Planning and Zoning - Special Meeting

The second thing is that this is a huge document. Thank you all for getting your questions in and getting them to them so they can look at it. What I would ask of the board is to ask your questions, get your questions answered. If you have suggestions for changes or you want them to look at it, please be brief and considerate of everybody's time so everybody can get their answers in. I didn't specifically write any questions because I read y'all's and most of what y'all wrote is the same thing that I had in mind. But there's a lot of stuff in here that we're not going to be able to cover and we're not trying to change everything. It's just some things in here that concern us and we want to understand it.

Okay?

basically mine everybody has asked questions that you wanted answers to okay with that we'll get started you guys have any comments to begin with I just we gave you the presentation last week and we were here to answer questions and just have conversations so we're just going to let you kind of direct us with where you want it to go but I mean we have looked at the what you said, so we can start answering those, but I figured you could kind of guide the conversation.

Well, let's just start that way, and we'll start. Melissa, you have them all, I think. Let's just start from that end. If anybody has any additional questions, we can go through them.

Okay. Well, we'll just start with the sensory dwelling units. I believe that was the first attachment I sent to you guys. Yes. And basically it's just wanting to know, this is from Mr. Blake. We originally started with a century dwelling early on, and then at some point it transitioned to guest house, guest cottage, however the verbiage went. Where did, like, where did that, like, where did that terminology, what was the point that made it change from a century-long unit or pool house or garage apartment to just to get?

Yeah, so if I, you know, recalled it correctly, we've been going with the ADUs and there was a lot of conversation and discussion regarding allowing an ADU being perceived as an increase in density on the property. And so there was a lot of concern regarding allowing it to be a true accessory dwelling that could be occupied full time rented by non family members and kind of utilize as a, you know, Additional stream of income however that other you know the primary property owner wanted to be and then also if it would lead to future increases and subdivision of those properties when they were sold Because you suddenly have two houses on one property Quote-unquote even though it should just be an accessory in that primary so that guest house is something you already have in your ordinance and as it is, right? I think we ended up retaining that language and updating it.

We carried over what you had and we updated it with maybe the 50% standard where we kept it smaller than the principal structure and then might have added some extra standards for parking or the look of the building has to match the principal structure also.

So a lot of it was just the guidance from the members who were in both the staff and the different board members in those project team meetings we had over the last two years, year and a half?

Have you gone back and take a look at it since the staff met and we met that I think we're going a step too far in limiting that people can only stay there a certain amount of time and eliminate the kitchens and all that. From my point of view, I think we wanna step too far.

Which could be the case. So based on the board meeting, the special call board meeting last month, we were going to remove the kitchen, the not allowing kitchen. So we are going to put that back in. And there was, what else was there?

Yeah, we talked about reinstating, allowing that full kitchen use. And then I know we also spoke about not regulating who can stay, duration of stay. So that's definitely something that we were going to update, just didn't make it into this.

Okay, but you are all looking at that. Yes, yes, yes. That is the plan to update that.

Yeah, so the draft you have and what I sent to be posted on the county website, did not capture any of the comments really that we had had since the August 26th board meeting and the discussions we had with you. We wanted to get through at least this meeting and probably the first public hearing, so next week, your planning commission meeting, before we went and did a major update.

I thought the change of terminology from ADU to guest house was an attempt to really emphasize no permanent dwelling. It needs to be a short-term stay for guests and so forth. But the research that I've done is that this is a, that ABUs can be used just fine for children that are, you know, their short-term, you know, a few months, years, whatever, elderly parents, those kinds of things that I just feel like it shouldn't be limited to short-term stays. The owner of the property who should be living on the property, in my opinion, to have an ADU on it, you know, wants to do whatever with it. We need to regulate where it is what it can be used for, and then after that, we would never know what they did with it unless there's a . So I think if it's close to the principal dwelling, I don't know what that distance needs to be. If there needs to be, maybe it needs to be left up to our zoning administrator, I don't know.

Well that might be a good question for Eddie, just for fire and safety. I know a lot of it now, a permitting has to be 20 feet between. And it may be something where essential dwellings have to be attached in syncytic systems.

But will environmental health allow that? Yeah, they will. They will? Yeah.

Okay.

I really think that's going too far. Yeah. I mean, the way I see it, an essential dwelling, if a guy has enough acreage of land, and wants to cut off or not cut off, but allow his child or mother or whoever to build, you know, if it's set back, why should we say it can't live 100 feet from this one or it has to be attached or whatever? I just think that accessory dwelling should be basically left as it was.

As the former guest house language was. Yes, I mean, guest house.

You can have two rooms. You can have a guest house and you can have an ADU.

So your ADUs right now, is that all a special use process?

No, it can be by rider.

It's your zone, correctly, yes. Okay. And it's allowed in A1, A2, and AR.

Okay. Does it have to be able to be subdivided to stand on its own? No. Okay.

And that's where the challenge runs into. Let's just go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room. You brought it up in your initial. That's the way that ADUs have been perceived in certain municipalities as an end around density, if you will. And it's been a way to have a secondary residence, whether the purposes are stated or not. But then what happens when that's where the challenge that we haven't been able to, we're not even talking about. But it's not a question if. We've had it come to us on the front side where somebody says, I want to build this. They're self-funding it. They're not able to complete it. Then they come to us because they've run out of funds. Well, they don't own the land. They can't get a loan to finish the ADU. That was our first into the other side of this that they're talking about there. And that's my concern. And my question was, and it wasn't a question, it was a statement. we needed to look at our residential zoning classifications to help because an ADU as currently done is just an end around to our AR.

I think there's two ways you could do it. We could do it through, well, first let me say one thing. y'all have the hardest job and you're never going to make everyone happy. Like it's just not, it's not possible. And this is, this is where it gets really, really hard because they can come up to you and they can tell you these things. You know them personally, you go to church with them, you kids play together, you know, whatever it may be. And sometimes to enforce your regulations, you have to say no. And that's really hard to separate that personal relationship y'all have, how you got elected in a lot of the ways with what your code says. So there's kind of two ways we can approach it. We can try and provide these very clear regulations that say it has to be secondary, it can't be further subdivided. We can put that in, but then when they come and ask y'all to allow them to do it, it puts you in that difficult situation. So I think we can try and build out standards that you feel comfortable with. I feel like we've been trying to do that a lot, which has brought us, you know, ADUs, no ADUs. Now we're calling them guest houses to make it more appetizing. We don't put a kitchen in so that they can't be full-time residences. But we're not going to be able to make everyone happy. So I think where we need direction is What is your comfort level? Are you okay calling it a guest house and knowing that people are probably going to rent it, they're probably going to put a full kitchen in, and you're just going to have to enforce it through code enforcement if you get a complaint because you don't allow a rented ADU? Do you want to go ahead and allow an ADU to be rented and then have regulations around how that is managed? And you could still have a guest house. We could still keep a guest house classification that's used for friends and family. But the hard part is I can't write into the code that your son, daughter, granddaughter can live in the guest house full time when I can't have, if I own that same property, I can't have Liz, who's my coworker, living out there full time. I can't just say because it's relationship-based that it's okay.

