Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

So, our first order is approval of the September 4th, 2025 meeting minutes. I move to approve as presented. We have a first, second, and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All righty. Um, second order is public input. So this is the portion of the meeting where if there's anyone in the public who'd like to speak on any matter, please come forward to state your name and address. All right. I will make a motion to close public input. Second. First and a second. All those in favor?

I [Applause] moving on to subdivisions. Item A, we have the reserve at Mil Pond. I'm trying to um get this to cooperate with me. broke it. It's on. I promise. Oh, there it is. Change batteries. Oh, you know what? I should have said it's the October 2nd planning commission meeting for the city of Halloween. Thank you for that clarification.

Can you please this project is proposed to contain 234 in common town home units on approximately 41 acres. Uh TRC has reviewed the proposed plan um which started in September of last year. The project will be accessed through two existing stubouts located on Tortois Drive and Turtle Creek Drive and they will also have a stub out within the new development that will connect to the future phase of Elmharst um which is currently in review. Uh the project requires a minimum of 5.37 acres of open space and there will be 8.6 six acres of open space provided. In addition to subdivision plan approval, the applicant is requesting approval of three street names, Soul, King Solomon, and King David. And staff recommends that planning commission approval be contingent on final review and approval from TRC. Uh the applicant, David Sher, is present if you have any specific questions.

All right. You like to come forth and you had anything else to add?

Jessica did a fantastic job. Um we've worked to provide uh connections to the adjacent project um so that the infrastructure can be shared. These will be private roads internal. Um it's an in common project but there will be an easement granted to the adjacent project owner so that as they develop their project it'll be able to interconnect through and sharing both water sewer and access to the streets. provide interconnection on the back side of the project while we did make sure all the units are outside of the flood zone. But we did build an elevated bridge so that we could preserve the area in the back as a nature area and allow the community still have access to it. But then protects all the residents in the surrounding communities uh and also it doesn't put any residents in harmless way by putting them in the zone. So that any other questions to answer these sections of the studs that we're connecting to were previously dedicated to the city of Halloween. Um and those sections all the way to the property line will be built to public road standards. So it'll be public road all the way to the existing property line and then from there in will be in common. So

Okay. All right. Do you all have any questions for the applicant? No, you answered mine with the flood plane because I know that council's made a stink about building in that before. I don't so you won't see me doing that, which is great of the applicant to be willing to do that because it was already zoned appropriately for the development he proposes and usually we try to catch it on the front end before annexation or reszoning and he willingly kept those units out of a flood zone. Yeah, that was it. So I know that this is just a plan approval, but thinking about that existing neighborhood right there that the connections are coming through, is your drainage plan generally away from them? So we we have full submitt already in the storm water review already twice on this one. So

Okay. Um all of the road drainage is tied back into our existing our system that we're proposing. Um not into the existing section. It actually goes kind of level straight in and then it drops when it comes into our property. Okay.

Um so it it's quite a we've oversized the ponds quite a bit to so our it actually falls back their drainage actually falls to us not the other way around. So, we've got um it's I don't know if best way to show it if I walk up to it or not, but uh I don't have the fancy pointer, but there's a swale that we'll be installing along this line at the base of all of our landscaping to catch the water that's coming to us before it gets to the units in this area. So, just behind the landscaping, it'll pick up into a swale and then it's piped down and comes down through here to that pond. Okay. So, we're actually taking the water that's coming to us and then getting it around our units. So the swells between the units and the landscape, right? Not the landscape buffer. Okay,

that is correct. It's on our side of the landscape buffer. Okay. Okay. We're definitely not sending any water away. Yeah. I I just We're just making sure we accept everything that comes at us. Yeah. I know sometimes with older neighborhoods around here, you have a brand new development next to it and you know, design standards are different now. So I just hate to put anybody in a bubble. Well, I think part part of the reason we're able to do it is one, our site was already lower um than a lot of theirs, as well as the fact that we're in common. So, we're able to put our drainage in the middle instead of having the road elevated up and then the units higher and higher. We're able to keep sending the water to the road itself because it's an in common development. So, it actually allows us to keep our grades a lot shallower.

Okay. And one more question. Sorry. Um the gravel path or whatnot the um is it a gravel path? Uh it's parts of it are um but the boardwalk the se the section where it goes in the back which is um this area back here is actually an elevated boardwalk as it crosses once it goes back to where the flood zone is. We actually had to build it as an elevated boardwalk. Um, one because there's a big ditch that's there, but two, but allowed enough water and we had to do an analysis to make sure that the fill that we did put in back there did not impact the closer. So, we actually did a comprehensive uh compensatory storage study uh and a flow analysis on the canal to make sure that the water get through there. So,

okay. Um, for staff, I guess, does the city have any um for a pathway like that? Do you have standards like it has to have edging or I know we're trying to make it kind of as impeous as possible so we don't want a concrete sidewalk but um and I'll just pick on Collins because that one has a pvious path that is pretty much getting washed away. So I wanted to know if the city had a standard that we can start telling developers for that requirement.

There are certain standards in article 7 when it comes to pathways that you put in open space. However, you want to be careful where you require them. So, in a typical development, if there wasn't any flood zones affected, you know, we would ask that it be like a dust-free surface, something that is also ADA accessible. But in this situation and also Collins Jolly, which is a conservation subdivision, and this because of flood zones, you you do want the more pvious the more pvious surface. So, there are some exceptions that that could be made in those types of um situations. However, there are other subdivisions where the side it's actually a concrete sidewalk that ties into from the sidewalk within the rideway that leads to open space, but those aren't within flood zones.

Yeah, I think I'm okay with it being pvious. I just, you know, to contain that pvious material. A lot of the times I feel like it just gets washed out. So, I didn't know. There isn't a standard now, but if if you have a detail that you want us to include, we're actually in the process if we have if we receive approval tonight. Uh we'll be submitting the updated final hopefully the final set of plans u back to the city next week. Okay. Um so we can include that detail. So if you have one or if you want to share it with staff and they can share it with us, we'll be more than glad to include that as part of our project.

Or if we were to make a motion for approval, could we do contended on TRC approval and that TRC considers pvious path edging or something like that as a comment or I mean yeah they could. Yeah, we could definitely look into it and see what our ordinance allows allows us to require. I think gravel is definitely a lot more preferred than mulch or just, you know, a dirt pathway. So, okay. And we're more than happy to on that condition. That's not there's just no standardized detail for it. So,

yeah. Well, there's also there's also permeable surfaces that that you know like um Myrtle Beach State Park put in um Huntington Beach um state park put in um as well um that will let the water through um and it looks like an asphalt type material as well. I mean so I mean there's other things that we've gone through and talked about um where I don't want to go through and pay the storm water fees for my parking lot um you know that that I've looked at too. So I mean there's other options. Um, I don't know what the expense is though, but I wouldn't want to go through and and put a whole lot of extra money onto the developer to to require that either. Um, you know,

I do know that a significant portion is a a boardwalk. Um, the vast majority of this is in the flood area, so it's boardwalk. On the back side, it's a huge upland area that's actually really really pretty. Um, a lot of tall trees and not a lot of underbrush. So we can actually get around in So the plan is to mulch some trails in there that look pretty.

