[00:03:28]
>> MICROPHONE AND BUCKET THE MICROPHONE ON.
>> YEAH. HE MIGHT BE A MINUTE OR TWO LATE, BUT WE'RE GOOD.
[Call to Order]
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 2026 MEETING IN THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION.
PRESENT TONIGHT FOR THE MEETING IS BOARD MEMBER ROGER MCKNIGHT. EVERYBODY'S NAME.
ROGER MCKNIGHT. CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, BOARD MEMBER, TRAVIS BID.
COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON, VICE CHAIRPERSON, HANNAH COLLEY, AND MYSELF, JEFF JACKSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE HAVE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF OUR STAFF HERE FROM PLANNING AND ZONING.
THEY WILL INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS THEY SPEAK.
WE HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER THAT MAY BE HERE.
WELL, ANNOUNCE HIM WHEN HE ARRIVES.
ANYBODY GOT ANY CELL PHONES, PLEASE TURN HIM OFF OR PUT HIM ON SILENT.
YOU MUST USE YOUR CELL PHONE. THERE'S THE DOOR.
TONIGHT, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW THINGS ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT,
[Agenda Amended]
AND EVERYBODY HAS THE AGENDA.ONE OF THE THINGS ON THE AGENDA IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AGREEMENT
[00:05:01]
WITH BETWEEN HEARTLAND HOLDINGS AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.WE HAVE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD DOES.
IT'S DOWN ON THE AGENDA, BUT ALSO HARTLAND HOLDINGS ALSO HAS A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
WE CAN'T REALLY DO THE FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING, AND WE APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
I NEED A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING UP AT THE BEGINNING, MOVE IT TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE HEARTLAND HOLDINGS DRA AND BEFORE THE HEARTLAND HOLDINGS FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW.
JUST SWAP THOSE IN THE AGENDA.
>> THERE'S A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? HEAR?
SAY AYE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION PASSES AND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS MOVE TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.
WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> NO, WE GOT TO DO THE OLD TOWN MATERIALS.
[Old Town Materials LLC - Final Site Plan Review]
>> YOU WANT TO DO THE OLD TOWN. WE JUST PUT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF THE HEARTLAND HOLDINGS.
NOW THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS OLD TOWN MATERIALS FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WE'VE SEEN THIS.
WE'VE SEEN IT IN IT WHEN THEY MADE THEIR REQUEST.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT JUST HAS THE SMALL CHANGES TO A CURRENT PLAN.
MATT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL WHAT DO IT FOR?
>> SURE. I'LL BRIEFLY GO OVER THE APPLICATION AND OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE APPLICANT IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS FOR ME.
BUT THE APPLICANT, OLD TOWN MATERIALS, LLC.
THEY'VE SUBMITTED A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR IT'S A MAJOR SITE PLAN ON BEHALF OF THE FULTON HAIRS LLC FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION FACILITY.
IT'S AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING FACILITY THAT'S BEEN APPROVED SINCE 2017.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED IN JULY OF 2018.
THIS BOARD ITSELF REVIEWED THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2025 AND MADE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROCEED TO THE BZA FOR THEIR SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION.
BZA HELD THEIR PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 18TH OF 2025 AND APPROVED THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION.
INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION OF THE 200 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
THE APPLICANTS NOW SEEKING A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
THIS APPLICATION IS LOCATED ON BRIDGE TOWN ROAD 26047 BRIDGE TOWN ROAD IN GOLDSBORO, ON TAX MAP 10, GRID 18 PARCEL 14.
IT'S AN EXPANSION WAS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED OF AN EXISTING FACILITY.
THE EXPANSION ITSELF IS ROUGHLY 9.35 ACRES, AND IT'LL BRING THE TOTAL OPERATION TO 90.92 ACRES.
IF ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM NOW.
IF NOT, WE CAN OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE APPLICANT.
>> THEY'RE JUST SWAPPING NINE ACRES. WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY?
>> CORRECT. THE AREA THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO EXPAND IS AN AREA THAT WAS ORIGINALLY RESERVED FOR WHERE THE EXISTING FARMHOUSE IS.
THE OWNERS HAD A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH END OF THE FACILITY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE AS FOR THEIR FARM TO CONSTRUCT A DWELLING AND TO USE THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AS THE FARM.
WITH THAT, THEY'VE DECIDED THAT THE BEST OPTION IS TO REMOVE THIS EXISTING PORTION AND JUST MIND WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THE PREVIOUS SOUTH PORTION.
THEY'VE SWAPPED AREAS THAT THEY PROPOSED FOR THE FARM SITE.
SO 9.35 ACRES, THE SITE IS MINIMAL DISTURBANCE WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT, BASICALLY JUST TO SOME OF THE GRADING A LITTLE BIT.
IT'S NOT MUCH OF AN EXPANSION WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER.
AGAIN, THIS FACILITY WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THOSE 200 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE AND OPERATED WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER BEFORE WE ADOPTED THOSE REGULATIONS.
BECAUSE THEIR PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY MD PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THOSE REGULATIONS, THEY DID NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS REGULATIONS.
THEY'RE AT A POINT NOW WHERE BECAUSE OF THEIR EXPANSION AND THAT SMALL PORTION WITHIN
[00:10:05]
THE BUFFER THAT THEY HAVE TO THEY HAVE TO REQUEST THAT SETBACK MODIFICATION, WHICH YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY SEEN AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR.IT'S VERY MINIMAL DISTURBANCE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MATT? HAVE YOU GOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR MATT?
>> MR. CHAN ON BEHALF OF THE MATERIALS.
AS MATT STATED, WE WENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF APIS, REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO COVER THE NO DISTURBANCE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THE EXPANSION OF IS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S TO BE SEEN FROM THE ROAD.
IT WILL TAKE DOWN SOME OF THE EXISTING FORM BUILDINGS WHICH HAVE GOTTEN INTO BED REPAIR.
I THINK THE EXPANSION IN THE BUFFER, I THINK WILL NOT BE TAKEN IS 435 FEET SQUARE FEET.
IT'S A VERY MINOR, AND IT WAS NECESSARY TO DETAIL THE CONSTRUCTION AS ITS TOGETHER.
OTHER THAN THAT, I REQUEST APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD.
I HAVE HERE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MISS OGLETREE? I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE.
IT'S A SMALL AREA, AND THEY WANT TO GO OUTSIDE THE 200 AND IN THE VERY SMALL AREA.
>> PART OF OUR DELIBERATION, AND I SAY THIS EVERY TIME MATT DOES A GOOD JOB FOR US, WE HAVE THOSE EIGHT THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS.
EIGHT CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET.
MATT DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THEM FOR US BEFORE WE EVEN GET STARTED.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MATT IS FOUND THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED IS IN COMPLIANCE OF PROJECTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE SECOND ONE IS DESIGN STANDARDS COMPLIANCE WITH OUR DESIGN STANDARDS, AND HE FOUND THAT THE WHAT'S SUBMITTED IS IN COMPLIANT.
HE PROVIDED ALL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AS NECESSARY FOR THIS AND IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR DESIGN STANDARDS, ACCESS TO TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
IT'S NOT GOING TO PROPOSE ANY, WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON TRAFFIC.
THE CURRENT TRAFFIC IS UP THERE.
NUMBER 4, NO EFFECT ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
NO EFFECT ON NUMBER 5 IS EFFECT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
THERE'S NO EFFECT. THESE SMALL CHANGES WON'T AFFECT ANY COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
NO IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC SITES.
THERE'S NO KNOWN HISTORIC SITES LOCATED WITHIN THE FACILITY.
THERE'S NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SITE.
NUMBER 8 IS THE AVAILABLE UTILITY.
THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT ON PUBLIC UTILITIES.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOC FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS CONFORMS TO THE INTENT OF OUR SWING CHAPTER AND IT'S THEIR OPINION THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THEY RECOMMEND THAT WE SHOULD THAT WE APPROVE IT.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS, DISCUSSIONS?
>> NO. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE FINAL SITE PLAN FOR OLD TOWN MATERIALS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> ALL OPPOSE THE SAME. HEARING NONE.
MISS OVERTRY, YOU HAVE A PIT TO PROVE. HOW ARE YOU, SIR?
>> WE'RE GOING TO BACK YOUR PAY.
[00:15:09]
>> FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSION MEMBER KEITH BILBRO HAS JOINED US.
NOW WE HAVE A FULL BOARD HERE.
TO BRING YOU UP TO SPEED, WE VOTED AND WE CHANGED.
WE MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING UP TO BEFORE PART HOLDING THE FINAL CLAN REVIEW.
BECAUSE WE NEED TO DO THAT BEFORE WE DO.
[Public Hearing - Hartland Holdings, LLC Development Rights & Responsibilities Agreement (DRRA)]
LET ME CLOSE THIS OUT.THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT WE MOVED, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR HEARTLAND HOLDING LLC, DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY.
I NEED TO READ IN THE NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING WAS ADVERTISED, AND IT'S NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CAROLINE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14TH, 2026 AT 6:00 PM AT THE HEALTH AND PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING FIRST FLOOR ROOM 111, 403 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET.
I GOT TO READ AS WAY FOR WORK?
>> I USUALLY DON'T TRY TO READ THE ADDRESS OF THE EMAIL OR THE WEBSITE, BUT YES.
>> HEARTLAND HOLDING LLC DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY AGREEMENT REFERRED TO THE DRRA.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USE ARTICLE AND COUNTY CODE 175-206175-207.
ARTICLE 23, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED DRRA IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY PLANS AND POLICIES AND WITH ANY OTHER APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT LAWS OR REGULATIONS.
THE DRRA SETS FORTH THE PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS TOWARD THE COST TO PAVE SUNSET AVENUE FROM RIVER ROAD TO GREENSBORO STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT AWAY.
TO GREENSBORO STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT AWAY, WHICH IS THE APPROVED ALL ROUTE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PROCESSING FACILITY LOCATED AT 14010 RIVER ROAD, GREENSBORO, MARYLAND.
THE PROPOSED DRRA IS AVAILABLE FOR DOING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CAROLINE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CODES HEALTH AND PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING 403 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET, DENTON, MARYLAND, SUITE 210.
ANY CITIZENS WISHING TO BE HEARD OR ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE HEARINGS, CONTACT THE CAROLINE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CODES, HEALTH AND PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDINGS, DENTON, 410-479-8100.
VISIT THE CAROLINE COUNTY WEBSITE OR THROUGH THE MARYLAND RELAY FOR PERSONS WITH DIFFICULTY USING STANDARD PHONES DUE TO HEARING SPEECH OR OTHER DISABILITIES BY DALI 711.
PERSONS REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IN ADVANCE.
JEFF JACKSON, CHAIRMAN, CAROLINA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT WAS THE NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS PUBLISHED.
>> DO WE VOTE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE VOTED THE MOVIE.
DO WE HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE DO AT THE COMMISSIONER MEETINGS, YES.
>> MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> ALL OPPOSED. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.
OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT? THE APPLICANT IS THE ONE THAT'S HERE.
NO ONE ELSE, SO WILL THE APPLICANT OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?
[00:20:03]
>> I PREFER TO JUST OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT I'M BRENDAN MELANY WITH MCCALLISTER DARSH WALTER AND WALKER 100 NORTHWEST STREET, EASTON, MARYLAND.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF PART HOLDINGS, LLC.
