Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right, it's 6:30. I'm going to call the meeting to order. How do I do a roll call right here? Uh, Mr. Bailey here. Mr. Huffine here. Chair Dean Ward is here. Mr. Wooten here. Mr. Stock here. And Mr. Young here. All right. Thank you. Everybody have a chance to look at the U minutes from the previous meeting. Is there any changes need to be made at I'm going to do it in this second. Any changes? I hear none. So if I hear none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month or move. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed?

All right. Let's do the pledge of allegiance. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, we're going to fly right on through here. Cameron, let's go to new business. Uh, and let's get this on the road.

Yes, sir. Um so the city council um has requested uh city staff to analyze the existing minor subdivision classification inside the development ordinance and allow uh and update it to allow for one more additional lot and add a clear synopsis of how the parent parcel is treated in these subdivisions. Um staff has also added a time frame requirement on when previous subdivisions could be subdivided again as a minor subdivision. Um, and outside of that, I provided you with the updated language is not really too much um, outside of changing um, uping the minor subdivisions allow from four lots to five lots. Um, and those out of those five lots that includes the parent parcel. So essentially, if you have a large chunk of land, you can create five lots out of it. There's not Okay, we have the parent parcel is its own lot and then five more after the fact. I think it was not clear and we had some people that may have had some questions about exactly how the parent parcel was treated. So, um I guess you could look at it either way. We could have kept the four and said the parent parcel would not be included, but it's probably easier to say it's going to be five and include the parent parcel inside of there. Um and we also added in uh like when these minor subdivisions come along, um no part of the track or parcel to be divided has been divided as a subdivision within 5 years prior to the division. And that includes inside of your major subdivisions as well. Um just to allow for um some additional time for more or less just for the minor subdivision, but we figured it better to encapsulate all of it. If you have a large chunk of land, say 20 acres, and you only make five lots out of it, um and you still got 10 odd acres left, you couldn't keep coming the next year and do another five out of that subdivision because it should be considered a major in that point. and you're not kind of continuing tacking on and tacking on and not meeting our major subdivision requirements. So, if you let that sit dormant for five years, then yes, you can come back and do another minor subdivision for it. And I think that was another thing that wasn't quite clear

whenever they were taking a look at it and asking these questions. So, that's why it was added. So, if I bought a 20 acre track here in Graham and I sold Mr. Huffine's 10 of those acres, I could subdivise mine and have five and he could do the same on his. Yeah. essentially. Yes, sir. I think um as long as it hasn't been subdivided prior to um so that would be kind of the case is if you were to split that land in half and create a minor subdivision, then it would have to be kind of in that same boat of um you know, have to look at it um of that 5 years time before any other division of that parcel would come through.

But it's changed hands. So, you're going to hold my feet to the fire because it changed hands because I sold Mr. Huffine. Mhm. That's kind of and he elects to cuz he's never he's never done what this ordinance is saying. So what's preventing it? Cuz it don't say that from what exactly? It's changed. The deed has changed. So a 20 acre land. I sold 10 acres to Mr. Huffine. So I only have 10 acres left.

So I understand I'm bound by this ordinance, but Mr. Huffines is starting fresh. So in that case, you might even um have the ability to continue doing that because there is an exempt classification whenever you do come to this stuff. So um you know, if you have a 10acre separation, if you have a 20 acre piece of lot, you can subdivide it as an exempt subdivision and not have to go through any of our ordinance requirements for 10 lots, 10 lots to separate it. And from there, yes, you would be able to do it. But um if you were under that threshold of you know 10 acre lots 10acre lots then it would it doesn't necessarily change hands by deed anymore um it does have to be classified as a subdivision. Um so yes essentially there would not be a allowance of once that lot line is drawn um it would essentially have to meet the requirements of this ordinance being waiting to five years to divide it again.

