[00:00:01]
SURE.[ Planning Commission Regular Meeting on June 11, 2025.]
ALL RIGHT.CALL THIS MEETING OF THE AIMA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH MR. PETIT, MR. WHITE, AND MR. ROGERS.
UM, MOVE ON TO ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY, UM, ADDITIONS OR TERM SUBTRACTIONS? I HAVE MOVE TO ADOPT THE AGENDA.
THE BOTTOM SAYS JULY 11TH IS OUR NEXT MEETING.
SO A MOTION SECOND AND SECOND.
MOVE ON TO THE MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 14TH.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS? NOPE.
GET A MOTION TO ADOPT AS WRITTEN.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDS IS WRITTEN.
HAS ANYBODY SIGNED UP AND SPOOK? NO.
WE'LL CLOSE THE COM PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS.
AND WE HAVE NO OLD BUSINESS SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS.
GETTING GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
GOOD, GOOD EVENING, SHAUNTICE RIDLEY COUNTY PLANNER.
SO WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU FIRST THIS EVENING, UM, PROPER STATEMENT, PROPER STATEMENT, AMENDMENT FOR REZONING CASE 0 0 0 0 5 7 DASH 2025.
THE APPLICANT IS DALE RBA, PROPERTY OWNERS ALSO DALE RBA AND ANNA RBA.
TAX MAP NUMBERS 1 25 DASH TWO DASH B ONE AND TAX MAP NUMBER 1 25 DASH TWO DASH C.
IT IS IN DISTRICT NINE, SUPERVISOR MAJOR, AND COMMISSIONER ROGERS.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL WITH PROFFERS.
UH, THE FUTURE LAND USE RECOMMENDATION IS AG.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE CURRENT PROFFER STATEMENT TO GAIN ACCESS TO COUNTY LINE ROAD.
THE ADJACENT ZONING IS AG RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL.
AND THE ADJACENT USES ARE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VACANT AG AND INDUSTRIAL.
SO HERE'S AN AERIAL FEATURE, LAND USE SHOWING A CURRENT, UH, ZONING SHOWING RESIDENTIAL WITH PROFFERS AND SOME KEY FACTS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.
UH, BOTH PARCELS WERE PART OF A 2006 REZONING CASE.
THE PROFFER STATEMENT THAT WENT ALONG WITH THAT RESTRICTED VEHICULAR ACCESS TO COUNTY LINE ROAD.
UM, SINCE THEN, WELL, LET ME BACK UP.
UH, THIS REZONING CASE WAS FOR A SUBDIVISION.
THOSE TWO PROPERTIES WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DIVIDED INTO 17 SEPARATE BUILDING LOT THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
THE, UH, PREVIOUS OLDER OWNER SOLD IT TO OUR APPLICANT, MR. RBA.
UM, HE HAS NO PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE THOSE TWO PARCELS.
AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS HIS PARCELS FROM COUNTY LINE ROAD.
UM, HIS APPLICANT, HIS AGENT HAS, UH, ALREADY SUBMITTED, UM, A NEW PROPER REVISED PROPER STATEMENT.
AND STAFF WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A JULY 9TH PUBLIC HEARING.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 9TH.
A MOTION A SECOND FOR JULY 9TH FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OKAY, SO NEXT I'M SORRY, DID YOU WANT TO ANNOUNCE BEFORE I MOVE INTO IT? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T WANNA OVERSPEAK, I JUST KEPT GOING.
UM, NOW WE HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT? YES.
ALRIGHT, LET GET A PIECE OF PAPER.
WE, WE HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1 0 6 ZONING, ADDING DEFINITIONS AND METHOD OF CALCULATING SIGNS AREA AND AMEND CERTAIN SIGNS PROVISIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
AND I'M ALSO GONNA GO ON AND DO HEIGHT, SO I'M GONNA DO 'EM BOTH TOGETHER.
SO TONIGHT FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING, UH, THE SAME THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS.
[00:05:01]
UM, SO WE HAVE CLARIFIED THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT OF AND DEFINED A METHOD OF MEASURING HEIGHT.THEN WE HAVE THE DEFINITION ADDING A DEFINITION, UH, FOR THE METHOD OF CALCULATING SIGN AREA IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
BOTH OF THESE ARE COMING FROM CHAPTER 1 0 6 TITLED ZONING.
UM, AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A STARTING POINT FOR OUR MEASUREMENTS, BUT NO MEASURE TWO POINT.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DEFINE.
AND WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO RIGHT SIZE THE AMOUNT OF SIGN AREA FOR INDUSTRIAL SITES, SO HAVING SIGNS THAT ARE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
AND, UH, BOTH OF THESE RESOLUTIONS CAME FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THEIR JANUARY 15TH, 2025 MEETING.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH BUILDING HEIGHT OF, SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, UM, AGAIN, WE HAVE A STARTING POINT.
UM, AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE STATES THAT STARTING POINT AT AVERAGE GRADE ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
AND WE DO NOT PLAN TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT END POINT.
AND THE, WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IS HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF OF A FLAT ROOF, THE DECK LINE OF A MANSER ROOF, MEAN LEVEL BETWEEN THE EAVES AND THE RIDGE FOR A GABLE HIP CONE GALE SHED.
UM, SO WITHOUT HAVING THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS, WITHOUT HAVING THIS SPECIFIED, WE HAVE SOME INCONSISTENT REVIEWS, CONFUSION FOR NOT ONLY, UH, THE APPLICANTS, BUT ALSO STAFF.
SO WE WANNA REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES AND, UM, HAVE CLEAR CONSISTENT MEASUREMENTS.
THIS IS JUST THE IMAGE OF SOME DIFFERENT ROOFTOP TYPES.
SO WE HAVE, UM, OUR SHED, OUR FLAT ROOF.
THE GABLE HIP GRAN, OR YEAH, GABLE HIP AND GRANVILLE.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE MANSER ROOF.
SO TO GET INTO SOME DEFINITIONS, SO WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING BUILDING HEIGHT OF, AND WE'VE ALSO ADDED BUILDING OVERALL HEIGHT OF, AND IF YOU NEED, WANTED TO FIND THESE IN YOUR PACKET.
THEY ARE LINES 80, THE 83 AND LINES 86 AND 87.
AND IF NEEDED, I CAN READ BOTH OF THESE DEFINITIONS INTO THE RECORD.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A NEED.
SO THIS IMAGE HERE, UM, I'M GONNA TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE NEED AND THE REASON WHY WE ARE DOING THE ADDING THESE TWO, UM, DEFINITIONS.
