I'm going to call to order this work session for October 8th. We have two planning petitions. We'll
just take them in order. Ordinance 2026-39. And I don't know who is presenting, but probably
Ms. Nestor-Gellin. Hello again.
needs to be made presenter tst thank you there we go thank you i knew you were there thanks so much
all right so we can start with the text amendment thanks for having me back here at the work session
I'm going to go ahead and share my screen and I will try to summarize this as best I can. Okay, so on
the CDO on the list of changes, we have our nice revisions page where this is a one-stop shop where
you can see all prior revisions and current updated revisions proposed to the CDO. The main
changes for this text amendment is because the state laws that passed effective July 1, we want to make
sure our code aligns with those changes. Specifically, they've made a lot of changes to things like
indoor shooting ranges, allowing firearm sales at sporting goods stores, increasing the zones that they're
allowed to sell those in, changing some definitions associated with that.
We are making those changes because we have to. So I want to go to some of the other changes. We did
also do a few staff changes. We continue to clean up the code, make sure it's clear for people. And
I just want to be transparent in the state code changes and the staff changes. So one of the things
that we've noticed as staff is that we have the subdivision standards in the two pagers for all the zones.
we've added this language excluding administrative subdivisions for buildable area requirements and
the reason is because though we strive to have all developments and subdivisions in the county have
buildable area administrative subdivisions are unique in that they're not really creating developable
lots they're shifting lot lines typically and so what you have is a
usually people have built over lot lines and they're in a tough spot in that they need to make sure
their structures are on their property and they can't always comply with the rest of the code and they'll
get variances later but the administrative subdivision section they can't always comply with that buildable
area because you may be starting out with a half acre and a half acre and they just don't have it so
we want to still keep it flexible because the purpose of those administrative subdivisions are to
fix encroachments oftentimes. The next change that we have is to our use table. So we've changed temporary
or seasonal activity to be permitted with standards in the residential zone. Those do have standards
associated with them. And then we've also changed on page 101 of the sporting goods stores requirement
that we have to allow it in the limited business and general business districts. Then I do want to point
out we are making a change to allow bus terminal in the heavy industrial district. This is a change
because we've heard that the city has purchased a property on profile parkway and there is the zoning
there that's heavy industrial does not currently allow for bus terminal.
We want to get ahead of that and we think that use is reasonable in that zone based on the comprehensive
plan. Then the indoor shooting range by state law, we are required to allow that in the APR district
with standards and those standards are also listed below. The next change that we have related to this
is we are adding the sporting goods stores
standards and they're associated with the retail sales standards. So we've just added that language
in there to be clear. And then the change regarding the indoor shooting range. This is straight from
the state code, so we're required to expand the numbers of this permitted in and then they also gave
us the language for which we have to abide by. So this now is aligned with
state code changes. The next bigger change in the code is to the wireless communication facility section.
The state has changed it so that we can no longer regulate based on height. So we are differentiating
the process for wireless communication facilities, cell towers, based on concealment or zone. So now
if you're doing a new concealed
tower you're allowed everywhere except for we still have the right to regulate airport zones because
of the height restrictions. But non concealed wireless support structures in residential rural residential
or institutional public zones are required now to have conditional use approvals.
since we cannot differentiate again based on height. It used to be if they were concealed or 60 feet
or less, they could go in any district. But now if you have a 200 foot tower in a rural residential
zone and it's not going to be concealed, then we're asking for conditional use approval, which will
mean that neighbors will be notified upon application. We do have an update to our imagery here where
we're just
you know, update their code to accommodate or to show some of the newer cell technologies. So there's
small cell facilities now, oftentimes in the right of way. So that would just be highway code. But a
lot of times what we're seeing are these large monopole non-concealed towers in the county. I do want
to mention in our research with the Plan Commission that if they propose a tower at 200 feet of height
or greater,
They have to go through the FAA no matter where they are. So we do think that that additional burden
timeline cost will still drive the development hopefully to stay at that 199 foot threshold that we've
previously had and been able to administer. And then there's just some other pictures. Here's an example
of a concealed wireless tower. And there's some other examples elsewhere in the code as well.
