Nov 08, 2023 Planning Commission

[00:01:06]

UH, WELL, IT IS OPEN.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO OUR NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

[1. Call to Order]

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER, ITS PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER THE MINUTES.

[2. Approval of October 11, 2023 Minutes]

MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES.

ALL SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO REVIEW THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

LESLIE. HI.

THANKS. OKAY, SO THE DRAFT RULES OF PROCEDURE CAME BEFORE YOU ALL BACK IN.

[3. Review of Rules of Procedure]

OR I'M SORRY, SEPTEMBER.

AND AFTER REVIEWING THE DRAFT AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL EDITS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.

AND WE HAVE SINCE INCORPORATED THOSE RECOMMENDED EDITS.

AND WHAT YOU HAVE NOW IS THE FINAL DRAFT POTENTIALLY PENDING DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

THE TWO FORMATS THAT WE SENT TO YOU, WE SENT IT TO YOU IN TWO DIFFERENT FORMATS.

ONE INCLUDED THE EDITS.

YOU COULD SEE WHAT WAS CHANGED.

SOME OF IT WAS JUST GRAMMATICAL, AND SOME OF IT WAS BASED ON COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS.

AND THEN THE SECOND COPY IS A CLEAN DRAFT THAT INCORPORATES ALL OF THE ALL OF THE EDITS.

SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TONIGHT IS WE'LL GO THROUGH THE EDITS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FROM THE SEPTEMBER MEETING AND THEN PENDING ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL EDITS.

THIS CAN BE APPROVED AS FINAL OR COME BACK TO US TO MAKE ANY EDITS THAT YOU GUYS RECOMMEND.

SO IN THE SEPTEMBER MEETING, I'M GOING TO JUST GO DOWN THE LIST IN SECTION TWO.

LET ME SLIDE UP THE SECTION TWO.

THE RECOMMENDED EDIT WAS TO CHANGE IN SECTION TWO ON LINE 2.4 OR ITEM 2.4 TO CHANGE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CLOSE SESSION.

NOW, HOW COME THIS ISN'T LINING UP IN THE RIGHT SPOT? AND I GOT 2.3 THAT'S GOT THE EDITS IN THERE AND 2.4.

I'LL HAVE NOTHING IN SECTION 44.

11. HOLD ON A MINUTE.

I THINK IT MUST BE 2.3.

IS IT 2.3 RIGHT THERE.

THERE'S TWO POINT. ACTUALLY.

SECTION TWO, LINE 2.4.

I'M NOT SEEING IT.

MM. OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS THROUGH THE TRACK CHANGES, STARTING WITH PAGE ONE.

MOST OF PAGE ONE IS GRAMMATICAL AND TYPO CORRECTIONS.

THE REQUEST FOR IN SECTION 2.3 WAS TO CHANGE, OR TO ADD AT LEAST TWO REQUESTING 24 HOURS BEFORE A MEETING DATE.

[00:05:09]

NO CHANGES.

SECTION FOUR.

NUMBERING CHANGES AND HERE IT IS 4.7.

YEP FOUR POINTS. WHAT IS 4.7 WHERE EXECUTIVE WAS CHANGED TO CLOSED SESSION.

SO LET ME MAKE A NOTE ON HERE.

AND 4.7.

IN THE TWO INSTANCES IN THAT PARAGRAPH, A 4.7 WAS ACTUALLY REMOVED.

LESLIE, I GUESS IT WAS ALL ROLLED INTO 4.6, RIGHT? YES. THANK YOU.

AND THEN IN 4.10.

WE ADDED THE IF THE REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT THE PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY.

SO THAT WAS AFTER A DISCUSSION ABOUT.

IF THE PERSON WHO IS AT THE IS IS IF THE REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT THE OWNER, THEN IT HAS TO BE STATED THAT IT'S THE REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEY.

IN SECTION FIVE.

THE EDIT IS CHANGING, THE COMMISSIONERS TO PRESIDING OFFICER MAY CHANGE THE ORDER OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

AND THERE'S SOME MORE GRAMMATICAL CHANGES.

AND THEN IN SECTION SIX UNDER CONDUCT OF COMMISSION MEMBERS.

THIS WAS WHERE THIS WAS.

I THINK THIS WAS STEWART'S RECOMMENDATION TO.

UM, FOLLOW THE COUNTY'S CODE OF ETHICS.

UNDER GRATUITIES AND ENTERTAINMENT.

AND AGAIN UNDER EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO KIND OF STREAMLINE SO THAT WE'RE USING THE SAME CODE OF ETHICS.

RIGHT. UM, SEVEN AND EIGHT.

IT'S MOSTLY IT'S JUST GRAMMATICAL THINGS FOR THE NEXT FEW SECTIONS UNTIL WE GET DOWN TO 12.

AND THIS, AGAIN, WAS STEWART'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE STRIKE FIELD TRIPS BECAUSE OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

POTENTIAL OPEN MEETINGS ACT VIOLATION.

AND THEN WE UPDATED THE DIRECTOR.

THE CRYSTAL, SO THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF CHANGES.

THERE WERE A FEW SUBSTANTIVE WITH THE CODE OF ETHICS AND THEN THE.

CLOSED SESSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION CHANGES, BUT BY AND LARGE NOT A LOT OF.

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.

SO DID ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER SUGGESTED EDITS? I DO NOT. SO THEN THE POTENTIAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THESE.

THEN AS THE FINAL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

HOW OFTEN DO WE REVIEW THESE? JUST WHENEVER. IT COULD BE ANNUAL.

IT COULD BE EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS.

REALLY? THAT'S.

STEWART, DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? HOW OFTEN THESE.

BE REVIEWED EVERY FEW YEARS.

YOU COULD CALENDAR IT LIKE A DIARY REMINDER FOR TWO YEARS AND SPEND FIVE MINUTES ON IT.

I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO.

IF IN PRACTICE YOU FIND SOMETHING IS.

TROUBLESOME. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT TWO YEARS TO MAKE THE SHOT, BUT IF YOU DIARY IT EVERY TWO YEARS, IT'S KIND OF LIKE OUR DOCUMENT RETENTION SCHEDULE.

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW IT.

IN EVERY 2 OR 3 YEARS AND AND BE SURE THAT IT'S COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT LAW.

OH, SORRY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

SO EVERY TWO YEARS OR AS NEEDED OR AS NEEDED.

THERE YOU GO. TRYING TO THINK OF A HOW TO SAY THAT OKAY.

SO WE CAN ROLL THAT INTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR ALONG WITH SOME OF OUR ANNUAL AND BIANNUAL REVIEWS OF THINGS, AND JUST PUT THIS ON THAT LIST AND THEN THE EFFECTIVE DATE CAN BE TONIGHT.

TOMORROW. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WORKS.

COULD IT BE INSTANT? YES. SO IF YOU ALL ARE TO APPROVE A MOTION, THEN I WOULD ALSO INCLUDE

[00:10:05]

OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE APPROVE THE.

[Decision: Motion to approve as submitted with an effective date of 11/8/2023]

RULES OF PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMISSION BOARD.

AND MAKE THEM EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY TODAY.

NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023.

I SECOND. OKAY.

THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM LEGISLATIVE BILL BY MACKENZIE.

[4. Solar Energy System Legislation Bill 2023-004]

SO THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE BILL, REGULATIONS THAT THIS BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND AND RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL.

THAT WAS BACK IN APRIL THIS YEAR.

COMMISSIONERS HELD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT ON OCTOBER 17TH AND FOUND SOME DISCUSSIONS AT THE MEETING.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECIDED TO REMAND IT BACK TO THIS BOARD FOR FURTHER REVIEW.

THERE WERE TWO THINGS IN QUESTION THAT CAME UP.

MAJOR PART OF THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THE SETBACKS.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

THOUGHT THAT THIS BOARD SUPPLIED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO TO HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK.

AND SO THEY'RE TOTALLY IN AGREEANCE OF CONTINUING WITH THAT 200 FOOT SETBACK.

THE SECOND ITEM WAS ABOUT THE SETBACK MODIFICATION.

SO WE HAD RECEIVED SOME PUBLIC COMMENT FROM AN ATTORNEY.

FOR DISCUSSING 1 TO 200 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH WE WON'T GET INTO THAT BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS HAD ALREADY.

FOUND THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS WAS OKAY TO HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK.

THE OTHER ONE WAS THE SETBACK MODIFICATION.

SO THE CURRENT SETBACK MODIFICATION LANGUAGE AS IT'S WRITTEN, NOT IN THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, BUT IN OUR IN OUR CODE SAYS SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM STRUCTURES SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM.

SETBACK FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH LOCATED FOR 25FT, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

IN ADDITION, SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS MUST BE LOCATED AT LEAST 200FT FROM ALL RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PARCELS.

EXISTING RESIDENCES.

SO THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION HAS MOVED TO GO 200FT FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES.

MR. BREEDING HAD BROUGHT UP A VALID POINT IN DISCUSSIONS, AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT THIS IN DETAIL.

BUT. CURRENT CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE REQUIRED SETBACK.

SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM STRUCTURES SHALL BE LOCATED AT LEAST 200FT FROM ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY LINES.

NOW. ONE THING THAT'S COME UP BEFORE IS WHAT IF THE PROPERTY CROSSES A ROAD AND THE COUNTY DOESN'T? THREAT. OR IT COULD BE A STATE BIRD.

IN THIS CASE, OUR CURRENT ZONING CODE CALLS OUT OUR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES TO BE SET BACK FROM A LOT LINE, OR FROM A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.

NOW, THIS LANGUAGE DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY CALL THAT OUT THE WAY THAT WE HAVE THIS WORDED.

SO I THINK TO ADDRESS THAT COMMENT, I THINK IF WE JUST ADDED.

OR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AT THE END OF THE STATEMENT.

SO YOU'D HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK FROM ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY LINES OR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.

I THINK THAT KIND OF PICKS UP.

THE ISSUES THAT. THE OTHER THING IS THE SETBACK MODIFICATION.

SO. THE SETBACK MODIFICATION LANGUAGE THAT SETS IN THE FOLLOWING SECTION THREE B SETBACK MODIFICATIONS.

THIS REFERENCES BASICALLY THE OLD LANGUAGE, SO.

WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE A 200 FOOT SETBACK FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE'S A HOUSE OR A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT RYAN SHOWALTER HAD BROUGHT UP THE ATTORNEY WAS, WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO.

GET A SETBACK MODIFICATION FROM ANY ZONING DISTRICT, REGARDLESS IF THERE'S A HOUSE OR IF IT'S I TWO OR C TWO, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

I THINK THE INTENT OF THE 200 FOOT SETBACK FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.

DISCUSSIONS THAT. HEAD OF THE PAST WAS.

[00:15:02]

NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN THIS SAME LANGUAGE AS IS OR TO REFLECT IT SO THAT THE SETBACK MODIFICATION COULD BE GRANTED.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS.

I'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN. FOR YOU ALL FOR DISCUSSION.

STAFF DOESN'T PARTICULARLY HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT, BUT.

SO WHAT ARE WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS? DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE THIS SETBACK MODIFICATION LANGUAGE AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, OR IS THERE SOME EDITS THAT YOU MAY? WANT TO CHANGE, TO REFLECT.

THE 200FT FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES OR DRIVEWAYS.

SO. PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PROTECT THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAYS AS WELL.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR IN THE LEGISLATION THAT THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY, THAT.

IF YOU HAVE.

TWO FARMS, TWO FIELDS ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF A ROAD THAT THE COUNTY DOESN'T ACTUALLY OWN.

WE ONLY HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY.

SO IN THAT CASE, IN THEORY, THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE CENTER OF THE ROAD, WITH A RIGHT OF WAY ON BOTH SIDES OF IT.

THAT. AS MATT WAS ADDRESSING THAT THE 200 FOOT SETBACK IS FROM THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ON BOTH SIDES.

BUT IS THERE ANY ROOM IN THERE FOR THE ARGUMENT THAT? THE SOUL. IF THE SOUL ARRAY IS GOING TO BE CONTINUOUS ACROSS THOSE PARCELS, THOSE TWO FIELDS, THAT THE 200 FOOT SETBACK WOULDN'T APPLY TO A RIGHT OF WAY THAT WASN'T OWNED BY THE COUNTY.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND THAT'S. THAT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS ALSO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DISTINGUISHED FROM A PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY.

SEE RIGHT AWAY. AS YOU KNOW, COME IN ALL VARIETIES HERE.

SOME ARE PUBLIC AND SOME ARE PRIVATE.

RIGHT OF WAYS.

SO, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC ROADS? YES. OKAY.

SO IT'S NOT PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO YOU CAN'T JUST SAY RIGHT AWAY IT'S GOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED OR MODIFIED BY THE WORD PUBLIC.

THEN WOULD A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY CONSTITUTE A ROAD THAT HAS MAYBE FIVE PARCELS AT THE BACK OF IT, BUT IT'S OWNED, LET'S SAY TOD'S WHARF ROAD, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO THAT ROAD IS NOT OWNED BY THE COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH ALL THE RESIDENTS WOULD LOVE FOR US TO TAKE IT OVER.

BUT IS EVERYONE FAMILIAR WITH THAT ROAD? YOU KNOW WHERE I'M TALKING ABOUT TOD'S WHARF, THE ROAD THAT GOES AROUND THE TELEPHONE POLES, DOWN 16.

YOU GO DOWN 16 ON THE RIGHT.

SO, LIKE IN THAT CASE, IF A PROPERTY OWNER ON THE RIGHT SIDE WANTED TO PUT SOLAR PANELS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROJECT WITH SOLAR PANELS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THEIR SETBACKS? SO THAT'S IS THAT CONSIDERED A PUBLIC THAT WOULDN'T BE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THAT WOULD BE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY.

CORRECT. OKAY.

OKAY. CAN WE WRITE IT ONE WAY AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GO ASK FOR.

UP TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE TO BECAUSE.

BECAUSE HIM AND I ARE BUDDIES, WE DON'T WE DON'T CARE.

SO WE WANT TO WE WANT TO WE WANT IT TO STRETCH ACROSS OUR PARCELS OR WE WANT IT.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE MODIFICATIONS SETBACK MODIFICATIONS ARE.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT THAT IS.

WE'RE TALKING RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT.

THE 200 FOOT SETBACK IS FROM A PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS THE EASY ONE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK.

BUT WHAT IF THERE IS A ROADWAY? WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE.

THE FEE SIMPLE TITLE, WHICH IS.

THE REAL OWNERSHIP IS IN THE TWO ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.

TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS A CROSS THESE TWO PEOPLE'S DIRT.

AND ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW THAT MODIFICATION? IN OTHER WORDS? IS THE PRESENCE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OVER THEIR DIRT, A FACTOR THAT YOU WANT TO WRITE INTO THE ORDINANCE.

HAS A DISTINCTION.

WHAT WHAT OTHER WHAT OTHER ELSE DO WE HAVE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED? SOMETHING WE GOT SOMETHING ELSE THAT GOES BY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SO WE HAVE A FEW THINGS CONSISTENT.

[00:20:01]

CIRCUMSTANCE IN OUR CODE WHERE YOU REMOVE SETBACKS.

IF TWO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE DOING THE SAME THING IN AGREEMENT.

THAT'S WHY THIS OPENS UP A NEW DISCUSSION POINT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF IF YOU WANT TO GO BUILD A WAREHOUSE ON YOUR PROPERTY, YOU'VE GOT TO MEET ALL THE SETBACKS, REGARDLESS OF IF I'M BUYING, I'M BUILDING A WAREHOUSE ON MY PROPERTY.

I DON'T THINK WE DON'T HAVE A PROVISION WHERE HIM AND I COULD BUILD A WAREHOUSE AND CONNECT IT TOGETHER, RIGHT, AND IGNORE THOSE SETBACKS NECESSARILY, LIKE WITH SOLAR, WHEREAS WITH SOLAR, IF YOU'RE GOING TO LEASE TO A SOLAR COMPANY AND I'M GOING TO LEASE, THEN OUR PROPERTY LINE DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK.

WE CAN GO CONTINUOUS. WE CAN RUN THE PANELS RIGHT OVER TOP OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO THAT'S WHAT'S OPENING UP THIS GRAY AREA, THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT RIGHT OF WAYS.

AND THEN IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT THE COUNTY MAY NOT POTENTIALLY.

WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE COUNTY DOESN'T OWN ALL THE COUNTY ROADS, THAT THEY'RE MERELY RIGHT OF WAYS THAT WERE JUST SIGNED OVER TO US.

SO, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR IN HERE THAT THERE'S NO GRAY AREA TO OPEN US UP OR MINIMAL. I MEAN, LAWYERS ARE LAWYERS ALWAYS.

THERE'S ALWAYS AN ARGUMENT.

BUT BUT WE PUT IT IN STONE THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE ALLOWING THESE ARRAYS TO CROSS PROPERTY LINES, A ROAD THAT WE DON'T OWN.

BUT EVERYBODY THINKS THAT HE DOESN'T GET SPECIAL TREATMENT AND ALLOW THESE PANELS TO BE PLACED RIGHT UP TO THE TO THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, ESSENTIALLY.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S 200 FOOT SETBACK.

I DON'T KNOW, DOES IT DOES THAT JUSTIFY ANOTHER PARAGRAPH THAT SPECIFIES THIS OR DO WE WHAT WORDING DO YOU USE TO GET THAT ACROSS? WE COULD. I MEAN, WE COULD CHANGE HOW THIS IS WORDED.

WE COULD REFLECT OUR DEFINITION OF BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE OR BUILDING SETBACK LINE.

THAT DEFINITION SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT A LOT LINE OR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.

UM, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT A BUILDING PERMIT, FOR INSTANCE, THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE IS USED FOR HOW FAR YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SET BACK.

SO YOU HAVE YOUR REQUIRED YARD SETBACKS.

THAT'S BASED ON YOUR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE.

SO YOUR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE DEFINITION IS A LINE ON A LOT, GENERALLY PARALLEL TO A LOT LINE OR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, LOCATED A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE THEREFROM TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM YARDS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER, AND BEYOND WHICH THE FOUNDATION WALLS, ENCLOSED PORCH, VESTIBULE OR OTHER ENCLOSED PORTION OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE SHALL NOT PROJECT.

SO YOU COULD CALL OUT INSTEAD OF SAYING SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM STRUCTURES SHALL BE LOCATED AT LEAST 200FT FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES.

YOU COULD SAY THAT THE MINIMUM BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE FOR A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM IS 200FT.

AND THEN THAT REFERENCES THAT DEFINITION IN CODE.

SO YOU'VE GOT YOUR CODE RIGHT AWAY AND YOU HAVE YOUR LOT LINE.

AND THEN A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THE PROVISION FOR.

CONTINUOUS INSTALLATION DOES NOT APPLY OVER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS.

YES. HERE'S THE OTHER QUESTION.