SO THIS HOME HERE IS A HOME THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
SO THE BUILDING OVERALL HEIGHT IS 40, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THE REQUIRED HEIGHT IS 35 FEET.
SO FOR A HOME THAT IS OVER 35 FEET WITHOUT THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BZA.
IF WE DO THE BUILDING HEIGHT OF THAT ADDITION, THAT, UM, DEFINITION WITH USING THE MIDPOINT, THIS HOME IS 33 FEET AT THE MIDPOINT, MEANING THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO TO THE BZA, PAY THE EXTRA FEES AND GO THROUGH A LONGER PROCESS.
SO THIS ADDS FLEXIBILITY FOR APPLICANTS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
THE SECOND HOME HAS THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.
SO EVEN AT A BUILDING OVER ALL HEIGHT OF 42, THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO GO TO THE VZA BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE NECESSARY SETBACKS, UM, FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
AND SO THE BZA WOULD HAVE TO ISSUE A VARIANCE? NOT FOR, NOT FOR EITHER ONE OF THESE.
SO THIS HOME WITHOUT THE TWO NEW DEFINITIONS MM-HMM
THE WAY THIS STANDS, IT WOULD NEED A VARIANCE.
BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF BUILDING OVERALL HEIGHT, WHICH WOULD BE THE 40 FEET AND BUILDING HEIGHT OF WHICH WOULD BE THE 33 FEET, THEY WOULD NOT NEED THAT VARIANCE BECAUSE AT THE MIDPOINT THEY'RE AT 33 FEET, WHICH IS UNDER THE REQUIRED 35 FEET THAT WOULD BE NEEDED.
SO THIS WOULD MEAN THEY WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE, WHICH WOULD CUT DOWN ON SOME OF THOSE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
DO YOU HAVE A LOT OF APPLICANTS THAT DON'T SEEM TO MEET THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT? YES.
AND SOMETIMES IT'S NOT BY MUCH.
[00:10:01]
WAY THE, UH, ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN NOW, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE BZA.DOES ANY OTHER COUNTY MEASURE THEIR HEIGHT OF THEIR BUILDINGS LIKE THIS? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHTY, WE WILL MOVE ON.
SO, OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO HEIGHT, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT? UM, MAX STRUCTURE HEIGHT, CURRENTLY 12 FEET OR ONE STORY, UH, STAFF AND ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE DECIDED LAST MONTH TO GO WITH A HIGH MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 18 FEET ACROSS ALL DISTRICTS.
SO THAT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, UM, IN THE AG DISTRICT AS WELL.
AND MOVING ONTO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE AG DISTRICT.
UM, IT ALSO CAME UP THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE EXCEPTIONS, MORE EXCEPTIONS FOR AG STRUCTURES THAT ARE NOT USED AS DWELLINGS CONTAIN NO SIGNS OR ADVERTISEMENTS IN ESSENTIAL FARMING.
SO A COUPLE SLIDES FROM HERE, WE'LL GO INTO THAT A LITTLE MORE.
AND THEN ALSO IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS CURRENTLY 35 FEET, UM, WITH ADDITIONAL HEIGHTS, UM, SUBJECT TO ZONING APPROVAL, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL.
SO WE HAVE PROPOSED TO AMEND THAT LANGUAGE TO STATE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY, WITHIN HIS DISCRETION APPROVE THE HEIGHT OVER 35 FEET UP TO A MAXIMUM MAXIMUM OF 100 FEET.
PROVIDED THAT ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE INCREASED BY ONE FOOT OR EACH FOOT OF HEIGHT OVER 35 FEET.
SO THESE ARE THE CURRENT EXCEPTIONS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
1 0 6 59 IS THE AG DISTRICT AND 1 0 6 84 IS RESIDENTIAL.
UM, THOSE, THESE ARE, THOSE, THESE ARE SOME REALLY GOOD EXCEPTIONS.
AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH AND SEEING WHAT SOME OTHER LOCALITIES ARE DOING, I DID FIND, UM, A FEW OTHER ITEMS THAT OUR CODE DOES NOT COVER THAT I KNOW THAT STAFF KNOWS THAT.
UM, WITHOUT THAT BEING ADDED, WE DO HAVE APPLICANTS, WE DO HAVE FARMERS WHO ARE HAVING TO GET, UM, PERMITS THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE AT THOSE EXCEPTIONS WERE ADDED INTO THE CODE.
AND THOSE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS ARE SILOS, GRAIN ELEVATORS, FEED STORAGE, MIXING STRUCTURES, CAN EX CAN BE ERECTED TO A HEIGHT, EXCEED NOT EXCEEDING 100 FEET.
UM, WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR MECHANICAL AND ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT.
AND, UM, THE THIRD WOULD BE OTHER NON DWELLING FARM BUILDINGS MAY EXCEED UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 45 FEET IF THEY HAVE THE NECESSARY REQUIRED SETBACKS.
SO THIS WILL OFFER SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THOSE OTHER AG STRUCTURES THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY LISTED IN OUR ORDINANCE.
SO OUR GOALS HERE WITH THESE, UM, ADDITIONS ARE TO IMPROVE CONSISTENCY, REDUCE THE NEED FOR VARIANCES, SIMPLIFY THE RE REVIEW PROCESS, PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY, AND AGAIN, UM, IT IS NOT STAFF'S INTENT TO INCREASE THE OVER HEIGHT, THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF ANY STRUCTURE.
SO THAT'S IT FOR, UH, DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT OF, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU ALL WOULD LIKE ME TO GO BACK OVER OR EXPLAIN? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR ELEVATORS TO BE 120 FEET OR MORE.
THEY'D HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE.
HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE WE GETTING BUILT? WELL, NOT A LOT.
YOU KNOW, MOST OF 'EM ARE GONNA BE OVER A HUNDRED FEET.
WELL, THAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING TO CHANGE? THEY HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE? YEAH, I MEAN, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU KNOW, A FARMER NEEDS TO KNOW UP FRONT THAT IF HE'S GONNA BUILD A A PARKS, A GRAIN MILL, HE IS GOTTA GET VARIANCE.
SO IS 125 AN AVERAGE OF THE STANDARD? YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT SOMEBODY WOULD BUILD NOW IS A HUNDRED 0.5, NOT A HUNDRED JUST A GRAIN SILO? I DON'T KNOW.
YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIED.
