- I'd like to call this meeting to order, and if you could kind of call the roll. Sure.
- Scott Paris. Yeah. David Henry.
- Well, you're joining us on line. Edward Omen there. Three fields here. Bush here. Julie Thomas here.
- Our comments here. Okay. So David Henry has joined. Oh, here. Thank you. All right. So we have
- eight members in attendance in a quarter. Okay. This meeting today is solely administrative
- business,
- so we don't have to introduce any evidence in Mr. Brantford. And I think the first item on the
- agenda is the CEO prioritization list. Yes. So this list, we're just moving on on this. Some
- amendments. I'll provide a little bit of updates on this. So item number one is the actually first
- item that we have under our discussion topics for administrative portion. Item number two,
- we have a text amendment pending that's going to the county commissioners on Thursday.
- We've removed item three items. Let's see, the next item that we've done is item number
- seven is also part of a text amendment that's going on Thursday. Item number eight is tangentially
- related to the items that you'll hear tonight as well as item number nine. And then items 13
- and 14 have been completed. So we are making good progress. Just want to keep everyone updated and
- we'll continue to review this at the ordinance review committee and make sure that we're
- hitting the next items appropriately and combining them or separating them as needed.
- Okay, that sounds great. So then tonight, to follow this prioritization list,
- we have the unfinished business of, or we have the discussion item on ZOA-23-3 and that's the
- amendment to the county development ordinance concerning items one and nine from the CEO
- prioritization list. Do you want to review those with us? And before we get started on that,
- I might just share one thing. Yes, there was a discussion at one of the ordinance review
- committees that before this item come to the ordinance review committee next or the plan
- commission that we look at a housing inventory. So we have substantially drafted a housing
- inventory
- option. It was, we presented it to the ordinance review committee, but I'd like to present it here
- tonight just to get some feedback. So what we've done so far is we created a survey that then feeds
- into a map. On the legend here, do you have an orange? It says it's a screen that we have.
- What else was seeing? Sorry. Oh, that's okay. So on the screen here, we have orange dots being that
- they received a site plan development or secondary flat approval. The green dots mean that they
- actually are at the stage of building permits. And then the purple dots are just preliminary
- approvals such as rezones or primary plan approvals. Now we've put together with the help of our
- surveyors office a dashboard just to give you a preview. So we did, we took like 12 different
- items that were very varied in size and location just to first get some data in here to see how
- it would work. So for instance, when you pull this up, it will give you the address, it will say
- how
- many lots are platted. So this one is three lots, minimum lot size, two and a half acres, number of
- buildings. So it gives you some related case file numbers and your approved 2023. So this model is
- a little bit, this is probably the best we can do, but it is challenging when you're dealing with
- rural small subdivisions all the way to like really dense multifamily housing. So we tried to
- create
- some lateral comparisons such as units per acre. So for instance, Westgate has 9.8 units per acre.
- So it's much denser than say a minor subdivision which has 0.4 units per acre. So I will share this
- with the plan commission. I meant to put it on the agenda. It went to ordinance review committee
- and
- it split my mind for this packet, but I will make this available. And then what we're hoping to get
- is some feedback before we put in any further data just to make sure we're on the right track.
- I look forward to seeing that. Where will that be available? Will you send it to us by email?
- I can send it to you by email. I don't necessarily want to publish it yet because it's not full
- information, but it is a good start. It's public information. So how about I send it by email for
- now? That sounds good. And then once we get a more solid version, I'll put it on the CDO website.
- That sounds great. So this provides us that meeting. So this gives information about what's
- in the operator and what's coming. So then we still don't have the other side of this, which is
- existing units. So in order to understand where things are at in the process, it could be the
- same project that gets updated from an orange dot or a purple dot to a green dot. But I think that
- we have all of the data for building permits that we could upload as just another layer.
- I'll just say here's all the building permits if we wanted that information. Now, I wasn't sure if
- we... I think the scope was five years, city, county, Ellitsville, and there was more of a
- thought process that we would look at, approve subdivisions, approve re-zones, like kind of more
- in the purple or orange dot category. But at this juncture, because it's now 2025, some of those
- data have moved to orange. Right, yeah. So it'd be good to figure out a way to automatically
- update that if that was possible, I don't know. And for me, the map is nice, but a spreadsheet,
- if it has the information, is very useful because this takes a lot of work and a lot of updating,
- a lot of under the hood type of stuff, whereas if it's a spreadsheet with a number of units,
- et cetera, and we get it from the city, we get city information as well on apartments. Yes, Kathy?
- I mean, the survey, I don't know if you have access to it, but you can pull this data straight out
- or
- opened up, I believe, was what Jackie was saying. And it should be able to be made into a
- spreadsheet.
- But the city, there's Alexville, there's a hand entered survey. How much of their staff
- is really going to participate in that is... Right. Right. I don't understand this whole area,
- so we can figure that out. Sorry, Scott. So I used to run two analysis divisions.
- And so my point here is that the report generation portion of this feature, which you may or may
- not
- have at this point, we should be able to find the type of reports that we're interested in seeing
- and then being able to open and put that into a spreadsheet or notebook or something like that.
- So we can visually see that in front of us. Yeah. So if you might fill that question just with my
- experience of Perot, this filled out that Esri. Like right now she's showing what is called the
- table attributes. That's pretty similar to an Excel. This data can be then put onto our Perot and
- it
- could be exported in a multitude of different ways of reporting. It could be very customized.
- It can even have maps with the geographies that the points are part of the report. There's a lot
- of dynamic capabilities to this. Sorry, Jackie, I was just in, you know, if that's the direction,
- there's a team and the surveyors often the GIS division that can help assist planning,
- but they already have a pretty good group of experts in there too. So the bells and whistles
- are nice, but they distract from just the raw number of units, you know, and I feel that the
- report and the map, we need to fully vet privacy issues and things like that. You know, I think
- that a spreadsheet and a list for an inventory is what I'm looking for. You know, I need a list.
- I want the big picture. I want 19 lines of data. I want to be able to throw it back up.
- I don't know what I don't know at this point, but I need to be able to take and condense it
- and make it clear and succinct. You want a summary. The garbage looking for detail,
- you're looking for a summary of how many housing units are still. And you can do a trend analysis
- and those sort of things. Yeah, that's all right. They're both valuable pieces of information.
- We can tally those by year. You know, if the data is in a spreadsheet and a list,
- we can tally those and just doing a sum. But as long as the unit is defined and standardized.
- Right. But that's the data that's in the map can be moved into a spreadsheet.
- I think the reverse is also true. The spreadsheet has to be correct. The map is a bell and a
- whistle.
- You know, I just feel that the spreadsheet has to be correct and we should be focusing on the
- spreadsheet. How many units do we have in a certain development at a certain address rather than?
