Lancaster County Council - Special Meeting

Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting in Lancaster County Council order. I ask that the clerk note for the record that a quorum of council is present, that public notice of the meeting, including the meeting agenda, has been posted the required length of time in the lobby of the county administration building and on the county website, and the news media was notified of the meeting time and place. I welcome you to your county council meeting. I would ask that you take a moment to turn off or place on vibrate any cell phones. Thank you for not wearing any hats or caps in the council chambers. And please be considerate of others in the room by refraining from conversations during the meeting. I ask that you please stand and join council for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by the invocation given this evening by myself.

justice for all.

Let us pray. Gracious God, thank you for this day that you have blessed us with. Lord, thank you for the opportunity to serve the citizens of our county. We pray for your wisdom and guidance as we make decisions about our upcoming UDO changes. Help us to do what's best for our county and for our citizens. First in Christ's name we pray. Amen. Have a motion to approve the agenda? Move. Have a motion from Mr. Mosteller? Second. Second from Mr. Neal. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please raise your right hand. The vote is six to zero. Okay, thank you. No citizens' comments, so we'll go right into our discussion and action items. Item 6A, final discussion of Planning Commission recommendations relating to the rewrite of the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Tucker.

All right, thank you. Councilman Graham picked up on this little verbiage a moment ago. We hope this is the final discussion of Planning Commission's recommendations. As we've talked about before, Just reworking the timeline just for everybody's benefit right now. We have shifted the public hearing and second reading of the UDO to October the 12th, with third reading being on October 26th. What we hope to accomplish today is to go back through the recommendations, the revised recommendations made by Planning Commission in response to your recommendations to them. Essentially, in order for us to maintain our timeline, We have a number of multiple choice questions today, and there's an option A or an option B. There's not necessarily an option C or none of the above or an all of the above. We're trying to stick with either your original recommendation that you sent to Planning Commission or Planning Commission's recommendation back to you. It's one or the other. I think, you know, Councilman Graham and I both have made this analogy. One of the items, if you recall, was the distance between kennels. It was either 500 feet or 250 feet. The original recommendation was 500 feet. You all adjusted it to 250 feet. Planning Commission has since said, no, we like 500 feet. Tonight, I'm asking you to either choose 250 or 500 and not go to split the difference and say 375. If we go to 375, then we have to go back to Planning Commission for another volley, and we're— We're trying really hard to avoid that so that we can have the UDO adopted by the end of October before the moratorium ends. One more clarification. We adjusted the schedule and pushed second reading out to October the 12th. in an effort to bring you a clean, correct version on October the 12th. When we had talked about having second reading on the 28th, it would have still included a number of things that we knew had to be changed, but it didn't give the consultant enough time to change them. If we push second reading to the 12th, then they will be able to make all of their changes, policy changes, grammatical changes, formatting changes. All of that will be to you for second reading in what we hope is a 99.9% draft. Jenny and I both feel pretty strongly that whatever you vote on at second reading needs to be as close to possible the same as third reading. We don't want a lot of changes between second and third reading. That creates a whole different set of challenges. So if we're able to go through the matrix tonight and choose option A or option B, and we're good with that, then we will take that back to council. I mean, we will take that back to the consultant. Consultant will make their changes and then they will deliver us a clean UDO to vote on on October the 12th. I will take a second. Any questions on any of that?

Any questions?

Okay. With that, I think we've got some of the items on the monitors in front of you. All of you also have a copy. If it's okay with you all, I'm just going to run through run through the ones where Planning Commission and County Council differed. And we'll talk about the A and the B, and then you all can give us direction. At the end of the meeting, we will need a motion from you all, just like we did the last time. We'll need a motion outlining the things that we want to change or keep the same. So if our note taker, since he was able to be here tonight, if somebody could take good notes to make sure we have the appropriate motion at the end of the meeting. All right, we ready? We're ready. All right, let's do this. Again, I'm only going to be focused on where there's a disagreement between Planning Commission and County Council. If we want to have conversations or questions about other items, obviously we can do that if you so wish. I'm going to highlight the first one, item number three on the matrix. The language there was weak. Planning Commission didn't have any specific examples, so we're just skipping that and there's no change that needs to be made there. If you go to number eight, zoning districts, Planning Commission agreed with those legacy districts. They did make a suggestion to also add manufactured home district to legacy districts. That was a good catch by Planning Commission. Staff supports that. We're comfortable taking Planning Commission's recommendation on that one to add manufacturing home district as a legacy district.

