[00:00:01]
THURSDAY, APRIL 24TH. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
[CALL TO ORDER]
. NEXT ON THE IS THE AGENDA REVIEW FOR APRIL 24TH.MR. GRAVES. YEAH. GOOD. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN BRESKO AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
SO WE'RE, OF COURSE, LOOKING AT THE. WE'RE IN THE WORK SESSION RIGHT NOW.
AND I WILL REVIEW THE AGENDA FOR THE UPCOMING BUSINESS MEETING, WHICH IS AT 6:30.
SO FOR THAT 6:30 BUSINESS MEETING, YOUR AGENDA IS THE SECOND THING UNDER TAB ONE.
AND YOU'VE GOT AN ORDER OF BUSINESS THAT INCLUDES ADOPTING MINUTES AND A SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST THAT JACK GREENSTEIN IS THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR.
SO HE'S GOING TO FILL YOU IN ON THAT IN A MINUTE.
[ADOPTION OF AGENDA]
INITIATE THAT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A SEPARATE MOMENT IN THIS AGENDA FOR ME TO GO THROUGH THAT.SO I'LL WAIT TILL THEN TO TALK ABOUT THAT. AFTER THAT, YOU HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THERE IS ONE SCHEDULED BUT AGAIN, THAT SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST AND THE REZONING, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S JUST IT'S REALLY JUST A TECHNICALITY ABOUT THE WAIVER.
SO SO THAT REZONING IS ALSO SCHEDULED FOR 630, DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING TIME PERIOD.
SO JACK IS ALSO THE PROJECT MANAGER, SO HE'LL GO THROUGH THAT IN A MINUTE AS WELL.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF, INCLUDING UPDATES ON SPECIAL PROJECTS.
SO THAT CONCLUDES THE AGENDA REVIEW. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS? NO. IF NOT WE'LL DO CASE REVIEW.
[COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS]
GOOD EVENING. SO YEAH WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER THE STAFF REPORT FOR SUBDIVISION.SUBDIVISION WAIVER 2501. THE APPLICANT IS PEYTON GLAZIER AND SAMUEL LOWE, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CHRISTOPHER GLAZIER, JOSEPH GLAZIER, TROY GLAZIER, AND SAMUEL GLAZIER.
[ORDER OF BUSINESS]
SAMUEL IS THE FATHER OF PEYTON GLAZIER, AND THEN THE OTHER THREE MEN ARE HIS BROTHERS.SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO SUBDIVIDE THIS PARCEL.
IT'S A ROUGHLY 104 ACRE PARCEL. TO CREATE A SIX ACRE LOT.
AND THAT'S THE INTENT IS TO GIFT THAT LOT TO PEYTON GLAZIER, THE FAMILY MEMBER, AND SAMUEL LOWE. IN ORDER TO TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE COUNTY CODE REQUIRES THAT THE PROPOSED NEW PARCEL BE CONNECTED TO PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS, SINCE THE DIVISION IS CONSIDERED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PPA.
THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA. MS. GLAZIER, MR. LOWE SUBMITTED THIS REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THAT UTILITY CONNECTION REQUIREMENT.
THAT SECTION AUTHORIZES THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THIS WAIVER REQUEST, AND THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO APPROVE OR DENY THE REQUEST WITH OR WITHOUT CONDITIONS, AND STATE THE REASONS FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED VIA A LETTER.
[00:05:02]
ALL RIGHT. SO JUST TO GO OVER THE DETAILS, THIS IS AT 9512 EAST QUAKER ROAD.IT'S AN RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE ZONED PROPERTY AND THE CURRENT USE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES RESIDENTIAL USE AND AGAIN, IT'S IN THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA, TRIGGERING THAT REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES.
ALL RIGHT. TO MOVE ON TO MORE ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL.
AS I STATED, IT'S A SIX ACRE LOT BEING DIVIDED FROM AN EXISTING 104 ACRE LOT THAT THE RESIDUAL LEFT OVER OF THE EXISTING LOT WOULD BE ROUGHLY 98 ACRES. THE LOT IS IS CO-OWNED. IT'S NOT JUST OWNED BY ONE PERSON.
IT'S OWNED BY SAMUEL GLAZER AND HIS THREE BROTHERS.