I don't like the term guest house. It's common terminology to me with looking at other counties and their plans. The ABU is a common term and it's defined pretty much the same way universally in my mind. And so that's what I was trying to institute here was to get away from the independent home on the backside of a 10 acre, you know, and bring it back as a subordinate of the principal dwelling. That was my... Go ahead.

I understand what you're saying, but one thing, the way I look at it, we're just recommending boards, so we don't make the final decision. But the way that... I'm sorry I'm late. You probably might have answered this, but you might not. But what we're looking at is, like he said, if people have enough acreage, And we have it in the, what areas you're talking about? A2, A1? Okay, those are usually people with farms, got large farms. That's why they come to us with ADUs, because they have children, or somebody that needs to come in after they've gotten to a certain age that they need help with. So I'm with the Guest House, I get them from California where they do have guest houses and people do live in them long term.

Yeah.

But here, it's common ADUs. And guest house to me is like a pool house or something. So to me, I think it's still needed. But like we said, we have to go by the rules like when he said that people come in here and we're out of money. That should not be something that comes to us and is already listed in our ordinance that there's only certain things that you can come to us that we can make a grant. Grant a variance. Yeah. So those should be already filed. So that's what I'm saying, but ADU should be still in our in our ordinance because those are where they come in. And also, I have a question. I don't know if you answered this. We're talking about ADEs right now. And then we'll move on.

Where you're saying it can only be 50% of the size of the primary.

Some of these houses are not that big. I know, it might be only 800 feet. So where are we gonna, where does that come into? How do you?

That's something we've struggled with in other communities, and I don't know if I've seen it addressed.

Yeah, then you're getting into the tiny house type thing, I'm not sure.

Which is not the goal.

Which is not the goal, okay. I know that was just my question.

I like that they're used, but there ought to be certain restrictions on the size that you put them on, the size of the house that you make, like I said. That way, right now, somebody coming in over to a new house, there's no size limit on it. It could be bigger than the house that the rest of it lives in, way out of order to you right now. It should be set up to have a certain size limit If you've got a major house that's 2,200 square feet, the ADU that should be 1100 square feet. There should be a size limit on the ADU.

I don't know if you got the email I sent you. Okay, good. I just feel if you have some land large enough and you should be able to put a second house there for your parents, your children, maybe you're an elderly farmer and now you need a farm manager. So it has to be a house that's an acceptable place to live and not just, you know, taking away the kitchen. What are you going to do, take away a bathroom too? You know, I just can't see them, you know, it's such a need. If you've got the land, you deserve a second house. There needs to be restrictions.

I think they probably have what we feel about ADUs, but we could discuss ADUs all night. So I want to make this concise. Let them know what we think, and they're the ones that's going to rewrite this thing. We can't rewrite it tonight.

Here's what I'm going, I think what we'll end up doing is take summaries from both of our conversations and kind of try and put together a recommendation to the board. And so we'll probably draft that and send it to you. And it's probably not going to make, because you guys have differing opinions. Sure. But if we can send it to you and say this is, you know, we're recommending it not be called a guest house, it be called an accessory dwelling, but we allow this or we, you know, kind of propose some update to the code.

Everyone here is probably ADUs.

But where do we come to rental versus non-rental? You do what you want. Do what you want.

We don't have the infrastructure to be able to...

I mean, I agree.

I'm just, that's my opinion. I'll jump in there. I believe most likely... the counties that y'all have worked with are probably a couple steps ahead of us in regards to this. I mean, this is the first time we are instituting this since 94. Okay. And once again, I tried to look at surrounding counties, and that's the reason I'd like a little bit more time to be able to look at this and really be able to compare. What does Walton County, I grew up in Gwinnett County, but it's not the same anymore, of course. We're really able to compare.

Franklin that you mentioned, that one?

Yes.

Undoing it?

Okay.

No, they're not undoing it, but they're not happy with their final product.

And nobody's going to be happy. I agree 100%. I want it out there. Nobody's going to be happy 100% of the time in that definite room. But yes, that is the county.

Okay. Our county is already in discussion because they're putting ADUs on little properties.

Oh, yeah. Well, they said no. That's done. Right now. We'll come back up. Okay. So call it ADU, maybe we are either silent on the rental, so it's not explicitly, because we can be silent on certain things. And if it's silent, you can work with your attorney to decide if he wants to pursue citations if issues do come up. Remove the kitchen restriction, but still 50% of the maximum house. Try and see what we can do for small homes. I think putting a cap on it, period.

If you have a 6,000-square-foot house, I don't know who would, but if they did, then why would you want a 3,000-square-foot accessory dwelling? I think there needs to be a cap.

A maximum of 1,200, either 50% of the home or a maximum of 1,200 square feet.

Because I'm trying to look up ADUs.

I don't want to get stuck on ADUs. I know, I know. Because we've got a lot of other stuff to cover. You guys know how to... from the conversation, what you need to do, what you need to look at. I'd like to move on to the next topic because we could spend the full talk talking about changes in ADUs. I like the idea of you taking the information and putting something together. Right. I think that's what we're here for, to give you something to think about and to work on or to hear our opinion on.

And so we'll wait to do that until after next Tuesday. Though I figure Tuesday, if there's comment, a lot of it will maybe be from the public. We'll see. But hopefully you get a lot of your comments this hour. So next thing.

We can either just continue down one if y'all want to, or we can jump around. It looks like there is a consensus about where the reduction in lot sizes are. Yeah, I was going to say, I said a lot, so I know it's kind of... Yeah, that's a good one. So how did we go from 25 and it came in at four to dropping those?

We went back and forth a lot again with this. And I think this is, there was a feeling that the current sizes are too restrictive because they're too large. And that's probably not the right way to say it. It was essentially like 25 is too big at this point in time. You don't have people who want to own that acreage. Obviously ignoring farms. I'm not talking about true agricultural land. And because we talked this through a lot.

Yeah, we went back and forth on it a lot. It has at least four iterations of different lot sizes. I think this was Sort of a discussion on what partial sizes, what lot sizes are realistically being seen in the county. So it's an attempt to match what people are asking for with what is policy direction comfortable with, so.

Well, I think that A1, from what we've had to go through, A1, A2, we don't have a problem with. AR. is where we... Talking about at the current? At the current. At the current. At the current, say, you know, A1 is 25, A2 is 10, and then AR is 4. And that's where we started running into a lot of discussion or whatever. You know, because we fought a long time from 4 to 2. You guys recommended three.

I think we ended up at three just as a compromise.

Before you go and you cut it for free, but then you put something in there that really complicates things is that In certain cases, it can be two.

Well, we can take that out. This was, again, we tried to accommodate you guys in a lot of ways, and that was probably partially on us. We should have maybe been a little more firm and said no.

No.

Okay. So if you aren't comfortable with that way to allow that two acres, we can strike that.

I was saying, we have, and I know you look at it, we have a lot of non-conforming lots out there. And that's when we went from two to four, that's how they produce. So why not go back to the two and then discuss the three or whatever, because it was confusing about, okay, you have to have three, but you can't have two. We already got the twos out there. I think that's why.

