Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the January meeting of the Monroe County Plan Commission.
Jackie, to get us started, would you please call the roll? Sure. David Bush. Here. Margaret Clements.
I believe she was going to be attending virtually tech services. If you could promote Margaret Clements,
I'm going to call her again after she's been promoted to speak. Toronto and Wright-Randolph.
got Ferris here. Rudy Fields here. David Henry here. Thomas here. And I think Mr. Randolph was going
to join via teams as well, but I don't see him, but you might want to keep an eye out for him. TSC Joe
Van Deventer. Don't see.
And then I'm gonna come back to Margaret Clements. Margaret could be able to unmute. Okay, regardless,
we do have a quorum even without counting Margaret, we have six members in person in a quorum.
Thank you, Jackie. Could you please introduce the evidence for tonight? Sure.
I would like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance
as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County
Plan Commission Rules or Procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised
and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda. I think we have a motion to approve the evidence.
So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote
to approve.
Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush?
Yes. I'll try again for Margaret Cummins. Okay, we'll wait on that. Margaret, you may need to log off
and then rejoin if you aren't able to unmute yourself. Sorry about that. Introduction of evidence passes
six to zero.
Hey, do we have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? I moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded
to approve tonight's agenda as presented. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Rudy Fields? Yes. Dave Henry?
Yes. Jeff Moore? Yes. Billy Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion is approved. Scott Farris? Yes.
Most is approved six to zero. Okay we have no minutes to approve tonight so we'll jump straight into
administrative business and the first item is the CDO amendment prioritization list. Jackie are there
any updates on that this month? I just wanted to give an update on the sliding scale text amendment
that is actually going to be going this week for a final hearing by the commissioners so that was voted
by the Planning Commission administrative
majority to mark that as complete once it is completed on Thursday. So that's the only change to this
document. Thank you, Jackie.
We have no unfinished business tonight, so we'll move straight into new business. The first item is
SSS-25-4. This is the May road sliding scale subdivision primary plat with a sidewalk waiver request,
a street tree waiver request. And this is the preliminary hearing with the waiver of final hearing request
requested. So Drew, I will turn it over to you. Thank you.
All right, so this is a sliding scale subdivision petition at 4410 West May Roads in Van Buren Township
section 25. It is a 10.38 acre property and it is currently unplatted. Zoned agricultural residential
2.5 and it's in the Monroe County urbanizing area rural transition according to the comp plan. Uses
are residential and agricultural, the same for the nearby area as well as mineral extraction. And the
other surrounding zoning districts are agricultural residential,
residential one and mineral extraction. So the petitioner is proposing the sliding scale subdivision
to create two additional lots from an existing 10.38 acres. Proposed lot one will contain 5.71 acres
and include the existing single family residence and barn structure at 4410 West May Road. And proposed
lot two will contain 4.67 acres and represent a vacant lot.
Proposed Lot 1 will serve as the parent parcel remainder, which cannot be further subdivided for a period
of 25 years, according to the Accounting Development Ordinance regulations for a deciding scale subdivision.
Both lots maintain road frontage to West May Road. Proposed Lot 2 also exhibits road frontage to South
Leonard Springs Road. And both lots will derive access from West May Road. And a new address will be
assigned for Proposed Lot 2 as the standard process for subdivisions.
The sliding scale primary plat includes two waiver requests, one for sidewalks and one for street trees.
And I will say if the waivers are denied for both of those, that would result in 1,321 feet of sidewalk
being constructed along West May Road and South Leonard Springs Road in total. And then a total of 22
trees must be planted or preserved along West May Road and 11 trees must be planted or preserved along
South Leonard Springs Road.
Here we have the location map, Bamberne Township, South Rockport Road off to the west, excuse me,
to the east. Here's the site conditions map showing the two foot contours. We do have a rise area over
here. It looks like a closed contour, but due to that it's rising in the ground, it is not a sinkhole
or a karst feature. And we do have some mineral extraction here to the south, however, across from May Road.
and further down to the southeast of the property, hence all the contour lines down there. And there's
no real slope concerns on this property either. They are not located in the eco area or the Lake Lemon
overlay. There's also no floodplain, as you can see. Now on the screen is the urban service area boundary
in pink. And this is what dictates a lot of subdivisions requiring sidewalks and or street trees, among
other things as well.
