- Order is 530, so if you could at least call it off. Dave Henry? Here. Louis Thomas? Here. Joe Van Steventer?
- Here. Scott Farris? Here. Margaret Clement? Here. David Bush? Here. Rudy Field? Here. John and Rolinda?
- Here. And Jeff Morris is going to take the 10 tonight, but we have eight members at home. Okay, great.
- Well, we have no administrative business. So we can just jump right into the unfinished business, which
- is the first item is ZOA-25-3, request by the ordinance review committee for amendments to the county
- development ordinance. And this is a preliminary hearing, I guess. So, and a labor final hearing will
- be requested or is requested. So Jackie, you want to guide us through this most recent
- Sure. So from the October 23rd, 2025 planning commission meeting, there was a motion to send this text
- amendment back to the ordinance review committee that was scheduled for next week on December 8th. We
- had a preliminary discussion with the ordinance review committee about how they would like us to amend
- it in alignment either with the motion
- or if they would like to do other changes and the ordinance review committee requested that we send
- it back to the plan commission as it would be more productive to have it at the full administrative
- meeting as a discussion topic.
- I did send just recently the ordinance that was approved for the creation of the sliding scale so you
- should all have that as well. I think that there's quite a bit of information that's been shared over
- time and so if anyone has any particular questions about the text amendment I'm happy to go through
- any of those questions that you might have or I have the meeting minutes pulled up with the motion and
- where we left off about the discussion of what
- we could change regarding the text amendment if that's also helpful. Yes Judy. So my attendance at the
- last ORC meeting was spotty not from any it's just a technical issue. I kept using audio and then had
- to go log back on so I come back on and off a number of times. So I assume that this is going to be
- something we can discuss and
- at the December. It may be that, just fair warning to the planning commission, it may be that we want
- to hold off on hearing this or because I didn't have a chance to really chime in and I have some thoughts.
- I don't know if that works.
- ORC members. Okay. Yeah. To actually have that ordinance review committee and then come back in January.
- Maybe January. It may be fine. It may be totally like let's leave it on the agenda. Let's leave it on
- there. But I I just if we talk through it again I'm it may be that we ask for it to be continued to
- January. I do have a I do. Do you have something to say first.
- Sure, just unfortunately I had prior obligations. I didn't attend the ORC and I think I caught some
- of it and the alternate was Mr. Henry and you didn't. Yeah, so I don't think that discussion took place,
- but also. I don't know what the. Maybe what would you mention? You have some new thoughts on it, so
- that's exciting to hear those. I really think that.
- regardless they'll come back here and my my strong feelings is kind of the position of some of our newer
- members and kind of what their thoughts are if they're like feeling settled to make a decision because
- that's kind of what the discussion was at our last regular meeting.
- And then we also have a new member, Mr. Van Dievender. And, you know, kind of depending on what you
- guys are suggesting, I think we could be more productive here as a full planning commission, or we could
- bring it back to the ORC. I can't say it's going to be exactly the same based off of Commissioner Thomas's
- comment of kind of new thoughts around the matter, but
- We've been discussing this a lot and I'm not going to go through kind of my reasons of where my position
- are except for I'm not going to support the 25 years and I'm looking to try to reduce that and find
- a balance. So that's all I have to say. So my point of order is follows. And I was at the ORC and we
- did vote. Okay. And there was an active discussion. There were two of us there.
- There were two votes not there and the alternate was not there, but we still had a meeting and we discussed
- it. So that did take place. This is how much information I have on this topic going back almost a year
- now. And we keep talking in circles on this topic. What we talked about at the ORC was is that and we
- voted upon was not to change anything that we had forwarded to the Planning Commission at the last meeting.
- and to take and move this into the admin meeting and let's take and have a discussion and get everything
- on the table, because all we are effectively doing right now is kicking this can down the road. And
- we continually do that meeting after meeting. Delaying this another month or two, in my opinion, is
- just a waste of time. We are at that point now where I think pretty much people
- believe whatever they're going to believe. We discussed and cussed and done everything we can on this
- topic. There is nothing new to this discussion, and if somebody has a different approach that they want
- to put on the table. So what we had suggested and voted upon is that this admin meeting, this would
- be the topic of discussion where we could take and voice our opinions, pro or against, and that would
- set it up for the planning commission meeting where we would vote on.
- OK, one way or another up down. Pass it to the county commissioners and let them make a decision. And
- that's what we talked about at the at or at the the ORC meeting. Previous meeting. Yeah, I'm fine with
- that. I hear what you're saying. I I'm ready. I'm ready to take invest with all of our cards on the
- table and everybody voice their opinions. OK, because if we take and kick this to the Planning Commission
- meeting again,
- Like we did previously and have that. I'll call it an academic free for all. Resulting in is talking
- in circles. OK, that doesn't speak well for us as a body. I don't think. And and I think we're at that
- point where we could make a decision one way or another. And let's just move on. We have beat this subject
- up over and over and over again. I mean, Jackie sends out today. The is 2015 02, which is the
- Ordinance that was essentially approved by the county commissioners. I believe back in 2015 that was
- the first time that's that's the record. That's the starting point. They made a decision back in those
- back 10 years ago. When we passed the ORC, we we revalidated that position and that is what is in front
- today. My perspective and I'll get off the stage is is that. We spent quite a bit of time coming up
- with new language to add on the front end of talking about subdivisions.
- And we asked the staff to take and come up with pictorials, overheads, that they could use explaining
- to any petitioner coming in on doggone how or what they want to do, and this is the way of doing about
- it. We pretty much amongst ourselves determined that in almost all cases, a few exceptions, that explanation
- would steer the petitioner down whatever road they need to go down to and satisfy their requirements.
- And so I personally stand by the language, the tutorials that we recommended via the ORC to the Plant
- Commission previous. Thank you. Thank you. That's helpful. We do have a new member of our commission,
- and I think that it would be helpful for, maybe I'm misspeaking, correct me if I'm wrong.
- if you could have a little bit of an overview, because this is a subject that is frequently misunderstood
- and misrepresented, so. Yeah, and I may not be understanding it correctly, but I'm not really that familiar
- with the sliding scale. Yes. But I am really opposed to 25 years. I would like to dwell on, Jeremy said,
- I would like to shorten that so long. But that's just my opinion.
- as a landowner and a grandfather. Yes. Yes, thank you Mr. Payne. If you want Jack to review it with
- you, with us, just give us a bird's eye view of everything. That would be okay. Do you want to do that
- and then just go ahead. Yeah, so
- This is just a segment of the county development ordinance, the subdivision section. So what we did
- was we added to the types of subdivisions these images. So we have four different types of subdivisions.
- Administrators, which generally do not require or create density, except in certain circumstances like
- creating a cemetery or conservation lots. They're usually the ship lot lines.
- We had minor subdivisions, which are four lots or less. Typically, if you're on a septic, that's 10
- acre lot sizes. Sliding scales, which are also four lots or less, was created to allow for the creation
- of three smaller lots and one larger lot with that 25 year reservation on the 55%.
- and then major subdivisions which are typically connected to sewer five lots or more. So this is a picture
- of a minor. Each lot is over 10 acres in the county. This is an example of a minor where they're connected
- to sewer so they can go smaller, they're connected so they have minimum lot size. Each one has public
- access to the rural. Yeah, that's correct. In a rural area, they can access off of frontage
- but they could also have an easement that's permitted. Up to so many lots can access one easement. And
- then this is a sliding scale example. So this compared to this one up here, you can tell that they're
- able to create these lots, which are each two and a half acres, the minimum lot size for the AGR zone.
- And then this is the more than 55% area that's reserved for the 25 years.
- And then the major subdivision is five lots or more, again, typically served by sewer. And then what
- we did was we took the segment of the sliding scale subdivision and the text in red is the added text.
- So what the ordinance review committee suggested was adding more context as to why the sliding scale
- was created originally in 2015.