Do we need to, when the motion is made, will we need to reference each individual item Like if we agree with number eight, this is fine.

I would suggest that we probably go through the same thing that we did last time where we just say we accept the recommendations as they've been presented today with the exceptions of the following and then we change only the ones we're changing.

The ones we don't accept.

Correct. Correct. I think it'd be a shorter list. Okay. So we are accepting. I hope it's a shorter list.

I think it will be. So we are accepting Planning Commission's recommendation on item eight. So we won't need to include that in the motion. I think that's what we're saying? Correct. Okay. All right. Just trying to make sure we all get off on the right foot. All right. So we're good with number eight.

So do we need to say anything about number three? Because that's basically... We're accepting it. We're just acknowledging that it has to be consistent. Correct.

I don't think we have to say anything with three.

Can we go with the practice that if nobody speaks up on something, it's assumed accepted, so we're not accused of taking votes without taking a vote?

I'm fine with that. Planning Commission's recommendation on items 15 and 16 was to replace planning director with zoning administrator, which is practically more accurate, so we are comfortable with that. Item 21 isn't highlighted. We have talked about that before. It's the idea of which UDO do PDDs fall under. And if I mix anything up, somebody to my right, throw something at me. Just don't aim for the head. That's pretty simple when... When we have a PDD, there is most likely a development agreement attached to it. The development agreement is going to assign that development a UDO reference. In an event where the PDD does not have a DA and does not attach a UDO version, then whatever the UDO version is at the time is what would rule. The only thing that would revert back to a prior UDO would be a development agreement that specifically calls out a specific version of a prior UDO. Does that make sense? Okay. We're all good with that. Okay.

In this one, we're keeping the recommendation from the Planning Commission? Yes.

Item 23, it's the debate over the business and technology district. This one's pretty simple. We either want to have a BT district or we don't want to have a BT district. I think staff's standpoint is we're fairly neutral on that. We don't necessarily know why we need it, but at the same time, If we add the BT district and it's not used, then it'll go away at some point in time. So really, I just need some feedback from you on do we want a BT district or do we not?

I would recommend that we probably do away with the BT district and then we treat it as a text amendment as the Planning Commission has suggested, just because there's a lot of nuance to the uses that are being involved and added.

Okay. Any opposition to that? All right. So we are accepting Planning Commission's recommendation on 23. Let's see. 37 civic institutional uses. Staff's recommendation is to accept council's original recommendation. And there's a whole laundry list of reasons for that. But we feel very strongly.

I agree with staff's recommendation. I think we probably go back to what council had recommended.

All right. Any opposition to there? Okay. So that will be the first item in the motion that needs to be referenced. Because this is the first time we've taken counsel over planning commission. So, all right. I think we just address it later. Yes. With the text amendment. Okay. All right. Let's see. Then we're down to 56, which is kennels and outdoor. This is the example I referenced earlier. You were okay revising it down to 250 foot separation on outdoor kennels. Planning Commission feels like it needs to be 500. This is item 56. It was not highlighted for some reason. I think $250,000 is sufficient with me. Okay.

I'd like to plan an apartment.

I think part of what they were concerned about is that it's not just within that zoning designation, but that zoning designation could be adjacent to a residential zone district. And then you'd have the kennels and all the barking and everything that's associated with it. And there was one planning commission member in particular was talking about how she lived close by. to one of those kennels, and there was a constant barking. And so a 500-foot buffer, I think, makes a lot more sense and was the original recommendation, I think, or the original conversation that we had had.