Yeah, that's why we went or why we attempted to build flexibility with that 2.17, the criteria for reducing it to two, was you have the non-conforming parcels at two acres and you move back to the four acre minimum. So the three acre minimum was an attempt to find middle ground that it sets policy that you want to see bigger AR parcels than what you're seeing, but instead Kind of in the same vein. They're not too different from that one acre difference from what you already put in the county.

You know what, you're trying to please everybody.

But you can't do it.

You're going to have the non-conforming.

Well, the non-conforming is going to be non-conforming.

No, I know, but I'm saying you have a lot of two out there. Yeah. Those are two. Then that's what I said. why wouldn't it, the two remain? Because you already have those, those will bring those back in.

Well, because people felt that two acres was too small for a true agricultural residential property. That two acres just wasn't enough land.

You needed more to truly have that, that rural preservation intent to keep lot sizes large. Okay. Now,

Our comp plan states that rural conservation land use is supposed to be large, large parcels. But large is a...

Your large parcel is so different scale than a lot of other places.

It depends on where you live as to whether something's large or small. Two acres is large.

I think the pressure that you are seeing and you're struggling with is you have a lot of these really large A1, A2 parcels that have been generational farms and even if it wasn't farmed in family land and now they want to be sold and that's where you're having that pressure to rezone to smaller properties. So I think one of the reasons we dropped those lot sizes some was to try and keep some property in A1 and A2 and still keep agriculture as a primary zoning category by recognizing that there is a trend towards smaller lots overall.

Does that help explain it?

Well, I tell you what, I'm just going to do my personal thing. I think you need to leave A1 and A2 alone AR, you need to set an acreage, whether it be four, three, or two, and not put that, you can't name this or can't, because that just makes it more difficult and really hard to make a decision on.

Okay.

That is from my perspective.

No, we agree.

Let me add this about A1. We used to have a five-acre A1. We moved that to 25. If I remember correctly, primarily because that is generally what it takes to build a commercial poultry operation. We don't have really anything else capable of poultry. But when we talk about lowering A1 to 15 acres, and then I think I saw in here where you can have up to four poultry houses on 15 acres. Well, four poultry houses won't fit on 15.

So my argument back would be, that's okay. They could either put one or two, or they have their needs, but I see your point.

Yeah, so I was thinking, what's the reason for going to A, to go into 15 in the first place, if you can't put four poultry houses on it, which is typically the standard. The starting, that's what the contract would be. Why are we even bothering with it? Personally, I'd rather keep it at 25.

Okay, so I think it's...

It can, but that's my opinion.

So let's leave definitely A1 at... at 25 per the recommendation and aq are you all comfortable at 10 acres or yes okay and then we'll go with three for ar whatever it is so i'm not making anybody

and then you compromise it.

Three for eight is a good compromise, I think. But how many? You don't have no three acres, though. Well, just the 10-minute information for conservation.

The purpose is not to look back. The purpose is to look forward. It doesn't matter what happens. For conservation, you have to have 10. For conservation, you have to have 22 or more. For conservation, you have to have 10 for now. Okay. They will not accept any application.

So 25 is good. Yeah.

And then I think... I just learned that. I think A2 at 10s or at Sakuga makes sense.

Well, and you have to have 12 if you want to put a home on it. It doesn't make two for your class. So then the other 10 could qualify.

But now you have to have 22. Yeah, I didn't know that.

or they won't even accept it. And we have your data from 2024 for rezoning cases, but y'all had 15 on the last one. You're going to have close to 15 on this upcoming one. What are the rezonings from ag to what? What are you being asked? Or is it not residential? Is it other things?

Well, most of them I want to cut off and give that child or whoever

And I think that's where we started to see a lot of these A1s getting rezoned to AR because you wanted to accommodate that split for a child. And that's where we've run into this complication.

Well, and a lot of our A1s are currently lawfully non-conforming. So you have an A1 that is like seven acres.

Yeah. Well, because it used to be five.

And then I'll jump in there once again. The use of ADUs is disproportionately, I would imagine. I don't have the data, but just the number that we utilize ADUs under AR. 20% of the time?

It's primarily ADUs.

a lot of what it is that we do. And then there is also the cutting out for an AR for a child, whatever, whether it's two, three, or four, whatever the number is, out of a parent parcel, an A1, A2, or a non-conforming. That is what we see a lot of our cases revolve around.

We have some that cut R1 out of A1 or A2. Yeah. We've got one coming up.

Next week is R2 out of a rural conservation area, A1, which our comp plan says is unacceptable.

So, okay, I think we have, we're good.

Good or relevant?

Yes. Now, PUDs and TDRs, is that the next good place to go?

Well, I mean, let's go ahead and talk about road frontage. While we're already talking about lot sizes, that was one of the things on here. Yes. I know we kind of discussed this at the last one, but I'm a little confused.

I don't know if anybody else is confused.

I'm pretty sure y'all have heard this. It's like a broken record. We are currently using minimum lot width as our road frontage. But going forward, what is the standard road bridge?

Is it 30 feet or is it 50 feet? So it's 30. Decided on 30 feet to match the easement requirements. Or did we discuss upping it to 50?

We did discuss if you wanted to make sure there was decent separation between driveways. That was one of the

So 30 feet is the minimum for even width. And then we could do 50 and add that additional 10 feet.

I was just wondering if 50 is too much. This has flag lights.

Yeah, and...

I also... I see what you turned to there. Where was I going?

Flag lights for 50? So going back to the one we had, that one was a flag lot.

And it had three driveways that would have been right close, I mean, maybe 10 feet between each other. So that's what I'm saying. That was not, to me, and then it was on a curb. That safety reason, still 30 feet, but You know, I'm just saying.

Yeah, driveway separation would not allow that. I think we probably set it at 100, 150. I can't remember off the top of my head.

Right now, we use 150. Is that right? Well, that's the whole project. 150. 125 feet for less than 35 miles an hour.

I like that, but I just feel like road front, if we could bring in the road frontage, I did look at other counties as well, and they typically said it wasn't 40 to 60 feet. I did notice that a local road, we've had cases where the county has taken over adopted roads, and their minimum is 60 feet.

It's 60 feet right away, yeah.

Yeah, so that's why I was like, if we're choosing footages, then why not choose 60 feet?

I should be here should be no good good groundwork you want to do you know you go do you have the back-to-back they have met up yeah I'm just it's depending on the miles per hour the road is to how much this is my problem it's a little bit of gold and we will not know the direction of that yeah

Could you elaborate a little bit on what y'all are talking about? That was my come along this with shared drives. That is something that the counties around are utilizing to help accomplish these same things.

Yeah. So flag lots, I think we encourage shared drives between two. I think maximum, I'll have to find this. Maximum two flag lots shared, which would essentially give you, if you're doing 50 foot frontage, 100 foot of frontage to accommodate that each.