- I think they're mutually exclusive. I think the map shows the spreadsheet and the spreadsheet
- is the data being displayed. They're not really separated unless we're using a different type of
- format with Esri products. If it has a spatial location, if you have dates and things like that,
- you could do a spatial report from this year to that year. If you wanted to exclude everything
- from the city, you could do just the county. You could even exclude things from Ellisville if we're
- even tracking. I'm just saying you could do spatial reports. They're mutually exclusive and here
- the
- report is the spreadsheet or the map is the spreadsheet. That's the right word, mutually
- exclusive. I think they're interlinked and interdependent, not exclusive.
- We have a public notice map where we show on the map where all the petitions are coming up,
- so tying it geographically is always helpful for the public. I think there's a use for both.
- If we do the spreadsheet, the nice thing about this is that this is just a template.
- I will just do the spreadsheet and it just populates the map. I don't have to do anything else,
- but I do want to make sure that the columns of data we're filling out is what you're looking
- for because that's wrong. If that's wrong, then the map is wrong. Where's all the data being pulled
- from? A variety of sources. Is it being housed in a database in ESRI or is it
- coming from a variety of different places? Because if you had it in one central repository, then
- you
- can make your reports. The data is stored on the server in our SBE and then they're pulled from
- different databases. Some of it, if we have parcel data, could be a combination of our
- LAL software in the auditor's office or our KMN in our assessor's office. Also, planning has
- data sets that's stored in our SBE. If anything's stored on ESRI, that would be like a live atlas,
- which might be kind of the background map, some road layers, but everything as I know is
- stored internal or on ATO, which is maintained by us. That's kind of a cloud, but still a separate
- way for us to upload data, publish data, and it's stored on the ATO environment. We have a portal,
- so with the portal, it's stored on our servers, hosted on an online environment that creates
- services that can be fed into these various different maps. It's a consortium of data.
- Yeah, so I think that what he's asking is a lot of the data comes from the building department.
- Yeah, and it also comes from our black commission packets and commissioner packets, because things
- are in various states of completion, and so we have what was approved, whether or not there have
- been
- amendments, etc. So, you know, it comes from a variety of channels. I think you're also getting
- at the point of how do we make this more sustainable? Maybe, well, in the long run,
- how do we add those questions built in in the beginning? And that's why I go back to,
- it's really challenging to compare rural-type subdivisions in the same spreadsheet as a
- multifamily development, because those questions, how many beds are in a rural forelot? So,
- it just doesn't make sense, but in a more urban environment, it does. So, we wouldn't be asking
- those questions if that's a project that comes right in the tube. This is for you, Tron, because
- if you have to educate me. We have a multitude of databases, okay, and there are a multitude of
- portals, just one port access database. It pulls that data and relates. There's multiple databases,
- which then there are scripts that pull that data, that house it, then we publish it up. But what
- planning is doing right now may not be that in-depth dynamic, like Jackie said, she's building out
- templates. So, I can directly answer your question, but that might not be directly related to what
- Jackie's showing us. So, we pull those data and then we publish them and post them. But if you're
- talking about like a beacon site, they got a connection where they just actually run a script
- nightly and pull that nightly. So, that's not hosted on our board. So, I think that makes sense.
- I'm concerned about one basic premise because when I did the housing inventory, the unit of measure
- was diverse. Like the city measured things by bedroom and we measured things by house.
- And we don't rent, so I'm going to call every apartment complex and get from them how many
- apartments do you have because the city is renting them by the bedroom. For comparability,
- if we have the bedroom data, fine. But I want the unit data because those properties were approved
- as multifamily units. And the number of bedrooms concerns us less than how many multifamily units
- they have in Echo Heart or how many multifamily units they have in Evolve, so that we have
- comparability. So, luckily for the PUDs that we have that I added in here, we had both unit count
- and bedroom count, but I definitely agree over time it's going to be more and more challenging
- for us to look at by bedrooms. Yes, just not something that we typically... Oh my gosh.
- So, this is county data. So, like I have the Westgate project, for instance. This is based on
- their latest amendment where they switched the first floor commercial. So, 371 units, 511 beds.
- But I think it is fine. I think the problem is getting into bedroom counts is difficult because
- while it is a record at the assessor's office, that is not always accurate anyway. Exactly. So,
- but I do think the one thing I thought of as you were talking is I think it will also be important
- to count add-ins and add-ins as well. And I don't know that that's part of, that's just so recent,
- but in terms of usage. But I think it will be important to add that as a living space because
- you wouldn't build it unless you were renting or using it. They can do it by right. They can do it
- by right. So we'd only be getting to building permits. Yeah, but the building permits would
- be there, right? Like the permit numbers. Yeah. We could put in building permit numbers. It's just
- going to start to look really busy. Oh, yeah. I guess I'm thinking in terms of, I would really
- like to know how many have been built. Yeah. Sure. Okay. You know, I mean, those are housing units.
- I would love to know if 10 have been built or a hundred or a thousand. But somewhere in between.
- Yeah. I think it's between a hundred and a thousand. But I mean, there are things like that that
- increased affordability of housing, increased housing options. And I don't think we should
- forget. Okay. So as far as that's concerned, that doesn't have to be the standardized unit
- of comparison is really important to me. And so add-us and add-us should be separate too.
- And those should be defined so that they can be comparable within this, between the city and the
- county and between within the county and within the city. So a detached accessory dwelling unit,
- a detached dwelling unit. I just, I mean, isn't that like a whole expansion? An accessory dwelling
- unit is attached, detached and separate. But isn't that just an enlargement of a home?
- I mean, not necessarily. It's a separate. Yeah, separate. It's entirely separate. And so then
- that turns a single family home into a dual family home and a multi-family home. So then the unit
- of
- measurement on that block becomes a multi-family home. Okay, I think I'll give you all the
- spreadsheet
- because it also has the list of options. So I'll send you the survey and the list of options too.
- What do you call it? Housing inventory. Thank you very much. Because I know it shouldn't be too
- hard for you to extrapolate the data. But would it be possible to add, and maybe I missed it as
- you scroll through the columns, but add a column on what the zone is for that line item. And then
- perhaps if it had to go through a rezone to get to that, what the previous zone. And if I'm not
- being
- too much, if it would be possible on just maybe on a percentage, what's the most dominant
- neighboring
- zone? So prior zone is going to be a little bit of a challenge just in the CDL map. So do you want
- all the prior zoning from the-- or do you want petitions from the public? You can ditch prior
- zone immediately if it's too much of a challenge. I just would like to know if it went through a
- rezone in the process of being subdivided. And then I'm just curious about neighboring zoning.
- So rezone required, current zoning, and then do you have anything else about prior zoning? Because
- prior zone is going to get a little challenging. We can ditch the prior zone, yeah. Unless you
- have that data easily attainable, don't worry about it. But I just would also be really interested
- in
- like neighboring zoning. It doesn't need to be depicted on the map, but I mean. That's another
- way to do it, because you can add the layer of the zoning. But still, I'm curious if you have a
- column in my spreadsheet and you're going to have maybe five different zones that are surrounding
- that thing. Well, that's why I was just saying. I was just requesting the majority. That's more
- individual. I think better things. So you're doing that. I'm one that I've by all my layers
- always that way too many columns because I'll be able to just extrapolate a spreadsheet and go
- from there. Yeah. So, but it's, I don't know. I just think it would be valuable for my
- understanding
- of, at least for me personally, what's neighboring, what's adjacent, and how if it had to go
- through
- a reason to get to that. Okay. Does anybody else have any constructive comments for
- Jackie and Amy on this? I don't know if mine were constructive. I just feel like I didn't work.