SO IF WE SAID A, A GRAIN SILO SPECIFICALLY.
[00:15:01]
YEAH.SO I I WOULD SAY WOULD NEED TO BE GREATER THAN A HUNDRED FEET.
NOW THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE ISN'T.
WELL IF WHEN YOU GET READY TO DO THE MOTION, IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE A CHANGE, THEN I WOULD SAY TO STATE IT IN THE MOTION MM-HMM
UH, LEAD PAM, A DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A A A COMMENT ABOUT PROCESS THAT AS YOU ALL KNOW, YOU'RE HERE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A, IF YOU ALL DISCUSS THE MAX HEIGHT OF A GRAIN ELEVATOR OR A SILO AND DETERMINE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THAT STRUCTURE ITSELF TO EXCEED A HUNDRED FEET, THEN YOU CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS THAT.
AND, AND AS, UM, MS. RIDLEY HAD MENTIONED, YOU COULD PUT THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION.
BUT AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE, UH, WE'VE WRITTEN IT ONE WAY AND, AND YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR SOMETHING ELSE, YOU CAN CERTAINLY, UM, YOU CAN STATE THAT YEAH.
IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE POINT.
MO MOST OF THEM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE HISTORICALLY THEY WERE SHORTER, BUT, BUT MOST OF THE NEW ONES NOW ARE NOT, ARE, ARE GONNA BE 120 FEET.
WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING IN THE PAST? YOU JUST WENT AND BUILT ONE? THEY WEREN'T AS NO, THEY WOULD, BUT, UM, THE, THE OLDER ONES NEVER DIDN'T HAVE ELEVATORS.
I MEAN, WHAT WAS THE PROCESS? IN OTHER WORDS, IF I'M DAVID EVANS AND I'M WANT TO PUT IN ANOTHER SILO, I WOULD JUST GO PUT IN ANOTHER ELEVATOR IN A SILO AND NOBODY WOULD ASK OR ANYTHING.
SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO HEIGHT REQUIREMENT ON THIS.
ALRIGHT, WELL, WHAT DO WE WANT? I WOULD, I WOULD SAY NO LESS THAN 125 FEET.
I THINK ONCE YOU FINISH YOUR PRESENTATION, WE'LL COME BACK AND DISCUSS NO LESS OR NO MORE, NO MORE THAN 25 FEET OR, WELL, I WOULD, WHATEVER THE WORDING IS, CHANGE THAT NUMBER TO OKAY.
SO MAYBE A RECORD TO A HEIGHT, NOT EXCEEDING 125 FEET, RIGHT? MM-HMM
FOR SPECIFICALLY GRAIN ELEVATORS.
AND DID YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THE SILOS AND WELL, I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY COME, THEY'RE KIND OF ALL THE SAME THROUGH WELL, THE, THE SILOS AREN'T GOING TO GET THAT.
SO JUST FOR THE GRAIN ELEVATORS.
THE ELEVATOR HAS TO BE THE TALLEST BECAUSE ALL THE FEED TO THE SILOS IS GRAVITY.
SO ERECTED TO A HEIGHT, NOT EXCEEDING 100 FEET FOR SILOS AND FEED STORAGE AND ERECTED TO A HEIGHT, NOT EXCEEDING 125 FEET FOR GREEN ELEVATORS.
I KNOW FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP OF MY TALLEST, YOU CALL 'EM SILO, I SAY GREEN BILLS IS 86 STEPS.
SO, AND THEY'RE NOT QUITE AFOOT EACH STEP.
UM, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT, UM, NEEDED TO BE DISCUSSED FOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF, OR RE-EXPLAINED? WE CAN MOVE ON.
IF NOTHING ELSE, WHILE, UH, MS. RIDLEY WAS GOING TO, UH, IF YEAH, WHILE MS. RIDLEY WAS GONNA PRESENT THESE TOGETHER, JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR EACH ONE.
SO HOWEVER YOU WANNA HANDLE THAT.
I THINK WE SHOULD DO EACH ONE.
I WAS GONNA ASK IF THEY, IF YOU, IT'S OKAY.
UM, SO I WAS GONNA SAY, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, NO MORE COMMENTS ON THIS ONE, IF WE COULD GET A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE MR OR TO GIVE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL.
IS THIS ONE, ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT DEFINITIONS? UH, THIS IS THE ONE FOR HEIGHT.
HEIGHT OF, UH, BUILDINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
SO I GUESS THE, UH, AN AG FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE ACCESSORY BUILDING BEING NO TALLER THAN THE MAIN BUILDING.
I, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE THE OTHER COMMISSIONER'S OPINION.
IF, UH, IF YOU HAVE A SMALL DOUBLE WIDE AND IT'S
[00:20:01]
14 FEET HIGH, THEN THAT, UM, A PUTTING IN THERE NO ACCESSORY BUILDING ABOVE MAIN BUILDING LIMITS THAT PERSON TO 14 FOOT.AND WHERE THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET IS PAGE 14.
SO I MEAN, AND IT READS NO ACCESSORY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, WHICH IS WITHIN 10 FEET OF ANY LOT LINE SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE MORE THAN 18 FEET HIGH.
ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE IN HEIGHT.
SO ANY PERSON IN AG WHO HAS A DOUBLE WIDE CANNOT PUT A, A LARGER RV SHED OR HORSE BARN ON THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT GETTING A VARIANCE.
WITHOUT GOING TO THE BZA TO GET A VARIANCE.
SO IT'S A DOUBLE STANDARD IN, IN, UM, AG TO HAVE THAT YOU CAN HAVE 18 FOOT OR YOU CAN, AND THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE LIMITED TO THE HEIGHT OF YOUR HOUSE.
I MEAN, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE HOME IS 14 FEET TALL, LET'S SAY THE POLE BARN IS THE 18 FEET, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BZA AND REQUEST THE VARIANCE FOR THE FOUR, THE FOUR FEET OF DIFFERENCE.
BUT IF THE PERSON HAD A 35 FOOT HOUSE AND WANTED TO GET AN 18 FOOT BARN, IT WOULD BE OKAY.
BUT I FEEL LIKE IN AG, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A HORSE BARN MAYBE, OR YOU WOULD MOVE TO A BIGGER LOT.
SO A SUGGESTION FOR THAT WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES TO STRIKE THAT IN AG ONLY.
SO I, JUST TO STRIKE TO STRIKE WHERE IT SAYS ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURE SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE IN HEIGHT.
