehensive plan? a) We transmitted the plan to the DCA on August 28. b) The DCA did not request any additional information from the county (i.e. the plan was determined to be complete and the County avoided sanctions) c) The various state agencies (FDOT, DER, DNR, etc.) reviewed the plan and forwarded their objections to the DCA on October 18. In addition, both the DCA's Area of critical Concern staff (380) and Comprehensive Planning staff (163) reviewed the plan and prepared their objections based on statutes 380 and 163. d) Based on input from the outside state agencies, the Area of Critical Concern staff, and Comprehensive planning staff, the DCA has completed an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. Each commissioner received a copy of the ORC report on December 6, the same day it arrived from the DCA. 1 Ex J/ }S ff -4:'1) 2. Now that we've received the ORe report, where do we go from here? a) Chapter 163 of the Florida statutes says that, following receipt of the ORC report, each County has 60 days in which to revise and adopt their comprehensive plans. For Monroe County, the deadline for adoption would be February 4. b) The County Attorney has determined that the minimum requirements for adoption of the plan are as follows: 1 more public hearing before this Board and 2 more advertisements in the newspapers. c) Assuming the Board wants the plan available in the libraries for public review at least 2 weeks prior to the adoption hearing, staff must finish all revisions to the plan by January 21. This leaves staff roughly 1 month to put the plan in final form for adoption. d) The DCA has many objections to the proposed comprehensive plan. The ORC report is over 200 pages long and contains about 600 objections. Obviously, it will be impossible for staff to accommodate all or even most of the 600 objections within a 1 month period. e) In this respect, the County is caught between a rock and a hard place. The "rock" is the statutory deadline of 60 days. If the County fails to adopt the' plan in within this period, the DCA can take the County to court. The IIhard place" is the voluminous ORC report. If the county fails to address the objections in the ORC report, the DCA will find the plan in non-compliance. f) When the DCA finds a plan in non-compliance, they attempt to negotiate a compliance agreement with a county. Compliance agreements typically allow a county 60 additional days to bring the plan into compliance. If a county fails to enter into a compliance agreement, the issue is subject to a Department of Administration (DOA) hearing, leaving the county subject to financial sanctions if the hearing officer agrees with the DCA and finds the plan in non-compliance. g) Due to the Area of critica~ state Concern designation, the Monroe County plan will not become effective upon BOCC adoption. The plan must also be approved by the Administration commission (Governor and cabinet). Chances are the Administration Commission will reject the plan until it includes at least the majority of recommendations in the ORC report. Until the new plan is adopted by both the BOCC and the Administration Commission, the County's existing plan remains in effect. 3 3. staff is looking for Board direction on how to proceed with the comprehensive plan. We have outlined several options below. Given that the plan cannot be revised in accordance with the ORC report and adopted within the 60- day deadline: a) Adopt the plan by February 4 with no revisions (exactly as transmitted to DCA on August 28). Assume the plan will be found in non-compliance. Begin negotiating a compliance agreement with the DCA as soon as possible. b) Adopt the plan by February 4 with the revisions described below. Assume the plan will be found in non-compliance. Begin negotiating a compliance agreement with the DCA as soon as possible. Edit the plan to eliminate redundancies and divide the plan into two documents: 1) a policy document containing only the following items which the Board must adopt: - goals, objectives, and policies - capital improvement implementation requirements - evaluation and monitoring procedures - future land use and traffic maps - adoption ordinance 2) a technical document containing the data and analysis, which the Board is not required to adopt. This revision of format is a reasonable assignment for staff to complete in time for adoption by February 4. c) postpone' adoption of the plan until after February 4. Direct staff to revise the plan in accordance with as many of the recommendations in the ORC report as time allows. Wait until the DCA threatens court action before beginning the plan adoption process. Assume the plan will be found in non-compliance. Begin negotiating a compliance agreement with the DCA as soon as possible. d) Same as item (c) above, only hire a consultant to get the revisions done faster. e) Same as item (c) above, only ask the south Florida Regional Planning Council to complete the plan revisions. ! ~"..".I f) Instead of adopting the proposed 1990 plan, send the 1986 comprehensive plan to the DCA. The 1986 plan was already adopted by the County commission and approved under chapter 380, F.S. by the Governor and Cabinet. Assume the plan will once again be found in compliance under Chapter 380, but not in compliance under Chapter 163. Begin negotiating a compliance agreement with the DCA as soon as possible. 5 .