Do you do you follow that Chad? I don't I don't think that if you change the if you change the number to nine and do an 18 acre parcel and divide it 9 by9 then we're not exempt. And then what Dean is trying to uh illustrate holds the new buyer uh me in this example to the requirements of the 5-year waiting period. Does it I mean does it need to be some other language in there to about a sale? cuz I I can I can see going out Rogers Road there and there's 50 acres out there probably at any given spot that hasn't been sold yet that's still in the city that if I come along and I purchase the 50 acres

Mhm. and then I sold Mr. Huffiness his portion of land, whatever that may be, and he chooses to cut it up into five lots or five lots. And then he sells me I I just say I sold I bought 50 and I sold Mr. Huffines 20 or 18 or 10 or whatever and he divides it up into five lots and it leaves room to where one of these five other people that you're saying that they can't.

That's correct. Yes, sir. Because at that point, if Mr. Mr. Hubine were to retain it himself and to continue that subdivision out, it would have been classified as a major subdivision. Um, and you know, in that instance as well, you know, there's a good chance that these large chunks of land that we're talking about are going to be considered major subdivisions anyways because you're going to have to extend public utilities, roadways through all this area as well. Um, so unless you have a really unique situation where it all fronts on a single um, roadway and you can create, you know, all these different lots um, out of these different acres, then go ahead. But but this says uh these are not going to be public streets that we potentially could be putting in and we don't have to run water and sewer. We could put whales in.

That's not correct. You can't subdivide off of a easement or a private road or anything inside the city of Graham. So any type of subdivision, whether it be major or minor, has to have frontage on a public street. Will this also conform to ETJ? Yes, sir. Anyone else? Also in item five, subse or subp part C, a permanent means of ingress and egress is recorded for each lot. So we're saying we don't have a private street provision um in the in the city ordinance. Correct. Cameron, say that again. I'm sorry.

We don't have a private street provision in the in the city ordinance. That's correct. So, I guess when you read that ingress and egress and I think even I might need to take a look at what the ordinance is because I think this one is uh I don't know exactly what's talking about above it's probably just the procedures for subdivisions. Um and I guess that ingress and egress you have to kind of track back to whatever it says previous in there is it only allows for um access off of public roads essentially. Um so that's that ingress and egress. It's supposed to be public.

Yeah. If if item C stands, then the minor subdivision needs to be tabled and moved to another meeting because a permanent means of ingress and egress could be a dedicated right of way, a private easement, private right ofway from one parcel to another to have access to the public right ofway.

Yeah, I get it. And I don't I'll pull up the existing ordinance so we can take a look at it because I don't think that that portion of what you're reading has anything to do with the minor subdivision ordinance as it means. It's just um and then I'll add to what Dean was speaking of earlier in the 50 acre example and 20 of those acres is further subdivided into four additional lots and then Dean has a an heir that wants a piece of that remaining property then he's prohibited from subdividing the the balance of that property for however the whatever the time constraint train is whether it's 5 years or and that would mean that in that example Dean was held captive by my actions which would further hamstring him from subdividing the property. So there's there's a lot of these minor subdivisions with time constraints there's a lot of uh there's a lot of difficulty. Now, how would you suggest it be rerouted? Because I mean, there has to be some form of time frame associated with it because the smaller aspect of it, you could have we have five acres and they do five 7,000 foot lots and you got however many acreage left over. They record the plat, they come back here to city hall and they're like, "Okay, we want five more lots out of this." Um, and that's where essentially I think more or less the time constraint is more or less trying to hit on. Um, back to your point about um, you know, subsection C through here, it's referring to um, exempt subdivisions as we were talking about earlier. Um, and it's talking about whenever the city uh, may require only a plat for recordation of these exempt subdivisions. Um, in single ownership, I think that's meaning the uh, this subsection 4 right here. um the division

of track and single ownership whose entire area is no greater than two acres and not more than three lots or no street rightaway dedication is involved and where the resolent lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the applicable zoning district. Um it's essentially saying that um we may only require a plat for recordation of these types of land. Um, and as long as these criteria are met and I think that permanent means of ingress and egress is associated with what our lot standards say in our subdivision that it has to have furniture on a public road. So even to your point about, you know, going into, you know, the discussion about that, you could look at this other aspect of this exempt subdivision. Um, uh, well, I mean, it still doesn't really help that much because it's talking about more than no greater than two acres and no more than three lots. Um, so it wouldn't really kick on in that fashion. So,

one of the things I'd like to ask is what the what the goal is or the for the language and and the provisions in the first place. And then one thing I'd like to uh I think mention is the the reasoning behind what what is the reason for a time constraint in the first place because there's no that's the one that's the one unknown that we all as humans don't have.