SO BECAUSE THE LOT IS ALSO OWNED BY THE UNCLES OF THE APPLICANT, IT DOESN'T MEET THE STRICT DEFINITION OF OF FAMILY SUBDIVISION.
AND THEN AGAIN, JUST PART OF THE, OF THEIR PROPOSAL.
THE LAND IS A FAMILY FARM, AND PEYTON AND SAMUEL PLAN TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE NEW LOT AND THEN YOU CAN SEE IN THE EXHIBITS PORTION OF THE STAFF REPORT THE PROPOSED PLAT, AS WELL AS SATELLITE VIEW AND GOOGLE STREET VIEW IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN EXHIBIT FOUR, YOU CAN SEE THAT GREEN STAR INDICATES WHERE THE PROPERTY IS IN, RELATION TO THE BORDER OF THE PLANNING AREA AND THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA AND IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA, A SUBDIVISION IS NOT REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATER.
SO JUST TO GO OVER THE BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED A PLAT FOR REVIEW, WHICH IS WE KNOW INTERNALLY AS P-24-40, WHICH SHOWS THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF OF ONE PARCEL INTO TWO.
ARTICLE SEVEN OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PROVIDES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN STANDARDS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT APPLY TO NEW SUBDIVISIONS PROPOSED IN THE COUNTY, INCLUDING ONE PARCEL BEING SPLIT INTO TWO AND WITHIN THAT OUR ARTICLE.
HOWEVER, SECTION 82-32 AND 82-351 OF THE UTILITIES ORDINANCE DEFINE DEVELOPMENT AS NOT INCLUDING A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT, FIVE ACRES OR LARGER, ZONED RA, AND IN THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA, INCLUDING A MINOR SUBDIVISION. SORRY, PROVIDED THAT A WAIVER IS OBTAINED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THEN SECTION 7208. EXPLAIN HOW THE PLANNING THE CRITERIA FOR WAIVING SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND THOSE CRITERIA ARE IN CASES OF UNUSUAL SITUATIONS, OR WHERE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE GENERAL REGULATIONS IN THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP, AND NO WAIVERS SHALL BE GRANTED WHICH IS ILLEGAL OR WHICH WOULD PREJUDICE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY.
ALL RIGHT. AND THEN SO NOW I'LL GET INTO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS.
IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED, THE RESULTING LOTS WILL STILL NEED TO MEET ALL OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL BY THE SUBDIVISION AGENT AND PRIOR TO ANY SUBSEQUENT ZONING APPROVALS.
SO THAT'S JUST TO SAY THAT EVEN IF THE SUBDIVISION WAIVER IS GRANTED WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO REVIEW YOU GO THROUGH THE PLAT REVIEW PROCESS TO APPROVE THE PLAT, AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE NOTED ON THE PLAT.
[00:10:05]
SINCE SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUIREMENTS WERE FIRST AUTHORIZED IN 2007, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THREE OF THESE FOR THE SAME REQUIREMENT THAT'S REQUESTED HERE AND THEN THERE AND THEN THERE'S A SUMMARY HERE IN YOUR PACKET ABOUT THOSE.FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS AND THIS REQUEST IS SIMILAR TO A FAMILY DIVISION IN THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LAND ARE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE RECEIVER OF THE LAND, BUT IT DOES NOT MEET THE STRICT DEFINITION OF FAMILY DIVISION BECAUSE OF THE UNCLES WHO CO-OWN THE PROPERTY ARE NOT CONSIDERED DIRECT FAMILY.
SO STAFF REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AGAINST THE WAIVER CRITERIA PROVIDED, AND FOUND THAT IT IS UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHETHER IT MEETS THE CRITERIA PROVIDED. STAFF ALSO NOTES THAT THIS APPEARS TO MEET THIS CRITERIA, BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS VERY SIMILAR TO A FAMILY DIVISION, AND WE'VE PROVIDED A SAMPLE MOTION.
THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANYTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THIS REQUEST, AND THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PREJUDICE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY. THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT PROVIDED SOME COMMENTS.
