Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we want to welcome you to the uh August 26, 2025 planning board meeting. Um, and it's noted that uh Trina Blumis is absent. And we'll go with the uh first order of business. And that is consider the approval of the July 22nd, 2025 regular meeting minutes. [Music] Motion to approve the July 22nd regular meeting minutes. Second.

Motion. Chris second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Those opposed? One abstension due to absence. Noted. Okay. Um, public comments. I see we have no speakers that have signed up. So, we'll move on into the action agenda and consider the recommendation of petition text amendment 259 request by Burkurt USA. I just have one thing. Oh,

I mean they are a client of ours. I don't think it has anything to do with tonight, but I do cater for them often. So, just wanted to throw that out there. It's okay. Okay. Does does any of the board members have an issue to recuse, Jody? Okay. Thank you for sharing. Okay, Nathan's yours. Good evening, everyone. Uh, before I begin, I'll enter my staff report into the record.

You want me to check out? I can help you. I'm hitting the button. Let me just uh see if this works. Make it three months in a row.

I can just give you Yeah. Uh this is the uh second text amendment. Yeah, you're good.

Yeah. Not prepared to speak on this one. Okay. Thank you. Um so quick little background. Um article 9.54 solar energy facilities is split into two different categories. The first is major solar energy facilities uh where the primary purpose is producing electrical energy for the b for beneficiaries that are not located on the site. Uh an SUP is required for these. And then we have the minor solar energy facilities that are located on the beneficiaries premises are intended to primarily offset part or all of the beneficiaries electricity. Um minor rooftop and minor um freestanding solar facilities are allowed by right um on all properties except for in the front yard and on the front facade. Uh those are prohibited. Um and this text me will focus on minor solar energy facilities. So this was submitted by Burkurt USA Corporation um for potential future solar installation at their Huntersville manufacturing facility. um they were looking to add some additional solar panels in locations that the ordinance currently doesn't allow. And they have two goals with this text amendment. It's to allow freestanding solar energy facilities up to 14 ft tall above surface parking lots and pedestrian walkways and to allow freestanding solar energy facilities to be placed in the front yard of non-commercial or I'm sorry that's it's supposed to be commercial properties. Um the first amendment uh that they are proposing is to the general requirements of article 9.54. Uh currently the language states that all minor freestanding uh solar facilities shall be a max of 5t in

height. The applicant is proposing a provision that would allow a minor freestanding solar facility to be up to 14 feet tall as long as is on a commercial property. It is above a surface parking lot or a pedestrian pathway and it is behind an 80 foot buffer. The second amendment is to the commercial um section of article 9.54. Um, this language currently states that a that the front yard placement um of a minor freestanding solar facility is prohibited when it's placement would cause the solar facility to be visible by a person on the ground. Currently, it's essentially making it impossible to place a solar panel in the front yard. The applicant is proposing to add the language from the public street uh in order to allow a freestanding minor solar facility in the front yard as long as it is screened. The text amendment is consistent with the 2040 plan policy EOS 9.1 which states to promote the use of energy efficient building design and neighborhood design. This text amendment would uh increase the opportunities for commercial properties uh to uh install environmentally friendly solar panels on their properties. And with that, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment as it is compliant with the 2040 plan and is supported by policy US9.1. And if you have any questions, I can answer those for you. The applicants are also here if you have any questions for them.

Okay, we'll start with questions for staff. Uh there was some discussion about going less than 80 feet as long as it was blocked. Uh did that go anywhere or is that something that we That wasn't brought up any further after the the public hearing. Um we would be open to to looking at it if that's something you guys wanted to discuss. No, I mean I think if the applicant only needs the 80 foot buffer, we leave it there for now. And then if somebody else wanted to do it closer than 80, that would be a special Yeah. or a special use, right? Yeah. They would have to come back in for another text amendment. Okay. Yeah.