Yeah. So, uh, if if Tony wanted to subdivide his 10 acres tomorrow and I wanted to do mine the next day and it all came out of Dean's 50 acres, it shouldn't have anything to do with timing in my opinion. U, I think more importantly, we would want to look into what the the goals were from the city council's request to you guys and then to us to see if we can help write the language that accomplishes their goals. Yeah, I think you know their big part of it was um just establishing some more defiant um I think it was more or less just increasing the number from four to five and having resolution for um the parent parcel um and I think it was just a matter of taking a look at it as well and for these smaller areas um to add in that time constraint of you know I think it's more or less for, you know, somebody that owns, like I said, those smaller parcels of land and not being able to essentially come back after the fact um and subdivide all over again because there are major subdivision requirements whenever you increase above that five lot standard. Um I mean, if you want to scrap the year requirement, the time requirement, I mean, you can certainly do that and move your motion along. um it we want to have more discussion about what you all might see better fit to meet this classification then I mean we can certainly open that up um but I think you know from our point of view um I don't know how much we would really change to be quite honest with you I will add that the the the clarification of including the parent parcel in the total number of tracks is a is a cumbersome piece in every ordinance across our work areas. So having uh that included in the wording is very important. Okay.

So that when we come to the um staff and we say all right we want to subdivide a piece of property. What constitutes a minor subdivision? Well the resulting is going to be five lots. Pretty clear and dry or cut and dry. The idea of time constraints in my opinion is just it's arbitrary and unnecessarily cumbersome.

I I can see that. Um, but I guess I can also I guess play devil's advocate a bit here. I mean, say, you know, you two are in business together and you have a developer that's interested in developing these properties out, right? Um, once you get everything sold, you're going to essentially sell it back over to them. Um, they're going to build five lots on both of those pieces of land essentially. Um, and then we're back to the fact of it needed to be a major subdivision from the beginning. Um, and I guess that's kind of how we're looking at it is to limit that aspect of, you know, people being able to take advantage of our ordinances in that fashion. I don't think it's to hinder, I think it's to prohibit um, people from being able to come in and essentially, you know, take advantage of the wording that we have inside of here. Um, and I think that's really how we've looked at it. I mean, we pulled, you know, some of this year requirement from multiple different ordinances, people that have it inside of there. I mean, I don't think it's really um, you know, like you said, trying to harm any of the living citizens inside of here. Um, and maybe even if there's an aspect of like we want to have a discussion, I don't know if there's and even I mean, if you added anything about a sale, you could still make reference back to whatever I was saying is like you could sell it um half of it to, you know, developer. You want to cut this piece in half, I'm going to sell this to developer. Then you turn around, you know, a year later and turn where the other piece that you still own to another developer or the same one. Then we're still back in the square where we're at. Yeah. And there should be no harm in that whether it's a minor subdivision or major subdivision. There are 50 lots that front the public rightway and I want to subdivide them all using the minor subdivision one day after the other. The goal of subdividing the property is accomplished a lot more efficient. So you think that is fine to create 50 minor subdivision lots throughout years times?

Yeah, if it would just be prohibitive or time consuming in in labor and review, um the the end the end result will be the same. It's just more time in the

in the review process for a major subdivision when when the results going to be the exact same. I think it hinders some other facets of whatever is required inside of our major subdivision ordinance like sidewalk requirements um connectivity to any other potential developments that are over there. Um so if you continue string along minor subdivisions, you're potentially cutting off, you know, public infrastructure that's moving on to the next area through there. Um, and like I said, that's just more or less kind of how I look at it is we don't want to have stop gaps and continue along where I guess you do have a large strip of, you know, maybe it takes five, ten years, but I guess where we could have had all this done within, you know, those first, you know, three, four years and everything developed out and have infrastructure in place. Um, instead we're going to have kind of stop gap here and okay, eventually we're going to have 50 lots through here. Um, and I think that's really how we kind of looked at it. I mean, like I said, if there's anything that you all feel the need to add to this to um feel comfortable moving it along, um I'm happy to have a discussion here tonight, but like I said, if I take this back and we take a look at it, I don't know how much it's going to change.