- Yes. To say that to Edward's point, I think a zoning map would be good. I think maybe thinking
- moving forward, putting in some type of versioning with the zoning layer will track as things are
- changed what they were previously. So as we move forward, that data could be there, and then
- incorporating kind of the zoning map. There might be a way to kind of highlight like which one
- adjacent to us as a majority zone, but I don't know if there's a tool or something.
- With the timeline, you know, if they put in the year for the zone, you can have a slider bar,
- but that's a lot of information they've got to load in, and I think it gets in the way.
- I mean that could be added on later, but as far as having an inventory, that's priority number one.
- Yep, and that's what I'm getting at. Some of this is automated, so it'd be a less of a manual lift
- for painting if they wanted to move in that direction. Yeah, the zoning, you know, if it's
- associated with year, eventually five years down the road, a slider bar could be installed and you'd
- see the zoning change over time. Is this all doable? Yeah, that's doable. These changes are doable.
- I think I haven't dug into the city data, so I appreciate what Margaret's comment about
- standardizing the data. I don't know how else the data will be, honestly. Keeping it up will be
- challenging, just even in the time period that we started this to now. I don't see one moving the
- building permit, and it's, you know, the color coding is helpful in a way, but like Westgate's
- a good example where about half of the project is underway, so half of the project is underway,
- so I'm kind of getting a sense that some people have different interests in the data,
- so it sounds like some of housing units work, and maybe also geographic location of that
- information, and then just like the process to get there, the timeline to get there.
- Is there any, I'm just trying to make your life easier, not harder, but is there any way
- data can just be moved into that data set without you having to, or maybe just-
- For the county. - Yeah, for the county, we could.
- Okay, so it could be the building permits still get bought, but that would still not be up.
- But then we are missing a piece still, especially with the city,
- in terms of vacancies in apartments. - That's gonna be really-
- That one, I don't even know how we're gonna, how that gets done, and that's not your worry,
- it's like something that, I just keep hearing that that grade is like 60%, 50% in a lot of
- the new apartments. How long do they do it? - Well, they overfill.
- Yeah, I don't know how, I don't know if anybody does that, but anyway.
- Tammy had a question or comment, you have your- - It was very much tied
- to the Ellensville and City of Wilmington, and how do we get them to fill out those surveys?
- I don't think we asked them to fill out the surveys because the hand information was
- inaccurate and also distorted in terms of the metrics they were collecting, so I provided
- some backbone that you can go validate and verify with the building department. They're the ones
- who
- know, and they're the ones with the standardized unit. And sometimes in the file, it's just the
- back of an envelope, the number of units that they're talking about. And then where there was
- discrepancy, I reconciled it by calling the owner of the apartment building and asked about their
- units. What about what's on the first floor? Is that commercial space being changed and converted
- into bedrooms? How many units do you have? And vacancies are proprietary information, so
- focus less on vacancy. And I would like to see the inventory rather than the bells and whistles.
- The
- bells and whistles can all be uploaded into a map with Esri. So the data needs to be clean.
- And that's what I want to see first, because I look at that map and it's like, okay, that's
- the end product. I want to see a list of what exists where, what category, yes, and how many
- units are there. And there's going to be that gap, right? Like, we know buildings are going to be
- there, but with that,
- we don't know how it feels. That's another issue. But so we have that, and then we have the City
- Plan Commission, Ashley, and there is a gap that's always going to be there, right? So I think we
- go
- with the building permits, not the City Plan Commission. Okay. Because I think that's too
- hard to track. Except that, except that if you have these zombie huge developments, because the
- Plan
- Commission has approved it and nobody has applied for a permit, then you've got a mismanaged and
- misplans. I see what you're saying. So you've got to go with the Plan Commission documents. Yeah.
- Some of them go to council, so you would have... Well, but not all of them. But not all of them.
- So I went to the commissioners because that's the final authority. If it got approved and it's
- approved at 371 or 92 units, that's what you use until it's changed. And if there's a variance,
- then you change it to, you know, 373 units or 186 units from 97. But you have to do that. That's
- what I mean about the data. It has to be high quality. The picture is way less important. Yeah.
- Why is the vacancy proprietary? The owners are required to give it. So unless this county
- made a requirement that they had to divulge and report once a year on their vacancy rate,
- they're not obliged to. It's proprietary. And it's marketing research, which is proprietary.
- There's something about reading the research about that information.
- I think that will be rather difficult. Right. So because it's not the same,
- all your districts. Yes. And just my thing is we're kind of moving in a direction that
- we've never really seen kind of this type of goal of a housing inventory related to
- multiple jurisdictions, how they're developing. And I think what Jackie put together is a great
- start. I think we all really have to move with a very slow pace. And as she presents things,
- I feel like they'll continue to be refined and eventually we'll get a good product.
- So once we do that, the planning can keep up. And then 10 years down the road, the problem will be
- when like, oh, how are we able to conduct business without this information, without this tool?
- So my expectations are set to kind of look at this as a prototype as we move forward or find it and
- try to improve the data. There's a lot of different ways to filter the data to find like anomalies,
- inaccuracies, errors, whatever. But I don't expect the turnaround like anytime soon with a full
- encompassing of what's going on in the county. But if you think about how we can track that in
- 10 years from now, we are catching all that data, I think would be magnificent. And that's kind of
- where I think small thoughts are around this matter. And I think that sets up a better
- trajectory and expectations for what type of housing stock inventory that you end up coming
- with. Because everything we're talking about, and I know how messy the data is, I truly do,
- it's going to take a long time. But I think you're moving in a great direction,
- even willing to tackle this. I just really wanted to say that.
- I would like to just say I'm less interested in a product and more interested in the planning
- document inventory so that we know when somebody comes in and claims that there's a housing
- shortage,
- we can say exactly where is the housing shortage there? Do you realize that there are these
- PUDs that have been approved? Have you spoken with that builder? If you're interested for that
- developer, if you're interested to build, there is a PUD that's approved that you can take
- advantage
- of. That way we're good stewards of the land and of our resources. So you actually would not want
- to see building permit data so much because that would mean I want that it would be counted both.
- Okay. And I did vote. So there's a PUD head start. There's a PUD head start and the city data
- is there. And I think it is a matter of urgency. And the product is not so important as the list.
- Okay. If I may, I've listened to a lot of this. I know I'm remote today. So I mean, I see these as
- stepwise in a project plan and not -- there's a lot of -- I'm hearing a lot of convolution of
- things.
- And so I want to maybe step back to say, to just reiterate what I heard from the surveyor and
- others
- that have worked with ESRI solutions that an ESRI tool consumes CSV files and creates visualizations.