IT MIGHT BE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT AND YOU RAISED THE IDEA OF, WELL, MAYBE IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS SHARED BY FIVE HOUSES.

WHAT IF IT'S 20 HOUSES? DO YOU WANT TO THROW THOSE PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS? BECAUSE IT'S A PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT YOU'VE GOT 20 TAXPAYER HOMES BACK THERE THAT ARE NOW GOING TO BE CROWDED BY THE SOLAR ARRAY.

FOR THEM TO COME AND GO.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT SCHOOL BUS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT, BUT DO YOU WANT TO BASICALLY SAY, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU? SEE, IF YOU LEAVE IT JUST RIGHT AWAY? I WAS LISTENING CAREFULLY TO THE WAY MATT READ IT, WHICH I REALLY LIKE YOUR IDEA, MATT.

OF LEAVING IT.

YOU COULD ACTUALLY PUT A PARENTHESES AFTER RIGHT OF WAY.

IN THE DEFINITION THAT YOU JUST READ US, I PUT A PARENTHESES IN THERE THAT SIMPLY SAYS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE? PRIVATE. RIGHT.

CLOSE PARENTHESES I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT AWAY.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOCUMENTED RIGHT OF WAYS.

APPROVED, DOCUMENTED RIGHT OF WAYS.

RIGHT. WHETHER THERE'S FIVE HOUSES OR 20 HOUSES, IT'S IT'S A PLOTTED RIGHT OF WAY THAT I DON'T YOUR PROPERTY LINE GOING TO BE ON IT, BUT YOU CAN'T BUILD ON IT.

I MEAN IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY THAT I GET TO USE.

RIGHT. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

FIVE HOUSES. UTILITY.

UTILITY. RIGHT. YEAH. UTILITY RAILWAY.

[00:25:01]

RAILROAD. RIGHT.

RAILROADS. INTERESTING.

WE HAVE THEM. SO SO YOU HAVE RIGHT OF WAYS AND YOUR ROAD RIGHT OF WAYS.

BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER THE HOUSE I HAD OUT THERE, THERE WAS A RIGHT OF WAY GOING ACROSS THAT YARD.

AT ONE POINT THERE WAS A ELECTRIC LINE.

BUT TODD'S WHARF IS A GOOD EXAMPLE BECAUSE THERE'S PROBABLY 20 RESIDENCES BACK THERE, AND MAYBE JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THAT SHARE OF RIGHT OF WAY, MAYBE THERE'S 20 RESIDENTS BACK THERE, DON'T WANT A FENCE RIGHT ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY, YOU KNOW, EITHER.

BUT WE CAN WRITE IT SO THAT IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY AND MAKE THEM ABIDE BY THE SETBACK OFF OF AN APPROVED RIGHT OF WAY.

RIGHT. A DOCUMENTED RIGHT AWAY.

HOWEVER, YOU WERE RIGHT.

HOWEVER YOU WERE. I THINK IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES.

I THINK IN BOTH CASES A COUNTY OWNED RIGHT OF WAY, LET'S SAY.

OR A PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY OWNED BY MULTIPLE RESIDENCES.

BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO LIKE A POWER POWER UTILITY RIGHT AWAY, I CAN'T SEE REQUIRING SOMEONE TO HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK FROM THAT.

CORRECT, I AGREE.

BUT REMEMBER, A RIGHT OF WAY IS DIFFERENT THAN AN EASEMENT.

EASEMENT. THOSE ARE PROBABLY UTILITY EASEMENT.

EXACTLY. THAT'S THAT'S THE RIGHT TO HAVE OUR POLES UP AND TO SERVICE THOSE POLES AND TRIM FOLIAGE AND NOT BE CHARGED WITH TRESPASS.

CORRECT. IT'S NOT A CRIME.

CORRECT. OKAY.

SO RIGHT OF WAY IS A RIGHT OF PASSAGE.

AND THAT'S WHAT. YEAH.

SO THE UTILITY EASEMENTS WOULDN'T COME INTO IT.

WOULDN'T COME INTO PLAY.

BUT THE OLD RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAYS MAY COME INTO PLAY.

EVEN THE QUOTE UNQUOTE ABANDONED, THEY'RE STILL STATE RIGHT OF WAYS.

THERE'S STILL A LOT OF STONE BY THE RAILROAD, RIGHT? YEAH. USUALLY THE STATE, BUT SOME ARE OWNED BY THE ACTUAL.

AND WE'RE MAPPING THEM NOW FOR THE LAND USE ELEMENT SO WE CAN SEE THE EXTENT OF THEM BECAUSE THAT INHIBITS PRUITT.

WELL, POTENTIALLY PROHIBITS DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN WE HAVE A LOT.

COULD WE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAYS? WELL. I HAVE ONE QUESTION IS JUST IN THE MATTER OF KEEPING IT SIMPLE.

INSTEAD OF TRYING TO WRITE SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES EVERY LITTLE THING, WE ADDRESS IT WITH A BROAD STROKE.

AND THEN IF THEY IF SOMEBODY BUMPS UP TO A RAILROAD AND THEY WANT TO BUILD A SOLAR ARRAY, WHY DON'T THEY COME ASK PERMISSION FROM SOMEBODY IF THEY CAN? BUT WITHIN THE 200.

AND NOT TO GET TOO FAR DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE, BUT THE RAILS TO TRAILS PROGRAM MAY COME HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IT'S IT'S ALREADY HERE OR NOT, BUT ORIGINALLY RIDGELY HAS DONE SOMETHING WITH THEIR RAILS.

MOST OF THEM ARE MUNICIPAL IN TOWN.

RIGHT. WELL, SOME OF THEM IN SOME PLACES ARE OUT IN THE COUNTY TOO.

AND. THE CONCERN WOULD BE IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO THE FUTURE, IF YOU'VE ALLOWED A SOLAR ARRAY TO BUILD RIGHT UP TO A WALL.

YEAH. I MEAN, THESE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY A TOURIST ATTRACTIONS.

THEY'RE WALKING PATHS, BIKE PATHS.

I MEAN, THEY'RE CHESTER TOWNS GOT THEM AND THEY'RE I THINK THE THING OF THE FUTURE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT LAND IS SITTING THERE.

NOT BEING USED AND THE PUBLIC'S NOT REALLY ENJOYING IT.

IT'S ACTUALLY A HAZARD TO HAVE THOSE TRACKS THERE LIKE THAT IF THEY'RE NOT BEING USED AND MAINTAINED.

SO. CAN WE WRITE IT SO THAT.

WELL, I WOULDN'T EXCLUDE RAILROADS.

I WOULD KEEP THEM AS PROTECTED.

YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY.

IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY. RIGHT OF WAY IS A RIGHT OF WAY.

AND IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT, COME ASK FOR PERMISSION.

YEAH. OKAY.

YOU'RE SAYING. KEEP IT BROAD AS A RIGHT OF WAY.

RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS.

OR HOWEVER YOU DO THAT, THE RAILROAD COMES UNDER RIGHT OF WAY.

THAT'S IN THAT CATEGORY, OR IT'S TOTALLY SEPARATE.

WELL, IF AGAIN, WE GOT THE PROPERTY LINE ISSUE, IF IT'S THE RAILROAD IS OWNED BY THE STATE, LET'S JUST SAY.

SO IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE STATE ENDED UP TAKING TITLE FROM THE DEFUNCT RAILROAD RAILROAD'S AUTHORITY, WHATEVER IT WAS.

AND THE STATE HAS THE TITLE, YOU KNOW, IT INHERITED, IF YOU WILL, OR WAS ASSIGNED THE TITLE.

SO THAT'S A PROPERTY LINE.

IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A SOLAR ARRAY UP AGAINST A RAILROAD, YOU'VE GOT TO GO BACK THOSE 200FT.

YEAH. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD NOT DIFFERENTIATE RAILROADS FROM WHAT MAT THE LITTLE INSERTION WE WERE GOING TO DO IN WHAT MAT READ, PUBLIC OR

[00:30:04]

YEAH. THE, THE, THE DEFINITION OF A RIGHT OF WAY CALLS OUT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR OR AT LEAST.

OTHER THAN THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, BUT IT SAYS A STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED FOR THE USE OF A ROAD, HIGHWAY, DRIVEWAY, ALLEY OR WALKWAY, OR ANY OR ANY DRAINAGE OR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSE OR OTHER SIMILAR USE.

SO THAT'S HOW RIGHT OF WAY IS DEFINED IN OUR CODE.

BUT IT DOESN'T STAY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.

NO, BUT IT JUST IT JUST SAYS USE OF A ROAD.

SO IT DOESN'T SAY IF IT'S A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD.

WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC DRAINAGE WAYS THAT HAVE MOWING NEEDS THAN NEED TO HAVE ACCESS? THE PDR DITCHES.

SURE THEY HAVE A RIGHT AWAY ALREADY.

WELL, THOSE ARE PROBABLY THOSE ARE PROBABLY MOSTLY EASEMENTS, DRAINAGE EASEMENTS I WOULD THINK.

WELL I LAST WEEK WHEN I WAS AT A CONFERENCE, THEY TOOK US ON A TOUR.

OF A SOLAR PANEL OPERATION, SEVERAL FIELDS LOADED WITH THEM.

THEY HAD ONE.

ONE FIELD WE CAME TO.

THERE WAS A ROAD IN THE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE POWER PLANT THAT THEY WERE RUNNING, THAT THEY WERE TYING INTO. SO THEY WE ASKED THEM HOW WERE THEY TYING INTO IT, AND THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING UNDER, UNDER THE ROAD.

YEAH, THEY HAD TO.

THEY HAD TO RUN THE CABLE UNDER THE ROPE BECAUSE THE POWER PLANT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

I MEAN, I VISUALLY SAW IT.

I MEAN, I WAS STANDING ON AND I'M STANDING IN THE LOT OF THE POWER PLANT, AND THE SOLAR FIELD IS RIGHT THERE, MAYBE, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 200FT AWAY.

UM, SO IT WAS A COUNTY ROAD, QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY ROAD.

AND THAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WELL, IF YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT OUR DISCUSSION IS, HOW ARE THEY ABLE TO DO THAT? BALL UNDERNEATH. YEAH, THEY WOULD JUST BORE, I THINK UNDERGROUND.

SO IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY.

YOU'RE NOT UNDERGROUND.

IT WAS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNDERGROUND.

WELL THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE YEAH, THE 200FT SETBACK WOULD BE JUST TO THE PANELS AND THE ENCLOSURES AND ANY ABOVE GRADE CROSSING THAT WITH UNDERGROUND BURIED WIRES WOULDN'T BE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A STRUCTURAL STRUCTURE.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO ALL THAT'S COVERED, ANY UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENT CAN BE DONE IN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER OKAY.

TO CROSS. SO KEEP IT SIMPLE.

YEAH. JUST COVER IT ALL AND HAVE THEM COME BACK.

YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT IN THAT A LOT OF THAT RAILROAD IS OWNED PROPERTY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S NOT EASEMENTS NOW.

AND I DON'T KNOW YOU GO BACK TO WHENEVER, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT A RAILROAD ACROSS YOUR FARM, YOU WEREN'T SELLING THEM 40FT.

THEY PROBABLY HAD AN EASEMENT.

I DON'T KNOW. SO I DON'T KNOW.

BUT WE JUST CALL IT EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY LINES.

WE'VE GOT IT COVERED.

RIGHT. OR NOT.

I MEAN. OR THE TOO SIMPLE.

THE PROPERTY LINES.

THE INTERESTING THING, MATT, IN THAT DEFINITION OF RIGHT OF WAY.

IT SAYS DESIGNATED AS A ROAD OR WHATEVER.

DESIGNATED BY WHO? THE COUNTY. THE LANDOWNERS.

THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER? I'M NOT SURE. IT'S NOT CLEAR.

DOES THAT NEED TIGHTENING UP TOO? NO, DON'T THINK SO. PROBABLY.

ON THE OTHER HAND.

IT IS GENERAL ENOUGH RIGHT NOW.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH. HOW MANY HOURS OF BRAIN POWER YOU WANT TO SPEND ON ON EVERY LITTLE PERMUTATION OF THIS.

BUT THE.

THE IDEA THAT IT'S DESIGNATED OR BEING UTILIZED.

MAYBE THAT'S THE THING TO ADD TO THAT IS DESIGNATED OR UTILIZED.

OR BEING UTILIZED.

I LIKE THAT EVEN BETTER.

SO IF WE ADD LANGUAGE TO THIS NOW, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

IT'S GOT TO GO BACK TO US ANYWAY.

OKAY. WE REMANDED IT BACK TO HERE TO MAKE THESE COUPLE CHANGES AND THEN SEND IT BACK TO US BASICALLY JUST TO BE FINAL.

WE COULD HAVE MADE THESE AMENDMENTS OURSELVES, BUT YES, YOU COULD HAVE.

[00:35:03]

LIKE IF WE'VE GOT TO TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT THERE, WE CAN WE CAN DO THAT.

BUT WE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THESE MULTIPLE CHANGES.

SO I THINK WE WANTED TO COME BACK HERE TO JUST HAVE THE DISCUSSION AND MAKE SURE WE HAD EVERYTHING COVERED WITH.

YOU KNOW THESE TWO PARTICULAR ITEMS. SO, I MEAN, WE MAKE A MOTION TO ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT MATT PROPOSED FROM THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE DEFINITION.

AND DID YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT? YOU. HOW ABOUT I READ IT AGAIN AND THEN WE CAN WRITE IT DOWN.

SEE HOW WE WANT TO TWEAK IT.

SO THE DEFINITION IS BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE.

WE'RE BUILDING SETBACK LINE A LINE ON A LOT.

GENERALLY PARALLEL TO A LOT LINE OR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE THEREFROM TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM YARDS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER, AND BEYOND WHICH THE FOUNDATION WALLS, ENCLOSED PORCH, VESTIBULE, OR OTHER ENCLOSED PORTION OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE SHALL NOT PROJECT.

OKAY, IT'S PROBABLY ADDED OR SOLAR PANEL TO THAT.

I THINK THAT'S A SMART IDEA.

OR A FENCE.

OR I WILL SAY THAT THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE ACTUALLY CALLS OUT.

GETTING READY TO PULL IT UP RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY CALLS OUT SOLAR.

SOLAR. OKAY. SO.

YOU GOT A SEARCH? YEP.

SEARCH. WELCOME TO LAW SEARCH.

SO THAT'S JUST THE PROPERTY LINE.

DEPENDS ON WHAT THE DEFINITION OF IS.

IS. THAT'S GOING BACK.

SO REQUIRES THAT A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM STRUCTURE SHALL BE LOCATED AT LEAST 200FT FROM ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY LINES AND ROADWAYS.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. PRIVATE.

RIGHT OF WAYS IN LAWYER'S WORLD.

IS IT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE? DOCUMENTED RIGHT OF WAY OR JUST PUBLIC OR PRIVATE? RIGHT OF WAY? I WOULD LEAVE IT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAYS, AND WE'LL ARGUE ABOUT IT LATER.

OKAY. OKAY.

BUT ALL HIS LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE IN HERE, RIGHT? YEAH. I'M ALSO WONDERING, JUST.

I'M JUST TOSSING THIS OUT.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE? RIGHT OF WAYS.

OR ROADS.

BECAUSE WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ROAD AND A ROAD? BECAUSE NOT EVERY RIGHT OF WAY.

STATE HIGHWAY HAS A RIGHT OF WAY TO PUT FOUR FORWARD IN THAT ROAD.

I HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS YOUR BACK FIELD TO REACH MY WOODLOT.

I DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO PUT A ROAD IN THERE.

I HAVE A RESTRICTED RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITH MY AX ACROSS YOUR BACK YARD TO GET TO MY WOODLOT.

I'M GIVING YOU EXAMPLES.

SO NOT EVERY RIGHT OF WAY IS A ROAD.

IT'S A RIGHT OF PASSAGE.

AND SOMETIMES THEY'RE LIMITED TO PEDESTRIAN REQUIRED SETBACKS.

SO IT WOULD BE OR NON BUILDING RESTRICTIONS OR ANIMAL OR SOLAR SYSTEMS. YOU CAN'T TAKE A MOTOR VEHICLE BACK THERE.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT THEY COME IN ALL.

SIZES AND COLORS, BUT THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC SOMETIMES.

THE THING IS, AREN'T THEY ALL CALLED RIGHT? I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

IS A SUB SUB SECTION OF EASEMENT.

AN EASEMENT IS A RIGHT OF OF USER IN SOMEONE ELSE'S LAND.

SOMETIMES IT'S JUST A RIGHT OF PASSAGE.

SOMETIMES IT'S A RIGHT TO PUT A ROADWAY IN.

SOMETIMES IT'S A RIGHT TO PARK.

THOSE ARE ALL LITTLE SUBSETS OF EASEMENT, WHICH IS A RIGHT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.

SO. ANYWAY, I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.

I WAS JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN.

KEEPING IT AS SIMPLE THAT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND.

YOU SAY RIGHT AWAY THAT INCLUDES THE ROADS AND.

THE FOOTPATHS AND ANYTHING IS ANYTHING.

YOU CAN GO TO THE COURTHOUSE AND FIND A DOCUMENTED RIGHT AWAY.

I'M GUESSING. WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.

WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC DOCUMENTATION OF.

RIGHT OF USER OF MANY OF OUR COUNTY ROADS.

THIS IS ALL RELATIVELY NEW INFORMATION.

[00:40:03]

WELL, THEN SOMEBODY, AS WE ARGUED ONE TIME IN GREENSBORO, THEN TAKE YOU A DUMP TRUCK, DUMP A BUNCH OF DIRT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, AND LET'S FIGHT IT OUT, FIND OUT WHO OWNS IT. YEAH, WE'LL FIND OUT WHO OWNS.

BECAUSE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF, AS THEY CALL IN THE MUNICIPALITIES.

THERE'S A LOT OF THESE PAPER OUTS.

YEP. THAT'S RIGHT.

SO AND LIKE YOU SAY PROPERTY LINES ARE RIGHT TOGETHER.

BUT IT'S BEEN A ROAD.

IT IT'S A IT IT BELONGS.

YOU CAN'T PUT IT. DON'T PUT A SHED ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT FOR YOU.

AND YOU KNOW IT'S AND THEN THEY'RE FOUND IN SOME OF THAT STUFF HAS NOT BEEN DOCUMENTED.

EVERYBODY'S TALKED ABOUT IT FOR 50 YEARS, BUT YOU CAN'T FIND IT WRITTEN ANYWHERE.

WELL, I THINK THE FAULT IS THAT THE WORD RUDE TO OPEN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT, JUST IN CASE WE DO FIND OUT THAT THERE WAS NO RECORDED RIGHT OF WAY OR.

THERE IS. WE CAN KIND OF LEAN ON THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT THERE'S A IN THE MINERAL EXTRACTION SECTION ON WHAT WE CALL OUT AS MINIMUM STANDARDS. THERE'S A SENTENCE HERE AT THE END OF.

WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK FOR FOR THAT, ABSENT ANY ESTABLISHED RIGHT OF WAY LINE, THE DISTANCE SHELBY MEASURE FROM THE EDGE OF THE TRAVEL PORTION OF THE ROADWAY.

WE COULD, BUT IF IT'S KIND OF LIKE THAT, WE HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.

THEY'RE JUST ALL DIFFERENT PLACES.

WELL, THE ONLY THING, THE ONLY THING THAT I DOUBT IS COVERED.

I THINK THIS IS GOOD. I THINK I THINK THAT EDITION COVERS.

YEAH. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED.

FOR THE BUILDING RESTRICTION IS THAT THAT IS THAT FOR THE MODIFICATION.

OR THAT'S FOR THIS IS DEALING WITH THE A.

THAT'S AN A. IS THAT AN A.

YEAH. OR DO WE CREATE ANOTHER LETTER.

WHAT IS IT. I THINK ALL OF THAT GOES RIGHT IN WITH A.

NOW HOW ABOUT THE CONTINUOUS.

WELL, THE PROVISION FOR THAT.

WHERE IS THAT SECTION? THAT'S THAT'S IN THAT SETBACK MODIFICATION.

SEE THE LAST SECOND.

THE LAST SENTENCE IN. WHERE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ENCOMPASSES MULTIPLE PARCELS.

SETBACKS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FROM INTER PARCEL BOUNDARY LINES.

I ALMOST FEEL LIKE THAT SHOULD ACTUALLY BE WITH THE SETBACK SECTION AND NOT IN THE SETBACK MODIFICATION SECTION.

BECAUSE THAT'S. THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SETBACK MODIFICATION.

THAT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

WELL, IT DOES KIND OF ADDRESS IT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT SAYS INNER PARCEL BOUNDARY LINES.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT'S REFERRING TO.

AND WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF INNER PARCEL? BOUNDARY LINES.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? SO IF YOU HAVE TWO FARMS NEXT TO EACH OTHER, LET'S SAY RIGHT HERE, THE TWO FARMS, THIS PROPERTY LINE HERE DOESN'T MATTER.

YOU CAN JUST PUT THE PEN RIGHT.

SO THAT'S THAT'S SO THAT'S COVERING.

THAT'S YOUR INNER PARCEL.

AT LEAST THAT'S HOW WE'VE INTERPRETED IT ON THESE PROJECTS.

NOBODY'S PARTICULARLY ASKED THAT QUESTION, BUT THAT'S.

WE HAVEN'T HAD A THIS BIG OF A SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

CORRECT. EITHER YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY CROSS RIGHT OF WAYS.

IS THAT ENOUGH? 200. NO NO NO.

THE INNER PARCEL BOUNDARY LINES.

IS THAT ENOUGH PROTECTION TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM CROSSING? A RIGHT OF WAY OWNED BY THE COUNTY.

AND NOT CONSTRUING THAT RIGHT AWAY AS.

AN INNER. AN INNER BOUNDARY LINE.

RIGHT? IS IT A RIGHT OF WAY? BECAUSE WE COVERED THAT WHEN YOU SAID YOU GOT TO BE 20 FOOT FROM RIGHT AWAY.

RIGHT. DOES A RIGHT OF WAY.

SORT OF INNER PARCEL DON'T MATTER.

THERE'S A RIGHT OF WAY PLANTED THERE.

SO THEY STILL CAN'T BUMP UP TO IT.

I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. YEAH.

WHAT WERE YOU ABOUT TO SAY? IF A IF A ROAD BISECTS A PROPERTY, IS THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY A DEFAULT INNER BOUNDARY LINE?

[00:45:09]

THAT'S WHERE OUR. THAT'S WHERE OUR YARD.

BECAUSE WITH THAT RIGHT OF WAY BE CONSIDERED AN INNER BOUNDARY LINE.

RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. LIKE LIKE, SAY THE COUNTY.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANY EVEN EXISTS.

MUCH LESS.

IF THIS HAPPENED. BUT LET'S SAY BACK IN THE DAY THERE WAS A FARM AND WE JUST GOT PUT OUR ROAD ON A RIGHT OF WAY AND THERE'S NO PROPERTY LINE THERE.

WE JUST HAD MERELY HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY THAT CUTS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THIS FARM.

THAT CREATED AN INNER BOUNDARY LINE, RIGHT? BY DEFAULT, NOT REALLY ON PAPER, BUT BY DEFAULT, BECAUSE THERE'S A RIGHT OF WAY CREATING A BOUNDARY.

SO THE BOUNDARY IS THE RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED A PROPERTY BOUNDARY, BUT THE RIGHT OF WAY IS ESTABLISHED.

A BOUNDARY IS THAT YOU CAN GO TO COURT AND ARGUE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, BECAUSE YOUR RIGHT OF WAY SAYS THIS.

THIS RIGHT OF WAY IS 40 FOOT WIDE, 20 FOOT FROM THE CENTER.

SO YOU CAN GO STAND IN THE CENTER AND GO 20 FOOT AND THERE YOU GO, THERE'S A MARK.

I DON'T MAKE IT MEAN IT THAT SIMPLE.

BUT THERE'S YOUR THERE'S YOUR IT'S NOT A LIKE YOU SAID, AN ARGUMENT PROPERTY LINE.

IT IS A BOUNDARY LINE.

I THINK YOU RAISE A VERY GOOD QUESTION, LESLIE.

MY OPINION MY SUGGESTION IS.

TO GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT MAY WELL BE THAT THAT ROAD RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A FARM THAT IS RIGHT NOW CONSIDERED COUNTY ROAD.

WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT ROAD, RIGHT OF WAY, WHATEVER.

WE PAVE IT AND THE PUBLIC USES IT.

AND THERE MAY BE NO DEED LINE.

IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS THAT INDICATES THE COUNTY'S OWNERSHIP.

OR RIGHT TO USE THAT ROAD.

THE WAY WE'RE WRITING IT, THE WAY I THINK WE HAD SETTLED IT, WAS REGARDLESS OF PROPERTY LINE.

IF THERE'S A ROAD THERE.

YOU GOT TO BE 200FT BACK.

PROPERTY LINE.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE? RIGHT OF WAY OR ROAD? RIGHT OF WAY. PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.

OR OR OR AND AND THE LANGUAGE.

YOU'RE RIGHT THAT MATT WRITE FOR US ABOUT THE THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE DEFINITION SETS THE STANDARD FOR WHERE THE SETBACK HAS TO BE.

SO IT SETS YOUR YARD REQUIREMENTS.

AND WE'RE SAYING THAT YOUR 200 FOOT IS A BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE.

MY FEAR IS FROM THE LINE OF A LOT, GENERALLY PARALLEL TO A LINE OF LOT OR A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.

AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL INFO THAT WE'VE ADDED IN THERE.

RIGHT. AND BUILDING IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN.

IN THIS USAGE. RIGHT.

I'M SORRY. WHAT? BUILDING IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN.

LIKE YOU, IT'S NOT THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE.

IT'S THE BUILDING OF ANYTHING IS RESTRICTED, RIGHT? THAT'S THE INTENT, OKAY? YOUR STRUCTURE SHALL NOT PROJECT INTO THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE.

OKAY. AND THESE ARE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE STRUCTURE OKAY.

OKAY. SO THEY. ALL RIGHT.

JUST TO MAKE SURE. PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR SYSTEMS ARE CALLED IS A STRUCTURE WHICH IS SOMETHING IT'S ACTUALLY IN THERE.

BUT IT IS I'M NOT SURE WHEN THEY GOT ADDED INTO THE STRUCTURE DEFINITION.

I THINK IF WE GO BACK AND REFERENCE THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND ADD IN THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE'VE ADDED, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T, WE PROBABLY STILL COVERED THROUGH OTHER DEFINITIONS AND CODE.

I THINK YOU COVER THE ISSUE AT HAND.

OKAY. BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY CAME IN WITH A FARM AND THEY WEREN'T DOING SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM AND THAT ROAD WAS THERE, WELL, WHERE'S THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE? WELL, IT'S WHERE'S YOUR LOT? WELL LOT LINE RUNS DOWN THE SIDE.

OKAY. WELL THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE IS GOING TO BE FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD RIGHT AWAY.

RIGHT. SO THE ESTABLISHED AREA THAT'S USED FOR ACCESS, THAT'S WHERE YOUR SETBACK STARTS.

SO I THINK WE'RE I THINK WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.

IS THAT? WHAT? DID YOU HAVE A FEAR OF SOMETHING? I. BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE DOCUMENTATION OF COUNTY ROADS.

AS WE SIT HERE TODAY.

TONIGHT. I LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING.

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE ABILITY OF THE COUNTY TO PROVE TITLE.

OR RIGHT TO USE.

IT'S THERE, IT'S BEEN THERE.

WE HAVE GOT A NAME FOR IT, AND WE PAVE IT AND WE MAINTAIN IT.

THAT'S THE TEST.

FOR THE SETBACK TO BE TRIGGERED.

NOT THAT WE HAVE TO PROVE A METES AND BOUNDS CONVEYANCE TO US FROM AN ORIGINAL LANDOWNER.

[00:50:05]

IT'S LIKE AN ADVERSE POSSESSION ALMOST, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THERE.

IT'S ESTABLISHED. WE'VE BEEN USING IT.

SO THEREFORE YOU'VE GOT TO BE 200FT BACK FROM IT.

AND AND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT, TAKE US TO COURT AND FIGHT US AND PROVE IT WRONG.

WE'VE BEEN USING IT FOR THE LAST.

I'M TRYING TO AVOID THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S ALL I KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPEND FIGHTING STUFF.

YOU KNOW HOW IT GOES. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST.

IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'VE USED THIS FOREVER, AND NOW YOU WANT TO MAKE US THINK OUT OF IT.

OKAY? EXACTLY.

OKAY. YEAH, WE SAID NO.

NOW YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY AND GO SAY THEY WILL PROVE US WRONG.

WELL, DEPENDS ON HOW.

YEAH. WHAT? WHAT CONCERNS DID THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE? YOU HAD THAT RIGHT? YEAH. THAT AND THE MODIFIED SETBACK.

THE HOLDOVER FROM THE OLD LANGUAGE.

SO WE'VE CLEANED THAT UP AND NOW WE'VE KIND OF STRENGTHENED THIS POSITION.

SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH THIS.

SO WE JUST GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD THIS NOW.

SO WE WANT TO LEAVE THE SETBACK MODIFICATION LANGUAGE AS IT CURRENTLY IS WRITTEN.

DO YOU WANT TO PUT? YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THAT PARAGRAPH.

DO YOU WANT TO MOVE THAT SENTENCE WHERE THE SYSTEM ENCOMPASSES MULTIPLE PARCELS UP TO A OR LEAVE IT IN B? I THINK THAT WAS YOUR LAST QUESTION.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.

IT'S NOT A MODIFICATION.

THAT'S A STATEMENT. YEAH.

THAT'S JUST THAT'S A STATEMENT THAT SAYING HERE IT IS.

YEAH. SO JUST TO HAVE IT FOLLOW.

THIS ONE.

I WONDER IF I CAN PASTE IT.

FROM INNER PARCEL BOUNDARIES.

SO THAT THAT WORD SIMPLY HAVING INNER PARCEL BOUNDARIES KIND OF PROTECTS US FROM THAT.

AND THEN AS FAR AS THE SETBACK MODIFICATIONS.

IF. THEY WANT TO NEGOTIATE, NEGOTIATE, REDUCE SETBACKS WITH NEIGHBORS.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EXTENDING THAT TO ANY ZONING DISTRICT.

BUT WHAT'S SO? SHOULD THAT BE STATED IN THERE? WELL, WE WOULD REMOVE WE'D HAVE TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE HOW IT'S HOW IT'S WORDED IS MODIFICATIONS FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE GRANTED BY OWNERS OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PARCELS OR EXISTING RESIDENCES.

SO YOU COULD HAVE A R-1 ZONE PARCEL THAT'S NEXT DOOR MIGHT STILL BE USED AS FARMLAND.

THEY DON'T HAVE A HOUSE ON IT.

THE WAY THIS IS WORDED, THEY CAN'T GET A SETBACK MODIFICATION TO BE LESS THAN 200FT FROM THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

BUT THEY CAN FROM.

ANOTHER ZONE PARCEL THEY COULD FROM AN INDUSTRIAL PARCEL, THEY COULD MODIFY THE SETBACK.

IF YOU TOOK THIS LANGUAGE OUT, THEY COULD.

IF YOU TOOK IT OUT RIGHT NOW, THEY CAN ONLY MODIFY IT AGAINST RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL ZONE, PARCEL OR AN EXISTING RESIDENCE.

SO YOU CAN HAVE A C2 PROPERTY AND IT'S GOT A HOUSE ON IT BECAUSE YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE ON A C2.

THEY CAN REQUEST IT FROM THAT.

OKAY. BUT A C2 WITHOUT A HOUSE THEY COULDN'T.

CORRECT. OR INDUSTRIAL.

THEY COULDN'T. YES.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO IT KIND OF DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

IT'S KIND OF BACKWARDS. SO THE ONE SO RIGHT NOW YOU COULD GO TO A NEIGHBOR THAT HAD A HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY OR ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND ASK THEM, ARE YOU OKAY? WILL YOU SIGN OFF IF WE REDUCE THIS SETBACK FROM 200FT TO 50FT? OKAY. BUT AN INDUSTRIAL SOME MAJOR INDUSTRIAL OPERATION.

WE'VE GOT IT IN OUR CODE WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO STAY 200FT.

IT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ANYTHING YOU WOULD WANT TO SAY.

NO, YOU CAN'T GET A MODIFICATION ON RESIDENTIAL, BUT YOU CAN ON INDUSTRIAL OR SOME USE LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK.

I THINK WE EITHER.

YEAH, WE EITHER NEED TO OPEN IT UP TO EVERYBODY OR MAKE IT THE OPPOSITE ESSENTIALLY.

GIVEN THAT IT'S A 200 FOOT SETBACK.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ZONING IS, I THINK THE BEST BET WOULD JUST BE TO SPIN IT UP, LEAVE IT UP TO THE NEIGHBORS.

NOT WHAT'S YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANT TO DO IT, THEY CAN DO IT.

HASH IT OUT. AND SO THAT DOESN'T GET APPROVED BY US.

THAT'S JUST THE SETBACK MODIFICATION AGREEMENT.

NO, BUT IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED.

SO IT'S SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES.

IT ACTUALLY GETS RECORDED IN THE LAND RECORDS.

SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE TIED TO THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

THEY COULD THEY COULD WE COULDN'T GRANT AN APPROVAL UNLESS THEY HAD THAT AGREEMENT.

SO IF THEY WERE UNDER 200FT BUT THE NEIGHBOR NEVER SIGNED THE AGREEMENT, THEN THEY'RE NOT COMPLIANT.

HOW DO WE WORK? BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TRAVIS, IS THAT THIS JUST ADDRESSES RESIDENTIAL.

[00:55:05]

3V3. CAN YOU CAN YOU CAN MODIFICATION.

THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE GRANTED BY PROPERTY OWNERS.

PROVIDED THAT JUST TAKE OUT THAT RESIDENTIAL STUFF AND JUST CALL IT PROPERTY OWNERS.

YEAH. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

YEAH. BECAUSE THAT'S EVERYBODY.

YEP. THERE YOU GO.

THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH.

SO WHAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU WANT IN THERE? SO JUST MODIFICATIONS FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE GRANTED BY PROPERTY OWNER, PROPERTY OWNER ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDED A SETBACK MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IS SUBMITTED.

TAKE OUT THE RESIDENTIAL STUFF.

YEAH. AND THEN THAT COVERS EVERYTHING.

AND ARE WE MOVING THE MULTIPLE PARCEL LINE UP TO? A PARAGRAPH A AND TAKING IT OUT OF PARAGRAPH B, WHERE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ENCOMPASSES MULTIPLE PARCELS.

SETBACKS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FROM INTER PARCEL BOUNDARY LINES BECAUSE I SAY THAT'S A STATEMENT WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A MODIFICATION.

RIGHT? OKAY.

OKAY. WELL, THOSE THOSE WERE THE TWO EVERYTHING ELSE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WERE FINE WITH.

THERE WAS NO OTHER DISCUSSIONS OTHER THAN THOSE TWO SECTIONS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WE'VE GOT WHAT WE NEED.

SO I GUESS WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL WE CAN DRAFT THE LANGUAGE AND BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH AND THEN HAVE.

YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL.

IF THAT WORKS. SO I GUESS WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL DO A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EDITS.

CAN WE MAKE IT? CAN WE? CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LEGISLATIVE BILL 2023004, AS AMENDED, AND SEND IT? YEAH. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK.

WE CAN DO THAT. YEAH. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK.

YEAH. YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN SAVE ANOTHER MONTH.

YEAH. THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THAT THE REVISIONS GET MADE.

CONFORMING TO WHAT YOU JUST MOVED TO APPROVE? I THINK YEAH, THAT'S WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOREVER, BUT I THINK IT WAS PRETTY SIMPLE.

CHANGES FULLY.

DO WE NEED TO STATE IT IN THE MOTION AS WRITTEN.

SO IT IS.

THE CORRECT AMENDED LANGUAGE.

WELL, AS WE'RE GETTING TERRIBLE.

WELL, YEAH, I CAN'T READ.

THE MINIMUM BUILDING RESTRICTION.

THIS IS FOR A PARAGRAPH, A PARAGRAPH A THE MINIMUM BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS STRUCTURES IS 200FT FROM A PROPERTY LINE.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, RIGHT OF WAY OR ROAD, RIGHT OF WAY, PERENS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.

WHERE A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ENCOMPASSES MULTIPLE PARCELS, SETBACKS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FROM INNER PARCEL BOUNDARY LINES, SO YOU'VE GOT TO DELETE AFTER THE WORD ROAD, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.

YOU WANT TO. YOU JUST WANT ROAD, OKAY? AND WE'LL SPELL OUT RIGHT OF WAY.

IT'S IN THIS TEXT.

SO THAT'S A THAT SECOND SENTENCE ABOUT MULTIPLE PARCELS WILL BE REMOVED FROM PARAGRAPH B AND THEN MATT WILL MAKE THE CHANGE.

TO THE SECOND SENTENCE THAT REMOVES RESIDENTIALLY ZONED.

IT'LL BE ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

YEAH, OKAY. MATT, WHERE'S THE 200 FOOT START WHEN YOU START TO MEASURE FROM A ROAD? JUST GENERICALLY A COUNTY ROAD.

RIGHT OF WAY. EDGE OF RIGHT OF WAY.

THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. IS IT AS RIGHT OF WAY OF THE PAVED SECTION? THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO BECAUSE YOU MAY FIND INSTANCES WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS GREATER ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD THAN THE OTHER.

NOT ONLY THAT. YOU MAY FIND THAT RIGHT OF WAY DOESN'T EXIST.