Um, did the town or applicant consult with an expert as far as the height limitation of 14T? I'm just thinking that they're probably installed at an angle. I'm guessing 14 is at the top of that. I'm just what I don't want to do is pass 14 feet. I don't realize it. Sure. Something 16 feet. Um staff hasn't looked into it in terms from an engineering standpoint. Um if you guys want to try to answer that one. Yeah, if you just want to come if you want to step uh to the pod and if you could give your uh name and address please, it' be great. My name is Trevor Davis. I'm with ECubed. I'm the consultant that was hired by Perkert. Um, we work with manufacturers and with the designers to come up with that height.

Gotcha. I just want to make sure that wasn't some arbitrary number that we're going to come. No, no, we actually went a couple feet above what we recommended to build. So, yep. That it any other questions? Um, back to the 80 ft. So, the put this in place. Could the board of commissioners then reduce the 80 ft to if it was part of a reasonzoning? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Or if they came in through another text amendment. Y

I have one more for staff. Um is there any from the staff perspective? Is there any concern or should there be a limitation on the size of a groundmounted solar installation? Where I'm going with this is, you know, I doubt this ever happens, but if somebody had a 5,000 foot building and they wanted to put up, you know, 100,000 square feet of solar panels, I don't think that's our intended what we're intended by this text amendment. Are are you like referring to a specific location or just in general? Just in general, you know, usually is it a percentage maybe of the building? You know, if it's a 200,000t building, then you know, should it not exceed 200,000 feet? just it's just

we we haven't taken that into consideration, but I would add that already at a commercial property if the required buffers along the road as well as along any of the adjacent properties. Um, for this particular use above a parking lot, the the parking screening requirements would still apply. Um, so there would still be trees on the the perimeter of the parking lot. Um, and actually I think I was thinking more not like if it's a solar installation that's in addition to a covered parking. I get the parking's there, but let's say you know, okay, we're going to cover this. So they have a big field and

that's really what I'm just trying to think, you know, get, okay, yeah, you know, you've got a big parking lot and you got that covered. That's fine. Then they go, well, you know, we also have four acres. We'd like to cover four acres in panels. I mean, if they are looking to just uh produce energy from that for their own site, then that would be a minor solar facility and we wouldn't have much of an issue. But if they're trying to also offset um electricity for other properties and earn money off of that, then at that point it's going to be a major solar facility and they have to come in for an SUP and that would be a use in itself. Um so they likely wouldn't be able to do it on their own property.

I see. So, I see where Scott was headed with that. I'm wondering if there's like a major parking lot, you know, if you had a Walmart that was pretty well screened, but you know, thousands of acre or thousands of square foot of parking lot, would we allow that? Uh, with this text amendment, no, it would it would be um only allowed if it's behind an 80 foot buffer. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. As long as we And if it's in the front yard at all, it would have to be completely screened visually. Yeah. Um so they may have to do additional screening if depending on the height. Yes.

I'm just doing a little bit of advanced thinking. Uh but if new technolog is available which allows them to do storage on the same site, is this covering that or is that where would that be covered? What do you mean by storage? New technology for storage of the capturing like on site. Yeah. This this wouldn't affect their ability to to use a a battery for their electrical needs. This is purely for the the solar panel. That's what the the kind of kind of the opposite way. If they're using it to capture the energy to retain it for later purposes, is that covered or is it

it's not covered? Um I know homeowners for single family homes right now could use a battery to capture their energy as well. That's not anything that our ordinance currently. Um they have they have that as a right then. Correct. Y Okay, that's fine. So, just a a quick question here from me. Um, so I see that it limits us to um pedestrian walkways and parking. So, that's excluding things like driveways or other imperous surfaces and things of that nature. Only a surface parking lot and only above uh pedestrian walkway.

And and just so I'm clear, just um panels on top of buildings is already covered elsewhere. That's already allowed by Right. Okay. double checking. Thanks. Any other questions? Okay. Um, someone have a motion prepared that they'd like to present. I've got one. Nobody else does.

Okay. In considering the proposed amendment TA25-09, the planning board recommends approval based on the amendment being consistent with the EOS-9.1 of the Huntersville 2040 plan. It is reasonable and in the public interest to amend the zoning ordinance because it allows for the expanded opportunities for non-residential properties to install environmentally friendly solar panels. This allows future businesses to use creative solutions to fit more solar panels on their properties. The planning board believes it's adequate language has been provided to ensure that these solar energy facilities are not a nuisance to nearby properties.

