Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Right. Well, it is 6 o'clock. I will call the meeting to order. Um, our first order of business is approval of minutes from October 15, 2025. Is there a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. Motion second. All in favor say I.

I. Motion carried. Okay. Our um preliminary site plan review is being um postponed. Uh there's an issue with the notice that was mailed out to um neighboring properties. Um it was not postmarked in time. Um so we're going to have to bump that to sometime next month. Is there a motion or do they need to formally table or does

I don't I I could barely hear hear down there but you understand that the notice I don't know if you know why the notice has to go for you or including deer code seven days before and the the commission or I know his staff sent it out seven days before but it specifically says postmark so it wasn't postmarked the day that the the mailman picked it up

so just a practical matter. Brian and I have talked about it. They might have to just put a cushion day or two on that seven day and make sure it's postmark or take it over there themselves. I spoke to the individual that uh was kind of making noise about this to see if maybe she would roll over on it, you know, just say the public record open, but she seemed to be kind of a stickler about it. She wants to show up and she couldn't show up tonight. So, it just makes sense to not try to push the envelope. Okay. So, I think they're going to get it on for next month or whenever you get it on. So, so I don't know. Your question was, do you need a motion to table it? Yeah,

I don't think you do. Um, the applicant must have been notified. Uh, I did talk to them. Yeah. So, they're not even here. So, I think that the record reflect that they have to notice it. Okay.

It'd be a little different if an applicant was here objecting to it. The record should reflect the applicant is not here, they were notified, then it would be renoticed. Okay. All right. So, the next order of business is uh proposed ordinance review ordinance 2025-09 article 22 signs 230-1 177 sign regulations for the district removing a time restriction for replacement of political signs. Okay. So this is a proposed ordinance that has come before you all for your report and recommendation. So it's amending the general signs chapter. Let me start at the top here. So section uh chapter 230 section 177 sign regulations for all districts. Um as it suggests this is the section this is the larger section that um provides sign regulations for all um types uh of signs in the in the town. uh specifically um exempt signs or signs that are exempt from permits. Most signs in the town require permits, but uh many other types of signs which are generally considered uh minimal or minor in nature are frequently u also u temporary signs um are generally considered exempt um from permit requirements provided they meet certain u parameters certain size and a certain time frame. Uh so the time frame for a certain type of sign is the um object of this um ordinance change. So let me start over here. So subsection K political signs. U this section describes political signs as any display utilized for purpose of of proposing or opposing the election of a candidate or ballot measure. Uh so this generally regulates where they can go in town. Generally they are not permitted in the right of way. So, um,

on sidewalks or on telephone poles or generally any place that is considered public, uh, property in nature and they can't affect the regulation of traffic or, um, they can't prevent somebody from seeing uh, you or turning onto a public road. Um but at the particular um thing that is being amended here is the time period for display and removal of political signs. Um so the proposal is actually to remove the time period for um that these signs can be displayed and it is um so it's actually to remove that whole subsection A there. Um, previously they were only permitted for um no more than 60 days before an election and uh up to seven days after an election. Um, I believe the purpose of this is to um is sort of a first amendment issue. Um so restricting signs of this nature um by time and also by message is not generally recommended. So they are um proposing to remove subsection A but also to keep that subsection B which would just be renumbered um in this fashion. So um so yes that is the gist of the of the change relatively minor in nature.

Questions from the commission. Can I ask a question Mr. Chair? Who drafted this ordinance? Uh this was the um town manager who drafted it. Okay. I can talk to him about it. There seems to be some just um outline issues that can be really resolved just with numbers and letters, but I'll talk to him about it. It's not substantive. Okay. More of a code revisor kind of thing.

Okay. Is there a motion? I if I may, I would agree with you that the impetus of something like this I I haven't seen case law on it recently. I think Bridgeville had a time restraint for political science which is political speech which is you know something that's protected by the constitution at a higher level than maybe other speech in certain s. So a time restriction um has not been looked upon favorably uh by the courts when it deals with political speech. Although some countries like Canada says you can't start an election but for 60 days before the election. I kind of like that but that's my personal opinion.

Do you know why this uh came up? Um I think it was uh with the um elections sort of being um coming up and and just the general um idea of there needing to be some sort of contentneutral um regulations um on this type of matter that it was believed that this was overly um overly strict and um and so I think that was that was part of the impetus um for this Any other questions? If not, is there a motion?

So, I will make a motion to approve the amendment to ordinance 2025-09. Is [snorts] there a second? I second it. Okay, we'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Roach, I. Commissioner Allen,

I I as well. Right. Motion approved. There's no one here. Does not appear to be anybody on Zoom. So, just move on to development report. Get my notes here. Okay. So, a few updates. The cottage community ordinance that uh there was so of course there was two cottage community ordinances that you looked at. The first one was the text amendment that would permit cottage community developments in town generally. Um has already gone through the public hearing process as well as the first reading. Uh so that so the second reading of that ordinance where uh council would vote yay or nay um is being held on December 8th. Um also the public hearing for the remapping of 501 and 503 East Market Street is occurring also on December 8th as well. Um so there's a couple different ordinances in play there. Uh other news on so our downtown development district um plan update is starting to wrap up. We will also be presenting a draft of that plan also at the December 8th council meeting. So it's going to be a busy meeting. Uh you'll get to hear some updates about the uh public outreach that we did um over the course of a few months as well as some of the priority projects and uh goals and objectives that um emerged from that um public engagement process. Um lastly

or one of the last things is um our board of adjustment um has a vacancy that we have had difficulty filling. Um, so if you have a acquaintance or um or a contact u within town of course a bonafide resident of Georgetown who might be interested in the um that position be considered for that position. The um period to receive candidates interest um is the end of this week. We've extended this a couple times. Um so if again if you know anyone who might be interested they can find the um commi committee interest form uh on our website. It's a new form that we ask all potential candidates for various committees and boards of the town to uh fill out um and it it allows us to um more um to standardize the way that we um ask for interest on our various committees. Um, and I should also mention last council meeting the ordinance uh that would remap um property behind the um First Baptist Church of Georgetown uh was approved. So, um the project that would be attached to that um process which is you know just behind also Village of College Park would come into us for a subdivision um of that property. that would be uh of the townhouse variety. Um not I don't exactly remember how many lots or how many units they would be um doing, but you would see that both in concept form as well as preliminary approval um of that subdivision. So look out for that pretty soon. Um and that's about all I have. Any questions for Prime? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn. Second. I second it. All in favor? I I. We are journed. Thank you. Good job. See