Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the August 21 Reno County Planning Commission meeting to order. Staff, will you please call the role? Nisely, Strand here. Schaefer here. Selzer here. Mlin here. Martin here. Gerie here. Welcome everyone. I trust you've had a chance to review your packets and in those packets were the meetings from the July 17 meeting. Uh chair will entertain a motion concerning those amendments. Approve approval as submitted. Second move and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor of approval of the July 17 minutes say I.

Oppose. Same sign. Minutes are approved.

Sit your seat.

Thanks. to sure to ensure the rights of all parties of interest and to provide an opportunity for each party to address the planning commission in orderly manner. The planning commission will follow the factf finding procedure which is outlined in the h on the handout on on each chair. Your attention to this procedure is appreciated. If a recommendation is made tonight, that recommendation will be based upon the record of information presented to the planning commission. The county commissioners will not conduct a separate public hearing or accept additional written documents. County commissioners will consider written requests for additional public comment or documents based only on valid claims that the public hearing process was incomplete or based upon new information which has become available since the public hearing. For purposes of this county this this county commission policy, a public hearing is considered incomplete only if the planning commission failed to follow its procedural guidelines which resulted in a denial of due process to a party of interest or if the planning commission failed to allow an interested party an opportunity for public comment. For purpose of the county commission policy, new information shall pertain only to gerine information which did not exist at the time of the public hearing but which was unknown or could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence. An example may be a traffic study completed after the planning commission recommendation. The planning commission recommendation to the county commissioners will be accompanied by a summary of proceedings before before the planning commission at its public hearing along with the report and recommendations of the county planner, letters and formal petitions and other information constituting the record of proceedings provided to the planning commission before and during the public hearing. If the planning commission makes a recommendation after tonight's public hearing, this case may be presented to the county commissioners

at the next opportunity. Please contact planning staff or visit the website of the county commissioners for the county commissioners agenda items. I'll now formally opening the public hearing regarding case number 2025-07, a request by Jerry and Gayen Boon to vacate a 20 foot wide utility easement located along the southern portion of lot one block A and a drainage easement lying within lots one and three block A of Arcidge subdivision. The address of the property is 3610 East 56th Avenue. Have any planning commission members had any outside contacts regarding this case? No. No. Have

Do any planning commission members have a conflict of interest in this case? No.

Will the applicant please come to the to the podium? State your name and address for the record. You have 10 minutes to present your case. Additional time may be allotted to the applicant at the discretion of the chair. Planning commission members may request clarification at the end of your presentation or may have questions. Any well, hope you got more to do after this short spiel here. Um, so, uh, Jerry Boon, 3610 East 56th. Um, as mentioned, we have this, uh, property here where we're building a building. I presented to you guys a few months ago on this. And, um, all of the property, uh, where the easements are located are ours. We're not trying to do something with uh easements on a in a in an alleyway or a ditch or anything like that. These are all on our property. The uh property was never developed to realize the reason for the easements. We never developed into a subdivision which would have utilized these. So um therefore uh we we fully back uh staff recommendation to approve the request to vacate uh these easements um as written. So that's all I've got.

Any questions for that? Questions for you? Yep. You may want to little corner in the southeast corner. We do. You do. Okay. But it's it wasn't part of the subdivision. Is that why it's correct? It's not platted. So it wasn't platted as part of It wasn't part of the subdivision. Okay. But they do own that corner. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay. Thank you very much. This time we'll hear staff recordin county planner. Well, as you may recognize, Mr. and Mr. Mrs. Ben were here a few months ago back in April seeking approval to construct a 50x 150 ft building on their property located uh at the corner of Old 61 and 56th Avenue. As you recall, the BZA did approve that request. Uh as part of those proceedings, unfortunately, that building was located in a platted drainage easement and also a platted utilment. So those easements have to be vacated or the building would have to be relocated. And so they've chose to go through the vacation process here. Uh picture of of where we're at here. I I gave you kind of a little highlighted area of where the drainage ement is and also where the utilities is. I'll have better better pictures here for you as well. This is in your packet. This is a copy of the survey that they had prepared showing the lots that they own as well as the the drainage easements. Uh they own lots one and three. Uh they do not own lot two, which is this little piece right here. And then not shown on the survey. Further to the north is lot four. That is also owned by somebody else. And so what's just being shown is lots one, two, and three. So lot one is is this area and then lot three is right up in here. This is uh a drawing that I kind of prepared to help kind of highlight what we're looking at with the drain ements. What you have in purple is the existing utility ement. He comes in off of old oops comes in off of Old 61