And then you'd have a shared driveway for just those two parcels. Other ways of doing shared driveways, what we've done in your ordinance, there are private streets right now. And that is, say, a new residential subdivision where you're going to have one acre lots or smaller. And it's a gated community. The developer builds the streets. They're always private. They're built to county standards, but they're always maintained by that HOA, that developer under that development. Then your public right-of-ways that you guys build and you maintain. And then we have private drives, which are those substandard non-conforming streets that y'all have, right? So private drives, they're substandard, provide access to one parcel, more than one parcel, and they're located within the boundary. So that's where the easement comes in. The private drives are the easements. And the way we have done it, because from what we understood, there's a lot of concern about having all of these private drives and accessibility and maintenance of them. So we said all private drives that exist, that they can continue to remain, but no new private drives can be created. unless it is a landlocked parcel and they have to get frontage via an easement to develop the site.

How many? Four.

Four off of that access easement. I don't know if that's going to make everyone happy.

We tried to... Well, nothing's going to make everybody happy.

I know. We tried to allow the development of landlocked parcels without having to construct to full county standards. We can allow easements anywhere, but there was such concern about them and y'all's responsibility to maintain them that there really was not a desire to really allow subdivisions along existing road frontage that would then have a common drive. How does that work within the flag? The flag lots are a special, Like if it's a flag lot, you can have one shared drive for two back-to-back.

I like what you've done with it. I like putting the responsibility of the private drive on the land of the users of the private drive. And that they must have a covenant with each other. My only question was to make sure we didn't have conflict because I think I stated two different sections. But to me, you were saying if they are an existing private drive today, and you split a lot and now you have a new access to that private drive. Are those?

I think they can only do that if there's not four already. Yeah. So existing common drives.

I like it.

What are other thoughts?

My only concern is it's great to have an HOA or whatever, but who enforces it? That's where at the end of the day, you're sitting at a closing table, and that HOA, who enforces it?

So I think the distinction would be to think of an HOA for a larger development. That's going to be where you're putting in true streets, you're paving them, there's stormwater, sidewalks, that sort of thing, and that's going to be that larger development, and they're going to have to, they'll have a maintenance agreement or whatever.

Right.

The smaller ones, we're still asking a maintenance agreement to be recorded as part of that. And ideally it's for owners, and yes, it becomes a civil matter, but that's where we...

I just, as someone who has dealt with this recently, you know, homeowners in California, there's actually a will that's a private, you know, that services this community and those type things. it's not in madison and it's all the funds now because yeah and then who pays for gravel that's really i just can't get into my that's the that's my only concern this sounds great but in practical application i mean the only other thing is that you can't do any of that and you have to either have direct road frontage or you have to build a road you're going to talk about not making people happy exactly so this was our

We know that's the issue but through all of these conversations we felt like enabling these regulations was more important so that if the county did have to get involved at some point or there was an accusation of you not help you know the in excess of you know the life safety you can say well You developed this. You knew the standards. We told you. We told you you needed to maintain it. It's not great, but it gives you things to work with if it does ever get to a litigation point. You'll have to do the litigation, but better than not having something.

What's next, Melissa?

I think PUDs.

PUDs?

Yes. Okay, and I misspoke a good bit last time because I forgot that we connected them to the TDRs. We did do that to encourage them. To encourage TDRs, so transferring of those rights from your ag properties to where you want development. And your PUDs are supposed to be those unique ones that are going to request your smaller lot sizes need access to public utilities. So that was the incentive and beneficiation, how to incentivize them.

Well, I guess I'm confused. First of all, I still don't understand the TDR. I don't think anybody does. I don't understand. Can you tell me what that is?

Okay, so let me ask you a question then. We created the TDRs in an effort to help the comprehensive plan with that preservation goal of preserving ag properties or rural properties and concentrating development where there's the utilities and where there's already existing growth. If you don't feel like it's a tool that makes sense or is useful here, Do we even, do we want to bring it into your ordinance? We could keep the PUD ordinance and just divorce it from TDRs.

Can I ask you this then? So maybe if we understand it. If I'm a farmer, I'm A, and there's land over here, it's B. So, farmer A, A developer, and we say the developer comes in and wants to buy Farmer A's land. So Farmer A wants to do a TDR over here to buy landowner B's land.

Am I doing it? Kind of. So Farmer A, Developer B. So Developer already has land B. Oh, okay. But he wants to build more than he can. on land B, so then he seeks out farmer A for those development rights to increase development on his existing land. Oh, okay, that's good.

I think it kind of, it could make more sense if you pose it, if you pose yourself as the farmer. So if I have land, say I have 10 acres, I want to put five acres of it into conservation. It can just be a conservation tool that says, I want to permanently conserve this five acres, but also I want some trade-off. If I sold it as is, I know that someone could develop it to a certain level of development rights. If I want to put it into conservation, how can I sell those development rights, make money,

and then still conserve the property next to you or protect your property.

I don't know enough about TDRs to make it mandatory for anything. I think it might be a good tool.

Maybe it's an option. Yeah, it can be optional.

You know, to consider it. Like, if a HUD uses a TDR. I know nothing about TDRs. I would be hesitant to require any. I would, too.

yeah we'll look at if there's a different name we can call it to rather than transfer of development right well that's what it is I mean it is but if it's confusing yeah I think it should be option I mean once you look at it if you say farmer this and yeah it's it's clear but I don't know if there should be some people out here in the county that wouldn't understand that no way you try to force that on well there's some people

that want it for selfish reasons. But as overall, I doubt 10% of the county would understand what you're talking about.

I've already had someone mention to me that claims that they know about TDRs, that this might open the door for developers to come in and start buying property in this county. And I don't know enough about it to even argue with them.

I think where y'all have a lot of power is the site selection process.

But I don't think it would benefit a developer to buy a farm just to sell themselves the right to densify elsewhere. It would only help if developers bought up property that was around your existing utilities where you've designated that you want that growth to be. But they would still have to go and find somebody in your community that they want to essentially put a conservation easement on their land.

But then it's not good for the farmer in the end. Because now you have that in conservation. You can't take it out, can you? No, it's permanently preserved. Yeah, it's permanent. So your children, if they wanted to sell the land.

They could sell the land, but it would always have to be a farm. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

It would always be a farm.

And so to restate, the goal was to help you guys find mechanisms that would enforce your goals of the comp plan. And that comp plan goal was to preserve the agriculture and the rural nature. And this is where land development's hard, you know?

I was saying you put in truck to spot. 20 years down the road, a child may not want that to be a farm. He wants to sell it to somebody to do whatever they want to with it. It's kind of like you're locking it in.

Well, but what difference is that from the child being grown up and the dad selling the land off to the developer and them being upset that they aren't going to get the land, you know?

Go ahead. I was just going to say, I will repeat my case, that we are just dealing with what some of this is directly in front of us. probably under the guise that this was going to be a little bit more encompassing that we would really look at the zoning classifications both residential and agriculture to do what it is to look at our nodes where we do want growth and then how because that's realistically where we can have higher density because we don't have much sewer in the county and that's where you're able to utilize that for higher density. we need to look at the number of residential what the residential zonings are as well as the agricultural to me that would be the first or the foundational step before then we look at protecting from a development a transfer point first we start with there's five acre minimums in this portion of the county there's four acre minimums there's two acre minimums as we get closer to allow smart growth that we are putting true industrial, we are putting true business, we are putting true intensive agriculture in areas that we deem it to. And I just look at Oconee County and what it is that they've been able to accomplish. It's been a process. They've been very intentional with it. look at now where they have a true blend where within 45 minutes you can go to where you can see stars and then you can also go see Costco. And that's where I would like, that's the reason I volunteer my time on this board is to be a part of trying to have that for my children down the road. And I think we've just, this is a good step, but I think we could go much deeper at really pulling apart and looking at what it is we want to buy Utilizing our comp plan. A comp plan, I think, is the first time we realistically took it seriously, and a lot of people still aren't happy with it. But you just are continually improving, and that's where I think in this transfer development rights. Also, how do we administer it? That's the other part that I don't even think we included right now. We have no infrastructure. What are the tax ramifications for somebody who is in CUVA? on that large portion to be able to sell? Is there a reduction there? I think that just adds a whole other complex issue that we're not ready for.