IF, IF YOU GUYS ARE, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO AGREE, TALK ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN OFTEN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, PURCHASE LAND HERE.
I KNOW, I, I RECITE EXAMPLES AND THEY, THEY PUT A MOBILE HOME.
USUALLY THEY PUT THE BARN IN FIRST
THEN THEY PUT THE MOBILE HOME IN.
YEAH, THERE'S, YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
I DO UNDERSTAND IN RESIDENTIAL, WHEN THEY HAVE SMALL LOTS THAT YOU WOULD WANT THAT AND YOU EVEN THIS AND JUST TO BE SURE YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT LANGUAGE IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
SO WHEN THE MOTION IS, GO AHEAD QUESTION.
HAS THERE BEEN SIGNIFICANT CONCERN REGARDING THOSE TYPES BY YOUR OFFICE? YES.
AND MOST, MOST OF, UH, MOST OF THE HOMES IN THE COUNTY, MOST OF THE LAND IN THE COUNTY IS ZONED AG.
WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AS WE DO AG LOTS.
BUT IN RESIDENTIAL, IF, IF YOU HAVE A DOUBLE WIDE, UH, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE IF YOU WANTED TO GO HIGHER THAN THE DOUBLE WIDE.
SO JUST MAKE SURE WHEN THE MOTION IS MADE THAT WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION, UH, STATES TO STRIKE THAT LINE.
AND I GUESS WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER, I BELIEVE THERE'S AN EFFORT TO LOOK AT ZONING IN THE FUTURE.
SO HOW WOULD THIS BE IMPACTED IF WE LOOK AT REVISING SOME OF THE AG TO RESIDENTIAL AT SOME POINT IN TIME AS WELL? SO I GUESS WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT TOO.
YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD, GOOD POINT BECAUSE IF YOU BOUGHT IT IN AG AND HAD IT, THEN THEY
I THINK MOST, UH, AG THAT GOES RESIDENTIAL IS FOR SUBDIVISIONS LIKE EMPTY LOCKS AND THEY HAVE, AND THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS.
WHAT LINE WAS THAT FOR? THE, UM, IT'S 4 68.
IT'S 4 69, PAGE 14 OF THE BUILDING.
ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND HEIGHT AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.
[00:25:02]
I I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST TALK ABOUT IT.I MEAN, WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON IT OR, UH, IF, YOU KNOW, THE MORE MAJORITY DOESN NOT WANT TO STRIKE IT, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
YOU WANNA MOTION? SO WE WANNA SAY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE AG DISTRICT, I JUST DON'T KNOW.
I HAVEN'T FORMULATED THE VERBIAGE IN MY HEAD.
SO WE'RE DOING ONE THING FOR RESIDENTIAL AND ONE THING FOR AGRICULTURE, RIGHT? MM-HMM
18 FEET WOULD BE THE MAX HEIGHT AND AG 18 FEET WOULD BE THE MAX HEIGHT AND AG, REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, MAIN STRUCTURE, THE MAIN STRUCTURE MM-HMM
SO HOW DO YOU WANNA WORD THAT? I, I ASSUME YOU WOULD JUST STRIKE, UH, ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND HEIGHT YOU WOULD STRIKE, CORRECT? YEAH.
BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME CLARITY ON THAT PART.
SO WE HAVE, SO IS THAT THEN GO AHEAD IN THE MOTION.
THAT WILL BE PART OF THE MOTION.
WE ARE STRIKING ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND HEIGHT FOR THE AG DISTRICT.
AND THEN ALSO THE CHANGE, UM, UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS FOR, UM, THE HEIGHT.
NOW BRING THAT ONE GREEN UP FOR THE GREEN FOR THE GREEN ELEVATOR CHANGE UP TO 125.
UH, MARK, UH, DON'T WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FIRST ON THE, UH, INDIVIDUAL HOUSES, THE PREVIOUS SLIDE PRESENTATION THAT YOU HAD? NO, WE'RE DOING IT ALL IN ONE MOTION FOR HEIGHTS, AND THEN WE'RE DOING ONE MOTION FOR THE SIGNS FOR THE WHOLE THING, JUST TO SEND IT TO THE BOARD FOR THEM TO, OKAY.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET, SO I OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR, UM, SIGNAGE.
DID I DO? THEY'RE BOTH BEING PRESENTED TOGETHER, BUT THE MOTIONS HAVE TO BE SEPARATE.
SO NOW I NEED TO, UM, OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE SIGN.
WE DIDN'T GO OVER THE SIGN YET.
SO I, I DID THAT ONE BY WORDS.
WELL, I HAVE TO, IS ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT? NO.
SO WE PUBLIC, WE'LL PUT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CHAPTER 1 0 6, ZONING DEFINITIONS AND HEIGHT, CLARITY METHODS AND ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FOR WE DID THAT BACKWARDS, DIDN'T WE? YES, I DID A LOT BACKWARDS.
SO NOW WE'RE GONNA GET TO THE SAME PLACE IN THE, IN THE RACE.
SO NOW IF THERE'S A NO MORE SAME FINISH LINE, IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, UH, I MAKE A MOTION.
I, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UH, CHANGE THE HEIGHT FOR GREEN ELEVATORS TO 1 25 AND THE, AND DELETE.
UM, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT SENTENCE ACTUALLY STARTS IN 4 69.
ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE IN HEIGHT FOR AG.
CAN YOU, UH, JUST FOR, JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, UH, IF YOU COULD STATE EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, BUT THAT YOU RECOMMEND THAT THE, THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS WITH THOSE TWO CHANGES TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS, IS, YEAH.
IS THE, UH, PROBABLE, PROPER FORMAT THERE.
I RECOMMEND IN MY MOTION THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONSIDER THE CHANGE FROM THE HEIGHT OF 100 FEET TO 1 25 FEET FOR GRAIN ELEVATORS.
[00:30:01]
THAT ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE IN HEIGHT BE DELETED.OKAY, WE CAN MOVE ON TO OPENING UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
I MEAN, A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SIGNS CHAPTER 1 0 6, ZONING, ADD DEFINITIONS AND METHOD OF CALCULATING SIGN AREA AND AMEND CERTAIN SIGNS PROVISIONS TO THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
SO AGAIN, CHAUNCEY RIDLEY COUNTY PLANNER.
UM, NOW WE DID GO OVER THIS, BUT IT'S BEEN A A FEW MINUTES.
SO I'LL RESTATE, UH, THIS RESOLUTION CAME FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THEIR JANUARY MEETING.