- So, like, I think -- I don't know if we're talking past each other about product versus data,
- but the tool consumes Excel files to generate the visualization. So you get one -- and you get both
- for the price of one and the development of a good clean data set. I heard the surveyor make a
- comment
- about how the data is a little dirty because obviously recorder data versus assessor data
- versus R data versus building permit data calls things different by different names and who owns
- what. And so I think getting just a standard column or, like, just the requirement of what we
- call things, once that's calibrated, it doesn't matter what you display in the map. It will
- display the columns that you're creating in that space. I hope that makes sense to folks in the
- room, but I think we're fighting the technology jargon without maybe an ESRI brief on how the
- tool works. Other than that, I mean, I agree with the surveyor's comment that we are delving into
- some kind of philosophical or kind of positional statements versus just getting the data. So for
- my seat, I'd just like to see the data, and then we can start making discussions about what that
- data does or supports or doesn't support in terms of policy. But that's my two cents on this today,
- other than to say I think this is a really good start, and anytime we can visualize data for easy
- consumption and dashboarding is useful to the public. Thanks. >> Okay. Anybody else with any
- comments or -- okay, we're moving on to -- for discussion, ZOA-25-3 for an amendment
- to the county development ordinance. >> So this is an IM4 discussion. We do not have this going
- to the planned commission this month for the regular meeting. This is -- I think the trajectory
- of this would be to go back to the ordinance review committee and get a little bit more detail
- into what the ordinance would contain. But we had a productive ordinance review committee meeting.
- We met on May 12th. Mr. Enright-Rando and Mr. Farris were both present for that meeting,
- and we discussed the sliding scale 25-year reservation. So it provided a little bit of
- information, a little bit of the conversation that happened, and also kind of what came of that. So
- there were some discussions related to sliding scale about packaging plan versus septic versus
- sewer.
- Also, if we were to create more lots versus, you know, the lots, the number of lots we create now,
- would that require more public improvements? So we tried to hash that out into just a beginner
- red line version of the sliding scale subdivision. So at any point, if you have questions or if you
- want to talk through any of this, I would be happy to do so. So I'm going to start with the text
- amendment first, and then I will go back to some of the red line information. So this is specific
- to
- the sliding scale subdivision. What we discussed at the ordinance review committee was creating
- more than four lots in a rural area. So right now we have between 9.10 acres to about 40 acres,
- we can create four lots. We do not have any other option other than a major subdivision of the
- county
- on subject that creates 10 acre lots. There's not an option in the county that exists for people
- that
- have large tracts of land to create smaller lots, such as two and a half acre lot sizes. So we have
- in here a red text amendment regarding what the changes could be. We thought it might be helpful
- as staff to review these as a minor sliding scale, which would be kind of in keeping with the
- original
- text today. And then a major sliding scale, because after you get to five lots, you do have other
- related requirements in the ordinance. So we don't have different criteria for those. We will then
- have to amend other parts of the ordinance, so we can talk through any number of those. So related
- to this, there was also a discussion about striking the 25-year reservation altogether. This was a
- tabled option or a tabled item from the CDO hearings. We all discussed it. We looked at
- the meeting minutes of when sliding scale was created, and it was discussed at the CDO work
- sessions that we will table this and talk about it after the CDO has passed. The CDO has passed,
- and now we're trying to come up with either a different number of years or what we would
- like to do with this. And the Ordinance Review Committee wanted to start the discussion off with,
- what if we just removed it? So that is one of the discussion points that I want to talk about today.
- I also added in here the table that we review different subdivisions by. So I do think that
- if we are considering creating five or more, five to 10 months under the sliding scale option,
- that we need to start thinking about what public improvements would be required different than
- just creating four lots. One of the things that we have in the ordinance currently is regarding the
- number of people that can access off of one driveway or one easement. It does require it
- to come up to public standards. So public county law standards. So that would be something that's
- tied in between different ordinances, different versions of the code. The highways code as well
- has some requirements. So this is something that's quite important. The distinction of five lots
- does
- kick it into the question what other standards require. So I could go into some of these standards
- right now. The one that I want to mention specifically is in regard to the packaging plant.
- So if we were to add package sewage treatment plant as a text amendment here, you know the state
- code I think would recognize right now that packaging plants likely are under a sanitary
- sewer system because it's not a private sanitary sewer system. But if we were to add this to make
- it very clear to the public and then a definition for packaging plants, that's something that we
- could do under here. But you are opening up this type of subdivision to any large lot that has over
- you know 100 acres let's say to creating 10 lots anywhere in the county. So that's you know it does
- take a different approach for you know trips per day that you're considering. So a lot we think
- about road width and those considerations and if every person along that way is doing it that could
- add up to quite a bit of people. It takes into consideration fire, police services, schools.
- So it's just a bit more to think about especially in the rural areas. So it's something that we
- want
- to discuss with you. So I think that's it for most of my introduction into this item and I'm
- happy to go through some of the red and black text to go over what the ORC discussed but I want to
- ask.
- Okay I just wanted to because there was only two people at the ORC.
- Mr. Ferris wanted to move this along and I was supportive doing that. At first I was like okay
- maybe we should wait until we have a larger board, the four of us to really discuss that.
- And what I'm really trying to do is just kind of let everyone get a sense of where I was. Like
- if you go to page nine I think you know I was kind of thinking in context how can we
- create some more relief based off of page nine on the actual thing. Relief from putting things
- into a moratorium or allowing maybe two more lots and I was like well maybe the size. And then as
- I'm talking about that I'm like kind of walking it back at the same time because it's like we don't
- want to build too much without having the right infrastructure. So like at some stages it's like
- almost chasing your own tail to get it right. So and then talked about the packaging plant and
- it's like you know I'm not too fond of the idea of allowing a lot of HOAs managing a packaging
- plant
- either. And then one other thing that kind of resonated with me real well was like the
- cluster subdivisions like that could actually preserve these larger lots which is some of our
- intent is like you know we want to preserve these larger lots but we only allow them to divide them
- in 10 acre slivers. That's not preserving a larger lot that's creating a lot of
- large lots my opinion but if we look at cluster subdivisions then you know like 20 of those acres
- could create those lots but now we're preserving 80 acres. So you know but just I don't know if
- that really makes too much sense. Like I said at one point I was kind of backtracking some of my
- comments and kind of felt like I was chasing my own tail but that's kind of where my thoughts were
- along the discussion and since we're here talking with everyone I was really hoping to hear
- everyone
- else's and this is pretty much all I really wanted to say before I just listened. Yeah
- I'm kind of mixed apples and oranges here and I don't advise doing that. The historical
- This is after John Rodin passed away a couple weeks ago. So I remember working with Richard Martin,
- John Rodin on this sliding scale and it has a history that you have to understand before you
- even start saying oh it's too much it's this way. So I'll be brief first and foremost I don't think
- people have an issue with sliding scale because they use it. The reason it came up over and over
- again in the ordinance CDO public listening sessions was because people didn't understand
- it. There was misinformation probably purposefully issued about what they are and people thought
- every
- development every subdivision has a 2500 moratorium on it which is not true. And I think
- if we break that record and make sure people know that we can go back and say now really what do
- you
- want to change about because that's what I kept hearing when I dig in and talk to people after
- their public comments they'd say yeah but I just want to you know split my one it's like well you
- don't need to do a sliding scale that's subdivision you can do that. So people absolutely
- misunderstood what it is and how it's used. The goal is to prevent sprawl. You don't do that by
- creating a whole bunch of half acre lots and cram you know 50 houses onto 100 acres and say well
- look we've just done a sliding scale. That's not the goal. The goal was for people who said to us
- years ago years and years ago I'm a farmer. I own this lot. I don't want to sell off my entire
- property. I want two lots for my kids and a third lot I want to sell so I can go on a trip
- this requirement. That's what we heard and that's what we responded to. This has all been lost
- in translation since that time and it wasn't all that long ago because I'm old but I'm not though.