so that you can see they are just located in the southwest corner of this area and therefore are required
to have sidewalks and street trees unless waved. So now on the screen I have chapter snippets from the
county development ordinance this one's from chapter 818-1a this is from the sidewalk waiver or sidewalk
chapter and I bolded item number 1b as the one that's being activated due to the
proposed subdivision being located within the urban area boundary. And then here for the street tree
waiver, the same thing, chapter 832-14C, indicating again that the proposed subdivision is within the
urban area boundary, hence the requirement for street trees. Now on the screen, I have the table of
the summary of details with respect to the subdivision itself, giving you dimensions and lot totals
for lots one and two,
as well as other details that are pertinent to the standard discussion. And then you will see we have
utilities accounted for Duke Energy and Van Buren Water. We have the two subdivision waivers identified.
We have existing structures on lot one. Lot two will be vacant. And again, the environmental condition
of note in lot one is there's a rather large drainage easement that has been requested by the Monroe
County Stormwater Program Manager, and that has been identified on the plat.
We also have right of way activity permits filed for both as well, as well as septic permit minimum
specifications documents accounted for. Now on the screen is the proposed subdivision. I have this version
of it zoomed in a little bit more so you can see more detail. You can see that 100 foot drainage easement
cutting through proposed lot one, which includes the existing residence and barn structure, as well
as existing driveway.
And then on the western side, we have proposed lot two. The septics are located on the plat. You'll
see here on the south eastern corner of proposed lot one, the petitioner has identified a tree preservation
area. This is not particularly a requirement when street trees are activated. It only really comes into
concern or question if the normal requirements for a street tree are not activated. And then the ordinance
says in lieu of
being required to have street trees, please include a tree preservation area of a certain size based
on your frontage somewhere else on the lot. So they went ahead and did that, although they are still
required to plant street trees. So that is just part of the discussion that they do have a street tree
preservation area identified, but just don't have those street trees identified or the existing ones
or proposed plantings.
All right, so now a few slides here of the property in question. This is West May Road, looking east.
And this is looking up the driveway to that existing barn. This is all proposed Lot 1. More pictures
there of the barn and the existing residence. And then this is a picture on Lot 1, looking south towards
West May Road. And then on the right is looking towards West May Road, looking southeast. More pictures
here. This is looking at proposed Lot 2.
This is towards the back area. The front or south section of the property for lot two is mostly wooded.
And then this is looking back at the lot one with the barn and the house. And then on the right is the
road view of West May Road as you're traveling west towards South Leonard Springs Road. Then here's
the corner of South Leonard Springs Road and West May Road. And then on the right is turning north on
South Leonard Springs Road.
So now on the screen, we have the findings of fact provided by the petitioner's representative, as well
as a few additional findings of fact per the petitioner from the plaque committee meeting that was held
earlier this month. So on the screen is just some of the rationale the petitioner's representative and
the petitioner have given to support a sidewalk waiver and a street tree waiver. Simply speaking towards
a sidewalk waiver,
West May Road having the mineral extraction to the south. They're stating it's not quite the right area
to have sidewalks. They've also noted that they do not see walkers or cyclists regularly using this
area. Dump trucks are using South Rockport Road and cannot use South Leonard Springs Road or West May
Road due to weight limits of the roads. And then for the street trees, site is approximately 70% wooded.
and maintain the natural character of the property. They are requesting the waiver from street tree
plantings. They've also touching on the tree preservation area that they've added on the property. And
the petitioner is also willing to preserve trees on the property in the tree preservation area as detailed
on the plot and would prefer not to plant new trees given that there are some existing trees along the
roadway as well. And I'm sure the petitioner or the petition representative could speak more to these
findings of fact,
and support for their own waivers. Okay, that brings us to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends
approval of the subdivision based on the finding that the proposed primary plat meets the county development
ordinance subject to the highway and storm water reports. Also recommending approval of the sidewalk
waiver request citing practical difficulties have been demonstrated and staff is recommending denial
of the street tree waiver request
I'm citing that preservation of existing trees can satisfy the requirements of Chapter 832-14C and be
shown on the primary plat. I will now take any questions. Any members of the Plaint Commission have
questions for Mr. Myers? For the record too, I noticed that Ms. Clements did join right at the beginning
of the presentation. Okay.
Seeing no questions, we can turn to the petitioner or petitioner's representative. Do you know if we
have anybody representing this petition? Oh, OK. The one person in the room. I'm not sure if I missed
that. Yes, I missed. There you are. If you could sign in and state your name, you'll have 15 minutes.