And to be fair, I'm using it as a guinea pig because I have been noticing that around the city of um you know pvious paths. I just want it to be contained. I like I like the pvious paths. I love that. I understand the flood zone and all that other kind of stuff. I just want to make sure if we're putting paths in that people can actually use them. You know, when you're down the road, they're not covered in weeds and gravel just everywhere, you know. Yeah, there definitely a bunch of different ways, but yeah, the maintenance would be hellacious and that's not in the uh like the trail plan comprehensive trail plan doesn't have like materials connectivity.

They do recommend materials, but in most cases when you get into these sensitive areas like this, then that's pvious surfaces are going to be recommended, whether that's dirt, you know, gravel or things of that nature. It doesn't specify the material that that you talked about. Um, but this is something that the applicant is is doing as part of their their open space plan. Whether or not it will connect to any specific trail that the city, you know, plans, I'm not I'm not sure, but it it will, you know, internally our project connects to the project to the right, which will have it'll be public roads with sidewalks as well. So,

Okay. All right. Anything else? Are all the proposed lots connected? Are they going to be subdivided? No. Density seems high. It's an in common project. So, it's a horizontal property region condo. So, individuals will own their units in but not fe simple land ownership. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

All right. I will make a motion that we approve the incoming town of development and associated street names contingent on TRFC approval and ask that TRC also consider a pvious paving detail or edging something to help keep the path a little stabilized. Second your motion. All right, we have a first and a second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? All righty, moving on to public hearings. Um, reszoning requests. Number one is withdrawn. So, moving on to number two. This property is within the city's utility service area and is essentially a a donut hole with most of the surrounding properties already in the city limits. It's currently zoned general residential in the county. The applicant is requesting to reszone the property to professional. Krill Street is comprised of single family residential, multif family residential and duplex style development, medical offices, a child care facility, which is also owned by the applicant, and a planned development known as the Mason Temple Economic Development Center, referred to as the Genesis Complex, which allows recreational, business uses, human services, educational training programs, and senior housing programs as part of their plan development. The city's future land use map identifies this property as low density residential. However, as you can see on the left side of your screen, it is adjacent to property that is already zoned professional. If the requested zoning is approved, any use permitted in the district would be permitted on the property in accordance with the requirements of the UDO. First reading to annex the property was approved at the September 15th council meeting and final reading will occur concurrently with final reading of the ordinance to zone the property as professional upon annexation. And this is also a public hearing. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. All right. Does the board have any questions for Miss Hux? It's kind of an odd little configuration that kind of professional down there in the middle of all that residential. Do you know how that got started? Just random fact.

I do not. I do know that the applicant owns another property um that I believe he may have sought to zone professional a few years ago. Um I'm not sure if it's the property immediately to the left of it or a property to the right of it. Um, and he does own another another lot there. And my understanding at that time, I'm and that was a different property was that he was going to move the daycare facility and build a new daycare facility across the street. Whether or not the plans have changed and that's now the intention on this lot, I'm not sure. The applicant could probably address that,

but no, I don't know. I know it's they've been in they've been in the city a while. Okay. All right. Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Would you just like to state your name and your address for us? My name is uh Keith Skinner. Uh address is uh 1 C Street is the property question. Okay. But I live in Charleston. All right. Thanks for making the trip. Yeah. the family. Uh we own a daycare street uh across the street adjacent from the uh existing uh professional property and we wanted to keep it consistent with what we already have. That's uh and it's a that's a twoacre lot and the other lot is 4 acres so it would be a six acre professional area. Okay.

Yeah. Do you all have any questions for that applicant? Okay. Thank you. And to add, of course, that residential, single family residential is a permitted use in the professional district. Right. Okay. All right. Um, since this is a public hearing, I'll open up to the public if there's anyone who'd like to speak on this matter. Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close public input. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All righty. Bringing it back to the board for any thoughts or discussions. And I think it makes sense being as it is um historical coming in to the city as professional.

All righty. Anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the request to reszone approximately 2.15 acres of property located at 101 Creel Street. All right. From GR, Ory County GR to City of County Professional. All right. I'll second. We have a first and a second. All those in favor? I. Any oppose? All righty.

Moving on to B, text amendments number one. All right. This is um a previously deferred um proposed amendment regarding the requirements and subdists of the Wakamal Riverfront District. Uh the Wakamal Riverfront zoning district is currently split between two subdists, WRD1 and WRD2. The lighter blue that you see um is WRD1. That's going to be um the Walkaw Riverfront Park um where Bonfire is and and you know the parcels around it. Um and there's a few other properties um on the Second Avenue and Laurel Street side that are also WRD1. And then the WRD2 um which didn't encompass all of this acreage, but you can see now um is where the old Santi Cooper smoke stacks were. And then on the other side of 501 on New Road, there is some WRD2 because it's one parcel. So we couldn't split it out. It was all in there together. So when it was annexed and zoned, it was zoned WRD2 because that was the zoning district closest to it. Um the only distinct dist distinction provided in our UDO um is that in the WRD1 district um there are standards that commercial uses be on the ground floor on the front-facing facade of any new building and that upper floors be multif family. So there's a mixeduse requirement in WRD1. Um, this amendment proposes to eliminate the subdists for the sake of clarity and instead implement a requirement that all properties adjoining the Riverwalk be required to have a mixeduse component and that the ground level floor must be a non-residential use and that multif family uses be permitted on upper level floors. This amendment also ensures that uses classified as solely being office

related would only be permitted as an accessory or secondary use to a permitted principal use on property across all of the WRD rather than just WRD1 subdist which furthers the city's goal to expand pedestrian activity and public access of the riverfront areas. The other amendments that are proposed are just housekeeping in nature. This amendment was advertised for a public hearing. Um, but I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. All righty. I will open it up to the public to get the public hearing portion out of the way. Sir, do you have anything to say? Motion to close.

That's really dangerous question. We have a first um I'll second the motion to close. All those in favor? I Any opposed? All right. Too late. Bringing it back to the board. Do y'all have any questions or comments? Is it these? We're proposing to put both of these in the same WRD designation instead of a one two.

Yes. So that way the WRD1 which has the mixeduse requirements because really it's the riverfront, the riverwalk that we want to have that pedestrian access um and stimulate pedestrian activity. We want to ensure that should the Riverwalk be extended that those properties too would be subject to that um but not necessarily make all development that would be in WRD have to abide by the mixeduse requirement. Out of curiosity, the piece that's on the other side of 501, is that going to be split off into a separate parcel and reszoned you think? Because that requirement doesn't necessarily fit over there, right?

Exactly. Yeah. So, I mean, luckily that's ne that will never be adjacent to the river the riverwalk. Um, should it be extended? Um, but because it was one parcel and wasn't split off when it got to the city, we just zoned it all the same. I do foresee that there's probably potential in the future for it to be reszoned to a district that makes more sense there. But at this time, it would just be WRD. Okay. I see you see your wheels turning. No, I'm I'm just just looking.

All right. Um I will make a motion that we approve the amendments to article two, article 4, article six regarding requirements and subdists of the WRD WRD district, which is kind of doubling up on that word. Second. All right, we have a first and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All righty. Motion carries. Uh, moving on to number two. Text amendments.