IT'S NOT WRITTEN DOWN ANYWHERE.

IT'S NOT OF A DETERMINATE WIDTH.

ALL YOU'VE GOT IS AN EXISTING COUNTY ROAD, AND THE TITLE SEARCH REVEALS WE CAN'T FIND OUT HOW WE GOT IT.

THERE'S NO PUBLIC RECORD OF HOW THE COUNTY GOT.

THE USE OF THIS ROAD.

SO YOU CAN'T JUST ARBITRARILY SAY, WELL, WE GET 20FT ON EACH SIDE OF THE PAVED.

BUT IN THAT INCIDENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF NO DOCUMENTATION.

A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE IT'D BE THE BLACKTOP AREA.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SORT OF ASKING IS WHERE RHETORICALLY, WHERE ARE WE STARTING?

[01:00:03]

SO DO WE NEED TO SAY EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY? OH, ANGELA. OH.

I'M SORRY. EDGE OF ROAD.

AND NOT TO SPLIT HAIRS, BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE A SHOULDER, WHICH IS NOT THE TRAVELED PORTION.

TECHNICALLY VERY FEW.

YOU'RE RIGHT. SO YOU'VE GOT TO ADD SHOULDER.

WHAT ABOUT THE CENTER OF THE.

SO ARE WE IN A DEFINITIONS THOUGH, RIGHT.

THAT'S IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SECTION OF CODE.

YEAH. THAT SECTION THAT I HAD MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY WAS FROM THE MINERAL EXTRACTION FACILITIES.

YOU GOT YOUR DEFINITE. DO YOU HAVE A DEFINITION OF A ROAD OR WHATEVER? WE HAVE SOMEWHERE IN OUR IN ALL THESE CODES.

OR EVEN A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.

OR DO YOU WANT TO? YOU CAN PUT A ROAD AS DEFINED BY ROAD HAS PUSHED IT OFF.

ANOTHER STAFF KNOWS WHAT.

WE'RE GETTING THAT HERE.

AND YOU CAN DO THE RESEARCH AND ADD WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN.

AND WE'LL LOOK AT IT IN ANOTHER MONTH.

THE RIGHT LANGUAGE.

YEAH. ROAD IS A WAY FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WHICH PROVIDES PRIMARY ACCESS TO ABUTTING PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF WAYS. ROADS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS.

THERE IS MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD, ARTERIAL ROADS, COLLECTOR ROADS AND CUL DE SAC ROADS, AND EACH ONE OF THOSE HAS A DEFINITION.

BECAUSE ALL BASED, ALL VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.

WHAT ABOUT ROAD SYSTEM RIGHT OF WAY.

WHICH IT'S IN THE ZONING CHAPTER AND IT'S RIGHT IN THE DEFINITION.

WHEN THE WHEN THE COUNTY CUTS THE ROAD OUT IN THE COUNTRY, THE COUNTY CUTS AND THEY TELL YOU THAT WE CAN CUT THIS PORTION OF THE ROAD BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE COUNTY ROAD, EVEN THOUGH IT'S OFF OF THE SURFACE, THEY COME AND CUT IT.

NOW, IS THERE ANY WAY THEY DETERMINE HOW MUCH FEET THAT IS? I'M JUST THAT'S THE QUESTION.

HYPOTHETICALLY, WHAT MATT'S ADDRESSING IS IN THE THERE ARE PLACES WHERE WE DON'T KNOW.

WE MAY WE DON'T KNOW.

THERE'S ASSUMED OR ASSUMED RIGHT AWAY.

A LOT OF A LOT OF OUR ROADS ARE 30 FOOT RIGHT OF WAYS.

WE HAVE SOME 50FT.

IF YOU SUBDIVIDE NOW AND HAS TO GO TO A 50FT RIGHT OF WAY FROM A 30, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME WIDER.

AND THEN TO STEWART'S POINT, THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE THAT I CAN THINK OF WHERE THE COUNTY ACTUALLY HAS A SHOULDER.

PRETTY MUCH ALL OF OUR ROADS ARE JUST TRAVELING.

I THINK AUCTION ROAD HAS A SHOULDER.

IF WE DO HAVE A ROAD WITH A SHOULDER, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TAKEN OVER FROM FROM THE STATE.

YEAH. OKAY.

SO I MEAN THERE ARE INSTANCES BUT INSTEAD OF EDGE OF TRAVELWAY, I WOULD RATHER SEE IT SAY EDGE OF PAVEMENT.

IN THE, IN PARAGRAPH A, OR IN THE DEFINITION OF RIGHT OF WAY IN THE DEFINITION OF ROAD.

WHAT ABOUT DIRT ROAD? YEAH, I'LL SKIP IT.

SO CLOSE.

I GUESS THE DIRT COULD BE CONSIDERED PAVEMENT.

YOU'VE GOT A PAVEMENT EDGE, A BARE DIRT OR PAVEMENT.

AND A LOT OF TIMES, ROAD RUNNING ACROSS.

SO I GUESS WE COULD DO THAT.

STAY UP, STAY UP. KNOWS WHAT? WHAT CHANGES WHAT YOU'RE AFTER.

WE'VE GOT MOST OF IT COVERED.

BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THIS THIS THING IS.

SO DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT TO PUSH THE EDITS? AND COME BACK TO HERE.

DO YOU THINK, I MEAN, DO YOU DO YOU FEEL.

OKAY, WELL, WE'LL BE TALKING TO YOU.

SO IT'S UP TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

BRITAIN SUMMED IT ALL. IT'S HOWEVER YOU GUYS FEEL.

I MEAN, IT'S. I LIKE TAKING CARE OF THINGS AND MOVING ON.

IT'S DONE RIGHT.

SO APPROVE THEM WITH EDITS.

APPROVE THE LEGISLATIVE BILL WITH EDITS.

BACK TO YOU ALL.

I'M BACK TO COUNTY COMMISSIONER.

RIGHT. OKAY.

I'M LIKE, WE'RE GOOD WITH THE LANGUAGE.

APPROVE WITH THE EDITS AND RECOMMEND FORWARDING TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR CONSIDERATION AS LEGISLATIVE BILL.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE AFTER? YEAH. SOMEBODY WRITE THAT DOWN.

OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE LEGISLATIVE BILL 2023004 WITH THE DISCUSSED AMENDMENTS FOR.

[Decision: Motion to approve staff making amendments to Legislative Bill #2023-004 as discussed and forwarding it to Caroline County Commissioners.]

[01:05:06]

OFF SECOND. THERE IS A MOTION AND SECOND.

TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

RIGHT. THERE WAS ANOTHER TOPIC THAT CAME UP IN THAT COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING ABOUT THIS GENERAL SUBJECT.

AND THAT WAS.

TO ALSO AMEND OUR TDR ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT PARCELS WITH EXISTING SOLAR TO TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

IN OTHER WORDS, PREVENT DOUBLE DIPPING.

RIGHT. THAT'S IN HERE.

CORRECT? THAT'S IN THERE.

CORRECT. GOOD.

IT'S IN THE CITING CONSIDERATIONS SECTION.

IT'S NUMBER THREE INCITING.

ON PARCELS WHERE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN LIFTED.

COMMERCIAL SOLAR MAY NOT BE SITED ON THE PORTION OF THE ACREAGE USED FOR TDR TRANSFERS.

WHAT ARE YOU. BUT I THINK I THINK THE POINT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS WAS THE, THE CONVERSE, IF YOU WILL, WHERE YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING SOLAR ARRAY.

THAT WANTS TO TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

OH YES.

THAT'S GOOD CATCH.

SO WE WANT TO AMEND THE TDR ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT.

EXISTING SOLAR FACILITY OR ACREAGE, TRANSFERRING FROM, TRANSFERRING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND DOUBLE DIPPING.

THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING THE MONEY FOR HAVING THE SOLAR ARRAY ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN SELL THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

SO IS THAT THE TDR SECTION OF THE.

YEAH. IS THAT US OR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE FOR THAT.

WASN'T THERE TWO THINGS LIKE YOU SAID? PLUS THERE WAS THE OTHER THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.

IF YOU'VE ALREADY SOLD YOUR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, YOU CAN'T PUT A SOLAR SYSTEM.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS WHAT THIS COVERS.

SO THAT CAUSE COVERS THIS.

BUT THERE WAS A THERE WAS THAT POINT BROUGHT UP THAT WAS PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM DEVELOPING A SOLAR ARRAY AND THEN SELLING THE TVS OFF.

RIGHT. WELL, WE'VE GOT TO WE'VE GOT TO CLARIFY THAT IN OUR TDR PROGRAM, I GUESS.

YEAH. WE CAN.

WE'LL DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE AND WE'LL BRING IT NEXT MONTH.

OKAY. TO REMIND MYSELF TO TELL THEM THAT WHEN WE BRING THIS UP. OKAY.

ARE WE GOOD ON SOLAR SO FAR? TEMPORARY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA LAND.

[5. Land Use Element Goals & Objectives – Discussion of 2009 Comprehensive Plan and possible changes for next Comprehensive Plan]

THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

FOR THE COMP PLAN? YES. SO YOUR PACKAGE INCLUDED A SUMMARY.

ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT A SUMMARY. IT'S THE ACTUAL.

LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES, AND A KIND OF A VISION STATEMENT FOR THAT ELEMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT.

AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DISCUSS TONIGHT IS AFTER LOOKING AT THE GOAL, AND IT'S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THE VISION AND THE OBJECTIVES FROM THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS TO EDIT ANY OF THOSE THREE THE GOAL, THE VISION OR THE OBJECTIVES? REDO THEM ENTIRELY.

OR LET THEM STAND AS THEY ARE.

SOME THINGS HAVE CHANGED, AND IN THE STAFF SUMMARY YOU'LL SEE SOME OF WE DO HAVE TO INCLUDE SOME LANGUAGE IN ALL OF OUR ELEMENTS THAT ADDRESSES CLIMATE CHANGE.

SO THAT'S A POTENTIAL A POTENTIAL NEW OBJECTIVE.

ARE THERE AREAS YOU WANT US TO TO? INCLUDE OR CONSIDER EITHER AS OBJECTIVES OR GOALS.

IN THIS UPDATE.

AND THE THINGS THAT KIND OF DROVE THIS OR CAN DRIVE THIS DISCUSSION ARE.

[01:10:07]

THE NEW NEED TO PROTECT AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THINGS LIKE ALTERNATIVE USES OR OR STRAIGHT UP SOLAR.

ANYTHING THAT IMPACTS WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE PRIORITY PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURE.

DO WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT MORE IN OUR OBJECTIVES? UM. OUR PAST DISCUSSIONS, WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT HOUSING AND THE LAND USE CHAPTER.

DOESN'T THERE IS A HOUSING ELEMENT, BUT LAND USE IMPACTS THE THE ABILITY TO PUT HOUSING ON THE GROUND.

SO IF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND AVAILABILITY IS A IS A PLANNED GOAL, THIS FOR THIS UPDATE, THEN YOU CAN INCLUDE AN OBJECTIVE FOR THAT IN LAND USE WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT WANTING TO FACILITATE IT OR THROUGH SOME OF OUR REGULATORY MECHANISMS. MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THE ABILITY TO.

TO ADD HOUSING TO TO THE COUNTY'S HOUSING STOCK.

THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THIS ELEMENT AND IN THESE OBJECTIVES.

THE DISCUSSION OF THE TDR RECEIVING AREA POSSIBLY EXPANDING INTO THE PFA RURAL VILLAGES.

I THINK YOU'LL SEE IN THE IN THE 2009 PLAN, THE TDR OBJECTIVES WERE REALLY FOCUSING ON TRYING TO GET SOME INTER JURISDICTIONAL GROWTH AREAS WHERE TDR RECEIVING AREAS COULD BE DESIGNATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH MUNICIPAL GROWTH AREAS.

AND WE MET WITH SOME OF THE TOWNS AND IT KIND OF NEVER REALLY TOOK OFF WITH THEM.

SO THAT OBJECTIVE AND THAT DISCUSSION IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT WILL NEED TO TWEAK TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. AND IT AND ONE POTENTIAL DIRECTION IS TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT CONSIDERING DESIGNATING THE RURAL VILLAGES AS RECEIVING AREAS. AND AND AGAIN THIS IS THE DISCUSSION LEVEL OF COUNTY POLICY.

THIS ISN'T REGULATORY.

SO IF YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVE IN THE PLAN WE DON'T LAY OUT.

SPECIFIC. WE'RE NOT CHANGING CODE IN THIS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS.

AND IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE AND IS FAVORABLE, THEN WE WILL CONSIDER LOOKING.

WE WILL LOOK AT THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE TO SEE IF WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE.

BUT THE DISCUSSION OF THAT HAPPENS IN THE COMP PLAN.

ALSO, WHY IS MY SCREEN FLASHING? UM. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT CHANGES TO AG LAND, FROM WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE THE TRADITIONAL AG ECONOMY IN THE COUNTY.

THIS IS WHERE WE COULD PUT SOME EMPHASIS ON PROTECTING TRADITIONAL AG USES AND AG SUPPORT BUSINESSES.

JUST LOOKING FOR ANY.

ANY. URGENT ISSUES THAT YOU ALL FEEL NEED TO BE INCLUDED ON HERE THAT AREN'T IN THIS LIST.

THE ONLY THING THAT JUMPS OUT AT ME IS THE R1 REFERENCE.

DO WE EVEN HAVE ANY R1 ANYMORE? A LITTLE AND AGAIN THIS TOOK PLACE JUST LIKE WE'LL DO THIS TIME.

IN 2009 WE DID THE UPDATE AND LIKE THEY RECOMMENDED IN ALL OF THE WORKSHOPS AT THE CONFERENCE.

AFTER WE DID THE UPDATE, WE DID THE REGULATORY CHANGES THAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT DOING IN THE COMP PLAN.

SO ALL THOSE REFERENCES TO R1 WILL BE REMOVED.

BECAUSE WE DID THAT, WE DID THAT.

OKAY, R2 STILL EXISTS, BUT R1 IS I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH R2 THERE IS NOT MUCH.

IT'S MINIMAL.

IT'S AROUND WHAT IS R2 IS THAT TWO ACRE MINIMUM RURAL LOT OR NO, IT'S I CAN GIVE ME A SECOND.

I'LL TELL YOU THE SIZE.

MINIMUM SIZE 8000FT².

WHAT'S AN SRA? GOT TO BE 10,000FT².

THAT WOULD BE A SEWER SYSTEM ON THAT.

YEAH. NOW THE R2 THAT IS AVAILABLE IS ADJACENT TO THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG, SO IT COULD BE ANNEXED

[01:15:02]

BASICALLY, YEAH.

HOW BIG IS OUR THREE WHILE YOU'RE IN THERE? MATT. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE R3, WE HAVE R, R1 AND R2.

HOW BIG IS OUR OR IS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE A R IS AN ACRE AND R ONE IS 20,000FT².

ACRES. NOT REALLY BIG ENOUGH? NO. IN ORDER TO MEET THE SIZE AND DISTANCE SEPARATION, YOU REALLY NEED ABOUT AN ACRE AND A HALF IN ACTUALITY. TO MAKE IT FIT.

SO OUR ONE IS 20,000FT², MINIMUM LOT SIZE.

TWO WAS 8000.

YES. WE DO NOT HAVE AN.

YEAH. OUT OF ALL OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS, AN ACRE IS THE MAXIMUM SIZE.

AND THAT'S THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR OUR I TWO AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE DON'T EVEN.

HAVE. SURE WHY THAT'S STILL IN.

TEN DESIGN REGULATIONS.

DO WE NEED TO? MAKE A NOTE.

YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY MAKE A NOTE.

HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS.

TOOK OUT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND.

WAS IT LIKE AN OVERLAY? IT'S AN OVERLAY.

WE TOOK IT OUT IN THE MOBILE HOME.

RELEASE. YOU DON'T EVEN REMEMBER IT.

THANK YOU THAT YOU. SO THAT NEEDS TO COME OUT.

GO BACK TO VILLAGE.

THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH MY CONNECTION.

I'M NOT. LESLIE HAS A JUST A QUESTION FOR THIS LAND USE ELEMENT.

WOULD WE LOOK AT OUR CURRENT ZONING REGS AND SAY LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AT ALL? THIS IS WHERE YOU WOULD DISCUSS.

AND AGAIN I WOULD SAY YOU DON'T NEED TO COME DOWN WITH SPECIFICS, BUT YOU SHOULD DISCUSS THAT.

WE WILL. AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REZONING PROCESS FOLLOWING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, WE WILL LOOK AT ZONING REGULATIONS TO DETERMINE IF WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING SETBACKS, DENSITY.

LOT SIZE.

HOUSING TYPE.

DO WE WANT TO ALLOW THE THE DUPLEX FOUR PLEX POTENTIAL? THIS IS WHERE THAT DISCUSSION WOULD TAKE PLACE.

AND THE AND THE GOAL OF THAT WOULD BE TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING OPTIONS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT INADVERTENTLY CREATING BARRIERS TO MORE HOUSING OPTIONS.

THAT'S THE LEVEL OF THE DISCUSSION THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE COMP PLAN, IN TERMS OF A GOAL OR AN OBJECTIVE THAT WOULD READ KIND OF LIKE THAT, THAT WE WILL LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES OR.

OPPORTUNITIES TO.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY REVISED, BUT EXAMINE THE THE COUNTY CODES TO SEE IF WE ARE IF THERE ARE ANY BARRIERS TO.

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE COUNTY.

I MEAN, THAT'S A THAT'S AN OBJECTIVE.

AND THEN WITHIN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT ELEMENT, WE WOULD SAY, FOR INSTANCE, IN OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, WE HAVE THESE SETBACKS AND THESE REQUIREMENTS.

[01:20:04]

BUT REALLY THIS IS ABOUT.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO LIST AS OBJECTIVES THAT WE WANT TO TRY AND ACCOMPLISH IN THIS 2030 YEAR PLAN? SHORT AND LONG TERM.

PROTECTING TRADITIONAL AG, PROVIDING DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE SURE WE'RE PROVIDING AS MUCH HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AS WE CAN.

I THINK THAT FIRST OBJECTIVE IS KIND OF A NO BRAINER.

IT STAYS.

WE HAVE MAINTAINING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BASE TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY'S AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY.

AND WE WHAT MIGHT BE AN IDEA WOULD BE TO EXPAND THAT SOMEWHAT, TO TALK ABOUT PROTECTING IT AND THE SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT.

THE SUPPORT. BUSINESSES THAT ARE PART OF THE AG, THE GREATER AG ECONOMY.

SO WE'RE NOT JUST CONSIDERING CORN FIELDS.

WE'RE ALSO THINKING OF THE SUPPLIERS AND THE THE PEOPLE WHO WORK TO SUPPORT THE AG INDUSTRY.

I'M NOT SAYING IT ISN'T IMPORTANT TO HAVE PRESERVING VALUABLE NATURAL, HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES.