It won't take that long.
My name is Tracy Fox. I'm property owner. I've owned this piece of property for six or seven, maybe
eight years, I don't know, in that range. I grew up just next door on the other side of Leonard Springs.
So I've lived in this area my whole life for 60 years. So this property is probably going to stay in
the family. And kind of the purpose of this request in general is that I have two kids that haven't landed.
So just trying to develop a place for them that they want that they shall choose. Don't really know
what they're going to do yet when my son still in college and my daughter's not got a permanent residence
yet. So anyway, just trying to make available a spot. General comments I would have is the. The 10 acre
piece is unusual because it lays on the road. You know, it's not a strip that's perpendicular to road.
It lays with the road and has, you know, 1400 square feet
linear feed of road frontage, which is unusual in Monroe County. So I think it lends itself to be subdivided.
I wouldn't want it to be any smaller subdivision like to pursue anything further. So I think this is
really adequate for my needs for future. It lays pretty good years ago.
The quarry across the street, which is now dormant, has been for most of my life. The dirt pile that's
on lot, proposed lot two that he identified, that Drew identified in the middle of that property is
dirt from the quarry when it was excavated 75 years ago. And the fellow that lived in that house, it's
on the property, he worked for the quarry. So he understood kind of all of it.
kind of know the property and kind of want to keep it in the family and we know we played cards and
softball in the field. You know there when I was a kid, so it's not going anywhere as far as I can.
I'm concerned. The preservation of any particular trees. I'm I'm OK with that. I don't have any intention
of. Like clearcut in the place or anything I'd like for the lot to look a little better. You know it's
kind of overgrown and a lot of that dirt from the quarry is
red clay and piled up there so it doesn't grow, you know, the right species of trees, sycamores and,
you know, pulpwood, different kinds of trees. But there are some trees along the roadway, you know,
maples and stuff that are presentable that could be identified as to stay. And I'm okay with the,
you know, the tree preservation area. That's not, I don't have any intention of using that space for
you know, any further structures or anything. You know, it's really a unique property when you drive
by. I don't know if any of you are familiar with that area, but the house was a 1923 four-square. It
came out of the Sears and Robuck catalog. You can find it in the catalog for $2,000. You can buy the
whole thing. But anyway, it's just a unique property.
So I just appreciate the opportunity to come and kind of learn the process. You know, I'm a, I'm a local
builder, but I don't subdivide land very much. So, you know, Drew and Jackie have been helpful in trying
to help me learn the process and bumps in the road, trying to figure it out because we're missing things.
So it takes a little while, but anyway, just learning the process and just appreciate the opportunity
to, to share, you know, just the request and hopefully we can work it out and
move forward. So thanks. Thank you, Mr. Fox, for coming out and sharing your plan. Do any members of
the Plan Commission have questions for Mr. Fox? I do. And it's great. Thank you for coming in. And I
personally don't have any issue with the sidewalk waiver, because that would be cray cray. But I think
my question is for both you and Mr. Myers. And the question is,
Um, how do we meet? How much of the current tree canopy needs to be preserved in order to meet
the requirements? Um, so that I just don't know where you put more trees in the street side, because
you're also going to cut a driveway to May road. So, um, can you help with that? Is, is that section
that's identified enough? Is it, could we, um, you know, what is, what is that number? What is that
magic number?
Yeah, so we're not looking specifically at canopy cover per se. We're looking at actual number of trees.
I can't speak to how many trees would meet the diameter breast height requirement for a street tree
that would be worthy of preservation along West May Road. So I can't speak to how many, especially along
South Leonard Springs Road as well. As you will recall, I believe I said 22 trees along West May Road
and then 11 trees along South Leonard Springs Road. So I would hate for the
sidewalk waiver to be denied and say you must find trees to preserve. And there are then there not be
any trees or enough trees to preserve. And they would be forced to plant some. Like I said before, the
tree preservation area is not required per se for this particular subdivision because they are in the
urban service boundary. But it is delineated on the property and they could find some trees in there
that they could say these are being preserved or they can say we're planting trees in there as well.
Okay. And also on lot two, like toward the back of, you know, beyond the meadow area, which is, which
is a looks like where you're planning to build. There's a whole area of trees. I know that's not on
the street, but, um, if, you know, I, I just don't know how to, um, clearly explain so we can get a
commitment. You know, this is how many,
You need to preserve somewhere on the property. So we could get a recorded commitment, and then we could
do the street tree waiver. Looking at your primary plat, you can then identify those trees that you
plan to keep. And we could come up with a good balance. And I mean, I could leave that to staff to judge
that. So I don't know how to do that, because we don't have a number.