THERE IS, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY BE AWARE, A LOT OF HISTORY, PROCESS, AND PROCEDURE RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY AND THIS APPLICANT IN THE COUNTY.
THIS DRRA THAT'S BEFORE YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSIONER TONIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION AT THE CAROLINA COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS GRANTED, I BELIEVE IN LATE 2023.
IT WAS DRAFTED BY COUNSEL FOR COUNTY, I'VE REVIEWED IT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I BELIEVE THAT THE RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS HAVE AGREED THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVAL AND CONDITION.
THE CONCERN THAT I THINK IS REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKAGE FOR THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WAS IMPACTS THE TRAFFIC.
AS WE'LL DISCUSS IN THE NEXT SEGMENT OF THE HEARING TONIGHT.
THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, BUT ONE OF THE USES IS A FACILITY FOR GRAIN STORAGE.
GRAIN AND GRAIN FROM THE MAINLY CAROLINE COUNTY, BUT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
THEY STORE IT UNTIL THERE OFF TAKERS THEY BUY IT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
THE BOARD OF APPEALS WAS CONCERNED OF WHAT IMPACTS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEING LOCALIZED COMING TO THIS LOCATION.
OTHER THAN THAT, THE OPERATION IS NOT IN DIFFERENT FROM ANY MEDIUM OR LARGE SIZE SCREEN FACILITY THAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT THE SHORE.
THEY TAKE IN SOYBEANS AND CORN TRUCKS BRING THE MATERIALS TO THE SITE AND TAKE IT OFF THE SITE.
YOU'LL SEE IN THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AGREEMENT THAT THERE ARE PAYMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND RESTRICTIONS ON, NEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT ACTIONS THAT WOULD CAUSE HARM TO THE COUNTY'S ROADWAYS.
BUT THE FINANCING PART OF THE AGREEMENT IS REALLY TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNTY HAS MONEY IN HAND OVER THE NEXT NUMBER OF YEARS SHOULD THERE BE IMPACTS TO THE ROADWAYS THAT CAN ENSURE THAT THOSE ARE MITIGATED. THAT QUESTION.
>> ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THE AGREEMENT?
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OR COMMISSIONER BED, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN TELL US WITH ENLIGHTENMENT? OR ANYTHING?
>> NO. IT WAS A NEGOTIATED FIGURE IN THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, BUT NOW OTHER THAN THAT,.
>> IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, IS THIS JUST THROUGH MAY 1ST, 2028 AND IT LIKE, EXPIRES?
>> FOR THREE YEAR, FOUR YEAR AGREE.
>> FROM APRIL 2025 TO MAY 1ST, 2028.
>> IS THREE YEARS. I KNOW IT SAYS IT IN HERE SOMEWHERE I THOUGHT.
I BELIEVE THAT HEARTLAND HOLDINGS HAS MADE ONE PAYMENT.
THERE ARE THREE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE.
FOR SIMPLICITY'S SAKE, THE REQUIREMENT IS OUT OF THIS THING, IT'S FOR THE PAYMENT IS YOU, RIGHT?.
>> THEN THE RELEASE OF ANY CLAIM TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD AFTER THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND THAT WOULD BE THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES.
[00:25:10]
THIS DOES COVER HIM.NEXT YEAR HE SELLS IT, THE NEXT PERSON HAS GOT TO PAY.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE RECORDED. YES.
>> NOT TO PUT ALL ON THE SPOT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?
>> I MEAN, STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT. DO YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING?
>> I'VE PROVIDED SOME COMMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> YOU COMMENT YOUR COMMENT IN HERE THAT THE DRRA PROVIDES MINIMUM REQUIRED INFORMATION THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW?
>> CHAPTER 175210 OUTLINES ALL THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DRRA? BRENNAN SAID, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS MR. BARREL, HAVE REVIEWED THIS DRAFT DRRA AND FOUND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS FOR WHAT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS PART OF THIS OR AT LEAST A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE'VE REVIEWED IT. STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN COUNTY CODE.
WE FEEL AS THOUGH IT PROVIDES A MINIMUM INFORMATION.
WE'VE FOUND THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY PLANS AND POLICIES IN TERMS OF THE AG PRODUCTS PROCESSING FACILITY.
I THINK WITH AN APPROVAL OF THAT USE, WE WOULD FIND THAT THIS WOULD ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THAT USE.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS BOARD HAS TO FIND THAT DETERMINATION AS PART OF IT'S REVIEW ON APPROVALS, AND RECOMMEND THAT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL.
WE'VE PROVIDED A DRAFT RESOLUTION IN THE PACKAGE FOR WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE SIGNED BY YOU AS THE CHAIR, MR. JACKSON? SHOULD THE PANNING COMMISSION DETERMINE THAT THE DRRA IS CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY PLANS AND POLICIES.
WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT YOU REVIEW THIS DRRA FOR ITS CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY PLANS AND POLICY.
STAFF HAS PROVIDED COMMENTS THAT IT MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE ASK THAT YOU REVIEW IT AND MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR CONDITIONS OR ANY SAFEGUARDS THAT YOU DEEM NECESSARY FOR CONSISTENCY.
>> THIS IS RECORDED. ONCE IT'S APPROVED, IT GETS RECORDED.
>> IF HE DOESN'T PAY, NEXT YEAR?
>> HE WOULD BE IN BREACH OF HIS AGREEMENT, WHICH THEN WE TAKE HIM TO COURT, RIGHT?
>> COMMISSIONERS WOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT.
>> YES. ALL THE USUAL REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FAILURE TO PAY.
WHAT HAPPENED IF YOU DON'T PAY?
>> WELL, IF I COULD REMIND YOU OF WHAT MATT JUST SAID, WHICH IS BASICALLY, IT'S UP TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ACTUALLY MAKE THE DECISIONS.
YOU'RE FOCUSED NARROWLY ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS DRRA IS CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY PLANS AND POLICY.
THE DECISION FINALLY TO ENTER INTO IT IS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER.
>> YOU'RE AN ADVISORY CAPACITY HERE AS TO WHETHER YOU THINK THERE'S A RED FLAG IN THIS AGREEMENT?
>> WELL, BEFORE WE DELIBERATE ON THE AGREEMENT, I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE NO ONE.
[00:30:04]
>> NOBODY. DID WE GET ANY WRITE INS?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> MOTION IN THE SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DRRA IS CLOSED.
NOW, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANYBODY? NONE.
>> I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING NOTHING THAT STANDS OUT.
I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING THAT STANDS OUT.
>> THE HEARING NONE. NOBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS.
STAFF HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. NONE.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DRRA TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
>> AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, I RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
NOW, LET'S MOVE ON. THAT PART'S DONE.
[Hartland Holdings, LLC - Final Site Plan Review]
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HEARTLAND HOLDINGS. MATT, DO YOU WANT?>> BECAUSE WE'VE JUST REVIEWED THE DRRA.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT THAT AGREEMENT IS PART OF AN APPROVAL PROCESS THAT WAS DONE FOR THE AG PRODUCTS PROCESSING PLAN.
THAT'S THE MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
HARTLAND HOLDINGS PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN 2019.
OVER THE YEARS, SOME THINGS HAVE HAPPENED THAT HAVE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE IT EXPANDED BEYOND THE EXISTING OPERATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
WE GOT TO A POINT WHERE THE AG PRODUCTS PROCESSING FACILITY HAD TO BE APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
IT'S DEFINED IN THE COUNTY CODE AS A FACILITY THAT INVOLVES THE OPERATION OF PROCESSING, PREPARING, OR PACKAGING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, WHICH ARE NOT GROWN OR HARVESTED ON SITE, BUT RATHER BROUGHT INTO THE SITE FOR PROCESSING FROM ONE OR MORE SOURCES.
THE DRYING AND STORAGE OF GRAIN IS A PROCESS THAT IS SPECIFIC TO A GRAIN OPERATION AND THE PROCESSING GRAIN, NOT GROWN, OR HARVESTED ON SITE, SUBJECTS THE PROPERTY TO AN ACT PRODUCT PROCESSING PLANT AND THOSE REGULATIONS.
THE AG PRODUCTS PROCESSING PLAN REQUIRES NOT ONLY A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD, BUT ALSO A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION APPROVAL.
THE BZA HELD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT SPECIAL USE APPROVAL ON NOVEMBER 14 OF 2023, THAT THE BZA DID APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS.
THE OPINION AND DECISION OF THAT BOARD IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE FOR YOUR REFERENCE.
THE APPLICANTS NOW SEEKING A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
NOW, TYPICALLY, THOSE APPROVALS ARE GOOD FOR A YEAR, OBVIOUSLY, DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS, WHEN YOU ALSO HAVE TO GO TO THIS BOARD.
THAT SKEWS THE TIME FRAME A LITTLE BIT.
BUT WHEN WE ENTERED INTO, WHEN I SAY, WE THE COUNTY ENTERED INTO A CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT, AND THAT NULL AVOIDED THE TIMELINE AT THAT POINT FOR THE BZA APPROVAL.
IT IS STILL CONSIDERED TO BE AN APPROVED USE THROUGH BZA FOR THAT SPECIAL USE.
NOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD FOR THAT USE.
I'VE OUTLINED THE EIGHT THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS PART OF THAT FINAL SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR YOU.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM NOW.
IF NOT, WE CAN OPEN THE FLOOR TO MR. MELANY.
I'M SURE HE'LL PRESENT FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> MATT, YOU HAVE NO STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS TO ADD?
>> NO. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS PROPOSED.
>> HOW WOULD YOU LIKE? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL?
>> WELL, JUST FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, BRETT AND MELANY WITH COST, [INAUDIBLE] AND WALKER, 100 WORD WEST STREET.
TO MY RIGHT IS BRETT E [INAUDIBLE] LANE ENGINEERING,
[00:35:06]
117 BAY STREET, EAST OF MARYLYN.AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY RELATED TO THE SITE AND HOW THINGS EVOLVED AND THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH STAFF, BRETT STEVE AND LEE HAS BEEN WORKING THROUGH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT EXISTED AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS.
THE AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING PLANT USE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PROCESSING PLANT, I BELIEVE.
WE WERE THE APPLICANTS OPERATION WAS DEEMED TO FIT INTO THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE DRYING GRAIN, WHICH THE COUNTY LOOKS AT AS A PROCESSING COMPONENT OF THE OPERATION AND THE GRAIN IS COMING IN FROM NOT JUST THE APPLICANTS, LOCAL FARMS IN CAROLINE COUNTY, BUT ALSO THIRD PARTY FARMING OPERATIONS ARE DELIVERING GRAIN.
PROPERTY. ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS REALLY A RETROACTIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT LANE ENGINEERING HAS EVALUATED THE SITE, ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ON THE SITE AND CONCLUDED THAT SOME STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND SHEET OF THE SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S AN EXISTING POND ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE DRIVE AISLE COMING INTO THE FACILITY.
THAT POND IS GOING TO BE RENOVATED AND MODIFIED TO BE A STORMWATER BASIN AND ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE FACILITY ITSELF, THE AREA WILL BE REGRADED TO ENSURE THAT THE STORMWATER FLOWS TO THE POND THAT'S BEEN MODIFIED.
LAND GRADED TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE THE STORMWATER CHANGES THAT NEED TO OCCUR.
REGARDING THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL USE.
IT IS ENTIRELY DRIVEN BY THE LOCAL FARMING COMMUNITY WHO DELIVERS GREEN HERE.