All right, so same question, 250 or 500. Does that work for you?

I don't have an issue.

I'd rather be too far than too close. Because we could adjust later.

500 it is. So we are accepting Planning Commission's recommendation on that item. Item 57... Staff is okay to use planning commission's language on item 57. I think that was just specific to paragraph A5 requiring vehicular access from an arterial road. I think that's actually a good add. So staff is comfortable with that. Staff is okay accepting planning commission's recommendation on 57. All right, I'm gonna keep rolling. We might set a record if y'all ‑‑ I'm not going to jinx us. Never mind. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sherry's mad at me now. Item 64, conversation there was about how to calculate outdoor seating. staff and the Planning Commission agree not to necessarily set a minimum, but that we maintain the ratio of no more than 50% of the total seating is... No, that's actually not right. If there is... 100 square feet inside, then your maximum outdoor seating would be limited to 50 square feet. So it's maintaining a ratio, but not necessarily setting a minimum square footage. Did I say that right? I can get a gold star for that one. Does that make sense? Are we tracking? So if we have a bar, tavern, brew pub that is... I'm not doing that. 2,000 square feet. Their outdoor seating could be no more than 1,000. That's what we're limiting. We're not telling them it has to be at least 1,500 feet. We're just saying that we have to maintain that ratio.

That sounds reasonable. That is correct.

Okay. All right. We're okay with that one. Let's see here looking at 65 accessory structure and development standards. Staff and PC also agree on this not to set a limit on the number of accessory dwellings as long as you meet setbacks. Again, staff and PC are comfortable with not restricting the number as long as they can continue to meet the setbacks. Okay. 67, exemption, temporary uses and structures. I know one of you had a question about food trucks in particular. Food trucks would be allowed at temporary events, so that's not an issue here. Staff and PC agree on the revised recommendation, which would be, I think, to just more clearly spell out temporary events and food trucks and set a timeline for that. 69, I know there was some question about required buffers. I know there was a comment on Monday night about essentially making buffers less intense. And again, I'm going to make sure my planning staff down there, I get this one correctly. Staff feels very strongly that that the buffers be considered by use, not necessarily by zoning district. The buffers are more intense. I think the question Monday night was specific to residential zoning districts butting up to commercial zoning districts and the buffers there. The idea, the way it is recommended If a single person chooses to buy a property, build a house on a residential lot, and that residential lot is adjacent to a commercial use, then there's no buffer requirements there. But that residential user is... knowingly going into and building next to a commercial unit so that they're doing that of their own it if if there is a house sitting there and The neighbor comes in with a commercial use that commercial use has has to has to adhere to the buffer standards Does that make sense? So I mean staffs opinion right now is that the the buffer language is actually more intense under this version than the prior Is that correct? All right So we're keeping the planning commission's recommendation. We're keeping the planning commission's recommendation. Yes. Okay. I forgot to write that specifically. Okay.

And just going back to the food truck, sorry. Yeah, sorry. So when we're saying the exemptions that apply for 314.3, When we're talking about neighborhoods, so a food truck showing up, that's exempted under 3143C, which is where they're talking about for locations that have weddings, receptions, parties, and similar private non-commercial events. That falls under that exemption. Okay. Your concern is? It's covered in that one. I just wanted to make sure that that was included for those. Yep. Yes. Okay.

