removal of a portion of the hill on the

removal of a portion of the hill on the front of the property “for road access and the bank.” and the location of the primary parking area at the US 211 frontage so that customers can see that the bank “is open for business and for safety.”

Mr. McCarthy pointed out that the parking was the “only thing that’s a policy issue.” and he referred to the ordinance in which parking is promoted behind commercial facilities.

During the public hearing on the application, Joyce Abell questioned the conflict between the screening of the parking lot and the concern for safety stated as one of the reasons for placing the parking lot in the front of the building. Mr. Smith responded by noting that the placement of the trees permitted adequate view of the parking lot through them.

Donna LaPre asked that the bank consider using native plants . . . “things that wouldn't look so suburban,” and Mr. McCarthy responded that the design guidelines that the applicant agreed to follow call for the use of native plant materials.

Mr. Leake summed up the concerns by noting that “parking in the front seems to be the issue.” He called for the Commission to approve the site plan with the parking as specified because of the screening proposed, the need for a financial institution to have its parking so located, and because "the precedent has already been set” (in other commercial buildings in the County).

The Commissioners agreed with Mr. Leake and Mr. Green by a vote of six to one. Butch Zindel said that the parking in the front was “a plus—it sets the building back.” Werner Krebser said that it was ironic that the Commission was “talking about their site plan when there’s a junk yard next door,” and he complained about Mike Brown’s continuing practice of “dumping cars there.”

A1 Henry added his support for the

See PLANNERS, Page A10