All right. This is amendment to article two, article 13 of the UDO to establish provisions for requiring development agreements for developments that involve a zoning map amendment and/or annexation into the city of Conway. This amendment came about as a result of discussions during council's budget retreat earlier this year. And as you know, there have been an increase in the number of properties that are seeking annexation into the city that proposed to contain a significant number of lots or units. More notably, the Wardened Station development and Brook Haven on Highway 378. Um, Warden Station alone exceeds 1600 acres in size. The goal of implementing such a requirement is to at a minimum ensure that certain improvements are done to accommodate the growth that the overall development will create and ultimately that the growth pays for itself. While it is not common for municipalities to require a development agreement for certain developments as part of their unified development ordinance, it is not prohibited to do so. staff has spent a lot of time researching different options, specifically the threshold for requiring a development agreement. Development agreements are a contract between two parties, the developer or owner and the municipality in which the development is proposed. So, they must be voluntary and the terms must be agreed agreed upon. Development agreements are typically reserved for developments involving large tracks of land and the minimum acreage for a development agreement is 25 acres of upland per state law. The threshold that's being proposed in this amendment is 150 lots or units or the minimum of 25 acres of uplands. The properties that the requirement for a development agreement would be applicable to are those in which annexation is requested, that a

residential zoning is proposed, or those already in the city limits that are seeking to reszone to a district that either permits residential uses or that increases the density in residential. We would not be able to enforce such an agreement on property already in the city and already zone for residential development because those properties already have an entitlement to develop under current zoning provided all other conditions of development are met. While staff supports the requirement of a development agreement be implemented into the UDO, what gets tricky is if there is a threshold identified with no acreage, then a simple loophole would be for developers to propose one lot or one unit less than what the threshold identifies. 150 is what's currently proposed. Once the property is annexed and zoned, the opportunity for a development agreement is almost certainly gone. So requiring it as a condition of annexation and zoning would be the best option. So you add the acreage in of 25 acres of of upland requirement as well. So if 150 lots or units are proposed or the parcel in question contains 25 or more acres of upland, the trigger is then met. The downside to this is that as the city moves further into more rural areas where there is more farmland and annexation may be required even if one house is being built on a 100 acres because the parcel reaches that 25 acre threshold. They too would be required to enter into a development agreement. As such staff wanted to propose another option for planning commission to consider. Um currently what the ordinance states um we define it in article two the definitions article and

then in article 13 we would add a development agreement section and section B is applicability. So instead of it being applicable to any request for annexation of property into the city of Conway in which upon annexation and resoning would permit residential uses or two, any request to amend the city of Conway zoning map for a property for a zoning district that permits residential units or lots and proposes to contain 150 or more residential lots or units or involves involves 25 acres or more of uplands. You could instead state something as simple that says city council as a condition of annexation and or reszoning of a property may require the property owner and or developer to enter into a development agreement for any development whether residential or non-residential when it is determined that such an agreement is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Conway. All other sections of the proposed ordinance would remain, including a definition, the purpose, the procedure, and the relationship to zoning decisions. However, that sentence that I just read would leave the decision on whether or not a development agreement would be necessary up to the full discretion of city council. Um, rather and and on a case-bycase basis rather than a blanket threshold that could subject a land owner to a development agreement simply by having um 25 acres of upland and annexing into the city. But this too is a public hearing. Um, but I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have.

All right. I will start by opening it up to the public if there's anyone who would like to say anything in this matter. You sure? All right. I will make a motion to close public input. Second. All right. We got a second. All those in favor. Any opposed? All right. Um, what is our highest density like allowed like units per acre? Um, you're saying like let's just say for single single family. Well, I guess where I'm going is so 25 acres of uplands is the threshold which Oh, that's whatever.

Yeah. Go ahead. So, I'm trying to think of how many units on lots or units. Well, yeah. So you could do multif family. That's where I'm going. And it's form based. So you're not going to have like if you've got 10 acres, you can only have a 100 units. It's if you meet the open space, the parking requirements and other and other and the height limitation setbacks that would dictate how many units you could have. Are you are you getting toward the number of 25? And like why why 25?

Well, 25 is by law, I think. Okay. that that's required is it has to be at least 25 acres of upland to be able to have a development agreement. I was more wondering where the 150 comes into play like what is the because that's what eight six six units per acre if you just divide it out easy is that just okay that was just the number that was discussed yeah I mean you had just to give a threshold that you know you could easily get 150 units on 25 acres especially if you do multif family and considering in some locations the height limit is 65 feet for multifamily you can imagine that there would hundreds of units they could get.

So, I'm wondering I guess like to protect the guy that goes out there and wants to build one or two houses on 25 acres or whatnot. I mean, if we say it has to be say like a 100 units and 25 upland acres to be able to de to enter into a development, but I don't know what that right number is. I'm just throwing 100 out or 150, right? I feel like we had something else where we were just throwing numbers out at

like months ago. Um because I I like Okay, so my thought is development agreement would only apply to cities being anni or um properties being annexed into the city. So I like that we would make it a requirement to to have a development agreement um because I think you know as the city continues to grow and we already have the whole like um traffic and you know all that other kind of stuff and you know we have a parks master plan on our agenda tonight. So to be able to kind of fund and and not put the burden so much on the existing taxpayer base. Um I like the idea of requiring development agreements as the city grows and also I'm sure that the development is going to be finished

that they go through and start because there's some of them that'll go defunct. Yeah. Especially if if the market turns. I just don't So So that's where I'm leaning like I like that it's required rather than it's a choice for council. I mean I we could rely on council to make the right decision obviously. Um but then I don't know what the threshold of like the verbiage um because I see that position too.

Yeah. Um and it's probably, you know, if you take a an average size of a subdivision, you know, 150 lots or units is kind of in the middle, you know, of what of what we see. Um just thinking um you know, some are like 194. Um I don't remember you had 200 and something but those are town home in common units. Um some of them might only be 60 units. We have some that's 600 600 units. Um that's in a PD. Um so I think just trying to find like a mean or an average of what the lots were is, you know, likely why 150 was chosen. But it doesn't have to be 150. There's nothing that says that that's what it has to be. That was just something that was discussed amongst um council at budget return.

How but how complicated do we want to make this for you all to police too? It wouldn't be difficult for us to police because if that's what the ordinance says that's what the ordinance says. We don't have a choice if it if the ordinance like right now it says a development agreement shall be required as a condition of approval for any request for annexation in which residential uses would be proposed. any request to amend the official zoning map in which you know residential unit uses would be permitted and three proposes to contain 150 or more residential lots or units. So one and two is an or situation.

So you know it's either annexation and zoning or just reszoning. And then number three is the ore. Um proposes to contain 150 or more residential lots or units or it involves 25 um acres of uplands. And that may have been because you might have a situation where it's 25 acres and maybe a 100 units are proposed. Um, but there might be some things that might need to be improved significantly depending on uh where it's where it's located.

See, that one to me is what I had heartburn over because how can So 150 units or 25 acres. So what if you get 150 units on 20 acres? Then you can't do it. So the ore doesn't make sense in that statement. Yeah. So that I I think and maybe I have it worded wrong, but it could be 150 lots or units on a thousand acres, but or it could be 100 units on, you know, 25 25 acres. I think if you say if you reverse them almost like 25 acres.