So maybe our recommendation is to pull out the TDR right now. That is still a draft that we can retain. You guys can have. We can update the PUD so that it does not require the TDR. And that will be the recommendation at this point in time. Now, when we did develop what we are calling the sending and receiving areas, we did look at proximity to utilities, to where existing growth was, to, you know, so it wasn't just a complete uninformed.

And please, I'm not being too informed.

No, I know, I know. I didn't know that. We did think about that when we did like put the ordinance together. But the point about having the structure for administration and the tax implications, that definitely has not been done. So I think if you aren't comfortable with it, we can just remove it for now. You can put it back in in the future if and when it is a time after we've had time to or you've had time to look into those details. We'll stay around and help as long as you'll let us, but I'm not making assumptions.

I think you probably want to be compensated for your time. Do we have access to those sending areas? I've gone through. I don't know that that's been something that's been revealed to us.

Yeah, so we've been working on the mapping.

We have what we originally did, which in fact translated to the zoning layer. Did you bring that up? I thought you had something.

We can email it. We can email you what we have, like all the criteria selection and... Yeah. Yeah. I thought about it as I was walking in the door. I was like, I should have grabbed... I don't have any questions about PPD specifically.

So I think it's just how they're related to the TDR

No, I do. PUDs. We are utilizing this to meet my question. As PUDs were currently utilized now, we do not allow them in any agricultural zoning classifications. PUD is only able to be utilized in an R1, 2, and 3. And now, as we've changed the size that would bring it into effect and into play for agricultural areas. That, to me, kind of contradicts what it is that we are saying we want to do if we are now going to take and look at an A2 10-acre parcel would qualify for a PUD.

We can set lower. We've done it. Three acre like minimum for the development if it's a like an infill project to match an existing neighborhood We could also build in like these have to be on public utilities They can't be on water or like on well or stuff day so we can build in things like that that would direct it like as well mark growth policy initiative and where you as a board would be able to say, yep, this meets the intent of where we want to see growth happen.

Because you have access to utility. And it's not a conversion of an A. It still maybe is A1 to whatever.

But it's an appropriate location. We're going to have some of those that border the nodes that we have on the comp plan. Our comp plan does not have a particle level specific identification. To me, this just opens it up where then we have the potential for having one in an area that is not... Like, yeah. Correct. And I don't want to put that burden onto the staff for something that is not appropriate.

So by disinvesting it from the PBRs, that's essentially opening it up elsewhere, so we need to narrow it back. Yeah. Yeah.

Where do you really see PUDs being executed?

Well?

Well, thank you for that.

The ones that were done in the early 2000s that were true master planned communities like Sterling-on-the-Lake and Flowery Branch, Serenbe down in Chattahoochee Hills, like the very large scale Because otherwise you see someone come in with 100 acres and they just want to put 300 homes on 10,000 square foot lots. And that's why they want to do it as a plus.

And have a strip center at the front of the road frontage. That's the part that concerns me. I'm not saying what we had was right, but as we moved from 50 acres or 25 acres down to 10 acres, then we really...

So part of what we did, and I think this is... some philosophy to less regulations allows for more creativity, but with the PUD, we did try and put the, they have to satisfy two of the different criteria to try and get away from what you're talking about, where it's just kind of the, like representative commercial, oh yeah, I'm throwing a commercial up front, it's gonna be an AutoZone, a Taco Bell, and a Jersey Mike. And then you have all the residential units in the back.

But then you see, well, I'm 10 acres. I just don't see it either. Because you say recreational. Okay, they put out a swing set and call it that.

But I don't want to discourage creativity. And that's where I only know what I know.

that's y'all's well so we can do it like this we can say a pun needs to be a minimum of 25 acres but the board of commissioners and planning commissioners through their review process has the ability to consider applications that are less than that you know so do you i mean that really is why do you even have a minimum then yeah but i've seen places because halls did that where you have like a recommended yeah the recommended size is like 10 acres But like if you had a unique five acre site and came in with a really cool cottage court idea or something, yeah, okay, we'll consider it. I'm sorry, I didn't get to look at all of it.

Do they have in their design, like recreation designs and stuff like that? It can't be just something so little. It has to be.

So specifically like a choice of recreational facility that they can use. We've included golf course, equestrian center, and marina. They have to bring all of their standards to you. to the detail, to the specs that y'all want to see.

We talked about using PUD when the road's gone worse. Would that have been an appropriate application of PUD? We just felt like we weren't ready to deal with PUD.

And so what we've also done, and this is where you as staff and you as the board, but really you as staff, when they submit an application, You know, for a PUD, they should have a design book that lays out all of the details. Like, not just the high, like, these are a couple of pictures, what we want the homes to look like. But they should, I mean, they ideally, they're the land developer and they're the vertical construction, because they should have a full picture of what it's going to be. It shouldn't really be speculative. Now, controlling that's harder, but you can push back and say, this isn't a sufficient level of detail for a PUD.

could you put in the zoning ordinance that when they come in, have all the details to present to the zoning board. That should be something that we should see right off the hand so we know what to do.

Exactly, and that's the goal.

So right now, if they come in with a PUD, I just say we're gonna do a PUD and say this is gonna happen.

On the map.

On the map. But if we had it in writing what they're going to do, that would make it more easy for us to determine.

I think we did the last one that came before us. They actually had a survey in a representative layout of what they wanted. The parcel was on 29. Yeah. I mean, it was not a... We've got to start somewhere definitely.

To me, that was not a true put because they had the... I mean, the So businesses over here and housing on the other side.

I mean, just the way of the parcel lane. Sometimes if you have a, you know, a rectangle with a lot of road frontage, I mean, that would lead itself to something like that where you would have a division.

I mean, wasn't it closed and capped? Is that all on funds? You got anything else from this?

That got mine. You want to treat mine? That was mine. Two cents. Two dollars.

Okay. So the last thing I have is the consideration for printable use cases. Okay. At the very end of that one. So we've had a couple of things come up. And boarding house and a group home. And retreat centers.

transfer facilities like a retreat center like like a rental conference center somebody wants to rent it out for us whatever a board retreat or is it like a like we're like we have the what is the old boys and girls club yeah they're all too long yeah so like the

It's like a religious summer camp. Yeah, so like during off the lawn, they do like retreats. But it's not every weekend. And it's very large. I think it's like a 150-something acre track.

And do they put up temporary tents or is it some tents like cabins?