- So I want to start with that. Plaster subdivisions are different. We're not talking about them.
- Different. So I think the first thing we have to do is make sure people understand what a sliding
- scale is and what it's used for. Why we went to that. Why it was selected as a method of
- a different type of development for people who have 100 acres 40 acres and they don't want to
- sell everything off. They want to preserve most of it and you know put their kids there or whatever
- it might be. That was the whole reason for sliding scale. You don't have to use it. You don't have
- to use it.
- That misinformation went out and it's been embedded. I don't want to break that myth.
- Now I don't want to do that. I don't know. I'm going to get a billboard.
- The city that are studying sewer and how a lot of these are conditioned to sewer. So if you
- kind of bake that into that. My talking points aren't so abstract. Like we don't want to talk
- about cluster subdivisions and then talk about sliding scale. They're different things. No I said
- that resonated with me. That was one thing that resonated with me. The reason the reason sewer does
- is because these are out in the county. We don't have a lot of 80 140 acre lots right next to the
- city where sewer is accessible. If we did then the city should be providing sewer service.
- Yes you could do a package plant with three homes. It's very expensive to do with three homes.
- I'm not sure that that's an option. I don't have any issue with package plants. I don't. They don't
- work everywhere. We found that out. I thought you could do one anywhere. Apparently you can't.
- We learned that this last couple years. So anyway I'm not taking. I think these are three separate
- discussions. Package plants, cluster subdivisions, sliding scale. And I don't. They overlap in the
- Venn diagram of life. They overlap but I don't want to have those. If you want to have all
- package plants whether they're viable. Let's have that discussion separately. Then let's have
- that discussion about sliding scale. And where those two overlap. Yes we'll talk about that. But
- I don't. By throwing all this stuff at it. It's made it very confusing and it's not. Yes. I'll
- leave it at that. Colonel Harris. Wow. Sorry. I'm just kind of. I agree with what you just said
- with respect to sliding scale. So what is the premise for sliding scale? Why do we have that?
- That's a classification. So the sliding scale allows people to create a two and a half acre
- lot size and a larger majority of the lot has parent parcel. The other subdivision type which
- is common in the rural areas is a minor subdivision which has a minimum. Each lot has to be 10
- acres.
- So where is the confusion that people don't understand because they're using this long
- classification? Well, I think one of the confusion points is in the table 4831, right? So if and
- just
- correct me if I'm wrong because I'll play dumb here to get the argument where it needs to be then.
- If I'm looking at something that says I've got 9.99 acres or less and I also know that I've got a 2.5
- acre minimum in the county, I mean wouldn't someone look at that reasonably and say well gosh is
- that
- four can I divide by into four parcels or or can I do one 55 percent and then two on that, right?
- Because I mean I could look at that and say why can't that be four 2.5 acre units on the sliding
- scale and yet the column is saying no it's only one. It wouldn't be sliding scale that would be a
- subdivision. Okay so that so you so you just see like I'm just playing devil's advocate here and
- how someone could walk in and say I'm just doing math you know is it four so if we're saying that
- subdivision then that should that's where clarity point needs to be right because that's confusing
- and maybe it's not confusing to people who've been out a while but I think someone looking at
- just that grid for five minutes can get confused by that. What I'm trying to do David is to where
- is the confusion? Yeah well there's a confusion point so if we can take and figure out where the
- confusion is then let's focus on addressing addressing the confusion. Okay so where's the
- confusion? We get it from a few different angles so some people don't know if they're able to do
- anything with the parent parcel they think it's different they think of it as like is it a
- conservation lot do I get to build a house on it what am I limited to doing on this lot so there's
- some confusion that we get from people from that and then also when people do subdivide and create
- a parent parcel that 25 year I think the confusion is that we don't want to wait 25 years we want
- to
- hurry up and re-subdivide it again and so our goal I think you know in this CDO is that we close
- the
- loop to say you can't partially vacate keep doing this keep doing this keep doing this because
- people
- would do a minor subdivision create a 12 acre lot and a 12 acre lot vacate the first minor do
- two sliding scales vacate the second minor do two sliding scales and we thought well why don't we
- just do a four lot you know you know it's just like we just would like to see an option or
- discussion with people to say you just can't do that regardless of how many others you have yep
- and then I think that people aren't sure what purpose the 25 years serves I know we talked
- about that during the CDO what's going to happen in 25 years that you don't know today or what
- what can I do why 25 that's it was a generational thing and again this is about sprawl and
- preventing
- big 80 acre 100 acre lots from being subdivided to hell out in you know like way out in the edge
- of the county and then expecting roads and services and intersections to be able to afford to serve
- folks the way they expect to be served we can't afford that we don't have the money for that
- but within 25 years we may and at that point it may become feasible something else changes
- and road changes whatever it might business move whatever it might be so it's a it was a
- generational
- number if you all want to make that generational number 20 years that's fine but it is a it
- represents a generation because then that family may want to subdivide another piece off of that
- hundred acres for a two kids that have now come into being right that's why it was a generational
- number but also because within that time frame you have a new road planning map you have you know
- those kinds of those tend to go on yes that's exactly and between that economic regional
- development road planning and a generation of a family who may want to again cut off small pieces
- of this large acreage farm for example they could then do that no problem and do the same process
- again if it still exists but again the the goal is to preserve the green space the agricultural
- which is it it's part of our economy which people seem to forget about they just think it's you
- know
- something to be developed into housing and i guess is our economy too um so that was the goal so so
- i
- i have a question on that so you there was a transcript provided in the packet tonight what
- was the date of that transcript i didn't see it in the when did that transcript when that meeting
- occur was that the last orc meeting in may no this is scott wells and people aren't here anymore
- that
- that large transcript um and this was from the cdo hearings yes and it's from 2014 okay so that's
- the
- 2014 transcript of someone we just heard referring back to the 1996 creation of the the the if i'm
- reading this right the the the original ideas behind the moratorium so if i take that generational
- argument my challenge is that as i read that transcript like there were comments made about
- um the urbanizing area and focusing on you know planning out the county you know the 2012 con plan
- and you know if we put some time now between 2014 and now you know 11 years yeah the only way that
- works for me commissioner is if we actually were going about the plan for building out that
- infrastructure so like if we're so it's sort of like saying well we don't have the resource now
- and we're going to do this work to plan for it and then if we don't do it for a decade and then we
- come back to it and say well gosh you know we don't have the resource and we didn't really do
- the work to start building out the infrastructure i think i mean the challenge here is that 25
- years
- is a little too long then because it feels like it feels like a bit of a circular argument for
- folks i can appreciate why they'd be frustrated i mean if we're building out and building against
- a plan for the community that says yeah we are working on road extensions and bridge improvements
- and and you know we have a highway department that's you know rated every road in the county
- that we've been replacing over the past few years like we should be able to make a comment or claim
- that you know we're getting to a point where we could entertain uh folks uh subdividing or doing