UM, WE NEED TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR THE METHOD, METHOD OF CALCULATE AND SIGN AREA.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS, UH, LARGER BUILDINGS OR FOR THE PARCELS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ON THEM IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE SIGNAGE IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS FOR THE SIZES OF THE BUILDINGS.
UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WITH THE LIMIT SIGN LIMITATION, STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE NEED TO BE SOME AMENDMENTS, SOME ADJUSTMENTS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT, UM, IT SHOULD BE BASED ON BUILDING SIZE, LOT SIZE, AND THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES ON THE SITE.
SO CURRENTLY OUR ORDINANCE, THERE'S A MAX OF FOUR SIGNS.
THOSE FOUR SIGNS CANNOT GO OVER 160 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT'S FOR ALL FOUR SIGNS TOGETHER.
UM, MOST OF THESE INDUSTRIAL LARGER BUILDINGS, 160 SQUARE FEET WON'T COVER ONE SIGN FOR THOSE LARGER BUILDINGS.
SO IT DOESN'T ACCOMMODATE FOR THOSE BUILDINGS OR FOR, UH, PROPERTIES WITH MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ON IT.
UH, THE CURRENT CALCULATION METHOD IS LENGTH TIMES WIDTH, AND THAT'S ALSO INCLUDED DEAD, INCLUDING DEAD AND VOIDED AREAS.
UM, SO WE WANT TO EXCLUDE THOSE SO THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING CALCULATED INTO THE MAX, UM, SIGN AREA.
SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NO FLEXIBILITY FOR THESE LARGER, UM, INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS.
SO STAFF IS UNABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THESE APPLICANTS, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO DENIAL, UM, OR THEM HAVING TO MAKE CHANGES LEADING TO THEM HAVING SIGNS THAT ARE NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR BUILDINGS.
SO THE PROPOSED, UH, SIGN AREA CALCULATION METHOD WOULD BE 10% OF THE WALL ELEVATION WHERE THE SIGN IS PLACED.
UM, WE PLAN ON USING, PROPOSING TO USE BASIC GEOMETRIC SHAPES, WHICH WOULD BE SQUARES, RECTANGLE, UH, CIRCLE TRIANGLE, NO MORE THAN FOUR SHAPES, AND THE BASIC FORMULAS THAT GO ALONG WITH THOSE SHAPES.
AND THE SHAPES MUST FULLY ENCLOSE THE OUTERMOST LIMITS OF THOSE SIGNS.
AND THAT IT ALSO INCLUDES TEXTS, LOGOS, AND GRAPHICS.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD A MAX OF FOUR SIGNS PER BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE PARCELS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ON IT.
UH, SIGNAGE MUST NOT EXCEED THE ROOF LINE, AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE, UH, SUPPORTING STRUCTURES OF BRAC.
UH, THE REC, LINEAR ALSO INCLUDE SQUARE.
THEN WE HAVE OUR CIRCLE AND OUR TRIANGLE.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, THE USAGE OF THESE GEOMETRIC, GEOMETRIC SHAPES? IS A, A MURAL CONSIDERED A SIGN? I WOULD SAY THAT WAS A DECORATIVE WALL.
WALL
UM, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE CONTENT.
IF IT HAD CONTAINS ADVERTISING CONTENT, THEN IT MAY VERY WELL BE, UH, UH, INTERPRETED OR VIEWED AS A SIGN.
UH, WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MURALS, AGAIN, THAT CONTENT COULD BE ARTISTIC IN NATURE, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, UH, CONTROL OVER.
AND AGAIN, SOME, SOME LOCALITIES MAY SAY YES, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENTED WITH THAT, UH, UH, WITH THAT SCENARIO YET.
BUT IF IT DOES CONTAIN, UH, UH, COMMERCIAL
[00:35:02]
OR ADVERTISING CONTENT, THEN WE WOULD MOST LIKELY, UH, UH, INTERPRET THAT OR VIEW THAT AS A SIGNED SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE.THERE ARE, UH, THERE ARE, UH, UH, FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS THERE WHEN YOU ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, MURALS, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE REALLY DON'T, UNTIL WE SEE THE MURAL, WE CAN'T REALLY DECIDE ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE A SIGN.
BUT THOSE ARE JUST, UH, UM, THOSE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OR A COUPLE OF THE, UM, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT A MURAL.
UM, MOST OF YOUR ME MURALS ARE GONNA BE IN DOWNTOWN SETTINGS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW OF TOO MANY PLACES THAT HAVE MURALS IN A, IN A RURAL COUNTY SETTING, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT SOME IN THE, YOU KNOW, C**K, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE SOME IN, UH, IN SHTE AS WELL.
UH, I, I SUSPECT THAT CAPE CHARLES MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE, BUT, UH, UH, SOME OF THE LARGER, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME OF THE QUOTE UNQUOTE LARGER TOWNS HERE ON THE SHORE WOULD HAVE BUILDINGS THAT FEATURE MURALS.
BUT, UM, AGAIN, UNTIL WE SEE THE, THE MURAL ITSELF, WE WOULD MAKE A DETERMINATION AT THAT TIME.
WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE, UH, PLAYHOUSE IN THE C**K, THEY HAVE A MURAL AND IT DEPICTS SCENES FROM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, CELEBRITIES AND ALSO SCENES FROM THE PLAYHOUSE MM-HMM
THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST.
AND, UH, THAT WOULD BE THE TOWN MANAGERS OR THE ZONE, OR THE, THE C**K ZONING ADMINISTRATORS CALL.
BUT I MEAN, ALRIGHT, THAT'S A LATERAL, THAT'S, DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR MURAL? WE DON'T HAVE ONE PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS EXERCISE OR THIS PUBLIC HEARING, BUT, UH, IF, IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WANT US TO LOOK INTO, YOU PUT ON LIST LATER.
WE'LL COME BACK AND REVISIT THAT.
SO, UM, THESE IMAGES, I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN THEM A TON OF TIMES, SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM ONE MORE TIME.
SO THIS IS JUST TO SHOW WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING DONE AND OUR PROPOSED WAY OF CALCULATING SIGN AREA.
SO CURRENTLY SOMEONE WOULD COME IN WITH THEIR, UH, THEIR, UH, DRAWINGS FOR THEIR SIGN RECTANGLE WOULD GO AROUND IT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A LOT OF EMPTY VOIDED, DEAD SPACE BEING, UH, CALCULATED, ADDED INTO THAT SIGN AREA, WHICH DECREASES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO, USING NO MORE THAN FOUR GEOMETRIC SHAPES, TIGHTLY BOUND, ALL TOUCHING TO CALCULATE SIGN AREA.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS YELLOW AREA HERE SHADED IN IS WHAT THE APP, THE SPACE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE SAVING.
