WEBVTT 00:00:00.226 --> 00:00:09.284 - So we're going to follow the planning commission meeting to order. I'm going to go ahead and recall. 00:00:09.284 --> 00:00:17.984 - Thank you. Tron and Ray Randolph? Here. David Bush? Here. Jeff Morris? Here. Scott Farris? Here. 00:00:17.984 --> 00:00:27.131 - Rudy Fields? Here. Margaret Clements? Here. Julie Thomas? I'm going to try to stay as close as I can. 00:00:27.131 --> 00:00:29.822 - Julie, I'll come back to you. 00:00:30.626 --> 00:00:42.605 - I think the internet is freezing. David Henry? Here. Jovan Deventer? And then Steve Bishop? Here. Okay. 00:00:42.605 --> 00:00:54.815 - And I'll call Julie Thomas one more time. I am here. Okay. Eight voting members and one non-voting member 00:00:54.815 --> 00:00:58.846 - attendance in a quorum. All right. 00:00:59.298 --> 00:01:05.283 - First order of a business under the administrative business is the approval of the planned commission 00:01:05.283 --> 00:01:11.151 - meeting minutes from the October 22nd, 2026 meeting. I move to approve the meeting minutes from the 00:01:11.151 --> 00:01:17.137 - planned commission of October 22nd, 2026. Second. And everyone, did anyone have a chance to read over 00:01:17.137 --> 00:01:23.181 - that and have access to it? It was linked in the... Yes. Okay, great. I'll go ahead and call the roll. 00:01:23.181 --> 00:01:28.638 - Since this is an administrative business, we don't take public comment on minutes, so you'll 00:01:28.738 --> 00:01:39.984 - able to approve them here tonight. Yes is about to approve the meeting minutes from October 22nd, 2026. 00:01:39.984 --> 00:01:50.365 - David Bush? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. 00:01:50.365 --> 00:01:57.502 - Julie Thomas? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Ronan Ragranda? I'm going to 00:01:57.634 --> 00:02:08.577 - So I didn't get a chance to read them. Okay. Motion carries seven to zero. Okay. And so with that, I'll 00:02:08.577 --> 00:02:19.098 - go ahead and move on to the next item, House and Rollback 1001 next steps. So I did want to include 00:02:19.098 --> 00:02:24.254 - just some items for your review and I apologize. 00:02:25.122 --> 00:02:32.960 - Get this into the packet. So there's two code components to the House and World Act 1001. They kind 00:02:32.960 --> 00:02:40.955 - of put them in two different places. So the first code component is what we did, which is the hearing 00:02:40.955 --> 00:02:48.794 - requirement. So that we will link to the board, what we're calling the board record. That'll be the 00:02:48.794 --> 00:02:50.910 - packet that was presented. 00:02:51.266 --> 00:02:58.368 - the two items that were introduced as evidence during that night's meeting that were part of the testimony, 00:02:58.368 --> 00:03:04.944 - and then the meeting minutes that you just approved. So those are set in stone. I do need, based on 00:03:04.944 --> 00:03:11.586 - this submission, when I look at it from the state, I do need some sort of vote or understanding from 00:03:11.586 --> 00:03:18.294 - you all. We can have a broader discussion. Based on the hearing, are there amendments that need to be 00:03:18.294 --> 00:03:20.990 - moved to the ordinance review committee? 00:03:21.090 --> 00:03:31.094 - That's part of the requirement that needs to be submitted to the state by December 31st. And I can show 00:03:31.094 --> 00:03:40.906 - you kind of what we'll have to submit. So there's a submission form. It'll say basically, this is the 00:03:40.906 --> 00:03:50.526 - how many version that'll be next. Thanks. Okay, so this is the requirement that we did the hearing. 00:03:50.754 --> 00:04:01.408 - um, the housing studies, and then it will say any newly adopted or amended UDO as discussed in section 00:04:01.408 --> 00:04:11.958 - three. So we have to upload something or leave this blank, um, as a result. And then, um, they do ask 00:04:11.958 --> 00:04:19.198 - just for any like general comments. So I'm guessing if this is blank, 00:04:19.650 --> 00:04:27.249 - that's going to flag them pretty quickly on different jurisdictions that didn't amend the code based 00:04:27.249 --> 00:04:34.999 - on the hearing requirement. I bring that to you just to let you know that that's how we have to submit 00:04:34.999 --> 00:04:42.523 - the record and then ask if you would all like me to put something in that box saying we're going to 00:04:42.523 --> 00:04:45.758 - be working on an ordinance amendment or if 00:04:45.858 --> 00:04:55.327 - would have liked to vote as a group to say, we heard the comments at the hearing and nothing is moving 00:04:55.327 --> 00:05:04.979 - us to make amendments to the CEO at this time. Yeah, there's a hand raised. However you want to proceed, 00:05:04.979 --> 00:05:11.230 - let's get the... Okay, I think Julie had a hand raised first. Okay. 00:05:11.362 --> 00:05:20.952 - I don't think that there would be any way possible to get anything passed, ordinance review, plan commission, 00:05:20.952 --> 00:05:29.671 - and board of commissioners before the end of the year. So I think in a way, we're pretty limited in 00:05:29.671 --> 00:05:38.389 - what we could do. I think it would be good to put in a copy of the ordinance, the ordinance reviews 00:05:38.389 --> 00:05:40.830 - that we are doing, the CDO, 00:05:41.218 --> 00:05:50.230 - amendments that we're looking at, the ones we have done and the ones we are doing next. I think if anything 00:05:50.230 --> 00:05:58.825 - comes up at any time, we can talk about it and determine a path forward. But I don't see how it's even 00:05:58.825 --> 00:06:07.337 - physically possible to do anything before the end of the year. Okay. Troy, you're next. I just needed 00:06:07.337 --> 00:06:10.174 - a couple of questions to clarify. 00:06:10.914 --> 00:06:20.659 - They're asking what we're working on, not what we can pass by January. Yeah, let's see what the letter 00:06:20.659 --> 00:06:30.309 - says. So like if we're going to put the prioritization list and other things that are being discussed 00:06:30.309 --> 00:06:35.134 - at the ORC. Developed or amended. Section three is 00:06:36.514 --> 00:06:45.586 - Section 3 is a requirement for the hearing if I didn't put it in here. Section 3, not later than January 00:06:45.586 --> 00:06:53.707 - 1, it must conduct a public hearing to review the UDL, which in our case is the CDO, entities 00:06:53.707 --> 00:07:02.433 - only regulations and land development rules with the goal of increasing housing development by using 00:07:02.433 --> 00:07:05.630 - the following factors. So looking at 00:07:05.954 --> 00:07:13.451 - Section three, it's these questions we ran through, one through nine. I guess, are you understanding 00:07:13.451 --> 00:07:21.170 - my question? So your question was, could we put in something like, say we're working on something? What 00:07:21.170 --> 00:07:28.592 - are they asking for things that we're going to look at that are going to be amended? And is there a 00:07:28.592 --> 00:07:35.198 - firm date, as kind of just stated, that we can only put things in that could potentially 00:07:35.362 --> 00:07:42.965 - be passed by like January 1st, or they're just wanting to know what we're going to put in. Yeah. And 00:07:42.965 --> 00:07:51.019 - that's just kind of half of- It says newly developed or amended. So I'm- So developed is like, conceptual, 00:07:51.019 --> 00:07:58.622 - working on potentially. Can we go up to the sentence that says what in fact we're going to do at the 00:07:58.622 --> 00:08:05.246 - very beginning? Okay. And let's just read that and follow the letter of the law per se. 00:08:06.210 --> 00:08:12.477 - I want to make sure I understand it. A unit conduct a public hearing to review the unit and zoning and 00:08:12.477 --> 00:08:18.805 - inland, et cetera, with the goal of increasing, et cetera. OK, so what we did here is I believe there's 00:08:18.805 --> 00:08:25.193 - nine items, right? Correct. Of those nine items that we answered questions of, are we planning to change 00:08:25.193 --> 00:08:31.339 - any things relating to those nine items? And so that's the question in my mind. OK, well, that's not 00:08:31.339 --> 00:08:35.902 - what I kind of heard about. Is there anything that compelled us to discuss 00:08:36.130 --> 00:08:43.675 - and upload on to what you were just referring to. Since any newly developed or amended CDO has a result 00:08:43.675 --> 00:08:51.221 - of the review under section three, which is what we just went through the nine questions, the unit must 00:08:51.221 --> 00:08:58.766 - provide a written description of the ways in which the CDO has changed and to support increased housing 00:08:58.766 --> 00:09:04.062 - development by using some or all the factors set forth in section three. 00:09:04.898 --> 00:09:11.409 - So I would look at the nine questions that were asked. Were there any holes in those nine questions 00:09:11.409 --> 00:09:17.985 - that we were not providing a satisfactory response to with respect to their question? And if that is 00:09:17.985 --> 00:09:24.626 - the case, then that would be something that we would want to take and identify. And then you guys can 00:09:24.626 --> 00:09:31.267 - take and debate this as well. But I mean, you would identify that as actionable. Now, I don't know if 00:09:31.267 --> 00:09:32.830 - that's the case or not. 00:09:33.794 --> 00:09:43.018 - I think you answered all nine questions. I do too. I guess I'm just trying to further the conversation 00:09:43.018 --> 00:09:51.974 - about what you mentioned about uploading something and those would have to be strictly based on the 00:09:51.974 --> 00:09:55.646 - nine questions. That's what I see. Okay. 00:09:56.002 --> 00:10:04.505 - My interpretation is a bit different or my understanding of adverse impact and overlap is a bit broader 00:10:04.505 --> 00:10:12.680 - than just the nine questions. Personally, I would like to discuss the septic and sewer and how that 00:10:12.680 --> 00:10:20.938 - restrains everything in our ordinance. That does include several questions that were discussed. I do 00:10:20.938 --> 00:10:25.598 - think that impacts it if we look at accessory dwellings. 00:10:26.274 --> 00:10:33.389 - You know, if we look at other lot sizes, there's a lot of different things that are conditioned due 00:10:33.389 --> 00:10:40.575 - to having septic and sewer and model next our ordinance. You've actually brought this up on numerous 00:10:40.575 --> 00:10:47.903 - occasions. Yeah. Yeah. So personally, I feel strongly that, you know, if the planning commission would 00:10:47.903 --> 00:10:52.030 - like to move that conversation back to the ORC to redress 00:10:52.194 --> 00:11:01.232 - re-address what we can potentially do with the septic and sewer, I think, relates to several of these 00:11:01.232 --> 00:11:10.625 - questions. It's a lot of adverse impact, but it does relate to them. So. So as it relates to the question 00:11:10.625 --> 00:11:19.486 - number two. Yeah. Accessory dwelling units, you want to bring up that to ORC as possible amendment? 