I BELIEVE IT BOLSTERS THE LOCAL FARMING COMMUNITY ECONOMICALLY AND PROVIDES ANOTHER OFF TAKER OF GRAIN TO ENSURE THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF GRAIN BUYERS FOR LOCAL FARMERS.
THERE ARE EIGHT GRAIN BINS OF VARYING SIZES, TWO LARGER, THREE MEDIUM SIZE, AND THREE SMALLER BINS AND THERE IS ALSO A GRAIN ELEVATOR AND THE TRUCK SKATING FOR TRUCKS PULLING IN BETWEEN THE BINS TO BE WEIGHTED BEFORE THEY OFFLOAD.
ALSO, TO NOTE THERE'S A IF YOU LOOK ON THE FIRST SHEET, NUMBER 14 ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE YOD LIMITS OF THE [INAUDIBLE] SHOWN ON THAT PAGE IS A CONCRETE STORAGE PIT, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS DECOMMISSIONED THAT PIT, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON THE RECORD THAT THAT MAYBE IT ISN'T CURRENTLY, THAT IT MAY BE USED FOR GRAIN STORAGE.
IT CANNOT BE USED FOR STORAGE OF DIRT OR OTHER LIQUEFIED PRODUCTS OF AGRICULTURAL PROCESS.
THERE ARE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S AN OLD OFFICE THAT'S BEING REPLACED WITH A HOUSE CURRENTLY THAT THE COUNTY'S ISSUED A PERMIT FOR BUILDING PERMIT.
THERE'S A CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURE.
AGAIN, NONE OF NONE OF THOSE ARE PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED.
THERE'S SOME RETROACTIVE PERMITS THAT ARE RELATED TO THOSE THAT THE COUNTY'S PROCESSING, AN ENGINEERING WORKING WITH THE COUNTY TO MAKE SURE THOSE GET THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO THE USE THAT THE BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED IS THERE AND IS NOT CONTEMPLATED TO BE MODIFIED.
ANY MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THAT ARE STILL SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS THROUGH THAT PROCESS MODIFYING THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AGAIN AND TALK THROUGH ANY OF THE STORMWATER WORK THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS COMPLIANT WITH STORM WATER REGULATIONS.
BUT AS THE BOARD APPROVED THIS FINAL SITE PLAN, WITH THE STAFF DONE A GOOD JOB OF OUTLINING CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE OTHER SEVEN REQUIREMENTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO FIND AND AGREE THAT THE SITE PLAN HAS SUBMITTED COMPLIES WITH [INAUDIBLE] TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> ARE THEY EXPANDING THAT POND OUT FRONT? FROM WHAT IT IS, NOW?
>> NO. NO. THERE'S JUST SOME BASICALLY JUST SOME TOUCH UP MODERNIZING THE POND.
THERE'S REASON REGRADING OF THE SIDES.
[00:40:02]
AGAIN, CONVEYANCE TO THAT POND THE SQUIRE OR THE SOUTHERN END OF THE SILOS.I THINK JUST MODIFYING THIS EXISTING OUT FALL STRUCTURE.
BASICALLY SOME CLEAN UP OF THE PONDS THERE, NOT REALLY ENLARGING IT JUST MODERNIZING TO MODERN [INAUDIBLE].
>> BRAND, IS THAT AN ADDITIONAL BERM INSIDE THE EXISTING POND FOR FOUR BAY?
>> WE JUST THINK WITH JUST THE TYPE OF ACTIVITY THAT'S GOING ON HERE, YOU HAVE A FOUR BAY TO COLLECT ANY CONTAMINANTS.
>> BEFORE IT GETS INTO THE ACTUAL FEATURE ITSELF, MAKES SENSE.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CYCLE.
MY QUESTIONS COME WITH THE BZA.
>> IF THEY WANT TO EXPAND THE GRAIN FACILITY, DO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER PROCESS OR BECAUSE THIS IS ALREADY AN IMPROVED AG PROCESSING?
>> AN EXPANSION WOULD REQUIRE AN APPROVAL.
>> AND BEING WE CHANGE A SETBACK, THEY HAVE ROOM TO EXPAND, RIGHT?
>> IF THEY WANTED TO ADD MORE GRAIN TANKS.
>> YEAH. THE SETBACK WAS 500 FEET.
WE DID A TEXT AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO 200 FEET, WHICH IS CONCURRENT WITH A LOT OF OUR AGRICULTURAL USES, WHICH IS WHY WE JUST DO 200 FEET WHEN WE MADE THAT CHANGE.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY I DON'T HAVE BECAUSE MY QUESTION GOES ON THE ON THE BZA.
DO EITHER OF YOU KNOW HOW MANY BUSHELS OF STORAGE HE HAS AT THE FACILITY NOW?
>> THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE THAT'S POTENTIALLY FOR STORAGE, THAT WOULD JUST HAVE A CANVAS TARP OR SOMETHING OVER IT OR DOES HE PLAY ON THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT`S A TEMPORARY STORAGE [OVERLAPPING].
>> RIGHT NOW I GUESS IT`S BEING DECOMMISSIONED [INAUDIBLE] ON THE COUNTY.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE] INFRASTRUCTURE THERE IS A WAY UTILIZE FOR FARMING OPERATION.
>> DUMP IT ON THE GROUND, DUMP IT IN A HOLE.
I JUST GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND MINE HAD TO DO WITH BZA AND THEIR AGREEMENT.
THEY I THINK SOMEWHERE IN ALL THIS, AND YOU WOULD PROBABLY KNOW.
THEY THEY SAID ON AVERAGE THEY MAY AVERAGE 10 TRUCKS A DAY.
WHAT'S 10 TRUCKS? TEN TRUCKS? IF THEY HAUL OUT OF THERE GOING DOWN TO BRIDGEVILLE, YOU CAN TAKE ONE TRUCK AND RUN THREE, FOUR TRUCKS A DAY.
IS IT TRIPS, IS IT TRUCKS, AND 10 TRUCKS, I MEAN, HE'S NOT GOING TO MOVE A LOT.
IT ALSO SAYS, DURING THE SEASON, THERE MAY BE MORE.
WHAT'S THE SEASON? BECAUSE THAT'S A COMMERCIAL GRAIN OPERATION. THERE IS NO SEASON.
I MEAN, YEAH, WE HAVE A FARMING SEASON, HARVEST SEASON WHERE MORE TRUCKS ARE GOING TO COME IN, BUT I'M HOPING HE'S TAKING STUFF OUT TOO BECAUSE MONEY COME MONEY COMES IN MONEY COMES OUT.
>> THE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD AND MY NOTES, AND I DIDN'T GO BACK TO WATCH THAT VIDEO AND ALL TRANSPARENCY.
MY NOTES SAY THEY'RE DAY IN ZERO TRAFFIC.
THIS IS NOT IF ONE TRUCK MAKES 100 TRIPS, IT'S STILL ONE TRUCK.
THIS IS ONE TRUCK MAKES 100 TRIPS.
WE'RE CALLING THAT 100 TRUCKS.
>> YEAH. WE GO THROUGH THAT WITH [INAUDIBLE].
>> SURE. UNDERSTOOD. THE NOTES THAT I HAD FROM FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING WERE DURING HARVEST SEASON, THE BUSY THE ESTIMATE FOR THE BUSIEST DAYS ARE 40 TRIPS PER DAY.
THAT'S THE BUSIEST DAYS, WHEN ALL THE COMBINES ARE RUNNING THROUGHOUT THE AREA, AND EVERYBODY'S DELIVERING GRAIN AND THEY HAVE TO DO IT WHEN THE WEATHER IS RIGHT AND GET IT OFF THE FIELDS.
THE REST OF THE YEAR, THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY AVERAGE ABOUT THREE TRUCKS PER DAY OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR AND NO MORE DO THEY ANTICIPATE AN AVERAGE OF TEN TRIPS PER DAY.
[00:45:05]
TOTAL TRIPS. AGAIN, BASED ON THOSE NUMBERS, THE BOARD OF APPEALS WANTED THE DRA TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNTY COULD FIX THE ROADS AGAIN.>> WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT THEM, NUMBERS LIKE THAT.
THEY THEY TALKING ALL THE TRUCKS, YOU SAY 40 TRUCKS A DAY.
>> WHICH HANNAH COULD PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT, THAT.
FOR A WEEK OF DRY WEATHER, IT MIGHT BE 40 A DAY AND THE RAIN IT MIGHT BE THREE DAYS A LARGE RIGHT.
>> YOU'RE NOT I MEAN, THE LARGE ONES MAY BE RUNNING TRACK TRAILERS IN.
THE SMALLER ONES ARE RUNNING SIX WHEELERS IN.
YOU KNOW I MEAN, SO THAT WAS JUST THEY DIDN'T THERE WASN'T MUCH DETAIL AND JUST AND WHAT THE SEASON IS, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A COMMERCIAL OPERATION.
THE SEASON, THE HARVEST SEASON, YEAH, YOU'RE GOING TO BUMP UP MORE TRUCKS.
BUT THEN YOU'RE ALSO HE'LL BE HOPEFULLY HE'S SELLING WHAT HE'S GOT IN HIS TANKS.
THOSE TRUCKS WILL BE GOING OUT.
>> THAT'S THAT'S MORE REGULAR.
THAT TRAFFIC IS MORE REGULAR AND THEY'RE BUYING WEEKLY FROM HIM THROUGHOUT THE SEASON OUTSIDE OF THE GROWING SEASON.
I KNOW THAT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, I CAN'T SWEAR.
I THINK WE SAID THAT SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, WHERE THE BUSIEST TRAFFIC AND SEASON AROUND, ONE THING THAT WE HIGHLIGHTED THERE AS WELL IS THIS ISN'T, I WAS NOT MAKING ANY MORE LANES ALL THE TIME.
THIS TRAFFIC IS ALREADY ON COUNTY ROADS.
THIS IS ALREADY A GREEN THAT'S BEING PROCESSED, WHETHER IT GOES HERE OR TO MOUNT AIR.
WE WHERE IT CENTRALIZED IS PROPOSED TO BE TO CONTINUE TO BE THIS PROPERTY, WHICH AGAIN, IS WHY THE PRA IS THERE.
BUT THIS IS THIS DOESN'T GENERATE NEW TRAFFIC ON THE EASTERN SHORE OF MARY.
BUT SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER WOULD BE THE BUSIEST PARTS WHEN EVERYBODY'S HARVESTING THEIR BRAIN AND THE TRAFFIC COMING TO AND FROM THE SITE MORE REGULAR OUTSIDE OF THE FACILITIES.
>> I DON'T THINK I READ ANYWHERE WHERE THEY LISTED HOURS OF OPERATION.
AGAIN WITH A COMMERCIAL USE LIKE WE DO WITH THE SANDPITS, IT'S HOURS OF OPERATION.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE LISTED ANY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IS THAT A REQUIREMENT?
>> YOU GOT SOME FARMERS THAT CUT ALL NIGHT LONG IF IT IS NOT RAINING.
YOU GOT NO PLACE TO SLOW THE DUST.
>> [OVERLAPPING] LIKE THE MINING.
HE'S JUST COMPARED IT TO A MINING LANE.
>> IS THERE EVEN A REQUIREMENT FOR HOURS?