And then on page 174 of the packet, there is some information on what we're allowed to ask during the
conditional use process upon reviewing a cell facility. There are some things that we're not allowed
to ask for, such as wireless coverage, capacity, speeds, things like that. We're not allowed to ask
those questions. So just clarify that for the BTA.
And then finally, in this chapter, we made some clarifications on setbacks. One of the things that we
have found in reviewing these is that they want to locate in an area near the property line. And so
one of the things that we're still able to regulate is for them to establish a fall zone. Now the fall
zone is if the tower were to collapse or fall over,
How is it engineered to collapse and what is that distance from the cell towers base that it would fall?
We're able to regulate that they have to push that tower back from the property line by the fall distance
or the fall zone. And also we can regulate a regular zoning setback. So if they bring us an engineered
plan that says the tower actually collapses in on itself and there's a zero foot fall zone, we have
to accept that.
So in order to still keep some proximity between the property line and the cell tower, we're establishing
a zone setback for whichever zone they're in. And then we're also asking that any generator, which could
be diesel operated and cause some noise, be the furthest away from the property lines as possible within
the equipment compound area. So this combined with the language above states
the setback rules. And then moving on, we do have some changes to our sidewalk section. This is a change
driven by staff. We want to make it very clear for people that are applying specifically for subdivisions
when a sidewalk is and is not required. So we are taking out the language under D here, and it is a
little bit redundant with what was item E.
And then also we've clarified item a, so we're trying to keep it to a mileage delineation because that's
a little bit more clear for people applying as to when things are. Being prompted as a requirement and
then finally.
Most of the remaining changes are state code requirements and they're in the removal of a member also
to the definition section. So I'll just bring us back to the total list of revisions and those are enumerated
here and just very much the language that the state has provided us with. So these are the remaining
changes and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you so much.
No, thank you for the very thorough description. And sorry, we have to update the code in some of these
ways, but that's inevitable. So. Yep. Did the best you could, right? Absolutely. Thank you. And I'm
really interested in the tower fall lines. And I found that fascinating. And thank you for explaining
that. Something I've wondered about for a while. Yeah. Yeah.
we have another item as well. But when do you do you want to hear doesn't matter. We can just pass these
through the 22nd would work for this one. Okay. If that works for you, we can do the 22nd of October.
Okay. Excellent. All right. Um, and, um, if you have questions in the meantime, just contact planning.
Um, and then let's move on to ordinance 2026-40.
So this is just a work session item for a error in our zoning map. During the CDO update, we had taken
on the prior zoning maps boundaries for things like PUDs. And one of the things that we've recently
found out for a specific two parcels is that the legal description for this PUD
did not include the parcels that we accidentally zoned PUD. So there's a required correction and the
plan commission is authoring this correction since it is an error. So the plan commission met and voted
to send this to the commissioners with a favorable recommendation that the property be rezoned to community
development, which is a zoning district that has
For instance, a development standard of a minimum lot size of 0.21 acres. The properties that we're
talking about are each over an acre and they are located in sort of a higher density area and they also
have some constraints on them. So one of the reasons for the plan commission's recommendation to the
CD district and not a high development district is because of the
location in the Sinking Creek Critical Watershed, impervious cover standards for the two different zones,
as well as the mapped floodway on the property, one of the properties involved. So I will just briefly
show a few maps here for this property to show you where it is located. So this is in Van Buren Township, you have
the western estates PD, which include a manufactured home park and some high density development directly
to the south. And then as you'll see on the zoning map, this area here is community development, which
is what this is recommended to be rezoned to. And then you also have the karst farm trail just right
up here that's accessible to folks. There were not any comments by highway or stormwater.
just that if any future development were to occur, make sure to continue to use the Sierra Drive access
point and that Stormwater would need to do a full review for future development at any time. So again,
this is PUD zoning in error. So the plan commission is authoring the request to be CD zoning. The property
owners are in the process of selling it.