- the the subdivisions there i that's so i'm trying to wrap my head around that transcript from years
- ago and kind of where we are now and what i need i guess is data to back up what i'm hearing you
- know where's the data on um you know the the half acre uh subdivisions with 100 houses you know in
- the rural space like is that i mean have we even seen a proposal like that in a quarter century
- have we stalled that so i guess in just voicing this in the admin meeting today like i would like
- to see some data points that hold up as to whether or not the original idea of the 25-year moratorium
- from 2014 has actually come true or if some of this was um you know uh concerns but they there's
- no data to really back up the concerns of what um the what development would look like in these
- spaces um i don't know if that makes sense to others in the room but but you know it's one
- thing to hypothesize about what what the worst possible development could be if we didn't have
- this in place as opposed to finding the middle ground on some of these opportunities to improve
- the the the lots that we can improve and also retain for agriculture and protect the things
- we're trying to but i just throw that into the room because i just don't i don't feel like i've got
- the data to back up the claims and i'm hearing on some of that thank you first commissioner thomas
- then colonel paris and then mr allman yeah so um if somebody wants to subdivide you know 40 acres
- into whatever they can subdivide it into they can make that proposal they don't think you are you
- are replicating the myth by saying this is the only way to make a subdivision it is not a farmer
- who
- wants to keep it's not a binary i'm not offering a binary here i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry mr
- henry but current commissioner thomas is i'm not saying it's a binary what i'm saying is there are
- multiple options for development the problem is to actually afford to put in wider roadways and
- intersections and the lights and the utilities and everything else that goes into it way out on the
- edge of the county is very expensive it is not something i imagine any county council will ever
- support because it is an expense to feed one subdivision potentially now you if somebody
- wants to propose a pud if somebody wants to propose a subdivision a minor a major they can
- do that this is one option that helps us prevent sprawl sprawl is a real thing um i i don't know
- how
- to prove it to you statistically but sprawl is real uh and i am not i am not in the business of
- trying to counter argue i need data with here's data from whatever communities we we try to
- discourage sprawl because it is an expense that the whole county bears and it's not fair to the
- residents of the county who already are here to have to pay for what looks like bargersville you
- want to see sprawl go to bargersville take a look at how lovely that one i'm sorry mr homery colonel
- paris is next to us and then mr omen thank you thank you uh colonel paris trying to lower
- temperature just a little yeah oh i just have a very basic question and i'm sure others probably
- do as well i've got a hundred acres and uh and uh when does the 25 years begin
- at the time of recording okay who's recording the farmer i i've owned the property for 50 years
- so 25 years ago there's some orange farm expires no at the time of recording the subdivision the
- science scale subdivision so he has a kid the carpet yeah the cargo okay and so i've got i've
- got 100 acres and i'm going to carve something out for my kids okay okay at that point in time
- yeah 25 year clock it's going to be 25 years from that one time so we're only at 10 years
- there's a lot of pushback but there are other options i i i don't get i don't go i already
- so fixated on this because it's like the only thing you can do it is not it so how do we make
- sure people understand there's options right so there's the other option on a septic system
- is a minor for 10 acre lots i mean it's one of the things we discuss and we have heard in the
- office
- that some people cannot get a loan for 10 acres so they have to go with the science scale option
- so it does kind of if people come in their number one goal is how do i create the smallest lots
- and preserve or retain the larger lots it is an ideal option people want to have two and a half
- acres or smaller in the county and so two and a half is what we have as the smallest and so we
- walk them through the site scale process so people i know what i'm going to do if the first new
- 100 acres comes to me they say what the heck can we do i'm going to say call jackie and have jackie
- explain what the various options are that's what i'm going to do the planner is called to that
- yeah i know what you do that's going to ask to do the planner of the day and they have to ask the
- planner of the day okay yeah sliding scale you can create up to four lots miners you've created
- four
- lots a major subdivision you can create in your example 10 lots but you would probably not have
- exactly 10 each lot would have to be 10 acres you'd have to carve out some space for bioretention
- or some sort of strong water in this house and then so i appreciate your response in your case
- explanation but that's not what the point it's a process any subdivision that's a process
- it's a process yeah and so can we change 25 years to something different to find urban school by
- side let's talk about it or exceed we did well i wasn't there i'm sorry i'll be there next week
- mr altman you know what so if i have you know using the 100 acres example you know we 10 years
- ago i carved out two two acre parcels in the corner and now i have you know 100 minus four i have
- 96
- acres left and it's locked up that i did that 10 years ago so it still has 15 more years but now i
- want to carve out another two acre parcel right next to the other four acre the other two two
- acre parcel what is the option for that so can you do that well there you you could potentially do
- a
- preliminary flood amendment if you didn't first hit that allocation of four lots there is a there
- is
- a little bit of confusion there i think but we do have an ability to get up to the four lots total
- but even in your example 100 acres even if you create another lot so you have now four lots total
- you would still have in your example i guess 92 acres that would still be on hold and then you'd
- be replatting it so i think the 25 years would start again so there would there i that 25 would
- start again but i can pull that two acres out even though i'm locked up with 15 years still left to
- go
- in the fire parcel i think that the the wording of it it says designated parent parcel remainder
- shall not be further subdivided for a period of 25 years from the date of recording of the
- secondary
- plot and less connected to sanitary sewage or further subdivision of the properties authorized
- by ordinance which would be a PUD so if you and we do see a few people like i think it has to say
- some ORC packet but we do see some people that only create like two or three lots and they could
- create up to four so the math kind of works out better if people will do the four up at 55
- everything
- else because one of the scenarios going back to when we were going through all these meetings
- one of the scenarios i got received a lot from a lot of the farmers that i worked with and plays
- right into the examples that that was brought up about why this was originally put in was so that
- you know farmers could carve off a few acres for their kids or whatever and um is that so you know
- grandpa wasn't didn't have the forethought to think about that 25 block 25 year lockup and so what
- he
- did was he took his 100 acres and he carved out two acres here for his house two acres here for his
- farm shop and then the remaining 96 acres was all his ag fields and he did that for tax purposes or
- whatever you know putting in a trust whatever reason he did that but he did that 10 years ago
- and now the son wants to break it up but he can't do that and then beyond that now so let's say i
- wait 15 years well at that point brand side is going to be already 20 years old and what now we're
- going to restart that 25 year clock again and so i i truly understand the 25 year being a
- generational
- thing but one of the biggest arguments that i that i received from people on that 25 year thing was
- okay does that generational time make sense in terms of actual like application of a generation
- i like the idea that you threw out about dropping it to 20 years or even more than that because
- you know like let's say my dad owns that hundred acres am i in a position right now at the age of
- 30 to carve out you know can i afford that might not be in a position to buy that but it might be
- 10 years from now and so if we don't but if we don't carve it now you know so it's it's like that
- clock you're playing this time game and i almost would like to know if there is a way that we can