Well, but and requires it being both situations. So 25 acres minimum minimum 25 acres or it can't be I don't think it could be ore because by ore you're saying if you have 150 units you can get a development agreement no matter what the acreage is. Mhm.

Um we might be able to just state in there any development um any proposed development or a development agreement may shall be required as a condition of approval for and list those things. Any prop any proposed development that um meets the minimum threshold for a development agreement for the acreage to have a development agreement. Yeah. and make that separate.

Just as an example, maybe to help you with wordage, there's a um there's a requirement in flood zones, if there's an A in number flood zone, and they do use the word or, it's 50 um lots or five acres. So if at any point in time there's a number plug zone on a parcel that is projected to be developed or proposed to be developed. If there is 50 lots or there are five acres or more contained on that property then the applicant will be required to do a flood study. So they that's the terminology that FEMA also uses for the or so that if you put and you don't have someone who says well I have 4.99 acres I don't have five. that don't meet the requirement. So, it's just kind of maybe to help understand the wordage of why it would be or or could be

or and I know it sounds awkward, but think about it this way. Let's say you've got a property that's 100 acres and they're in the county. We only require the annexation of the condition of receiving city services. So, let's say they decide, well, I can split up to 10 times in the county before it's a major. So, what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna take this 100 acres and I'm gonna make it 24 acres or 24.5 acres. And guess what? I don't meet the minimum uplands for a development agreement. So, I can do 250 units on 24.5 acres. And I, you know, so I think I think maybe that might be the reason why.

But legally, doesn't it have to be 25? So, how it can't So, you can't do just a total number of units I guess is where I'm getting at. It can't be. Yeah, we could. I think it's just that if you you don't want to boxing them in to 150 when there could be situations where it's less than 150 on on 25 or more acres, I think was why. But staff at, you know, you would prefer to just leave it because 25 is the state law. you have to have 25, not just 25 acres. It has to be 25 acres of upland and that's for the minimum years for a development agreement,

right? So, if you would prefer to just leave off the 25 acres um because that is by by state law the minimum acreage required. Is there any kind of special exception that or it's the wrong wording for special exceptions because I know that's another section but any kind of like council may have like the right to wave or appeal.

Yeah. Like zoning board of appeals or something, you know. So, so that guy coming in with 200 acres and all he wants to build is one house, you know. Is there any kind of way to if we make it a requirement period at 25 acres and not have any units have the ordinance is appealable. So there has to be a mechanism to request you know an appeal or relief from the requirements. So yes but ultimately the goal is not to create hardships right by way of adopting the ordinance. I know that sometimes that can't be avoided, but that is ultimately our goal is to improve situations and not create hardships.

So really the easiest thing is to give council the power to ask for it if they want to would be the easiest. Well, I think we also need to trigger something because I think if we just give the the

we just say anything subject to it. I don't I don't think that creates a lot of clarity for like a developer. I I think that if we found a good like a number and I don't know what that number is whatever you know city wants I think it's probably a a good number but I think we also need to trigger an appeal like there has to be a way for some for somebody to have relief and have a common sense reading of it of the and I don't know is there anything do we ever list anything here within this the article 13 that would say subject to an appeal or Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, they could definitely appeal that or, you know, to the board of zoning appeals the requirement to have, you know, the the acreage. They would, you know, could ask that.

I honestly would not recommend that that that be the only way. Um, what I would recommend, and honestly, it's very hard to find. It was very hard for staff to find anywhere. I think um maybe it's the town or the city of Tika K in South Carolina. any development you have to have, you know, any development of course meeting the minimum acre you have to have a development agreement or they have um North Myrtle Beach is it North Beach? Any annexation in North Myrtle Beach over 25 acres requires a development agreement with payment of a fee that goes towards public parking beach. I know it's not public input. Just somebody with experience that's their requirement.

I was going to say that but I wasn't exactly sure but it seemed like I had heard that North Myrtle Beach is that And that's not that's kind of it's not written it's not written anywhere. It is just a requirement because as tied to a ordinance that goes through a reasoning process in the end council always has the final say to wave a requirement. So it doesn't in that in that aspect even if you put it in here council doesn't have to sign a development agreement. True. You're tying your hands if you make that requirement.

True. And there is something that we did add, you know, the relationship to zoning. Nothing in this section shall be construed to create an entitlement to resoning or annexation. And the requirement for a development agreement is a procedural condition and does not limit the city council's legislative discretion to approve or deny any zoning map, amendment, or annexation request in accordance with applicable. Okay. So that's your ability to wait. Wait again. I mean, and we're more concerned with the number of units than the amount of acreage

and and you know, I know I I kind of figured going into this that the number of lots or units was kind of going to be the biggest issue. And it was for staff, too. I mean, what number do you assign? You don't want it to be too little to where at that point it's not even worth it to a developer to even seek to develop property, but you don't want it to be uh you know too low either to where people are able to develop and avoiding that requirement um because you do want growth to pay for itself. You do want to ensure that certain things are are adhered to that there are certain triggers you know for certain requirements to be done and we don't have impact fees. So, and even those may not be or may not work as well as what the city has done in the past with development agreements for those larger subdivisions. So, you could um there's no rush on this. Um staff could try to look outside of South Carolina. I try not to do that because laws are different everywhere.

Um but we could look and see what other places um may have trigger triggers for development agreements. But uh do we have any annexation requests coming up? Any large annexation requests coming up? Um not that I I'm the only one coming up you've already considered. Um, as far as any brand new ones, I mean, we of course we meet with people often. Um, your question on the ander core

proposes to contain 150 or more residential lots and or units or involves 25 acres or more uplands. It has to be 25 acres. That's why I said the only Yeah, that's the threshold. Yeah. It can't be 150 units or 25 acres is the way I'm reading it. No, it is. I I know, but it can't be. It's either they either have 150 units or it's 25 acres. But what if I put 150 units on 10 acres? Or so. So 15, you couldn't have a development agreement, right? Okay. And now, but now we could if we wrote it this way, but legally you can't unless

we have to make sure it's in accordance with state law. That's what So we can't So state laws state that that's what takes president. We can be more restrictive. We cannot be less restrictive. So more restrictive would be requiring a development agreement for less than 25 acres. That would be more that would be illegal. So you're saying that would be illegal. So that's I that's what I'm saying. It'd be more restrictive. The intent behind the 25 acre minimum is to ensure that residential development that the annexation andor reszoning

is al also caught with that 25 acres. So you don't have someone that's just well I'm doing residential development. I've got 50 acres, you know, but I'm only gonna do 149 lots.

