1999 - 09-20-99 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n ox 17 PaGF 861 the vacant LPN position (Grade 60) to a Health Education Specialist position (Grade 65), effective October 1, 1999, and add this new position to the Lee County pay plan. Upon a vote, the results were as follows: Aye: Adams, Hincks, Matthews, Paschal, Reives, and Sauls Nay: None Absent: Garner The Chairman ruled the motion had been adopted unanimously. Commissioner Matthews made a motion that a letter be sent to the North Carolina Department of Transportation asking that a traffic study be completed on Greenwood Road between the railroad and Willett Road (SR 1158) for a "no passing" zone. Upon a vote, the results were as follows: Aye: Adams, Hincks, Matthews, Paschal, Reives, and Sauls Nay: None Absent: Garner The Chairman ruled the motion had been adopted unanimously. Chairman Hincks recessed the meeting until 7:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:00 p.m. in Courtroom #4 at the old Lee County Courthouse. All members were present except Commissioners Hubert Garner and Robert Reives. Chairman Hincks called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing for the first hearing that had been advertised for this date and time. Domestic Violence Investigator James Estes told the Board that the Sheriff's Department proposes to acquire funds through the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program (LLEBG) to purchase various equipment for patrol/detective personnel. The grant fiords will total $23,419.80, with a county match of $2,602.20. No one present spoke in favor of or in opposition to the Block Grant Program request. Chairman Hincks closed the first public hearing and opened the second and final joint public hearing with members of the Planning Board, to consider amendiug the Lee County Watershed Map. Planner Ron Satterfield told the Board that the need for a watershed boundary is to protect drinking water supplies. It restricts density and built-upon areas of development that requires an erosion/sedimentation control plan. He told the Board that the reason for this amendment is due to an interpretative statement issued by the 5