>> [OVERLAPPING] SO, THERE'S NO CODE REQUIREMENT FOR ANY SET HOURS THAT ARE REQUIRED IF THE BZA FELT THEY NEEDED TO RESTRICT THOSE HOURS, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECISION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO, THEY DIDN'T.
>> HAD SPECIFIED ANY SPECIFIC HOURS.
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE CONSENT ORDER HAD SOME HOURS OF OPERATION IN IT.
BUT YEAH, THE BZA DID NOT APPROVE ANY.
>> EVERY OTHER COMMERCIAL GRAIN STORAGE FACILITY IN THE COUNTY WAS PROBABLY PERMITTED PRIOR TO ANY LOAD COUNT RESTRICTION OR TIME CONSTRAINT REQUIREMENT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ONES THAT WE PUT TIME RESTRICTIONS OR LOAD RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHT THERE YOU AWARE OF.
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, AS FAR AS MOUNT [INAUDIBLE] OR ANY OTHER.
>> [OVERLAPPING] MOST OF THEM PROBABLY MAY EVEN PREDATED ZONING. I DON'T KNOW.
>> REQUIREMENT. WE'VE HAD SOME EXPANSIONS OVER THE YEARS, BUT I BELIEVE MATT'S RIGHT.
THERE WERE SOME SPECIFIED TIMES IN THE CONSENT AGREEMENT.
>> BECAUSE I KNOW, AND THEN TO BE FAIR, AND HANNAH EVEN NOTED.
I MEAN, IF THE DUST IS FLYING, YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP CUTTING.
AND IF YOU WERE ROLLING IN THERE AT MIDNIGHT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO, BECAUSE TOMORROW THE WIND BLOWS AND BLOWS THE CORN DOWN.
>> SO THERE ARE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT WERE AGREED TO IN THE CONSENT ORDER.
EXCEPT DURING HARVEST TIME, WHICH DATE LIST IS AUGUST 15 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30 AND JUNE 15 TO JULY 15, WHERE THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON THE HOURS OF OPERATION.
[00:50:01]
>> SAY THAT AGAIN? JUNE TO JULY.
>> SO AUGUST 15 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, AND THEN JUNE 15 THROUGH JULY 15.
>> [OVERLAPPING] CORN AND BEANS. AND WHAT YOU GOT NOVEMBER WHAT?
>> THAT WILL BE OKAY COME JANUARY.
>> WHAT'S HOURS OF OPERATION? THAT'S YOUR TRUCK TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT BECAUSE I'M SURE THE DRYER IS GOING TO BE RUNNING ALL NIGHT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE DRYER IS GOING TO BE RUNNING ALL NIGHT.
>> THAT'S GOING TO BE GEARED TOWARDS THE TRUCKS COMING OUT.
AND THE OTHER THING MENTIONED THE WHOLE ROUTE, WHAT HIS PLAN TO ENFORCE THE WHOLE ROUTE? THEY SAY THE WHOLE ROUTE COMING OUT.
WE KNOW THE FARMERS ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER.
THEY'RE NOT GREENSBURG YOU KNOW. THAT, I BELIEVE IS ALSO SPECIFIED IT IS.
IT'S THE TRUCKS LEAVING HAVE TO USE SOME SET.
AND AGAIN, I WONDER I DON'T WANT TO BE IF YOUR FARM IS DOWN AROUND OFF OF M H ROAD, ARE YOU GOING TO GO AWAY IN THE GREEN ROADWAY AROUND THE B? NO, YOU'RE NOT. COMING OUT, TURNING RIGHT.
BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC, HEAVY TRAFFIC, TRACK TRAILER TRAFFIC, OR TRAFFIC GOING OUT, LOADING OUT TO TANKS.
THEY'RE NOT DELIVERING AROUND THE CORNER TO THE FARM.
NO. THEY'RE GETTING ON THE HIGHWAY GOING TO ONE OF THEM.
SO AND THEN THE WHOLE ROUTE, THIS IS AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE.
WE'RE GETTING READY TO APPROVE SOMETHING TO DUMP HOW MANY TRUCKS THROUGH BACK ROUGHGREENSB.
HAS ANYBODY TOLD GREENSBORO, BY THE WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TRUCK TRAFFIC AGAIN.
THEY HAD GREEN TANKS. I KNOW WHAT TRUCK TRAFFIC WENT THROUGH THERE DURING HARVEST SEASON.
AND ALL THE JUNK TRUCKS OUT OF DELAWARE THAT COME THROUGH THERE.
THEY HAD ONE HEAD LIGHT AND FALLING OFF THE TRUCK, DAD JUMP COMING OUT OF. SO I KNOW.
AND WE'RE GETTING READY TO TURN THESE TRUCKS BACK DOWN THROUGH THEY GOT RID OF THE GREEN TANKS.
AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT BACK TO THEM.
JUST JUST TO TICKET BOOK READY. GET THE TICKET OFF.
YEAH. THE BIGGEST WE WE HAD UP THERE WAS DELAWARE.
THE ONE GOOD THING ABOUT RETROACTIVE HEARINGS LIKE THIS THAT WE CAN SAY, IT'S ALREADY THERE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
SO YOU FOUND SOMETHING GOOD TO SIT OUT OF THIS WHOLE.
AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT.
SO WE CAN SAY, WELL, HISTORY FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS SAYS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT JUST IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE APPROVING STUFF THAT'S OUTSIDE OF A CORPORATE LIMIT AND WE'RE HAVING SOME IMPACT ON THEM.
IT WAS JUST ONE OF MY THINGS THAT I'VE ALWAYS ASKED.
AND I WAS TOLD THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO GREENSBORO YET. BY THE WAY.
SO IF ANYBODY WANTS THEM TO, WE CAN ASK THEM TO.
BUT ANYWAY, SO THAT WAS JUST MY CONCERN.
I MEAN, WE HAVE I KNOW I KNOW THERE'S HISTORY THAT YOU CAN GO BY HOW MANY TRUCKS.
SO MR. MELANY, IS THERE IS YOUR CLIENT INTENDING TO POST A SIGN OR ANYTHING AT THE, YOU KNOW, END OF THE DRIVE WHEN THEY'RE LEAVING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, TURN LEFT.
EXIT USING SUNSET? IF THAT WERE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TONIGHT, I'M SURE WE GOING TO DO THAT IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD REQUIRED WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
I THINK WE AGREED TO JUST NOTIFY EVERYBODY THAT WAS DELIVERING WHICH ROUTE THEY NEED TO.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
WELL, I FEEL LIKE I PROBABLY SHOULD SAY SOMETHING HERE.
SO I THINK A FINAL SLIDE PLAN APPROVAL, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS IN ORDER.
I THINK IT'S A LONG TIME COMING AND COULD HAVE PROBABLY BEEN OBTAINED EASIER WITH ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE MAKING A MONEY, FORTUNATELY FOR THEM.
[00:55:07]
IT'S TAKEN A LOT OF TIME.THE COMMISSIONERS, I CAN TELL YOU, HAVE GIVEN BOTH THIS SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DRRA, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS ENTIRE ISSUE, A LOT OF THOUGHT AND CONSIDERATION.
ULTIMATELY, IT'S ANOTHER OUTLET FOR FARMERS IN THIS COUNTY.
THERE ARE A FEW UPSIDES, THAT BEING ONE OF THEM, IT PROVIDES COMPETITION IN THE MARKET.
MR. FLAHERT DOES STAY OPEN LATER THAN THE OTHER COMMERCIAL BUYERS.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ADVANTAGES AND GOOD THINGS THAT COME OF THIS OPERATION.
SO LIKE I SAID, I THINK THAT'S IN ORDER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT EASIER HAD THE PROPER PATH BEEN TAKEN FROM THE BEGINNING, BUT WE CAN'T GO BACK AND UNDO THAT.
SO I THINK THIS ENTIRE PROCESS HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO ENFORCE ITS REGULATIONS IN A REASONABLE MANNER, NOT NECESSARILY YOU KNOW, DIG IN AND BE UNREASONABLE.
BUT AND WE SEE BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY'RE THERE.
BUT IT PROVIDES, I THINK IT HAS PROVIDED ENOUGH CORRECTIVE ACTION, THAT IT MAKES CLEAR THAT PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY WHO WANT TO DEVELOP NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS.
SO I THINK THAT'S ABOUT AS POLITICALLY INCORRECT WAY AS THAT'S ALL WE'VE EVER HAD THAT THEY FOLLOW THE RULES.
THAT'S ALL WE'VE EVER HAD. RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, KIND OF REITERATES ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN THAT TESTIFIED, A PANDORA'S BOX, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO ALWAYS BE RETROACTIVE, YOU'RE SETTING A PRESIDENT.
AND WE'RE NOT HERE TO DO THAT.
IT'S MORE COSTLY TO DO IT THAT WAY.
SO IT BEGS TO ASK ANY OUTSTANDING ANYTHING OUTSTANDING ON THE PROPERTY.
GOT HIS PERMITS. EVERYTHING YOU ALL ARE HAPPY.
WE CAN'T ISSUE THE FINAL PERMITS UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS APPROVAL TONIGHT.
YEAH. AND THROUGH THE REST OF THE DRRA.
SO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE E. YEAH.
IE. LET ME OPEN IT BACK UP BECAUSE I JUST CLOSED YOU WANT TO THE.
SO FOR THE FINAL SITE PLAN, AGAIN, FOR THE FINAL SITE PLAN, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EIGHT THINGS.
IF ANYBODY NOBODY HAS ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EIGHT THINGS.
AND AGAIN, MATT HAS DONE THEM FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I TRIED TO LOOK THROUGH HERE, MATT, WHERE YOU SAY THAT WE'RE NOT READING THIS WHOLE THING.
THE PROPOSED USE SPECIFIED BY THE APPLICANT IS AN ALLOWABLE USE WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS LOCATED, WHICH IS THE O RULE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE SPECIFIED USE PROPOSED COMPLIES WITH THE COUNTY ZONING REGULATION AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I AGREE. OKAY. COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN STANDARD, THE APP PLAN HAS SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN THAT PROVIDES ALL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED USE.
MATT AND YOU AGREE WITH THAT? ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
THAT'S THAT'S THE THING WE TALK WE'VE TALKED ALL ABOUT THAT.
AND THE DR DRR A HAS BEEN APPROVED WITH THE COUNTY FOR AGREEMENT WITH THAT FOR WORK ON SUNSET AVENUE TO RIVER ROAD FROM RIVER ROAD TO SUNSET AVENUE OR STATE HIGHWAY THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT AWAY.
WHICH IS FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW IT'S A TOWN LINE.
THE TOWN THE STATE HIGHWAY RUNS THROUGH THE TOWN OF GREENS ROAD TO THE TOWN LINE, AND THE COUNTY PICKS IT UP.
SO IT RUNS FROM RIVER ROAD TO THE TOWN LINE.
[01:00:02]
YEAH. SO THIS WAS AGREED UPON AS A HALL ROUTE.SO THEY'VE ADDRESSED ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
EFFECTS ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AS YOU'VE SEEN FROM THE MAP THAT WAS UP HERE SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF FARMS ANYWAY.
AND THERE ARE SOME HOUSES ACROSS FROM IT.
SO THAT'S NO EFFECT ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
AFFECT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES, NO QUESTION OR CONCERNS BEEN RAISED BY STAFF OR ANY MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING COMMUNITY FACILITIES, AND SO THE PROPOSED USE HAS NO IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
THERE'S NO NO KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES LOCATED ON THE SITE.
THERE'S NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS SITE AND THEN THE AVAILABLE UTILITIES.
THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT ON PUBLIC UTILITIES LOCATED IN THE GENERAL FACILITY VICINITY.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION PASSES FOR SITE PLAN, FINAL SITE PLAN.
I WAS HERE TO TALK ABOUT STORM WATER.
[Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) Recertification Report]
MUTH RECERTIFICATION REPORT.I BELIEVE IN YOUR PACKAGE WAS A VERY LENGTHY REPORT FOR THE RECERTIFICATION.
NOW, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THAT? YOU HAVE TO SAY WHO YOU ARE.
KATHERINE MCCULLY, I AM THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD, AND ALSO THE P ADMINISTRATOR FOR M.
>> ONE OF THE REASONS WE GO TO THE TROUBLE TO GET CERTIFIED AND SUBMIT SECTION 19 IN REPORTS IS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO KEEP 75% OF THE AGRICULTURAL TRANSFER TAX.
WHEREAS IF WE WERE NOT CERTIFIED, WE ONLY KEEP 33%.
THAT ADDS TO THE MONEY THAT WE CAN MATCH FUNDS FOR MORE FARM RESERVATION.
THIS YEAR, WE GOT 11 MALPF EASEMENTS IN WHICH, OF COURSE, I DON'T HAVE A LONG TERM MEMORY HERE, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU HAD THAT MEMO NOT THAT I'VE EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
>> MALPF WHEN YOU SAY MALPF AND JUST FOR IN GENERAL TERMS, THAT'S A FARM THAT WAS PRESERVED.
>> RIGHT. MALPF, WHICH IS THE MOST BIZARRE LETTER COMBINATIONS COME UP WITH THE WORD FOR.
BUT MALPF REFERS TO THE MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION.
>> SO THIS IS ONLY AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION?
>> I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE MONEY COLLECTED TO 2025.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THIS REPORT REQUIRED ME TO DO IS STEP BACK AND PUT IN THE LAST TIME WE WERE CERTIFIED, IT WAS ABOUT 2021.
[01:05:05]
>> BUT I HAD TO PUT IN ALL THE FUNDING INFORMATION FOR THE EASEMENTS SINCE OUR LAST CERTIFICATION.
IT'S SHOWING YOU HOW MANY ACRES WERE PRESERVED AND THE COST OF THAT EASEMENT.
THAT'S FOR THE MALPF EASEMENTS AS WELL AS THE ORAL AGENCY EASEMENTS.
THAT INFORMATION IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN HOW MUCH WE'RE SPENDING ON PRESERVATION [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE RURAL LEGACY EASEMENTS ARE ALSO PRIORITIZE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION SO THE CERTIFICATION REPORT, THEY LIKE TO CAPTURE THE COUNTY'S FULL EFFORT IN BOTH OF THOSE PROGRAMS, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS FOR MALPF RECERTIFICATION, THEY WANT THE WHOLE PICTURE OF WHAT YOUR EFFORT IS IN THE COUNTY FOR AG LAND PRESERVATION.
RURAL LEGACY IS ANOTHER ONE THEY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN YOUR COUNTY.
>> I JUST LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM NUMBER.
I THINK WE DISCUSSED WITH 36,000 ACRES THAT WE HAVE UNDER EASEMENT.
>> AT LEAST. THERE'S A CHANCE A FEW MORE WILL BE ADDED BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE FINALS FOR THE MALPF ANNOUNCED FOR THIS YEAR.
>> SOMETIMES SOME OF THEM CAN TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS WITH ALL THE PAPERWORK AND LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
>> BUT JEFF, THE 36,000 IS JUST MALPF.
I MEAN, THE ROLE LEGACY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT THAT, TOO.
I MEAN, WE GOT JUST 36,000 AND THEN OTHER LAND PRESERVATION.
THEY CAN'T DIG THEM UP, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER]
>> CAN'T PUT SOLAR OR. THEY CAN'T.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ARE ACTUALLY IN THE LAW THAT THEY CANNOT BE.
>> EVEN IF IT [OVERLAPPING] CHANGES HANDS, THAT FOLLOWS THE PROPERTY.
>> NO. IT'S PERMANENT PERMANENT.
>> WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE [NOISE].
>> THAT'S GOOD. I MEAN, IT'S GOOD.
YOU, IT'S WE HAVE QUITE A BIT.
>> THIS REPORT NEEDS TO HAVE REVIEW AND ANY COMMENT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PENDING ANY COMMENT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL TO FORWARD IT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR REVIEW APPROVAL AND IT'S SUBMITTED TO THE STATE.
>> I READ THROUGH IT AND I HAD NO QUESTIONS.
I MEAN, WE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
I LEARN EVERY TIME I READ SOMETHING, BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE MAPS AND LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS.
I'M LOOKING AT BOTTLE NUMBERS, AND I LIKE WHAT WE'RE PRESERVING.
WE'RE PRESERVING SOME OF OUR COUNTY.
>> I THINK I WAS THAT'S, LIKE, PIGGYBACK ON THAT.
OF COURSE, YOU EXPLAINED THAT WE DID THE WORKSHOP, SO YOU EXPLAINED IN DEPTH A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT THAT WAS ANY QUESTIONS I HAD.
>> I LIKE THAT SO AND WE HAVE A COUNTY COMMISSIONER SITTING HERE, THAT THE COUNTY WOULD CONTINUE TO PRIORITIZE THE PRESERVATION OF YOUR FARMLAND AND LAND.
>> I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU HEAR SO MANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE WHOLE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE SHINING AND GLITTERING HERE SO AT LEAST WE CAN SAY NOT ALL OF IT.
>> YEAH, WE GET A LOT WE GET A LOT OF SOLAR,
[01:10:01]
BUT THIS NEVER GETS OUT THAT SO MANY ACRES OF IS ACTUALLY BEING PERMANENTLY.>> WE'RE ALSO THIRD IN THE STATE THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF THE MOUNT EASEMENTS. THAT'S AMAZING.
>> I HAD NO QUESTION. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER GOT HIS HEAD DOWN. READ.
>> WELL, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE FOUGHT FOR THAT TAX, I FORGET WHAT IT'S CALLED NOW, I SHOULD KNOW. FROM THE SOLAR.
>> TO GO TO LAND PRESERVATION FOR THIS VERY REASON.
>> AS WE TALKED ABOUT THAT SUPPLEMENT WOULDN'T THAT MONEY GOING TO GO IN AND SUPPLEMENT. IS EASEMENT.
>> THEN LIKE YOU SAID, I WAS LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS BEFORE IT'S WAY BACK UP HERE WHERE I WAS LOOKING AT THAT BECAUSE WE'RE CERTIFIED, WE KEEP 75% VERSUS.
>> I CAN GET BACK UP TO WHERE YOU HAD YOUR NUMBERS, IT WAS.
>> I THINK IT WAS WERE CERTIFIED.
>> IT`S FOR EXAMPLE, WAS THAT 121,500 AND WE GET 91,000 DOLLARS OF IT.
I MEAN, THAT'S GOOD, WE CAN KEEP THAT MUCH VERSUS GIVING IT TO THE CONSOLE OR GIVING IT TO THE STATE.
YEAH. ANY QUESTIONS OF CATHERINE? A QUESTION?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
LET ME GET THE MARYLAND AGRICULTURE LAND PRESERVATION, THE MALPF CERTIFICATION REPORT, AND FORWARD IT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
VERY NICE REPORT. WE LIKE TO HAVE GOOD NUMBERS.
>> WELL, THIS HAVE TO BE DONE AGAIN FOR FIVE YEARS.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS RATHER LARGE.
>> WELL, HOPEFULLY FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WE CAN SEE, AGAIN, WE SEE MORE LAND.
>> ON TO THE LIST THAT WE CAN ADD TO THE LIST.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE AGENDA,
[Draft Zoning Text Amendment - Establishing a Process for Zoning Map Corrections]
THE DRAFT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR ZONING MAP CORRECTIONS.[INAUDIBLE] THIS FIRST, IT IS A SECTION AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH THE PROCESS FOR ZONING MAP CORRECTIONS, ONLY FOR CORRECTIONS.
THIS WILL ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CERTIFY CHANGES TO THE COUNTY'S THE DUAL ZONING LAYER TO CORRECT MINOR TECHNICAL OR CLERICAL ERRORS, AFFECTED ZONING BOUNDARY WHEN THERE IS CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE IN THAT BOUNDARY DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE ZONING THAT WAS LAWFULLY ADOPTED.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE, THIS OUTLINES.
[NOISE] THE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE THIS AND THAT READ THE WHOLE THING FOR YOUR HERE AS WELL AS MINE.
THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MAY ADMIN ADMINISTRATIVELY CERTIFY CHANGES TO THE COUNTY FEDERAL ZONING LAYER TO CORRECT MINOR TECHNICAL OR CLERICAL ERRORS AFFECTING THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY WHEN THERE IS CLEAR AND EFFECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT BOUNDARY DOES NOT ADEQUATELY REFLECT THAT WAS LAWFULLY ADOPTED.
THIS CORRECTION CAN ONLY BE DONE UNDER THREE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE LISTED HERE.
THERE IS AN ACCURATE OR UPDATED PARTIAL INFORMATION THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE AS A RESULT OF AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OR SUBDIVISION OR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLATING SURVEY OR ANY OTHER RELIABLE AND AUTHORITATIVE RECORD INFORMATION.
IT COULD ALSO BE FROM A MINOR DRAFTING CARTOGRAPHIC OR OTHER TECHNICAL ERROR OR EMISSIONS WITHIN THE GIS MAPPING SYSTEMS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AND
[01:15:03]
CORRECTION OF THE ERROR RESULTS IN THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY BEING ALIGNED WITH, BUT NOT CHANGING OF THE BOUNDARY RELATIVE TO THE PARCEL.THIRD ONE IS, THE TEXT OR MATH EXHIBIT ADOPTED AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SECTIONAL MAP AMENDMENT OR OTHER LEGISLATIVE REZONING ACTION CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY, SHOWN ON THE DIGITAL ZONING.
ANY CORRECTION THAT IS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECTION SHALL BE ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS NOR HAVE THE EFFECT OF A REASONING [INAUDIBLE].
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. THIS IS JUST FOR CORRECTIONS.
PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT WITH THE CERTIFICATION [INAUDIBLE] CORRECTION.
UNDER THIS SECTION, THE PLANING DIRECTED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CORRECTION TO THE OWNER OF RECORDS AFFECTED PARCEL OR PARCELS AS SHOWN IN THE PLAN RECORDS AND ANY OTHER PERSON OR AGENCY DEPLANING DIRECTOR DETERMINES MAY BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE CORRECTION.
THE NOTICE SHALL BE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THAT CORRECTION IS, THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CORRECTION.
HOWEVER, FAILURE TO RECEIVE NOTICE SHALL NOT INVALIDATE A CORRECT AND MACRAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECTION.
THEN THE LAST PART OF THIS IS JUST THAT UN-CERTIFICATIONS IN THAT CORRECTION.
DIRECTOR SHALL FIND AND DATE THE WITNESS CERTIFICATION DESCRIBING THE CORRECTION AND THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION, AND THAT TOGETHER [INAUDIBLE] TO BE OBTAINED IN THE OFFICIALS COUNT.
THE SET OF MAPS, THE MAP, THE COUNTY FEDERAL ZONING THERE, AND ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO BE UPDATED, SHALL BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE PRACTICING A PERSON OR PERSONS.