Second motion and second discussion. Chris, you want to start anything? Okay.

I I just thought it was interesting when um when you read the BERT application, it says that they are committed to achieving carbon neutrality goals for 2028. And to help achieve their business goals, they are incorporating solar that would lead them to installing charging stations at a later date. So, I think this could very possibly be coming up with other businesses that are not only here but are coming to the Huntersville area. Is a good thing. Any other discussion, comments? Okay. Well, we've got a motion, a second. We'll go ahead and vote. All those in favor of the motion, those opposed. So, it's unanimous.

Thank you. You are welcome to leave if you want or you're welcome to stay. Get excited. Um, okay. The next item on the agenda is uh consider a recommendation on petition TA 254 request by the Huntersville Planning Department to amend article 7.4 of the Huntersville zoning ordinance. And today we have a guest, Mr. James, filling in for Brad Priest. Thank you. He's busy with his anniversary.

Yeah, thank you. And good evening. Uh before I get started, I wanted to give a shout out to a young aspiring planner out there um that is a tree advocate as well. Um Eden Spate, hi on YouTube. You made it. All right. TA 254 tree mitigation. Again, I'm filling in for Brad Priest. Um this text amendment is has a goal of keeping more mature trees. uh the proposed amendment would um a recap on what was discussed previously. There's a 30% um maximum mitigation for residential and 50% maximum mitigation for commercial. Um this amendment would also raise heritage tree mitigation to 200% of the caliper instead of 100. It also clarifies tree preservation uh information within within the ordinance. That way we can clarify when we're reviewing plans and it's consistent throughout. Um there was a new addition to this which would allow small lot development um developments under two acres to have some flexibility and allow u development to encroach in the drip line which was an issue before staff u went over that and thought about it and looked into those. We have a couple of u examples to to show, but uh we realize that if if you have a a good tree preservation plan from an arborist, signed from an arborist um that would attest and sign that um you know going inside the drip line would would save the tree, then we are uh in favor of that and that allow some additional flexibility. And then there's also the conditional district reszoning route. if you cannot meet these um maximum

mitigation efforts. So again, board discussed on 722 the concern about uh increased conditional district resonings and then that small lot development. So we did a little research and found five uh fairly recent projects that were small lots. As you can see on the screen, there's a 39, a.37, 1.72. One is slightly over two acres, 2.73, and 1.91. Uh, four of those did not um they met their tree safe, so there was no mitigation required, and the one that would not uh would now meet it with the arborous preservation plan that we allow with our flexibility. So, um, you know, we kind of dug into these plans and we found that, um, with the added flexibility efforts that we spoke about at the last planning board, um, that it would not necessarily add more conditional district resonings um, with the additional flexibility. And here's another snapshot example um of the new language drafted by staff. Um small lot development tree save would still be applicable um but you would have that added flexibility whereas on the screen as you see a 32-in beach tree would encroach into their building envelope that they have proposed. But with a um a tree safe plan from a certified arborist um you could actually pull that drip line in with some different measures. There's a lot of different measures that arborist can recommend um like root barriers and things like that to protect u the tree. So we would uh we would allow some flexibility if there was that arborist that could attest to to those um efforts.

So, um, staff does not recommend small lot development be exempted overall. We would just, um, be in favor of that flexibility item that we just spoke about or I just spoke about. Um, small lot tree save is feasible as examples provided. Exempting them could have a cumulative mature tree loss effect. So, if we if we did not use these examples or if we did not go forward with this um and we allowed small lots to be exempted, areas like downtown that traditionally have less than two acre sites, you would have potentially no um mature trees uh in an area like downtown. So recommendations staff recommends approval with the new updates and the town board meeting scheduled is September 16th, 2025. Leave that open for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you. Um we'll start with questions for staff. Got a couple. Um, okay. On the small lot, first of all, I appreciate you all checking on the small lot. That was that was a great uh addition. Um, do you think that could apply to the other like larger like say a 5acre site where you you want to weave a parking lot in around a tree, you want to save it, you know, with an arborist report. Um, well, I mean, we looked at some some mediumsiz sites as well. Um, those weren't brought up in that last meeting. the two acres was kind of the smaller,