BUT THERE MAY BE A BETTER WAY TO FOCUS ON THOSE OR STREAMLINE THEM, BECAUSE THERE'S ELEMENTS WHERE WE WILL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THOSE.

AND THEY ARE THOSE WILL BE THE GOALS IN THOSE ELEMENTS, LIKE THE NATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER.

AND THAT LAST OBJECTIVE, IMPROVING COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL COORDINATION WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS IS GOOD.

IT'S IT'S YOU KNOW, BACK THEN WE WERE LOOKING AT TDR RECEIVING AREAS IN MUNICIPAL GROWTH AREAS.

WE'RE NOT DOING THAT THIS ROUND.

SO THIS CAN STILL APPLY.

BUT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER WHAT KIND OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEEDS WILL WE HAVE.

AND DO MUNICIPALITIES SEEM TO HAVE.

AND DO WE WANT TO FOCUS THOSE.

SO ARE THERE ANY BURNING ISSUES, YOU GUYS? AND WHAT? WHAT DOES THIS.

THIS SENTENCE HERE RANKING CRITERIA MAY BE MODIFIED FOR LAND PRESERVATION TO MORE EFFECTIVELY DEMARCATE TOWN BOUNDARIES. ARE YOU IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT? WHERE ARE YOU? MAYBE I WANDERED ON.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE SCROLLING FUTURE LAND USE, IT SAYS AT THE TOP.

PAGE FOR.

CAN YOU GO TO? ARE YOU ABLE TO CONNECT? IT KEEPS KICKING ME OUT.

CHRIS, WE'RE HAVING NETWORK PROBLEMS. ON PAGE 40 OF THE OVERALL PACKET.

THE LAST PARAGRAPH ABOUT MIDWAY THROUGH.

AREAS ARE IDENTIFIED IN PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY IN THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION CHAPTER THAT WILL BE PRIORITIZED.

PRIORITY AREAS FOR COORDINATED FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS TO PRESERVE LAND AND SUPPORT A HEALTHY AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY.

SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE MOUTH.

RURAL LEGACY.

IT ESSENTIALLY IS AN EASEMENT.

PROGRAMS. BUT YOUR QUESTION IS THE RANKING CRITERIA.

WELL, IT SAYS THE COUNTY ANTICIPATES WORKING WITH TOWNS TO ESTABLISH TOWN BOUNDARIES.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

AND RANKING PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THOSE BOUNDARIES.

SO WHERE I THINK THAT WAS IN REFERENCE TO GROWTH AREAS AND GREENBELTS, BECAUSE BACK IN 2000, DURING THE 2009 UPDATE, ONE OF THE STATE.

UH, RECOMMENDATIONS.

WAS THAT EVERYBODY, ONCE YOU'VE ESTABLISHED YOUR GROWTH AREA OUTSIDE OF THAT GROWTH AREA, YOU SHOULD ESTABLISH A GREEN BELT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAYS, BEYOND THIS, WE DON'T PLAN TO GROW. SO THAT WAS THE BIG EXERCISE BACK THEN.

SO ALL OF THE TOWNS UNDERTOOK TO DECLARE GROWTH AREAS AND THEN A RING AROUND THAT.

THAT SAID, WE'RE.

THIS IS GOING TO REMAIN GREEN.

AND THEN BEYOND THAT OBVIOUSLY IS COUNTY FARMLAND FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

SO SO ESSENTIALLY THEY WANTED YOU TO HEM IN THE TOWNS.

YES. WITH A LAND PRESERVATION RING AROUND THEM.

YES. SO ONE OF THE WAYS YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT WAS IN THE RANKING OF EASEMENT POTENTIAL.

IF YOU WERE IN A IN A DESIGNATED GREEN BELT, YOU WOULD GIVE IT A LITTLE HIGHER RENT UP TO, BECAUSE THE TOWN WAS ALSO HOPING TO KEEP THAT AS

[01:25:08]

AND THE COUNTY DIDN'T WANT SPRAWL OUT INTO THE COUNTRYSIDE, SO THAT WAS NOT DONE.

IT WAS A POTENTIAL TOOL TO DO IT, BUT IT WAS NOT DONE.

WHAT DO YOU DO IF THE TOWN WANTED TO GROW? YEAH, I DON'T SEE IT BEING REALISTIC.

EXACTLY. I MEAN, THE TOWN SAYS NO, WE WANT TO GROW THEM WELL IN WHEN THEY DO THEIR UPDATE.

AND ACTUALLY THAT'S HAPPENING DURING THE NEXT UPDATE, YOU CHANGE YOUR GROWTH AREA AND YOU KIND OF DO AWAY WITH YOUR GREEN BELT.

IRONICALLY, RIGHT NOW THE TOWN'S DENTON IS ONE OF THEM THAT ARE SAYING WE'RE NOT.

WE'RE NOT EXPANDING OUR GROWTH AREA.

WE'RE WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE WE'RE GOING TO USE WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DESIGNATED WITHIN TOWN AS GROWTH POTENTIAL.

WE'RE GOING TO KEEP WHAT WE'VE DESIGNATED SINCE THE LAST PLAN, BUT WE'RE NOT EXPANDING.

AND SOME TOWNS ARE REDUCING.

SO NOT NOW.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO EXPAND NOW.

NO. BUT IN 20 YEARS, YOU KNOW.

THERE MAY BE A NEED TO GROW YOUR TOWN.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE TAKE THAT OUT.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. TAKE THAT LANGUAGE OUT.

ABSOLUTELY. WHAT? THE LAST SENTENCE, THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH, I GUESS, ABOUT, LIKE, RANKING HIGHER, YOU KNOW, MAKES NO SENSE 50 YEARS FROM NOW.

AND YOU GOT ALL THESE FARMS AND LAND PRESERVATION AND YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THEM.

AND THE TOWNS WANT TO EXPAND, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T. SO ALL OF AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT WHEN THE TOWN GOES, OKAY, THEN WE'LL JUST ANNEX THAT FARM INTO TOWN.

I GUESS WE CAN PURCHASE THE RIGHTS BACK AND GROW IT, RIGHT? YOU COULD. BUT THE THE GREEN BELT DILEMMA BECAME IF YOU TELL SOMEONE.

THAT YOUR LAND, WE'RE SAYING, ESSENTIALLY HAS TO STAY.

PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE DEVELOPED.

YOU'RE TAKING AWAY A RIGHT.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BUY IN FROM THAT LANDOWNER.

UM, OR AT LEAST AGREEMENT THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH BEING IN A DESIGNATED GREEN BELT.

NOW, THE GREEN BELT DOESN'T SAY YOU ABSOLUTELY CANNOT DEVELOP HERE.

IT SIMPLY SAYS WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO DEVELOP HERE.

SO IF A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND PROPOSES IT AND THE TOWN IS OKAY WITH IT, THEN YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPHILL FIGHT TRYING TO GET FUNDING FOR SEWER AND WATER.

BECAUSE YOU'VE SAID IN YOUR COMP PLAN, WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT THERE.

SO THERE'S ACCOUNTABILITY IN A COMP PLAN IN THE GENERAL SENSE, BUT IT'S NOT REGULATORY.

IT ISN'T A REGULATORY DOCUMENT.

DID YOU SAY YOU HAVE TROUBLE GETTING FUNDING FOR WATER AND SEWER, EVEN WHEN YOU DO DESIGNATE IT AS A.

BUT THE BIG CORPORATIONS COME IN AND SAY WE'LL PUT WATER AND SEWER IN AND WELL, YEAH, IT HAPPENS A LOT.

SO YES, ALL OF THIS, ALL OF THE ELEMENT WILL BE REVISED TO ACCOUNT FOR CHANGES SINCE 2009 AND DRAFTED FOR YOU ALL TO GO THROUGH WITH UPDATES AND TAKING OUT THE OLD OUTDATED INFO.

BUT WHAT KIND OF DRIVES ALL THAT DISCUSSION IN THE ELEMENT IS THE OVERALL GOAL AND OBJECTIVES.

YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO KIND OF STATE THAT UP FRONT, THAT THESE ARE THE AREAS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON CERTAINLY IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS, POTENTIALLY UP THROUGH 2040. I THINK ONE THING WE COULD ADD IN THERE IS MAYBE.

SOMETHING ABOUT.

RESPONSIBLE GROWTH AROUND SOME OF THE.

RURAL VILLAGES.

TO PERHAPS ALLEVIATE.

PENDING WASTEWATER ISSUES WITH THEM.

IF WE COULD SPUR SOME TYPE OF RESPONSIBLE GROWTH IN A SPOT HERE OR THERE SO THAT IF THEY DO.

START TO HAVE FAILING SEPTICS OR THINGS MAYBE THERE.

COULD BE. JUSTIFICATION FOR A SMALL REGIONAL WASTEWATER PLANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO TRY TO PRESERVE THOSE.

BECAUSE THEY CAN REALLY START TO FALL APART IF THE SKEPTICS START TO FAIL.

AND THAT WOULD BE A CLUSTER OF FAILED, RIGHT? YEAH. LIKE WE'RE EXPERIENCING IN WEST DENTON, WHICH THE FORTUNATE THING WITH WEST DENTON IS IT'S SOMEWHAT CLOSE TO A MUNICIPALITY WITH A WATER AND SEWER PLANT OR, YOU KNOW.

THE RIVER HAS.

PREVENTED ANY.

ALLEVIATION OF THEIR CURRENT ISSUES THERE, BUT I COULD SEE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING IN THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY, RIGHT?

[01:30:08]

AND I'LL.

PLAY AROUND WITH SOME WORDING FOR THAT SO THAT IT.

CONVEYS THE POINT THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT.

DEVELOPING, RESPONSIBLE OR FEASIBLE.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL SAY GROWTH PLANS, BUT GROWTH STRATEGIES FOR THE RURAL VILLAGES TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT KEEPS IT.

COULD WE? ALLOW.

MAYBE DENSER.

TRY TO ALLOW DENSER DEVELOPMENT FOR.

IN RETURN FOR FOR ALLOWING CONNECTION OF POTENTIALLY PREEXISTING.

PROPERTIES THERE? OR IS THAT.

YOU MEAN IN THE COMP PLAN IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE COMP PLAN? SURE. I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN STRATEGIZE.

IS THAT A POTENTIAL SOLUTION? YOU KNOW, YOU LET SOMEBODY ALLOW DENSER DEVELOPMENT.

AROUND THOSE RURAL VILLAGES IN TRADE FOR.

ALLOWING CONNECTION OF OF EXISTING.

YOU MEAN IF YOU PUT IN NEW HOUSING, YOU WILL TAKE.

YOU WILL CONNECT THE OLD, BUILD IT BIGGER, RIGHT? BUILD. BUILD WHATEVER. YOUR TREATMENT FACILITY IS A LITTLE BIGGER AS AN INCENTIVE, RIGHT? YES, THAT COULD BE A STRATEGY THAT WE LOOK AT AND TALK ABOUT IN THIS ELEMENT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES IT DOES.

AND. YEAH.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE OUT OF IT.

GREAT. DO WE WANT TO TALK AT ALL ABOUT PROTECTING AG LAND FROM SOLAR? OR IS THAT A FOOL'S ERRAND, A FOOL'S ERRAND? I MEAN, IF THE IF THE EVENTUALITY IS, THERE WILL BE NO LIMIT ON THE ACREAGE FOR SOLAR ARRAYS ON AG LAND.

DO WE? DO WE EVEN BRING IT UP AGAINST NON AG? MAYBE WE COULD PUT A STATEMENT IN THERE.

THAT AND IT SEEMS TO EVERYTHING THAT I'VE BEEN READING, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE, BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, ARE REALLY PUSHING SOLAR ON IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OR OVER PREEXISTING DEVELOPED.

I'M READING THAT A LOT RIGHT NOW, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE ADD THAT IN HERE SOMEWHERE THAT TRY TO DIRECT IT TO THOSE AREAS, RIGHT? THAT SOLAR SITING SHOULD BE OVER ON EXISTING ROOFS OR OVER EXISTING PARKING LOTS.

SO THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT TAKING LAND OUT.

I'M READING, A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS ARE ADDING THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, I THINK.

BECAUSE THE STATE IS GOING TO.

KILL EVERYTHING THAT WE PASS.

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE? THEY'RE TRYING TO PASS. THERE'S PUSHBACK COMING.

THERE'S MORE. I MEAN, THERE'S HOPE BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE.

CONSERVATIONISTS ARE NOW STARTING TO SEE HOW ITS EFFECT ON NOT JUST THE ECONOMY OF AGRICULTURE, BUT HOW AGRICULTURE. AFFECTS THE ENVIRONMENT'S ENVIRONMENT THROUGH ANIMAL LIFE.

ANIMALS THAT FEED OFF FARMERS HATE IT.

BUT YOU KNOW.

BUT WHAT IS ONE FARMER SAW? HE YOU KNOW, THEY HAD THEY HAD A PROVISION IN THERE.

THEY HAD TO REMOVE ALL THE TOPSOIL.

OH, I REMEMBER YOU TALKED. YEAH, YEAH.

THEY HAD TO REMOVE ALL THE TOPSOIL OFF OF THE OFF OF ALL THE FARMLAND AND THEN PRESERVE IT.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, SO THAT DOWN THE ROAD, 20 YEARS LATER, WHENEVER THEY WANT, THAT LEASE IS UP, PUT BACK, IT COULD BE PUT BACK, BUT THAT NOW SOME OF THEM ARE AT A POINT WHERE THEY'RE PUSHING NOT TO EVEN LEASE PROPERTY, JUST BUY IT AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO AND THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

SEE. SO SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE OFFERING THOSE KIND OF PACKAGES TO FARMERS AND.

YOU KNOW. WHEN YOU FIND FARMS IN THIS COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY BEING FROM CAROLINE COUNTY.

SO I'M REMEMBER THE HISTORY OF, YOU KNOW, FAMILY PROPERTY AND FARMS GENERATIONS.

SO WHEN THE YOUNGER PEOPLE ARE COMING UP, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THEM ARE NOT INTERESTED IN GOING INTO FARMING.

[01:35:05]

YEAH, I MEAN, THIS IS A LITTLE EASIER TO GROW TO GROW SOLAR PANELS THAN IT IS TO GROW CORN.

EXACTLY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU THIS IS SOME OF THE PEOPLE WE WAS IN THIS DISCUSSION AT THE CONFERENCE ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT THE THE, YOU KNOW, THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S COMING AND GOING AND WHAT PEOPLE ARE FACING.

AND THEY ALSO TOLD US, TOO, THAT WE GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE OWNERSHIPS CHANGE HANDS VERY QUICKLY.

THERE WERE SEEING THAT WITH CHERRYWOOD AND YEAH WE'RE WATCHING THAT RAPIDLY.

SO THIS TO FOLLOW AND AND ONE OF THE GUYS TOLD US TO FOLLOW THE FOLLOW THE CHAIN ALL THE WAY DOWN, EVEN DOWN TO THE LAST TREE THAT THEY PROMISED. AND THEY FOUND OUT THEY WENT DOWN TO FOLLOW THE DOWN TO WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO PLANT THESE LITTLE TREES.

AND THEY SAID, WHERE DID YOU GET THEM FROM? AND THEY NAMED THIS PLACE. THEY GOT THEM FROM SOMEWHERE OUT IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON SOMEWHERE, AND FOUND OUT LATER ON THAT PLACE DIDN'T EVEN EXIST.

OH, WOW. SO IS OUR 2000 ACRES STILL A THING, A THING? WELL, EVEN NOW, ISN'T THE SOLAR LEGISLATION 2% OF.

IS IT 2% OF THE LAND AREA, WHICH IN OUR CASE WOULD BE 2000 ACRES.

SO RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE IS THE EVENTUAL.

POSITION GOING TO BE YOU CAN'T HAVE.

A LIMIT. THAT ALL YOUR FARMLAND COULD BE COVERED WITH SOLAR AND YOU CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT.

IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? BECAUSE IF IT IS, THEN WE'RE DONE PLANNING.

I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW. WHAT'S THE WELL, WHERE IS THE THE ONE THAT CONNECTED THERE THAT I SAW ALSO HAD TO HAVE A POWER PLANT, A POWER SOURCE LIKE A SMALL NEARBY.

YEAH, MORE SMALL MINI MINI POWER PLANT THAT HAD TO CONNECT TO.

SO I MEAN, I'M SEEING SOME OF THESE FARMS. WE'RE OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE LAND IF IT'S NOT NEAR.

OH, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT DISTANCE TO TRAVEL TO IT, TO GET TO IT.

SO YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE SO IT'S YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUCH A FAIR DEAL ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EVERY FARMER.

YOU KNOW GOOD TO ME.

YOU REALLY. YOU GOT TO SELL THAT TO ME.

IF I'M 30, 40 MILES, YOU KNOW, OUT OUT THERE TO TIE IN THE ONE IN QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY.

IT WAS VERY SIMPLE.

A RIGHT ACROSS THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN.

THAT'S NOT A HARD SELL, YOU KNOW.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE ELECTRIC COMPANIES TAKE IT AND STORE THAT ENERGY, SELL THOSE TWO GRIDS.

AND AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE MAN OVER THERE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

AND CENTERVILLE WAS THE ELECTRIC THAT WAS GETTING PRODUCED FROM THAT FARM WAS BEING SOLD TO WAS BEING SOLD IN GRIDS IN NORTH CAROLINA.

NOT EVEN LOCAL. SO IT'S.

YOU HAVE TO ALSO UNDERSTAND THE ELECTRICAL BUSINESS ALSO.

THEY COME YOU KNOW, SO FARMERS YOU KNOW, REALLY HAVE TO KIND OF REALLY DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK THEMSELVES ON ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IF THEY WANT TO DO, IF THEY WANT TO DO IT. SO THIS PROPERTY.

SO THE OBJECTIVE NOW THE SECOND OBJECTIVE IS MAINTAINING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BASE TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY'S AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY.

AND A POTENTIAL UPDATE OF THAT WOULD MEAN MAYBE MAINTAINING AND PROTECTING.

AND THEN IN THE ELEMENT WE HAVE.

THINGS LIKE DIRECTING SOLAR TO EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND AWAY FROM AG LAND, OR PRIORITIZING DEVELOPMENT ON THOSE AREAS BEFORE WE ENCROACH ON AG LAND.

SO I WOULD MAYBE, MAYBE NUDGE THAT OBJECTIVE A BIT TO INCLUDE THE WORD PROTECTING OR PRESERVING OR BOTH.

I WAS GOING TO SAY PRESERVING.

YEAH. THERE.

SO THAT WE'VE GOT KEEPING IT IN THAT EFFORT.

YEAH.

AND THEN I THINK WE NEED TO.

PER THE STATE'S REQUIREMENTS, HAVE AN OBJECTIVE THAT TALKS ABOUT.

IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND THAT WE WILL.