and they would like to have the highest and best use for which the property was appraised, which is
the HD zoning district. And the property is currently connected to sewer and water, but we have not
had a submission from them stating that they would be approved for CBU to be able to increase the sewer
or water capacity to the site to support a high development
So here is an aerial of the property. There's a single-family home and a pool on one property,
a single-family home, detached garage with a dwelling above in this area. And then the floodway is to
the west here. So zoom out. Here's the property. It does have constraints on the west side, but not
in the area that they're already built out.
We have worked with the owners of the property and understand that different buyers want different things.
The CD district would allow some redevelopment if they chose to do so, but they would likely need to
go through the subdivision process. There is some limited high-density development that they could do,
but they would need to have sewer capacity to do so. So that is kind of the summary of these two
and what the plan commission is brought for you. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.
Thank you so much. Any questions? No, thank you for the detailed description. There was a bit of debate
about HD or CD, and they can always come back and ask for HD, and we'd have to assess it. But given
the floodplain, the limited site size, and of course, the Sinking Creek watershed,
decision. The decision was CD. So do you want to hear this on the 22nd as well? It was 29th.
Do you have a? Either. Um do you? Do you know? Well, I guess since it's our petition, isn't it? I was
gonna say we don't have a petitioner. It is us. Um the
the 22nd or the 29th. I'll be here on the 22nd, so doesn't matter to me. Well, either one. All right,
let's let's do it on the 22nd. Let's see if we can do it. I've got I know there's a couple other things
on our agenda, so it's going to say menu. You tell I haven't had breakfast. A couple of the things on
our agenda, but yeah, let's just do them all in the 22nd then and and and again if we have questions
will contact you directly. Sounds good. Thank you so much. Thanks for sticking around. Appreciate it.
All right. Let's talk about the holiday calendar, since planning is very interested in that as well.
Yes. Okay, so I present to you guys the resolution 2026-38, which is establishing the 2027 holiday schedule
for county employees. And since 2027 is a municipal election,
those dates are not part of the holiday schedule. However, upon your approval, those two dates, plus
the fact that Christmas Day is on a Saturday, you would provide three floating holidays that employees
can elect to use, obviously, upon approval of their supervisor, but throughout the year, how they would
like to best use those. Great. Thank you.
for you. Um one of the questions was about July 2nd versus July 5th. We will July 5th. Is that work
for you? Yes. Okay. All right. Um that was right after the fourth. Yeah. Um. Are you ready to approve
it? Yes. Okay I'm going to make a
motion. All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Um anything else we need to Okay. Any public
comment on this item? You raise your hand on teams or come to the podium. All right. Seeing none. All
those in favor proving 2027 holiday schedule signified by
when planning puts their calendar together, petitions start coming in. Now they're going to be heard
in 27. So we, you know, the courts always want it. The courts want it. Yeah. All right. So then this
will go to the courts. It'll go everywhere it needs to go. Right. Thank you so much. Another thing we
wanted to discuss and consider making a motion for would be a letter to the, um,
and the town of Ellisville Council. So I, Mr. Cockrell provided this information to highway and sheriffs
and had resounding agreement with it. So this is not something we're just doing on our own.
have is this, and I'll go ahead and read it, because it's short. The Monroe County Board of Commissioners
have reviewed the draft plan for the reorganization of Ellsville and Richland Township, and that's April
of 2026. The plan includes the following. The organized town shall provide services administered by
a town, including but not limited to police and fire, emergency medical services, parks and recreation,
land use, planning and zoning, designated utility services, and road and street maintenance. And that's
a quote from the plan.
If the referendum is approved by the voters of Elstville and Richland Township, it is our understanding
that police services Stormwater and Highway, Road Street throughout Richland Township will become the
sole responsibility of the reorganized town on January 1st, 2027. And then a note as well, we maintain
control and authority over county parks and trails located in Richland Township. Are you all right with
that, Litter? Yes. Is that okay?