and then Ash returns right south and goes down to 56th Avenue. It's a 20 foot wide utility easement. Now the drainage easement obviously is a lot lot larger here and so it is the majority of lot one. It comes all the way up and then it actually exits out onto old old 61. And as you heard previously, as I alluded to in my report, u this was evidently intended to be a 27 lot subdivision at one time. And for whatever reason, the developer only platted four of those lots. And so I I do not have copies of the drainage. At that time, it was done through the city of Hutchinson under the joint subdivision committee. And so they have all of the records. So there must have been some idea of doing 27 lots and a drainage plan developed for those 27 lots. And so that's why you have such a large drainage area to help accommodate and control storm water runoff for 27 lots. For whatever reason, something happened on only four of those lots were actually platted and recorded. And so we have a large drainage easement for four lots here. And so as part of this process, I I had the Boons contact an engineer cuz we need to make sure that that drainage easement isn't serving any type of purpose out there. And as you see in that letter in your packet here, he's included that that drainage easement is not really serving a purpose right now. So he said that, you know, that could be made here if so chooses to do that. Uh again, pictures of of this area. This is all their land right here. And again, uh Mr. Martin, you talked about that. This this area in here is the unplatted area, that subdivision. It was at one time owned by somebody else. They have since purchased that and kind of incorporated that into the rest of the

land that they own. This is kind of a close-up view of of the utility easement vacation. and it kind of runs along this way and it kind of turns directly south. Their building they were looking at building was in this area right in the middle of the drainage ement and a portion that was actually located within the uh utility easement as well. This is kind of the middle portion of the drainage easement here. You can see the two ponds that he has on the property. And again, the majority of this area is identified as a drainage easement. This is for your reference is lot two. This is the other property that they do not own. And there's a house on there right now. And then this would be the northern part of the drainage easement. This would be the northern part of lot one. Sorry about that. And then over here is the uh Okay. Is the southern southern part of

of lot three. It's not locked. Now that that drainage ement it does, if you look at the survey, it does cut across the northwest corner of that

of that property. We're not vacating anything that is on on lot two, but we can consider the vacation of everything else on on their lot that they own. So, So you can see right there on the server in your packet or that northwest corner of lot two is not being considered for vacation. So technically there'll be a little bit of that drainage easement on there but because they don't own the property uh we cannot entertain a vacation and likewise um across both of those lots. So there is another utility easement that we are not considering for vacation right now but in talking with you know the Boons they don't really have an intention right now of uh building any buildings across there. So there's really no need right now. Their main concern is right now is getting the drainage easement and that southern utility easement vacated right now. So

So real quick, sorry to interrupt, but that that utility easement you're talking about is basically between lot two and three falls lot two and three. Yep. Okay. Yep. And that's the one that that you're talking about. That's

So, yeah, that area on the west side of lot two and the east side of um well, yeah, there's one between there and then there's actually one between lots one and two, you know, as well. So, there's one that goes here. So, we're not vacating that utility easement in here, but we are vacating the portion of the property that is considered part of the drainage easement. And then there's also another utility easement that runs between these two lots right in here. And so we're not considering vacating the utility ement up in this area, but it's actually a combination drainage easement and utility ement between this area right here and then of course up in here. So yeah, but for right now they don't have any intention of constructing buildings or using it. So it's not really hurting anything right now. So,

is it unusual for a drainage e easement to be that big? Um, yes. I think it I think it is, but but for whatever reason, uh, you know, the engineers at the time we're talking about 1990s this done, they felt like that drainage easement need to be put in place. I think it's pretty unusual to make or try and make this like some type of a buildable lot and then have over half of that lot be a drainage ement where you can't do anything with, you know, you can't put structures in it.