CONSIDER OR EXPLORE WHAT POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS THERE COULD BE ON INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE LOCATIONS OF ROADS, WATER OR SEWER.

ANY KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING IT IN AN AREA THAT IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IN 10 OR 20 YEARS.

[01:40:05]

WAS THE SOLAR PANELS.

IT WAS ONE FARMER WHO DID TAKE HIM TO COURT BECAUSE HE HAD PURCHASED A.

OH, A SHOOTING RANGE WHERE HE HAD DUCKS AND BIRDS AND CLAIMED THAT THE SOLAR PANELS INTERFERED WITH.

HIS COMMODITY.

THE BIRDS COMING THERE.

YEAH. HE SAID IT WAS SCARING THEM AWAY.

SO HE HAD HE HAD PURCHASED A LODGE AT THIS THING, DEVELOPED IT AS A LODGE AND SAID HE SOLAR PANELS ACTUALLY HURT HIS BUSINESS.

HURT HIS BUSINESS. SO.

YOU KNOW, THESE WERE SOME LAWSUIT.

BREEDING. SO WAS HE THERE FIRST AND THEN THE SOLAR PANELS? RIGHT. HE HAD WENT AND PURCHASED THE PROPERTY BEFORE THAT, AND THAT WAS HIS GOAL TO DO.

AND THEN WHEN THEY PUT HIM UP, THAT'S WHEN HE FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS SCARING AWAY THE HERDERS HERDERS.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT'S COMPLEX WITH THE SOLAR PANELS THAT YOU HAVE TO REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT.

YOU JUST POINTED OUT A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHY ZONING IS IS A GOOD THING TO HAVE, ESPECIALLY UNDER LOCAL CONTROL.

SO THAT WHEN BEFORE SOMEBODY INVESTS THEIR MONEY IN PURCHASING A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEY CAN GO CHECK THE ZONING OF THAT AREA AND OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES BEFORE THEY INVEST. YES.

WHAT PREEMPTION DOES IS IT RAIDS THE GAME.

SO THE THE GENTLEMAN WHO IS PURCHASING IT FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, BUILDING A HOME, HUNTING LODGE, WHATEVER HE'S DOING.

IS COUNTING ON WHAT HE SEES AND WHAT HE WHAT THE ZONING CODE SAYS.

CORRECT. WHEN YOU RAID THE GAME WITH PREEMPTION, ANYBODY WITH A BIG.

CHECKBOOK CAN BUY AND PUT IN SOMETHING LIKE SOLAR RIGHT NEXT TO YOU, AND YOU GET THE SHAFT.

YEAH, AND YOU'VE LOST VALUE.

YOU KNOW, AN APPRAISER WILL COME IN AND SAY YOU JUST LOST 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY YOU JUST BOUGHT.

AND SO YOU'RE YOU'RE WAY UNDERWATER NOW BECAUSE OF THAT FACILITY NEXT TO YOU, RIGHT? I WISH I COULD TELL YOU THAT SOLAR WAS THE ONLY THING THAT YOU'VE GOT TO WORRY ABOUT.

IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS THE NEXT THING THAT YOU'VE GOT TO WORRY ABOUT WHERE THE TREND IS NOW, AND THE FEDS ARE PUSHING IT TO PREEMPT LOCAL ZONING ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO THAT WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT TO PUT A CLUSTER OF A COUPLE OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN HERE, WHICH WOULD BE GREAT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WELL, THE ZONING DOESN'T ALLOW IT.

WELL, IT'S PREEMPTED.

IT'S PREEMPTED. SO AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU CAN PUT IT ANYWHERE YOU WANT IN THAT COUNTY OR CITY.

AND THE LOCAL ZONING IS OUT THE WINDOW.

RIGHT? THEY MENTIONED THAT.

ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GOT BACK ON THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, THEY WANTED TO KNOW THINGS THAT WE COULD DO RIGHT NOW.

SO OF COURSE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PLANS THAT WE NORMALLY TALK ABOUT THREE, FOUR YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

SO THEY SAID SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE WITHIN OUR POWERS OF LOCAL OR COUNTY LEVEL IS, IS, IS, IS, IS THOSE ZONING, SAY, FOR INSTANCE, A MAN WHO HAS A HOME WITH A SMALL LITTLE ONE ACRE LOT, HE HAS A HE HAS A GARAGE WHERE HE COULD ACTUALLY CONVERT THE TOP OF THE GARAGE INTO AN APARTMENT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT COULD START HELPING OUT.

AND IT ALSO IS BENEFICIAL TO THE OWNER BECAUSE NOW HE'S GETTING A SOURCE OF INCOME COMING IN.

SO THAT'S SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU KNOW WE WE MIGHT YOU KNOW THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT TO CHAT ABOUT TALK ABOUT.

RIGHT. AND THAT IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WILL BE A BIG TOPIC.

YEAH. IT'S ALSO A BIG LEGISLATIVE TOPIC AS WELL RIGHT NOW IN THE STATE.

YEAH. SO THE THING THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME THAT KIND OF COMES TO MIND WITH LAND USE IS THE TOWN OF GREENSBORO.

UM, WHERE THE SOLAR PANELS START ARE GOING TO START NORTH OF THEM IN THEIR GROWTH AREA AND THEIR GROWTH AREA.

CORRECT. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING BASICALLY, WAS THEY MADE A YOU KNOW, THEY WEIGHED THE BENEFITS.

AND THE IMPACTS TO TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE.

YEAH, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S A SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RIGHT THERE, RIGHT THERE AND NEXT TO A PARK AND. YEAH, AND IT'S NEXT TO GOING TO BE SOLAR PANELS.

SO IT'S WASTED LIKE YOU HAVE EASY ACCESS TO GET YOUR SEWER THERE.

THAT'S RIGHT. AND BOOM IT'S PANELS AND.

WELL. SO I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN.

[01:45:02]

SO IT CAN'T BE ADJACENT TO OUR GREEN SPACES AND PARKS AND STUFF.

DON'T WE EVEN HAVE REFERENCE IN OUR OWN SOLAR CODE ABOUT IT? YEAH, THAT IT REALLY I MEAN REALLY YOU COULD HAVE READ IT.

IT REALLY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE GOING ACROSS FROM A PARK.

FROM A PARK? I MEAN, DO WE WANT TO FIGHT THAT FIGHT? YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO SPEND THEM? WELL, HE SEES THAT POWER, THAT POWER SOURCE OVER THERE TOO.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE WHERE THAT LINE, THE TRANSMISSION LINE HE'S CONNECTING INTO THAT.

SO THAT'S TO HIM IT'S PROBABLY A VERY PROFITABLE A DONE DEAL.

YEAH. THAT ONE IS.

YEAH. THAT WAS THAT ONE'S A DONE DEAL RIGHT.

HAS THAT GOTTEN FINE. THAT ONE'S APPROVED.

WE'VE GOT THAT'S THE ONE.

WE'VE GOT THE GREENSBORO CHERRYWOOD.

YES. CHERRYWOOD. THEY HAVE THEIR CPCN.

THEY ACTUALLY JUST RECENTLY SUBMITTED THEIR FINAL SITE PLAN, WHICH.

IS ON FOR TACK REVIEW THIS MONTH, BUT THEY HAVE A TON OF OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT THEY STILL NEED TO SUBMIT.

BUT WAY POST IS THE SAME WAY WE POST.

SOLAR HAS THEIR CPCN.

THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING SOME REVISIONS FOR A FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL AS WELL.

I'M JUST HOPING THAT THEY DON'T END UP COMING IN AT THE SAME TIME.

I KNOW, I KNOW, I'M GOING TO HAVE COMMENTS ON ON CHERRYWOOD.

SPECIFICALLY TIED TO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR.

SUBSTATION. DELMARVA POWER HAD THEM MOVE THEIR SUBSTATION.

OH, I HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING YET, BUT I KNOW IT'S JUST KIND OF PRELIMINARY AT THIS POINT UNTIL DELMARVA ACTUALLY APPROVES THAT OF THAT LOCATION, AND THEY'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PLAT PROCESS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO OWN THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SUBSTATION IS AND ALL OF THAT.

SO IT'S STILL GOING TO BE SOME TIME FOR THAT PROJECT, BUT THEY'VE AT LEAST SUBMITTED.

IT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS SINCE 2017, RIGHT? WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE THE ONE IN SANTA DIEGO AND ONE IN QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY.

THEY. YEAH, THEY OWN THERE.

THEY OWN THAT POWER, THAT SUBSTATION NEXT TO.

YOU KNOW, THEY BUILT A SEPARATE SUBSTATION NEXT TO THAT.

THE REGULAR SUBSTATION JUST TIED RIGHT IN.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT AIN'T BEEN ABOUT SO DELMARVA'S HAVING THEM PAY FOR.

YEAH. AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF IT AFTER.

YEAH. YEAH. AFTER. IT'S CONNECTED.

BUT SO I GUESS LESLIE, MAYBE WE SHOULD ADD WHEN WE ADDRESS THAT SOLAR, MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY SOMETHING ALSO ABOUT SITING AWAY FROM LOCATION GROUP AREAS OR, YOU KNOW, YEAH, PUTTING IT IN AREAS THAT ARE MORE ATTRACTIVE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

YEAH. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I AGREE. I AGREE.

WELL. I MEAN THAT BENEFITS A LITTLE BIT.

THAT BENEFITS MORE PEOPLE THAN THAN JUST THE ONE ONE PERSON WHO.

YEAH. ALL I KNOW IS YOUR ELECTION IS NOT GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THAT 1000 ACRES.

NO IT'S NOT. NO IT'S NOT.

AND THAT'S EVEN IF THEY'RE GOING TO SELL IT, EVEN IF THEY THEY WON'T EVEN PROBABLY SELL IT LOCALLY, THEY'LL SELL THAT THAT ELECTRICITY GO TO NORTH CAROLINA.

WE WON'T SEE THE BENEFIT. BUT I MEAN WE CAN WE CAN SPRINKLE SOLAR ALL THROUGH THIS PLAN IN THE HOUSING SECTION WHERE IF YOU'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY, PARTICULARLY ON A TREATMENT PLANT FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.

DON'T WASTE THE OPPORTUNITY WITH SOLAR PANELS.

YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY DO IT IN THE NATURAL RESOURCE ELEMENT.

WE CAN PUT IT, WE CAN PUT IT OUT THROUGH THE WHOLE PLAN.

YEAH, I AGREE, I HAVE A QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF I UNDERSTAND THIS THING.

IT SAYS UNDER EXISTING MUNICIPALITIES.

FURTHERMORE, THE COUNTY WILL REVIEW ITS CURRENT TDR RECEIVING AREA AND CONSIDER REMOVING THE PORTIONS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE TOWN OF GREENSBORO AND DENTON.

THAT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BACK IN 2009.

WHY WOULD WE REMOVE THAT? BECAUSE WE WERE ENCROACHING ON WHAT WAS BEING SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED FOR GREENBELT.

GREENBELTS WERE THE HOT TOPIC IN THAT ITERATION OF PLAN UPDATES.

SO THIS IS JUST AN OLD WORD.

YES. THESE ARE. THIS IS THE OLD ALSO.

WHY DO YOU WANT TO.

WHY DO YOU WANT TO SELL OFF AND DO TDRS ON WELL AND SEPTIC IN AREAS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE NEAR-TERM SERVICED BY MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER? WELL, AND THAT'S WHY WE LOOKED AT GROWTH AREAS BECAUSE THE TOWN RATHER THAN US PRESUME TO SAY, HOW ABOUT YOU STICK YOUR GROWTH AREA UP HERE, GO INTO WHERE THEY'VE SAID, WE WANT THIS TO BE GROWTH AREA AND SAY, HEY, COULD WE USE THIS AS A TDR RECEIVING AREA? BUT THERE'S NO REAL INCENTIVE FOR A MUNICIPALITY TO DO IT.

SOME WERE KIND OF LIKE, WELL, WE COULD, BUT THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO DO THAT.

[01:50:01]

SO THE INCENTIVE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME KIND OF.

GIVE BACK FROM THE COUNTY TO THE MUNICIPALITY, EITHER OR TO THE DEVELOPER IN TERMS OF STREAMLINING, PERMITTING OR WAIVING SOMETHING OR OR BONUS DENSITIES, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE AGREED TO BY THE TOWN, YOU KNOW.

WATER AND SEWER MONEY.

THAT'S A BIG INCENTIVE.

WELL, THE OTHER ANOTHER OLD LAND USE ISSUE WAS THE BATTLE WAY BACK WHEN THAT THE COUNTY HAD BETWEEN THE TOWN WHERE THEY ANNEXED THE PORTION ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE RIVER.

THAT'S STILL NOTHING HAS HAPPENED WITH.

BUT THEY DIDN'T ANNEX THE AREA THAT REALLY NEEDED TO BE ANNEXED, WHICH WAS RIGHT.

SO, YOU KNOW, YOU GO OUT AND YOU GRAB THIS BIG CHUNK OF PRIME REAL ESTATE, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR WATERFRONT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, WHATEVER PLANS, AND BYPASS AN AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE ANNEXED AND SERVED.

WELL, ONE MADE THEM MONEY AND THE OTHER ONE COST THEM WOULD COST THEY'D HAVE PUT SOME WORK INTO WEST.

WELL, THAT MADE THEM ANY MONEY BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING BUT.

WELL AND THAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE OF LIKE FIVE YEARS.

2005 ANNEX IT AND DEVELOP IT.

2010 WHAT DO WE DO THAT FOR ITS RESOURCE LAND.

AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE RESOURCE LAND AND 2020.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THE ITERATIONS OF A COMP PLAN.

IT'S IT'S A GOOD EXERCISE TO GO THROUGH IT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN EVERYTHING YOU THINK OF IN 2009 IS GOING TO BE EVEN RELEVANT IN 2023.

AND WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF IT ISN'T.

YEAH, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE LARGER STUFF ALWAYS WILL BE ADEQUATE PLANNING AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS, MAKING SURE WE'RE PRESERVING THE THINGS THAT YOU DON'T REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT ARE ALMOST INTANGIBLE, LIKE THE RIVER ROLLING FARMLAND.

UM, DIGGING A HOLE.

YEAH, GOING A WHOLE 404, YOU KNOW.

SMALL TOWN CHARM. BUT I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH.

I MEAN, I'M JUST LOOKING LOOKING OVER THE NOTES, I.

WHAT I'LL DO IS DRAFT THE OBJECTIVES.

WE CAN KEEP THE OUTRIGHT GOAL AS IT IS.

AND MAYBE LOOK BACK AT IT AFTER WE GO THROUGH THE OBJECTIVES NEXT TIME.

AND THIS WILL BE LANGUAGE THAT I'LL HAVE TO WORK ON, BUT ESSENTIALLY DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FOR.

MODERATE OR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH IN THE RURAL VILLAGES TO PROVIDE HOUSING NEEDS.

AND INCLUDING ADDRESSING POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS WITH LARGER DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN WITHIN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT OBJECTIVE WILL COME THE TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING DENSER DEVELOPMENT AS.

IN EXCHANGE FOR SERVING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON WATER AND SEWER, IF THAT'S IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO.

WE'RE GOING TO ADD TO THE MAINTAINING THE LAND BASED ECONOMY.

WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND IT TO MAINTAIN, PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE AG LAND BASED ECONOMY.

WE'VE GOT TO ADD A CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING THAT WE PROPOSE TO DO.

AND THEN IN THAT FIRST LINE WHERE WE HAVE THE FIRST OBJECTIVE THAT RIGHT NOW SAYS IT'S SO MEDIOCRE, PROVIDE ADEQUATE PLANNING AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS, WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT.

MAYBE WE BEEF THAT UP A LITTLE TO SAY, ENSURE THAT OUR REGULATORY MECHANISMS ARE SUPPORTING COUNTY GOALS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

HOUSING, AGRICULTURE.

MAKE IT A LITTLE MEATIER.

AND THEN TALK ABOUT HOW WE CAN DO THAT EITHER THROUGH.

EXPANDING THE TDR RECEIVING AREA.

LOOKING AT ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS OR SETBACKS AND REGULATIONS.

NOW TO SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THOSE MORE ADAPTABLE TO THE NEEDS TODAY FOR HOUSING AND GET INTO SOME OF THE MEATIER STUFF, BUT I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH.

TO GO WITH RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. WELL, DO WE HAVE.

OUR BOARD. OR YOU'RE BORED.

IS THERE AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH OUR MUNICIPALITIES THAT WE ROUTINELY TALK TO THEM ABOUT THEIR GROWTH, OR TRY TO HELP THEM, ENCOURAGE THEM TO DEVELOP? THEY'RE NOT. YOU KNOW, WE TALK ALL THE TIME.

YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ALL THE TIME.

AND THEY'RE WELL, YOU KNOW, DENTON WAS HERE AND THEY'RE THEY'RE COMING DOWN THE SAME ROAD WE ARE, WHICH IS AND WE'VE GOT TO GET SOME HOUSING IN.

WE'VE GOT TO START, YOU KNOW, FORGET LOOKING OUT.

LET'S LOOK INWARD AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITHIN, BECAUSE IT'S MORE ECONOMICAL AND IT'S SMARTER USE OF THE LAND.

THEY'RE ALL THINKING THAT WAY.

EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN.

PERSONAL CRISIS GOING ON IN ALL THESE TOWNS, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY DOES.

[01:55:03]

MAKE SURE THERE'S. IT'S IRONIC.

IT'S JUST VENTING.

BUT EVERYBODY HAS A HOUSING ISSUE, BUT WE KEEP MAKING IT HARDER TO BUILD HOUSING.

WELL. AND SO YEAH.

AND WE CAN IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT THE, THE BARRIERS THAT ARE PUT IN THE ROAD BEFORE US, NOT BY OURSELVES.

RIGHT. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE.

YEAH. I GUESS BASICALLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO HERE TO INCENTIVIZE IT.

IT'S IT'S THE REGULATORY ARM WITH THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODES AND THE FIRE SUPPRESSION CODE AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE DRIVING THE COST UP DISPROPORTIONATELY TO WHAT WAGES ARE GOING UP.

AND THAT'S WHY NOBODY CAN AFFORD IT AND THUS NOBODY'S BUILDING IT.

BUT. WELL, AND EVEN EVEN WITHOUT THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, AS SOON AS YOU START TALKING TO A DEVELOPER ABOUT INCLUDING A PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, UNLESS HE CAN BUILD 2000 AND YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT HERE OUT IN THE COUNTY, THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO DO IT.

SO IT IS AN UPHILL BATTLE, BUT I THINK THERE'S SMALL CRAFTY THINGS WE CAN DO TO AT LEAST.

IMPROVE WHAT WE HAVE.

I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE SOME DIFFERENCE.

AND HERE A LITTLE GOES A LONG WAY, YOU KNOW.