I think that Drew's calculation is spot on here. So we need 33 trees to technically meet the requirement.
So I think the choices before you are approve the street tree waiver with the condition that they do
the tree preservation area rectangle as shown on the plat, or you can deny the street tree waiver
and ask for those trees to be preserved or planted along the street frontage which we don't know how
many those are i guess a third option could be approved with the tree preservation area with the condition
that they preserve as many trees along the street frontage as possible that's the one okay thank you
are you okay with that if that's i um like i said i don't have any real plan to remove any trees along
the roadways the the
where the driveway has been approved for the new lot. There is not any trees in that particular spot,
but there are some large. I was missing the Drew. There have been some large maples along the road.
A couple of them haven't weathered the storm because we were like in the peripheral of that tornado
not too long ago, so they're not weathered the storm real well, but there are some decent trees through
there on and north on on Leonard Springs. There's some decent trees. There's a couple of cherry trees
and some some different things.
I'm okay with. Okay. With leaving the roadway basically alone. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gellin.
Yeah, Mr. Bush. Would it be possible to pull up a overhead showing that property? Cause I, I drove by
there and I thought there was quite a few trees in place. Um, I think his estimate of 70% would, it
is pretty close.
what I was thinking. In the rear of the proposed additional lot, that's all a bunch of cedars and evergreen
along that back. So on the north edge of that pasture field is, it would be a buffer for me because
there's that property that's right behind is a rental. So I would just soon keep that for
just some privacy, you know, so. So it looks to me like there's significant foliage on the property.
So if the petitioner would be amenable to either designating a
a series of trees or individual trees to come up with that 33, I would support this. Any other questions?
Yeah. Mr. Ferris. How do you codify that? You codify that or you modify the motion or the suggested
motion? I'm working on some language for you all as a suggestion.
that's a good question. Thank you, Mr Fox. We'll turn to public comment now, which Oh, sorry, Miss Clements.
I see your hand raised. Yes I'm sorry about this. I hear basically two ideas before us. And one of them
as far as tree preservation is
with the specific number 33 that the trees must be denoted on a deed. The second idea is to just leave
the street trees that are currently there alone. I just want to make sure that we're aware of those
two differences before we proceed, just because there are two different ideas that have been put forth.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clements.
Okay, we can turn now to public comment, which seems unlikely since there's nobody in the room. If there's
anybody online that wishes to speak either in favor or against this petition, please raise your virtual
hand. Okay, seeing no one, we can come back to the Plan Commission for further discussion and or a motion.
Jackie, are you planning to read your proposed language to us or are you going to type it up?
I can hand it to someone for reading it, but I do think that Margaret's point is one for the commission
to maybe consider as well. So with the plat that the petitioner has shown in exhibit three, he's showing
supposedly 37 trees. The requirement is 32 trees. So if we're asking them to preserve, they're showing 33.
In that requirement is 33 requirements. 33. Thank you. So if we're showing 37 as a tree preservation
area, and then we can say, please preserve as many trees along West May road and South Leonard Springs
as to the extent possible, you know, if they meet the qualifications of the ordinance, um, if for some reason,
They want to only preserve one or two along the street's edge. Is that adequate? Because at some point,
they're over the 33 required. Is there a number we're getting to? I think Margaret's point was just
helpful in that discussion. I'm perfectly happy to, and I know that it takes us over the number, and
that's why I was asking that question. I'm perfectly content that
if you're willing to make that commitment to preserve as many trees along the street front as possible.
And then we've got that area as well. It's going to be over the number, but I think it gives you that
leeway of. It's pretty. Easy to see that there's more than 33 trees along. There's there's 700 feet
of road frontage. There may be more 800 of around lot lot 2, so yeah, it's going to be easy to come
up with that number, so I don't have a problem with either.
with either of those scenarios or a combination. So it's whatever. If we get away from the numbers and
we say preserve as many on the street as possible and keep that preservation area, that would work for
you? That would be great. Fine with me. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your flexibility and your willingness
to negotiate. It may not. It may not be something that I build on in the next 10 years. You know what
I mean? So it's just forward thinking. Sure.
that's a great idea. Okay, thank you. I lost track. Okay, so the recommended language is approve the
street tree waiver with two conditions. One, show tree preservation area as on the final plat
as illustrated in Exhibit 3 of the packet, and 2, the petitioner's surveyor add trees to be preserved
along West May Road and South Leonard Springs to the extent possible if that meets the CDO requirements
under Section 832-14. Anybody like to turn that into a motion?