00:11:19.682 --> 00:11:29.392 - just to have the conversation of what can we do with the requirement to have septic and that requirement 00:11:29.392 --> 00:11:38.825 - forcing large lot sizes or even not permitting some of these type of developments unless you can have 00:11:38.825 --> 00:11:49.182 - the sewer. So that's how I feel. I'm always going to feel that way until we actually address this conversation. 00:11:49.474 --> 00:11:57.175 - I guess my satisfactory that we've really tackled it in a way where I've seen any change. And I understand 00:11:57.175 --> 00:12:04.588 - that that is my position and I'm more than happy to always be out voted on that. But I think it's time 00:12:04.588 --> 00:12:11.857 - to have a conversation again. I will go back to what I said in the very beginning and we were tasked 00:12:11.857 --> 00:12:17.758 - to answer these questions. This is a data column by the staff of the legislators. 00:12:18.050 --> 00:12:25.100 - and it's going to result in some sort of language. And so they're looking, they're going out and they're 00:12:25.100 --> 00:12:31.815 - drilling down to see if there's issues that potentially could become new law. And so you need to be 00:12:31.815 --> 00:12:39.134 - really careful when you respond to a question and be absolutely crisp in your response and be very specific. 00:12:39.134 --> 00:12:45.849 - Be very careful about opening the door for other things that might down the road result in some new 00:12:45.849 --> 00:12:47.326 - legislation impacting 00:12:48.354 --> 00:12:57.979 - us, Margaret. Well, I had Jackie, she recommended because I thought it was very erudite, succinct and 00:12:57.979 --> 00:13:07.886 - perfect, you know, Jackie, repeat what you had stated initially that you could respond. Sure. So I think 00:13:07.886 --> 00:13:16.190 - that the next steps that we would like to vote on is whether, you know, we've taken the 00:13:16.354 --> 00:13:23.386 - the hearing and the public's comments under advisement, and we move to make no amendments to the CEO, 00:13:23.386 --> 00:13:30.418 - or we can start a process and look at one of the nine questions or some of the questions and start an 00:13:30.418 --> 00:13:37.313 - amendment process at the ORC and upload that as a start. Not that I'm suggesting this, but to build 00:13:37.313 --> 00:13:44.414 - upon what you just said, as some of us had this conversation right after the meeting, and that is that 00:13:44.738 --> 00:13:51.703 - we had X number of people come in and talk to us. Quite frankly, there were some things that were relevant, 00:13:51.703 --> 00:13:58.153 - some things were other. And so of those things that were discussed and people were concerned about, 00:13:58.153 --> 00:14:04.666 - was there any relevancy at all for things that need to be addressed within our ordinance? Or they're 00:14:04.666 --> 00:14:11.309 - just a blanket statement of whatever they were saying. So is there anything actionable in those things 00:14:11.309 --> 00:14:13.502 - that were discussed that we might 00:14:13.762 --> 00:14:21.785 - want to consider in our ordinance? I personally didn't think so, because our ordinance is relatively 00:14:21.785 --> 00:14:29.808 - new. And we heard some of the same things during the public hearing that we heard during this recent 00:14:29.808 --> 00:14:37.830 - public hearing. Next year, it may be different. But I didn't feel that there was anything compelling 00:14:37.830 --> 00:14:41.246 - there to make a change one way or another. 00:14:42.530 --> 00:14:49.239 - So I guess what I'm saying, was there anything actionable? I have my hand up in the room. I don't know 00:14:49.239 --> 00:14:56.014 - if you all see that. Yeah, I was trying to get to you. I'm sorry. Thanks. All right, Dave, you're next. 00:14:56.014 --> 00:15:02.853 - Thank you. Appreciate it. So Colonel Farris, I agree about keeping it to the letter, I think, as tightly 00:15:02.853 --> 00:15:09.758 - as we can. So the first part of the conversation as I heard it was that if we were to add things like the 00:15:10.050 --> 00:15:20.450 - current working list of updates to the CDO, that was not a result of the hearing, right? That's like 00:15:20.450 --> 00:15:30.747 - ongoing work. So, am I coming through okay? Yes. Okay. So, if the logic model and there were things 00:15:30.747 --> 00:15:35.998 - said and we're taking, then the argument would be, 00:15:36.482 --> 00:15:42.983 - you had to include those things that we heard in the hearing as future work. The ongoing work is not 00:15:42.983 --> 00:15:49.612 - something I would think to include in this to the House because it wasn't brought up as an output from 00:15:49.612 --> 00:15:56.370 - the meeting, right? So if it's for the sake of filling space, I wouldn't put that working list in there. 00:15:56.370 --> 00:16:02.999 - And it wasn't an output of the meeting. Now, I think to your point about was there anything actionable 00:16:02.999 --> 00:16:04.158 - from the meeting, 00:16:04.930 --> 00:16:09.993 - You know, I think given Commissioner Thomas's comment that we're probably short on time to address that 00:16:09.993 --> 00:16:14.861 - now, I don't think it's something we need to address now. But I most certainly think that there are 00:16:14.861 --> 00:16:19.924 - things that were in that meeting that will be coming up after January 1st for revisitation because they 00:16:19.924 --> 00:16:25.036 - keep coming up. And that's what's compelling about it is there may be some fatal flaws in that ordinance 00:16:25.036 --> 00:16:29.953 - that need to get further exploration. But at this point, I would leave it alone. I mean, we held the 00:16:29.953 --> 00:16:34.334 - hearing. There's nothing actionable coming out of it. There's nothing to embellish on it. 00:16:34.626 --> 00:16:48.149 - Keep it sweet, short and sweet. Thank you. One thing, and I just kind of want to clarify since I went 00:16:48.149 --> 00:17:01.671 - over the questions again, just my concern impacts question one, impacts question two, impacts. It can 00:17:01.671 --> 00:17:03.262 - even impact 00:17:03.522 --> 00:17:14.147 - three as far as the commercial building. If they want to do adaptive reuse and it was already existing 00:17:14.147 --> 00:17:24.464 - and now they want to try something else, it's going to trigger compliance and that compliance might 00:17:24.464 --> 00:17:32.510 - require a sewer or a commercial type septic. It also impacts. Where was that? 00:17:34.018 --> 00:17:42.554 - like a timely manner, you know, having it could eliminate a couple steps. Anyways, long story short, 00:17:42.554 --> 00:17:51.174 - I'm on board with moving it, but my real question goes back to director, Mr. John, you said something 00:17:51.174 --> 00:17:59.795 - about, like, we don't put anything in there that you thought that that might highlight our submittal. 00:17:59.795 --> 00:18:03.006 - And I guess I'm trying to understand, 00:18:03.618 --> 00:18:10.280 - Do we think that that would be a negative highlighting of not having anything that was uploaded? Or 00:18:10.280 --> 00:18:17.209 - do you think it would be neutral? Or do you think it would be positive? And if you don't want to answer 00:18:17.209 --> 00:18:24.005 - that question, that's fine. I guess I think part of the discussion is if we don't put anything in the 00:18:24.005 --> 00:18:31.134 - portal, is that going to bring extra attention from the legislators? Do we comply with House and World Act 00:18:32.034 --> 00:18:39.085 - 1001 in a good faith effort. And I think we did. So I'm fine with just kind of moving along and leaving 00:18:39.085 --> 00:18:46.068 - that blank. And I also want to just mention I support what Colonel Farris and Council Member Henry was 00:18:46.068 --> 00:18:53.050 - saying that like we shouldn't play anything that's outside of those nine questions in there. If we did 00:18:53.050 --> 00:19:00.169 - not hear anything from the hearing that is based on those nine questions that the team or the commission 00:19:00.169 --> 00:19:01.118 - has unanimous 00:19:01.442 --> 00:19:07.940 - you know, we are, we should move forward in this direction and change this thing about the CDO. Then 00:19:07.940 --> 00:19:14.567 - I wouldn't put anything in there that, you know, won't move. But if we want to put something in there, 00:19:14.567 --> 00:19:21.259 - it's like, we're going to, we, we do have on the board record at the end of this report, you know, they 00:19:21.259 --> 00:19:27.886 - ask the same question. We state any changes in the CDO following the public hearing will be determined 00:19:27.886 --> 00:19:30.974 - after October 27th, because it's just too soon. 00:19:31.106 --> 00:19:37.560 - I do want to say something since this has been kind of something I've been focused on for quite some 00:19:37.560 --> 00:19:44.207 - time. There were people that did come in and talk about lot size. There was the letter that was written 00:19:44.207 --> 00:19:50.725 - that talked about the difficulty of them putting an ADU on their property and some of the reasons why 00:19:50.725 --> 00:19:55.518 - I think are due to kind of the process and also lot size septic and sewer. 00:19:55.714 --> 00:20:02.514 - We did hear those comments. So as much as I've been talking about that, that was expressed at the hearing 00:20:02.514 --> 00:20:09.122 - by completely fine to move along. I just want to make sure people know this isn't just my position and 00:20:09.122 --> 00:20:15.793 - my opportunity to say if this was things we did hear at the hearing. So let's go back to the block that 00:20:15.793 --> 00:20:21.246 - we have to take and put comments on and read what it says. And it's sort of a short. 00:20:21.762 --> 00:20:29.036 - version of this, but any newly developed or amended CDO as a result of the review under section three 00:20:29.036 --> 00:20:36.310 - of this chapter, the unit must provide a written description of the ways in which the CDO has changed 00:20:36.310 --> 00:20:43.727 - to support increased housing development by using some or all of the factors set forth in section three 00:20:43.727 --> 00:20:51.358 - of this chapter. So we're going to have an ORC in December then? No. Do you see where I'm going with this? 00:20:52.322 --> 00:21:00.337 - Okay, and so we're not gonna have an ORC, so there's no form to have any discussion. Before they just 00:21:00.337 --> 00:21:08.273 - do. Before they just do. Okay, so we'll go down to the block that we're supposed to put our comments 00:21:08.273 --> 00:21:16.287 - in. We'll see what it says. And then it does give us another statement to say, using the space below, 00:21:16.287 --> 00:21:20.766 - please describe the ways in which the CDO was changed to 00:21:21.122 --> 00:21:28.929 - Yeah, and I think that's a slippery slope. I think that's a slippery slope to answer those questions 00:21:28.929 --> 00:21:36.813 - myself. I think you leave it empty. Yeah, it's too small. Do we need to vote on that? Is there anyone 00:21:36.813 --> 00:21:45.470 - in opposition of leaving it blank? I guess it would be better. Is there not a statement in there that says that 00:21:45.826 --> 00:21:53.416 - There's no, there's no reporter. I mean, blank looks blank, right? I mean, it looks like you didn't 00:21:53.416 --> 00:22:01.234 - fill it in. Is there a neutral statement? That might be fine. Colonel, that might be fine. I mean, no, 00:22:01.234 --> 00:22:04.574 - not at this time or no action at this time. 00:22:05.346 --> 00:22:14.370 - I think Jackie had a very clear statement that was very airtight. It said, based on the hearings and 00:22:14.370 --> 00:22:23.573 - our deliberation, no changes to the CDO are being entertained at this time. That's good. That's a good 00:22:23.573 --> 00:22:32.507 - one. I think that's good. Jackie, are those the words that you used? I certainly agree with some of 00:22:32.507 --> 00:22:33.758 - the comments. 