SO THE BENEFITS, SCALABLE AND PROPORTIONATE, PROPORTIONAL SIGNAGE, CONSISTENCY, REDUCE EXCEPTIONS, FAIR APPLICATIONS, AND ENDING THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
IS THERE ANY STANDARD COMMUNITY STANDARD OR COUNTY STANDARD THROUGHOUT VIRGINIA FOR SIGNAGE? YOU KNOW, UH, DO THEY HAVE STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE FOR IT? A LOT OF OTHER COUNTIES AND LOCALITIES DO.
UM, THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH, WITH THE GEOMETRIC SIDE.
THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER LOCALITIES WHO ARE DOING THAT AS WELL.
SO THIS IMAGE IS JUST GIVEN VISUALS OF LARGER INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
THIS ONE HERE THAT IS BEING SUBJECTED TO THE SAME SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS AS A SMALLER BUILDING.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, A SMALLER SIGN ON A LARGER BUILDING, IT'S, IT'S NOT ADEQUATE, IT'S NOT PROPORTIONATE.
AND HERE YOU HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH A WALL, WITH A SIGN THAT IS MORE PROPORTIONATE TO THE BUILDING SIZE.
SO JUST THE VISUAL TO SEE HOW THAT COULD LOOK OTHER THAN AN ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION.
SECTION 1 0 6, 1 35 SIGN REGULATIONS.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, THIS PART OF THE ORDINANCE IS BLANK, BESIDES
[00:40:01]
SAYING REFER TO ANOTHER CHAPTER.SO WE NEED TO GET THAT SPECIFIED AND GET THIS INFORMATION PUT IN THERE SO THAT IT'S WRITTEN OUT.
IT WON'T BE CONFUSING, AND WE CAN, UM, BETTER ACCOMMODATE THESE APPLICANTS WHERE WE CAN NOW.
SO OUR GOALS, CONSISTENT MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE SIGN AREA.
UH, PROPORTIONATE, UH, SIGNAGE FOR THE BUILDINGS MINIMIZES, MINIMIZING THE NEED FOR VARIANCES, PROVIDING SOME FLEXIBILITY, UM, WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE DISTRICT'S INTENDED CHARACTER.
AND THAT IS THE END OF MY REPORT ON THE SIGNS.
IS THERE ANYTHING, UM, ON THIS PART OF THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO GO BACK TO OR, UM, RE-EXPLAIN ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES, SUGGESTIONS? JIMS. ALRIGHT.
ANYBODY SIGN UP FOR, UM, ALRIGHT, I'LL CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT OR YOU NEED A MOTION? YEAH, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE CHANGES IMPLEMENTED BY STAFF FOR SIGNAGE TO BE EASIER FOR CITIZENS TO IMPLEMENT.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
LEE PBA, DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SO STAFF REPORT IS TYPICALLY, UM, THREE SECTIONS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AGENT, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AND, UM, AND, UH, DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
AS FAR AS SUBDIVISIONS ARE CONCERNED, NO CHANGE FROM LAST MONTH IN TERMS OF THE, UH, IN, IN, IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATIONS.
WE HAVE NO MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS, UH, NEEDING YOUR, UH, NEEDING YOUR REVIEW.
UM, IN TERMS OF COASTAL SQUARE AND RESIDENCES, THEY CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, AND, UM, UH, THERE'S GONNA BE A SECOND ROUND OF COMMENTS THERE.
SO WE DO HAVE SEVERAL AGENCIES WITH COMMENTS THERE.
BUT IN TERMS OF ANY NEW APPLICATIONS, THERE ARE NONE FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT.
UM, ONE KEY PIECE OF INFORMATION, NEW INFORMATION, THE BCA CHAIR, UH, MS. BETTY KERNS HAS TENDERED HER RESIGNATION FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
UH, AND THAT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE AKIMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT.
UH, JUDGE LEWIS HAS THAT IN HIS HANDS NOW, AND HER LAST MEETING WILL BE ON AUGUST 6TH.
LAST WEEK, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MET AND HELD FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THEIR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.
AND, UM, THEY APPROVED ALL OF THEIR CASES.
THERE WERE THREE SPECIAL USE PERMITS IN ONE VARIANCE CASE, SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE, ESSENTIALLY A SHED ALONE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THERE WAS ALSO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A DOUBLE WIDE, UM, FOR A DOUBLE WIDE MANUFACTURED HOME IN THE BEAD DISTRICT THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED.
AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A TRAVEL TRAILER FOR HABITATION, UH, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THAT, WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, OR THESE ARE ALL APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
THE VARIANCE WAS ALSO, UH, RELATED TO THAT, UH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THAT TRAVEL TRAILER.
THAT WAS AN UNUSUAL, UH, CASE OF WHERE WE SPECIFY 36 FEET IN THE DEFINITION OF AN RV.
AND THIS GENTLEMAN WANTED TO HAVE A 39 FOOT, UH, UH, RV OR TRAVEL TRAILER.
SO TECHNICALLY WE HAD TO ISSUE A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
AGAIN, FOUR CASES, AND THEY WERE ALL GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS.
IF WE COULD SCROLL DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, FOR THIS COMING WEDNESDAY, JULY 9TH MEETING, WHICH BY THE WAY, THE, UM, UH, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING WOULD'VE BEEN THE WEEK OF JULY 4TH, BUT THEY, UH, VOTED TO,
[00:45:01]
UM, TO WAIT UNTIL JULY 9TH BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT JULY 4TH WEEK PEOPLE ARE ON VACATION AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.UH, SO THE STAFF WILL BE BUSY ON JULY 9TH WITH A BZA MEETING IN THE MORNING AND A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN THE EVENING.
BUT THEY ARE SCHEDULED TO HOLD SEVEN PUBLIC HEARINGS.
UM, FIVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND TWO VARIANCES.
THE TWO VARIANCES ARE PART OF ONE OF THOSE SPECIAL USE PERMITS, BUT YOU SEE THE, UH, THE DESCRIPTIONS HERE.
SO THOSE ARE PENDING, UH, NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION.