- So it does help people that want to come in and create smaller lots in the rural areas and not have
- those 10 acre large lots. But we also note that some areas have pretty narrow roads or they might not
- have a lot of infrastructure. They're farther out from the county, close to the county lines. So we
- added some context in here about police fire coverage, emergency service response times, things like
- that. We did not change the,
- a segment which I think was commented during the adoption of the county development whereas many people
- came forward with a concern for the 25 years. So this area of the text is still in black which means
- we did not suggest any changes though it has been discussed. And then we just added the reference to
- the ordinance from 2015. One of the things that I will mention though is that I think that the 25 year
- reservation for people
- It does get confusing. You are allowed to do amendments to your size scale once you've created it. So
- we created two lots originally. There is a way to go back and do an amendment, still keeping with the
- 55%. It just becomes a matter of math to figure out how many lots you can get. What I really think a
- lot of people would like is create more lots in the county. So that's something that is sort of a separate
- discussion that we brought up in other meetings where we need another subdivision type.
- where truly people are creating more density in the rural areas, which we did have prior to 2015. But
- then we started to create a requirement connecting things to sewer, which we drove a lot more development
- towards the urban areas, which makes a lot of sense for planning purposes or emergency services
- infrastructure. But now I think that spectrum with the city not extending sewer into the county,
- has created a little bit of a bubble, and this has come back to light. So that's a general overview
- of this text. That's very good. Mr. Henry, do you want to say something? Yeah, thank you. If we are
- going to get into it, we should. So my challenge in the text amendment on this page here, where we reference
- as a matter of ledge policy ordinance 2015-02, 2015-02 does not mention the 25-year moratorium other
- than its definition.
- It doesn't give the rationale for the 25 years. It simply just says 25 years is part of the sliding
- scale. And so if we're going to make an assumption that that ordinance actually provides the rationale
- for the beginning of this sentence, legislatively finds and concludes 25 year restriction is reasonably
- necessary, that's not in the ordinance. The ordinance 2015-02, as I'm reading it, talks all about the
- sliding scale, but the rationale for the 25 years isn't there. Of course, this was the topic of discussion
- Meaning we did, right? Which is where did this come from? Where's this number? ORC took this, put a
- citation to an ordinance in here, but the ordinance itself doesn't explain where the 25 years came from.
- So we're still right back to where we were, which is what is the enabling legislation ordinance that
- specifies why 25 years, other than it's mentioned, I think, as I just saw it in here as a,
- is part of the sliding scale structure that 25 years is here, but it doesn't explain why that is. So
- I guess I'm back to why 25 years and where's the rationale for that because otherwise we're locking
- ourselves into sort of a generational long freeze with zero empirical basis for why we're doing 25 years
- at a time. So where is it? Where's the rationale? Testimony was given.
- by the creators of the legislation that the rationale was generational based on generation. Okay well
- we've been present there we've discussed that last meeting where we've had both the concept of what's
- a generation what the demographic definition would be. We've also had in this meeting over the past
- year discussion that 25 years was the I believe lifespan of paving of roads I think that was brought
- up as one possible rationale but testimony aside we don't have that evidence here what we have as an
- ordinance that doesn't explain that.
- So I'm back to, I know I can't point to the thing that says why 25 years in Oregon. So maybe these are
- separate. We divide that question. Sliding scale is one conversation. 25 years is another conversation.
- The way it's presented here is they're kind of together, they're paired together. But maybe this is
- a divided question about how we do both. That's my view at this point.
- Yeah my first comment was just kind of in general and I'm actually very happy that the ORC did decide
- to move this forward. I do think this is the right route to really kind of move this along. So I wanted
- to make that comment. I know I've spoken about the votes before but that would have been my decision.
- One reason I
- agreed to moving it back to the ORC-IR last meeting is because I felt like that was the only way we're
- going to get a majority vote on this and it due to state law it would have just came back to the regular
- session. So this gave us some time allowed everyone to kind of think about it and gave you know which
- I think is great. So you know I'm going to just kind of state this I'll try to be as concise but this
- is actually for you is you know I I think with
- A lot of our subdivision options being contingent to sewer or septic and not having sewer, that means
- the minimum lot size for septic is 10 acres. If we moved in a way where maybe there was another subdivision
- option allowed in these same areas where the sliding scale was, or if maybe we reduced the lot minimums,
- the sliding scale and that reservation may not be such a big issue. But right now when I'm looking at
- what available options we have I think this puts a lot of burden on folks in our community. And if this
- is kind of the way that we're going to move forward I think the 25 years is too long in my opinion due
- to that kind of bottlenecking of the septic sewer issue.
- And also I'll say one other thing that, you know, these ordinances are fluent, even though it took a
- long time to get our CDO put together, but like if we reduce it to, you know, 15 years, which I think
- is a good medium, it's not directly in the middle, but a good medium to end
- We see things moving in a direction that we have to address. We have the ability to change that. We
- also have the ability to discuss other options and then maybe put that reservation back at 25 years
- if we have more tools available for people to kind of do more things with their land. And that's kind
- of where I find myself and that's why I won't support this. And finally what I'll say is this is our
- bite at the apple.
- As after we move it forward who know unless we as a planning commission petition them to bring it forward
- again for us to talk about this might be our last opportunity to discuss this because that's kind of
- how these things. The commissioners could request us to look at this again too. They could petition
- the planning commission or the in the planning staff to bring an amendment forth. But you know I want
- to make it clear and that's why I'm very curious about my colleagues.
- opinion and position on this that this is our opportunity to address the whole ordinance. I was torn
- because I love what we did come up with that brings some transparency and clarity to the whole thing.
- I'm always for that. But the fact that we didn't address some of the more technical issues
- of what limitations you have what kind of how it goes into that reservation it is another reason I couldn't
- support adding just this language
- the ordinance because it doesn't change anything except bring a little more information forward. So
- that's kind of all I really have to say. I'll try to keep my time limited because I've spoke a lot about
- this. I want to bring up just something really quickly because I think this point is getting a little
- bit missed. So somewhere else in the CDO we agreed to add a section about vacating and resubdividing
- portions of subdivisions. So that parent parcel of that sliding scale, the original purpose and intent
- of that 25-year moratorium was so that people didn't create a sliding scale, vacate out the large parcel,
- re-subdivide into a sliding scale, vacate it out, re-subdivide, now you have, let's say, 12 watts that
- were created. So there's another segment, another section in the ordinance that says you cannot vacate
- a sliding scale partially and do another sliding scale to it.
- So if you create four lots and your 25 years are up, you don't have the ability to do another signing
- skill. Even 30 years from now, 25 years really doesn't mean anything. And if you have less than four
- lots, you can do a plat amendment to that signing skill as long as the math works out. So this discussion
- about the year alone, I think, is not addressing
- the core issue, which is people either want more lots with smaller lot sizes in the rural areas on septic,
- or that there's some disconnect as to why there's not an allowance for density in the rural areas. And
- maybe the 25 years is just a discussion of, well, what is to be there in 25 years that will support
- density in the rural areas? So that's a great point. I have just one question. That's a great point.
- Is the only option you have
- Why are you in that 25 reservation of a sliding scale is to do a major, right? And how many lots do
- you have to have to have a major? If you're on a septic system, you can create 10 acre lots. Right,
- but how many minimum lots do you need to do a major? You can do five. So you're going to need at least
- 50 acres in that parent parcel to do anything for 25 years. So if we move it to 15, you could
- then potentially do a minor.
- Right. And though, you know, which is less. So what I'm saying is it does relate to what you're saying.
- It's not just the time frame. It's the options you have available with how things are contingent to
- our septic. So like it allows people to potentially do a minor in 15 years if we've reduced it versus
- waiting 25 years because their only option is a major. There's still there's still a section about resubmitting.
- and vacating, and I think it applies with minors and science skills, though either one goes to a major.
- So I think that if you were really, I think that people like- So we reduced it to 15 years, and they
- went through their 15 years, and they came back, they couldn't do a minor. They still only had the major
- option. Unless we amend that other part of the ordinance. Are you certain? So I just have an observation,
- because I've been on this,
- Yes, I think. And this is a really confusing notion. This sliding state and for some reason it's become
- kind of really political, you know. But. And I could be wrong in the way I'm looking at it, but the
- discussion really revolves around at which point are the people who own that big lot and want to build
- on it responsible for building the infrastructure, the sewage,
- the roads, et cetera, because four on these relatively small lots is fine, but at five anyway, they
- have to start building the infrastructure. So the way I look at a sliding scale is that it's a permission
- and not a restriction, because without the sliding scale, they'd be required to build on 10 lots, 10
- acre lots, but with the sliding scale, they're permitted to,
- build on 2.5 acre lots. And so it's more of a permission and less of a restriction. At five anyway,
- they have to start building the infrastructure. And when you're way out in the middle of the county
- toward the edge of another county, that infrastructure gets expensive. And so in the case of the father,
- if you have,
- a farm, a big farm, and you are doing a sliding scale and you have four lots eked out for yourself and
- your children. And you want to add a fifth lot. At that point, you've got to start adding the infrastructure
- anyway. So it's not like you can do another sliding scale within your 100 acre. Well, I don't know if
- that's true or not. If they could do another sliding scale within their 100 acre farm, not, but I think
- once you go to that fifth lot,
- You've got to start adding infrastructure. That's where the rub is. It's not the 25 years like Jackie
- said. It's just that no matter which way you slice it at that fifth lot, you've got to start doing the
- infrastructure, which is a major.