but um I I've reviewed a ton of plans and you'll have some that are very close to meeting it. You have a a tree or two off, but we didn't have that additional flexibility in the ordinance. So part of it is um you know you may be able to save even more with that additional arborist allowance because I've had plans where you know you're 2 feet within the drip line with the added five feet and I have no ability to say well you know you can squeeze it in here move the move the concrete over or the building envelope over but with an arborist attesting to that I don't see based on my experience reviewing any issues with it.

So, are you saying like if if it were a larger site that that y'all would possibly consider like say they're out and they you know there's only a few trees or this only applies to the two acre under the the arburous letter for uh encroaching into the drip line for say like a parking lot or Oh, I see what you mean. Is the arborist uh flexibility allowed in other types of development under the two acres? Um, not as written. Yeah. Yeah. And you guys can propose it. I think it'd be good on a on a less dense site, so to speak, where there's not a lot of trees and you need to save that.

Trying to think of any potential issues with allowing that. I I don't think with a large site as long as an an arborist, you know, if you're just two trees or a tree within meeting tree save and couple of areas that it would be um you know, you could potentially save them without doing damage to tree. I don't I don't think that's and what happens I if it's a legal question or what, but what happens if let's say you have that small site, you have one tree, you can't really do anything with it. you have to get it res. What happens if it's denied? Like is that a is that a legal issue?

That is a possibility that that could occur. Yeah, I know it's hypothetical. Like I said, we looked at a number of sites. We found it pretty fair and reasonable. You saw the chart. Yeah, I we looked back historically as well. We do know of two or three sites in town that are going to have to ask for reszoning to build something on it. just how they are. But um again, if we see I think a pattern or an uptick in reszonings just because of this um then maybe we look at revising this ordinance, it's not a problem. Again, this is a living document. Sure.

We've done other for other cases as well. But uh if you're in there reszoning for something else and this is just, you know, we'll just keep track of this. I don't think we'll see too many that's just solely because of trees. It might be in addition trees in addition to other modifications, right? But um if we see like three or four then maybe we'll take a look at maybe changing the the breadth of this a little bit. But if you guys do want to make it as part of your recommendation going up to five acres we're comfortable with that as well. So that would be we could make that as part of the recommendation. Yeah. And then the board the board would make the decision.

Um another thing and this may be too too much for now. talked about this like you take you know 36 inch trees lost but over here in addition to the canopy you save you saved five 12in trees which doesn't count it's not it doesn't count for mitigation but exceeded it is that that would be more than a recommendation that's more yeah there would be a separate text amendment and that would go into the mitigation portion of that and we'd be open to having that because I think it'd be a fair mitigation if you exceed the canopy and you have additional trees on site that perhaps they should count even though they're under the specimen tree size.

Yeah, that's something we've thought about and and we believe that would add um quite a bit more um text to the ordinance because you'd have to kind of quantify and calculate it and and the way we would review it be would be different. Um so it wouldn't Yeah. Like a motion wouldn't probably capture it. Right. Right. I didn't think so. And sorry for the hypotheticals here. Um, what about if you increased like you know how you increase the heritage tree to 200%. What if what if we increased the and it didn't have to get resoned but you increase the penalty for going over that percentage.

Sure. And that was part of a previous discussion we had with some folks. We pro we would probably want to take that mitigation technique um back to the environmental sta and sustainability committee and get their input go back out do the research to see what our peers are doing see if anybody's doing something similar and again if we're pioneers we're pioneers because I think I think stiff penalty would would be a I mean I think a great way to solve the goal of the goal being to keep more mature trees and we don't look at it as a penalty per se is is more of a fun incentive to to replace trees in other areas. So, right, I would be

because we know often times when you get to that, you know, 36 inch oak, it's it's either it's, you know, peak life or or it's on its, you know, downfall. Um, so you definitely see the merit. Do we save three or four 18inch oaks who are going on their way up? Absolutely. Hard to quantify sometimes these things, but that's definitely something we're going to spend some time on and probably do that with an additional text amendment. And the last bizarre question is you don't have like a I'm gonna call it a land conserancy. Your time's up. At least I got the question in you know like how you can mitigate watersheds with with reserving. We we do not have any land banking. I don't know if that's probably a bad idea.