~ 4. Regardless of which option the Board selects, there are many policy decisions the Board must make in the near future in order to bring the plan into compliance. Some of these decisions are outlined below. They all relate to the same fundamental question: What should the Keys be like 20 years from now? a) Should we continue to base this plan on historical growth rates? Or do we want decreased growth? b) Should we base our growth on a carrying capacity? If so, what type of carrying capacity? Public facility? Hurricane evacuation? water quality? Coral reef? Endangered species? Who will conduct this analysis? Will they do it before or after the plan is due? c) Will we "maintain or reduce" hurricane evacuation times? Using what methods? Will we coordinate our population densities with our hurricane evacuation plan? What is an acceptable hurricane evacuation time? 36 hours? d) Will we limit growth to that amount for which we can provide facilities? e) What pattern of land development will the Future Land Use map show? * a continuous strip of development along US-1? * nodes of development along US-1, with some new nodes? * nodes of development along US-l, but no new nodes? f) what densities and intensities will the Future Land Use map show? Should the existing zoning maps continue to serve as Future Land Use maps? If so, we must redesignate the following districts into acceptable future land use categories: CFA, CFV, CFSD, AD, DR, MF, PR, RV. g) Will we retain the Future Land Use Concept maps? Will we link them to the Future Land Use maps? h) Will we link our future land uses to demonstrated need? If so, how shall we designate vacant land that is not necessary to meet our future residential and non-residential needs? i) The Future Land Use maps must show all future recreation and redevelopment sites. Where will they be located? Q j) Will we adopt land use policies for the Big Pine Key, North Key Largo, Holiday Isle, and Ohio Key ACCC's? Will these policies address public facility provision; types, densities, intensities of use; and protection of environmentally sensitive land? k) How will we "eliminate or reduce" non-conforming uses? 1) Which areas of the county will be TDR sender sites? Which areas will be receiver sites? m) What is "affordable housing" in the Keys? Single-family? Multi-family? where should it be located? How much should we have? Who will provide it? n) Will we "limit public expenditures that subsidize development in coastal high hazard areas?" Will we direct population growth away from these areas? If so, how? 0) Will we continue to allow development in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands? p) Do we want to collect the data necessary to perform land use planning, i.e. land use inventories, ground- truthed vegetation inventories, water quality monitoring, marina surveys, and inventories of existing sewer and drainage facilities? Who will collect this information? Who will pay for it? q) Will we link development decisions to water quality? If so, how? r) Do we want to regulate septic systems beyond what is currently allowed by HRS? If so, to what extent? s) Do we want to join FKAA in the development of a sewer master plan for the Keys? If so, when and how will we contribute? t) Do we want to complete the engineering studies for a drainage master plan for the county? If so, when? u) Do we want to require more water conservation? v) What will we do if the FKAA cannot meet the County's potable water needs? w) How will we dispose of our solid waste once the Waste Management contract is up? x) Do we want to fund and implement a comprehensive recycling program? 7 y) Do we want to adopt the FDOT standard of LOS C for US-l? z) How many lanes of traffic on US-1 do we want? 8 TT ~ 0187 Regular Meeting Board of County Commissioners Tuesday, December 18, 1990 Tavernier A Regular Meeting of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners convened at 1:00 p.m. on the above date at the Elks Club in Tavernier. Present and answering to roll call were Commissioner Earl Cheal, Commissioner Douglas Jones, Commissioner Jack London, Commissioner John Stormont, and Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey. Also present were Danny Kolhage, Clerk; Randy Ludacer, County Attorney; Tom Brown, County Administrator; County Staff; members of the Press and Radio; and the general public. All stood for the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. SOUNDING BOARD David McAllen and Doug Fuller of Morrison-Knudsen/ Gerrits and Jose Gonzalez of Hansen-Lind-Meyer/Gonzalez made a presentation to the Board regarding the County's Capital Improvement Projects Status, specifically concerning the Jail Project. Ms. Edith Bricker addressed the Board requesting a waiver of permit fees for The Children's Shelter Leisure Time Carnival. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to deny the request. Motion carried unanimously. Sheriff Roth addressed the Board regarding the creation of a County Nuisance Abatement Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to refer the matter to County Staff and Sheriff's Department Staff for recommendation. Roll call vote was unanimous. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to deny the waiver of dump fees for the Habitat for Humanity. Roll call vote was unanimous with Commissioner Stormont not present. DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT Lee Ganim addressed the Board concerning the request of St. Justin Martyr Catholic Church for the refund of $11,700.00 for building permit fees and waiver of impact fees, and also for a waiver of $680.00 for plumbing fees. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Mayor Harvey to waive the $11,700.00 building permit fees with the execution of a written agreement acknowledging that should the facility be used as a hurricane refuge or meeting place, that there would be no charge to the County. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Tr 0188 Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey No Yes No No Yes Motion failed. Mayor Harvey discussed the need for stan- dards to be used for requests from non-profit organizations for waivers of fees. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Mayor Harvey to waive the plumbing permit fee in the amount of $680.00. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey No Yes No No Yes Motion failed. DIVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES A discussion of a request by The Flight Department at Marathon Airport regarding striping of taxi lane was con- tinued. PUBLIC HEARINGS A Public Hearing was held concerning the proposed abandonment of a portion of a fifty-foot private road on Valhalla Island. Proof of publication was entered into the record. Andrew Tobin addressed the Board. The Board took no action. A Public Hearing was held concerning the proposed abandonment of Palm Avenue, Holiday Homesites Subdivision, Key Largo. Proof of publication was entered into the record. Al Beatty addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont to approve. Motion died for lack of a second. A Public Hearing was held on a proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 6.4 of the Monroe County Code concerning convenience food stores; providing for severability; pro- viding for repeal of all Ordinances inconsistent herewith; providing for incorporation into the Monroe County Code; and providing an effective date. Proof of publication was entered into the record. The County Attorney addressed the Board and indicated that under the criteria established in the law, the County was not required to adopt this proposed Ordinance. The Board then proceeded with the hearing. The County Attorney read by title only. Phillip Harris of the Tom Thumb Food Stores addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Stormont to adopt the following Ordinance. Commissioner Cheal pro- posed an amendment to the motion to amend Section 8 to pro- vide that the Ordinance would take effect six months from the date of approval. The amendment was accepted by the maker and became a part of the original motion. Roll call vote was unanimous. ORDINANCE NO. 034-1990 See Ord. Book No. 25 which is incorporated herein by reference. TT 0189 A Public Hearing was held on a proposed Ordinance authorizing an award of $1,000.00 to the Junior Football League Cheerleaders for travel purposes, etc. Proof of publication was entered into the record. The County Attor- ney read by title only. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Mayor Harvey to adopt the Ordinance. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey No Yes No No Yes Motion failed. * * * * * BOARD OF APPEALS The Board of County Commissioners sat as the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals considered the appeal by Ewing/Wardell of the Planning Commission's decision to grant the appeal filed by Jay Miller and the Monroe County School Board which overturned Development Order #04-89 for property located on Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 9, Plantation Key Colony Subdivision, Tallahassee Meridian, Plantation Key, Monroe County, Florida, Section 5, Township 63S, Range 38E, approximately MM 91. Lorenzo Aghemo, Planning Director, addressed the Board. Andrew Tobin, representing the appellant, addressed the Board. Nicholas Mulick, repre- senting the School Board, and Jay Miller addressed the Board. Mr. Tobin rebutted. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Jones to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the appeal as the appellant failed to substantiate before the Board of County Commissioners the grounds on which the appeal is based, specifically Items 3, 4, 5, (no item 6), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, a duplicate 17, and 18 of the administrative appeal, and that there is no basis for a reversal; and directing the County Attorney to prepare an appropriate Resolution to be brought back to the Board for approval. Roll call vote was unanimous. The Board of Appeals considered the appeal by Ewing/Wardell of the Planning Commission's decision to grant the appeal filed by Venetian Shores Homeowners' Association, which overturned Development Order #09-89 for property located on Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, Venetian Shores Subdivision, Monroe County, Florida, Tallahassee Meridian, Plantation Key, Section 13, Township 63S, Range 37E, approximately MM 86. Lorenzo Aghemo, Planning Director, addressed the Board. Andrew Tobin, representing the appellant, and Nicholas Mulick, representing the Venetian Shores Property Owners Association, addressed the Board. Mr. Tobin rebutted. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Jones to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the appeal based on the fact that the Board found no evidence in the hearing to overturn the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law of the Planning Commission and that the applicant has failed to substantiate the grounds of the appeal before the Board of County Commissioners, specifically Items 3, 4, 5, (no item 6), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, a TT 0190 duplicate 17, and 18 of the administrative appeal, and authorizing the preparation by the County Attorney of an appropriate Resolution to be brought back to the Board for approval. Roll call vote was unanimous. After discussion by Commissioner London, the Board directed that the attorney for the Planning Commission be present at all future appeal hearings. The Board of Appeals considered the appeal by Ken- neth Cianchette of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the preliminary plat for "Sunrise Strip Subdivision", a portion of Sombrero Properties, Sombrero Beach Road, MM 50, situated in Section 11, Township 66S, Range 32E, Boot Key, Monroe County, Florida, as an Improved Subdivision (IS). Lorenzo Aghemo, Planning Director, addressed the Board. Jose Gonzalez addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner London to overturn the Planning Commission's decision denying the plat pursuant to the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: "The County Attorney findings, as exhibited by Memorandum May 22, 1990, that '...the language, without more, does not stand for the proposition that raw acreage zoned IS cannot be platted.' "Authorization for platting, or replatting any land in Monroe County is permitted by Division 4, Land Development Regulations, Chapter 9.5 of Monroe County Code. "No explicit prohibitions exist, by enumeration, preventing platting or replatting of any individual land use districts in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. "Previous restrictions in Section 9.5-263, Land Development Regulations, as to eligibility of lot use in IS (Improved Subdivision) districts, having to have been established and in effect on the effective date of Chapter 9.5, Land Development Regulations, was repealed