All right, moving ahead to, well, I think we're going, well, we've got several pages, clean pages. So over to page 17 on my number 86. We think council, planning commission, and staff all agree here that this needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed as a future text amendment. We still don't have—this is the same conversation we had before. We don't have an appropriate formula right now for the parking—for the ratios, and the parking studies are limited to convention centers, fairgrounds, outdoor amusement, and corrections facilities. under the UDO as Planning Commission approves it or recommends, those four uses would still require a parking demand study, but those are so rare that that should not be problematic and we can figure out how to address it otherwise before it becomes a problem. Staff's recommendation is to adopt Planning Commission's recommendation there, even though their recommendation is also your recommendation. Oh, I think I skipped one. Yeah, I skipped one. Item 87, vehicle queuing. Planning Commission and staff agree they want to keep that but limit applicability to those uses that do not require a TIA. Illumination standards, item 90. I'm not going to read what I wrote down. We agree with the recommendation and also eliminate the regulation of knits. I didn't know what a knit was so Dr. Willis was able to educate me on a knit which is just an alternative measure of light. Staff has memorized the other version or the other unit of measurement and would prefer to just keep it simplified and not use nits and lumens. Yeah, keep the foot candles. It's just redundant, yes. So keeping Planning Commission's recommendation there. Same thing on Highway 92, staff and Planning Commission agree that we will keep paragraph D on sign illumination. I can't remember right now what paragraph D is. Which one was that? Oh, okay, yeah. So, yeah. Lighting. 95. I think we wanted to stick with Council's recommendation on that, or that was Council's recommendation, is to require off-street parking. There was some conversation about that. I think there's two schools of thought there. As we become more dense, off-street parking is just necessary. When you have dense neighborhoods, you need a spillover place.

Totally agree with that.

I've got a personal opinion on that. It doesn't really matter, but— Yeah, I think having visitor parking, having extra spillover parking is not a bad thing. So I think, again, staff's recommendation there is to stick with the original council recommendation on item 95. So that one is that we're requiring off-street parking? Yes, staff's recommendation is that we require off-street parking. Okay. Yes, that would be part of them if they yeah, if they agree that would be part of the motion.

Yeah, so but that's why so that's why I'm confused because it's saying Keep paragraph f1 off street parking areas

Yeah, I've talked myself in a circle.

Staff's original recommendation was to follow the ad hoc that wanted to remove off-site parking. Planning Commission advised that they would like to keep the off-site parking. Staff agreed with that recommendation and we're fine with keeping that paragraph. So this is one that would not require a change.

It's consistent with what the Planning Commission and staff are aligned. Correct.

So by accepting number 95, you do not have to put it in the motion.

Thank you very much. You're very welcome. Item 98, we would ask that we stick with council's recommendation and delete the section on private drives for the time being. We think there will be a future text amendment on this item, but for now, I think we need to stick with council's recommendation. Staff's recommendation is to stick with your original recommendation. So if you all agree, that would need to be a part of the motion. Are we keeping 9.44?

And is Planning Commission, because I just want to make sure.

I can't remember exactly what was in 9.44.

Hello again. So private drives was a section that was related to the access easements, but because the language is a little bit more complicated than we could address in this timeline, the concession was to keep it in there for now and TA it later, and Planning Commission also agreed with that. So to keep number 98 and number 99 the way that they are written and TA them later.

way they are written we're agreeing with Planning Commission or are we agreeing with what council had done agreeing with Planning Commission so keep those two that's those aren't amendments correct 98 and 99 would not be would not be amendments yeah I have squarely talked myself in a circle okay

103, repairing environments and stream provisions. I think Planning Commission made a suggested edit or recommended edit. That edit hasn't been vetted by stormwater staff or some of the reviewing agencies. I don't feel comfortable just accepting that language as is. I would still prefer, staff would prefer that we stick with the recommended language by council. If you all agree with that, that would need to be a part of the motion.

So the language that they are requesting is to add circumstances where the permitting agencies do not require a separate mitigation, and then it provides additional kind of plans and a methodology for what would happen in that instance for stormwater.

That is what they're adding, but we don't necessarily understand the implications of—we don't know necessarily where that language came from or what the implications of that language would be.

If we don't accept it now, can we accept it at a later version? And that way we can study it and then come up. So we can take it out for now and then go back to it?

Yeah, this could be, we could add this to the list of future text amendments.

Well, no, I'm saying even, I'm saying by the second or third reading, once we've kind of clarified, can we go back? Yeah, as long as it's either or. As long as it's either or. I would recommend, so we can take it out of this one and then go back once everyone has had a chance to review it and confirmed.