No, there's cabins. Like a center. Yes. Kitchen area. We have a camp right next to it. And that one is high school residential, right?

So we could add these standalone. This would be standalone, but what if it's still part of fraternal organizations?

Now we do have another one on newcomers. It's not a religious institution, but it's Shave rag. It's like a hunting lodge type thing where they do the traditional running of the dog, horseback, fox hunting, toady hunting, depending on the thing. I knew that happened up here.

You have a whole new perspective.

Yeah, and I just live 30 minutes away. But I mean, there are things like that in the county if people are interested in keeping that and doing things very similar to that. So... Like the Boys and Girls Club may potentially be bought out to a different group, no longer be the Boys and Girls Club. It may potentially be like a religious retreat where they do like couples retreats and summer camp, yes. Because it is on the river and there's already the cabins.

Oh, I forgot about Camp Little Light.

We have that one too. Okay. There's one more too I'm not thinking about.

Let us dig into that a little. Because essentially the primary, so it's like the boys, and this is just an example, the Boys and Girls Club has their primary facility, but then they have their summer camp location or whatever, you know, where they do special events, where they have larger

But it could be rented out for weddings.

But it could be rented by the public. Like a special event.

Yeah, a special event. So currently all of those that are like, like Canberra Napa, Camp Little Light, the Boys and Girls Club, all, even Shake Rack, they're all agricultural zone with a conditional use or special use.

And it's the special use for Based on the event type.

Just like if you did an event hall.

Let us just think through that.

Okay.

Cause like, Shake Rack may be that hunting camp type thing that we've done, like outdoor recreation. Boys and Girls Club could still maybe be outdoor rec something. Is it like a camp type facility?

Let's just. Is there a dining hall there? Yeah.

Like an outdoor rec? Those are all kind of outdoor rec things. Special events facility. Are these all on ag properties? Yes, ma'am. Ag tourism. Yes. Well, I mean, the other one is, but... Recreational.

Recreational. Yeah. Agri-tourism. Might be agri-tourism, maybe.

We'll think it through.

So, group homes

How do you guys, is that the state definition of a group home? Where is your, where is that use comment coming from?

It's currently like rehab centers. So, okay. That's a big thing.

Yeah.

Like, a lot of, like, is it like a halfway house?

Like, it's for the men's part. Mm-hmm. treatment but typically like it could be like great talk therapy but no like medical treatment detoxing like all of that is done or is that okay I don't think it's detoxing but it's now the supervision yeah it made it more complicated than it was a related to a religious church yeah you know

But it could be, I mean, I know they deal with these in Athens all the time with, with students where you've got, you know, seven guys renting a typical single family dwelling type thing.

A lot of the ones that we are seeing, they're leaving straight from jail, going straight there. Like that is going to be their home residence. That's going to be their check-in, like literally they're picked up from that county jail and taken there.

Okay.

So, but they're paying rent. It's not like a court mandated thing, maybe. Is there like an organization running it?

Yes. Multiple of them that have been brought are women and men, separate of course. They are non-profit religion, but they do have to have a job, and they do pay rent weekly. And there's some sort of stipulation for it. Yes. I don't know the ins and outs because then you get in the gray areas and what you can request or ask for. Like, are they drug tested? Is somebody there? Is it to an end mother? But we're having issues because it is becoming more of a common thing. Yeah. So we need to know. And that's what zones.

So that's different than a boarding house. Or are you considering those both the same?

I was considering them the same.

Okay, that's what I just wanted to see, and I was talking about the same.

The reason I honed in on boarding house was I did go and look up Athens UDC, and they have obviously things for students, but they call it a boarding house, and they have a definition for boarding house, and it's kind of identical to what they were.

Okay. Well, I don't see them different. A boarding house and a group home.

Yeah, I know. A boarding house is a type of group home.

Yeah, but I mean... the type of group home we're talking about where people go and get recovery. Where a boarding house, to me, is somewhere people stay for a limited time to, if they just get on their feet, not a medical or they're not being, they have not had some kind of.

I think they can be the same, but there's going to be those that are maybe for that transitional housing. Then there's going to be ones that are more geared towards prison to permanent housing or rehab to housing. So I think- So are we gonna separate them?

I think they're essentially the same. I think we need to have a strong definition of where that can go. This last month, you know, there's a lot of opposition to it because it was in a residential district.

Yeah.

But there's some state things we have to think about because the way they classify group homes, the numbers and the type of treatment that occurs at them, there are different levels of licensing at the state.

Well, you know why I say that because, like you said, we don't have anybody to go in here and see, okay, it's a boarding house, but they're doing something different than a boarding house.

Okay. I guess we just need, since it is becoming a hot topic and something that is needed, what zones we would allow it in?

Is it going to be a special use? What requirements? Because there's a gray area of housing that also comes in to require because then it's patient-client privilege, you know, you start getting into a whole other field of stuff.

Okay. Did you understand the reason for the waste transfer facility? We've already had one case where we had a hard time figuring out where, and the closest We could come with landfills that are two distinctly different things.

Yes.

I just threw that one out.

Yes. So no, we noted that and the pits, the animal pits. Okay.

Ten minutes past seven.

You feel good? More questions?

Yes, ma'am.

we have the one that you didn't update, but on the principal use table, the 2.3.1 under single family, is the L supposed to be there, or is it supposed to be permanent for a P?

So the L means that there are limits, so like there's there's some standards, they just, a certain size or type.

So I'm saying in R1, it would be

Yeah, that's just saying that they'll have to abide by the architectural standards and then we set minimum floor area.

So if you go to section 2, what is it, 3.2.2? 3.1.2 maybe.

Yes, household living. So it's basically saying they have to abide by, there can only be one principal dwelling on a lot. It can include, you know, others. And then single family detached pieces shall not be less than 728 square feet. That's the only, yeah.

So I always thought we had it permitted under the R1 because that's where they're supposed to be.

So it is permitted. It's just permitted with conditions. Which just say the minimum house size has to be 720 square feet.

And that is, what was the first one? There can only be one. Yeah, there can only be one resident per block. I just have one more question.

And I don't know if I've already asked it. Currently, A religious institution is allowed in all zones. That is no longer the case, correct? Like it is, I think it's not allowed in A1, but it is in A2, AR, R1.

They should be. It should be across the board. Is it? It should. We might need to look at it because we may not have to.

Because I feel like we normally.

I feel like a little office meeting we did notice.

There was something that was not in every zone and it was. Is that a question?

No, it should be the same. Like, all different assembly users should be treated the same.

Okay.

So, I mean, so if we don't allow anything else than A1, then it's okay.

That might just be a typo.

Well, we were talking about it, and a lot of the A1, you know, is a person. Yeah. Yeah.

So we need to, we'll take a look at how we treat places.

Would it be allowed in all of them? Yeah, I mean, like a permitted use or a special use?

Would you want it to be a special use or do you want someone to just be able to develop any type of religious institution by right? Or any type of hunting camp by right? Because you have to treat them all the same. All fraternal clubs would be allowed by right. So I think it's all special use. That's typically how. So did.

Who knows me? You're quick.

Oh, we just dealt with this.