RACHEL LUMPKIN STATED THAT THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM CURRENTLY TERMINATES ALONG ROUTE 156, IN FRONT OF FIRE AND EMS STATION EIGHT. CONNECTION TO PUBLIC WATER WOULD REQUIRE THE EXTENSION OF APPROXIMATELY 9300 LINEAR FEET OF WATER LINE ALONG PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE IN EAST QUAKER ROAD, AND THE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM CURRENTLY TERMINATES AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAUREL SPRING ROAD AND PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE.
DUE TO TOPOGRAPHY, THE GRAVITY SEWER CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE PROPOSED PARCEL FROM THIS LOCATION.
AGAIN, STAFF NOTIFIED ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS VIA US MAIL ABOUT THE MEETING.
AND NO LOCAL NEWSPAPER WAS ADVERTISED BECAUSE IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.
PRIOR TO THE FINALIZING OF THIS REPORT, NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY.
TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. STAFF IS NOT PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION ON.
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, AND IF IT WERE DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT IS REQUIRED THAT REASONS ARE PROVIDED FOR DENIAL. SO AND THEN YOU CAN SEE AT THE END HERE SOME RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS. AS MINIMUM CONDITIONS AND ONE BEING PRIVATE WATER AND SEPTIC ARE PERMITTED. WITH VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL ON THE NEWLY DIVIDED PARCEL TO SERVE PERMITTED USES.
AND THEN IF PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE EXTENDED IN FRONT OF THE PARCEL IN THE FUTURE, THE NEWLY DIVIDED PARCEL WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES AT THAT TIME AND PAY ALL ASSOCIATED CONNECTION FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE COUNTY CODE REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE MORE OF THEIR APPLICATION AND THE PLAT SUBMITTED AND EVERYTHING.
INCLUDING THE APPLICABLE COUNTY CODE SECTIONS IF YOU WANT TO READ THAT.
ALL RIGHT. SO AT THIS POINT I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
WHAT'S THE CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON'T APPROVE. WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE IF WE DON'T APPROVE.
IF IT WASN'T APPROVED, THEN THE SUBDIVISION COULD NOT BE APPROVED WITHOUT THEM SHOWING CONNECTION TO PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATER. 9100FT. RIGHT. [INAUDIBLE] ? YES. THAT'S GOING TO CREATE QUITE A HARDSHIP ON SOMEBODY.
I MEAN, THAT'S ALMOST TWO MILES. THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
WELL, EVEN THAT THEY'RE USING THE FLO'S SEPTIC SYSTEM, AND IT'S SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF THE GRADE,
[00:15:03]
IT WOULDN'T WORK ON THAT PROPERTY ANYWAY. YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE WATER IN THE SEWER THERE ADJACENT TO THAT LOT.IT'S KIND OF HARD TO, I THINK, FORCE THEM TO DO THAT HOOK UP TO IT, 9300FT², I MEAN, LINEAR FEET AWAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I GUESS WE CAN JUST GO INTO THE REZONING. RZ- 25-0001. YEP.
OKAY. SO THIS IS LOCATED AT 60 TEN COURTHOUSE ROAD, AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT A 4.25 ACRE PROPERTY BE REZONED FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE, RA AND LIMITED RESIDENTIAL R2 TO JUST LIMITED RESIDENTIAL R2.
SO IT'S A SPLIT ZONED PROPERTY, AND THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REZONE TO JUST BE R2 INSTEAD OF THOSE TWO ZONES, R2 AND RA. AND THE INTENT IS TO SUBDIVIDE. THE COMP PLAN FUTURE LAND USE FOR THIS PARCEL IS VILLAGE CENTER, AND IT'S IN THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA.
AGAIN, IT'S IT'S SPLIT ZONED AND IN THE VISUAL EXHIBITS, YOU CAN SEE THAT WITH THE ZONING MAP, HOW THAT FRONT SECTION IS R2 AND THEN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS RA.
AND THE PURPOSE OF REZONING WOULD BE TO ALLOW SMALLER LOT SIZES.
SO THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS.
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN RA IS FIVE ACRES. SO CURRENTLY BECAUSE OF THAT REQUIREMENT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE IT THE WAY IT IS UNLESS IT WAS REZONED.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE NEW LOT, AND THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD SPLIT THE 4.25 ACRE LOT INTO 11.2 ACRE LOT FOR THE NEW HOME, AND THEN THE RESIDUAL WITH THE EXISTING HOME ON IT WOULD BE ROUGHLY 2.9 ACRES AND NO VOLUNTARY PROFFERS WERE SUBMITTED.