- Well, they take it in. It has to be built up. Yeah. Oh, that's the way I come to understand it in my
- own kind of naive way of looking at it. And as one of the people who was working on this when it first
- started, this whole crazy thing,
- The whole reason we came up with this was because we heard from large lot owners who said, but I only
- want to take a small lot off to sell it to fund something for my retirement, or I only want to take
- two small lots off this 80 acres so that I can give my kids some land. And they always talked about
- it as generational and actually generational is important because it is
- Actually, in the United States, our generations are actually getting longer than 25 years. I think it's
- like 27 and a half years now on average as a generation. So it's actually the other way, not 15. I'm
- sure there are 15 year olds who have kids, but I digress. Anyway, the idea was why would they have to
- go through that complicated process of a minor subdivision
- And why would they have to carve up their 80 acres into three lots of this size or whatever? Maybe they
- want smaller lots because they just want little homesteads to sell off or to give to their kids. And
- so the idea was, except for the issues of road widths, that this is something that the homeowner and
- the property owner can achieve without having to come to the plant commission even, unless they need waivers.
- that they can do this with staff. So it's expedited, it's simpler, it's just like, hey, this is what
- we need. And so that's what we were responding to was that call from large lot owners who want those
- little pieces of property. Now what's happened since then is we get, well, why couldn't I then carve
- that up and do a vacation and then do a whole subdivision
- Because the whole point is to preserve large lots, sort of clustering the green, the agriculture especially,
- because we got to feed ourselves at some point. I know we keep forgetting that. But the idea is that
- you still would have, and you would have a diversity of acreage sizes. You wouldn't have everything
- in five acres. It adds a diversity to the rural areas.
- overwhelm our existing infrastructure in terms of roads and intersections. And so that was the idea
- is this is a happy medium and to give folks the opportunity to do something for their kids, for their
- families, or for their retirement without having to go through the process of a petition and hearing
- and a hearing and get it done. So this was sort of that middle ground. It's an option. You can still
- do a minor subdivision and there's no moratorium on any of that.
- you could still do a major and there's, you could do a PUD. There's no, the only thing we put in more
- time was because we didn't want people doing what Jackie described, which is coming forward and keep,
- you know, carve it up, carve it up, carve it up, carve it up. And the planning commission never sees
- it. And suddenly we've got an infrastructure we can't maintain and the density that was never planned
- for that part of the panel. And so that's,
- that's where this whole thing came from. That's the genesis, that's the origin story. That's one story,
- right? And there are clearly parcel owners that would prefer to do other things with their property
- than what's been narrowed and described in the ordinance here. And I think this is, I hear all of it.
- But if the eventual forms that we get are 2.5 acre states, it's not agriculture. What we're seeing happen
- in the countryside are people building homes where farms used to be. And so the idea that somehow we
- have a agricultural community 10 years later still producing all this product, it's not accurate because
- look at what comes through this committee over the past decade, right?
- It's rural gentrification is what's been kind of narrowed into the choices one would have to do with
- their parcel. Secondly, it's a property rights issue. For those that have generational property, they
- may have other reasons other than leaving to their children or subdividing out houses. I mean, there
- may be people want to develop a smaller major or major or minor based on
- what they're seeing is demand for housing in the community again. And so we have 2015 ordinance that
- defines a loan in time. We had 10 years of behavior, how the commission has taken in PDs or not, variances
- or not. And it's all again, the foundation of this premise is on a house, it's on a foundation of sand
- and we can't point to why 25 years.
- All right, and so now we've got another definition in the room tonight of, well, maybe it's gonna be
- seven years. What I asked last time, and that's what I'm asking for again in this, is that if we are
- going to build a foundation that says a quarter century behavior equals divisions, that has to point
- to something that is empirical and not emotional or intuitive.
- Because because I think that this funneling that we end up with is what it sets us up for a lot of work,
- right, which is going to be people asking for variance or ask me to be or ask whatever or bring suit
- because they feel like they can't really do anything with their property at this point outside of what
- has been defined in this space. So I can set all that.
- decide to just go back to the original question, which is if we're going to cite something in this document,
- the ordinance that we're citing should at least reference the rationale of why that number is this.
- And if that's not the citation, we need a different citation on what the council has or the commission,
- whereas again,
- legislatively fine which would infer a act of legislation occurred here that says 25 years other than
- what's in the ordinance which just is and it's on page 22 for everybody which is the general design
- considerations for sliding scale options the designated parent parcel remainder shall not be further
- subdivided for a period of 25 years from the date of recording the final class connected to public sewage.
- Like fine but where did that come from.
- Is there a separate ordinance that defined that? Because the CDO document is now saying, why don't we
- go back, oh yeah, I know you're in it, sorry. There's some action that happened that defined this term.
- And it's not just the testimonies or the transcript. I mean, maybe my beef is with the paragraph that
- we need to delete because it doesn't actually point to the legislative action that says Monroe County's
- 25 years as a generation. And that's the basis for what we're doing.
- It's just tidying up. Though I disagree with the narrowing of what we're what we're putting on our property
- interest at this point. They're basically basing that 10 years of actions of the body here. And by the
- way the ordinance itself predates the CDO. There's language in the ordinance of course refers to districts
- no longer exist because CDO changed them. There's a lot that it would be nice to have some updated ordinance
- that really conforms to that that marries these two concepts but I'll stop at that point.
- Yes, Mr. Bush. We'll take a breath. With a lot to take in. Oh, my God, sorry. No, no, no, it's not a
- problem. This is, you know, it's quite a quandary. And I appreciate the additional red line language
- that was inserted by a staff that helps me better understand
- exactly what's happening. And I also appreciate seeing what you said on today that helps me historically.
- And I really appreciate the discussion we're having right here, because I was not in favor of this initially.
- I thought that 25 years is way too long. I feel struggling with that. I'm hearing in the panel, and
- I've heard at the last meeting
- that we need to have some, maybe some other metric that we could reference rather than just a number
- of years. I haven't come up with anything better. I haven't heard anybody who's offered anything better.
- So I think we're still stuck with the numbers. I will concede to Mr. Henry that the reference to an
- ordinance or a,
- a frost reference in the document that doesn't point to anything is probably inappropriate. It's a dead
- end. I'm serving on this committee as a citizen. I'm not appointed to be on this committee, and so my
- scope is kind of limited as to what to be as a
- president of Monroe County since 1989 has been what I've seen. And I do appreciate struggles with the
- infrastructure. That's a tough nut to crack. And I know the city or the city of Louisville and their
- government has put us in a disadvantaged position because it's hard to expand
- I have some ideas how that could be built, but that's a different conversation. So anyway, where I'm
- at is I like the language list staff added. 45 years is whether you call it generational or not, it's
- a number. And well, certainly,
- 15 years is what we think I would consider that generational was better. One 15 world kids having baby
- service, but nevertheless. I'm I'm. I'm ready to put this to bed as well, and unless I hear something
- better that tells me that. Uh, unless I hear a compelling argument why it needs to be 15 years, 20 years,
- whatever, I'm open to hearing that, but I'm not ready to move on this so.
- and throw it out. I think it's necessary to have. And I appreciate what the chairperson said that it
- is, she sees it as permission rather than a liability, I probably used the wrong word, but rather than
- a restriction. Now that I've got her understand the tool, maybe we need to do a better job of
- of explaining it to people, because I think there's been a whole lot of misinformation pushed about.