Something they you know that we could look at doing in the future with a different type of text amendment as well. Okay. Okay, I'll somebody else if y'all have some questions. Thanks, Brian.

Sure. I have a comment. Um, I love trees, by the way, but I kind of made this comment before. I feel like this may be a solution looking for a problem. Um, and I do think, and I appreciate you guys doing the research, especially on the two acres, that I just I still have concern that this is going to end up catching a lot of a lot of sites that will end up having to come in for a conditional reasoning that otherwise would not because of this new ordinance. So, um I'm probably not going to support it. It's not because again I I want to tra save trees. I just I just don't know if it's even with and Jay is so much more educated on this than I am, but I just think there's a lot more to it. So, it's just a comment, not a question. We have some additional questions, concerns for staff. Thoughts? Yeah. Flip back to the comparison chart you did for the um the six properties or so. And when we looked at this last time, it was like with with current tree ordinances and with proposed and there was an additional savings, but we don't see that here, right? So, we don't really know what the effect of doing it without the without the small lot revision and with except for maybe on Hullbrook too, you said.

Yeah. Well, Hullbrook 2 is one that would not be allowed without the amended version from what we talked about earlier with the flexibility. Um, but with the flexibility, we found that um, you know, with an arborous report that it it could meet the current um, amendment we're proposing. Yeah. Okay. And the reason I was going through I was trying to get in my head what a real life situation is where the tree mitigation would be the only thing that would make them go conditional. So if you had you come up with it on a two on a on a you know on a twoacre lot really. Yeah.

We haven't had any examples that have come in. Um, I mean, this this has all come up because we've had um a lot of plans that have just gone 100% mitigation, which doesn't, in our opinion, meet the intent of the 2040 plan or the the ordinance that was written. Um, I don't think anyone foresaw um anyone writing checks for that amount um for 100% mitigation. Um, so we just feel like this meets the intent of the 2040 plan and actually protecting canopy that we've lost over the years.

Right. Right. Got that. Yeah. I'm just going on to the then the five acre site where is ripe for clear cutting. Right. So this is this is taking care of that 100% mitigation where you know our little fees not not anything to the to that uh to that margin on that property. So I don't Yeah. I just the the easiest cases are are are downtown because you've got these lots under under two acres and um there's a there's a lot of ways and creative ways that arborists can can protect a tree and get really close

to the building. Um I've seen it in other cities and um you see it near sidewalks all the time too. I know that's not a building foundation, but uh there's ways to do it. So, we think that that flexibility effort you guys had spoke about last time is a good um a good way to to meet those two acre small lot projects. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. That that makes sense. Okay. I'm glad that was brought up. Good catch.

Any other questions? Are you all ready to make a motion? I have a motion prepared. I'll give it a run. In considering the proposed amendment TA25-04, the planning board recommends approval based on consistency with policies EOS-3 EOS-3.1 EOS4 and the big idea tree canopy outlined on page 84 of the 20 Hunsville 2040 plan. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it supports the preservation and growth of mature tree canopy which will provide significant environmental, storm water management, air quality, economic and community benefits for the town of Huntsville.

A second motion and a second. Any discussion? B start with you. You want to add? Yeah, I I was I was supporting it last time and still and especially with the with the the thought that uh we can handle a a smaller lot and and not penalize the uh the developer. So, I think this is a great start and there's there's plenty of room to do other improvements as they come up. And like I said, a lot of it a lot of this stuff is going to go conditional and uh the board of commissioners will have a chance to put their own spin on it as well. So, there is some variability in this. So, I will support it. I think we focus a lot on the environmental value and the impact it has within the particular site, but also there's an economic value that we don't really talk about and that is that properties that have trees as assets are valued much greater than properties that have none. Uh and people know that. Yeah. Because it's it's a expensive proposition to try to mature a tree over time. Uh and as a result, I think we we're kind of getting a win-win out of this. should get the e economic impact as well as the environmental.