- figure up and i know this is like trying to find statistics that maybe don't exist but what is the
- inflection point between if that parent parcel is locked up for five years a developer might come
- back in five years and try to do it again but if it's locked up for 25 years the developer loses
- interest but if it's 25 years it's too much for a family so where's the inflection point between
- those two where a developer is going to lose interest but we're not burdening the family we're
- not smacking the family and can we find that inflection point is it 15 years it's 10 years
- i'm going to do a pud i mean it's not holding it up because it says except for ordinance the
- developer could come in and do a pud uh planned unit development so it's not as though they're
- prohibited from that if the developer's got money they're 92 acres sitting there well he needs to
- talk to jackie and to julie and to uh the plan commission and put a proposal down so so the
- subdivision i guess then i just then i guess if but i guess i i don't see a family subdividing
- or a group subdividing as being the leading direction to sprawl and i understand the
- importance of avoiding sprawl but i think that it's more the developer out and it's like if we
- have the pud option then we're not really like we have the opportunity to shut down the pud
- to avoid the sprawls and instead we're locking up vast tracts of land for in my opinion way too
- long
- yeah i mean that's valid and the the issue of the length of time is uh on the table but uh if the
- developer notion is really not an issue because it's contained in the ordinance that if the
- developer wants to develop that 92 acres the 25 years doesn't get in the way well then let's
- avoid the the developer term but just the the general body whoever the person is that we're
- avoiding by putting this 25 years in place in the fourth point if it's just sprawl in general
- where's the because if you know 25 years is what's avoid what's what is keeping sprawl from
- happening
- what's saying that 20 years will keep sprawl from happening what's saying that 10 years will keep
- sprawl from happening so let's lower that to okay let's do two weeks there we go she just
- offered you two weeks so let's put two weeks that's called sarcasm so um but i have a question for
- you
- just a point of clarification i don't from what you said and that's why i'm jumping in here um
- what do you mean by locking the land up because we just like we just said that if he's already hit
- his four four lots now that that unit is locked for 25 years for resub for resubdividing it
- unless he's on sewer and how many of these if if it was a hundred years you know your your comment
- was about how this was first in place in particular for farm land and ag land and that commodity
- and
- allowing these families that have been farming this land for generations to keep their generations
- their future generations on their land but you know i don't think that they're in a position that
- they're just going to want to give just subdivide it to heck but if they've already spent the time
- subdividing it and they didn't have the forethought thought to start that clock far
- enough in advance and now they're locked up for another 15 years but they still want to lock up
- that land is not in a position where they can put in septic that you know they're most of the time
- they're far off from a septic or a um sewer sorry suburb septic apologize they're far from the
- sewer
- limits so that's where i'm like in this position where you have these lands that are locked but
- the land owners should still have the opportunity to make allow their family to live on the land
- they've owned for how many hundreds of years take tron and that david heck all right
- i agree with that sentiment 100 unfortunately it's not always what occurs when you talk about
- you know people selling off property for profit they get hard times one thing we keep referring
- to this other processes so it'd be real nice to understand kind of like how those processes fit
- without having sewer we have one of the footnotes that are pretty much associated to all of the
- subdivisions like if you don't have access to septic the minimum lot size of a subdivision is
- 10 acres you know that's just a sewer sorry i'm reading it okay also i'd like to say that you know
- i was in support of moving this forward i never thought it was a done deal and a lot of these
- conversations weren't at impetus from me trying to write randall so like let's make sure when we're
- targeting our comments we don't make him feel personal um and it comes from
- the sarcasm the belittleness so like comments back and forth but it i feel abruptly um somewhat
- subjective towards everyone's you know uh dissent to the discussion of different ideas when it wasn't
- me that really wanted to push this conversation forward right now but i was fine because i want
- to hear from other people we all feel the same way are you trying to have the floor right now
- i know don't try to have support right now hey no no no try not before i'm the chair okay you can't
- interrupt them and then you'd be the interrupter no no no that's not you can't blame the cars that
- way no it's this the big septic thing is what do you like chair i don't want the chair hey i didn't
- want it's a it's a big issue and we need to understand that in relation to the sliding
- scale and when we say there's other options there are there's a pud that's been mentioned
- that has to be a proof there's no predictability what i would like is just a few bits of
- adjustments
- to our ordinance that gives predictability to a farmer that owns some land that might want to
- give it to his family or sell it off for some interest maybe a future buyer that you know
- wants to take an investment in our community that knows when they do that there's going to be some
- predictability with their investment now like i said i was walking back some of my comments
- because it does get complex but what we have right now is it is a lack of addressing the issue with
- septic and sewer and so it's just making every bit of land in my opinion in the county a finite
- fine sorry a commodity a finite commodity versus an opportunity and that's generally how i feel
- right now because we're not addressing some of the issues that are present in our community
- in our county and that's with not having sewer and having all these ideas that you can do a
- thousand different things but those are contingent to having sewer and until we address that and i
- mentioned that and that's why it's part of our discussion i feel like this conversation could
- go on the back burner because jackie brought it up if if packaging plants are recognized as a sewer
- than a hundred acres adjacent to it could just subdivide it and then we're going to see urban
- sprawl that's kind of my feelings around this i'm i'm not sold on anything except for the fact that
- like we need more predictability we can't just chalk it up that they can come and ask and we can
- say yes
- thank you um just maybe some other thoughts here so i want to appreciate mr alman's comment about
- um
- what seems to be the 25 year number seeming uh in the way you described it and the way i'm reading
- it in these transcripts and the way it evolved we can call the generation it is a bit arbitrary
- you know it's looking at other counties in terms of what they would call a moratorium or suspense
- or pause um you know the number is quite large uh you know and i think you identified some case
- study or straw man type examples where you know somebody that's not a developer would want to use
- their generational land in a way that makes sense for their family so i think i think where i would
- like to focus my comments on how i would get to a place where i could understand where we're going
- with this is um we're not operating on the same terms um we've heard straw man personas you know
- which you know what we've defined the hypothetical farmer with a lot that wants to subdivide
- subdivide for children and grandchildren i mean that's a hypothetical uh you know we've also
- defined a hypothetical of a speculator that has bought large parcels of property um without maybe
- regard to our local ordinance but all that is um those are kind of personas or strawmen that were
- bouncing ideas off of and they're not data driven and so when i hear comments i appreciate you know
- folks are like hey david you know where would you like us to get said data the data is right here i
- mean we we just saw a presentation of a data visualization of things that we're doing in this
- department i you know tron i know we've looked at survey data of who owns the county uh together as
- a visualization in esri and i don't think it would take long for us to come to a conclusion on what
- parcels would be problematic um you know that we would never that we would want to see that type of
- protection on and others that might be ripe for subdivision because they are in a place that could