I was slow to the draw what you were saying, but I finally think I caught up. So I think we like maybe it's say for four acreage more than 25 for lots more than 20 for annexations of more than 25 acres which will have in excess of x number whatever number lots a development agreement will be required and so like the 25 acres is the trigger

right so we can't require a development agreement for less than 25 acres so So for development 25 acres or larger which would include at you know proposed x number of units then we want a development agreement. Is that right? That's what we're trying to get at. Yeah. That's why I said if you reverse on that wording then so like yeah for I would put the 25 acres first and then and then whatever the number you know and I I think that's got to be like uh So you're saying 25 acres with Yes. the proposed it would require 25 acres with or in addition to 150 proposed lots would sound better than having the or

yeah because that protects that person that comes out and has 200 acres and wants 10 lots. So it's 25 acres with X number of lots proposed. So and and maybe we drop the threshold to like 100 and then I I don't know what the number is because I'm not a devel I'm not a developer. I don't know what the what the limitations of like a financial I don't even know like what the net result of a de development agreement is like we don't like they're not all the same right so some you require you know roads widening and and and turn lanes and stop and traffic surve surveys and

I'm not a developer and I'm not an engineer but if you have a 100 acres um or have 25 acres and you want to do a 100 units and David could definitely speak to this better than and you got to take about 20 is closed. If you want to have a discussion, I'm more than happy to provide input. One of the other things that you have to keep in mind is that development that the time frame would like to state your name please for the record with Diamond Shores. Thank you. Um also former planning director for county and general land use law expert. So,

oh god. as testified by the court most recently a week ago. Um the thing about development agreements is that they're also limited in time frame. So based on the size it limits how many years it can be in effect. Um and you have to take that into account the fact that on a project typical um how long it takes to develop. So typically between reszoning and the time you actually get your permits is at least a year. Um, and then you have to take into account how many units can actually be used up within that time frame. So, a typical development is between 50 to 75 lots that can be built on in a year at max um or as low as 25. So, you're going to use those up. And also keep in mind that a typical single family development is actually less than four units an acre. Even in the city with smaller lot sizes, it's generally four units or less. an acre. So on a 25 acre project, you're only dealing with 100 lots max. So if you take that into account, you're not and you've got five years on a 25 lot development or 25 acre development to get it done. That's a year in, two years of getting units out after that. So that's three years of that and you're at 120 maybe. But you can't even get that in a typical single family. you'd have to be at 30 or 40 acres before you got to that size.

Yeah. And it's 25 acres of upland. So, you know, you you could be dealing with a situation where half of it is in a wetland or in a flood zone. So, it could be um you know, hundreds of acres, but the the upland acreage is what you would you would have to go by. And the density could be greater um in those situations where you have like cluster cluster style um development. Um and also de development agreements can be extended. Um there's limitations to that, but they could be extended. Yeah. So those are just things to keep in mind. Those are extension clauses that you could put in there. Um so the development agreement is typically just for five years. That's sort of a

No, that based on size. So 25 is for five years. I think it's in the 25 to 250 acres is 5 years. 20. Okay. It's right here. Yeah. There's a chart. Yep. And that comes directly out of state law. That's not a local decision. How many houses can go on 25 acres? Did you say it depends typically even even if it's all uplands by the time you put your ponds and stuff in, it's about four. And that's for single family though, right? Not multi family. That's for single family. Yeah. Multif family is a whole different concept. Especially if you're going four stories high. But if we're going low threshold, then 150 number should at least be 100. Is that what we're thinking? I mean that's

at least see okay my other part is what triggers a um traffic study how many units where is that there's no trigger just the discretion of the engineer but a development agreement typically does require you know um we could TRC right now we wrote in the ordinance staff and council adopted that um TRC has the discretion to require a traffic impact analysis at any at any point in which it feels that it is necessary. And then in the unincorporated jurisdictions, it's 200 ADTS or trips a day for a right turn lane and 500 for a left turn lane, which is very similar to what SED dot requires.

And what is the ADT count for a single family? 10. So it says locally in Ory County, it's about seven and a half to eight. Do you have any additional? Okay, you got it. Okay. All right. So that's certified. I mean, I love the concept of requiring a development agreement more often than we than we get. So, I think that's a great like I think that direction is the the way we want to be because I think that protects

the citizens. I think it protects the city and I think it adds clarity and it would increase the quality of the product of what we're getting. And I think it's a I think overall I think that's it's a great plan like to to do this. I think uh finding the the thresholds is is the

and now keep in mind as the developer part is that there's two parts to it. One is most developers are okay with development agreements because it means that the community is still accepting development but two for those that are not really traditional developers and they're reszoning and doing something small there is an additional cost because there's usually a very high price attorney involved in writing those development agreements. going to ask what the what the draw downs to that that's the most expensive part of it is not actually the money that you pay as part of the development. It's actually the upfront cost that you're paying to the attorney to do the development agreement and attend all the meetings with the jurisdiction.

And also development agreements do lock in the devel development standards that are in place. So essentially when you have a development agreement, whatever the ordinance is at that time, unless there's, you know, exceptions carved out within the development agreement, which we've done, we've asked developers that have done development agreements that you adhere to, the storm water requirements that are in effect at that time of plan um of review, the tree preservation ordinance in effect at the time of plan review, um design standards that are in place, but that doesn't mean there won't be other things in in the ordinance that are not part of that development agreement that could change over time and at least for the time frame of 10 years or 20 years, however long it may be,

they're essentially locked in to those development standards. And it requires staff to keep track of those standards for historical purposes for the next 5, 10, and 20 years. And technically, planning commission is supposed to review all development agreements at least once over a 12-month period. So increase more work for you. I mean, we all got so much free time, you know.

Yeah. I realize this is a this is a tough one and that's why it's taken staff a while. I've been we've been working on it since really since last year, but really been look working on it since January, February of this year, just trying to find the the perfect language, trying to find the right threshold. um but not but not being overly burdensome to somebody that is wanting to do a small subdivision or to that person that's wanting to annex that doesn't want to do um a major subdivision um just want but does have a lot of acreage. Um but also giving council leeway if you have a major development that is commercial and not residential at all. Um but that you know would cause those high ADTS or you know would need to trigger other improvements whether you know on-site offsite that they do have that option as well and and that is carved in here. Um but I will defer to you on what you think is the appropriate uh number and threshold. Um that's why Um

I have one more question. Okay. So in the county, because this is where all the annexations are coming from is the county. Um so a major subdivision is 10 or more lots, right? In a Yeah. Any 10 or more parcel splits in a 10-year period. So you could split 10 times in 10 years and then after 10 years you could. But what I'm saying is if you were coming into, okay, if you were developing, if you had a if you had a piece of land and you're developing in the county, if you have 11 lots on that, if you want 11 lots, then that's going to trigger a a major subdivision, which is like a full-blown plan, permitting, storm water, everything, right?

Depending on what their requirements are. Yes, it would be any anything more than 200 would require a May and I believe the parent parcel is part of that number. It counts towards it. Yeah. So, but I guess my point is 10 is the threshold that the county has for a major or a minor development to require full-blown permitting, drawing, storm water, everything. So I think if everybody is annexing from the county like if you have that same piece of land you can do 10 lots in the county for this or you can come in the city and do more but you I mean is that a good threat I'm not saying 10 but is that a better threshold for a development agreement

you know if it's to match the county's major versus minor. So you're thinking you're thinking 25 and 10 25 acres and more than 10 lots. You're saying, are you saying that not necessarily the number of lots, but you're saying that if the density that's being requested upon annexation is greater than the density that could be achieved under the zoning that it's currently in the county,

because you could, I mean, have, you know, 10 lots and it be uh SF40, which is 40,000 square foot, so basically an acre. um you know so then if you do go by that then pretty much if they wanted to do more than one per acre they would need to have a development agreement if the property is more than 25 um acres of upland. So that would be so that would be tricky too and and and David pointed out and that's gonna those would be the 10 is the if it's less than five acres I believe there's some exception for for greater than five acres or greater.