00:22:34.338 --> 00:22:41.211 - that have been made, if we leave it blank, then it does. I would like to raise that question. I'm not 00:22:41.211 --> 00:22:48.016 - going to be able to support that. I understand that based off the timeline, we can't have subsidence 00:22:48.016 --> 00:22:54.821 - changes. That's fine, but I'm not comfortable with supporting that statement. OK, we'll get to that. 00:22:54.821 --> 00:23:01.694 - I have, I guess, a question or clarification as well. It seems to me we're premature on trying to put 00:23:01.694 --> 00:23:04.254 - anything in here. And if we do tackle 00:23:04.610 --> 00:23:11.348 - some of these questions that were raised at the public hearing, or if we, for whatever reason, if we 00:23:11.348 --> 00:23:18.087 - go down the path of tweaking the CDO in 2027, then this time next year, I think all that needs to be 00:23:18.087 --> 00:23:25.026 - put in there because it has changed at that point in time. Right now, nothing's changed. Right, I don't 00:23:25.026 --> 00:23:31.897 - know if that's, they're not gonna ask for it, I don't think. We submit this and then we close the book 00:23:31.897 --> 00:23:34.366 - on it. And this is the one and done? 00:23:34.498 --> 00:23:45.334 - That's what my understanding is. I thought that was every year. Yeah, it's annual. I know that they 00:23:45.334 --> 00:23:56.496 - want to roll another version of this out. I mean, there were also people at the hearing who said other 00:23:56.496 --> 00:24:04.190 - things that less density was required. Going down that, we deliberated 00:24:04.322 --> 00:24:11.353 - as a client commission, and we decided that no action was necessary at this time. You know. If you're 00:24:11.353 --> 00:24:18.384 - not going to have an ORC in December, there's no forum to even have a discussion prior to January. So 00:24:18.384 --> 00:24:25.553 - this is the progress report. So it says beginning January 1, 20.7, each local government that exercised 00:24:25.553 --> 00:24:30.654 - spending and zoning under this Indiana Code Authority, which includes us. 00:24:30.978 --> 00:24:38.255 - shall submit to the IHCBA and to the executive director a housing progress report. This will have to 00:24:38.255 --> 00:24:45.964 - be done every year. Yeah. Well, when do we have to do it? It says... Beginning January 1 for the preceding 00:24:45.964 --> 00:24:53.530 - year. So it's going to... It doesn't give a deadline right now. That's what I mean. There's no suspense, 00:24:53.530 --> 00:24:59.870 - although we submit that. January 1st, 2020. Steve. So this is an annual report. I think 00:25:00.034 --> 00:25:05.926 - Yeah, it hasn't been said out loud, but you're setting a baseline they're going to compare you against 00:25:05.926 --> 00:25:11.875 - every year following this. So whatever you put in, if you don't have demonstrable changes year to year, 00:25:11.875 --> 00:25:17.824 - they're going to notice it the first year. So I think it needs to be fully filled out in an actual good 00:25:17.824 --> 00:25:23.716 - faith effort because the next year is going to be different. And it doesn't say changes have to occur. 00:25:23.716 --> 00:25:29.150 - So to the comments maybe that we're talking about less density and things, you know, like that 00:25:29.378 --> 00:25:36.312 - That is as important as like the septic and sewer. What I'm saying is like, those are discussions that 00:25:36.312 --> 00:25:43.247 - we can have good faith effort doesn't mean it has to have ordinance changes. And I guess my main thing 00:25:43.247 --> 00:25:50.181 - is I'm fine with saying we can't get anything done in this type of a timeline, but I'm not okay saying 00:25:50.181 --> 00:25:53.278 - we're not going to work on that in like 2027. 00:25:54.050 --> 00:26:00.088 - Sorry, I know Julie has it, but Mr. Schilling wants to say something. As our legal rep, I think it's 00:26:00.088 --> 00:26:06.126 - important to hear what you have to say. I agree with Dave Henry and Scott that what came out of this 00:26:06.126 --> 00:26:12.105 - hearing, what changes were prompted by this hearing, and there are none to this day. They are going 00:26:12.105 --> 00:26:18.143 - to have the transcript of the hearing. They can figure that out for themselves if they think there's 00:26:18.143 --> 00:26:21.790 - a problem. But I just, you know, this is going to be getting 00:26:22.082 --> 00:26:28.299 - hundreds and hundreds of reports from towns and planning commissions all over the place. They've leaned 00:26:28.299 --> 00:26:34.277 - so heavily to AI and they've gotten awards for the amount of AI they use, the amount of data is not 00:26:34.277 --> 00:26:40.434 - going to matter. Yeah, but the quality is. I mean, there are places like Brown County where they can't 00:26:40.434 --> 00:26:45.694 - do anything. I mean, there's so many places, so many different environments that I just 00:26:45.890 --> 00:26:52.504 - I just think you just have to be honest and say, look, we just changed the CEO to promote housing and 00:26:52.504 --> 00:26:59.053 - we didn't hear anybody come and say that we didn't go far enough. So we're not gonna do it. My whole 00:26:59.053 --> 00:27:05.668 - thing is there is nothing we can do based off of this timeline, but it does compel me to want to have 00:27:05.668 --> 00:27:12.606 - those discussions, I guess, you know? So like, I think the statement I heard Jackie say makes it seem like 00:27:12.930 --> 00:27:19.110 - nothing from the hearing compels us to want to have discussions. And that's what bothers me with the 00:27:19.110 --> 00:27:25.290 - statement the most. I totally understand the timeline. We just can't get it done. And I support that 00:27:25.290 --> 00:27:31.592 - a hundred percent. And you can always add a sentence that we have a process, the World Workers' Review 00:27:31.592 --> 00:27:37.282 - Committee to take and address whatever. Exactly. We have a process in place to address them. 00:27:37.282 --> 00:27:40.158 - I see Commissioner Thomas has her hand raised. 00:27:40.706 --> 00:27:50.365 - No, that's all it is. Thank you. Thank you so much. So this is a, this is this whole thinking about 00:27:50.365 --> 00:28:00.217 - from a Republican majority legislature, super majority legislature, where about a third of the people 00:28:00.217 --> 00:28:06.206 - are developers. Okay. So, but there there's been an election. 00:28:06.306 --> 00:28:14.319 - and things are changing a bit. So I don't even know that this is coming back next year. I also would 00:28:14.319 --> 00:28:22.253 - say that as much as we can discuss the things that were said about density, we can also look at the 00:28:22.253 --> 00:28:29.790 - other things that were said about density that say don't fall into the city's trap. So I think 00:28:29.922 --> 00:28:37.940 - You know, yeah, we should talk about all of it, not just handpick a few things that were said. So yes, 00:28:37.940 --> 00:28:45.959 - we should look at it. So my suggestion is that we say something in that box as has been written so far 00:28:45.959 --> 00:28:54.055 - that adds, we will continue to review this in 2027. And just leave it at that. We don't want to be TMI. 00:28:54.055 --> 00:28:59.582 - Dave, I have a question for you. Yes. Dave, I have a question for you. 00:28:59.874 --> 00:29:06.131 - Dave Schilling. Since the commissioners asked the planning commission to do this, do we also, as the 00:29:06.131 --> 00:29:12.512 - board of commissioners, need to approve this before the end of the year? Yeah. The resolution that was 00:29:12.512 --> 00:29:19.326 - adopted said the planning commission was going to put this together and then pass it to you for consideration 00:29:19.326 --> 00:29:22.238 - of the commissioner. Great. Thank you so much. 00:29:26.434 --> 00:29:32.976 - So I would amend what Julie just said with respect to tackling the issues in the next calendar year, 00:29:32.976 --> 00:29:39.647 - but stipulate that we do have a process called the Ordinance Review Committee, where, in fact, we take 00:29:39.647 --> 00:29:46.125 - up on these issues and discuss them as part of the State Commission Four, et cetera, something like 00:29:46.125 --> 00:29:52.667 - that. You want to tell them you have a process within your own organization to address these issues. 00:29:52.667 --> 00:29:55.646 - No, that's important. I guess that's my take. 00:29:56.418 --> 00:30:04.569 - Very valid. It's not for just put down the back burner. It has to go through a process. Something like 00:30:04.569 --> 00:30:12.799 - that. So make it into English. You know, that I remained really proud of how we considered every single 00:30:12.799 --> 00:30:20.158 - comment that came in from the public when we did we're deliberated on the CDL. It was really 00:30:21.922 --> 00:30:32.919 - You planning staff did a wonderful job in guiding us through that. Thank you. Okay, so in very 00:30:32.919 --> 00:30:44.727 - few iterations, I can try and put something together for everyone's vote, if that's okay? Yeah. Okay. 00:30:44.727 --> 00:30:48.894 - So is the intention to vote on some 00:30:49.282 --> 00:30:59.416 - I think that's a good question. Is there an iteration of that tonight? Then Jackie, are you putting 00:30:59.416 --> 00:31:09.955 - that together for next time? Well, so the next step based on the resolution is to, uh, have the meeting 00:31:09.955 --> 00:31:16.542 - minutes approved by the commissioners on or before December 3rd. 00:31:17.122 --> 00:31:25.565 - We have a little bit of time, but not a ton of time. I would probably prefer we get something agreed 00:31:25.565 --> 00:31:33.925 - upon tonight. So what I've heard so far is we could state something such as no action will be taken 00:31:33.925 --> 00:31:42.535 - at this time. We will continue to review the CDO into 2027. Monroe County has a process for addressing 00:31:42.535 --> 00:31:46.046 - and reviewing text amendments to the CDO. 00:31:46.402 --> 00:31:53.686 - which is the ordinance review committee and their next schedule meeting is January 11th, 2027. Do you 00:31:53.686 --> 00:32:01.042 - want me to say something like that? So it's. That's pretty strict. I like it. It's not until next year 00:32:01.042 --> 00:32:08.255 - essentially. OK, it's clear, concise and factual. Is it necessary to plug in the next date? The date 00:32:08.255 --> 00:32:11.326 - of the next meeting if you wanted to just. 00:32:11.778 --> 00:32:20.021 - Basically state, we're out of time for the rest of the year. That's the only reason we put it in there. 