All right, so I'm going to set that aside. So just to clarify, the recommendation... Council is recommending right now going back to their language, not going with planning commission's language, and we will come back to you in the next several weeks. Actually, a month. We've got a month to really look at that. I will set that aside and we will double check that. So that would be item 103. Part of the motion.

So right now I have 37 and 103. Okay.

95 and 98, I think we are accepting Planning Commission's recommendation. Yes. Moving down to item 107, the notice provisions. Staff and Planning Commission agree on this. This was actually a typo that gets addressed in item 142 and 143 in a minute. Staff recommendation is that we accept Planning Commission's recommendation. I think we're skipping ahead to page 27 item 142, which we just referenced I I'm probably going to need some staff help on this one. Planning Commission's recommendation was to remove the posted notice requirement for street naming but maintain the requirement for major subdivisions. That's not a requirement by the state. I think we... To the greatest degree possible, we need to be as consistent with the state statute with respect to preliminary plat approvals, which is where this gets at. When we get into going over and above that, we start getting into some uncharted territory.

So does staff and planning commission agree on this one?

I think, yeah, page 27. I think staff's position right now is that we stick with council's original recommendation, which is to move posted notice requirements for street naming and major subdivisions. Planning Commission is okay removing the notice for street naming. but they would like for us to continue the posting notice for major subdivisions.

I would like to have the posting for major subdivisions. I think that provides information and gives people advance notice. What was the concern with providing the notice?

I think the primary concern is that it is outside of, it is something above and beyond the state statute. The state sets out what should be required in a preliminary plat review. If we're adding to that, that creates sort of a quagmire down the road.

This is the high-right subdivision.

Yeah, yes.

Yeah, it's not a rezoning. It's not a rezoning. It's already zoned appropriately. They were just bringing in.

Just the subdivision, yeah.

And I think that might have been some of the confusion when this was being discussed with the Planning Commission is that this is, it's not a rezoning notice, it's a preliminary plat notice.

It's just preliminary plat review. And I mean, again,

I think we want to stay with the state statute. I agree. Stay with the state. Okay. All right.

So for this one, for now, we're going to go back to council's original recommendation. So this is item 142. So that would need to be a part of the motion. Item 144, well...

I'm just going to say for the record, I think we should be providing notice. I will make the amendment and the motion with that excluded. Understood. Just want to make that for the record.

I understand. I think 143 is highlighted here in coordination. So this runs parallel with 142. So same, we would need to also adopt 142's original language. So that would also need to be a part of the recommendation or part of the motion. 144, change notice requirement from 15 days to 30 days. I think council staff and PC all agree that notice would be 30 days for both rezoning and subdivision, no? Okay, yep. But we're essentially stretching out the public notice period from 15 days to 30 days and it will be consistently 30 days. So we agree with Planning Commission's recommendation on 144, correct? Yes, okay, all right.

All public notices will be 30 days?

Yes.

For any hearing, right?

Not necessarily any hearing, yeah.

If I could clarify, this change is related to text amendments. And so when the text amendments are related to the zoning map, they have to have 30 days. But we sometimes do text amendments that are not related to the zoning map. Staff already advertises those at 30 days. This is just to align the UDO so that there's no confusion. The 30-day notification is the safer route, so we never run into any issue.

Thank you. I am, yeah.

All right, so 144. So just to clarify, when we're making the revisions for 142 and 143, council did not make a decision last time for those items. Those are new items. So we have to make a decision for those and say what we want. Planning Commission, that was the first time that it came up was with Planning Commission.

We only have, I mean, there are choices. That was already in the.

This was included in the last discussion. However, it was missed from the motion and shown is who caught that. So it was discussed and agreed the way it was written, but it was not included in the motion that was made. So he put it back in here so that a motion could be made for it.

Well, we only, so we made a motion based off of the matrix and it's not in the matrix.

That number wasn't called out. It was missed in the listing.

But I have the matrix. It was not in the matrix from the last meeting. No, it was not.