You know, you know, it's just going to be extra land you own, but you can't really do anything because it's intended to be a drainage easement. So, I would question that probably a little bit of making this an entire huge lot out there where over half of it you can't do anything with out there. Mark, are there utilities in the utility easements?

So, we sent notices to all the utility companies, Kansas Gas, Energy, Idea, Tech, Cox, and did not receive any response back from them other than from Ideate Techch, which you saw that correspondence where I think they were a little concerned about the road right away, but we're not vacating any of the road right away. We're vacating the private uh utilities ement. So, they don't have anything in there. And then you saw uh correspondents from every said that they're good with that too, that they don't have any utilities in there. So, the assumption is that there are no utilities in those easements right now.

So, when those utility easements got established originally, it was all part of that big plot uh originally.

Yes. Yep. It was probably planned for that original 27 lots and you know, who knows how it was going to be developed. Maybe, you know, the eastern part of that lot one was going to have three or four lots in there. You know, it's hard to tell. I don't know where the preliminary plat is to be able to kind of look at that, but uh yeah, and they decided just to go right ahead and just final plats and not do anything. So when they did that, they probably didn't take into consideration getting rid of some of those easements that weren't going to be needed because all the utilities can be accessed from the road right away.

Mark, I have more of a process question. Were these easements known about when we did the first case on this property or

That was a good question. Yeah. Uh so at that time we had mentioned it and we could have maybe entertained it at the time that we did the board of zoning appeals. However, I think the booms may be able to elaborate on that. They were looking at also trying to acquire the other lot and potentially vacate the entire subdivision and they still may do that at some point in time. Uh the person that owns lot four further to the north I think is willing, my understanding to sign the vacation, but they did not acquire the lot too. So there's a little bit of a delay in there trying to decide whether you know we can vacate the entire plat or can we just vacate the easements and so yeah

I have the same question.

Yeah. So chapter 58 of statutes uh requires the planning commission find that proper notice was provided to the public. The public will suffer no loss or inconvenience and no private rights will be injured or endangered. And staff has reviewed that and staff recommends approval of the request based off of those factors there. And this staff question I don't have a question. And I just want to express my appreciation for everybody in going through the process.

So, you know, if if you draw I know I drove by and it just looks like it's all one big lot. So I know you wouldn't necessarily expect you have to do all this paperwork and bring an engineer in just to build a building. But unfortunately that's the statuto process to vacate you know anything to make sure that the utility rights are are are protected here. Um yeah, I think everybody can clearly you know understand that yeah the drainage ement isn't really serving any purpose but yet it is a platted drainage ement and we have to be assured that it's not serving any purpose right now whether it be for 27 lots or just the four lots. So

any more for staff? Thank you. Thank you. Any other further comments from the applicant? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this case? Mark, I think we'll note for record that there wasn't anyone here to comment on this case. You have any anything more to add? You're good. No, staff. You're you're good. I'm satisfied. Yes. I have no further comments.

All right. Does the commission have any further questions for the applicant or staff? No.

Seeing none, a public hearing is now closed. Acceptance or denial of the vacation request must be based on the finding of proper notice was provided to the public. The public will suffer no loss or or inconvenience by such vacation and no private rights will be injured or endangered. This is a time planning commission can discuss the case and ask procedural questions of staff only. Is there any other further discussion? Seeing none, chair will entertain a motion on this case. Mr. Chair, I move that case number 2025-07, the request by Jerry and Gayen Boon Boon, requesting a utility easement and drainage easement described as line adjacent to lot one and lot three of Arkbridge subdivision and further described by legal description on the submitted site plan be recommended for vacation. Finding that proper notice has been given, the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience by the vacation. No private rights will be injured or endangered. U based on the reasons listed in the staff report and as heard at this public hearing. I'll second that. Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion?