- So with that, I'll pass. If I might, I didn't plan to speak twice, but yeah, I think you raise a couple
- of good points. And it's really a question of asking somebody who owns a large lot of land, what do
- you plan to do for the next generation? I mean, if you plan to sell it,
- then you wouldn't be subdividing, right? I mean, you would just be selling it. And some developer would
- buy it and whatever happens, happens. So it really is a question, like, what do you plan on? Well, I
- plan to raise my family and give them a piece of it and farm it and do whatever with it. So because
- if you don't have this, I mean, because the other option is just let's rescind it all together. And
- that's been discussed and that's something I've thought about.
- And if we did that, we're limiting the options for people. And I don't want to do that. I think it's
- nice to have other options and something where you don't have to go through the whole planning commission
- process to do the sliding scale. But I will say that your last point is really important, too, because
- we had a lot of myth-making while we were doing the CDO process, since you probably are well aware of.
- Um, one of the things that got issued was every development has a 25 year mortality. No, it does not.
- It's just this one particular thing because we've made it easy. We've made it simple. We've given you
- a lot of opportunity to, to be creative about how you want to create these lots. Yeah, we're going to
- put some sort of time on it so that we know that this is your true intention.
- Right. And so I think that's where I think that was good that you raised that. So thank you. Go back
- to the paragraph that says 25 years. I agree with the comment about legislatively fund.
- I don't believe that this was legislatively found. I think the county commissioners concluded. And so
- that paragraph right there, I think you need to delete legislatively. It doesn't really add anything.
- And it just creates a, as we've seen, a topic of conversation that takes us certain directions. So I
- stick by my earlier comments, less emotion this time.
- with this change. Can I address that one? Yeah. OK. That was put in because we want to make it clear,
- the e-court reviewing this, that the commissioners had considered that number and are happy with it.
- So that it's not something that the court can weigh in on. In other words, it's a legislative prerogative.
- It's not for the court to say whether 25 years is reasonable or not.
- And the statement is they conclude that the 25-year restriction is reasonably necessary to accomplish
- the purpose of the sliding scale option. And those are listed. So what's the objective of this 25 years?
- It's to accomplish the purposes that are listed in the ordinance. How do I define legislatively five?
- Yeah, thank you, Tom. That means it's found by the commissioners and not by the court. And so if I take
- it, how do I find it?
- It's right there. They found it in this ordinance. Refine this to be necessary. That's the funding.
- Which is the same for every petition that comes to the Board of Commissioners. We have a cover sheet.
- And then we have the packet, the petition. And when we approve that ordinance, we're approving the contents
- of that petition.
- And that is- Or ordinance. And that is legislatively finding that process. Yes, and in our ordinance,
- the format that the ordinance is in, we always say the ordinance or the commissioners find and conclude
- that these amendments are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. So that's just
- a statement that the commissioners have thought about this.
- They're intentional, and it says, what is that? It's legal leaps. You're adding in your legal leaps.
- That's what I get paid to do. I don't question the legal concepts. I mean, it is, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Trilling.
- I appreciate that Mr. Henry. Well, I guess I appreciate that that legal analysis there, but I'm not
- as persuaded as my peers here. Because again, I appreciate the idea that in the context of passing the
- CDO, that all things contained within it are a legislative action that happened. But we're talking about
- a sentence that is saying that this number, it's inside of this,
- as if that were a standalone term of art or definition in the county. And again, since we've talked
- about that this does not exist in Indiana code. The concept of a 25-year moratorium is not something
- you can point to in the IC as a standard. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough to know that if I were
- going to come at this, I'd be picking on this particular line here. Because I want to, I mean, you've
- pointed to an ordinance in the document that says, well, here's the definition of sliding scale.
- 2015-whatever, but I have no comparable thing to point to as a legislative action, audience resolution,
- whatever, that defines what that term means in this county, other than that you voted on it in the context
- of the CDO. I'm just saying that I think something this unique in the state of Indiana that we're pointing
- to as a standard for behavior, if I were to manage this kind of, these districts, it's either remove
- that language altogether,
- with county legal saying that's your protection, to say it was a legislative action, not a legal one,
- I want to point to where that ordinance or resolution was passed. If not, maybe the commissioners ought
- to consider passing a resolution defining what 25 years means in this county, or what a generation is
- in Monroe County. That's it. But, I mean, I'm fine taking an amendment or accepting an amendment to
- clean up that paragraph, if it moves us along a little bit, but I caution that
- we're still playing around with numbers. And what's gonna happen 10 years from now is folks are gonna
- go back to the transcripts of this meeting and meeting 10 years ago and say, well, it was discussed
- and, you know, one thing follows another. So we're gonna continue to point back to the conversation
- defined in 25 years, right? And actually putting this on a solid foundation as to why this makes sense
- when it doesn't in 91 other counties in the state of Maine. So that's it. Okay. Mr. Pence? In this context,
- does the word legislative have to do with
- actions from state code or is it legislation that is generated in this? It's the county commissioners
- actions. Okay, they are the legislative body. Okay, so this this legislative thing doesn't refer to
- law from on high. This is what we're doing. This is their finding as a legislative body. Mr.
- Enright Randolph, do you have your hand raised? Yes, I guess I've been reading
- chapter 831-4 study skill subdivision to try to see kind of where that language you were referring to
- that if they go through the 25 years, they're only still allowed to do a major subdivision. So. It's
- in the vacation section. Okay, it's in the vacation. So that actually just brings away more pause for
- me. So if you go to in the ordinance page, what, 333,
- where it kind of has the figure of kind of what you can do in a sliding scale, you know, those are your
- minimums, right? So, you know, to get four lots, you're gonna have to have 40 acres. You have a hundred
- acres, right? And you wanna do the, this, and then you put those all in the 2.5 and then you have that
- parent parcel. And then afterwards you come out and you can only do a major. That's just baffling me
- because then you have to have a 10 lot minimum
- And we're talking about just creating huge 10-acre lots all across the county. Again, this is what my
- problem has been, is we've been kind of taking this approach, in my opinion, a little walkie. Sorry,
- I couldn't think of a better term. But that's my concern, is the burden it's putting on our community
- and our property owners. And if someone wants to just carve off those extra lots and has a large acre,
- you already need
- 40 acres right and then we're putting that and then they can only do a major and that means we're putting
- in this extreme infrastructure for 10 acre lots and I mean we have a chance to discuss this in amend
- more than what we're just talking about the the language added the 25
- year reservation, there's opportunity here to really look at this, rethink it, come out with another
- option, another tool available to our community where they're not so burdened on trying to just at one
- point in time, carve out 2.5 acres. Yes, I understand the infrastructure needs to be triggered at a
- certain point, but like I thought personally, and I'll show my ignorance here is like after you went
- through that reservation, you had the tools available like a minor.
- Obviously not a sliding scale again, because that's something we want to prevent. But that's talking
- about capital that has to be put up by the landowners to build the infrastructure. Also developers,
- right? I think that, you know, based off of that right there, it just bothers me. And this is our ability
- to make amendments to this, to address these things, even in the vacation area, because it relates to
- the sliding scale.
- full array of what the sliding scale tool is at our disposal to discuss to kind of iron out some of
- these wrinkles. And that's just the way I look at it. And I think that the reservation from 15 to 25
- years doesn't release or relieve any hardship. And that's what I thought it would do is after 15 years,
- they could come in and do a minor, right? The fact that they're still locked into a major just
- is a lot more and we really need to consider what these impacts are going to be like long term or we
- as the Planning Commission could petition the Planning Department to bring another option available
- and leave this as is. And that's the only way I would be able to support this as is as long as we're
- looking at another tool available that doesn't lock people into these like
- I only have 10 acre lots I can build unless you have sewer or a packaging plant which is technically
- a sewer which is very limited in our community. Commissioner Thomas. Just for a point of clarification
- can you go back to the the listing of vacations and that little table you had up there a moment ago
- Because let's say somebody did have four lots, whether it be a sliding scale or a minor subdivision,
- either way, if they're gonna have more than that number of lots, they're gonna have to have a major.
- I don't know how else you can do that.
- You see what I'm saying. You see you see my point that if you if you took 40 acres and you created a
- four lot minor their next step is not another minor. But that's at the 40 acres if we get larger than
- Well, that's the example you gave. I'm going with the example you gave. I said 100 acres. I said you
- need a minimum of 40 to even do the four lots. Okay, but if you had a minor subdivision of 100 acres
- and you created your lots, your next step is not another minor anyway. That's right.