Go ahead. Yeah. The Yeah. the last time, you know, I kind of like opposed this because we were considering smaller acres and now that you took that into consideration, I think, you know, I will, you know, support this because concerning the 2040 plans and or the mitigation, I think this is the right way to move forward.

Yeah. So, I'm I'm really on the fence about this to be honest. Um, I think for me my biggest hang-up is the 50% cap, the mitigation cap on um, commercial mitigation. Um, I'm just really interested to see how that plays out, if there's a chilling effect um, and then how many conditional resonings we really do get as a result of this um, tree matter specifically. So, I think I'm probably going to vote in favor. Um but I'm certainly interested to see how it plays out in terms of conditional um reasonzoning applications that come forward.

Yeah. And I was waiting on discussion to kind of talk to Scott a little bit more. I mean like where's your limit? Obviously you see where the town's coming from, right? You don't want people to just buy their way out of cutting down trees, but I mean is it that five acre limit is or are you just completely opposed to it no matter how big we go? No, and I'm not, again, it's not a hill I want to die on. It's just um I do just worry that there are some sites out there, many sites out there that um again, this goes back to me as a personal property rights. I, you know, I think I've said this 100 times, you know, we've got a zoning ordinance that already has restrictions on what somebody can and cannot do with the property.

And then this is just another layer that could potentially send them down the path of a conditional zoning. And hey, from a town perspective, sometimes that's the best outcome because as we know, there's negotiation that is done and oftentimes we get a better product. So, I can definitely see both sides of it. Um, but yeah, and I do think the five acres helps. So, again, I I just I just wanted to express my thoughts more than anything. And I don't, you know, I'm one of these people I don't anybody want don't don't come with a problem without a solution. I don't have a solution, unfortunately. I just have concerns. Jay, you've seen probably more development than anybody up here. You do you have a different limit than the

I mean, I do think the five acres is a good um and I'm going to just say it. I mean, this like Scott said, this is not a hill I want to die on. It's just a something we deal with every day. And and I know it's going to come up and somebody's going to, you know, reszone. And it's not about how many trees, it's where that tree is located. You know, that's what will cause the reszoning. You know, that same tree in the back of the lot wouldn't require anything. And it's just I like that. I like the additional um like the additional space. I also like some of the other mitigation options. I don't want to see somebody have to go you just write check 100%. I don't want to see that. And I'd like to see us have teeth in there that could that, you know, maybe the the mitigation fees are increased if that's the case on on some of the larger sites. Um, so I'd really struggle with there's a lot of little things that I think would make sense if we could like counting those additional trees uh that are on the site uh to go with the mitigation because it it achieves the same goal. Um, and then we we we've studied the canopy in the town and we, you know, somebody asked last meeting, you know, the canopy hasn't really changed a lot with all the development we've had because we've got a great tree ordinance. I mean, we have trees along the frontage of a site. We have them along the perimeter of a parking lot. We have them internal to the parking lot. And we really do a great job of planning for that. And it's I'm just more cautious. And to be totally honest and transparent, we do resoning plans and I would rather not see resoning plans this um so and but the trees I want to make sure we do something that has options so

we can save trees. That's where I'm struggling and I hate to you know go through and add a bunch of little things now. You know, maybe it's something we can work out with the town now and then or maybe something changed later, but right now I just think there's there's too many things that we could consider. That's just my opinion.

I think so. I think on some commercial sites and I know like our offices one um I mean we we we used a particular type of concrete on our parking lot so that we wouldn't have to excavate for for the roots and we were able to save trees you know three feet from the parking lot because we tried we wanted to make it an effort. So, I support that. You know, having an arborist look at it. That's a great great ad. Yeah. I don't know if I would support it if it was five acres, but I think it's a great ad. I think there's some other things in here, too, that would be um of good benefit. I just hate to see somebody have to reszone a piece of property because minor and I wish staff I wish Brian as the planning director had the authority to say you know it's going to be useless if you don't but you can't do that. I know I wish you had the authority to screen some of that.