Don't worry. That's the reason why we were asking. Because, like, we had it in A1, and now it's not.

No, that's a good catch. We just need to write it.

But I just wanted to make sure, like, because it's messing me up with limited and special, and I'm used to conditional.

Yeah, just change it. Okay, we'll take some time to update it. I'll write a bit of expression.

Okay.

We were looking at it. Yeah. Okay.

We're going to change it to just P and S. If I change all the L's to P and then permitted, you'll still, we basically did the L's to say P cell, P cell.

Okay.

Okay. Just because. Sometimes new school is better than old school, and that will tell us that you have to abide by the section in the chart that it is in the meat of the product. Instead of just saying, oh, there's nothing else that's permitted.

Should they just open up a little standard for them?

Even if there's...

So you thought L would be good for R1? For what? Or a single family's development?

I'm talking about religious institutions.

All they're doing is saying that they put a size on it, and it can only be one. I mean, that's all they're doing. That's the only condition that they put on two or one was just a size.

We're having internal conversation. No, that's okay. Because we already, yeah.

We don't like it either. Well, whatever works best. We see the merit. Yeah.

Let's see.

We have any other questions? I have one more and I'm finished.

Okay.

Under industrial uses 3.4, it starts out with general and then under general standards for major odor sources and then from there it moves on to design standards. The number one concern with industrial or businesses is noise. I know we've been waiting on a noise ordinance and it still has never happened, but is there anything from a noise standpoint that can give us guidance on when people are concerned about noise in industrial zones?

Other than the general nuisance language, I mean I know with data centers there are decibel and hertz things,

But it's how you measure that. It's how you measure.

But it's like the, what, GPL down here. GRP down off 72. There's complaints about noise level all the time. We heard that a lot. What is GRP? It's a renewable energy. Oh.

Is that the one by Homer? Yeah. Okay, yeah.

There's a lot of complaints about the noise level there. Yeah, the bios, whatever. Yeah.

I just noticed that it covered odor sources, but nothing about noise. And that might have been because he didn't have a noise ordinary. Yeah, we're supposed to have one, but it's never been there. They've been working on it for years. They're not surprised by that.

Well, now that you know.

That has not been to be that way.

Maybe you can get that pushed over the finish line for us.

No, I think I upset Mike last time, so I'm not. No, thanks a lot. Well, now that you do another thing in the range, that is it. Yep. Okay. So is that something that y'all can implement? Because I have been asked this question because I have been tasked to come up with an ordinance section for guidance centers. Oh, yeah, no, we can do that. Is that something you can come up with? Is that something that you could give me something to go ahead and be looking at, like a template to be able to share and work through?

I think we already noted to provide some sort of modeling.

Is that something you could get to me like yesterday?

Yeah.

I can get a few tomorrow. Like if that's something you can just email me at a general template that we can build from or something that's already been established or multiple somethings that have been done.

It's good to have language in there so that you can protect yourself if you do not want them.

I'm cooking so much in the kitchen.

Well, did you just not put anything in about tiny houses because we don't have anything or that was something that was discussed? So I did not be in there at all.

I think we have the smallest house size of the 700, and that's the primary. A guest house or an ADU, I don't know that we have a minimum size. So we don't have a standalone. I think the decision was less than 720 square feet, which is what you currently have potentially, was where you were comfortable.

As long as it's larger than 401 square foot and it meets all fire safety codes. Okay, so yours is 400? Yes. A tiny house is a pre-fab construction travel trailer on wheels. That's what they consider a tiny house. You can get a modular home that they advertise as a tiny house that has the DCA number saying that it meets all state requirements as a little space. There's a little bit of a difference. I'm slowly learning this as I'm planning.

So all I know is that it's got to be, the county has ordinance on it, but the structure size on it, don't they have to have it?

It has to be larger than 401. Well, what I'm talking about is the studs and I'll is your baby had to meet their like I think the a building a when I go up there but that being the a number of them in a mobile me actor one day it would be okay what that or a yeah yeah and then I don't even think her or her where a more than we think it may be under or even out any I'll because still have to meet that little or are out here or is it that the search and job

based on the state.

You know, that's not a good question for me to ask, is it?

There should be something in there, as you may say, about that, so... If you have any questions, y'all are always talking about asking people about tiny houses.

So let me ask you a question. Should we adjust that minimum to 401 as it currently is? Do you want to have that flexibility to have less than 700, or do you want to keep it where we set it, which is?

I think it should be flexible to 401, because we already had this one. Because you have some lots that are less than half an acre.

They're still putting 1,800 square foot loads on them.

Yeah, I mean, you know, some that...

The septic is going to dictate that.

Yeah, the septic is going to set that, and then they can't put nothing on it, and they can't do anything with it. It's also going to depend if you have a well.

Oh, yeah, right. If you have county water, because then you have to be 50 foot from the property line for your septic. that they can well have to be hundreds so far. So unless you're on county water, having acres is going to be very hard.

So I'm just saying, a lot of people have properties.

I think you can leave it at 400, leave it where it currently was, or 401.

Right now it has to be 401 or larger. Anything else?

My last note, what on mine was, and it just came as a mention that you threw out, that y'all took the liberty to increase the stream buffer above the state mandate. I would love to lie to you and tell you that I've been able to go through this to be able to look at those. Could you provide a list of anything that you took and added to that is above the state for us to be able to reference? Then I can go back to what our current is just as a cheat sheet.

Yep, we can do that. And they were keeping the industrial at 200, right? Well, we were discussing the one, the past one, because he wanted us not to go up to 200.

Residential. When the industrial is adjacent to a residential, the setback is 200. Right, so that is fixed in R.

And is that where you are comfortable, or did we want to discuss the option of adding a fence or something to reduce it?

Well, I know we were in agreement with that 200. Okay.

I was applying the ointment on that one. I just didn't want to casually adopt that one because there's unintended consequences of everything that we're doing here, and it's easy to casually say, yeah, let's just adopt that. And I'm not going to lie. I haven't taken the time to look at other surrounding counties to be able to really to grasp the detail on that.

I did for you in Barrow County and other counties, surrounding counties, it's 200. But then they have a 50% reduction if you have a wind fence. A vegetation buffer?

No, I just saw either like woodland buffer. How far they were from the vegetation. But then you can have a 50% reduction if you have a wind fence in there. I was just telling the ladies, and I told them in our little office meeting, the definition for a vegetative buffer can be anything. When you think vegetative, it can be tall grass. It doesn't have to be trees. So we need a definition in there that states what the difference is. Because just because you say a vegetative buffer at an industrial, if it's all tall grass, they don't have to do anything else. That's just the distance. So we need those definitions in there to set something. Like, do you want it to be a woodland buffer? Do you want it to be a vegetative buffer? Vegetative can be a lot of things. yeah like in a pud it tells you the species of tree that you can exactly or in a residential development these are the species of trees that have a number of trees burn a lot and we didn't have that definition so i didn't ask them to have that because just because you get 200 feet it could be an open field with all rats it is right here okay it is i feel like every time you say that i remember that resident i mean that medical building

we went through yes honeysuckle they're doing nothing i mean it's just sitting there with one building that's not even so did we discuss that on these desert industrial i mean business parks or industrial parks i think we did that our current ordinance doesn't have anything to state that it has to so that's something that

needs to be looked at. So is there something, I'm sorry, did you?