I think Sean had his number 99. It wasn't there.

No, it went up to 125. So anything after number 125 was not in the matrix. So that's why I'm saying anything after 125, we need to address and just say, we're accepting based off of this.

Well, we're accepting the planning statement Commission's recommendation would change us. This was all part of the recommendation. Correct.

Oh, I apologize for the confusion. So if I may, I'm with you, but what Administrator Tucker and I are talking about is if you notice above that, you can see where you— There's all the county attorney ones that we accepted. Yeah, from 126, which would end the matrix, down through one—it looks like 140. Those were mine that you all accepted. So they wouldn't have been included on the last matrix because you accepted them as a separate document.

So it's anything 141 and after that we have to specify that we accept.

Correct. Thank you.

Yep. We're on the same page.

We need to go back to 141 and we need one. We need.

Okay.

So we will need, we need 141 through 146 on the motion. Okay. I think I'm getting to clear, but I think.

But this is all part of the planning commission's recommendation. So why can't we just consider it all as part of the planning commission's recommendation and still make changes to whatever the recommendation is, if we so choose.

We are, but council never made a recommendation for some of these, which is why we have to go back and make those specific recommendations.

I think. I think it's fine. Either way, Councilman Graham, I understand what you're saying. Like they've already given us this paper. Yeah, here it is. Okay.

So if we're agreeing with it, then fine. If we're not agreeing with it, then we're making a change.

Correct. And then if you make that change, it's going back to the PC. Yeah, exactly.

Or making a change that's not currently included in the draft. So we're making... Correct. If it's in the draft or what's in their recommendation, you can't do anything else.

If it's something brand, brand new, it's going to have to go back to the PC. Yes.

So we're saying we're approving everything that the Planning Commission has recommended in the new matrix, with the exception of, and then go through those four items? Okay.

Correct.

Okay. All right. I just have to clarify 142 and 143 differences.

142 and 143 is we're leaving council's recommendation. Right, that's it. Yes.

Council, no. Council has not recommended for 142 and 143. Those are the ones that I have to specifically call out and then say that council recommends what was in the original document.

You have us covered on 142, 143, 144, 145, and 146. What about 145? Hold on.

Why are we limiting the days of farm stands?

I think we're actually, I think it's going the other way. Right now it's limited to a specific time frame of 120 days. Now it's going to 219.

I don't see why there should be a limit on them. If somebody's got a greenhouse and they open year-round, I just don't know. I think that's an unenforceable regulation.

My guess is the Department of Agriculture is going to be like, they shall.

We've dealt with them, and this farmer has a right to farm, and I just think that's an unnecessary regulation.

So I've got you on that one. So right now, the amendments that I'm going to do are for 37, 103, and 142, because 143, the Planning Commission agreed with the recommendation. So as long as we're saying that we're agreeing with the Planning Commission recommendations, we're covered, okay? So we're agreeing with 144. So 145 is now where we're back with Mr. Harper.

145 is something we did not bring up that Planning Commission brought up. So either you want to accept the changes in 145 and then we'll have a conversation about 146 also. But those were just new observations by Planning Commission that you can either accept or leave as is. Planning Commission said these two get a little wonky because of the formatting changes. Planning Commission is recommending that we increase the allowable timeline from 120 days, which is the typical length of the growing season, to 219 days.

That will be one of my first recommendations when we have our First Amendment would be to delete that section.

You want to limit the amount of days?

No. He wants to not... limit the amount of days. Well, I mean, I think, I mean, I think. Have as many as you want.

Okay, so take out the 219.

I think we could do that now because the, yeah, the 120 was originally, well, I mean, it was all, the UDO as you sent it to planning commission, the UDO as you sent it to planning commission already had a limit of 120 days. You're saying you don't want to limit at all But your option is to take it the way you sent it to Planning Commission, which is 120 days, or you accept Planning Commission's recommendation of 219 days. Deleting it altogether isn't an option until we adopt and do it as a future text amendment.

Did Planning Commission specify the 219 days, or did they say the growing season? I think they said the growing season.