ANY QUESTION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER WHEN I CAN AND WHEN I CAN`T, I WILL LOOK OVER TO.
>> THE BOTTOM LINE OF THIS IS OUR ZONING ORDINANCE DID NOT HAVE A PROCESS FOR CORRECTING ANY ERRORS THAT MAY BE SHOWN IN OUR ZONING.
THE COUNTY PRIOR TO 2006 HAD PAPER ZONING MAPS THAT WERE HAND DRAWN CHANGES MADE ON, AND WE DIGITIZE THOSE AND THEY'RE NOW IN OUR GIS LAYER AND THERE IS SOME AREAS WHERE IT DOESN'T ALIGN MAYBE WITH WHAT THE PAPER MAP HAD SHOWN, THERE MAY BE A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WAS A REZONING THAT HAPPENED ON A PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T GET DEPICTED ON THE ORIGINAL MAP THAT SUBSEQUENTLY DIDN'T END UP ON THE FINAL DIGITAL MAP OR THAT BASED ON A SURVEY, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A PROPERTY BOUNDARY WAS NOT DEPICTED CORRECTLY IN THE PARCEL DATA THAT NOW WOULD CONFLICT WITH HOW THE ZONING WAS INTENDED TO BE ON THAT PROPERTY.
THOSE WOULD BE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WOULD BE PERMITTED TO MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS.
WITHOUT IT INITIATING OR THIS BEING A REZONING OF A PROPERTY.
I SIMPLY ESTABLISHING THE PROCESS THAT WE WOULD TAKE TO MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS.
>> DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON EACH ONE?
>> YES. STAFF WOULD LIKE A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS?
>> THIS AS A TEXT AMENDMENT, WE'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FORWARD THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS REZONING MAP CORRECT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THEY'RE REVIEWING ACTION.
WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
>> WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. AS AS WRITTEN.
AN DISCRETION. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSE. SAME. HEARING NONE.
THAT PART PASSES. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A SECOND PART.
[Draft Zoning Text Amendments - Re-establishment of the R3 Zoning District & Supplemental Regulations for Townhouses]
>> THANK YOU. HOW DO WE HAVE THAT DONE? THE NEXT ITEM IS RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THREE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS FOR TOWN HOUSES TO CORRECT IN THAT ERROR OF THE THREE ZONE.
FIRST. BACKGROUND ON THIS IS DAY SPRING, WHICH IS A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 90S, IN COUNTY.
THE PARCELS WERE ORIGINALLY IN R1 RESIDENTIAL.
THIS IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF RT BOUNDARY.
BECAUSE OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOUSES, WHICH WERE NOT PERMITTED IN R_1, REZONING WAS NECESSARY.
[01:20:01]
IN AUGUST OF 192, THE COUNTY ENACTED A LEGISLATIVE REZONING AMENDMENT.CHANGING A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROCESS FROM R_1 TO R_3 FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PERMIT PHASE 1 OF THE TOWN HOUSE DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN THEY CAME BACK IN MARCH 95 AND THE COUNTY ENACTED THE SECOND LEGISLATIVE REASONING, CHANGING ADDITIONAL PORTIONS OF THE PROCESS FROM R_1 TO R_3 TO PERMIT PHASE 2 OF THE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. APOLOGIES. DURING RECENT.
>> DON'T GET ANY IDEAS LIKE THAT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING.
>> DURING RECENT REVIEW, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE CURRENT ZONING MAPS INCORRECTLY SHOWED THE PURSES AS R_1, WHICH IS A CLASSIFICATION THAT IS [INAUDIBLE].
FURTHER RESEARCH A LOTTERY RESEARCH INDICATES THAT THIS DISCREPANCY RECALLED FROM A MAPPING ERROR EIGHT PER OR CONVERTED TO DIGITAL FORMAT BACK IN 2006.
AT THAT TIME, OUR REASON BOUNDARIES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE 1929 RESENTING ORDINANCES WERE NOT ACCURATELY CAPTURED.
THE SAME DIGITAL MAPS WERE THEN SUBSEQUENTLY RELIED UPON DURING THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE RESENTING IN 2013, WHICH PERPETUATED THE MAPPING DISCREPANCY.
THE REASONING ORDINANCES THAT WERE ADOPTED IN 1982, 1985 WERE NEVER REPEALED, AMENDED OR INVALIDATED, AND THEY REMAINED IN FULL COURSE IN EFFECT.
IT'S JUST THAT THE MAPS MATCH WITH THOSE ORDINANCES THAT WERE ADOPTED.
GIVEN THAT THE TOWN HOUSES WERE LAWFULLY CONSTRUCTED, THEY ALSO REMAINED.
I EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR BECAUSE THE COUNTY WOULD NOT APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE THAT RENDERED NEXT DEVELOP CONFORMING.
STAFF ALSO CONFIRMED THAT WHILE THE SECOND PHASE WAS PROPERLY REZONED TO R_3 BY RESOLUTION, THE ZONING LOTS WERE NEVER UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT ACT.
LOOK AT THE NEXT SEVERAL PAGES.
PLEASE GO OVER THE EXACT CORRECTION TO THE ZONING CODE WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE THAT WILL TAKE PLACE WITH THE ZONING MAPS.
I LIST OUT THE ACTUAL SECTIONS IN THE WORDING.
THIS IS ALL BASICALLY BEING PUT BACK IN.
THIS IS WHAT WAS IN ORIGINALLY THAT WAS TAKEN OUT WHEN THE R_3 WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE ORDINANCE.
UNDER ARTICLE 1, THIS GOES OVER THE DEFINITION OF THE DWELLINGS OF WHAT THE TOWN IS.
ARTICLE 3 IS ABOUT THE MASS, WHICH GIVES ME THE R_3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND THEN PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DISTRICT.
I'LL PUT BACK IN THE RD DEFINITION FOR THAT.
THEN YOU GET INTO THE REGULATIONS FOR TOWNHOUSES.
GO OVER THE TOWNHOUSE, BUILDING STRICT LINES, WHAT ACCESSES THE TOWNHOUSE YOU HAVE THE ACCESS AND THE OFF STREET PARKING THAT IS REQUIRED.
>> OLIVIA, I MAY WANT TO MENTION IN THAT ACCESS DRIVES AND OFF STREET PARKING, THE EXACT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED JUST TO UPDATE NEWER INFORMATION, LIKE IT REFERRED TO THE OLD ARTICLE NAME IN THE ANNOTATED CODE, SO WE UPDATED WITH THE CURRENT NAME OF THAT ARTICLE, AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE.
IT HAD REFERENCED THE COUNTY ENGINEER.
WE DON'T HAVE A COUNTY ENGINEER.
THERE'S NO POINT IN PUTTING THAT BACK.
WE REPLACED THAT WITH THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
>> YES. WE DID HAVE TO UPDATE. [INAUDIBLE] PUT SOMETHING BACK IN THAT.
ALSO, MAINTENANCE OF COMMON LAM FACILITIES.
THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT, WHICH JUST TALKS ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF TOWNHOUSES AND WHAT IS REQUIRED.
THE USE REGULATION CHARTS WILL HAVE TO BE PUT BACK IN, WHICH ALSO GOES OVER [INAUDIBLE] TABS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO TESTIMONIES TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO QUESTION BUT I CAN. [INAUDIBLE]
YOU DIDN'T JUST PUT THE LANGUAGE BACK IN.
YOU MADE SURE IT WAS CURRENT WITH TODAY?
>> EVERYTHING IS THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE UPDATES TO REFERENCE WHAT IS CURRENT.
>> DO THE SETBACKS MATCH THE NEW SETBACKS,
[01:25:02]
THAT WE JUST CHANGED THAT?>> NO. THESE ARE OUR MINIMUM SETBACKS THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY.
WHEN WE DID THE SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACK, WE DIDN'T HAVE R_3 AT THE TIME.
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE R_3 IN THE ZONING CODE.
>> WAS R_3 CREATED JUST FOR THIS PROPERTY?
>> THERE WERE OTHER R_3 ZONINGS IN THE COUNTY, BUT THEY WERE VERY MINIMAL, WHAT WE HAD.
THIS WAS ONE, I BELIEVE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME R_3 DOWN.
THIS WAS CHANGED TO ONE TO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN THERE.
>> RIGHT, BACK IN THE EARLY 90S, IT WAS R_1.
>> THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME OTHER AREAS.
>> IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT BECAUSE THE SETBACKS WERE ONLY CHANGED FOR R_1 AND R_2, AND THERE WAS NO R_3.
UNLESS WE GO BACK OR WE WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE NOW, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] ARE THEY CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE CHANGED R_2 AND R_1?
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE GENERATING THIS TO MAKE JUST FOR THAT PROPERTY? WE HAVE ANOTHER PIECE OF R_3 PROPERTY AND I WANT TO BUY IT AND PUT TOWNHOUSES ON IT.
DO I HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK LIKE THE FARM THAT WE JUST CHANGED, OR IS THIS GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHATEVER? I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE R_3.
>> IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT DETERMINATION BACK THEN BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T EVALUATING R_3.
WE PUT IT BACK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS IN PLACE WHEN THE ZONING WAS APPROVED.
NOW, IF THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SAY, WE WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS TO EVALUATE REDUCING THE R_3 WHEN WE PUT IT BACK IN THERE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONINGS AND MAKE THAT 10 FOOT FROM THE SIDE AND REAR, THAT COULD BE A CHANGE AND COULD BE CONSIDERED BE PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
>> IF IT'S 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE NOW IS 20 FEET FOR THE REAR, AND I THINK 25.
>> FOR THE FRONT. 25 FOR THE FRONT.
>> YES, THE CHANGE WOULD BE TO MAKE IT 10 FEET FOR THE REAR.
>> IT'S ALREADY EIGHT FOR THE ONE FAMILY, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE 10, AND THEN TWO FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY ARE 15 AND 25.
>> HAVE YOU DETERMINE R_3 MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
>> ARE YOU TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE DENSITY?
>> WHAT THAT IS IS R_3 PERMIT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE COLUMN TITLED GROSS DENSITY OR UNITS PER ACRE.
IN THE R_3, IT SAYS, WE ALLOW ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS, TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS, AND THREE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
IT SAYS, IF YOU ARE A ONE FAMILY DWELLING IN THE R_3 DISTRICT, THAT FIRST LINE IS YOUR SETBACKS.
IF YOU ARE TWO OR MORE, IT'S THE NEXT LINE DOWN IS YOUR SETBACKS.
>> BUT I AGREE IT'S DIFFERENT THAN R_1.
>> R_1 AND R_2. WHAT IS THAT NOW?
>>TEN. TEN ON THE REAR AND SIDES.
>> WELL, WE WERE ONLY LOOKING AT THIS AS PUTTING BACK WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE.
YOU MADE A GOOD POINT THAT WE WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT.
>> UPDATING THAT ANY FURTHER TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WHEN WE PASSED THAT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.
CERTAINLY, IF THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE THAT CONSISTENT, THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING SETBACKS TO 10 FEET.
>> WOULDN'T THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGS SUPERSEDE THAT?
>> BECAUSE THOSE ARE 25, 10 AND 20.
>> YES. LESLIE DID POINT OUT IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGS, THOSE SETBACKS ARE ALSO CALLED OUT IN THERE, SO WE WOULD WANT TO UPDATE IN THERE AS WELL.
IT'S ACTUALLY ADDRESSED IN TWO AREAS OF THE CODE.