00:32:20.021 --> 00:32:28.185 - I didn't know if we want it to be locked into a date when something happens. They don't really see it. 00:32:28.185 --> 00:32:36.428 - I prefer leaving out the constraints of time from the statement because it might create a reaction that 00:32:36.428 --> 00:32:41.342 - causes more response from us. It's like too much information. 00:32:41.698 --> 00:32:47.958 - Maybe they'll have us starting on this in July and have other items they want us to deliberate. We'll 00:32:47.958 --> 00:32:54.156 - never get the work at the client page, you guys. So just cut it off at Ordinance 30. Yeah, okay. But 00:32:54.156 --> 00:33:00.600 - no action is taken at this time. We will continue to review the CDO in 2027. Monroe County has a process 00:33:00.600 --> 00:33:06.798 - for addressing and reviewing text amendments to the CDO, which is the Ordinance Review Credit. Would 00:33:06.798 --> 00:33:10.910 - you support that? Yeah. Would you want to say the monthly process? 00:33:11.810 --> 00:33:20.811 - I think that shows that we're not just picking inside and it doesn't, as long as Ms. Holmans is over 00:33:20.811 --> 00:33:29.722 - there. I mean, I just think less is more than you're dealing with. Maybe you could just say regular 00:33:29.722 --> 00:33:39.614 - scheduled meeting. At the next regular scheduled meeting. I wouldn't even put next. I just put at the regular. 00:33:40.002 --> 00:33:47.912 - Yeah, at the regular scheduled meeting of the ordinance review committee. Yeah. All right. We're splitting 00:33:47.912 --> 00:33:53.086 - here. Yeah, I know. Good. I just don't want to get put in the corner. 00:33:53.506 --> 00:34:00.890 - Yeah. So will you give us the official rendering of what you decided we're going to say? No action will 00:34:00.890 --> 00:34:08.700 - be taken at this time. We will continue to review the CDO in 2027. Monroe County has a process for addressing 00:34:08.700 --> 00:34:16.013 - and reviewing text amendments to the CDO, which is the regularly scheduled ordinance review committee. 00:34:16.013 --> 00:34:23.326 - I make a motion that we approve that statement as stated. I'll second. It's been moved and seconded to 00:34:23.458 --> 00:34:36.435 - Approve that language to submit to the state under our obligation. Go ahead. Stockers. Yes. Rudy Fields. 00:34:36.435 --> 00:34:49.411 - Yes. Margaret Clemens. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Sean Enright-Randolph. Yes. David Bush. 00:34:49.411 --> 00:34:52.254 - Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. 00:34:52.994 --> 00:34:59.630 - Motion carries 8 to 0. Now do we also have to present to the Planning Commission for us to take and 00:34:59.630 --> 00:35:06.465 - recommend approval to the County Commissioners, or is this it? The resolution already did that. So you 00:35:06.465 --> 00:35:13.234 - can go from this body to the County Commissioners. And then to the state. I just want to make sure we 00:35:13.234 --> 00:35:15.358 - all understand that. Touchdown. 00:35:15.746 --> 00:35:24.291 - So the other part of the House and World Act, just to let you know, is the housing progress report. 00:35:24.291 --> 00:35:33.091 - So we would like to bring this for your review. We're going to try and set a goal on January 5th. That 00:35:33.091 --> 00:35:41.636 - might be too quick. Well, I know we'll have the full numbers by then. It might be the first meeting 00:35:41.636 --> 00:35:45.310 - of February at this point to give you that 00:35:45.410 --> 00:35:53.129 - We want to make sure you agree. We might have some questions. So I highlighted in red some of the questions 00:35:53.129 --> 00:36:00.419 - that they're asking for which I may come back and say, here's what this source says. Here's what this 00:36:00.419 --> 00:36:07.567 - source says. Because I don't know. It doesn't exactly say use this source. Right. So everyone could 00:36:07.567 --> 00:36:09.854 - be using a different source. So 00:36:11.618 --> 00:36:19.746 - I just want to let you know that this is still something that we'll be talking about into 2027. I wouldn't 00:36:19.746 --> 00:36:27.646 - put the 5th of January. I'd say the January meeting, because you might change the date for some reason. 00:36:27.646 --> 00:36:35.774 - I know we're splitting. No, this is just for our working view. I'm not going to submit anything like this. 00:36:36.130 --> 00:36:43.531 - Well, they haven't given us a deadline, but I'm guessing it's not here. I'm guessing they might say 00:36:43.531 --> 00:36:51.005 - it's like January 31st. I thought I read that in one of our forms. I thought I did too, but it's not 00:36:51.005 --> 00:36:58.628 - on the form that they gave us to submit. I can go back to the form. There's no longer a super country. 00:36:58.628 --> 00:37:04.030 - But I don't want people to get up to speed. This will be on the... Yeah. 00:37:04.866 --> 00:37:12.588 - So yes. So I'll triple check our, um, I heard about 31st. I did too. Okay. So we will bring it back 00:37:12.588 --> 00:37:20.310 - to you. We want to do it quickly, but there, there are going to be some questions that we have. And 00:37:20.310 --> 00:37:27.877 - if you all have a chance to look at this and have thoughts on sources where we should agree upon, 00:37:27.877 --> 00:37:32.510 - you know, using that, cause we're going to have to do this. 00:37:33.026 --> 00:37:39.783 - at least for probably two years. And I guess maybe you may not, but we might want to be setting a good 00:37:39.783 --> 00:37:46.605 - template for ourselves to then iterate next year. Because if we use a certain source this year and then 00:37:46.605 --> 00:37:53.230 - switch sources, it doesn't give you room to talk and explain over it. Are you going to provide those 00:37:53.230 --> 00:37:59.134 - questions? Because it's not in the packet, correct? Yes, sorry. I meant to put this link. 00:37:59.298 --> 00:38:08.326 - this in the packet and so I can email this to you guys. That would be awesome. Thank you. Okay um but 00:38:08.326 --> 00:38:17.266 - it's not ready yet because I the starting point is to have all 2026 data and we don't have that yet. 00:38:17.266 --> 00:38:23.550 - So you need a breath are you ready to move on? We're ready to move on. 00:38:23.874 --> 00:38:34.539 - So the next item under the packet is the fee schedule. So this was continued from March of this year. 00:38:34.539 --> 00:38:45.204 - And we do have some spare copies, 31 in the room that wants to look. We are proposing some changes to 00:38:45.204 --> 00:38:50.014 - what's on the screen. So I'm going to pull up 00:38:50.914 --> 00:39:00.747 - The change most accurate I've printed off some paper copies for those in the room after working with 00:39:00.747 --> 00:39:06.686 - our staff this afternoon. One of the things that we did was. 00:39:06.978 --> 00:39:16.013 - because we were able to succeed in the council request and we did get a cost of living adjustment and 00:39:16.013 --> 00:39:25.048 - a re-grid for our positions. We plugged that into our labor analysis to make sure that these fees and 00:39:25.048 --> 00:39:34.084 - our hourly work to accomplish these different petitions and permits equal that. So this is reflective 00:39:34.084 --> 00:39:35.678 - of 2027 salaries. 00:39:36.162 --> 00:39:57.733 - Some of the changes that you'll notice off the bat from what's in the packet, we did separate out the 00:39:57.733 --> 00:40:02.174 - conditional use with 00:40:02.402 --> 00:40:29.950 - it being a home waste business conditional use and a conditional use just general. Okay, Devil's Epic. 00:40:31.906 --> 00:40:41.390 - That's the old. This is the one that's in front of you. And that's very funny. 25 B's as well. The ones 00:40:41.390 --> 00:40:51.422 - I'm looking at on mine are the new one you're asking us to vote for and this is the old ones. No, the one is. 00:40:51.682 --> 00:40:58.215 - Drafted new, but we drafted another version, which is in paper. So we want to kind of walk you through 00:40:58.215 --> 00:41:04.684 - it and then we can bring it to the next meeting. That was my devil's advocate question. These are the 00:41:04.684 --> 00:41:11.027 - new. This is the latest. Yeah, it's on the screen right now. And was there a paper that in changes. 00:41:11.027 --> 00:41:13.310 - Yeah, we could only seven just from 00:41:13.474 --> 00:41:20.198 - what's in the packet, which we weren't proposing to now what we are proposing, right? Is there a red 00:41:20.198 --> 00:41:26.922 - line or an old? I mean, I don't remember every single fee and I don't understand the increase amount 00:41:26.922 --> 00:41:33.846 - on each one. So I didn't want to redline every single thing because it would be a lot of red, but these 00:41:33.846 --> 00:41:40.636 - are the two new font-like categories that we added. So these were never in there before, but I can go 00:41:40.636 --> 00:41:43.166 - ahead and redline what the fees were. 00:41:43.682 --> 00:41:51.838 - And the next year, you can compare it. But I'll say just generally speaking, we're looking at about 00:41:51.838 --> 00:42:00.483 - 15 to 20% increase. We won't be able to change this for five years. So continuing with my levels advocate 00:42:00.483 --> 00:42:06.110 - question, if I look at these fees, because they're new and improved, 00:42:06.466 --> 00:42:13.462 - Is there a logic on the increases? I mean, like, could you do a 2% increase, a 5% increase across the 00:42:13.462 --> 00:42:20.457 - board? Are they selected in nature? I mean, what's the logic behind the fee increases? Because that's 00:42:20.457 --> 00:42:27.384 - the question that people are going to ask. Why did it go up? So we use the salaries as the basis for 00:42:27.384 --> 00:42:34.242 - increasing the fees across the board. So they're going to look pretty similar. I will say that some 00:42:34.242 --> 00:42:35.614 - of the changes that 00:42:36.162 --> 00:42:44.637 - we are struggling with the most are the ones that have this plus after the fee. So plus $100 per acre 00:42:44.637 --> 00:42:53.279 - of development or plus $25 per acre, or even the plus $75 per lot. And the reason we're struggling with 00:42:53.279 --> 00:43:01.588 - that is because you essentially have to predict how many lots you get up to a total average fee and 00:43:01.588 --> 00:43:03.998 - try to equal the labor cost. 00:43:04.386 --> 00:43:11.994 - So I'll tell you that for a major subdivision five lots or more, we estimate that takes about 20 hours 00:43:11.994 --> 00:43:19.750 - of staff time, which equals let's say $1,750. If we aren't getting at least that number of lots to reach 00:43:19.750 --> 00:43:27.285 - the $250 mark, then we have to increase the base fee. So we had to look at kind of an average of what 00:43:27.285 --> 00:43:33.342 - the number of subdivision lots that are being created under these different types 00:43:33.698 --> 00:43:42.799 - to be able to get to that salary analysis. But generally speaking, this number, the flat numbers, are 00:43:42.799 --> 00:43:52.524 - moving about 20% for most of them. I will say the permits are a little more streamlined and straightforward. 