Did council ask for the time frame on there or did y'all just decide to put that on there?

So, there was discussion of the time frame on it as well because of the fact of I think specific subdivisions um wanting to do this exact type thing. Um I think it was a question one in particular I think was the one that's on is it home in Pine over there. There was discussions about um you know the parent partial associated with it and why can't I since I've subdivided this already go ahead and cut another lot through here as well and it's another minor subdivision. Um so they felt it best to add something inside of there to address it as well. So, I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around this. So, if I if I own a parcel here on Pine Street in Graham and it's two acres.

Yes, sir. And I want to come in here and I just want to cut a halfacre lot off. Mhm. And build a house on it and I've got roadage,

that would probably be an exempt subdivision. So, you would likely be fine. Um, and the go back to it. So where was it at? Yeah, the division of single ownership. So you continuously own um you know that parcel of land um no greater than two acres into not more than three lots. So you could essentially bypass all the subdivision ordinance and create three lots. I mean from there, yes, you could essentially create another minor subdivision um among some of those if you absolutely wanted to. There's definitely I mean you can read it in many different ways and probably find a way to you know finagle around but I think this is really just astute to the people that want to come here and you know develop um buy pieces of land and uh develop it into these minor subdivisions and try and I guess get around it. So there's always going to be a way to get around ordinances in my opinion. Um I agree with what you're saying. I just want to take the gray out of it. That's what I'm trying to do is take the gray out of it because I think that if you if you're prohibiting or wanting to restrict a piece of land, you're deed restricting that land is what you're doing essentially.

You agree? You're deed restricting that land. So you're saying I own it today, but I sell it tomorrow to Mr. Wooten. Mr. Wooten keeps it for 5 years and he decides he wants to do a minor subdivision with some of it. Then he turns around and sells the rest of his land off to somebody else. You restricted the next person down the ladder from enjoying the right and incumbrance of their land to proceed to maybe potentially make another subdivision. Yeah, that's the problem I had with it. Uh the unit number, I don't have a problem with the unit number. It's the the years and it you told me that it transferred. It follows the land.

Well, it follows the division of the land. Um, and of course there's not really any more deed handoffs without recording of plats of subdivisions anymore. So once that line's drawn and that lot's been subdivided, um, it's that subdivision piece of it. So that's where, yes, it does kick into that 5-year factor. So that most people, the average uh, person out here that might would be an investor or something that buys a lot that don't know our subdivision ordinances and he hears he can do this and he does it one time, but he bought a large track of land. thinking I'm gonna do this on down the road a couple more times and then he finds out he can't do it. So then he sells it to Mr. Bailey and Mr. Bailey said I had never done that before. I like that idea. I'm gonna do it.

And you're telling Mr. Bailey, "No, Mr. Bailey, you can't do that."

Well, not necessarily because you still have the right to subdivide your land, right? But it's just going to have to be a major subdivision and it's going to do a little bit more extensive review um and may add some additional requirements associated with it. So, um, you know, that's just the single difference is it's a matter of staff looking at a plat um or the technical review committee looking at a plat. So, like I said, if it's a matter of the the year aspect that y'all uh you know um aren't really attuned with, like I said, we can take a look at it and see if we can add something to that to make y'all more comfortable or um we can uh scrap it or y'all want to scrap it and move it along. Like I said, I'm happy to have discussion here tonight cuz um I don't know how much would change if we held it off and came back. So, but if that's what y'all want to do,

questions on the city. I just throw my two cents worth in. I see your point about the manipulation of the ordinances and I the need to get a handle and Dean makes a good point too, but they're in conflict and and I don't there's definitely a good and a bad side to it for sure. Um and there's no I guess yeah where where I'm going to tend to to fall is going to be on the side of the citizen not on the side of the government. For sure. It's fine. So that's I mean that's just that's just my two cents. Okay, that's fine. I mean if y'all would like to keep it as it is and y'all feel that people should be allowed to do that then move it forward. I that and I I have no problem with the number.