All righty. So with respect to. Triple S 25 for which is the May road sliding scale subdivision with
primary plan to create two lots. The motion is to approve the subdivision based on the finding that
the proposed proposed plant meets the county development ordinance subject to the highway engineer and
to the stormwater program manager report. That's one. Two.
approve the sidewalk waiver request, citing practical difficulties have been demonstrated. And lastly,
okay. Deny the state, the street tree waiver request, which talks about the preservation of existing
trees, which can satisfy the requirements of chapter eight 32 14 Charlie and can be shown on the primary
plat. And it would be technically be approved straight to your waiver.
with two conditions. What's that? Approve the Street Tree Waiver with two conditions. We're not denying
the Street Tree Waiver. We're approving the Street Tree Waiver. He's got it. Move the Street Tree Waiver.
That sounds better. With two conditions. As stated by the President of the Planning Commission. Do we
have a second?
I'll second. We're waiting. And we're also going to take a request or we're going to take it and waive
the the final hearing. Does your second second Mr. Bush. Okay. Sorry for the rush.
It's actually this whole process has been very interesting. You know, I've sat in a couple of committee
meetings and stuff just and just hearing the perspectives of the individuals, you know, and just where
you're coming from and where the rules read and just, you know, then thinking about those and how they
apply. It's been an interesting process for me because it affects me and many others. So it's
just interesting to see it on this side and not just
frustrated when I go in and see Jackie at the planning desk. Let me let me go ahead and call the roll
to get the decision final. Okay so there's been a motion and a second on SSS-25-4 which is the May road
sliding scale subdivision primary plat. There's been a motion to approve the sliding scale, approve
the sidewalk waiver, approve the street tree waiver with two conditions, and approve the waiver of final
hearing requested.
The two conditions for the street tree waiver hours follows show the tree preservation area on the final
plat as it illustrated in exhibit three of the packet and to petitioner survey to add trees to be preserved
along West May road and South Leonard Springs to the extent possible. If they meet the CDO requirements
under section eight 32 dash 14, a vote yes is a vote to approve.
subject to highway engineer reports and stormwater manager reports. Groody fields. Yes. David Henry.
Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Scott Ferris. Yes.
Motion is approved seven to zero.
Now you can celebrate, Mr. Fox. Thanks for your willingness to work with us. Thank you. Appreciate it.
And I'll just get with my surveyor and we'll identify trees and get back with planners. That's good.
All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
Item number two, REZ-25-7 on South Roger Street has been continued by the petitioner. So we will jump
to item number three on the agenda, which is ZOA-25-5. This is the county development ordinance amendment.
This is the preliminary hearing and waiver of final hearing has been requested. Okay, I'll go ahead
and take this one.
So I'm going to go through the edits that are proposed in the staff packet here on the screen. There's
a revision page on the front and this gives you a good summary of what we will be doing in terms of
edits. So there's some scrivener error fixes chapter 817
chapter 823 also in chapter 823 we'd like to add an exception to some of the accessory structures that
we're seeing as building permits from some of the eco provisions and then we're also requesting some
text amendments to chapter 841 in terms of
some house bills that have passed this is going to be helpful for reviewing building permits to require
pre-designs and then adding exemptions for wireless communication facilities some Scrivener's errors
and then also adding a definition to chapter 850 which relates to chapter 823 the eco chapter so i'll
go ahead and walk through these so some of these simply are
So I won't go over them too much just to match the actual table numbers in the signs chapter. And then
under chapter 823, we did have some edits to the, let's make sure that was in there, for existing lots
of record that matches our ordinance provision better than parcels of record. That's a Scrivener's error fix.