00:43:52.524 --> 00:44:00.286 - So those are seeing a smaller increase overall from what there is now. Like right now, 00:44:00.578 --> 00:44:07.751 - The reconstruction from damage to the disaster. This is $50 and it's changing to $75. Multi-family 00:44:07.751 --> 00:44:15.503 - residential, I think, is $25 per dwelling unit. That's changing to $50. So continuing the devil's advocate 00:44:15.503 --> 00:44:22.749 - question, part three. When I'm asked the question or you're asked the question of why the fees went 00:44:22.749 --> 00:44:29.342 - up, what is the answer you're going to provide to the petitioner or the public, et cetera? 00:44:29.826 --> 00:44:36.521 - Why the increase? I mean, that's the why question, as opposed to a 20% salaries or whatever, but is 00:44:36.521 --> 00:44:43.485 - the answer we're going to demand to the petitioners. I would say that all of these line items are based 00:44:43.485 --> 00:44:50.180 - on a calculated labor analysis that begins when the petitioner actually submits for the petition or 00:44:50.180 --> 00:44:56.943 - the permit. That doesn't count all the phone call time asking questions or talking with neighbors in 00:44:56.943 --> 00:44:58.014 - advance or even 00:44:58.434 --> 00:45:07.199 - you know, extra work related to some of those outlier cases. This is a labor analysis from the time 00:45:07.199 --> 00:45:16.052 - of application, averaging amount of staff time that it takes to carry a petition or a permit through 00:45:16.052 --> 00:45:24.993 - the process. Just one question under permits, ILP, there's multifamily residential. Yes. And I see my 00:45:24.993 --> 00:45:27.710 - interpretation of that is that 00:45:27.970 --> 00:45:37.889 - And please correct me if I'm wrong. But like if a triplex goes in, that would be less expensive in terms 00:45:37.889 --> 00:45:47.524 - of the fee than a two-family residential. So it would be $150. Am I reading that incorrectly? So what 00:45:47.524 --> 00:45:55.742 - I would say is that some of these, so for instance, a triplex would require additional 00:45:56.098 --> 00:46:05.843 - Permit review so it might involve a site plan review. I see which is I see. And add on yeah new site 00:46:05.843 --> 00:46:15.781 - plan is 1400 plus $100 per acre if that development requires landscaping parking. So they're doing the 00:46:15.781 --> 00:46:20.798 - multiple triplexes. It in multiple starts at three. 00:46:22.338 --> 00:46:31.362 - Multiple starts at three, yes. We have multifamily three to five and then multifamily five plus or three 00:46:31.362 --> 00:46:40.300 - to four and then five plus. Okay, that just stood out to me and I didn't understand all the background. 00:46:40.300 --> 00:46:49.152 - Thank you. So this never offsets the personnel expense and planning regardless of how many permits you 00:46:49.152 --> 00:46:51.902 - get throughout the year, right? 00:46:52.034 --> 00:47:01.032 - I would say that of the time we spend on a daily basis, I would say more than half of it is, yes, talking 00:47:01.032 --> 00:47:09.691 - to the public or answering just inquiries that aren't necessarily permits or petitions yet. Of those, 00:47:09.691 --> 00:47:18.350 - they may never become anything and we don't charge people to answer that question. Permits cover what 00:47:18.350 --> 00:47:21.406 - would you say like ballpark of your 00:47:22.050 --> 00:47:31.777 - personnel expenses. How much does it cover? Are you including insurance costs or not? Yeah. Okay. Because 00:47:31.777 --> 00:47:41.045 - it would be a lot less. Okay. So year to date so far, just to give you an idea, could we start a new 00:47:41.045 --> 00:47:47.102 - fee schedule this year? So we've collected as of today, $159,000. 00:47:47.202 --> 00:47:55.842 - And you want just personnel costs or do you want like office supplies? Just personnel. I did an analysis 00:47:55.842 --> 00:48:04.153 - the other day, including insurance for stormwater. But my whole point is, I understand the increases 00:48:04.153 --> 00:48:12.958 - to kind of help offset the costs of kind of increasing the salary for planning. It's really hard for me to 00:48:14.402 --> 00:48:24.282 - get a sense of where I'm at without seeing the before and after. So my one thing is if there was someone 00:48:24.282 --> 00:48:33.974 - that is out of compliant, like let's say that we change a zone and they now are at a five foot setback 00:48:33.974 --> 00:48:38.302 - or they were at five foot setback and now the 00:48:38.402 --> 00:48:45.569 - the new zone is a 10 foot setback and now they have to go through a variance for a setback. But it was 00:48:45.569 --> 00:48:52.596 - because of us rezoning it. Is there any type of variance here for something that's like pre-existing 00:48:52.596 --> 00:48:59.763 - non-conforming? Because I hate kind of just adding extra things when we make changes that put them out 00:48:59.763 --> 00:49:06.721 - of compliance and then they have to pay the same for folks that want to have a waiver. And I'm just 00:49:06.721 --> 00:49:07.486 - wondering, 00:49:07.778 --> 00:49:20.413 - have we ever considered a different type of fee for that? That's a good question. I will say, though, 00:49:20.413 --> 00:49:31.934 - that it will be hard to base the fee using non-performing status fee. What I mean by that is 00:49:33.954 --> 00:49:41.146 - So impervious cover is a good example. Setbacks, impervious cover, minimum lot sizes, a lot of things. 00:49:41.146 --> 00:49:48.826 - Right. So it takes quite a bit of research to determine, you know, was this legal pre-existing non-conforming 00:49:48.826 --> 00:49:55.809 - or is it just non-conforming? I understand. Which we do. And then to assess the fee upfront, we try 00:49:55.809 --> 00:49:59.998 - not to make it so that the planners have to expend a lot of 00:50:00.194 --> 00:50:07.696 - time and energy, but I do understand that point and I think it would be a relief valve for some people. 00:50:07.696 --> 00:50:15.486 - Especially when it's our actions that then make them non-compliant and just so we don't have that currently 00:50:15.486 --> 00:50:22.987 - and it hasn't. So I'm just offering that up as like some thought of like as we keep changing the zoning 00:50:22.987 --> 00:50:28.830 - and different standards, more people might find themselves out of compliance and 00:50:29.058 --> 00:50:35.810 - if you look at some of these variances costs, they're quite expensive for people on fixed income. So 00:50:35.810 --> 00:50:42.830 - I think if the county changes things that make them non-compliant, maybe we should consider a fee that's 00:50:42.830 --> 00:50:49.516 - less for them to get the variance, even though it takes the same amount of time, I understand that, 00:50:49.516 --> 00:50:56.335 - but it's because of our doing and not what they would wish to do, if that makes sense. To answer your 00:50:56.335 --> 00:50:58.942 - original question, John, extrapolating 00:50:59.074 --> 00:51:07.912 - this far, year-to-date costs, we cover 32% of our salary overhead. That's without. Which is another, 00:51:07.912 --> 00:51:16.750 - so it's really covering 15% probably. Okay, thank you. I also want to note there was a discussion by 00:51:16.750 --> 00:51:25.150 - staff if we're wanting to take up rezones of communities, we could leave that as a lower fee to 00:51:25.378 --> 00:51:33.351 - We wanted to line item rezone out of a PUV as a lower fee as a goal of the Planning Commission to reduce 00:51:33.351 --> 00:51:41.476 - the number of PUDs and get them into buy right zones. That could be something. Of course, if it's authored 00:51:41.476 --> 00:51:49.221 - by the Planning Commission, there would be no fee. But if we want the petitioner to come to us and do 00:51:49.221 --> 00:51:53.246 - the work, that could be something that we encourage. 00:51:56.770 --> 00:52:07.186 - I think that that cleanup on ILPUB probably should start with us, you know? I don't think it's necessary 00:52:07.186 --> 00:52:17.601 - to change the fee schedule for that then because we initiate it. Okay, yeah. Is there a process to alter 00:52:17.601 --> 00:52:26.430 - the fee structure when somebody is bringing something forward as a result of a variance? 00:52:26.914 --> 00:52:36.349 - We can waive the fee. When you take something to the Board of Zoning Appeals, is there a way to waive? 00:52:36.349 --> 00:52:45.693 - I haven't participated in that forum. Is there a fee waiver in that process as well? So we're talking 00:52:45.693 --> 00:52:55.678 - Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, right? And there have been instances where we've tried to waive 00:52:56.226 --> 00:53:04.851 - fees and we have to stop it by legal. And then there are other times when we've waived fees and it was 00:53:04.851 --> 00:53:13.560 - successful. And I don't remember the exact. My recollection is that there is another part of the county 00:53:13.560 --> 00:53:22.101 - code that says you cannot waive fees. Yes. But if somebody comes in and they've applied for something 00:53:22.101 --> 00:53:25.534 - that they didn't need, you return a fee. 00:53:25.890 --> 00:53:34.794 - for them. Yes. I think the commissioners if there's they'll waive a building department fee or a planning 00:53:34.794 --> 00:53:43.194 - fee if there's a natural disaster and people need to get going to do it in those situations. And in 00:53:43.194 --> 00:53:48.318 - the case of pre-existing income farming and they come in for 00:53:51.554 --> 00:54:00.638 - something else altogether and are forced to go through the other variances that they might need to get 00:54:00.638 --> 00:54:09.457 - the property in compliance, how would that fee structure be charged to them or could we waive it as 00:54:09.457 --> 00:54:18.452 - a body or not? I don't think we can. I mean, we did include on permits the reduced fee, which I think 00:54:18.452 --> 00:54:19.422 - is at $75. 00:54:19.650 --> 00:54:31.489 - It's for reconstruction after a natural disaster. We reduced it. It's almost smacked out in the middle 00:54:31.489 --> 00:54:43.444 - of the page right under permits and ILP for $75. It wasn't $50. I think one of the most important parts 00:54:43.444 --> 00:54:47.582 - here is these are locked in for 20, 00:54:48.098 --> 00:54:55.305 - or for five years and whatever we leave as is, is locked in for five years too. So, yeah. Once we get 00:54:55.305 --> 00:55:03.006 - to other numbers, I can actually tell you more. Do you want like to see a red line in the next? I personally 00:55:03.006 --> 00:55:10.071 - would. That kind of make a little, it'd make it easier for me as far as a numbers person and seeing 00:55:10.071 --> 00:55:17.278 - what kind of differences I can do rough math, you know, a thousand dollars, maybe it's a $250, right? 