Yeah, the number that's fine. And that part the time frame sure is a the issue. The number is fine. That's a good number. I and I think that it still allows uh people to enjoy and do what they want to with their land within reason. It's not an overreach of the government saying you can only have five on your land there. That's Yeah. I say an overreach. Are you trying to tell me what I can do with my land as long as I can conform to the city's ordinances?

Yeah. I guess it's whenever where does that within reason come into time frame as well? um you know like where does that stand on behalf like where could we add something that adds that facet into inside of our ordinance and I think this is really the only way either that or you reduce the five years to a shorter amount of time that way you know say it's two years or three years you know it's a little bit less and you know it might give some time for people to get their ducks in a row and develop out this shorter bit of a subdivision and then continue tacking along um but I mean there has to be some type of guidance associated with it in in my view because If not, then like you said, I mean, you can continue. People have different iterations of what within reason means. How many minor subdivisions did we have last year?

That's a good question. I think we had up around um we've recorded around 18 potentially. Can you give me any You ain't got to give me all of them, but give me a couple of them that we might be might know. Yeah, like I mentioned, the one on Home and Pine um is one that's been the topic of discussion. Um we've had one on handover road as well. Talking about the one that's not built yet that they're working on.

Yes, sir. So, that one I think is the most recent that has come under the question of our minor subdivision ordinance and where a lot of this has stemmed from. I think the developer has reached out to um city council and has beg the question of why am I not allowed to add this extra lot on here? It doesn't say anything about parent parcels. Why can't I split this other large piece that I have? And that's where a lot of this is coming from. Um, but yeah, we've had Yeah, I can get the GIS pulled up and see if I can point some out. I thought that project over there on handover, it's got more than five lots.

Different one. You talking about the town home one? No, sir. This one a little bit further down like I said because the minor subdivisions of course they only come through me essentially and all they have to do is meet the minor subdivision requirement. you have frontage um and you can essentially meet your lot requirements and not exceed four lots as currently stands. So I mean you got a 5 acre piece of land and somebody splits it into four, we're good to go. They just got to get a survey or do a plat and we take and record it. Um and that's essentially what a lot of it is. I mean there's some others on um handover another one handover and Marshall one of those over there where they've cut, you know, a big two laker piece into three different ones. Um, I mean there's multiple that go around the city just off top of my head.

Could we not put some language in here? It may not be necessary that it has to abut a city street a minor subdivision has to be has to. So the word so the wording the reason I point about item C is also in in following section 10.337 when you talk about public street or utility the word right ofway needs to be included in that line of of text so that I know what you mean by public street but it would ultimately need to read public rightway and then you could at the end of the word utility put the period and remove the yellow of the time constraint altogether

it's an it's an exercise in efficiency to have a surveyor bring a plat to uh plant the planning department manager you in this case surveyor takes a day to to draw it the planning department takes a day to review it it's very efficient process there's no need to involve the the rest of the technical review folks because there's existing utilities and public rightway which creates the permanent access

and sometimes you know with these um you know scenarios we're throwing out a lot of the larger piece of acreage is in the back and the only way you're going to be able to get access to that is via public streets. Um, and I think that's where eventually they're going to have to kick into that major subdivision because you sell this big a big big acreage lot and you cut it, you wouldn't even be able to cut it in half in the middle and leave some in the back is what I'm trying to say. It'd have to go dead in line and of course you're having to meet the width requirement and everything else. Um, so like I said, I I think in my, you know, thoughts on this is, um, the only thing that we might could be able to change to meet some of y'all's requirements is, you know, maybe change the, um, public street to public ride ofway and utilities. And if you want to take the no part uh, or the the the time frame out, we can do that. Or if we want to lower it. But, um, like I said, I think that's really the only thing that I would see fit is, um, I don't I don't know about removing it, I guess, is my case. And I don't know if y'all were told me to go back and take another look at it, if I'd look at it any differently. But but I don't think I heard a clear understanding of if we put a long driveway in that connects to the rightway to access that land in the back