OF A HANDFUL OF OPPORTUNITIES IN MULTIPLE PLACES CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

YOU KNOW, I GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF YOU GOT AN OLD FARMHOUSE SITTING OUT IN THE COUNTRY THAT PROBABLY NOBODY'S LIVING IN, MAKE IT INTO A DUPLEX OR A FOURPLEX OR.

YES. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE WOULD LOOK IN THE CODE TO SAY, CAN YOU EVEN DO THAT HERE? ARE WE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT HERE? AND THEN WE GO OVER TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAY, HOW MANY BEDROOMS CAN YOU GET ON A 2500 GALLON PER DAY SEPTIC, A 5000 CAPACITY SEPTIC, A 5000? YOU KNOW, AT WHAT POINT DO YOU TRIGGER A LARGE SEPTIC OR.

I MEAN, LET'S REALLY FIND OUT.

YEAH. SEE, THAT'S THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH ALL THESE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS.

THE SEPTIC REQUIREMENTS.

SO NOW NOW WE'VE GOT OUR FOUR BEDROOM HOUSE OUT HERE.

AND WE JUST PUT TWO BEDROOMS OVER THE TOP OF THE GARAGE.

AND WE'RE GOING TO RENT IT OUT TO A FAMILY FOR AND.

RIGHT. WHAT'S THE REALITY OF THAT? HAVE A FOUR BEDROOM. WELL, YOU NEED A NO.

AREN'T THEY GOING TO REQUIRE A SEPARATE SEPTIC FOR THE ACCESSORY? THEY DO NOW. I MEAN, MATT JUST LOOKED AT A SUBDIVISION PLAT.

WHERE? THEY CUT OFF A LOT, AND IT'S STILL A LARGE FARM LEFT, AND BOTH PIECES HAVE A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT SRA.

THE NEW LOT AND THE REMAINING FARM.

THAT'S HUGE. 17,000 SQUARE FOOT.

NOW, HOW BIG A SEPTIC SYSTEM ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD? AND THAT'S JUST FOR ONE HOME.

THAT'S IF THEY WANTED TO DO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO ACCOMMODATE IT.

IS WHAT, JUST THE TOILET.

AND WHAT'S THE RULE AND JUST IT'S 17,000 ENOUGH FOR HOW MANY SEPTIC SYSTEMS. SO THREE THAT THEY'RE DESIGNED BASICALLY IT'S.

IT'S BASICALLY TWO.

SO YOUR INITIAL INSTALLATION AND TWO TWO REPLACEMENTS.

NOW THE SIZE.

THE BARE MINIMUM SIZE, REGARDLESS, IS 10,000FT².

THE SIZES GO UP BASED ON NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND THEN YOUR INFILTRATION RATES.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT ONE IS SO LARGE, BECAUSE THE INFILTRATION RATES WEREN'T WHERE THEY NEEDED TO BE.

SO IT INCREASES THE SIZE OF THE MORE.

AND THAT'S ALL BASED ON GROUNDWATER PROTECTION REPORT.

SO. OKAY.

THAT'S. THOSE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS TO PROTECT HEALTH.

YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO CHANGE THOSE.

CHANGE OF STRICTER.

STRICTER? YES.

THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING.

THEY'RE STRICT ENOUGH AS THEY ARE.

YEAH, BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO WE HAVE WE GOT AN APPLICATION HERE RECENTLY FOR A ANOTHER GROUP HOME.

AND I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ABOUT IT.

AND. THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE THE SEPTIC CAPACITY, THEY CAN'T EVEN ESTABLISH AN SRE LARGE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. RIGHT.

AND THE SYSTEM THAT'S IN THE GROUND NOW IS ALREADY FAILING.

AND IT'S A IT'S A 3 OR 4 BEDROOM HOUSE, BUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT IT HAVE IN THERE, IT WOULD BE GREATER THAN 17,000 SQUARE.

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE ESTIMATE WOULD BE, BUT THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE AREA TO DO IT.

AND IT'S A LOT. THAT'S HOW BIG WAS THAT LOT? 4 OR 5 ACRES IN SIZE? YEAH. SO EVEN AT THAT SAW IS STILL CAN'T DO IT, RIGHT.

[02:00:04]

NOW YOU CAN'T MEET ITS MATCH THERE WITH OR SOMETHING, RIGHT.

LET'S SEE WHAT THE STATE TAG FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

THEY WORK QUITE RIGHT.

BUT I'D RATHER THEM DO THE FIGHTING.

SO. YEAH. SO THOSE WILL THAT WILL BE THINGS THAT WE'LL BE ADDRESSING IN THE DISCUSSION OF.

HERE'S SOME IDEAS WE HAVE.

HOWEVER WE'RE THWARTED BY THESE PROBLEMS FROM THE STATE ANGLE.

SO ALL OF THAT WILL BE PART OF.

AT LEAST SOME OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEFINITELY THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

SO WHEN YOU TWEAK THE OBJECTIVES, ARE YOU GOING TO GO THROUGH AND KIND OF TAKE OUT THE THINGS THAT AREN'T RELEVANT, RIGHT.

SO WHAT I NEEDED THIS TO BE ABLE TO START THE ACTUAL PLAN TEXT.

SO WHAT I'LL DO IS THESE UPDATE THESE, GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE ELEMENT, GET RID OF WHAT'S NO LONGER APPLICABLE AND AND UPDATE WITH DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT ADDRESSES THESE OBJECTIVES AND MAYBE A FEW MORE IDEAS.

AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

OKAY. SOUND GOOD? GOOD. OKAY. CATHERINE.

WE HAD TWO ADDITIONAL.

REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF.

YEAH, WE'RE WE'RE GETTING THERE.

THAT'S THE NEXT THING, RIGHT? THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS A UPDATE.

YEAH. THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET.

OKAY. SO THAT WAS REGARDING THE CASTLE HALL PROPERTY WHICH WAS APPROVED FOR A RURAL SPECIAL EVENT.

[6. BZA Update]

YEAH, I WAS WONDERING WHAT THAT SIDE.

A FEW PEOPLE ASKED ME ABOUT THAT AND I DIDN'T.

I FORGOT TO ASK.

IT'S A GREAT LOCATION.

I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT SIX ACRES IN THE MIDDLE OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVE.

FARM SITS WAY OFF THE ROAD, SO IT'S A GREAT SPOT FOR AN EVENT VENUE.

YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PAINTING IT OR PAINTING PART OF IT.

WHEN I WENT BY LAST WEEK, IT WAS LIKE, WAS THAT THAT COLOR LAST WEEK BEFORE LAST? YES. THEY ARE PAINTING THE WHOLE THING.

OKAY. I'M NOT CRAZY. SO IT'LL BE AN EVENT VENUE RENTAL NOW.

[7. Department Update]

WE HAVE TWO MEETING DATES IN 2024 THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY ELECTIONS.

SO THE CHOICE YOU ALL HAVE THE MAY MEETING DATE IS DURING PRIMARIES.

AND THEN THE NOVEMBER IS THE GENERAL ELECTION.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IS IN THIS ROOM THAT ENTIRE WEEK.

SO YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF KEEPING THE ORIGINAL MEETING DATE, WHICH IS MAY 8TH, BUT HOLDING THE MEETING IN THE COMMISSIONER'S MEETING ROOM IN THE COURTHOUSE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THIS SET UP AND WE CAN RECORD IT OR MOVE THE MEETING DATE BACK ONE WEEK TO THE 15TH.

EITHER OR WILL WORK.

SAME FOR NOVEMBER.

RIGHT NOW IT'S SCHEDULED FOR THE 13TH.

YOU CAN KEEP IT ON THE 13TH AND HOLD IT IN THE COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, OR PUSH IT BACK A WEEK AND HAVE YOUR MEETING ON.

THE 20TH 20TH.

AND THAT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THANKSGIVING, BECAUSE NO THANKSGIVING IS ON THE 28TH.

OH, WAIT, THERE'S THE 21.

IS THANKSGIVING NEXT YEAR THE 28TH? I LOOKED. WOW.

THAT GETS LATE.

NEXT YEAR. CRAZY GOOD.

YEAH. 28.

YEAH THAT'S RIGHT.

THEN IT'S LIKE TEN MINUTES TO CHRISTMAS.

I KNOW, THAT'S CRAZY.

LITERALLY LIKE THAT TEN MINUTES PROBLEM WITH HAVING IN NOVEMBER.

WELL THEY BYPASSING IT NOW WITH CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS.

SO LIKE I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

COULD WE DO THE WEEK PRIOR.

UM, LIKE NOVEMBER 6TH.

I MEAN, I WOULD JUST USE THE COMMISSIONERS.

SIMPLE. YEAH.

I MEAN, JUST KEEP THE DATES THE SAME, JUST DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

SO WE JUST MOVED TO ANOTHER.

WE CAN DO THAT. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE SHERIFF'S OFFICE COVERS FOR SECURITY IF WE HAVE A NIGHT MEETING.

OH, THAT'S RIGHT, THEY LOCK IT UP, RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE. WHAT DO THEY DO? DO THEY HAVE TO BE HERE? THEY DO.

FOR NIGHT MEETINGS, FOR SECURITY, FOR THE COURTHOUSE.

THE COURTHOUSE? YEAH. ALTHOUGH ONE TIME I HAD A MEETING UP THERE AND THE DEPUTY COULDN'T MAKE IT.

AND I ENDED UP BEING SECURITY.

SO IS THAT YOUR PREFERENCE? GO AHEAD AND KEEP THE ORIGINAL DATE.

NO. WHY ARE WE SECURE TODAY? YEAH, I KNOW RIGHT? NO, WE'RE IMPORTANT TOO.

[02:05:01]

OVER THERE? YEAH. JUST WANTED TO TALK.

DIDN'T WE MENTION THAT TO YOU? SO DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE DATES AND JUST MOVE THE LOCATION? TAKE IT ON THE ROAD? YEAH.

WHY NOT? NO PROBLEM.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING OUT.

WE'RE DRIVING 15 MILES DAY UP.

THERE IS THE DYESS.

I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS.

DOES IT ACCOMMODATE FIVE PEOPLE? IT DOES. AROUND THE SIDE.

YOU GOT THREE AND THEN? WELL, YEAH.

I MEAN, DOES THAT REQUIRE A LOT MORE LOGISTICS ON YOUR PART AS STAFF? NO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THIS SAME SYSTEM UP THERE.

60 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAY 8TH.

AND NOVEMBER 13TH.

WE'LL BE TIGHT BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE SIX SEATS.

I DON'T HAVE NO PROBLEM. I'M HERE.

I STILL I DON'T HAVE ANY STRONG PREFERENCE.

IT'S STILL A WEDNESDAY, SO THERE ONLY BE ROOM FOR ONE PERSON UP THERE.

AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE STILL A WIN.

YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH.

THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL JUST USE THE PRESENT TABLE AND JUMP INTO THE WEEK AFTER.

YEAH. WHAT'S WRONG? WHAT DO YOU MEAN TIGHT FOR THEM.

WELL, BECAUSE IF WE DO IT IN NOVEMBER 20TH AND THEN IT WAS LIKE TWO WEEKS.

TRAVIS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK HIM WHAT HE THINKS.

FIVE PEOPLE COMFORTABLY MANEUVER UP THERE.

YEAH. WE DON'T NEED THIS MUCH ROOM.

YEAH. YOU ARE MOVING IN A CIRCLE.

IT'S THE ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY.

SO IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? KEEP THE SAME DATES.

I THINK I WILL. WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION.

DO WE? DO WE NEED. NO.

I'M JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT.

YOU'RE NOT CHANGING A MEETING DATE.

YOU'RE JUST CHANGING THE LOCATION.

SO CHANGE THE LOCATION.

OKAY, GREAT.

I'M ON BOARD FOR THAT. THANK YOU.

AND THEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING THE COMMUNICATION TO THE TEAMS.

[8. Planning Commissioners Open Discussion]

SO WE CURRENTLY USE MICROSOFT TEAMS. STARTED USING MICROSOFT TEAMS DURING COVID FOR ALL OF OUR BOARDS.

I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF YOU WERE HERE DURING THAT, SO DIDN'T GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE MICROSOFT TEAMS, BUT IT'S A REALLY GOOD WAY TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO COMMUNICATE A PLACE TO STORE YOUR FILES.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, WHEN WE PUT THEIR PACKAGES TOGETHER, WE SAVE THEM IN THE TEAMS FILES WHERE THE BOARD HAS ACCESS TO THOSE, ALL THEIR OLD PACKAGES IF THEY NEED TO SEE THEM, ANY IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS, WHETHER IT'S THE OATH, BECAUSE THE VICE CHAIR HAS TO STEP IN AND DO AN OATH AND CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO SAY, OR YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, ANY IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO REFER TO.

WE CAN KEEP THEM THERE.

AND. I'D LIKE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF OUR BOARDS IN THE DEPARTMENT, AND IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE DID THIS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TOO.

THAT WAY, INSTEAD OF YOU GETTING A LINK FOR YOUR PACKAGE, YOU WOULD JUST OPEN UP TEAMS ON YOUR LAPTOP AND YOUR PACKAGES THERE.

YOU COULD DOWNLOAD IT TO YOUR DESKTOP AND NEVER HAVE TO CONNECT TO THE INTERNET AGAIN.

SO WITH YOUR SAME THING WITH YOUR LINK, IF YOU DON'T SAVE YOUR DOCUMENT, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND ACCESS THAT LINK AGAIN.

AND EVERYONE HAS TEAMS ON THEIR LAPTOP.

WE CAN SHOW YOU HOW TO USE IT.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT IT ON YOUR PHONE.

THERE'S AN APP ON YOUR PHONE SO YOU CAN DOWNLOAD YOUR PACKAGE ON THERE.

YOU CAN PRINT FROM THERE JUST ANOTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATING AND ANOTHER WAY OF GETTING YOUR PACKAGES, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN DOING.

YOU'RE HEALING THE BUILDING, RIGHT? SO I'LL BE RIGHT UP THERE.

I WORK RIGHT HERE, SO.

YEAH, SURE. NO PROBLEM.

I'LL COME RIGHT UP HERE AND GET IT DONE.

AND THAT HELPS WITH CATHERINE AND OUR OTHER BOARD ADMINISTRATOR TO HAVE ONE UNIFORM.

SO IF SOMEBODY HAS TO STEP IN FOR A MEETING THERE'S NO.

OH THIS BOARD DOES IT THIS WAY AND THIS BOARD DOES IT A DIFFERENT WAY.

IT WOULD KEEP IT ALL UNIFORM WITH ALL OF OUR BOARDS.

AND THERE'S ALSO A PLACE THERE TO KEEP DOCUMENTS THAT YOU OFTEN GO BACK TO AND REFER TO, SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIND THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE IN YOUR FILES.

THEY'RE ALL IN TEAMS, AND THEY CAN BE CLEARLY MARKED AS TO WHAT THEY'RE FOR, BUT IT MAKES EVERYTHING TOGETHER IN ONE PLACE.

I PERSONALLY FIND VERY HELPFUL.

I GUESS I WOULD JUST REQUEST STILL GETTING THE EMAIL ON THAT FRIDAY BEFORE, LIKE HEY, YOUR PACKAGE IS READY ON TEAMS. JUST AS A REMINDER, TEAMS AS WELL WITH THE OTHER BOARDS.

I TELL THEM THE PACKAGES IN TEAMS.

[02:10:01]

AND WE KNOW IT'S THERE AND READY.

RIGHT? ALL RIGHT.

AND I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY TO HELP ANYBODY SET IT UP OR.

OR IF YOU STILL HAVE TO DOWNLOAD IT, IF YOUR LAPTOP DOESN'T HAVE IT.

OKAY. IT'S FAIRLY EASY TO NAVIGATE.

YEAH, WE ACTUALLY HAVE IT ALL SET UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE JUST STOPPED USING IT AFTER COVID FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WELL THAT'S HOW WE GOT THROUGH COVID.

WE WERE ALL HOME, WE COULD STILL DO THE MEETING VIRTUALLY.

SO THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

SO I HAVE RIGHT NOW THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TEAM OPEN ALLOWS US TO HAVE MULTIPLE TEAMS. AND I'M IN THE FILES PORTION.

AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S FOLDERS HERE WHERE WE KEEP ALL OF THE BOARD'S DOCUMENTS THEIR PRIOR BOARD PACKAGES.

SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR CURRENT ONE AND YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, TWO MONTHS AGO THERE WAS A DOCUMENT IN YOUR PACKAGE THAT YOU WANTED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT. BOARD DOCUMENTS.

WE HAVE MEETING PROTOCOLS THERE.

HOW TO OPEN A MEETING, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, ANYTHING.

IT KEEPS IT IN ONE NICE LOCATION FOR YOU TO TO USE.

SO EVERYBODY ON BOARD THAT I'M GOOD.

YEAH. I'M GOOD, I'M GOOD.

OKAY, OKAY.

SO LAST THING WOULD BE THIS COURT.

TO DISCUSS? OR WAS THIS JUST TO LOOK AT? DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN IT? FURTHER DISCUSSION OF GOING THROUGH THE SITE.

OKAY, SO I PUT THAT DOCUMENT OUT FOR EVERYONE.

I PRINTED IT.

SO. A REASON STEWART HAD SENT THIS OUT WAS A REMINDER THAT WHEN ANY OF OUR ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS, WHETHER IT BE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE LIQUOR BOARD, WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION ON A SITE PLAN APPLICATION, A VARIANCE APPLICATION, A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION APPLICATION, YOU HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT.

YOU HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO IN.

OUR CODE, YOU HAVE THE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, WHICH MATT DOES PUT TOGETHER.

A STAFF REPORT FOR YOU OR OUR CODE REQUIRES US TO PUT A STAFF REPORT TOGETHER FOR YOU.

AND. YOU.

I GUESS THE BASIC PART OF IT IS YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, WELL, I'LL COVER IT IN THE STAFF REPORT, LET'S APPROVE IT AND MOVE ON.

YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT NOW.

THERE'S GOING TO BE TIMES WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PARTICULAR ITEM YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT, LET'S SAY HISTORICAL STRUCTURES.

AND MATT HAS ALREADY REVIEWED IT AND STATED THERE'S NO HISTORICAL STRUCTURES.

YOU CAN CERTAINLY MENTION WHAT THE STAFF REPORT SAYS AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

IS THERE ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE IS AWARE OF OR THAT MIGHT BE NEARBY THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT? BUT YOU AT LEAST HAVE TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ADDRESSING EACH ITEM.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR GUIDANCE AND YOUR STAFF REPORT, BUT YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT IT.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, AND I CAN SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT THAT WE PUT TOGETHER FOR THEM.

SO THEIR CRITERIA, WHEN THEY APPROVE A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION, IT'S GOING TO OPEN MAYBE.

SO WE HAVE A WORKSHEET AND THEY USE THIS FOR EACH SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE THEM.

WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE FOR A VARIANCE.

AND IT GOES THROUGH EACH ITEM THAT THEY HAVE TO TALK ABOUT.