And then again just everybody know we are intending to hire an arrest on staff. So, I just, you know, we're going to have more tree ordinances. Sure. Coming up in the future and we can, you know, use their professional knowledge to gain some more flexibility, you know, to gain, again, save everybody's goal, save a lot of trees. We can do that. Um, if we have that on staff knowledge, that'll give us more tools in the toolbox. We'll write some more text. We'll get there. This is just what we know we can do right now,

right? And there's no amendment that's perfect, but we feel like this is the best way to to meet the intent of the ordinance in the 2040 plan now. And just like any other ordinance or textment we've done, we've we've had some tweaks here and there. Um that's something that could be possible down the road with more professional

help. And one more thing, I mean, again, I do find some comfort. Let's assume that, you know, all we're doing is an advisory board. But if it passes that I do have confidence in our staff that I think they look at things and when they see an unintended consequence that they do come back and bring it up and say, "Hey, you know, we did miss this or whatever. Let's go back and re retweak this." Now, unfortunately, that may catch a couple of good projects in the meantime that end up going through a conditional reasoning. Otherwise, would not. So, that's an unintended consequence. But again, I don't think we have a staff that just hard and said, "This is what we want. We're never going to come back and revisit this." I think they'll bring it to us. So again, there there there is a level of comfort.

So another thing, uh, how flexible are the flexibility you having for smaller lots that we prevent stuff like reszone or frequency and stuff like that. So can you explain that a little bit? Well, I think given the the new addition to this that was um put in since the last meeting, um getting a professional that knows trees on board with the private side and a testing and signing to that they can save a tree that would otherwise not be able to be saved per our ordinance. Um that's about as much flexibility as you could possibly even get. And it takes a lot of times it uh it puts a lot of pressure on staff to make these decisions. And when you can push it over to an arborist who's actually a a certified person in tree knowledge, um that's about as much flexibility as you could ever possibly get for that other than changing the numbers which we wouldn't want to do. But just one last comment I guess and you guys realize this. We're trying to make a general rule for something that's varied from sight to sight. So you know what's good for everybody specific to none here. And and it's it's tough to do. So if you look at our entire treat ordinance, you can see where we tried and tried to address every possible situation. And this is just another tweak. and until we can, you know, maybe we get an arborist that just waves his hand over a a project and says it looks good from here and and and it achieves our goals, but we're not going to get there, I guess. So, we're just going to have to keep tweaking. So, that's the bright side.

Yeah, this isn't the end. Okay. Any other thoughts, questions, discussion? Okay. So, we we have a motion. Yep. Motion in a second. Second, Lee and Michael. Um, go ahead and vote. All those in favor? Those opposed? Okay. Great. Thank you, Jess. Thank you. And thank you all for your time you put into this. honestly

and for Jesse stepping in to uh fill in the void.

Um okay. Uh seeing how there's no other business. Uh how about a question? Go ahead. What's going on next door? What's the timet next door? I usually ask this every couple of meetings. No, I like that too. No. Yeah. No, just a time table for that to be completed. Yeah. are still on track for Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving. Okay. I'll forget that and ask you again in a couple weeks. I've got a question. Variances. I guess we're going to start hearing variances soon, right? Anything on the coming up potentially? We we were meeting with a couple tomorrow and we've got another couple who graciously decided to travel for a couple months which give you guys time for training. So that's what I was going to say because you know it's a different process.

It is. It's quasi judic. We have um are we going to have training? Yes, we will schedule quasi quasi training for everybody. Gotcha. Yeah, correct. That's right. We have to get new two helpers for you guys. That's right. Yeah, correct. access.

Okay, thank you. So um majority correct correct.

Perfect.

Okay. I swear we didn't plan it that way. Knuck, we have a motion to adjurnn. Like to make a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor? It's unanimous. None opposed. Thank you all.