And then standards for approving an exception for single family residences to separate it from below,
which we are adding as a substantive text amendment. So I'll go ahead and go through this. Basically
what we're asking for is for existing lots of record that already contain a single family residence.
and that they would like to build an accessory structure or in addition to their residence, that they're
able to do so if they propose those construction requirements or those construction proposals on completely
flat ground and if they can follow the criteria below. If the total footprint of the proposed accessory
structure permitted under this exception shall not exceed 1,000 square feet and or in the case of an addition,
the total footprint of the addition to the home shall not exceed 1000 square feet and the lot must have
at least 0.25 acres of contiguous buildable area around the single-family residence and then we state
at the bottom in the event another development standard is not met such as setbacks or height restrictions
then this exception would not apply. In addition this exception does not apply to accessory dwelling units so
is the text amendment before you on the accessory dwelling or on the accessory structures in the eco
area and then under the definition section we are asking that the area of a building measured from the
exterior surface of the exterior walls including extended or cantilevered portions where a building
is elevated above grade level the building footprint is the area the building would cover if it were
located at the ground level so
If someone wants to do an addition of a thousand square feet footprint, but they want to do two stories,
we would be able to still count that under the exception because we're worried about land disturbance.
So they could actually have an addition of 1500 square feet total between the two floors. If you were
to make sure that the bottom ground disturbance is no more than 1000 square feet. So we've tried to
accommodate that.
then under section 841-1 we are asking to make it clear that before they apply for a ILP, an improvement
location permit, that they fill out a pre-design as a prerequisite. This is serving the public in that
we're helping to streamline the new process that took effect January 1st, 2026 which required
essentially required the planning departments of both city and county to separate their permitting
applications from the building department because of a state bill that requires certain timelines and
certain prerequisites for completed applications. So the predesign helps people understand what their
complete application is and so that we can make sure that people do it in the right order and help people
through this process.
then we also made an amendment to section 841-2 and we would like to see some language added which says
a site plan amendment shall not be required in the case of a wireless communication facility modification
within the approved fenced
lease area that includes the addition of structures such as generators as long as they are otherwise
exempt from the ilp permit requirements under this chapter so we are seeing wireless communication facilities
be approved their fenced leased in area does not show a future generator location or utility cabinet
And it's already on an impervious surface. They go to add that later and we're asking them for a site
plan amendment. And we feel that within that fenced gravel or concrete area, we've already vetted it
for impervious cover landscaping and other requirements. So we don't feel the need to do a full site
plan amendment involving multiple departments because it's already a facility that's been approved.
And then under.
variances 841-4 we do want to make sure we have consistent language with the state code so we're changing
standards for designs variance to development variance that matches the rest of the ordinance now and
then importantly under criteria 1c we want to make sure we add the word not for our variance
consideration criteria it was an omission Scrivener's error so we're adding that back in and that concludes
all of the text amendments. Before we turn to questions Mr. Enright Randolph is joined online so if
he could be promoted to be able to unmute and turn on his camera. Are there any questions for staff?
Mr. Randolph is your hand raised to get promoted or did you have a question or comment. I just lowered
my hand, sorry I was a little behind. Thank you though for bringing attention and I apologize for being
late. Okay, thank you Mr. Randolph. Any other questions? If not we can turn to public comment.
There's obviously nobody in the room. If there's anybody online who wishes to speak for or against these
changes, please raise your virtual hand. Seeing no one, we can come back for further discussion and
or motion. With respect to ZOA 25-5, which is a CDO amendment,
I recommend we afford a federal recommendation to the county commissioners for approval. And we also
waive the final hearing.
Okay. It's been moved and seconded to send a favorable recommendation to the commissioners for petition.
Zio a dash 25 dash five with a waiver of the final hearing. A vote. Yes. Is a vote to send the favorable
recommendation and approve the waiver. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes.
David Bush. Yes. Mark. Yes.
I'm going to recuse just because I wasn't here for the full discussion. If the motion fails, I could
ask a question and participate in the next round if needed. Scott Fares? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Okay.
That motion is approved by a vote of six to zero to one. Seven to zero to one.
Thank you, Jackie. The next item on the agenda is public comment for any items not on the agenda. So
if there's anyone online who wishes to speak, please raise your virtual hand. Seeing no one, we can
come back and ask for any planning or legal reports. No report from legal, other than I would note just
on the Huff case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the BZA's decision on that.
Thank you, Mr. Schilling. Any planning reports? I would just have two things. One, I want to correct
my statement at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting about the CDO prioritization. The science
scale amendment is actually not going this Thursday. It's going next Thursday the 29th. I apologize.
I'll have that corrected. And then just a statement that we did attend the
hearing this morning at the State House for House Bill 1001 and hopefully they take into account some
of our comments that we have to help the bill become more clear. Thank you to the staff that attended
that on a cold winter morning this morning. If there's nothing else do we have a motion for adjournment?
So moved. Okay have a good evening.