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 ]