That's 365 days a year.

Right. So that's why I wanted to make that clarification that when we accept the planning commission's recommendation, it's going to be for the whole growing season, not the 219 days that's reflected in the matrix.

And if that's, we need to put that in the motion as well, since the matrix does show 219 days.

That's why I was clarifying it. All right. So I think that covers what you were concerned about Mr. Harper.

146, consultants and the staff agree with planning commission's recommendation there. It's just a clarification that mailed notice of all public hearings is provided to abutting property owners by including text from current UDO section 9.2.4.C.1.A. It's just UDO, this is in line with the current UDO procedure already. This is just sort of a clerical catch is the best way to say that. So no specific, nothing specifically needs to be called out there. We'll just accept that one. That's it, okay. Yeah, that's gonna be a text amendment later. Yes. All right. Are we clear or confused? Clearly confused.

We'll go forward.

It was either option A or option B. You can't have all of the above. Can't be clearly and confused.

All right. And then for the ones that we are doing the remove, so the posted notices that we can look at as a text amendment later if we want to analyze it more. I believe so, yes. Okay.

All right. Before we get to the motion, any other questions, comments, concerns?

I have a comment or a a thought and I don't know if it belongs in this discussion or we can talk about it after the motion, but we've talked about a lot of text amendments. So I would really like to see before we do final reading for this, what those text amendments that we have on a list so that we can agree that, okay, like everybody agrees that, hey, here's the ones that we're going after. And I'll take it a step further in the sense that, There's going to be some of them that are going to be relatively easy to do, and there's going to be some that are not going to be easy to do, and they're going to take longer. So when we started talking about this, I would really love to see like a three-month, six-month, nine-month, 12-month basically tax amendment schedule so that we know that, okay, in these three months, these are the ones that we're going to address. These are the ones that we're going to try to do in the six-month. And then as we have other things come up, which I'm sure we will as more applications come through and more situations come through, that we're actively putting those items that need to be discussed or worked through for text amendments kind of on that schedule so that we don't just celebrate the UDO getting passed and then forget about all the other stuff.

And I think we had talked about in the last meeting.

We had to rewrite it again.

Yeah. I think we had talked about keeping the ad hoc committee intact to continue to deal with the future text amendment. So we can begin. We are keeping a running list, but we can look at it in that light.

And so I have a couple of comments. So when we're doing that ad hoc review of the text amendments, we can update individual sections as that ad hoc committee kind of sends things over to county council.

Yes. Once we get through adoption, then we will go back. We don't have to wait for all of them in order to do a regular process. Ad hoc committee can make a recommendation to planning commission, planning commission. Then we'll then bring those tax amendments to count.

And that's how I would recommend to Mr. Graham's point. That way we can start moving forward and correcting things faster rather than having to wait for everything to come through at the same time. We would be fine with that. Um, question i know there were a lot of public comments there were some citizen comments on monday how are we addressing those items because all i've seen i've seen staff comments planning commission and what we've done but i haven't seen really anything on constituent concerns there was a real a concern with the neighborhood business that could be an issue Correct.

That's why I was addressing it. And that was specific to vehicular service and maintenance. We had talked about that. Shannon, I don't know if one of you can talk about next steps on that one.

So some of the text amendments, I'm keeping up with those. First and foremost, I have a list already of things that it's going to take a little bit more time to look at. But the neighborhood business, with that currently in the UDO, you could have that with the conditional use.

In the one that we're currently reviewing right now.

And so with the proposed one, in neighborhood business, you could have a convenience store in neighborhood business. Personally, for me, neighborhood business should be a small-scale bakery and that type thing. But I understand, too, neighborhood business in Beaufort, that could be a convenience store. So you could do a special exception. You're giving them an option to still be able to do it with a special exception or just remove it completely from neighborhood business.

We can't do that now if we don't send it, so we have to have it as a text amendment. We'll have to address this. We'll have to look into how we can address this.