AS FAR AS, UM, AS FAR AS THE DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT, FROM A STAFFING STANDPOINT, WE STILL HAVE THE FIVE, UH, FULL-TIME, UH, FTE OR FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE VACANCIES.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER IS CURRENTLY POSTED ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR HR SECTION OR HR DEPARTMENT THAT WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF APPLICATIONS FOR THAT.
AND JUST, UH, TO ALSO SAY THAT WE'VE GOT TWO OTHER POSITIONS THAT WE HOPE WILL BE POSTED SHORTLY.
SO THOSE ARE BOTH CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BUILDING OR IN, UM, OR IN, UH, EVERYDAY TERMS. THOSE ARE OUR BUILDING INSPECTORS.
WE HAVE TWO BUILDING INSPECTORS ON, UH, ON STAFF, AND WE CAN USE EVERY BUILDING INSPECTOR WE CAN GET BECAUSE, UM, WITH ONLY TWO, IF ONE GOES ON VACATION, AS IS THE CASE THIS WEEK, THEN WE'VE GOT ONE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK THAT'S COVERING THE WHOLE COUNTY.
NOW, WHEN WE START TO GET GOING FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE, UM, WITH THE, UH, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVER AND ONLY THEN, UH, BUILDING INSPECTIONS WILL BE VERY BUSY AT THAT POINT.
UH, I DON'T WANT TO PUT A DATE ON WHEN THEY WILL START CONSTRUCTION, BUT I DO ANTICIPATE THEM, UM, BEING ABLE TO START, WE'LL SAY, IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF THIS YEAR.
SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN THE, IN THE, IN THE SECOND QUARTER.
BUT, UH, I, I FEEL LIKE THAT THEY'RE VERY CLOSE TO AN APPROVAL WHEN THEY CAN, WHEN THEY CAN START LAND DISTURBANCE.
SO LAND DISTURBANCE WILL CERTAINLY TAKE A WHILE.
AND WHEN THEY START THEIR VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION, MEANING THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA START ON THEIR TOWNHOUSES AND DUPLEXES AND THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS, UH, THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE READY THE EARLY PART OF NEXT YEAR.
AS FAR AS STAFF NEWS IS CONCERNED, I'D LIKE TO, UM, I'D LIKE TO, UH, CONGRATULATE OUR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, PAM DIX, WHO HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE CERTIFIED PLANNING COMMISSIONER COURSE.
UH, SHE HAS ALREADY COMPLETED THE CERTIFIED BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COURSE, AND SHE, SHE SUPPORTS BOTH OF THOSE BOARDS.
SO, UM, UH, SO SHE HAS GONE AND DONE THE TRAINING FOR BOTH AND JUST WANTED TO SAY, WELL DONE, PAM.
THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT.
I CAN FIELD ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AT THIS TIME REGARDING THOSE MATTERS.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, THE ONLY THING I, I NOTICED THAT THE ON FAIRGROUNDS ROAD, THAT NOTHING AS FAR AS FARMING, UH, HAS BEEN DONE TO THAT AREA.
THE, THE, THE NOTHING'S NO HERBICIDE HAS BEEN SPRAYED, YOU KNOW, A FAR, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT, IF, IF THEY'RE GONNA BREAK GROUND DURING THE CROP SEASON MM-HMM
THEY, NOTHING'S BEEN DONE THERE.
YOU WOULD HAVE A BETTER IDEA AS TO, UH, HOW RECENTLY THAT HAD BEEN CULTIVATED.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE GOT, UH, ANYTHING CULTIVATED THERE NOW.
NO, BUT, UH, UH, SO MY POINT IS, IS THAT THAT INDICATES THAT THEY PLAN ON DOING SOMETHING SOON.
SO, UH, LIKE I SAID, AS PART OF THE, UH, WHERE THEY ARE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS IS WE HAVE RECEIVED THEIR, THEIR CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
AND THERE ARE SEVERAL AGENCIES THAT HAVE TO, UH, THAT HAVE TO REVIEW THOSE.
AND WE'VE HAD COMMENTS FROM ALL OF THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES, UH, VDOT, OUR ENGINEER, KIMLEY HORN.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE JUST HAD A MEETING OF A VIRTUAL CALL BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND KIMLEY HORN, WHICH IS REPRESENTING THE COUNTY.
AND IN ENGINEERING MATTERS OR REVIEW MATTERS, UM, HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS NOT GONNA HAVE MUCH BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY WILL BE CONNECTED TO PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER.
HRSD IS THE SEWER PROVIDER, AND THEY HAVE THE PLANS AS WELL AS THE TOWN OF C**K BEING THE WATER PROVIDER.
SO ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT AGENCIES, NOT JUST THE COUNTY STAFF, WE, WE ARE, WE ALL HAVE COMMENTS AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER ROUND.
THERE'S GONNA BE ANOTHER ROUND OF REVIEW THERE.
[00:50:01]
MEANTIME, UH, YOU KNOW, A A A REVIEW CYCLE CAN TAKE ANYWHERE FROM, UH, FROM, UH, WE'LL SAY THREE WEEKS TO TWO MONTHS, DEPENDING ON THE, THE, UH, THE KIND OF COMMENTS THEY RECEIVE.BUT, UM, I FEEL THAT THE COMMENTS ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY WILL ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS.
OF COURSE, WE WON'T APPROVE PLANS UNTIL THEY DO.
AND OF COURSE, THOSE PLANS HAVE TO MATCH THE, UH, THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE PROFFERS OF THE REZONING CASE, AS WELL AS THE WAIVERS FROM THE, UH, FROM VARIOUS CERTAIN, UH, REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO ALL OF THAT HAS GOTTA GO INTO THE HOPPER BEFORE WE APPROVE THE PLANS.
AGAIN, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT TO HAPPEN AROUND THE THIRD QUARTER.
THEY'RE GONNA BE MOTIVATED ONCE THEY GET A, ONCE THEY GET AN APPROVAL, THEY'RE GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A SENSE BEFORE WE APPROVE THAT, AND THEY'RE GONNA START PLANNING TO MOBILIZE THEIR EQUIPMENT.
AND THAT'S GONNA BE A PRETTY BIG CONSTRUCTION SITE AT THAT POINT.
BUT AGAIN, I'M, I'M THINKING THE THIRD QUARTER RIGHT NOW, HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT CAPTAIN'S COVE? WHAT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CAPTAIN'S COVE? THE EXPANSION THAT WE GOT INTO MAYBE OR TWO BACK AROUND THE, THE, THE APARTMENTS BY THE DOG PARK
SO LAST YEAR THERE WAS A, UH, THERE WAS A, UH, UM, YEAH, I KNOW ABOUT THAT.