I'm stumped you guys. Anybody else wants to throw some thoughts out there? I'm I'm tending to go this direction. I think I think I think we like the direction here, but I think we need maybe we could take the thoughts that have bounced around here and try to rewrite um you know the 25 acres and how many units and I I don't know if there's a the research question of looking for other towns of what like in South Carolina that would do that. Well, and and and the issue is, as David pointed out, is that while there are some municipalities that just require development agreements, it's not actually within their UDO,

right? So, they just require it, but it's not in their UDO, which gives them complete discretion because it's and if you write it in here, you take the discretion away because it's they shall have a development agreement. Whereas in North Myrtle Beach, I I like the shall have. I like that we're giving like here's the standard. We cross that. We'll do it. We'll trigger the development agreement. If they want to apply for relief, they can, you know. So, well, I'm really not only building.

We might be able to um you know, find some language that maybe carves out that exception um a little, you know, a little bit a little bit better um so that we don't catch those people that we really it's not intended to catch. um and maybe uh present some different options for for you to look at other than 150 because again I know this is a tough one and it's hard when it's just not something that's written. It's not a com common thing for to be included in a unified development ordinance. Most places just lean on state law. It's already there. It's in state law. You have the right now. It is has to be a it has to be agreed upon. The terms have to be agreed upon. Um, this kind of says that no, you're going to have a development agreement. We can agree upon the terms of the development agreement, but the option to have a development agreement is taken off a table if you put it in here. Um, but um, we can probably try to come up with some language and uh, see if

there is there a fee that a developer pays to enter into a development agreement. There was not until this year. this year. Um the the budget that was adopted does require um a setup fee for a development agreement. I believe it is $1,000 um for us because you know Warden Station, Brook Haven, I mean that involved a lot of staff time. Um I probably looked at I kid you not 25 different versions of Warden Station over a eight to 10 month period. Hundreds. I mean thousands of pages of

and a lot and a lot of time you know and does that go through an attorney review on our side? Do we have like somebody who's I mean me see lots of free time

that's why it took so long because you know you have to look you have to cross all your tees and dot all your eyes and make sure that you know this version that's adopted not only is it right but that all the changes that was discussed by planning commission by staff by city council that all of those changes have also been incorporated ated and I'm, you know, attorneys are not the best uh uh I don't even know what the right term is. They're not as u uh proper when it comes to their uh ability to write documents. It um there's a lot of typos that go into it. Some of it may, you know, I'm sure it was inadvertent inadvertently done, but you have to make sure that all of those changes are done because just missing one little thing or one little sentence varying slightly could mean all the difference in the world on whether or not something that was intended to be adopted that you wanted to be done, it could change that requirement to where it isn't required anymore. So, we have to be very careful. Um, and that's why we implemented and and council adopted a a fee for sta for staff for the planning department so that we are not um doing all of that and that the public's not being compensated. I agree with Greg that we do need to I I would prefer to have um the developmental agreement because I feel like that a lot of people, you know, think that there's the perception that we don't want to uh make it more difficult for developers um because you know they'll they'll get mad because they can't develop you know it's more. It cost them more to develop. But I think everybody in Conway is just about reached the development.

Well, I think if everybody wants to come here, we should ask for That's what I'm saying. I think we need to be more strict.

Can we break it down by zoning? Like okay for instance low low density residential um 1 to four units per acre total units on 25 acres you're looking 25 to 100. So um on 25 acres 25 plus units um trigger there. Medium uh density residential um trigger it at 125 plus units and then high density residential trigger at 275 plus units. So, are you saying triggering it to a zoning district that's being requested that the depending on the zoning district? Because the issue is that like an R3, for example, you could do single family, you could do duplexes, um, town homes or multifamily. So, you almost need to know what the actual plan is ahead of time. Um, so an R1 you have a certain requirement, but if they do a conservation subdivision, um, they could have different lot sizes and they could even do duplexes as part of a conservation subdivision. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I would obviously need to I if if that's the route you wanted to take, I would like time to look

throwing out other option. I don't I don't know. I think we need to

a lot of people have to request annexation to come into the city. Even though it's a residential development, it's a large residential development. In order for them to get water and sewer services, they have to request annexation. Um and because the city's requirements as far as the development itself go, they are more stringent. However, um the the upside to the developer is that one, the city doesn't have impact fees. Um, two, you usually get more density because nine times out of 10, in order for them to get the density they want, they got to go through the resoning and public hearing process. And county council was not as generous lately with giving um resoning or approving resoning requests.

Um, so that's a lot of why people want to come into the city. Mhm.

I do know that there is discussion with people um on 701 South that are not in our service area that ask all the time, what do I got to do to to get annexed into the city. Um so those situations definitely should trigger a development agreement. Um for sure. Um but we, you know, we definitely do agree with the development agreement requirement. is just trying to find that happy median that is not going to be overly burdensome for some but is going to um be proper um and ensures that growth is paying for itself um for other other developments.

All right. So, do we want to potentially defer this and have staff do more research? I think that's probably the wise course. I'm I'm I'm tempted to just say 100 is the number and go with it, but I I don't know if we have that enough information. So I see I'm closer to 10. Yeah, I know. That's what I'm saying. Like I don't know. I saw I saw him squirm when you said 10, but just you know the major development in the county. So all that anyways.

Yeah. And the bottom line is is that regardless of the number, it has to be something that both parties agree on. So this is just the requirement for it to have a development agreement. The the the you know the terms of the development agreement, right? There could be no terms other than Yes. Well, you have to have minimum minimum terms obviously, but those terms would be agreed upon between city council and the applicant or the property owner, but we could definitely look at some other options. Is this going to create an expense for the city of Conway? What do you mean is if it's adopted? Yeah.

Has there been any sort of cost analysis on how much it would cost? Like what what it would do to Well, that what you have to do is I I when when I think of that, I think of the cost of requiring a development agreement for new development that is going to have a burden on the general public. And then I think about what that cost is not having a development agreement.

So what's greater? Um, at least with the development agreement, while it might be more work for the city staff upfront, at least you know that you are implementing things that for the duration of the development agreement and in theory that that it would, you know, cover the entire length of the development process that at least you have put things in an agreement that guarantees that certain things will be done. um including enhancement fees that you do have those uh facility park facilities um you know police you know that just the simple things like camera cameras being required at certain entrances and I know developers are doing a lot more now um in some regard than they've than they have done in the past but the cost to not have it versus the cost of having it and ensuring that the cost of development is lessened by the fact that there is a development agreement. To me, having the development agreement makes more sense.