Seeing none, staff please call the role. Strand. Yes. Schaefer, yes. Selzer, yes. Mlin, yes. Martin, yes. GS, yes. One more step done. Yay. Thank you for going through the process. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Say if you want. Yeah. Never buy anything at auction without really checking. I'll be in touch.

Thank you. Oh goodness. All right. Next item of business is uh case 2025-09. A proposed text amendment regarding building setback requirements, minimum lot size dimensions, language clarification and agricultural homestead and homestead split requirements. The proposed text amendments are to article 1-104, paragraph 182. staff, I'm gonna ask you. Would you like me to read through all those paragraphs or would is that No, you don't have to. If you don't Okay. Thank you. Just the different articles. I would appreciate that. So, several different articles that we're making the text amendments on.

Yeah.

Uh I'll go ahead and read the read the public hearing procedure. To ensure the rights of all parties interest and to provide an opportunity for each party to address the planning commission in an orderly manner, the planning commission will follow the factf finding procedure tonight. Presentation from staff on the proposed text amendments. Questions from the planning commission members or staff. Public comments by audience members. Closure of the public hearing. Planning and commission planning commission discussion and possible recommendation to approve or deny the text amendments. During the public comment portion of the hearing, each person wishing to comment shall first state his or her name and address for the record. Each person will pro be provided up with up to five minutes to make his or her comments on all the text amendments. Only one such occasion to comment to the planning commission shall be afforded to each person. Comments shall be addressed to the planning commission only and not to individual planning commission members or staff during the public comment period. The planning commission may choose not to answer questions. The chair may grant extra time to finish to uh finish a sentence or thought at the at the discretion of the chair. The public hearing will remain open to provide everyone with a chance to speak. After all public testimony is received, the public hearing will be closed. Once the per public hearing is closed, no additional oral or written testimony will be accepted for the record. The public hearing may be recessed periodically for short breaks if needed. A lot of time for each break when an anticipated time for resumption will be announced by the chair. Uh the public hearing may be recessed to a future date, time and place to extend dean men necessary by the commission. Likewise, the deliberation of the planning commission following the conclusion of the public hearing may take place at a later date and time to be to be decided by the commission dependent upon the circumstances then

existing. In such event this the date, time and place of any subsequent meeting will be announced by the chair prior to recessing the meeting. With that, is there a motion to open open the public hearing for the case 2025 data- move? Second. All in favor of the motion say I. I. All oppose, same sign. The motion carries. We now the planning commission will now hear from staff regarding the case 2025-09 text amendments.

Good afternoon board once again Mark Bonet County Planner. So, um, I put together a couple of slides that will kind of help, uh, just summarize, I think, what we've been working on for for several several months here. The first slide that I I have, it kind of lays out the the public hearing process. Uh, we've been working on this since about March of of this year on on several text amendments in our regulations at your u direction here. Uh once we got to the point where we felt comfortable with those, then on June 19th, we set the public hearing date for this date today. Um these text amendment drafts were posted then on the front page of the county website on July 10th. And then we also had our communication director here post them on social media outlets shortly thereafter. Uh the public hearing was then published as required by statute in the Nesca Valley newspaper which is the official newspaper of the county on July 11th. Also required by statute. We also sent notices to all the townships and all the cities that are within 3 miles of the fully zoned area of the county. You got to remember that these texts are just for the eastern part of the county. So cities like Abbyville, Plna, Sylvia, all those out in the western part, they did not receive this notice because the zoning does not affect them. We also sent u notices of this hearing uh to the city of Mount Hope and the city of Burton because their city limits are within 3 miles of the county line and so they have a right to be notified of these text movements as well. So, all these documentations and notices comply with the minimum 20-day notice to have this public hearing. Uh, tonight we gave people plenty of opportunity. We tried to put this on the front page of the website instead of burying it on the

