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.