I think I got something, I didn't order something.

I think I have 45.

And if y'all got anything, if y'all need.

So can I say, did you address that about the desert industrial business parks? Like we have one now that there's nothing done and it's just sitting there. They got one building up for a business park. So what is your concern? Like what? A time limit on, didn't we just discuss a time limit on when they had to?

I don't think we can write, I think it's at three zones, that's entitled. We can't say if you haven't started and X, Y, Z. Well, they started, but it's just sitting there.

They got one building up. Is it occupied or is it? No, it's just, they're not doing any more construction. I thought we talked about.

It's still in the inspection process. Like it's just kind of sitting there.

So that would be where the permit expiration comes in. But even then, you're just still left with an expired permit. They can import it up structures.

We can just ask a good question. We are scheduled to throw down this at this level at Tuesday's P&Z meeting. Will you all have whatever changes that you're going to do ready before then where we might be able just to take a, I mean, enough to be confident to vote on this?

What we, so what I was going to present is the changes we have discussed, but I would not have those drafted for you in kind of the recommendations that you wanted to provide the board. So it wouldn't be like a line by line, like red line of the changes you want, but it would be block sizes, increase back A1 to 25, A2 to 10, add this, and then when we get the draft to the board in advance of their meeting, we would have those revisions.

But even what you're talking about with just the items in the form of whatever, today is Thursday. We can get. Is that before Monday or Tuesday?

We can do it tomorrow, probably.

Not the revision, the recommendation.

Yeah.

We could do, we can have, for instance. So you could also hold a public hearing and table your vote and decision or your recommendation to your next meeting. But that wouldn't coincide, you would meet after the October 5th or 6th, whenever we're meeting with the board.

Yeah, because we meet the 7th of October. Well, we can just vote on the recommendation.

We don't have to vote on the whole thing.

No, you would be recommending for the as it is with what we kind of write for y'all for proposed changes.

I'll just say it out loud. I hear these type things that our congressmen and women have staff that read bills and it just makes me chuckle out loud and here I find myself doing the exact same thing. I don't want to be disingenuous. I'm not going to vote for adoption or something that I can't physically look at what it is that's going to be sent as a recommending body. I'm not fulfilling my obligation in this chair to do something like that. And I don't want to be the fly in the ointment for anybody else. But this is, I'm all for, I wish we had six months. I would like a month to be able to go through a section at a time and I promise you I'll do my work. I got this two and a half weeks ago. I understand you're in communication with other people. I just want to be honest with you and I tried to do my homework on the parts that I could and there's still things that I would like for you to provide to me that I could look at to be able to recommend approval.

No, that is completely fair. So to me, I ask the question again, who's putting the deadlines? I mean, it took two years to get it. Why are we taking so short of a time to... I know, but I mean, like he said, I would like to take a section of Section 2. But why do we have to have it done at this time when it took two years to get it? And then it's going to take only what?

six weeks to put it in to thank what it all went on to, because me and Lee talked to Dean Adams. He thought we already had these definitions we got. Like where we're going over now, he thought we already had them a year ago. And I told him, no, we had to see, you didn't see booklet on where the job was at, but we didn't have all these definitions and the different, Thanks to two or three weeks ago. It was a draft a year ago this week. Yeah. But you all saw this. And we didn't see all this while we were going over there. We didn't see it.

No, I understand that.

Well, we're not going to, I would like to promise that we could have revisions to you, but I don't think that's fair to any of us.

With the caveat, even if we did provide revisions in two days,

enough for it to review. So it has to be the board that has to push the deadline further.

So I mean I just think that this is going to be a discussion that you all need to have with the board, the commissioners, and the chairman's office.

Thank you for your hard work. I don't want to come across as... No, you're not.

This is your job.

We can still do the public hearing and let public comment next week since it's been advertised and meet that requirement. And then you could say, we would like to table the vote until your next meeting so that we can actually get these revisions to you. And then that would... We have the public hearing for the... VOC is October 26th is the public hearing and decision. So do you have to give a recommendation for it to be on the agenda on the 6th or could we still present to them a...

It had to be probably two weeks, about two weeks. Prior to the meeting.

Yeah, that's where I have to take that.

Two weeks and six. That's 20 days. Your meeting's the 8th? That's it, we're at the 6th.

We're meeting on the 1st, 2, 3, 4. You're the first to meet today, and then the board is the last. So you got to hear it at your regular business meeting, what the presentation, and then vote at the public hearing. They could hear it at their regular business meeting, which would actually be, I think, their vote.

Yeah, what day is that?

Right. And then they would vote on their public, I mean, regular business meeting, because there's an office that's ours. The first one up for them is their vote, the middle of the month is their regular business meeting.

I think we had tentatively told the board we could come to their first meeting in October.

I think that's right.

So are we voting on this at our business meeting or public hearing?

This coming Tuesday. Public hearing. Your voting. To recommend adoption? or table it, and so y'all can... Maybe I'm missing something.

We usually, the first Tuesday of the month... I think we messed up the dates, because... First Tuesday of the month is a general meeting, a business meeting. And then the public hearing is the third, coming to... Yeah, the third.

The third Tuesday.

Is this one off? Why are we not doing that this time? Why is the public hearing for this not on the... 20 whatever it is.

I'm over here, don't be a thing.

Yeah. Okay.

Which is the.

So we met on the first and did the.

So we got as a call especially. Yeah. And I don't know. Right. Okay. I'm letting Labor Day get in my way. I'm sorry.

But when you really look at it, it isn't too early when you added the dates for ads and stuff. So it is a little close.

And there's nothing against you all. It's here. I don't see why we're rushing to adopt something that took us... It took you all a long time to do this because you wanted to do a good job and a great job. So why are we rushing to adopt it where we haven't gone over and made sure it's everything that we want and... I mean, what is the rush for adoption if it took them that long just to write it?

I'd like to thank the commissioners.

They don't have to answer that. That would be for us to answer that. I think she pointed us in the direction to be able to grasp what we need.

I mean, there's like 15 sections here. There's three sections at our meeting, business meeting. How many zonings we have in the next couple weeks?

I mean, an application. So for October right now, I have 13. 13.

I would suggest you talk to your clinician.

Yeah, I think y'all need to just chat.

We'll do what, we will be here Tuesday night and we'll do what we can. We will at least get you a summary of what we discussed and how we would present it in a recommendation form. Thank you.

yeah thank you yeah nothing else job everybody you know thank you we should thank you ladies thank you thank y'all for coming take no time since this is a cold meeting I do need a motion for adjournment that's what I'm thinking wait a minute if there's anybody on the board I'll be just throwing things out there we should just go ahead and stop

or not adopted or whatever, does everybody think on the same level that we should go to our board and ask them for extended time so we can go over this with quality?

I'm going to take their recommendation and go to the people that we serve and pleasure of. We're appointed to this, and whoever appoints us is who we should ask the questions that you're posing out here absolutely, and that's what I'm going to do.

So we're all in agreement with that. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion. Okay. I'll say aye.