planning and zoning page and we will let people know that, hey, the text amendments are out here for you to look at, provide comments for, and as you see in your packet, there were no real public comments uh submitted to me in writing. So that's kind of the the timeline to get us to this point tonight here. And as you know, for several months, we've been looking at several text amendments amongst our regulation. I think we had one one main goal in mind that was our agricultural law split uh restriction here and it kind of changed and morphed into several other uh text amendments that kind of help tie everything together. So, what I have here is just several different highlights for the benefit of the public and and audience members. And so, what we're doing tonight here is we're going to be adjusting all of our building setback requirements. Most of those setback requirements will be reduced. Uh it'll just be our R2, R3, and V1 zoning districts will be increased by two foot. Most of them are going to be reduced, but the goal I think of everybody is to have all of our setbacks uniform. So it doesn't make any difference if you're in the agricultural district and you have 160 acres or you're in the village district and you have a quarter of an acre. All the setbacks are going to be the same. I think the issue that we had before was you could have an agricultural parcel have to be 50 foot from the road right away right next door. You could have a residential property. They only have to be 30 foot from the rideway. And so the board did not see uh the reasoning behind something like that. So all the setbacks are going to be now uniform. We also adjusted the minimum road frontage requirement for a parcel. Uh most of those again will be reduced. Uh R3 is now going to be 100 foot instead of saying as platted or in compliance with the sanitation code. You might recall the village district and also the R3 just says whatever uh is in compliance with the sanitation code or is planted within a subdivision. So uh

we've drastically reduced the amount of road frontage requirement as you see in in article 13. Uh we're also going to clarify that the minimum road frontage requirement uh must be something that is continuous. Uh we have had a couple of situations where somebody did not meet our minimum road frontage requirement but yet when you added all of their road frontage requirement together they did. So what I mean by that is you would have a situation where you had maybe a parcel that was um inside of another parcel and and so they have maybe 25 ft of road frontage on the south side of that parcel and then on the north side they had you know 150 foot. Well when you add those together they met the road frontage requirement but if you just looked at it on one north side they did not meet the road frame requirement. So this language now say that you can't do that anymore. You have to have the minimum road phrase requirement. You're not allowed to say have 150 ft on one side of a parcel and then another 50 ft on the other side of the parcel in order to be able to split split your parcel. We're going to also adjust the the minimum depth requirement for a parcel. Most of the again will be reduced. Uh the R3 will be 100 foot instead of again saying as platted. So you remember we used to have a minimum road frontage requirement and a minimum depth of that partial requirement. Both of those are now going to be reduced as you see in article 13. Probably one of the the major components I I believe of this text a note here and that's why I have an asterct is we're going to be removing the lot width to lot depth ratio for newly created parcels. As you recall uh that was a big concern. There used to be a 3:1 or a 4:1 lot width lot depth ratio that we had on parcels that created some concerns about um being able to buy an additional piece

of land or not going back to an existing parcel line and creating like an L-shaped type of parcel and that that created a lot of concerns and also created a lot of situations where we were doing um illegal splits. somebody was doing a legal 7 acre split, but then they were adding the additional land under a separate deed. This text amendment will take care of situations like that. They'll be able to buy the whole the whole width of an existing parcel. And so that's should be something that should be beneficial. We're also going to clarify that all applicable construction is subject to the approvals of all public works divisions, codes, policies, and regulations. This is something that is kind of it was it was given but it wasn't put in writing. It it definitely was not in our zoning regulations. And so what this is going to be saying is you may be able to get a zoning permit for me to build a building on your property, but if for whatever reason you cannot comply with sanitation code or you cannot obtain an entrance permit for example on a parcel then your zoning permit is going to be invalid. similar situation like you may be able to get a septic system permit on the property, but if you can't meet the setback requirements for that parcel, then you cannot get that septic permit. So, this ties everything together. It ties all public works policies, the sanitation code, and the zoning code all together. So, you have to meet all those codes in order to be able to get a permit from me or be able to get a permit from uh the environmental people or a an entrance permit for example. Again, another one I think the major thing that why I said we here and I kind of start out my my discussion with you is we're going to remove the 7 acre maximum agricultural lot split size requirement in the zoning district. I think that's the main uh crux, if you will, why we were here and and went down