- your next step would always be a major. When you get the fifth lot, it's amazing. But that's when we're
- thinking we have sewer and we're getting smaller lots with more density. We're talking about a minimum
- of 10 acres and what type of, that's what I'm saying. Like what infrastructure is needed for like eight
- lots on 80 acres? They don't need it, they just have septic. They just can build really without having.
- No, no, their only option if they had a parent parcel that was about 40 acres,
- there and they go through the 25 years they can only do a major which they will have to put
- in the infrastructure at a minimum of 10 acres and all you're going to get is four more lots at 10 acres.
- I mean who wants to put a sidewalk in front of your property if you have 10 acres? But they get to the
- fifth lot don't they have to put in somewhere anyway?
- No, no, no. It depends on the size of the lot. It's about how many on a shared driveway versus how many
- are on the roadway. And then that's the other issue is if each of the lots is sort of, let's say you
- had, let's take an example of a hundred acres and then somebody cuts out five acre lots all along the
- roadway because they're on septic. Well, now you've got,
- New driveways go lower and the highway department can't manage that. I mean, I don't even know that
- possible to do. It depends on the road and the width and everything else. So it does take more infrastructure
- because you can't just assume, well, there's a road there. I'm just going to put another driveway on
- it. That's why we have driveway permits. So it's not always a shared driveway. It is sometimes the roadway.
- That's the problem.
- I just want to go back to ask staff because they, first of all, they have managed this issue,
- which has, like I said, become very political and also based on myths and misstatements. And early on
- in the process, Jackie and Tammy contacted people who had been through the sliding scale subdivision
- you know, basically they followed every single person's lead and comment, whoever commented on the sliding
- scale subdivision. They followed up with them, they talked with them. And I wonder for our reminder
- and for Mr. Van Deventer's, you know, benefit, could you describe the result of those conversations
- with those who at first thought that they didn't like it, they thought the 25 year was inhibitive,
- and inhibitory and those who had actually engaged in the 25 year, what their responses were to you?
- Well, I think based on the CDO hearings, we reached out to the people that provided testimony on this
- and largely it was the authors of the white paper. So we reached out to that group and had a conversation
- with them and we asked them a series of questions. Was this a concern about doing an amendment to a
- sliding scale that
- created let's say two lots and they wanted to come back and do four lots and there was a mathematical
- issue in getting the four lots later if they created the lots a certain way or was it really about creating
- more than four lots to begin with? And so I think the consensus at the end was there's a concern about
- the 25 years and just what that says to people from a property rights perspective. That was really what
- they said. They thought that that wording just
- rub people the wrong way. But I do think that at the end of the discussion, we came out saying, I mean,
- people would always like to have bonds created out of their acreage. And they think that 10 acres is
- too large. People sometimes cannot obtain loans for that large of acreage. So there was an issue where
- that's not even a marketable lot for people to build one whole bond. So I think the two and a half acres
- was a good
- medium and so people are working within that system, which is a sliding scale and trying to stretch
- it to see if they can do something a little bit different with it. I think people like it. I do. I just
- think people want to scratch parts of it. They like the way it works. None of the commenters actually
- that I contacted had gone through the sliding scale. One thing that is compelling to me from just an
- administrative perspective is the
- 25 years, number one, gives a lot of freedom for the property owners and that they don't have to come
- before the planning commission and incur all those additional costs that are related to building when
- they want to do a slimy scale subdivision. They can just come to the planning department, figure out
- those floor lots and start building. 25 years gives us administratively some cover
- as far as what's changed in our provision of infrastructure development. Are there areas of county where
- the sewer infrastructure has been extended where we can give more permissions? How can we prevent ourselves
- and the property owners from building a county that nobody wants to live in?
- And how you do that, maybe the 25 years just gives us the right amount of protection and oversight so
- that if somebody, so that we don't change so rapidly, I guess, what people have said time and again,
- they value, you know, we just keep the rural rural and the urban urban. And there are permissions throughout
- for them to
- build more densely through other processes. So I don't know. I feel, I mean, Mr. Enright-Grandolph suggested
- this isn't right yet. Let's change it and everything. Just because we passed this doesn't mean it can't
- be changed. You know, but from the policy perspective, it seems to me like it's professional. You know,
- it is based in real world experiences that Mr. Martin would then chair of the
- plan commission for many years. They engineered a pretty good policy that is working pretty well for
- the property owners and for the staff. And it has protected some of that rural character. And it's also
- protected larger tracts of land for the property owners that can then be more valuable down the line
- if they do want to sell it for a PUD or something like that.
- It seems to me like it's pretty sound, you know, but that's my perspective after having been on this
- mission and having been here for all of those discussions. It seems pretty reasonable. It's not set
- in stone. This isn't Moses coming down from the mountain. It's just this most recent iteration of the
- ordinance. And I feel like it's time to get it done.
- But, you know, it doesn't seem like it's harmful when you talk to the property owners and have it, they
- didn't indicate that they felt harmed by it, did they? None of the property owners of people in current
- sign skills did I talk to because I didn't hear them during the CDO. I see.
- I do have up on the screen just like a 10-year review from our first science panels that we went through
- with the LRC, but I shared that with people to kind of see what's changed nearby, if anything, from
- the time they did the science field to now. We can share that again if that's helpful. But I think that
- if we don't address the four lot maximum and we have the 25 years and 25 years are up, people not
- people will be upset and maybe misunderstand that they think they can do something at the 25th year
- of March. So, you know, we're only 10 years in. So, but I think that maybe some clarity and with the
- CDO adding that lack of allowance to resubdivide and partially vacate is, I try to communicate that
- with people, but they maybe don't quite grasp it. But if the,
- Just to clarify, if the parent parcel is, let's say somebody starts off with a significantly large lot,
- I won't even talk about building sites and all that stuff and what needs to be built and slope and everything
- else. But let's say it's a lot piece of land and they start with a sliding scale and they start with
- Um, a hundred acres and they carve off two pieces, uh, for family. And then they decide after the 25
- years, they want to take that remaining parent parcel. They can create a new sliding scale with that
- parent parcel. To get up to the floor, they could do that anytime. So what we need to do then is to
- be able to say, Hey, if you want to, you know, and that's something to consider, do we want to say that?
- If once you're 25, once the 25 year more time is up.
- And if you have what is a piece of property that qualifies for another round of sliding scale, do we
- want to allow that or not? I mean, I think that's a good question. We're still years away from finding
- out if that's what people want. So we've got time on that. But it would be important for people to know
- now if that's something that they want.
- Yeah. And we do have redesigns. When people want to do a subdivision, they redesign it with us. And
- I think our planners have been good to say, like, you could get this many lots out of us. Not everybody
- wants that. They don't want the neighbors. They don't want the tax burden of a new lot. So yeah, but
- I think our planners do a pretty good job of explaining what their max number is. And I will say that
- this new write-up, what I appreciate about what has been amended is that there is a good comparison
- here about,
- Here are your options, which is what I felt was missing out of the original CDO. And it's really clear
- that you can do what you can do with your large lot of property. Here are your options. I think that's
- what I've done. So it sounds like you have a separate issue, I guess, as a point of information. Where
- does that go?
- it would be identified at this point. So I think that one of the topics that Ms. Van Wright ran off
- is bringing up is that on that CDO list of amendments, if people maybe are split to say this text amendment
- substantially addresses the comment at the CDO hearings, if we don't want to agree that, you know, maybe
- we agree to let this pass, go to the commissioners and they make their decision, but that you don't
- agree that this
- completely substantiates a completed review of what the people talked about at the CDO. And you wanna
- keep this on the table. Mr. Enright-Randolph mentioned adding another possible subdivision type could
- be an option to say you're creating up to eight lots or however you wanna do it to say what the new
- breaking point is. But I think there's a lot of other parts of the ordinance
- that we would want to point out to everyone to say, here's what you're doing once you get over five.
- Here are all the things that we have built up in the ordinance and all these different places that are
- contingent upon five lots or more, four lots or less. And so really the discussion is, let's just create
- a new subdivision type that gives people the opportunity to create more lots out of that large original
- parcel that either can be done under the same scale or can be done under another subdivision.