- sustain packaging or could sustain the clustered subdivision but we need the data on what's
- available in the county that to look at so i say all that to say i would like to get away from the
- sort of the hype the kind of straw person like examples of what we're talking about and actually
- look at the the actual parcels and cases that we have that could fit what we're really talking
- about here um because i just doesn't i don't i'm not responsive to the kind of hypothetical farmer
- scenario at this point because i'm not sure how many of those there really are compared to
- somebody that may be inherited property in the county and doesn't really know what to do with
- it other than they'd like to subdivide it maybe put two or three units on it and and what that
- means
- and i guess my last comment would be we just need to define terms i mean we can't throw around
- terms
- like urban sprawl without definition i mean those are if they are well defined enough that we all
- can agree on what that term means fine but again i don't want to keep reaching for binaries in this
- discussion i lastly just want to say my piece that i appreciate Mr. Olman's comment i know i'm on a
- hybrid format tonight but we either are going to follow procedure or we're not if i'm going to be
- cut off in discussion but others are allowed to engage in a free-for-all discussion around a topic
- that's maybe not as hot you know if we need to pull out a parliamentarian or get the roberts
- rules out to get through tougher conversations i'm okay with that to maintain decorum but
- we just had i mean i was trampled on others were allowed to talk freely without without you know
- being put back in the pecking order i just need to say that and we need to work on the consistency
- of how we're going to apply our procedures so we can conduct our business together thank you
- i have a motion
- i suggest that we take coa 253 table and we continue this is going to be back at the oars
- well you've already said this wasn't for this month's commission meeting in place we need to
- have it back to people i see we're not i think there are seats we're not we're not ready for this
- there's too much i'm not sure we need a motion for that okay that's i'm just saying
- there's too much motion that's right we need to take the lift
- you all agree with that let me take a vote on it
- okay i can i ask a strategy question i i'm curious on your comments about you want
- more like tangible data rather than just like the you use the term strongman i'm not too familiar
- with that term but um are you asking that you'd like to see you know how many of these parcels
- that are in a 25 year or existing in that moratorium exist or i guess i'm curious on
- what what that tangible data looks like because i think it would be very beneficial i'd like to
- see that too but i'm not sure what that tangible data looks like so yeah so i mean i there's yeah
- i'll be quick about it because i know we're deep into the meeting so uh imagine like we did with
- the impermeable surface a few weeks ago where we were able to tease out some parcels to look at
- and see what those look like by percentages and and the like right so some of those we were able
- to look at visuals look at some data and say okay here's a here's an example of a parcel that fits
- what we're talking about we've had examples while i've even been on plant commission of you know
- people have come to us to subdivide under the current you know and talk through that we can
- take a look at some of those parcel or some of those cases that have been brought into the docket
- you know recently that that either really well fit what we're talking about or really hard to deal
- with because of some of the variables that prevented that parcel owner from getting to
- maybe a common sense solution in some of the ways that you described you know that sort of
- generational pass down of the grandkids right so i think that we've got it in what we've done we
- just need to kind of compile the cases and look at them so we can better understand what we're
- talking about other than these kind of appeals to and when straw man meaning you know the logical
- fallacy of just a created idea that that fits our argument really that's what i was saying there
- that you know we're rather than creating a hypothetical farmer let's actually find a few
- and they have parcels that we've dealt with recently that either were well matched for this
- or or were really hard to deal with because of some of the things we talked about does that
- make sense yeah thank you yeah if i can turn my question that expanded to tacky how feasible is
- that to collaborate you know five or half a dozen or so properties that are existing in you know
- and it'd be nice if they were in a ingredient of hey this one just went into the 25 yeah this one's
- at 10 year this one's at five years you know that's feasible once it comes back to the platform or
- conversation yeah that'd be nice thank you i will want to add that you're always welcome to can't
- attend an orc meeting all the time but those packets are published and the recordings are
- in the calendar and you can always go back and look at those because sometimes i think we are
- putting some examples of orc packet that don't make it here all the time okay yeah i have a
- question
- dave yes since we've lost our chair and our vice chair at this point in time what are the rules
- about
- who runs the meeting well i think at this point you could appoint somebody to chair the meeting
- or you could turn that over to the staff to take over i recommend the staff to get over
- that's fine we don't have any sorry it's very easy from here on out if we're moving on to the next
- items unfinished business and then we have one new new business because the second item was
- continued
- so tammy i think you can briefly give an update on the unfinished business together yeah uh from
- all the fields there is an eating plan for june 10th that's it that's the update that's it we're
- going to get the we're going to get the meeting up yeah that was the way down yeah got it that's
- nothing has changed um thanks and then the next item north park to pud development plan that is
- going to go to planning commission this month we've seen this quite a few times as part of the part
- of
- it is part of the rezone which already went through but this is a request for final development
- plan
- allowance to permit the fill site on the retired or old quarry site so that one's pretty much
- ready to go and send it to the branch board and we're ready to bring it to you all for a vote and
- then we would proceed with the development we will permits being issued on that and i back up to
- the
- hall and fields one and just a curiosity and because there was a lot of moving parts a lot of
- different bodies involved right am i allowed to ask who all is at said meeting in terms of
- were you able to get everybody scheduled for this meeting or there's one builder three lot
- there turning will be up unfortunately we just found that out today as a access through one of
- someone associated with the developer maybe attend but they already know it is yeah yeah
- but the attorney is willing to meet with that's when they come back okay so that three one is
- the alarm not that's okay that's curious that's gonna be before it'll happen before plank mission
- but possibly now so give it up that was it as far as business coming the next commission meeting so
- does anyone have any questions for us
- okay all right return actually i actually had something on the north park is that the north
- park one on screen right now jackie yeah yeah so i you know again we didn't have the chance to hear
- from petitioners i mean do we do we know i guess i mean have they been in contact with us since
- some of those votes or or not um you're talking about holland fields or north park sorry north
- park sorry north park yeah i got it got away from me because i know we took the they weren't in the
- room when we talked about of course you know we were all supportive because you know but but have
- they reached out since the last meeting at all um they were supportive of the if you're talking
- about the rezoned forest care was like written commitments they they did reach out and they're
- okay with that okay yeah but this one is the development plan so these conditions are pretty
- much already met i think they've already met the updated karst conservancy area and they already
- have a small amount of grading permit in process so they will be able to the written commitment
- requires like quarterly water testing and things like that just to confirm that the clean fill is
- clean so they will have some requirements to to keep on after they've started the grading work
- just to monitor through a third party yeah they don't have any issues with these i should say
- did you have any other questions david okay all right okay i think there was a motion to
- adjourn everyone else now we're okay
- [ Music ]