Yeah, I think it's accurate. I mean, I think maybe the purpose of this is I had heard from some of the
commissioners that they were getting questions about who's going to operate these services in that area,
depending on the vote. So I think this just clarifies it. And from your perspective, as the plan says
this, we expect
other than the one caveat is we're going to keep our parks because we own them and things like that.
And I think a lot of this comes out of there's such a broad debate about this reorganization and I'm
glad that people in Richland Township and specifically in Ellesville are paying attention because there
is an increase in property taxes and that sort of was the focus
of the reorganization plan and oh, it's a average home, it's $12 a month. Okay, $6 a month, okay. But
the problem is the reorganization plan did not consider the local income tax and under the way the state
legislature in its infinite wisdom has designed it, property taxes will fund less of local government
and local income tax will fund more of
in the future. And when that happens. Counties. Um. As of now in the legislation because everything
changes with this legislature and not in a good way out, but. As things stand now under the standard
schema for using a local income tax. The
in the city. Um 1.7% Um and the town. Which includes what they call rural and urban Ellisville. It's
all part of the town. Could pay as much as 1.2 in lit, and that's in addition to what they would be
paying because they're still county residents paying that lit. Um
the fire district. Um. Structurally. Um so that part hasn't been and then they had a forum last week
and the forums seem to be really focused on this fire district thing. So, um, be. Fire territory. Sorry
because, um. If the reorganization doesn't happen, they're
and. And part of the. Cell for reorganizing is well, look how much more fire territory costs than if
we reorganize and we're one unit. The problem is that. As of we think 2029. There is a point to lit for
is divided up that money's collected and that's a local income tax and is divided up by population.
There's a whole bit in there about size of square miles plus population. There's a equation actually
in the legislation. So worrying about that is a short term worry. It's just important that people understand
all of this and I think that
that. Um. You know, it's too bad that that it's come down to. There's really no information. I for me
what worries me the most. Is that. The referendum is at the beginning of November. And.
and I hope they can do it because. I would scare me. Um because you have to have. Have to have police,
um. Employed and trained and ready to go. It's a lot to ask. It's a lot to ask.
there were some comments made at some of the town council meetings about, well, sheriff's department
will still be covering originally. I don't think, no, it's not gonna happen. So it's important to do
that. So I'm gonna go ahead, if you're okay with the language, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion
that we approve this letter to the town of Elstville and Richland Township.
be sent to them. What else am I missing? I just want to because I talked to some of the Sheriff's Department
people and I think the thought is that they will treat this new one the same way they treat Alex Hill.
So if there's a huge emergency or anything like that they're not going to turn their backs, they're
going to support the law enforcement. I wanted to make sure that was clear that this is not a
we're gonna take the ball and go home. This is a, you're taking this responsibility and we're still
gonna perform the same services we always have, right? And we have always, our sheriff's department
has always helped out in events when necessary and that's not gonna change. But the question is a primary
responsibility and the same thing with fire because there's mutual aid and fire as well. And that will
continue. There's nothing saying you're out of luck. Yeah, so I'm glad you said that, thank you.
Yeah. The Sheriff's Department feels very strongly about that. Yes, absolutely. And they do,
they do a lot, they're active in Ellsville. I mean, listen to Scanner, they're active in Ellsville.
They do a lot there. So, and we appreciate their willingness to work anywhere in the county. And I know
they work with BPD as well. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cockrell. Did you?
So I second. Sorry. Oh, no, you're fine. I just thought Jeff was like ready to explode. I was like,
I'm going to ask him for a motion. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any comment on this? You
can raise your hand on teams or come to the podium. Thanks. Seeing none, all those in favor of approving
this letter, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries to zero. Thank you for waiting.
Thank you. All right. Do we have anything else for work session? Are we good? Good All right. Great
A reminder that our regular meeting was recessed until Friday tomorrow, October 9th at 3 45