this path here. No longer will you be allowed to have only one split with a maximum of seven acres in the agricultural district. Current regulations, if you have 40 acres, you can do one split up to seven acres and then that's your one time split. Everything else is platted. Uh now if this change is is approved now if you had 40 acres you can split that into two 20 acre parcels a 10 and a 30 or you could do a 7 and a 33 and that will be a legal split here. You will not be limited to that 7 acre maximum. And then lastly uh we're going to be removing unnecessary language within the articles as we talked throughout that document. There was a lot of instances where it talks about Reno County zoning or Reno County sanitation code and some other, you know, little bits and pieces where words were not needed. And so we're moving language like that to kind of help um just freshen it up and get rid of those un unnecessary words. So with that, um we've been through this for for several months here. Um, I don't think I need necessarily need to read through all the text amendments again what we discussed because you formally adopted that draft here uh a few months ago here. What I would bring to your attention though, and it's something that I alluded to in my letter to to the board, is the fact that there is an additional amendment that did not make it into the draft copy on on the website, and that is concerning the height restriction requirements in the residential zoning districts. Um, article 31071 proposes to eliminate the words and/or two and a half stories. However, the other articles, article four, article five, and six, uh, do not propose to eliminate those words. If you, if you look at your yellow

highlighted draft, so I took it off of the R1 zoning district, but I did not take it off of the R2, R3, and village zoning district. So my request to the board is that you take that into consideration to if you choose to approve this tonight and just add that as part of your your motion to approve it. So that way the R1 2 3 and village districts will all be the same and saying that buildings and structures shall not exceed 35 ft in height. With that I would stand for questions. I just found catch on this on the two and a half stories. Mark, I uh we we as a board poured over this thing many times and we probably went right by it many times and it was a good catch.

Thank you. I wish I would have caught it sooner, but uh I've read this so many times. You kind of get to where you kind of gloss over things and I uh the the height section of our regulations wasn't our initial I don't think intent to review that. It just kind of like well we're looking at article 4 anyway. So let's look at some other language. I think you know commissioner strand he wanted something added in there about commercial and industrial zoning districts need to be mentioned that you have to have a conditional use permit. So that wasn't really the initial intent, but that's something that kind of morphed into all of our discussions kind of like with the height and we took it off of the R1 and I didn't carry that on through the other districts. So I apologize for that. And so yeah, keep it uniform. It would be a good thing to do rather than leaving it in. I I don't have a question, but uh I would find it helpful to have a copy of that highlight slide that you were talking through there.

Yeah. Just for reference in the future, uh when I think about what what changes, what would you hear? That's a nice summary. Yeah.

Yeah. I rather than trying to read through several sections as Russ, you know, was getting ready to read here and and going over all again, I thought it'd be better maybe just to try and hit some highlights and stuff. Uh there's a lot of detail obviously that goes into what we've done over the last uh you know, several months. And we're certainly prepared to answer any further questions that the board may have, but yeah, I can certainly provide that to to the board. Thank you. Any other questions or comments for staff? Thank you.

Thank you very much. At this point, we'll entertain public comment on this on the on this case. Anyone wishing to comment has five each person will be provided up to five minutes to take his or her comments uh on all the text amendments. One such occasion will be allowed and uh comments will be addressed to the planning commission. [Music] Is there anyone here that wants to address the board on on the text amendments? Seeing none, there any other comments or questions before I close this public hearing? This is our last chance. Seeing no additional comments, the public hearing for this case is closed. This time we'll be we can ask questions of staff and be procedurally only. We can discuss this amongst our amongst us as a board.