Essentially, removing that use altogether from neighborhood business, I think, is where staff has sort of settled, but that would have to come as a future text amendment, and that can be done as quickly as you all want to take it up.

Okay.

Correct. Yes.

Absolutely.

Well, that's where we have to maybe...

I think one of those is really what you would consider a rural business, and one is a true neighborhood business. To me, those are two different situations. Rural business, all day long, neighborhood transitioning... It's not so much.

That's where we need to look at the text amendment and make sure that we're clarifying the uses that are appropriate for each one of those districts.

For that particular one, could we have a text amendment ready to go as soon as we pass the UDO?

Yeah, that's my question.

That way we could start considering it, and that would put a hold on anybody being able to do anything with it.

I would, I would, we'd have to look at the timing and the scheduling. I mean, I think we can go ahead and start preparing that text amendment to be in front of the planning committee. I mean, we can skip the ad hoc committee if you want to and take it straight to the planning commission for a text amendment as soon as the UDO passes. So the November planning commission could include a conversation about removing that use from neighborhood business. I think that's what I'm hearing.

And we already have a spreadsheet of things that work, you know, the most ones that we know immediately we need to start working on on the text amendment. We have a list of just from last night, a conditional use.

Yeah.

Those type things, we already have those, so I want to make sure that I just address it.

But I'm also looking, so I know that we address, we're looking at the one that was addressed on Monday, but also there were citizens that were providing comments to the actual document that I haven't seen a collection of comments or...

So the consultants have those and they've provided those to us and they're also on the website. So we have those and after we do the... is to get the UDO adopted, look at... the ones that we need to go ahead and currently get started on the text amendments now. And then also too, because there's a lot of comments, but a lot of those comments are the same comments.

The same comments as staff or planning commission already covered. Yeah. Or they're consistent comments that are the same.

Or they're consistent comments from the public.

So we should... We can provide you those. Yeah, I'd like to see those because that's important because we've looked at staff, we've looked at planning commission. But it seems to me like we're ignoring the public's feedback.

And I think that's going to be the appearance of it. Yeah, I understand. Yes. Those comments have been reviewed and will continue to be reviewed and incorporated into future text amendments. Yeah. And we can provide counsel with all of those comments now. And certainly the ad hoc committee would start with those comments.

Yes. just so that we can be addressing them and making sure that we're checking off all the boxes and if there were comments that were already done, that staff already included them, that way we can reveal to, it's the effort of transparency. We can tell the public, we heard you, these are the decisions that we made, these are why we made those decisions. Understood.

Yeah, and a lot of those emails that we've gotten from personal with the open houses, we've let them know, you know, we're working on those. Yes, those are in some of the texts that we're, you know, changing. Our council planning commission has already addressed those. So we are communicating with those folks.

Okay.

But we do have, the consultants have provided a list. Yeah.

concerns I would love to see that consolidated list just so that we can start addressing at least have it as a public transparency effort and just say these are all the comments these are the decisions that we made this is why we made them and I mean I'd be happy to go to my district and talk about those we will work on getting those comments to all of you because I think one of those had to do with like storage containers and the existing uses for storage containers and things like that so which we can address with tax amendments as well if we have to

All right, do we have any other comments? Then I think we're ready for a motion.

Okay, so I move to approve the updated matrix of UDO recommendations accepting the Planning Commission recommendations as shown therein, except as follows. We will use council's recommendations for items 37 and 103. We are... recommending as a council that on item 142, we will remove the posted notices for both and for item 144, Council is okay with the Planning Commission recommendation, but it is for for the full growing season It is not going to be limited by the number of days that were shown on the matrix because the Planning Commission had only spoken about 144 145 145 I'm sorry, so it's item 145

I mean, that's not changing anything.

I'm just clarifying that we're being consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation.

It's an arbitrary number.

It was a number that was just added. The Planning Commission only spoke about the full growing season.

All right. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. Do we have any other business? If not, I'll accept the motion to adjourn.

So moved.

I have a motion to adjourn. We stand adjourned.