by DCA Rule 28-10.023. "Permissible activity of platting, replatting or improving land use districts other than Improved Subdivisions, creates de facto Improved Subdivision land use districts, as being buildable by having the assurances of roads, electricity and water placed after platting but prior to improvement by placement of dwelling unit on each lot. "This creation of additional single family residential units in land use districts other than Improved Subdivision land use districts, above and beyond those already having been in existence at the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan and the densities thereof contemplated, has been acknowledged by Department of Community Affairs. "Therefore, no prohibition generally or explicitly exists in the creation of single family residential dwelling units in Monroe County, above those in existence at the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan. TT 0191 "Density allocations for Improved Subdivisions (Sec. 9.5-262) are referred to in Section 9-303 (codified Sec. 9.5-263). "Section 9.5-263 provides that owners of contiguous lots in common ownership on or after the effective date of Chapter 9.5, were entitled to one unit per two lots or 12,500 square feet of land use, whichever area is less. "Sombrero Properties tracts 5-A through 5-D, subject in the application were in combined ownership as of the effective date of the Chapter, and subsequently were transferred, in common ownership, after that date. "12,500 square feet area is less than individual areas of parcels 5-A through 5-D. "9.5-263 further provides that 'in no event shall a land owner be entitled to more dwelling units than buildable lots were provided for in the plat as originally approved by Monroe County and filed with the Clerk of the Court.' "No clarifications exist as to whether the described plat is the 'original', prior to the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan, an 'amended plat' of an 'original' plat, prior to the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan, or either the 'original' or 'amended' filed after the date of the Comprehensive Plan. "Further, that a Special Act of the Legislature of the State of Florida (Chapter 59-1578 - H.B. 1053), in its Section 5, provides that the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County 'shall have full and complete authority to regulate (platting)', in the establishment of single family residential dwell- ing lots, in any land use district, and therefore said Special Act prevails over any and all general or local law, (or administrative rule or interpre- tation thereof, which may have been established by general law). "Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County finds, in this application, that sufficient justification exists to permit re- platting of the described properties in the Improved Subdivision land use district, similarly with any other land use district. "The Board of County Commissioners hereby over- turns the Planning Commission decision that the preliminary plat approval of the applicants is denied based on the fact that the current Monroe County land development regulations do not allow such current platting of IS subdivisions, and directs staff to proceed with comment and prepa- ration for processing final plat approval." Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes No Yes Yes Yes I TT 0192 Motion carried. The Board of Appeals considered the appeal by Robert Remus, owner of Blue Lagoon, of the Planning Commission's decision for the denial of a 6-COP for property located on portion of Tracts 8 and 12 in Section 32, Township 61S, Range 39E, Key Largo, MM 99.5. Lorenzo Aghemo, Planning Director, and Robert Remus addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner London and seconded by Commissioner Jones to return this matter to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey No Yes Yes No Yes Motion carried. The Board of Appeals considered the appeal by Mattson & Tobin, agents and attorneys for David D. Stanton, of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal for property located on Lot 16 and the NE ! of Lot 15, Block 3, Matecumbe Ocean Bay, Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida, Sections 21 and 22, Township 64S, Range 36E, approximately MM 75. Lorenzo Aghemo, Planning Director, Andrew Tobin, and Frank Greenman representing Eva Stout, addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner London to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the appeal in that the appellant failed to substantiate reasons for reversal. Roll call vote was unanimous. The Board of Appeals considered the appeal by Mattson, Tobin & Vetrick, agents and attorneys for Town Centre of Islamorada, of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal for property located on a parcel of land being part of Lot 6, according to the plat of part of Government Lot 1, all of Lots 2 and 3, of Section 32, Township 64S, Range 37E, Upper Matecumbe Key, MM 80.5. Lorenzo Aghemo, Planning Director, and Andrew Tobin addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Mayor Harvey to grant the appeal and over- turn the decision of the Planning Commission because the appellant began the process by getting a clearing and demo- lition permit on April 20, 1988; the applicant paid his fee of $840.00; and that his application and securing of a demo- lition permit complies with the provisions of 9.5-72 voiding the necessity of cancelling the permits; and authorizing the appropriate Resolution to be prepared and brought back to the Board. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey No Yes No No Yes Motion failed. Motion was then made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to affirm the Planning Commission's decision in that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the Conclusions of Law and Findings of Fact of the Planning Commission. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: TT - 0193 Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes No Yes Yes No Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. * * * * *