00:55:17.378 --> 00:55:23.043 - What I ended up doing is we could put the old, the current B schedule in and this one. And I just did 00:55:23.043 --> 00:55:28.985 - a downline like that. And it was, that's just as easy for me. Okay. I'm more concerned about the rationale 00:55:28.985 --> 00:55:34.871 - for the increases and the logic behind it. Because that's the answer that you could, or that's a question 00:55:34.871 --> 00:55:40.702 - you're going to have to answer from the public for why am I paying more? And so I'm more concerned about 00:55:40.702 --> 00:55:45.534 - our argument on why we're increasing it in the first place in the rationale. Okay. So. 00:55:46.594 --> 00:55:55.701 - When was the last time it was increased? We did increase it December 1st, 2025. And then before then, 00:55:55.701 --> 00:56:04.897 - it wasn't since 2012. OK. So what's our next step? Well, what's the next step of this? I think we were 00:56:04.897 --> 00:56:13.022 - going to continue this to the December admin meeting, and I'll produce a red line version. 00:56:13.250 --> 00:56:20.477 - Or side-by-side. Side-by-side would be good. Could you come up with a bumper sticker to explain the 00:56:20.477 --> 00:56:27.849 - rationale and the increase? And I think one of the biggest things is we're locked into it, so we have 00:56:27.849 --> 00:56:35.221 - to think proactive of what that cost might be five years out with other inflationary costs and what's 00:56:35.221 --> 00:56:37.534 - that middle ground where we can 00:56:39.170 --> 00:56:46.855 - go ahead and charge now. So we're not, you know, under recovery. Yeah, exactly. Um, as far as a statement, 00:56:46.855 --> 00:56:54.181 - I think Mr. Paris is right. I even helped him. Um, I think that's a good way to discuss as much as it 00:56:54.181 --> 00:57:01.435 - is, uh, increasing salary of planning because the, well, I guess you just brought it up and I wasn't 00:57:01.435 --> 00:57:06.750 - going to bring it up. It'll bring it up now. I've got a five year window. 00:57:07.586 --> 00:57:15.296 - and I've got a fixed set of fees right now, why aren't I taking and putting inflation factor in there 00:57:15.296 --> 00:57:22.931 - with those five years and having an inflationary schedule built based upon a five-year program? Now, 00:57:22.931 --> 00:57:30.868 - if we're gonna live with what we did in year one and year five, and we're not concerned about inflation, 00:57:30.868 --> 00:57:34.270 - or if you said 120% on some of these things, 00:57:34.690 --> 00:57:42.095 - Maybe the 20% has covered that inflationary period over five years, so much each year. I mean, you can 00:57:42.095 --> 00:57:49.428 - go on and on and on about this, but you're bringing up a point here. I think you're right. If there's 00:57:49.428 --> 00:57:56.689 - a way for us to consider a fixed increase every five years, so there is some type of metrics to this 00:57:56.689 --> 00:58:03.806 - whole increase instead of us kind of arbitrarily going through it. I know you guys didn't do that. 00:58:04.194 --> 00:58:11.222 - me I'm just kind of going to run through and try to get a sense of what the rationale and how much time 00:58:11.222 --> 00:58:18.183 - and effort but if there is a percentage out there that seems to be safe and we can just fix that every 00:58:18.183 --> 00:58:24.941 - five years so we can stay with the increase of costs doesn't seem like a ridiculous idea to kind of 00:58:24.941 --> 00:58:32.510 - try to think out maybe for the next five years you know to that point. Commissioner Thomas has her hand raised. 00:58:33.026 --> 00:58:41.556 - Julie. Thank you so much. A couple of things. I think unless something changes in terms of the amount 00:58:41.556 --> 00:58:50.253 - of time that it takes to deal with an item on here, I think all we would have to do is every five years 00:58:50.253 --> 00:58:58.950 - add up the total percentage increase of cost of living increases or any staff changes and just add that 00:58:58.950 --> 00:59:02.462 - in after five years and that would be it. 00:59:02.722 --> 00:59:13.227 - But I do want to reiterate the importance of ensuring that the things that the average homeowner might 00:59:13.227 --> 00:59:24.345 - need or small lot owner or single family homeowner might need should be priced differently than a commercial 00:59:24.345 --> 00:59:32.606 - enterprise. A home-based business should always be cheaper than a big box store. 00:59:33.122 --> 00:59:43.075 - not just for the amount of time, but also for the fairness of it. And it seems like that's what's done 00:59:43.075 --> 00:59:52.738 - here. I have a specific question about the wireless communication new facility and the co-location. 00:59:52.738 --> 01:00:01.822 - My question is, what are we really doing with that at this point? Because I know there's a... 01:00:02.082 --> 01:00:14.855 - a speedy process and pretty much an assured permit. Given the speed that they need to occur, is this 01:00:14.855 --> 01:00:28.766 - a good permitting process, an amount to pay? Sure. Thanks. Good question. For some of these, and maybe we can 01:00:28.962 --> 01:00:36.633 - Maybe it would be a good addition to like Asterisk next to them if they need two items on this sheet. 01:00:36.633 --> 01:00:44.378 - But this one, a new facility will actually be going through first a site plan and then coming back for 01:00:44.378 --> 01:00:52.049 - a wireless new facility permit. So they will have this site plan B to go over the new compound fenced 01:00:52.049 --> 01:00:56.862 - in area, the landscaping required, the road that goes up to the 01:00:57.282 --> 01:01:06.859 - and then they will apply with this fee. But these, I do believe that the state law has been changed 01:01:06.859 --> 01:01:16.628 - in a way that says that basically you have to really closely address wireless permit fees with actual 01:01:16.628 --> 01:01:26.014 - costs of labor. You cannot just, in other words, they don't want you to just price it out because 01:01:26.626 --> 01:01:34.069 - You don't want them in our community or something like that. So it does have to be pretty closely tied 01:01:34.069 --> 01:01:41.295 - to the labor, which all of these really are. Well, that's good work. Yeah. Yeah, and I think that's 01:01:41.295 --> 01:01:48.666 - great work. But I guess my point is, because of the rush that the state's requiring, is that still an 01:01:48.666 --> 01:01:56.542 - accurate number? We can relook at that based on the latest change that just passed. That's a good point. OK. 01:01:57.090 --> 01:02:07.887 - Thank you. Any other discussion on this before we move on? I'd like a review of the action. The next 01:02:07.887 --> 01:02:18.791 - step and what's the action. I have a few. Here's some discussion points. The first one may be a shake 01:02:18.791 --> 01:02:24.670 - of the head for majority. There was a discussion about 01:02:25.090 --> 01:02:33.936 - adding a fee line for variance, residential variances for pre-existing non-conforming lots that were 01:02:33.936 --> 01:02:42.870 - made pre-existing non-conforming, having a different assessed possibly lower fee under this one. That 01:02:42.870 --> 01:02:51.629 - would be a change. And then I'm gonna do a side-by-side with the old fees just right to the side so 01:02:51.629 --> 01:02:54.782 - you can just quickly cross compare. 01:02:55.714 --> 01:03:02.734 - I'm going to come up with a statement and rationale for an increase in the second page. And some of 01:03:02.734 --> 01:03:09.825 - the things that I want to point out to the public will be that we cannot change our fee schedule for 01:03:09.825 --> 01:03:17.056 - five years based on state code. These fees are all based on a labor analysis utilizing planning salary 01:03:17.056 --> 01:03:24.638 - increases approved for the beginning of 2027. And also we'll want to continue to discuss whether we want to 01:03:26.018 --> 01:03:33.832 - in inflation now for five years from now, but typically the way we've done it is use concrete numbers 01:03:33.832 --> 01:03:41.875 - based on what's approved and in place. And then there was a request to review the wireless communication 01:03:41.875 --> 01:03:49.765 - facility items here just to make sure that like the latest changes, those fees are still accurate. And 01:03:49.765 --> 01:03:54.974 - then I'd like to, for now that you guys are bringing this up, maybe 01:03:55.074 --> 01:04:02.058 - asterisk or pull together permits that might need more than one thing on this fee schedule because if 01:04:02.058 --> 01:04:09.315 - something looks low, it's probably because they also need something else. I just want to make sure that's 01:04:09.315 --> 01:04:16.368 - clear for people. That'd be helpful. I think the inflation thing we could maybe just remove currently. 01:04:16.368 --> 01:04:23.214 - I think Commissioner Thomas had a good point that we could keep this with personnel expenses and as 01:04:23.214 --> 01:04:24.926 - cost of living comes in. 01:04:25.090 --> 01:04:38.784 - We can then adjust the numbers. I don't know. I think we should continue the discussion. OK, 01:04:38.784 --> 01:04:54.686 - that's fine. Because I think it's relevant. It's good work. Yeah. All right. Mr. President. Vice President. 01:04:54.786 --> 01:05:03.793 - That's true. I'm going to really try to stay my absolute longest, but I'm hoping to, and I don't want 01:05:03.793 --> 01:05:12.712 - to break quorum. So just, I guess, expressing desire to try to get out here at 730 if possible. If I 01:05:12.712 --> 01:05:21.720 - have to give up my personal plans, I will. I'll do it. I don't think so. We just have two items left, 01:05:21.720 --> 01:05:23.486 - one requiring that. 01:05:23.810 --> 01:05:34.347 - Okay. I showed up. I'm not going to break for me. Thank you for coming. So the next item is in the room 01:05:34.347 --> 01:05:43.870 - here and the petitions are in the room here. We have a item for one of our letters of credit. 01:05:44.002 --> 01:05:50.566 - So this is for Westbury North major subdivision. So as everyone knows, we've been working through our 01:05:50.566 --> 01:05:57.195 - liners of credit and trying to make sure that they comply with the CEO, which includes that 10% annual 01:05:57.195 --> 01:06:03.631 - adjustment of inflation, or trying to get the projects to get finished up and get accepted into the 01:06:03.631 --> 01:06:10.067 - inventory as the final step. This one is a little bit different. It was plotted and approved in the 01:06:10.067 --> 01:06:12.126 - private development, so the end 01:06:12.834 --> 01:06:21.229 - The end is just, do they meet the construction plans that they work through for? And then they put together 01:06:21.229 --> 01:06:29.002 - a business association to manage the roads, the sidewalks, the common areas, et cetera, which is in 01:06:29.002 --> 01:06:36.852 - the packet. So tonight's request is to, they would like to see their final letter of credit release, 01:06:36.852 --> 01:06:39.806 - which is in the amount of $35,826.02. 01:06:40.002 --> 01:06:49.995 - They do not have to have any kind of maintenance bond because this is going to remain private. And this 01:06:49.995 --> 01:06:59.605 - is a subversion that was plotted originally. It was built for this, but 2019 is the start date that 01:06:59.605 --> 01:07:09.502 - we have here. So we did bring that prior, but it will continue for the discussion about the as-builts. 