I think the stricter we make it, the more burdensome it's going to be for staff, but we don't need to make it loose to the point where this is now the wild west and developers go crazy

and it's meaningless. based off your number of based off your number of four um fee and or what's fee and simple lots right on an acre I presume 100 seems reasonable if we want to be more conservative we could push it or if you want to be more lenient towards developers we can push it to 150 we can push it 125 but I think it'd be a great thing if you want to defer it for simply rewarding to put 25 ahead 25 acre a lot ahead because I think that makes a lot of sense um to not get mixed up. So we go ahead and put the state regulations before everything and then our rules and subjugations after. So you know the cart's not before the horse,

right? This has to be done to begin with. It has to be 25 acres of uplands, right? And then I think 150 was pretty was pretty generous on both sides. Um, but I I mean lowering to 100 like you mentioned, Greg, that sounds like a phenomenal idea, too. It may be a simple estate up there, but by all means, like you need to 75. You know, there's there's definitely a middle ground to be found. We be in the middle at 60.

Um, it could be a simple under applicability where it says a development agreement shall be required as a condition of approval for and then you list those three. It may be saying that a development agreement shall be required um for properties 25 or more acres as a condition of approval or containing 25 or more acres as a condition of approval for and then list the three standards below that and that might solve the issue. 25 acres in the top part, not in the

So that's their absolutely they have to hit that because that's a state rig. you know, there's no way around that. And then everything after that is going to be our subjugations, which are, you know, if we want to do a 100 lots, if we want to do so on and so forth. Do we want to defer this or do we want to make a motion with those revisions? Then what our revision is going to be if we make a motion to put it. So, we'll put 25 at the top. Mhm. And then whatever number reduce it. We could reduce it by 50 and bring it to 100 lots. Are you guys comfortable with 100? I can be convinced. I guess I you know we don't want to overburden the developers but we want we want a common sense. Exactly.

And I think staff has thought about this and I think we I think we need to trigger it. I mean, I think it needs to be triggered and I don't know if we, you know, what's what else is coming up, but I think it'd be good to have it like in the holster sort of ready to go like when when the next development hits that um that could be a little, you know, tricky, you know,

and I almost think that by um Mr. Anderson's point um if you put the 25 acre minimum upfront and you say that uh a development agreement shall be required um for properties consisting of 25 or more acres of uplands as a condition of approval for and then you list the three then it almost prevents the loophole or the you know the error with the person that wants to annex his 50acre farm. farm and build one house

because you have you have to want to annex for residential uses, request to reszone for residential uses and you have to propose 100 or 150 lots. So all you know those have to be met. Does the development agreement would this trigger if somebody had already um annexed in and had a 100 acres right now? No. No.

Do we have any protections for that sort of situ? I don't know if we've had any circumstances of large lots that are already within the city limits that are that are already designated residential that they could voluntarily do a development agreement. But that's the issue is there's nobody's you can't make them do a development agreement if they've already got the zoning that they need to develop the property. They don't have to. So we're just future planning. We're just Yeah. is to yeah I think it's wise for a future to have that especially with the amount of acreage that are that's out beyond the city limits that are going to want to come in and I and I I think okay

I think maybe we make a motion with the with the changes that we have made and maybe we I don't I'll leave it to you Thomas to to say the word can't hear me out one more time about the 100 okay the average is four per acre so what happens to the guy that comes in at 99 so that's I think why um m maybe like 90 instead of 100. You know what I'm saying? What happens with the guy that comes in at 89? Yeah. I mean, but you said four units per acre is the average. That's where I'm struggling is cuz like if I was a developer, I'd be like, "Oh, yeah.

But but you're always you're always going to go through and have that one developer. I mean, you're you're there's not going to be a a fixall for everything. You're going to have to go through and set the benchmark and then just be happy with it." That's like can we can we rely on the goodness of humanity to like can we have a little bit of ethics and morals here and not just go 99 run out of war was put in conjunction with in number three. I think that's why it was put like that was because of those exact situations. All right.

What do you think the right number would be? Y'all, I think if we nickel and dime developers, we're going to be hurting the city. I really do. It's It's definitely a balance, but Well, my whole thing is impact fees in the county if you're going to stay in the county or development agreement in the city and you get a better product in the city. And so, that's kind of my whole thing about lowering the number too is you don't have to pay impact fees in the city, but we're just asking for a development agreement. You got to pay impact fees in the county. So what's I mean from the developer I I mean you're you're right. If the grass is is wildly greener in the city of Conway then we're going to go make our money in the city of Conway and we'll do it that way.

Um and I think it would be wise for us to have more jurisdiction over the planning of it. Um I don't we also don't want people running away and doing what they but council still has the opportunity to say no we don't think it's required here. No matter what, we could take two and council could be like, "That's dumb." I'm hearing that 50 is a good number. So, all right, let's do 50. 50 sounds great. Does 50 work? Fine with 50.

I mean, 50 on So, 50. No, no, I'm I'm just trying to think. 50 on 25 acres. That's a halfacre lot, but it's it's still 50 houses that will impact a community. So, 1080ts per house, that's 500 trips. I mean that's Yeah.

And I also want to point this out because I know that that the the burden putting the burden on the developer. This again is the requirement to have a development agreement. The terms whether that's the enhancement fees, the requirements for park, the requirements for improvements, all of which would still be required to some degree per our ordinances. Those are all terms that will be agreed upon between the developer and city council. So no matter what the number is, it doesn't mean that this person who has a development agreement is going to be subject to the same requirements as somebody else who may have 10 times more lots than some than another developer. So I don't want, you know, you to think or feel that

whatever the requirements are, it's going to be applicable the same way for every developer. There's minimum standards within a development agreement that you have to have, but the terms of that agreement can vary between developments. All right, I'm satisfied with 50 you guys. I'm sorry. All right, Thomas, have at it. Good joy. Um, what she said?

Take everything she just summed up. Um, great. So, I'll make a motion to approve or sorry, I'd make a motion to yeah, approve the text amendments for article 2 definitions in article 13, administrative agencies and functions of the city of Conway UDO um, with the recommended revisions here in stated.

Would you like me to word it? I'm I'm thinking of the wording directly under applicability. A development agreement shall be required as a condition of approval for Would you like me to Should I start and say for for properties containing 25 acres or more of uplands, a development agreement shall be required. There you go. And change the lot and change the lot sizes or sorry the lot number to 50. 50. All right. We have a first. Do we have a second? I will I will gladly second whatever that was. We have a first and a second. All those in favor? I. Any oppose?

All right. Good job, guys. Thoroughly enjoyed that because I'm a nerd. But um I have to recuse myself, so I'm going to hand it over to whoever you would like to elect this chair. All right. Who wants to have fun with hammer? I have to recuse myself, right? Oh, yeah. That's to this one's to be deferred. I'm sorry. This one's to be deferred.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh this master plan is similar to what planning commission has adopted as part of amendments to the elect. Oh, yes. I'm so sorry. Yes. Y'all need to elect somebody to Okay. So, we got to Yeah, we got to elect a chair to um take the place of Miss Jessica for um her recusing and running out the door very rapidly. I do believe you're because she doesn't want to read this long story. You uh you're good for it. Say I do believe. So, there's a there's a first. All right. All those in favor nominate George. All right.