- Because a 25-year-long is not going to do. So to make sure you're, there was no. This is why I know
- we're working on three. I was just going to start talking. But I would just say then to Colonel Farris'
- concern that you wanted to move on with this, it sounds like we've exfoliated some other challenges
- that we can't really check this off the list. So there seems to be more work in my view. It needs to
- be done to address some of this.
- This is frustrating as that is to your final paper. It might be that we need to move on to some of these
- nuances, because I don't know if we can actually check this off as complete, given what I've heard here.
- But I also don't know what everybody wants. That's why I'm just sharing this. It's another possibility
- is to leave the question of, can you do another sliding scale, for example. Leave that on the list,
- but just move on from this particular piece. Yeah, this, right?
- Because we can add another we can add anything we want to that list. It's not like you know we're forbidden
- from doing that. Yeah I mean the focus on the length of the reservation is kind of out the window in
- my opinion with the understanding that they couldn't actually do a minor. And that's where my thoughts
- were is we're kind of reducing the timeline to give a little relief so they could still do
- another subdivision option
- and still contingent to 10 acres if you can only do a septic. Yeah, septic, sorry. I think maybe if
- it's not another subdivision type, maybe discussing different lot minimums or something to the effects.
- That's kind of what my hope is, is to try to figure out how to provide more relief
- And I'm just completely just off the rails with the fact that the idea that someone came in here, had
- 80 acres or 90 acres or whatever, and did the max here at getting the four lots, did the, what, the three 2.5s,
- which is like 5, 7.5, you minus that from the larger lot,
- and then they wait 25 years to come back and their only option is a major that that we really really
- need to be clear with people because that's impacting the current property owners and the future generations
- that might inherit that or other people that want to invest in our community that might buy that that
- they really have no other options and you know um you know if there's
- 80 acres in the parent parcel and after 25 years they waited thinking they could maybe do another small
- little 20 acres of that they can't they have to do a major. And those lots have to be a minimum of 10
- acres I would assume they're going to do larger like if they only wanted to do four of them they're
- doing like you know 20 acre lots it's just that's.
- And the difficulty of getting finances to buy 20 acres, the difficulty of managing it, the sensitivity
- of our property and what we ask people to do with stormwater and drainage and some of our impervious
- surface counts, we're just, oh my gosh. I mean, I don't see as an opportunity or something that's obtainable.
- I see it as like someone that
- has advantage in a lot of dollars in their back pocket to do anything in this community. At this particular
- time with what our lot minimums are, not in the difficulty we're having with extending sewer or providing
- packaging plants for people to have smaller denser lots. If we think about an aging community and then
- managing 10 acres lots, that's
- very difficult to. I'll leave it there. I really, really want to find something that balances everyone's
- concerns. And if it is a kiggle or, you know, scrapping this and finding bits and pieces that are good,
- and then putting those all together that address everyone's concerns and we keep the character, you know, I'm
- huge on environmental protection. Some of the, you know, that's my first thought and I'm huge on keeping
- that rule character too, but I'm not okay with the amount of burden that this applies to people. Commissioner
- Thomas. I take a, I take offense at this being like a burden because we're also protecting people who
- already own property in this community who already have invested money
- This is about ensuring that people don't lose everything they have because somebody has decided
- to willy-nilly just develop the hell out of whatever part of the county they want to develop. Now, to
- counter your concerns, which I understand those exact same concerns could be had because somebody had
- a huge lot of land that they inherited or bought and they did a minor subdivision but
- darn it, they did it the wrong way, or they did it the wrong place, or they should have done that corner
- and not that corner, but they've already built houses. So now what are they gonna do? What is the burden?
- Well, they're gonna have to do a major. It is not hidden. It is in the CDO. It is certainly something
- that most people would ask about if they're developing. So I don't feel like this is,
- like this hidden jack-in-the-box come out to haunt people. So I think what you're talking about is when
- people make a land use decision and regret it later, or somebody makes a land use decision, then sells
- the property and someone who just bought it doesn't like the previous owner's land use decision. We
- all have to live with previous owner's land use decisions when we buy property, whatever it might be.
- you know, this is what we have. So I don't think this is particularly unique to sliding scale. It is
- something that happens all across the country, believe me. It happens everywhere. So I don't think that's
- the issue. I understand your point, but to put this on as an issue with sliding scale, I think is not
- quite accurate.
- I would agree. It's like an issue with the CDO. And this is the CDO's done. This is one aspect of it.
- So. So. Yes, Congress. Have we exhausted the conversation? I'm exhausted by the conversation. Have we
- all have we all put our views on the table? I mean, what? Honestly, what I'm trying to preclude is if
- and when this goes to the Planning Commission,
- that we don't have this same discussion all over again with a fair amount of emotion, I might add. And
- I just don't think that speaks well for the planning commission. Firstly, that's my viewpoint. I think
- quite frankly that we're at that point where just about everybody here, minus Jeff, has made up their
- mind pretty much on the way they're leaning on what we're proposing here.
- I'm asking, this is the question. It's an educational question for me. Are we at that point where we
- can do a little straw vote? Can we do that and just see where everybody lays? We're going around the
- table. We've got eight people here, eight of the nine, and see where we are on this thing as a precursor
- of what might happen in the Plant Commission meeting. What would be the benefit of doing that, sir?
- It's intent and it demonstrates what the vote might be.
- I wouldn't want people to feel like they couldn't change their mind. That's why I asked them, as an
- educational thing, is there something we should or should not do? I'm going to decline to participate,
- but I understand what you're saying. I'm going to be very concise and kind of just go the way that I
- said, especially if we move this forward as is. I'll be like, so if we're not going to do a straw vote
- and we're not going to indicate what our events are, what I would ask then, when this gets to the plan
- commission, because we all have our own viewpoints on this now,
- And of course you have the freedom to say whatever you want to say. Let's just keep our comments concise
- and go to whatever motions put on the table and vote on it. And then kick it to the commissioners and
- let the commissioners decide whatever they're going to decide. That would be my recommendation. It was,
- I think it serves the body better if we do something like that. If there are some sidebar, if there's
- some side issues here, which I've heard a couple, which are worthy of adding to the list and we should
- take those as action items and add them to the list.
- I mean, that's what I've heard here that, well, maybe we need to, okay, well, let's capture what we
- think we need to and add it to the list. That's all I'm suggesting as to move this along. I agree with
- you. We've been talking about it for a long time and I think not much is gonna change. And also I kind
- of operate from a perspective of if it's not broke, don't fix it. And I haven't heard anybody say it's
- broken. I really respect Jackie's observation
- that this is kind of becoming a straw man for other issues. And those issues are more density in the
- county, more sewer, the provision of sanitary sewer through sewer systems. And so this is, the issue
- on the table is not that tonight. And what I heard a lot of discussion of things that
- It pertains really to the rest of the CDL. Just one thing and just on the ordinance with the vacation,
- which is the what? 328? Okay. You know, on the sliding scale where it says major administrative and
- administrative is basically to create one law, right?
- Or just being a lot line adjustment. So it's basically still keeping that larger parent parcel or a
- major. We would maybe ask them to explore. And this could be contingent on to still having large lot
- size that like they have the option to do another sliding scale after the reservation.
- if they still have 40 acres left in the parent parcel. Or they could do a minor if they still have 20
- acres left in the parent parcel. Then the reservation timeline does make sense as far as a topic that
- would have direct impact of what they can do moving forward. This is now my largest concern about the
- sliding scale.
- And that's basically where I'm going to leave it right now. But that is an opportunity for us with those
- conditions of still having large slot size. So if someone does decide to do a sliding scale with 100
- acres, and then somehow didn't realize that their only option is a major, and they still have like,
- I hate to do 100 minus 7.5, what's that, 93.5 acres left? No, 92.5. Thank you. I caught that as soon
- as I added it up.
- that they could do another sliding scale after that 25 years. You know I don't think that's going to
- create the density we're not looking for or maybe they could just do a minor. Would it be amenable to
- you if we added that on to the list of things to this stuff. Absolutely. Yeah I don't think we're going
- to get anywhere. I think we're highlighting some of where my main issues are which I think is great
- because thank you. And you know I think there's ways we could look at this.
- And I'll just say it one more time, once we grapple the septic sewer issue, a lot of this might not
- be an issue, but all lot size is minimum outside of the sliding scale being contingent to septic or
- sewer. And if you can't have a sewer, it's 10 acre minimums. And that's my more arching goal. That could
- be something we could add. And if we address those two things, I think this is an opportunity.