01:07:09.666 --> 01:07:19.317 - is one issue with the subdivision, which is there's some areas of the private development sidewalks 01:07:19.317 --> 01:07:29.257 - that do not meet the cross slope ADA 2%. There is, staff estimates that the total, possibly 171 square 01:07:29.257 --> 01:07:39.390 - yards of, actually I think it's linear feet of sidewalk that does not meet the cross floods requirement. 01:07:39.682 --> 01:07:46.880 - It's a 2.2% in some areas up to seven and a half percent to the small area that I'll get your actual 01:07:46.880 --> 01:07:54.576 - in a little bit. Um, but we're bringing this to you anyways, because the, uh, essentially what we discussed 01:07:54.576 --> 01:08:02.058 - with the petitioner is that, um, it's a plan commission decision. And because this is remaining private, 01:08:02.058 --> 01:08:07.902 - the liability would be with the business association. So if someone did get hurt, 01:08:08.290 --> 01:08:15.027 - and it doesn't meet ADA, it would not be the county's liability for accepting it into the inventory, 01:08:15.027 --> 01:08:22.097 - for instance, knowing it didn't meet the ADA process. Should it be resolved? We do believe so, but that's 01:08:22.097 --> 01:08:28.967 - something that they can continue to work on. But this has been something that's been kind of lingering 01:08:28.967 --> 01:08:32.702 - as one of the last remaining things to get finished up. 01:08:33.890 --> 01:08:42.453 - So we have also worked with the petitioner on some of the common areas. They were able to successfully 01:08:42.453 --> 01:08:50.849 - design them with the right size and capacity. Stormwater has signed off. And then they just recently 01:08:50.849 --> 01:08:59.662 - fixed the paving at the entrance as of just the last morning. It looks good. There's repaving, so there's 01:08:59.662 --> 01:09:03.070 - not an issue as much at the entranceway. 01:09:03.234 --> 01:09:10.368 - There was some landscaping omissions when staff originally went out there. I think that there was a 01:09:10.368 --> 01:09:17.502 - plan or that the developer had, like, used some seed mix, native seed mix, and so that wasn't quite 01:09:17.502 --> 01:09:24.707 - grown out yet when we last did our inspection, but that's something that if that were to grow up and 01:09:24.707 --> 01:09:32.126 - mature and stay healthy, it would meet some of the requirements of the landscaping. We did repeat that. 01:09:32.642 --> 01:09:39.288 - But that was helpful. I want to move to the highway department comment on this. So when I get down to 01:09:39.288 --> 01:09:45.934 - the ad books, this will also make more sense. But Stormwater stated in February of this year that the 01:09:45.934 --> 01:09:52.710 - installed infrastructure will appear to match the approved plans. Comparing the as well to the drainage 01:09:52.710 --> 01:09:57.662 - report, the as well on capacities would capture a hundred year storm event. 01:09:58.146 --> 01:10:05.071 - a site visit on February 25th, 2026 showed the abandoned soils have been placed in the detention bases 01:10:05.071 --> 01:10:11.929 - and they had planted. No growth was observed at the time of the visit, but they did sign off on their 01:10:11.929 --> 01:10:19.191 - steps. Highway Department comments, if I can just kind of summarize these. So the intersection at Arlington 01:10:19.191 --> 01:10:26.317 - and North Canterbury, they stated there's ongoing complaints. It would be like any other private driveway 01:10:26.317 --> 01:10:27.326 - and they would 01:10:27.650 --> 01:10:33.521 - you know, contact the highway department will contact the owner and say there's been a complaint about 01:10:33.521 --> 01:10:39.221 - the status of your entryway. Can you please resolve it? Can you please fix it? And that would be on 01:10:39.221 --> 01:10:45.035 - the business association to keep up with the maintenance of that. Um, and like I said, we haven't had 01:10:45.035 --> 01:10:50.906 - any complaints, obviously in the last week, the complaints that we did know were prior to the repaying 01:10:50.906 --> 01:10:52.958 - that just occurred a few weeks ago. 01:10:53.474 --> 01:11:01.255 - Sidewalks not meeting the cross slope. We've had several conversations with planning and highway staff 01:11:01.255 --> 01:11:09.036 - there. So the Aspilton file since January 2025 show cross slope issues with the sidewalks. But highway 01:11:09.036 --> 01:11:16.666 - staff did meet with the developer, Mr. Rambo, and his engineer Kitty Stein in the field earlier this 01:11:16.666 --> 01:11:22.558 - year, discussed the exact same segments of sidewalk that require replacement. 01:11:22.914 --> 01:11:29.856 - Exact linear feet may require correction from what staff has put out there, because we're just using 01:11:29.856 --> 01:11:36.867 - the ASVILX and kind of guessing how much linear feet would be needing to be removed and replaced. But 01:11:36.867 --> 01:11:44.084 - once the engineer provides that information and could replace it, they end up being less than what we're 01:11:44.084 --> 01:11:50.270 - estimating, but we're not positive. But again, we're just noting that if this project did 01:11:50.530 --> 01:11:57.075 - If it was required to get accepted into the inventory, it would receive a negative recommendation by 01:11:57.075 --> 01:12:03.554 - the highway department and its request before the county commissioners accepting into the inventory 01:12:03.554 --> 01:12:10.164 - development that does not be ADA cross slopes is a liability to the county to not be ADA and we could 01:12:10.164 --> 01:12:16.190 - lose potential future funding. But since this development is committed to remaining private, 01:12:16.482 --> 01:12:23.012 - and it would not be a liability to the county or remain a liability to the business association. 01:12:23.012 --> 01:12:29.945 - And further, if they ever did want to make this public, it would require a new primary plan amendment, 01:12:29.945 --> 01:12:36.744 - which would come through this body, new construction plans that would have to meet the code in place 01:12:36.744 --> 01:12:43.678 - at the time to become public. So it would take some steps to become public if that were ever the case. 01:12:43.810 --> 01:12:57.748 - I want to go ahead and go down to some of the site photos. This is earlier this year. You can kind of 01:12:57.748 --> 01:13:10.046 - see the sidewalk as it goes up. Nothing extreme. It just follows the profile of the road. 01:13:10.306 --> 01:13:21.626 - ADA is strict. We acknowledge that, but it's the requirement under federal law. So here was the segments 01:13:21.626 --> 01:13:32.947 - here that were a little bit off. So this says 0.19%, but then it gets down to negative 4%, for instance. 01:13:32.947 --> 01:13:38.014 - So that would not be the cross slope this way. 01:13:38.626 --> 01:13:48.905 - And then over here, you have a 2.2%. So that's over the 2% threshold. So we estimate just like a kind 01:13:48.905 --> 01:13:59.386 - of an area by which it would have to like recover the cross-slope. So how many panels would essentially 01:13:59.386 --> 01:14:05.534 - need to be replaced? And then, sorry, this is 4.5% this way. 01:14:06.114 --> 01:14:13.990 - is the way we care is this way. And then this was seven and a half percent this way. But then this is 01:14:13.990 --> 01:14:21.712 - 25%. So we don't necessarily count this number as the issue. It's not this slope that has to be ADA 01:14:21.712 --> 01:14:29.820 - compliant. It's this slope, if that makes sense. So if it falls in profile of the road, it can be pretty 01:14:29.820 --> 01:14:35.998 - steep and still meet the requirements. So this can be the overall just segments 01:14:36.578 --> 01:14:47.175 - that within those segments, there are problems or issues. And then I would attach the preliminary plans, 01:14:47.175 --> 01:14:57.369 - which showed sidewalks and grays that would, you know, they're required to meet the ADA cross slopes 01:14:57.369 --> 01:15:00.094 - in those plans, of course. 01:15:00.290 --> 01:15:09.460 - So I did want to note, just going back to the site photos, and I might be able to do a street view, 01:15:09.460 --> 01:15:19.272 - because I didn't get a super big one. But this is the sidewalk. So this is what they're asking, basically, 01:15:19.272 --> 01:15:24.958 - for us to take in as is and to release their letter for them. 01:15:28.834 --> 01:15:36.720 - Next steps, if the plan commission did decide to release a letter of credit, this project would be finished 01:15:36.720 --> 01:15:44.240 - out. We would close out the project and release the money back to the developer. Alternatively, if the 01:15:44.240 --> 01:15:51.688 - plan commission denies this request, we continue to work with the developer on fixing the cross slope 01:15:51.688 --> 01:15:57.310 - issues and ask them to come back. We also would need to assess a performance 01:15:57.698 --> 01:16:07.317 - timeline because their last one, I think, expired last year. So they needed to tell us a new date by 01:16:07.317 --> 01:16:16.841 - which they would be completed with the project. And we would assess the 10% inflation adjustment to 01:16:16.841 --> 01:16:26.174 - that with what's left. Does anyone have any questions? Staff discussion or Commission discussion? 01:16:26.754 --> 01:16:35.415 - Just a question, have staff walk with sidewalks and what's it feel like when you're walking it? I mean, 01:16:35.415 --> 01:16:43.910 - it's a business development. The requirement of the major subdivision at the time was to do sidewalk. 01:16:43.910 --> 01:16:52.321 - I think they ended up getting a waiver to just do sidewalk on one side. I wouldn't say it's like the 01:16:52.321 --> 01:16:55.902 - most well-used sidewalk I've ever been on. 01:16:56.034 --> 01:17:04.992 - Um, I didn't, you know, have any issues with, you know, you didn't feel like you're a fall off trip. 01:17:04.992 --> 01:17:13.949 - Um, I really find it difficult when it's close to that 2% to even tell it's when you get to the 10%, 01:17:13.949 --> 01:17:23.262 - 8% that you can really, you know, you can feel it, but I wouldn't say some of these 2%, 4% we might not. 01:17:28.770 --> 01:17:37.285 - compliance. Are we setting a precedent for future petitioners? This, this had been approved. Yeah, 01:17:37.285 --> 01:17:46.144 - I got that. I'm just saying, is there, I'm playing a devil's advocate right here. Is there any concern 01:17:46.144 --> 01:17:55.176 - about precedent setting that we were to take and say, release the funds and close out the project? Could 01:17:55.176 --> 01:17:58.014 - I ask you a question about that? 01:17:58.146 --> 01:18:05.815 - Sure. So, um, well, it gets complicated because, you know, it was approved under one set of conditions 01:18:05.815 --> 01:18:13.483 - and then the conditions change. So that's then this is now. And so then compliance, are they compliant 01:18:13.483 --> 01:18:21.003 - with what they originally thought or are they compliant with what is required? When was the snapshot 01:18:21.003 --> 01:18:25.470 - taken? Was it yesterday or today? I would argue it's today. 