Any questions or comments on on the text amendments? We kind of lived and sleep and breathe it for quite a while. So I can understand the silence. Just uh give an opportunity for last last comments and assuming that it's smooth sailing in the future. I don't know how the county survived the last 25 years because because it was a lot of things got cleaned up. Yes. And Dawn here I think led the way in some cases. So it's called job security for them this

any other questions or comments? Seeing none. This is a huge improvement. I do too. Yes. Yes. Big step. Smooth sailing in the future. Yeah, for sure. Well, there'll be a hiccup somewhere. You know it. We at least have a good starting good launching pad for sure. There are no other comments. Mr. Chair will entertain a motion to accept these text amendments.

I would move the case number 2025-09, the request by the planning commission requesting a series of text amendments. There are articles 6-1 and 13-14 of the zoning regulations and article three of the subdivision division regulations be approved subject to modifying article 4-1071 article 5-1071 and article 6-1071 to eliminate the words and or two and a half stories as presented in the staff report and as heard at this public hearing. Second. Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the on the motion?

Seeing none, staff, please call the role. Stran, yes. Schaefer, yes. Feltzer, yes. Mlin, yes. Martin, yes. And Gson, yes. Please. Job well done. Is there any other business that needs to be brought before this board?

Yeah. Um, good job on on this board. I appreciate your insight and your your thoughts on this. Um, I think this will help and I couldn't do it without you. And I would let you know for September that we have no public hearings scheduled in September, but we will meet as I believe that I am prepared to present to you our next set of text amendments regarding uh accessory dwelling units or ADUs, uh cell towers, uh manufactured homes is what this board requested and and looking at other sections of the regulations within those Uh we'll probably also look at uh shipping containers as well. And there's some other little more cleanup stuff that we had. There's a there's actually a a big issue with shipping containers on where they're permitted and where they're not permitted and stuff. So that'll be I think it'll be an interesting discussion that we we have to kick off the next set of rags. Um just curious uh I noted that I think it's Harvey County is just developing some rags on ADUs also.

Yeah. Something on that. Mhm. Any chance you can snag a copy of what they I'm not sure how far they are. I think they're probably right in line with this. I did talk to her about a couple weeks ago and so I think they're in the gathering information mode, you know, too. So we're probably be doing it about the same time. But but yeah, I mean I can visit with her and and see what they're coming up with. I think the city of Hutch just uh did something or they're working on

They have some and I've looked at them and I mean it's city regulations so they got a lot of different issues versus what we would have you know out in the county. Um some of your challenges on that I think just briefly would be you know size. you want to have a size restriction, uh, location restriction, you know, that that's going to be some of the discussions I think we'll have on on that topic. Uh, because the city has that, you know, as well. So, but, uh, I do have Hutchinson's rags and have looked at and to get some ideas as a starting point. But, uh, like I said, this is preliminary. We're not expecting you to set a public hearing date for these by any means, you know, next month, but it'll be a good a good starting point to see where this board is at on those topics versus maybe where staff uh ends up as well.

Awesome. and I'll get this on the next available county commission meeting agenda and then I will try and get copies of the uh updated rags presuming that they will approve these as well uh to the board as soon as we can. We'll probably be changing more of the same sections, more of the same articles in the regulations that I'm just giving you copy of, but like I say, we're several months out probably before setting a public hearing date on some of these topics. I think it'll be an interesting discussion. We have Have you heard any conversation from the county commission on these proposed text amendments? I have not personally. No. Okay. Just curious.

Yeah, they get copies of your agenda packets. So, if they've read it, I'm sure they've seen them, but I have not had any feedback from from the board. I'm sure it'll be fine. Yeah. I just didn't know if you had any any any pre-con conversations or anything like that you could talk about anyhow. Yeah, everything's good. Everything's good. Kind of like kind of like fall hard sale. Any other business that needs to be brought before this board? Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So move second. Third. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of adjournment say I. Same sign.