ONE AND TWO ARE FAIRLY SIMPLE A WRITTEN APPLICATION SUBMITTED.

SO WE JUST IT'S A YES OR NO.

DID THEY SUBMIT IT AND MAYBE STATE THE EXHIBIT NUMBER THAT REFERENCES THAT.

BUT WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO OR ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE.

YOU CAN'T JUST GO YEAH WE DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE.

WHY DON'T YOU THINK IT'S AN ISSUE? WHAT DID YOU HEAR IN TESTIMONY? WHAT DID YOU READ IN YOUR STAFF REPORT? WHAT DID YOU SEE ON THE SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU THAT.

BROUGHT YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION THAT THEY MET THAT.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

VERSUS AS A BOARD.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT STAFF REPORT.

SO IT'S REQUIRED AS PART OF THAT.

BUT YOU BUT YOU DO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE OF THIS WHAT CATHERINE HANDED OUT, THOSE ARE THE IT SAYS EXAMPLES OF STAFF, EXAMPLES OF STAFF REPORT WITH FINDINGS OF FACT. I WAS GOING TO SAY THERE'S LIKE SEVEN THINGS.

EIGHT, EIGHT. YEAH.

[02:15:01]

DIDN'T WE COME UP WITH A SAINT LIKE, LOOK YOU'VE GOT TO START REVIEWING THESE.

YOU'VE GOT TO BRING IT UP AND AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE EACH.

LIKE WITH THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PRINT.

IT WASN'T JUST, OH YEAH, IT'S FINE.

WELL, BUT SPECIFICALLY, ACCORDING TO OUR CODE, THESE EIGHT ITEMS HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED.

THE LAST PAGE AS PART OF YOUR REVIEW.

SO WE HAVE TO DISCUSS.

IT'S NOT MATT. WELL, HE WILL TELLING US HE WILL.

IF YOU LOOK BELOW THE EIGHT THAT ARE LISTED THAT ARE IN THE CODE STAFF COMMENTS IS ACTUALLY AN EXCERPT FROM MATT'S STAFF REPORT LAST MONTH FOR BRIDGETOWN LINE.

SO THE GOOD NEWS IS HE'S GOING TO BE DOING THIS.

OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO WE NEED TO VERBALLY YOU DON'T NEED TO LOOK IT UP AND DO ALL THE WORK YOURSELVES.

NO. BUT WHEN YOU COME TO THE POINT OF DISCUSSION, DISCUSSING AFTER THE STAFF REPORT, AFTER THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED THEIR.

CASE AND YOU ALL ARE DELIBERATING, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THAT STAFF REPORT.

AND MATT STAFF COMMENTS WHERE HE WILL HAVE EACH ONE OF THOSE BY NUMBER ADDRESSED AND HIS EXPLANATION OF WHY YES OR NO, THIS MEETS THOSE.

SO I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

SO NUMBER THREE IS ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.

SO IF YOU GO DOWN TO MATT'S COMMENTS UNDER NUMBER THREE IT SAYS BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE OR CAUSE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN TRAFFIC, WHICH WOULD AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS THE TRUCK OR TRAFFIC NUMBERS WILL NOT INCREASE FROM THEIR CURRENT OPERATIONS.

WHAT THAT COULD WHAT YOU COULD DISCUSS IS THAT, OKAY, WE SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS OFF OF A STATE HIGHWAY OR IT'S OFF OF A COUNTY ROAD.

DID WE RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK OR COMMENTS FROM STATE HIGHWAY DURING TAC THAT MENTIONED ANY CONCERNS? IT SAYS THAT THE NUMBERS WON'T INCREASE.

SO YOU COULD SAY, WELL, STAFF, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE? AND DO WE FEEL THAT'S THAT'S A PROBLEMATIC IF IT'S 200 A DAY OR 100 A DAY, DO WE FEEL THAT'S PROBLEMATIC SO THAT HE'S GOING TO GIVE YOU THINGS THAT WILL HELP HELP YOU PROMPT SOME QUESTIONS OR THINGS TO TALK ABOUT.

AND YOU GENERALLY DO THAT ANYWAY.

YOU ARE COVERING A LOT OF THIS ANYWAY, BUT THERE ARE EIGHT SPECIFIC AREAS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU GO DOWN AND.

DISCUSS. BUT WHAT IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION? OKAY. AND THAT AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE NUMBER SIX IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES.

SO NUMBER SIX IS THERE ARE NO HISTORIC RESOURCES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS OF THE FACILITY.

SO THAT WAS DISCUSSION.

THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH TO DISCUSS UNLESS MAYBE A BOARD MEMBER IS LIKE, WELL, THERE ARE CEMETERY NEXT DOOR, OR MAYBE YOU KNOW OF SOMETHING, BUT OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE'RE GIVING YOU, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH THERE TO DISCUSS.

IF NOTHING EXISTS. BUT YOU CAN SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO HISTORIC RESOURCES ON THE PROPERTY.

THE COURT CASE THAT PROMPTED THIS WAS AN EXISTING, SAY, INDUSTRIAL FACILITY THAT HAD BEEN SOLD, AND THEY WERE CHANGING THE USE TO SAY IT WAS GOING FROM A PAPER MILL TO A CAR STORAGE LOT.

SO, YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE EMPLOYEES SHOW UP IN THE MORNING AND DO MAKE A PRODUCT AND A COUPLE OF TRUCKS LEAVE A DAY, IT TURNED INTO 20 VEHICLES COMING IN IN, OR 200 VEHICLES COMING IN IN THE MORNING AND 200 VEHICLES LEAVING JOCKEY AND CASTER.

SO IT WAS A CHANGE IN USE ESSENTIALLY OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED IT AND APPROVED IT.

BUT WHEN THEY DID THEY JUST SAID, OH, THE STAFF REPORT SAYS EVERYTHING'S GOOD WITH THIS.

WE APPROVE IT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION.

SO THEN THE NEIGHBORS GOT UP IN ARMS BECAUSE.

THERE WAS GOING TO BE THIS CHANGE IN USE AND IT WAS GOING TO AFFECT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC, OR THERE WAS GOING TO BE A LOT MORE NOISE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

SO THEY THEY SUED AND SAID IT WASN'T PROPERLY DELIBERATED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THEY WEREN'T GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION OR VOICE, I PRESUME VOICE THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT.

IS THAT? IN A NUTSHELL.

WELL, YES.

AND THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES SUCH AS YOURSELVES HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT, NOT JUST DISCUSS, BUT ALSO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMEBODY SAYING, I THINK THERE IS A HISTORIC BUILDING NEAR THERE.

ANOTHER ONE SAYS, WELL, NO, WE LOOKED AT THAT OR THE STAFF REPORTS ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WHEN YOU WRAP IT UP, YOU WANT TO BASICALLY AND THIS IS THE CHAIR MAKING SURE THAT THE MOTION TO APPROVE

[02:20:04]

WE FIND THAT IT HAS NO IMPACT ON HISTORIC THINGS.

IT DOES NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC PATTERN.

IT DOES NOT JUST COMPLIES WITH DESIGN STANDARDS.

IT COMPLIES WITH THIS.

IT COMPLIES WITH THAT. YOU JUST WRAP IT ALL UP THAT WE I MOVE THAT WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.

FINDINGS ARE A, B, C, D, E, F, G AND THE CONCLUSION IS THAT THIS CONFORMS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT IT IT SHOULD BE APPROVED.

AND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

SO WHEN YOU VOTE TO APPROVE THAT MOTION, YOU ARE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT WERE IN THE MOTION.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO SIT DOWN, AND EVERY TIME YOU MAKE A DECISION IS TO HAVE IT WRITTEN UP AND SIGNED BY THE CHAIR.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO THAT IF YOU HAVE YOUR FORMAT IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE MOTION FOR THE MOTION.

AND SO, I MEAN, I SUPPOSE ONE THING.

THAT STAFF COULD DO IS A BOILERPLATE KIND OF.

MOTION, WHICH THE CHAIR CAN FILL IN THE BLANK AT THE END, LIKE, OKAY, WE MAKE THE FINDING THAT THERE IS NO HISTORIC BUILDING BEING AFFECTED OR SOMETHING SO THAT SHE SHE JUST WALKS THROUGH IT.

AND THEN THE MOTION IS COMPLETE AND INCLUDES FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION THAT IT SHOULD BE APPROVED OR SHOULD BE DENIED, OR THAT IT ADDRESSES ALL OF THOSE EIGHT ELEMENTS IN THE IN THE CODE.

YES. AND, STEWART.

DO THEY HAVE TO GIVE EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THOSE FINDINGS? CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU.

THEORETICALLY. YEAH, IT'S FUNNY YOU BRING THAT UP.

I MEAN, WOULD YOU HAVE TO SAY THE STATE AGENCY APPROVED? WOOD FARMS. SURFACE MINING PERMIT.

MAKING A REQUIRED FINDING OF FACT THAT THERE WAS NO IMPACT ON TRAFFIC.

WHEN WE KIND OF KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THERE WAS NO LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC.

IMPACT. THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC STUDY THAT THEY DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INDEPENDENT.

SO THEY JUST BOILERPLATE.

IT APPROVED, APPROVED, APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH NO EVIDENCE.

AND THAT'S ANOTHER WAY THAT.

AND YOU CAN ATTACK AND ADMINISTER ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL A DECISION FROM BELOW WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON THE NUMBER SEVEN.

NUMBER FIVE. OKAY, SO STAFF IS THEORETICALLY FILLING THAT VOID OR THAT GAP FOR YOU WHEN STAFF PRESENTS. YOU KNOW, WE'VE REVIEWED THIS.

HERE'S WHAT WE REVIEWED.

AND WHAT DID STAFF REVIEW WHEN THEY SAID WE FIND THERE'S NO IMPACT ON TRAFFIC.

WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? HOPEFULLY. YEAH I WAS GOING TO SAY WHERE WHAT WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? WHAT. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T IN FACT IMPACT HISTORIC PROPERTIES.

WELL, WHAT KIND OF INQUIRY DID STAFF MAKE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS HISTORIC OR ARE YOU JUST RELYING ON THE SUBMISSION BY THE APPLICANT? THAT'S NOT TO CREATE MORE WORK FOR STAFF, BUT.

WELL, THE ODDS ARE MOST OF THESE ARE NOT GETTING APPEALED.

BUT IF THE ONE THAT DOES YOUR BELL GETS RUNG BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T STATE.

ONE THROUGH EIGHT AND HAVE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.

AND IT MIGHT BE THAT MATT SAYS AS.

ON HISTORIC ONE. HE GOES, LOOK, WE HAVE A I CHECKED WITH THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

THE APPLICANT DID WHATEVER.

THERE'S NO. EVIDENCE.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD CHECK SOMETHING LIKE THAT, PARTICULARLY UNLESS YOU HAVE AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING THAT THERE'S NOTHING ON THE SURVEY THAT INDICATES ANY KIND OF A STRUCTURE THERE.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S IN THE.

CEMETERY RECORDS. WE'VE GOT A WHAT DO WE HAVE? CEMETERY COMMITTEE, WHICH MAYBE YOU CHECK WITH.

IS THERE A REGISTRY OF CEMETERIES? IS THERE A REGISTRY? THE NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTRY OF BUILDINGS.

I FORGOT THE TECHNICAL NAME FOR IT, BUT BUILDINGS ARE ON THE NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTRY OR ON THE STATE.

AND. WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A STAFF CHECKED AND SAW THAT NONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE ANYWHERE NEAR THIS PROJECT.

THIS IS IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DO IT.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S GRADATIONS OF BULLETPROOF WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION AND YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW WHEN THEY COME ACROSS, MOST OF THE TIME, YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW WHEN YOU NEED TO MAKE A BULLETPROOF.

BELT AND SUSPENDERS.

ON EVIDENCE.

HOW DEEP, HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DID YOU HAVE? ALSO, WHETHER YOU GOT A CONTESTED HEARING.

YOU SAY YOU MAY BE HAVING NO NEIGHBORS SHOW UP AT THE INITIAL HEARING.

[02:25:03]

THEY FIND OUT WHAT YOU APPROVED OR THEY CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ACTUALLY APPROVED THAT.

THEN THEY LAWYER UP, COME IN, THEY GET THE TRANSCRIPT, THEY GET THE RECORD, AND THEY GO, AHA.

THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT.

TAKE IT TO SURROGATE COURT.

NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED ON NUMBER SIX.

AND YET THEY SAID THEY FOUND AS A FACT A B.C.

JUDGE WOULD GO. REMAINED.

AND THAT HAPPENED TO THE BOARD.

THE LAST TIME THAT HAPPENED TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WAS WOOD FARM.

THE JUDGE DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE RIGHT OR WRONG IN YOUR DECISION.

WHAT HE SAID WAS YOU DID NOT PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AND REMANDED IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

SO THE BOARD HAD TO HAVE THE HEARING ALL OVER AGAIN AND PROPERLY COME TO A FINDING OF FACT FOR THAT ONE ITEM.

IN ALL FAIRNESS, AND I WASN'T HERE WHEN THIS HAPPENED, BUT THE BCA WAS NOT REPRESENTED ON APPEAL.

THERE WAS NO OPPOSING ATTORNEY.

NO, IT'S JUST WOOD FARMS. ATTORNEY. AND I REALLY THINK THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT LET THAT DROP THE BALL AGAIN.

OKAY, BUT THERE WAS A CASE WHERE THERE WAS DEFINITELY GOING TO BE IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC.

I SEE THAT. OKAY.

BUT IT WAS ALLOWABLE, I GUESS.

WELL, THERE MAY BE AN IMPACT, BUT IS IT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO INCREASE DANGER OR THREAT TO LIFE, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE? IT COMES DOWN TO. WHICH IS A BROAD STROKE.

THAT'S NOT EVEN ON THE LIST.

VERY OPEN TOO.

THAT'S NOT EVEN ON THE IN THE.

THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NO, THAT'S NOT IN RATE.

THAT'S HEALTH AND SAFETY.

OH, OH. WHAT WE CAN WE CAN CHECK WITH THE STAFF AND JUST ASK.

WE ASK YOU FOR YOUR REFERENCES OF HOW YOU MADE YOUR DECISION THAT'S CONTESTED BETWEEN US AND THE APPLICANT.

YEAH. YOU CAN ASK WHAT INFORMATION.

RIGHT. OKAY. THAT REVIEWED WHAT YOU REVIEWED.

RIGHT. THAT.

THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO HIM SAYING, I CONTACTED NATIONAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND MOST INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON YEAH, ONLINE.

YEAH. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING HAS A LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU WOULDN'T IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE, BUT.

EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE IN HERE OTHER THAN, SAY, SOMEONE SUBMITTING A TRAFFIC STUDY.

EVERYTHING ELSE YOU CAN FIND IN OUR HISTORIC RECORDS OR OUR ACTIVE.

STUFF RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAVE INFORMATION.

IF THERE IS A WAY FOR SOMEBODY TO PIGEONHOLE ONE OF THESE, THEY'LL FIND IT.

YEAH. THERE'S THERE'S THERE'S ALWAYS A WAY.

YEAH. BUT THAT THOSE ARE FAR AND FEW BETWEEN WHEN WE GET TO THIS POINT AT A FINAL SITE PLAN, I'VE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE I DON'T, I DON'T WANT THIS BOARD TO HAVE TO GIVE CONDITIONAL APPROVALS.

I WANT THEM TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS.

SHOULD BE FINE. AND FINAL.

ITS FINAL SHOULD BE FINAL.

UNLESS YOU GIVE SOME KIND OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

BUT. IF IT IF IT COMPLIES WITH THESE EIGHT THINGS, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WHY.

WHY NOT TO? IF IT GETS SENT TO COURT, IT GETS SENT TO COURT.

BUT WE CAN VERIFY THAT THIS HAS BEEN FULLY VETTED AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE APPROVED.

YEAH, THE BOTTOM LINE IS JUST DON'T GET YOUR APPLICATION AND SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE'VE LOOKED AT EVERYTHING.

WE'VE LOOKED AT THE STAFF REPORT.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? RIGHT. VERBALIZE IT MORE.

YEAH. SO I MEAN I'LL I'LL STILL CONTINUE TO READ THROUGH THESE, BUT IT'S JUST WHEN WE GET TO A POINT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION ON A DECISION, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH AND DISCUSS EACH ONE OF THESE, BASICALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

AND THIS WAS PULLED DIRECTLY THAT LAST PAGE I JUST CUT AND PASTED FROM THAT STAFF REPORT.

SO YOU WILL IN HIS STAFF REPORT, YOU'LL ALWAYS HAVE THAT HANDY LIST AND HIS ITERATION OR EXPLANATION OF HOW IT MET OR DIDN'T MEET THE EIGHT. YEAH, I MEAN, AS A REFERENCE, IF I'M LOOKING AT ONE OF THESE EIGHT THINGS AND I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT, I'M GOING TO CALL IT OUT.

I COULD SAY IT DOES.

AND YOU GUYS COULD DISCUSS IT LIKE, WELL, I DON'T THINK IT MEETS NUMBER THREE, RIGHT? THAT YOU COULD SAY WE WANT MORE.

YEAH. WE'RE NOT HAPPY WITH IT.

YEAH. YOU COULD TABLE A DECISION BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH STAFF ON ONE OF THESE.

YOU COULD ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

YES, I THINK STEWART WOULD ADVISE.

DON'T PARROT STAFF.

RIGHT. DON'T LISTEN TO US.

WELL, DON'T PARROT LISTEN.

YES, BUT DON'T PARROT. OKAY.

[02:30:01]

THIS IS THIS IS HERE FOR YOU AS A GUIDANCE FROM WHAT STAFF HAS LOOKED AT AS FAR AS COMPLIANCE.

JUST BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT'S COMPLIANT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN.

ULTIMATELY, IT'S YOUR DECISION AS A BOARD.

BASED ON. I CAN SAY ALL DAY LONG THAT ALL THESE PROJECTS MEET US, BUT.

IF YOU DON'T DISCUSS IT, IT GETS TO COURT.

AND WE'RE RIGHT BACK AT IT AGAIN.

MHM. NO PRESSURE.

NONE. BUT I'VE ALWAYS SAID BCA IS THE ONE THAT'S CONTESTED.

THERE'S PLENTY OF COMMISSION.

HARDLY EVER. WE WON'T BE THE FIRST BOARD THAT EVER GOT SUED.

IF IT HAPPENS. BUT WE CAN HELP WITH GETTING YOU A TEMPLATE FOR.

YEAH, WE'LL DO SOMETHING MAKING YOUR MOTION.

YEAH. THE BCA WORKSHOP THING IS THEIR WORKSHEET IS AWESOME.

REALLY AWESOME. THE SAME THING.

YEAH. AND A TEMPLATE FOR MOTION.

WELL, WE'LL FIGURE OUT AN EASY WAY TO MAKE IT WORK.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.

ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

MEETING 831.

YEAH. IT LOOK LIKE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.