that you're talking about as an easement. That long driveway is part of the lot. It's part of the lot. It is part of the lot because by definition this permanent means of ingress and egress if we do not have the ability to use a private easement right ofway or private street then that lot has to have frontage on a public right ofway and access to public utilities. This right here I'll highlight it is inside of our um subdivision ordinance as well under the lot standards. It's every lot shall have frontage on a public street with the exception of town home lots um which shall have legal access to a public street. Um so yeah, if you wanted to do it in that facet, you could essentially have a private drive that serve town homes. Um but um

town homes only town homes you have to get a special use permit or additional reasoning for it. There's not really anything that approves use by right. Um so essentially yes sir that's everything would have to have frontage on that public street. So, I mean, even if you were to go through the, you know, exempt aspect of it, that it would be the only case where it would possibly be feasible to break that off, but then if you wanted to subdivide that extra 10 acres, you wouldn't be able to do it. That's right. Unless you did a and then even in that facet, you wouldn't be able to break it off anymore. So, and those provisions already exist in the ordinance

today. So, you're really trying to clarify for the citizen and for the the regulator what is the definition of a minor subdivision and how many lots does that mean for me or for Cameron? And that number is clearly defined now in the first half of item one. It's five lots.

The um well, that that's really all I think it needs to be to define the minor subdivision. If, like I said, if that's the will of y'all and y'all don't want to have the time requirement inside of it, um, we can move it along. Um, like I said, I think I've shown my pieces to why I believe it should be in there. If y'all feel differently, that is, uh, that's definitely your obligation to do so as the planning board. That's why we bring stuff in front of y'all for this discussion. So, any further, Mr. Young, right? Further discussion. Uh, I'll entertain a motion.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. We'll see if it stands. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve with the uh to approve the yellow uh and five lot residential definition with the removal of the second half of the uh item one. I'll read it in in to the record. Subdivision minor, a subdivision that divides a tract or parcel of land into no more than five residential lots, including the parent parcel, and does not include the construction or extension of any public right of way or utility. Full stop.

I have a proper motion. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Did you get all that language there? Yes, sir. Great. To right away. Right away. Include utility in. Yes, sir. Right. Any staff got any comments they want to talk about?

Um, not really. No, sir. Um, you know, I think there's been the talk of uh the future land use plan uh amongst us in past meetings. Um, we are getting very very close to a final draft of it. Um, so that will probably be hitting at least the steering committee people first. Um, and then it'll come in front of y'all for a reading. We'll look over it. We'll have a lengthy discussion about whatever else that could possibly come into it. Then it'll go in front of city council for another reading. There might be two readings here and two readings at city council. I can't quite remember. But um there might be some meetings where we'll uh we'll be talking about that at a lengthy amount. So, and you'll get it ahead of time so you can go ahead and read through it and make any notes in particular that you would like to kind of adjust or see to it, but I believe it'll come in front of you all. I think it should.

Uh does any member here have any like to speak about? Do you know when the next steering committee meeting might be?

I don't think we're doing any more steering committee meetings. I think the steering committee meetings uh had halted um at the last one whenever um Dawn was still working. She has since left and Jesse Day, the head of PTRC is or PTCR, I can't remember which one it is, has been um essentially taking her work and her latest draft and uh sprucing it up in regards to the fonting, pictures, essentially everything else. So, um like I said, we'll have a lot of time to take a look at it. Is it proper to have one more steering committee meeting since the kind of the quarterback?

Yeah, like I said, I think um that last steering committee meeting, y'all will be the first to see the um the final draft. Um so, I don't know when that'll be held, but of course, participation would be requested at those meetings. I think that's where we kind of ran into a little bit of a hurdle is the participation was uh was down in some of these and um we didn't really know what was going on. So yeah, I agree. I didn't know it was going on either. Yeah. And so we're just going to get hit with a plan that we can't make any changes to.

No, there's definitely ample. That's why it's a draft. So, you know, we'll take everything into consideration. Um of course, we'll take everything. It's kind of like you recommending this text movement to city council is they'll take a look at it as well. And um essentially we'll come to an adoption point. It might have to come back and they might have to go back up. It's going to be a process until you know we see a light at the end of the tunnel. We can approve it, adopt it.

All right. Guess we don't want to be here any longer. I'll make a motion we take. All in favor? Uh, thank you