SO YEAH, YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL VIEW AND THEN THE COMP PLAN AND THEN I TRIED MY BEST TO SORT OF MAKE THE PLAT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. SO THAT YELLOW SECTION IS THE PROPOSED NEW LOT AND THE BLUE IS THE EXISTING.
NO KNOWN PROFFERS AFFECT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY.
AGAIN, THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IF THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED AS REQUESTED, IT COULD BE USED FOR ANY OF THE USES PERMITTED IN THE R2 DISTRICT.
SO THAT A LIST OF THOSE HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF.
REPORT. SOME OTHER APPLICABLE PROCESSES. THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION BEFORE THE PROPERTY COULD BE USED. FOR ANY LAND USES THAT REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN A ZONING SLASH, BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW HOME, AND AN OFFICIAL PLAT REVIEW PROCESS WOULD HAVE TO TAKE PLACE FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLAT. THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN, SINCE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PARCEL SPECIFIC, AND THE MAP SHOWS OTHER ADJACENT PARCELS ARE PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND IN SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS INCLUDE R2 AND RA'S, SO IT APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING ZONING.
SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON ALL SIDES.
[00:20:03]
SO THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THAT AND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED IS ANTICIPATED TO BE MINIMAL DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS ON COUNTY.COUNTY SERVICES IS ANTICIPATED TO BE MINIMAL DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AND THEN AGAIN, NO VOLUNTARY PROFFERS WERE SUBMITTED.
VDOT PROVIDED SOME STANDARD COMMENTS ABOUT COURTHOUSE ROAD AND THEIR AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC.
WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED? AS FAR AS AN ENTRANCE GOES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, VDOT MENTIONED THE TWO DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES.
BUT DURING OUR PLAT REVIEW PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE VDOT CLASSIFICATION OF THE ROAD THESE TWO LOTS WOULD HAVE TO SHARE AN ENTRANCE EASEMENT.
UTILITIES SAID THAT THE PARCELS LOCATED WITHIN THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA, ANY NEW LOTS CREATED BY A FUTURE SUBDIVISION OF THE PARCEL BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO THE PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS. THIS WILL REQUIRE THE EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC GRAVITY WASTEWATER LINE TO SERVE THE NEW LOT.
WE RAN THE REQUIRED ADS AS WELL AS SENT OUT LETTERS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL BASED ON IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.
SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT LAND USES ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THEN WHETHER ALL CONCERNS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ADDRESSED IS TO BE DETERMINED BY YOU ALL AND THEN WE JUST GOT THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND OTHER PERTINENT ATTACHMENTS, INCLUDING THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES FOR R-2. SO THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I HAVE A QUESTION.
OKAY. THE COMMENT ABOUT REQUIRING EXTENSION OF PUBLIC GRAVITY WASTEWATER LINE.
LIKE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEN THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND LOOK LIKE, DO WE KNOW HOW LONG THAT LINE IS? ARE THEY GOING TO COME BACK AND LOOK FOR AN EXCEPTION? YOU KNOW, THEY'RE AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENT AND IT'S MUCH CLOSER THAN THE I DON'T WANT TO OPEN A CAN OF WORMS.
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
YEAH. SO IF NOBODY KNOWS THAT. SO THERE'S A POWER LINE THAT RUNS RIGHT DOWN BASICALLY THE MIDDLE OF THAT PROPERTY.WHAT IS THE HOW FAR DOES THE HOUSE HAVE TO BE BUILT, EITHER IN FRONT OR BEHIND THAT POWER LINE? USUALLY THERE'S AN EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH POWER LINES.
THERE MIGHT BE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT HOW CLOSE THEY BUILD TO IT, BUT TO GET AT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS IT JUST CAN'T BE BUILT INSIDE OF THE EASEMENT, UNDERNEATH THE POWER LINE. ALSO IS THERE? I SEE THAT THERE'S A SEWER EASEMENT RIGHT DOWN THE PROPERTY TO ALL THE WAY THAT GOES. THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY IS THAT HAS THAT BEEN COMMUNICATED WITH MAYBE PAUL SADLER? I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHERE IT GOES TO. IT LOOKS LIKE IT COMES FROM HER PROPERTY.