IN THE DESIGN TABLE AND IN THE ACTUAL SUPPLEMENTARY REGS.
>> WHY IS IT IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY?
>> I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S INTERESTING THAT IT'S ACTUALLY IN THERE, BECAUSE USUALLY, THEY'RE MORE RESTRICTIVE IF THEY'RE IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGS.
THEY'RE NOT THE MINIMUM STANDARDS ARE.
THAT'S ODD THAT THEY WERE PUT IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH.
>> CONSISTENT. THE REAR OR ONE AND IT IS 20 FEET.
[01:30:02]
>> THIS IS PROBABLY MOST SIMILAR TO WHAT WOULD BE R_2.
R_2 HAS THERE'S TWO SETBACKS FOR THAT TOO.
YOU'VE GOT THE SINGLE FAMILY IN AN R_2 IS A EIGHT FOOT SIDE AND A 10 FOOT REAR, AND THEN IF IT'S TWO FAMILY, IT'S 10 AND 10.
THIS IS SIMILAR IN R_3 SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD DO A SINGLE FAMILY WITHIN THE R_3.
WE COULD MATCH WHAT THE R_2 ZONING DISTRICT IS, IS HAVE EIGHT AND 10, AND 10 AND 10.
THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE THAN THE 15 AND 25 AND THE 8.5.
>> WHAT IS THE FRONT [INAUDIBLE].
>> BUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGS SAY THEY HAVE TO HAVE 25.
NO. FOR R_3, OR FOR TOWNHOUSES.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IS BECAUSE R_3 PERMITS OTHER THAN TOWNHOUSES.
YOU CAN HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY OR A DUPLEX OR A TOWNHOUSE.
THE MINIMUM STANDARDS IN THE TABLE, SAY 30 FOOT FOR THE FRONT YARD, BUT THE SUPPLEMENTARY THE REASON IT'S IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY REGS IS BECAUSE THEY'VE REDUCED IT FOR THE TOWNHOUSES.
IF YOU CONSIDER YOUR THREE PLUS AS A TOWNHOUSE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU CALL A THREE PLUS? I GUESS IT COULD BE A CONDO.
THAT WOULD MEAN THESE ARE SPECIFIC TO TOWNHOUSES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE DON'T HAVE A CONDO IN.
THAT'S WHAT I CONSIDER THESE MORE THAN TOWNHOUSES.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER THEM TOWNHOUSES, KEITH YOU CONSIDER?
>> THEY'RE ALL UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP.
>> MORE LIKE A CONDOMINIUM THAN ME.
>> BUT A CONDO, YOU WOULD OWN.
YOU WOULD ACTUALLY OWN THAT UNIT? WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? STEWART. WHEN A CONDOMINIUM, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY OWN THE UNIT WHERE THE TOWNHOUSE IS OWNED OVERALL BY.
>> HE APARTMENTS THAT'S WHEN YOU THINK OF A CONDOMINIUM, YOU THINK LIKE A APARTMENT COMPLEX.
>> I THINK I WOULDN'T CONSIDER TOWNHOUSE.
NORMALLY IS A HOUSE THAT'S JUST JOINED TOGETHER.
>> BUT THIS IS MORE OF AN APARTMENT.
>> HOW THE DEFINITION APARTMENT IS.
WE HAVE A SERIES OF THREE OR MORE ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS SEPARATED FROM ONE ANOTHER BY CONTINUOUS VERTICAL WALLS.
THESE WELL, THESE AREN'T THOSE WILL BE APARTMENTS.
THAT INDIVIDUAL HOUSE, YOU GOT ONE ENTRANCE.
NEW ONES OUT IN MALLARD LANDING. THAT'S WHAT THOSE ARE.
>> AGAIN, THESE REGULATIONS WERE CREATED IN THE 90S WHEN THIS COMPLEX WAS BUILT FOR THIS COMPLEX.
>> WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TOWNHOUSE REGULATIONS.
THEY WERE CREATED AT THE SAME TIME, THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO DO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
>> WELL, DO WE DO THAT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE REZONING? IS THAT SOMETHING LIKE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT DEFINITIONS OF, WE NEED TO ADD SOMETHING OVER AND ABOVE TOWNHOUSE.
>> SUPPLEMENTARY REGS WOULD NEED TO BE UPDATED.
AT THE PRESENT MOMENT, WE WANT TO CORRECT THE MAPPING ERROR AND GET THIS BACK IN THERE SO THAT IT'S LEGAL, BUT DEFINITELY SOMETHING WHEN WE DO OUR COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REWRITE, WE WANT TO REEVALUATE.
>> THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE IF THIS IS GOING FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT.
>> DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THOSE NUMBERS NOW FOR THAT?
>> OR JUST CHANGE IT. IN OTHER WORDS, IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.
>> YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE THE SIDE IN THE REAR TO 10 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
>> JUST LEAVE THE TOWNHOUSE REGULATE.
THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGS IS FOR TOWNHOUSES SPECIFICALLY.
R_3, THOSE SETBACKS ARE IF YOU'RE DOING A SINGLE FAMILY OR EVEN A DUPLEX IN.
THE SUPPLEMENTARY REGS ARE JUST FOR TOWNHOUSES.
YOU COULD JUST LEAVE THE 25 FOR THE TOWNHOUSES AND CHANGE FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY THE DUPLEX WITHIN THE R_3, SIMILAR TO WHAT R_2 IS.
I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
>> THEN LEAVE THE THREE FAMILY.
>> THEN WHEN YOU GET MORE, HAVE A LARGER SETBACK BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT MORE DENSITY, AND YOU MAY NEED MORE YARD SPACE. I DON'T KNOW.
>> IT DEPENDS. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DWELLING UNITS?
>> AGAIN, WE ONLY HAVE THE ONE OR THE TWO PARCELS THAT ARE ZONED ARE THREE.
>> LIKE IN THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW.
>> YEAH, 15 FOOT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.
>> COMPARED TO 10, 25, COMPARED TO 10 HERE.
>> UNLESS SOMEONE COMES IN AND REQUESTS A REZONING TO A PROPERTY OF R_3,
[01:35:02]
WE ONLY HAVE TWO THAT ARE CURRENTLY BUILT ON.>> IN A GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A FACILITY THAT HAS TURN ON IT, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED MORE SPACE ON THE SIDE ANYWAY, FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PURPOSES.
>> YOU GET INTO MORE STRINGENT FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS NOW THAN WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WHEN THESE WERE CONSTRUCTED THAT'S GOING TO DICTATE PROBABLY A GREATER SETBACK.
>> SO IN THE R3 LANGUAGE, CHANGE THE SETBACK SO THAT THEY MATCH WHAT WE HAVE EXISTING IN R2, BUT LEAVE THE TOWNHOUSE? YEAH. SUPPLEMENTAL REGS AS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SELF DAYS DESIGN REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RIGHT.
R TWO, BUT LEAVE THE SUPPLEMENTARY REGS FOR TOWNHOUSES THE SAME.
>> WELL, I THINK [INAUDIBLE] MAY BE PROPOSING REDUCING BOTH TO TEN.
>> I'M THINKING, JUST TRYING TO NOT DO DOUBLE WORK OVER AND OVER.
THE PROPERTY OUT ON LEGION ROAD THAT THEY JUST BUILT ALL THOSE HOUSES.
THAT WAS IN THE COUNTY, RIGHT? OR NO? IS THAT IN TOWN? ACROSS FROM HERSEY.
>> CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY R THREE-ZONED PROPERTY EXCEPT THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT DAY SPRING IS ALREADY BUILT ON.
OKAY. SO UNLESS THESE REGULATIONS WOULD ONLY IMPACT SOMEONE THAT WOULD COME IN AND HAVE THEIR PROPERTY REZONED TO R THREE, RIGHT.
>> A MISTAKE GOING ON THE PROPERTY.
>> NOW, WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN? WAY, WAY, WAY DOWN THE ROAD? WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN IS WE GET A MUNICIPAL COUNTY-RUN SEWER SYSTEM AT THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY, OR IN WEST DENTON, LET'S SAY, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE YOU COULD POTENTIALLY GO IN AND ZONE IT R THREE, LIKE THIS.
BUT I MEAN, REALISTICALLY, ON AND ON SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEM ON A SEPTIC, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
>> RIGHT. CORRECT. UNLESS YOU WAS ADJACENT TO THE TOWN.
>> YOU COULD CONVINCE THE TOWN TO LET YOU TAP ON THE SYSTEM.
>> WHICH IS NOT OUT OF THE QUESTION.
>> WHICH, AT THAT POINT, THEY PROBABLY JUST WANT TO ANNEX YOU?
>> YEAH, THEY WOULD WANT TO ANNEX IT.
>> YEAH, BUT IS THE COUNTY GOING TO LET THEM ANNEX IT?
>> THERE YOU GO. SO A BIG [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT NEEDS THE CONSENT OF THE LANDOWNERS, TOO, THOUGH, PERCENTAGE OF THE LANDOWNERS.
>> YEAH. BUT THE ATTITUDE OF MOST TOWNS ARE, IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU SEWER, WE'RE GOING TO GET YOUR TAX.
>> ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE WATER AND SEWER ALLOCATIONS ARE SO HARD FOR THEM TO OBTAIN.
>> AND ONCE YOU'RE FINISHED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE WILL BE GOING INTO THE ZONING CODE REWRITE.
AND WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS IN DEPTH.
ALL OF IT. MATT AND I, FOR YEARS, HAVE KEPT A LIST OF ALL THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO AMEND IN THE CODE.
BEEN ALMOST YEAR AND I HAVE WRITTEN ALL OVER THIS AS [INAUDIBLE]
>> EVERY FEW PROJECTS BRINGS TO LIGHT SOMETHING THAT, THAT'S OUTDATED.
WHY DOES THAT SAY THAT? WE NEED TO BRING THIS CURRENT, OR WE'RE MISSING THIS IN OUR CODE.
SO THOSE ARE ALL THINGS WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON.
>> SO DID WE MAKE IT, WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THIS AS WRITTEN.
OR ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE IT TO R TWO NUMBER?
>> I THINK IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE R1 AND R2.
>> YEAH. YEAH. SO WE DON'T FORGET ABOUT IT DOWN THE ROAD. YEAH.
>> BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT POPS UP.
>> AND THEN IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REG, KEEP THEM THE SAME?
>> WELL, IT'S GOT 25 TOWNHOUSES.
>> THE FRONT YARD IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN.
>> LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN HERE.
>> WE DIDN'T ADJUST THE FRONT YARDS WHEN WE MADE THOSE.
>> BUT YOU'RE RIGHT WITH THE STORMWATER REGULATIONS. IT'S NOT.
>> THERE'S PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH SETBACK.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A LARGER SETBACK TO FIT THOSE FEATURES IN ANYWAY.
>> YEAH. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO AMEND THE DESIGN TABLE TO MAKE THE MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR YARD TEN FEET, CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER R1 AND R2 SETBACKS.
[01:40:03]
AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS WOULD STAY THE SAME.>> MINIMUM SIDE AND [INAUDIBLE].
[LAUGHTER] I'M NOT GOING TO EVEN TRY TO SEE IT AGAIN.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SAID?
>> THAT'S THE MOTION. I SECOND.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND.
AND THAT IS TO FORWARD IT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION WITH COMMISSIONER BREEDINGS.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGING THE SETBACKS.
WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TODAY? YEAH.
ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION PASSED. I'M GLAD WE COULD GIVE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER SOME WORK FOR THEIR NEXT MEETING.
THEY HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY SHORT.
WOULD YOU LIKE SOMETHING? MAYBE WE CAN GET ANOTHER SAY.
>> MAYBE WE CAN SAY [INAUDIBLE] TOO, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
[BZA Update]
[Department Update]
YOU HAD A GOOD CHRISTMAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>> IT'S NEW YEAR. IT'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION COMING, BUDGET TIME, ALL THE THINGS.
WE STILL HAVE TEXT AMENDMENTS COMING.
>> WHAT WE NEED TO BEAT UP ON THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT? [LAUGHTER]
>> WE NEED COUPLE OF PLANNERS, A COUPLE OF INSPECTORS, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER FOUR OR FIVE.
>> WE TALKED ABOUT AN INSPECTOR LAST MEETING.
PLANNING COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION.
ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING THEY WANT TO SAY? OKAY.
>> I WILL REALLY QUICKLY POINT OUT THE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN THINK ABOUT DOING THE FULLY CHURCH CHAPEL THING, THEIR COMMUNITY BUILDING.
MAYBE SOME TYPE OF CONSIDERATION IN OUR COUNTY CODE FOR A PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT HAD BEEN REMOVED WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME, THAT YOU COULD REPLACE IT IN THAT FOOTPRINT, MAYBE TO ALLEVIATE.
WHAT WE HAD HAPPENED WAS [INAUDIBLE] CHAPEL HAD REMOVED A COMMUNITY BUILDING THAT HAD WATER DAMAGE OR TERMITE DAMAGE, SOMETHING.
AND THEY WANTED TO REPLACE IT WITH A PAVILION.
AND THE PAVILION THEY WANTED TO PUT THE PAVILION BACK IN THE SAME LOCATION.
>> WAS IT ANY BIGGER? WE DON'T KNOW.
>> I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXISTING SIZE WAS.
>> WAS THIS FULLY CHANNEL? I DON'T FULLY REMEMBER.
YEAH. SO THEY WANTED TO PUT IT BACK IN THE SAME SPOT, AND WE HAD A FRONT SETBACK OF 40 FEET, AND IT WAS ONLY GOING TO BE 32 FEET.
HERE'S THE OTHER THING WE COULD DO.
POTENTIALLY, IF YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT DOESN'T MEET THE SETBACK ALREADY.
IT WAS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE EXISTING CHURCH IS ONLY 20 FEET OFF OF THE ROAD.
THEY WANTED TO PUT A STRUCTURE BACK AT 30.
>> THE CHURCH IS ON A DIFFERENT ROAD.
SO THEY HAVE TWO FRONTS, 240-FOOT FRONTS, AND THE CHURCH FRONTS READ.
>> IT WAS AN OPEN-SIDED PAVILION.
YEAH. YEAH. IS WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS.
>> BUT WELL, IT WAS JUST OUR CODE.
>> IT DOESN'T MEET THE SETBACK.
I SAID, GIVE THEM THE PERMIT. BUT SHE MOVED IT.
THEY HAD ROOM WITHOUT TREES; TAKE IT TREES DOWN.
THEY MOVED IT BACK EIGHT FEET, AND IT WAS FINE.
BUT I COULD SEE IT BEING JUST A DISASTER IN A SITUATION WHERE WE COULDN'T USE COMMON SENSE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? B OUR CODE WAS TOO RIGID, AND WE HAD TO ADHERE TO THAT.
JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
>> THE OTHER OPTION THEY HAVE IS WE DID CREATE REGULATIONS.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE YEAR MATT, THAT WE ADDED THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS AGO THAT WAS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THAT, THE ONLY OPTION TO SEEK
[01:45:03]
A REDUCTION IN A SETBACK WAS THROUGH A VARIANCE THROUGH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.AND WE CHANGED OUR REGULATIONS A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
IF IT DIDN'T GO ABOVE 33 AND A 30% OF THE REQUIRED SETBACK.
SO THE INTENTION WAS, IT WOULD BE SMALL IN NATURE, OR THE AMOUNT OF SETBACK THAT A PLANNING DIRECTOR COULD APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY VERSUS GOING THROUGH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WITH VERY STRICT STANDARDS FOR A VARIANCE, WHERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT DID NOT HAVE THOSE STRICT STANDARDS, AS LONG AS IT WAS A SMALL AND MINOR VARIANCE, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR CAN GRANT THAT.
AND IT ALSO IS A CHEAPER PROCESS, LESS LENGTHIER PROCESS TO GET THAT APPROVAL.
RIGHT. SO THERE IS THAT OPTION THAT SOMEONE WOULD HAVE IS LONG AS IT WAS LESS THAN 33 AND A 30%, THEY COULD APPLY FOR AN ADJUSTMENT.
AND THE PROCESS SIMPLY IS, WE NOTIFY THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.
THEY HAVE 20 DAYS TO RESPOND OR REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
AND THEN THE DECISION IS ON THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
AND I WOULD NOT HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE STRICT CRITERIA THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO WHEN GRANTING A VARIANCE.
>> AND WE COULD TAKE THAT AGREE KIND OF MASSAGE, THAT AGREEMENT A LITTLE BIT.
>> I THINK THE DETERMINATION WAS THAT WAS A MINOR.
>> ONE THIRD THE SETBACK WAS A MINOR THAT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY.
IF YOU NEED A GREATER SETBACK THAN THAT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> IF WE CHANGE SOMETHING, THEN THAT APPLIES TO EVERYBODY.
YEAH, I MEAN, WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT JUST MAKES COMMENTS.
>> DIDN'T YOU SAY THEY TORE A BUILDING DOWN?
>> AND NOW THEY COME IN AND SAY, "HEY, WE'D LIKE TO PUT A PAVILION BACK.".
>> SO IF THEY WOULD HAVE COME IN AND SAID, "HEY, WE'RE GONNA TEAR THIS BUILDING DOWN BECAUSE IT'S GOT DAMAGED, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT A PAVILION BACK IN ITS PLACE."
>> WOULD THAT HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING, OR.
>> THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THEY STILL.
>> THEY STILL WOULD HAVE HAD TO MEET THE SETBACK.
>> ONCE YOU REMOVE IT, YOU LOST ANY NON-COMMIT GRANDFATHERING OF THE STRUCTURE.
>> I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE SOMETHING LIKE THE ADMINISTRATOR ABLE TO SAY, YES. COME, AND.
>> YOU'VE GOT A BUILDING THAT'S GETTING READY TO FALL DOWN, AND YOU WANT TO PUT ONE BACK IN THE PLACE OF IT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S AN OPTION THERE.
>> I MEAN, IF YOU'VE GOT A HOUSE THAT'S ROTTEN AND WAS BUILT.
>> YEAH. THE HARD PART IS, IS THAT WE CAN ALL LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, YES, THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR HOWEVER MANY DECADES THAT IT'S BEEN THERE.
IT'S NOT BEEN PROBLEMATIC. IT DOESN'T.
I MEAN, IF I WERE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT, THERE'S ALL THE REASONS WHY I WOULD MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT TO SAY, THIS COULD BE PUT BACK IN THE SAME PLACE.
BUT OUR CODE DOES HAVE A SETBACK.
IT'S REQUIRED, AND WE OPEN THE DOOR FOR ONE; WE OUGHT TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR ALL TO DO THAT.
BUT THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BZA WAS GETTING KIND OF INUNDATED WITH A LOT OF THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR SMALL.
>> SMALL VARIANCES, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE ONLY TWO FEET OVER THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
SO THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO SAY, UP TO THIS AMOUNT, WE CAN DO THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY AND NOT.
>> IF SOMEBODY'S LIVING IN A HOUSE THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE 1960S, AND IT'S IN VIOLATION, AND A TREE FALLS DOWN ACROSS IT AND BUST THE HOUSE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM FIX IT.
>> YOU CAN REPAIR UP TO A PERCENTAGE.
>> THERE'S SECTIONS FOR NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES ON WHERE YOU CAN REPAIR UP TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE IF FOUND.
>> THE THING IS, WHEN THAT TREE FALLS ON IT, AND YOU SAY, OPPORTUNITY, I WANT TO ADD ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR FOOT ON MY HOUSE AND MAKE THAT BEDROOM BIGGER.
AND IT CROSSES OVER THAT PROPERTY LINE THROUGH THAT SETBACK BY TWO FEET.
>> THAT REQUIRES [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT IF ONE BURNT DOWN, IF WE HAD A STRUCTURE THAT WAS IN A SEBACK AND IT BURNED DOWN COMPLETELY, WOULD WE ALLOW THEM TO BUILD IT BACK THERE?
>> BASED ON THE LANGUAGE IN CODE?
>> IT'S 50% OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE.
>> SO WE HAD THAT COME UP WITH.
>> BUT THAT'S HOW [OVERLAPPING].
[01:50:05]
>> AGAIN, THEY LOST THEIR NON-CONFORMITY 'CAUSE IT BURNT DOWN.
>> ALSO, LOOK AT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE THAT YOU CAN ADD ONTO THE STRUCTURE BASED ON A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE ACCEPTANCE FOR FOOT PROVIDED THAT IT DID NOT SEE EITHER THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE, READING PERFORMING, OR IF THEY HAVE THE ROOM, THAT PORTION NEEDS THE FRONT SETBACK THAT'S [INAUDIBLE]
ALL RIGHT. WELL, MAYBE IT'S REPLACING TIME.
YOU KNOW, OR IN THE REPLACE WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT OR SOMETHING.
WITHIN A PRESCRIBED TIME FRAME, YOU KNOW, LIKE, YOU GOT TO PROVE, MAYBE NOT.
YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T IN THAT CASE, IF YOU'VE GOT A HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO LET THEM HAVE SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR, MAYBE SOMETHING, SOME TIME FRAME.
>> IF YOU DO IT WITHIN 12 MONTHS, IF IT'S BETWEEN ONE YEAR AND THREE YEARS, YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND ASK FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DO IT.
AND THEN AFTER THREE YEARS, YOU LOSE THE NON-CONFORMITY.
THAT'S THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED CURRENTLY.
>> WHICH IS GOOD. I MEAN, IT GIVES YOU ALL THE WAY UP TO THREE YEARS TO HAVE SOME OPTION, WHETHER IT'S SIMPLY PERMIT OR DO Z AND GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
>> THIS HAS ONLY COME UP ONCE IN THE THREE YEARS AND ONE MONTH THAT I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE, BUT IT JUST.
>> WE'VE BEFORE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T GET THE NON-CONFORMING SECTION IN CODE, I THINK I'VE PROBABLY LOOKED AT FIVE OR SIX TIMES SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
>> WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE UTILIZE THE STRAIN OF ADJUSTMENT SINCE WE'VE ADOPTED THAT.
THAT HAS YOU KNOW MINIMUM, THE AMOUNT OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BY BEING ABLE TO DO THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY.
>> WELL, IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THAT.
I MEAN, THAT SOUNDS LIKE COMMON SENSE.
>> WELL, WE'RE JUST LUCKY THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO FIT IT IN THERE BECAUSE IF NOT.
>> BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I HAD.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? MOTION TO ADJOURN?
[Meeting Adjourned]
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> MISS COLLINS HAS MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
IF SECOND THAT MOTION, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.
WE STAND ADJOURNED. A
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.