01:18:26.722 --> 01:18:36.976 - So I'm playing the advocate here. I just want to... I've read this through this several times now and 01:18:36.976 --> 01:18:47.129 - seeing with my eyes, they condition the sidewalks and the overall condition of what they've done and 01:18:47.129 --> 01:18:55.774 - the retention basins look wonderful in my opinion. As long as this is committed to be 01:18:56.386 --> 01:19:06.578 - a private development, a private road, private sidewalks, I don't think you're setting any precedents. 01:19:06.578 --> 01:19:16.967 - If we were to accept it into the county's inventory and not request certain ADA compliance modifications 01:19:16.967 --> 01:19:24.190 - to be made, then I would say then you are setting a dangerous precedent. 01:19:26.434 --> 01:19:36.213 - So Mr. Schilling, with respect to his comments about tidy versus in the camp in compliance, an issue 01:19:36.213 --> 01:19:46.670 - or not an issue. Legally, what's the what's the take on that? I mean, I believe it's private, it's private. 01:19:46.670 --> 01:19:56.158 - And it's not going to be taken into account and so on. That was the answer to the question. Yeah. 01:19:56.322 --> 01:20:06.382 - I mean, there's two ways I look at this. They're case by case, but then it's also a level of consistency, 01:20:06.382 --> 01:20:16.157 - fairness. So it makes it really hard for me to grapple with this one. I'll also say I attended the old 01:20:16.157 --> 01:20:24.414 - Ivy Tech when I was here. So I'm very familiar with the area. And I was actually here. 01:20:24.962 --> 01:20:33.804 - So original petition that was going to meet a standards and the amendments to take off that sidewalk. 01:20:33.804 --> 01:20:42.472 - Was that when our open road was gravel? Just curious. No, but there were no sidewalks at all. But I 01:20:42.472 --> 01:20:51.834 - was kidding. I mean, I guess my my thoughts is, you know, this does serve some connectivity to one building 01:20:51.834 --> 01:20:54.174 - to the next. There's a big 01:20:54.882 --> 01:21:03.624 - rope parking, which I would, and I know I want to ask the petitioner, but I don't know if that's appropriate 01:21:03.624 --> 01:21:11.884 - since this is an admin meeting, but does planning have any idea of kind of what the occupancy of those 01:21:11.884 --> 01:21:19.102 - spaces are during your sites? I would say not typically pulled outside of certain events. 01:21:19.810 --> 01:21:27.862 - These are mostly general contractor businesses and they've been going up quick. So I think, but the 01:21:27.862 --> 01:21:35.914 - businesses are, they're coming and going by vehicle and there may be a lot of people missing. Yeah. 01:21:35.914 --> 01:21:44.288 - So I don't think the sidewalks traveled that much. So it's a tough one for me. I could almost go either 01:21:44.288 --> 01:21:48.958 - way. I guess my concern is I understand it's private, but 01:21:49.186 --> 01:21:57.677 - Also, it's meant for folks with less mobility when we look at ADA standards. And that also compels me 01:21:57.677 --> 01:22:06.084 - when we look at other things that don't go into compliance and they try to ask for it to move into a 01:22:06.084 --> 01:22:14.825 - private holding or a private situation where they will maintain it. How do we grapple with all of those? 01:22:14.825 --> 01:22:19.070 - I'm comfortable with how their planning commission 01:22:19.522 --> 01:22:27.588 - tends to lead. I might not be able to favor that, just to put my cards on the table. So if others do 01:22:27.588 --> 01:22:35.734 - favor it, that's great. So just wanted to let folks know, just in case they're wavering and they want 01:22:35.734 --> 01:22:43.879 - to see this done, there's probably going to be a no vote. And if they want to see it done, they might 01:22:43.879 --> 01:22:49.150 - want to vote yes for it. That's how close I'm cutting hairs here. 01:22:53.314 --> 01:23:08.528 - Any other comments? And you're wanting us to take action today for this? There's not a lot of traffic 01:23:08.528 --> 01:23:23.294 - there. It can be an administrative decision. I think I'm in favor of, I think I buy your argument. 01:23:23.458 --> 01:23:33.990 - about private and we're not liable. And even though I think it's a slippery slope with the compliance 01:23:33.990 --> 01:23:44.522 - portion of it and setting a precedent, and I looked at the spacing out there, it's not well-traveled. 01:23:44.522 --> 01:23:51.646 - So I think we should release. I can't breathe. So was that a motion? 01:23:55.458 --> 01:24:09.459 - Okay. I don't know what the motion is yet, but I'll try to make something up here. I move that we release, 01:24:09.459 --> 01:24:22.675 - is the amount 35,826 and a couple pennies, is that it? Yes. 35,826. So I move that we release 35,826 01:24:22.675 --> 01:24:24.638 - and two cents. 01:24:26.818 --> 01:24:34.950 - not requiring the sidewalk to meet ADA and accepting the fact that this is a essentially private property 01:24:34.950 --> 01:24:42.699 - and it would not be something the account would be liable for, I move that we take and release those 01:24:42.699 --> 01:24:50.524 - phones. Second. It wasn't particular, but it's the point. Should we make a friendly amendment that we 01:24:50.524 --> 01:24:54.974 - encourage the developer and their business association to 01:24:55.458 --> 01:25:08.424 - I personally accept that amendment. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to release the funds for SIA-22-8, 01:25:08.424 --> 01:25:19.678 - which is the Westbury North major subdivision. The amount released would be $35,826.02 with 01:25:19.938 --> 01:25:31.065 - a note to the developer that we still recommend that the ADA cross slopes be remediated for the as-built 01:25:31.065 --> 01:25:42.298 - plans. A vote yes is a vote to relieve the fires. Rudy Fields? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Julie Thomas? 01:25:42.298 --> 01:25:49.822 - Yes. David Henry? Yes. Don and Wright-Randolph? Will you call me last? 01:25:50.818 --> 01:26:08.210 - David Butch? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Scott Barrett? Yes. John Maregrano? With a very reluctant no. 01:26:08.210 --> 01:26:19.390 - Class 71. Where are we at on our agenda now? We have one left. 01:26:19.810 --> 01:26:27.101 - Technically going to be new business, so we will keep it brief because it will be bad. Something cool. 01:26:27.101 --> 01:26:34.320 - First of all, thank you for doing this, but next thing is I haven't missed most of it. I had a really 01:26:34.320 --> 01:26:41.965 - good speech worked out. And anyone has any doubts if I had the opportunity to speak, I could have convinced 01:26:41.965 --> 01:26:47.486 - you business exactly the right decision. I don't really need to be convinced. 01:26:47.714 --> 01:26:55.571 - We see the same things in other petitions and I want to say no to them. I can't say yes today, but that's, 01:26:55.571 --> 01:27:03.061 - I almost second his motion just so I could be very, you know, it'd be floppy. I've gotten what I came 01:27:03.061 --> 01:27:10.404 - for, thank you. I appreciate the development you're doing. You're putting people to work and giving 01:27:10.404 --> 01:27:14.590 - them a place to work and can I say something about that? 01:27:15.266 --> 01:27:21.129 - I don't mean to, and we've been here too long already, but when we bought that property, it was probably 01:27:21.129 --> 01:27:26.824 - the only truly blighted property in Monroe County. The building's been vacant for 10 years. They were 01:27:26.824 --> 01:27:32.687 - growing up, no maintenance, no utilities, nothing. And we cleaned that all up and restored the buildings 01:27:32.687 --> 01:27:38.494 - and then built these additional buildings. And I'm real proud of what we did there. Now it's a thriving 01:27:38.494 --> 01:27:41.118 - place of commerce. It employs a lot of people. 01:27:41.442 --> 01:27:57.032 - And it's a place for small business to operate, which is extremely hard to find. Thank you. Thank you. 01:27:57.032 --> 01:28:08.990 - So the last petition won't take but a moment. That's all in field space three. 01:28:09.538 --> 01:28:16.971 - We did phase one and two a couple of months ago. And actually, Esther, I have a few papers for you to 01:28:16.971 --> 01:28:24.258 - sign. They're on track for what they're supposed to be doing. But this one, they are just doing the 01:28:24.258 --> 01:28:31.764 - performance period extensions for one year. So that would make it to December 12, 2027. And then we're 01:28:31.764 --> 01:28:36.574 - also doing the inflation adjustment for the performance guarantee 01:28:36.866 --> 01:28:46.472 - So basically they currently have a letter of credit of $58,890.05. We are adding the inflation of $5,889.21. 01:28:46.472 --> 01:28:55.638 - So we will be asking for them to have a letter of credit of $64,780.46. And I did speak with Don Turner 01:28:55.638 --> 01:29:04.716 - and his attorney today while we were in email communication. And they do plan to submit this increased 01:29:04.716 --> 01:29:06.302 - letter of credit. 01:29:06.466 --> 01:29:15.485 - and be compliant and agree with this amount. So we will be presenting that at the September 17th meeting. 01:29:15.485 --> 01:29:24.248 - One way to go on that. You give them to be in the meeting. Well, we want them to finish. This is their 01:29:24.248 --> 01:29:32.926 - last. I'm trying to take it back to September. Now the side note, if they cannot meet their deadline, 01:29:33.602 --> 01:29:41.011 - We will be also asking, as we did for phase one and two, that we turn it over to legal faculty. I think 01:29:41.011 --> 01:29:48.491 - we have done well. Thanks. Any other questions from the good of the cause? I just want to make one quick 01:29:48.491 --> 01:29:55.829 - announcement. So I just want to say thank you to everyone here for your support for the county council 01:29:55.829 --> 01:30:02.526 - changes that we've had. Really appreciate your help with pushing us through that. And we did. 01:30:02.946 --> 01:30:09.971 - We have an internal selection for the senior zoning inspector. So our current zoning inspector has been 01:30:09.971 --> 01:30:16.725 - selected for the senior position and we are able to open up the zoning inspector position. So we'll 01:30:16.725 --> 01:30:23.885 - get that position out there and hopefully hire as soon as possible. We can start them as soon as December 01:30:23.885 --> 01:30:30.978 - 14th. Are you going to tell us who the senior, does it start with a DM? It's Rachel. It's Rachel. Rachel 01:30:30.978 --> 01:30:32.126 - Henry. Yes, yes. 01:30:32.450 --> 01:30:42.033 - this. Okay. Oh, inspector. Yeah. Yeah. It's still right. Okay. So we were excited and they hit the ground 01:30:42.033 --> 01:30:51.616 - running and appreciate your support. And you already got the variance too of the hiring freeze. We talked 01:30:51.616 --> 01:31:01.470 - to Kim about that. We're all good on that. Yeah, because they changed something about if you move someone up 01:31:01.634 --> 01:31:10.063 - that opens and then you don't really need a variance. Okay. Motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you. 01:31:10.063 --> 01:31:12.254 - Thank you all. Thank you.