TO THAT MAYBE CAUSE ISSUES DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THERE'S A HOUSE BUILT OVER TOP OF HER SEWER EASEMENT.
SO THAT EASEMENT SHOULD BE RETAINED AND SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY A NEW HOUSE LOCATION.
THE PLAT SHOWS THAT PLAT SHOWS THE EASEMENT ON THE WAY THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED TO DIVIDE IT.
SO THERE ANY BUYER OF THAT LOT WOULD BE. HAVE THIS PLAT AND BE KNOW ABOUT THAT EASEMENT.
[00:25:03]
IT WOULD WOULD NOT BUILD A HOUSE IN THAT AT LEAST THE COUNTY WOULDN'T APPROVE IT IF IT SAW THIS PLAT.YEAH. AGAIN, THIS PLAT HASN'T ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY BEEN SUBMITTED TO US.
IT'S JUST SUPPOSED TO BE A ROUGH CONCEPT PLAN FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.
THE ROUGH LAYOUT, BUT NOTHING WOULD BE APPROVED BY US UNLESS IT MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THEN WHEN A HOUSE IS BUILT, IT HAS TO MEET ALL THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SORRY. ANYONE.
THANK YOU. THE NEXT WORK SESSION ITEM IS THE CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND THIS INITIATION OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS UNDER TAB. TURN UNDER UNDERNEATH TAB SIX.
AND WE HAVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHAT THIS IS THERE AND THAT BASICALLY ON BACK IN FEBRUARY, THE FEBRUARY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD THAT IT CHANGED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD CHANGE THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CHICKENS ON RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTIES LESS THAN TWO ACRES. SO THEN WE, THE STAFF, BROUGHT THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AND THEN THE BOARD IN TURN DIRECTED IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE THE PROCESS. SO THAT'S WHAT THE ACTION ITEM IS FOR YOU.
I KNOW THIS SEEMS MIGHT SEEM KIND OF WEIRD THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS, YOU KNOW, BACK AND FORTH AND ALL THAT, BUT THE STATE CODE REQUIRES THAT THESE PROCESSES ABOUT CHANGING THE ORDINANCE BE INITIATED THROUGH A LIKE A CONSISTENT AND UNDERSTANDABLE DOCUMENTED MANNER. SO THIS RESOLUTION WOULD ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT THE RIGHT WAY.
ACTUALLY THE MOTION. SO WE PROVIDED A SAMPLE MOTION FOR YOU.
RIGHT THERE IN THE ITALICS THAT YOU COULD USE TO SAY THE RIGHT THINGS TO START THE PROCESS, AND THEN STAFF WOULD TAKE IT FROM THERE, AND THEN WE WILL WE'LL BRING YOU A DRAFT ORDINANCE OR WE'LL BRING YOU MORE QUESTIONS.
AS YOU MAY RECALL THERE WERE VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU SENT TO THE BOARD, THAT'S THE LAST PAGE OF THIS TAB WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE RESOLUTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PASSED THAT MENTIONS THE THINGS THAT YOU AGREED ON ALREADY. SO WE'LL MAKE SURE ANY ORDINANCE INCLUDES ALL THAT.
BUT WE'LL HAVE MORE DETAILS TO COVER, FOR EXAMPLE, SETBACKS, IF ANY, FROM PROPERTY LINES.
SO FOR CHICKENS AND COOPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE'LL GET INTO THE DETAILS. IF YOU INITIATE THE PROCESS.
CAN I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? NO QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS. NO COMMUNICATIONS OR WE DO COMMUNICATIONS DURING THE REGULAR MEETING.
YEAH, I'LL COVER THAT, I WILL COVER. THANK YOU FOR ASKING. I WILL COVER THAT DURING THE THE MEETING.
OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES EVERYTHING. ON OUR WORK SESSION AGENDA.
I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED.
SECOND. MOTION. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
WORK SESSION ADJOURNED. GOT 30 MINUTES, GUYS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.