WHAT WAS THAT? AN EXTENSION, A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
NOW, AS WE ALL KNOW, ONCE THE PROPERTY IS REZONED AND THE PROPERTY IS, THEY ALL RUN WITH THE LAND, BUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS HAVE A, HAVE A FINITE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY HAVE TO START.
SO THEY DID NOT START WITHIN THE TWO YEARS, AND OF COURSE, LAST YEAR THEY SAID, HEY, WE KNOW THAT WE'RE COMING UP AGAINST THIS DEADLINE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
OF COURSE EXTENDED THAT, BUT WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING.
WE HAVE, THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING TO US FROM AN OFFICIAL STANDPOINT.
AND THE BATTERY PLEA, THEY NEVER HEARD ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THAT, REMEMBER? WELL, WE DID RECEIVE WORD THAT THE, UH, JUST YESTERDAY AS A MATTER OF FACT.
SO IT'S A TIMELY QUESTION, SIR.
UH, THAT THE, THAT THE, UH, THE, THE SCOUT ENERGY THAT, THAT PROJECT THAT WAS HEARD, I THINK, WAS IT 2021 OR SO? YEAH, THAT, UM, THAT PROJECT HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED HANDS.
SO WE EXPECT, YOU KNOW, AND WITHOUT NAMING NAMES, UH, THEY, THEY, THEY HAVE BOUGHT THE PROJECT WITH THE INTENT OF, OF STARTING THAT.
SO THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING THAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR WITH REGARDS TO THAT IS THE REZONING.
AND UH, I BELIEVE THERE WAS ALSO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
SOMETHING ABOUT NOISE LEVELS TOO.
WE GOT QUITE A DISCUSSION ABOUT NOISE LEVELS AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
SO MUCH LIKE THE COASTAL SQUARE IN RESIDENCES PROCESS THAT I JUST OUTLINED, UH, UM, AGAIN, THEY'VE GOT THEIR REZONING.
THEY, THEY'VE WHAT I CALL THEIR LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS, REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THEY NOW HAVE TO COME BACK TO US WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS THAT MEET ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT PROFFERS AND CONDITIONS.
IF THEY GOT WAIVERS, THEN YEAH.
BUT, UM, THEY'RE, IT'S NOT, THEY BOUGHT THE PROJECT AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA START TOMORROW.
THEY, THEY STILL HAVE MANY STEPS TO GO BEFORE THEY CAN, UH, BEFORE THEY CAN ACTUALLY TURN OVER DIRT.
BUT THAT IS THE LATEST ON THE, ON THE, UH, SCOUT ENERGY PROJECT.
I HAD HEARD TOO THAT THEY HAD RUN INTO A SNAG WITH IC MM-HMM
OVER THE PRICING, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE RIGHT.
AND SO THERE WAS QUITE A BIT, AND THERE WAS ANOTHER AREA OF THE COUNTY TOO, THEY WERE LOOKING TO PUT A BATTERY PLAN IN.
WELL, WE HAD A, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED, UH, LAST YEAR.
AND, UM, IF YOU RECALL, THE, UH, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ABOUT TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING, BUT ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE CASE, THEY, THEY RESCINDED THEIR APPLICATION OR THEY WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION.
AND, UM, AND THIS, THAT EVENING, THE ROOM WAS FULL.
THERE WERE A LOT OF FOLKS WHO WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THAT.
SO THEY WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION AND THEY CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT.
BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE SITE IN WITH THEM, WHICH WAS THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR, UH, IS NO, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT IT'S IN PLAY.
WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THEY WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION TO WORK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND THAT KIND OF THING.
IT'S BEEN SOLD AND THEY HAVE BEEN SOLD RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS THE LAST TIME THAT I CHECKED, WHICH WAS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
[00:55:01]
THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANT THAT HAD COME BEFORE, OR THAT WAS PLANNING TO COME BEFORE US AND THEN WITHDREW THE APPLICATION.SO I HAVE NOT CHECKED THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT PROPERTY RECENTLY.
BUT WHEN THIS WAS FIRST, WHEN THIS WAS FIRST APPLIED FOR THE, UH, THE APPLICANT OWNED THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME.
I, I'M SORRY, I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
BACK TO THE, UH, FAIRGROUND ROADS, UH, PROJECT.
HAS YOUR OFFICE RECEIVED, UH, VERY MANY OR NO, UH, QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT PROJECT? WE HAD, WE HAD A LOT OF COMMENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BACK IN, UH, UH, MARCH, APRIL, MAY TIMEFRAME OF LAST YEAR WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS CONSIDERED, WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEN THEY WERE CONSIDERING THIS MATTER.
BUT SINCE THEN, AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE GRANTING OF THE REZONING, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS.
WOULD YOU LIKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I'M SORRY, QUESTION MR. PAM, ARE YOU FINISHED? WELL, UM, I'M JUST, JUST RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTION.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE MORE QUESTIONS YOU ASK THE LONGER WE'RE HERE A SHORT ONE.
SO THE SCOUT PROJECT, UM, WOULDN'T THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE EXPIRED? QUITE POSSIBLY.
I WOULD NEED TO LOOK INTO THAT.
ANYBODY ELSE I'D HAVE ALRIGHT, MR. PAM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU FINISHED? YEAH.
UM, THE ONLY THING I'VE GOT LEFT IS ITEM NUMBER 10 WITH REGARDS TO THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, IT SAYS JUNE, JULY 11TH HERE.
DID WE, WE CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY JUNE 9TH.
SO NEXT MEETING, UM, IT'S IS JULY 9TH, 2025.
AND OF COURSE, UH, PER, UM, MS. RIDLEY'S BRIEFING, YOU WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT NIGHT.
IF THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE, I'VE TURN THAT BACK OVER TO YOU.
AT THIS TIME I WON'T BE HERE UNLESS MY TRAVEL PLANS CHANGE.
SO IF YOU NEED A QUORUM, I, I HAVE, MY NEXT TWO MONTHS ARE BOOKED UP WITH TRAVEL, SO I PROBABLY WON'T BE HERE.
I WILL OFFER THAT REMOTE PARTICIPATION IS STILL AN OPTION DEPENDING ON THE WISHES OF THE, UH, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, REMOTE PARTICIPATION IS AN OPTION.