- Maybe I use words that aren't reflective of my intent here, but the goal is this is where we can actually
- try to start finding some of that relief. And we have the other parts that we're discussing. There is
- no other area that we've been trying to look at the ordinance to
- that relief and this is the only part of that that we've been looking at. We did talk about cluster
- subdivisions once but that kind of went wayside. So I'm done. Thank you. Sorry if I took all the air
- out of room. Yeah I just the thing to me and again I'm relatively new to this process but it seems to
- me like the way we're talking about sliding scale subdivisions the moratorium length is moot. There
- is no point. It's one and done.
- You know, at this point, you're one and done. You do one, no guarantee in 25 years, we're gonna let
- you do another one. You're one and done. You can't right now. You can't right now. Right, so it's like,
- why everybody hung up on years? It's like, it's one and done. I have stuff to go to a major. Except
- to go to a major. Right, right, but then again, that's very impractical for someone that's got
- 80 acres out maybe, I don't know. You gotta have sewer or you can't do a major. So it's in practice,
- it's not gonna happen. You have to have 10 acres or 10 acres. Yeah, so I think the whole thing comes
- back down to why isn't it just a basic minimum lot size and let things fall where they may. Well, that's
- the 10 acre.
- And then what it resulted in is that diagram, Jackie, if you would go up a few pages and just, you know,
- keep going through the aerial views. Okay, there, and compare that with the aerial view of the yellow
- markings. That's the 10-acre and go down two pages. That's on sewer. Yeah, versus that.
- I think the property owner gets more protection by the permission of the sliding scale. They get more
- protection of maintaining. They don't have to take the sliding scale. They could still just subdivide
- in 10 acre lots, but they have the permission to retain a larger parcel that could be of monetary value
- for them if they want.
- major subdivision. Exactly. Or they could do the four, they could do the minor and have four equal lots.
- If they want to, they could still do that. I thought a minor was not possible if you've done a sliding
- scale. No, no, no. I'm talking about before that. So you end up with that previous look of four equal.
- Once you've done that, you got nothing else. Well, you've got more. You've got more. You've actually
- got more options. So it's like view it as a permission. So are you saying,
- I just want to understand your point. I don't want to argue against you. So are you saying just get
- rid of the sliding scale? The 25 years. Right now, my understanding is that you could do a sliding scale,
- but down the road, we're going to wait 25 years, and we're not going to be able to tell you that you
- can do one in 25 years. And what we can tell you is you can't do anything but a major at that point.
- Right, but if you had done this, which is a minor, that's your only option anyway. So how is that different?
- You've still created lots, you've used either sliding scale or minor, and you've created lots, and now
- you want to do something else, it would have to be a major. You see my point? How is this any
- different except that you've had the benefit of not having to go through the hearing process, you've
- been able to just work with staff, much lower costs, to do a sliding scale and then continue farming
- or whatever it is you do. I do not understand all of the notes. I'm just trying to get a sense of what,
- and I get what you're saying because to me, it seems like that's something we do need to address in
- the future, put it on the list is,
- can you do another sliding scale if your property parent parcel qualifies? Can you do another one? Well,
- maybe the answer is yes, but I don't know. And, but certainly- Can we add that to the list while we're
- speaking on that? I mean, that's- Okay. Yeah. So I mean, it's- That can be heard. It's just that that's
- a separate issue from this. But if you, I guess what I'm trying to elicit from you is if you,
- Now, without having that part decided, do not feel comfortable voting on the sliding scale, then we
- should wait on the entirety of the sliding scale until that question is posed. That's where I'm going.
- And I just want that clarity from you on that. Eric, think about it. I can think about it. OK. It is
- very unclear to me what it is. OK. It seems like to me, when you get to this step, you have no more steps.
- except for a major self pitching. Which is also true of the minor. Right, but you get a minor you've
- done. If sewer gets introduced, you can do a major now with that, believe it or not. Oh no,
- for our parents. But I get your point. Those are military jargon, actually. We have successfully built
- a watch here. And we're making this more complicated as we build this watch. This is a three dimensional
- chessboard, right?
- and we're trying to take, and I appreciate all the excursions, and my head is starting to hurt just
- like everybody else's on these various excursions, but we're not gonna answer all the questions in this
- ordinance. We're not. We could try. We're not. There's always going to be a question on what if, and
- that's what the staff is doing, to take and help that petitioner navigate through what I can and cannot
- do, and we're relying upon their expertise, and it's great, greater than ours,
- to explain that to a petition. That's the way I look at it. Now, when we're done talking about this,
- I'd like to go back here and I'd like you to tell us those things you captured that you want to add
- to the list to see if we covered all those ones that people here around the table brought up. Are we
- at that point?
- I was taking down from Mr. Henry and Mr. Henry's discussion was a concern about this inability
- to re-subdivide after it's been originally subdivided. Under sliding scale, we could say major
- or administrative comma or subsequent sliding scale following the 25-year reservation. We'd still have
- to go back to the sliding scale and make sure that was clear and that there's enough math acreage left
- to leave into anything where we find that. Another option that I took from the discussion is that there
- may still be an interest in just reviewing a possible fifth subdivision type that creates maybe a few
- more lots than four using the two and a half acre minimum lot size in the rural areas. And maybe we
- can break down the discussion of when certain infrastructure is required.
- and it nails it. I think it does. And from the beginning, Jackie, you were so poignant to say that the
- real issue is not the 25 years. It's not the sliding scale. It's just people want more density in the
- fountain. Some people do. All right. Would you like me to move on to the next topic? Yeah, please. All right.
- See if we want to take these together and that we'll see. Yeah, maybe we can give them. If we don't
- definitely do a lot of stuff, we have a few updates that we haven't. Yeah, I think we have a plan to
- move forward with Holland Field. Good. And all will be decided on the center H. Yay! What if we close
- up the year? Yeah, maybe. And we're looking at a possible reduction for basement sites.
- fields. Yeah. Close I think to a cost reduction phase 2. Phase 3 we're waiting on ASDELT but they would
- also try to get a reduction. Yeah. At a later time but we could at least get them all performance period
- and a fairly accurate estimate. So there's been some progress on these. I have a cheeky question for
- you. How is that is that deadline for the letter for completion
- still good because we've been talking about this for six months. Is that still May of 26? Sorry. I'm
- not trying to be snarky, but because now, well, you've got a May, you've got a May date on another,
- right? I saw the payday. I figure when their letter credits are gone. But we're still good on this,
- right? They're saying they don't want to further deal with it. They want to get it done so they don't
- have to front in the inflation costs. Got it. Thank you.
- Okay, go. Got to ask. I didn't hear the conversation on the first. Can we go back to the. Can we go
- back to. Sure. You want to do updates on that one? Let's do 229. What else? What did you just say? Because
- I didn't hear what you said. We have an accurate estimate for phase one. We have a performance period
- is going to be tied to their letter of credit. They don't want to do any inflation calculations. And
- then we also have from having an accurate estimate we actually see that they're eligible for a reduction
- because they've gotten so much of somewhat they haven't we know what they what they have got done now.
- And the petitioner understands all of this and there's no issues correct. Representative. Representative
- is right behind you.
- Well, I'm not asking him, I'm asking you. We've really been very understanding. I think the clarity
- is that we want this. We all want this to be completed and finished and accepted into the inventory.
- My point is we're all on the same sheet and everybody's not going to hit. Yeah. And, you know, we had
- the Holland 3 lot minor last month get approved for its permanent lot. We had their bond and all their
- estimates updated. And so we think.
- We have a married path forward between the two developers. And with Phase 2 we have an accurate estimate
- for that as well now. It looks like they are eligible for a reduction and they currently have on file
- one hundred and twelve thousand dollars and
- There are new performance guarantees with $49,000. So we need a good chunk of that back. Hopefully then
- that money will fund the completion of the subdivision. And the same question. Is everybody singing
- from the same sheet at this point and not in their pit? One question with the tree. Has that issue been
- taken care of with the sidewalk and the tree? Are we on the two lots of the home fields? No this is
- space two of home fields. Okay I'm going to hit myself sorry.