Vote unanimously. George. Okay. Okay. Miss Jessica, you can read the story to us. All right. Bryson was the first, Anderson was the second. Correct. Yes, ma'am. And all approved. Just to make sure for the record. No, they all denied. They all approve. Yes, Miss Jessica. Go ahead, please. Ma'am, thank you.

So, like the um pathways and trails plan and the riverfront and downtown master plan um that the city adopted a few years ago. um they were adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan as um part of those respective elements of the comp plan. This would be an adoption um by reference into the community facilities element of the comprehensive plan. The plan was prepared with input from community stakeholders via a steering committee that was appointed by and included city officials to help guide future improvements to the city's parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities. Um the plan provides a vision for Conway's park and recreation department um for the next 10 years. Adoption of the Conway parks and recreation master plan by reference into the comp plan ensures the city's long range documents are consistent and that future decisions are supported by a clear vision for parks and recreation in Conway. Council approved first reading on the plan at their August 18th meeting. Uh, this item is scheduled as a public hearing and I'll be happy to try and answer any questions that you have.

Okay, the board's okay. We'll open it up for a public hearing and get that over with. I agree. Not seeing anybody else but us in the room. I will motion to close the public hearing. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. All right. Any discussion from the board? So, we're just all our our job here is just to approve that this goes within into the comprehensive plan.

Yeah. And and again, you know, it's it's a plan, right? So, it's not ordinance or or law or anything, but it's just to help guide the city's um future and growth when it comes to, you know, future facilities um for parks and recreation or improvements to current parks and recreation um that the city has. And this would be part of the comp plan. So that way when we are considering uh annexations or resonings, things of that nature, um the the population, I mean, you got the population element, the housing element, all of those things kind of work in sync with each other and it kind of helps the city know not only um what's needed, but where it's needed to. So when we do make land use decisions, when planning commission considers land use decisions, that they have this in mind when they are, you know, making those recommendations. This is a substantial document.

Yes, it is. I mean, it is well done. It is pictures and I I was a little overwhelmed at the amount of work that went into this plan and uh then I it was a lot to digest. I some of it I read twice. I'm still working on getting to all of it. Um

this particular plan, there was a third party that is responsible for for this plan. I mean, it's pretty it was wildly comprehensive. Um, but I I can honestly say I've not digested all of it. So, um, but I tr you know, I I don't really know what our role is. We're not we're not approving all the pages of this. We're approving what are we doing? You're approving its adoption and as by reference into the comprehensive plan. So, basically, you're amending the comprehensive plan and that you know planning commission is charged with that. and the the draft that's written on this, we're making it we'll take that label off of it after we

it would be final. Yes. So, we're going to adopt a resolution tonight um that the planning commission is approving the parks and wreck um comprehensive plan and the parks and wreck um plan and putting it into our comprehensive plan for the city of Conway or for city council to adopt at the next meeting is what we're doing this evening. So, in the motion, we'll have to go through and adopt or in the motion, we'll have to go through and approve my signing of the resolution to council that the planning commission did approve the plan and then it still city council will will still make the final approval. So, we're Okay, perfect.

Any further discussion? Anybody have any other questions for Jessica? I thought it was a pretty eye openening document. I never realized just how much we were lacking all of our parks. It's kind of they're all kind of centralized in one little strip if you zoom out and look at on a macro scale. And some of the developments that are proposed will help address some of some of those issues as well. But I mean, for us being a a smaller community, we do offer quite a bit. Yeah, we do. Quite a bit.

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. Well, I can we can already see that there are some red areas that are going to quickly turn green with the Busby region and some of the uh the trail heads that are coming through in the in the back of some of these developments. I think that'll be I was also shocked that only that only 12% of Conway's residents live within a 10 minute walking distance to a park. And I I've always felt that Conway is great with parks that we have parks

seemingly everywhere, but only 12% of our population can walk to a park. And I, you know, I'm glad we're addressing that in this master plan that we're trying to get parks more accessible. And I think it's just a great direction for us to go. Thank you.

I think a big part of that is the division of the highway. No, I'm sorry. The big part of that is the division of the two highways that cut us in half basically. Well, in thirds, really. and and you guys will be um working on a brand new comprehensive plan. Um I'm hoping in the next uh few months we can go ahead and kick that off and there the community facilities elements will help address some of the those issues too. So there might be some things that need to be updated by that time. Um there'll be lots of public meetings and you'll get the opportunity to to make recommendations as well. When does my seat come open? Okay. Not soon. You got a lot. Oh, is there

No, go ahead. I'll make a motion to approve. You're making All right, we have a motion to approve. Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. Same sign opposed. All right, motion carries. Would you like to go ahead? Yes, please. I'm right. Turn over the gavvel. Do we have to un do we have to elect her back? No. Hey, we had an election while you were gone. Yes. Yeah. You got another term. Times five. Um, I'm sure you did great. Okay. Board input. Anybody?

Thank the staff for all you do. Yes. Appreciate you. We cannot do without y'all. Appreciate y'all. When does when does Busby come up above? Like when do we turn that into a park? I don't know. Are you talking about the um what you talking about? The side on Lake Busby or you talking about the side on Lake Busby that's like the uh like where the pond is and the walking trail? Well, Lake Busby itself I think is just going to be left in its natural in its natural state. I know there's not like any plans to develop anything on Lake Busby. Are you just talking about like the walking like any

right the walking area is that I mean is there a plan to bring that in as a here's what I'm staking in this but like I run out there all the time and the uh power company or who whoever owned it pre prior I don't even know the Santi Santer they would mow out there I gotcha and it would they would keep the the road the access road that goes all the way to the bag they'd have mode. So, you know, I can look into that. I can look into that. I don't know if it's a, you know, if that's a facilities question.

It very well, it very well may be. Um, I can look and I'll look into that and it's not, it might be something that would be worth discussing when we do rewrite the comprehensive plan. So, that was one question. Thank you to the board for putting up with my endless questions. I appreciate y'all. I suck at that. I'm glad it wasn't for Glad it wasn't me this time. All right. Do we have any staff input?

Yeah, I just wanted to explain why this is going to um this is being deferred. Um this actually came up as a result of the mayor wanting us to look at some uses um that are, you know, you have highway commercial right next to residential um and trying to figure out, you know, some of those uses. should they be put in other zoning districts? And then you also have uses like vape shops that have been a concern. Um cash advance or pay, you know, payday loan places that tend to locate um you know, they're predatory lending agencies and they tend to locate in the most vulnerable areas of our community. So trying to determine if maybe those need to be pushed to, you know, a more restrictive district so that way we don't see vape shops on on every corner. And then also looking at in sync with this or in conjunction with this um adopting what's called a special exception process which would be heard by the board of zoning appeals. So for certain uses it could be some places a bed and breakfast. Um, I know the county, any place that wants to have onremise consumption of alcohol has to go to the board of zoning appeals. And I'm not recommending that particular item, but there might be other things or other uses that we don't currently have that maybe would work best through a special exception process and we kind of want to bring that together with this amendment um, and bring that before you as one amendment. So, that's why there's just been a lot of moving parts with this particular amendment. Okay. All right. See everybody on November 6th, 5:30 sharp.

Motion to adjurnn. This meeting for what? The city of Halloween has been adjourned. I'll I'll second. All those in favor? Amen. Yeah.