- or behind. The three lot on. The three lot. That was last we decided. Oh, that's already done. And then
- the phase three, this is their first time actually coming before the Planning Commission. We've not
- seen this one yet. It's our last letter of credit that expires this year. They're going to have to renew
- that in full here in just like less than two weeks.
- Because we don't have as built that the highway department can review yet to show that they also will
- get a reduction. So waiting on their engineer to put together some as built for review. But at this
- time I think we're going to have them just renew their letter of credit but they have a pretty big carrot
- I think to get that done. And the goal is to get it all accepted into the county inventory so.
- At some point, the driveways will need to be addressed. And they may finish all the improvements, but
- we still have to get the driveways also inspected. OK. Not redone. You're saying something. We'll get
- redone, I think. But they don't get their money back until
- We have to do a maintenance. Yeah, so they get accepted. A maintenance fund gets posted. We can reduce
- that. Sometimes that happens in the end, but thank you. I just want to make sure I understood what was
- going to happen or maybe happen. Yeah, thank you. This is on video. OK, this is almost completed.
- So yeah, it's just been a while and there's some issues.
- So we're trying to, yeah. I think we went over some of this in the last page. It was the Holland thing.
- The Holland thing. It wouldn't be a Plan Commission meeting if we didn't have the word Holland in the
- field in it. That's really a, we can all give them more. Yes, I didn't see it.
- I'm sure the developer does too. Okay so the last two items that we just want to briefly go over this
- was something we brought up at an administrative meeting because that we did a under the CDO there was
- a map area for this lot here which is south of the Summers BUD. We actually we accidentally zoned this
- part PUD and so the owner
- would like was contacting us prior to see if this could get rezoned to the surrounding zone, which is
- high development. And we had discussed at the plan commission that even though this technically is not
- PUD, it needed to go through the formal process of correcting it. So the plan commission is authoring
- this request, but right now on the front page that you'll see here in the packet, we have the property
- owner request is
- community to HD. So what I wanted to have a quick discussion about for this one is if everyone felt
- that that was appropriate, there was some discussion at earlier admin meeting about whether
- it was appropriate to rezone this HD, given that they've been told that by CU they will not get any.
- They do have city right now, but they're not given the permission to expand that sewer for high density
- development.
- So wanted to make sure that since this is a planning commission author request, we were all on the same
- page about how it would be rezoned and to acknowledge that the owner may have a different opinion than
- the planning commission. We talked about this and decided it and we can't, we have to take it through
- as a formal hearing. We did that before. Not this one, I think we did a different one. This is us as
- petitioner. Notice that. Petitioner.
- It's not the person who owns the property who's asking for this. What Jackie is saying is that we, as
- the plan commission, need to decide what this should be. What zone it should be. The owner can always
- ask for a change to HD, but the question is what's appropriate. It's only an acre.
- It doesn't have sewer. So what are you going to do with it? It has sewer to the existing. Right. But
- not to expand its development. Right. Colonel Farris? So we, the planning commission, are bringing this
- forward. Who approves? Commission. I thought we agreed that on all of these, that we would put a block
- down there under the file for willingness. You know what we'll add back.
- Yes. On all of death, that way there's no, people like me don't ask that question. I just have a- Oh,
- I see what you mean, the order of hearings. That's right. Got it. Comments, last suggestion. If you
- go back to the actual zoning map where it's contiguous around there, yes, they're going to be restrained by the
- lack of the ability to have the city extend sewer from the parcel itself. So the HD is not necessarily
- going to kind of create a lot of smaller lots due to those difficulties. It will be contiguous with
- all the other zoning. And if they want a different zone, they can then petition us. The fact that we
- are identifying this as an error and it's not technically a PUD, that means it can't be, it shouldn't
- be zoned as a PUD. I don't even know if we're allowed
- allowed to zone areas UDs. But so that's just my thought is we make it contiguous. Let the property
- owners you know deal with the circumstances that they're limited to and if they want to do something
- different they petition us because I would assume if we caught this during the process we would have
- made it contiguous with other lots. But with that said I'd kind of more or less defer to Commissioner
- Thomas because this will be adopted at the commissioner level.
- I agree with you. No, thanks. Question rejecting within meeting schedule shows this. Plan Commission
- admin meeting in January 6, 2025 and then if the first is if the final hearing isn't waived. At the
- next meeting, you know how we do waiver final hearing, but should not be 2046.
- Yeah, thank you. Yeah, okay. I was like, oh, okay. Thank you. Come on now. There's always somebody who
- keeps up on that stuff. It's a good thing. Since 1986. We got to the way back machine and talked about
- how it feels all throughout 2025 again. And I didn't know for complex what they could do, but right,
- if they had
- sewer under the site conditions and infrastructure. So it says, if the property were to gain access
- to sewer for more expansion and rezone the high development, the maximum density permitted on this lot
- under the use multi-family drilling five plus units would be allowed a maximum of nine units based on
- acreage alone. However, this number could be further limited based on available area requirement for
- roads, utilities, and stormwater infrastructure.
- The property owner would also have to comply with landscaping requirements, which would require a 10
- foot wide type B buffer on the north and south sides. The property with left after county for buffer
- yards alone would be just 55 feet. So they're a long skinny parcel and they wouldn't have to. And the
- question is like, how do you do that with the 50 foot width? Right. And how do you do that putting in
- sort of access? Right.
- So they have the prime constraints even. What is that crazy? Is that, is that, is that lot? No, does
- that lot not continue up or is that just a GIS issue? I would assume it's a. I assume it's a GIS issue.
- I tried to correct this years ago. Oh. And something happened with an older parcel layer and it didn't.
- Probably with the rail. The rail line. Yeah. Cause it's up against the rail line. I see.
- Okay. Okay. Got it. I want to make sure that they were trying to correct it before the CDO and it's
- just an error. Yeah. So anyone has any thoughts on the request and we want to make amendments to that
- before it gets to the mission regular session. Otherwise it's presented.
- I need to talk to my colleagues. Okay. You know, I'm not gonna go on then. So if you are all okay with
- it, if I talk to my colleagues and they want to have something else heard or they want to have something
- else considered, we postpone this for a month. Is everybody okay with that? It's this item. It's this item.
- She wanted to, I don't think we've legally noticed it yet. So we could postpone it just now. They're
- not in a hurry since they haven't heard back. If you haven't advertised it, then yeah. There's no urgency.
- I just would like to let them know what's out there. So we'll put it on for if we haven't already noticed
- it, we'll put it on for.
- January. Okay, thank you. Sounds great. And then the last one was a rezone from limited business to
- AGR. This one, they state in their letter that they had basically I think a contract with the UPS and
- that has ended so they're wanting to develop the property rest initially now.
- They have been listening with you on this one, I believe, as the planner. So they have a pretty in-depth
- letter as to why they're about to change the zoning. And they meet all the requirements for the ADR
- zoning district. And those buildings on there are all, I haven't been out yet. These buildings on there
- are all commercial. They do appear commercial in nature, but I think they are saying that
- Maybe they would be either culturally, is that fair? Sure. I don't know. But there's no house on there
- now. What's the question? There is a house on there. Yeah, I think there is. But I think where they
- want to add like a campfire or like expand the farm. Is it on there or is it split by the parcel line?
- Letter? Yeah.
- I think we just need some clarity on that. Okay. There's already a residence. Yeah. And then the question
- then is what are they going to do now, which is, I assume this is a tax issue. Right. And property.
- Business land will never be used again during business except cutting hay, maybe a horse or two. So
- it says a house from the 40s.
- Yeah, so it's in the photos. Yeah. They're in the home. Right. But they're not adding another home,
- right? Because there's already one home on the property. So I think this is a tacit. Yeah. Right? Because
- you look at a certain amount for commercial versus that, right? Yeah. OK. They used to run a trucking
- business. OK. People have to live. Oh, that's that. Oh, a future home site on a six acre. OK. See, that's
- where I got that from. So we need clarity.
- We need clarity on that from the exhibit. Yeah, there's an exhibit where it shows a house. Maybe that's
- just the barmy thing building this house. But is that on? That's in the exhibit. It doesn't look like
- it's on this parcel. I will get clear. Yeah. And if they want to do another home, they're going to have
- to do us something else. Or a dadu. Yeah. OK. That's good. We'll add that home. Anyhow, we're a dadu.
- OK. Are there any other questions?
- That was the reason. So just to ask you about something. Do you want a motion to adjourn.